• Jays "proposal is implemented in its original form on imc-communication mailing list".
• In February 2003, Italy IMC comes back with liason proposal for imc-process and the proposal passes as nobody dissented within one month.
• Then there is this sf bay proposal?

transforming imc-process: history of the various proposal

At this point jay and LWG agree on flipping the two mailing list involved in the proposal, making imc-communication a liason list and imc-process as it has always been.
Petros supports the idea of going on anyway and having to different space for liason based communication and loose individual communication. richard answer to Petros mail, after a frantic thread more on the liason concept than on the proposal in itself, disagrees on the decision making application of jay original proposal and confirms the blocks, but do not state anything specific on the new imc-communication related proposal.
One last mail from Petros argues that individualism is not making the network move forward on experimenting new forms of democratic organization

• redkitten confirms the idea that decisions should reside in local imcs

jay finally summarizes thought on liason and so on, proposing to have imc-communication as brainstorming list, imc-process as liason list where non-liason can post summary of mail sent to imc-communication. This modified proposal is sent to translation lists to be translated in various languages. In the end we will have a english, a portuguese, spanish, german and italian translations.

While Petros keeps doing a nice job of having consensus emerge without stirring too much the process, Tony and imc Belo Horizonte voice their agreement with the proposal and the deadline for the proposal is set to April 16th, 2002, the London Working Group proposes major amendments to the proposal basically aimed at tying decision making possibility to the actual work contributed to the network and at including individuals as potential decision makers in the proposal. Jay replies stating the importance of amendment vs block concept hoping a new proposal can be worked out in-progress.

Core issues that will be faced in this and the following proposals for imc-process transformation include:

In march 2002 jay floated the idea of making imc-process a liason list. The idea will later be shaped into a proposal basically making imc-process a liason list (even if still open to moderated individuals contribution). The idea stirs up a lot of debate. Several people very involved with the list agree with the proposal (bart, melbourne, carl0z), anna expressing also some thought about privilege hierarchy) Other people express critics:

• blicero and toya against making imc-process a liason list but in favour of trying to push decision making towards local imc, through a liason system; in a quick note summaries and facilitation are mentioned; carl0z comment on the liason issue and blicero criticism;
• deva tries to move the discussino back to the imc decision making working group, a list for a small period dedicated to elaborate a proposal on imc decision making;
• blicero and changsing furthers argument against liason (precisely against them working as representatives) and point out the core issue are summaries, languages, length of mail and other facilitation issues

The idea is then drafted into a first proposal, but complain quickly arise for not having included in the proposal most criticism to the idea first floated

• blicero reply to the proposal
• jay replies a possible solution to the disagreement, basically suggesting th epossibility for individuals to post on the liason-only imc-process list; further agrees on summaries, language and mail length issues detailed by both blicero, changsing, toya
• toya suggests to use imc-communication and not imc-global (as suggested in jay proposal) from brainstorming; basically agrees with jay solution.
• petros comments on emerging consensus about liason role as communications vehicle and supports the proposal with the flavour explained in the long email.
• chuck0 comments in favour of a mixed system guaranteeing a decision making system and not falling into representative democracy; especially suggest making liason a rotating charge.
• drica further comments on liason as rotating charges to ensure icm does not become a hierarchical body.
• changsing asking to circulate the proposal to local imc.
• toya further specifying liason should have no decision making empowerment.
• richard points our the problem is defining what "actual contributing work" means and base dacision making empowerment in this concept.
• jay finally summarize thought on liason and so on, proposing to have imc-communication as brainstorming list, imc-process as liason list where non-liason can post summary of mail sent to imc-communication.

imc-process: moderation

Let's start from reasonably near past. If you want to find our more, check out imc-process list chronology for more complete information. In March 2002, jay began working on the idea to transform imc-process into a global body for imc decision making. The main issues in the proposal, that will be discussed until its final block in late april, by the London Working Group (a working group composed of two people operating in London and for a long time in global network), concerns:

• making imc-process a prevalently liason place
• introducing a form of moderation of the list
• introducing self-facilitation mechanisms, like summaries of email, multiple language of email, slower pace of discussion

In march 2003, italy imc comes back with liason proposal for imc-process and the proposal passes ......

Right now italy imc proposal has passed but it's not fully implemented, even though discussion on imc-process has been fairly low and a team of imc-process facilitators able to enforce the proposal is actually working.

Here you can find the different proposal and answer to the first sf-imc moderation policy suggested by sf imc.

• sf-imc proposal towards moderation, in english and spanish and german
• italian comment by changsing
• a suggestion for the process which can be used to approve the proposal

_ imc-process: towards moderation _

4.) Individuals cannot engage in an excessive, delusive, malicious, or

5.) Discussion is inclusive of the full breadth of cultural, geographic, and lingual perspectives of participants in the Imc

3.) Unsubscribing or banning abusive posters.

The facilitation system will expire at the end of 2002, at which time it may be renewed or amended. Otherwise, list facilitators will serve a term of 3 months, at which time their term may be renewed by

sf bay area imc

imc-process: towards moderation

here is sf-imc proposal towards moderation, in english and spanish http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-process/2002-October/004095.html

here is its german translation: http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-process/2002-October/004097.html

here is a suggestion for the process which can be used to approve the proposal: http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-process/2002-October/004063.html

below is a copy of english version of sf-imc proposal there's already been some important feedback on the issue. as for now, see list archives [ http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-process/2002-October/thread.html#start ] to read about it. we also have some people volunteering to facilitate/moderate

* PURPOSE OF FACILITATION * Imc-process facilitators will ensure that: 1.) Posts are on-topic and relevant to the purpose of the list; 2.) Posts begin with a brief summary and are as concise as possible; 3.) Posts are, as much as possible, offered in at least 2 languages; 4.) Individuals cannot engage in an excessive, delusive, malicious, or=20=

otherwise abusive pattern of posting; 5.) Discussion is inclusive of the full breadth of cultural,=20 geographic, and lingual perspectives of participants in the Imc=20 network; and 6.) Full participation by underrepresented groups is encouraged.

* METHODS OF FACILITATION * As such, facilitators may use the various listserv functions, such as: 1.) Screening posts for approval or rejection, 2.) Asking that posts be rewritten and resubmitted, and 3.) Unsubscribing or banning abusive posters.

* FACILITATOR CHECK-IN * If or when facilitators make changes to list settings, face=20 disagreement over a particular course of action, or have questions=20 about how best to handle a particular issue, they should inform the=20 Imc-process list itself, and, if necessary, facilitate a discussion of=20=

the matter.

* LIMITATIONS * The facilitation system will expire at the end of 2002, at which time=20 it may be renewed or amended. Otherwise, list facilitators will serve=20=

a term of 3 months, at which time their term may be renewed by=20 Imc-process.

--sf bay area imc