2017-03-31 Privacy, property, openness regarding spaces and items

Frank, Bodhi, Doug, Matthias
    
    Frank: Definition Privacy from german wikipedia: Non-public sphere in which a person unreflected by external influences takes their right to real development of the personality. The right to privacy is a human right (... please append, @frank)
    What do I wish of privacy (regarding spaces)? - To be unaffected, alone, un-observed, no fear of negative evaluation.
    What are my needs behind this?
    Physical needs: Protection, Quietness, Relaxation
    Interdependence: Acceptance, Thoughtfulness, emotional security, security, clarity, continueity
    spiritual: peace, harmony
    
    Feelings (when privacy is fulfilled): courage, relaxed, facilitated, unconcerned, brave, safe, calmly, appensed, open (free), clean, trustworthy
    Feelings (when privacy is missing): irritated, scared, embarassed, frightened, tensed, blocked
    
    Bodhi: Rarely has the need for privacy, normally enjoys being with other people. Never had problems finding solutions for being alone when needing it (but had problems with that in BaDue). Would like to know more about the needs behind privacy.
    Doug: Agrees to "being observed" regarding to privacy. Example of mum coming in his room at home. Can get most productive when unobserved.
    Frank: In the current plan there are also private rooms to provide privacy.
    Doug mentions that the current plans are not fixed and we should not focus too much on them, Frank wants alternatives then because he likes the design.
    
    Matthias: Expresses that the mentioned physical needs are fulfilled to him for example in the group currently in Harzgerode. He does not need a more defined concept of privacy as long as there is always the possibility to go in a room and close the door.
    Doug: Mentions sleeping pods again as a really nice possibility to have privacy for sleeping. Sleeping pods (vs multi-purpose-privacy-possible-sleeping-rooms) would offer a very great amount of privacy.
    
    Bodhi/Doug about crystal-clearness of common spaces vs private spaces: There are people with different needs. Saying there is no room for your needs is strange, have no solution how to handle
    
    Property
    Definition (Wikipedia): Posession denotes the actual rule over a thing in the legal specialist language, posessoion means that someone actually has a thing so they have the power over a thing. (Besitz)
    Frank's thoughts: Aims for sharing property, sharing power (share the access to certain things). Being in posession of something does not exclude others of being in posession of the same thing. (Example: People can always communicate/ask me to use my computer).
    Bodhi and Doug agree that sharing is about reducing waste
    Doug: You would say that no part of the building is the property of any single individual
    Frank: I think that is a lot of wording here now. What I really want to say: sharing of property is creating access, not only the importance of creating access to the goods but also to hold/keep the access (sustainability). Things could go wrong: I share something with someone who for example never used a laptop before. That person accidentally drops it because they don't know it will break. So effectively neither me nor the other person will have access any more to the laptop. Sharing always comes with responsibility.
    Frank: I dont feel like being in posession of the building, I don't want to be in posession of the building. There is a lot of responsibility: making sure no bathtub overflowing, no fire starting somewhere.
    Doug: Wanted to connect this with privacy. If there is a conflict about the use of a room between two people, who has the ultimate say?
    Bodhi: That is a good example for a conflict resolution process. If that does not work, it is the group who decides.
    Frank: People should talk about their needs
    Doug: But when people can't agree on that? This is a fundamental thing about the building. It is not the first person there to decice? Not the person who put in the most effort? They tried all conflict resolution already, what happens then? is this ultimately a group matter? I can already see this becoming a problem.
    Matthias: Mentions the example of the day/working/eating room used as a sleeping room
    Bodhi: Yep, good example. Sleeping pods could solve this because that room is for sure only ever for sleeping.
    Frank: I agree to have best use of spaces, but there should be a maximum number of purposes that a room could fulfil. I could find another sleeping room easily. Then there is this room containing a lot of electronic stuff and is used as a yoga room for me. That other room was used for so many purposes (reading, eating, writing, working, music listening, napping) because it was the only room that was gas-heated.
    Bodhi: Yep, the heating was the reason why we used it for all during-day activities.
    Frank: It is not that I wanted to make it my room
    Bodhi: Would be more interested for me to see the underlying needs/issues, because this is actually about another project and similar scenarios are likely to occur.
    (more talks on the purpose of the "main room" in harzgerode)
    Bodhi: I don't think it is necessary for me to take care of someone sleeping in such a room
    Frank: Do you think I want people to feel bad?
    Bodhi: No, that's not the point. But I might just feel bad if I disturb people sleeping
    (Bodhi, doug, matthias state that by using a multi-purpose room for sleeping takes away many other possibilities for that room/limits freedom). Frank agrees, that sleeping is a thing that conflicts with many different activities.
    Frank: Much easier to find another solution for sleeping than having to deal with "everything else".\
    ---
    Doug: Comes out to the property is common property of X, sees the items discussion as not strongly related.
    
Doug: Item property discussion: If we were to say all items are common items, then decision about who is using your laptop would be ultimately a group decision and not yours.
Frank: I would say that sharing is always about what makes sense
Doug: You are handling sharing of items conceptually different than sharing property
Frank: does not understand, bodhi explains further in german.
Matthias/Bodhi: Maybe it is also not about items in general but about specific items ("your" laptop vs the rescued roof shindles)
Doug; Mentions the concept of (strong) use-value again, that is functionally (based on trust) the same as having ownership.
---
Doug: It is not possible to write everything down on this very specific. We should write something down but in the end we have to rely on discussion/conflict resolution.

Bodhi: I imagine a system to make clear when there is something special about an item (e.g. special importance to a person). For a laptop for example I know that most people have no problem using their laptop. (Contra-example: From Frank I know that I should first ask before using that is normally too much of a hazzle for me). Would like to have general rules (for example fine to use all laptops, clothes, as long as this is responsibly done) with all exceptions marked ("private stuff" room (able to ask person), label, communication)
Matthias: What is with leaving stuff aroung for short times?
Bodhi: So, other way round?
(group: noooo, assume commons!)
Bodhi: Possible solution to give out stickers
Doug: Or provide a little bit of space in a storage
Matthias: Is awareness maybe enough? But what then with guests for whom it is more complicated to have that awareness because they don't know the normally-there common things?
Doug: This discussion is mostly about using - but the real problems arise when things are moved away and cannot be found again later by the owner. Suggests clean-table policy or little dials ("only gone for 20 minutes, please use another space") or more storage spaces/shelfs where things can be expected if not found where you left them