Clarification

[Jerome Chang]

Hi all.

I've been hearing that some of you out there have not been so happy about my mentioning of executive suites and therefore, not adhering to the ethos of coworking.  I want to clarify that my previous emails were only to propose utilizing some resources that I've come across, and as a way to expedite some progress toward two milestones that I do wish we all hit: conference and organization/alliance/league.

The exec suites owners are not the "Evil Empire", even though like you, I openly criticize their model and practices.  They merely are based on a culture that we coworking people feel needs to adapt and evolve.  Besides, they are fully aware of our coworking movement and some of them have already re-appropriated their spaces for coworking.  If they are already doing so, shouldn't we at least collaborate with them on a discussion level so they subscribe to our ideals?  Otherwise, their huge market presence and marketing power will effectively confuse and dilute our own efforts to communicate coworking to the general public.  That discussion can be done, albeit briefly, at their annual conference to be in SF this year, should we find ourselves piggybacking on their plans.  That is a big IF [we piggyback].  Remember, no one has really stepped up to the plate either to plan this conference or even get everyone to agree on the format; meanwhile, we have all agreed we want to convene in some format.

On a similar note, this fundraising for the coworking.com domain does bring up some concerns for me (btw, for the record, I am amazed and really happy that the funds have been raised on short notice - congrats everyone).

1. So what do we do with the extra $?  I know we're waiting for the transaction to be completed to finalize the final cost(s).

2. Who will control/manage this?  Alex has been appointed but shouldn't we discuss how decisions are made going forward?  Should we agree to a 51% or 65% majority vote?

3. Do people who haven't/couldn't contribute any funds have any say going forward?  Are there buy-in rights for the future?

4. Let's say Alex is out of the country or otherwise is incapacitated or not accessible and then the hosting company has no proof that anyone else has authorization to make any required changes.

5. Who funds future domain renewal costs, if any?

Look, there are just a host of issues without at least writing this down, formally/legally or whatever.  We have some money at stake now, so let's make sure we all agree in writing before money becomes an issue.  Haven't we all had money become an issue between friends/relatives?

...concerned coworker, who's hoping he hasn't been voted off the island...

Jerome

______________
BLANKSPACES
"work wide open"

www.blankspaces.com
5405 Wilshire Blvd (2 blocks west of La Brea)
Los Angeles, CA 90036
323.330.9505 (office)

[David Garvin **GMD**]

Hi all,

I agree with you completely Jerome, those involved in this co funded venture should have clear and defined expectations and responsibilities.

For example, what happens when advertising revenue opportunities materialize?  Maybe there's potential there to fund the annual coworking get together!

Just a thought.

dg

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Coworking" group.
To post to this group, send email to cowo...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to coworking+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/coworking?hl=en.

David Garvin

da...@visitgmd.com

01473 212200

www.visitgmd.com

Whilst this email has been checked for all known viruses, recipients should undertake their own virus checking as Garvin Marr Limited will not accept any liability whatsoever.

 

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and protected by client privilege. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient. Please delete it and notify the sender if you have received it in error. Unauthorised use is prohibited.

 

Any opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual and not necessarily the organisation.

[Mike Schinkel]

On Feb 16, 2010, at 1:06 PM, Jerome Chang wrote:

I've been hearing that some of you out there have not been so happy about my mentioning of executive suites and therefore, not adhering to the ethos of coworking.  I want to clarify that my previous emails were only to propose utilizing some resources that I've come across, and as a way to expedite some progress toward two milestones that I do wish we all hit: conference and organization/alliance/league.

The exec suites owners are not the "Evil Empire", even though like you, I openly criticize their model and practices.  They merely are based on a culture that we coworking people feel needs to adapt and evolve.  Besides, they are fully aware of our coworking movement and some of them have already re-appropriated their spaces for coworking.  If they are already doing so, shouldn't we at least collaborate with them on a discussion level so they subscribe to our ideals?  

The problem is that exec suites are the incumbent industry and they currently have a lot more money than coworking space operators.  The Coworking "movement" is one that seeks to be a change agent.  Anyone who has read "Innovator's Dilemma" will know that incumbents will fight change unless it's in their selfish best interest. Positive change that's not aligned with entrenched interests need to come from the outside, not from the inside.  

If we engage the exec suites industry the likelihood is they will use their funds to extinguish the nascent coworking space operations who are in the formative stage.  I'd really prefer to see coworking grow and become it's own thing rather than see it be subsumed as just another exec suite option.

(Rereading that last statement, I realize I sound more like a revolutionary than I ever knew! :)

Otherwise, their huge market presence and marketing power will effectively confuse and dilute our own efforts to communicate coworking to the general public.  That discussion can be done, albeit briefly, at their annual conference to be in SF this year, should we find ourselves piggybacking on their plans.  That is a big IF [we piggyback].  Remember, no one has really stepped up to the plate either to plan this conference or even get everyone to agree on the format; meanwhile, we have all agreed we want to convene in some format.

Not if collectively we control the Coworking.com domain and hence its brand.  I'd propose that we collectively establish a set of criteria for Coworking much like the Open-Source Initiative defines "open source" and that way we'll have far more control of our message.  We can even create a logo that is used to signify "real" coworking so that we have copyright over it and can keep spaces that don't adhere to the definition from using it.

On a similar note, this fundraising for the coworking.com domain does bring up some concerns for me...

Agreed. My comments above imply a single legal entity which I proposed earlier as a "co-op" but it could be any format as long as it meets our collective needs.  It's time to form such an entity, isn't it?

-Mike Schinkel

Ignition Alley Atlanta Coworking

http://ignitionalley.com

[rachel young]

I am volunteering to look into what an international co-op or association could be, and I'll report back pros and cons to the group in a few days. (or maybe by Mon, given what my weekend already looks like)
r.


--
rachel young
rac...@camaraderie.ca
(416) 801-0196

Find us in person:
Camaraderie
102 Adelaide St E, 2nd Floor

Find us online:
camaraderie.ca/blog
twitter.com/camaraderie

[Mike Schinkel]

On Feb 16, 2010, at 1:40 PM, rachel young wrote:

I am volunteering to look into what an international co-op or association could be, and I'll report back pros and cons to the group in a few days. (or maybe by Mon, given what my weekend already looks like)

r.

Awesome!

-Mike Schinkel

[WHERE MMM]

Fantastic!

 

Really happy about this. Let me know how I can assist...

 

Danielle

[Tony Bacigalupo]

Hey all.

Serious stuff here. Let's take a step back for a second.

I believe we are in a dangerous place right now, because money is involved, and everybody is going to have an opinion on how it should be distributed, who should be involved, who has what percent control over what, etc etc etc. 

The thing that makes this coworking movement so nice is that it's a decentralized "starfish" organization with no leadership structure, hierarchy, or bureaucracy. The coworking concept is one which we all subscribe to, and that concept lives outside of any formal entity. This group, the wiki, and the blog were carefully crafted with the idea in mind that they facilitate communication amongst a body of people who subscribe to this concept. 

We're going to have to work on making this thing as fair as possible, but I strongly, strongly, STRONGLY advise that we do NOT try to go in ANY direction which takes us down a path of centralization, raising more money, or hierarchy. This domain purchase was done to secure our word and our movement against co-opting from an external interest, and that's it. The site should be super simple, continue to facilitate conversation and information sharing in an open, decentralized way, and nothing more.

If those things are to exist, they should exist outside of the coworking.com discussion, when we're able to think about it for more than a couple of days. I gave my money to Alex with clear terms that he set, and I trust him to use those funds to act in the best interests of the movement, and that's it. I don't want a vote, I don't want a board seat.

That being said, we just witnessed how much power we collectively have to pool together our resources and accomplish something. If a group of people wants to form an organization that does similar such things, like conferences and software and whatever else, that sounds like a really cool thing to work on. But it should be separate from this domain discussion.

The terms Alex suggested are imperfect, and will have to be improved to better facilitate the participation of everyone who believes in what coworking is all about. But injecting structure and hierarchy will do a lot more bad than good. The same way the current blog/wiki/group sites are managed in the background by people who have the best interests of the movement at heart, so too should this domain be managed in a lightweight, nonbureaucratic, and effective manner.

Love you guys. Let's keep coworking the beautiful starfish that it is.

Tony

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Work City - Work with, not for.
Web:   http://nwcny.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/nwc
Email: to...@nwcny.com
Phone: (888) 823-3494

[Mike Schinkel]

On Feb 16, 2010, at 2:08 PM, Tony Bacigalupo wrote:

Serious stuff here. Let's take a step back for a second.

I agree with you in principle, but not as black & white.   

Do you see the Open Source Initiative as harmful?  They did it in part to control the branding of "open source" which is essentially what acquiring a domain is about, branding.  This doesn't have to be able running a conference, but it should be about branding, IMO.

When you get people with shared interest in an initiative together it works when the number is small (see "Dunbar's number" as reference) but as the number grows and new people come in without the crystal clear ethos of the original members things turn to chaos without some way to manage it.  Sadly it's human nature and wanting it to stay the same won't make it so.  Worse, someone who does manage it well will be able to co-op the initiative (i.e. the exec suites industry in this case) if it isn't managed by the existing thought leaders and I'd put you, Alex, Tara and a lot of others online here in that group.

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.  Lead us.

[Steven Heath]

> 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.
>  Lead us.
>

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.

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.
Some of the reasons are legal (USA law is an arse when it comes to non
citizens as shareholders) and some of it is watching creatures like
ICANN (use USA law against its own directors) and the other is we are
not sure what direction is going to occur.

We can wait. All those that have paid up trust Alex to do the right thing.

Lets do the deal, bed in an initial website and then decide from that
point what to do.

--
Steven Heath
Director, Foxbane Consulting
Founder, AltSpace
Cell: +64 21 706-067
www.foxbane.co.nz
Level 22
Plimmer Towers
2 Gilmer Terrace
Wellington

AltSpace.co.nz - Shared office space in Wellington for home based
workers, freelancers, or nimble companies

[Alex Hillman]

I haven't been ignoring this thread, or the other related to the coworking.com purchase, I've just been in a conference all day :)

I'm going to need some time to catch up. Thanks y'all.

/ah
indyhall.org
coworking in philadelphia

[scott anderson]

As we are putting together our coworking space here in St Cloud, MN, I sit back and read all the threads by you ‘coworking gurus’ and get so impressed by how this movement is just taking off. I thought I was getting into something that was just a simple concept of getting like minded individuals (those who don’t like to work alone, but work there own business in the company of others), but now is turning into this huge steam roller of ideas. It really is cool to see the collaboration take place. I still find the hardest part of this, is drumming up other “like minded individuals” in our community who want to jump on board with the enthusiasm of a coworker.

I know it all takes time & patients. Keep up the awesome work,

 

Scott Anderson

Statewide Property Inspections

320-761-2100

Web www.statewidepropertyinspections.com

Blog http://statewide-homeinspections.blogspot.com/ 

 

 

 

---

[Tony Bacigalupo]

Mike, 

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.

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. 

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.

Tony

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Work City - Work with, not for.
Web:   http://nwcny.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/nwc
Email: to...@nwcny.com
Phone: (888) 823-3494

[Alex Hillman]

I've been fascinated how this discussion has evolved.

There are a number of very real issues being addressed, and this is anything but a bad thing.

I remain firm on a couple of aspects of the discussion so far:

• the model used to collect the funds to buy the domain was done with the purpose of just that: to buy the domain. we overshot, a good problem to have. once the final costs have been established, a technique to either return, or appropriately distribute the funds to a domain-related projects (design/development, hosting, etc). The people who contributed could have chosen not to do so if they didn't trust me to be responsible with their hard earned money
• more importantly, I'm in complete agreement that the model used to collect the funds to acquire the domain is decidedly not ideal moving forward. It was effective for accomplishing the goal, but at the same time it is closed, exclusionary, and doesn't fairly represent this community. Once the domain has been acquired, I think we can come up with a better mechanism, and that mechanism may even involve returning some portion of the raised funds to the ~20 funders that stepped up.
• the discussion around a "coworking entity" has crept back in. I'm not opposed to the researching of entity creation, the creation of an entity, associating with with an entity, or anything else that's been tossed on the table. What I AM opposed to is the idea that an entity solves the problem of how this group makes decisions. The fact of the matter is that a group this large makes it hard to make decisions. An entity in any of the proposed formats (LLC, Non-profit, co-op, collective, etc) that I've read would not be any better at making decisions. We're basically talking about an informal clusterf*ck (I say that in the kindest way possible) and making it a formal clusterf*ck. Either way, I've yet to meet a clusterfuck that's good at making decisions.
• I do think that an organizational model can, and will, emerge. That model will be good at making decisions, and act in the best interests of the community it represents. It may or may not include everybody. It should operate on coworking core values.
• 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.
• 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.
  
  "Opensville is a utopia, but nobody wants to pay the taxes."
  
  

  Nestled between Proprietary and Freedomberg, Opensville is a utopia. Everyone who lives in the adjacent cities spends their free time in Opensville. The parks are beautiful, the shopping is amazing, and the nights are pure Vegas. Sounds like a great place, huh? One problem: no one actually wants to live there. No one wants to pay the taxes or put in the effort it takes to keep the city running. Welcome to Opensville, population zero. - William Hurley, in his essay Welcome to Opensville.

Awesome, healthy discussion here. I love hanging around so many smart people!!

-Alex

/ah
indyhall.org
coworking in philadelphia

[Susan Evans]

Great thoughts all around team. These are some incredibly important
conversations, and I want to thank everyone for bringing their
opinions, their honesty, and their understanding to the table.

Jacob and I were just talking through some of this stuff yesterday.
After our conversation and reading through more of these threads, I
come away with two immediate thoughts:

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. I
am incredibly excited about the time we can share there, and to see
what comes of those conversations.

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. 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. And as such, I believe that
we might just do ourselves more harm by trying to create some huge
international body 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. Our work will most
likely create the most amount of meaning on a smaller scale first.

Sorry for being a bit rambly in my explanation there, but I hope it
makes a bit of sense. I'm very excited to see so many people in March
in Austin, and look forward to more productive conversations
developing here on the list.

In community,
Susan
__
Office Nomads
officenomads.com

On Feb 16, 2:59 pm, Tony Bacigalupo <tonybacigal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mike,
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Tony
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> New Work City - Work with, not for.
> Web:  http://nwcny.com
> Twitter:http://twitter.com/nwc

> Email: t...@nwcny.com

> Phone: (888) 823-3494
>
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Mike Schinkel

> <mikeschin...@newclarity.net>wrote:

> > coworking+...@googlegroups.com<coworking%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>

[Mike Schinkel]

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

[Alex Hillman]

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

[Alex Hillman]

Oh, and as far as "in trust" relating to a legal entity of "a trust", I wasn't. I was referring to trust, the noun, "Firm reliance on the integrity, ability, or character of a person or thing". Stupid english language and multiple meanings for a word!

/ah
indyhall.org
coworking in philadelphia

[Susan Evans]

Thanks for all the thoughts, Mike. I just have one quick thought in
reply which only addresses a small piece of what you wrote:

You wrote "But if you don't define it others will."

In our years of experience here in Seattle, I have come away with the
lesson that attempting to define coworking out of a fear that someone
else will utilize the word for their own benefit hasn't been a
worthwhile practice. Reacting out of perceived fear isn't always
prudent. I am happy to continue talking about organizing for the
benefit of coworking's sake, but not out of fear that if we don't
define it some other entity will somehow snatch it from out underneath
us. The probability that will happen is pretty darned low IMO.

Susan

> That said, if everyone still disagrees and wants to allow coworking to evolve...
>
> read more »

[Steven Heath]

> 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.)

It is like a contract, written contract is easier to prove than an
oral one. English common law supports the concept of 'in trust'
without a Trust Deed being created. I think however that the current
set up is 'for now' which leads to your next point.

> All I'm asking is that we stop debating what *not* to do and start
> discussing what *to* do.

I think we first need to decide on the problem before working on the solution.

Alex posted that we seem to have three issues:

1, How to pay for/who owns the domain, long term
2, What kind of entity could exist
3, The definition of coworking

I think it is actually bigger than this because as soon as you explore
point 2 'entity' you need to review things like funding,
membership/shares, voting, directors, legal compliance, yadda yadda
yadda.

I now present to you pandora's box. We are starting to open that box
with this domain name...

[Mike Schinkel]

On Feb 16, 2010, at 6:57 PM, Alex Hillman wrote:

We're now talking about THREE separate but related issues:

1. How to pay for/who owns the domain, long term

1. What kind of entity could exist

1. The definition of coworking

Just for those keeping track :)

+1

On Feb 16, 2010, at 7:02 PM, Susan Evans wrote:

In our years of experience here in Seattle, I have come away with the
lesson that attempting to define coworking out of a fear that someone
else will utilize the word for their own benefit hasn't been a
worthwhile practice. Reacting out of perceived fear isn't always
prudent. I am happy to continue talking about organizing for the
benefit of coworking's sake, but not out of fear that if we don't
define it some other entity will somehow snatch it from out underneath
us.  The probability that will happen is pretty darned low IMO.

Thanks.  Is it possible to date that nobody has wanted to co-op the name? I believe the executive suites industry will very much try to co-op the name and will have the money to do so.

I also think that the same debate about not being able to define "Open Source" happened many years ago but they defined it.

Maybe we can start with a list of principles?  Clearly we won't argue there are not some unifying principles, right?  (But I'm not the best one to submit those ideas.)

But again if everyone else really thinks it's unimportant, I will demure and we'll just see were the chips fall.  

[felicity at cubes]

A little late to the discussion, apparently, but adding my 2 cents.
Several interesting discussions going on here and IMHO this actually
would do well:
- As a live conversation
- Broken up by topic

What happens with the domain? That's one discussion and an
interesting one. I
am confident we can work that out with one of us just putting a
written proposal together
for all of us who put in our money with some kind of options for
opting in later for
those who missed the initial join.

The executive suite issue - While a big proponent of coworking and
this change community,
executive suites are working hard to compete with coworking as there
are more and more spaces.
It is smarter of us to work together than to worry about becoming what
we do not want to be. I don't think
that will happen. Individual spaces can and will still exist, but
they also have the potential to get crushed
by the Regus type executive suites who have more money and resources
to try to build the model. It's a
bit like the Starbucks that created a non-Starbucks cafe recently to
give that "personal" touch. With
the changing nature of the work force going forward, coworking is a
great model to meet a need but also it
is one that corporate money will also be looking at. I agree with
Susan that we don't need a large international
organization, but some kind of grouping can provide some power to
build coworking.
Whether it is an association or something else, some kind
of grouping provides a power to work with the changing work force
collectively and honestly, there is value in that.
Happy to discuss my more specific thoughts in another thread or
offline with those interested.

I won't be at SXSW this year to join in the discussion but can't wait
to see what comes out of it.

All the best,
Felicity
Cubes&Crayons
Outside The Cube

[todd@c4workspace]

I agree that as soon as money changed hands the world changed, whether
we like it or not. That's done. To other's point, so now what do we
do? Nothing is not an option. As we've all seen, similar ideas keep
popping up on the list over the past few years and we have to work
them through as a community.

I'm not sure I understand Susan's reference "As Tony so eloquently

reminded us, the beauty of coworking lies in our inability to create

walls around it." I couldn't find the context for that statement/idea
but at face value it scares the shit out of me. Sounds VERY
protectionist. Can someone help me understand?

As noted all before coworking is defined differently everywhere so
keeping it to ourselves is not an option. It's in the wild, hence the
executive suite folks interest, and we just have to deal and
understand that coworking is not ours. The sooner we come up with a
VERY general description (not definition) the better. If the movement
continues to get press it will seem odd if every interview is
COMPLETELY different. A story requires a common thread. What is ours?

Ya gotta love chaos because eventually the dust settles and something
new emerges.

Cheers!

Todd O'Neill
Catalyst/Partner
C4 Workspace

[Jacob Sayles]

I disagree with many of the assertions being made in this thread.  Map all of this over the bar/restaurant industry and see how it compares.  Do you think bars and restaurants need to unite or risk an outside force shutting down the industry?  I think of coworking as equally ubiquitous.  Each bar is unique and has it's own style and personality.  There are chains, there are big name players, and there are also many small little outfits with their own, loyal clientele.  I think there is a lot to be gleaned thinking of coworking this way.

And deep pockets don't scare me.  If deep pockets could provide what people are looking for when they walk into Office Nomads then Office Nomads wouldn't need to exist.  Instead we see the look on the eyes of people when they come in and realize they don't have to work alone anymore.  We see strong friendships develop in the space, people going to each other's weddings and helping each other move.  Big executive suites don't know how to do it, and they are too big to be ABLE to do it.  The only reason we are able to do it is because Susan and I are in the space every day.  I strongly believe it is not something that can scale beyond the personal touch given by the individuals poring their hearts into each space.  Deep pockets can't match that. 

And most importantly, don't discount what we have done so far, and how we've gotten here.  

Jacob

---
Office Nomads - Individuality without Isolation
http://www.officenomads.com -  (206) 323-6500

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Coworking" group.
To post to this group, send email to cowo...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to coworking+...@googlegroups.com.

[Susan Evans]

Sorry y'all - I tend to be wordy and therefore can be slightly
confusing in what I say. Thanks to Jacob for summing up a similar
stance I have nice and quickly.

Todd, I meant the exact opposite of protectionism - you CANNOT draw
hard lines around coworking which is what I think is so beautiful
about it.

Good stuff, all.

Susan

[Mike Schinkel]

On Feb 17, 2010, at 12:49 PM, Jacob Sayles wrote:

That's a far cry from putting together a blanket coalition for all of coworking.  Danger!  Danger Will Robinson!

I don't get the fear that this instills in some.  It would be what we'd define it, not a "blanket coalition."

Then by the assertion that it can't be defined is this definition by definition wrong?  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coworking

On Feb 17, 2010, at 12:58 PM, Susan Evans wrote:

Todd, I meant the exact opposite of protectionism - you CANNOT draw
hard lines around coworking which is what I think is so beautiful
about it.

If it's too hard to define then most of the population will never understand it. I think that fear of defining it is an assurance that what we all individually know and love about coworking will be relegated to the fringes as others define its meaning to be something different for the majority of the population.  Frankly, I'd like to see more people "get" it, not less.

Anyway, it seems that I'm one of the few that would prefer a bit more definition so without the majority support I'll drop it and spend my energies elsewhere.

[WHERE MMM]

Mike,

I would normally write this off line but think it important for the whole group for me to address your comment as I think some of the group may be feeling the same as you.
 
Based on your response statement below to the thread note:

On Feb 17, 2010, at 12:58 PM, Susan Evans wrote:

Todd, I meant the exact opposite of protectionism - you CANNOT draw
hard lines around coworking which is what I think is so beautiful
about it.

If it's too hard to define then most of the population will never understand it. I think that fear of defining it is an assurance that what we all individually know and love about coworking will be relegated to the fringes as others define its meaning to be something different for the majority of the population.  Frankly, I'd like to see more people "get" it, not less.

Anyway, it seems that I'm one of the few that would prefer a bit more definition so without the majority support I'll drop it and spend my energies elsewhere.

As a true optimist I think we can have both. Having spent some time there at your site I have seen you achieve this delicate balance! It would be a shame to loose your comments Mike. I will speak up again and say that I think there are more of us out there who do share your thoughts .. perhaps some of us who don't really get to respond have been watching ... real change agents sometimes are known to do this... (in a good way like the folks from Texas....hint hint,) so I would encourage everyone to just keep the thoughts flowing. And, Mike I don't believe you are in the minority here.. Danielle @WHEREMMM

 

 

[Chris Stewart]

Hi Everyone,

It's been far too long since I've checked in with the group, and
I'm glad to see the pace of discussion hasn't slowed down a bit. As
someone "in, but not of," coworking, as I'm not a space owner (yet),
I've championed the concept of coworking to a number of audiences in
my neck of the woods (south Dallas County, Texas), and the first
speedbump I always hit with people is the definition of the movement
in terms they understand. Unlocking the value of coworking in the
minds of non-coworkers is a marketing issue, and marketing the
movement is driven by the largest elephant in the room.

It's my belief that the core issue at stake is this: control.
Every other issue dances around the question of control. For a while
last year, I was throwing the term "federated coworking" as something
between "no walls" coworking and "evil empire" Coworking USA
Incorporated. Every starfish needs a center, or else all you have is a
bunch of floating arms. For some, this group and the wiki is the only
core that we need; for myself, there is a perceived value in creating
<something> (brackets meaning I'm not going there on legal
formalities, etc.) beyond the group and wiki that can serve as a
center for spaces. I'm leaning toward the idea of a regional
<something>, since the economic and social climates differ between
Dallas, Seattle, Philadelphia, and New York, etc. The regional
<somethings> and individual spaces could people to an inter/national
<meetup something>.

For the space owners, I have a question that may warrant its own
thread: what's your core? Whether internal or external, online or
offline, written down or in your mind alone, there is something that
drives your unique implementation of coworking, and I'm curious to see
what it is.

May the introspection begin :)

- Chris
On Feb 17, 12:16 pm, Mike Schinkel <mikeschin...@newclarity.net>
wrote:

[Tara Hunt]

"Every starfish needs a center..." Technically that is untrue. Cut off a floating leg and it'll grow another core and four more legs. ;)

That's why we use the metaphor!

But I get what you mean...for me it is the Google group. Please don't move it!

T

> > That's a far cry from putting together a b...

> Ignition Alley Atlanta Coworkinghttp://ignitionalley.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Coworking" group.

To...

[Mike Schinkel]

On Feb 18, 2010, at 3:36 PM, Chris Stewart wrote:

I'm leaning toward the idea of a regional
<something>, since the economic and social climates differ between
Dallas, Seattle, Philadelphia, and New York, etc. The regional
<somethings> and individual spaces could people to an inter/national
<meetup something>.

Clearly I agree with everything else you said in your comments, and as far as any kind of organization regional can make some good sense too. OTOH, we really can't have regional definitions of "Coworking" can we?  Not with a global web and only one coworking.com.

JMTCW but Alex's implied definition on coworking.com is a great start (isn't it?)

[Mike Schinkel]

On Feb 18, 2010, at 3:53 PM, Tara Hunt wrote:

"Every starfish needs a center..."

Technically that is untrue. Cut off a floating leg and it'll grow another core and four more legs. ;)

In the spirit of being pedantic :) while cutting a floating leg off a starfish grows another core and four more legs in reality it is, after all, a different starfish with a shared leg.   If a group splinters off coworking that realistically doesn't make the new group coworking but instead a new thing derived from coworking which rightly would get its own name (and if there are any true marketers involved trying to promote it, it will.)

[Chris Stewart]

Cutting off the tip of an arm isn't enough; it needs a a piece of the
core in order to grow into a new organism (http://
www.newton.dep.anl.gov/newton/askasci/1993/biology/bio007.htm). I
believe I've carved the starfish enough for now ;)

Personally, whatI would like to see is a <something> that helps
potential space owners validate market demand in their area for a
space, provide the nuts and bolts of what works and what doesn't work
in nearby spaces, and help them market the space. So much of coworking
feels like the Wild West to me, in a freewheeling sort of way.
Certainly there's a way to promote unity without resulting in
homogeneity?

- Chris

On Feb 18, 2:53 pm, Tara Hunt <horsepig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Every starfish needs a center..." Technically that is untrue. Cut off a
> floating leg and it'll grow another core and four more legs. ;)
>
> That's why we use the metaphor!
>
> But I get what you mean...for me it is the Google group. Please don't move
> it!
>
> T
>

[Alex Hillman]

I agree completely with this part:

a <something> that helps potential space owners validate market demand in their area for a space, provide the nuts and bolts of what works and what doesn't work in nearby spaces

-Alex 

/ah
indyhall.org
coworking in philadelphia

To post to this group, send email to cowo...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to coworking+...@googlegroups.com.

[Angel]

I've been trying to absorb everything in this thread. I don't have
any magic answers but I can make this observation.
The reason I press on to start a space is because its so obvious that
people crave community....no matter what. I have seen it in coffee
shops, people in networking groups, as part of free coworking in Fort
Collins and a hundred different ways. The global coworking community
members are no different, we just crave community with each other.
Let's not get too bogged down in solidifying what that is or what it
means. Like all great innovations and movements, the solution will
emerge. The more we force it, the worse off we'll all be.
-Angel

On Feb 17, 11:16 am, Mike Schinkel <mikeschin...@newclarity.net>
wrote:

[WHERE MMM]

This is the core of the regional concept for me and also speaks to the new thread that Alex is proposing in Next steps .. in association with coworking.com

 

Perhaps there is an organic movement already under the surface here....? In coworking.com we first start with pages that point to regions .. as someone mentioned with the google maps.. "that there is just too much outdated info on it"

Moving to a regionally appointed 'point person' and or with a shared respnsibility in each region could really help in managing the information flow....yes?

 

Danielle@WHERE

Meet, Mix, Mogul

Coworking in LA

[Ryan Price]

a <something> that helps potential space owners validate market demand in their area for a space, provide the nuts and bolts of what works and what doesn't work in nearby spaces

In Orlando I've been having lots of discussions this week about selling the idea of coworking to the neighborhood, economic development, possibly some charitable donors - not my first choice, but our (new, un-named) space will have the support of a non-profit organization, and they tend to see the world in that way.

I know Alex has a bit of experience with his city's government - and what those people want to know about is the economic impact of something like Coworking. That is probably the last thing most people think of when they walk in to a space with their laptop to get some work done.

I'd like to see more case studies about the benefits, sustainability - along the lines of the survey / study discussion earlier this month:

http://groups.google.com/group/coworking/browse_thread/thread/58c35d7bc22d8f3d/c9b3e37e18deaab8?hl=en&lnk=raot#c9b3e37e18deaab8

Peace,

Ryan Price

rpr...@ryanpricemedia.com

@liberatr

407-484-8528

FloridaCreatives.com

Orlando Happy Hour: Mar 15th @ Crooked Bayou

Next Likemind: Feb 19th @ UrbanThink!

FL DrupalCamp: Feb 20th + 21st

http://2010.fldrupalcamp.org -- @fldrupalcamp

[rachel young]

Hi all,

On 16 February 2010 13:40, rachel young <rac...@camaraderie.ca> wrote:

I am volunteering to look into what an international co-op or association could be, and I'll report back pros and cons to the group in a few days. (or maybe by Mon, given what my weekend already looks like)
r.

If you don't want to read all of this info, please scroll to the end to find a link to a very simple survey.

There has been both support in favour of and warnings against forming some sort of organisation. So, as promised, here is a high level comparison of the different types of formal organisations we could form - this info is not to sway your opinion for or against such an organisation, but merely to help inform you of some options. Since there is money involved (now with the acquisition of coworking.com, and potentially in future for conferences or even other currently unknown opportunities similar to the domain acquisition) I do recommend that if we decide we want some sort of organisation then it should be a formal legal entity. In keeping with the wish that this not be to any one person's benefit, the only two real options would be a co-op or a non-profit.

Co-operative
A co-op is an autonomous association of persons (or companies with one representative) united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social, and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly-owned and democratically-controlled enterprise which is incorporated.

PROS

• one share, one vote
• all members are owners, all members share in the profits through dividends

CONS

• a fair amount of red tape for the initial set up and distribution of dividends
  
• all members essentially run the company, unless staff are hired (many of us run our own company in addition to running the business of our coworking spaces, so this would be a third company)
• it is grammatically correct to include a hyphen in "co-op" or "co-operative" and aesthetically that would look weird with "coworking"  (this is not a real point either way, just inserting some rib-jabbing levity in between corporate mumbo jumbo)
  

Non-profit Corporation
Forming a nonprofit corporation is much like creating a regular corporation, except that nonprofits have to take the extra steps of applying for tax-exempt status. Also called a 501(c)(3) in the USA.

PROS

• tax exemption(s)
• greater qualification for grants
• business activities cannot result in personal benefit for any director, officer, or member, which helps in keeping this community as great as it is
  

CONS

• cannot participate in political lobbying (influencing legislation) as a substantial part of its total activities (if ever we want to band together to show support in affecting legislation in any country)
• there may be some restrictions on the use of assets to purposes justifying tax exemption

Does anyone know of another form of legal organisational entity that would be a possible fit for our community?

Basically, from what I could find, it would take forming an organisation in one country and then crafting the bylaws to include international members.

All forms would essentially be governance, meaning that there would be one body to make decisions for the betterment of all members or interested parties, whether that body is composed of one representative from each coworking space for a co-op or a smaller board of representatives for a non-profit organisation. Either way, the structure would include variations of these steps:

1. Choose a Business Name
2. Prepare and File Articles of Incorporation
3. Apply for Applicable Tax Exemption(s)
4. Draft Corporate Bylaws
5. Appoint Directors
6. Hold a Directors' Meeting (attendees can be virtual in most cases)
   
7. Obtain Applicable Licenses and Permits

Survey
And with that, I think it is time for a straightforward survey on international governance. It's time to collect brief answers to decide if we move forward, and then if yes then how to move forward. The survey is anonymous, but please decide amongst yourselves in your coworking space and answer as one collective body for your space. This is the only way I can see it being fair so that multiple people from one space don't stack the votes for their own benefit, but is completely replying on the honour system. Survey results will be public but I'll also summarise them in a week or so.

Here's hoping this is helpful.
r.

[Mike Schinkel]

Hi Rachel,

This is great stuff, really!  Thanks for all the effort.

One point of note on your non-profit "con" about political lobbying, at least in the USA, if an organization elects 501(h) instead of 501(c)(3) then they can lobby. Generally, organizations that make the 501(h) election under the 1976 lobbying law may spend 20% of the first $500,000 of their annual expenditures on lobbying ($100,000), 15% of the next $500,000, and so on, up to $1 million dollars.

http://www.muridae.com/nporegulation/lobbying.html#lobbying_who_may

http://www.asaecenter.com/PublicationsResources/whitepaperdetail.cfm?ItemNumber=12202

-Mike Schinkel

Ignition Alley Atlanta Coworking

http://ignitionalley.com

P.S. I've recently looked into this issue for another non-profit I'm setting up. :)

[Steven Heath]

My one comment and it is a major one is this is ALL USA stuff.

While are we looking at USA laws?

As I have said before I would rather no legal entity then one based on USA laws.

Also when you say things like 'tax exemption(s)' you mean for USA tax payers.

Thank god I am not and never will be one.

Last time I checked this is a world wide movement that happened to start in USA.

This may sound like a rant because it kinda is.

If other non North American people can speak up it will be great,
otherwise I will just fade back as a lurker on this pet peeve of mine.

Steven Heath

PS I lived for 9 years in Canada, married a Canadian and both my kids
were born in Canada so I do have some perspective and 'experience' of
the Norther American vs 'the rest' views.

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Coworking" group.
> To post to this group, send email to cowo...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> coworking+...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/coworking?hl=en.
>

--

[rachel young]

Actually no, these are not "ALL USA stuff", these are both valid in Canada as well (I'm Canadian, coworking facility based in Canada, and have worked with and set up both co-ops and non-profits in Canada).

I cannot find anything online that would support legal entity that is an international association that would offer memberships and tax exemptions for all countries. All associations start somewhere, in some country, and that country deals with the laws and taxations assocated with the type of organisation, therefore can get whatever applied tax exemptions. If you can find something, I suggest you post it to the group as an option.

What other suggestions do you have? It is fine to speak your mind, but can you offer another option that you think might serve the community better?
r.

[rachel young]

Ah, thanks for the clarification. Learning the a corporate structures of other countries has been a steep learning curve, but this does make sense. You do have a lot of lobby groups, after all.   :-P
r.

[Tara Hunt]

I'm just going to past Tony's email that begun this thread here because, well, this is getting out of hand:

Hey all.

Serious stuff here. Let's take a step back for a second.

I believe we are in a dangerous place right now, because money is involved, and everybody is going to have an opinion on how it should be distributed, who should be involved, who has what percent control over what, etc etc etc. 

The thing that makes this coworking movement so nice is that it's a decentralized "starfish" organization with no leadership structure, hierarchy, or bureaucracy. The coworking concept is one which we all subscribe to, and that concept lives outside of any formal entity. This group, the wiki, and the blog were carefully crafted with the idea in mind that they facilitate communication amongst a body of people who subscribe to this concept. 

We're going to have to work on making this thing as fair as possible, but I strongly, strongly, STRONGLY advise that we do NOT try to go in ANY direction which takes us down a path of centralization, raising more money, or hierarchy. This domain purchase was done to secure our word and our movement against co-opting from an external interest, and that's it. The site should be super simple, continue to facilitate conversation and information sharing in an open, decentralized way, and nothing more.

If those things are to exist, they should exist outside of the coworking.com discussion, when we're able to think about it for more than a couple of days. I gave my money to Alex with clear terms that he set, and I trust him to use those funds to act in the best interests of the movement, and that's it. I don't want a vote, I don't want a board seat.

That being said, we just witnessed how much power we collectively have to pool together our resources and accomplish something. If a group of people wants to form an organization that does similar such things, like conferences and software and whatever else, that sounds like a really cool thing to work on. But it should be separate from this domain discussion.

The terms Alex suggested are imperfect, and will have to be improved to better facilitate the participation of everyone who believes in what coworking is all about. But injecting structure and hierarchy will do a lot more bad than good. The same way the current blog/wiki/group sites are managed in the background by people who have the best interests of the movement at heart, so too should this domain be managed in a lightweight, nonbureaucratic, and effective manner.

Love you guys. Let's keep coworking the beautiful starfish that it is.

Tony

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Work City - Work with, not for.
Web:   http://nwcny.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/nwc

Email: to...@nwcny.com
Phone: (888) 823-3494

On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:54 AM, Tara Hunt <horse...@gmail.com> wrote:

Reminder that 501c3 or whatever non-profit status ironically costs about $20k after filing and legal fees (there is a helluvalotta paperwork) and requires gobs of administrative work and reporting going forward, meaning you need to hire people for money to do that for you as it's awfully complicated.

I watched Freecycle go through this painful process and they really regret it.

T

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Coworking" group.
To post to this group, send email to cowo...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to coworking+...@googlegroups.com.
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

--
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

[Tara Hunt]

Reminder that 501c3 or whatever non-profit status ironically costs about $20k after filing and legal fees (there is a helluvalotta paperwork) and requires gobs of administrative work and reporting going forward, meaning you need to hire people for money to do that for you as it's awfully complicated.

I watched Freecycle go through this painful process and they really regret it.

T

On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 7:19 AM, rachel young <rac...@camaraderie.ca> wrote:

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Coworking" group.
To post to this group, send email to cowo...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to coworking+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/coworking?hl=en.

[Mike Schinkel]

On Feb 23, 2010, at 7:19 AM, rachel young wrote:

You do have a lot of lobby groups, after all.   :-P

Yes. About 2 orders of magnitude more than we should! ;-)

[rachel young]

$20k?  Wow. That shows just how different corporations can be in different countries. In Canada it is about $500 for incoprporation  (depending on which province it originates in) plus legal fees, so maybe $2500 tops, depending on the lawyer.

Administrative operations is separate, of course, depending on how the organisation wants to handle it. I sit on the board of a non-profit and while we do have one paid staff, the board chips in to do some work and a few volunteers also contribute.
r.

rachel young
rac...@camaraderie.ca
(416) 801-0196

Find us in person:
Camaraderie  
102 Adelaide St 2nd Floor
Toronto, ON    M5C 1K9

Find us online:
website and blog: camaraderie.ca
twitter: @camaraderie  
sprouter: @ruyoung

[Mike Schinkel]

Heath,

I concur with Rachel.  Offer criticism yes, but please accompany with alternative solutions?

FWIW if an entity is formed is it only defined in the terms of the law and taxation.  A corporation is a only legal and tax entity, after all; beyond that it has no meaning. Even "Private International Law" isn't a jurisdiction itself but concerns dispute resolution across jurisdictions[1].

So as far as I know you have to follow the laws of some country and ideally compatible laws of many other countries but ultimately it has to be based somewhere. Where as an alternate would you suggest, and why?

-Mike Schinkel

Ignition Alley Atlanta Coworking

http://ignitionalley.com

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law#Conflict_of_laws

[Steven Heath]

Before looking at entity I think we need to go back to what Alex (and
others have said).

Why are we doing this?

For instance we are putting the cart before the horse. And it is not
like I have not spoken similar words before. The "5 why's" come to
mind about what we are doing.

One thing in the possible approach is about tax exemption and possible
charitable status.

If lots of people in USA and Canada thinks this is a good idea AND
required then ok. But then realised that this has NO benefit outside
of these two countries.

I still think we need to address what our requirements are. Some of
these may come out of the discussion at SXSW. This is one of many F2F
and online flora we can use to start to nut out the requirements (or
strawman, or whatever).

I would like to add that the get together at SXSW should be one of the
many places to discuss... not the place.

PS I have my views, I am one of many and I think we need more
discussion before moving on any framework on how to implement it.

Take care

[Mike Schinkel]

Reminder that 501c3 or whatever non-profit status ironically costs about $20k after filing and legal fees (there is a helluvalotta paperwork)

Unless you get legal done pro-bono and then it's much cheaper, which is likely.

and requires gobs of administrative work and reporting going forward, meaning you need to hire people for money to do that for you as it's awfully complicated.

This, of course, is harder to get around.

-Mike Schinkel

Ignition Alley Atlanta Coworking

http://ignitionalley.com

[Mike Schinkel]

On Feb 23, 2010, at 2:33 PM, Steven Heath wrote:

Before looking at entity I think we need to go back to what Alex (and
others have said).

Why are we doing this?

Rachel was doing research in parallel. That way we can know what the options are when we discuss the why.

One thing in the possible approach is about tax exemption and possible
charitable status.

If lots of people in USA and Canada thinks this is a good idea AND
required then ok. But then realised that this has NO benefit outside
of these two countries.

Are there no non-profit entities outside USA and Canada?  I ask not to advocate for non-profit but just to better understand international issues.

I still think we need to address what our requirements are.

Yes, but I think that goes without saying.  Deciding requirements does not have to be a critical path before researching structural options.

BTW, another option is to set up an LLC as effectively a "not-for-profit" entity and to establish bylaws that require it to be managed as we collectively like, regardless of specific org type. The bylaws could establish what it does and how it is allowed to operate.  The bylaws could establish voting rules, and how members of many countries participate.  The ownership of the entity could be held in trust[1] by a law firm and then everyone that participates could become a type of member as defined by the bylaws.

We don't get tax benefits from this approach but it we distribute any potential profits to members then there is no need for tax benefits. We wouldn't get preferred status from orgs that give cheap/free things to non-profits but then we wouldn't have the issues of forming/running a non-profit either.

As for the requirements, minimally I think there's a need for an org to house and run coworking.com and to establish a way for people to understand what coworking is and what it is not just as the open source group did for open source (I would have said "define" it but didn't since some of your reacted so negatively to that term.)

I would like to add that the get together at SXSW should be one of the
many places to discuss... not the place.

I agree, since I won't be at SXSW.

-Mike Schinkel

Ignition Alley Atlanta Coworking

http://ignitionalley.com

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_(law)

[Alex Hillman]

As for the requirements, minimally I think there's a need for an org to house and run coworking.com and to establish a way for people to understand what coworking is and what it is not just as the open source group did for open source (I would have said "define" it but didn't since some of your reacted so negatively to that term.)

I still have not been convinced as to why an org is needed to help people understand what coworking is (and isn't).

/ah
indyhall.org
coworking in philadelphia

[Alex Hillman]

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. In fact, the controlling nature of any singular entity (no matter how altruistic) would squash the growth potential that we've all benefited from. 

Long term, an entity with higher purpose can and will likely emerge, but I still believe that we're forcing something that doesn't need to exist just because it's what everybody else would do in this situation. I have not seen any case as to why this should be other than the fact that it can be.

-Alex

/ah
indyhall.org
coworking in philadelphia

[Susan Evans]

Thanks, Rachel for putting together a way to collect input from the community.  Could you share or open the results to all so we could see what our colleagues' responses look like thus far?  I'm very interested to see what the results are looking like as we proceed..

Thanks again, all.  This is really interesting stuff, and I think is an enriching conversation for us to have right now.  FWIW, I am very strongly of the opinion that an organized entity representing coworking is not needed at this juncture.  I see it as much too big a risk for our community to take at this point in our collective history.

Best,
Susan
__
Office Nomads
officenomads.com
206-484-5859

[Mike Schinkel]

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.

[Tara Hunt]

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

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Coworking" group.
To post to this group, send email to cowo...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to coworking+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/coworking?hl=en.

[Steven Heath]

>
> 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."

I think everyone agrees with this comment.

I think that was in fact one of the reasons for securing the name. The
content on the site is unrelated to the entity that owns/controls the
name.

With regard to the issues about 'if worst happens' I will research the
current state of Alex holding it 'in trust' without a written trust
deed being in place. I know in most common law based countries this is
defensible but will check with the USA perspective. I will post back
to the list my findings.

[Anthony Sorace]

I've been lurking on the list for a while, and have been following all
the "entity" threads with fascination. I think the combination of
initiative and questioning is great; I wish the other place I'm
dealing with similar issues had a balance more like this.

A little bit ago, Tara said:

> Reminder that 501c3 or whatever non-profit status ironically costs

> about $20k after filing and legal fees...

I'm a bit skeptical about this. I happen to be working on forming a US
non-profit for something totally unrelated, and this is dramatically
higher than anything I've seen. Estimates for having a full-service
legal shop do everything from drafting by-laws through 501c3
certification (which isn't the same as simply forming the non-profit)
seem to be around $5,000. The exact fees vary state by state, but all
the actual government fees combined should still be well under $1,000,
at least until your gross receipts exceed $10,000 (and then they go up
only a few hundred, at least until the fee structure changes (for the
better) some time later this year).

Could that $20k include administrative staff or ongoing costs? There's
also an obvious trade-off between time and money here: you can pay
money to have someone with experience do things much faster.

Anthony Sorace
Strand 1

[Alex Hillman]

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

[John Sechrest]

Perhaps as a corporate structure, you are looking for the LLLC.

Or the L3C -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L3C

It gives the chance to do projects, be flexible, and yet still take funds from foundations.

Another possibility is to look at this discussion as the beginnings of the "Coworking Trade Association", IE, the collection of all entities who are engaged in and who want to perpetuate and support and enhance coworking.  That Trade Association type this is one of the different 501cX types, I forget if it is a 501c4 or a 501c6

In any case, realatively easy to set up, the only limitation is on writing off donations. If you don't care about that, then the cost of forming the entity goes way down.

L3C's are new enough that they are not in every state.

John Sechrest          .        
Corvallis Benton        .            
   Chamber Coalition      .          
      420 NW 2nd                   .        
             (541) 757-1507              . sech...@corvallisedp.com
                                                                     .        
                                                                                   .

[Tara Hunt]

I was merely going off of experience with chatting with another organization: Freecycle whose bills were estimated to be about $5k and ended up being more like $20k. Not to mention my own immigration experience where a $50.00 TN1 Visa quickly turned into a $10,000.00 TN1 visa because of complications...ah the complications of the law and the government.

And let me tell you that the $20k happened because Freecycle, much like Coworking, was a small pieces loosely joined starfishy like group of local freecycles who all wanted to get involved in the 501c3 process to make sure it was fair to all (various countries, locals, etc.). I'm pretty sure we have the same issue (unless we trust one person - Alex? - to do all the work on this, which leads me to the question - why create an organization at all and, instead, just trust that same person to hold the coworking.com site and hosting?).

T

[John Sechrest]

On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Tara Hunt <horse...@gmail.com> wrote:

 I'm pretty sure we have the same issue (unless we trust one person - Alex? - to do all the work on this, which leads me to the question - why create an organization at all and, instead, just trust that same person to hold the coworking.com site and hosting?).

The typical response to this is:  the Proverbial Beer Truck.

What happens when that person gets sick, dies, turns evil or otherwise stops being the useful centerpoint?

The Secon typical response is: Why not take the opportunity to grow the strength and capabilities of the relationships and find ways to build an amplifier that is bigger than one person?

[Eli Malinsky]

Man oh Man is this interesting!!

I am really firmly on the side of staying unincorporated or pursuing a
new collaborative governance form. While I agree with Mike that
there's no harm in reviewing options before making a decision, my own
experience tells me that all of these existing legal forms are
predicated on some basic principles that, if not contrary to a healthy
coworking movement, at least aren't conducive to it. I'd be far more
interested in some creativity here... but perhaps this whole process
needs to start with a sort-of needs assessment: i.e., what additional
benefits does "more formal" organizing bring? (bringing to mind 'if it
ain't broke...'). And I do agree that this task needs to be separate
from the issue of coworking.com ownership. I think that one is dealt
with easily enough without entangling us in this broader issue.

For what it's worth, our org has developed a Constellation Model of
Governance (http://socialinnovation.ca/blog/constellation-model-of-
collaborative-social-change) that has allowed a number of groups, big
and small, to work together without incoporating. I'm not necessarily
advocating this approach - it's really just proof that alternatives
are possible...they just require a bit of imagination, which this
group has in spades...

:-)

Eli Malinsky
Centre for Social Innovation

[Alex Hillman]

Also agreed. One pill doesn't cure all symptoms. And you shouldn't cure symptoms to begin with, you should cure the disease. Oh, and it's never Lupus.

(I need to watch a little less House, M.D.)

-Alex

/ah
indyhall.org
coworking in philadelphia

[Mike Schinkel]

On Feb 23, 2010, at 4:41 PM, Alex Hillman wrote:

On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Tara Hunt <horse...@gmail.com> 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!!!! 

Finally!  I just wish I had the same ability to get across a concept to this group that Tara has. :)  

To revisit, I've not been proposing "an org structure that doesn't fit", I was proposing finding a structure that does.

On Feb 23, 2010, at 5:05 PM, Eli Malinsky wrote:

For what it's worth, our org has developed a Constellation Model of

Governance (http://socialinnovation.ca/blog/constellation-model-of-

collaborative-social-change) that has allowed a number of groups, big

and small, to work together without incorporating.

Clearly, your collective has never been sued. :-)

Fred Wilson from Union Square Ventures in NYC just published a great post on Corporate Entities where he covers "liability protection" as a reason for why you form an entity: 

http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2010/02/corporate-entity.html

I know that Alex has offered to hold and protect the domain and Tara and others have championed the "no entity" approach but let me just draw out an unfortunate scenario for you, one that doesn't assume Alex will turn die (we really hope not) or that he'll turn evil (we truly think that is unlikely):

We collectively work on this new domain coworking.com and selflessly contribute. Coworking thrives to orders of magnitude what it is today, and all is good. No entity was created and none has been needed.  

A few years go by and Big Evil Corp (BEC) sees opportunity cost lost to these feisty yet undefinable coworking operators and they comes along and ask Alex to be included on coworking.com.  Alex tells us all and we all immediately know intuitively that BEC doesn't get coworking, its offerings are not coworking nor do we realistically expect that BEC ever will get coworking.  So we all almost unanimously vote against their inclusion with the exception of someone on the list who happens to be the nephew of BEC's CEO.  And all continues to be good.

Except, 6 weeks later a process server shows up at IndyHall and serves Alex with a lawsuit for restraint of trade and a variety of other sordid and sundry things which none of us not in the legal profession understand.  Alex goes to his personal lawyer and pays $250 out of his pocket for advice and his attorney tells Alex they have absolutely no case and offers to try to get the case throw out as a frivolous suit for an additional $1000 in fees which Alex gladly pays out of his pocket.

Another 6 weeks goes by and Alex finally learns from his lawyer that the judge won't dismiss the case, but that the lawyer will gladly defend Alex if Alex pays $5000 for a retainer.  Alex comes to the list and 10 of us we gladly offer up $500 each to defend Alex against BEC.  Feeling triumphant Alex waits another 3 months for court.

Court begins and BEC's lawyers throw Alex's lawyer a curve ball. BEC's legal has been working for the past three months and has generated over 1000 pages of supporting documents based on comments on this list and more.  Alex's lawyer informs Alex that it will now cost $25,000 more to defend because of the need for discovery and deposing witnesses, travel cost, etc.  Dejected Alex pleads to the list again and is able to gather another $1000 from each of those 10 original donors but he's still $15k short.  

So Alex being the incredibly principled man he is decides to pull $15k more out of his own pocket and fight these bastards at BEC.  He spends the next 3 months mostly focused on the trial and lets his business operations falter.  But it's the right thing to do for the cause.

Court date is finally here.  Alex and his lawyer are prepared and they are going to nail BEC to the wall on this day. However BEC is prepared and has uncovered more evidence of discussions on the list in the past 3 months and they add it as evidence to their case.  Alex's lawyer sheepishly says "Alex, I'm really sorry but we're going to need another $25k..."

Unfortunately, Alex is financially tapped out at this point and his lack of focus on his businesses during the trial has him at the edge of personal bankruptcy.  He heads to this list for more funds but nobody offers up any.  A few even accuse him of misappropriating funds. Alex's life is in a tailspin.  

Alex's lawyer calls and says that BEC's CEO Will Swindle wants to talk.  

Without any other visible option Alex talks with Swindle. Swindle tells Alex that he understands Alex's predicament and hates to see such good man be destroyed by something like this.  Swindle tells Alex that he's sorry it's gone this way for Alex but that he has shareholders to answer to and they demand that be pursue what's in their interest. Swindle tells Alex and he does have an option that his shareholders would be satisfied with: Swindle will authorize BEC to pay all of Alex's legal fees to date and reimburse all people who have contributed to his legal fund all in exchange for ownership in the coworking.com domain! 

Swindle will even hire Alex to promote BEC's "Coworking" options in the major markets that have proven viable like New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Los Angeles, etc. with a goal of attracting all existing coworkers to BEC offerings. However this "job offer" is a three year contract that must be agreed to for BEC to drop the lawsuit, and it comes with legal liability if Alex can be found to be undermining BEC's competitive pursuit of customers from existing establish coworking facilities. Further, Swindle implies they have yet another lawsuit that a subsidiary will pursue against Alex if Alex doesn't agree.

Alex is now faced with two awful choices: 

1.) working for BEC to undermine everyone else in the community that he was so instrumental in advocating for, or 

2.) personal bankruptcy.  

We pretty much know how bad #1 would be, besides we know our good Alex would never do that anyway, so let's assume Alex defiantly chooses #2.  

During Alex's personal bankruptcy BEC makes it clear to the judge that one of Alex's assets is the domain coworking.com and BEC lobbies the court to provide that BEC get's the domain as their remedy for their lawsuit that Alex declares bankruptcy to avoid. And since nobody is now willing or able to pay a lawyer to defend against this inappropriate lawsuit, the court gives BEC coworking.com!  

BEC begins to throw money at every market where there is a coworking space operating not solidly in the black (i.e. most of them.) From them on both coworking as an "undefinable wild, wild west" and the domain coworking.com as we knew it are both gone. 

And all this because a vocal group was adamant early on that no structure be put in place to provide Alex liability and defend against such an action.  Sad, really.  

Implausible?  Only if you've never been a party to a lawsuit.  It's disgusting what happens when someone who has plenty of money and lawyers on staff can to do those who don't have an infinite war chest to defend, even against frivolous lawsuit, at least in the USA.

Yes, an entity could be sued too and we might still loose coworking.com but it wouldn't destroy Alex financially and it wouldn't be viewed by others early on as "Alex's problem."  Having a proper entity can insulate us each from liability and do our best to protect against these types of attacks. For example, the entity could have insurance against such legal attacks to ensure we have an equivalent war chest if it get sued.

FWIW.

-Mike Schinkel

Ignition Alley Atlanta Coworking

http://ignitionalley.com

P.S. I figured you all might enjoy a story more than a simple rant. :)

[Steven Heath]

>
> Implausible?  Only if you've never been a party to a lawsuit.  It's
> disgusting what happens when someone who has plenty of money and lawyers
> on staff can to do those who don't have an infinite war chest to defend,
> even against frivolous lawsuit, at least in the USA.

Thank you for you very long message about possible risk for an
American based entity and outlines in detail some of my reasons for
'anything but a USA based entity'.

[Geoff DiMasi]

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:

[Mike Schinkel]

On Feb 23, 2010, at 6:59 PM, Steven Heath wrote:

Implausible?  Only if you've never been a party to a lawsuit.  It's

disgusting what happens when someone who has plenty of money and lawyers

on staff can to do those who don't have an infinite war chest to defend,

even against frivolous lawsuit, at least in the USA.

Thank you for you very long message

Stories tend to be longer and opinions. :)

about possible risk for an
American based entity and outlines in detail some of my reasons for
'anything but a USA based entity'.

Hmm. That's wasn't the correctly understood takeaway. That's what happens without a legal entity, not with one.

BTW, you are saying you don't have lawsuits in New Zealand? Hmm, this seems to indicate otherwise?

http://www.nzlii.org/

-Mike Schinkel

Ignition Alley Atlanta Coworking

http://ignitionalley.com

P.S. Methinks you've got a bit of angst regarding the USA?  Just be aware that the USA is filled with people just like NZ, and not all of us prescribe to the Fox News "USA can do no wrong" mentality.

 

[Steven Heath]

On 24 February 2010 13:13, Mike Schinkel <mikesc...@newclarity.net> wrote:
> On Feb 23, 2010, at 6:59 PM, Steven Heath wrote:
>
> Implausible?  Only if you've never been a party to a lawsuit.  It's
>
> disgusting what happens when someone who has plenty of money and lawyers
>
> on staff can to do those who don't have an infinite war chest to defend,
>
> even against frivolous lawsuit, at least in the USA.
>
> Thank you for you very long message
>
> Stories tend to be longer and opinions. :)
>
> about possible risk for an
> American based entity and outlines in detail some of my reasons for
> 'anything but a USA based entity'.
>
> Hmm. That's wasn't the correctly understood takeaway. That's what happens
> without a legal entity, not with one.
>
> BTW, you are saying you don't have lawsuits in New Zealand? Hmm, this seems
> to indicate otherwise?
>
> http://www.nzlii.org/

That points to *laws* and *case law* not *lawsuits* :-)

> P.S. Methinks you've got a bit of angst regarding the USA?  Just be aware
> that the USA is filled with people just like NZ, and not all of us prescribe
> to the Fox News "USA can do no wrong" mentality.

No, NZ is not a overly litigious country and case law would not
support the hypothetical situation you proposed.

I will give you an example of the different mindset in NZ. We have a
thing called ACC, think of it as workers comp but applies to ALL
injuries that occur, be it home, work, hobby etc. As per their own
desc "Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) provides comprehensive,
no-fault personal injury cover for all New Zealand residents and
visitors to New Zealand." www.acc.co.nz

Workers, employers and the government pay into it and means that you
CAN NOT sue for injury occurred, be it at work, on rugby fielded or a
car crash.

Read that again, it is illegal to sue for damages a driver of a car
that hits you. If they broke the law they will be charged and go
through the the courts and insurance (assuming carried) will cover
damage to car and ACC will cover your hospital bills and rehab costs.
Or in turn you have work place accident and employer has unsafe
machinery then they will be charged etc...

I know this is off topic but it shows how 'different' America is with
regard to legal approach. The sad thing is of course is most Americans
do not know any other way so think everyone operates like them.

And to shake things up even further is I do not even have
health/medical insurance.... amazing eh?

[Mike Schinkel]

On Feb 23, 2010, at 7:29 PM, Steven Heath wrote:

http://www.nzlii.org/

That points to *laws*  and *case law* not *lawsuits* :-)

Sigh.  http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZHC/2010/  ;-)

P.S. Methinks you've got a bit of angst regarding the USA?  Just be aware

that the USA is filled with people just like NZ, and not all of us prescribe

to the Fox News "USA can do no wrong" mentality.

No, NZ is not a overly litigious country and case law would not
support the hypothetical situation you proposed.

Maybe not, but you said my story was an example of why not to form an entity when the reverse is true.  Currently in the USA (as Alex is in the USA) it could happen to an individual if the individual continues owning the domain.  IF we create a US-based entity (US as a counter example for your assertion against US-based entities) and we give it proper insurance such an outcome would be highly unlikely.

desc "Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) provides comprehensive,
no-fault personal injury cover for all New Zealand residents and
visitors to New Zealand." www.acc.co.nz

Workers, employers and the government pay into it and means that you
CAN NOT sue for injury occurred, be it at work, on rugby fielded or a
car crash.

We in the USA have the same, it's called "Workers Comp."

Read that again, it is illegal to sue for damages a driver of a car
that hits you. If they broke the law they will be charged and go
through the the courts and insurance (assuming carried) will cover
damage to car and ACC will cover your hospital bills and rehab costs.
Or in turn you have work place accident and employer has unsafe
machinery then they will be charged etc...

I know this is off topic but it shows how 'different' America is with
regard to legal approach. The sad thing is of course is most Americans
do not know any other way so think everyone operates like them.

Don't get me wrong, I hate the US' legal system and prefer others that are less monopolized by entrenched legal interests.  But Alex doing nothing while being subject to US laws doesn't help.

I'm not arguing (necessarily) for a US-based entity (nor am I arguing against), I'm arguing against doing nothing, especially while the holder of the domain is a US citizen.

And to shake things up even further is I do not even have
health/medical insurance.... amazing eh?

Then we *definitely* don't want you to hold the domain... ;-p

Whatever the case, I think this pro-vs-con on the US entity is a bit overblown for our purposes.  Hell, let's put it in neutral territory: Switzerland (if we could just afford all the fees it would cost!)

[rachel young]

On 23 February 2010 16:10, Susan Evans <susan....@gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks, Rachel for putting together a way to collect input from the community.  Could you share or open the results to all so we could see what our colleagues' responses look like thus far?  I'm very interested to see what the results are looking like as we proceed..

Yes, sorry, I asked you to test it and then I ran away to a great evening event.

The spreadsheet is https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AnWFxJro4STbdERPZkhQUnR0NEhDdXZIbU9lR1NnTUE&hl=en

r.

[Jerome Chang]

Hi.

I support the decision to have a US legal entity as Alex, the current domain gatekeeper, is in the US.  Perhaps that could be the precedent - whoever or whichever committee is overseeing these operational roles, that's where we transfer that "liability" or "legal responsibility"?  Or is that just too difficult?

Jerome

______________
BLANKSPACES
"work wide open"

www.blankspaces.com
5405 Wilshire Blvd (2 blocks west of La Brea)
Los Angeles, CA 90036
323.330.9505 (office)

[MaxBuck]

Sorry I'm not staying current on who holds the donated funds, etc., as
I was too late to the party to donate. But what's wrong with whoever
owns the domain coworking.com to simply abide by whatever rules he/she
would prefer? Decision-making by a "starfish" doesn't seem very
efficient to me.

My interest is in having as many ways as possible to collaborate with
other folks who are interested in coworking. I'm grateful to whoever
makes that happen, and when feasible I'll support financially.
Frankly, I couldn't care less whether that "whoever" becomes rich as
Croesus in the process. If they do, good for them.

[Alex Hillman]

For the record: I've processed the donated funds and distributed them to the sellers. There's a small amount of leftover, after transaction fees, DNS, etc, that will either be returned to the donors or redistributed to a hosting-related cause once I can determine the actual amount.

I still, over a week later, have not heard any suggestions on the ONLY thing I asked for communal advice on after the the transaction processed, and that is how we could better redistribute the fund-raising effort so that it focused on the people in this community instead of the businesses. I was taking cues from SpreadFirefox, but don't want to directly rip on that campaign.

-Alex

/ah
indyhall.org
coworking in philadelphia

[Jacob Sayles]

I propose we set a period of time, perhaps a week, perhaps all of March, and people chime in with how much they can contribute.  At the end of that time period, whatever the lowest bid that meets the final cost is, becomes the set price, and the original bids are reduced to match this.  If there are folks that wanted to contribute, but their amount was below the final unit price, they can be given an opportunity to up their bid and everything would be adjusted.  

 
Jacob

---
Office Nomads - Individuality without Isolation
http://www.officenomads.com -  (206) 323-6500

[Tony Bacigalupo]

Quick reminder: This group is not a decisionmaking body, so anything you propose here cannot be decided upon.

This discussion, while fascinating and educational, has no way of ending conclusively on its own. There is no final vote, only debate.

The only way I see any actual action happening as a result of this conversation is as follows:

1. We do what Alex has asked, and offer ideas on how the domain money should be re-raised so as to be more fair to all.

2. The people who participate in that fundraising will agree to terms which may or may not give them some say over what happens moving forward.

3. Progress is made by that collective group, headed up by Alex. Since it will be a finite group of people with a specific, defined relationship, they will be capable of making decisions as to how or whether to proceed with forming an entity or doing anything else. 

Anything that happens outside of that process is separate and must be dealt with as its own thing, and must not rely on convincing this entire group to collectively agree to it. Because anything that relies on that will fail to move forward.

Tony

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Work City - Work with, not for.
Web:   http://nwcny.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/nwc
Email: to...@nwcny.com
Phone: (888) 823-3494

[Ryan Price]

I like the Spread Firefox plan. Give everyone tools to spread the idea of Coworking around, an easy place to link to (but not the only place), enable people to create or post media, banners, maybe some buddy icons. 

Peace,

Ryan Price

rpr...@ryanpricemedia.com

@liberatr

407-484-8528

FloridaCreatives.com

Orlando Happy Hour: Mar 15th @ Crooked Bayou

Next Likemind: Mar 19th @ UrbanThink!

BarCampOrlando.org

Saturday, April 3rd, 9-6 @ Wall St Plaza

Flash Mob Pillow Fight to follow @pillowlando

[Tony Bacigalupo]

To that end, and in the hopes of stirring up better suggestions, here's my latest idea for Alex to consider and for everyone to discuss:

$100 from 100 people

- Individuals donate $100 apiece

- Total budget of $10k

- Anything Alex thinks could use the collective decisionmaking power of this group can put things to vote, and decisions can be made by majority.

- Once budget is met, original money is refunded to original donors.

- There will be a specified start time for accepting donations, noted in advance so people have sufficient notice that this is going to happen.

- We'd put word out on this group, to the people actually participating in this discussion, first-- so that the people who care and are passionate about this get first dibs.

Yes, some people will be left out, no it's not a perfect model, no it won't be a perfect representation of everyone's interests and opinions. But it will be a starting point from which actual decisions can be made as to how better act in the interests of the entire movement moving forward.

Tony

[Susan Evans]

I'll chime in and agree that getting the funding distributed among more people would be better than how we currently have things.  Opening up the doors to more folks who want to support the domain would be great, and making the donations smaller across more people would be awesome.

Tony, I like your idea of ensuring there is enough time for people to know when they can donate so that people have plenty of time to prepare to hit the "send" button. ;)

Thanks again Alex for keeping us on task!

S

__
Office Nomads
officenomads.com
206-484-5859

[Tony Bacigalupo]

Alex, would you like to set a deadline for suggestions as to how to proceed?

On Feb 25, 2010 2:36 PM, "Susan Evans" <susan....@gmail.com> wrote:

I'll chime in and agree that getting the funding distributed among more people would be better than how we currently have things.  Opening up the doors to more folks who want to support the domain would be great, and making the donations smaller across more people would be awesome.

Tony, I like your idea of ensuring there is enough time for people to know when they can donate so that people have plenty of time to prepare to hit the "send" button. ;)

Thanks again Alex for keeping us on task!

S
__
Office Nomads
officenomads.com
206-484-5859

On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Tony Bacigalupo <tonybac...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> To that end, and in the hopes of stirring up better suggestions, here's my latest idea for Alex ...

>
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 1:37 PM, Tony Bacigalupo <tonybac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>

>> Quic...

--

> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Coworking" group.

> To ...

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Coworking" group.

T...

[Alex Hillman]

I'd like to give people the weekend to brainstorm. Let's say 5pm EST on Monday.

/ah
indyhall.org
coworking in philadelphia

[Jerome Chang]

If we equalize the amounts across many people, it sounds to me like we have "shares" to a [corporate] legal entity.  We could either:

1. Continue to "sell" single shares to add'l people in the future, which would pay for hosting and domain renewals, or other related domain fees.

2. Redistribute each quarter any refunds.  Ie., we have 50 shares now @ $100 each for a total of $5k, then next quarter have 100 shares @ $50 ea so the original 50 get refunded $50.  It's like issuing more shares and proportionally diluting the value of a stock.

Either way, we could then assign each share as legally joining some basic basic entity to formally own the domain.

Jerome

______________
BLANKSPACES
"work wide open"

www.blankspaces.com
5405 Wilshire Blvd (2 blocks west of La Brea)
Los Angeles, CA 90036
323.330.9505 (office)

[Mike Schinkel]

On Feb 26, 2010, at 1:33 AM, Jerome Chang wrote:
> If we equalize the amounts across many people, it sounds to me like we have "shares" to a [corporate] legal entity. We could either:
> 1. Continue to "sell" single shares to add'l people in the future, which would pay for hosting and domain renewals, or other related domain fees.
> 2. Redistribute each quarter any refunds. Ie., we have 50 shares now @ $100 each for a total of $5k, then next quarter have 100 shares @ $50 ea so the original 50 get refunded $50. It's like issuing more shares and proportionally diluting the value of a stock.
>
> Either way, we could then assign each share as legally joining some basic basic entity to formally own the domain.

+1, if it can be handled without too much complexity. (The "shares" could be memberships instead of legal shares is shares make it complex with the bylaws describing the rights of "members.")

[todd@c4workspace]

I'm not clear about what the $10,000 is for. The domain is purchased.
Renewal is $9.95 for next year. Are we paying someone to build a
website? To mount a marketing campaign? Pay for events?

This sounds like an exclusive membership organization (country club)
in which those who can afford to join get a voice and those who can't
have to trust explicitly that the can-joins will vote in the interest
of the can't-joins. So how would that group expand? How would it
sustain? If someone "quits" the group do they get their "share"
refunded thus opening up a slot?

I appreciate that there are good intentions from all involved. But
this sounds counter-community. I appreciate that Alex (and Tony, et
al) have been pioneers, catalysts, authorities and mentors of the
movement. Thank you for all you've done. But we're all part of that
movement and we all need to have an equal opportunity to guide it
forward that is not limited by a cap on participation (100 people;
$10,000).

If we could all (generally) agree on two or three things we want to
accomplish as a group/movement then we would know what each of us
would be willing to spend money on. If a client came to you with
$10,000 and asked "What should I spend it on?" your professional
instincts would take over and you would ask "What is the problem
you're trying to solve?"

So why not bite the bullet and form a real organization (501c6 or c3)
and get on with it? The international organizational issues will not
be solved by us (as they have not been solved by other groups) in a
short amount of time. They are not social issues but jurisdictional
issues.

Many of us are in Austin at SXSW. We have the technological know how
to wire in many more. We can provide the opportunity for everyone who
wishes to participate to do so.

These are all great discussions but now we have to boil them down to
some concrete action so we can move together as a movement. We will
discuss, we will argue and will come to some consensus about the next
steps. To jostle a metaphor - The tiger has left the barn and now we
have to grab it by the tail.

Cheers!

Todd O'Neill
Catalyst
C4 Workspace

[Jerome Chang]

Alex/others, please correct me if I'm wrong, but $10k was arbitrary
and just for a simple example. And so was 100 people and $100. The
actual #'s would change periodically to include as many or few as
who'd want to be involved. Perhaps there'd be a budget for that
year's/quarter's project.

Jerome
______________
BLANKSPACES
"work wide open"

www.blankspaces.com
5405 Wilshire Blvd (2 blocks west of La Brea)
Los Angeles, CA 90036
323.330.9505 (office)

[Alex Hillman]

Correct. It was a simple number for illustrative purposes.

And again, a simple problem is being turned into a complex one:

Contributing towards the payment of the domain, for all intents and purposes, could get you ABSOLUTELY NOTHING except for the knowledge and acknowledgement that you helped make it happen.

Again, I'm citing SpreadFirefox. Many small contributions from individuals helped fund a marketing campaign for a piece of open source software. None of the contributors own firefox, or even the marketing campaign. They just got a "thanks", and the memory of being a part of that moment in time.

This isn't the last moment in time, and this isn't an exclusive club, and this isn't an organization. It's a domain. There will be other opportunities.

Let's set a good precedent for future opportunities, instead of dropping an anchor on their faces.

-Alex

/ah
indyhall.org
coworking in philadelphia

[Patrick]

The whole discussion is proof of why Alex needed to act quickly and
going world wide with the request wasn't the chosen method. We'd still
be here discussing and some business centre conglomerate would own the
domain if we'd discussed it at large.

I paid part of the domain, like pitching in when having a group
dinner. That's it. I didn't get, nor do I expect, nor deserve, nor am
I asking for any privilege in the future through that money. We needed
money, threw some in a pot, bought the domain. Cool, done.

Patrick
station-c.com

[TCS]

I'm with Patrick.  We contributed to lend a hand.  Let's move on folks.  Alex, you have a lot of great advice and I hope great mentors in your life - listen well, be wise and we're here to help if called on.  

Peace.

Chad

Chad

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Coworking" group.
To post to this group, send email to cowo...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to coworking+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/coworking?hl=en.

Chad Ballantyne

Creative Director

www.thecreativespace.ca

705.252.2423

ü Please consider the environment before printing this email.