[New-imc] Block of Rogue / support for Rogue

[freedom]

My prior posting concerning ithacaimc's block of rogue should make it plain 
that I personally block Rogue in addition to ithacaimc's block.  To eliminate 
any possibility of confusion I specifically state my personal block rogue 
(until the issues of my block are resolved).  The structure of ithacaimc's 
consensus process involves reaching consensus at a meeting and then approving 
that consensus at the next meeting. That failed to happen regards ithaca's 
block of rogue's application.  That is the reason I feel the need to state a 
personal block. 
 
The seriousness with which ithacaimc takes this issue can be illustrated by 
the fact that we spent over an hour of discussion about this issue on a day 
when there were several time critical issues for which we gave less than 
adequate attention as a result of the discussion of the Rogue block.  In the 
end, the block of the ithacaimc's consensus about blocking rogue centered on 
a "strong moral conviction" that the Principles of Unity do not specify what 
consensus is and ithacaimc has no right to tell rogue how to construct 
rogue's rules of consensus.  The obvious irony of this is that had we 
operated on ¾ majority rule when consensus cannot be reached (that is rogue's 
stated decision making process and the primary reason for ithacaimc's block) 
the block of rogue's application as an imc would have been sustained.   
 
First let me address the issue of a block.  To the best of my knowledge, no 
individual or group has, or intends to permanently block rogue's application.  
My block has two criteria to it before it is lifted (automatically).  The 
first is that rogue must follow the Principles of Unity and adopt a decision 
making process that is a consensus model.  Consensus does not involve falling 
back to majority rule.  That is majority rule with a patronizing nod toward 
the ideal of consensus.  Implicit in the model of falling back to majority 
rule when consensus cannot be reached is the conviction that consensus does 
not work so there has to be a "real" decision making process to take it's 
place, majority rule, and in rogue's case, ¾ majority.  The issue of decision 
making in Indymedia is much larger than rogue and I intend to help Indymedia 
deal with this larger issue.  However, at hand is the application of rogue.  
My block of rogue is not to thwart, nor to discourage those who are trying to 
get rogue on line.  To the contrary.  I am concerned with getting rogue on 
line as soon as rogue can be helped through the New IMC process.  I state 
here my willingness to work with those involved with rogue to help them 
resolve the issues they need to resolve and help get them on line ASAP.  My 
block is based on a strong moral conviction regarding the need to maintain 
the coherence of Indymedia as a definable organization with a defined 
decision making process by helping rogue establish itself in a manner that is 
consistent with the Principles of Unity, and, further, to help rogue 
establish itself in a manner which will help it prosper over the years.  To 
prosper rogue must have a good foundation.  (In another posting I will 
address what happened to ithacaimc as a result of a poor decision making 
process.)  My assumption is that the New IMC process is intended to 
accomplish these goals.  Further, I assume the process broke down at some 
point through no evil intent on anyone's part.   And, that if people involved 
in the process would lighten up a bit, focus on resolving the issues which 
have been raised about rogue's application, we can do a good job of getting 
rogue on line in quick order.   Furthermore, this process can be beneficial 
to all of Indymedia and certainly beneficial to future applications. 
 
The second aspect of my block to immediately accepting rogue as an imc is 
simply that issues have been raised and rogue needs to continue through the 
New IMC process until these issues are resolved and the process is 
satisfactorily completed.   
 
Respectfully, 
Eric