[Imc-uk-process] SchNEWS Proposal for Indymedia
dcodriscoll at fastmail.co.uk
Wed Dec 2 02:14:36 PST 2009
I'm still finding my way around Indymedia before I get more involved,
but coming from the perspective of consensus decision making this
particular argument looks like a somewhat drawn out process - so can I
make the suggestion that someone gets to act as a facilitator/mediator,
pull all the concerns and the alternative proposal together and go back
to schnews to get their feedback - seems odd that this discussion is
happening without their input. Once the feedback is had, then a
reformated proposal comes back with a process for deciding upon it, and
knowing more about what schnews needs/wants or can be flexible on. I
know the schnews folks so will be happy to help with this, but would not
be able to give it full attention until the 7th (sadly court interferes)
All the best
On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 01:59 -0800, 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
> good will and a willingness to open up the uk indy front page process
> Imc-uk-process mailing list
> Imc-uk-process at lists.indymedia.org
http://www.fastmail.fm - The professional email service
More information about the Imc-uk-process