[New-imc] moving forward on Rogue Valley

[PseudoPunk]

boud wrote:
> 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.

I clearly don't agree.
We have blocks from lunatics and people who are not involved (and people
who are both).

If we set a new deadline we agree in some sense to their blocks.

I propose we overrule this blocks and approve Rogue Imc.

& we should ask for facilitation about IMC Houston
> 
> 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.

I see a lot of harm.
How would you feel if you imc is blocked because your new-imc contact
doesn't please someone, or if you're blocked because Andy Rice (who's
speciality is to send obnoxious mails about imc's) needs some more
attention.

I think it's really time we tell people that imc-process list is for imc
process by active individuals and not for all kinds of people who are
there to just compromise imc.

Just my 2c.
Bart




> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> New-imc mailing list. Lista de correo New-imc
> New-imc at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/new-imc
> 
> 
> 

-- 

http://wvl.indymedia.org  |     bart at indymedia.org
http://thepits.be         |     bart at thepits.be
http://pseudopunk.be      |     icq: 48682266

gebruik vrije software -- Debian GNU/Linux -- http://debian.org

gpg --keyserver keys.indymedia.org --recv-keys be196251