[pp.int.general] Reflections on the PP GA

[Koen De Voegt]

Hello all,

On PPI HQ: I would like to direct you to the following link: 
http://kbopub.economie.fgov.be/kbopub/toonondernemingps.html?ondernemingsnummer=845017775 
On the bottom there you can find the links to the statutes of PPI HQ in 
the way they where officially published in Belgium. I haven't quiet 
figured everything out just yet but I'm working on it. Feel free to read 
through those horrible documents and provide constructive remarks.

Best regards,
Koen De Voegt



op 14-04-14 08:57, Zbigniew Łukasiak schreef:
> 1. Overall I have positive impressions. I think with the new board we
> have a chance to overcome at least some of the problems from the past.
> Unfortunately I don't see how the Court of Arbitration could  rule the
> GA announcement correct and that means we'll be back with the old
> board.  Maybe the Netherlands would just remove their complaint?
>
> 2. The statutes say "The General Assembly shall meet at least once a
> year" - so there is no problem with having another GA with a correct
> announcement soon.
>
> 3. The proceedings where efficient (at least at the part that I was
> present) - that was a surprise for me after reading reports on all the
> past GAs. Maybe the procedure was improved? I would like for the
> remote delegates to confirm my impressions - but  for me it looked
> that when the on-site delegates worked with no more than one remote
> participant they had enough time to make sure that the communication
> worked and could efficiently represent them.
>
> 4. There is still the problem of what to do in case of a malicious
> attack on the GA. It is not that difficult to disrupt the
> communication link and then what should we do? Would the GA be valid
> if the remote participants were cut off from it? What if they were cut
> off not constantly - but often enough to make the GA again
> frustratingly inefficient?
>
>
> 5. PPI Headquaters - I have started this in another thread already -
> but I'll repeate. We need to know what is that organization. I don't
> quite buy the 'automagic' that was talked about at the GA - it is well
> known that all the 'small script' in contracts are the most important
> part of them.
>
> 6. I hope that much of the information exchange can actually happen
> outside of GAs. We can use the mailing lists for this. Maybe we could
> set up a new one that would be open to all pirate party members - but
> still have some rules that would fix the troll problem. Or
> alternatively we can also use the new Liquid Feedback system for this.
> In areas where we manage to reach consensus on-line - there the GA
> will be only a formality and it will proceed smoothly.
>
> 7. I liked the open space sessions - big thumbs up for Gregory for
> organizing this. I hope that the outcome papers will be published by
> the GA organizers - that will enable more people to join in the
> projects. There is much that can be done - and it will be very
> interesting to see which projects get along their plans and which just
> get stuck at the starting point. In a half a year this will be an
> interesting learning opportunity. Personally I have the feeling that
> there was a little bit too much talk about great outcomes and too
> little about the practical detail how to reach them. Maybe we should
> start thinking about 'the minimum viable product' as is popular among
> entrepreneurs.
>
>