27 Aug
2015
27 Aug
'15
4:26 a.m.
yar and i agreed to talk about eian moon tomorrow b4 the delegates meeting,
however, all he did was annoy me by taking so long to leave after i asked
him to.
though i don't understand baps' seemingly ambiguous membership policy, i.e.
once a member always a member? if you teach a class, are you a member? do
members get keys to omni door? etc., it might be appropriate to loop them
into the discussion since eian might be a member of baps. james moon was
more or less being vouched for by matt stewart who has quite a bit of
background info on eian & james moons' recent interactions...i spoke w/matt
s. today about it.
finally, i want to thank those members who have supported me during a
difficult week around the omni in regards to building security matters.
cheers
~r
27 Aug
27 Aug
2:10 p.m.
New subject: ian moon banned
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 2:34 PM, niki <niki.shelley(a)gmail.com> wrote:
It's my understanding that this process could
potentially result in a more
top-down restructuring of the management of the Omni with little to no
required buy-in from the individual collectives.
Just to be very clear, this is an open-ended process where nothing is
pre-ordained, which will depend entirely on who shows up and what they
want. If people show up wanting to turn Omni into a Kafkaesque
dystopia, then yes, that could "potentially" be the result. But I
doubt it.
3:12 p.m.
New subject: ian moon banned
should prolly have started a new thread for this
do the becoming omni facilitators plan to make it clear to the participants
that the collectives' delegates will have to get approval from their
collectives in order for any substantial change to take place on the ground
at the omni? how do they plan on informing the collectives' members who do
not attend as to the progress of the process?
thx
~r
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 2:10 PM, yar <yardenack(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 2:34 PM, niki
<niki.shelley(a)gmail.com> wrote:
It's my understanding that this process could
potentially result in a
more
top-down restructuring of the management of the
Omni with little to no
required buy-in from the individual collectives.
Just to be very clear, this is an open-ended process where nothing is
pre-ordained, which will depend entirely on who shows up and what they
want. If people show up wanting to turn Omni into a Kafkaesque
dystopia, then yes, that could "potentially" be the result. But I
doubt it.
6:02 p.m.
New subject: Robb's question about the Becoming Omni process
We explicitly told the participants in the design team meeting that we
needed to get buy-in from all the collectives and get the delegates
approval that Becoming Omni will make decisions for the Omni as a whole.
In response the group created an "inreach" working group called "Working
Within the System", which at the moment is Yar and Joel, to take
responsibility for this. You may have missed these parts of the meeting,
Robb. They have begun going to the collectives' meetings.
Also, Tomorrow an email is going out on the discuss listserv with
information about the working groups that have formed and inviting
anyone to join them.
Laura
I changed the thread name.
On 8/27/15 3:12 PM, Robb Anonymous wrote:
should prolly have started a new thread for this
do the becoming omni facilitators plan to make it clear to the
participants that the collectives' delegates will have to get approval
from their collectives in order for any substantial change to take
place on the ground at the omni? how do they plan on informing the
collectives' members who do not attend as to the progress of the process?
thx
~r
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 2:10 PM, yar <yardenack(a)gmail.com
<mailto:yardenack@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 2:34 PM, niki <niki.shelley(a)gmail.com
<mailto:niki.shelley@gmail.com>> wrote:
It's my understanding that this process could
potentially result
in a more
top-down restructuring of the management of the
Omni with little
to no
required buy-in from the individual collectives.
Just to be very clear, this is an open-ended process where nothing is
pre-ordained, which will depend entirely on who shows up and what they
want. If people show up wanting to turn Omni into a Kafkaesque
dystopia, then yes, that could "potentially" be the result. But I
doubt it.
_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
discuss(a)lists.omnicommons.org
https://omnicommons.org/lists/listinfo/discuss
28 Aug
28 Aug
12:45 p.m.
New subject: Robb's question about the Becoming Omni process
thx, laura. i was concerned that participants might have the impression
that "The Omni" had initiated the becoming omni process. i described the
role of the collectives in the process to one of my working group members
and it felt uncomfortable.
~r
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 1:02 AM, Laura Turiano <scylla(a)riseup.net> wrote:
We explicitly told the participants in the design team
meeting that we
needed to get buy-in from all the collectives and get the delegates
approval that Becoming Omni will make decisions for the Omni as a whole. In
response the group created an "inreach" working group called "Working
Within the System", which at the moment is Yar and Joel, to take
responsibility for this. You may have missed these parts of the meeting,
Robb. They have begun going to the collectives' meetings.
Also, Tomorrow an email is going out on the discuss listserv with
information about the working groups that have formed and inviting anyone
to join them.
Laura
I changed the thread name.
On 8/27/15 3:12 PM, Robb Anonymous wrote:
should prolly have started a new thread for this
do the becoming omni facilitators plan to make it clear to the
participants that the collectives' delegates will have to get approval from
their collectives in order for any substantial change to take place on the
ground at the omni? how do they plan on informing the collectives' members
who do not attend as to the progress of the process?
thx
~r
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 2:10 PM, yar <yardenack(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 2:34 PM, niki
<niki.shelley(a)gmail.com> wrote:
_______________________________________________
discuss mailing
listdiscuss@lists.omnicommons.orghttps://omnicommons.org/lists/listinfo/discuss
It's my understanding that this process could
potentially result in a
more
top-down restructuring of the management of the
Omni with little to no
required buy-in from the individual collectives.
Just to be very clear, this is an open-ended process where nothing is
pre-ordained, which will depend entirely on who shows up and what they
want. If people show up wanting to turn Omni into a Kafkaesque
dystopia, then yes, that could "potentially" be the result. But I
doubt it.
27 Aug
27 Aug
6:08 p.m.
New subject: ian moon banned
Apologies, I was just trying to encourage people to be involved in the
process based on some ideas I'd heard floating around with regards to how
the organization might be restructured. I didn't meant to suggest that
anything had already been decided!
N
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 2:10 PM, yar <yardenack(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 2:34 PM, niki
<niki.shelley(a)gmail.com> wrote:
It's my understanding that this process could
potentially result in a
more
top-down restructuring of the management of the
Omni with little to no
required buy-in from the individual collectives.
Just to be very clear, this is an open-ended process where nothing is
pre-ordained, which will depend entirely on who shows up and what they
want. If people show up wanting to turn Omni into a Kafkaesque
dystopia, then yes, that could "potentially" be the result. But I
doubt it.
3171
days inactive
3172
days old
5 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Laura Turiano -
niki -
Robb Anonymous -
yar