[New-imc] taking back the proposal

[Mike R]

Hi gekked,

I think she was referring to
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2003-November/004642.html
which was signed by both collectives, not the later missives.

Wednesday, January 07, 2004, 4:00:20 AM, gekked said:

>> What i wrote.. the agreement... really is the official
>> version of the agreement. I emailed it to everyone
>> involved the morning after the mediation session. I

gbn> Of course it is not. Would an "official agreement" use the provocative
gbn> terms of "Ryan and Noah's IMC" when half of SF-IMC and a handful of
gbn> other people are involved in SF Indymedia, at least? The agreement
gbn> posted by Lisa is her interpretation, and it was argued in detail on
gbn> an imc-sf list. Archives of the emails can be provided to show this.


>> indybay.org. If we do not have indybay.org then the
>> other group should not be able to keep
>> sf.indymedia.org. Our group gave up our web site, the

gbn> Indybay is one part of a larger agreement. When SFBAY upholds their
gbn> end of the agreement, or even *acknowledges* our attempts to work
gbn> out their blatant violations, we will complete the remaining items of
gbn> the mediation process.

gbn> Furthermore, I really disagree that new-imc should be disrupted like
gbn> this anymore. Having worked on new-imc group (rather than just joining
gbn> so hate mail could be sent faster like Jino), I know that discussions
gbn> like this are traditionally kicked off this list.


-- 
Mike
mailto:micro.zen at verizon.net