[IMC-Boston-Editorial] consensus/IMC principles of unity

[Sofia JarrinT]

hi,
I guess what is at heart here is our different views
of what the IMC is based on, its mission & vision, and
how loyal we want to be to that vision.

What attracts me personally the most to the IMC is
that it is:
a. organic 
b. community-oriented
c. non-hierarchical
d. open-source & inclusive (as opposed to creating
exclusiveness)

I think by its nature it provides space for different
factions of the non-corporate community (activist,
anarchist, socialist, leftist, etc.) to communicate,
promote dialogue, and produce media.

Honestly, I can't see the IMC ever replacing corporate
media because by its mere nature (non-corporate,
non-hierarchical, and community-based), it will never
become the biased, self-serving monster that corporate
media is.

But that it's greatest strength. It is physically and
organically training and educating whole generations
about: 1)what's media, 2)how to produce media, 3)how
to build an alternative media movement.

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 preferrable model because it allows for
new generations to come in to learn about and make
media.  

On consensus, I think the ideal of having 100%
agreement on something is hierarchical in itself
because it means that those w/power (read:stronger
personalities) will try to mold the group to their own
image. That's not how an inclusive society is built,
in my opinion. I rather hear more from those who
usually don't speak up and might have much better
ideas of what a sustainable community is.

>From the "Video Primer" (Video Collective volunteer
manual in development):

When Boston IMC is considering a proposal that
directly affects the time you have invested in the
organization, and with which you strongly disagree,
there are ways to express dissent without blocking the
groups desired direction. In order of seriousness,
they are:

* reservations: “I’m not prepared to vote.  May we
clarify on what exactly is being proposed?”
* non-support: “I don't see the need for this, but
I'll go along.”
* standing aside: “I personally cannot approve this,
but I won't block others from doing it.”
* withdrawing: “I am removing myself from this
decision for personal reasons.”
* blocking: “I feel this decision goes against the
founding principles of the IMC.”

respectfully,
--Sofia


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