Hi/Hola,
[versión corta en castellano malo es abajo]
I'm writing this to 1) clarify where Arizona IMC is at on this grant;
2) try to see where some kind of agreement might or might not be
possible and 3) explore more conceptually the issue.
1) Since Arizona is listed in the proposal I'd like to explain a
little of our situation. We learned about the proposal very late,
like many, but didn't think it would be a big deal, perhaps because
we're busy and didn't have time to really think much of it (Our
situation is somewhat similar to Boston's: a sort of languishing IMC
with not enough spare geekperson-hours to pull ourselves out of the
tech hole we've been in for a couple years). I'm really interested in
the general idea of a concerted effort amongst many IMCs to come up
with an easy to use Drupal installation for indymedia, whether funded
or not - tho because of how slow things have been moving so far,
funding seems like a good idea. However, I agree that the language of
the grant proposal does misleadingly make it seem like it represents
the entire global network, despite previous discussion about how the
proposal shouldn't do that. That's unfortunate. I also agree that 200
grand is a huge amount. Given the controversy all this has now
sparked, our collective is re-discussing this and hopefully will re-
decide soon where we stand.
2) I'm curious to hear from blocking collectives what exactly, if
anything, would satisfy their concerns. If the language of the
proposal were changed so that it clearly was not presenting itself as
speaking for the entire global network, but only for a small group of
autonomous IMCs, would this be sufficient? (this is, as has been
repeatedly pointed out, probably moot, but worth discussing, i think)
3) Furthermore, if it's a deeper objection, just to have a more
philosophical chat, where does the line (or lines) lie? We all know
that arguments about payment have been going on for awhile and
different local IMCs do things differently depending on their local
conditions and positions, and as Nick mentioned, there's no global
rule against payment or getting grants.
I think it's interesting that this debate has raged on even after
Sofia conceded that:
> I personally *don't* think we should go ahead with the Knight
> Foundation grant.
She then also noted that:
> I *do* think we need some cash to fix our tech problems, as a
> global collective. And I do think we could ask for donations from
> organizations/people that meet our goals and mission. And I don't
> mind paying Indymedia techs for a one-time project of building an
> or several Imc-Cms and helping other Indymedias install it/them. I
> honestly think they deserve to be paid, because our media volunteer
> work depends on them. It's like paying for hardware.
(from http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-communication/2008-
November/1108-k8.html )
I beleive this is something worth continuing to talk about beyond
this pretty clearly dead grant proposal.
There was some questioning (I think from Cat) about why techies in
particular should be paid and not others. This is a great question/
point and two possible answers come to my mind: 1) For many
collectives, that is precisely what's missing, and 2) (for me at
least) tech work kind of sucks and just isn't much fun, compared to
stuff like making videos, writing articles, doing radio shows, or
other media work.
But of course ideally everyone should be paid, or not paid. For
everything. And/or nothing. Sadly this isn't an ideal world.
(Ideally our computers and video cameras would be made of sustainably
harvested wood products built by worker-owned collectives ;-) )
Anyway, sorry to be a little flip there, but sometimes one just has
to laugh or else one would have to cry. These debates have gone on
for so long, one tunes out in order to get real work done, and then
returns years later to see them still in the same place.... sigh...
[ES - lo siento, tengo el tiempo para traducir solo un versión mas
corta ]
este mensaje tiene 3 partes: 1) la situacion de Arizona IMC sobre
este grant 2) pregunta de clarificación por los bloqueadoras y 3) una
pequeña discusión conceptual
1) el grant incluye AZ IMC, pero ahorita hay mas controversia
entonces nosotros estamos hablando otra vez.
2) si se cambia la manera que se expresa del grant tales que no
representa la red global pero solo los colectivos locales que
convenga - ¿eso sería aceptable? si no, que es aceptable? nada?
3) Lo siento otra vez, mi español (y mi tiempo en este momento) no es
suficiente para estas themas filosóficas! ;) pero basicamente, estoy
interesado en la pregunta de como nuestra red vamos a ganar la plata
y/o energia para trabajar y construir nueva infraestructura técnica
necesaria...
best wishes,
steev
az imc
Steev Hise | steev at detritus.net | http://detritus.net/steev
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
"I've been an activist for more than 25 years, and I'm sick of being
in a
sub-culture. I'm sick of activism as a lifestyle. I want to win."
- Stephen Duncombe