[New-imc] Breaking down the blocks: Arc and Freedom

[Sarsnic at aol.com]

It is an essential aspect of consensus that blocking concerns must go to the principles of the group.  

Allowing for 2/3 decision making to break deadlocks or in other such situations is clearly in line with the principle that IMCs:

"shall organize themselves collectively and be committed to the principle of consensus decision making and the development of a [direct, participatory democratic process] that is transparent to its membership"

This language clearly, purposefully and resolutely invokes a creative form that allows membership to decide it's own processes.

If a local decides, for example, that 2/3 voting in certain situations is preferable to causing several members to leave the group, or to avoid continual deadlocks, it may very well be the process most in line with these principles.

It is ironic to read that Arc and Freedom are so commited to their definition of consensus that they continue to invoke it after it failed to reach consensus in their collective.  

Also, just imagine the ridiculous stand-off that could ensue - Arc could block Roge unless they drop 2/3 and I could block Rogue unless they keep 2/3....

and, as boud1 pointed out to me, 

>http://truffula.net/pipermail/imc/2003-April/
>It's clear that IMC Rogue people are debating the issue, they are
>likely to spend time having practice with consensus training, some
>people favour 2/3, some favour consensus, but they're surely advanced
>enough in discussing this, on an openly archived list, and aware of
>the different possibilities, that they can be trusted by the network
>to come to a decision on decision-making which is similar enough to
>what other Indy collectives apply.

I feel that Arc and Freedom's categoric blocking of an IMC for invoking 2/3 forms of decision making must be set aside. 

Peace,
Nick