[New-imc] network membership application for TN IMC

[Shayne O'Neill]

(cc'd to perh imc)

I'm taking a risk here by saying this, and I'm not saying this
representing my IMC(perth) , but I'm making an observation.

The Rogue block, and general pouncing on and kicking the crap out of any
IMC that doesnt conform to the strictures of 'officialthink' consensus
method is having a frigging CHILLING effect on new IMCs if whats been
going on in our imc is anything to go by.

It *really* sucks that the debate on the consensus model by us has had
this whole stupid cloud of "Hey, We know that the supermajority fallback
has always been pretty effective in perth circles, but sorry, we'll get
silenced if we do it.". Thats no consensus folks. Thats coercion.

Eitherway. We are using portlands consensus model. But I do declare
we've arived there with a gun to our head.

Meeting procedure lawyers;- Please kill that cop in your head. Its
just forcing another form of domination over what should be AFFINITY GROUP
decisions.

Azadi,
Shayne (speaking for himself).

------------------------------------
"Must not Sleep! Must warn others!"
-Aesop.
Shayne O'Neill. Indymedia. Fun.
http://www.perthimc.asn.au

On Mon, 19 May 2003, Arc wrote:

> On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 10:37:01AM -0500, Ryan Smith wrote:
> > g. Adopt a decision-making policy that is in alignment
> > with consensus principles which include open,
> > transparent and egalitarian processes,
> > Regarding consensus, we have adopted the principles of
> > the peace coalition.  In all efforts we strive for
> > consensus as the modus operandi of the TN IMC.  When
> > consensus is not possible we will make decisions by
> > 3/4 majority vote.
>
> 3/4 majority fallback vote is not consensus.
>
> The principals of consensus, which are important because they create a
> positive atmosphere of social change and equal participation, rely on
> the individual's ability to speak his or her own truth.  The power of
> blocking, even if it is never used, must be present to ensure that no
> voice is ignored.
>
> Any form of majority voting, wether it be 50%+, 2/3rd's, 3/4'rd, or even
> "consensus minus one", is not consensus. It promotes a social atmosphere
> where participants play political games within the group, forming
> alliances and, over time, either creating divisions within the group or
> one group becomming dominant and removing everyone else from the group.
> Even with consensus minus one, when one individual cannot block on their
> own they'll "team up" with another member and mutually support
> eachothers blocks.  Not only are such divisions self-destructive but it
> creates a tense social structure where new members feel the need to join
> one of the divisions, also called a block or clique, or leave the group.
>
> Having majority voting to consensus is just for appearences sake.  Very
> few people will ever block in consensus if they know the group will then
> vote anyways.
>
> Consensus is about everyone "winning", about everyone being able to work
> with the decidions being made by the group.  It's not easy, it's a
> process of social change within the individual members as much as the
> group itself, and the group may find itself "held back" by new members
> who insist on blocking everything they dont agree with, using the power
> to block as a way to attempt to control others in the group.  This can
> often be kept in check by requiring voting members to contribute to the
> IMC and through creating a social atmosphere where this is unacceptable.
>
> Any form of majority voting, wether it be 2/3rds, 3/4rds, or consensus
> minus one, is a "win - loose" situation.  It creates an atmosphere where
> members feel the need to have power over others, to play silly political
> games and where they feel defensive against other members of the group.
> While the group may be more productive, decidions made faster, it
> results in the social fabric of the group breaking down and eventually
> the group becomming the opposite of the world we strive to create.
>
> We've seen what it leads to, the exact same things I described above
> continue to this day in NYC - where the IMC is divided into three
> distinct fractions, where members of one group were kicked out of the
> IMC (for being Anarchists) despite several people blocking it, where the
> video crew has found it nessesary to move into a seperate space for
> social-political reasons.. while the IMC as a whole is quite productive,
> at what social cost does this productivity come at?
>