[CIMC-work] quick note pertaining to US Process stuff

[ChrisGeovanis at aol.com]

you know, something just occured to me re the membership/participation issue. 
let me state first for the record that i've been lame over the last year in 
attending meetings. on the other hand, i know i can be too bossy, so i think my 
blabbermouth not being around can be good for the group dynamic. of course, 
if we had a more clearly defined process for meetings, then blabby violators 
could just be, like, taken out and shot or something. that would certainly 
motivate me to tone it down. 

maybe one criteria we could use for membership would be to define collective 
membership as in part defined by attending at least six (or some appropriate 
number) of general collective meetings per year. we might try to figure out how 
to factor in people who are clearly very active with working groups like 
radio and video, but who don't necessarily come to general collective meetings. a 
lot of the radio and video folk are working their asses off but don't come to 
general collective meetings at all. and i don't think it's bad to empower 
pretty damned autonomous working groups, as long as liaisoning is solid. we might 
also try to figure out membership criteria based on content submission as a 
potential component. free speech radio news, for example, counts you as a fsrn 
reporter -- able to participate in fsrn decision-making -- if you file a 
certain # of stories in a certain timespan (i think it's six features a year, 
another number for headlines, and a third formula for combo of same). obviously, we 
can't hold techs to 'content'. ian, feel like writing a tech story a month? 
no...? and some people who provide a lot of content, like photographers, don't 
necessarily consider themselves direct collective members. we've also been very 
flexible about kicking out credentials, and i think this flexibility has been 
a good thing, again anchored against the core concept of trust. maybe we 
should try to lay that out a little more clearly.

christine

In a message dated 03/12/2004 5:54:15 PM Central Standard Time, 
garthliebhaber at care2.com writes:


> Subj:[CIMC-work] quick note pertaining to US Process stuff 
> Date:03/12/2004 5:54:15 PM Central Standard Time
> From:garthliebhaber at care2.com
> To:imc-chicago-working at lists.indymedia.org
> Sent from the Internet 
> 
> 
> 
> hey all who've been torturing themselves with this,
> 
> 1. I have taken a hiatus from reading the response on US-
> Process to my swear words.
> 
> 2.  I did read Chris G.s emails and had a good talk with 
> her today.  Things to bring forth on Sunday.
> 
> 3. I also did read the one Chris K. forward to our CIMC 
> Working list on list rules for US-Process.  I find it 
> upsetting because there had been explicit overtures/
> implications/statements made that the US-Process site 
> was not a formal process list that could not pass 
> resolutions.  a.) who elected the administrators who are 
> now making decisions? b.) empowered liasons?  were we 
> sent an invite? c.  Sascha's description of the list is weak.  
> Is there a reason for that?  
> 
> I find this a bit undemocratic and smelling like some of 
> the other endeavors that are pushed through by a few 
> people.
> 
> 4. Chris K., hope you plan on coming to this Sunday's 
> meeting.  We haven't seen you in a while.  I think we 
> should discuss liason empowerment amongst other 
> things.
> 
> smiles,
> garth
> 
> 
> 
> Stop baby sea turtles from being crushed!
> http://www.care2.com/go/z/11745/1008
> _______________________________________________
> Imc-chicago-working mailing list
> Imc-chicago-working at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-chicago-working
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-chicago-working/attachments/20040313/b47ac15f/attachment.html