[Imc-uk-process] Mediation Proposal

[Mr. Demeanour]

On 25/04/2011 11:42, JimDog wrote:
>
> It's worth pointing out a paradox that exists, as it will be
> relevant to mediation efforts. In order for the mayday group to pass
> new imc, they must demonstrate that they agree to abide by the POU.
> This explicitly states that the group must work within a model of
> consensus based decision making.

...and that is in fact how we work.
>
> If the agreement made in Bradford is not enacted, this essentially
> would leave the group in breach of the POU, meaning that their new
> imc application could never be successful, and that they would never
> be able to get the indymedia.org address they are holding out for.

This assumes many things:

1. That the process in Bradford was consistent with true consensus.
2. That a breach of the POU would invalidate forever a new-imc
    application.
3. That the issue is a domain.

Before the Bradford meeting, *nobody* knew that the meeting would face a
demand for the UK network to be dissolved. This was sprung at Bradford
at about 5pm, AFAICT. Had this been on the draft agenda, no doubt groups
like Oxford (who stand to lose their voice in Indymedia as a consequence
of the split) would have had more to say about this, and might have sent
a delegate.

The decision should have been sent to local UK groups to be ratified.

(Please note that I'm *not* speaking for Oxford; I'm speaking for myself).
>
> In any case, it would also mean abandoning the agreement that all
> the affiliated UK imc's made to not block the mayday application.

This is a hard-line posture. "Either comply with the agreement as
minuted, or face our wrath". Right? There's no room to work anything
out? OK, that's what I thought.

I would like to see this fork work. I thought you (or some of you, at
least) wanted it to work too, and also wanted to avoid this business
being taken to global process.

I don't believe that global process can resolve these difficulties. I
don't expect them to act at all, either in your favour or in ours, this
side of 2020, if it's obvious there's a dispute. And it *is* obvious.

> I understand that this has been interpreted by some as an agreement
> to vocalise active support, and by others (including myself) to
> maintain a respectful silence.

Well I interpreted the Bradford agreement to mean that all of us would
do whatever was necessary to make the fork work. It was obvious that the
agreement was full of holes; it couldn't be made to work without active
commitment during the transition period.

So now we have Mara whingeing about how volunteer's time is being wasted
on email exchanges. Excuse moi? We in Mayday are totally run off our
feet, dealing with challenges from individuals who are demanding
consensus responses. It's *our* time that is being wasted - we are
having to meet in IRC at least twice a week, just to keep up with this
shit. But you guys casually make statements of the form "we think"
without bothering to actually have a meeting. No good.

> The application itself is not currently at the stage where this could
> happen anyway, the imc-process stage is where this (collective
> letters of support) could potentially happen. If the agreement, the
> decision we all made, is broken by the mayday group, where does that
> leave the peripheral decisions such as this one?

You mean the domain? I think that's peripheral. I think the server we
currently share is much more central (yeah, I know, even "share" is a
relative term - you have root, we just rely on it).
>
> It is true that I am on the new imc list, and I am keeping my
> silence on there as I believe this to be the best thing I can do to
> give the best chance of success. I don't believe that anyone would
> have seriously expected me to be singing the praises of the group,

No.

> or defending it from difficult questions that I would have liked to
> ask myself if I had chance.

No. But presumably you are capable of acting as an impartial arbiter,
and setting your own opinions aside while you do a job? If not, you had
no business joining that WG.

Can you please say whether you've discussed the mayday application with
the linksunten representative on new-imc?

> Therefore silence is the most helpful thing I can offer, and have
> been doing so.

OK, and here you are being silent, I guess. TBH I think we (Mayday) are
better-served by you piping up - you've never seemed anything but
prejudiced against us, which can only help our case.

> I don't believe that this is a desirable scenario for anybody and so
> I hope people give proper time and energy to pursuing the mediation
> route offered by Slacker in good faith.

This is the Slacker who has been collaborating on the aggromedia site
development? He's supposed to be an impartial mediator? That case
remains to be made.

-- 
MrD.