[pp.int.general] Official Results from Kazan?

[Thomas Gaul]

Am 23.04.2013 20:16, schrieb Andrew Norton:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Thomas, perhaps if you put your animosity to one side (please, for once?
I'd like to. But things I do not like at all is negative thinking up 
front. It feels like the destiny of some people lies in finding 
something to grouse about - esp. if either the board of PPI or some 
German (speaking) person is at the other end. Think about 
"sender-->receiver" meaning the difference between the information given 
and received. Plus the experience from some people (not from countries) 
who are eager to transport the false idea that PPI is euro-centric or 
even worse. (in a way it is, considering the sum of members, and think 
about the history of the pirate movements.)

> 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.
>
First of all you assume I hate you. As I have never met you - there is 
neither hatred nor something else. How could I as there is no reason for it.

>
> What I was asking for was a brief summery of the various votes.

Any help is appreciated! As you have the same "advantage" of not 
attending the GA in Kazan (only by remote) you are as capable as me or 
others. Plus I believe you carry a 24-7 thinking. (All others do not 
know how to do it, they are incapable of doing anything right asf.

>
> "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.
>

So you do have the same information like I do. Ask Patrick Mächler - he 
took the minutes. As neither the board nor I do not know where he is atm 
(he could be on his way home, still staying in Kazan or somewhere else. 
As he collected these information ... no need to end the sentence :)


> 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.

True, this can be done the moment the necessary information are 
available. Patience is a virtue.

>
> 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.
>

I know. So we do have exactly the same information. As mentioned above: 
wait for Patrick.
> 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.
>
Not for me, If I'd have the information, I'd be eager to share them.

Although being dead tired I will not omit a formal greeting

Regards

Thomas