notes in-line below: > I know not everyone will agree with this argument - I know maybe > something better and more utopian may come by - but are we really going to > wait forever for the perfect building on top of a bart station? It's not > perfect, but I'm not down for waiting for utopia. I'm down for hacking one > together, which is what this is. > It is not just Utopia that may come by, there are other available, viable spaces on the table in different locations. In most ways I see The Omni as the Utopic option. For instance see mock-ups of 8th and Alice with a slice of some of these collectives posited: https://sudoroom.org/wiki/8th_and_Alice it's actually a pretty realistic fallback option to The Omni (say if the deal went sour for whatever reason) at the very least. I don't see 8th and Alice as Utopic, but it is actually closer to a bart station (2 blocks to Lake Merritt station). More importantly, this isn't an all-or-nothing situation. The Omni Collective should be prepared to exist some place other than The Omni if need be, it's fine if The Omni is the priority and primary focus. When we see a proposal to sign a lease at The Omni, we should have one or two naive options alongside, if even just for our bearings. > > *Shouldn't we be closer to BART / PT (@Phil) ?* > It's true, the Omni is 8 blocks from MacArthur BART, so, 5 whole > blocks longer than we currently walk. > > ... > > > Is the time cost of 5 extra blocks mean a 'fraction' of those who now > come to Sudo will come to the Omni? > > That's not the only way to see this issue. Will Sudoers come to The Omni? Will they come when it's no longer on their way to/from work? Will they come if it's an extra few miles bike ride? Will some of our current paying members be less inclined to contribute regular dues if dropping in means heading much further from their neighborhood? Will hackers from other local spaces, long-distance visitors, guests attending events, and the general public from throughout the bay area make the trip over to sudo room if they have to consider taking an extra total ~24 minutes of travel time (NB > OMNI http://goo.gl/maps/iBsBg vs NB > SR http://goo.gl/maps/WV4ks)? The lesson is both hackerspace-movement-oriented and a local lesson from Noisebridge--being close to 16th St station encourages lots of traffic, which I think is more beneficial than the opposite. I don't think this suggestion is overblown, I think we have to accept it, and accept that 5 blocks does matter, even if it may be worth it ultimately to overcome that hurdle for other benefits. The reality here is that moving to The Omni, moving to any new space, will change the patterns of attendance and usage of sudo room. Whether we like it or not, for better or for worse. The idea of "forking" sudo room to keep presences in multiple areas has even been discussed. I think this is a more practical approach than assuming it will simply work out. > *Okay.. But can we all actually pay the freaking rent (@Matt)? * > In short, yes. Unless Sudo backs out. In which case, no. > I'm more interested in the following question. > > *Can we prove we can pay the rent, with concrete information (@Matt)?* Yes.. > but, I'm actually not sure how to do this on a public listserv? I can say > the following: > > - We presently have a combination of donations and a long-term > no-interest loan by people in our community that will cover first months' > rent and deposit (move-in costs). > There have been lots of proposals and gestures on the table. Webs of trust are great, but they aren't perfect. Indeed, it needs to be explicitly laid out and available to all members of all Omni collectives in order for genuine analysis to be feasible. The Delegates make a built-in email/phone-tree btw. > > This is in addition to the month-to-month rent commitments made by the > collectives (and their delegates) themselves. We knew the barrier to entry > in the form of move-in costs would be a big burden on us. But you know, > this is what we have been fundraising for, again, for months. This did not > materialize overnight. It was the result of a lot of hard work. > Of course, appreciated work, that you yourself once said would be worth it regardless of The Omni itself. > > - Rental amounts have been discussed by member collectives and > delegates for months in most cases, at every meeting. These amounts have > fluctuated to reflect reality of what members can afford. Everyone knows > what is at stake. This is not just a fairytale dream.. well heck, it is a > dream, but a dream we have all worked hard to bring to the brink of > reality. Does it involve a level of trust? Yes - of course. Do I have any > doubts that we won't pull through? At this point? No. > It's nice to hear these things, but ambiguity can be eliminated if the numbers and plan are simply written down and handed out. > > - Am I expected to dump suitcases full of cash onto the conference > table Wednesday, or.. Anyone who wants more details on this please email me > offlist or just ring me? > Nothing is expected of you or any Omni Collective delegates other than what you want to put in, and anything you are unwilling or unable to do should be announced back to the sub-collectives. I do not like even the idea of participating in a loan, especially from friends (despite benefits over sycophants like banks). I would personally be inclined to compromise on taking one, but only knowing precise terms. Instead, if we started collecting regular rent dues for April and May, we would simply have the deposit down without the loans. Plus we would have the commitment of member-collectives. > *What are the terms of the lease (i.e. the full contract)?* > Ok - the proposed terms of the lease are finally just now starting to > be negotiated, in that we are finally starting to actually make > counterproposals. > This isn't what I mean. Yes, some of the terms are up for negotiation, but what about a contract with the rest of the landlord's terms for our reference and to have time to get clarity? > - We can collectively afford our rent as is, at least for the first > year. I will show you the spreadsheets. > If the existing collectives actually are going to contribute at the rate they've suggested and if they actually pay. Knowing collectives, let's just be honest, a member group of The Omni Collective may simply back out--sudo room included--it happens. I'd like to know what lurches are possible to be left by everyone and whether those constitute risks that are worth taking. On the other hand, recruiting alternative collectives may become a bigger priority if we realize that say more than 1 of the Omni Collective member groups won't be making rent. > - We will have the first+deposit covered by donations and > interest-free personal loan. > If we agree to this. > > - Sudo's part would be $2K/mo. > Patrik's comment above is crucial in terms of contextualizing this rate and the rates for other member collectives. That amount is how much sudo room gestures it can make as-is. > *Lease length (2 years, 3 years?) (@Matt):* > - We can sign a 2 or longer year lease. Up to us. Less than 2 years > would be a hard sell. More than 2 years is easier. > Have the other collectives weight in on this? Can we get a better rate for greater than 2 years? Does any collective have a reason why a 2-year timeline is not feasible for them? > *Landlord in or out? (@Matt):* > - Up to us entirely: If he can stay there for ~3 months while he > moves, the rent will be a lot lower for those months. If we don't want him > to stay, he'll vacate in 30 days, but then we dont get a break during those > first ~three months. > Any chance of making an ask to get it rent-free for a 3 month summer move-out and simultaneous build-out? (basically we'd just be coming in to their home for 3 months preparing as they moved, right?) > *What are the terms of space usage? (@Matt)* > > In the current envisioning, Sudo would have to itself: > - Half the bocce ball court room (giant back area), shared with CCL in > the other half > - This area is handicapped accessible, with handicapped-accessible > bathrooms, & street access. > - This area has massive, 55ft(?) ceilings with ample space to make > add'l rooms, lofts, balconies, etc > This is precisely what needs to be outlined for everyone to even consider moving in. I'm very uneasy about vagueness here. One of sudo room's minimum requirements is relevant https://sudoroom.org/wiki/Spaces#Precise_Constraints "Security and privacy e.g. not a hallway or shared access with other tenants we don't know." If sudo room is sharing the bocce ball court with CCL, we have to either consider how we share space, or consider build-out to meet this minimum requirement. Maybe we can be embedded like /tmp/lab/ and La Paillasse, or maybe not. We need time to at least talk and decide before agreeing to move. I don't think that's very extreme. It doesn't have to be perfect, just a baseline. > *Who moves where? (@Matt)* > > All groups: have use of shared space > > We need to go over the floor plan, but point being - we do have a > space for everyone that people are good with > I can't stress enough how much I disagree with this point. We can't build consensus by saying it's so. It's not bike-shedding to know precisely what you have access to in exchange for payment, and relative to your partners. Patrik's message in this regard is a good first step, but this is essential and unresolved, high priority IMHO. > > *Which areas are exclusive (private) or inclusive (common)? (@Matt):* > > Shared areas: > ... > > - big ol cafe to hang out in > This is the only space mentioned of concern, the rest make sense. The cafe is actually private space, unless we have an agreement that it is treated especially different since it should be treated as common space for various reasons. Either way, it's important we know this going in. > > *What is the protocol for conflicts and concerns between (or across > members of) Omni Oakland sub-collectives?* > To some extent re: how the delegate structure works, see: > > https://sudoroom.org/wiki/The_Omni/2014-04-03#The_Omni_Oakland_Collective > > In terms of conflict resolution, that has come up several times and we > are working on that now - we are looking at the terms Sudo uses that (from > what I understand) were originally cribbed from Noisebridge. This is an > area we need to work on - we have been mostly focused on the financials, > apportioning space and accruing the will to come together and do this. > > We also have to work more on our articles of incorporation and > association. We are working actively on that. > I know the details are under-developed, and they will only improve with time as all things. However, does The Omni Collective think it can come to resolution on this by June 1st or is this something that should be turned into an ask for help from the sub-collective memberships? > > *Additionally, what rights and responsibilities do members of the > public (or as I usually say for sudo, which I think applies here, > "prospective members" of any of our collectives) have? (@Matt)* > > In broad terms - my view: > > For the entire space, members of the public have a responsibility to > abide by the accepted rules of the space assented to by all the collectives > within it, which will be akin to the safe space policy Sudo currently has > in place @ 2141, and although we haven't voted on it yet, a conflict > resolution policy in line with what Sudo already has. > > Each collective additionally maintains its own subset of rules for > itself and members of the public in its own localized dedicated area within > the building, that are not in conflict with rules and values for the whole > space. > > Its conceivable that the public may not be allowed free reign over > 100% of the space and its materials all the time. For example, I can > imagine if there are dance rehearsals, Live Space may not always want that > public. If there is film development going on in a darkroom, its possible > they may not want the door open randomly. If TIL's letterpress machine is > in the basement, the public may need to be trained on how to use it before > using it. The same way that not everyone has access to root on Sudo's > Mediawiki off the bat - there are conditions. CCL may have machines and > rooms that not everyone in the public is able to just freely use unless > they have the requisite knowledge. Stuff like that. Make sense..? > I think this needs to be more direct, e.g.: There are private spaces (defined by map) that only the members of the respective collectives are entitled to access, under the terms relevant for their community. For common spaces, either a process exists for reserving and using the space as private space (up to the reservation's terms), or all members of the Omni Collective have access. As for "prospective members" or the general public, essentially at this point there is no entitlement to common space nor to any private space. Perhaps there are spaces designation for building maintenance / storage needs, access based on discretion and need. > *For existing member collectives can we start collecting rent > contributions immediately (to be paid forward to rent after any agreed-upon > contract is signed)? (@Matt)* > This has been discussed obviously. We will start this forthwith. > Remember we have donations and a loan that forms the basis of the barriers > to entry. We just received paperwork of our CA NP status, so we can open a > bank account just for the collective. Partly we're also waiting on Land > Trust fiscal sponsorship which will make things easier on donors. But the > money is there, with or without that. > I'd much rather see an ask to put in a membership deposit by June 1 than move-in given the wild hairs. Unless there's a reason to believe these things will come in line to allow for a consensus process to conclude before May 1.