[Seattle-editorial] S&G, membership, editorial and the 12/9 Meeting Minutes

[Jason Reep]

sorry this is so long,

Walt is addressing two separate but related topics in his email below.
One is editorial management of the website and the other is management
philosophy of the IMC (Structure and Governance).

I have opinions about both but think that we need to address them
separately and avoid tying them up together so that in addressing one we
don't get tied into the other in ways that don't make sense.

1) Editorial
I think that the categorization that MIR will enable is going to address
most of these questions.  Please go have a look at other MIR sites and
see how they are handing these divisions of topic.  I haven't researched
other editorial policies in regards to newswire moderation but I know
that categorization is working well for some.

I would argue for the open un-moderated (except by current editorial
policy) newswire to continue to be on the front page and that there be
as many categories as we see fit, including an all local one or even
several (ie: city council, homeless, native, media.....sports, weather,
shopping, whatever......all local focus) then have other categories for
issues that go outside the immediate region.  Articles can be posted to
multiple categories at the discretion of the poster (which could be a
double edged sword requiring hiding when posted too broadly across
categories) so if they are local and tie in to non-geographical issues
they can be in both places but the person interested in local issues
only can go directly to it and not be bothered with other stuff.  So we
would have a local section(s) that do all the things that Walt is
promoting below (most of which I agree with) without changing policy
except in technical ways regarding the new codebase.

If the issue is that the front page newswire needs to be only local then
I think I disagree and would be more interested in making sure that the
front page design makes the categories and how to access them completely
obvious and accessible.  I'm also interested in the idea of people being
able to set their own viewing preferences so that they could be shown
whichever class of articles they choose when arriving and some sort of
user rating system to automatically move bad stuff down.  I'm not sure
how doable or not this is in the MIR code but will investigate.
Basically I think we need to focus on the technological solutions to
these questions rather than changing our high level policy.  We can deal
with these issues well that way without becoming too obviously heavy
handed.  There is no reluctance on my part to clean up the crap from the
newswire either.  When stuff needs to be hidden, post a hide notice and
hide it.  We've defined policy to enable this already and further
changes to the hide/group policy aren't necessary.  I'm not against
keeping the newswire useful and about news.  The structure of the
editorial group doesn't need meddling with.

It seems that there has been some editorial policy discussion and
potentially even decision making that has happened in the 'Core'
meetings and not in an announced Editorial meeting or online which is
where it should happen.  Even the latest meeting this past Tuesday went
unconvened until Brandon (a non-Core?) convened it, proposed an agenda,
attended and followed up with notes.  I identify as a member of the
editorial and tech collectives and am not inclined to come to core
meetings and should not expect to have to come to those for editorial
discussion.  Which leads me to:

2) S & G
The question of a 'core' at the IMC, as it is briefly alluded to by Walt
below, is not necessarily, in and of itself, offensive.  It's the way
that it has come into being and been imposed that has generated so much
controversy.  Walt says, that he can say more about these various ideas
for how to organize including a 'Core' working group.  Well, hasn't one
already been formed without having said much before hand?  Bring forth
the philosophy and management methods discussion.  Take on new
formulations of S & G for the IMC.  I'm generally OK with that.  Just
post some damn agendas and minutes and at least /invite/ online
discussion before presuming to change things.  The way it's been handled
makes all the good ideas about structural reorganization seem like a
front.  Make it REALLY public, not just for those who have the time for
multiple meetings in a week.  I would prefer at this point that there be
**no** IMC space and that meetings (and trainings and screenings and
workshops and convergences) were held in alternate locations (CHAC?
911?), perhaps hosted by other community groups, or in coffee shops.
I'd come to more of those.  The whole fact of having a space, even one
smaller than 1415, at least for the short term, is contributing to this
sense of inclusion and exclusion from the IMC and may continue to do so
until much healing has occurred.  Recently, the space has been better
utilized for events, mainly screenings, which is to the good.  There is
always a need for a place for the community to gather for what has been
happening at our space lately and I'll be sorry to see this activity go
away.  As far as I can tell though, other than screenings, the space is
only being used for internal meetings about ourselves.  Yuck.  Plus,
hosting those events takes away from organizational energy which ought
to be refocused on inclusively recreating the IMC as a coalition of
media activists, producers and revolutionaries not a stand alone
separate entity.  I heard that UCIMC planned for nine months in quiet
comfortable, non-political get togethers before ever even applying to
become an IMC.  They knew what they wanted and planned it ahead of
time.  No disrespect to the hard work going on now but I am chanting my
IMC mantra again: Sabbatical.

People's membership, ownership and depth of commitment to the IMC cannot
be judged on their ability to attend meetings.  I dread meetings at the
IMC.  They sap my motivation and I don't have regular time for them.
Yet, most of the time I put in anywhere from 5 to15+ hours a week as an
IMC volunteer while hardly ever going down there.  It wasn't always this
way, but it is now and demands that people must always be physically
present to be members are unreasonable.  My mode of participation has
changed.  I know that online communication has it's fundamental flaws
(digital divide, lack of non-verbal communication senses, ease with
which we can misunderstand each other...) but no-one can deny that it's
critical to what we do and if it is delegitimized as a tool for
participation in the IMC then I can't participate.  That said,  face to
face contact is necessary.  Once upon a time it was fun.   I'll attend
occasional general and working group meetings .

None of this is intended as a shot firing during what appears to be a
cease fire.  I'm trying to make sure that my thoughts are clearly known
for whatever they are worth.

your pal, Jason


anarch3m wrote:

>Jason, remember my posts to sea tec?  about design changes, Primarily a LOCAL NEWS page (default page, or not)?
>
>Sorry you didn't take part in more face to face discussion, undoccumented as they were.
>
>Arguments for a filtered page, dedicated to local media and stories:
>1. works toward the mission statement of facilitating media
>2. encourages more local-news-viewers to spend their time
>3. provides value added to any local community voice needing an audience
>4. promotes civic journalism projects
>5. removes the NOISE of open wire spam
>6. highlight local producers 
>7. give reward to presspassholders
>8. filters for readers, based on trust and judgement in w/g, and thus assures standards of the factchecking and etc
>9. all our critics say its a problem in the absense.
>10. Its a simple, widely valuable change we can start with to get us focused on operating as a media facilitator.
>11. the sea imc project is nothing if we set longer and let everything go past us, arguing that what we have is enough, or even good,  
>12. saying the open wire has no problems worth our time is no longer acceptable.
>13. we improve or die
>14. implementation of the actuality is already schemed into various plans of the core facilitating team, the still standing.  WE have discussed how to tie this to outreach and our linked community activists through the spokes system.
>
>I can send you more, about how workloads and input coordination would get scheduled and editorially coordinated.  Spokes, a revolving wheel, hub.  communication.
>  
>no one desk where it can hide.  Shared desks who coordinate, and one desk responsible for its own chosen details.  Rotating, all learning the skill set and passing it along in turn.
>
>No last resting place to set undone. A pool of aware others to demand accountability.
>
>Transparency for the w/g which you can call spoke council, core....
>(I say: core group, and many in it are spokes to outside of the core, to collective work groups,  so that 1.the core is the w/g of certain work:2. spokes are involved with core work and also liasons to beyond, back to other w/groups with their autonomous goings on.)  
>
>This gives a better chance of institutional memory, this pooling of sub tasks.  Each one member becomes replaceable, none avoid it.  The first task of every executive is thus fulfilled!
>
>Ever read about optimal factory size, team size in general?
>Factory management theory?
>
>Ben and I are probably the best to answer more questions.
>
>walt   
>
>
>
>
>--------- Original Message ---------
>
>DATE: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 22:25:23
>From: Jason Reep <jasonr at speakeasy.net>
>To: seasc at indymedia.org,Editorial <seattle-editorial at lists.indymedia.org>
>Cc: 
>
>  
>
>>Hey,
>>
>>I just read the minutets.  what's this about a new editorial policy?
>>
>>    
>>
>>>benjamin raises the question of when new editorial policy will go into effect.
>>>-sheri suggests that discussions that have occured in meeting need to be had on the editorial list.
>>>-benjamin volunteers to start the editorial discussion about having a local and other section on the home page (like urbana champaigne).
>>>      
>>>
>>Is this just a coming discussion about having a local section and an 
>>other section on the newswire, or is there more that isn't out there yet 
>>and if so, please get it out there.  the wording of these notes suggests 
>>that some decision has already been made but I've seen no proposals or 
>>discussion.
>>
>>-jason
>>    
>>
>Brandon Faloona wrote:
>  
>
>>>I took notes at tonight's meeting and... here they are:
>>>      
>>>
>...>> brandon

>  
>