[Imc-lwg-work] Reply to richard - was "Liason to the global Communication list" on UK Process

[Planet Mail]

Hi richard + everyone else,

here's my reply to richard:

SUMMING UP:

Richard, you are already listed as LWG Liaison on the global 
imc-communications list, for a group of 3 or so people.

You are trying to block everyone else on the IMC UK Process list from 
having the Liaisons they obviously want to have on the imc-communications list.

Several people on the IMC UK Process list have said they do not have a 
problem with you being the LWG Liaison on the imc-communications list, but 
they want to have their IMC UK Liaisons on there as well. This seems a fair 
compromise.

No one from the IMC UK Process list has blocked you being a Liaison on the 
imc-communications list, despite the fact that you have not had any support 
for it or gone through any process on either the IMC UK Process list or 
your own LWG lists.

I think it's time you stopped trying to exert your own individual will on 
everyone else and tried a more collaborative approach.
Local IMC's on the ground are not the same as email only based global 
decision making groups and global lists!

MY REPLY PARAGRAPH BY PARAGRAPH TO RICHARD BELOW
(with my latest contributions denoted by **)


At 08:24 23/05/2002 +0000, richard wrote:
>Hello Dave,
>
>SUMMARY
>I show your arguments to be reasoned on incorrect and, or incomplete and, or
>biased information, and so to be incorrect on a number of critical points.

**I disagree. See below.

**<snip>

> >Richard also asserts that no one can be a liaison for imc uk.
> >The reason he gives are essentially that:
> >1) there are many groups working on imc uk
> >2) no one can speak for lwg unless they are from lwg
>
>Approximately as far as you go, but you missed more. Read the mails again, 
>the
>point about interpretation, for example.
>But especially you missed:
>
>3) The London collective cannot represent, speak for, communicate from, 
>liason,
>be delegate from etc etc from Indymedia UK/IMC UK/UK network etc etc

**No not true -  I didn't 'miss' these details, you are making false 
statements.

**Firstly the point about 'interpretation' is dealt with later in my email 
where it is clearly said that your stated worries about misrepresentation 
(and as you have said previously, worries about different political and 
practical interpretations as a function of different views of different 
liaisons) should not matter, as you are already a listed Liaison contact 
for your group LWG and as such you can easily give your own views if they 
differ from anyone else.

**As to what you say I missed in the point 3) which you add - I did not 
miss this. You have argued this from the position that there are many 
groups working on imc uk - this is then dealt with.

> >Neither reason given stand up - let me explain:
>
>They do, (if you dont miss things). suggest read again.
>
> >IMC UK is a Local IMC (website) - like bristol for example.
> >Richards asserts that many groups work on IMC UK but uses an email
> >I sent as some sort of proof of this - if you look at the archive email he
> >references
> >all the time, he uses one specific part of the mail where some time
> >ago I wrote:
>
>  >"Current group situation =
>  >Existing IMC UK group
>  >Richard + Toni's lwg group
>  >Bristol IMC group
>  >Irish IMC group
>  >(with great interest being shown in manchester, wales and some in
> >scotland) "
>  >http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-uk-process/2002-
>  >February/000228.html"
>
> >Now, first, that was my OPINION.
>
>Dave, this is not the main point, but btw i see this method as equivocation,
>you say something, then later you call it your opinion. Or another method 
>is as
>Jordi did in reference to Tony when Tony tried to implie on imc-communication
>that LWG was outside of the UK network - you claim a completely different
>meaning of what was said. This diminishes trust. Another reason why i dont
>accept Tony or you or Arne as liasons.

**Richard, I did NOT claim a completely different meaning of what I wrote, 
neither is that statement equivocation, since I did not use the term 
'opinion' as a way of confusing or deceiving, indeed as you have seen I 
then go through what I said group by group. I was merely pointing out that 
this was something I had said as an individual, ie it is my opinion. It is 
not the main point as you say.

**But it is worth stating because you use things like what I said in that 
email to present as fact on multiple occasions, indeed you often present 
what individuals have said on lists like uk process as being 'group' 
positions, when in fact they are the contributions of individuals. What is 
more relevant is that I said it in a context. That context if you look at 
the original email does _not_ state that these groups are in, or 
constitute, IMC UK, which is what you have repeatedly used the quote to say.

> >Just because I say something does
> >not make it some inalienable truth (I wish!), and it was my opinion in a
> >certain context.
>
>good politic.
>
> >However, that said,  look at who is actually listed in that
> >paragraph I wrote. There are 3 LOCAL IMC WEBSITES - ("Existing IMC UK 
> group -
> >Bristol IMC group - Irish IMC group") and each have their own open email
> >lists where they organise. Then there is the other one listed - "Richard +
>Toni's
> >lwg group".
>
>But your list is your prejudiced subjective interpretation. In what way?
>becuase "Existing IMC UK group" should actually say "London collective".

**No. Again, as I stated at the end of my email 
(http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-uk-process/2002-May/000557.html) 
which you are replying to (and which you have seen fit to delete from your 
reply here):

**"And again it has to be said that while
there are many people who work on imc uk who are based in london, they
REPEAT work on imc uk - they are not a separate group, they use the open imc
uk lists for co-ordinating and executing indymedia work"

>The
>fact that your group that meets in London still uses the tag "UK" is your
>interpretation only. Don't impose it on everyone else. Or the other way 
>around,
>same thing, LWG is *part of* the "Existing IMC UK group".

**Repeat: yes some of us meet in london, but we work on the IMC UK site. We 
(repeat) use the UK lists for organising and co-ordination and doing the 
work. We do not impose on "everyone else".

**The only place where the UK tag is relevant to your argument is on one 
closed private email list (which you are on and have refused to leave when 
asked) called "imcuk-collective" - that lists function has changed over the 
2 years of doing UK Indymedia such that now it is very very low traffic and 
is used mostly for local london organising (as you know because you are on 
it), and as such its name is inappropriate - that is fully recognised by 
both myself and others.

**Beyond that the people in london are IMC UK just as much as people who 
work on the UK site in manchester, bristol, germany etc.

> >Now it's worth noting that Richard has already put himself forward
> >as the
> >LWG Liaison for the IMC Communications list,  and is now listed as
> >such.  So
> >LWG already have liaison representation on the communication list,
> >so
> >there's no danger at all of any other Liaison talking on his behalf
> >and they
> >are not excluded - that's obvious.
>
>This is perhaps the key part. You are incorrect becuase you miss point 3)
>above. LWG is part of IMC UK. LWG is part of IMC UK process. So you using any
>UK tag means that you are representing LWG. We are LWG of IMC UK. So when you
>use the UK tag you are referring to us. Which we do not agree to. That is 
>all.
>Therefore you cannot use the UK tag.
>Again, I suggest you just call yourselves as you already have - the London
>collective and represent yourselves.

**See arguments above + Again to re-state, you are a small group of a 
couple of people with your own email lists where you make your own 
decisions and working practices outside of those used by everyone else 
working on imc uk.

**It's also very interesting that you make such a strong assertion that LWG 
is part of IMC UK, and part of IMC UK process. Since no where on the IMC UK 
process list have you sought approval for being a liaison on the 
imc-communications list. Indeed on your own LWG lists 
(http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-london-wg-work and 
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-london-wg-general - which I 
invite people to look at) you have simply informed your list that you will 
be liaison for LWG on the imc-communications list - there have been no 
mails in support of you putting yourself forward.

**That aside I personally have no problems with you having a liaison on the 
imc communications list since there is this conflict of views and in my 
opinion that allows you to have your say, while the rest of imc uk process 
list can use it's own liaisons. Several other people on the IMC UK Process 
list have also stated similar viewpoints.

> >So we have a situation where someone who is already a listed
> >Liaison on the
> >IMC Communications list for their own small group is trying to
> >prevent the
> >IMC UK process list from deciding on their own Liaison, with the
> >arguments
> >used not actually being true.
>
>Nope. * you are again trying to imply that LWG is not part of IMC UK 
>process * !

**No I am stating FACT (although the last bit "with the arguments used not 
actually being true" being my VIEW).
Do you actually deny that you are listed on imc-communication as LWG 
Liaison, that you are from a small group, and that you are trying to 
prevent everyone else on the IMC UK process list from deciding their Liaisons?

>You have reasoned based on wrong information. And so you are incorrect.

**I disagree.

>We are
>part of IMC UK, and part of IMC UK process. We have blocked Tony's 
>proposal, as
>part of IMC UK process. That is all. You have made the same mistake as 
>Tony did
>on imc-communication. There are no 'coincidences'.

**To repeat you have not gone through any process either on the IMC UK 
Process list or your own LWG Lists to be approved as Liaison for 
imc-communication list. You are however listed as LWG Liaison for the 
imc-communications list.

> >It's also worth noting that there can be more than one liaison from
> >a local
> >imc on the IMC communication list.
>
>Nope, this is incorrect. You have invented this. If a countrywide IMC is made
>up of many groups, they can all have their liasons on imc-communication.

**Richard, I have not invented this. It happens to be true. You of all 
people should know this because as far as I can see you spend most of your 
indymedia time working on global lists and have engaged significantly on 
the shaping (via hard work_and_blocking) of the new format of the 
imc-communications list.

**I got this from the imc-communication list. It DOES say there can be more 
than one liaison for a local imc. Equally it is true, as you say, that "if 
a countrywide IMC is made up of many groups, they can all have their 
liasons on imc-communication" - but it is up to that local IMC to decide 
how they want to play it. In an earlier mail you mentioned Brazil as an 
example of this, which is worthy of consideration since Brazil have decided 
that they do not want every single group of theirs to have a liaison as it 
would mean many brazil liaisons.  Anyway IMC UK is NOT "made up of many 
groups".

**To sum up...

**You are already listed as LWG Liaison on the global imc-communications 
list, for a group of 3 or so people.

**You are trying to block everyone else on the IMC UK Process list from 
having the Liaisons they obviously want to have on the imc-communications list.

**Several people on the IMC UK Process list have said they do not have a 
problem with you being the LWG Liaison on the imc-communications list, but 
they want to have their IMC UK Liaisons on there as well. This seems a fair 
compromise.

**No one from the IMC UK Process list has blocked you being a Liaison on 
the imc-communications list, despite the fact that you have not had any 
support for it or gone through any process on either the IMC UK Process 
list or your own LWG lists.

**I think it's time you stopped trying to exert your own individual will on 
everyone else and tried a more collaborative approach.
Local IMC's on the ground are not the same as email only based global 
decision making groups and global lists.

ciao,

dave.
1 of imcuk volunteers