[Imc-communication] Re: Clarification about current process on imc-process
toya at riseup.net
toya at riseup.net
Sat Jun 25 20:34:49 PDT 2005
i am sorry dan but i dont agree with you here...i believe you should
realize that isnt easy to follow discussions with such traffic of emails
like this one..specially when you try to speak here with the opinion of
your collective...some collectives from brasil doesnt even understand what
is happening with belgium..and isnt because we dont have ppl following the
list because we do. But mostly because it is hard to be following it,
explaining it to at least 12 collectives (imc brasil network) and then
come back with some opinion or opinions...i myself have my doubts about if
this decision of not letting the collective who the proposal refers to, to
be able to block it or not..if it is a good idea or not..i believe for
such a thing to exist we should also create a good process where this
collective would have their time to defend themself ..and maybe blocking
could be part of this defense..i am not sure..but yeah i am here talking
as myself because the way things moves in this list is impossible for
someone from a network of collectives to be able to do her job as a liason
and bring the discussion locally.
i believe that more the 50% of the opinions gave in this list are personal
and not from the collective..otherwise i would amazed by how fast those
collectives made decisions and are able to follow such traffic of
anw....i think in a process like this an opinion should be respected even
if it is gave "too late" or something... i would be very disapointed if at
some point of all this process i can come here with the brasil imc network
opinion and ppl come to me and say it is "too late for it"
> On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 gek at linefeed.org wrote:
>> 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.
> I don't see why this is any different. If Belgium wanted to implement the
> proposal, they could have done it themselves and process would not have
> had to intervene. So because there was a proposal on process to change
> the DNS, common sense consensus process says that the Belgian IMC cannot
> block. Otherwise, a proposal would have been worthless- we could have
> just merely stopped at a suggestion to the belgian IMC to change their
> Secondly, you speak throughout your email of some "imc-process-facilitate"
> group yet there is no secret cabal of people who are making decisions.
> Myself (who is not a moderator of this list) and several others gave their
> opinions on imc-communication after Belgium tried to block as to why the
> Belgian block should not stop the proposal from being implemented. There
> was no disagreement at that point.
> If any *collective* thought that this was unfair, they should have issued
> a block of the proposal. Belgium could have aided this by attempting to
> block as early as possible.
> Instead, the list was filled with people saying that the proposal was
> passedand should move forward. After that, I worked with Pittsburgh IMC
> to implement our end and to ask dns@ for the change. And THAT was the
> point that you (acting, I assume, as an individual and not a collective)
> decided to stand up for process.
> I'm not saying that you don't have standing to complain at this point, but
> if you wanted to be more productive rather than simply being disruptive in
> the future, you should speak up during the discussion around a proposal,
> rather than afterward.
> IMC-communication mailing list
> IMC-communication at lists.indymedia.org
More information about the IMC-communication