[IMC-Boston-Editorial] a little to add

[Pete Stidman]

Thanks to both Sofia and Jamie.  The whole exchange
seems to be good so far, yay!  

I just want to add to Jamie's comments, there was also
a long discussion about Gender vs. GLBT.  It's usefull
to look at what people have been using them all for. 
LIke if you click into gender you find homefries
sexual harrassment in JP story, if you click into GLBT
you find our coverage of the gay marriage stuff.  And
that was kinda what our discussions back then
predicted. 

I think if we want to make changes in categories we
have to look at the whole.  It would even be better if
we could have user input via the usability studies the
website group has prepared for post-launch of the new
site.  

As to online decision-making,  I am opposed for the
most part.  The thing is, it may seem like it is more
participatory to some, but others do not have time or
access to computers.  Dana for instance, is very
selective in what he chooses to read online.  Future
members may nbot even own computers, expecially if we
turn out to be true to mission and involve people who
do not have a voice online and low-income people. 

I think what we could do however, is formalize a
process for getting web-based concerns addressed in
the meetings.  

So you could propose a category change, and then in
the next appropriate meeting, in this case the website
group, it could be addressed.  Then you could read the
minutes and see if you agree with the decision. You
could still post more comments on it after the meeting
or even decide it is important enough to show up to
the next meeting to talk about it.  Chances are the
meeting will make a decision you can agree with, cause
were cool like that.

My main concern is that this group has had huge
problems with online communications, so it seems like
asking for trouble to condone online decision making. 
IRC meetings or phone conferences are a better way to
get around this, but it should be made accessible to
everyone by making sure all have access.  For
instance, my dumb ass has still not figured out IRC,
so I am left out of many discussions.

-Pete


--- "visnusdream at juno.com" <visnusdream at juno.com>
wrote:

> Dear friends, 
> I'm tuning into this conversation, although I have
> little to add with regard to issue at hand: a new
> subject heading. 
> 
> (I think we should utilize the lists more to discuss
> this type of issue; but I hope we can continue to do
> it with a reasonable amount of decorum.)
> 
> This subject categories thing is an issue about
> which reasonable people might disagree. 
> When Svea and I discussed it with Matt, I realized
> how tedious trying to come up with things like this
> might become, even if just one person is taking sole
> responsibility for it. Consensus management can make
> everything more cumbersome and slow, but it is the
> way we have chosen to do things. 
> 
> I would like to say that I hope we can reach more
> decisions on-line, because I hope we can start
> making more decisions and getting more done.
> However, when someone raises a legitimate concern,
> as Pete has done in this instance, his opinion must
> be honored just as it would be in a live meeting. In
> my opinion, the on-line forum is in some ways more
> fair than face to face meetings. For instance, there
> are less time and scheduling restraints; more people
> can participate. I feel that even if someone does
> propose that we wait until group meetings to make
> all descions, as Pete has informally done, we should
> expedite our decision making process by thoroughly
> discussing issues throughout the month on-line. 
> My favorite part of IMC organization is the decision
> making process. It is self-illuminating to have my
> opinion swayed. 
> For instance, when Seva put forward the idea of a
> War/Militarism heading I thought that it was a good
> idea. I have wanted such a heading several times
> myself. However, once Matt explained how they came
> up with the current headings I started to feel that
> it might be a little premature to change the work
> others had done. 
> Pete has reinforced my opinion in that regard. 
> 
> I think that it might be good to revisit the subject
> headings at some time in the future. (I'm not sure
> why we need both a GLBT/Queer heading and a Gender
> heading.) However, I'm not sure now is the best time
> to wrangle over something like this. 
> I suggest that if Svea or Sofia feel strongly that
> they want to add War/Militarism, they should address
> the dual headings problem. Is there a way to fold
> International into something else? I haven't
> considered all the options, but since the BIMC has
> dedicated a lot of resources to developing the
> current system, which conscientiously attempts to
> minimize confusion and shorten the list, it does not
> seem prudent to add more categories without careful
> consideration.
> 
> I'm sorry. I know I'm long winded.
>  
> Also, I'm not sure how much I'll be editing the
> site. I just want to be able to fix little things as
> I see them. Today, I corrected a duplicate posting
> but I didn;t look at much else. 
> Tomorrow I may not have time to do anything.
> Sincerely Yours,
> Jamie    
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Boston-editorial mailing list
> Boston-editorial at lists.indymedia.org
>
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-editorial
> 



		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com