[New-imc] IMC Romania - carts and horses

[boud]

hi joanne, everyone,

On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, joanne richardson wrote:

> dear boud ... and new-imcers,
> 
> well, i didn't expect that my email to you would end up on the indymedia
> documentation project pages without being asked. i have nothing against

You said i could post to new-imc - it's a publicly archived mailing
list, which means it's automatically part of indymedia documentation.

> making it public, but i didn't really like how fragments of my message are
> subordinated to your interpretations and headings as examples of problems
> like "putting the cart before the horse." i think this structure reverses

It's a TWiki. You're welcome to edit it and make it clearer, to 
superordinate your own interpretations and headings, ...

> the temporal relationship of the dialogue. 

There are date stamps on every version of each TWiki page. Seems to me
that the temporal relationship is pretty solid. AFAIK we don't have
any closed timelike curves

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_timelike_curve 

in Indymedia. We're classical and non-relativistic. ;)

> as far as your suggestion about
> wiki as a solution to the flame-war problem of mailing lists because the
> software will change the social dynamics by making it "much easier to make
> changes which clarify arguments and separate genuine conflicts from hurt
> feelings or personal attacks" - i confess, i am less convinced of the
> ability of technology to transform social relations when their problem
> really lies elsewhere.

IMHO, it's a dynamic interaction between people and software and computers
evolving together. 
 
> i'm kind of puzzled by your dignosis of the stalling of IMC Romania
> because of editorial policy (sorry, but the fragment of my message you
> cite has nothing to do with editorial policy) and lack of networking as
> examples of putting the cart before the horse - the reason for the
> confusion is that i'm getting very contradictory messages from you. very
> early on i remember your advice (also to member of other new IMCs) that
> concentrating on the organization among group members should come before
> the production of the site, and that it is a mistake to rush the site when
> the organization is inadequate and one or two people are doing all the
> work and the structure thereby risks becoming hierarchical. and i agreed
> with you. i also remember an earlier criticism you made to the IMC romania
> list that editorial policy and the mission statement should not be written
> by one person and that maybe i should distribute responsibilities (and
> power) throughout the group and that production and decisions should be
> made collectively. i also agreed with you then. so now i am hearing that

OK, we agree so far :).

> it was a mistake on my part to try to "force" people to "commit" to taking
> on responsibilities for tasks, and that as a group we shouldn't focus on
> organization and networking but just get the site up even if it's only a
> couple of people doing everything, because the software and the editorial
> policy are the the primary thing and the rest (participation from others)
> will come naturally and later. so which is it, exactly?

Getting a consensus decision on an editorial policy, as a practical
method, not just general principles, is IMHO an achievement in networking.

Getting a consensus decision on a concrete general decision-making
method, "in alignment with consensus principles", is IMHO an
achievement in networking.

IMHO, concentrating on things like these rather than on content
production is likely to be a good way to get a level of networking
and organization which may be able to sidestep flaming wars.


> in my opinion, the horse or the "meta-level" cannot be software or
> editorial policy as you suggest, but the social relations between people;
> the editorial policy and the site itself is an expression of these
> relations and networks, and the software is a tool. i don't want to
> disparage its importance, and i acknowledge that some tools are better at
> expressing such relations and potentials while others can hinder them
> completely, but your emphasis on software seems a bit exaggerated).

i agree that the cart-and-horse analogy is a bad one here :( - better
an egg-and-chicken or maybe some more network-like analogy...
 
> i also have a longer reply about open publishing (btw, opting for hiding
> of articles with suspicious content BEFORE publication was not a decision
> made in ignorance of the general indymedia policy that articles be hidden
> AFTER publication), but i will post it as a separate message ... since i

OK, so my solution there is superfluous. :(

> think this is worthy of a debate within the new imc group (and maybe also
> beyond it).

Don't know if new-imc would be the best place - if you want to change
network policy, de facto or formal, all new-imc can do is suggest a few
hints, but a real debate should probably better start up in a region
(e.g. imc-europe at lists.indymedia.org) and if you have some chance of
consensus, you could move up to imc-process . new-imc doesn't have a mandate
to change the network. 

If you just want to ask opinions about what new-imc thinks is likely 
to be accepted by the network for a new collective, then *that's* certainly
OK - it's of course a good idea to get other opinions than mine! :))

Hoping that IMC Romania people have got something positive out of all
of this...

solidarity
boud