[IMC-US] Re: [imc-us-process] Liaison Report

Sun Aug 31 18:55:40 CDT 2003

I definitely agree with Josh -- the global IMC discussion and
implementation can go on in parallel.  Setting up the site demonstrates
our committment to the project -- I think it will help move the process 
along to have a working site to refer folks to.

I think this is something that the tech folks on the imc-us list can work 
on.  If anyone wants, I can set up an imc-us-tech e-mail list for use by 
those setting up the site -- just let me know.

--Sascha

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Joshua Breitbart wrote:

> I'm still catching up on this discussion, but my sense from the non-us, new-imc
> folks was not that we should go on talking, but rather that we should go ahead
> and set up our website. I'm for that.
> 
> So let's find a host server. Choose a code base (dada? active?). Set some
> parameters (maybe a list above the cities list that says which IMCs are
> participating in the site, a features syndication wire taking the feed from each
> of those imcs, and an open publishing newswire a click away; a process for an
> IMC to join or reject the project; an editorial process and maybe a newswire
> moderation policy). We could use indymedia.us or some other url. But let's go. 
> 
> Once we've got it working, whatever IMCs in the USA want to join in are welcome
> to, and if the new-imc working group or global process working group want to
> give us a stamp of approval then we can also get the url usa.indymedia.org and
> be listed in the cities list. That would be nice, but hardly necessary.
> 
> Website now. That's my two cents
> 
> 
> Josh
> IMC NYC, non liason
> member, www-features working group
> 
> 
> 
> Quoting christine detwiler <detwilerc at yahoo.com>:
> 
>  Hi Chris and all
>   
>  Chrystine here, one of the administrators for the us-process list. Right now
>  only about half the us indymedias have a member on the us-process list. And,
>  most of those people are clear that they are not a liason for their group. We
>  have some folks who have taken on the responsibility for their group and say
>  they are the official liason, but are in the minority.
>   
>  When we started this list things were very open as to purpose and what would
>  be discussed here. It was generally felt we would see if people wanted to sign
>  on and then we'd discuss what we wanted to do with our list. It was never
>  decided that this would be a decision making list with approved liasons. Not
>  that it couldnt be. I think part of the problem in it becoming that, is the
>  same problem you find on other global decision making  lists. Many many indys
>  do not have members who are willing to volunteer for the job of reading global
>  lists, keeping up with whats going on, reporting to their group, bringing back
>  reports from their group to global etc. Its a big job,liaison.
>   
>  If you have read Process over the last year or so, decisons are made by what I
>  believe has been called passive consensus. In other words, something is
>  proposed (usually an approval of a new imc to network), a deadline is made,
>  and if no one objects, then it goes through. I believe it is felt that if an
>  indy does not have a liason on the list, they are in effect,trusting others
>  and giving their ok for others to act without necessarily needing to be kept
>  up to date on every decision.
>   
>  I have a general knowledge of who is on this list and who is an liason,
>  because i went through the entire archieves some weeks ago and read every
>  introduction and kept tract of who was from where. I got hit by blaster and
>  dont have my computer running at home now (am at the library with time running
>  out) or Id do it again. We are a young enough list that this is not impossible
>  if you are willing to spend some time. 
>   
>  Id like to send out an invitation to all us indymedias once more to join this
>  list. But is this the list we should be having the discussion about us site?It
>  can get confusing if discussion is on more then one list. Most of the
>  discussion so far happened on the Urbana-C site in response to announcement of
>  intentions to write us site proposal. Also on Global. New-Imc members might
>  have missed it completely.I have list of all us imcs by the way and will go
>  ahead soon with new invite.
>   
>  Also I definetely got the feeling that there is sentiment that we dont even
>  have to go through new-imc, but that we chose to. See exchanges on process and
>  new-imc in recent past for more on that. I think we could reconsidor going
>  through new-imc. We might not need to as the requirments dont exactly fit our
>  situation.
>   
>  Anyway, I think maybe we should just send it to Process,ask them to come up
>  with a deadline, and see if we can get approved by the passive consensus that
>  has worked for everything else decided on Process the last year or so. Perhaps
>  we could send the proposal to process, but suggest that the discussion happen
>  here on us-process so not to overload their list. I feel theres going to be
>  lots of comments. If the past is any indicator, Europeans, Australians, etc
>  feel their comments should be weighed also. As admin. I would be good about
>  checking pending every day and putting through posts from non members on the
>  us-site subject.
>   
>  My feeling is new-imc is just a little overwhelmed. Theres been all this stuff
>  over the cancun site thats taken so much of their time. I get the sense they
>  really want to stay focused on taking new imc's through the process of
>  approval who have a local based group and get a little stressed by special
>  cases, especially when they are controversial, as ours is. 
>   
>  Sorry for being so long. So heres my 2cents ( or half dollar, whatever) Im
>  keeping my fingers crossed because I think this is a positive thing that
>  should not die off. Good luck
>  affinity group. Us indys, what do you think??   In Solidarity and Support,
>  chrystine
>  
>  Chris Anderson <chanders1 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>  Hi everyone, Chris Anderson (non-liason) from NYC-IMC.
>  
>  This is a tad bit frustrating. From what I can tell,
>  new-imc is basically telling us we need to solicit
>  feedback from EVERY US based imc in the network
>  (although I thought we did this once already, else,
>  how would New York know about it?) and then engage in
>  an undetermined ammount of online debate until we have
>  fufilled some deliberative quota (again, i thought
>  thats what we'd been doing) at which point the new imc
>  application will be "considered."
>  
>  I get a sense from this forward that the initiave of
>  setting up a us based imc could potentially take a
>  long time and "bleed to death"? but perhaps i'm wrong
>  about that, i don't have much experiance at all in
>  global issues.
>  
>  Maybe the best way to go forward is to ask (yet again)
>  for the official liasons of each city to chime in (and
>  if there is no official liason, someone else from a
>  city ) about whether their city thinks a us imc is a
>  good idea. that way we'll know what cities are
>  actually on-board and if there is additional outreach
>  that needs to be done.
>  
>  just a suggestion, and feel free to ignore :)
>  
>  chris
>  
>  __________________________________
>  Do you Yahoo!?
>  Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
>  http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
>  _______________________________________________
>  imc-us-process mailing list
>  imc-us-process at lists.indymedia.org
>  http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-us-process
>  
>  
>  ---------------------------------
>  Do you Yahoo!?
>  Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> imc-us-process mailing list
> imc-us-process at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-us-process
> 