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

[Sheri Herndon]

hi everyone,

i am catching up.

i am personally against this proposal and don't feel that this whole 
proposal or discussion has been in the best interest of our time or 
our work.  i'm also not comfortable with having to be someone to 
block this proposal when i'm not even sure we all have an agreement 
about how to do it on lists (i think john w has some good comments on 
this).

i can understand the desire to keep the conversation at a more 
inspiring positive level.  i think we all want that.  and i think the 
desire to clarify where the discussion should take place is good as 
well.  but wow, couldn't we go about this in a different way.

i think the arguments have been well articulated as to why our energy 
could be best spent elsewhere.   going through all the emails in this 
thread is kind of amazing that so much energy is put into banning 
someone.  we've moved so far from actually being able to talk about 
all the various issues that have come up and been raised that i 
wonder if that is something to look at.

can we get back on track?

clarification of our "policies" seems in order and perhaps then 
documenting them in a very accessible spot:

*  have we ever come up with a policy about blocking and how we do 
that on this list?  i don't think we are really clear on that either. 
what is our "decision-making agreement" for this list and how does it 
work?  i hate to have us using terminology like blocks when the 
process on this list is so unclear.

*  what about coming up with some very simple list etiquette that we 
can then apply when things get a bit negative.  if people don't 
comply after several incidents, they are asked to be "quiet" for a 
bit and their speaking privileges are limited for a period of time. 
we need to start creating a climate of respect and trust on this list 
so that we can be more productive as a collective.

*  banning people policy.  do we have one?

*  cross-posting policy.  i don't remember seeing one but maybe that 
happened and i missed it.  we've been talking about it for a while.

i would hope that we could have a better way of dealing with 
conflict.  why can't we figure that out folks?  are we not all in 
this together?  even with our differences?  some really important 
points have been made.  let's try and use this as an opportunity to 
move forward and use this list with greater respect for everyone here.

i also do think that simple list etiquette is a healthy thing, 
something we've been advocating for years but have never documented. 
i also think that before we ban someone we should have a better 
policy for doing it.  i think that the resolve list was working on 
some of these issues, at least it is on the agenda.

chuck is right on when he points out that andy has been as disruptive 
and provoking for a while (i think there's some history here that we 
are not all privvy to).....and we've set a bad precedent by going 
after chuck.

i also think that we must think in terms of shifting our personal 
ideological differences and negativity off the lists and try to keep 
the discussion and dialogue on the list at a higher level.  very 
simple respect might be a good place to start.  we have differences 
of opinion.  let's use the difference as a creative friction point. 
the issue of topic imcs is not new.  what would be new is if someone 
would compile a kind of summary for everyone if we are to engage in 
the discussion again.

my two cents
sheri




At 12:34 AM +0100 1/6/03, changsing wrote:
>>The latest version of the proposal is here:
>>http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/new-imc/2003-January/004420.html
>
>yeah! how bright!
>banning someone for proposing an issue-based imc!
>you must be kidding, i can't really believe you're being serious 
>with this proposal.
>just in case you are, i disagree.
>and if that's not enough to make you change your mind, i block your 
>proposal, for the following reasons:
>- andy rice has been trying to sabotage and disrupt the imc network 
>for the last months, and even if both me and a few other people have 
>tried to raise this issue more than once, we couldn't come up with a 
>solution (banning him).
>- chuck made a proposal, and was then attacked by andy rice. andy 
>rice was the one starting the flame.
>- i didn't know we had a policy stating that people who refuse to 
>apologise are to be banned
>- i don't really think that "abusive language" is a consistent 
>argument to ban someone. you can be very abusive even without using 
>foul words.
>- three of the four reasons you want to ban chuck for sound nothing 
>more than ridiculous to me.
>"he has not yet started constructive (or any) discussion on the list
>which is most closely related to his request": does this mean that 
>from now on people have to ask you which one is the most appropriate 
>list to make proposals? and anyway, if someone starts a discussion 
>on the wrong list (which happens daily, i'd say), we ban him?
>"he has not yet created a mailing list on his requested theme": this 
>il self-explanatory in its ridiculousness
>"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": this means that you're 
>banning him because he has a different point of view on this major 
>grassroots network? fancy.
>
>there are so many things we should be doing, that i don't really 
>understand why you waste your time with such harmful and pointless 
>proposals. please, get serious.
>changsing
>
>_______________________________________________
>imc-process mailing list
>imc-process at lists.indymedia.org
>http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-process


-- 


In sum, we are an army of dreamers, and therefore invincible.  How 
can we fail to win, with this imagination overturning everything. 

-- Subcomandante Marcos