[sudo-discuss] [BAPS-Organizing] Re: [omni-discuss] Replacing the term "bottom-liner" with..?

Mon Jan 12 09:19:24 PST 2015

Michael,

Are you *sure* you don't wanna be on the Omni discuss list? Your insights
are so welcome - I'd love to hear more of your thoughts on all of the
various issues that arise. That said, I'll take whatever I can get from
you!

Thank you SO MUCH for these thoughts.

I agree with you %100 percent (and think this touches on something that
Scott was talking about in the CDC meeting yesterday).

We have set up a basic organizational structure in order to just cover
basic needs but we really need to be reexamining these systems. I believe a
group began to talk about having some kind of visioning / strategic
planning session at the Gather last night for this very purpose. Matt S
mentioned trying to schedule a more formal discussion soon.

Love y'all.

N

On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 10:17 PM, Michael Nicoloff <
michael.nicoloff at gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm not sure if I'm seeing subsequent emails following Niki's given access
> or lack thereof to the other lists, so forgive any redundancy. I concur
> with Niki that the question of naming is not nothing, in part because of
> the ways that names, obviously, carry unconscious connotations that can
> shape our approaches to the things they name. I don't really have a problem
> with the term bottom-liner, as to me it hasn't implied an anti-collective
> approach, but as I said, we're not just talking about the conscious things
> a name brings up.
>
> Concerns about the name, though, seem to be one manifestation of larger
> concerns about the nature of event/program support at the Omni. I know on
> the BAPS side of things there's been on-and-off problems with finding
> enough people to bottom-line classes, and that often the duties of
> bottom-lining have unevenly fallen on a few key people, so that even if the
> name bottom-liner hasn't struck me as a problem, the organizing practice
> has at times felt built on shaky ground. What in theory is a non-coercive,
> equal, from-each-to-each kind of horizontalism becomes not so much that in
> practice, with responsibility (and power) concentrating/burdening a small
> number of folks. (Obviously, I know I don't have to explain this dynamic to
> any of you.)
>
> So I feel like lurking under concerns about the name are questions of
> organization, of how to ensure a horizontalism not just in name but also in
> reality, and so it seems like any discussion of renaming the bottom-liner
> task is also going to have to take a real look at our practices as
> collectives. Maybe I'm getting a little far afield here, but it seems like
> pulling on the thread of what to call what we're calling a bottom-liner
> pulls a lot of other issues with it.
>
> MN
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 6:09 PM, niki <niki.shelley at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This is not relevant to this particular conversation, IMHO.  Not to
>> mention that to even jokingly suggest "point-man" as a potential candidate
>> exhibits a real insensitivity / obtuseness to some of the very issues that
>> were raised in requesting an alternative to "bottom-liner" and exhibits
>> behavior associated with systems that we, as a community, are working to
>> confront and dismantle.
>>
>> I realize that for some people, language "doesn't matter" but, regardless
>> of whether it's important to you or not to care about such things, I'd like
>> to ask you to please be mindful of the fact that for some people, certain
>> words choices represent oppressive systems.
>>
>> So perhaps, if I could make a gentle suggestion, take a moment to
>> consider those that may be on this mailing list and in this community and
>> who might not enjoy the same level of privilege that you do. Using certain
>> language or dismissing the importance of caring about language can be
>> construed as oppressive, insensitive and can be incredibly hurtful and
>> alienating.
>>
>> Niki
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 5:41 PM, Tony Barreca <tony.barreca at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, if the opposing forces are reasonably well-trained, the point
>>> man is usually not the first guy to get shot.
>>>
>>> A well-trained opponent will typically let him (or her, perhaps,
>>> nowadays) get safely past so they have a much higher probability of killing
>>> all who follow.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Patrik D'haeseleer <patrikd at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 11, 2015 1:49 PM, "Ryan" <yandoryn at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > A point person, on the other hand, is the person you have to go to in
>>>> order to get involved at all. How do I get involved? *points at person*
>>>>
>>>> Actually,  I think "point man" presumably comes from military
>>>> terminology: it's the soldier who is "on point" in a patrol,  and who gets
>>>> to scout out the best route,  but who also gets shot at first if things go
>>>> wrong.  Perhaps not the best imagery we want to adopt...
>>>>
>>>> Patrik
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> > On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Patrik D'haeseleer <
>>>> patrikd at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 10:40 AM, Stephen Novotny <
>>>> novotny.stephen at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> To add to discussion: I believe one of the reason some of us began
>>>> to discuss changing "bottom-liner" is because it promotes arresting a
>>>> single person with all of the responsibility, rather than collectivizing
>>>> responsibility toward building community.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Meh - I think "point person" conveys exactly the same meaning to me.
>>>> I had never heard of the term "bottom-liner" before, so to my ear this just
>>>> seems like a pointless exercise in semantics.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> In the end, the mechanism is still that we appoint an individual to
>>>> carry somewhat more responsibility for an event, because otherwise things
>>>> will inevitably fall through the cracks. You can call them a bottom-liner,
>>>> a facilitator, a coordinator, a point person or whatever you want. Does it
>>>> suggest an unequal division of labor? Sure it does, but that just reflects
>>>> reality. We can strive for a more equal distribution, but in my opinion
>>>> just changing the name is not going to change the fact that some people put
>>>> in more effort than others, or that in some cases it is actually more
>>>> efficient for one person to take charge of certain details.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> What's in a name? that which we call a rose by any other name would
>>>> smell as sweet...
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Patrik
>>>>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> On Jan 11, 2015 10:38 AM, "lee worden" <wonder at riseup.net> wrote:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> "point person"?
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> On 01/11/2015 10:27 AM, joseph liesner wrote:
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> overseer; host; ITGT (if  Then go To)
>>>> >>>>> joe
>>>> >>>>> On Jan 11, 2015, at 10:13 AM, niki wrote:
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Hey all,
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> I want to honor the request from some Omni community members
>>>> that we replace the word bottom-liner.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Can we collect a list of alternatives and mutually agree to
>>>> attempt to replace this phrase / to lovingly and compassionately correct
>>>> one another if and when we slip up?
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> As little as it may seem, this will require a cultural shift for
>>>> a lot of us that I'm sure we're all willing to make, but it'll likely take
>>>> a bit of time before it collectively takes root.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> It would be great if those who take particular issue with this
>>>> phrase could put forth their suggestions.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> I will collect suggestions and make a poll both online and in
>>>> the real world.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Here are some suggestions of mine:
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> * steward
>>>> >>>>>> * curator
>>>> >>>>>> * representative
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Love,
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> N
>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> >>>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>> >>>>>> discuss at lists.omnicommons.org
>>>> >>>>>> https://omnicommons.org/lists/listinfo/discuss
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> >>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>> >>>>> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
>>>> >>>>> https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> >>>> discuss mailing list
>>>> >>>> discuss at lists.omnicommons.org
>>>> >>>> https://omnicommons.org/lists/listinfo/discuss
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>>> >>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>> >>> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
>>>> >>> https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>>> >> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>> >> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
>>>> >> https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
>>>> https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Tony Barreca
>>> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/tonybarreca
>>> Skype: tonybarreca
>>> Twitter: tbarreca
>>> Mobile: (510) 710-5864
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
>>> https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20150112/69e4191d/attachment.html>