[New-imc] New-Imc Process Questions

[Sarsnic at aol.com]

> First, is there a precedent for splitting one IMC into two separate groups under the same name as before? 

Yeah, chuckO scooped y'all

> - could SF Bay Area IMC get a new domain name without new imc process, just based on the good word of SF-IMC?

I don't think there's any reason to bypass the new-imc process, and some important issues might come up in the process.

> - 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?

It's kinda unclear - is the broader site a syndication site?  Like http://france.indymedia.org/?

> 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. 

Sounds good, but you never know who will raise a block.

>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?

It can also be a good opportunity to evaluate things like outreach and links to local orgs.

>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.

Sounds yucky, but I have been and will continue to support groups finding ways (including splintering) to keep making media, and empowering those without access to make media.   The oddest thing to me here is that the split happens to fall on geographic lines. Maybe eventually we will have an IMC in every neighborhood.

Peace
Nick
upper East side of Houston IMC