[IMC-Process] explanation about the summary of the
drdartist at riseup.net
Wed Jun 29 22:55:21 PDT 2005
If there is a proposal such as disaffiliation, then the person or
collective must have no block, otherwise they can always stop any
action, and the greater entity (group or network) becomes powerless.
The Germany proposal has the aspect of the URL and the mediation. It is
asking for participation from Belgium, and so it makes sense to me that
Belgium have a say.
If you are asking for participation, then that means of participation
in the IMCN is by consensus, which means the participant can use the
So after some thought, I agree with the Cleveland point of process. By
ignoring the Belgium block, we have in effect, disaffiliated them. Now,
I do not see this as bad necessarily. For example, many job positions,
if there is a serious accusation, they will be given a leave of absence
until it is cleared. But a proposal needs to be clear whether it is
suspending their standing and rights as part of the network, or whether
they are an included participant.
If a proposal is for disaffiliation, permanent or temporary, they have
no block, otherwise their block should count.
On Jun 29, 2005, at 9:33 AM, clara wrote:
> 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
> In that case, it would be good if somebody could make a good proposal
> how to deal with such situations in general.
More information about the imc-process