[imc-uk-emergency] Re: irc meeting

[zcat at ametrika.com]

as lists down srry 4 +posting 

I would like to say I agree very much with what Vince has said especially 

So I propose that before the next meeting the more technically involved for 
now write clear and concise "How-To" and documentation about the new MIR 
site (these documentations will be very useful for new people later on 
also). Then everyone in the UK network could and should read this 
documentation before the next meeting so that we all start with a same 
general understanding of the switch to MIR. 

and think this is a very good idea and that everyone who wants to 
particapate in the mir project READ UP on the project 

EG look at the twiki ,read the mail archice look at the test pages and get 
to know whats involved
NOW
b4 there is another irc meeting and if they dont do that then stop whinging 
about decisions that they only object to after others have discussed them
consensus is all very well but we could spend the next 2 years arguing while 
we have a shitty old active site running
and so i also agree with Vince lets get it up and running and worry about 
the nicitys later 

 

Vincent Bouchard writes: 

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1 
> 
> hi from oxford! 
> 
> sorry about this long email, just wanted to add some comments... I have to 
> admit that I hate irc meetings, as I have always done, because you never 
> really understand each other; as a results it takes hours to discuss things 
> that would take dozens of minutes if it was a face-to-face meeting. However I 
> think as a network we have to use this kind of meeting now if we want to be 
> online at some point. Afterwards I suppose we will schedule regular 
> face-to-face network meeting which will be a lot better. 
> 
> About the fact that I pushed a bit to go faster for being online, it's mainly 
> because I think we have to understand that the site does not have to be 
> perfect to be online, on the opposite. We will know exactly what we like and 
> what is the best for the network when we will be able to try it and to 
> understand how it concretely works, what load of work results from it, etc. 
> Also, for collectives like Oxford that have presently no subsection and no 
> independent site, but are well formed and ready to go online (we start our 
> weekly screenings and indymedia oxford meetings this Monday night, in 
> collaboration with Undercurrents, we've already done our first activist video 
> report, another one is organised for this week, etc.), we are only waiting 
> for the whole network to take decisions. So I think a compromise could be to 
> switch to Mir as soon as the technical side allows it, which could be quite 
> soon, and improve the site as we go along. We can even change the open 
> publishing model later if we don't like the first one that we agreed upon - 
> if we reach some sort of agreement at some point on that. Nothing is fixed on 
> rock, everything can changed according to what we decide as a network. 
> 
> Just a technical point on concensus also: I think especially now as a network, 
> we always have to keep in mind that a concensus does not have to be the best 
> thing for everyone, but something that everyone is happy to live with. 
> Blocking a concensus means that one *strongly* disagrees with the concensus 
> for some reasons, or that one feels that the concensus hasn't been discussed 
> enough (I suppose the second reaon is why you blocked the proposal 
> yesterday). Also, we always have to keep in mind the importance of 
> cooperation and solidarity throughout the network, even though sometimes it 
> might require that we accept things that were not necessarily what we 
> independently thought was the best for us (I don't mean accepting things that 
> we strongly disagree with indeed). Of course it's always possible to quit the 
> network and to do its own thing, which is fine also, but personnally I think 
> the UK network is really a force and a very good idea for the local 
> independent IMCs, and I think people realize this in Oxford also and are 
> willing to listen to other UK people arguments before taking their own 
> decisions as an independent collective. 
> 
> I think the main problem of the last IRC meeting is that the levels of 
> understanding of the MIR process were completely different. Some had been 
> working for a while on the technical side (Andi, Chris and me mainly I would 
> say), so knew well how the site can and will presumably work, others have 
> been involved in the network process but not concretely on the test site, 
> others didn't really know anything concrete about the site. So it was very 
> hard to have concise discussions and consequently to reach concensus because 
> we actually didn't understand each others. The example of "listing the 
> topics" that took almost 2 hours is there. So I propose that before the next 
> meeting the more technically involved for now write clear and concise 
> "How-To" and documentation about the new MIR site (these documentations will 
> be very useful for new people later on also). Then everyone in the UK network 
> could and should read this documentation before the next meeting so that we 
> all start with a same general understanding of the switch to MIR. I'm willing 
> to work on these "help texts" since I think it is very important that people 
> that haven't been involved concretely yet get involved and are not 
> discouraged because they don't understand what we talk about. But at the same 
> time I think explaining everything over and over in a IRC meeting is a loss 
> of time. So I guess this documentation would really help. It would also 
> formed the "help" section of the new site in some sense... 
> 
> Meanwhile, it would be really important to formulate and to write a 
> documentation on the uk process at the network level, i.e. how decisions are 
> taken, what level of independence do the local indymedias have, etc. It is 
> not easy to do, but it would be very important to formulate this clearly. 
> Ionnek wrote two emails one or two weeks ago about this that I think could be 
> a base for this documentation. But again this documentation would be very 
> helpful for the actual local collectives that haven't been really involved 
> with the MIR switch yet and for the new ones that want to join.  
> 
> About the open publishing model, nothing had been decided in London or between 
> London people or whatever. As I said, firstly, the three of us that have been 
> more involved in the technical side for now are not all from London: I'm from 
> Oxford, Chris is from Sheffield, and Andi is from London. And other people 
> are now joining the technical work, from Bristol and Lancaster and maybe 
> Cambridge I think, am not sure about this though. So it is representative of 
> the decentralised nature of the United Kollektives. We indeed had maybe a 
> better idea of what sort of open publishing system we want personnally 
> because we have been working on this switch for a while now. But also, I 
> think it has been done in Sheffield also, we had in Oxford, at our last 
> meeting, a long discussion about these differents open publishing systems, 
> and what in Oxford we would like to have; i.e. what we will propose to the 
> United Kollektives. And the result of this discussion in the Oxford 
> collective, as I said, was that we prefered the dutch model with the traffic 
> lights. But I don't think the traffic lights was a really important point, 
> I'll have to ask at the next meeting, but I think the collective would be 
> fine without them. I don't want to speak for them, I just say the concensus 
> we reached at our last meeting. As a result, I suppose I knew the debate 
> between these publishing systems quite well because we had it two days ago in 
> our collective in view of this irc meeting. I think that's what should be 
> done first in all local collectives, because we, as network contacts, have no 
> right to decide for our collective; we only say what the local collective 
> decided, or propose things to our local collective, right? At least that's 
> the way a non-hierarchical organisation for me. So I think every local 
> collective should address these issues *before* the next meeting, keeping in 
> mind the discussion we had at the last irc meeting. 
> 
> And as chris (I think) or andi and I said, the best would be that the regional 
> indymedias can choose their own open publishing system. If it is technically 
> feasable, that'd be fine. We would then only have to agree on the system for 
> the UK site. However, it might be impossible to do that for the launch, since 
> it might require considerable change in the software and so from the Mir 
> techs and not from us. But maybe not, we'll have to investigate that! :-) 
> 
> anyway, just wanted to add these comments... I think the MIR project is 
> fantastic and very inspiring.. it's up to us to make it work concretely! :-) 
> 
> bambaleyo 
> 
> vince the happy lobster