16 Oct
2014
16 Oct
'14
8:18 a.m.
Scott,
I agree that that is a good idea.
However, I feel like your suggestion is exactly what I was trying to move
forward with the BAPS backspace proposal that BAPS recently voted against
moving forward with!
I personally believe it can still work, but would like to acknowledge that
I already proposed this to BAPS 2 weeks ago and it was not supported.
I also attended the Commons wg on Saturday in part to build a working
relationship with the Commons wg and Backspace. I ran our current proposal
by the group and met with support.
Jenny, I can say more tonight at the meeting re: your questions, which are
good ones (gotta go to work right now!).
Backspace is currently:
Margaretha
Myself
Andrew
Naomi
Don
We have interest from other folks but no commitments until space is
resolved.
Sara
On Thursday, October 16, 2014, Scott Nanos <scott.nanos(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Crazy idea but I'm also a little worried that BAPS
and commons
Wg don't have the labor power to handle all this commoning (pragmatically
speaking, in the form of scheduling and organizing)...
What if Baps, backspace, and commons wg all teamed up on these common
spaces, granting *x* amount of privileged hours in specific areas for
collectives?
Ex: Baps could take privileged hours in basement reading room/library
directly related to classes on the schedule, backspace could take privilege
hours in upstairs den or disco room for booked classes?
it seems much more likely to be successful if we unite? Baps and commons
wg have already been discussing a mesh situation...
Ps jenny that last email warmed my <3
Xo
Scott
On Oct 16, 2014, at 12:21 AM, Jenny Ryan <tunabananas(a)gmail.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','tunabananas@gmail.com');>> wrote:
Hi!
I am excited by the revival of Backspace but would love a bit more
context. Who's currently involved these days? What kind of services would
the public clinics offer? Apologies if this is a barrage of questions -
just trying to get a more complete narrative in my mind :)
This sentence really confused me - can you explain what it means?
:
--
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
We have concerns about how much time backspace
will have to do its work
in the commons; and recognize that with commons there can be no guarantees
about the amount of time, which can dramatically stymie our work.
Would Backspace members be interested in helping the Commons WG with
scheduling as part of their contribution to the functioning of the Omni as
a whole? I am confused about the interchange of 'commons' in this sentence
and then how it's used in the next:
There are other collectives at the omni who have
a lot of dedicated,
non-shared space to do their necessary work. Part of our proposal is to
offer the den in part as a commons, which is a new way of using space in
the Omni, and an important moment to model how this can be done. I really
hope that this radical sharing is not being overlooked
It's a good thing we're dedicating a 20 whole minutes of tomorrow's
meeting to a better understanding of this word ;P Perhaps it would be
productive and timely to organize an Omni-wide unconference on the subject!
Other than TIL, I can't think of a single member-group in the Omni that
has "a lot of dedicated, non-shared space to do their necessary work." What
collective(s) are you referring to?
Like, this past weekend sudo was hosting a BACH unconference all over the
building, and whoever was around Friday night from a bunch of collectives
or whatever, unaffiliated, helped manage a plumbing emergency with a backed
up drain in the basement kitchen (joe had accidentally dropped a rag down
the drain! and he totally admitted it and is going to pay for the emergency
plumber we called in! mad love!) - fast-forward to Sunday morning cooking
pots of food for lunch while La Commune folks were cooking brunch
side-by-side, Scott was making music in the cafe and FNB-Chris was making
mad delicious salsas for BACH folks and the rest of the FNB crew was
working on the kitchen in the basement, sudo shared some eggs w/ la commune
and they had exactly the same number we lent them left over by the end of
the brunch! and we had tacos for all the brunchlings who were too busy
making food to eat it! radical sharing fuck yeah!!!
Ahem! So, if I grok you correctly, I think this is similar to the
reasoning behind BAPS' proposal for dedicated space that it would steward
for common, shared use - that's great! My only concern is that there may
not be enough Backspace members to take on such a responsibility, while the
Commons WG also needs support. I'd like to echo Niki's request for clarity
on how you intend to 'commons' the space, and ask how we as a community can
help your needs be met.
[geek segue how do we go from a CSMA --> TDMA mode of sharing space? :) ]
Much love,
Jenny
Jenny
http://jennyryan.net
http://thepyre.org
http://thevirtualcampfire.org
http://technomadic.tumblr.com
`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`
"Technology is the campfire around which we tell our stories."
-Laurie Anderson
"Storytelling reveals meaning without committing the error of defining it."
-Hannah Arendt
"To define is to kill. To suggest is to create."
-Stéphane Mallarmé
~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 11:24 PM, yar <yardenack(a)gmail.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','yardenack@gmail.com');>> wrote:
At tonight's Sudoroom meeting, there were no
major objections to BDRM2
("the eyeball room") becoming dedicated and lockable for Backspace, or
to the DEN and STORAGE1 being schedulable commons where Backspace gets
priority. The biggest concern is that the Public School would still
have room for its evening classes, but we don't have enough info to
speak for them obviously.
Just curious - even though we all seem to be converging on a pattern
of scheduled multi-use space, there's still this distinction between
these rooms being "administered by Backspace" and "administered by the
commons working group." I know Backspace prefers the former, but can
you say a little about why, and what is the meaningful difference for
you? Is it the worry about being scheduled out? Is it the desire for
veto power over the layout and aesthetic of the spaces? Thanks.
Lastly, Matt pointed out some issues with how the money is being framed:
_______________________________________________
consensus mailing list
consensus(a)lists.omnicommons.org
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','consensus@lists.omnicommons.org');>
https://omnicommons.org/lists/listinfo/consensus
We would pay $1000 per month starting in October.
Is this a typo? It seems to contradict the next section.
Backspace founder Andrew Lowe put forward $6000
to the Omni for
Backspace in May 2014. This money was paid ahead as a commitment
by
Backspace to the Omni and vice versa. We would like to allocate that money
in the following way:
$3000 for July Rent (first month, last month, deposit)
$1000 for Septemer
$1000 for October
$1000 for November
Except what actually happened, was Backspace paid $2k for first month,
$2k for last month, and $2k for deposit, and then realized later that
they couldn't continue paying that much per month. It's not just a
semantic problem - that $2k deposit went to the landlord, and not to
the Omni. This pretends that Omni saw $1k that we didn't actually see.
Also, IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer) but it's a scary legal grey area for a
landlord to redefine deposit money as rent money. It might be better
to be honest about what happened instead of retconning it, and just
say that Omni is now giving Backspace a second chance to exist at Omni
with a grace period and a new "lease on life." Just a thought.
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org');>
https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss