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

[Andrew Norton]

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

On 3/30/2012 6:23 AM, Jens Seipenbusch wrote:
> 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.

Likewise, Jen's makes some points, but some are irrelevant or false.

> 
> Remember the situation in 2008:
> * we had pirate parties in only some european states.

What's this got to do with the price of fish? It was a PPI meeting, not
a PPEU meeting. To this day, we still only have Pirate Parties in *SOME*
European states (where 'some' means 'not all')

> * we had an international mailing list that was far from being
> representative in any ways

That same critique has been levelled at the PPI as it currently is.

> * we had 2 prior international meetings in Vienna and Berlin

Again, relevance? Sure, one of the days in vienna was labelled
"nextSteop09, 25 from 5" (guess who wrote the press releases for it.. me!)

> * we were preparing for the EU election 2009
We are ALWAYS preparing for something. and we had been preparing for
this election since 2007 (see previous point)

> * we had no kind of supranational organisation, procedures or legitimation

Which is kinda my whole point.

> * even most national parties couldnt guarantee adequate democratic
> internal processing for ratification purposes or the like
> 

Again, helping my point.

> 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.

Completely false. YES it had been announced beforehand. NO everyone
interested couldn't come or send a proxy. I wish that were the case, but
for a lot (like me) it just was NOT POSSIBLE.

> * 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.

Then someone did a *BAD* job of informing the press then. The press that
contacted ME, were under the impression that it was signed by ALL pirate
parties. Which was odd, because those of us who could NOT be there, but
followed remotely, were unaware of it even existing. It wasn't on the
schedule, there was no 'after event report' mentioning it.

> * 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)

Personal attacks, Jens? The Manifesto was actually rather useful, and
was mostly derailed (and held up) by someone else (the identity should
be a no bReinier) and unlike the Uppsala declairation, it was conducted
in an open and transparent manner, with input from everyone interested.
It wasn't done in a day by a group in secret and presented as a fait
accompli to the parties and press.

> * 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.

Just as a side note, were you in the small group that drafted it? I
don't know. Mainly because I *STILL* don't know exactly WHO drafted it.

> * 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.

Transparency means just that, you can see through the process. When the
process isn't on the agenda/schedule, when the participants are not
known, when parties are hearing about it from the press asking about it,
rather than from some sort of official notice that it's going to be
discussed, etc.

Transparent means just that, you can see all the inner workings. When
you hide it in the dark, as this was, known only to a small group that
could get to a meeting in Sweden, that's not transparent. If you think
that's transparent, then ACTA must be completely see through, because
there at least the meetings to discuss it were announced ahead of time,
and everyone participating int he ACTA meetings were part of the
elaboration process. And with ACTA we had public drafts before it was
'done' and sent for ratification. So, Jens, was ACTA transparent? It's
certainly meets every criteria you've given as to why the UD was.

Andrew

- -- 
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/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPddEdAAoJECjjuYTW3X5HMI8H/R8jD1oVl2bVxOCe2+nCqGQF
Kan5dx1dD0YWs7ickBZAXoikNnVPAKq7M++w+3jD53DrInjGYiknedPGXjRicWJs
mkbHtyxfLV8RO4QjhoiMxZjELdnyNHP5Pso0qMoXKr0E9HVG3j+K9g4boviQvMyO
jXOx3Vyrn17daRXZn2YBb+vy2BbWCNbJiJDRAGU6bfh5SB1kvLAps5LW1Jfk4yLN
VhI3l3bup0DPfYbOotnhW6mRJxcj5Wgz9LA+0/95Kzxq2rqI+oQOhytXEByymsxp
Lc5hohxKwL71bXAH5JXEjOlM/SzjZKwLmsjod26jGTz0f8GauuZTHmFLwd2iMvg=
=442l
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----