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

[Mårten Fjällström]

Sven Clement wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Andrew Norton <ktetch at gmail.com 
> <mailto: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!
Should I take it that the GA has decided upon zero as the amount paid in 
affiliation fee (as outlined in XVI:1 of the statu), irrelevant of (as 
sated in XVI:2) finances and memberships of the parties? 
>
>
>     >
>     > 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!
Assuming this offer applies not only to Andrew, I will seize the 
opportunity. Move to amend XVI by changing XVI:2 to flatrate (or strike 
XVI in anticipation of such a time that the members are willing to pay a 
fee).

In PPSE XVI:2 is perceived as a major point of contention, as there is 
little willingness to commit an unknown percentage of our budget. Much 
donations are raised towards specific targets and shall not be diverted, 
likewise future government contributions to local and regional politics 
are by law marked for such purposes. If XVI:2 is not used anyway (if it 
was used PPI would mainly cash in from PPDE I believe) I suggest 
removing it, as it would make it easier for PPSE to join.

I am not against sharing mind you, and if there is projects that need 
financing PPI can always discuss with its richer members how to share 
costs in a fair way.

Regards,
Mårten Fjällström
Party Secretary
Piratpartiet Sweden