[Two communities were already mentioned, a local regional community for the village and its surroundings and a global online community for the village and its topic]

Three further type of communities seem necessary to take into account. (3) the global online community to advance the gv idea (here), (4) the global online community for the gv topic (parallel to the native language community) and (5) an global online community of all gvs and those offering new or sustainable technologies to this gv project market. This gives 2L+3V communities to bootstrap in the long run and a minimum set of 7 communities (Languages=2, Villages=1), each individual systems driven by different people, visions and interests. -- Profiles/HelmutLeitner

Thank you Helmut for clearly Identifying community 3! We also are working on (5), I think open coop and one village are working on the same track, and we will try to support also also the 5th community (Alliance of Global Villages) here. --Franz

And to add the regionalaspect: GlobalVillages are playing part in a regional topical division also. In Kirchbach they had the idea to create a "aspectual community" where each global village is surrounded by global villages with complementary topics. The idea there is to make each village a global village. This gives much room to what Christian Eigner calls the "SpaceEconomy" - understanding the importance of regional cycles and relations. --Profiles/FranzNahrada

I fear this might end in just labeling villages as "global" without the necessary internal transformations. The result would be a dissipation of energie and focus. It would also reduce the advantages of Kirchbach relative to the regional neighbourhood. Reduce the attention and the chances for funding of projects. Kirchbach also doesn't yet live up to its "open source village" role - basically someone locally "promotes to use Linux, Apache, Open Office, Zope" which is not sufficient to get global weight for the OS community. Only if you add your weight in terms of OEKONUX and a generalized OS theory, and add its importance as a model global village, it may work at Kirchbach. You won't be able to do this for a dozen villages. Success is not granted and nothing should be done that reduces the chances for Kirchbach. -- Profiles/HelmutLeitner.

I feel that we can do both at the same time; stay grounded in the regional circumstance and become a Global Village. I was shocked first when the Kirchbachers said that their neighbouring villages ought to be called "Global Villages" too; though I would choose another term, I honor their good intention. --Profiles/FranzNahrada

Maybe another problem: different "languages". As long as we agree which terms we use and don't become confused, this will not present a problem. This adds to the reasons to separate the "gv theory community" from the "gv alliance community". -- Profiles/HelmutLeitner

Could you please give examples of all the above categories? A link to Kirchback? Thanks! -- Profiles/LucasGonzalez

A link to Kirchbach is easy: http://formgeben.at/kb5/

Helmut, lets figure out examples to be given:

1. the local online community for the village and its neighbours (native language)
2. the global online community for the village and its topic (native language)
3. the global online community to advance the gv idea (here)
4. the global online community for the village and its topic (parallel to the native language community)
5. the global online community of all gvs
6. the global online community to advance the gv idea (native language)
7. the global online community of all gvs (native language)

If we hadn't the language problem, the situation would simplify to these 4 communities:

1. the village (local)
2. the village topic (topical)
3. community of villages (economical, alliance)
4. community of gv facilitators (theory, process)