[New-imc] CLEVELAND

Thu May 9 02:13:02 PDT 2002

Hi Kris, imc-cleveland and new-imc,

>From: "kris harsh" <krisharsh at hotmail.com>
>
>hi,
>
>this is kris from the cleveland imc.  we're just waiting for global to give 
>us the codes.  we can't access the site until we have them.  so the center 
>column has remained the same.  we meet every two weeks and sit around 
>wondering how long it will take for us to have our site back.  that's 
>basically it.
>
>lot's of people want to help us out, but we have nowhere to publish their 
>writings.
>
>that's the situation...
>

I haven't been up to date on the most recent conversations about the Cleveland
group so please forgive me if I'm asking for clarification on something that
has already been clarified. :) 

Sounds as if there's a new collective that has formed, but I don't think it's
gone through the new-imc process yet.  As Sheri points out below, since a new
collective is in place, having them fill out the membership info at
"http://newimc.indymedia.org" would be quite a productive step.  IMC-Prague is
currently doing this, reviving after 1 1/2 years.  While they're getting their
act together, the new group has access to the web site to post features and
deal with the newswire.  Their site won't be linked through www.indymedia.org
until they go through the new imc process.  As boud has noted, that kind of
step-by-step procedure gives the local group a website with which to organize,
but also gives reason to go through the new-imc process.  Perhaps Cleveland
would be amenable to this kind of thing.  Of course if they're well-organized,
going through the new-imc process would only take a few days.  

Kris, anyone, please correct me if I'm misunderstanding or misrepresenting the
situation. 

Jay

>
>
>
>>From: Sheri <sheri at indymedia.org>
>>To: carl0z <carloz at paranoici.org>, "Geoffrey Young" 
>><downitgoes at antisocial.com>, imc-process at lists.indymedia.org
>>CC: New-IMC <new-imc at indymedia.org>, robertschneider at animail.net, 
>>krisharsh at hotmail.com
>>Subject: Re: [IMC-Process] whats with cleveland?
>>Date: Sun, 5 May 2002 16:13:12 -0700
>>
>>hi everyone,
>>
>>i'm cc'ing a few folks from the imc cleveland collective so they can
>>speak to this more directly in case they are not on this list.  but
>>i'll share just a bit of history that i remember for background.
>>
>>carloz is right, yes they are meeting and getting reorganized.
>>sascha from urbana imc is one of their contacts and is helping them
>>cause they are in the same region.
>>
>>back a while ago, there was some extensive conversations about
>>cleveland because someone wanted to give a donation to imc cleveland.
>>i sent an email to the then contact for the imc cleveland contact
>>asking how they were doing etc and whether they were active (given
>>the state of their features, etc).  thus a lengthy thread was started.
>>
>>here's one piece of a thread from the imc-unity list.  this list was
>>set up after the san francisco gathering last april (2001) where we
>>discussed the draft network charter and principles of unity.  a
>>working group was formed and a list to talk about these principles
>>that are at the heart of our work on the new imc list for bringing on
>>new locals to the network.
>>
>>http://lists.cat.org.au/pipermail/imc-unity/2002-January/000071.html
>>
>>discussion was on process, unity and new imc lists.
>>
>>points raised included:
>>
>>* when a local imc collective stopped functioning as a collective
>>almost completely, then because it was likely to be all new people
>>(not necessarily) who helped pick it up again and return it to a new
>>imc, it made sense for them to go through the new imc process again.
>>we're seeing similar things with imc france group (which never went
>>through the process cause they were one of the earlier imcs - that
>>brings up the "audit" question).
>>
>>*  imcs should not host non-imc projects on the server (i guess this
>>happened and micah references it in the email i have linked above).
>>
>>*  when an imc stops functioning in some active capacity, letting the
>>larger collective/network know is a good iea.  imc-vermont did this
>>and we took the city off the cities links and put it in another
>>category.  i don't think we had much resolution on how to do this,
>>but some ideas were discussed - a pending or inactive category so
>>that the archives would still be available for folks interested.
>>
>>others i can't remember.
>>
>>sheri
>>
>>At 11:34 PM -0400 5/5/02, carl0z wrote:
>>>Geoffrey,
>>>
>>>Geoffrey Young ha scritto
>>>>  hey folks
>>>>  whats with cleveland?
>>>>  they have current wire stories but features from 2 years ago?
>>>
>>>cleveland site has been almost unactive for a year and more :|
>>>cleveland collective is going through imc-process again ;))
>>>they're now having meetings and all :-)
>>>you may get some more info here
>>>http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-cleveland/2002-April/000338.
>html
>>>or browsing new-imc archives
>>>others (jay, bart, ...) may tell you more
>>>this is just what i found with a web search (their list archives are 
>>>linked
>>>from indy.org/contact page)
>>>--
>>>c4rl0z
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>imc-process mailing list
>>>imc-process at lists.indymedia.org
>>>http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-process
>>
>>
>>--
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
>
>_______________________________________________
>New-imc mailing list
>New-imc at lists.indymedia.org
>http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/new-imc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/attachments/20020509/03f5f6b0/attachment.html