[New-imc] Rogue-imc block

[Blicero]

On Sat, Apr 12, 2003 at 01:29:49AM -0400, Sarsnic at aol.com wrote:
> I think new-imc should try to consense on a proposal to make to the imc-process list in a few languages.  Some possibilities -
> 
> 1) boud1 proposes only allowing local imc collectives to block via liasons
> 
> This is the kind of proposal it makes sense for new-imc to be making as it bears directly on our process.  I guess I'm for it, although there will probably be debate about who is a liason and who isn't.
> 
> 2) accept the block and encourage Rogue to attempt to placate Andy
> 
> I am all for outreach, but if Andy was any kind of constructive member of the collective he should have taken on the outreach job himself. And if he isn't, why is he blocking anything?
> 
> 3) Individuals could suport Changsing's proposal to ban Andy 
> 
> I would have to stand aside on this one - got enough old white guys pissed at me already.
> 
> Peace
> Nick
> 

briefly

block is somethign to be used with a lot of care
individuals like andy rice do not seem to understand that a block is effective
not as a burocratic measure but as a form of a part of a community to voice a
STRONG and FUNDED opposition
it surprises me quite a lot how this basic non-buraucrtic idea is not understood
and how block is mainly used by individuals who to exercise some form of power,
especially individuals who are not seen as part of the community of which they are
trying to influence the processes.
so i don't think is matter of making liason the only one able to block something
(even if it would make sense), but to understand the consensus process more as a
democratic form than as a better bureaucracy

this is my idea
hope gives some insight in the problem

-- 
ciao
blicero