[New-imc] Proposed new imc Valparaiso

Sat Jun 19 15:49:11 PDT 2004

Quoting Clara: "Actually I find it quite unfair towards a new group, if i
have to phrase my
concerns immediately into a formal block because their sponsor of the
new-imc group does not consider "serious concerns" of several people enough
and then just moves one without explicetly presenting a deadline to
new-imc."

This statement is absolutely astonishing!!!! It´s evident that Clara didn´t
even
care about reading my previous reply -
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2004-June/005175.html.

How many times will I have to repeat that I did set a deadline in new-imc
(April 9 2004 - more than two months ago)? And I had such a consideration
for the concerns about the IMC Valparaiso replies
to the imc-women questions that, when IMC Valparaiso asked why their
application was not going on,
(http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2004-May/005121.html), I
replied: "Before we can go on with the application, I would like to know
from the many
people that expressed concerns on your answers to the recently introduced
questions if they are satisfied with the clarifications presented. Up to
now, no one has said anything about these
clarifications." -
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2004-May/005108.html.

Only TWO people replied. One of them was Mike
(http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2004-May/005119.html).  The
other one was Libertino (from the imc-latina list, to which I myself
translate and send all the main documents concerning the Latin
applications).
His reply: "I don´t understand why so much trouble". -
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2004-May/005120.html.

In the other paragraph Clara says: "I did not block
anything on imc valparadiso on new-imc before, because from what i saw there
was no official proposal (but i understand now that there was a mail that
was meant like that). As far as I understood valparadiso people were still
reacting on the issues raised."

First: Valparaiso has already reacted to the issues raised, by sending their
clarifications in May 09 (more than one month ago) -
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2004-May/005075.html . And
Clara even replied to their email -
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2004-May/005076.html . It´s
amazing to see that in her reply, she was not worried with their
clarification, but with the name of the imc-women questions! Second:
individuals cannot present blocks, only IMCs. Third: no block has been
proposed yet. Anyway, what´s wrong with blocks? The wrong thing is to block
IMC Valparaiso
in practice, without daring to present a formal block. And without proposing
alternatives, making suggestions, anything constructive. Just saying "I
don't like it".

I explained it point by point and documented everything with links to the
new-imc list archives. It
took me a lot of time to do so, so please, before criticizing me, at
least spend a couple of minutes to read what I wrote. And Clara, you owe me
a Clara-fication. How could
you repeat these false accusations again without even reading my previous
reply?  You were careless and judgemental to say the least.
And my name is Rosa,
and not just "the sponsor".

VERY IMPORTANT: I am working on a proposal that I hope will be satisfactory
for both IMC Valparaiso and the people who didn't like their replies to the
imc-women questions. Before the approval of IMC Valparaiso in imc-process, I
want to make sure that everybody will agree with this proposal. I will
present it in the next few days.

Rosa

----- Original Message -----
From: "clara" <clara at ifrik.org>
To: <meghan at ucimc.org>
Cc: "New imc" <new-imc at lists.indymedia.org>
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 6:17 AM
Subject: Re: [New-imc] Proposed new imc Valparaiso

> dear all,
>
> i'm confused about this as well: me and others raised serious concerns
> and to me they are not answered.
>
> I did not block anything on imc valparadiso on new-imc before, because
> from what i saw there was no official proposal (but i understand now
> that there was a mail that was meant like that). As far as I understood
> valparadiso people were still reacting on the issues raised.
>
> Actually I find it quite unfair towards a new group, if i have to phrase
> my concerns immediately into a formal block because their sponsor of the
> new-imc group does not consider "serious concerns" of several people
> enough and then just moves one without explicetly presenting a deadline
> to new-imc.
>
> Unfortunately I am travelling right now and I will only be online again
> in 3 days.
>
> love and solidarity
> clara
>
> 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
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>New-imc mailing list. Lista de correo New-imc
> >>New-imc at lists.indymedia.org
> >>http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/new-imc
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > New-imc mailing list. Lista de correo New-imc
> > New-imc at lists.indymedia.org
> > http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/new-imc
> >
> _______________________________________________
> New-imc mailing list. Lista de correo New-imc
> New-imc at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/new-imc