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 On 16 February 2010 13:34, Mike Schinkel <mikeschin...@newclarity.net>wrote: > 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 > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Coworking" group. To post to this group, send email to cowork...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to coworking+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/coworking?hl=en.
