[pp.int.general] Official Results from Kazan?
ktetch at gmail.com
Tue Apr 23 20:16:28 CEST 2013
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Thomas, perhaps if you put your animosity to one side (please, for once?
I know you hate me, but let's try being CONSTRUCTIVE), and please
re-read my original email, you might understand what I was asking for.
If not, I'll try and make myself clearer.
I was NOT asking for detailed minutes.
What I was asking for was a brief summery of the various votes.
"statues were voted in as a block" The block was SAPx, n, y, and z. For
was "...", Against "..." and "..." abstained
the same with the other elections.
This, if nothing else, clarifies the positions of the parties, and helps
identify any mis-recorded votes, or faithless electors. As such, the
sooner this went out, the better, so that any issues that may arise can
be addressed as quickly as possible.
I'd have done it myself, except it's not clear from the video, or the
minutes sometimes who voted for what. And at least one vote (the court)
has no results listed at all (in the 'results' it just lists a copy of
the candidates). The lay auditors have no votes listed, and the
membership application votes are not clear.
Hence the questions.
I'm sorry if this seems like an unreasonable request to you, but it just
seemed like common sense and basic practice to me.
On 4/23/2013 1:47 PM, Thomas Gaul wrote:
> Hi Andrew !
> Am 23.04.2013 19:23, schrieb Andrew Norton:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>> On 4/23/2013 12:28 PM, Thomas Gaul wrote:
>>> Hi Andrew!
>>> Am 23.04.2013 18:04, schrieb Andrew Norton:
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>> Does anyone have the official results yet? It's been 48 hours since the
>>>> conference closed and I'm sure I'm not the only one who is wondering.
>>> Depends on the Definition of results. And your feeling of time. I
>>> believe the responsible persons are working on it 24/7 on it, especially
>>> being on their way home or at work. Okay, sarcasm switch off now.
>> Since you admitted sarcasm, let me try some.
>> We have absolutely no means of writing emails while on the move. So it's
>> *impossible* for anyone to write an email giving the results that could
>> be then sent at a later time. I mean it's not like it's part of the
>> responsibilities of the committee behind the conference, or anything.
>> Sorry, I'm not that good at sarcasm. I guess my worldview is too
> Never mind, so in this case, we ought to be on the same track.
>>>> The only thing I've noticed, is that the Board page got updated on the
>>>> wiki, that's the limit of the 'official' notification of results so
>>> I do not now if Patrick is back home by now. Some minor additions plus
>>> formatting will have to be done in the wikified minutes:
>> These were posted Sunday, and were unclear especially at the end.
> So it is. But as the conference ended and Patrick had been exhausted
> (had been obvious) and it had been said on several occasions that a
> delay between taking the minutes and copying them into the pad - some
> time should be given. The Main results (like who had been elected is
> stated out in this temporary version.
>>> The Statutes have been changed according to the results of the GA:
>> According to the wiki timestamp,
>> (diff | hist) . . Statutes; 18:20 . . (+2,355) . . Dichter (Talk |
>> contribs) (incorporated Kazan changes)
>> this was done 8 minutes before your mail and 20 *after* mine. So it
>> wasn't a stupid, or invalid question.
> Well done your research. Dichter put em there. Checked most of it
> beforehand. Flew back yesterday afternoon (CEST) and attended a town
> council meeting just afterwards. After daywork he did the job. As you
> are with facts, just do some calculations :)
>>>> So, Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
>>> Quite Funny. I believe the term bullying came into my mind. No, I will
>>> not write you did so as I think you were going to help and push things.
>> I guess you don't recognize a movie reference then.
> So it is.
>> Your constant jumps straight to animosity to me are now increasingly
>> evident. Please stop trolling and try and work productively on things,
>> as befits someone on the PPI Board. Otherwise it reflects badly on the
>> board by looking churlish whenever a simple, basic question is asked.
>> It is a perfectly valid question that 48 hours after a conference ends,
>> when the minutes are unclear as to certain votes ('PUBLIC' votes), and
>> we've still not had an official announcement of results. Could you
>> imagine the outcry (by us as a group) if a national election was run
>> like this?
> In a paid job doing this kind of things I am with you (most of the time,
> though I now some minutes are not easy to finish - I now that by
> experience even in a paid job)
> You should ask the German board. The minutes are taken down by a guy who
> writes down simultaniously. But the offical minutes do take a while
> longer. Including crosschecking etc.
>> We stand for openness and transparency. I'm sorry you have such a
>> problem with that, Thomas.
> Well done. Constructivness lost again. I thought you are with fact?
> I think your prejudices are taking over atm. Though I do love these
> weird interpretations. Like somebody else said "never trust a gaul from
> Germany". Think you do so. (funfact: the guy who said so did trust me as
> he smiled broadly)
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
Tel: +1(352)6-KTETCH [+1-352-658-3824]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the pp.international.general