[New-imc] how to deal with switching collectives ...

[Sheri]

hi bart,
i think this came up before regarding the cleveland imc.
and i think it's critical.
because unless there's people there who are essentially helping the 
transition, it means it's a brand new collective.  and in the case of 
france, they were an early imc and never went through the process. 
i'm not sure if their collective ever saw those documents and talked 
about them.  cause i had a long talk with jb the other day about this 
and it seemed like perhaps some of the problems that france ran into 
was because they weren't clear on the principles.  openness for 
example  and decision-making, etc.  the principles help with 
developing a structure that will hold through the storms.

my humble feeling is that yes they should.

and i also think there's some merit in having the imcs that haven't 
gone through the process, review the documents and comment on it and 
perhaps send in something like their mission statement to the 
archives.  we talked about this in san fran and people were very 
supportive of it because it means that all imcs would be on the same 
level and that's important.

some imcs don't realize that there are these principles and that we 
think they are key to maintaining indymedia values.

love
sheri

At 7:59 PM +0100 3/6/02, Bart wrote:
>Everyone,
>
>I just thought about it because of all the mails about imc France ...
>
>It's basically a small question:
>when a site is run by a new collective do they need to go to our 
>process or not ?
>
>I feel they should; especially if it's a total new collective ... ?
>any idea's ?
>
>Bart
>


--