The movement must go beyond the word 'coworking.' Words will always be coopted by people who'll use them to benefit themselves.
Below is a quote I received on a metrocard. "The purpose of a fish trap is to catch fish, and when the fish are caught, the trap is forgotten. The purpose of words is to convey ideas. When the ideas are grasped, the words are forgotten. Where can I find a man who has forgotten the words, so that I can talk to him?" We should defend the term 'coworking' but we also need to strengthen the language we use to describe this movement and develop a shared mission statement and strong set of core principles. I propose something like following for a mission statement: The mission of a coworking space is to create an environment in which autonomous individuals (prefer: independent workers?) thrive. On Apr 1, 8:11 am, Tony Bacigalupo <[email protected]> wrote: > Apologies to Jay for swaying off topic. > > Thanks for weighing in, Clay. I respect what you were trying to accomplish > and find it regrettable that I feel compelled to use such harsh language in > this forum. > > I rather enjoyed your and Drew's presentations, and if the panel were simply > about the future of work, I might have very much enjoyed the panel as a > whole. > > Gary's abuse of the word "coworking," however, was offensive to me and > should be to anyone who understands and espouses the values the word is > supposed to represent. He openly admitted to having hijacked the word for > his purposes, only after I pressed him on the subject myself. The notion > that "coworking is not colocation" is completely absurd; it's like saying a > bicycle doesn't need wheels to be a bicycle. > > It was apparent to me that he had no problem abusing the word to help > promote his brand, and I found it most unfortunate that he was given such a > public forum to do so. > > In terms of the future of work, I took away one very important and valuable > lesson: we as coworking space owners may not be able to rely upon the word > "coworking" to communicate what we do and what we represent in the future, > because more people like Gary may likely come along and attempt to pump the > word dry of all of its meaning for their own personal benefit. > > An outside observer may be able to simply find this phenomenon interesting, > but I find it rather unfortunate and certainly something I would not be > complicit in perpetuating. > > My hope is that such folk will come and go, and their words will be largely > ignored in the face of the larger movement. > > On Mar 31, 2010 8:40 PM, "Clay Spinuzzi" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Sorry to hear that you felt that way about the panel, Tony. I do want > to emphasize, though, that the panel was *not* on the future of > coworking. It was on "What coworking tells us about the future of > work." > > So I wanted to get a wide set of perspectives on that topic. After > all, we've seen a wide set of perspectives on coworking here on the > Google Group, with not-for-profits, loss leaders, and for-profit > coworking spaces talking to each other. And in talking to Austin-area > proprietors and coworkers, I've seen similar differences in > perspective. Some people are in it for the community, some are in it > for the networking and subcontracting opportunities, and some are just > relieved that they don't have to manage an office and buy the toilet > paper. Maybe some of these aren't kosher motivations for coworking > from the movement's perspective, but that's what people are telling > me. And from what I've seen on the Google Group, the coworking > community is big enough to handle these differences in perspectives. > > The most controversial panelist was Gary Swart of oDesk, partially > because, as he said, he disagreed with how the rest of us defined > coworking. He was really talking about virtual teams, and so he talked > about business value rather than community values, efficiency rather > than support, and business relationships rather than real > relationships. And he said in the Q&A that "we don't care where our > people work." That's a shocker if you think he's talking about > coworking. But once you realize that he's talking about virtual teams, > things snap into place: the more virtual teaming happens, the more > people will search for places where they prefer to work, places where > they can recover the sorts of relationships that virtual teams can't > provide. Places like coworking spaces. It's no coincidence that the > coworking spaces I've visited are filled with members of virtual > teams, telecommuters, and entrepeneurs. And that's why I decided to > include Gary. > > In any case, I regret that the panel came off as an atrocity and an > insult to you. My intention was to connect coworking to a heritage, to > demonstrate how it fit larger trends of work, and to see what it tells > us about how those trends will evolve. I still think the panel > accomplished that. > > For those who didn't see my portion of the panel, the slides are here: > <http://spinuzzi.blogspot.com/2010/03/sxswi-what-coworking-tells-us- > about.html>. See what you think, and don't hesitate to comment. CS > > On Mar 31, 6:24 pm, Tony Bacigalupo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The coworking summit was v... > > Email: [email protected] > > Phone: (888) 823-3494 > > > On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Jay <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I was unable to go to... > > > [email protected]<coworking%[email protected]> > > <coworking%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups .com> > > > > . > > > 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... -- 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.
