[IMC-US] Re: process for features and the future

[Tribal Scribal]

i can work w/this freewheelin' approach for now (albeit fraught w/potential 
problems), however there seems to be (at least in my mind) a difference 
between a feature as we know it at Indy and some commentary submitted to the 
list or our email address. Does this mean i can put up one or more of my 
usual commentaries?  Probably not, right? Look at the bylines: IMC U.S.; 
Portland; Medea Benjamin..; Portland; U.S. IMC;... Hmm.... which individuals 
get to be showcased? I see the potential for problems here.
Believe me, the last thing i want to be at this crunch time moment is the 
old fart fly in the ointment, but i'm trying to head-off problems before 
they start. You guys know i'm all about Indy (lives & breathes it...the 
man's obsessed!) and i bring this up w/the best of intentions. For some 
foolish reason i thought we had our process already in place and that it 
looked a lot like global. I guess i'm mistaken. We'll see later in the...age 
of Kerry? In any case, we AT LEAST have to deal with this aspect of what 
goes into the center column in terms of bylines.

d.o.




>From: "bht" <bht at indymedia.org>
>Reply-To: bht at indymedia.org,"Working Group for IMC-US." 
><imc-us at lists.cu.groogroo.com>
>To: imc-us at lists.cu.groogroo.com
>Subject: RE: [IMC-US] Re: process for features and the future
>Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 20:12:43 -0800 (PST)
>
>so, my take on this is:
>
>I think that features that are not syndicated from local imcs should have
>no process.  if it is a good feature and relevant the entire us and meets
>the criteria proposed in the ed. policy, then promote away.
>
>for non-syndicated features, there should be some kind of process.
>however, i do not want to just slide into the tried and true way that
>global uses.  there exist many problems in that system.
>
>i think that for starting, it might be better to just have people post
>non-syndicated features to this list, and add them to the site.  this way
>people know what is being featured, and we can see the tendencies that
>people go toward.
>
>as far as how fast the wires are moving, i dont find it a problem at all.
>there is alot of stuff happening.  and alot of stuff that should be
>promoted and featured.
>
>i would say that the best idea is to suffer through the first few weeks
>with little process and let process develop organically as needed instead
>of starting with an arbitrary process and sticking to it.
>
>the actions that we take are all meant in the right direction.  i am sure
>there is a common vision here and we might, one day, be able to trust each
>other enough to feel comfortable not always knowing what will happen next.
>  if we fuck up the site one day or miscommunicate something, it isnt the
>end of the world, these things can be fixed and we can come to mutual
>understandings.
>
>ultimately i guess my feeling is that the energy is more importnat than
>the process, and right now we have good positive energy.  adding process
>to that is a sap of energy and i would rather not sacrifice this energy.
>
>i hope that all makes sense.  and i look forward to working with you all
>in the next couple of days and beyond.  we have a small part in changing
>this fucked up world.  lets work well together while accomplishing that!
>
>solidarity
>bht
>
>--
>bht at indymedia.org
>
>_______________________________________________
>IMC-US mailing list
>IMC-US at lists.cu.groogroo.com
>http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc-us