[Imc-communication] Re: Clarification about current process on imc-process
sarsnic at gmail.com
Sat Jun 25 01:34:36 PDT 2005
On 6/25/05, gek at linefeed.org <gek at linefeed.org> wrote:
> > It is the same thing when a collective decides about one particular
> > member. Say that a proposal was made to take away someone's key to
> > the local indymedia space because at midnight every night that person
> Agreed -- we all agree that disaffiliation (or kicking a member out of
> the group) ... that in that case, the target IMC cannot block. The
> group of people who were awarded what they want by
> imc-process-facilitate tried that and failed overwhelmingly.
> However, we are not talking about a disaffiliation proposal. We are
> talking about a compromise proposal. How can it be a compromise
> proposal when one of the parties is banned from disagreeing with the
> so-called compromise?
To me, a proposal which messes with a DNS, whether to disaffiliate OR
to put up a static page, is one specifically aimed at one collective.
Any such type of porposal can't be blocked by that collective. It
doesn't matter if the proposal is to disafiliate, put on probation,
put up a static page, change the name, split them in two... any such
proposal falls in this category. I am not saying that these types of
proposals should be taken lightly, they are a really big deal. But,
it makes no sense for disaffiliation to be the only option which the
target collective can't block, because often there are much more
moderate solutions, such as this one, that nonetheless could not
function if the target collective can block. My example of the guy
peeing on the floor was not that he be kicked out of the collective,
just that he lose key access. There are many such decisions which
might be more moderate than kicking someone out which nonetheless
require the group to decide without that person's input.
> Why, for instance, does imc-process-facilitate count all the
> *supporting* statements by IMCs who are targets of the compromise
> proposal? Shouldn't they be banned from expressing their collective
> opinion on the matter?
Anyone can support or express their concerns, but the IMC whose DNS is
being messed with can't block. It's really not that hard of a
> How would you react
> to a proposal to split up or mess with Houston IMC and you weren't
> allowed to do anything about it?
Sure, if we couldn't convince one collective to support us we
obviously wouldn't have much of a case.
> In that case, it would have been pretty easy for them to kick you out
> given the process you are supporting here. All they would have to do
> is introduce a proposal which named everyone on "your side," thereby
> banning them from opposing the proposal, and that would be the end of that.
Nonsense. Such a proposal would have been blocked by many collectives.
> Sorry, there's no way that this process logic can stand up to examination.
I think it does.
More information about the IMC-communication