[New-imc] Re: unsubscribing lurkers
deja at riseup.net
Fri Oct 29 16:14:13 PDT 2004
This is very confusing and lacks accountability. So far we don't know
who is going to make the determination of who is a lurker and who isn't.
As well, there is no definition of lurker to work with. Regardless,
there is no reason to do this. The archives are public, you can actually
google the mail on the lists, whats the difference between getting an
email or looking at it in a browser? Other than it being much more
difficult to actually get involved if you are not on the list. Once a
person is removed from the list who is going to stop them from signing
back up? I agree with the others that this a dangerous step away from an
accountable new-imc process with no positive gains for the group.
>just as clarification:
>I think there are people for different reasons on this list.
>Some who currently help new collectives through the new-imc process,
>some who have done so in the past and plan to do so again (for example
>when they have time again, or when an IMC comes up that they feel
>affiliated with for any reason, or because they think it might be their
>turn again, etc)
>some who haven't done so, but plan to do so.
>All of that is fine. I have no intention of discouraging new people who
>join a group because they want to work with it but who want to have a
>look first, or to kick off anybody who takes a break.
>Others have joint because they are of a new collective currently
>applying - and the question on whether it makes sense or not that they
>are on the list is a new and different discussion. There are arguments
>for and against it, and the list description is currently unclear.
>The third group is what I would call lurkers: people who are on this
>list because they want to observe - some of them clearly stating that
>they are only on this list to know what's going on. For me this is not
>what a working group is for. In fact this is what for example
>imc-communication is meant for.
>2) on the "who cares?" question: as it was pointed out for example
>libby, anna and me care for it.
>I am honestly convinced that a big group of unclear commitment is
>slowing down the work. If there are fewer people on the list, but only
>people who actually want to do work, it is much easier to see when it is
>necessary to take action.
>If I am one of 2 german speakers, and i know that the other one doesn't
>have time, i will take up an application from a german spoken list even
>if I have little time , because i know there is nobody else.
>If there are another 50 people who might or might not do anything then I
>also might wait another 4 weeks to see whether somebody else does
>anything... and that's the way how groups end up with no reply from the
>I know we are all volunteers, but that can still go together with
>At the moment this group does not work properly. There are quite a few
>groups who have not received any reply that helps them forward.
>At them moment the question is not "Who cares abou to many people on the
>list?". The serious question at the moment is "Who on the list cares
>about new collectives? and who just wants to see what's happening?"
>Sure there are things we need to improve. There are things to be
>improved for other lists as well, like using imc-communication for
>general network-wide discussions, like bringing new collectives into
>contact with exisiting groups in the same area, like finding sponsors
>with an appropriate language, like sorting out the utterly confusing
>There's still a lot of work to do, but - personally - I want to know
>who's there to know what things we can do together here and now.
>Dana Williams wrote:
>>I know this is a working group not a liason list, but there are reasons why
>>others are on here.
>New-imc mailing list. Lista de correo New-imc
>New-imc at lists.indymedia.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the New-imc