[imc-northern] [New-imc] Sheffield Indymedia'sNew IMC Application and the Disputed Wiki Pages
jakirkcaldy at yahoo.co.uk
Thu Apr 7 00:34:15 PDT 2011
Nab, stating the consensus decision makign model being used and making known in
a salient manner on the site the associated working practices and procedures, is
not really that much extra work. In fact the last time this came up it was the
case of simply adding a link in the right section, with the strap line 'how we
work'? Given that such an act and admission is so fundamental to being able to
say 'we are a transparent, consensus based working group', one would think this
small task would have been completed by now. If I had access to the web server I
would be more than happy to make such changes, but you and I know that such
access would never be granted. Please note the words 'access' and 'granted' and
what this entails in terms of hierarchies and power differentials.
I would like to add that it is a bit disingenuous of you to say that I "[...]
seem to jump at the opportunity to turn up simply to block something!". As you
may be aware, when I did attend meetings I disagreed strongly with direction,
motives working practices and the mission statement. Indeed, my perspective was
that northern should at some point dissolve once more independent local
structures had been established and that, given that northern is mainly people
from Leeds and Bradford (though this might have changed?), that northern return
to being Leeds/Bradford. Did I at any point jump at the oppertunity to block?
Did I ever voice a block? The answer is no. Instead I stopped attending and got
on with my own activities whilst commenting from the sidelines.
The reason why I would attend a meeting to block is because I feel strongly
about the stance you implied in your email. Your email shows me that you are
playing the politics game in the same manner that, well, the establishment plays
it. It is not only you though, I see politics being played quite a lot within
indymedia more generally that, in method and application, are the same type of
games played by our local and national politicians. I am not immune here and
sometime lapse in to such pettiness. I feel strongly about this lingering
conflict particularly as northern (which as a collective could force the issue
onto the individuals concerned), refuse any attempt at mediation.
Making the threat that you did to Chris et al is not really a small mistake, if
we are to be honest with ourselves. To what extent does that act contribute to
the principals of unity? To what extent does refusing to engage in mediation
contribute to the principals of unity? The irony here, to my mind at least, is
humorous. On the one hand in the email protag linked it is asked, with call to
the principals of untiy, that the wiki be removed but at the same time, those
asking for such removal refuse to come to the table for mediation. One would
think that if such mediation was entered into with a genuine desire for
resolution, that this would be the forum through which the wiki could be raised
and petitioned to be removed.
Four long paragraphs, I'll stop here.
From: "nab at aktivix.org" <nab at aktivix.org>
To: imc-northern at lists.indymedia.org
Sent: Wed, 6 April, 2011 23:50:46
Subject: Re: [imc-northern] [New-imc] Sheffield Indymedia'sNew IMC Application
and the Disputed Wiki Pages
Quoting "James Kirkcaldy" <jakirkcaldy at yahoo.co.uk>:
> Cheers for the clarification. If this is the case, that as a collective you
> don't intend to block, then how should I interpret what nab has said? I know
> what the meetings are like and that things are discussed outside of
> meetings and
> that often not everything is minuted in a meeting.
> To be more clear, often what is stated in public differs from what is said in
> private, if I can be allwoed to make such a crude division. What inclines me
> towards such a line of thought is that Nab's email reads as if he is certain
> that the block would occur if said demands were not met. I imagine
> jimdog would
> share a similar sentiment?
> Regardless of the facts for the matter above, and if I assume that the
> collective's position is as you say, nab's email raises again issues
> the working practices that I have been trying to get clarification
> and closure
> on. This is not the first time that an individual has made a comment with the
> power of the collective voice which, when questioned as I have done here, has
> turned out not to be a consensus generated utterance; this, of
> course, assuming
> that what you (jen and protag) say is true.
For someone who politely declines to come to meetings you seem to be very keen
to ask us to do more work and yet seem to jump at the opportunity to turn up
simply to block something!
I made a mistake, Northern's position is in the email protag linked, sorry if
that caused confusion. Any indervidual on the new-imc list can raise concerns
and I would have to see a very strong change in attitude to stop me raising very
similar concerns to Bart. That said I am far more up for writing a few more
articles and doing some more outreach, I hope you are happy to join in with that
even if meetings are not your cup of tea.
Cheerio for now,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the imc-northern