Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Brian wrote:gnome wrote:Quote:Statement from V Maratty re EC Motion 9 2016 May EC
It is vital that this statement finds its way to individual EC members in some way, shape or form, because, without going into any specific detail for much the same reasons the EC minutes were deliberately vague in some respects, it is quite apparent that due to most EC members' reluctance to visit the forum, confirmed by the absence of any contribution from them towards this thread in the eight weeks it had been running prior to the May EC meeting, they are inescapably and understandably labouring under certain misapprehensions. They need bona fide, unbiased information. Fast.
Your call for urgency is unfounded. This statement will go to all EC members throught the usual channels and procedures for discussion at the EC table.
BrianCan I go back to the question i asked yesterday. You state that the statement will go to the EC memebers "through the ususal channels", yet in other parts of this thread I read that the EC did not have knowledge of the develoment of the video by Vin, because Vin did not approach the EC but rather explained his progress through the forum. It seems very odd to me that a statement on the video made on this forum by Vin "will go to all EC members through the ususal channels and procedures for discussion at the EC table" yet information about the development of his video, posted in good faith on this forum, which had responses from members of the IC amongst others did not "go to all EC members through the usual channels and procedures". I would be grateful if you could specify exactly what usual "procedures" there are to ensure that EC members are made aware of statements made on this forum. If there are not any procedures then it would seem that information from this "gossip chat room" is passed on to the EC in an ad hoc and filtered manner.
Brian wrote:gnome wrote:Quote:Statement from V Maratty re EC Motion 9 2016 May ECIt is vital that this statement finds its way to individual EC members in some way, shape or form, because, without going into any specific detail for much the same reasons the EC minutes were deliberately vague in some respects, it is quite apparent that due to most EC members' reluctance to visit the forum, confirmed by the absence of any contribution from them towards this thread in the eight weeks it had been running prior to the May EC meeting, they are inescapably and understandably labouring under certain misapprehensions. They need bona fide, unbiased information. Fast.
Your call for urgency is unfounded. This statement will go to all EC members throught the usual channels and procedures for discussion at the EC table.
Hi Brianif this forum is a "gossip chat room" can you explain EXPLICITLY what the "usual channels" are that this information will travel through to get to the EC. If we have some idea what these "usual channels" are then perhaps we can arrange for some dredgers to clear the channels, as they do not appear to be flowing particularly effectively at the moment. Yours for informed democracyTim
come the revolution comrade, no need for barricades, they can use me (not that there will be barricades anyway)
robbo203 wrote:Tim Kilgallon wrote:Clearly the second ice cream you eat yields less utility or use value/pleasure than the first and third even less than the second , I would dispute this statement!Why Tim? I don't think its an unreasonable gneralisation. I mean there are exceptions to the law of diminishing marginal returns but by and large it holds true, I think. If you continue to eat ice cream after ice cream I guarantee your desire for ice cream will diminish to zero soon or later. Unless you have an infinite capacity to eat ice cream!
I am a very greedy man, nowadays, I am also a very fat man
Exactly, how could you assess the subjective value of beer. Is it the eighth pint that gets me drunk or the seven I had before the eighth pint. Which has the greater utility.
Clearly the second ice cream you eat yields less utility or use value/pleasure than the first and third even less than the second , I would dispute this statement!
It strikes me that the issue is complex and multi-facetted. We cannot ignore the fact that the internet and its flexibility offer us the chance to speed up and truly democratise the party decision making forum. he rule book, in my opinion, does not currently reflect the world as it is now, but rather a world of twenty years ago. For instance rule 17 which states “The Executive Committee shall publish and control the Party literature. Election Statements and Election Manifestos must be approved by the Executive Committee before printing excepting handbills and leaflets. They shall establish a literature agency, from which all Branches shall be supplied,” is a rule which was fine when the majority of non face to face propaganda was done in print. We now have the situation where it seems some of the EC are suggesting that twitter, which by its very nature is instantaneous, should be administered through rule 17, similarly videos, audio material, etc., etc. The rule actually states literature, which begs the question what is literature. Are my current musings, published on the party forum covered by Rule 17. What now constitutes publishing? Does Facebook, blogging,, etc. constitute publishing, or would it be does it fall into the same category as public speaking, we have tests for party speakers who might reach an audience of 100 (God loves an optimist!) where as electronic communication can reach 1,000s even 1,000,000.Similarly rule 7. “The Branch shall be the unit of organisation.” This rule reflected the only feasible way of organising democratically in 1904; this is no longer the case. We now have options, could it be that the branch is way we group for propaganda and local debate, the way we organise interplay with the democratic organs of the party could very easily be different. The way we organise internal democracy could also be very different. It would be very easy to broadcast EC meetings with members able to observe all decision making processes. These could be recorded and made available an archive. Minutes would probably be needed to provide succinct summary of the decision making processes, however their veracity would be far more testable if this was the case. Similarly conference and or ADM could be available to view as it happens, which might improve the quality of debate, and the party members involved it he decision making could be better informed about the issues at stake. We also have to be aware, however that not all members are computer literate or would choose to participate in this way, we must, in my view, consider their needs and preferences as well.The argument that the EC, those on committees and those geographically/socially close enough to Clapham High Street could be considered an informed decision making elite, whilst other members who do not have this level of access are uninformed and as a result disenfranchised, is a powerful one. The issue of the WSP (I) and other decisions made by the EC recently add to my concerns that this may be the case. There have been several instances in my time in the party where certain issues are known and disclosed to a certain few members of the party, usually for non-malign reasons, however the possibility of this being used in a malign way should never be dismissed and any opportunity for widening member activity and participation should, in my opinion, be embraced, tested out and where feasible be implemented.
DJP wrote:ALB wrote:That shows that some people for whom English is only their second language have a wider vocabularly than some native English-speakers ! I'd too hadn't seen it used before but it's obvious what it means but then I had to study Latin in school. If it's not obvious see here for instance:http://www.thefreedictionary.com/veridicalMight be a parliamentary way of accusing someone of not telling the truth.I'd only seen the term through studying philosophy of perception and Jon Searle's version of direct realism. A veridical experience is the opposite of hallucinatory one i.e a veridical experience is related to an actual state of the world but a hallucination is not…
All well and good, but how do you know which one is which. Are those 24 foot high slugs at the bottom of my garden dancing a polka veridical or hallucinatory. Or more controversially do the EC view the rule book as a veridical reality or merely a transient hallucination?
By the way Matt have you ever had a conductive hearing test, I suffered from deafnees for years until a audiologist discovered I had otosclerosis, I had a stapedotemy in my right ear 3 years ago and the hearing in that ear has gone from 10% to 98%. Worth getting it tested
MattBeing deaf myself I do understand some of the drawbacks of the pub, I suppose I just like boozers, pretty keen on booze as well!!!
Tim Kilgallon wrote:moderator1 wrote:Tim Kilgallon wrote:thanks for the description.It may be my personal take, but I struggle to think of a more hideous and alienating way to spend an evening than being miked up to a system like that. I know it's probably the way forward but meeting up in a boozer for a bit of craic seems so much more human to me.Tim with the position NERB are in you can't have it both ways. The branch have always struggled to organise a face-to-face meeting
sadly Brian this is the story of my life, I do want things both ways, i also want to have cake and eat it and I also fervently believe that life SHOULD be all beer and skittles.Just to be accurate the branch hasn't always struggled to organise meetings, there was a time when the branch was very active and had very well attended meetings, I am of the opinion that we could get back to that situation.YFSTim
moderator1 wrote:Tim Kilgallon wrote:thanks for the description.It may be my personal take, but I struggle to think of a more hideous and alienating way to spend an evening than being miked up to a system like that. I know it's probably the way forward but meeting up in a boozer for a bit of craic seems so much more human to me.Tim with the position NERB are in you can't have it both ways. The branch have always struggled to organise a face-to-face meeting
sadly Brian this is the story of my life, I do want things both ways, i aslo want to have cake and eat it and I also fervently believe that life SHOULD be all beer and skittles.Just to be accurate the branch hasn't always struggled to organise meetings, there was a time when the branch was very active and had very well attended meetings, I am of the opinion that we could get back to that situation.YFSTim
moderator1 wrote:Matt wrote:A couple of comrades could do what Edinburgh members sometimes do and experiment with different messaging platforms. We tried out Google Talk a couple of times. The drawback was one, I think Tim has mentioned, getting us all available at one time. We also have a member overseas who is out of our timezone.The teamspeak link is below. I don't know if this is free.https://www.teamspeak.com/downloadsThanks for that Matt and yes Teamspeak (TSM) is free to the public only cooperations pay a fee. To elaborate on the features available on TSM, they include: Voice and chat; chair can bar an individual user; chat can take place directly to all users or between individual users; chair can create a queue; whilst an individual user has the floor the chair can bar all other users from disrupting; chair can open up all conversation to the floor; flagging on disruptive behaviour in the chat; agenda can be posted weeks before meeting and added as required; visitors can attend and listen to the contributions but require permission to speak from the chair; visitors can use the chat feature; chair can place a user in the sin bin; separate discussions can take place in a side room; a recording can be made of all conversations – voice and chat – and stored on google drive so that further conversations can take place if deemed necessary.All that is required is headphones and mic (cost approx £12.00 from Asda).What more do anybody want to hold an online meeting? Why the party is not using TSM more often beats me.
thanks for the description.It may be my personal take, but I struggle to think of a more hideous and alienating way to spend an evening than being miked up to a system like that. I know it's probably the way forward but meeting up in a boozer for a bit of craic seems so much more human to me.
Hi Mod 1I for one have no idea what teamspeak is or for that matter what TZM is. This is also part of the difficulty, that some members are more IT literate than others. Some members do not have the skills necessary to participate in non traditional formats and I worry that we may be excluding them in our rush to find solutions.
Young Master Smeet wrote:jondwhite wrote:If you've corresponded with someone by letter or e-mail, then would you say you had 'met' them? Probably not, hence why taking a meeting to mean a meeting in real-time only would solve all of the problems of quorum, electing, seconding and voting in non-temporal "meetings".The word 'meting' is a red herring, it is about communicating to achieve group decisions. But a correspondence meeting is just as plausible as a correspondence game of chess.
I disagree that the word meeting is a red herring, meetings are about more than achieveing group decisions, its about the process of discussion and the development of understandings whicih then inform the decisions. I think part of the difficulty is that communication and therefore the transfer of meaning and understanding is different in the written form that it is in the direct personal form. In the written form there are many nuances, meanings and intentions that are missed out on. I would say that online meetings do need to be available and we need to develop a better way of holding them, however face to face meetings are far more effective, less time consuing and achieve better consensus than using any type of written form.As hinted at in the thread, part of the difficulty also arises from the order in which contributions are made. in a personal meeting the chair can invite speakers and note requests to speak so that the contributions develop logically. In pn line meetings there is no such structure, terefore conversations may move out of synchronisation and what tends to happen is that longer more in depth contributions, that may take time to compose, are often superceded by shorter more pithy comments, which may be more prolific but are often less useful
