[CIMC-work] Re: Imc-chicago-working Digest, Vol 11, Issue 16

[ChrisGeovanis at aol.com]

I agree with Thomas (damn, I WAS going to bed) that we should at least try to 
articulate our operative notions re conflict resolution, et al. Maybe we 
could start this out by having somebody (Thomas? Thomas?) first take a shot at 
drafting some kind of guiding principles re conflict mediation/resolution, and 
then test for consensus/further refine. Let me state for the record that I agree 
that 'conflict' is an inevitable byproduct of working in a group, and further 
note that IMHO conflict (when mediated well) can actually help a group 
clarify important issues and ultimately strengthen solidarity. Anybody got any 
boilerplate language out there? Also, while I'm all for consensus, it would be my 
hope that we stick to the spirit of that process, rather than a rigid set of 
'rules' when parsing out same. I say this because, while I know our meetings can 
be kinda freeform at times, I think this kind of informality can be good for 
brainstorming and information sharing, and ultimately more collegial than a 
really rigid meeting format (er, when it's not being too contentious...). 
'Course, if you do this too much, you can derail actual decision-making and 
assignment of resonsiblity for particular tasks, which was a huge problem early on in 
the collective but which we seem to have resolved fairly handily lately. 

chris - (I am REALLY going to bed now) - tine

In a message dated 03/08/2004 9:20:36 AM Central Standard Time, 
mayday at riseup.net writes:


> Subj:[CIMC-work] Re: Imc-chicago-working Digest, Vol 11, Issue 16 
> Date:03/08/2004 9:20:36 AM Central Standard Time
> From:mayday at riseup.net
> To:imc-chicago-working at lists.indymedia.org
> Sent from the Internet 
> 
> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
> My thoughts on the current SF / Indybay conflict are that conflict is
> inevitable within a group process.  I feel that the Indymedia project has
> a framework for dealing with conflict resolution, but it is not
> well-articulated.  A consensus model of decision-making can only function
> if there is investment the values implied by "consensus".
> 
> To my thinking the implied values of consensus include the prioritization
> of equal participation and cooperation over authority.
> 
> The details are the hard part - how do you articulate these ideals in your
> interactions with other members in your collective?
> 
> In order to do so we have to look closely at the nature of our
> relationships to each other and the collective - what is the give and take
> of doing volunteer work?
> 
> I think that our collective should have earnest discussions about these
> issues.
> 
> paz,
> t
> y
> 
> > ----- Begin forwarded message -----
> > From: Garth Liebhaber <garthliebhaber at care2.com>
> > Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 15:16:24 -0600
> > To: imc-us-process at lists.indymedia.org
> > Subject: [imc-us-process] Thoughts on Network Conflict Resolution Process
> > Reply-To: "A process discussion list for U.S.-based IMCs"
> > <imc-us-process at lists.indymedia.org>
> >
> > hi gang,
> > I have been reflecting upon the recent situations of imc
> > conflict, particularly on S.F. and Indybay, as well as the
> > ongoing problems in DC of women tiring of sexist
> > behavior.  I also took note of John W.'s sentiment in his
> > recent letter in which he resigned his inclination to serve
> > as moderator.  to paraphrase, he expressed the sentiment
> > that a need for a binding conflict resolution mechanism by
> > the imc NETWORK seems to be a need.
> >
> > I am beginning to think that we need some sort of
> > mechanism.  There seems to be some very destructive
> > conflicts that are crippling separate indymedia projects.
> > while I think individual collectives should be the first to
> > solve their problems, when this is not happening, the
> > Indymedia project in general takes a hit.  It is not fair to
> > the people outside of the collectives, particularly to the
> > more immediate communities that use the sites.
> >
> > I don't have a specific proposal in hand, but I think this is
> > a very appropriate list to express this thinking and to
> > foster discussion.  I think we can also take a look at our
> > principles as guiding posts.
> >
> > Much like the free speech vs. fair speech debates, I think
> > we need to be careful of letting the project be hi-jacked
> > by abusive people.  If conflicts/complaints are consistantly
> > not being resolved within collectives, and we continue to
> > see them migrate to the inter-network lists, I think we
> > need to be able to respond in a more solid way.
> >
> > Solidarity is a two way street.
> >
> > ciao,
> > garth
> >  from cHiCaGo
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Imc-chicago-working mailing list
> Imc-chicago-working at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-chicago-working
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-chicago-working/attachments/20040311/72c3e053/attachment.html