[New-imc] comments about newimc - WAS: [Fwd: Re: [Imc-communication] new cities list]
melpomene at riseup.net
Thu Mar 3 04:38:13 PST 2005
some interesting points for new-imc to consider:
> 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.
> 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
More information about the New-imc