[CIMC-working] Fw: [IMC-Process] clarification of point of view

[Chris Kaihatsu]

----- Original Message -----
From: Doug Morris <being@enteract.com>
To: <imc-process@lists.indymedia.org>
Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2002 7:42 PM
Subject: [IMC-Process] clarification of point of view


> Hi all,
>
> One of the other list participants who has volunteered to facilitate
> (should the proposal be accepted)  asked me in a personal note for
> clarification about the role I speaking from in two posts made today.
>
> I thought it would be good to share that explanation on the list.
> So...  I hope this helps clarify my views:
>
> Re: indymedia popularity - process pts. [en]
>
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-process/2002-November/004282.h
tml
> This post is written mostly from the point of view as a potential list
> facilitator (along lines of recent proposals).
>
> The above post explains how I understand some of the process facilitation
> proposal suggestions *and* about the need for list with long notes and
> debate.   I believe we need to have at least one process list for long
> notes and debate (in single languages) and at least one process list for
> short notes and many translations.  We need both great freedom of speech
in
> imc on some lists and great equality through moderation processes such as
> the SF IMC proposal combined with the facilitation proposal on the list
> "floor."  Perhaps eventually we can have both.  We cooked up the idea of
> two lists to experiment with very different ways to do collective
> discussions.  There are a few extra points in the post above, but the main
> thing is to comment on understanding of process points.
>
> The discussion of these next points are longer because the situation we
are
> in is so grave and urgent:
>
> Re: indymedia popularity - strategy pts. [en]
>
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-process/2002-November/004283.h
tml
> This post is written from point of view as a list and imc participant.
>
> This strategy post and another before it argue that some profoundly
> important strategic issues for imc need to be discussed now, widely (hope
> so!).  Note: these issues may touch on our editorial mission, policies,
and
> unity principles. Hence, these strategy issues may be of profound
relevance
> to the process list.  As mentioned several times in recent posts, the
place
> for this discussion may be the imc-strategies list.
>
> Why would I would want to engage in debate now?  Well!!!! We have passed
> through a historic rupture in U.S. politics. --  The stolent 2000
election,
> the reaction to 9/11 and the recent mid-term election in giving power in
> all of congress, the executive branch and the judiciary will have as
> profound an impact on U.S. politics as perhaps as the Reformation, New
Deal
> and post-WWII emergence of the U.S. as a super power.  A government that
> was much influenced by corporations has now been bought lock, stock, and
> barrel  --  the u.s gov is not a horribly powerful weapon for capitalists
> and fascist imperialists.
>
> The political and legal landscape of this country has just been recast to
> greatly favor the far right . It is extremely important to debate strategy
> issues in imc.  Imc in its public processes has ignored strategy too
> long.  Unfortunately, the situation of the U.S. is very relevant as it the
> operations of imc network depend on U.S. resources and volunteer efforts
in
> various ways -- until we change our server base and various other
processes
> we may be in serious trouble.
>
> We need to *DIVERSIFY* or perhaps be massively repressed.  The survival of
> imc is a process issue I think.  The pursuit of survival and freedom as a
> network of media activists is a process, yes?  If we are in no danger, OK,
> what an incredible relief this will be.   Or, hey, perhaps if the U.S.
imcs
> go down, that will be the best thing for the imc network: forcing
> diversification.  I say prepare for that now in various ways -- in
> processes, policies, tech stuff, media approches, etc. -- we shouldn't
risk
> dealing with this latter.
>
> Note: On the process work list with short posts and translations, I think
> that a facilitator role would have to be transparent and one would need to
> hold ones views in check.   It would need to be more in the role one
> usually thinks of for moderators... serving the discussion of others.  On
a
> very lightly unregulated list with minimal facilitation, this is not the
case.
>
> I think it is fine for facilitators and potential facilitators to engage
in
> debate on an open process list in debate or long discussions.  Ironically
> perhaps given recent posts, I support strongly support Chuck and other
> people's positions from Sept./October who want very unrestricted free
> speech on imc lists (and yes, there do need to be some limits).  But we
> can't have only lists with no holds barred verbal scrums, which still do
> need to be within certain bounds.  Others get excluded when only a
minority
> of folks do a lot of debating.
>
> I will move my further responses along lines of the second note on
strategy
> above to the imc-strategy list for the time being. I do believe summaries
> and/or indexes of strategy debates should be presented to the process
list,
> especially when the strategy points may related to the understanding of
imc
> policies and ideals.
>
> I did aim to create a buzz with the initial strategy post.  And Chuck came
> out with a buzz saw.  In my personal opinion: too much verbal violence,
> really. But if he toned it down a notch or two we can have some good
> debates. I hope we can take these debates to the strategy list and engage
> in more civil discussions about profoundly important strategy issues.  If
> you want an overview of the points... please read the previous strategy
> posts and forthcoming ones on the strategy list.
>
> Thanks for your patience with the process and strategy points.
>
> Should it unfold... I really really look forward to many discussions by
> many people on these lists to empower us all and diversify global justice
> media options for indymedia activists, locals, groups and networks (i
think
> plural yes?) in various ways.
>
> Best, Doug
>
> _______________________________________________
> imc-process mailing list
> imc-process@lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-process
>