Original email post

[Imc-lwg-work] Re: [Imc-lwg-general] user-friendly interface iNTERFACEv1.03
toni -- tony at irational.org
Mon, 14 Jan 2002 07:03:45 +0000 (GMT)

    * Previous message: [Imc-lwg-work] site design > css > compatibility
    * Next message: [Imc-lwg-work] [design] features idea + email practice
    * Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i post this reply deliberately here 
instead of the general list .... since it's
an idea ... something to work on ...

On Sun, 13 Jan 2002, Richard Malter wrote:
> I've put this up on
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-london-wg-general
> as a temporary explanation.
> 
> iNTERFACEv1.03.txt
> 
>               HOW TO GET INVOLVED IN IMC-LONDON-WORKING GROUP (WG)!
>              a user-friendly interface to the group's [link] Constitution :-)
>              ************************************************************

i feel that people should be able to collaborate
closely with imc-lwg with very formalised relationship,
yet under their own conditions. i.e. to collaborate without 
asking people to accept our constitution or go away, but with asking
them to provide an alternative to which they will subscribe to.

basically ... this would practically mean, that i would like to
add, at the bottom of our public interface, something like:

"If you are unhappy with above procedures and our constitution,
write your own one, or take ours as a starting point, and
change it so that it suits you. Just don't ask us to do work
while hanging in limbo. If you dislike it, rewrite it."

the idea is to discourage deadly liberal stance of false individual
freedoms - one that leads to hidden powers, agendas, and structures.
(here i say 'deadly' since it erodes potential for more developed social
structures by offering freedoms that i claim are 'false' - they disguise,
not reveal, they bring more sadness to people through unjust relations
that emerge under them. am i being any clear at all?)

and to encourage creation of structures and working practices,        
instead of only dictating our predetermined ones.

of course, ours are there to be judged
and accepted, or, equally, rejected.

i would like to make rejection equally acceptable solution
for those who wish to work under their own terms.
to encourage them to create those terms is for me as good,
if not much more valid(interesting) path.

actually, by reserving the right for anyone to
start their own working group, we are already
fully accepting the rejection of our way of doing it.

all i'm saying is to state it clearly at the end of our intro,
so that one that doesn't get convinced about our way
does get encouraged to get involved anyway,
and that one gets assured 
that we are happy for our documents to be hacked 
if that's what one preffers.

hence, my proposal.

later,

toni

ps. in this light, we could add the sub-title to
the constitution: "If you dislike it, rewrite it!"

-- ToniPrug - 15 Feb 2004
to top