[Imc-communication] Fwd: Re: [imc-uk-tech] Request for immediate emergency action
bartolomeo at indymedia.org
Thu May 19 07:08:33 PDT 2011
yet another mail from UK forwarded from imc-process to imc-communication.
---------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht ----------
Betreff: Re: [imc-uk-tech] Request for immediate emergency action
Datum: Donnerstag, 19. Mai 2011
Von: penguin <penguin at riseup.net>
An: Chris Wilson <chris+imc at qwirx.com>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
My view, FWIW, is that these are process questions, not tech questions.
Yes, they're interlinked. But so is everything - in which case we would
just have one mailing list for everything.
If people agree with me, perhaps they could take this discussion onto
On Wed 18 May 2011 21:14:04 BST, Chris Wilson [chris+imc at qwirx.com]
emailed subject: "Re: [imc-uk-tech] Request for immediate emergency
action" saying ...
> Hi all,
> On Fri, 6 May 2011, Imc London wrote:
>> There has been a long standing conflict within the UK network. An
>> externally facilitated meeting came to a consensus to 'fork' the project
>> on 01-May-2011. 
>> During the last few weeks before this deadline, the 'Mayday' collective
>> (a.k.a. "group A") claimed the decision was invalid and refused to work
>> with other members of the network to implement the fork (see the various
>> imc-uk-* lists). In the early hours of 01-May-2011, a static html page
>> was placed on the front of www.indymedia.org.uk indicating that a fork
>> was going to happen.  The site was *not* archived, however, as
>> several of the regional collectives within the UK had not finalised what
>> would happen to their sites.
> The current indymedia.org.uk site contains the following statement, which
> appears to me to contradict the above:
> "On May 1st 2011, there was an attempt by BeTheMedia to disrupt the
> Indymedia UK site. They do not have consensus to do this, so the Mayday
> Collective took direct action to secure the site."
> Can anyone tell me:
> 1. Who acted first to "disrupt" the site, BeTheMedia or Mayday?
> 2. Does either side have a definitive consensus support from the Bradford
> agreement that they should control the www.indymedia.org.uk DNS record and
> the content displayed there?
> 3. Is there a valid consensus decision that www.indymedia.org.uk should
> continue to host an open newswire running Mir, or that it should not?
> 4. Why is BeTheMedia, which was previously hosted on
> http://www.bethemedia.org.uk, unhappy with that situation and desire to
> control http://www.indymedia.org.uk?
> In solidarity,
> Chris W.
GPG key: http://tiny.cc/gpg-key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the IMC-communication