[New-imc] Nothing to prevent Right-Wing IMC

[Blicero]

On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 07:01:49PM -0400, Bill Huston wrote:
> 
> This is a problem I raised back when I was trying to start IMC-Binghamton
> (currently on-hold). It seems to me that there are two process features
> which are going to ultimately cause problems:
> 
> 1) Strict Consensus -- I know this is has been discussed ad nauseum, but
>    we all witnessed the global blocks by IMC Ithaca, and this has never
>    properly addressed, IMHO. Banning Arc simply swept this problem under
>    the carpet for a while. I suggest a 2/3 super-majority, assuming
>    the mission statement is never violated.
> 

the membership criteria are quite clear in this respect

use consensus model (ie: something that privilege discussion to voting and
representation) , in whatever form makes sense to the local imc
i don't think there is much point to have a clear definition (2/3 fallback is
ok, 1/12 is no tand so on :)



> 2) Lack of any kind of lefty-radical-progressive-counterculture political 
>    litmus test.
> 
> The latter is the real current problem. In a decentralized collective
> of autonomous groups, what prevents a collective of Dittoheads from
> starting an IMC?  I see nothing in the process docs to prevent this.
> 


the relationship they have to develop in the course of the process
a right-wingers will never pass the process if the people following them do the
accompanying job properly :)


> I would suggest that all new IMCs be compelled to adopt the Seattle
> IMC mission statement as their own, as it is pretty darn good.
> 

but what the hell are you talking about ?
seattle imc mission statement is good, but that's not a point to everybofy be
obliged to fotocopy it

-- 
ciao
blicero