[Imc-lwg-work] PROPOSAL: empowering imc-finance BLOCK & AMMENDMENTS

[Richard Malter]

Hey Amber, wmass imc,

{Jay and I have been talking off list - here is the discussion for the record.
http://internal.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=598&group=webcast 
Jay has replied again since; my turn etc}
 
The wmass imc met yesterday and discussed both the original finance group 
empowering proposal and this block/amendment.  I bring our group's 
questions/concerns back to this discussion. 

The proposed amendment states: 

>"A local IMC group that actively does work for the Indymedia network 
>*beyond its local (geographical) autonomous activities* can be (via its 
liason) part 
>of the Finance Working Group - empowered to make network decisions. That is: 
the 
>fact that a local IMC group exists does not automatically justify its network 
>decision-making rights in the Finance Working Group." 

We're uncomfortable about making "actively do(ing) work for the Indymedia 
network" a prerequisite condition for a local imc to be allowed to have a 
representative in the Finance Working Group.  For one thing, we're not sure 
about the range of contributions that could be considered "work for the 
network", and we'd really appreciate some concrete suggestions about what 
network-wide work an imc and/or individuals within an imc can do. 

--yes underdstand. yes a 'definition' needed. please see below (including about 
our ammendment) what we wrote was only a description of ammendment needed. . 

Next, we're concerned that this prerequisite will exclude newer groups who 
have not yet figured out how to contribute, or who are most in need of 
resources, assistance, and to be part of the learning and sharing that goes 
on in a global working group.  

-- agree. mentioned also in discussion with Jay. must be provision for (newer) 
IMCs in more difficult situations, permanant or temporary etc. 

Excluding imc's that are not contributing seems to risk perpetuating the status 
quo:  that is to say, imc's who are "working" for the network will run the show 
and hold the power; the other imc's will be left in the role of asking for 
handouts and not sharing the 
power of participating and decision making.

--with above-mentioned provision remembered, i argue from this direction: start 
with 'inclusion' as the subject, ask positively: if local IMC groups know that 
they need to be involved in their community [Indymedia network] in order too to 
make decicions in their community, then won't they be _influenced_ to *get 
involved* by this knowledge and understanding? I guess that yes they will if 
they care enough too. and if they don't that's fine too, probably not all IMC 
groups will get involved, but we will still have justification to be there for 
those that are.

Also this concept may be self-defeating, in that one way a local imc could 
contribute work might be *through* their participation in the Finance 
Working Group (for example, wouldn't acting as a facilitator be considered 
"work" for the network?). 

--yes, facilitator would be good example of IMC giving some of its resources 
(people energy) back into network. just decision-making in the group though 
would not be Indymedia network work.
 

We definitely recognize that there need to be safeguards so that rogue 
interests or individuals are not  empowered to disrupt or monopolize,

--my guess is "the more eyeballs, the less bugs" will probably provide the 
disrupt safeguard. About monopoly - is a key point for us - negating majority: 
if we accept just existence of a local IMC group to be enough as the general 
rule, we will probably get what we described as lowest-common-denominator-
working-practices [please see original mail] brought into imc-finance. Doing 
implementation work for the Indymedia network as a whole as a requirement = 
only if you participate you are included. hopefully an improvement.

 >>>and so that local imc's don't see interaction with the global network as a 
one-way street (i.e., as a place to go for hand-outs, with no 
responsibility to "give back").<<< 

--yes, clear agreement. there is a need for this. to us key idea. that's what 
we're saying - there is responsibility to give back, especially to have the 
power to make decisions that affect everyone. simple community idea.

 But wmass imc feels this proposed 
amendment could create additional imbalances of power within the network, 
so we don't support it.

--clarification: what we did was _describe in outline_ only what the ammendment 
needs to say. ie skeleton. We can write the actual ammendment taking into 
account all the points discussed. My understanding is that we have a similar 
view on points discussed and that it is now a question of _implementing_ this 
understanding?

--This is what i think the ammendment looks like based on above discussion


Draft 1.0
-----

1) Basic Clause. Work for the network is some activity, that deliberately 
extends beyond the local IMC group's (geographical) work, for the purpose of 
contributing to/creating some aspect of the Indymedia network as a whole. 
  a) Definition of "work for the network". (I suggest local IMC groups nominate 
what their network work is/will be. If there is agreement amongst others in the 
Finance Working Group then that self-nomination of work is accepted.)

2) Provision for (newer, maybe first six months?) IMCs in more difficult 
situations, permanant or temporary. 

3) Status of individual from a local IMC. 
  a) [usual status] they are an empowered liason accountable to an IMC that 
does work [ie to a local IMC group that fullfils the Basic Clause] or
  b) [less common status] they do actual work in Finance Working Group *other* 
than just being involved in the decision-making process - eg facilitation, 
implementation, summary writing etc, as the contribution [fullfilment of Basic 
Clause] from their local IMC group.


--?

Instead, we support the empowerment proposal in its original form, or would 
be open to considering some other mechanism to address the issues of 
two-way participation. 

--OK. I think that if it is seen similarly that there is a need for some 
ammendment then this is a positive problem to work on.


Richard
---
lwg
---