[New-imc] Seeking more comments to: PROPOSAL: Changing the list for final approval of New IMCs

[Sheri Herndon]

hi everyone,

it seems we've got a few different ideas on this topic.  can the 
people who feel that they are active on this list please speak up and 
share some thoughts on how we'd like to continue in terms of our 
process.  my proposal was to use communication as the primary list 
for the final stage of new imc membership approval, with process cc'd 
during an interim period.  bart mentioned that we had agreed to use 
both lists but that process had been lapsing and we had been using 
only process.  my argument is that communication is more 
representative of the entire network with liaisons on that list, 
whereas process is more eclectic and less of a liaison list.....and 
has some other issues in terms of list etiquette and communication.

so do we use both?
just communication?
or others?

i know this might seem like a trivial detail but it's not.  the goal 
is to make sure the entire network has access to the information for 
each new imc that we've approved so that we are bringing on new local 
collectives that local imcs feel good about.  it's about keeping our 
communication as high as possible.  i raised the issue because i 
don't think process is that healthy of a list (right now) and 
communication is more representative.

so i'm bringing it up again since it's on the table and i don't want 
us to drop balls in terms of issues that the new imc working group 
needs to talk about as a collective.

for now i'll cc both lists, using communication as the primary list 
and process as the cc list.

ciao
sheri

At 10:51 PM +0100 11/26/02, Tony wrote:
>Hello All
>
>I agree with Sheri's reasoning and think Communication would be a 
>better place for these Applications.
>
>Cheers tony
>
>PS: i wish people would stop cc'ing every list - the 3 main lists 
>(finance, process, and comms) are distinct.
>
>Many people interested in Global indymedia are on all three lists, 
>those that are not will hear of any relevant posts from their 
>liasion. CC'ing all lists just causes confusion and makes replying a 
>mess.
>
>Please could we stick to one list for one subject - those that seem 
>to over lap will still be dealt with.
>
>Sorry to moan...
>
>>hello everyone,
>>
>>Proposal:
>>
>>After new applications have passed through the new imc working 
>>group and been approved without any concerns, I'd like to propose 
>>that rather than sending these applications to imc-process for 
>>final approval and discussion, that they be sent to 
>>imc-communication.
>>
>>Why?  Because imc-communication is truly more of a representative 
>>list of liaisons and because of that there are more people on that 
>>list from a larger set of local imcs.
>>
>>Purpose:  To bring the news of new imc applications to more of the 
>>network as a whole and to do it through a liaison list rather a 
>>discussion list.  At the time we set up this process, 
>>imc-communication was not a liaison list and process was where we 
>>put everything that had to do with imc network decision making.
>>
>>I'd propose that they be sent for a few months to both lists and 
>>bring the communication and process lists up to speed with our 
>>decision here and then phase out process and have the network 
>>liaisons on communication learn about the new imcs being approved.
>>
>>if imc process list was more of a liaison list, i'd perhaps have a 
>>different proposal.
>>
>>But the goal is to have the final approval happen on a list of 
>>people acting as liaisons for all the imcs in the network.
>>
>>
>>peace
>>sheri
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>New-imc mailing list. Lista de correo New-imc
>New-imc at lists.indymedia.org
>http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/new-imc