<rovin> got a moment?
<toni> yeah
<rovin> i've been thinking on the idea of a network-wide indy audit.
<rovin> ..
<rovin> only sites which meek a widely agreed criteria would get the 'stamp' that they passed.
<rovin> ...
<rovin> this could form the basis for stronger structure inside the whole network.
<rovin> sound worth persuing?
<toni> not sure about it. for one reason: comitment to even existing looser structure is terrible.
<toni> Fourd Foundation, Tactical Media Fund ... those people want to do things their way. regardless of what we agree on online working groups.
<rovin> but do you think an audit of the basics - POU - would help focus groups on them?
<rovin> or lead to their revision
<toni> no. POU aren't good enough.
<toni> what would helpl, in my view, if following:
<toni> forming online working group to revise POU
<toni> (that never existed while POU were written)
<toni> letting all imc's know about it.
<toni> try to work in few languages,
<rovin> so you think a 'wide net' POU revision is the 'first step'?
<toni> work for a long period of time,
<toni> WG presents network with drafts. asks for input.
<rovin> i assume you know that this summarieWg would get into such tasks as bringing these documents to a wider audience?
<toni> at some point, when WG reaches consensus (rough one). it calls document done.
<toni> then, some IMC's will sign, some won't. and that i positive.
<toni> so you think a 'wide net' POU revision is the 'first step'? <- in short: yes.
<toni> my main point is: we shouldn't worry to find a single POU.
<rovin> 'some', but many in the network won't accept the idea of 'some' being excluded from agreement. sounds like electoral democracy...
<toni> maybe we can not have unity.
<rovin> you know i don't have a problem with it but many would - no?
<toni> no, not excluded. people might choose to engange to find a POU that would suit them, or simple reject it and write their own one.
<toni> i.e. i'm more inclined to clustering of the network right now.
<rovin> clustering of the network around a variety of PUO?
<toni> that's how i personaly feel. current POU was not written in a very open manner at all. it's not being respected at all. no point of having it then.
<toni> yes.
<toni> yes.
<rovin> but do you not like it?
<toni> and still stay a network of solidarity. but different levels of solidarity. which is already a case.
<toni> i.e. IMC's are aligned to each other in clusters already.
<toni> all i would propose is to recognized that. that would help everyone.
<rovin> hey docs is now being archived by googel - yay!
<toni> why to feel bad about diverse political and organizational stances? it's far worse what we have right now, false participation in the network. i.e. POU are not respected.
<rovin> hold on. i need to establish wether YOU would like the principles of unity to be changed
<toni> current POU needs more work. it's not too bad. but neither too good. i would call it a decent starting point.
<toni> yes.
<toni> and not only changed. but written to REALLY represent at least someone.
<rovin> i'm wondering wether it would be better to form such a 'solidarity network' around the current one - or to start again.
<rovin> if many imc's wanted in but wanted a re-write - fine go for it.
<rovin> the process would begin in the same way for each outcome (solidarity network building or re-write)
<rovin> is the the most current one around?:
<rovin> http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Global/PrinciplesOfUnity
<toni> i guess so.
<rovin> okay, no-hurry. i really need to read it carefully and give it more thought then.
<rovin> (back in 2 min)
<toni> the issue is, are we going to respect it. that's the issue. not what's in there.
<rovin> but you just said you want it re-written.
<toni> TMF project shows how little respect exists for it, of better to say, how many holes POU have. holes that allow some principles many IMC"s want to be truthful to to be disregarded.
<toni> sorry. i'm sounding confuding.
<toni> confusing.
<toni> TMF projects shows that current POU can not protect certain principles. and then current members of then network, some of them, are not willing to respect those principles.
<toni> a) we need stronger set of principles (that some imcs might not sign at all)
<toni> b) then we need to stick to those
<toni> </end rant>
<rovin> TMF?
<toni> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-communication/2002-December/002571.html
<toni> ah, sorry, i assumed you read it.
<rovin> i read the email _after_ it - which said that the whole thing was a heering becasue it was not an imc seeking funding.
<rovin> i am reading the links now
<toni> it's the Return of Ford Foundation issue. with ALL participatns being core IMC volunteers for years: sasha, sheri, evan, kellan, shane ...
<toni> but claiming autonomy.
<rovin> which email should i be reading?
<rovin> http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/mailman/archive/tmf/2002-December/date.html
<toni> that's their mail list
<toni> http://internal.protest.net/osi/ <- projects
<toni> read project first. especialy http://internal.protest.net/osi/index.php?StrategyMeeting
<rovin> by-the-way i don't see a battle worth fighting in this whole 'sources of funding' debate. it's unwinnable - you cannot trace money - but pressure can be traced, and that's where we should aim our sights IMHO
<toni> it's not about traces. it's about principles i wrote in:
<toni> http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Global/OnDecisionMakingAndTmf
<rovin> i'm just saying that money cannot be traced - so it's a dead in trying to win a moral battle for 'good' sources of funding.
<rovin> sorry, moral is the wrong word
<toni> no one should have the right to decide in the name of people who do the work, or those who are heavily influenced.
<toni> otherwise, we are in the realm of management labour. and domination of "autonomous" groups, like TMF, over the network.
<toni> that is pro-capitalist organizational structure. pro-domination. and pro-unelected-hierarchies.
<toni> these are my main points.
<toni> gotta go now.
<toni> let me creta account for you before i go
<rovin> yes please.
<rovin> can i log this chat from my WikiName?
<toni> you are wellcome :)
<toni> nothing to hide.
<toni> not on this issue.
<rovin> goog, i'll condence it somtime so we can move this discussion somewhere useful.
<toni> couldn't create you an account :(
<toni> sorry.
<toni> password that we have on the server, as the on for rt.indy is not correct.
<toni> i'll write about it on tech-coord.
<rovin> okay then.
<toni> deanna know for sure. she installed it. she reads listwork.
<rovin> sure thing - you off to do some work now?
Topic revision: r1 - 12 Dec 2002, RovinNZ
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