[pp.int.general] Invitation PPI online General Assembly on 29.03.2015

Andrew Norton ktetch at gmail.com
Sat Feb 21 23:06:12 CET 2015

Hash: SHA1

On 2/21/2015 4:15 PM, Thomas Gaul wrote:
> Hi Lisa!
> Am 21.02.2015 um 21:34 schrieb Lisa:
>> I think PPAU tried to do that, but you kind of shat them in the face.
> I believe you to be a well educated and well informed pirate. I am very
> sure your language slipped by mistake.

I don't think so. I think Lisa said what EVERYONE else is thinking.

> Else: for "useful" information I would suggest to everyone just
> re-listen to the previous meeting of the board of PPI. Everyone might
> get an first hand impression so to say and will not be talking on
> information given by hearsay.

We aren't. We're going by what YOU say and what YOU do.

>> Nice try on retaking the narrative though.
> To put it plain clear – if I would not have been accused of "being
> acting on behalf PP-DE as a member of PPI board" and therefore abstain
> from each vote for not conflicting with any interest whats'o'ever – I
> would have voted yes for the PP-AU proposal.

The accusation was by the PP-DE board, who I presume was attempting to
come in heavy at YOUR suggestion. To quote you on twitter (in between
trying to cast aspersions on me via the official PPI twitter account -
https://twitter.com/ppinternational/status/566306135456882689) "Statutes
are to be followed. That's why they are given."
Statues say "The members of the Board shall consider the interests of
the Pirate movement as a whole and shall neither consider themselves,
nor be considered, as representing any particular Member or non-member
Organization or region." (XII(1))

Oops. Someone doesn't like to follow the statutes. Quelle Suprise! Die
Regeln sind für kleine Leute. Ora che è quello che io chiamo corrotto!
Neu os ydych wedi bod yn gorwedd ar eich plaid Ac Maen nhw wedi bod
yn-représentée. (Qui is niet goed voor 'em, is het?) Oavsett, det är
inte bra heller sätt är det?

> And if going even further back in time you will see that I am among
> those pushing for an online GA (even in 2014).

No, you're pushing for an online version of the same mess we always get.
And I do mean MESS. sticking mumble on top of an already piss-poor
structure, especially with the problems of accents, poor english
understanding, and unaccountability that have PLAGUED PPI over the past
3-4 years means that this is actually going to be WORSE.

There was a reason I wrote the online GA to be the way it is. It's too
easy otherwise to do a confused vote (see Catalan membership), to be
given last-minute votes (see the membership fee votes) and for results
to be 'lost' for weeks and months, until 'no-one complained at the time'
when they're made public (Kazan's elections) not to mention the infamous
'vote on how to hold a vote on how to hold an election vote' we had one

What I'm trying to say is that the pre-existing GA structure, and
process is not fit for purpose, not in person, and certainly not over
mumble. Just look at ARticle2 of the GA RoP - The Board decides who
chairs it, who then decides who gets to speak, how long, on what, and
what gets voted on. Did it come from "Banana Republics for dummies"?

> And in my believe PPI still has to move on and fulfill its task. Though
> take backs are on the way.

Take back what? Take back the little good-will PPI had? In case you
somehow missed it in your ego-stroking, people are LEAVING PPI.

You're not taking anything back, you're just being left with the rotten
shell you've constructed. PPI is dead, and had been for a year or more.
You killed it.

Your greed ("membership fees", got to have them, despite doing nothing
for anyone), and sheer bureaucratic ineptitude have flushed it down the

Everyone knows why you had to suddenly have some re-votes. You saw the
proposals from Australia. They're good proposals, with a strong chance
of passing in a GA that's run with time for consideration, and where you
can't control the votes, or bury the results until you can say 'well
it's too late, no-one contested it at the time' (seriously, a
significant number of CoA rulings say that, and the reason is that
no-one knows what the hell's going on at the time). It'll kill the
ability to consider yourself 'an influencer', and go 'network' with
other NGO's, and perhaps parley it into a job, or some media coverage.

You don't care about the issues, or the movement as a whole - if you
had, we'd not have seen the kind of pencil-pushing paper-warrior games
from the PPI board. And THAT is why so many parties are quitting. Anyone
else want to bet that Australia won't be the only party to have quit PPI
by the end of March?

By the way, in case you forgot, the "task" of PPI was to support the
national parties, and assist in international cooperation and
communication. Nothing else. the whole 'NGO representing Pirates to the
world', that happened when the bureaucrats took over, because how else
are they going to earn a wikipedia page for themselves?

So Long, and Thanks for all the Fish, Prosthetnic.


- -- 
Andrew Norton
Tel: +1(352)6-KTETCH [+1-352-658-3824]
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/


More information about the pp.international.general mailing list