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

[Andy Pyle]

I take complete exception to this proposal.  I think it is a bad idea.   This is a block.

1). making people political decision makers because of technical expertise is the road to
capitalism.  This was one the things contributing to the restoration of capitalism in the
old USSR.   The project becomes a form of "property" and the techs become the "owners".

2).  US Indymedia is a nationwide project and the direction of the site should be subject
to control by the various US based Indymedias, not by a tiny group who have gotten
themselves on the inside.  (I recognize that it was their conception and they have done
all the work - that's not my point.)

3).  It seems that the present editorial direction of US Indymedia represents mostly only
one political trend, i.e. those who think electoral politics is important.  Freezing all
decision making to those currently doing the work might shut out other viewpoints, which I
believe are in the majority in Indymedia overall.

4).  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.


This is my own personal opinion and I am not speaking as a delegate from
cleveland.indymedia.

To reiterate, this is a block.

bht wrote:

> 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