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

[Chris Ritzo]

I'd like it known that I came forward to suggest working on the 
production workstation, and the production room, to make good on a 
commitment I made in the tech group meeting a couple months ago to work 
on the production workstation since Dan and Josh's duties have piled 
up.  Tommy, Dan and others in the shows and tech groups have spearheaded 
this long before me, so I'm glad you guys spoke up.  My suggestion to 
move things in or out of that space was to make room in there to work on 
this project.

I've only been involved as a volunteer and IMC member for 6-8 months, 
but one thing I've learned is that no single person makes decisions 
about the space. And just because a group is inactive doesn't negate its 
existence or mean that it's been made up. This is a democratically run 
organization after all, and we need to come to consensus.

Before I joined the tech group last fall it was Dan and Josh. If 
requests seem to be taking time, consider that we're all volunteers here 
and for active members how quickly tasks/requests can pile up. 

I'm not saying this to back out of helping on this project, or to 
counter your concerns Andrew, but to ask that you give the process a 
chance and bring the concerns to the appropriate groups to start the 
discussion.  Dan's suggestion of reviving the production group is the 
right way to go, and all the interested members from other groups should 
join the list and make the Wed. meeting.  We all believe in the mission 
of the IMC enough to donate our time, money, and creativity, and in that 
sense we're all on the same side of this.

Hope to see you Wednesday.

-Chris

Andrew Ó Baoill wrote:
> 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