[New-imc] version 0.4: PROPOSAL (DISCUSSION phase) - new-imc statement to imc-process

boud boud at riseup.net
Sat Sep 9 11:18:11 PDT 2006


hi petros, everyone,

On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, Petros Evdokas wrote:

> I feel comfortable with most of the approach articulated by John, in
> Version 0.4. But not enough to endorse it as our official statement
> because it's the work itself that I question, its goals.

This sounds like a concern, not a block, so maybe we can work through
it.

> I also feel the need to point out some inconsistencies that are occuring
> among us.
>
> First and foremost, why are we doing this? Why are we trying to issue a
> statement?

i (boud) started the proposal because and_ from imc melbourne felt
that new-imc had in some sense already "disaffiliated" old imc darwin
(by recognising its non-existence) and he felt a bit angry that
melbourne had not been informed about it before - since it could have
saved melbourne the trouble of making their own proposal. On the other 
hand, it was clear from the discussion that there remains a lack of 
clarity on the following two points:
* Is there any meaning in talking about "Darwin IMC" or is it ambiguous?
* Does the old Darwin IMC still exist?

So my motivation was to clear up the answers to these questions. It's
not doing anything against "new Darwin IMC", it's only doing something 
against "old Darwin IMC" which has ceased to exist.

The advantage (if the proposal achieves consensus in new-imc and afterwards
in the network) is that there will no longer be arguments about "Darwin
getting its domain back" but instead discussions about "how is the new 
Darwin IMC going in getting reorganised?" (and probably: "is the new 
Darwin IMC group able to find a way in which mick can participate without
harming the network?".


> When we had a proposal by me that we (new-imc) give a statement and
> update to imc-process from our group on the status of the applications
> and of our current procedures with imc-darwin and imc-arafura, it was
> blocked and every effort to generate dialogue on it in order to
> formulate a group statement was delayed. It was very clear that it was

petros - this is extremely misleading. You happened to become aware of the
Melbourne proposal about 10 days after it was announced, leaving only 4
days for new-imc discussion. Any responsibility for an inability of new-imc
to come to consensus on how to react to this is therefore shared.

IMC Cyprus, like any functioning imc, in principle should have already had
a liaison on imc-process, and s/he could have quickly informed your local
collective.  If you had started discussion within new-imc within a few days
of the proposal, we would have had e.g. 10-11 days to discuss and it
would have been easier.

If there is any responsibility for having unnecessary delays, then i think
you only have your own local collective to blame, for having informed you 
so late about the proposal.

> maneuvering aimed at ensuring indirectly that the imc-melbourne proposal
> would pass. The individuals among us responsible for those maneuvers did
> not really state that this was happening, only dumped roadblocks in the
> discussion.

i think you are wrong to suggest that differences of point of view
about coordinatorism are attempts at manipulation. Your point of view 
was what i (and i think some others) think is dangerously close to 
coordinatorism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/coordinatorism). The proposal
by melbourne was a proposal by a local collective. The only valid block
to this would have to come from another local collective: not from a 
coordinating collective. While a *statement* from new-imc was possible,
we had to be (from the anti-coordinatorist point of view) very careful
to avoid this being seen as any sort of intervention by a group holding
centralised coordinating power. Given the short time frame, it was simply
not possible for us to come up with a mutually acceptable statement. 
nick also shifted the decision-making method to active consensus because
we did not have the *time available* for normal passive consensus.

Here is just one of my statements strongly suggesting you get your local
collective to take an action if it felt necessary (and finally it did):
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2006-September/0902-fp.html

> Then, the imc-melbourne proposal was blocked.
>
>
> The IMC-PROCESS moderation team (John, GdM, and Toya) issued a summary
> which notes that Version 1 was blocked. It also gives some very helpful
> commentary and instruction to imc-melbourne on how to handle Version 2,
> but does not clarify if it's still a valid proposal and if liaisons from
> imc locals must answer it or not. For all we know, the imc-melbourne
> Version 2 proposal might be invalid.
>
> The summary is here:
> "[IMC-Process] IMC Process Moderation Summary"
> http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-process/2006-September/0906-is.html
>
> There seems to be some confusion, or at least a need for clarification.
> I think that our first step should be to get that clarification.

IMHO it's fairly clear from the text that the v2 proposal is invalid.

| With that in
| mind, the imc-process moderation teams asks that, if this issue is going to
| be raised again, that it please be done through a new proposal

(It's also clear to everyone who reads a little bit about the issue that
v2 is insufficiently different from v1 to obviously satisfy the concerns
of IMC Cyprus and IMC Antwerp.)


> I still think that we should have had a liaison from new-imc speak to
> imc-process while the issue was being deliberated.
>
> Right now, there is absolutely no reason for us to get involved - unless
> it's another ploy to use us i order to push through Version 2 by
> imc-melbourne through backdoor support.
>
> Why are we involved in this discussion?

There is presently no proposal active in imc-process. Please email to
imc-process-facilitate if you are unsure.

Our proposal is very different from either v1 or v2 of the melbourne proposal:

* our proposal does *not* refer to mick at all except as the initial 
tech contact for old Darwin IMC (the melbourne proposals v1 and v2 both
refer very strongly to mick and include his full name)

* our proposal does *not* ask to remove the imc-darwin mailing list from
the collective

> My proposal is that one of us, a liaison from new-imc, must find out
> from the imc-process moderation team what the status of Version 2 is now.
>
> I still propose that Nick should do it as our liaison, despite his
> despicable behaviour naming me as a violator of trust.

Anyone can contact imc-process-facilitate without being a liaison.

i also think that nick was reasonable in his expression of concern.

The IMC Cyprus statement:
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-process/2006-September/0904-mn.html
links to:
http://english-cyprus.indymedia.org/newswire/display/239/index.php

where there are statements such as:

| The Proposal is an interference and a violation of the currently
| active procedure of the new-imc work group: ...

| We believe that those procedures with the new-imc should be allowed to
| continue without outside intervention by other local or regional
| groups - except for support.

| There is already in place a procedure of the new-imc group which
| will approve or reject the two new groups (arafura and darwin)
| according to the standards that global IndyMedia has applied to
| approve more than 160 locals so far.

IMHO these statements are misleading and dangerously close to
coordinatorist, so i think nick was reasonable in saying that this was
a violation of trust, since they are statements about new-imc which
have not been approved (and most likely would not be consensed without
modification) either internally in new-imc or globally by the network.

AFAIR, i have never made claims about "what new-imc does" outside of
our discussion group (or the twiki) unless it matches our already
existing procedures or it is a consensed-on statement or i say that
it's just my individual comment.

> At this point, all other negotiations over language might be clever
> work, but what purpose do they serve?

Given that no proposal is presently waiting for approval in imc-process, 
it would serve to:

(1) stop the confusion about statements like "getting IMC Darwin's
     subdomain back" and "IMC Darwin is an affiliated IMC"

(2) start to heal the relation between new-imc and IMC Melbourne by
     making it clear that new-imc does not wish to override any proposals
     by local collectives, but that we would like to ask the network
     to clarify what we see as the present situation (1), which should
     at least help IMC Melbourne (and other Oceania IMCs) feel better
     that we as a network are no longer denying the reality of the situation.


petros - please remember that i agree with your empathy for mick and
your patience with helping others in "new Darwin IMC" try to get
reorganised.  On the other hand, i think the Oceania IMCs have a right
to see that the new Darwin IMC will not be recognised as an IMC until
it has time to reorganise and it has a right to see that the claims
about "Darwin IMC is an affiliated IMC" can be clearly refuted by the
network.


So, i'll have a look at john's version 0.4...

This time, we do *not* have any urgent deadline. On the other hand, i
would like to get this finished and over and done with...


solidarity
boud



More information about the New-imc mailing list