<< NewImc

<< ImcResolve - general meta-discussion on Indymedia conflict resolution

• ConflictResolution - hints on specific methods of conflict resolution

---

SUMMARY of the IMC Rogue recognition process by the IMC network

There are different points of view of whether or not ImcRogue has been accepted by the network, and in the former case, how it came to be. Here are some points of view:

• ImcRogue continues to work within the New-IMC working group. No consensus has yet been reached while personal attacks and power games continue to prevent the issue from moving forward. -- ArcNLN
• The acceptance of ImcRogue into the network was quite painful and generated a lot of discussion on several global mailing lists, in particular, long, English language messages: exactly the problem discouraging participation in global lists by indymedia activists who are non-native English speakers and/or who have poor internet access. There was also the feeling that some individuals were being obstructionist. However, ImcRogue reacted very constructively and non-confrontationally in order to resolve the concerns, and some network process developments were encouraged as a way of finding more efficient, yet open and inclusive, methods of dealing with similar crises in the future. -- BouD - 22 May 2003

threads

• http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-process/2003-April/
• http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-process/2003-May/
• http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/new-imc/2003-May/

blocks

individual blocks

• andy blocked regarding insufficient outreach
• arc and eric/freedom blocked regarding full consensus vs variations

local collective blocks

• A block was posted by a member of ImcIthaca in ImcIthaca's name, but becaues of how ImcIthaca's process works, was premature. The block was then blocked at Ithaca's subsequent meeting, so in theory, the block never happened, although in practice it seems that ImcIthaca made a block and then withdrew it. -- BrianSzymanski from ImcIthaca, May 23 2003.

some aspects of the process

• there was debate, meta-debate, and meta-meta-debate about process
• anyone can check http://truffula.net/mailman/listinfo/imc and http://truffula.net/mailman/listinfo/imc-other to decide for him/herself if ImcRogue adequately responded regarding outreach and consensus, but here's a good summary of outreach:
  • http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/new-imc/2003-May/003885.html
• brush from ImcRogue and andy engaged in a clearly constructive communication and healing process - unfinished, but clearly off to a constructive start:
  • http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/new-imc/2003-May/003901.html
  • http://truffula.net/pipermail/imc-other/2003-May/000001.html
• it was noted that the draft PrinciplesOfUnity and MembershipCriteria are (1) draft and (2) strongly encourage a consensus decision-making procedure, but do not make a strict requirement for pure, full consensus
• it is clear that ImcRogue is committed to openness, respect, trust and efficient but open methods of continuing to fully debate process while also encouraging action:
  • http://truffula.net/pipermail/imc/2003-May/000395.html

some process developments as a consequence

• the imc-us-process list was created for US regional coordination
  • This was also under discussion before the IMC Rogue process, but the IMC Rogue situation probably accelerated the creation of http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-us-process.
• V0.02 proposal for only collective blocks of new IMCs on imc-process
  • NewImcCollectiveBlockProposal http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/new-imc/2003-May/003871.html

running code and rough consensus

• christine http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/new-imc/2003-May/003902.html
• deva http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/new-imc/2003-May/003907.html
• blicero http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/new-imc/2003-May/003923.html