[IMC-Process] Re: [New-imc] Online form: Proposed new IMC! (housing.indymedia.org)

[boud]

hi everyone,

On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, John Windmueller wrote:

> chuck0 wrote:
> > > are the dc imc people on board with this?
> > 
> > This would not be a local IMC. This is subject-oriented.

chuck, i'm getting more and more confused.

How are you going to network local homeless activists together as part
of the Indymedia network if this is not going to be done with good
communication and cooperation with your local IMC - the Washington
D.C. IMC, it seems - but without anyone or any group dominating any
other, of course?

> This isn't an issue that's been brought up at any recent dc imc
> meetings.  So at least to my knowledge, no formal discussions or
> decisions for or against this proposal have happened.  But then
> again, this seems like something that starts as a global imc
> proposal and isn't directly related to the dc imc--or rather, it
> isn't related to the dc imc any more so than any other imc in the
> network.

IMHO, it would be necessary that people involved also had good
communication and understanding and used consensus-like
decision-making processes with their local IMCs - when these exist. 

Otherwise the risk would be making a virtual collective disconnected
from the locally rooted IMCs.
 
> Finally, since IMC is an all-volunteer endeavor, I'd hate to say no to a
> group of folks who are passionate about an idea and are willing to put
> their time and energy into it.  At the community level we usually make
> sure there is a significant community of folks with interest and passion
> around starting an imc.  If a similar community exists around a given
> issue (I wasn't clear from Chuck's message if that group had coalesced
> or not) I wouldn't want to stand in the way of that good work getting
> done.  

This is the whole point. Now that salim has shown that he's already
interested and that he's already set up some working pages, if he and
chuck and other interested people could get together, start a mailing
list, start going through the people work - outreach, local community
contact, developing decision making procedures, getting to know one
another, etc etc on

http://newimc.indymedia.org 

then everyone could see how this could work in practice. 

If you check the new-imc archives, you'll see that we like to spend
time getting to know a new group. Just sending in the initial request
is a way of starting contact, and then generally discussion goes
to a local mailing list that the group sets up. The more open 
discussion the better.  Without a mailing list, it's generally much
harder to get any feeling about how the group is functioning, and
it makes supporting/reviving the group all the more difficult if
they have difficulties.

 
> Again, while I'm leaning toward supporting the proposal, I'd want to
> hear more discussion about the introduction of subject-oriented imc's
> into the network.  I also note sure if it's the sort of imc-wide policy
> decision that best gets made just through the "new imc" process--it
> seems like the sort of significant change that would require the
> discussion and decision across the imc network (in contrast to most "new
> imc" proposals which are simply rubber stamping new collectives that

It's a bit more human and difficult than just rubber stamping, but no
offence taken ;).

> meet the typical criteria and are usually not raised in the general
> collective meetings of IMC's across the network).  

i totally agree with what i think is your point: the new-imc working
group is not mandated to change the basic policy of what an IMC is.

While people wanting to organise a thematic IMC should certainly
be *inspired* from the present new-imc process, IMHO they need to
appeal to a wider, network-wide forum - but only once they're 
really ready. 


The practical way forward, IMHO, is that the two people who have
so far showed interest, chuck and salim, 

* together start a mailing list to *organise*, and they try to follow
the suggestions at http://newimc.indymedia.org , with the difference
that this is only experimental and that the new-imc working group will
not be mandated to officially propose the group as an IMC

* they should additionally consider major questions such as whether
they can really be global, or are regional, what their relations are
to local IMCs, etc.

* they should contact the world's biggest homeless groups such as using
the contact info at http://www.narmada.org

* when the group is clearly well organised, diverse, has been through
organising activity something like the new-imc process, then if they
want official recognition as an IMC, they should ask their local
imc-communication liaisons to see if some proposal can be made 
on a global list for a subject-oriented IMC.

solidarity
boud