[Imc-communication] Uruguay and the PoU / Principios de Unidad

[deva]

UK has temporarily withdrawn their proposal as it was blocked by a 
couple imc's and there has been no discussion of concerns raised by 
other people.

One concern is regarding POU #9

9. All IMC's shall be committed to the use of free source code, 
whenever possible, in order to develop the digital infrastructure, and 
to increase the independence of the network by not relying on 
proprietary software.

One imc asked for clarification on the meaning of whenever possible. 
Their request was never responded to.

Another concern is POU #5

5. The IMC Network and all local IMC collectives shall be 
not-for-profit.

What does not-for-profit mean? For some it means people do not get 
paid, for others they interpret it in such a way that they can make 
indymedia their career and have a regular salary. Goodwill Industries 
is not-for-profit and the CEO makes $700,000 per year.

There needs to be discussion of these matters and more honest dialog 
about where various interests want to take indymedia.

regards,
deva
portland imc contributor



On Jun 7, 2005, at 2:22 PM, Libertinus wrote:

> [ Castellano ] (Original)
>
> Quienes participamos de Indymedia Uruguay, creemos que los principios 
> de unidad
> y
> criterios de membresía han sido la forma para diferenciar cuáles 
> colectivos
> forman parte de la red y cuáles no; estas reglas ya se han legitimado 
> y creemos
> que deben dejar de ser considerados como borrador. De hecho acordar 
> con ellas es
> la única forma que conocemos para formar parte de la red Indymedia; 
> así lo han
> hecho decenas de colectivos desde el año 2000.
>
> En este sentido planteamos la rediscusión de los mismos, para 
> ajustarlos a las
> nuevas realidades. Todos los colectivos deberían llevar a cabo esta 
> discusión,
> como forma de que ningún particular o sector se apropie de los mismos. 
> Nosotros
> somos los dueños de nuestras propias reglas.
>
> Estos criterios no deben ser vistos como algo fijo, sino que deberían 
> se
> revisados en la medida que la red lo necesite. Esto asegura la 
> flexibilidad y
> el crecimiento.
>
> A su vez. consideramos estos principios no como una herramienta para 
> expulsar
> colectivos, sino como medio de lanzar las discusiones que han sido los
> mecanismos fundamentales para mantener la libertad y la estructura de 
> red
> horizontal. Si algún colectivo se aparta drásticamente de ellos, no 
> debería
> haber un grupo policial que lo reprima, sino que la propia red debería 
> discutir
> y decidir en cada caso.
>
> Las reglas claras, también, ayudan a los colectivos a resolver sus 
> dinámicas
> internas y a su vez también pueden servir para evitar el mal uso de 
> esta
> poderosa herramienta, por parte de aprovechadores y oportunistas.
>
> Es en estos términos que apoyamos la propuesta de United Kollectives.
>
> (Para la discusión utilizamos las posiciones de Holanda, París, Lille 
> y Sydney.)
>
> CMI Uruguay
> http://uruguay.indymedia.org
>
>
> ===========================
>
>
>
> [English]
>
> We, who take part of Indymedia Uruguay, believe that the Principles of 
> Unity and
> the Membership Criteria  have been the only way for differentiate which
> collectives are part of the Global Network and which not; those rules 
> have
> already been legitimated, so we think that we should stop consider 
> them as
> "draft". To be in agreement with them is the only way we know to be 
> part of
> Indymedia; thats the way dozens of colectives have done since 2000.
>
> In that sense we propose the re-discussion on this Principles of 
> Unity, in order
> to adjust them to our new realities. All collectives should have this
> discussion, as form of which no individual or sector appropriates of 
> the same
> ones. We are the owners of our own rules.
>
> This criteria don't must be seen as something definitively 
> established, they
> must be reviwed as much as the net needs it. This assures our 
> flexibility and
> our growth.
>
> As well, we consider the PoUs as a way to come up with the discussion, 
> witch has
> been the fundamental mecanism to keep freedom and the horizontal 
> network's
> structure and not as a colective's expeling tool. If any Indymedia 
> collective
> separates drastically from them, should not be a police group that 
> suppresses
> it, would be the proper global network which discuss and decide about 
> every
> case.
>
> Clear rules, also help collectives to solve their internal dynamics and
> problems, and they are able to avoid the bad use of this powerfull 
> tool by
> opportunists.
>
> On this terms, we accept the United Kollectives's proposal.
>
> (We used for the discussion the positions of Holland, Paris, Lille and 
> Sidney.)
>
> IMC Uruguay
> http://uruguay.indymedia.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IMC-communication mailing list
> IMC-communication at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-communication