[New-imc] (fr) (en) processus de facto de fermeture des sites Re: State of the nation - 25% of indymedia sites are dead

Tue Jun 24 15:12:56 PDT 2008

(en) english below

(fr)

Chers new-imc, imc-process,

ben: je ne comprends pas pourquoi tu ne parles pas du tout de la page
wiki dans ton mél. Il y a une page ici :

https://docs.indymedia.org/view/Global/DeadImc

où nous pourrions sûrement mieux gérer ce processus plus efficacement
que par les listes de mél uniquement.

Par exemple, ta liste ci-dessous inclut zimbabwe.indymedia.org, qui
est une affaire interne au imc-commwork, pas une question de la liste
cities. Le CMI Zimbabwe n'a jamais été accepté dans le réseau, il a
seulement reçu un nom de sous-domaine temporaire sous la condition
qu'après la crise locale (une élection), il s'organiserait selon le
processus new-imc classique (c.a.d. très ouvert mais avec un minimum
de structure communicationnelle). Le groupe ne s'est jamais organisé,
or, il n'est jamais devenu membre du réseau. Il ne pourrait donc pas
être enlevé de la liste car il n'y est pas:
http://www.indymedia.org/cities.inc

De plus, le CMI Zimbabwe n'est même pas une chose à fair par DNS, il 
me semble que ce soit uniquement un truc à faire dans le imc-commwork:
   http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo
Un autre exemple : le CMI Moscou n'a jamais approché le stade d'acceptance
dans le réseau, et encore c'est une affaire d'imc-commwork plutôt 
que DNS, et pas du tout imc-process.

Faisant des annonces dramatiques que les collectifs qui ont été actifs
et sont bien connus dans le réseau depuis nombreuses années comme le
CMI Paris ou le CMI Hongrie aient tout d'un coup disparus suggère
qu'une proposition « en-masse » d'un individu cross-posté sur
plusieurs listes n'est pas forcément la façon la plus efficace
d'enlever de la liste cities les CMIs qui *réellement* sont inactifs,
tout en améliorant la communication régionale parmi les CMIs et
soutenant une culture de souveraineté de la base.

Le processus de facto suivant pour fermer les IMC soupçonnés d'être
« morts » existe et me paraît raisonnable :

1. Un CMI, c.a.d. un collectif plutôt qu'un individu actif, qui est
géographiquement plus ou moins dans la région ou est une des CMIs
géographiquement les plus proches du CMI soupçonné « d'être mort »,
discute de la question internement selon sa propre méthode d'un
processus inclusif, non-hiérarchique de prise de décisions, et s'il 
fait un consensus à le fermer, il le propose de façon normale sur 
imc-process.

2. la procédure sur imc-process est faite selon ses méthodes standards 
de consensus passif, necéssitant par exemple des versions de la proposition
dans au moins deux langues.

Ce processus a été fait plusieurs fois pendant les derniers mois :

SF Bay Area propose de fermer CMI Tallasee-Red Hills:
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-process/2008-May/0511-hs.html

SF Bay Area propose de fermer CMI Ithaca from the cities list:
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-process/2008-June/0602-nd.html

SF Bay Area propose de fermer CMI Hampton Roads:
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-process/2008-June/0604-kx.html

SF Bay Area propose de fermer CMI Idaho:
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-process/2008-June/0605-ai.html

3. Remarque : il n'y a pas de contrainte à nominer seulement un cmi à
la fois. Or, c'est une affire du cmi local de décider ce qu'il juge
est raisonnable et serait acceptable au réseau. C'est une action
collective, pas une action d'un individu seul. En tous les cas, les
points 1. et 2.  sont un tentatif de *description* du processus de
facto actuel, qui semble être efficace et cohérent avec nos principes
et contre auquel aucun CMI ne paraît avoir protesté.

Veuille rappeler que même si plusieurs collectifs paraissent être
inactifs actuellement, dans le passée ils étaient des groupes d'activistes
réel-le-s, locales qui ont voulu faire du média indépendant. Nous ne
pourrions simplement jeter sur contacts de réseau sur la base d'une
décision prise parmi ceux et celles qui sont les plus actif-ve-s et
parlent couramment l'anglais (dont moi).

Il me paraît que les quatre CMIs morts ci-dessus ont été discutés 
par un collectif local actif, proposés au réseau à être enlevé de la
liste cities, et le consensus passif a été obtenu.

Y a-t-il un problème avec cette méthode de facto ?

Horizontalidad, 
boud 
(PS: Ceci est un commentaire perso, ce n'est pas une opinion collective
par le CMI Torun.)

(en)

Dear new-imc, imc-process,

ben: i do not understand why you make no reference to the wiki page in this
email. There is a page here:

https://docs.indymedia.org/view/Global/DeadImc

where we can surely try to manage this more efficiently than by email
alone.

For example, your list quoted below includes zimbabwe.indymedia.org
which is an internal issue for imc-commwork, not a cities list issue. IMC
Zimbabwe was never accepted as an IMC in the network, it was only
given a temporary subdomain name on the condition that after the
crisis at that time, it would go through the normal new-imc organising
process. It never did, so it never became part of the network. So it
cannot be removed from the cities list, because it is not on the
cities list: http://www.indymedia.org/cities.inc

Moreover, IMC Zimbabwe is not even an issue for DNS, it seems to 
me to be an issue purely for imc-commwork:
   http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo
Another example: IMC Moscow never got anywhere near approval and it's
also not a DNS issue, it's an imc-commwork issue.

Making dramatic announcements that collectives that have been active
for many years like IMC Paris or IMC Hungary have suddenly disappeared
also suggests that an "en-masse" proposal by an individual
cross-posted to many different mailing lists is probably not the most
efficient way of removing from the cities list those IMCs who really
*are* inactive, while improving regional communication among IMCs and
supporting a bottom-up culture.

The following de facto process for closing down suspected dead IMCs
exists, works and seems reasonable to me:

1. An IMC, i.e.  a collective rather than just one active individual,
which is geographically more or less in the region or is one of the
geographically closest IMCs to the suspected "dead IMC", discusses
the issue internally according to its participatory, non-hierarchical
decision-making process, and if it consenses that the "dead IMC" really
should be closed, it makes a standard proposal on imc-process.

2. imc-process deals with the proposal according to its standard process
of passive consensus, requiring for example that the proposal is made
in at least two languages.

This process has been carried out several times in the last few months:

SF Bay Area proposes removing IMC Tallasee-Red Hills:
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-process/2008-May/0511-hs.html

SF Bay Area proposes removing IMC Ithaca from the cities list:
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-process/2008-June/0602-nd.html

SF Bay Area proposes removing IMC Hampton Roads:
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-process/2008-June/0604-kx.html

SF Bay Area proposes removing IMC Idaho:
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-process/2008-June/0605-ai.html

3. Note: there is no constraint of nominating just one imc at a time 
for closing, this is a matter of a local imc to decide what it thinks
is reasonable and would be acceptable to the network. It's a collective
action, not just an action by one individual. In any case, points 1. and 2.
are just an attempt to *describe* the present de facto process which seems
quite effective and consistent with our principles and to which IMC
seems to have objected.

Please remember that even if many collectives appear inactive now, 
they *were* active groups of real, local activists who wanted to make
independent media. We cannot just throw away the networking contacts
based on a decision among those people who are electronically most
active and fluently english speaking (including me).

It looks to me like the four above dead IMCs were discussed by one
active local collective, proposed to the network for removal from the
cities list, and passive consensus was obtained.

Is there any problem with this de facto method?

Horizontalidad, 
boud 
(PS: This is a personal comment, not a collective opinion by IMC Torun.)

On Tue, 24 Jun 2008, ben wrote:

> The following IMC sites (found displayed as links in the cities list
> on all indymedia sites), are either dead, broken, frozen, unmanaged,
> hacked, sold or otherwise unavailable at the time of writing. This
> list is not intended as an exhustive list and may contain errors. It
> certainly misses some other sites which are non functing but passed
> automatic tests and were not checked manually. It may contain sites
> which were temporarily unavailable at the time of testing.

> Obviously these 46 sites represent a substancial proportion of the 185
> sites listed as being part of the global indymedia network. That's 25%
> of the network down, and that's not including the 22 sites already
> taken off the list and marked as inactive in the contacts database.
>
> Over twelve months ago I raised the issue of the number of dead sites
> on the process list with the intention of getting such sites removed
> (http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/translation/2007-June/0613-4g.html).
> No progress was made (partly due to errors in my draft list) and also
> because there appears to be no agreed process by which to de-list a
> site.

> When it looked like no progress would be made on the global level I
> proposed to my local IMC (indymedia UK) that we make use of a non
> standard modified cities.inc list rather than the out-of-date list
> generated by the IMC contacts database
> (http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-network/2007-June/0614-9p.html).
> This was never implemented but with the creation of a new
> london.indymedia site coming up in the next few weeks I intend to make
> the proposal again.
>
> Obviously I would rather the issue could be solved at a global level
> rather than implement unilateral local workarounds so I propose again
> that any site (starting with those listed below) which are
> inaccessible or broken for a period of 3 months, shall be removed from
> the cities list and flagged as inactive on the contacts data base.
>
> Personally I believe that frozen/archive sites should also be removed
> from the list and a new imc project sites called archives.indymedia be
> created to point at such sites or better yet, pull their content into
> in to a safer home.
>
>
>
> Ben
>
> http://richmond.indymedia.org/ Frozen June 2008
> http://hawaii.indymedia.org/ Frozen since mid 2006
> http://adelaide.indymedia.org/ Frozen since Nov 2006
> http://vermont.indymedia.org/ Dada IMC code error
> http://beirut.indymedia.org/ Frozen March 2007, collective desolved
> http://bc.indymedia.org/ Site offline holding page
> http://victoria.indymedia.org/ Site offline holding page
> http://chilesur.indymedia.org Frozen since Nov 2006
> http://bigmuddyimc.org/ Just a satic holding page
> http://india.indymedia.org/ Suspended in 2006
> http://binghamtonpmc.org/ Closed. Holding page
> http://base.espora.org Not an Indymedia site
> http://belgrade.indymedia.org Closed
> http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-balkan/2007-June/0615-tp.html
> http://brisbane.indymedia.org/ Closed
> http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-tech/2007-June/0615-59.html
> http://darwin.indymedia.org Closed
> http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-tech/2007-June/0615-59.html
> http://worcester.buffaloimc.org 401 Unauthorized. requires password
> http://nigeria.indymedia.org/ 404 Not Found
> http://armenia.indymedia.org/ 404 Not Found
> http://croatia.indymedia.org 404 Not Found
> http://hungary.indymedia.org 404 Not Found
> http://paris.indymedia.org/ 404 Not Found
> http://193.189.147.16/cmitlse/ 404 Not Found
> http://hamilton.indymedia.org/ 404 Not Found
> http://montreal.indymedia.org/ 404 Not Found
> http://ontario.indymedia.org/ 404 Not Found
> http://windsor.indymedia.org/ 404 Not Found
> http://winnipeg.indymedia.org 404 Not Found
> http://atlanta.indymedia.org/ 404 Not Found
> http://cvilleindymedia.org/ 404 Not Found
> http://colorado.indymedia.org/ 404 Not Found
> http://www.hm.indymedia.org/ 404 Not Found
> http://www.okimc.org 404 Not Found
> http://omahaimc.org/ 404 Not Found
> http://sarasota.indymedia.org 404 Not Found
> http://tnimc.org/ 404 Not Found
> http://mumbai.indymedia.org/ 404 Not Found
> http://burma.indymedia.org/ 404 Not Found
> http://lancaster.indymedia.org/ 404 Not Found
> http://vienna.indymedia.org/ 404 Not Found
> http://andinacol.indymedia.org 404 Not Found
> http://www.quietrev.org/ 404 Not Found
> http://zimbabwe.indymedia.org/ 404 Not Found
> http://moscow.indymedia.org 404 Not Found
> http://www.twimc.org 404 Not Found
> http://arica.indymedia.org/ 404 Not Found
> http://armenia.indymedia.org/ 404 Not Found
> http://omahaimc.org/ 404 Not Found
> _______________________________________________
> New-imc mailing list. Lista de correo New-imc
> New-imc at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/new-imc
>