Community Resource Sharing
The Community Coordination Challenge
Communities coordinate shared resources through various mechanisms, each with particular patterns:
Committee-Based Allocation:
Slow decision-making
Administrative overhead
Meeting time diverts from productive work
Political dynamics affect fairness
First-Come-First-Served:
Doesn't account for contribution or need
Rewards gaming rather than genuine value
No optimization for community benefit
Fixed Quotas:
Inflexible to changing circumstances
Doesn't reflect actual contribution or need
Creates artificial scarcity
Informal Coordination:
Works at small scale
Breaks down as community grows
Implicit biases affect allocation
Limited transparency
The Free Association Approach
Resource Types
Communities can coordinate various shared resources:
Physical Resources:
Shared facilities (workspaces, equipment, vehicles)
Tool libraries
Community spaces
Agricultural equipment
Financial Resources:
Community investment funds
Mutual aid pools
Collective budgets
Revenue sharing from community assets
Human Resources:
Expertise and skills
Time and labor
Teaching and mentorship
Administrative support
Digital Resources:
Computing infrastructure
Software licenses
Data storage
Communication platforms
Mechanism
1. Contribution Recognition
Community members recognize each other's contributions:
Direct work advancing community goals
Skill sharing and mentorship
Resource provision
Administrative and coordination labor
Maintenance and stewardship
Recognition allocated as percentages totaling 100% per member.
2. Resource Availability
Community declares available shared resources:
3. Member Needs
Members declare specific resource needs:
4. Automatic Allocation
System allocates resources:
Proportional to mutual recognition
Capped at declared needs
Updates automatically as needs/availability change
Transparent to all members
Benefits
Administrative Efficiency
No Committee Meetings: Resource allocation happens automatically. No need for regular meetings to discuss who gets what.
Reduced Overhead: Administrative time redirects to productive community work.
Transparent Process: All members see allocation logic. No opaque decision-making.
Fairness
Contribution-Based: Members contributing more to community goals receive proportionally more access to shared resources.
Needs-Based: Allocation capped at declared needs. No accumulation beyond stated requirements.
Need Declaration Incentives: Allocation capping creates incentives for honest need reporting. Over-reporting doesn't accumulate (non-accumulation property applies), under-reporting reduces allocation. The 100% recognition budget creates self-correcting dynamics that prevent most gaming for ongoing participants. See main documentation for strategic analysis.
Adaptability
Real-Time Adjustment: As needs change, allocations automatically adjust. No waiting for next committee meeting.
New Member Integration: New members join by establishing recognition with existing members. Automatic inclusion in allocation.
Resource Expansion: As community resources grow, allocation scales automatically.
Incentive Alignment
Contribution Rewarded: Members seeing valuable contribution naturally increase recognition, leading to greater resource access.
Need-Based Caps: Cannot accumulate resources beyond stated needs, preventing hoarding.
Mutual Recognition: Bidirectional recognition creates peer accountability.
Real-World Scenarios
Coworking Community
Resources:
10 desk spaces
2 meeting rooms
Shared equipment
$3,000/month collective budget
Members (20):
Independent workers
Small teams
Project initiators
Community organizers
Recognition Basis:
Community event organization
Mentorship and skill sharing
Maintenance and stewardship
Project collaboration
Welcoming new members
Allocation:
Desk access: Based on declared need + MR
Meeting rooms: Scheduled through system based on MR
Equipment: Time slots allocated proportionally
Budget: Project funding flows to highest MR + need
Result:
No scheduling conflicts
Transparent resource access
Administrative overhead drops 70%
Member satisfaction increases (fair, transparent process)
Agricultural Cooperative
Resources:
Shared equipment (tractors, harvesters, processing facilities)
Storage facilities
Distribution network access
Operating budget
Members (35 farms):
Various sizes and crops
Different growing seasons
Complementary production
Recognition Basis:
Crop production for cooperative
Equipment maintenance
Distribution coordination
New farmer mentorship
Cooperative governance participation
Allocation:
Equipment access: Seasonal need + MR
Storage space: Harvest volume need + MR
Distribution slots: Production volume + MR
Operating support: Declared needs + MR
Result:
Equipment efficiently shared across seasonal demands
Storage allocated to actual harvest volumes
Distribution optimized for production patterns
Reduced equipment costs per farm
Fair return reflecting contribution and need
Maker Community
Resources:
Workshop space with tools
Materials budget
Expertise and teaching time
Project showcases and events
Members (40):
Various skill levels
Different craft focuses
Teaching and learning
Recognition Basis:
Teaching workshops
Tool maintenance
Community space upkeep
Welcoming newcomers
Project collaboration
Sharing knowledge and techniques
Allocation:
Workshop time: Project needs + MR
Materials budget: Declared needs + MR
Teaching slots: Availability declaration + MR
Event participation: Project readiness + MR
Result:
Experienced makers naturally receive more complex project resources
Learners access appropriate resources for skill level
Teaching time flows to those providing most community value
Materials waste reduced (need-based allocation)
Implementation Patterns
Starting Small
Communities often begin with:
Single resource type (space or budget)
Core trusted members (10-20)
2-3 month trial period
Manual recognition establishment
Progressive Expansion
After successful pilot:
Add additional resource types
Expand membership
Automate recognition updates
Integrate with existing community systems
Recognition Calibration
Communities develop recognition norms:
What contributions matter most
How to weight different contribution types
How recognition changes over time
How new members establish recognition
Key Property: Each community determines own recognition criteria. No universal definition required.
Governance Integration
Free Association handles resource allocation, not all community decisions:
Handled by Free Association:
Resource allocation among members
Proportional access based on contribution and need
Automatic adaptation to changing circumstances
Handled by Community Governance:
Membership criteria
What resources to share
Recognition norms and standards
Community goals and values
Conflict resolution
This separation enables efficient resource coordination while maintaining community autonomy in defining values and membership.
Getting Started
Communities interested in implementing Free Association:
Identify pilot resource - start with single shared resource
Establish recognition - initial recognition network among core members
Declare capacity and needs - available resources and member requirements
Implement allocation - deploy system for pilot resource
Iterate and expand - learn from pilot, extend to additional resources
Last updated