[New-imc] Mayday IMC
bartolomeo at indymedia.org
Tue Apr 5 04:03:12 PDT 2011
I have more time now and so I'd like to respond in more detail. I think it's
necessary for a collective which wants to go through the new-imc process to
document its organisational status and progress. There are different ways to do
this, the most common are public mailing lists and wikis. I'd like to ask BTM
to help the Mayday's new-imc process by documenting it in more detail.
IMC linksunten, for example, documented its one year new-imc process in
numerous Indymedia articles  and a public wiki . (I mention this because
you asked for an example and I am part of this IMC, not because I want to
suggest that this is the only or the best way to do it.) Only after we've been
affiliated to the Indymedia network we started to work on a website. So it's not
a prerequisite to have a website before going through the process, as the new-
imc process is mainly about organising.
I see that you are in a hurry but I'd like ask you to slow down a bit. The
structure of your collective, your way to make decisions, the way you work is
not transparent as you have documented nearly none of your f2f nor your IRC
meetings. I think it's a better and more solid way to first organising and
documenting the progress and then becoming part of the network. It also helps
new people to get in touch with your collective if they can find a well
documented history of your IMC. The new-imc guide that smush mentioned 
really helped us to form a collective.
I still think that the wiki Sheffield maintains  is a really bad example of a
wiki documenting a new-imc process as it focuses on conflicts rather than
progress. I think the wiki and the reactions to the criticism show a blatant
lack of solidarity. As I learned that members of the Sheffield collective are
also members of the Mayday collective I'd like to ask the Mayday collective on
its point of view about this issue.
More information about the New-imc