[Imc-communication] NEW-IMC: where to go next with the dialogue?
idiot at jaysand.com
Mon Jun 13 01:35:10 PDT 2005
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."
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 havent been an overwhelming number of posts yet, some
recurring themes seem to be developing:
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
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
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 theyre
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 havent 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 Ill 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.
More information about the IMC-communication