[New-imc] DRAFT 1.0

[and]

On 14/09/2006, at 3:55 PM, nick wrote:

> I don't think there's much point in making any proposal without the
> part about affiliation being in there, it wouldn't clear up anything.

Agreed. This was the whole point of the request for clarification.  
This just avoids the issue.

Cheers.
And.


>
> On 9/14/06, Petros Evdokas <petros at cyprus-org.net> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks to you all for the proposals and editing work, starting with
>> Nick's and then further corrections and then refinements from Boud  
>> and John.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Can we get an aknowledgement on the things we agree so far? Is my
>> understanding of what we agree correct?
>>
>> Petros
>> ________
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> New-imc mailing list. Lista de correo New-imc
>> New-imc at lists.indymedia.org
>> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/new-imc
>>
>
>
> -- 
> peace,
> Nick
> freerads.com
> nickcooper.com
> houston.indymedia.org
> somadocumentary.com
> nickcooper.com/antipowerworkshop.htm
> _______________________________________________
> New-imc mailing list. Lista de correo New-imc
> New-imc at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/new-imc