[Imc-lasvegas] Edit, arguing, etc.

Thu Feb 10 09:12:17 PST 2005

Beginning of Proposal 1:

I propose we restore the entire article to its original state and leave
it hidden.  

End of Proposal 1.

While I care about Jeffrey's feelings, I am not comfortable leaving the
article changed from its original version without noting that the
article has been edited.  And noting that the article has been edited
would just make people wonder why we would take out one thing and leave
all the rest about Jason in...  It just doesn't seem coherent to do it
that way, but I wouldn't go against doing that if everyone else felt
that was a good solution.  

The problem with deleting it is I don't see how this article is much
different from the other attack "articles" Steve posted.  Why is this
one special?  Is this article something LVIMC should be ashamed of?  I
think it's something Steve should be ashamed of.  The article in
question doesn't make Jeffrey or Jason or LVIMC look bad: it only makes
Steve look bad.  Deleting it only removes evidence of the reasons we
don't include him, the reasons we blocked his IP addresses, the reasons
some of us refuse to stay at a meeting if he's there.  Any visitor to
the site could easily determine Steve is not playing with a full deck,
so what do we care if it's hidden or deleted?  As long as it's not on
the newswire, I think leaving it hidden is good enough.  

What does everyone else think we should do?

-----Original Message-----
From: imc-lasvegas-bounces at lists.indymedia.org
[mailto:imc-lasvegas-bounces at lists.indymedia.org] On Behalf Of Jason
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 8:03 PM
To: Las Vegas Independent Media Center
Subject: Re: [Imc-lasvegas] Edit, arguing, etc.

Again, great discussion thus far!  Jeffrey, I noticed in your last
response that you admitted that you could have done things differently,
and that's an important thing to admit!  Thanks for having the courage
to do this.  Also, I think you and Gail make great points about moving
this discussion forward in a meaningful manner.  Genelle, your point
about misrepresenting authors is excellent.

One confusion that keeps coming up throughout our various discussions on
policy is the definition, practice, and understanding of consensus.  I'm
sure most of us reading this have conducted our own research into
consensus, so I don't have to point folks to the websites we've already
been directed to.  Rather, I'd like to try and explain what I know about
consensus, which is mostly theory and very little practice, in my own
words and in relation to the recent issues.

In regards to hiding posts and blocking IP addresses, the consensus part
of that process was informal.  We had consensus up to this point by
agreeing to trust the password holders to make decisions in the best
interest of the group.  Now it appears that we no longer have consensus
on this.  When I blocked the IP address, nobody complained, objected to
it, or even so much as batted an eye in a negative manner regarding that
decision.  We, essentially, had a consensus.  All it would've taken was
for one person to express dissatisfaction of any kind on the e-mail list
and/or in a meeting, and I would've felt it necessary to seek a formal
consensus, again either in a meeting or on the e-mail list ... or both,
about the action taken.

And in this case, a formal consensus would've looked like this: I
would've made a formal proposal, asked if everyone understands the
proposal or has suggestions for modifying the proposal, and asked
EVERYONE involved if they block, stand aside, or approve this proposal.
On the e-mail list, I would've put a time limit, say three days, for
folks to respond.  And even if folks couldn't respond within three days,
one still could re-introduce another proposal for consideration if they
disagreed with the one I proposed, or suggest that we give folks more
time.

In terms of deleting content, that is also in the informal consensus
process at this point.  Jeffrey deleted the content, and folks expressed
their dissatisfaction.  Now, if one wants, one can make a proposal and
then we can discuss this proposal, and either block, stand aside, or
approve the proposal.  The proposal needs to come first.  And, as far as
I understand it, the proposal should be more about the specific content
of S.H.s post rather than a proposal about policy, because the policy
discussion is happening on the editorial collective e-mail list.  So, if
someone wanted to make a proposal to 'put the words back into the
article' or 'delete the article entirely,' then one can do this at any
time.

Basic consensus requires that one clearly state a proposal that everyone
can understand.  If one objects to a stated proposal, one voices this
objection clearly AND introduces a modified or new proposal that
everyone can understand.  Also, if one does not understand a proposal,
one needs to ask for clarification.  Often times, when one voices one's
objection, misunderstandings surface and proposals can be modified to
make them less ambiguous.  Consensus is an ongoing decision-making
process that can be foramlized, but can work informally too.

The LVIMC has thus far agreed to use consensus as the main
decision-making method and further, that we're ok with D.I.Y. (Do It
Yourself) decisions and actions.  It appears that it might be time for
the LVIMC to become more formal, not hierarchical or authoritarian, but
more formally organized so as to be more inclusive of all the
organizers' needs, thoughts, desires, wishes, etc...

Thanks again, everyone,

Jason Halprin

_______________________________________________
Imc-lasvegas mailing list
Imc-lasvegas at lists.indymedia.org
http://lists.indymedia.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/imc-lasvegas