[IMC-Boston-Editorial] Jon, Sofia, Pete et al.

[visnusdream at juno.com]

On the whole, I agree with Jon. However, he is right on when he points out the lack of structure when reaching decisions on-line. That seems to be the big concern. 

To me we are actually discussing different visions of what the BIMC is.

For instance, recently one member proposed that we have a consensus process around putting things in the Feature section of the website. Currently, editors can just do it without discussing it with anyone. This person felt the process was not "transparent" enough. 

So, while on the one hand some members want more discussion, there is also now a push towards more on-line discussion. Sometimes we waste our time with a lot of this discussion. I think all contributors, especially editors, should be empowered to do what they need to do in order to get things done. 

We have an open newswire, anyone can post, we want to empower the world, but we tend to dis-empower each other because we don't trust each other. 

Most of our conversations lately are about hypothetical problems.
For instance, one group wants to open the Dispatch list archives to the world. Some of us have concerns; and now the entire issue has now become muddled with a conversation about whether we should even have the conversation on-line.
In my opinion, I think we should get down to brass tacks:
Some decisions are going to made by individuals, some decisions will be made on line, and if we are going to have face to face meetings, then obviously some decisions will take place then as well. I believe, that if we just trust the process, the right decisions will end up being made in the proper context. If you guys want to make the Dispatch list public and you bring it to the list, allowing several people to voice their concerns, and give ample room for dissent, then either one of us can block the move or you should should just do it.
What's the big deal? 
If Pete wants to block he can. He hasn't lost any power.
Perhaps, we could add a little more structure to on-line decisions but I don't think we have to get too worried about it, as long as people are basically respectful of the fact that people need time to consider issues and nothing should sneak by with just one e-mail etc. 
I mean, that's what we;ve been doing all along but we never talked about it. 

Finally, I need to comment of Sofia's last post. She writes, "Many people who work w/the IMC will move on to
"better" things (Democracy Now, Sounds of Dissent,
Paper Tiger Girls, Prometheus Radio, the NY
Indypendent, etc.), and I think that's ok.  Actually,
that is the preferable model because it allows for
new generations to come in to learn about and make
media." 

Jon also echoes her sentiments. 

Its obvious to me that the mood is something to the effect of, "IMC is not of a professional quality and never will be."  This attitude seems to be especially directed toward the website, with its open newswire, etc. 
Both of your comments were made in the context of a discussion about the Dispatch list. I think its important to recognize that the dispatch list hopes to be of benefit for all the different aspects of the Collective, including Radio and Video, which perhaps have an image of being of "higher quality" somehow, simply because they are more controlled.

I think the website IS of a professional quality. I realize it is a little more rough around the edges, because it is not as censored, but really nobody has had this kind of forum before and I can't imagine a more inclusive and professional version of one. We let just about anyone say just about anything they want; but it is only one aspect of the collective. With IMC Web, Radio, Video, and hopefully more print, I see no reason why this movement can not become a serious player in the world of news and information. We are not trying to compete with Corporate Media, we have out grown them. We are reinventing the entire notion of news and professionalism. 
I am ready to entertain ideas that we should follow Ted's advice that we make everything wide open, with regard to our assets, such as our dispatch list, but I want to hear recognition that this is a valuable asset. I want to hear people say that they want IMC to become HUGE!!! If you  think that being really radical and free is the  way to really have an impact, argue that. But please don;t tell me that IMC is just a training ground for "bigger and better things" and so it doesn't matter  if we just give away all our ideas and work to other people who have no Internet in supporting this project. I don't want to work with a bunch of amateurs, nor do I want to be considered one just because I work with IMC. The IMC should serve as training ground for people who go on and make the IMC a bigger and better place. My understanding of our vision is that we are trying to dissolve false hierarchies, not succumb to them. We are supposed to be creating a whole new paradigm.
 
In other words, I just want somebody to actually address Pete's real concerns. He is saying that your proposal threatens to impede the progressive growth and success of the IMC. Please, demonstrate to me that it does the opposite.

Please excuse any offenses I may have made.
Love and respect,
Jamie