[CIMC-work] Letter draft re: US-IMC

[Ian Bicking]

I don't get why we would want to be so contrarian -- this letter just 
seems full of pessimism and calls for more process.  I certainly don't 
want to get into more process, and I'm not sure if anyone else here 
does either -- and it's irresponsible to call for process unless you 
are willing to personally follow that process and constructively try to 
move it forward.  The collective can't do that -- is there an 
individual who is willing to be part of this process?

Personally I think it's far more constructive to move things forward, 
and fix them if there's problems.  Letters like this are a huge 
de-motivator to the people who are trying to improve the Indymedia 
network through their work.

On Nov 22, 2003, at 4:59 PM, Mitchell Szczepanczyk wrote:
> Draft is below.  Feel free to comment/amend/revise/whatever.
>
> Thanks.
> ----------
> _ Z  Mitchell Szczepanczyk
>   /  http://home.uchicago.edu/~msszczep 
> http://www.chicagomediaaction.org
>      http://www.geocities.com/szczepanczyk http://chicago.indymedia.org
>
> Chicago Indymedia would like to express some reservations about the
> proposed US-IMC project.  These can be summarized in the following 
> points.
>
> Point one: Improving diverse representation.  Ostensibly, one 
> motivation
> of US-IMC was and is to reduce American emphasis and increase global
> south participation in such things as the global center panel and the
> syndicated feed of center panels on the right-hand column of
> Indymedia Global.  If so, was the global south consulted as
> to what in their opinion would be on the matter?  Were they asked if 
> this
> was a good or effective idea, or consulted as to what should be done
> to increase global south activity in Indymedia?
>
> Point two: Accountability.  Who decides what would be center paneled on
> US-IMC?  What criteria would be used?  More to the point, was the
> decision to work on creating a US-IMC was not brought before every IMC 
> in
> the United States and agreed upon by all US-IMCs?  After all, the 
> syndicated
> features on the right-hand column of global IMC; why can't a similar
> deliberation/consensus take place for US-IMC?
>
> Point three: Redundancy.  Based on the traffic to date, US-IMC sounds 
> like
> it would replicate the global site, but include only US
> contributions.  What new content or contributions, if any, would the
> US-IMC bring to the network?  If there aren't any, how then is US-IMC
> this an improvement to the network?
>
> Point Four: Global impacts.  The issue of US-IMC isn't just a matter 
> for
> the United States.  A significant portion of the global movement is
> in the United States and any effort involving the US could have massive
> reverber ations, positive and , across the global indymedia
> movement.  Perhaps the debate of a US-IMC should be brought before the
> entire indymedia network--simply because of the possible global
> reverberations.
>
> We understand that it may be too late to halt the process of assembling
> US-IMC, but it would appear that a number of considerations that were
> not brought or considered to the attention of the US-IMC organizers.  
> We
> therefore ask that these issues be satisfactorily addressed,
> or the US-IMC organizing process be delayed until such time as these
> issues can be addressed.