[Int-koordination] Fwd: [pp-eu] About PP-EU Foundation

[Florian Wagner <f.wagner AT piratenpartei-nrw.de>]

Moin,

fyi, einige interessante Eindrücke vom Ablauf der PPEU-Gründung.

-------- Original-Nachricht -------- Betreff: [pp-eu] About PP-EU Foundation Datum: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 09:01:01 +0100 Von: Galileo Galilei <otrosmundos AT gmail.com> Antwort an: EU Election coordination group <pp-eu AT lists.pp-international.net> An: pp-eu AT lists.pp-international.net

Hi, I'm Juan Esteve, Known as Galileo, from Spain.

Excuse my Imperfection in the writing, and hope i Expose what i want to say with precision and respect to all the members. This is a personal point of view and it shoud bdebatee treated as it is.

Before starting, I have to extra clarify that i'm not opposing to the results of any of the votations done in the Foundation Act. I'm against the way it was made some points, and I wanted to explain them from my point of view.

1- First of all I must talk about Minutes & Agendas. It was really upsetting that the only thing that was given to delegates was the password for the net, but not the adress to the Agenda. I found the adress because i was near the German Pirates, not because it was said by the chairmen or it was written in any blackboard or email before the meeting. And I was not the only one with that problem, because I forwarded by email to other delegates. 

Not only it is weird to find that some delegates doesn't have access to the voted agenda, but to realize that anyone can change the order at the moment because it was in a pad. I think those kind of documents, Minutes & Agenda, have to be given at the moment in a non-changeable format. Can be an electronical pdf format document, a paper, or other ways of presenting it, but has to be given at the begining and all people must agree that it is the same for all with a quick reading from the chairmen. 

2- New proposals. I understand the urgent proposal concept. But, even those kind of critical points have to been translated to all the members with time enough to give an adequate response. I'm not saying 1 month, just 24 hours should be enough for a quick reply, including new candidates presentation, if there has to. The fact is giving the same oportunities to all the delegations, as a democratic group we are, and not to impose any resolution by the method of giving it on the last moment. <In that point, I repeat: I'm not against the results, but the ways>

3- The time has to be optional. We have an Agenda, and we must end all the points of it. Nothing is more important. Last Friday, in the end of the act, people was more caring about ending the foundation event, than What they were voting. It's extremely important to us that people take care of what they are doing. Democracy is not only voting. It is an act of responsability that needs to be reflexive with it. I understand the feeling of bore in the event last saturday, and I understand too that there were some displays prepared in the same room after that. But the presentations should have waited until the end of all, because the main act was the foundation.

4- New proposals have not to be included in the middle of the Agenda. We have an Agenda. There are strictly some ordinary points to be focused as the first ones. I'm a bit upset to see the last point of all, about the approval of observer members, one of the points printed on the statutes by the way, postponed because there was no time, after having lost so many with accounting votes, and some other two proposals that had to be placed after that one, because they were newer.

5- It's related to the 4th. We cannot postpone something like the approval of observer members, only because we are tired. Even more disrespectful with those members as they had it on their agenda, and some of them came to the Foundation to know directly the result. The fault of it is ours, so we cannot postpone it for six months as they were rejected without any debate (because what we have done is exactly that, reject their inclusion as observers for 6 moths). As our fault, and because of the electoral moment we have, I want to SUGGEST, that we put all those members as observers until we can decide in the next assembly about ther inclusion. I think this decision es fairer enough to all members.

6- The voting process. I believe it has to be said before the reunion which method is goint to be used. It was a little weird to check that what every delegation voted by email about candidates and symbols, I thought in an effort to speedy the polls in the main event, were all sent to the trash, having to vote again all the things again. All the processes done in each party member for giving the result on email, were just ignored, and this could have supossed a lot of time lost for them.

7- I felt fear to internet meeting. Sometimes we should have to reunite like this by internet, because of the singularity of the european party, but there was apprehension to have another extraordinary assembly by the net. And it's gonna happen, even more now with the european elections round here. Don't be afraid of it.

That was a very long email. Sorry if i have troubled someone with it. I'm in the thought that only with the critics you can advance to perfection.

____________________________

PS: Waiting for the news of that marvellous group that was created on Saturday Evening in the Young Pirates local. The best think i saw in all that wonderful weekend was that discussion about democracy. ;)

--
"Natural e Inconfundible :)"
"La informatica es una competición entre los ingenieros del software, que tratan de crear mejores programas a prueba de tontos; y el Universo, que trata de crear mejores tontos. Por ahora el Universo va ganando..."

_______________________________________________
pp-eu mailing list
pp-eu AT lists.pp-international.net
http://lists.pp-international.net/listinfo/pp-eu