[New-imc] PROPOSED response to imc-process on global lists proposal

[boud]

hi everyone,

[en]
   There's a global lists proposal here:

http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-proposals/2003-March/000024.html

with a deadline of 5 April 2003. My feeling is it's reasonable for
us to follow the same communication guidelines as any local IMC,
though IMHO, we don't have the same "rights" to set policy.

Theoretically, that means one of us (not me!) should be a liaison to
imc-process (but probably not imc-finance). Maybe someone who speaks
both English and español and is able to write short, clear messages?
flow? gaba?

Although the proposal is not directly addressed to us, and as above,
we don't have the same "rights" as a local IMC. However, i think it
would be useful if we make a comment anyway.

My proposed response is below.

Probably it would be better to make it shorter by removing the 
bit on FaceToFaceInDangerousPlaces + GlobalThemes . Let imc-process
deal with one discussion at a time. A shorter text would also
be easier for a Spanish speaker to translate to Spanish!

pozdrawiam
boud


############################################################
V0.01 (version 1) new-imc response to 
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-proposals/2003-March/000024.html

hi everyone,
 * In the new-imc working group, our present communication with
imc-process and imc-communication is to announce a new IMC with a
7-day consensus deadline once we think it has organised and documented
itself sufficiently and is likely to be accepted by the network.

 * We've added a recommendation to follow global list communication
style (short summary in English + español; content in English +
español) here on our guide for new-imc volunteers:
http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Global/NewImcHowHelpUs 
 We'll update our internal recommendation based on the results of the
global lists proposal.

 * At present we do not have a clear policy on whether the discussion
thread during the 7-day period should be on imc-process or on
imc-communication, and probably it is not up to us to decide
internally in new-imc anyway. Given that there has probably been no
opposition (concerns or blocks) to any IMC proposed by new-imc to the
network during the 7-day imc-process/imc-communication deadline since
IMC Palestine (around Jan 2002), this is probably not an urgent
decision to make anyway. However, given that an application could,
theoretically, be blocked, it would probably make most sense for the
discussion thread to be on imc-process, in order to avoid domination
by English speakers and by individuals (provided that the present
proposal is accepted).

 * This is a comment beyond the present proposal. We just wish to
notify the network that we have two new-imc initiated TWiki pages
dealing with possible major shifts in new IMC policy, beyond what the
new-imc working group is mandated to handle, and probably beyond what
we have experience in dealing with. We invite people with the energy
and commitment to deal seriously with these issues to look at the
TWiki pages and create working groups (mailing lists) if after reading
the various arguments for and against they are still keen and
committed. The themes come up often, and it would be of great benefit
to global solidarity and justice activists around the world if people
had the sustained energy and international grassroots experience to
deal with these issues. However, they are not easy, and it would
require long term commitment and good - international - communication.
The two pages are:
http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Global/FaceToFaceInDangerousPlaces
http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Global/GlobalThemes

((( new-imc working group )))
http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Global/NewImc
############################################################