[New-imc] Add to cities list

[boud]

hi arc, everyone,

On Sun, 12 Jan 2003, Arc wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 04:06:38PM +0100, boud wrote:

> > 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

OK, it's a bad idea. i agree with all your reasoning.

> 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", 

i think the hope is that someone on new-imc will do the handholding.
It's not difficult, but it requires time and patience, and we have
70 subscribers (last time i looked).

> 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.  

This is where it's up to people subscribed at new-imc to find out
more in whatever way - personal contacts, friends of friends, a bit
of google background checking, ...  It's probably easier to do this
before the group is proposed and get a feeling for how they 
respond, because noone really wants to block a proposal.
But if necessary, that's what the 3-day new-imc and 7-day global 
delays are for.

> 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.  
 
i think this is definitely a good idea, but i wouldn't call it a real
change in the process unless we try to be formal about "require".

It's already in the membership criteria:

http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Global/MembershipCriteria

: NETWORK MEMBERSHIP
: 1. Network Membership is open to any group that accepts the above
: criteria for membership. In the case of several requests from the same city
: or region, we will encourage them to meet and work together.


It seems to me that US based people on the list - who know US
geography better than i do ;) - can simply pop up and say, "Hey, 
have you networked with IMC X, IMC Y yet? It would be good if you
could get into contact."  

But this requires people to watch what's happening on the list in
their geographical region.

The guys from Binghamton *did* make a request on 30 Dec and noone
noticed.

Maybe this would be a good way to get the imc-nena list going?

i'll copy this to imc-nena: (North East North America)
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-nena

> 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.  

i think there's likely to be total consensus on this, and it's great
to hear how many IMCs you have in a small area. The idea should be
cooperation and not competition. Competition became literally suicidal
once we discovered that E=mc^2.

> 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!

So IMHO it's time to start making a list like imc-nena active...
 
You might also want to add NENA to 

http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Local/WebHome#_Regions_

solidarity
boud