[Imc-communication] fwd: [IMC-Process] explanation about the summary of the belgium.indymedia-proposal
gek at linefeed.org
Wed Jun 29 19:01:04 PDT 2005
>taken away by others at any given time. Maybe the timeframe of "two days
>after the first translations were posted" was to short, but on the other
>hand the time to comment on the validity of the summary (whether a
>proposal was accepted or not) should be shorter then the deadline of the
>proposal itself (and not 18 days and one proposal later).
For the following reasons, I think that the IMC-Germany proposal
should be put on hold, things returned to how they were before the
IMC-Germany proposal was "passed", and imc-process begin entertaining
new proposals on this matter:
1) There *were* emails which disputed the logic of the summary, but
they were blocked from going to imc-process (in particular, QC's
objection to the 'precedent' cited).
2) IMC-Cleveland has raised a Point of Process which calls into
question the validity of the decision of imc-process-facilitate to
declare the proposal "passed." Unfortunately, this email has been held
in moderation for 4 days.
3) Not enough time was given for the imc-process-facilitate "Summary"
to be discussed amongst local IMCs. There were only 14 days between
the Summary and the DNS Change request. Almost all imc-process
decisions of significance have allowed a lengthy time for people to
catch up and discuss. Even more, the DNS Change request was sent well
before the change date specified in the Summary.
4) IMC-Belgium has raised issues of power abuse that seem valid.
I believe there is enough dissent that the DNS should be changed back
immediately and a discussion should ensue on these matters. (Note: it
is still not July, which is when the DNS was supposed to be changed.)
More information about the IMC-communication