[matilda] Notes on wednesday's meeting

[Joe Morris]

Hi,

I was under the impression that the suggestion to put the PGA hallmarks to a 
vote was not because it didn't reflect the processes of Matilda but because 
it would have been voted down. That much was evident.

The fact of the matter is, if they were adopted in that meeting or even if 
there was a compromise to have them as an appendage to our own guidelines 
they would have proved inconsequential to the actions of some members in the 
space and therefore rendered pointless.

I'd also like to try and clear something up. The issue that was raised about 
the 3rd point "confrontational attitude..." seems to be somewhat misplaced. 
The point does not EXCLUDE lobbying per se, it recognises, and is quite 
specific in its language that "...we do not think that lobbying can have a 
MAJOR impact in such biased and undemocratic organisations." Meaning, for 
clarification, that the PGA hallmarks recognise that participating in 
"bourgeois" electoral politics and processes will not create any fundamental 
change within society because they aren't designed to...Who actually 
disagrees with that?

Cuthbert also raised a very interesting point, saying that the reason that 
the PGA hallmarks are brought up is because people don't want to see Matilda 
go down a route of accepting partnerships, funding or support from 
corporations or organisations that are capitalist in nature. The PGA 
hallmarks also excludes the possibility, regardless of the present occupier, 
of having profit making businesses in the building. Cuthbert said that he 
didn't think that people were being honest about that. I don't think that's 
true. People have specifically said that this was a worry and it also is a 
worry for me, which I have spoken to people about. He suggested that instead 
of discussing the PGA, we discuss this. Maybe the time is coming to discuss 
what people find acceptable use of the space and how we deal with that?

I'd also like to say that I am incredibly disappointed that people didn't 
come to the meeting. It's unfair that the discussion could not happen to the 
point of a decision within the collective about the PGA hallmarks when the 
collective decided to have the meeting in the first place. How can a space 
progress if people don't want to participate in its process? It was 
collectively decided at the Wednesday meeting and at the Monday meeting that 
a meeting would happen and that a decision was supposed to come out it 
respectively. People who have put hard graft into creating useful spaces 
within Matilda were denied the opportunity to discuss something they feel 
strongly about because people didn't show up.

Maybe attending the Monday meetings and the Thursday social quantify 
participation for some people. I don't think it does! If people don't want 
Matilda to adopt the PGA hallmarks they should have been there to say why 
and allow a debate to happen, even if it's just to show respect. Instead 
people didn't show up which meant the process fell down. I don't think 
that's very tolerant towards the opinions or feelings of people who daily 
contribute to the development of this autonomous space and who in fact DO 
have strong feelings about the PGA.

I am struggling to accept that anyone could or may suggest that this space 
is about inclusivity of opinion and collective responsibility. It seems that 
when people don't want to discuss something or take responsibility they 
simply ignore people's opinions and the processes decided on, and to great 
effect it seems.

Joe

----Original Message Follows----
From: nickwiltsher at warpmail.net
To: matilda at lists.aktivix.org
Subject: [matilda] Notes on wednesday's meeting
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 10:41:08 +0100

hello all

first point:  Cuthbert is indeed 'aving a laff.  Rest easy Dan, or issue
that shameful apology.

The following is, i think,  a fair(ish) summary of what went on - I'll
try and get it on the wiki later today unless anyone who was present
seriously disagrees with my interpretation:

As has been mentioned, attendance was sparser than expected - about
eight people, plus two email submissions.  This may be interpreted as
demonstrating that a fair few people don't really care either way, or
are sick of the process.  Anyway, it quickly became apparent that,
because of the similar(ish) views of the attendees, no detailed debate
on the pros and cons of the hallmarks would ensue.  The possibility of
just ratifiying the hallmarks was discussed, but one of the email
submissions was interpreted as a block, and it was anyway felt such a
move would be unacceptably divisive and may lead to some people feeling
excluded from Matilda.

This discussion of the possible consequences of adpoting the hallmarks
led to the conclusion that consensus on this issue is likely to prove
impossible, because there are sufficent people with strong feelings on
either side to block any move to just accept or reject the things.  The
possibilty of putting it to a majority vote at a Monday meeting was
discussed and rejected as being against the ethos of Matilda, and as
being likely to have the same exclusionary consequences as above.

The debate then seemed to coalesce around three possibilities.  The
first was to proceed with no guiding principles/mission
statement/(someone help me with the phraseology here, i sound like Tesco
or summat).  It was agreed, though, that it is certainly desirable to
have some such thing, possibly more for the benefit of people coming
fresh to Matilda than for those already involved.  The second was to
attempt an adaptation of the hallmarks, keeping their broad force but
diluting the elements that some find objectionable.  This was also
rejected as unlikely to come up with a useful result any time this
century.  Also, one of the main objections to the hallmarks seems to be
that, well, they're not ours.

So, the third possibility: draw up our own guidelines from scratch.  To
some extent, this process has already begun, with the list of
representative words agreed at the last wednesday meeting.  It was
thought that this process would be hard to manage in a large group, so a
proposal was worked up to take to Monday's meeting:

A group of (about) five people to be set up to take that list of words
and use use them as a basis to work up a set of guiding principles.
These principles to be brought back to to a Monday meeting and ratified
or sent back for further work.  The group to include at least one person
strongly in favour of, and one strongly against, the PGA hallmarks, so
that the point of the arguments for and against those are taken on board
in the process.

(There was also a second proposal, broadly related i think, but I've
forgotten what it was - help, anyone?)

So, in conclusion:  PGA hallmarks not adopted.  Some positive progress
made. Concrete proposal about how to move forward to be brought to
Monday's meeting. Importantly, I think:  a group of people broadly in
favour of the hallmarks managed to talk themselves out of adopting them
because of the potentially divisive consequences.

Anyone who was there think I've missed anything important?

love

Nick



--
http://www.fastmail.fm - The professional email service

_______________________________________________
matilda mailing list
matilda at lists.aktivix.org
http://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/matilda

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Messenger 7.5 is now out. Download it for FREE here. 
http://messenger.msn.co.uk