[New-imc] replies to sascha and gaba

[Sarsnic at aol.com]

gaba wrote: 

> Is indymedia about affinity groups or about trying to find  ways to work together in open media participation?

It is sad, but I think it is important to recognize that in the history of activist groups, these splits always happen in collectives.  Like in a divorce, the most important thing isn't to stay together no matter what, but to make things fair and not drain all energy from other things.  When IMC-Houston was having our conflicts, outsiders would often ask us to just try to work it all out, which we did, but eventually we needed to get back to work and stop putting energy into the conflcit and its resolution. Cointelpro feeds off the exitement generated by conflicts within orgs, and we need to avoid excessive conflict when things start to go in that direction, even when it means splitting.

sascha wrote:
>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 organizationalstructure 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.

I think that our policy has been that if you want to be added to the cities list, you go through the process.  As in Brasil, where locals work all within one existing entry on the cities list, it makes sense to treat new collectives as in internal matter.  I think we should continue to treat additions of new collectives to the cities list to be a matter which is addressed by this process we have.

Peace
Nick