[imc-uk-emergency] Re: [Imc-uk-network] Precisions on UK features

[andi]

hi all,

makes sense to have the regional collectives decide on what from
their content should go to the UK middle column... but shouldn't
we then for clarity rename the "Feature" to "UK Feature"? then
we'd have these two articletypes to play with:

- "UK Feature": appears in the UK _and_ in the ticked region.
                note that this will _only_ show in the UK if
                there is no region(s) ticked.
- "Regional Feature": region only, doesn't appear on UK

i still think the "UK features writing team" = the uk-features
list has a role here: this role could be in proposing "UK
Features" which don't necessarily need to be regional, like it has
been done for years on that list now - and as that is one of the
most active lists in the uk i'd not just get rid of them like that
;) - such UK Features could be in the "UK Feature" format, and
would thus roll down when another "UK Feature" comes in; but i'd 
propose as well to use the article type "Startpage-special" for the
UK. that is a "TopNews" thingie which is 'sticky' on top - like
what is now the "New Fox reality show to determine ruler of Iraq"
on the uktest site http://uktest.indymedia.de/en/

another role of the uk-features list could be the maintenance of 
the "Other Regions" - ana and sara are right: this has been agreed
on in the network meeting in lancaster and if we don't want to use
that then we have to argue for reasons _not_ to use it... 

cheers andi


Vincent Bouchard wrote on 14/5/03 9:10 am
<snip>
>the actual test setup of MIR is based on that not all regional
>features go automatically to the UK site. It's based on the
>proposition that regions will choose which features are "truly"
>regional (see ionnek email, "regional features") and which
>features are regional but also interesting for the uk
>("features", but the region selected). So I think it's the best
>way to start with: regions are independent to decide which
>features they think will be relevant to the UK, and the UK
>features are generated automatically from the regional features
>the local indymedias decided were important for the whole
>country. So we don't need a "UK features writing team" but at
>the same time not all the regional features appear on the UK
>page, only the one classified in "features" and not "regional
>features", so the selection is done at the local level (after
>all they are the people who what their local features are about,
>so they should be able to decided if their local features are
>relevant or not to UK).

and Sara Melendro wrote on 14/5/03 3:02 pm
<snip>
>I think having an 'other regions' will make it much easier if I
>want to report on sth in exeter which I do not considered so
>importanta s to go to uk but still want to report I could put it
>there, and at the same time if I'm looking to see whats
>happening in my area i can go directly to 'other regions' and
>check. Why does it sound good to have sheffield / lancaster /
>london, etc sites and know one link in Uk page where other
>regions can have theri 'local' stuff (it might even be grounds
>for further developing other local groups!).

Before that ionnek wrote:
>> * UK Main page
>>
>> Rather than having all local feature automatically going to
>> the UK front - i would like to have local choice - some of our
>> london features might be relevant - some might be so local
>> that they should only stay on the local page.
>>
>> And if as now - all uk features go to the global newswire - we
>> would flood them with very local stories that would anoy me if
>> they were about a small town in US or Chile! [not sure if the
>> move to MIR changes that?]