[Imc-chicago-video] Re: [CIMC-work] block and counterproposalregarding Jon's proposal

nscchicago nscchicago at igc.org
Fri May 7 17:41:39 PDT 2004 

Tom Baker here. Chris, excellent. Thank you.

First, I support the block. I am one who wants the
mission to be video as common, ie outreach
recruiting. Remember Chiapas Media Project.
Remember our political imperative.

I see the point and concur that there will be those
within the collective whose thing will be the regular
CAN-TV.
Do you watch CAN?
All do respect, but I think we should take it over
and we could fill with the huge library of
independently produced videos.

However it is not yet right for that to be priority.

I support this block. I want the collective to
get its mission together. We cannot take over
CAN with the numbers we got.

Everybody needs to do outreach.

The many other venues for video shows need
to be explored.

CAN TV will not make our mission into the movement
the video group  Indymedia  building the alternative.

More than models, we need video makers.

For me this is most exciting and I agree to be point
on the effort. I cannot do it alone and it cannot be
done as a subsidary aspect.



----- Original Message ----- 
From: <ChrisGeovanis at aol.com>
To: <ginsuaste at associationhouse.org>; <jongroot at aol.com>;
<imc-chicago-working at lists.indymedia.org>;
<imc-chicago-video at lists.indymedia.org>; <ckaihatsu at myrealbox.com>;
<mayday at riseup.net>
Sent: Friday, May 07, 2004 11:56 AM
Subject: [Imc-chicago-video] Re: [CIMC-work] block and
counterproposalregarding Jon's proposal


> I'm writing not in response to Chris K's comments (I'm not quite sure what
they mean) but to Thomas and his very illuminating summary of the current
situation with video.
>
> I think one problem is that a significant portion of the video group wants
to task themselves to the CAN-TV project, and Thomas (and perhaps others)
are interested in building venues and outreach in other arenas. It seems to
me that this is not so much a problem of priorities, but rather a problem of
human capacity -- and as a consequence, competition for the time and labor
of the volunteers in the video collective. If there were more video
collective participants who were interested in pursuing Thomas' proposals
for outreach and growth, then the fact that a part of the core group tasks
itself to CAN-TV work would not be a problem.
>
> But volunteer labor in video is currently limited, and a significant part
of that volunteer labor seems interested in pursuing the CIMC/CAN-TV
project, which is certainly a legitimate project of video and the larger
CIMC effort. Here's what I would do (what I DO do) when I'm in a situation
like the one in which Thomas and the collective find themselves -- I work to
recruit more volunteers to the projects I'm interested in growing.
>
> I think it's very tough to try to spell out to people how they can task
themselves as volunteers when the efforts that interest them are not the
same as other members of a particular group. It's sort of like telling a
volunteer photographer that she can't shoot, and must instead write news
stories, because we don't need photographers but we do need writers.
(Actually, this example is more than hypothetical, it is a real need; that's
why the general collective is working to ratchet up public training on
things like 'how to write a news story', as well as recruiting/outreach for
writers, rather than telling our photographers they should put down their
cameras and pick up their pens.)
>
> I also think this discussion within video might be more productive if
there were a broader understanding of 'how' meetings are run (ie. what is
our consensus process) and what the larger collective's mission is.
>
> This is not so much a failure of video, but a failure on the part of the
larger collective in disseminating our procedures and mission to our newer
members. Alloy and I have been compiling a lot of old consensed material of
this type, dating back to the early months of the collective. This includes
material that was originally on our website but that has gotten lost in the
shuffle or hidden over many sight redesigns and new code deployments. I
think it's a good idea to revisit this stuff so that particularly newer
members get a shot on discussing same and so the larger group can reconsense
on same (including tweaking where appropriate). Could video not use this
historical material as a basis to conduct its business until the larger
collective has a chance to revisit same?
>
> christine
>
> In a message dated 5/5/2004 3:19:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
ckaihatsu at myrealbox.com writes:
>
> >
> >   Subj:  Re: [CIMC-work] block and counterproposal regarding Jon's
proposal
> >   Date:  5/5/2004 3:19:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time
> >   From:  "Chris Kaihatsu" <ckaihatsu at myrealbox.com>
> >   To:  mayday at riseup.net
> >   Cc:  ginsuaste at associationhouse.org, jongroot at aol.com,
imc-chicago-working at lists.indymedia.org,
imc-chicago-video at lists.indymedia.org
> >   Sent from the Internet (Details)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Thomas, CIMC-Video, CIMC,
> >
> > Thomas, I appreciate this concise 'spelling-out' of your concerns about
the CITV project and its potential responsibilities. Instead of talking
about talking about something, you talk about it.
> >
> > >From my perspective as a list-reader, I'd invite participants to do
their best to put their thoughts into writing, for posting to a working list
like this one. I do believe that, for dealing with all matters of work, and
the management of that work, email lists are superior to all other forms of
interaction.
> >
> > I hope participants can agree on short-term and long-term goals, and
plot out a path (backward) from each goal for how to get to it.
> >
> >
> > Chris K.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: "Thomas Yun" <mayday at riseup.net>
> > To: "Chicago Indymedia " <imc-chicago-working at lists.indymedia.org>,
"Chicago Independent Television " <imc-chicago-video at lists.indymedia.org>
> > Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 08:30:39 -0700 (PDT)
> > Subject: [CIMC-work] block and counterproposal regarding Jon's proposal
> >
> > Hello, collective,
> >
> > most of you are aware of the block that I raised regarding a proposal by
> > Jon Groot to request a regular time slot from CAN-TV.  I wish to take
this
> > opportunity to do the following: 1) elaborate further upon exactly what
my
> > block is 2) offer a counter-proposal 3) solicit input from the larger
> > collective.
> >
> > 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-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-work
> > ing
> _______________________________________________
> Imc-chicago-video mailing list
> Imc-chicago-video at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/imc-chicago-video

More information about the Imc-chicago-working mailing list