[New-imc] Themes and such

[boud]

hi torstein, everyone,

####
[en]
SUMMARY:
i disagree with continuing the debate on "subject IMCs" 
at new-imc, because 
* it would be a distraction from our normal new-imc work
* we do not have legitimacy from the network for changing policy
* creating a new list, or using <syndication at lists.indymedia.org>
would help the people really committed discuss together and maybe
try to make something like a real regional, subject-oriented 
collective, without distracting from new-imc support work for 
geographical new IMCs

[fr]
RÉSUMÉ:
je m'oppose ŕ ce qu'on continue le débat sur les IMCs Ť thématiques ť
sur la liste new-imc, parce que :
* ce serait une distraction de notre boulôt new-imc quotidien
* nous n'avons pas de légitimité du réseau pour changer la politique
actuelle
* il serait facile de créer une nouvelle liste, ou d'utiliser
<syndication at lists.indymedia.org>, pour que les gens qui 
s'engagent sérieusement puissent discuter ensemble et éventuellement
essayer de former un collectif régional, spécialisé sur un thčme,
sans distraire du travail de soutien fait par new-imc pour les
nouvelles IMCs géographiques
###


On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, torstein wrote:

> Dana, Arc, everyone,
> I think this was a brilliant wording of what I tried to say, and I
> believe also of Arc's reply. Thank you, Dana!
> 
> Because this discussion started here in new-imc, I believe it should
> continue here, 

IMHO, that is not a good reason for continuing it here.

> at least untill the case is settled for the suggested "housing IMC".

This is "squatting" a list, using it for a purpose it was not
designed for. The new-imc list is not a space owned by a rich landlord
and kept vacant, it's a place where we've been trying to get work done.

> The reason for this is that moving the discussion to
> the syndication list prematurely implies that a decision has been
> made to use syndication instead of making a new IMC like "climate IMC".

The "climate IMC" did not go through the new-imc working group, the
projects are 'not "official" Indymedia projects':

http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-process/2001-July/001466.html
: My idea is for us to list the Climate IMC as an IMC Project.  That would
: put it not under a geographic heading, but under the satellite, print and
: radio projects.  These are all international projects that do not require a
: geographic location.  Also, IMC Projects have no requirement for having
: open publishing.  While each of the projects is part of the Indymedia
: network, they also all state that they're not "official" Indymedia
: projects, meaning they're the result of individuals involved with Indymedia
: coming together to make something happen rather than projects upon which
: everyone has agreed.  I know it's a slight distinction, but it is a
: disctinction.  


The new-imc working group does not have any sort of mandate from
the global Network of IMCs for making a change in policy on what's
considered "an IMC".  Making global decisions, or even draft policies,
is not easy. All we can do here is help talk a new group through an
already "draft" set of policies, which have some sort of global 
validity, and then when we think they're ready, pass it on to 
imc-process and imc-communication for a global decision on the
new local IMC.


> So let's have a principled discussion here, not just about housing,
> but also about other "subject IMCs". Let's think ahead on this, for

This is a wide, theoretical discussion, which would distract from
real work going on at new-imc. We've already provided a TWiki page:
http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Global/GlobalThemes

i personally have no desire to go around in circles repeating
what's on that page again and again.

> a while, and then when a decision has been made, split the discussion

new-imc is *not* empowered to make a decision on a subject IMC, nor
to change present network policy on new IMCs.


> up into propriate aspects & lists (tech, syndication, editorial etc).

It's difficult enough getting the work done in new-imc for helping the
new IMCs for which we already have at least "draft" global agreement.

Last month a poor country IMC application was ignored by all 70 
subscribers of this list for two weeks.

i would suggest that rather than supporting a hypothetical discussion,
you tell us whether or not you personally or someone else you know is
willing to work on this project seriously. If you are willing to work
on this, then there would be three people:

- you 

- salim, who's done some key technical work (syndication)

- chuck, who's very enthusiastic and has succeeded in generating 
discussion, but has so far has only presented some rather confused ideas
of his own vision (please don't be offended chuck, you are most welcome
to clarify your ideas as suggested in previous emails!) and has 
made an extremely emotional personal attack on someone, suggesting
that he may not yet be a good facilitator to start off a collective, 
even on a mailing list

who have made some sort of commitment, plus others who think that this
might be a good idea, if there are people willing to do the work.

If you think the syndication list is too specialised, then please
create a list

imc-namerica-housing

or if you think IMC Norway would be supportive, then maybe

imc-natlantic-housing

would be a better name.

Or if you really think you are capable and willing to facilitate
a more general, theoretical discussion, please do so, but create
a dedicated list, e.g.

imc-subject-imcs

That way those few at new-imc who are doing the work can continue
doing something which has some sort of existing legitimacy from
the network.


pozdrawiam
boud