[Imc-lwg-work] Re: [Imc-uk-features] URGENT word page proposal/finished article

[Richard Malter]

Hey Dave and everyone,


Quoting Planet Mail <planet-mail@pop3.poptel.org.uk>:


>I'm sorry I think this is VERY SILLY and DESTRUCTIVE.
>You toni are saying that you and richard, and anyone who joins this
>'imc-london-wg' has full autonomy to do whatever they like without reference to
>the existing features list and how it has been working for months and months on
>consensus.

"full autonomoy", OF COURSE. YES. Not even going to talk about it. 

imc-london working group is a new group in Indymedia. End of the story. 
{full story here:-
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-london-wg-general}

It will (have to) work with existing groups? Yes.

Go by rules/working practices of other groups?! No.


"without reference", No. That is why i apologized for removing content without 
consultation with others, it's bad collaborative_working_ practice i know :(


Take a look at what actually happened (timeline:

1) >On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Hiro Protagonist wrote:

> can sombody put this into the world page (why wait24hours when the last 
> article went in 26 nov) its not much but its somthing and its ready to cut 
> and paste stright in
> PLEASE CAN SOMEBODY PUT IT IN cause i cant do that stuff yet
> Andrew 


2) Toni [imc-london-wg] uploads feature

{see full mail here:-
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-uk-features/2001-
December/000505.html}

>"i just did this.

>ana, 24hours is something that collective you are part of agreed on.
>i do respect that. however, imc-london-wg that i'm part of works
>different. []
>and makes further suggestion and tangible offer of help:
> [] If you want to add this to your text, or change anything else,
>post it here and i will hopefuly put it up tomorrow.


3) Big misunderstanding :(( people become unhappy :(( 
construe 'destructive', 'battle', 'attack', and guess/imagine other things too.


It was constructive, productive collaboration. 


>I have no objections whatsoever of reviewing things like 24hr rule and making
>discussions and so on, but this approach you take, to say the group of features
>lists people who have been running the whole site this year have no say in what
>happens with the features, 

~ no these people have a say of course, no one ever said otherwise - would be 
outragous to do that.

>because you and richard do not recognise our
>consensus decisions is just ludicrous. I mean it really is.

~ No. see above. Do you act according to the rough consensus and constitution 
of London-WG ? Why should you :) We work by the functional principles of our 
group.

>The discussions and ideas of representation and for how things could be better
>done are very important to have and I think you have loads of good points and
>suggestions. 

~ Thanks for the openmindedness and for saying so publicly :)) cheers :)

I just think this approach you take is not constructive and is
actually disrespectful. 

~ Please see why (i see that) it is constructive generally [take example 
above]. And I have said in these words (and Toni has said too to Ana) that i 
have respect for your group and it's practices :)

>More discussion, less confrontation.

More discussion: yes. There is no confrontation :)

cheers,

Richard


_______________________________________________
Imc-london-wg-work mailing list
Imc-london-wg-work@lists.indymedia.org
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-london-wg-work