[New-imc] Re: [IMC-Process] 1. Rogue Valley application: BLOCKED
evan at protest.net
evan at protest.net
Mon Apr 7 14:23:25 PDT 2003
Just a question. Can somebody block if they are an individual and not
relaying the decision or even a member of an indymedia center?
My understanding is that the space for objections was for objections from
IMC's not non-affiliated individuals. Can somebody clarify this point.
in solidarity,
evan
Quoting Media Collective <mediacollective at students.sou.edu>:
> Andy Rice, here...
>
> Re: below:
>
> imc-process-request at lists.indymedia.org wrote:
>
> > Subject: [IMC-Process] Rogue Valley application: BLOCKED
> > Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2003 03:05:37 -0500
> > From: Sarsnic at aol.com
> > To: imc-process at lists.indymedia.org
> >
> > Andy Rice wrote:
> > > But Nick Cooper does not seem to have posted to any of our local
> > Southern Oregon discussion lists, and I was not aware that he was a
> > "sponsor", whatever that means. (Can someone please clarify re: that
> > role?)
> >
> > I am not a participant in the Rogue IMC collective, I am just a
> member
> > of the new-imc workgroup who's reviewed their application. I know
> > members of this group from working with them in an IMC video
> > collective there in Southern Oregon, but my role here is pretty much
> > limited to making sure they have their application together and
> > sending it to the new-imc list and then to this list, where if it
> > wasn't blocked by tomorrow, they would have been added to the cities
> > list. However, it would appear that Andy Rice is blocking.
> >
> > Nick
> >
> > Subject: [IMC-Process] Plaintive mewling and whining
> > Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2003 05:49:07 -0800 (PST)
> > From: christine detwiler <detwilerc at yahoo.com>
> > To: imc-process at lists.indymedia.org
> >
> > This message is mainly for Andy Rice. My name is Chrystine and I
> > was one of the founding members of the Ithaca Indymedia collective. A
> > year ago we joined the global collective with much misgiving from
> many
> > because it was felt the process went too fast. Though I have recently
> > moved to Ohio, I keep up with the Ithaca collective and read and
> > occasionally participate on Process,New IMC,Communication,and the
> > Women's list.I am in the process of connecting with IMC-Cleveland. I
> > feel that I have information and opinions based on my experience of
> > what happened in Ithaca that I could contribute dealing with just the
> > issues you bring up Andy. But.... I feel enormously put off by your
> > personal style and manner of speaking. I feel you sabatoge your own
> > good efforts by falling into the temptation to be a "wise guy" and
> > come off too judgemental against those who are trying their best. You
> > are too insulting to everybody on all sides of these issues.
> > love,chrystine
>
> Nick & Christine -
>
> I confirm that I do not think the Southern Oregon IMC is compliant yet
> with standing criteria for recognition by global. On that basis, I do
> wish to formally block it, as a founding member of the present
> organizing committee. Do you think I am just rude, or do you also
> recognize that I have some legitmate concerns, requiring further
> discussion?
>
> Can you please elaborate on those concerns, completely aside from my
> style or manners (we may have cultural differences).
>
> It is my desire that this "block" not be an inappropriate
> "obstruction",
> but a formal request for more discussion, toward the goal of reaching
> consensus, or barring that possibility, requiring a more formal vote.
>
> Unfortunately there does not seem to be any way to take a meaningful
> formal vote of the entire network, is there?
>
> Presumably somebody has to at least second my concern, for a block to
> have any effect?
>
> I have a little considerable experience in IMC practice and discussion.
> My intro to the local listserv has links to archives. My work has not
> always been successful or pleasant, but I keep trying to improve it.
>
> I am not interested presently in discussing the gory details of Houston
> or Ithica's local conflicts, but I am interested in your general
> proposals re: conflict resolution process, which could include brief
> poignant examples from your local situ. That's what I understand
> resolve list to be for...
>
> I propose that a local resolve committee should probly be set up right
> off the top, as part of a new-imc, before sectarian warfare can erupt.
>
> I haven't seem much traffic on the global resolve list, lately. Do you
> think it is a viable venue for global resolution of a lack of local
> consensus? Houstons' local conflict does not seem to have been
> resolved. Both sides accuse the other of intransigence. I don't know
> about Ithica. Are those disputes over relative degrees of chaos, vs.
> formal imc process?
>
> Do we need to have a flying squad of imc-resolve facilitators to travel
> the globe, to approve, re-certify, or de-certify locals?
>
> Do you have a theory as to how strictly new-imc process and criteria
> should be interpreted, or "enforced" in terms of requirements for
> "approval" by the global network?
>
> I got the distinct impression from remarks by Jay and Boud recently,
> that from experience they urge caution, and much more substantial
> compliance with the criteria, in order to avoid failures and debacles.
> Do you agree with them? How many people actually make the "decision"
> as
> to whether to "recognize" or "approve" the local imc?
>
> The only thing it actually means is that we get linked on the global
> sidebar, right?
>
> (our local techies may be able to contribute more to the global network
> than the locals need, technically, with their own server and bandwidth,
> potentially available for regional/global networking, as I understand
> it. Has Nick, or any of the rest of y'all discussed or worked on these
> considerations with the local techies?).
>
> How critical is it to the success of a local imc, and of the global
> network, to have us listed on the sidebar, as compared to the local
> building of a real imc collective that is more, rather than less,
> substantially compliant with new-imc criteria?
>
> And how do you propose to judge these things, from afar?
>
> Andy
>
>
> >>>new-imc criteria:
>
> >>>B. Have a committed membership substantial enough to sustain a
> >>>functional IMC
>
> >>>forrest sez:
> >>>We have enough people to sufficently cover events in our area, with
> a
>
> >>>broad enough interest base that topics will not be ignored.
> >
> > android9 sez:
> > I disagree with the assertion that we have "enough" people
> substantially enough committed to
> sustain a functional IMC.
> >
> > Community participation in the discussion lists, the technical work,
> and the editorial committee has
> >been minimal, by a tiny number of people, and the meetings have not
> included the required diversity of
> >representation.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> imc-process mailing list
> imc-process at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-process
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| blog: anarchogeek.com pgp: anarchogeek.com/pgp.txt |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Protest.net is an anti-this, anti-that website to divide, demoralize, |
| and bring down the very frabric of America. Proudly lead by pacifist, |
| godless, demented, berkenstock wearing, granola eating, peace-freak, |
| moronic, unamerican, green, muslim, communist, faggot, liberal, |
| serbian, arab, rag-head, anarchist, terrorist, scum, pigs and |
| traitors. We're underemployed scumbag welfare sucking parasitic |
| shelted uneducated intellecutals who are always explaining the root |
| causes of terrorism, blaming america first, and whining about |
| non-existant threats to civil liberties. |
| GOD BLESS AMERICA!!! DEATH TO THOSE WHO STAND AGAINST US!!! |
| - All words from hate mail sent to protest.net |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
More information about the New-imc
mailing list