Wed 23 Dec 2015 9:36AM

Discussion for Statute XII.5

NV Nikolay Voronov Public Seen by 313

I want to discuss point XII.5 from Statutes
(5) "To safeguard the diversity and the international character of the organization only one officer of the same nationality may be elected in the board of PPI. If two nominees of the same nationality would receive the needed votes to be appointed in the board only the nominee first elected in case of sequential elections or the nominee with the most votes in case of a simultaneous election will be appointed. "

I can't agree with such weird definitions like "same nationality" when speaking about diversity in PPI-elections, what will be next? "same religion", "same race"? I can not believe that we are creating such silly "borders" in Pirate Movement
How we can reach diversity with such terms?
What if some party will bring 5 delegates of different nationalities but with same point of view (because they are from same party)
What if different parties (with different point of view) have delegates of same nationality?
Where is diversity here? Don't you feel strange during discussion about delegates nationality for Board elections in Pirate Movement?
I tried to put attention on this point during GA but nobody listen me (probably in a hurry to finish the meeting)

What i suggest: replace definition "same nationality" to "same PPI-member (same Party)" or maybe "same citizenship". Other proposals and opinons are welcome.
of course we can face the problem of "double citizenship" or "double membership", as well as "double nationalities", but it's another question to discuss.


Andrew Reitemeyer Sat 2 Jan 2016 2:27AM

I can understand why the rule was made but it does go against the principles of merit. It is the opposite of a quota system which is also a way of ensuring diversity. I would like to see the board split into a an elected supervisory body, which would be larger than the current board and an administrative organ that would be appointed.


Nikolay Voronov Sat 2 Jan 2016 7:55AM

that idea need more details:
how much larger?
how many votes needed to be elected? or it will be something like adopted PP-AU proposal? (each PPI-member can have a seat in supervisory body)
and we also have PPI HQ which is registered organization. Who will be members of PPI HQ in this case?


Andrew Reitemeyer Mon 18 Jan 2016 7:47PM

For some reason I did not see your reply until now. Yes the Australian idea has merits. Having each member having at least one representative on the board would mean that the members would be elected or appointed according to the rules of the individual parties. PPHQ members could be elected or appointed by the supervisory board. The supervisory board could also appoint a limited number of people to their own number if, needed.They would also appoint the administrative body and the PPHQ members.


Andrew Reitemeyer Sat 16 Jan 2016 10:14PM

I have been thinking a lot about this. The problem is that nations are not uniform especially in population and number of Pirates. I am more and more convinced that an appointed supervisory board that is much larger than the current board e.g. a permanent online GA but delegates work to an administrative body.


Nikolay Voronov Mon 18 Jan 2016 9:55PM

it reminds me current structure, Parties appointing reprsentatives to GA (it's like supervisory body), and then we appointing PPHQ\Administrative Board of PPI =)
but our current "supervisory body" (aka "GA") don't have enough regular meetings and not involved in PPI-business.

With current statuses GA-delegates have almost NO rights, except "proposing" and "voting" during GA's and i understand that our goal is engage delegates in "day-by-day" running of PPI-business. So, we want to change it in that way: "supervisory board" make all decisions and "Administrative body" will only TO DO what "supervisory board" say, right?

In this case we need serious changes in our statues, we have to decide what to do with GA's, should we totally replace GA by supervisory board or GA will stay as some kind a "formal meeting"?. What will be the highest body of PPI?
GA or supervisory board? because "GA appointing supervisory board" sounds weird, like we are appointing ourselves


Andrew Reitemeyer Wed 3 Feb 2016 3:06AM

The GA can become the supervisory board (SB) running in a sort of permanent online GA through loomio or similar. The members of the supervisory board would be appointed by the respective full members of the PPI. Members can change the persons appointed at will and participation is not compulsory. The highest body of PPI will remain the GA but it will be in permanent session.

The administrative body would work to meet goals set by the supervisory body and would be required to report at intervals(yearly?) to the SB. The administrative board(AB) is appointed by the SB but for unlimited terms. Members of the AB may be members of the SB. The SB would also be able to meet in conferences, like the current GA, as they wish.


Nikolay Voronov Wed 3 Feb 2016 5:20AM

The GA can become the supervisory board (SB) running in a sort of permanent online GA through loomio or similar.

if PPI-members wants to make decisions and vote on a "daily basis" - then SB have to meet each 2 weeks in mumble. PPI-members want participation and voting through whole year, not just once in a year. It's hard to orginize onlineGA, we don't have plan even for this year. IF we create such body (SB), then we have to hold meetings like current Board, once per 2 weeks. Otherwise - i don't see the difference between SB and GA, we just adding new term.
We should to make SB-meetings are very easy to hold (like current Board meetings), make decisions and votings on loomio at least every month.
Most of PPI-members are inactive, but we have to provide more opportunities for active members if we want to bring more activity in PPI.
If we really want to reform PPI - we have to replace Board by the SB. Your suggestion looks like replacing Board by the AB

would be required to report at intervals(yearly?) to the SB

i suggest monthly. yearly is for GA


Andrew Reitemeyer Tue 16 Feb 2016 6:58PM

The GA meeting yearly in a physical location is something we need to retain and promote. One of the problems of the current board is the lack of expertise to perform the tasks required by the GA. Being able to appoint people who can handle jobs like PR, finance and systems admin, rather than elect them once a year, would mean smoother running.

The SB and the GA are the same except the SB is in permanent session. The AB could go to the SB for authorisation

The AB would report to the SB on an ongoing basis and officially once a year.

Yes on making SB meeting easy - participation is according to willingness and as much discussion as possible to be held online prior to any mumble or physical meetings.


Nikolay Voronov Tue 16 Feb 2016 7:40PM

I agree that we need to retain GA within it's current status.
but i also think that SB should get significant power and influence in PPI rather than just another "formal" body in PPI. Well, probably it's an implementation issue for such structure, or how we do manage SB and SB-meetings on practice. It will be important to make SB-work visible and active to avoid great disappointment from reforms.
smoother running process and experts - that's good, no doubt.
imo, the issue is - changing ballance between "decision making process" and "performing tasks" for the Board, first should go to SB and second to AB. Sometimes Board do both because GA make very "general" decisions.
For example: we can ask SB to decide which "call for hosts" is better and where they want to hold next GA or when we have to hold onlineGA (the last one was great, i want more)