[pp.int.general] court of arbitration

[Nuno Cardoso]

On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 11:47 PM, Maxime Rouquet <
maxime.rouquet at partipirate.org> wrote:

> 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.
>

Hum... That "Only one big difference" is bogus, it doesn't exist, because I
never said that the GA should be canceled because of that. What I said was
that, with the used solution "A full-time remote delegate proxy person was
needed, and in that particular issue the lack of it became a problem."


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

Yes it is. I have a possible solution without the need for a "full-time
remote delegate proxy person".
Instead of a computer with skype, the next PPI conference could have one
with mumble instead, permanently connected to some loudspeakers and make all
remote delegates be on "Push-To-Talk" and have "Attenuate applications by"
at 100% (preventing noisy feedback from any video feed of the conference).
That way, when someone has something important to say and no one is reading,
he can simple push and say it out loud "Hey guys! Remote delegate from
<insert place> over here! I have an issue! I would like to blah blah
blah..."
Simple enough with what already exists on budget and no need for any
superpowers.

> 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.
>

Agreed, but your views as a pirate speak out for your personality, and that
undemocratic view of not wanting to allow remote voting is enough to cast a
(possibly unfair) "undemocratic" suspicion on it because it is the only view
that we know of. To me, no amount of schizophrenia can justify that someone
with such undemocratic view in one role could be a perfect democrat while in
some other role, sorry. Since we would like judges with full democratic
views, you would be, at the moment, the last choice.


> 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.
>

That didn't even cross my mind, as it would be such a conflict of interest
that no court worthy of that name could even allow it. And it it did, it
would certainly cause outrage and calls for an emergency GA to be held
(possibly with many remotes due to it's unexpected nature and proving once
again the importance of remote voting for true democracy in the PPI)

> 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) ?
>

No need to write an amendment on something that already states what we
defend. The implementation is what needs to be improved. I made
a suggestion above, hope it helps next year's conference run smoother for
remotes. :)

Nuno
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/attachments/20110330/e69a42a3/attachment.html>