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

Sun Apr 20 19:45:24 CEST 2014

> So the point is - if we make a 'ship' that makes decisions like this -
> chooses the date for protests. As we agreed - this sheep cannot be too
> big - I don't know what is a good size for a consensus decision making
> group - but presumably not more than a hundred or two of participants.
>  That means 2-3 representatives from all the national parties. How can
> we make it so that these decisions are considered legitimate and that
> people follow them?

People first need to believe in the protest, but despite of that
and focusing in the practical side, the person that propose the activity
must indicate a tentative "what why when where" and tell something like
"please, agree with your group and let me know if it fits your
activities". That should be enough to delegate consensus to minor
groups. Take into account that this relies on the fact that everyone
take ownership on the activity, if a single person has a very good
concern and the whole group in the discussion consider that it worths,
that person should propose another "what why when where" or whatever be
in conflict: this is a key point to avoid trolling. If you identify
trolling, you can appeal to empathy and say something like "Sorry to
heard you cannot participate on that date, what does your group think
about it? is there any public concern we should take into account?"

But I insist on the fact that people need to get involved in
discussions to legitimate it. If there're 200 users subscribed to the
"street ship" but only a couple answer to a message and they do not
represent the different pirate parties (or at least a couple of them),
consensus is not working, it is more like an announcement. Some
important points to get people involved on activities are: collective
identity, short-term objective, long/middle-term objective, the
provisional role of the leader (as a coordinator) and the role of the
people in the activity (why would I participate on this?) which is
very tied to the group identity.

And don't be afraid for the number. My experience shows that only a
couple of people actively participate on activities. If it is not the
case, you can think in specific actions to filter noise when the
problem appear.

Regards,

Matías

On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 18:57:04 +0200
Zbigniew Łukasiak <zzbbyy at gmail.com> wrote:

> OK - I think we mostly agree than.
> 
> To focus the discussion on something more practical - the thing that I
> have on mind this whole time is organizing coordinated actions. For
> example European Union and the USA are now negotiating TTIP. Granted
> this is not about the whole of the pirate movement - but I use it here
> as an illustration - last year there was a similar case with
> protesting PRISM that was more universal. Many pirate parties organize
> protests or join protests organized by other groups - there was one in
> France just a day before the PPI meeting, there was one in Berlin
> yesterday. But if we choose one day and make a coordinated protest in
> Europe and in the USA - than this would be something much more visible
> to the media. This is a clear win for us - but somehow people don't
> listen to calls for coordination and make their own local protest.
> 
> Choosing the date requires information aggregation from all the
> national parties - because they know what are good local dates. This
> decision will be better made jointly rather be mandated by a PPI
> board. The only thing is that the participants must feel that when
> they decide then this protest will indeed happen. It is actually
> pretty low hanging fruit - the risks are low, the parties do the
> protests anyway - it is just about agreeing on the date, and the gain
> is real. But still somehow this does not happen.
> 
> So the point is - if we make a 'ship' that makes decisions like this -
> chooses the date for protests. As we agreed - this sheep cannot be too
> big - I don't know what is a good size for a consensus decision making
> group - but presumably not more than a hundred or two of participants.
>  That means 2-3 representatives from all the national parties. How can
> we make it so that these decisions are considered legitimate and that
> people follow them?
> 
> Z.
> 
> On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 4:38 PM, seykron
> <seykron at partidopirata.com.ar> 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?
> >
> > 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
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________
> > 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/20140420/596ad645/attachment.pgp>