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

[Justus Römeth]

As long as nobody is forced to sign the Uppsala declaration the way it was
drafted is totally fine imo.

On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 1:26 AM, Antonio Garcia <ningunotro at hotmail.com>wrote:

>  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.
>
>
> Antonio.
>
>
> > 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"
> >
> > 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-----
> > ____________________________________________________
> > 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/attachments/20120331/4dc90b2a/attachment.html>