[New-imc] New-Imc Process Questions

[gekked at blackflag.net]

Hello,

I'm writing on my own to find out information that we need for a
discussion going on within SF Indymedia.

There is currently a proposal within SF-IMC to break off into two
smaller collectives under the 'umbrella' of SF-IMC -- one group in SF,
and one group in the East Bay (or something, that hasn't been really
decided yet). This is definitely not decided or finalized yet, and 
its something that obviously requires everyone to agree to. The
proposal includes a provision to hire a professional mediator to help
us fairly decide together how we could equitably divide our resources
(like we have a space, money, website, etc).

But, there are some legitimate questions from people about how the New
IMC process would work with this, so I wanted to ping this list to
find out if anyone knew or had an opinion...

First, is there a precedent for splitting one IMC into two separate
groups under the same name as before? The proposal says that we would
all still be SF Bay Area IMC, and we have sf.indymedia.org and 
indybay.org currently... so we would be looking to add one more domain
name, like eastbay.indymedia.org or something. The current proposal is
basically that indybay.org could link to both new sites. So, basically
this is an umbrella model, where SF Bay Area IMC would actually have
two domain names. So the questions here :
- could SF Bay Area IMC get a new domain name without new imc process,
  just based on the good word of SF-IMC?
- are there other 'umbrella model' IMCs where the broader group (SF
  Bay Area IMC) is just a single website that links to two sub-IMCs?

Second, in the event that we do need a new-imc process, we have talked
about "fast-tracking" a domain for the East Bay side, to ensure that
they would be ready to go. By this, we mean, we already have process
documents, they already meet the new-imc requirements, if we came to
this list, with all documents ready, wouldn't it just be a matter of
an ok from this list, and an ok from the process list? Isn't the 
normal reason it takes so long is the communication lag with new 
IMCs and explaining to them the process, waiting for them to write
their process docs? If we knew the process and had the docs, it 
should be a relatively fast process, no?

If people have opinions on how this would work, please let us know and
I can forward on to the SF-IMC list so people can make a decision.
Like I said, this is definitely not finalized, but there is a group of
existing SF-IMC members who are really interested in making sure we
have all the information so everyone can make an informed decision --
quickly. At the source of this is a conflict that involves a lot of
personal stuff and arguments about process/security that has gone on
in SF-IMC, but a group of us want to move forward in a way that gives
everyone a chance to continue working positively on Indymedia in the
Bay Area.  
-gek