[New-imc] (en)(fr) [v1.4] PROPOSITION Darwin/Arafura+new-imc ECHEANCE 20.09.2006 13:30 UTC

[Petros Evdokas]

Hello new-imc,
I understand the spirit in which you wrote this proposal, Boud.

But I also think it's good for us to remember a few things about our 
path on this work. We already agree on several important things which 
allow us to do good work.

- We've agreed that there's two groups now in Darwin. So our task 
(new-imc group) has been to try to help the situation by instead of just 
"returning" the subdomain to the one group, to facilitate the assignment 
of a subdomain to each of the groups, arafura and darwin.

- It seemed that around Spring 2006 when new-imc agreed to try to help 
with the situation, that our consensus was that if there is a group of 
people who are active within each of those groups, and who abide by the 
Principles of Unity, imc Editorial Policy, etc., ie, if the two groups 
satisfy all the criteria we ask to see similar to any other application 
to new-imc, then we "pass it upstairs" and make a recommendation to 
imc-process to validate the use of those subdomains for the two groups 
in Darwin.


Has anything changed since then? If not, why are we involved in having 
another imc entity (imc-process) to formalize our statement proposal? 
The fact that we arrived at it together is already very good. Beyond 
articulating it there is now *actualizing* it. Regardless of tensions 
and conflict that have gone among us recently we still have enough unity 
to work on this together.

I'd like to propose that we:
1. Get back to work in connection with the two groups, and help them get 
their applications ready and to complete their preparations for approval 
by new-imc.

2. I'd like to propose that we leave the group statement aside for a 
while without time pressure, and if it becomes relevant again by any 
changes, we can revisit it.


If the imc-process has any reason to give us instructions on how to do 
or not do that work, they can go through their deliberations and tell us.

I think this proposal simplifies our task, and just allows us to return 
back to our work in the usual and familiar context.

At this point, there seems to be no reason to be pursuing the filing of 
the group statement to other imc groups. Since several of us here on 
new-imc seem to have arrived at it by consensus, let's just accept it 
and let it guide us to do our work.

Is there anyone among us uncomfortable with this approach?
Essentially it is saying "we have a consensus which can guide our group 
work, it is legitimate and harmonious enough for us to work together, 
let's now follow it, and do the work".

I'd like to hear the group's thoughts on that.
Thanks,
Petros
_______