[Imc-uk-process] [Imc-uk-network] Decision making [was: New Crabgrass UK Network]

[mish]

> Also, can you clarify what attributes this has which excludes it
> from the normal/usual process of consensus decision making? Surely
> if someone's actions could affect other people they are worth at
> least discussing beforehand?

I think there are important points here. In indymedia, and other
non-heirarchical groups I have worked in, there is always a balance
between consensus and autonomy. I don't think any group can work when
every little tiny decision requires consensus before any action happens.

Also, there is the difference between "asking permission" before doing
something and "asking forgiveness" afterwards. You ask permission when
the thing you are doing is big and controversial. When you expect your
act to be fine with everyone then you go ahead and do it when you have
the idea, the time and the energy, and once it's done, you tell
everyone. If you've misjudged it, people can object or ask for
clarification (as in this case) and you have a discussion and learn a
little better what is acceptable in this bunch of people.

In this case I would say it was a reasonable decision to say "crabgrass
has this thing where multiple groups can belong to a network, why don't
I create a crabgrass network to cover indymedia UK, scotland, bristol
..." It's not a big thing, it doesn't replace anything else, it is
another space indymedia activists in the various collectives in the UK
can use to work. Personally I would like to thank Jim for taking some
initiative and getting on with it.

I am slightly worried that trust has broken down in indy UK to the
extent that a small thing like this produces such suspicious responses.
Is anyone working on a network meeting? That seems like the best way to
build trust to me ...

mish