[Imc-communication] NEW-IMC (no conflict = no discussion?)
drdartist at riseup.net
Sun May 22 12:51:57 PDT 2005
I know of two cases (Rogue and Kamloops) where NEW IMC ended up in the
way of an IMC from getting itself going.
There should be a NEW-IMC group, but it should refocus its mission to
primarily help, not to approve. For one or two persons to say 'I block'
to a forming IMC is a problem. Kamloops met all the requirements, but
still was stopped and they had no real recourse to address the
injustice done. Something is not right in this.
Perhaps NEW-IMC should not be able to block a new imc, unless by clear
consensus of everyone participating on the list. Also, maybe a new imc
could be sponsored by 2 existing imc's and that is also a way to gain
the dns and listing on the cities list.
I do not think NEW-IMC is a bad idea, but just that it needs some
adjustment in approach and maybe a change in process
portland imc contributor
On May 22, 2005, at 5:58 AM, Anna wrote:
> i don't know whether we really need a whole new debate. the current
> routine of the new-imc procedure really already is very vague and to
> perceive that as authoritative doesn't really get to the core of the
> matter in my view. maybe i didn't understand well the suggestions
> about what to change. i'd say what we need is more people to help
> new-imc and those groups who are still waiting for someone to guide
> them into the network and to work on good documentation of what is
> happening there.
More information about the IMC-communication