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

[Sheri Herndon]

i agree judy.
perhaps someone can make the intro a bit more clarifying, without having to go through responding to geov's points.  there's really only one that stands out as egregious - we're dead, it's official (says who) and we've defaulted on our lease.
sheri

>Not everyone has read Geov's piece. To respond to that means discussing 
>it or running it.   This Feature is not going to be the last word on the 
>state of the IMC by any means; it just the first. There's plenty to say; 
>there will be plenty more to say.  But we need to get something up 
>instead of the &&*^$ process the IMC is so reknown for where that means 
>nothing gets done.  So I vote that this piece by one of the last 
>standing SPOKES council members get posted!  And others will have their 
>turn to give updates!   
>
>And I will add the links suggested by Jonathon.
>
>Other editors please weigh in (and I will clean up typos by a3m).
>
>Judy
>
>  
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Sheri Herndon [mailto:sheri at speakeasy.org]
>> Sent: Friday, December 5, 2003 02:08 AM
>> To: 'Jason Reep'
>> Cc: typist at speakeasy.net, 'Seattle, Editorial'
>> Subject: Re: [Seattle-editorial] FP: Where we're at
>> 
>> 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
>> >
>> 
>
>
>