[New-imc] Proposed new imc Valparaiso

clara clara at ifrik.org
Sun Jun 20 14:28:53 PDT 2004 

Dear Rosa,

first of all sorry, if I offended you personnally. I tried to formulate 
some of my critique in general terms instead of "targetting" you 
directly. To me that is a more respectful way of critizing the form and 
not the person.
However, I can see that that did not make it through cultural and 
language differences, and I am sorry about that.

As clarification: to me - as somebody from a European IMC that barely 
even uses the word "block" - putting up a block is a some kind of last 
resort. To me a block is the last straw to stop something, not a 
constructive tool, but maybe others use it in the same way as I am 
saying "I have serious concerns". I will only put up a formal block, if 
it is really necessary once a deadline has been set up. Again, I think 
it might be the fact that some of us (including you and me, as far as I 
know) use Enlgish as a second or third language, and we might use the 
same words for different ideas (as for example the word "block").

It was not at all my intention to attack you in any way, and I fact I 
think you are doing a good job.

I was confused by the procedure. To me the earlier deadline was not 
valid anymore when the discussion about the additional questions came 
up. I think that where the misunderstanding arose.

Again, I read your mails and I was confused, and i was trying to 
formulate generally, but I did not mean to offend you.

On the issue in question: I am still concerned about the fact that the 
new imc valparadiso group, first did not see gendered work division as a 
problem that occur in their group, and then seem to put it aside by 
saying that it might occur along technical work once the website is 
running, because this is just the kind of work division that was the 
reason for this additional questions.

I don't have a solution for this problem. If we had one, we would not 
need to ask these questions. I would be satisfied if the imc valparadiso 
group would keep their eyes open in order to see gendered work division 
in time when it is easier to react to it.

Maybe a new group, that is starting with the knowledge that gendered 
work division can easily happen in indymedia collectives, has a better 
chance of finding solutions then those groups where differences have 
already manifested themselves.

Again, I did not mean to attack anybody and I wish the imc-valparadiso 
all the best.

Love and solidarity
Clara

PS: A clarification question from my side: I thought new-imc was a 
working group of individuals who all can block a proposal?
This is in contrast to imc-process, which is a liason list where only 
imc's can put up a block.



Rosa de la Boca wrote:

> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

More information about the New-imc mailing list