*Mission:

Being beholden to the IMC's mission and code of conduct is important to running services meant primarily to serve the IMC community, as "customers". We have agreed to adopt, or follow the mission statement layed out by the Seattle IMC, which says, The Independent Media Center is a grassroots organization committed to using media production and distribution as tools for promoting social and economic justice.Through this work we seek to further the self-determination of people under represented in the media, and to illuminate and analyze local and global issues that impact ecosystems, communities and individuals. We are dedicated to generating alternatives to the corporate media and to identifying and creating positive models for a sustainable and equitable society. We actively oppose oppression of class, race, gender, sexuality, age and ability. We create and sustain a safe space for people of all backgrounds to work on projects, collectively and individually.

*Process:

We follow the imc-tech process which states that proposals should be sent out to the mailing list (ircd@indymedia.org) where they are taken from there to the next IRC meeting where they are discussed and agreed on. Agreement at IRC meeting does not mean that it passes, it has just received a blessing from everyone on IRC that they agree with it. It must not be stopped at the mailing list level in order to be passed.

Day to day operations are based on a trust model between members of the working group. As long as you are a member of the group and fulfill the membership criteria (one of which is abiding by the mission statement), then your day-to-day actions are trusted to be ones which are done so that larger changes which have a wider impact are discussed, but otherwise individual works that are necessary to maintenance are approved as long as they are reported to the list.

*Passed Proposals:

at the April 6th, 2003 meeting (IrcDMeeting06Apr2003Logs) everyone, except arc agreed on the following:

1) we continue to work as we have been doing for the last 3 years

2) if someone wants to make a change to that, they make a proposal

3) any "blocks" or disruptions to date are dropped

4) we resolve to fight for the ircd group's ability to work

*Pending proposals:

Defining an IRCOperator, proposed by Micah http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/ircd/2003-February/000077.html

*Notes:

As discussed on the resolve list (http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/resolve/2003-April/000333.html):

Blocking must be articulated in the context of the violation of the groups principles of unity, or a violation of the mission statement of the organization. simply blocking is not acceptable.

1. it allows the group to be manipulated by one person

2. it allows personality conflicts to dominate group process by not demanding that blocks be articulated in the context of the mission or principles.

the group can decide if the reason for the block is justifiable. if not, the group can move forward even when someone declares a block. the group and that individual may decide to part ways if the block is considered frivolous.

it is important, i think, to adopt the "consensus minus two" requirement which says that in order for a block to occur, it not only needs articulation in the context of mission and principles, but it requires 3 people. that is, consensus can be reached with two people blocking.

-- MicahA - 07 Apr 2003

This topic: Sysadmin > WebHome > IrcDWorkingGroup > IrcdProcess
Topic revision: 08 Apr 2003, MicahA
This site is powered by FoswikiCopyright © by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding Foswiki? Send feedback