Decidim and the Spirit of a Digital Commons Community

Authors: Nicholas Gates, Nil Homedes Busquet
This is the second in a new semi-regular series of interviews with Digital Commons projects  from NGI Commons. You can find the first edition, an interview with Thibault Martin from the Matrix.org Foundation, here on our website.

I wanted to start off with a bit of an open-ended question. What do you make of the term Digital Commons as it concerns Decidim? Do you understand Decidim as a Digital Commons?

Decidim is a Digital Commons because it is open and fairly available for everyone. We consider Decidim to be a Digital Commons that complies with the academic definition made by Ostrom. I think that we comply broadly with the definition of a public good because Decidim in the digital space is non-privileged, non-privileged, non-excludable. It’s at some point on this spectrum of common goods [applied] in the digital sphere, what we now understand as Digital Commons. 

But building on the idea of public goods, at Decidim we provide democratic governance of this resource, and a set of rules that define the relationship[s] between the different actors in our community. This governance affects how to use the common and also how this common can evolve, and whether we can ‘rethink the thing’  in the future.

I also think that Decidim is connected with a long history and tradition of Digital Commons. We – the founders of Decidim – were part of this open source or free software movement that was very strong in Spain at the beginning of the century. And we have also been part of these traditions of free culture, free knowledge, and free software. Part of this culture of Digital Commons is, I think, expanding on these traditions.

Decidim actually means ‘we decide’ in Catalan. In what ways do you think that citizen participation platforms, in particular, can be a good example of Digital Commons? Do you think that kind of that core idea of ‘we decide’ is kind of an important element of Digital Commons?

In our particular case, the fact that Decidim is a free software – but especially the fact that software is for participatory democracy and community governance – means that this element [of ‘we decide’] is important. In some ways, we are producing technology in a way that we think is the good way to do things we like, that nurtures public investment and collaboration with a community.

Decidim has at its core a vision of the world we want in the future. This idea of participatory democracy and participatory governance. I think it’s something crucial in Digital Commons. And we really believe that participation is crucial for social change, you know? [We want to give] the space to people to participate is something that would make a difference.

When it comes to the design and creation of the technology, these ideas are a key element because if you can use this collective intelligence for designing and improving technology, your technology will be much more citizen-centred rather than focusing on creating revenues. I think that’s how I would connect these two concepts.

Barcelona’s municipal government played a key role in Decidim’s birth. Do you see any tensions or synergies in terms of the public sector organically supporting and growing their own Digital Commons?

Without the public sector, we cannot understand Decidim. It would never exist without the Barcelona City Council. They had to really believe in us, in how to build Decidim as not just a piece of free software, but a Digital Common. This was crucial.

In fact, it was one of the points that [facilitated] the fork of Consul at the beginning, because the Barcelona team had a clear vision on how to build a community. This became a Digital Commons in the sense that it was not just about the architecture, but how to serve and later build a community, and how to create a Digital Commons and make it available and truly open for the world.

[More broadly] I think that our relationship with public institutions is a history of love and hate because without them, we cannot exist. That said, being attached to the public sector also attaches you to the classical problems of the public sector. For example, it has created some difficulties for us in coordinating the development of the project with the different companies that were providing the services to the city council. This has also created some tensions between the president and the Barcelona City Council. Now, it’s kind of creating some tension, maybe between the different administrations that want to be part of the governance of the project. Because they see it like: “OK, Barcelona is the key actor here, but we also want to be in that picture.”

I think now we are reaching a new stage in the participation of public institutions in the governance of Decidim because now we are integrating new international institutions. This will be potentially beneficial for the project, but one challenge we have is how [to] least receive resources from those public administrations [that support Decidim]. Because it’s very difficult for public administrations to invest in Digital Commons. So we are figuring out how we can create paths or channels or mechanisms for them to allow them to easily invest in Digital Commons, especially in the maintainers of the Digital Commons.

Public participation platforms face unique sustainability challenges, balancing public funding, service provider economics, community volunteers, etc. What is your recipe for Decidim’s long-term resilience as a Digital Commons, and what challenges have you faced?

We’ve been thinking a lot about sustainability [lately]. Our funding and team have grown a lot, and we’re on an upward trajectory. Right now, the question is how to sustain this momentum. We’re discussing internally what the ideal team size should be, about 10 to 12 people, which we think is enough for Decidim to run smoothly.

[Recently] we opened this participatory process inside the city to discuss a range of topics, where one of those topics was economic sustainability. And as a result of that participatory process, we finally created a sustainability plan. In this sustainability plan, we made a diagnosis of where we are right now and what we should do to improve or to become more resilient in economic terms.

What we’ve started doing is recognising that Decidim has a lot of potential. We’re not just working with a prototype. We have a solid tool that’s already being used to solve real-world problems. We’ve started identifying which funders might be interested in supporting us and have identified three main types of private funders.

First, there are philanthropic funders focused on digital rights or Digital Commons. These could be a potential fit. Second, there are research programs, since the team is closely connected to universities and researchers. Many researchers in our community are studying Decidim, and from the start, we’ve included a lot of innovation in how we design the product. So, research funding could help us fund new features or even bring researchers onto the team. Third, there’s European funding – programs like NGI, which are specifically aimed at Digital Commons. If a call comes out that fits Decidim, we’d definitely apply. NGI is a good example of this kind of opportunity.

How do you go about the process of applying for European projects?

Another question we’re dealing with is how to apply for European projects and similar funding in a way that supports our core activities. Usually, funders don’t want to pay for core activities. So we’re figuring out how to write project proposals that sound like something new or exciting to funders, but still support our core mission: maintaining and improving Decidim and its community.

Another key challenge is figuring out how to receive public funding from institutions outside of Spain, since our association is legally based in Spain. For example, it’s very difficult for the Brazilian government to transfer money to a Spanish association. We’re exploring whether we should open offices in strategic countries like Switzerland, Belgium, the US, or somewhere in South America to make this easier. We’re also exploring collaborations with international governments to apply for projects.

So yeah, we’re exploring all kinds of possibilities to ensure we’re sustainable and resilient in the long run.

The Metadecidim community seems to have been central to your ecosystem. What approaches have you developed to nurture this community? Have there been any community-building methods you use that you think are relevant for other Digital Commons projects?

Metadecidim is a key piece of governance, especially for Digital Commons, because it allows for asynchronous and remote participation without needing to set up meetings. It’s also very transparent and traceable, so everyone can see if a proposal has been accepted or rejected, why, and when it will be available for everyone. For example, we don’t allow people to propose new features on GitHub. Everyone has to use Metadecidim, which ensures we have a clear, well-defined process. This is something crucial for the project.

Our main learning has been the need to update and review feature design on an ongoing basis, and we frequently do this through Metadecidim. We’re always assessing how things are going, reviewing and iterating. It’s not like we have a perfect formula or a magic solution.

Another key learning is that most of the community shares a common vision of how the product should evolve. We have had to invest a lot of time in pedagogy, explaining how the product works, discussing and debating it with city implementers and governments. We’ve spent a lot of time shaping this shared vision of the product’s trajectory. This is crucial for a Digital Commons. If everyone in the ecosystem has the same information, you end up with a more coordinated and aligned community. That’s essential for building trust and collaboration between different actors.

Finally, [we have found that] having a clear path for participation and decision-making is critical. Having this shared, well-defined process and these spaces for discussion and proposal-making are really beneficial for any free software or Digital Commons project. It helps with coordination, transparency, and defining clear decision-making rules in communities.

For other civic tech projects, what advice would you share? Is there anything you want to see from the Digital Commons ecosystem in Europe? Any final thoughts?

Yeah, for others working in the civic tech space, I’d say we’re all facing pretty much the same challenges.  For the broader Digital Commons ecosystem, I’d say it’s important to partner with the public sector, and to partner with governments or the institutions you work with. In many cases, the Digital Commons owners are also the ones providing core digital services, and that’s how they generate revenue to sustain the commons. This isn’t always the case, but it’s the most common situation I’ve seen.

If that’s not your case, then you should still build strong relationships with your service providers and find ways for them to contribute back to your maintenance work. For example, we have a mechanism where partners contribute 3% of their annual revenue from Decidim-related services back to the association. This helps ensure sustainability.

I’d also say it’s important to create spaces for open discussion and debate, and not be afraid of those conversations. Sometimes, founders or owners of Digital Commons can be hesitant to open those spaces, but I think you have to be willing to engage in debates within your community if you really believe in democracy and openness.

So, yeah, I’d say that’s the key takeaway: build those open spaces, build strong relationships with your partners, and look for ways for them to give back to your project.

Thank you so much, Nil, for your time and comments!

Stay tuned to our website, newsletter, and social media channels for more updates and future editions!