[New-imc] Online form: Proposed new IMC! (IMC London)

[andi]

[This text was discussed by those who want to set up IMC-London, to
clarify our position and help a wider imc community to develop an
opinion about the application. Please be aware that this text is
positioned. All those who worked on it have been involved in running
the IMC-UK page, publicising it and trying to resolve the ongoing
conflict with the LWG.]


Dear all,

I'm sad but not surprised that there immediately arrives a '100%
objection' from the two members of the LWG for any application for an
IMC-London - on the UK process list everybody can find the long history
of this London conflict documented (as well as on other global lists
where LWG have blocked other processes).

To sum the conflict up in my (subjective) view: Richard and Toni (now
the LWG) were part of the initial IMC-UK-collective in London which in
the first year solely ran the uk site. They were unhappy with the rest
of the group, especially with the decision to have next to public lists
one private organizing list and stopped coming to meetings. They then
set up the 'London Working Group' at the end of November last year.

The initial collective has gone through a process of subgroup building,
which are reflected in the IMC-UK mailing lists. In addition to IMC-UK
email lists, it has weekly meetings, where subgroups coordinate and
organise work face to face. The meetings provide a permanent structure,
where subgroups coordinate their work, and new people can get involved.

For more than a year now, the collective has worked on the process of
decentralisation in the UK, aimed at finding more groups from all over
the country to commit to the running of the IMC-UK website. The
structure of IMC-UK would change: what started with one committed
London based IMC-UK-collective would become a wider IMC-UK-network.
This would also mean that the initial collective would change its name.

The LWG demanded that the IMC-UK-collective change its name straight
away after the two LWG members declared to be 'a different group',
arguing that they work on IMC-UK as well but not as part of the
collective. There was some confusion about the definition of IMC-UK:
should it only refer to the IMC-UK website or to every group that works
on an imc-site in the UK, like Bristol? Should it denote a website or a
structure of IMC's? We tried to find a name that would be acceptable
for us (imc-activists working on print, outreach, video, audio,
outreach, decentralisation; and collaborating on these tasks) and the
LWG. They refused to accept 'IMC-UK-admin group'. Presently, the LWG
calls us 'the yet unnamed london collective', while we sign as '1 of
IMC-UK'. We use our collective practice to coordinate and to discuss
proposals. Working practices are developed in this process, which takes
place on imc lists and meetings, from the bottom up amongst those who
participate. They are not imposed from above.

After it's foundation, the LWG used their password knowledge to impose
a different, new working practice for uploading new UK middle column
features on the site, although an accepted working practice already
existed. They have not attempted to discuss this, or to reach any form
of decicion by consensus. To prevent a situation where every group
working on Indymedia UK has a contradictory way of working on the site,
the collective (or the 'yet unnamed London collective', as Richard
likes to put it) has argued for the need of one common working practice
for the site. It was always maintained that the working practices are
open for discussion. Still, the two LWG members have continued to
implement their own unilateral new working practices which has resulted
in months of conflict and disruption.

I would like to ask everybody to take a closer look at the IMC-London
document to see whether the application really violates the draft IMC
membership criteria, see
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/new-imc/2002-October/004088.html

There will be open lists and open meetings, just like the lists for IMC
UK and the meetings in London. As Bart has pointed out on the new-imc
list, there are no strict rules on when in the process of organising an
application form should be filled in. The application was published on
the UK process list at the same time as it went to new-imc. Furthermore,
I have at a tech event in June this year told Toni from the LWG that a
few people were thinking to apply for IMC-London. Already then, he
refused to accept the idea straight away.

As said in the application document, the move to apply for an
IMC-London is a result of the decentralisation / localisation process
of Indymedia in the UK, at a time where more local collectives are
forming. This process was sped up by holding a UK-wide public meeting
of local UK groups in Manchester. The LWG members have been invited but
did not attend. This is consistent with their reiterated claim that
decisions can only be made via email lists, but it also illustrates
their disregard for physical meetings and shows very clearly that they
are not interested in working together, except by technological means
like irc, email or twiki. I would insist that on a local level those
technologies should be used as a tool rather than a means by
themselves.

Those applying for the IMC-London prefer to have any decision making
process for London to be ultimately resolved by physical meetings.
Email lists and other technologies can help to clarify matters, but
when working on a local level, technology should not be used to build
up power positions, and to avoid dialogue in real life.

The situation in London has been in a conflict for far too long and I
hope that the application for IMC-London will be a start to clarify the
ongoings for all people interested in working for a London Indymedia. I
feel that a very active Indymedia group has been cornered in for far
too long by two individuals who do not contribute to local needs. It
looks to me that the LWG members are only interested in IMC-London in a
procedural way - I still would like to see any actions by them which
actually contribute to lighten the very real workload in London rather
than to increase it.

Simultaneously with filling out the application form I have requested
the creation of the list imc-london at lists.indymedia.org - I hope that
list will in the end be the space to debate about the local issues in
London. Until it is available, the UK process list is the best place to
debate IMC-London further - and that is happening already. I only post
to new-imc and www-process because the '100% objection' by the LWG was
posted on these global lists and I feel the need to clarify things.
This mail is not indended to fuel a flame war on these global lists.

Finally, it would be interesting to know if the LWG '100% objection'
amounts to a block of the IMC-London application, and how the new-imc
list takes blocks into consideration if no agreement on the local
London level can be reached.

Regards, Andi (in the name of the 'yet to be named London collective')