Party Video 2016

[lindanesocialist]

As to comments about vin perhaps you should direct them at him. At the moment he has no way of responding. YFS Linda  

[lindanesocialist]

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.

It has been sent and the Acting Gen Sec has said it will be submitted to June EC

[Brian]

lindanesocialist wrote:

As to comments about vin perhaps you should direct them at him. At the moment he has no way of responding. YFS Linda  

He has my email address and can always use it if so wishes.  However my comments in my previous post was not directed at Vin in particular, but at all members of the party.   I don't blame him for what has occurred, despite the fact he's been at fault in many respects.  I blame the decision making process of online meetings.Its not fit for purpose imo.

[Bijou Drains]

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]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

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.

Good point.  By usual channels and procedures is meant communications that end up on the EC table.  Just making a posting here is not the usual channel of communications.  If on the other hand a posting is made here and then a duplicate sent to HO for the attention of the EC it becomes part and parcel of the usual channel and procedure of communications. Which I hope is what happened with all such 'Statements' posted on this forum.The problem with some of the posters is they presume that by posting a message titled 'A statement to the EC' on this web site it will by some magic wand waving in the ether automatically end up on the EC table.  No such thing will happen even if by chance some of the EC members are aware of such 'Statements' or any other information for that matter. Such information cuts no ice with the EC and it will quite rightly be treated as hearsay or second hand information, or ad hoc and filtered.Until the communication is sent to the EC through the usual channels and procedures it wont be dealt with at the EC table. The EC acts as an Information Clearing House/Network and it can only deal with the written information it receives.  

[Bijou Drains]

Brian wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

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.

Good point.  By usual channels and procedures is meant communications that end up on the EC table.  Just making a posting here is not the usual channel of communications.  If on the other hand a posting is made here and then a duplicate sent to HO for the attention of the EC it becomes part and parcel of the usual channel and procedure of communications. Which I hope is what happened with all such 'Statements' posted on this forum.The problem with some of the posters is they presume that by posting a message titled 'A statement to the EC' on this web site it will by some magic wand waving in the ether automatically end up on the EC table.  No such thing will happen even if by chance some of the EC members are aware of such 'Statements' or any other information for that matter. Such information cuts no ice with the EC and it will quite rightly be treated as hearsay or second hand information, or ad hoc and filtered.Until the communication is sent to the EC through the usual channels and procedures it wont be dealt with at the EC table. The EC acts as an Information Clearing House/Network and it can only deal with the written information it receives.  

Thanks BrianSo effectively what you are saying is that:"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."Is actually not the current state of affairs, and that the statement made by Vin will not (as things stand) be made available to the EC and that Gnome's contribution, stating that the EC should be made aware of this statement as a matter of urgency is actually founded, rather than unfounded and if this statement is to be made available to the EC, it should be sent through the "usual channels and procedures" not the ones it has been sent through to date. Effectively what you are saying is that Vin, or someone acting on his behalf should either email or send a hard copy of the statement to the Acting General Secretary for consideration at the next EC meeting, which I have got to say is not how your original statement  "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." reads to the me.YFSTim

[Brian]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Brian wrote:

 

Good point.  By usual channels and procedures is meant communications that end up on the EC table.  Just making a posting here is not the usual channel of communications.  If on the other hand a posting is made here and then a duplicate sent to HO for the attention of the EC it becomes part and parcel of the usual channel and procedure of communications. Which I hope is what happened with all such 'Statements' posted on this forum.The problem with some of the posters is they presume that by posting a message titled 'A statement to the EC' on this web site it will by some magic wand waving in the ether automatically end up on the EC table.  No such thing will happen even if by chance some of the EC members are aware of such 'Statements' or any other information for that matter. Such information cuts no ice with the EC and it will quite rightly be treated as hearsay or second hand information, or ad hoc and filtered.Until the communication is sent to the EC through the usual channels and procedures it wont be dealt with at the EC table. The EC acts as an Information Clearing House/Network and it can only deal with the written information it receives.  

Thanks BrianSo effectively what you are saying is that:"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."Is actually not the current state of affairs, and that the statement made by Vin will not (as things stand) be made available to the EC and that Gnome's contribution, stating that the EC should be made aware of this statement as a matter of urgency is actually founded, rather than unfounded and if this statement is to be made available to the EC, it should be sent through the "usual channels and procedures" not the ones it has been sent through to date. Effectively what you are saying is that Vin, or someone acting on his behalf should either email or send a hard copy of the statement to the Acting General Secretary for consideration at the next EC meeting, which I have got to say is not how your original statement  "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." reads to the me.YFSTim[/quote]The remark was made on the assumption that the statement would be communicated by the author throught the usual channels and procedures to the EC.  Clearly, this is not going to be the case.  And begs the question why all the fuss over something which is not going to happen?  

[SocialistPunk]

I would have thought it was obvious what the "usual channels and procedures" were for a member wishing a statement to find its way to the EC.The first port of call would be through their branch. In he absence of that "channel" another branch could be approached or probably easier than that, an email could be sent to the General Secretary at HO, asking that the statement be presented to the EC for discussion.As Brian asks, "..why all the fuss.."?

[alanjjohnstone]

As well as answered by me in post #26

Quote:

I think the usual channels is to e-mail the EC direct and have the content of your e-mail placed on the agenda for June EC meeting. Oliver Bond has to be commended for his diligence in that matter. He always tries to ensure members gets the attention of the EC.

[SocialistPunk]

Alan,If you, me and Brian knew, I fail to see how the others didn't know?I suppose if "usual channels" had been followed straight away, it wouldn't have made a good public argument first.

[alanjjohnstone]

Being outside the branch route, i have on occasion in the past addressed the EC direct with queries. I suppose if one has had no need for recourse to it, then it may not be seen as a possibility. Again, i have to award kudos to Oliver Bond and to Pat Deutz who placed my enquiry/comment onto the EC agenda as AOB after the preliminary agenda had already been set. Both do their best to facilitate members and counter-balances those who insist that we are dominated by bureaucrats. This is far from being my own personal experience.Rather than bureaucrats, some Party officers are what i describe as "legalists", who as Brian and Paddy explained, act with the worthy purpose of protecting the Party. If let loose to run with wild abandon, i would soon have the Party run aground, bankrupt and homeless. Steadier hands on the tiller is to be appreciated. 

[lindanesocialist]

Brian wrote:

The problem with some of the posters is they presume that by posting a message titled 'A statement to the EC' on this web site it will by some magic wand waving in the ether automatically end up on the EC table.  

see post 32How do you know these statement were not also sent to the EC. The statements do state 'to the EC' and that is exactly where they went as well as on this chat room. The more informed the better?

[lindanesocialist]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Alan,If you, me and Brian knew, I fail to see how the others didn't know?I suppose if "usual channels" had been followed straight away, it wouldn't have made a good public argument first.

 see post 32They were sent to EC by Vin and posted on here on his behalf by me. The more members are aware the better, don't you think?

[Anonymous]

lindanesocialist wrote:

[he more members are aware the better, don't you think?

Well yes, in theory.  I realise it's hearsay as I wasn't actually present, but nevertheless I'm reliably informed that, going by the discussion that took place at the May EC meeting, most (all?) EC members had not viewed the videos and were consequently uninformed about their content, especially with regard to the background music used.  At least one member knew nothing about YouTube thinking that it was necessary to subscribe in order to watch uploaded material.  Another got confused with a video Vin had made two years earlier which had some content which could be deemed to infringe copyright.  However, that particular video did not mention the party or refer to it directly in any way. Hardly surprising then that the EC ended up passing the motion that it did.  Garbage in; garbage out…

[alanjjohnstone]

Ouch 

Quote:

most (all?) EC members had not viewed the videos and were consequently uninformed about their content, especially with regard to the background music used.  At least one member knew nothing about YouTube thinking that it was necessary to subscribe in order to watch uploaded material.  Another got confused with a video Vin had made two years earlier

Decision made by speculation and hearsay ??

[Author]

Posts