<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV class=RTE>
<P>Aw hell, you two make such a convincing argument for making it an open meeting - and after speaking to a few like-minded people at Peace in the Park, I've come to the conclusion that your anti-SWP strategy of basing it on consensus, while it's going to make for more long-winded meetings, is probably for the best.</P>
<P>I'd like to extend the invitation to any interested activists to attend the meeting on the 30th of June - contact me and I'll start looking at venues.<BR>Edward<BR><BR></P><BR><BR><BR>>From: Chris <chris@aktivix.org><BR>>To: Edward Maltby <mudmaltby@hotmail.com>,SSF <ssf@lists.aktivix.org><BR>>Subject: Re: [ssf] Hello from Dan<BR>>Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 00:33:29 +0100<BR>><BR>>Hi<BR>><BR>>On Mon 13-Jun-2005 at 12:08:58AM +0100, Dan wrote:<BR>> > It would certainly be worth meeting up, although if I<BR>> > did it wouldn't be as a delegate - just as an interested<BR>> > activist. Again, that's because SSF isn't able to send<BR>> > delegates as such.<BR>><BR>>Sheffield Indymedia is in the same position (of not having<BR>>delegates), also if this proposed body is based on voting<BR>>there is a danger that if the
SWP take an interest in it<BR>>they could take it over...<BR>><BR>> > I'm guessing trying to get Sheffield organisations to join a single<BR>> > movement, as you suggest, might be a bit like herding cats.<BR>><BR>>He he, yeah...<BR>><BR>> > Let me know if you're happy for informal, individual<BR>> > activists to attend - which is to say, whether you're OK<BR>> > with it being an open meeting.<BR>><BR>>I think it's important to have open meetings also...<BR>><BR>>Chris<BR>><BR>>--<BR>>Aktivix -- Free Software for a Free World<BR></DIV></div></html>