21 Dec
2013
21 Dec
'13
8:53 p.m.
Another thing we talked about with Oakland Digital was the advantage of being able to
manage the common area.
Peer Production would sub-lease the individual rooms to the groups/companies at
proportionally lower rates and create a layer of institutional membership that could help
offset costs and facilitate responsible use of the common area.
For example, if the individual rents for entities collecting together that want to be
tenants in specific rooms were reduced by some 15-30%, institutional membership for
organizations wanting to use the common area but not interested in being tenants could
collectively pay for that percentage reduction. This would also encourage the expansion of
the network with participation from the multiple collaborative groups and their programs
and activities.
Institutional membership also allows for individual people to share the risks and burdens
of monthly dues within a sub-group cluster. In other words, if one person can't pay
that month, but is active and contributing, that person's contribution and
participation could be covered through their affiliated organization.
22 Dec
22 Dec
12:55 p.m.
Another, and possibly more appealing prospect is to try to get a whole bunch of groups,
not necessarily to move their offices to 2135 Broadway, but just use those facilities that
their current locations do not permit in terms of size and location.
From some of the responses I've been getting, I don't think it would be very hard
to get 65 groups to go in $100 month for clean and managed use of all the rooms on the
floor for their different purposes.
On Dec 21, 2013, at 8:53 PM, Eddan Katz <eddan(a)sudoroom.tv> wrote:
Another thing we talked about with Oakland Digital was
the advantage of being able to manage the common area.
Peer Production would sub-lease the individual rooms to the groups/companies at
proportionally lower rates and create a layer of institutional membership that could help
offset costs and facilitate responsible use of the common area.
For example, if the individual rents for entities collecting together that want to be
tenants in specific rooms were reduced by some 15-30%, institutional membership for
organizations wanting to use the common area but not interested in being tenants could
collectively pay for that percentage reduction. This would also encourage the expansion of
the network with participation from the multiple collaborative groups and their programs
and activities.
Institutional membership also allows for individual people to share the risks and burdens
of monthly dues within a sub-group cluster. In other words, if one person can't pay
that month, but is active and contributing, that person's contribution and
participation could be covered through their affiliated organization.
_______________________________________________
Hall mailing list
Hall(a)lists.sudoroom.org
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/hall
1:08 p.m.
65 groups sounds like quite a large number to be sharing one physical place
that isn't all that big. That means each group gets less than half a day's
use of each room? Assuming it were shared perfectly equally I mean.
On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Eddan Katz <eddan(a)sudoroom.tv> wrote:
Another, and possibly more appealing prospect is to
try to get a whole
bunch of groups, not necessarily to move their offices to 2135 Broadway,
but just use those facilities that their current locations do not permit in
terms of size and location.
From some of the responses I've been getting, I don't think it would be
very hard to get 65 groups to go in $100 month for clean and managed use of
all the rooms on the floor for their different purposes.
On Dec 21, 2013, at 8:53 PM, Eddan Katz <eddan(a)sudoroom.tv> wrote:
Another thing we talked about with Oakland
Digital was the advantage of
being able to manage the common area.
Peer Production would sub-lease the individual
rooms to the
groups/companies at proportionally lower rates and create a layer of
institutional membership that could help offset costs and facilitate
responsible use of the common area.
For example, if the individual rents for entities collecting together
that want to
be tenants in specific rooms were reduced by some 15-30%,
institutional membership for organizations wanting to use the common area
but not interested in being tenants could collectively pay for that
percentage reduction. This would also encourage the expansion of the
network with participation from the multiple collaborative groups and their
programs and activities.
Institutional membership also allows for individual people to share the
risks and
burdens of monthly dues within a sub-group cluster. In other
words, if one person can't pay that month, but is active and contributing,
that person's contribution and participation could be covered through their
affiliated organization.
_______________________________________________
Hall mailing list
Hall(a)lists.sudoroom.org
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/hall
_______________________________________________
Hall mailing list
Hall(a)lists.sudoroom.org
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/hall
1:39 p.m.
That is true, and I do think that the first alternative I suggested of having several
members as tenants and then a layer of institutional membership for use of the common area
is more realistic.
That number 65 is also based on trying to low-ball the monthly commitment from
organizations to $100 a month. If those organizations would be willing to agree to more in
return for more access, that would be great.
Also, the common area space isn't all that big, true, but keep in mind that in regards
to holding meetings, mini conferences, parties, movie showings - each of these has
different requirements. And there's a bunch of different rooms that would allow many
things to be going on at once, as has already begun but under scrunched circumstances in
the Sudo Room common area as of late. Remember, in regards to the hypothetical scenario of
65 groups - they would all have access to all of the rooms on that floor. That is in
comparison to the current situation where only 2 of 7 units are being rented,
I do think it is more likely to have 6-8 entities being tenants in one of the 7 rooms in
that wing and that they would get first dibs on common room space in case of a schedule
conflict. I threw out 15-30% as the amount of full rent that would be subsidized by the
common room area access level of membership. I'll let someone else do the
calculations.
On Dec 22, 2013, at 1:08 PM, David Rorex <drorex(a)gmail.com> wrote:
65 groups sounds like quite a large number to be
sharing one physical place that isn't all that big. That means each group gets less
than half a day's use of each room? Assuming it were shared perfectly equally I mean.
On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Eddan Katz <eddan(a)sudoroom.tv> wrote:
Another, and possibly more appealing prospect is to try to get a whole bunch of groups,
not necessarily to move their offices to 2135 Broadway, but just use those facilities that
their current locations do not permit in terms of size and location.
From some of the responses I've been getting, I don't think it would be very hard
to get 65 groups to go in $100 month for clean and managed use of all the rooms on the
floor for their different purposes.
On Dec 21, 2013, at 8:53 PM, Eddan Katz <eddan(a)sudoroom.tv> wrote:
Another thing we talked about with Oakland
Digital was the advantage of being able to manage the common area.
Peer Production would sub-lease the individual rooms to the groups/companies at
proportionally lower rates and create a layer of institutional membership that could help
offset costs and facilitate responsible use of the common area.
For example, if the individual rents for entities collecting together that want to be
tenants in specific rooms were reduced by some 15-30%, institutional membership for
organizations wanting to use the common area but not interested in being tenants could
collectively pay for that percentage reduction. This would also encourage the expansion of
the network with participation from the multiple collaborative groups and their programs
and activities.
Institutional membership also allows for individual people to share the risks and burdens
of monthly dues within a sub-group cluster. In other words, if one person can't pay
that month, but is active and contributing, that person's contribution and
participation could be covered through their affiliated organization.
_______________________________________________
Hall mailing list
Hall(a)lists.sudoroom.org
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/hall
_______________________________________________
Hall mailing list
Hall(a)lists.sudoroom.org
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/hall
6 Jan
6 Jan
10:10 a.m.
Does 10 groups for institutional membership at $250/month each to subsidize a portion of
common room use seem more realistic then?
On Dec 22, 2013, at 1:39 PM, Eddan Katz <eddan(a)sudoroom.tv> wrote:
That is true, and I do think that the first
alternative I suggested of having several members as tenants and then a layer of
institutional membership for use of the common area is more realistic.
That number 65 is also based on trying to low-ball the monthly commitment from
organizations to $100 a month. If those organizations would be willing to agree to more in
return for more access, that would be great.
Also, the common area space isn't all that big, true, but keep in mind that in
regards to holding meetings, mini conferences, parties, movie showings - each of these has
different requirements. And there's a bunch of different rooms that would allow many
things to be going on at once, as has already begun but under scrunched circumstances in
the Sudo Room common area as of late. Remember, in regards to the hypothetical scenario of
65 groups - they would all have access to all of the rooms on that floor. That is in
comparison to the current situation where only 2 of 7 units are being rented,
I do think it is more likely to have 6-8 entities being tenants in one of the 7 rooms in
that wing and that they would get first dibs on common room space in case of a schedule
conflict. I threw out 15-30% as the amount of full rent that would be subsidized by the
common room area access level of membership. I'll let someone else do the
calculations.
On Dec 22, 2013, at 1:08 PM, David Rorex <drorex(a)gmail.com> wrote:
65 groups sounds like quite a large number to be
sharing one physical place that isn't all that big. That means each group gets less
than half a day's use of each room? Assuming it were shared perfectly equally I mean.
On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Eddan Katz <eddan(a)sudoroom.tv> wrote:
Another, and possibly more appealing prospect is to try to get a whole bunch of groups,
not necessarily to move their offices to 2135 Broadway, but just use those facilities that
their current locations do not permit in terms of size and location.
From some of the responses I've been getting, I don't think it would be very hard
to get 65 groups to go in $100 month for clean and managed use of all the rooms on the
floor for their different purposes.
On Dec 21, 2013, at 8:53 PM, Eddan Katz <eddan(a)sudoroom.tv> wrote:
_______________________________________________
Hall mailing list
Hall(a)lists.sudoroom.org
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/hall Another thing we talked about with Oakland
Digital was the advantage of being able to manage the common area.
Peer Production would sub-lease the individual rooms to the groups/companies at
proportionally lower rates and create a layer of institutional membership that could help
offset costs and facilitate responsible use of the common area.
For example, if the individual rents for entities collecting together that want to be
tenants in specific rooms were reduced by some 15-30%, institutional membership for
organizations wanting to use the common area but not interested in being tenants could
collectively pay for that percentage reduction. This would also encourage the expansion of
the network with participation from the multiple collaborative groups and their programs
and activities.
Institutional membership also allows for individual people to share the risks and burdens
of monthly dues within a sub-group cluster. In other words, if one person can't pay
that month, but is active and contributing, that person's contribution and
participation could be covered through their affiliated organization.
_______________________________________________
Hall mailing list
Hall(a)lists.sudoroom.org
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/hall
_______________________________________________
Hall mailing list
Hall(a)lists.sudoroom.org
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/hall
3:54 p.m.
Answering the off-line questions on the list -
I haven't yet thought through whether or not the institutional membership would give
particular guaranteed times (like vacation rentals) or be less formalized but ensured to
distribute time in a fair way.
Personally, I'd be more interested in finding the business model structure that would
support the latter - for the common area to actually have the characteristics of a commons
environment. Hopefully with more of the positive externalities than the negative.
Relatedly, I've been talking to some folks running co-working spaces about how such a
space might be useful - some folks at the Port Workspaces were surprisingly intrigued by
the notion of a council bringing together other co-working spaces and the like to wrk
through problems that commonly appear to all the groups.
On Jan 6, 2014, at 10:10 AM, Eddan Katz <eddan(a)sudoroom.tv> wrote:
Does 10 groups for institutional membership at
$250/month each to subsidize a portion of common room use seem more realistic then?
On Dec 22, 2013, at 1:39 PM, Eddan Katz <eddan(a)sudoroom.tv> wrote:
That is true, and I do think that the first
alternative I suggested of having several members as tenants and then a layer of
institutional membership for use of the common area is more realistic.
That number 65 is also based on trying to low-ball the monthly commitment from
organizations to $100 a month. If those organizations would be willing to agree to more in
return for more access, that would be great.
Also, the common area space isn't all that big, true, but keep in mind that in
regards to holding meetings, mini conferences, parties, movie showings - each of these has
different requirements. And there's a bunch of different rooms that would allow many
things to be going on at once, as has already begun but under scrunched circumstances in
the Sudo Room common area as of late. Remember, in regards to the hypothetical scenario of
65 groups - they would all have access to all of the rooms on that floor. That is in
comparison to the current situation where only 2 of 7 units are being rented,
I do think it is more likely to have 6-8 entities being tenants in one of the 7 rooms in
that wing and that they would get first dibs on common room space in case of a schedule
conflict. I threw out 15-30% as the amount of full rent that would be subsidized by the
common room area access level of membership. I'll let someone else do the
calculations.
On Dec 22, 2013, at 1:08 PM, David Rorex <drorex(a)gmail.com> wrote:
_______________________________________________
Hall mailing list
Hall(a)lists.sudoroom.org
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/hall 65 groups sounds like quite a large number to be
sharing one physical place that isn't all that big. That means each group gets less
than half a day's use of each room? Assuming it were shared perfectly equally I mean.
On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Eddan Katz <eddan(a)sudoroom.tv> wrote:
Another, and possibly more appealing prospect is to try to get a whole bunch of groups,
not necessarily to move their offices to 2135 Broadway, but just use those facilities that
their current locations do not permit in terms of size and location.
From some of the responses I've been getting, I don't think it would be very hard
to get 65 groups to go in $100 month for clean and managed use of all the rooms on the
floor for their different purposes.
On Dec 21, 2013, at 8:53 PM, Eddan Katz <eddan(a)sudoroom.tv> wrote:
_______________________________________________
Hall mailing list
Hall(a)lists.sudoroom.org
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/hall Another thing we talked about with Oakland
Digital was the advantage of being able to manage the common area.
Peer Production would sub-lease the individual rooms to the groups/companies at
proportionally lower rates and create a layer of institutional membership that could help
offset costs and facilitate responsible use of the common area.
For example, if the individual rents for entities collecting together that want to be
tenants in specific rooms were reduced by some 15-30%, institutional membership for
organizations wanting to use the common area but not interested in being tenants could
collectively pay for that percentage reduction. This would also encourage the expansion of
the network with participation from the multiple collaborative groups and their programs
and activities.
Institutional membership also allows for individual people to share the risks and burdens
of monthly dues within a sub-group cluster. In other words, if one person can't pay
that month, but is active and contributing, that person's contribution and
participation could be covered through their affiliated organization.
_______________________________________________
Hall mailing list
Hall(a)lists.sudoroom.org
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/hall
_______________________________________________
Hall mailing list
Hall(a)lists.sudoroom.org
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/hall
3769
days inactive
3784
days old
5 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
David Rorex -
Eddan Katz