[pp.int.general] court of arbitration

[Andrew Norton]

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

On 3/22/2011 3:06 PM, Maxime Rouquet wrote:
> 
>> You've chosen to support the second. Why?
> I did not chose. I am pretty sure your first option is not possible :
> the Court of Arbitration had to be elected "like the Board". And that is
> what the General Assembly did, as much as possible (and this despite you
> *and me* disliking how things went).

Ok, so this is the nub.
Ok, the Board can be elected at the annual General ASsembly meeting, or
at any emergency meeting.
"(4) The Board is elected by the General Assembly at the regular
sessions or if an extraordinary session is requested for that purpose."

NOW, here's the thing.
There is one thing in common in both of those things. Forewarning.
IX (7) Meetings of the General Assembly will be announced at least five
weeks prior to the meeting. The invitation will be sent out by the Board
to all Members and published on the homepage of Pirate Parties
International website.

So, all meetings of the GA, be they the annual one, OR the extraordinary
one JUST for voting on the board has at least 5 weeks notice, PLUS get
emailed to all members, AND on the website. That means we ALWAYS have
*AT LEAST* 5 weeks notice of an election.

So the court is established with the following statement
(7) The Court of Arbitration shall have between three and seven Members.
The provisions concerning the election of the Members of the Board and
vacancies apply accordingly.

However, instead of 5 weeks notice, a 'sent' invitation, and a post to
the website, we get 1 day, and 'mentioned during the conference'.

How are the provisions thus accorded 'alike'

NOW, the argument is that since the General Assembly was already in
session, the court was REQUIRED to be elected then. However, there was
no such requirement in the amendment. Further, the GA was already in
session before the Court was even formed and no public mention was made
of it.
Now, what WOULD have been acceptable, was if the schedule already
contained a spot for the election, condictional on the passing of that
amendment. Also that, on the passing of the amendment, an email was sent
out (to here, for instance) warning of the election, and giving a place
to submit candidacies and a time for the vote. Neither of those things
happened however.

Now, lets look at it another way.

The requirement for an emergency meeting is 1/3 of the GA. The
requirement for passing an amendment is 2/3. So, in passing the
amendment, which requires a vote held int he same way as the board, it
could be taken as a de-facto acknowledgement for an emergency meeting to
fulfill that duty. In other words, passing the amendment also passed an
emergency meeting to fully enact that amendment. That is the only way to
interpret the PPI statutes in a way consistent with Pirate Philosophy.
Anything else is just hypocrisy.

I don't get the opposition. Apparently, 'because the GA did it' means it
is incapable of flaws? "Because that's how it was decided to be done
means that's how it is, even if it breaks our own rules"?
Are some people incapable of admitted they acted in error, that they
were hasty, or that it was not in the best traditions of the pirate
parties? Or are people afraid that the court's "judges" will change?

The establishment of a court sets the tone for it's decisions. When is
effectively elected 'secretly' on an extremely short timescale via a
group of insiders without notice to the wider group it is supposed to
police, it has no legitimacy, and becomes a tool wielded for control.

When it is elected openly, honestly, with transparency, notification and
openess, it's position and authority will respect that.

To know about the election you had to be there, or watching the stream.
TO take part, you pretty much had to be physically there. That's not
fair, open, transparent. It's also the reason we have such breaks of "5
weeks" - so that people are not rushed into hasty decisions. So, why is
it we're against these practices, unless it's done in the name of the
GA, then it's perfect?





- -- 
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/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNiPuvAAoJECjjuYTW3X5Hj6MIAJKnzZot4u6O0bgpo1rfQr6G
LtqIf+DVeDFOPa8e0LfG8EFJz3RBSOD9Ox3qOS0+6VleOEiyqDIfFhPb4/n3Rh2z
XKk5aM/9g5SUwfytS8bYVB9U6I4hiTAJ51SNYzz5oCFo6jjDVFEFoRB+ZI9zeyIY
6lNSWFd/PIB3L5yuGwo8SCJeiu4g7Bzoqvai5rWlclSeEmQPRxBlmh3YLMKnh8iC
yEQG4NvJesNXaRFkqvFqMLwScwZ6A+XzbCXWM3XpRBbv518GvfgSdlVeIPbu0MtO
WdB6fCA2RxRZCh9fA7YZUkDWzwEeezgGsXdUiznt5mW7cLU98sxJKcEuLcbw8+Y=
=Qq+I
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----