[New-imc] Rouge IMC (back to new-imc?)

[Jay]

Hi new-imc,

Just so you know, I just sent the below e-mail to imc-process.  Now that we 
have a block from the Ithaca IMC, I think we should take the issue of the 
Rogue IMC application back to the new-imc working group.  I suggest we come 
up with a calm, rational plan of how to resolve the situation, and that we 
do it with some efficiency -- in two weeks, perhaps?  I think this is a 
good step because the issue seems to be the subject of escalating flames on 
imc-process.  The mood of discussion is different on the new-imc list, and 
I think that could make a difference.

Jay

***
SUMMARY:

We now have a block of the Rouge IMC's information on the imc-process list 
from the Ithaca IMC.  I suggest we bring the issue of the Rogue IMC 
application back to the new-imc working group for further discussion, 
rather than keep playing it out indefinitely on imc-process (in long-winded 
English).   The new-imc working group should try to come up with a very 
concrete list of steps we can take to resolve this situation, and do so 
along a strict timeline, so we can resolve this issue calmly and efficiently.

***
Hi everyone,

Seems as if we have a block of the Rogue IMC from the Ithaca IMC.  If my 
memory serves me, that hasn't happened before.  On top of all the other 
controversies surrounding the Rogue IMC application, this seems to be a 
pretty clear sign that we should take some care to reconsider it.

I suggest we do that in the new-imc working group, and that we try to do so 
rationally, efficiently and effectively, rather than continue the 
escalation of flames that has surrounding this issue on imc-process over 
the last few days.  I think we should give the new-imc working group a 
deadline of two weeks from today to work out a recommendation of how to 
proceed.  I'll post more information about these ideas on the new-imc list.

The Ithaca IMC's block seems to come from the idea that the Rogue IMC group 
hasn't shown that they've done enough outreach or doesn't have enough 
active members to meet the membership criteria.  Andy agrees.  However, 
we've heard from several other members of the Rogue group who say they are 
confident they have done sufficient outreach and their progress in general.

Obviously we need to take great care to separate the personal divides 
between Andy and other members of the Rogue IMC group from the issue of 
whether, in fact, the Rogue IMC seems to be on the road to being an 
effective, sustainable independent media collective.  This isn't an 
unresolvable impasse, and I think it's something we can do in the new-imc 
working group -- if we do it calmly and constructively.

In regard to the issues surrounding Andy and the imc-process list, I think 
this flare-up is yet even more evidence for the need to support the 
imc-italy proposal, and for local IMCs to actively participate in network 
communications.  Right now our main form of communication on imc-process is 
individual-to-individual, which means one individual can have 
disproportionate sway.  If we were communicating primarily as IMC-to-IMC, 
one individual's e-mails wouldn't have such a maddening effect.

Jay