[pp.int.general] R: PP IT and Its Non-Democratic Organization

[Zbigniew Łukasiak]

On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 10:10 AM, Carlito <carlito at subvertising.org> wrote:
> Da: Eduardo Perdices
>
>> I don't undestand this:
>>
>>> Every time someone try to propose something in the software, the small
> group
>>> of friends (very easy to find them, just read the replies to this
> message:
>>> Jaromil, VonLynx, Marco Confalonieri, lilo, Cal., etc.) just vote NO and
>>> there's nothing you can do about it because they say it's liquid
> democracy.
>>> Worse than a dictatorship.
>>
>> You mean they just say NO to vote this proposal by the Assembly? or they
> put it
>> to a vote and then vote NO?. If it's the second case, I guess the only way
> to avoid
>> it is getting more people to vote, once you reach a great number of
> participants is
>> unlikely to block a votation this way. Of course this gets into conflict
> with the rest
>> of your paragraph:
>
> Same.
> They control the Assembly so it's the same (masked by liquid democracy).
> It was very easy because since the foundation we had very small numbers in
> LQFB.
> At the beginning we were 20 people in Liquid so a group of 11 friends took
> the control from the beginning. They decide all since then and they will for
> the rest of their life if someone will not change the Statute. But this is
> even more difficult because they also decide who can enter and who cannot by
> voting expulsions, denying certification, block new subscriptions, etc.
> Is it true democracy?

To be honest I believe this can be called democracy - democracy in a
party does not mean that everyone can enter and take over.   The party
has to maintain its identity by filtering who can enter.  If people
disagree they should not be forced to be in the same party.  I think
that the one party per country rule in PPI is unproductive - it stops
any possible fork from gaining ground and overtaking an organisation
that becomes too rigid and unevolving.

I believe it should be an organization individual choice how defensive
against takeovers they should be and how open to new ideas and people.
 And those that choos badly should just be eliminated in natural
selection.

Cheers,
Zbigniew