[IMC-US] m19 coverage

[gek]

hello, gek from sf-imc here. i've been watching us-imc work/not work
from the sidelines for a while. i wasn't able to go to austin and
don't really know what was discussed there. 

for the record, i've never really supported the idea of a large us-imc
editorial group. it doesn't make sense practically because indymedia
people are already stretched thin doing local stuff in addition to a
lot of extracurricular global stuff (www-features, imc-tech, or
whatever). adding ANOTHER layer which requires constant participation
seems crazy and could only lead to stagnation and frustration.

i am for an all-syndicated, all-computer-generated us-imc. if people
want personalized, human-generated content, there are dozens of active 
local indymedia's where they can get it (and us-imc can refer them to
this content).

> 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. 

well -- if us-imc is really an "affinity group" then i can't
understand your email. if no one shows up for your affinity group
meetings anymore, by definition the affinity group no longer exists -- 
if it ever really did. the lack of accountability or collective
responsibility in the affinity group model is pretty well known. 

what i mean to say is your email(s) answers its own question. you can't
browbeat people into participating... eventually you have to
re-evaluate your own expectations about what is supposed to be
happening. 

i fully support changing the site to entirely syndication-based and i
would donate tech labor towards making that happen. 

-gek/sf-imc