sudo-discuss

sudo-discuss@sudoroom.org

10 participants
7349 discussions

by Marina Kukso

Hi Everyone, <http://localwiki.org/> LocalWiki <http://localwiki.org>, the nonprofit that helps grow community-based wikis like Oakland Wiki <http://oaklandwiki.org> (which started and is based out of sudo), is moving. We're a very tiny nonprofit (only two of us on staff) and we're looking for donated office space (really just two desks). If you know anyone with spare office space who might be interested in hosting us, please contact us! We're pretty happy to go anywhere in … [View More]

11 years

proposed costs-sharing spreadsheet for the omni collective

by Jake

i made a spreadsheet to calculate proportional cost sharing for a space with private and common space: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AktkZZru71ymdEFUSUtCSnQ5TXFfaE… anyone with the link above can edit the spreadsheet. please feel free to make changes to get a feel for how it works, but put things back with undo unless you've made improvements. feel free to fork it by making your own copy of it, either on google drive or by downloading it as a file and playing with it in a … [View More]

11 years

Is the sudoroom reboot on the wiki?

by Romy Snowyla

What's the wiki page? Sent from my iPhone

11 years

Mon 4/28 @ 7pm The Waiting Room (documentary on Oakland's Highland Hospital ER staff)

by Matthew Senate

Hey all, Please forward this message: Oakland Night's Live and Bay Area Public School are hosting a screening of *The Waiting Room* Mon 4/28, 7pm-10pm BAPS / Sudo Room Common Space https://sudoroom.org/ai1ec_event/the-waiting-room-a-film-screening/?instanc… Update: Cynthia Johnson, the most charismatic member of the Highland Hospital ER staff featured in *The Waiting Room, *will join us for the showing. She can discuss the film and what it depicts to screening attendees. Hope to see you there, Matt

11 years

omni layouts

by Matthew Senate

Hey all, Just posted a draft floor plan proposal to the Omni email lists, which needs vast improvement, you can see it here: http://wiki.omni-oakland.org/w/Floorplan#Proposals I also wanted to share a sketch of what CCL and Sudo Room could do with the bocce ball court in order to contain the CCL lab areas, ensure they are dust free and secure, and connect to the existing plumbing and water lines. I suggest CCL enclose two rooms and use a staircase to turn the roof of the rooms into a lounge. … [View More]

11 years

Any iOS coders at sudoroom ?

by Romy Snowyla

I'm looking for any iOS programmers to connect with Sent from my iPhone

11 years

Re: [sudo-discuss] left my MBP power supply in the common room Thursday

by David Keenan

thanks so much jenny! On Saturday, April 26, 2014, Noemie Serfaty <noemieserfaty(a)gmail.com> wrote: > It is mine... It has an old sudo room sticker on it... I'm such a > scatterer... I'm feeling lucky to be surrounded by gatherers! > <3 > > > On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 1:43 AM, Jenny Ryan <tunabananas(a)gmail.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','tunabananas(a)gmail.com');> > > wrote: > >> Ah! I meant to post about this, then didn't want to so … [View More]

11 years

FYI: The spare Cisco 3550 Switch OS upgraded today (4/26/14).

by Somebody

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Thx! Daniel -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJTXKeeAAoJEK2jBhiHY3O63nIIAKsORYFYe9ZJ6Qzd6ENkZSek Oryt20HPLpHgS7wfRsE/jdjuAWRW2VRNOtuyae9I8aMa+ThGWBtyqEeqFCS8HnBp /NuURY/oNISGQvxEFcvgmEZCzkRH8oU2fTjxpzIvk65DNHNjLTeaGdsAzwcxMflb +JLFMu/NQEGB7ZEAKq74Ck/dKRJhX3ww1/h70fm4b45EouxOI3PZ46neT9Fmt5xR … [View More]

11 years

left my MBP power supply in the common room Thursday

by David Keenan

If anyone sees it, can you stash it in the BAPS room? Thanks! David

11 years

Fwd: The Tyranny of Stuctureless

by Romy Snowyla

Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: > From: Romy Ilano <romy.ilano(a)gmail.com> > Date: April 26, 2014 at 12:47:51 PM PDT > To: Romy Ilano <romy(a)snowyla.com> > Subject: The Tyranny of Stuctureless > > > http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm > > The Tyranny of Stuctureless > > The basic problems didn't appear until individual rap groups exhausted the virtues of consciousness-raising and decided they wanted to do something more … [View More]specific. At this point they usually foundered because most groups were unwilling to change their structure when they changed their tasks. Women had thoroughly accepted the idea of "structurelessness" without realizing the limitations of its uses. People would try to use the "structureless" group and the informal conference for purposes for which they were unsuitable out of a blind belief that no other means could possibly be anything but oppressive.If the movement is to grow beyond these elementary stages of development, it will have to disabuse itself of some of its prejudices about organization and structure. There is nothing inherently bad about either of these. They can be and often are misused, but to reject them out of hand because they are misused is to deny ourselves the necessary tools to further development. We need to understand why "structurelessness" does not work. > > FORMAL AND INFORMAL STRUCTURES > > Contrary to what we would like to believe, there is no such thing as a structureless group. Any group of people of whatever nature that comes together for any length of time for any purpose will inevitably structure itself in some fashion. The structure may be flexible; it may vary over time; it may evenly or unevenly distribute tasks, power and resources over the members of the group. But it will be formed regardless of the abilities, personalities, or intentions of the people involved. The very fact that we are individuals, with different talents, predispositions, and backgrounds makes this inevitable. Only if we refused to relate or interact on any basis whatsoever could we approximate structurelessness -- and that is not the nature of a human group.This means that to strive for a structureless group is as useful, and as deceptive, as to aim at an "objective" news story, "value-free" social science, or a "free" economy. A "laissez faire" group is about as realistic as a "laissez faire" society; the idea becomes a smokescreen for the strong or the lucky to establish unquestioned hegemony over others. This hegemony can be so easily established because the idea of "structurelessness" does not prevent the formation of informal structures, only formal ones. Similarly "laissez faire" philosophy did not prevent the economically powerful from establishing control over wages, prices, and distribution of goods; it only prevented the government from doing so. Thus structurelessness becomes a way of masking power, and within the women's movement is usually most strongly advocated by those who are the most powerful (whether they are conscious of their power or not). As long as the structure of the group is informal, the rules of how decisions are made are known only to a few and awareness of power is limited to those who know the rules. Those who do not know the rules and are not chosen for initiation must remain in confusion, or suffer from paranoid delusions that something is happening of which they are not quite aware. > > For everyone to have the opportunity to be involved in a given group and to participate in its activities the structure must be explicit, not implicit. The rules of decision-making must be open and available to everyone, and this can happen only if they are formalized. This is not to say that formalization of a structure of a group will destroy the informal structure. It usually doesn't. But it does hinder the informal structure from having predominant control and make available some means of attacking it if the people involved are not at least responsible to the needs of the group at large. "Structurelessness" is organizationally impossible. We cannot decide whether to have a structured or structureless group, only whether or not to have a formally structured one. Therefore the word will not be used any longer except to refer to the idea it represents. Unstructured will refer to those groups which have not been deliberately structured in a particular manner. Structured will refer to those which have. A Structured group always has formal structure, and may also have an informal, or covert, structure. It is this informal structure, particularly in Unstructured groups, which forms the basis for elites. > > THE NATURE OF ELITISM > > "Elitist" is probably the most abused word in the women's liberation movement. It is used as frequently, and for the same reasons, as "pinko" was used in the fifties. It is rarely used correctly. Within the movement it commonly refers to individuals, though the personal characteristics and activities of those to whom it is directed may differ widely: An individual, as an individual can never be an elitist, because the only proper application of the term "elite" is to groups. Any individual, regardless of how well-known that person may be, can never be an elite.Correctly, an elite refers to a small group of people who have power over a larger group of which they are part, usually without direct responsibility to that larger group, and often without their knowledge or consent. A person becomes an elitist by being part of, or advocating the rule by, such a small group, whether or not that individual is well known or not known at all. Notoriety is not a definition of an elitist. The most insidious elites are usually run by people not known to the larger public at all. Intelligent elitists are usually smart enough not to allow themselves to become well known; when they become known, they are watched, and the mask over their power is no longer firmly lodged.Elites are not conspiracies. Very seldom does a small group of people get together and deliberately try to take over a larger group for its own ends. Elites are nothing more, and nothing less, than groups of friends who also happen to participate in the same political activities. They would probably maintain their friendship whether or not they were involved in political activities; they would probably be involved in political activities whether or not they maintained their friendships. It is the coincidence of these two phenomena which creates elites in any group and makes them so difficult to break.These friendship groups function as networks of communication outside any regular channels for such communication that may have been set up by a group. If no channels are set up, they function as the only networks of communication. Because people are friends, because they usually share the same values and orientations, because they talk to each other socially and consult with each other when common decisions have to be made, the people involved in these networks have more power in the group than those who don't. And it is a rare group that does not establish some informal networks of communication through the friends that are made in it.Some groups, depending on their size, may have more than one such informal communications network. Networks may even overlap. When only one such network exists, it is the elite of an otherwise Unstructured group, whether the participants in it want to be elitists or not. If it is the only such network in a Structured group it may or may not be an elite depending on its composition and the nature of the formal Structure. If there are two or more such networks of friends, they may compete for power within the group, thus forming factions, or one may deliberately opt out of the competition, leaving the other as the elite. In a Structured group, two or more such friendship networks usually compete with each other for formal power. This is often the healthiest situation, as the other members are in a position to arbitrate between the two competitors for power and thus to make demands on those to whom they give their temporary allegiance.The inevitably elitist and exclusive nature of informal communication networks of friends is neither a new phenomenon characteristic of the women's movement nor a phenomenon new to women. Such informal relationships have excluded women for centuries from participating in integrated groups of which they were a part. In any profession or organization these networks have created the "locker room" mentality and the "old school" ties which have effectively prevented women as a group (as well as some men individually) from having equal access to the sources of power or social reward. Much of the energy of past women's movements has been directed to having the structures of decision-making and the selection processes formalized so that the exclusion of women could be confronted directly. As we well know, these efforts have not prevented the informal male-only networks from discriminating against women, but they have made it more difficult.Because elites are informal does not mean they are invisible. At any small group meeting anyone with a sharp eye and an acute ear can tell who is influencing whom. The members of a friendship group will relate more to each other than to other people. They listen more attentively, and interrupt less; they repeat each other's points and give in amiably; they tend to ignore or grapple with the "outs" whose approval is not necessary for making a decision. But it is necessary for the "outs" to stay on good terms with the "ins." Of course the lines are not as sharp as I have drawn them. They are nuances of interaction, not prewritten scripts. But they are discernible, and they do have their effect. Once one knows with whom it is important to check before a decision is made, and whose approval is the stamp of acceptance, one knows who is running things.Since movement groups have made no concrete decisions about who shall exercise power within them, many different criteria are used around the country. Most criteria are along the lines of traditional female characteristics. For instance, in the early days of the movement, marriage was usually a prerequisite for participation in the informal elite. As women have been traditionally taught, married women relate primarily to each other, and look upon single women as too threatening to have as close friends. In many cities, this criterion was further refined to include only those women married to New Left men. This standard had more than tradition behind it, however, because New Left men often had access to resources needed by the movement -- such as mailing lists, printing presses, contacts, and information -- and women were used to getting what they needed through men rather than independently. As the movement has charged through time, marriage has become a less universal criterion for effective participation, but all informal elites establish standards by which only women who possess certain material or personal characteristics may join. They frequently include: middle-class background (despite all the rhetoric about relating to the working class); being married; not being married but living with someone; being or pretending to be a lesbian; being between the ages of twenty and thirty; being college educated or at least having some college background; being "hip"; not being too "hip"; holding a certain political line or identification as a "radical"; having children or at least liking them; not having children; having certain "feminine" personality characteristics such as being "nice"; dressing right (whether in the traditional style or the antitraditional style); etc. There are also some characteristics which will almost always tag one as a "deviant" who should not be related to. They include: being too old; working full time, particularly if one is actively committed to a "career"; not being "nice"; and being avowedly single (i.e., neither actively heterosexual nor homosexual).Other criteria could be included, but they all have common themes. The characteristics prerequisite for participating in the informal elites of the movement, and thus for exercising power, concern one's background, personality, or allocation of time. They do not include one's competence, dedication to feminism, talents, or potential contribution to the movement. The former are the criteria one usually uses in determining one's friends. The latter are what any movement or organization has to use if it is going to be politically effective.The criteria of participation may differ from group to group, but the means of becoming a member of the informal elite if one meets those criteria art pretty much the same. The only main difference depends on whether one is in a group from the beginning, or joins it after it has begun. If involved from the beginning it is important to have as many of one's personal friends as possible also join. If no one knows anyone else very well, then one must deliberately form friendships with a select number and establish the informal interaction patterns crucial to the creation of an informal structure. Once the informal patterns are formed they act to maintain themselves, and one of the most successful tactics of maintenance is to continuously recruit new people who "fit in." One joins such an elite much the same way one pledges a sorority. If perceived as a potential addition, one is "rushed" by the members of the informal structure and eventually either dropped or initiated. If the sorority is not politically aware enough to actively engage in this process itself it can be started by the outsider pretty much the same way one joins any private club. Find a sponsor, i.e., pick some member of the elite who appears to be well respected within it, and actively cultivate that person's friendship. Eventually, she will most likely bring you into the inner circle. > > > > Sent from my iPhone [View Less]

11 years

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

sudo-discuss