Event:2018/03/01 Delegates Meeting

Omni Delegates' Meeting - 1 March 2018 7pm-9pm

Agenda

 * Introductions, Meeting Roles, and Delegates Count [10 minutes]
 * Access Check-in [5 minutes]
 * Announcements [5 minutes]
 * Bans [5 minutes]
 * Working Group Report-Backs [15 minutes]
 * Member Collective Updates (10 minutes)
 * Proposal X: [15 minutes]
 * Discussion: Omni Table @ AMC [10 minutes]

Introductions
Introduce yourself: Name; Preferred Pronoun; Affiliation; any brief announcements; say whether you're a delegate; let us know about any access needs you have† † Is everybody able to participate fully in this meeting? Do people have unmet needs or concerns?
 * Jenny, Sudo Room, she/her
 * Liz, LL, she/her
 * Laura, finance and other WG, she/her
 * Marcus, he, him, various working groups
 * Ken, CCL,
 * Joe, FNB, Kitchen/Building, he/him
 * Julian, BAPS, pronoun: prefered not
 * Csaba (CHABA) - Came to US from Hungary 5 years ago, family guy, actor, gardener, EarthTribe? in Berkeley, theater
 * Brian, finance, he, him
 * robb, SUdo/LibLens, he/him
 * yar sudo she/her, remote, then IRL
 * Marc, Sudo room, he/him

Meeting Roles

 * Facilitator/s: Jenny
 * Explanation of hand signals: "deaf applause", "raised hand", "point of process", "direct response"(wildcard), etc.
 * Stacktaker: Brian
 * Timekeeper: Julian
 * Notetaker/s: Laura, Jenny, Liz, Brian, robb
 * URL of this pad: https://pad.riseup.net/p/omninom
 * Vibe Reader: Marcus
 * Next meeting's facilitator(s): Marcus

Delegates

 * ABDC: Marcus
 * BAPS: Julian
 * CCL: Ken
 * CSC:
 * FNB: Joe
 * GWS:
 * LL: Liz
 * Sudo: robb
 * TIL: inactive
 * GCEA:
 * Quorum: yes: 6/9 active collectives

New Bans/Mediations

 * Add to list of people asked to leave
 * Add to list of people asked to leave

Zachary Running Wolf Mediation Update

 * ZRW mediation ended a couple of months ago without a signed statement from him that he would abide by OC rules (Rules, Safer Space Policy, and Statement of Solidarity). BAPS agreed to have him as a member.
 * At Delegates meeting on 2/1/18, BAPS and others were reminded that the mediation was between ZRW and Omni, so whatever the outcome was of the mediation that might allow ZRW to participate in the Omni as more than a member of the public would need to be accepted by the delegates. Also, that the delegates had agreed that ZRW would need to sign a statement agreeing to abide by OC rules.
 * At the 2/15/18 Delegates meeting, Julian stated that ZRW might sign a statement.
 * On 2/18 Yar approved ZRW's key card application after being told by someone that he had "completed his mediation process by signing a document saying he'll follow Omni's rules". This is the document: https://drive.google.com/file/d/19TwtCBRmYkTi2LLzPEtXT7ezhruFq4ZV/view.
 * ZRW came to work on the computers Monday evening. Upon his arrival he was yelling and cursing about how he has been treated by the Omni. In addition to general insults and cursing, his statements included: The Omni has no right to say he can't store shit on his own land, that we should "be nice to the 1%" of indigenous people that survived, you "fucking ingrates, fucking cocksuckers". He said he's going "to find every one of the fucking..." who threw him out of the Omni, and specified Joe.
 * Since the delegates were not given a chance to see and approve this document as the conclusion to the mediation before the key card was approved, what action do the delegates want to take at this point?
 * Note: there was also the email thread subject lined "Not ZRW" 2/3/18-2/6/18

****Julian: Obviously, its not cool to interact in this way. Its worth noting that its not like nothing happened since when runnign wolf left, and now. I understand that its fucked up to treat people in the way that people are being treated by running wolf, but I also understand that he has been excluded from access if the people tasked with carrying out the mediation believe it to be complete - if they don't then we [lost some content] feels weird to go back on that. Unless it seems like there are significant reasons why we don't trust their mediation process "If at least one conflicting party does not consent to meet, or if at least one conflicting party is unavailable to meet in a reasonable time, all relevant circumstances considered, or if the Conflict Steward and Mediator agree after at least one meeting that further meetings would not be likely to lead to resolution, the issue is brought before the group in the following way: " - Could be that's where we're at, or there was a miscommunication at some point in the process and that's why it stalled. seems almaz as conflict steward believed it to be completed, and those who were involved in the process (joe, phil) do not. marc reads "i will continue to follow the rules once i have keycard access to the computers" - if he feels he was following them before that's problematic
 * Joe, Add to the background: Two things were done prematurely and irregularly were admitting him into our collectives without the ban being resolved.  This may have been predicated on Almaz statement that when she mentioned a signed statement a few meetings ago, that the statement was mixed up between the Omni required note, or between seeds statement of completion of mediation.  Asked Almaz to clarify it, but have not received a response.  I was in favor of having him back if the community would take responsibility, and it looks like thats what we've got.
 * Yar: omni can't dictate who's a member of any collective, only who's allowed in the building. collectives can exist beyond omni. i'm sorry if i jumped the gun giving him a card, i've been pressured on both sides and really didn't want to be involved either way
 * Julian, question about the nature of the statement that "was" written. It was not my understanding that what was required that he make a formal admission of guilt. From my perspective it doesnt make sense to have a mediation between the omni and an individual.  Not everyone who had issues with Runningwolf attended the mediation, which appears to be connected to some of the problems with this mediation process.
 * Laura, May be the case that there was a breakdown of process, but when mediation was happening delegates were not informed that it was NOT between the omni and ZRW. And if it was between individuals, don't think the individuals who were involved have been satisfied by outcome of mediation to the extent that he be given key access to the space.
 * Joe, Mediators weren't satisfied with outcome of mediation. When I or PHil would speak about something ZRW refused to engage / take accountability for past behaviors, and the mediator had a problem with that.
 * Brian: Did he actually complete the mediation? I was under the impression that the people in charge of the mediation deemed it complete.
 * Joe: No, not according to the mediators
 * Julian: Seems mediation isn't complete until all involved agree that it has been. Seemed from the 'Not ZRW' thread that those involved consented to the outcome of a signed document.
 * Joe: It seems like, based on the last appearance as Laura described, that nothing has sunk in here, and that RW believes he is exempt from our rules because we are on his land
 * robb: my experience seeing him for the first time back in the building was similar to what laura experienced. a barrage of "fuck yous" and threats / intimidations. nothing has changed, same as it was before
 * jnny: my experience much the same, stay avoidant / don't make eye contact. unfortunately he comes in around the same hours that i like to work in the office. too loud to do so anymore. omni may have less free accounting work :P
 * Joe: I hope nobody is getting the impression that anything Im saying has to do with his threats to me. He's a coward and a bully, I'm not afraid of his threats
 * Laura: I want to go back to whether there is any action that delegates want to take at this time.  I'm not a delegate, but I'm not comfortable with the way this was handled.  I think the delegates should review that document and decide if it demonstrates that he will be safe to have in the space and a productive member of the community
 * Liz: I have a question because I don't know much about running wolf's participation at the omni, but I've only ever seen him using computers, making a mess, falling asleep. I'm curious if he gives back to the omni.  is it a matter of principle?  Does he participate positively in this community. I know the OMni wants to make resources available to disadvantaged people and we have had very relaxed standards about who we let into the space, but there are limits. It seems like ZRW is long past those limits.
 * Yar: he's a baps member, i think that part is not anybody else's business. i agree he's not exempt from anti-harassment rules, and it sounds like he's harassing people, so fuck that
 * robb: Not aware of anything he does for the omni or for baps
 * murmurs of agreement from others
 * Ken: I'd like to take it out of Omni World for a moment and put it in the real world. We need to make decisions based on what makes this work here for all people. in that context, when somebody is making threats like this and, as joe says, he doesn't believe he's ... just if he actually does assault somebody we have that knowledge and forethought, omni overall becomes liable, and we have this building to lose. don't know the ramifications of lawsuits but is a huge can of worms... decisions were made that allowed him in. just saying that's the society we live in and if we value what we've built we have to take it into consideration. people on national news who make threats and follow through with them. uncomfortable with the situation as it hangs. i don't know, don't know the followthrough that we should have
 * Yar: does anybody think he's actually going to assault anybody? come on, that's a red herring and also if he assaults somebody the biggest problem is not "omg lawsuits" it's that somebody got assaulted. geez. this is why we have safe space policies and not cover-your-ass legalese
 * liz: not a red herring if he's making threats to do so. stating his intention so not a red herring
 * juul: threats of violence are cause for ban, don't need to wait /expect followthrough
 * Yar: what threats of violence? were there any?
 * robb: in resonse to laura's "what are the delegates going to do?" seems like a point of process. hasn't been any real conclusion to the mediation. process wasn't followed / completed and he shouldn't be allowed in the building until it is. delegates need a real informed discussion about the mediation process before we can let him in, is what i think
 * Brian: think my next statement is not one that I expected to be making. I have a lot of problems with Running Wolf but
 * Julian: I have 2 comments; One is to make reference to the conflict resolution process. "if at least one conflicting party is unable to meet...
 * Julian: My proposal: Don't feel it's reasonable to assess the content of the agreement if it says what it's supposed to say, but if those involved in the mediation don't feel it was
 * Liz: Is there a third option, that we end the mediation because we agree that we don't want to invite him back into the building?
 * Joe: Its hard to take the document he signed seriously, because his statement on Monday was that he felt like it was his right to store things on his land. Mediator from SEEDS said he was beyond their capability, since he refused to take accountability for his past actions
 * Julian: With respect to what joe just said, then it seems to me that its up to the people participating in the mediation process to determine whether you are satisfied with the outcome. With respect to Laura's comment about mediation, theres no question that there is an option to allow him back into the building.  The status of the omni rules allows for no actual adjudication.  It doesn't make sense to apply a safer space violation to an entirely different category of the process.
 * Ken: Didn't really understand that.. sounds to me like he believes he's completed a mediation process. Doesn't sound like the mediation had any effect, he's still behaving the same way. Back to square one of just violating Omni's rules whether we attempt mediation or not. Even if people think it's just blowhard stuff and not an actual threat...
 * Laura: There was a problem with his behavior in the space. The delegates decided what to do as the problems progressed. Previously, the delegates decided notot ban him, but that he was not a member of a collective, so he cant be in the building. He made a threat to break the windows, the delegates decided that if a window was broken then the ban would be put in place. The window was broken, he claims he didn't do it but he claims he didn't do anything. Decision was that he would agree to follow omni policies and sign something. He signed something, and the delegates have to look at it and decide if this is evidence that he's agreed to omni's rules. So delegates need to look at it and decide if he is to be allowed back in the building or if he's banned.
 * Julian: Steve and i, in speaking with RW at our last meeting, encouraged him to include a criticism of his experience with the omni throughout the course of this in his letter becase he didn't seem likely to agree to anything without that. And Steve and I and Almaz agree that we have some concerns about the wy this process has gone. So whether we're going to judge RW's mediation based on the letter that he signed (lost track)
 * joe: what was that concern?
 * julian: both of us have an issue with the banning as an approach to deal with ongoing community issues. important that we respond with more transformative justice approaches than exclusionary justice. way to look politically at some of the earlier isssues w/ omni
 * Yar: all for transformative justice, my idea would be you ask someone to leave, and then they transform, and then you invite them back. saying this as someone who does want ZRW to return. but harassment is not okay, and that's harassment. *shows us the letter* which is linked to in the pad
 * robb: violated them as soon as he walked into the building
 * Yar: My understanding is that the rules he was violating was storing stuff, sleeping, and harassing people.
 * Ken: No, he was sleeping in a sleeping bag.
 * Laura: He was not given permission to store objects. He left piles of belongings that he did not remove when notes were left that it was against Omni rules and that they would be removed. He hid his stuff in the basement that would be found when we were clearing it out.
 * jenny: robb and i can attest it was definitely *dozens* of times
 * yar: he mentions only a climbing rope that was stolen
 * jenny: not to my knowledge, a dresser full of his clothes and cans of spraypaint
 * joe: not a bad person, pretty delusional in certain ways. and he's duped us - went through the motions of a mediation, got a keycard and now he's back. hard to decide what to do now. he's going to be even more enraged
 * Marcus: I was wondering what is a transformative justice approach and what does it look like (to Julian)
 * Julian: My understanding of the safer space and conflict resolutino policy were baed on a model of transofrmative justice which, as Yar described, requires the transformation of the individual , but also a transformation of the community to ...(notetaker lost track) By comparison, a punitive justice model would be like you do something wrong once and you're out. So as far as we've spent 9 months in mediation, you can argue that we've at least aspired to a transformative justice approach
 * Marcus: Do you have an actual process for doing that? (a process is outlined on our Wiki but it abstracts a lot of the hard work required to actually do it)
 * Ken: If, I assume, or I'm wondering. If we decide or we make a decision what does that mean?  If we  make a decision that the negotiation doesn't count, do we just de-activate his card?  Do you (yar) feel comfortable knowing that he knows you were the one de-activating the card.
 * Yar: I would be comfortable looking him in the eyes and telliing him that I deactivated his card becasue the Omni delegates told ne to.
 * Julian: I heard two proposals on the table.  Either we make a decision based on the current letter, or ask him to rewrite it.  Or the proposal that I made earlier, that the people who were participating in the mediation process should come in with a position here.  I dont see how its possible that the omni is involved in a mediation with an individual.
 * Robb: I think you're partially right, I think Laura's proposal doesn't quite reach everything. Let's just pretend that he completed everything to the delegates' satisfaction: the first thing he did when he walked in wa to rant and threaten people just like before. So he just negated the whole process.
 * Yar: Just to be clear, who was present when he came back, specifically on Monday.
 * Laura: I was
 * Robb: I wasn't there when she was there.  But I had the exact same experience.
 * yar: what time of day was it?
 * Laura: five ish?
 * Robb: I left around midnight and RW was still there.
 * Jenny: I overhead when he was yelling at robb.
 * Robb: There was one other person up there.  I dont know his name.  He is often up in the computer areas.
 * yar: don't make a decision out of fear
 * ken:
 * robb: implied threats, "i'm gonna find you motherfuckers and..." then trails off. He has raised a fist to me. He handed a phone to me, and as soon as I turned away his fist was moving towards me.  I dropped the phone and moved away. He has raised it to that level and continues to make the threats. Guess anytime he comes here I'll just avoid him, because I'm certain he'll start muttering threats again.
 * Joe: I cant see how I would accept this letter.  There are personally a bunch of defamatory lies in here about me.  He claims that I was waiting for matt to die, so that running wolf wouldnt have any member of a collective to sponsor him.  He says I was racist for refusing to admit that he was a native elder, and I never refused to admit that.  I have said to him many times that he's not a leader.
 * Yar: Did you say, your not an elder?
 * Joe: No, I said if your a leader where are your followers?
 * Yar: When I met tomas hodgeman I asked him "did he break the window", He said "I am certain that he did not break the window".  I then said "did he threaten to break the window" he chuckled and said "I dont know".
 * Ken: He was at the meeting where that was discussed.  He has lied to us.
 * Yar; what did he lie about?
 * Ken: He said that I said Runningwolf was not a native american.  i never did. I had heard he wasn't and I asked about it, but at the next meeting he had told running wolf that I said he wasnt a real native american.
 * Robb: The threat about the window was made to Dante, and dante informed the delegates.
 * Laura: He was basically saying to dante "stay away from the windows"

Proposals
1) Make a decision based on current letter or ask him to rewrite it
 * yar - too vague
 * jenny: don't feel comfortable w/ current letter (joe seconds)
 * Liz: i don't see any point in asking him to rewrite it
 * robb: if we want a statement or agreement, seems we should write it and list the specific things we dont want him to do
 * Ken: I was just reading this and of all the things he is saying here that has to do with Omni is that his inabiltiy too use Omni computers has prevented him from carrying on his campaigns. He has options besides us like the public library. We're are not preventing him from carrying out his campaign.
 * julian: letter is not at the heart of this. it's about the behavior - whether he signs a thing or not i don't see how that could really satisfy people. I dont think this proposal is where it's at.
 * Yar: In general, harassment is a good reason to ban someone. I wouldn't be comfortable banning someone for any other reason but harassment and threats of violence crosses a line for me. I'm not comfortable with saying "your letter isn't subservient enough" or something.
 * Liz: why are we putting so much energy into this with ZRw when we have banned other people for much less, fairly nice people who contributed to the community? Why are we spending so much time on this?
 * Julian: As far as I know those people did not seek a mediation process.  I think its worth putting it out there that in the future we should persue mediation, instead of putting the onus on the banned person to initiate mediation
 * Joe: I want to be perfectly clear in what I heard from the mediation.  Accusation that rules were selectively enforced was brought up at the first meeting, she said it was brought up.  She said that there were other groups who could help with that.  AORTA and Critical Resistance

2) Have other participants, if they feel unresolved, state that with the conflict stewards and continue working toward a solution
 * Thumbs up: Julian
 * thumbs down: joe - when i found out letter coming from SEEDs was untrue, wrote an email inquiry, asked her twice and she decided she wouldn't respond at all. couldn't give her the responsibility to move forward with the mediation.
 * robb: point of process, all involved need to consent to who the steward is
 * joe - would be willing to continue with mediation generally
 * Jenny- we coild perhaps reach out to AORTA or Critical Resistance to support as possible conflict stewardship
 * Yar: I am willing to participate in the mediation, though I am leaving town for a little while.
 * Jenny - I would participate in a good faith attempt at mediation with a different conflict steward

3) Based on his behavior upon return we should ban him, as its unacceptable.
 * LIz: This is what LL would choose. We didn't know if this was going to come up, but if such a vote took place, we agreed to block him from returning, and we suspect a couple other collectives would as well.
 * julian: in terms of conflict resolution policy, can you block a completed mediation?
 * liz: if we thought there were any results to the mediation process... 2 mediation meetings in 9 months. other option is another round of mediation talks. is this viable? we have several members who don't feel comfortable with him in the space
 * Laura: julian - just because you weren't there when the delegates made this decision to agree to return with condition of a completed mediation and a signed agreement. didn't get to the point where ZRW
 * Julian: I was saying that it doesn't make sense
 * Liz: I'm not willing to sit through any more delegate meetings about RW, personally. LibLens position is pretty clear - he abuses the resources that we give people access to, doesn't participate in stewarding the space. don't think it's right that we continue to allow him to be here
 * ken: not taking any particular position. fine with any decision the community makes.
 * joe: considering proposing we declare the process has been corrupted, the letter has too many flaws in it, almaz' false statements to us and refusing to discuss them with me are ground for negating everything that's happened and revert to banning until we can do what's needed
 * ken: several people from collectives who didn't feel comfortable directly participating in the mediation, but were directly affected. healthy thing to have an intermediary when one feels threatened. right there might be enough to say - if you feel that threatened there's no point in pursuing mediation
 * such people have seen how he targets and harasses individuals who he feels has wronged him.
 * robb: was reluctant to do it because of the nature of threats toward me but willing to participate in the mediation as an offended party
 * yar: do you want me to deactivate his card now and inform him next time he leaves he wont be able to get back in
 * robb: was hopeful that he'd come back and be more respectful
 * julian: don't think it's necessary to invoke a new ban since we've come to agreement that the process was not completed. Am not on ZRWs side per se, just feel it's important to work on these issues as a community / refine process

Building & permits
Meetings: 1st & 3rd Mondays @ 6pm
 * This group needs help; https://omnicommons.org/lists/listinfo/building
 * This group needs help; https://omnicommons.org/lists/listinfo/building

Commons
Meetings: First and Third Thursdays at 6pm
 * This group needs help:
 * https://omnicommons.org/lists/listinfo/commons
 * https://omnicommons.org/lists/listinfo/booking
 * https://omnicommons.org/lists/listinfo/booking

Communications
Meetings: Second and Fourth Wednesdays at 6pm

Finance
Meetings: Currently conjoined with Fundraising, 2nd & 4th Mondays at 6pm

Fundraising
Meetings: Currently conjoined with Finance,, 2nd & 4th Mondays at 6pm

Member Collective Updates
What is going on with your collective? What are you working on? What have you accomplished? Any events coming up? Any difficulties you are encountering that you need help with?

LL

 * Close to finishing a medium-length doc about the First They Came For The Homeless protest. Members preparing to go to the National Association of Broadcasters tradeshow in Las Vegas again this year (April). Looking for a film to screen for March film night, open to suggestions.

Sudo

 * Marc: As a member of Sudo Room, I am blocking Almaz as secretary-elect due to repeated issues with how she has engaged with people when they try to talk with her about issues having to do with how she was dealing with events. There were events she had publicized as having alcohol but didn't get a permit. On New Year's Eve, the cops showed up earlier in the evening and she was having an event in the ballroom with alcohol. When I asked her about having alcohol she became defensive and said the cops hadn't come. I said that Rayc had interacted with them and told me. She said that Rayc was lying and accused me of being a white supremacist. This has been her pattern of interacting.
 * Julian: Theres something really...this makes me uneasy. The situation in which a black person is saying that they are experiencing racism, and the response is to sanction them.  I just want to point out that this is the standard structure of white supremacy.  I'm not saying that you are white supremacist, just there is a history of white people silencing black people, especially when they are voicing concerns about racism.
 * Yar: Was this discussed at a Sudo meeting or is it personal?
 * Juul: It was not discussed
 * Yar: Then you should be sure to present it as your personal block, not that it's on behalf of Sudo. I haven't had the same experience with Almaz, and I've been happy that she's shown an interest in participating further
 * Ken: Question:  I understood we are having a person in each position, and a person in the backup position.  I'm not saying this resolves it, but would it resolve it if the person helping train her into this position is helping her address the - If someone is willing to spend time with her and train her up in that way, but it seems like a touch decision to *make* someone train her. The goal was that the main person now would train the next person so they have a year's worth of experience on the job. Mybe one year from now she wouldn't get voted in?
 * yar: Not how it works, consensus happens now so that when Brian resigns, she would automatically become the secretary
 * Brian: That's not my understanding
 * Laura: It appears from the last meeting that people wanted a more clear process, which I'm in the process of writing
 * Ken: I can understand concerns about the racial situation, but if peopel are objective to the way she dealt with a situation, does it automatically become a racial thing or
 * yar: Everything is automatically a racial thing
 * ken: I understand that context. What I'm saying is, override everything else, and she makes decisions that have ramifications and she can't take feedback and change, isn't that a concern? Need to discuss details of NYE event to understand context?
 * Robb: I'd just like to say that if we're trying to decide now, who is going to be the tresurer secretary, etc now for what happens a year from now, then I would just block the whole proposal.  The nice thing about consensus is that we can weigh decisions based on the facts at hand, not write things in stone based on what the situation may be a year from now.

Discussion: Omni Table @ AMC
via Jenny 2/23: I'd like to propose that Omni pay for an exhibition table ($100) at the Allied Media Conference this summer in Detroit. I will be attending, albeit also as a representative for Sudo Mesh.

For those unfamiliar with the conference, it's one of the radder ones I've heard of over the past decade - but have never attended myself. The theme is essentially the intersection of social justice and media - what AMC describes as "media-based organizing," defined as "any collaborative process that uses media, art, or technology to address the roots of problems and advances holistic solutions towards a more just and creative world." This is the 20th annual conf, which is always located in Detroit, and takes place this summer from June 14-17.

Are any other collective members also planning to attend? Would you be interested in sharing an Omni table to display info about your projects and/or helping to staff the table for some shifts throughout the duration of the conference?

Please forward this email along to your collectives so we can assess our capacity to participate!

If there aren't a few other Omni collective members able to come and help staff the table, perhaps Omni could share Sudo Mesh's table and collectives could provide me with some of your handouts / brochures / flyers / arts / etc for display

Please send a reply to me or to discuss@omnicommons.org if you'd like to help with organizing around AMC!

Last Meeting Notes
https://omnicommons.org/wiki/Event:2018/02/15_Delegates_Meeting

= End of Meeting =
 * please archive these meeting notes by copying the entire pad contents onto the omni wiki
 * then please erase the contents of this pad
 * then please cut & paste a blank template from here: https://omnicommons.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Delegates_Meeting_Notes_Template&action=edit
 * previous notes are archived here: https://omnicommons.org/wiki/Meetings