[IMC-US] PROPOSAL: Defining decision making ont he site (deadline1/12/05)

[Tribal Scribal]

I have no problem w/the proposed wording. BTW, i've been out of the loop 
since early December due to a family emergency, then came the holidays. 
Hopefully i'm back now to add whatever i can to the work.

d.o.


***************************************
"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as 
necessary in the political world as storms in the physical world."

- Thomas Jefferson
***************************************
more rebellion here:
http://concertobi.blogspot.com/

***************************************



>From: "bht" <bht at indymedia.org>
>Reply-To: bht at indymedia.org,"Working Group for IMC-US." 
><imc-us at lists.ucimc.org>
>To: imc-us at lists.ucimc.org
>Subject: [IMC-US] PROPOSAL: Defining decision making ont he site 
>(deadline1/12/05)
>Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 10:30:20 -0800 (PST)
>
>I would like to add a bit to the section "how it works"
>http://indymedia.us/en/static/howitworks.shtml
>
>currently there are three points a out how the site works, it doesnt offer
>anything about how changes are made to the site and how decision are made.
>  portland indymedia uses this clause:
>
>All working groups recognize that the contribution of an individual's
>labor is a prerequisite for participation in the decision making process
>of a working group or at a portland indymedia general meeting. Individuals
>who are not committing tangible labor to a portland indymedia working
>group are encouraged to share their views but may not "block" a consensus.
>
>I would like to add something quite similar to the indymedia.us working
>group, something like "indymedia.us working group ecognizes that the
>contribution of an individuals labor is a prerequisite for decisionmaking
>pertaining to the indymedia.us website.  Individuals not committing
>tangible labor, through site design, tech support, editorial work, etc.
>are encouraged to share their views, but may not prevent the indymedia.us
>site from moving in the direction that committed individuals agree upon."
>
>that is wordy and it sounds bad, forgive my lack on conciseness in
>guidelines :-)
>
>basically, as I stated in a previous mail, there are only a handful of
>folks that are committing tangible labor to the site, and really try to
>make it viable.  right now it is just another website tha tis muddled from
>lack of vision but looks really nice.
>
>lets do something with it.  I am putting a deadline on this proposal for
>the 12 of January.  I dont know the best course to get people to really
>discuss what they want this site to be, but I want the folks that are
>doing alot of work on it (and admittedly, I am not one of them) to be able
>to make decisions without worry of all these silent email addys on the
>list.
>
>the next mass usage of this site will probably be the inaugural.  have
>people thought about what role this site will play for that?
>
>so, i think i have exhausted my point.
>bht
>
>
>--
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>IMC-US mailing list
>IMC-US at lists.ucimc.org
>http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc-us