[pp.int.general] Democracy in PPI

[Patrick Mächler]

Hi Eric,

We gladly accept criticism.
I try to summarize your observations in single lines
1) PPI communicates only trough it's own channels
2) The conference date was moved to a bad date for PPUK
3a) You think the RL approach is not fitting and
3b) PPI becomes eurocentric
4) You think a voting approach with 2 delegates per party is flawed

In the following I'll try to answer those 4 observations from my own
perspective. I speak for myself here.

1) PPI communicates only trough it's own channels
========================================
It's hard to deny that fact.
The problem is: Currently we don't have enough volunteers to
communicate into all party channels.
In my sense, the PPI ressources are by far more limited than those of
any party at the moment.
It's not like we're not trying to get them, see
http://www.pp-international.net/open-positions
As you see there are even positions that are not filled, which would
be crucial, e.g. a techteam lead.
In whatever way you put it: If you want to communicate internationally
with other pirate parties, it will drain some ressources from your
party.
Ok, you might question if the PPI approach is the best one.

2) The conference date was moved to a bad date for PPUK
===============================================
Currently we run a mailing list, where we try to reach party
representatives directly.
How was it setup? We tried to gather mail addresses of the parties
presidents; if they we're not available we tried to get the mail
addresses of the board or any other contact mail address mentionned.
We mailed to the list whether the added mail address were correct or
if there were requests to add other mail addresses (e.g. PPI
coordinators assigned by national boards) for the communication.
Why did we set it up? Also because we do lack ressources and we tried
to find an easy way to communicate with representatives of parties.
The mail address of Andrew Robinson (PP-UK president) is in that list.
Unfortunately we never got a reply from him concerning the preferences
for the conference date; else this would have been considered.

3a) You think the RL approach is not fitting
==================================
What solution would you have proposed instead of a real life conference?
I agree: It is an old fashioned approach, but it's an approach where
almost no one has distrust in.
I personally haven't seen a virtual solution, which e.g. fits my need
upon to decide which candidate I should vote for as a board member.
The usual problem of virtual approaches is that they can't transport
all context humans are used to; there is a reason why flamewars are
common on the net, but not so in real life.

3b) You think PPI becomes eurocentric
==================================
We have discussed this problem numerous times in the coreteam and we
certainly try everything that it's not becoming eurocentric;
we are actively looking for pirates outside of Europe to get involved
with us; not limited by sending out mails.
On the other hand the pirate movement started in Europe.
To our knowledge there has never been a party in Asia.
To our knowledge there is no party in Africa anymore.
The current situation in the US is delicate.
All of it is still no excuse for the current euro-centrism, but it's
part of the problem.

4) You think a voting approach with 2 delegates per party is flawed
===================================================
You mention yourself that it's difficult to find a fitting solution there.
Take a look at the United Nations General Assembly. Every country is
represented by exactly 1 delegate.
Bigger nations still exert more influence on the UN, than smaller ones do.

- pat