[New-imc] moving forward on Rogue Valley

[boud]

hi everyone,

On Tue, 8 Apr 2003, PseudoPunk wrote:

> 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).

i don't think it is constructive to call people who have difficulty
functioning in the indymedia environment as "lunatics".
 
> If we set a new deadline we agree in some sense to their blocks.

i see it differently. i see it as using the present debate as a reason
for starting to shift from the "individuals have a right to block" to
the "local IMCs have the right to block via their liaisons" on imc-process.

> I propose we overrule this blocks and approve Rogue Imc.

If by "we" you mean "new-imc", i would... ;) probably block this.
IMHO, it is important the new-imc only makes recommendations, and that
it is clear that we (new-imc) cannot make the real network decisions.


Some of the individuals overlap between imc-process & new-imc, of course,
but i make no judgment for other individuals/local IMCs. 
However, in my own case, i feel that my activity on
new-imc invalidates my right to be a liaison on imc-process, or to 
decide the process of imc-process.


> > 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 would be upset. But at the same time (hopefully) i would appreciate
the need for clear, non-hierarchical process, and the need to make it
as clear as possible that there is no "influential" club which can 
overrule "less influential" people by implicit claims on our moral
authority.

> 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.

But the question is who decides, and how this is decided.

If imc-process profits from this conflict by shifting, at least for blocks,
to a liaison-based decision system, it would avoid the impression that
we have an arbitrariness in deciding when a block is not a block, and 
it would help shift practical experience to the liaison-based system, 
since people would see that it's something real.

The cost of "losing face" to andy for 7 days is, IMHO, a very small price
to pay in favour of more long term structural change.

i also see the risks that if someone tries "declaring" that IMC Rogue
is accepted by the network, we risk going around in circles and going
through a meta-meta-meta- discussion on process mixed with personal 
attacks as more people who only know 10% or 1% of the story join in,
and ask to listen to "both sides", 
or else we rely on people with more "IMC authority" to override those
with less "credibility" or whatever.

By shifting to liaison-only blocks, we minimise the chance of this,
since anyone feeling a block is needed would have to consult his/her
local IMC.

solidarity
boud

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