Alfredo, Jamie, Ross, Abi, mv, Enrique, Mallory


Report backs LC meeting report back

Support Team jm: the tech transition is complete and contract is complete and the cost went up dramatically,

our second colo telehouse sent a new contract by oct 27th only a 5% increase to be sent to the LC and support team, appreciate any feedback

Nothing else to add

erq: how do we move forward? we have until the 27th

jm: signed contract by oct 27th.

erq: Is there an evalatuation that the support team needs to do? I think you have insisted on getting feedback from the support team, perhap

jm: would ask for a volunteer to evaluate?

erq: perhaps abi would be interested in participating in this review? From a legal perspective there might be a lot to look at, i would think

abi: sure, this has to be done by they 27th, i might have time, i could give a brief look tomorrow, but i do not have a ton of time. If you send it i can read it at least.

erq: i wonder if it would be a good to have a call with people from the support team or the LC members a brief call perhaps with 1 hour discuss and feedback.

jm: I am not sure it would be productive, I think having 1 other person review it would be helpful, but i think we should hold open the option, perhaps I should make a request to extend it beyond the 27th.

erq: we expect abi's feedback, is there anything else to address on this need?

erq: jamie sent the notes from the LC meeting that happened yesterday, and there you could find we focused on the recent problem that was between hilary and alfredo. We have been having an interchange of emails after that, there were several topics at the end. The meeting was focused on the situation for the whole organization, we also discussed different issues, different structural problems. We were able to hear different voices with critical perspectives. I would like to ask if people that were not present were able to read the notes.

jm: might we want to do the reports from the other team.

erq: sorry i forgot, shall we move on to the admin team?

jm: I am on admin and nothing to report

erq: what about outreach?

alfredo: the only thing we have is in the middle of net neutrality nationwide, we are involved in an action at the brooklyn public library, that i sent an email out to everyone. It is something we are definitely involved in, We are not going to the facing race conference. We will be there at the action on monday.

erq: alfredo how do we participate in this net nuetrality campaign

alfredo: there actions across the country across country. We are involved in the brooklyn one cause that is where we are participating, We are participating through magnet. It was hastily called together. I sent this email out. I will send copies to the LC and coordinators list.

erq: any comments? questions? what about the membership working group?

mv: membership working group has not met so nothing to report

erq: internationalization report?

mallory: I spent part of yesterday in the offices in alternative, they are involved in the world social forum. I think i sent a report about that. they are heavily involved. kind of last cry, it doesn't matter that the IC in ottawa, the shooting in ottawa ensures no visas. As for the social forum meeting next week, we are not going. Forum for march will be scaled back if we are not there. I have information to pass to others to support the project, basically the idea was that the IC itself would do something to organize sessions to talk about the state of the world, a big part would be about snowden and mass surveillance and in conjunction to have essays to be submitted to publish books with anthologies of the social forum....something like the world social forum in the age of austerity, cause budgets have been cut making it difficult. We cannot do much without being there but I will try to participate via skype. I will try to work that out to follow along with the meeting.

erq: are there any comments? I want to add to the report, as mfpl we participated in the 2nd gathering of free software contribution to the left struggles, which happened the previous week in 3 locations, We had several members there in all 3 locations. we are working on systematizing the work that was done, I will send report when it is done. All 3 locations agree on sending a public statement in solidarity with the students killed and dissappeared from the 26th of sept. 43 students dissappeared at the hand of state agents, and others were tortured and killed. That is an expression of terror from the state. Those students came from a revolutionary organization, with lots of years of history in mexico. The 3 locations sent this statement in solidarity.

abi: my experience was really good, met some great people and it was very international. I think enrique did a great job organizing it. The interpretation was done really well, but only a tech issue on the 3rd that lost the connection. I think it was very successfull

erq: any other comments?

jm: congrats, sounds like an amazing event. I also want to give a comment to mallory for hanging on to the world social forum to keep that connection alive.

erq: I think we do not have pablo, well I will say that the report from the MX coop, we are working on the systematization of the first workshop you had to identify certain strategies and skills with the organizations that are the core of the coop. The first workshop was to ID strategic projects that these organizations are developing to help them create their own messages and media, we are planning to have the second workshop early next month. we will be reporting on how we manage to create the common agenda that will bring people from these organizations to have discussions on specific topics and technology in a way that the support team members can contribute to those strategies, besides regular work that is going on. any comments?

erq: LC meeting yesterday was quite important, with most of our LC participating,....listed those attending and providing interpretation. We had Rob as facilitator. I would like ask if there are comments from the meeting,Jamie sent a report early today and I believe all the people on this call took part of this meeting, except for ross, I hope ross was able to read the notes.

ross: was there but with mic issues.

erq: good to know that you were there, the door is open. I would like to ask if you feel the meeting, is a step forward, it contributes to finding solutions at the different levels that we have ID'd, what do you think? or perhaps it is not enough?

jm: I think we have 2 tasks as the coordinators, 1 is to pick a group or person to organize the mediation and the 2nd is to plan the face to face meeting.

erq: I think those that remain silent about this is also meaningful. Lets move then to the group that will organize the mediation, i think hilary sent a recent message related to this, how do you envision this group to be?

jm: I honestly am not sure, I think we need to pick few people to follow on the case that has been opened with the nycpeace, i do not think it should be the parties invovled in the dispute, rob robison came up, I am not sure where to go with that. I am open to ideas that people have.

erq: I think juan <garbled> ... several of our companeros expressed in a way that there is a sense that this could be addressed to also consider the labor perspective. I think it is important that juange mentioned that that (worker) perspective should have enough room to be discussed that those that share this feeling with the relation to the people that work with a payment involved as a labor contribution, different than the volunteer one, They should express their perspective with sufficient room for everyone to evaluate. I think the organizing group of this mediation should include, i will propose mv, or ross or both with more people of course, in order to be sure that from the start it includes that perspective...what do you guys think?

jm: I think there are 2 groupings of people and that group should not be involved in the dispute, I think we should pick people that are not involved in the dispute

erq: that takes us to clearly ID who is considered to be part of the dispute, in order to ID who could play a nuetral role. Will that make sense?

mallory: I think there are 2, if were to take 5 sec. to draw a plan, there are 2 phases, because of the request of mediation between hilary and alfredo and the 2nd phase is wider, organizational wide, it seems there is another step, I think we need small mediation between 2 people and a smaller set of the larger group for mediation and then a larger issue of the LC body. I think we need to ID who are in the 2nd group. I think if it is the 2 then we have one now and one for the face to face meeting.

erq: other comments?

abi: is hilary on this call or no?

ross: no

erq: no she is not, I think I agree with mallory as I understood, we can think on the mediation process as 2 different stages, I think there is a need for finding solutions and negotiation among alfredo and hilary. I think that is the first phase. the 2nd one could involve the people that are contributing labor and jamie and whomever and who all that consider who needs to be there. That is different than the organizing of the LC meeting. All the mediation processes would impact. <garbled>

connection issues [missed notes?]

erq: ...2 different proposals 1 for mediation with hilary and if successfull will impact the 2nd stage, if there are more participants people to consider to be staff in the 2nd in stage, I also think jamie should participate in that stage. Besides all the people that should be included also. I asked what do you think of this design, considering 2 different stages of mediation?

jm: if it is ok with hilary and alfredo it is ok with me

mallory: I think it would be a good idea for a proposal. We could all comment on it. just to get things moving paused cause of disconnect continued on 10/24/2014

erq: yesterday we started to discuss the design of the mediation, there was a proposal

To think on 2 stages on negotiation, the 1st one between alfredo and hilary and the 2nd stage to be the rest of the staff, I proposed jamie to be included there. Wondering whether my participation should be included, as former director perhaps involved some how in recent decisions that could be part of this mediation process to be discussed, I do not know if that is necessary. If successfull to bring alfredo and hilary into an agree in how to go forward. Then the second stage would be easier to go through it.

jm: I think that is a good proposal, I do not have strong feelings on if enrique should be involved or not. I think it should be the paid staff, myself and stephen as the larger grouping.

mv: feeling towards the 2nd stage as the necessary part cause from my interpretation of the emails hilary would rather the larger group, at least the way I interpret it.

alfredo: I am not sure about the safe space, so that I do not feel unsafe, if we do not do that i cannot talk. anything that we can move forward I can do.

erq: I think we are in agreement about the 2 stage and that hilary or alfredo can bring their voice to the stage. Whatever they want to include in the 1st is their perogative. I think I will include the need I expressed during the recent LC meeting, we should include the LC in this process perhaps only as obsevers perhaps not a big group. I think the LC should be taking part in the mediation process. During the mediation process, what should be observed what we need to push forward and the LC should be present in both stages. What do you think?

alfredo: It is a good idea but the LC is all over the states, canada and mexico so it seems rather hard to bring LC members in. Logistic issues, not sure how that would be happening. Unless we make the mediation a preliminary component of the face-to-face.

erq: I think given that goal that the LC members could participate online instead of flying anyone in

jm: I have a few thoughts on what has been said so far, my understanding of mediation it is geared towards addressing the inter-personal issues and create an environment where people can say what they feel they can say. I think the LC meeting is structural...missed something here...i think the people involved in the mediation should be involved in the LC. I think there should be some level of privacy. stephen seem to point out that hilary might want a group facilitation as it is not clear. I think we were supposed to pick the team. My suggestion is to call the nycpeace and have them speak to both to get a sense of what they need to determine what is the best approach. This way asking the nycpeace to design.

mv: echoing the use of asking the nycpeace to give feedback on the design of the mediation

erq: i think jamie is right to ask hilary to express the different alternatives and if she is ok to have an outside observer from the LC. Whether there are interpersonal or structural problems. Or if she would prefer to have the larger group. I think we need to get the group to design the proposal. I think we need to design that today. Trying to get to a design that they both are in agreement with

jm: if I can clarify, erq you are suggesting to contact alfredo and hilary to about the proposal to say that we would like to help us design the mediation. We would like you to start with asking them the way the mediation design would be best.

erq: I do not know the people that are being considered to be mediators from nycpeace to be included in taking part of the design. I think we need clarity on the different alternatives that we are seeing to write them down to push this process forward. After hearing you I can facilitate in getting in touch with alfredo and hilary and the nycpeace institute. I think it should happen sooner than later

jm: I am proposing that we should ask the nycpeace to design the mediation and the role you enrique would play is asking alfredo and hilary if it is ok for them to contact to design. I think it would be easier and be more objective instead of us trying to pick one of us or a team to do that.

erq: I was only wondering, has hilary expressed acceptance of the nycpeace? also you alfredo do you agree?

alfredo agrees to nycpeace

erq: what do you think stephen?

mv: seems fine to me

erq: I will propose to send them the email to start the process of the design and share with them the ideas about this, so they could have them as referenced as a creating a better a design, to show them that we have some work

mv: feels that nycpeace should design.

jm: a few things that might clarify, both hilary and I have called the nycpeace to give brief descriptions of the incidents. They have a case open and that they are waiting for what to do. I agree with mv that the nycpeace should take the information to organize the mediation. we are asking them to do something different to initiate a 1on1 and possibly change to group if that is what comes from the consultation between hilary and alfredo. I would be fine calling the nycpeace and saying going it should come from either me or hilary and I am suggesting me cause it would be more clean.

Direction: Enrique to ask alfredo and hilary separetely if it is ok to hand their phone numbers over to the nycpeace to determine the design of the mediation.

erq: We are now contradicting the discussions from yesterday and instead of us designing it we are asking the nycpeace to design instead to be more objective.

erq: should we move on to discuss the f2f for the lc? If I understand it should take place in NYC?

jm: I think there are 4-5 people in NYC and 4-5 in Df and the rest are across the US and canada, we have less options for meeting place and lodging, so NYC is a candidate and DF is a candidate, less of a visa issue, I think you (enrique) and juange have a visa you can use, but not sure about pablo.

erq: juange and I do not have problems, but pablo might have issues, but i need to be sure to ask him, on the other hand i think our experience earlier this year in DF the cost was less expensive than meeting in NYC, for lodging and meals cheaper in DF if in NYC we would have solidarity housing and a place to travel. It would be too expensive to house and meal everyone.

mv: where is the money, cause I do not feel we have it.

erq: first i will ask if you have heard or read from someone in the LC for a facetoface.

jm: I can answer the money question, we have $30k in cash cushion and the kindle project of $10k. I think the LC clear to meet.

erq: I think we could count on perhaps $5k for this purpose from the mx bank. I think i heard from alfredo during the LC meeting for a proposal of dates for the face to face to happen

alfredo: there are 2 dates, dec 13th-14th then january 10th&11th and all weekends in january. December is less flexible than january. I think we should be pick 2-3 and survey the LC members and ask which they prefer.

erq: I think we consider 10-11, 17-18. I think we should start the process of planning the agenda for those days and certain methodology to make the most of this meeting. send a proposal for a creation of this group with the dates.

jm: i would add we propose that alfredo and I investigate locations for those dates so we know availability of the dates we are proposing. Enrique should do the same in DF.

erq: anything else to dicuss for this meeting. Perhaps you want to share the legal issues from the agenda yesterday

jm: There is nothing new to report, [REDACTED]


erq: the other point was mx1 transition, i want to put on the table dates for changing configs for the clients, need to ask people to do those changes. We need communication strategy to develop for the first couple of weeks of november. Also the admin working group and the coop. That is more or less the report. Are there any considerations?

jm: sounds good to me, let me know what i can do to help?

erq: should i create an email list for this? so it is for the right people jm: sure

erq: we are done

Last modified 7 years ago Last modified on Oct 24, 2014, 2:18:09 PM