[New-imc] (fr)(en) DARWIN/ARAFURA PROPOSAL (v1.2) internal new-imc DEADLINE: Sun 17.09.2006 22:00 UTC
John Milton
john at johnmilton.ca
Sun Sep 17 06:24:23 PDT 2006
Thanks for that clarification Joe.
I read that as saying that Joe sees the process the process of the
recommendation of a new IMC as something that individuals on "new imc"
help with, and not as something that requires unanimatiy from "new"
prior to being sent to "process" for formal admission. An interesting
position I think, but one which does not bear directly on the proposal
being tested for consensus right now.
So, I think we are still "on track" with 1.2 /1.3
I would not stand in the way of 1.3, but given that the list of names at
the bottom does not seem to be necessary to speak to Joe's concern I'd
rather see it withdrawn and us stay with 1.2 for the following reasons:
- There are people who have posted to the threads on the various draft
proposals who are not listed in 1.3 as having "contributed". These seems
to me to make that list both inaccurate and unfair to the unnamed folks.
To change "contributed" to "activly supported" or something like that
might make this more accurate, but I would _not_ like to see that
happen, as it starts to look like some sort of rough vote, which I
really don't think is in accord with what we want our process here to be.
- Those on this list who have not posted have also, in the passive sense
, "contribited". Though we don't know what to read from their silence
they are all never the less "here", and we should remember that.
- The history of who has been involved and in what ways is available on
the open archives of this list to any who are interested, as such the
list in 1.3 seems redundant.
- We were in the middle of a consensus test on 1.2 when 1.3 was tabled.
In general I think this is poor process as it has the potential for
adding confusion as to what people are being asked to consense to. (See
the Darwin disaffiliation proposal on "imc process" for a recent example
of such confusion).
Anyway, whichever way we go I support the new Tuesday deadline, as any
change during a consensus test should always reset the deadline.
joe wrote:
> ey john, nick, boud, new-imc
>
> First, I would like to excuse me for the slowness of my
> reaction, I did not have time to follow the discussion in real time.
> And in general I read only the mails implying a collective decision.
>
> When I say that several people can sign the text, that wants to say
> that several volunteers can be implied in the process of integration
> of one IMC, neither more nor less.
>
> Anyway, I am not certain that the collective signature can block an
> Application on Imc-Process. The volunteers engaged in process
> "DARWIN/ARAFURA" and being familiar with this case can go back
> to his local liaison so that it blocks the decision on
> IMC-Process. To give more capacity to New-Imc
> can be "dangerous" for the future (separation of the "capacities" in
> global lists).
>
> This case makes certainly reflect on the relationship between New-Imc
> and Imc-Process and perhaps it should have adjustments in the future.
> It is to be discussed on IMC-process, with an Application concerning
> the statut of New-Imc.
>
> tchuss
>
> Joe
>
> Le 16-sept.-06 à 07:29, John Milton a écrit :
>
>> Hi Joe:
>>
>> It is not clear to me why you think that some of the members of "New
>> IMC" "signing" (i.e. formally agreeing with this statement) while
>> others did not, and then bringing it forward to "imc process" would
>> be something you would see as helpful in our work.
>>
>> My understanding is that we do are work here by consensus. For me
>> this means that the only things we move forward on are things with
>> which we are all in agreement, to the extent that we do not find the
>> thing so bad that one or more of us feels the need to block it.
>>
>> Do you share this understanding? If so then how would what you are
>> suggesting help?
>>
>> If this is not your understanding then could you say some more about
>> what your understanding is?
>>
>> Also, if you feel that all "new imc" is empowered to do is examine
>> the validity of application documents it would seem to me that you
>> would think that not only the work we have been doing on this
>> proposal, but also our prior work on the disaffiliation proposal were
>> outside our mandate. If that were the case, and you had planned from
>> the start to raise this objection I don't understand why you did not
>> do so at the start of this process, and not at all when we were
>> working on the disaffiliation proposal? Could you please say a bit
>> more about that?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> nick wrote:
>>
>>> I wish you had brought up these concerns when we were still in the
>>> discussion phase.
>>> Since:
>>> - individuals can not make proposals to imc-process at all
>>> - If we just went the route of some individuals signing this, I don't
>>> know that it would even get past imc-process moderators or considered
>>> a proposal
>>> I feel a group proposal is appropriate and would allow new-imc to have
>>> an understanding about a basis for how to proceed.
>>> I would agree that new-imc is just a workgroup and not an affiliated
>>> collective and therefore cannot block proposals on imc-process (as
>>> several of us do I think). But I think the ability to make a proposal
>>> should be more universal and should include even workgroups.
>>> peace
>>> Nick
>>> On 9/15/06, joe <joe.ttx at blablaxpress.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> [français ci-dessous]
>>>>
>>>> [en]
>>>>
>>>> Hello New-Imc
>>>>
>>>> This is not in the uses that the New-Imc group sign a text
>>>> collectively. Certainly, we all share the same goal (the integration
>>>> of news IMCs). But the nature of our work (the sponsoring) does not
>>>> enable us to have a common vision on the methods used by such or such
>>>> sponsors with suc or such IMC.
>>>>
>>>> The only decision that we have collectively to provide for IMC- Process
>>>> is the "validity" of the documents (mission statement, charte,…)
>>>> provided by an IMC (the step 3; the New-imc procedure).
>>>>
>>>> The text concerning the collectives IMC-Arafura & IMC-Darwin must
>>>> remain under the responsability of the sponsors involved in this
>>>> integrations (and why not some others volonteers supporting the
>>>> request). It will not have less weight or veracity for that.
>>>>
>>>> To sign this text collectively would give a bad signal. Namely that
>>>> the work of the New-Imc volunteers would be centralized.
>>>>
>>>> greeting
>>>>
>>>> joe
>>>>
>>>> [fr]
>>>>
>>>> salut New-Imc
>>>>
>>>> Il n'est pas dans les usages que le groupe New-Imc signe des textes
>>>> collectivement. Evidemment, nous partageons toutes et tous le même
>>>> but (l'intégration de nouveaux IMCs). Mais la nature même de notre
>>>> travail (le parrainage) ne nous permets pas d'avoir une vision
>>>> commune sur les méthodes utilisés par tel ou tel parrain pour tel ou
>>>> tel IMC.
>>>>
>>>> La seule décision que nous ayons a prendre collectivement est la
>>>> "validité" des documents (énoncé de mission, charte) fournis par un
>>>> MIC (étape 3; la procédure new-imc).
>>>>
>>>> Le texte concernant les collectifs IMC-Arafura & IMC-Darwin doit
>>>> rester sous la responsabilité des parrains engagés dans l'intégration
>>>> (et pourquoi pas d'autres volontaires voulant soutenir la requête).
>>>> Ca ne donnera pas moins de poids ou véracité pour la cause.
>>>>
>>>> Signer un texte collectivement donnerait un mauvais signal. Celui que
>>>> le travail des volontaires New-Imc serait centralisé.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Le 15-sept.-06 à 00:44, boud a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> hi new-imc,
>>>>>
>>>>> (fr) PROPOSITION DARWIN/ARAFURA (v1.2) - voir en bas - échéance 3
>>>>> jours pour
>>>>> consensus interne new-imc : dim 17.09.2006 22:00 UTC [minuit en
>>>>> europe]
>>>>>
>>>>> (en) DARWIN/ARAFURA PROPOSAL (draft 1.2) internal new-imc deadline:
>>>>> Sun
>>>>> 17.09.2006 22:00 UTC
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 14 Sep 2006, Petros Evdokas wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> boud at riseup.net wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> it's important that everybody knows that we hope that both groups
>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>> become accepted by the network.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you Boud, I feel that your rewording has rescued the spirit
>>>>>> of our original intent when in the Spring we agreed to engage in a
>>>>>> process with both the groups, hoping we might aid to some kind of
>>>>>> reconciliation and peacefull co-existence in Darwin.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The statement as Boud wrote it, below, expresses me just fine. I
>>>>>> hope it expresses all of us.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Good. :) i think we've finally converged, and i think it's
>>>>> reasonably
>>>>> safe to start a 3-day internal deadline.
>>>>>
>>>>> i've just put in john's change, which i hope should be OK: the end
>>>>> of 4) now reads:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ".indymedia.org" domain name for their websites). We hope that
>>>>> in the
>>>>> future, both groups will become affiliated (see point 3).
>>>>>
>>>>> (That's why i made it v1.2.)
>>>>>
>>>>> My suggestion now is not to make any further changes (except add a
>>>>> spanish or other translation) unless it really seems necessary
>>>>> to improve clarity *and* it's reasonably sure that we are likely to
>>>>> agree on it *and* that we expect that the network would agree to it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> solidarity
>>>>> boud
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ###################################################################
>>>>> ###
>>>>> (fr)+(en)
>>>>>
>>>>> (fr)
>>>>> PROPOSITION de "New IMC" [brouillon 1.2]
>>>>>
>>>>> Nous proposons au réseau des CMI, à travers ses liaisons sur « imc-
>>>>> process », d'accepter par consensus cette Déclaration en tant que
>>>>> compréhension mutuelle de la façon selon laquelle les efforts du
>>>>> groupe new-imc devraient avancer.
>>>>>
>>>>> DÉCLARATION DE COMPRÉHENSION MUTUELLE CONCERNANT LES CMI ARAFURA ET
>>>>> DARWIN :
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) Le thème de cet énoncé est le collectif CMI Darwin, qui a commencé
>>>>> son processus « new imc » en mai 2004 [1] et dont l'appartenance au
>>>>> Réseau des CMI (RCMI) a été accepté par consensus de « IMC process
>>>>> » en juillet 2004 [2].
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) Un certain temps après sa reconnaissance par « imc-process », ce
>>>>> groupe
>>>>> a subi un conflit interne sévère. Deux collectifs en sont sortis,
>>>>> tous
>>>>> les deux ayant maintenant le statut « nouveau candidat » dans les
>>>>> yeux
>>>>> de « new-imc ». Leur listes de discussion se trouvent ici :
>>>>> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-darwin
>>>>> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-arafura
>>>>>
>>>>> 3) Le groupe de travail new-imc travaille avec tous les deux vers le
>>>>> but commun de la proposition des deux groupes par « new-imc » à «
>>>>> imc-process » en tant que collectifs membres du RCMI.
>>>>>
>>>>> 4) Le collectif CMI Darwin accepté en tant que membre du RCMI en
>>>>> 2004 n'a jamais été formellement « désaffilié » du RCMI sur « imc-
>>>>> process ». Pourtant, nous proposons que - en ce moment - aucun des
>>>>> deux collectifs
>>>>> avec lequels nous travaillons actuellement ne devraient être
>>>>> traités comme affiliés, ni avoir usage des choses qui nécessitent
>>>>> la pleine
>>>>> appartenance au RCMI (comme, par exemple, l'usage d'un nom de domaine
>>>>> « .indymedia.org » pour leurs sites ouaibbe). Nous espérons qu'au
>>>>> futur,
>>>>> les deux groups deviendront affiliés (voir le point 3).
>>>>>
>>>>> LIENS :
>>>>>
>>>>> [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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> (en)
>>>>> PROPOSAL from "New IMC" [draft 1.2]
>>>>>
>>>>> 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 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
>>>>> ###################################################################
>>>>> ###
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> New-imc mailing list. Lista de correo New-imc
>>>>> New-imc at lists.indymedia.org
>>>>> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/new-imc
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> New-imc mailing list. Lista de correo New-imc
>>>> New-imc at lists.indymedia.org
>>>> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/new-imc
>>>>
>>
>> --
>> Peace: John Milton
>>
>> email: john at johnmilton.ca
>> mobile (Canada): 905-537-8472
>> web: johnmilton.ca
>>
>> Encrypted email welcome. PGP key on my website
>> Fingerprint: 40D8 5835 7230 8EE1 E968 1E7A 5CF1 68A6 C0E2 F9DC
>>
>> Koan for our times: "Are we smarter than yeast?"
>>
>>
>
>
>
--
Peace: John Milton
email: john at johnmilton.ca
mobile (Canada): 905-537-8472
web: johnmilton.ca
Encrypted email welcome. PGP key on my website
Fingerprint: 40D8 5835 7230 8EE1 E968 1E7A 5CF1 68A6 C0E2 F9DC
Koan for our times: "Are we smarter than yeast?"
More information about the New-imc
mailing list