We're now talking about THREE separate but related issues: 1. How to pay for/who owns the domain, long term 2. What kind of entity could exist 3. The definition of coworking
Just for those keeping track :) /ah indyhall.org coworking in philadelphia On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Mike Schinkel <[email protected]>wrote: > 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]<coworking%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/coworking?hl=en. > -- 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.
