[pp.int.general] Are there "good" and "wrong" Rigths?
ningunotro at hotmail.com
Sat Mar 31 01:26:07 CEST 2012
We are into big trouble as political organization if we want "transparence" to mean "no need whatsoever to ever trust anybody".
If you can't trust your fellow pirates up to the point that you want everything to be publicly accessible... you'll never be able to put together a strategy that will not have been defused and countered even before you start putting it into practice.
Be that paranoid, and nobody will ever trust you enough to hand you their votes.
Maybe the Uppsala declaration is not perfect, but no matter who contributed to it we have to believe that they interpreted the available information to the best of their abilities to come up with what they thought might be the best possible strategy towards the fulfilment of the goals of the Pirate Movement.
Would we have done better without it?
Will we be able to do better with something else from now on?
Only objective analysis and actualised theoretical modelling can tell.
> Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 18:37:57 -0400
> From: ktetch at gmail.com
> To: pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> Subject: Re: [pp.int.general] Are there "good" and "wrong" Rigths?
> -----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"
> > 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
> 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/
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the pp.international.general