[Imc-communication] Belgium: proposal
bart at indymedia.org
Sat Apr 30 09:44:27 PDT 2005
christophe callewaert <christophe at indymedia.be> wrote:
> I think your answer proofs what we've already been writing. The
> collectives will have to accept each other as valid imc's. And we will
> both have to stop shouting: "no, we are the one and only valid imc". I
> don't really see a solution if this isn't one of the first steps in a
> mediation process (however tough that will be).
let's be clear.
i personally don't want mediation since it's totally senseless.
i don't say you project isn't valuable (i really think it is), but it isn't indymedia.
> And you're right, imc-belgium didn't participate in the syndication
> project, but we never opposed the project. So it is not correct to blame
> us that this syndicationproject never was realised.
> Op za, 30-04-2005 te 14:03 +0200, schreef Pseudo Punk:
> > han at indymedia.be <han at indymedia.be> wrote:
> > > Hi Andres. We discussed your questions briefly by e-mail and this is as
> > > far as we got.
> > >
> > > > 1. Would imc-be be willing to participate in / contribute regularly to /
> > > > cooperate with a belgian syndication site, once established?
> > >
> > > The Liege & ovl dissafiliation proposal states clearly that want to
> > > exclude all people involved in belgium.indymedia.org.
> > syndication site was proposed over a year ago. imc-belgium actively argued
> > against it.
> > [NL] een syndication site was meer dan een jaar geleden reeds voorgesteld
> > en actief tegengewerkt door imc-belgium.
> > > This why we write in our proposal: "We would like it if the local imc's respect
> > > imc-belgium as an autonomous imc, just like we do in relation to them.
> > haha. that was a joke isn't it ?
> > > The first step to be made is the mutual acceptance of the existence of
> > > each other."
> > >
> > > Yet, we never excluded or oposed that artickles, features,... would be
> > > part if this syndication site. Yet we always stated that for different
> > > reasons for the time being we would not invest or take part in such a
> > > project.
> > >
> > > > 2. You say that your collective wants to retain the
> > > > belgium.indymedia.org url. What appropriate url would you suggest for
> > > > the syndication site?
> > >
> > > For the time being we want to retain the url belgium indymedia.org as
> > > the belgium collective is a national collective. People from Brussel,
> > > Liege, Gent (ovl), Antwerpen, Kortrijk (wvl), Tielt (wvl), Limburg, Leuven,
> > > Aarschot, Charleroi,... participate in our meetings and produce
> > > contributions on what happens in their region.
> > > http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-be
> > >
> > > It should be clear that is not up to us to make a choice for the url of
> > > the syndication project, only those who are involved can make such a
> > > choise. So we can only "suggest".
> > > be.indymedia.org would propbaly the best suggestion, it is not in use
> > > and clearly states that it is belgium.
> > no, that would be a disaster. it would mean all decentralisation
> > principles are set aside. (which is what you want anyway).
> > [Nl] Dat zou een ramp zijn. het zou alle decentralisatie principes langzij
> > zetten (wat uiteindelijk hetgene is dat jullie willen).
> > > But there are other options.
> > > Belgie.indy, Belgique.indy are the dutch en french names for belgium.
> > > Those collectives who are working on the syndication website eaven have
> > > a concensus on the url www.mediacitivsm.be:
> > > http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-be/2004-October/1014-k8.html
> > that's a clear lie. that was only agreed because of the networks refusal
> > to decide on belgium.indymedia.org
> > [nl] da's een leugen. dat werd enkel overeengekomen omdat het netwerk
> > weigerde te beslissen over de b.i.o. url.
> > >
> > > > 3. Are there any circumstances in which your collective would consider
> > > > letting the belgium.indymedia.org url go to the syndication site,
> > > > adopting a different url for yourselves?
> > >
> > > We feel it is impossible to answer such a question as we are we are
> > > talking pure speculation.
> > > We feel the first stepts to be taken are:
> > > 1. Mutual acceptance of the existence of each other
> > i personally accept you exist but i can't consider you as a valid imc.
> > > 2. Start talking with each-other with or without (local)mediation
> > i've allready lost way to much time talking with you.
> > Greetings,
> > Bart
> > (personal point of view).
> > > 3. We also believe it's perfectly possible to work together in some
> > > fields/occasions/actions etc. imc-be is pro collaboration on a
> > > voluntary basis, with no strings attached.
> > >
> > > If these steps can be taken and receive time to develop nothing is excluded.
> > >
> > > And if in the mean time some people want to start working on this
> > > syndications project we will not oppose this...
> > >
> > > Greets
> > > han
> IMC-communication mailing list
> IMC-communication at lists.indymedia.org
mtop looks like the revolution!
http://wvl.indymedia.org | bart at indymedia.org
http://thepits.be | bart at thepits.be
gebruik vrije software -- Debian GNU/Linux -- http://debian.org
gpg --keyserver keys.indymedia.org --recv-keys be196251
More information about the IMC-communication