[Peace-discuss] RE: [Imc] Intentions

[Mike Lehman]

Carl,
UC IMC working groups make their own editorial decisions. The IMC itself 
rarely has a position on anything as a group. This is derived from the 
publishing model we use. Posts remain the responsibility of the author, 
although we (that is any particular working group, depending in whether 
or not it's web, print, radio, etc) do have a variety of policies, each 
specific to the media in question and shaped to embody the Indymedia 
Principles of Unity, modified of course by our own precedents and 
decision making process in the case of each working group.

That is why when you see endorsements from the IMC, they are typically 
phrased as the "UC IMC Steering Group". Talk about getting irritated 
about other people's editing, it's always a bit irritating when those 
pressed fro space on a flyer sometimes omit the whole pharse and put us 
down as just "UC IMC". But in between our GMMs, this is the only way 
that we feel comforatble handling things like event endorsements, etc, 
since we don't want to speak from anyone not present when the decision 
was made. And as a 501c3, you'll never see us, as an 501c3 organization 
that is, do anything to violate the political restrictions that come 
with that status. Of course, we provide media to the progressive 
community, but the authors retain ownership. Thus people can use UC IMC 
to discuss politics, just as many publications that are projects of 
non-profit organizations do on all sides of the political spectrum. The 
editorial process thus needs to remain separate from the foundation 
process, which is there to support this media as part of its mission and 
charter.

Since the UC IMC membership meets as a committee of the whole, so to 
speak, only twice a year, we tend to be very cautious about speaking for 
the IMC as a whole. Working groups speak, and make editorial decisions, 
primarily for themselves.

Of course, anyone can bring a concern about editing, like anything else, 
to the Steering group. The Steering group has only very rarely (other 
than dealing with the abusive and troll stuff that we usually dispose of 
expeditiously these days, before most of that was delegated to IMC-web) 
gotten itself involved in editorial decisions. Usually, unless everyone 
involved happened to be present, referred those things back to the 
working group involved to attempt a resolution. Typically, there has to 
be some breakdown in that process for things to move back to Steering.

So, in short, The Public i is a publication under the editorial control 
of the UC IMC Print group. M

My description may not be seen by other UC IMCistas exactly as I've 
described it, either.

Heck, on a different day, I'd describe it differently, but that is a 
rough outline of the conceptual framework we operate under..

Ah, the joys and perils of anarchism and Indymedia as an organizing model!
Mike Lehman

C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> Isn't the IMC responsible for the Public I?
>
>
> Lyman Tieman wrote:
>> While I appreciate the work both of you do, and the contributions you've
>> both made to the IMC and community at large, is there any way you could
>> discuss this in some sort of private forum? I'm tired of being 
>> spammed with
>> tons of email about this matter that neither interests nor affects me 
>> in any
>> way.
>>
>> Lyman (Bob) Tieman
>> Keystaff for UC Books 2 Prisoners (http://www.books2prisoners.org/)
>> Office of the Dean of Students Computing Assistant
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: imc-bounces at lists.ucimc.org 
>> [mailto:imc-bounces at lists.ucimc.org] On
>> Behalf Of C. G. Estabrook
>> Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2007 12:10 AM
>> To: illyes at uiuc.edu
>> Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; imc at lists.ucimc.org
>> Subject: Re: [Imc] Intentions
>>
>> I gave permission for a piece to be published with clear conditions.  
>> It was suggested to me that the Public i was not following those 
>> conditions, so I wrote to insist that "the public i does not have 
>> permission to publish the piece with changes or excisions that I have 
>> not approved.  I take this matter seriously and will sue for damages 
>> an editor who violates the clear conditions under which I submitted 
>> the piece."
>>
>> You say that you did not know about the condition, but it was 
>> contained in the very passage you took offense to.  Nor did you say 
>> you were complying with it.
>>
>>
>> illyes at uiuc.edu wrote:
>>> Carl, I've gone over this already. But for the larger audience that
>>> you are pulling in:
>>>
>>> 1) I was not told about your condition.
>>>
>>> 2) It didn't matter, because I would assume it were the case anyhow,
>>> and not changed your text without your permission.
>>>
>>> However, the Public i does not guarantee that what we publish will be
>>> exactly what you submitted, only that we will do our best to respect
>>> your wishes. As I have said already, if we find an error in what you
>>> write at the last minute before printing, we will correct it without
>>> checking with you. These correction are usually of spelling errors.
>>> If this is not acceptable to you, you should not submit your articles
>>> to the Public i.
>>>
>>> Your threat to sue me personally for something I have not done nor
>>> even contemplated doing is extremely offensive. It is to me. It would
>>> be to anyone.
>>>
>>> Bob _______________________________________________ IMC mailing list 
>>> IMC at lists.ucimc.org http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc
>> _______________________________________________
>> IMC mailing list
>> IMC at lists.ucimc.org
>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
> _______________________________________________
> IMC mailing list
> IMC at lists.ucimc.org
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc
>