[New-imc] Proposal: use of list
radicale at riseup.net
Wed Apr 27 06:48:45 PDT 2011
I am inclined to agree with Alias, I think Bart's proposals are still too draconian, and they are attempting to solve a problem which does not really exist. I don't think *one* person writing a few emails (which helped clarify matters a lot) should mean we place the new IMC list on lockdown, especially since this affects *all* new collectives. I am confident that the individual who sent the emails now understands that communications to the new IMC list should be from collectives rather than individuals.
I think the new IMC process would be far healthier and more transparent for not implying this form of unwanted censorship. I am sure that new collectives would be unhappy with having all our emails placed on moderation, as this would surely slow down our communications processes. Furthermore, if the liaison for any group is unavailable for any particular reason, a collective response can still be sent in a timely manner from an individual in the collective.
I do not think a proposed 48 hour deadline leaves much time for discussion, particularly since this is a holiday period in many countries. I can see that Bart is eager to reach decisions, however there is no urgent need to make a decision on this right now, so I would like to ask Bart to slow down a bit.
Sometimes, all that is necessary is to politely remind a person not to do something rather than create a mass of rules and regulations. I am sure that this attitude is more in keeping with the spirit of Indymedia.
radicale at riseup.net
On 23 Apr 2011, at 09:32, alias at resist.ca wrote:
> "To achieve this we could simply set the list to moderated for all
> non-working group (and new) members instead of unsubscribing them. This
> way, everyone can easily follow the mails on the list but only members of
> the working group are allowed to write to it."
> I hope this doesn't imply a form of unwanted censorship; in an open system
> it's possible to criticize, being limited by the response one can receive
> from other participants and especially from the community as a whole.
> It's understandable that one want's to diminish some unnecessary aspects.
> I doubt if we should take general repressive measures, if maybe measures
> (or some minor up till major rebuking) per individual case can be implied?
> Of-course, there needs to be a balance and certain rules what for sure is
> not accepted. Indymedia already has some rules, not sure if they are
> Theoretically would be a *massive invasion* of friends of some group, who
> want to spam in favor of one opinion. I haven't seen that recently, but if
> something like that happens; immediate measures should be taken. I fear
> preliminary measures and general rules to fore-come that, quickly have
> impact on individual cases and transparency (as some opinions then can and
> are being censored).
> Last but not least: An email system for discussions is -in my honest
> opinion- out of the time. Let's say there are 10 emails about something;
> not that many participants like to open them all (and who do, are upset by
> the work it causes). The better way might be with a group-script plus an
> attached forum (and email subscriptions for who needs them). Then we have
> everything in one quick view without bothering us that much.
> Best, A.
>>> a.) He defines the recent emails as "off-putting", however this is his
>>> subjective experience, and will not necessarily be shared with others,
>>> may well have found the emails informative or interesting.
>> I agree with Jimdog that they were inappropriate. The mere number of mails
>> sent by Chris was overwhelming and the one depreciating Jimdogs help for
>> Siberia  an effrontery.
>>> b.) He claims they are "distracting for those trying to work". Given
>>> the emails are a direct response to questions asked by someone in
>>> to an IMC application, I would definitely define them as work. I
>>> understand that it is the preferred method for all communications to be
>>> carried out by a liaison, however I think the benefit of Chris replying
>>> directly on this occasion was that a lot of problems were cleared up
>> I still think that the communication should be made through a liaison.
>>> c.) Jimdog has not disclosed his ongoing feud with Chris to the new IMC
>> That's obvious .
>>> i.) If a collective member who is not the liaison sends emails to the
>>> IMC list, they should be reminded that communications should be carried
>>> out by their collective's liaison.
>> No, I think they should not be allowed to write to new-imc but through
>>> ii.) The new IMC group makes efforts to find a liaison ASAP for those
>>> applicants currently without one.
>> I do support Jimdogs proposal  as well.
>>> This is a less draconian approach, and I am sure that collective members
>>> will take heed to this. The added benefit of my approach is that
>>> collective members who have subscribed can continue to easily follow the
>>> developments in new IMC process, thus aiding the transparency of the
>>> proceedings. I would encourage others to speak up and block Jimdog's
>>> proposals if they also think that a more conciliatory than punitive
>>> approach is advisable.
>> To achieve this we could simply set the list to moderated for all
>> group (and new) members instead of unsubscribing them. This way, everyone
>> easily follow the mails on the list but only members of the working group
>> allowed to write to it.
>> Ciao, Bart
> New-imc mailing list. Lista de correo New-imc
> New-imc at lists.indymedia.org
More information about the New-imc