[CIMC-work] was us-imc really a legitimate process?

[Garth Liebhaber]

was it really?  some people are stuck in dogma of rules, while others seem to understand principles behind them and are 
flexible.  in my opinion, to form the us-imc is not the same as adding podunk tennessee to the list.  us-imc by default feigns 
to represent ALL US geographic imcs, therefore, special affirmation should have been obtained from every US imc.  

why wasn't this done?  because it's a pain in the but to contact them all?  as some of have tried in the past?  well, gosh 
darn it- i would say that's a fundamental problem that needs to be solved before a site is formed that is SUPPOSEDLY 
representing us all.

does every US imc have someone on the new-imc or the US-IMC -Process list?  if not, one cannot simply say, oh, it's each 
collective's option.  on the grounds that we are all worked to the bone, many imc collectives smaller than even us, the 
actions of us-imc-process become tyranny by default.

silence is not aquiescance.

i could be wrong, hopefully i am, but i personally don't have much faith in US-IMC "considering everone's suggestions".  
their behavior suggests that they do not operate in such a benevolent manner.  certain folks in the project have shown 
themselves to be rather persistant in getting "their" way.  look at the tactical media fund.  

so, i argue that us-imc has not been formed through an entirely legitimate process.  as such, we could put some strong 
pressure on them to meet some requisites, ie. direct contact for EVERY us imc.  

who says i'm not a fighter? ;  )

Help the planet each day! It's free and easy:
http://www.Care2.com/dailyaction/