point of process

a lot of the time i don't participate at meetings because, for one, it takes me a while to form an opinion, i like to listen and think, and secondly i sometimes feel intimidated in front of others. posting on these forums solves both of these problems - i'm pretty happy that i have this outlet, even if only a couple people actually read the posts.

anyway, i was thinking on the ride home about the meeting we had. I notice that a lot of time goes to figuring out rules (or guidelines or policies, whatever) for the space. my personal beliefs, especially for an anarchist space, is that we should go out of our way to not make rules, but to make decisions.

i've heard the term "double standard" mentioned a number of times, this week and last. to me, a double standard is making two different decisions on things that are almost the same, only with one minor difference (race, gender, class, friendship) that makes no difference to either specific case, but effects the decider's judgement on the person. I don't feel like any of our decisions were made like this.

I think a party for a specific person is different from a party for a group involved in the space is different from a party for a specific struggle. I think a tenant who expects privacy, has a pile of stuff, is there all the time and doesn't contribute to the space in any way aside from financially is different from a tenant with no stuff agreeing to sleep wherever there's room, to be as "low-impact" as possible, will only be around half the time and is not only paying money but is also a dedicated volunteer. I think a girl who throws books at people, molests them, gets other kids to slash tires and is (seemingly) all-around negative is different from a boy who's proven to be at least somewhat positive and helpful around the right influences while disruptive around the wrong ones.

making rules like "no parties, no tenants and any child who acts disrespectful can be banned from the space" are, to me, just wrong and products of a society that makes rules for everything. our meetings go way over time and don't get half the things covered because people go back an forth on making these blanket rules. if we just looked at each individual case without trying to create rules our meetings would be sooo much faster, and the decisions would be more fair.

secondly, I know that many of the people involved feel particularly strongly about squatting, dumpster diving, being resourceful and not wasting things, etc. i think if space is just sitting there, unoccupied at night while a person needs a place to sleep, provided that the person makes considerable efforts not to interfere with the original intentions of the space, there should be no reason not to let them stay there. the notion that it would start some kind of precedent and give people the idea that this is a different kind of space than it is, to me, is the same logic a supermarket chain has when they throw out dumpsters full of bread while people starve a block away. this alone would make me in favor of having the person stay there, not even taking into account the fact that the person will pay us, clean, volunteer and keep someone more safe.

I really agree %100 with what thaddeus was saying about looking into what the albany free school does to level the ground between kids and adults. kids (and other visitors of the space) should definitely be involved in the decisions made, particularly the ones involving them. aside from dismantling the potential power structure we're creating, it's also great for kids to be involved in decision-making process because they will then understand the decisions more. i've heard that free schools have figured out a good system for this. i really think we should look into that.

so, those are my two cents.