[pp.int.general] Is PPI dead, or was it ever really born?

[Sven Clement]

On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Andrew Norton <ktetch at gmail.com> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> [SNIP]
>
> The people running it can't organise it without payment, then paying
> them is just throwing money away. how many of us get paid for this sort
> of thing? very few, and yet we mostly seem to have a semblance of
> competence.
>

I did not ask for that they should be paid, I stated the fact that material
(even servers and/or bandwith) has an associated cost which has to be
settled if you want to use it ;) The PPI runs on donations only, so no
planning for the future as nobody wants to put money in!


>
> There was plenty of agreement of what PPI should be, mainly because it's
> been agreed for the last 2 years. The problem is, the people responsible
> for the statutes, were just incompetent and/or lazy. They went to a
> piss-poor forum to try and create them, which was a huge source of
> issues, and then didn't bother to deliver as promised.
>

There you are lacking knowledge from the conference. There were some people
at the conference who did not agree on the statutes and on what the PPI
should be. So NO way of having something being agreed upon earlier. Ask
around and ask who did want a strong PPI with a mandate and who did want a
PPI _only_ communicating and who did want something completely different.
Thus it was impossible beforehand to plan in detail statutes and the PPIs
direction as there were MAJOR differences in perception. So I have to say
that the PPI was NOT defined when we arrived in Brussels and it wasn't
defined in January when I met with the then core-team.


>
> [SNIP]
> >
> >> As I did not watch the stream, I cannot comment on this but in my
> >> opinion it was not willingly that Wolfgang pointed the camera away, but
> >> as I said I did not see the stream.
> >
>
> We discussed it 5 months ago. It wasn't that it was deliberately pointed
> away, so much as 'if you aren't physically present, we don't care about
> you'. Reinforcing the EU-centric 'mindset' that pervades the PPI.
>

I cannot remember such a mindset by the participants. We did everything to
remind ourselves constantly that there were people from all over the world
participating and that we needed to accommodate them. I know that this is
difficult to understand, but even with a best effort sometimes remote
participation is because of a lag difficult.


>
> [SNIP]
> >> I do not listen to the board meetings as I trust Jerry to inform me, and
> >> he confirmed that attendance by board members is low, but I ask you what
> >> are they allowed to do? The statutes do not foresee that the board can
> >> exclude board members.
>
> And who wrote them? One of the current chairmen was in charge of it, no?
> Attendance is low, because there's no real point in attending. Why
> bother turning up for "who is the next party of the week".
>

Apparently it is not only the attendance at the meetings but the
availability of some of the board members. Nobody actually wrote the
statutes, as you clearly stated beforehand, those statutes where mostly
designed and written by the conference participants which had no
distinguishable direction, thus the statutes are lacking. But this is a
problem solvable. Furthermore, as I stated beforehand, if you had the
imagination that the PPI's direction was decided upon, I have to tell you it
wasn't when you look back at Brussels and before.


>
> >
> >> Anyway, with the fact in mind, that they do not have money (except some
> >> little donations) PPI is working, they are currently rolling out the PPI
> >> press release exchange (parrot.pp-international.net
> >> <http://parrot.pp-international.net>), furthermore they have an ACTA
> >> taskforce working hard to prevent ACTA becoming reality
>
> This the same ACTA taskforce which has been in existance for the last,
> what, 9-10 months? And big whoop, again with the money. Welcome to how
> many of the parties (outside the EU certainly) operate. The lack of
> funding was known at the start (remember, one of the chairman was in
> charge of this). Fianlly, hate to blow my own trumpet, but when I ran
> it, solo, for 9 months, I had no money to do it, yet I somehow managed
> to stay in touch with most of the parties. You don't need money to do a
> basic job of communications.
>

No but, you need money for most of everything else! You see my pattern I
think that if you want to run a successful organization, you need money. And
yes most of the EU parties too work without money.


>
> >
> >> PPI is working on a new Identity or better a real Identity before
> >> launching a new website which is already in planning stage.
> >
>
> Which will be ready when, another 5-6 months? This is just like the
> statutes. "it's cmoming, we're planning" and what we eventually get is
> rushed, done last minute, and as you yoursef have pointed out, piss-poor
> in content. It's like the procrastinating kid, who only does his
> homework on the bus on the way to school, the morning it's due.
>

Actually I already saw drafts and I know they are working on it, do you want
sth. rushed only to show it to you, or do you want something solid?


>
> [SNIP]
> >
> >
> > I've also heard from others that there are whole lists of people in
> > task-forces, that have been waiting for 'something to do', yet have been
> > ignored by the board.
> >
> >
> >> Which? I know from work to be done and nobody being available to do
> it...
> >
>
> What work? I went back two months in the meetings and nothing about work
> needing doing was mentioned (generally, in a competent organisation,
> when work needs doing, you tend to include at least a monthly status
> update), and I've gone back a few months on here, and I've noticed only
> TWO requests for help. One for a translation task force 3 weeks ago
> (what happened to the old one?), and one June 24th on 'best practices on
> creating a party'
>
> Not exactly overflowing with work.
>

INDECT, ACTA, tech-team are the ones I know from.

Perhaps they will call tomorrow for sb. to manage the forum, which would be
work. I hate the mentality of "Nobody tells me what to do", we pirates
should adopt the method "If I can do it, I will offer my help!"


>
> >
> >
> > Boards are another thing that need mentioning, as the PPI forum is
> > completely buried in spam. Despite 7 board members, and not actually
> > doing anything (as evidenced by their own meeting minutes) they can't
> > even keep a forum free of spam.
> >
> >
> >> I do not think and there we probably disagree that it is the boards work
> >> to keep a forum clean! I think that if the tech TF doesn't do it, then
> >> we might need to find a dedicated forum mod.
> >
>
> We have an organisation with no real activity, and with a board made up
> of members who should not have any other party affiliations. Just how
> many more people does it need? You're telling me that at the same time
> as the board is not doing their jobs, they also need a tech
> team/taskforce as well? I think we've found the problem. The board sees
> everything as 'someone else's problem' and a job that needs a task force
> to do the work for them. They (especially the chairmen) are apparently
> incapable of rolling up their sleeves and doing some damned work. Let me
> also remind you, as the board, they are ultimately responsible for the
> PPI, and it's actions, or inaction. It's an area of inaction, and one
> that reflects badly on PPI, and on the movement as a whole. That they
> couldn't turn around and spend 20 minutes each once a week to clean it,
> because they are 'above it, and it's the tech team's job' just shows how
> detached, and to use a british phrase, "hoity toity" they are.
>

Did you think only one moment about what work they have to do to get this
mess they BOTH inherited from their predecessors to be accepted as a legal
entity, what they need to do to help NEW pirate parties around the world.
AFAIK both have jobs aside from PPI thus are not able to work 16hrs a day
for PPI.

Did you offer them your help? (I think if you have time to rant, you have
time to help...) And yes I did offer my help, which was accepted ;)


>
> >
> >
> > It's a classic case of all around incompetence. Pirate Party
> > International is anything but. Even as Pirate Party Europe it fails
> > miserably. All it is, is 'Pirate Party of the week'
> >
> >
> >> See my comments before, I disagree with this point
> >
> I can't comment on secret plans they have, but don't bother to put in
> their minutes, all I can comment on are their actual actions, and what
> gets put into their official record. Good intentions are great, but the
> board wasn't elected for having good intentions, they were elected to
> ACT. They have NOT ACTED. They have done nothing.
>
>
I never wrote of secret plans, but of plans clearly laid out in the wiki and
plans being acted upon!


> >
> [SNIP!]
> >
> >
> >> Let's be blunt here, the mess was already there with a "de facto"
> >> association with no statutes and a bank account with not known
> >> liabilities before the conference and it was pointed out many times at
> >> the conference (also by me) that we would need an organization to get
> >> things running smoother. (and to get more legal protection for the
> board)
> >
> The mess, who was head of that mess? "Co-President - Jerry Weyer / Jay"
> of the coreteam, looks a lot like "Co-Chairman - Jerry Weyer / Jay" of
> the board. I somehow don't think your point comes off too well in that
> light.
>

Oh yeah? And what did he inherit? When I first met the old core-team in
January 2009 in Brussels, they where overwhelmed and needed more manpower.
They then called out for help multiple times because they where inable to
organize the conf. for February as planned, and only then Jerry came aboard,
so which mess did he cause?


>
> [SNIP]
> >
> >> I do not agree that this is because of the board but because of statutes
> >> which are a compromise between different opinions about PPI and I have
> >> to repeat myself, this can be changed by the GA.
>
> Thats right, the GA, which erm, meets once a year. The statutes, again,
> happened the way they did, because it was organised by an incompetent,
> using a piss-poor setup. That could never create workable results.
>

I quote the statutes:

> The General Assembly shall meet at least once a year.
>
And it can be called by 1/3 of the members or the board.

Thus if you are that unhappy, please contact 1/3 of the members and they
will call a GA.


> [SNIP]
> >
> >> I would propose to give them until the first year anniversary before
> >> restarting the entire thing which will lead in my opinion to new
> >> problems where pirates internationally will have no common platform.
>
> Yes, because giving them another 6 months to do nothing in will make a
> world of difference. Here's something I've noticed in business: Those
> that have done nothing in 6 months, won't do anything in 12 either. And
> let's be blunt, if the best they can do in 6 months is some intentions,
> and a 'party of the week', then what are we supposed to expect after 12?
> A new website to be left abandoned? some sort of actual emails from the
> board? Maybe a meeting where the whole board can be bothered to turn up?
>
> If you think we have a problem that pirates internationally will not
> have a common platform, then you've not really read the documents on the
> PPI Wiki either. We do have a common platform, and it was even collated
> in detail, 2 years ago, by Carlos.
>

The PPI has no right in defining a common platform, because the conference
refused this point!


>
> >
> > This will anger some people, but frankly, the actions (or complete lack
> > thereof) have angered me, and only the extremely naive would accept that
> > hiding from the truth is acceptable - and if you are that naive,
> > politics isn't for you.
> >
> >
> >> I understand your anger but I think its not a lack of actions but more a
> >> lack of communication which angers you.
>
> No, lack of action, communication (which is, I guess more action), lack
> of results, lack of anything really. Which is kinda the point.One of our
> major problems with current governments and parties, is that they do t
> heir own little thing, and are not accountable to the electorate. I
> can't think of anywhere that describes better than the PPI Board. The
> ONLY way to remove a board member, is for them to be defeated at
> election; there is *no* other way. They are not accountable to anyone,
> and this has caused this lack of activity.
>

You are free to propose amendments to the statutes, and if your membership
is not granted by the next GA, I would gladly introduce them for you!


>
> Well, enough is enough. I actually care enough about this thing as a
> whole, to hold them to account. I'm tired of excuses, I'm tired of
> incompetence, and I'm tired of good intentions being accepted as a
> substitute for actions. The road to hell is paved with good intentions,
> and what's more, intentions do nothing, for nobody. The statutes don't
> make no mention of good intentions, but does list several actions and
> aims. These have been ignored for the last 5 months, and again, enough
> is enough on it.
>

Please tell me which actions have been ignored?
At least I know that they had action on:
II 2. (b) / II 2. (c) [cf. ACTA-TF] / II 2. (f) / II 2. (g)



>
> Stop settling for incompetence, Sven. You wouldn't want your party run
> that way, and PPI is 'all of our' party. I can't bear to see it
> bastardized any more, so, unlike our esteemed board, I'm actually doing
> something about it.
>

I'm not settling for incompetence, but I truly believe in what I say/write.
If my party would be run like this, I would use the power given to me by the
statutes and change something instead of rant. If you, Andrew, prefer
ranting over actually using the tools at your hands it is your choice.

And as you see I too do sth. about it, and be it only to remind everybody
also of the actions the PPI did.


Sven
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/attachments/20100927/d85daaa0/attachment-0001.htm>