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

[john duda]

On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 05:00:38PM -0500, Andy Pyle wrote:
> 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".

i'm unclear on this objection....the proposal listed many forms of
contribution to the project, tech work was only one of the ways of
contributing.  i don't see why i should do any tech work for indymedia
at all if i'm not approaching it as a democratic project in which my
participation gives me a voice in the direction of the project.
certainly i don't think techs should have defacto control over any
indymedia projects, but i also don't think techs should be excluded
from *participating* in decision making structures along with other
people who are contributing in different ways.  i certainly don't see
how all the free labor I've contributed to this project and others and
expecting to have some (egalitarian) say in how the project works as a
result is leading down the "road to capitalism"



> 
> 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.)

it's an open group, with transparent(at least in theory) communication
over publicly available mailing lists.  every us imc has been invited
to participate.  it's a tiny group at the moment because these are the
people who have expressed interest in doing the day to day work, not
because they are some sort of exclusive cabal.


> 
> 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 overal



> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IMC-US mailing list
> IMC-US at lists.ucimc.org
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc-us

-- 

this is where my public key can be found:
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 03817826
Key fingerprint = 6C11 8D70 2ADE EFA9 498D  72CB 77EA 391A 0381 7826