[New-imc] Add to cities list

[Arc]

On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 04:06:38PM +0100, boud wrote:
> 
> new-imc people: Would this be a big enough change that we ought
> to ask  imc-communication, imc-process  before proceeding?
> 
> i wonder if this would respond to those people who think a new 
> group needs to get a web site up and running quickly?
> 
> Maybe this is a bad idea, but i just threw it up for reflection...

Getting a website setup is the easy job.  I feel that's a bad idea
because it puts too much focus on the website itself.  Budding-IMCs can
use any domain name to host a site on that they're working to develop,
but I don't feel that the URL should be seen as this carrot we make them
do this organizing work for.. 

A new site can be, literally, setup in under 10 minutes.  Customisation
a few hours depending.. getting a solid organization behind the website
is quite another matter.  If we start tossing out pending.indy's we're
going to get overloaded with people that just want the website and don't
have the dedication needed to actually get an IMC off the ground.

It shouldn't be a prize, or a reward, or a goal.  Getting a stable IMC
up should be the goal, having meetings, etc.  That's the part that alot
of people don't understand.  That's the part that's missing from the
new-imc website - a blueprint for getting an IMC started.

I remember at one of these last DC convergences taking a photo of and
talking with this guy from cincinati.. he wanted to start an IMC, so I
sat and talked with him about it.  I explained what an IMC is, what
starting one takes, and he threw it back at me.. "I don't have time for
that, I'm a single father" etc etc "all we need is a website so people
can post their stuff!".  So I went back and explained to him, again,
that an IMC isn't a website but a collective of media activists who, as
part of their group, typically operate a website and that a real IMC
would have to be formed for his city before a *.indymedia.org address
would be pointed at the website.  We went around in that circle for
awile before I just walked away.. that wasn't the first time I've had
such a conversation, either, tho ususally it's online.  People want a
website, they want server space, they want the DNS pointed at their
existing site... they dont have a group, they dont want to form a group,
or they already have a different group (ie, their local green party
chapter) and don't want to start something new.  

It's currently too easy for the above cases to slip through, IMHO.  The
barrier for entry for groups that do form and are working within a real
consensus model is also still too high.  In some cases people need their
hands held, "ok this is what you do next", other times experienced
organizers get together and just spring it to life overnight, and there
is the strong possibility for groups to just say what people want to
hear to get approved (and once in there's no method for removing them).
I'm not going to name names, but I feel the latter has happened in a few
occasions over the last few months, and I don't think I'm alone in
feeling that way.  

One solution is to change the way new-imc works.  We have enough IMCs in
the Americas and Europe that face to face contact with existing IMCs
should be definetly possible.  In fact, it should be possible for more
than one contact with another IMC takes place.

So I'm going to suggest, not propose yet but leave it open for
discussion, that we begin requiring that if an IMC is within a certain
distance from atleast two other IMCs that one of those other IMCs must
propose(?) (through consensus within that IMC), and a second one second,
before it goes to new-imc for its 3 day run.  Two IMCs, not one, because
then the IMC isnt an offshoot of another IMC but of atleast two.  

My reasoning for this is that alot of these geographic reigions are
getting pretty tight, which is a great thing! but IMCs that are close to
eachother are going to have to work together or it's going to create a
rift in the local activist community.  New York State currently has five
IMCs (NYC, NYCAP, Ithaca, Rochester, Buffalo) and three developing ones
(Syracuse, Utica, Binghamton).  This means that as long as you dont
travel north of Syracuse (mostly mountains) you're always within an
hour's drive to the nearest IMC.  

It's not about deturring "over-crowding".. I'd love to see an IMC in
Binghamton, Elmira, Cortland, etc.. all working together and supporting
eachother, members traveling between the groups meetings, etc.  My
concern is that with the number of new applicants comming up that they
aren't getting the attention they need and creating the feeling for the
members early on that it's not just a website, it's a movement, and
becomming part of the network means alot more than getting a URL!

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/attachments/20030112/8e2b6e77/attachment.pgp