[IMC-US] RE: bht's privatization proposal

[Andy Pyle]

On the Privatization Proposal.

I know it will raise a few hackles when I refer to BHT's proposal as a privatization
proposal, but that's exactly what it is.
And that's my objection to it.

It will place ALL decisions in the hands of a small group of people "who actually are
doing to work", including the all-important "what direction the site moves in".  As I
understand it, this covers everything, totally. As I also understand it, since it is the
newest part of the decision-making principles, it will amend everything else, including
the right of IMCs to block something and any oversight by the network.

The new controlling group could change its political thrust, to ANYTHING ( things the rest
of the IMC might find abhorrent), could block the addition of new members to the group,
could accept advertising, could even sell it.

Don't laugh about the concerns about "privatization"  and "sell".  I have seen just such a
thing happen to a very successful co-op bakery under the guise of "empowering the
workers". The ex- "King" of the "Peaceable Kingdom Bakery" is now selling retirement plans
instead.  And, from days of yore did you ever wonder how Arm  & Hammer baking soda got its
hands on the emblem of the Socialist Labor Party?

So there needs to be some clarification of what the "decisions on the direction of the
site"  includes and excludes.

I'm just shaking my head at BHT's reiterated  comment that the Elections are the only
national issue we have,  I come back to it again and again, in wonderment.   There is no
Iraq war, environmental problems, Social Security crisis, CAPITALISM, poverty crisis, etc
ad nauseum??  The elections are the only national issue we have ?   And the proposal is to
turn the "future direction of the site"  over to a small group a significant member of who
thinks like this??  That is a good reason to keep the decision making base as broad as
possible, including "lurkers" who may not have time or skills to administer the site and
step in only if they see a problem developing.

I take strong exception to THIS LIST being the venue for where this is to be decided.
Most IMCs and IMCistas will not even be aware of what is going on.  Proponents themselves
are complaining about how this list is small and unresponsive.  This is a working group
list, not an oversight or policy venue.

Thanks to you all for correcting me on the distinction between the people who proposed the
site and those who are now running it.  I could go on about the reason the site is not
catching on and such but it looks like that will be covered in the IRC meeting, which I'm
looking forward to.

Several people including myself have asked for more a extended discussion period, so it
looks like that is what we can go into now.