[New-imc] Re: Proposed new imc Valparaiso

[Rosa de la Boca]

I find this kind of criticism unbeliavable, disrespectful, and offensive. The IMC Valparaiso application has indeed gone through new-imc; all the regular steps were followed; all the documents required were presented.

The new imc deadline was set in 04.09.04... MORE THAN TWO MONTHS AGO. If you just took a look at the archives, you would find the email setting the date - (http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2004-April/004999.html) . Why did it took 2 months and not 3 days to send the application to imc-process? Because there was all the discussion and controversy about the IMC-Valparaiso replies to the recently introduced questions. I wanted to make sure that anyone who was unsatisfied with their replies would have time to organize a block, which is the right way, the proper way, and the only way to interrupt the process of creation of an IMC.

I have constantly appealled to everyone who expressed previous concerns to tell their opinions about IMC Valparaiso clarification, or even to block the application - http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2004-May/005108.html. Why didn´t you say anything then Meghan and Libby? Put yourselves in my position. Should I continue to postpone indefinitely moving on the Valparaiso application to the next steps? After holding it for more than two months? Without any block, which, I repeat, is the proper way of dealing with a faulty application? And anybody still has the opportunity to block the application in imc-process! So it's not me who is saying "'fuck you' to the imc principles" Libby. It's YOU, who wants to delay the IMC Valparaiso application without a block. Not only the principles of the new-imc process, but also the principles of POLITENESS, SOLIDARITY, and RESPECT, with ad hominem attacks at me, accusing me of  not being "decent", "polite", etc. etc. etc....

First world rightwingers love to accuse us, third world people, of being lazy. It´s ironic that If you just searched through the new-imc archives for 5 minutes, Libby and Meghan, you would find that that all the new-imc process steps were strictly followed; I´m not crazy of not doing so; and I´m in the new-imc group for more than one year and half - reading all the messages from the mailing list. So please, be more careful before attacking a colleague, an Indymedia volunteer just like you, in such a manner again; you can be doing a mistake and an injustice.

Rosa
CMI-Brasil/new-imc

PS. Just to show you, Libby, how useful it is to take a look at the new-imc archives regularly:

http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2003-September/004466.html: 

"Libby has sometimes played a quite negative role in the different Imc`s in
Belgium.  The fact that she has left several imc collectives (belgium and
west vlaanderen) on disagreements and the fact she had some serious words
with also people from the ping pong website (imc-vlaanderen), does not
convince me at all she is the most calm and neutral person in this whole
issue." - Mara, imc.be

PS2. I will forward my message and Libby´s ones to the Belgian mailing lists

______________________________________________________________

libby libbylibby at skynet.be 
Wed Jun 16 13:09:49 PDT 2004 

Hi Meghan,

You're not alone in this, maybe present procedure leaves to be desired, 
but that should be anounced and discussed, preferably with a 
constructive proposal to solve it. Single handed changes are so 
disrespectfull to the rest of the group. Before we know it we'll have 
of  official imc's that say "fuck you" to the imc principles from day 
one. I wonder why we bother putting time and effort in helping people 
make proper imc's (sometimes with a lot of sweat and even tears) when 
others just send them trhough process and pronounce them in spite of a 
lot off criticism.

Greetings,

Libby

Greetings

meghan at ucimc.org wrote:

>Libby,
>
>it was announced to this list that IMC Valparaiso would be moved to IMC
>Process
>(http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2004-June/005152.html). As
>far as I can tell, I seem to be the only one who's confused and/or upset
>that this does not follow process at all.
>
>-meghan
>
>On Wed, 16 Jun 2004, libby wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Hey,
>>
>>I was browsing through the process archives and i found this mail
>>http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-process/2004-June/005907.html
>>it proposes a deadline for the proposed IMC Valparaiso without it having
>>had one on this list (a   t least i cannot find an approval mail on this
>>list for the sais imc on the date it was posted on process (june 11th)
>>There are still quite a few issues regarding this imc, even if there
>>isn't a formal block. Anyway, the imc wasn't formally pronounced passed
>>on this list (and i don't think it should be till the issueas at hand
>>are properly dealth with)
>>So could we please stick to the proper order of doing things, first get
>>a a proposed imc through newimc and only subsequently to process.
>>
>>Its very nice to have a lot of people participate in the new imc working
>>group, aznd i appreciate everybodies effort, but i would also appreciate
>>if everybody would have enough respect for the other people working with
>>this group to
>>a) take their considerations, doubts,... etc. about proposed new
>>collectives into account without steering towards formal blocks (they
>>make work so much more difficult)
>>b) have the decency to follow the procedure that was agreed to or at
>>least put that up for discussion before single handely ignoring/changing it
>>c) have the necessary politeness to at least warn the rest of the group
>>if they decide to thow the procedure that was agreed upon overboard and
>>get a new imc approved only by process without proposing or pronouncing
>>it on newimc
>>
>>Greetings,
>>
>>Libby


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/attachments/20040616/7f5e795a/attachment.html