[Imc-communication] NEW-IMC: where to go next with the dialogue?

[Jay]

SUMMARY:

Condensing some of the points made in the new-imc dialogue currently taking 
place on imc-communication:
-- new-imc process is agreed to serve a purpose
-- new-imc working group is too individually-based and/or centralized
-- ideas for decentralizing new-imc process include regionalization, having 
IMCs sponsor a new-imc rather than an individual, more documentation and 
transparency, "checks and balances."

Hi everyone,

I just posted an e-mail summarizing the posts that have come in to the 
imc-communication list regarding our dialogue about the new-imc 
process.  Thanks to everyone who has posted so far!

Though there haven’t been an overwhelming number of posts yet, some 
recurring themes seem to be developing:

RECURRING THEMES

1) New-imc working group can serve necessary purpose

There seems to be general agreement about the fact that a new-imc 
“welcoming committee” can be useful, at the very least to provide a point 
of contact for new-imcs as they learn about the network.

2) New-imc working group is too “individualized.”

The primary concerns about the current new-imc process have to do with the 
structure of the new-imc working group: a group of individuals who act as 
“gatekeepers.”  There is a lot of concern about the fact that a small 
number of new-imc volunteers seem to be able to effectively block a new-imc 
from joining the network, whether that is or is not the case.

3) Ideas for decentralizing the new-imc process

a) Regionalization: changing the structure of the new-imc process so each 
region would bring local IMCs into the network.

b) Changing sponsorship: rather than having individuals sponsor a new-imc, 
other IMCs would play a bigger role in sponsoring new-imcs.

c) More transparency: More documentation of the communication between 
new-imc volunteers and the new-imcs they sponsor, improved new-imc faqs and 
documentation.

d) building in “checks and balances” – requiring new-imc working group to 
come to consensus about blocking a new-imc, enabling a new-imc to go to 
imc-process with their information even if the new-imc working group 
doesn’t approve.

Does anyone think I missed any important strains of thought in the posts?

WHAT TO DO NEXT?

Maybe we can focus our next set of posts on some of the questions raised above:
-- Is the current new-imc process too centralized/individualized?
-- If so, what practical solutions can we come up with for decentralization 
that still enable new-imcs to develop personal points of contact as they’re 
joining the network?

If we focus on those points maybe we can start to develop some concrete 
proposals.  Or, at least, maybe more posts on these points will lead us to 
other more productive ideas.

So far we haven’t gotten too many comments from people who are currently, 
or who have been in the past, very active on the new-imc working group, 
especially people who have helped isolated or non-english-speaking IMCs.  I 
understand some people on the new-imc working group have felt attacked 
lately and are reluctant to enter into this kind of dialogue for fear of 
being attacked some more.  I think the dialogue has been pretty and 
supportive so far and all I can say is that I’ll do my best to help it stay 
positive.  Practical new-imc working group experiences will be really 
essential to the dialogue, so do consider participating.

Thanks!!

Jay