[Imc-uk-process] SchNEWS Proposal for Indymedia

[Genny]

Hello

Concerns have been expressed about both (a) removing the 24 hour rule
just for SchNEWS and (b) removing it for SchNEWS and local imc
collectives. For these reasons, I don't think there is consensus for
what m3shrom is proposing (below), to waive the rule for a trial period
for SchNEWS.

For me, the point about all this is that the 24 hour rule for features,
which includes the opportunity for people to suggest
corrections/amendments as well as to block, applies now to everyone,
including lots of trusted people and local collectives.

As has been mentioned, it is entirely possible that finished articles
submitted by SchNEWS will not attract any editorial suggestions, and are
probably very unlikely to be blocked, so it may not in practice present
a problem for SchNEWS to follow the normal process. It has also been
suggested that SchNEWS could post to the newswire first and the feature
could then be moved after 24 hours to become a middle column feature.

I understand SchNEWS' reluctance to add another layer of editing onto
their existing editorial process but I would hope in practice it won't
turn out to be a pain. Unfortunately, the alternative - to waive the
editorial part of the process for SchNEWS features - has wider
implications for the network which, given the concerns already raised on
list, would need to be properly discussed at the next network meeting
before any decision is made, in my view anyway.

For these reasons, the proposal I have made before and make again now is
for SchNEWS to consider whether they could work within the current
process for a trial period and for us all to get together after that and
discuss any problems that become apparent during that time. Of course,
if it doesn't work at all for SchNEWS, they could stop posting features
until any issues are resolved. If SchNEWS people don't feel it's
possible for them to work within the current process, even for a trial,
then I guess we can stick the item on the agenda for the network meeting
and hopefully sort it out properly there, and we'll all just have to be
patient.

I also propose that this proposal is sent to SchNEWS.

Cheers

Genny



m3shrom at riseup.net wrote:
>> 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.
>>     
>
> Ok fair enough. But a trial is a trial. I don't see the problem with
> trialling the process with one group to see how it works. If you think
> that it would be good to include features for groups that have gone
> through the imc process, or 'honorary imc's' (a bit patronising) which
> have shown similar ethics then this would be a good way to see how it
> would work in a controlled environment.
>
> I'm happy giving away / sharing a platform that I've worked hard for. As
> long as it's to the right people. So far all agree that Schnews come into
> this category. It seems like the concerns are how do we deal with similar
> requests in the future when this Schnews precedent it set up.
>
> The trial would give us 3 months to address this question. In fact and I
> would suggest that the trial ends at the next network meeting.
>
> Maybe at least we can come up with a counter proposal which addresses
> their concern listed below.
>
>   
>> 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.
>>     
>
> I think it would be unfortunate at this point to go back to Schnews and
> say. 'It's our way or the high way'. Especially when there is clearly such
> good will and a willingness to open up the uk indy front page process from
> many.
>
> m
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __
> Imc-uk-process mailing list
> Imc-uk-process at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-uk-process
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-process/attachments/20091202/d42b27b5/attachment-0001.htm