[pp.int.general] Minutes of PPI GA 2013

Mozart Palmer mozart.palmer at pp-international.net
Wed Jun 12 08:45:22 CEST 2013 

Pot meet kettle.
On Jun 12, 2013 2:55 PM, "Jay Emerson" <jemers2 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Andrew Norton is an insufferable cunt who sticks himself into
> shit-slinging fights by being an asshole and then pointing to some statute
> of bullshit demanding to be taken seriously as if he's right about whatever
> shit he's decided to spew from his egotistical shit-tank of a mind to his
> fingertips that then tap away at a keyboard and proceeds to send that
> message to fuck with those who get suckered into actually taking his
> bullshit seriously.
>
> He is an anal regurgitated seminal fluid bubble that should be popped,
> wiped, and flushed down the fucking toilet.
>
> Cheers!
>
> - Jay Emerson
> Pirate Party of New York
> On Jun 11, 2013 11:37 PM, "Antonio Garcia" <ningunotro at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It feels like it is useless to argue.
>>
>> The abstentions that do not count towards the vote for the election of
>> the members of the CoA are those of the members of the PPI that did not
>> care to show up to participate, be it sending a delegate or having
>> delegated their vote to someone present. This is, if PPI had 50 members
>> with voting rights then 50% approval would need 26 votes, unless
>> abstentions did not count and only the 16 represented at the exact time and
>> place the voting was organized were taken into account.
>>
>> Then, the candidates have to achieve a simple majority of "yes" votes
>> from the members present and voting. All of them have to obtain at least 9
>> votes, which is the simple majority of the 16 present. Abstentions do not
>> count... in the sense that if only 10 cast votes on one specific
>> candidate... the six remaining are not subtracted... he still has to
>> achieve 9 yes votes to be in.
>>
>> That is why you Andrew, and Arturo, with 8 votes, did not achieve the
>> needed results, and neither did anyone that achieved even less.
>>
>> And because 5 elected was enough according to the statutes and also
>> conveniently uneven to avoid even splits in the votes of the CoA... that
>> result was enough and sufficient.
>>
>> You can whine any way you want just because you want to be in.
>>
>> I have nothing to gain in this dispute but increasing respect for logic
>> and ethic. Which should help us out of all the mess unrestricted
>> improvisation without any basis...
>>
>> ... like the one that accepted to change a question into a motion in
>> Prague, and then had a vote on the admission of the Catalan Pirate Party as
>> a full member of PPI without respect for any official procedure... just one
>> single day after an ad-hoc decision of the CoA had ruled that the GA had no
>> such powers and that the candidates that had followed procedure but
>> submitted the paperwork after the official deadline had to wait for the
>> next official deadline at the following GA.
>>
>> The kiddies getting what they like even when it is against Statutes and
>> procedures...
>>
>> ... is what is turning PPI into a kindergarten where anything serious
>> takes too much time to materialize.
>>
>> You can not shove a chimney pipe up the arse of too many too long...
>>
>>
>>
>> Antonio.
>>
>>
>> > Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 21:57:28 -0400
>> > From: ktetch at ktetch.co.uk
>> > To: pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
>> > Subject: Re: [pp.int.general] Minutes of PPI GA 2013
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Antonio Garcia <ningunotro at hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > > I do not buy, Andrew.
>> > >
>> > > The bit "...votes from Ordinary Members present or represented and
>> voting on
>> > > them[18]..."
>> > >
>> > > Clearly means the members present and participating in the election
>> process
>> > > to elect members of the CoA (the them in that sentence means them as
>> a body,
>> > > the CoA, not them as individual members of a group). These are 16, as
>> seen
>> > > in the columns of the voting results. Members not present do not
>> count. But
>> > > all present do count for all of the candidates. So >50% is 9 votes
>> for each
>> > > and every of the candidates, no matter if they get 9 votes in favour
>> from
>> > > the only 9 that care to vote, or 9 votes in favour and 4 against and 3
>> > > abstentions (ties do not count who has less votes against, a new vote
>> must
>> > > be organized).
>> > Thank you for pointing this out and AGREEING with me.
>> > The bit that's key is 'abstentions do not count'. You have decided
>> > that they DO count, and that they count as a No. In which case, what's
>> > the point of abstentions? Or indeed, that part in the RoP (well,
>> > redundancy, but they could have been implicit and said 'abstentions
>> > count as a no', or 'abstentions count')
>> >
>> > >
>> > > But keep on kidding me, if you so wish, I can't stop you making a
>> fool of
>> > > yourself anyway if it is absolutely what you wish to do.
>> > >
>> > > No wonder we never have enough time to finish what has to be done.
>> >
>> > In this I agree with you, which is why I tried to get this sorted and
>> > clarified 7 weeks ago.
>> > >
>> > > Repetition in reading statutes and procedures does not help if
>> capacity to
>> > > understand is NIL :( .
>> >
>> > Antonio, I could say the same to you. You are reading what you assume
>> > to be there, rather than what is actually, plainly and clearly there,
>> > and understanding what it says. You entered into things with a
>> > preconceived notion (that approval voting is 'usual') and thus have
>> > twisted what you read to support that assertion. How is that different
>> > than the assertion that last years CoA entered the Catalan decision
>> > with the notion that since the GA voted yes (no matter the
>> > circumstances or details) that it was a fait accompli, that just
>> > needed to be rationalised through creative interpretation of the
>> > rules.
>> >
>> > That is what happens when, as you have done here, you take a clear and
>> > unambiguous set of statements, and attempt to redefine what they mean.
>> > How does it feel?
>> >
>> > Andrew
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Antonio.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 20:25:18 -0400
>> > >
>> > >> From: ktetch at ktetch.co.uk
>> > >> To: pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
>> > >> Subject: Re: [pp.int.general] Minutes of PPI GA 2013
>> > >>
>> > >> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 7:48 PM, Antonio Garcia <
>> ningunotro at hotmail.com>
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >> > Really, this kiddy behaviour by the majority is sickening me.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > The used method is approval voting, with 16 parties present, so
>> minimum
>> > >> > 9
>> > >> > votes to get voted in.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > That is why Andrew and Arturo are not in.
>> > >>
>> > >> There's one problem with that.
>> > >> We were not using approval voting. So 'usual' or not ,it's
>> irrelevent.
>> > >> Let me again quote for you.
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> http://wiki.pp-international.net/PPI_Conference_2013/GA_meeting/RoP#Art._6a_Elections
>> > >> "
>> > >> 6a(6.c) The candidates that has achieved a simple majority of the
>> > >> "yes" votes from Ordinary Members present or represented and voting
>> on
>> > >> them[18] are elected in the order determined by number of "yes" votes
>> > >> accumulated. Abstentions are not taken into account. In event of a
>> tie
>> > >> where order matters, deciding elections are held, where only one
>> "yes"
>> > >> vote per Ordinary Member can be cast."
>> > >>
>> > >> No mention of approval voting there, or indeed the word "approval"
>> > >> anywhere in the document. If it HAD specified approval voting, I
>> would
>> > >> be right there with you.
>> > >>
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Abstentions do NOT count, but criterion is NOT >50% of votes cast
>> for
>> > >> > each
>> > >> > candidate.
>> > >>
>> > >> Indeed it's not >50% of the votes. Believing that it was was the
>> > >> mistake made at the time. I would have caught it except I'd dozed
>> off,
>> > >> and as I noted in my previous mail, I attempted to detail things as
>> > >> soon as possible afterwards in order to avoid these prolonged
>> debates,
>> > >> and to deal with issues as quickly as possible. instead it's >50% of
>> > >> the votes Yay or Nay as abstentions do not count. There's a reason
>> for
>> > >> that. With 42 ordinary members, that would require 21+ yes votes (as
>> > >> those who did not vote were counted as abstentions). The highest Yay
>> > >> total at any election that I see, is 15 (for nuno and Jelena for
>> their
>> > >> respective positions) thus by true approval voting, no-one was
>> > >> elected, and nothing was decided. That's *probably* why we didn't use
>> > >> approval voting, but instead used a yay/nay majority.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Otherwise the one that got 7 for and 6 against would also have been
>> > >> > elected
>> > >> > with more than 50% of votes cast for him.
>> > >>
>> > >> Except you missed out some other bits.
>> > >> Namely
>> > >>
>> > >> "6a(6.d) If the decided number(Art. 6a(6a)) of positions is not
>> > >> filled, additional round of elections is held unless decided
>> > >> otherwise."
>> > >> With Arturo and me elected, the maximum number of positions (7) is
>> > >> reached.
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > And the Catalan issue is still not off the table...
>> > >> >
>> > >> That is a whole other topic in itself.
>> > >>
>> > >> >
>> > >> > No wonder serious people are scarce among pirates... you really
>> should
>> > >> > resign from kindergarten one day, all of you.
>> > >> >
>> > >>
>> > >> I'm deadly serious, Antonio. So serious, in fact, I made very sure I
>> > >> read the Rules of Proceedure, and the PPI statutes in detail, and did
>> > >> so repeatedly until they were crystal clear. As such, I am in no
>> > >> question as to their contents, or how they should be acted on. I
>> would
>> > >> advise you to do likewise before casting aspersions on people.
>> > >>
>> > >> Also be aware of how what your proposing would worked elsewhere.
>> > >>
>> > >> Andrew
>> > >>
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Antonio.
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 18:51:36 -0400
>> > >> >> From: ktetch at ktetch.co.uk
>> > >> >> To: pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
>> > >> >> Subject: Re: [pp.int.general] Minutes of PPI GA 2013
>> > >> >
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Ok, an update on this for those that are interested (and we all
>> should
>> > >> >> be)
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Nuno's been arguing to have the Court fully constituted as
>> required by
>> > >> >> PPI statutes.
>> > >> >> in the Board meeting 2 weeks ago, he pointed out that under the
>> Rules,
>> > >> >> myself and Arturo were also elected, but that Denis and Sven
>> > >> >> misunderstood the statutes as regards abstentions.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>
>> http://wiki.pp-international.net/PPI_Minutes_2013-05-28#6_Activity_of_CoA
>> > >> >> From there, Gregory said he'd check with Sven over the recorded
>> > >> >> accuracy of the votes, if they were accurate, then everything
>> sorted,
>> > >> >> and he'd create the two accounts.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Now the next meeting was today, and since nothing had moved since
>> > >> >> then, Nuno has raised it again today. You can read the minutes
>> here
>> > >> >> (from line 145) http://ppi.piratenpad.de/agenda-2013-06-11
>> > >> >> Basically, despite it being announced wrong at the time, it can't
>> > >> >> simply be 'corrected'. Instead, now the court must rule on it
>> (???).
>> > >> >> Apparently, the argument was that since no-one objected at the
>> time,
>> > >> >> it can't be fixed, despite me asking for the results of all the
>> > >> >> elections right after
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> (
>> http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/2013-April/014107.html
>> ),
>> > >> >> for that reason.
>> > >> >> So now it rests with the 5 already confirmed CoA members, and it
>> > >> >> really is a no-brainer, but then again so was the invalidity of
>> the
>> > >> >> Catalonia membership a year ago, and look how that turned out
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> (
>> http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/2012-May/011713.html
>> )
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> So, almost 2 months after the Conference, we can maybe finally
>> finish
>> > >> >> with
>> > >> >> it.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Andrew
>> > >> >> sent unsigned from my Android
>> > >> >> +1(352)-6-KTETCH
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Nuno Cardoso
>> > >> >> <nuno.cardoso at pp-international.net> wrote:
>> > >> >> > Seems pretty simple to me as well, both Andrew Norton and Arturo
>> > >> >> > Martínez
>> > >> >> > are also elected members of the CoA and should be considered as
>> such
>> > >> >> > even
>> > >> >> > if at the time there was a misinterpretation of the statutes.
>> > >> >> > Congratulations to both :)
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Andrew Norton <
>> ktetch at ktetch.co.uk>
>> > >> >> > wrote:
>> > >> >> >>
>> > >> >> >> "at 4:42:33 Sven says that 17 votes were recieved, the quorum
>> is at
>> > >> >> >> 9
>> > >> >> >> votes and that those 5 candidates were elected"
>> > >> >> >>
>> > >> >> >> Rules of Proceedure
>> > >> >> >>
>> > >> >> >>
>> > >> >> >>
>> > >> >> >> (
>> http://wiki.pp-international.net/PPI_Conference_2013/GA_meeting/RoP#Art._6a_Elections
>> )
>> > >> >> >> state
>> > >> >> >> Election Method
>> > >> >> >>
>> > >> >> >> a) Before the voting, the number of elected positions should be
>> > >> >> >> decided, if Statutes require to do so.
>> > >> >> >> b) Every Ordinary Member may vote "yes" for any number of
>> > >> >> >> candidates.
>> > >> >> >> c) The candidates that has achieved a simple majority of the
>> "yes"
>> > >> >> >> votes from Ordinary Members present or represented and voting
>> on
>> > >> >> >> them[18] are elected in the order determined by number of "yes"
>> > >> >> >> votes
>> > >> >> >> accumulated. Abstentions are not taken into account. In event
>> of a
>> > >> >> >> tie
>> > >> >> >> where order matters, deciding elections are held, where only
>> one
>> > >> >> >> "yes"
>> > >> >> >> vote per Ordinary Member can be cast.
>> > >> >> >> d) If the decided number(Art. 6a(6a)) of positions is not
>> filled,
>> > >> >> >> additional round of elections is held unless decided otherwise.
>> > >> >> >>
>> > >> >> >> 8 YES 6 NO is a simple majority when abstentions are not taken
>> into
>> > >> >> >> account (57%). Nothing about a decided 'quorum' in there (and
>> in
>> > >> >> >> fact
>> > >> >> >> the unknown nature of abstentions mean you can't do it anyway)
>> at
>> > >> >> >> all.
>> > >> >> >>
>> > >> >> >> Seems pretty simple to me.
>> > >> >> >>
>> > >> >> >> Andrew
>> > >> >> >>
>> > >> >> >>
>> > >> >> >>
>> > >> >> >> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Pat Mächler
>> > >> >> >> <patrick.maechler at pp-international.net> wrote:
>> > >> >> >> > The following is according to my visual observations on said
>> > >> >> >> > recordings,
>> > >> >> >> > that I preliminary recieved
>> > >> >> >> > The times mentionned are relative to the video; not actual
>> daytime
>> > >> >> >> >
>> > >> >> >> > at 4:30:20 the chair (Sven) announces that the ballot papers
>> are
>> > >> >> >> > prepared
>> > >> >> >> > and the he CoA vote
>> > >> >> >> > for the next 95 seconds Sven signs 16 voting cards
>> (acoording to
>> > >> >> >> > visual
>> > >> >> >> > calculation) and
>> > >> >> >> > hands out election ballot sheets to delegates and proxies
>> along
>> > >> >> >> > with
>> > >> >> >> > the
>> > >> >> >> > chair assistant (Denis)
>> > >> >> >> >
>> > >> >> >> > at 4:32:10 Sven announces the vote to be open (for 4
>> minutes) and
>> > >> >> >> > leaves
>> > >> >> >> > the
>> > >> >> >> > recording picture
>> > >> >> >> > at 4:32:40 he re-enters to the recording picture (returns to
>> the
>> > >> >> >> > table
>> > >> >> >> > to
>> > >> >> >> > answer questions)
>> > >> >> >> > at 4:33:10 he leaves the table again
>> > >> >> >> > at 4:35:00 he re-enters to the recording picture
>> > >> >> >> > at 4:36:30 Denis leaves the recording picture
>> > >> >> >> > at 4:36:40 Sven leaves the recording picture
>> > >> >> >> > around 4:37:23 Sven and Denis are entering and leaving the
>> > >> >> >> > recording
>> > >> >> >> > picture
>> > >> >> >> > within 5 seconds
>> > >> >> >> > at 4:42:00 the camera angle turns towards right; Sven and
>> Denis
>> > >> >> >> > can
>> > >> >> >> > be
>> > >> >> >> > seen;
>> > >> >> >> > about 50% of the chair table can be seen
>> > >> >> >> > at 4:42:20 they walk to the left side; Sven can't be seen
>> anymore
>> > >> >> >> > at 4:42:25 Denis walks out of the recording picture
>> > >> >> >> > at 4:42:30 the camera turns right again (the chair table can
>> be
>> > >> >> >> > seen
>> > >> >> >> > for
>> > >> >> >> > about 75%); Sven sits at the table
>> > >> >> >> > at 4:42:33 Sven says that 17 votes were recieved, the quorum
>> is at
>> > >> >> >> > 9
>> > >> >> >> > votes
>> > >> >> >> > and that those 5 candidates were elected
>> > >> >> >> >
>> > >> >> >> >
>> > >> >> >> > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Pat Mächler
>> > >> >> >> > <patrick.maechler at pp-international.net> wrote:
>> > >> >> >> >>
>> > >> >> >> >> According to the election notes I have here, I strongly
>> assume
>> > >> >> >> >> that
>> > >> >> >> >> the
>> > >> >> >> >> chair calculated with 17 votes cast and an absolute
>> majority was
>> > >> >> >> >> necessary.
>> > >> >> >> >> However I got only 16 ballot papers.
>> > >> >> >> >> I assume the missing vote could be by the UK who decided to
>> > >> >> >> >> generally
>> > >> >> >> >> abstain; however there is no such sheet among the ballot
>> papers
>> > >> >> >> >> (in
>> > >> >> >> >> contrast
>> > >> >> >> >> to all other elections, where there was a blank UK ballot
>> sheet
>> > >> >> >> >> provided).
>> > >> >> >> >> I will back check ASAP with the preliminary video
>> recordings I
>> > >> >> >> >> got
>> > >> >> >> >> from
>> > >> >> >> >> Wolfgang Preiss whether it could be inferred that UK cast an
>> > >> >> >> >> abstention
>> > >> >> >> >> vote
>> > >> >> >> >> there.
>> > >> >> >> >>
>> > >> >> >> >> -pat
>> > >> >> >> >>
>> > >> >> >> >>
>> > >> >> >> >> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 3:48 AM, Mozart Palmer
>> > >> >> >> >> <mozart.palmer at pp-international.net> wrote:
>> > >> >> >> >>>
>> > >> >> >> >>> Is there a reason why there are only five members of the
>> Court
>> > >> >> >> >>> of
>> > >> >> >> >>> Arbitration elected? The statutes provide for up to seven,
>> > >> >> >> >>> meaning
>> > >> >> >> >>> that
>> > >> >> >> >>> Arturo and Andrew should be elected according to the
>> results.
>> > >> >> >> >>>
>> > >> >> >> >>>
>> > >> >> >> >>> On 16 May 2013 05:46, Pat Mächler
>> > >> >> >> >>> <patrick.maechler at pp-international.net>
>> > >> >> >> >>> wrote:
>> > >> >> >> >>>>
>> > >> >> >> >>>> Dear pirates,
>> > >> >> >> >>>>
>> > >> >> >> >>>> Please find here the current status of the minutes of the
>> PPI
>> > >> >> >> >>>> GA
>> > >> >> >> >>>> 2013. I
>> > >> >> >> >>>> would be grateful if you could provide corrections to me
>> via
>> > >> >> >> >>>> mail.
>> > >> >> >> >>>> 4 weeks afterwards the minutes will be automatically
>> accepted
>> > >> >> >> >>>> according
>> > >> >> >> >>>> to the RoP.
>> > >> >> >> >>>>
>> > >> >> >> >>>>
>> > >> >> >> >>>>
>> > >> >> >> >>>>
>> > >> >> >> >>>>
>> http://wiki.pp-international.net/PPI_Conference_2013/GA_meeting/Minutes
>> > >> >> >> >>>>
>> > >> >> >> >>>> You can blame the delay on me; part of the problem was,
>> that I
>> > >> >> >> >>>> wanted
>> > >> >> >> >>>> to
>> > >> >> >> >>>> back check the recordings about the member application
>> ballots
>> > >> >> >> >>>> (they
>> > >> >> >> >>>> were
>> > >> >> >> >>>> too fast).
>> > >> >> >> >>>>
>> > >> >> >> >>>> fair winds
>> > >> >> >> >>>> Pat / Valio / vvv
>> > >> >> >> >>>>
>> > >> >> >> >>>> ____________________________________________________
>> > >> >> >> >>>> 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
>> > >> >> >> >
>> > >> >> >> ____________________________________________________
>> > >> >> >> 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
>> > >> >
>> > >> > ____________________________________________________
>> > >> > 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
>> > >
>> > ____________________________________________________
>> > 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/attachments/20130612/e6d1948c/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the pp.international.general mailing list