[CIMC-work] quick note pertaining to US Process stuff

Sat Mar 13 14:46:01 PST 2004

IMHO, it is not 'easier' to discuss on this listserve, and some of this needs 
to be taken up in meetings. bummer, since meetings are tough for me too, but 
that's the way i see it. i think we should develop a list (or at least begin 
to) at tomorrow's meeting (to which i will probably be late, as i have another 
meeting at 1:30 pm), about issues we need to tackle, try to prioritize items 
along lines of importance, and get on with it, including in meetings of working 
group(s) that might be set up to do same. Here's a shoot-from-the-hip list of 
stuff we might want to take up over time:

1) consensus process for Chicago: what is it, how do we deploy it?
2) editorial policy/mechanics: can the hide vs delete functionality be 
reversed?
3) editorial policy/philosophy: we should revisit same, revise where 
appropriate, and reconsense on same.
4) mission/statement of principles of unity (chicago): we should revisit 
same, revise where appropriate, and reconsense on same.
5) local membership and accountability to the global network: aak. this is 
potentially thorny. please see my "still another note" below.
6) training materials: we need 'em, and we need to get 'em up on our site. i 
actually have a lot of training stuff in the can for workshops hammerhard has 
done over the years, as well as workshops i've done on behalf of CIMC. i am 
happy to make this material available to the project if people like, and working 
with others to develop doc where needed.
7) getting the above up on the site in the interest of transparency and 
direct democracy: our process guidelines/rules/whatever, our editorial policy, et 
al needs to be accessible to people from our frontpage. a lot of it is; more of 
it should be, including stuff that we develop/reconsense/refine in the coming 
months.

Note: I propose #'s 3 and 4 because we have many new people who were not a 
party to our original meetings re mission and editorial policy, and since the 
collective in its early days did not lay down the greatest doc in the world to 
describe this stuff, we might as well take another crack at it. THEN same 
should be deployed CLEARLY on our site. This does not have to be a contentious 
process, and i personally don't expect us to stray from our original sense of 
mission, but we need to lay it down on (virtual) paper, and to do that we need to 
involve the whole collective, including newer members, insofar as folks want 
to be involved.

Another note: I am a huge fan of not reinventing the wheel where same is not 
necessary. so ... i think we should afford ourselves the opportunity to survey 
other sites for good copy, et al, as well as pitfalls we might want to avoid.

Still another note: re #5, local membership and accountability to the global 
network: i could be getting this really wrong, but i think 'we' just got 
accused on the global process list of having '10' members (allegedly tiny) and no 
promulgated process in place. hrumphhh. we have never really defined membership 
per se in this collective much beyond 'a nebulous affinity group.' that said, 
i think there are about a bejillion individuals in different projects and 
groups in the metro chicago area that 1)  see CIMC as a visible and valuable crew 
with which they feel real partnership and kinship in terms of getting content 
out to the larger activist community; 2) do NOT see CIMC as just a bunch of 
tech boys arguing amongst themselves; 3) would be horrified to learn that 
'their' IMC had been accused of being a tiny gaggle of unaccountable nits.

HOWEVER, we could improve the way we promulgate some stuff, like standing 
process, tools to use the site and the project, and some components of outreach. 
this would be a good idea in no small part, i think, because it would make 
clearer to people who are thinking about taking a more active role as volunteers 
just exactly what it is that they are getting involved with. plus, i still get 
phone calls every week from people who want to know if we can send a 
'reporter' to their event. i happily explain how we work, encourage them to get their 
stuff on the wire, et al, but it would be great if we could get doc re same up 
on the site.

in addition, since we have collective members (namely, regular volunteers who 
show up at meetings, do a lot of excellent volunteer work, produce actual 
content -- and not just to pad their resumes or 'institution-build' to strengthen 
their position on the grants gravytrain) who've very generously offered to 
take responsibility for monitoring relevant network-wide lists, we might want to 
try to lay down some 'guidelines' about how folks should do that, since 
inevitably in some situations, those same folks will be identified as speaking on 
behalf of the collective. i raise this because, while i personally thrill to 
energizing debate on occasion, i think that when it comes to the global network 
lists it's important that folks -- even when speaking as individuals and not 
on behalf of the collective -- bear in mind the ease with which remarks can be 
misconstrued as 'flaming' or combative (ok, sometimes they ARE), and make a 
principled effort to be deliberative, constructive and positive where possible. 
i do NOT want to lay down 'rules' that seek to censor personal expression. i 
just think it might be good for us to have a discussion about how 'ideally' to 
interface with global listserves, even if all that means is that a person 
clearly note in posts that they are writing AS AN INDIVIDUAL and not on behalf of 
our collective.

super finally: the fact that we have not promulgated formal terms of 
process/consensus for our group is a vulnerability, imho, both locally and in the 
global collective. maybe can't we just crib some language from somewhere, discuss 
and consense? i certainly DON'T want to derail our sometimes very enjoyable 
conversational approach to meetings, but maybe we need to revisit same and tweak 
accordingly.

super duper finally: on the issue of sexism in imc's...this is a real issue. 
it's not one i feel personally particularly vulnerable to, but i've never had 
any particular difficulty in expressing my opinions, even when very pushy 
dudes have not welcomed same. i have never, for the record, personally experienced 
any sort of sexism in our collective, and i don't think we have a problem 
with this, unlike other collectives. then again, i was once accused of being a 
'mannish bitch' by a rather unpleasant neighbor, so maby i'm as guilty of dude 
behavior as the next person, despite my actual gender. and i think that part of 
the problem with the discussion of sexism in the IMC is that sometimes we 
womyn need to take responsibility for putting our voices forward assertively. i 
mean, fuck the shackles, eh? that said, it would be good if we promulgated in 
our mission statement something explicit about this collective's rejection of 
sexism, as well as practical strategies to address same.

christine

In a message dated 03/13/2004 12:32:30 PM Central Standard Time, 
ckaihatsu at myrealbox.com writes:

> Subj:Re: Re: [CIMC-work] quick note pertaining to US Process stuff 
> Date:03/13/2004 12:32:30 PM Central Standard Time
> From:ckaihatsu at myrealbox.com
> To:imc-chicago-working at lists.indymedia.org
> Sent from the Internet 
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 22:42:09 -0600, Garth Liebhaber wrote:
> > Chris K.
> > 
> > well i think it would be a lot easier and accurate to 
> > converse in person on a lot of these issues.
> 
> 
> Garth,
> 
> Well, I think it's a lot easier and accurate to converse on this list, 
> though I'm open to conversing in person, as well.
> 
> 
> > 
> > which lists are you on?  i know you are on global as well 
> > as finance, are there others?  how well do you follow these 
> > lists?  do you read every post? or every other day?  i'm 
> > curious to know what we've been missing.
> > 
> 
> 
> You can compare the messages I forward to this list against the archives of 
> the lists I forward from. You can compare time and date stamps on both.
> 
> 
> 
> > am i alone to notice that admin sascha seems to have 
> > suddenly declared us-process a formalized list with 
> > decisionmaking capabilities?!  this is immediately after 
> > another admin shot down my overtures to formalize the 
> > list so that we might actually do something.  
> 
> 
> I have not expressed an opinion on Sascha's "list rules." I forwarded it to 
> this list as being a message of importance, in my role as liaison.
> 
> 
> > 
> > i am also annoyed with your random forwards from us-
> > process. not that i have something to hide, but it's nice to 
> > know which shoes i'm wearing while dancing.  
> 
> 
> What is "random" and what is not (that is, systematic, or conforming to a 
> pattern) is a judgement call. 
> 
> 
> > 
> > lastly, i still haven't waded through the pool of posts in 
> > reaction to my post with the swear words.  i'll do that 
> > when i'm done with my 15 page termpaper. did you 
> > notice i how i attempted to summarize and put things in 
> > context to facilitate the process with chicago collective?
> 
> 
> Would you list links to examples of what you're talking about?
> 
> 
> > 
> > some of the intonations that i have picked up though 
> > make me crunch my eybrows.  suddenly because garth 
> > swore, everyone else has the instant moral high ground?  
> > that's petty.  
> 
> 
> I do not understand what you're talking about here. I, personally, have no 
> problems with anyone using swear words.
> 
> 
> Chris
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > not as angry, mostly annoyed, a little amused,
> > garth
> > 
> > 
> > Kaihatsu wrote:
> >>  4. Chris K., hope you plan on coming to this Sunday's 
> >>  meeting.  We haven't seen you in a while.  I think we 
> >>  should discuss liason empowerment amongst other 
> >>  things.
> > 
> > 
> > Garth, all,
> > 
> > I can't make Sunday's meeting -- I'm out of town. I hope 
> > you still consider this list as appropriate as a message 
> > board for CIMC discussions and consensed decisions. 
> > Thanks for everyone's patience.
> > 
> > 
> > Chris
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 17:54:09 -0600, Garth Liebhaber 
> > wrote:
> >>  hey all who've been torturing themselves with this,
> >>  
> >>  1. I have taken a hiatus from reading the response on 
> > US-
> >>  Process to my swear words.
> >>  
> >>  2.  I did read Chris G.s emails and had a good talk with 
> >>  her today.  Things to bring forth on Sunday.
> >>  
> >>  3. I also did read the one Chris K. forward to our CIMC 
> >>  Working list on list rules for US-Process.  I find it 
> >>  upsetting because there had been explicit overtures/
> >>  implications/statements made that the US-Process site 
> >>  was not a formal process list that could not pass 
> >>  resolutions.  a.) who elected the administrators who are 
> >>  now making decisions? b.) empowered liasons?  were 
> > we 
> >>  sent an invite? c.  Sascha's description of the list is 
> > weak.  
> >>  Is there a reason for that?  
> >>  
> >>  I find this a bit undemocratic and smelling like some of 
> >>  the other endeavors that are pushed through by a few 
> >>  people.
> >>  
> >>  4. Chris K., hope you plan on coming to this Sunday's 
> >>  meeting.  We haven't seen you in a while.  I think we 
> >>  should discuss liason empowerment amongst other 
> >>  things.
> >>  
> >>  smiles,
> >>  garth
> >>  
> >>  
> >>  
> >>  Stop baby sea turtles from being crushed!
> >>  http://www.care2.com/go/z/11745/1008
> >>  _______________________________________________
> >>  Imc-chicago-working mailing list
> >>  Imc-chicago-working at lists.indymedia.org
> >>  http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-
> > chicago-working
> >>  
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _________________________________________________________
> > _ 
> > The 2004 US election: the case for a socialist alternative
> > A public conference sponsored by the World Socialist Web 
> > Site and the Socialist Equality Party
> > wsws.org/articles/2004/feb2004/call-f17.shtml
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Imc-chicago-working mailing list
> > Imc-chicago-working at lists.indymedia.org
> > http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-chicago-
> > working
> > 

> > 
> > ---- End Original Message ----
> > 
> > 
> > Stop baby sea turtles from being crushed!
> > http://www.care2.com/go/z/11745/1008
> > _______________________________________________
> > Imc-chicago-working mailing list
> > Imc-chicago-working at lists.indymedia.org
> > http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-chicago-working
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________________ 
> The 2004 US election: the case for a socialist alternative
> A public conference sponsored by the World Socialist Web Site and the 
> Socialist Equality Party
> wsws.org/articles/2004/feb2004/call-f17.shtml
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20040313/3efe1cca/attachment-0001.htm