[IMC-US] PROPOSAL: Defining decision making ont he site (deadline 1/12/05)

[bradley at riseup.net]

Hi everyone,

Thanks bht for bringing up important issues/discussions. I fully support
the proposal put forth and hope that Andy's concern(s) have been clarified
by both john and bht. John and bht have basically made all the comments i
would make if i addressed all of Andy's email.

One big mis-conception has already been corrected, but i want to stress it
once more....

Andy wrote:
http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/imc-us/2005-January/000884.html

> "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.)"

Personally, I see Indymedia.us as a borderless project, even though it is
organized around IMCs based in the United States. I feel Indymedia.us
should represent and magnify the voices and visions of Indymedia
volunteers around the world with a focus the IMCs in the US.

Since I am one of the people that have put a lot of time and effort into
Indymedia.us, I will assume that you (Andy) are refering to me when you
say that US Indymedia was the conception of "a tiny group who have gotten
themselves on the inside." Andy, I'm not sure what you have based that
assumption on, but I don't think your observation is correct. I personally
was not one of the people that conceived of Indymedia.us

Again, I support adding information/process to the how it works page.

The following sounds great to me:

Indymedia.us working groups recognize 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.

sincerely,
Bradley

p.s. There are still plenty of things to discuss and points to reply to in
regards to long-term vision, short-term vision, making the site work (i
agree it needs help. indymedia.us could use more editorial helpers!!),
perhaps working out some kind of system for marking topics on articles so
they show up on the topic pages, etc, etc, etc.... let's keep up the
discussion.

by the way, has anyone been around in the #us IRC room? i have not checked
lately, but i have had very interesting chats in there in the past (-;

* * * * * * * * *

> 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