I propose, as an urgent theoretical debate in several of the next meetings, a more precise definition of the "SI organization" (coherence and democratic participation in concrete terms).
If the exclusion of the fakers doesn't pose nearly any practical problems (they condemned themselves by their own actions), it seems, on the contrary, to pose [the necessity for] a new theoretical clarification: the fact that there had been a secret faction in a group proclaimed to be "coherent" leads us to the need to make precise the following:
1) The theoretico-practical coherence that we really want and the level at which one attains democratic participation in the management of the totality of our activity; the rejection of any demand for abstract equality that is founded on an ideological perfectionism that in fact translates itself into a "moralizing" (and never closed) process of leveling impotence or lack of experience.
2) Which people -- in which precise conditions -- we will henceforth admit [as members] (a function of the responses to the first point). Concerning this, we must indeed see that the severity shown towards the exterior by the SI this past year is partly blemished by arbitrariness since it covered Frey-Garnault-Holl.
3) Relations with autonomous groups (a function of the responses to the first two points).Guy
 Translator: Theo Frey, Jean Garnault and Herbert Holl (the so-called Garnaultians). See the letter dated 15 January 1967.
(Published in Guy Debord, Correspondance, Volume 3, 1965-1968. Translated from the French by NOT BORED! August 2005.)