[New-imc] Re: refining the new imc process - some comments

[boud]

hi everyone,

On Fri, 20 Dec 2002, blue.pi wrote:

> I totally agree with Matthew. But I thought in a way this is what we are 
> doing or at least what some of us are doing. The problem seems to be more 
> that it is not clear or maybe there is also disagreement. 
> 
> To give an example, this is what happend in Beirut earlier this year: When I 
> got there, the group had been told (or at least that is what they told me), 
> that they first needed to get their group working together, go through the 
> process and then think about the website. Well, this was 1. kind of 
> confusing for them, because they already had a group and it somehow seemed 
> like more was expected of them but they didn't know what exactly, 2. to go 

blue, please read

http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/new-imc/2002-October/004166.html

petros very clearly (IMHO) explained firstly in general terms, and
then in specific terms "what exactly":

: Specific steps to take:
: 1.  please read again the New Imc materials, at
:   http://newimc.indymedia.org , and orient your work in
: that direction.
: 
: 2. please start forming/ writing some updates about
: your group, its meetings, its developments, etc, to the
: new-imc working group, or to me if you prefer.

> through the process without doing any practical work at the same time seemed 
> kind of odd as well. I actually think the result may be a disfuncional group 
> structure for what people will eventually have to do. The ones who are more 
> interested in practical work will leave in the process of endless 
> discussions while only the ones who like discussing stay. Then in a next 

If they really had a group which already was clear on non-hierarchical
functioning, which had a decision-making process (not just domination
by the person with the most political organising experience), which
had done outreach to a variety of different groups, etc. etc. (see
http://newimc.indymedia.org for  "etc. etc."), then they could have
consensed upon answer to the unity criteria and the membership criteria
in a single face-to-face meeting.

But the fact is that most activist groups are bunches of sincere people,
with some political experience, but who have not yet dealt with the
fundamental, radical organising techniques which help to avoid problems 
later. They may have learnt one or another, but by adding in the other
techniques they'll make their group so much more robust.

maffew talked about the Jakarta group, and complained about excessive
bureaucracy when they were being helped through the new-imc process.
Well, check out

http://jakarta.indymedia.org
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-jakarta/

and then ask yourself whether maybe a bit more organising time might 
have helped the Jakarta collective. 

> step when all the discussions are finished the work on the website starts, 
> which only interests the techies, so again you may be loosing some people. 

i disagree that the website work only interests the techies - in
setting up the website, there are many small political and
quality-of-presentation decisions, of varying importance, which "techies"
generally prefer not to decide upon alone.

 
> So I told the group that they could go ahead with working on the webpage and 
> I would see that they get help from some of my techie friends at the german 
> indymedia before they had finished the process. A couple weeks later I met 
> blicero and he told me that I had been exactly right in my advice, and he 
> himself didn't know why some people were of the opinion that the work on the 
> website should come last. 

We agree with maffew that people *can* start on a website early on,
but if they want to be associated with the Indymedia network, then it
should not be the *main* activity. Anyone can download the software.
But organising non-hierarchically in a sustainable way, in a way which
involves all different oppressed groups in the local society, and which
integrates into the whole Indy community, can't be done overnight. And
it can't be done in secret if it's to be non-exclusive.

> But this is how it is listed in the steps of the process for new-imc's. 

Do you mean here?

: 1. Pre-organizing: the first step is to talk with people in your
: community and try to get the sense if there is interest in forming an
: IMC.
...
: 10. Change the world, for the better of course. We wouldn't expect
: anything less.

If a group of people has already talked in its community (step 1),
read through the documents (step 2), filled out the initial form (step 3),
and opened and started using a mailing list (step 4), then they are only
2 steps away from step 6 where the advice on contacting imc-tech is 
written. The only thing they have to do first is step 5:
"O - R - G - A - N - I - Z - E !!!!"

But there's nothing saying that you cannot start a site earlier.

> There is also one other thing I never understood: Why first fill out the 
> application form, which includes writing a mission statement and then 3 
> steps later the membership criteria, editorial policy etc.. Why not tell 
> people in one step: "You need to discuss a whole lot of things, these are 
> the documents you must submit to get approved:..." 

Because it's not really so much submitting the documents and new-imc
people judging whether the group is good or bad, it's a whole
process. This takes time. People take time to learn new ideas, to
learn about each others' strengths and weaknesses, each others'
habits, desires, hopes.

The mission statement in step 3 is to get started. But if there is 
a true outreach effort, then by the time the group has thought through
and decided (at least provisionally) on decision-making procedure etc etc,
there will be many new people, and the group as a collective may well have
developed in unexpected directions, adding new dimensions to its initial
perspective.

If people need the motivation of posting articles, they can simply use
an existing site with the same character set (or which accepts their
character set) - it's very unlikely their posts would be hidden. Since
two arabic script sites already exist, the only big exception (based
on population) i can think of is the chinese-language family region,
and it's already been made very clear on the imc-japan list that if
people want to get a "test site" going straight away, even though
there's not yet a real local group, they're perfectly welcome to.



> in solidarity
> blue 
> 
> 
> > blast from the past, but i think it's worth revisiting. 
> > 
> > comments from matthew with sydney imc and cat, the tech collective that 
> > wrote the active code that runs alot of indymedia.... 
> > 
> >> 
> >>> there was one kind of important imc thing that i was hoping to chat with
> >>> both of you about, after various discussions with some australian
> >>> indymedia people. 
> >>> 
> >>> it's about introducing new indymedia centres to the network. 
> >>> 
> >>> i would like to suggest a slight refinement of the process (although 
> >>> maybe
> >>> you've already done this). 
> >>> 
> >>> ... 
> >>> 
> >>> 1. when people first ask us about becoming indymedia centres, i think we
> >>> should make it very clear that they can go ahead and get started doing
> >>> whatever things their local group things is appropriate. 

IMHO, Indymedia is not about "socialist" groups remaining hierarchical, 
nor "anarchist" groups remaining cut off from other groups, nor
"environmental" groups remaining separate from human rights groups,
nor any other sectarian, hierarchical or other habits.

> >>> 
> >>> 2. if they can get their own server setup, great! 

Agree.

> >>> 
> >>> 3. if they can get access to share one of the existing servers, that's
> >>> great too! although of course each server collective will have some way 
> >>> of
> >>> deciding whether they want to host a new city, to do with their own 
> >>> level
> >>> of resources and how they perceive the new city's needs and methods. 

OK, but it's a bit theoretical. i don't know how many of us are eager
to help new groups contact each other if we think they may be tempted
to remain sectarian.

> >>> 
> >>> 4. if they want to use existing software, we can point them to the 
> >>> various
> >>> copyleft indymedia softwares out there. if they want to code their own,
> >>> great! 

OK.

> >>> 
> >>> 5. if they want advice on what methods of organising work for existing
> >>> indymedia centres, then we can point them to resources on that. 

OK. We do: http://newimc.indymedia.org  i'm sure it can be improved,
but it would require careful thinking and work.

> >>> 6. if they want to use the indymedia name, and especially if they want 
> >>> to
> >>> be linked from the indymedia network and have cityname.indymedia.org,
> >>> *then* that's when they need to confirm they are aware of whatever
> >>> definitions that parts of the network have managed to come up with of 
> >>> just
> >>> what indymedia means: open publishing, principles of unity, etc. 

But this is not just a trivial step of "confirmation". 

In Hollywood/Bollywood, you meet a beautiful person, "confirm" that
he/she is beautiful/handsome/rich/violent/revengeful/heroic and then you
have great sex (OK, not in Bollywood) and live happily ever after.

In real life, it takes time to get to know someone. You explain. You
listen. You misunderstand. You forget. You learn again. You overcome
the misunderstandings and discover some wonderful new experiences.
But you're still not ready. You continue getting to know one another.
You ask sensitively about some quite intimate questions. There can be
some pain in accepting that you still have some things to learn.

And between people/groups of different cultures, different
levels/sorts, of oppression, different üntermenschen or übermenschen
roles in the 514-year Western Empire, there are many more chances of
misunderstanding than in a mono-cultural relationship.

maffew's step 6. + step 7 here are essentially the whole of the newimc
process, though there are also steps 9 and 10 in jay's version

http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/new-imc/2002-March/003108.html


> >>> 
> >>> 7. and finally we need to ask them, please do keep in the communication
> >>> loop, and here's how we're trying to do network communication at the
> >>> moment. 
> >>> 
> >>> ... 
> >>> 
> >>> sheri and i were talking just before i left about the need to educate 
> >>> new
> >>> people when they join indymedia collectives. and about how important it 
> >>> is
> >>> not to drown beginners in information. 

The whole idea of indymedia is information distribution. 

> >>> i think the same applies to new indymedia centres, and it's especially
> >>> important to keep the information flow under control when the new people
> >>> joining don't have english as a native language. 

That's why step 2 - the key documents have been translated into several
languages, and why once people have a mailing list (step 3), they can
be encouraged to translate these as one of their first steps. 
(There are many more translations at:
http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Global/DocumentsTranslation )

> >>> 
> >>> it's something i have seen happen several times in my community media
> >>> past, where people are very interested in a project, and the response is
> >>> an enthusiastic flood of info, and the new people feel overwhelmed and
> >>> effectively disconnect from the project. doesn't matter how many emails 
> >>> or
> >>> phone messages you leave, they're wiped out. meeting face to face might
> >>> help, but that's not always easy to do. 

Meeting face-to-face is what most of us feel is a key ingredient of
Indymedia.

> >>> 
> >>> so i hope we can all be strategic in our process of helping new
> >>> collectives become part of this powerful network. 
> >>> 
> >>> ... 

> >>> i think network solidarity and common ground is very important. i also
> >>> think that we need to be careful not to give the impression that local
> >>> groups need to stop making media while they go through the process of
> >>> joining the network. i think with ideas like the above we can have both. 

i don't think anyone has ever tried to suggest that a local group should
stop making media while they go through the process. It's true that
organising takes time, but it doesn't mean that other activities should
be stopped.


> >>> i am almost completely ignorant about the new-imc process: what i know 
> >>> is
> >>> from the very early days of the new-imc list, plus various no doubt 
> >>> dodgy
> >>> second-hand reports. my apologies for that. 
> >>> 
> >>> please do with these ideas what you will. no obligations -- 
> >>> fundamentally
> >>> because i am not an active member of the indymedia network, it is up to
> >>> people who are active to decide whether they wish to take up the 
> >>> network's
> >>> time with my ramblings. 

As someone hoping to quit from new-imc, i should likewise be humble
about my ramblings...

solidarity
boud