Translate the Call in French ?

Movement Commun : http://www.lemouvementcommun.fr

@maiadereva1, we can not be satisfied by the use of commoner but Communeur / Communeuse seems to me worse because of the lack of definition, history and uses. Please correct me if I am wrong on this point and if there is an historical origine and a shared definition of this word.

Looking for use of this vocabulary, I find your page http://assemblee.encommuns.org/index.php?title=Les_traductions_du_mot_anglais_%22commoner%22 It is interesting to document the discussion, but I would suggest to do a difference between the work of translation of a specific word (commoner) and different words choosen in different frameworks or theoretical and ideological backgrounds. For example, even if Contributeur is an nteresting word by itself, it is probably not true to say that Stiegler uses it to translate commoner. And we can say the same for different proposals you have introduced in the page.

In your point on legitimacy and role for an assembly, I desagree with you. Yes, for me the European Commons Assembly has a role to play and it is described in the call (I think that this role must be different case by case and self decided by the people involved and propbably improved by the discussion and exchanges between different experiences). But the choice of the words is important. If not why are we discussing now ?

For the languages and the place for the disccussion.
Probably, we will see that there is no problem if someone need or prefer to write in French or another language.

Introducing the idea of "every interested" (people), you open a very important question : the nature of the relation between the groups and collectives dedicated to the commons and the commons assemblies at different scales and the european commons assembly. This question is specialy sensitive in France. We have seen in the lists of discussion "echanges" and/or "assemblées des communs" the expression by some people of the fears of a top down domination by the European level of commons assembly.
I feel that the tensions come from a lack of discussion, echange, consensus building and confidence that we can discuss words, practices, approaches without imposing a specific vision.
It is true that every interested people are not in the loomio now. So, it is important to offer diverses vehicules that people can use be involved, but it is also important to respect the decision making process based on the consensus within the European Commons Assembly collective, (that every interested person is invited to join) and not define another place as legitime for deciding on treated by the European Commons Assembly collective. My concern is to take care to not create a hierarchy between the different instances of commons assemblies. I do not feel the need of a hierarchical organization.

@maiadereva1 I assume that it is not your vision and that to take this opportunity (the discussion in the translation of commoner) to share my concern on this sensitive point (the relationship between commons assemblies, initiatives, ...etc) could be seen too much, but also I hope it could help...

Best

Hello @fredericsultan

it's really not easy for me to conduct such substantive discussions in English, but as we are not only talking about french vocabulary, I'm going to make the effort because many questions raised which can interest everyone. I'll try to outline the different topics:

• The word: if you read me carefully, I don't say we should use the word "communeur". I say it's interesting to open a discussion around an alternative to an anglicism. On the substance, I have no personal stake in a word is used rather than another (I agree with you, on the list, the word "communeur" is probably one of doubtless less justifiable, unless we decide collectively to use it, with a precise argumentation).

• the network structures: for me this question is totally open, as far as we co-build commons with new practices. Is the European Assembly Commons a free electron? A representative organ in a federation of assemblies? A linked circle in a holacratic chain? I don't have the answer, I would find it's a pity to lock the question. By choosing this name for this group, we can not ignore the questions of other groups that have the same name... At least, I think the discussion is meaningful.

It seems that you and I do not have the same vision on this issue: where you see the possibility of hierarchy, I see peer-to-peer, transparency and opened process. As much as it seems useless to me to associate the world with purely technical issues ( "Should we choose a particular Worpress theme ?"), but on such vast substantive issues -behind the word there is indeed a real subject of discussion- I really do not see in the name of what I would not open the discussion to a wider community, moreover which signed the appeal! Indeed, this does not prevent us to clearly delimit the electorate when it's time for formal decisions. Which brings us to the following two points:

• The legitimacy of the European Commons Assembly: I didn't say that the Assembly had no role to play. I'm just saying that at this stage it has no particular legitimacy. I think the legitimacy does not decreed, it is built. According to me, this is while having a dialogue with existing institutions that such legitimacy shall find its foundations. I see the appeal (written by a small group) as a communication tool to unite commoners around this idea of ​​european assembly, not as a definitive reference operating charter.

• Governance: you say "the decision making process based on the consensus." Uh? In this case I would like to have access to the coproduced and adopted text who asserts this choice of governance. Freeze things after a single meeting of some motivated people doesn't seem to me to correspond to the collective and fluid dynamics of the commons to which I am used to. For example, at the Assembly of Commons of Lille , we operate in a mode of decision by consent, which can be consider much more flexible and less cleaving than consensus. Maybe be this is a very interesting subject that could be also discussed in the European Assembly?

In brief, as you can see, on all the subjects, I call up to the discussion and opening more than the conflict. I have no preconceived answer on any of the topics. That's why I feel quite uncomfortable with the peremptory tone that it seems to me to perceive in your answers. But maybe it's simply because we don't know enough. Generally, you will see that you can count on me to point out the times when the process seems odd to me rather than give my opinion on a particular decision. So please, don't think I want to convince because, in real, I don't care about the result, I care about the dialogue and a wide inclusion... ;)

However, I also consider that these substantive issues are a bit in a mode "the egg or the hen": I think it is important to preserve above all the contributory dynamic and not spend too much time on formal issues which will build themselves in time. But to achieve this, maybe it is necessary to accept that certain things are vague for a moment, and that the most important is the common project and to take care of each others.

So! :)
In a situation as this one, I would even rather tend to propose a median way because there is no simple and consensual answer to the question of translation for "commoner". For example, we could write "Nous qui construisons les communs chaque jour, blablabla" ("We who build common every day: blah blah blah"). That would leave time to see if a word emerge or not in actual practice (and in different contexts of course). What do you think ?

Hi @fredericsultan , your answer is in the wrong channel no ? I wait for you to copy paste and I'll answer if you're OK.

Hi @maiadereva1, you are true,
I have broken the screen of my PC this morning and have some difficulties ... Sorry for the inconvenience.

Here it is :

Thanks for the effort to continue the conversation in English @maiadereva1 . Be sure that I appreciate it as my own level in English is very low.

For the translation, I appreciate also that you offer to find a compromise.

One remark. The renew of the commons is not so recent that we can considere that we are in the time of emergence of the commons. Even if most of us have discovered the issue in the last years (it is true for me), it is in progress at least along the 40/50 last years. So, the issue is why in France, the word does not exist yet ? I have not a clear and documented answer for this question. But, if we considere this question seriously, it is difficult to say that we have to wait and see if a word will emerge or not in the practices, Actually, the probability seems to be low in our context. The emergence of a name is not a natural process. It is the (temporary) result of a balance of power in the society.

For this reasons, I will say that by doing a compromise on a such issue, we are loosing an opportunity to join our forces to defend the commons. Perhaps it could be seen pareadoxal, but actually, for me it seems to show that we are focussing more on the balance of power between us than to join our energy. To do a strategic choice and be proactive for naming what we are defending and who we are, will offer us the experience that behind this "we", the variety of visions, approaches and practices of commoning creates a powerfull movement.

If you are not convinced, let's go for a "soft" compromise and choose the formula "Nous qui défendons les communs" because this is the dimension that has no equivalent in French.

For the rest of the discussion, we have different visions in some points that we can understand as part of the wealth of the commons and I hope that this conversation can be enrich in the near future.

Reading you, I really understand how different and complementary we are. I don't defend anything, I construct. But it's probably because I'm absolutely ignorant of politics and activism. I can imagine it's really important to have people like you to "defend" what people like me "construct" when it's necessary. That's why I don't consider a "balance of power between us" but a "balance of competences" as partners.

So, it seems we have a different approach of what a "we" is indeed. Moreover, in terms of strategy, I think having confidence in our own existence is more important than claiming that we are existing. Thank you to have ensured making the exchange possible despite those differences.

Anyway, about the "soft" compromise, I don't intimately agree with the proposition "Nous qui défendons les communs" BUT, in a process of consent, I would vote "Abstention" and wouldn't block because I feel I can live and breathe with this solution :wink:

The real question here I think is "what is the limit of the electorate?" and "what is the type of gouvernance for the EAC?" For example, in a case like that, a lot of people really don't care about the french translation, so are we only 3 people here in the Loomio to vote? What is the lower limit of participants we set to consider a decision is legitimate? Maybe we could open another thread to open discussion about these points?

Hello

For a professional tool of translation, Transifex seems a good collaborative tool, aiming for building a pan-european glossary for CommonsSpeak

https://www.transifex.com/lescommuns/traductions-au-profit-des-communs/translate/#fr/call-for-a-european-commons-assembly/94091497

I used Transifex for translating french back to english, what is easier than the other way around,because as you said english is using crisp words, that only can be translated correcltly in french by a sentence,
I love languages and the differences ! and i'm dutch, no one can understand that language.