[New-imc] Re: [Imc-finance] Re: Funding Nigeria-imc: 3 items to consider/ Ambazonia

[boud]

hi anna,

On Tue, 26 Nov 2002, Anna wrote:

> At 10:52 26.11.02 +0200, Petros Evdokas wrote:
> 
> >are left to finish the process. One item which will
> >need to be addressed is your group's policy toward the
> >lesbian, gay, bi- and trans- sexual liberation process,
... 
> 
> hi all,
> 
> there is something in this i don't understand: the focus on the lesbian, 
...


> i have to admit that i'm not sure but i think that these issues don't have 
> a specific place in the german imc's mission statement and other texts we 
> sent when we were applying to be an imc. we were never asked (i think - 
> this was close to two years ago).
> 
> is it a common procedure to ask imc's-to-be for their views on specific 
> questions now? i have to say that i find that a bit strange. i didn't 
> follow the new imc process evolution for a while now. how many statements 
> on specific subjects are being asked for? and which?

The new-imc process is a human process. The few volunteers who are 
active each try to make supportive comments based on their knowledge
of the real world plus the online communication they're aware of.

For two weeks, *noone* on new-imc answered the Ambazonian's request -
which was one of the better formulated requests compared to some
others.

IMHO, better a bit too much communication, with some risk of people
being a bit upset, but then sorting it out, rather than too little.

i looked up the imc-finance archive, and i do agree that petros' 
email was a bit unsensitive to IMC Nigeria:
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-finance/2002-November/001580.html

but i think we all know that 99.9% of the time he *is* sensitive, so
i'm sure we can forgive the 0.1% of cases when he's tired and maybe
makes a mistake.

We even have mistakes on our "global front page" at www-features -
they implicitly claimed on the http://www.indymedia.org central column
feature that IMC Zimbabwe is a recognised IMC - despite the fact that
there is *consensus* between the IMC Zimbabwe volunteers and the
new-imc working group that they still have some work to do on the
outreach side, or at least in getting to terms with the full new-imc
process.  It seems the IMC Deutschland disagrees with both IMC
Zimbabwe and new-imc on this issue - that's IMC DE's choice - the
membership criteria which say we should each have the list of
recognised IMCs are only "draft", after all. But IMC DE does seem
to be waiting for new-imc before listing IMC Ambazonia - thanks - 
don't worry, i don't think it'll be long...

If IMC DE (or any other IMC) can volunteer someone to talk through new
IMCs from Asia and Africa, please do so. (Of course, you've already
helped concretely with IMC Ambazonia - thanks.)

Back to the issue of LGBT (lesbian, gay, bi- and trans- sexual) 
liberation. IMHO, i don't see any harm in petros raising the question.
It is part of the membership criteria that "open" means that we
encourage LGBT individuals and groups and make no attempt to exclude
them.

> * Open = means that diverse people and groups are welcome to attend and that
> no attempt is made to exclude people based on their sex, race, gender,
> class, age, ability or religion.

Anyway, i'll answer vally et al directly in a separate message.

solidarność
boud