thCO-WORKING notes

IRST MEETING
KEYWORDS:
core conditions / flow regeneration / fragility / shared responsibility / adrenaline, thrills / challenge / shared risk / impact - provocation - experiment / bubble / constantly squatted - fragile, open future / self organisation / transparency / experiement / public space, public service /  public impact /

QUESTIONS: 
- what are shared risks for occupants? what's at stake? €? or?
- people come because of: needs? values? or?
- what do people want from this?
- working from existing need? (ie. make teh space required) OR make an experiment that shapes itself? (ie. forces a need?) >> a provocation based on some needs & a political basis
- how many people? who?
- permeability - is regularity of the same users important?
- sevice provider (identitfy a need then fill it) vs. public service (social responsibility with users)
- SPACE IN WHICH > responsibility shared truly > changing what services are availble > public impact (the politics)
- house rules?
- Decision to make: within an institution or outside? / if within then must be uncompromising and real share of risks (for institution) = influence on program, influence on structure of how they work, really hosting, financial input, agreeing basic strcuture and not withdrawing, longterm commitment > otherwise tragic risk is inbetween ie. no real funding or dialogue with institution.
- how does institution relate to nomadic possibility?
- it seems there is no other real options for institutional partnership than Kaaitheatre?
- what language to use? - co-working, constitution, etc.
- how can it be an experiment? tension of pre-to
   emptive prescription vs. organic growth (PAF friends model) >> protocol of experiment?
MAP which values are important to point out with this experiment?- what is 'risk' and safety? > PAF experience: whole thing can disappear = fragility / adrenline
- how to stay independent within an institution? THis is the risk game... CHALLENGE proposed to institution and to ourselves. 
- Demand on the user? PAF example: 'do what you want' <> 'make it possible for others' = the rules always in tension
the difference between explicity protocol and invisible rules- (want to do things differently? make a bubble - Steiner example). What kind of Bubble do we want in Brussels? / fragility / something at stake / >pop<
- more talk about bubble / transparency / permeability > examples 'sitting with the body', and Odo festival (name?) > directly public, therefore confrontational
- talk about squatting institution = uninteresting experiement? (what's the political point or friction with an institution?)
what are the conditions for a 'constant squatting' for people to do what they want? - talk about public space (public square) > is always available for occupation of different people / activities. (Becomes not a public space if particular people over-occupy it)
responsibility of users is to generate flow - rule for this? Flow challenge vs. sedimentation (knitting and language clubs examples)- chain of responsibility (party keys example from Berlin) > transparency makes this work.
- related to maintenance / generative flow, circulation 
- does it make sense to start from a concrete space/situation first? > we try by doing a thought experiment on the Forum space at Kaaitheater / case study simulation. Tech properties > max people in the space / access keys-cards / kitchen / storage / sound-spill / etc. - - - - we see if this thought experiment opens ways or is dead end....
- KEEP 2 SCENARIOS ALIVE AT ONCE > 1. Kaai reality 2. Utopic case (catches all of what's not possible in Kaai)........ see which one deserves our energy......

SOME PERSONAL REASONS TO BE INTERSTED (FROM FIRST CONVERSATION):
- Ingrid: non-curated space facilitiated by an institution / exchange to be had within a wider community
- Christophe: social experiment, questioning work / taking private space and making it public / common goods, architechture without a program / generates instead of prescribes / is a constitution needed? / community <> responsibility
- Sarah: growing working education, self education, right to continuous education / knowledge workers, questions of what-is-work / social interfaces

PROPOSALS FOR INPUT:
- Luigi Coppola / italian village project
- people with long experience with urban projects Brussels - ??
- squatting experience - ??
....... we had many more proposals here, not in these notes.

EXAMPLES
- PAF mission statement (in the Evernote file)
....... more proposals, not in these notes.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

ECOND MEETING (31.3.15)> Concrete thought exercise of using the Forum space at Kaaitheater for first test. /// conversation with Guy  
> More insight on our personal reasons to be interested in working on this...
> How to continue working in large & smaller groups...
> MAP which values are important to point out with this experiment? // Key questions



Refresh round

SARAH
> working alone (freelance), amoung many preacrious colleagues // not much evaluation of this practice > what does it mean to be worker in the knowledge field? // no systemic spaces where we can confront and evaluate conditions or mirror each other // scattered as a physical characteristic
> REFRESH THOUGHT: conflict around NEEDS - why a space like this is needed and from whom? >> draw a map of needs in Brussels - the needs we know better = artists, do teh artists need a space like this? OR for a wider group of people? = a bit more mysterious, who are these peopel what do they need?

CHRISTOPHE
> within our group there are people with 1st degree need for shared work space // another group sees the space as an experiement in many regards artistic / social / political experiement + questions public space, teh way in which we work as artists, commons. Artists both critics and spearheads of capitalism (opening space for reflection on this). Public space > private space is interesting contradicion. Inside an institution therefore right up against old private property laws.  Partner Kaai vs. independent approach squat > why intersting to be in institution? Because things ares still possible now in instittuiton, to keep this progressive attitude alive. Experiment needs a carrier/drive (people using it) - but this first degree usage has an importance (as space that people really will use needs to be a first factor, the political follows) > is it a nice place to go? What does this space really allow for?  Kanal 45 will close June = 70 artists on the street, has an immediatedneccsicty. 

ALEXANDRA
> motivation > breaking isolation important, why enter another bubble with a few more people? Needs tranperancy, possible to just walk in and out (with or without engagement). Literal transperancy to the community is a value, makes it available. to non artists. Diversity, group place.
> channels of communication? who invites who? >> setting up a system where people can just come in without having to organise it. We make a security system for the experiement >> where to find time to invest time in something that is common. 
> 'co-working' language problem
> self curated, self organisation > anyhow enough talk about it lets do it. Meanwhile what's the difference from APASS? not sure how to answer that yet... 

INGRID
> what's the generosity we can generate between people in the space? What values are we looking for and how to manifest them in this space?


> examples PAF / aleppo / Rashida Aziz space 

KATE
> public service VS public space
> informal VS organised knowledge exchange
> interface: invisible, visible, transparency (ex. of natural involvement: Berlin party)
> fragility perception in order for responsabiity of the user
> fragmentation of the field and loss of energies - wish for communal channels
> interest in the experimental socio-political aspects, how to build it / how to work within the institution

RASA
> HUB proved there are too many spaces dealing with many things but not grasping the essentials so not becoming strong. Core team too much friction. Space too open so they couldn't concentrate.  hub in London / Lithuania works well. (had all the same ambitions). > London = space need. Lithuania = need for connection between sectors.
> how to make it more solid, so people see it's neccessary, and the space itself
> so many residecncy spaces in Brussels - hard to grasp what they're all about. COmminication question. 
>> personal interest = own coworkspace is in transition to become more self sustainable, not wanting to be reliant on flem gov funding because don't fit in the werkplatz catagory & pushs towards things not interesting. Pushed to run organisation rather than doing practice. 
 change focus of issues that not actualy anymore, reinvention of content. 
>> can contirubute on what doesn't work. Writing a manual on how to have such an organisation as FOAM / network. 
> it's also a bubble, not easy for everyone to come in.... can be a good thing. How do you build bridges. Or many bubbles. 

DRIES
> people to contact: Toestand / with squat experience. Dries is friends with the guy there. 
> conficts of interest > eg. interest in experiment vs. basic need working
> concrete proposals are a way to raise specific conflicts. Talking too theoretical isn't a way to reach into the meat of the matter. 
> personal interest > dont' need the working space, but practice is meeting people would be good to have it in a space of more potential (not in OR cafe) > cross fertilisation. Interest that we are in Kaitheater and SPIN as artist run organsiation -- interesting to be really in the institution and teh potential debate there - anticipate on policy here and use that contact with institution well. 
> interest in organising 'events' 'debates', 'meetings' for people who also don't work here. A platform for people in need > on the day of the vision nota declaration we know there is place to meet and exchange about it immediately... also broader social policy >>> directness / openess / urgency.


> We need both collaboration and challenge with the insitution > so some development secretly! 

CHRISTOPHE > minimum rule policy linked to degree of openness, open for appropriation by people (rules put before limits this), not making rules until they become neccessary. Doer decides > not pre limiting. Avoid being empty because not being flexible enough. Doing an experiment must integrate it's own failure. Failure must be an option > risl to be taken. (more than haveing teh best possible organisation for the thing to be steady). Sense of risk / raises care of guardianship. Plug in projects with flux of people eg. SOTA, would suddenly/completely shift the whole focus of teh things. Permanent latent place of activism > enough plug in people would enure this potentiality. Enabling a multiplicity of definitions of what teh space is. But someone who uses it differently would see it differently. 
Permanent version vs. the impermanent version (experiemtn with an end point in mind) = very different qualities. Punctual or open ended (embedding the end or not) (Can these meet? eg. PAF fragility?)

RASA > identity. plug ins need to know what they're in, and which ones are relevant?


GLOBAL AMBITION: end June a concrete proposal for implementation


DAY PLAN

> portraits of this space > 10 minutes each
- what will you do in this space? what can't you do?

> 13:30 meet Guy 
> what is his interest? his fantasy imagination (why did it take so long?) the presence of artists in the building 
> what role does he want to play in it? and what role does the co-working play in the institution. 

> eg what is the collaboration even in the process? > we have contact person in Kaai who is responsible to communicate with us and answer questions and carry info into their meetings etc.
> what are the likely compromises? 
> practical questions >> Tech properties > max people in the space / access keys-cards / kitchen / storage / sound-spill / etc.
> vision for gathering resources, approach to policy >

> invitations for more people = including Guy / institution (eg. Lana)
> working methods big/small groups > documentation & communications
> spaces to meet in
> retroplanning
> calendar
>> value MAP as we go.


Guy
>> fantasy and need for Guy
- curatorial practice vs real commons in a building that is far from a commons > is it possible that part of the building can be a commons (or as close as possible) > the combination and seeing how it can influence the institution > coexist so it touches but doesn;t immediately cause too many problems for the other. 
> Kaai's interest is result of the discussions already had. Curated space will be developed by WSB, attempt to make a current practice different, but won;t be a new practice. 
But leaves the other thing untouched by Kaai for the moment > that still interests Guy
> if it could mean more than a slight adjustment for Kaai, then it needs to be more radical proposal
> this building is part of Kaai but it's also a separate thing, makes interesting placement.
> radical = there is a space for artists and Kaai doesn't decide who gets to use it. 
> how does it influence Kaai? ('us') what does it mean for us? it would be a pity if there's no influence / exchange > it's also in this exchange that things get tricky (how close can the isntitution get without contaminateing?) but it's a healthy need, rather than a condition. (Hoping there is a need from our side to have an influence on the institution.) Most important thing is the at project itself exists.
> identity question of the commons itself, institutionlising something that is not isntitutionalised in spirit.
> distance and interaction at the same time 

>> front building lease is organised by Kaai practically (government leases from a private owner). Who's in it is a negotiation with the government. Kaai makes a proposal to government. 
> legal issue about opening it to everyone to apply, but this is overridden.

>> Kaai presents itself as an artists centre (rather than arts centre). Discussions about that in teh house. Used to be more clear cut about which artists are in or out. A way to rethink what an artist centre means. Now interlinking institutions themselves because nolonger artistic divisions. How to be an artists centre in a DIFFERENT way. Doing more... ? Part of an exercise to rethink identity definition. >> politics in general heading for systemic change >> existential

>> reserved the forum for whole period, but want to know if can share by having post performance talks or lectures sometimes (although prefer to do it in the cafe). Others in the building don't use it much anyhow.

>> almost 100% sure that Kunsten PUnt will leave (some resistence from administration) > February is last deadline. They still need to find another place. No one else properly in the running for the space at the moment. 
Ideally 2nd floor would be avialable, so that forum becomes an intermediary space. 

> hypothesis to directly connect the forum to the café
> architechtural inervention possible on the upper floors, but not much in the forum. (small things done already with lighting) but larger changes make a very long time. No money available
>> if floors above becme available that's where transformations are possible (rather than forum)... 
> aim for 2016 cowo on the 2nd floor + rethinking the usage of the forum toghether kaai and cowo

about 15000€ per month rent? maybe government will think is a good idea and give a bit more money
POssibly Gatz (will like some artists, give money to Kaai to take care of them and cut them off the conversation) would be positive

2016 is not impossible since infrastructural money is not related to commissions >> that rent money cannot come from artistic budget. (no link to artistic program / director)
Need concrete plan proposal on which date? Make a first agreement and decide who is going to present it > first Kaai says first proposal 'we want to do this' to cabinet and administration, and then 'we' join to present the idea in more detail.  
> first proposal not too many details... a 'treatment' where principles are explained. 
> already talk with saver... informally as a way to gather reactions.


how can the test period go? How much fexibility will there be to radically test? provoke?
> how to agree a margin of movement within the 'deal' with the government (things change between July and December)

Guy can give exact rental and running costs, so we can consider this in our plans.
technical issues - collaborate on IT (eg. cable internet) and costs are shared.

> talk about the staris and accessibility. Day / night entry with card. Make it completely public? Need to close off the floor above. WOn't be easy to make it completely public.
> temporary solution to make 3 month test accessibility. Registration downstairs in entry. Night time entry based on 2 cards for doors.
> outside stirway > not sure. 
> offices have 24hr access. (as long as theatre doors closed) 

>> who can communicate with us? Pol not here much (also responsible for security). 
Maybe someone from the artistic team will join the process in the next months - Guy will think of someone LANA?
SEND THE CALENDAR!
ASK FOR RECAP OF THE COSTS AND PLANS OF THE SPACE

> we make beginning July the deadline for proposal of longterm project upstairs. Longterm means 5 years? no obligations on a rental level.
> the rental deal will be about responsiblity. So we a deal needs to be a 'you' > so an organ needs to be constructed for this. not a vzw? (student club example) = RESEARCH POINT!!

Let's have another meeting:
April 28th 14h00 >> with Guy and more collaborators

?? does SPIN need to add co-working into one of it's dossiers? ??

POST-GUY CONVERSATION

> contracts / liability questions are on the table - how to play around with the legal aspects of sustaining the relationship with Kaai 

> what's exactly the radicality of Guy's vision? Where is the risk for Guy? or what is teh shared risk? > rental... what about time? actual budget? 
commons but without risks
... instrumentalisation there? we take the opportunity to be more radical as a response. 
within a rental contract we are free. DO we get involved in their artistic budget as a separate 

we need to give a concrete proposal as soon as possible


Need to balance this conversation with the alternative non-institutional option....


Sarah: interested in being within Kaaitheater artistic budget, not separate renter kept outside. it's the project separation. 
On monthly General Assembly we have to have Kaai there on this. 
separating artistic dynamic and infrastructural issues is a good thing?

Rasa: reservation that we leap over the more radical
Go more profound in the ideology. 
>> how do you want to do it? Methodology.

Do another case study in a different space which brings us to which wall?

Working in smaller groups >> in order to articulate a proposal to Kaai

KATE: already bored about going only in a Kaai direction
RASA: let's keep the Kaai possibility open with some guidelines and then experiment within the guidelines.
DRIES: would be nice if Guy could contribute with fantasies and imagination in the coming meeting
INGRID: how to communicate with Kaai

KATE: Methodology / how to continue, what are we interested in

CHRISTOPHE: 
    who are the people whom are going to come to such a place: social workers / architects / how to develop diversity
    is it possible to define the COGNITIVE WORKER that exist across the field? MINORITY PRACTICE
    QUESTION OF IDENTITY AND COMMUNICATION > WHO ARE THE PEOPLE POTENTIALLY INTERESTED

KATE:
    PARTICIPATRY SYSTEMS // DEMOCRATIC PROCESSES // ACCESS
    KNOWLEDGE SHARING

DRIES: LEGAL ASPECTS (off shore company?)

INGRID: 
    COLLECTIVE DECISION MAKING > INTELLINGENCE?
    NOTION OF WORK IN ITSELF

ALEXANDRA: 
    THE FIVE SENSE OF SHARED SPACE 

RASA: 
    COMMUNICATION TOOLS: internal/external tools and ideology/transparency

INGRID:
    let's make it fun!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

DRIES WILL ORGANISE MEETING WITH TOESTAND
RAZA WILL INVESTIGATE ON HER OWN AND REPORT BACK// BE PRESENT VIA SKYPE

WE CANCEL THE MEETING WITH GUY ON THE 28TH
WE PROPOSE TO MEET GUY WITH A SMALLER GROUP ON THE 29TH


2 TASKS FOR COMING MONTH:
- RESEARCH POINTS
- LONG TERM FANTASY


ACTUALISE OUR VALUES / DESIRES WITH CONCRETE PROPOSALS :
> either for this space? or for another?
>> dreamland fantasy for a longterm space (what level of freedom? eg. need to balance with real restrictions eg. not a no rent no dependency situation)
> the ideal space for this fantasy is...
> what are the compromises for this space here...

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


HIRD MEETING 28/04/15
Dayplan:
> vision mapping / 1 hour 
> concrete fantasy games > out of institutions? (eg. Sitting with the body space example)
> finances?
> post-Guy discussion >> strategy for meeting Wednesday 29/04/15 >> 
>> speak to Nick about off-shore possibilities
>> research // examples exchange: FoAM, Aleksandra's examples, Ingrid's reading


(doing nothing project / cards go out)

> vision mapping

We formulate sImple question > on which we will base our vision mapping:

>> what are the driving dynamics of the co-wo space?
inner drivers:
    * shared values
    * unknown surprises
    * creator and enabler of transdisciplianry encounters
    * care (principle of wild camping)
    * public space
    * future imagining
    exchange and meeting
    activator of thought and action
    curiosity
    positive
    fun
    flow - beauty - fun
    beauty (light / plants)
    privacy within a group
    'open' entry
    presence
    physical space
    lab for a cohabitation of differences
    diversity
    sharing
    common projects
    merger for change
    demcratic process
    identity
    transparency
    experiment
    personal growth
    solid framework for experiment
    something other than desk-based work happens there
    provocator of movement
    time

external forces making it needed:
    * positive precarity (developing positive dynamics out of existing precarity)
    * need to embody collective practices
    * sedimentation of the notion of the 'possible'
    closed mindedness
    anarchy
    precarity in society
    other communities
    mobility
    trialectics
    boredom
    urgency
    isolation
    ecosystem / biotope
    experiements of cohabitation
    traditional practice
    economic efficiency paradigm
    political influence on work
    gaps
    work (load?)
    money
    privatisation
    artists community
    individualisation of the social sphere
    competition
    fragmentation 
    colonisation of our values
    artists vs institutions
    ned to start new things 
    dissolving boundaries
    commons
    pooling (knowledge, time, ...)
    isolation
    solidarity

> * starred items were deemed essential, and placed on a spectrum from certain > uncertain
> then two core values were extracted as aborbing most of the others > shared values & unknown surprises (including encounters between people)
> then a graph with 4 territories combining conditions of no surprises > surprises and no shared values > shared values
... we named and described the co-wo that would be produced in each of those 4 territories


Shared Values + Unknown surprises = ANARCHIC PACT
> need to embody collective practices
- shared values that bring on surprises > create solid frame for experiment . successful anarchic framework
- outcome = anarchic embracing the mystery > people ready for anything to happen ie. real anarchy. 
> shared value is not to impose value > a collective practice of not imposing values / constant negotiation of current value. ie there are values but they're being reinvented by people...
> dynamic relation to oppression ot certain relationships of power. Dismantling relations of imposition. Supressing opression.
> negotitaion happens when there's not shared values
> what is the shared values? where is that clarity?
> individuality (privacy) important here, need to cultivate differences and let them grow - don't try to prevent them from diverging. Diverging from consensus is to be encouraged. General framework has to move along with diversions. Maintaining / provoking movement. Everything moves together. Everyone speaks up their concerns.
> keep recreating shared values (beyond the initial anarchic pact) >> common projects keep being reknitted
> anarchic pact allows things to happen temporarily >> you can't count on long lastingness as a condition / 
> 'possitive waste'
> what accumulates? the pact is a practice, experience brings possibility?
> exercise of maintenance of the fragility of the framework > maintaining a contradiction
> different kinds of success? a form of critcal satisfaction? >> How to evaluate it? It's good as long as everyone is happy / its good as long as everyone is restless / individual fulfillment in a cohabitation 
> 'comfort' discussion
> individual resposibility is that your needs are heard (otherwise undermining your own fulfillment)
> where does the positivity come from? 
> collective solutions that are not existing / concrete poiitical content // shared values for the space
>> wild camping metaphor // nature give the higher rule (beauty and respect) >> how beautiful it is to cohabit >> renegotiate the rules towards unknown surprises.
> a shared value of what this space is about? > what of my life do I look to fulfill in this space? (decolonising my own values through practice...)
>> 2 ways to share space = wild camping / mysterious & beautiful (condition) VS. purpose and drive towards something else (belongs to no shared values, have to find each other??).
> 'This space is about this' is the experiment > ie. decides the shared value
> putting yourself in problematic position in order to experiment... within field of contradictory needs.
>> choice for collective practice where everyone is responsible for personal fulfillment. 'We're not achieving out goal because I'm not fulfilled'
> the position requires a collective committment to the postion, so it's unstable there's no supervision. Precarious balance. Everyone has to claim a position in the balance.

>> if the needs are contradictory // the process of decision making is long and slow? or is it fast and direct? 
>> collective practice for value reneogtiation? what is the space?? what is this space for? what is the function? it's a coworking space. It's an experiment in working.
>> the commitment is that you stay in > you don't leave because it's hard.
>> aesthetic? nature metaphor. 
>> go in there with curiosity, to see what's happening, because you don't know what will be happening. You go exploring. It's not a failure if you have to move on because you can't do what you wanted to.
> care for space?
> claiming your rights means the people who come are only the ones who are loud
> it's about conflict and power. Fulfiiling your needs without surpressing the others. 
> how wide are the others? >> this depends on the function
>> shared values is the religion tendency?
> when someone new comes in, everyone has to shift to that.
> separate function from value. Important to define them separately. 
Left out > sedimentation of what's possible (has to be fought against)


No shared values + unknown surprises = ARTEFINANCIAL
Personal growth / institution driven, resources given to select / grandiosity and glamour / friction between people & communities using the spce / competition / dynamic
no shared imagination / no awareness of the things outside of it / control mechanisms and mistrust / fun could be had, but planned / good service / money involved for selected people / pay a high price for the surprises / would go there for teh profit of the encounters / well designed, always open, always want to be there so you don't miss anything / have to carry your stuff with you all the time / things change fast, people try to colonise / headphones / need to be aware of everything but exhausting / redbull, coffee, coke / fitting in important - different but within clear boundaries. 
Surprises are for profit (and are not generating shared value). Very dynamic, and possibility to create stuff. It's service. Pay to be there. Make your own thing, don't have to worry about the collective. If you cannot pay you don't enter (ie. needs to be successful). Market model.


No surprises + no shared values = HYGENIC WORKBOX
> you know exactly what you pay for
> concentration zone / no distractions / individualised / pay a fee a month, get hours of space / clear rules are on the door >> similar to a state library? except a library is open access which is a value > except more benefits if you can pay for them (bigger space, 
> planned economy, planned equality > everyone gets the same > is this a value in itself?
> storage spaces > try to have as little interference as possible. 
> privacy is very important / common space is uncultivated and purely functional
> efficiency of purpose
> legitamised fragmentation
> if it works you don't get in anyone's way
> automat entry with codecard and membership. Coffee machine works on same cards
> sprinkler system to clean
> service number to ring if there's trouble
> alarm system linked to a private security
> you pay exactly the price (with breakdown of costs) 
> hygiene - no contact
> purpose is clear - very good internet, that never fails, a limiter on the power you can use. 
> 24 hr with the badge (except cleaning hour)
>> capsule hotel
> people go there because they need space to work, because they need isolation
> it's a chain, you can find these places everywhere, cities all over the world
> public service that you pay for >> not privately owned, therefore no ambition to compete / improve / seduce
> beurocratic but efficient 
> can have another life next to it


No surprises + shared values = BUTAN
> monotonous
> imited, caring space, very organised, small group of people homogeous
> clarity, trasnparency, ideals are very strong
> non monetary, it's inherited, self sustaining, grow own food, shared pets
> deny problems, everything is solvable
> difficult to get in, and get out
> self contained, has solutions for everyone inside, but doesn't deal with outsiders
> calm, but suffocating. 
> absolute consensus (not democractic) > everyone agrees on values > everything is flattened out. 
> kibbutz / rehab centre
> social control is self embodied


SO we have: 
wild camping 
kibbutz 
module hotel 
market

Personal responses: 

Christophe: 
    worst is Butan, would want to study people there 
    hygenic toolbox, something I like is the depersonalisation > just use it, no need to run away if it's not working
    market, we know it already, strong link to current reality. Least interested
    anarchic pact > most attracted, requires extreme self discipline, need a bit of Butan and hygene too, to split ourselves from immediate emotions and conflicts from this onastic environment. Frame that is solid enough for anything to happen in the middle. SOlid framework for experiment. Allows to suspend the process, step out of it, retreat to edges to observe it. So you know you're in an experiment. Hating each other and yourself is energy and good stuff, but need to be able to step out of immeditate conflict to see if it was something constructive. Tune down the Butan part that if you don't fit in you're irritant (no elasticity). 

Aleksandra:
    dreams of diversity, cannot be a vision of one person or group. Allows for the freaks that need to work alone in hygene corner, for those that need community (but it's not a must), clear contracts for some people. It's changing according to the group that's there. You take the risk of coming into something that doesn't have a clarity, knowing that you have the power to change things - but there's room for people who don't want to engage in teh anarchic process. If you're there you invest in collective process, but it's only one of several spaces you can be. 
    likes non-monetary factor, it's independent not part of an institution, it adapts to different spaces. Middle melting point of these 4 scenarios. Non-shared values and agonistic space as driving force important.

Rasa:
    shared values / surprises > is the melting of all the others. It should allow all the other dynamics. Could be clean, isolated. Could be simple pretty spot, Could be high ambition grandios project. Turning wheel. 
    Question of finances, and of communication. 
    to what extent this transdisciplinary? time scales - some projects one day or three years. 
    > self sustaining from membership?

Style of dealing with conflict is the main point?

Ingrid:
    Anarchic Pact > interesting but don't know if could spend much time there. Seems exhausting. Don't know if want to be in constant encounter with other people's egoes, wondering what could balance this out. Going from shared value towards and extreme individualism.
    WHat could be taken from other spaces to balance this? Caring of Butan, privacy and boundaries respect from Hygene, 
    Would it be teh space where I can gather people to actually do something? or the space where I'm constantly questioned, but not for action and change. Not interested in the space to be constantly qurestioned. 

Sarah: 
    atractive to exercise the fragility that is needed in the wild camping / want to be triggered in this sense, awarenes and care of these dynamics. It's an ethical exercise, rather than going towards efficiency. Interesting to identitfy my workdflow within this framwork and including maintenance of this framework.
    Design of any kind of structured efficency is boring. 
    Inefficiency, diversity based, full on messy situation, unhygenic and dirty, occupied and free, deeply unsustainable. To see how ethically we can sustain a space like that as an experiment. 
    No idea how I could react to that personally. Uncertain and fragile. Political self challenge.
    (social worker friends, open a bar in deep mafia area, large community based on friendship, working with marginal communities (prison etc). Complete mess, prison inmates dancing with disabled people, cocaine scooters, oasis coverband > complete disorder beauty. Legally occupied space.

Kate:
    wild camping is the most interesting. market is already there - is like the HUB model. butan version is scary. the hygene version is fascinating because it's possibile to be alone, is quiet, calm. 
    If the wild camping vision is clear enough the people who are interested will turn up. Where is the quietude and the possibility to be alone? Is it possible to share something that is interested in calmness?
    It might be really exausting - is the main challenge, that's what we are proposed from the system and we have to fight back. How such a space interacts with an institution? But I still think that might be interesting to investigate - also due to money reasons and argumentation around money. It feels good use of public money to experiment with such a thing, in a way not to burn everybody's energies. 


Ingrid: Notion of governance - is aware of the sustain of the thing?
Christophe: Difference between Government (shows direction, figuring out vision, guiding where we go) / Governance (takes care of dirty work, pragmatism, efficency rules)
Self discipline rather than government / governance? 

Ingrid:
Peer-to-peer, doesn't take out teh idea of a supplier of something (eg. state). Total anarchic = constant threat of powerplay. Needs to be balanced by a constant reminder of what is principles above that. Contribution is to a larger scheme (which is also always contibuting to your personal fulfillment).
Beauty, fun etc is linked to making sense in the bigger picture.

Sarah:
    I agree but the overall scheme is being renegotiated all the time, by the people really present extremely fragile. Living within this system, individually caring for a collective scheme.

Rasa:
    Clear purpose for the situtation. Module hotel is attractive because it can be for whatever. 
    It should be seveal things - meeting space, and a place where people can really work. (vs a social space) 

Christophe:
    challenge in anarchic space is that I have to speak up for my need (this is tiring?) > making the effort of putting this personal need into the colective is the collective effort you do. 

Rasa:
Normally one has to adapt to everybody, but in this version everyone has to adapt to the one. 

Aleksandra: 
    what is most important in this collective is privacy.
    unplanned chit chat way of organising things / its done spontaeneously...
    individual boxes, but a collective effort, for each of them it's feeding them in their own way
    new ideologies get inscribed all the time, how not to over organise it... not forcing people into colective meetings etc.

Rasa: 
    collective + short term residnecies
    no meetings, only lunches. Talk in unstructured way, informal, decisions and catch ups made that way. 
    easy to do this because there is funding
    but we try to find money outside of funding --> this year 1/3 of budget  outside of funding

    pay; this year not everyone is paid for everything
    finding money does take a lot of time from what you want to do
    balance between earning money / doing art
    membership fee next year?
    21 members

    membership means:
         acces to the network, you can legally work with each other (use org for invoicing)
How formalised is that demand? Places that are tranparently demanding or inherently so. 


No values / undermining of values >> no it's strong values, but manifested by the people there rather than imposed
Focus? / is in deciding what is this workspace. Why are we sitting together talking about these things already narrows the purpose.
We are veering between a collective, and a workspace >> which are different things? 
dynamic of group is most important >> the group which feeds us each back

a service for the community? or are we a trying to make another culture, where we grow personally?
Social experiment vs. a place to work >> that combination is going to create the thing. To understand the experiment need to be working there.
Not a consesus 
Co-working is a working title that is wide enough to fit everything in.
Are we now getting what we want from it? can push for waht we need, or leave.

Operative Solidarity > provides a good result for the society as well as a personal evolution. 
Providing another common space, shift something for ourselves and well as possibly for more.

COWORKING - let's find a different model, more of a social work - we don't have terminology to talk about it yet. Hack the institution and infiltrate it with new practice. 

APPLE VS LINUX - Linux is way less practical and now I'm proud of using Linux, we no pragmatic reasons, it does get bugs but the bug is your friend. Embracing the problem brings positive inputs. 

POST-GUY CONVERSATION N. 2

Hp.
OCT. - DEC. 2015 the space we met last time >> NO BUDGET FOR ANYTHING HAPPENING THERE (1.500,00€ + possible funding to be found, maybe together with Kaai). 
FROM JAN. 2016 the VTI space comes free >> 38.000,00€ per year cost. The idea is to ask the Minister to take care of this cost. 

Questions
How Kaai will interact?

Raza: is it really urgent to have that space in Kaaitheater? 
If we put already the Kaai-project on the table we will concentrate too soon on practicalities and forget about the creative process. 
There's lots of spaces in Brussels. ex. Ticket Office of Ancienne Belgique. 

Alexandra: there is something playful about trying out something.

Cristophe: way too early to go into that dimensions and parameters (2016 option).

Ingrid: the COWO idea is ancient, there is some ugency because SPIN is in a very concrete conversation since a couple of years. 

Kate: we also have to ask how good has been this conversation with Kaai

Cristophe: there is something that will be unfree

Ingrid: we always have been talking about infiltration of an institution - this sense makes sense to work with Kaai

Cri: it's interesting to try to do stuff there and see what happens there

Alex: reclaiming the institution has a good political strive. 

Kate: things to say to Guy: no money, we are equally disturbed by the restrictions that will come with the involvement of an institution

Raza: how easy is get out of it - is extremely heavy

Sarah: I don't think we are ready to think as an intermediate organisation that takes care of running the space

Raza: I am a bit afraid to go in such a cooperation with such a big institution - how can we be free enough to actually play around

Kate, things to say to Kaai:
    - we need way more fragility

Why Kaai doesn't want to become the owner of such a thing?

ANARCHIC BASE PLAYGROUND 
WE'RE NOT CONVINCED THAT WORKING WITH KAAI 
ONLY IF KAAI IS FULLY PART OF IT - BECOMING THE OWNER 
>> we're not in the capacity to take on such a responisblity - we're not the legal entity to do that - we have other things to do as well
>> horizontality in the space, so no different positions in the occupiers.
Not going to legalise ouselves to run Kaai's 3rd & 4th floor > become intermediaries between the group and Kaai (with all it's restrictions). 
Could anyone who uses it become co-renter? (no legal mechanism for this)

Otherwise we would rent something together > then invite an institution to take part. > so he becomes an equal partner (can be kicked out too). Equal partner.


IF WE DITCH KAAI THEN WHAT ARE WE DOING
WE ARE STILL WORKING ON AN IDEAL PLANNING AND WE WILL ENACT IT 

WE STILL NEED SOMETIME TO THINK ABOUT IT
WE NEED TO BE EXTREMELY TRANSPARENT AND TELL HIM WE CAME UP WITH POSSIBLE MODELS AND WE'LL DIVE INTO IT AND COME UP WITH ONE
WE'RE NOT DEVELOPING A PROJECT FOR THE VTI SPACE BUT WE'RE WORKING ON SOMETHING ELSE, MAYBE DIFFERENT - WE'LL GO TO THE FOREST. 

commissioning a plan for that space is still different to us brainstorming what is the most interesting scenario > and then if that fits with Kaai or is possible in Kaai
be explicit about the dimension of risk > that is higher than what he currently understands
Make sure he's more updated >> no-longer the well organised hospital with crazy people in it.

There are several models, there's ones where the rules are really explained but others where they are really not - we need to explore them. 

Working with Kaai works only > either they take over whole responsibility, open wound and take huge risk, run this risk (open air social experiment with the protection of Kaai)
> Otherwise the space is pretty ugly, no outside space, facing traffic

> it should be seen as their project and we are the artists that are going to try to do that >>> this was our expectation. Now withlegal etc, it looks like becoming an institution, which is not our interest.
>> WSB should go to big Kaai > they are what he wants, then give us the house.

solutions: > scaffolding stairs going up 

Rasa: 
    believes in taking smaller steps, rather than really taking on big, and then being stuck with it.
Discussion about Canary Islands Nick project > he is emplyed there and writes invoice for you, then sends bank transfer (5% cost). Tax free income. No social rights.


THURSDAY:
    Christophe > there until 13h
    Next steps > personally choose 5 aspects for the 4 scenarios (take out the parts that are most important to you). 
    > Go forward describing that space: add colours and smells and details of functioning.
    Let imagination running, triggers something more.... 
    >> picnic lunch << bring something that doesn't need heating up!


______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

MEETING WITH GUY:

artistic experiment: avoiding practical and organisational realities?
KAAI need to be included in teh development of the concrete proposal? // invited at least part of the process

artistic experiment, not a space or service // immediate examples
3 more meetings, this group is committed to June > most interesting plan >> too early whether it's going to happen in Kaai. But we want it to be risky!
resources for the autumn experiment...

if we go into the space here. it's clear our aim is not to become an organisation that runs a space (neither SPIN).
> still in process but we ventilated the possibility that what we want to do is create a project and then give it to Kaai and then they run it (we are users). >> therefore is he open to owning the proposal?
> restrictions of space (security towards outside... etc, etc. Coordination appears more heavy // Need everyone to be in on the risk // is house a better context?
> would Kaai partner if it happened elsewhere?

kate makes a full recap of the different models

would be possible for the institution owns the project >> what does Guy think about
wha t about the house?
logistic around the 2nd 3rd floor is too heavy
would kaai like to still be a partner in another space?

guy:
    not a surprise that the research process will just write the consitution
    to think about it in terms of artitic experiment could be too exclusive
    kaai would take full responsibility for what it is
    we need to be part of the process and then decide
  to be part of the project without using the kaai space we don't know >> depends on practical things etc
  what does it mean not being ready before june, for the fall?   

kate:
    is very difficult to understand how a project can work there
    how can we withdraw

gu
in the case kaai takes full responsability then agreeents on shcedule etc should be made

GUY
        between Kaai and the Minister there is a dispute about giving the space to one specific organisation >> everyone should be able to apply
        if they push it through there will be an open call also for whom is going to run the theatre
        the only way would then be for Kaai to take over the first floor


KATE
        we should get together next time and see which are the borders together
        one way to think about it one way is to push away the finances in order to investigate different problematics

GUY
it reminds me a lot about the commons >> it was easier to come up with rules when the common was something practical 

KATE 
which kind of conversation we can have budget wise on the first floor conversation

guy
he cannot promise anything 
maybe some material collection is possible
it's not possible to open a real real public space

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

4th meeting 30/04/15 C, I, S, A, K, D present

PLANNING
Next steps > personally choose 5 aspects for the 4 scenarios (take out the parts that are most important to you). 
    > Go forward describing that space: add colours and smells and details of functioning.
    Let imagination running, triggers something more.... 

> Guy update + planning
> planning till June >> outside people? >> when plan autumn session? >> preparing Guy workday

Purpose?
Drawing an impossible space?
looking for a consensus? 
puepose is mapping of the expectations > 
operating on an inclusive level....

CLUSTERS FOR THE AGGREGATION EXERCISE OF 5 FUNDAMENTALS TRAITS

VALUES

PRACTICE

WILD CAMPING
> as non written rules and unquestioned respect to the beauty you find
> as beautiful
> as you can actually camp in the space

?? are these values shared among everyone

EXPERIMENT + RENEGOTIATING VALUES
> as a solid framework to protect the experiment that is happening

UNKNONWN SURPRISES
> in this sense experimental, you don’t know what is about to happen

CARE
> caring for the space (as beauty and as wild camping)
> caring for the others
> caring as something you decide you enact
> caring as personal and emotional involvement
> care is conflictual

CONFLICT AND POWER + PERSONAL PROFIT + PERSONAL AND GROUP
> as place for discussion

PRECARIOUS BALANCE

CRI: 
many motivations are possible - the reality of these needs is the key
in the commons example nobody will ever give a priority unless is truly needed

ALEX:
we are missing something about accessibility

KATE:
we are missing diversity - there is no scale
the mechanism of the experiment is the key to enact different threads

DRIES
if you have diverse spaces and you make it open 24/7 then you automatically understand

Kate
divide in two groups and everybody explain his/her model

Ingrid
confusion: path of defining underlying dynamics <-> thinking about concrete space

Kate
Lets make provocation

Sarah
Wants to get in the function discussion: sleep, cook, share deskspace, public events, encounter space, information space,
garden, quiet room, educational, creche, technical facility/depot, bar, cinema, storage, repair activity, living room extension,
swimming pool, gym,  enforced public space

Kate 
how can the model function with these functions?

Cri
You need normallity/routine to let a space function with these functions

Kate
urgency to go concrete

CRISTOPHE + DRIES // ROOFTOP CAMPING WITH BEEHIVES AND A POOL
example of Kaaistudios

> 2 camping spots on the rooftops
> Garden on the rooftop
> 4th floor communal space / copy-left policy
> in the SPIN office there will be a gym
> TINA’s office will be the quiet room
> once a week we open the bar downstairs
> interface for workshops with the downstairs activities
> whoever comes in - maybe there are opening hours; maybe who camps here pays a bit of a fee for a concierge to open the door
> maybe there’s always someone who has to be there - it’s interesting because the interaction with the institution is way more connected
> is it’s over-crowded than we need more space

KATE: passing the numbers to the next to come
DRIES: is it possible to adapt the idea of scaffolds to Kaaistudios?
CRI: to colonise something else and creates a dynamic

> the framework is what is there: gym, communal space, camping and silent room
> people can change the names of the rooms? yes, but only entering in a negotiation
> clean is a communal responsibility
> no traces is a bit contradictory with the copy-left 
> people only communicate within the space, you cannot book it
> it is good to have a timeframe with Kaai, experiment in the Autumn?


Kate & Aleksandra // WILD-WEST DUDES

> 18 months experiment
> 100 people > strong call out out: Are you interested in an experiment, co-working, fragility of sharing, surprises, friction as a trigger, realising your own work in a shared environment >> invitation is luanched every 3 months

> 30 people come at beginning, first activity building & finding week (build big tables), develop pooling system, 
> first day: big tables in a pile in the corner / 
> space does not have neighbour issues for sound: 
UNNEGOTIABLE QUIET AREA, ONLY RULE IS NO SPEAKING 
SOUND AREA

There's a project funding to launch experiemtnal condition
> continued sustain is 10,000€ basic cost, very transparent what is paid > you add as much as you like as often as you like > group can arrange fund raising to pay this or equipment
>> everything closes if enough money is not reached
> don't have to pay anything to get in....
> user decides
it's open 24 hours, there is someone sleeping there. There is a concierge there's no pre-emption, ie. if there's no objection or problem then it goes ahead

INGRID & SARAH // HIDDEN BEAUTY
>> green / more outdoor than indoor
>> divisions, spaces or buildings
>> doors open and open to anyone > procedure to deal with what is inside (unpleasant? agressive?) rule is negotiation is mandatory
>> rule is that it cannot make things impossible for others > how to avoid this? subtle thresholds that you can find in public spaces. eg. church, it's open, but it's not obvious to go in and do 'wrong' things > strong community useage
> selective in how you announce it outwards in order attractive specific people.
> a beautiful hidden space in the city (not on the touristic map) > by whispering, so community built access, word of mouth >> the secret space
> non-monetary > provide tools to the space > peer to peer production. Adding to it and building it by using it. Accumulation of stuff, a lot of change happening because people are bringing and taking away (forcing generosity because there is nothing there) 
> 2 levels of non-monetary > ie. experiment basis: the space is a gift, and then what can bring is what is there
> 3 spaces / indoor communal space, outdoor communal space, quiet space.
> door always open / only threshhold is the communciation around it. 
> if something bad happens then you call the police (it's a public space) / like a club you don't want bring in the police 



LUNCH: DIscussion about rules and invisible boundaries > churches and libraries as examples 

Discussion How to continue ?


Longterm: 
how is practice grown if it is not imposed? > missing research: collective processes / practices >> existing models as inspiration /// Sarah has long list of Berlin contacts (eg. Ludgar at TanzFabrik) / TimeLab long history / Jako (croatian) >> a consultant 
commons information?
(Toestand good for asking concrete questions about problems or resources)
informal knowledge exchange > was an announced interest
2 May > solidify, get pragmatic about time scale, finances, accessibility, (3 scenarios), deciding the functions, democratic process, communication procedures > invite a non-institutional guest (Dries invites TimeLab) (we contacted Valentina) >> Berlin (Ludgar at TanzFabrik) >> anarchist expert 0 May > the instiutional research day > what is the interesting way to do our model in the 3 June / writing (?? or another input??) 4 June / writing
> where are the conflicts in our 3 examples? How to blend them to something better or what is mutually exclusive?
similarities: 
    no money investment from users
    spaces organised the same way
    given conditions (the beautiful gift / the invitation / existing institution) = experiements / beginning position then curious about what happens

conflicts: 
    institutional or non-institutional
    Discussion of 'experiment' / methodology vs mystery
    Fragility / precariousness / responsibility

TIME: 
2 years > fragility of it happens now, if it's brilliant it will be renewed from inside with a new plan 

WHO:
> who writes the experiment / does anyone concludes it?
> who occupies? >> (eg. first experiment is on yourself) // to just see what happens, and then describes it (who observes?), the ones who continue are teh ones who make evaluation and find ways to continue. DROP SCIENTIFIC LANGUAGE: Defend the full naievity that it's a challenge for ourselves, I put myself in this position because it's full mystery and unpreparation
> Wild West exploration > mapping and remapping as we go

> peer to peer creation, you start creating something, becomes what it is because everyone adds to it what they need. Constant Co-creation.
> 


GIVEN CONDITIONS
> what do we make a philosophical category and do we discuss only in relation to concrete spaces (f.e accesibility)
What do we don't negotiate about?

> what does the space impose?


 CHARASTIRISTICS OF THE PACT? (and what does it miss?)
 = growing culture

conflict point 

Shared value is the desire to change the value to who is there - personal as strong as the group
= practice

no need to write rules, the rules come only if there are problems

What makes the space communal?

>the funcionality of the space needs to be negotiated


*GIVEN CONDITIONS
??
claficitacions..

ACCESS
COMUNICATION
FINANCIAL
FACILITY/MATERIAL
INSTITUTION(political context)
ACTIVITIES/EDUCATION(forcing culture of the space)

Kate and Aleks
very explicit what the experimental-starting framework is..the transparency..materials(chairs,tables..)=funcionalities of the soace,3 monthly cycle for anouncing the call,a machanism for comunal fund-financial conditions.
ACCSESIBILITY/opened,no neighbours,based on the shared interest
Educational aspect=workshops every 3 months?it is a support for knowledge exchange around this collective experiment?to reflect on how it is going..(collective practice WS,repair WS)

Sara and Ingrid
24h opened
financial-pear to pear policy/no monatery
gas,internet,heating was covered..facility,but no furiture
how to get to it?word of month(secret-kind of)

Dries and Cristoph
Communicitaion was lacking
24/7 opened-people sleeping there
specific tasks for specific spaces(gym,silent,outside)
in an institution-bar,rooms for technical support

*WHO

1)INITIATORS OF THE EXPERIMENT

2)USERS

    -(capacity)-

how to reach them?
1)opened call-invitation as clear as possible before people decide to join/refresh-subscription to the experiment??
2)inclusive,but secret-people who are close to the project?
3)users of funcionality

one of the big discussions to have -how educated id the group??the initial users!!!
experimental conditions-what does te space provoke?

what is the procentage of the change that is given to the community??total Failure possible?transformation of the space..?

how much percentage can you make on the space or functions of the space to change?risk?


WHO & given conditions-----both connected to RISK------



Kate:how much is the experiment group writing the unspoken conditions into the conditions?this group is cultivating something that could deal with te etics of the space that is being shared?
we need to articulate the etics..?
Dris:is the question about the risk that the place does not function upon the ethics that it was disegned for or from..?
Sara:if one of the initiators is in the room it is more possible to ensure that those basic ides are at place(their ethics).(tools and sugestions)


what is the basic trancparency?
is that the principles?are they spoken?written?

WRITTEN PRINCIPLES / NO WRITTEN RULES >> ie. we will have to figure out how the principles translate into situations (including solving problems)
Principles = Invitations
eg.
> respect other people's needs
> take responisbilities for your needs
> let your fantasy run wild about the possibilities here (the spaces and conditions are negotiable)
> 


discussion of FKK principles > other sources?



______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

MEETING 5 > 12/ 05/15 > everyone there

intro: RASA spoke with Vincent (?) in Evere > Hoffice > home co-working, for free (non corporate)

Chris: Rythm in a space? schedule together, a timetable that you perform with the people there > space organised more in terms of time than space function.

AGENDA:
> Parallel thinking: the Forum autumn (campsite?)
> Luigi 12:30? > till 14:30 > commons questioning > economic model for it to function // focus on a clear space goal
> I, A, D, S can be there with Guy >> how to prepare?

discussions 
> about permanancy > volanteer (open to everyone) but compulsary that someone always signs on for responsibility (community can choose to accept or not)
> written principles / unwritten rule. Unwritten rule also emerges from practice / culture emerges. Whereas here the principle generates the unwritten rule. Ie. No Written Rule is written.
> government proposal > 'silent areas' you decide how it works > no written rule / principle, you decide how to enact > communal negotiation
> oral constitution > groups of citizens learn particular sections of the constitution > called up when needed to communicate it. > could be for this space, core people who are possessed by knowledge, renewed through your understanding.
> threshold, where the rules ony appear through usage
> max three rules in this space? > on the board and changeable > rule is valid for however long you're there > erase them when you leave... provokes negotiation, but playful.

> there has to be a 'need' in order for the experiment to work > ie. there must to be a need for the space itself, codependency... are we creating the need? pre-emptive. We don't urgently need it right now...

> Forum > could be a set structure with a reassessment with everyone afterwards

>> WHO
> is there a resposible group? positive discussion of SOTA spontaeneous responsibility from rolling people...
> when forced responsibility it becomes difficult
> if you feel part of something you become morally responsibiliy? > can be problematic. Can reverse this model? think of desire rather than responsibility? Response rather than responsibility?
> engine is desire, rather than pressure from the group. If there's no energy then it collapses? this is ok? it reactivates when there is real need.
> responsible for own happiness is a basis for this.
> question around sustain... 
> critique of anarchy > needs an oppression in order to exist > only reactive, rather than proposing a positive model.
> NEED itself = the goal > we're looking for other conditions of work than is available, this is the input of the energy.
> personal commitment is important > you know why you're there. You're not committed to a fixed form on which you can externalise frustration / anger. > people go there because they like to be there.
> Need is 'sharing'... in combination with need to 'work alone'.

> fixed schedule >

Experiment with working conditions > basic openness to committing to something > then it changes every while, strong proposals for new work environment...
>> programmatic? shifting with people who come in?
> the experiment is only how it is organised. You come in and do your work > either get involved in shaping it 

If you need this space, how do you know that you can go there?
You like the community, but your work need is specific therefore it will have a strong influence on the space.
> advertising > it's a space where you experiment with working conditions >> clarity of space identity >> enables new people to come in. 

Far from a public space?

Sarah;
> 2 things distinct:  beauty and excitement (space) /// games (activation) 
> space needs to be very worthwhile & beautiful >> our responsibilty to prepare this >> a warm initiation of this (bringing the plants)
> games > is what activates it >  anarchic version, responsibility try out, 3 rules game. >> find a framework where we can try them all.

eg. blackboard tool at PAF > if you want to make something public > a blackboard, you can enact from a list of games. Can also propose them.... 
The game is to propose the games

FORUM: pragmatic and force the thing? hardcore rules in order to test and find out.
authority is only if it's legitimate for the ones below. Must legitimate itself. 
Strong invitation which is the project > eg spring meeting at PAF, which initiates an energy for what follows. Regular communcal refreshment of the project, even if you don't come and actually use it.

Is designing the space part of our work now? 
Could we work on a set of limits?
eg.
Sarah: playing the games is not interesting > would step out. Needs a beautiful place to be, in order to survive. It's not a core practice for her. 
Kaai realation hard because the space sucks // bunker. Its heavy. We need to be braver about this: do we really work here?

go for the luxury? imagine what you want and then and go and ask for it.
> go straight to the people we want to have an experiment in >> think about the space where we want to be and go inhabit it.
eg. collaborate with Kaai but do it elsewhere - you don't have the facillity to help us. 

Alek: drive is the horrible space > how to rewire a space that has been killed by an institution. Beauty is the movement that's going on there > excitement is what happens.
"yes it's ugly but let's make it beautiful"

S: voluntary labour is the dynamic > sociability is not my main practice > in a small space there is no escape, there's not a breathingness...

Is beauty a given?
> A: it comes through connections between people > beauty will make it more organic > but the principle of the institution, is the context of beauty, and enough to carry it.
> S: institution can be combined with another space.


games // plus an overarching very skeletal solid structure
> what to decide in advance?

Ingrid: key decisions:
'invitation' > access, relation to institution, finances > initial communication flows from this

eg. decisions

we run the space? someone else does? no-one runs the space?

prototype more concrete, but not with a fixed example
>> then see how to actualise it...

>>> 

Given conditions: 
    > answer them personally > ethics of the Pact neccessary or linked to this?
    > what can be left open to the games (motivational)? and what predecided (structural)



>> ETHICS OF PACT 
>> GIVEN CONDITIONS (including hygenic conditions & motivations. Motivations = activities. Hygenic conditions = whatever is fixed, strucutural, guaranteed quality for the workers > can also include football club, lunch for free (moved from motivations and become structural working) 

With Luigi > what is teh neccessity?

recap of ugencies
> will to break an isolation in the work practices in the arts field
> create a piazza for the field (can come through > share space, share practices)
> curiosity and need to break the bubble with the rest of the knowledge workers in society > so invitation where it's possible for others to join

> 'threat' to current working systems? risk is better addresses together?
> practice of sharing as a goal in itself > given conditions are the tools with which the practice can be developed.

...possible to come and work, and not cowork? continuity / calmness
public provocation to push for what you desire to happen

Real possibility is to erase the practices that already exist. Every time someone comes in it changes everyone

L: nice contradition between the words play and work > 
>> no clear shared value >> or clear goal
the idea of the space generates something >> coworking is the goal >>BUT >> the space itself is the goal, the way it works, to be happy there...
eems like a specific public square in a small village > an inner yard, a micro climate, you can pass through and leave, a pocket > beautiful,
>> is the shared value "sharing" 
>> risk = the finding of balance of needs
>> rules? facilitator? unwritten rules? enjoy the place!!

artistic project? 
Social experiment >> sociabilty of the space is what's in question >> what's our need for this?
what is the research root of this? clarity of this helps (part of discussion about social vs. artistic 'focus')
connection between individual desire > experiment basis >>>>> for the experiment to answer all these desires is important

space questions work itself >> what does it mean to work in sharing? what are you sharing? Need to know what you're sharing otherwise don't knw wy to be there.

S: for me need to get into a space as soon as possible > experiement > like this you find out 
what would attract me? the capacity to feel welcome (I feel at home, I don't feel boundaries in the people, I feel physically good comfortable (the place where you spend your life) > I need soon something that engages me and open enought to listen to me and open some opportunities that I don't have (opportunities and neccessities are very different from one person or another).

Useful game!
standing in positions related to a proposal (on contensious issues)


EXT QUESTIONS:
>> Which institutions would we show the Cowo prototype to? With the idea that they build it into their structural dossier 2017 + 
>> offsite posibility?

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

MEETING VALENTINA (Kate, Sarah, Valentina)
> indoor/outdoor/desk work/ can interact with other functions (it's not a studio, woodwork etc) it's a space for talking and knowledge based exchange
> in a city, plants, desk, good acoustics > knowledge workers
> is it a public space? > ie. events. > consensus > space divided into spaces, a negotiable space for public (conferences, workshops etc) Agora, piazza, a place for community understanding. Fixed space fr desk work. Outdoor space is both. 
> Wild Camping mataphor, you inhabit and feel at home, but you shaer and take care >> also a challenge on your practice (so you change your own practice, according to how sharing changes it) 'exception' that you make for the environment and others in it. 
> fixed time frame 1-3 years, everyone knows it will end.
> experiement with given conditions > the non-negotiable aspects

>> a couple of bedrooms, where someone lives cheaply and takes responsibility overnight

> fixed functions rooms, people activate it by changing these 
> core practice schedule // rituals >> clear rather 

>> why do we presuppose that people need, want and will take care of it.
>> the way you produce care is by caring > why think systems, as opposed to needs, desires and spirals out from there > you arenot a group of urban planners // see who comes and then react to it.

> there is a mechanical element to the proposal. Most attractive is the playground > pushing further pratices that are in the back of our minds 
> the gift is important > parasite in the institution

>>> performing work > artists decide how to perform > perform your own work > not the functionality of work, but formulating a score for the day. Join or copy others in their proposals.
>>> example of performing 'student' together
>>> systemic feel is strong, the strongest feeling as opposed to a collectino of people who grow it.

> this brings a problem of accessibility 
> practice grows with people > goes to acessibility problem > core group building it's own systematic > becomes permeable

>>> things become accessable when something is going on 
>>> transparency of what people are doing (2 hours coffee etc) > 
>>> organisation of the space remains very mobile but not neccessary to erase the arrangements (traces left)

> emotional ability to emrace a possibility to shift this way 
> this kind of openness can be uncomfortable and exclusive

> political project > not here to reproduce comfort...
> principles as opposed to rules

> something that has a clear vision is accessible
> we come together to determine our conditions of work, and to question our ways of working

>> no existing 'model' for this, so needs to be established, can't be assumed as a park or library is (also evolved through many forms)

S > trigger is > how you colonise a public instittion > is the political point

>>> exposed vs. open (this place will be open but not exposed) gives another possibility.
>>> work/life closeness > goes towards forming a community  >> what is a light frame that would allow to begin, and a clear invitation so its accessible

S > a practice of hospitality is triggering  > focus hospitality and care. 

the experiement needs clarity otherwise it is too systemic??? 'patronising' discussion (hard to follow where the conflict is in this conversation)

functions and principles > a score vs. a choreography

How to articulate this so it's clear to everyone immediately what is going on and possible.
> text at the door // better not embodied

>>> as soon as you enter the space you are already working >> 'performance'

I think the word 'performance' is exchangeable with 'ritual' ?

What's the leverage in this? More related to pleasure and desire > capacity to make and make for others. 
S> clearest concept is hospitality, it's outsside the capiltal but still take effort > uncalculable efforts > a free economy >> 
> uses the instuittion for what they're good at, a conservation or protection >> otherwise have to ask people to pay, have a cafe - conditions that are much harsher >> acts differently on your body.

Challenge = finding way to articulate the proposal in the first case >> the first contact moment
>> "we're cooking at" > the Berlin kitchen > you encounter it on the street and there is a clear proposal. Then you open the door and you find this.
>> it comes because some people start it, then it becomes recognisable.... chicken/egg discussion (it builds up towards this?)

>> what is at stake and what do you need to know from this experiment? WHat can we only know by doing this experiment as opposed to another experiment >> (already an instrument)
>> score = the sign in front of the door changes every 2 months > internal working goes on, and an awareness of what the public invitation / articulation. A tool that changes every month? day? It is teh score.

> public side remains a key issue > otherwise go to a farm and build soemthing and offer is come and join us 'be part of this thing' 
> here the invitation is 'build it yourself' > a strong challenge is how to articulate this.

> won't be a problem that people come in? too accessible? neighbours and surroundings might be more the problem. What is the minimum that it needs to come into being > so that it can grow. 
Therefore the proposal is a modus operandi, that is open to reconstitution

>> how do we work together? as a core concern... everything spirals out from that.
to quesion what is work, what do 

> least labour intensive version attractive, not reproduing exhaustion. 
> you work, you work for your own happiness >> several principles of how the work is>>> is an initial re-proposing of "what is work".
Let's talk about work again > because work is a big problem. >> to come together in a diversity of personal conditions > how not to flatten to some consensus. 
Not uniting around a need, but allowing for the experiment also
> consensus is around a curiousity to experiment around what work is and sharing is. 
People can can both insist on an experiment and also insist on just doing what they need to do.
There is no natural way to work... 
What is a rythm that can be shared? 

First proposl is attractive enough that people want to try, but not too imposing.

S: Core initial proposal (core of the experiment)  /// separate from //// Core initial practice (easily identitfiable with the people that are there)
These two things will change >> struggling with the initial process will bring changes in both directions.

Proposal: to discuss with Paladini about articulation of this.

General Assembly question: 
    V: decisions, assessment, positions. What are other models for disucssing? 'Readings' of what's going on. "reads the cleaning" etc
    Tends to be - immediately one image solidified and others react. Instead a practice of sharing. Then another process for decisions.
Need to reflect? Practice of time to exchange. It's a moment of thinking together. Subjective. 
Given condition? an experiment within the proposal about mapping > group feels what is happening >> 

The ones that feel stronger about it talk further > people not interested in that decision can leave / hang out. The ones that are strongly against it stay to talk through.
Different people take different decisions?
How does transparency work with these kinds of conversations? How do other people keep up with the discussion / find out what happened?
PAF: Some main conditions under which everyone is contacted (big sum of money, fundamental change of use of building etc)


__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Meeting Guy

Scale/Intensity of usage
> GA as a way to counterbalance sedemantation through use. 
> less then a 100 cap.
> No symbolic usage: real practice that is visible instead of symbolic memberships. --> how to control this?
> Spacial division necessary
> Need to be able to rely on other people to take care of the space // how to deal with people who just want to come in and do their job.

> 200 people > 2/3 of your time spent there. 
2/3 of your time spend there on your own work, 1/3 on collective
large emphasis on togetherness 
Schedule VS commitment

> Dead hour >> allowing for non usage

> No sleeping // sleeping is not using but occupying 


G: Creating a basis from a community? Or from a commons?
Co-practice? No alternative to ‘co-working’ yet…
Focus is still on the labour ideological level, how to question work to arrive to community rather than vice versa. But there is a connection there and the direction it takes is important (not to the commune model)

Basic question around democratic practice vs. community issue > this is different from labour / work question… 

The relation between the work space and the nonwork space > about the place and the space relate to work 


Ø  discussion about sleeping > safety concierge vs. community ‘exclusive’ vs. 

COMMUNITY / IDENTITY
> Invite to invite
> Invitation statement facing the public space / physical presence as the experiment = door open
> unlike volks-kitchen it’s not eat/meet as the focus > but here a basis is pretty complex (practice / exchange). So how do you deal with people that come in with very different ideas of what to do there.
>  work on this text is very importnatn to make the ideological invitation very clear - this text is both a facilitation and also a threshold.
> more time spent on that text than on doing anything else? The place grows a culture & conduct of it’s own, that is evident on entry? Hospitality question – how to communicate to those who have no idea what’s going on?
> transparency and hospitality as principles > 

> which risks do we want to take with this space and why? > ‘bad element’ vs ‘confused’ people…
> wild camping > where it’s explicitly possible littering is more of a problem / vs. secret is more careful. 

> Inside principles are clearly communicated but no written rules
> Possibility to constantly change the invitation statement but not the principles.
Given conditions as ideas to facilitate expression of Principles. 
> Possibility to rearticulate the public invitation always / Sarah articulates this well. 
> Word of Mouth > mystery element useful

> Public moments – how you get to know (vs. public media)
> co-share / not co-work
> place where you work on your own but are interested and willing to engage in the ‘other’ as well > not a place of ‘I am’ but ‘I inter-am’ / Give and Take

> don’t communicate actively / bureaucratic > whispers, public access…
            - interesting tension between the very local… discussion

> the space doesn’t communicate itself > people have to communicate it if they want public events.
ACCESS


SYMBIOTIC INSTITUTION
> beloved anarchic parasite (beauty!) >> socialist idea of enjoyment together
> symbiotic relation = two directions / the idea of a gift = one direction? Talk about commons as ‘gift from the planet’, Guy > gift concept interesting
>  is the institution excluded from use as the gift giver? Organisation as a an information digesting machine. Want to be able to gather and digest information through this > access through this co-wo gives back info.
> 


ACTIVITY / CULTURE 
> TRACES > the score is to make things possible for others but also to leave traces of what happened (and what is possible) (?????) > writing the culture of the space
> ‘working’ as a core concept needs to be challenged (imbedded in the core princples – it’s there 

Traces discussion 
> formats for traces eg. ask people to speak about what they’ve been doing 



> DRIES: we miss concrete proposals to avoid sedimentation of a core group 

> GUY: we can’t do all this in this building at Kaai > it has to be somewhere else > link with Kaai will have to be something other than physical hosting. It’s uncompatable.

> once the prototype is written we see if and how Kaai could collaborate on it (hovering question – is Kaai interested).



SCHEDULE for 23/24th JUNE
Process > till June
Decide if we want a consensus / dissensus, or decide is we want two prototypes? It's a communal project not an individual project? There’s a demand from more engagement from the 23rd onward – it’s the prototype that we’ll spend our time working to realise > need to find warmth and passion for this > leave people behind.
How to make them gameish work days? To make the conflicts interesting not stupid.

Eg > fantasise the model of our neighbour?
Games produce rather than organise material… game that organises materials is hard to find.


Isolate Key domains > principles (what is contingent? And what is given conditions)
DECISION: what is the core of the space? Written constitution? Principles? Then we start writing them. 
Dries: decide to only work with principles, then everything is thought later
Sarah: no – map what is there and then it will speak for itself > make a narrative, telling the story of the prototype (taking decisions on the way) form this you learn what is important and what not, where you take risks.
WHICH OF THESE METHODOLOGIES? Dries and Sarah understand this best.
>> Sarah & Dries will prepare the first part of the meeting >> skype to arrange it.
>> meet at our place >> food 

Divide and articulate the domains clearly > and the variety of possibilities / (ie. conflicts exposed). Delegate the 

Decisions made on post its > then randomly defend one you pick.
But how to really make decisions?



Forum autumn >> cancel the use of the space // spend the time in another way together with Kaai

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

MEETING 23 JUNE >> EVERYONE PRESENT


First discussion: 

Sarah:
>>> INVITATION TO PUBLIC = PERFORMATIVITY OF WORK // ARTICULATING AND ACTIVIATING PRACTICES OF WORK
>>> TRACES (VS. NO TRACES) /// INVITATION IS TO LEAVE TRACES AS A WAY TO SHARE & DEVELOP PRACTICES > (IS THERE A WAY TO MAKE THIS IMMATERIAL TOO?)

PUBLIC INVITATION IN FRONT OF THE DOOR  //  WRITTEN PRICIPLES OF THE SPACE (PRACTICAL) //// (NO WRITTEN RULES)
A PRICIPLE IS THAT THE INVITATION CAN CHANGE
(RULES AS INVITATIONS)

Christophe:
deeper way of sharing > you change rules because you think it's better for the thing itself (ie. not arbitrary or egoistic) = needs a deeper involvement with the principles. The basic princicple is therefore important > what is it?

Sarah:
Precarity, Productivity, Work, Labour as the common basis of investigation / experiment >> we need to write about this as a basis of the prototype. 
From Core experiment >> grow principles >> given conditions

CHRISTOPHE
> IT NEEDS A LEVEL OF DEPENDENCY AS ENGAGEMENT (IF IT GOES TO SHIT WE'LL LOSE SOMETHING)
> WHAT IS YOUR LOVE DECLARATION FOR THE SPACE? (analagy of peer to peer, you give a part of your harddisk in order to join)
> you give something in, it's also a risk. You depend on it somehow.
> Commons exist because they're needed // 
> need to be dependent on it? We only live in dependencies (question around the word) >> interdependencies?
> looking for a prodcution of shared values that are not fixed / we don't come in to conform to a predetermined value > instead each person puts sometihng new in, both a pain for the others and an interdependent growth of shared values.

MAP OF COMING DAYS:

(games = please be responsible for sticking to the point)
(work from existing materials)

Morning Game > IDENTITY AND PERSPECTIVES
- choose a perspective playfully (or not). Choose one that is close to your own desires, or one you feel responsible for. You will stick with it for today.
- through these identities we each choose 5 materials that are absolutely non-negotiable ie. given conditions (eg. ethics of the space etc) and choose 3 that are negotiable.
With these 8 principles you have a micro-prototype
- give a 5 minute presentation of this prototype >> come up with an attractive and convincing narrative.

Afternoon Game > FROM THIS PERSPECTIVE MAKE A COHERENT PROPOSAL 
- Followed by a forum > we divide the materials in an exclusive way, so the groups are formed for the writing.

Evening selection of materials

Day 2 = writing the 1 or 5 prototypes



ALEKSANDRA
ITENTITY - newcomer / performing artist / performing arts graduate from holland / very present, see everything / don't like to discuss money / not very busy / love cooking
NONNEG > moves every 2 months / goes to very different locations / no core group runs it, principles belongs to the users / no fee / 

RASA
ITENTITY - bomshikas / intelligent homeless / cross border activities / artistic tendencies / not living in Brussels / needing work place > meetings, texhing sessions, presentations / no money / open hearted
NONNEG > transparent opbjectives (if things change, then I can see it and why) / accessible and space free to work when needed / possibility to plan in advnace / reasonably clean, traces welcome but I need tobe able to work as soon as I arrive / balance between calm and surprise / affordable (how much would you pay, how much is it worth, how much can you pay) or you exchange some tasks

INGRID
ITENTITY - my work is about flows of information and sharing these (journalist, or...) / having trouble getting focused / needs to make a mess / heavy user, not moving much.
NONNEG > different functions / ritual of decisions for the day / copy-left (traces are left) / generosity as a driving pricple of the space / experiment of work and productivity

SARAH
ITENTITY -traveller > not often arund, but when I'm around you can really feel it / part of a wider international community / linguistically and administratively borderline / interested in European debate / city girl, usually part of the cool kids, go out dancing older friends but reaching for younger students.
NONNEG > indoor & outdoor space (possible to become beautiful) / a place for work / possibility to change how it fucntions / free of charge, no beurocracy / big enought to host more than 40 people at once.

CHRISTOPHE
ITENTITY -depressed theoritician, who wants to enact ideas, engage in an activation of change / wishes for irrverable change, would liketo have the courage for giving up the status quo. Paradigmatic relation to change. 40-something. Little bit of energy left. / he studied abroad but here since a long time.
NONNEG > space has a topic, work achievement and collectivity / entrance filter is linked with a love declaration to the space - and their accessible (can be read) / radical openness of access / value generating collectivity (the charter is generated by the group) / fixed terms for reassessment (bear with it until assessment moment) eg. 6 months of test then re-negotiate / not a consensus space, tension an accepted part of it.

DRIES
ITENTITY - Louis Douibi > hybrid activist with time issues / looking for structure in my life / looking for spaces where some parts of my practice come together / actively looking so I can invest in them, invest in taking responsiblity for this space / I'm conscious that I need this space because I know they're not easy to come by // a local
lono-neg
NONNEG > space open as much as possible (24/7 if possible) / no membership / library (shared thinking) / clear functions (with core social space) / word of mouth communication pf the space / facilitated by ever-changing hybrid core team

KATE
ITENTITY - international drifter / work on complex job, and very bored by parts of it / want to play and concentrate / want to be suprised by other creatures and ways of doing / afraid of being bored in group discussions / 
NONNEG > transparency = written principles of engagement (space of negotiation and experiment around work and shared space) & no written rules // three spaces (can be switched, but always possible): quiet, undefined, social (kitchen) / transparency - regular social engagement to articulate the space, available from a distance / membership is only a daily sign-in board to say I'm there / recipe book of core rituals or practices where the experiment is recorded and knowledge traces.


Given conditions / ethics / who / 

DISCUSSION of PROTOTYPES

> articulating the need for different approaches to the prototype >> do we write a fixed model? or aim for a totally adaptable model? 
> do we talk about what is realisable and practical? or do we do an inspirational detailing of the researches?
 
AREAS OF ARTICULATION FOR PROTOTYPE:

WHY: 
> being colonized by a certain kind of working collectivity (not recognizing ourselves in the working collectivities currently offered) 
> a collective re-evaluation of productivity itself
> resisting a fragmentation of self-evaluation (a capitalist tendency?)
> sustainability (of space, of resources, of practices)
> collective re-evaluation of achievement / success / competition

WHAT: Experiment work & productivity // 

HOW: (Principles) Anti-normative collectivities

Invitation to the principle (Communication)
>  is on internet and door a declaration
>  declined into the love declaration (access to the principle)

INHABITING THE SPACE / IMPLEMENTATION: practices 
(rules) > eg. none / as little as possible / no preemptive rules

WHO: 

THE SPACE:

HYGENIC CONDITIONS:
Toilet, kitchen, social space, 


Why / how / what > Christophe
Going through the notepad > Aleksandra & Rasa & Kate
How / Invitation > Sarah
Why > Ingrid


__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


MEETING 6 everyone present

>>>> divided individually to work 
>K,R,A,I on synthesising / boiling notes 
>D, C, S on writing structures

Dries
> going through given conditions from point of view of "anti-normative collectivity"
> access, compiled models
> identity / communication > publish manifesto (online? media?)
>>> how do we become a more diverse group > launch and location very imporant to this. So next to manifesto, teh call and the refresh of the call
> trying to describe the users, truying to find common link > deskless soft scientists. Group of people dealing with 'unquanitifiable' things > stuck on defining language for this...
> fixed rythm, every friday apero, first Monday of teh month general meeting > a ritual of gathering comibined with something more attractive.
> financial, supprted by institutions > exchange with instittuiton, but in idea of gift, miss the 'why' of this > must be weill formulated >>> IN QUESTION
> inspired by islamic banking (offering loans without interest) > no profit in the space
> activities (forced culture) (close to 'HOW') >>> IN QUESTION
> which tools for negotiation? by games? > needs research 
> non-facilitation, but what communication games needed for the new entry person? unsolved and have to find it for themselves?
> silent space (up for discussion) 
> zero waste
> important for this space > big, kitchen, at least 2 spaces...
> cleaning ritual 
> principles >> doer decides, you're responsible for your own happiness, zero waste <> leave traces (in tension)

Sarah: 
Wrote a structue of PROTOTYPE
POINTS OF DISCUSSION / DECISION:
> the dynamic and the contradiction of the principles > and which engines these start >> principles call for interpretation
> 'what'
> why experiment on sharing
> why experimenting on 'public'
> why a gift from an institution
> who (and/or participation threshold)
> how > why set a fixed time
> principles > what is forbidden
> communication > promoted or not
> practice & application > functions set or not
> evaluation processes?
> the invitation 
> participation / love declaration / presence is only reqirement? (decisions only happen on site) / is there a core or facilitator group / free-labour exchange
> activities and growing practices > playing & peforming work etc
> opening hours (depends on practicalities or comes from principles >> DECIDE WHICH) 



Christophe:
> wrote about why (challenging the status quo)
> motivations / activities people do there: sharing work, sharing space, sharing decisions (AND AND or AND OR)
> subjecting (my own) working conditions to unknown/certain frameworks

R > Framework for working which is not yet a known system >> alternative or resistence to 'ngo' & 'entrepreneur' pressure

S > why-'public' is not articulated

C > not looking for equality and democratic = not saying 'everyone is equal'

D > discussion about principles (pre-set) and practices (negotiable)


GUY DISCUSSION
> want to ask subsidies? > better to start to enact? how does this relate to the instittutions?
> start by going to FOaM etc. to try on miniature scale > go step by step
>> when is the institution involved?

there's a short term and long term
> short term is possible on the small scale
> long term needs an institution > it's clear that we want this and it's a brick in the foundation - and we need to respect the (long) rythms of institutions
>>> we want to go for the institution because of practical and ideological basis 

Involve institution by asking them to send (their) people to participate in the tests?
We are missing some parts of the prototype / knowledge that need to be practically tried before can be completed 

But isn't the idea of an unfinished proposal a provocation in itself? We don't go to the institution with a finished thing. It's an experiment > we expect and share the risk. This is only possible in Brussels...

DISCUSSION - leap for this risk with institution? or grow from an organic step by step.
What are we assuming? This phase is finishing, another will begin - someone will ask us to join the second wave of development? What shape will that wave have?
> do we give away the project to Kaai and see what happens? ie. can they develop in parallel. We give them the prototype and maybe they pick it up. Becomes their responsibility.
Danger: The empty lines will be filed by Kaai
>> what do we share? 'why' > the concrete model with it's inherent questions and needs for enactment.

>>> does Guy want to continue to support developing the thing, and then fund it when it arrives? What obligations from out side?

We need a love declaration from the Institution to get involved with them...

This phase is closed. How it will reopen is to be seen.

REQUESTS:
> add our notes to the co-wo pad. 
> finish collating the prototype >> before 6th July
8 or 10 July Guy meeting

**********
Writing from Christophe and following discussion:

why
insatisfaction with present conditions for work and sharing of work

Competitive, commercial, success driven modes of assessing human activities have become so widespread and matter of fact that their influence can even be felt withing the working practices of those who are the most fervent critiques of the neoliberal trends.

A large part of our work as progressive artists and arts practicioners aims in a way or another at challenging the capitalist and neoliberal status quo of our present days societies.  

The modes and conditions for the production of such art work should be the first  place in which alternatives to the dominant model are developed and implemented.  

Yet, we too, as artists and arts practicioners seem to have unlearned to work, share, think and organise themselves outside of the the capitalist paradigm of individual success, financial independence, and market driven competition..

We feel the need to collectively reeducate ourselves towards more content- and sharing-driven practices and more sustainable senses of achievement.

what
an embodied investigation of work, achievement and collectivity.
co-working space as medium for the investigation

Learning to work, share and assess differently requires reflexion, but it can only be achieved through practice. The scope of the undertaking thus reaches beyond a theoretical investigation of the question towards an embodied experiment in work, achievement and collectivity. It is about defining new working conditions for ourselves and experiencing the effects of these new conditions upon our practices and between them.

Commoning rather than competing
Advancement of contents and practices rather than individual success

Coworking - shared space & time as framework for collectively and individually practicing new relationships to work and achievement.

Tweaking the parameters, forcing the conditions, pushing the limits of the existing "normality".

More than providing for the most optimal condition for our existing work, this coworking space aims at seeking for possible conditions which could affect the nature of our work itself, thus possibly also changing it.



how

anti normative collectivity
non preemptive rules
copy left policy
written principle / unwritten rules
transparency
shared responsibility
no service but quality to be cultivated
regular reassessement / 'bare with the thing' principle
unforeseen encounters
productive clashes


nexus of individual and shared risks / stakes / involvements / needs
—> importance of the existence of a stake for each participant, not forcefully the same, but of similar importance, or intensity, or perhaps not even, just the importance of a stake, of something to lose.

        public coponent


who
        accessibility
        people concerned
love declarations
        minority practices / trans disciplinarity
        


where
        the space
        the location

when
        fixed terms experiment



Problem of the generalisation / abstraction of the coworking space: thinking it beyond those who are actually present. there's no user but the user that is actually using i.e. that is present.

PRINCIPLES:

the doers decide

bear with the thing until you know it

your traces are for others

be responsible for your own happiness - (no compromise)

transparency

openess / hospitality

non preemptiveness / no preestablished norm to conform oneself to

care / generosity / sharing of results / outcomes

sharing of risk & responsibility (take risks)

those in are those who care (who love it)

no service but quality to be cultivated (no service provided)

surprises are no suprises


(attempt at negative definition)

no compromises

no suprises

no service provided


shifting into practice: let's do it.

******************** 
Writing from Alexandra: 


Constant Co-creation 

= a place where people can really work
AND WHERE common projects keep being reknitted


to make another culture,
THIS IS OUR FIRST impermanent version WHERE THE



shared value is not to impose value
BUT there are PRINCIPLES /(NO WRITTEN RULES)
We want to see who comes and then react to it.
SO the rules ony appear through usage

 
and we renegotiate the rules towards unknown surprises.

Doer decides !!!!

WHILE not recognizing ourselves in the working collectivities currently offered
AND BEING CURIOUS TO collectiveLY re-evaluatE productivity itself AND
AS A Reaction to fragmantaion
WE THOUGHT OF THIS NEW PLACE BEING A 
beloved anarchic parasite
·          THAT ACTIVATES ITSELF IN Gaps.. 
·       

HERE WE Experiment WITH work & productivity

-Work 
-Productivity
-CollectiVITY
-Shared thinking
-Educational aspecT

Shared value is not to impose value AND IT IS NOT A
not a consensus space.

THERE IS A need to cultivate differences and let them grow.
YOU NEED TO Take responsibility for your own need
AND balance OF THESE needs IS IMPORTANT.
 

ALL OF THAT DONE WITH COMPLETE 

TRANCPARENCY
IN AN 

ANTI NORMATIVE COLLECTIVITY

WHERE YOU BARE WITH THE THING PRINCIPLE TILL (REASSASMENT)
Every time someone comes in it changes everyone !!

MAYBE the shared value IS "sharing" ?

THERE IS AN entrance filter/AND IT IS A
natural process to become member (ALTHOU THERE IS NO MEMBERSHIP)
AS SUCH YOU DO NEED TO BE 
availABLE for negotiation 

AND QUESTION YOUR DESIRE AND 
 Response CAUSE THERE WON’T BE ANY responsibility IMPOSED.

ALL THAT IS HAPPENING SOMEWHERE 
worthwhile & beautiful
people activate(TEMPORARY FUNCTIONS) it by changing ACTIVITIES IN these ROOMS.
IT DOES HAVE an  indoor AND 
Outdoor SPACE..AND MOST PROBABLY A
quiet space.

   THERE  IS no money investment ASKED from users.

THIS PLACE allows things to happen temporarily
AND DRIVES ON individual fulfillment in a cohabitation 
Ø  individual resposibility is that your needs are heard
Ø  shared responsibility
need for shared work space
wish for communal channels
// no systemic spaces where we can confront and evaluate conditions or mirror each other

need for connection between sectors 
breaking isolation
A NEED FOR generosity
AND Informal knowledge exchange

build bridges BY 
organising 'events' 'debates', 'meetings'
IN collaboration and challenge with the insitution

===========================================

         transdisciplianry encounters

activator of thought and action
·      need to embody collective practices
·      mobility
·          urgency
·          fragmentation 
·      copy-left  -solidarity

       clean is a communal responsibility

 ******************** 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

MEETING WITH GUY 8/7/15 (Sarah, Dries, Kate)

We showed Guy the current prototype (which is a mash together of what Christophe and Sarah wrote) 
> You can see it a in the co-editable form here: http://pad.constantvzw.org/public_pad/FINAL_COWO_REPORT

Guy made some comments e.g.
> what to define in advance so that work can actually happen rather than just discussion about how to proceed? 
> De-politicising (ie fixing) some things, in order to make space to re-politicise other things.
> he’s still looking for the ‘handle’ that the institution can grip onto ie. what is fixed over the course of the experiment (since it’s possible all the users will change), what is fixed enough to offer the institution a ‘bridge’? what prevents it form completely changing over the period?
> the ‘constitution’ should be this bridge (this constitution defines a freedom framed within a set of principles)
> he still thought that art was not mentioned, but in fact it is (this is important point for the institution, to validate it's involvement)
> hard to imagine from the outside what will really happen there 
> maybe we need a vivid ‘wishlist’ of things that could happen, that we as users are likely to activate, so we communicate what is possible.


We proposed that the next step of this prototype is to find an institution to activate it, and asked if Kaai is interested. 
Guy is interested. 
The choice to go ahead rests on balance with WSB relationship (who have similar co-wo project proposal). 
The decision about this happens beginning September, when the decisions are finalised for structural dossier focus.

We proposed that if Kaai decides to go ahead and parter on the project, a group of people will gather to follow this process. 
The first step would be finding a space. Possible timing > start looking together in November

Meanwhile Sarah proposed to work on the existing document to make it sharp - delivery latest 1 September.

It was a good meeting in the sense that Guy obviously likes and wants to collaborate on realising this experiment. 
Whether Kaai can or not has to be decided during August.

More notes: 
    discussion about the space to find - around 100 people standing (public event) so at least 300-400 square metres?
    not meaningful if it's less than 200 square meters
    fixed time limit 2 - 4 years
    action! let's do it! 
    finding really empty buildings is difficult, market prices are known. Perhaps teh 2 year time frame allows for temporary cheap occupation...

Guy working again from 12 August