I support the general approach and reasoning outlined by Amanda.

Surely the task post the founding conference is for the new Editorial collective to develop their relationships and to develop effective ways of working to produce Slaney Street on and offline.

This seems to be the basis to opening up and engaging Slaney Street's membership in contributing and participating in the initiative.

What is wrong in spending time on doing what we are doing better and doing it well. There need to be periods of consolidation as well as periods of movement.

I do support Ed's proposal about an orientation to the workers movement in the city but why does this need to be done bureaucratically. There are important strikes nationally and locally coming up over the early summer period.

Making a commitment to producing good quality news content of these forthcoming struggles and inviting contributions from people involved in these struggles seems a more viable form of engagement than offering seats on the collective.

I would support Amanda's suggestion for the conference in the Autumn

@jolyonjones @dorter @kellyrogers @robert2 @ben13

sorry for the late reply some stuff has been kicking off a the uni which you will hear about soon I'm sure.

I don't have any objections to Amanda's plans or ideas other than that I don't think it would be possible without bringing new people into the collective.

I would like at the autumn conference to be a big thing launching this onto a new level. I would like to have the following in place ready for the autumn conference.

1) more worked out structures,
2) Money from grants to pay to elect people to full time paid positions to co-ordinate Slaney Street.
3) To be a fully fledged cooperative.
4) Links to the workers movement. I am open to suggestions about how this can be done in less bureaucratic way other than informal links.

We can either work out the ins and out of how we do these things at a all members meeting in which every member of Slaney Street can vote or we can work it out at a committee meetings. Or we can not work these things out and attempt to formulate these things at the autumn conference.

I think we should call a meeting now for mid/late july to discussing everything in this thread of “moving forward” in person. The question is should it be full members meeting or should it be a committee meeting. I'm in favour of a full members meeting.

@ashleighfield @ben13 @bobwhitehead @callumcant @daniellindley @darcyluke @dorter @emilyfarmer @hannahlemming @helena @jolyonjones @johnenglish @mumitm @natashaturner @nick4 @rachelobrien @robert2 @rufussilverleaf @seanfarmelo @karamoses @kellyrogers please cast a vote in the decision.

I will be free by 3pm on the 12th.

I think this is too important for the editorial group. As a matter of principle, anything major should involve as many people as possible.

That was completely unanimous. So we are going to have full members meeting can people please fill out this doodle poll for the date http://doodle.com/68rx5uwbxc3yhq5z

Once we have a time I will book a room and put out a callout. The post at the top of this thread I will most myself as a personal article for the conference.

@ashleighfield @ben13 @bobwhitehead @callumcant @daniellindley @darcyluke @dorter @emilyfarmer @hannahlemming @helena @jolyonjones @johnenglish @mumitm @natashaturner @nick4 @rachelobrien @robert2 @rufussilverleaf @seanfarmelo @karamoses @kellyrogers

I'm free for all the dates at the moment. That could change, but I'll flag anything up as it occurs.

I won't be able to be at this meeting as i will not be in town. good luck

i strongly suggest that you follow the points i laid out in the order that i put them, starting with the commitment level from the existing editorial board and that you do not talk about ed's additional points unti those have been worked through. It is really irresponsible to start to pay people with member's money when you don't yet have a structure in place for a person to be accountable to. I worry that the structure discussions will get moved around or overshadowed by other, more exciting ideas so please don't lose this.

i would prefer, very very strongly, that nothing outside of what i laid out and the workers links that edd mentioned (which goes along wiht the links to other marginalized communities) are the only things discussed at this meeting. I further suggest that there are people prepared to facilitate who work out the agenda and process for speaking and making decisions in advance, and that someone is there to take accurate and comprehensive mintues, that will include the wording of motions and ammendments, on a computer that can be posted immediately. In the past i have shared resources that can help this happen.

also, it think it would be useful to have consider changing the tagline from "news coop" to "media coop"

all the best

Thanks amanda, I broadly agree with what you are saying however your points will need to be fleshed out. I will push to make sure your stuff is discussed. I was not suggesting paying people with members money before structures were put in place. I was talking about preparing the structures for it for potentially Autumn.

As for what we discuss the meeting will discuss whatever is submitted to it by members of Slaney Street. We can't limit the discussion or block motions submitted from being discussed - as I am sure you understand.

The Briar rose has been booked for 2pm Saturday 26th which was the most popular day in the poll and is now the date of the meeting.

"As for what we discuss the meeting will discuss whatever is submitted to it by members of Slaney Street. We can’t limit the discussion or block motions submitted from being discussed - as I am sure you understand. " I kind of disagree with this. I think that this will keep us from moving forward. We need to start with a focus and direction and it's not only totally legitimate to call a meeting with a set agenda, but it can be anti-democratic not to because without proper research and preparation before hand, it is difficult to discuss. and with too many items on the agenda, there is not the chance to actually have democratic participation in discussing things. I think it is eswsential that we, as the people who have seen the problems so far with the model that we have, set the agenda and ask people to particpate in helping to fix the problems. Otherwise we will keep trying to reinvent a spinning wheel rather than just finding a way to ground it and move forward.

what i think that this project, and a few others that were started but did not get off the ground, lack, is concrete focus and structure. This is what needs to be put in place. One piece at a time, or it will continue to fail.

“lack, is concrete focus and structure. This is what needs to be put in place. One piece at a time, or it will continue to fail.”

In my opinion. The main problem is not a lack of concrete focus and structure which could have emerged by now, several people clearly have a vision for it.

The reason this concrete focus and structure has not become manifest in my opinion is because of a political paralysis that has emerged which has prevented Slaney Street from being able to organise regular meetings and events.

We started off with a clear mandate and effort to achieve this regularity to allow for growing participation and structure building however at multiple junctures it has been blocked. At several occasions the political paralysis has been so bad that their have been nearly week long discussion about if a meeting is held a few hours forward or back. This has been done in with the best of intentions however it has ultimately made the organisation inaccessible to the support we have been generating. Further it has prevented meetings which would have been able to focus the organisation.

While many of your proposals are all very well and good and I think they should be discussed. Nearly all of your points cannot simply be mandated into existence through policy as they require a larger amount of extra work to be done by volunteers. The plans we should be discussing have to be beyond setting up for example an e-mail checking schedule because even if we create the structure of schedule it won't happen unless we try to inspire participation.

Slaney Street should be aiming to grow so it can sustain a higher level of organisation and a better level of focus.

As such I don't think it would be good idea to limit the discussion to only your proposals for two reasons. Firstly members would find it alienating to shut out of decision making in a undemocratic manner. Secondly I think the ideas you have proposed could be changed improved upon by others if the meeting is open to other ideas.

@ashleighfield @ben13 @bobwhitehead @callumcant @daniellindley @darcyluke @emilyfarmer @hannahlemming @helena @jolyonjones @johnenglish @mumitm @natashaturner @nick4 @rachelobrien @robert2 @rufussilverleaf @seanfarmelo @karamoses @kellyrogers I have summarized @dorter proposal for the meeting agenda to get it resolved asap. Please vote in this immediately so we can come to quick clear decision on if we are going to be soliciting ideas and motions from the membership of Slaney Street for the meeting.

Structures don't magically manifest themselves, they only work if people agree to them and make the effort to follow them. I put a lot of work into managing and maintaining the online article schedule and forecast only to have it ignored and abandoned. During that time the website had an article a day for two weeks. Now you're struggling to get one a week. I tried to maintain regular posting because I thought it was beneficial to building our audience, and was what the group wanted. However, as it was ignored I can only guess that it was not wanted or considered valuable. The fact that I still don't know what we're aiming to achieve is worrying. Do we want daily posting? Do we want regular columns? Do we care if the website festers as long as the print edition is good?

I wanted to discuss this in the visioning meeting, and I don't know why we couldn't have had a meeting then even if the time was confirmed only a week before (incidentally, I didn't know it had been cancelled until the day it was supposed to happen). It seems like there is this constant pressure to create the perfect meeting, in which everyone attends, and everything is submitted in motions beforehand, and every issue gets discussed. This is a laudable aim but has so far proven impossible - I don't even know how to write a motion, a guide on how to do this could be sent to every member to make this process more accessible. In my experience it is better to have a regular meeting even if people are totally unprepared for it, than to save everything up until you can have a perfect meeting.

The biggest problem I see, for the board at least, is that there are no set expectations for editors. I think it's fair to say that having been elected, the editors have some responsibility to the group, but without expectations no one really knows what to do. The people who were doing it before the board was elected carried on as they had been doing, and the new people didn't know how to participate, leaving just the central clique to run things for the most part. I feel it is essential to get a job description for editors before the next board is elected, and that it should include practical points like writing/sourcing at least 1 article per month, identifying issues that should be covered and raising it with the group to find an appropriate writer/story, telling people what you are working on, donating some time to either webposting/emailing/liaising with writers. If nothing is expected of you it is very easy to fulfill that expectation.

100% agree with Lindsey - one of the things I would like to put on the agenda is a weekly meeting - I know I won't be able to attend every week as I have a very variable calendar but I think a huge amount of the problem is the extreme lack of regular focus and jointed attention being given to the project. Other project defend education and redbrick (the student newspaper at Birmingham) succeed only because they have regular meeting where people can come along, learn things, be part of the discussion/ decision making etc.

I really don't think anyone was opposed to the weekly meeting or regular meetings. however in search of the perfect meeting and the collapse of the secretariat group (which should have been able to arrange regular meetings swiftly) it never happened.

I also agree with Lindsey and the work you did Lindsey was great it. I m sorry that at the time I was to busy to be able to properly collaborate with you.

I think it is clear we want the agenda to be open so if people could start typing up their strategy ideas and posting them here that would be great.

Will the editors provide a collective report back to the meeting on 26th July including a critical assessment on the functioning of the editorial group to date? It is difficult to understand at a remove what the difficulties have been and currently are to be able to understand and contribute to the discussion on moving forward.

I will do so and post up here to try and get other editors to put their name to it however considering that we won't have a editorial meeting before this meeting it would be difficult for us to create a common report. It might be an idea if those editors who can and have thoughts do so.

What are the current ideas for strategy for the group? Do we have a general aims type document? I might be able to make some kind of suggestion but I'd need to know how things are currently working.

I'm also not sure how to put forward motions. I can post stuff in this thread but I feel like that would block out the current discussion somewhat.

Can we make a new thread with a name that explicitly outlines the purpose? Like "Motion Submission for 26th of July" that we can tag everyone in. There someone can put a template for how motions are submitted, like "Motions will set the course of what Slaney Street does and what its aims are. Submit them here, they will be discussed and voted upon by the membership. If it passes, it'll become policy,. If you're a member, please put your ideas forward here. Closing deadline 24th".

If anything, it might be better to have an entirely separate forum so people can discuss motions in individual threads before meetings to save on them becoming too arduous, but whichever is easier.

Having stuff just existing in a thread called 'moving forward' is, at least to my information addled mind, confusing.

@lindsey @ben13 you have both asked what a structure of a motion should look like. We don't have an agreed on format that some groups have. However the traditional and most common format is the three section Notes (Facts), Believes (Opinions) and Mandates (Resolution)

Here is an example format of what a policy motion commonly looks like in most organizations:

Section 1 Notes:

This section should include the facts surrounding the motion and only the facts

Section 2 Believes:

This section is the opinions that you want Slaney Street to adopt

Section 3 Mandates:

This section is what you want the organization to actual do about it, It could be as simple as “run an edition of Slaney Street on this issue….” Or require a particular person or Slaney Street officer to ensure something is done in a strict time frame.

I will create the motions thread now.

Also @ben13

"What are the current ideas for strategy for the group?"

I submitted this to found conference and it was past it was to Achieving regularity - which is the one thing we have not done in search the elusive perfect meeting.

Motion 2 – Achieving regularity – Slaney Streets strategy for expansion Edd Bauer

The key task and strategy for sustainability for the paper of the newly elected editorial board should be to achieve a regularity in the paper rhythm of production.

Firstly it will make the paper more useful and accessible. The trial run has had irregular papers and irregular editorial meetings – fixed monthly meetings and deadlines will more easily get in building into peoples and groups routine and make the paper a more accessible and useful tool for activists.

Secondly it will make the paper more financially viable. Other free paper initiatives like the occupy times or the Manchester mule – although successful have relied fundamentally on donations only irregularly printing off an edition whenever the account reaches the necessary amount.

However if we can achieve monthly, or even quarterly publication then we have access to income streams other than donation/member dues.
In the trail run we were offered deals of monthly adverts for 6 months – however we were fundamentally unable to take up the offer properly as we could not guarantee being able to fund the rest the print run over this 6 month period. If we could offer to potential advertisers regular publications with the print run guaranteed and underwritten in large by reliable member dues then we could access a far wide degree of funding.

Despite the paper being free it could still be sold. Many people would pay a subscription of a £1 a month to have the paper delivered to their house. Once we have the base income with which we can guarantee one edition every one, two or three months – then we can advertise £1 every one, two or three months in a standing order to buy a copy of the paper and have it delivered. Potentially a considerably larger number of people would be willing to do this rather than become members and it could become a significant income stream for the paper.

Once the editorial board has assessed just how much is coming in monthly it should decide how regularly we can afford to publish – one this has been set it should be advertise for the year to advertisers and potential subscribers. The extra money produced by the advertisers and subscribers over the year in the course of the run can provide the basis of an more regular paper or expanded print run or paper size in the following year.

Hi. So i've just lost what i wrote in response a couple of times (Loomio on a tablet does not work well for me), so hopefully i can still make my point clearly.. First, about the poll:

That is a gross misrepresentation of what i was suggesting and really shitty frankly (i use this word to avoid adjectives that might be imbued with intent) to reframe what i said into this. It feels disingenuous because you manipulated my words into a ridiculous proposal that of course will fail and make me look like an arse. A genuine proposal would have been one that positively framed what you wanted to do, rather than negatively framed a bastardization of my points, shutting down any chance to clarify any confusion or come to consensus and instead creating an adversarial position that completely misrepresents my points and thus invalidates what i was really intending.

Let's look at some alternate wordings.

1. Proposal keep the agenda open to any business raised at the meetin. (this i would be opposed to, because my position is that the agenda -- i.e. the main areas that we want to discuss but to be clear, not the motions themselves -- is set in advance.)

or something like

1. Proposal to allow members submissions -- (which i actually completely agree with and i believe what i wrote out initially encourages)

The other thing that's irresponsible or underhanded about the way that you formulated this is that motions can be most easily blocked according to their wording. given that you've spent so much time in student politics and other meetings, i am surprised that you don't seee how problematic this proposal is.

To clarify, my position was and is that we need to talk about the commitment level of people involved, the structure, and how we can meet our mandate in the future. Within those 3 points, i did offer proposals, because i can not, once again, be at that meeting and because sometimes i think it's helpful to have a starting point, even if it's rejected outright. Never did i say only my "proposals' should be talked about. I said the agenda points. In fact, the very first point i mentioned was to do "introductions" wherein we go around with our ideas for slaney street, write them on a flip chart and use them to inform subsequent discussions. It was created to invite members submissions for goodness sake.

This was in response to you Edd, collapsing everything i said into "new structures", and then adding stuff around linking to worker movements, becoming a proper coop and creating full-time paid positions. A set agenda does not mean no additional proposals at all. it simply means that we agree on what is important to talk about at this meeting, and talk about those things.

And i think that, particularly since we had a mandate to have a visioning meeting which you cancelled without consultation it's fair to prioritize these things above others. It was absolutely my understanding that the meeting was set. Robert and i had slightly conflicting times and worked them out. YOu said you were booking the space. I just assumed it was all going forward because there seemed consensus on all of that. The discussion of meeting at 5 or at 6 (or whatever it was) to me was a way to actually allow for everyone who was interested to participate. Given the low turn-out in participation and that both Lindsay and I had very concrete things to bring to that meeting, it seemed important to make sure we could all be there for as much time as possible. There was never, in my mind. any question of whether it was going forward. I believed that everything was set and the only remaining question was the starting time. It was only when i wrote in, on that day, just to confirm, (because it then occurred to me that there was no reminder, which i would have expected), that you said you didn't in the end book it. I was kind about that at the time, because i somehow inferred that you thought it was my fault, and I didn't know how to deal with that. I was instrumental in getting that first meeting off the ground even though it happened at a time/location that i couldn't make. I rearranged my plans to make it to the editorial meeting before the 1st issue despite the fact that it was a very bad time and date for me, I have in no way held up any meeting of Slaney Street.

it's been my feeling that, as Linsday said(and i couldn't quite put my finger on until she named it) there are certain expectations of how things get done, how we communicate, etc. that are unspoken and also un-negotiated, and if things aren't said or done in a particularly way, they are rejected or invisible.

Edd, there is a dynamic that is, in part between us which is, at least, detrminentla to our working relationship if not to the group as a whole. I have tried to address it privately. in fact, we even had a date to discuss things in person and you just didn't get back to me that day when i texted you. I don't really know what else to do but say that i have tried for what feels like almost the start to talk to you privately to find a way to communicate more effectively together, and that is failing. I am really at a loss as to how to move forward in working together.

I do agree that @lindsey 's point about job descriptions of a sort is essential, but i think that can only happen once we have an understanding of what our vision and capacity is , which is why i suggested that we start with a general go-around--perhaps this is where @jolyonjones 's idea of a report-back can come up (thoguh it might be good to have it written in advance and it might need to be from a few different sources as i am not sure the EB as a whole can come up with one version), and then an honest discussion about capacity.

I also think that regular meetings would be great but i take issue with the idea that the lack of them is due to the "secretarial group" falling apart. That was a shame, and i wasn't prepared or able to be a group of one, but my recollection was that there was never a time or location that suited everyone...that with the current composition of the EB,m regular meetings were not possible.

What might be a way forward would be to try to find a common time and location now (i would still argue that it must be wheelchair accessible, in keeping with our mandate) but when we tried that before, it just didn't work. We were supposed to do google hangouts or skype meetings, but for some reason that i didn't understand, that didn t work at the only meeting i was able to attend. But maybe we should look into that again. I know it's not ideal, but it would probably be better than nothing.

I'm sorry for my characterisation of your suggestion however, while I'm sorry for the upset caused and my unnecessarily posts. I do not actaully think my characterisation was that far off .

Your proposal was and is you submiting a bunch of text which is the basis of the meeting and eveyone else having a chance to put some ideas down in “a go-around and write on a flipchart” this is a undemocratic proposal and is more like some undemocratic councillor consultion on a policy they are going to force through. One member submiting motions and others not being allowing to because “we agree on what is important to talk about at this meeting” and they get a chance is a go around is not acceptable in my view.

You for you a set of written detailed policy proposals which you have discussed while the members of Slaney Street can only contribute to a flip chat session in a go around. “A set agenda does not mean no additional proposals at all. it simply means that we agree on what is important to talk about at this meeting, and talk about those things.”

I do not consider visioning meeting to be cancelled by me without consultation you made it completely impossible to organise repeated stating that xx was not good enough refusing to do anything positive to make it happen. I disagree with your version of events.
No one tried harder than me to make the meeting happen it took a over a month which included threats to resign to arrange a date and time (which was by then dangerously close to the time) the ball was then thrown into your court to announce and put out a call-out for the festival which didn't happen. I had asked you sort out the callout weeks before. I was originally trying to get you to do it in time for the paper version. You never did it and the next thing I heard from you was a e-mail a day before saying “is this on?” - as far as I was concerned it was never materialised.

The meeting we agreed was meant to be fully published engaging meeting which was well attended. You had threatened to quit if we didn't organise a meeting attended by 2/3rds of the editorial board. If the meeting which you had failed to announce had gone ahead it would have been attended by 5 people max. You would have massively slammed it as inaccessible waste of time and demand another one (consider we (me) were paying £25 a pop for a quiet wheelchair accessible space which was requested). I think you created a no-win scenario.

I'm tired of every single attempt to form any decision on loomio being completely derailed and the issue muddied. Repeatedly you have raised very strong objections to the most basic of the decisions often threatening to resign and then you disappear for a week and do nothing to help move us onto a decision which we badly need to announce before tight deadlines. Leaving me or someone else to try and create a legitimate decision so that the project can actually move forward. I don't think it is fair to just say you should have tried harder to create a consensus that requires several parties activity participating.

@dorter if you want to form a proposal for how the meeting should be run write it down and propose it for a vote using the button on the top right of the page.

Edd, you saying that nothing i do or say is positive is really a miscontruing, certainly, of my intent, and i think of the so-called facts. I am literally running out the door, so this is neither polished or even proof-read.

Re: the meeting, I already accepted it being different. Several times. And i was clearly accepting the terms and conditions of the meeting when Robert and i negotiated . I do think it's incredibly irresponsible to spend members money to publish hard copies that are not of good quality overall and that fail to meet our mandate, and so yes, i actually think it's entirely reasonable to suggest that we don't publish another hard copy until we have a meeting that nearly all EB members attend,. I think it's shitty that we've had about a 50% absentee rate from the start and failed to address that. But i was still clearly accepting the meeting to go forward, despite my deep discomfort, which isn't some diva attention-seeking but a substantive principled, ethical and strategic divergence that, indeed, does make me feel a little gross, frankly. But if you suspected anything else. That i wouldobject to a meeting that i had clearly and repeated consented to and slightly rearranged my schedule for, then the easiest and, frankly, only regardful and accountable thing in the world to do, Edd, would be to ask.

"the ball was then thrown into your court to announce and put out a call-out for the festival which didn’t happen." this just isn't true. and what festival? i have no idea what you are talking about here but since not being able to ever touch base with Kelly, i haven't been doing the admin stuff particularly. That is a failing of mine. but I also never agreed to do that call out or anything. I don't work well in the absence of group or committee and have said before that i didn't feel comfortable doing those tasks on my own though what's shitty is that it did fall to you, but honestly, since you were involved in every other aspect of doing this, i expected you to do the call-out, too. I shouldn't have "expected it" but then again, i felt like the internal call-out was enough, frankly. Since i wasn't the only person who was suprised that it was canceled, it's not unreasonable for me have thought it was on.

And you absolutely should have said "i think we should cancel this.."or something to the rest of us. Be accountable to your collective. And it's not just about me. I've consistently tried to xplain what i think/want but ask others, too, and go with that, to the extent of publishing that elections edition of Slaney St when i didn't think it was nearly ready...

My biggest frustration is that it feels as though there is an idea for the product of this to be important and the process is entirely ignored. And i am trying--whilst dealing with the other things that are going on in my life (as we all are)--tryign to find constructive ways to engage and failing. Never in over 20 years of organizing, including working on various media projects, have i not felt able to be able to help shape something for the better. This is not a critique of you or the project, but just bewilderment. I have no idea what to do, partcularly in the absence of face-to-face meetings.

My "threatening to resign " which, after you called it that i wrote a long thing apologizing for anything i did to give that impression was never that. Never ever a threat. As i have said both privately and publicly has been an attempt to gauge whether the project should go on with out me. I said - if this isn't important, i should leave, not as a threat, but as an honest attempt to assess whether we're working at cross-purposes. That if the things i think are imporant are things i am unable to communicate, or that we are unable to find solutions to, then either i let go of their importance or i leave, and let the project go on anyway.

But you know what. I am also entitled to say "i think this would be better" or even "i think this is fucked" without getting slammed and blamed for it. If we are a collecitve, then all of our ideas and concerns need to be heard and we have a collective responsibility to try to resolve things.

Once again, Edd, i feel like some of this is mostly between you and me and i have tried repeated to reach out to you privately. You hvae ignored me, stood me up, and in the public forum where there was a critique of Slaney st., prompted by my opposition piece, rather than listening and asking questions, you got defensive, and then depressed and withdrew and announced your own resignation.

And yeah. critiques are difficult, but the best thing to do with people roughly on the same side is to try to listen, even take pause, and understand what the issue is, where there is a dynamic such as this. This is not the first time we have clashed, Edd, and it feels like a similar dynamic. The other two times i just stepped away. And it felt like shit.

I am not the first person to find this a difficult working environment. People have said they want to be involved (and are to a point) but can't figure out how, and people have, as you know, refused to be involved because of dynamics that i guess have existed before this. I have certainly felt them in other projects. And i can't quite put my finger one what the issue is but i think that, if you started, Edd, by trying to listen and collaborate rather than just move forward (even when you are trying to fix things, you are doing it on your own interpretation of what other people want), that would be a good first step.

I will make a separate post about this, too, but i will not be online much at all so please don't later accuse me of disappearing without notice.