[pp.int.general] pp.international.general Digest, Vol 58, Issue 21

[Samir Allioui]

As usual, Andrew is being the pain in the back who talks truth.
I can not deny any of the statements being made.

However, there is two things i'd like to point out.
One: All items mentioned by Andrew are 100% correct.
And i tried rectifying them indeed. 
However, this was all to no avail due to all other board members voting down
all proposals without providing constructive feedback or alternatives.

Secondly; i'd like to point a finger at the functioning of the coreteam 3 years ago
in retrospect with the functioning of PPI the last two years so that everyone can draw their conclusions.

And at last, In a sense, i have to admit being desperate indeed.
Being responsible for something you can't influence is [ insert some bad words. ]
At the very least the truth came out. I don't consider that to be a bad thing because
we can't solve issues if we don't acknowledge them first.

/Samir.

> I've got to say, of all the emails and recriminations, I've seen,
> Brendan's makes the most sense.
> 
> I think a big part of the issue comes down to the actions of the
> Board, specifically, the co-Chairmen, since we have two of them.
> Except we don't, because one quit, and very little notice was made of
> this. The point in my last email was that we now have four board
> members, we elected 7, and yet there's been NO push notice to the
> list. The only way you'd know is if you went hunting for the
> information yourself, and why would you do that unless you already
> knew? Here, Samir, you really have no grounds to complain, since we
> talked about this VERY issue almost a year ago, with Gregory, and we
> BOTH criticised him heavily for his method of notifications, which
> consisted of a small section of a wiki page on a larger topic, hiding
> the issue in amongst the rest of things.
> 
> Here's the biggest problem, that I for one was unaware that
> nominations for locations was open, OR closed. Because this list,
> arguably the most public way to notify everyone, was never used. If I
> don't know, I can't talk to people about it. I can't encourage people,
> or offer help and advice with hosting.
> 
> What we don't know, we can't help fix. That's the biggest problem.
> 
> And unfortunately, Samir as (the one remaining) Co-chairman, it would
> be your responsibility to make us aware, to keep us all informed. You
> failed to do your job, so we couldn't do ours, and the result was the
> location choice.
> 
> I'm not happy about it myself, but the situation is of your making
> Samir, at least in part. Personally, if I'd been aware of the dates
> and the submissions to-date (instead of them just being hidden away on
> the wiki (the equivalent of hiding the notice in the bottom of a
> locked filing cabinet in a disused bathroom with a sign on the door
> saying 'beware of the leopard')
> 
> Had I known of how things were ahead of time, I would have perhaps put
> together a proposal for a virtual meeting. Thus ensuring that instead
> of some of us being treated as 2nd class representatives and
> participants (and almost always the same group of us, considering the
> geographic proximity of location) then we would all be the same.
> 
> Finally, I have real problems with anyone that's attacking people
> personally. Especially on non-relevant issues such as who is seeing
> who. It's the lowest form of muck-raking. Now, I didn't get the email
> itself (for some reason it's screwy and so some emails I haven't got)
> but really I'm disgusted. Such attacks are the sign of someone acting
> out of desperation, and I have nothing but the utmost contempt for
> anyone that stoops to those sorts of activities.
> 
> PPI needs to be about doing. Right now, a lot of it has been about
> posturing, and self-promotion, or promoting European parties. It's
> main job, of facilitating communications between parties has, quite
> clearly failed. Above all else, the issue at the heart of this
> 'debate' was one where proper communication could have solved the
> issues before they started. Instead, the person who brought this
> complaint, is arguably guilty of doing the same thing that they
> accused rthe last board of doing a year ago, and who promised to
> rectify things if elected.
> 
> So much for that..... Instead the Bureaucratic Process has taken over,
> instead of actual logs, we have minutes, instead of issues openly
> discussed, they're buried in said minutes, uploaded without notice.
> And so we end up at this point.
> 
> The question is, where do we go from here, and how. And how do we deal
> with the multude of issues that have now been brought up?
> 
> Above all though, PPI has *GOT* to start functioning like a real body,
> an international body, and not just a 'isn't Europe Great, and we love
> bureaucracy too, gosh aren't we important' kinda group, which is the
> general impression I have gotten over the past 2 years. It has to
> start actually DOING SOMETHING. First though, it has to start
> communicating, and doing so effectively. Updating a wiki-page is NOT
> communicating, and never has been, It's record-keeping at best,
> nothing more.
> 
> Finally, I'd like to point out one more thing.
> I'm aware of at least two different members of the press on this list,
> there may be more. The decision to air personal grievances and
> personal attacks is not only stupid beyond belief, but showing a high
> level of incompetency, and a disregard for the purposes of the list. I
> don't think anyone here tolerates it. To attempt to claim the moral
> high ground though, when you are a primary cause of what you're
> railing against, publicly, that's absolutely inexcusable, and shows a
> complete lack of accountability. Considering that a large part of our
> stance in general is about accountability, then the wisdom of having
> such a person in a leadership role of any kind is one we should all
> think hard about.
> 
> Andrew
> (who is not at home, which is why this email is NOT signed)