[New-imc] network membership application for TN IMC

[boud]

hi shayne, new-imc, sandgropers,

On Tue, 20 May 2003, Shayne O'Neill wrote:

> 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.

Relax! i know that docs (kropotkin.indymedia.org) has been inaccessible
quite a lot, but when it's back up, if you carefully read through
http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Global/NewImcHowTo
you'll notice from:
http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Global/MembershipCriteria
or
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/new-imc/2001-May/000155.html

that:
(1) the Membership Criteria (and P of Unity) are only *draft* criteria

(2) 
> g. Adopt a decision-making policy that is in alignment with consensus 
> principles which include open, transparent and egalitarian processes, 
So there is *not* any formal agreement that local IMCs *must* have a full 
consensus decision-making procedure. "alignment with consensus principles"
is consistent with something which is partly a consensus process, i.e.
aligned with it, but might be a little different.

Just because arc talks authoritatively about full consensus being
obligatory in Indymedia doesn't make it true. 

The *in*formal practice has generally been that as long as a local
IMC has seriously *discussed* and thought through and made a local
decision on a decision-making procedure, preferably after having
seriously understood and discussed formal consensus processes, then
the ultimate decision on decision-making is local. After all, even if
the network *tried* to "coerce" a decision-making method on a local
IMC - there's not much chance of it being effective. Local people will
only do what they've understood and accepted and are comfortable
with. If locals are forced to accept something they don't want to accept,
they'll just drop it after having been formally accepted into the network.

In some cases both the new-imc person and local group even forget to
mention consensus at all... It's a function of who is willing to do
the explanation and relationship building work. 

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

i suspect that lack of experience on new-imc may have made it
difficult for you to judge which comments to take more seriously. Of
course we should listen to and try to understand all the comments, but
maybe the more experienced people have failed to synthesise the discussions
enough for the newer people. 

People like arc have been around long enough to be aware of (1) and
(2) above, so most of us have stopped repeating these. *If* we get
global lists like imc-process running smoothly, and if US-based IMCs
sort out their stuff on imc-us-process rather than hassling the rest
of us, then we *might* come to a formal decision so that the
membership criteria and principles of unity are no longer just drafts.
But then again, it might not be seen as a priority, and might even be
felt better as drafts than formal "decisions".

As for "portland's" consensus model, i'll respond to that on imc-perth.

solidarity
boud