Sudo Room

Meeting Notes 2023-12-27

Revision as of 01:37, 28 December 2023 by Paigep (talk | contribs)

NOTE: this document has not been proofread yet, but will be sometime tonight for easier reading

Dec 27, 2023 at 7PM

... or ___ means something was said that was not heard by notetaker. But also,

Attendees

  • sudoer: anonymous but vouched for as a sudo room member
  • sudo room members (Attendance not taken)
  • Patrik from CCL
  • Silver


Agenda

someone is concerned that Pallavi is in the meeting

  • jemma - someone asked if its all right that pallavi is here. concerned with their involvement in past discussions, the last delegate meeting
  • pallavi - i dont know what that means, what do you mean by my involvement?
  • jemma - intense emotions, thats what they are concerned about. not a personal point from me, just voicing someone elses concern
  • pallavi - only comment is one on racial equity. i dont get what their concern is. from a development perspective, if you dont want grants that want racial equity. part of my development strategy, as someone who is trying to create more racial equity to further mission of each group, i think that is something that is needed to be said. if yall are not interested in raising money to create more racial equity, or if you dont want that in your group, that is something you can say or make clear. dont get why there is pushback. racial equity in convo - that is purpose of me being here. if you dont want me here then you are saying as a collective my presence here is not valuable, as someone whos mission is to fundraise for..
  • yar - i dont know what the pushback is, i told her that her input could be useful here, because convo is on PP and she has relationships with some of people there. i trust her and i can promise she is not here to spy on you or take things out of context. she really is here to help. im not what sure what people are afraid to say with her that they wouldnt say otherwise
  • sequoia - certainly if anyone is against racial equity, they should leave. but i can speculate why someone would want a sudo only discussion, but maybe that request should be advanced before the meeting.
  • pallavi - i am omnis development consultant. member of media lab but thats not a collective
  • seqoia - vote on this? yes: Jemma, sequoia, peter, yar, anwar, paige, vote didnt finish
  • jake - i feel like pallavi has expressed professional and personal connection, and has said hyberbolic things against any other options. i hesistate to accepting to PP, and its been said that thinking that is overt racism, was very upsetting when CLP did this. Sudo room meeting is there to determine how sudo room decides. so having pallavi here doesnt make sense to me
  • jemma - two reasons im okay with pallavi here- pallavi is hired rep, also in this meeting... we are not trying to push out one option or another.
  • pallavi - we are all entitled to our own opinions. im here to help sustain what you are doing at omni. had convo here recently with silver where we talked about this - im here to support you whether youre in the building or not. as you are a 501c3, separate from building. im in favor of PP in terms of what ive seen in terms of them executing what they say will. nobody is making any sort of accusations, i can say how things may appear to other folks, not the same as making an accusation. just expressing my opinion as someone who had no connection to PP until i started talking about this proposal to my community members. and then they came to me and told me what PP are about, gave me insight into how they work as an org. there are very few other people invested in omni who have any idea of what is going on with org that we are in direct conversation. because of relationship i have i am in unique position to be a liason. if you are not interested... from what ive seen, the consensus is that people are welcome to having discussions and cracking open what a proposal would look like. if we are trying to do that, then we need people there to speak to both sides. if you have concerns, i want to be someone who can communicate those concerns so we can facilitate a productive conversation
  • jemma - pallavi, when i first met you it was in fundraising, before we hired you. maybe we can hear more about your experience as a dev consultant now, that could be helpful?
  • pallavi - my history, i was the development coordinator and grant writer for hip hop for change, black owned 501c3 in this same neighborhood, in east bay community space down the street. had a variety of different types of initiatives in racial equity in education and social justice areas, like environmental justice, womens justice, lgbtqia. variety of programs where we educated, using hip hop as a vehicle for having discussions. grant writing ive been doing for several years focused on social equity. grants from ___, county of alameda, different gov art councils, in environmental, racial and housing justice. lot of things that are needed to help forward a vision of a just oakland. in talks with city countcil members, thats the vision. grant and funding there is going to making a just oakland. my personal mission and one of the reasons why i didnt want to limit myself to one org, and excited to help omni, so many projects here that would benefit from an advancment in racial justice education, and how that creates a just cultural landscape for oakland. theres a lack of education on the history of this neighborhood and how its changed in last 25 years. and how we need to be able to have conversations to develop racial equity. racial equity needs to be in funding distribution landscape as well as spaces being taken up in the neighborhood. theres no bias towards PP, but saying this to give you an understanding of lens im using, it is pro racial equity. if there is another proposal that is strong on that front, i would love to be positive. but PP is most compelling in terms of addressing that issue. one of the reasons i was hired was because there was an understanding among folks that racial equity issue not only in oakland, but in omni. so i feel like i am here to steward some change in that respect. thats my role. also because i have experienced disparagement of equity here, as a woman of color. thats whats influencing how i move to the space. hard for ppl to come into the space to be impartial. as someone who spends a lot of time in the space, and liasons in the space, hard for me to not be passionate.
  • jake - i want to give some history, of how TANC tried to join, and CLP blocked them. I would like to support PP. CLP was blocking people of color not in agreement. discouraging. support for putin.... these concerns are reason people are hesitating.
  • sequoia - we can have a discussion about things you are discussing jake. i think pallavi you have a lot of experience and sudo room is lacking there. for this dicussion, we can...
  • jake - pallavi has said, and expanding on concerns, pallavi had volunteered to ___ with PP. i never said i would block pallavi to be here, just expressing concern
  • eric - if we want to have a SR discussion, all due respect, very passionate for omni, very glad you are part of the team, but i think your presence will not be helpful. sudo room needs to figure out what sudo rooms deciscion is
  • jemma - ___
  • yar - so there is someone who specifically doesnt want Pallavi here? is that person here?
  • sequoia - theres a clear issue, pallavi is a member of omni commons, my sense is there is a strong distrust between sudo room and PP. people seeing pallavi partial to PP. but based on what pallavi said - i hear you have some passion, sudo room needs space to talk about things, but lots of distrust. pallavi is here i dont want to kick her out
  • pallavi - another thing i should have stated, im mostly here just to listen. i want to know how to best advocate for people here because i am also in other conversations and want to make sure everyones voice is represented. a lot of people dont know what the actual concerns are. want to help ease the concerns of facilitation. at the end of this meeting, you are going to have to type up something of what your concerns are. you can go about it that way or i can hear it directly here. i think id get a better understanding if i heard everyone speaking
  • jemma - i think best to go for vote for keeping pallavi in meeting. yes: most people no: ? aside: jake, and some others
  • jake - pallavi you are invited to stay, but want to comment on listening to us. to clarify for me, there is an issue of lack of trust. so in times of people having a lack of trust, and navigating that conversation, more complicated with someone supporting the other party
  • anwar - is pallavi really more connected to PP than omni?
  • jake - yes she expressed support
  • anwar - right but that support/relationships with PP has existed for shorter than her support for omni has. and omni people have sought out those relationships in that same time period, as we should considering the circumstances.
  • jake - ok pallavis connection to sudo room...
  • sequoia - we are 40 minutes in can we move on

Peoples Programs proposal, and other options

  • sequoia - my impression is i want to find a path to work with PP. im not sure if 100% is requirement to get grants. strongly in favor of 50-50. not sure that PP knows that much about our groups. we can offer some things to PP, repair clinics, programming classes, things we already do. lots of benefits we can offer. and benefits of comingling groups. my general takeawy from meeting is that sudo room and omni commons do need to learn more about what it takes to be antiracist
  • anwar - should we do straw poll on how ppl feel about proposals? 100% vs 50-50 vs no partnership
  • carl - any updates? since last delegates meeting
  • jemma - other than what i saw in email thread from yar, no
  • yar - im strongly in favor of PP but i think 100% is nonstarter. but 50-50 makes sense for so many reasons. also i dont think anyone is saying youre racist for hesitating. i hesitated too. took time learning that PP is not CLP, PP are people doing real work and not interested in picking a bunch of fights like clp was. people hesitating is fine, I want to work with that. i have seen that as more ppl meet peoples programs in real life, the more they get in favor. most people against it are the ones who are only reading their blog, they are talking about fictional characters. dont blame you, if i only read their blog and twitter id also be against them but i want to be able to work through this and talk about the real things. 50-50 is a starting point. anything other than 50-50 is going to be ___ because then we have to talk about monetary values. also in favor of neither group owning land, have some land trust own it and we both have long term leases but that requires us making a connection we have not yet made
  • pallavi - i think PP will be amenable to split ownership
  • jemma - im in support of general proposal 100%, but 50% 50% makes sense, prevents a group pulling out and screwing things up unilaterally. if theres concern that people programs would come in and pull out, if someone pulls in $870k, scary money, good to have those protections. something for lawyers to discuss, but having something spelled out that we want is important. for example, CCL needs time to move a lab, so they would need something like a 4 month note to move. yea nobody wants to move but ppl want to have those legal protections
  • jake - i dont understand, your saying like CCL should get a 90 days notice in an agreement? thats what were heading for?
  • jemma- what we are heading towards right now is 90 days to foreclosure
  • jake - im asking specificailly, is we are wanting to change the present situation, to one where we are a tenant and can be kicked out at anytime?
  • jemma - with support of 100% that would be possible, but 50-50 would not be possible. but to be clear i havent sat with the 50-50 proposal. i have heard some things from paige on how we should move forward, what things we need. and maybe, yea jake, this is something we need. you're right how do we ensure not getting kicked out. perfectly fine point to raise
  • peter - maybe some insurance of staying in this specific space. ensure sudo room not moved to a different part of the building. i.e. this specific space is sacred to sudo room, that one ccl
  • anwar - maybe it shouldnt be easier or harder to move sudo room. if currently, sudo room was able to moved in omnis current governance, it should just be as easy after this proposal.
  • yar - my proposal keeps decision making process the same, but there would be some parts of the building that are no longer under direct control of omni. legally jesse described it like a condo. if you buy a condo, what you are owning is a share of a property, and have a contract that you have part of that property. we would own this just like a condo owner owns their apartment. also the proposal i made is that any projects and tenants of omni would be represented by omni as they are now. groups have a delegate to delegate meeting. proposal is - as we add new groups with PP, find ones we both agree to, and those groups would get representative to omni commons. but there would be a mutual understanding that over time, the delegates composed of these groups would be black and indigenous, so omni commons itself less white dominated
  • jemma- omni the building or corp?
  • yar - the corporation, voice for projects and tenants
  • jake - are we talking about pp as part ownership of omni the building or the corp?
  • yar - no the building
  • jake - ok, thats an important distinction.
  • yar - proposal is: 4799 shattuck property, 50% would be owned by the 501c3 corporation peoples community foundation, and other 50% would be owned by omni commons the 501c3. tenancy in commons agreement
  • jake - when youre talking about collectives joining...
  • yar - we have lot of empty rooms, we would still agree we want to fill. im saying my vision for a shared governance, new groups coming in should be mutually agreeable to both 501c3's. those groups would get representative in the board of delegates. wouldnt be pp runs whole building with central committee. pp owns ballroom entry hall... or as we negotiate. omni as a corporation owns rest of building and governance of those spaces still composed of delegates of projects and tenants
  • anwar - folks that join omni-owned space get delegates. if PP get another room and rent that, it wouldnt be part of omni commons and that group wouldn't get a delegate?
  • yar - yea thats idea im proposing. its possible if people really disagree, if they want to partition
  • anwar - i like your proposition, just wanted to clarify
  • yar - we are dealing with a group that is anticapitalist, they dont internalize ideas of marketplace and state, and they want to operate in a way that makes sense to them. we are trying to make a contract that represents what we want the best in legalese, but its not how we are going to move day to day
  • sequoia - i think there are two questions. 1. are we as a group, in principle in favor of 50-50 split? 2. if we are in ?????
  • sequoia - sounds like most people in favor. anyone not in favor?
  • carl and eric not in favor,
  • sequoia can you discuss concerns, and what you are in favor of?
  • carl - main concern of ownership. very against 100% cuz they could kick us out at any time. i agree with our lawyer that ownership should be based off market value. the reason for that is that if they owned more that, they could sell their half and make a lot of profit off that. not fair to us and as a negotiation we should have started at market value at least. im not saying that equates to governance. governance of the space... we could have a governance that is 50-50 where ownership in line with market value. i have other things to say about other aspects but will hold back on that
  • eric - hear you say yar, that they are anticapitalist. but i see approaching a distressed group facing foreclosure and saying you want 100% ownership as one of the most capitalistic ways to approach. not seeing anticapitalism in the offer. proposals waved in the air, its an outside group. excellent conversations with some of their members. but ownership should be based on something not just drawn out of the air. open to other things in terms of governance structures
  • anwar - correct me if wrong but yars proposal specifies that no group can sell unilaterally.
  • yar - to the extent its possible
  • --- - thats not possible
  • yar - one pro for havign 0-0 and a land trust owns it
  • sequoia - what if there was a contract, in deed, that omni had right of first refusal to buy it
  • anwar - theres housing in stanford, where you can only sell housing if it is to other stanford professors. precedent for putting things in lease. i dont think 50 50 is arbitrary, its a sign we are working together. 50 50 is a clean number, but it has a point. talking about ownership and governance. again extension of faith, but could put protections against peple selling out. make it clear we are not selling out. you can give ownership that is not out market value. would that alleviate part of your concern?
  • carl - someone said right of first refusal, i dont have the expertise on that, but if it is the case that omni needs to be able to put up the money to buy the other half, doesnt seem like that much protection
  • sequoia - sounds like a point of research. personally im not worried about them acquiring it then flipping to sell. they are passionate about their community, initially said to be selling it is a crime. im not persoanlly concerned but if you want to cover your ass in the contract, we should do this all as a more informed group to research legal protections.
  • anwar - good show of faith to add that we are not interested in cashing out
  • carl - looking ahead, theres always a chance of divorce, could split up. if we have a divorce and they get 50%, not equitable to us. i think thats why market value is critically important for our decisions
  • sequoia - moved by pallavis talk on racial equity. important to consider these thinhs, but if we as a group, if in the end we give a black group more equity, not bad thing
  • jake - can you give more clarification on second part
  • sequoia - i agree covering our assess is good due diligence, but not concerned about that outcome personally. if in the end omni has donated money to a black run group doing good for community. dont want to end deal for remote possibility that we give black org more money
  • yar - in order to due market value, would need assessment which would cost 1000s
  • jake - not true. we can just agree on a number
  • yar - this amount of money will hopefully pale to amount of money putting in building in this scenario, we will be debt free. all money then would go to building. from abundance midnset, getting more than giving
  • peter - we dont even have to use our own money, if pallavi helps us to get grants. resilincy hubs. for example storm shelter omni did. we could be lined up for a windfall for money once the whole ownerhsip thing is settled
  • yar - our lawyer specifically said that a transfer of 50% would not trigger a tax reassessment. and finally to last point - that their opening proposal was to own outright. they came on too strong. it was the result, when silver first reached out, silver said something like they should own the building. so they were responding to that. but now that it is in more conversation, more realistic path forward coming up. it was bold but not ____
  • eric agree to disagree
  • jake - severe problem with silver where they tried to attack me
  • anwar - our requiring market value is not anti-capitalist despite our claim that we are anti-capitalist
  • jake - capitalism is when you use your capital to get a leverage
  • anwar - we are using leverage, in that we could foreclose
  • jake - what we are asking for is fair percentage given fair value of the place and amount give in
  • anwar - fair by defintion of capitalism
  • jake - agree to disagree. want to know about second half of sequoias question
  • sequoia - do want to say that peoples programs, lets say they put in 30% and we give them 30%... two things, i am very moved by question about racial equity. market rate ignores racial equity. very clear to me that omni commons, we provide for black community but have had members of black communtiy say they are not welcome here. 50-50 is a welcoming into the space.
  • yar - we want to do whatever prevents that possibility of selling
  • carl - but its a very real possibility. we can get to the other aspects besides financial, im really concerned that we will end up not getting along and there will be a split. too many conflicts just getting to this point. to me it doesnt feel like a really good relationship.
  • anwar - if we want to consider worst case scenario, not saying unlikely, just worst case, the other proposals have their worst cases too we need to consider, i.e. LLC could require liquidation, land trust worst case like that one...
  • thomas - wondering how a split works. saw one where they own the ballroom and space out here, and omni commons is renting spaces. if they get a vote on who rents, then that can affect omni income. when you get in a contract, cant assume they are reasonable. if they do something malicious, they can go after every tenant we want to add and our income plummets. in that way, they can impact our income but we cant impact theres
  • yar - that is true
  • jake - part of problem is we dont have trust. our efforts to build trust have been rebuffed
  • yar - have you met anyone from PP in person?
  • jake - i dont know
  • yar - not that hard to do
  • anwar - they have invited us to events, have done efforts to build trust, would say that our efforts to build trust have been welcomed not rebuffed
  • jake - im talking about specific cases
  • pallavi - i think this is dangerous territory speaking for other people
  • jake - witnessed with own eyes. said iranian dissidents would not be safe
  • yar - the notes did not reflect everything
  • jake - i was watching. also didn't distance from CLP. also not taking down the tweet
  • jemma - those were things they addressed, did not give direct response. were very clear they are not CLP and not very close. willing to work with us. request they made was that we need to do antiracist efforts on our part to take down boycott
  • jake - concept is manipulative. directly from CLP. if people dont recognize how harmful clp was. they were ones who brought PP forward
  • yar - thats the worst thing i could say about them, PP i mean
  • jemma - yea that is making it harder
  • carl - since i havent been heavily involved in Omni Commons, up to delegate meeting i have reserved judgments about accusations of racism. i came to delegates meeting just to listen and observe. i came out of that meeting with real concerns. last thursday meeting. one of them was what jake just brought up with clps boycott. i went and looked at twitter and its still there. they did not take down the retweet and they did not own up to it in the meeting. they blamed it on clp, said they are not clp. didnt own up to retweeting it. really concerning to me. similar behaivor to what clp was doing. not distancing themselves. i also heard a lot of accusations of past racism. im reserving judgment because i dont know whats going on. but i also heard generic acussations of racism during the meeting. as far as what i witnessed, i didnt see any racism at that meeting. what are people accusing people of? im there at the meeting not witnessing it. if they are making false accusations of racism, then what about those past times?
  • carl - also i dont know who this person was, someone on video chat. they said as a specific example that SR proposal to make an LLC was racist. that struck me as, i cant agree to that. i dont think our proposal for LLC is at all racist. dont know who that was, so maybe someone can tell me who that was?
  • jemma sequoia want to speak to that
  • carl - if this group is going to act in similar ways to clp, and we decided to kick clp out of the omni - to have them be part of omni? this is basically a marriage. clp we just were dating and broke up with. we are talking about marriage here. i am seeing red flags. i dont know if this is going to last very long, i can see a lot of accusations being thrown around, and conflict. i would prefer a group with much better relationship. im greatly concerned about this, im feeling like i would not. if alternative plan where they wanted to buy out building for market rate, i would be open to that
  • jemma - some of those things are things i talked about in meeting as well. i remember us talking about microloans, then LLC plan, that happened before PP proposal. I beleive yemi made comment you're referring to. i totally understand why they would think that. another thing, taking apart white supremacy in ourselves. black group comes in and can feel like an invasion. workbook i went through during blm that was helpful, sit through feeling uncomfort is important, how we support white supremacy culturally. i think there are going to be some rough patches. stil conversations i want to make myself, like still part i want to discuss about "come outside" comment. i stumbled how i phrased it in meeting. there are better ways for me to come to that conversation. need to work on not talking past each other. i cant answer for everyone what that means. for PP to give us that education in meetings... something i heard from abbas in particular, is that no one from omni has apologized. lets build this trust, let's see what happens. in several ways there are still a lot of discussions i need to make happen. i have not had secret conversations, the reflections i am making on my own. theres a lot of feelings that are built into ourselves, for everyone, not just white people, that support a white supremacist structure. both sides are going to screw up, and we are going to have to address that. want to find way to bring in restorative justice, way for both of us to heal. i want to figure that out. it would be really cool to have this group do these things here. my concerns forwards - dont want to redline the omni. i dont want to just break it up, some people on this side, some on the other. arguing over percentage point. but i also understand all thsee legal concerns, i am not a legal person. i dont want to cause more hurt, but build a better stronger community
  • sequoia - i was one of the people in the email list, i put forward proposal about equity in building. look at market rates. in going to this meeting, i feel that in many ways, that was a mistake. failed to realize what this building meant to community. PP were a bit pissed off, they come with proposal to keep it for the community, i was one of people advocating for this, saying we should sell this building. i think people pissed off by that. the thing in that meeting, as soon as a black group makes this proposal, you go to sell the building. i think thats a sign of lack of trust. we live and grew up in white supremacist society. i had to learn primarily from youtube, podcasts, authors. known that poc experience racism every single day. term i heard was microaggressions, and id agree that group of white ppl with group of black people would have those. i dont see as a red flag but as a expected. 50-50 gives opportunity to hang out and build that trust
  • patrik - thank you sequoia for bringing up tenants in commons. i dont think its bad idea. i do not think we should do 50-50. best 60-40 but 70-30 much more fair offer. these percentages do not reflect voting rights. all partners would still have to agree to major decisions, and all partners would be able to sell their share. they could buy out. would also need to have a contract to give what parts of building people get control of. pp with ballroom and disco for events planning. where omni gets space that are rentable. i brought this idea up to get talk on trust issue. this is just my personal suggestion, not sure that CCL would agree to this, a lot of the issue there are there about radical political talk supporting russia over ukraine, support of iranian gov, same revolutionary rhetoric of clp, and still crossposting what clp is posting. dont think anyone in CCL is standing up for PP either with tenants in common agreement. trying to push them to come to these meetings to learn more about PP, but whichever way it goes i dont know that i can sell an idea like this to CCL.
  • jemma - (reading chat comment from pallavi: "are the conflicts happening in omni leadership?"
  • pallavi - moved past that comment now. there was a comment earlier about all these problems with PP, but i wanted to ask if those issues happening within current omni delegates.
  • jemma - i believe last time i was only delegate who said no to continued engagement but changed my position
  • ajay - (comment from chat) if no, what is your yes? how many days for an alternative
  • jake - 85 days after notice of default of lender, which is jan 1 soonest day they can do that
  • (comment from ?? in chat) - can we invite PP members to the CCL meeting?
  • patrik - no CCL would need to do that invite. do not think they would appreciate PP joining
  • (comment from ?? in chat) - would we be able to use ballroom for events? does PP follow our charter
  • patrik - in case in tenants in commons, contract between partners that outlines those kind of things
  • (comment from Patrik in chat) - is there a point person on LLC option? just had an old CCL member interested in loans around 100k"
  • eric - yea ill take those contacts after
  • yar - patrik, my concern is, i understand just going off of their blog post and twitter, i wouldnt like them either, but im in favor because of what ive seen in the real world. do you think there is any way where the naysayers in CCL could have a real life interaction with someone from PP? or someone who had something nice to say about them?
  • patrik - if meetings not at same time, would love yar for you to come to them.
  • jake - two ians part of CCL. can we clarify who is in chat?
  • patrik - at least two
  • jake - something that happened in past, dec 5th or dec or oct, big contentious meeting between abbas and ian.
  • yar - conflict involved the ian who applied to be a sr member who hangs out there all the time.
  • yar - we are talking about oct 12, ian went to microphone, practically booed off the stage.
  • ian - im not that ian, i do mirror patriks sentiment, everything that i have heard thus far. down if someone wants to take 30%. if this is the godsend that we need, thats great. only reservation i have really is that is a group that focuses so much on race, in itself is racist,
  • yar - its not
  • ian - but do understand we live in a white supremacist world id love to keep an open mind and start an open dialogue.
  • jake - my concerns are if we entered that partnership, im not saying this is our best path forward, but i realize im outnumbered. anti-racism is very important and core to me, and thats why i was so against clp, because they mobilized on that in bad faith. so without being able to find what i need to trust people. questions not getting answered for me. but if other people trust, happy to involved (??). but if what it is what im worried about is true, i want sudo room to focus on the details, focus on sudo room being protected. depending how you calculate ownership or equity, but on metrics of rent, sudo room would be main co-owners of equity, we could say that .. if building worth $3million, omni would have $2million worth. this does not have to do with making affirmative movements towards transfer of wealth to black org. how comfortable sudo room is... sudo room being in my mind, to some extent an anti-racist org. but also an anti-authoritatin org. i feel like pp kinda is an authoritarian org, and they dont see value in SR. heard others say SR is hobbyist org for white people. i want sr to focus on sr ability to continue in this space or another space. i.e. we stay here and are protected from pressure to move or fundamentally change values. or require that SR be bought out from collectives that want to stay or someone else. or SR encourages a sale. my ideal - pp would be what we think they are, legitimate community org that is not based on an authoritarian exclusionary politic, but hard to believe that based on what theyve said. im hoping for collaboration, but cant trust that is true based off interactions. i have been called a lot of things for these questions. what im asking us to do is recognize that in the process of making this positive thing come true, we also need to hold on to ___ with or without other members of other collectives
  • jemma - clarifying - you want to ensure financial equity protected, and you want a buy out option?
  • carl - a buy out option means they pay us x amount, and we can use money to go to a new place.
  • jemma - the buy out option is wanted as a protection?
  • jake - that option exists if PP goes "we want SR out, we want a black community center, and we want black orgs in here". Im saying in the case that they prefer to get us out, then thats something they can bring up. if they dont want to bring that up, thats good im not asking for that, there was a time that i was deadset against trying this, but at this point im trusting beyond my faith in the sense that, we are moving towards working with them. also because im seeing lack of support for the skepticism i have. sudo room is not about what i think. but PP still might want that.. to give extra money out to make SR go away, and should be process for that.
  • eric - clarifying point. i think that option ___. if we get foreclosed on, we still own equity in the building. could use value we already have as community building to buy a suitable building. omni is too big of a building. we have this underutilized ballroom space. hard to wield.

missing some notes

  • eric - needs some softening of the idea. need to get rid of the idea that you either should support this or should be ashamed of yourself. that was brought up multiple times. i can both have empathy for plight of other people and not want this option
  • patrik - yea were some things concerning me. like comment about white europeans hoarding space. somebody said if theres a black community space, and theres a group in there that is white dominated, then ______. if that is not ok, then what is plan to do in the future? also this narrative that we were given the building, i think appalling. this was coming from people who were involved in omni. there was a huge amount of effort, not just by ppl running omni but ppl running collective. collectives pay rent to fund this. initial $1m donation, lot of leg work to land that donation
  • anwar - i am hesitant about idea of splitting, and deciding how much each collective worth. how much money weve paid in, in that other groups have had differnet capacity to pay, have done different amount of volunteer work. dangerous to try and split up value. im new here, but SR as part of its identiy, is part of omni commons, and talking about splitting from omni commons is a betrayal to omni istelf.
  • jake - youre saying sudo room leaving omni commons would be a violation of sudo rooms own standards? i would disagree. sudo room came first, transformed into the omni commons, what we are in right now. sudo room gave 501c3 to exist. for sudo room to not give it to an authoritarian group, who have incompatible political beliefs - i dont think thats any violation of its original design
  • anawr - interesting train of thought.
  • yar - i agree, any attempt to find a number amount, to determine amount of wealth sudo room has of omni, is really difficult. peoples programs is not and will probably not ever be in position to say what are the mutual shares of sudo room or ccl or fnb, if omni is liquidated. i think that is a separate convo. i think any conversation would have to leave it to omni to make those deciscions. want to go back to conversaion about accusation of racism. if you want a group that will not make any accusations of racism, then what you want is a white group. and thats what we have been getting
  • anwar - other half of my thought - the way that jemma brought up about redlining omni, addresses white dominated group. one of big benefits is that pp has strong connections in black community, and can bring that community in to omni, the community that we have failed to do appropriate outreach and programming for. want to see a future where a lot more black people come into sudo room / omni. in the future if we have the potential for black members but still a white dominated group, then we deserve questioning at that point
  • peter - want to respond about sudo rooms core, that this was somehow threatening. if that level of ostraciszination setting, a lot changing right now. one thing we have to be willing to do right now is be dynamic. this building is a organizstm living that houses these things. sudo room in dynanmising instead of insisting sudo room stays as is
  • yar - i had no idea how popular axis of resistance is . iran support of proxy wars. im still against iran but ive been surprised by ways things are turning out.
  • sequoia - want to speak to what jake is saying. sudo room very important to me. reason i moved to neighborhood i did when i moved to oakland. very important it exists into the future. i believe proposal im advocating for would serve that. in favor of legal language to cover asses. said that PP dont appreciate sudo room. how can we share what we offer with PP? we can teach people that people programs bring in repair classes. the fact that they dont appreciate us doesnt
  • paige - CLP had that accusations. PP was very supportive of Sudo Room mission
  • eric - when i did speak with some of them, struck up conversation, found we had grown up with people in common. peoples breakfast program etc. but then when it came time to talk about the omni and sudo, i spoke in depth with two. they had no understanding what sudo room was. long standing thing with online presence. they were making this argument that they should take over community but havent done research to the building
  • anwar - i think thats more on us than them we've not successful at outreach
  • eric - but we have robust wiki and website and open house
  • anwar - i didn't say we haven't tried
  • jemma - very happy, time check. i do want to raise that it is important to protect sudo room. i am the delegate for sudo room, want to make a decision to keep sudo room around. appreciate conversations to protect our asses. not the most fun thing to do on a wednesday. want to highlight : make sure sudo room is not an easier to move 2. cost equity of building to be explored, and governance. 3. try to figure out how no party can sell unilaterally 4. even tho ownership broken down, governatnce not necesarily have to say. 5. addressing retweet of boycott. 6. we must protect sudo room, why am i rep if im not trying to protect it. i understand complicated question given equity, not easy conversation 7. accepting change is also important. probably going to be a lot of discomfort for a lot of us. i know my change can be surprising. i was only delegate that said no last week, did a lot of reflection, talked to my support structure, appreciate being a part of this
  • patrik - is there a delegates meeting tomorrow?
  • jemma - thats my understanding
  • jake - i request that delegates spend time just talking to other delegates. and preparing for any ___ that delegates plan to present. Also to the CLP questions - are they going to welcome and bring in CLP, or rafiq, whoever that is.
  • anwar - i _______________
  • carl - i think the delegates meetings should just be for delegates and omni. the group making the proposal should be a separate meeting.
  • anwar - i dont think we have time for separate meetings. but i think its fine to have split time for just delegates
  • carl - they are an external group, we should be deliberating amongst ourselves
  • jemma - there was supposed to be time for that, but i think that is something everyone pushing for
  • jake - im including omni here, i think only delegates should go
  • jemma - honestly that sounds good to me. a few times we didnt have quorum. just me natalie and patrik. how do you feel patrik
  • patrik - normal time is 7pm. yea i agree we should have meetings without pp. shoehorned into PP being only option by them being inviting to our meetings over and over again
  • jemma - for tomorrow do you have a preference between only delegates, then people shoiwing up
  • patrik - i dont have preference. one thing we may want to discuss is asking pallavi is with community land trust options. she is dev coordinator so she should be helping with that
  • anwar - are we in sudo room forward for going with non100% ownership proposal with PP.
  • sequoia - even if we did pursue community land trust, i still think, if we solved all our financial problems tomorrow, would still want to see pp in the building
  • yar - im not against LLC idea either, because if that happens, it buys us time to have a conversation, and not make people feel averse. i am doubtful it will actually materialize.
  • jake - i want to respond because as someone who was really pushing LLC, because at time there was a lot of hesitance to give building to PP, and we have been chipping awau at concerns, but realized it didnt solve our problems, because if LLC materializes, we still have an embargo against our events. CLP embargo says unless we do something drastic, like give buildign to pp, i cant really in good faith tell loan people that we can move forward because events eviserated
  • patrik - i think omni can pay off loan even if just relying on rent. dont need event space
  • in chat*
  • sudoer - fwiw i support a 50/50 split
  • patrick - 70/30
  • waffle - 70/30 with ballroom access
  • a(h)jay - 50/50
  • jake - very impressive facilitation work and note taking.
  • yar - can you put that jemma is awesome in the notes
    • Patrik: And Paige for note taking!
  • sequoia - thanks for all work you are doing, totally normal to have disagreements. great working with all of you.

Agenda item 2

x - late to the party and interested in re-activating sudo mesh

Retrieved from "https://sudoroom.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Meeting_Notes_2023-12-27&oldid=12364"