Let me offer some help here on accountability and telling an authentic story:

(1) As I can only vaguely make out (editors named and bios please) Leo and Iwan hold access to all but one MI decision, and thats a big responsibility. If Leo and Iwan cannot act within a reasonably agreed period of time (1 week? 2weeks? Whatever.) that's an area of accountability design that needs addressing pronto or it means the power structure is purposefully mystified.

(2) I suggest the About page should be edited whereby it can start with an edited form of what Leo articulated well above as the thematic FOCUS of MI.

Its a clear and necessary move to make (it can change over time, that's another question) I might personally agree its a strong focus, but that's not the point. Right now writers and readers need to know where MI is coming from or aiming for. We need that to build writers and readers. And to be trustworthy. Otherwise we are pretending to publish everything, which is evidentialy not the case. That's good but it needs to be said.

(3) The editorial process: The About page has to be edited to reflect that MI is a work in progress. This means the talk on there about democracy and so forth must be clearly defined i.e. Payment of authors has been pioneered as part of a coop process.

Right now it suggests other things.

If anything else, like editorialism or whatever aspires to that. Good. But that must be told as an aspiration. Right now it's told as a given.

SO

This intervention is a moment of possibility for growth.

As Nike says, let's do it.

I see the need for having a unique focus and that it would help potential readers and supporters to be transparent about that focus.

I like the idea and aspiration of user owned media because I don't like the idea of opaque funding where we don't know who has true control over what is being published.

I want journalism where the truth is what matters most.

I like as a model of what might work how hackernoon is evolving towards user ownership, although they still have a focus on technology.

I encourage everyone to listen to their story towards user ownership on the exit to community webinar. https://www.colorado.edu/lab/medlab/2021/04/30/exit-community-two-startup-journeys-user-ownership
Maybe we can learn from them it seems they might be open to sharing their code someday too.

I like the idea of having a platform like theirs and like medium where there is a way to have multiple publications with multiple unique themes but have it owned and governed democratically by those who contribute and benefit from the platform and protocols. But this is a much bigger goal that would require a community of writers and readers who want it and I am not sure where to find that community or how to build it.

I think it is important to be clear and transparent about what we are doing now and what we want to do in the future. There is a process for doing this outlined in Grassroots Economic Organizing publication about how to form solidarity coops. https://geo.coop/articles/how-create-solidarity-enterprise

Still this requires facilitators and organizers and a solidarity community who want it enough.

I agree with you Avi that the editorial process needs to be 'demystified' on the webpage.

However, if you speak to Iwan and Leo I think they are quite clear on what the main focus of MI is (unions, coops, community organising, market socialism etc..). Which personally is why I am involved in MI, I see it as distinct from the standard leftist/anarchist fair on the Internet. Furthermore, the scope of MI has broaden significantly from when I first gone on board and I think that has been a positive move, although I agree with Leo that these broader articles should still stick to the main focus of MI (see above). It's easy as a broadly left platform to drift into the typical and repetitive discourse.

I also, like you, think there should be some aspiration for a more collective editorial process but MI is still in its infancy and personally I am happy with Iwan and Leo's editorial process so far, although it could be a touch quicker.

A compromise here could be to, yes, edit the website to make it reflect the current editorial process. But maybe it's time for us to start having that discussion about where we want to go as a outlet with regards to collective input in editorial decisions. The first step could simply be voting for an extra editor and going forward from there.

Perhaps this is a discussion we could all have some time soon?

Thanks Jonathan and Jonny, and everyone else's comments :)

Agreed, I am not against Leo or Iwan (I have published an article here via their editorial process), just think it would be good to state that there is an editorial process and what it is and for some bios of editors on website. This helps readers, and even me, understand what MI is partly shaped by. Which goes the same for MI focus. Again perhaps clear for some, but not clear for others. Thanks for those links, very helpful.

Also I hope this little experiment has proved helpful. It has to me at least in testing what the collective editorialism would yield. Next Reading Group/Book Review series more directly on MI focus!

Look forward to where this convo goes :)

Avi

Thanks @Avi (Dr KBH) and totally agree with your point that we have not done our job as fast as we should have (hopefully the fact that I don't get any compensation and Iwans 5% compensation is very modest makes this more understandable bc we both have a job, although it doesn't excuse it). Agree also on making the editorial process clearer to people in the website (which we want to improve a lot in many ways). Will be making a longer reply.

@Jonathan Bean all finances are transparent, but we allow people to donate anonymously (OC gives this option by default and we have not deactivated it). Hopefully this provides enough transparency for our finances, but any proposals to increase it are welcome, hopefully however so that if there is an increased effort required there is also someone willing to put in that effort. I don't know how I would feel about banning anonymous donations (and understand this is not something you have claimed to support), but of course we can make that decision through a democratic process if we want. I would personally maybe vote against it though, I think its good people who dont want their name out there should be able to do so.

Next week we should be able to take a lot of new steps forward from Wednesday onwards.

Getting the 'About' page right :) (1) Editors (2) General focus of MI (3) highlighting and championing the innovative finances 😁