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

[Jay]

Hi everyone,

Glad to see we have some good ideas about the new-imc process 
flowing.  Thanks to everyone who responded to my nagging. :)

I just want to remind everyone that for the next couple days I'm still 
basically just asking everyone for their opnions and ideas about the 
new-imc process and not encouraging full-fledged debate on any specific 
points.  I'm suggesting this so people will feel free to say what they 
think as kind of an introductory "go around" without having to feel as if 
they're going to have to defend their brainstorms point by point.

Some time this upcoming week I'm going to collect all the e-mails and see 
if we can consolidate some of the ideas into a direction for 
discussion.  (of course with everyone looking over my shoulder to make sure 
we all think that's a good direction to go!)  Then we'll have a focus and 
will be able to have some pretty raucous debate while still having a way to 
move the discussion forward.

Thanks!
Jay

At 6/5/2005, submarco wrote:
>Hello
>Being very new in this global communication I want to add a few thoughts
>to the recent discussion. I am from Indymedia Germany, but I write for
>myself.
>
>
>Am Sonntag, den 05.06.2005, 23:16 +0100 schrieb 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.
>
>I very much agree to this, because all this process stuf is not very
>transparent, especially for people, who joined a local or whatever IMC,
>after it has already started to work vor years, and the new volunteers
>have not witnessed the process and the discussions which went along it.
>
> > 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.
>
>Maybe IRC.Indymedia.org could be useful for that?
> >
>
> > 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.
> >
>very strong agreement!
>
> > 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.
>  Very strong agreement too
>
> > 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
>
>keeping the balance...
>
>I think, a very benefit of indymedia is its diversity. There are lots of
>political activists, which are often active in other groups and
>political projects too. There are techies, journalists and whoever
>else... There is a global, an regional, a local dicussion everywhere
>inside the IMC-s.
>Global discussions: they are very important to share views, vision and
>feelings of people in all the other parts of the world, who are involved
>in the project indymedia. Therefore I think the process, as it had been
>was a good thing, relating to what happened in it.
>Maybe, it should get more transparent.  So I do not think, regionalizing
>in this matter would be good.
>
>For conflicts like Belgium , I can see real problems: IMCs far away
>should judge a case  where there are people involved, who nobody knows
>or only on the base of informations sent by mail and maybe chat. This
>seems to me nearly impossible.
>In issues like tat I would prefer a solution proposal made by the more
>near IMC-s in this case maybe western Europe, which could discuss about
>a solution proposal for the global network. A block of such a proposal
>by other IMC-s should then only be possible in showing the point, where
>it hurts principles of unity and making alternative realistic solution
>proposals.
>The "deciding spaces" could be defined by global IMC, after being
>introduced to a possible conflict, because fixed spaces are not useful,
>cause there should be no fixed borders.
>The final decision itself for things like a new IMC or a disaffiliation
>should imho still be finally decided by global IMC on the base of this
>"deciding space proposal".
>Disaffiliation proposals should be justified by showing a permanent
>serious hurt of the principles of unity or incidents where fascist,
>racist, sexist or antisemitic attitudes are shown and defended by a
>whole IMC. A disaffiliation proposal should then be made  by this
>"deciding space " Imc-s. A block inside this "deciding space" should be
>possible exept by the IMC- which is the subject of the disaffiliation
>proposal.
>
>In hoping not to have such incidents/discussions too often
>  Submarco
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > best
> > ionnek
> > _______________________________________________
> > IMC-communication mailing list
> > IMC-communication at lists.indymedia.org
> > http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-communication
>_______________________________________________
>IMC-communication mailing list
>IMC-communication at lists.indymedia.org
>http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-communication