On Feb 16, 2010, at 3:25 PM, Steven Heath wrote: >> I don't know what the answer is, but I'm pretty sure the answer is not "do >> nothing." I also think we are all smart and capable people able to come up >> with an answer that works well if we put our heads together on the matter. > > I was one of the ones saying we needed 'something' to hold this name. > However, it very quickly became apparent that we did did not agree on > what that 'something' was.
Just to be clear, I wasn't disagreeing with any "something" other than not doing anything. I was calling for discussing aimed at a resolution. > I very strongly said I would rather have Alex hold the name in trust > for ever rather than having a USA LLC or non profit company created. A trust would be something. But that is a legal entity, also covered by some countries laws, and a trust requires details to be addressed that have not yet been address. And until your email a trust hasn't been explicitly proposed (at least I don't think one has.) All I'm asking is that we stop debating what *not* to do and start discussing what *to* do. On Feb 16, 2010, at 5:59 PM, Tony Bacigalupo wrote: > Good points all around; there's much to be gleaned from the open source > movement and what happened to it. > > I wasn't aware of the Open Source Initiative. Do you know more about how they > have helped the world of open source? The phrase still gets co-opted and > misused left and right, but I suppose to some extent that can't be helped. Great questions. I subconsciously assume people who are on mailing lists know about the OSI but that's clearly a myopic view of mine. Sorry. :) The term "Open Source" is a definition for a type of software license. So it's a legal term more than it is a statement about free availability of source code. Public domain source code is "open" and freely available, but it's not "Open Source." > Similar to the notion of "open source," I hold that "coworking" is a concept > that represents a set of needs and values that nobody can control or own. It > simply is what it is. The best we can do is represent that concept the best > we can, so that others may more easily and effectively participate. Actually, people collectively came together to define open source, hence the Open Source initiative. Without us agreeing on a definition then it will come to be defined by anyone and everyone who want to pervert it for their own ends much like deciding not to decide is a decision too. Anyway, here is the definition of Open Source: http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd And here are trademark and logo usage guidelines for Open Source: http://www.opensource.org/trademark Here is a list of open source licenses by category: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/category Here's the license review process: http://www.opensource.org/approval > So regardless of what constructs we create, the concept will always exist > outside of them. If somebody forms some sort of organization, it should be > formed with that fact in mind. I think I disagree with that. IMO Coworking is defined implicitly by what all the people on the list and the wiki make it to mean. If we collectively now define it explicitly then we can establish that meaning instead of having its meaning co-opted by others. Let me give you a counter example. Someone who owns an executive suites business changes nothing and rechristens themselves "Coworking" and thus tarnishes the concept in the minds of all the people they reach. Without doing something like what the OSI did for open source there will be no way to say that those opportunists are not doing coworking. I get that many of you want to avoid the "status quo" by defining it but 1.) we can define it to include the ethos you cherish and 2.) if we don't define it others will and, mark my words, you won't like it. Reading between the lines it seems some think we can't define "Coworking" in a similar manner as did the OSI for "Open Source." However those of you how know the open source community will almost certainly agree that there are few others communities that are more like herding cats than the open source community. If they could agree on "Open Source" then us agreeing on the definition of "Coworking" should be comparatively easy. On Feb 16, 2010, at 6:26 PM, Susan Evans wrote: > 1. There has never been better timing for these conversations (I say > "conversations" specifically because there are multiple - I would also > agree that the purchase of a domain and the creation of a large > international organization are very, very different conversations) > than to happen right now, just weeks before SXSWi when so many of us > will gather and can have some of these conversations face to face. Very sad that I can't be there. :-( > 2. The idea of creating THE coworking organization or THE coworking > annual event brings with it more challenges than I think might be > worth it. Minimally, since there is only one domain I believe that implies there needs to be one org that defines "coworking?" > Instead, I think that we should focus on smaller, more > locally-focused efforts in terms of being more formally organized, and > keep coworking in the broader sense in the state it appears to be most > successful in - as a collection of ideals we all subscribe to and > organize around. As Tony so eloquently reminded us, the beauty of > coworking lies in our inability to create walls around it. And as > Jacob always loves to remind me, there is no quicker way to blow up > the google group than to have someone ask the question "What is > coworking?" We have about 1,000 definitions for what it is, and in > that diversity lies our biggest strength. Coworking is not a concept > to be hijacked and utilized for evil corporate profit - because it's > not a "thing" that can be spun that way. Again, not defining it means you will allow others to define it for us. I believe it *can* be defined if we are open to the discussion. And that definition can incorporate it's varied nature just as the OSI definition does for open source. But if you don't define it others will. > And as such, I believe that we might just do ourselves more harm by > trying to create some huge international body Nothing needs be huge... > where there might just not be need for one. I see > the possibilities for coworking organizations and gathering bodies to > be much more possible on the local level - in your city, your county, > or even your country. We have already begun to meet as "Coworking > Seattle" here in Washington, and are seeing plenty of interest from > individuals who want to work on defining what coworking is here in > Seattle. I'd recommend that those who are interested in creating > larger organizing bodies work first locally. In any locality there are fewer minds with relevant experience and there is unfortunately the human nature of local competitive urges. It's easier to work on a global definition on this list with people we already "know" and with whom we've proven we are already happy to collaborate with. > Our work will most likely create the most amount of meaning on a > smaller scale first. Lots of local collaboration in vacuums will result in lots of different entrenched opinions that will take much time and effort to reconcile if it can even ever be accomplished. Why go through that pain? On Feb 16, 2010, at 6:20 PM, Alex Hillman wrote: > I am assuming the responsibility for the domain coworking.com in trust of > this community. Should a new entity emerge that makes sense based on > everything that's been said so far, and that entity would like to assume the > responsibility from me, I'm 100% ok transferring the domain. until then, > we'll keep the coworking.com related properties as focused and lightweight as > possible. Unless you create a legal trust then that puts it at risk when you are in legal or health jeopardy. If you get sued or godforbid die, then it will be in limbo. That's not good for the rest of us. > To Mike (and subsequently Tony)'s points about Open Source: the most common > open source projects are the ones that are code prototypes being put out into > the wild with no leadership behind them, no stated goals, and no community of > contributors; only a community of users. The healthiest open source projects > adhere to the ideas behind open source, but have defined leadership that's > able to make decisions that benefit the trunk project. Anyone can run a fork, > but the trunk...the recognized trunk...is managed in every sense of the word. > It's open to contributors, but to keep code stable and clean, those patch > submissions go through several levels of approval before being merged in. > Linux kernel, the worlds biggest and best known open source project, follows > this process. I AM NOT PROPOSING THIS, I am simply citing the realities of > how healthy open source projects are grown. What is an unhealthy open source > project? In my opinion, it's one that is free (as in beer) but has an > imbalanced ecosystem of contributors and users surrounding it, effectively > making it unsustainable. Sustainability is in our core values to mean more > than just "being green". Being sustainable is also a reference to business > models, practices, communications, and more. I'm going to say something > controversial, but is largely true: operating with unsustainable practices is > something that open source projects aren't much better at than anybody else. You are comparing apples & oranges. IndyHall, New Work City, BlankSpaces, Ignition Alley, et. al. are analogous to an open source "project." This is discussion is instead analogous to the definition of open source and as the Highlander says, "There can be only one." :) (There is only one "coworking.com", right?) > Awesome, healthy discussion here. I love hanging around so many smart people!! Ditto! This is all healthy and good. That said, if everyone still disagrees and wants to allow coworking to evolve without collective input on it's definition I'll acquiesce after this. -Mike Schinkel Ignition Alley Atlanta Coworking http://ignitionalley.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.
