[Imc-jakarta] Re: [New-imc] Fwd: Jakarta IndyMedia - Seeking Clarification
and Advice
Jay
jay at tao.ca
Tue, 21 May 2002 04:46:57 -0400
--=====================_17212360==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hi all,
Thanks, everyone, for keeping this important discussion at the forefront of our
organizing. I'm *very* excited for the Jakarta IMC to be linked through the
sidebar of all imcs.
REGIONALIZATION
I'm also very excited about regionalization, both in the welcoming of new imcs
into the network, and in general decision-making processes. We're definitely
heading in that direction, not only in australasia/oceania, but throughout the
network. There have recently been regional IMC meetings in South America,
Europe, the western us and western Candada, the Midwest US and, most recently,
the Northeast US (the U.S may be too big as its own region, but
west/middle/east US regions would seem doable) There has been a lot of
priority placed on face-to-face organizing, and I really think it's paying off
in our network becoming stronger.
A major advantage of regionalization is the real potential for face-to-face
organizing. Hence, Sam is visiting Meggy in Jakarta, and others from IMCs in
Australia have visited/will continue to visit each other and Indonesia as
well. I think that's why having a region be able to welcome a new-imc into
their region makes a whole lot of sense. That happened a long time ago with
Jakarta, becoming jakarta.indymedia.org.au, and I think that can be a good
thing.
WHY SHOULD THEY RESPOND TO THE MEMBERSHIP CRITERIA DOCS?
I want to emphasize that the new-imc process is not simply for the sake of
bureaucracy. If an imc is organized on the most basic points (has a
sustainable collective, has meetings, has a mission statement or is working on
one, is familiar with the indymedia network and agrees to its basic
principles), filling out the responses to the membership criteria should take
all of ten minutes. Writing a couple paragraph introduction saying hello from
the aspiring imc could take another ten minutes. The documents are translated
into Indonesian, I believe, and responses could be in Indonesian.
The membership criteria say nothing about a new-imc having to be based more
on-line than off-line. They don't require an open e-mail list, though that's
preferred for the sake of transparency (in some places though it's simply not
prudent). They don't require anything except for a group to have put some
effort into doing the basic organizing that will make them most likely to be
sustainable. In other words, it's not the "paperwork" that takes time, it's
the organizing. Once a group is organized, like imc-jakarta, it therefore be
able to respond to the membership criteria in no time. Sam and/or Praccus can
certainly help with this.
Why do I think it's so important that each new-imc put something in writing?
While each region could make face-to-face contact with aspiring IMCs in their
area to get to know them, how will people in the Philly IMC, for example, get
to know the Jakarta IMC, and feel part of the same network as the Jakarta IMC,
if there's nothing written about them and what they're up to? With few
exceptions, everything else has happened in working groups or on the regional
or local level. The only real decisions we've made on a network-wide level
have been who to accept into the network. I think having each new-imc say "hi,
hello, we want to be part of the indymedia network and we're organizing to do
it for the long term," is a reasonable thing.
THE NEXT STEP
The Jakarta IMC seems to be functioning well, and Sam affirms this. All they
really need to do is sit down at their next meeting and go through the one
document to which they have to reply, the network membership criteria:
english:
"http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/new-imc/2001-May/000155.html"
indonesian/malay:
"http://www.global.indymedia.org.au/front.php3?article_id=442&group=webcast"
They reply point by point, write a couple paragraphs about their imc (they
could do both in indonesian if they'd like), and send it along to the
new-imc@indymedia.org list. We'll take it from there.
I'm really looking forward to our having the Jakarta IMC listed on every IMC
site, and I'm sorry this has taken so long.
Jay
At 02:52 PM 05/20/2002 +1000, n ik wrote:
>heya gang,
>
>this discussion IMO is a good one to be having,
>couple of things i'd like to discuss...
>
>first is the straight out practical question of how to proceed -
>basically jakarta (a functioning site AFAIK) wants to be listed on
>the sidebar generally. Jay and Boud seem to be saying that they
>(new-imc?) want the forms filled out, and a few other things covered
>- like open email list, etc. Sam seems to be saying that the email
>list et al side of things is not likely (in fact, could be
>counter-productive), and the forms are time-consuming and not
>essential - in fact, he goes so far as to suggest that there be
>alternatives to filling out forms, like a vouching system, and
>regional decision making about new-imc's
>
>me - i think that filling in forms in a means to an end, and should
>not be considered *mandatory* (esp. considering many imc's never went
>through this process - melb is a case in point). it was only ever
>(AFAIK) set up to aid the formation of new imc's and maintain some
>form of control over what becomes an imc. so, in the first instance,
>i think rules are only as good as their exceptions.
>
>on this point i think (and it seems) that getting correctly and
>completely filled out forms from jakarta indymedia is unlikely
>(sam?) b/c of tech & time issues, and suggest that a vouching system
>be used - if they have been hanging with sam (who is there to see how
>they work / help if he can), and have been dealing with praccus - and
>both of them are satisfied, i fail to see what the problem could be
>apart from a bureaucratic fixation with protocol :-) and i dont
>think indymedia in general has a bureaucratic fixation with protocol.
>I understand that people want to have a fair system, and the feeling
>that everyone should go through the same process, but i think that
>this ignores the very different situations that many imc's are
>operating under (the same goes of the email list etc issues -
>security issues, and methods of organising collectively differ from
>region to region,and need to be taken into account, with the
>understanding that it is people in that locality or region that
>probably understand the situation and how to respond to it best).
>
>secondly, as this comes back to the regional network in operation in
>oceania, many of us down here think of the current system of 'global'
>collectives / decision making bodies as counter-democratic in some
>sense. the reasons for this have been listed again and again on the
>global lists, and so i dont see any reason for going into them again
>(and this isnt some anti-anyone rant, just a comment based on the
>idea that participatory structures have *size* limits, as well as
>access & *speed* limits). imc-melb (as well as both me personally,
>and quite a few of the oceania kids AFAIK) feels that 'global'
>indymedia should be little more than a chorus of voices of local
>imc's - some of us like the direction the global page is heading in
>(ie, the 'newswire' of features, etc), and think that indymedia
>should continue in this direction. one step would be to move decision
>making on new imcs to a regional level where possible, and then make
>the global side bar an aggregate of all of the local / regional
>sidebars...
>
>oceania is moving towards a situation (IMO) of regional autonomy -
>which is a positive step. some oceania members participate in the
>global groups (though not as much as perhaps they would like), but i
>think it would be easier, and more productive, for oceania kids to
>work regionally to build and maintain the indymedia network (this is
>happening at the moment with local crews working with jakarta with
>tech, org and money, and has happened with aotearoa, brisbane, and
>adelaide)...
>
>nik
>
>
>>Sam, Boud, all,
>>
>>It's great, Sam, that you have been so helpful to the Jakarta IMC. Bravo!
>>
>>I think what Boud is saying is right. In a place where internet
>>access is expensive and difficult, an IMC can/must do work primarily
>>off-line to have it be effective. Whether or not an IMC makes media
>>on or off the internet, the general organizing principles are the
>>same -- have meetings, have enough people to sustain a group, gather
>>a mission statement and editorial policy, not be dominated by one
>>organization. Once a group is well-organized, getting linked on the
>>left column of the indymedia sites could very well be as easy as
>>sending in responses to the membership criteria.
>>
>>I'm pretty sure Boud has translated much of the new-imc documents
>>into Indonesian, which should give the Jakarta group an extra boost.
>>I'm sure your presence, Sam, will be quite helpful, even if it's
>>only over the next couple days.
>>
>>As for regionalization, yes yes yes! Asia-Pacific has gone further
>>than most other regions in "approving" their own IMCs, which is why
>>the Jakarta site is able to be up in general. I really think that's
>>a good thing, as long as we're using the same or very similar
>>principles and criteria -- if not, I imagine there would be some
>>confusion. I still think every new imc would have to clear through
>>imc-process though before they're linked through the
>>www.indymedia.org site, so everyone can get a chance to get to know
>>them before we all invite them into the network. I see no reason
>>why Asia-Pacific can't "approve" local IMCs, sort of like the
>>new-imc working group does, sending along their membership criteria
>>and other stuff to imc-process when the imcs are ready. I'd like to
>>see that kind of thing work in conjunction with the new-imc group,
>>rather than separate from it, but I see no reason why Asia-Pacific
>>couldn't take more of an active role.
>>
>>At one point Praccus was working pretty closely with the new-imc
>>group to make something like this possible but communication has
>>fallen off as of late. If anyone else is willing to fulfill that
>>role, or if Praccus would like to revive it, there'd be nothing but
>>enthusiasm from my direction.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Jay
>
>
>
>>The main thing this regional group would need to do is update the sidebar and
>>also create subdomains off the main domain. I have CC'd this to Nik
>>(fragments@va.com.au) who is involved in this regional group - which I
>>understand already has a list operating - imc-australasia@lists
>>
>>My suggestion is that there is a process for regional decision-making and
>>acceptance of new regionally located Indy sites - based on regional needs.
>>These can be set up locally - ie. on one of the servers in the region (cat,
>>octapod...) or maybe a request can be made to the US. But the decision-making
>>should be done regionally.
>>
>>Also, I would suggest that 'vouching' be used. Rather than getting a group to
>>make a proposal and do a lot of paper pushing, if someone from an
>>existing Indy
>>collective goes to that group and can see that there is a real
>>desire to have a
>>Indy site - that should be adequate.
>>
>>I am not too sure where to go with this - except to say that it
>>would be really
>>fantastic to accept jakarta.indy in to the indy network. At the moment,
>>independent media makers are fairly restricted. There are many community
radio
>>stations that operates illegally, and the government has 30 year
>>jail sentences
>>for these operators. Currently, there is debate in parliament whether
licences
>>should be allocated to community radio - but there is resistance from the
>>government who fear further 'disintegration' of indonesia.
>>
>>Meggy and the others around are really trying to foster the idea of
>>free media -
>> and they see jakarta.indymedia as playing an important role... But with it
>>having a .au suffix and not being on the sidebar makes things a bit
difficult.
>>And it was their idea - they made the initial proposal many months ago. It
>>wasn't like someone from Melbourne is encouraging them to set up an Indy
site!
>>I think their initiative should be supported!!!
>>
>>Hokay - leave it at that for now. I am hoping that others at imc-australasia
>>takes up this discussion especially about regional decision-making in terms
of
>>new-indy websites.
>>
>See ya, Sam :)
>
>--
>we do not lack communication, on the contrary we have too much of it.
>we lack creation. we lack resistance to the present.
--=====================_17212360==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
<html>
<font size=3>Hi all,<br>
<br>
Thanks, everyone, for keeping this important discussion at the forefront
of our organizing. I'm *very* excited for the Jakarta IMC to be
linked through the sidebar of all imcs. <br>
<br>
REGIONALIZATION<br>
I'm also very excited about regionalization, both in the welcoming of new
imcs into the network, and in general decision-making processes.
We're definitely heading in that direction, not only in
australasia/oceania, but throughout the network. There have
recently been regional IMC meetings in South America, Europe, the western
us and western Candada, the Midwest US and, most recently, the Northeast
US (the U.S may be too big as its own region, but west/middle/east US
regions would seem doable) There has been a lot of priority placed
on face-to-face organizing, and I really think it's paying off in our
network becoming stronger. <br>
<br>
A major advantage of regionalization is the real potential for
face-to-face organizing. Hence, Sam is visiting Meggy in Jakarta,
and others from IMCs in Australia have visited/will continue to visit
each other and Indonesia as well. I think that's why having a
region be able to welcome a new-imc into their region makes a whole lot
of sense. That happened a long time ago with Jakarta, becoming
jakarta.indymedia.org.au, and I think that can be a good thing.
<br>
<br>
WHY SHOULD THEY RESPOND TO THE MEMBERSHIP CRITERIA DOCS?<br>
I want to emphasize that the new-imc process is not simply for the sake
of bureaucracy. If an imc is organized on the most basic points
(has a sustainable collective, has meetings, has a mission statement or
is working on one, is familiar with the indymedia network and agrees to
its basic principles), filling out the responses to the membership
criteria should take all of ten minutes. Writing a couple paragraph
introduction saying hello from the aspiring imc could take another ten
minutes. The documents are translated into Indonesian, I believe,
and responses could be in Indonesian. <br>
<br>
The membership criteria say nothing about a new-imc having to be based
more on-line than off-line. They don't require an open e-mail list,
though that's preferred for the sake of transparency (in some places
though it's simply not prudent). They don't require anything except
for a group to have put some effort into doing the basic organizing that
will make them most likely to be sustainable. In other words, it's
not the "paperwork" that takes time, it's the organizing.
Once a group is organized, like imc-jakarta, it therefore be able to
respond to the membership criteria in no time. Sam and/or Praccus
can certainly help with this.<br>
<br>
Why do I think it's so important that each new-imc put something in
writing? While each region could make face-to-face contact with
aspiring IMCs in their area to get to know them, how will people in the
Philly IMC, for example, get to know the Jakarta IMC, and feel part of
the same network as the Jakarta IMC, if there's nothing written about
them and what they're up to? With few exceptions, everything else
has happened in working groups or on the regional or local level.
The only real decisions we've made on a network-wide level have been who
to accept into the network. I think having each new-imc say
"hi, hello, we want to be part of the indymedia network and we're
organizing to do it for the long term," is a reasonable thing.
<br>
<br>
THE NEXT STEP<br>
The Jakarta IMC seems to be functioning well, and Sam affirms this.
All they really need to do is sit down at their next meeting and go
through the one document to which they have to reply, the network
membership criteria: <br>
english:
"<a href="http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/new-imc/2001-May/000155.html" eudora="autourl">http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/new-imc/2001-May/000155.html</a>"<br>
indonesian/malay:
"<a href="http://www.global.indymedia.org.au/front.php3?article_id=442&group=webcast" eudora="autourl">http://www.global.indymedia.org.au/front.php3?article_id=442&group=webcast</a>"<br>
<br>
They reply point by point, write a couple paragraphs about their imc
(they could do both in indonesian if they'd like), and send it along to
the new-imc@indymedia.org list. We'll take it from there.
<br>
<br>
I'm really looking forward to our having the Jakarta IMC listed on every
IMC site, and I'm sorry this has taken so long. <br>
<br>
Jay<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
At 02:52 PM 05/20/2002 +1000, n ik wrote:<br>
>heya gang,<br>
><br>
>this discussion IMO is a good one to be having,<br>
>couple of things i'd like to discuss...<br>
><br>
>first is the straight out practical question of how to proceed -
<br>
>basically jakarta (a functioning site AFAIK) wants to be listed on
<br>
>the sidebar generally. Jay and Boud seem to be saying that they
<br>
>(new-imc?) want the forms filled out, and a few other things covered
<br>
>- like open email list, etc. Sam seems to be saying that the email
<br>
>list et al side of things is not likely (in fact, could be <br>
>counter-productive), and the forms are time-consuming and not <br>
>essential - in fact, he goes so far as to suggest that there be
<br>
>alternatives to filling out forms, like a vouching system, and <br>
>regional decision making about new-imc's<br>
><br>
>me - i think that filling in forms in a means to an end, and should
<br>
>not be considered *mandatory* (esp. considering many imc's never went
<br>
>through this process - melb is a case in point). it was only ever
<br>
>(AFAIK) set up to aid the formation of new imc's and maintain some
<br>
>form of control over what becomes an imc. so, in the first instance,
<br>
>i think rules are only as good as their exceptions.<br>
><br>
>on this point i think (and it seems) that getting correctly and
<br>
>completely filled out forms from jakarta indymedia is unlikely
<br>
>(sam?) b/c of tech & time issues, and suggest that a vouching
system <br>
>be used - if they have been hanging with sam (who is there to see how
<br>
>they work / help if he can), and have been dealing with praccus - and
<br>
>both of them are satisfied, i fail to see what the problem could be
<br>
>apart from a bureaucratic fixation with protocol
:-) and i dont <br>
>think indymedia in general has a bureaucratic fixation with protocol.
<br>
>I understand that people want to have a fair system, and the feeling
<br>
>that everyone should go through the same process, but i think that
<br>
>this ignores the very different situations that many imc's are <br>
>operating under (the same goes of the email list etc issues - <br>
>security issues, and methods of organising collectively differ from
<br>
>region to region,and need to be taken into account, with the <br>
>understanding that it is people in that locality or region that
<br>
>probably understand the situation and how to respond to it
best).<br>
><br>
>secondly, as this comes back to the regional network in operation in
<br>
>oceania, many of us down here think of the current system of 'global'
<br>
>collectives / decision making bodies as counter-democratic in some
<br>
>sense. the reasons for this have been listed again and again on the
<br>
>global lists, and so i dont see any reason for going into them again
<br>
>(and this isnt some anti-anyone rant, just a comment based on the
<br>
>idea that participatory structures have *size* limits, as well as
<br>
>access & *speed* limits). imc-melb (as well as both me
personally, <br>
>and quite a few of the oceania kids AFAIK) feels that 'global' <br>
>indymedia should be little more than a chorus of voices of local
<br>
>imc's - some of us like the direction the global page is heading in
<br>
>(ie, the 'newswire' of features, etc), and think that indymedia
<br>
>should continue in this direction. one step would be to move decision
<br>
>making on new imcs to a regional level where possible, and then make
<br>
>the global side bar an aggregate of all of the local / regional
<br>
>sidebars...<br>
><br>
>oceania is moving towards a situation (IMO) of regional autonomy -
<br>
>which is a positive step. some oceania members participate in the
<br>
>global groups (though not as much as perhaps they would like), but i
<br>
>think it would be easier, and more productive, for oceania kids to
<br>
>work regionally to build and maintain the indymedia network (this is
<br>
>happening at the moment with local crews working with jakarta with
<br>
>tech, org and money, and has happened with aotearoa, brisbane, and
<br>
>adelaide)...<br>
><br>
>nik<br>
><br>
><br>
>>Sam, Boud, all,<br>
>><br>
>>It's great, Sam, that you have been so helpful to the Jakarta
IMC. Bravo! <br>
>><br>
>>I think what Boud is saying is right. In a place where
internet <br>
>>access is expensive and difficult, an IMC can/must do work
primarily <br>
>>off-line to have it be effective. Whether or not an IMC
makes media <br>
>>on or off the internet, the general organizing principles are the
<br>
>>same -- have meetings, have enough people to sustain a group,
gather <br>
>>a mission statement and editorial policy, not be dominated by one
<br>
>>organization. Once a group is well-organized, getting
linked on the <br>
>>left column of the indymedia sites could very well be as easy as
<br>
>>sending in responses to the membership criteria. <br>
>><br>
>>I'm pretty sure Boud has translated much of the new-imc documents
<br>
>>into Indonesian, which should give the Jakarta group an extra
boost. <br>
>>I'm sure your presence, Sam, will be quite helpful, even if it's
<br>
>>only over the next couple days.<br>
>><br>
>>As for regionalization, yes yes yes! Asia-Pacific has gone
further <br>
>>than most other regions in "approving" their own IMCs,
which is why <br>
>>the Jakarta site is able to be up in general. I really
think that's <br>
>>a good thing, as long as we're using the same or very similar
<br>
>>principles and criteria -- if not, I imagine there would be some
<br>
>>confusion. I still think every new imc would have to clear
through <br>
>>imc-process though before they're linked through the <br>
>><a href="http://www.indymedia.org/" eudora="autourl">www.indymedia.org</a>
site, so everyone can get a chance to get to know <br>
>>them before we all invite them into the network. I see no
reason <br>
>>why Asia-Pacific can't "approve" local IMCs, sort of
like the <br>
>>new-imc working group does, sending along their membership
criteria <br>
>>and other stuff to imc-process when the imcs are ready. I'd
like to <br>
>>see that kind of thing work in conjunction with the new-imc
group, <br>
>>rather than separate from it, but I see no reason why
Asia-Pacific <br>
>>couldn't take more of an active role.<br>
>><br>
>>At one point Praccus was working pretty closely with the new-imc
<br>
>>group to make something like this possible but communication has
<br>
>>fallen off as of late. If anyone else is willing to fulfill
that <br>
>>role, or if Praccus would like to revive it, there'd be nothing
but <br>
>>enthusiasm from my direction.<br>
>><br>
>>Cheers,<br>
>><br>
>>Jay<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
>>The main thing this regional group would need to do is update the
sidebar and<br>
>>also create subdomains off the main domain. I have CC'd this to
Nik<br>
>>(fragments@va.com.au) who is involved in this regional group -
which I<br>
>>understand already has a list operating -
imc-australasia@lists<br>
>><br>
>>My suggestion is that there is a process for regional
decision-making and<br>
>>acceptance of new regionally located Indy sites - based on
regional needs.<br>
>>These can be set up locally - ie. on one of the servers in the
region (cat,<br>
>>octapod...) or maybe a request can be made to the US. But the
decision-making<br>
>>should be done regionally.<br>
>><br>
>>Also, I would suggest that 'vouching' be used. Rather than
getting a group to<br>
>>make a proposal and do a lot of paper pushing, if someone from an
<br>
>>existing Indy<br>
>>collective goes to that group and can see that there is a real
<br>
>>desire to have a<br>
>>Indy site - that should be adequate.<br>
>><br>
>>I am not too sure where to go with this - except to say that it
<br>
>>would be really<br>
>>fantastic to accept jakarta.indy in to the indy network. At the
moment,<br>
>>independent media makers are fairly restricted. There are many
community radio<br>
>>stations that operates illegally, and the government has 30 year
<br>
>>jail sentences<br>
>>for these operators. Currently, there is debate in parliament
whether licences<br>
>>should be allocated to community radio - but there is resistance
from the<br>
>>government who fear further 'disintegration' of indonesia.<br>
>><br>
>>Meggy and the others around are really trying to foster the idea
of <br>
>>free media -<br>
>> and they see jakarta.indymedia as playing an important
role... But with it<br>
>>having a .au suffix and not being on the sidebar makes things a
bit difficult.<br>
>>And it was their idea - they made the initial proposal many
months ago. It<br>
>>wasn't like someone from Melbourne is encouraging them to set up
an Indy site!<br>
>>I think their initiative should be supported!!!<br>
>><br>
>>Hokay - leave it at that for now. I am hoping that others at
imc-australasia<br>
>>takes up this discussion especially about regional
decision-making in terms of<br>
>>new-indy websites.<br>
>><br>
>See ya, Sam :)<br>
><br>
>-- <br>
>we do not lack communication, on the contrary we have too much of it.
<br>
>we lack creation. we lack resistance to the present.<br>
</font></html>
--=====================_17212360==_.ALT--