[Imc-communication] Re: Clarification about current process on imc-process
drdartist at riseup.net
Thu Jun 30 00:02:14 PDT 2005
I agree with you nick...
however, the Germany proposal also has the mediation aspect, which is
something agreed upon by both sides. This makes it not so clear because
it is like two proposals in one.
In any case, it was my impression that the proposal was asking for
cooperation, not issuing a decree.
However, subtleties of process aside, Belgium did agree in general to
the proposal in its words, and only at the last minute give the block.
So the thing is, how to move forward?
I am troubled by the things happening. Gek and Cleveland, both far
away, and both offering blocks and concerns, but do not seem to be
interested in offering solutions. Belgium seems to take the chance to
delay things and are happy with things as they are and would not mind
if these arguments dragged on two more years.
I believe the German proposal is sound, and I do think it is important
to have the static page. Who is actually against the Germany proposal,
and not just addressing the implementation?
On Jun 25, 2005, at 1:34 AM, nick wrote:
> On 6/25/05, gek at linefeed.org <gek at linefeed.org> wrote:
>>> It is the same thing when a collective decides about one particular
>>> member. Say that a proposal was made to take away someone's key to
>>> the local indymedia space because at midnight every night that person
>> Agreed -- we all agree that disaffiliation (or kicking a member out of
>> the group) ... that in that case, the target IMC cannot block. The
>> group of people who were awarded what they want by
>> imc-process-facilitate tried that and failed overwhelmingly.
>> However, we are not talking about a disaffiliation proposal. We are
>> talking about a compromise proposal. How can it be a compromise
>> proposal when one of the parties is banned from disagreeing with the
>> so-called compromise?
> To me, a proposal which messes with a DNS, whether to disaffiliate OR
> to put up a static page, is one specifically aimed at one collective.
> Any such type of porposal can't be blocked by that collective. It
> doesn't matter if the proposal is to disafiliate, put on probation,
> put up a static page, change the name, split them in two... any such
> proposal falls in this category. I am not saying that these types of
> proposals should be taken lightly, they are a really big deal. But,
> it makes no sense for disaffiliation to be the only option which the
> target collective can't block, because often there are much more
> moderate solutions, such as this one, that nonetheless could not
> function if the target collective can block. My example of the guy
> peeing on the floor was not that he be kicked out of the collective,
> just that he lose key access. There are many such decisions which
> might be more moderate than kicking someone out which nonetheless
> require the group to decide without that person's input.
>> Why, for instance, does imc-process-facilitate count all the
>> *supporting* statements by IMCs who are targets of the compromise
>> proposal? Shouldn't they be banned from expressing their collective
>> opinion on the matter?
> Anyone can support or express their concerns, but the IMC whose DNS is
> being messed with can't block. It's really not that hard of a
>> How would you react
>> to a proposal to split up or mess with Houston IMC and you weren't
>> allowed to do anything about it?
> Sure, if we couldn't convince one collective to support us we
> obviously wouldn't have much of a case.
>> In that case, it would have been pretty easy for them to kick you out
>> given the process you are supporting here. All they would have to do
>> is introduce a proposal which named everyone on "your side," thereby
>> banning them from opposing the proposal, and that would be the end of
> Nonsense. Such a proposal would have been blocked by many collectives.
>> Sorry, there's no way that this process logic can stand up to
> I think it does.
> IMC-communication mailing list
> IMC-communication at lists.indymedia.org
More information about the IMC-communication