[Imc-communication] [new-imc-debate]

[ionnek]

summary:
Argument in favour of having a new-imc process. Main functions of 
new-imc: To be a welcoming comitee rather than gatekeepers. To allow 
aspiring imcs to get to know the complex ins and outs of the indymedia 
network in a "learning by doing" way. An idea: to have a blog dedicated 
to the new imc process.

hi,
since jay has asked for views on new-imc, here u go:

I agree pretty much with melpomenes description of the role of new-imc.
The list archives themselves look pretty dry - application, short sharp 
questions, deadline, welcome. You can get the impression that it is a 
purely administrative process, that the function of new-imc is more to 
be gatekeepers rather than a welcoming comitee. But those who have 
helped a new imc group through the process know that the new-imc process 
is much more than the visible bureaucracy, that it involves 
conversations sometimes online, sometimes offline, building 
relationships, introductions to people within the network who can help, 
discussions on what all indymedia technical terms, communication 
channels, philosophies are all about. It would be nice to see more of 
this empowering process reflected in the archives or somewhere else. 
Maybe we could have a new-imc blog to which sponsors can contribute and 
discuss things they are not sure about. But this shouldn't amount to 
additional workload for those who sponsor a new imc - more a discussion 
forum that doesn't need to be short and to the point, a source of mutual 
support.

I think these debates, both between new collectives and existing new-imc 
volunteers and within the new collectives themselves are a very 
important entry to the complex social network called indymedia.
People are learning by doing - they find out which lists are important, 
what to expect from them in both positive and negative ways, they gain 
confidence in approaching people (if they don't have close relationships 
within the network already). They come across the principles of unity, 
discuss them, understand them, agree or disagree, interpret them 
according to their own local needs. They figure out what things like 
"open publishing", "horizontal", "consensus", "liaison", "free software" 
can mean in their own local environment, they accept or adapt them, 
sometimes the local discussions spark off debates on the global lists. I 
can imagine that some collectives might decide, as a result of this 
process, that indymedia is not really what they want to do - but afaik 
til now that has only rarely been the case.

So - i believe that the new-imc process, ideally, is a very practical, 
very hands-on way to get to know a complex network. A process that can 
be a good starting point for future collaboration, and maybe also a 
process that can point out which conflicts to expect.

When the principles of unity were discussed and drafted, I saw them more 
as a description of what indymedia is or wants to be, not a theoretical 
philosophy removed from the everyday reality of most imcs. There is much 
space for the peculiarities of local collectives - some collectives 
might be full of cool free software techies, others might operate from 
borrowed windows-boxes and focus much more on content or outreach. And 
so on.

When the new-imc working group first started, I was worried. I thought 
this was the first step towards an institutionalisation of indymedia, 
the first serious attempt to set up a bureaucracy, something to replace 
the friendly, informal support I had experienced when imc uk first 
started. But as the network is growing bigger, it is getting more and 
more difficult to find your way around it, and i think having a working 
group that responds to new people is crucial. And I believe that "the 
techies" who control the url don't want to act like autocrats in 
deciding who "gets" an indymedia.org url - i believe they rely on the 
network to make these decisions by consensus. Maybe we could automate 
the new-imc process (download your imc ;-), but really, for me the most 
special quality of indymedia is that it is a global social network with 
a very wide but tangible political outlook, a network that makes good 
use of technology but is not restricted to it. There are lots of 
websites with quasi open publishing functions, but give me just one 
example that compares with indymedia!

I still think that we are treading a fine line between collapse of the 
network because we are getting too big to be a "disorganisation", and 
suffocating of the network because we are turning into a traditional 
institution. But I also think we are so far keeping the balance...

best
ionnek