[pp.int.general] [RULING] 2012-5 (Validity of 2012 GA Conference)

Andrew Norton ktetch at gmail.com
Sat Aug 18 00:10:19 CEST 2012 

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

On 8/17/2012 5:53 PM, Zbigniew Łukasiak wrote:
> I was not there - but taking Andrew's word for this

By no means take my word for it. In fact, I strongly suggest you do NOT.
I can only speak for my experiences, recollections and reactions, and
others may differ. While I stand 100% behind everything I say, my
perspective is not the only one and shouldn't be treated as such.

However, I thank you for your confidence in my opinion.

Andrew.

> 
> Cheers,
> Zbigniew Łukasiak
> 
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Andrew Norton <ktetch at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/17/2012 2:49 PM, Charly Pache wrote:
>>>> Thanks Andrew, sincerity is crucial in our party, I guess indeed that
>>>> people who think everything was all right because the court of
>>>> arbitration decided it are missing the point: we may tolerate what
>>>> happened once but we have really to be better next time.
> 
> I would agree, if the SAME thing hadn't been said the year before, after
> the CoA fiasco then (where the court was brought up,voted into existence
> at the meeting, and then candidacy was opened and elected on the spot,
> effectively allowing only those present to stand, and giving no time to
> vet candidates at all.
> 
> This year we had election rules changed the morning of the election,
> including the positions available, and the methods to elect them, and
> the means to present candidacy. It was another mess, and on the same
> basic topic as the previous years one. You can say 'we have to be better
> next time', when it ended up WORSE than last year, when 'we have to be
> better' was said then too.
> 
> By all the alcohol I saw consumed, there's no doubt that organizers
> could manage a piss-up in a brewery, but anything political is clearly
> beyond them.
> 
>>>> The problem
>>>> here was the consequence of making the session invalid, it could have
>>>> been seen as a major failure by the press, by our political opponents
>>>> and worst, by our followers.
> 
> And then that is the price we should pay. We shouldn't reward
> incompetence, or accept it because 'it is easy' or because dealing with
> it as we should is hard. Otherwise yes, it's just politics as normal,
> and the Pirate movement is just another political group looking out for
> its own interests and willing to subvert its principles any time it may
> make things hard.
> 
> The simple fact is that it WAS invalid by every criteria that should
> have mattered. That these were later considered not important enough to
> overrule 'inertia' is a worrying precedent.
> 
> It just means Do whatever you want, but quickly, and make sure any court
> request is tied up long enough to allow us to do something that would be
> risky to overturn.
> 
> By the way, No date was given for the date of complaint. If the
> complaint was made before July 16th, then the Court is in violation of
> it's own procedure:
> "The Court of Arbitration acknowledges the reception of the complaint
> within two days after any of its members has read it. The Court of
> Arbitration can issue a motivated reject of the claim within one week
> from this acknowledgement. The Court of Arbitration must issue a rule
> within thirty days since the complaint was acknowledged."
> 2 days from complaint received to acknowledgement, 30 days from that to
> ruling is 32 days. we'll assume that between the 5 they can manage to
> check the court email within 24 hours. So, what date was the complaint
> filed, Court? before or after July 16th?
> 
>>>>
>>>> My guess is if we wanted to look different than the other political
>>>> parties, we should have accept it as a failure. We would really have
>>>> looked like a clean, sane and very honest political party. But on the
>>>> other hand I understand why the court chose otherwise, out of fear of
>>>> unlocking something bad.
> 
> Doesn't that say it all then? That they really don't believe the pirate
> way? That at the same time that pirate parties worldwide are publicly
> proclaiming how they're 'challenging politics', when it comes down to
> the internal stuff, it's just as corrupt, as pathetically incestuous as
> always, and the bodies charged to keep the party to the principles,
> won't because they're afraid to do so.
> 
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, I guess that concerning the content and the decisions we made
>>>> there, everything went fine and we would have no other conclusions if
>>>> the procedure would have been flawless, furthermore it was a great time
>>>> there, the 250 participants went back full of energy and motivation,
> 
> I certainly didn't, and I don't think I'm alone. In fact, not long after
> the conference, I stepped down from every position I held at the end of
> April, because I was tired of actually believing and following the
> principles we espouse, and seeming to be the only one. Instead we're led
> by people that seem to want positions so they can get Wikipedia entries,
> and add fancy titles to their business cards.
> 
> As for my motivation, I suggest you read the liveblog I started 3 hours
> into the 2 hour voting block. Might give you an insight into how I felt
> at the time.
> http://www.ktetch.co.uk/2012/04/liverblogging-ppi-conference.html
> 
>>>> and
>>>> at the end, this is the main point here. Anyway, next time we will have
>>>> a perfect PPI GA, for the external participants as well ;)
> 
> Yeah, that too was claimed last year. There's only one way to ensure
> that though. That's to make those who are the regular attendees, the
> 'movers and the shakers' of PPI, attend virtually for a change. Have
> their comments be ignored, their input ridiculed, and their ability to
> interact be curtailed, and see how they like that (or if they can even
> hold on to their positions)
> 
> What the hell. I'll submit a proposal for next year, and we'll see how
> people like it (of course, the board won't, which is why it'll be
> rejected, in favour of another European one)
> 
> I know there's a number of journalists here (including Mike Masnick from
> techdirt, and Ernesto from TorrentFreak, as well as someone from
> Forbes), let's hope the likes of The Register's Orlowski aren't, or the
> things the court tried to prevent happening through the ruling, will
> happen anyway, and be made WORSE by it (coverups have that effect)
> 
> Andrew
> 
>>>>
>>>> Cheers, Charly
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Andrew Norton <ktetch at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:ktetch at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 8/17/2012 7:43 AM, Anouk Neeteson wrote:
>>>>> Good news, on one hand the complaints of which one turns out to be
>>>>> correct, well done Czech PP for noticing it. And also on the other
>>>> hand,
>>>>> the PPI has 'only' made a mistake in the procedure that can be
>>>>> corrected, see court conclusion.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, plenty of people noticed it. Some, like me, just considered it 'par
>>>> for the course'.
>>>>
>>>> I do find the following ruling funny
>>>> "II) The Statute amendments passed at the conference are valid,"
>>>> There were no amendments made (except those that would change the
>>>> voting), that I recall. Mainly because the 2 hour election block took up
>>>> the entire day, because of 'votes on how to vote to decide the method of
>>>> voting' (I kid you not, people who weren't there) and interruptions to
>>>> deal with things deemed 'more important', such as PP-EU.
>>>>
>>>> "That these procedural errors were not challenged during the GA,
>>>> implying that there was no significant lack of consensus."
>>>> I tried to, but since I was a 'remote' participant, I was ignored (and
>>>> yet again, the 'court' failed to contact all participants so didn't
>>>> conduct a thorough investigation). Consulting the official record is
>>>> great, provided the official record notes everything. Since it didn't
>>>> (because comments by the remote participants were NOT recorded, except
>>>> in specific instances) it's not the whole story.
>>>>
>>>> Personally, the whole event was a disgusting show of sheer incompetence,
>>>> and 'bureaucratic middle-fingering' (aka 'up yours with paperwork') to
>>>> me. I'd suggest PPI hide the videos of the event, because if voters,
>>>> journalists, or opposition parties actually saw the activities there and
>>>> the way things were handled, they'd crucify the entire movement as
>>>> self-important squabbling kids who have no clue.
>>>>
>>>> All I can say is that from my point of view, the annual meeting has two
>>>> required parts.
>>>> 1) That elections are held in a pre-determined manner to elect new
>>>> officers (and the court has ruled that this didn't actually happen, just
>>>> that something like it happened with the general indifference of the
>>>> delegates, a bit like the 'advantage' rule with football fouls)
>>>> 2) That proposed statute amendments are discussed and voted on (and this
>>>> did not happen at all)
>>>>
>>>> Of these, the second is actually more serious. Statute amendments were
>>>> submitted by authorized people in good faith that they would be attended
>>>> to at the conference - the only time in the year they can generally be
>>>> addressed. The only actual statute amendments made were to do with
>>>> changing the positions of the board -
>>>> http://wiki.pp-international.net/wiki//index.php?title=Statutes&action=historysubmit&diff=8334&oldid=7531
>>>> - immediately before the elections, when the agenda
>>>> (http://wiki.pp-international.net/PPI_Conference_2012) made it clear
>>>> that vote would take place AFTERWARDS, and therefore come into effect
>>>> for the following year. Wasn't until TWO DAYS before the event. Given
>>>> that all amendments had to be in 4 weeks before, and amendments
>>>> distributed 1 week before, perhaps it might have been an idea to make it
>>>> clear to those announcing candidacy that things might change.
>>>>
>>>> Meanwhile, Statute X lists the functions of the General Assembly
>>>> (http://wiki.pp-international.net/Statutes#X._Functions_of_the_General_Assembly)
>>>> and we clearly didn't fulfill it (since the ruling makes no comment on
>>>> this, taking their lead, I assume they agree with me that it violated
>>>> Statute X)
>>>>
>>>> Don't get me wrong, I understand entirely why the court voted as it did.
>>>> Were it to not assume apathy equated support, or that every person knew
>>>> the statutes in detail and could accept that things had deviated and
>>>> were happy with it; then it would have to hold the ppi elections as
>>>> invalid.
>>>> Not only would that mean that things like the WIPO membership would be
>>>> invalidated (because Denis would not have been authorized to send it,
>>>> and we're past the deadline) but also that the very members of the court
>>>> adjudicating this would not be elected, and thus couldn't decide.
>>>> So, as with last year's 'event', we have a question over the legitimacy
>>>> of an election, where the court's own position is in question (see
>>>> ruling IIIc)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> So over all this is a good example of the transparency of the PPI.
>>>>> I CONGRATULATE US ALL :)
>>>>
>>>> I wouldn't cheer yet, since the ruling actually puts a big question mark
>>>> over transparency.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, no court that was worthy of the name would allow itself to be
>>>> an arbiter in a case where it was itself a party. That's what we call
>>>> 'conflict of interest'. A 'good example of transparency' would have the
>>>> whole court recuse itself at the start because it's nomination and
>>>> election is at question. It would then have looked for non-involved
>>>> parties to look into it, and stated so publicly. It's not the first time
>>>> either, as the court has already been asked to examine if it's own
>>>> actions were acceptable
>>>> (http://wiki.pp-international.net/PPI_CoA/PPI_CoA_Ruling_2011-1-A) and
>>>> 'surprisingly' decided it was, with clarification. I mean who would have
>>>> thought that the same people who were asked to decide something, would
>>>> decide a few weeks later that their decision was fully acceptable?
>>>>
>>>> These are my thoughts, y'all can do with them what you will. I hold the
>>>> Pirate Party name to a high standard, the same standard I expect of
>>>> anyone else. It's a shame that some feel like the internal standard for
>>>> pirates is so low by comparison. I mean I could make this a formal
>>>> request that the court investigate their own ruling on the grounds of
>>>> conflict of interest, but I won't bother, because I'm sure there will be
>>>> a 'motivated reject of the claim within one week', since every judgement
>>>> of the court has been a rubber-stamp for 'status quo' (even if it
>>>> requires extensive redefinitions of words, such as 'country' to mean
>>>> 'part of a country' -
>>>> http://wiki.pp-international.net/PPI_CoA/PPI_CoA_Ruling_2012-3 - to
>>>> do so.)
>>>>
>>>> To my mind, the 'Court of arbitration' is a highly flawed body, with
>>>> deep-seated questions as to it's existence, and with it's establishment
>>>> and its ongoing actions fundamentally at odds with the PP core values
>>>> (that of open democracy, informed rule-making, transparency, and
>>>> honesty).
>>>>
>>>> Andrew
>>>> PPUK Member
>>>> (who values integrity more than some title, or being 'liked' for that
>>>> matter - flame away, I don't care.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 17, 2012 12:13 p.m., "Mozart Olbrycht-Palmer"
>>>>> <mozart.palmer at pp-international.net
>>>> <mailto:mozart.palmer at pp-international.net>
>>>>> <mailto:mozart.palmer at pp-international.net
>>>> <mailto:mozart.palmer at pp-international.net>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>     Fellow Pirates,
>>>>
>>>>>     The Court of Arbitration has made the following ruling:
>>>>>     http://wiki.pp-international.__net/PPI_CoA/PPI_CoA_Ruling___2012-5
>>>>>     <http://wiki.pp-international.net/PPI_CoA/PPI_CoA_Ruling_2012-5>
>>>>
>>>>>     ==Summary==
>>>>
>>>>>     The Pirate Parties International Court of Arbitration received a
>>>>>     complaint from the Czech Pirate Party about the proceedings of the
>>>>>     April 2012 General Assembly Conference of PPI. Due to the
>>>> volume of
>>>>>     complaints and requests, the Court of Arbitration apologises
>>>> for the
>>>>>     delay in ruling on this matter.
>>>>
>>>>>     The Czech Pirate Party also lodged an addendum to the complaint,
>>>>>     which is included as part of this ruling.
>>>>
>>>>>     Regards,
>>>>
>>>>>     --
>>>>>     Mozart Olbrycht-Palmer
>>>>>     Court of Arbitration, Pirate Parties International
>>>>>     W: www.olbrychtpalmer.net <http://www.olbrychtpalmer.net>
>>>> <http://www.olbrychtpalmer.net>
>>>>>     T: @OlbrychtPalmer
>>>>
>>>>>     ______________________________________________________
>>>>>     Pirate Parties International - General Talk
>>>>>     pp.international.general at __lists.pirateweb.net
>>>> <http://lists.pirateweb.net>
>>>>>     <mailto:pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
>>>> <mailto:pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net>>
>>>>
>>>> http://lists.pirateweb.net/__mailman/listinfo/pp.__international.general
>>>>
>>>> <http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> ____________________________________________________
>>>>> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
>>>>> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
>>>> <mailto:pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net>
>>>>> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     ____________________________________________________
>>>>     Pirate Parties International - General Talk
>>>>     pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
>>>>     <mailto:pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net>
>>>>     http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________
>>>> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
>>>> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
>>>> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>>>>
> 
>> ____________________________________________________
>> 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.co.uk
Tel: +1(352)6-KTETCH [+1-352-658-3824]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQLsFLAAoJECjjuYTW3X5HBJUH/2woZMXAI4QOKlmXMAq5yrS0
aqziL89Bg3ALz3JAZv4iWHzg5dIZChc9TcG0vEjeAa+I0eCWT26RZvmY4Dp6Cuyj
li1Vfj1QKO9rzhju2x11sm0jnquLVOWtxW1aZFOMhgbUjdHnbmxUDXKVzE3HDv12
9rb+I+7DvLPrtL1I/bzw9oWIJfK6oO8bCwRHP2ILbfPWHwaC7f6hz6UZOhlYaZ4s
SUUHM6EPF275LQD9TTsy26g/ch4pqe12zcR7KnUUS+iorWWzqY6ROmC5kH3335MA
7baI1WdHbaWdvXQlN3ixucTT4Z1Wy5gDxHpwtrGqWJd3X5gUEhy6xTIgPCKrWvg=
=ypO8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

More information about the pp.international.general mailing list