[Imc-lwg-general] Re: [Imc-uk-process] clarification

[Planet Mail]

pers responses added to main body below - just a quick reply,  i will=
 explain very soon by posting something where i hope i can make it clearer=
 :)

(ps have striped off all footers)
dave

At 09:43 30/01/2002 +0000, you wrote:


>Dave hello thanks for the mail. i follow what you say.
>
>Quoting Planet Mail <planet-mail@pop3.poptel.org.uk>:
>
>[]=20
>i follow the logic of what you say about meetings.

glad to hear that.  should we not try then?


>with regard to the 'blocks' - i think the reason people are saying 'block'=
 is
>because what is proposed takes the subject of discussions and disagreements=
 to
>a concrete form of resolution when the basic disagreements have yet to be
>either (imho) properly discussed in a structured way, or resolved.
>personally i am against the proposal for changes _at this point in time_=
 until
>more discussion of the core basic issues that are underlying the more=
 practical
>proposals are resolved (or at least more defined).
>
>-- here i do not follow you. think what is this saying?=20
>
>it is saying that one group cannot actually publish its working practices=
=20
>equally alongside another (older) group's until either/and a) the two=
 groups=20
>meet, or b) there is further discussion (with whatever outcome).

essentially yes because of the situation, that is what i said. yes it might=
 make you angry, but i do belive that for the moment things should stop and=
 pause. the reason i believe this is both because we have not discussed how=
 conflicting working practices can be dealt with collectively, or how other=
 groups can exist (blimey!) and relate to each other, but i think it a=
 serious point. i also would say that when i say _at this point in time_ i=
 mean now in very short term, that's my pers view anyway, i think we all=
 agree that we have to reach some conclusions on this because the situation=
 is taking so much energy and time (from all of us) and preventing a great=
 deal of more constructive work occurring as well as emotionally upsetting=
 people. also in my pers view i have no problem with lwg being another=
 group, i would have no problem with contact details for lwg being included=
 in some contact page or whatever, just that the working practices are=
 currently one of the biggest points of conflict and therefore invested with=
 more than they state in words (anyway this is part of the stuff i'm trying=
 to write out clearly so won't go off half cocked :)

what i would pers like to see is a clear undertaking to discuss face to=
 face,  and discussion of how the meeting could be run, with a clear setting=
 out of what an agenda would look like - this point is followed up below.


>This is a basic prejudice against one group. And can only be made and held=
 by a=20
>position of 'unequalness' =3D authority of some kind of group over group =
=3D same=20
>thing as hierarchy. very simple point i am making.
>
>Same thing the other way round: if two groups have equality of 'rights',=
 then=20
>that is the premise; and not only on the condition that some further=
 quantity=20
>of discussion takes place, which is what "_at this point in time_"  says.=
=20
>Negotiation that you suggest becomes prejudiced, with element of coercian=
 (what=20
>i explained in imc-antartica story). again clear idea.

I can see what you are trying to say. and i understood my usage of "_at this=
 point in time_" since i have no objection to such an idea in principle at=
 all. what i'm trying to get across is that we should hang fire and make a=
 meeting as a way of moving forward, and that that should be the priority at=
 this point in time. not that i'm an expert of conflict resolution or=
 anything but i've done a fair bit of it in other organisations and the=
 classic way of moving forward is to recognise the conflict, pause it, and=
 try and distill it down to basics to a point where both sides can meet to=
 discuss it.

Where you say meeting requests are coercion, i can understand your view, but=
 many people would say that you and toni as lwg have used coercion at times=
 with regard to features through your password usage - not wanting to debate=
 this here btw but just illustrating differing understandings of where=
 coercion has been perceived, both sides need to be aware of these things in=
 order to move forward.

Damn, i'm not being very clear here so will stop. what i've said is my=
 feelings more than anything. I'll go back to my attempt to distill things=
 and post it when finished, prob tomorrow morning - promise.

dave.


>on a related note, I am having difficulties following (and thus responding)=
 to
>the emails that have been exchanging because of their  numbers, length and=
 the
>important issues within them, but that's my problem i guess.
>
>-- yes, i know, sorry;)
>
>Richard
>
>Dave.
>
>
>At 16:50 28/01/2002 +0000, Ana A. wrote:
>
>>>Arne, you must get the fact once and for all that you have no authority.
>>>
>>>You have no grounds to veto. you do not have the authority to do so.
>>
>>In a consensus system, every one can block a decision, and this is a=
 block. I
>support Arne's block.
>>
>>I will not engage in further discussion. Please do not take my lack of=
 reply
>as unpoliteness.
>>
>>Ana