[pp.int.general] The conference - what went wrong; how can we do better?

[Andrew Norton]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 4/20/2010 4:43 PM, Ole Husgaard wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I think everybody who went to the conference agrees that there were a
> lot of problems. Now is the time to evaluate: What went wrong, and how
> can we make it better next time? How can we make PPI better? How can we
> make the PPI statutes better?

1) I think the key thing was that things were set up before the event.
There wasn't a final draft of the statutes until the day of the
conference, even though as recently as the Monday before, they were
promised (at the coreteam meeting) to be done by the 13th. Without
knowing exactly what was being voted, there was no way to debate and
*think* about the statutes before being asked to vote on them. If we had
all recieved a first draft, say 3 weeks beforehand, with another week
for any alterations, amendments and counter-proposed statutes to be sent
in, then a complete set of statutes, some with multiple proposals would
have been released in plenty of time for parties to discuss and debate them.

2) There was also some question over voting. As someone else explained
earlier, many people are unfamiliar with how the voting system worked (I
am not one of them, and for the record, while I was a candidate, I don't
have an issue with the result, only concerns over the process). If
people don't know how the system interprets their votes and uses them to
determine the result, then how they voted may not be reflected in the
actual results their votes generate. Personally, I don't feel this
voting system is the best for this task, as it places excessive
influence on 'first choice', when it was more a case of 'pick four'.
This system is more appropriate when either a) the candidates have very
differing policies or b) when there is a large number of voters. When
there are 20-30 voters, 8 candidates for 4 positions, it doesn't work so
well. The flaw is that if a candidate gets a lot of 2nd and 3rd place
choices, but little/few first place votes, they can be eliminated, even
if the majority feels them capable of holding one of the seats.

3) The third issue is the schedule itself. The event was held in Europe,
and was (with exceptions for the weather) fairly accessable for the
european parties. It was extremely inaccessable, physically, for the
non-European party delegates. The issue then becomes one of timing. With
the vast majority of the 'local' party reps in attendance, and those
distant doing so remotely, the timings were most convenient for the
local parties. The 9am start is very handy for those in Brussles, but if
you're in the Americas, it's anywhere between 4am and midnight making it
already difficult to attend. A later start would have been preferable
for the north, south and Central american party perspectives (although
it would have meant it was a later start for the Australian and NZ party
reps, who were 8-11 hours ahead of the conference). however, the timing
issue could mainly be defeated with point 1, as they could have 'postal
voted'. Timetables for future events should take into consideration that
PPI is not just a local or regional thing, but a worldwide thing.

4) sticking to the schedule. This was one of the most annoying ones as a
remote viewer. A 10 or 15 minute break went on for close to 40, and
nothing was said. An hour later, there was another quick break, that
lasted for at least twice as long as it was supposed to. It was rather
unfair to the remotes again. If a 10 minute break was called, and the
physical delegeates were ready to go after 10 mins, but none of the
remote ones were, would the break have continues, or would the event
have resumed? I think the latter. If a 10 minute break is called, then
it should be a 10 minute break only, if there are no physical delegates
present when the meeting restarts, that's their problem, just as it was
the remote delegates problem if they were not physically at their
keyboards throughout.

5) remote delegate participation. This was overall a big problem. The
ability to participate for remote delegates was poor. I know the best
was done, but it was very hard for a remote delegate to make an
alternate proposal, unlike a physical one. The best comparison is that
of a 'TV phone-in-poll', a bit like Big Brother (Ha!). The problems were
best shown when the camera was knocked on Saturday, leaving it pointing
upwards. It took a while before whoever could fix it did. I even
messaged one of the 3 at the front, saying that the camera needed to be
fixed, and he replied "not my problem...". It wouldn't have taken but a
few seconds to say 'hold on a second, can someone back there fix the
camera, it's been knocked out of place... ok great, please continue'.
This camera was not just the only way remote delegates had to
participate, but it was also the permanent record of the conference
(minutes and transcripts can be derived from the video, video can't be
derived from transcripts)

6) Funding. This was, again, a kick in the teeth for many. That those
with the cheapest travelling costs, were getting it subsidised by
another body, while those with vastly more expensive travel were not. If
the finding was something that was discovered after the date+place had
been set, that would be one thing, but when these things are set
specifically for this in mind, it's quite another. This is after all the
5th meeting, and it's the 5th one in Europe (Vienna, Berlin, Uppsala,
Helsinki and now Brussels) it means that every single meeting has been
'cheap' to attend for EU parties, and expensive for the rest. Hopefully
the next one will NOT be in the EU/Europe (or funding for non-European
parties to help them physically participate be found).

That's the main ones off the top of my head. There may be more.

Andrew


> 
> When evaluating it is useful to look at the arguments of people
> dissenting. The Swedes were dissenting, and one of the Swedes attending
> the conference (though not as a delegate) wrote an interesting blog
> entry in English, which I hope you want to read and perhaps comment on:
> http://schonning.wordpress.com/2010/04/20/controversies-in-the-ppi-conference/
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Ole Husgaard.
> 
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJLziJkAAoJECjjuYTW3X5HmWYH/RCVyDUeWMHM55Qe2qN2SwPY
uC1YuXHzQGF6Ad0sCuUf4dC28Jm/SLQSy2bGq1uwoluQxDFF4YGHyTZOkYj2W1G1
pU0GqOASZ4cacCFqusigyUZdkFlkXUt3cSGReGK2JiAlfPx9IRoa0jys8Nk05gus
GY+vG28oEYpkx7LtR+cYz0E11InjPJr5iHnGNVmeSxfdIW4rHlrzkm/V5SdkElkB
qgAuUUHrBookG/K/aB99DstALOs27eyWiq+VD/+FtoHDKLkz9CnGfMRXkcB/Arra
wWDbtLvFPxNMAC38La9PbbXwYF+2N0g5TpbvKSUvjyl9moQicty0RuD+CLRIPOE=
=3Wo+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----