[pp.int.general] court of arbitration

[Maxime Rouquet]

(Sorry for spaming again...)

On 03/25/2011 01:39 AM, Nuno Cardoso wrote:
> A full-time remote delegate proxy person was needed, and in that
> particular issue the lack of it became a problem.
I share your point of view, in a way I simply push it further. You want
something like "PPI should provide a delegate for all the parties that
remotely vote" ; I believe it is asking too much to a small team with
even smaller budget who do a lot but has no superpowers.

My solution is similar, except in a DIY way : you chose such a delegate,
however you want (all parties the same guy or each party a different
one). Only one big difference : PPI will not be responsible and the GA
will not be canceled for any problem you have with your delegate.

Anybody can provide a better solution or discuss, that is the principle
of democracy.

> BTW, our vote was "We know none of these people, had no info or
> introduction to any of them, so we vote BLANK",
(I share your opinion that candidate should have been presented BTW).

> but now that at least
> the opinions of one of them are known, yours, we would probably ranked
> you as our last choice, 
Please keep in mind two things :

First, your main objective is getting everybody to introduce themselves,
do not forget that even if you have another one.

Second, I remind everybody that I am at the same time a member of the
CoA and a pirate. I express my opinion here as a pirate, but I will not
impose them over the PPI or any instance I take part into. I might be
considered a little bit schizophrenic, but I am not despotic.

I also precise that, if someone was to ask the Court of Arbitration to
state on my case, I would not take part to the vote.

> and be sure that our vote on such undemocratic
> amendment will be NO!
That is your right. But may I suggest you focus on writing a better
amendment, so that we fix the original problem(s) ?