[New-imc] NC-IMC's plan of action

[Jay]

Hi everyone,

There should be more feedback from others, but I think this sounds reasonable. 
My sense is that since the initial organizing, which mainly happened in Chapel
Hill, interest in Indymedia has spread to other places around NC, so their
reality has somewhat changed.  Sounds kind of like an experiment in
mini-regionalizing, which I think we should support.  Does anyone have any
misgivings?  

As for Asheville, there hasn't been much contact from them lately.  Here is
some contact info for someone from Asheville, though I know there has been more
communication (i.e. with Sean and others from the Asheville Global Report). 
Certainliy the North Carolina distinction shouldn't happen until there has been
a substantial attempt to get in touch with as many activists from around the
state as possible, including those in Asheville, to see what they think of
these developments.  

My two cents,

Jay

At 06:15 PM 05/20/2002 -0400, Harry Halpin wrote:
>Global Indymedia folks,
>       Okay, here's NC-Indymedia's plan of action as discussed at our
>meeting last thursday. This mostly deals with the nuts and bolts of having
>a regional web-site.
>       We have already set-up ActiveSF, the active that's currently being
>used by SF indymedia - sf.indymedia.org. We will plan to use activeSF's 
>categorical features "i.e. you can put your features in a distinct
>category" ability to have on the left-bar a features column that sorts
>features by city. The cities currently will be "Alamance, Chapel Hill,
>Charlotte,Durham, Greensboro, Raleigh, Wilmington" with maybe "Asheville" if 
>they
>don't have an IMC. Then every post can be put in its proper geographical
>loation. All posts will be on the main NC page, but then a user from a
>particular city could just click on their city and get only their
>city/region-specific posts. 
>       While the main IMC working-group responsible for the page should
>be in Chapel Hill (which is in the middle of the state and a half an hour
>drive from Raleigh, Durham, and Alamance), other IMC working-groups may
>form in other parts of the state (most likely Greensboro, Charlotte,
>Wilmington, possibly Greenville and Asheville). These working groups must
>abide by the same editorial policy and points of unity that the original
>Chapel Hill IMC group formed. If they do, they are an official IMC working
>group. They will be subscribed to our listserv to which all meeting
>minutes and proposals will be sent and we will try to meet
>with all other groups, if they form, face-to-face biannually to discuss
>NC-IMC. Proposals which effect the entire IMC (like eliminating a city to 
>the features, adding a city to the features) should be approved over the
>internet with a one week wait for discussion. All other decisions should
>be made locally. 
>       I believe that while the editorial policy, points of unity, and so
>on of the CH-IMC which were submitted for proposal are the same, another
>document detailing the regional nature of the IMC and how different IMC
>groups may communicate should be submitted for approval. Once this is
>approved (please soon!!!), we'd like to take the name nc.indymedia.org
>and rename ourselves and our documents NC-INDYMEDIA if our group at the
>next meeting can finally hash that out. However, first we want to know if
>that proposal works with global IMC, assuming we write up another document
>for submission to new-imc.  
>
>                               Thanks,
>                                       Harry 
>
>On Sat, 18 May 2002, Brian Conley wrote:
>
>> Hey Harry, Sharpie here from the Central Florida IMC, and hopefully soon
>> the Florida IMC as well... We have been discussing the creation of a
>> florida statewide imc project, and i wuold definitely support you in north
>> carolina as long as i could have some assurance that you were truly
>> organizing on a statewide level... i'd love to talk to you and pick your
>> brain for ideas that you folks have for making it work as well as offering
>> info about how we're working things here, some discussions about remote
>> meetings, etc...
>> 
>> TO THE NEW IMC WORKING GROUP
>> 
>> I know that Chapel Hill is pretty close tobeing accepted i belive(actually
>> werent they accepted back on the 22nd??) anyway, I just wanted to say that
>> I'd be willing to step up and be their support person as they transition
>> to being a statewide project(if that is indeed what happens) I think this
>> makes sense as I'm already helping out several otehr southeastern imc
>> projects including Redhills/Tallahasse IMC and Charleston IMC...
>> 
>> anyway, what are other folks thoughts about a statewide imc in north
>> carolina? what we have discussed here in florida is more a spokesbody type
>> organization where the fl imc, if created, would inevitbaly be a body of
>> representatives from otherlocal imcs around the state as well as folks who
>> dont have local imcs, and one of its primary functions would be to
>> encourage the creation of other imcs all over the state and eventually
>> pushing out into alabama, louisiana, georgia, etc
>> 
>> sharpie
>> 
>> 
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/20020524/69ebfb19/attachment.html