Some questions about this working group answered:
(These are currently only the views of
RovinNZ - please edit them and delete this text)
Why hasn't it worked so well in the past?
This is an important discussion - which we will be having as this project moves along, please email the list if you have something to contribute
Some early ideas:
I think that with this project being a group in its own right there are better chances. This way we will be able to share the tasks and brainstrom ideas - an important part of this project will be finding out what it is that people want in terms of information in the network. Since you're reading this it must be important for you - so tell us what you'd like to read about.
What about making every list put together a summary?
This was a proposal at one stage. In line with the previous heading this is something that may be a good tool for communication. The bigger question is how would this be enforced and who would be doing the censuring? Is this in ine with the principles of indymedia?
Do we need a page other than lists.indymedia.org? perhaps with a
distinction between imc-working groups and something else? i'd like to
avoid that question for now, but would love to push peoples
responsibility to report to 'the collective' regularly.
Past examples and a bit of history
This has yet to be written, there is an email from sheri with some examples of previous summaries.
here it is
What makes a good summary?
Basically whatever needs to be said about a project so that the network is being kept informed. This will vary from project to project. We intend to write some guidlines and templates which people can use to make things easier. Hope full yhtis will mean people have freedom , but also follow some process that helps ensure summaries are useful documents.
Who do we mail the request to, how often?
We will need to look at how often each list is asked for a summary. Obviously the more busy and critical lists need to report more often. Appart from that this is all up for ongoing discussion based on feedback.
Some notes on procedures
One proposal is like this:
- A summary would be emailed form each project/ list to summaries-wg@indymediaSTOPSPAM.org, this redirect to our working group list (this email address has been set up and tested)
- The summary is then posted to http://internal.indymedia.org
- An email is sent to imc-summaries@lists.indymediaSTOPSPAM.org with the original summary text and a link to the summary on http://internal.indymedia.org . This allows people to include an html version of their summaries which people can access.
- At set intervals, a digest is made of all recent summaries. This digest is then send out through the contact database to all local imc's. Emphasis would be on the html versions available through http://internal.indymedia.org which allow people to make comments. note Over time it is hoped that this digest include links to other texts such as personal stories from imc'ers, growing pains experiences from the network, imc history, what's new on wiki and much much more.
This process allows readers to choose between reading summaries just after they are 'released' or waiting for a digest of summaries. The digest would also encourage people to get more involved by highlightin projects who are asking for assistence.
How often would summary-digests be sent?
Digests would be sent at a minimum of each month.
Why place summaries on internal.indy & not on docs.indy?
Summaries would be both in the archive and on
http:/internal.
indymedia.org . I think this because
- Stories on internal.indy look nicer
- Stories on docs can be edited, like re-writting minutes that have
already been checked. I think this would make summaries posted on docs
'unsafe'
- It's very easy to change the http:// address of a doc in
docs, but impossible in internal.indy - again an issues of long term
security and usability.
What about translations?
At first the priority is on getting some summaries written, at the same time we will need to develop a group of people willing to translate. This is an important issue but really relies on people seeing the value of the project and then volunteering their multi-lingual skills.
How do we build the Summaries working group?
This is the sort of thing that the digest can do - it is a service of the
SummariesWG? and we can therefore add something into the text somewhere which encourages people to help improve this project.
So, will all lists be writting summaries?
I absolutely support the idea of the summaries being collected from all
lists over time. For now though, i think we need some people to go to
the trouble of setting a good example. if they enjoy workíng on behalf
of the network then i'm guessing we can get them to explain what
they've been up to - otherwise we're back to high-school cliques who
don't talk to each other...
once such an email is seen by the whole network i'm hoping they'll go
"hmm, that's a good idea, why doesn't such and such a list write one?"
and hopefully expectations will turn to questions and pressure from the
local members to know what the 'global' lists are doing.
These answers are constructed from discussion in these emails:
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-commwork/2002-December/001214.html
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-commwork/2002-December/001236.html
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-commwork/2002-December/001257.html
to top
