[Imc-lwg-work] Fwd: Re: few words -- apologies
Richard Malter
richardmalter at riseup.net
Fri, 19 Apr 2002 10:04:17 +0000
This message is in MIME format.
---MOQ101921065745acb4bd7d1c91506e56dfa951867ba5
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Jay sent this very generous mail to us:
----- Forwarded message from Jay <jay@tao.ca> -----
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 23:11:38 -0400To: Richard Malter
<richardmalter@riseup.net>
Hi Richard,
Sincere apologies for pushing things. I sent those e-mails to imc-process and
imc-finance letting people know what I had suggested to you in my last e-mails
because I thought that it would seem like back room dealing if I didn't -- one
person suggesting a course of action to the london working group, on the
apparent behalf of the people who have already agreed to the proposal/s, that
may not gel with what those people would want. I wanted to make sure everyone
saw what I was "offering" so they could disagree if they wanted. Later today I
realized that in doing so I put pressure on you. I'm sorry about that.
[]
Take your time to read what I wrote, or not. We'll pass the proposals, or
amend them, or dump them, when the time is right.
Please pass my apologies to the London working group.
Jay
---MOQ101921065745acb4bd7d1c91506e56dfa951867ba5
Content-Type: text/html; name="unnamed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="unnamed"
<html>
<font size=3>Hi Richard,<br>
<br>
Sincere apologies for pushing things. I sent those e-mails to
imc-process and imc-finance letting people know what I had suggested to
you in my last e-mails because I thought that it would seem like back
room dealing if I didn't -- one person suggesting a course of action to
the london working group, on the apparent behalf of the people who have
already agreed to the proposal/s, that may not gel with what those people
would want. I wanted to make sure everyone saw what I was
"offering" so they could disagree if they wanted. Later
today I realized that in doing so I put pressure on you. I'm sorry
about that.<br>
<br>
I've been feeling a lot of pressure on this end, and I apologize that
it's beginning to show. For the last ten months or so I've been
helping new IMCs enter the network, mainly U.S. IMCs, but not
exclusively, and have been also communicating with most others to welcome
them aboard. For many of them, my being a friendly "face"
in an otherwise confusing and sometimes hostile global imc environment
leads to my becoming their confidant. When something is wrong with
the way things are going, from internal problems to difficulties getting
imc techs to fix fonts on their web site, I get a call or a desperate
e-mail seeing if I can solve their problems. Yesterday I spent
about three hours on the phone dealing with internal problems at the
Ithaca IMC and dealing with Chapel Hill needing their site rushed because
a bunch of them got beaten at a reclaim the streets-type street party and
they have police brutality photos but can't get in touch with
imc-tech. Most of the time all I do is just listen to them as they
let out steam. Only sometimes can I actually help. <br>
<br>
For months the most frequent (and loudest) complaint has been the feeling
that people feel shut out of the global process. They complain to
me about this, probably because when I was there helping them through the
new-imc process I told them all the great things about being part of the
Indymedia network, trying to convince them to be involved in non-local
goings on. They get all excited, send someone to the imc-process
list to keep track of things, and then, after not being able to follow
conversations, they pull back. Sometimes their liaisions
unsubscribe altogether, never to be heard from again. None of them
has personally blamed me for this, but some of them write to me and sound
a bit betrayed, as if I was responsible for a "bait and switch"
(selling them one idea about the network being fun, then having that not
match what they find). I've been getting a lot of frustrated
e-mails lately, and it's really getting to me.<br>
<br>
I didn't mean to rush things, I just have been feeling really pressured
lately myself, and it's showing through.<br>
<br>
Take your time to read what I wrote, or not. We'll pass the
proposals, or amend them, or dump them, when the time is right.<br>
<br>
Please pass my apologies to the London working group.<br>
<br>
Jay<br>
<br>
<br>
At 10:55 PM 04/17/2002 +0000, you wrote:<br>
>Jay:)<br>
><br>
>bear in mind throughout that my understanding is that there is no
'contest'; <br>
>between this argument and that etc. I dont use those spectacles to
see the <br>
>world:) i am not interested in if we agree or not agree on something
and how <br>
>this makes me happy or not ;) breakfast this morning was good
regardless;) i <br>
>actually think this is productive discussion [no rhetoric]<br>
><br>
>You write long mails, its a problem, really. its now a complicated
set of <br>
>arguments. we (lwg) need to think about it. <br>
><br>
>I feel that you are pushing things to fast. Especially the last mail
you wrote <br>
>to process. if something needs that much pushing then its forced.
remember i <br>
>facilitated global things in past and know how it works. i made the
mistake of <br>
>getting attached to the proposals. <br>
><br>
>I dont think process proposal should go ahead for the reasons we
gave: if <br>
>final <br>
>argument is for local IMCs to have communication space then lets set
that up <br>
>for them somewhere else, otherwise there is a damaging con-fusion of
decision-<br>
>making with communication, and the result is more serious imbalance.
<br>
><br>
>were also doing a few things here, and cant react as a group as fast
as you <br>
>individually can, please bear in mind. toni is mass overloaded with
tech work, <br>
>we havn't had time yet to talk much etc. <br>
><br>
>will reply soon<br>
><br>
>take it easy<br>
><br>
>Richard<br>
</font></html>
---MOQ101921065745acb4bd7d1c91506e56dfa951867ba5--