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

In our next proposal iteration we will seek a trial period for these rooms of 3 months. At this point, everything is conjecture. Is it too much space, is it too little? Will it feel like a welcoming place for those seeking wellness? Will BWC and BAPS get along in administering the space, does the ADA lift need to go in, etc. margaretha anne haughwout uncli*que* <http://beforebefore.net>, disconnect &lt;margaretha.anne.haughwout(a)gmail.com&gt; On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 1:31 AM, David Keenan &lt;dkeenan44(a)gmail.com&gt; 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: > >> This is really wonderful everyone. >> >> THANK YOU <3 <3 <3 >> >> margaretha anne haughwout >> uncli*que* <http://beforebefore.net>, disconnect >> &lt;margaretha.anne.haughwout(a)gmail.com&gt; >> >> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Donald Hughes < >> kamiyodojo.ca(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >> >>> So what I am hearing is that we are all supportive of each >>> other. I hear general consensus on Backspace being able to schedule time >>> in the Dance Room, the Den, and the downstairs space next to the lift. No >>> one wants any one else to not be able to have access to these spaces, but >>> we would like the ability to begin scheduling in these rooms. I hear people >>> not being opposed to the idea that we get the EyeBall room and that it is >>> lockable. So it seems as though we have the rudiments of agreement. >>> Nikki, I would like to address what you are asking for. We need >>> to have something certain to give to other professionals who would like to >>> use the space for healing or classes. This has not yet manifested, so it >>> is difficult to tell you exactly what the time and space looks like as of >>> yet. My goal would be that we have this mostly fleshed out by November >>> 1st, and have everything totally solidified by December 1st. >>> But what I think we can do in the meantime, is offer basically >>> our proposal. Which is to have scheduling power over 50% of the Den. But >>> we also want to be able to schedule time in the other spaces in conjunction >>> with the other collectives who want a say in those spaces. To my mind it >>> seems fair that when we schedule something in other spaces we give up some >>> of our scheduling time in the Den. But none of this is worked out. I just >>> think this is something that could be fair and will work. >>> In order to move forward on a Nov1st start date for the clinic, we >>> would need the ability to schedule time at least in the EyeBall room, which >>> I would like to start calling the clinic room. We would need this ASAP as >>> it will take a process to get new members who are willing to pay money for >>> space to do their practices. I hope this helps us to move forward. Note >>> that these are my opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of >>> the rest of Backspace. >>> >>> Thank you everyone, >>> >>> Don >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 4:07 PM, niki &lt;niki.shelley(a)gmail.com&gt; >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Agreed! Thank you, Yar! >>>> >>>> I also want to assure everyone involved that my bringing up issues >>>> around money is meant only to make the material realities of this project >>>> visible, so that there are no surprises and to encourage member groups to >>>> be explicit about what they can and cannot contribute. It's important that >>>> we reconfigure our expenses to reflect changes in member groups >>>> contributions in order to accurately project our needs. >>>> >>>> That said, I had a conversation with Margaretha some time ago in >>>> which I said that having Backspace involved in the Omni was way more >>>> important to me than their financial contribution. >>>> >>>> I know it's very hard for us to talk about money. I am hopeful that >>>> we can be clear and open so that we may begin to >>>> replace feelings of shame, anxiety and anger around money with >>>> feelings of compassion and support. >>>> >>>> I LOVE BACKSPACE and really want to help support it in coming into >>>> being in whatever way I can. >>>> >>>> <3 <3 >>>> >>>> N >>>> >>>> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Sara Larsen < >>>> saralarsenyoga(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >>>> >>>>> I want to thank you Yar for this incredible letter. Needless to >>>>> say, I support the views you expressed 100%! >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Scott Nanos < >>>>> scott.nanos(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I agree 200% w/ yar and hope we can come to a conclusion that >>>>>> works for all of us (particularly for backspace). I can't come to this >>>>>> thurs meeting but my fingers are crossed double crossed triple crossed. >>>>>> Hoping Baps and backspace can team up to become champions of the commons <3 >>>>>> >>>>>> Xo >>>>>> >>>>>> Scott >>>>>> >>>>>> > On Oct 20, 2014, at 8:28 AM, yar &lt;yardenack(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >>>>>> > >>>>>> >> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 12:58 PM, yar &lt;yardenack(a)gmail.com&gt; >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >> It's not your fault, it's not anybody else's fault either. I >>>>>> really >>>>>> >> hope the confusion isn't interpreted as bad faith or a lack of >>>>>> >> support. We all need to get better at that, of course, but >>>>>> also get >>>>>> >> better at forgiving each others' mistakes, in the spirit of >>>>>> jubilee. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > I want to just reiterate this in light of the past few days of >>>>>> > conversation. I have heard a lot of different narratives about >>>>>> what >>>>>> > happened with Backspace over the past few months. I don't claim >>>>>> to >>>>>> > know exactly what happened anymore, but it seems to boil down >>>>>> to a >>>>>> > huge string of communication failures that resulted in Backspace >>>>>> > paying for space to operate, yet having no space until now. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > At Thursday's meeting, the subject of past-due utility bills >>>>>> came up, >>>>>> > but it seems apropos to mention that lots of Omni groups have >>>>>> not paid >>>>>> > utility bills, or even rent, and one of the amazing potential >>>>>> things >>>>>> > about Omni is our capacity to be a non-evil landlord - each >>>>>> according >>>>>> > to their ability and their need. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > It's clear that most backspace folks are WORKERS whose primary >>>>>> concern >>>>>> > is being able to see their clients and students and make a >>>>>> living >>>>>> > wage. It's also clear to me that the primary benefit of having >>>>>> > Backspace at Omni is NOT the money they'd bring in, but the new >>>>>> > people, energy and perspectives. It would REALLY SUCK if we >>>>>> lost all >>>>>> > that by fighting with them over money. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Other than money, the only other concern I'm hearing about this >>>>>> > proposal is about space. While I have expressed concerns about >>>>>> > "enclosure" in the past, Backspace's plans for the den or >>>>>> "storage >>>>>> > room" are NOT enclosures. They're stewardship of commons. This >>>>>> is >>>>>> > exactly the model I always dreamed of for our building! >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Finally, there's BAPS. I think it might help to separate BAPS' >>>>>> > pragmatic need to host many evening classes from BAPS' position >>>>>> as a >>>>>> > roving "nomadic" group without dedicated space, and both from >>>>>> the >>>>>> > concept of "enclosure". Because it seems to me like Backspace's >>>>>> > pragmatic needs are similar to BAPS - to assemble in spaces and >>>>>> occupy >>>>>> > them for a finite period, for classes and 1-on-1 sessions. So >>>>>> what are >>>>>> > the ways we can frame this as a collaboration rather than a >>>>>> > competition? >>>>>> > >>>>>> > I think these problems would get solved a lot faster if we were >>>>>> all >>>>>> > able to trust each other, the best path to building trust is for >>>>>> > Backspace to begin operating at the Omni ASAP, and the best way >>>>>> for >>>>>> > that to happen is to show support and forgiveness all around. >>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Let us be together, >>>>> Let us eat together, >>>>> Let us be vital together, >>>>> Let us be radiating truth, >>>>> radiating the light of life, >>>>> Never shall we denounce anyone, >>>>> never entertain negativity. >>>>> -- The Upanishads >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "Backspace" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>> send an email to backspacewellness+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. >>>> To post to this group, send email to >>>> backspacewellness(a)googlegroups.com. >>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/backspacewellness/CAL8c4AY%2BqHJLys4eCcYL… >>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/backspacewellness/CAL8c4AY%2BqHJLys4eCcYLAGpxNG2AO405VpLHVJyxYVJTYBhtiA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>> . >>>> >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Backspace" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>> send an email to backspacewellness+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. >>> To post to this group, send email to >>> backspacewellness(a)googlegroups.com. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/backspacewellness/CA%2BmgZdP5Ea-7OqnayWoD… >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/backspacewellness/CA%2BmgZdP5Ea-7OqnayWoDHbqWUgmnfES0YTq4saeUO1GF%3D2tR2w%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>> . >>> >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "Backspace" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >> send an email to backspacewellness+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to >> backspacewellness(a)googlegroups.com. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/backspacewellness/CAP1-Q3ZaziDaAgB4QKuRNQ… >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/backspacewellness/CAP1-Q3ZaziDaAgB4QKuRNQo15ZFXY2KEEDmcC0G3aW_NZ2kCJw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Backspace" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send > an email to backspacewellness+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to > backspacewellness(a)googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/backspacewellness/CABhLtjydnpiBtHVtqxf59W… > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/backspacewellness/CABhLtjydnpiBtHVtqxf59Wy4HG9m7_kmtYPHZXK692rUhAU3yA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > _______________________________________________ consensus mailing list consensus(a)lists.omnicommons.org https://omnicommons.org/lists/listinfo/consensus