[pp.int.general] Who is running this LQFB?

[Nuno Cardoso]

On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Andrew Norton <ktetch at gmail.com> wrote:

> Point me to the decision made by the GA on running a LQFB? I don't
> recall one.
>

I promised that if I was elected I would do it to give voice to the
members, they elected me, 2+2...


> did you check it was SPECIFICALLY for that reason, or are you inferring
> a mandate?


SPECIFICALLY! Satisfied?


> Should I go look through the video and see what your campaign
> was (I sure don't remember your promise)?


Sure! Please go see it <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1k8fMoyXAM>! At
around 4h55m00 member delegates even asked me SPECIFICALLY about the LQFB
stuff and I confirmed it for everyone who was interested in listening.


> If it contains anything more
> than a promise to enact a non-binding LQFB can you call it a
> vote/decision on that?


Sure! I said that given my experience since 2009 I would try to do my best
to help and that is what I've been doing since.

If that was your intent, now it's been enacted,
>

Actually it's been enacted since mid May last year.


> will you step down your position?
>

No, I'm still doing the other promise, help in whatever I can as best I
can. Why? Interested in it?


> Other things MORE binding, that the board (including you) have not done
>

MORE? Because...?


> - - Holding the next PPI GA outside Europe (to the point of definitive
> statements by the board on this, rather than a throwaway line)
>

Since you are so strict on decisions, would you be so kind to *"Point me to
the decision made by the GA on" "Holding the next PPI GA outside Europe"*.
Still, in case you don't know it yet, from the offers PPI got to host the
GA the resulting choice was Kazan which was the one further away for
central Europe, outside of the European Union, and on a longitude that is
even beyond those of many countries in the middle east.
The board members that voted Kazan did so in order to comply with the
constant pleas for that on the mailing lists from some users like you, even
though the poll I did for my vote <http://www.opavote.org/vote/771134>,
with the official members, ended up with a totally different
result<http://www.opavote.org/results/771134/0>,
although only 9 members expressed their opinion.
Still I'm not worried that some members didn't vote, for whatever reason,
because it was just an opinion poll for my vote alone.
I can also say that I'm comfortable with the final choice I
represented through the poll, since using scientific
method<http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm> with
a *Sample Size* of 9 in a *Population* of 28 for a *Percentage* of 88.(8)%
[8/9] preferring Paris over Kazan, I get, with a *Confidence Level* of 99%,
a resulting *Confidence Interval* for the poll of 22.67%, which makes the
lower interval limit stand at 66.21(8)%, roughly 2/3's. So how about that
for keeping my binding promise to involve the members in my decision taking
and at the same time fulfilling my binding functions as a board member?


> - - Having a CoA (it's been 4 months since they all resigned, and you,
> individually, or as a group have yet to do anything about it)
>

Actually it has been 3 months and 15
days<http://lists.pp-international.net/private/pp-leaders.discussion/2012-October/000552.html>,
and there is a CoA, it simply has no active members because they where
forced into resignation by threats of being sued by a PPI member who wasn't
satisfied with their decision, which IMHO is a blatant violation of
statutes by that member:

III. Membership
(5) *The Members are obliged to respect the Statutes*, internal regulations
and rules of procedure, *in particular bear the implications of the
decision of the Court of Arbitration*.

XIVa. Court of Arbitration
"(1) *The exclusive power to resolve internal disputes* shall be vested to
the Court of Arbitration. *All other organs and officers are required to
cooperate *with the Court of Arbitration to the extend needed for the
proper exercise of its functions."


Anyway, the body itself does not cease to exist because working members are
unavailable at the moment due to extraordinary circumstances.
Also, referring back to the statutes:

*XIVa. Court of Arbitration*
*(7) The Court of Arbitration shall have between three and seven Members. The
provisions concerning the election of the Members of the Board and
vacancies apply accordingly.*


And those are:

*XIII. Functions of the Board*
*(8) A Board member may resign at any moment. After resignation ... his
seat becomes vacant. ...*
*(9) If the Board has less than three remaining Members, an extraordinary
session of the General Assembly has to be held within the next six months,
if an ordinary session is not scheduled within this period.*


So if we *"apply accordingly"* it reads:

*A CoA member may resign at any moment. After resignation ... his seat
becomes vacant....*
*If the CoA has less than three remaining Members, an extraordinary session
of the General Assembly has to be held within the next six months, if an
ordinary session is not scheduled within this period.*


Since they all resigned in October 2nd, the PPI still has until April 2nd
to solve that, so chill down and RTFS.

[ Oh and BTW, as a side note to whom it may concern, the board doesn't need
to acknowledge resignations from anyone, as it can't force anyone into
staying in any position, if someone wants to resign from whatever position
on whatever body it's their decision and it goes in effect as soon as
they communicate it officially themselves, so please stop asking for the
board to acknowledge resignations when the board already explained that in
a meeting. Also the board can't force anyone to resign and can't offer
anyone's resignation<http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/2013-January/013341.html>
to
anyone else, so please stop that and similar accusations. It's total BS and
tells more about those who say it than on those who they try to slander ]


> So how's about working on what you SHOULD do, rather than what you WANT
> to do.
>

So how about being CONSTRUCTIVE instead of DESTRUCTIVE, or are you saying
that I should be like almost all other politicians and simply not carry out
what I promised to do?
Anyway, looking at the statutes again:

IX. General Assembly
(2) *Extraordinary sessions can be held at the request of one third of the
Members* or by a decision of the Board.


So if you really *WANT* a CoA asap, you *SHOULD* rally the support of one
third of the Members to issue an official request, then we can have it
online on the date they request with the many tools at our disposal and
rest assured that the board will be there:

*XIII. Functions of the Board*
*e) to prepare the agenda and procedure of the meetings of the General
Assembly, giving consideration to suggestions from Member Organizations,
and appoint the Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson of the General Assembly
meeting,*


Personally I think you should instead worry about the fact that probably
very few candidates will even appear because of the actions taken against
the previous members of the CoA.
So, please stop blaming every damn thing on the board and start looking at
yourself and the PPI as a whole, or you'll risk not having candidates for
the board as well as it looks more and more like a scapegoat body to take
blame for all sorts of BS.


> In search of truth (and accountability)
>

Good to know (and really?)


> Andrew
>

Nuno
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/attachments/20130117/46d8af3c/attachment-0001.html>