5 May
2022
5 May
'22
8:56 p.m.
Dear Sudoroom,
Today I voted in behalf of Sudoroom in favor of the MOP proposal, and they are
now a member collective of Omni Commons. I emailed about them on April 20th
but didn't hear anything back, so I hope everyone is okay with that decision.
Today a proposal was introduced for a new committee to be formed at Omni
Commons to value and protect the safety and interests of BIPOC/Non-Men.
this is the original proposal in PDF form:
https://omnicommons.org/pipermail/consensus/attachments/20220505/ab900701/a…
this is an editable "cryptpad" and
we are requested to "please leave comments in red"
https://cryptpad.fr/pad/#/2/pad/edit/6IhZqwyXxN6CrEvtiljmnqTa/
actually this is a cryptpad copy of their document just for sudoroom, and I
will forward our discussion to Rafiq to integrate our input.
Other collectives are asking questions too, so if you want to be more engaged
in the discussion, please join the [omni-consensus] list! But definitely make
discussion here in the sudoroom list and get engaged.
If Sudoroom members have concerns or objections, we need to communicate them
promptly and work toward agreeable amedments. It is not an option to simply
reject the proposal, but rather if you have specific concerns then we need to
work with each other to address those concerns and come up with something
agreeable.
-jake
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Yardena Cohen <yardenack(a)gmail.com>
Hey all, I'm boosting this email with a new subject line so that it's
clear to readers - this contains an important new proposal!!!
Brief summary: this proposal forms a congress of BIPOC and non-men
from all Omni's groups, who then elect a small committee which has its
own seat on the board, its own delegate, and a few specific powers
related to addressing racism and sexism. This is an important step
towards making omni representative and accountable! This finally
begins to put our Statement of Solidarity into action!
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: rafiq.ali <rafiq.ali(a)protonmail.com>
Date: Thu, May 5, 2022 at 12:16 PM
To: <consensus(a)lists.omnicommons.org>
I added a little note at the beginning on our proposal and the events
from 2 weeks ago. Happy to provide a short statement. In general, I
appreciate the apologies made and think this can be a growing
opportunity to forge a stronger collective. If it's possible, we can
open discussion on the proposal this week if enough delegates have had
a chance to review with the idea of approving at the next delegate
meeting (or worst case, the one after).
As mentioned earlier, we are proposing the creation of a safe space
Committee (see attached). We appreciate and accept all
feedback/comments/concerns.
In struggle,
Rafiq
CLP
5 May
5 May
10:49 p.m.
It is not an option to simply
reject the
proposal
Why is that not an option? This ultimatum is insane — not only is this the most over the
top bureaucratic structure I can imagine, they actually document the format of the
upcoming struggle sessions, er, “self critiques”. And I thought they claimed to not be
literal tankies?
Good luck with all that, I will be recommending that people stay far away from the Omni,
and taking my own advice, too.
Eric
On Thu, May 5, 2022, at 20:56, Jake via sudo-discuss wrote:
Dear Sudoroom,
Today I voted in behalf of Sudoroom in favor of the MOP proposal, and they are
now a member collective of Omni Commons. I emailed about them on April 20th
but didn't hear anything back, so I hope everyone is okay with that decision.
Today a proposal was introduced for a new committee to be formed at Omni
Commons to value and protect the safety and interests of BIPOC/Non-Men.
this is the original proposal in PDF form:
https://omnicommons.org/pipermail/consensus/attachments/20220505/ab900701/a…
this is an editable "cryptpad" and
we are requested to "please leave comments in red"
https://cryptpad.fr/pad/#/2/pad/edit/6IhZqwyXxN6CrEvtiljmnqTa/
actually this is a cryptpad copy of their document just for sudoroom, and I
will forward our discussion to Rafiq to integrate our input.
Other collectives are asking questions too, so if you want to be more engaged
in the discussion, please join the [omni-consensus] list! But definitely make
discussion here in the sudoroom list and get engaged.
If Sudoroom members have concerns or objections, we need to communicate them
promptly and work toward agreeable amedments. It is not an option to simply
reject the proposal, but rather if you have specific concerns then we need to
work with each other to address those concerns and come up with something
agreeable.
-jake
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Yardena Cohen <yardenack(a)gmail.com>
Hey all, I'm boosting this email with a new subject line so that it's
clear to readers - this contains an important new proposal!!!
Brief summary: this proposal forms a congress of BIPOC and non-men
from all Omni's groups, who then elect a small committee which has its
own seat on the board, its own delegate, and a few specific powers
related to addressing racism and sexism. This is an important step
towards making omni representative and accountable! This finally
begins to put our Statement of Solidarity into action!
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: rafiq.ali <rafiq.ali(a)protonmail.com>
Date: Thu, May 5, 2022 at 12:16 PM
To: <consensus(a)lists.omnicommons.org>
I added a little note at the beginning on our proposal and the events
from 2 weeks ago. Happy to provide a short statement. In general, I
appreciate the apologies made and think this can be a growing
opportunity to forge a stronger collective. If it's possible, we can
open discussion on the proposal this week if enough delegates have had
a chance to review with the idea of approving at the next delegate
meeting (or worst case, the one after).
As mentioned earlier, we are proposing the creation of a safe space
Committee (see attached). We appreciate and accept all
feedback/comments/concerns.
In struggle,
Rafiq
CLP
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list -- sudo-discuss(a)sudoroom.org
To unsubscribe send an email to sudo-discuss-leave(a)sudoroom.org
More options at
https://sudoroom.org/lists/postorius/lists/sudo-discuss.sudoroom.org/
6 May
6 May
12:57 a.m.
Eric seems to have unsubscribed from this list, which is good because it
doesn't seem like he is ready for the changes that are being proposed.
I believe that Eric's emotional response to this proposal highlights the need
for us to have these discussions.
If anyone has specific critiques of the proposal, or even fundamental
amendments they would like to make, they should make those suggestions and
participate in the larger discussion which will involve all active Omni
collectives. We have to work together to construct something we can all agree
on.
Saying that there is no problem to be solved is easy for people who are not
experiencing the problem, so please recognize that there is a problem and help
build a way to address it.
And for anyone who is thinking to themselves "i'm so tired of hearing about
racism" just imagine how tired are people of color, of having to live with it.
If you've lived your life enjoying the benefits of the white supremacy and
patriarchy that you were born into, now is a great time to start questioning
that, and making an effort to share the power and privilege you've taken for
granted.
-jake
On Thu, 5 May 2022, Eric O'Connor via sudo-discuss wrote:
It is not an
option to simply reject the proposal
Why is that not an option? This ultimatum is insane — not only is this the
most over the top bureaucratic structure I can imagine, they actually
document the format of the upcoming struggle sessions, er, “self critiques”.
And I thought they claimed to not be literal tankies?
Good luck with all that, I will be recommending that people stay far away
from the Omni, and taking my own advice, too.
Eric
On Thu, May 5, 2022, at 20:56, Jake via sudo-discuss wrote:
Dear Sudoroom,
Today I voted in behalf of Sudoroom in favor of the MOP proposal, and they are
now a member collective of Omni Commons. I emailed about them on April 20th
but didn't hear anything back, so I hope everyone is okay with that decision.
Today a proposal was introduced for a new committee to be formed at Omni
Commons to value and protect the safety and interests of BIPOC/Non-Men.
this is the original proposal in PDF form:
https://omnicommons.org/pipermail/consensus/attachments/20220505/ab900701/a…
this is an editable "cryptpad" and
we are requested to "please leave comments in red"
https://cryptpad.fr/pad/#/2/pad/edit/6IhZqwyXxN6CrEvtiljmnqTa/
actually this is a cryptpad copy of their document just for sudoroom, and I
will forward our discussion to Rafiq to integrate our input.
Other collectives are asking questions too, so if you want to be more engaged
in the discussion, please join the [omni-consensus] list! But definitely make
discussion here in the sudoroom list and get engaged.
If Sudoroom members have concerns or objections, we need to communicate them
promptly and work toward agreeable amedments. It is not an option to simply
reject the proposal, but rather if you have specific concerns then we need to
work with each other to address those concerns and come up with something
agreeable.
-jake
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Yardena Cohen <yardenack(a)gmail.com>
Hey all, I'm boosting this email with a new subject line so that it's
clear to readers - this contains an important new proposal!!!
Brief summary: this proposal forms a congress of BIPOC and non-men
from all Omni's groups, who then elect a small committee which has its
own seat on the board, its own delegate, and a few specific powers
related to addressing racism and sexism. This is an important step
towards making omni representative and accountable! This finally
begins to put our Statement of Solidarity into action!
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: rafiq.ali <rafiq.ali(a)protonmail.com>
Date: Thu, May 5, 2022 at 12:16 PM
To: <consensus(a)lists.omnicommons.org>
I added a little note at the beginning on our proposal and the events
from 2 weeks ago. Happy to provide a short statement. In general, I
appreciate the apologies made and think this can be a growing
opportunity to forge a stronger collective. If it's possible, we can
open discussion on the proposal this week if enough delegates have had
a chance to review with the idea of approving at the next delegate
meeting (or worst case, the one after).
As mentioned earlier, we are proposing the creation of a safe space
Committee (see attached). We appreciate and accept all
feedback/comments/concerns.
In struggle,
Rafiq
CLP
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list -- sudo-discuss(a)sudoroom.org
To unsubscribe send an email to sudo-discuss-leave(a)sudoroom.org
More options at
https://sudoroom.org/lists/postorius/lists/sudo-discuss.sudoroom.org/
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list -- sudo-discuss(a)sudoroom.org
To unsubscribe send an email to sudo-discuss-leave(a)sudoroom.org
More options at https://sudoroom.org/lists/postorius/lists/sudo-discuss.sudoroom.org/
5:14 p.m.
Hi Eric - thanks for offering your immediate thoughts on the proposal; I
was saddened to read your initial reaction last night but have
been endeavoring to meet you where you are coming from. I'd like to respond
more in full at a later time, since you've exemplified a lot of the issues
the proposal attempts to address by inviting discussion in forming an
active framework of empowering BIPOC/marginalized voices. But I thought it
would be helpful to respond urgently to your assertion that the current
system of pointing at Omni's antiquated Safe Space policies is enough. It's
antiquated because no one seems to be stewarding its application when the
most recent safe space issue did come up, and it seems solely to satisfy
the purpose of virtue signaling. The biggest distinction with the proposal
and the current system is that the proposal is a working draft for engaged
implementation, rather than unsubstantiated virtue signaling.
Omni's current Safe Space systems are further blatantly not enough, as
evinced by comments from a delegate of the Chiapas Support Committee in
their intro during last night's Delegates mtg (which y'all can
reference in last
night's mtg notes <https://omnicommons.org/wiki/Event:2022/05/05_Delegates>
):
"this is my first omni commons meeting - i've
been pretty resistant to
joining even though i've been asked to for quite a while. but maryann
reached out and mentioned a bipoc space, so that put me on an alert and
made me a little bit more open to joining you all. some other members
couldn't join tonight. i can provide a report back and see how safe this is
to come into."
Instead of projecting violent intentions and authoritarianism (by using
politicized language) on a group of BIPOC individual seeking ways to safely
engage with the Omni community resisting change (despite Omni's current
dire predicament in facing possible foreclosure at the end of this year), I
really ask you to consider that we are asking to comfortably exist just as
you do in a space historically dominated by white empowered leadership, and
I ask you too not to "police" the way we want to express our experiences
and how we opt to organize ourselves.
I've been learning so much--an emotionally overwhelming amount--from all
these discussions, and I hope you'll be open to learning more with me too.
And thank yous to Jake and Yar for your prompt responsiveness in allyship.
In struggle,
Imma
On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 12:57 AM Jake via sudo-discuss <
sudo-discuss(a)sudoroom.org> wrote:
Eric seems to have unsubscribed from this list, which
is good because it
doesn't seem like he is ready for the changes that are being proposed.
I believe that Eric's emotional response to this proposal highlights the
need
for us to have these discussions.
If anyone has specific critiques of the proposal, or even fundamental
amendments they would like to make, they should make those suggestions and
participate in the larger discussion which will involve all active Omni
collectives. We have to work together to construct something we can all
agree
on.
Saying that there is no problem to be solved is easy for people who are not
experiencing the problem, so please recognize that there is a problem and
help
build a way to address it.
And for anyone who is thinking to themselves "i'm so tired of hearing about
racism" just imagine how tired are people of color, of having to live with
it.
If you've lived your life enjoying the benefits of the white supremacy and
patriarchy that you were born into, now is a great time to start
questioning
that, and making an effort to share the power and privilege you've taken
for
granted.
-jake
On Thu, 5 May 2022, Eric O'Connor via sudo-discuss wrote:
the
https://sudoroom.org/lists/postorius/lists/sudo-discuss.sudoroom.org/
It is not
an option to simply reject the proposal
Why is that not an option? This ultimatum is insane — not only is this most over the top bureaucratic structure I can
imagine, they actually
document the format of the upcoming struggle sessions, er, “self
critiques”.
And I thought they claimed to not be literal
tankies?
Good luck with all that, I will be recommending that people stay far away
from the Omni, and taking my own advice, too.
Eric
On Thu, May 5, 2022, at 20:56, Jake via sudo-discuss wrote:
> Dear Sudoroom,
>
> Today I voted in behalf of Sudoroom in favor of the MOP proposal, and
they
are
> now a member collective of Omni Commons. I
emailed about them on April
20th
> but didn't hear anything back, so I hope
everyone is okay with that
decision.
>
> Today a proposal was introduced for a new committee to be formed at Omni
> Commons to value and protect the safety and interests of BIPOC/Non-Men.
>
> this is the original proposal in PDF form:
>
https://omnicommons.org/pipermail/consensus/attachments/20220505/ab900701/a…
>
> this is an editable "cryptpad" and
> we are requested to "please leave comments in red"
> https://cryptpad.fr/pad/#/2/pad/edit/6IhZqwyXxN6CrEvtiljmnqTa/
> actually this is a cryptpad copy of their document just for sudoroom,
and I
> will forward our discussion to Rafiq to
integrate our input.
>
> Other collectives are asking questions too, so if you want to be more
engaged
> in the discussion, please join the
[omni-consensus] list! But
definitely make
> discussion here in the sudoroom list and get
engaged.
>
> If Sudoroom members have concerns or objections, we need to communicate
them
> promptly and work toward agreeable amedments.
It is not an option to
simply
> reject the proposal, but rather if you have
specific concerns then we
need to
> work with each other to address those
concerns and come up with
something
agreeable.
-jake
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Yardena Cohen <yardenack(a)gmail.com>
Hey all, I'm boosting this email with a new subject line so that it's
clear to readers - this contains an important new proposal!!!
Brief summary: this proposal forms a congress of BIPOC and non-men
from all Omni's groups, who then elect a small committee which has its
own seat on the board, its own delegate, and a few specific powers
related to addressing racism and sexism. This is an important step
towards making omni representative and accountable! This finally
begins to put our Statement of Solidarity into action!
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: rafiq.ali <rafiq.ali(a)protonmail.com>
Date: Thu, May 5, 2022 at 12:16 PM
To: <consensus(a)lists.omnicommons.org>
I added a little note at the beginning on our proposal and the events
from 2 weeks ago. Happy to provide a short statement. In general, I
appreciate the apologies made and think this can be a growing
opportunity to forge a stronger collective. If it's possible, we can
open discussion on the proposal this week if enough delegates have had
a chance to review with the idea of approving at the next delegate
meeting (or worst case, the one after).
As mentioned earlier, we are proposing the creation of a safe space
Committee (see attached). We appreciate and accept all
feedback/comments/concerns.
In struggle,
Rafiq
CLP
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list -- sudo-discuss(a)sudoroom.org
To unsubscribe send an email to sudo-discuss-leave(a)sudoroom.org
More options at
https://sudoroom.org/lists/postorius/lists/sudo-discuss.sudoroom.org/
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list -- sudo-discuss(a)sudoroom.org
To unsubscribe send an email to sudo-discuss-leave(a)sudoroom.org
More options at _______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list -- sudo-discuss(a)sudoroom.org
To unsubscribe send an email to sudo-discuss-leave(a)sudoroom.org
More options at
https://sudoroom.org/lists/postorius/lists/sudo-discuss.sudoroom.org/
1:08 a.m.
On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 10:51 PM Eric O'Connor via sudo-discuss
<sudo-discuss(a)sudoroom.org> wrote:
Because for the people who wrote the proposal, something like this is
necessary for them to participate. If it's not passed, they will stop
volunteering. Omni cannot survive without our volunteers, especially
at this critical time.
It is not an
option to simply
reject the proposal
Why is that not an option? This ultimatum is insane — not only is this the most over the top bureaucratic
structure I can imagine,
What structure do you think would make more sense? I don't understand
how this is overly bureaucratic - a congress which elects a committee
seems pretty straightforward to me. In my experience, trying to
achieve direct democracy among dozens to hundreds of people would lead
to more complexity than a simple group of 5 people with 6-month terms
and a few limited powers.
they actually document the format of the upcoming
struggle sessions, er, “self critiques”
What is a "struggle session"? Are you talking about the proposed
election process, where people elect a committee? Why would you call
that a "struggle session"?
I think you may have misread the proposal. You are quoting a sentence
from the introduction which says, "While we believe that growth and
the ability to self-critique and apologize should be extended to all
but the gravest offenses, we have to reimagine the way spaces are kept
safe for BIPOC/Non-Men". In context, the phrase "self-critique" is a
general statement of principle - that we can forgive people who make
mistakes and own up to them, while also trying to have an
accountability process for dealing with it. What's wrong with that?
And I thought they claimed to not be literal tankies?
What does one have to do with the other? What does adding a BIPOC rep
to our board have to do with the Soviet invasion of Hungary? This
conflation sounds bizarrely similar to the dovetailing of racist and
anticommunist attitudes of the 1950s, stuff like J Edgar Hoover's
obsession with all civil rights protesters being controlled by secret
Russian agents or whatever. Sorry, I'm trying to have good faith and
figure out how you get from points A to B here, but I really can't
think of any other framework which fits this line of thinking.
Good luck with all that, I will be recommending that
people stay far away from the Omni, and taking my own advice, too.
If you're really that quick to judge people for trying to make Omni
more just and equitable, and represent the actual demographics of our
city, then ok, I guess it's your loss.
8:05 a.m.
What structure do you think would make more sense? I
don't understand
how this is overly bureaucratic
The alternative is what we have now — the board of omni delegates handles safe space
issues as per our https://omnicommons.org/wiki/Safer_Space_Policy
<https://omnicommons.org/wiki/Safer_Space_Policy> and
https://omnicommons.org/wiki/Conflict_Resolution_Policy
<https://omnicommons.org/wiki/Conflict_Resolution_Policy> . I also think it would be
perfectly reasonable to ask for transparency in the handling of reported safe space
issues.
Does that not seem significantly simpler? Really — what problems is this proposal trying
to solve other than acquiring power? Many orgs work just fine with a well written
code of conduct and a board that reviews issues, so it’s hard to believe there is an
actual problem being addressed here.
What is a "struggle session"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denunciation_rally
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denunciation_rally>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-criticism_(Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism)
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-criticism_(Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism)>
Sorry, I'm trying to have good faith and
figure out how you get from points A to B here
I’m responding to the document that was proposed, not the events of last week, nor the
race or gender of the authors.
You are quoting a sentence from the introduction which
says,
No, I’m talking about the part where they create a system of writing and distributing
self-critiques for offenses to be determined by the whims of this group. They create a
bunch of investigative powers, but don’t tell us up front what are the policies or
community norms they will be investigating. Have they even read the Safe space policy that
currently exists? Why is this proposal not a (minimal) edit to that existing system?
They give this new organization a block vote at the delegate level. Why do that if this is
not about power?
They are creating an organization of cops, that will also be the judge, jury, and
legislature for all perceived offenses.
If you're really that quick to judge people for
trying to make Omni
more just and equitable, and represent the actual demographics of our
city
I think you can fix a demographics problem without “adding more cops”. The safe space
process already works — unless you or someone else can identify a clear problem with that
process, this seems like its just a fairly transparent power grab.
I’m not sure this email will convince you, but please don’t pretend this is me objecting
to fixing the very real demographics issue we have. That’s not what I’m writing.
Eric
On May 6, 2022, at 01:08, Yardena Cohen
<yardenack(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 10:51 PM Eric O'Connor via sudo-discuss
<sudo-discuss(a)sudoroom.org> wrote:
Because for the people who wrote the proposal, something like this is
necessary for them to participate. If it's not passed, they will stop
volunteering. Omni cannot survive without our volunteers, especially
at this critical time.
It is not
an option to simply
reject the proposal
Why is that not an option? This ultimatum is insane — not only is this the most over the top
bureaucratic structure I can imagine,
What structure do you think would make more sense? I don't understand
how this is overly bureaucratic - a congress which elects a committee
seems pretty straightforward to me. In my experience, trying to
achieve direct democracy among dozens to hundreds of people would lead
to more complexity than a simple group of 5 people with 6-month terms
and a few limited powers.
they actually document the format of the upcoming
struggle sessions, er, “self critiques”
What is a "struggle session"? Are you talking about the proposed
election process, where people elect a committee? Why would you call
that a "struggle session"?
I think you may have misread the proposal. You are quoting a sentence
from the introduction which says, "While we believe that growth and
the ability to self-critique and apologize should be extended to all
but the gravest offenses, we have to reimagine the way spaces are kept
safe for BIPOC/Non-Men". In context, the phrase "self-critique" is a
general statement of principle - that we can forgive people who make
mistakes and own up to them, while also trying to have an
accountability process for dealing with it. What's wrong with that?
And I thought they claimed to not be literal
tankies?
What does one have to do with the other? What does adding a BIPOC rep
to our board have to do with the Soviet invasion of Hungary? This
conflation sounds bizarrely similar to the dovetailing of racist and
anticommunist attitudes of the 1950s, stuff like J Edgar Hoover's
obsession with all civil rights protesters being controlled by secret
Russian agents or whatever. Sorry, I'm trying to have good faith and
figure out how you get from points A to B here, but I really can't
think of any other framework which fits this line of thinking.
Good luck with all that, I will be recommending
that people stay far away from the Omni, and taking my own advice, too.
If you're really that quick to judge people for trying to make Omni
more just and equitable, and represent the actual demographics of our
city, then ok, I guess it's your loss.
7 May
7 May
4:08 p.m.
Agreed with Imma - our current safe space policy is not enough. In
practice, there are significant social obstacles to people feeling
like they have the power to invoke it. There need to be structural
changes to empower people to advocate on behalf of bipoc and non-men.
Many orgs work just fine with a well written code of
conduct and a board that reviews issues, so it’s hard to believe there is an actual
problem being addressed here.
Most orgs have simple hierarchies of power, so they can solve problems
quickly. They have either a central authority or strong bureaucracies.
Omni doesn't. The bogss proposal is an attempt to get some of those
benefits but still enable us to mostly operate with our existing
anti-authoritarian structure or lack thereof.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denunciation_rally
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-criticism_(Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism)
Thanks for this. I was ignorant of those terms! I see how you got
there now. But I would still caution against extrapolating too much
from their use of the term. There are many forms of socialism which
may use some of the same language as Stalin without being Stalinist.
Conflating all forms of this intellectual tradition with Stalin and
Mao would not do justice to anybody.
No, I’m talking about the part where they create a
system of writing and distributing self-critiques for offenses to be determined by the
whims of this group. They create a bunch of investigative powers, but don’t tell us up
front what are the policies or community norms they will be investigating. Have they even
read the Safe space policy that currently exists? Why is this proposal not a (minimal)
edit to that existing system?
Have YOU read it?
The most obvious and glaring oversight of this policy is the question
of *WHO* is enforcing it at any given time and *WHO* gets to
ultimately exercise their judgement. It was written in 2014 by a group
called "challenging dominant cultures" - I was part of that group. We
were naive. We didn't have clear structures about who could join or
claim the name, and over the years it became fraught with disagreement
and uncertainty and withered away, to the point where now when you
even say the name of the group many of us just grimace. Yet to this
day, our policy still claims that questions are to be resolved by "the
CDC working group" - this is totally broken!
https://omnicommons.org/wiki/Safer_Space_Policy
The bogss proposal answers this question by creating a committee to do
just that, and a process for forming that committee. Most of the
verbiage is towards exactly that end. You can think of this as an
edit, but it needs to be more than minimal because that was a huge
omission on our part in 2014.
They give this new organization a block vote at the
delegate level. Why do that if this is not about power?
Personally I'm a materialist feminist and I believe everything is
about power. But in this case, it's not about anybody's personal
desire for power OVER others. It's about making sure that critically
underrepresented perspectives are given more weight in our currently
white-dominated board & delegate meetings. Indeed, the proposal's
authors have written in no guarantees that they will ultimately be on
the committee. These will be elected representatives who get their
power from the entire congress of bipoc and non-men at omni and if
they abuse it, they will be recalled.
They are creating an organization of cops, that will
also be the judge, jury, and legislature for all perceived offenses.
I think it's really harmful to invoke metaphors between this and our
armed, genocidal police+prison system. Nobody's going to get shot or
locked up here. Nonetheless, I think that edits geared at making the
committee seem less "cop-like" would be warmly received.
23 Oct
23 Oct
10:01 p.m.
ok Eric I guess you may have been right, but we weren't ready to hear it at
the time.
-jake
On Fri, 6 May 2022, Eric O'Connor via sudo-discuss wrote:
What structure
do you think would make more sense? I don't understand
how this is overly bureaucratic
The alternative is what we have now — the board of omni delegates handles safe space
issues as per our https://omnicommons.org/wiki/Safer_Space_Policy and
https://omnicommons.org/wiki/Conflict_Resolution_Policy . I also think it would be
perfectly reasonable to ask for transparency in the handling of reported safe space
issues.
Does that not seem significantly simpler? Really — what problems is this proposal trying
to solve other than acquiring power? Many orgs work just fine with a well written
code of conduct and a board that reviews issues, so it’s hard to believe there is an
actual problem being addressed here.
What is a "struggle session"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denunciation_rally
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-criticism_(Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism)
Sorry, I'm trying to have good faith and
figure out how you get from points A to B here
I’m responding to the document that was proposed, not the events of last week, nor the
race or gender of the authors.
You are quoting a sentence from the introduction
which says,
No, I’m talking about the part where they create a system of writing and distributing
self-critiques for offenses to be determined by the whims of this group. They create a
bunch of investigative powers, but don’t tell us up front what are the policies or
community norms they will be investigating. Have they even read the Safe space policy that
currently exists? Why is this proposal not a (minimal) edit to that existing system?
They give this new organization a block vote at the delegate level. Why do that if this
is not about power?
They are creating an organization of cops, that will also be the judge, jury, and
legislature for all perceived offenses.
If you're really that quick to judge people
for trying to make Omni
more just and equitable, and represent the actual demographics of our
city
I think you can fix a demographics problem without “adding more cops”. The safe space
process already works — unless you or someone else can identify a clear problem with that
process, this seems like its just a fairly transparent power grab.
I’m not sure this email will convince you, but please don’t pretend this is me objecting
to fixing the very real demographics issue we have. That’s not what I’m writing.
Eric
On May 6, 2022, at 01:08, Yardena Cohen
<yardenack(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 10:51 PM Eric O'Connor via sudo-discuss
<sudo-discuss(a)sudoroom.org> wrote:
Because for the people who wrote the proposal, something like this is
necessary for them to participate. If it's not passed, they will stop
volunteering. Omni cannot survive without our volunteers, especially
at this critical time.
It is not
an option to simply reject the proposal
Why is that not an option? This ultimatum is insane — not only is this the most over the top
bureaucratic structure I can imagine,
What structure do you think would make more sense? I don't understand
how this is overly bureaucratic - a congress which elects a committee
seems pretty straightforward to me. In my experience, trying to
achieve direct democracy among dozens to hundreds of people would lead
to more complexity than a simple group of 5 people with 6-month terms
and a few limited powers.
they actually document the format of the upcoming
struggle sessions, er, “self critiques”
What is a "struggle session"? Are you talking about the proposed
election process, where people elect a committee? Why would you call
that a "struggle session"?
I think you may have misread the proposal. You are quoting a sentence
from the introduction which says, "While we believe that growth and
the ability to self-critique and apologize should be extended to all
but the gravest offenses, we have to reimagine the way spaces are kept
safe for BIPOC/Non-Men". In context, the phrase "self-critique" is a
general statement of principle - that we can forgive people who make
mistakes and own up to them, while also trying to have an
accountability process for dealing with it. What's wrong with that?
And I thought they claimed to not be literal
tankies?
What does one have to do with the other? What does adding a BIPOC rep
to our board have to do with the Soviet invasion of Hungary? This
conflation sounds bizarrely similar to the dovetailing of racist and
anticommunist attitudes of the 1950s, stuff like J Edgar Hoover's
obsession with all civil rights protesters being controlled by secret
Russian agents or whatever. Sorry, I'm trying to have good faith and
figure out how you get from points A to B here, but I really can't
think of any other framework which fits this line of thinking.
Good luck with all that, I will be recommending
that people stay far away from the Omni, and taking my own advice, too.
If you're really that quick to judge people for trying to make Omni
more just and equitable, and represent the actual demographics of our
city, then ok, I guess it's your loss.
186
days inactive
722
days old
7 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Eric O'Connor -
Imma Regina -
Jake -
Yardena Cohen