How it works
How a commons works
A commons keeps a group's reasoning about one goal: what they've agreed, what is still open, and who said what. The reasoning is built in conversations with an AI and published here as a read-only record.
Six questions, one method
Underneath is the Logical Thinking Process, a set of thinking tools from the Theory of Constraints. Each of its six tools answers one of the questions a commons asks, and each answer sets up the next. More on the method ↗
| Question | What it shows | The method's name | How to read it |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1What are we trying to achieve? | The goal, and what has to be true for it. | Goal tree | Read from the top down: the goal needs each condition beneath it. |
| 2What stands in the way? | What is happening now, and why. | Current reality tree | Read from the bottom up: each arrow means “contributes to”. |
| 3Where do needs pull two ways? | Two needs that both serve one objective, and positions that rule each other out. | Conflict cloud, also called an evaporating cloud | Read from right to left: each position is held to meet a need, and both needs serve the objective on the left. |
| 4What will we change? | The change, and what it should lead to. | Future reality tree | Read from the bottom up: from each change to the effects it should have. |
| 5What has to happen first? | What stands in the way of the change, and what gets past it. | Prerequisite tree | Read from the top down: the objective needs each step beneath it, and each step overcomes the obstacle below it. |
| 6Who does what? | Actions, and what each should achieve. | Transition tree | Read from the bottom up: each action should produce the effect above it. |
Statements and connections
Each statement has one role, such as a problem, a cause, a need or a change, and the diagrams colour it by that role. A connection says how statements relate: one contributes to another, is needed for it, or overcomes it.
When a connection has several sources, they act together. The diagrams join them at an “and” before the single arrow, so they never look like separate, sufficient causes. Statements with no published connection are grouped by role, and no arrow is ever drawn that the group hasn't recorded.
Accepted, proposed, disputed
Every statement and connection carries one standing. It is spelled out in words and shown by the border, never by colour alone.
Named people are willing to build on it for now. It records their judgement at the time, not proof, and not that everyone agrees.
Someone has put it forward and no one has accepted it yet. It is part of the conversation, not part of the agreement.
Someone has raised a substantive objection. Earlier acceptance is kept as history, and the objection is shown beside it.
Who said what
Each item records who contributed the idea and, separately, who accepted it. An idea suggested by the AI is attributed to the AI. Only named people can accept anything, and imported material whose author is unknown says so.
What gets published
A group decides what to make public and publishes it as a release. Each release keeps earlier wording, so the Changes page can show how the thinking moved. The site is a snapshot, not a live feed: the working record stays with the group.
Taking part
Every statement page has a brief you can copy into your own AI. The skill then checks the current record before helping you develop an observation, a question or a challenge. Copying a brief submits nothing, and this site never edits a commons.
Start your own commons
All you need is a goal you share with others and an AI that can use the skill.
Get the skill