Alex: Great job with summarizing what we were talking about. Thanks in particular for broaching the topic of the definition on the blog. Now I'll finally get around to talking about it (and discarding my drafts from the earlier coworking definition discussion).
I'll pick up from there. We can discuss the definition ad infinitum, and indeed I don't think it's up to any one of us to decide the exact definition. The only time the discussion is really relevant is on the blog (and on the wiki), which are the only real central places for coworking, and are hence the de facto authorities on the definition, at least as far as the media and public are concerned. So in discussing how to solve this with Alex, particularly given the cultural relativism of the definition, we determined that *the best and perhaps only correct way to really describe coworking would be to define it by the ingredients that make it what it is. The interpretation of the definition then, is subject to how one defines the ingredients.* So the replacement blurb might look something like this: "Coworking is an approach to working that espouses the notions of community, > openness, collaboration, accessibility and sustainability." > At the risk of incurring some further debate, I might then go further to clarify the different parts of speech: *coworking (v): *The act of working alongside other location-independent > workers in a community setting, in following with the aforementioned > notions. > *Example: I am coworking at Independents Hall today!* > > *Coworking (n): *The starfish movement of people who are passionate about > coworking. > *Example: I'm writing a post in the Coworking Google Group.* > > *coworking (adj): *An event or space whose purpose is to engage in the act > of coworking. > *Example: Office Nomads is an awesome coworking space!* > One final thought: a handful of us have administrative access to the blog and hence have the ability to make changes to the definition, but I think we would all agree that no one of us should decide when and how to make such a change. So how do we, as an amorphous starfish group, decide whether the definition needs to be changed, and if so, to what? We can discuss this forever, but for anything to change we have to have some way of making a decision. What's everyone think? Tony Bacigalupo New Work City / CooperBricolage / Jelly in NYC www.tonybacigalupo.com On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:01 PM, Alex Hillman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I usually make it a point to establish the fact that our community existed > before the office, and the office became a touchpoint for that community > becoming stronger. Obviously that's not the case in all scenarios, but I'm > not so pushy to think that you can't have it the other way around. I just > don't think that it will happen as quickly, and the speed will vary based on > your end goals as well as what you have to work with. > > Does the space matter? Certainly. The fact that people were able to get > together in physical space for the last 9 months led to the kinds of > production that merited us throwing a MASSIVE party this past weekend. That > party<http://www.indyhall.org/2008/06/27/lets-celebrate-innovation-with-isepta-and-ripit/>was > for our community to celebrate their success, and was helped hugely in > part by the contributions and support of the external community (IndyHall > was incurred almost zero cost, outside sponsorship raised enough money for > nearly 4 hours of open bar and free food for a couple hundred people). > > I see coworking as a mechanism that greases the wheels and "accellerates > serendipity", whether that be in an office or in a cafe. With so much focus > put on the facilities, it's no surprise to me to see the kinds of response > that Micah left in his post. That's why the coworking we're interested in > isn't just the coworking that goes on at 32 strawberry street. A couple of > our members continue to organize Jelly events around the city. Our > leadership (myself and Geoff) are forging relationships with other > institutions in the interest of our community: when they want/need > something, we can help them achieve that faster. > > In it's incredibly short life-span so far, Caroline Collective has done a > phenominal job of that same thing: embracing what everyone was *already up > to*, and finding ways to help them do it easier, faster, cheaper. They are > for the community, by the community. Caroline doesn't exist for Matthew, it > doesn't exist for Ned. Caroline exists for the city of Houston. I talked > about that a bit at their opening with > StartupHouston<http://www.startuphouston.com/2008/07/02/startuphouston-interviews-tara-hunt-and-alex-hillman-about-caroline-collective-opening/>. > > > Many of us are working towards similar goals. But unless we do a good job > of externally explaining *why* we're here besides being a desk sharing > facility, the story begins to fall apart. > > Tony and I have had lengthy talks about the coworking definition and how > much it varies. And how much that variant is by design. And how IMPORTANT > the variants are. Coworking, to us, is philosophical and a construct within > which things can happen. Place is important. People are important. Community > is important. Collaboration is important. Openness. Etc. > > Each variation takes these ingredients, loosely follows the recipe but > modifies it to taste, and then serves it to their community. That's what's > awesome. I think the question we're up against is, how much can the recipe > change before its a different recipe? You can have more than one type of > salad on the menu, but you can't mistake a salad for a steak. Last time I > checked, lettuce doesn't bleed. (If a botonist happens to be among us and > corrects me, I'm OK with that, you get my point). > > So yes, Jacob, I agree that regardless of the definition, the results of > our definition should be consistant: people should *get* it. Right now, the > definition on the closest thing we have to a landing page is: > >> *Coworking is cafe-like community/collaboration space for developers, >> writers and independents.* >> Or, it's like this: start with a shared office and add cafe culture. > > > Which worked when coworking was an embryo. We've all experienced things > that prove that it's SO much more. That pullquote needs to change to reflect > the ingredients. Right now, it's like a recipe that includes peanuts but > doesn't tell the consumer. And that's pretty dangerous for the brand that is > driven by all of our shared passions. > > This global community is in the spotlight in a lot of ways. And still, a > lot of people are missing out. Even in places I did not expect: one of our > members was in SF for WWDC last month and when people asked him where he > worked, he said, at a Coworking space. People that lived in SF had NO idea > what coworking was about. He explained it (and well, to my best estimate) > and they got REALLY excited. We're lucky to have good ambassadors here, and > it's probably going to be helpful for the coworking leadership to unify on > some of this ambassador-ship. > > Is co-leading next? Good leadership starts with good partnerships to begin > with, so really, this should be easy for us. > > -Alex, IndyHall > > > -- > ----- > -- > ----- > Alex Hillman > im always developing something > digital: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > visual: www.dangerouslyawesome.com > local: www.indyhall.org > > > > On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Jacob Sayles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Over the weekend I ran into this blog post: Three Rules of Why Coworking >> Sucks<http://learntoduck.com/three-rules/three-rules-of-why-coworking-sucks> >> and was rather amused. With all the rainbows and unicorns flying around in >> the media on the topic of coworking I was happy to hear a dissenting voice. >> Things got really interesting when I posted a comment and in response the >> writer actually agreed with me. His objection is that, in his view "most >> coworking spaces have become tables and chairs". It's a debate that runs to >> the heart of what we are doing and I hope I did an adequate job of >> distinguishing ourselves from a standard business center. >> Having something to compare against actually makes the job of describing >> coworking a lot easier. For example it's easier to describe "blue" as "not >> red, green, or yellow". >> >> I feel I've been getting better and better at explaining what it is we are >> trying to do and why we are doing it. The interview I did on the Biznik >> blog<http://blog.biznik.com/2008/07/07/office-nomads-a-vibrant-community-that-we-can-be-part-of/>that >> went live today does a pretty good job. Defining "coworking" is a big >> topic and it's been explored at length... that's not what I'm asking. Now >> that we've been doing this for awhile, I'm more interested to hear the real >> world stories of describing it to new folks. How is everyone doing and how >> have you been making this distinction? >> >> Jacob Sayles >> Co-Founder & Janitor >> http://officenomads.com >> >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Coworking" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/coworking?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
