|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
on the money |
Current rating: 0 |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
01 Sep 2006
Modified: 11:09:58 AM |
|
|
This thread is for comments on the UCIMC purity-of-essence issue. I've unhidden some from another thread and put them here.
I'll start with my comment: what the IMC does for our community, it does mostly through a great deal of community volunteer effort. Which is great. And everybody knows it. Except that there are some important things, time consuming and effort consuming but central to the long-term longevity of UCIMC, that people don't volunteer for. As a collective, UCIMC has decided to make positions like this part-time jobs.
To some people, this makes us no better than Microsoft or Exxon. I'd suggest that's a very unfortunate attitude. Money does not equal corporate values. Nor does expecting things to magically happen by themselves make a good long-term plan.
Some IMCistas apparently view this as somehow an insult to their own volunteer efforts. Well, I'm a volunteer, on this site on a daily basis tossing out spam, and I don't take it as an insult. I take it as a smart move for the future of UCIMC. Good solid local collectives are what make the IMC network work.
Having said that, let me reiterate what ML has said: "Anyone wanting to take part in a discussion about this has the option of doing so in a manner that would contribute to give-and-take by emailing the appropriate email list."
@%< |
Related stories on this site:
IMC Now Hiring
| 
This work is in the public domain |
Comments
|
Re: IMC Now Hiring |
by why I Don't Like UC-IMC
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
30 Aug 2006
|
please do not hide this comment.
I do not like UC-IMC becuase the UC-IMC is a total rip-off. Thousands of IMCistas volunteer their time and blood, yet UC-IMC wants to profit off the ((i)) NETWORK.
you are not the global headquarters. |
|
Please do not submit Indymedia into burocracy |
by Ruche - Argentina IMC
ruche (nospam) riseup.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
31 Aug 2006
|
|
I think you are distorting the spirit of the Indymedia network. Evidently, Urbana Champaign IMC is more similar to a company than to an organization of revolutionary press. You must know that these things cause much displeased in those who day to day robe time to the work, the studies and the affection to face the MILITANT task of the popular press. |
|
Re: IMC Now Hiring |
by stizzy - portland imc
phaseinduction (nospam) gmail.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
31 Aug 2006
|
|
Establishing paid positions whose purposes revolve around centralizing other people's wealth kind of goes against the spirit of indymedia in general, in my opinion. There are IMCs all over the globe, many in countries much more poverty-striken than the US, who manage to make do without the benefit of grant writers and fundraising coordinators. The idea that these positions are essential in order to provide a community media resource to me is an insult to the concept of community just as the idea of a "membership coordinator" to me is an insult to individual autonomy. Peace. |
|
Re: IMC Now Hiring |
by Cat skywalker
cat (nospam) riseup.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
31 Aug 2006
|
I am appalled and dismayed that you would be betraying the indymedia cause in this shortsighted and offensive manner. No imcistas outside of UC have ever demanded to be payed for the very important work that we all do. It undermines the efforts that we are all making to transcend the flawed corporate model. It also privileges the work of some imcistas (those who get paid) over the vast majority of others (those who do not).
Thus far, it appears that all negative comments objecting to this farce have been hidden. This, too, dismays me. |
Related stories on this site:
on the money
|
|
Re: IMC Now Hiring |
by Meta-Problem?
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
01 Sep 2006
|
Sorry, but I'm going to put my two cents into this, even though you will apparently hide the comment.
I personally have no issue with hiring paid part-time staff. What does really disturb me is that ucimc is hiding all these comments under the justification that this is "not an appropriate forum" to discuss "internal issues."
Well, if that's the case, then the front page was not the appropriate forum to post job openings. As it is, you're coming across as arrogant. Your message: we will use the forum any way we choose, but readers who object to that will be banished to the hidden files.
Did you not learn anything from the fiasco of the post office purchase, where the real issue was not that you bought the building but that you presented your actions in a way that offended other people.?
In the meantime, I will -- and suspect many others will as well -- be spending a lot of time in the hidden articles zone of purgatory in order to keep track of this issue.
World-wide indy is watching, brothers and sisters of uc -- please PLEASE respond with respect and without defensiveness. |
|
To Further Elaborate... in An Appropriate Place |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
01 Sep 2006
|
IMCs do not conduct discussions on policy or make decisions based on what appears on the Newswire. They do so either through face-to-face meetings or via email.
It is telling that out of 12 comments, all of them intensively negative, many of which include putative email addresses, no one has yet actually felt strongly enough to send us an email to take part in a substantive discussion of any issues they find to be problematic.
The first comments made to the thread that were hidden (and won't be coming back, because that person is banned here) were obviously by one of our handful of persistent trolls. He calculated exactly what the reaction to his off-topic and rather gratuitous, posting would be, due to his own past adventures in abuse here. He even took a screen shot of his comment, to use in his clumsy attempt to stir up some tempest in the teapot, knowing it was going straight to File 13 here. Like several of his other adventures in creating false memes by exploiting a known weakness in open publishing, he intended to again try to create the appearance of great concern about this, even when it's clear that this is basically a big ho-hum on the part of anyone who actually wants to be actively involved in Indymedia.
I am not saying that all the comments were from trolls, even though they were all off-topic, but no one so far seems to feel strongly enough about it to actually engage in process. Instead, it's all about public spectacle and largely anonymous sniping. Since the concern is apparently so shallow and too-weakly felt for them to actually communicate with our collective in a meaningful way, I doubt that we'll give such comments much consideration. Our members can decide for themselves how much significance to give to a bunch more such comments here -- and nothing else to show for it.
BTW, as one who has both contributed hundreds of hours and considerable personal resources to some of the work that we are solicting paid assistance for and who has actively done everything I could over the last six years to make things easier for volunteers to participate in essential tasks in our spaces, I find such ignorant comments based on the posters' rather obvious lack of knowledge of our IMC to be rather troubling. And just a bit personally insulting. WTF have ANY of them done for our IMC or _any_ IMC lately, other than posting a cheap shot off-topic post at us in an inappropriate place on our Newswire? For them, it's all "condemn first and figure our what you've just damned later."
We have hundreds of members, dozens of active volunteers, and a space that is used monthly by thousands of people to make media and art. In addition to this website, we put out thousands of copies of a monthly paper, broadcast 24/7, and send books to prisoners across the state, among other things. The vast majority of this work is done by volunteers. Those who get paid are almost always someone who is otherwise continuing to volunteer time to our IMC. But there are a few essential tasks that we can't get done consistently without paying people to pay attention to them. In addition, ths is a debate that we had years ago and come to consensus on. It's very old news, if you think any of this just came up.
When we have essential work that we can't get volunteers to do consistently, we do make arrangements to contract for someone who is willing to take responsibility for doing it. As I've noted in advising those who actually may have truly heart-felt concerns about this -- unless you actually feel strongly enough to restart a real discussion at our IMC about this to communicate with us in person or via email -- it is just not of enough significance for us to have a discussion about.
As for arguments about what IMCs are "supposed to do" -- and we're supposedly somehow not -- one of the most important Indymedia principles is respect for autonomy in decisionmaking. I see little of that in most of the postings so far. In fact, there is a definite undertow of dictat to most of them. Centralism? No thanks, we'd prefer not. I think that is a consensus, both at our IMC and across the network, that you have no hope of overturning.
In the meantime, if you really have to just take a dump and run because we're "selling out", then you've been advised to... |
|
Re: on the money |
by Lucero
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
01 Sep 2006
|
|
Someone whose post was hidden for "trollery" commented that UCIMC was in violation of the IMC Principles of Unity, item 5, which states: "The IMC Network and all local IMC collectives shall be not-for-profit." To set the record straight, UCIMC is definitely not-for-profit. Many not-for-profit organizations have paid staff. There is no inconsistency. |
|
Not a collective decision at UCIMC |
by illyes
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
01 Sep 2006
|
|
It is not true, Gehrig, that "as a collective the UCIMC has decided" as you say. Although I'm a spoke who regularly attends UCIMC Steering and all membership meetings, the advertisement was the first I had head of a "decision" to pay membership and fundraising coordinators. This is a matter for Steering and membership to decide. I will be placing it on the agenda at next week's meeting. |
|
Clarification |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
01 Sep 2006
|
Bob,
I think we're all suffering from a certain imprecision in language here. Actually, there was "a collective decision at UCIMC'" -- that of Finance to revise its processes to ensure that all the things that have been falling too heavily on the shoulders of a few. Gehrig probably should have written "as the Finance collective at UCIMC has decided".
I think that all this was covered in the minutes of the last Finance meeting. I think you actually raised a concern about this on the list in response to it, in fact, but I've simply not had time for the lengthy response that would require nor has anyone else. These valid concerns and misunderstandings are probably due to a certain lack of precision in how the job was titled and described. The membership Coordinator is actually about dealing with the Finance-related aspects of membership. There's still plenty for others to do on membership, no doubt about that, but at the Finance end of things we need to make sure that this info is available in more timely fashion than has been happening.
The Fundraising Coordinator is a little more complicated. Beth was serving as our representative to Illinois Shares, but no longer has the time to do it. We have been unsuccessful in attracting anyone willing to make the time commitment required to ensure that the IMC will qualify for its share of this important funding source. At the same time, it seems like such a person could also be someone who could take over the expertise that Sascha was formerly able to give on grant writing and research. In fact, the part of the position as a grant writer was authorized several years ago during the original Capital Campaign, but was never filled.
All of this is related to maintenance of critical Finance operations. We would be remiss in our fiduciary obligations to continue to let so many essential things slide, as our expanded operations since our move to the new building have put extreme stress on being able to take care of everything required in timely fashion through purely volunteer efforts.
I am absolutely certain that those few of us who have been struggling to maintain -- and hopefully improve the timeliness -- of the financial side of UC IMC over the last year would be THRILLED if we suddenly had people step forward who could commit with certainty to take care of these things. But it just hasn't happened. We asked again and again and it's the same half-dozen people who show up for Finance meetings and, more imporatntly, take responsibility for essential tasks. Those of us who do attend are also over-committed to other aspects of the IMC.
I'm sure we can answer any questions you may have at the next Steering meeting. Just from what I have (really not;>) had the time to write here, it's obviously too complex to cover everyone's concerns in email. And if anyone wants any of these tasks, and then is willing to donate the pay back to the IMC, we'd certainly be happy to see that. One of the ironic things is that these tasks, many of which have nominally been paid positions in some form almost since the beginning of UC IMC, have attracted people, like Sascha, who have done exactly that and ended up costing us nothing.
In fact, that in my book would be the appropriate response from anyone who has a philisophical objection to any of this -- make it _unnecessary_. But we can no longer afford to wait for that anymore. There are bills to be paid, sponsored organizations to be provided services, people who need to be assured that they get immediate credit for paying their membership, helping IMC members who need timely reimbursement for buying things we need now, but don't have a credit card available for, and making certain that funds we have earned but have to attend a certain number of meetings to collect from Shares are not lost.
One way or the other, Finance is going to make sure that these things are taken care of. We welcome your creative and pragmatic participation, whether it is applying or comitting to volunteering to make certain it is unnecessary. |
|
Re: IMC Now Hiring |
by revolted
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
01 Sep 2006
|
Do you realize that your decision to pay IMC people, so "long ago taken up," is not supported by any other IMC? This is not really indymedia, and you are deaf to the complaints of those of us who have tried to tell you so. I believe that you should be disaffiliated, because you so offensively ignore the pleas of indy journalists all over the world to reconsider what you are doing. Not only that, but you silence objections by hiding any posts to this unforgiveably disrespectful "feature."
Apparently, there has not been a single comment in favor of what you are doing, since you have eleced to hide each and every comment within minutes after it appears. Doesn't that tell you anything?
This is a decision that will come back to haunt you. I thought the "membership dues" was outrageous enough, but this is the last straw. You have really gone too far this time. May anyone who might have been considering your "generous offer" read this and realize that you are being disengenuous. You are no IMC. |
|
Re: on the money |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
01 Sep 2006
|
ML: "Gehrig probably should have written "as the Finance collective at UCIMC has decided". "
That's correct.
@%< |
|
Re: on the money |
by Meta problem redux
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
01 Sep 2006
|
Thanks to DG for providing a forum on this, even though it is not the "appropriate" place. (I really think that's a canard, by the way).
Again, I have no problem with the idea of paid staff. ML has, in my view, that part of it just right. My complaint was about attitude, arrogance, and -- excuse me for being harsh -- self-righteousness. |
|
Great idea.... |
by CatWoman
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
01 Sep 2006
|
Hey, yeah! Why haven't other IMCs thought of this! Yeah, start paying people to create media. And pay other people to make money for IMCs. And, and court grants, and maybe solicit money from corporate sponsors. Yeah! That would sure help pay the bills while we go off and do our "activism," wouldn't it?
Wow, we could even start placing banner ads and pop ups across the screen, so that we could support this "revolutionary" media. Yeah.
I mean, of course then we would have to turn a blind eye to the immoral and corrupt manner in which certain businesses treat the planet and those living on it, because we would not want to offend them or anything. And we would have to make certain compromises in the manner in which we present information, to avoid pissing off our sponsors or alienating those whose purse strings we are courting. Yes, and then of course we would need to start privileging some peoples' work over others and building a hierarchy, because we can't pay everyone who contributes, and we can't pay everyone equally. Oh, and then we might have a lot of people coming in after the paycheck rather than doing this because it's work they believe in. (Cough.)
And then, of course, we would be faced with a lot of sticky questions from our non-paid contributors about why they should continue to contribute when some of us are getting paid for doing the work we expect them to do for free.
Oh, and we would probably have a lot of other activists, real ones, wondering aloud whether we are still media activists, or merely parasites feeding ourselves off their work. Well, but that's all right, because we could just hide anything they say and keep them silenced from our site.
Yeah, sounds like a great idea to me. We could really get down to brass tacks, and be the media, the real, revolutionary media we have always dreamed of being, now that it's so easy. Now that we finally have all the financial resources we ever dreamed of, now that we can pay the rent off our activism, now that we can finally start affording to buy great new gear and expanding and reaching larger and larger...markets.
Yeah, real, revolutionary media indeed.
Wait. Um, I think it's been tried before. It's called the Corporate Media. And you have become them. You are no longer Us. |
|
Re: on the money |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
01 Sep 2006
|
Revolted: "Do you realize that your decision to pay IMC people, so "long ago taken up," is not supported by any other IMC?"
The Principles of Unity say that IMCs should be non-profit organizations. We are. If you're claiming that the Principles of Unity mean nobody should ever be paid for doing anything related to an IMC, you're finding something in it that isn't there. Intentionally not there.
We've been through this enough to know that sometimes -- to paraphrase Winston Churchill -- an Indymedia misapprehension can fly halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on.
So let's be clear:
Nobody is being paid to do journalism. Nobody is being paid to maintain this site. Nobody is being paid to run the radio station. Nobody is being paid to coordinate the shows venue. Nobody is being paid to produce the newspaper.
And if my tone strikes you as arrogant, maybe you finally take the hint and try some form of communication besides anonymous flaming. You'll find it works out much better for everyone.
CatWoman: "Hey, yeah! Why haven't other IMCs thought of this! Yeah, start paying people to create media."
One more time: nobody is being paid to do journalism. Nobody is being paid to maintain this site. Nobody is being paid to run the radio station. Nobody is being paid to coordinate the shows venue. Nobody is being paid to produce the newspaper.
Nobody is being paid to make media. Period.
If you want to attack us, at least have to courtesy to attack us for something we're actually doing, not just what you imagine we're doing or your crystal ball says we're going to start doing next Tuesday.
@%< |
|
Principles of Unity, Item 5 |
by "troll"
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
01 Sep 2006
|
|
As the person whose "troll" comment was hidden for referring to the principles of unity, allow me to clarify for you that "not for profit" does not mean "non-profit." It is my belief that any IMC which attempts to function as a 501(c)3 non-profit is already in violation of item 5, since it was drafted very explicitly to make that distinction clear. A non-profit jumps through hoops and plays by rules that a not-for-profit, real, revolutionary media would not countenance. |
|
Re: on the money |
by Technically speaking...
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
01 Sep 2006
|
|
The description for IMC Fundraising Coordinator includes "Organizes fundraising events and initatives." Since the shows venue generates income for UCIMC, this job description could include coordinating/soliciting shows, couldn't it? |
|
Re: on the money |
by me
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
01 Sep 2006
|
"Nobody is being paid to make media."
Then why is UC "hiring"? Because that's what indymedia is ABOUT: Making media. It is not about making money.
And why did UC do this in the name of all IMCs instead of just in the name of UC-IMC? |
|
Re: on the money |
by portland imc person
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
01 Sep 2006
|
I'm finding it hard to see exactly what some people are getting worked up about so far, given that the paid positions so far seem like they are mainly dealing with finances, not journalism, or editorial work, etc.
The one thing I'd appreciate someone from UCIMC clarifying, because it does bother me, is what exactly does "membership dues" go towards?? What does "being a member" do for someone? And does it raise a financial bar for someone who doesn't have money against their full participation in UCIMC? That is something I'm finding troubling, but I don't really know enough about it. |
|
Definitely No Monopoly on Self-Righteousness |
by regular reader
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
01 Sep 2006
|
It's pretty sad, given what else is posted here, that someone is going to accuse one of the editors of self-righteousness. Look at the dissing, negative comments. If ML took a mildly self-righteous tone, I can see that it was plainly under intense provocation.
And he was just asking that posters follow the rules. As a longtime member, I can tell you that the website's policies are rather loosely enforced. So it is a major act of hubris with all the trolling obviously going on -- in between the few crumbs of what might be bits of legitimate concern, if it wasn't so obviously based on ignorance of our collective and disregard for our autonomy -- to accuse ML of self-righteousness.
BTW, I'm a subscriber to the imc list that those who want to discuss or affect our decisions should post to, the one ML referred to. So far, those interested in engaging in an honest, rea discussion are nowhere in sight. There hasn't been an email from any of them. So I tend to agree nobody really cares about this issue other than beating a deadhorse and then accusing us of doing it. What's the point of dissing on UC IMC? Is it because we actually spend our time on doing effective work in our community, instead of wasting time in self-congratulatory pseudo-revoluntionary posturing? It sure looks like it to me. |
|
Re: on the money |
by deva
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
01 Sep 2006
|
A link was posted where Sheri responded to my post (although I made no mention of 'not-for-profit) Here is what I say to that:
I always thought that the 'not for profit' was a statement of principle and not some legal mumbo jumbo. Pretty much all the people I've met in imc have thought it was the same way I did. That indymedia was a volunteer effort.
I was deeply disappointed to learn that this so called principle was nothing but a legal US classification. Better not be there because it means nothing. Well, it is a repressive tool to both give tax breaks to the wealthy and to control political discourse, but it means nothing positive. There are executives at 'non-profits' that take huge salaries.
But I understand that this is what was agreed, though if I had been there where this decision was made I would have fought with every effort to oppose such a dirty thing as a government legal classification to come into a set of principles. Better to say nothing than that.
The 5th so called Principle of Unity:
"5. The IMC Network and all local IMC collectives shall be not-for-profit."
The principles would be more principled if this were just removed, or at least could be honest and say most people want to see indymedia be all volunteer but a few people want to get paid so we put in this political doublespeak which still lets people profit.
If you did a vote, 90% of indymedia activists worldwide would vote to have the network all volunteer and I'd guess like 60% think it is so. But because of this notion of consensus and some decision taken long ago and not understood by most people, now there is no chance to have a change.
Of course you can do what you want there, but you should know that many many people do not respect it and feel that it betrays the revolutionary and militant spirit of indymedia. |
|
FYI |
by fyi
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
01 Sep 2006
|
Although people are asked to contribute to supporting UC IMC's resources financially, we waive the need for any contribution from those who say they can't afford it and want to be a member. That's all there is to it. You just ask. No need for a tax return or any other documentation. This is the way it's always been here.
If anyone finds the credit card that allows any IMC to just forget about needing to pay for anything to produce media, let us know. The damn capitalists don't seem to have heard yet that they are supposed to give us everything for free. Maybe after the Revolution? That makes sense to me. |
|
Re: on the money |
by deva
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
01 Sep 2006
|
Let us compare these UC-IMC jobs with Narco News (narconews.com)
UC is paying a treasurer, a book-keeper, a fundraiser, a membership coordinator
Narco news pays on the street journalists to eat and have a cell phone, equipment, and money for transportation so they can get to and away from volatile situations. These reporters are in the middle of reporting on revolutionary events in Mexico and need this sort of support to do good work and to protect themselves.
Narco News is not an IMC but it sounds a lot more like the spirit of indymedia than having a bunch of paid jobs that have nothing to do with media or reporting |
|
Re: on the money |
by Brandon
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
01 Sep 2006
|
This is sad. Professionals in the fields of employment for which these "want ads" were placed tend to be very busy individuals who do not have the time or energy after an 8 to 5 job to volunteer for what appears to be an almost full time job.
It is very wise to pay people in positions of book keepers and treasures. These are very crucial postions when it comes close to tax time where 501(c)3's are under close scrutiny.
Sure, maybe one person can fit the bill for most of the postions, but would it not be best for the organization to have professionals on hand when dealing with the government?? Either through the tax's or the writing of grant proposals, UCIMC needs people that are highly skilled in these areas. And that skill does not come for free in most cases.
In almost everyway, UCIMC is one of the better IMC's in the world. Although I don't always agree with what happens on the site and on the station, these folks are doing more for the community than most. How many other IMC's own their own building? How many other IMC's provide not only the website, but also radio and print? How many other IMC's have grown by such leaps and bounds in such a short amount of time?
UCIMC should be an example of how to do Indymedia correctly instead of being torn down by those that differ on how it should be done.
Brandon |
|
This Also May Be Useful |
by fyi
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
01 Sep 2006
|
After the last cycle of mostly trolling attacks on UC IMC last year -- and few genuine, but somehwat misinformed concerns that were raised about what UC IMC being a non-profit means -- a number of our members spent hours of work on putting a vast amount of information on this together. You can read it at:
http://www.ucimc.org/mod/info/display/ucimc_fiscal_policy/index.php
That said, nowhere in the IMC principles of unity is the meaning of non-profit defined. It means different things, in different places, and has a very specific legal meaning in the US, but also includes its more generic meaning here, too. That is all.
Given that becoming a non-profit was a decision UC IMC made at its very beginning and that UC IMC was one of the very early couple of dozen IMCs, it's easy to see much of the cvommentary here as more of an attack on our autonomy than it is a legitimate concern, if it wasn't for the fact that so many people seem to be both ignorant and determined to find something evil that just doesn't apply. Hopefully, this will clarify things. |
|
Indymedia Doesn't Vote |
by imcista
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
01 Sep 2006
|
Deva,
I don't know how long you've been an imcista, but we don't vote. We operate by consensus. You might look that up. It would be far more productive than slagging on people for something you're very obviously ignorant about. |
|
ya know |
by fwiw
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
01 Sep 2006
|
No matter what kind of media it is, you really do need to read past a headline to have enough comprehension to understand what the article is about. And then sometimes the stories aren't clearly written, either. For a bunch of people who style themselevs as media activists, it's clear a few of us need to work on that.
It sounds to me like this would help the conversation along here. I read the article and I'll admit it could have been a bit clearer, esepcially if you don't read English well or didn't bother to read the job descriptions, but it is clear that it was only stuff in Urbana, nothing about a "global headquarters" and nothing at all about UC IMC trying to achieve world domination or global hegemony either.
Sheesh.
Back into my usual "Ignore Trolls" mode. |
|
Re: on the money |
by portland imc person
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
01 Sep 2006
|
A lot of the debate around "paid-or-not-paid" in this particular case probably also centers around whether one thinks an IMC "should" ever undertake ongoing financial commitments, such as major capital expenses -- like ownership of a physical space, or fiscal sponsorship of other organizations.
It seems like UCIMC has decided to undertake enough different projects that involve longterm financial commitments that they find it essential to pay someone to take roles as point-people for some of them, in cases where there is no one ready to volunteer to do an adequate job of them for free.
I can see a reasonable case for refraining from undertaking such commitments, and refraining from ever creating any paid positions, on the grounds that money as an incentive for work creates all kinds of complications and potential for corruption. And also on the grounds that an informal group of people doing media work could remain more flexible and enjoy some legal and tactical advantages in some ways by avoiding lots of organizational formalities.
I can also see the possibility of an autonomous collective believing that, in their community, they can do good work by creating longterm institutions that require some capital outlays, such as physical spaces. Hopefully they would also make an earnest effort to avoid the pitfalls that creating monetary incentives for any kind of work can always entail, by being transparent and thoughtful about it.
Personally, I'm in no position to judge UCIMC's success in these regards. I hope that their work creating physical spaces and helping with the organizing of such things as a licensed community radio station is successful and remains committed to Indymedia principles. If so, far be it from me to condemn them if they find it necessary to have some paid organizational roles. |
|
Re: on the money |
by deva
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
01 Sep 2006
|
"Deva,
I don't know how long you've been an imcista, but we don't vote. We operate by consensus. You might look that up. It would be far more productive than slagging on people for something you're very obviously ignorant about."
Consensus is voting, it is 100% vote or 100% minus 1 or some such. But I think anyway you were just looking for some semantics to nitpick.
cheers |
|
Re: on the money |
by portland imc person
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
01 Sep 2006
|
To the other portland imcista:
You've probably spent a lot more time in Urbana Champaign than I have. I for one am in no position to judge whether the building that the IMC folks there have acquired is "necessary" or not. But it wouldn't surprise me if I were to learn that in a modest-sized town like Urbana Champaign there were far fewer public spaces of any kind, and far fewer appropriate for people to gather and create independent art, or media, or other cultural or political work than in a sizeable city like Portland.
Once again, I could be wrong. I'm really only speculating here, and I just don't feel I know enough to make a judgment about the folks in UCIMC.
Also, there is a difference in the kind of timeliness and regularity required of someone who is doing something like bookkeeping, or filing tax paperwork, vs. someone producing something like a work of independent videography. In the latter case, one could easily put off a project if they had to attend to their paid work commitments, in order to feed and clothe their families, and then just pick up the work a little later, with no harm and no foul done to the quality of the resulting work.
However, the same flexibility might not apply to work required for successfully carrying out the responsibilities of a bookkeeper, for example. |
|
weasel words |
by orgone accelerator
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
01 Sep 2006
|
|
"Now I'm certainly not saying that you're an unprincipled jerk, and yet, lots of other people ARE... And you've been totally dismissive of their concerns! How very disrespectful." |
|
Re: on the money |
by I got it
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
01 Sep 2006
|
It seems that the simplest solution would be for whoever's complaining volunteer to do UC/IMC's books and be treasurer. Then UC/IMC collective wouldn't have to hand that demon dollar to anyone, everyone goes home happy.
Question: where does it say that any IMCista can veto any policy of any other IMC collective, just by screaming YAAAA real loud? Anonymously? I must have missed that. Autonomy anyone? |
|
Re: on the money |
by weird
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
02 Sep 2006
|
Obviously, more posts are being hidden here than published, as there are numerous responses to comments that appear already to be gone.
It also seems that someone is either being genuinely dishonest, or else perhaps there is a problem with UC's email. Because I, too, attempted to contact them personally this morning, when this first came to my attention. I see, however, that nothing is being resolved. Instead, UC is digging in its heels and insisting that it is doing nothing wrong by selling out IMC journalists all over the world. Hmmm. Well, you can call yourselves IMC, but that doesn't make it so. |
|
Shhhhh |
by pdx
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
02 Sep 2006
|
Oops. It appears that my comment was accidentally deleted from discourse. I'm certain that this must simply have been an accidental oversight. Here it is again.
by another portland imcista
(No verified email address) Current rating: 0
01 Sep 2006
There is a lot of talk going on here about whether the concerns people are having about
this are "legitimate," or merely ignorant troll posts. I find that almost as disturbing
as the idea of paying people for IMC work.
Of course these are legitimate concerns. And, for the record, I did contact UC IMC
directly with my concerns, despite the fact that several people from UC are implying that
no one bothered to do that. I also know of at least one other person who contacted UC
personally, to register their dismay with this development.
Brandon stated that the kind of people being sought for these positions "tend to be very
busy individuals who do not have the time or energy after an 8 to 5 job to volunteer for
what appears to be an almost full time job." Indeed. We are all very busy people, who put
a great deal of time and labor into the things we must do to survive, and the things that
we believe in. But we must not confuse the things we have to do for money with the things
that we do because we believe in them, are called to them. To confuse the two brings
forth all kinds of corruptions.
I am not trying to condemn people who have worked with UC-IMC. I am only trying to point
out that many in the world see this sort of thing as a betrayal of the very spirit and
soul of Indymedia. I am saddened that the people of UC seem deaf to their cries. Indeed,
their protestations have been called "inappropriate" and "illegitimate." How very
disrespectful.
There are many ways in which to make a living doing journalism. Many venues to sell your
services. Indymedia is simply not one of them. There is a loud outpouring of thought here
that is telling you that you have simply gone too far. And, by the way, that same
outpouring IS, in fact, going on all over IMC lists. I know that, because I have been
following them. Have you, UC? A lot of IMCistas are very upset about this, and are
telling you so on every available forum. Can you really continue to ignore that?
Buying a huge building and incurring unnecessary financial obligations showed a lack of
respect for the true spirit of indy journalism, and a lack of imagination. Going 501(c)3
felt like a sell out. Requiring membership dues was appallingly out of step with the
spirit of indymedia. Advertising for paid positions on your newswire, and then arrogantly
claiming that any discourse on the matter would be considered "off topic" and
"inappropriate" was just the last in a long line of horrifyingly disrespectful mis-steps
taken by UC. It certainly did not help that, as UC did these things, it attempted to do
so as a representative of all IMCs. "Hey, nothing awry here. This is just how 'we' do
things. Gotta problem? I guess you just weren't on the right list or something. Because
this has all been decided already, without your 2c." That is what you seem to be telling
the rest of the indy world. It just feels dirty. Doesn't it to you? |
|
Re: on the money |
by deva
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
02 Sep 2006
|
|
UC IMC may be the only IMC that also has a President of the IMC |
|
OK, Now You're Back -- and Still Bogus |
by kicking out the trolls
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
02 Sep 2006
|
Whatever.
There are still no posts to imc (at) ucimc.org
Period.
Go ahead. Our readers can look for themselves:
http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/imc/
We'll all see if something sort of pops up conveniently after the fact.
Nada.
Not one.
Try again to be convincing. You're really striking out here. |
|
Re: on the moneyis that a threat? |
by to troll kicker
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
02 Sep 2006
|
Wow, listen to yourself.
"By kicking out the trolls" says, "trolls are know to die sudden deaths." WTF? Is that really what it looks like? A threat because you do not like what someone has said?
Incredibly, Troll kicker also states, "I think the stark silence at the proper place to have a discussion about how UC IMC conducts its affairs speaks volumes in comparison to the over-wrought but apparently insincere prose peppering our Newswire comments here."
Stark silence??? There must be like, a million posts here, in the APPROPRIATE PLACE, which you have mostly hidden. I think people are speaking VOLUMES to you. In addition, there are comments flying all over IMC lists from continent to continent, and again, people are very clear that this is NOT indymedia.
Yet you dismiss them all? You pontificate about how people are not using the "proper channels," not playing by rules that you keep changing, not following your ridiculously self serving little requirements. But you are clearly only using legaleze to support an insupportable argument -- that what you are doing here is indymedia, even in the face of thousands of people who are doing this work every single day, who are trying to tell you otherwise.
The nerve. |
|
Re: on the money |
by deva
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
02 Sep 2006
|
Oh, and to the snarky comment about how we don't vote and that we do things by consensus. I just looked at the UC-IMC bylaws and it is indeed a vote as quoted:
"The bylaws may be amended by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the membership present at the annual meeting. " |
|
EMAIL |
by Cat
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
02 Sep 2006
|
I, too, sent an email to the "proper channels" this morning. Apparently, you have misplaced it. I'm not sure why it is so important to you that you receive a message there, rather than the many, many messages which you are plainly receiving here. But, as it seems to be so important to you, Here is a copy:
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 10:12:19 -0700
From: [deleted for privacy]
Reply-To:[deleted for privacy]
Subject: money for nothing
To: IMC (at) UCimc.org
I am dismayed to see the developments around UC's insistence upon
allowing the capitalist, corporate-media model to creep into
indymedia, built upon precidents that you, yourselves, have created. I
am especially dismayed by the fact that you chose to do this in the
name of all IMCs, rather than in your own name. Take ownership of this
yourselves, do not try to pretend that any of the rest of us are
behind you. Why did you state, in your presumptuous feature, that "IMC
now hiring," rather than "UC imc is hiring," or even better in my
opinion, "UC is hiring, even though IMCistas have agreed, in their
principles of unity, that all indymedias are NOT FOR PROFIT."
And why, may I ask, have you been busily hiding any and all critical
responses to this decision? Are you afraid that your critics are right
and you are wrong? If you are not, then you are deluding yourselves.
My friends, as I'm sure you are aware, there are many, many
revolutionary IMCistas all over the world who find UC's insistence on
relying on the capitalist model to be abhorrent. I think it is really
over the top for you to go ahead and label your want-ad "IMC now
hiring" anyway, even though you know this. This is a very
controversial issue, and people have been trying very hard to show you
some respect for the work that you do, while still trying to show you
why this is so counter to the indymedia model. But you have
consistently disrespected all the rest of us, bulldozing through with
your blunt-object capitalism, and doing it in the name of the rest of
us. I reject that, and I think it's time to say so publically. Please,
reconsider your ill-considered want-ads, and your myopic view that you
can pay "volunteers" and still call yourselves an indymedia.
Cat
----
By the way, perhaps the reason that it does not show up on your archive is that the last archived mssgs are from AUGUST. This is september.... |
|
Re: on the money |
by deva
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
02 Sep 2006
|
Some new things I discovered by reading the UC-IMC bylaws page.
The official name is
Urbana-Champaign Independent Media Center Foundation
The governing body consists of elected officers including a President who are elected by a simple majority vote.
The bylaws may be amended by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the membership present at the annual meeting.
Nowhere in the UC-IMC bylaws is the word consensus used |
|
Lots of Snarky Comments -- Zero Emails |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
02 Sep 2006
|
I am not going to accuse those who claim to have sent emails of being liars. But one has to wonder that ALL the emails they say they sent simply disappeared in cyberspace before making it to our server. As someone mentioned, the server was overloaded yesterday with first of the month messages from the hundreds of community email lists the UC IMC server hosts. I sent several emails to other UC IMC lists yesterday and after the backlog cleared, they all were delivered by early last evening when the backlog cleared.
Thus, if you really did send a message to us expressing your concerns, you should try again. We didn't get it.
A few loose ends now. Deva seems concerned about the bylaws. The bylaws are of little importance, since they govern the foundation, and not the membeship. In fact, the language she dug up is some of the language we know we need to revise, if possible.
The bylaws are required as part of our non-porfit status. I'm uncertain, but the language on voting may have been required as part of the non-profit incorporation. Having a president, a secretary, and a treasurer are required of any coporation. WE generaly tend to igore those titles also, unless needed for legal paperwork, which they sometimes are. Updating the language of the bylaws is a back-burner project, since they really have no effect on our day-to-day operations.
In reality, the foundation and its board of directors are subordinate to the membership under the UC IMC structure. This is the other way around from the way non-profit corporations are usually organized. And while the language about voting may be in the by-laws, the foundation board actually operates by consensus, as do the rest of UC IMC and its working groups.
As for the assertion that we are somehow forbidding comments on this subject, this entire thread refutes that. Although I did note that such comments were indeed off-topic in the job posting artilce itself, I did also point out where anyone who had a legitimate concern could raise it. Despite the several options given to those who have objections to give substantive input to our membership on this subject, no one has yet taken that step, AFAIK at this point. Sure, there are lots of claims to have done so, but perhaps the readers should put those cliams in the same context as many of the other claims made in ignorance here about UC IMC.
As for the global lists being abuzz with concern about this, I've seen little evidence of that, other than a couple of messages apparently posted late last night by Deva on IMC-Communication. I'd be glad to look those over and pass along anything of interest to our membership beyond what has already been said here. |
|
Re: on the money |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
02 Sep 2006
|
"Obviously, more posts are being hidden here than published"
Nope. There's only been one post hidden in this entire thread. I thought it was better to have this discussion out in the open. I think it's the best way to expose and clear up misunderstandings.
For example, deva is apparently confusing UCIMC with some aspects of the UCIMC Foundation. That's understandable; the structure of the UCIMC collective is not as immediately apparent as for some other collectives, although there's nothing that difficult about it once it's been explained.
So let's clear some things up.
UCIMC does _not_ have a president. UCIMC proudly runs by consensus. The UCIMC Foundation, on the otherhand, _does_ have a president.
What's the UCIMC Foundation? It's simply the legal entity created by UCIMC to get the UCIMC non-profit status. The UCIMC Foundation is _not_ the UCIMC. It's something created -- by consensus -- _by_ the UCIMC.
Functionally, the UCIMC Foundation _also_ acts by consensus, and in consensus with UCIMC as a whole. The Foundation positions that bother Deva so are _not_ empowered to do anything against UCIMC consensus. In fact, the very first thing the UCIMC Foundation board did, the very first act, was to pass a resolution _disempowering_ themselves, turning the positions into intentionally powerless figurehead positions, saying exactly that they _couldn't_ do anything that went against UCIMC consensus. These positions are legal figureheads. This was intended to make it clear to anyone concerned that the kind of fears of creeping vertical structure that Deva seems so concerned about _cannot_ come to pass.
Deva is also apparently taking the legal boilerplate about what it takes to change the UCIMC Foundation bylaws and mistakenly deciding that it actually applies not just to the UCIMC Foundation bylaws but to every decision UCIMC makes.
In short, to answer Deva's concerns, UCIMC operates by consensus, as do all IMCs. And through that consensus we have done, I think, amazing things for a community our size.
@%< |
|
Re: on the money |
by disaffiliate why don't you
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
02 Sep 2006
|
What is wrong with UC??? Who fucking CARES whether people "emailed" or not??? Can't you read your own site?
Geez. I think it's time for you to just finally realize that you are not indy, and move on. |
|
Re: on the money |
by deva
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
02 Sep 2006
|
One more question.
Does UC-IMC charge global indymedia for being its fiscal sponsor? |
|
Re: on the money |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
02 Sep 2006
|
* rolling eyes *
Here's what I said: "There's only been one post hidden in this entire thread." Anyone can go to http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/hidden/index.php and verify that. Your accusation that I'm lying is false. There has been exactly one post hidden in this thread. Look it up. That's why we have that URL.
Remember -- why does this thread even exist? Because I thought some of the posts in a _different_ thread that had been hidden shouldn't have been hidden, and that this discussion should be out in the open, even if that means suffering the slings and errors of outrageous anonymous gotcha-ites doing the drive-by neener-neener.
There. I've given you two whole new paragraphs to play 'gotcha' with. Three, including this one. Now you've got a choice. Do you want to continue this Star Chamber horseshit frenzy that some members of the IMC network whip themselves into so regularly, or do you want to put down the 'gotchas', come out from behind nym-of-the-moment, and have a peer-to-peer discussion?
@%< |
|
No Mail |
by real imcista
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
02 Sep 2006
|
|
I'd be a lot more convinced that this wasn't a bunch of trolling if we had even received ONE email about this. Apparently, UC IMC is so big and scary that people are afraid to send us email. |
|
Finally, We Got Mail |
by imcista
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
02 Sep 2006
|
We did get an email finally, one from Cat. But it basically repeated what she said here. So there's nothing really new to report except we've confirmed that one person, beyond the obvious trolls, are upset with things we've been openly doing for a long time at UC IMC.
My personal opinion is that most of these criticsare pretty ignorant about Indymedia and its structures and clueless about what autonomy means within it. |
|
holy smoke! |
by portland imc person
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
02 Sep 2006
|
You mean all these models of highly substantive, thoughtful, and civil discourse got REMOVED??! Call the thought police!
Honestly, none of this bile would ever last a day on pdximc if directed against the collective there. |
|
But that Means -- |
by chicken little
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
02 Sep 2006
|
That if there are other IMCs that are even more insidiously evil in the eyes of these critics than UC IMC, hiding posts that attack their collective, etc, then the _whole_ Indymedia network must be rotten to the core!
But seriously,
This is pretty ridiculous, especially given the fact that of all the damning hyperbole flung down here, only one person turned out to have enough gumption to email us.
And it's hilariously funny because most of them style themselves as being tough and ready to critique UC IMC, until they actually have to do something beyond trolling our Newswire. Shame on those gutless wonders. If they really are imcistas, they are the most-weak-kneed bunch of anarchists I've ever seen. I definitely wouldn't want any of them watching my back at a demo, 'cause I'd turn around and find that they've fled for cover once things start getting real. |
|
Excuses? |
by sticking by my IMC
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
02 Sep 2006
|
Since this is pretty much what would otherwise be an off-topic thread anyway, maybe these gutless wonders will elighten the rest of us about the motivations in creating a public spectacle about something they claim to care deeply about, but are so unwilling to engage in any process to address the topic of their concern.
Oh?
That's right. It really is all about public spectacle.
What a bunch of wankers. |
|
Re: on the money |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
02 Sep 2006
|
You know, the funny thing is, there's a site that just a few days ago said, "I've removed the ability of users to post anything except for comments (and those may get turned off shortly too). ... Whatever else it may be this site is no longer an Indymedia because we are no longer allowing open publishing." Although they're still using an Indymedia URL and logo.
And somehow the Star Chamber didn't materialize. Guess they were too busy somewhere else, playing 'gotchas' and shouting "disaffiliate yourselves."
@%< |
|
Re: on the money |
by deva
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
02 Sep 2006
|
Does UC-IMC have a fee for hosting the funds of fiscal allies?
Yes. This is not unique to UC-IMC; it's a standard operating procedure for 501(c)3 organizations. We know of no 501(c)3 offering such a service for free.
Does UC-IMC get paid for being the global fiscal sponsor?
Also, where can I see the current global financial situation. The last I found anything was early 2004
thanks |
|
re: Narco News / real space |
by ald
ald---a-t---riseup (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
02 Sep 2006
|
hi all,
i'm involved with the portland collective now, and did a lot of work with philly for 5 years. i am posting this here because i want to contribute to the public discussion, and do not intend to disrespect the points the uc-imc folks are making about process. i do appreciate this page being set up. i also hope the group looks at the notes at some meeting because although there is some sound and fury, it seems like there has also been some good dialogue.
i am motivated to post in response to deva's post about narco news. i find it very interesting. he explains how they pay journalists, and then says:
> Narco News is not an IMC but it sounds a lot more like the spirit of indymedia
> than having a bunch of paid jobs that have nothing to do with media or reporting
i guess i think all different sorts of labor should be valued, though, because it takes all sorts. and i think it should be up to the local imc to identify what sort of labor, if any, they need to pay people for in order to build indymedia -- which to me is essentially about people claiming the ability to tell the story of the world they live in rather than be spoon fed a master narrative about it. making this shift -- from being spoon fed to re-claiming our voice and minds and eyes -- this will take all different sorts of interventions, and the shape of those interventions will be different in different places, depending on the specifics of the situation.
although i do think that we should do as much labor as volunteers as possible, i also feel ill-equipped to assess the specifics of the uc-imc's situation. i really respect that they engage so many people off the web, which many imcs seem unable to do, and which ESPECIALLY in the US is so incredibly important -- us activists who spend 80% of their movement work online are not going to help the global movement. activist on the other hand who are engaged in their communities, in touch with the things that cause people to listen or to cover their ears -- these people have the potential to really help in critical situations. i don't know of any other US imc that engages nearly the number of folks offline as the uc-imc does. many do wonderful wonderful work, but this particular thing, the uc-imc is good at. and if they think that in order to keep it up they need to pay a few people small stipends, i would want to give them the benefit of the doubt about it. that is not to say that the concerns about how money changes equations shouldn't be raised. i think they should, and i hope that despite the sound and fury of some of these posts the UC-imc folks can find a way to communicate in a dialogue-oriented spirit with the network about this issue.
but again, i want to return to deva's post... i am intrigued by the proposition that nacro news model might contribute to the expansion of militant journalism, the kind which we all want the indymedia network to spawn. i think i agree with deva that it might... but maybe in particular situations, and not necessarily as a regular thing. what i mean is, it may be that in a certain place and time, a narco news model could move the indymedia "tactic" forward by infusing relevant coverage of an issue that would otherwise have slipped below the radar or been distorted beyond recognition. the experience of seeing good coverage of the issue (passionate tellings of truth!) could be transformative to a community, making space for a reclaiming of voice that would otherwise be impossible. i think such a model would be most effective if it also included intensive training in media-making skills as a quick follow up to whatever set of political circumstances is being covered. taken together, i could see such a model fundamentally shifting conversations.
and lets not lose the material, experiential level of this:: we want to fundamentally shift conversations. we don't want to create a pure thing for the sake of itself. we want to Fundamentally Shift Conversations -- and then more.
amy |
|
Thanks for the Thoughtful Comments |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
02 Sep 2006
|
There have been some thoughtful comments in this thread, along with the questionable ones. We've found that we can't trust our governance to what happens on the Newswire. As the Portland imcista pointed out, the very fact that we leave some of this stuff up is kind of unusual. So people shouldn't get all miffy when we explain how we do things or get a bit dismissive, like the vast bulk of comments are that are more about the public posturing of the poster, than a serious attempt to engage in our process.
I especially appreciate amy's comments. Folks from Philly were instrumental as part of the Prometheus crew that helped with the barnraising. We're hoping that the nascent connection fostered then between WRFU, our LPFM station, and Radio Lenca, Honduras, can help build the kind of bridges with the global world that our community has supported over the years. That is just one of the many reasons people in our community support our IMC so generously.
I can assure people that we give due consideration to how money can change relationships. Most of those who do this work are already involved with the IMC, our IMC, at some level. Most everyone of them, like all of our volunteers, would like to do more for the IMC, but it is a fact of life that we all must struggle within the present system to earn our daily bread. In some cases, the fit is such that someone can do something we need done, if only we can help with what they'd be giving up elsewhere to do it for the IMC instead.
The work those who we pay do is vital. We only do it when we can't get the kind of consistent volunteer commitment that some things require, whether by way of responsibility or expertise. The biggest problem I've seen is that some people become even more committed to our work and tend toward burning out if we don't make sure that they know we want them to do what they're being paid for and not all that we'd all like to do as volunteers.
I would write more, but in addition to my IMC work, I also am trying to pass a big prelim in a couple of weeks and I need to hit the books. Suffice it to say, what we're doing here is far from digging at the foundations of Indymedia. We're setting down deep roots so that the IMC, our IMC, is here to challenge the powers that be for years to come, as well as connecting with students that will later take whatever it is they learn from volunteering at this IMC around the world to encourage others, by starting or joining other IMCs.
So far, despite some bumps in the road, taking on some really big projects in the last couple of years, and the need to continue to improve our outreach efforts because of the continuous outreach needed in a university town, I think that we've done a good job. Anyone who visits our community and finds out more about us knows this.
It amazes me that some people are so prone to jump to conclusions on so little evidence of what they want to argue against. Then there are the folks who we know to be trolls, from long past experience. If you do have a forthright comment, send us an email, so that we can figure out what the real concerns are that are mixed in with the calculated disses that we've seen so many times before. |
|
Re: on the money |
by deva
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
02 Sep 2006
|
I'e asked a couple times, but I am sure it is hard to find a small post in all the comments.
Does UC-IMC get paid for being the global fiscal sponsor? Does the UC-IMC take a percentage?
Also, where can I see the current global financial situation. The last I found anything was early 2004
thanks |
|
Re: on the money |
by IMC
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
02 Sep 2006
|
I really question the tone of much of this discourse. And no, I am not talking about the critics of this proposal. I am talking about UC's responses to them. "No email, no email! You must not really care because no email!" That is very shortsighted and disrespectful of the many contributors here who obviously care very much.
They are using the indymedia tactic. You do remember that, do you not? It's what you were supposed to be enhancing, before you turned to the business world.
I would like to see some more thoughtful responses from UC to the concerns of the IMC community than I see here. |
|
For Deva's Questions |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
03 Sep 2006
|
Deva,
For questions about the realtionship of UC IMC to other IMCs, including the global IMC network, see:
http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display_any/52962
For general questions about fiscal sponsorships at UC IMC, send an email to: finance (at) ucimc.org
For questions specifically about global IMC finance, see:
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-finance
The only thing specifically I can tell you is that UC IMC does charge a modest percentage, which varies, to projects that we fiscally sponsor. I have been on the UC IMC Finance working group since the beginning, but it's been so long ago (2001) the decision was made that I don't remember the specifics. Most of that information is referenced in the first link above and any other questions will have to be answered on the global Finance list. |
|
For "IMC" |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
03 Sep 2006
|
And people thought UC IMC was being "self-righteous" because of a badly-worded headline..
Then somebody show up anonymously, under the nymn "IMC".
Apparently, it's yet another troll who just doesn't get it.
If it's so much effort to send an email, then no, they do not "obviously care very much."
And for those keeping score at home, it is:
Trolls -- Still slobbering all over
Real Commentors - 1
And I thank that person for not necessarily agreeing with us, but actually being willing to talk about the subject in a useful forum, instead of where the trolls roam, instead of doing their best IMC-pope-on-a-rope imitation like most of the rest of these comments. |
|
Re: on the money |
by please a translation?
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
03 Sep 2006
|
sombeody can translate into the Spanish this debat? It woul be very importantly for the every indymedia of the world to know about that one speaks here.
Thank you
PD: the translators online are very bad, sorry. |
|
money money money... |
by troll
troll (nospam) ucimc.org (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
04 Sep 2006
|
so, what´s this stuff about?
i think its about a lot more than just being ignored. we are going to speak about that for sure in our next local-collective-meeting, because yet it seems important.
for myself: i stood in an organization before i really liked - then this organization payd people for fundraising. what we, unpayed activists, had done for nothing, they did for money.
so our organization grew because of the money. and then, after a while, the money was more important than the actions - because our organization not only needed the money for ourselfs (or our actions) but also for all the other parts of this organization world-wide. and for funding other stuff, like ecological science.
well, till i think the organization is quite usefull - but its not the organization i want to act in, because it has changed totaly. and i, as an activist, just wanted to do some good actions like the funders of this organization. and for that i dont need 40.000.000 euro a year...
maybe this opens your eyes just a little, why trolls like me, get this pain in their heart when they hear, that also an imc wants to fund-raise or pay for other stuff.
on the other hand it seems that you have big problems to find another way how to handle your problems...
i still hope you will find - and maybe the discussion in our meeting comes to some good ideas for your collective.
a troll of germany |
|
Re: on the money |
by nard
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
04 Sep 2006
|
|
nard. |
|
Re: on the money |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
04 Sep 2006
|
I wasn't the one who hid that post the first few times, but I'm the one who hid it this time. Want to know why? Email the UCIMC -- imc .at. ucimc.org -- and I'll tell you.
@%< |
|
Re: on the money |
by canned nard
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
04 Sep 2006
|
|
I postulate that the real dilema in this ongoing dialectic has to do with the semantics being portrayed outside the usual canards of allowable nonsequiters. How Churchilean of some neotrollophytes to stipulate in nardactical terms the really undeniably psuedo-nardic manifestations of adamsian cartesianism. Simply laughable. |
|
Re: on the money --- pay IMC people |
by Aaron
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
05 Sep 2006
|
|
how much are we paying for your friends??? |
|
Re: on the money |
by Don Nardo
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
06 Sep 2006
|
|
well, if winston churchill were here, I'm sure he would have some choice words to say about all this. Since he is not, allow me to say that I think canned nard just tastes awful. Just awful. Something people might want to think about when they chew on all the facts in this debate. |
|
Re: on the money |
by maria
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Sep 2006
|
|
i wonder why wealthy ppl from urbana would choose the option of working for indymedia which is pretty clear isnt a need for them, they could get better jobs if this is the case where with this money they would be paying their bills with ( the salary imc is offering isnt good enough to pay bills in urbana city i bet) than to work as volunteers ..like conrade ruche from argentina have said this is submiting indymedia into burocracy and worst the need of profit - which is the only way of making money to pay for labor. |
|
Various Definitions of Profit; Yours Fits None of Them |
by historian
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Sep 2006
|
Let's start with an example. A worker's car breaks down. He takes it to a neighborhood garage. The garage could be owned and run by a single worker who is a mechanic, it could be a worker co-op, or it could be a consumer co-op. It could even be that the garage is a money-sucking and clearly profitable business.
In every case, the worker with the car that needs repair is likely to have to take some of his pay, probably just part of some capitalist's profit, but it's what he or she has to to trade for the resources necessary -- labor, part, oil, whatever -- to repair the vehicle so that they can get to work in the morning.
Is the money the worker pays for the repair profit for he or she? Of course not, it isn't leftover surplus value, is what's left of a paycheck that he or she must survive on, usually none of which, except some small savings, is left over. It is not the surplus value extracted from workers through an investment. Heck, if the worker had an investment, he could probably just buy a new car, instead of worrying about getting the old one fixed as cheaply as possible so that there is some for food for the kids. This is a somewhat Marxist definition, but I'm somewhat of a Marxist and also a member of UC IMC.
So is the worker's money "profit"? Of course not. It is income, which is something different. If you're against needing any income, say so plainly, instead of obfuscating the issue into something it's not. I'm sure I and billions of workers would prefer not to have to need an income, but until sometime past the revolution, most of us need it to survive. UC IMC is no different.
BTW, under US law, UC IMC can NOT earn _any_ profit. This is legally prohibited under the terms of the non-profit charter that it operates under.
It is true that there are a vareity of definitions of profit. Yours seems to not really fit any of the widely accepted ones and sounds more like a religious vow of poverty, than anything that matches most definitions of profit.
For reference, in English, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit
You could probably look it up in Spanish, too, but wiikipedia does not yet seem to have translated it yet into espanol. I would not be too surprised to see a variety of definitions in Spanish, too, but I rather much think the same problem exists there for you as in English. Your definition of profit is quaint, but probably not generally accepted as a standard definition. So I think you'll have to come up with a much better reason to be hating on UC IMC, companera.
BTW, some of this has already been mentioned several times in this thread, so you do look a little foolish by beating this dead horse -- really, it is a lie -- that UC IMC is somehow profitable. It's true UC IMC does attract donations from the community -- I support it -- and some grants, but none of this fits the definition of profit. |
|
Re: IMC Now Hiring |
by the problem you need to see
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
09 Sep 2006
|
|
when you use your activism to bring in money, when you acquire an expensive overhead in the name of "serving the community" and then you charge people in the community to use it, when you become a 501(c)3 to court a cumbersome financial enterprise, you are trying to prift in ways that are not healthy for the community. how can you not hear this? |
|
Re: on the money |
by catherine
lucciblue (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
15 Sep 2006
|
I think what you folks have is a really cool community center with a radio station. It might really have been the thing needed to your region. I have no doubt that it is a positive contribution and a great resource.
What it is not, is indymedia.
I am not accusing anyone of being a capitalist and I am sure nobody is going to make a profit. That is not the problem.
The problem is that hiring paid staff, controls who has access to the work. The rest of us become volunteers. We are all indymedia, and equally so, without administrators.
There is no way to institutionalize indymedia, and have it remain indymedia. Why submit indymedia the dictates of US corporate law? That is what happens when you become a 501c3.
I am a Board member of a non-profit and I am part of a legal collective. So I really understand the dictates of what a non-profit can and cannot do. You can't be accussed of lobbying, you can't endorse a political cantidate, you have to give equal time to political cantidates.... and other such crap... What editorial policies are you going to institute to make sure all that happens?
My local IMC is held together by folks working on many different projects. People pull there weight and tons of shit gets done. We help out with projects all over the world. Our video collective has produced over 120 videos, we have a radio station, and most importantly we tons of orginal reporting from the community, on our website. We accomplish this without anyone holding any officail titles and without any large fundraising efforts. It does not cost much, and that is why it is sustainable. We are all equal contributors and not volunteers.
In the most polite way I would like to please ask you to resign your organization from indymedia. The work you are doing is valuable and should continue. I think a non-profit model works great for a community center. But being a non-profit is antithetical to independent reporting. |
|
Hear Hear! |
by comrade
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
16 Sep 2006
|
Catherine wrote:
"In the most polite way I would like to please ask you to resign your organization from indymedia. The work you are doing is valuable and should continue. I think a non-profit model works great for a community center. But being a non-profit is antithetical to independent reporting."
I wholeheartedly agree. I think you are doing fantastic work. But it is not indymedia. This is not "just another way of doing things." It is the very model we are working to escape from. Indymedia is about finding a new path. It's about equal access for everyone. It is not just another non-profit corporation. |
|
Whatever |
by UC IMC member
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
16 Sep 2006
|
In their own bizarre ways, some of this discourse criticizing UC IMC over the evils of money shows that at least a few activists fetishize it in ways that exceeds that of capitalism itself. Money is a tool, just like anything else. In itself, it has no more power to corrupt than a rock would. Like a rock, or any other tool, it can be used for many useful, even necessary things.
The work that is being compensated all involves non-media, housekeeping type tasks. It has nothing to do with the production of media, other than making sure the infrastructure is in place so that the hundreds of people who use the facility in a week find what they need in place.
We're all trapped in this system. If those who helped found the Indymedia network thought that just sitting down in one place was a viable strategy, it never would have gotten past Seattle '99. And it sure sounds like some of you are really ignorant of the history and operations of Indymedia as a network. It's been repeated before, but there is nothing new or unique about UC IMC operating as we do.
Sure, Indymedia is the news media of the marginal, but staying marginal by intentionally avoiding putting resources in the hands of both activists and community members is a fatalistic strategy for irrelevance, not progress. And there are a number of different organizing models within Indymedia. To insist that Indymedia is your way or the highway is not just irritating, with a whiff of the sniveling Stalinist about it -- it's just plain wrong.
As more than one comment has already pointed out, you're just drawing the line in the sand in a different place, because as anyone who knows how Indymedia really functions, even the internet ain't free. There's still plenty of sand on your side of the line. What counts is what you do with the resources you are able to marshal as an IMC while operating within Indymedia principles. We chose our way and we think that people should have the autonomy to choose their own way within Indymedia principles, as has always been done.
No one yet has made a specific reference to where they think UC IMC has violated those principles. You'll have to try a little harder than that for people here to take this as something more serious than just a few people sniping and whining about something they might do differently if they were here. Look up the meaning of autonomy, and then think for a minute if anyone else tried to impose their model on how you do your work if you want to know how I feel.
That said, everyone here is well aware of the potential problems associated with needing to commit resources to accomplish certain vital tasks by contracting for labor. If there is ever an issue that arises, there is an IWW union hall right downstairs in the basement. I doubt you're going to be seeing any oppressed workers around this place. Last time I checked, IWW people still expect to get paid. In fact, it was an IWW crew that worked on our renovation, so yeah, if we go by your bizarre interpretation of how Indymedia is supposed to operate, I guess we're corrupting the IWW, too, I suppose.
Then go ask a Wobbly if he or she thinks they should work for free. Do it nicely, so that they know you are just seriously ignorant and need correction, because if you cop an attitude like some of you have shown here, they may think you're just some management scab trying to be funny. Then there's no telling what they might do next, but it sure isn't going to be putting up with any such bullshit like yours. |
|
Re: on the money |
by catherine
lucciblue (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
16 Sep 2006
|
I am not really seeing a very well thought out response from UC-Imc on what I consider to be a very important issue. I would feel more reassured if I saw UC-imc able to acnowledge the concerns that as far as I can tell- stretch all across the globe.
I do not like that these concerns are being dismissed. You may be able to dismiss them to yourselves on your own site as incoherent ramblings, but they are not.
Have you considered asking questions of your detractors? (It might be a good idea..)
Do you remember that you are part of a global network?
Or are you just selling the network as if your part of it? It does not seem like you want here from the rest of us.
When an IMC in argentina writes you concerned, could you please add into the equation what country you are in and it's global effect on the world? As a participant in another US imc, I feel responsible for not adding a new US monstrosity into the world. Can you make the connection? |
|
Anarchist Splinter Cult or Serve the Progressive Community? |
by hmmm
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
17 Sep 2006
|
The Future of Indymedia: Anarchist Splinter Cult or Serve the Progressive Community?
There's always been a certain element in Indymedia that wants to manipulate it for their own political goals. One of them is to pretend that Indymedia is really just the official organ of a tiny splinter group of anarchists who believe that if they just convince everyone else to quit using money, the System will fall. The problem is they have never been near a consensus within Indymedia and this continually frustrates them. Then they periodically show back up at UC IMC to complain about how evil this is, fail to cite any Indymedia principle that is being violated, and generally put on a snit-fit, while making no attempt to understand what might cause people at another IMC to do things differently than they do.
It's all rather precious, because even if they miraculously got their wish -- and there's no sign of that with the self-defeating tactics they use, like sniping at people in the movement who don't have the same ideology as they do about money being some sort of insentient, but absolute evil -- there's little sign that any better society would emerge from such an implausible scenario.
The ironic thing is that it cost someone something somewhere everytime they post here or anywhere else on the Indymedia network.
OH!
I suddendly realize, that IS it!
If they just leech off the rest of us who do have our shit together enough to organize things like UC IMC does and the other people who actually use money in the Indymedia network to do things like maintain servers, registrations, spaces, etc, there's really no need to do anything but sit around and gripe about UC IMC's morality, while enjoying the benefits that of "immoral" IMCs that actually do such work.
Rumor has it that many of these people are either trust fund babies -- who can afford the time and have the independent funding (is that what they mean by "independent"?) to be so moralistic -- or people who make a point of everything being 'free" for themselves -- while failing to realize that the social commons that seems so abundant now wouldn't sustain THEM, LET ALONE THE REST OF US, much past the first week of "friendly looting" after their kind of revolution.
There wouldn't be any electrons to put up on Indymedia if it wasn't for people willing to deal with money. Money has to be disbursed and accounted for, or would they just prefer that Indymedia funds be left on the floor of some squat and we'll "trust" it'll be there when we get back.
Pardon me, Catherine, for being so flippant, but most of the hating on UC IMC I've seen here has been nothing but "incoherent ramblings". And not one of you has taken up the challenge of citing either an Indymedia Principle or a consensus decision to support your poorly articulated, mostly ignorant, and often tenditiously preachy opinions. I'm sure there's lots of different opinions about lots of things that different IMCs do or don't do. There's nothing unique about that. But it sounds to me like you've had your two cents, twice, and you've offered nothing but your opinion, twice. |
|
Re: on the money |
by damn liberal press
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
18 Sep 2006
|
"There's always been a certain element in Indymedia that wants to manipulate it for their own political goals."
Indeed. And alas, they seem to have taken over UC, where they have set up Status Quo Central. A money-chasing 501(c)3, a paying membership that controls things, paid employees, and a hierarchy that Uncle Sam would be proud of. |
|
Wow. |
by !
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
18 Sep 2006
|
I came here from another IMC to see what all the fuss is about. I did not have my mind made up when I came. I wanted to be open to intelligent debate, and to see what each side had to offer.
I am truly horrified by what I read here. The smug, reactionary, and dismissive responses from UC to the very real concerns being raised here is shocking. Absolutely shocking. I thought people were exaggerating. |
|
Re: UC indymedia's strongarm tactcs |
by nmnm
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
18 Sep 2006
|
I support Catherine's gentle plea for UC to simply state what we all know to be true: You are not indymedia.
I also suggest that UC examine its policies with regard to site administrators abusing their power by erasing other peoples' comments, and then responding to those comments in rambling, verbose mediocrity. You cannot silence someone and then have your 2 cents, and still call yourselves indymedia. Oh. I forgot. You're not. |
|
Re: on the money |
by money is a tool
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
18 Sep 2006
|
Atta way , UC. Money's just a tool. Yep. Just a tool.
Use the ring for gooooood..... |
|
Oh Yeah! They Are Soooooo Evil |
by get a life
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
19 Sep 2006
|
Yes, those UC IMC admins are sooooo evil. Look how this thread is devoid of all cricticism and obviously stage-managed and manipulated to give those Dear Leaders a free ride as they sieze power, trample any dissent in the Indymedia network beneath the treads of their tanks, and sell its assets off to Google.
Why don't you people get a life by actually volunteering at an IMC or contributing resources to yoru local IMC? Or better yet go and start one? The persecuted troll thing is getting just so 1900. |
|
Re: on the money |
by imc volunteer
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
19 Sep 2006
|
|
UC admins abuse their privileges. They call people names and make nasty condescending comments towards others, but comments that point this out are often hidden. |
|
Re: on the money |
by imc volunteer
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
19 Sep 2006
|
get a life said "Why don't you people get a life by actually volunteering at an IMC or contributing resources to yoru local IMC? Or better yet go and start one? The persecuted troll thing is getting just so 1900."
many of the comments ARE from hard working imc contributors who do not like the direction of UC imc. That UC people seem to be able to do little but ridicule and condescend towards other imc people who are posting shows there is good reason to not like the direction of UC imc |
|
Re: on the money |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
19 Sep 2006
|
'That UC people seem to be able to do little but ridicule and condescend towards other imc people who are posting shows there is good reason to not like the direction of UC imc"
As if there isn't a cubic boatload of condescension in the attacks on UCIMC, presuming to tell UCIMC what to do and how to do it, presuming that UCIMC hasn't already carefully considered everything that's been brought up here, presuming that UCIMC hadn't considered them long before this thread began, considered every fact and position and perspective that has been rehashed here, as it was reaching its consensus on how it would operate?
@%< |
|
No one is trying to tell you what to do, only what to do in our name. |
by IMCista
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
19 Sep 2006
|
|
If you want to withdraw from the network and stop calling yourselves "Indymedia," you can do whatever you like. But as long as you use the name "Indymedia," what you do has to meet the approval of the rest of the network. |
|
Re: on the money |
by imc volunteer
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
19 Sep 2006
|
get a life said "Why don't you people get a life by actually volunteering at an IMC or contributing resources to yoru local IMC? Or better yet go and start one? The persecuted troll thing is getting just so 1900."
many of the comments ARE from hard working imc contributors who do not like the direction of UC imc. That UC people seem to be able to do little but ridicule and condescend towards other imc people who are posting shows there is good reason to not like the direction of UC imc |
|
Re: on the money |
by imc volunteer
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
19 Sep 2006
|
"That UC people seem to be able to do little but ridicule and condescend towards other imc people who are posting shows there is good reason to not like the direction of UC imc"
As if there isn't a cubic boatload of condescension in the attacks on UCIMC, presuming to tell UCIMC what to do and how to do it, presuming that UCIMC hasn't already carefully considered everything that's been brought up here..."
No there is not a cubic boatload of condescension. There is a cubic boatload of disagreement and many imc people saying so. And people are not presuming anything. You may have considered and discussed the idea for a long time, but that still does not mean others are going to agree with your choice just because you did. I can confidently say that the majority of people in the imc network do not like this direction. |
|
Go Back, Start at Square One |
by get a life
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
19 Sep 2006
|
Disagreement in the Indymedia network?
That has been the case since day one. Disagreement has NEVER determined anything about Indymedia.
It's rather obvious that most of these posts attacking UC IMC are from people that are seemingly ignorant about how Indymedia works. It has nothing to do with disagreement and everything to do with _consensus_.
For all the hot air, inflammatory brow-beating, and repeated displays of knowing little or nothing about how Indymedia or UC IMC actually works, the one thing that is missing is even an attempt to develop a consensus. Yes, it really does seem that it is all about telling UC IMC what to do.
Come back with a consensus, one that includes UC IMC, and then you might see some change. If you want to look at a decision taht is an embarrassment to the network, SF IMC's continued presence would be the first thing many people would point to. Until then, UC IMC's decisions should not be questioned any more than, say, SF IMC's decision to become Nessie's vanity press. |
|
Wanna Bet? |
by little fly on the wall
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
19 Sep 2006
|
You obviously know nothing about how consensus functions.
Anyone wanna put some money on "straw poll" being nessie?
I can almost see it now, SF IMC is preparing to decide the question and -- nessie nods his head. That settles it.
Or was he just falling asleep at the keyboard again? |
|
"straw poll" |
by non sequitur
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
19 Sep 2006
|
|
What are you talking about? |
|
Re: on the money |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
19 Sep 2006
|
Some posts from the antisemitic crank nessie have been hidden in this thread.
Nessie has been told exactly what he has to do if he wants to regain the right to post in this forum: publicly agree with the sentence "I don't hate 99.5% of American Jews." This should be an exceptionally easy thing to do, but his antisemitism won't allow him to. And so he's not allowed to post here.
This bothers him. That's why he's trying to throw oil on the fire -- and divert traffic to his personal blog, the San Francisco Imitating Mussolini Center.
@%< |
|
Re: on the money |
by IMCista
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
19 Sep 2006
|
"If you want to withdraw from the network and stop calling yourselves "Indymedia," you can do whatever you like. But as long as you use the name "Indymedia," what you do has to meet the approval of the rest of the network."
Amen.
You know, it's very condescending and frankly just sad that UC folks keep on repeating the same mantras. You have "already thought of it all," you can now ignore what every IMCista on this page is telling you. Bullshit. You just do not want to hear it.
I find UC folks' sarcastic, rude, demeaning, and abusive heavy hands to be the very antithesis of what Indymedia is. You can call yourselves whatever you like, but we ain't buying. You are NOT indymedia. The rest of the world knows it. Read the words. Absorb them. It is what it is. You may be doing fine work (and a lot of questionable, self serving work), but you are NOT indymedia. Nope. Not.
Oh, and whatever you say back? We've already heard it. How does that feel? |
|
Re: on the money |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
19 Sep 2006
|
It's really quite simple. We have repeatedly made a very simple point: those who make the effort to communicate to us through our mailing list have received extended, respectful replies. Those doing the drive-by anony-flame have been encouraged to get their facts straight.
Among those extended, respectful replies, incidentally, comes this interesting historical tidbit: Indymedia has been paying people for pretty much exactly as long as Indymedia has existed. UCIMC did not invent the practice nor is it its sole practitioner. In fact, when there was just one IMC site -- IMC Seattle -- that meant that 100% of all IMC sites at the time paid people. If you are nostalgically looking back to the halcyon days of olde in which no IMCista in the network was paid, well, sorry to break it to you, but those days never existed. And if you want to rage-rage-rage at UC-IMC for daring to break a taboo that turns out on closer examination not to have been a taboo after all, well, you might want to ask yourself about whether that's the best use of your energies.
@%< |
|
Re: on the money |
by imc contributor
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
20 Sep 2006
|
It's really quite simple. UC tries their best to direct criticism away from public forums and onto email lists where their dubious practices are not challenged for the public to read and know about. They really don't want readers to know that a majority of the IMC network opposes the direction they are going in.
and gehrig, do show some list archives or other evidence where Seattle IMC had ongoing paid positions. like UC has.
The vast majority of people who have contributed their time and energy to imc projects have done so thinking it was an all volunteer effort. That a few individuals here and there have been paid with enough secrecy that most don't even know is something to be concerned about.
From conversations I have had, UC is the only imc that has had an ongoing paid staff and that requires people to pay to be a member.
Regardless of imc history, the truth of the imc present is that most imcistas don't agree with the direction of UC and many of them strongly oppose it. |
|
Re: on the money |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
20 Sep 2006
|
"UC tries their best to direct criticism away from public forums and onto email lists where their dubious practices are not challenged for the public to read and know about."
First, you're talking to the guy who made sure this thread existed in the first place, knowing that there would be those who just came to flame, and giving them a place to do so while simultaneously telling those who want to engage in constructive dialog how to do that via our mailing list.
Second, the mailing list we're talking about, imc (at) ucimc.org, is open. That list is not a rug to sweep things under.
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc
Give it a look. Anyone can. It's the IMC principle of openness. Are your email lists as open? Please point me to the URL of your site's openly published, openly readable central discussion list.
"and gehrig, do show some list archives or other evidence where Seattle IMC had ongoing paid positions. like UC has. "
http://mail.indymedia.org/imc-seattle/2003-April/003825.html
"The vast majority of people who have contributed their time and energy to imc projects have done so thinking it was an all volunteer effort."
As you can see, Indymedia has never been an all-volunteer effort. If that disappoints you, don't shoot the messenger.
And I can tell you with certainty that the vast, vast majority of the effort expended by UCIMC is volunteer effort. Including my own efforts, farming out hundreds upon hundreds of spambot spams from this site on a daily basis and configuring a new UCIMC site, to be available very soon, which will have better anti-spam capabilities. The fact that someone's being paid to balance the books doesn't change what I'm doing a sliver of a smidgeon of a fraction of a degree.
In a perfect world, UCIMC would be 100% volunteer effort. And so would the rest of life.
"From conversations I have had, UC is the only imc that has had an ongoing paid staff and that requires people to pay to be a member."
Then perhaps you're not conversing with people who know the IMC or UCIMC very well, because neither the first nor the second part of your statement are correct.
@%< |
|
The Shoe Is Actually on the Other Foot Here |
by get a life
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
20 Sep 2006
|
It's rather ironic that someone claiming they supposedly reject UC IMC's use of money chooses to hide behind such a silly pseudonymn as "imc contributor". It actually makes no sense, but neither do most of the rather ill-informed arguments made in this thread about how 'uniquely immoral' UC IMC is.
Anyway, "imc contributor" writes:
"It's really quite simple. UC tries their best to direct criticism away from public forums and onto email lists where their dubious practices are not challenged for the public to read and know about. They really don't want readers to know that a majority of the IMC network opposes the direction they are going in."
gehrig prertty much covered how bogus the first part of this claim is. I would suggest that the last part is equally as bogus. In fact, we've received email from exactly 4 people on this issue. Thus far, all the claimed concern based on supposed deep-seated offense taken against UC IMC, supposedly from a "majority of the IMC network" along with all the negativity expressed here, adds up to very little except someone's opinion.
Does anyone actually think that 4 people -- all of whom unfortunately appear to have already made up their mind on this issue without even trying to engage with the facts prior to writing to us and none even attempted to build a consensus -- represent a "majority of the IMC network " or "that most imcistas don't agree with the direction of UC"?
If so, I have a great deal on a bridge in Brooklyn for you.
It appears to me that these critics realize they actually have little support and are dependent on this thread for most of the limited evidence that this is somehow a big deal to anyone other than them. They want to keep the conversation here so that they don't have to back up their ridiculous claims "that most imcistas don't agree with the direction of UC." The BS and spin are so deep from them, you almost have to wonder if these people are taking lessons from Karl Rove. |
|
Re: on the money |
by imc contributor
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
20 Sep 2006
|
just because the email list is public does not mean that many people read it or can easily respond or reply to each others posts
that said, I understand not wanting to have too many such conversations on the newswire, but hey, you placed the want ads as a feature and you rightly put up this thread, but then continue to make fun of anyone who posts to it and not your email list
the reason very few people write emails is because it is out of the public eye and everyone knows it not because they are not serious
you can ridicule as much as you like, make fun of the pseudonym being used, condescend, and so on, it does not change that most people in the imc network do not like the choices UC-IMC is making. |
|
Re: on the money |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
22 Sep 2006
|
"just because the email list is public does not mean that many people read it or can easily respond or reply to each others posts"
It means that UCIMC has fully lived up to its obligation as an IMC to keep the discussion publicly accessible. I notice that you didn't provide the URL of a similar list for your collective, despite my direct request. Until you do, I'd suggest that maybe you're in no position to throw stones.
@%< |
|
Re: on the money |
by stizzy
phaseinduction (nospam) gmail.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
22 Sep 2006
|
This whole sticking point about email list versus comments section is stupid. Anyone can anonymously create a yahoo, ftml, gmail, mail.com, or any other of thousands of free email accounts in minutes and fire away to your list. So how does sending an email make anything any more legitimate? IMCistas are posting here because here their thoughts are immediately represented for everyone to see. You created this article ostensibly for that purpose. Now that you've made your bed, why not lay in it for awhile?
And the fact that most of your responses are knee-jerk condescentions toward the more aggressive flamers is indicative of your unwillingness to commit to a meaningful discourse on this subject. Instead of responding to many of the well-thought out comments here with well-thought out, respectful replies of your own, you turn to face the less thoughtful folks because keeping this debate on those terms allows you to avoid examining some of the more challenging questions that have been asked of you. |
|
Re: on the money (continued) |
by stizzy - portland imc volunteer
phaseinduction (nospam) gmail.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
22 Sep 2006
|
|
Or at least that's the pattern I seem to observe. |
|
Re: the UCIMC purity-of-essence |
by just keeping track
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
22 Sep 2006
|
so how much money does gehrig make off IMC
how much do you pay your self? |
|
Re: on the money |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
22 Sep 2006
|
Right up front, at the very start this thread, I directly addressed the core issue, only to be told now that I'm dodging it simply because I haven't commented on variation after variation on the very same theme as it went by.
The fiscal structure of the IMC was arrived at by consensus. So was the fiscal structure of the global Indymedia network. IMC is a collective of autonomous collectives. We are one of those collectives. We respect your autonomy. We expect in return for you to respect ours.
If you're worried that any real give-and-take we might potentially have is getting distracted by the more flamish of the flamers on this thread, there's a very simple way around that: imc (at) ucimc.org. That's why we've been suggesting it all along -- it's a format more conducive to conversation and less conducive to drive-by flame warfare.
Try it. You might be surprised.
"so how much money does gehrig make off IMC"
Not a penny.
"how much do you pay your self?"
Not a penny. Thanks for asking.
@%< |
|
Actually |
by stizzy
phaseinduction (nospam) gmail.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
22 Sep 2006
|
|
Catherine brought up a few very legitimate points about the liabilities and potential forced editorial compromises that come with 501c3 status, which you have refused to even acknowledge, much less respond to. In my opinion, these issues are at the core of this discussion as well. So no, you haven't addressed all of the core issues. And you haven't responded to the question several folks are asking as to why emailing a list makes someone's thoughts more legitimate than posting them here. In my opinion, your constantly referring to the email list smacks heavily of the "free-speech zone" tactic used frequently by the establishment to make protests less public and thus ineffective. |
|
See What You're Missing |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
22 Sep 2006
|
stizzy,
I replied to Catherine on our email list, with a comprehensie and substantive response. We didn't get a response back from her after that, IIRC.
I suspect we'll just have to continue to disagree. Given that the critics have couched most of their concern in the form of demands, I suspect that some people just aren't used to having to actually work at achieving concensus. That underlies a lot of my suspicions about what little value this thread has.
BTW, does Portland or any other IMC do its business on their Newswire?
No, I didn't think so.
I think that was already mentioned in this thread and there's been no evidence offered for any such precedent, let alone reason to do so here. In fact, there are many good reason why this thread is pointless.
Trolls, for instance.
Except for a couple of us who are well-known at UC IMC, those you accuse as being from here for engaging in "knee-jerk condescentions [sic]" may be trolls themselves. I don't know who most of these people are. I know who I agree with in this thread and there is nothing approachjing a consensus, nor if there likely to be in the future.
And we're used to getting lots of trolls here. In fact, this thread originated from a troll who is one of our usual pests around here. So it's hard to make a case that UC IMC should, right here, right now, be the first IMC ever to conduct its process on its own Newswire. Besides, every time we're accused of being the first IMC to do something, it just pisses people off anyway.
The first requirement for achieving consensus is that everyone must respect the good faith efforts of all involved in order to begin such a discussion. This was never true about this conversation here, given it started in the manner it was by a troll and has continued mostly in that vein, even if a few people have genuine concerns. Oddly, our attempts to address those concerns have been largely ignored, if you want to balance out the condescension you see. We've been gracious in advising those who really care where to have input where our process happens.
BTW, no one asked, but I don't get paid either. In fact my work, like the vast majority of all work at UC IMC, as well as ALL actual media work, is unpaid, volunteer work. |
|
Re: on the money |
by on the money
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
23 Sep 2006
|
does Portland or any other IMC do its business on their Newswire?
does Portland or any other IMC do its business on their Newswire?
does Portland or any other IMC do its business on their Newswire?
does Portland or any other IMC do its business on their Newswire?
does Portland or any other IMC do its business on their Newswire?
does Portland or any other IMC do its business on their Newswire?
does Portland or any other IMC do its business on their Newswire?
does Portland or any other IMC do its business on their Newswire?
does Portland or any other IMC do its business on their Newswire?
does Portland or any other IMC do its business on their Newswire?
does Portland or any other IMC do its business on their Newswire?
does Portland or any other IMC do its business on their Newswire?
does Portland or any other IMC do its business on their Newswire?
does Portland or any other IMC do its business on their Newswire?
does Portland or any other IMC do its business on their Newswire?
does Portland or any other IMC do its business on their Newswire?
does Portland or any other IMC do its business on their Newswire?
does Portland or any other IMC do its business on their Newswire? |
|
