[IMC-US] Re: Acorn Active Media Worker Collective Offer

[Joshua Breitbart]

I don't really have a fear of slippery slopes. As long as you're 
willing to stop the process when it's gone awry and admit you've made 
a mistake, then it's not so slippery. Anyway, inaction can be just as 
slippery. I support the proposal based on the following assumptions 
and one revision, even though I have concerns with how it was 
presented.

I think this proposal exaggerates what's being requested, so I don't 
think it's a very big deal. I would oppose an exchange of some sort 
of puff piece "look at this wonderful organization" type of feature 
for a service. But we would undoubtedly have our first feature be 
about the launch of the site, and that would include mention of where 
it came from and who made it happen. That information would also - I 
hope and assume, since it's standard for any website - be presented 
in a static "about us/history" page. I don't think the time stamp of 
the initial feature should be changed to guarantee that it stays on 
the front page for two weeks.

As for the permanent link, I assume all we're talking about is a line 
like we see on the global site where it says at the bottom of the 
left-hand column, "IMC technlogy by Mir and IMC Geeks" except it 
would say and link to DadaIMC and Acorn Active Media. That sort of 
information is also standard to present on the front page of a 
website.

Based on those assumptions about what exactly is being requested and 
the revision regarding the time stamp, I would support this proposal 
(as an individual). However, I think that its proponents have 
responded to its opponents defensively. I respect and share the 
strong desire to move the project forward but Indymedia has always 
moved cautiously and you can't have assumed that everyone would 
simply cheer for or tacitly consent to this proposal. There was 
little or no discussion on the imc-us-tech list, so there was not 
much chance to anticipate people's valid concerns.

For instance, no one has addressed Don's argument that Indymedia is 
constantly supported anonymously, including through editorial work. 
Why is this case different? Why is AAM only willing to do this 
critical task in exchange for publicity, while editors, newswire 
moderators, outreach organizers, graphic designers and fundraisers go 
uncredited? Again, I think the 'acknowledgements' as I described them 
above are standard web practice, but I would like to see more picking 
up and responding to specific concerns rather than just saying, this 
is the best way forward let's go.


In solidarity, from the belly of the beast and the home of the 2004 
Republican National Convention,
Josh





At 2:59 PM -0600 1/5/04, faith swords wrote:
>hey all,
>
>On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 bradley at riseup.net wrote:
>
>>  I agree with Brian that 'making exceptions is a slippery slope.'
>>
>>  I also see the benefits of bringing in people that want to help ;)
>
>yes!!!
>
>>  I just did a search for Acorn Active Media, but I could not find their
>>  website.
>
>the acorn collective literally had its first official meeting on saturday.
>they'll have a site up and running soon (i think) and i'm sure sascha will
>be more than happy to send everyone the link.
>
>>  It would help to see the website before giving an opinion on wheather or
>>  not it should have a link from us-imc.
>
>rather than that, i would suggest that folks with concerns contact the
>acorn folks directly at aam at ucimc.org and ask them whatever you want to
>know. i think it would be great for everyone to be in communication about
>this.
>
>>  Brian also suggested, "reaching out to imc's in the us and asking for tech
>>  help :-)"
>>  To what extent has this been done? Could we (well, i'm not a techie....)
>>  try to get assistance from other imc tehies one more time before moving
>>  forward with Acorn?
>
>at what point do we just use the resources we have to move forward? if we
>continue "reaching out" to people forever, nothing will ever get done, but
>a lot of outreach. a lot has been done already and now a group has stepped
>forward who wants to do more, but because they're asking for public
>acknowledgement, everyone is against it.
>
>--faith
>
>_______________________________________________
>IMC-US mailing list
>IMC-US at lists.cu.groogroo.com
>http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc-us
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/mailman/archive/imc-us/attachments/20040105/4ab3b3fa/attachment.htm