I like the idea of a new mark. I have been speaking about the need for that and a community mark makes sense to me.
Geoff DiMasi indyhall.org -- Geoff DiMasi P'unk Avenue 215 755 1330 http://punkave.com On Feb 23, 2010, at 4:41 PM, Alex Hillman wrote: > I won't get behind some org structure that we don't fit into, but I would > happily get behind setting a new precedent (would work for many projects that > have disparate stakeholders). > > AMEN!!!! > > /ah > indyhall.org > coworking in philadelphia > > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Tara Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: > Here is an idea: > > Years ago, Chris Messina (once again) had a post he put up about community > marks: > > http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2006/01/14/the-case-for-community-marks/ > > Rather than fitting ourselves uncomfortably into the current system (that > doesn't suit what we want to do), why don't we put our force behind creating > a new precedent? I spoke with a guy named Louis Villa (http://tieguy.org/) > who had worked with Lawrence Lessig on the Creative Commons project years > ago. I know he was quite interested in this idea (I showed him Chris' post). > > I won't get behind some org structure that we don't fit into, but I would > happily get behind setting a new precedent (would work for many projects that > have disparate stakeholders). > > T > > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Mike Schinkel <[email protected]> > wrote: >> To continue my point, IndyHall existed as a non-entity (just a word, and a >> bunch of people spreading ideas) for a long time before we created any kind >> of legal entity, and that was because a commercial lease needed to be >> signed. There have been no commercial requirements to pull off anything >> (including the acquisition of a domain), and definitely not for spreading of >> ideas. > > Minimally an entity needs to exist to own the domain. Most likely it could > be an endowed trust that has funds to pay for perpetual hosting. That way if > you die or if you get sued to bankruptcy for whatever reason we don't loose > the domain. > > Unless I miss my guess the domain is currently tied to you as a legal entity. > If not, please explain how the community is protected in either of those two > awful cases? > >> In fact, the controlling nature of any singular entity (no matter how >> altruistic) would squash the growth potential that we've all benefited from. > > I'm not being sarcastic but reading that perspective from you and others I > can't stop the premise of "Green Eggs and Ham" from running through my mind. > It feels like rather than discuss what it might be and what value it might > have that some are just reacting out of fear and thus are closing themselves > off from even considering that there may be some value. Please don't take > offense, I'm just explaining how it seems to me. > > As proposed the entity would only do those things we agreed to allow it to > do. If there are things it would do that would "squash the growth potential > that we've all benefited from" then we explicitly disallow those things in > the bylaws without a supermajority or unanimous vote of members. > > One thing that *is* needed, and I'll stand firmly on this, is something we > can point people to who want to understand what coworking is but who are not > "true believers" like most on this list. For example, the media. Having the > media right stories about coworking ends up having them define it for us > whether we like it or not. I'd far rather we are in control of that > definition and not others who couldn't be bothered to get it "right." > > -Mike Schinkel > Ignition Alley Atlanta Coworking > http://ignitionalley.com > > P.S. We can "define" it using principles and by giving examples, it doesn't > have to be a single sentence. But it we do not define it others will. > > > -- > 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. > > > > -- > tara 'missrogue' hunt > > Book: The Whuffie Factor (http://www.thewhuffiefactor.com) > Blog: HorsePigCow: Marketing Uncommon (http://horsepigcow.com) > Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/missrogue > phone: 514-679-2951 > > -- > 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. > > > -- > 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. -- 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.
