[Imc-finance] ***PASSED*** Proposal 2003-J: request from IMC St. Louis for $2144 loan.

[Sascha Meinrath]

Hi Blicero (et al.),

There's been a lot of concerns raised and multiple IMCs have come out in
support for Proposal 2003-J.  Here's the timeline of what has happened
with the proposal -- it's a bit complicated, but I hope it helps clarify
why the announcement that it had passed was sent out.  If folks think that
I messed up the process we should fix it so that things are right.

The original proposal was sent to the Global Finance list on August 10th:

http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-finance/2003-August/001862.html

With an initial 2-week discussion deadline (as is our protocol for
disbursements of this size):

http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-finance/2003-August/001865.html

Due to the concerns raised, discussion was extended numerous times.

The last response to concerns raised was on September 15th by St.  Louis
IMC (which was also translated into Castellano):

http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-finance/2003-September/001894.html
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-finance/2003-September/001895.html

On the 22nd of September, CMI Brasil asked for a further one-week
extension on the proposal:

http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-finance/2003-September/001918.html

As did IMC Uraguay:

http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-finance/2003-September/001919.html

I then twice announced a decision-deadline of the 29th of September:

http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-finance/2003-September/001923.html
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-finance/2003-September/001926.html

And hearing no more debate or discussion from folks with concerns the
proposal passed on the 29th.  Since IMC St. Louis had written a formal
response to the list, the onus is on folks with outstanding concerns to
respond to St. Louis's response.  However, since no IMC did so between St.
Louis's response and the decision-deadline date, the proposal passed on
the 29th.  On the 30th of September (after the proposal passed), Brasil
IMC offered its support and suggested ammendments to the proposal:

http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-finance/2003-September/001935.html

I then made the announcement this morning that the proposal had passed,
but incorrectly wrote the decision-deadline date as October 6th (which was
my mistake -- the deadline should have been September 29th):

http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-finance/2003-October/001942.html

So, according to our process, the proposal passed -- which is why I
announced it as such.  I very much try to stick to our adopted process;
however, if folks feel that we didn't follow our process, let me know.

In solidarity,

--Sascha Meinrath
Urbana-Champaign IMC

On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Blicero wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 11:13:02AM -0500, Sascha Meinrath wrote:
> > FYI: This proposal has been passed after extended discussion.  Folks from
> > St. Louis IMC should contact me about setting up the funding disbursement.
> >
> > POSTED: [Sunday, August 10, 2003] by IMC St. Louis (via Liz)
> > ORIGINAL DISCUSSION PERIOD: [August 10-24, 2003]
> > EXTENDED DISCUSSION PERIOD: Until October 6, 2003
> > DECISION DEADLINE: October 6, 2003; Noon GMT
> >
>
>
> sorry
> i don't want to be rude
> but i remember many voice of dissent on this proposal (including italy imc)
> while only uruguay imc and uc-imc if i remember well was seconding it
>
> i don't want to sound unfair to saint louis imc folk, but i would like to know
> why it is been considered PASSED
>
> ciao
> blicero
>