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

[blue.pi]

Hi all, 

I am really glad that thanks to some people (blicero, sheri...) we can come 
back to a more moderate level here. 

I think it has become clear that chuck can't by any means be banned (quite 
some people disagree, plus she is not even on the list, so let's forget 
about it) 

So what do we do about the proposal? Is it possible to just continue like we 
would with any other proposal? Boud has made some suggestions that are not 
unfair, because the same kind of suggestions have been made to other 
proposed imc's: 

chuck should either explain how there has been a sufficient organizing 
effort or she should follow the steps suggested or come up with her own 
ideas how to organize. 

Maybe someone else could sum up the relevant topics of the whole discussion 
(decision making, banning, issue focused imc's...), but please don't try to 
impose a "general imc opinion" when there is really a lot of disagreement on 
all of these issues. 

solidarity
blue 

Sheri Herndon writes: 

> 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.ht 
>>> ml
>> 
>> 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 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> New-imc mailing list. Lista de correo New-imc
> New-imc at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/new-imc
 


Get pgp key for bluepee3 at yahoo.com at www.keyserver.net