[pp.int.general] PPI board meeting minutes and some updates about the conference.

Sun Mar 4 18:01:12 CET 2012

A country recognised internationally.
UK have two: Scothland and England.

USA have 48 states, but it's just one country.
Spain have 19 CCAA, but it's just one country.

Imagine that every state of USA it's a country with vote... The PPI
subjugated tu USA.

The only way to have an egalitarian PPI with votes, it's to make it by
official country recognised internationally.

Cheers!

2012/3/4 Justus Römeth <squig at dfpx.de>

> Careful! What is your definition of a country? (The UK is a state divided
> into countries, the US a country divided into states, and, going by German
> wording, Germany is a country divided by countries).
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Rock Neurotiko <miguelglafuente at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> I think that if there is a Pirate Party in a country, it should vote.
>>
>> Of course, I said a country, not a part of it.
>>
>>
>> 2012/3/4 Choms <choms at botmania.net>
>>
>>> imho, neither of all spanish territory pirate parties should have vote,
>>> even less after this deplorable spectacle where they all should be ashamed.
>>>
>>>
>>> 2012/3/4 Mozart <mozart.palmer at pirateparty.org.au>
>>>
>>>>   I like this suggestion:
>>>>
>>>> "I think one vote per country has worked quite well for PPI. In order
>>>> to accomodate the situation in Spain I would suggest someone whom it is
>>>> important to drafts an amendment of the PPI statutes that allows regional
>>>> parties in exceptional circumstances to become ordinary members (maybe with
>>>> only half a vote?) after the GA votes in favor of admitting that party as
>>>> an ordinary member."
>>>>
>>>> But would say they should be given full vote when admitted. The
>>>> situation in Spain does not seem to be working out at the moment, so a
>>>> Pirate Confederation there is unlikely. They just don't seem to agree. And
>>>> for now, PPES holds the Spanish vote I believe, even though PPCAT is a
>>>> reportedly much larger party.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Mozart.
>>>>
>>>> On 05/03/2012, at 12:19 AM, Justus Römeth wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hola Isabela, hola rest of Galician parties
>>>>
>>>> While I understand the Galician/Catalonian position on this, and that
>>>> circumventing the 1 voter per country makes totally sense for you, it just
>>>> does not make sense from a German point of view:
>>>> - Some local parties in Germany have more members than many national
>>>> parties in other countries, going by member count alone is not a good
>>>> starting point.
>>>> - It is unlikely to happen in the near future, but if there is a rift
>>>> within PPDE towards our position to PPI regional parties could start to ask
>>>> for votes, too. Unless the other parties grow exceptionally by then this
>>>> would 'allow' PPDE to 'swamp' PPI with regional/local parties if we
>>>> institutionalize what you propose, bringing the rift within PPDE to PPI.
>>>> - Even more problematic, an institutionalization of allowing regional
>>>> parties into PPI could allow PPDE to effectively take over PPI if it would
>>>> wish so. Not something I particularly would like to happen.
>>>>
>>>> So where does that leave us? The PPI rule of one country/one vote is
>>>> obviously flawed when it comes to entities where it is unclear whether they
>>>> are countries in our sense or not (Kosovo, Northern Cyprus, Flanders,
>>>> Wallonia, and also Scotland are obvious examples). If you say that
>>>> Catalonia and Galicia should get their own vote in PPI, why should Bavaria
>>>> or Frisia not get one? But if they get one, why shouldn't Northern Frisia,
>>>> the Sorbs, or Amsterdam (all entities that see themselves as somewhat
>>>> different than the rest of their country), or Limburg and Lower Saxony (who
>>>> see themselves as deserving the same rights as Bavaria and Friesland, since
>>>> they are on the same political level within their country)?
>>>>
>>>> I personally am not a big fan of the organization of politics with the
>>>> concept of nations (I am a German, but I don't quite understand why I
>>>> should feel closer to someone in Munich compared to someone in Vienna,
>>>> Berne, Luxembourg, Eupen, Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Prague or Wroclaw). But I
>>>> accept that this ambiguous concept is accepted by the vast majority of
>>>> other people, that today's politics deal with this concept, that it is
>>>> important to a lot of people, and that I won't be able to fundamentally
>>>> change it.
>>>>
>>>> I think one vote per country has worked quite well for PPI. In order to
>>>> accomodate the situation in Spain I would suggest someone whom it is
>>>> important to drafts an amendment of the PPI statutes that allows regional
>>>> parties in exceptional circumstances to become ordinary members (maybe with
>>>> only half a vote?) after the GA votes in favor of admitting that party as
>>>> an ordinary member.  (Maybe you could include non-opposition by the
>>>> 'affected' national party, too). There is no guarantee that such an
>>>> amendment would pass, however. This would then allow the members of PPI to
>>>> decide on a possible Kosovarian PP when there is one, and not force them to
>>>> make such a decision now.
>>>>
>>>> The more fundamental question is obviously whether there is a lot of
>>>> use in having this discussion at all. Is an ordinary membership in PPI that
>>>> important to PP-CAT and PP-GAL, keeping PPI's tasks and limitations in
>>>> mind? Do PP-CAT and PP-GAL really disagree with PPES so much as far as PPI
>>>> is concerned? Shouldn't this discussion instead focus on how we set up PPEU
>>>> concerning national minorities (or at all), or how PPES could be reformed
>>>> that it is not seen as such a big problem for the members of PP-CAT and
>>>> PP-GAL?
>>>>
>>>> -J
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Kenneth Peiruza <kenneth at pirata.cat>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>  Hi Isabel,
>>>>>
>>>>> It would be great to see some Galician Pirates in the forthcoming GA.
>>>>> Please think about it! There's going to be 6 PP-ES delegates and 4 PP-CAT
>>>>> delegates there, so, we can have a nice time with a lot of Pilsen beer :)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Kenneth
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 04/03/12 10:59, Isabel Fernández wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello Justus,
>>>>>
>>>>> We don't think PPI's job regulate between pirates parties either. That's
>>>>> why we said we'll declare nothing of the sort.
>>>>>
>>>>> Our suggestion was based on the premise 'one legal territorial pirate
>>>>> party - one vote' that we think it's a more fair than the actual
>>>>> situation. We think PPI could give it some thought to this issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> We'd love to send a delegate to the GA, but rumours are saing that we'll
>>>>> face elections next autumn at Galician Parlament and still there's a lot
>>>>> work to do... we're not sure we can attend to Prague. Generally rumours
>>>>> on this subject turn out to be true at the end. Maybe next time we are
>>>>> able to send Galician Delegation.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Kind Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Isabel Fernandez.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 03/03/12 10:51, Justus Römeth wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>  Thank you Isabel (and the rest of PP-GAL),
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think PPI's job is to regulate between individual pirate parties,
>>>>> but rather to keep the movement growing, by providing infrastructure and a
>>>>> place to meet for pirates who's country does not have a PP, and by helping
>>>>> them through the early stages of forming a party. Therefore I don't think a
>>>>> model that would give PPDE ~20 times as much voting power as the next
>>>>> biggest party (PPSE is still not a member) would be appropriate.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is not to say that the current model of PPI concerning the situation
>>>>> in Spain is optimal. It is not. I think your proposed solution would make
>>>>> sense for something like PPEU, or a PPI with a much broadened scope (as
>>>>> well as institutions like the EP, but that is a different matter). As of
>>>>> yet I don't see the latter happening, however.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you (PP-GAL) planning to send a delegate to the General assembly in
>>>>> Prague?
>>>>>
>>>>> Kind regards
>>>>>
>>>>> Justus
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 3:09 AM, HerNenya <isabel.fdez at mundo-r.com> <isabel.fdez at mundo-r.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  I do apologize since last message was my first mail to this list. I'm
>>>>> not used to deal w/ digests.
>>>>>
>>>>> I repeat the message for better reading.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best Regards to all,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Isabel Fernandez.
>>>>> -----------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a message made by the members of public relations team for
>>>>> PP-GAL. It is agreed by all the members of mentioned team and we want to
>>>>> send it through our link in this mailing list of PPI members so it must
>>>>> be understood in the name of PP-GAL party and not from the sender who
>>>>> forwards this message.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since there were direct references to PP-GAL in this list and the way we
>>>>> organize ourselves in Spain, we consider it is important to be heard in
>>>>> our oppinion before of the rest of pirates parties of the world.
>>>>>
>>>>> First of all, we would like to say we are 2 months old as a political
>>>>> party in Spain and our foundation is based on the structure of Spain as
>>>>> a country formed by autonomies as such established in the Spanish
>>>>> Constitution Act [1] in article #148 in order to organize ourselves in
>>>>> the Spaniard territory. Moreover we have our own idiosyncrasy as
>>>>> language and culture quite different from other spaniard territories.
>>>>> Therefore we are an approved political party by the competent Ministry
>>>>> with same rights and duties as PP-ES and PP-CAT.
>>>>>
>>>>> As Kenneth from PP-CAT said in other previous message, we are
>>>>> encouraging a confederation at country level to organize common tasks
>>>>> that affect us as a nation such the cases of #megacomplaint and
>>>>> #opColapso (fighting against Sinde-Wert law [2]) that we are supporting
>>>>> PP-ES, PP-CAT and PP-GAL. Last week we have created a mailing list
>>>>> called pirata-34 to discuss those affairs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regarding the subject about who can vote as a country or by the amount
>>>>> of pirate members, we consider system of countries is not fair precisely
>>>>> because of proportion of the population densities and pirates members. A
>>>>> possible fair solution (as a suggestion) to this matter could be that
>>>>> depending on the number of members from each pirate party, each party
>>>>> will provide a proportional amount of the contingency fund of PPI, as
>>>>> well, each party would have the proportional weight in PPI decisions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Refering to mentions about how to organize internally the different
>>>>> pirate parties in Spain, we considered that this mailing list is not the
>>>>> appropiate place to discuss about it, so we are not going to declare
>>>>> anything here.
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] http://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/IDIOMAS/9/Espana/LeyFundamental/index.htm
>>>>> [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ley_Sinde
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Public Relations Team of PP-GAL.http://piratasdegalicia.org/web/
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Isabel Fdez
>>>>> GPG EA63DF8E
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ____________________________________________________
>>>>> Pirate Parties International - General Talkpp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.nethttp://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>>>>>
>>>>>  ____________________________________________________
>>>>> Pirate Parties International - General Talkpp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.nethttp://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ____________________________________________________
>>>>> Pirate Parties International - General Talkpp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.nethttp://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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Miguel García Lafuente - Rock Neurotiko
>> Vocal de la Junta Directiva Nacional del Partido Pirata.
>> Coordinador de Jóvenes Piratas en Madrid.
>>
>> "Libertad en lugar de miedo." - "Información libre, sociedad libre."
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________
>> 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
>
>

-- 
Miguel García Lafuente - Rock Neurotiko
Vocal de la Junta Directiva Nacional del Partido Pirata.
Coordinador de Jóvenes Piratas en Madrid.

"Libertad en lugar de miedo." - "Información libre, sociedad libre."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/attachments/20120304/d126f007/attachment-0001.html>