[New-imc] what process do we use for sites like imc-us, biotech, oceania, etc.

[Sheri Herndon]

hi friends,

i would like to shift how we are going about this.

SUMMARY:  why we need to develop different processes for websites like imc-us, biotech and oceania and why we cannot use the current new imc process for any of these projects.  and why i do not think a purely syndicated site like oceania should go through any kind of approval process other than to let the network know they are doing it and to check it out.  and why we need to allow for autonomous initiatives and not have to approve everything that's a new site (and to point out that we haven't).

clara and i sent out an email about this subject a few weeks ago with no response.  i'd like to get us to focus again on the issue of what process are we using for this particular site (imc-us) as well as help us consider new processes of procedures for other syndication/topic/regionalization sites.

http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2003-August/004310.html

the new imc process was developed for local collectives joining the imc network.  it was neither designed or developed for aggregate sites or syndication or topic sites.  i think the process makes little sense for such a project.

for instance, to ask the imc-us working group to answer the questions and go through the membership criteria and the principles of unity makes little sense.  we've all already done that.  we are all already a part of the network.  we are NOT becoming members of the network.  we are initiating a NEW project in the network.  

therefore to have a discussion about these new projects based on a process designed for something different makes no sense in my mind and will only deter us from dealing with these important issues in a productive and effective way.

so first off, before arguing for or against the merits of having a site for information from us-based imcs, i suggest we figure out a better venue and process than the one developed for admitting NEW imcs into the network.  at least the process should be tweaked substantially.  some work has already been done on this for some of the topic sites and i know there is a process being developed that will hopefully help us have a constructive dialogue.  i suggest we do something similar for the regional website proposal like imc-us.  

this is not to suggest that there will be differences of opinions on this proposal, but we need a different approach that is all.  

and while i'm at it, i do not understand why a strictly syndicated website (like imc-oceania) has to even go through this process.  am i missing something?  are they merely creating another way to gather, organize and distribute already existing information on already existing imc websites?  this is a great thing!  congratulations you all.  but it has nothing to do with going through a new imc process.  i'm repeating myself, but i find it hard to believe that some people continue to have this conversation on these lists without recognizing the irony of what they are doing.

slow down, take a deep breath and let's think this through a bit more reasonably.  i  doubt that anyone who is making these proposals have bad intentions.  many of them have been active imc people for a long time.  and active in working groups, local imcs and protests.   they are not NEW to the network and trying to figure out how to participate.  i have been on lists and in discussions with people about all of these projects and in terms of new initiatives in indymedia, they seem like they are being fueled by a desire to spread the word, to find better ways to organize content and involve people in different ways.  all good things.  let's do MORE of that.

and projects pop up like this all the time.  a few relevant examples of GREAT projects:

did newsreel.indymedia.org go through any process?  if it had, that project might not currently exist or it might be housed somewhere else.

did v2v.indymedia.de go through any kind of official process?  no.  and i'm glad they didn't.

did dispatch.indymedia.org have to get permission from anyone to start?  no.

there are more, but you get my point.  radio.indymedia.org never went through a process and look at how successful it is for what it does.  gathering all the radio projects from within and without indymedia.

let's rethink this before we start forcing round projects through triangular holes.

ciao & in solidarity
sheri
seattle imc


>It looks like my response to this didn't go through the first time, so 
>I'm
>re-sending it.
>
>I am _profoundly_ _disturbed_ by the idea of setting up an IMC-US.  The
>monstrous organizational tasks involved might be countered by making it 
>a
>largely software driven "syndication site," but do we really want the
>voice of America on Indymedia to be developed by a computer program,
>rather than by human collectives?
>
>I understand the need to lower U.S. domination of Indymedia, but the 
>only
>way I see an Indy-US as doing this would be to have Indy-US features
>replace features from local IMCs within the U.S. on the Indymedia.org
>features-syndication newswire, thereby reducing U.S. stories on the 
>global
>newswire to about 1/46 of their original frequency.  This sounds like a
>good idea, but the question is, which national features would go to the
>newswire, and how would they be selected?  And would we have national
>liaisons with the global lists, rather than the current system of local
>U.S. IMCs having individual liaisons?
>
>I'm not sure how many local IMCs within the U.S. want to be identified 
>as
>part of a "national IMC."  As a member of the Philly IMC, I certainly
>would not want to be identified this way.  I've always thought of
>indymedia as being internationalist in tone, transcending national
>borders, deliberately focusing on the regional and local, grouping 
>itself
>based on affinity and on geographic boundaries, rather than state lines. 
>I fear that an Indy-US would lose its regional autonomy and local focus,
>and that efforts to cover "National News" would wind up being dominated 
>by
>news from Washington, DC, as news of changing governmental policies are
>defined as "national" news.
>
>To create a "U.S. IMC" ignores the bonds of affinity that already exist
>between IMC activists in Seattle and British Colombia, say, or between
>mediactivists in California and in Mexico.  "America" is much bigger 
>than
>the U.S., and I wouldn't like to see us confine ourselves to a
>self-definition based on borders.
>
>I would be much more comfortable attempting closer integration on a U.S. 
>-
>regional level, via conferences and IRC chat, as is already being done
>among Northeast US IMCs, before attempting integration on a national
>scale.
>
>Peace,
>-Susanna
>_______________________________________________
>New-imc mailing list. Lista de correo New-imc
>New-imc at lists.indymedia.org
>http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/new-imc
>