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

Mon Mar 15 00:39:03 PST 2004

ok, obviously i'm reading my mail backwards...

garth, garth, please. I am the house bitch! Chris K is doing the thankless 
task of monitoring many horrendous global lists. that is good, because it's less 
work for others. maybe we should just agree that people who monitor global 
lists for us need to be very very careful not to put stuff out that could be 
construed as the position of the collective. and Chris k, sometimes you have to 
come to meetings w/important global issues so we can have an internal smackdown 
and then a group hug.

ok, group hugs all around now.

christine

In a message dated 3/14/04 1:37:34 AM Central Standard Time, 
garthliebhaber at care2.com writes:

> Subj: Re: Re: [CIMC-work] quick note pertaining to US Process stuff 
>  Date: 3/14/04 1:37:34 AM Central Standard Time
>  From: garthliebhaber at care2.com
>  To: imc-chicago-working at lists.indymedia.org
>  Sent from the Internet 
> 
> 
> 
> How about instead of all this beaureucratic rigamarole, I 
> just be the 'asshole' and say that I think Chris K.'s role as 
> liason on several lists has been incompetent and we/he 
> either figures out how to do it better or he doesn't/we 
> don't expect him to do it anymore?
> 
> Garth
> 
> Geo wrote:
> 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
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 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/20040315/96252a39/attachment.html