Our mission has been to "Help make Philadelphia a better place to make a living doing what you love".
Autonomy and independence might be a part of it, though our reach widened dramatically last year when we grew and the diversity of discipline and approach with the shared vision of "I want to do something I love, with people who love what they do" brings us all together for reasons bigger than sharing an office. Great stuff, guys. /ah indyhall.org coworking in philadelphia On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Devin <[email protected]> wrote: > 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%[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]<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.
