[Imc] IMC Organization -- continued discussion

[Paul Kotheimer]

hi all

i'm finding myself at a loss for the text of Paul R's proposal.  is it
on the bulletin board at the IMC, and i just can't find it, or what?

in lieu of that, i wanted to state for the record:

+++++++++++++++++++STRATEGIES AND PRINCIPLES++++++++++++++++

**My strategy last Sunday was to ask tough, fundamental questions, so as 
to illicit concerns.  I haven't really voiced any concerns which I
personally hold...YET.


>>now, though, THE FOLLOWING TWO PRINCIPLES 
MIGHT CONSTITUTE "CONCERNS ABOUT THE PROPOSAL"

**I want to point out that good, composed, consensus decisions, made with
certainty, take TIME and DELIBERATION; and also, that we ARE this
organization, and should not create decision-making deadlines we don't
need.


**What I've begun to learn by studying consensus under the expert
practitioners in this group--kudos to you all--is that consensus is both
DISCOVERED and BUILT.  Also, to reiterate something I said on Sunday, I
assert that, without coercion [which we KNOW we DON'T want], consensus is
REAL: that is to say, that individual participants have the choice and the
power to support or to oppose any decision by means of the committment or
refusal of their donated time, resources, and funding.  

and since we need every drop of energy, every minute of spare time, and
every nickel this community has to committ to our cause, we CANNOT afford
to lose supporters by alienating their voices, their concerns, their
desires.

*********************************

WITH THIS IN MIND, but [unfortunately] without the text of last Sunday's
proposal in front of me, I want to propose a couple of revisions or
re-envisionings:

[THE FOLLOWING THREE SECTIONS (labeled "++")
CONSTITUTE PROPOSALS TO OUR CONSENSUS GROUP:]

++I. That the labels and ovals on the "Boolean Chart" which depicts our
structure be modified some: 
	1. To include "THE COMMUNITY we serve."  
	2. To rename the "Steering Committe."  I propose "CONSENSUS
		BUILDING TEAM"  
	3. To show that the "Working Groups" are interconnected
		and that the "CONSENSUS BUILDING TEAM" includes more that
		just a sliver of each "Working Group."  

[i assert, by the way, that these renamings are re-diagrammings are not
just cosmetic.  they express the PRINCIPLES of which i hope we are all
thinking.]

++II.  That each working group be given AUTONOMY as to how it decides how
to send an "empowered spoke[-sperson]" to the Consensus Building Team.  
It seems like right now, we have a "federalist" structure, whereby the
terms of that committment are unified and centralized.  i'd rather see a
"States' Rights" kind of structure, whereby each working group can decide
who its "empowered spoke" will be, on its own terms.

++III. That the clause which gives the "Steering Committee" the option to
make decisions, under such-and-such circumstances, on a "CLOSED CONSENSUS"
basis, with a three-meeting deadline, etc., be either STRUCK or else
CHARACTERIZED as an admission of defeat.  This proposal grows out of my
PRINCIPLE that the "steering committee" is better conceived of as a
"CONSENSUS BUILDING TEAM."  if the job of these Consensus Builders is to
discover what we all agree on and BUILD consensus by that discovery
process, then using this "SPECIAL POWER" to cobble together an "INSIDERS'
CONSENSUS" constitutes a failure of broader consensus.

[this is a little vague, but i hope my point is coming across...  if
someone sees my point, and can help me reword this proposal, i'd
appreciate it wholeheartedly.]

**********

finally, just to get back to PRINCIPLES, i want to stress that i consider
it a principle that "BECAUSE WE'RE SICK OF TALKING ABOUT THIS AND WE NEED
TO MOVE ON" is absolutely **NOT** a viable reason to try and make a
decision or "force" consensus by means of a deadline.  "Forced consensus"
is the vilest oxymoronic LIE i can think of--upon which are founded the
very oppressions we are (i hope) fighting--and i will never participate in
a group where "forced consensus" tries to exist.

on the other hand, now that i've said my piece to the group, i vow to keep
more quiet at the "CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION" this Sunday, hoping that
this e-mail speaks for itself--and to the best of my ability, for us.


thanks for making independent media happen, and thanks especially to
Ellen K. and Paul R. for thinking so long and hard about the issue of our 
self-structuring--i hope it doesn't seem like i'm tossing Molotov
cocktails at your work!  i swear, that's not what i intend. 

hey IMC-stas, y'all make life in Urbana worth living!!

paulkotheimer:)




On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Paul Riismandel wrote:

> At last Sunday's meeting we began discussions on how to organize the IMC 
> using the proposal that Ellen and I wrote as a starting point.  We made no 
> decisions at the meeting, and one reason was because not all the "core 
> group" were there and we would like the discussion to be as broad as 
> possible.  Also, last week was a busy one, and therefore not everyone had 
> the time to adequately read and review the proposal which was sent out the 
> middle of last week.
> 
> Therefore we decided to take up discussion again at Sunday's meeting, under 
> Peter's facilitation.  Please take this time to read over the proposal--if 
> you haven't already--or re-read it if you have already.
> 
> I sent the proposal as an attachment to the list last week, and it is 
> posted to the following website: http://www.mediageek.org/imc/proposal.html
>   If you'd like to be sent another copy, please e-mail me.
> 
> If you have additions, changes or deletions you would like to suggest, 
> please send them to me via e-mail by Friday and I will try to integrate 
> these suggestions for Sunday, helping to streamline our discussion.
> 
> A core thing we want to try and decide soon is what form the Sunday meeting 
> and the core group that meets then will take.  Our proposal suggests that 
> this become a "Steering Group" meeting taking care of decisions that are 
> larger than any given working group.  It would be good if we could come to 
> a collective agreement on accepting this proposal, with any consensus changes.
> 
> Molly suggested that it would be helpful if each of us think about what we 
> want to do at these Sunday group meetings.  If you have ideas, please send 
> them to her this week, so that she can compile them for Sunday.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Imc mailing list
> Imc at lists.groogroo.com
> http://lists.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc
> 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
THE HAND-MADE RECORD LABEL
www.handmaderecords.com

c/o the School for Designing a Society
409 North Race Street
Urbana, IL 61801
217 384 0299 phone (no fax)