[Imc-lasvegas] Re: passwords

[chevive]

I posted the below concerns to the list earlier in the week hoping that
perhaps we could discuss and work out my concerns prior to the expiration of
the 7 day period specified for objections to giving someone a password.
What has been shown is that there is no response, and so I can't possibly
feel my concerns have been addressed.  So, I feel it important prior to the
expiration of that 7 day period to make sure that, if it was not clear in my
previous post below, I am formally blocking consensus on this issue:

Proposal:
Due to the concerns expressed below regarding Gail's statements and her
intentions for being given a password and administrative access to the LVIMC
site, I block consensus on giving her a password and administrative access,
and offer the below statements as evidence that doing so would at this time
be detrimental to the site.  As I understand the posted password policy
http://lasvegas.staughton.indypgh.org/process/process.php#password  it is my
right as an active member to pose my objections and that until these
concerns are resolved and consensus reached Gail would not be eligible to
recieve a password and administrative access to the site.  My alternate
proposal to counter the proposal to give her a password is that continuing
dialogue be urged and we work towards possible consensus in the future, and
that Gail has an opportunity to explain herself and show if my concerns are
invalid.
I make this formal objection with sadness and only after much consideration.

-Mikeal


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "chevive" <chevive at earthlink.net>
To: "Las Vegas Independent Media Center" <imc-lasvegas at lists.indymedia.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 1:26 AM
Subject: Re: [Imc-lasvegas] LVIMC General Meeting Notes: Monday, March 21


> Everyone,
> I am certain that some member of LVIMC are already conviced to one degree
or
> another that I am completely a malevolent asshole, and what I am about to
> propose is likely to cement that idea for some.  I am sorry for that, and
I
> hope that before jumping to conclusion about that people will listen to
what
> I am really trying to say.
>
> I was unable to attend the latest General Meeting because of work.  (I
don't
> normally work mondays, but this is a busy season and I was scheduled
> overtime.)  However in the meeting notes I recieved via email an issue was
> raised on which I have an opinion, and I feel it my duty to voice my
> concerns even if I know some will take it the wrong way and/or assume it
is
> all just some sort of personal vendetta.
>
> The latest meeting suggested that Gail is seeking to attain a password for
> the site.  While I believe that she is intelligent and capable, and
> potentially a positive asset to the site, I would ask that certain of her
> recent statements and standards be clarified before she is given blanket
> access to the password abilities of the site.
> This is not a personal issue- I like Gail, and am not trying to attack
her.
> My concern is that in a recent email to the list Gail made the following
> statements:
>
> Gail write:  "However, the very first problem we have here, imo, is that
we
> all are NOT on the same page.  Referring to another meeting's notes that I
> just received in my mail today, there are two issues which have not been
> addressed, discussed, and agreed upon.  1) What are our minimum
> qualifications or our beliefs and values that we want all members to
share?"
> "In my humble opinion, anyone who is that passionate about any ONE
ideology
> should not be part of the working group of imc.  There are just too many
> biases here.  The lvimc is almost to the point of it being a
> communist/socialist website being used solely to promote one's own ideas
re:
> a political ideology."
>
> My comments and concern:  I believe that here Gail seems to be expressing
> her view that there are certain criteria for being a member of LVIMC and
its
> working groups.  She seems to imply a political idealogical litmus test,
and
> that our "not being on the same page" in this regard is a problem.  As I
> have said, I believe this outlook runs counter to the openness and free
flow
> of information set forth in the principals of unity.  If she has a
password,
> will Gail use her personal outlook and the "same page" she is on to censor
> those who are not on her page?  I agree we aren't all on the same page,
and
> as I've said before I think that is a strength, not a "problem."  If Gail
is
> given password privliges, will she use them to force us all onto "the same
> page?"  If she thinks certain people and idealogies shouldn't be part of
the
> IMC working group, will she treat posts and articles from those view
points
> objectively in censoring according to established editorial policy?  In
> fact, I believe from discussion with others that any one password holder
can
> disable the password rights of others.  If that is true, and Gail is here
> expressing her views that some people don't deserve to be working group
> members, will some other password holder who crosses her one day find
their
> privliges unilaterally revoked because they "should not be part of the
> working group of imc?"
> Further, I think that Gail is expressing a distinct bias against a certain
> set of ideaologies which she opposes.  Will she be objective in her
> assesment of editorial policy given this strong bias and desire to "be on
> the same page" and force others to?
>
> Gail write:  "It does not necessarilly matter what the "intent" of the
> poster is.  It matters what the post IS and what the post looks like."
>
> My comments and concern:  What a post looks like, and what someone is
> certain it "IS" are subjective judgements.  We have recently shown this
with
> regards the Kominsky article.  Gail seems to be asserting here that there
is
> always one right way to see what a post "IS" and I must assume she
believes
> she is the one to see it.  Will Gail be willing to have discussion, maybe
> attend editorial meetings etc, to let us work towards a consensus view of
> what a post "IS,"or will she assume that she already knows what it "IS"
and
> act accordingly?  I have biases.  I assume she does too.  I think we
should
> all aknowledge those biases and work together for consensus, but if some
> believe they have the objective end truth about what a post "IS" will they
> use password privliges to enforce their version of reality right away?
>
> Gail writes:  "As you can see, we have a "working group" who are always
> justifying every article (including the promoting of violence) in the best
> interest of "freedom of speech" when the most important goal of imc should
> be promoting social and economic justice" and "brotherhood/sisterhood
among
> all peoples."  I believe that coming to concensus on this issue will be
very
> difficult if not impossible but I am holding onto some hope."
>
> My comments and concern:  Here, as in other places, I am afraid that Gail
> seems to have little faith in her fellow members of the working groups,
and
> a very hard set idea as to what the end goals of IMC are.  My concern is
to
> ask if Gail is perhaps seeking a password so that she can simply bypass
the
> working groups for whom she here expresses contempt, and should someone
who
> is looking to do that be given the tools (a password) to do so?
>
> "I also find it hilarious that certain members tell me that they have been
> active in imc "from the beginning" and still they have no idea what
> consensus is all about:  respect, coming to acceptable decisions, etc."
>
> My concern:  I feel this is another example of Gail expressing contempt
for
> the opinions and ideas of her fellow working group participants.  If she
is
> so mocking of the ideas of others, will she in fact be a group team player
> in the exercise of password privliges?  Or will she find other people's
> ideas just a "hilarious" item to be mocked and ignored?
>
> "Even with my different views on pro-choice, I would still tolerate
articles
> re: this issue.  Reason being, I could add some content which would be
> important to the overall issues and struggles and injustices of women that
> may reduce the number of abortions."
>
> My concern:  Here Gail is laying out her ideaology on one specific idea .
.
> . and giving us all notice that there are something she will "tolerate"
and
> some things she won't.  This accompanied by statements in meetings about
> what her "morals" dictate make me concerned that Gail has some personal
> agenda items about which she is so inflexible that she cannot tolerate
> dissent.  If she comes across something she disagrees with, and doesn't
feel
> she can "add some content," then will she simply refuse to "tolerate" it
and
> so censor it?  Especially, if as illustrated above she has mocking
contempt
> for the ideas of others in the working group will her personal "morals" be
> the deciding factor of what we will or will not "tolerate?"
>
> "I do not believe in violence and I will not accept it or stand silently
> while there are those promoting it or justifying it."
>
> My comments:  This ties into that directly above.  For instance, the
> Editorial Policy as it stands does not forbid the advocation of violence,
so
> long as it does not lay out a specific time or place and does not target
> specific individuals.  Will Gail abide by those consensed ideas, or impose
> her own.  I believe she makes it clear here, and I am concerned that
> regardless of the ides of others in the group, whom she mocks and demeans,
> she will enforce her own editorial policy and censoring.  For instance,
> Malcolm X's speech "The Ballot or theBullet" does in its way justify and
> advocate some types of potential violence.  It does not however violate
any
> of the specific points of the editorial policy.  Given her statemnets
about
> what she will and won't "tolerate" and given her exact statement just
> quoted, it seems that Gail would censor it regardless of the actual
> editorial policy.  If that is so, then do we want a password given to
> someone who clearly says that their own version of what "IS" and their own
> "morality" and what they feel they can or cannot "tolerate" is the
defining
> issue in thier actions?  Can we believe that someone with such contempt
for
> meetings and other members of the working group will in fact abide by
group
> decisions like the editorial policy rather than going it their own way and
> censoring only as they see fit?
>
> Now having expressed my concerns I would liket o make a couple of things
> clear.  I am expressing my concerns openly so they can be discussed.  And
I
> am not saying "Gail must NEVER have a passowrd."  I am asking these
> questions of the community and Gail herself.  If I have misunderstood her,
I
> ask that she clarify her position.  I believe that it is possible I'm
wrong
> because I completely misunderstood Gail, and even if I haven't I believe
> that she can clarify for my benefit and that of the group what she does
> mean, and how she would in fact use her password and how she would work
with
> the group and the groups decisions.  But I do think it is important that
> before anyone has a password that they demonstrate that it is not just so
> they can and will enforce their own view on the running of the site
> directly, and that they are willing to be workers for LVIMC and its group
> decisions rather than just their own personal ideas and beliefs.  If Gail
> can do that, and explain that, then I would be happy to see her become a
> password holder and a continuing positive contribution to our collective.
> But if not, then I think it would be innapropriate for her to gain access.
>
> The other thing I want to make clear- I have plenty of my own faults, and
> things to learn.  If it seems that I am trying to pick on Gail from a
> better-than-thou point of view, then let me say that is not my point.  I
am
> doing this openly not to attack her, but to voice my concerns and give her
> and the group a chance to consider and respond.
>
> I do not have a password.  I do not want a password.  This is not a power
> struggle over that.  I am voicing my concerns because I believe that if we
> give passwords to anyone who is not willing to abide by group decisions
and
> who wants one only to enforce their own personal ideas (like Steve
Hampton,
> for instance made clear) then we are setting ourselves up for real
problems.
>
> Lastly, I hope all my concerns can be proven to be unfounded, or to be of
a
> nature we can work through and resolve.  I'm not trying to attack or run
off
> one person.  If Gail can put my concerns about her previous statements to
> rest and explain how I've misinterperted her, or how she has changed her
> mind on somethings, then I welcome that and hope we get her a password
> expeditiously.  But I think these things are serious, and we need to know
> what will really happen when any person is given a password.  They should
go
> to people with the group's interests and decisions at heart, not just one
> person's interpertation of those interests who doesn't plan on respecting
> the views of others.
>
> I hope people will listen to my intent here without prejudice.  I'm
certain
> some people's reactions will be to deepen their distaste for me personally
> and their assesment that I'm an asshole.  And I'm not denying that I am
> often an asshole.  But my intent here is for the greater good of LVIMC,
and
> I am open to seeing that I'm wrong.  I hope I am, because I want to assume
> the best about everyone I work with.
>
> Hoping we can work things out together,
> -Mikeal
>
> _______________________________________________
> Imc-lasvegas mailing list
> Imc-lasvegas at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/imc-lasvegas