Statement to imc-uk-process 6th May 2011

The original draft of this email was proposed on 4th May 2011, it was sent to imc-uk-process on 6th May 2011.

Statement from The Mayday Collective

At Bradford we entered into an agreement with you.

The broad terms of the proposal came from your group.

The terms were that we would fork into two autonomous groups.

Our group as a.indymedia.org would take a full copy of the existing, functioning indymedia.org.uk newsire, set it up on our site and administer it.

Your group as b.indymedia.org would set up a new site and administer it.

The existing newswire would be archived with a splash page directing users to the two sites.

We entered into the agreement on the understanding that you would support our application to new imc and that the site would be set up on a.indymedia.org. domain

On April 19th our application was blocked at new IMC level, which is a working group with includes two people from your group as members

We asked for time to sort this out.

You said repeatedly that there was no alternative and the fork must proceed.

We blocked this as it would have meant moving the site out of Indymedia, a network that we have all been members of for some years.

The members of the Mayday Collective have been members the Indymedia UK Network for years. IMC UK never went through process as it was one of the earliest projects but has always been recognised as a full IMC.

We would never have agreed to move the site away from Indymedia and will not now agree to it.

Despite our blocks, on the morning of May 1st you started implementing the fork and put up the splash page directing people to a domain outside of Indymedia and announcing that publishing would be shut down.

We took direct action to prevent this from happening, as you were proceeding despite a lack of active consensus and were in effect changing the agreement by insisting that we had not discussed what would happen if new imc blocked us - or in other words that the preconditions were unimportant, there was no more time and the fork would happen, with or without our participation.

Now you appear to be saying that there was time and that the preconditions are important.

We agreed to the site moving as a massive compromise in the hope that both groups could let go of the dispute and get on with their core role which is the generation of radical alternative news within the Indymedia network.

We believe that the fork took place on May 1st as a direct result of unilateral steps by you to force through the agreement in the face of dissent and a lack of active consensus.

You want the preconditions to be met and so do we but we see no coherent proposal from you as to how we can proceed.

Our position remains that the open publishing indymedia newswire should proceed without disruption and that we should all get on with our projects, away from the stalemate that has existed for years.

We do not believe that continuing the dispute in the manner in which it has been conducted over the last few days is productive for either group or for the Indymedia movement as a whole.

We will therefore be disengaging from the uk network lists, and from the current unpleasantries and will only respond to constructive proposals that allow the agreement to proceed with the preconditions met and minimal further disruption to the site.

We believe this preferable to the current situation which is unpleasant, messy, unproductive and damaging.

The Mayday Collective
Topic revision: r6 - 07 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