[IMC-Process] [Fwd: [Imc-communication] NORMAL, IL (questions and answer summary)]

[Jay]

Shayne,

At 12/24/2004, Shayne O'Neill wrote:

>Hmm. The requiring valid email adresses clause is most inappropriate for
>an IMC. Honest misunderstanding I'm sure.
>
>However, it is categorically NOT open publishing if it requires a valid
>email adress, because it specifically precludes anonymous posting.
>
>imc-normal will need to change that I imagine. I would suggest that
>imc-normal investigate dada imc's system of optional email addy
>registration where a verified email adress gives credibility to the post
>but does not preclude anonymous posting.
>
>Good luck :)

This makes a great deal of sense.  It would accomplish most of what the 
Normal IMC wants to accomplish without making it harder to post 
anonymously.  I'll forward your message to them.

As Imc-Normal's web site is an admitted work in progress, and they seem 
willing to work through these issues, I'm still in favor of their coming 
into the network and enhancing their site as they go along.

I would like to see more discussion (not on imc-process, unless IMCs want 
to make statements as a whole, but perhaps on imc-communication) of the 
issue of an IMC's using e-mail verification and how it relates to open 
publishing.  Shayne, or anyone, could you point us (on imc-communication) 
to the most recent and clear definition of open publishing the network is 
using?  The one I've been using as a reference lately doesn't specifically 
define what constitutes an anonymous post.  Maybe a more recent one does, 
or, if not, maybe our definition of open publishing should.

Jay




>--
>"Well, I think if you say you're going to do something and don't do
>it, that's trustworthiness."
>-- George Bush on CNN online chat, Aug.30, 2000
>RIAA Copyright notice trap: http://guild.murdoch.edu.au/~shayne/
>
>On Fri, 24 Dec 2004, clara wrote:
>
> > hi,
> > looks like it's a bit messed up about what should be on which list :-)
> > but since new-imc application needs to be approved on imc-process i
> > forward this mail to imc process.
> >
> > love and solidarity
> > clara
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: [Imc-communication] NORMAL, IL (questions and answer summary)
> > Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 21:57:58 -0500
> > From: Jay <idiot at jaysand.com>
> > To: imc-communication at indymedia.org
> >
> > Hi imc-communication,
> >
> > Three questions were raised, by Libertinus and others, about the Normal,
> > Illinios, US membership information.  Here is a summary of the questions
> > and their answers.
> >
> > 1)  Web site
> >
> > Q: The current Normal IMC site (http://indy.pabn.org) does not allow for
> > comments on articles or multimedia uploads.
> >
> > A: John from the Normal IMC (their liaison through the new-imc process)
> > says they're working toward adding comments and multimedia uploads.  It is
> > not unusual for an IMC to go through the new-imc process with a test site
> > or with no fuctioning site at all.
> >
> > 2) Open publishing on their site requires e-mail verification.
> >
> > Q: To publish on the Normal Open Publishing newswire you need a valid
> > e-mail address (though it may be anonymous).  Does this go against open
> > publishing?
> >
> > A: Normal put in this policy to discourage spam to their newswire and to
> > allow their open publishing wire to be readable.  I don't know if any other
> > IMCs use e-mail verification.  This policy may discourage some people from
> > posting but the question of whether or not it violates open publishing is
> > not clear, especially if it helps keep an open newswire free of spam.  As
> > Normal is working in the spirit of open publishing I think this policy
> > should not get in the way of their joining the network, but it may be an
> > interesting policy to discuss throughout the network to see what people
> > think.
> >
> > 3) Supporting political candidates?
> >
> > Q: This is their response to the membership criteria question about not
> > having political affiliation: "We agree to have no official political
> > affiliation, although we may express support for certain candidates."  What
> > do they maen by this?
> >
> > A: Normal has agreed to change that response to "We agree to have no
> > official political affiliation" in order to not confuse anyone.  They
> > answered as they did because their primary project, an independent
> > newspaper, had articles evaluating the candidates in the last U.S.
> > election, and they wanted to make sure that was okay.  They are NOT
> > affiliated with any political party.
> >
> > I hope this clarifies things for everyone.  Please let me know if there are
> > any more questions.  If not, I think we should be able to welcome the
> > Normal IMC into the network and see how they do.
> >
> > Jay
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > imc-process mailing list
> > imc-process at lists.indymedia.org
> > http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-process
> >