[CIMC-work] (issue of local IMC representation at the global level) Fwd: [imc-us-process] A Challenge

Wed Mar 10 06:42:10 PST 2004

----- Begin forwarded message -----
From: christine detwiler <detwilerc at yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 03:52:22 -0800 (PST)
To: imc-us-process at lists.indymedia.org
Subject: [imc-us-process] A Challenge
Reply-To: "A process discussion list for U.S.-based IMCs" <imc-us-process at lists.indymedia.org>

Garth wrote:

To do this I think we basically need to achieve equal
empowered liasons from each US collective.  Fair
representation.  then of course we need to put a proposal
forth to global

First off Garth, what we have to examine about this is some indymedias are extremely small and some are very large. Is it "fair" for a indymedia with say four people, to be able to block every other indymedia in the network on an issue , which is a possible scenario using the consensus process. 

For instance. Last year Ithaca convened a hastily called meeting with only four people.Freedom, Arc, and two others. Lucky for their agenda at the time they were able to get what was a quorum for Ithaca (at least three people)  In meetings previous to that they were having trouble getting more then 2 people to show up. Ithaca has always had trouble attracting or maintaining any substantial membership, particularly women.

In that meeting these four members consensed to block the Italy Proposal on process list, the formation of the us-process list, and Rouges acceptance to the network. Their global liaison at the time, Freedom, was ready and I could say eager to carry that out. The only thing that stopped that from happening was a clause I had proposed we adapt when I was still a member of Ithaca.indymedia and the group had consensed on and passed. It said "any decision that was consensed on at one meeting would not become official till next meeting.Decision would be posted to mailing list. Decision would be brought up again at that next meeting, and at that time or in the interim between meeting, any member who was not at first meeting could express concerns or block consensus" 

I have been a part of consensus based groups and collectives for 25 to 30 years and know consensus through practice not books. Several groups I was in had added a clause similar to this; added to what is called the formal consensus process.(Food Not Bombs Version). The reason for this is the spirit of consensus process is in a large part about taking lots of time and making sure everyone is informed, on the same page, has time to consider the issues and hear concerns. But in actual practice ,strictly speaking, technically with-out that clause being added the formal consensus process does not prevent hastily called meetings with barely a quorum from consensing on very important issue. And once that consensus is formed members who werent able to be there or didnt hear about meeting can have all the concerns they want, its too late. Its been consensed on by quorum.And with indymedia, global liaison can legitamately take it to global list and present it as consensed on decision f
 rom
 local.Other groups I was in reconized this unfairness and adapted this clause. This clause protects special intrest groups from forming consenses prematuraly. 

Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your agenda, Ithaca did have that clause and by the time the next meeting came about absent members were alerted and blocked consensus and we got to have a us-process list and Rouge got to join the network. Because it was only these four who objected out of the whole network.

 I would bet that most imcs do not have a clause like this in their consensus process. I feel there is a danger of a very small group being able to stop progress of indymedia network. I would like to believe that everyone was well intentioned and would never push their own agenda by blocking what most of the network would like to see happen. Life has shown me otherwise. How nice it would be if people really walked their talk.

But do you see my point? It sounds good saying each us collective has one representative, but I see problems with that. 

We have talked about taking an inventory I believe it was called, of all indymedias. Ive heard some indymedias are nothing more then a couple of guys in a room with a computer. As Sunny stated in her letter, alot of us believe that there are indymedias in violation of the very requirements that we make new imcs adhere to.

What global decisions do we need to make? Im not saying we dont, Id just like some examples. Do we need this structure? What affect will increasing structure have on the autonomy of the locals?  Principle of Unity number one."The Independent Media Center Network is based upon principles of equality, decentralization and local autonomy. The IMCNetwork is not derived from a centralized bureaucratic process,,,"

Interestingly the head of the American Friends in my town (Quakers)who are some of the first and strongest proponents of consensus tell me they do not believe consensus can happen on the internet. They say there is too much importance in the subtle things and differences of communication between face to face and e-mailing.

These are all concerns of mine. I can see working groups, in other words mailing list members being able to come to consensus on issues concerning their working group. But network decisions? It boggles my mind how this could be done fairly. And really feel it is so inappropriate for anyone to be harshly criticizing the network for not having decision making process already in place. Especially from someone whose local of less then ten people still after three years does not have a consensus decision making process in place. 

Just Some 3 AM thoughts, chrystine

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you’re looking for faster.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-chicago-working/attachments/20040310/27e0ef1e/HTMLMessage.html
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
imc-us-process mailing list
imc-us-process at lists.indymedia.org
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-us-process

________________________________________ 
Save lives -- bring the troops home now!

At what price the U.S. bubble? The overhead
for nationalism is not worth it.

9-11 was nationalist marketing.