[New-imc] comments about newimc - WAS: [Fwd: Re: [Imc-communication] new cities list]

[melpomene]

some interesting points for new-imc to consider:

-----Forwarded Message-----
> From: deva <drdartist at riseup.net>
> To: imc-communication at indymedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Imc-communication] new cities list
> Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 02:06:10 -0800
> 
> so this is an interesting point...
> 
> I will maintain that it is a new imc itself which decides that it is an 
> imc. Some people want to start one, and they do so successfully, then 
> they are one.
> 
> New-imc's job is not to be an authority, but to be helpful to the 
> people who decide to be an imc... that is it
> 
> So if some people make an imc site, work with others in other imc's and 
> do a solid job, they have defined themselves as an imc and part of a 
> network of imc's. This is what counts, not some people online who they 
> have never met who have somehow elected themselves as boss... and you 
> know what? If I were to ask all the various imc folks I know, whether 
> those people have made themselves an imc, most of them would say yes. 
> Most would say that imc should be recognized as an imc because they do 
> good work not because of some inflated sense of authority that global 
> lists start to feel.
> 
> Portland is an imc because it defines itself as such. An imc earns that 
> right by the good work it does. It is not bestowed by some governing 
> global authority, especially one which picks itself. Portland does not 
> recognize any governing indymedia body that has some power over how 
> portland or another imc defines itself.
> 
> Online global imc process is a fairly insular world made up of 
> relatively few people which do not represent indymedia as a whole. 
> There is a disproportionate number of people who are not involved, or 
> not much involved with a local imc. There are also a disproportionate 
> number of people who like lists and process. This gives a distorted 
> sense of indymedia as some global organization. It isn't. There is 
> nothing like a consensus for that. It is a loose network of autonomous 
> imc's with a wide range of views and approaches. On that basis we can 
> collaborate, share resources, and mutually support and offer assistance 
> to each other. That is the definition of a healthy network.
> 
> regards,
> deva
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Mar 2, 2005, at 2:24 PM, <argentina at indymedia.org> wrote:
> 
> >> If a new imc site went up and they never applied to new-imc, yet they
> >> did kick ass work, then portland would add them to the imc network 
> >> list
> >> on the portland site.
> >
> > Then Portland have to change the title of "global imc network" to 
> > "Friends
> > global network" or "Portland´s global network".
> > Because those are not part of the "global imc network", only Portland´s
> > "Friends global network"
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IMC-communication mailing list
> IMC-communication at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-communication