Meeting Notes 2023-12-20

Sudo Room Meeting

Dec 20, 2023 815PM

Attendees

• jemma - one of delegates for SR currently, pronouns they/them
• Paige - also one of the delegates for SR, pronounst they/them
• jake - not a delegate anymore but eager to talk about omni business, any pronouns
• william - sudoroom member, pronouns he/him
• ed - also a sudoroom member but very inactive
• yar - (she/her) might have to leave early, but will be at the big meeting tomorrow. PP's proposal was a high bargain. we should make a counteroffer for a reasonable way to share the building. i also empathize with the feeling of being rushed. if the LLC can buy us more time to have a full re-visioning process, then i support it., I would like the narrative to be that we need more time rather than we are outright rejecting PP, because we need something other than the status quo. the status quo sucks.
• peter - I am mostly driving this program where we do repair for people
• glen - I do some of the robotics programs here and also very involved at CCL as well, my biggest claim to fame is that i got banned for being too young (before 18) and then got reinstated
• carl - i'm here
• alex - i'm here
• x (The X) - interested party, having helped move from Telegraph and get the commons rolling, observing participant for now. lil busy u-boot'n and 6.6.6 kernel compiling. making a fresh batch of yogurt. neither confirm nor deny "Member"
• kent - online
• cere - online and then in person

Agenda

Fire inspection funding needs

Needs:

• paige: fire inspection means we need to clean things up before the end of the month, including buying self-powered exit signs and a panic bar on the door from the stage to sudoroom
• jake: where's the exit sign gotta go?
• paige: they want it to be self-powered in case of power failure
• jake: asking if anyone can check if it has to be tritium or can battery-backed be acceptable
• Paige - yes i can talk to sarah and david about that
• paige - someone on the Consensus list keeps emailing the Zinefest people telling them that we're not compliant even though we are
• jake - I think its obviously CLP emailing them
• x - these pass SF Fire Inspection FYI https://www.homedepot.com/p/Lithonia-Lighting-Contractor-Select-EXRG-3-6-Volt-Backup-Battery-Integrated-LED-White-Exit-Sign-EXRG-EL-M6/316678959
• jake - does anyone know where we can get a panic bar for the door? Or wait we can just take out the doorknob and the problem is solved.
• paige - i'll ask about that
• alex - there's a panic bar in Dublin/Pleasanton for $40

https://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/mat/d/dublin-yale-panic-bar-lever-door/7690151637.html

• jake - I'll try to put up a battery backed-up exit sign tonight

Ballroom: 1x new tritium (self-powered) EXIT sign requested in west stairwell (near ballroom bathroom) leading from ballroom to entrance hall. EXIT sign to be placed at middle landing above door into Entrance Hall, facing south, so as to be visible to anyone leaving ballroom or basement. Status: Not yet ordered or installed.

Ballroom: 1x panic bar required to be installed stage-side at door outswinging from stage area into Sudo. Existing keyed knob to be removed. Status: Not yet ordered or installed. Expect around ~$200 parts cost.

mulberry trust ask for extension

• paige: this was an idea from Peter to ask for an extension to say that we have a plan, I started a letter, I think this just needs to be known that we're making this, I ...
• alex: i thought there were people who knew mulberry
• jake - nobody now who is associated with them, but mulberry stated they only want to be contacted through lawyer so we should respect that. also we are going to talk to Jesse about LLC plan. We dont have to compose a letter.
• paige - we should also include in the letter mentioning PP as a possible buyer, a land trust, as well as the LLC
• peter: absent any other information i want to express to the mulberry trust an emotional appeal that there are people at Sudoroom if not other groups, to talk about the good work at this building that they're not otherwise aware is going on, Sudoroom mondays and tuesdays, reiterate the FNB work that's happened, the storm shelter last year in the ballroom, basically say that there's a whole group here that hasn't been at the delegates' meetings, basically to beg. I just learned that there might be somebody who knows them.. I'm happy to do a letter in parallel with Paige's letter, about what we're doing here. Look they invested $2M in us and if we fail they'll have to admit that they failed. If they're smart, even if Jake can put together an LLC, it will be at a higher interest rate than we're doing now. To me it's an emotional appeal not a clinical appeal.
• jake: i don't there's any issue with people passing letters to our lawyer to give to the mulberry trust, but I think we should keep from contacting and overwhelming them on our own
• peter - i want to respect their anonymity. at this point its a hail mary but we are out of runway. if youre okay, paige and I can draft a letter, and I can draft a separate letter written from my role. Honestly i dont know how close we are
• jake - maybe if we offered a higher interest rate they would consider, but also cant afford that right now, but to do that we would need more volunteers to step into events booking and renting rooms out. not specficially responding to clp blocking tanc and print collective preventing renting, but separately from that a lot of rooms are unrented.
• peter - once they foreclose that will be harder. im not too proud to beg. i dont think we are not in a position to not try.
• paige - ive heard getting volunteers to bottomline really hard for events
• peter - in the next year have to consider separating Omni commons building managing from omni commons collectives
• jake - we've tried that before but it didn't work out
• peter - building event spaces are great for generating money but its been woefully mismanaged. but have to say something about needing to separating management of building and collectives
• jake - it was going great before CLP
• paige - people talk about getting burned out before that
• jake - yes but CLP is the one doing this, and their friends PP coming to try and take the building
• peter - derailing the meeting to talk about this thing
• jake - im talking about events working is derailed by CLP. PP told to take down tweet, and they said theyll think about it. and even now seeing CLP responding to our events contacts
• peter - even before CLP, its not as if weve shown a path to steady revenue.
• alex - if that was the case we should be able to qualify for loan
• jake - have had a bad past number of years, and CLP has been here for last couple years
• paige - with the pp options from the boycott I think we need to think about a different way to have a conversation about and their boycott. PP says they've seen racism here and we need to have that conversation, and that's something that sudoroom can do. we're also in unity with them in a lot of work, and we can't just reject their offer. What are some next steps that we can do to work alongside them. none of the collectives here are working on booking events, and we've talked in the past of giving over control of the ballroom, and that's something we could offer as a counter.
• paige - I understand that's a huge give, but we haven't been able to manage that, and the amount of expenses we're paying would be much less without mortgage to pay for
• peter - we can add a revenue cap, allow for a situation where theres some profit sharing. also long term lease idea from david. like some theater group. i have high hopes of CAST. but first, are we okay to write letter?
• jake - in theory we should be asking if any strong opposition in delegates meeting. but i feel like just providing writings to lawyer should be okay. but good to run by deegates tomorrow, sure.
• peter - okay great

tomorrows meeting - will be facilitated by Jamal

• paige - jamal is talking to people beforehand
• jake - I talked with jamal today for an hour. professional mediator paid by omni
• paige - in the hellman grant, which can be used for capacity, we've paid for facilitators through that before. the grant is not something we can use for the mortage or building, but we can pay for things like this
• paige - peoples programs will be there for the beginning or end
• jake - facilitator is going to make sure ppl not attacking each other. they stressed they dont want people texting privately with each other. i said im not comfortable joining giving targetting and doxxing from boycott. they said they wont allow people to go after each other the way i was worried about, so i think i will go
• jemma - that was a concern i had, physical violence concern with ian. also pictures of people. if jamal is there i am less concerned about it
• jake - i wanted to say that jamal clarified that their purpose is to help us come to a deciscion tomorrow. im going to guess PP is pushing us to make a deciscion this meeting. they expressed it was wrong for us to be delaying the deciscion. i told jamal i dont think its appropriate for us to make this deciscion. maybe the deciscion will be to not decide. we need to be aware of what the mediator has been told by silver, of what are goals are. in my mind 90 days after notice for mulberry to buy the building with lender, or LLC, or peoples program if we decide on that
• peter - not great to make a deciscion under durress. when you buy a new car... they try and make you buy it today. if its a good deal, it will be a good deal tomorrow. enormous amount of distrust here.
• paige - one thing thought to discuss - how should we vote about finally what to do the building about? i.e. does consensus make sense, or majority vote. should media lab or free store vote
• jems - last time this was brought up before and it was supposed to be a small meeting at the end of november, and a small number of new people showed up and Silver was pushing that they were unhappy with the delegates structure, they wanted to include working groups, and it made me feel really uncomfortable
• paige - didn't make me feel uncomfortbale, i think involvement is great
• jemma - i didn't feel it was ...
• paige - it didn't seem like secret knowledge but maybe im biased by being in building mofe
• jemma - the attempt was to call a quorum at a delegates meeting with people i had never met before, Silver tried to cause a conflict with me for disagreeing
• paige - there was a tense moment. context; there are people in the building doing the work all day, the blood of omni, cleaning up blood, dealing with conflicts, they feel like ...they have sway in the building, silver is one of them, phil, sierk and ian, they don't technically have a vote, they have sway because they inform us
• jemma - yes i think they should come to the meetings but i don't think the collectives who are paying the rent and are unable to come in all the time because people have jobs,
• peter - managing volunteers is really hard. how to you manage them without compensation
• jemma - i dont think the way to do that is to show up on the 5th thursday of the month and try to call a quorum, we have a consensus email thread, slack, not a hidden secret or not well communicated thing
• peter - so the process seemed weird to you
• paige - i thought it was weekly delegates meetings still, so i posted an email right before
• jemma - the week after we started saying weekly delegates meetings nobody showed up, and then it was thanksgiving. I had never seen those people before, except for you paige and Silver, and i didn't see anything mentioned on consensus threads. We had discussed before in delegates meetings we need to have proposals discusssed ahead of time so that things can be brought back to their collectives and discussed, not just have delegates making decisions on their own
• paige - I hear that and i'm sorry for just going along with that meeting, i've talked about this before
• jemma - maybe hiring someone who manages our volunteers, they're getting burned out because they're putting in work that's not being asked of them, and it's unfair on both sides because i don't want them to be forced ... or do work that they're going to get paid for if they volunteer...i see a lot of people get burned out and they shouldnt' be putting in that much work if they're going to get burned out, it makes the space a lot harder to work in
• jake - can we talk about PP and meeting tomorrow

• jake - theres people who feel like i do, in thinking that the things PP are proposing are not real, story they are telling us to get what they want, which is for us to hand over the building. PP like CLP will use whatever insuations or threats of boycotts, rumors, direct violence on peoples bodies, bad faith accusations of racism and islamophobia. i have no confidence that we can work with them or any good thing will come from pretending that it is a legitimate conversation
• peter - i think we should stall. keep them in play as long as possible until we have a viable option. they said they are willing negotiate. we make a counter offer. i think we should call their bluff. they have an anonymous donor. would be comfortable with that being?
• jake - when we asked them last meeting for more detail, they didnt say sure, they said you want to involves lawyers, you want more detail? thats offensive
• cere - i dont see the mulberry trust caring. they communicate through lawyer. i dont see how communicating with them forestalls anything
• alex - assuming, not saying true, if PP is saying everything in bad faith...
• jake - not bad faith, explicit they want full control of the building
• alex - so should paige block vote tomorrow?
• jake - yes
• alex - so that might not produce results we want. that might put us in position of being blockers of what everyone else wants
• jake - ok we should block any deciscions like that. my belief is we have 85 days after notice of default, which they can do on jan 1. in my view we do not need to do anything like make that kind of deciscion until
• alex - other delegates welcome to negotiation.
• jake -
• paige - some collectives were wiling to discuss it more
• Yar - I don't think anybody else from Omni will be actively pushing to accept the PP proposal as written, so a block is not necessary. Sudo can just say that our position is defer until we can develop a counter offer
• alex - jake has proposed to say no to everything
• jake - if there is a proposal
• alex - there is one its vague, way is to make a counter proposal
• jemma - do you have a counterproposal in mind?
• alex - we talked about a few things last meeting. theres a few things, how the governance would be affected. not quite clear from proposal. they say administrative duties, but that seems inconsistent
• yar - we should have a meeting with Jesse. He's leaving for vacation Monday
• jake - when we have had tried to have more discussion about detail, they pushed back and they said and they are going to take over entirely and thats it. importantly
• x - notes paused, others sorting it out, request for focus on being present in the conversation. Reference to chat in jitsi, there hasn't been additional chat there for last 10 minutes.

• jake - my perspective was that we should accept the proposal or stop wasting their time
• paige - this is projecting
• jake - when patrik said we cant agree to the proposal as its written right now, they pushed back and said its offensive, and pushed back that we should get lawyers involved
• alex - so take it or leave it?
• jemma - its very vague about what they want to do. thats their offer to my understanding.
• yar - i was at that meeting to, sitting right next to Abbas and Delency. I suggested we get lawyers, Abbas nodded, Yemi asked us what kind of things we would want to see in a proposal. Jake the understanding of your posture... i understand where you are coming from from the notes, but this is a negotiation, but we should make a good faith proposal ready. also in case of other offers, we should have a vision outlined, a vision of building sharing. and this is a good opportunity to do that.
• peter - was there no pressure to rush?
• yar - delency said something about that, but I don't think he meant it the way you're taking it
• jake - abbas said that too
• jemma - i cant say "too bad", i either take it seriously or i dont. if what theyre suggesting is serious
• yar - we should just be focusing on what a counter offer looks like
• william - my impression, is that this is a plan to take the building, from the past year. for the deciscion, is there any sort of legal protections that could work for us if they own the building? i dont think thats true. so no way forward that would actually benefit us.
• yar - i would say a counterproposal should involve fractional ownership
• alex - even if you characterize it completely in bad faith, you have to convince other delegates. you cant just say no, should have a counter proposal
• william - lots of differet things we can do, other than counterproposal
• alex - both people who think bad faith, and those who think it is good start, both would benefit
• peter - memorandum on understanding. start trust building, see if they are willing to join. i agree with yar that this is an exercise collectives need to do. but fractional ownership, idea, we agree on high value of building, they are giving 875,000, so divide that and they get about 17% of the building. pretty much we are condo-izing omni. if you never build trust, think of it that way
• eric - and then have a buy out option
• peter - yes and a divorce option, for us to buy the building back over time, we could argue about the total value and the amounts involved etc
• yar - i would say that in addition to pay off the debt, they are not interested in building unless they can fix it up to their standards. if they are going to spend that kind of money, that should go towards ownership. some fair arrangement there needed
• peter - state of californai resiliency centers. omni could qualify. can get pallavi to help get a lot of money to approve omni. we can bring it up, but if we can get our act together, we could pull that act off on our own
• alex - ok so are we starting on a counter proposal right now?
• yar - yes i think there are other options to consider
• yar - i dont like term condoizing, because it means something more than we mean it to. i would say just fractional ownership
• alex - paige suggested full control of ballroom
• peter - could negotiate full control of revenue up to a cap
• alex - how would we make ...
• paige - theres statement of them working with us in their proposal
• jemma - on paper sound like a cool group, but interactions with them has made me not think they know how to handle conflict, and given they are still involved with boycott, makes me think this is not a viable thing to do at this time. i dont think we should making any counter offer that involves any part of the building. it feels rude to them. i dont want to waste their time. my experience, experience between omni. we should address that. they came in to be intimidating
• william - if we werent a leftsit organization, we would changing the locks and getting restraining order
• peter - is that something to bring up
• jake - red flag, you dont go on another date with them
• cere - i agree with jake actually that kind of dynamic if you're going to invite an abuser to up the ante when you show weakness like that, also when anybody comes to us with respect to equity and shares etc, if we're going to take seriously that they're going to take credit for improvements then we need to do the same thing and figure out the value of the property and improvements that we've made, that's another thing to think about
• peter - i would agree with you in principle but in commercial real estate i dont know if we want the answer, re; the value of the building, we should think about a reasonable number that we could sell
• cere - i agree its an unknow
• peter - if i were their anonymous lender and they found out that we have a tax lien i would walk away, so we should be careful about ...hard to get a good assessment of the building until someone signs on the purchase agreement
• alex - how are you going to convince the other delegates about peoples programs, that they didnt agree to take down the tweets and all that,
• william - what if we said just stop boycotting us, we'll figure out the loan ourselves
• jemma - the only other delegates, Toan (fnb) and other than CCL are Liberated Lens and FNB (paige: and sketchboard) so we've had problems with quorum, there have been more than one time when we had to call Natalie to get quorum
• alex - what i am going off is, is that other delegates are open to PP. is that what you think?
• jemma - what other group are we talking about. I think natalie is supporting based off of protests. I think Toan is
• jake - i was told 3 of them opposed to FNB, but 1 is in favor. point i want to come back to, PP asked directly about the hostile and threatening behaivior about iranian dissident. asked if they would make iranians feel safe. they answered no. josh responeded that since they heard other people feel unsafe at omni, we shouldnt ask PP to keep people safe
• peter - we should put this in a memorandum
• alex - that can be one of SR conditions for working with PP.
• paige - explains Abbas response in meeting about picture... not settled but think we should be actionable and get these people together

• alex - Jems are you saying that sudoroom and CCL dominate the decision ?
• jems - not sure how voting will go. i think sudo room and ccl feel no. ccl member got the "lets go outside" comment. i think it would be really surprising for people to vote yes on this, after someone has alluded to violence, taken pictures, all public meeting. it was inappropriate and we shouldnt be going through an arbitration process, they should start that process. they should initiate that if they are working in good faith, if they dont then lets stop
• peter - as a good faith thing. if we end on that note they will keep twitter up
• alex - if youre certain that everyone will go our way, then we should call a vote tomorrow.
• peter - we need to keep them around to show mulberry trust
• alex - if we know votes are there, then
• jake - consensus - 1, so two blocks. my understanding that CCL will not allow omni to give it to PP. and SR should say no
• alex - if we know vote will go our way we should vote to reject the proposal tomorrow. obvious
• jake - not obvious to me
• jemma - i disagree because other people, yar and silver who are going and working with these groups and trying to get them involved in space. i dont know why. i think anything that does that will create a lot of hell.
• alex - will that affect the vote?
• jake - what will be vote?
• alex - we reject their offer
• jemma - if it comes up, then that is something that can go well
• alex - as time goes on, people in the omni are going to get more panicked, because we're getting closer and closer to losing the building, so you might as well do it now if you have the votes.

• jake - they could just bring it back later if they wanted
• peter - i want to trust that if this is really a bad deal for Omni and the other collective members, it will tend toward that direction rather than ... groups thinking they will walk away with some fractional value if foreclosed...if they're really as bad as people say, it's going to come out
• alex - working out the hairy details is more likely to cause infighting in the delegates meetings which is going to be to the advantage of someone trying to take over
• jemma - i don't think it's a terrible idea what you're suggesying but i dont know how to do it, doesnt sound tactical, we can do this but everyone...they're going to call us racist for not accepting our proposal... i dont see the need to push for the vote tomorrow, maybe they will change, but i dont see that right now
• alex - the only other way forward is to come up with a counterproposal
• jemma - a proper timeline
• alex - the vagueness in the proposal lying dormant for 90 days is bad for us, being the weaker party in this negotiation, to leave a proposal like that vague, since accepting the proposal is more and more likely as time goes on, we didn't make a counterproposal to make it less vague
• peter - make a vague counterproposal
• jemma - it would be nice if we consider a counterproposal it could include apologies and protections for iranian dissidents, put something on the table for them that's solid, if they don't accept them then we can talk about that, but we do need to have those kinds of protections, otherwise we're wasting each others time. Giving them actual things that we are really concerned about that are solid things that we feel are wrong, is a good way to give them the ability to keep moving forward, or things like physical safety for others, insuring that iranian dissidents are, on paper, they will support those kinds of things, will either affect them or us. That is our counterproposal. We can't write a counterproposal tonight, even a vague one, that's just not full thouht out. We need more time. And then if not, then we part ways.
• peter - are these things important to the other collectives?
• jemma - probably several of the collectives, not unreasonable asks for us to go forward, if they can honestly do the work and prove me wrong that would be fantastic, but i dont see that at this time because these things have been unadressed
• alex - so this is a pre counter proposal proposal, what if tomorrow we just say that we're working on a counterproposal, it's going to contain these things for sure, and also things like fractional ownership, and see how they react to that, instead of
• jake - right away these are things that are important to us. we are not going to accept a refusal to ensure the safety of iranian dissidents. "endangering them. given a soft ball question, they gave a long speech about why they are not going to. 2nd. they are claiming they are distanced from clp. we dont know that. theyre saying they are not partners, but also unwiling to walk back the claims about us that they have forwarded. presumably they are not interested in pushing back on CLP, telling them to stop emailing people from our email list. they are either friends with clp and call them off, or they are not and can drop claims. either the same and friends or separate and willing to nuance their present position
• william - last meeting had a big pyschological effect on me. if we are actually working towards a goal to get the building again, our volunteers cant be doing a meeting like this every week
• paige - thats why my response was selling the ballroom
• peter - in order to go on we need to trust you.
• cere - seems like there's two framings: either now with conditions or yes with conditions, or you can say it's unclear maybe yes and here's the following reasons. We should maybe agree what those conditions are. We are starting to agree on conditions 1. this blackmailing thing is not what's up, other things i forgot. We can agree on those conditions, potentially maybe we could go forward, or no we can't go forward and here's why
• alex - we are ready to make a counterproposal but here's the line you need to come across if you want to move forward with us

• jemma - in proposal they say they are for all people in vague terms. getting that comment is important. way they treated ian innapropriate. way taking pictures of people is innapropriate. apologies for a boycott that they didnt look into. those are what ive written down as a bottom line,

• jake - regarding CLP, Peoples Programs need to either admit they're close enough to CLP to tell them to stop interfering with our business and call off the boycott (which was clearly just them being angry about being removed from Omni) OR Peoples Programs can show that they're not close to CLP and publicly explain that they were too hasty in echoing and promoting the boycott, and clarify the things they are actually concerned about. trying to be specific in the wording for this requirement of them.

• ed - i have a buddy who works with chinese housing market. if theres equity in the building, sell it for cash. i think that is reasonable. but i would not want to be in association with a nationalist group. from what ive seen theres nothing that is good will come out of this
• william - i get really excited reading about them. also from meeting, it sounds great. we cant be next to that hostility.
• paige - we should recognize that we're going to come in contact with them again, we are a leftist space and work on same goals, and we should not be hostile with them, the number of times i've heard about this iranian thing...this is responding to the comment that nothing good could come of this
• cere - is your perspective that we could achieve the same goals and
• paige - yes by having a counterproposal
• x - CLP abbreviation for? Community Liberation Programs
• jake - used to be workers community kitchen at peoples park. PP should be clarifying their connection with CLP. Specifically as relates to attacks on sudo infrastructure
• alex - what if instead of that, as a precondition we say that CLP will be specifically disallowed from being in the building
• jemma - there is a new collective, sketchboard, which has joined since CLP was kicked out, and we don't know their position on this

• more discussion

FNB discussion

• benny - fnb wants to approve PP proposal. but i am coming here because i heard for some reason Sudo Room and CCL are meeting and i wanted to understand why
• alex - we were planning to make a counterproposal, under impression we are not going to vote tomorrow. CCL is deciding to not want to work with PP either. i dont know where that leaves us
• jemma - SR and CCL did not meet together, rooms are conjoined. we could just over heard each other.
• benny - the practicality of that is understandable. trying to find email, give me one sec.
• alex - is FNB going to have any stipulations?
• benny - no we believe we are not in the position as an organization of FNB or a collective of collectives to run a space in a historically black area. not FNB official position. our position is all of the arguments against PP joining, we found were not substantiated by us interacting with them, or the organizations we have contacted about this. other people who have partnered with them in the past have provided any backup for claims we heard. we were satisfied with how abbas and delency responded to critiques of their politics. people who were in conversation were excited about PP coming to steward the space. our main objection is to avoid foreclosure.
• jemma - other collectives are not trying to foreclose. there are options that are better for our existence going forward. our own interactions with the group, and their support of the boycott have been our concerns
• patrik - wondering if FNB had any discussion of other options considered, which include land trust and LLC. David Keenan said land trusts are still an option and he has connections to pull something like that off
• benny - this might be a issue with how omni info is available to me, but thought we heard from Pallavi that there info is not substantial enough to be taken seriously. response to other proposals were a joke. someone with more financial literacy.
• patrik - that is not what she said in the meeting. those options were not fleshed out yet at that meeting, because first discussion, just like PP was not as fleshed out meeting before that one.
• benny - might be emotional language, but 100% true that she said other proposals brought up were a joke. response as our understanding to other proposals - everything else aside, we are in favor of the peoples program proposal. it is important that we are not excluding a black org based on politics. not trying to invalidate peoples other experiences. even the other things aside, our preference is against foreclosure and in favor of peoples programs
• william - whats been shown tonight that CCL has chosen based off political issues, and SR is concerned about safety and intention issues. we dont know because we dont have any trust with them and no ability to verify anything about them. i am really editoralizing.
• patrik - i wouldnt say ccl doing it for political reasons either. ccl members have problem with pro-iran stance, but also selling building for $850k
• paige - my understanding of SR plan, but i left for a little bit , was to ask for mediation before proceeding further on ownership proposal. mediation on two conflicts, one with ian threat of violence and one with non consensual photograph
• benny - i think that was disproportionate with what i understand. including phrases like "are we doing this" "do you want to go". i use that to say lets de-escalate this to another context.
• jemma - i took this not in a way lets talk this out, but as a way to silence
• benny - i was there and ian was standing up and pointing a finger at someone who just talked about being a black member at omni commons. we have to look seriously at how we are racializing violence and speech
• jemma - i dont remember finger pointing but, i wasnt sitting where you were. i also remember people getting their picture taken, and no response to
• silver - i feel frustrated about double standard just recently Ian came and yelled at black woman who was alone in the media lab. using threatening intimidation. i dont appreciate this level of double standard. ians behavior towards tai who also is member of PP, which is coincidence, of course he didnt know that anyways
• benny - i also dont know if PP are familiar with email about someone getting attacked at omni. about matao who has been banned prior. basically she has done a bunch of negative posts about omni. somehow she got into the building. i personally witnessed ian screaming in a way, threatening privately in basement in omni, in a way that i dont want to draw this into a long accountability sections. but why should a white dude be able to walk around?
• silver - just recently but not too long after being called out as a zionist, i was threatened by jake if i do not delete a post on instagram that he will tell everyone i was a zionist
• jake - that was after you put up a post about me.
• silver - it wasnt about you, it was a post about omni
• pallavi - it doesnt matter what happened before that, jake did you ask her to take it down?
• jake - yes i asked politely. then they responded i can post whatever i want.
• pallavi - i wanted to know if anyone had been named specifically. this should be separate conflict resolution if we want to be in community with one another. as a third party professional coming into it, as person of color is looking at how ppl have been talked about, makes me very uncomfortable, hostility happening in this envirnomnent shows me that you dont know how to sit down and handle conversation. i have seen PP conflict resolution skills have shown up in person. behoove you to look at notes and see if pp actually said. same thing that we dont let people report on 3rd party, have to go to actual source. dont have screaming matches. i understand ppl emotional because names are raked through the mud. but rn only viable solution is pp, llc not enough time. i have been out for a few days but from what i could see in emails, enough progress has not been made to make that a viable solution. got to put the petty bullshit aside. got to do whats better for the greater solution. ive been working for a black led org for last 2 years, have seen displacement. it feels like, i am witnessing severe amount of empathy for person of color experience. what ive witnessed, pp said they experienced a modern day lynch mob. i think some of you should be ashamed for not having a semblance of understanding of the plight of poc. this is maybe why integration doesnt work. unless you have a real deep understanding of poc, you dont understand where that sentiment comes from. we have had boots on our necks for generations and you are blocking people from seeking collective liberation. that is literally most important thing happening right now. i can believe any rationale for otherwise
• jems - if we were blocking it i would agree, but we dont want to see a vote tomorrow. want less vagueness. few things we want to discuss before counterproposal. dont want a hard block. do have some trust issues. some things that made people feel uncomfortable. some ppl talked about bringing in lawyers. this is a really big legal discussion, should really look at what this looks like. they want to keep their own collectives going. i think there are ways to come forward, but both CCL and SR not wanting to vote tomorrow
• pallavi - if we do not vote tomorrow, how clear is that deadline. cant wait until foreclosure. costly to wait and go into foreclosure, that has been the consensus
• patrik - i think we have 90 day before foreclosure to do something
• pallavi - you were only one who said that, other people were concerned. i dont know specific details, but
• patrik - if we have things in the works, we can ask mulberry to delay. if we are talking about LLC or land trust, i dont think
• pallavi - how realistic do you think those are?
• patrik - i think very realistic, david k a founding member and member of saferDIY said community land trusts are a very viable option
• pallavi - if PP gets block, and trust doesnt work out, do you know how angry people are going to be
• benny - omni failing to sustain black membership, realstic proposal offered generously to save omni, - what omni is saying is we rather give up the building than work with black people
• jake - you should be specific because black ppl kicked out by CLP
• benny - articulations against black new african politics have been unsubstianted with t. you dont know their politics. this black led org has done better for the world than what you will ever do in your life.
• pallavi - i wanted to add context to infrastructure. my cousin is an entertainment advising, has been doing legal advising for them. nonprofit experience. i know they have been giving good nonprofit backing. i know these people but they are family. i know a lot of you dont know me because im new but im the kind of person this community needs. im trying to get you all funded, but ive been doing this work, been trying to support. only 8% of foundation support goes to poc. such inequity. if you dont have a heart to actually do right by people of color. why are you are here if you dont want to coexist with people of color.
• silver - facilitator spke to me after talking to patrik, paige , and jake. they told me its not smart to give 100% ownership to anyone when we had invested in the building. i totally agree with that. i dont see the capability of omni to run anything. but comment before, thats were i came from initially, i was like give it to whoever. that wasnt productive. but you all couldnt come up with a counterproposal. you all just edited grammar.
• patrik - i did
• silver - yea true Patrik you did. but people here dont want to run a building. like i just want focus on media lab.. i dont want to run this other stuff, we are doing it poorly. facilitator said no, and yar, said 50/50 or 60/40, create that proposal. i dont know what that proposal is. but that might be an offer on the table from PP. i think there has been a strong no because it was vague. but we have to do work in the negotiations too. i want us to enter space and have that dialogue with them. i dont know what tomorrow is but i want to hear from everyone. last thing they felt intense anti-blackness and racial harm with conversation they had with jake. they were uncomfortable with you speaking on behalf of black people to a black person
• jake - the ppl i was speaking on behalf of were pushed out by clp
• benny - you can just say shit. black politic...
• jake - if you dont agree with them, they want you want out
• benny
• j - pan africanism, they were explicit
• b - yes
• j - what do they do with ppl who disagree with pan-africanism?
• p - it doesnt matter if you disagree. they have conflict resolution. trained in being able to sit down
• j - thats not what weve seen
• b - thats what theyve told us
• j - clp said they werent stalinists
• jemma- i hear you all. but youre saying if we disagree with proposal that means we are racist. name calling issue. this building includes finances put into it. i would love opportunity to discuss conflict with pp. i dont think we can go into the weeds right now about politics. but i do want to give PP that opportunity. dont feel trust right now with how the offer is being made.
• benny - i want to make distinction. between the deciscion being racist, and the way it is being discussed is racist. i think im sitting in latter category. the way we are interacting with it is racist. not agreeing to giving them building not on its own is racist. giving someone money example. thanks for mentioning that articulation and letting me respond to it
• jemma - some things we are really worried about is sharing of boycott, and their relationship to CLP.
• pallavi - they have talked about this multiple times
• jemma - yes i was there. they said they are wiling go be an arbiter.
• pallavi - discussed history of how they were introduced. you were not satisfied?
• jemma - they shared things said in boycott
• pallavi - they are currently doing this?
• jemma - yes we asked them to take that down and they were unclear of how to move forward. this is something we could discuss.
• silver - this is a double standard again. see with jake conflict rn, how jake threatened to say i was a zionist
• eric - conflict you have with jake is really hot, not the thing to prove the rule. something fresh and hard to watch says we are hopeless to talk to other people and make connection.
• carl - hi im carl, SR member. but not very involved in politics here for a bit. my view on pure financial basis, but i think PP bid is way low. if they want bid on whole building. that alone sounds like bad deal to us. i think we should wait til we get a better deal
• paige - it wasnt just a proposal to own building outright, it also included omni collectives staying at current rent, and somehow involved in governance. we can and should clarify this and do counterproposal but i wanted to clarify, its not just selling building to them
• carl - yea but you can make any agreement, but in the end they can kick us out. please dont give our power away
• silver - why dont we work on proposal then
• pallavi - yea why dont you ask for what you want
• jemma- good q and we are working on that, but means we cant make a deciscion tomorrow. and we want some trust building things first. but we need to have some basic kind of trust building between groups
• patrik - there are ways to make this more legally binding. i was put off by their reluctance to put more legal, and didnt put detail into it
• silver - we should collaborate instead of thinking the worst
• patrik - they are a newer org than we are, event space they have right now is managed by event management team. not quite certain what expertise they are bringing in
• silver - cant be any less than ours
• patrik - willingness to run the space is something,yes
• benny - on the note of trust building, thing i am thinking. identity positionality. maybe we do the first thing to trust build. i dont see much of us reaching out to them. we are holding all the cards. do we offer them a collective spot straight up? starting tomorrow. thats how we know we are invested in this community trust building project. how can we do the first step.
• carl - in return for what
• silver - people power. we are all burned out
• benny - extending an olive branch. they should be a part of omni purely on basis of what their organization does, at no rent. what they are offering doesnt matter. means black ppl at omni have a seat at this table
• jemma - but they are already sharing boycott, thats really hurting us. thats why we have solid steps to put forward. basically they are giving us a proposal for 1/3 or less to have full ownership. i dont see where us coming in and giving more is helpful given them promoting a boycott. pp isnt banned from space, they are showing up at omni right at sewing lab. like i said there are some actions, as a group, that currently we need to have some progress on before considering working on together
• alex - if they had a vote on delegate, then they would be able to determine terms of their proposal. conflict of interest?
• benny - trying to work this out live, sorry, how about an offering, they get a delegate to omni. they stop their participation in the boycott. and also stipulate they will recuse themselves from any financial deciscions in the real estate deal. because of the concerned voice
• alex - what does end support of the boycott mean? do they issue a repediation of their support?
• benny - they take down their post, and say they are no longer supporting boycott, and they become a member of omni commons
• paige - token problem... but i guess we are trying to build trust
• benny - prisoners dilemma.
• jemma - i dont think this is the best analogy
• ebnny - maybe more predominately white group needs to put the burden of risk
• jemma- that doesnt work with vibe with message to collectives that they can stay here and everything can stay the same. people want to know what that looks like. we have really solid steps, not just taking down a tweet. i guess we'll see tomorrow what that looks like. i have to head out
• william - i really love PP and CLP's stated politics, and would love to follow black leadership to do more community focused direct outreach, but with that, with what ive heard, it seems natural to be weary given everything that has happened with clp. i think best thing to do is more learning and more investigation.
• paige - concern about double standard yes but remains that no accountability taken for picture. also need clarity on inconsistent narration of events
• benny - they responded that they felt attacked, they felt unsafe, so they were going to document this person. legitimacy of that is up in the air . my undestanding was their response was they felt attacked. i am reading about the disappearance of black organizers. history of being an op, and then disappearing. they have agree do mediation
• silver - ill ask for clarification
• jemma -
• silver - that night when we put abbas on trial, when i opened door, he ducked, consistent with what he said in meeting about being afraid
• pallavi - you have to have empathy, people are coming from a traumatic background. a lot of us have been through a lot of trauma. when you are going through a traumatic experience, a lot of things are bypassed. hes clearly done a lot of work to try and respond to that. proof to show he is not beyond learning. PP hasnt done anything to show against the idea that they are perfectly reasonable people, and really get to the bottom of things. just been so rushed, only been able to speak via the delegates. we should just get down to the brass tacks, if you want to be very specfic, be specific. yall are smart people, you could do a 30min consult with a lawyer. they might know specifics in buying a building, but a lot of us dont know. this is all new to all of us. have to give each other grace. need to focus on those line items of what to ask. what else do you need to see, what are you waiting for.

Current Building Proposals Document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wDzotx3D07brWXLkylRlSb9r_alI8fqaBFUDxkiVkg0/edit#heading=h.iytbrd1zw5lt