[Imc-communication] (no subject)

[deva]

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.

deva
portland indymedia contributor




On Jun 28, 2005, at 11:03 AM, mp wrote:

> hi,
>
> 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" 
> speak
> or say hold on for a second here - or something, - since what else are
> witch hunts than a consensus of someone over someone else? ;)
>
> -mp
>