London Commons Meeting - July 6 2007

Submitted by Jeff P. on June 25, 2007 - 10:44am.

tags:

London Commons meetings

Start: Jul 6 2007 - 7:00pm

End: Jul 6 2007 - 8:00pm

Location:
Red Roaster - in the Central Library Description:

This meeting was set up by the folks who were present for our last meeting at the RSF. We all seemed to like this day and location.

***Please add agenda items you wish to be discussed here***

Location:

Red Roaster - in the Central Library

Description:

This meeting was set up by the folks who were present for our last meeting at the RSF. We all seemed to like this day and location.

***Please add agenda items you wish to be discussed here***

Average:

No votes yet

Login or register to post comments
Calendar

minutes for july 06 2007 london commons meeting

Submitted by Jeremy McNaughton on August 4, 2007 - 3:13pm.

Sorry about taking so long to do this. I didn't take these minutes, Jeff left these for me when he went to China but then I took another while to get around to it. This is why I don't like taking minutes: it takes me forever to get them posted. It's a limitation I recognize about myself so people please don't get me to take minutes at the next meeting! Also there are some parts where I typed what Jeff wrote verbatim, some parts I couldn't read, and some parts I elaborated on from memory.

Meeting started at 7:20.

Jeff forgot to record the people present, but from my memory the attendees were: myself, Jeff P., Josh S. Jon Bullick, Kota Kimura, Anthony V., Thomas Czermak. Sorry if I missed anyone..

Agenda

Stats
Limited accounts: Richard Wakefield and Brishen Hoff
Physical infrastructure (read: design/layout/navigation of website)
Administrative password

1. Stats

For the month of June there was an average of 3046 visits per day. The site was visited by 27,702 unique I.P. addresses (locations). See all the stats here.

2. Limited accounts: Richard Wakefield and Brishen Hoff

Why are their accounts limited?

Jeremy: poor netiquette, derailing of discussions, flooding/overwhelming with posts.

Thomas requested more details.

Jeremy: warnings were giving in the "Canada Sinking Lifeboat" discussion about civility. The two users were flooding the thread on "Confronting climate change from the left" and had effectively changed it into another discussion about immigration. It had been made clear to the two users that they were welcome to create a new thread (e.g. by posting a new blog entry or forum topic) instead of taking over this discussion. They persisted, and their accounts were limited.

Anthony: was not a derailment

Tom: can we clarify/define derailment for the future?

Jeff: repeated pattern of bringing up the same issue and changing the topic of a discussion

Josh: why not just ignore?

Jeremy: people are reactionary and can't control themselves and flame the flamers

Anthony: suggests that etiquette on the site and derailment are two separate issues

Tom: suggests 2 factors for derailment: 1. flooding (e.g. lots of comments/posts) 2. has done this more than once.

Anythony: The two limited users must have been frustrated by people not responding properly to their arguments.

Josh: [illegible... sorry]

Tom: suggest that blogs and forums should be distinguished more on the site. Blogs can be a personal area where people can choose what is discussed (e.g. users can request that certain topics not be discussed in their own blog) and forums are more of a free-for-all with less moderation (e.g. less protection from topic derailment). Also suggests that blogs and forums should look different on the site.

Jeremy: is anyone opposed to the accounts being restricted? Nobody is.

Jeremy: Jeff P. should not have been the moderator to restrict Richard Wakefield's account on the grounds that he had previously engaged in arguments with him

Jeff P.: Policy Proposal: If a moderator participates in discussion on a thread their neutrality has been compromised and they can not act as a moderator on that thread. Consensus reached on policy.

Anthony: the issue of derailment needs more discussion at a future meeting.

3. Physical infrastructure (read: layout/design)

There will be a get-together of the site development committee next week at the central library (it was posted to the calendar)

Anthony: review old minutes for past ideas to implement on site

Jeff: emphasis on democratic structure: especially re: motion passed at previous meeting to move from voting on content to 5-star rating system.

Tom/Jeremy: the current site dev. comm. To Do list is: 1. upgrade to drupal 5.1; 2. add new features; (see the LCDEV site)

4. Administrative password

(background that wasn't in the minutes: only Jeremy McNaughton as full administrative access to the site. Moderators have almost complete admin access minus a few features).

Jeff: democratic (alternative) media: slightly; there needs to be checks and balances... So that there is no totalitarian scenarios, someone (who we trust outside of the development committee must be given access to administration).

Jeremy: disagrees, feels that the password should not be given to anyone who is not properly trained on Drupal and the way the LC's backend works. Also points out that individual privileges can be parcelled out to roles (e.g. moderators have more privileges than regular users.. we can create new roles to divide the administrative access further without giving one person complete access).

Jeff: suggests nominate Rachel Ayres (a moderator) as the password keeper

Jeremy: somebody should be given a way to get the password from the hosting agency in the even that I go missing.

Jeff: Rachel should be present at a meeting so she can accept the role of keeper of the password.

meeting minutes?

Submitted by Anthony V on July 24, 2007 - 10:18am.

I still haven't seen the minutes from this meeting and we have to set another meeting soon, right?

Right??

Submitted by Anthony V on July 25, 2007 - 10:15am.

Right??

Library Closed

Submitted by Anthony V on July 6, 2007 - 11:45am.

I'm pretty sure that the library will be closed at 6pm tonight.

I'm still for meeting if that is possible.

I would suggest that we meet up out front and move it somewhere else?

anthony, you're very correct

Submitted by Trev McNaughton (not verified) on July 6, 2007 - 3:29pm.

anthony, you're very correct with it being closed, here's the hours: http://www.londonpubliclibrary.ca/locations_hours/index.php?action=ListOne&branch_uid=4

[#londoncommonsnet] /me is 1337

Damn

Submitted by Jeff P. on July 6, 2007 - 4:04pm.

Oops. Sorry everyone. I guess we shouldn't make meeting location decisions either a) away from the internet or b) without a schedule of the location we are proposing.

I think we should (or I could) wait out front of the Red Roaster for 15 min. meet with anyone who was going to the meeting but didn't read this thread.

I guess from there we can decide where the new location should be.

Jeff

http://www.zmag.org/ipps.html

Williams

Submitted by K.Kimura on July 6, 2007 - 1:53pm.

What about inside Williams Cafe on Richmond and Central?

I think many of us are at the Sunfest before the meeting, so itll be convinient.

convenient

Submitted by Rachel Ayres on July 6, 2007 - 2:10pm.

and packed...

I doubt anywhere dowtown near sunfest won't be though...

-r.

6th or 7th?

Submitted by Mike McGregor on July 4, 2007 - 12:48pm.

The title and the date listed don't jive...

-30-
Mike.
"We only wear black, but that's just until something darker comes along..."
-Anonymous Black Bloc Member.
-=There is no Cabal, Long live the Cabal=-
My Photos

oops

Submitted by Jeff P. on July 4, 2007 - 1:36pm.

thanks Mike

PS - you did a lot of work by creating an easier way of finding the minutes. It looks great! Sorry about not recognizing your efforts there.

It would be great if new minutes were posted to that page instead of to the event listing. Then a static button or access to such minutes that is easy to find for the average user. In time.

Jeff

http://www.zmag.org/ipps.html

Jeremy - Upgrade and password

Submitted by Jeff P. on July 3, 2007 - 10:36am.

Jeremy,

you had mentioned at the same meeting as Matti that you would be ready to upgrade the site to Drupal 5.1 in a month's time. It has now been two months. Just wondering about an update.

In addition, you are still the only person who has the password for this site. You have had over a year, since it was first mentioned, to think about this and deal with it. There are a large number of us who have put a tremendous amount of work into this site. This site is a group project.

Someone else needs that password at this meeting.

Jeff

http://www.zmag.org/ipps.html

upgrades

Submitted by Trev McNaughton (not verified) on July 3, 2007 - 10:51am.

hey jeff..

as far as the password and upgrading is concerned, I think a little more patience would be needed on this issue, as its not as simple as just "click upgrade". we've got a team of 3 of us working on getting the site up to drupal 5.1 .. however, jumpin the gun on this could mean losing a part if not all of the site content, meaning having to start from scratch.

no one wants an empty site. the problem is we started on a difficult version of drupal, so we infact need to do two upgrades in order to get to 5.1 but believe me when I say its being worked on. its also not just on jer's back anymore..

as far as the password is concerned. I believe that it just shouldn't be handed over to someone with no experience in drupal. I think that should be something that a site development group should be part of/created, and a "key holder" position be nominated by that group. because with that password, you could seriously end the londoncommons as we know it.

so far, its me, thomas and jeremy that are working on the upgrading.. I'll call a site developement meeting soon, and see if we can get a good team going on this..

its worth it to wait... and I feel your pain, as I also have the "drupal 4.6 ain't got no features website" blues..

[#londoncommonsnet] /me is 1337

Re: Upgrades

Submitted by Jeff P. on July 3, 2007 - 12:32pm.

I agree that the upgrade should not be rushed. The two main problems that I have are:

1) The "upgrade" that is soon to take place has been used as the primary argument to defer a tonne of problems we have had on the site. For example, overworked moderators, voting functions, better policy and meeting minute location tools (just adding the date does not cut it), increased democratic functioning, etc.. This has been going on at the meetings for over 6 months.

2) An update on the situation would be a welcome response to constant inquiries. When we hear nothing we get frustrated and feel dismissed and ignored. This is especially true for a few of us who have invested so much time and energy into this site.

The password

I have been asking about the password situation for over a year. The argument that it shouldn't be handed over to just anyone no longer holds water. That argument has been used as a process of deferment. What right does any individual (including 'one key holder' who would clearly not be democratically 'nominated' as you mention) have to hold onto it when the vast majority of success of this site rests on a group? I understand that it shouldn't be given out far and wide. But why would it be repeatedly held away from some of the core organizers who have just as much right to it as Jeremy? That argument is in no way democratic. If you or your brother can't trust key organizers here then maybe 'your' website shouldn't benefit from our labour.

I know this may sound overly harsh but I'm sick of lip service to democratic values being placed on this site. The reason I'm so personally pissed off about it is that I have been hearing the same argument over and over and then it gets defered and sugar coated. If we really did run on proper consensus then this issue would have been resolved 10 months ago.

This issue will be the primary topic I will be addressing at this meeting.

Jeff

http://www.zmag.org/ipps.html

democratic?

Submitted by Trev McNaughton (not verified) on July 6, 2007 - 12:15am.

firstly, I don't understand how having a key holder position thats nominated by a group open to ALL users of the site that want to be a part of it, isn't democratic. (even though I'm 100% sure this site isn't democratic, its run on consensus.)

secondly, this isn't "my site", I never said it was, I simply said that it shouldn't be given out to anyone not knowledged in the sites software. this isn't a power trip thing here jeff, this is a safety precaution for the site. All we need is for some "core organizer" with little knowledge of the site's core system coming in and being all trigger happy thinking they'll add new features/upgrade, and having the site crash possibly losing material and content. who's going to have to fuckin fix the site??? the site development group thats who.

I don't know what the big problem here is with just one person (who in my mind has put the majority of the effort into the site so far, unthanked I might add) having the password for awhile longer, especially when its been pointed out that more people are being involved in the technical aspects of the site. (which I will point out again, is open to anyone, hell I've been practically begging people to help out!!)

do you want the password jeff? is this what its all about? if so, I question your intentions with it.

don't hold this "investing alot of time and energy into the site" over my head. I've personally done alot for this site, including postering, word of mouth advertising, internet advertising, posting media content, encouraging other local artists to do the same, spent countless hours trolling the drupal pages and forums looking at how to use the software safely.. I even have a version installed on my computer. plus if you look at the logs each month, you'll see who hits highest for site activity. I've spent too much time and energy on this site as well, to see if get destroyed by someone. and thats what I see happening if the password is given out right now.

all I'm asking is that we don't get all worked up about the password and upgrade situation, and clearly develope a way of having the site safely run and maintained by a group of individuals. as it stands, just giving the password out is NOT a safe way of approaching this.

[#londoncommonsnet] /me is 1337

Democratic

Submitted by Jeff P. on July 6, 2007 - 8:32am.

This will probably be the longest reply I have ever made on the LC. Hopefully that will indicate how seriously I am taking this issue and have been for over a year.

Let me start by saying that the LondonCommons success, thus far, rests on a group and not on a few individuals.

"firstly, I don't understand how having a key holder position thats nominated by a group open to ALL users of the site that want to be a part of it, isn't democratic. (even though I'm 100% sure this site isn't democratic, its run on consensus.)"

The main reason I became a part of this site was because it was supposed to be an attempt at an alternative democratic internet medium. I know that was never really a priority for you in the past and it clearly isn't now.

If democratic values are not important then why bother with consensus? Why bother with the hundreds of hours of meetings we've been to? Why bother with asking anyone's opinion at all? Boy the site has really benefited from all of that input... That is collective input Trev. Not you, not me, a collective. The collective is the main reason for the sites success. And, to add, our meetings do not run on proper consensus. They never have and hopefully someday will. You wouldn't know that because anytime I have brought this or related subjects up on the site (really pissed I might add) in the past, you were too busy making fun of it. Or dismissing it.

Bullshit, there have been numerous people in the past who have offered their computer tech. services and yet they were ignored, dimissed and forgotten. Why is that? They were more than competent. They had all the skills and were fully interested and willing. If I were them, I wouldn't answer your call out either. why would I?

Trev, honestly, how accessible is a 'meeting open to ALL users - who know how to computer program at the level of PHP and are willing step into the middle of two brothers and an old friend? Seriously trev, you know as well as I do that is a bullshit argument.

"secondly, this isn't "my site", I never said it was, I simply said that it shouldn't be given out to anyone not knowledged in the sites software. this isn't a power trip thing here jeff, this is a safety precaution for the site. All we need is for some "core organizer" with little knowledge of the site's core system coming in and being all trigger happy thinking they'll add new features/upgrade, and having the site crash possibly losing material and content. who's going to have to fuckin fix the site??? the site development group thats who."

What gives you or Jeremy the right to make that call? This is totally a "power thing" Trev. And you are smack in the middle of it and that is why you can't see it. Why should you and/or Jeremy be able to unilaterly decide this? Once again, this is a group project. The Success of the London Commons, thus far, rests on a group. Why should you be able to hold such positions of Power and Control that will have absolutely NO check and balance to them? You clearly don't trust anyone other you, your brother and your old friend Tom. And you don't want a power check on your unilateral control over the entire site.

"I don't know what the big problem here is with just one person (who in my mind has put the majority of the effort into the site so far, unthanked I might add) having the password for awhile longer, especially when its been pointed out that more people are being involved in the technical aspects of the site. (which I will point out again, is open to anyone, hell I've been practically begging people to help out!!)"

Because comments like, "If that happens on the site I will just unilaterally shut it down".Or, "Don't make me shut this site down until everyone starts behaving" (both comments made at meetings. and there are many more). This is a power positioning and you are placing your self right in the middle of it. And no, Jeremy is not the one who has done the majority of work on this site! That's fuckin ridiculous. Seriously, the combined effort of The Group far surpasses any individual effort. But this mindset that you have demonstrated clearly represents how you think about this site.

"do you want the password jeff? is this what its all about? if so, I question your intentions with it."

Well, a simple phone call or email to practically anyone that I know will clear this up for you. I mean that Trev, we know a large number of the same people and you should ask around about that. I have been very explicit that I don't want that key. But someone outside of your power positions need to have it in order to create a check and balance of your absolute power. This issue is really fuckin serious and it does not have to do with me on a personal gains level. It has to do with power. How it is centralized, how it corrupts and how it is exploited. If I wanted to be a part of a despotic site then I would have joined the London Fog years ago.You don't seem to have a problem with centralized authority as long as you or your brother or some other close friend (as long as the number of people in this group is low enough that nomination authority is still yours, as a tightly knit group) are in the position of power. This is insane.

"don't hold this "investing alot of time and energy into the site" over my head. I've personally done alot for this site, including postering, word of mouth advertising, internet advertising, posting media content, encouraging other local artists to do the same, spent countless hours trolling the drupal pages and forums looking at how to use the software safely.. I even have a version installed on my computer. plus if you look at the logs each month, you'll see who hits highest for site activity. I've spent too much time and energy on this site as well, to see if get destroyed by someone. and thats what I see happening if the password is given out right now."

I don't want to get into a pissing match over who has done more work then who (although if that is necessary, I am confident that you will be shocked at how much work, development, research, stress, passion etc. I have invested into this site.) Being on your computer 24/7 and having the highest hit rating doesn't really mean shit. There was an extensive conversation on this, on the site 6 months ago about access and democratic functions on the site (which was one of the conversations that drove a few people away from this site - certain people who we both know and have refused to come back... I wonder why!?! I will add this is a real shame because I could use their support right now and the site would benefit from their extensive experience and work ethic.)

"all I'm asking is that we don't get all worked up about the password and upgrade situation, and clearly develope a way of having the site safely run and maintained by a group of individuals. as it stands, just giving the password out is NOT a safe way of approaching this"

Once again, you are dismissing me and this situation that I deem of the upmost importance. It is a smug reaction to something I care very deeply about and have been raising on the site, at meetings and in private for over a year. Really all you're asking for is an unchecked balance of power. In other words, despotism.

Once again, The Success of the London Commons, thus far, rests on a group not on a few of individuals.

Jeff

http://www.zmag.org/ipps.html

finished

Submitted by Trev McNaughton (not verified) on July 6, 2007 - 2:54pm.

I'm finished with this debate jeff, I see it as rather unimportant right now, as I've stated before, its being worked on. If you want my help on fixing the site, then calm down.

I personally don't care if my brother has the password, or someone else has the password, I just want to be sure that person isn't an idiot when it comes to software, thats the bottomline. what use is it to anyone if they don't know how to use it? wouldn't the "power struggle" still continue???

this is turning into the stupidest arguement I've been in for a long time.

I'm going to continue participating in the site developement, only because I use the site. I encourage anyone that is so concerned about it to participate and learn by doing, come to the site developement meeting, and you'll see how far from experts we really are.

you can keep arguing this, and I'm sure you will, but you'll only be pushing me away from helping.

[#londoncommonsnet] /me is 1337

Once again

Submitted by Jeff P. on July 6, 2007 - 4:11pm.

Thanks for the dismissal and ultimatum Trev. If I continue a legitimate pursuit of democratic structuring on the site you will quit. Thanks.

http://www.zmag.org/ipps.html

thanks

Submitted by Trev McNaughton (not verified) on July 6, 2007 - 4:59pm.

for totally misinterpreting what I said.

I will not work on the site if it means being stressed out by your approach. (which is what's happening currently)

I'm not a moderator, I'm not an admin, and I have no more access than any other user here, I'm simply volunteering to learn the software in hopes to help expedite the process, if you can't accept that for what it is, then its your problem not mine.

thats the problem with this site. alot of influencial people on here are more concerned with how the site is run, rather than allowing people to actually use and enjoy it for what it was originally conceptualized to be.

in the past few weeks, all I've seen is a dwindling user base, less and less cool stuff posted, and free speech being pushed out the door because it doesn't fit in to the mindset of "progressive".

[#londoncommonsnet] /me is 1337

What was it originally conceptualized to be?

Submitted by Sean H on July 6, 2007 - 10:28pm.

all I've seen is a dwindling user base, less and less cool stuff posted, and free speech being pushed out the door

Is it related? I mean are people leaving and not posting because free speech (is) being pushed out the door, or because a contentious issue is being discussed? I guess it comes down to what is the vision for the site? I would not want to be detracting from that. I tend to be argumentative but I can take that elsewhere and there would be no hard feelings. I really admire what has been accomplished so far.

I don't think you want to deal with what I am saying.

Submitted by Jeff P. on July 6, 2007 - 5:37pm.

What is your goal or wish of this site?

You aren't willing to recognize the level of power that you currently hold and how it will increase. This is a problem. I will point to this article once again. You may think this is not important but unless we figure this shit out now, we are only going to repeat the same mistakes of our parents and their parents which got us into this mess to begin with(refering to the media and the general shitty system we live in). I know you think this stuff is irrelevant but it really is important and I have been very concerned about it. As of late, I've been quiet about this. I will not be quiet anymore.

(side note - please point to one example of free speech being hindered. - careful you don't enter yourself into the 'All speech should be allowed category'. Certain things should not be said without some type of repercussion. for ex. sex offenders teaching other people how to get away with their sex crimes.)

Jeff

http://www.zmag.org/ipps.html

free speech

Submitted by Trev McNaughton (not verified) on July 6, 2007 - 6:11pm.

"we do not tolerate anti-immigration jargon on the Londoncommons"

that read to me "we do not tolerate free speech on the london commons" .. free speech is either yes or no. We do tolerate anti-immigration "jargon" on the commons, because its an example of free speech. I agree with the idea of blocking them for behavior reasons, but saying he can't express his views on a subject is hypicritical.

free speech is part of the canadian charter of rights and freedoms. a document all of us are so quick to use when we form protests and voice our opinions. you cannot deny that of someone.

As far as power is concerned, its been offered to me, I turned it down, and will continue to turn it down. so far the only one I see really using and pushing for power here is you jeff. you're the moderator, you're pushing this password situation more and more, you've limited people's accounts. don't talk to me about power struggles, I have no power just like the average user. just because my brother has the admin account, doesn't mean I do as well. we are seperate entities.

again, I said I was volunteering to help upgrade the site, and work on maintainence, and said my views on jumping the gun with both giving the password out, and upgrading. I was never opposed to either of them, and I agree with the idea of having more than one person in possession of the password, I simply said lets not be too quick to give it out, and wait to develope a safe way of sharing the password.

don't hold the past over my head, I was not part of those previous discussions on the topic, I didn't volunteer for this until a couple weeks ago.

I am ending my participation in this debate. I will post updates on progress with the site development. feel free to jump in and have the last word, I don't care.

[#londoncommonsnet] /me is 1337

Well

Submitted by Jeff P. on July 7, 2007 - 5:29am.

I wouldn't have said anything except that you miss qouted me.

This is a public warning that we do not tolerate anti-immigrant jargon on the Londoncommons.

There is a big difference between the two.

Jeff

http://www.zmag.org/ipps.html

meeting minute location tools

Submitted by Mike McGregor on July 3, 2007 - 12:58pm.

*CoughCough*

-30-
Mike.
"We only wear black, but that's just until something darker comes along..."
-Anonymous Black Bloc Member.
-=There is no Cabal, Long live the Cabal=-
My Photos