[IMC-Boston-Editorial] Frustrated by misuse and misdirection in regards to online D-Making

[sharpie at riseup.net]

Hey folks. I may be in the Middle East, but I am so far not to distant to
read these emails. I have read the entire recent exchange and I feel like,
perhaps we should make consensus decisions in a meeting, because it gives
a final place for people to make decisions, but it is DEFINITELY not more
accessible than the internet.

I have been one of the loudest proponents of slower online process, and it
makes me frustrated to hear people who are online constantly talk about
how we shouldn't do things online because people don't have access, or to
hear people push an online process without recognizing that some people
have trouble with getting online and responding regularly.

In my opinion it has been a big problem of access for people that the
editorial group is not transparent about the work it does-ie. the current
process says that if you see something that you think violates the IMC
process you can just deal with it, or, more importantly, if you see an
article you think is a good feature you can just make it a feature without
consultation.

i have repeatedly tried to drive home the point that this is a problem and
alienating to those of us who don't have jobs that allow us to be online
all day, as it has often seemed to me that Matt, Sofia, and Pete have had.

I also think that we can develop a process whereby we allow people to way
in a vote or at least commentary on the list, if they cannot make a
meeting. I also feel like, until the general meetings involve people who
are not *also* all in the editorial process, it is gate-keeping and
foolish to expect people to attend twice as many meetings when there are
many of us who have other projects or home-needs for our freetime.

i hope everyone will take this with a grain of salt(or MelH) and recognize:

1. I am not opposed to decisions being made online or in meetings.
2. If decisions are to be made it meetings I feel there MUST be a process
for people to weigh in who cannot make the meeting.
3. If decisions are to be made online there should be summary emails
constructed before the final decision so that those of us who might not
have time to read everything can get informed and lodge an opinion.
4. I still hope that, at least when i return, we can really approach the
non-transparent, non-consensus nature of deciding what goes to the main
column, something as simple as a process where we say 2 yeses and no nos
in 24 hours, or a 2/3rd majority of the active editorial group is
acceptable.
5. It has been my impression that the decision-making process for the
editorial group to place features has sometimes helped news get to the
feature column, but sometimes it has just been a slow news-day. no need to
sacrifice transparency if we can't have a constant stream of features
anyway, i would rather more people spent time writing!

solidarity. i hope you all are well.

also please feel free to repost anything you see on the site, i am willing
to try to add more photos if this helps as well.

sharpie

> Thanks to both Sofia and Jamie.  The whole exchange
> seems to be good so far, yay!
>
> I just want to add to Jamie's comments, there was also
> a long discussion about Gender vs. GLBT.  It's usefull
> to look at what people have been using them all for.
> LIke if you click into gender you find homefries
> sexual harrassment in JP story, if you click into GLBT
> you find our coverage of the gay marriage stuff.  And
> that was kinda what our discussions back then
> predicted.
>
> I think if we want to make changes in categories we
> have to look at the whole.  It would even be better if
> we could have user input via the usability studies the
> website group has prepared for post-launch of the new
> site.
>
> As to online decision-making,  I am opposed for the
> most part.  The thing is, it may seem like it is more
> participatory to some, but others do not have time or
> access to computers.  Dana for instance, is very
> selective in what he chooses to read online.  Future
> members may nbot even own computers, expecially if we
> turn out to be true to mission and involve people who
> do not have a voice online and low-income people.
>
> I think what we could do however, is formalize a
> process for getting web-based concerns addressed in
> the meetings.
>
> So you could propose a category change, and then in
> the next appropriate meeting, in this case the website
> group, it could be addressed.  Then you could read the
> minutes and see if you agree with the decision. You
> could still post more comments on it after the meeting
> or even decide it is important enough to show up to
> the next meeting to talk about it.  Chances are the
> meeting will make a decision you can agree with, cause
> were cool like that.
>
> My main concern is that this group has had huge
> problems with online communications, so it seems like
> asking for trouble to condone online decision making.
> IRC meetings or phone conferences are a better way to
> get around this, but it should be made accessible to
> everyone by making sure all have access.  For
> instance, my dumb ass has still not figured out IRC,
> so I am left out of many discussions.
>
> -Pete
>
>
> --- "visnusdream at juno.com" <visnusdream at juno.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear friends,
>> I'm tuning into this conversation, although I have
>> little to add with regard to issue at hand: a new
>> subject heading.
>>
>> (I think we should utilize the lists more to discuss
>> this type of issue; but I hope we can continue to do
>> it with a reasonable amount of decorum.)
>>
>> This subject categories thing is an issue about
>> which reasonable people might disagree.
>> When Svea and I discussed it with Matt, I realized
>> how tedious trying to come up with things like this
>> might become, even if just one person is taking sole
>> responsibility for it. Consensus management can make
>> everything more cumbersome and slow, but it is the
>> way we have chosen to do things.
>>
>> I would like to say that I hope we can reach more
>> decisions on-line, because I hope we can start
>> making more decisions and getting more done.
>> However, when someone raises a legitimate concern,
>> as Pete has done in this instance, his opinion must
>> be honored just as it would be in a live meeting. In
>> my opinion, the on-line forum is in some ways more
>> fair than face to face meetings. For instance, there
>> are less time and scheduling restraints; more people
>> can participate. I feel that even if someone does
>> propose that we wait until group meetings to make
>> all descions, as Pete has informally done, we should
>> expedite our decision making process by thoroughly
>> discussing issues throughout the month on-line.
>> My favorite part of IMC organization is the decision
>> making process. It is self-illuminating to have my
>> opinion swayed.
>> For instance, when Seva put forward the idea of a
>> War/Militarism heading I thought that it was a good
>> idea. I have wanted such a heading several times
>> myself. However, once Matt explained how they came
>> up with the current headings I started to feel that
>> it might be a little premature to change the work
>> others had done.
>> Pete has reinforced my opinion in that regard.
>>
>> I think that it might be good to revisit the subject
>> headings at some time in the future. (I'm not sure
>> why we need both a GLBT/Queer heading and a Gender
>> heading.) However, I'm not sure now is the best time
>> to wrangle over something like this.
>> I suggest that if Svea or Sofia feel strongly that
>> they want to add War/Militarism, they should address
>> the dual headings problem. Is there a way to fold
>> International into something else? I haven't
>> considered all the options, but since the BIMC has
>> dedicated a lot of resources to developing the
>> current system, which conscientiously attempts to
>> minimize confusion and shorten the list, it does not
>> seem prudent to add more categories without careful
>> consideration.
>>
>> I'm sorry. I know I'm long winded.
>>
>> Also, I'm not sure how much I'll be editing the
>> site. I just want to be able to fix little things as
>> I see them. Today, I corrected a duplicate posting
>> but I didn;t look at much else.
>> Tomorrow I may not have time to do anything.
>> Sincerely Yours,
>> Jamie
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Boston-editorial mailing list
>> Boston-editorial at lists.indymedia.org
>>
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-editorial
>>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> Boston-editorial mailing list
> Boston-editorial at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-editorial
>