[Imc-communication] NEW-IMC (no conflict = no discussion?)

[deva]

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

thanks
deva
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.