[New-imc] are principles drafts?

[Jay]

Hi,

I agree that we've been using the "draft" principles and membership 
criteria as actual principles and membership criteria for long enough that 
we should probably start considering them past the draft stage.  If we had 
some kind of international decision-making convention or something coming 
up we would have a reason to consider the documents "drafts" and then 
confirm them at the convention, but since we have nothing of the sort 
planned I don't think they should continue to be considered drafts 
forever.  I don't mind referring to them as drafts, because they are, but 
since we've been using them so regularly, to me they seem like they're more 
solid than that.  Perhaps we would feel better about formaling them through 
imc-process?  I don't know.

Jay


At 5/20/2003, Arc wrote:
>On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 11:31:38AM -0700, christine detwiler wrote:
> > After hearing it confirmed by Boud and agreeded to by Evan
> > that:
> > (1) the Membership Criteria (and P of Unity) are only *draft* criteria
> > and:
> > Just because arc talks authoritatively about full consensus being
> > obligatory in Indymedia doesn't make it true. (New-imc,May 19)
> > I say lets welcome Rogue to the network.
>
>I highly disagree with the Membership Criteria and Principals of Unity
>being only "drafts".  They were proposed over a year ago, they've been
>used as organizational documents on the network and it's been a
>requirement since I've been involved with Indymedia that applicant IMCs
>discuss and respond to these documents.
>
>Nor has there have been no suggestions to major changes in these
>documents in several months.
>
>If these documents are not valid then there is no criteria for new-imc's
>to enter the network.  No requirement that there even be a "collective",
>and since there seems to be a strong pressure by some of the new-imc
>volunteers that individual blocks should be ignored I propose the
>following choice must be made (of course there's several alternatives to
>each) in order for this group to move forward in a fair and democratic
>fashion:
>
>1) All new IMC applicants immediatly go to imc-process for a three week
>review and discussion period, during which time only IMCs can block by
>"true consensus" - any other form of decidion making gives IMCs with
>majority-fallbacks more weight in the decidion making process.
>New-IMC's which are blocked by atleast one whole IMC must be accepted
>into the network at the end of their three-week wait period, they are
>not required to do anything since we have no formal process established.
>
>2) The NIMC Membership Criteria and Principals of Unity are recognised
>as being consensed on through practice (no formal process is needed) and
>the New-IMC process we've used for the past year continue.  IMCs are
>required to fufill the Membership Criteria to join the network, which in
>part, includes adhering to the principals of unity.
>
>Simply put, continuing to do #2 (as we always have) while switching to
>#1 when the members of the group "feel like it" is unfair to both the
>network and other new-imc applicants who have to struggle through the
>difficult (but I believe nessesary) process we've setup.
>
>Just because some of the members of IMC-Rogue are friends with some of
>the global techs doesn't mean they get to be treated any differently.
>We have our policies, wether or not they were formally consensed on they
>either must be accepted as being our policy or we have no policy left in
>place.