This is a proposal from Northern Indymedia to define the process whereby proposals for the “UK Indymedia Network” are to be made.
- An IMC submits a proposal to the “UK process” list.
- Any formal communication (proposals, blocks) from an IMC should come about due to a public advertised meeting with minuets.
- Within 8 weeks, any IMC may then
- Amendments from IMCs who have discussed the proposal are posted on the “UK process” list and should be discussed between the amending IMC and the proposing IMC to see if they can be synthesized. This discussion does not need to take place on the process list.
- If consensus can be reached the the amended proposal is submitted to the process list. The proposal would then not need to go through this proposal again if the amendment is not substantial. An IMC can ask for a deadline extension on synthesized amended proposals.
- If an IMC blocks then a full reason must be given and discussion should take place between the blocking and proposing IMCs.
- Blocks and un-agreed amendments must then be raised at the network meeting and a resolution attempted.
- Full consensus is required. After three network meetings at which the same proposal, in spirit, has been submitted then the process moves to “consensus minus one”.
- If the number of active collectives rises above ten then consensus minus one is used.
- For minor issues the proposing IMC can ask IMC liaisons if they need the full 8 weeks or could the proposal be implemented in 2 weeks without the decision waiting for each IMC to have a meeting. This would require no objections.
presumably we want the same level of transparency for the initial proposals as we do for discussion of them? in which case the proposals should come from publicly advertised meetings with agenda and meetings too.
Good point. For an IMC to propose, amend or block anything then it should be at a publicly announced meeting with minuets. I will leave it in this form above but suggest amending it to:
1. An IMC submits a proposal to the “UK process” list.
I think there’s a proposal (internal to Oxford) to propose something to us here:
But I don’t think this ever got proposed to us and I’m pretty sure we didn’t reply if it was.
I think it’s fair to say Oxford have misunderstood the intention of this proposal (“what problem is it trying to solve…”). The only solution I can think of is copious additional wordage, though I’m not actually hopeful about that. Actually they just need to come to a few more meetings and discover we’re not Bad People trying to do Bad Things…but I’m not sure I can bear several more meetings where almost nothing can be accomplished due to the absence of a process that works.