[New-imc] PROPOSAL V0.02 chuck on approval list DEADLINE Wed 8 Jan 2003 17:00 GMT

[boud]

######################################################################
PROPOSAL V0.03 to put chuck on a "postings held for approval" list
DEADLINE Wed 8 Jan 2003 17:00 GMT

DURATION: This will only apply for six months (i.e.  from 8 Jan 2003
to 8 July 2003 if it is passed without a block on 8 Jan 2003).

###
[en]
SUMMARY
It is proposed to put chuck on a "postings held for approval" 
list for new-imc since
(1) she has made a personal attack and refused to apologise
(2,3) she has not carried out positive suggestions where she
could discuss and start the first steps for her project
(4) she 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) elle a fait une attaque personnelle et elle refuse de s'excuser
(2,3) elle n'a pas suivi les conseils positifs qui lui donneraient
un lieu pour discuter et pour commencer les premiers pas de son projet
(4) elle s'est moquée 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 she has succeeded in catalysing an interesting
discussion based on her initial request for a housing IMC,

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

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

(3) she has not yet created a mailing list on her 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, she 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

CONCERNS EXPRESSED:
torstein:
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/new-imc/2003-January/004422.html
dana:
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/new-imc/2003-January/004425.html

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




hi torstein, everyone,

On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, torstein wrote:

> I must say I'm against this proposal. 

i've added your concern to V0.03 of the proposal. Depending
on further discussion, you might later on decide to formalise
your concern either as a "STAND ASIDE" (which means you are
against the proposal but do not block it) or as a "BLOCK".

You should be aware that a block should only be made if this
is for a fundamental reason for the existence of the group,
i.e. in this case, for approving new geographical IMCs according
to a process that has some form of legitimacy in the network.

Someone making a block takes responsibility for what he/she
believes is fundamental, it should not be made lightly.

Please see
http://www.consensus.net/ocac2.html
for general theory on consensus decision-making, or look through
new-imc archives to see how it is practised on this list.


> I think it's better if we
> discuss the issues raised in this "subject IMCs" discussion,
> rather than discussing the person(s) raising the issues.

So please open up a mailing list dedicated to this question:

http://newlist.indymedia.org

There are clearly several people interested in principle, but
someone (or some people) has (have) to facilitate the discussion.
 
> A global IMC mailinglist should refrain from "ad hominem"
> (discussing ppl) and stick to the issues. Furthermore, discussing

Of course that's what we would prefer. But this is an extraordinary
situation, which has never arisen before in my experience on this
list. There have been moments of tension, there have been 
misunderstandings, there have been hurt feelings, but IMHO,
everyone involved was serious and made a fair attempt to listen
to each other and to clarify their statements. 

In this case, the person under question is upset and confused, and
from her last email, even seems confused about the difference between
the two lists new-imc and imc-process.

> a ban on chuck0 is way more off-topic than using the new-imc list to
> discuss suggestions of new topical IMCs.

It's not a ban; list admins would use their judgment on whether or not
to let messages through. Chances are the admins would mostly not
choose to block messages, or might simply choose to forward them
to the best list for the theme.

If we try to set a new network policy on this list as you are
sugggesting - since discussing "suggestions of new topical IMCs" would
in effect be preparing a major shift in what the whole network is
about - as well as encourage people to submit themes on which they
want to create "new topical IMCs", then quite naturally more and more
people from the network will join that discussion thread *on this
list* and any discussion of new geographical IMCs will be swamped (as
it has been for the past week).

You're correct that the proposal of putting chuck on a "hold for
approval" list may generate some discussion off-topic, that's a risk
which IMHO is acceptable in the circumstances.

Please look at our archives:
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/new-imc/

Have we been wasting our time discussing new geographical IMCs?

Do you really think we should drop discussion of new geographical
IMCs in favour of a hypothetical discussion about setting network
policy for new thematic IMCs?

Or do you really think the two discussions can be threaded on a 
single mailing list?

We have typically 100-150 emails per month for geographical IMCs,
and the rate is not slowing down - it's exponential.

Please think carefully before making a block.

boud