<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'>It feels like it is useless to argue.<br><br>The abstentions that do not count towards the vote for the election of the members of the CoA are those of the members of the PPI that did not care to show up to participate, be it sending a delegate or having delegated their vote to someone present. This is, if PPI had 50 members with voting rights then 50% approval would need 26 votes, unless abstentions did not count and only the 16 represented at the exact time and place the voting was organized were taken into account.<br><br>Then, the candidates have to achieve a simple majority of "yes" votes from the members present and voting. All of them have to obtain at least 9 votes, which is the simple majority of the 16 present. Abstentions do not count... in the sense that if only 10 cast votes on one specific candidate... the six remaining are not subtracted... he still has to achieve 9 yes votes to be in.<br><br>That is why you Andrew, and Arturo, with 8 votes, did not achieve the needed results, and neither did anyone that achieved even less.<br><br>And because 5 elected was enough according to the statutes and also conveniently uneven to avoid even splits in the votes of the CoA... that result was enough and sufficient.<br><br>You can whine any way you want just because you want to be in.<br><br>I have nothing to gain in this dispute but increasing respect for logic and ethic. Which should help us out of all the mess unrestricted improvisation without any basis...<br><br>... like the one that accepted to change a question into a motion in Prague, and then had a vote on the admission of the Catalan Pirate Party as a full member of PPI without respect for any official procedure... just one single day after an ad-hoc decision of the CoA had ruled that the GA had no such powers and that the candidates that had followed procedure but submitted the paperwork after the official deadline had to wait for the next official deadline at the following GA.<br><br>The kiddies getting what they like even when it is against Statutes and procedures...<br><br>... is what is turning PPI into a kindergarten where anything serious takes too much time to materialize.<br> <br>You can not shove a chimney pipe up the arse of too many too long...<br><br><br><br>Antonio.<br><br><br><div>> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 21:57:28 -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 9:22 PM, Antonio Garcia <ningunotro@hotmail.com> wrote:<br>> > I do not buy, Andrew.<br>> ><br>> > The bit "...votes from Ordinary Members present or represented and voting on<br>> > them[18]..."<br>> ><br>> > Clearly means the members present and participating in the election process<br>> > to elect members of the CoA (the them in that sentence means them as a body,<br>> > the CoA, not them as individual members of a group). These are 16, as seen<br>> > in the columns of the voting results. Members not present do not count. But<br>> > all present do count for all of the candidates. So >50% is 9 votes for each<br>> > and every of the candidates, no matter if they get 9 votes in favour from<br>> > the only 9 that care to vote, or 9 votes in favour and 4 against and 3<br>> > abstentions (ties do not count who has less votes against, a new vote must<br>> > be organized).<br>> Thank you for pointing this out and AGREEING with me.<br>> The bit that's key is 'abstentions do not count'. You have decided<br>> that they DO count, and that they count as a No. In which case, what's<br>> the point of abstentions? Or indeed, that part in the RoP (well,<br>> redundancy, but they could have been implicit and said 'abstentions<br>> count as a no', or 'abstentions count')<br>> <br>> ><br>> > But keep on kidding me, if you so wish, I can't stop you making a fool of<br>> > 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>> In this I agree with you, which is why I tried to get this sorted and<br>> clarified 7 weeks ago.<br>> ><br>> > Repetition in reading statutes and procedures does not help if capacity to<br>> > understand is NIL :( .<br>> <br>> Antonio, I could say the same to you. You are reading what you assume<br>> to be there, rather than what is actually, plainly and clearly there,<br>> and understanding what it says. You entered into things with a<br>> preconceived notion (that approval voting is 'usual') and thus have<br>> twisted what you read to support that assertion. How is that different<br>> than the assertion that last years CoA entered the Catalan decision<br>> with the notion that since the GA voted yes (no matter the<br>> circumstances or details) that it was a fait accompli, that just<br>> needed to be rationalised through creative interpretation of the<br>> rules.<br>> <br>> That is what happens when, as you have done here, you take a clear and<br>> unambiguous set of statements, and attempt to redefine what they mean.<br>> How does it feel?<br>> <br>> Andrew<br>> ><br>> ><br>> > Antonio.<br>> ><br>> ><br>> >> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 20:25:18 -0400<br>> ><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><br>> >> 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<br>> >> > 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>> >><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<br>> >> > 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<br>> >> > 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<br>> >> 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<br>> >> >> 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>> >> >><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>> >> >><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>> >> >><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<br>> >> >> 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<br>> >> >> >> 9<br>> >> >> >> votes and that those 5 candidates were elected"<br>> >> >> >><br>> >> >> >> Rules of Proceedure<br>> >> >> >><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<br>> >> >> >> 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"<br>> >> >> >> votes<br>> >> >> >> accumulated. Abstentions are not taken into account. In event of a<br>> >> >> >> tie<br>> >> >> >> where order matters, deciding elections are held, where only one<br>> >> >> >> "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<br>> >> >> >> fact<br>> >> >> >> the unknown nature of abstentions mean you can't do it anyway) at<br>> >> >> >> 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<br>> >> >> >> > 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<br>> >> >> >> > recording<br>> >> >> >> > picture<br>> >> >> >> > within 5 seconds<br>> >> >> >> > at 4:42:00 the camera angle turns towards right; Sven and Denis<br>> >> >> >> > 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<br>> >> >> >> > 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<br>> >> >> >> > 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<br>> >> >> >> >> 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<br>> >> >> >> >> (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<br>> >> >> >> >> 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<br>> >> >> >> >>> of<br>> >> >> >> >>> Arbitration elected? The statutes provide for up to seven,<br>> >> >> >> >>> 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<br>> >> >> >> >>>> GA<br>> >> >> >> >>>> 2013. I<br>> >> >> >> >>>> would be grateful if you could provide corrections to me via<br>> >> >> >> >>>> mail.<br>> >> >> >> >>>> 4 weeks afterwards the minutes will be automatically accepted<br>> >> >> >> >>>> according<br>> >> >> >> >>>> to the RoP.<br>> >> >> >> >>>><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>> >> >> >> >>>><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>> >> >> >> >>><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>> >> >> >> ><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>> ><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>