[IMC-Boston-Editorial] Comments, Questions and the letter

[visnusdream at juno.com]

I have no objection to making the Dispatch archives wide open. We debated this issue a couple of months ago and I sought clarification and understanding about both sides of the issue. Then the issue just sort of evaporated. I've had a chance to think about it and am really glad Sofia brought the topic back up. We should open those archives; its in the spirit of our purposes. 
However, I do not think we should add the Militarism category, because in my opinion it is vague and only complicates an already complicated system of of categories. For instance, how should I categorize Dahr Jamail's Iraq Dispatches? Are they International news or Human rights? Now we will just be adding a third category Militarism. It just doesn't make since. we need limits and I think the ones set by our predecessors are adequate, for the time being. 
In the long term, I would like to see a simplifying of the categories, if any changes are to be made. So, if someone can suggest folding two or three categories into Militarism then I might be able to support it. If not, I just can't get behind it. The reason we have these categories is so that the records are easily searchable. If there are tons of overlapping categories it just gets harder.
I am lost on the conversation you guys were having about reaching consensus on-line. If someone can explain it to me I'd really appreciate it.
Also, as will probably be reflected in the minutes from last night's meeting, I am also concerned about the editing policy. During the past few weeks I have unhidden several posts I felt were unjustly hidden. So far, we have not had a lot of conflict about this issue and that's great, but I hope we can talk more about it soon. 
Dana tells me that the Editorial group has never been in full agreement about this problem. However, I hope we can surpass that standard and actually reach a true consensus about most posts. I love the Editor's comments idea. 
Like I said, I don't understand the on-line consensus you guys were discussing but my fear is that if we try to apply it to controversial posts, we will be too slow to actually meet the demands of our readers. 
I mentioned to Sofia that I'd like to have an Editorial meeting around the 18th of this month. Would anyone be able to attend that day? Any suggested locations? It would be nice if we could make a decision by the end of this week, in this regard. 
Finally, Svea if you made it this far, I need you to sign the Letter for John because you are actually named in the letter.
Peace, love, and Vegan Marshmallows,
Jamie 


-- Sofia JarrinT <sofiajt at yahoo.com> wrote:



"Jonathan D. Proulx" <jon at csail.mit.edu> wrote: Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 15:54:57 -0500
From: "Jonathan D. Proulx" <jon at csail.mit.edu>
To: Sofia JarrinT <sofiajt at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [IMC-Boston-Editorial] a couple online editorial decisions?

On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 12:52:49PM -0800, Sofia JarrinT wrote:
:So, Jon, how do you vote on the 2 items proposed?

Oh yeh actual items :)

I'm for both.

-Jon


Yahoo! Personals
Single? There's someone we'd like you to meet.
Lots of someones, actually. Yahoo! Personals 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/boston-editorial/attachments/20051206/17d03bcf/attachment.htm