[IMC-US-tech] RE: [IMC-US] Re: Acorn Active Media Worker Collective Offer: (Sascha Meinrath)

[Sascha Meinrath]

Hi all,

As someone who's been a core organizer of both the IMC-US and Acorn Active
Media I don't understand what the problem is in accepting this offer.
Acorn is entirely composed of folks who've been active in Indymedia for
years -- the workers are the "tech genius friends" everyone's been talking
about.  Acorn has the resources to get the IMC-US site up and running, and
is simply asking to be acknowledged for the effort.

Acorn folks have already helped build and maintain some of the stuff we're
already using (e.g., the server that our e-mail lists are on), and will
continue to help out in small ways either way.  But the idea behind this
offer is that Acorn would put IMC-US as a first priority for the group,
get the work done, and get the site up and running as soon as possible.

Acorn's offer would provide the critical mass to the tech effort to move
things forward on this project so that all the people who are waiting for
the tech work to be done can get involved.  The IMC-US-Tech group (who is
doing the actual work of getting things up and running) already feels that
things have been stalled long enough and that this is a good way to move
forward.

As with Max, I feel that there's been ample calls for alternatives to be
brought forward, but there haven't been any.  After pondering the stalling
of IMC-US implementation for a couple months, and following queries from
several folks about how to get the IMC-US moving forward again, I asked
the Acorn group to get involved.  Getting the help of a professional
company for free is pretty awesome -- the fact that Acorn is willing to
barter for the work instead of charging $35-75/hour is due to the fact
that we're all Indymedia folks too and want to help out with the effort.

It's a one-off partnership that's a win-win situation for everyone
involved.  If folks don't want to do this, then I feel that they should
bring up another alternative that will get things done -- otherwise, the
result is to actually stop implementation of IMC-US.

And I'm happy to discuss this offer more, answer questions folks have,
look for an alternative, etc.  But I also feel like we've got an offer on
the table that's pretty exceptional.

--Sascha

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, Tribal Scribal wrote:

> Max, i definately understand the frustration you noted. At this point i'd go
> with your option #2:
>
> "more time to discuss,  and  offer a compromise, an alternative, another
> idea, a tech genius friend, or anything"
>
> As noted in my post, can we ask Acorn if they'll contribute without the
> individual feature and permanent acknowledgement? We could have a collective
> feature noting contributions by ALL participants, but singling out any group
> or individual for praise, regardless of the size of the contribution,  is
> most always problematical, imo.
>
> The only "tech genius friends" i have are already up to their eyeballs in
> IMC projects, but i'm a news guy and don't know that many. How about we put
> out a call in the form of a feature for all the U.S. IMCs?
>
> d.o.
>
> >From: max <max at michiganimc.org>
> >To: "Tribal Scribal" <valeoftheoaks at hotmail.com>
> >CC: bks10 at cornell.edu,
> >imc-us at lists.cu.groogroo.com,imc-us-tech at lists.cu.groogroo.com
> >Subject: Re: [IMC-US-tech] RE: [IMC-US] Re: Acorn Active Media Worker
> >Collective Offer: (Sascha Meinrath)
> >Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 11:05:49 -0500
> >
> >to Brian, d.o, and all,
> >
> >we are talking about:
> >1. something like the little box that exists on all dadaIMC pages that says
> >"this page made manifest by dadaIMC."
> >2. one article when the site goes live.
> >
> >It's extremely frustrating for me to hear non-constructive criticisms
> >against the only current idea that could move us forward.  There has been
> >literally no discussion or creative suggestions for over three months,
> >despite several people's repeated attempts to get this project moving again
> >after a fairly productive summer.  There has been an ongoing outreach
> >effort within the IMC network.  There has been a consistent attempt to find
> >people willing to do the tech work necessary to get the site running.  No
> >one has volunteered so far.  Working with the Acorn Media group is of
> >course far from a perfect solution, and perhaps we need to do a little bit
> >of negotiating to make everyone as happy as possible, but at this point
> >it's the only option available to us to get the site running.
> >
> >I know we shouldn't sacrifice our ethics to get a website up a little bit
> >faster; I personally don't think that Acorn Media's terms are forcing us to
> >do that.  If you do, though, could you please 1) clarify whether you are
> >blocking this proposal (which was consensed on in the tech working group),
> >or if you want more time to discuss, or what; and 2) offer a compromise, an
> >alternative, another idea, a tech genius friend, or anything.
> >
> >I apologize in advance in my tone seems harsh. overall it just seems
> >ridiculous that we haven't been able to get it together in one way or
> >another to get the site live already.
> >
> >in solidarity,
> >
> >max
> >
> >On Jan 5, 2004, at 9:59 AM, Tribal Scribal wrote:
> >
> >>Pro Bono? We ALL work pro bono and without much in the way of permanent
> >>acknowledgement. The strings attached to the offer make this volunteer
> >>feel a bit uncomfortable. Would the Acorn collective reconsider doing it
> >>in the spirit of solidarity w/o such incentives? I hope so.
> >>
> >>d.o.
>
> >>>From: Sascha Meinrath <sascha at ucimc.org>
> >>> > The Acorn Active Media worker collective has offered to partner with
> >>>the
> >>> > IMC-US Tech group to help launch the IMC-US website.  Acorn Active
> >>>Media
> >>> > is willing to do this work Pro Bono in return for acknowledgement of
> >>>its
> >>> > aid -- a feature story for the first two weeks after the site goes
> >>>live,
> >>> > and a permanent small acknowledgement at the bottom of the left-hand
> >>> > column. The IMC-US Tech group actively supports this proposal and
> >>>feels
> >>> > that this is a good way to proceed with the project.  Unless there are
> >>>any
> >>> > major objections, we will start partnering immediately.
> >>>
> >>>Please, no.
> >>>
> >>>I realize I have no official voice in this group, but I feel quite
> >>>strongly that trading feature status for any sort of money or work is the
> >>>exact antithesis of what indymedia stands for. Furthermore, a permanent
> >>>link of sorts on the page that is any bigger than the "this software made
> >>>manifest by dadaimc/sf-active/etc" (which serves a useful purpose) is
> >>>very
> >>>troublesome to me as well.
> >>>
> >>>I realize that this Acorn group is probably quite awesome, but making
> >>>exceptions is a slippery slope.
> >>>
> >>>There are other ways to get the site up, like, say reaching out to imc's
> >>>in the us and asking for tech help :-)
> >>>
> >>>Peace & solidarity,
> >>>Brian Szymanski
> >>>ski at indymedia.org
> >>>bks10 at cornell.edu