[New-imc] Re: sf.indymedia.org/indybay.org Split Problems

[Mike R]

Hi Otto,

Tuesday, January 06, 2004, 6:05:43 PM, Otto said:

>> In the case of SF, the divisions they have chosen make sense, one for 
>> the city & one for the
>> metropolitan area.

ON> Actually, just to clarify, that is not how the division took place. The 
ON> split was never along regional lines. While initially the people who 
ON> wanted to split (who now run sf.indymedia.org) demanded a split between 
ON> San Francisco and East Bay (demanding that they keep San Francisco), 
ON> most people rejected it as a ridiculous idea since both bays are 
ON> geographically so close and intertwined in activities (and especially 
ON> since one of the main people demanding the split lives in the East Bay 
ON> himself).

That may be the case, but from the way the 2 sites look & how they
look in the cities list I do not think anyone will understand your
distinction.  As the 2 sites continue, I'm sure some sort of
distinction in the posts will take place, whether among geographic,
economic, political, or other divisions. This will likely be due to
the growing nature of the sites more so than necessarily the
intentions laid out in the mediation agreement.

ON> The bottom line is that this split was never about regional lines such
ON> as city vs. metropolitan area.

Just for clarification, what was the split about?

>> It may make sense for both groups to submit documents to new-imc & go
>> through the approval process.

ON> As shown on the mediation split agreement, "Ryan & Noah's group will 
ON> get sf.indymedia.org & will need to go through new IMC process" because 
ON> they were the ones splitting from the group to form a new imc (even 
ON> though they ended up with the sf.indymedia.org domain) while the 
ON> indybay.org is not a new imc but a continuation of the San Francisco 
ON> Bay Area IMC as it has always been.

ON> -Jino

I understand that was the mediation agreement, of which the New-IMC
working group was not a part.  However, my suggestion was based on the
fact that I do not think we have dealt with this type of split before.
The closest type of split I can recall that actually made it to the
process was when a new group wanted to come in & take over a defunct
IMC whose original collective gave up the site.  It is not the same
situation by far, but we did make the new group claiming the
collective go through the process.  I apologize for not following the
Belgium situation closer to compare how we handled that to this. That
could also be a precedent.

On the other hand, & that is why I said "may make sense", we are a
collection of autonomous collectives & the decisions come from the
bottom up & not the top down.  We should respect the decisions of a
local collective as long as they are within our broadly defined
principles.

I do not know how specifically to proceed, but I do want to present
the arguments for what I see as important choices before we do
proceed.

-- 
Mike
mailto:micro.zen at verizon.net