[CIMC-work] process discussion

Thu Mar 11 14:52:40 PST 2004

This is a useful graphic. However, I think there are some key issues on which 
we need to reaffirm consensus. 

Those issues are: 
1) 'hiding' vs 'deleting' -- what is the policy? 
2) what is appropriate for hiding? This is not always so simple. I think the 
current thread initiated by Rob Z is illuminating (ok, maybe not illuminating, 
but illustrative). See the following url: 
http://chicago.indymedia.org/newswire/display/37519/index.php

A related issue: should those w/the editorial password who hide posts A) list 
their reasons for doing so; B) identify themselves. Personally these two 
prospects fill me with horror because it makes monitoring the wire A LOT more 
cumbersome, and it's not exactly not cumbersome now. On the other hand, if each 
person with password access to the editor function was using a unique 
ID/password, it would be pretty damned simple for the collective to figure out who hid 
what, and respond accordingly where necessary. That way we get to preserve the 
spirit of autonomous empowerment and mutual trust, and also build in 
mechanisms for accountability.

Great thoughts?

christine

In a message dated 3/11/04 3:19:33 PM Central Standard Time, 
ckaihatsu at myrealbox.com writes:

> Subj:CIMC process discussion Re: [CIMC-work] Re: Imc-chicago-working 
> Digest, Vol 11, Issue 16 
> Date:3/11/04 3:19:33 PM Central Standard Time
> From:ckaihatsu at myrealbox.com
> To:imc-chicago-working at indymedia.org
> Sent from the Internet 
> 
> 
> 
> > 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. 
> 
> 
> Chris, all,
> 
> I really appreciate your wording, above, and agree with it entirely. I'm 
> used to calling the pattern of our standard practices by the term "policy," but 
> perhaps if we revisit our overall process practices, it may be better to use 
> the term "guidelines." (A term which you have brought up in the past, Chris.)
> 
> Tangentially, this also brings to mind the classic lawyer strategy of 
> arguing the case if the law isn't very supportive, and arguing the law if your case 
> isn't that strong. Of course in the CIMC/IMC context, we're not in an 
> adversarial situation, but I bring up the adage to resonate with your pointing out 
> that some good-faith-based flexibility is crucial.
> 
> Purely as a discussion item, I'd like to refer to a process model I 
> developed in June of 2001. Page 2 (there is no page 3) may be relevant to this 
> discussion. See:
> http://global.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=251
> 
> 
> Chris
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________________ 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 02:50:43 EST, ChrisGeovanis at aol.com wrote:
> > 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
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Imc-chicago-working mailing list
> > Imc-chicago-working at lists.indymedia.org
> > http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-chicago-working
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/d5cce2a0/attachment.html