DRAFT Statement

Chris: I suggest that parts of this draft might be better off being used in emails and the best bits of it moved into the ImcMaydayForkArticle -- this article, is in any case, is more urgent to sort out.

Chris: I think we are gonna need a coule of days to get this right, we are all tired, it's a bank holiday weekend, we all have stuff to get our heads around.... I just added two new pargs at the top, the second one needs hyperlinks, I'll do that tomorrow sometime. I think the statement needs to have a clear simply summury at the top for people who don't have the time to read it all. It also needs to be assertive, positive and forwards looking, not dwelling on the past too much smile /me must sleep...


The mayday collective makes the following statement about recent events with the indymedia.org.uk site and the current situation.

1 May 2011 and www.indymedia.org.uk

Following an attempt to shut down the www.indymedia.org.uk site on 1st May 2011 [1], the UK IMC site now has an archived version [2] and the Mayday Indymedia Collective is now running the UK IMC site [3].

The Mayday Collective intends to continue to run the IMC UK site, but hopefully without the disputes that have plagued the UK IMC lists and meetings for some years. We intend to continue to use the imc-uk-moderation and imc-uk-features lists for moderation and features, however if these lists are shutdown or become unusable because of disruption we reserve the right to move to other lists for these tasks. We will continue to use imc-mayday-collective for our process type decision making and intend to use imc-mayday-tech for our technical issues. We would like to suggest that imc-uk-process is used to continue to resolve outstanding issues with the other Indymedia Collectives in the UK. We believe that imc-uk-tech is the place where we can all (all IMC tech people in the UK) work together to fix things that got broken by accident on 1st May 2011. We consider that imc-uk-contact is still needed as a central place for activists to send in requests for the editing of the two archives of the site (eg removal of names causing people problems etc).

The agreement brokered under the auspices of the UK Indymedia Network in Bradford in December 2001 between groups 'A' and 'B', the groups now known as mayday collective and Be The Media respectively, involved the mayday collective obtaining a *.indymedia.org domain in order that the indymedia uk network could fork into two distinct projects. This was important to us as the uk site already had global recognition within the network, and we did not agree the fork on terms which would effectively leave us without this recognition. Unlike the Be The Media group, which is bringing together existing imcs onto an aggregated site, our stated aim was and is to continue to maintain a website and open publishing newswire across the geographical area covered by indymedia uk, functioning as a properly constituted collective alongside collectives with a more local focus rather than as an 'umbrella' collective or network.

Our position on the Bradford agreement is explained in full here [LINK TO RECENT EMAIL TO IMC-UK-PROCESS, MAYBE OTHER? http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-process/2011-April/0429-tp.html]

The efforts of our collective to achieve new-imc status by 1 May 2011 have been thwarted by a mixture of delay, hostility, accusation and obstruction. The promised support from those in group 'B', who assured us that they would help us through the process in order that the fork could go ahead and thus avoid a damaging conflict in the global arena, has not been forthcoming. [LINK TO REFERENCES TO BART, NEW-IMC ETC.]

In these circumstances, we found ourselves approaching May Day with no indymedia site to move to, unwilling to move off a recognised site onto a temporary site without indymedia recognition and with the prospect of two confusing moves of site for indymedia uk users if we did so (assuming that at some point the accusations would stop and our new imc application would progress). We were threatened with global excommunication if we did not make this move by 1 May. [LINK/S: REFERENCE TO ONE OR MORE OF THESE THREATS]

We blocked the closure of the uk site in order to give time for the new imc issues to be resolved, which we felt could have happened very quickly with a collective will to support us. Our block was rejected by [NAMES OF ALL COLLECTIVES AND INDIVIDUALS WHO REJECTED IT, OR SOME OF THEM ANYWAY]. Indymedia Scotland also put a temporary block in place [LINK]. Neither of these blocks were respected by Be The Media and in the face of obvious lack of consensus, members of this group who still had access to the indymedia uk server went ahead and archived the site on May 1, put up a splash page which stated that there was open publishing on the mayday site even though there was not [OR WHATEVER IT DID SAY] and sent this email to the imc-uk-process list [LINK TO LONDON'S EMAIL]

[I'VE GOT SCREENGRAB OF FORK SPLASH PAGE]

[COMMENT ABOUT OXFORD'S POSITION IN ONE SENTENCE HERE, IN RELATION TO STATEMENT BY BETHEMEDIA IN EMAIL FROM LONDON?]

In a situation where global process had failed us, our indymedia status effectively withdrawn by other collectives, and with our site placed at risk of closure forever, which also threatened the existence of other active collectives using the site: Oxford, Sheffield and Birmingham, we felt that we had no real option but to take immediate and decisive direct action to secure and defend the site. This was achieved by [SOMEONE ELSE WILL HAVE TO EXPLAIN EXACTLY HOW THIS WAS DONE - 'BY PIXIES WORKING THROUGH THE NIGHT' IS ABOUT THE MOST TECHNICAL EXPLANATION I CAN MANAGE]

[I think we should end with a proposal for a way forward - clearly bethemedia will still want their splash page. if they're gonna have that, then we want our domain to move onto. Something like:]

We are committed to maintaining the site as it now stands, shared with the other collectives using mir. If and when we are able to achieve new-imc status and have a domain to move to, the Bradford agreement can be reconsidered, but we will not tolerate any repeat of the attacks, smears and unfounded allegations which we have been subjected to in the course of our dealings with Be The Media and new imc. [NOT SURE ABOUT THIS BIT - I WANT TO BE A LOT ANGRIER, BUT MAYBE NOT HELPFUL]

OK, that's the best I can manage for now. Can someone find the links? Feel free to improve. I'm still very tired.

Footnotes

[1] See The Attempt to Shutdown UK Indymedia, http://sheffield.indymedia.org.uk/2011/04/478397.html by Sheffield Indymedia

[2] See http://archive.indymedia.org.uk/

[3] See https://docs.indymedia.org/Local/ImcMayday
Topic revision: r4 - 03 May 2011, ChrisC
This site is powered by FoswikiCopyright © by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding Foswiki? Send feedback