[New-imc] PROPOSAL chuck on approval list DEADLINE Wed 8 Jan 2003 17:00 GMT

[boud]

######################################################################
PROPOSAL to put chuck on a "postings held for approval" list
DEADLINE Wed 8 Jan 2003 17:00 GMT

###
[en]
SUMMARY
It is proposed to put chuck on a "postings held for approval" 
list for new-imc since
(1) he has made a personal attack and refused to apologise
(2,3) he has not carried out positive suggestions where he
could discuss and start the first steps for his project
(4) he has trivialised a major group of homeless people

[fr]
RÉSUMÉ
On propose de mettre chuck sur une liste Ť retenir pour filtrage ť
pour la liste new-imc vu que :
(1) il a fait une attaque personnelle et il refuse de s'excuser
(2,3) il n'a pas suivi les conseils positifs qui lui donneraient
un lieu pour discuter et pour commencer les premiers pas de son projet
(4) il s'est moqué de l'un des principaux groupes de SDF
###

It is proposed to put chuck0 <chuck at mutualaid.org> on the
"postings held for approval" list of new-imc:

http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/admin/new-imc
 Configuration Categories
  # Privacy Options  
   Spam-specific posting filters
    Addresses whose postings are always held for approval.

because although he has succeeded in catalysing an interesting
discussion based on his initial request for a housing IMC,

(1) he has made a personal attack on someone and refused to apologise:
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/new-imc/2003-January/004416.html

(2) he has not yet started constructive (or any) discussion on the list
which is most closely related to his request:
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/syndication/

(3) he has not yet created a mailing list on his requested theme, and
it is difficult to see how any non-local collective can be organised
without a mailing list, even if it is a regional + theme-oriented 
collective:
http://lists.indymedia.org/

(4) although interested in homelessness, he has trivialised the
possibility of networking with a major grassroots network of
homeless people in the world's largest democracy who use direct
action in the best Gandhian tradition:
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/new-imc/2003-January/004386.html

######################################################################


i put a 3-day deadline since that's the normal deadline for our
internal decision-making.


On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Chuck0 wrote:

> boud wrote:
> > <cross-post new-imc,
> > mediacollective at students.sou.edu, chuck at mutualaid.org>
> > 
> > 
> > ############################################################
> > PROPOSAL to andy and chuck
> > 
> > Could you please *both* apologise to each other, onlist, for your
> > personal attacks on the new-imc mailing list, *without* at the same
> > time introducing any new personal attacks?
> > 
> > You might wish to cc: to imc-process.
> > 
> > ############################################################
> 

> I have no intention to apologise to Andy, as I think he should be
> banned from this list for his constant disruptions.

i am confused about your saying that andy has made "constant
disruptions". One personal attack in 12 months is not "constant
disruptions". 

Even if it were true that andy constantly disrupted this list, there
would still be no justification for personally attacking him.

Although i have been confused by your emails on this list, i have
tried to criticise your actions, not you yourself, and i hope you
interpret my comments in this way.

However, apart from andy's email yesterday:
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/new-imc/2003-January/004407.html

and his email alerting us to his worries about the proposals to create
a Eugene IMC:
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/new-imc/2002-February/002709.html

i cannot find any other emails by andy on this list in 2002.

So i find your statement difficult to understand.


> I have a right to use angry words in my discourse to express how angry I am. 

(1) You have the right to express your emotions, about how *you* feel,
in a sentence or two, depending on the context. 

But on a global mailing list, you have to be particularly aware that
expressing your emotions insensitively may lead to "flames" and
distraction from the issues. Since we are on this theme, i should
mention that i feel quite frustrated and upset that you have followed
your initial request by confusing responses. i am sure it's not your
fault - everybody's different - but it is frustrating.

(2) Expressing how *you* feel is not the same as attacking someone.


> I've found that activists engage in a double standard when it come to 
> expressions of anger. They tolerate individuals who physically attack and 
> harass other activists, yet get bent out of shape when one of us nice quiet 
> people lose our temper.

i am not aware of any posts on new-imc "tolerating individuals who
physically attack and harass other activists". i don't understand
the relevance of your point.


> No, I will not apologise for my reaction to the disrespect inflicted
> on me by Andy and other IMC people in the last few days. I think
> that if any apologies are in order, that I should get one for being
> subject to an unfair and hostile process surrounding our proposal.

You have my personal apologies for any hurt feelings.

Please do not feel hurt or offended by being put on a "postings held
for approval" list. Everyone has the right to need time to cool off,
time to learn how to organise his/her thoughts carefully, to double
check facts, to take time to think and listen to advice and positive
proposals he/she has been given, and should not be offended if a
working group needs to get back to work.

Noone has expressed any hostility whatsoever to your starting 
a mailing list to *organise* your project, nor to your discussing
the issue with people who are already working on syndication.

solidarity
boud