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

[Antonio Garcia]

The motion is likely all he can do to have some content for his empty shell of an oGA, just like the first person to be listed on the delegates list is, I suppose casually, a russian one... with the input being edited by... of course... Gregory Engels.
 
At least he will fill in all the bureaucracy he can get a hold on to give the non-event some appearance ;(.
 
 
Antonio.
 
> Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 17:30:13 +0100
> From: zzbbyy at gmail.com
> To: pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> Subject: Re: [pp.int.general] Conflict of interest between national parties and PPI
> 
> On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Jan Lettow <janlettow at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> 
> Maybe I did not fully understand this - but it sounds like there was
> more conflicting views on what is better for PPI rather then conflicts
> of interest for the person holding the position of IntCo. In
> themselves, conflicting views are normal in a pluralist political
> culture. Conflict of interest would be when the IntCo, who was also a
> member of the PPI board, knew that some action of the PPI board is
> better for PPI - but other action is better for his good standing as
> the IntCo in PPDE (i.e. something that would help him advance his PPDE
> career or something).
> 
> The "Access to medicine" motion could be related to a conflict of
> interest if Gregory believed that it would help his PPDE career, but
> that it would be bad for PPI, and he pushed for it as a member of the
> PPI board (but this is motion proposed for the GA to vote on - as a
> member of the board Gregory cannot really much push it ahead).
> 
> 
> --
> Z.
> ____________________________________________________
> 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/20150310/675907ba/attachment.html>