[IMC-pgh-discuss] at 46+ hours

[Mary I Hart]

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, andybot wrote:

> Mary,
>
> 1. Could you specify what discussion proposed by david you are referring
> to (it's not in the minutes so no one who wasn't at the meeting will know
> what you're talking about, and also i forget what specifically he
> proposed, as i don't know that it was ever clear to me really.)

David didn't make a formal proposal.  He said there were some things that
he would like to discuss (David, correct me if I've got this wrong) about
policy & makeup and whether it might be appropriate to consider some
things for amendment.  David willingly put this off till the next meeting
for the sake of getting through the orginal agenda items.  In other words,
that discussion was tabled till the next meeting.

>
> 2. David, could you please tell us about your proposal in a concise
> manner, so that people know what's going on here?
>
It wasn't a formal proposal- David agreed to hold off on beginning the
discussion of it till the next meeting.  Therefore, it doesn't seem
appropriate to ask David to lay it out in detail now.

> 3. Mary, could you explain what about David's proposal necessitates to you
> blocking this proposal? (A block is a pretty serious thing, and needs to
> be accompanied with explanation. The point of using consensus is to get
> everyone to discuss their opinions about things. This block didn't make
> your feelings clear).
>
> thanks
> andy
>

At the meeting before last, my understanding was that the whole comment
thing was tabled till we addressed a set of clarifying questions.
However, I came to this meeting to hear that part of it was considered to
have passed, and you said you would give 48 hours for the vote for the
other part.  This made me feel a bit rushed.

We have clarified some existing policy, and the suggestion has been made
by David that it may be appropriate to discuss policy amendments.  My
preference would be to hear about potential policy change proposals (which
David politely consented to wait to present) before attempting to gain
consensus on the remaining comments question.   PLEASE NOTE, I did NOT
say, I block this forever, but that I wanted to wait to hear the next
meeting's discussion before voting.  A block may be strong, but there
doesn't seem to be another way to say "I want to wait for more info".

Why do I want to wait?

Primarily:  Because there was a lot of discussion on comments
as well as on what the point of IMC is (and please don't respond with
"read the online stuff"- there was enough discussion at the meeting before
last to convince me that on that point people have a variety of views, and
some poeple do see multiple "purposes" to the IMC endeavor.)  Because I
believe the discussion to come may encompass the purposes-of-IMC issue,
and because the comments discussion from the meeting-before-last clearly
rested, in part, on the purpose(s) of IMC, I would prefer to wait and get
more information and have more discussion, than rush through this
decision.   I would rather make a good decision, than make a bad one &
have to go back & fix it; in the case of comments, I think the decision
wil be far-reaching in it's effects, in how IMC is viewed, and I think the
decision will have a de facto prescriptive influence on IMC policy and
vision.   Against this, I see nothing terrible that will happen if the
decision is made after some additional discussion which may be relevant.

Secondarily:  I am feeling rushed and pressured, and prefer not to make
decisions under those conditions.  Saying "block for now" seemed to be the
only way to communicate that I want to hear more at the next meeting
before I make a decision.  If there hadn't been a 48-hour deadline, I
would not have responded in this way.

Thanks,

Mary


> __________________________________________________
>
> http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org
> http://www.subtext.info
>
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Mary I Hart wrote:
>
> > re: Andy's proposal that was given 48 hours for comment:
> >
> > Since David suggested some discussion of policy and possible amendments to
> > policy, and this discussion was tabled for a future (next) meeting, my
> > preference would be to not make any further changes to comments until we
> > have the discussion that was suggested by David.  So I'd like to block
> > pending the discussion proposed by David.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Mary
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > IMC-pgh-discuss mailing list
> > IMC-pgh-discuss at lists.indypgh.org
> > http://lists.indypgh.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/imc-pgh-discuss
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> IMC-pgh-discuss mailing list
> IMC-pgh-discuss at lists.indypgh.org
> http://lists.indypgh.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/imc-pgh-discuss
>
>