[New-imc] [Imc-cyprus] cyprus also needs to clarify: block or stand aside ?

[John Milton]

The are many models and methods for consensus process. When the work 
being done is uncontroversial the fact that there are no agreed rules of 
procedure causes little or no problem, but when a contentious matter 
comes up difficulties arise, as they are doing here.

As far as I know the IMCN has never codified rules of procedure for the 
"imc process" list, but one of the few principals that does seem to be 
agreed is that proposals brought to the "imc process" list must come 
with a Consensus Test deadline attached.

What has also been stated by the "imc process" moderators recently, and 
not contested explicitly on "imc process" as far as I know, is that the 
proposal should not be modified during the consencuc test period. This 
seems reasonable to me otherwise list members are being asked to follow 
a "moving target" in a short time frame which I think can only lead to 
brokeness of process.

So, what has not been made clear is if the period of time between when a 
proposal is introduced on "imc process" and the deadline for end of 
consensus test can be divided into 2 parts; a discussion phase during 
which time the proposal could be ammended, followed by a consensus test 
phase during which it could not and liasons would be just expressing a 
final opinion of their collectives on the matter, or if it should all be 
just a consensus test phase.

What I hope, but am not sure, that Cyprus and Paris are doing is acting 
as if the model that splits the time period into discussion, followed by 
test, is in play, assuming implicitly that we are still in discussion, 
and engaging in that. I say that I "hope" this is what they are doing 
not because I think it is necessarly the best course, but rather because 
if they are doing something else:

- Its far from clear to me, and perhaps others, what that is.
- I think if it is something much different than what I suppose it is 
likly to at the least add to confusion, and at the worst facilitate 
"brokeness" of process on "imc process".

In my opinion our global decsion making systems within IMCN are 
somewhere between barley functional and outright broken right now. Thats 
o.k. as long as nobody expects much to be decided by them, and / or 
whatever is decided to be of trivial importance (ignorable without 
consequece). i.e. for essentially everything to be done by collectives 
or small working groups without global consensus. Evidence for this is 
as diverse as the fact that our financial officers submit no regular 
financial reports, the question of who has authority to direct the 
pointing of the Darwin URL is still in limbo after almost a year, and 
that after five years our global principals of unity are still only a 
"Draft" (in spite of efforts last year to make them an official policy).

So I would like to appeal to Cyprus, Paris and others posting on this to 
be explicit about not only your opinions on the issue at hand, but also 
the procedural assumptions you are making as you do that post.

Since I don't see the word "BLOCK" in the content from Paris or Cyprus I 
assume that a block of the proposal in the procedural sense has not 
happened yet, but I would like to more fully understand their intention 
if they are willing to expound further on that...



Petros Evdokas wrote:
> 
> Hi again,
> 
> 
> In regards to the sequence of events, the dates on which the letters to 
> imc-process were actually *sent* from imc-paris, imc-cyprus and new-imc 
> are helpful.
> 
> In regards to my failures, I am always open to hearing public and 
> private critique so that I can improve my work. I appreciate good faith 
> critiques from colleagues.
> 
> In regards to the concerns of new-imc and requests for clarifications, 
> obviously they can (and should) be taken up by the whole of imc-process, 
> not just imc-cyprus and imc-paris. At this point, paris and cyprus are 
> allies in making a simple statement aimed at peace.
> 
> And it would be good if new-imc would enter a dialogue to find a 
> consensus, instead of just saying "stand aside or block". There has 
> always been a positive climate for dialogue within new imc, why abandon 
> it now?
> 
> Thanks,
> Petros

-- 
Peace: John Milton

email: john at johnmilton.ca
Skype name (VoIP): john.e.milton
mobile phone (Canada): 905-537-8472
web: johnmilton.ca

Encrypted email welcome. PGP key on my website
Fingerprint: 40D8 5835 7230 8EE1 E968  1E7A 5CF1 68A6 C0E2 F9DC