[Imc-communication] Fwd: Re: [imc-uk-tech] Request for immediate emergency action

[Bartolomeo]

Hey,

yet another mail from UK forwarded from imc-process to imc-communication.

Ciao, Bart

----------  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-----
Hash: SHA1

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
process lists.

Cheers

G


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. [1]
>>
>> 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. [2] 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."
> 
> [http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/05/478721.html]
> 
> 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.

- -- 
penguin

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/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJN1EGlAAoJENMF+CPFM1be54gH/3LQwRnyAQW/1TnC0byem3Xr
8y6Mbab4Qp0NktNhtrc6gAwdYxgo7YfC613vix1AEn6nlEypJaIAK39xsBym9IMl
g/Bs9zhmZFtg5tnUwLFopIxj6wbw167WU2CyZLqJnkXkMEGisRoXaL201L/49BC3
5Y/s3h3z5Roe2OtP9+ej0MPREfkwArBK9SoY9HSW1xzuiBKCO0rtAVD2BI6F0ijj
1c63akVZuO1wurekH4E5JRrKuLPJ/vTPFUZ+g4dyRcVFozXKCYDB/jipCuf5kCaE
AB2ptl+zjcq4hRUtyX4YvD8Z7nQcRu0v/9XGA8wG1emCTcY3/4gS8dHqvG2hFw4=
=Ow3l
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


-------------------------------------------------------------