[Imc-communication] Clarification about current process on imc-process

[turlututu]

Hey Andrés, personally i don't like the way used by Cleveland and Gek 
neither because they didn't take part one time to the (so long) debate 
about belgium case and didn't try to reach a solution, then they come 
after the proposal is passed and say they don't agree. Sorry but that's 
not serious at all...

If you consider that decision wasn't democratic (and it's your right), 
the only way to leave the circle would be to do a new proposal on 
imc-process which :
1. Proposes to cancel  Imc Germany's proposal.
2. Proposes a new resolution of conflict which would be accepted by all 
belgian Imcs (which seems impossible since the only acceptable proposals 
have been made already).

That seems the democratic way of working of indymedia.

It's always easy to denigrate the work made by others, but to imply 
yourself in a resolution of conflict asks to you a lot of energy and 
time, especially in the belgium context where the conflict exists since 
more than 3 years now. I have to point also that several proposals have 
been made in the past and all of them have been rejected by one or 
another. Imc Germany's proposal was born from that long 
process/discussion and appears to be the best proposal because it takes 
in consideration both claims and their right to exist on a _equal 
level_. Just remember this conflict looks like an eternal circle till no 
decision is taken and the belgians suffer really of that...

If the url matter is a problem, keep in mind the mediation comes after 
that, it could be a way for indymedia.be to find a solution about that 
problem. As i said in my previous mail, don't burn all the steps, this 
conflict won't be solved in one day.

turlututu from Imc Liege.



andrés a écrit :

> gek at linefeed.org dijo el 25/06/2005 2:32:
>
>> So, you agree that imc-process-facilitate can choose to make certain
>> proposals immune from blocks from certain IMCs?
>
>
> No, gek. In general I'm not happy about this aspect of the process, 
> and I tend to agree with Stefan from Erfurt 
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/mmid/imc-communication/2005-0626-5w 
> and the latest Cleveland statement 
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/mmid/imc-communication/2005-0626-00 
> on this point.
>
> Although in the Belgian case it may have been necessary, it should 
> have been made clear to and approved by the network in advance. I 
> guess you, and others, will have have read through the 
> imc-process-facilitate archives 
> http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-process-facilitate/ and may 
> not be too happy with the way gdm, with help from clara and some 
> opposition from john, may have come to perhaps excessively dominate 
> process there.
>
> However, having said that, _in_the_present_Belgian_case_, my personal 
> opinion right now is that it's probably best to accept the situation 
> and concentrate on trying to move forward with mediated 
> conflict-resolution, as both imc-be and imc-liege, and possibly 
> imc-antwerpen (although not, so far, imc-ovl or imc-wvl), seem to be 
> willing to do.
>
> I think the indymedia network needs to avoid becoming bureaucratic and 
> should be intolerant of centralised power. Each issue that arises 
> would best be handled seperately, openly, with as much debate as 
> necessary, using our collective imagination and in its own unique 
> terms, without undue resort to precedents.
>
> The imc-canarias collective may be able to offer a consensed position 
> in imc-process on some of these issues soon.
>