[IMC-US] the future of the no $ proposal

[nick]

> The NYC IMC stands for all of the principles articulated in the proposal as reasons for being all volunteer - flattening hierarchy, encouraging new volunteers, sharing responsibility, building collective processes, not being a typical NGO. It is offensive and divisive to suggest that we don't.

But no one suggested that you don't.  The suggestion is that a
practice (not an individual, not a collective) is problematic, or
might eventually become problematic.  Just as we all strive to
criticize words or criticize actions and not the person doing them, I
believe the Houston proposal is on target about a practice.  If
someone criticized one aspect of how Houston operates, I would strive
to focus on the practice they singled out, rather than feeling
insulted or isolated by it.  That being said, I want to reiterate that
there has never been a proposal to force NYC to adopt any different
guidelines.

You will find many in Latin America who feel that there should be a
prohibition on IMCs paying anyone.  I have spoken to many collectives
that feel that no $ should not be a consensual process, but a
Principle of Unity.  If you look through the Brasil list archives for
October, you will see that the Houston proposal does not go far enough
to satisfy them.  This is a truly divisive issue, and I think the
Houston proposal is a good compromise.  I am worried by the prospect
of not finding some middle ground on it.

> We have decided that the best way for our collective to adhere to those principles and to achieve those goals - along with others like accountability, consistency, and making useful media - is to compensate a couple of people for some specific tasks. From another perspective in another city with other people, you might think that's the wrong choice. But if you have faith in us as your partners in Indymedia, you should respect the actions that we believe are appropriate to our local conditions.

I think it is important to reiterate that I did not propose in any
forum a course of action that would limit NYC's freedom to make
decisions about this in its own collective.  The Houston proposal
clearly states that it is consensual.  That being said, I was a part
of the indypendent collective myself, doing cartoons, and no longer
feel comfortable working in that collective for this reason.  My
perspective is not just that of someone in another city, but as a
part-time New Yorker, I feel isolated from a collective in which I
participated.
 
> The only thing in the proposal I would say the NYC IMC disagrees with is that being all volunteer is "in keeping with the original purpose and roots of IMC." A lot of those people getting that footage of rubber bullets in the streets of Seattle or organizing the first Independent Media Center were paid employees of media organizations.

Of course they were, as they are still, but then they were not paid BY
indymedia.

> And at the meeting in San Francisco in April 2001 that introduced the Principles of Unity, the question of paying people was specifically left to individual IMCs to decide.

I agree, and I respect what those people did at that time. I can
understand how that wording might be offensive, maybe it would be
better to reference the early influence on indymedia of the words of
Marcos and the processes of the Zapatistas in a different way.

> Like NIck, I am looking forward to discussions of best practices in Austin. But I hope it goes a lot deeper than "don't pay anyone" (or "pay someone"), which, when you take out the principles that we all agree on, is all that this proposal amounts to.

True - if no one has a problem passing a simpler version of this
proposal: "the US-IMC is an all-volunteer collective" without any
rhetoric attached, I would be be happy to consense around those words.

Peace
Nick