[pp.int.general] Are there "good" and "wrong" Rigths?

[Jens Seipenbusch]

Hi,

Am 29.03.2012 22:48, schrieb Kenneth Peiruza:
> I didn't knew this part of the history, I only knew the one of PP-SE
> saying that they worked hard to get something out of Uppsala's meeting.
>
Andrew is right in the some points, yet the conclusions are wrong.

Remember the situation in 2008:
* we had pirate parties in only some european states.
* we had an international mailing list that was far from being
representative in any ways
* we had 2 prior international meetings in Vienna and Berlin
* we were preparing for the EU election 2009
* we had no kind of supranational organisation, procedures or legitimation
* even most national parties couldnt guarantee adequate democratic
internal processing for ratification purposes or the like

quite interesting would be to think about which points did change and
how from back then, but i leave that to you.

BUT:
* Uppsala conference was clearly announced way before and everyone
interested had been able to either come to Uppsala or send someone on
his behalf.
* Uppsala declaration was decided upon at the meeting as being signed by
every party which was present. And that those representatives should
ratify it on the national level. And that all those parties that were
not present could sign it afterwards, if they decided to do so. Of
course it was communicated as a joint declaration of european pirate
parties towards the EU election.
* Carlos Ayala had and caused some problems at that time and later in
Helsinki - mainly around the neverending 'pirate declaration' where he
thought he could etablish (and lead) structures on the transnational
level, which can not be established over a mailinglist without clear
mandates, statutes and other things we didnt have (in short)
* the Uppsala declaration is imho very good as text, every pirate party
should sign and ratify it. We will probably never have such a short and
concise joint transnational  declaration about the common basics of
pirate politics again.
* creation of that declaration was by no means non-transparent. On the
contrary, everyone participating at the conference was part of the
elaboration process. Please dont misuse the term transparency for
something else, transparency is not about following inexistent rules and
not about providing representation and not about preventing spontaneous
work. Even more: we werent part of any state or other organisation that
makes binding rules to citizens, so we just didnt fall under what we
claimed. Might sound like a contradiction, but when you discuss
transparency of voting of your party members, you will learn to value
this difference.

> IMO, we could go further, as many are proposing for European Pirates, so
> we can include citizen participation in our core-ideology.
>
no we cant, because time doesnt go backwards. Produce a new consensus
and find a new name for it (if you can). And please dont use the term
ideology, because we pirates (me at least) make politics that is not
based on ideology.
> Regards,
>
> Kenneth
>
> Al 29/03/12 21:03, En/na Andrew Norton ha escrit:
>> On 3/29/2012 8:01 AM, Kenneth Peiruza wrote:
>>> Well, just going back to reality:
>>> 1) every pirate party accepts Uppsala's declaration as our starting
>>> point of ideology
>> Not to be a stickler, but the Uppsala Declaration
>> (http://int.piratenpartei.de/Uppsala_Declaration) doesn't even follow
>> it's own rules.
>>
>> For those that don't know, this was a declaration made at the Uppsala
>> meeting (27 - 29. June 2008) and then announced to the press June 30th
>> as being signed by all pirate parties. Yet those not at the meeting
>> hadn't even heard of it, let alone participated or approved it. I had
>> been participating remotely in the event (as best I could at the time)
>> as USPP head, and the first I heard of it was when some media org (I
>> forget who, might have been wired or ArsTechnica) phoned me to ask me
>> why we thought this declairation was so important. I had to tell them
>> 'i've not heard about this, let alone seen it, I'll have to get back to
>> you'.
>>
>> It's funny since the civil rights section goes on about a transparent
>> state, and yet this was created in a very NON-transparent manner.
>>
>> Also, your claim that everyone accepted it wasn't true, as the mailing
>> list at the time proves. like Carlos Ayala asking the day after it was
>> announced to the press what condition it's in, who wrote it and who
>> signed it, because despite being Pirata's chairman at the time, he
>> didn't know
>> (http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/2008-June/001199.html)
>> I sure didn't know either.
>>
>> I kinda thought that's why we'd thrown it in a box marked 'do not talk
>> about again', because it had been handled so badly, that it didn't meet
>> the basic values we would expect of others, let alone ourselves.
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>>
>

best regards,
Jens
---
Jens Seipenbusch
german pirate party