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

[Chris Kaihatsu]

> Personally I think it's far more constructive to move things forward,
> and fix them if there's problems.


Ian, CIMC,

With all due respect, I would characterize the draft letter as being an
initiative to fix something that seems problematic.

I think I understand your meaning to be that we need to trust the general
direction in which the Indymedia project is moving, but that still wouldn't
mean that we (at CIMC) should be 'hands-off.' I would think that reasonable
people (throughout Indymedia) would not be "de-motivated" by a little,
well-founded questioning.

Collective consensus-making does take more time (than top-down ordering),
but it is a qualitatively better way of moving forward, if only because --
when done well -- it includes more people's true 'buy-in,' or consent.


Chris



----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Bicking" <ianb at colorstudy.com>
To: "Mitchell Szczepanczyk" <msszczep at midway.uchicago.edu>
Cc: <imc-chicago-working at lists.indymedia.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 1:12 AM
Subject: Re: [CIMC-work] Letter draft re: US-IMC


> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Imc-chicago-working mailing list
> Imc-chicago-working at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-chicago-working
>