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

[Richard Malter]

Hello Dave and everyone,

quoting Dave:  "this was a real attempt to identify ISSUES [] it seeks to 
conclude with a basis for discussion, ideally for a face to face meeting"

--# that's clear. thank you very much :). we have a discussion :)) 
i think it will be helpful to discuss here a while before meeting, will 'save 
time':)


--# i have taken your helpful distillaton of issues, and below distilled it 
further ;)

New imc groups = A great thing! Of Course! 

--# agree :)

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) 

--# we are in agreement again:) glad we can see an orange when it rolls along;) 
just to note that lwg has currently three people in it: the third, Toby, wishes 
to get on with his work in peace and quite ;) [though his input is publicly 
archived]. by the rough consensus principle of lwg Toni and I have been 
talking :)



'working Practice Problem []' 
----------------------------

This is what comes out.

1) exclusive working practices
------------------------------
	Specifically, to our case: this has been claimed, it almost became the 
catchword in recent mails, like everyone reading Harry Potter;) ,but obviously 
it is simply not true, as you also say. So the claim is 'falsified'.
But positively, it has been actually turned on its head, by some effective 
collaboration already, in examples where one group posted features that were 
elaborated by the second group, and where one group helped the other group put 
up the feature in the first place.
 	Now the general case. This would be a problem, definitely. One group's 
work must not inhibit the work of another's. Same argument extends to 50 
groups. They will/would have to collaborate in order to work in such a way that 
they did not hinder one the other. And it is probable that they would have to 
negotiate/discuss how to arrive at the implementation for this. As the number 
of groups increases, yes, there would most probably have to be a synthesis of 
various prefered working practices. Up to here we see it similarly i think.
	* But now, N.B!;) you conclude *with no necessity to do so* that all 
the preferred working practices of many groups need to boil down to _just one_. 
But why cannot, for example, the synthesis of different working practices 
arrive at 2 or 3 methods? Answer: no reason whatsoever!:) with the proviso that 
they are not exclusive as has already been said. The reasons that might be 
given for just one working practice must therefore be _other_ than 
functionality, and instead some kind of political, conceptional etc etc desire. 
	So summary: 2(or more) working practices are fine functionally if not 
mutually exclusive.
	/end N.B.

2) overloading the current (at any given time) capacity of the technical/visual 
ability of the website (eg many groups putting up millions of features etc).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
	Obviously a potential problem. 
	Specifically to our case, obviously this does/has not yet applied. 
	Generally: it could. The many groups involved would have to again 
negotiate/discuss an agreement, based on function, for the current (at any 
given time) capacity of the technical/visual ability of the website. simple 
example: how many features apear on front page before link to older features. 
So, this would have to be discussed and agreed, and always subject to change - 
of circumstance and website ability/design etc.

3) different conception of what middle column/website is for, re 'Open 
Publishing (OP)'.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	This is a more complex one. First my analysis and argument [remember 
please this is not judgement]: the London-based collective has not fully 
grasped or embraced the concept of OP. The middle column of the UK website is 
not really OP. An indication of the interest in OP of this group is the fact 
that when it had about 3 months last year to make an even a temporary response 
to the Network OP discussions from Sydney to Seattle, it did not/failed to.  
Some people in the group have stated this about the middle column not being OP 
as an opinion during these recent email arguments. 
	Ideas for features come from a quite closed network of activists who 
share a particular affinity of approach to the world's problems; either from 
the Newswire, or often from someone's suggestion within the group. 
	For any group to remain a group one could say that it has to propogate 
its limitedness. _Any_ group, _anywhere_. That is why the site has remained, in 
the opinion of many people i have talked with, extremely limited in content, 
(and structure).
There has been much good work, but still this remains true. 
	Summary: mostly the middle column is being used as a piece of agitprop 
for this affinity of activists, by them; that is why it is so limited, and the 
Newswire as limited as it has been too. It is far from OP.
	*N.B.2! What's wrong with this? 
	a) It is the de facto control of the website by one (necessarily - see 
above) limited group. 	
	b) it is the same _underlyingly_ as corporate/mainstream media. * In 
that it is a small group of people editorializing for a larger number of 
people! * Same thing: you as a group are shouting "black", over 'their' shout 
of "white".  But _underlyingly_ you are the same in media production - which is 
the antithesis of OP. What i meant when wrote "the London-based collective has 
not fully grasped or embraced the concept of OP".
	c) It is far from OP!
	Explanation for this: i think quite simple, habits from involvment in 
past groups transferred to work on indymedia. New habits take a different/more 
energy to create.
	
	/end N.B.2
	

4) Editorial control of all or part (eg middle column) of the website. 
--------------------

	Obviously no one group can have it, otherwise this is not Indymedia. 
This is another observation and criticism of London-based collective, in that 
de facto it is keeping editorial control. Subject overlaps with OP discussion 
3) above. 
	* Very strong argument for _many_ working practices. This overlaps with 
1) above. Why? becuase if every group has a say in every working practice of 
every group - which if you think about it is one way to understand "lets just 
have one working practice", then the whole function (becuase of use of decision 
blocks etc) in reality deteriorates down into 'lowest common denominator 
working practices' - which inevitably becomes the rule of those that agree to 
the least structure, the least number of working practices, the least 
requiremnts, the least agreements generally. This is exactly my experience of 
one of the unacknowledged patterns of function in the London-based collective, 
and other activist groups of this affinity of approach. 
	N.B.3! *What is the result? An effective editorial control by 'lowest 
common denominator working practices' of the one group.
	Summary: many working practices simultaneously encourage/maximize 
editorial diversity. and tend to be most in accord with OP idea. 
	/end N.B.3



'Legitimacy' 
------------

5) ie: ownership/rights to work on the website. 
-----------------------------------------------
	*N.B.4!
	Dave, i paraphrase your heading becuase you take a 
circumstancial _detail_ of the underlying question, for the underlying question 
itself, and then you reason off of that starting point. But the fact that an 
earlier group has a password and will or will not give it out and under what 
conditions, and/or whether a newer group who has a password (due to 
circumstance) will or will not use it, are a 'top level' detail of the problem, 
not the underlying question.
	* The underlying question is 'ownership'/'Legitimacy'  - or same thing 
more clearly expressed: - 

              * Rights To Work On The Website *

	the answer to the underlying question is then straightforwardly 
reached: 
	* _Anyone/group_ has the Rights To Work On The Website(s) *
	The two caveats to this obviously are: 
	a) that they do not break basic principles/bases that the Indymedia 
_network/community_ stands on: like OP, what's described as "non-hierachical" 
organization, no commercial agendas etc etc
	b) their contribution [functional principles] do not hinder other 
people's group's work - which topic has already been worked through above.
	Summary: *all* have * Rights To Work On The Website *, with two 
conditions of consistency with the Indymedia community principles, and 
complementary (not excluding) contribution. Prior possession or not of 
passwords by old or new groups etc is not the underlying (real) issue, only a 
detail of it.

	* What is the observation and criticism of the London-based collective 
in a nutshell? It is not allowing this to happen. 
	(This has also been _indicated_ [inducted] in order to demonstrate this 
by illustrating that theoretically _if_ the Membership_Criteria for Indymedia 
were applied to the London-based collective as a new group it would most likely 
fail to be included based on its current approach).
	end/ *N.B.4

end mail :)

cheers,

Richard
 --------------------------
| imc-london working group |
 --------------------------