[pp.int.general] Invitation PPI Conference Paris 12th/13th of April
ktetch at gmail.com
Fri Mar 28 21:00:06 CET 2014
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 3/28/2014 2:43 PM, Nuno Cardoso wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 10:55 PM, Andrew Norton <ktetch at gmail.com
> <mailto:ktetch at gmail.com>> wrote:
> Just as a point of order, isn't this a bit late?
> Statutes say"
> (Statute IX(7) Meetings of the General Assembly will be announced at
> least five weeks prior to the meeting. The invitation will be sent out
> by the Board to all Members and published on the homepage of Pirate
> Parties International website."
> it's now just over TWO, not 5.
> "announcement" was made months ago when Paris was chosen, and you can
> track the full history of that "announcement" as it is "published on the
> homepage of Pirate Parties International website" here:
Again, Nuno, There's quite a difference between 'announcement' "here is
the event, it is here and now and all sorted" and "this is some stuff we
And it was raised as a massive issue 2 years ago as well.
directly to a current board member.
Again, your own board records show no planning even as recently as
January. The date was quietly changed on that page in December.
If you REALLY wanted to go that route, that the announcement was back in
August (and actually, the only 'announcement' made was that a host city
had been picked) Then the self-same 'announcement' is for an event
happening next week.
If you would like a comparison of what is generally considered an
'announcement', then why don't we try the notice send for the
Friedrichshafen conference January 23/24 (depending on timezone) 2011, 6
weeks before the event (its corrupt int he archive)
for the 2012 Prague one, more than 2 months early.
for Kazan, sent 6 weeks in advance.
There is certainly a pattern of "PPI officers make announcements to the
list 6-8 weeks in advance to let us know details are set".
You should know this, you were a board member for the last one, as was
Denis, And Thomas was on the board for the previous one.
There's NO WAY you can claim you didn't know about this, that it's some
kind of new requirement.
> Furthermore, unlike you, I'm not a native English speaker but I still
> know that the meaning of "invitation" (1
> <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/invitation>, 2
> differs from that of "announcement" (1
> <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/announcement>, 2
> and the former one ("invitation") really has no associated time schedule.
So, let's look at 'announcement:
a public and typically formal statement about a fact, occurrence, or
How is slipping a few words onto a wiki page a 'public and formal
notice'. While it may be publically accesable, it is not a 'public
notice' (which generally has the requirement of copious conspicuousness
- - in other words, we all know it's a notice, we are made aware of its
existence, and that it is in a finished form.) nor can it be considered
in any way 'formal' since it was subject to change without notice.
I have to say, I certainly know how Arthur Dent feels:
"But Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office
for the last nine months."
"Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them,
yesterday afternoon. You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call
attention to them, had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or
"But the plans were on display ..."
"On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar[wiki] to find them."
"That's the display department."
"With a flashlight."
"Ah, well the lights had probably gone."
"So had the stairs."
"But look, you found the notice didn't you?"
"Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a
locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the
door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'."
Had a government entity behaved like this to any of us, we'd be jumping
up and down, writing press releases, and organising protests. Why do you
consider it ok to do it to us? Hipocrisia não é bom.
> If you are not happy with the wording of that paragraph and find it of
> ambiguous interpretation, the statutes XIVa(6) say you can ask the
> "Court of Arbitration" who "may answer the preliminary questions of the
> organs and individuals about the interpretation of the Statutes" but be
> advised that "such answers act through their persuasiveness only", so
> ultimately you can have a member file a statute amendment proposal to a
> wording that is less confusing to you.
I think most people find the wording very UN-ambiguous, but the
convolutions used to try and justify things as less than honest.
The honorable thing for the Board (and Maxime) to do would be to admit
fault, that you screwed up, and deal with it. By refusing to admit
responsibility, you (as a group) bring into question not just your
integrity, but your honesty, ethics and basic suitability for any pirate
> Now that the issue is clarified I'l refrain from reading the rest of the
> thread since I can read on the pirate map that "here be trolls mateys"
Indeed, and they seem to be officers of the PPI, trolling the membership.
Right now, I'm tired of the 'PPI Board' taking the P and leaving me just
> Pirate regards,
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
Tel: +1(352)6-KTETCH [+1-352-658-3824]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the pp.international.general