[Imc] Pub i Proposals

[Sandra Ahten]

Thursday 4/25/02 5pm recap of discussion of possible direction for public i

attending: Brent, Orion (for a brief few minutes) Darrin, John W., Sandra.
Lured in by Lasagna: Sascha, Andrew (part of the print group for IMC in NY
and NM), Brian H.

These items will be proposed with hope for the official Sunday 3pm meeting
of the public i.  with the possibility of consensus for immediate adoption.

1) Front Page
    A)  will no long feature and article and instead feature a picture and
words about some or all of the authors who contributed to the paper.  The
picture might  be a mug shot. It might be a caricature. It might have to do
with the content of the article (remember Jack Brighton being gagged in
front of the radio microphone).  The words might be taken directly from the
article. They might be a little bio about the person. They might be an
answer to a solictated question that may or may not have something to do
with the article.

It is hoped that this change will
a. add content in terms of making the paper as much about people who raise
issues in our community as the issues themselves.
b. build community in general and also  build community of peoplethat want
to be involved with the making of a newspaper
c. help casual paper browsers know that it is  locally published at first
glance
d. help casual paper browsers know that is it is not a goverment report or
some kind of official report
e. provide some "eye candy" so that causual browser give it a second glance
f. add content in terms of the mission of independant media. That is- don't
hide behind a facade of "journalism" that pretends to be non-biased and
instead say
"I am a journalist/ citizen who wrote this piece... this is my angle... this
is why I care about it."

B) Darrin will also work on a change of layout with the logo that works
toward some of the same ends as those listed above.

2) Editorship

Eliminate the Editors at Large and the Section Editors... instead have the
current Section Editors become Article Soliciters or Facilitators. (I'll
just call them S/F's).  There would also be a group of editors that are
available and a  writer could pick the editor that they wanted to work with.
(S/F's and editors may or may not be the same people)
--------------------
We can't play this scenerio out for every circumstance and some people think
it will be chaotic.  But most agreed that we have to do something to
eliminate the editorial heirarchy... even if it is just perceived heirarchy.
Most agreed that it is not "just perceived" becuase the reality is that
there are sometime two if not three editors involved in getting an article
to print in our current system.
----------------------------

just to play this out:
Scenerio One
Sandra hears that someone wants to write an article on Conspiracy Theories.
She talks to the people who want to write it, gets an idea about the
direction, and the credability,  the sources, and the length.  She tells
them she will present it at the next meeting unless they want to present it
themselves. (preferable so they can get feedback directly from group). Finds
out when they can be finished with it.  Asks them who they would like to
edit it.  Brings it to the group. Gets the ok or not. Puts the prefered
editor in touch with them. They produce an article. It gets proofread for
grammar and spelling and sent to layout.

If layout has problems with length etc. it goes back to editor.

Scenerio Two
John has agreed to be a S/F for next issue.  He comes to meeting and
brainstorms with group for topics and writers.  Goes away with a list of two
or three possibilites to follow up on.  Much as above from there except he
tells the writer, "I'd like to edit this, so as to keep the process as
streamlined as possible. Is that ok with you?"

Scenerio Three
Unsolicitated article comes in from local writer.  Group discussed merits.
If group decided it is worth pursueing:  group assigns available editor- if
it needs any editing at all.

(minute takers note:  I made up these sceneriors, they were not exactly what
was discussed - though the proposal under "editorship" above was discussed
pretty much as I've outlined it)

3) Meeting Times
Next meeting will be as scheduled Sunday at 3pm. Next meeting will be
Thursday May 2nd at 5pm. Possible change of meeting times to Thursday's at
5pm.

Thanks for everyone who emailed there opinion and gave feedback that helped
to get the changes proposed.

Sandra