[New-imc] regarding hosting imcs before being approved....

[Petros Evdokas]

> Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 03:41:51 -0400 (EDT)
> From: <bconle at simons-rock.edu>
> To: <new-imc at indymedia.org>
> Subject: [New-imc] regarding hosting imcs before being approved....
> 
> Petros, all, i really think this is a semantics issue.
> 
> Basically it seems to me that Bart is saying there is no reason why if imc
> tech folks want to help out imcs in the process of forming by providing
> them with some server space and perhaps giving them a hand learning
> active, sf active, dadaimc, or whatever code they desireto use.
> If this is what Bart is saying, i wholeheartedly agree, if its not well
> thats what appears to be reasonable to me at this time.
> i mean, these codes are all free anyway so anyone with enough
> resourcefulness to find server spaces and instructions for the code could
> do just the same, we are simply showing a spirit of solidarity and
> companionship by helping folks get these things with a lessened amount of
> effort.
> peace.
> sharpie
> ----------------    

Sharpie,

Thanks for your thoughts. Actually, the sentiments you
wrote express me as well. That's how things *ought* to
be, in a world that's balanced adn healthy. But we
(Indymedia) are the "unofficial" expression tools of a
highyly politicized global movement, active in a
perverse and corrupt world. Of course we should extend
trust and co-operation. But those ought to be tempered
by some sense of coherence and balance, helping infuse
our relationship to new imc group with some sense of
the reality principle.

Otherwise, where are we left? If you see the discussion
in the imc-process, we are *still* trying to figure out
what 's going on with imc- russia. In Istanbul, we are
re-building imc- turkey all over again. The cultural,
political, and linguistic problems we face in these
efforts are immense. The problems which occured were
partly preventable by a better political and
organizational process among us. What is wrong with
wanting to have a process that makes sense? There's
nothing with asking that we act in ways which make us
*accountable* to each other in a spirit of
co-operation, solidarity and
companionship. I'd appreciate your thoughts on the
examples I gave in my previous letter, with all those
contacts and imc- groups: on the one hand we know (of
course) that there are no guarantees that what we do
will come out right. We don't seek absolutes. But on
the other hand, when we do our best according to what
we know, we can at least ascribe future problems to
factors *beyond* our reach. There's nothing wrong with
wanting to ensure that preventable problems are treated
as such. 

Thanks for giving consideration to all this. Your
thoughts?
Petros
-----------------