[CIMC-work] comments on imc Italy comm proposal and link to imc local response

[Doug Morris]

Hi all,

Today, an affirmative response was posted by an imc local to the Italy 
proposal on communication. That makes this something of a live proposal.

Summary:

If the Italy imc proposal sails, it could be a poor choice and centralizing 
strategy (in several ways) in someways for the network.  I believe the 
proposal needs significant revision or an entirely new proposal is needed

A more decentralized and stepwise approach to growing horizontal 
communications is possible, but will take more work and time to grow.

Below are:
         a link to a response (first by local) to the Italy proposal by Imc 
West Vlaanderen
         the guts of the imc Italy proposal (edited down just a bit)
         *comments* on the points & suggestion of a ways forward on this

At the end of the third section below on comments are some key comments.

Hope you all can take time to consider this.
Best, Doug

Discussion and points:

- a local response to the Italy comm proposal

Today, Imc West Vlaanderen, an new imc local in Belgium (that uses dutch as 
first language) in an area near Holland responded positively (and briefly 
in affirmative with a few suggestions) to the IMC Italy communication proposal:

Imc West Vlaanderen response on Italian proposal for the global lists.
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-process/2003-March/004664.html

- Imc Italy proposal summary

[the intro is cut down in this trimmed version]

A proposal for the global lists (IMC Italy)
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-process/2003-February/004648.html

Introduction and Reasons of the Proposal

Global lists don't work and are dominated by English emails.
Having a working internal communication system is crucial to a horizontal 
and participatory network

PROPOSAL

a. imc-finance and imc-process should become liaison lists (with one or
more liaison per imc); for liaison we mean a person who take discussions
from global lists to local and back. In emergency or very specic situations 
(as for basic funds in imc-finance), they can take decision.
As any rule in the network this should be regarded more as a guideline. So, 
obviously third-party intervention or individual
reflection of particular interest should be approved by moderators.

b. imc-communication as a open collective discussion list and
non-moderated communication, as place where to develop discussions (not
excluding the possibility to open different more specific mailing list,
with no decision making value, as for example imc-finance-discussion)

c. make a new call through the contact db to renew the request to local
imc to choose one or more liaison on imc-finance and imc-process. We
think the fact not to have voice in the global decision making process
is sufficiently "punishing" not to need to threaten local imc which do
not comply to be kicked out of the network.

d. include in any mail a summary before anything else, to make a thread
reading easier.

e. in the liaison list choose two main languages in which all the
message should at least be translated (we suggest spanish and english).
Liaison should wait to have both language version before sending a mail
to the list. Even if this will make discussion slower.

f. list administrators should make a summary of the list every 2 months
or be substituted by another volunteer. Summary for imc-finance and
imc-process should be sent through imc-summaries to all the contact 
communication db addresses.

g. we propose the creation of a north america imc list, to allow imcs
based in that region to extensively discuss non-global concerning issues
without increasing the already heavy traffic of global lists.

We hope the discussion on imc-process and imc-finance of this proposal
will bring us to decide some building principles for our internal
communication and to remember that horizontality that what we always look 
for is to build starting from the possibility of everybody to participate 
with the times of the access they have. Let's take the time to build our
network

italy imc


- comments:

I propose we take 3 months to consider the coming transformation of the imc 
global network (guessing within in the next year, perhaps next half year or 
sooner). These issues especially need to be discussed:
         - comm issues
         - finance
         - regional and global tech solutions

First, the Italy proposal needs energy soon.

Three ways forward on the Italy:
1. inspite of all flaws in this, support the IMC Italy proposal (with 
modifications) to improve the crippled global imc network communication process
2. write an alternate plan
3. ignoring this... not an option, *if* we want to help indymedia to 
realize its dream of being a globally decentralized network of media 
activists and media activists collectives, who share a number of principles 
and some mutual aid and resources.

Suggested working group goal:
It would be nice to have a finished draft proposal by April 2 that can be 
submitted to the cimc list for discussion.
It would nice for the working group to be empowered at the next cimc 
meeting to draft a response *and* then put it on the list for a week before 
release.

Key criticisms:
- Liaisons with decision power are a very centralizing move.  Liaisons in 
general should be option; full group linking to decision lists (through 
group email) is enough and allows variety in ways of participating and a 
more fluid and shared process of linking to the net.
- Multiple languages need to be used on one or more process discussion and 
planning lists.  These notes need to go up without translation.
- unmoderated global discussion lists will not work (spam and flame wars 
will shut things down). moderation can be done to encourage 
participation.  Further....
- unmoderated discussion lists can ofte be dominated by a 
few.  facilitation is needed to incourage inclusion of speakers with 
diverse views and backgrounds
- the suggestions about summaries need to be reworked
- a north american imc?   two problems with this.  see below.
- requiring global participation for imc net membership is too 
centralized.  making a list of what locals want to do (global south 
support, tech resource creation, grassroots funds creation and 
distribution) and then making that available to imcs that participate seems 
more reasonable.  many imcs are small volunteer gigs.

Note: I am a cimc participant and co-facilitator of imc-process.  My 
thoughts about the following come from where imc lists have been and may be 
going.

Point by point discussion:

a.
The current major liaison lists are not working well (do not have a lot of 
participation):  imc-communications and imc-finance.  imc comm is dead and 
imc-finance has only a few participating imcs.  Flipping the liaison method 
over to imc-process will not solve the issue.
Further and very importat, creating liaisons with decision making power 
creates representatives with organizational power - an elite in the 
movement.  This is a centralizing move and not needed.  There can be a flow 
of participation by whoever wants to in a local to participate in global 
discussions.  Locals can directly send notes to a decision list (not 
individuals) through special emails (for the group shares password) such as 
imc-chigago@indy (a redirect from whatever).  If some locals want to 
centralize and rely one or two liaisons, great.  If others want to do a 
full collective process for all emails, then great.  That option should be 
there, at least stated.

b.
This probably will not work.  Major non moderated lists in imc are being 
flooded by spam.
Further, lack of moderation often leads to a few discussants dominating the 
discussions!  Facilitation (and online stack keeping, somehow, there are 
ways) will increase participation.
Discussion needs to be facilitated for inclusion!
Imc-process periodically (every month or two) has some *important* 
discussions. It is something of a planing and internal news forum. Easiest 
would be for imc process to be built on for diversity of views. Something 
deeper is needed to change the dynamics of internal lists. Language and 
facilitation to discuss an agenda topics are needed (and both 
transformations are under way).  A more nuanced process and one that 
connect more directly to issues of interest to locals are needed.  A more 
fluid way for locals to get involved, than liaisons, might work better.]

c. reguired participation?  if I understand this:  this point is too harsh 
and too centralized.  there can be degrees of participation in the 
networks.  if no participation in global list, then no say in global 
finance and tech and new imc support and revision of principles issues is 
enough.  we are all volunteers and time ebbs and flows.

d. yes, a summary.  but also regular indexing of posts and summaries of 
discussions -- by facilitators and whomever (hopefully the list takes this on).

e. more languages needed.  and the multiple translation needed before 
posting is a bad idea.  if a language is in english, spanish, french and 
one of a few other languages, it should be able to go up to the list right 
away.  contiguous discussions in a handful of languages should be 
encouraged.  a bit more cacophony will lead to more participation and 
fluidity of cultural and north-south exchanges.

f. this point needs to be refined.  After watching summaries being 
created:  There needed to be two times.  Discussion summaries and indexes 
of discussions.  It seems more helpful to call for summaries of specific 
discussions more often....  And perhaps round those up on varying time 
flow... perhaps links to key summaries monthly and then a half yearly round up.

g. a north america imc (or did they mean usa):  Canada wouldn't go for 
this. this is from outside looking in.   a usa list, if that is what is 
meant may not be desired. There are many regions and even more states in 
the usa that have way more to do with each other than with imcs across 
continent.

The closing sentiment is nice.  The proposal doesn't serve this.

For a short proposal, it tries to cover too much ground and still leaves 
out a number of key points.
Another approach might have been to call for discussion of a list of points 
and cooperation on working on the most key ones:  perhaps translation and 
facilitation volunteer work.

A key point to add is that locals need to encourage volunteers to give 
hours to facilitation and summaries of global lists.

Overall, this proposal calls for a lot of volunteer work.  For the global 
lists to grow, it may take a step by step process of asking locals:
         what they want to do globally
                 (helping global south imcs dev is reason enough, working 
on tech is another)
         what they are doing
         how their state imcs or imc regions (if active) do inter-imc 
networking
[sound familiar?]

Yet, inspite of all the flaws, we may want to support this with suggested 
modifications....
Or, perhaps offer an alternative plan.

So, while I have hesitated to dive in to summarizing this so that others 
can review these points, I have done so in hopes that we can address this 
issue together....

So, after discussion, a response to the Italy note could be an edited 
version of the above with more comments, hopefully constructive.
Or, it could be a rewritten plan for communications.

Best, Doug