[CIMC-work] Re: [Imc-chicago-video] block and counterproposal regarding Jon'sproposal

Tue May 4 11:03:54 PDT 2004

In response, elaboration:

The issue of the block is important, and deserves to be considered on an equal 
basis with other concerns of the video collective. However, as we have not 
agreed on a consensus model within our collective, this argument is redundant 
until the terms of the video collective's consensus model has been agreed 
upon. Furthermore,  as was also discussed last night at our meeting, there is 
a feeling that this issue smells of cynicism and politics, something we are 
trying to highlight in our work as being a bad thing. The reason for this 
feeling is that the block exists to highlight the need for certain changes/
discussion, rather than an imperative halt to procedure to protect the 
collective as a whole.

I don't believe a 3/4 majority consensus was ever explicitly agreed upon, and 
I believe the agreement up to now has been to attempt to stick with the 
general collective's guidelines until we came up with our own, as we are a 
seperate entity with our own needs etc. Therefore, for the moment we should be 
operating according to this definition of a block, taken from the email 
circulated by Alloy about the consensus model in CIMC:

Use of Blocks
1.  Blocks might only be used on the grounds that a resolution might go 
against the principals of the collective or put the viability of the 
collective at risk.
2.  Blockers must explain in detail the reasons for the block.
3.  At least two members must post a block for a proposal to be halted.

Under these terms I don't believe Thomas' "block" is valid. However, I do 
agree with Thomas' reasoning and agree wholeheartedly with the goal of the 
block (which is a contradiction in terms as a block is ostensibly not supposed 
to have a goal).

I don't think the current concerns of the video collective are new. Part of 
the reason we exist is to try and come up with new ways of functioning and 
producing video content over a sustainable length of time. We are certainly 
not the first people to come up with the idea of a tv show to change the world 
and we won't be the last. 

However, we are in a very good place, and I believe everyone is proud of what 
we've done up to now. I don't think words like "banned" and "dire" create a 
positive environment for us to operate in, particularly for newcomers. There 
is enough terror thank you. We need to work on opening up the production 
process.

Andrew

> 
> As it stands now, this issue is coming to a head with Jon actively seeking
> a way to override my block; which I want to point out, is reasonable for
> him to do.
> 
> 1.  Elaboration of my block.  My block specifically is to the timing of
> requesting a regular time slot from CAN-TV.  I would like to see this
> *delayed* until a couple of things happen.  (Refer to my counter-proposal
> to for an elaboration of what those things are.)  My basic point is that
> video is not quite ready as a group to pursue a regular time slot at
> CAN-TV, one of the reasons being that if we are locked into a regular time
> slot at CAN-TV the consequences of being behind schedule are much more
> dire than how we currently exist.  Namely, if we as "Chicago Independent
> Television" miss a deadline we are banned as "Chicago Independent
> Television" from ever having a regular time slot on CAN-TV.
> 
> 2.  Counterproposal.
>      First, I would like to suggest that Jon delay his attempt to override
> my block until after Alloy's BBQ so that the video collective has had
> an opportunity to consense on our decision-making process and how
> such overrides are to take place.  I hope the rationale for such a
> delay is self-evident.  In fact once the video collective has
> consensed on decision-making process that will erase one of the
> reasons for my block.  I must point out this would require all
> interested parties to attend Alloy's BBQ or else for us to commit to
> some other time to all meet and hash out our decision-making process.
>      Second, I would like to suggest that the video collective consense on
> a common mission statement.  The rationale for this is that working
> towards a regular time slot will require us to be more efficient,
> which to my thinking means we need to agree on our basic goals. 
> Having agreed on a mission statement will also provide a proper
> context for blocks and overrides insofar as they have to be framed in
> terms of our mission statement.
>      Third, we need to reprioritize.  Right now, video collective is being
> consumed by a debate about our interface with CAN-TV, which is just
> one form of distribution amongst many other including internet,
> workshops, screenings, and DVD sales.  The discussion about a TV slot
> yesterday took up the majority of our meeting time.  As a video
> collective, that's simply too much time to spend on that one form of
> distribution.  We need to devote more time to our internet
> distribution efforts, workshops, DVD distribution, screenings, and
> general outreach.  We need a diversity of distributions and
> interfaces with the public.  This will allow for more diversity
> within our collective.
>      Fourth, I would propose that we agree on a more respectful tone for
> our interactions in a collective.  Frankly, there was a lot of
> scolding going on last night as if we were all little children that
> had misbehaved.  That has to stop immediately.
> 
> 3.  Input from general collective.  This is the most difficult challenge I
> think we have to deal with as video collective.  Any input the whole
> collective would have would be appreciated.
> 
> 4.  sort of notes from last night.  Okay, so there was no official
> notetaker last night.  Here's what I remember happening.
> 
> In attendance: Chris Bravo, Jon Groot, Gisela Insuaste, Andrew McAvinchey,
> Jessica P
> 
> First we discussed Episode 5 for about forty five minutes.  There was a
> great deal of confusion and consternation about whether we were supposed
> to have screened Episode 5 at the meeting.  Concerns were raised about not
> being able to view the Episode before it was submitted to CAN-TV.
>      We segued into a discussion about the pursuing a regular time slot
> (probably another forty-five minutes).  This naturally led into a
> discussion about my block and the rationale for it and how to
> override it.  There was some confusion about what a consensus was,
> what a block was, and how to override a block.  The point was raised
> that at one of video's earliest meetings, we had agreed about a 3/4
> majority overrule of a block once all efforts had been made to meet
> the concerns raised in the block.  The importance of Alloy's BBQ for
> discussing these issues was raised.
>      Earlier and later in the meeting we also heard from Gisela, who was
> new to the collective, expressing a desire for Indymedia to do a
> workshop with the youth at Asoociation House.
>      There was a brief recap of the May Day Party.
>      There was some discussion of the spine, specifically pertaining to
> Chris and Andrew's work on creating titles.
> 
> paz,
> t
> y
> 
> 
> -- 
> http://tigger.uic.edu/~tyun/mayday
> created on May Day 1973.
> _______________________________________________
> Imc-chicago-video mailing list
> Imc-chicago-video at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/imc-chicago-video
> 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

hotpress.com mail is virus-scanned and spam-proof. This, CDs for 10 Euro,
discounts all over Ireland - and lots more - for just20 Euro. 
To join: http://www.hotpress.com/