[Imc-uk-process] Deadlines and Ultimatums
chris at anargeek.net
Tue Apr 19 14:04:26 PDT 2011
On Tue 19-Apr-2011 at 08:57:51PM +0100, Radicale wrote:
> I would just like to second what Genny has said, could not have put it
> better myself.
All the best
> On 19 Apr 2011, at 20:21, Genny wrote:
> > I was present at the Bradford meeting and it was explicitly stated
> > there that the agreement would not stand if group A (now Mayday
> > collective) were not able to complete a safe passage through new-imc
> > process in time. This was discussed more than once and statements
> > were made by members of London imc along the lines of 'we had better
> > make sure we help you get through new-imc so the fork can go ahead'.
> > These statements were made both before and after the fork was agreed
> > - in other words, it was agreed on this basis. As I understood it,
> > this was not a case of London saying they would somehow engineer our
> > passage through new-imc process, but that they would support us and
> > help us get through as this would be in everyone's interests in
> > order for the fork to proceed. This has not happened.
> > If the people who made these statements thought all along that the
> > fork could go ahead without group A getting through new-imc process,
> > then the meeting was deliberately misled. I would not have gone
> > along with the agreement on the basis that the fork would go ahead
> > regardless and this was NOT what was agreed.
> > If the minutes don't record precisely this point, then that's
> > unfortunate, but it doesn't change what was said and agreed in the
> > meeting. After spending a lot of time to no good effect trying to
> > ensure that the minutes of the previous network meeting accurately
> > reflected what happened, I had neither the time, energy nor
> > inclination to do the same all over again with this meeting.
> > Garcon du Monde wrote:
> > >
> > > i'm writing this email as both an individual and an individual who
> > > was *not* present in bradford, at the last network meeting. this
> > > latter point, specifically, i think is relevant.
> > >
> > > it is relevant because my understanding of the bradford meeting
> > > and the agreements that were made there have been influenced only
> > > by the meeting minutes:
> > >
> > > * http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-process/2010-December/1211-v5.html
> > >
> > > i note that not only were the minutes made public on the same day
> > > as the meeting, but that this was *only* done following agreement
> > > from *all parties* present at the meeting. see the "decision at
> > > 20:28" section right at the end.
> > >
> > > thus, my interpretation is that it is not possible for anyone to
> > > BLOCK or even to block any of the decisions made at that time. if
> > > there were to be any blocks, they should have been made by the
> > > people present at that meeting - and there were representatives
> > > from all collectives at that meeting. however, all present at that
> > > meeting agreed with the final minutes, and it is clearly stated
> > > that "Everything has to be done by the first of May, but should be
> > > done earlier." (decision 19:18) i would imagine this
> > > interpretation would be pretty similar to that of others who were
> > > also not at the meeting.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 11:25:24PM +0100, Mr. Demeanour wrote:
> > >
> > > > The Mayday Collective notes the various emails from nab ,
> > > > Bristol IMC  and London IMC , and from Listwork .
> > > >
> > > > 1. We object to the closing down of lists that we are using for
> > > > newswire moderation. We BLOCK the closing of the uk-moderation
> > > > and uk-features lists on May 1. We suggest that closing the
> > > > uk-process list on May 1 appears to be premature, since the
> > > > agreement seems unlikely to be completed by that date.
> > > >
> > > > 2. We are not willing to move to a temporary URL on May 1. We
> > > > are therefore blocking the proposal that DNS changes should be
> > > > made that are adverse to the UK/Mayday site, until such a time
> > > > as our status as an IMC has been properly resolved.
More information about the Imc-uk-process