[Imc-communication] Re: Clarification about current process on imc-process
chekov at indymedia.ie
Sat Jun 25 12:35:43 PDT 2005
You throw around an awful lot of serious and specific accusations for
somebody who has declared 'no interest' in the specifics of this situation.
You send an awful lot of email for somebody who has complained of the
difficulty of following discussions on the lists.
You seem excessively keen to polarise the discussion for somebody who
professes such a belief in compromise.
Do you have anything constructive to suggest as a practical way forward
to address your concerns and get us closer to a resolution of the
Belgian problem? I think that they would be significantly more helpful
even from your own point of view.
1 of indymedia.ie
gek at linefeed.org wrote:
>nick <sarsnic at gmail.com> said:
>>I don't know what you are going for here, but I encourage all of us to
>>try to contribute constructively to our decisions and our work.
>>Instead of arguing all these angles about our processes, could you
>>make it clear if you have a main concern, and if it is a process
>>concern or one more related to the specific case of Belgium?
>I share the concerns already posted by others on imc-process and
>- the coordinated attempt to disaffiliate IMCs based on internet
> flamewar rumor and gossip,
>- attempting to use "red smearing" as a legitimate process mechanism
> within Indymedia,
>- railroading proposals through imc-process to overwhelm imc-process
> at large, knowing that it is a slow-moving body which cannot fairly
> handle fast-moving proposals,
>- pressuring IMCs and individual IMC participants in private mail to
> go along with all this,
>- playing games with who can block and who cannot (thereby setting
> precedents that will be with us long after the Belgium conflict is
>All quite legitimate concerns, I believe.
>IMC-communication mailing list
>IMC-communication at lists.indymedia.org
More information about the IMC-communication