https://sudoroom.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Special:NewPages&feed=atom&hidebots=1&limit=50&offset=&namespace=0&username=&tagfilter=&size-mode=max&size=0
Sudo Room - New pages [en]
2024-03-29T15:55:52Z
From Sudo Room
MediaWiki 1.37.2
https://sudoroom.org/wiki/Meeting_Notes_2024-03-27
Meeting Notes 2024-03-27
2024-03-28T06:18:23Z
<p>Paigep: /* Summary */</p>
<hr />
<div>Wednesday, 7PM. March 27, 2024<br />
<br />
= Attendees =<br />
<br />
* jake - any pronouns. icebreaker: telephone calls vs texting? i prefer texting<br />
* carl - <br />
* william - he/him. fine if you call me<br />
* A - aron?<br />
* Paige - they/them i like both texts and calling<br />
* Alex - sudo room delegate<br />
* Andrew W - artist, not so much of a hacker. i mostly want to know what to do with this letter. asked for contact for christina <br />
** Paige - letter was sent, thanks for help Andrew<br />
<br />
<br />
= Summary =<br />
* Property tax situation is still very dire. We have reached out to CAST, our Alameda district supervisor, and our Oakland city council rep. We do not know if any of these contacts will be able to help us with this, so we should look into getting a loan (as advised previously by our lawyer). The bill is due April 10. <br />
* William will join Alex at tomorrow's delegate meeting. And might be delegate going forwards after<br />
* Paige and Anwar drafted some changes to Omni's requirements for collective status. Some feedback given but will not be voted on.<br />
<br />
= Detailed minutes =<br />
<br />
== Property Taxes == <br />
<br />
* alex - everyone up to date? we owe roughly 100k in back taxes and have a current 20k owed. big surprise for us and trying to figure out who can help us pay it. we contacted CAST and no reply yet, we have also contacted our lawyer whos in charge with talking to assessor. we've working with them a couple years, specifically to get our welfare exemption from the county, which because we are a nonprofit should be exempt<br />
** jake - its more that we should be exempt because of our "use" of building<br />
* alex - i spoke with christina, said unlikely to get a full exemption, amount after will still be unmanageable but less. best we can hope from assessor meeting is a faster judgement on whether we get this exemption. another plan <br />
** paige - sent, peter got in contact with someone from office<br />
* alex - lawyer also said talked to jake, and put jake in contact with someone at community vision. community vision does loans for nonprofits and could possibly be another source for this short-term stuff. as far as i know jake hasnt followed up and we should do that asap. is that right?<br />
** jake - i didnt follow up because i didnt know what to do, i dont have any line with the delegates. i dont know if my email is getting spammed canned, or shunned because they are surrounded by drama... sent emails, like request to be at delegate meeting, but ignored. difficult to be both be working on taxes and be excluded. i dont know how to engage with this stuff. <br />
** alex - why dont you get lawyer to contact delegates? instead of saying president<br />
** jake - says that on paper. i dont want to do any of this stuff, but if i get an email and nobody wants to talk to me, what do i do?<br />
* jake - has anyone contacted mulberry? <br />
<br />
== New Delegate ==<br />
* alex - i will go to tomorrows meeting as delegate, and would like to not go to next one. i can work next week or two bringing next delegate up to date. i know jake volunteered. any others?<br />
* jake - william<br />
** william - time conflict every other wednesdays. <br />
** paige - i think sudo room meetings dont have to be every week so maybe could work<br />
** jake - used to be every other wednesday was a party. charlie would buy $100 of food, that would bring in a lot of people. if we had party thing on wednesday, if bring food in and expect to hang out, could increase participation. i think its premature to predict how often to have meetings right now. because so much stuff is happening, its not like we could say every other 2 weeks, might need urgent. i think focus on having good atmosphere every wednesday whether or not we are having a meeting. can announce beforehand if stuff to talk about<br />
** alex - i think nobody would reject<br />
** jake - not a proposal. responding to someone saying we dont have meeting every week<br />
* alex - plan to be every other week, then if necessary to have a meeting, plan an ad hoc meeting. ideally we could settle some things remotely. <br />
<br />
talking about alternatives to email<br />
<br />
* william - i am able to go thursday, and occasional wednesdays. or if we have a solid way of communicating online. summary of meeting to know what to represent<br />
** jake - suggest not doing digest<br />
<br />
* jake - does anyone object to me being the delegate<br />
** paige - i do given past performance in september meeting, also email communication. I also think its ok if sudo room doesnt have a delegate for a period of time, while we find a new delegate<br />
** jake - that does not sound in the interest of sudo room<br />
** paige - if sudo room doesnt have an active enough membership to procure a delegate, then it shouldnt need to be at omni meetings<br />
** jake - sounds like something yar would say<br />
** paige - im also happy william volunteered and would support that<br />
<br />
william will come to delegates meeting tomorrow<br />
<br />
* alex - otherwise we can go without delegate for a little bit<br />
<br />
<br />
== New Collective Requirements Draft ==<br />
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1O6KBjrL5xV-_ks4FLznZ_1ZkjkJsBc9xepfgDvGR1iI/edit?usp=sharing<br />
* jake - what is the reason for doing this other than because josh told us to?<br />
** paige - not why this was made. answering concerns from multiple collectives, like the issue with groups coming in and wanting immediate delegacy. this gives a process for that. also my personal concern, and one others have had in past, about groups of only two people having a large amount of power at omni. <br />
* alex - mapping of delegate to board member issue with 6 month term limit. in omni bylaws, collectives are mapped to term "designator." if you switch delegates often, that may be fine for the collective, but for non-profits, it is problematic. suggest for more permanency. would make it impossible to have relative permanent members on the board.<br />
** william - can you not have stand in's?<br />
** alex - in california, board members cant vote by proxy. <br />
** alex - my feeling is representative democracy at omni flawed. could decouple board members from collectives. then everyone's just a member of omni, and elects a board member. then collectives with more members then would get more representatives. more straightforward and fair system. more work required to determine "who is a member" then though.<br />
* paige - req. for meeting minutes is just a way to see groups active, and so more collective understanding. but maybe some other way to see that.<br />
** william - what you need is active attendees. dont need meetings. dont know of a universal standard, what you are trying to figure out.<br />
* alex - what I think is the big governance change wanted by outside orgs is ED role<br />
** paige - broad support in Omni it seems for ED, but no budget<br />
** alex - I think the individual collectives are healthy, like sudo room isnt perfect but has its weekly events consistently, but omni is not. political structure, always explicitly volunteer. never an ED. plenty of people who were involved, worked okay. but now doesnt, people burn out really easily, no one there to catch the fallout. jake, do you know the history of why we never got a refi?<br />
*** jake - requirements to get a refi, before interest rates went up, already uphill, need stable income for at least a year, and also all books aligned, paperwork filled out. 2020 disrupted that a lot. disruption of covid overlapped to some extent with...<br />
*** alex - was there a plan that never followed up? or no move to get refi?<br />
*** jake - my memory of refi process, finance group was closed, they wouldnt give out information. not most qualified to give details, sarah and jenny would be good to ask about efforts about refinancing.</div>
Paigep
https://sudoroom.org/wiki/Beamrobot
Beamrobot
2024-03-21T06:02:08Z
<p>Romyilano: </p>
<hr />
<div>=== we have a beam pro telepresence robot ===<br />
<br />
* it seems the battery is dead. It uses a 55Ah 12v VRLA lead-acid battery<br />
<br />
* [https://suitabletech.com/images/stories/Documentation/files/BeamPro_Battery_Replacement_Procedure.pdf this is the replacement procedure]<br />
<br />
* the original battery is 9" wide by 8" tall and 5.5" deep, but the battery is laying on its face. So the compartment is 9" x 8" with a cover on top.<br />
<br />
* [https://suitabletech.com/support/documentation/online-manuals/beam-beampro-ui configuration procedure]<br />
<br />
[[File:Beam Robot.jpg|thumb]]</div>
Jerkey
https://sudoroom.org/wiki/Big_red_laser_cutter_settings
Big red laser cutter settings
2024-03-19T06:43:01Z
<p>Paigep: </p>
<hr />
<div>{| class="wikitable sortable"<br />
|+ Caption text<br />
|-<br />
! Material !! Thickness || Engrave or Thru-Cut? !! Speed (mm/sec) !! Power (%) !! Notes<br />
|-<br />
| Plywood ||1/8" || Thru-Cut || 5 || 30% || <br />
|-<br />
| Plywood ||1/8" || Engrave Light || 70 || 10% || <br />
|-<br />
| Thin Cotton || N/A || Thru-Cut || 50 || 50% || <br />
|-<br />
| Thin Cotton || N/A || Engrave Line || 70 || 10% || <br />
|-<br />
| Thin Cotton || N/A || Raster Engrave || 400 || 10% || <br />
|-<br />
| Card Paper || N/A || Thru-Cut || 50 || 50% || <br />
|-<br />
| Card Paper || N/A || Engrave Light || 50 || 11% || <br />
|-<br />
| Card Paper || N/A || Engrave Dark || 50 || 8% || <br />
|-<br />
|}</div>
Paigep
https://sudoroom.org/wiki/Meeting_Notes_2024-03-06
Meeting Notes 2024-03-06
2024-03-07T16:25:19Z
<p>Paigep: /* Attendees */</p>
<hr />
<div>3/06/2024<br />
<br />
= Attendees =<br />
<br />
* trevor<br />
* paige - notetaker<br />
* alex - delegate<br />
* eric<br />
* jake<br />
<br />
= Agenda =<br />
<br />
== omni bylaws ==<br />
=== intro ===<br />
* alex - proposed to make additional bylaw changes. toan talking about change from majority to majority + 1. not really much of a change. all changes when through except this one. patrik wants us to be going along bylaws, rather than consensus<br />
* jake - we have been going on consensus but in bylaws only need consensus - 1 to make changes to the bylaws. majority + 1 closer to consesnsus<br />
* alex - i personally think 2/3 + 1 to be more like consensus. that has been mentioned as being a somewhat standard things for bylaws.<br />
<br />
=== discussion ===<br />
* jake - you would like to see plans to be informed by existing policies, as far as people being members of separate designators. i am just like assuming that some of this is motivated by people who are engaging in a power struggle at omni<br />
* alex - no i wouldnt be worried about that<br />
* jake - based on principles. so much talk by CLP and ppl at omni about how SR and CCL are evil. and now SM rolled in. i want to make sure if we are talking about this, basically taking away from power from SM, that it is based on principles. <br />
* paige - changing from consensus<br />
* jake - faction to eliminated. if thats thing going on. if SM and SR have members in both collectives. just seems like a power grab<br />
* alex - rather than jumping straight to power grab, this is lay of land. Majority + 1 voting. then restrictions under which conditions you would need to recuse yourself<br />
* jake - designators (delegates?) or collectives?<br />
* alex - my point is this hasnt been thought out, and way you can help is thinking this through is thinking of principles. instead of sitting and trying to think about a power grab we can be proactive <br />
* jake - i havent heard what the source is. ive heard the source is consensus to majority<br />
* alex - concern from multiple sides. one is CAST will expect this. also several collectives who have expressed ambivalance and tiredness to consensus and want a majority rule. pretty widespread<br />
* jake - im not asking about shift to majority, im asking about recusal when to vote<br />
* alex - i.e. if voting to remove someone, then they are recused<br />
* jake - stuff existing in bylaws. but yea thats one specific example, any others?<br />
* carl - whats current?<br />
* alex - its majority, but we've been pretending its consensus-1. proposed change is to "majority + 1 of active groups" <br />
* paige - and change expecation, to actually follow the bylaws<br />
* carl - has it been consensus - 1 in practice?<br />
* alex - only recently, before it was consensus<br />
* carl - did anyone propose that as the normal?<br />
* alex - no, that was original plan for bylaws. but the lawyer said dont do it, so didn't<br />
* alex - another option is 2/3 majority + 1. we could do that? Thats also kind of common<br />
* alex - i personally dont think "mail in ballot" style is good. good part of consensus is you have to try and convince people. but when that fails, dont have a fallback<br />
* jake - come up with something more agreeable<br />
* carl - how many collectives?<br />
* 7 collectives deb gives, SR, SM, CCL, LL, SMAC, FNB<br />
* carl - so in practice right now, majority + 1, would be 4 <br />
* jake - only active, so if a designator doesnt show up to meeting, then number lower<br />
* carl - what means inactive? needs to be a quorum.<br />
* alex - i made a github repo with all the changes. happy to talk about it but i feel like youd get picture of it if you read it. youd see its all clarifying whats already there. we are going forward with CAST, we have to do something like this<br />
* jake - my concern is with specific cases where designators must recuse. whats motivation for that discussion?<br />
* alex - not thought out yet but are situations where <br />
* paige - maybe if something like, SR proposing to take up a lot more space<br />
* alex - yea maybe if collective gets a major benefit? patrik had a good example im forgetting...<br />
<br />
== omni love affair email complaint ==<br />
* alex - were you in the building? or only in sudo room? i was prepared to say that in meeting but then somebody in meeting said you were taking a picture?<br />
* jake - i took one picture of the lift. nobody in the picture [shows picture]<br />
<br />
== sudo room / sudo mesh overlap concern from FNB == <br />
=== intro ===<br />
* jake - as a SR member, if existing policy whether people can be in multiple collectives or not or if thats a problem, id like to see what that is rather than making it up on the spot<br />
* alex - this is a discussion of further amending bylaws. should be conditions under which you should recuse yourself<br />
* paige - its also brought up only in context of moving to majority + 1 voting. A "yes" vote will then mean more going forwards<br />
<br />
=== discussion === <br />
* alex - i think only actionable item is who to put on CC list. I am on it, Paige is, and Marc<br />
* paige - i can see this... like if media lab or CCL split up. Whats the history of SM coming in<br />
* jake - they have their own space.<br />
* alex - bigger project before<br />
* jake - still a big project but spread around world now. separate meetings, pay rent. <br />
* paige - separate meetings is valid, idk about space<br />
* alex - because majority voting, think reasonable one vote, because you are very closely allied group, basically vote as a bloc unfair. we need to discuss our response. your response is not enough given to what paige is saying. we would probably object for example, broke up into 4 groups<br />
* jake - i disagree. SM was voted to become a collective<br />
* alex - with restrictions. marc was asked not to be part of decision making<br />
* jake - marcs not here<br />
* alex - yes thats usually the argument. their concern is groups seem too similar<br />
* jake - then they should learn the difference. some people outside see CCL/ SR as same thing<br />
* alex - they think we are basically one group and have two votes. we have to listen to their concerns. i will reply to toan saying me and paige will stay on list.<br />
<br />
== CAST update ==<br />
=== intro ===<br />
* alex - got update that CAST is writing up a MOU. encouraging news, good sign<br />
* FROM CAST - "thank you for connecting us...we're finalizing our partnering MOU as we scope our engagement with Omni...We'll be sending it over to your group in the next week or two"<br />
=== discussion ===<br />
* eric - would like a big picture<br />
* alex - we had a meeting with Ken. He said money not issue, main issue is can we work together. they have doubts that our structure compatible. my understanding is they broker loans between their stable connections, broker these loans beneficially for arts orgs. we said even SR and CCL fit into who they work with. he said omni will need a single individual to represent omni, but didnt get detail on what powers necessary for them. so thats the speced out ED role. patrik is working on bylaws but dont remember them saying anything about that, or consensus. some of changes we would get - "asset management." separate from building management. they partner with a building management, they do things like track fire exits and escapes, electrical, and door exits. my understanding is a lot of work we do on building would not be open to us. so we would be able to clean floors but not do electrical.<br />
* jake - does it seem like things will work?<br />
* alex - seems so. one outcomes is the building becomes much nicer, but more expensive. meaning we would have to increase our membership, justify our existence a lot more<br />
* jake - financially<br />
* alex - yes. one of items i would like to ask. what range of increase? but the response is "if you make building more accessible makes more money." if people feeling good about showing up at the building means more people doing electronics, thats good. for now i think we've talked about it as much as we can<br />
* jake - thank you so much for doing this work<br />
<br />
== wheelchair lift/ cardkey ==<br />
* alex - we had a sketch, what happened<br />
* jake - i updated the sketch and sent it to you. just before i came in here, there was nothing there again. me and eric put a lot of effort putting up the board. <br />
* paige - described as ugly<br />
* jake - well i dont like people falling off it. chain with hook, problem people dont put it back. i just put stantions back but im not here all the time. thats why i put up the board<br />
* alex - where it was, yar was going to do it. <br />
* jake - yar didnt and problem with . if spikes sticking out of ground we would put a traffic cone. i put a bunch of effort into it and got shat on. making picture so people dont tear it down<br />
* alex - some people are going to find it aesthetically not ok<br />
* jake - what about danger?<br />
* alex - i think thats bigger issue<br />
* jake - velvet rope doesnt put itself back. whoever took it down should put it back up. should i put board?<br />
* alex - if you want to you should. <br />
* eric - fine idea and uses no money.<br />
* paige - rather it open horizontally for safety reasons. like what keeps it from falling down?<br />
* jake - it was engineered to move down slowly so not a danger<br />
* paige - how? like screws in the wall? like over time those could get loose from it moving. just seems better to open horizontally<br />
* eric - youre saying you want a design that is less guillotine-like<br />
discussion about design. jakes more up to date design does open horizontally<br />
* jake - the thing i am concerned about is that when i put something up it got taken down. want assurance that if i put something else up it wont happen again<br />
* alex - i get that, someone took it down with no alternative. i will bring it up tomorrow<br />
* jake - if anyone wants it painted, i want them to do it<br />
* paige - i think another thing is people arent so urgently concerned about this as jake. I like that jake is concerned about safety here, but fire department didnt say anything about it, i dont think saferdiy people have said anything about it other than putting caution tape, which i did last week. personally im much more concerned about table saw we have in SR than that ledge.<br />
* alex - why are you so concerned with this safety issue?<br />
* jake - can you name any bigger issues currently? stage is another similar safety issue but more obvious, people less likely to walk off edge<br />
* alex - tools in sudo room<br />
* jake - sudo room is different.<br />
* alex - no, anyone can walk in here<br />
* jake - shouldnt, have a door. but lack of volunteer labor to do nfc tag<br />
* alex - are you asking me?<br />
* jake - cgi, so people can add keys without ssh<br />
* alex - we can make a much better interface than that. want people to be able to add people without using the shell?<br />
* jake - yes<br />
<br />
== sudo room telephone == <br />
* jake - we have one now. the phone number is [redacted]. <br />
<br />
== standards of conduct in sudo room == <br />
=== intro ===<br />
* eric - i think we should refamiliarize, what someone can expect in the space in terms of respect and safety<br />
* jake - what we do when things go wrong<br />
* alex - about what happened last night? i would like to talk about what happened last night. <br />
* jake - in the past we always made sure if ever there was a conflict, we would have a process to resolve<br />
* jake - to answer on behalf of what im guessing eric is thinking, we have a long history of feeling like if somethings wrong, we can rely on each other to help fix things, unlike doing things ourselves. for example, conflict i have with someone else, i can rely on someone else getting in between. thats preferred way to handle it, so that there's not so much person to person stuff. <br />
* eric - another concept, that i would like to normalize that i learned from paige, is asking people to take a break. <br />
* alex - lets make this last agenda item<br />
<br />
=== discussion ===<br />
<br />
[redacted]<br />
* jake - if theres anyone upsetting you, you can come to us to protect you. means you dont have to worry about protecting yourself in that way at sudo room. if something happened, can use your voice. <br />
* jake - reprecussions is in future doesnt happen again<br />
* paige - anyone going to reach out to [redacted]?<br />
* alex - i reached out today. my ideal situation is that the two parties have a conversation about this that doesnt escalate<br />
* jake - i think its possible<br />
* eric - i think it would be good to leave specific details of conflict out of the meeting notes.<br />
* alex - another concern is it was a public event. <br />
* paige - conflict steward role in bylaws. useful <br />
* eric - yes a nonpublic steward<br />
* alex - who would do it? only 5 of us here<br />
<br />
=== another discussion ===<br />
* jake - last meeting you said i said this thing to PYM and I would like you to show it in meeting notes and if not there, stop saying it<br />
* paige - i remember you saying it in the oct 21 meeting but yea it is not in notes. so i will stop saying you said it directly to PYM. But here is a screenshot of you saying the same thing to someone on Slack</div>
Paigep
https://sudoroom.org/wiki/Monoprice_Select_Mini_V2
Monoprice Select Mini V2
2024-02-29T23:40:28Z
<p>Jerkey: Created page with "The small 3D printer on the main tables is hard to name. According to Simon: "I tried Prusa Slicer at first but then I found out that Cura has settings for the printer built in so I switched to that. In Cura the printer is called Monoprice Select Mini V2""</p>
<hr />
<div>The small 3D printer on the main tables is hard to name. According to Simon:<br />
<br />
"I tried Prusa Slicer at first but then I found out that Cura has settings for the printer built in so I switched to that. In Cura the printer is called Monoprice Select Mini V2"</div>
Jerkey
https://sudoroom.org/wiki/Meeting_Notes_2024-02-28
Meeting Notes 2024-02-28
2024-02-29T06:56:08Z
<p>Paigep: Created page with "2/28/2024 = Attendees = * paige: * alex: * carl: * Ar * jake * eric = Agenda = == discussion about maker faire event == * notes not taken * jake: safe space ban is a de-escalation method, the ban is to only diffuse a situation. this was not discussing something in heat of the moment * alex: current process is, safe space ban takes effect, then mediation. never really happens, the people just leave. do you want mediation? * jake: im open to mediation. but i request..."</p>
<hr />
<div>2/28/2024<br />
<br />
= Attendees =<br />
<br />
* paige: <br />
* alex: <br />
* carl:<br />
* Ar<br />
* jake<br />
* eric<br />
<br />
= Agenda =<br />
<br />
== discussion about maker faire event ==<br />
* notes not taken<br />
* jake: safe space ban is a de-escalation method, the ban is to only diffuse a situation. this was not discussing something in heat of the moment<br />
* alex: current process is, safe space ban takes effect, then mediation. never really happens, the people just leave. do you want mediation?<br />
* jake: im open to mediation. but i request in future that something like this goes through the delegates because its a cross-collective issue<br />
<br />
== wheelchair lift == <br />
* jake: nothing up there to block the way, and someone could get injured. yar said shed do it and the server, not happening. not trying to make conflict. i will draw up something more pallatable and submit it.<br />
<br />
== The proposed bylaw changes ==<br />
* alex: dont have quorum so cant vote on it. <br />
* link to changes https://github.com/sudoroom/omni-bylaws/commit/ceb2f811983173dfa5aee4843cc22e7eeca2fa85<br />
* discussion about wanting to make the bylaws closer to what we do day-to-day. that's what seems to be what most changes are. no objections.<br />
<br />
== SR funds == <br />
* jake: i checked and through sudo humans we are getting $1200 per month. I didnt check but usually a few hundred more from the paypal. at some point we will need to reach out to people to pay more in membership<br />
<br />
== Deb Gives membership ==<br />
* everyone present in approval<br />
<br />
== Any updates on our financial situation ==<br />
* jake: there is someone who would be a major part of the LLC. i tried to move things forward with them and they asked a specific question, want documents from our trust as a template for their own trust. i dont know that we have this document already. MY q: does someone in omni has this document? <br />
* alex: at face value, it implies a lack of seriousness.<br />
* jake: hopefully it doesnt cost too much for volunteers to pipe in with answers. maybe this funding source could be used with CAST<br />
* alex: CAST's attitude is that they need to know the funder. <br />
* jake: yes that could happen<br />
* jake: im focusing on this person because they have such a large portion they could contribute<br />
<br />
== request from fundraising to make a one-pager on sudo room stuff ==<br />
* paige: pallavi asked us to make this. anyone want to help?<br />
* eric: yes i can volunteer <br />
* jake: can you post an email<br />
* paige: yes<br />
<br />
== keycard system ==<br />
* paige: there was a request to make time-restricted door access keycards [should've said web access] <br />
* alex: that isn't too hard to do. Another question though,is it worth putting time and effort into keycard if we are going to rip it out?<br />
* jake: this is just for web access, scripting and chron jobs, not the door jam. cgi script. not too difficult<br />
* alex: i know because i wrote it. have you forgotten that?<br />
* jake: no i just am clarifying its the web door access not keycard, not magstripes. of course you know how to do that stuff. it might be easy. web link. totally different system. i like having multiple because if one fails the other works. arduino is same thing activated by the beaglebone and the... if we do rfid, esp, trigger solenoid separate from arduino. total backup system. i can think of a number of ways but not volunteering. user interface portal is what i like to work on<br />
* paige: why is it a different system?<br />
* jake: better that way, more reliable<br />
<br />
== fire inspection for ballroom capacity increase == <br />
* we are just waiting on the updated evac maps and need to get rid of one couch that is in the entry hall</div>
Paigep
https://sudoroom.org/wiki/Meeting_Notes_2024-02-21
Meeting Notes 2024-02-21
2024-02-22T05:38:43Z
<p>Paigep: Created page with "= Attendees = * sierk * alex * paige - notetaker * charles * trevor * jake = Agenda = == pre-meeting unstructured convo == talking about people's programs and city of motion proposals. * sierk: need to plan what to do if partnership is not aligned * alex: where things go wrong is step 10, step 1 is figuring out how we would engage * alex: how we would work with CAST still vague, what I think is great about CAST is trusted contact, for me, and experience doing this *..."</p>
<hr />
<div>= Attendees =<br />
<br />
* sierk<br />
* alex<br />
* paige - notetaker<br />
* charles<br />
* trevor<br />
* jake<br />
<br />
= Agenda =<br />
<br />
== pre-meeting unstructured convo == <br />
talking about people's programs and city of motion proposals. <br />
* sierk: need to plan what to do if partnership is not aligned<br />
* alex: where things go wrong is step 10, step 1 is figuring out how we would engage<br />
* alex: how we would work with CAST still vague, what I think is great about CAST is trusted contact, for me, and experience doing this<br />
* sierk: mission about art spaces closely aligned with what omni does. no proposal yet fleshed out yet for me to say yes. i would put most energy into cast, would need more info about others. LLC, pretty much getting loan from non bank entity, seems like lots of support, but dont know how feasible right now. i know there are people willing to put in significant amount of money<br />
* alex: are you willing to join LLC working? someone needs to be compiling a list of name and calling people. someone with those skills<br />
* sierk: patrik is leading a group, im willing to put time into it<br />
* alex: start with people you know<br />
* sierk: i know some but will not at state we are in. they need to know what the LLC structure is, and what connection to other people will be. just need clarity. some people you need to set structure, what LLC will look like<br />
* paige: i think there was issue in that jesse cant write form the LLC, has to be outside of omni. not sure if thats true [later in meeting said not the current blocker]<br />
* charles: L3C, not in california, in utah michigan, vermont. supposed to offer more advantages for nonprofit grants<br />
* alex: one thought of issuing bonds, but not sure if we are in state able to do that<br />
* sierk: dont have a bank friendly business model<br />
* sierk: whos doing outreach?<br />
* paige: just peter reached out to CAST, we were advised to reach out to SFCLT but nobody has<br />
* sierk: some people in FNB in land trusts, but not involved in omni, might be good for them to reach out. <br />
<br />
== Deb Gives membership ==<br />
* alex: we said 2 weeks for that, so not this week<br />
* sierk: something im clearly in favor with. i've met them, no red flags, and makes us a little more diverse which <br />
* trevor: diversity doesnt mean anything if its not inclusive. <br />
* sierk: i agree with that<br />
* trevor: can look diverse but doesnt mean anything if you dont stand on what you say<br />
* sierk: any other feedback on deb gives?<br />
* paige: i ran into them at weekend event and free store last week. dominic and one other were giving away free phones. they were friendly and were making connections<br />
* sierk: i met 4 or 5 volunteers last friday, they were all very interested in the omni.<br />
* paige: i think they are booking the ballroom wednesdays, dont know when that starts, and i think they will be on maker faire on feb 25<br />
<br />
== maker faire on feb 25 ==<br />
we need volunteers to table and or hang out and welcome people into sudo room<br />
<br />
== LLC update, CAST update ==<br />
* jake: no update on LLC<br />
* alex: is that person you were talking to still around?<br />
* jake: still on my list to check on them<br />
* sierk: ive talked to people about the LLC, <br />
* paige: we were talking about how people interested in lending are wanting something more concrete or legal to look at<br />
* sierk: needs to be described better<br />
* jake: later step is to get something drafted by a lawyer. what we could do in meantime is work on a spreadsheet of list of people, and list terms they are willing to cooperate. i.e. min interest rate. some may say 0, or donate, can go on same spreadsheet. can have multiple lists to preserve anonymity as requested. <br />
* sierk: do you have any idea of total amout now?<br />
* jake: i dont have enough solid commitments to answer that. difference between people saying would be to those with qualifiers. i dont have concrete answer. with more work can be more developed into specific commitments. would that be based on omni functioning same as it always has?<br />
* alex: doesnt have to. <br />
* jake: what we've seen in scenarios where someone wants something different, lot of work to figure that out. like ED<br />
* alex: and probably more down the line<br />
* jake: im supportive of that. only thing im worried about is things getting more expensive that we can't handle<br />
* alex: there vision will have things taken care of paid for<br />
* jake: any word on if sudo room will have same rent?<br />
** alex: not there yet, i can ask about that, how to handle rising costs due to improvements<br />
* sierk: other land trust mentioned, should people from SR do some outreach? <br />
** alex: we could do that, who would do that? 6 people here. <br />
** sierk: someone in SR good at that stuff? i will ask some people in FNB<br />
** paige: im willing to help, wondering how we talk about it with CAST<br />
** sierk: what about patrik?<br />
** paige: ya maybe, hes doing a lot, he is working on bylaw changes, ED contract, and governance changes document<br />
<br />
<br />
== Call for fundraising volunteers in Sudo Room == <br />
* alex: there is a grant calendar now, some of those grants would suit sudo room. we need some volunteers<br />
* sierk: stop waste. food not bombs applying because of reducing food waste<br />
* paige: peter did the stop waste one before but didnt want to do it this time<br />
* jake: they wanted us to make it easier for people to find us on tuesday for fixit clinic. i want to set up a phone so that people could buzz that to come in. like maybe they are across the street. sandwich board to deploy. we got $4k from a different grant<br />
* sierk: fnb gets a lot of money every year, lot of grants for food recovery. would be able to get more with a kitchen. sudo room also does things to prevent waste, and provide education. when are fundraising meetings?<br />
* alex: tuesday evenings<br />
* sierk: okay i will go next week<br />
* alex: i can try to as well. dont want deadlines to go buy<br />
* sierk: just a grant to fix plumbing, so many little things, if we put work into it, can be worthwhile.<br />
<br />
== ED ==<br />
* sierk: pallavi is current candidate?<br />
* alex: pallavi has put in bid, i think its a reasonable candidate<br />
* sierk: i have had interaction through FNB, she seems very invested in keeping omni alive<br />
* paige: complication that she would be funding the role<br />
* sierk: my understanding in these kinds of nonprofits, often theres fundraising people being ED<br />
* alex: we need to figure out what their powers and responsibilities are<br />
* jake: whatever cast says?<br />
* alex: i asked, was kind of vague, maybe more in round 2<br />
* jake: in the absence of that direction, maybe we assume ed is shim between omni structure as it is, they can act as a person representing whole org, they have all delegates numbers. ultimately board has power to make decisions, so if ED makes decision the board could reverse it<br />
* alex: interesting, one possibility that came up is LLC structure, and they put someone else's name down. they dont want to put 8 other names down. that LLC would then own omni. you can say whatever you want about peoples phone number, but we are talking about legally, this person would have a lot of power to do stuff<br />
* jake: ive been president on paper, means nothing<br />
* alex: board ultimately has most of the power, if the board was willing to say vote by majority, do some unpopular things, they legally could. within their power to do things, they just dont do them atm<br />
* sierk: we have this agreement in practice. but on paper. if CAST comes in and puts LLC structure<br />
* alex: like i said not fleshed is. but i think we should be proactive and write what we think of as the good first approximation of what the role should look like<br />
* paige reads patrik's drafted ED contract roles <br />
* sierk: the more we write upfront, improves our position<br />
* alex: also how building is managed, we need to decide whats important. they advocate for separate building management. for example do we want to manage the entrance? they wont be comfortable, so we need to come up with something. do we want to die on that hill? letting people from general space into a place where they could potentially hurt themselves - we need to decide on what's essential<br />
* sierk: how would one stay up to date with information? is that just to delegates?<br />
* alex: right now when we meet, i have been writing a report to share. probably not ideal. i dont know if we should be forwarding emails,<br />
* sierk: toan has been summarizing the meetings to FNB<br />
* alex/sierk can share summary emails amongst collectives<br />
* charles: does it matter that the list is public? sudo-members list is supposed to just be for introductions, but that might be a good one to share out<br />
* sierk: for things that need to be confidential, better if someone summarizing in a way that details are there. cant assume a more restricted list will remain private. the more eyes on it the more useful feedback we can get. <br />
* jake: maintenance, good example is front door access system. everything got ripped out two days ago. magstripe and door knob got ripped off. we got it fixed in very little time and was only as expensive as magstripe. and we plan to go to nfc, which is even cheaper. thats what we are here for, electronics. camera i put back in. compare this to what a company would do, would quote some huge number. this is just one example that money would just skyrocket.<br />
* jake: for building maintenance tasks, cast would give any member organizations an opportunity to bid on doing those tasks. and for their qualifications to be judged based on somebody with objective judgement could say if ok. for example front door access. works as well as any building downtown<br />
* sierk: we used to have a building wg. paige and silver still do work parties, but before WG had people from collectives fixing thing. could be a way of formalizing things in a way cast would agree with. we want to be more effective, but might be able to do that just with a building working group. and when we are not able to do it ourselves, this outside stuff would come in<br />
* alex: im in favor of what jake is saying, retaining that ability. the problem i have, some of it is a perception issue. i already sense, after that thing got torn out, that we dont have a professional to do it<br />
* jake: then pay me<br />
* alex: thats part of the thing. image, everything has to be "well maintained," the image of a well maintained<br />
* jake: well maintained means i come and fix it rn. the "image" of well-maintained is getting some perfect rectangular metal thing<br />
...<br />
* alex: my point is, if we are going to maintain, is we will be expected to do both<br />
* charles: if a company had been maintaining it, what would be different? would police get called?<br />
* alex: would we have someone monitoring<br />
* sierk: person who did it banned, but nobody knows who that is<br />
* jake: happened outside<br />
* sierk: even with security camera, nobody watches it<br />
* jake: yea if we watched it, we'd not act<br />
* alex: philip "we are endangering people by not having cameras" wanting us to professional us<br />
* jake: simple statement, dont read into it<br />
* trevor: maybe motion detection<br />
* jake: thats built in, to almost all modern systems<br />
* alex: my point is it cant just be a good job, it has to look like a good job. <br />
* glen: the omni is going to have to be run professionally. <br />
* alex: ?<br />
* glen: what that essentially means has to look "professional," cant look janky. not just that, the omni is going to have to have an official board. <br />
* sierk: totally disagree with that. professional organiziations, look at your workplace, thats not the problem. it often has to do with people in there. no reason why jake's implementations cant look nice. we have people who can design things. we do need to get more organized but doesnt mean we have to give it to an outside party. events, constantly trash not taken out, this weekend i found all doors open after event<br />
* trevor: i've had that several times, someone just walks in<br />
* sierk: defintely things we cant do ourselves, but things like door system. we have enough people that can help with that<br />
* trevor: no incentive to do that. what's the incentive to clean up? i have to take out trash. <br />
* sierk: building maintenance one thing, events another. <br />
* alex: the other thing, i dont know how much money we would save by doing that. before saying we want that, we should come up with a model budget. then we can try to handle the things that are most costly. maybe a maintenance person, somone installing a door, wouldnt be so costly. we should try and understand costs before doing that<br />
* trevor: i dont see isue<br />
* alex: someone would have to do this work<br />
* trevor: bring incentive to it<br />
* alex: incentive would be figuring out how to get people to do it.<br />
* trevor: how do you motivate someone to do it. <br />
* paige: historically, omni gets by with a lot of volunteer work. volunteers are motivated out of love of space or mission. but how that played out is very few people do a lot of work and get burned out. almost all nonprofits, even those with more paid staff, rely on volunteers. what other positions we could hire? one thought is one paid person per working group, who would make the calls of whether or not we can handle things internally with volunteers or should out source. right now events working group pays person who bottomlines events<br />
* sierk: paying person for coordinating, while still relying on volunteers. still going to be a lot needed by volunteers. chores by volunteers, whereas stuff people interested in doing would be hired out... i had a conversation with a clp person, after event where people got paid. i mentioned that people who cleaned, like phil and tom, was very disrespectful to those people. some people wouldnt lift a finger without being paid. other people, dont want to same names, only a small percentage of people who take out trash after events. those things might not get paid<br />
* alex: we can talk about incentives later, big crisis right now is not enough people. like SR not enough people to pay rent<br />
* sierk: professionalizing event rentals... means things in building go to a new standard. lot of room still in the building where we can empower people to feel ownership, like working groups, getting a role in the decision making process. that would lead to like, jake being able to be considered, not jake personally but that project, being considered alternative to outside contractors<br />
* alex: sounds good, i dont know if it will save money. theres a whole hierarchy of new costs that will be introduced, is the entry way going to be high or low? we should focus on the high things? maybe the high thing is cleaning bathrooms and floors?<br />
* jake: i think its more relevant because expenditure is for, but not comparable because currently bathrooms not handled. <br />
* alex: one of their requirements might be, they have a list of people who open door<br />
* jake: we can do that<br />
* alex: they might be comfortable with it being professional<br />
* jake: pay me<br />
* alex: cloud based stuff now.. [sucks but is popular]<br />
* jake: less reliable. even with the card reader ripped off, people could still get in with their phone. script alex wrote<br />
* sierk: outside company takes longer, but what i care about, not just money, but also, you become much more of a passive member of community if everything handled on the outside. also how do companies treat their workers? we need to show what we are capable of, and some things we arent capable in. <br />
* alex: we could also start a diy company with access stuff<br />
* jake: with one client<br />
* charles: ny hackerspace im involved it might be interested<br />
* alex: card reader has worked well so far, but do need to do contactless<br />
* charles: whats the reason for that<br />
* alex: i might be making this more of a big deal, but they did mention they wanted to handle building management. i suspect they want to have information on who has access to the building. one thing came up, ken got here, he said he saw someone "just waking up." they want to be able to control for that<br />
* talking about deed restriction, keeping building off market for non-arts purposes<br />
* sierk: i wasnt here in the beginning, but my understanding that that was always the idea, get it off the market<br />
* alex: i think everyone is on board with that<br />
* sierk: current trust we have, people worried that foreclosure would put building on market. <br />
* paige: one idea about preserving some autonomy - making door by trash room run by us, for "CCL and SR members", and we can control access. Maybe FNB and media lab interested too, would require us to make SR staircase more accessible. But then give CAST control of access to the more public spaces like ballroom and the entry hall.<br />
* alex: the big thing, is this partnership would give us a lot of funds to change things we couldnt consider before<br />
* trevor: SR should make an album. get some money. nerdcore on spotify <br />
* sierk: general assemblies</div>
Paigep
https://sudoroom.org/wiki/Meeting_Notes_2024-02-14
Meeting Notes 2024-02-14
2024-02-15T07:08:03Z
<p>Paigep: Created page with "= Attendees = * jake * alex * trevor * paige * arin (remote) * jenny * carl * sarah = Agenda = == CAST meeting recap == * alex: had a meeting at 1230 with CEO of CAST. Ken. several delegates present. me, natalie, patrik, toan. also [non-delegates] yar and silver. Ken explained how CAST works, was pretty high level, did say some things would need to change if we went forward with CAST. needs to be a single person to make decisions on behalf of omni without going back to..."</p>
<hr />
<div>= Attendees =<br />
* jake<br />
* alex<br />
* trevor<br />
* paige<br />
* arin (remote) <br />
* jenny<br />
* carl<br />
* sarah<br />
<br />
= Agenda =<br />
== CAST meeting recap ==<br />
* alex: had a meeting at 1230 with CEO of CAST. Ken. several delegates present. me, natalie, patrik, toan. also [non-delegates] yar and silver. Ken explained how CAST works, was pretty high level, did say some things would need to change if we went forward with CAST. needs to be a single person to make decisions on behalf of omni without going back to the delegates. not clear which decisions that would be, need to figure those out. talking about something like an ED role that we would need to empower, we dont have an exact list of what to empower with.<br />
<br />
* jake - did you get any sense of what things this person would have to be able to do?<br />
* alex: i didnt get a straight answer, but gave example. one solution would be LLC where they have 10%, we have 90%. nothing written in stone. his example, if that would happen, could only have one name on LLC. unmanageable to work with 8 different parties. said that was nonnegotiable. the things that cast would provide is substantial: hook us up with building management (recommends outsourcing that), be able to give us a loan (think they would hook us up with someone to give a loan), pointed out that someone sleeping in building, saw that last time, those sorts of things cant continue. <br />
He said that there were lots of messes that needed to be cleaned up, lots of maintenance that would cost money. He talked about, is this 20k? 22K square foot building, he said $1/sqft is something to strive for and we're not meeting that, for revenue from rent. For example the rent from sudoroom is included in this, that should be something we should strive for, as a goal.<br />
* paige - that's low<br />
* alex: yes low, but we currently arent bringing that. not saying we should charge people that in rent, but saying building underutilized.<br />
* alex: asked about how much autonomy we would have right now. right now not a tenancy, we do a lot of emergency fixes. ken said that kind of work would be off limits. we wouldnt, i.e. be servicing the electrical. my point is it would be a very different relationship to the building. i pointed out SR is very open, dont have to be a member, anybody can use, and he seemed to think that would still be possible. <br />
* alex: toan asked about would FNB food handlers need to be certified, and he thought yes. it sounds to me there would be a lot of changes to consider, none of this is detailed yet. will be another meeting to get more details. <br />
* paige - did he say anything about the ballroom, like events management<br />
* alex: patrik asked about that, it seemed like they would leave that up to us, to find someone we would be willing to have. but i think they would be able to help us find someone. relationship they would have to building is not clear. not lender, help you find building, and wouldnt own building. they want to own 1%, deed restrict so that it can't be resold as commercial. they are interested in creating permanent spaces for art organizations<br />
* paige: so that LLC would be like 10% or something?<br />
* alex: that was part i didnt really get, but that was not set in stone. non-negotiable part was the 1 person to negotiate, and 1% of ownership for goals to be met in terms of the deed.<br />
* alex: omni would still get to choose new member collectives, but they may get some control, maybe to vet. he talked about David, said David is firewalled from these conversations. not sure what that meant. <br />
* jake - a firewall is<br />
* alex - does this mean we cant talk to david or david cant help with anything? oh he said he was familiar with sudoroom because he had heard about sudo mesh. interested in infrastructure and things like that. anyways that's what i got. biggest stumbling block is finding a person to fit ED that we all can trust. right now pallavi is interested in the role.<br />
* paige: lots of applicants for bookkeeper<br />
** alex: silver said 15 hours per week but that seems like a lot, Sarah said 5, what if we didn't have that much work<br />
** paige: my point is we should do a call out for ED<br />
** alex - it would help a lot if that person was familiar with omni in all its stages<br />
** paige - jason put us in contact with Donna who is <br />
** alex: i was thinking about asking ken for recommendations<br />
* alex - anyway how do people feel about that kind of change? in terms of sudoroom, i think a lot would change. The access control would go out of our hands. Cleanliness would have to be enforced?<br />
** jake: in SudoRoom?<br />
** alex: yes. especially in terms of fire safety<br />
** trevor: i saw a giant ass rat <br />
* alex: do we have insurance? in terms of using tools<br />
** paige: yes, but do not know how much that covers. i was asked to provide additional insurance when i applied for woodshop tenant<br />
* alex: so for SR, what are things that are really non-negotiable? and in omni in general? other thing he said is this would be a first for them. they havent collaborated with a space like omni. usually art spaces come to them needing help finding a space. we are in a different boat. <br />
** paige: probably easier and harder, we have a building but also all our history<br />
*alex: i think he was briefed that we have problems making decisions, im not sure thats our problem. we make decisions, but managing the day-to-day seems more a problem.<br />
** paige: yea but still frustration here over "who" is making the decisions<br />
** alex: there's just not, i feel like we don't have enough people showing up to do things. It's a dying organization from that point of view. So we have to do something like this.<br />
* jake: i totally think everything youve said sounds fine. but i dont see a practical way for us to choose a single person to represent all of the collectives, especially if we dont know boundaries to which we are empowering them<br />
** alex: need to come up with a list. i.e. day-to-day spending.<br />
** jake: that brings me to my main concern. if this org is taking over building, and has a different way of doing maintenance, they could significantly raise our daily costs. i.e. pay huge money to upgrade building.<br />
** alex: theyre not interested in goldplating things, but getting things fire code safety. which you know can be costly. if people want to volunteer to do cleaning, thats totally cool. none of this has been negotiated yet. no hard and fast decision on how they will run the building. there were certain things he was very concerned about, like electrical<br />
** jake: im okay with that, but for example, what if their idea of spending money was so different from ours, that we couldnt afford to keep up, is there any expectation of how much we are going to need to pay monthly?<br />
** alex: i think thats good thing to think about, i dont think it will be forced onto us. the only thing they would force on us is they reserve the right to walk away. they arent going to own building and kick us out<br />
** jake: wouldnt we expect them to have some leverage for us to not?__<br />
* alex: 1%<br />
** jake - what it comes down to, will SR able to continue operating in same space with same expenditure monthly. i say that looking around thinking this is more than 2000 sq ft. if they expect us to bring in $1/foot<br />
** alex: yea maybe $3k in rent?<br />
** jake: maybe we could hit that, and if that was only thing we had to hit. if they want to buy something to replace door card, i dont care.<br />
** alex: theyre going to tell us to hire building management<br />
** jake: yea i dont care, but what that translates to is higher costs. $3000 is 50% more but maybe we can hit it, and if that gives us security, and people not driven away by acrimony, then that is something that can be manageable. financial burden but can make it happen<br />
** alex: we didnt talk about rents<br />
** jake: to me thats main thing. consequence of what you are talking about. if the consequence is we have to pay 2x to pay some contractors, becomes unmanageable<br />
** alex: ken was talking about how we arent taking all free money. <br />
** jake: because we dont have people power<br />
** alex: but also people walking in, should see space they feel good donating to. i dont have experience with this stuff either but ill bring it up. what you are saying, infrastructure costs would take up a lot, that could be hard to pay off. there are a lot of CAST operated buildings in the area, if you have contacts Jake of people who work there, could ask them what relationship was. Do you know AV club? That takes place in one of CAST's maintained space, can ask Natalie. <br />
* alex: im sure what they want, access control to building is managed in a way that is rational that they can participate in. if we can come up with something like that, should be ok, but would be a negotiation<br />
** jake: reason i bring that up is because it all comes down to money. in past ive clashed with people eager to spend money when we didnt have any to spare.<br />
** alex: i think 2k is low for rent, lower than it should be<br />
** jake: if our monthly went up, say $3k<br />
** alex: how many paying members do we have?<br />
** jake: a lot of people who participate who dont pay, because they forgot or changed cards. system doesnt notify people. <br />
** alex: upgrading things would also make people more likely to come<br />
** jake: i dont see that as a big effect<br />
** alex: for most people, seeing a rat that is game over. not for me.. but they dont want to come back, dont want to pay money. same as when they come on a rainy day<br />
** jake: we also chose bad people to fix it... we spent 9k<br />
** alex: im saying if those fixed more people come back<br />
** jake: i agree with you, but this also seems to be our only option right now.<br />
** alex: do have an update on LLC? <br />
** jake: no but ill put that high on my list<br />
* alex: will be a follow up meeting with shreya that will be more about nuts and bolts<br />
* paige: im glad hes not scared away<br />
** alex: i think a lot of people have put a lot of work into this. and he also seems very reasonable.<br />
* jake: does he consider sudo room an art space<br />
** alex: we asked it, considered not a problem<br />
* alex: also said we can email about questions<br />
** jake: yes we should know what that one person should be empowered with<br />
* alex: need to come up with a list of things required to do<br />
* sarah: they have network of affluent people who want to loan money for good causes. what community vision does. community vision used to be "loan fund", loans to projects that are worthwhile but might not get fundraising from a bank, because not a sure bet. CAST would have people willing to lend the money, they act as a broker in a sense, guaranteeing the loan to this lender. a part of that is they want to make sure is in a position operationally to repay it. they have acquired spaces, seems like they are managers, they out-source work. probably get some property management company to do that. where i think they would be really useful is brokering some sort of nonprofit arts organization to manage the ballroom.<br />
** alex: i think thats all negotiable, if they bring in or we find someone<br />
** sarah: the reticence would be politics of omni. they would want to do events and produce work but not piss people off, get involved with all politics directed at omni. maybe if cast could be a buffer, to reassure these orgs interested in ballroom. <br />
** sarah: recommend asking them about other orgs, to give ballpark on how much expenses will be, how much to budget. my feeling, if ballroom managed and operated with nonprofit, that could subsidize. $8000 a month would be cheap<br />
** alex: would we rent it, or lease it, or give it to CAST to manage? 150k for the roof, they said. then ongoing expenditures like building management, and access control, new doors. <br />
** sarah: kitchen<br />
** alex: said doable, FNB need to get food handling certification<br />
** sarah: sprinklers<br />
** alex: they broker a loan on beneficial terms, and advise you on paying it. we are jumping on the train and they are taking somewhere<br />
** sarah: integrated alarm system, sprinkler. somewhat to discretion of inspector. alarm 5% of sprinkler. 100k would be like sprinkler or partial sprinklers. 10k tops for alarm, cover almost all building. 2500 was budgeted in past, would cover ballroom and most vulnerable areas. <br />
** jenny: really?<br />
** sarah: system that david got oakland fire dept to approve<br />
** paige: i see cast website say 6mill investment in counterpulse<br />
** alex: is that a loan? or investment<br />
** sarah: loans can be investments. you "invest" in stock market. trying to remember, i think counterpulse invested to get building, then had a buy back<br />
* paige: looking at investments. before we were saying 1M<br />
* alex: up for negotiation. could have 1 or 2 fulltime people to manage ballroom<br />
* jenny: janitorial, and communications who can work with<br />
* paige: do we want WG to continue?<br />
* jenny: havent been that great<br />
* alex: i dont know enough about them to say<br />
* paige: 1 or 2 people<br />
* jenny: a lot of churn, little incentive to engage. internship to work in events management, empowering with mentors. maybe something CAST could provide, assist in bringing people in fold to coordinate, while not putting entirely in organizations fold. sustainable booking model. i spent a lot of time on IT level of booking, really complicated, finding expert in booking managing systems. dont think we should throw baby out with the bathwater. gaining skills and event management, really good opportunity on nonprofit level. <br />
* paige: right now just silver and philip bell i believe<br />
* jenny: struggle with IT. been periods where very organized and not organized. <br />
* alex: what if were one person who coordinated volunteers? working model<br />
* jenny: yea. i think everyone taking on coordinating event get paid. a lot of fucking work, thats the dream<br />
* paige: for me ok to give to right org<br />
* alex: how do we get money then<br />
* paige: for a price<br />
* alex: right like a long term lease? <br />
* paige: yes or renting<br />
* alex: silver said they are holding sewing lessons bringing quite a bit of cash, and new people in building. also sounds like something SR should be doing. they basically bring in someone wanting to teach a lesson, teacher gets 30/hr<br />
** jenny: love it, think SR would work, not ballroom. does foster business model to show lenders or donors, and we could do similar business model for SR. i could whip that up in a day or two, already partly there. no one in SR ever asks for donations because we do stuff for free, which cool but at least can ask, try to make viable in eyes of lenders.<br />
** alex: we discussed having an arduino lesson<br />
** jenny: model of peter's fixit clinic. when you have active events where you are doing outreach to communities that can use that, poor, POC, women, LGBT, in tandem with actually running the events and documenting them, makes things a lot more viable to funders. i know im preaching to the choir but how do we expand this. <br />
** paige: comes back to lacking people power<br />
** jenny: how friendly do we make these meetings. delegates meetings, sudo room meetings more friendly<br />
** alex: recent ones have been really bad. <br />
<br />
== Deb Gives collective application ==<br />
* jake: we dont have quorum<br />
** alex: yes, i think i will abstain. i have reservations but not enough to block. i think its a small group, and a bad time. thats about it. if theyre happy with just renting space for a while thats fine<br />
** jake: then lets do it<br />
** alex: i dont think thats enough to block. unless you think i should<br />
* jake: i think normally when proposal is made, collective should be notified and it is discussed<br />
** alex: been 2weeks since proposal<br />
* alex: they do cool work with vulnerable populations, been doing this work for a while. group is small, 2 people, 3 if you count pallavi. <br />
** paige: i think 4, including pallavi<br />
* alex: and i think its bad time, because adding more confusion to delegates right now, i could see that going wrong. even if it were just me, i would abstain. i dont feel strong enough <br />
* paige: we do currently have 2 collectives with only 2 people<br />
** alex: they did both start with more people. <br />
* paige: i think i would abstain. our governance will change one way or the other in the future<br />
* jake: i think in a past meetings, talking about pp, saying we would not accept member collective until <br />
** paige: PP having the special aspect of also being potential co-owners<br />
* jake: SR said no new collectives..<br />
** paige: except tanc<br />
** jake: we approved TANC in july<br />
** alex: and ML<br />
** jake: sr agreed that sr agreed that no new collectives until building fate decided.<br />
** paige: i remember carl saying that but dont remember anyone verbally agreeing too<br />
** alex: and i remember carl admitting it wasnt entirely consistent to say that. that said, i wish there were more people here to tell me what to do<br />
** paige: valentines day and raining<br />
* jenny: what are other collectives thinking?<br />
** alex: i think most are on board. mostly about omnis...membership process is you go straight from to "we dont know who you are" to coming as collective<br />
** jake: straight to blocking board<br />
** jenny: this has been an ongoing debate since we started. our member collective process is pretty arduous and tedious and debilitating for new groups trying to start up. but there are other ways to be involved, i.e. through wg's or subprojects or renters, built up trust and solidarity for a while, 3-6months before being approved to be a member collective. and we've always been fairly suspicious of a collective, especially when they have 1-3 members, not really member collective, and if they dont have open governance. thats always been the blocker, do you have a collective process. not a blocking measure, but how are you going to engage with consensus decision making process of omni. rather than single one president who weighs in, wheres their allegiance and accountability. <br />
** alex: theres no rule for that. we were talking about this earlier. two current collectives have only 2 members. SM and LL, which historically had more members. how do we justify saying no to a new collective.<br />
** jake: how many members does SM have?<br />
** jenny: id say current communications are 5-10?<br />
** alex: so at last meeting?<br />
** jenny: havent had meetings. membership changes and covid altered landscape of work. currently probably multiple signal conversations, of which you and jake are maybe tertiarily involved. there are ongoing convos, not necessarily about omni. i think LL in a similar state. to be honest<br />
* carl: i agree with a lot of things you are saying jenny. i brought up some of these things last week. my general feeling is if it is a small group, shouldnt have a delegate. can be de-listed off the delegates<br />
** jenny: dont do that<br />
** carl: as much as i love SM, not fair. just means you need to get membership. maybe just temporary.<br />
** jenny: new membership collective. two offices in omni. brand new coming in, no governance to speak of, only 3 members, and one actively vying for power in omni. reason i would block membership, not renting. no historical relationship in omni to speak of<br />
** paige: as you said jenny other ways to be part of omni. i think if we deny them we have to reconsider SM and LL and sketchboard, dont live up to those standards<br />
** carl: what is time frame.<br />
** jenny: SM and LL have years<br />
** carl: especially at this time of deciding on existence of building, i personally think we should put pause on new collectives unless already in pipeline<br />
** jenny: no i think we need more voices. matter is that this isnt really a collective. and no pre-existing connection to omni. when we are talking about representation, we need to talk about fundamentals. is there pre-existing relationship, governance structure that ensures they are actually representing their collective<br />
** alex: no rule that a collective cant be like that. i suspect ML is like that. i dont know their structure, i think most decisions made <br />
** paige: i think that might be a bad example<br />
** alex: leadership structure and decision making hasnt been really a deciding factor in the past<br />
** jenny: i didnt mean to emphasize that, i mean most important is lack of relationship, such a small group, and a member is actively vying for power in omni. how a group makes decisions doesnt matter as much as how aligned they are and if actively involved. CCL doesnt have consensus, they empower patrik<br />
** jake: they have board meetings<br />
** jenny: they do discuss omni proposals but ultimately governance process isnt consensus. just a favoring towards democratic<br />
** alex: how did SB come to be<br />
** paige: ran events first, idk that natalie talks about omni to SB<br />
** jenny: they did have relationship before<br />
** alex: im trying to get, what are we comfortable with and not<br />
** jenny; relationship <br />
** alex: how long were they involved before delegate?<br />
** paige: dont remember<br />
* alex: we are reeling from boycott, worried about giving power to an unknown. despite CLP, I saw from notes, endorsed by many groups. FNB, and LL, people said they had worked with them. im saying, they did have a relationship. <br />
** jenny: idk about everybody<br />
** alex: im saying half the room<br />
** jenny: i wasnt there during the shitstorm<br />
* alex: i dont think i can do anything but abstain at this point. i think we can sit this out. unless anyone feels very strongly<br />
** jenny: i will bring up conflict of interest<br />
** alex: do you want me to stir that pot<br />
** jake: i think you should say SR hasnt had ability to consense on this<br />
** jenny: i think someone having huge sway in two member collectives and officers role. i dont know pallavi and they may be an awesome person but that shows as a huge red flag. officer has no voting power, doesnt ultimately matter. just raises a lot of red flags.<br />
** carl: if youre in a second collective<br />
* paige: was willing to step down. <br />
* carl: maybe good intentions <br />
* alex: i think the most useful thing we can do right now, is come up with list of things for ED role, and find candidates that everyone can trust to carry out what omni needs to be. that is much more important than arguing about whether pallavi is grabbing power. i think she is very interested in role. we are free to come to decision, but in order to do that we need to find more applicants. <br />
* paige: also pallavi proposed temporary ED. would help to have someone on ground<br />
* alex: to me problem is tenure, the hard part is first step. need someone everyone can say yes to with no reservations. <br />
* jenny: pallavi offering to do deep work with no assurance of reward is huge<br />
* alex: she would apply for a grant. she is also in charge of grantwriting. <br />
* jenny: thats a lot, she would need helpers. just writing one grant is practically a full time job. we have been relying on volunteers for this, and yea our bad, but where we are at. i spend way too much of my work hour time on grant writing when its not my main work. 20-30 hr of my time a month. ambiguous in between role is difficult. <br />
* alex: anyways, we should try to write down what sorts of powers an ED should have.<br />
* paige: operations coordinator " "carry out the decisions of the working groups and the board. No other power. Make it clear that they don't have decision making authority."<br />
** jenny: thats old and outdated. should write something from scratch<br />
** paige: 2021<br />
** paige: here are the items that Patrik wrote for draft ED contract:<br />
*** Fundraising, in collaboration with the Company’s existing fundraising staff and volunteers.<br />
*** Manage collections from tenants that owe rent and event clients; serving as mediator if there is a dispute between event clients and the Events working group about deposits and refunds<br />
*** Managing permits and compliance, tenants, and building functionality. Making sure people have leases that are accurate, hiring contractors/repair people, dealing with inspections and the City, renewing/renegotiating insurance<br />
*** Managing payables - making sure bills get paid, making sure people get paid, making sure there is money to pay them. The Interim Executive Director can authorize payments up to $500 without prior approval with the Company’s board, but must coordinate with the Company’s bookkeeper, treasurer, and finance working group to make sure there are enough funds available.<br />
*** Conflict mediation - Identify conflicts when they happen; initiate investigation when necessary; de-escalate when possible; start and track conflict mediation process; recommend people for banning from the building by the Company’s board if conflicts cannot be resolved.<br />
<br />
* discussion about conflict of interest with multiple people in different collectives. notes not taken well.<br />
* carl: would suit her to pick one<br />
* alex: thats already true for other people. marc is a member of a collective with 2 people<br />
* carl: right if SM is inactive, then<br />
* jake: not inactive do have some people<br />
* carl: if not a delegate for both<br />
* paige: its a flaw in our system. like has been a problem before with clp controlling two groups with only 2 members<br />
* alex: like maybe people arent members of collectives, theyre members of omni.<br />
<br />
== silver request to do laser meetup ==<br />
* March 13th 7pm - 7:30pm. problem is it conflicts with meeting time<br />
* alex: i see no problem with that, and also we could move the meeting,<br />
** jake: that could be a very important meeting<br />
** alex: wouldnt that be a good space?<br />
** jake: i guess if people in here we could tell them<br />
** alex: why do you think its important<br />
** jake: times ticking by, could be something like cast meeting us</div>
Paigep
https://sudoroom.org/wiki/Meeting_Notes_2024-01-31
Meeting Notes 2024-01-31
2024-02-01T06:31:06Z
<p>Jerkey: /* vote on peoples programs membership proposal */</p>
<hr />
<div>= Attendees =<br />
<br />
* carl - hi i'm carl (remotely)<br />
* andrew w - i'm here, remotely<br />
* E - i'm here remotely, at work so please don't hold votes while i'm not present, or text me if there are votes so i can participate<br />
* yar - she/her, i wanted to be there in person but i had a covid exposure so i'm isolating for the next few days<br />
* alex - i'm alex, i'm the delegate<br />
* trevor - i'm trevor<br />
* paige [notetaker] - former delegate<br />
* jake [notetaker] - former delegate<br />
<br />
<br />
== pre-meeting unstructured convo ==<br />
* andrew - why did eric stop being delegate?<br />
* paige - both eric and i stepped down as delegates because people objected, wanted someone with more overall approval and Alex stepped up<br />
* andrew - i was wondering if it was sudoroom people or omni people objecting<br />
* eric - Jamal objected to working with Omni Commons if i was delegate, and there was a meeting with a lot of bullying but hopefully Alex can move things forward<br />
* yar - i'm very happy that Alex is the delegate<br />
* alex - also we have a need for a new secretary<br />
* jake - i nominate Sierk for secretary<br />
* paige - and treasurer<br />
* jake - i nominate Taylor. Both of these people have expressed willingness to fill those roles<br />
* alex - the thing about the ED, is that an agenda item?<br />
* paige - it doesn't need to be an agenda item but i was talking with Pallavi, who mentioned being interested in doing an ED role at a much more, better fit, discussion item tomorrow.<br />
* andrew - are we talking about an ED for sudoroom or Omni Commons?<br />
* paige - for Omni. The need came up because of Jamal offered, but the Omni needs someone, so things don't fall through the cracks, there was talk before about having an Operations Coordinator? <br />
* alex - the role would be described as someone who carries out the will of the delegates, working full time to keep the ball rolling. At least that was the idea before?<br />
* yar - operations coordinator discussion was 2 years ago<br />
* alex - i have a question i'd like to ask up front about my function. Basically, what is the precedent for when there's a block in sudoroom, does that imply a block in the delegates committee?<br />
* yar: precedent has been - sr has worked hard to resolve blocks. usually a block from a member of a collective would manifest as blocking for a couple meetings, but then they would propose amendments to the proposal, or work out any issues they had with people <br />
* andrew - i dont understand concept of block, is that a veto?<br />
* alex - the process until now, is that if someone has a block, aka a veto, the group works to resolve it to figure out some other siolution and offer that instead, so there's some affirmative action. Unfortunately we've had meetings lately with a lot of contention and ended up with gridlock. But the idea behind consensus is that we're going to try to reach a mutually agreeable decision<br />
* andrew - can we go to majority rule or is it cast in stone?<br />
* alex - we can do whatever we want but this is how things are right now<br />
* andrew - right now nothing is getting done, but needs to be.<br />
* jake - i disagree with that narrative, that we need to change the system. that comes up from people who arent getting their things done. disagreement about what to do, and we need more time to do those things. those who want to do their things want to change rules in<br />
* alex - dont impute that, say reason why you think<br />
* jake - concept of we have a problem and need to change system, things being done constantly. even the foreclosure, if we were to sit on our hands, 3 months. trying to come up with alternate solutions, timescale slower than what people might suggest<br />
* andrew - are we in foreclosure now?<br />
* jake - we're in default, which means they could start foreclosure process, but no notice yet<br />
* andrew - hearing some prospect of money showing up<br />
* jake - yes several prospects<br />
* alex - do you have a particular thing in mind of not being done?<br />
* andrew - read last meeting minutes, seemed like no decisions made. dont know if its even possible with constraints<br />
* alex - last 2 meetings, PP membership and ED<br />
* yar - as much as our system isnt the best, the people i disagree with the most, i believe they also want to save the building and are trying their best to find options to save it ,it seems like we're all on the same page. everything still on table, 5 or 6 options for omni at the moment. if we got foreclosure notice tomorrow, we could pursue any of those options and the building could be saved<br />
* alex - could we talk about that?<br />
* yar - we can, would be a review for a lot of people in this meeting. big questions are just like, what do we do and how do we do it. i think a lot of the options are compatible with each other. as frustrated as ive been with consensus process how its been happening, in sr in particular, still holding out that we will listen and understand one another, find common ground<br />
* andrew - everyone else knows these options?<br />
* alex - none of them are quite concrete, but i can enumerate. PP option, partnership with them, say they have money and can pay off loan. they would want part of building in return. COM proposal, philip bell would be doing something similar. LLC raising money to use to get event space<br />
* jake - they are working with CAST. CAST also connected through Peter. Need a more specific proposal from then<br />
* alex - third option, partnering with a land trust in some way. CAST is one name, they have visited the space. <br />
* yar - SFCLT also an option. another option would be lenders through an LLC<br />
* alex - we would get loans from people through that LLC<br />
* paige - short term solution<br />
* andrew - is that realistic?<br />
* jake - realistic because building is valuable, and ballroom has a lot of earning power. <br />
* andrew - whats the best option<br />
* alex - people have different opinions<br />
* yar - sounds like you are following sudo discuss mailing list. not where these discussions usually happen - happen in omni mailing lists and slack. just because you havent seen these options, please trust that people are talking about this everyday<br />
* jake - you dont just have to trust, you can join the consensus mailing list<br />
* carl - do you have update on LLC jake?<br />
* jake - funder distracting me from LLC option, because they could support the loan in full. working to draw up an offer. as far as llc on its own, i havent been pursuing people, because it seems like the land trust.. everything ive heard about CAST, question is just of "how" are they funding us<br />
* alex - i think you should be full steam on LLC. nows not the time to back off. do you need help?<br />
* yar: agreed the LLC is important to work on. omni has issues with conflict etc but IMO these will be easier to resolve if we have more certainty about the future, which LLC would provide<br />
* jake - yes<br />
* alex - we should try to get volunteers together<br />
* jake - also 2k to lawyer to draft agreement. dont need to do this until later. if people trying to decide something by next week, then should get on it<br />
* alex - does starting llc preclude any of these options<br />
* yar - absolutely not, just buys us more time<br />
* alex - even without legal stuff, getting pledge and finding out what they want in term would be great<br />
* jake - ive told you everything i can tell you. hopefully something agreeable. <br />
* alex - im talking about the LLC <br />
* yar - the more people, the better<br />
* jake - i feel pressure by timeframe people are saying right now. getting 20 or so people to fund this will take long<br />
* yar - i dont mean to pressure you, im trying to encourage you. please dont take it as pressure<br />
* andrew - <br />
* alex - when they come with a proposal, we'll take it back to collectives, and judge it. cant say we will agree to it ahead of time. <br />
* andrew - what if they say i.e. they will do ballroom<br />
* alex - consensus probably for selling out part of the building. also open to 5 or so year loan. hasnt discussed governance changes yet .<br />
* andrew - i dont think anyone will <br />
* alex - theyd make interest <br />
* andrew - but balloon payment<br />
* paige - this would also be a balloon payment<br />
* jake - someone was telling me there is an interest only loan. i though exploitaive. said "well welcome to pay more, pay principle". how capitalism works<br />
* yar - someone is handling the things you are talking about andrew<br />
* jake - why do you object<br />
* yar - holding up the meeting<br />
* jake - ok lets go to other agenda items and come back<br />
<br />
* andrew - can we get a list of proposals<br />
<br />
* Peoples Programs would pay off loan and then own a portion of the building<br />
* City In Motion would partner with a lender like CAST<br />
* LLC of co-lenders give Omni a new lender<br />
* a land trust taking ownership of the property<br />
<br />
== report back on misssey ==<br />
* paige - the executive director and our contact from Misssey came to have a tour. The nature of the work they do requires them to have good control of who comes in and out of the building, and the ED told them "this is the omni commons, i'm not gonna change that" but it could work for ... the nature of a very open community center sharing building with hq for people working with at-risk youth due to sexual exploitation didn't seem like a good fit, but it was a nice discussion, they like our radical politics but don't know how to make it work but, it was just reminiscent of what David K was talking about: people who are interested in buildings, they don't want all of our drama and history in the space, we need to have a plan for how do we imagine working together with interested parties<br />
<br />
== a vote on Peoples Programs proposal tomorrow ==<br />
* yar - except PP who have conflict resolution skills, and are willing to engage with omni as-is despite the drama and history, because of their investment in the longevity of the space<br />
* jake - they cant even address conflicts we've had or take down their own retweet of the [former member collective] attack against us<br />
* trevor - I thought that there was like a doxxing issue too, which makes things more complicated<br />
* yar [in notes]: PP never doxxed anybody, that was [former member collective]<br />
* paige - PP is willing, we just have to do work to set up <br />
* carl - does misssey want to be a collective<br />
* paige - no they are looking to buy a building. <br />
* yar - back to PP. somebody said PP had doxxing issue, that was not them, that was [former member collective]. PP didnt dox anyone. At the last meeting, yemi said they were open to taking it down<br />
* jake - they shouldnt have done it in the first place<br />
* yar - we should have discussion<br />
* jake - have said no before, forget it not going to happen<br />
* "Solidarity with [former member collective]!" https://twitter.com/ppls_programs/status/1710071892688916635<br />
* jnny [in notes]: had breakfast with two longtime political black comrades of Omni last week. They said PP and CLP are virtually the same modality of black nationalist propaganda and coercion. Heard of The Holdout and Qilombo?<br />
** just invited one of them to weigh in if they feel up to it - probably later on as they're currently driving home from work<br />
<br />
* carl - like jake said, they were told about it in december, and that was something they should have immediately taken down. If they haven't done so, it's really irresponsible. It's really not ok that they haven't taken it down.<br />
* alex - discussion we are having right now is about PP becoming a member collective, separate from purchasing building. separate but related. they asked to become a member collective, i say as a gesture but yar disagrees, to begin our relationship together. my understanding is if they purchase part of building, they will need to cease becoming a member. could be permanent. lot of discussion about why they are doing this, pros and cons. other thing you should be aware of, is CCL will block, so SR potentially has the deciding vote. given consensus - 1. yemi showed up at meeting, gave outline of political program, how group works. a lot of that is in the notes so if youre interested you can look there. im skeptical of member collective because creates a conflict of interest. they said they will recuse themselves, but makes discussions a little awkward. also group seems to have different values from some groups here. SR and CCL have open source / open dedication. PP have more closed meetings. <br />
* andrew - are they the ones standing up for iranian regime<br />
* alex - thats a separate org, there is some overlap<br />
* jake - PP supports iranian regime, also support putin liberating ukraine from nazi regime. iranian regime article written by [former member collective] is on PP's medium. also conflict, two people in charge, one of them had a conflict at omni. attacking someone criticizing the iranian regime. yar has said they are doing mediation, but nobody denies that happened. to say PP is not on same page as [former member collective] isnt true<br />
* alex - can someone else say something about what jake is bringing up?<br />
* yar - people said different things. person who had picture taken didnt hear anything, but did note taking the picture. talk with picture taken, virtue signal that pro muslim, that iran is pro muslim. i do not agree, even people i march next to, do not agree with those support iranian regime. but a lot of people do. something we must contend with on the left. i personally willing to meet those people. im talking about specific people, working with these people in oakland We're not meeting with the ayatollahs, we're meeting with Abbas Muntaquim<br />
* (discussion about PP being run by Abbas and another person as the "chairs")<br />
* jake - but we would be selling building to them not the people of Peoples Programs<br />
* yar im pretty sure... - right now we are talking about member collective<br />
* andrew - seemed like, when i read the bylaws. article one, wont be involved with any oppressive ideologies. getting in bed with these guys. not q of whether left can cooperated with muslims. antithetical to core principle everyone agreed to in the outset. cant believe we are even considering this<br />
* carl - i dont have much to say about political stance, but ask about member of omni. havent seen their latest proposal. is there... what are they offering? rent? or planning on space here or not? what are they going to be doing here.<br />
* yar - they would like to have space in the building but they were hoping to spend more time in the building to figure out what space works for them, but in the meantime they still want to help save the building<br />
* carl - but are they going to pay rent like the other collectives?<br />
* yar - for a space they would pay rent, but they just want to<br />
* andrew - so we let anyone be a collective<br />
* yar - if we approve them. right now we have 2 collectives who dont have a space in omni<br />
** we do?? who LL and sketchboard<br />
*** who still contribute $$ <br />
* carl - we shouldnt approve unless they have amount to pay in rent. what is the need of them being an official collective, instead of being informal collaborators. <br />
* alex - that was brought up in the meeting. asked if anything short of membership. patrik considered free rent in the ballroom. that didnt seem to go anywhere. next delegates meeting we are expecting to vote yes or no<br />
* jake - wanted to speak to request about becoming a member collective. people asking rightly about what they want. im pulling up original email. [reads email]. <br />
* alex - we followed up, needed more fleshing out. they felt last meeting was filling in gaps. they do want to use the space. they would start using space for several of their activities. clarified that their main concern is saving the building. i explained that the option of selling building is out, i think that was their main concern. more information than the email now<br />
* jake - i was reading that to give context to their original request. seems to not make sense, not trying to be part of omni. people were asking just now if precedent for groups not having any use, no rent, and the last one we had like that was [former member collective]. i just think that in this present time, and thing that CCL is not compatible with them because they believe their above board work with bioscience, not compatible working with group of their politics. also people like me in SR who dont think right to approve. counter to the idea of considering them as a business partner. "dont want anything just to be on board" doesnt make sense other than to influence us. <br />
* andrew - can we vote?<br />
* yar - i dont know where to start. 1st thing, we already have most of the member collectives have come out in enthusiastic support, because this is a group we want to work with, compatible in all the important ways, despite organizing different. this idea of - it seems extremely unlikely that people who want to block, that any of those people who approve a more serious deal with them. and that seems so clear to me as "adding them will create a conflict of interest." feels disingenuous, you know you wouldnt approve that either. im not trying to coerce you do that. i would rather accept member collective short of control of building. frankly dividing building up is less ideal than working together as a coalition. i see this first proposal as a clear first step, recognizing as common stakeholder in saving this building. as people whove grown up in the neighborhood, been here longer<br />
* alex - can you talk about specific people<br />
* yar - yes<br />
* yar - every time we talk about this, not able to finish idea. habit of men interrupting women here. things people say are inaccurate, dont have time. ask everyone - do you feel right to block, to veto those. I know CCL has made up mind, but just becasues they are on the wrong side doesnt mean you have to be<br />
** jnny [in notes]: ...wow.. i've asked a lot of people and feel 110% yes on the block. no CCL influence here.<br />
* carl - it seems we have multiple proposals that we're considering, and the other ones are not concerning peoples programs, so in ordder to actually reasonably consider these other proposals or if we went for one of these other proposals, i don't understand why peoples programs at this time is necessary, i think we should welcome interaction and get to know each other better, but as for having them or even any new collectives at this time, until we finalize this issue with our property. I do think they could have an influence on this process even if they dont have a vote on that particular deal, they could have an influence in other ways, <br />
* paige - they should have influence because this is their community and they've grown up here and should have a say in how the building is used. If we uphold our principles....<br />
* carl - but making them a collective gives them a vote and why them versus everyone else in the community?<br />
* aige - because we don't have any other black orgs that are interested in coming into the space right now<br />
* carl - it sounds like you're saying the communities that surround the omni, why not survey the neighbors?<br />
* paige - we could, do you want to work on that with me?<br />
* carl - i dont understand the argument that them in particular should have a vote in the omni<br />
* paige - because they're a ... i understand the awkwardness of when we're talking about what we want to do, and what happened with [former member collective] and not wanting a group to have two votes again... but i think the work they do could be helpful if we came to land trusts, this is one group that's able to pull in funds and energy and omni needs a lot more people and energy, we need that, this place is so massively underused, i come in and it's the same three people here<br />
* carl - i think we should do a freeze of any new collectives, so we can discuss what we're going to do, until we settle the building issue<br />
* paige - i mean they wouldn't have a vote on that, what are some votes that they would get a say on? Like hiring an ED, the power collectives have is through their block really<br />
* carl - that could be a problem<br />
* yar - yeah they might block new member collectives<br />
* carl - yeah like [former member collective] blocked TANC<br />
* paige - PP worked with TANC<br />
* yar - PP are partners with TANC in organizing against evictions, part of why TANC didn't join was because of the boycott by PP<br />
* alex - that was their worry<br />
* yar - something some people expressed. <br />
* alex - several people from tanc expressed joining omni would hurt relationship with PP?<br />
* yar - in november yes but i convinced them otherwise. <br />
* alex - leadership?<br />
* yar - people at general meeting. <br />
* yar - also something addressed at meeting, someone asked "why cant we just work together more to build more trust" its bizarre to me because that keeps happening. its really easy to get involved with PP. people who havent gotten involved stubbornly stuck believing inaccurate things about PP, having fuzzy nebulous objections to them. very clear dividing line to me. so many people have enthusiastically supported are people who know them. people whove join, or been part of cadre with them, people who have grown up and know PP<br />
* jake - tautology. "people who get along with PP are PP and we should stop objecting"<br />
* alex - i looked at [former member collective] approval meeting, that was voted by people who have worked with them. just the fact that people have worked with them in past doesnt mean it will work out with them as a member collective. 2nd you said nebulous, ive seen concrete. can you explain<br />
* yar - "why is it necessary" "why is required". question isnt thaat, its "is it a good idea". we've added collectives before, not because necessary, but so that we arent insular. we dont have enough collectives right now to run a community center. it can only help us to grow and add and recognize more stakeholders. and yea some people supported [former member collective]... <br />
* alex - not some, all<br />
* yar - we learned the hard way about them<br />
* jake - yar seems like you are organizing objections. like concern until we get building issue solidified. really forceful and ignoring people who are expressing concerns<br />
* yar - not ignoring, im disagreeing openly<br />
* jake - "no valid reasons to object"<br />
* yar - no never said that<br />
* jake - pointed out reasons to object are nebulous. other thing, learn lesson about the past, i sensed something was wrong with[former member collective] before when i was delegate. only info i had. told me i was <br />
* alex - only SR had objection, asked for 30 day probationary period, never happened. maybe a good idea going forward<br />
** +1<br />
* yar - it was 3 month not 30 day, no i dont think its a good idea. <br />
* andrew - can we vote<br />
* yar - ill probably quit SR if we block this<br />
** didn't you already quit?<br />
** yar: i never quit sudoroom i've been paying dues continually for years<br />
* jake - holdout kinda like omni. qilombo has common ideas with what PP says thyre about. video with qilombo talking about history. they lost the space. david and sarah had some stories. bad lesson, unfortunate how things went down. not going to take sides. i was chased out and roughed up, didnt know it had changed. wanted to show wasnt the place we thought it was. <br />
* jake - i forwarded email from my friend about CLP. i forwarded info about CLP to SR. im going to be asked to represent sudo room. 2022, not very attended meetings. couldnt figure out much info, said we should go slow. CCL was also hesitant, but we were both shut down as racist. inaccurate to say we didnt have hesitation.<br />
* paige: i don't like the system of sudoroom votes just being whoever shows up at the meeting<br />
* yar: especially when so many people have been driven away from them by racism and transmisogyny<br />
* andrew: i'm sure there's plenty of that [sarcastically]<br />
* yar: you think there's no racism and transmisogyny?<br />
* andrew: i haven't seen any<br />
* yar - what do you think about the statement solidarity<br />
* andrew - fuck the statement of solidarity, all i know is the bylaws say we won't align with repressive ideologies<br />
* yar - i would say denying racism and transmisogyny is a repressive ideology<br />
* andrew - i block, veto, peoples programs being part of omni in any way. you all can decide what you want to do with that.<br />
* jake - lets hear from everyone. On the question of how sudorooms delegate should represent the position of approve, abstain, or block the proposal of the peoples programs<br />
* carl amends "at this time"<br />
<br />
== vote on peoples programs membership proposal ==<br />
<br />
* On the question of how sudorooms delegate should represent the position of approve, abstain, or block the proposal of Peoples Programs becoming a member collective of Omni Commons at this time<br />
** approve - Angela (by having told Alex beforehand), Yar, Paige (i think it is rushed but for sake of vote approve)<br />
** abstain - Alex<br />
** block - Andrew W, Carl, Jenny, Trevor (applied for membership 2 weeks ago, has 3 endorsements and no blocks), Eric (this is too rushed for my comfort but would like to revisit after the mortgage crisis), Jake<br />
<br />
* Jabari has joined the meeting<br />
* Jnny - Welcome Jabari, has been a part of Omni and Liberated Lens in particular for almost a decade now, and was recently chatting with him about CLP and PP and the Omni right now and thought he had some good insights to share <br />
* Jabari - im coming in late to party, but there's a definite power struggle going on with the omni, and allowing the PP to come in as a collective in the omni. And some of the rhetoric that theyve used in the past kind of conflicts with the ... of the omni , ever since i've been part of the omni theres been a rumor mill, that the omni is a white collective and not a welcoming space for black and brown people and i've called bullshit on this plenty of times. This myth of the omni being a white-only club is bullshit, the omni has done so much community work that i dont think this group.. is not the group to work with, theyre going to usurp the space and they've already put out ... its really uncalled for, and i dont know what to call, this myth that omni is a white only club. omni has done so much community work. you do need more community membership but not group to work with. i dont think this is the group to represent black radical thought<br />
* trevor - can i say something as a black person - just seeing what they're about like lowkey being as unbiased as i can say the religious stuff kinda turns me off a bit, especially the doxing and if they had been more diplomatic i'm saying tthis as unbiased as i can, i mean most groups are white supremacist or dominated, so that argument there you could use that anywhere but its something to look out for , it is like a conflict of interest..<br />
* paige - clp is not pp<br />
* trevor - so are they aligned?<br />
* paige - clp wrote boycott that doxxed people. PP retweeted. clp smaller group, have crossover between groups<br />
* trevor - still that was a little over the line, as someone whose been doxxed in the past, i know the ramifications of that, <br />
<br />
* jake - thanks everyone, lets recap the vote for our delegate: approve: 3, abstain: 1, block: 6<br />
* alex - so we did not reach consensus, we do not have a decision<br />
* jake - i disagree<br />
* alex - with the definition of consensus?<br />
* yar - i strongly [dis]agree with the people who block, but i don't think that everyone has to agree to block for the delegate to block. If i was the delegate in this vote, i would agree that the delegate needs to block, but i want to point out how many people have felt alienated from coming to these meetings, because of the shit that has happened at these meetings, but if they had been coming to these meetings you would have a couple more blocks, abstains, approves....i think omni's got a real problem here<br />
* andrew w - this is what i was mentioning about not getting anything done, because anyone can block something getting through, but if its a contentious issue we've got to go with a majority rule<br />
* yar - but what is majority rule<br />
* andrew w - count the votes<br />
* alex - the basis of this process is that we have to communicate, this encourages people to approach where they are, thats the virtue, there are bad things about it too<br />
* andrew w - i devoted two hours of my life for this, do what you're gonna do<br />
* yar - alex it seems like you should block tomorrow, i don't want you to block but i don't think you have a choice here, i think consensus .... its not permanent, maybe in two weeks...it seems the only way forward, if people feel this strongly... i just encourage everyone to talk with the people you are disagreeing with. ill put my email. the problem i see at Omni is the way consensus is building is just by someone walking away.<br />
<br />
== ED contract ==<br />
* alex - theres been work done by patrik and paige and<br />
* paige - and john a little bit<br />
* alex - i dont think its been sent to Jamal yet, who wanted to review it before it was sent to the lawyer, right?<br />
* paige - yar has the draft been sent to jamal yet?<br />
* yar - nobody agrees that we have a final draft to send to him<br />
* paige - patrik has a draft that hes working on, newest draft has some stuff about wages, $60/hr, but only if we have net revenue<br />
* jenny - its a salary with a cap, stable enough that people are incentivized to work, that could be .... i dont know why we would put in the hands of some brand new guy 10% of 1 million dollars that could be donated to us?<br />
* paige - even when we were doing a percentage of what was raised we were doing it because we had no funds to pay him, ...its not cool because it might turn out he doesnt bring in any money and works for us for free, or maybe makes money on a grant that Pallavi brought in and shes on a monthly contract, this was brought up because we dont have money to pay, not a grift by jamal<br />
* alex - is the contract able to be shared around?<br />
* yar - i would be cautious about sharing it, it shouldn't be public but if someone is a trusted aide of a delegate, i think its fine to share, but we know that the job candidate doesnt want this to be public, he was very disgruntled the last time things were public<br />
* jenny - why is he not ok with things being public? we're a transparent organization and we have to report documents<br />
* yar - not all details of contract need to be public<br />
* jenny - ....<br />
* yar - he doesn't want the delegates to be spreading it into the wider internet<br />
* jenny - too bad, don't work for omni...a group that does things by and large transparently, an executive director who has ... over the delegates would be not transparent<br />
* yar - idk whether to address the false premises or the ... he wouldnt have power over the delegates. that would be impossible. he specifically, he doesnt want to get into a lot of drama with people who treated him with disrespect. contract negotiation,,, not normal to have every detail public. makes it more complicated than it needs to be. and i think anyone interested not in conflict can be brought in, just doesnt need to happen in public.<br />
* jenny - i think the issue of appointing an ED, at experimental project of nonhierarchial omni...<br />
* alex - idea was, had first discussion, now creating a draft contract with small circle that will be shared, when we are at that point, then circulated with wider collectives who can put in their contributions. i think it helps having initial contract with a small group before shopped around. i dont think jamal wants contract secret forever, but it makes sense to be in a small circle at first.<br />
* jenny - yea that makes sense, thanks for sharing<br />
* carl - a little confused on whether it was decided to hire him<br />
* alex - no it has not been decided. working on preliminary contract. he wants to see a realistic step forward from us before sharing his references. <br />
* jenny - seriously? do we have a cv?<br />
* alex - yes <br />
* jenny - not a shared CV? should be public<br />
* alex - not relatively public<br />
* yar - i have been sharing it with anyone i trust not to post on the public internet<br />
* jake - you said its not doxxing if its already known on internet<br />
* alex - are you making anything better by that comment?<br />
* jake - i think its because its in interest about convo, shouldnt be private thing if he wants to be ED of a transparent org. im addressing question of whether its valid to simultaneously keep secret<br />
* alex - not secret<br />
* paige - yar said you were doxxed, but she wasnt because what was there on boycott was already public info.<br />
* alex - so ok not having it public, but shared as needed [not sure if said]<br />
* jenny - yes<br />
https://omnicommons.org/wiki/Event:2024/01/25_Delegates<br />
<br />
== officer positions of treasurer and secretary ==<br />
* alex - yar has been nominated for secretary and would do a great job, but jake go ahead and talk about your nominees<br />
* jake - i nominate Sierk and Taylor for positions of Secretary and Treasurer, they're both ok with that. <br />
* jenny - does taylor have experience with accounting or finance?<br />
* jake - i dont think so. does our current one imma?<br />
* yar - imma doesnt want to be listed anymore, neither does jacqi. reason we are doing this now is because we are going to file our 990s. <br />
* jenny - we have til april 15? to submit notification of changes to the board over past fiscal year jan-dec. so if we are changing now, dont have to report til april of next year. we would be listed current people on our tax doc. just to say its not a huge rush<br />
* yar - they dont want to be on it, filing more paperwork with their names on it, especially with foreclosure, would be shitty<br />
* paige - 990s. <br />
* jenny - due in may for nonprofits. usually we ask for 6 month. nov 15.<br />
* yar - sarah said she intended to do in feb<br />
* jenny - she intends to finish financial reports, income revenue, status of debts. but those are submitted to irs. she also said she usually takes extension because omni is complicated. they want profit and loss, rent and role, projected business plan and income. in term of tax filing requirements, not required til november. she was planning to submit <br />
* yar - i thought she was trying to finish obligations and leave<br />
* jenny - as long as we have financial reports we have what we need<br />
* alex/yar - she would help with this years taxes, 2023<br />
* yar - i believe you, are you saying we shouldnt replace them right now?<br />
* alex - personally i think its a good idea, but not urgent<br />
* jenny - im just saying less urgent than people making it to be<br />
* yar - even though people are actively asking to be taken off<br />
* alex - already on the document that they want off<br />
* yar - but at least in meeting notes that they are removed<br />
* alex - do they have to be filled?<br />
* jenny - need those 3 roles<br />
* alex - maybe we could at least ask them? or is their position already known<br />
* yar - both very clear in my experience that they dont want the roles<br />
* alex - ok, but we have til may then?<br />
* yar - seems like only reason for waiting is conflict between me and jake.<br />
* jake - no theres another person blocking<br />
* yar - sierk doesnt come to meetings<br />
* jenny - honestly yar would be best secretary. primary duty is to record meetings of the board<br />
* alex - to me, its not a position that will be making decisions. someone who cares about building, and someone doing a lot of those roles already<br />
* yar - i dont even want it, just conceding to the people who nominated me that it could help. in my attempts to save the building to have the title. i dont want it, i dont like having my name on stuff, despite it being on my twitter, despite not being doxxed while jake was... which i have to clarify all the time<br />
* jenny - this is our 990 public <br />
* jake - i understand they are supposed to have roles, but until now there have been no calls for those people to do something other than have name on paper. i agree with our delegates being a horizontal board. <br />
* alex - then why does it matter<br />
* jake - why couldnt i be president? i gave up the title no problem. immediately, fine with paige. patrik was one who wanted to look into past more. point being i dont think it should be a problem for <br />
* alex - the only people left around here are controversial in one or another. you guys have known each other so long, no way to prevent controversy<br />
* yar - im not even blocking sierk. can speak for other collectives. i would just ask, what is your reason for blocking me?<br />
* jake - i think you are shameless about getting your way. use what ever levers, theories of justice you can employ to get what you want. and i dont want it <br />
* alex - some people would characterize you that way too<br />
* jake - yes and those people wouldnt want me to be president , secretary, and treasurer<br />
* eric - why is this just our choice?<br />
* alex - just discussing who has been nominated vs xxp<br />
* paige - CCL nominated yar too, not just sr<br />
* paige - i think that role is important one, should have someone <br />
* jenny - do they have spreadsheet experience<br />
* jenny - we arent going to find another sarah. who does [lists all things sarah does for low wage]. not a problem for treasurer and secretary to be same<br />
* paige - sarah said past meeting thats a huge red flag<br />
* jenny - not a problem for small nonprofit. i researched this extensively when i was doing bookkeeping for omni before 2019<br />
* alex - are we satisfied with our nominations, i will transfer nominations that jake has put forward. your blocking yar?<br />
* jake - yes im blocking yar and eric is blocking yar.<br />
* carl - i dont know either sierk or taylor. but make sure to trust people in these positions not to take power. i have had that experience. if not trustworthy they can cause problems for you<br />
* jake - if anyone worried about that with sierk or taylor, they should speak up.<br />
<br />
== end of meeting ==<br />
<br />
* alex - anything else?<br />
* jake - icebreaker question<br />
* alex - the ice has already been broken.<br />
* alex - just to recap, i am blocking the Peoples Programs proposal tomorrow, and i have nothing to say about Jamal's contract (there is nothing yet)<br />
* yar - if it were to be a vote, first work between team and jamal, then sent for lawyer ratification, then to delegates to vote<br />
* alex - also i need top 3 reasons why for block<br />
* jenny - 1. conflict of interest with co-ownership, then being a part of the board of co-owner. i know they had response. 2. what is benefit on either side. i understand they are getting to know us, getting more trust, but from our end looks like a risk, now they have decision making power, i know recusing themselves from certain decisions, but still a form of power. what would omni gain? not proposing rent<br />
* alex - i think they are open to that. they would want to use the space, and would be open to rent for any space<br />
* eric - thats cool they can do that without being a member collective<br />
* jenny - before other collectives have gotten more involved with space for applying. reason for that, to gain trust<br />
* carl - reason i said to amend "at this time", we can reconsider after saving of omni. not bringing in new member collective before saving the omni<br />
* eric - i see same thing, eating up a lot of energy that could be used elsewhere. something we can discuss after mortgage<br />
* yar - does that include tanc?<br />
* jake - no we have already approved them<br />
* jenny - and have been meeting at omni for years at months<br />
* jake - why did ask that<br />
* alex - because it seems like a contradiction<br />
* yar - it does seem like a contradiction. heuristic of no adding new colllectives <br />
* carl - no i think useful to bring that up<br />
* jake - lots of back and forth with tanc. approval of tanc has been more firmly investigated than any other collective<br />
* carl - jake has a good point<br />
* paige - yea yar has been doing a lot of that work and is in support. but clarified talking about heurstic of not approving any new collective... not sure why this blew up.<br />
* jenny - just pointing out not that contradictory. have been working with them<br />
* yar - i dont disagree, i approve of tanc. you are offering a different heuristic - we can add new collectives if they have already been working here. carl was saying specifically no new collective<br />
* jenny - if it was noisebridge asking.. or some other group with more established connections<br />
* paige - there are some established connections within omni to pp. <br />
* yar - [something about noisebridge being bad example]<br />
* jenny - [ok i hear that]<br />
* alex - anything else for delegate to share?<br />
* jake recaps lender conversation <br />
* jake - we might have to ask the board to agree to..<br />
* jenny - before consens on people to liason with jesse. usually a small group of delegates, who were more legally savvy. we should update that list. <br />
* alex - maybe we should pre-emptively okay time with the lawyer.<br />
* jenny - good to have someone, board representative, CC'd in conversation. to track time and transparency. <br />
* yar - im okay putting this person in touch with lawyer. but unsure if omni should pay for it. my understanding is that they want to be anonymous<br />
* jenny - some sort of conflict of interest<br />
* yar - pay our lawyer to work on something to be a secret about it<br />
* jake - i sent jesse a telephone message with that persons number. but jesse might come back and ask for board approval. <br />
* alex - thank you everyone for coming. not fun being here hours on end. but helps me know what to do tomorrow<br />
* yar - thanks alex<br />
* alex - want to talk about forward looking ideas for sudo room. but dont want to hold anyone<br />
* yar - im willing to stay. not trying to cancel anyone even if i disagree with them</div>
Paigep
https://sudoroom.org/wiki/Meeting_Notes_2024-01-24
Meeting Notes 2024-01-24
2024-01-25T06:30:18Z
<p>Jerkey: create notes</p>
<hr />
<div>1/24/2024 Meeting<br />
<br />
Meeting announce:<br />
<br />
Note Taker: jake<br />
<br />
= Attendees =<br />
<br />
* Alex - delegate<br />
* Yar - she/her<br />
* Jake - sudoroom member<br />
* Paige - i'm paige<br />
* Arthur - i'm here kindof<br />
* Trevor - he/they, from chicago, new, checking things out<br />
* E - eric<br />
<br />
= Agenda =<br />
<br />
* jamals hiring contract<br />
* peoples programs proposal, Missey, CIM, land trusts<br />
* LLC update<br />
<br />
== Jamal hiring contract ==<br />
* Jamal would make 10% of Omni income, not including money going toward mortgage<br />
* "The Company agrees to pay the Executive Director a stipend of 8,665 dollars per month, not to exceed 10% of the net revenues of the Company, defined as total revenues minus any purpose restricted funds and fixed operating expenses such as loan payments, taxes and fees. The parties understand that the Company may not have sufficient funds to pay the full stipend unless additional funds are raised."<br />
<br />
== peoples programs proposal, Missey, CIM, land trusts ==<br />
* alex - peoples programs have made, a plan for them for getting out of debt is...but in the short term they just want membership, no space, their application is in process now. We will have to decide yes or no or abstain to their membership, probably not at tomorrows meeting but probably in a week from now. We should talk about their membership in the short term rather than down the line. I would like input so i know how to make this decision, as delegate.<br />
* yar - i think sudoroom should say yes<br />
* jake - i think sudoroom should say no<br />
* alex - flesh out those points of view. Yar is a volunteer with Peoples Programs<br />
* yar - i think the kind of stuff that they're doing is exactly in line with what we've been trying to do at omni for years, and they have the kind of energy to take it and run with it which is something that we've struggled to do. their leadership has mostly grown up in this neighborhood, in my experience they're nice people, they have a lot in common with omni, and of course some differences but i don't think that's as important as other people think<br />
* alex - if they buy the building they'll have to stop being a member, so why have them be a member?<br />
* yar - because it would build trust and closeness and since we're asking for labor and investment of time and energy, we should allow them to be recognized as a real stakeholder<br />
* jake - why not invite banks and land trusts to be members?<br />
* alex - you think it would be a gesture to show trust and<br />
* yar - i think peoples programs should be a stakeholder in omni regardless. Buying the building would take months<br />
* alex - my reservation is that there's a lot going on right now and adding another collective that a lot of people view as outsiders will affect people adversely<br />
* yar - thats the problem, omni should not be embracing this insular practice of labeling peoples programs as outsiders. Several collectives have already said yes. Sketchboard and Media Lab and Liberated Lens.<br />
* jake - shocking (thats sarcasm)<br />
* yar - can you explain your sarcsasm<br />
* alex - stop asking rhetorical questions<br />
* yar - pallavi looked into PP and found out that family members had connections to people in PP and was vouching for them<br />
* alex - my sense was that ... currently there are 3 ideas for saving the omni financially, and theres the ED idea thats intended to fundraise. the 3 ideas for funding including Peoples Programs, 1. selling PP the ballroom and certain adjacent parts of the building, to be decided. 2. (which i think is incompatible)<br />
* yar - i disagree* - no compatible.<br />
* alex - Philip Bell who is currently doing Omni events, he has a letter to do a loan to buy the same part of the building and use it as an events space, it would be an LLC operating an events space out of the omni and own their own space. 3. Land trust - recently there's been a lot of Whispers from land trusts, and there's going to be a meeting with the delegates.<br />
* paige - there's also this nonprofit called Misssey that's coming to check out this coming week, interested in a partner/nonprofit<br />
* jake - and they have the money to pay off our debt just like peoples programs claims to<br />
* yar - i think they're not incompatible. I think PP should own the entrance hall and the ballroom should be shared, which would be compatible with a land trust, and with City In Motion (Philips thing) operating the ballroom, and with Misssey having an office<br />
* alex - thy seem mutually excusive to me, did you ask peoples programs?<br />
* yar - i think they're open to the idea<br />
* alex - my feeling is that anyone who commits that amount of money would want their share of the building<br />
* paige - land trusts don't necessarily need a space<br />
* alex - i doubt a land trust would want to partner with other entities to run a building<br />
* paige - CAST land trust reached our and gave COUNTERPULSE as an example, $3M initially and only retained 1% of the deed so it stays with the art<br />
* yar - the thing David proposed was just like a replacement for mulberry<br />
* alex - he was very vague<br />
* paige - what does the land trust get out of it?<br />
* alex - the most promising things about land trust are, we can probably hadn over a lot of maintenance taks to them ,they do fundraising for the building, that's great, and handle other details, i think it would be a good thing<br />
* yar - and that's still compatible with PP owning a corner of the building<br />
* jake - CCL is not compatible with PP for various reasons<br />
* yar - that's only the toxic members<br />
* jake - clarify that<br />
* yar - i was responding to the phrasing that you used<br />
* alex - i would like to take a vote but there are not enough people<br />
* yar - then we should abstain (at the delegates meeting)<br />
* jake - i disagree, you don't just abstain and allow an important decision without consulting the collective, and i resent you trying to force the issue this way<br />
* alex - in practice we try to do everything by consensus<br />
* yar - and then we fall back when it doesn't work<br />
* arthur - no. wants them to apply again later<br />
* yar - i would ask the membership why they want to block something that others want<br />
* alex - its a reasonable thing to talk about<br />
* yar - blocking a consensus decision is a strong statement, when other people are saying they want this and you can't have that<br />
* jake - like when CLP blocked TANC?<br />
* yar - ..... i feel like a straw person is being engaged with<br />
* alex - jake is very skeptical of PP<br />
* yar - he's anti, and he's willing to impose that view on everyone else. I'm skeptical of everybody. I joined the group to get over my skepticism and to learn more<br />
* alex - i don't really understand the gesture part of<br />
* yar - i never said gesture<br />
* alex - this seems performative of me<br />
* yar - its fair exchange, if somebody is going to be a part of the community they should be a stakeholder<br />
* alex - that's already being discussed as the whole real estate thing<br />
* yar - and i think this would help<br />
* alex - help what<br />
* yar<br />
* alex - i know we talked about them recusing themselves from real estate deal but that's going to be very cumbersome to leave the room every time we're talking about them, for months, is there some other thing we can do short of putting them on the delegates council<br />
* yar - part of me is hoping that with them as a member collective we can find a path forward that's better than dividig the building, i'm hoping for a better way, for example what if they introduced us to other groups<br />
* jake - interrupts saying "Like CLP" (gets shut down) sorry that was inappropriate but i'm still REALLY upset that we're normalizing the fact that CLP is still friends with PP and PP still hasn't taken down their retweet of the doxxing of both you (yar) and me<br />
* yar - they doxxed you, they didn't dox me<br />
* jake - they put your full name<br />
* yar - but that's no big deal<br />
* jake - i can't believe this, this is absurd<br />
* eric - lets take a vote<br />
* jake - i am clearly blocking<br />
* alex - we should try to see others points here. Is there something short of membership that would move things forward<br />
* yar - i dont think they would contribute labor to a project where they have zero voice running the place, especially when there are so many concerns about racism<br />
* alex - are they being asked to contribute labor?<br />
* yar - showing up to this meeting is labor!<br />
* alex - <br />
* yar - from their perspective if we can't let them in as a member collective <br />
* alex - they haven't even really applied for membership yet<br />
* yar - yes they have<br />
* alex - so you disagree with Toan?<br />
* yar - yes<br />
* alex - what is the process for applying for membership?<br />
<br />
* https://omnicommons.org/wiki/Join<br />
<br />
* paige - the most concrete thing is CAST which Peter can tell us more, they're focused on Arts which is not exactly what we do<br />
* alex - sounds like a good match for the ballroom<br />
* jake - the sudoroom synthesizer is pure arts<br />
* paige - for people who claim that a land trust is gentrification<br />
* yar - their priority is to preserve control of land by black folks from oakland, and there's no land trust that can say that<br />
* paige - is EBPREC not that way?<br />
* yar - they're not a land trust they're noteven a nonprofit. OakCLT is more progressive but they're not really black folks from oakland. From their perspective its more money moving farther from their community, decisions made by people not from their community, where the building is. I think it's valid for them (PP) to have that criticism and we should let PP steward the building<br />
* alex - they have no experience doing that<br />
* yar - neither do we. They have hundreds of people. Their warehouse is beautifully maintained<br />
* alex - its rented<br />
* yar - they're chomping at the bit. They would love a situation where they would have more control<br />
* alex - can i just show up there?<br />
* yar - they would prefer you go through the orientation before you show up there<br />
* alex - it might be a good first step to go on a field trip? I'm just spitballing<br />
* yar - i can see that happening<br />
* arthur - can i get assurance that me to no vote on peoples trust is been heard. I need to go do domestic stuff now.<br />
* alex and yar complain about the remote telescreen interaction<br />
* jake - arthur lives an hour away<br />
* yar - if i lived an hour away i would feel less invested in sudoroom too<br />
* jake - arthurs family is in oakland and he will move here when he can<br />
* arthur - No means I vote "no". Not abstain. It's just Wednesdays are hard. I'm an Oaklander. I'm from that neighborhood. This is my home. Good night all.<br />
* jake and yar argue<br />
* jake - you are still saying that CLP didn't dox you while they still have your full name out there in their callout<br />
* yar - my full name is public informtion, it's on my twitter, etc...<br />
* paige - gives Peter reportback, for example he knew about Philip Bell's proposal. A meeting between Peter and Ken and a friend. Ken is the CEO of CAST<br />
* alex - anything else we need to discuss? Although I don't think we have a quorum.<br />
* yar - there's a proposal for me to be secretary. It certainly shouldn't be Jacqi. Does anybody object to me being secretary?<br />
* paige - i think it would be helpful<br />
* alex - description of the position?<br />
* yar - make the meetings more organizaed, which i'm dreading. Patrik nominated me, media lab seconded, but it wasn't written down. I said I needed to be nominated in email. Jacqi said months ago that she didn't want it. We have to list someone.<br />
* alex - i do feel like we need to learn more<br />
* Eric - Yar, who besides yourself would you nominate? It sounds like you don't want to do it<br />
* yar - i agree that it makes sense for me to do it<br />
* paige - it needs to be someone who comes to delegates meetings, and the delegates are already busy<br />
* yar - anybody but jake and eric. Trevor walked away. anyone object?<br />
* jake - I object, I will look for other options<br />
<br />
== LLC update ==<br />
* jake - I have been informed that there's a lender with a large enough sum that I can say with confidence that the LLC is fully funded. I checked in with Jesse about it and here's what he said:<br />
(1) Hire a securities lawyer to set up the structure. If you like I can<br />
reach out to the lawyer I used last time and see if he is available and how<br />
much it would cost.<br />
(2) He'll set up an LLC, which just takes 1-2 days.<br />
(3) The lenders will send their money to the LLC's bank account.<br />
(4) Omni and the LLC will sign a promissory note secured by a deed of<br />
trust in exchange for the LLC paying off the Mulberry loan.<br />
* jake - i will show up at the delegates meeting to present this but it won't mean anything until there's a piece of paper in front of the delegates to sign, at which point we will be ready to pay off the mulberry trust.<br />
<br />
END OF MEETING</div>
Jerkey
https://sudoroom.org/wiki/Meeting_Notes_2024-01-17
Meeting Notes 2024-01-17
2024-01-18T07:37:02Z
<p>Paigep: /* Agenda item amends with Jamal */</p>
<hr />
<div>1/17/2024 Meeting<br />
<br />
Meeting announce: https://sudoroom.org/lists/hyperkitty/list/sudo-discuss@sudoroom.org/thread/VLWW3JITUCWBW7XHOFKCQ3JT6QLNEYBK/<br />
<br />
Note Taker: â…© and ... Carl<br />
(notes are really incomplete)<br />
<br />
Moderator: free wheeling<br />
<br />
<br />
= Attendees =<br />
<br />
* Carl<br />
* â…©<br />
* angl3a<br />
* paige<br />
* yar<br />
* peter<br />
* arthur<br />
* sierk<br />
* jnny<br />
* eric<br />
* jake<br />
* alex<br />
<br />
= Agenda =<br />
* space status<br />
* making amends with Jamal<br />
* item<br />
* sudo mesh<br />
* sudo room take a position that foreclosure is worst option<br />
<br />
<br />
== Agenda item amends with Jamal ==<br />
<br />
paige: what yar meant by not representing marginalized communities. <br />
peter: public forum. v one on one<br />
<br />
silence shattered with audio echoing (meeting resumes)<br />
<br />
discussion about delegate representation with potential Executive Director<br />
<br />
Clarification? Is discussion of Executive Director for sudo room and/or Omni Commons?<br />
<br />
Extensive conversation amongst attendees. There's also an e-mail presumably as part of public mailing list.<br />
<br />
peter: Call for focus, too much arranging deck chairs on Titanic.<br />
<br />
list archive of thread about Executive Director (ED):<br />
https://sudoroom.org/lists/hyperkitty/list/sudo-discuss@sudoroom.org/thread/HHUBM522TWIUWYHXI4LVKWHUTI6VOOTO/<br />
<br />
discussion of who can work with who, and who's already left with unresolved conflict. there seems to be issues continuing to block any further resolution with Jamal.<br />
<br />
Need for clarification of sudo room delegate for upcoming meeting.<br />
* arthur: raises virtual hand to request to speak. discussing delegate(s) voice holding sudo room vs omni commons first.<br />
* yar: follow up question<br />
* paige?: does sudo want to continue talking to Jamal<br />
* jake: weighs in on initial interactions prompted by Silver "hiring" Jamal. Feels they are being overwhelmingly focused on over broader needs.<br />
* jnny (chat): not in favor of jamal<br />
* x (chat): what is the core task of the ED, sudo room or omni commons or both executive director? <br />
* discussion of "secret" or "not secret" meeting<br />
* jake: e-mail being read aloud "omnis survival"<br />
* arthur: would like to speak, would like to hear delegates opinions on sudo room and omni priorities.<br />
* yar/others: is there a difference<br />
* angl3a: mentions sudo room interests potentially divided, likes consensus building, would be a delegate if desireable.<br />
* question of voting or not voting on delegate<br />
<br />
* call for backing up conversation or apolgizing for statements just made by yar<br />
<br />
* x: is the ED contract contemplating any expectation of time commitment and compensation? <br />
<br />
* discussin for clarification regarding statments by attorney and a letter.<br />
<br />
* angl3a says:the process is broken. i ask that while eric has unresolved conflicts and has been asked to step down, that he step down s delegate. request for better meeting procedures for efficiency. forming clarification of vote.<br />
<br />
* x: propose a vote for majority to close this agenda item as unresolved and move on to delegate and other business.<br />
<br />
* staw poll, paige as only delegate?<br />
<br />
Yes: 5 / No: 3 / Abstain: 1<br />
<br />
== Agenda item confirm on same page, foreclosure worst option ==<br />
<br />
Is foreclosure outcome the worst option going forward?<br />
<br />
Yes: ?? but most of room / No: 0<br />
<br />
== Agenda item sudo room delegate ==<br />
<br />
straw poll, potential delegate(s)<br />
<br />
angl3a: new ahenda item: vote for me to be co-delegate with paige instead of eric <br />
<br />
(no notetaker)<br />
<br />
<br />
=== questions for pp ===<br />
paige: questions: what kind of activities, could we host them? bringing locsl black voice<br />
<br />
discussion about process of adding groups, CLP and PP past history<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Inquirey: "sudo mesh" ==<br />
<br />
x: WITHDRAWN from meeting discussion, thanks for feedback<br />
<br />
jnny: Not in sudo room's wheelhouse. Sudo Mesh is its own independent Omni Member Collective and 501c3 nonprofit, tertiarily associated w/ sudoroom. Contact re: moving space / equipment: info@sudomesh.org<br />
<br />
â…©: Would like to get recap of current/past state of "sudo mesh" and interested in insuring that it is maintained as the currently registered status "Active" as a 501c3 California Organization<br />
Per SoS status "Active" SUDO MESH (3617429)<br />
I think this is time relevant giving outlook of current state of things with physical space. I also have couple of projects queing with others that could be suitable to re-engage in active development.<br />
<br />
** yep, maintaining it tx for asking! check the wiki for history; check in with sudomesh board for context/proposals. - jnny<br />
<br />
x: Understand you (jnny) are "official" point of contact, is best to reach out to you directly or the org in general thru any particular means? I would like to expolore the oppurtunity of resuming some kind of meeting for sudo mesh, or is Tuesday hack nights deemed an active time for that currently?<br />
<br />
jnny: it's complicated.<br />
covid era -> many core folks moving away. dealing with family things.<br />
i have a fulltime job.<br />
jnny: want to reboot but not enough capacity for weekly newbie onboarding..<br />
can always start a meetup or workshop series @ sudo, sudomesh does not have priority over mesh-y/community WiFi explorations! and obviously y'all have dibs on hella gear :)<br />
<br />
x: thank you to all for keeping up on things. for process there seems to be some documentation to collect on board meetings or status past 2020.<br />
- jnny: yeah maybe focus on omni..?<br />
- x: lets talk more post meeting.<br />
<br />
x: Announcing intent of engaging in meeting(s) on-line and in-person. Will be discussing related topics, not as sudo mesh specificaly Friday. Will see who else can contact and find times to meet next week as well, such as Tuesday. I have some bandwidth to offer for logistics, and currently would like to work on hacks and radio projects until sudo room and omni dynamics mellow a bit.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Post Post meeting ==<br />
<br />
Tonight's drink of choice: '''decompiler'''<br />
<br />
* Glass with ice cubes<br />
* half grapefruit squeezed<br />
* liberal pour over of Elderflower Rose Gin<br />
<br />
teh'X twaz here (with a view from Hacker Dojo)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Vote on Sudo Room's next Delegate ==<br />
( left out most discussion, just the vote )<br />
<br />
That Eric stands down as delegate for 1 month, pending conflict resolution with Jamal. (not voted yet)<br />
<br />
Jake doesn't want Eric to stand down because he feels Eric represents him and not Paige.<br />
<br />
Asking if Alex can be delegate.<br />
<br />
Vote on: Eric to stand down as delegate for 3 weeks:<br />
yes:3 / no:3 / abstain:2<br />
<br />
Considering only Alex (without Eric & Paige) or Alex & Paige.<br />
<br />
Vote for Alex only, Eric & Paige step down, Paige helps in transition:<br />
<br />
yes: 8 - PASSED<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== More discussion ==<br />
<br />
Angl3a created a #sudo-proposal channel on Omni Slack for us to discuss future proposals. (doesn't exist yet?)<br />
<br />
END OF MEETING</div>
Paigep
https://sudoroom.org/wiki/Meeting_Notes_2024-01-10
Meeting Notes 2024-01-10
2024-01-11T22:43:51Z
<p>Jerkey: Undo revision 12381 by Jerkey (talk)</p>
<hr />
<div>January 10, 202<br />
<br />
= Attendees =<br />
== in person ==<br />
* paige: they/them been a delegate 4-5 times recently and first came in 2021<br />
* alex - he/him<br />
* eric: answer. codelegate with paige<br />
* elon - first time yesterday<br />
* arthur - here often but my parenting schedule has never lined up<br />
* sierk<br />
* alex<br />
* jake<br />
* ccl - [who was this?]<br />
* ally - he/him not part of sudoroom but have been exploring omni commons. free store volunteer. ally as in alliance<br />
* peter - he/him<br />
* jason - he/him<br />
* 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<br />
== online ==<br />
* 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<br />
* jems - they/them delegate til recently . stepped down as delegate<br />
* angl3a: they/them/she/her OG sudoroom member since before we moved here, monday and tuesday nights<br />
* carl: he/him. been since the early days<br />
* ed [in chat] - mic not working and needs to find webcam<br />
* philip chin<br />
* julie meyerson: <br />
* 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<br />
* julie - part of SR for a little over a year now<br />
* phil - been a member for about a year. do electronics and fix peoples stuff<br />
* eva<br />
* will<br />
== arrived late == <br />
* kent<br />
* thomas<br />
<br />
= Roles = <br />
* facilitator - ally<br />
* notetakers - paige, angela, jake<br />
<br />
<br />
= Agenda =<br />
== straw poll to decide on facilitator ==<br />
Note taking was not started until after this had been discussed for a while (and in email right before meeting).<br />
<br />
Jemma volunteered to be facilitator before meeting. Was contentious. Decided to take a vote<br />
<br />
=== Vote to have Jemma act as facilitator ===<br />
* opposed - jake, eric, arthur<br />
* abstain - sierk, alex philip chin<br />
* approve - yar, peter, sequioa, angela, paige, muiren<br />
<br />
We agree to Paige as facilitator. But Paige is taking notes so needs help<br />
<br />
Angela offers support with notetaking and process<br />
Also Ally offered as facilitator, and he ended up doing most of it<br />
<br />
== who should be delegate, trust, conflict, etc. ==<br />
* sequoia - want us to be mindful about level of emotion. see each other in good faith. work from a space of good faith.<br />
*jemma - issue that i'm being removed as facilitator. contributes to harm done in our space.<br />
* peter - would like to have an update of where we stand on foreclosure<br />
* jake - discussing handing over power to ED should be first<br />
* 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. <br />
* muiren - no clue why jemma is not facilitator<br />
* 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<br />
* eric - we shouldn't silence anyone, yea.... <br />
* yar - from what i heard, they are objecting because jemma named called out racism, transphobia and misogyny<br />
* jake - no, there are several reasons<br />
* someone calls out jake for interrupting<br />
* yar - i interrupted him before its okay. even if that's only one of the reasons, not acceptable to object on that<br />
* jake - if someone is making false claims based off bad faith about me that is bad.<br />
* yar - its not<br />
* jake - if they arent, then they can enumerate. if its based off of racism then they should join<br />
* jemma - i should facilitate, majority in favor<br />
* 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?<br />
* 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 <br />
* carl - question from jamal<br />
* 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. <br />
* 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?<br />
* 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"<br />
* 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 <br />
* 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.<br />
* 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.<br />
*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.<br />
* 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<br />
* 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 <br />
* yar - never has been<br />
* 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 <br />
* 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. <br />
* 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<br />
* 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.<br />
* arthur - if he were in this job, what would be the philosophy or response if foreclosure to happen?<br />
* yar - thats should be for delegate not ED<br />
* 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.<br />
* arthur - thank you i appreciate precise answer<br />
* 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?<br />
* 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. <br />
* 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? <br />
* 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.<br />
* 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?<br />
* 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. <br />
* paige - clarification, sudo room isn't a tenant, its a fiscally sponsored project of OC<br />
* 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.<br />
* ally - two new folks in<br />
* kent and thomas introduce themselves<br />
* 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<br />
* muiren [in chat] - funding social administration is as important as brick and mortar infrastructure<br />
* 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. <br />
* ally - what is your proposal, as in for a ban or time period? im asking, not to say im in agreement<br />
* jemma - im asking for removal of eric as delegate<br />
* ally - no ban?<br />
* jemma - im interested in investigation of those harms. no silencing or talking over each other. not allowing racism transphobia misogyny<br />
* 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. <br />
* 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 <br />
* 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. <br />
* Jems [in chat] - Can facilitator keep us on topic? I wasn't here in April <br />
* Sequoia [in chat]- Im thinking that since accusations of racism are current to the question of jakes ban, it could be relevant <br />
* Carl [in chat] - Muiren, I think you don't understand what I was saying. <br />
* arthur - very difficult to participate in these meetings as a single parent. can we keep it more concise<br />
* muirén - we need to get back to the survival of the facility<br />
* 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<br />
* jake - i want to respond thats true<br />
* 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<br />
* jake - can you be specific?<br />
* yar - youre hurt because of CLP<br />
* jake - i want you to be specific about harms<br />
* yar - hard when interrupted<br />
* jake - sorry<br />
* 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<br />
* yar - the hyperfocus on yourself...<br />
* jemma - can facilitator step in? jake should not be interrupting<br />
* ally - i think its up to yar<br />
* 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...<br />
* jake - i wasnt on agenda for the meeting, [i would've gone if it was]<br />
* paige - there are never agendas for the meetings [not happy about it but not peculiar]<br />
* 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<br />
* 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<br />
* julie - me too, there are potentials of other loan sources<br />
* 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. <br />
* Eva Galperin [in chat] - I don't think anyone has advocated for anything other than a very temporary ban, followed by an investigation. <br />
* 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. <br />
* 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<br />
* arthur - can we please do the voting?<br />
* 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<br />
* 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<br />
* 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<br />
* 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<br />
* paige - we did a whiteboard session, land trust and llc were towards the top preferred option. not off the table<br />
* 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<br />
* Muirén [in chat] - There it is again, the assumption we are an anarchist community, and that anarchy implies no structure or coherent processes. <br />
* Ed [in chat] - Can someone tell me what the vote total was on having Jems act as facilitor? I was screwing with hardware. <br />
* angl3a [in chat] - its in the notes <br />
* 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 <br />
* Ed [in chat] - Thanks <br />
* 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 .<br />
* 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.<br />
* 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<br />
* anwar introduces himself<br />
* 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.<br />
* 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 <br />
* muirén [in chat but left meeting by time it was read] - what is comment jamal's referring to?<br />
* jamal - yea not addressing that right now<br />
jamal leaves<br />
* 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.<br />
* eric - really sweet guy but accused of lying. <br />
* jake - did you send thing about executive power<br />
* jems - is the a proposal or draft<br />
* sequioia - there were certain things that were hearsay<br />
* eric - im not sure what he was saying hearsay. reading a letter from legal council<br />
* eric - *eric reads* notes will be in copied and pasted from via email<br />
* jemma - not proposal that's in front of delegates?<br />
* paige - summary of what jamal and lawyer talked about. delegates spend next meeting discussing then hold out for a vote for week after. <br />
* jemma - misleading. not proposal. draft. communication from lawyer. started talking about jamal when he left the room. shouldn't be our delegate. <br />
* arthur - told it's true then not true, please don't gaslight me in a public setting<br />
* jemma - nobody gaslighting, saying what's true. not a proposal.<br />
* 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<br />
* 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<br />
* jemma - i think its not okay to say its a proposal<br />
* room says thats understood<br />
* yar - are we voting if we wanting to generally agree with an ed then vote on contract next week?<br />
* 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.<br />
* 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<br />
* 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..<br />
* 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<br />
* peter - boards override ED. ED serves at the pleasure of the board<br />
* thomas - question, this lawyer is our lawyer or sudos lawyer? <br />
* our lawyer<br />
* thomas - should we get one? in terms of dissolution of omni <br />
* eric - we are trying to avoid dissolution<br />
* alex - recommendation to the board to look into his resume. <br />
* 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.<br />
* 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<br />
* 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. <br />
* 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.<br />
* - no one says no you're fired<br />
* 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?<br />
* alex - status quo? paige good delegate? (some yesses)<br />
* 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<br />
* eric - they're only asking for power to ban 2 people<br />
* angl3a - second alex's proposal to do status quo. vote of confidence in paige<br />
* alex - right now 2 delegates, status quo, continue with that?<br />
* eric - yes its us two, paige and i<br />
* 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." <br />
* paige - can make decision that sudoroom blocks everything tomorrow<br />
* sequoia - love it if we didn't do that<br />
* 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.<br />
* facilitator - discussions about what delegacy is, is big topic<br />
* angl3a - i want a vote in confidence of paige<br />
* eric - i feel erased by this vote<br />
* 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.<br />
* 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. <br />
* cere and al joins<br />
* sequoia - personally im looking for something stronger. i think no one equipped to solve problems except jamal.<br />
* 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<br />
* 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. <br />
* 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. <br />
* 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<br />
* 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. <br />
* ally - i feel like paige spoke already. on how they feel consensus building. we should expedite. <br />
* paige - gets messy with who is the voter if the two delegates dont agree<br />
* jake - hopefully they agree<br />
* eric and paige can establish rules for if they don't agree<br />
* 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<br />
* angl3a - i move to vote for confidence in paige<br />
* 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.<br />
* eric- can you be more specific?<br />
* yar - look around you. <br />
* eric - i am<br />
* yar - who you seem to be listening to and who you seem to be fighting with. reached a threshold for me. <br />
* eric - the complaints are too non specific<br />
* sequoia - someone can say they are not <br />
<br />
=== vote in confidence of delegates ===<br />
Are ppl are comfortable with status quo (eric and paige codelegate)<br />
* in favor: 13<br />
* opposed: 4 <br />
* abstain: 3<br />
<br />
== media lab proposal ==<br />
* 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.<br />
* yar - i love the media lab. been holding this space for so long. <br />
* 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.<br />
* 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<br />
* muiren [in chat] - Yeah Media Lab! <br />
* arthur - clarifying, rental in the basement? and that extra space also in the basement? are we voting on that?<br />
* 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<br />
* ed - can you describe what media lab does?<br />
* yar - they host sewing and jewelry and screenprint making workshops and other related artistic classes and workshops.<br />
* 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<br />
* kent - Cece is a stand-up individual<br />
* yar - when they do their cohorts, when they end they do fashion shows in ballroom. most affirming thing i see in this building<br />
* 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<br />
* yar - i only wear computer parts<br />
* arlo - my name is arlo<br />
* jake - hold on he doesn't know the situation o just kidding<br />
* ally - anyone voting no? no one says no, so passed. <br />
Muirén [in chat] - My interest in Media Lab is Tech Couture, smart textiles, and using tech like intricate laser cut linoleum to print fabric. <br />
<br />
== vote on ed contract == <br />
* thomas - vote if contract allows banning<br />
* 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<br />
<br />
'''Vote:''' no ban power: resolve that sudoroom will not ratify any contract with any executive officer that confers ability to unilaterally ban people <br />
<br />
<br />
* anwar - does it count if the banned person has the ability to appeal to the board<br />
* alex - the issue isn't the unilateral ban power, it's that there are two specific individuals that are unnamed in the contract<br />
* eric - i think this is the most efficient way to do it <br />
* arthur - can reach in who can <br />
* ally - from my limited understanding, jamal was the one who reversed the ban on jake. so seems it was not in his immediate interest<br />
* 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<br />
* 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.<br />
* anwar - i disagree the..<br />
* 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<br />
* 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. <br />
* 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<br />
* vote no on this resolution?: 2<br />
* 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. <br />
* another no<br />
* anwar - voting on a hypothetical, better to vote on a proposal ahead of us. <br />
* thomas - we are voting on guidance for the delegate<br />
* if you're going to say that anyone can unilateral ban anyone then that applied to jamal. <br />
* 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.<br />
* alex - well jamal was here for earlier part of meeting<br />
* yar - if you are going to block a facilitator, you should have someone ready to come in<br />
* 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.<br />
* 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<br />
* jake - apologize to jems for them being harmed by my objection to them being facilitator. still stand by my decision. sorry you were harmed.<br />
* yar - what are you apologizing for<br />
* jake - apologize for harming them<br />
* jems - do not accept that apology. failure of 3 hours.<br />
* arthur - i have no trust in jems being a facilitator ever again. not how you build trust in front of new people<br />
* eric - [snaps]<br />
* jems - trust has been destroyed. i have never met you, appreciate you showed up, also in context of the stress of parenting<br />
* arthur - you are lying<br />
* jems - dont appreciate your comments<br />
* arthur - removal from email servers<br />
* ally - this is spiraling. this should mediating. we should end meeting but people who want to stay should stay. <br />
<br />
=== discontinuity, below notes are from much earlier ===<br />
<br />
paige - explained pov<br />
* jake - nobody can know what happened in that saturday meeting because dont know from notes<br />
* jake - also jemma shouldnt be facilitator because she accused me of racism, transphobia and misogyny since jake didn't want them to be facilitator</div>
Jerkey
https://sudoroom.org/wiki/Meeting_Notes_2024-01-03
Meeting Notes 2024-01-03
2024-01-04T06:38:21Z
<p>Paigep: /* land trusts */</p>
<hr />
<div>Jan 3, 2024 at 7PM<br />
<br />
= Attendees =<br />
* eric: looking forward to so uch fun stuff in the coming year, friends family and closeness and oportunity to grow, host fun events, potlucks and stuff, really ready for 2024<br />
* carl he/him: in 2024 i'm looking forward to starting something new, a new venture that will hopefully be a success and hopefully not run me over. Something that will be positive, for me as well.<br />
* paige - they/them: hopeful that omni is going to come out of this and come out better. Building connections last year, feel like its been good to get to know people more, interesting projects ahead<br />
* peter he/him: i'm doing a bunch of short term 2024 planning with a longer horizon of a decade. "Most people overestimate what they can do in a year and underestimate what they can do in a decade" -bill gates (web says Tony Robbins) ? Meditation, i'm constantly trying to rewire my neural pathways<br />
* jake any: hope to find the path that allows me to do what i believe in but also not to entirely get under the tank treads if the tank is going to go over me anyways.my goal i dont know how to do yet<br />
* yar she/her: i expect 2024 wont be better than 2023 but we'll try anyway. I want to encourage people to go to the Omni meetings this weekend: Friday 6-9 is for everybody focused on consensus building and figuring out what the community wants; Saturday 1-6 will be more of a focused work meeting for people willing to commit energy<br />
* andy gross any/he: looking forward to seeing the eclipse in April in ohio, near Fam<br />
* jemma came late to meeting/missed icebreaker<br />
<br />
= Agenda =<br />
<br />
== givebutter reminder ==<br />
<br />
* paige - we need money to pay for immediate expenses (like right now there's a bill for skylight work done), separate from the mortgage thing. so anything helps, please share this link around and donate what you can<br />
* Link to donate https://givebutter.com/gHpD3e/omnicommons<br />
<br />
== status of the building and plans going forward ==<br />
* yar - purpose of friday's meetings. two serious choices ahead: 1. sell part of building to PP to run as community center 2nd. is to sit around and get sold off<br />
* andy - confused about selling part. need to furnish something close to 1m? <br />
* yar - we are owners, they are lender<br />
* andy - if part of building sold to them, would we be able to pay off the lender with that<br />
* yar - yes<br />
* andy - is there a deadline?<br />
* yar - 85 days after notice of foreclosure. which that notice could come any day now<br />
* andy - if we didnt do that, we would be foreclosed on... what would that look like?<br />
* jake - foreclosure auction. fair market price. the owner has a right to not be deprived of ___, so it goes to auction. we are entitled to rest of money <br />
* peter - we are entitled to profit ''after'' legal fees, and lawyers blow that up. we should be looking into any way we can satisfy the debt before the window (85 days). anybody can hand mulberry trust that check in that time...<br />
* andy - thanks that helps clarify <br />
* yar - plus 27k owned to SaferDIY<br />
* peter - also property tax, could be additional $300,000<br />
* yar - we have a payment plan with tax, so no <br />
* carl - request for facilitator and stack<br />
* carl - i wanted to add, amend what yar said. we have a second chance before foreclosure, we can sell the building ourselves potentially deciding who we want to sell it to if multiple bidders. so not necessarily would go to housing developer. could sell it to another group wanting to keep it a community space. also option to create an LLC to bring in loans<br />
* peter - why didnt you mention the LLC option, yar?<br />
* yar - thought jake had said it wouldnt work but ok with that option if it would work<br />
* yar - friday meeting more open, for consensus building. saturday more about brass tacks and working to try and figure out how to iron what the community wants. i.e. hashing what to d with pp, or <br />
* paige - philip bell is also planning to do a proposal on thursday<br />
* peter - is that true you've given up on syndication idea<br />
* jake - i go back and forth. had some enthusiasm it would work with PP. right now personally i dont think sudo room can exist under the authoritarian and vilifying... because of that and because CLP has not let up in their efforts to destroy omni. even if LLC works or we get a break from mulberry, not clear we could operate. also it is clear if we dont give PP what they want it will expand on what CLP is doing<br />
* yar - not true<br />
* jake - im not saying PP said they would do this but other people in omni have said that will happen<br />
* jake - there was a check back in from lawyer, with a single question we have to resolve before proceeding. This would need to be something that would have to happen outside of omni, in that the negotiations would be with lawyers that are not jesse, and the designing of the LLC would be separate from omni governance, and not paid by them. so we would need to pool together funds outside of omni to create that sort of structure. then once its made, it would gather some pledges and be able to make an offer to omni. maybe within the 85 days. and maybe that should be mentioned to mulberry<br />
* andy - sounds like it is not a highly acted on option but not foreclosed upon option<br />
* jake - i would say high probability that it will move forward but personally very concerned about other proposals being considered<br />
* paige - just a note, we did recently send a letter to mulberry about the options we are working on, including shared ownership with another org, the LLC idea, and cast/land trusts<br />
* yar - the LLC optionm, is not binary yes or no, its how many pledges have you gotten so far and what does that add up to. If you thought the idea was possible i would... <br />
* jake - no doubt we can get 900k, but still fucked because wont be able to pay our mortgage. dont have confidence in those who have been running the omni<br />
* paige - i think it could buy us time and we can still consider options on the table. i.e. can have the LLC loan and still negotiate with other organizations who want partial ownership, on a less urgent deadline. or have more time to work options with land trusts<br />
* yar - i think it would be great if we could replace mulberry with an llc. omni has so much potential. the community doesnt want omni to go away, it wants it to fix its problems. we are able to work on that if we have some certantiy about the future. if we had that, the community would show up and invest - trying to make omni safer space for black folks. i also think the PP proposal is great, and i think it would be a great thing to share with the building with them., but with LLC idea would give us time to better build trust. i realize some people are feeling coerced<br />
* jake - very coerced<br />
* carl - i think we should try and get pledges asap. media campaign, blog post, things to solicit pledges before developing the LLC. see if we have potential investors. <br />
* andy - would you be able to format that as a proposal? sounds like interest in room, could bring that up on saturday as something that has a plurality of support in SR<br />
* peter - i thought eric was the point person for people who are interested in pledging? Patrik from CCL has also been doing work here <br />
* peter - theres somebody at CCL who proposed starting up a business plan. if you are making a proposal to get lenders, this would be reasonable. <br />
* carl - yes i brought that up about business plan in slack<br />
* andy - carl proposed that SR would like to express intent to find investors to form an LLC and decisively to buy off the debt from mulberry<br />
* carl - good if we got initial pledges before collecting anything<br />
* yar - im curious about what the timeline for this is? in the meantime, we are going to still keep talking to PP<br />
* jake - timeline for LLC? reads from lawyer email. lawyer has set something up like this before, legal took a couple months to set up<br />
* andy - so if it could take a couple months, carls proposal is to attempt to determine quickly if we could amass a number of pledges<br />
* carl - if we dont have the pledges, dont waste money on LLC. pledges would let us know if it is viable<br />
* andy - this is a reminder, if you have ability to pledge, please message some specific person. should this be private? (yes) who should we message? How about finance?<br />
* eric - im happy to be the contact. ive already received some pledges<br />
* peter - do you have a ballpark at the moment<br />
* eric - from people so far, it is $130k, and now being put in contact with older members of CCL able to donate much higher sums<br />
* yar - you are talking about people willing to pay that within package...<br />
* andy - bring that up on saturday, see if people are willing to dive into that with some gusto. <br />
* peter - we should think about having pledges total to more than 870k presuming that some people will back out. and always good to have more for building. <br />
* yar - i dont know what to say. i like the idea of LLC because it will buy us time. i also still think the PP proposal is a good idea<br />
* andy - can we amend proposal to say $130k is possibly available? instead of whispering, $130k makes me more likely to see this not as empty talk. <br />
* eric - go for it<br />
* yar - does anyone else have pledges? jake you said you feel confident? do you have more lined up?<br />
* jake - there are people i am thinking of that eric knows but some he doesnt. once structure comes to place... people who have money dont want to talk about it, but once they can see something it will be easier<br />
* andy - goal of decoupling the two - asking if the money is there, separate from setting up the LLC. helps us develop a flow chart. I appreciate carls proposal, i think it is a good one<br />
* peter - theres been indication of donor fatigue. but thats based off a conversation with david k. not sure how deep that is<br />
* andy - sentiment is in the proposal, do not think any changes needed. proposal, those able to make donation or make a pledge of a loan should make themselves know to eric, along with developing a business plan of how that would be applied<br />
* yar - we are very open to hiring an executive director. ask donors - would you be willing to fund that position?<br />
<br />
== other discussion updates ==<br />
* peter - 3 things, PP, building foreclosure, syndication. I have also been looking into working with CAST SF https://cast-sf.org/. artists and cultural workers in bay area. the other thing ive done is contacted people who know our city councilmembers, our member dan kalb. its new years so some delay<br />
* andy - anything we can do to assist?<br />
* peter - if someone has better social capital than me yes, im going in cold. also contacting a performing arts group. so many theater groups around. in general what im trying to do is buy us more time. i think we need to communicate with mulberry trust even absent of a response from them. maybe even start it with "thank you for not foreclosing this week." I think on a regular basis starting immediately, we should ask jesse to send a letter, not dry and clinical, but listing what we are doing. <br />
* peter - who authorizes payments to jesse?<br />
* jake - jesse bills us when he reads the emails. not a good idea for everyone to just start emailing him all the time. what do you want to talk about with the lender?<br />
* andy - peter was saying we should be sending letters through lawyers on a routine basis to communicate what we are doing. <br />
* peter - not necessisarily weekly, but we can indicate in letter something like "we will send our next update on this date.."<br />
* carl - i agree with you peter. i think we should try all things, including what you are suggesting. <br />
<br />
== Proposal: list building on market as a backup == <br />
* Carl - another proposal I have: if we do not get enough pledges, and dont go with PP proposal. then ultimately foreclosure option. i think it would be preferable to have a choice in who we sell the building to. therefore i think we should consider putting building up for sale, on commercial real estate sites. dont have to sell it yet, but if its on the market, we can solicit bids, we may have some option on deciding who to sell it to. could pick a buyer who wants to keep it as a community space and not tear it down as housing<br />
* paige: i feel like there are so many more pressing tasks than that but i won't oppose others doing that<br />
* peter: carl are you saying we should immediately find a realtor to start shopping the building for us?<br />
* carl - yea i guess so. might take some time before bids come in on it. if we shop it out now maybe we will get bids. we can decide not to sell it. <br />
* andy - suggested amendment. peters question i think was about mechanism. but i think this is a proposal in sudo, not option at omni table. do we think listing the building is a sound strategy? ultimately its up to omni to decide that, but we are just proposing to endorse it as a strategy from sudo room. may end up we dont have resources to do it, but carl is just suggesting the idea<br />
* carl - yea if the building goes up for auction in 3 months, wont be able to decide who to sell it to. correct me if im wrong. <br />
* paige - also wouldn't that trigger tax stuff with reassessing the building?<br />
* peter - really dont know about this... if you want to hire a professional real estate person that would entail all sorts of costs, and would welcome a lot of unwanted interest<br />
* andy - does it require a realtor? like could we just make a zillow? <br />
* jake - it would cause so many emails and flyers in mail. bunch of people trying to take advantage of the building. and they would send a lot of letters to the mulberry trust and that would not be cool<br />
* andy - we do not necessarily need to assert we know how it works<br />
* peter - ok, but i think its a terrible idea<br />
* jake - i think its premature, and will cause a lot of public uproar<br />
* peter - people knocking on the door<br />
* jake - inviting capitalists inside our home, not a good idea<br />
* andy - though i share carl's sentiments, it makes sense to delay this <br />
* paige - a better route to do same thing, is you can try making personal connections now with people you think might be interested in buying later. then those can be proposed later down the line if it really gets that dire<br />
* andy - personally dont think the proposal is a good idea, are you willing carl to wait 1 month?<br />
* carl - yea just wanted to get thoughts on it. if rest of sudo room wants to wait then happy to move on <br />
<br />
== land trusts ==<br />
* paige - something we should be discussing<br />
* andy - asking for advice for people in sudo room, how can we chunk out these tasks? without taking on unreasonable amount of workload?<br />
* andy - peter might be good for this task<br />
* peter - yes but i have plateful <br />
* paige - yea im just trying to solicit help here. Like who has some personal connections who could help here?<br />
* paige and andy will link up to talk more about this<br />
<br />
== Peoples programs messaging ==<br />
* paige - The discussion surrounding them has progressed from how i've noticed people retelling events. request that we stop doing this, talk about counterproposal instead of dwelling on initial meetings<br />
* peter - would like to remind that financial ownership and governance do not necessarily have to be tied together as a percentage. for example, buy into building could be based on some term of equity. but not correlated one to one with operations<br />
* andy - that recognition of management, not a fifedom or kingdom. can still set terms for how it is managed. also a segue into my proposal<br />
<br />
== delegate ==<br />
* jemma - should raise we need another delegate<br />
* andy - is eric welcome to do that on ongoing basis?<br />
* paige - not in meeting anymore. also no proposals out yet, so might not be that important if we don't have a delegate. i always attend to take notes so can act as one if needed.<br />
* andy - in absense of one, i would suggest you then paige.<br />
* eric - I'm still here in the notes. I still think of myself as a co-delegate.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Proposal: board of responsibility and limited power ==<br />
<br />
Link to proposal: https://sudoroom.org/lists/hyperkitty/list/sudo-discuss@sudoroom.org/thread/ZRSXJVZ34IQP73JBMOYP47XA65ASC7OO/<br />
<br />
* andy - proposal we elect a board with limited authority, but that centralizes planning in a way to make us more organized.<br />
* peter - so starting from first principles, what are the problems you are trying to address?<br />
* andy - from my own experience, problem ive have had is ive seen core functions do not have consistent execution. things are neglected or done in a sporadic effort. examples 1. maintenance of this space 2. coordination of members, helping them join 3. promoting, marketing among ourselves and community 4. and having a regularity and ___ to meetings. my idea is to have a board of a few people who have been specifically given a simple badge, a title becaues they have the broadest appeal of being able to help people exercise their already existing agency that we all have. not so different than now, just now we have people that they can turn to, and act as the central facilitator<br />
* jemma - talking about a board for sudo room, correct?<br />
* andy - yes<br />
* carl - this past year i was on the board of a 501c3 nonprofit. traditional, president, treasurer, and secretary. used robert rules of order. and i think some of it is okay but also have had bad experiences with traditional set up. particularly, same people in every meeting. problems can occur i believe when its the same person over and over. kind of appreciate rotating nature of sudo room. facilitator and note taker can be determined at time of the meeting. also like not having a predetermined agenda. on one hand i also agree with you, i think we should have official committess. those commitees could be one or multiple people. i would also like to know some detail about what you are proposing<br />
* andy - i dont want to suggest a major change to our operating structure. this proposal leaves room for others to determine how executed. but personally, in the past, before i was here, there was board of limited responsibility. it was a badge or title, didnt afford any authority to assert. the election of person just meant: majority said this person did something well, i.e. runs meetings well. person wouldnt have specific power, it would just help us identify who everyone has the most trust in, and give those people encouragement do do things with that trust <br />
* robert rules, discussion about it being stiff<br />
* andy - i only know about this past board from some wiki archeology.<br />
* peter - it would be good to learn as much as we can from a previous incarnation. so we dont rerun an experiment already been run<br />
* andy - yea we also have our own past experiences in other hackerspaces. this is 3rd hackerspace ive been in, and 2 others have been run better. i dont think we need to throw baby out with the bathwater. i also would like to point out, i dont know if this proposal was passed, there would be people to run it. <br />
* peter - at cal sailing club, when you become a member, you are supposed to volunteer 3hrs a month. officers sign off their hrs. think about, when people come in, we dont just want their money. want the buy in. might think about asking to commit volunteer hours to the space<br />
* andy - to draw some context. this idea passes through this meeting. if we had a structure like we are describing, committes or working groups, smaller group of people focusing on an issue. example of membership working group. not too different from what we have now, but if you wanted to exectute that policy, unclear who would be organizing it. <br />
* carl - they're also called commitees or subcommitees<br />
* peter - you mentioned keeping space tidy, you mentioned membership. could we just start with one committe?<br />
* andy - im extraordinarily flexible on that. <br />
* paige - very supportive of membership committee in that we need to be reaching out to wider audience<br />
* andy - paradox. imagine 3 of us are membership working group. we decide on a membership drive. want to put our best foot forward to get more people. but to do that, we would want the space more spruced up for that. by that i am trying to illustrate it would be a benefit if we are able to establish all of them at same time. they all rely on each other. <br />
* andy - this is first mention of proposal, I would like to come to a conclusion next february.</div>
Paigep
https://sudoroom.org/wiki/Meeting_Notes_2023-12-27
Meeting Notes 2023-12-27
2023-12-28T05:45:02Z
<p>Paigep: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
Dec 27, 2023 at 7PM<br />
<br />
... or ___ means something was said that was not heard by notetaker, not intentionally excluded<br />
<br />
= Attendees =<br />
<br />
* facilitator - jemma<br />
* notetaker - paige<br />
* sudoer: anonymous but vouched for as a sudo room member<br />
* sudo room members (Attendance not taken)<br />
* Pallavi<br />
* Patrik<br />
* Silver<br />
<br />
= Agenda =<br />
<br />
<br />
== sudo room only meeting? ==<br />
* jemma - someone asked if its all right that pallavi is here. concerned with their involvement in past discussions, the last delegate meeting<br />
* pallavi - i dont know what that means, what do you mean by my involvement?<br />
* jemma - intense emotions, thats what they are concerned about. not a personal point from me, just voicing someone elses concern<br />
* 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..<br />
* 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<br />
* 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.<br />
* pallavi - i am omnis development consultant. member of media lab but thats not a collective<br />
* seqoia - vote on this? yes: Jemma, sequoia, peter, yar, anwar, paige, vote didnt finish<br />
* 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<br />
* 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. <br />
* 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<br />
* 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?<br />
* 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. <br />
* 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.<br />
* 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...<br />
* 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<br />
* 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<br />
* jemma - ___<br />
* yar - so there is someone who specifically doesnt want Pallavi here? is that person here?<br />
* 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<br />
* 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<br />
* jemma - i think best to go for vote for keeping pallavi in meeting. yes: most people no: ? aside: jake, and some others <br />
* 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<br />
* anwar - is pallavi really more connected to PP than omni?<br />
* jake - yes she expressed support<br />
* 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. <br />
* jake - ok pallavis connection to sudo room...<br />
* sequoia - we are 40 minutes in can we move on<br />
<br />
== Peoples Programs proposal, and other options ==<br />
* 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<br />
* anwar - should we do straw poll on how ppl feel about proposals? 100% vs 50-50 vs no partnership<br />
* carl - any updates? since last delegates meeting<br />
* jemma - other than what i saw in email thread from yar, no<br />
* 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<br />
* pallavi - i think PP will be amenable to split ownership<br />
* 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<br />
* jake - i dont understand, your saying like CCL should get a 90 days notice in an agreement? thats what were heading for?<br />
* jemma- what we are heading towards right now is 90 days to foreclosure<br />
* 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?<br />
* 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<br />
* 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<br />
* 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.<br />
* 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<br />
* jemma- omni the building or corp?<br />
* yar - the corporation, voice for projects and tenants<br />
* jake - are we talking about pp as part ownership of omni the building or the corp?<br />
* yar - no the building<br />
* jake - ok, thats an important distinction. <br />
* 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<br />
* jake - when youre talking about collectives joining...<br />
* 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<br />
* 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?<br />
* yar - yea thats idea im proposing. its possible if people really disagree, if they want to partition <br />
* anwar - i like your proposition, just wanted to clarify<br />
* 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<br />
* 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 ?????<br />
* sequoia - sounds like most people in favor. anyone not in favor?<br />
* carl and eric not in favor, <br />
* sequoia can you discuss concerns, and what you are in favor of?<br />
* 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<br />
* 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<br />
* anwar - correct me if wrong but yars proposal specifies that no group can sell unilaterally.<br />
* yar - to the extent its possible<br />
* --- - thats not possible<br />
* yar - one pro for havign 0-0 and a land trust owns it<br />
* sequoia - what if there was a contract, in deed, that omni had right of first refusal to buy it<br />
* 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?<br />
* 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<br />
* 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. <br />
* anwar - good show of faith to add that we are not interested in cashing out<br />
* 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<br />
* 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<br />
* jake - can you give more clarification on second part<br />
* 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<br />
* yar - in order to due market value, would need assessment which would cost 1000s<br />
* jake - not true. we can just agree on a number <br />
* 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<br />
* 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<br />
* 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 ____<br />
* eric agree to disagree<br />
* jake - severe problem with silver where they tried to attack me<br />
* anwar - our requiring market value is not anti-capitalist despite our claim that we are anti-capitalist<br />
* jake - capitalism is when you use your capital to get a leverage<br />
* anwar - we are using leverage, in that we could foreclose<br />
* jake - what we are asking for is fair percentage given fair value of the place and amount give in<br />
* anwar - fair by defintion of capitalism<br />
* jake - agree to disagree. want to know about second half of sequoias question<br />
* 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. <br />
* yar - we want to do whatever prevents that possibility of selling<br />
* 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.<br />
* 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...<br />
* 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<br />
* yar - that is true<br />
* jake - part of problem is we dont have trust. our efforts to build trust have been rebuffed<br />
* yar - have you met anyone from PP in person?<br />
* jake - i dont know<br />
* yar - not that hard to do<br />
* 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<br />
* jake - im talking about specific cases <br />
* pallavi - i think this is dangerous territory speaking for other people<br />
* jake - witnessed with own eyes. said iranian dissidents would not be safe<br />
* yar - the notes did not reflect everything<br />
* jake - i was watching. also didn't distance from CLP. also not taking down the tweet<br />
* 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<br />
* jake - concept is manipulative. directly from CLP. if people dont recognize how harmful clp was. they were ones who brought PP forward<br />
* yar - thats the worst thing i could say about them, PP i mean<br />
* jemma - yea that is making it harder<br />
* 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?<br />
* 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? <br />
* jemma sequoia want to speak to that<br />
* 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<br />
* 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<br />
* 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<br />
* 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.<br />
* jemma - (reading chat comment from pallavi: "are the conflicts happening in omni leadership?"<br />
* 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. <br />
* jemma - i believe last time i was only delegate who said no to continued engagement but changed my position<br />
* ajay - (comment from chat) if no, what is your yes? how many days for an alternative<br />
* jake - 85 days after notice of default of lender, which is jan 1 soonest day they can do that<br />
* (comment from ?? in chat) - can we invite PP members to the CCL meeting?<br />
* patrik - no CCL would need to do that invite. do not think they would appreciate PP joining<br />
* (comment from ?? in chat) - would we be able to use ballroom for events? does PP follow our charter<br />
* patrik - in case in tenants in commons, contract between partners that outlines those kind of things<br />
* (comment from Patrik in chat) - is there a point person on LLC option? just had an old CCL member interested in loans around 100k"<br />
* eric - yea ill take those contacts after<br />
* 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?<br />
* patrik - if meetings not at same time, would love yar for you to come to them. <br />
* jake - two ians part of CCL. can we clarify who is in chat?<br />
* patrik - at least two<br />
* jake - something that happened in past, dec 5th or dec or oct, big contentious meeting between abbas and ian.<br />
* yar - conflict involved the ian who applied to be a sr member who hangs out there all the time. <br />
* yar - we are talking about oct 12, ian went to microphone, practically booed off the stage. <br />
* 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, <br />
* yar - its not<br />
* ian - but do understand we live in a white supremacist world id love to keep an open mind and start an open dialogue.<br />
* 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<br />
* jemma - clarifying - you want to ensure financial equity protected, and you want a buy out option?<br />
* carl - a buy out option means they pay us x amount, and we can use money to go to a new place.<br />
* jemma - the buy out option is wanted as a protection? <br />
* 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.<br />
* 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. <br />
missing some notes<br />
* 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<br />
* 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<br />
* 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. <br />
* 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<br />
* anawr - interesting train of thought. <br />
* 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 decisions. 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<br />
* 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<br />
* peter - want to respond about sudo rooms core, that this proposal was somehow threatening that. if that level of ostracization is setting - a lot is changing right now. one thing we have to be willing to do right now is be dynamic. this building is a living organism that houses these things. sudo room should be dynamising instead of insisting sudo room stays as is<br />
* yar - i had no idea how popular axis of resistance is now... and iran support of proxy wars. im still against iran but ive been surprised by ways things are turning out.<br />
* 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...<br />
* paige - CLP, not PP, had that accusation of sudo room being hobbyists. PP was supportive of Sudo Room mission/ hackers etc. from beginning<br />
* 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<br />
* anwar - i think thats more on us than them we've not successful at outreach<br />
* eric - but we have robust wiki and website and open house<br />
* anwar - i didn't say we haven't tried<br />
* 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 : 1. make sure sudo room is not any easier or harder to move or remove 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, governance not necesarily have to be broken down in same percentage. 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 the only delegate that said no last week, did a lot of reflection, talked to my support structure, appreciate being a part of this<br />
* patrik - is there a delegates meeting tomorrow?<br />
* jemma - thats my understanding<br />
* 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.<br />
* anwar - im pretty sure they were clear that they would offer us to have remediation with CLP, which we could probably just say no too<br />
* yar - yeah i think thats a pretty fine line in the sand to draw that we want nothing to do with CLP<br />
* carl - i think the delegates meetings should just be for delegates and omni. the group making the proposal should be a separate meeting.<br />
* anwar - i dont think we have time for separate meetings. but i think its fine to have split time for just delegates<br />
* carl - they are an external group, we should be deliberating amongst ourselves<br />
* jemma - there was supposed to be time for that, but the meeting went long, but i think that is something everyone pushing for<br />
* jake - im including omni here, i think only delegates should go<br />
* jemma - honestly that sounds good to me. a few times we didnt have quorum. just me natalie and patrik (and josh? i think there was a 4th person named...maybe not tho). how do you feel patrik<br />
* 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<br />
* jemma - for tomorrow do you have a preference between only delegates, then people shoiwing up<br />
* 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<br />
* anwar - are we in sudo room forward for going with non100% ownership proposal with PP.<br />
* 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<br />
* yar - im not against LLC idea either, because if that happens, it buys us time to have a conversation, and not make people feel coerced. i am doubtful it will actually materialize.<br />
* 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 away 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 eviscerated<br />
* patrik - i think omni can pay off loan even if just relying on rent. dont need event space<br />
*in chat*<br />
* sudoer - fwiw i support a 50/50 split<br />
* patrick - 70/30<br />
* waffle - 70/30 with ballroom access<br />
* a(h)jay - 50/50<br />
<br />
* jake - very impressive facilitation work and note taking.<br />
* yar - can you put that jemma is awesome in the notes<br />
* Patrik: And Paige for note taking!<br />
* sequoia - thanks for all work you are doing, totally normal to have disagreements. great working with all of you.<br />
<br />
== Agenda item 2 ==<br />
<br />
x - late to the party and interested in re-activating sudo mesh</div>
Paigep