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

[Andrew Norton]

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

On 3/30/2012 5:49 PM, Jens Seipenbusch wrote:
> we had 3 groups of people, each worked on one of the three parts and
> after that we joined it with everyone involved.
> I will dig out the names for you.

Were you one of those involved? See, I don't know. Even 4 years later,
the names of those who wrote/drafted it aren't known. Again, another
transparency fail - we don't know who was writing it.

> 
> Am 30.03.2012 17:28, schrieb Andrew Norton:
>> 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
> well, i dont really know what to answer to this, its clearly wrong what
> you say.
> Have you been invited to all the ACTA meetings and just didnt go there
> and didnt send a proxy?

No, but at least I knew the discussions of the ACTA document were going
on, so I could press people for information on it as soon as, and to
look out for data and leaks.

> It looks like you are mixing different things on purpose, so that futher
> discussion is of no use here.

Well, if I had KNOWN that at Uppsala this sort of thing was going to
happen, that a declaration was to be made, then I'd have sorted out a proxy.

That is my point. Not only was it something decided on at the meeting,
BUT for many of us, the first we heard of it was from the press. So,
setting aside who exactly did what, that *IS* what happened. It might
not seem that way to you, but you were involved.

In that way, it's a lot like ACTA, in that those that were involved and
knew about it at the start, took part, and it was presented to everyone
else as a done deal, and not even through internal communication, but
through the press. That is not good in ANYONE's book.

The simple fact is, the Uppsala Declairation was created using the same
sort of process we heavily critisize in others. While the contents may
be A1 spot on perfect and the ideal embodyment of the pirate movement,
and the envy of any political writer, the fact is the situation in which
it was written, passed and announced irrevocably taints it.


I understand perfectly where you're coming from Jens, and I hope you see
my point too. To accept a document produced in such circumstances
'because the content is acceptable', just condones other documents
produced in the same way, the contents of which certain people would
find acceptable. Or, "we violated our principles to write our principles"

Andrew

> 
> regards,
> Jens
> ____________________________________________________
> 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.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/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPdjXFAAoJECjjuYTW3X5H2ocIAKea4wwbHBTb0PzQD63HM59P
IOdHMJe1K+UP0R07r70mzAENnuVh3H7qxzaeYXGGJSQ/R8q0BaiMc5h1wY6D9s84
26046QXxBoBjZBnP80t2h4qsFE6L0bjEbha6TeCE7ErodrP9P+NJCk/O3mcJpWHS
HS2tLEO1ECPKAsju7JjuFDE6PXPaCbhfTtKF3DiixoiI5mtogxrS31eqn9LesIwr
NXtpjRkEikFEavF16Zqru6g/D/1qRuyfiLCZv6idj6asQqHvYn4rYfV90g8rewLF
LZ3niMP5YRciLys6EhnEuaGWlN+yC5qH61FsRyagtfHdFnrM/9VFKKzUT2wbHpk=
=zf1c
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----