[Boston-editorial] READ- Who Can Make- 7/10, next web-editorial meeting ??

Mon Jun 27 09:28:54 PDT 2005

I can make it on the 10th, but could we perhaps make it later in the day?  In the summer I think is harder to "sacrifice" a Sunday afternoon with a meeting while I could be taking a nap on some park's bench...  I think sharpie has voiced many times his concern for wanting to attend the meeting, so I'd be open to his scheduling suggestions...

In regards to editorial policy, I don't think the way articles are currently posted on the site  was policy that was included in the last round.

I do think people should check with the list before posting things on the site, and that we should have some process that goes with that.  It is a concern of mine that if we don't check with each other previously, we could have too many situations where people center stuff, someone else takes it down, and it becomes a fight.  Yet, I do understand the urgency of posting, and maybe there can be a system where if there are at least 3 people who okay it (including the author) then it's ok to go.  I am, moreover, very much opposed to taking something down before checking with the person who posted it or the list itself.  I know that happened to me a couple weeks ago, and although I didn't think much of it (because I was not that attached to the article to begin), in different circumstances it could have created a whole lot of tension within the group.  

So yes, I do think we should make it part of the agenda this time around.

cheers
sofia

Matthew Williams <mw21 at mindspring.com> wrote:
Oops. You're right Sharpie--we should have checked in with others 
before scheduling the next meeting. The problem is that scheduling 
meetings by e-mail doesn't seem to work well, since frequently nobody 
responds saying whether it's good or bad for them and we're all left 
just sort of hanging in the air.

As for the issues you raise, yes, it would be good to talk about them. 
We should definitely clarify the procedures by which one can become a 
member of the editorial collective. You actually don't even have to 
come to web-editorial meetings regularly--Tim is an editor and hasn't 
been in quite some time. You just have to be familiar with the 
editorial guidelines.

I think the current system works well and we just need to do a better 
job in explaining the editorial guidelines to new editors. Without 
doing it, it does make understanding to them somewhat exclusive to the 
old guard/those who come to meetings regularly and that is not 
desirable.

All that said, there is a consensus element to the current editorial 
policy--we have consensed on the editorial guidelines. Indeed, we 
recently revised them, posting them to this list as part of the 
process, so people should have had a chance to give their in-put. But 
Pete and I have both made this point before. May be if you could 
explain why you don't think this is enough of a consensus process?

-- Matt

On Jun 27, 2005, at 7:12 AM, Pete Stidman wrote:

> I don't have time to read this at the moment. But one
> phrase:
>
> Self-organization.
>
> We have decided by consensus what types of things to
> center, and thus all stories are chosen by consensus
> and no one is acting out of line with that.
> Occasionally this system does not work but the
> collective, by consensus, has decided that it is often
> more important to act quickly, than it is to be 100%
> sure every MF in the collective has had a say about
> each individual article.
>
> Personally I would consider a change in this procedure
> that we have worked out over the past year and a half
> a step backward.
>
> Self-organization.
>
> If you investigate the phrase it denotes a natural
> process whereby individuals can organize themselves
> into a cohesive whole, such as human body or a cell,
> an anthill, or a beehive.
>
> It is not against our principles to be efficient and
> timely.
>
> -Pete
>
>
>
> --- sharpie at riseup.net wrote:
>
>> Hey, so I feel like I need to say a few words about
>> this.
>>
>> I don't think it makes sense to make a decision
>> about when to hold a
>> meeting where more people can attend, with only
>> those who attended the
>> small meeting present. Can we get a response from
>> people on this list
>> about whether they can make this meeting?
>>
>> I cannot. I will be out of town at my family
>> reunion. I also could not
>> make the last General meeting because I was
>> exhausted after a day spent
>> covering a story. It is because of these little
>> things that happen in all
>> our lives that I'm once again issuing my fundamental
>> opposition to meeting
>> only once a month.
>>
>> I desperately want to be at the next Webitorial
>> meeting, mostly because I
>> have some fundamental differences of opinion with
>> other people involved
>> with Boston Indymedia about how the editorial system
>> should work.
>>
>> I feel that giving editors the power to post
>> features without consultation
>> with others fundamentally opposes the system of
>> consensus that the
>> Indymedia project is based upon.
>>
>> (Please note, although it did not happen over the
>> list, I did consult with
>> both Sofia and Tim before the philly feature was
>> made-and Sofia made the
>> initial feature)
>>
>> The reason I feel that this opposes the system of
>> consensus is that it
>> creates a situation where any individual,, when they
>> become a member of
>> indymedia, by becoming one of the many public faces
>> of Indymedia, takes on
>> responsibility for the public actions of Boston
>> Indymedia. The public face
>> of Boston Indymedia is most easily and often
>> communicated to the outside
>> world by the content of our features column.
>> However, in the current
>> model, this content is not decided upon by anything
>> even slightly
>> resembling consensus process.
>>
>> When an individual joins boston indymedia, before
>> they are even aware,
>> they have given away the ability to participate in a
>> consensual model in
>> the decision-making process about what makes a
>> feature.
>>
>> I can never regain the ability in the current model.
>> All i can do is gain
>> the ability to deny others from creating the most
>> public representation of
>> the Boston Indymedia Collective. The current policy
>> says that any member
>> of what is essentially a "cabal" albeit a "cabal"
>> open to anyone who can
>> make the often once-monthly meetings, can post a
>> feature at anytime,
>> without the consent of any other member of the IMC.
>> the only way a person
>> is limited from this ability is by failing to have
>> the time or energy to
>> attend meetings or being denied the right by other
>> members of the
>> editorial group.
>>
>> Furthermore, it appears that the process by which
>> someone gains the
>> ability to be an editor is not even documented or
>> made publicly available
>> on the site. This is very problematic as well.
>>
>> Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not contending
>> that there is an
>> intentional conspiracy by Boston IMC editors to
>> maintain their role and
>> limit the power of others in deciding what should be
>> features.
>>
>> However, I do believe that, by default, the current
>> process ensures that
>> those with the most free time and particularly free
>> time with access to
>> the internet, have the most rights and the most
>> ability to participate in
>> creating the public face of the Boston Indymedia
>> Collective.
>>
>> I think there are many ways to fix this or make this
>> slightly less
>> problematic. I would like to discuss them soon and I
>> would prefer it
>> happen face to face at an Editorial or General
>> Meeting(perhaps first at an
>> editorial meeting, with a proposal to be brought to
>> a General meeting). I
>> would like to be able to attend the next Webitorial
>> meeting, but I
>> understand that may not be possible.
>>
>> If a quorum of editors can attend the July 10th
>> meeting and feel it is
>> acceptable, I will of course bow to the groups
>> intentionsm, but I would
>> ask in the future that, when it appears meetings are
>> not well attended,
>> those attending consider approaching the group via
>> the lists(as the main
>> line of communication that we have)about what might
>> be a time more
>> acceptable to all involved.
>>
>> peace & much love to all of you(seriously!)
>> sharpie
>>
>>
>>>
>>> We had a rather low attendance at the latest
>> web-editorial meeting--too
>>> low to really make any decisions (it was me, Pete,
>> and one new guy, I
>>> think named Mike). Given that, we decided to hold
>> the next
>>> web-editorial meeting sooner than normal, on
>> Sunday, July 10, the usual
>>> time and place (4:00 pm at the Dome Cafe at MIT).
>>>
>>> -- Matt
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Boston-editorial mailing list
>>> Boston-editorial at lists.indymedia.org
>>>
>>
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-editorial
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Boston-editorial mailing list
>> Boston-editorial at lists.indymedia.org
>>
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-editorial
>>
>
>
> 
> ____________________________________________________
> Yahoo! Sports
> Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
> http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com
>

_______________________________________________
Boston-editorial mailing list
Boston-editorial at lists.indymedia.org
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-editorial

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail
 Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/boston-editorial/attachments/20050627/beaf8d04/attachment-0001.htm