[CIMC-work] clarification?

[Ian Bicking]

On Mar 13, 2004, at 4:00 PM, ChrisGeovanis at aol.com wrote:
> Can somebody clarify this for me? Am I reading this right, that 
> Chicago is a collective with fewer than ten members, and that we do 
> not have a consensus process in place?

Seems to be so, though maybe there was another IMC involved earlier in 
the discussion.  For what it's worth, Ithaca seems to have it's own 
significant decision-making process problems.  If we don't have a 
consensus process in place, I suspect it's because we're aren't as 
contentious a collective as Ithaca.  Specifically, we don't have 
members that manipulate the consensus process (and while I don't want 
to talk bad about other IMCs, I know Ithaca does have members that 
abuse the consensus process).

Though I think she does have a point about online consensus.  Social 
pressure is important to consensus, i.e., relationships that extend 
outside of the decision process itself, and the informal compromises we 
make to each others concerns over spans of time.  Online we simply 
don't have the social connections necessary (though maybe we should try 
to build those), and since consensus rewards disagreement so much more 
than agreement it can be very negative and obstructionist.

Of course, if you aren't looking for authority you can avoid consensus 
any way you please.  We don't need anyone else's approval to make 
changes to our local's structure, site, or anything else; nor does any 
individual need approval to post to the newswire, start their own site, 
or do anything outside of Indymedia.  Maybe some people need to think 
more creatively about devolution and decentralization, so they can 
achieve their goals without needing to reach consensus.

   Ian