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

Sun Apr 20 20:05:42 CEST 2014

> The above also solves the next problem that is mentioned by Matías:
> "PPI structure is strongly vertical" - This is a simple result of
> current boundaries of communication due to a) language barriers and
> b) missing communication infrastructure.
> Vertical - is just the most practical form of organisation under
> current constraints.

I don't see any problem solved. And "the most practical form of
organisation under current constraints" is not true, I invite you to
read carefully all this discussion. I would give you some examples, but
I understand you're not interested on reflections about exhausted
forms of organization and the new horizons opened by mass
communications and low-cost infrastructure.

If I am really wrong, please show me infrastructure limitations and
what is for you "current constraints", because I didn't get it.

Regards,

Matías

On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 18:57:25 +0200
Martin Stolze <pirate.martin at stolze.cc> wrote:

> TL;DR most of it
> 
> + 1 for peppecal at gmail.com, very well put!
> + 1 I agree with Zbigniew, Infrastructure is the critical point!
> 
> 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.
> >
> 
> + respect privacy and allows for proof of identity at the same time
> 
> I still propose to fork Reddit for many reasons but mostly because it
> is the practical next step from email.
> 
> Language: Not a problem, English works fine, it’s a prerequisite like
> an internet connection. I am sure that people without internet
> connection have important things to contribute but the cost of
> integrating them exceeds by far the possible gains. Think of it like
> illiteracy, or just computer-illiterate people that are not excluded
> but invited, the same goes for people that are linguistically
> handicapped - www.mooec.com - I am happy to help :)
> + it’s much easier than the sisyphean-task of constant translation
> 
> The above also solves the next problem that is mentioned by Matías:
> "PPI structure is strongly vertical" - This is a simple result of
> current boundaries of communication due to a) language barriers and
> b) missing communication infrastructure.
> Vertical - is just the most practical form of organisation under
> current constraints.
> 
> -- Martin
> 
> PS: Fun fact: - The proto-democracy that the united states of America
> but also many european nations have today originated in 18th and 19th
> century because of  the same restrictions that we face now within the
> global pirate movement, (computer)illiteracy, language, very limited
> communication channels that necessitate a representative systems
> which ultimately deteriorates towards an oligarchy or particracy
> 
> 
> 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/20140420/84d0c5eb/attachment.pgp>