January 10, 202

Attendees

in person

paige: they/them been a delegate 4-5 times recently and first came in 2021
alex - he/him
eric: answer. codelegate with paige
elon - first time yesterday
arthur - here often but my parenting schedule has never lined up
sierk
alex
jake
ccl - [who was this?]
ally - he/him not part of sudoroom but have been exploring omni commons. free store volunteer. ally as in alliance
peter - he/him
jason - he/him
yar - she/her, part of sudoroom since halloween 2012, first meeting, really hope we can save the building and prevent it from getting sold off, need to be on same page

online

sequioa: she/her aka taylor is fine too, sudoroom member since 2019, really looking forward to getting us on the same page and finding solutions to our big problems
jems - they/them delegate til recently . stepped down as delegate
angl3a: they/them/she/her OG sudoroom member since before we moved here, monday and tuesday nights
carl: he/him. been since the early days
ed [in chat] - mic not working and needs to find webcam
philip chin
julie meyerson:
muiren: first discovered sudo room late 2016 and when i asked about joining the amount for dues quoted more than i can afford. didnt see due requirement anymore. asked whether there was low income arrangement for membership and they invited me to visit and get to know people. difficult to find anyone who spell out onboarding process and what expectations were. thats been frustrating, nailing that down, making it clear what that feels like when showing up, just dont know whats going on. no sense of hospitality or intentional inclusion. weird thing for a progressive community, to not see the value of doing these things
julie - part of SR for a little over a year now
phil - been a member for about a year. do electronics and fix peoples stuff
eva
will

arrived late

kent
thomas

Roles

facilitator - ally
notetakers - paige, angela, jake

Agenda

straw poll to decide on facilitator

Note taking was not started until after this had been discussed for a while (and in email right before meeting).

Jemma volunteered to be facilitator before meeting. Was contentious. Decided to take a vote

Vote to have Jemma act as facilitator

opposed - jake, eric, arthur
abstain - sierk, alex philip chin
approve - yar, peter, sequioa, angela, paige, muiren

We agree to Paige as facilitator. But Paige is taking notes so needs help

Angela offers support with notetaking and process Also Ally offered as facilitator, and he ended up doing most of it

who should be delegate, trust, conflict, etc.

sequoia - want us to be mindful about level of emotion. see each other in good faith. work from a space of good faith.
jemma - issue that i'm being removed as facilitator. contributes to harm done in our space.
peter - would like to have an update of where we stand on foreclosure
jake - discussing handing over power to ED should be first
carl - jems please dont take offense, doesnt mean your not a good facilitator. the whole goal is to be neutral. and if someone doesnt think thats the case, dont take offense.
muiren - no clue why jemma is not facilitator
jemma - we are based on removing people based off who was harmed. small cliques in our group continuing to cause harm. if they are going to silence people, if we dont address, our collective wont be going on
eric - we shouldn't silence anyone, yea....
yar - from what i heard, they are objecting because jemma named called out racism, transphobia and misogyny
jake - no, there are several reasons
someone calls out jake for interrupting
yar - i interrupted him before its okay. even if that's only one of the reasons, not acceptable to object on that
jake - if someone is making false claims based off bad faith about me that is bad.
yar - its not
jake - if they arent, then they can enumerate. if its based off of racism then they should join
jemma - i should facilitate, majority in favor
angela - i want us to get along, maybe if paige was facilitator people would think it is fair. should we hear jemma out or do a vote?
sequoia - i voted in favor but i dont want... i just want a facilitator that does not cause... jems i do see u got a majority vote. one problem i have with our org is we do not have a process. i would support a straw poll to
carl - question from jamal
jamal - little bit of disagreement on who is facilitator. either i can go to that other meeting now and come back or speak now. i am jamal taylor. board at the last meeting told me to come on given the financial nature the org is in. at current we owe $880k to our lender. we might get a default letter any day that will evict us. when i talked to counsel today, he said patience has run out with the lender. to the extent that it matters to me, priority needs to be saving the building, without finding someone else to do that. i think there are avenues by raising money. and that would come through a set of organizations. there is one that can make a 10 year loan, but we are against a barrel of a gun. things have been communicated to me, we have 4k in the bank. major problem for a building this size. what matters to me is that this building can function. need heads down focused on saving this building. to the extent i have heard, about my qualifications or ability. i will say to you as ed requirement must always be as little distraction as possible. self centering these past 4 weeks, sends signal of where our priorities are. someone came to me with a complaint as ED given a decision made by the board, i took an action to ameliorate by engaging in a thoughtful review. i would invite everyone to be very careful of language used talking to people outside this org, as well as those inside of it. no money if we are sued. many skew toward libel and slander. very mindful how we engage with each other. my priority is that we can afford this building.
jems - question, you said you had a way for an org to bring in money? is that one of current proposals? what is that direction?
jamal - cannot share all details. i want to clear up something brought up before, im not going to blindly accept any idea. when i asked for procurement of money from other proposals, nobody was able to show something. the org i am talking to now has money, they have given 2-3 million dollar loans. i do have connections with congressman who knows someone on that board. my hope is 10yr loan. problem is we had 10 yrs to pay back this loan and were not able to. i will say, when i go to the board, i think we ask for 1.75 mil, to secure loan and repair things that need to be repaired. ballroom needs some work, plumbing electrical code things. no staff members. we have 4k in bank and cant pay people. what i was told in the board, i would raise my own money to pay salary. counsel and i talked and we would set that salary to cap at a global norm. another thing important to name, people are saying I know PP. i do not. i do not operate with fear or favor. several people in this room can vouch i have been critical of things in their proposal. i would ask people to really consider what is important right now. not about "i dont like that person"
jamal - i can not share who the lender is. i have shared it with one board member. im not going to share because of some of the behavior i have seen in ppl misconstruing what the board did. lack of communication about the true place we are
sequoia - glad you are here jamal, i really appreciate how focused you are on solving the big problem right in front of us. you are really articulate and skilled. im friends with jake and was concerned about how the ban occurred. my understanding if you think someone is a problem in SR, do we have a process or if something made on fly, it feels improper. wondering if you could comment? my biggest wish, it seems now like there are two sides on the ban. where jake doesnt want to be banned, and also doesnt trust you. wonder if we could give each other a second chance.
jamal - thanks for that question. to the extent that i will talk about an investigation or set of complaints - i wont. i dont think appropriate space to do that. nor do i think, i dont think way people shared it ?? part of the problem, there are no systems whatsoever. everything seems devoid in this building. therefore my focus on what is going forward. my understanding 30-60 days. to the extent that i have to excuse people of their complaints, i will not. i think it would be inappropriate to mention those complaints in this space. to the extent that people are welcome to speak to me, they would know i am welcome to any conversation. there have been several invitations. im not opposed to conversation, but i think quite frankly, i dont know anyone well enough to prejudge them. i have seen in complaints so far, i have gotten a series of complaints from a lot of people. serious effort being spent on trying to save the building. where a complaint was raised to me, i took an action that i thought was appropriate. im prepared to answer that question but not in a firing squad, and where someone doesnt try to reach out to me. things come up in terms of complaints, we hear complaints of any sort of discrimination, that can put us into a precarious position. any individual is welcome to call me as long as they are respectful and appropriate to me, as i will to them.
jemma: in terms of giving ppl second chances, i have a problem because i am being attacked for the fact of pointing out that other people have had issues. i am removed after majority vote to be facilitator. more harm done by same individuals that caused harm. we need restorative justice, temporary ban is not permanent. not a "purge" or a "removal" or "silencing", it is a harm reduction strategy. still being targeted towards trans people, and people of color. tiring and exhausting. if sudo room wants to move forward, as antimisogynistic, antiracist. i do not believe there should be second chances. i am now being targeted with nothing factual.
yar - i want to clarify what my understanding is. on saturday board of delegates voted to ban jake temporarily for 3 months. after that there was an uproar because it escalated to the mailing list. jamal someone we thought to hire, he saw that as a distraction, so he wanted to dissolve that, again pending some sort of investigation he would take on. he was going to supply the things you were asking for. you wanted it to be on facts, on reality. thats where jamal is coming from. and as it stands now you are not banned, and that was jamal's decision
eric - i want to dovetail. it was me who first raised issues on the meeting. i also have communication from our lawyer, where he indicated specifics of which jamal said he wants to ban two specific people. does a lot to erode my thinking that this would impartial. this would be another show trial. i am resistant to authority, and abandoning omni as horizontal space
yar - never has been
eric - electing a ruler we will live under, under this supervision, this fear of... am i unmutual and i will be banned as well too. these accusations fly around, today i was told i was transphobic and misogynistic. this is not my heart, i see no evidence of this stuff in the space. these words just get thrown around. have trouble with going forward with this ED
jamal - what counsel told you that i said, is hearsay. and 2nd, some members of the board were in our convo on that day, and there was conversation on what my authority would be. as a person who has worked for some of largest school districts in country, i cant understand that in the face of, we regularly find ourselves becoming the victim when people call us out on behaviors that are de facto, cant stop long enough to look in mirror and and hear what people are saying. 1. a board had a responsibility to privacy, people who have served on as trustees, should know that and 2. agreeing to group norms then violating those norms is not acceptable and 3. dishonest statements outside of meetings are not acceptable. those discussions were made outside of the board. if there is suggestion that someone has spoke to me. im going to say as black gay man, im going to take up space i need. i wont let people paint me as an angry black man to be a victim. i ask you to do what you like to do in sudo room, and let the people doing the work do their work. one thing if people dont like me, but to the extent to think im on a witch hunt? not a priority of mine. grasping at trying to be a victim from me is exhausting. happy to help with getting a grant, but to the effect that have i gotten more than 10 complaints about a person? absolutely. and messages about something sent out untrue? absolutely. happy to ask an attorney to do it if you think you dont trust me. there are emails, text messages, voice memo, happy to turn those over. that might be the better option. do i have time to be going back and forth? my goal right now is 900k.
jems - responding to eric here, my attacks not based on feeling. not attacks, just callouts. you asked muslim POC to be removed from our meeting and didnt say it out loud. when you target only POC who is muslim in room thats a problem. caused 40 minutes delay. if they continue to support racism it's a problem
paige - we don't have time for this discussion. this is a temporary break, was best decision to allow us to move forward. i would be much more willing to discuss, what do we do when there's a conflict pushing people out. right now as is, with no structure or process and based off emails, the accused is the one who gets to be more comfortable staying, while accusers are the ones who are pushed away from space. in other spaces, much more normalized behavior of if someone asks you to take a break, u just do. not take it personally like a purge. again, if the emails or questioning was on something like "3 months is too much", or brought up something about the conflict resolution policy, i would not be saying this. but the response went straight to personal attacks, denying any harm done, and conspiracy theories. no specifics were given out but this conspiracy theory was made so quickly that jamal forced us into this vote and its a power grab. so, we can talk about policies but going forward, i think we should be following with conflict resolution, and conflict steward will report to the board.
arthur - if he were in this job, what would be the philosophy or response if foreclosure to happen?
yar - thats should be for delegate not ED
jamal - yar is right, but i can speak for myself. responsibility for assets belongs, in a 501c3, authority for money and budgeting goes to the board. but for situations that just need to be fixed, ED should authorize without approval, typically with a cap of something like $500. in case of foreclosure, too will be messy and complicated, because no process in place for dispensation of assets. i would advise to ask counsel. question is - what about past collectives who have left the space? that is beyond my expertise.
arthur - thank you i appreciate precise answer
carl - i want to thank for mediation so far. this is a question about ED, the plan how you get paid. is that related to some percentage? is that legal or ok?
jamal - counsel is finding the set norm. what is norm for ED in this size, is setting a salary. problem is there is no money right now. what would happen, i would pay myself only after the bills are paid.
carl - i think we'd love to have you help us to help us get loans and grants, but is it necessary for what help you are giving us, is it necessary that you be ED?
jamal - absolutely. you have had two extensions from the lender. in those 2 years we paid almost nothing. they're not going to take the constant slow crawling decision making process that has been going on. not going to accept lower than ED given confusion in this building right now. and we have a grant writer already.
julie - im sorry for my confusion. hearing both SR and OC used interchangeably. if they did end up splitting, where does your loyalty go to?
jamal - no im not hired by SR, Im hired by OC. point i was trying to make earlier, i dont care what happens in SR. technical language: sudo room is a tenant of the building, not my business what it does. if there are complaints that spill outside, where there are complaints are coming from outside sr, and how does sr handle those complaints. thats where we do have some overlap.
paige - clarification, sudo room isn't a tenant, its a fiscally sponsored project of OC
sequoia - point agreed with paige about emails. what ive seen in email list has been wild accusations about people being targeted, a lot of stuff that i want us.. as jamal has emphasized. important thing isnt feelings of individual members. we need to raise over $1 million. feel like we have really big problems is that the last hour and 20mins of meeting has been a lot of hurt and finger pointing. i really want to see people, we need to find ways of being more calm about what is happening. last thing, i want to support what jems said, if someone accused. if someone says 'you're an asshole'. good response is to say 'how am i being an asshole?' this applies to transphobia and racism. if someone says you're racist say 'oh what did i do?' ability to do that without having your guard up and being personally injured by the claim is so important. otherwise we will be arguing till the building burns down.
ally - two new folks in
kent and thomas introduce themselves
jamal - im going to be very brief. amount of capacity you are spending, i appreciate the emotional lift going on. i have some rhetorical questions for you. if youve seen any email ive written, you know ive invited conversation. i have made that space available. i have not gotten any responses from 4-5 of the ppl I specifically reached out to. question is why not? 2nd question, why do i feel that in this space, it feels like weaponization of your time to be engaging in this conversation when there hasn't been a person to person conversation first. i would tell you it concerns me that this place has been weaponized in this way. it would seem to me, if you had something you want to talk to me about, you have not. im confused as to why, as a human people, why space is being taken up in this way. i would ask you to ask yourself, why in the moment, why werent those raised. fundamentally confused because a process was offered. to be made whole was offered. what benefit does this have to you when this building owes the money it does
muiren [in chat] - funding social administration is as important as brick and mortar infrastructure
jemma - because of this harm, im now getting messages about mediation. if i had been facilitator we could have been going forward faster. but no factual reason for removing me. and now talking about mediation? mediation is we need to remove people who have done harm. i have done nothing that has harmed anyone. delegate in the past. need to remove people who have done harm. but i dont want this to be a back room deal. bothered i was attacked today because i had been harmed. to be targetted that way tonight is deeply disturbing and expanding upon harms. you should not behave this way and should be not tolerated by other collective members. calling for accountability as our own collective.
ally - what is your proposal, as in for a ban or time period? im asking, not to say im in agreement
jemma - im asking for removal of eric as delegate
ally - no ban?
jemma - im interested in investigation of those harms. no silencing or talking over each other. not allowing racism transphobia misogyny
carl - jems asking you not being facilitator is not targeting. i dont agree with that. a facilitator needs to to take a neutral position. youre not taking a neutral position. whether you are justified or not, views on what harms been done to you. simple reason why you were asked to not be facilitator. not to silence you. you have had opportunities to stay your piece.
jake - i want to say that there are a lot of instances of vague accusations of raism transphobia and misogyny. all real issues. actual things that happen. if i do something that are these things, i want to know about it. i agree with seq. right response is to ask what have i done. but in situations when its clear to me that it is to silence and ban me from my community, dont agree on who we give building to or who we partner with. that said there are lots of opportunities for the many times i was accused of racism and islamophobia, over and over with CLP and yar. i have asked for them to tell me what i have done wrong, they dont, they whip up a fervor, in terms of CLP they doxxed me and put flyers around. rafiq calls me racist for not giving CLP immediate status as collective. as far back as april these accusations here, but i have asked many times and they dont have anything. clear to me its a accusations to silence me and purge attempt. when i was banned on saturday, i tried to find out what ive accused of. and i heard just a lot of people. i went to mediation with jacqi, and jacqi told me harms were talking about rafiq, i accidentally misgendered them. and that i was racist on sep 21 meeting. email from danielle said it was a vicious attack by me and yar. i have been coming the lists. when i first heard that accusation, i thought there must be something i said i forgot, but didnt find it. asking people to be more mindful, when these issues are brought, they are not brought up in bad faith. i get it im annoying im sorry, but to try and mobilize that against me because i do a lot of things or am present, or in way of political positions, and then not giving me any process of just
Muirén [in chat] - Carl's neutrality is rooted in both-side-ism. There is no neutrality within a society based on a gender and racialized class hierarchy.
Jems [in chat] - Can facilitator keep us on topic? I wasn't here in April
Sequoia [in chat]- Im thinking that since accusations of racism are current to the question of jakes ban, it could be relevant
Carl [in chat] - Muiren, I think you don't understand what I was saying.
arthur - very difficult to participate in these meetings as a single parent. can we keep it more concise
muirén - we need to get back to the survival of the facility
yar - nobody calling for jake to be immediately banned right now. we are all accepting that jake is currently in building and facts are going to investigated. the decision before us tonight, correct if im wrong, who is going to be delegate, and how will they vote on jamals contract
jake - i want to respond thats true
yar - in terms of what you are saying, i care about you and it has hurt me so much to see all this happening for the past or year or so. my understanding of what is happening is that i know you have strong antiracist beliefs but you are failing to live up to them because you are hurt
jake - can you be specific?
yar - youre hurt because of CLP
jake - i want you to be specific about harms
yar - hard when interrupted
jake - sorry
yar - i think you are so stuck because what CLP did to you was not okay. i am sorry i trusted them to be decent people. you are not seeing the impact of the other people. i understand your intention is not to be racist or transphobic
yar - the hyperfocus on yourself...
jemma - can facilitator step in? jake should not be interrupting
ally - i think its up to yar
yar - not a matter of respect, it just more efficient to let me keep going... i really do believe that the primary harm here, there are relatively small things at first with your interactions with people you have sociological privilege over. in your interactions with people where you center yourself so much, where you dont see other persons experience of you, the impact is racist transphobic and misogynistic. i was begging you to go to the meeting...
jake - i wasnt on agenda for the meeting, [i would've gone if it was]
paige - there are never agendas for the meetings [not happy about it but not peculiar]
yar - racism is when a person is harmed because they are a person of color. nothing to do with intent. if thats what happens, it our responsibility to not be part of that. and if we are too focused on ourselves to stop and think what we are doing, to stop and think how am i affecting the people around me, at some point that becomes racism, even if in your heart you believe in black liberation and antiracism. im willing to talk to you at length outside of this meeting. but i hope we can get to things we want to decide
jake - i am frustrated by being accused without examples. harmful to me. what i was just asking for, tell me what i did. and i got some abstract theory and thats frustrating to me
julie - me too, there are potentials of other loan sources
muirén [in chat] - Treat Jake and others like family members who've screwed up and need help to being functional family members. They can't learn better if we kick them out, divorce them.
Eva Galperin [in chat] - I don't think anyone has advocated for anything other than a very temporary ban, followed by an investigation.
Carl [in chat] - I have to leave, but want to say for later, that I have personally witnessed 2 instances where Jake was wrongfully accused of racism over the past few weeks. And I hope that Jake will not be banned or silenced at this point in time because everyone should be able to contribute their viewpoint regarding what to do about the Omni, and I want Jake to be unhindered from continuing to work on the LLC option or any other ways to help the Omni survive. We need "all hands on deck" for the survival of the Omni, and I hope we can get back to that goal.
jamal - speaking directly is sometimes helpful and meaningful. start with carl's commentary. i think it is harmful to suggest that he as a white male can say they werent the victim, truly. not anyone's space. not going to get into details. but we are debating something not in effect. in grand scheme of people in here, how useful is this to saving the building? i cant understand for the life of me how 1. ppl in this room has been on this board have not come up with something in 2 years, and 2. when people bring up things, there are no bans right now. there are behaviors that are troubling. my advice is attorney. behavior of one of the delegates, coming in late, not participating in group norms, disclosing info, acting like its a secret when it was meant to allow delegate communication. all of these impediments to finding 900k. im not here because i want money. im not here to unduly enrich myself. self centering illustrates why this hasnt worked. though i appreciate this conversation, wondering what the end goal was. why was it brought to a group of ppl who had nothing to do with the conversation? and not people who made the decision. harmful and absolutely toxic to bring everyone into conversation to this argument without first going to who you were referred to
arthur - can we please do the voting?
ally - i want to note that the facilitation im doing is not optimal. i dont know agenda. paige offered but is now busy taking notes. so yes not optimal. now people are calling for.. one of overarching issues that people have referenced, this question of omni and sudo as an anarchist face, how to balance what happens in anarchist space, these debates or centering of issues, or something that is very structured, like decision over what to do with omni. do want to try to do a better job to refocus on things that are an agenda
jemma - i understand that. thats why i pushed for myself being facilitator. because i have focused on keeping us on point. removing me to facilitator is one of those harms. very unfortunate consequence of our group. but i do appreciate you doing your best
elon - this is a question to go back to issue at hand. earlier mentioned that there was a possible lender. wanted to ask jamal if that is realistic
jamal - that org does that kind of work. i think its a possibility. but unpacking needed to be done rapidly. when you apply for grants, you need to talk to your fiscal solvency. part of what is going on right now is setting fundraising goals. also discussions on what fundraising goals. might very well be able to go forward with out a percentage partner. i dont think any particular idea has been shut down. people have been assigned in teams as solutions. what i offered is just one solution. well first, goal is talking to the original lender, ask for extension. then talk to the potential 10yr lender. people working on PP proposal. all of that is happening simultaneously
paige - we did a whiteboard session, land trust and llc were towards the top preferred option. not off the table
arthur - i want to acknowledge jems' request about it being harmful about mediator removal. i have taken it in but i dont need to hear it again
Muirén [in chat] - There it is again, the assumption we are an anarchist community, and that anarchy implies no structure or coherent processes.
Ed [in chat] - Can someone tell me what the vote total was on having Jems act as facilitor? I was screwing with hardware.
angl3a [in chat] - its in the notes
Jems [in chat] from the notes, straw poll to decide on jemma as facitilator, against - jake, eric, arthur, abstain - sierk, alex, philup, approve - yar, peter, sequioa, angela, paige, muirén
Ed [in chat] - Thanks
ally - limited interaction in omni and sudo, lack of process or procedures. even from entering the space. like step one disagree on what facilitator roles is. leads to conflict. disagreement on how voting works, or how to honor it. disagreements on how to move forward, what hierarchy is .
sequoia: i really want to take stock, which is we now have several individuals who feel wronged by other individuals, and more broadly at omni. Jamal said, really thoughtful: 1. i agree that there's a lot of self centering of hurt that's going on, in a public forum that needs to be putting its resources toward a bigger problem, jamal suggested that we go 1:1 with the other person, if you feel safe going directly to that person; we're all feeling the drain of how much it sucks for everybody all laundry in a public forum. Go directly to the people you have a conflict with and resolve as two adults. I personally believe the only person who is in a position to solve this problem is Jamal. I get that theres a lot of conflict right now, but Jamal is speaking the language of someone who can raise a million dollars, and patience, and i see that people have been hurt and i want to see how can we work on the pain that we have, and stop centering ourselves and our individual pain in this, the only person who can solve our building problems is Jamal, so we need to figure out how to accept Jamal.
yar - as much as i want to keep going into it, i want to offer, people should think if we have more questions for jamal, otherwise we should let jamal leave and then vote
anwar introduces himself
jamal - i want to offer the complication of this conversation. emotionally labor always exhausting. my phone is on and if people need to reach out to me, i encourage them to reach out to me. i dont think it was appropriate email sent out without me. want to uplift that love is liberatory. dont see that right. i see people talking past each other. i see people pouring gasoline. i dont want to come in here as someone wanting to get rid of people. but commentary, some of that is not true. i encourage you to have a convo with me about how love is liberatory. i don't think the investigation will happen quickly, need to interview people. i made commitment to do the right thing. sorry that has been skewed to be dishonest. call me, emails that referenced my name, hating ppl takes too much energy. constant fluctuation of delegates is bad. keep changing the matrix by which the board takes effective action. job is not to block or be retaliatory because u don't like someone. protect interests of organization. sudoroom rep is not repping sudoroom but stability of omni commons. those things over lap but it's important you have delegates that are consistent. jems and paige have been in those convos. i would caution and invite you to be weary of people that were only in the room for an hour and did some other stuff. we need stability. no matter what you decide, if you leave elevating hating someone, you doing the wrong thing. you shouldn't hate anybody. invite you to ? of love as a liberatory tool. select paige or jemma as delegate. importance of stability to apply for a million dollar loans. need to go. i appreciate everyone for putting their whole self. disagree with comments made in writing and in person. i love all of you. i invite you to community with me for a convo.
jamal (notes taken by difff person) patrik has only been consistent. changing matrix with which board makes action. ban not supposed to be retaliatory. job to protect fiduciary interest. not interest on sudo room, but rather financial stability of omni. importance of stability
muirén [in chat but left meeting by time it was read] - what is comment jamal's referring to?
jamal - yea not addressing that right now

jamal leaves

jake - i have jamal's number, i called him on dec 20th. silver gave it to me. i had full trust and faith in jamal. i assumed that everything would make sense. since them he has destroyed any trust i could have in him. i know those are strong words.
eric - really sweet guy but accused of lying.
jake - did you send thing about executive power
jems - is the a proposal or draft
sequioia - there were certain things that were hearsay
eric - im not sure what he was saying hearsay. reading a letter from legal council
eric - *eric reads* notes will be in copied and pasted from via email
jemma - not proposal that's in front of delegates?
paige - summary of what jamal and lawyer talked about. delegates spend next meeting discussing then hold out for a vote for week after.
jemma - misleading. not proposal. draft. communication from lawyer. started talking about jamal when he left the room. shouldn't be our delegate.
arthur - told it's true then not true, please don't gaslight me in a public setting
jemma - nobody gaslighting, saying what's true. not a proposal.
sierk - i explicitly asked to be able to hear his text to be read, i would like that to be taken into account, i don't care if its a proposal, this is what we have right now, and this information is helpful and thats why i asked for it to be read out loud
yar - thank you for reading the email. i think it was clear to me that it was from a lawyer, responding second hand. this is first time i have heard these words. i think we should take lawyers advice in how to structure the percentage. because that will be functionally what jamal wanted. i understand you are probably worried about the power to ban people
jemma - i think its not okay to say its a proposal
room says thats understood
yar - are we voting if we wanting to generally agree with an ed then vote on contract next week?
paige - think we want to vote as soon as possible so he can start working. john said it's the send of the room that we want to go forward with contract. toan corrected we're not voting to approve it, approving to talk to a lawyer. could choose to vote yes to a contract tomorrow.
sequoia - i think eric made it clear that it was not a proposal. i did not feel that was misleading. jemma i think it was inappropriate to say eric was misleading people. in general, for an ED to be able to meet with a people who have a lot of money. those people will need broad authority. but do not support ability to ban 2 individuals. part that board can veto is important. we must have some ability to negotiate the contract. * jake - i think it is a very good question, what are we voting on? i agree with what sequoia said that everything, personally im very invested in request for power to ban people from omni, not in line with our values. want to formally say no to that. in general terms, for me and mysterious other person. sudo room should not give up its ability to say what the omni commons should do. that should be clarified in the proposal, given lawyer said he didnt know how to do that. compiler error. we should be formal that we dont agree to any contract. in theory that is a delay but we have meetings every week
julie - what sequoia was talking about being ok with jamal in general having power, talking to fancy people, but I do not agree with his ability to ban people, i think that goes against what he was saying about not knowing people long enough to hate us, then why you need power to ban people . Sudoroom can discuss on how to ban people later. that valid concern and not open our space to people who make unsafe, but i worry about giving him unilateral ability to ban because..
anwar - two things, from my understanding, any ban that jamal would make would be appealable to the board. i wonder if thats enough, if someone is causing problems and getting in the way, doing CLP like blockading, useful to stop that asap, given board can undo. lawyer did specifically say he is not an employment specialist. i want to be careful about putting too much stock in that statement of him being unclear
peter - boards override ED. ED serves at the pleasure of the board
thomas - question, this lawyer is our lawyer or sudos lawyer?
our lawyer
thomas - should we get one? in terms of dissolution of omni
eric - we are trying to avoid dissolution
alex - recommendation to the board to look into his resume.
paige - there were working groups created. john patrick and me write counterproposal. i was tasked to get his resume and we sent it to that group.
sequoia? - we don't have a contract yet. i feel like the ban discussion is a distraction. nobody liked idea of executive ban. suggest we keep an eye but don't need to talk bout it unless it actually shows up in proposed contract
jake - someone said that talking about the ban that the delegates could have reversed that. as in email i was told the only avenue i had to appeal was to talk to jamal. i experienced during this ban was to talk to jamal. after jamal disconnected, i dont feel like i can trust him. i wish that could be repaired. there was a situation where board didnt have power.
paige - you were sent that by delegate. he is taking this ed role seriously. he's gonna be making a lot of moves and it's up the board to appeal.
- no one says no you're fired
facilitator - this could go on indefinitely, when to cut it off? i don't understand. are we decideing whether to vote right now? what agenda issues?
alex - status quo? paige good delegate? (some yesses)
philip - i'm not making judgements about Jamal but anyone with the power to ban people, whats to stop them from banning the whole board
eric - they're only asking for power to ban 2 people
angl3a - second alex's proposal to do status quo. vote of confidence in paige
alex - right now 2 delegates, status quo, continue with that?
eric - yes its us two, paige and i
jake - i want us to clarify what we want the delegate to do specifically and generally. i really believe in delegates reflecting the will of collectives. having been a delegate in the past, i still made an effort to make emails about votes. in this case there was discussion about if delegate is interest in SR or OC. clear about that. somebody might go with whats best for OC, but that conflicts with people here. other thing i want to point out is agenda item is voting for media lab. last thing pointed out. clarify what we want our delegate to say. what kind of things stands, delegate should say "i wont step into something without sudo room."
paige - can make decision that sudoroom blocks everything tomorrow
sequoia - love it if we didn't do that
paige - how much delegate is beholden to their collective varies among collectives. i.e. patrik has a lot more agency in how he votes. seen bigotry in ccl where he brings them into more consensus building and put out fires. i'm trying to work towards more consensus building. thinking about what is best for sudoroom as a space in omni, how to be making sudo room the most welcoming and achieve goals listed on wiki. as opposed to just representing loudest voices in jake ban complaining email list. im thinking also about the best going forward for omni commons where there's a lot of divisiveness and people burning out. so i have been voting that way but acknowledge that the ed thing requires more discussion with group.
facilitator - discussions about what delegacy is, is big topic
angl3a - i want a vote in confidence of paige
eric - i feel erased by this vote
sequoia - eric is a delegate and paige is a delegate. i want to find a path forward with jamal. i understand eric might not feel that way. i guess my question is... we talked about if delegates should represent group, so could take a straw poll. eric would comfortable to looking at a contract with jamal if we dont support non-ban.
eric - i would look at any proposal. i am deeply hesitant about any authoritarian structure. departure from status quo. im not into any sort of king but i know we are in dire straits right now.
cere and al joins
sequoia - personally im looking for something stronger. i think no one equipped to solve problems except jamal.
jake - just to say im in favor too. only issue has been this personal issue and banning issue. thats my only problem. other concerns i have. but only thing i think is important. maybe he is really good to communicate with people
sequoia - i would want to send a delegate who is open to resolving these conflicts in a way towards finding a solution to work with jamal.
eric - im here to represent sudo room. i want to see this space continue. but to me, sudo room is not this building. sudo room was a community before this space. not gonna sacrifice our group for a fucking building. even if we lose this space, it's just four walls.
peter - I'll offer a counter, if we are going impassioned appeals. In spirit of the omni collective, the reason why sudo room is a core and founding member is this idea of stronger together. my repair work requires other parts of building. i cant function without media lab. ccl next to us. if this space goes away its not coming back. sudo room and omni commons are inextricably connected. unreasonable to lose that. antithetical to all the core values. and still people think they can walk away with something? i dont see it
sequoia - i no longer support idea that we can dissolve the building. i was moved by what PP said. asset to the building. crime that we could let this building go. used to think we could leave but no longer see that as ethical. eric i really appreciate you but i think you are too close to the conflict.
ally - i feel like paige spoke already. on how they feel consensus building. we should expedite.
paige - gets messy with who is the voter if the two delegates dont agree
jake - hopefully they agree
eric and paige can establish rules for if they don't agree
paige - personally very against foreclosure. sudoroom is space i spend time in so i'm invested it but we need a different way of organizing. personally appreciate some of the slowness of decision making because allows for more voices, but i feel we cant open up that can of worms right now. we need an ED to make moves faster because this is just too slow right now in time of emergency
angl3a - i move to vote for confidence in paige
yar - i came into this meeting kind neutral. but now have concern about eric represening marginalized people. based on how you have been interacting with people.
eric- can you be more specific?
yar - look around you.
eric - i am
yar - who you seem to be listening to and who you seem to be fighting with. reached a threshold for me.
eric - the complaints are too non specific
sequoia - someone can say they are not

vote in confidence of delegates

Are ppl are comfortable with status quo (eric and paige codelegate)

in favor: 13
opposed: 4
abstain: 3

media lab proposal

paige - .... they want to change some of the space. pallavi is the proposed delagate. group bringing new energy and new faces, super in support. reccomend you all go down there. $800, they want to have a vote and should have one.
yar - i love the media lab. been holding this space for so long.
paige - want to address elephant in room, maybe what is being passed around on laptop but idk. pallavi is someone we paid to be our fundraiser. there has been skepticism of pallavi, conspiracy that she is just here to get pp in. she said she cares a lot about racial justice. in meeting, letting this building get demolished came up, discussion about how that is a blatant form of gentrification. she was responding it would be racist if you didn't accept a black org in that context of foreclosure, she got fired up about racial equity. i had more discussion with her, she's in favor of counterproposals, not backing a full control thing. would have helped if you talked with her. not just "she called me racist now i'm attacked and cancelled". respect for pallavi, advising us more things we should be asking jamal. no lack of trust and wish people would talk to her wihout asking her to leave.
peter - work we do in here works really well with what they do out there. other grants we tap into if we can get act together. so much money we can tap in to. $130 million of state money available to tap into as a resilency hub. also we should look at this media lab proposal in context of gender equity issues. predominately female there. for no other reason, bring in that collective
muiren [in chat] - Yeah Media Lab!
arthur - clarifying, rental in the basement? and that extra space also in the basement? are we voting on that?
paige - only voting on them occupying space they are already occupying. situation with money is complicated, a lot of leniency in rent. i.e. we gave someone $200 to move in, then later required to be paid more once set up and making funds. media lab paying $500, now want to pay $800 they expanded. i dont know if that was asked but i dont see it as a problem, it was unused uncared for space. $800 seems very fair. food not bombs paying $500 with closed door rooms. media lab has no closed doors. basement is $1/sq ft for no windows, $2/sq ft. with windows. area they want to be moving into at a later point of time is another area in the basement that is currently full of crap, so they would clean it up and pay $100 more for it. can show you the space if you want
ed - can you describe what media lab does?
yar - they host sewing and jewelry and screenprint making workshops and other related artistic classes and workshops.
peter - and Cece has aspirations to teach textile engineering down there, a whole element of workplace development, really interesting things, she's built parachutes for ZipLine which sends medical goods to third world countries
kent - Cece is a stand-up individual
yar - when they do their cohorts, when they end they do fashion shows in ballroom. most affirming thing i see in this building
sequoua - i didn't even realize it was the sewing people, Cece, i learn so much, i would be heartbroken if sudoroom ever separated from this group, it's an incredible technology, all of you are wearing clothes - i hope
yar - i only wear computer parts
arlo - my name is arlo
jake - hold on he doesn't know the situation o just kidding
ally - anyone voting no? no one says no, so passed.

Muirén [in chat] - My interest in Media Lab is Tech Couture, smart textiles, and using tech like intricate laser cut linoleum to print fabric.

vote on ed contract

thomas - vote if contract allows banning
yar - our current safe space policy is anyone can ban other people. if threat of physical violence. people to not have to call the police. need to be able to shove people out of the building. i would hope jamal would still be able to do that. just want to say we all have ability to ban unilaterally

Vote: no ban power: resolve that sudoroom will not ratify any contract with any executive officer that confers ability to unilaterally ban people

anwar - does it count if the banned person has the ability to appeal to the board
alex - the issue isn't the unilateral ban power, it's that there are two specific individuals that are unnamed in the contract
eric - i think this is the most efficient way to do it
arthur - can reach in who can
ally - from my limited understanding, jamal was the one who reversed the ban on jake. so seems it was not in his immediate interest
thomas - i feel that the process should be, you have to go to the group first, if someone is giving a problem and they're in that group, then you have to go to that group and ask them they have to take care of that person
paige - the omni commons has a conflict approval process, in order to ban ... delegates have power to ban them: requires 2/3 approval of the delegates. conflict stewards need to present at the meeting. there is a process already. we can't limit ban discussions to sudo, sometimes conflicts are not isolated inside of one collective.
anwar - i disagree the..
paige - conflict resolution policy as is does benefit the person who is a accused. the person accused gets to stick around in the space and the people accusing have to go through this long drawn out process. find conflict steward and mediator, omni has facilitated that, no structure in place. a lot of conflict sessions. no group to collect all of these
ally - people don't come to meetings because there if there is no mediation. not comfortable having these one on one meetings, nobody who is a mediator, stressful role, have to be trusted by both people, not some rando either, then 3-4 hour public meetings, time both peopel feel somewhat safe and seen.
sequoia - i was going to say, this experience means we need a clear process for conflict resolution. i want to say we've been here 3 plus hours. we can say ed cant have unilateral ban power. clearly delineated and approved plan for conflict resolution that could result in ban after process in completed. agree no unilateral ban power. should we resolve that we will in the future develop a better ban process in the future?. ask to be done with the meeting
vote no on this resolution?: 2
yar: vote no but not blocking. need to trust jamal to do what he needs to do. board by law would have authority to override. no contract you can sign to take away delegate's right to do that.
another no
anwar - voting on a hypothetical, better to vote on a proposal ahead of us.
thomas - we are voting on guidance for the delegate
if you're going to say that anyone can unilateral ban anyone then that applied to jamal.
ally - i think its important, very basic things are lacking. what is the default? majority voting not even clear in sudo room. two urgent issues happening tomorrow, i think it would it would be possible to have quicker response. then afterwards people who want to stay can stay to discuss the minutia. no structure like that established. imminent urgent voting.
alex - well jamal was here for earlier part of meeting
yar - if you are going to block a facilitator, you should have someone ready to come in
jems - i have facilitated before and kept us on time. i got help, we have long topics. i should have been facilitator after majority vote.
peter - every day we dawdle, options close in. i asked for status update on the finances. there is a finance meeting that you can come to. we need everyone's A game about how we figure out how to save this building
jake - apologize to jems for them being harmed by my objection to them being facilitator. still stand by my decision. sorry you were harmed.
yar - what are you apologizing for
jake - apologize for harming them
jems - do not accept that apology. failure of 3 hours.
arthur - i have no trust in jems being a facilitator ever again. not how you build trust in front of new people
eric - [snaps]
jems - trust has been destroyed. i have never met you, appreciate you showed up, also in context of the stress of parenting
arthur - you are lying
jems - dont appreciate your comments
arthur - removal from email servers
ally - this is spiraling. this should mediating. we should end meeting but people who want to stay should stay.

discontinuity, below notes are from much earlier

paige - explained pov

jake - nobody can know what happened in that saturday meeting because dont know from notes
jake - also jemma shouldnt be facilitator because she accused me of racism, transphobia and misogyny since jake didn't want them to be facilitator

Meeting Notes 2024-01-10

Contents