[Imc-finance] Re: PENDING: PROPOSAL D -- funding request from South Africa IMC

[toni --]

On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Petros Evdokas wrote:

> 1.  the decision was then bent and shaped to
> accommodate the demands of the London Working Group by
> accepting a series of complicated definitions which,
> after they were adopted by our group, were then
> re-interpreted by the London Working Group to mean
> "anyone may participate".

it's quite the opposite to "anyone can participate"!

and you would have known that if you ever read what we wrote, or if you
ever cared to understand it.

and again, i'm forced to bring up the issue of the way you work.
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-process/2002-June/003537.html
twice, i wrote to you directly, on public lists, asking you to engage in
a debate, you never responded. yet, you find it more appropriate to write
about my work with total ignorance and arrogance (i.e. aggressively
assertive or presumptuous) too.

our amendments were not meant to open up, nor to narrow down the 
participation, they were focusing around the issue of
*contribution to the network*.

our amendment in short means that any individual, any group (collective) 
who contributes to the network working groups, or network-wide projects,
should participate in decisions made by the network.

here's our amendment in full:
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-finance/2002-May/001254.html 

the main question we have here is:  
(one that you petros refused to engage in debating, but attempted to
aggressively assert your solution instead)

 - is participating in a local (geographically) IMC enough?
 - is being an IMC enough?

the answer given by the London Working Group was: "no, it isn't".

(our amendment stated clearly that newer imc's can be excluded from
the need to nominate their work for the network for some time)

if we went ahead with the solution that was proposed first by jay,
that would mean that a local IMC that takes resources from the network
(technical, administration ... ) and ignores it otherwise, still gets to
make decision. which in my book means: rights without responsibilities.

and if we want stronger network, we need both rights and responsibilities,
otherwise we might as well become a charity organization. and western
charity organizations were (mostly), and still are, just another mean of
victimization of the other and domination over it.  we can surely do
better than that.

in short, we already have the society without responsibilities, we don't
need another one.

in solidarity,

toni