[pp.int.general] Court of Arbitration ruling 2012-1-A: public call for evidence

[Andrew Norton]

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

On 1/24/2012 11:22 AM, Maxime Rouquet wrote:
> On 01/24/2012 04:48 PM, Andrew Norton wrote:
>> I protested strongly about the manner in which it was 'filled'
>> (quite literally anyone who was physically at the last General
>> Assembly that wanted to be on the court was, it was filled
>> immediately after it was 'added to the statutes'.
> 
> Statutes where voted on Saturday, PPI CoA members elected on Sunday.
> There were 8 candidates for 7 seats.

Really? There was no change to the agenda, so no-one who wasn't
physically present was aware of it. Nor was it even published straight
after, I found out by stumbling across it on the Wiki.

> 
>> Remote delegates had zero input on the timing of the filling, let
>> alone input on WHO took the spots.
> 
> Nobody had real input on the timing, except the very few people who
> had read the statutes and asked themselves how it would be handled
> with (that knew this CoA election would be a mess).

Oh, I read the statutes, there was nothing on the timing. So, what that
sounds like is an arbitrary decision by someone, to pack the court.

Being in PROPER accord with pirate ideology would be to have then called
for candidates and let them be vetted, then elected by ALL the members.

To hold a no-notice election, with no-way to accept outside candidates,
and, as you've admitted, no thought to the process.

I think I'll accept that as a ruling by at least one 'court judge' that
the appointment of members to the Court of Arbitration was invalid.
Thank you.

> 
>> It's because there's only 4 members still involved. That's typical 
>> when your only qualifications for the officer were 'be in a
>> location at a certain time, physical ability to raise hand'.
> 
> On the 3 members who did not sign the last rulings, 2 have
> participated to some the debates despite not having signed the final
> ruling.
> 
> Sometimes, they might be in situation of conflicts of interest (for
> example, a challenge coming from their national PP), that by itself
> justifies not participating in the deliberation of the Court.

Which is why such declarations must be made, in public, at the start of
deliberations, or as soon as relevant discoveries are made that would
INDICATE a situation. Further, you've just admitted to more possible
malfeasance on the part of the 'court'
That members who might have a conflict of interest, but who did not make
a clear decision of such, participated in the discussions. Not good at all.
Also, if they did not agree with the 'majority' determination, then
where is the dissenting judgement? To have half the court give only one
side of things, is a bit 'off' as well.

This is very disappointing.



> ____________________________________________________
> 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.blogspot.com
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/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPHucYAAoJECjjuYTW3X5H1EoH/j7ngCp/BcTzqpwm2971G1b/
BVSJM4UbDVuCljJjghtMQuUJ13n0AbGtHgV8THFU3CE3SnYFmulR9HoeiV9C6vwP
UoOlKJD5h/fZeBxLpCk3TpFZoBXZxBw6Id7W7la9xltYY3/FIbno4Y0uy6yhfHkX
x+cMY3RJ5sOx7E51TKnnzowmwlCWTSbGrTgjZGDpIrvot0agwT/S48rxGPfhP3m6
FcqXnc0q7YO2diQ5CShUzdYHgmXtjtoFhuURk2McMd9C1xHTc9cYIOhG5eaXeATD
HY5KH83nQC3Caepcja2jd0ZZHRHnSuzWBn9SHYJoZAT2r63D3nb8aZ9vhxqTh4I=
=Gn/+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----