[Imc-communication] (no subject)
drdartist at riseup.net
Tue Jun 28 11:45:59 PDT 2005
Cleveland made a point that Belgium should be able to block and that it
required a proposal otherwise, and I made the point that no proposal to
that effect is needed for the reason stated.
I think rather than try to raise a dubious point of process, Cleveland
should address the proposal itself.
This is a difficult situation. Life is never so clean and correct. All
systems of governance, decision-making, power, all are flawed. I am
uncomfortable with every proposal, and with doing nothing. People, and
the network as a whole, are trying to move forward.
Belgium had time to speak, and other local collectives also had time to
speak. The Germany proposal was clear, and altogether an honest and
fair attempt to move forward. No solution will be perfect but in this
case no final decision is even made. The Belgium URL change is
temporary as part of mediation.
Is the Germany proposal bad?
Anyway, this situation is challenging every idea of what indymedia is.
Basically, I believe that is good.
portland indymedia contributor
On Jun 28, 2005, at 11:03 AM, mp wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 10:55 -0700, deva wrote:
>> For example, if you have a troublemaker in your collective, you could
>> never get rid of that person because they would always block every
>> proposal to ban them. This is so self evident and obvious, that it
>> needs no proposal to 'officially' establish.
> agree, but perhaps there ought to be a provision for "the accused"
> or say hold on for a second here - or something, - since what else are
> witch hunts than a consensus of someone over someone else? ;)
More information about the IMC-communication