I think some of the conversation has highlighted some important topics. 1. Coworking is not really federated so much as confederated. I think by the nature of those who start these businesses, as well as those who frequent them, a loosely-tied organization is always going to be preferential to a central authority.
2. The best way to give solid weight to a set of loosely bound members is the same in this case as in any other social networking enterprise: develop and provide a set of tools to ease and empower collaboration and cooperation between members, always keeping in mind the need for flexibility to accommodate the varied needs of the coworking community. This can be the mapping tools, scheduling tools, promotional tools, and visa/passport tools. 3. It will really take an individual or smaller scale coordinated (ie, heroic) effort to develop and maintain the set of tools required. I think we see evolution every day in coworking, in terms of it's scope and acceptance, as well as the social and economical benefit that others have mentioned. I agree that certain amounts of unified social and technical architecture might be called for in order to share the experiences and lessons that can allow all coworking spaces and ideas to benefit from one another. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
