[New-imc] PROPOSAL: removing arc from new-imc WG [deadline: 29 may 18 GMT]

[dragon]

Quoting Jay <idiot at jaysand.com>:

> Hi,
> 
> I missed the deadline to chime in about this proposal.
> 
> I'm sorry we've had to come to a point where so many people in the
> working 
> group are so intent on removing one of its participants.  I'm not one to
> 
> support the removal of an individual from a working group.  However, I do
> 
> understand that sometimes members of a working group have to part ways
> when 
> they simply can not find a way to work together.
> 
> Arc, I don't think anyone is faulting you, or Eric, for having strong 
> opinions about consensus.  There are many people throughout the network
> who 
> share your opinions on what consensus is, and how it works best.  I agree
> 
> with your stance that having a 2/3 majority fallback in place can
> possibly 
> lead to unhealthy decision-making, though I don't think having such a
> thing 
> in place automatically negates the positive effects of consensus.  We
> could 
> probably argue all day about this, and I feel like we have.
> 
> The problem seems to be less with the opinion in and of itself than with
> 
> the unwillingness to compromise.

I do not know all of what went before and what other places have been areas
of conflict. I only joined this list at the time when arc/eric 'blocked' Rogue.

Here in Portland we changed away from 3/4 fallback and I personally agree
with arc/eric that consensus without fallback is a better choice. This
choice depends upon the understanding of consensus.

When someone says they 'block', what they are saying is "this decision is of
such importance to me that I cannot stay in the group if it passed". In
taking such a position, arc/eric effectively made the decision themselves to
step away from the group because they fundamentally disagree with its
working and established policies.

Principle of Unity #6 has the phrase "principle of consensus". This
certainly has enough room in it to include supermajority fallback. Since
numerous imc's were approved with such a fallback, this is the defacto
standard. It has in effect been consensed upon that supermajority fallback
is an acceptable decision making process for imc's.

Arc and Eric used a block of another local imc to force a change in
established policy. This is closer to a hostile corporate takeover than it
is to consensus.

You are right Jay that it is not a disagreement over the point of fallback
vs no fallback, but it is more than just being unwilling to compromise.
There are many things over which I will not compromise and it is my
responsibility to demonstrate them in action. In this case, arc/eric are
misusing the people on the list and at Rogue by trying to force their views
on others and in doing so, they violated the very idea they are demanding be
the standard.

A right approach is to acknowledge the existing policy, and work to convince
others of a better vision. The best way to do that is to demonstrate it. If
there is a serious problem in the local imc, then you really should not be
on the list telling others what is the right thing. When Portland was having
its divisive internal conflicts, our responsibility was right there in
Portland. 8 months after the end of the conflict, the ideas we put forth
have been manifest and Portland IMC is flourishing and is respected in the
local community.

You and I can argue endlessly over an idea about the best way to grow
tomatoes. The sensible thing to do is each take a plot of soil and put our
ideas to the test. The results will declare themselves. Arc/Eric can be of
use by working to develop a thriving Ithaca IMC. That is their test.

We kicked 2 people out of Portland Indy. Doing so was an important and
valuable step in deciding what we were about. I would never in my own
personal life put up with the crap I was putting up with in indymedia at
that time. Hell, when I had a corporate job, the company provided more means
to protect myself from abuse than indymedia was. It made me think hard about
why portland indymedia was more dysfunctional in practice than the
corporation when we are presenting ourselves as better. That has led to many
changes here in Portland.

Seeing these lists be a venue for abusive behavior and not much done about
it, left me feeling less respect for them. Seeing action be taken, with
Rogue being 'approved' by Blicero and the proposal to remove arc (eric got
added to that in not the clearest way) enacted, has been encouraging. 

When we kicked Andy Rice out, we did so in not the very clear way. We were
still struggling to overcome the indymedia dogma of openness which was
debilitating. It was a rite of passage into something more real.

Some thoughts on these matters

deva
pdx indy



> Again, I understand the strength of
> your 
> conviction, and don't think anyone should try to convince you out of 
> it.  Many others throught the Indymedia network have developed equally 
> strong views about the decision-making processes they have (often 
> painstakingly) developed in their IMCs.  Part of the beauty and power of
> 
> the Indymedia network, as I see it, is the fact that different IMCs have
> 
> the freedom to work in their own communities and in their own ways to
> come 
> up with a method of work that is most effective for them.  I think the 
> new-imc working group would be totally justified in recommending formal
> 
> consensus over any other sort of decision-making process, if that's what
> we 
> all would agree would be best, but I feel as if we'd be squelching the 
> autonomy of local IMCs by absolutely requiring it.
> 
> I know, you strongly believe that having a 2/3 majority fallback position
> 
> is not consensus, and therefore any IMC that has that kind of process is
> 
> not making decisions by conesnsus.  I think we all understand the
> reasoning 
> behind this.  The problem is, so many people throughout the network 
> disagree, and have strong reasons behind their views as well.  When we're
> 
> all willing to compromise and share opinions we can come up with some 
> incredible and insprational things.  I'm afraid that when we stop being
> 
> willing to listen to each other and forge common ground where it exists,
> we 
> cease being able to do effective work at all.
> 
> Again, I'm sad to see that we've come to a point that so many people in
> the 
> working group feel that an individual, or certain individuals, can not be
> a 
> productive part of what goes on here.  I think this problem could be 
> solved, over time, with the redevelopment of trust between Arc, Eric and
> 
> the rest of the group.  I don't know if this is possible for a while, but
> 
> we shouldn't assure that it can't happen by not enertaining the
> possibility.
> 
> Sorry for missing the decision deadline with my comments, and I really
> look 
> forward to brining back the positive communication environment we've all
> 
> enjoyed on this list since it began.
> 
> Jay