[Imc-lwg-general] Issues of conflict and resolutions?

[Planet Mail]

Hi Folks (richard, toni and everyone else!),

Here's what I've been trying to work out through thinking a lot and chatting to a few people.

Was going to wait until after this hectic weekend of international stuff going on but with a new load of emails of the subject I thought I'd post this which tries to distill down the main actual areas of conflict - btw it seeks to conclude with a basis for discussion, ideally for a face to face meeting:

New imc groups = A great thing! Of Course!

Current group situation = 

Existing IMC UK group 
Richard + Toni's lwg group
Bristol IMC group 
Irish IMC group 
(with great interest being shown in manchester, wales and some in scotland)

What I see as a large Problem =  Working Practices (and what i can only think to call 'legitamacy')


============================
Working Practice Problem Explanation:

Outside of the current arguments, I do not see how different groups can work on the same area of a website with different working practices or rules or guidelines etc (call 'em what u like) - ok I can think of some cases where this might work but there are many examples where it would not - bear me out please -  I think there has to be some common framework.

Illustration:

If we say any group at all that wants to set up (like richard and toni with lwg) can work on the middle column according to their own rules; this can only lead to conflict.

Extreme Example:

group a rule:  no pictures in middle column
group b rule:  every feature in middle column must be accompanied by a picture

If each of these groups ignores the rules of the others because they believe they only have to abide by their own rule then there will be eternal conflict with each group violating the rules of the other. 

In the case here with us it is a different situation of course, but I hope you see the illustration.


Taking it a bit further from our current situation:

What if I decide that I no longer want to participate in the uk group and I do not want to join richard and toni, but that I want to put up features. I get together with another person and form the SWG (Southern Working Group), create our own features rules (according to lwg as clearly stated that could be anything) one of which says we will put up 5 new features every two days. This then happens.

Two other people working in the uk group split and form their own group, the NWG (Northern Working Group), they create their own rules that say 5 new features from NWG must be put up every day) This then happens.

Two more people follow the same path forming the ATWG (anti-'terrorism' working group), who make a rule saying they must publish every press release, corporate news item link, and newswire item from any imc site that relates to anti-terrorism each day in a huge features on the middle column (which more often then not makes a feature the length of the newswire). This then happens. 

Then another two people leave and form the NMCWG (No Middle Column Working Group) who make a rule that there should be no editorial involved in middle columns at all and as such resolve to make every newswire posting a middle column feature, they spend the rest of their lives every hour taking each newswire post and turning it into a feature on its own in the middle column.

By now the middle column is one big damn mess.... 

OK I've laboured the point, but do you see what I'm getting at here? I think there has to be a common framework.


======================
'Legitimacy'

Now, the above exaggerated scenario also works to illustrate something else.  This chaotic example only works because the people setting up the SWG, NWG, ATWG and NMCWG in this silly scenario have been part of the uk group and possess the passwords to add their features.  If they did not have the passwords they would only be in a position to discuss what they want to do with the existing uk group, propose new ways of doing things and try and effect changes through participating in discussion.

And this goes to the heart of what I termed 'legitamacy'.

LWG has the passwords to the site due to history and due to toni being a global techie. (this for me is where most of the conflict has come from)

If two people who had not been involved before and did not have passwords set up LWG how would that work?

Regarding Bristol, can two people with passwords start their own group and decide between themselves what features to put up without being bound by anything the existing bristol group has decided?

I do not know how this should work, I can see several possibilities and many problems.

We have not discussed what this means beyond statements of conflict - 'existing uk group has no authority'  or 'lwg as two people has no authority over a larger group of 25 or whatever' type views - this has big implications for consensus and sovereignty of mailing lists etc etc and is so very important at this moment as more people want to get involved in a regionalised way.

=================

So in conclusion.  

What I really want to do is split out the actual areas of discussion from the arguments of implementations and propose discussing face to face in the light of the above issues:

- features working practices 
- legitimacy of new groups  

that's all  :)

(won't have much time for responding to this next couple of days because of monitoring breaking news etc, but i hope it can be read without angering people, and that people can think about it for a bit :)

Dave
1 of imc uk volunteers

ps this was a real attempt to identify ISSUES where we could have clear face to face discussion - i think the worst thing that could happen is for us to start a whole other round of argument based on this text (yes it does come from a certain perspective, but others are just as valid) - rather i hope it will stimulate the process of preparing clear topics for discussion.