[New-imc] extending the proposal's deadline to Sep. 2 / Re: EMERGENCY PROPOSAL - please respond by Sep. 1 2006 / Re: arafura and darwin

[boud]

On Sat, 2 Sep 2006, nick wrote:

> So far the closest to any sort of statement that there is any
> agreement about is the below statement, but it has been agreed on by
> no one except for me and boud.  I woud feel comfortable moving forward
> with is (because it is a non-blocking concern) if several people voice
> support for it and no one blocks.  However, if it remains just boud
> and me, I would rather just drop the whole thing and not make any
> comment to imc-process at all on behalf of new-imc.

i agree - i'd like at least to have petros' support for this, after all,
it started from his initial proposal.

solidarity
boud


> new-imc internal version of a proposal for imc-process version 2.3
>
> The new-imc working group does not consider itself as entitled to
> block proposals. However, we RECOMMEND that the Melbourne proposal
> concerning disaffiliation of the the present group calling itself imc
> darwin:
> http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-process/2006-August/0820-ra.html
>
> be modified to clearly state that this group will BE ALLOWED TO RETAIN
> USE OF THE IMC-DARWIN MAILING LIST:
> http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-darwin/2006-August/thread.html
>
> New-IMC has agreed that the requirements for granting mailing lists
> are much looser than those for being affiliated.
>
> We also RECOMMEND that the language about "constitutions" ("Any
> collective wishing to call itself Darwin Indymedia would therefore
> require, as part of it's constitution, to exclude this individual") be
> modified.  IMCs do not have constitutions and therefore this is a
> problematic requirement for new-imc and other imc groups to try to
> implement.
> _______________________________________________
> New-imc mailing list. Lista de correo New-imc
> New-imc at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/new-imc
>