[New-imc] New-Imc Process Questions

[Sascha Meinrath]

Hi all,

Perhaps SF IMC could learn from and follow the model utilized by Brasil?
They have multiple (active) collectives all working collaboratively under
the Brasil IMC umbrella.  I think they set a positive model for how to
work together _and_ autonomously under a larger shared umbrella.

I don't think there needs to be a new process, so long as existing SF IMC
participants agree that they want this new structure to be how they are
organized.  Each IMC is allowed to develop there own organizational
structure within the parameters set by our Principles of Unity -- if SF
decides to split into two affinity groups, I think this is an internal
issue.

In solidarity,

--Sascha Meinrath
Urbana-Champaign IMC

On Wed, 1 Oct 2003, gekked at blackflag.net wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> New-imc mailing list. Lista de correo New-imc
> New-imc at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/new-imc
>