[New-imc] PROPOSAL V0.02 chuck on approval list DEADLINE Wed
8 Jan 2003 17:00 GMT
PseudoPunk
bart at indymedia.org
Mon Jan 6 08:09:06 PST 2003
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Boud,
this is nonsense.
chuck isn't subscribed to this list so he is defacto on a "postings helf
for approval list".
I guess the problem on this list more that more and more people
subscribe without actually participating.
Bart
boud heeft geschreven:
> ######################################################################
> 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 « retenir pour filtrage »
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> New-imc mailing list. Lista de correo New-imc
> New-imc at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/new-imc
>
>
- --
What I can say is that Microsoft has enough cash on hand to pay 5,000
programmers to write free software for about a century. There is clearly
no need for the proprietary software model (RMS)
http://wvl.indymedia.org | bart at indymedia.org
http://thepits.be | bart at thepits.be
http://pseudopunk.be | icq: 48682266
gebruik vrije software -- Debian GNU/Linux -- http://debian.org
gpg --keyserver keys.indymedia.org --recv-keys be196251
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Debian - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQE+GX61cu9TlCt+tnERAkcYAKDPXpyCB9QwWbGq8ie7Lmv44lwinACgqs4g
rnA17FO/wlDaIwNw+qX/HlU=
=j0/V
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the New-imc
mailing list