[imc-uk-emergency] irc meeting and 'other regions'

[Maqui]

melendro333 at yahoo.com wrote:
> 
>It seems that in the last irc meeting people decided no to include the 
>'other regions'  section because they didn't see the need for it. This was 
>discussed in the meeting in Lancaster and people agreed to it. As I was 
>the one who originally propose it ( in that lancs meeting) I would like to 
>remind people and put forwards for those who weren't there why I thought 
>it was important.
> 

Hello Sara:

This is jordi from the london crew. First just to point pout that no 
decission was taken about "not having other regions" section in the new 
mir site. What's true though is that this issue was raised and discussed 
in last week's irc network meeting.

I do see your points about the need of having an "other regions" section 
in the site. They all make sense to me, and you are right that this was 
discussed in Lancaster and it seemed people agreed on it. But because i 
was one of the people which questioned the need for "other regions" 
section in last week's meeting, i guess a reply to you mail is due.

Soooo ... i'm not "against" having that section ... but i do have some 
worries about it. Basically i have one main worry, which is that i wonder 
if this section will become a sort of dumping ground for news, reports 
and events that don't have anywhere elso to go in the site. A kind of box 
filled with stuff that is "homeless" within indymedia-uk website.
I mean, most regional topics (pages) have or will have a collective (or 
collectives/groups) behind them. These will decide on the process and 
working practices of these sections, as they can be as aoutonomous as 
they want to be. So the responsability or running the sheffield page (for 
example) will be down to the people that meet/work together on 
imc-sheffield, etc...  

So my question about "other regions" is who's gonna be 'behind' that 
page? Which collective (or collectives/groups/people/whatever) will make 
sure that "other regions" page is alive, updated, cleaned of crap, 
etc...?  Or will it just become some web space that, under the title, 
"other regions" suff gets dumped there. Dunno .. don't have an answer, 
but these are my main concerns.

Now, i do see and understand the need for regions, cities, places, etc... 
that don't have an explicit page to be able to publish somewhere and be 
as visible as anyone else in the UK's website. No question about that. It 
is as important whatever happens in Exeter as it is what happens in 
London, Glasgow or Manchester .. to put some examples.  Then, how do 
achieve this: don't know but the way i argued it in last week's irc 
meeting was that the 'homeless' regions (in the sense that do not have an 
specific page) could work together with those nearest to them that have 
one. Could participate in those pages' discussions, mail lists, and 
contribute to whatever work these collectives do in and oustside the web. 
 

So to put and example so we can visualise it, i would do something like 
what we now have in the uk's middle column (of the active/old site). 
Under the title UK we have two sections that take to two local pages. One 
is Hackney the other Manchester. So, in Mir, why not have under any of 
the localised middle columns  as many subsections as these may need?

This it's obviously only one proposal and not decided upon it. A proposal 
that has abvious weak points too. For example what happens with "other 
regions" that do not have a regional page/collective near them? .... 
dunno ... but we need to find a solution.

Ok i stop here as we will start tonight's irc meeting soon?

but before i go .. just a quick coment about what you say:
> 
> how 
>and when exactly are imc decisons decisive?  is there an agreement on this, 
or do we just 
>make it as 
>we go along? obviously different people is able to participate in diff. 
>discusions (and those in irc might not have been in lancs, and viceversa) 
>and that i guess makes it harder, but just want to ask what's the 
>procedure here? do we have one?
> 

well ... good question. I don't think we have a procedure written on 
stone, but there's a sort of process to try to find consensus on issues 
that get raised. Normally people attending on a meeting (whether 'real' 
or virtual) discuss and come to some decissions or at least conclusions. 
Then these get written up and sent to the list concerning that topic or 
issue - ie: a discussion affecting the uk-network would go to the network 
list, etc...
Then local groups or people  discuss it and try to make a case or 
proposal back to the network ... and then the discussion starts again 
until a consensued position is found .... yep a bit slow and sometimes 
nervous recking ... but better than having the old central committe 
deciding innit?
The main point being not deciding upon something just because the 
majority says so, but rather try to find a point/agreement/common ground 
which even if people don't agree 100%, at least they can live with. Then 
put it into practice, see how it works, and review it again when the need 
arises

ok, that's my five cents anyway.

take care down in Exeter and see you soon in the real space sometime :)

adeu
jordi
>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Yahoo! Plus - For a better Internet experience
>
>_______________________________________________
>imc-uk-emergency mailing list
>imc-uk-emergency at email-lists.org
>http://www.email-lists.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-uk-emergency
>