[pp.int.general] Conflict of interest between national parties and PPI

[Jan Lettow]

Once I experienced something you could potentially call a conflict of
interest between PPI/IntCo roles.

In March 2013, after a complaint from PPAU regarding PPI GA's, in my
then role as PPDE's international coordinator for AU/NZ ¹ , I asked
PPDE's IntCo to ratify a supportive statement.²

I first sent out a draft, asking for feedback and offering not to
table the motion if anyone has any issues with it at all. While the
feedback was rather limited in quantity, it was 100% supportive and
included Martina, who took over chairing the meetings after Julia's
departure, and Markus, who was the new board member responsible for
international coordination.

It still failed though. I seem to recall an angry rant (from a PPI
veteran) about an "idiot's conspiration to destroy the pirate
movement", followed by opposition on something that seemed to be a
technicality. ³ Still, everyone - including those who had supported
the motion in the first place - spoke out against it on that ground.
But people's first reaction seemed to correlate with their level of
involvement with PPI.

I'd say that being part of the quarreling that defines the PPI at
least makes you less likely to support well-meaning/naive motions
aiming to improve international relations. Maybe those who have seen
the trenches at PPI with their own eyes (and live to tell about it)
really are to traumatized afterwards to be great stewards of pirate
peace and harmony.

This took rather long to say, but imo it's not such a silly idea if we
consider how taxing PPI can be.





¹ We used to have coordinators on a per country basis after Julia
Schramm, who campaigned on promises of improved international
cooperation and won a seat on the board, started weekly meetings with
the aim to crowdsource inter-party relations. Alas, she tripped over a
book deal soon after, and the whole thing petered out, not the least
because the whole idea of crowd-sourcing didn't quite fit with the
system already in place, that is a group of hand-picked attaches
reporting their supposedly sensitive information directly to the same
old international coordinators via non-public mailing lists.

² "We share the concerns voiced by the australian pirates regarding
the rules and procedures at the PPI GA and fully support demands for
improved remote participation. We ask everyone involved to help the
PPI live up to its own standards."

³ The argument went that we shouldn't say anything at all because we
hadn't been specifically asked to do so by PPAU. But PPAU had no idea
that at least a part of PPDE were keen to support them regarding their
issues with PPI - the whole point of making that statement was letting
them know - so it came as no surprise PPAU had not approached PPDE
directly.