[New-imc] petros - please clarify: Re: (en)(fr) [v1.6] PROPOSITION Darwin/Arafura+new-imc

[Libertinus]

uu che, como la aburren con esto, tantas vueltas para mandar algo a  
process que luego se discutirá enternamente y que seguro con los  
mismos protagonistas.

tamos mal :(


Libertinus ______________________
http://www.flickr.com/photos/libertinus/
http://www.fotolog.net/libertino


Quoting boud <boud at riseup.net>:

> hi petros, all,
>
> ######################################################################
> petros:
> Is this a BLOCK or a STAND ASIDE to version 1.6?
> ######################################################################
>
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2006, Petros Evdokas wrote:
>
>>
>> Hello to all,
>>
>> Thanks to John and Boud for asking me to clarify things.
>>
>> First, the latest version does not contain anything which is in
>> violation of the basic principles of our work group, or of our consensus
>> process, nor of indymedia. It would be ridiculous to invoke a block. And
>> unprincipled. (Others among us feel they can raise a block at whim, but
>> I don't think it's right.)
>>
>> Also, we already have consensus for the main body of the text that we've
>> agreed on (the numbered paragraphs, taken in total, together), it is an
>> excellent statement. And a good guide for us to do our work.
>>
>> The only thing I disagree on is the issue of legitimacy.
>>
>> My view is that the work we've been doing all these years and the
>> mandate for the new-imc group provide enough legitimacy to the new-imc
>> group to make the statement (the numbered paragraphs) to imc-process.
>
> If we sent the proposal with points 1, 2, 3, 4 alone - without the
> introduction - then this would suggest that we are telling the network
> what we (new-imc) choose to *impose* on the network our point of view
> regarding things like domain name and affiliation status.
>
>> I suggest that we send that part, without the introduction asking
>> imc-process to legitimize it. We are simply sending a statement of
>> "where we're at" with the Darwin/Arafura work. If imc-process has any
>> reason to give us a new directive, it will.
>
> We are not just sending a statement of where we're at. We are also
> seeking clarification of the status about statements to do with
> "affiliation" and domain name in order to avoid confusion - to which
> you yourself have occasionally contributed (with the good intention of
> getting empathy from the new-Darwin-IMC group, with i empathise with,
> but disagree with as an invalid). We are asking the network to either
> agree with our de facto choices or to tell us what the network's choice
> is if that is different from ours.
>
>> I would like you all to remember that if we send the statement as is
>> now, it's a dead give -away to re-open the melbourne proposal even
>> though it got defeated in the imc-process procedures.
>
> That is just speculation and i'm not sure it's worth debating. Our
> proposal is highly positive about both groups - it is not going to
> weaken the position of either group, in fact, IMHO it will (if
> accepted) strengthen the position of both, since it would remove
> certain ambiguities which have contributed to confusing many "third
> parties".
>
>> But now, if even one imc local blocks the acceptance of our proposal,
>> then the applications of arafura and darwin will be frozen, since the
>> guidelines for our work with them will be rejected.
>
> i don't see why our work would be frozen. Some confusion would be created,
> but confusion *already exists*.
>
>> I don't want to see new-imc be manipulated in this way to deliver an
>> easy path for third parties to interfere with fake legitimacy in the
>> internal affairs of arafura and darwin groups.
>
> The IMC Network has more legitimacy than new-imc to be involved in the
> "internal affairs" of either group.
>
>> Sending our consensed statements without the introductory paragraph
>> simply says "this is where we're at". Others can take initiatives
>> through imc-process to proceed to change our path if they don't like it.
>
> Sending version 1.6 the introductory paragraph removed would be pointless,
> since it would not achieve clarity about the present "affiliation" status
> and domain name status, which have continually been a cause of confusion.
>
>> I would please ask you to give consideration to these power dynamics.
>> Perhaps there is some other way of building protection for our work, so
>> if you see alternatives please contribute your thoughts, they'd be much
>> appreciated.
>
> Version 1.6 already gives our work a considerable amount of
> protection, and is at the limit of what many people would accept on
> the borderline between new-imc being a loose global
> non-decision-making work group and a de facto global decision-making
> group.  Sending it without the introduction would be pushing towards
> the latter ("de facto global decision-making group") and IMHO there's
> no chance we would have any consensus within new-imc on such a version.
>
>> The simplest solution is to send the statement without the introduction.
>
> It would help if you could please state clearly:
>
> Is this a BLOCK or a STAND ASIDE to version 1.6?
>
> If it is a BLOCK, then, hypothetically speaking, that doesn't prevent
> future efforts to try to get consensus, but it blocks version 1.6
> anyway and we will fail to have (in the short term anyway) any network
> protection for new-Darwin-IMC (the group most at risk IMHO) from
> collectives who lack the patience to help it/allow it to
> reorganise. This is an observation, not a threat.  IMHO it is in the
> interests of new-Darwin-IMC for the proposal to be accepted. However, that
> is just my opinion. You (petros) have the right to block the proposal if
> you wish.
>
> petros - Is this a BLOCK or a STAND ASIDE to version 1.6?
>
> solidarity
> boud
> _______________________________________________
> New-imc mailing list. Lista de correo New-imc
> New-imc at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/new-imc
>