[New-imc] Comments on version 0.5 and 0.6: PROPOSAL (DISCUSSION phase)

[boud]

hi john, all,

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, John Milton wrote:

> With regard to versions 0.5. and 0.6:
>
> I see these as reading very differently from what I put forward in 0.4
> to the point were they no longer speak my mind.

Just a comment: we are not looking to speak any individual's mind, not
your mind, nor my mind, nor petros' mind, nor nick's mind, we are
trying to make a proposal by new-imc that we think the whole indymedia
network will accept (hopefully without modifications, because this is
a slow and work-intensive process).

> The essence of what I was trying to say in 0.4 was that, as new
> applicants, Arafura and Darwin should not yet be granted the things that
> approved (by new imc process) collectives have, but also that they must
> be treated equally and thus have all the things that all prospective
> applicants have, like the ability to participate fully in mailing lists.
>
> The proposed removal of that second part in ver. 0.5 for me changes the
> balanced nature of the idea I was trying to get across, for me it
> results in a statement that places much more emphasis on the "can't
> haves" side than I intended.
>
> To be clear about my position regarding mailing lists lists:
  ...

> In the  case where a collective wishes their spoke to a particular list
> to be someone who has been previously banned on that list the collective
> needs to select another spoke. This is because all else is not equal in
> this case. The right of a collective to participate in a particular list
> does not extend to the point where it can demand to be able to breech
> the measures the list has put in place to prevent the list from being
> seriously damaged by those who are either incompetent, or actively
> malicious, with respect to their conduct on the list.

Most of your comments sound reasonable, but IMHO they are really going
into too much detail and sound too much like new-imc trying to tell
the network what a particular set of detailed working rules should be.

By the nature of indymedia, people are very sensitive to any hint of
being told what to do, and many people and groups prefer to use
"common sense" and "rough consensus" rather than remembering formal rules.

On the other hand, i agree with your motivation that we should be balanced
and show that we support the attempt of the people in the two groups to
reorganise.

It seems to me that this remains included in version 0.6:

http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2006-September/0909-0v.html

Points 2) and 3) say that we are working with these two groups and that 
the two groups have such-and-such respective mailing lists.

If the network accepts the proposal, then it will be in some sense a
recognition by the network that both groups each have the right to 
a mailing list as long as they are working with the  new-imc group.

i don't think this would prevent melbourne from proposing to close
down the imc-darwin list, but it would probably make it more
difficult, since other local imc's might say, hey, how about we give
new-imc a chance to work with new Darwin IMC first.

While it's true (IMHO) that local imc's don't want new-imc to make 
decisions on behalf of the network, i think that at the same time, most
local imc's do have a fair amount of respect for our work and they agree
that it's necessary.

So the simple fact that we say that we are working with the two
post-split groups and that such-and-such are their mailing listinfo
pages is already a strong statement in favour of those groups.


i don't see version 0.6 as being negative - it's just asking the
network to recognise the present reality.

In fact, IMHO it's also quite a strong defence of the "new Darwin imc"
group. AFAIK only 3 people in the entire indymedia network outside of
the group itself have made any strong statement in support of the
group as it now stands, and only 2 of those 3 are in local
collectives.  Many, many individuals in many local collectives are
extremely tired and frustrated with the present group (as it now
stands, with one particular individual active in it) so the
collectives they are members of will probably find points 2) and 3) in
version 0.6 as sufficiently strong statements in favour of the two groups,
and i don't expect that they would accept anything much stronger.

There's no point new-imc proposing something that we expect will be
rejected.


solidarity
boud