[CIMC-work] (issue of local IMC representation at the global level) Fwd: ...

Sat Mar 13 13:59:04 PST 2004

In a message dated 03/10/2004 8:42:47 AM Central Standard Time, 
ckaihatsu at myrealbox.com writes:

> Subj:[CIMC-work] (issue of local IMC representation at the global level) 
> Fwd: [imc-us-process] A Challenge 
> Date:03/10/2004 8:42:47 AM Central Standard Time
> From:ckaihatsu at myrealbox.com
> To:imc-chicago-working at indymedia.org
> File:HTMLMessage.html (6010 bytes) DL Time (TCP/IP): < 1 minute
> Sent from the Internet 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- 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.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20040313/3956df25/attachment.htm