[sudo-discuss] [omni-consensus] report back (fwd)

One week after we approved Silver's collective and they're already attacking us for making decisions they don't agree with, describing our members as "resistant to collective collaboration" and complaining about our delegates turnover. Why is Silver blaming Sudoroom for delegate turnover that started with CLP targeting me in September, and includes Jamal targeting Eric last week? Why should closed delegate's meetings have an exception for "working group leads"? Because Silver is a working group lead? The delegates meetings can be closed for only delegates, that was actually a proposal I made a few weeks ago, but I don't see why self-appointed "working group leads" should be treaded as if they're delegates. This is unfortunately more politicking and is really tiresome. Either have the delegates meetings be delegates only, or keep letting whomever wants to show up, but don't try to carve out exceptions for yourself to be there. -jake ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:06:25 -0800 From: Z Silver Zahn &lt;natashazahn27(a)gmail.com&gt; To: consensus &lt;consensus(a)lists.omnicommons.org&gt; Subject: [omni-consensus] report back Omni Commons has missed the deadline for repaying the $870,000 balloon payment to Mulberry Trust, due on December 31, 2023. In light of this, Omni delegates and working groups have been actively exploring various proposal options to avert an immediate foreclosure. We had emailed our lawyer to request a few months extension. Still waiting to hear back. People Program has put forth a proposal aimed at paying off the remaining debt. The proposal suggests offering shared or full ownership of the building, allowing Omni collectives to continue their operations and rent their existing spaces. people program original proposal <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lCoi6BJX9F1jgkIJI5eCQg1Aw0X-hs2v/view?usp=sharing> People Program presented their proposal during three consecutive delegate meetings held on December 7, 15, and 21. Initial discussions began to establish a rapport, but due to differing opinions among delegates, Jamal was engaged on December 21 to facilitate conversations with People Program and other stakeholders proposing alternative ideas. Regrettably, the delegates have struggled to reach a consensus on which proposal to prioritize. Various proposals have been submitted, including a brief mention of an LLC proposal energized by Sudo Room on December 15. Additionally, there is interest in the concept of land trusts, but no specific proposal is currently being led or developed. suggested proposals <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wDzotx3D07brWXLkylRlSb9r_alI8fqaBFUDxkiVkg0/edit#heading=h.2u4rpmxvdo59> On January 4, 2024, Phil Bell submitted a proposal suggesting the repayment of a loan for partial ownership of the building, as city in motion. phil bell proposal <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ina3NPu4fDUdUDeyVDdNaNraDvhcViRK/view?usp=sharing> Recognizing the challenges faced by Omni delegates in making collective decisions, a two-day meeting was held on January 5 and 6, facilitated by Jamal. At the conclusion of this meeting, the proposal's most popular option was still to acquire a new loan, People's Programs and Phil Bell's proposal were deemed the most realistic options on the table currently. Yar and Patrik drafted a counter proposal for People Program, and Jamal proposed the hiring of an interim Executive Director (ED) to streamline actions and decision-making. Jamal volunteered for this role and committed to self-funding their payroll, considering Omni's financial constraints. Tentative approval was granted for Jamal's offer during the subsequent delegate meeting on January 11. However, concerns raised by Sudo Room members resistant to collective collaboration prompted a reevaluation. In the same meeting, People Program suggested joining as a collective to foster relationships, but delegates did not feel ready to proceed. Despite over two months of weekly delegate meetings and a two-day accountability retreat, we find ourselves without a clear plan or functioning working groups. The decision-making process has been a longstanding challenge, and the time has come for a focused approach. With Sudo Room changing delegates four times in two months and the addition of two new delegates from Sketchboard and Media Lab, there is a pressing need to define delegate duties, establish rules and regulations, and ensure active participation in working groups to prevent crucial decisions from slipping through the cracks. Each collective should only have 1 delegate present at the meeting. At the January 11 delegate meeting, there were conflicts among old and new Omni members, derailing the focus of the work. We propose temporarily closing delegate meetings to only delegates and working group leads. This measure aims to address conflicts and streamline the decision-making process.