Our Process, Next Steps, and who participates on this list (was Re: [New-imc] New jersey (again)

[Jay]

Hi Sheri, Bart,

Just a quick comment before I head out for the day (sorry not to be able to
quote Sheri's e-mail for reference.  For some reason I didn't get any of
the last day's messages in my e-mail and am reading along with the
archives).  We've sent out a couple dozen intro packets already and the
only group that has responded positively, with an impressive amount of
information, is the New Jersey group.  Apparently St. Louis also has been
meeting for a while and perhaps will have their documents ready to send
sooner than later.  The Netherlands IMC seems to be another group that has
their organizing together already.  My sense though is that they're unique,
and that most of the other aspiring IMCs are going to take several weeks,
if not more, to reach the point at which they can satisfy the draft
requirements.  My instinct may be wrong, but I not picturing a tidal wave
here as much as a slow drip. In that context I'm personally in favor of
accepting the well-organized groups, some of which have been meeting for at
least a few months and even have resources to offer, into the fold.  I know
others have expressed a different opinion and I both understand and respect
that, that's just my opinion.

As for people from the aspiring imcs being part of this list, I think we
have to strike a balance between providing a way for a new IMC group to be
involved in its application and keeping this list a place for people who
are already familiar with the network to have discussions.  I admit I
haven't thought too clearly about a way to strike this balance.  Perhaps we
could just explain the situation to people from new-imcs who are interested
in joining the list to keep up with discussions on the process and ask them
to respect the working group's hope to have conversations happen among
working group members, with the person from the new-imc being encouraged to
participate mainly as an observer in the discussions about their IMC?  Or
we could ask that they don't join the list but keep up through the archives
. . . ?  I don't know about that.  As anyone can read the archives and
comment on them without getting the messages in their in box, as I'm doing
now, I don't think having people from aspiring IMCs actually be on the
mailing list is that tremendously different.  Maybe an explanation of the
working group, asking that the new IMC members respect the working group's
intent to be a safe place for discussions about new IMCs among people who
have been involved for a while, would be a step in the right direction.
Diane's comments from New Jersey have been all about the NJ IMC
application, if I'm not mistaken, not about other working group
discussions.  It is a bit strange though to ask people in an open mailing
list with open archives to only comment on a particular thread.  I dunno,
still trying to work the possible implications of each way to handle it out
in my head.

Gotta run,

Jay
P.S. I'm planning to consciously slow down my response time to e-mails on
this, and other lists, for a bit, so as to allow other people to comment
before I open my big mouth.  May be hard to restrain myself though . . . :)