[New-imc] Re: [Imc] 6 new imc US orphans (fwd)

[boud]

hi again,

####
SUMMARY
i'm glad that Rogue IMC is communicating well, but still
feel that someone local should help them, that they 
should contribute to network solidarity and process,
that they need to clearly do serious outreach to local
grassroots groups and submit a set of answers to the
membership criteria based on that expanded collective
based on a wide variety of grassroots groups. The initial
answers are a good start, but only that: a start.
The problems in IMC Portland and the freezing of IMC Eugene 
suggest that special care is needed in this region, 
and andy, a local participant, is worried that outreach
has not yet been done, and that decision-making has
not yet been seriously discussed.
####


On Wed, 19 Feb 2003, Forrest English wrote:

> > And a 3rd qn: they don't seem to have a general decision-making
> > procedure, though they do have a procedure for deciding on
> > editorial questions, and they don't seem to be aware that
> > consensus is a lot more than just "trying to achieve consensus".
> 
> This has been discussed, the whole group understands that it's a lot
> more than "uh, lets try for consensus", we understand this to mean
> really really try.   We agreed at the last meeting to use the consensus,
> and failing that 2/3 vote to make decisions.   

The problem is that "really really trying" without at least experimenting
or discussing the *process* of consensus risks people feeling morally
obliged not to state their opposition or concerns to a proposal.  
For example, it's recommended that a call for consensus is rather
"Does anyone still have concerns?" rather than "Do we have consensus?"

There are many small hints like this that are not obvious, but can
make a big difference in the whole process.

The decision on how to decide is local, of course, but it would be
nice to know that you've at least *read* through these descriptions
of consensus process:

Food not Bombs' practical guide 
http://consensus.net/ocaccontents.html
On Conflict and Consensus

http://www.geocities.com/collectivebook/index.html
the Collective Book on Collective Process

Given the problems in other IMCs in the region (Portland and Eugene),
i think it's all the more important that there is a wide variety 
of grassroots groups involved who really read and experiment with
practical steps of consensus process.

  
> > BTW, one suggestion which i think i *can* ask you directly:
> > 
> > It would be great if you could start a regional mailing list with IMCs
> > that are geographically close to you. How you define the region is up
> > to you and your neighbouring IMCs, and of course it would only make
> > sense if it is used. But it could help a lot in making global (10Mm)
> > communications easier if local US (1Mm) issues and coordination and
> > solidarity could be separated from global coordination.
> 
> The nearest imc's are 300 miles away to the north and to the south (pdx

IMC PL is 6000 miles or so to the east of you.

There are 45 existing IMCs in the USA closer to you than IMC PL.

> and sf).   I'd be more than happy to setup such a list, but I feel that
> should happen after we are an IMC so we avoid lots of communication
> about things that don't happen. 

It's not formal recognition that makes you an IMC. Being part of a 
network is building up a relationship, between your group - as a 
collective - and the network. You've already started organising,
and you're going to have an independent, autonomous web site
independently of the process of officially joining the network.

But we have big problems as a network, and if we have more and more
local IMCs which join without building up regional coordination, our
communications problems will only get worse. 

i don't understand why you would communicate about "things that
don't happen". There should be no embarrassment in saying you
propose doing this and that while you're getting organised as 
an IMC.


> > On Sat, 15 Feb 2003, boud wrote:

> > * mission statement + editorial policy
> > http://indymedia.truffula.net/draft_policy_v2.html
> 
> This is outdated, it should be 
> http://indymedia.truffula.net/draft_policy_v3.html

Thanks :).
 
> > * They haven't yet (step 3) filled out the form at
> > http://newimc.indymedia.org to get their contact data base password
> > and give us other info
> 
> We did fill that out, in fact before we addressed the individual points
> for membership last night.  You can find the e-mail from that form in
> process.
> 
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-process/2003-February/004636.html

OK we've got it now, thanks :).


new-imc process. i think maybe we still haven't explained clearly
on the http://newimc.indymedia.org page, so maybe it's our fault,
but from this message:

http://truffula.net/pipermail/imc/2003-February/000044.html

> So, thats what needs to be done, after that is done we sit around and
> wait while the the newimc working group goes over our application with
> the tech and general contact person.  Once that is done, we get DNS and
> have  ____.indymedia.org and can really move forward.   This really
> isn't that much to do, it's largely trivial.   So come on folks, anyone
> who is at the next meeting, just decide the name (either rogue or
> klamath-siskiyou) and we can basicaly get rolling. 

it's clear that there is some confusion about the new-imc process.

(1) Becoming a healthy, open, non-hierarchical IMC as part of an
international, multilingual, non-hierarchical network is *not*
"largely trivial".

(2) Different new-imc volunteers do things differently, but i at least
try to avoid any secret contacts with the tech and general contacts.
i prefer everything on publicly archived mailing lists.

(3) Sitting around and waiting for the new-imc working group is *not*
what a local, autonomous Indymedia group is supposed to be about.

You have a functioning web site

http://indymedia.truffula.net

and you've started going through the process - and have already 
submitted answers to all the questions. 

Although i hope a USA based volunteer will help you out, IMHO what you
need to do now is step 5. of http://newimc.indymedia.org : Organize!
but this means getting people from different grassroots groups -
feminists, indigeneous groups, workers' rights groups, LGBT, antiwar
groups, others - to participate. Most of them are going to be new to
consensus process, they might want to go through formal consensus
decision-making as an exercise, they might want to change the
editorial policy, they might prefer to meet at different times or in
different places, and they should each get the chance to practice
organising and coordinating roles. This way it should become a real
non-hierarchy.

The answers to the questions should come from a much expanded group.
You've made a good start, but there needs to be serious outreach.

i noticed that andy has made a similar comment to this:
http://truffula.net/pipermail/imc/2003-February/000056.html

Apart from the paragraph "While Forest and Eddie have, ...", which
contains personal attacks, i think most of andy's message shows that
outreach still has barely begun in your collective. 

An aside on andy: he has been in the network for a long time. He has a
problem of following up polite, constructive criticism by personal
attacks.  He's aware of it, and has been trying to change; some people
get more upset by the attacks, some less so. So he has a fault: who
doesn't?  It remains the case that he's sincere and a lot of what he
says is good advice.  Respond to his substantive points and point
out carefully which bits are personal attacks, and you'll help him
focus on what's most important.

andy's point about there being no serious discussion about 
decision-making also makes me very uncomfortable:

> For example, there was a major effort at first on their part to avoid any d=
> iscussion whatsoever of decision making process.  Instead, they pushed to=
>  select a name for the entity, and to establish an editorial policy, both=
>  of which they wanted to do in the first meeting, before we had even done=
>  any of the required outreach, recruitment and collectivization, let alon=
> e discussed or decided upon the decision making process. My objections to=
>  this approach were recieved as an obstruction and an annoyance, but they=
>  finally aquiesced, "since it didn't matter anyway".

i totally agree that the answers to the membership criteria only
make sense once you have done the outreach and the participants
from a wide variety of grassroots groups are really participating.

Here is the full text of the "10 step" new-imc process:
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/new-imc/2002-March/001930.html

anyway, hopefully a US based volunteer will help you soon

solidarity
boud