Login Join IOPS

Can IOPS be revived?

forest
  • Written by:
  • Published on:
  • Categories:
  • Comments:
  • Share:

As anyone can see, IOPS is not working now. Is IOPS truly dead, or merely in a coma? Should we pull the plug or mount an effort at resuscitation?

I'd hate to see IOPS go. I met some terrific people through IOPS, and learned about ideas that I believe are important. If IOPS cannot work, we should let it go. But is this a case of a definitively failed project? Is there no way we, the members, working together, can change things for the better and make IOPS work?

In any case, we should not just let IOPS slip away. We should either disband IOPS, or decide to make some changes. I've started a project with the aim of letting the membership decide on the future of IOPS, here: Deciding the Future of IOPS. Any interested member is welcome to join this project, but if you decide to join, I hope you will actively participate and help to keep the discussions going.

Discussion 34 Comments

  • Dave Jones 24th Mar 2016

    Wow, sort of like a ghost ship appearing out of the fog! It had been so long since I checked into IOPS...I just assumed it was abandoned. I appreciate any vehicle for informed discussion of issues but if it takes resources, there are cheaper ways to accomplish same goal- such as your blog.

    As for the revolutionary project of chapter building etc.. I think it is over. I have moved on to climate change organizing and occasional forays into Next System Project. I would support a poll.

  • LedSuit ' 27th Mar 2016

    I wasn't going to write anything here anymore because I don't see the fucking point. What discussion of issues Dave? With whom? There is no fucking discussion about fucking anything. Discussions apparently happen on Facilebook. Have a look at Counterpunch. Join the discussion on Facilebook. Fuck have you seen those.

    If there is to be a vehicle for discussion other than FUCKING FACILEBOOK, then it will take resources. There is no cheaper option. And what are we to discuss anyway? No-one writes anything here, yet they probably all go off and read the fucking shit all those well known left writers write, right? Discussion? Paul fucking I'm a hardnosed intellectual ultra radical Street takes a pot shot at those fommenting on Z and even suggests that there are better discussions on Facilebook? Really Paul. So where is there discussion going on.

    Even Mark Evans, a huge fan of IOPS, has deserted this forum for that of Z to discuss his new project What About Classism. No, don't drop some advertising here, because tjis fucking place was all about organising on the ground chapters and if that fails, well, what you do is just walk away. Don't worry about the fucking money in the bank and work needed to keep this website, a reasonable and very workable site FOR DISCUSSION OF ANY SORT to happen, up and running. No, just piss of and write a few artice at TeleSur and Z and forget about IOPS completely. Same with Michael Albert.

    If you are in a local chapter, even still, ieep it to yourself, don't let anyone know your alive other than the odd post anout some fucking meeting a few people had somewhere.

    What duscussion Dave. We're all too busy doing our thang. Our local thang. And what the fuck is this local THANG? How would I know, no-one's writing about.

    What anout blogging here Dave about your organising effirts on a regular basis. Your frustrations or even the latest book you read because I can fucking tell you right now I would read that shit over any and every piece of self rightious intellectual ultra left poot Mr Street writes, because what he writes about is FUCKING EASY DUDE. FUCKING EASY.

    WHAT DISCUSSION. THE LEFT HATES TALKING TO ITSELF.

    I blame two full strength beers and a phone call from my good friend I met trying to put together a local chapter here in Melbourne, Jason Chaplin, for me writing this pile of emotional psycho fucking babble. So for fun take this,

    "The temptation is for a simple criticism that would merely list the purveyors of the post-identity vision, those who can flow and cream the unconscious in the current lingo without recourse to archetypes nor arty types, neither. But the point is not the separation of sheep from goats, artists protoculled like prattle cattle, but the explication and projection of the pleasures of the text into a social word, a plaint, a politics. The clutter only bothers those who seek to grid the ground and set up parking meters; the point is to collate the hot points of the culture, not cleanse a field and issue title deeds. White-hot needle-points held before the eyes of the bourgeoisie!"

  • Lambert Meertens 27th Mar 2016

    For quite some time, discussion here was actively discouraged as distracting from our main task, organizing to meet the preconditions. As you know, I felt that was a big mistake and a dead-end road. The developments since have given me no grounds to revise that opinion. But that phase is history now.

    People who have joined IOPS – and we still have a trickle of new members – must have done that with certain expectations that IOPS could mean something for them. What were those expectations? That is what the membership review hopes to find out. I for one think that we can offer some form of support for people who otherwise would be isolated. And I expect that a forum for discussions will be an important part of that.

    In the past we have had some very lively and (to me) interesting discussions here. To have sustained discussions on more specialized topics, you need a critical mass of participants, which may come with time. Until then, all you can expect are occasional flare-ups.

    • LedSuit ' 29th Mar 2016

      But let's face it Lambert there aren't even flare ups. My main point is, through all the "fucks", is that there is no space for discussion anywhere for misfits like myself who HATES the idea of organising and couldn't organise my way out of a wet paper bag. This place offered that but of course this place's focus was somewhere else in dreamland or la la land, organising and chapter building land. Peter Lach could see it.

      But this place offers a chance, without joining some specific group like LibCom, searching out blogs or commenting here and there and it's not FB. But it does need money. About 85 bucks US a month and the money is running out. So it isn't even a question of reviving this place, it's a question of resources. If there are cheaper ways Dave, point the way. I don't know jack shit about that. But if this place is to stay put, it could easily be done with a buck donation from each sign up, and if people don't want to pay, then they can go somewhere else. Where else that would be I have no idea. Facilebook is fast becoming the lone default mechanism for most discussion. Even Kev Tucker, the anarcho-primitivist death metal rewilder uses Facilebook to promote his journal and then tells all to get off it. I don't want to go near it. It's horrible and makes me feel melancholic when I do look at it!

      It's always a question of resources and the work required to maintain the site, which isn't easy apparently. So even if it's revived, which will require people to show some reguar activity on the site and not just hang out locally, silently trying to build chapters and posting locally, who's paying for it? How much money is left? It's a pretty easy equation.

      The focus on chapter building and the "concept" of organising helps kill conversation. Because the emphasis is always on meetings and face to face shit peope like myself just look like yappers, prattle cattle. No doing. Just talking about doing. Well, there's a place for armchairs and someone's gotta talk about shit because so many are writing shit, even all those who believe that you've gotta get out in the street or in direct action. So what's wrong with ordinary folk writing stuff and discussing stuff here? Growing a bit if awareness about stuff. The Next System Project for instance has no website conducive to discussion. I told Joe Guinan this and he said it will be changed when they have the resources. See, resources and they've probably got plenty. And that was a while back.

      Members here may have expectations but so do those renting out cyberspace and that money is running out.


  • Lambert Meertens 29th Mar 2016

    We can go on like this for about another year before the money runs out completely. That is one year in which we can try to turn things around. If the site shows enough signs of life to offer a believable promise of being able to become a valuable venue, I'm confident we'll have no problem in raising enough funds to go on for another year or two at least. All that is needed for that is 500 members donating an average of five US dollars per person.

    Yes, everything needs resources. Here is something else that takes considerable resources: designing and building a heavier-than-air machine for transporting people in sustained flight. That has not kept a long sequence of pioneers of attempting to construct such machines until the Wright brothers were the first to reach success. Imagine these pioneers had given up after the first failure. Each failure provides material that can be studied and used as feedback for doing better next time.

    In this case I saw the failure coming in advance, but the people who could have averted it at the time weren't heeding my warnings. Let's see if we can do better this time. We'll make other mistakes, I'm sure, but maybe not so bad that we (or others) can't pick up the pieces and go for the next try.

     "It is good to have an end to journey towards; but it is the journey that matters, in the end."

    The Left Hand of Darkness, Ursula K. Le Guin 



  • Dave Jones 1st Apr 2016

    James asks "What discussion?" and I answer: this one, right here. We just need to get the other ten people in this project to chime in a bit. So, what has everybody been up to? Is capitalism in crisis, and if so, what is the nature of it? Accumulation crisis, legitimation crisis, resource and pollution crisis? A change in the structure of experience, a crisis of meaning and imagination, we could go on for quite awhile.

    The other thing is, if maintaining this site sucks up too much energy,( we are all busy trying to stay sane) I have several blogs we could hang out in, or we could invade Peter's blog, it's much nicer than mine actually, plenty of beer in the fridge, and he doesn't yell and rant till all hours of the night, like I have a tendency to. Or... we could take over some random blog, someone we DON'T like and just troll the shit out of them.

    In my opinion, we are looking at a crisis of jouissance; no one can find their joy anymore. Lame fantasies, cynical laughing, ironic dancing, cognitive maps that show trails into the jungle but when you get there, you find they are grown over, vague and forking off in every direction.

  • Lambert Meertens 2nd Apr 2016

    "with jouissance we meet the only ontic to which we may confess." — Lacan.

    • LedSuit ' 2nd Apr 2016

      My post should have been below yours Lambert. Hell knows why it ended up there.

    • LedSuit ' 2nd Apr 2016

      Well it did end up below after I refreshed! Strange indeed.

  • LedSuit ' 2nd Apr 2016

    Ah, Lacan. Now we can have a Real conversation. As someone pointed out recently, Lacanian theory should he judged by its ineffective therapeutic work as evidenced by the high suicide rates of recipients. No jouissance in that! I'd like to see Kevin Tucker and Lacan, and maybe Delude and GutTheory, go head to head about meaning. Rewilding vs jouissance vs shit.

    Capitalism doesn't allow for joy, just work. Money. It's civilisation rather than capitalism for Tucker that brings out his death metal rage. Fuck what it is for Lacan. Possibly the anal and shit for Delude and GutTheory.

    "Conversely, marred by commodification, artistic practice today is a deformation of the sensuous unfolding of the self that indicates real human community. The reification of human activity into the separate realms of work and play, of aesthetics and politics must be overcome. The aesthetic must be rescued from the ghetto of art and set at the centre of life. That is a politics of art, politics in art and through art." Militant Esthetix

    https://archive.org/details/Blepharospasms23-iii-2016

  • Lambert Meertens 2nd Apr 2016

    Each time there is a significant correlation, one should be careful not to assume the trajectory of causation that most immediately presents itself, but carefully consider all other connections for all combinations of directions of the arrows of causality. In this specific case, for example, consider that a sufferer would have to have been pretty desperate – may I say suicidally desperate? – before presenting themselves to Lacan for psychoanalytic dissection. Not so severely afflicted patients will most likely survive any not physically violent treatment.

    There can be joy and deep satisfaction in work if you have a sense of belonging to a community and contributing to it. What takes the joy out of work is Marxian alienation. I don’t know if it makes sense, though, to keep labeling the dominant neoliberal symbiosis of State and Corporationville with the name “capitalism”. This system is all about exclusion, us and them, with bread and games for us. It may seem firmly lodged and impossible to get rid off, but I believe that history is a chaotic process. If we don’t know what’s ahead, it is because we can’t know.

    By the way, I always thought pain is pretty ontic as well.

  • LedSuit ' 2nd Apr 2016

    I know nothing of Lacan (I'm more au fait with Lycan) but the person who said it works in the field.

    I agree about estranged labour. Capitalism is easier to say than "neoliberal symbiosis of State and Corporationville."

  • Dave Jones 4th Apr 2016

    My point is that we who Desire these big projects for justice need to incorporate an appreciation for the workings of the unconscious in our theory making. The straight up rational class-based analysis just leads into that jungle I was talking about. So yeah, money and work and modernity and estrangement, but also fantasy and the symbolic and that "lack". Hole-istic!

    I keep thinking of Michael Albert, hitching himself to Parecon and this Chomskian analysis, and trying all these big projects: Zschool and The International and the always-struggling ZNet, still trying to build a popular Front based on this modified class theory (adding Coordinators to the mix). Well I put a bunch of energy into IOPS and the IWW before that and I can't find those Brave Workers here. And I don't think Occupy said shit about "inequality", contrary to the new dominant narrative. So I want to reflect a bit more (with my affinity folks) and figure out where to put my dwindling energy. I still think climate is key and Participatory Society a good, alternative, post-capitalist vision.

    • Lambert Meertens 4th Apr 2016

      The problem with this inequality narrative is that it focuses narrowly on inequality in the distribution of wealth. I believe the real issue is the inequality in the distribution of power. The wealth disparity is a consequence of that, but even if it was possible to give everyone a fair share of the total wealth without breaking down the power structure, the worst problems humanity faces — of which climate change is one, but by no means the only one – would not be solved. Obviously, a President Sanders is not going to introduce socialism. He would first have to introduce democracy.

      How can we change that new dominant narrative into one that is more to the point?

  • LedSuit ' 5th Apr 2016

    I think Dave has a point. But how is appreciation of the unconscious incorporated? Certainly not by all gathering around and listening to Tom Morello?

    I don't think power can exist in isolation from a skewed manipulation of the social pie. I don't think it possible to redistribute wealth or access to the social pie, evenly or equally or as equally as possible, without destroying the current arrangements power base. Those with can walk away those without can't.

  • LedSuit ' 5th Apr 2016

    "The intelligence of the real begs for attention, break-outs of quotidian vulgarity spotting the fine-spun tissue of rarefied abstraction.

    'The faculty of thought...is not accomplished by the intellect itself, but by its connection with the world of truth, its inter-relation with universal existence.'

    The materialist analysis of thought should lead to examination of human needs and history of their satisfaction and frustration." (Art,Class and Cleavage -Ben Watson)

    "As Hume put the matter, we must keep to the "Newtonian philosophy," with a "modest skepticism to a certain degree, and a fair confession of ignorance in subjects, that exceed all human capacity" - which for Hume includes virtually everything beyond appearances. We must refrain from disquisitions concerning there real nature and operations." (Chomsky, ch2, What Kind of Creatures Are We)

    "Material Esthetix is a name for raising these embarrassing issues:to freeze the suave flow of discourse and lift it at right-angles from the page. Intimate exposition of cultural debris, its themes and objects, provides its anchor: a salutory (if cheap and somewhat rancid) buttering up, gratifying its proclivity for obsessional detail and giving the up-puff of grandeur the slip."(Art,Class and Cleavage)

    "Comparable concerns are considered to pose serious dilemmas for the study of the first brain and its capacities, human language specifically. This seems to be one instance of a curious tendency to treat mental aspects of the human organism differently from so-called physical aspects, a kind of methodological dualism, which is more pernicious than Cartesian metaphysical dualism." (Chomsky, What Kind of Creatures Are We)

    I tend not to find the two approaches incompatible. Like the linguistics of Voloshinov and Chomsky investigating two sides of the same coin. The internal and external. The artist does the same thing but not if the work is captured by the spectacle and bound up in suave bourgeois bundles. The directness of the free improvisation, the coalface of artistic production, or the subjective underpinnings of Zappa's, Baby Take Your Teeth Out, written quickly during a sound check, are far more interesting and fun and as important as any up-puff grandeur.

    That Chomsky rejects the subjective in his critique, "art", in order not to confuse or add some kind of unquantifiable data to his narrative, creates the sorts of splits that Ben Watson, in Art, Class and Cleavage, for instance, as epitomised by the phrases Militant Esthetix or Materialist Esthetix, rallies against. Esemplasm, a term derived from Coleridge, meaning "shaping into oneness", is not a form of transcendence. It is the opposite. A materialist dialectic. Delving into the "real" to find all kinds of shit that uncovers further shit. It is open to all the little nasties that rub up abrasively against the bourgeois ideological bundle. Particularly the separation of things into separate fields where they rarely meet and if they do, it is because some anonymous academic has some theory to expound, of course, in a correct and well mannered way. A "suave flow" that avoids the mess.

    This is what Zappa did not do, or Bailey or Chadbourne. Perhaps metal, death metal does a similar job. Poetry. The mess is the nitty gritty that just cannot be avoided. The paranoia of Kafka's rodent who has ventured outside its burrow and yet never feels safe even if inside. Perhaps this is why I find IOPS depressing. Everything has to be neat and tidy with clearly defined edges and boundaries and when the "oneness" of everything, the connectivity of all, is acknowledged, the message devolves into some kind of banal and uninteresting moral transcendence and it drives me crazy.

    Maybe the above seems naively silly to some, but to me, Chomskian rationality and methodology is not incompatible with a scrap in the street. Reasonable scientific investigations running parallel to the pursuance dirty desires. This is not a matter of one or the other but a matter of working within the bounds of our capacities without getting carried away with the extremes of scientism or transcendence.

    The very basic notion of economic equality and opportunity without disadvantage being enlarged due to savage competition, is a first clear step towards real democracy. Without it democracy is like the end of a rainbow, beyond grasp.

    Dreams may be impossible to truly and faithfully externalise, but the experience of them should not be subject to fear and anxiety. To the impossibility of their realisation due to arbitrary social arrangements that allow only a few to see them through.

    Climate change may be the rallying point, but to what end?

    • Lambert Meertens 6th Apr 2016

      As one armchair philosopher to another, can you explain the basis for your statement that Chomsky rejects the subjective in his critique? It seems to me that his political critique has a highly subjective element in consistently presenting freedom as something worth striving for. While I agree – I too see freedom as highly desirable – I can't think of an objective reason why it should be better than authoritarian dictatorship. That actually holds equally for the survival of the human species.

  • LedSuit ' 6th Apr 2016

    Oh I ain't no philostopher of any sort Lambert. I'm just makin' shit up. I'm not even sure I understand myself. I'm not sure I even agree with myself. It's just me fucking around really trying to make sense of things. I think I was trying to address Dave talking about this difference between Chomskian rationality and people like Lacan. Also because of some of the shit I'm reading at the moment.

    I don't think I'm talking about freedom as the subjective but more like the sort of psycho shit that flows out of my head here for instance on a regular basis that subsequently creates the strong desire I have for the deletion of all my posts.

    I think I really am not caring much anymore so I'm just fucking around. I don't hold any hope for any movement or organisation at all. Me thinks it a pipe dream.

    The fact is I don't find Chomskian analysis a problem at all but I do find it lacking something. Or it reeks of a sense far too sensible. A matter of factness. Similar to the kind of "left nirvana" that the Fanfare series smells of if only people would behave reasonably amd rationally while trying to build movements. People just aren't and never will be that reasonable all the time and sensible. Shit, look what I write here Lambert! It's tripe but I continue to write. Groups, orgs, or movements just won't hold together like the way presented in the Fanfare series, I feel. Like this place. In fact, anywhere really and in any way.

    All I desire is a smilie on my face when I wake tomorrow but know it is unlikely, will be forced, or if there is one, short lived. I'll wake up with the usual, "fuck, another work day. Great!"

    Freedom? Yeah, great, whatever it is. Freedom won't come if there isn't equal opportunity or access to the social pie. For me it's simple. All I got is Parecon. Nothing else. Nothing else gets me interested. I think markets and capitalism are fucked. I don't need to keep hearing or reading about that. I think solidarity economics is rooted in some kind of notion of moral goodness or transcendence, smiley faced communities or some such shit, without the institutions and ideas being properly thought through. Not much different in that sense to anarcho-primies like Kevin Tucker. Tiny houses and simple living is not the answer. Nor is social democracy of the Nordic variety. That "non-vision" presented by the Next System Project just made me angry. It's merely stalling. Bullshit. We need a new economic system, period but I feel there will never be consensus on vision, ever, nor strategy. Never. Chomsky says the Next System Project is doing good things. It all helps. Yeah, it does, but I am somehow a little suspicious of it. I'm not so sure about presenting a heap of visions that all seem so institutionally different without serious critique and attempts at finding the positives, negatives, similarities and differences with a view to build a coherent sensible model. It doesn't help, it's actually just confusing and I am uncertain that is the sort of area one wants diversity. Seriously. Diverse economies? What the fuck does that even mean? Many economies? Yeah, and love will keep us together!!!

    Dave mentioned all these grand schemes of Albert's. The thing is, ZSocial was a fucking good idea and he gave it a shot. But like this fucking website and it's members, not many really used it or wanted to pay $3 a month. A left facebook isn't possible, not because Albert's idea was a bad one, but because the left, whatever the fuck it is (and even radicals argue about the term the Left, or is it left with a small L, and what it means) just can't hang out with itself. It prefers bickering with itself or organising local action. Just talking, chatting, discussing things, is a waste of time. So many lefties still use Facebook because they can remain separate grom one another. It's a place to go where one can feel part of something while not being a part of anything. ZSocial was too confronting for the left and its crappy social skills. ZNet is always struggling because of how the economy works and people don't want to put in a little for its services or can't. It's not hard to understand.

    The truth is Chomsky is reluctant to enter the visionary kitchen. His analysis is usually about existing ills. Pointing them out again and agin. He'll talk about possible future alternatives if pressed or asked but doesn't seem that excited by the subject and leaves his discussion short.

    Yeah, just fucking around Lambert because I feel that there is really nothing to revive here. IOPS is a figment of our imagination like the idea of a mass movement. Just using the words dream or hope means nothing.

  • Lambert Meertens 6th Apr 2016

    "I'm just makin' shit up. I'm not even sure I understand myself. I'm not sure I even agree with myself. It's just me fucking around really trying to make sense of things."

    All hallmarks of the great philosophers.

    • Irie Zen 2nd Jun 2016

      Dear international order of great pipedreamin' armchair philosophers: I'm enjoying this conversation.

  • Lambert Meertens 6th Apr 2016

    Everything we think we know about the world is a figment of our imagination. The authority of nation states to tell us what we may or may not do, see, read, believe, what you call "arbitrary social arrangements", it's all in our heads. Not really different from the Emperors's new clothes. It becomes "reality" by being a widely shared illusion.

    • Irie Zen 2nd Jun 2016

      Professional perception management made by the powers to be (behind the curtain). Love it.

      Liquid identities in a semi-virtual metaverse;
      Circular lava lamp metamorphosis;
      Mediabrainfuck since '83;
      Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

  • Lambert Meertens 6th Apr 2016

    One of the problems with ZSocial (and also this website) is that Michael Albert does not believe in commons and open source. The code was proprietary, owned by the programmers. I think we could have made good use of that code.

  • David Dominic 6th Apr 2016

    Lambert, I feel IOPS groups took off but not the networking stuff. I think the London group is doing brilliant things. We're planning a series of events and are active in helping build various radical projects in London.

    Are there other active groups? If so, I think the first thing to do is for the groups to talk to each other and see if there is stuff we can work together on? If not, then disband?

    • Lambert Meertens 6th Apr 2016

      As far as I'm aware, the Salem (Oregon) chapter is the only other remaining operational chapter. I think Austria, Dublin and Melbourne, which used to be active, have become quiescent. In any case, I don't see signs of life.

      You need a certain critical mass before a local collection of members can establish a more permanent existence. Almost everywhere we never reached the necessary concentration to draw some public attention. I suspect that almost all potential members were (and are) not aware of the existence of IOPS.

      The operational chapters used to have a chat on a regular basis until January 2015, but there was not enough interest in continuing them. Since most of these chapters already led a precarious existence locally, I don't think it was a good idea to saddle them with the responsibility for issues at the international level.

      Disbanding IOPS and donating the little remaining money to a worthy cause may be the best, but my feeling is that such a decision should be taken by the membership as a whole. But before we do that, why not have a last try to see if enough sparks are left to rekindle the fire?

    • LedSuit ' 6th Apr 2016

      There were a few IOPS groups David. ''Bout five or so, really. Small. I think they even got together to talk a while back off site. Nothing much happened. Melbourne's dead. No interest. No-one uses the site ''cept for minutes from remaining stragglers, which are usually pretty thin on information, which may or may not be posted on the home page, so "sign ons" probably don't know of existing groups and any activity. But that seems to be the way. The homepage is just clutter. The code is proprietary. And it seems left websites for discussion or chatting are a dead end. If they post a lot of information and have a library, (LibCom) then they seem to get a bit of traffic. It's about organising on the ground and doing stuff. So get on. No need for a website. Email or some open source communication tool is all that's needed. The wider world doesn't need to know about shit as long as people feel good about themselves. Sarcasm? Probably. There's always facebook.

  • Peter Lach-Newinsky 14th Apr 2016

    NOTHING SPECIAL

    'each something is
    a celebration of the nothing
    that supports it'
    (John Cage)

    here we are together then
    in chaos chipping away
    at blocks of meaning

    remembering
    nothing
    special

    waves of space
    edge
    these lines

    walking their silence
    picking up shelled
    whorls of sound

    a polished pebble
    a bit of net
    sea-smooth driftwood

    from that space
    the salt breeze points to
    without horizon

    like a poem
    celebrating
    its firm nothing

    as it fades
    back into the sea
    it never was, ever

    is

    • Irie Zen 2nd Jun 2016

      I started reading your wordpress blog. Made me smile and think. Pleasant experience. Thanks.

    • Peter Lach-Newinsky 3rd Jun 2016

      Thanks Irie, much appreciated. Peter

  • Bubble 07 15th Apr 2016

    I think it would be better to start something else and close IOPS. I don't think it's possible for this place to get away from the "What went wrong?" discussion that has to come before any planning, and I think it's kind of toxic.

    Keep it simple. Start a subreddit or slack channel. Regroup and make a plan. Use the IOPS mailing list to invite people and put the remaining money into spreading awareness of a new project.

  • Lambert Meertens 15th Apr 2016

    It's a possible approach, but if we do this, it should be by a collective choice of the membership (inasmuch as they are still interested). At least, I feel it would not be proper for a break-away group to use the IOPS mailing list for its own purposes, however noble.

    Choosing a new name (as many have advocated before) and migrating to a new site might be parts of a start-over plan. While these would be cosmetic changes, they may help (impressions matter), but some more substantive changes may be in order. I think we should soon start brainstorming on Reimagining IOPS.

  • Peter Lach-Newinsky 15th Apr 2016

    Forget corpses. Nuit debout. The next radical movement, en France. Great self-organizing website:

    http://www.nuitdebout.fr/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=sendpress&utm_campaign

    • The Chimp 16th Apr 2016

      "..,Every day there are thousands to occupy public space to take our place in the Republic. Come join us and decide together on our common future."

      And right there at that interface, the problems begin....again.

  • Lambert Meertens 21st May 2016

    I've now set up a new project, Reimagining IOPS – The Project, to prepare one or more proposals for changes to IOPS that can be voted on by the membership against the alternative, default proposal to disband.

    This project is open to all members who want to help out with this.