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.

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

On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 11:24 PM, yar <yardenack(a)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: Is this a typo? It seems to contradict the next section. 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 https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss

On Thursday, October 16, 2014, Scott Nanos &lt;scott.nanos(a)gmail.com&gt; 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 &lt;tunabananas(a)gmail.com&gt; 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? > : >> 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 &lt;yardenack(a)gmail.com&gt; 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: >> >> > 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 >> https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > consensus mailing list > consensus(a)lists.omnicommons.org > https://omnicommons.org/lists/listinfo/consensus

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 10:05 AM, Laura Turiano &lt;scylla(a)riseup.net&gt; wrote: Sara, I want to acknowledge and thank you for your work to arrive at an agreement that meets everyone's needs. It can be challenging! Laura > On Oct 16, 2014, at 8:18 AM, Sara Larsen &lt;saralarsenyoga(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > > 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 &lt;scott.nanos(a)gmail.com&gt; 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 &lt;tunabananas(a)gmail.com&gt; 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? >>> : >>>> 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 &lt;yardenack(a)gmail.com&gt; 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: >>>> >>>> > 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 >>>> https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> consensus mailing list >>> consensus(a)lists.omnicommons.org >>> https://omnicommons.org/lists/listinfo/consensus > > > -- > > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > consensus mailing list > consensus(a)lists.omnicommons.org > https://omnicommons.org/lists/listinfo/consensus