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

[Luis]

I agree with the new deadline. It's a good idea.

We (at Belo Horizonte, Brasil) are still waiting for IMC St. Louis response
to our questions/suggestions and for the budget breakdown of CMI Argentina's
proposal.

I also would like to point that proposal 2003-M (computer shipment to
Brasil, Argentina, Bolivia and Uruguay) passed with almost no discussion at
all. And it was asking for $3.275 USD, which is quite a lot. I don't know
what to propose exactly, but it doesn't seen right to me that such a heavy
proposal should pass just because no one blocked it. What do others think?

Anyway, I hope we can implement Sheri's ideas soon and make this wg more
active. This weekend I will try to help with some of the pending tasks she
listed on her message.


In solidarity,
Luis,
CMI Belo Horizonte.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "blue.pi"
To: imc-finance
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 8:53 AM
Subject: [Imc-finance] Re: ***PASSED*** Proposal 2003-J: request from IMC
St. Louis for$2144 loan.


| 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
| _______________________________________________
| 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