[Imc-lwg-work] urgent irc working meeting: log
toni --
tony at irational.org
Sun, 6 Oct 2002 09:36:57 -0400 (EDT)
hi all,
london based collective applied for formation of IMC London.
we were never consulted nor asked for input/collaboration.
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-uk-process/2002-October/000840.html
richard and i just had an urgent irc meeting to work on the response that
he wrote. log of that working meeting is below.
regards,
toni
-------------------------------- full LOG ------------
Oct 06 12:59:18 <toni> .
Oct 06 12:59:22 <rchd> k
Oct 06 13:00:06 <toni> so, for the sake of communication, it think in the
past, you used [...] to say that you are still doing the previous task?
(reading,thinking,writing ...)
Oct 06 13:00:26 <rchd> y
Oct 06 13:00:39 <toni> k. that helped in the past. let's stick to that.
Oct 06 13:01:19 <rchd> I have added a sentence another bit but not sure
about it.
Oct 06 13:01:46 <rchd> actually i think it is not needed. so i'll leave
it.
Oct 06 13:09:54 <rchd> ?
Oct 06 13:10:02 <toni> minute more
Oct 06 13:10:05 <rchd> k
Oct 06 13:10:58 <toni>
http://docs.indymedia.org/twiki/bin/view/Local/ImcUkLwgDraft
Oct 06 13:11:13 <toni> see just whether you can see the page ok.
Oct 06 13:11:23 <toni> i'm reading it now. 2 minutes pls.
Oct 06 13:11:29 <rchd> k
Oct 06 13:11:49 <rchd> can i edit same time as you?
Oct 06 13:11:55 <toni> no :(
Oct 06 13:11:59 <rchd> k
Oct 06 13:12:02 <toni> we need better systems for that in future.
Oct 06 13:12:35 <rchd> i am inserting word.
Oct 06 13:12:40 * toni writes this down as "requirement for future
collaborative wrinting tools".
Oct 06 13:12:45 <toni> feel free to edit.
Oct 06 13:12:54 <toni> i'm readint the starting on right now.
Oct 06 13:13:20 <rchd> what?
Oct 06 13:13:46 <toni> what i'm saying is that: while i'm reading it
carefuly, you can be editing it at the same time.
Oct 06 13:13:52 <rchd> k
Oct 06 13:14:04 <rchd> edit done.
Oct 06 13:15:52 <toni> ok. let's talk a bit.
Oct 06 13:16:00 <toni> just to remind you of a direct URL
Oct 06 13:16:05 <toni> by visting
http://docs.indymedia.org/twiki/bin/rdiff/Local/ImcUkLwgDraft
Oct 06 13:16:09 <rchd> k
Oct 06 13:16:13 <toni> you can always see the differences of edits.
Oct 06 13:16:29 <toni> in general, it's very good. few small points:
Oct 06 13:16:30 <rchd> k
Oct 06 13:16:33 <rchd> k
Oct 06 13:16:46 <toni> --------
Oct 06 13:16:47 <toni> despite the fact that there are many Indymedia
groups in London and the UK (who
Oct 06 13:16:47 <toni> work on the IMC UK website).
Oct 06 13:16:49 <toni> ---------
Oct 06 13:17:00 <rchd> ?
Oct 06 13:17:10 <toni> this isn't as precise as it could be, let me
rephrase it:
Oct 06 13:17:14 <rchd> k
Oct 06 13:17:43 <toni> :despite the fact that there are two Indymedia
groups in London and many in UK"
Oct 06 13:17:49 <toni> "despite the fact that there are two Indymedia
groups in London and many in UK"
Oct 06 13:17:58 <rchd> . . .
Oct 06 13:18:00 <toni> to be precise, there are 2 groups in london.
Oct 06 13:18:08 <toni> and many in uk.
Oct 06 13:18:46 <rchd> yes, ok, and then continue with bracketed end.
Oct 06 13:18:58 <toni> another point, i meet javier at 7:15pm, we parted
at 11:30, that's "over 4 hours".
Oct 06 13:19:04 <toni> yes, to previous point.
Oct 06 13:19:11 <rchd> thing is there is also a Hackney group?
Oct 06 13:19:20 <toni> hm.
Oct 06 13:19:40 <rchd> so we dont want to ignore them
Oct 06 13:19:54 <rchd> [ok change hours]
Oct 06 13:20:22 <rchd> i think original many groups is correct(er).
Oct 06 13:20:34 <rchd> ie more accurate.
Oct 06 13:20:36 <rchd> ?
Oct 06 13:20:48 <toni> not sure. unnamed london collective claims so.
i've never seen anything from that group about their work. that claim is
based on a separate hackney page.
Oct 06 13:21:12 <rchd> lets give benefit of the doubt?
Oct 06 13:21:33 <rchd> we can always say that that is why we wrote that -
which is true (its logged;))
Oct 06 13:22:36 <rchd> ?
Oct 06 13:22:54 <toni> that's fine (benefit of a doubt). but i've really
seen no evidence about any other group apart from unnamed london
collective. as far a i know, hackney person is andrew, who is part of
unnamed collective.
Oct 06 13:23:07 <toni> another person that i know worked on that page is
marion.
Oct 06 13:23:24 <rchd> ok. so on that basis - lets go on _your
correction_. agreed.
Oct 06 13:23:30 <rchd> k?
Oct 06 13:23:50 <toni> it's one thing to work on a local page. and
another to say that that group that works on it is not part of unnamed
london coll.
Oct 06 13:24:04 <rchd> agreed. next.
Oct 06 13:24:09 <toni> ok.
Oct 06 13:24:23 <rchd> you change hours and that sentence?
Oct 06 13:24:39 <toni> no.
Oct 06 13:24:43 <rchd> i do?
Oct 06 13:24:45 <toni> i thought you alrady did it:)
Oct 06 13:24:52 <rchd> ok . . .
Oct 06 13:24:55 <toni> ok, you do it, i'll read more the whole thing.
Oct 06 13:28:27 <toni> this sentence can be better (i think)
Oct 06 13:28:29 <toni> --------------------
Oct 06 13:28:31 <toni> Otherwise Indymedia would be just another example
of a hierarchical dominating
Oct 06 13:28:31 <toni> organization that effectively excludes all
diversity - which is actually the
Oct 06 13:28:31 <toni> result that this application effectively aims
towards.
Oct 06 13:28:33 <toni> --------------------
Oct 06 13:28:52 <toni> i'll try to rephrase it:
Oct 06 13:28:57 <toni> --------------------
Oct 06 13:29:41 <rchd> k
Oct 06 13:29:44 <toni> Otherwise Indymedia would be just another example
of a hierarchical dominating
Oct 06 13:31:12 <rchd> ?
Oct 06 13:31:59 <toni> organization that, by allowing power over other to
be imposed, effectively excludes all diversity, and renders its own
commitments to certain values irelevant - which is actually the
Oct 06 13:32:07 <toni> result that this application effectively aims
towards.
Oct 06 13:32:09 <toni> ---------------
Oct 06 13:32:13 <rchd> . . .
Oct 06 13:32:14 <toni> somethinf like that.
Oct 06 13:33:00 <toni> "and renders its own commitments to certain values
irelevant" <- should be more precise
Oct 06 13:33:05 <toni> maybe:
Oct 06 13:34:01 <toni> "and renders its own commitments to certain values
irelevant (by not respecting existing agreements like IMC Membership
Criteria)"
Oct 06 13:34:04 <toni> ?
Oct 06 13:34:34 <rchd> . . .
Oct 06 13:34:37 <toni> k
Oct 06 13:36:07 <toni> what i wanted to say that unanamed coll. wants to
impose itself on us (who live/work on indyemedia in london too), and
dominate over us, by introducing concept "power over", which is different
from "power to do".
Oct 06 13:36:26 <toni> as well, IMC UK missions statement clearly opposes
"all forms of domination".
Oct 06 13:36:30 <toni> maybe se should include that too.
Oct 06 13:36:50 <toni> (... to help you understand what i ment with this
addition)
Oct 06 13:36:54 <rchd> y
Oct 06 13:36:56 <rchd> . . .
Oct 06 13:36:59 <toni> k
Oct 06 13:39:48 <rchd> Otherwise Indymedia would be just another example
of a hierarchical dominating
Oct 06 13:39:48 <rchd> organization, which by allowing power over others
to be imposed, effectively excludes all diversity; and renders its own
commitments to certain values irrelevant (by not respecting existing
agreements like the IMC network Membership Criteria and the Mission
Statement of IMC (Indymedia) UK which states that: "we reject all systems
of domination and discrimination") - and which is actually the result that
this application effectively aims towards.
Oct 06 13:40:31 <rchd> long but still clear i think?
Oct 06 13:41:25 <toni> ...
Oct 06 13:42:31 <toni> why not to put
Oct 06 13:42:32 <toni> ----------
Oct 06 13:42:33 <toni> (by not respecting existing agreements like the
IMC network Membership Criteria and the Mission Statement of IMC
(Indymedia) UK which states that: "we reject all systems of domination and
discrimination")
Oct 06 13:42:36 <toni> ----------
Oct 06 13:42:39 <toni> into a footnote?
Oct 06 13:42:52 <rchd> y
Oct 06 13:42:56 <toni> it will be much easier to understand what we
wanted to say.
Oct 06 13:43:01 <rchd> y
Oct 06 13:43:04 <rchd> . . .
Oct 06 13:45:18 <rchd> see twiki now
Oct 06 13:45:29 <toni> . . .
Oct 06 13:47:42 <toni> can i edit a bit on twiki?
Oct 06 13:48:17 <rchd> . . .
Oct 06 13:49:10 <rchd> . ..
Oct 06 13:50:15 <rchd> k
Oct 06 13:50:20 <toni> i would make both of this points: (1) breaking of
IMC Memebership criteria AND (2) breaking of IMC UK mission statement as
footnotes. and current foonote about "rendering values irelevant by
breaking agreements"
Oct 06 13:50:40 <toni> would just point to footnotes 1 and 2, as clear,
and stand-alnoe examples.
Oct 06 13:50:48 <toni> for the sake of clairty.
Oct 06 13:50:51 <toni> clarity.
Oct 06 13:50:51 <rchd> y
Oct 06 13:51:05 <rchd> do it.
Oct 06 13:51:09 <toni> ok, doing it now.
Oct 06 13:54:37 <toni> can you help me?
Oct 06 13:54:41 <rchd> ?
Oct 06 13:54:59 <toni> i need a link to an email in which they (javier)
claimed that IMC Memership Crit is not valid nor binding.
Oct 06 13:55:08 <toni> it's somewhere on
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-uk-process/
Oct 06 13:55:19 <rchd> not necessary here.
Oct 06 13:55:29 <toni> as a link, in a footnote.
Oct 06 13:55:33 <toni> why not?
Oct 06 13:56:06 <rchd> i dont think the detail is here necessary - logic
is otherwise everytime we have said something why not put in the link? we
have said many things.
Oct 06 13:56:40 <toni> ok.agreed. but let's find it for future reuse.
Oct 06 13:56:47 <rchd> k.
Oct 06 13:57:03 <rchd> can i refresh the page?
Oct 06 13:57:48 <toni> two minutes
Oct 06 13:57:50 <toni> . . .
Oct 06 13:57:58 * rchd has 10 minute time limit
Oct 06 13:58:05 <toni> ok
Oct 06 13:58:09 <rchd> :)
Oct 06 14:00:34 <rchd> preferred = correct spelling
Oct 06 14:00:46 <rchd> para 2, line 4
Oct 06 14:01:16 <rchd> sorry: para 3 , line 4
Oct 06 14:01:24 <toni> refresh
Oct 06 14:01:31 <rchd> k
Oct 06 14:01:41 <toni> i think that we should say something about us
(LWG) in that paper too.
Oct 06 14:02:10 <toni> as a footnote [3]. to state who we are, what we
do. to make the argument clearer.
Oct 06 14:03:06 <rchd> ok, just put lwg link in for 3. but . .
Oct 06 14:03:49 <toni> (but ...) ?
Oct 06 14:04:22 <rchd> "this unnamed London group" is not fitting - we
already said that and stated that they dont have a name without attack. -
i suggest put back in brackets where it was.
Oct 06 14:05:17 <toni> ok. agreed.
Oct 06 14:05:23 <toni> doing it now.
Oct 06 14:05:25 <rchd> k
Oct 06 14:07:32 <rchd> [few typos i will fix later]
Oct 06 14:09:04 <toni> ok, refresh
Oct 06 14:09:20 <rchd> also, lets sign either you or me, more personal?
Oct 06 14:09:48 <toni> i added reference to "unamed group" in brackets
because it was unclear to me "what
Oct 06 14:10:06 <toni> group claimed that darft is invalid, non binding).
Oct 06 14:10:35 <rchd> lets put in "by the group making this
application".
Oct 06 14:10:45 <toni> well, you wrote it, i just helped you with it a
bit.
Oct 06 14:10:45 <rchd> i'll do it?
Oct 06 14:10:54 <toni> yes, you do it (agree, good point).
Oct 06 14:16:27 <toni> ?
Oct 06 14:16:31 <rchd> . ..
Oct 06 14:16:37 <rchd> i must go v. soon.
Oct 06 14:16:40 <rchd> . . .
Oct 06 14:16:49 <toni> mee too (go v soon)
Oct 06 14:19:01 <toni> one thing: when you finish this final edit, please
let me reduce line lenght for you (it takes me 2 mins to do so).
Oct 06 14:19:33 <toni> i'll paste the version with 60 char width in the
twiki, you can copy that one, and paste into your email client.
Oct 06 14:19:53 <toni> unless we do that, it will look very bad, line
wrapping will break. people don't read those mails.
Oct 06 14:20:29 <rchd> k
Oct 06 14:20:32 <rchd> go.
Oct 06 14:21:04 <toni> and last point, is refference to LWG helpful or
not?
Oct 06 14:21:13 <rchd> refresh.
Oct 06 14:21:23 <rchd> dont need lwg as footnote.
Oct 06 14:21:29 <toni> ok, agree.
Oct 06 14:21:36 <rchd> refresh.
Oct 06 14:21:42 <toni> did
Oct 06 14:21:45 <rchd> k
Oct 06 14:21:50 <toni> -----------
Oct 06 14:21:51 <toni> London Working Group
Oct 06 14:21:51 <toni>
http://lists.indymedia.org/listinfo/imc-london-wg-general
Oct 06 14:21:53 <toni> -----
Oct 06 14:21:57 <toni> that, or your own name?
Oct 06 14:22:12 <rchd> me.
Oct 06 14:22:17 * toni is reducing line lenght
Oct 06 14:22:27 <rchd> k
Oct 06 14:22:28 <toni> agreed. that's more correct.
Oct 06 14:22:51 <rchd> *tasks:i post this to
Oct 06 14:23:06 <rchd> 1) i post this to new-imc, imc-uk-process
Oct 06 14:23:18 <rchd> 2) you post logs to lwg-work
Oct 06 14:23:30 <rchd> 3) in 1, i link to the logs
Oct 06 14:23:40 <rchd> that's it.
Oct 06 14:23:58 <rchd> so you post logs first.
Oct 06 14:24:02 <rchd> k?
Oct 06 14:25:23 <toni> k.
Oct 06 14:25:30 <rchd> refresh?
Oct 06 14:25:32 <toni> refresh, line width is now at 65 chars,
Oct 06 14:26:05 <toni> should i write that we had a quick working meeting
to respond
Oct 06 14:26:06 <rchd> looks fine.
Oct 06 14:26:26 <toni> and just post log underneath that single line
(with link to imc-london application).
Oct 06 14:26:30 <rchd> yes. post logs to lwg with " we had a quick
working meeting to respond"
Oct 06 14:26:48 <rchd> i will sign letter, correct?
Oct 06 14:26:51 <toni> can you dig me link to application (new-imc post)
Oct 06 14:26:55 <toni> yes, you sign the letter.
Oct 06 14:27:00 <rchd> k
Oct 06 14:27:11 * toni us putting logs in mail
Oct 06 14:27:15 <rchd> can you dig
Oct 06 14:27:16 <rchd> me link to applicat
Oct 06 14:27:16 <rchd> ion (new-imc post)
Oct 06 14:27:17 <rchd> ?
Oct 06 14:27:30 <toni> post by unnamed collective
Oct 06 14:27:41 <toni> otherwise, without it, posting logs to lwg makes
little sense.
Oct 06 14:27:57 <toni> people have to know, why we held this working
meeting.
Oct 06 14:27:57 <rchd> i didn't understand, again?
Oct 06 14:28:16 <toni> . . .
Oct 06 14:28:18 <rchd> put link where?
Oct 06 14:28:33 <toni> in the mail that i will post to lwg-work (2)
Oct 06 14:28:45 <toni> so that readin that mail makes sense.
Oct 06 14:29:54 <rchd> ok. but i will have same subject line. so ill get
you link on uk-process that andi sent.
Oct 06 14:29:55 <rchd> . . .
Oct 06 14:30:08 <toni> k
Oct 06 14:30:20 <rchd>
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-uk-process/2002-October/000840.html
Oct 06 14:31:03 <rchd> this twiki page is permanent, correct?
Oct 06 14:31:15 <toni> yes
Oct 06 14:31:19 <toni> we can remove it too.
Oct 06 14:31:20 <rchd> good.
Oct 06 14:31:23 <toni> ok
Oct 06 14:31:24 <rchd> no.
Oct 06 14:31:30 <toni> joking.
Oct 06 14:31:34 <rchd> ;)
Oct 06 14:31:50 <rchd> ok, i will post this evening.
Oct 06 14:32:14 <rchd> dinner time:)