[CIMC-work] Re: Bobby Meade's IMC? yes

[Ian Bicking]

Yea

On Friday, October 17, 2003, at 11:18 PM, Chris Kaihatsu wrote:
> 'k, G., looks like we just might be on our way to an actual group 
> decision
> here. Anyone else from CIMC wanna weigh in on this? Mebbe another 
> 'yea' and
> no dissents and I'll pass along the collective sentiment to the 
> IMC-Process
> list....
>
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
> On 10/17/03 9:34 PM, "Garth Liebhaber" <garthliebhaber at care2.com> 
> wrote:
>
>> okay,, we've sunk to new levels of bizarreness- the Bobby Meade 
>> Independent
>> Media Center?  Yes, I
>> back the proposal that Bobby Meade doesn't constitute his own IMC.  
>> Check it
>> out
>>
>> http://Congo.indymedia.org/
>>
>> If there's no opposition, can you Chris K., let that listserve you're 
>> on know
>> how CIMC weighs in?
>> garth.
>>
>>
>>
>> Congo.indymedia.org has read "Bobby Meade IMC" for over a year now, 
>> and
>> during this time not been an open publishing site. For those of you
>> unfamiliar with Bobby Meade, he is a prolific writer of... "unusual"
>> material. Many IMC's have had persistent annoyances deleting his 
>> writings.
>> In other words, congo.indymedia.org as it is currently is literally a
>> joke. According to micah and zapata, congo never really was an IMC.
>>
>> If I was from congo, wanting to start an IMC, and I saw that page, it
>> would have a demotivational effect:
>> 1) I might think there is a congo IMC, but it is extremely 
>> disfunctional
>> (as opposed to non-existent, in which case I could start organizing)
>> 2) I might think that congo is the butt of some sort of joke among 1st
>> world IMCistas.
>>
>> Therefore. I propose that we delete congo.indymedia.org from DNS and,
>> after archiving and backing up any content on stallman, deleting the 
>> files
>> used by congo on stallman.
>>
>> I am not a liason for any group, so technically I can't propose this 
>> (I
>> think). So, if someone would be so kind as to talk to their local 
>> IMC, get
>> consensus, and "sponsor" this proposal, that would rule. At that 
>> point, a
>> deadline would be set 7 days from the time of this "sponsor"ing email.
>>
>> (end of proposal, the below is just an informal note about delisting
>> fucked imc's in general)
>>
>> We also need a more formal process for delisting dead or 
>> dysfunctional (ie
>> BeachCities) IMCs. We need to formalize a process for this happening 
>> in
>> the future: namely by creating a process for declaring IMC's "dead",
>> similar to the New-IMC process (for example, it could be pointed out 
>> that,
>> say, 2 or more of the principles of unity are not met, the group has 
>> asked
>> to be deleted, nobody has been able to get in touch with the group for
>> over 2 months, etc.), and then a set of actions to take on these "dead
>> IMC's", such as:
>>  a) backing them up & removing them from the cities.inc and dns, and
>> their webserver
>>  b) providing an accessible archive of content that was posted to the 
>> imc
>> before it was declared dead.
>>
>> Peace,
>> Brian Szymanski
>> ski at indymedia.org
>> bks10 at cornell.edu
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Care2 make the world greener!
>> Help the planet each day! It's free and easy:
>> http://www.Care2.com/dailyaction/
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Imc-chicago-working mailing list
> Imc-chicago-working at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-chicago-working
>
--
Ian Bicking | ianb at colorstudy.com | http://blog.ianbicking.org