[Imc-uk-network] Proposal: moderating the aggregator

[behindthemask at riseup.net]

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding some of the discussion that is going on on
this topic but I think there are a few areas that people are ignoring at
the moment.

People keep proposing decentralisation - which I think is a good thing to
be aiming for - but without dealing with the practical implications. Most
of the UK, at present, does not have a local IMC with enough members to be
considered a functioning collective (minimum of 5, I believe). This begs
the questions of where does news from these areas get published? and who
will moderate it?

I think I remember the Bristol discussion slightly differently to Mara. I
recall Chris asking whether we agreed that the UK startpage should have
publishing on it and, as I recall, no one disagreed. I would like to
clarify exactly what was decided and whether there was genuine consensus
on this issue.

I would certainly like to move away from the current setup where
publishing on the UK site seems to predominate over publishing on local
sites but we need to be quite clear in our proposals what we are saying
about areas without a local site. Perhaps we want to do away with
'artificial' provision for those areas in the hope that it will spur on
the formation of genuine local collectives? Perhaps we want to carry on
with the UK site as an 'all other regions' site with its own collective?
Perhaps there are other possibilities? I am looking forward to discussing
this in the run up to and during the next network meeting :)

BTM

> Hi
>
> based on the current discussions on aggregating th uk site, here is a
> proposal from myself to discuss in collectives and feed back.
>
> 1. All moderation (mir and non mir) is done at a local level.
>
> 2. Where editorial collectives choose to collaborate and share
> responsibility for this across their local sites, this is announced to the
> imc-uk-network list so it is transparent.
>
> 3. Non mir sites cc the imc-uk-moderation list along with their local
> moderation list for all hides so there is a common forum for inter imc
> discussion and communication.
>
> 4. All regional imc's commit to having at least one representative on that
> list to relay relevant discussion to their collective.
>
> 5. Regional imc's retain full editorial control over content posted to
> their site based on their local guidelines. Where a member of another uk
> imc has cause to raise queries (based on the relevant local editorial
> guidelines), they may do so on the imc-uk-moderation list and should
> ideally expect a prompt response from that collective.
>
> 6. Where content is published to mir and ticked uk only, the
> imc-uk-moderation list should be used to resolve moderation queries by the
> representatives of local imc's present on that list. Articles posted in
> this way should adhere to the guidelines stated on the current uk (mir)
> site.
>
> 7. All inter-imc moderation queries should be based on the relevent sites
> local editorial guidelines and should state clearly which guideline is
> felt to be in breach and why.
>
> .........
>
> Would these guidelines be acceptable to resolve this discussion? In the
> case where a regional imc has no editorial collective that has the
> capacity to self moderate, then realistically we should be looking at a
> process for temporarily disabling the publish button for that region i
> guess?
>
> Solidarity
>
> jimdog
>
> __
> Imc-uk-network mailing list
> Imc-uk-network at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-uk-network
> Also other list of similar interest Indymedia United Kollektives process:
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-uk-process
>