[New-imc] moving forward on Rogue Valley

[boud]

hi everyone,
  i don't participate in imc-process - but IMHO it would be a good time
to test out the liaison concept and set a new deadline, by which only a
block transmitted by a liaison from an existing IMC would be accepted.

Of course, the liaison should be a consensed-on person from the local IMC,
and he/she should present the block based on a consensus decision of
that local IMC. IMHO, even in the case of a "rogue" ;) IMC (not Rogue),
we would at least have a collective block and not a block by just 
one individual, unfiltered by the consensus process.

i don't see any harm in waiting a few more days - and the advantage would
be to make the liaison concept real. IMHO, giving a new deadline would
be useful to make it clear to everyone that no sudden decisions or
attacks on individuals are being made.  And for this to be serious, 
given the time delays for any local IMC to make a decision, it's clear
that 7 days is not very long.

Anyone feel free to forward this to imc-process if he/she feels this is
relevant.

solidarity
boud

On Tue, 8 Apr 2003, changsing wrote:

> Sarsnic at aol.com wrote:
> > We have a block or two, how do we proceed? I agree with Evan that we
> > have to question the blocks from Loel and Andy based on their not
> > being part of any local collectives.  Also, I believe Loel's block:
> >> If necessary, I too block, if for no other reason than that Nick
> >> Cooper's name is on it.
> > has self-identified itself as not going to any fundamnetal principles
> > and should therefore be put aside.
> > Peace Nick
> 
> the blocks are based on personal attacks (in this case), or on attacks 
> against the whole network (as in the case of andy rice, which is a 
> well-known imc trolla and wannabe-hijacker).
> i don't really think we should take into account those blocks, and i 
> think rogue valley imc should be approved.
> welcome rogue imc
> ciao
> chang