[Seattle-editorial] FP: Where we're at

[Sheri Herndon]

it's not a complete story and it's just walt's perspective basically so it needs more input.  i know that there are additional pieces that i've written, responses to geov's piece, jonathan's pieces on rtm, benjamin had some comments, gentry.  and i started to write up a kind of summary and then the day kept getting flooded with more information from people and demanding responses.  i never did get to writing something "comprehensive".  

but there are clarifying responses that need to be made.  i think this feature should address succinctly some of the issues that geov makes in his article so we are clear that we are not defaulting on our lease, that we have not died and perhaps there's some crashing here and there, but in the end for the good of the whole.  people have critiqued jonathan's piece on rtm from several angles, not all of them posted (i hope soon) so i don't think that article should just be highlighted nor do i think that just posting links to geov's piece and jonathan's is adequate.  it just makes things less clear.  

the critique present in both those articles are reasonable on certain points and those are valuable for moving ahead, lessons learned.  but there's also alot of troubling statements made by geov and jonathan that people who are active members are bothered by.  i don't want to have those pieces be the focal point for a feature that the active members are putting up about what is really going on in the imc.  

people want to know as david keyes told us that we are not going away and that we have a committed group of people who are dealing with things.  people also want to hear things that correct the record.  we must do that.  i'd like to avoid things that get too much into analysis of why the imc failed at this point cause then we'd have 100 different povs.  all valid and interesting i'm sure, but use the newswire for that or your own website or soapbox.  this feature should be clear and address the concerns that many people have.  david said even something simple would be good - a kind of banner that says no we're not going to die and go away.  we'll still be here long after cnn has gone (walt's great line paraphrased :)))).

i can't write this feature right at this moment cause i've been writing responses to people's articles and emails all day long.  but there's certainly some decent material out there.  i like what walt has to say here....., but does the intro or walt's piece really address the title - where're we at 4 years later?  and imc update at last?  this piece by walt should be linked from the feature.  

my humble opinion.  

sorry i can't give more today, but i'm beat.

sheri

>I'd like to request that this feature proposaal remain open for awhile.  
>Even if it receives the three editorial approvals that it needs to be 
>approved, I think  the topic deserves at least a few hours reflection 
>before going online.  We should allow ample time for editorial folks to 
>look at this and respond.  I'm not saying wait that long, maybe until 
>like midnight or so.  I for one need a little time to look it over and 
>think about it and I am leaving work right now and won't have time a 
>maybe a couple of hours to get back to this.
>
>-jason
>
>typist at speakeasy.net wrote:
>
>>subtitle: IMC UPDATE AT LAST
>>title: Where we're at four years later. 
>>
>>test:  A lot of people have been wondering what's going on at the IMC. 
>The few core collective members have been working hard at sorting 
>through a lot of issues that have come to a head in the last two months 
>and taken us off guard. One SPOKES council member, who likes to go by 
>a3m, finally found the time to reflect on what's been happening and put 
>it all down. The following is the first of what will be on-going updates 
>on what's happening with the IMC as we grapple with next steps and 
>future planning. Our apologies for taking so long, but sometimes it 
>takes a while for the dust to settle and the road to become clear again:
>>
>>Well, lets not hear about gender imballances. For when it came to the 
>last few standing bodies, it has been a dead heat. And the old allies 
>coming foreward? Women for the greater part.
>>
>>And while these few good men and women try to patch the bleeding left 
>in the wake of recent departures, there has been some nasty spillage. We 
>apologize for not taking time earlier to say whats going on. Truth is, 
>we have not been sure. And rather than respond to the rumoring and to 
>the heated calls to have heads roll, we have been pouring over 
>unfinished business, finding forgotten business and making future plans.
>> 
>>Since the Battle of Seattle, its been difficult to keep a singular 
>vision of the Seattle IMC. Without an event to rally us, there have been 
>many directions taken that "could" be seen as part of the mission. Some 
>worked well, others drained our time and resources without advancing the 
>mission.
>>
>><a 
>href="http://seattle.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=36723&group=
>webcast">Full story</a>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Seattle-editorial mailing list
>>Seattle-editorial at lists.indymedia.org
>>http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/seattle-editorial
>>  
>>
>_______________________________________________
>Seattle-editorial mailing list
>Seattle-editorial at lists.indymedia.org
>http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/seattle-editorial
>