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

[max]

hi, just writing to say that I think the original proposal is a super idea.  I
felt that andy's objections were addressed by bradley and john, and that if the
block still stands, andy should write to continue this discussion.  it is
important to stay in communication after blocking a proposal on an email list.

regarding the vision/purpose of this site, perhaps we should ask the visitors? 
we could post a short feature asking for people's comments on the site: what
they've found useful, what they'd like to see more of, etc.  if we get no
comments then we know that more outreach is first on our list of things to do!

max



Quoting bht <bht at indymedia.org>:

> On another note.  This deadline is in two days.  Right now there is a
> block on the table.
>
> My resoning for putting forth this proposal was not to limit the site at
> all, but to give it berth to move from where it is.  Right now people that
> administer the site, whether regularly or not, are operating on wither the
> global guidelines or the loose guidelines that were enacted just before
> the launch.
>
> The idea was that we would all get together after the rnc and discuss the
> finer points of how the site is used.  I have tried repeatedly to get
> folks interested in this but it just hasnt happened, any mail I send that
> pertains to that remains silent after it is sent.
>
> This block is the first response to a mail of the sort that I had sent.  I
> was beginning to think that everyone just thought that all the ideas i had
> were great and right, luckily that isnt so :-)
>
> This proposal is not meant to shut anyone out.  It is meant to prevent a
> single person from impeding progress.  Which is happening right now.
>
> I dont know the underlying reasons of why Andy blocked.  It could breed
> from the the Cleveland IMC refusal to give electoral politics airtime and
> that indy.us promoted features are largely election based.
>
> That is because this site went live for the RNC and was to cover the RNC
> and noational issues, the election was the next national issue.
>
> We can change what the site is used for, because I think I stated before,
> there arent that many national issues like elections or conventions and
> the site would be pretty stale if that was it.
>
> If anyone else would like to contribute to this discussion, please do.
> Please please please, anyone that was at the Allied Media Conference, just
> ackowledge that you still read this list even.  Anyone that originally
> wanted to have this site!  Say something!
>
> Also, I wonder if anyone wants to participate in long term vision or why
> they even got involved in this project.
>
> Sorry for the pleading, it feels like I am writing to walls, and that sucks.
> bht
>
> ahhh! 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
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IMC-US mailing list
> IMC-US at lists.ucimc.org
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc-us
>