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

To me this sort of fear is exactly the kind of 'hypothetical' anti-pattern

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

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

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 &lt;margaretha.anne.haughwout(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: This is really wonderful everyone. THANK YOU <3 <3 <3 margaretha anne haughwout unclique [1], disconnect On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Donald Hughes &lt;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 &lt;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 &lt;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 -- 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