[New-imc] Re: [IMC-Process] Re: Rogue IMC Block

[Chuck0]

freedom wrote:
> Dear Chuck,
> 
> A more useful way of seeing the blocks and concerns raised about rogue is to 
> see them not as roadblocks, but a desire to help rogue come online in harmony 
> with the Principles of Unity and with structures which allow rogue to prosper 
> over the long run.  That is certainly my intent as I have explicitly stated. 
>  
> What you have to say about process applies directly to my point above.  While 
> I might have some differences concerning how to define and deal with 
> obstructionist blocking, I strongly agree with most of what you have to say.    
> I would like to work constructively with you, and others concerned with 
> process, to help Indymedia get a better handle on the issue.  I will read the 
> material at the links you provided, and I offer this link to a series of 
> articles about consensus decision making.  Some things at this site are 
> excellent.  http://www.vernalproject.org/RPapers.shtml#CoopDecMaking
> 
> Ithacaimc's connection to rogue is nothing more, or less, than our connection 
> to every other imc, and Indymedia itself.  Taking some speculative risk about 
> which I do not want to be held too critically because I am speculating here, 
> I could understand some people arguing, "Why the concern about rogue?  This 
> much attention was not paid to other imc applications."  To that question I 
> would offer the speculation that maybe I am not the only one who has vague 
> and growing concerns that Indymedia's growth is reaching a new stage.  NYC 
> and Huston have had severe problems.  Other imcs as well?  Arguments about 
> direction, working groups, and what Indymedia is are emerging.  Indymedia 
> would not be the first organization which experienced a metoric rise and then 
> exploded/imploded and disapeared.  Defining ourselves and the group process 
> by which we operate is very important.  I suspect rogue just happened to be 
> the imc applicant at this time period in Indymedia's history.  rogue could 
> benefit greatly because of this timing.  
> 
> Respectful, issue oriented comments and questioning like your email are 
> helpful to the process of sorting things out.  We can be passionate about 
> ideas without attacking each other.  Passion is important.  Passion is what 
> spawned Indymedia.
> 
> Eric
> 
> 
> On Friday 25 April 2003 11:12, Chuck0 wrote:
> 
>>I find this entire process (or lack thereof) to be incredibly
>>disempowering and embarassing to the IMC network. When we should be
>>doing everything possible to bring more IMCs into existence, we throw
>>stupid roadblocks in the way, be it because of miscommunication or
>>sectarian politics. One has to wonder if this current process help
>>destroy nascent IMCs from the get-go, because the folks trying to get an
>>IMC online have to go through the nasty IMC network politics that stem
>>from its disorganization.
>>
>>I'm also seeing an incredible abuse happening of consensus process, with
>>individuals raising blocks for inappropriate reasons. I still don't
>>understand why one individual at an IMC in New York state could make a
>>block for his group of a new IMC that is clear across the country. I
>>don't understand this block and IMC Ithaca's connection with IMC Rogue.
>>
>>There also seems to be a lot of nitpicking over minor alleged problems
>>at IMCs like Rogue. No new IMC is going to have its shit together at the
>>start--this is the nature of activist projects. If we had used these
>>current standards for new IMCs during the first two years of the IMC
>>project, we would have seen the creation of ten IMCs, tops.
>>
>>I strongly urge the speedy approval of IMC Rogue and all other new IMCs
>>in the pipeline. We need more independent media now.

I hope that my last comment was not seen by anybody as being 
confrontational. When I asked about the reason for the block, I was 
simply trying to get my brain around this situation and I was trying to 
bring things back to the block. I've spent a little time looking through 
list archives and I wasn't pleased with what I found on this 
controversy, but at this point it seems that we need to figure out how 
to make the process better.

Is there a listing of criteria that new IMCs need to meet posted 
somewhere? Wouldn't it make sense that a block of a new IMC would have 
to reference these criteria and present evidence that relates to a 
failure to meet the required criteria? In my mind, these blocks would 
need to relate to serious issues, such as server space not having been 
arranged or not enough organizational meetings being conducted by the 
proposed IMC collective.

Does it make sense that we need to define these processes better? 
Otherwise, it seems like we have a set of ad hoc policies which lead to 
frequently changing of horses in midstream, with one of those horses 
this time being IMC Rogue.

Chuck0
Infoshop.org
Alternative Press Review