[Imc] Urgent Imc/Public i Issue

[Sascha Meinrath]

I think all the points Sandra has raised are important, and I also feel 
that this illustrates one of the major problems we are having in the Print 
Media group:

We held our weekly meeting and consensed around the idea of holding a print 
caucus focused on how to create a roll for the editors-at-large that both 
facilitated their own feelings of efficacy and addressed the concerns of 
many section editors and paper contributors surrounding the process of 
editing articles.  After the meeting we met briefly (as we decided to do in 
the meeting) and found a time when all the people who had expressed their 
desire to participate could meet.  When then discussed and agreed upon 
(again by consensus) where we should meet.

Many of the problems we have been having concern the idea of process and 
decision-making -- creating processes that are fair, inclusive, safe, and 
empowering; and abiding by decisions once we make them.  I think everyone 
at the Public i meetings are participating because we care deeply about the 
paper and about producing indymedia.

I also feel that one main goal of the print caucus meeting is to meet as a 
small group to create a proposal to be brought to the print group as a 
whole that addresses the concerns of Public i participants.  We did not 
desire to create a public forum and this is not a decision-making 
body.  This ad-hoc group was created because people want to work out our 
differences of opinion in a safe, more intimate group.

I understand that because Sandra was not at the Public i meeting she did 
not know about this, however, because this has been sent out to the main 
IMC list I feel that I needed to put out a reply.

--Sascha


At 08:06 AM 08/24/01 Friday, Sandra Ahten wrote:
>The caucus meeting on Monday seems very important. Slipping a little note 
>in minutes that says "around the role of editors" seems a little 
>underplayed.   This has to do with the whole operating structure of the 
>public i - which would also afftect every other thing including vision and 
>content.  It seems fairly significant.  Shouldn't we get a note out to the 
>IMC list announcing what exactly a caucus is and what in particular is 
>happening here. I understand there are some people not involved in "print" 
>exactly for the reason that they don't like the "role of editors"
>
>Then there is the problem of having a meeting in a bar.
>If you call the meeting at 6pm and say you are going to a bar at 6:10 ... 
>then people will need to order, etc.  There will be no meeting until at 
>least 6:30 probably 7pm.
>
>I have a problem with having a meeting in a bar anyway.  There are people 
>who will not go to/ do not feel comfortable in bars. It is NO place to 
>have a business meeting. It is not inclusive AND not condusive to a 
>productive meeting.
>
>  I have a plan I would like to present. I can be there at 6pm and stay 
> til 6:45 at which time I have to leave to teach class.  I am willing to 
> write my plan up in advance and have it posted.
>
>I propose a 6pm meeting time- promplty- at the IMC. I understand you 
>wanted to go to the Embassy so that people could eat.  I'll provide some 
>munchies. If you don't like that you can order a pizza.
>
>I would like to be first on the agenda- so i can present my plan clearly. 
>I think that anyone else who has some alternative ways to think about the 
>structure of the paper should try to have a clear plan down also.
>
>Any objections?
>Sandra

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/imc/attachments/20010824/5bf752f9/attachment.html>