[UCIMC-Tech] [IMC] Bring the U-C IMC's only reliable historical record back to the public please.

[Mike Lehman]

I can't disagree with the concerns that Dan raised or the misgivings 
that Zach expressed. Steering is something of a different fish now than 
it was, but I'd agree that converting the IMC list in this fashion just 
didn't strike me as the optimal solution to whatever problem or need it 
was attempting to solve or fill. But since I generally have little to do 
with things other than Finance, I felt that was up to Steering.

I do think that the change was not a good one for historic reasons. It 
effectively closed the door on nearly a decade of UC IMC history. As a 
historian myself, that's never a good thing and I was just too busy 
trying to get my dissertation finished to realize that was what was 
happening with the changes that were made.

Perhaps those that made them didn't realize that was what was happening 
either. So I'd support some means of restoring the former status of the 
IMC list. I think there must be a way to do that that could accommodate 
what Steering feels its current needs are.
Mike Lehman

Zachary C. Miller wrote:
> I strongly support this proposal!
>
> As a founding and lifetime member, I've recently been asked a lot of
> questions about UC-IMC history. I knew the archives were the place to
> look and I was surprised to find them locked down. I signed up for the
> list to gain access and was pleased that my sign up was granted
> without question. But it wasn't clearly stated anywhere who has a
> right to access, so I could have as easily bounced off of the password
> prompt, feeling unwelcome, and never looked back.
>
> I do recall that historically there have been issues with a wide open
> list archives (google searchable). There were occasions where we
> manually excised identifying information from archived emails from
> individuals who did not know that their message to imc@ would be
> publicly archived. This is an issue the UC-IMC will have to address in
> re-opening the archives: what is the procedure for protecting the
> identity of non-imcstas who send messages to imc@ but don't consent to
> having their identity publicly archived. Some possible solutions:
> robots.txt blocking google access, a commitment from IMC-tech to
> maintain a protocol for purging identities from the archives upon
> request, archives open only to list members but list membership open
> (unmoderated) to all with clear notes in the listinfo page about the
> list joining process, or just open the archives and wait to solve this
> problem until it comes up.
>
> Struggling with models for wide open non-hierarchical sharing of
> information was one of the most rewarding challenges of working with
> the UC-IMC. How do we run an organization where anyone can come to any
> meeting and have a say? How do we make our mailing lists, which are
> ultimately virtual meetings, reflect that same open meeting structure?
> I don't know what UC-IMC's structure looks like now, compared to the
> time when I was there, I applaud and support any effort to reduce the
> barriers to real or virtual participation (even lurking in the history
> is participation...you may not see the private discussions about the
> past and future that this engenders, but they're there) in the UC-IMC!
>
> Good luck working out the details!
>
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Chris Ritzo <chris.ritzo at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> Dan, I'm going to attempt to restate the technical details-  you're
>> proposing:
>>
>> - imc at lists.chambana.net be reinstated as a public list, archives open,
>> membership open to anyone
>> -- posts to imc at lists.chambana.net get forwarded to both imc-spokes@ and
>> imc-members@
>>
>> - imc-spokes at lists.chambana.net gets created and used for spokes discussion.
>>
>> You didn't mention this list, but I'm assuming---
>> - imc-events@ which was created in october for local events posting would
>> remain in place and is a public list anyone can join to receive updates on
>> concerts, art exhibits, etc. happening at the IMC.
>>
>> -CR
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 6:02 PM, dan blah <blah at chambana.net> wrote:
>>     
>>> Hey all,
>>>
>>> Over the past few months various members have contacted me to discuss
>>> our organizations history.  Very often the conversation will move
>>> towards concerns of the U-C IMC moving further and further from its
>>> original flat member empowered and controlled adhocracy to more of a
>>> centrally controlled by a few bureaucracy.  Not being the active
>>> member I was, I often quickly ask for a cite of assertions on the IMC
>>> General list (imc at lists.chambana.net) where the IMC's Steering Group
>>> and other working groups had been posting their minutes.  This mailing
>>> list had for a decade served as the organizations most reliable
>>> historical record.  Supporting that role, I tell them how important it
>>> was for me to go all the way to the beginning of that list's archive
>>> before even becoming a member.  They almost always state their
>>> intentions to do the same after being told it contains the public
>>> notes on how the U-C IMC got its name, who's basement the first
>>> meetings were in, and all the other eclectic blocks that built up to
>>> the building we all enjoy now.
>>>
>>> For me and others who were not part of those early chapters of the U-C
>>> IMC, having the history there to read, review, and build onto formed
>>> the core of how we developed our sense of ownership of the U-C IMC.
>>> In this current time at the U-C IMC where many of the founding members
>>> and past active members have moved on, access to this history takes on
>>> an even greater importance.  Unfortunately, that history is no longer
>>> available to the public or even most members.  Currently, it is only
>>> available to 35 U-C IMC members.
>>>
>>> Thanks to the IMC-Tech folks catching me up, I understand why the list
>>> is currently private and I am partly at fault for failing to focus on
>>> the discussion when it took place last year.  All that aside, current
>>> active local U-C IMC members are still asking me questions about our
>>> history and now I have no way to cite my knowledge and they have no
>>> way to learn as much as they want and should be able to about the U-C
>>> IMC.  To maintain one of the core tenants of being an Indymedia
>>> Independent Media Center that embodies so much more than just being a
>>> community center, those archives and future notes and discussions that
>>> define our organization must be available to all members and the
>>> public.  I propose that we re-open up the archives that were public
>>> for nearly a decade and continue to ensure Steering and all other
>>> working group minutes continue to be public (as they also were for the
>>> same decade) while respecting and ensuring those needs that lead to
>>> its privatization remain met.
>>>
>>> The technical problems around this make the practical implementation
>>> of this a bit tricky.  I apologize, the rest of this is a little
>>> geeky.  As Bob proposed in October, instead of re-purposing the imc@
>>> mailing list to be the private spokes and core member only list it is
>>> now, an imc-spokes@ mailing list should have been created and used for
>>> this purpose.  My assumption is that there was concern about the imc@
>>> being the most common way people contact the U-C IMC and because of
>>> this it was easiest to just restrict the imc@ list associated with
>>> that alias.  What I would have proposed is that the imc@ address via
>>> aliasing be forwarded to an imc-spokes@ mailing list and the old
>>> public imc@ mailing list be accessible by emailing imc-members at .  This
>>> would've preserved the highly search indexed public imc@ mailing list
>>> archives, allowed a public list for recording as in the past, and
>>> allowed a restricted private list for more internal functions.  I
>>> propose that we do this now.  The main issue to this at this point is
>>> moving those private messages currently on the imc@ mailing list to
>>> the new imc-spokes@ mailing list and combining the imc-members@
>>> mailing list with the older busier imc@ mailing list.
>>>
>>> All members, lets discuss!  IMC-Tech Group members, please lets
>>> discuss what holes exist in my tech proposal on the IMC-Tech Group
>>> list.
>>>
>>> In solidarity,
>>> --
>>> Dan Blah
>>>
>>> --
>>> This message has been scanned for viruses and
>>> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
>>> believed to be clean.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> IMC mailing list
>>> IMC at lists.chambana.net
>>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/imc
>>>       
>> --
>> This message has been scanned for viruses and
>> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
>> believed to be clean.
>> _______________________________________________
>> IMC mailing list
>> IMC at lists.chambana.net
>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/imc
>>
>>     
>
>
>
>   


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.