[New-imc] version 0.5: PROPOSAL (DISCUSSION phase) - new-imc statement to imc-process

[boud]

hi john, all,

On Sat, 9 Sep 2006, John Milton wrote:

> Hi Boud and others:
>
> I find much of merit in 0.3, thanks for doing this work. I've got a
> little different take on it, and quite a different approach to the
> wording, so I'd like to put my "0.4"  "beside" 0.3 on the table, not "on
> top of it" in the discussion if folks here are O.K. with that i.e. lets
> consider them in parallel for a while as "two different roads to the
> same destination"...

IMHO it's easier to work through successive versions rather than forks.
That way we can concentrate on which bits are most controversial. Even
if there are reverts (like on a mediawiki wiki), successive version numbers
should make things easier.


Changes:

* i shifted 7) to the beginning, because we need to be clear if we are
making a proposal or a statement or both - in this case, both - we are 
making a statement and asking imc-process to approve it.

* i put new-imc and imc-process rather than "New IMC" and "IMC Process".
IMHO the simpler and less ambiguous the better.

* i removed 4) and 6) for the following reasons:

> 4) As we proceed with this work it is our mandate and intention to treat
> these two future collectives as we would hope to treat any other, which is to
> say equally, and without prejudice. We trust that the IMCN will continue
> to support the collectives, and new-imc, on this basis as we go forward.

There's no general consensus in the network about supporting collectives
that have not yet been through the new-imc process. It's rough consensus
that applies and there's no sense talking about "collectives" when it's 
not clear that they are collectives (in the present case, they both do 
seem to be some sort of collectives, but "any other" is not true - often
an application is just from one enthusiastic individual).

This statement also seems to ignore the obvious fact that mick has been
destructive in the network and that the Oceania collectives are not going
to treat new Darwin IMC "equally" or support it until they're satisfied
that either mick has relaxed and healed, or the collective has found some
way of limiting his potential to harm the network.

IMHO this sort of statement is too much like new-imc imposing something
on the network and overstepping our advisory role.


> 6) We also say that as we move forward with this work both collectives
> must be provided with all that is customary to new applicants. (such as,
> for example, the ability to fully and equally participate in all email
> lists and other processes in which any other applicant would be entitled
> to participate)

"must" is much too strong.

If you want to include something like this point, you're going to have
to include something about mick. Given the present state of new Darwin IMC,
they could easily nominate mick as their liaison for several lists, 
and i don't see why those lists (imc-oceania, new-imc) should be obliged
to unblock mick.

Something like:

6) We also say that as we move forward with this work both collectives
should be allowed to use a local listwork mailing list and to nominate
liaisons to other mailing lists, since otherwise they will be unable to
effectively communicate. We understand that some mailing lists (including
new-imc) may wish to exclude one particular individual from participation,
but we consider it reasonable that they allow other individuals from both
collectives to participate.


Argument against: this brings the focus back to mick.

Another problem is that IMC Melbourne wants to remove the imc-darwin
mailing list as long as the new Darwin IMC includes mick in it. Most likely
IMC Cyprus would be opposed to this.  So either way, a request to keep open
or close the mailing list would be difficult to consense on.

In the interests of getting consensus (new-imc + imc-process) to make one
step forward, i think it would be best to separate the two issues.

If we get consensus in new-imc + imc-process on something like version 0.5
(below), then there would be a formal recognition of the split and that
there are two new collectives getting organised.  IMHO this would be progress.
It might be enough for people around mick to help him heal. i'm not convinced
of it, after all, earlier today mick made an attempted blackmail against the 
indymedia network, but in any case, IMHO getting a statement describing
the present reality would be progress.

mick's attempted blackmail:
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-darwin/2006-September/0909-xh.html
| either address the impacted people with no domain due to your lack of
| prcess - US - or expect the campaign exposing the imc's autocracy and
| racism to escalate.


So here's version 0.5.

nick - i think some of your stuff got removed, though i'm not sure. 
Just go ahead with 0.6 if you want to put it back in.


solidarity
boud




-------------------------------------------
DRAFT 0.5
PROPOSAL from "New IMC"

We propose to the IMCN, through its liaisons on "imc-process", to
accept this Statement by consensus as a shared understanding of the
basis upon which the work of the new-imc working group should proceed.


STATEMENT OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING ARAFURA & DARWIN IMC'S:

1) The IMC Darwin collective, who started their new-imc process in May
2004 [1] and whose membership in the Indy Media Center Network (IMCN)
was accepted by consensus of "IMC process" in July 2004 [2] has split
up. [3]

2) Two collectives have emerged from this split. Their email lists are here:

http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-darwin
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-arafura

3) The new-imc working group has been working together with both of
them towards the common goal of each of them being proposed by new-imc
to imc-process as member collectives of the IMCN.

4) The IMC Darwin collective accepted into IMCN membership in 2004 was
never formally "disaffiliated" from the IMCN on  imc-process. However, it
is the  understanding of new-imc that neither of the two collectives
with which we are now working is that collective. It has ceased to be.
Thus we say that neither of the collectives with which we are now
working should have use of those things which are contingent upon
membership in the IMCN (such as, for example, the use of a
".indymedia.org" domain name for their websites) at this time.

LINKS:
[1] http://archives.lists.indymedia.org/new-imc/2004-May/005125.html
[2] http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-process/2004-July/0712-xa.html
[3] more background: http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Local/ImcDarwinConflict
-------------------------------------------