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

[Ole Husgaard]

Hi Andrew,

As usual you have some very good and relevant points. Some of those I
have commented on in the link earlier in this thread.

As for voting, I think it was explained so most could understand. If
somebody could not understand I hope (think) they would not have
hesitated to ask. The chair most of Saturday and Sunday was very helpful
with the few questions I had.

As for time zones we have to realise that this is a global movement. No
matter where we have the conference, it will be in the night for
somebody on the other side of the globe. But now we have had the first
five pirate party conferences in Europe, and I hope the next one will be
elsewhere.

The main problem this time was bad preparation. Mostly from the statutes
task force, but also from the delegates participating. And selecting a
person who was central in the statutes task force for the meeting chair
was a bad choice. Fortunately he was replaced after a few hours.

You have some very relevant issues about remote participants that need
to be addressed. Stating a break of some duration and then having a much
longer break is not fair to the remote delegates. And it is a major
problem if remote delegates have trouble putting in proposals or making
motions.

Maybe we (or better the remote participants) should elect a remote
participant advocate next time among those physically present? Somebody
who can speak up in the physical forum when remote delegates do not get
the same treatment as people physically attending.

Best Regards,

Ole Husgaard.

Andrew Norton skrev:
> 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
> howAndrew Norton skrev:
>> -----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-----
>> ____________________________________________________
>> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
>> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
>> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>>
>>     
>
>
> > 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
>
____________________________________________________
Pirate Parties International - General Talk
pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general