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

[Brendan Molloy]

I had never heard of the Uppsala declaration. Yep.

> Andrew Norton
> 31 March 2012 10:56 AM
> 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.
>
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
> Antonio Garcia
> 31 March 2012 10:26 AM
> 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?
> >
> 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
>
>
> > ____________________________________________________
> > 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
> Jens Seipenbusch
> 31 March 2012 8:49 AM
> 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.
> 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?
> It looks like you are mixing different things on purpose, so that futher
> discussion is of no use here.
>
> regards,
> Jens
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
> Jens Seipenbusch
> 30 March 2012 9:23 PM
> 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.
>
> Remember the situation in 2008:
> * we had pirate parties in only some european states.
> * we had an international mailing list that was far from being
> representative in any ways
> * we had 2 prior international meetings in Vienna and Berlin
> * we were preparing for the EU election 2009
> * we had no kind of supranational organisation, procedures or legitimation
> * even most national parties couldnt guarantee adequate democratic
> internal processing for ratification purposes or the like
>
> 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.
> * 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.
> * 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)
> * 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.
> * 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.
>
>> IMO, we could go further, as many are proposing for European Pirates, so
>> we can include citizen participation in our core-ideology.
>>
> no we cant, because time doesnt go backwards. Produce a new consensus
> and find a new name for it (if you can). And please dont use the term
> ideology, because we pirates (me at least) make politics that is not
> based on ideology.
>> Regards,
>>
>> Kenneth
>>
>> Al 29/03/12 21:03, En/na Andrew Norton ha escrit:
>>> On 3/29/2012 8:01 AM, Kenneth Peiruza wrote:
>>>> Well, just going back to reality:
>>>> 1) every pirate party accepts Uppsala's declaration as our starting
>>>> point of ideology
>>> Not to be a stickler, but the Uppsala Declaration
>>> (http://int.piratenpartei.de/Uppsala_Declaration) doesn't even follow
>>> it's own rules.
>>>
>>> For those that don't know, this was a declaration made at the Uppsala
>>> meeting (27 - 29. June 2008) and then announced to the press June 30th
>>> as being signed by all pirate parties. Yet those not at the meeting
>>> hadn't even heard of it, let alone participated or approved it. I had
>>> been participating remotely in the event (as best I could at the time)
>>> as USPP head, and the first I heard of it was when some media org (I
>>> forget who, might have been wired or ArsTechnica) phoned me to ask me
>>> why we thought this declairation was so important. I had to tell them
>>> 'i've not heard about this, let alone seen it, I'll have to get back to
>>> you'.
>>>
>>> It's funny since the civil rights section goes on about a transparent
>>> state, and yet this was created in a very NON-transparent manner.
>>>
>>> Also, your claim that everyone accepted it wasn't true, as the mailing
>>> list at the time proves. like Carlos Ayala asking the day after it was
>>> announced to the press what condition it's in, who wrote it and who
>>> signed it, because despite being Pirata's chairman at the time, he
>>> didn't know
>>>
(http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/2008-June/001199.html)
>>> I sure didn't know either.
>>>
>>> I kinda thought that's why we'd thrown it in a box marked 'do not talk
>>> about again', because it had been handled so badly, that it didn't meet
>>> the basic values we would expect of others, let alone ourselves.
>>>
>>> Andrew
>>>
>>>
>
> best regards,
> Jens
> ---
> Jens Seipenbusch
> german pirate party
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
> Andrew Norton
> 30 March 2012 6:03 AM
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Not to be a stickler, but the Uppsala Declaration
> (http://int.piratenpartei.de/Uppsala_Declaration) doesn't even follow
> it's own rules.
>
> For those that don't know, this was a declaration made at the Uppsala
> meeting (27 - 29. June 2008) and then announced to the press June 30th
> as being signed by all pirate parties. Yet those not at the meeting
> hadn't even heard of it, let alone participated or approved it. I had
> been participating remotely in the event (as best I could at the time)
> as USPP head, and the first I heard of it was when some media org (I
> forget who, might have been wired or ArsTechnica) phoned me to ask me
> why we thought this declairation was so important. I had to tell them
> 'i've not heard about this, let alone seen it, I'll have to get back to
> you'.
>
> It's funny since the civil rights section goes on about a transparent
> state, and yet this was created in a very NON-transparent manner.
>
> Also, your claim that everyone accepted it wasn't true, as the mailing
> list at the time proves. like Carlos Ayala asking the day after it was
> announced to the press what condition it's in, who wrote it and who
> signed it, because despite being Pirata's chairman at the time, he
> didn't know
> (http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/2008-June/001199.html)
> I sure didn't know either.
>
> I kinda thought that's why we'd thrown it in a box marked 'do not talk
> about again', because it had been handled so badly, that it didn't meet
> the basic values we would expect of others, let alone ourselves.
>
> 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/
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPdLICAAoJECjjuYTW3X5HrqUIAO8FXw1GkIY0hkStFE5iPxRN
> +j0HGfAp0sFCGrXuzpN+9ju+vdUCzY5vNBz9UMW5aG3MJeb5BV8TO/vYhBo9CwtK
> IfDaWIeBLSz6VDd8bvoHWvH1TyKPv2AOwgvTMJvZ0s/togBC3vq5oTYDZb8FkAp9
> 8zRpQEy7AfU9BmOafDOyT9TAiiQC3fjB/2dn9uxpdVnPGqi1QYEUlM3iDMwUk83s
> gdLOhOsnNmeWEgMXg3+1oGRenOGp/S3c1hLLsQHiXovidMjvba3EggzrCKZNgj2d
> NT9rja/egCAVRRdExgtMC1LNUmRH0BcAagdQFl89feMtxA4N8Ga8RNrP2RbOAqI=
> =NX8s
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general

-- 
Regards,

Brendan Molloy
Secretary
Pirate Party Australia

M: +61 449 617 246
W: http://www.pirateparty.org.au
E: brendan.molloy at pirateparty.org.au
T: @piecritic



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/attachments/20120331/73722d54/attachment-0001.html>