[IMC-Boston-Editorial] The Ideas

[Pete Stidman]

Thanks Jamie, 
 
I think it is very helpful to point out the
ideological background of this debate.  It strikes me
that two very different ideas for the future of IMC
have formed, but also that they are not totally
incompatible.  

Hopefully this will inspire both sides of these
sometimes heated debates to ask more questions about
intent.  We don't need to be at each others throats,
but we do need to consider each other's ideas as valid
and find a way to work together.  

That means engage with ideas, not build up sides of a
conflict. Value opinions, not discredit one another.  

and I'm not trying to lay blame with those comments.  

Anyway.  What this says to me is that we can handle
things two different ways or one way. What's to say we
can't handle things two different ways? But if we do
that, it means some real separations as far as
decisionmaking.   

Also related: I'm having serious questions about all
of this talk of online decision making and such.  I
think groups work when the people who do the most work
and who can make it to the meetings they care about
are the ones who make the decisions.  

It isn't fair for people to make decisons for groups
whose meetings they don't plan to attend.  Just like
it isn't considered fair for me to be involved with
video becuase I have not done work there I don't think
it's fair for people to pipe in on website stuff
without attending. 

I think this could potentially hurt morale in the
website group and I think it already has in the
general meeting. If decisions are made online by
others, then why attend?  The meetings have to have
central importance because the easiest thing to do is
attend a meeting.  It is much more difficult to
purchase a computer and find time to access it
constantly.

I propose we dialogue on this at the next general
meeting.  

By the way.  Would someone like to take responsibility
for organizing, announcing and calling the next
general meeting????

This is something I traditionally kept my eye on and
since my big pullback it isn't happening.  It's fairly
easy to do but one person basically has to make sure
it happens, even if the responsibility is shifted
around.

-Pete


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

> (From an ongoing Editorial list discussion)
> 
> OK 
> I think Pete has a good point about the Dispatch
> list being somewhat of an asset that we might not
> want to necessarily give away to people who aren't
> actually even considering doing an independently
> produced story. I think his perspective is
> especially valuable because he is one of the few of
> us who actually posts real story ideas, rather than
> event announcements etc. 
> 
> However, I don't think anybody is actually coming to
> the IMC for this type of thing right now. Let's hope
> they someday do.
> 
> This particular issue seems to indicate a
> fundamental difference in ideology about what we
> want the IMC to be and become. 
> In other words, do we want the IMC website to become
> a place that actually features so-called First Time
> Exclusives, or not. Do we see that as a realistic
> vision of the future? At some point, do we actually
> want the IMC to compete with other news outlets as
> an average person's primary source of information? 
> If so, then I think its pretty clear that we should
> at least require that people register to have access
> to our dispatch list. 
> I mean, in the future, if we repeatedly find that
> someone is using our dispatch list for story ideas
> and then just selling the stories for a profit, is
> that in keeping with IMC principles? 
> 
> Is saying that we don't care as long as a story gets
> covered a little too idealistic?
> 
> If an IMC contributor shoots film or something,
> would we just say that its OK for somebody to take
> that footage and sell it without giving credit to
> the person who actually did the work? 
> 
> Is dispatch a similar commodity?
> If not why? 
> 
> Story ideas aren't free, they take work. 
> 
> 
> Here are some other thoughts I've had about all the
> lists being so-called "public." 
> I don't know how people access the archives but
> recent trash sifters have caused me to wonder if
> there isn't some way to put a delay on things being
> made available.(Probably not)
> What is the point of removing someone from a list
> for disrupting our work, only to have them sift thru
> the trash, as soon as its produced, so they can post
> it all over our site, which is just a waste of time
> for us to clean up? 
> 
> I am all for transparency, but I think there is also
> a need to get things done and speak freely without
> people being able to intentionally interrupt the
> process by personally antagonizing our contributors,
> especially new people, who have nothing to do with
> the enemies BIMC has made in the past. 
> 
> This is delicate issue and I would like to see a
> more thoughtful discourse about it than just
> assertions that we must be transperant. I want full
> transperacy but I want it to be implemented more
> thoughtfully. 
> 
> For the record, I am for tighter restrictions on all
> the list archives and the lists in general. I am
> very concerned that things be open but I do not
> think it makes any sense to just let our discussions
> be a free for all. We wouldn;t let people disrupt
> our meetings or publish our stories in their own
> name. 
> 
> We should not let people inimical to the IMC, or
> just disinterested in the IMC mission, to steal for
> personal use, the hard work of our contributors.
> 
> The other issue:
> As I look at the surface of the on-line vs. meeting
> debate, I like idea that more discussion take place
> on line. My big concern however, is that compromise
> will be difficult to reach on-line. Already, I see
> heads butting. Pete thinks he's not being heard and
> it seems difficult to assuage his fears, although
> certainly some have tried. 
> I'm not sure what the nature of discussion on the
> Internet will be in the future but compromise is the
> soul of consensus. Will we be able to do that
> on-line? 
> 
> When we can't, we will have to meet, even if it is
> for "one small issue."
> 
> Pete's idea that some items are too important or
> contentious to be decided on line is valid, however
> obviously some things don't fall in that category. I
> think we should discuss issues elaborately on-line
> and if there is an obvious disagreement about a
> policy we can take it to a meeting.  
> 
> Sharpie has also raised the concern that some people
> may not have computers and are thus excluded.
> Unfortunately, its not a perfect world. It takes one
> person an hour and a half to come to a meeting,
> somebody else can't afford a computer. We should
> just get as much done as we can. We can't wait for
> our discussions to be convenient for everyone. We do
> our best and we must move on. 
> 
> Love and respect,
> Jamie 
> PS Shouldn't this discussion be on the discuss list
> so that other memebers can have access to it?
> 
>   
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Boston-editorial mailing list
> Boston-editorial at lists.indymedia.org
>
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-editorial
> 



		
__________________________________ 
Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs