<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<html><head><meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type"></head>Erm, on german generel assemblies there are usually well over 100 journalists _in the hall_. I think Der Spiegel sent 7 people the last time. I really do not think not streaming the assembly would solve any problem...<br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><br>
<br>
Dario <i@dario.im> schrieb:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">2013/2/26 Zbigniew Łukasiak <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:zzbbyy@gmail.com" target="_blank">zzbbyy@gmail.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im">On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 9:17 AM, Dario <<a href="mailto:i@dario.im">i@dario.im</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Documents produced by the party can be also be public, of course, but: Does<br>
> your Freedom of Information Act force you to release even any record the<br>
> party produces? Or only some kind of documents?<br>
<br>
</div>As far as I understand it it is only restricted by the privacy laws -<br>
so for example the documents need to be anonymized (because in Poland<br>
party membership is also private information) - but the extend of<br>
required anonymization is not clear. But there is no difference<br>
between kind of documents - if it is an email or it is a signed<br>
contract or if it is a voice recording (but then you can probably<br>
recognize people by their voice - so in the case of parties this might<br>
be restricted - but for example in the case of local councils the<br>
recordings seem to be public) or what ever - everything can be<br>
requested.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
><br>
> The point is to pinpoint what was PP-DE fault and find an equilibrium<br>
> between transparency and protection against attacks from other parties.<br>
<br>
</div>Maybe we could talk about more concrete examples - would the Der<br>
Spiegel article be different if they did not have access to the<br>
streaming of the GA of PP-DE? </blockquote><div><br></div><div style>It is impossible to limit information, being a streaming or a document. You must broadcast meetings in order to allow remote participants, so Der Spiegel would get it in a way or in other.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>The point is to avoid live bickering by working proposals previously. Physical assemblies are great to meet but they are too shorter to get meaningful results. It is better to work on issues on-line (preferably by voice) and to solve bickering and bitter discussion before. This doesn't mean these debates must be private. They can be opened, as long as you know who has access.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">What concrete cases would you like to<br>
make private?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>Just discussion but I want it still open to everyone willing to do meaningful discussion. In other words, check what Carlo said after my last on-topic reply ;)</div>
<div style><br></div></div>-- <br><div>Dario Castañé</div><div><a href="http://www.dario.im" target="_blank">http://www.dario.im</a> | <a href="http://twitter.com/im_dario" target="_blank">http://twitter.com/im_dario</a></div>
</div></div>
</blockquote></div></html>