[New-imc] I feel Petros has violated the trust of this group

[nick]

Ok, good point John, I will try to provide the history of what
happened here and explain why it was problematic for me.

First Petros said this:
> There is already a formal procedure going on with the new-imc group
working to resolve the problems. Any decision of this kind will torpedo
the possibility of new-imc ever having any credibility to determine
situations within its jurisdiction.
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-communication/2006-August/0901-a9.html

I responded:
> I think Petros has appeared to speak on behalf of the new-imc group and that
this is inappropriate as we have had NO discussion about this latest
proposal at all.
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-communication/2006-August/0901-8i.html

But then he ignored my concern, didn't retract anything or apologize,
and did it again and with even more vehement language:
>The Proposal is an interference and a violation of the currently
active procedure of the new-imc work group: new-imc is already
processing the case of imc-darwin.
http://english-cyprus.indymedia.org/newswire/display/239/index.php

He called a procedure "ours" when it was not, he claimed we have
"jurisdiction" where we do not, he called "our" procedures "formal"
when they were not, and he describes the threat to his procedures as a
"torpedo," a "violation" and an "interference," without any consent,
authorization or even a discussion about doing so with the group.

On 9/5/06, John Milton <john at johnmilton.ca> wrote:
> Hi Nick, and others:
>
> Nick when you say "Speaking on behalf of the group without explicit
> authorization is a GRAVE violation of the trust of the group"
>
> Well, often times yes, but it's far from clear to me that Petros has
> done that, as opposed to say expressing his own opinion or the opion of
> some other group for which he had a mandate to speak. Could you please
> provide a cite (hyperlink would be best) for this quote so we can
> consider it in context?
>
> Thanks!
>