Pirate Parties International First Online General Assembly | PirateTimes

    • Just as a correction, the statutes state
      “one third of the total voting power shall constitute a quorum”

      With 41 members, that means a quorum needs a voting power of 13.6.

      From reading the notes, it seems like a number of times, there were only 13.5 votes participating. So the quorum at times is quite questionable.

      There’s also a big question as to Kazakhstan, specifically, does it meet the criteria for membership under IV(1) as it is seeming to be a single person. As such it would be ineligible under VII(3)

      But most importantly I think is this – If PPI can only BARELY get 1/3 of its members to participate in a ‘free’ online GA, doesn’t that say something about what those parties think of PPI?

    • Andrew,

      actually the total voting power is 40, not 41, since Spain and Catalonia share a vote (0.5 each). A 1/3 rd of 40 is 13.3 so 13.5 was sufficient at all times.

      I also think that it says something about the fact that a usual physical GA can easily gather more members then online one – you can’t replace true human interaction at an event with pure online proceedings.

        • no, it was 41. I asked if Australia was counted, you have said yes.

          09:53:55 «K`Tetch» btw, is Australian still considered a PPI member, dichter?
          09:55:16 «dichter» K`Tetch: not by me. but they still have not sent the registered letter, so statutory wise, yes they are a member.

          PPI wiki lists 41 entries, NOT including Australia.
          That makes 42 ‘members’, with a voting power of 41.

          I think the only thing it says about the GA is that it was badly organised.

          Had you used the transparent discussion-based model you were originally going to use, you’d probably have had a whole lot more.

          I’d also point out this from your own page of rules

          According to the standing Rules of Procedure [1], all delegates must present written authorization from a member of their respective board unless they are designated International Coordinator or equivalent on their parties official website.

          By the statement in this piece, the polish delegate doesn’t seem to have provided the requisite written authorization.

          Next, there seems to have been no German delegate. Yourself, Thomas and Bastian are specifically prohibited by statute from representing PP-DE

          XII(1)…The members of the Board shall consider the interests of the Pirate movement as a whole and shall neither consider themselves, nor be considered, as representing any particular Member or non-member Organization or region.

          (amphasis mine)
          That leaves Jens Stomber, who is listed as “international coordinator PP-DE-Bavaria” That’s fine, but Bavaria is an OBSERVER member. Was there any signed notice from the PP-DE board granting such status? It seems unlikely.

          Again, the same issues with Eric from France, and Jonna from Finland.

          Statutory-wise, (and remember, you MUST obey statutes), there was no quorum, because you couldn’t follow the rules that YOU wrote.

          Quite ‘galling’ no?

    • I do not agree with what you said Andrew.
      have a nice day.


    • cross

      2Andrew: 16 countries participated from the start and 15 after launch,
      some members didn’t vote on certain “vote procedures”, but THEY WERE there
      we made 2 voice roll cals to confirm the quorum during oGA (at start, and after launch)


    • Hollie

      KIDNEY DIALYSIS: my daddy has stopped it – what now?


    • ThomasG

      Oh my dear poor Andrew!

      It is a shame that it is common knowlegde and even so wanted by experience and states arguments in the past that PPI Statutes and such stuff shall not intermingle with Member issues.

      According to your wording PPI Statutes seem to be above each members will and its statutes.

      So in your view the PPI Statutes shall have active influence to the independence of each party being Member of PPI.

      You are also omitting the will of the General Assembly of PPI as the highest body within PPI. -> Individuals from several Pirate Parties got elected to the board of PPI in the full knowlegde that some had been in office (define office yourself) otherwise that time on the national scale. Personally, I consider this an affront to those member parties being active at the esp. General Assembly.

      If I read your words correctly you want to have binding decisions from PPI even influencing national Parties interests. Even to internal affairs.

      As the latter had been objected in the past. Even to the public and stated otherwise:

      You may have ideas and critics. If the very latter are biased they will be taken into account, if the are give the Schopenhauer way they won’t.

      Thomas Gaul

        • According to your wording PPI Statutes seem to be above each members will and its statutes.

          Yes. That’s KIND OF THE POINT of statutes. Otherwise why else have them? Or are you saying they don’t really matter?

Author

  • I joined the Pirate Party of Lower Saxony in Germany in April 2012, once I found out that non citizens were welcome to join and become active members of the Party. I joined the Pirate Times soon after it was started as a proof reader and am now an editor and author. Since then I have returned to my native New Zealand and joined the Pirate Party of New Zealand. Politically I come from the libertarian left and have, up to now, not regarded any political party as having a solution for the democratic deficit that envelops the world. With the advent of the Pirate Party, which truly embraces grass roots democracy, I have found a political home. The Pirate Times is a way I can contribute to furthering the Pirate Movement around the world.

    View all posts