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

[boud]

petros,

If we want to send a text to imc-process from new-imc, we need to converge
on the precise statement we make.

On Sun, 3 Sep 2006, Petros Evdokas wrote:

> boud wrote:
>
>> IMHO we have passive consensus, but nick would prefer active consensus,
>> i.e. more people than just nick + boud who say they support version 2.3.
>
> Thank you, I appreciate this, it's always better to generate consensus
> through active dialogue, rather than by default.
>
> So far, it seems we have consensus on these:
>
> - we agreed to treat the conflict as a split in Darwin, and two groups
> are going through the new-imc process with the names imc-arafura, and
> imc-darwin. Each is at various stages of readiness.
>
> - we have clear consensus that the imc-darwin list should retain use of
> the imc-darwin email list, in order to organize, carry out business and
> communications like any other candidate group.

Version 2.3 does not quite say exactly that: it only says the new-imc
*recommends* this. We are leaving the actual decision-making to local
imc collectives, through their liaisons.

> - up until now we seemed to have consensus that we accept whatever the
> imc-darwin group wants to do about its own affairs, including who would
> be admins and moderators, beginning from the moment after we arranged
> for transfer of control to the people we (new-imc) had named. We even
> oversaw the transer, and wrote to the group that after that, they can
> follow their own sense of autonomy about it.

Sure, for new-imc to accept this does not mean that we agree
(internally in new-imc) that we want to override a network decision on
this.

> - it seems we agree that either with or without a liaison (formally or
> informally), it would be helpful if new-imc gave to imc-process some
> kind of feedback, information, updates on our interaction with
> imc-darwin and imc-arafura, etc., just as we do with other candidate groups.
>
>
> If there are better ways to phrase any of the above, please feel free to
> change them and we can think about it again.


So do you support version 2.3 of the proposal?
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2006-September/0902-px.html

The implicit sense of what you say here seems to me to be that you
want to replace

"However, we RECOMMEND that ..."  in version 2.3

by

"However, we DEMAND that ..."

or

"However, we INSIST that ..."

or

"However, we REQUIRE that ..."


IMHO the difference is fundamental: is new-imc a working group that makes
recommendations to the network, or are we a coordinatorist group that has
the right to impose certain things on the network because of our extensive
experience and good intentions?


petros (and anyone else) - do you wish to support version 2.3 of the proposed
statement by new-imc to imc-process?


nick wrote:
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2006-September/0903-9x.html

> supporting proposal 2.3: Nick, boud, Smush
> supporting Melbourne proposal: Ulla
> opposing Melbourne proposal: John, Petros


solidarity
boud