[New-imc] Re: Ithacan consensus

[Sarsnic at aol.com]

>There is middle ground. The reason for falling back to 2/3 or other majority rule is to preventobstructionism.  However, simply falling back to 2/3 rule IS TO OPERATE BY
MANORITY RULE.

Of course there are all sorts of middle grounds.  Houston has an extensive mechanism in place to make sure that we don't just jump to 2/3 although we have a 2/3 mechanism in place.  

>  BUT John W. , and I assume others, have possible solutions for creating a fall back to majority rule that is consistent with the principles behind consensus.  He and I have been communicating.  On the basis of those communications I will be offering suggestions on imc-process for how to deal with inpasses and obstructionist behavior, as the beginning of a
conversation to move toward a solution of this issue.  I'll cc it here because of the interest on the issue.  I hope there will be more constructive input, and Indymedia can come to agreement.

No, Eric, this is not right at all.  It is not up to you to withold "agreement" about anything.  Best practices are just suggestions and recommendations, they are not compromise points to dropping blocks.  If another IMC said it didn't want any Ithacan suggestions about how to proceed, then they must have that right.  Please do not try to use some useful suggestions from John W. as a basis for establishing your power over other IMCs processes.

Peace
Nick