[IMC-US] *PENDING* Proposal for US-IMC -- Version 2.0 [DECISION DEADLINE July 1, 2003]

[Sheri Herndon]

hi everyone,

this has been a really great discussion and it feels like it highlights what we can do when we work collectively.  so thanks for the inspiration.  

summary:  

general support for all of ana's comments with a few additional remarks about 
(1) supporting allies 
(2) using syndication and being open to new software developments in line with open publishing evolution
(3) name for the site and expanding our audience 
(4) non-tech and tech dialogue as critical piece of designing the software.

ana's points were really right on and i have just a few additional comments:

* supporting allies:
>
>To this I would add that the US IMC site could also feature work by 
>other alternative media sources (non-IMC specific). There is a lot of 
>good content the site could draw from where no IMC work exists. For 
>example, Corpwatch has many great original research articles on 
>corporate fraud, environmental destruction, etc but they never get 
>highlighted anywhere else and I dont think that site gets anywhere near 
>as much daily traffic as global IMC. In other words, we should work in 
>closer solidarity with groups that are creating their own media and 
>highlight their work.
>
this is great.  it gives us an opportunity to support others in the independent/alternative/radical media world.  and ask ana pointed out, our traffic is exponentially higher than theirs.  and it builds solidarity.  i think through the past 3.5 years there have been some very articulate critiques of indymedia in terms of our relationship with our allies.  this is one good opportunity for building more trust, building a stronger network of networks and highlighting the best content we have out there, with an emphasis on indymedia content.

* open publishing?

>I would also like to suggest that we make a stronger case in this 
>proposal for not having an open-publishing newswire. Our newswire 
>should highlight features from local IMC sites and keep individual 
>posts on local sites. Not only does this make the US IMC site more 
>focused in terms of purpose and function it also addresses the concern 
>that a US IMC website would take away from local sites.

some people are working on new software that would deal with the main concerns surrounding open publishing and i hope that we will be working with and in conversation with people about this website and the code running the website.  i also hope that we will not assume that once we've made a choice in how we want the website to run that it always has to be that way.  but that we are open and resilient to the kind of change that allows us to be more effective in our long term goals.

i also think by working in the direction that ana suggests we can more easily develop a kind of newsletter of stories that could be emailed to people wanting updates.  this has been an ongoing project and idea since the beginning.  we currently have about 15-20K people signed up for global updates.  the imc newsblast working group uses syndication and manual labor to compile the stories into an email update.  i think we can look to this as a source of revenue some point down the road (ie you know, allowing the community who use us to support our work if they so choose)......

* name of site

>Regarding the note on the name, i would make it clearer that we came to 
>agreement that us.indymedia.org, despite its shortcomings, would be the 
>most effective name. As it reads now, it sounds like the concerns were 
>somewhat overlooked and a majority opinion won.

the reason i think the name us is the most effective as well is because of our audience.  i think this website gives us an opportunity to expand our audience and to educate and engage people in this country about the critical issues.  if we have a name like babylon or the empire or other creative names which have a certain appeal, i think we'll lose some of the audience we possibly might attract.  i think this is important that we don't marginalize ourselves.  the content will speak for itself.

*  tech and nontech

>For the tech working group description, I think it would be helpful to 
>add that people without tech expertise could be part of that group in 
>terms of helping to decide what features we want out of which code.

i think that this is really critical and i'm glad ana brought it up.  there has been some excellent discussion lately on the imc women's list and this relationship (and or lack of adequate relationship) between those with tech skills and those without has come up over and over again.  here is part of a thread that i think is particularly illuminating.  essentially it is critical that we bridge the gap between tech and non-tech and we involve users more in the design of software....

BEGIN QUOTE:

>I think the only way to avoid such situations, is to get more people
>involved in tech, do more workshops etc.
>
>Concerning the proposal: I think saying that indymedia is tech-oriented is
>correct and it does as Anna mentioned attract a lot of nerds, which should
>be changed. But I don’t think this is changed by having less emphasis on
>tech, but by integrating tech more and not delegating it to the experts.

I think getting more individuals involved in tech issues would help a lot. 
Sometimes it already seems to be the fact of whether one knows the right words, 
when you ask for something.

But I would go one step further: It will help a lot when non-techies get 
involved with tech questions, but it also means to get tech-people to open 
up to non-tech people both in communication with them as well as on 
practical terms.

Another example (and then I stop boosting about Mir and the Mir coders): 
There is software where most changes have to be done by tech people with 
special access. However the new Mir version actually allows  a lot of those 
tasks to be done by everybody with an admin password: that includes adding new 
topics, turning on anti-abuse functions etc. Basically that's because one 
of the coders is fed up with having to do that for all the local imc's when 
ever they need changes, but it also comes because this specific coder is in 
close contact to content people - and is willing to give up his power.

Basically for me that comes down to three points:
1) We have to make all tasks within the Indymedia network visible and 
aknowledge all of them as something valuable: tech, communication and content.

3) Encourage techies to take non-techies ideas and experiences into acount. 
Sharing power and responsibilty comes from two sides: taking it as well as 
giving it, at least if we want ot work together in non-hierachical gropus.

END QUOTE

i would hope that part of the design of a website like this would also be an opportunity to take into account searching and making it not about information overload but about users finding the information that most meets their need.  this kind of filtering has been talked about in multiple places over the years.  i think this website could really do some innovative design in this area.  

peace,
sheri