[CIMC-working] (webpage-based discussion format?) FW: [Resolve] further summary -- where to restart?

[Chris Kaihatsu]

------ Forwarded Message
From: Media Collective <mediacollective@students.sou.edu>
Organization: Media Collective
Reply-To: mediacollective@students.sou.edu
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 13:03:03 -0800
To: resolve@lists.indymedia.org
Subject: [Resolve] further summary -- where to restart?

Andy Rice here.

I'd like to thank Paul, and Delfina, for their well considered input, below,
and offer my general agreement, with some comments.  Delfina has offered
some
outstanding documentation.

I definitely tend to agree with Roving's, et al, other input re: technical
details, like trying to maintain consistent and coherent threads with
carefully tailored slugs, to facilitate review and processing of archives,
and
we should move forward on proposals in that regard.  But the content and
conduct behind those elements are also of very substantial importance and
urgency at this time, and will only become more so, as more people get
involved, and as the pressures of revolutionary struggle, both on the
interior
and to the exterior of IMC increase, all of which seem likely prospects.

Also, I forget now who has made the proposals, but I have seen reference to
proposals to abandon listserv discussion altogether, in favor of webpage
based
discussion format, which sounds like it could have several significant
practical and political advantages over the listserv discussion format.  I
hope those proposals will be re-presented for further consideration and
discussion.  If I can find time to hunt those down, or somebody could repost
them, or send me some links on that topic, I would very much like to study
them.

I am somewhat of a novice, technically, on these issues, so maybe people can
set me straight if I'm off, but as I understand it, a web page discussion
format might facilitate archive processing and tracking substantially,
improve
interactive discussion, and most significantly, might provide a more
reliable,
direct and interactive democratic process for straw polls and actual
material
votes, which I think would be preferrable to the present passive "if nobody
objects, then it 'passes'".  This would not rule out a consensus-seeking
process, but it would also recognize the fact that consensus is not always
possible.

Rather than get bogged down in endless contentious bickering when there is
lack of consensus, it is appropriate, and necessary, I think, to call for a
vote. We must resolve conflicts, or disagreements, and the inevitable
potentially distracting, or even crippling, contradictions they can give
rise
to.  Straw polls would help to determine when consensus may be possible with
more work and discussion, and when it is time to resort to a vote.

It is my understanding that 2/3 supermajority is the preferred method for
resolving non-consensus issues network-wide, if not an absolute commonality.
That sounds good to me.  But will it be possible to consistently get that
many
people to vote, and to make sure the vote is fair and honest, and not
technically manipulated?

All of this will continue to take a great deal of time and effort, valuable
resources that are already stretched to the limits for all of us.  But while
democracy is not a panacea, I believe it is our only hope for maintaining
IMC
independence.

It seems that moving to a web page based discussiion format might
substantially negate or transform some of the proposals and tips Delfina has
brought below, but meanwhile, I'd like to comment a little here on one of
Delfina's proposals cited in this recent post by Paul:

Paul Riismandel wrote:

> I think it might be helpful to chart where we've been, so that we can
> determine the next step for Resolve.
>
> I believe Delfina made a proposal for handling off-topic discussions and
> problematic posters:
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/resolve/2002-November/000255.html
>
> This proposal received some positive comments and clarification, but no
> concerns or objections were raised.
>
> Delfina has also raised some issues of conduct and sent some helpful
> references:

> "How should imc members choose to treat one another?"
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/resolve/2002-December/000269.html
>
> "meeting 'code of conduct' "
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/resolve/2002-December/000274.html
>
> Perhaps these might be good places to pick up working on a resolution
> process?
>
> --Paul

The one I want to comment on here is the first document cited in Paul's post
above, which I have edited only to reformat it from the garbled stuff I keep
getting, trying to paste from the html.

(any techno tips on that? ie: a) what do you call that phenomenon? and b) is
there a more automated method for doing that reformatting, to avoid having
to
go through the whole document manually to delete the superfluous returns and
spacing, etc?)

(also, perhaps the web page discussion format advocates and opponents could
address how the topics discussed here might be effected by that alternative
to
the listserv discussion format)

I'll put my comments below in brackets, like this... {...9}:

Mon, 11 Nov 2002 23:51:27 -0800 (PST)

[Resolve] Summary of current situation and Proposal to deal with future
problematic postings

Asfodel May
asfo_del at yahoo.com

Previous message: [Resolve] "resolving conflicts" between participants in
IMC
projects
Next message: [Resolve] Summary of current situation and Proposal to deal
with
future problematic postings

If I understand correctly, the proposal that is currently on the table is to
make Resolve a subscriber-only list.

{...9 : perhaps this has already been done.  Process is now moderated, and
Resolve probably should be too.  I am very concerned that list or webpage
admin and any moderation must be done objectively and fairly, which I think
requires a very transparent democratic process, with full disclosure, not
only
of the process, but also of who the people doing it are, including their
full
intro and references, which should be prominently linked to each of their
names, which should be listed right on every listserv issuance or webpage.
The intro and references, as I have previously polemicized, should be very
explicit and comprehensive, like a resume, or even a new-imc application,
such
that one can readily ascertain exactly where that person is coming from, in
terms of what their practice has been, what it is now, and clearly
identifying
all poltical and organizational affilliations and tendencies of that person.
Let's face it, everybody has them.  Genuine transparency and full disclosure
requires candid reporting of these critical details, because let's face it,
they are relevent, and will influence, at least to some degree, their
practice
and decisions. Furthermore, those who exercise the considerable power of
admin
and moderation must be selected democratically, based on such intros and
references, rather than the often nebulous and even vacuous rhetorical
gushes
about "gee, I do lots of stuff, and IMC is really cool, so I am just going
to
jump in and start doing this, if nobody objects."...9}

That is, only subscribers can post to the list but the archive continues to
be
publicly viewable by anyone. Since cuibono is not a list subscriber, this
change will eliminate his disruptive posts, unless he chooses to subscribe.
I
think that is a good solution for now. Has it been implemented yet?
However,
if cuibono or any other person who wants to cause trouble simply subscribes
to
the list, the disruption could start all over again. We need to come up with
a
policy now to deal with situations like the one we've been experiencing.
Similar circumstances will surely arise again.  My proposal is as follows:

{...9: it seems above mentioned intro and disclosue process, for all
participants, might help address such circumstances, at least somewhat,
whether the list is open or not, as would more comprehensive, explicit,
fully
documented and democratically approved, transparent, and monitored criteria
and process for moderation, re:  acceptable/unaccetable language, etc.
Also,
I would really like to see all intros/resumes, and even that person's whole
personal archive of discussion participation, centralized through an easily
accessable master intro localion, linked on every message or page, so we
don't
have to wade through the archives to look up such important information
before
diving into discussion with someone...9}

1) Create a separate Resolve-Off-Topic discussion list with a publicly
viewable archive.

2) Since our stated goal is,

1. Resolve will focus attention and effort on developing a conflict
resolution process, and

2. Resolve will not be a conflict resolution forum until this process is
consented upon,"-- any post that is not at least marginally related to the
subject of discussing conflict resolution strategies can be considered off
topic.

{...9: I have previously polemicized somewhat on the inherent need to
discuss
and formally review all of the details of local, network and personal
disputes, to have any hope for principled resolution, ie: toward material
calls for consensus, or failing consensus, a definitive democratic vote on
whatever identifiable issues emerge from that discussion and review.
Therefore I somewhat disagree with this "process first" perspective.  It
seems
to me that process should perhaps be hammered out by Process, and Resolution
should get on with the first step of resolution, namely getting all of the
details of disputes out on the table...sooner, rather than "later", anyway.
There are substantial and urgent issues at hand.  I have felt stalled and
stymied by getting bounced back and forth between Process and Resolve in
pursuit of material process and resolution both.  Meanwhile the
contradictions
I am concerned about continue to fester, to some considerable detriment of
my
own personal involvement and practice, and, I think, also to the detriment
of
some important local and network issues needing more process and resolution,
eg: the situ in Eugene and Portland. Again, I have spoken to these concerns
at
some length, elsewhere.  I am not opposed to having yet another seperate
list
for the down and dirty details of dispute, seperate from the resolution
process discussion, nor am I opposed to getting the process hammered out
before we get too deep into flame war.  But we cannot indefinitely shunt the
obvious necessity of getting down and dirty off to "alternative" lists, just
to sweep it all under the rug and avoid it.  The whole purpose of the "off
topic", down and dirty, "flame war list" or whatever you want to call it,
should be to identify those issues that can be resolved by democratic
process,
as quickly as possible.  It may be necessary to have a whole seperate list,
or
page, for each identifiable dispute, eg: "Eugene", and "Portland", and "NYC
IndyPrint", (or even "that whack evil cop troll, android9") etc, and it
seems
likely these might give rise to further broader discussion threads, eg:
"Primitivist Chaoticist infiltration and sabotage of IMC" or "dealing with
adhominem dismissals, slander and abuse"...9}

When someone posts 3 or more off-topic messages to the Resolve list:

---a) at least 3 list subscribers state objections to his/her posts on the
grounds that they are off-topic.

---b) a list administrator announces that s/he will block messages to this
list from the off-topic poster, and that person's messages will from then
on,
for a month-long period, be re-routed to the Resolve-Off-Topic discussion
list.  Anyone who wants to continue to engage in the discussion can do so on
the Off-Topic list.

---c) if there are no objections within seven days of the list
administrator's
announcement, the block and re-routing will be implemented.

---d) anyone who wants to discuss topics not specific to Resolve's stated
purpose can post their messages directly to the Off-Topic list. (In other
words, this would not be a list just for those who have been temporarily
blocked from Resolve.)

{...9:  I think I object to the month long period designation.  Shouldn't it
just be message by message?  And in general, I guess the main problem I have
with this whole list-banning, even temporarily is that several people have
ganged up on me, demanding my removal from the lists, and I am wary of any
notion that such a "process" is legitimate, as things now stand.  Just
because
a few people start howling about a postion they don't like, that should not
necessarily be grounds for suppression.  Again, more complete transparency,
disclosure, and democratic criteria  and process, based in approved
documentation, subject to a more explicit polling and vote of all
participant
members, including in the selection of moderators, etc, would help resolve
my
percieved problems with these proposals of Delfina's...9}

My hope is that this would:

1) allow for disruptions to be kept to a minimum without having to unduly
curtail  people's ability to be heard, and

2) not be too burdensome to implement.

Thanks for listening. People's feedback and ideas would be much appreciated.

Delfina

Collective Book on Collective Process
http://geocities.com/collectivebook

{...9: Comrades, I salute Delfina and other positive contributors to this
discussion.  I regret that I have not always made more positive input to the
process, or had time to study all of the documentation thus far submitted,
largely due to seeingly more immediate contingencies of extremely negative
and
intense personal conflicts that I have found myself embroiled in ever since
my
first post to these lists, about the Eugene situ. To the extent that I have
been able to review the Collective Book above, which seems very useful, and
the new twiki IMC documents page, which seems like an essential tool, and
other proposals, documentation and references several people have offered, I
am optimistic that we are on the right track.  But may I be so bold as to
say,
we need to move faster, much faster.

I have been getting my ass kicked at IMC, and while I cannot avoid some
responsability for my own practice, style, etc, which have no doubt
contributed to those circumstances, I remain convinced that I have gotten a
raw deal, and that certain elements are taking major advantage of our lack
of
coherent democratic process, especially in terms of resolution of
contradictions arising from instances of a lack of solid consensus. Thats
why
I'm here, both in the negative, and in the positive.

Thank you very much for being there.  As a revolutionary media freak with 30
years practice, I deeply appreciate and am absolutely stoked to have the
awesome privilege of participating, even despite having been politically
assassinated several times now in various IMC venues, by some of the most
unprincipled anti-democratic swine I have ever encountered..such is life,
and
I never expected it to be easy, but I have learned to be persistant.
However,
not everyone is as persistent as me, and I think we have lost many excellent
prospects, due to frustration, burnout and disgust over some of the shit
that
goes down througout the network.  Did I say, democracy is not a panacea, and
indeed, it is more difficult and labor intensive than any other method of
struggle?  I like to push that point. I am convinced it is our only hope,
for
maintaining genuine independence.

We absolutely must collectivize more resolutely, in my opinion, and I like
to
consider that a professional analysis, not just a matter of personal
proclivity.  I am not calling for hierarchical beaurocratic authoritarian
structure, nor am I wiling to submit to the chaotic dictatorship of elitist
whims. I insist on real democracy, now, not someday, maybe...9}

Venceremos!

Andy Rice  (aka android9)





_______________________________________________
Resolve mailing list
Resolve@lists.indymedia.org
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/resolve


------ End of Forwarded Message