[pp.int.general] Invitation PPI Conference Paris 12th/13th of April

Fri Mar 28 23:31:59 CET 2014

Yes David...you forked but for the interest of PP-CAT, not for the benefits
of the Pirate movement


2014-03-28 23:29 GMT+01:00 Francisco George <francisco.george at gmail.com>:

> And all of this fuss because no one had the courage to declare the PRAGUE
> GA *VOID*
>
>
>
>
> 2014-03-28 21:00 GMT+01:00 Andrew Norton <ktetch at gmail.com>:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> 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.
>> >
>> >
>> > FYI:
>> >
>> > "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:
>> >
>> http://wiki.pp-international.net/wiki/index.php?title=PPI_Conference_2014&action=history
>>
>> 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
>> haven't confirmed"
>> And it was raised as a massive issue 2 years ago as well.
>>
>> http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/2012-February/010977.html
>> 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)
>> Or
>>
>> http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/2012-February/010851.html
>> for the 2012 Prague one, more than 2 months early.
>> Or
>>
>> http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/2013-March/013827.html
>> 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
>> > <
>> http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/invitation>)
>> > differs from that of "announcement" (1
>> > <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/announcement>, 2
>> > <
>> http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/announcement
>> >),
>> > 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
>> intention.
>>
>> 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
>> anything."
>>
>> "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
>> position.
>>
>> >
>> > 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
>> irate.
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Pirate regards,
>> > Nuno
>> >
>> >
>> > ____________________________________________________
>> > Pirate Parties International - General Talk
>> > pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
>> > http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>> >
>>
>>
>> - --
>> Andrew Norton
>> http://ktetch.co.uk
>> 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/
>>
>> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTNdTGAAoJECjjuYTW3X5H3GUH/3+vLfpcdUOlSaYwBF10SAe8
>> S7cRfhnsdWFvEjjulXCoReuOlGzO84So2Bmr+QacsSPskJMaOgy3TJvPYyvMAw8H
>> Vnt01eguMPLJAWl68L1ZiICmFTZsq3SzVadCXqmscCOGLn7nlOPCsD/0pRwBcUfS
>> 7Cubi1c6wYmcw6mj6gl2GgEtLL1zrSOAsI9lFZxhKkKDiKsp28s+WXc+WWceh2lp
>> r9FeiF1ThDyS6ohEtPdAZ1pycnCv6D4K72yXw2tsE264nk41q4wtx7DwdzlC3c+3
>> O1RDsbVngrpmEfo4Xuo8dtCrWReffPhW8BExdFustKvewjL0bHlkGzXVCxhCUsg=
>> =NxkK
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> ____________________________________________________
>> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
>> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
>> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/attachments/20140328/6b3c3af4/attachment-0001.html>