[pp.int.general] Consensus and power (before Re: Reflections on the PP GA)

Sun Apr 20 16:38:35 CEST 2014

> So you propose that we have a mailing list (or web forum or whatever)
> with all members of all pirate parties? Plus translations of all
> messages on that mailing list for people that don't know English and
> than when they want to add from themselves you'd like the translators
> to be required to translate it and send to the mailing list?

Of course not, it could be extremely painful and again, communication
will not work. Here we should be a bit more pragmatic. For example, we
can make some assumptions:

1. Communication does not work, so you'll need to "change" something
and there is no guarantee that a new communication model will work. So,
it is a work in progress until you consider the goal is reached (and
believe me, communication is an endless WIP). Maybe you'll need to
change the model many times during the process.

2. The current PPI structure is strongly vertical, so you need to begin
from this premise: people will tend to leave any communication channel
you create, because you have nothing to keep them active in the
pirate movement. It leads to the next assumption.

3. There're two-way communications: from PPI to people and from people
to PPI. If you don't success creating a symmetric channel, people will
leave as they did from existing mailists. There's a ton of information
every day, if people can't actively participate on decisions there's
nothing more than daily spam. Here you have to answer a couple of
questions: does the PPI want to turn into a more participative
organization?, if so, how do you open participation within that big
organization?, is PPI that big?, how many active people are in the
movement and in local pirate parties?, how many of that active people
want to get involved in certain topics? It leads to the next
consideration.

4. You have to define the level of granularity for communication
channels. I think this is the worst part, and the one that will change
quickly according to the people getting involved in topics. If I'd have
to make an "official" proposal should be this one:

  I. at the beginning we can assume people can speak english (it is a
  disadvantage facing native speakers, but it is how it works right
  now), so channels are all in english. Maybe some people want to
  propose themselves as translators for a specific language, and we can
  list their contacts in the PPI site, but messages to the channels
  must be in english.

  II. Identify work units in the PPI and make them virtually
  horizontal and independent from any hierarchy. For example, if
  there're committees or boards and they're responsible of certain
  topics, they could be considered a virtual work unit on a category of
  topics (in the PPAr we call these units "pirate ships"). Some "ships"
  I figure out right now could be "parliamentary ship" to discuss and
  build Bill proposals; "communication ship" to create effective
  announces and media material; "translation ship" to translate
  documents into local languages; "treasure ship" to guarantee that any
  finance movement is transparent and properly announced. I don't know
  the PPI structure, but for sure there should be a couple of others.

  III. List all existing ships in the PPI site and create a single
  channel for each "ship". People can subscribe to any channel (I like
  mailing lists because I can apply filters and it is a distributed
  system, no one can say "my message was deleted" or something like
  that).

  IV. As mechanisms to take decisions are already defined in the PPI and
  there should be a lot of legal concerns in the middle, maybe at the
  beginning it is not possible to translate consensus (which is a
  practice and it takes a while to work smoothly) to decisions. Here
  the PPI can make a compromise with people: we're working to be a
  high-scale participative organization, keep helping us on topics
  you're interested in while we change our decision making structure to
  include you as part of PPI decisions).

This is a brief outline of what I imagine of a pirate organization,
but there're million of possible strategies if you want to. At this
point I think you understand it is not about "communication" but a
common political practice. If you simply want to announce what's
happening in the PPI just like in other political parties, you can
publish announcements in a blog or site or social network, but take into
account that it will find the same luck as any other information in
internet. Personally, I will not be part of a classical political party
(though it dress up and cheat people presenting itself as a new
alternative), and I will not spread any message from it if I cannot
take part on decisions. Most of people that's claiming for a "change"
or a "better democracy" will take a similar path than I. You'll see
that people can be cheated once, but when the trick is discovered the
organization will fall to pieces as a giant troll.

Regards,

Matías

On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 20:21:11 +0200
Zbigniew Łukasiak <zzbbyy at gmail.com> wrote:

> So you propose that we have a mailing list (or web forum or whatever)
> with all members of all pirate parties? Plus translations of all
> messages on that mailing list for people that don't know English and
> than when they want to add from themselves you'd like the translators
> to be required to translate it and send to the mailing list?
> 
> I like the techniques from
> http://www.starhawk.org/activism/trainer-resources/consensus.html - I
> believe they are great for improving legitimacy and in general making
> the group strong - but they will not work on such a scale and with
> this kind of communication difficulties.
> 
> Z.
> 
> On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 7:06 PM, seykron
> <seykron at partidopirata.com.ar> wrote:
> > The language is a barrier, yes, but I don't see how it could turn
> > to a representative system. Maybe it could help: in the PPAr's
> > Statute we defined a kind of bodies called "bureaucratic bodies",
> > which are usually administrative roles without autonomy.
> > Bureaucratic bodies must execute directions from the Permanent
> > Assembly and they have to report any activity concerned to the
> > assigned role. Maybe the translator(s) could be this kind of body,
> > and we even could ask for help to other pirate parties.
> >
> > Regarding your comment:
> >
> >> My goal is to have some communication structure linking all the
> >> pirate parties that works. The current one does not work - because
> >> not many people use this mailing list or even the leaders maling
> >> list (read and write).
> >
> > There is another underlying problem that make communication harder:
> > the PPI structure is strongly vertical. Decisions are taken by a
> > small groups of elected committees or "boards". Direct democracy
> > has a very important MUST: people must be able to get involved in
> > any topic as they want. As I said before, it does not means that
> > everyone must be involved in everything, but it must be possible if
> > someone wants to. A representative system tends to exclude people
> > and it builds an "elite" separated from the "mass" (there's a lot
> > of political science literature about this). So the "mass" is
> > limited to "choose between a set of leaders" instead of actively
> > participate in decisions that matter (I encourage you to think
> > about psychological effects of this kind of "delegation").
> >
> > Think about common problems in a representative system and you will
> > see how they're also reproduced in the PPI. When there's a small
> > group of people taking decisions, it doesn't matter whether they
> > have good intentions or not (I assume yes), they will forget some
> > scenarios, there will be holes in the decision that excludes more
> > and more people from the scope. So excluded people start asking for
> > "democratization", they fight against the "tyranny" of those
> > representative that "cheated them" at election. It's happening all
> > around the world, and it is boosted by another capitalist crisis
> > that started on 2008.
> >
> >> For that goal we need a communication channel that:
> >>
> >> 1. Matters. Taking part in the discussions requires some effort -
> >> so people will only do that if they feel that this effort leads to
> >> somewhere.
> >
> > Assuming that we talk about an horizontal organization, it requires
> > effort but at least it is possible. If you success communicating to
> > people that they're building a new social order based on strong
> > relationships, and it leads to a kind of power that may make a
> > difference on they daily life (for example, they can change little
> > things on their neighborhoods), you won the half of battled. The
> > other half is to fight against the social apathy produced by our
> > representative systems. People forgot how to take decisions and
> > execute collective actions. It sounds sad, but it happened to all
> > of us. This perspective also can help to figure out the answer to
> > "why a political party" :)
> >
> >>
> >> 2. Is fair - democratic and self-governed.
> >>
> > Fairness is a trick. If we think about legacy of decisions time and
> > time again everything gets stuck. I rather prefer to speak in terms
> > of legitimation, and consensus is the essence of legitimation. As I
> > said before, consensus is hard to reach, but there're a lot of
> > tools and mechanisms that can help to build a strong
> > consensus-based institution. I would like to resume a thought from
> > Cal: "there are people with extensive political baggage, unable to
> > understand how their preexisting ideas are controversial". This is
> > the key. How many people like this have you in the organization? In
> > the PPAr we assumed that 10% is good enough for our organization,
> > but it depends on how the organization grows and the baggage of its
> > founders. This percent of dissent is still easy to handle, and in
> > most cases it can be addressed with a pair of beers :)
> >
> >> 3. Is efficient - the effort for reading it and writing is not too
> >> big.
> >>
> > This point is very important. People must learn how to manage their
> > participation. The organization can help providing tutorials about
> > tools or periodic workshops. If something can be automatized it
> > should be made quickly (infrastructure autonomy is very important
> > to make changes as it is required, that's because online services
> > like google are not recommended for core services). For example, in
> > the PPAr email lists the server automatically puts different email
> > lists into IMAP folders. Of course, it is not too much, but more
> > heuristics could be implemented.
> >
> > Just a last word about dissent. Trolling is a fact. Some people just
> > dissent because they can, and sometimes they try to turn the
> > discussion into another in which they feel more comfortable. That's
> > because it is important to adopt mechanisms like Relevant Dissent
> > and unlocking strategies. When there's a new type of trolling, the
> > organization must create new tools against it. IMHO, the effort
> > should lead to exclude from organization those people that will not
> > kill their egos in favour of the whole group. Of course, that
> > doesn't mean to invalidate feelings or values from people, I'm
> > talking about trolling and we all know how it works.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Matías
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 16:32:08 +0200
> > Zbigniew Łukasiak <zzbbyy at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> That language problem sounds difficult.  We'll need translation and
> >> until machine translation is good enough for this - this means that
> >> someone will have to translate the stuff for the local parties. If
> >> we designate people to do that - what we eventually get is some
> >> kind of representative system - where the translators represent
> >> the local parties.
> >>
> >> Personally I don't see this as a  problem - but I guess it depends
> >> on what is your goal.
> >>
> >> My goal is to have some communication structure linking all the
> >> pirate parties that works. The current one does not work - because
> >> not many people use this mailing list or even the leaders maling
> >> list (read and write).
> >>
> >> For that goal we need a communication channel that:
> >>
> >> 1. Matters. Taking part in the discussions requires some effort -
> >> so people will only do that if they feel that this effort leads to
> >> somewhere.
> >>
> >> 2. Is fair - democratic and self-governed.
> >>
> >> 3. Is efficient - the effort for reading it and writing is not too
> >> big.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Zbigniew
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Betiel <betielix at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > that´s a good point. the other problem I see is language. Not all
> >> > pirates feel comfortable writting english and for sure many
> >> > doesn´t understand English at all and that can discourage many
> >> > pirates to participate. Regarding the first problem, well nobody
> >> > said participating would be super easy. There always be the
> >> > issue of having to read lot of emails, and many of them won´t
> >> > say any usefull but I think it worth the try. What makes me
> >> > doubt about using this list for a consensus, is  the language
> >> > issue. Perhaps we can think all together how to solve it. The
> >> > first step should be to ensure all the pirate parties arround
> >> > the world are aware on this tentative change, specially the ones
> >> > we don´t hear here much so they can participate and tell us how
> >> > they would like to proceed..
> >> >
> >> > Betiel
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 2014-04-18 0:32 GMT-05:00 Zbigniew Łukasiak <zzbbyy at gmail.com>:
> >> >
> >> >> That was very thoughtful!
> >> >>
> >> >> For now I have just one comment about using this mailing list
> >> >> for anything serious. The problem with this is that not many
> >> >> people read this mailing list any more - there were too many
> >> >> flamewars and people got tired of that. This is not unfixable -
> >> >> but for some ideological reasons it was decided that this
> >> >> mailing list has no rules. Nobody would propose something like
> >> >> that for an in-person meeting - but somehow any way of limiting
> >> >> the individual expression on-line is considered censorship.
> >> >>
> >> >> Cheers,
> >> >> Zbigniew
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 10:31 PM, seykron
> >> >> <seykron at partidopirata.com.ar> wrote:
> >> >> > Online consensus practice in easy enough with our existing
> >> >> > tools, even applying quite adapted versions of classical
> >> >> > techniques. For example, the Permanent Assembly might be this
> >> >> > mailist. Usually no everyone is interested in all topics (for
> >> >> > example, only you answered to my email about consensus). The
> >> >> > advantage of the mailist is that no everyone MUST to be
> >> >> > present physically on the same location to get involved in a
> >> >> > decision making, so it promotes participation. The mechanism
> >> >> > is very very simple:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 1) You propose a topic to the Permanent Assembly. If someone
> >> >> > is interested in this topic (usually about a specific issue or
> >> >> > activity) will get involved in the discussion to enrich the
> >> >> > whole perspective and make an agreement. In the PPAr we
> >> >> > consider consensus when three persons agree on a topic.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 2) If there's Relevant Dissent, the decision is blocked until
> >> >> > dissent is resolved ("Difficulties in Reaching Consensus"
> >> >> > section of the Starhawk's article is a good reference to
> >> >> > identify dissent). For the PPAr, Relevant Dissent means that
> >> >> > at least 10% of people involved in a discussion disagree. This
> >> >> > mechanism helps to avoid the "dictatorship of the
> >> >> > majority" (or the so called 50%+1 factor) and it also avoids
> >> >> > blockings from a single person.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 3) If there's Relevant Dissent, it is a warning sign. Usually
> >> >> > in a group like pirate parties, personal values involved in a
> >> >> > decision finally can get closer (or some concessions can be
> >> >> > easily made from all sides). If it does not happen, it may
> >> >> > means that something in the organization is declining. I also
> >> >> > could mean that the topic is very controversial -like
> >> >> > abortion, to mention an example-, or even simpler: there're
> >> >> > misunderstandings on what someone is trying to say (sometimes
> >> >> > it's very hard to express yourself). In any case, if there's
> >> >> > Relevant Dissent the decision is blocked and the discussion
> >> >> > must be taken away from keyboard. For example, it could be
> >> >> > discussed in a conference room with Mumble, or if it is
> >> >> > possible in a bar drinking a beer :). If it does not work,
> >> >> > there're several unlocking techniques, but I will not extend
> >> >> > myself on this (some good techniques are explained in "Tools
> >> >> > for Consensus Process" section of Starhawk's article).
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The key point is: we are all human beings, we make mistakes,
> >> >> > and we act with good faith. Of course, I'm aware of what
> >> >> > "power" means in a capitalist, post-industrial society. But
> >> >> > the key question for PPI to answer is:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > What *power* means for pirates?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > In the PPAr it is always under discussion, however we have
> >> >> > consensus in this point: power means to build a strong human
> >> >> > organization which distributes its power between all
> >> >> > participants. And these "pieces" of power is what legitimates
> >> >> > any decision. If an organization grows with this kind of
> >> >> > legitimation, it is very difficult to take it down, it is very
> >> >> > consistent on its decisions (which is essential to manage
> >> >> > outer press and public opinion), and it is very strong despite
> >> >> > personal problems between people within the organization.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > How to take a decision is the answer to the question "who has
> >> >> > the power". A decision may imply a lot of economic resources,
> >> >> > and we all know how we behave when there's money in the
> >> >> > middle (in the PPAr we work very hard to decentralize money,
> >> >> > for example). From here to a political party is just a little
> >> >> > step, but "why a political party instead another kind of
> >> >> > organization" is out of the scope.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > If you reached the bottom of this message, I encourage you to
> >> >> > think about power, how people is involved on it in the real
> >> >> > world, and how conflicts rise and are resolved by people when
> >> >> > there's power in the middle.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Regards,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Matías
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Thu, 17 Apr 2014 15:37:33 +0200
> >> >> > Zbigniew Łukasiak <zzbbyy at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Hi there,
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> seykron - good point about consensus.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Any ideas how we could translate
> >> >> >> http://www.starhawk.org/activism/trainer-resources/consensus.html
> >> >> >> into on-line circumstances?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> It is possible that we are already a group too large for a
> >> >> >> traditional consensus decision making - but who knows? We
> >> >> >> cannot tell if we have not tried.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Z.
> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________
> >> >> >> 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
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Zbigniew Lukasiak
> >> >> http://brudnopis.blogspot.com/
> >> >> http://perlalchemy.blogspot.com/
> >> >> ____________________________________________________
> >> >> 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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/attachments/20140420/f6ca76f8/attachment.pgp>