[Seattle-editorial] Re: [Seasc] 12/9 IMC Meeting Minutes

[jonathan lawson]

Answer to some but not all issues raised:

http://seattle.indymedia.org/editorial-intro


At 12:25 AM 12/10/2003 -0800, Gentry Lange wrote:
>Could we please decide where official policies should be placed? And how
>they are approved.
>
>The editorial policy on the website is here:
>
>http://seattle.indymedia.org/policy
>
>This page does not talk about features. It talks about the newswire. How
>features work, and how the collective editors go about stuff, is only
>spelled out in terms of hiding posts.
>
>Where's the page that says how policies are approved? Where a new member
>would get involved? Etc...
>
>I find the policies and the structure of the IMC to be totally lacking.
>
>Here's the hidden article page:
>
>http://seattle.indymedia.org/newswire-hide.php3
>
>It still doesn't answer basic questions about membership, how to be
>involved, where we meet, whatnot.
>
>Then there's the Glossary Page, a glossary page is a definition page, and as
>such defines some policies, however it doesn't specificcally tell people how
>to procede. Wouldn't it be logical to at least spell out a procedure page?
>
>What about who is and isn't a member? Or a reporting mechanism, a rollcall,
>or active assignment editors. Why not formulate and approve an actual
>working IMC model, and clarify these questions, instead of treating the IMC
>as a stagnant body of entrenched, though badly defined, policies?
>
>Currently there's policies on the definitions page... why is this? The
>policy page doesn't really mirror this information.
>
>Editorial meetings aren't mentioned. These could take place online. The IMC
>calendar isn't mentioned.
>
>Heck the listserv isn't even mentioned?
>
>The Wiki isn't clear. There's no clear way to get involved in the IMC. To
>find the wiki. The information is easily misinterpreted or not found.
>
>Filtering nor grouping, is never discussed.. even though it's a function of
>the site:
>
>My feeling is that the group has never clearly articulated the processes or
>instructions around the IMC clearly to new members. So when new members make
>decisions, believing the they are involved and doing their best to make
>honest and open decisions, and when these new volunteers are then told that
>they aren't reporting properly to people they don't know. People who never
>come to the space anymore, or general meetings. People these volunteers may
>never have interacted with as flesh and blood individuals.
>
>And when this information is aslo not clearly conveyed to new and active
>members through well defined policies, easily located online and in the
>space. Well these new volunteers feel attacked by old volunteers.
>
>The reality is people meet in real life, at the IMC, make decisions, and
>then are blamed for not articulating their decisions to the group.
>
>Please tell me what the proper reporting mechanism is, and where that hidden
>page of procedures exists? Is it the glossary? Is that where it is? Because
>the glossary spells out an online consensus process, but doesn't say where
>that takes place... and a glossary is a silly place to define procedures.
>
>Gentry
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: seattle-editorial-bounces at lists.indymedia.org
>[mailto:seattle-editorial-bounces at lists.indymedia.org]On Behalf Of Jason
>Reep
>Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 10:25 PM
>To: seasc at indymedia.org; Editorial
>Subject: [Seattle-editorial] Re: [Seasc] 12/9 IMC Meeting Minutes
>
>
>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:
> >
> > http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Local/SeaCoreMeeting2003Dec9
> >
> > If any attendees of the meeting notice mistakes, please make a correction
> > or add a note to indicate your own notes.
> >
> >
> > peace,
> > brandon
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Seasc mailing list
> > Seasc at lists.indymedia.org
> > http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/seasc
>_______________________________________________
>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