[New-imc] Re: DNC IMC

[joe]

Disclaimer: all following opinions are my own and do not represent
official or unofficial positions of the Boston IMC.

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 15:41:01 +0530, "evan" <evan at protest.net> said:
> Personally i don't understand. Boston indymedia has the ability to do  
> topics and sections of their site.

>From the month I've been involved with this question, I suspect that
we're mainly looking for something like the following:
- a 'home page' for DNC coverage, with its own background information,
newswire, and articles, that has a simple URL we can publicize. This
'site' would be up from Real Soon Now to sometime after the convention is
over, on the order of six months.
- the main Boston IMC to continue working more or less as is during that
six month period.  There's more going on in Boston than just the DNC.

We don't see how we can achieve both those goals using one installation
of dadaIMC (what we're using now). Perhaps some changes to the software
would make this possible, but that sounds like too much to ask given our
timeframe, which is that we have initial versions of the above up and
running as soon as possible.

>If they want to setup dnc.boston.indymedia.org they can, it's their sub domain.

I think that url would be acceptable. Do people agree that putting a
DNC-specific site at that address is ok?

>
> Speaking as an individual, I do not like nor support the idea of  
> setting up an imc by an imc just because they want a different domain  
> name. I think that we need to discuss and debate this further. Clearly  
> there is disagreement even if no imc has come to a formal block. A big  
> part of the consensus process is working through disagreement to come  
> up with a better solution. A block should only be used we other  
> processes have failed. I'm afraid that pushing this through and trying  
> to force a decision when there is clear disagreement might be putting  
> us in a situation where some local imc might have to do a block.

I don't know if we're really thinking of the suggested DNC site as a
distinct IMC, in the strong sense of a completely distinct set of people,
resources, and such. I think that our proposal seemed like the best
available option to fulfill the requirements mentioned above.  

>
> Let's discuss this. Can an imc apply to become another imc? Do we want  
> imc's to apply to become imc's a second time to get a second domain  
> name? Would dnc.boston.indymedia.org work as a compromise? Would the  
> boston imc run dnc imc be willing to give up their website and hand it  
> over when the dnc meets in another city?

I think the biggest unanswered question is "what to do with everything
when the DNC is over".  An obvious downside to running coverage on
another site, is that either you have another site to maintain which is
basically dead (maybe only for four years until the 2008 elections), or
you shut the site down after a while and migrate all the content to the
Boston IMC, which would be lots of work. It's probably worth it to us
since we want to have comprehensive DNC coverage without losing sight of
other Boston issues. Maybe the answer (hand off site for the next thing,
vs. decommission after some time) depends on how much sense it would make
for the site to be 'reused'.

For those who think they would want to reuse the same setup, let me ask
this - can you imagine using an Active-based site that's been untouched
since 2000?  I suspect it would be best to assume that the 'event site'
in whatever form it takes will be a temporary creation.

> Will the dnc imc be having  
> separate liaisons on imc-finance, imc-communication, imc-process?
> Should we give 'double' decision making power to one group of indymedia  
> activists who are represented in the network by 'two' imc's? Has Boston  
> indymedia been able to even field one person for imc-finance,  
> imc-communication, and imc-process?
>
> These are the kind of network organization, politics, and organization  
> questions we need to be asking when we consider a request like  
> dnc.indymedia.org.

Agreed.  At the same time, there is a danger in letting these network
concerns complicate things such that our IMC lacks the time and energy to
simultaneously fulfill our main mission of covering Boston issues while
enabling ourselves and others from around the country to cover a major
event. We need a balance between network, IMC, and the event.

cheers,
Joe