[Imc-lwg-work] blocking imc-process proposal/48 hours review time

[Richard Malter]

Toni and I have worked on this. It is a block with explanations and suggestions 
to move forward - in response to the global proposal to transform the imc-
process list. 

48 hours to think it over then we'll send to imc-process

Richard


_______________________________


Hello everyone,

About the proposal to transform the imc-process listserve into a liasons list:


SUMMARY

We are blocking this proposal in its present state for two reasons which we 
explain, and give a definite suggestion how to ammend and improve it. We think 
that this proposal could be helpful; and we think that the earlier Roll Call 
proposal was very helpful. But there are roughly two reasons to ammend the 
proposal. The first reason is that the underlying problem has not been 
identified: it is: what constitutes a decision-maker in Indymedia? The proposal 
as it is would create a structure before identifying the problem. The second 
reason is that if analysed, the proposal is actually an implementation of the 
spokescouncil decision-making model: the liasons will be the spokes of the 
wheel. This proposal *is* in effect for a decision-making structure. In 
addition, because of this, it would increase the current imbalance towards the 
homogenous ruling way of basic working in Indymedia.

SUGGESTION FOR AMMENDMENT: 
Individuals volunteering work in Indymedia can be global working groups of one 
person, if they can and want to, (one person=one group), and so participate 
equally in discussion on imc-process.

----


FIRST REASON TO AMMEND PROPOSAL

At the end of a liason's line of communication there is a decision-maker (eg a 
working/local IMC group). Liasons 'point' to decision-makers, and help 
information flow back and forth from decision-makers to other decision-makers. 
A liason facilitates decision-making (as well as other communication) between 
decision-makers.

So the underlying problem is: what is the attribute that constitutes a decision-
maker in Indymedia? It must be because she/he/they do work for Indymedia. So we 
would need to define what is actual contributing work in Indymedia. Whether 
someone is in a group or not is only a detail on top of this core problem.  
[a suggestion for the future about this problem is here: 
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-process/2002-March/002999.html  ]

So the proposal as it is would create a structure before identifying the 
problem.  

Another point is that the argument which has sometimes been given for a list to 
have all the local IMC groups in one place so that they can communicate more 
easily, is not supported by the proposal any more than without the proposal. 
Because local IMC groups can do this already on imc-process if they use a 
subject-line protocol like "[local-imc]", and/or with discussion facilitation. 
Also we have the online global contacts database that the Communication Working 
Group created. This means that if any one (local) group in Indymedia wants to 
communicate, for example, to all local IMCs, it can. And with the advantage 
maintained that all can still speak to all equally.

There is also the reverse case: a local IMC _does not_ deliberately input into 
the network. Such IMCs contribute by existing, but no more than that. But this 
level of contribution is not adequate enough for Indymedia to be a network 
greater than the sum of its parts. However this proposal would still give them 
the curcuitry, and so effectively the rights of decision-making ability _about 
network issues_; the most significant decision-making right in such a case is 
the ability to block proposals. So redesigning imc-process will also worsen 
this existing imbalance in the Indymedia network.

So this proposal _would_ have an effect on network decision-making. Because the 
way you wire an electric circuit determines very much how the current will 
flow. 

But we think the proposal could still work and have a helpful result if 
ammended. The proposal is very pragmatic (Necessity the mother of invention), 
and so not by chance it coincides with addressing the underlying problem: of 
identifing what is *actual contributing work* in Indymedia and what isn't. The 
coincidence exists because people in local IMC groups and global working groups 
are doing work, so the proposal coincides with addressing the underlying 
problem up to this point. 

But there is the possibility beyond this point, where the proposal misses the 
underlying problem: an individual who does work, who will be discriminated 
(differentiated) by this proposal, by being given only a 100 word limit in 
discussion; while at the same time, for illustration, it might happen that a 
local IMC group who does not input into the network, will have automatic full 
discussion and decision-making/blocking rights. The proposal would in this 
example make imc-process less representative of the actual work being done in 
the IMC network than it is at present. 

The proposal needs to be ammendeded for this and similar possibilities.

SUGGESTION FOR AMMENDMENT: 
Individuals volunteering work in Indymedia can be global working groups (one 
person=one group) if they can and want to, and so participate equally in 
discussion on imc-process. 

----- 

The second reason we explain in more detail below. It is about ideologies 
shaping practice. Please only read it if you wish to - because we believe the 
first reason is enough to prompt a change in the proposal on its own.

----

We are in several working groups - global and one local in London,
and so argue not from the bias of individual volunteers.


Richard Malter & Toni Prug
 ----------------------
| London Working Group |
 ----------------------


---
---


SECOND REASON TO AMMEND PROPOSAL

Lets put experience first, ideology later. 

The proposal limits diversity and worsens existing imbalances. Because it 
effectively lays onto the network a template based on a rigid ideological idea -
 something like a 'spokescouncil' model. It will restrict the diverse processes 
*that can be seen actually happening* all the time in our actual experience so 
far in Indymedia. Why not have a triangular model, for example?
 
It will also increase the current imbalance towards the homogenous ruling way 
of basic working in Indymedia: 'non-hierarchical' organization will become even 
more pronounced and tyrannical than it presently is. 'Non-hierarchical' can be 
extremely anti-diversity. It has caused us massive amounts of frustration and 
friction so far. 

This ruling basic way of working in Indymedia leads to what can be described 
as 'lowest-common-denominator-working-practices'. Meaning, that becuase of the 
absence of no other structure [idea], a negating decision-making 'majocracy' 
exists: those that agree to the least, rule. Furthermore, nothing underlyingly 
changes in this basic way of working as the organization gets bigger, it just 
increases in size.

'Lowest-common-denominator-working-practices' occur because of the ruling use 
of one non-ideology: 'non-hierachical' organization. 

You can't build a house with a material that the only thing you can say about 
the material is that "it is a non-brick". Try building a house 'not with a 
brick'! It will create big problems when you actually do the building. And 
a 'non-brick' also makes you think even more about a 'brick'! But you can use 
strawbales.

The main point is not to use ideology to shape the design of the network and 
prevent us from seeing what is actually happening.

The main point is not to use ideology to 'design' the network and prevent us 
from seeing what is actually happening.

---
---









----- End forwarded message -----