[IMC-US] all-volunteer survey questions draft

[nick]

Response to bht,

I hear alot of frustration with my continually bringing this up. 
Sorry if I am a pain in the ass, but I don't think that not talking
about sources of conflict is always a solution. It is a contentious
issue whether we choose to focus on it or not.

> i would like to leave it at that

Do you mean, you would like me to consider the proposal for imc-us to
declare itself all-volunteer dead, or that you would like me to not
move forward with the survey to see how impotant this issue is to the
global south?

> i feel that the insistence of folks from houston to continue bringing this up negates part of their statement that says they dont expect other folks to agree with them.  

I see much confusion here. Houston made a proposal asking other
collectives to join us.  I personally made a proposal to imc-us as a
collective to join Houston.  I do not expect other collectives to
agree, rather I was hoping that collectives in which I participate,
including imc-US will see why it is important.

>i like the personal autonomy.  i feel that it is part of a strong
collective.  in houston or portland paying people isnt something that is
seen as beneficail or even thought of as an option.  in nyc and urbana
champaign things are different, the direction of those collectives have
moved to a different sphere and it works for them and their projects to
pay some folks.  both of those imc's do good work.  houston and
portland also do good work.
>if we try to create a situation where every imc is expected to be the
same in the way that they promote/create/empower independant media we
come closer to a hierarchy and power body.  i dont claim to know
anything about nyc or uc and thats, but i trust that the folks that work
with those colelctives do understand and would be right enough in their
thinking to address a problem with paying people should it arise.

All of this implies that I am proposing something that would change
how NYC or UC can operate.  I have never done such a thing, and I
think it confuses the issue to talk about it as if I had.  Houston
drafted our proposal to be consensual as a compromise between those
who think it should be a network-wide rule, and those who think having
IMCs with paid position is totally cool and useful.  If there are a
significant percentage of imcs that think it should be a rule (I do
not), then I think that should impact the way the rest of us think
about the issue.  Determining this percentage was the idea of the
survey.

What I would like to get at with this survey is the answer to the
question: does this really matter to the IMCs in this hemisphere or
not.  If the impression I am getting from the global south about this
is correct, I think we should consider it very seriously.  If I was
wrong and the global south really doesn't care so much, than obviously
it is less important to the network than I thought.

As far as unity / divisiveness goes, I am all for unity, but I do
think that we should be more attuned to what the global south thinks
about core issues like this, and I suspect that this simply is a
contentious issue, whether people are discussing it or not.  Every
time I bring it up there are people who didn't even realize that paid
positions were allowed anywhere in the network.

So far, I think Uruguay, Netherlands, Norway, Ireland, Richmond, Santa
Cruz, and many others have declared themselves all volunteer.  Many
others just are all-volunteer without such declarations.  In addition,
pages of IMC literature refers to the network as "all volunteer" (for
example http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/10/273477.shtml), and we
need to recognize that we are not being honest in this statement.

Peace,
Nick