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

Tue Feb 23 13:29:52 CST 2010

And also to clarify in working only- the archives are not lost themselves,
just unfettered access to them.

On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Elizabeth Simpson <elizacorps at yahoo.com>wrote:

> HI All,
>
> It sounds like a combo between Dan's initial proposal (to have aliases that
> point to the lists) and the IMC wiki and IMC wikipedia page ideas will do
> it.
>
> See you at steering!
>
> Elizabeth
> p.s. to be clear- it's not that the archives were CLOSED actively, but that
> in re-allocating the list members, the historical side of things got lost.
> As Zach said, anyone who wants to join can, it's just not default at this
> point, and we can remedy that.
>
>
>
> I freed a thousand slaves. I could have freed a thousand more if only they
> knew they were slaves.
>
> -Harriet Tubman
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Carly Nix <nix.carly at gmail.com>
> *To:* Mike Lehman <rebelmike at earthlink.net>
> *Cc:* imc-members at ucimc.org; UC IMC <imc at ucimc.org>; IMC-Tech List <
> imc-tech at ucimc.org>
> *Sent:* Tue, February 23, 2010 11:27:33 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Imc-members] [IMC] Bring the U-C IMC's only reliable
> historical record back to the public please.
>
> 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.
>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Imc-members mailing list
> Imc-members at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/imc-members
>

-- 
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/f9342159/attachment.html>