[meteorite-list] IMCA proposal (was NomCom & IMCA...)

From: MexicoDoug_at_aol.com <MexicoDoug_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sat Sep 25 12:22:41 2004
Message-ID: <2863FE73.42FA12E1.0BFED528_at_aol.com>

Note: I apologise in advance to list-members not interested in
hearing more on this subject and promise in the near term this
will be my last post on the subject.

En un mensaje con fecha 09/24/2004 7:22:11 AM Mexico Daylight Time, magellon_at_earthlink.net escribe:

>Doug,
IMCA supports the NomCom's guidelines. I'm not really sure
what you are suggesting IMCA step up and do?

D: Ken, Thank you for speaking for the organization. I hope
IMCA can look for opportunities to add value rather than look
for reasons why it can't help. I am very worried that it
could become like some bureaucrats in my country. This is the
first time I have noticed a specific statement - thank you
very much - so now it is harder to accuse IMCA as being mute
or mum. Could you clarify "support" as to whether it
means "requires members" or "suggests to members"? There is a
world of difference and I assume you see that? I really don't
expect nor want IMCA to police anybody not a member, even
though in the past you have helpfully and sometimes
successfully pursued members and non-members alike. Only that
IMCA act by "disciplining" members when appropriate with a
transparent policy, and making a helpful specific official
statement regarding authenticity like Jeff Grossman
demonstrated can be done (a good example of unbiased
leadership I learned from and appreciated). When it is so
darned obvious that the situations time and time again call
for a standard, whether IMCA has by laws or not is moot, it
doesn't need bylaws to express a view.

Your analogy of viewing the list as a crowded room doesn't
quite cover the fact that most or all of the directors are
emailed from it and at least one expressed the personal
opinion that IMCA ought to work on the request, and it is not
any crowed room, it is the met-list. So if the IMCA list,
info email address or emails to directors is the only channel
way the IMCA will accept requests, that's ok. I actually have
volunteered for IMCA, been enthusiastically accepted, and then
sent 5 follow-up emails with still no request. It reminded me
of when I joined nearly a year ago, the same treatment
happened until I posted my problem.

Since you requested, with my due respect and appreciation
especially to you I will provide a draft proposal for public
comment (list) and IMCA processing for rulemaking or rejection
(emailed to you directly, so now you get it twice - sorry for
the necessary duplication) a continuacion. I fully understand
that IMCA is all-volunteer organization and with that has its
own challenges, and I applaud the directors for all paying
their dues.

I have no stones to throw at the IMCA, you are misquoting me
regarding the nameless depreciated meteorites I threw at the
meteorite label-eating dog that destroys original valuable
labels with their interesting specimen history to the
detriment of science and collectors for commercial or
primitive territorial impulse...that has nothing to do with
IMCA.

MEMBER PROPOSAL FOR RULEMAKING
Submitted by Doug Dawn (IMCA #5875) on 24 September 2004
jointly to IMCA and in a public forum with request for public
comment and IMCA rulemaking as a salient test case.

Dear Directors, it is with pleasure and a genuine interest in
the success of IMCA and it's "great potential" for the future,
to invest the time to write up the present proposal asking for
public comment, AND in parallel by a request for an IMCA
ruling on the content. I personally do not believe that (a)
through (h) options below are all valid, but in trying to
remove my bias by covering everything I have seen in the
public meteorite forum claimed. I respectfully submit this
proposal to IMCA and my peers for comment and IMCA
rulemaking. By rulemaking I mean that IMCA adopt a specific
organizational position on NWA nomenclature representations of
authenticity. It is not a request for policing as I
understand that individual situations have their own legal
ramifications. While I feel the current organization
statement "IMCA supports the NomCom guidliness" by IMCA in
response to my inquiry on September 23, 2004 is a great
improvement over the Miriam-Webster definition
of "authenticity", I do however feel the IMCA can make a very
positive impact on the amateur meteorite community education
and commerce by ruling on the present proposal.

IMCA Proposal 001 24 September 2004
"IMCA single goal of assuring authenticity", should be amended
by addition to the website or promulgation in the name of all
the directors some IMCA approved version of the following:

"A few words on Authenticity, after all, it sums up the reason
for the IMCA's existence":

Not only do IMCA members bind themselves to the dictionary
definition of "authenticity" as a condition for membership,
but due to the huge impact generally on collectors NWA
material and its associated ambiguities and differing
criteria, members are also are (required to) (strongly
encouraged to) (ought to consider to) (shouldn't join if they
have to be asked to) abide by the Meteoritical Society
official names usage as described on meteoriticalsociety.org
under the section relating to the Nomenclature Committee.

Specifically IMCA members may represent an NWA specimen under
the real McCoy type specimen official name without further
clarification if and only if one or more of the following
apply:

  (a) whether it is the official Meteoritical Society name for
a sample from the the actual voucher specimen mass,
  (b) part of the Met Soc approved batch under that name
visually inspected by the original Met Soc submitting
scientist (though not as rigorously proven as the vouchered
masses of said batch)
  (c) additional mass acquired from the original finder or
close relatives
  (d) additional mass acquired from the same original
purchaser,
   (e) additional mass acquired at the officially recorded
location of the find,
   (f) additional mass acquired ambiguously on the same
bustling market town
   (g) additional mass acquired ambiguously on the same
continent,
   (h) additional mass acquired from another person
(collector, businessperson, hippie, organization, estate,
etc.) in the absense of enough history of the specimen to
categorize it in one of the above,

(provided that in the member's opinion, (s)he is ["in the
know"] and[or] [acting in good faith].)

Thank you for the opportunity to be heard. I look forward to
any actions that may be taken regarding this issue.

I hope this draft helpful.
Doug Dawn



>IMCA has been quick to respond to complaints concerning members.
>Complaints are also handled as discreetly as possible.
IMCA is not "mute." I hope you see the pitfalls of dealing with non members in public? Also, if someone wanted
your viewpoint, would you want them to address you directly or have them speak loudly at a third party hoping you would overhear the inquiry? IMCA inquiries are probably easier to recognize as inquiries when directed to IMCA rather than to third parties.

>IMCA is not "hiding." Membership dues have provided a List for IMCA business, Directors can be contacted at their email addresses or questions_at_imca.cc or suggestions@imca.cc Suggestions from members continue to be encouraged. The organization is all volunteer.

>No one is paid. Dues support a very soon to be legal entity with By-Laws, committees, etc. We agree that IMCA has incredible potential. (Note: All the directors have paid their dues as well as donate their time!)

>IMCA appreciates positive input of its members. No stones please :>) But if you must, please throw them in IMCA's territory. (IMCA List)

>Thanks,
ken

MexicoDoug_at_aol.com wrote:

>
>So from my point of view, NomCom is is doing a superb job whether it is intentional or by chance. Congratulations ten times over to them.
>
>But what about IMCA? Bernhard has a direct bullseye in his comment here. This has also been my question, so maybe I'm biased, let my bias be judged. IMCA had absolutely nothing to say during the last blow-up with Bob and Adam, although I asked them onlist to DO SOMETHING. One consciencious IMCA director responded but only speaking his own mind. But IMCA chose to be mum.
>
>What good is such a mute IMCA organization? Is Ken quickly going after fakes all there is to IMCA? O, yeah, and dues collection for collectors to finance dealer logos? IMCA is squandering a perfect opportunity to rock the boat and prove itself fairhanded and a collector's organization concerned with authenticity. As of now, it is doing a Clinton hiding between definitions and avoiding facing the music.
>
>And speaking of people who have recognized IMCA for what it is doing now in the past ...This is IMCA's fault... but I see a dog out the window marking his territory by relieving himself, so I need to throw a stone at him and can't finish all my musings at the moment.
>
>Saludos, Doug
Received on Sat 25 Sep 2004 10:42:58 AM PDT