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

[muna rva imc]

As someone relatively new to the US Indymedia scene, I'm not certain how exactly
to chime in on this discussion. But as someone who's been on the authoring end
of emails that go unanswered, I want to at least say I've been carefully
reading and considering everything said.

I signed up for these lists and started participating with US Indymedia the day
it launched. On Nov. 1, Richmond Indymedia joined in national election coverage
with features that were unabashed in our distaste with the election process
itself. On Nov. 2, I presented the entire Global, US, and Richmond Indymedia
sites to a 200-person Mass Comm class at Richmond's urban working class
university.

I've been sifting through the archives of this list and the editorial list,
trying to get a bead on the concept and processes of US Indymedia. I have a lot
of reservations and a good amount of things are still unclear to me.
Regardless, I'm pushing for Richmond Indymedia's participation with US
Indymedia.

Anyway. In hopes of maybe being helpful with the present conversation:

bht's proposal may not be what Andy would like. However, as it seems to stand,
bht's proposal is in fact how the US site works. If bht's proposal is simply
clarifying that point on the site, towards the always important ideal of
transparency, I think his proposal is almost a necessary change.

If this is the case, then I also don't think Andy's valuable points are
contradictory. I think the points of contention he raises about what a
decision-making process should look like are valid and will, it looks like,
need more time for discussion than bht's Jan. 12 allows us (which is not at all
the fault of bht's deadline, but rather all of us silent people are too
blame).

Alright. This email is too long to gone without input from others.

X,
Muna