Event:2021/01/28 Delegates

From Omni Commons
Revision as of 14:59, 31 January 2021 by Yar (talk | contribs) (redact personal info)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Omni Delegates' Meeting - January 28 2021 7pm-9pm

A special delegates meeting to talk about resolving ongoing conflicts & problems

1. Joining info:

2. URL of these notes: https://omnicommons.org/notes

3. Please add items to the agenda below and send any proposals to consensus@lists.omnicommons.org prior to the meeting

4. For instructions on preparing and archiving these notes, please see the bottom.

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†

  • WHY DO WE ASK PRONOUNS? To make space for people who are trans, nonbinary, gender noncomforming or otherwise vulnerable to being misgendered. It's not an invitation to make jokes or trivialize the idea of pronouns. If you are fine with the gender and pronouns society generally assigns to you, please just say what they are without fanfare or embellishment. Conversely, please don't pressure anybody to give their pronouns, as that can harm trans people who are closeted or questioning. The point is to prompt and normalize asking, but not to mandate or enforce. Thank you! <3 Yar
  • Helen she/her
  • Yar she/her
  • Rachel she/her
  • MaryAnn she/her
  • Robb
  • Silver they/them
  • Jane
  • Roberto
  • Joe

Access Check In

Is everybody able to participate fully in this meeting? Do people have unmet needs or concerns?

Meeting Roles

  • Facilitator/s: helen
  • Explanation of hand signals: "deaf applause", "raised hand", "point of process", "direct response"(wildcard), etc.
  • Stacktaker: none
  • Timekeeper:
  • Notetaker/s: yar
  • Vibe Reader: everybody
  • Who will out next meeting's agenda beforehand:
  • Next meeting's facilitator(s):

problems

  • Helen: we should all get on the same page. What are the problems we'd like to solve with this process? Not a discussion of the problems, just identify them and make a list.
  • Rachel: I sense tension in meetings. Things are said that you don't know what's behind it. It's disruptive. We're in a crisis right now - huge obstacles to overcome. We want to feel like we're all in this together, we appreciate each other, we know each other. In the end we all have different strengths & weaknesses, but it feels like that isn't appreciated among us sometimes. It doesn't feel like there's respect for each other, how we all come from different places. I wish we could all feel like we're really pulling together and we're gonna get through this together. But charges of racism & sexism are getting thrown out in meetings. I want us to get to the bottom/root of it. It makes the meeting tense when it's not explained. So we can have better working relationships. That's key for our survival. There's all these tensions and we all hate each other ... I'm not saying that but it's just a vibe. I don't even know what they are. Just speak our truths and be able to say what we feel and hear it and try and sort it out, and get to a higher level of respect.
  • Yar: #1 I'm afraid of Omni loosing people. Want people to feel safe and comfortable and valued and able to continue working on this project together.
  1. 2 fears for the future - i want omni to expand in the next few years, and to do that folks need to be compatible with activist cultures of young, poc, gay & trans communities, in which raising systemic issues is common & normal. and ready to hear criticism and new ideas with open hearts #3 More specifically, immediate conflicts have been around Robb. Lot of people say they feel unsafe around Robb, but Robb hasn't been able to see those criticisms as valid because he attributes bad motivations to them all. it's become toxic and we need to come together to heal this rift #4 Please use people's correct pronouns. As a trans woman, I used to be misgendered a lot and it still stings to hear other people being misgendered.
  • Joe: I think the biggest and hardest thing for me to deal with and to see happening at omni is all of the distrust. it seems like all of a sudden things were going along - not smoothlyof course, like with noma - but just last week when i thought it was just a matter of licenses and paperwork, formal structures like that, it seemed to erupt into something more emotional. the trust issue comes out. it's really hard to see becaues we're all so close. they talk about percentage of dna. our political dna is like 110% and yet we get caught up in these things are we're at opposite ends of a spectrum it seems. so i want to see us set up ways and i'd hope we eventually get to the point where we're more comfortable with spontaneous honesty and won't be dependent on the formality of a meeting or a facilitator. it's a long way away but that's my dream. that we establish a comfort with talking to each other openly, honestly & spontaneously. that'll do.
  • jane: i feel the tension. we have such potential, but we're immersed ... it's hard, we don't get any training how to work things out / resolve. we can try to do things in a different way. not presume that we're working at odds. so my hope is that we can find new ways of resolving these problems without closing our hearts off to each other.
  • maryann: for me the issue is getting clarity and it revolves around trust. there's been a lot of misunderstanding and idk where it comes from, some might be that many of us who are kinda doing the admin work from home don't see what's going on at omni and yet there's people doing really important work there. i think that disconnect might have some influence on people having different perceptions of things. there's clearly accentuation of misinformation and therefore questions of trust that arose around the grant we received from the SF foundation and i'd like to get clarity for everybody involved in that (like noma) so they really understand what that thing was about. i awnt to apologize, apparently i used the term "lobbying" that some people think was negative. i'm sorry if that affects people negatively, i think that's some of my chicago political sarcasm coming out. i try to keep that in check but sometimes it comes out. i'm sorry silver if you were offended by that. i wish vicky was here so i could apologize to [them]. there's a membership that was submitted that all of us want to support. unfortunately it seems like there was a lack of clarity in the process that we put online or that -- idk when it was put there, a long time ago maybe. it wasn't as clear as it could have been. we really want to work with noma to help them understand that process and get their application brought into what omni needs to approve it. we are supportive of their efforts to join. this was clarified at fin/fun on tuesday, and we did send an email to vicky. i hope [they] got that expressing the position but urging [them] to come through fin/fun and go through that process. after one of the meetings i called laura, because she did these applications & understood it more than perhaps anyone else. i asked laura questions ...
    • helen interrupts to keep her on track
    • maryann: there's a lot of misunderstanding and we want to get clarity and develop a mutual relationship of trust & support
  • robb: one problem i have is, the delegates passed that proposal to hold commons wg members accountable to a high level of standard and i feel that a lot of time when you try and do that it creates a lot of tension, i wish it was clear what's alloewd and what isn't allowed or what. but it seems like not many people really uphold some of the building policies. it falls on just like 2 people or something to do it.
  • silver: i feel like i have so much to say. i want to respond but i'm not gonna! i just wanna say a lot of these problems ... a lot of pain that i feel, that comrades feel, come from a deeper feeling that omni presents (pre-covid) inclusivity and this normalization around robb being called a cop of omni and everybody feeling ok with that, and i'm ok with it at moments - he regulates the security, takes care of it - but from my understanding i thought we were trying to fight the state and the system of cop mentality. there's a lot of things that come along with it that's not necessarily an attack on any individual, when talking about white supremacy/racism. it juts has to surface sometimes and it makes people uncomfortable. it's sad to me when we can't talk about it. we can all contribute to it. i want us to have a deep conversation about white supremacy. what's our alignment? are we trying to abolish white supremacy? and .... all these policies... david keenan ... they were keen on making sure the ts were crossed, is dotted, because the ywerok within the city. but there's ways we can motivate each other and make sure we support each other and i'm just really sad, because... i've been asking for help for years now from the robb situation. he made me feel like i don't belong. i always felt like i didn't belong as much as he did. i had to do twice as much work to feel like i belong there. it makes me so sad. why do i have to try so hard? it's been a lot of emotiuons, i feel like i'm always trying to prove things. i feel comfortable crying in front of you guys, i trust you, i've just been feeling sad for so long, it just gets brushed under. it's not just me, it's a lot of people. what are we doing to address this harm and hurt? what's the point of protecting omni if it's for no one? so i'm being really vulnerable, those are things i want to address. i could be wrong. i just feel a lot of hurt from robb. him and i have years of me saying "hey i don't like the way you treat me' and him saying sorry, but ithappens agian and again. when does it stop? when do i stop feeling like i'm not good enough?
  • roberto: thank you, important to acknowledge that people feel hurt & unwelcome, that don't feel like they can be part of omni. i think we have to take that very seriously. understand why people feel that way. i'm concerned the same way all of us are concerned, i don't think omni was meant to make people feel sad or unwelcome or unsafe or unwanted. i'm concerned about that, also with a sense of ownership of omni by a few of us that are in power, like a lot of us here have been with omni for a while, active participants, some from very beginning, some for several years, moreso than some of the newer people here. i think with that comes a sense of protectiveness/defensiveness, that we gotta protect omni in some ways. that's a place of love, but can come out as very protective and at times hurtful. exclusive. we gotta check the fact that we're closing ourselves off to our actions & words, with the perceptions that ew give off, partly because we wanna keep omni going, but we gotta make sure... sense of ownership can be detrimental. it's not ours, it's everybody's, it's the community's. when i came here i read several founding documents and it was very enlightening to see where it came from, what sentiments were there when omni came to be. i was just reading the statement of purpose. beautiful words. safer space. a lot of thought was put into place, and i thinkw e need to take a look once again to figure out what we're about, what we're supposed to be, what we are. all to say there's an issue of power. who holds it? we have to be aware. some people who've been here the longest, us, the delegates, hold a lot of power, we have to be aware of that. i'm looking at who's here and who's part of the delegates, and... is this as diverse as it can be? do we hold the most diverse perspectives in this delegates assembly? this is where poewr is held, not the volunteers, the people doing work. for me, it's an issue of poewr. we have to really think about how we have/hold the power a

nd what that means. ultimately we wanna be critical of power, diffuse it, have everyone have a sense of ownership of omni. power's tied to race, class, different isms. we have to continue being critical of that all the way. critical of the rules we make. we're not here to play police, we're here to make this place as inclusive as we can. so we gotta be critical of even our own policies. critical of ourselves. thank you.

  • Helen: well! people brought a lot of different perspectives on the same issue which is how we ... treat/approach each other, but also how we see our personal positions within omni. my 2nd question was going to be, if we set up this 2nd meeting or series of meetings, what would you like to see come out of it? some have already spoken to that but i'd just go around again and see if people can put into just a couple words what they saw as the problem ... just sort of sum it up in some very brief 5 words or less kinda statement what your perspective is, then we'll go around and ask about outcomes
  • yar concerned that creates opportunities for responses which we're not ready for.. i took notes so we don't have to summarize right now

outcomes

  • helen: we're proposing to go through a process which would have a desirable outcome. so what outcome would you like to see? some addressed that but not everyone.
  • rachel: to me the deepest issue i heard ... but robb and silver, to me that's a thing that needs addressing because it does affect a lot of meetings, and spelled out now, what has been said, i'm just thinking of, how do we address that? 2 people have different ways of looking at it and power relations do come up. i don't know the story... not gonna get into... it's something that feels really needs to be addressed but frankly talked about and to find a way through it because that's what i heard the most jarring conflict. it's a conflict. until that gets sorted ...
    • helen: so you'd like to see that sorted out
    • yeah. hopefully by talking about it and heraing each person's side. we heard a little bit of it. that we can deal with it together and move forward together and see our way through it.
  • yar: What I need mostt of all from others is a committment from folks with social priviledge have uncomfortable conversations. I worry that people get stuck in their comfort zones and I would like to see people stepping out of their comfort zones. A necessary precursor. Sorry Yar got lost a bit... Please add.
  • joe: idk how this is all gonna work. in a way, the problem of trust, of power, and of robb being accused of being a police type person, are all very interwoven, but i don't know if the same meeting with the same facilitator is gonna deal with those different things. if it comes to a choice, or to separating them, i'd say the facilitator would be better at dealing with restructuring omni so there's less oportunity to have unequal distribution of power... i see that as related to what yar said. it's a way of saying a new structure would allow people less to "not question" or accept their privileges. to allowed people to be less insulated in their privilege, or that... one very personal thing, and one very institutional thing, with some overlap, but we can do them separately... it keeps coming down to how we're going to get the work done. really just to wax philosophical, i can see that mytime on this earth has been fucked up. i've been for 78 years influenced by all kinds of assholes, from the daily news to all theother crap, to yknow, everything i've gone through, including all the beautiful wonderful work i've done with great radicals. but on top of that youhave to overlay this huge problem of ego, we don'thave real communities, we're so individualized. going from that youhave to expect a lot of personal problems at this time in our society, in personalrelationships within institutions. i believe in omni, so i think restructuring would get us around some of the pitfalls. it's hard. iv'e seen this happen 4 or 5 times now. i'm in 2 groups with problems now. hard & frustrating.
  • Helen: my next question was about splitting problems up. this is just about what outcomes we'd like to see
  • Jane: i think sharing the responsibilities would really help. i've been in situations where i've had to be the bad guy and it's not fun whatsoever. but sharing of keeping boundaries clear, keeping everybody safe, if that can be shared among people, it wouldhelp a lot. keeping an eye on our racism that soaks in withoutour permission, and our sexism. these thing just sort of soak in, you have to keep an eye on them. but the sharing of responsibilities is big.
  • maryann: i think there are issues of clarifying responsibilities and also accountability. i think that very often people are not accountable for some of their interactions and that cna create problems. i'm hearing stuff from the previous go-around that i had no idea existed. i think it' sreally important that we're clear with each other what the responsibility is and how to be accountable. because not all of us maybe understand that. we live ina racist society and sexist, and i think what jane said is also true of me. it seeps into all of us. every single one of us has difficulty with that, and we don't all view it the same way. but if we give our honest feelings & thoughts it's ok to have different ideas. we don't all have to think the same. but we do need to be clear and straightforward and responsible and accountable. and i hope we can get some understandings of that through this process. that's all.
  • robb: i'd like to restore good relations with silver. i think #1. but also i think what we need is a ... we have responsibilities to keep this building safe and not get in trouble with all kinds of different threat sectors, and i think we need a way of making sure that happens that's distributed. maybe that's like agreeing to certain things before you get a keycard. some sort of generalized understanding of what you can and can't do so there's no confusion as to it.
  • silver: a lot to say! first i want to say, robb and i never had a good relationship after 3.5 years. wanted to be clear about that. but i want one! i value all the work they do. i feel like i'm doing a lot of work trying to hold robb accountable for things he does to me and other POC, people who refuse to go back to omni because of harm robb has done to them. i'm not perfect, i also need to be held accountable, i'm pretty sure i'm fucking up in a lot of this, i invite people to critique me. let's feel comfortable with uncomfortable so we can do better constantly. my main goal with all of this is to meet with mutual aid. i want all of us to hear everyone to love everyone, to feel caring. trust comes with all that. i want to get to know everybody, to show up for you all as much as i can. things that need challenging we'll do so with care and love. there's a lot we can contribute & understand each other with. better or worse. connect however we can. having a safe place to build community is important to survive. we have so much resources and love. it's just communication we're working on, that's all.
  • roberto: i'd like to see 2 things. 1) similar to what yar said, personal commitment to be critical of our own privileges, whatever those may be, and be aware of how they affect our perspective and how we approach the world, relate to each other, how they may come with power 2) a reaffirmation of omni's commitment as an organization to those same values that we started off with. often we forget that we have been around ~5/6/7/8 years, there's a lot that we have as omni done as an organization. a lot of knoweldge, time, love that's gone into it, to really create a lot of resources that we have at our hands. i think i wanna see an organizational commitment to reaffirm those values that we as omni hold true to ourselves. just reading from the wiki page, "the primary goal of the omni ...." all these things we've discussed, talked about for hours/days, that we can look back to, and reroot ourselves with those. so i want to see that. but i think more concretely, it'd be nice to develop a roadmap/plan to try to in a tangible way, diffuse the power that we have right now, that's consolidated in a certain space, perhaps delegates assembly or finance committee... diffuse it to everyone. reactivate working groups. the structure that we have in place. and be intentional in welcoming and inviting more people into omni and letting go of that power that we hold and allow for a younger more fresh people to take the reigns of omni and take it wherever it needs to go, without us being protective about it. that's understanding there's a lot of responsibilities we hold as an official nonprofit. we need to stay alive. there's judiciary things we hold, that can happen i think, with being inclusive and welcoming. i think having a specific plan to let go of / diffuse our power, expand ourselves, be more welcoming. instead of putting up barriers, beaurocratic or whatever, we need to encourage people and make it as easy as possible for people to join with us, that's the only way we're gonna

survive. that was our intention from the beginning i think. i wasn't there but i feel that's the spirit.

  • helen: i missed the beginning of omni. fnb was invited to join these people who had this idea to buy a building. i thought "these people are nuts" but look what we have, this beautiful thing. we've got these bumps in the road but we can work through them and continue to build it.

solutions

  • helen: my next question was, all these problems and roots to improve are all linked together... but there's also several branches. 1) structural/organizational, diffusion of power, openness of structure. 2) personal, mutual trust & love, overcoming of our personal prejudices and dealing with our privilege status if we happen to have one of those, and our personal commitment to our basic values we set up. 3) subset of that, one particular problem between 2 people that's arisen. may be a separate thing. idk whether there's other particular problems between other individuals. given me a lot to think about. stuff we need to process. to solve this problem. does it make sense to address them separately?
  • silver raised hand, to address the distrust thing: it's super crazy, i feel like trust is a very interesting thing. it's intuitive. my understanding of trust is i trust everyone all the time. i have nothing to lose. i have nothing. this objective of understanding we have nothing to lose. i trust everybody except for robb in this group honestly... but i want to. it means get to know each other. what we mean to do what we do. i have no fear around anything because for me, i have nothing to lose. we have nothing to lose, we have each other. everything can be taken away, omni can get taken away but we still have each other, can still show up for each other. this intentional care, deep rooted understanding of each other, so we can trust each other. i know the things i'm doing are things i want you to do to me. i hope that's the same. love & care aren't pushed in nonprofit culture, but that's where we're rich. we live in abundance of love & care.
  • helen: thanks for that feeling of abundance. how should the process be? how to do this thing? should these branches be dealt with separately? in separate meetings?
  • Yar: I like Helen's idea of making a structure. I'm envisioning a group chat where robb & silver talk to each other and the rest of us listen in as witnesses and guardrails

[15 minute break]

  • yar: i'm talking with barbara from seeds on tuesday. need a budget. these notes will be helpful. suggest holding space for silver & robb to talk to each other, being witnesses and ensuring safety
    • silver: no safe spaces!
  • joe: since silver said multiple poc have problems with omni and robb, we should make this process available to them, if they've been harmed to the point they can't even come anymore
    • yar: it'd help a lot to have a black facilitator for those conversations. common feedback i got is it's hard to be the only black person (for example) critiqueing a group of white folks
  • rachel: we need a way to deal with things as they come up. they fester. we've talked about this in the past. if you feel there was a concrete issue that happened there should be a place or people to go to , a committee set up that can look at it, some mechanism where things come up, so it doesn't go on and on, and i think it's important to be concrete, just saying there's white supremacy, of course there is. we're always in it. but it needs to be concrete too. like this happened to me, on this occasion, and this was said. what words were said? just throwing out things that aren't concretized are... we need that to be able to know the situations that have come up based on concrete things that have happened
    • silver: my housemate wants to respond to that, who's been here with me.
    • miliaku, silver's housemates: i can understand that impulse to want something specific. anybody can argue it, for example with treyvon martin & george zimmerman... he's not racist because he's latinx etc... whether or not it was a hate crime. but ithink the impulse we have to make a legal case, to make it about 1 on 1 things, to try and pull out very specific things, it's how we're all socialized in our cheap ass education system, but it's a trap for us to ... the system to go unnoticed. gets harder for us to wrap our head around but that's the... we need to change who we are and how we are fundamentally / institutions. we can talk about specifics all day, and we've all experiecned a hostile environment towards black people. it won't solve it.
    • rachel: it's not just an impulse i've worked in a multiracial palce..
    • miliaku: and yet the probelm persists, systemically, all around you, not sepraate, multiracial or not, not to say you can't be part of conversation, we can all talk every day but the problem persists
  • joe: reminded me of NVC process, i did video with them, it's brilliant, sitting down and sayingthings like "when you did this i felt this". "can i ask you to change your behavior in this way so that i'll feel differently". very direct. pretty extensive network of facilitators in bay area. it works. marshall rosenberg serves as mediator with palestinians and israelis all over the world. that was my comment
  • yar suggests we start with a conversation between silver & robb, with the rest of us showing up as witnesses to hear & hold them accuontable to what they say to each other
  • roberto: echoing miliaku, specifics are good sometimes but it's more than that, acknowledge the system outside omni / world is riddled with white supremacy. that manifests itself in different ways. also true at omni. it's not specific events, rather it's how we relate to each other. what we prioritize as an org. what we consider right or wrong. what we emphasize as an org, what we put time in, enforcing certain rules. who do we make space for unconsciously? it's obvious, just look at our, look who'shere, how many poc? it's that obvious. who's welcome. that's a very specific thing there, it goes beyond that. all the subtle ways we manifest through way of being in the world. who do we prioritize.
  • helen: robb, how do you feel about yar's proposal?
  • robb: that's fine, it could be this group or with someone joe was suggesting. i'm slightly familiar with that approach, comfortable with that. whatever we decide is best.
  • silver: is down. let's shift from comfortability. comfortability is white supremacy & patriarchy. discomfort is, listening to new ideas. we'll sit together, listen to each other to a point where we... the cool thing about consensus. it kind of slips through the cracks with us. we shouldalwaysfeel good togehter, ideas decisions understanding. i want us to feel ok with us feeling discomfort. challenge things. lean into challenging.
    • open to it evolving and changing too. change ideas and shift narratives
  • joe: i'd be willing if the group wants, to pursue both possibilities, i can look up some contacts and resources in NVC
  • yar: maybe joe can join conversation with barbara / seeds. also, we have specific things, that will happen.
  • helen: who's ok with that conversation with silver & robb
    • jane is ok with that as long as silver & robb are comfortable with it, even though uncomfortability ... if they feel it could be productive i'd support that
    • joe: i want to reiterate/remind that it's important for the guardrails the rest of us, the witnesses, to be there, that's how we'll learn this process and institute it amongst each other. the specifics are reallynot things where you're trying to find the value of the harm or put any kind of final verdict on things. what the specifics are in this NVC process, they allow people to hear other people say what was going on in their being when something happened, so you hopefully develop the ability to understand people react differently. you may be hurting somebody when you don't even know they're hurting somebody... the fact that people get a chance to see how they're interpreted correctly or incorrectly... helps people to be empathetic with their communication and responses, and hopefully less violent.
  • roberto: we're proposing to be in this discussion between silver & robb - as witnesses or to take part also? either/or i think, i wonder, if we need a more diverse set of perspectives of people in that room to balance perspectives in the conversation. but i'm unclear as to the role of other people being there, what these guardrails entail.
  • silver: this conclusion that silver and robb need to have this conversation, came from a specific long conversations with yar who's been showing up for me nonstop in so many ways. thank you. and joe, nonstop, just showing up, things that i've been a little bit outspoken about, maybe it's not my place, there's a lot of people feeling hurt, so we can be silent about it... i've been speaking. i'vehad emails with maryann where they said they can't do anything about it. jane and rachel said "robb is not violent to you because he doesn't hurt you". violence goes beyond physical, it's so visceral in white supreamcy. this is a thing that ... it's been years, thank you roberto for showing up today. you inspire me being presesnt.
  • yar: showing up to carry weight as a poc in a white space is a lot of work. i wouldn't ask someone to do that but i welcome anybody who wants to do that labor. also concerned rachel hasn't said anything since being interrupted in that conversation with miliaku
  • rachel: just said my piece. important to have procedures. that's how my org survived for 40 years. i think it's a good thing to do. i want it to be a kind of environment where people can speak freely and there's fairness too, on both sides.
  • joe: has your org used any specific resources to be trained for 40 years?
  • maryann: i'm just wondering how we're going to have a really deep intense conversation like this with electronically. i didn't even hear one word that miliaku said. it was all blanked out for me. my question is, if we're going to start with a conversation between robb and silver, one of the roles i'm familiar with a little bit is that the other people whor'e there as witnesses, their role could be saying "i hear this" or "i hear that". just a kind of put it into focus. idk what process we're actuallygoing to have, and if that's part of the role. but it'd seem really important ot be able to hear everything. this has been a fairly good conversation for most of thetime but there's been glitches. just a question.
  • rachel: zoom is better, i agree
  • silver: it's 9:02
  • helen: seems we've settled on this one conversation. more things shouldbe done that we haven't discussed and we haven'tnailed down all the details of the 1st thing. let's just go as far as... deciding what's the... who's going to nail down the details with this 2-way conversation with community. yar, can you take the lead?
    • silver & rachel think it's a good idea

closing

  • helen: let's finish with one go around...
  • yar says let's go around, express gratitude & enthusiasm, further feedback goes to consensus list
  • jane: thank you all, i support what the facilitator comes up with
  • joe: i'll follow up getting info from BANVC
    • yar will coordinate with him
  • silver: thanks for the time & energy. just want to encourage each other to constnatly talk, challenge white supremacy & the state in our community building. know & love & care each other. what's your health etc. get to know you all deeply sowe can support each other.
  • maryann: idk if i have energy for closingthoughts... i really appreciate everyone being here and sharing their thoughts & feelings. the different ideas. i hope we can find a mediator able to deal with wide spectrum of issues raised by people. whatever you work out is fine with me yar, and go.
  • roberto: i'm grateful for everyone here, their time & caring, their knowledge, also acknowledge this isn't the firs ttime we've come together to solve issues, a lot of the people present have been in other prcess of mediation, conflict resolution, so acknowledigng it takes a lot of energy. which makes this even more important and the gratitude much more deeper. i'm hopeful that we as omni can recommit to the values we hold true to ourselves. that we can revisit those and think about why we're doing what we're doing as omni. there's a lot we've done, a lot to learn
  • robb: thank everybody for participating. i've been encouraged to uphold the building policies by several members of our community and i feel like in doing so it's created rifts/problems. i don't think that's helpfulfor our community but i also think we need a way to make sure we're observing agreements we have, an equitable & transparent way to inform everyone and hold eachother accountable for our collective agreements
  • rachel: doing something is theonly way to make change. this meeting is part of it, to address biases. it's positive. we've taken action, hopefully solve problems. i'm encouraged. i have confidence we can do it, if we have the will to want to do it, we'lld oit. that's what it takes.
  • goodbyes

Last Meeting Notes

https://omnicommons.org/wiki/Event:2021/01/21_Delegates

End of Meeting