[Imc-lwg-general] Minutes from mtg with LWG Richard and Toni

[Planet Mail]

Hi folks,=20

here's minutes of the meeting with Richard and Toni (LWG aka London Working=
 Group) from fri 22nd feb (i think :)

These represent a synthesis of many corrections and additions made by all=
 parties who were present at the meeting, the original notes were circulated=
 for comment. However in some places there has been disagreement over the=
 minutes which has dragged on for too long -  some of the disagreements are=
 detailed as NB points. Richard and Toni will also publish the minutes as=
 amended by them.

Ciao,
Dave.

ps sorry, i thought i'd sent this mail on monday.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

NB the minutes are not complete verbatim minutes.

Rachel was there to take minutes, although typing on a laptop she could not=
 type out every comment. Rachel also contributed to discussion on a small=
 number of occasions.

The meeting lasted from approx 7.40pm - 10.45pm Fri 22nd Feb 2002

Present:
Richard and Toni
Dave, Paula, Tony and Rachel


DAVE - Before we set an agenda, how about half an hour as an idea, that=
 would be a space to talk and set out without interruption, what you see the=
 conflicts are and where you would like to see a change happening and if you=
 have formulated possible solutions and then lets set that against the=
 agenda to create an order and a framework - is this a possible way to do an=
 agenda.

RICHARD Does not agree, he understands that agenda is already agreed. He=
 wants to discuss working practices and legitimacy

TONY - agrees with Dave and thinks that this is crucial and outlines the=
 point that he would like to raise decentralisation issue.

TONI - Feels his legitimacy is hampered by the group and that they also=
 hamper others so would like to focus on that.

PAULA - Also thinks decentralisation is important

DAVE and PAULA nod and set out that they are here as individuals to discuss=
 all these important issues

PAULA - if you (Richard) talk about legitimacy, I would like a=
 clarification.

DAVE - Reiterates his idea, he has mentioned that it would be good if=
 Richard and Toni set out their issues and disagreements, solution etc, then=
 Dave, Paula and Tony do it, it was suggested because of the very high level=
 of email traffic that has been going on. It was just to provide a start=
 process to clarify positions.

RICHARD - I want to start at the bottom, I want to think of it as a cake,=
 like a base. You (Dave) did it in you email. You (Dave) wrote that it=
 boiled down to two things, legitimacy and working practices.

TONI - I agree that the email Dave wrote means that we could deal the issues=
 in this way.

TONI I do not speak as an individual and speak for London Working Group=
 (LWG) and I have been hampered in working on LWG due to this email traffic.

DAVE - we have had some discussion regarding the issues discussed on email,=
 (both individual and group discussions), while talking as a representative=
 view of a wider bodies we cannot fully represent the collectives words and=
 we cannot agree on proposals set here, that are wider agreements that have=
 to be taken as group decisions.

RICHARD - I understand this. you are a from a group, and that you are=
 delegates of this group; which ( i understand this) is different from being=
 delegated _by_ a group. I think you are equivocating about saying you are=
 from different groups.

Dave nods
(NB from dave, indicating understanding)

DAVE - there was discussion on who would attend the meeting and all were=
 offered opportunity to say if they wanted to and many people had strong=
 reason they did not feel able to come. Some had not been able to follow all=
 of email discussion completely so were not comfortable with representing=
 issues. Others did not want to come because they were not involved in imcuk=
 from the beginning and did not know you (Richard and Toni) long enough to=
 feel able to discuss with you.

Richard nods (understands).

TONI- Perhaps didn't come because they didn't have enough information on the=
 history

TONI- I do not want to have a meeting with individuals, I have met people as=
 individuals (mentions a name) and was happy talking for hours with (name) I=
 want to talk to representatives.

RICHARD- We have come to a meeting and having done our homework and you may=
 disagree, but here we are as the LWG, and thought we had agreed an agenda=
 in advance (i.e. Dave's email), We have never used [the words] conflict and=
 competition. There are some points that Dave has outlined in his email and=
 in his logic Richard can agree and disagree on some points.

TONY - points out that here, Richard is addressing Dave's email as an=
 individual email and that Dave's email does not represent all here. This=
 was a personal email.

Richard wants two minutes to discuss privately with Toni.

Dave says that he wants respect in the meeting and no arguing and a break is=
 fine.

PAULA - I came here to believe that we can start something new here.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D
* * Break * * (Aprox 5 mins)
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D

RICHARD- You do behave and act in many instances as a group, we cannot=
 accept the inconsistency that you are not here as a group.
They feel they have more to deal with and that they have presented a case=
 for over two months.
We would like to adjourn the meeting now.=20
Richard is not prepared to discuss the ideas without talking to a group=
 representative. Pragmatically he feels he does not know how to deal with=
 this. If this cannot change he will adjourn.=20
We will present the case again to recapitulate in summary concise form in no=
 longer than two pages, then we leave it like that until you are ready to=
 resume as delegate of your group.

TONI - to add, this is because, to repeat you have acted many times as a=
 group and disputed us several times,

TONY - you have raised the issues of legitimacy several times, it was not=
 disputed that we shall talk about this

RICHARD - not only have we not disputed this we have agreed to the=
 discussion and taken the lead.

PAULA - several people have used these several terms, lets talk about them.

TONY - The whole point about legitimacy is - who is the group talking with=
 you now? we are in the process of decentralisation of imc-uk and we have=
 been moving forward on this. We have been working on this for something=
 like six months. Because these issues are so complicated we cannot speak on=
 behalf of that group. Those following these issues are groups who have=
 chosen to deal with this issue specifically. What we want to do is to be=
 clear about what we want to speak about, only then we can be delegates of=
 the wider groups. We do not accept the email sent by Richard and Toni as=
 the agenda because the emails are unclear, we need to collaborate to find=
 out the pros and cons on each issue and then we can create an agenda=
 together.

DAVE - two things, with regard to email of mine which has been quoted=
 http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-uk-process/2002-February/0002=
23.html  (NB from dave: richard's reply to dave's email is at:=
 http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-uk-process/2002-February/0002=
28.html ) it was a personal mail - but I do feel it started to address=
 issues, and I used the term 'conflict' personally, in my email I was=
 deliberately loose around the term legitimacy as it involves many things=
 and we are also in the process of decentralising, there may be points of=
 discussion or debate that beggar a wider discussion that is why I was vague=
 but thought writing it of relevance. With regards to your problem of us not=
 being 100% delegates with a specific position from the rest of the group...

RICHARD -...I did not say specific

DAVE - ...the issues is around that, is that we are the people who have come=
 forward in this reconciliation clarification process and is related very=
 heavily to the situation that I referred to before, and that although many=
 have strong views, some people felt not equipped to discuss these issues=
 down to not having background they do have views but cannot engage fully in=
 email discussions occurring. I would ask you to accept (as individual) that=
 what we would be saying here does represent a distillation of others=
 peoples views on this issue, but it cannot be presented as 100%=
 representation, as we are a much larger group of people. Of course in=
 relation to this the communication it has been unbalanced as many people=
 have individual viewpoints. But you have a very clear position as you are=
 only two or three people, however, these views from LWG flow out to a wider=
 group of people. I would ask for faith and goodwill in our attempt to=
 distill others view points and this interface for many people is incredibly=
 difficult, that is why we need this face to face meting to find some common=
 ground,

TONI - never expected 100% agreement, it's impossible to represent others a=
 100%. We always understood that you acted as a group, referred to you, that=
 you act as a collective. Andi wrote that term to describe us as - 'free=
 floating individuals' such as Richard and Toni - this is not possible. This=
 is neoliberlism in this sense. Any group should be able to break down into=
 units and you should be able to break down as representative of your=
 groups, your group also should have rough consensus to make decisions here,=
 so I think it is quite possible to delegate, even though this has happened=
 although I understand that it is difficult in a larger group.

RICHARD - your (Dave, Paula, Tony) inconsistencies are glaring but will go=
 along with you, but will not be effectively dictated to, by you, and the=
 way you work, and will be prepared to meet you half way. I accept what Toni=
 says and do not think you have done your preparation. Put together a=
 synthesis of your starting position. I do not want to be party to you side=
 of doing this.

PAULA - I think we have done our homework here.

RICHARD I do not need to be here whilst you are not at our level. We have a=
 principle that we always reply to your emails I have made the point before=
 that collaboration is a two-way thing I have presented documented proof=
 that this is not two-way. Lets take a decision to stick to arguments based=
 on reasoned out process.

TONI - we have done it many times

RICHARD - good point

TONI- we also agree with several proposals and this is why we have addressed=
 Daves email as we feel he is the only one who has responded to us. Rest of=
 time people have only their own thoughts, but people need to respond to=
 what we ask, i.e. core issues, I recognise this is not your fault, but we=
 have followed these issues. We can't accept that you cannot take an email=
 as spoken work otherwise we will speak the email to you verbatim, I feel=
 that Tony does not recognise this.

RICHARD - I have presented a pragmatic way forward, I want you to start at=
 the same level and want to work differently as we are a different group.

PAULA - Personally I think that the discussion that has been going on, in my=
 opinion, has been unproductive, ineffective and off-putting. What I was=
 expecting from this meeting was to clarify these issues and work on a more=
 collaborative process, I appreciate your effort but the problem is that I=
 would like to have addressed the practicalities of working on imcuk in this=
 meeting. I am disappointed that you only want to work on email; I have no=
 time to engage on this level. I also would like to express my=
 disappointment that the discussion is based on this, we have actually an=
 agenda ready to be discussed and we have been discussing these issues for=
 months, that it hasn't all happened on email. This is because people do not=
 have enough time to spend on the computer, do not assume that we have not=
 done our homework. We recognise the existence of this group (LWG) but as=
 there are more of us it takes more time. I would like to have had created=
 some more collaborative process not just for you to state that we have not=
 done our homework.

TONY - I want to point that we have done a lot of work and have read all the=
 emails, what we have tried to do is distill it into issues and take away=
 the personal conflicts and that we have produced issues to discuss to move=
 forward to be pragmatic. Perhaps we can list what the issues are and then=
 we can move on.

RICHARD - are we suggesting on agreeing an agenda for the next meeting?

TONI - only if you come back as delegates of your group. Then are we will=
 both be ready to stay.

TONY - this is a slow process but we are trying to build trust as the=
 logical conclusion is to work together.

DAVE - how does it sound if we have a recess now and propose that when we=
 come back, if it's ok, we can go through the process of defining issues of=
 discussion, it's up to all of us in what details we want to address, the=
 important thing is to state clearly what the issues are - these may=
 co-incide. Richard you seem to like this idea can we propose this?

TONI - this is technically not possible to have a discussion if you are not=
 delegates.

DAVE - I really think that we have to view this as a reconciliation process=
 I echo Tony in saying that I personally have done a lot of work done much=
 work re these issues, it is interesting that I haven taken debate further,=
 as I felt that I had written some thing that you agree were issues, but=
 felt that the process and the way that the email communications were=
 working were more about arguments and conflict than about finding areas of=
 common ground, as on personal level we have a lot of common ground even=
 practically. As such I didn't want to continue the processes on a=
 one-to-one as I want to see this meeting as a peace process, I wanted this=
 to also be a human space where we can clearly set out what the issues are=
 in a human way, what they mean and that it allows people to clarify=
 definitions in contexts etc, meeting with humans when there are=
 disagreements it is a positive step to take this forward. I think it is=
 also destructive to tie down agendas too strictly in this kind of process,=
 as it does not leave room for movement for personal elaboration, setting an=
 agenda generally sets a hierarchy.

TONI - yes too rigid
(NB toni requested his above comment be removed from the minutes as he says=
 it is misleading in terms of what he meant, Dave wanted it kept in)

DAVE - perhaps it is hierarchical as some things are more important than=
 others relating to earlier, so many things can fall under these heading=
 i.e. working practices and legitimacy, what I wanted from this meeting=
 initially was to flesh out these words and build something underneath them=
 where we can build levels of understanding and clarification. The original=
 proposal to have a break, and come back set out points that we (all) would=
 want on the agendas and the points that we find dissatisfactory and changes=
 we want and some solutions, then this would give a clear indication of=
 moving forward. On email there have been some good logical debate, however=
 at this meeting I think that the email style of communications has=
 continued and instead of clarification you kept referring back to previous=
 emails. We have to allow space to progress further than the emails.

RICHARD I want a pre-adjournment. This is not the established 5-min break.


=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
**Break**
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D


TONI - First we accept the complexity of situation. However, it is pointless=
 to stay unless you can say you are here as representatives of a group, and=
 not as individuals. To clarify your group, as either the London based=
 collective or IMCUK

(NB Toni wishes to add "or whatever name you like and=94, Tony does not=
 remember this)

if you accept this, that you are individuals but you are also=
 representatives, if you accept this then we will stay but only to discuss=
 two points which will be from the email Dave sent. These were legitimacy=
 the right to work on Indymedia UK issues, Bristol issues are different,=
 then also working practises. If you do not meet this request in this order=
 then we will understand that you have been authoritarian.

(NB Toni wishes to remove =93Bristol issues are different, then also working=
 practises. If you do not meet this request in this order then we will=
 understand that you have been authoritarian=94 however Dave and Tony think=
 it should remain in the minutes)

RICHARD - In dave's email he has set this out.

TONI Do we completely agree to use this email?

RICHARD - Otherwise there is unequalness and we cannot sit at the same=
 table.
(NB richard wishes this removed from the minutes as he says it does not=
 represent wht he meant)

DAVE although

RICHARD - For this evening I suggest to adjourn.

TONI Wait, we want to come back in minute 5 mins.

TONY We would also like a few minutes to set out what we would like to=
 discuss.


=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
* * break - which lasted 15 minutes * *
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D


DAVE - If we are prepared to say we will represent a group tonight, the two=
 points that you wanted to discuss as well as us which were legitimacy and=
 working practises but in that order, if it was not in that order would you=
 still see discussion as still possible?

TONI - Also I want to point out that these 2 issues have been posted as=
 agenda point we wanted to discuss twice.

DAVE -  I also want to answer the question which group are you from even if=
 it is a bit complex.=20

TONI - I refutes this as a point, as he only sees the group as THE group=
 that meets once a week in London. He concedes to hear what Dave is going to=
 say.

DAVE - In opening we are people who have been part of a group that has=
 worked on the site for over 2 years. We are engaged in a process in=
 decentralisation and expansion of which we have been doing for some time=
 now and which is ongoing. So we are from what started out as what was=
 IMCUK, however, being fully honest (those that are here tonight), we are=
 perhaps more representative of those who meet in London which is a large=
 majority but by no means all of those who do most of the work on the site=
 and we are also part of different subgroups, radio, outreach etc. Also=
 those who all agree on a common set of working practises and this is as a=
 whole central to what we wanted to discuss tonight and we had lots to=
 discuss tonight

RICHARD - Sub group means part of something else

DAVE - I was trying to illustrate that the video subgroup, for example, are=
 all in within this process as well, as a consequence, me personally, I am=
 part of IMCUK, London and a subgroup, as I said as this is so central to a=
 lot of issues we want to discuss and it is ongoing, I feel that trying to=
 tie us down to a specific group could be seen as slightly deceiving, just=
 to say that these are loaded issues and it is the issues behind this that=
 we wanted to discuss tonight.

PAULA - I also believe we also represent these subgroups and there is print,=
 radio etc, many people who are involved in radio, for example, do not have=
 access or engage on email as they work only on audio. There is also many=
 people contributing to the web site who don't reside in London who we work=
 with. I think that in that way we can represent those who work on the web=
 but there are wider issues. You also contribute as a group (LWG), but many=
 contribute who are not in your group but more as general IMCUK.

TONI - we did not ask this.

TONY - We don't question the legitimacy of your group, the email lists are=
 open to anyone, but what we
have questioned are the actions that you have taken on the site - and this=
 is why we and the site has common working practises.

RICHARD - I refute this as I also work on the site.

TONY - Yes, but not with common working practices. Although I am happy to=
 discuss legitimacy and Working practices I also want to talk about=
 decentralisation, and autonomy they are totally linked, you cannot talk=
 about one without the other. We want to be clear that we have also set an=
 agenda so that we can move forward next week and all begin with these=
 issues, however you want to call it.

DAVE - Just to be clear we did not just come just to agree on an agenda but=
 also to discuss with you in general and to clarify this stuff.

TONI - I would say that i refute this, that these statements don't represent=
 reality. we had an agenda we also make decisions on consensus. You have not=
 accepted our agenda and you did not refute the agenda either therefore=
 defacto we have this agenda as a representation of reality.

TONY - I sent an email regarding Dave's email, and on working practises,=
 decentralisation etc (NB added by tony "for the agenda"), and you wrote=
 back saying that this agreement was an add-on. We just have a=
 misunderstanding.

DAVE - you came with my email, we came with a wider set of emails

RICHARD - Did you send this in advance of ours? Chronologically you have not=
 disagreed with our agenda sent after yours.

DAVE - Either way I took the email I sent as a basis, this is the key.

RICHARD - reading from his notes says [dave said]=20
=93we are from several groups, those people are also part of those people=
 who meet in London who are also the people who do the majority of work on=
 the website.=94 Success, we have identified a group of people who meet in=
 London and abide by common working practices. Can you accept that "those=
 people who meet in London" and "who do the majority of work on the site"=
 are a group. I think this is silly as I want to talk to you as part of that=
 group, a child of 14 can grasp this. I could understand that the situation=
 is complex but the fact is that on planet earth there is a group of people=
 that meet in London who do the majority of the work. I am simply asking for=
 you to say that you are from that group.

TONI - Is this a clear question, as i also take part in few groups but I am=
 not here as any of that and am leaving out other groups issues.

RICHARD - I am not sitting here calling you a liar. You are from a group=
 that meets in London and who does the majority of the work on the site.=
 Tony you have also just said we are completely agreed to talk about=
 legitimacy and working practices. You have almost agreed to what we want.

(NB from Dave: - around here richard was repeatedly insisting that his notes=
 of what dave had said be minuted verbatim)

TONI - Richard, he did not say this verbatim.

RICHARD - He said it verbatim

TONY-  I can talk about them all in whatever order you want.

TONI - You know what group you are part of I feel you are stubbornly=
 refusing to identify what group you are from

DAVE I think it was very clear what I said.

TONI - I understood it another way.

RICHARD - Dave I have what you said verbatim, we are part of a group of...

TONI - OK Richard enough now

RICHARD - He said it verbatim.

DAVE - I said it in a context.

TONY - I think we know what we want to discuss lets not bring it up now you=
 begin next week with a clear agenda.

DAVE - Yes this whole thing of specifying names and structures is most of=
 what we want to talk about and we do have different opinions and this is=
 why it is getting heated. In fact we are discussing the 'icing and=
 cherries' from your 'cake' Richard.

RICHARD I do and don't agree; Verbatim ... we are from several groups... we=
 are also part of those people who meet in London, who are also the majority=
 but by no means all, of the people who run the website - and who agree on a=
 common set of working practises

DAVE - Yes I did say those words but I object to this being 'verbatim' as I=
 also mentioned that we are part of a bunch of other projects not in London,=
 and that there were also more words I said other than what Richard spoke as=
 'verbatim'.

RICHARD - What if I said ten thousand words to described ourselves I think=
 that if we did you would walk out

DAVE - Look, well, I think that both sides of the table have been=
 productive. I think the fact that in my reply it involves a couple of other=
 groups that make up IMCUK is part of why it is complex.

RICHARD - It may have been productive but we will still not set an agenda,=
 as you have not met our conditions. You have not stated who you are from=
 that is our condition.

DAVE - I personally thought that the answer to the question as from my=
 situation is that all relates and work to the imc website

RICHARD - you identified a group

DAVE - i identified we are part of many. What I think you want is for you to=
 meet with us only saying we have this hat on and we are only talking about=
 the group that meets in London.

RICHARD - I am not interested if you come from People's Global Action

PAULA - But we are all from other groups, all of which are not part of LWG=
 and I am from radio, and we meet in London. Radio group relevant or not.=
 Why are you just referring to the London group. Richard I think that you=
 are being aggressive and intimidating and I feel like I cannot speak as you=
 are watching every word I say too closely and I cannot speak my mind I am=
 afraid that whatever I say can turn against me.

RICHARD - apologies for being intimidating and aggressive.

PAULA - I have problems continuing to be lucid, to think straight I am=
 afraid of making mistakes or saying something wrong...

RICHARD - apologises again.

TONI - Paula, to repeat, I am also part of many groups, for example, i used=
 to do technical work for the imc-uk, and i still do it from time to time,=
 one can call that a group. As well i do work to help imc-bristol with=
 technical issues and helped them to start up as new imc, which is all part=
 of indymedia uk, but that isn't of relevance in this meeting, therefore i=
 keep issues linked with that work out of here.

RICHARD - I regret this is the case. I am so nonplussed I don't know what to=
 do.
(NB richard wishes this taken out of the minutes as he says it does not=
 represent what he said or what he meant)

DAVE - I want to ask with regard to what i said earlier about how we have=
 suddenly became problematic and tense because we have been discussing this=
 issue of the name but...

TONI - or the description of your group.

DAVE - ...and as this description as quoted by Richard several times is a=
 much more complex situation, as we have said we are part of a group that=
 meets in London and this group...

RICHARD - who does the ... (He reads from his notes again)

DAVE - ...Richard, please here me out. Do you see what i mean when we are=
 effectively discussing the agenda, and this is why we are getting stressful=
 and I know you think is important but do you see that putting too much in=
 the name which is the 'cherry on the cake', and is not the issues and not=
 letting the issues behind it come out and i feel that it blocks the=
 productive discussion. If we can next time discuss issues and then return=
 to more pinned down definitions we can move on. The name is not the=
 conclusion but the issues behind it.

RICHARD - I follow what he is saying

DAVE - We know we have differing views, but also many things we share and=
 need fluid discussion not verbatim statement. We should rather constructive=
 discussions and if it gets to that stage ok, but i think that for that sake=
 of Indymedia we need to put more time into it. We are already discussing in=
 a too narrow definition of discussions and the issues are much wider.

RICHARD - Yes Ok them but for the record, verbatim 'we are part of a group=
 that meets in london'

TONY - Richard the minutes have stated this several times and we need to=
 move on.

PAULA - I belive that this is a detriment process of imc i don't question=
 the legitimacy of your group.

RICHARD - I don't question your legitimacy either

PAULA - so we have to discuss practicalities. I have seen people under a lot=
 of pressure and it hurts to see that. It is a destructive process for=
 indymedia.. people have worked very hard on the web site for two years...a=
 lot of good work has been done, this is like an appeal for starting to be=
 positive, to co-operate and find a way to co-habit on the web site and stop=
 being negative and work towards some level of agreement. We need to find=
 some common ground.

RICHARD hands a paper - this is a document presented during the meeting=
 http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-uk-process/2002-February/0002=
28.html to Paula to read about co-habitation on the site
(NB this is richard's reply to dave's email)

TONI and Richard agree with Paula, about co-habitation, saying well put.

PAULA - perhaps we can look at this and may be of some use.

TONY - We are all tired and we should agree to meet again.

RICHARD - I will not agree without our conditions being met. By rough=
 consensus i don=92t agree unless you say in what name you come to it.=
 Unless you do this I don't want to meet.

Toni - without that (all of us not meeting as individuals, but coming from=
 certain groups who work on indymedia) this meeting has no legitimacy;=
 because people from your group, or  anyone else, can just say that bunch of=
 individuals met to discuss some individual issues, and so it will be a=
 waste of energy and time.
(NB text added by Toni)

DAVE nods
(NB from dave, I nod a lot in conversation to show understanding)

TONY - Look, I could have come here and said that if you don't agree with=
 one working practice on the site, we will leave, but we will not do that.

TONI - I feel completely manipulated by you saying that this will be a=
 series of meetings because that was never proposed

Dave nods

TONY - I say it in this way because i assume that if we are going to work=
 together we need to talk more but this was not a demand.

RICHARD -I want it minuted that after we set out these conditions that you=
 took 15 min break.

TONY - I want to clarify if you are refusing to meet

RICHARD - No we are not refusing to meet, we are asking to meet on these two=
 predefined conditions.

RICHARD and TONI request a two-minute break to discuss.


=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
**Break**
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D


TONI - That's how it stand we will not meet up unless you meet these=
 conditions.=20

(NB TONI says he also said - the second condition is that 1) legitimacy then=
 2) working practices are the first things on the agenda in that order. then=
 you can add what you like to the agenda.=20
NB Dave and Toni cannot remember the last sentence from Toni.)

DAVE - would you be happy to meet if we if we say we are part of those who=
 meet in London.

TONY - We are decentralising IMCUK, and until this happens, things will be=
 in flux, we can not decide the new name for the group for them.

TONI - Ok we will accept a description.

TONY - i feel like you are not allowing for a wider discussion. We have a=
 comment to make about working practices. If Richard stops us talking about=
 wider issues we feel we cannot talk about legitimacy with out taking about=
 working practices as one.

DAVE - there are a whole bunch of issues that fall under that and our=
 perceptions are different. We should not end with defining that negatively.=
 When we meet again, whilst talking about legitimacy and if we want to=
 include working practises within this, then this should be allowed and we=
 then can put all cases forward.

RICHARD and TONI request break for several mins.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
** Break * *5 mins
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

TONI - Yes it is possible that we can change the order but would prefer=
 order of talking about legitimacy first then working practices.

RICHARD - having said that, this email I refer to is the beginning of the=
 conversation. to be clear these two agenda subjects in any order.

DAVE - just to be clear, the issues are as we have said and we are ok to add=
 more issues in relation. To also add, that this was always going to be a=
 hard meeting, but can we check that we all feel that we've done this in a=
 respectful way and we're happy with the respect shown each another at this=
 meeting?

RICHARD/TONI + PAULA/TONY agree.

ENDS