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

[blue.pi]

I think, we definitly must extent the deadline (even if people would think 
it's a bad idea) 

Concerning the proposal, I like to point out that we consider the purpose.
Yes, it is a US IMC asking for money. 

But in effect, it is, as IMC Uruguy has pointed out, also a proposal how IMC 
Finance can make money by generating interest. We could also look at it like 
this: 

Imagine Sasha would have proposed to put some of our money in a savings 
account, we would get more ionterest but couldn't access the money for a 
while. 

Would there be anything wrong with that? I would say only if we think that 
we will need the money in the meantime. 

cheers,
blue 


Sascha Meinrath writes: 

> 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
>> > 
>>
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
 


Get pgp key for bluepee3 at yahoo.com at www.keyserver.net