[IMC-Process] explanation about the summary of the belgium.indymedia-proposal

[deva]

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 
block.

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.

deva
portland


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 
> conflict
> resolution.
>
> In that case, it would be good if somebody could make a good proposal 
> of
> how to deal with such situations in general.