[Imc-lwg-work] * [docs] CHARTER imc-lwg v3.1 *

[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 implementation of a task to begin is also implementation 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 amendments, 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 reciprocal 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. 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 :-)