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

Tue Feb 23 11:45:48 CST 2010

Sorry - that is *March 4th, Thursday*, at 8pm.

On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Nicole Pion <nicole.pion at gmail.com> wrote:

> Just a reminder that we have a steering meeting coming up next week on
> March 2 at 8pm.  Community Connections is hosting.
>
> We should take the opportunity to discuss all the points that have been
> raised in this conversation.  For folks who can't there in person, but who
> would like to participate, maybe we can do a skype call?  Let me know and
> I'll do my best to find ways to accommodate.
>
>
> Nicole
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Carly Nix <nix.carly at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It agree that it would be good to open up the archives.  I would also like
>> to add that having all of the history of the IMC in email lists makes it
>> daunting to newcomers (me) to even begin to dig in.
>>
>> I think there's actually more like 3 parts to this problem: access,
>> searchability, and organization.
>>
>> Knowing that a policy or bit of information is probably archived in an
>> email somewhere from 2000-2006 and not knowing how to find it is a situation
>> I often find myself in.
>>
>> -C!
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 9:06 PM, Mike Lehman <rebelmike at earthlink.net>wrote:
>>
>>> 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 at 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.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
>>
>> believed to be clean.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> IMC mailing list
>> IMC at lists.chambana.net
>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/imc
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Nicole Pion
> Outreach and Development Adviser
> AmeriCorps CTC VISTA
> Urbana-Champaign Independent Media Center
>

-- 
Nicole Pion
Outreach and Development Adviser
AmeriCorps CTC VISTA
Urbana-Champaign Independent Media Center

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/imc-tech/attachments/20100223/b18abb0e/attachment-0001.html>