[Imc-communication] fwd: [IMC-Process] explanation about the summary of the belgium.indymedia-proposal
drdartist at riseup.net
Wed Jun 29 22:24:00 PDT 2005
What is peculiar to me, is that nobody has made objection to the
Germany proposal itself. I certainly do not think imc-process should
begin entertaining new proposals when the Germany proposal is still
there and other than issues of timing, nobody has said anything against
the basic ideas of the proposal. Belgium people have expressed
acceptance of the static page, and the mediation. So have others.
So you say put it back the way it was, and then in two or four weeks
again it is made a static page right?
I surely hope there is not going to now be months of arguing over the
process of implementing a proposal that it was my impression everyone
basically agreed with, even if there were some rough edges.
On Jun 29, 2005, at 7:01 PM, gek wrote:
>> taken away by others at any given time. Maybe the timeframe of "two
>> after the first translations were posted" was to short, but on the
>> 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
>> 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.)
> IMC-communication mailing list
> IMC-communication at lists.indymedia.org
More information about the IMC-communication