[Imc-finance] is imc- finance "open to anyone"?

[john freebury]

Hey Petros and Toni,

The tension that has appeared in both of your correspondence is normal 
under the circumstances, however, i do not feel that money is worth 
becoming stressed over.  Decision making was at the heart of your 
comments and does need a thread in this, but not one that is forced.

i came across some research recently about developmental decisions. 
Within that there were described two extreme forms of decisions that sit 
at the opposite end of the spectrum from one another. One is where you 
try to know everything about every possible outcome of your decision 
before you make it. This kind of decision try's to calculate every risk, 
remove every unknown, and to present a single "right way" to do 
something. We are all familiar with this first model because it is 
normally the way that all governments develop and implement public 
policy/regulations/laws. It is also the way that most democratic 
governments are able to shutdown the democratic process, reduce public 
debate, and control the main-stream media, before and after their 
decision has been made. This method costs fabulous amounts of money and 
allows for spectacular promises built from long list of promises (expert 
opinion, commodified science, and market driven polls), which says 
nothing of the incredulous lies that result. By involving "experts" and 
"specialists" and "consultants", the decision making intended to 
"control" in a very rigid way --  best suited to situations where the 
outcomes can not be wrong (i.e. do i go to the bathroom or do i hold it?).

The second form of decision making involves a group-based approach that 
begins with the admission that there are other ways than the 
conventional, that outcomes can not be predictable or understood in 
advance, that our knowledge is limited. It assumes that there are no 
"correct ways" to calculate risks, having evolved form the idea that 
sustainable development occurs through many small decisions, not giant 
leaps of faith. Multiple successive decisions allows the participants to 
rethink the situation each time, to make small reasonable adjustments 
along the way (it is better to make a small error than to make a huge 
miscalculation). Many small decisions one after another is more stable 
and engaging over time. This method looks at how to compare options and 
opportunities against evolving outcomes, not static outcomes, and seeks 
to stimulate and encourage dialogue, knowledge and responsibility 
amongst participants -- in a democratic sense, the "experts" just become 
part of the process as their "privilege" becomes a shared experience 
within the group. When a group defines something like a guideline by 
this method, they never stop defining it because each decision along the 
way makes the guideline more mature. A radical departure from any 
guideline becomes unnecessary because the guideline will always account 
for radical fluctuations if necessary. This method is intended to 
provide stability through flexibility, not rigidity.

[Strangely enough, the comparison of flexibility over rigidity is true 
in nature and physics as well -- "tensive" strength (flexibility) is 
always more strong than "compressive" strength (rigidity). I first heard 
that from a modern dancer who was talking about her muscles.]


Before the finance working group had decided to send funding to SA, it 
seems to have been very focussed on being flexible, but that flexibility 
has not carried any substance until now. Each funding decision is the 
time to truly develop guidelines, to create and/or evolve those 
guidelines on an ongoing basis through each funding decision (no more 
hypotheticals). i think this is the best way to keep the debate about 
money alive, interesting and rigorous. (as well as on topic)

but neither "open to everyone" nor "closed to everyone".

ciao,

john
aimc



Petros Evdokas wrote:

>If it means that we need to
>re-define our definitions collectively, so be it, let's
>do it! It will definitely increase the validity of any
>financial decisions we will make together - so far, I'm
>sorry to say, our process is not really valid by any
>definition.
>
>Toni, thanks for the willingness to reverse, or at
>least to review, the London Working Group's policy, and
>I look forward to an atmosphere of better co-operation.
>
>Thanks, 
>Petros
>---------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Imc-finance mailing list
>Imc-finance@lists.indymedia.org
>http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-finance
>