[New-imc] Re: Southern Oregon IMC

Thu Feb 20 02:43:07 PST 2003

Andy Rice speaking, as an individual.  This is not an "official" Media Collective communique.

It is my understanding that it is not only reasonable, but required for new imc's, to put substantial energy into outreach, and actual material recruitment, particularly among people of color and other "minorities", as well as to ensure political diversity.

In fact, virtually no outreach has been done locally, except one haphazardly posted and passed out flyer to announce meetings, as of the communications cited.

Outreach is however now beginning, with ads in the Soapbox (regional newpaper produced by Media Collective) and last Sunday's meeting commitments by others, to pitch their personal contacts in the local Native American and Hispanic communities, and to place ads/meeting announcements in other local progressive publications like Peace House newsletter, Sentient Times, and also commercial media. 

Media Collective has also offered to post announcements to their extensive local e-mail list, which includes virtually all local activists and list-servs, but that has not been done yet.

It seems to me that Forest and Eddie in particular wish to mount the webpage and submit the new-imc application first, and attend to the details of organizing the collective "later". They keep referring to Eugene as a model of emulation, which I find disturbing, considering the history of the Eugene "imc".  

They have tended to imply, somewhat obtusely, so far(it has not degenerated, yet, into explicit name-calling), that I have to be some kind of obstructionist troll, for insisting that the outreach should be done first, and a real collective should be assembled, before anyone presumes to submit a new-imc application. 

In fact, it was agreed at the previous meeting that a draft hard copy of the new-imc application would be presented by Forest and Eddie for discussion at this week's meeting, but that did not happen. 

I am not clear at this point whether something has been submitted to new-imc, but nothing has been approved by the presently non-existent local IMC Collective. The best we can claim to have at this time is an organizing committee of local activists who would like to start an IMC, and who have just now begun to meet and to intiate some outreach.

While Forest and Eddie have, in fact, thus far, demonstrated a willingness to go along with documented requirements, upon discussion, it is clear that they would prefer not to, and that they are trying to make me look like a trouble maker or saboteur, for "obstructing" their attempts to circumvent legitimate process. Their petulant impatience, frustration and hostility are palpable, no matter how hard I try to be diplomatic, and to keep my remarks strictly in reference to the documented Principles of Unity and new-imc process. 

When they finally agree on such fundamental issues, they seem to justify that by saying any decisions made do not matter anyway, since they can be changed at any time, later. This is all making me somewhat wary of their intentions, given my experiences to date re: Eugene and Portland.  In fact, Forest and Eddie have provided little or no real introductions or background information about themselves.

For example, there was a major effort at first on their part to avoid any discussion whatsoever of decision making process.  Instead, they pushed to select a name for the entity, and to establish an editorial policy, both of which they wanted to do in the first meeting, before we had even done any of the required outreach, recruitment and collectivization, let alone discussed or decided upon the decision making process. My objections to this approach were recieved as an obstruction and an annoyance, but they finally aquiesced, "since it didn't matter anyway".

Media Collective was not involved in the decision to mount this webpage and call these meetings. 

Since Eddie and Forest have intitiated the process, I and others have been going to the meetings, and are willing to help make it happen, as long as it is done according to IMC Principles of Unity and new-imc process. 

I would most definitely appreciate close attention on the part of new-imc and the global network, to ensure that the Southern Oregon IMC is not compromised from the start, like Eugene IMC was, and Portland has been, since.

I would point out that at this time, since the necessary outreach and collectivization has not yet been done, no real "decisions" have been made, including on the name.  Indeed, the name has been a topic of some considerable discussion, due to Forest and Eddie's initial intention to name it after an historic local regional civil war confederate secessionist movement ("The State of Jefferson"), an idea which has now pretty much been rejected. The name "Rogue" is a similarly problematic name to some, and many would prefer to simply call it Southern Oregon IMC. 

Indeed, any documents, proposals, "policies" and the webpage thus far are all strictly proposed drafts, completely lacking any real basis of actual IMC legitimacy, except as such, since the required levels of outreach and participation have yet to be met, for any real decisions to be claimed by anyone.

In fact, virtually all such actions taken thus far have been primarily by Forest and Eddie and their small posse of techies, completely on their own, without the required notification, consultation and collectivization of local media activists. I say this not to demean their efforts, but to make clear that the required process has only just begun, and it still
has a good ways to go.

Nor is this to say there is no interest, or that a Southern Oregon IMC can't or won't manifest. 

But I would like to see a more genuine IMC effort, a less contentious attitude, and more explicitly stated intentions on the part of Eddie and Forest, in particular, who seem much more interested in railroading through a mimimalist new-imc proposal "just like Eugene", than actually assembling a genuine IMC collective.

My remarks will no doubt be taken by some as overly critical, but it is not my intention to merely dismiss or disrespect the efforts of Forest and Eddie and their posse. They have clearly put a lot of time and thought and actual work into serious efforts to
make a local IMC happen, and I am not opposed to that effort, per se. 

I have even helped to publicize it, despite some misgivings about their intentions, since they have so far at least seemed willing to discuss the issues and to agree, however reluctantly, with the fundamental IMC documentation, and with what consensus of the group does emerge.

But, while I concur that it is an urgent priority to develop a genuine and viable IMC in our region, I do not think that should be done "like Eugene", but that it should genuinely comply with the spirit and the letter of IMC principles and documentation. 

Taking several weeks, or even longer, to assemble a genuine local collective interest and participation in a legitimate Southern Oregon IMC will do a hell of a lot less damage locally, and to the global network, than allowing a bogus IMC to be established "like Eugene", prematurely, to everyone's ultimate  discredit.

The pressing issues necessitating IMC are not going away, nor will the sky fall down around our ears if the site is not mounted immediately.  I would rather wait till we actually have an IMC, and do it up right.

That doesn't mean everything has to be perfectly in place, or that we cannot move forward with the process as we go. But it does require more work and time than has been put into it thus far.

Neither "all or nothing" extreme is appropriate, or necessary. This is not a situation of "now or never", like, that the website has to be mounted immediately, "or else" all interest will fall off, as some of these guys have implied in their remarks.

Anyone whose "interest" falls off due to legitimate and necessary steps of organizing an IMC-compliant collective is involved for the wrong reasons.

I urge all interested parties to advocate for a principled and democratic process here, avoiding the pitfalls that have crippled Eugene and Portland,and served as a distraction network wide, in terms of compliance with IMC Principles of Unity.

Andy Rice (aka android9)

-----Original Message-----
From: boud <boud1 at wp.pl>
To: new-imc at lists.indymedia.org
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 00:19:18 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [Imc] 6 new imc US orphans

<crosspost new-imc, imc at truffula.net>

**new-imc**

jay, someone else from the US region,
    There are at least 6 US orphan new IMCs. Rogue looks 
organised, but someone who knows local groups and the situation
(e.g. is it reasonable to ask them to do more outreach to
indigeneous groups, people of colour, feminist groups, 
LGBT groups, workers' rights groups?) really ought to handle
this.  (2nd qn: their networking with IMC Portland - given
the IMC Portland problems, again it makes more sense that someone
local handles it.)

And a 3rd qn: they don't seem to have a general decision-making
procedure, though they do have a procedure for deciding on 
editorial questions, and they don't seem to be aware that 
consensus is a lot more than just "trying to achieve consensus".

**IMC Rogue**

hi, i'm a new-imc volunteer and hope that someone who lives reasonably
near you (e.g. in the US/Canada/Mexico) can help talk you through the
new-imc process. 

You look well organised, at least electronically, and are into good
communication :). But my questions above are probably not written very
clearly or sensitively and hopefully someone else more local from
new-imc will contact you soon. For more on consensus i suggest:

Food not Bombs' practical guide 
http://consensus.net/ocaccontents.html  On Conflict and Consensus

http://www.geocities.com/collectivebook/index.html
the Collective Book on Collective Process

BTW, one suggestion which i think i *can* ask you directly:

It would be great if you could start a regional mailing list with IMCs
that are geographically close to you. How you define the region is up
to you and your neighbouring IMCs, and of course it would only make
sense if it is used. But it could help a lot in making global (10Mm)
communications easier if local US (1Mm) issues and coordination and
solidarity could be separated from global coordination.

solidarity
boud

On Sat, 15 Feb 2003, boud wrote:

> In any case, here are the five recent US applications AFAIR, anyone
> from USA or elsewhere is welcome to help - hints for new-imc 
> volunteers are here:
> 
> http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Global/NewImcHowHelpUs
> 

The 6 US orphans:

(1) IMC Ashland/Rogue Valley/Klamath-Siskiyou 
(not yet through step 3, but Memb Crit sent)
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/new-imc/2003-February/003388.html

* mission statement + editorial policy
http://indymedia.truffula.net/draft_policy_v2.html

* Their mailing list is here:
http://truffula.net/mailman/listinfo/imc

* Their membership criteria are here:
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/new-imc/2003-February/003434.html

* They haven't yet (step 3) filled out the form at
http://newimc.indymedia.org to get their contact data base password
and give us other info

(2)-(6)
> Binghamton  (arc is helping out here, i think?)
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/new-imc/2003-January/003304.html
> 
> Southern Tier of New York State (not yet through step 3 - request form)
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/new-imc/2003-February/003360.html
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/new-imc/2003-February/003377.html
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/new-imc/2003-January/003348.html
> 
> Kansas City, Missouri
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/new-imc/2002-December/003149.html
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/new-imc/2002-December/003187.html
> 
> Lawrence, Kansas 
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/new-imc/2003-February/003367.html
> 
> South Dakota (not yet through step 3 - request form)
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/new-imc/2003-February/003399.html
> 
> The above links are not complete. Check out:
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/new-imc/2002-December/
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/new-imc/2003-January/
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/new-imc/2003-February/
> for more links.
> 
> 
> If someone is helping out with one or several of the above,
> please say this to the new-imc list. IMHO, it's OK to have more
> than 1 person helping out, but better at least 1 than 0.

_______________________________________________
Imc mailing list
Imc at truffula.net
http://truffula.net/mailman/listinfo/imc