[New-imc] PROPOSAL: removing arc from new-imc WG [deadline: 29 may 18 GMT]

[Andy Mulkerin]

I support this proposal and agree with Mike that Arc's blocks have not
been founded, seeing as how I asked him to explain his reasoning behind
blocking Rogue for those of us who don't completely understand the problem
and he did not do so.
Andy

---------------------------------------------------------
So grab a pen turn off the CNN and scratch me out some plans
to get together again.


http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org
http://www.subtext.info

On Mon, 26 May 2003, Mike R wrote:

> Hi Nic,
>
> I concur.  I have been waiting patiently to see the response to that
> question.  Instead I have seen many posts about Arc's angry block of
> the Rogue application and little as to the reasons behind the block.
>
> -mike
>
> Monday, May 26, 2003, 4:31:41 PM, Sarsnic said:
>
> Sac> I find it completely unacceptable for Arc to be part of this work group if he can not answer simple questions like this one about the explanation for his block.
> Sac> - Nick
>
> >>With which part of the following statement do you disagree (if any)?
> >>All IMCs that are implementing 2/3 fallbacks are not truly consensus based and therefore they are not in accord with the Principles of Unity.  It makes sense to start with the new-IMC applicants
> >>first, but eventually, any IMC that insists on a 2/3 fallback position must be purged from the cities list and no longer considered an IMC.
> Sac> _______________________________________________
> Sac> New-imc mailing list. Lista de correo New-imc
> Sac> New-imc at lists.indymedia.org
> Sac> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/new-imc
>
>
>
> --
> Mike
> mailto:micro.zen at verizon.net
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> New-imc mailing list. Lista de correo New-imc
> New-imc at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/new-imc
>