Warning: of lies, coup attempts and dangerous behaviour

EN Discussions on the politics of Babels, alternative interpretation systems, linguistic diversity and the Social Forums
ES Discusiones políticas sobre Babels, sistemas alternativos de interpretación, diversidad lingüística y los foros sociales...
FR Discussions politiques sur Babels, les systèmes d'interprétation alternatifs, la diversité linguistique et les forums sociaux...

Respeito é bom e eu gosto

Postby magicat » Mon Nov 21, 2005 6:55 pm

Descupem-me, mas creio que não autorizei a entrada de meu nome na lista de assinaturas (fiz isso emm 2 emails direcionadaos a Erica) do documento da delegação do Rio de Janeiro por não concordar com a forma como está redigido.
Por favor deconsiderem meu nome nesta lista.

Atenciosamente,

maria Cristina Gatti
magicat
.
.
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 5:24 pm

Mensagens apagadas / Messages deleted

Postby mnario » Mon Nov 21, 2005 10:09 pm

PT / EN

PT - PT - PT
Algo está estranho nessa discussão.
Foi transcrita acima uma mensagem de um grupo de discussão que foi criado no Yahoo!, que nunca pertenceu a Babels.org.
Por ser esse um grupo fechado, privado, apagar as mensagens da lista ou mantê-las ali fica a critério d@s moderador@s/ administrador@s do grupo.
Entendo que monitorar mensagens de um grupo privado não está de acordo com o debate de idéias desse fórum.
Estou equivocado?

EN - EN - EN
There's something weird in this whole discussion.
Above we find an excerpt from a message taken from a discussion group that has been created in Yahoo! groups, which has never belonged to Babels.org.
Being this a closed, private group, deleting from or keeping messages in the list is a decision of moderators/ administrators of the group.
I understand that monitoring messages from a private group is not in accordance with the debate of ideas in this forum.
Am I mistaken?
mnario
.
.
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 6:18 pm

Postby ljesover » Tue Nov 22, 2005 9:02 am

From: http://www.babels.org/a218.html#rio

Meanwhile, due to the success of our communication via the Yahoo site, the use of Babels communications tools was rejected for a number of reasons (lack of familiarity with IT tools, consensus regarding effectiveness of communication via the Yahoo list, excessive number of emails and communications from other regions, ’technophobia’, etc.).

----

From: http://www.babels.org/a219.html#rio

Por otra parte debido al éxito de la comunicación por Yahoo, fue rechazado el uso de las herramientas de comunicación del Babels por razones diversas (falta de la familiaridad con las herramientas de TI, exceso de emails y comunicados de otras regiones, consenso en relación a la eficacia del grupo Yahoo, ‘tecnofobia’…).

-----

That is exactly one of the point. On one hand is it a private group or a babels workgroup as they announced in their report to have built with Yahoo because it is supposed to be "easier" ? "Babels communication tool rejected" (ah?), but without this tool there is no Babels ? It seems that Caracas like all the project are using it (with people from Rio in it). Why not Rio? Is it a private club ? Why then using our name ? Communication tool = sharing information. Babels only exist by and with communication tool.

We are all working with a really easy system allowing public archiving, free subscribing management, we share all our datas between ourselves and all our information. This is the SOUL of our network or our ETHIC. That is why we can share the database use on projects when people do click to agree on the use of their datas. That is why we are protecting privacy. That is why at the same time we are sharing tools: one is working, all are benificiary. We are not a private club.

If these lines are in the report from POA it is because we already mentioned the issue and it is a way to justify but what exactly ? Either we play all the same game with the same card deck or either we do not. I have nothing against anything. Babels is not the ultimate version of globalization. You can do things without Babels or do your own turf and associate with projects in which Babels is when they exist and when you want. We never ever tried to be hegemonic in any sense.

Well I am sorry to say but there will be no network if we did do the same as what we are fighting against here. If the hundreds of people involved in many other cities arond the world, did the same as what supposedly is just "fine", well we will not be talking about Babels, no one of you will be here, or if you will have been "privatized" which means taken for "private interest". Babels is a common good we are sharing all together. Otherwise it is just another private project some people have. People can create the Rio Volunteer Interpreter Network without any problem. They can do what ever they want. We are talking about our common good which is not belonging to any group to to any one.

If you want to talk about common good management or even common good regulation, then there is a lot of litterature on this. The common good here is our information and we give it a name, Babels. Project is a way to use part of this common good and we give it a framework, our charter. All this has been working for the past years out of good faith. Good faith is a way of saying transparency and accountability, another way of saying this is reponsibility. Nothing is perfect but this is not meaning that we cannot try.

Personnaly I am tired of using hours of my time to deal with people that frankly do not want to play the same game. They are entitled to. No problem. But I will not let them even imagine they can steal, use for their own personal self, something that is not belonging to them. Take "water or a river" if you want as an example of common good, and you will immediatly realize very concretly what is the matter.

-------

About the ABONG, Hemispheric Council, Tory travel issue.

I one of the person who received a phone call. Why someone related heavily to the WSF, a known and old actor of it, would have phone me from Brazil to ask me what is going on after receving phone calls from others about this? But let assume that this person misunderstood. Why others will have call this person on the first place ? Why even Tory will have bothered to check with others, it is a normal private agency, when someone call ot ask for ticket price ? This is the only way outside people from the private phone call between Erica and Tory could have been known: Tory called others to check something. Let's assume that we do not know what they want to check. But in the case of a private person calling a travel agency it is not customary for them to check with outside people or is it ? But let's just pass on the phone call business which of course is the core. Let's just say we do not care anyhow I cannot produce any recording of these.

Why even calling Tory travel when any website can give you flight information and price quotes in two seconds? Especially when the agency is in Brazil and the event in Venezuela and you are calling about tcket from all the Americas ... Let's say you call someone from your own city, it is easier. This is explaining something if Tory was in Rio... But it is located: Tory Viagens e Turismo Ltda Rua Oscar Freire, 1627 cj 5 - São Paulo - SP. Why even calling when there is no agreement on the organization of travel with the organizers themselves? How some of the organizers then knew about it ?

The whole thing is not logical even if you do not believe I received this phone call which of course I did not record. And yes I checked privatly and send a private email without making any noise about it. To whom I sent it? Certainly not to Erica herself but to someone else who is involved in Caracas Project (which I am not) to mention the issue and warn of the possible problem if there was any because there to I could have assume that all this was only a slight misunderstanding. Then I mentioned it to others, still privatly, when I realized that it was not, to see how we can all not be touched by this... It seemed then that it was enough, meaning that well, that we felt our responsibility is to give these facts for people to be aware and then for all to overcome this, that we were not losing time to deal with this as a private matter as usual and that frankly no one was volunteering to get this type of stress on his shoulder anymore.
ljesover
.
.
 
Posts: 173
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2003 9:36 am
Location: France

Postby RAtkinson » Tue Nov 22, 2005 5:36 pm

EN / PT

EN
I hereby add my name to the list of signatories to the letter of repudiation.
Rebecca Atkinson

PT
Venho por meio desta acrescentar meu nome à lista de signatários da carta de repúdio.
Rebecca Atkinson
RAtkinson
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 5:24 pm

Postby cristina saraiva » Tue Nov 22, 2005 6:18 pm

Desculpe, Gatti, me equivoquei.
Como voce estava desde o início nesse processo, e apoiava a iniciativa, imaginei que pudesse manter a assinatura mesmo discordando dos termos em que a nota foi redigida ... (aliás, tens razão ... creio que a nota que você havia redigido anteriormente estava mais apropriada) e acabei me precipitando e postando a mensagem antes de receber a confirmação de que você não desejaria assinar.
Mais uma vez, desculpe a confusão e considerem o nome da Gatti apagado da nota.
Abraços,
Crsitina
cristina saraiva
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 10:39 pm

Babels-Rio

Postby mnario » Wed Nov 23, 2005 1:43 am

EN / PT

EN – EN – EN

Yan, thanks for your feedback, but the fact that a message to Babels-Rio Yahoo! group has been (mis)used and the very fact that the existence of such a discussion group could lead to more accusations have not been made clear yet.

As we all here know, nobody intended to create a private club, since we all, or at least most of us share the same commitment with this network and with volunteer work in Babels related events. Moreover, despite the fact that the above mentioned group is closed in the sense that, ideally, messages should only be shared among group members, everybody could join the list and participate, so much so that, occasionally, we received spam mail within the list, but this is another story. This being so, and given the fact that messages for some reason were being shared, it is clear that some people who signed in the group did so only in order to monitor messages for future reference. If it were not so, why would these people take their time reading messages and not posting comments, not contributing to or participating in the list?

Nobody wants to create a Rio Volunteer Interpreter Network, otherwise we would not even be here discussing in this forum. A few people in our group have been discussing the Caracas project for months and this absurd idea of the Rio network has never been an issue. And it is exactly because we are sharing our common good that I am posting this message here, as I have been posting in the Caracas06 list, as I have been reading messages from a number of Babels lists.

I’ll explain to you briefly, though, why the discussion group “Babels-Rio” has been created, in case you still think we were creating the Rio conspiracy with our wicked members and coordinators. It sounds quite reasonable that, if we needed to organize 60, and then 90 volunteers from Rio for the Poa project within a database containing 8000 people, creating a “private” database which never intended to be official, but never intended to segregate our group from any discussion or decision could only help us go on with our work, especially concerning the selection process. Reports show (and you pasted the link yourself, thank you for reminding us that there is evidence of the serious commitment of the Rio group!) that not only Erica, but a significant group of members from our city, including myself, helped in this process. And, here, the very existence of this discussion group at Yahoo had a tremendous role, since it made it easier, faster, and all those things that you already know.

Frankly, if your view of good faith, transparency and accountability is coherent with the act of accusing people who are working to make this project come true, and making these accusations public before they have a chance to defend themselves, then I really need to read the literature on common good management that you mentioned, because this is a whole new world to me.

Marcelo Neves

PT – PT – PT

Yan, obrigado pelo seu retorno, mas o fato de que uma mensagem para o grupo Babels-Rio no Yahoo foi usada (indevidamente) e o próprio fato de que a existência desse grupo de discussão possa gerar mais acusações não foi esclarecido ainda.

Como tod@s sabemos, ninguém pretendia criar um clube privado, uma vez que tod@s, ou a maioria compartilha o mesmo compromisso com esta rede e com o trabalho voluntário em eventos da Babels. Além disso, apesar de o grupo mencionado acima ser fechado no sentido de que, idealmente, as mensagens somente deveriam ser compartilhadas entre seus membros, todo mundo podia entrar na lista e participar, tanto que, de vez em quando, recebíamos spam que circulava na própria lista, mas isso já é outra história. Assim sendo, e dado que as mensagens, por alguma razão, estavam sendo compartilhadas, resta claro que algumas pessoas que se inscreveram no grupo assim o fizeram somente para monitorar as mensagens para referência futura. Se não fosse assim, por que essas pessoas tomariam seu tempo lendo mensagens, sem enviar comentários, sem contribuir para a lista, ou participar dela?

Ninguém quer criar uma Rede de Intérpretes Voluntários do Rio; caso contrário, nem estaríamos aqui discutindo neste fórum. Algumas pessoas no nosso grupo vêm discutindo o projeto Caracas há meses e essa idéia absurda de rede do Rio nunca foi levantada. E, exatamente porque estamos compartilhando um bem comum é que eu estou enviando esta mensagem aqui, como venho postando na lista Caracas06, como venho lendo mensagens de várias listas Babels.

Vou explicar a você, em poucas palavras, por que esse grupo de discussão “Babels-Rio” foi criado, caso você ainda pense que estávamos criando uma conspiração do Rio com nossos membros e coordenadores malvados. Parece bastante razoável que, se precisávamos organizar 60, e logo 90 voluntários do Rio para o projeto Poa dentro de uma base de dados com 8000 pessoas, criar uma base de dados “privada” que nunca pretendeu ser oficial, e que nunca pretendeu segregar nosso grupo de qualquer discussão ou decisão podia apenas nos ajudar a continuar nosso trabalho, especialmente no tocante ao processo de seleção. Os relatórios mostram (e você mesmo colou o link, obrigado por nos recordar que existe, sim, prova do compromisso sério do grupo do Rio!) que não somente Erica, mas um grupo significativo de membros da nossa cidade, nos quais eu me incluo, ajudaram nesse processo. E, nisso, a própria existência desse grupo de discussão no Yahoo teve um papel enorme, uma vez que tornou o processo mais fácil, mais rápido, e todas aquelas coisas que você já sabe.

Francamente, se a sua visão de boa fé, transparência e ‘accountability’ é coerente com o ato de acusar pessoas que estão trabalhando para tornar esse projeto real, e tornar essas acusações públicas antes que elas tenham uma chance de se defender, então eu realmente preciso ler a tal literatura sobre gerenciamento de bens comuns que você mencionou, porque isso é um mundo completamente novo para mim.

Marcelo Neves
mnario
.
.
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 6:18 pm

Repudiation letter

Postby Gunilla » Wed Nov 23, 2005 3:54 am

Hereby, I am also adding my name to the list of signatories of the repudiation letter posted by Cristina Saraiva above.

Gunilla Medina
Gunilla
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 3:10 am

resposta to yan

Postby isabell » Wed Nov 23, 2005 4:43 am

Yan,
come on, start thinking, babels has become a worldwide organisation and is trying to cover all the social forums all over the world if possible, at least the americas and europe. this means it needs to get its act together and start organizing and getting organized for the event. one has to make an effort cooperating and needs to be present when other organisations that are part of the social forum meet to talk about the whole happening.
Not sending representatives from babels to havana in itself is already a big faux-pas, if not idiotisse, but shortkutting the efforts of your colleagues in going there and representing all of us, and subsequently accusing them of undermining the organisation, is serious misbehaviour and quite unforegivable. In your kudos system of respect and trustworthyness such a misdoing from an experienced babelito should result in a total annihilation of his kudos, shouldn't it.
we already have the end of November isn't it time to start thinking of the organization process? last minute flights are not always the cheapest ones. why are you trying to hinder one of your colleagues trying to help with the organisation process and the logistics? this is like shooting yourself in the knee. caracas is not far anymore and we haven't heard anything about it yet.
if babels carries on like this and spends its energies furthermore on useless fishing for prooves, the next wsf will be quite possibly a total failure. are you really up for that just to prove your point?
isabell
isabell
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 12:21 pm

Postby ljesover » Wed Nov 23, 2005 7:14 am

1- To Marcelo: It is not Yan who wrote the post you are answering but Laurent. Nevertheless, please let's not use petty argument: Being subscribed to a list and not posting but reading the list is 80% of any subscribers of any list, anywhere or so is my experience of lists. So it is not about spying or monitoring. It is normal to want to be informed and registered to lists. I am registered to many lists which I am reading from time to time and never post anything.

The second point is that the yahoo list had an archive apparently. At least the messages posted above by Yan seemed to come from an archive. This archive disappeared and the list also or so it seems if you click on Yan's link. Maybe Yan made a mistake but the web says "Não existe nenhum grupo chamado babels-rio. Certifique-se de ter digitado o endereço web corretamente. Se você tem certeza de ter digitado certo, então talvez este grupo não exista mais."

Therefore Marcelo your long exaplanation about the fact that you are all together nicely is to be considered as a post mortem text or an explanation? You know this is not "ploting" I was speaking about. You can plot everywhere if you want. It is not conspiracy my problem. It is something more problematic: The fact that exclusion is organized using a particular form of lying which is inducing people to believe that something is this way. But it is a long explanation, if we cannot understand each other about the issue about YahooGroup or if you interpret it just in terms of conspiracy and plots, espionnage, monitoring and so on, we should solve this first.

2- To Isabell. "Not sending representatives from babels to havana in itself is already a big faux-pas" Why ? Can someone explain why representation is so important in a meeting such as this one... except for the glory of the representant who finally finds a place to be and from which he/she is listen to ? It seems that for you Babels is an organisation, like a company (so efficient a company or an NGO), we come, speak, listen, make a proposal to whom exactly? The whole issue of the HC is to be comprenhend as Erica willing to go there. The rest is excuses to justify this will. At least it is my understanding. There is a whole section about this in the Forum: viewtopic.php?t=405

Babels if you prefer to understand it this way is not about representation (read the Charter http://www.babels.org/a21.html), we are not a network of representants or even of "coordinators" which is probably an unclear concept for me), it is the translation project of a given Social Forum and it is based on a framework. Meetings are important afterward. But an HC meeting or which ever other meeting anywhere without volunteer translator (or better yes with translator from there and willing, but who could not really participate for precise political reasons), without even a project since the caracas one did not start at that time, therefore with no one able to agree on its representant is a problem, or just a slight little issue once again?

You say "we already have the end of November isn't it time to start thinking of the organization process?" Yes probably. I figure you are refering to Caracas project. But I guess it needs yes I agree a lot of work now because what I understood from reading what is online, There is a lot of thing that are unsure and not resolve http://www.babels.org/a462.html

Furthermore it is not a problem of HC or no HC, meetings or no meetings. It is a more serious one of knowing exactly what is going on, where, with whom, about what.

I saw Leda already promizing to someone that Arabic is in the Caracas Forum "The group of coordinators for Caracas talked about that, and we thought that it would be wise to have AR interpreters in Caracas, considering they are planning a common day of activities with Bamako (in Mali) and Karachi (in Pakistan)" viewtopic.php?p=1807#1807

Because of the Karachi one: it is postponed or canceled by the way at least 99% chance to be if you read like I do the IC mailinglist through the Babels list who made it available to us. If not postponed then it will be speaking Urdu not Arabic in Pakistan and of course second language like in India, English at least for most.

Oh I just saw that it is confirmed about Karachi: " O FSM 2006 policêntrico Karachi (Paquistão), previsto para ocorrer nos dias 24 a 29 de janeiro de 2006, foi adiado por 02 meses."
http://www.forumsocialmundial.org.br/no ... language=1

Or more funny to me, because of the Bamako event: It is organized before Caracas with no date in common if you look at these Forum websites. http://www.fsmmali.org/

Hum, I do not know who takes decisions and how, but at least it will be good also some of you take the time to inform themselves which is not representation I admit, but it is also much more usefull.
ljesover
.
.
 
Posts: 173
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2003 9:36 am
Location: France

Re: resposta to yan

Postby yan » Wed Nov 23, 2005 9:41 am

Hi Isabell,
Nice to meet you. Thanks for your post: it raises interesting questions. Allow me a few remarks in response (in EN only, as your message was only in EN):

isabell wrote:Yan,
come on, start thinking, babels has become a worldwide organisation and is trying to cover all the social forums all over the world if possible, at least the americas and europe.


You do realize that Babels has never tried to cover all the social forums, far from it. Babels tries to cover a forum only if there are committed organizers willing to try to do something. For the moment, we haven't even heard of anyone willing to organize one of the 3 polycentric forums (Karachi), let alone all the forums in the world. This is why we do not participate in approximately 95% of social forums in the world! Babels is in no position to claim hegemonic status in social forum interpretation: we are all volunteers, and we can't work for free all year (I can't, at any rate). If other people want to organize the interpretation, I encourage them to try.

isabell wrote: we already have the end of November isn't it time to start thinking of the organization process? last minute flights are not always the cheapest ones. why are you trying to hinder one of your colleagues trying to help with the organisation process and the logistics? this is like shooting yourself in the knee. caracas is not far anymore and we haven't heard anything about it yet.


As Laurent has suggested in a previous post, I recommend that you read the messages on the caracas06 working list before shooting the messenger. You'll see that despite your claims to the contrary, and despite the fact that I do not want to get actively involved in this forum this year for personal and professional reasons, I did, in fact, move things forward by pushing people to send out the first 2 INFO messages which have formally launched the whole organization process.
I helped nudge the hitherto unresponsive and chaotic list into action after having suggested all this... 2 1/2 months ago. I was tired of seeing that there was still nothing that had been done. There was even a "travel workgroup" and nobody had even talked about telling the volunteers that there was a project a-foot in the first place! Who's helping whom getting organized? This may seem presumptuous, but if you have heard that there was an event in the first place (to paraphrase your last sentence), you can thank... me!

As a cordial response to Marcelo's post, and to show you that I have proposed constructive, useful and timely help for Caracas -- all the while leaving the Caracas06 workgroup do as they saw best --, allow me to quote myself:

Message dated: August 26, 2005 (a while ago!)

NOTE: For the sake of brevity, and because you wrote only in EN, I reproduce only the EN version. I reproduce this here because others have started to reproduce lengthy emails, etc. even though everything is already online. Or rather... was online, as the links I had provided are no longer extant! The archives of the babels-rio yahoo group discussion list were purged, as in the good ol' days. La "desaparecieron"! The list apparently doesn't even exist anymore! Was there any need to suppress the list? Did yahoo say it was taking too much space on their server? Many questions that will remain unanswered, alas, as will the deaths of thousands of "desparecidos" in the dark years of the dictatorships in Latin America. You will recall that *I* am not the one to have organized a "golpe de estado" (sic)...
The ES version of my message is still online and will remain online on the babels mailinglist list server (on which, I must say, you can create a new list if you need one). We have nothing to hide!
URL: http://lists.babels.org/mailman/private ... 00272.html

"Before I leave, I wanted to suggest a few things for Caracas. As I've told you already, I do not wish to get involved in the organization of this forum, I just want to support the efforts of the nascent coordination however I can, with what I know or have learnt after working on a few forums.

With this in mind, I think it's important to give you a list of things that should be done in September if you want this proyect to go forward in an efficient and democratic manner. For the moment, I believe that the group proceeds in a rather unmethodical and untransparent way, and it even seems that some people keep on complaining about old matters (Chico spoke of 'instilling venom', or something of the sort), even though there is still an incredible amount of work to do for the caracas proyect and only a few months left.

In my opinion, what you have to do in September, in this order:

1-draft a summary of the political discussions on the wiki on babels' participation in this event, and put it on the babels website (with translations):
[...].babels.org/wiki/CaracasProyectoPolitico
It's important to underline the political aspects of the caracas project so that the various points that still pose problems are clear to all. We cannot hide our political differences: only by confronting our opinions will we be able to find consensual and efficient solutions.

2-complete and answer the questions of the questionnaire Cheo drafted, and put the result on the babels website (with translations):
[...].babels.org/wiki/CaracasCondicionesdeParticipacion
I'd recommend that this questionnaire be updated every month, with the answers received.
This will allow all to know what it is that we know at what moment, and what are the questions that are still pending resolution.

3-officially announce the creation of the caracas project to the babels volunteers, and add a 'caracas' box in the registration page of our database. It'll be necessary to send a message (in various languages) proposing to the volunteers that they subscribe to this project, and that those who wish to help in the coordination subscribe to the work list caracas06.
This means that Babels-Tech has to create: a space in the forum, a space in the website, and send a message to the database to all the volunteers. Without this announcement, this project enjoys no legitimacy within the network, since nobody really knows that this project actually exists.

I think it is *important* to work on these three aspects *at the same time*, as each of these aspects has *equal* importance:
1-political conditions
2-logistical conditions
3-global participation and information.
If we don't take into account each of these aspects, Babels will become either: an (inefficient) service provider (omitting point 1), a political party (omitting point 2), an autocratic organization (omitting point 3).
Each of these three aspects form an *ensemble* that differenciates Babels from other types of organizations, and it is important that you take each of these aspects into account so that this project respects our Charter of principles, and our Protocols.

I hope that September will prove fruitful for all of you. See you in October (maybe).
best,
yan"


As this message shows, I actually *do* think about the future (you suggested that I "start thinking...").
Sorry if the message is a bit longer than expected. I thought it was best to provide you with all the details to help you understand why I believe your remarks were unfair.
yan
yan
.
.
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2003 1:35 pm

Re: Babels-Rio

Postby ljesover » Wed Nov 23, 2005 10:08 am

Frankly, if your view of good faith, transparency and accountability is coherent with the act of accusing people who are working to make this project come true, and making these accusations public before they have a chance to defend themselves, then I really need to read the literature on common good management that you mentioned, because this is a whole new world to me. Marcelo Neves


Sorry this morning I rushed a bit and forgot this part of your post. Yes I admit it is chocking. But at the same time what will you have done ? We tried to publish it not in any mailinglist to avoid disturbing anyone working. We tried not to publish it in a section of the Forum where people just willing to participate to defined project could see it.

Personnaly I am not a regulator and do not wish to spend my time dealing with all this crap. I am willing to discuss general matter, fundamentals or whatever because I feel personally that it is part of my commitment as a volunteer also (aside from projects which interest me). So what are you supposed to do when having repeating information? You send private emails at first. But there to it starts to amount to a lot and then nothing is resolved. At least now we are supposed to talk. Which is the first step to resolving the issue: Talking together, assessing our differences, trying to find the best in all, finding maybe new ideas. The whole first post is not an accusation, there are things that are proposed to overcome these problems.

Personnaly the end logic is that we share information all together at last. I had some. You probably have others. We try to make sense out of all these information. So instead of a small group of people doing things without telling anyone and then another small group of people learning about it (because what ever is the good reason about Erica's relation with Tory, I still do not understand how I came up to be phoned and learned about this while I am not even dealing with this if nothing happened somewhere. I phoned for private enquiry and even private travels, travel agent used by Forums which I knew because they were organizing travel for volunteers and never had the problem of them making it known to the financial responsibles of the Forums. We have a say in French: There is no smoke without a fire) in a rather ackward fashion, we have now all the information and we are dealing with this together. But that is the very point of a network. In a first place it is about this only.

A consensus is not everyone agreeing or it is not a majority agreeing. It is a participatory process where what is done is allowing other people to do also at the same time. Me personnaly if I agreed on the first Forum post, it is because all these information I was receiving on the side amounted to one big one: all our efforts and work wherever it happened and for whatever where to be voided if such a situation continues. Why ? Simply because this mistrust that was expressed by the WSF office and their contacts is also the sign of a growing mistrust of all of us. So we need to resolve this. The only way is to resolve it amongst ourselves and find ways to avoid further problems such as these.

It is not a trial in the sense that no one will be punished or redeemed. But what do you do if people start to not want to work with us all because this person or that person is supposedly doing or saying weird stuff? It is better to be publicaly silent. Which we are. It is better then to discuss this and to solve this type of issue.
ljesover
.
.
 
Posts: 173
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2003 9:36 am
Location: France

Attention! mensonges, coups d'états, etc.

Postby yan » Wed Nov 23, 2005 11:31 am

[Traduction FR du premier message de cette discussion. Note du traducteur: les liens ci-dessous vers la liste babels-rio ne sont plus valables, car la liste a été mystérieusement purgée puis tout simplement supprimée depuis la publication de cette "affaire".]

Le but de ce texte est de clarifier pourquoi un nombre croissant de membres de Babels ont l'impression que le projet Caracas est condamné à cause de la participation de certains 'coordinateurs'.

L'intérêt de ce texte est de présenter des preuves de méfaits passés, de détournements et d'incompétence, afin de prévenir de nouveaux membres du possible danger de travailler avec ces 'coordinateurs'. Il ne s'agit PAS du tout d'accuser quiconque de préparer un nouveau coup d'état -- c'est juste pour rappeler à ceux qui ignoraient les faits qui se sont accumulés depuis quelque temps, qu'il faut faire attention avant de passer du temps et de l'énergie à travailler avec d'autres organisateurs qui peuvent être menteurs ou incompétents.

Après des mois de réflexion, nous avons décidé qu'il était temps de présenter les faits devant tout le réseau. Babels est suffisamment mûr(e) pour résister l'auto-critique. Nous espérons que ceci aidera le projet Caracas à aller de l'avant.

Une tentative de coup d'état dans Babels!

Après une vive discussion concernant la réunion du Conseil Hemisphérique (CH) à Cuba en avril 2005, des membres de Babels étaient divisés en deux groupes sur la question de l'horizontalité et de la représentativité.
Pour plus de détails, lisez les messages sur le forum Babels:
viewtopic.php?t=405

Un groupe pensait que c'était non-démocratique d'envoyer des 'représentants' de Babels non-élus à une réunion du CH. Ce groupe a fait remarquer qu'il n'y avait rien à représenter de toutes manières car aucun projet n'avait été soumis et agréé par le réseau Babels concernant le FSM à Caracas. Ce groupe expliquait également qu'il était inutile de gaspiller l'argent du CH pour financer le billet d'avion d'un(e) 'figurant(e)' non-élu(e) qui n'aurait rien à dire, alors qu'il y avait déjà des membres de Babels présent(e)s à Cuba.
L'autre groupe insistait qu'il était essentiel pour Babels d'être présent à la réunion quelqu'en fût le prix, pour prendre une longueur d'avance sur Caracas. Pour ce groupe, les problèmes de représentativité ne pourraient jamais être résolus dans un réseau horizontal de toutes manières.

Pendant que ce débat avait lieu, deux membres de Babels, Leda B. et Erica Resende, prirent sur elles de contacter les organisateurs de la réunion pour trouver des financements pour couvrir les billets de deux membres de Babels.
Une tentative de coup d'état ('golpe de estado') était en cours, comme le montre la déclaration triomphante de Erica Resende sur la liste de discussion yahoo pour Babels-Rio:
"Cela fait 4 jours qu'un petit groupe de collègues du continent américain préparent un petit "coup d'état". Fatigués des querelles sans fin sur le forum de Babels pour savoir s'il faut envoyer, ou pas, des membres du réseau à la réunion du Conseil Hemisphérique à Cuba - qui sera la première réunion préparatoire pour le Forum des Amériques à Caracas 2006, moi, Denise, Leda Beck (Etats-Unis), Robert, Cristina et Rebecca, avec l'appui et les conseils de Julie Stoll et Steph (Allemagne et France), nous avons fait fi de la buroCRASSie* et timidité de l'horizontalité sans queue ni tête de Babels et nous avons obtenu un accord formel pour la participation de deux membres."
[tentative de traduction PT > FR. * = BURROcracia est un jeu de mots: burro = âne, comme si la bureaucratie était une âne-eaucratie]
Source: http://br.groups.yahoo.com/group/babels-rio/message/883

Dans des discussions postérieures, il s'avéra que Julie Stoll et Steph n'avaient JAMAIS souscrit à cette tentative de coup d'état, et qu'Erica Resende avait trompé les membres de la liste Babels-Rio en affirmant que son coup d'était avait un soutien international (notez la référence à des membres de Babels basés en Europe).
Une récente mise-à-jour sur le wiki de Babels a mis en lumière encore plus de preuves. La tentative de coup d'état était prévu comme telle: l'annonce que des billets d'avion avaient été pris malgré l'opposition d'une grande partie du réseau devait être suivi d'une déclaration rédigée par Leda B. qui allait justifier le coup a posteriori. Leda B. était consciente de la difficulté de justifier l'injustifiable.
Parmi les inexactitudes et déclarations trompeuses proposées par Erica Resence dans cette déclaration post-coup, nous pouvons citer:
"4. Des emails ont été envoyés à la liste babels et la liste poacoord, ainsi qu'à des coordinateurs locaux en Amérique du Sud: Gabriela au Pérou, Susana en Argentine, Monica. Nous n'avons pas eu de réponse." [traduction EN>FR]
Les coordinatrices locales ci-dessus n'avaient jamais reçu ces prétendus emails.
"5. Cette décision est soutenue par plus de 100 babelitos et babelitas des Amériques qui se sentent directement concernés par Caracas 2006." [traduction EN>FR]
Ceci manque de mentionner le fait que les 100 étaient moins de 80, et uniquement composés des membres de la liste Babels-Rio sur yahoo qui est, et demeure, largement non-représentative d'un réseau international de 8300 volontaires, sans parler du fait que ce groupe est manifestement pas au courant de ce qui se passe.

Erica Resende avait obtenu un billet d'avion de la part du CH pour elle-même pour aller à Cuba en se faisant passer, à tort, pour une représentante de Babels. Elle a fait croire qu'elle bénéficiait d'un soutien international pour ce faire, trompant ainsi un grand nombre d'innocents et naïfs membres de Babels. Quand des membres du CH ont découvert qu'elle n'avait pas été mandatée par le réseau, comme elle l'avait sous-entendu, le CH refusa de couvrir les frais de son billet d'avion. Finalement, elle ne put se rendre à la réunion à Cuba.

Après avoir évité un coup d'état, la réputation de Babels dans les Amériques, déjà mise à mal par les problèmes que nous avons eus à POA pendant le FSM 2005, prit un nouveau coup.

Pour recommencer sur des bases saines après un débat au vitriol, Yan B. proposa de créer une liste de discussion clairement intitulée 'caracas06' pour accueillir tous ceux/celles intéressé(e)s par l'organisation de cet événement. Cette liste est ouverte à tous ceux/celles qui souhaitent organiser ce projet. Au jour d'aujourd'hui, la liste comporte plus de 70 inscrits.

Dans les dernières semaines, plusieurs personnes ont commencé à créer des groupes de travail pour s'occuper de problèmes proprement logistiques. Le premier groupe à se mettre en place était le 'groupe de travail Transport', dirigé par Leda B. Une liste de discussion séparée fut créée pour ce groupe de travail.

Un deuxième scandale

Quelque temps après, des membres de Babels expérimentés, dans les Amériques et en Europe, ont été contactés par plusieurs organisations: ABONG (Organisation Brésilienne des ONG) et le Conseil Hémisphérique. Ces organisations étaient furieuses parce que quelqu'un avait contacté une agence de voyages au Brésil (Agence de voyages Tory) et s'était renseignée sur des billets pour Caracas *au nom de ABONG et du Conseil Hémisphérique*. La personne qui parla au nom de ces organisations sans les en informer elles ni Babels était Erica Resende.

La réputation de Babels en prit de nouveau pour son grade.

Le rapport ci-dessus est basé sur des preuves tangibles qui montrent qu'il existe une habitude de déformer les faits et de se présenter sous un faux jour. Ce qui suit sont des éléments qui sont apparus après le FSM 2005 à POA et qui pourraient s'apparenter à de la fraude.

Plusieurs personnes de Babels provenant de Rio qui avaient été 'sélectionnées' par Erica Resende confessèrent par la suite soit que:
-elles n'avaient jamais rencontré Erica Resende;
-elles étaient en réalité en train d'accompagner leur petit(e) ami(e); et/ou
-elles n'avaient aucune expérience comme interprètes.

Comme si ce n'était pas suffisant, plusieurs membres de la délégation de Rio, avec Erica Resende en tête, ont réclamé un traitement de faveur pour le logement, le câble, et même "s'il y avait du travail rémunéré pendant le forum".

Jusqu'aujourd'hui, aucune autre délégation régionale, du Brésil ou d'ailleurs dans le monde, n'a souffert d'autant d'irrégularités. D'autres organisateurs Babels qui ont travaillé pendant le FSM 2005 ont été surpris par ces révélations, car Erica Resende s'était toujours présentée comme une super-chasseuse-de-têtes, capable de trouver et de recruter les meilleurs interprètes du Brésil. En fin de compte, entre ses déclarations et la réalité, il y avait une grosse différence.

Notre responsabilité

Babels, en tant que réseau horizontal et international, n'est pas en position d'exclure ses membres. Non seulement cela serait une erreur, ce serait contre-productif. Malgré les irrégularités constatées ci-dessus, qui dans d'autres circonstances pourraient réclamer des mesures (judiciaires, peut-être) graves, Leda B. et Erica Resende ne peuvent pas être exclues. Ce qui a été décrit ci-dessus va au-delà de simples problèmes de caractère. Malgré tout, de nombreuses personnes sont d'accord pour dire que Leda B. et Erica Resende ont dépensé beaucoup d'énergie pour Babels et que ce serait injuste de leur demander de quitter le réseau tout à fait.

Pour éviter des problèmes à l'avenir, pour garantir la vie privée et l'intégrité de milliers de membres de Babels qui se sont inscrits auprès de Babels et qui nous confient leurs données personnelles, pour injecter un sentiment de calme et donner plus de sens au groupe de travail Caracas, nous proposons que Leda B. et Erica Resende s'abstiennent de participer à, ou ne fassent plus partie des groupes de travail suivants:
-transport (1)
-sélection (2)
-représentation politique (3).

Point (1): parce que nous ne pouvons pas garantir que le fait d'avoir accès au groupe de travail transport ne pourrait pas être suivi d'une nouvelle série d'irrégularités, comme on l'a vu avec la tentative de coup d'état en avril 2005 ou le scandale de l'agende ce voyage Tory. Nous ne voulons pas voir Babels accusé de fraude ou de détournement après le forum à Caracas.
Point (2): parce que le travail de sélection pour POA en 2005 a souffert de fausse information. Ceci coûta à la coordination POA du temps, de l'argent et des efforts. La délégation de Rio était la seule délégation qui retira, à la dernière minute, plus de 15% de ses volontaires, et un certain nombre des volontaires restants n'étaient même pas des interprètes. Nous ne voulons pas que le forum de Caracas vive les mêmes problèmes.
Point (3): malgré leurs déclarations, Leda B. et Erica Resende ont régulièrement fait semblant de représenter 'la voix de la majorité'. On ne peut pas risquer de promouvoir des gens qui nous représenteraient dans des réunions officielles alors qu'elles ne respectent pas l'horizontalité et la transparence dans leurs discussions avec leurs collègues membres de Babels. L'attitude paranoïaque de Leda B. vis-à-vis d'un certain nombre d'anciens organisateurs de forum Babels est également inacceptable et insultante. Pour preuve, sa narration tordue au sujet d'un manifeste qui avait été mis sur le forum de Babels pour que tous puissent en discuter. Leda B. proposa d'écrire un "contre-manifeste", en ajoutant à sa narration un certain nombre d'inexactitudes et d'attaques paranoïaques.
Source: http://br.groups.yahoo.com/group/babels-rio/message/980

Une proposition constructive

D'autres tâches dans lesquelles Leda B. et Erica Resende pourraient faire des merveilles, si elles souhaitent en faire une ou plusieurs dans leur désire de soutenir l'organisation du forum à Caracas:
-coordonner la traduction de documents internes (documents envoyés par Babels à d'autres membres de Babels)
-coordonner la traduction de documents officiels envoyés par le CH, le FSA et le FSM Caracas à Babels avant, pendant et après le forum.
-répondre aux messages dans le forum Babels et modérer le forum.

Il est important pour le groupe de travail Babels Caracas06 d'être en mesure d'inspirer la confiance et l'engagement aux autres dans Babels et aux organisateurs du forum de Caracas, au lieu de fomenter la méfiance et des accusations de détournement. Si nous trouvons tous quelque chose d'utile à faire dans la limite de nos capacités, nous sommes persuadés que nous pourrons aller de l'avant.

Comme nous étions inquiets, nous ne pouvions plus garder le silence. C'est pour cela que nous avons pensé qu'il valait mieux prévenir les autres dans Babels, tout en essayant de proposer quelque chose de constructif pour l'ensemble du réseau.
Yan, Mónica, Bettina, Axel, Laurent, Fernanda et alii
yan
.
.
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2003 1:35 pm

Postby mnario » Wed Nov 23, 2005 11:16 pm

EN / PT

EN - EN - EN

To Laurent:

Yes, I realized that I was replying to the wrong person after I received a message in private calling my attention to that. I'm just pleased that you take your time to express yourself about this whole stuff, as I believe that dialogue is the only way we can set it straight. I'll answer your comments as soon as I can.

Marcelo Neves

PT - PT -PT

Para Laurent:

Sim, eu percebi que estava respondendo à pessoa errada depois que recebi uma mensagem particular chamando minha atenção a isso. Estou contente que você tome tempo para se expressar sobre essa coisa toda, uma vez que eu acredito que o diálogo é a única forma de se chegar a um acordo. Vou responder seus comentários assim que possível.

Marcelo Neves
mnario
.
.
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 6:18 pm

Postby fernanda » Fri Nov 25, 2005 2:50 am

Traducción al español del primer texto

El objetivo de este texto es aclarar por qué un creciente número de miembros de Babels sienten que el proyecto Caracas corre riesgos debido a la participación de ciertos "coordinadores".

El propósito de este texto es presentar pruebas de hechos graves que se han cometido en el pasado que podrían ser considerados como hechos de corrupción o incompetencia, de manera de advertir a los nuevos miembros de los posibles riesgos de trabajar con estos "coordinadores". El texto de NINGUNA manera busca acusar a nadie de realizar acuerdos en contra de otros grupos, sino que pretende recordar a aquellos que ignoraban los hechos que se han acumulado durante mucho tiempo, que uno debe ser cuidadoso antes de gastar mucha energía trabajando con organizadores que pueden ser incompetentes o no merecer nuestra confianza.

Tras meses de discutir cuidadosamente estas cuestiones, hemos decidido que era el momento de presentar los hechos a la red en general. Babels es lo suficientemente fuerte como para resistir la autocrítica. Esperamos que esto ayude a que el proyecto Caracas avance.

Intento de golpe de estado en Babels!

Durante una acalorada discusión antes de la reunión del Consejo Hemisférico (CH) de Cuba, en abril de 2005, los miembros de Babels estaban divididos en dos grupos acerca de la cuestión de la horizontalidad y la representatividad.
Por más detalles, lean por favor los siguientes posts del foro de Babels:
viewtopic.php?t=405

Un grupo decía que no era democrático enviar a la reunión del CH a "representates" Babels que no habían sido electos. Este grupo sostenía que de todas maneras no había nada que representar, ya que no había ningún proyecto que hubiera sido presentado y acordado por la red referente al FSM de Caracas. Este grupo consideraba inútil invertir fondos del CH en pagar pasajes para "oyentes" que no habían sido electos y que no tendrían nada para decir, siendo que había en Cuba cierto número de miembros de Babels.
El otro grupo sostenía que era esencial para Babels estar presente en esa reunión sin importar nada más, de manera de estar desde el principio en el tema de Caracas. Sostenía además que de todos modos el problema de la representación nunca se podría resolver en una red horizontal.

Mientras este debate tenía lugar, dos miembros de Babels, Leda B. y Erica R. actuaron por cuenta propia y se pusieron en contacto con los organizadores de la reunión para conseguir fondos que cubrieran los gastos del viaje de dos miembros de Babels.
Se planeaba un golpe de estado, como fuera luego declarado clara y triunfalmente por Erica R. en la lista de discusión en un grupo yahoo de Babels-Rio: "Há 4 dias um pequeno grupo de colegas do continente americano pelanejam um pequeno "golpe de estado". Fartos da lenga-lenga no fórum do site da Babels acerca de vamos ou não enviar membros da rede para a reunião do Conselho Hemisférico em Cuba - que será a primeira reunião preparatória para o Forum das Americas em Caracas 2006, eu, Denise, Leda Beck (EUA), Robert, Cristina e Rebecca, com o apoio e incentivo de Julie Stoll e Steph (Alemanha e França), passamos por cima da BURROcracia e teimosia da horizontalizada sem pé nem cabeça da Babels e conseguimos a formalização da participação de dois membros."
Fuente: http://br.groups.yahoo.com/group/babels-rio/message/883

En discusiones que se dieron más tarde, resultó ser que Julie Stoll y Steph nunca habían estado de acuerdo con ese intento de golpe de estado, y que Erica R. engañado a la gente de la lista de Babels-Rio al decir que contaba con apoyo internacional para el golpe de estado (nótese que se hizo referencia a miembros de Babels de Europa).
Una actualización reciente del wiki de Babels dejó al descubierto más pruebas. El intento de golpe de estado fue pensado como tal, al anuncio de que se habían comprado los pasajes de avión a pesar de la oposición de una gran parte de la red, le iba a seguir una declaración redactada por Leda B. que intentaría justificar el golpe luego de los hechos. Leda B. era conciente de lo difícil que resultaría tener que justificar lo injustificable.

Entre inexactitudes o engaños adicionales realizados por Erica R. en su declaración posterior al golpe podría citarse,
" 4. Se enviaron mails no solamente a la lista de correos de Babels y a la de poacoord, sino también a coordinadores locales de Sudamérica: Gabriela de Perú, Susana de Argentina, Mónica. Hasta ahora han permanecido en silencio."
Los coordinadores locales mencionados nunca recibieron estos mensajes.
"5. Esta decisión cuenta con el apoyo de más de 100 babelitos y babelitas de las Américas, para quienes Caracas 2006 habla por si mismo."
Omite mencionar que los 100 eran menos de 80 y comprometidos sólo con la lista de Babels-Río del grupo yahoo. que fue y continúa siendo muy poco representativa de una red internacional de 8300 voluntarios, sin mencionar el hecho de que este grupo claramente estaba desinformado de lo que sucedía.

Erica R. había reservado un pasaje aéreo a través del CH para ir ella misma a Cuba, presentándose como representativa de Babels aunque no lo era. Dijo contar con apoyo internacional para hacerlo, engañando de esta manera a un gran número de miembros inocentes de Babels. Cuando los miembros del CH se enteraron de que no representaba a la red Babels, como había dicho inicialmente, el CH se negó a pagar su pasaje. Al final no pudo asistir a la reunión de Cuba.

Luego de que el golpe fuera impedido, la reputación de Babels en América, ya bastante bapuleada, luego d elos problemas que se experimentaron en POA durante el FSM 2005, sufrió otro golpe.

Para volver a empezar un debate que ya se había tornado agresivo, Yan B. propuso crear una lista de discusión específicamente titulada "caracas06" para dar la bienvenida a todos aquellos que estuvieran interesados en organizar este evento. Esta lista está abierta a todos los interesados en la organización del proyecto. En este momento, la lista tiene más de 70 suscriptores.

En las últimas semanas, varias personas comenzaron a crear grupos de trabajo para encargarse de cuestiones logísticas específicas. El primer grupo que apareció fue el "grupo de trabajo viaje", liderado por Lede B.
Se creó una lista separada de discusión para este grupo.

Segundo escándalo

Tiempo después, algunos miembros de Babels de América y Europa con más antigüedad en la red, fueron contactados por varias organizaciones: ABONG (Asociación Brasileña de ONGs) y el Consejo Hemisférico. Las mismas manifestaron su gran descontento debido a que alguien se había puesto en contacto con una agencia de viajes de Brasil (Tory Agencia de Viajes) y había averiguado sobre pasajes aéreos a Caracas "en nombre de ABONG y el Consejo Hemisférico". La persona que se había hecho pasar por representante de estas organizaciones sin informar a ninguna de ellas ni a Babels fue Erica R.

La reputación de Babels sufría, entonces, otro golpe.

El informe que antecede se basa en sólida evidencia que apunta a un patrón de falsa representación. Lo que sigue son algunos elementos que salieron a luz luego del FSM del 2005 en POA y podrían asimilarse a fraude.

Varios participantes provenientes de Río que habían sido " seleccionados" por Erica R. confesaron que:
- Nunca habían conocido a Erica R.
- En realidad estaban acompañando a su novio/a y/o
- no tenían experiencia como intérpretes.

Para sumar insultos a la injuria, varios miembros de la delegación de Río, encabezados por Erica R. solicitaron trato preferencial en lo referente a alojamiento incluyendo TV cable e incluso preguntaron si "había algo de trabajo pago para los intérpretes durante Foro".

A la fecha, ninguna otra delegación, ni de Brasil ni del resto del mundo ha presentado tantas irregularidades. Otros organizadores de Babels que trabajaron para el FSM 2005 quedaron perplejos ante estas confesiones, ya que Erica R. siempre se había presentado a si misma como una super cazadora, capaz de encontrar y reclutar a los mejores intérpretes de Brasil. Al final hubo una enorme distancia entre lo que dijo y los hechos.

Nuestra responsabilidad

Babels, como red horizontal e internacional no está en posición de excluir a ninguno de sus miembros. Esto no sólo estaría mal, sino que sería contraproducente. A pesar de las irregularidades antes mencionadas, que podrían ser pasibles de acciones serias (posiblemente legales) en otras circunstancias, Leda B. y Erica R. no pueden ser excluídas. Lo que se describió anteriormente es mucho más serio que meros defectos de personalidad. Y sin embargo, muchos estarán de acuerdo en que Leda B. y Erica R. le han dedicado mucha energía a Babels y que sería injusto pedirles que abandonaran Babels.

Para evitar futuros problemas, para garantizar la privacidad y la integridad de los miles de miembros que se han registrado en Babels y que nos han confiado sus datos personales, para inferir un mayor sentido de calma y propósito al grupo de trabajo de Caracas, proponemos que tanto Leda B. como Erica R. se abstengan de participar en las siguientes tareas:
-viajes (1)
-selección (2)
-representación política (3)

Punto (1): Ya que no podemos garantizar que tener acceso al grupo de trabajo viaje no nos llevará a una nueva serie de irregularidades del tipo de las que fuimos testigos con el intento de golpe de abril de 2005 y del escándalo de la agencia de viajes Tory. No deseamos que Babels sea acusado de fraude o corrupción luego del Foro de Caracas.
Punto(2): ya que el trabajho de selección para POA 2005 estuvo lleno de información falsa. ESto le costó a la coordinación de POA tiempo, dinero y esfuerzo. La delegación de Río fue la única en la que a último momento se retiraron más del 15% de los voluntarios y un gran número de los que permanecieron ni siquiera eran intérpretes. No deseamos que el Foro de Caracas pase por los mismos problemas.
Punto (3): A pesar de haber establecido lo contrario Leda B. y Erica R. se han mal presentado regularmente como "la voz de la mayoría". No podemos correr el riesgo de promover personas que nos representarían en reuniones oficiales siendo que éstas no respetan la horizontalidad y la transparencia en su trato con otros miembros de Babels. La actitud paranoica de Leda B. para con ciertos ex organizadores de Babels con experiencia, también es inaceptable e insultante. La mejor prueba de ello, es su historia distorsionada referente a un manifiesto que fuera publicado en el foro de Babels para que todos pudieran discutir. Leda B. propuso escribir un "contra-manifiesto" colmando su historia de un número de inexactitudes y ataques paranoicos
Fuente: http://br.groups.yahoo.com/group/babels-rio/message/980

Una propuesta constructiva

Otras tareas en que Leda B y Erica R. podrían hacer maravillas, y de las cuales podrían elegir una o varias en su deseo de apoyar la organización del Foro Caracas:
-coordinar la traducción de documentos internos (documentos enviados por Babels a otros miembros de Babels)
-coordinar la traducción de documentos oficiales enviados por el CH, el FSA y el FSM Caracas a Babels en la preparación, durante o después del foro.
-responder mensajes en el Foro de Babels y moderar el Foro.

Es importante para el Foro de Caracas 06 estar en posición de inspirar cionfianza y compromiso a otros miembros de Babels y a los organizadores del Foro Caracas en lugar de provocar desconfianza y acusaciones por falsa representación.
Si todos encontramos algo útil que hacer dentro de los confines de nuestras capacidades, creemos que podemos seguir adelante.

Debido a que nos sentimos realmente preocupados, ya no podíamos permanecer en silencio. Esa es la razón por la cual creimos que sería mejor advertir a otros miembros de Babels siempre tratando de proponer algo constructivo para la red.

Yan, Mónica, Bettina, Axel, Laurent, Fernanda y demás.
fernanda
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 10:46 pm

Nota de desagravo - Letter of repudiation

Postby dlrodrigues » Sun Nov 27, 2005 2:36 am

The following volunteers have asked that their signatures be appended to the letter of repudiation posted in this venue. With these additions we have now 40 people signing the repudiation letter. Surely 40 voices must be heard.

Os seguintes voluntários solicitaram que suas assinauras fossem anexadas à nota de repúdio. Com estes acréscimos, agora temos 40 pessoas assinando a nota. Certamente que 40 vozes devem ser ouvidas.

Isabel Tornaghi, Samanta Rodrigues, Susana Cohen (Argentina), Tiago dos Santos (Porto Alegre) e Luciana Camara.

Denise Lopes Rodrigues
dlrodrigues
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 1:33 am

Postby ljesover » Sun Nov 27, 2005 7:35 am

But in this case Denise let's hear them. I read carafully what you called the letter of repudiation, besides the fact that no one or nearly seemed to have first hand information on any of the fact (but on the other hand is reacting from information or analysis given to them), the reaction is I guess more on the principles which still need clarification to me. In French by the way the terms "repudiation" (which exists and is more linked with the old time when a husband do not recognize his wife as his) or "réprobation" (which you used) are not quite I guess what you intend (your intention need clarification: Do you intend to produce other analysis of the same facts and shed new light to them? Do you intend to produce new facts which contradict the first ones? Do you intend to defend someone just out of principle? Do you intend to send the others to Hell?). For instance reprobation as a very demeaning side of it, reproducing a condesendant tone of voice. I understand now from your post that you think that discussing facts and principles, ethic (which is more important) is equal to signatures. I think we are missing the point here. It is not because forty or fifty people are signing something written by other that the "wolf is in the forest", that the wolf is or is not actually in the forest. This depends strickly on the wolf being or not in the forest and not on signatures overs a declaration.

By the way I found a good text on "réprobation": Pour produire ses boucs émissaires la réprobation ne manque pas de prétextes. Vous êtes réprouvé parce que vous êtes jeune, vieux, grand, petit, gros, maigre, homo ou sorry, no, brun, blond, blanc, noir, français, allemand, américain, juif, chrétien, musulman, homme, femme, ou que l'on vous trouve bourgeois, peuple, maladroit, retors, affectif, distant etc. : l'éventail recouvre l’ensemble des qualificatifs, des professions, des nationalités.

Le réprobateur vous a classé et ne veut voir que l’étiquette qu’il a plaquée sur vous comme sur une bouteille. Il est disposé à mal juger ce que vous faites, ce que vous pensez, ce que vous êtes, et pour pouvoir vous contredire il fera sur vos propos les contresens les plus étonnants. A peine avez-vous d'ailleurs prononcé quelques mots, il vous coupe la parole : il ne veut pas vous entendre.
ljesover
.
.
 
Posts: 173
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2003 9:36 am
Location: France

Postby fernanda » Sun Nov 27, 2005 9:23 pm

Many different things are being discussed together what makes it difficult to follow the discussion. I’ll try to approach them separately.
In the first post we tried to share information we had in order to find a way out together through a constructive discussion of the problem.
I don’t think that everyone has even noticed that all this is much more complex and problematic than just Leda B. and Erica R. attitude and behavior. By describing the situation connected with them we are trying to show that the principles on which this network was and is being built upon are not being respected by many members. As the discussion about this specific situation developed many other issues were risen. All of them need to be solved collectively in order to move forward.

REPRESENTATION
The only thing that allows us to be representative of other members in the network is our commitment with the principles of the network. We are all supposed to adhere to the principles, purpose and nature of this network. Therefore we can be mutually representative. There’s no further complication with this if we do actually behave on a basis of good faith, transparency, trust, respect, etc. As a way of example, I feel completely represented by Alex words in his post dated 18th Nov. (and I don’t even know him!) This is the sense in which I understand representation...

I see that the problem we face is due to two different things,
1) Some people have regularly acted against all the principles that join us.
2) Some people have regularly tried to achieve goals that are not the ones that we, as a network, had agreed upon.

TRANSPARENCY AND HORIZONTALITY
It would be impossible for us to know everything that is going on within Babels, but it does not mean that transparency is not such, in fact the important thing here is that all of us can get involved in any project we are interested in, as interpreters, translators, organizers, etc. and contribute to the WSF process from there. Anyone can get the information he/she needs/wants or ask for it to other fellow babelit@s, that is the purpose of the open lists and the forum, isn’t it? But if we start just using other means of communication this principle will just vanish (as Babels-Rio yahoo groups...)

As a matter of fact it seems that some members have agreed upon some different principles, now we have to decide if it is possible and even desirable to work with these people, why? Simply because they make us all appear as if we were not at all serious, trustworthy or accountable.

CARACAS PROJECT
For all those who know nothing about it and think this is an attempt to hinder some “coordinators” I would just advise you to read the archives of the list. You’ll be able to draw your own conclusions.
Here you have mine... It is a chaotic list in which most people never say a word, in which others just say unrealistic things; but what worries me the most is that it is a list in which we have been unable to WORK TOGETHER. Maybe because it all started out of the heated discussion about the HC, maybe because the members who appear to be more respected and listened to (according to Yan’s theory) decided not to get involved, maybe because there were too many first experience organizers, maybe because some experienced organizers took advantage of this situation misleading less experienced members all the time...
Working groups were made without even telling the rest in Caracas06 list they existed, some people made contacts using our name without informing at least us (fellow organizers) what they were doing or intending to do, they would even mock at the ones who kept saying that the most important thing to start with was to get in touch with WSF organizers, to work with them in order to establish the conditions under which Babels would participate (political, logistical, etc.) Some of us asked them to calm down and go step by step, but they insisted in doing things sort of upside-down. Leda as well as Erica were asked to work WITH the others many times, through private e-mails and as these were not taken into account, through mails sent to the list. But they kept speaking as if they represented the majority, and this is far from being the truth. We need to “read” each other to work together, but this is not happening. There are wikipages created which are not read by some organizers who then propose to start working on something that is already started, etc. And to add problems to this already chaotic situation, the aggressive attitude of these members to everything that came from other more experienced organizers who have tried to help (Laurent, Yan, Bettina, Monica) has been insulting not only for them but also for all the ones who wanted to make of Caracas06 a project politically committed with the WSF.

For this project there have been and still are many committed organizers who had devoted a lot of time and energy to it and who had tried to defend Babels principles all this time. As Laurent says, it is time to stop dealing with this crap and start considering these problems as something that affects the whole network, as they are truly general and fundamental. Unhappily the seeding process brought about the seed of mistrust, and it is spreading... This is not just a matter of some “coordinators” from America, Babels is an international network and it is up to all of us to decide how to solve the problems we face.

Sorry but English only, because here, in Latin America, internet is still quite expensive... after all we are not only volunteering but also paying lots of money... But this is the tool we have, this is the only way we can work together, therefore it is of great worth.

I hope we will be able to find a solution, thus our time and energy will have been devoted to something constructive...

Fernanda
fernanda
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 10:46 pm

Postby mnario » Sun Nov 27, 2005 11:02 pm

EN / PT

EN - EN - EN

Fernanda, I don’t think we’ve met personally, but I have been watching your commitment with Babels through the lists, and I really respect it. However, among the messages that have been sent to this topic in this forum, I think yours is the one that best shows how the so-called horizontality and transparency of Babels network needs rethinking, and by all members. First, the very fact that the initial message is signed by six members “et alii” is way too intriguing. There is denouncing, there are people denouncing. I wonder, then, why such a denouncing signed by six people has the power to reveal the “truth” to a group of 8000 volunteers. Why has the initial “warning” been made in the name of individuals, not in the name of Babels? Finally, if there are other people signing that document, why are they shown here as “et alii”? Is this transparency?

You say that “I don’t think everyone has noticed that this is much more complex”. Of course not, after all, many people still ask themselves how this conclusion has been reached that the solution for the irregularities would be to post a letter in the forum signed by six people “et alii” with such a serious alert as this one. As a member of this “horizontal” network myself, I don’t remember having been asked about the need to publish a warning or even to put it in discussion.

I know there are attitudes and behaviours that must be denounced and, if possible and necessary, punished. However, and I’m not saying this is the case, frequently, someone sends messages to Babels lists with denounces that smell like personal relationship problems. If there are personal problems within the network, and we all know there are, this should be resolved before throwing poison over its members. We are all human beings, and raised in different cultures, which can sometimes make communicating, understanding, debating more difficult. But this is the point of working in an international network, and making this understanding easier is one of the purposes of Babels, isn’t it?

Accusing and criticizing people, and in a passionate way, putting in doubt the seriousness and commitment of groups that are working in behalf of one same project will not lead anyone to a better world.

PT - PT - PT

Fernanda, acho que não nos conhecemos pessoalmente, mas tenho acompanhado, pelas listas, seu compromisso com a Babels, o qual respeito muito. No entanto, dentre as mensagens que já foram enviadas a este tópico no fórum, acho que a sua é a que melhor demonstra que a chamada horizontalidade e transparência da Babels deve ser repensada, e por todos. O simples fato de a mensagem inicial ser assinada por seis pessoas “et alii” já é intrigante. Existem denúncias, existem os que denunciam. Eu me pergunto, então, por que uma denúncia assinada por seis pessoas tem o poder de revelar a “verdade” a um grupo de 8000 voluntários. Por que o alerta inicial foi feito em nome de indivíduos, e não em nome da Babels? E, ainda, se existem outras pessoas assinando tal documento, por que estão demonstradas simplesmente como “et alii”? Isso é transparência?

Você diz que “acho que nem todos perceberam que isso é muito mais complexo”. Claro que não, afinal, muitos ainda se perguntam, em primeiro lugar, como se chegou à conclusão que a solução para essas irregularidades seria enviar, dentro de um fórum de debates, uma carta escrita por seis pessoas “et allii” com um alerta tão grave como esse. Como membro da rede “horizontal”, não me lembro de ter sido consultado sobre a necessidade de se lançar esse alerta ou sequer colocá-lo em discussão.

Sei que existem atitudes e comportamentos que devem ser denunciados e, se possível e necessário, punidos. Não digo que seja o caso, mas, com freqüência, alguém envia mensagens às listas da Babels denunciando atitudes que cheiram muito a problemas de relacionamento pessoais. Se existem problemas pessoais dentro da rede, e sabemos que existem, isso deveria ser resolvido antes de se lançar veneno sobre os membros dela. Somos tod@s humanos, e criados em culturas diferentes, o que às vezes pode dificultar a comunicação, o entendimento, o debate. Mas é justamente para isso que trabalhamos dentro de uma rede internacional, e facilitar esse entendimento é uma das propostas da Babels, não é?.

Fazer acusações e críticas apaixonadas, duvidar da seriedade e comprometimento de grupos que estão trabalhando em nome de um único projeto não vai levar ninguém a um mundo melhor.
mnario
.
.
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 6:18 pm

Postby yan » Mon Nov 28, 2005 10:16 am

[EN] / [ES]

[EN]
mnario wrote:the name of Babels? Finally, if there are other people signing that document, why are they shown here as “et alii”? Is this transparency?

Among the various people that were aware of the irregularities exposed in the first post, 6 wanted to step in personally and by name. The others exist, of course, but they said they were not interested in pursuing a discussion on this. 6 people vouched for the rest. Transparency does not mean that we have to begin a witchhunt and become personal, naming names, counting heads, etc. as if this were a Stalinist or fascist disctatorship ('come out of the woods with your hands up! give us your names so we can attack your wives and children!...') The issue at stake is not who is behind 'et alii', it's the facts that have been exposed. This leads me to the second point...

mnario wrote:If there are personal problems within the network, and we all know there are, this should be resolved before throwing poison over its members. [...]
Accusing and criticizing people, and in a passionate way, putting in doubt the seriousness and commitment of groups that are working in behalf of one same project will not lead anyone to a better world.

Contrary to popular opinion, the point of the initial post was not to throw poison or to talk in a passionate way of groups. The phrasing of the initial post is, I believe, as cool and non-personal as one can get: we stuck to the facts, and named the people who were responsible -- not a vague group. Personal feelings vis a vis Leda or Erica are totally beside the point. Professionally, and ethically, the events of the past few months have raised serious, VERY serious doubts about their commitment to the principles behind this network (please read the Babels Charter and Communication Protocols).

I've yet to see anyone seriously consider and discuss the facts that have been presented, as well as the proposed way out. All I see is a group from Rio defending 'their' coordinator, all the while side-stepping the issues that have been raised. The last few pages of 'discussion' are nothing but a smoke-screen hiding the hard-to-swallow facts. People seem to behave as if nothing had happened and proofs have mysteriously "disappeared". What will come next? A public execution of those who were so bold as to say the king was naked? If we don't try to look at the facts 'in the eye', we're headed for trouble.


[ES]

mnario wrote:Por que o alerta inicial foi feito em nome de indivíduos, e não em nome da Babels? E, ainda, se existem outras pessoas assinando tal documento, por que estão demonstradas simplesmente como “et alii”? Isso é transparência?

Entre las varias personas que estaban al tanto de las irregularidades expuestas en el primer mensaje, 6 personas querian decirlo en voz alta y personalmente. Las demás personas existen, claro, pero dijeron que no les interesaba discutir más este asunto. 6 personas se comprometieron en nombre de los demás. Transparencia no significa empezar una caza de brujas y atacar a gente personalmente, dando nombres, contando cabezas, etc. como si esto fuese una dictadura estalinista o fascista ('salgan del bosque con las manos en alto! dígannos cómo se llaman para que podamos atacar a sus esposas e hijos!...'). El problema no es quién está detrás de 'et alii', sino los hechos que han sido expuestos. Esto me permite hablar de mi segundo punto...

mnario wrote:Se existem problemas pessoais dentro da rede, e sabemos que existem, isso deveria ser resolvido antes de se lançar veneno sobre os membros dela. [...]
Fazer acusações e críticas apaixonadas, duvidar da seriedade e comprometimento de grupos que estão trabalhando em nome de um único projeto não vai levar ninguém a um mundo melhor.

Aunque mucha gente cree lo contrario, la meta del primer mensaje no era de lanzar veneno de manera apasionada sobre grupos. La manera en que fue presentado el primer mensaje me parece sumamente objetiva e impersonal: nos limitamos a presentar hechos, y nombramos a la gente responsable -- no un grupo mal definido. Sentimientos personales con respecto a Leda o Erica no tienen nada que ver en este asunto. Profesional y éticamente, los eventos ocurridos en los últimos meses son graves, MUY graves, y es normal dudar del compromiso de esta gente con los principios que fundamentan esta red (véase la Carta de Babels y los Protocolos de Comunicación).

Me parece que todavía nadie ha considerado o discutido con seriedad los hechos que han sido presentados, asi como la solución propuesta. Todo lo que veo es un grupo de Rio que defiende a 'su' coordinadora, pero que no enfrenta los problemas que hemos expuesto. Las últimas páginas de 'discusión' no son más que una cortina de humo escondiendo hechos que nos es difícil aceptar. Parece que la gente actúa como si nada hubiera sucedido, y pruebas han misteriosamente "desaparecido". ¿Cuál es la próxima etapa? ¿Una ejecución pública de los que tuvieron la temeridad de decir que el rey andaba desnudo? Si no intentamos mirar a los hechos 'en la cara', vamos por mal camino.
yan
.
.
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2003 1:35 pm

La opinión de 3 babelit@s / L'opinion de 3 babelit@s

Postby Gustavo » Mon Nov 28, 2005 7:41 pm

ES/FR

ES

Babelitos y babelitas,

Hemos leído lo más atentamente posible los intercambios y diferentes opiniones. No habiendo participado hasta ahora en ninguna lista de discusión de manera significativa, nos sentimos un poco alejados de la polémica, sin embargo, nos sentimos muy afín con los objetivos y principios de Babels y consideramos que Babels y Nomad son importantes elementos en la lucha por otro mundo, razón por la cual nos involucramos y participamos a los últimos Foros en Quito y Porto Alegre, y creemos que en esto estamos todos de acuerdo y es la motivación principal de nuestra participación.

Por ello proponemos que nos detengamos en este punto – si queremos construir otro mundo, y lo creemos, en lo personal, muy posible, debemos en nuestra manera de actuar empezar a “practicarnos” y establecer las bases en lo que hacemos HOY, y no dejarlo para el mañana.

Regresando a la polémica:
- los puntos de vista divergentes son no solo algo positivo sino necesario, sobre todo en un movimiento como el de Babels tan multifacético, multicultural, multitodo… Pero las divergencias no deben constituir un punto de ruptura, por lo que la expresión utilizada de “coup d´état” nos parece tan ajena a lo que tratamos de hacer. Como nos parece también, las acciones llevadas a cabo ya que no buscan consenso sino tienden a crear un paralelismo en vez de propiciar acercamientos. Sinceramente nos preocupa, pero creemos que también pone en manifiesto problemas de uso de una nueva tecnología (el Internet), a parte de lo medular y fundamental, que son los principios de una acción colectiva, propositiva, respetuosa, horizontal, y pone en peligro todo el trabajo previo de los compañeros y las compañeras que han tratado de sacar Babels adelante, en condiciones difíciles, novedosas, experimentales y a puro pulso voluntario… Con ello, no queremos decir que todo esté perfecto y que se ha encontrado la formula mágica, para nada, se trata de una obra en curso, abierta, que requiere de los sesos y experiencias de todos, sin excepción y una gran dosis de escucha, de tolerancia y de confianza por parte de todos. No volvamos a caer en la trampa de siempre y dejarnos dividir cuando lo que tenemos que hacer es avanzar unidos en nuestras divergencias.

Babels antes que nada es una organización política, y al inscribirse, uno acepta la Carta de principios y entiende el compromiso de esta. El debate sobre horizontalidad no debería y no debe existir visto que es parte de la estructura política. También Babels es una organización mundial, por ende ningún integrante posee la vocería de un continente y es peligroso que ciertas personas hablen de parte de toda América acusando a los europeos de querer controlar Babels, cuando ellos mismos hablan en nombre de todo el continente sin nunca haber hecho si quiera una consulta pública. Y a la vez si hablamos de una integración americana, no se nos debe olvida que América es una solo continente y participantes activos existen en los dos hemisferios.

Debemos por lo tanto analizar la situación actual y ver que correctivos aportar urgentemente para 1) consolidarnos como un movimiento serio y merecedor de confianza para brindar a los Foros apoyo real y constructivo y a la vez afianzar nuestro papel participativo como socios políticos en él, 2) dar “voz y voto” a todos los babelitos y babelitas, suscitando participación y encontrando manera de hacer llegar a todos la misma información por una misma vía (nos preguntamos si no sería prudente tener una sola lista de discusión, o foro, o Chat o como se le quiera llamar, reconocida como Babels, para no desparramarse y con ello perder información importante, o crear focos de decisiones entre unos cuantos, nada más). La tarea no es fácil porque se tiene que tener también agilidad y no caer en una parálisis por falta de mecanismos decisorios. En resumen, debemos aprovechar esta polémica para invitar a un verdadero debate sobre cómo poner en práctica nuestros principios y objetivos con una visión protagónica y no antagónica.

Desde Montreal, Canadá, les saludan,
Magaly Sala, Gustavo Castro y Alionka Skup

FR

Babelitos et babelitas,

Nous avons lu avec toute l’attention possible les échanges et différentes opinions. N’ayant pas participés de façon significative, jusqu’à ce jour, sur aucune liste de discussion nous nous sentons un peu éloignés de la polémique, par contre, nous nous sentons très impliqués par les objectifs et principes de Babels et considérons que Babels et Nomad sont des éléments importants dans la lutte pour un monde différent, raison pour laquelle nous nous impliquons et avons participé aux derniers Forums de Quito et Porto Alegre, et croyons que nous sommes tous d’accord sur ce point et c’est la motivation principale de notre participation.

C’est pour cela que nous proposons porter notre attention sur ce point - si nous voulons construire un autre monde, et nous le croyons personnellement très possible, nous devons dans notre manière de faire commencer à nous « pratiquer » et établir les bases à travers nos actions aujourd’hui, et ne pas le laisser à demain.

Retournons à la polémique :
- les points de vue divergents, sont non seulement quelque chose de positif, mais nécessaire, surtout dans un mouvement comme l’est Babels, si multifacettique, multiculturel, multitout… Mais les divergences, ne doivent pas constituer un point de rupture, c’est pourquoi l’expression utilisée de « coup d’état » nous sembles si éloignée de ce que nous tentons de faire. Comme il nous semble également, les actions menée à terme puisqu’elles ne cherchent pas un consensus mais plutôt à créer un courant parallèle au lieu de faciliter un rapprochement. Honnêtement nous nous inquiétons, mais nous croyons que ceci met également à la lumière des problèmes en lien avec l’utilisation de nouvelles technologies (l’Internet), à part des problèmes de fonds et fondamentaux, que sont les débuts d’une action collective, propositive, respétueuse, horizontal, et qui met en jeu tout le travail effectué préalablement par nos compatriotes qui tentent de propulser Babels vers l’avant sous des conditions difficiles, nouvelles, expérimentales et entièrement volontaires… Par ceci nous ne voulons pas dire que tout est parfait et que nous avons trouvé la formule magique, pas du tout, ceci est un travail en marche, ouvert, qui nécessite de la tête et l’expérience de toutes et tous, sans exception et une grande dose d’écoute, de tolérance et de confiance de la part de toutes et tous. Ne retombons pas dans le même piège de toujours en nous laissant diviser quand ce que nous devons faire est d’avancer unis dans nos divergences.

Babels est avant tout un organisme politique, et en s’y inscrivant, l’on accepte la Charte de principes et l’on comprend son engagement. Le débat sur l’horizontalité n’aurait jamais dû se présenter puisqu’elle fait partie intégrale de la structure politique. Aussi Babels est un organisme mondial, par conséquent aucun membre ne peut parler au nom d’un continent et il est dangereux que certaines personnes parlent au nom de l’Amérique en accusant les européens de vouloir contrôler Babels, quand eux-mêmes prennent la parole au nom du continent sans qu’il y est eu consultation publique. Aussi, si nous parlons d’une intégration américaine, nous ne devons pas oublier que l’Amérique entière est un seul continent, et qu’il existe des participants actifs dans les deux hémisphères.

Nous devons donc analyser la situation actuelle et voir quels correctifs nous pouvons apporter urgemment pour 1) nous consolider en tant que mouvement sérieux et qui mérite la confiance pour apporter aux Forums un appui réel et constructif, et à la fois intégrer notre rôle participatif comme alliés socio-politiques de ceux-ci, 2) donner une voix et un vote à tous les membres de Babels, incitant la participation et en trouvant une façon de faire parvenir à tous la même information, par une même voie (nous nous demandons si ce ne serait pas plus prudent d’avoir une seule liste de discussion, ou forum ou chat ou quoique ce soit, reconnu en tant que Babels, pour ne pas nous disperser et ainsi perdre de l’information importante, o créer des instances décisionnelle entre quelques membres seulement). La tâche n’est pas facile car il faut également avoir de l’agilité et ne pas tomber dans un état de paralysie générale par manque de mécanismes décisionnels. En résumé, nous devons profiter de cette polémique pour inviter à un réel débat sur la manière de mettre en fonction nos principes et objectifs avec une vision protagoniste et non pas antagoniste .

De Montréal, Canada, nous vous saluons
Magaly Sala, Gustavo Castro y Alionka Skup
Gustavo
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2005 6:52 pm
Location: Montreal Canada

PreviousNext

Return to Political Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron