[Imc-lwg-work] [docs] *improved* !radical lwg Charter change

[Richard Malter]

**********************************************************
* the CHARTER of Imc-london Working Group (imc-lwg) v3.1 * 
**********************************************************


* OBJECTIVE: 

To work on the developing Indymedia network in London, the UK and the Republic
of Ireland. Including: work on the imc-uk web site; work on facilitating
new city/region IMC's; work on facilitating technical network to support 
emerging independent media; or for example the setting up a different 
website based on the Open Publishing (OP) principle 
[rough consensus working OP definition for the Indymedia network here
http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~matthewa/catk/openpub.html 
and summary explanation here
http://nyc.indymedia.org/help/help.html] 


* SCOPE (range of activities): 

Involvement of the group will depend on the interests of its 
contributors (currently involved in tech, legal, volunteer groups), 
and who may be located anywhere in the world. 


* TERM DEFINITIONS: 

Task = any work that carries out the objective of imc-lwg 
and that does not contradict it's charter. >>>needs examples<<<

Implementation work = the various steps taken after the design stage 
(discussion, advice, consultation) involved in the production or maintaining of 
a task. Making a summary of a discussion about a task from the design stage 
that 
enables the implemenation of a task to begin is also implemetation work. 

Holarchy = Arthur Koestler's word for the description in a systems/holistic 
approach of the form and, or pattern, of an organization of some kind. 


* FUNCTIONAL PRINCIPLES: 

The imc-lwg has functional principles, which effectively form its
charter: 

1) Imc-lwg is open to anyone who agrees to work according to these principles. 

2) The use of only affirmative (positive) terms in describing both goals 
and ways of working. Defining always what imc-lwg and its working groups are 
for. 

An example is that the negating term 'non-hierarchical' - which 
belongs to the hierarchy/non-hierarchy paradigm, is not made use of, 
since it is a contradiction and stumbling block to build positive 
creative structures and practices based on a negating term. It also 
strengthens the concept by first establishing it in order to negate it. 

3) All group discussion and decision-making must be carried out 
publicly, via email, (recorded) on publicly accessible web archives. 
This is in order that everyone gets equal access to information from 
which decisions are made, and is able to participate in the actual 
decision-making, unlimited by geographical location or time 
constraint. 

4) Decision Making: 

"We reject kings, presidents and voting. We believe in rough 
consensus and running code." David Clark, MIT 

	 <a> Decision-making by imc-lwg as a whole is made by the rough 
consensus of all those people in the working groups who are doing 
implementation work. 
Decision making within each working group is made by the rough consensus
of all those people in the working group who are doing implementation work. 

Consensus is calibrated to the circumstances. An example to explain 
what is meant is: 

         If a group of 20 people are in danger of being shot dead by 
gunmen, a decision for the group on how to try to escape the gunfire 
will have to be made by a certain deadline and not necessarily can 
everyone be completely 'happy' with the decision - because otherwise 
they might all lose their lives. Consensus, in these circumstances: 
the rougher the better. 

         <b> A decision can be made by imc-lwg as a whole, and within a working 
group even though not everyone involved in the making of the decision agrees to 
it. 
	 
	 <c> Those contributing to implementation work in imc-lwg (see <a> 
above) can contribute to decision-making, and can block a decision. 
Though anyone can contribute to the discussion about the subject of the 
decision. 
For this the two email lists are: 
imc-london-wg-work@lists.indymedia.org (implementation) 
imc-london-wg-general@lists.indymedia.org (discussion). 

	 <d> A decision can only be stopped if there is an objection 
that it would contradict any functional principle (the charter of imc-lwg) and, 
or
that it would endanger the existence of imc-lwg.

	 <e> If <d> does not apply, then a decision can only be blocked
if some way to actually continue with the subject of the decision
is proposed at the same time as the 'block', 
eg ammendments, improvements, substitution, alternative solution(s) etc.  


5) Road to a Task: 
         
         <a> a COORDINATOR is decided on within a (new) working group
that wants to bring another task to life. The coordinator 
must have a publicly available email address, and must understand 
this charter. It is the coordinator's responsibility to coordinate the new 
working group, and communicate outside of the group by writing 
regular summaries of progress or problems (e.g. similarly to the
imc-summaries list). Note: communication back to the group is not 
necessary as everything is publicly archived. 
It is recommended to rotate this position of coordination to spread the load. 

         <b> The new working group must propose the goals of
each task it wants to do in measurable terms, 
the period it will continue, and the period of notice if it stops. 
If the goals cannot be defined and measured, the functionality of a task
cannot be decided on and later assessed, and also whether or not
someone is contributing to the implementation work cannot be determined. 
         
         <c> Once the design stage of a new task has been completed 
by the proposing group, it is passed on to the larger imc-lwg (working) group 
and decided on by rough consensus (see 4). 


6) Road to Exclusion: 

         <a> based on previous experiences of many failed attempts to 
bring new tasks to life, and of being unable to 
document this, in order to have a record of progress, we are 
introducing a simple rule for someone's exclusion from work as a 
group coordinator, or from work on a particular task
(ie within a working group). 

         <b> it is essential to commit oneself only to those tasks 
that one can actually carry out. 
         
         <c> failure to do so (committing, but not carrying out) more 
than twice in a row, excludes that person from further work (only) 
on that task he/she is currently working on. 
Note: only being consistently inconsistent excludes. 

         <d> in any case, letting the coordinator know as soon as 
he/she knows that he/she will not be able to carry out the work 
he/she committed to do is a requirement 

	 <e> when a working group stops doing implementation longer than
the agreed period (see 5b), they cease to exist as a group.

7) Utilizing the holarchy paradigm to describe the organization and 
function of imc-lwg and working groups. 
(If you can find a more helpful/accurate description please let us know).
The parts of a holarchy are called 'holons'. A holon has 
at once the autonomy of a whole in its own right, 
and the interdependence as part of a system/ecology.

One meaning of this is that an ecology, or system, or network, can only exist 
when there is recipricol energy/communication exchange between parts.
See these sites for further explanation:
http://www.ratical.org/LifeWeb/Articles/LSinetHF.html 
http://www.ratical.org/LifeWeb/Erthdnce/chapter4.html 

8) This is an experiment and a model. We are trying out this version here; but 
we encourage the hacking, testing, changing etc, to improve on
and find what is more helpful to another group in its own circumstances. 
If you dislike it, rewrite it :-)