[Imc-uk-process] SchNEWS Proposal for Indymedia

[Garcon du Monde]

On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 11:24:26AM -0800, m3shrom at riseup.net wrote:
> > * i do not support the abandonment of the 24 hour rule, even for a
> >   three month trial. i think the reasons have been adequately
> >   expressed by others.
> 
> It seems like three people object to the existing Schnews do features
> proposal regarding the 24 hour rule. This does kill Schnews's proposal as
> it stands.
> 
> quoting schnews
> >The other and perhaps crucial difference is that we'd be asking
> >Indymedia to waive it's editorial control. As we already have an
> >editorial collective we don't want another layer on top of that. –
> 
> This seems pretty clear.
> I think it would be good to get a bit more details on the reasons behind
> the objections. Let's recap for what reasons it was objected to.
> 
> gdm's reason
> http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-process/2009-November/1126-y3.html
> 
> shiar's reasons
> http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-process/2009-November/1128-pa.html
> 
> genny's block
> http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-process/2009-November/1128-fg.html
> 
> It seems like most people in the network are up for changes for the 24
> hour rule. So I'm wondering if we can move things forward.
> 
> gdm - your objection seems to be against doing a trial for Schnews only
> and not local imcs too. Could you let us know more about the reasons for
> objecting to this as a trial for this specific group. Is it due to the
> precedent it might set? Or is it due to a desire to see local imc's be
> able to do the same thing?

i think that my objections are as you describe, as well as the reasons
expressed by shiar and genny. the 24 hour rule is there for a reason -
to allow everyone to participate in decisions about what go up on the
site - and devolving that to another group that hasn't been through
the imc process seems a bit like just giving away the platform that
others have worked hard for. thus, i feel the 24 hour rule should
remain.

however, if it is to be removed for one group, i think it should
equally be removed for other groups - especially ones that *have* gone
through the new imc process (in one form or another). it seems that is
a sticking point with other people on this list, so i suspect that we
are not going to get agreement over the list, and this issue may need
to wait until a network meeting.

> genny and shiar - your concerns seem to be about hastily moving away from
> the current status quo. Are there things that can be done to make you feel
> more comfortable about this? a two month trial? A cooling off period after
> the trial?
> 
> I'm hoping this is a good way to progress. But maybe there is another way
> that is more productive.

at the network meeting? although that does, unfortunately, mean
putting it off for a while. so maybe phunkee's suggestion of asking
what schnews think is a good one - and if we do have a trial, it could
be reviewed at the network meeting.

solidarity,

	--gdm
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-process/attachments/20091201/1de92bac/attachment.pgp