pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.04563 · v1 · pith:SYXZ24XHnew · submitted 2026-06-03 · 💻 cs.HC · cs.CY

Addressing Negative Commons Governance with Positive Commons Principles

Boyang Zhou , Oleg Ianchenko This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 04:42 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC cs.CY
keywords negative commonscommon-pool resourcesOstrom principlese-waste governanceLinux kernelcommons governancenegative common-pool resources
0
0 comments X

The pith

Ostrom's eight principles for positive commons governance also appear in successful negative commons systems.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper tests whether principles originally developed for governing shared positive resources such as clean water can guide the management of shared negative resources such as electronic waste and buggy code. It does so by examining the global e-waste trade, which seeks to reduce mismanaged waste and illicit flows, and the Linux kernel community, which works to limit error-prone or malicious contributions. Qualitative review of primary sources from both domains shows that the same eight principles tend to be present in these functioning negative commons arrangements. A reader would care because computing generates both positive and negative commons across its full lifecycle, and governance that reduces the negative side could cut environmental harm while extending hardware usefulness. The authors conclude that future negative common-pool resource governance should prioritize Ostrom's principles, above all clear boundaries and nested structures.

Core claim

Through qualitative analysis of primary sources from global e-waste trade and the Linux kernel community, the paper finds that Elinor Ostrom's eight design principles for common-pool resource governance tend to appear in successful negative common-pool resource governance systems. It concludes that future NCPR governance design should prioritize Ostrom's principles, particularly clearly defined boundaries and well-functioning nested structures.

What carries the argument

Ostrom's eight design principles for common-pool resource governance, applied to identify patterns of success in negative common-pool resource management.

If this is right

  • Designers of negative commons governance should incorporate Ostrom's eight principles to improve outcomes.
  • Clear boundaries and nested structures merit special emphasis when managing negative resources such as e-waste or open-source code.
  • The same principles can be used across computing's creation, execution, and disposal stages to address both positive and negative commons.
  • Policy and platform designers can draw on these principles to structure collective efforts that reduce shared harms.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The transferability of the principles suggests they may supply a general template for governing any shared resource, beneficial or harmful.
  • Other technology domains involving negative commons, such as data pollution or shared AI model risks, could be examined with the same eight principles.
  • Quantitative measurement of governance success against the presence of each principle would provide a stronger test than the current qualitative cases.

Load-bearing premise

The two chosen cases represent typical negative common-pool resource governance and the qualitative analysis identifies the principles without selective or post-hoc fitting.

What would settle it

Discovery of a functioning negative commons governance system that lacks one or more of Ostrom's eight principles, or a system that exhibits the principles yet fails to reduce the shared negative stock.

read the original abstract

Computing is accompanied by both positive and negative commons throughout its lifecycle of creation, execution, and disposal. We examine two governance systems situated within this lifecycle -- global e-waste trade and the Linux kernel community -- to evaluate whether Elinor Ostrom's eight design principles for common-pool resource (CPR) governance extend to the management of negative common-pool resources (NCPRs). Unlike traditional CPRs where communities work to preserve a finite resource (i.e. clean water), NCPR governance seeks to collectively reduce a negative shared stock. In our two cases, e-waste governance aims to reduce the volume of mismanaged waste and illicit trade, while the Linux community aims to reduce the number of error-prone or malicious contributions that reach the main branch and, in turn, extend the life of existing hardware. Through qualitative analysis of primary sources from each domain, we find that the same eight principles by Ostrom that aid positive commons governance tend to appear in successful negative commons governance systems. We argue that future NCPR governance design should prioritize Ostrom's principles, particularly clearly defined boundaries and well-functioning nested structures.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper claims that Elinor Ostrom's eight design principles for common-pool resource (CPR) governance extend to negative common-pool resources (NCPRs) in computing, based on qualitative analysis of two cases (global e-waste trade and Linux kernel community). It concludes that these principles tend to appear in successful NCPR systems and recommends prioritizing them—especially clearly defined boundaries and nested structures—for future NCPR governance design.

Significance. If the mapping holds under systematic scrutiny, the work offers a conceptual extension of Ostrom's framework to domains where governance reduces harmful shared stocks rather than preserving positive ones, with potential applications to e-waste policy and open-source maintenance. The introduction of NCPRs as a category and the explicit linkage to computing lifecycle stages represent a modest interdisciplinary contribution, though the absence of new derivations or falsifiable tests limits its theoretical advance.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that the eight principles 'tend to appear' in successful NCPR governance rests on qualitative mapping from only two selected cases, yet no selection criteria, coding rubric, inter-rater reliability measure, or protocol for identifying principle presence/absence is described; this directly undermines assessment of whether identification is non-selective.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract and case analysis sections: The paper presents the two cases as successful exemplars but provides no comparison to unsuccessful NCPR attempts or counter-examples, leaving the generalization that the principles 'aid' successful governance without a control or falsification test.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The distinction between NCPRs and traditional CPRs could be clarified with a short table contrasting resource dynamics (e.g., finite positive stock vs. negative stock to be minimized).

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each of the major comments below and outline the revisions we plan to make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that the eight principles 'tend to appear' in successful NCPR governance rests on qualitative mapping from only two selected cases, yet no selection criteria, coding rubric, inter-rater reliability measure, or protocol for identifying principle presence/absence is described; this directly undermines assessment of whether identification is non-selective.

    Authors: We acknowledge the need for greater methodological transparency in our qualitative analysis. The cases were selected as prominent, well-documented examples of NCPR governance within the computing lifecycle: global e-waste trade for the disposal stage and the Linux kernel community for the development and maintenance stage. The mapping involved reviewing primary sources such as international agreements, community governance documents, and public discussions to identify mechanisms corresponding to each of Ostrom's principles. We will revise the manuscript to include an explicit methods section describing the case selection criteria and the process used to map observed governance features to the design principles. As this is an exploratory interpretive study, we did not employ multiple independent coders, but we will note this as a limitation. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and case analysis sections: The paper presents the two cases as successful exemplars but provides no comparison to unsuccessful NCPR attempts or counter-examples, leaving the generalization that the principles 'aid' successful governance without a control or falsification test.

    Authors: Our study is designed as an initial exploration of whether Ostrom's principles, originally derived from successful positive CPR cases, are also observable in successful NCPR cases. Similar to Ostrom's work, we selected functioning systems to identify common patterns rather than to test causal claims or perform comparative analysis with failures. We agree that the language could be clarified to emphasize that we are reporting observed patterns rather than establishing that the principles 'aid' governance. We will revise the abstract and discussion to temper the claims accordingly and explicitly note the absence of counter-examples as a direction for future research. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: external Ostrom principles applied via independent qualitative mapping

full rationale

The paper imports Ostrom's eight principles as an established external framework and performs a qualitative check for their presence in two selected NCPR cases (e-waste trade and Linux kernel). No derivation chain reduces the central claim to a self-definition, fitted parameter renamed as prediction, or self-citation load-bearing step; the principles are not re-derived from the authors' data, no equations or ansatzes are involved, and the analysis is presented as an empirical observation rather than a forced equivalence. The result is self-contained against the external benchmark of Ostrom's work.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The claim depends on the external validity of Ostrom's eight principles for positive CPRs and on the assumption that the two cases adequately represent NCPR governance.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Ostrom's eight design principles are effective for positive common-pool resource governance
    Paper takes this established result as given and tests its extension.
invented entities (1)
  • Negative common-pool resources (NCPRs) no independent evidence
    purpose: To categorize shared problems that communities seek to reduce rather than preserve
    New framing introduced to apply positive principles to e-waste and software defects.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5715 in / 1272 out tokens · 41121 ms · 2026-06-28T04:42:04.599372+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Michael Osei Asibey and Patrick Brandful Cobbinah. 2025. Dialogues on nature- based solutions and informal e-waste management. 392 (2025), 126697. doi:10. 1016/j.jenvman.2025.126697

    work page arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    C. P. Balde, R. Kuehr, T. Yamamoto, R. McDonald, E. D’Angelo, S. Althaf, et al

  3. [3]

    https://ewastemonitor.info/

    The Global E-waste Monitor 2024. https://ewastemonitor.info/

    2024

  4. [4]

    David Bretthauer. 2001. Open Source Software: A History.Published Works(Dec. 2001). https://digitalcommons.lib.uconn.edu/libr_pubs/7

    2001

  5. [5]

    Laura Börner and Dries L.T. Hegger. 2018. Toward design principles for sound e-waste governance: A research approach illustrated with the case of the Nether- lands. 134 (2018), 271–281. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.02.013

    work page doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.02.013 2018

  6. [6]

    Jonathan Corbet. 2007. KS2007: Developer relations and development process. LWN.net(Sept. 2007). https://lwn.net/Articles/249104/

    2007

  7. [7]

    Jonathan Corbet. 2013. On kernel mailing list behavior.LWN.net(July 2013). https://lwn.net/Articles/559061/

    2013

  8. [8]

    John-Michael Davis, Grace Akese, and Yaakov Garb. 2019. Beyond the pollution haven hypothesis: Where and why do e-waste hubs emerge and what does this mean for policies and interventions? 98 (2019), 36–45. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum. 2018.09.020

    work page doi:10.1016/j.geoforum 2019

  9. [9]

    Martin Deron. 2025. Sprouting technology otherwise, hospicing negative com- mons – Rethinking technology in the transition to sustainability-oriented futures. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2508.05860 arXiv:2508.05860 [cs]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.05860 2025

  10. [10]

    Shut the f**k up

    Isabella Ferreira, Jinghui Cheng, and Bram Adams. 2021. The "Shut the f**k up" Phenomenon: Characterizing Incivility in Open Source Code Review Discussions. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction5, CSCW2 (Oct. 2021), 1–35. doi:10.1145/3479497

    work page doi:10.1145/3479497 2021

  11. [11]

    Fortune Business Insights. [n. d.]. Server Operating System Market Volume, Share | Analysis, 2032. https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/server-operating- system-market-106601

    2032

  12. [12]

    The Linux Foundation. [n. d.]. The Linux Kernel Contributors Insights. https://insights.linuxfoundation.org/project/korg/contributors?timeRange= past365days&start=2024-12-10&end=2025-12-10

    2024

  13. [13]

    Frischmann, Alain Marciano, and Giovanni Battista Ramello

    Brett M. Frischmann, Alain Marciano, and Giovanni Battista Ramello. 2019. Ret- rospectives: Tragedy of the Commons after 50 Years.Journal of Economic Per- spectives33, 4 (Nov. 2019), 211–228. doi:10.1257/jep.33.4.211

    work page doi:10.1257/jep.33.4.211 2019

  14. [14]

    Peter Gailhofer. 2023. Protocol on Liability and Compensation for Damage Result- ing from Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal. InCorporate Liability for Transboundary Environmental Harm, Peter Gailhofer, David Krebs, Alexander Proelss, Kirsten Schmalenbach, and Roda Verheyen (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, 599–613. do...

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-13264-3_15 2023

  15. [15]

    Greg Kroah-Hartman. 2021. [PATCH 000/190] Revertion of all of the umn.edu commits. https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210421130105.1226686-1-gregkh@ linuxfoundation.org/

    work page arXiv 2021

  16. [16]

    Garrett Hardin. 1968. The Tragedy of the Commons.Science, New Series162, 3859 (1968), 1243–1248. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1724745

    work page arXiv 1968

  17. [17]

    Mats Heimdahl and Loren Terveen. 2021. Statement from CS&E on Linux Kernel research | Department of Computer Science & Engineering | College of Science and Engineering. https://cse.umn.edu/cs/statement-cse-linux-kernel-research- april-21-2021

    2021

  18. [18]

    Manuel Hoffmann, Frank Nagle, and Yanuo Zhou. 2024. The Value of Open Source Software. doi:10.2139/ssrn.4693148 Addressing Negative Commons Governance with Positive Commons Principles LIMITS ’26, June 23–25, 2026, Online

    work page doi:10.2139/ssrn.4693148 2024

  19. [19]

    Jakub Kicinski. 2025. Re: [RFC mm v5 1/2] page_pool: check nmdesc->pp to see its usage as page pool for net_iov not page-backed. https://lore.kernel.org/all/ 20251107183712.36228f2a@kernel.org/

    work page arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    Mary Lawhon. 2012. Contesting power, trust and legitimacy in the South African e-waste transition. 45, 1 (2012), 69–86. doi:10.1007/s11077-012-9146-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s11077-012-9146-x 2012

  21. [21]

    Linus Torvalds. 2013. Re: [ 00/19] 3.10.1-stable review.LWN.net(July 2013). https://lwn.net/Articles/559067/

    2013

  22. [22]

    A Lora-Wainwright. 2016. The Trouble of Connection E-Waste in China Between State Regulation, Development Regimes, and Global Capitalism.Routledge Studies in Anthropology27 (2016), 113–131

    2016

  23. [23]

    Lorenzo Stoakes. 2025. Re: [PATCH v4 00/12] mm: establish const-correctness for pointer parameters. https://lore.kernel.org/all/76348dd5-3edf-46fc-a531- b577aad1c850@lucifer.local/

    2025

  24. [24]

    Markus Elfring. 2025. Re: [v3] can: ucan: Use two USB endpoint API func- tions rather than duplicating their implementations. https://lore.kernel.org/all/ 5cdbd91e-7047-4911-9d82-ee6436d1f9b0@web.de/

    2025

  25. [25]

    Maria Mies and Veronika Bennholdt-Thomsen. 2001. Defending, Reclaiming and Reinventing the Commons.Canadian Journal of Development Studies/Revue canadienne d'études du développement(Jan. 2001). https:// www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02255189.2001.9669952 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Group

    work page doi:10.1080/02255189.2001.9669952 2001

  26. [26]

    2022.A Global Outlook on the Imple- mentation of the Basel Convention and the Transboundary Movement of E-waste(1 ed.)

    Florin-Constantin Mihai*, Maria Grazia Gnoni, Christia Meidiana, Petra Schnei- der, Chukwunonye Ezeah, and Valerio Elia. 2022.A Global Outlook on the Imple- mentation of the Basel Convention and the Transboundary Movement of E-waste(1 ed.). CRC Press, 49–75. doi:10.1201/9781003095972-4

    work page doi:10.1201/9781003095972-4 2022

  27. [27]

    Alexandre Monnin. 2021. Negative Commons. Between Ruin, Attachment, and Redirection.Etudes9 (2021)

    2021

  28. [28]

    Alexandre Monnin. 2023. Capitalisme de la fermeture et communs négatifs. Revue du MAUSS61, 1 (June 2023), 237–253. doi:10.3917/rdm1.061.0237 Publisher: Éditions Le Bord de l’eau

    work page doi:10.3917/rdm1.061.0237 2023

  29. [29]

    2023.Politiser le renoncement

    Alexandre Monnin. 2023.Politiser le renoncement. Divergences. https://shs.cairn. info/politiser-le-renoncement--9791097088538

    2023

  30. [30]

    Ivan De Noni, Andrea Ganzaroli, and Luigi Orsi. 2011. The Governance of Open Source Software Communities: An Exploratory Analysis.Journal of Law and Governance6, 1 (April 2011), 1–18. doi:10.15209/jbsge.v6i1.195

    work page doi:10.15209/jbsge.v6i1.195 2011

  31. [31]

    2015.Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action

    Elinor Ostrom. 2015.Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    2015

  32. [32]

    Fernanda Pedro, Ernesto Giglio, Luis Velazquez, and Nora Munguia. 2021. Con- structed Governance as Solution to Conflicts in E-Waste Recycling Networks. 13, 4 (2021), 1701. doi:10.3390/su13041701

    work page doi:10.3390/su13041701 2021

  33. [33]

    Graham Pickren. 2014. Political Ecologies of Electronic Waste: Uncertainty and Legitimacy in the Governance of E-Waste Geographies.Environment and Planning A46, 1 (January 2014), 26–45. doi:10.1068/a45728

    work page doi:10.1068/a45728 2014

  34. [34]

    Sarah Sharp. 2013. Re: [ 00/19] 3.10.1-stable review.LWN.net(July 2013). https: //lwn.net/Articles/559065/

    2013

  35. [35]

    Secretariat of the Basel Convention. [n. d.]. Environmentally Sound Management (ESM) Toolkit. https://www.basel.int/Implementation/CountryLedInitiative/ EnvironmentallySoundManagement/ESMToolkit/Overview/tabid/5839/Default. aspx

  36. [36]

    Secretariat of the Basel Convention. 2019. REVISED GUIDANCE DOCUMENT ON IMPROVING NATIONAL REPORTING BY PARTIES TO THE BASEL CONVEN- TION. https://www.basel.int/implementation/publications/guidancemanuals/ tabid/2364/default.aspx#

    2019

  37. [37]

    Manvendra Sharma. 2024. Optimizing Embedded Systems: Harnessing the Power of Linux in Resource-Constrained Environments. In2024 1st Interna- tional Conference on Cognitive, Green and Ubiquitous Computing (IC-CGU). 1–7. doi:10.1109/IC-CGU58078.2024.10530823

    work page doi:10.1109/ic-cgu58078.2024.10530823 2024

  38. [38]

    Shittu, Ian D

    Olanrewaju S. Shittu, Ian D. Williams, and Peter J. Shaw. 2021. Global E- waste management: Can WEEE make a difference? A review of e-waste trends, legislation, contemporary issues and future challenges. 120 (2021), 549–563. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2020.10.016

    work page doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2020.10.016 2021

  39. [39]

    The Linux Foundation. [n. d.]. About the Linux Foundation. https://www. linuxfoundation.org/about

  40. [40]

    The Linux Kernel. [n. d.]. Feature and driver maintainers — The Linux Ker- nel documentation. https://docs.kernel.org/maintainer/feature-and-driver- maintainers.html

  41. [41]

    The Linux Kernel. [n.d.]. Contributor Covenant Code of Conduct — The Linux Kernel documentation. https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/code- of-conduct.html

  42. [42]

    The Linux Kernel. [n.d.]. How the development process works — The Linux Kernel documentation. https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.15/process/2.Process.html

  43. [43]

    Toke Høiland-Jørgensen. 2025. Re: [PATCH net-next] wifi: ath9k: use devm for irq and ioremap resource. https://lore.kernel.org/all/87plhktgwy.fsf@toke.dk/

    2025

  44. [44]

    TOP500.org. [n. d.]. Operating system Family / Linux. https://www.top500.org/ statistics/details/osfam/1/

  45. [45]

    Ruben Van Wendel De Joode. 2004. Managing Conflicts in Open Source Communities.Electronic Markets14, 2 (June 2004), 104–113. doi:10.1080/ 10196780410001675059

    2004