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

[Sascha Meinrath]

o.k.  we haven't heard from st. louis IMC -- but assuming that there are
no major problems, we'll set a new decision-deadline on Proposal 2003-J
for:

October 23, 2003 (Noon GMT)

does anyone feel that extending discussion until this new deadline is a
horrendously horrible idea?

--sascha

On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Sheri Herndon wrote:

> 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
> >
>