[pp.int.general] Invitation to the PPI General Assembly 2011

Thu Jan 20 00:24:48 CET 2011

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 1/19/2011 3:06 PM, Gregory Engels wrote:

... a lot of stuff that doesn't match with facts.

> On 19.01.2011, at 20:19, Andrew Norton wrote:
> 
>> and why, for the first time, a location was not actively sought out and
>> organised (as was done in the past, especially as now we have a board
>> which is supposed to do that),
> 
> What gives you an impression, that the board is not organizing the
> conference? I also like to add, that comparing the past, as international
> conferences were held with a dozen or so participants with the now
> planned event, that aims for c.a. 150 participants, will at best will give
> a slightly skewed impression.

I know they were before your time, but the early ones had more than 'a
dozen or so participants'. This event, do you have "150 participants"
confirmed, or is that just your hope? Many of the others have said a
similar kind of 'hope', even the first one.

How do I know you're not organizing it? Because you yourself said so,
when you sent out a request for bids for it. If you're organising it,
YOU are organising it, you're not asking anyone else to give you
suggestions for organising it.

Let's put it another way. Either you organised it, and spat in the face
of tradition (and of all the non-EU parties) by deciding it would be in
Germany (your home country, and also rather close to Jay's home
location, meaning 3-4 hours drive for both offers)
OR, You did not organise it, and it was put up for an open submission
process (as http://int.piratenpartei.de/Conference-offers would
indicate) then you have just flat-out LIED.

> 
>> and why the established guidelines of
>> having it in a different country each time was ignored.
> 
> There were no other offers from any other country than Germany. As
> you know, you actively have lobbied in the US-PP against submitting
> an offer to host the conference in New-York.

Again, a flat out lie.
Sorry, but the only person I actively said 'the US is a bad idea' and
"lobbied" as you put it to, was yourself, in private. To which your
response was, I believe something along the lines of "I don't care about
the border thing myself, I go to the US maybe twice a year anyway, and
it doesn't bother me" (I'll grep my logs for the actual quote if you
wish) but that was in response to the statement from me, to you, that
many pirate members are unwilling to submit to the extremely intrusive
border procedures of the US that the Pirate Parties actively are
against. It's a sickening example of what we brits call "I'm all right,
Jack" (where because it's not an issue for you, you dismiss it as an
issue for anyone else), which is just plain not acceptable in someone
who is a leader of an international body, ESPECIALLY when we're dealing
with what is a core issue of that body.

As to the US proposal itself. At the time it was proposed to the US
party that we put in an offer (November 3rd 2010) I was not present (in
fact, I had a 103F/39.3C fever, and a very swollen face, leaving me
unable to eat for a week). It was approved
(http://memwiki.pirate-party.us/2010-11-03) and sent to the New York
(the city YOU were lobbying for, despite it's high costs - it is after
all one of the most expensive places in the world) state party to act on
(in the form of prolific PPI poster, Jay Emerson). When, a day before
the deadline, another national party officer asked for records and/or
details about the offer, he was told there was none, and that 'more
time' would be requested (http://memwiki.pirate-party.us/2010-11-30
search for 'convention')

> 
> We have sent out three reminders on submitting offers, and have
> actively asked many parties, but with no success.
> 

So, you are confirming the earlier question that were not doing the
initial organisation, but were asking others to submit. So, when you
said "What gives you an impression, that the board is not organizing the
conference?" my answer is "every one of your 3 reminders, the PPI wiki,
and the initial request for offers" gave me that impression.

Here's another reason why I know you didn't organise them. PPI minutes
from December 30th
"Gregory comment: I really see both offerors as very capable to conduct
our conference and to fulfill all of our requirements - the Osnabrück
offers would perhaps mean more flexibility and therefore i would have
preferred it, if I could vote fully free. But to avoid a deadlock"

So you even admit that you weren't even holding out for the best
conference, you were just gong for what was EASIEST.

>> Also, is the new board going to be elected before the new statutes, or
>> vice versa (it makes a BIG difference, when you're elected, and you
>> don't even know the details of the job and powers you've been elected
>> to do)
> 
> Dear Andrew, as this obviously has sliped your attention, as you was
> reading
> the Invitation, it had a preliminary agenda attached to it. If you go and
> reread it, your question should be answered.

I missed it, partly because the email was poorly laid out, and then,
once I HAD found it, it took more time to understand which 'voting
block' was which. Mostly though, I was a little upset to finish it,
after reading all the double-talk, and misdirection and outright lies in
the main body of the email (like the "General Assembly - highest body of
the PPI", which anyone who actually reads the statutes and has gone
through your meeting logs knows is not true)

So please, Gregory, tell us more why we should support this sham of an
organisation, which seems to be mostly run for the benefit of one or two
people (coincidentally enough, the same people that wrote its statutes)
and which has done less (with more, no less) in the past year, than the
organisation has done at any time prior to your stewardship.

Frankly, your actions and activities over the past 9 months have
*SICKENED* me. You are spineless, duplicitous, and self-absorbed. We
also won't mention (too much) how, despite supposedly being separate
from any national party, you've been actively working for the German
party. Oh go on then, since I ended up mentioning it. The fact that you,
despite supposedly not considering yourself part of any national party
(according tot he statutes YOU HELPED WRITE), boast on your national
party wiki page (http://wiki.piratenpartei.de/Benutzer:Dichter), that
you are their (PPDE's) international representative, and also an
elections officer and candidate in an election taking place at roughly
the same time as this conference. You can hardly be said to be working
in PPI's best interests, when at the same time you're working
specifically for a national party in order to get elected (and already
taken part in a local election not 3 months ago), AND when you represent
that same party in the General Assembly. It showcases one of two things,
a disgusting lack of integrity, or a unforgivable lack of thought to not
recognise such a conflict of interests. Either one, to be honest,
requires you resign from your PPI post forthwith, if you do have any
integrity and wish to preserve any prospect of PPI being viewed as more
than just a waste of time, money and effort, and a mouth piece for
specific national parties.

The work of the board in general has also been useless. There are issues
- - the lack of transparency (here's an idea, instead of an audio
recording, publish a transcript as well, that way it doesn't
discriminate against those that can't listen to the files - either for
hardware reasons, or medical ones - or who can't actually make out what
you are saying, AND makes things actually searchable.); with bank
accounts; the nearly month-long lack of the PPI website, which was
reported on Jan 4th as "Hard disk crash, Gregory is in contact. Backup
is there, should be up soon." &now the 19th and still nothing; then
there's been the financial repayment issues from the LAST conference.

In fact, is there ANY topic, situation, or action in which the PPI, as
it is now, has acted in a timely manner, showing integrity and
transparency. The same kinds of integrity, and transparency the national
parties PPI claims to represent were formed to demand from our
respective governments. I've spent the past part of 90 minutes when
writing these emails, and I've not found any yet. And perhaps if there
was, People might still actually care about the PPI, maybe to the point
where someone other than your own party would have put in a bid.

> 
> sincerely yours,
> 
> Gregory Engels
> Co-Chairman
> Pirate Parties International
PiratenPartei representative to the PPI General Assembly
Municipal elections officer and leading candidate in Offenbach for the
local elections on 03/27/2011

> 
> mobile: +49 172 853 44 91
> skype:gregory.engels
> jabber:dichter at jabber.piratenpartei.de
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general

- -- 
Andrew Norton
http://ktetch.blogspot.com
Tel: (352)6-KTETCH [352-658-3824]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNN3LAAAoJECjjuYTW3X5H4IMH/1vomY4NNOSC4aotc7+/tdgX
8u5vUqIC/GAJuzib19ADkXL+4Lbyt2QbIUtK7znRNbj/5+dFMFIy/Bcmb5pSUxia
Sp8oCJcE7z68h0SsN+cE3tPzn8TPTYCA+xxdnsqtrwIHYUV7UKzJb4P748/ie5QT
fwyi2OEe83ggnD07rr5RS6mO8WJTtwf7jnykojnLheNEsrJQ0UbUlzNkrBfyy3Gg
0WXanYNfTpNuyEjlcvC5w0J4uTitA7JdIgMT7v4GDCoXY9eTwA6b0YhStAHzL38n
1/eH5fcDUIHsbWSMLk+U9C/+c/xvTQetvZG7W1Ugfh8NlKV5X9k8GmV+8FZLGW4=
=nhT4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----