[IMC-US] PROPOSAL: Defining decision making on the site

[Andy Pyle]

I think an IRC meeting is a good idea.

I will be getting back to the list soon with more on "the proposal" and replies to some
comments.

remember this is not rush-rush.

max wrote:

> 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
> >