Re: [sudo-discuss] [omni-consensus] [backspace] Re: [BAPS-Organizing] Re: Backspace Space proposal

David, If we can't accommodate groups' most basic needs for space and build our still largely unbuilt community, how can we expect to survive with any commons to share? We're talking about enclosing a huge amount of space for rise above for $1,000. TIL is getting a pretty large room for $400, and previously occupied one of the rooms being discussed for the same amount. The eyeball room is tiny. For the reincarnation of one of the founding groups I think the least that can be done is to give them a chance to see if it works. There are several spaces that are enclosed and we are all aware of the need to retain commons. Sudo room and CCL obviously have a huge chunk of space at their priority scheduling/use disposal, and that has not been problematic to operation of the omni as far as I can tell. I think your fears of an end-state enclosure of the entire commons being triggered by a relatively small incremental increase in (nominally, with sharing of the space when not needed already offered) enclosed space are overblown. When we get closer to that point, I think it's likely that we will have to reconfigure and compress a bit, and the quarterly review of groups's needs and abilities will inevitable involve some reallocation of space at various points. There are more pressing fears that we have already seen play out like losing dedicated groups because we are unwilling to tolerate temporary discomfort or uncertainty in order to accommodate what they see as their basic needs in order to exist and flourish. I just re-subscribed to these lists so I've missed alot of the discussion, but the process and some demands on formative groups seem crippling to the project at this point. How long have people been waiting to move in and start working on their respective missions? I haven't worked nearly, by a long shot, as much or as hard as you on this project and don't have as much detail or opinion to convey, but that is my honest impression from hearing everyone's frustration with what has been happening. In much solidarity, Hol On 2014-10-21 01:31, David Keenan wrote: Hello everyone, After reading through all the responses on this I am hearted by the support for Backspace and how far it has come. I am obviously in total support of a wellness collective at the omni, and personally have over the last year spent a lot of time working *extremely* hard specifically on this point in pretty much every way I could - since we got this Omni thing going, I have probably worked harder on making backspace a wellness collective than any other group including BAPS. Actually Backspace, before you are disheartened by the concerns that must be aired in this current process, I think its fair to say Backspace has over time been more nurtured and gotten more support from the rest of the OOC than any other group, in spite of the financial commitment issue. I thank my lucky stars that Margaretha in particular has made unbelieveable effort to get wellness into backspace, and make backspace awesome. Andrew deserves a huge amount of credit for his patience, generosity and incredible flexibility really with respect to Backspace's evolution and mission. However, I am not in support of this proposal as it is currently articulated for one reason: With respect to the use of space, I think it is *too* limiting for Backspace, and at the same time it also has unnecessarily negative and significant downstream effects for others, especially any other group without dedicated space (community groups, etc). The 'den' in particular in my view should not be privileged to any one group. Why? Well: Backspace can *already* use *all* the currently-common spaces in the Omni for its intended consultations, classes and events, not just privileged use of this or that room. In this way, as Don actually pointed out in a way, the current proposal outlining all the specific rooms they want privileged use of versus not, actually *limits* the space Backspace already has at its disposal - and it limits it for others too, since especially those without dedicated space are as a result conversely unprivileged (and left presumably to fight for the scraps of remaining 'commons' that they can then have their own privileged use over). It's a funny sort of forest-for-the-trees occlusion of how space can be effectively used that's going on within the proposal I think, but it's a serious one because it speaks directly to the heart of what a radical commoning of space is and shapes the very concept of what 'sharing' equitably means, at this crucial axis of praxis right now. Currently, *without* Backspace;s proposal for new dedicated/privileged space, Backspace could schedule yoga or martial arts classes in the ballroom, or the 'den' room or, with OMNIdance's permission, the disco room (who have already offered this resource to Backspace in several delegate meetings). One-on-one Backspace consultations can *already* be had in the 'eyeball room', the ticketbooth room once it is finished, or TIL's old room (aka kids room aka 'Storage 1')... or OMP's basement rooms, or the 'bunker room' (aka plotting room), etc. Regarding locked rooms, I have talked with Margaretha several times in the past about the need to lock up sensitive tinctures and supplies, and from what she told me they could be locked up in a cabinet, and would not need to take up a whole room. Likewise we talked about locking up massage tables and so on, and figured out places where they might safely be stored that would not leave a whole room empty and unavailable for people to meet in when it was not used. In other words there does not appear to be a need for a locked room, when there can simply be locked cabinets or lockers. (This is very similar issue to what came up initially with the RLL proposal.) Given this, if we all treat the rooms in our Commons with respect as we should, why can't this be an Omni 'members' only area along with the rest of the building? Yes, all these common spaces and rooms must currently be scheduled and shared with other collectives. But I don't understand why this is bad? or something that would 'stymie' Backspace in any way at all. To me it is rather a huge amount of space for Backspace, far more than they had in their initial commitment (since collapsed) for $2K/mo. If in fact we as a commons run out of space for a wellness collective to operate along with the rest of us inside of 22K sq.feet, massive areas of which are still shared and available for precisely such purposes and with that intent all along, it will be precisely *because* too many rooms and spaces are being taken or edge out of the what is commonly available and allocated to or 'privileged' for specific people. That this staking out of space was *already happening* is probably why Backspace is so worried about not having any space, leading them to stake this claim with such urgency. Backspacers, I feel I understand this fear very well, and believe it or not is why I counterintuitively proposed that BAPS have a bit of space for its own 'privileged' use. As all those at the BAPS meetings when I proposed this to BAPS can attest, the BAPS proposal was articulated from the start as a conspiracy: Actually BAPS wants the remaining common space including all the space BAPS proposed for its supposed privileged use, to remain in common *for everyone*. If the proposal passed, we would ensure that it would remain common as we always have (and currently continue to do by not having dedicated space and demonstrating how this is not just possible but effective). If the BAPS proposal didn't pass, we would hear objections within the OOC from people saying "no, it's important to have a commons and shared space", and that would be a win also for the commons - in that others would begin advocating clearly for the virtues of shared space, articulations which in our view was sorely needed from others, not just BAPS. I realize now theres a commons working group which is *amazing*, but there wasn't then, and I got tired of seeing proposed floorplans without BAPS or any shared commons aside from the ballroom even on it. The allotment of space, time and rent in the omni should to my mind be based on not just one group's needs and abilities, but the needs and abilities of everyone else in the commons, too: It should be inherently relational, not territorial. There is no demonstrated need for Backspace to have dedicated or privileged use of room X or Y, especially when they can use every common room in the building along with their comrades. If Backspace gets so popular that they do run out of rooms to schedule comfortably with other groups who are also here and have a right to them too, why not deal with that problem when we get to it? Too much business doesn't sound like that bad of a problem to have. I see no good reason why we can't all share space *equally*. The downstream effect here is that carving up the remaining common space will and has already led others to be inclined to do the same thing, instead of sharing as equals, and then there will only be a 'commons' of like 2 rooms in the whole building, and as someone who cares about the commons and the health of the whole project more than just any one group in the project, that concerns me most. To me this sort of fear is exactly the kind of 'hypothetical' anti-pattern that Yar talks about, and a fear that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy in that acting on it by staking out space away from the commons actualizes the problem itself - maybe not for backspace anymore, but certainly for others like BAPS, or all the other community groups at large without any space at all who we would like to meet here and for whom I thought this space could be a resource. I say this as someone who fought and worked *very* hard for the concept of backspace as a wellness collective - incorporated backspace, signed the lease for backspace, defended backspace's previously-chosen dedicated space at many many meetings and one on one - and most importantly implored my community and everyone I knew with an interest in wellness to participate and make it happen. I care far too much - exclusively practically - about the wellness of the *entire* collective and the effort as a whole in its mission as a commons. Through the input of many people whom I love and respect, I realized that I needed to actually care less about this effort, and care more for myself. With a bit of distance I can say that I now speak with a sense of love and appreciation for every group including Backspace, but beyond any one group, its that for this to remain a commons, we should try to operate from a space of radical sharing before deciding in advance that it would never work. Love, David On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 5:16 PM, margaretha haughwout < margaretha.anne.haughwout(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ consensus mailing listconsensus@lists.omnicommons.orghttps://omnicommons.org/lists/listinfo/consensus _______________________________________________ consensus mailing list consensus(a)lists.omnicommons.org https://omnicommons.org/lists/listinfo/consensus