[IMC-Process] explanation about the summary of the
toya at riseup.net
Wed Jun 29 10:38:19 PDT 2005
clara i have present here a few months ago the concern from a few
collectives from imc brasil network relating with the way the process
was moving on without having the rest of the networking knowing bout it
and agreeing with the meassures taken during this process...like it has
been maded another time (brisbane case etc)
and on the same email we suggested that ppl would stop any process,
create a process proposal to deal with this kind of situation and try to
get it to as many imcs as possible and see if it was ok to follow it.
and that unfourtunally belgium would have to wait for that because the
global network didnt had structure to deal with such case.
i guess this would be the best to facilitate this process righ now..
but i am saying this again to just remind you that isnt a concern that
had been showed in the past few days only..months ago some collectives
from brasil haven said that.
Em Wed, Jun 29, 2005 at 06:33:56PM +0200, clara escreveu:
> Dear all,
> During the Belgium discussions, as facilitators, we tried to keep an
> overview of a heated debate, including a proposal and two counter-proposals.
> We summarized the last proposal (the so-called imc-germany proposal,
> about the url belgium.indymedia.org), and put the summary up on
> imc-process with the idea of a time-out in the discussion for
> clarifications of the summary itself.
> The summary stated clearly that indy.be had blocked it. As facilitators
> we drew the conclusion that the proposal thereby had passed. This was
> not an attempt to introduce new rules, but in good faith that this was
> based on already existing procedures (i.e. similar to discussions that
> have happened in the past).
> There are different forms of consensus decision making whereby the
> person/group that is seen to be the cause of the problem cannot block
> attempts to find a solution for that specific problem. We have seen this
> kind of approach in different local IMCs and global working groups, and
> assumed that it was valid on imc-process as well.
> (This understanding is supported by the fact that the imc-germany
> proposal was explicitely described as a temporary measure and as a first
> step for a conflict resolution by leveling the playing field.)
> As said before: this was in good faith (and based on the experiences we
> have seen elsewhere in the Indymedia network) that this was actully how
> internal conflicts could be handled.
> There was no reaction on this procedure, until a few days ago. And not
> until a follow-up proposal for the practical details had been posted -
> and had also past its deadline.
> We also had asked to stop the discussion for a while to make space for
> comments and clarifications on the summary, instead of just continuing
> the discussion as if no deadline had passed. Apparently, the formulation
> was unclear about that, but with the follow-up proposal and the way the
> discussion went forward on imc-communication (in most postings), it
> appeared that most participants of the discussion had understood it the
> way we meant it.
> If people and collectives have different opinions about whether persons
> or collectives can(not) block a proposal that has to do with their
> behaviour or actions, then we need to discuss that as well as the
> consequences the different approaches have for network-internal conflict
> In that case, it would be good if somebody could make a good proposal of
> how to deal with such situations in general.
> However, I would like to ask everybody who wants to discuss such
> procedure issues not to mix that with arguments about the content of the
> imc-germany proposal.
> I would also like to ask people to reserve a bit of respect for those
> people who are trying to find solutions for the problem at hand
> (including the facilitators of different lists on which these topics are
> being discussed). Let's discuss the issues at hand, not insult the people.
> On the specific imc-germany proposal: I find it a complicated situation
> that individuals and IMCs did not react when a summary was posted, and
> only declare it invalid after others had already moved on from there. It
> is hard to work constructively if the basis for any further step can be
> taken away by others at any given time. Maybe the timeframe of "two days
> after the first translations were posted" was to short, but on the other
> hand the time to comment on the validity of the summary (whether a
> proposal was accepted or not) should be shorter then the deadline of the
> proposal itself (and not 18 days and one proposal later).
> - as facilitator of imc-process -
> imc-process mailing list
> imc-process at lists.indymedia.org
More information about the imc-process