[sudo-discuss] [omni-consensus] [backspace] Re: [BAPS-Organizing] Re: Backspace Space proposal

Tue Oct 21 10:57:28 PDT 2014

Dear all,

I'm very excited to have Backspace begin occupying space, as well as
excited for future groups and current groups to expand their occupation of
space inside the commons.

I want to remind everyone that discussions and questions and challenges
around our concept/how we conceive of "space" is not problematic nor
antagonistic to our project/the OOC. It's essential that we don't revert to
the normal rule of space outside the commons, which is that one pays for
space and no one questions how they use it!

I totally get that e-mail and other forms of communication often feel like
they dilute these conversations with personal attacks or questions of
integrity, but I just feel like we should recognize that *this project is
founded upon questioning our use of space* and we are far from reaching the
emotional and conceptual strength to talk about space diligently. Let's be
patient with each other as we move forward in this discussion and future
discussions regarding space.

with love
stephen

On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 10:45 AM, <hol at gaskill.com> wrote:

>  David,
>
>
>
> If we can't accommodate groups' most basic needs for space and build our
> still largely unbuilt community, how can we expect to survive with any
> commons to share?  We're talking about enclosing a huge amount of space for
> rise above for $1,000.  TIL is getting a pretty large room for $400, and
> previously occupied one of the rooms being discussed for the same amount.
> The eyeball room is tiny.  For the reincarnation of one of the founding
> groups I think the least that can be done is to give them a chance to see
> if it works.  There are several spaces that are enclosed and we are all
> aware of the need to retain commons.  Sudo room and CCL obviously have a
> huge chunk of space at their priority scheduling/use disposal, and that has
> not been problematic to operation of the omni as far as I can tell.  I
> think your fears of an end-state enclosure of the entire commons being
> triggered by a relatively small incremental increase in (nominally, with
> sharing of the space when not needed already offered) enclosed space are
> overblown.  When we get closer to that point, I think it's likely that we
> will have to reconfigure and compress a bit, and the quarterly review of
> groups's needs and abilities will inevitable involve some reallocation of
> space at various points.  There are more pressing fears that we have
> already seen play out like losing dedicated groups because we are unwilling
> to tolerate temporary discomfort or uncertainty in order to accommodate
> what they see as their basic needs in order to exist and flourish.  I just
> re-subscribed to these lists so I've missed alot of the discussion, but the
> process and some demands on formative groups seem crippling to the project
> at this point.  How long have people been waiting to move in and start
> working on their respective missions? I haven't worked nearly, by a long
> shot, as much or as hard as you on this project and don't have as much
> detail or opinion to convey, but that is my honest impression from hearing
> everyone's frustration with what has been happening.
>
>
>
> In much solidarity,
>
> Hol
>
>
>
> >To me this sort of fear is exactly the kind of 'hypothetical' anti-pattern
>
>
>
>
> On 2014-10-21 01:31, David Keenan wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> After reading through all the responses on this I am hearted by the
> support for Backspace and how far it has come. I am obviously in total
> support of a wellness collective at the omni, and personally have over the
> last year spent a lot of time working *extremely* hard specifically on
> this point in pretty much every way I could - since we got this Omni thing
> going, I have probably worked harder on making backspace a wellness
> collective than any other group including BAPS. Actually Backspace, before
> you are disheartened by the concerns that must be aired in this current
> process, I think its fair to say Backspace has over time been more nurtured
> and gotten more support from the rest of the OOC than any other group, in
> spite of the financial commitment issue. I thank my lucky stars that
> Margaretha in particular has made unbelieveable effort to get wellness into
> backspace, and make backspace awesome. Andrew deserves a huge amount of
> credit for his patience, generosity and incredible flexibility really with
> respect to Backspace's evolution and mission.
>
> However, I am not in support of this proposal as it is currently
> articulated for one reason: With respect to the use of space, I think it is
> *too* limiting for Backspace, and at the same time it also has
> unnecessarily negative and significant downstream effects for others,
> especially any other group without dedicated space (community groups, etc).
> The 'den' in particular in my view should not be privileged to any one
> group.
>
> Why? Well:
>
> Backspace can *already* use *all* the currently-common spaces in the Omni
> for its intended consultations, classes and events, not just privileged use
> of this or that room. In this way, as Don actually pointed out in a way,
> the current proposal outlining all the specific rooms they want privileged
> use of versus not, actually *limits* the space Backspace already has at
> its disposal - and it limits it for others too, since especially those
> without dedicated space are as a result conversely unprivileged (and left
> presumably to fight for the scraps of remaining 'commons' that they can
> then have their own privileged use over). It's a funny sort of
> forest-for-the-trees occlusion of how space can be effectively used that's
> going on within the proposal I think, but it's a serious one because it
> speaks directly to the heart of what a radical commoning of space is and
> shapes the very concept of what 'sharing' equitably means, at this crucial
> axis of praxis right now.
>
> Currently, *without* Backspace;s proposal for new dedicated/privileged
> space, Backspace could schedule yoga or martial arts classes in the
> ballroom, or the 'den' room or, with OMNIdance's permission, the disco room
> (who have already offered this resource to Backspace in several delegate
> meetings).
>
> One-on-one Backspace consultations can *already* be had in the 'eyeball
> room', the ticketbooth room once it is finished, or TIL's old room (aka
> kids room aka 'Storage 1')... or OMP's basement rooms, or the 'bunker room'
> (aka plotting room), etc.
>
> Regarding locked rooms, I have talked with Margaretha several times in the
> past about the need to lock up sensitive tinctures and supplies, and from
> what she told me they could be locked up in a cabinet, and would not need
> to take up a whole room. Likewise we talked about locking up massage tables
> and so on, and figured out places where they might safely be stored that
> would not leave a whole room empty and unavailable for people to meet in
> when it was not used. In other words there does not appear to be a need for
> a locked room, when there can simply be locked cabinets or lockers. (This
> is very similar issue to what came up initially with the RLL proposal.)
> Given this, if we all treat the rooms in our Commons with respect as we
> should, why can't this be an Omni 'members' only area along with the rest
> of the building?
>
> Yes, all these common spaces and rooms must currently be scheduled and
> shared with other collectives. But I don't understand why this is bad? or
> something that would 'stymie' Backspace in any way at all.
>
> To me it is rather a huge amount of space for Backspace, far more than
> they had in their initial commitment (since collapsed) for $2K/mo. If in
> fact we as a commons run out of space for a wellness collective to operate
> along with the rest of us inside of 22K sq.feet, massive areas of which are
> still shared and available for precisely such purposes and with that intent
> all along, it will be precisely *because* too many rooms and spaces are
> being taken or edge out of the what is commonly available and allocated to
> or 'privileged' for specific people.
>
> That this staking out of space was *already happening* is probably why
> Backspace is so worried about not having any space, leading them to stake
> this claim with such urgency. Backspacers, I feel I understand this fear
> very well, and believe it or not is why I counterintuitively proposed that
> BAPS have a bit of space for its own 'privileged' use. As all those at the
> BAPS meetings when I proposed this to BAPS can attest, the BAPS proposal
> was articulated from the start as a conspiracy: Actually BAPS wants the
> remaining common space including all the space BAPS proposed for its
> supposed privileged use, to remain in common *for everyone*. If the
> proposal passed, we would ensure that it would remain common as we always
> have (and currently continue to do by not having dedicated space and
> demonstrating how this is not just possible but effective). If the BAPS
> proposal didn't pass, we would hear objections within the OOC from people
> saying "no, it's important to have a commons and shared space", and that
> would be a win also for the commons - in that others would begin advocating
> clearly for the virtues of shared space, articulations which in our view
> was sorely needed from others, not just BAPS. I realize now theres a
> commons working group which is *amazing*, but there wasn't then, and I
> got tired of seeing proposed floorplans without BAPS or any shared commons
> aside from the ballroom even on it.
>
> The allotment of space, time and rent in the omni should to my mind be
> based on not just one group's needs and abilities, but the needs and
> abilities of everyone else in the commons, too: It should be inherently
> relational, not territorial. There is no demonstrated need for Backspace to
> have dedicated or privileged use of room X or Y, especially when they can
> use every common room in the building along with their comrades.
>
> If Backspace gets so popular that they do run out of rooms to schedule
> comfortably with other groups who are also here and have a right to them
> too, why not deal with that problem when we get to it? Too much business
> doesn't sound like that bad of a problem to have. I see no good reason why
> we can't all share space *equally*.
>
> The downstream effect here is that carving up the remaining common space
> will and has already led others to be inclined to do the same thing,
> instead of sharing as equals, and then there will only be a 'commons' of
> like 2 rooms in the whole building, and as someone who cares about the
> commons and the health of the whole project more than just any one group in
> the project, that concerns me most. To me this sort of fear is exactly the
> kind of 'hypothetical' anti-pattern that Yar talks about, and a fear that
> becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy in that acting on it by staking out
> space away from the commons actualizes the problem itself - maybe not for
> backspace anymore, but certainly for others like BAPS, or all the other
> community groups at large without any space at all who we would like to
> meet here and for whom I thought this space could be a resource.
>
> I say this as someone who fought and worked *very* hard for the concept
> of backspace as a wellness collective - incorporated backspace, signed the
> lease for backspace, defended backspace's previously-chosen dedicated space
> at many many meetings and one on one - and most importantly implored my
> community and everyone I knew with an interest in wellness to participate
> and make it happen.
>
> I care far too much - exclusively practically - about the wellness of the
> *entire* collective and the effort as a whole in its mission as a
> commons. Through the input of many people whom I love and respect, I
> realized that I needed to actually care less about this effort, and care
> more for myself. With a bit of distance I can say that I now speak with a
> sense of love and appreciation for every group including Backspace, but
> beyond any one group, its that for this to remain a commons, we should try
> to operate from a space of radical sharing before deciding in advance that
> it would never work.
>
> Love,
> David
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 5:16 PM, margaretha haughwout <
> margaretha.anne.haughwout at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This is really wonderful everyone.
>>
>> THANK YOU <3 <3 <3
>>
>>  margaretha anne haughwout
>> unclique <http://beforebefore.net>, disconnect
>> <margaretha.anne.haughwout at gmail.com>
>>   On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Donald Hughes <kamiyodojo.ca at gmail.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>     So what I am hearing is that we are all supportive of each other.
>>> I hear general consensus on Backspace being able to schedule time in the
>>> Dance Room, the Den, and the downstairs space next to the lift.  No one
>>> wants any one else to not be able to have access to these spaces, but we
>>> would like the ability to begin scheduling in these rooms. I hear people
>>> not being opposed to the idea that we get the EyeBall room and that it is
>>> lockable.  So it seems as though we have the rudiments of agreement.
>>>     Nikki, I would like to address what you are asking for.  We need to
>>> have something certain to give to other professionals who would like to use
>>> the space for healing or classes.  This has not yet manifested, so it is
>>> difficult to tell you exactly what the time and space looks like as of
>>> yet.  My goal would be that we have this mostly fleshed out by November
>>> 1st, and have everything totally solidified by December 1st.
>>>    But what I think we can do in the meantime, is offer basically our
>>> proposal.  Which is to have scheduling power over 50% of the Den.  But we
>>> also want to be able to schedule time in the other spaces in conjunction
>>> with the other collectives who want a say in those spaces.  To my mind it
>>> seems fair that when we schedule something in other spaces we give up some
>>> of our scheduling time in the Den.  But none of this is worked out.  I just
>>> think this is something that could be fair and will work.
>>>   In order to move forward on a Nov1st start date for the clinic, we
>>> would need the ability to schedule time at least in the EyeBall room, which
>>> I would like to start calling the clinic room.  We would need this ASAP as
>>> it will take a process to get new members who are willing to pay money for
>>> space to do their practices.  I hope this helps us to move forward.  Note
>>> that these are my opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of
>>> the rest of Backspace.
>>>
>>> Thank you everyone,
>>>
>>> Don
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 4:07 PM, niki <niki.shelley at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Agreed! Thank you, Yar!
>>>>
>>>> I also want to assure everyone involved that my bringing up issues
>>>> around money is meant only to make the material realities of this project
>>>> visible, so that there are no surprises and to encourage member groups to
>>>> be explicit about what they can and cannot contribute. It's important that
>>>> we reconfigure our expenses to reflect changes in member groups
>>>> contributions in order to accurately project our needs.
>>>>
>>>> That said, I had a conversation with Margaretha some time ago in which
>>>> I said that having Backspace involved in the Omni was way more important to
>>>> me than their financial contribution.
>>>>
>>>> I know it's very hard for us to talk about money. I am hopeful that we
>>>> can be clear and open so that we may begin to
>>>> replace feelings of shame, anxiety and anger around money with feelings
>>>> of compassion and support.
>>>>
>>>> I LOVE BACKSPACE and really want to help support it in coming into
>>>> being in whatever way I can.
>>>>
>>>> <3 <3
>>>>
>>>> N
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Sara Larsen <saralarsenyoga at gmail.com
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I want to thank you Yar for this incredible letter. Needless to say, I
>>>>> support the views you expressed 100%!
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Scott Nanos <scott.nanos at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree 200% w/ yar and hope we can come to a conclusion that works
>>>>>> for all of us (particularly for backspace). I can't come to this thurs
>>>>>> meeting but my fingers are crossed double crossed triple crossed. Hoping
>>>>>> Baps and backspace can team up to become champions of the commons <3
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Xo
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > On Oct 20, 2014, at 8:28 AM, yar <yardenack at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 12:58 PM, yar <yardenack at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> >> It's not your fault, it's not anybody else's fault either. I really
>>>>>> >> hope the confusion isn't interpreted as bad faith or a lack of
>>>>>> >> support. We all need to get better at that, of course, but also get
>>>>>> >> better at forgiving each others' mistakes, in the spirit of
>>>>>> jubilee.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > I want to just reiterate this in light of the past few days of
>>>>>> > conversation. I have heard a lot of different narratives about what
>>>>>> > happened with Backspace over the past few months. I don't claim to
>>>>>> > know exactly what happened anymore, but it seems to boil down to a
>>>>>> > huge string of communication failures that resulted in Backspace
>>>>>> > paying for space to operate, yet having no space until now.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > At Thursday's meeting, the subject of past-due utility bills came
>>>>>> up,
>>>>>> > but it seems apropos to mention that lots of Omni groups have not
>>>>>> paid
>>>>>> > utility bills, or even rent, and one of the amazing potential things
>>>>>> > about Omni is our capacity to be a non-evil landlord - each
>>>>>> according
>>>>>> > to their ability and their need.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > It's clear that most backspace folks are WORKERS whose primary
>>>>>> concern
>>>>>> > is being able to see their clients and students and make a living
>>>>>> > wage. It's also clear to me that the primary benefit of having
>>>>>> > Backspace at Omni is NOT the money they'd bring in, but the new
>>>>>> > people, energy and perspectives. It would REALLY SUCK if we lost all
>>>>>> > that by fighting with them over money.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Other than money, the only other concern I'm hearing about this
>>>>>> > proposal is about space. While I have expressed concerns about
>>>>>> > "enclosure" in the past, Backspace's plans for the den or "storage
>>>>>> > room" are NOT enclosures. They're stewardship of commons. This is
>>>>>> > exactly the model I always dreamed of for our building!
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Finally, there's BAPS. I think it might help to separate BAPS'
>>>>>> > pragmatic need to host many evening classes from BAPS' position as a
>>>>>> > roving "nomadic" group without dedicated space, and both from the
>>>>>> > concept of "enclosure". Because it seems to me like Backspace's
>>>>>> > pragmatic needs are similar to BAPS - to assemble in spaces and
>>>>>> occupy
>>>>>> > them for a finite period, for classes and 1-on-1 sessions. So what
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> > the ways we can frame this as a collaboration rather than a
>>>>>> > competition?
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > I think these problems would get solved a lot faster if we were all
>>>>>> > able to trust each other, the best path to building trust is for
>>>>>> > Backspace to begin operating at the Omni ASAP, and the best way for
>>>>>> > that to happen is to show support and forgiveness all around.
>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  --
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Let us be together,
>>>>> Let us eat together,
>>>>> Let us be vital together,
>>>>> Let us be radiating truth,
>>>>> radiating the light of life,
>>>>> Never shall we denounce anyone,
>>>>> never entertain negativity.
>>>>> -- The Upanishads
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>> Groups "Backspace" group.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>>> an email to backspacewellness+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
>>>> To post to this group, send email to backspacewellness at googlegroups.com
>>>> .
>>>>  To view this discussion on the web visit
>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/backspacewellness/CAL8c4AY%2BqHJLys4eCcYLAGpxNG2AO405VpLHVJyxYVJTYBhtiA%40mail.gmail.com
>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/backspacewellness/CAL8c4AY%2BqHJLys4eCcYLAGpxNG2AO405VpLHVJyxYVJTYBhtiA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Backspace" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to backspacewellness+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to backspacewellness at googlegroups.com.
>>>  To view this discussion on the web visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/backspacewellness/CA%2BmgZdP5Ea-7OqnayWoDHbqWUgmnfES0YTq4saeUO1GF%3D2tR2w%40mail.gmail.com
>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/backspacewellness/CA%2BmgZdP5Ea-7OqnayWoDHbqWUgmnfES0YTq4saeUO1GF%3D2tR2w%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
>>>
>>>
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Backspace" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to backspacewellness+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to backspacewellness at googlegroups.com.
>>  To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/backspacewellness/CAP1-Q3ZaziDaAgB4QKuRNQo15ZFXY2KEEDmcC0G3aW_NZ2kCJw%40mail.gmail.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/backspacewellness/CAP1-Q3ZaziDaAgB4QKuRNQo15ZFXY2KEEDmcC0G3aW_NZ2kCJw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
>>
>>
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> consensus mailing listconsensus at lists.omnicommons.orghttps://omnicommons.org/lists/listinfo/consensus
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> consensus mailing list
> consensus at lists.omnicommons.org
> https://omnicommons.org/lists/listinfo/consensus
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20141021/989931cd/attachment.html>