[New-imc] DRAFT 1.1 " - at this moment - "

[boud at riseup.net]

hi everyone,

> So, versions .7, .8, .9. and 1.0 more or less express me, EXCEPT the
> phrase "be considered affiliated". It occurs in our latest version on
> paragraph 5.
>
> I propose we remove it and send all the rest since we agree (I think) on
> all the rest (please correct me if I'm wrong).
>
>
> I believe that the phrase in question (status of the groups) is outside
> the jurisdiction of the new-imc group, and that jurisdiction rests only
> with imc-process at the momement. And we (new-imc) have not yet
> completed the work with each of the two candidate groups to determine
> where they stand.

petros: We are only proposing that the two groups are considered
non-affiliated "at this time". As for jurisdiction, it is not us
making the decision, we are only making a proposal that we expect the
network is likely to accept.

i think there is some confusion due to john's rewording - since the
phrase: "at this time" is rather hidden in version 0.9
in the same paragraph
where there is "be considered affiliated".  So to someone reading
rather quickly, what is part 5) in version 1.0 looks more like some
sort of permanent decision on network membership for the two groups.

i've changed the numbering from 5) to 4) [john, i know you don't like this,
sorry.]

More importantly, in what is now point 4), i put in

" - at the moment - "

earlier in the sentence
(and removed the "at this time" which was a bit hidden), so that it's
more obvious that this is just something for the moment. To be even
clearer, i added:

"(We hope that in the future, both groups will later on become
affiliated: see point 3)."


There's redundancy here, but i think that's OK. i agree with petros that
it's important that everybody knows that we hope that both groups will
become accepted by the network.

> Can we get an aknowledgement on the things we agree so far? Is my
> understanding of what we agree correct?

petros - does version 1.1 satisfy your concern?

solidarity
boud



######################################################################
DRAFT 1.1
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) This statement concerns 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].

2) Some time after having been approved this group experienced a severe
internal conflict. Two collectives have emerged from this, both of which
now have "New Candidate" status with "New-imc". 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, we propose that - at the moment - neither of the
collectives with which we are now working should be considered
affiliated, or have use of those things which are contingent upon full
membership in the IMCN (such as, for example, the use of
a ".indymedia.org" domain name for their websites).  (We hope that in
the future, both groups will later on become affiliated: see point 3).

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
######################################################################