[imc-uk-collective] New-imc application

[Genny]

Mr. Demeanour wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I note the comments from Mike and Genny concerning writing to Nick, and
> I shall hold off on that until instructed otherwise.
>
> Stripped of fluff, the bare bones of the new-imc process are as follows:
>
> 1. Submit the application form, and get a password for updating the
>     database at http://contact.indymedia.org/. Update it.
> 2. Submitter posts to the new-imc list affirming that the collective
>     accepts MembershipCriteria (see below) and PrinciplesOfUnity, and
>     proposes the application. It says we are supposed to include the
>     text of both these documents, along with our comments, but I suppose
>     if we all fully embrace both documents, there's hardly any point in
>     just pasting the text. I believe at this point a new-imc contact
>     person is allocated, and I think we're entitled to demand that this
>     person be supportive, or at worst impartial.
>   
Yep
> 3. The application is subject to a 3-day deadline for
>     objections/approval on the new-imc list.
> 4. The application goes to the global imc-process list, where it is
>     subject to a 7-day deadline for objections/approval.
> 5. There is no step 5 - that's it, we're an IMC.
>
> The sticky step is almost certainly step 3; regular contributors to the
> new-imc list include both ekes and ana (I don't know if alster is part
> of the new-imc collective). There are others, but they seem mainly not
> to be native english speakers.
>
> As far as I can see there are absolutely no legit grounds for objecting
> to our application, but I think it's certain that someone will still try
> to prevent it, if they can. Inspecting the archives of the new-imc list,
> I've found no evidence of applications being interfered with because of
> the kind of squabbles that have been happening in the UK, and I believe
> such an intervention would be both unprecedented and rather controversial.
>   
I think the complicating factor is likely to be that people will claim
to be part of the 'imc-uk collective' by virtue of doing work on the
site, and it is notable that both cactus and ana have recently been busy
proposing features. Also, I noticed a feature (I think) authored by nab
today. I thought all northern people had given up their log-ins. have i
missed something? The point that the uk network is now only a network of
collectives and has excluded individuals is very important, I think.

I suppose I would also say this about the people who are still doing
work on mir but who favour the aggregator on the uk-imc url: Almost by
definition they cannot be in favour of the continuation of the uk
indymedia site as a proper uk-wide site as it is now, so they can't be
members of this collective. ana has certainly made statements about it
just covering regions with no collective as if that's all that's needed,
and presumably she believes it'll disappear altogether once there's a
strong network of local collectives (northern and southern perhaps!) to
cover the whole country.
> We could do with a local Mission Statement and an Editorial Policy. We
> can do these quite easily; we already know what they are, I presume, and
> we just have to write them out and adopt them. 
Did we already start doing this in docs? An editorial policy already
exists for the uk site, so we could adopt that for now. Some of the
stuff we discussed at the meeting could be included in our mission
statement, adapted from what we expect individual members to support to
what we want the collective to achieve - f'rinstance to provide an open
publishing platform for anyone within the uk to report their news...
> That activity supposedly
> fits somewhere between steps 1 and 3, and the application would be
> strengthened if we could point at these as already-agreed documents.
>
> The following document describes the criteria for an IMC to be a member
> of the global network. It's *not* criteria for an individual to become a
> member of an IMC.
> https://docs.indymedia.org/Global/MembershipCriteria
>
> Remarks:
> (b) We need more committed members; we have a very busy open newswire.
> Perhaps we can say something in our application about the Mir admins
> that we anticipate will join us?
>   
Is there anyone else we could approach at this stage? Like Shiar maybe?
Brighton people?
> NOTE: "Network Membership is open to any group that accepts the above
> criteria for membership. In the case of several requests from the same
> city or region, we will encourage them to meet and work together."
>
> That is, provided that we meet those criteria, there are no legitimate
> grounds for rejecting our application. There is no other IMC that covers
> our region. The UK Network is not an IMC, and the rules it has adopted
> governing participation, e.g. "no individuals", would in my view
> preclude it from becoming one. 
Yes, I strongly agree with this.
> But if they're smart (and quick!), then
> claiming that the UK Network *is* the UK IMC would probably be a pretty
> good way of interfering with our application. But they have just 3+7=10
> days in which to make such a claim; we should have our response ready
> (and we should monitor both lists carefully, to watch out for such
> interventions).
>
>   
Yeah, I guess so.

OK, that's all I can think of right now.

cheers

genny