[IMC-US] RE: bht's proposal

[Tribal Scribal]

I think everyone should take a few deep breaths, maybe go outside for a long 
walk. Rancor will not bring anything positive into this discussion; 
constructive criticism however, will.

I have to say when i first scanned the proposal nothing stood out as all 
that problematic. Then, after reading a few comments i saw that there were 
some potential problems. Only a reasoned, RESPECTFUL discussion will bring 
this thing to resolution. Let's save the pithy comments and clever bon mots 
for the forces of darkness.

d.o.



***************************************
"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as 
necessary in the political world as storms in the physical world."

- Thomas Jefferson
***************************************
more rebellion here:
http://concertobi.blogspot.com/

***************************************




>From: john duda <john at manifestor.org>
>Reply-To: "Working Group for IMC-US." <imc-us at lists.ucimc.org>
>To: andypie at earthlink.net,"Working Group for IMC-US." 
><imc-us at lists.ucimc.org>
>Subject: Re: [IMC-US] RE: bht's privatization proposal
>Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 23:34:14 -0700
>
>On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 12:24:54AM -0500, Andy Pyle wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
>i think it misrepresents the proposal to suggest this.  of course,
>since it is an official imc, indymedia.us is and would continue to be
>subject to subscribing to the Indymedia principles of unity, and
>dependent on maintaining its committment to those principles to
>maintain its status.  just like every other imc.  and just like every
>other imc i've worked with in the past(and every other activist
>project for that matter!), working on the project would give you the
>ability to help make decsions about the project.  since it would be
>part of a larger network, there would still be the normal oversight,
>which has worked well enough(if slowly and unsurely, understandable
>since it's all done electronically through a global, multilingual
>network of collectives and their designated representatives) in
>catastrophic situations(russia).
>
>as it stands *now*, the only functioning network structure with any
>sort of capability to discuss and act on oversight issues is the
>imc-process list.  there was an attempt to set up some sort of
>us-process discussion area during the sf/indybay thing, but looking at
>the archives, I'd say it's a dead list, and AFAIK it never was
>empowered to make any decisions anyway.  with other regions it's
>somewhat different, oceania for example actually has a list that was
>able to address the brisbane problems, but ultimately the decision
>made was made over imc-process.  but oceania as a region also spent a
>couple of years colloborating on a syndication site and other projects
>before they got to that point...
>
> >
> > 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.
>
>again see http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Global/PrinciplesOfUnity
>
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > IMC-US mailing list
> > IMC-US at lists.ucimc.org
> > http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc-us
>
>--
>
>this is where my public key can be found:
>gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 03817826
>Key fingerprint = 6C11 8D70 2ADE EFA9 498D  72CB 77EA 391A 0381 7826
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>IMC-US mailing list
>IMC-US at lists.ucimc.org
>http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc-us