[Imc-production] Re: [UCIMC-Tech] production room cleanup > Re: RFU Public Files

[Andrew Ó Baoill]

Tommy (et al),

As your later mail (different thread) makes clear, there really isn't  
a production group at the moment - you don't even view yourself as a  
member of that 'group' - so your argument seems a bit contorted.

My understanding of the position to date is that the WRFU on-air  
studio, for obvious reasons, is exclusively WRFU space, and we  
contribute monthly to the central fund in recognition of that fact.  
The production room has been viewed as a space where multiple groups  
- the now dormant/dead video group, WRFU, possibly in the future a  
'production group' - along with individual IMC members would be able  
to do audio and video editing.

I would note that I have repeatedly emailed several people - Dan,  
Tommy, etc - asking whether there was a group or individual  
coordinating the production room project, and until this weekend  
received no responses. There was no pathway for me to get involved  
with the project. If you can truly say with a straight face that "no  
one except maybe Dan is officially "in" the production group" -  
notwithstanding Dan's later objection - then what is *your* position,  
as the person ordering the WRFU stuff out of the space, if you claim  
not to be a member of the group that seemingly has 'ownership' and  
control of the space? In what way can the 'production group' be  
consistent with the IMC's mission if the group's existence is not  
mentioned on the IMC site, if the group doesn't meet, and its own  
mailing list description doesn't mention that there's a group to go  
with the administrative list? The production group is a figment -  
perhaps a desirable figment, but at present a figment - and we should  
be wary of reifying such entities at the expense of accessibility and  
transparency.

I'm happy and appreciative that some individuals have come forward to  
work on the important project of putting the production room in some  
sort of order - and whether that's under the cloak of tech, or WRFU,  
or 'the production group' doesn't matter. What does matter is that  
the mission of the IMC - indeed the health of our collective  
organization relies on being open to involvement, and taking the  
concerns of all interested parties (including WRFU and its long- 
standing practices and needs) into account into decisions that are  
made, not declaring decisions by fiat or lecturing us on our supposed  
failings.

This is a snippy email, and for good reason. WRFU is a long  
established IMC working group, and we have a long-established  
agreement that certain off-air operations are housed outside our  
studio. I've put effort into getting engaged with this discussion *in  
order* to productively engage with others, to have WRFU become  
involved in management of and caring for what I took to be part of  
our shared space, and to seek out solutions by discussion. Mails like  
the one below (and others in these threads) are the email equivalent  
of pissing on the wall to point out to others we're not welcome and  
should go elsewhere.

I've copied this mail to the general IMC and WRFU lists, because I  
think the issues at play are important to the station and the broader  
IMC community.

Andrew

On Apr 21, 2008, at 3:06 PM, Tommy Griscom wrote:

> Why should we give access to the production room to people outside  
> of the production group without explicit permission from someone  
> within the group? If the room is the production group's room, and  
> it contains the production group's equipment, then it should be  
> managed by the production group, and any other access to it should  
> be approved by the production group. There should not be anything  
> in that room that is from another group, because it doesn't belong  
> there. That's why the WRFU stuff needs to go elsewhere. It is  
> strictly NOT WRFU space. I don't mean to be harsh, but this is the  
> reality of the situation.
>
> -t