[pp.int.general] No PPI board meeting tonight

[Thomas Gaul]

Am 25.05.2011 14:30, schrieb Andrew Norton:
> On 5/25/2011 8:06 AM, Antonio Garcia wrote:
> > If 4 form a qualified quorum, as you suggest, you might consider the
> > meeting to have validly taken place with only one point on the agenda...
> > to postpone treatment of any matter to the next meeting.
>
> > Does it really matter that the formalities of what was reasonably
> > possible have not been followed? Have they simplified one step too far?
>
> These are the statutes. They were codified for a reason. Once you start
> ignoring them for expediency on one occasion, then you start ignoring
> them more and more often, and in the end, what's their point.
>
> These were the very rules that they agreed to abide by when running and
> taking office. As we as a whole, as a movement, are trying to hold
> politicians to a higher standard in their actions, and often running on
> that very basis for office, how can we then turn around and say 'well,
> it doesn't really matter, it might SAY it, but it doesn't mean we have
> to abide by it' - does that make us any better, any different?
>
> We had the same problem with the last board as well, deciding not to
> honour their requirements (even though they mostly wrote those
> requirements) and I called that board out on it too. This one promised
> they would be different. Seems they aren't.
>
Sorry Andrew, you are making up problems where there aren't any at all.
The board is working, meeting, setting up the Headquarter in Brussels
atm etc. So whre is a problem?

> Over the past year, I've witnessed PPI becoming increasingly irrelevant.
> The website was down for months, the IRC system is a mess (the UK party
> has been trying to fix it, but no-one seems interested, including the
> PPI, whose primary function includes improving communication),
> Conferences that favour parties from one region, bodies staffed without
> public notice, and so on.
>
> If our parties were run, as PPI is run, we'd all still be back where we
> were 5 years ago. Things have GOT to change.
>
Pure pessimism! How about working on the future? - Any voluntary
application for the next conference?

Sorry for saying so: back to work, this kind of fatalism isn't in any
way constructive.

Best regards

Thomas