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

[Sheri Herndon]

hi also,

i have to say that i (and the seattle imc) had concerns about the st. louis proposal.  my error was that i stated my concerns on the list but it wasn't from the seattle imc as a collective.  i have been trying to get the collective to respond to these proposals, but it hasn't been easy (pulling teeth?).....we've been swamped with our own local issues.  but concerns were raised about the st. louis request.

my own concerns revolve also around how we're prioritizing and having some clearer sense of where the funds are going and how we are allocating them.  

i also agree very much with sascha who has the job of tracking everything and trying to follow the process and he does a fabulous job.  this "job is a de facto because others don't step in and do it (therefore the proposal).  should my email have been a block; should blicero have said we need an extension to discuss the concerns?  perhaps so.  our process is not entirely clear.  we do have timelines....but the process in between the timelines is less clear.  and when a concern is raised does it have to be a block to extend a proposal?  i don't think it should.  personally i think a concern is a more fair way to open up a discussion.  

i'd suggest that we (1) get clear on those who had concerns what they are and list them (seattle will do this, italy?  others?) (2) we have an extension for this discussion of 2 weeks and (3) we ask that everyone on this list engage in the discussion and make sure these proposals are getting back to your local.  

and i second blicero's comments about this concern is not to diminish st. louis' request and obvious need for a projector.  concerns i have raised and others have raised also are with regard to how much money flows in certain directions (certain imcs getting a fair chunk of funding) and other imcs perhaps not making use of these funds or knowing what are the perimeters for making requests.

a few thoughts,

sheri



>hi blicero,
>
>i'm open to suggestions on what you would like to do.  someone should 
>have
>asked for a decision-deadline extension if that was what was needed.  i
>just try my best to keep everyone apprised of where we are in the 
>process,
>track all the proposals, and see things though our process.  i think 
>that
>sheri's proposals for improving both involvement and documentation will 
>be
>a major help to us all, but if you have ideas on how to resolve this
>issue, please let the group know.
>
>--sascha
>
>On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Blicero wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 06:58:02PM -0500, Sascha Meinrath wrote:
>> > 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.
>> >
>>
>>
>> i did not have time to collect opinions form italy im wider 
>collective, but most
>> of teh people i talked to feel that serious concerns raised which 
>specified that
>> we thought that this request should no pass, as well as many other 
>imcs, have
>> been totally disregarded
>>
>> we don't think this is a fair way to run collective decisions
>>
>> one of the few list where we have a process, in one of the few time 
>where the
>> process was followed thouroughly and with the due flexibility.
>>
>> it's disappointing.
>>
>> if itlay imc decides to tell more about this i will let you all know
>>
>> ciao
>> blicero
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Imc-finance mailing list
>Imc-finance at lists.indymedia.org
>http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo
>Summary Page: http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Global/ImcFinance
>