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

[boud]

On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, Sheri Herndon wrote:

> *  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.

Sorry, sheri, the cross-posting issue is on imc-process, not on
new-imc. This message is on new-imc.

Noone on new-imc is specially bothered about cross-posting, AFAIK.
But it would be nice to be a little careful, e.g., avoid talking
about "this list" when you cross-post. That's confusing.
 
> 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 

Sorry, sheri, you are plain wrong here, as far as the new-imc mailing
list is concerned.

AFAIK, andy has only sent two emails to new-imc in thirteen months:

http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/new-imc/2002-February/002709.html
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/new-imc/2003-January/004407.html

His February 2002 messsage alerting us to his worries about the
proposals to create a Eugene IMC seems, with hindsight, to have been
quite valid.

Two messages in thirteen months is not serious disruption, even if the
second of the two messages contained personal attacks.

> 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.

It was already started several days ago:
http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Global/GlobalThemes

You are most welcome to contribute constructively to it.


Could i suggest you give your opinion on the proposal on shifting
the theme IMC thread:
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/new-imc/2003-January/004445.html

IMHO that would be clear and constructive.