[New-imc] [Imc-mayday-collective] Mayday IMC
radicale at riseup.net
Fri Apr 1 05:21:41 PDT 2011
Thank you Smush for responding so swiftly, and for clarifying Bart's
request for us.
I will arrange another Mayday collective IRC meeting or email list
discussion so we can respond collectively regarding your questions about
a.) the Mayday collective structure, b.) at which stage we are at in the
new IMC process, and c.) any other questions which may arise on the new
IMC list subsequently.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> Kia ora tatou,
> thank you Mayday collective - it was good to read your response to
> Bart's email.
> in terms of Bart's use of the word 'protocol': When Bart writes: "I
> triedto find protocols of Mayday meetings but could not find any" - i
> think he means 'minutes'. Correct me if i'm wrong here Bart!
> ('Protokoll' in german is 'minutes' in English).
> Bart, there are some minutes posted here
> of a Mayday meeting 27th March. They don't reveal a lot about the
> collective, given that they are quite brief etc. But they are minutes
> none the less.
> Bart, when you write about "the structure of the Mayday collective
> itself", could you maybe clarify what information you want from the
> group so that they can respond. Are you, for example, interested in if
> the makeup of the Mayday collective reflects the diversity of the
> local community (e.g. in realtion to gender-, sexual-, spiritual-,
> and/or cultural-identity)?
> i would like to know from both the Mayday collective and from the
> liaison (btm) where you think you are at in terms of the new-imc
> process. Have a look at https://docs.indymedia.org/Global/NewImcHowTo
> - - there are 8 steps/points before we get to an internal new-imc
> proposal (and pass if no-one blocks). i see some of you are getting
> frustrated on your email list about this new-imc process and obviously
> you seemed to have set yourselves a deadline to complete this task.
> But are you, in your respective views, satisfied that you have
> completed the first 8 steps?
> Thanks in advance for answering my question.
> in solidarity
> smush (imc aotearoa)
> On 2/04/2011 12:11 a.m., Radicale wrote:
>> Hello Bart,
>> To recap, in the email the Mayday collective sent dated 21st March
>> took steps to engage with you in a spirit of reconciliation by answering
>> your concerns, and invited you to raise any further concerns you had. We
>> anticipate that this was reassurance for you that the Mayday collective
>> fully trusts the new IMC working group. You replied stating your further
>> concerns regarding anti-abuse measures and the IMC UK fork
>> In your email dated the 30th March
>> stated that we had “rejected” your previous email; we understood this to
>> mean that we have not yet collectively responded to the email you sent
>> last week. We apologise for the delay in responding to your concerns,
>> however in the past week we have been pre-occupied with developing
>> outreach material which we distributed at the anti-cuts protest on the
>> 26th March, which was a mobilisation attended by over 500,000 people
>> right across the geographical area covered by mayday collective, and
>> an important opportunity. We also held a face-to-face Mayday collective
>> meeting on the 27th March where we discussed your email in detail and
>> the first draft of this response. We are sorry and will endeavour to
>> respond more promptly to your future emails, and we hope you are able to
>> offer the same assurances. We find it unfortunate that there is a
>> of activists involved in the new IMC working group, however we
>> that you are taking the time to look into our application in such
>> * Fork *
>> Regarding the planned dissolution of the UK network and the website
>> the Mayday collective has members actively involved in three local
>> collectives in addition to other volunteers who have contributed to IMC
>> over the years but are not affiliated with a local collective.
>> Furthermore, members from other local collectives with members not
>> directly involved in the May Day collective have pledged support outside
>> of the agreement at the UK network meeting in December 2010 in Bradford.
>> Mayday collective members have also collaborated in feature writing with
>> SchNEWS, (www.schnews.org.uk) a Brighton based activist news collective,
>> and Corporate Watch (www.corporatewatch.org.uk), a research group
>> supporting the campaigns which are increasingly successful in forcing
>> corporations to back down.
>> The other group involved in the fork has developed a website to
>> content, and includes members from four local collectives, in addition
>> other volunteers who have contributed to IMC UK over the years but are
>> affiliated with a local collective.
>> * Anti abuse measures *
>> On the 23rd March you stated:-
>>> I still have concerns that the issue of IP monitoring is resolved by
>>> collectives. I have asked a couple of questions concerning this topic
>>> the answers are in my opinion not satisfactory as they lack a
>>> on the trust that has been compromised by sentences like "In the early
>>> days of Indymedia UK, which recently celebrated it's 10th Birthday,
>>> admins believed that they would never be able to gain the trust of
>>> posters, if the range of anti-abuse measures were made public." 
>> On the 30th March we held a quickly planned IRC meeting to discuss your
>> requests, including anti-abuse measures on the Mir CMS. Here are the
>> reflections of some Mayday collective members which were found to be
>> common ground across the collective:-
>> “When I joined Indymedia, it was a long time before I discovered what
>> anti-abuse measures were for”.
>> “I did not understand the implications of the anti-abuse measures”.
>> “The anti-abuse measures and the unspoken policy of secrecy pre-dated my
>> Since the beginning of the Indymedia UK network, many local collectives
>> across the UK have shared a CMS, the current CMS being Mir. The decision
>> to implement anti-abuse measures on the Mir CMS, allow usage of those
>> anti-abuse measures, and to not inform the end users of those
>> was not a decision taken by members of the Mayday collective. Upon
>> becoming a member of a collective and gaining admin to a CMS, members
>> expected to respect the status quo of the UK network, and any changes to
>> that status quo require a consensus to be sought. Members of the Mayday
>> collective had raised concerns about the secrecy, firstly at the UK
>> network meeting in Nottingham in 2008, and most recently in proposing a
>> feature to make the anti-abuse measures public in 2010, unfortunately
>> consensus was not reached on either occasion. Ultimately, we would like
>> you to appreciate that members of the Mayday collective should not be
>> responsible for the creation of a scenario pre-dating their involvement,
>> especially given that some of their members proposed full transparency.
>> On the 30th March you stated:-
>>> "I want to know what has been logged on the site that you want to
>>> with, what has been done with the data..”
>> The anti-abuse measures when switched on record the IP addresses and
>> agents of the most recent posts in volatile memory, but are not written
>> disk. When switched off the data is lost permanently. This feature has
>> historically been used when the website is under attack. Mir allows
>> filters to be configured to automatically either hide or flag posts
>> originating from particular IP addresses and user agents. These have
>> used to block or flag users who have been discovered to persistently
>> the website.
>> * Structure of the Mayday collective *
>> On the 30th March you stated:-
>>> Another issue is the structure of the Mayday collective itself. I tried
>>> to find protocols of Mayday meetings but could not find any. I don't
>>> how the collective is organised, I don't know how it works.
>> The Mayday collective has regular IRC meetings and has face to face
>> meetings every three months. These are organised on the publicly
>> accessible imc-mayday-collective list and in IRC. At the beginning of
>> meetings we create an agenda, and during meetings we have discussions on
>> each topic and use consensus decision making. Minutes are posted to the
>> publicly accessible imc-may-day-collective list. If you require any
>> further information regarding our organisation and structure it would be
>> helpful if you could assist us, for example providing us with links to
>> documented protocols drafted by other Indymedia collectives.
>> * Next stage *
>> We are willing to provide you with any answers and information you
>> relating to our new IMC process, and will endeavour to do so promptly.
>> hope that you are also able to engage with us promptly to improve our
>> application, in which case we are confident that we can work together to
>> achieve new IMC status before the 1st May 2011. We once again request
>> support in assisting us with any challenges we face in improving our new
>> IMC application.
>> In solidarity,
>> Mayday Collective
>> New-imc mailing list. Lista de correo New-imc
>> New-imc at lists.indymedia.org
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Imc-mayday-collective mailing list
> Imc-mayday-collective at lists.indymedia.org
More information about the New-imc