[IMC-US] m19 coverage

[Chris Anderson]

Hi all,

A couple things, first related to the site in general
and then to coverage of actions in particular:

First, I think this site has come a long was in the
last 6 months, both in terms of who is synidcated, who
is participating, and our variety of coverage. This
doesn't obviate the problems that bht mentioned. But
we should keep it in mind.

Second, with regard to greater participation in the
site. I can only speak to my own experience and,
looking back on what I've just written below, this
sounds angrier than I mean it to. No worries, its just
email :)

About three months ago I asked to be involved in
editorial work for the site. No one ever got back to
me. Then, about 2 weeks ago, I filled out the form
where I said I'd be happy to have an admin password
for the site. Same non-response. I have so much to do
that I dont have time to go around harassing people
about this stuff, plus, two non-responses makes me
feel that perhaps my help is not needed. I dont know
if others have felt this way-- and I want to be clear,
this isn't said to blame anybody. But it is what
happened.

Now, on to issues dealing specifically with coverage
of days of action on IMC-US. I think this type of
coverage is very powerful and really exciting. I think
it should be continued if possible. But I also think
that a number of specific problems impede this type of
coverage that we need to figure out. Many of them have
to do with the extreme business, on a local level,
that local imcs have to deal with during local days of
action. They're probably the busiest times for imcs--
between coverage, site moderation, coordination, etc.
How can we overcome local busyness and get more people
involved in coordinating national coverage of these
events? Or perhaps we dont want to? Or perhaps we'd
rather do "preview" and "wrap up" features after
everything is over rather than blow by blow coverage?

Anyway, all these comments dont obviate the problems
that bht mentioned. But they are some additional
things to think about.

Oh, and I heard both Chicago and Portland's streams
yesterday. Great job!!

chris
 
--- bht <bht at indymedia.org> wrote:
> max, these are great questions and as with any
> organization that plans 
> to organize collectively, it is something that
> should have been talked 
> about collectivley.  I remeber distinctly sending
> out at least two mails 
> specifically about m19 that got one response, from
> john.
> 
> you ask what sort of participation i envision, and
> it isnt any 
> particular kind of participation, this isnt about me
> and what i want.  
> this is about how this 'affinty group' will envision
> itself.  as long as 
> there is participation and input, i would be willing
> to let it flow in 
> whatever direction it tends to go. 
> 
> what i had hoped to see was at least one new person
> to ask how they 
> could help with this.
> 
> you also say this is an amorphous project and it is
> hard to jump in.  
> that is so true.  and just as we discussed in
> austin, it is important to 
> try to define some of those hings to make it easier.
> 
> 
> i guess, my main question, is whether or not folks
> want to be part of 
> this in the capacity that they would actually do
> something with the 
> site.  this is probably the fifth time i have asked
> this question.  my 
> impetus for this is because i dont really want to be
> doing it anymore, 
> but because i helped get it to where it is now and i
> do hold a bit of 
> knowledge for how to use the site, i want to remain
> on board long enough 
> to teach a few other folks to do stuff with the site
> as well.
> 
> unless the site as it is isnt what it should be. 
> would it be better to 
> just have a pure syndication site that wouldnt
> really need any 
> attention?  right now, i think so.  luckily, when
> creating this, the 
> folks involved creating a never ending circle.  it
> will be very hard to 
> follow consensus and make decisions right now about
> what to do with the 
> site or how to make decisions.  and, of course, i
> use that luckily in an 
> entirely jhoking fashion.
> 
> end communication.
> bht
> 
> max wrote:
> 
> >what sort of participation did you envision? what
> did you hope to see? maybe
> >folks aren't interested in putting in lots of
> energy covering mass
> >mobilizations these days and would rather focus on
> covering more local and
> >sustained efforts towards social justice etc. (I
> would probably fall into this
> >category).  this is an amorphous project with vague
> (if any) policies and for
> >that reason difficult for some people to just 'jump
> in' and get involved. were
> >there IRC meetings during the day? were those
> announced on this list? does
> >everyone know how to use IRC? was there a team
> putting together that breaking
> >news? how did that happen? how do you compile
> breaking news from around the
> >country/world? etc etc.
> >
> >max
> >
> >Quoting bht <bht at indymedia.org>:
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IMC-US mailing list
> IMC-US at lists.ucimc.org
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc-us
> 


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/