I'd agree that eliminating the "café" part would be good. I think many have that element, but shouldn't necessarily be a requirement. Believe it or not, even after working these crazy hours, I still don't drink coffee - I just don't like the taste.
Tony, I like your verb definition. However, the "location- independent" may not apply either. I mean, if most of these coworking spaces promotes 24/7 access to the same desk, isn't that desk essentially their location all the time? In my view, coworking is just that: collaborative working [within a community]. That can include singles working with others, or small groups working in larger groups. Jerome ______________ www.BLANKSPACES.com "work wide open" 5405 Wilshire Blvd (2 blocks west of La Brea) Los Angeles, CA 90036 323.330.9505 On Jul 7, 2008, at 1:00 PM, Tony Bacigalupo wrote: > 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 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. > > 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 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 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
