[Imc-uk-process] PROPOSAL: uk response to imc-paris proposal about imc-process moderation, including NEW PROPOSAL for imc-process and imc-communication list management
tony at cactusnetwork.org.uk
Fri Jun 10 04:57:58 PDT 2005
I fully support this proposal - the system works (after a long period
of chaos) and is fair and open - if anything it forces imc'istas to
consult locally before ranting which is alot more productive.
Personally, i am not into the communication list becoming what
Process was and think it should remain liason based aswel (as they
both were and and this prevents flame wars that are destructive in
networks) - but with an open remit to discuss things between imc's
aswel as decissions, like 'we had a great party in london' etc.
At 02:32 -0400 10/6/05, GarconDuMonde wrote:
>i have drafted below a proposed response to the parisian proposal
>entitled, "Free (as freedom) and open Process list management (means no
>more moderation on this list)." -
>in doing so, i've tried to take into account all the views expressed on
>the imc-uk-process list under teh thread, "Free and open process list
>NB: the proposal deadline is next wednesday, 15th june.
>[UK] PROPOSAL: that we discuss (and accept!) this draft over the next 48
>hours. then, we can get some translations and send it off to imc-process
>before the deadline :-)
>* * *
>OPPOSITION TO: 'Free and open process list management' proposal, and NEW
>PROPOSAL for imc-process and imc-communication list management
>imc-uk is opposed to the proposal by imc-paris to end moderation on the
>imc-process list. we have a number of reasons for this, and would like
>to offer a counter-proposal clarifying the current situation instead. we
>hope that this will result in some discussion of the list facilitation:
>why it is necessary and how it can be improved.
>BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE:
>the imc-process list is one of the biggest and most important in the
>indymedia network, having become the list where de-facto decision-making
>occurs on a network-wide level.
>as a consequence, it also receives a huge amount of spam emails. for
>this reason alone, moderation is required, as otherwise, without the
>diligent attention of the admins, this list would be rendered useless
>previously, the list has also been rendered unusable at times by local
>issues, personal attacks, or an overwhelming number of single language
>emails (primarily in english).
>for these reasons, there has previously been a long debate over list
>moderation and facilitation, extending from march 2002  through to
>the "italian proposal" of february 2003 , which finally passed a
>deadline at the end of april, 2003. there is a good summary of the
>debate with a response to some of the concerns (similar to current
>concerns) by the italians , as well as an overall summary of that
>period by one of the list admins .
>currently, the imc-process list is facilitated partly in accordance with
>the italian proposal, although not completely. imc-communication has
>become the list whereby any individual can post regarding any relevant,
>PROPOSAL FOR LIST MANAGEMENT
>we would like to propose that a slightly modified italian proposal is
>A. imc-process should be a liaison list (with one or more liaison per
>imc). by 'liaison', we mean a person who will take discussions from
>global lists to local lists, and from local nodes back to global lists,
>and that in emergency or very specic situations can make decisions.
>as with any rule in the network this should be regarded more as a
>guideline than as a rule, and so obviously third-party intervention or
>individual reflection of particular interest should be approved by
>moderators (if translated to the proper languages and containing a
>summary as heading, see below).
>B. imc-communication should be an open discussion list and hold
>non-moderated (or self-moderated) communication, as the place where to
>C. make a new call to request local imcs to choose one or more liaison
>on imc-process. We think the fact of not having voice in the global
>decision making process is sufficient "punishment" not to need to
>threaten each local imc which do not comply with any kind of censure.
>D. to include in any mail to imc-process a summary before anything else,
>to make a thread easier to read.
>E. on imc-process, require all messages should at least be translated,
>including at least either spanish or english as one option. this can be
>expressed by the following simple formula:
>[english OR spanish] AND [another language]
>liaisons should wait until they have both language versions before
>sending a mail to the list. Even if this makes discussion slower, at the
>same time it allows more people to participate in and understand what is
>for smaller groups unable to provide translations themselves, the
>translation tool can be used to get good quality translations .
>machine translations should *not* be used.
>H. emails rejected by the list-administrators will be forwarded to the
>imc-process-facilitate list along with the reason for rejection.
>NOTES: we have used the original language and edited it minimally, in
>order to gain both consistency and clarity. section 'e' has been changed
>the most to help achieve flexibility and in recognition of linguistic
>diversity within the network. sections 'f' and 'g' of the original
>document have been omitted. section 'h' is a new addition.
>DEADLINE: 15 July 2005.
> - english.
>spanish, german, italian
>Imc-uk-process mailing list
>Imc-uk-process at lists.indymedia.org
More information about the Imc-uk-process