<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>I do not buy, Andrew.<br><br>The bit "...votes from Ordinary Members present or represented and voting on them[18]..."<br><br>Clearly means the members present and participating in the election process to elect members of the CoA (the them in that sentence means them as a body, the CoA, not them as individual members of a group). These are 16, as seen in the columns of the voting results. Members not present do not count. But all present do count for all of the candidates. So >50% is 9 votes for each and every of the candidates, no matter if they get 9 votes in favour from the only 9 that care to vote, or 9 votes in favour and 4 against and 3 abstentions (ties do not count who has less votes against, a new vote must be organized).<br><br>But keep on kidding me, if you so wish, I can't stop you making a fool of yourself anyway if it is absolutely what you wish to do.<br><br>No wonder we never have enough time to finish what has to be done.<br><br>Repetition in reading statutes and procedures does not help if capacity to understand is NIL :( .<br><br><br>Antonio.<br><br><br><div>> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 20:25:18 -0400<br>> From: ktetch@ktetch.co.uk<br>> To: pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net<br>> Subject: Re: [pp.int.general] Minutes of PPI GA 2013<br>> <br>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 7:48 PM, Antonio Garcia <ningunotro@hotmail.com> wrote:<br>> > Really, this kiddy behaviour by the majority is sickening me.<br>> ><br>> > The used method is approval voting, with 16 parties present, so minimum 9<br>> > votes to get voted in.<br>> ><br>> > That is why Andrew and Arturo are not in.<br>> <br>> There's one problem with that.<br>> We were not using approval voting. So 'usual' or not ,it's irrelevent.<br>> Let me again quote for you.<br>> http://wiki.pp-international.net/PPI_Conference_2013/GA_meeting/RoP#Art._6a_Elections<br>> "<br>> 6a(6.c) The candidates that has achieved a simple majority of the<br>> "yes" votes from Ordinary Members present or represented and voting on<br>> them[18] are elected in the order determined by number of "yes" votes<br>> accumulated. Abstentions are not taken into account. In event of a tie<br>> where order matters, deciding elections are held, where only one "yes"<br>> vote per Ordinary Member can be cast."<br>> <br>> No mention of approval voting there, or indeed the word "approval"<br>> anywhere in the document. If it HAD specified approval voting, I would<br>> be right there with you.<br>> <br>> ><br>> > Abstentions do NOT count, but criterion is NOT >50% of votes cast for each<br>> > candidate.<br>> <br>> Indeed it's not >50% of the votes. Believing that it was was the<br>> mistake made at the time. I would have caught it except I'd dozed off,<br>> and as I noted in my previous mail, I attempted to detail things as<br>> soon as possible afterwards in order to avoid these prolonged debates,<br>> and to deal with issues as quickly as possible. instead it's >50% of<br>> the votes Yay or Nay as abstentions do not count. There's a reason for<br>> that. With 42 ordinary members, that would require 21+ yes votes (as<br>> those who did not vote were counted as abstentions). The highest Yay<br>> total at any election that I see, is 15 (for nuno and Jelena for their<br>> respective positions) thus by true approval voting, no-one was<br>> elected, and nothing was decided. That's *probably* why we didn't use<br>> approval voting, but instead used a yay/nay majority.<br>> ><br>> > Otherwise the one that got 7 for and 6 against would also have been elected<br>> > with more than 50% of votes cast for him.<br>> <br>> Except you missed out some other bits.<br>> Namely<br>> <br>> "6a(6.d) If the decided number(Art. 6a(6a)) of positions is not<br>> filled, additional round of elections is held unless decided<br>> otherwise."<br>> With Arturo and me elected, the maximum number of positions (7) is reached.<br>> ><br>> ><br>> > And the Catalan issue is still not off the table...<br>> ><br>> That is a whole other topic in itself.<br>> <br>> ><br>> > No wonder serious people are scarce among pirates... you really should<br>> > resign from kindergarten one day, all of you.<br>> ><br>> <br>> I'm deadly serious, Antonio. So serious, in fact, I made very sure I<br>> read the Rules of Proceedure, and the PPI statutes in detail, and did<br>> so repeatedly until they were crystal clear. As such, I am in no<br>> question as to their contents, or how they should be acted on. I would<br>> advise you to do likewise before casting aspersions on people.<br>> <br>> Also be aware of how what your proposing would worked elsewhere.<br>> <br>> Andrew<br>> <br>> ><br>> > Antonio.<br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> >> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 18:51:36 -0400<br>> >> From: ktetch@ktetch.co.uk<br>> >> To: pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net<br>> >> Subject: Re: [pp.int.general] Minutes of PPI GA 2013<br>> ><br>> >><br>> >> Ok, an update on this for those that are interested (and we all should be)<br>> >><br>> >> Nuno's been arguing to have the Court fully constituted as required by<br>> >> PPI statutes.<br>> >> in the Board meeting 2 weeks ago, he pointed out that under the Rules,<br>> >> myself and Arturo were also elected, but that Denis and Sven<br>> >> misunderstood the statutes as regards abstentions.<br>> >> http://wiki.pp-international.net/PPI_Minutes_2013-05-28#6_Activity_of_CoA<br>> >> From there, Gregory said he'd check with Sven over the recorded<br>> >> accuracy of the votes, if they were accurate, then everything sorted,<br>> >> and he'd create the two accounts.<br>> >><br>> >> Now the next meeting was today, and since nothing had moved since<br>> >> then, Nuno has raised it again today. You can read the minutes here<br>> >> (from line 145) http://ppi.piratenpad.de/agenda-2013-06-11<br>> >> Basically, despite it being announced wrong at the time, it can't<br>> >> simply be 'corrected'. Instead, now the court must rule on it (???).<br>> >> Apparently, the argument was that since no-one objected at the time,<br>> >> it can't be fixed, despite me asking for the results of all the<br>> >> elections right after<br>> >><br>> >> (http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/2013-April/014107.html),<br>> >> for that reason.<br>> >> So now it rests with the 5 already confirmed CoA members, and it<br>> >> really is a no-brainer, but then again so was the invalidity of the<br>> >> Catalonia membership a year ago, and look how that turned out<br>> >><br>> >> (http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/2012-May/011713.html)<br>> >><br>> >> So, almost 2 months after the Conference, we can maybe finally finish with<br>> >> it.<br>> >><br>> >> Andrew<br>> >> sent unsigned from my Android<br>> >> +1(352)-6-KTETCH<br>> >><br>> >> On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Nuno Cardoso<br>> >> <nuno.cardoso@pp-international.net> wrote:<br>> >> > Seems pretty simple to me as well, both Andrew Norton and Arturo<br>> >> > Martínez<br>> >> > are also elected members of the CoA and should be considered as such<br>> >> > even<br>> >> > if at the time there was a misinterpretation of the statutes.<br>> >> > Congratulations to both :)<br>> >> ><br>> >> ><br>> >> > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Andrew Norton <ktetch@ktetch.co.uk><br>> >> > wrote:<br>> >> >><br>> >> >> "at 4:42:33 Sven says that 17 votes were recieved, the quorum is at 9<br>> >> >> votes and that those 5 candidates were elected"<br>> >> >><br>> >> >> Rules of Proceedure<br>> >> >><br>> >> >><br>> >> >> (http://wiki.pp-international.net/PPI_Conference_2013/GA_meeting/RoP#Art._6a_Elections)<br>> >> >> state<br>> >> >> Election Method<br>> >> >><br>> >> >> a) Before the voting, the number of elected positions should be<br>> >> >> decided, if Statutes require to do so.<br>> >> >> b) Every Ordinary Member may vote "yes" for any number of candidates.<br>> >> >> c) The candidates that has achieved a simple majority of the "yes"<br>> >> >> votes from Ordinary Members present or represented and voting on<br>> >> >> them[18] are elected in the order determined by number of "yes" votes<br>> >> >> accumulated. Abstentions are not taken into account. In event of a tie<br>> >> >> where order matters, deciding elections are held, where only one "yes"<br>> >> >> vote per Ordinary Member can be cast.<br>> >> >> d) If the decided number(Art. 6a(6a)) of positions is not filled,<br>> >> >> additional round of elections is held unless decided otherwise.<br>> >> >><br>> >> >> 8 YES 6 NO is a simple majority when abstentions are not taken into<br>> >> >> account (57%). Nothing about a decided 'quorum' in there (and in fact<br>> >> >> the unknown nature of abstentions mean you can't do it anyway) at all.<br>> >> >><br>> >> >> Seems pretty simple to me.<br>> >> >><br>> >> >> Andrew<br>> >> >><br>> >> >><br>> >> >><br>> >> >> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Pat Mächler<br>> >> >> <patrick.maechler@pp-international.net> wrote:<br>> >> >> > The following is according to my visual observations on said<br>> >> >> > recordings,<br>> >> >> > that I preliminary recieved<br>> >> >> > The times mentionned are relative to the video; not actual daytime<br>> >> >> ><br>> >> >> > at 4:30:20 the chair (Sven) announces that the ballot papers are<br>> >> >> > prepared<br>> >> >> > and the he CoA vote<br>> >> >> > for the next 95 seconds Sven signs 16 voting cards (acoording to<br>> >> >> > visual<br>> >> >> > calculation) and<br>> >> >> > hands out election ballot sheets to delegates and proxies along with<br>> >> >> > the<br>> >> >> > chair assistant (Denis)<br>> >> >> ><br>> >> >> > at 4:32:10 Sven announces the vote to be open (for 4 minutes) and<br>> >> >> > leaves<br>> >> >> > the<br>> >> >> > recording picture<br>> >> >> > at 4:32:40 he re-enters to the recording picture (returns to the<br>> >> >> > table<br>> >> >> > to<br>> >> >> > answer questions)<br>> >> >> > at 4:33:10 he leaves the table again<br>> >> >> > at 4:35:00 he re-enters to the recording picture<br>> >> >> > at 4:36:30 Denis leaves the recording picture<br>> >> >> > at 4:36:40 Sven leaves the recording picture<br>> >> >> > around 4:37:23 Sven and Denis are entering and leaving the recording<br>> >> >> > picture<br>> >> >> > within 5 seconds<br>> >> >> > at 4:42:00 the camera angle turns towards right; Sven and Denis can<br>> >> >> > be<br>> >> >> > seen;<br>> >> >> > about 50% of the chair table can be seen<br>> >> >> > at 4:42:20 they walk to the left side; Sven can't be seen anymore<br>> >> >> > at 4:42:25 Denis walks out of the recording picture<br>> >> >> > at 4:42:30 the camera turns right again (the chair table can be seen<br>> >> >> > for<br>> >> >> > about 75%); Sven sits at the table<br>> >> >> > at 4:42:33 Sven says that 17 votes were recieved, the quorum is at 9<br>> >> >> > votes<br>> >> >> > and that those 5 candidates were elected<br>> >> >> ><br>> >> >> ><br>> >> >> > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Pat Mächler<br>> >> >> > <patrick.maechler@pp-international.net> wrote:<br>> >> >> >><br>> >> >> >> According to the election notes I have here, I strongly assume that<br>> >> >> >> the<br>> >> >> >> chair calculated with 17 votes cast and an absolute majority was<br>> >> >> >> necessary.<br>> >> >> >> However I got only 16 ballot papers.<br>> >> >> >> I assume the missing vote could be by the UK who decided to<br>> >> >> >> generally<br>> >> >> >> abstain; however there is no such sheet among the ballot papers (in<br>> >> >> >> contrast<br>> >> >> >> to all other elections, where there was a blank UK ballot sheet<br>> >> >> >> provided).<br>> >> >> >> I will back check ASAP with the preliminary video recordings I got<br>> >> >> >> from<br>> >> >> >> Wolfgang Preiss whether it could be inferred that UK cast an<br>> >> >> >> abstention<br>> >> >> >> vote<br>> >> >> >> there.<br>> >> >> >><br>> >> >> >> -pat<br>> >> >> >><br>> >> >> >><br>> >> >> >> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 3:48 AM, Mozart Palmer<br>> >> >> >> <mozart.palmer@pp-international.net> wrote:<br>> >> >> >>><br>> >> >> >>> Is there a reason why there are only five members of the Court of<br>> >> >> >>> Arbitration elected? The statutes provide for up to seven, meaning<br>> >> >> >>> that<br>> >> >> >>> Arturo and Andrew should be elected according to the results.<br>> >> >> >>><br>> >> >> >>><br>> >> >> >>> On 16 May 2013 05:46, Pat Mächler<br>> >> >> >>> <patrick.maechler@pp-international.net><br>> >> >> >>> wrote:<br>> >> >> >>>><br>> >> >> >>>> Dear pirates,<br>> >> >> >>>><br>> >> >> >>>> Please find here the current status of the minutes of the PPI GA<br>> >> >> >>>> 2013. I<br>> >> >> >>>> would be grateful if you could provide corrections to me via mail.<br>> >> >> >>>> 4 weeks afterwards the minutes will be automatically accepted<br>> >> >> >>>> according<br>> >> >> >>>> to the RoP.<br>> >> >> >>>><br>> >> >> >>>><br>> >> >> >>>><br>> >> >> >>>> http://wiki.pp-international.net/PPI_Conference_2013/GA_meeting/Minutes<br>> >> >> >>>><br>> >> >> >>>> You can blame the delay on me; part of the problem was, that I<br>> >> >> >>>> wanted<br>> >> >> >>>> to<br>> >> >> >>>> back check the recordings about the member application ballots<br>> >> >> >>>> (they<br>> >> >> >>>> were<br>> >> >> >>>> too fast).<br>> >> >> >>>><br>> >> >> >>>> fair winds<br>> >> >> >>>> Pat / Valio / vvv<br>> >> >> >>>><br>> >> >> >>>> ____________________________________________________<br>> >> >> >>>> Pirate Parties International - General Talk<br>> >> >> >>>> pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net<br>> >> >> >>>><br>> >> >> >>>> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general<br>> >> >> >>>><br>> >> >> >>><br>> >> >> >>><br>> >> >> >>> ____________________________________________________<br>> >> >> >>> Pirate Parties International - General Talk<br>> >> >> >>> pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net<br>> >> >> >>><br>> >> >> >>> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general<br>> >> >> >>><br>> >> >> >><br>> >> >> ><br>> >> >> ><br>> >> >> > ____________________________________________________<br>> >> >> > Pirate Parties International - General Talk<br>> >> >> > pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net<br>> >> >> > http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general<br>> >> >> ><br>> >> >> ____________________________________________________<br>> >> >> Pirate Parties International - General Talk<br>> >> >> pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net<br>> >> >> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general<br>> >> ><br>> >> ><br>> >> ><br>> >> > ____________________________________________________<br>> >> > Pirate Parties International - General Talk<br>> >> > pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net<br>> >> > http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general<br>> >> ><br>> >> ____________________________________________________<br>> >> Pirate Parties International - General Talk<br>> >> pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net<br>> >> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general<br>> ><br>> > ____________________________________________________<br>> > Pirate Parties International - General Talk<br>> > pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net<br>> > http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general<br>> ><br>> ____________________________________________________<br>> Pirate Parties International - General Talk<br>> pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net<br>> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general<br></div> </div></body>
</html>