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

[Andrew Norton]

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

On 3/30/2012 7:26 PM, Antonio Garcia 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.

Actually, the point is more a 'we practice what we preach'. It's
something I always try to live by. And while I don't fault the
intentions of those behind the document, remember that the road to hell
is paved with good intentions.

At the same time, if we're promoting transparent governance, yet not
actively practicing it ourselves, not only do we seem like hypocrites,
BUT how can we prove these systems work? If they're too unwieldy, slow,
or anything else for us to use ourselves, why are we saying everyone
else should use them, including governments.

The problem with the UD wasn't about trust, it was about communication.
Had it been on the agenda beforehand, AND had it been announced to the
parties as soon as it was done, then I'm pretty sure no-one would have
had a problem with it. I've *NEVER* had an issue with the content of it,
only ever with the circumstances around it - the unannounced drafting of
something, announced via the press.


This goes back to the original point, which was Kenneth's assertion
"1) every pirate party accepts Uppsala's declaration as our starting
point of ideology"

Some hadn't heard of it, others refused to accept it because of the way
it was handled. If he had said "1) every pirate party accepts something
like the Uppsala declaration as our starting point of ideology" Then
there wouldn't have been any problems at all. The statement, as made,
was false, and Kenneth wasn't to know that, so I corrected him. That's all.

> 
> 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?

You tell me. I'd forgotten all about it until Kennith brought it up 36
hours ago. As far as I am aware, the issues over it's creation and
'presentation' mean it was never really used, or if it has, it was used
'quietly'. Before yesterday, I'd not heard a word about it for ooh, 3 years?

That includes all the press stuff I saw from the Swedish and German
parties between September 08 and July 09 (the 9 months leading up to the
EU election, for which it was drafted, when I was running PPI)

> 
> Will we be able to do better with something else from now on?

Since, AFAIK, we didn't use it, we clearly did.

> 
> Only objective analysis and actualised theoretical modelling can tell.
> 
> 
> Antonio.
>  

- -- 
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/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPdkg1AAoJECjjuYTW3X5HX08H/i6hpX8f74MfXH4E6b2DsFhf
Gs403gT9ma0SOXOtodxWY+joa/rXhPJbFWC7qQEL/oP8n2MC0bBZeg6v9nWdpzXk
szht3uV+pzvq2Pp4u0LY/zeHHk46hNlPE1iMejxjdYR8OsPkKnNXfKKyFygOVO9O
xVcFMOWezNUl9ak0+cLT/3BOdhntfhe6ivr7ypNz9MNOStONQSJjKpHqXlDvjRXi
TtFlnGyTE0/ACdjpHz1YzZhnRwEgGW/S38Gl0AkIKZ57lwAaxmqVWULUxX55+2xz
iOaxIrmM76815aWb1+eaNZ/tK7cnGoLPWEBbHhkh58MEJoWWhF0D8CM15ZNy9TI=
=fWvm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----