What is AGM

Good idea

And G+ hangouts can be recorded to YouTube, thus providing a record that no stenographer could match.

Now I can see a way to do voting that is within my rather limited expertise, I can generate a unique password for each member in the database (I favour something like "wheel583tree" being fairly easy to generate and user friendly) then using mail merge i can email every member their password , load the password column into mysql and build voting pages in PHP in a sub folder on forum.internet.org. It is doable . Would they come?

Hmm gonna need 3,4,5 letter word lists that dont contain bork, bum, arse, n tittie dont want to send someone gay69penis it might put some people off

Hi Fred. Your voting idea sounds good, the more simple you can make it the better, but there does need to be a verifiable way to I.D. each and every voter.

Would they come? I suggest you don't just expect to do a mail out on the day in question.

I recommend a build-up period whereby you invite people to respond long before the vote.

You could announce a chat room test well before the date of the A.G.M. and see how many numbers turn up.

Another way to test the waters is to get them to vote on other unrelated issues, long before the A.G.M. date.

Any excuse will do, but we could get a show of hands on any important but as yet unanswered questions.

Getting approval for constititution changes would be one example.

Voting on the top ten policy statements is another.

On the week of the A.G.M. you could do a 7 day countdown, where you say 7 days to go before the A.G.M., 6 days to go before the A.G.M. etc.

I quite like the idea of a video feed on the night, could be live with current interim exec. plus all the candidates running for positions.

lets keep contemplating . . . .

@rossburrows yes i agree we need to get people involved well before nov 7 , (that was my plan in opening nominations) It would be good to get the passwords (i gona call them "tokens") sorted and then apply them to the Chat, Discussions well before vote are essential and it would seem improper (to me) to even call a vote on something that has not been well discussed beforehand. ideally a vote only confirms a consensus reached. somehow we gotta get people talking, I was initially feeling like getting people to move from loomio to the forums but I think maby that idea was shortsighted. we just need to get a transparent and easy movement between what works best for each situation.

OK i have prepared "tokens" crash10test thru to crash20test

can you please go to
https://forum.internet.org.nz/votes/index.php

and try to break something.

then post your comments and impressions here

if you use all the tokens let me know here and i will clear them

Fred

It all worked fine for me. I tried only one token. 0 and blank do the same thing, which is nicely intuitive. And any numbers work--all the ones I tried did--so putting, say, 1, 20, 35, 3 changed as it should, to 1, 3, 4, 2. Very nice. (Lucy Lawless should be there for real. A nice lady, whose heart is in the right place.) Well done!

@nobilangeloceramal hey thats great, yes you can use any integers from 1 to 49 to rank which means you can go 3,6,9,12 and then slot people in , 0 or 50+ will be unranked

Note that because these tokens have been released here , it is possible that two persons may be using the same token ! Wont happen in real life... the outcome here would be that a poll you are working on may change status to "voted" while you working... it should handle this gracefully.

Gave it a whirl. Seemed reasonably intuitive - though the numbering wasn't clear. I used -5 for JK and it seemed to accept 99 etc.

Maybe rather than just 'voted' at the end it could list your ranking or some additional confirmation or feedback

Any plans to give a live results page?

@jobooth Congratulations! You found a bug! If you enter a negative number the candidate dissapears! Now some might think this a feature..... but i will sort it out negative numbers=unranked. Anyway thanks.

Also instructions should make clear that< 1 or >49 =unranked

Yes i will make a page that shows results , at least in testing phase it will be fun

Can I suggest using Mumble for the AGM? It's voice and text only, no video, but having a video meeting with hundreds of people uses impractical amounts of bandwidth. Overseas Pirate Parties have used Mumble for meetings with hundreds of people in one 'room' (channel). It's possible to have subchannels inside a room, set up so that one subchannel for the facilitators and people on the speaking list can be heard by everyone in another one for general membership, but not vice-versa, preventing disruptions and interjections.

Mumble also has a built in recorder, like HangOuts. Both Mumble clients and Murmur software are free code, and Mumble clients can be freely downloaded for all major desktop and mobile platforms.

One way to formulate the agenda would be to create an AGM subgroup here in Loomio (or a board on the website forum if members prefer), and create a discussion thread for each piece of business people want on the AGM agenda. That way, as Ross suggests, clear yes/no proposals could be formulated, and consensus tested, with the AGM vote making the outcome binding. Great to see GITHub used to brainstorm agenda items too.

Great innovation with the vote tokens Fred. Would it be possible to use PGP signing to uniquely associate each vote token with a member, without revealing their vote to anyone but the Returning Officer? I'm not familiar enough with PGP to explain how it's supposed to work, but there was some discussion of this here last year.

Mumble would be a good idea - hadn't thought of not video. Good idea @strypey

I agree much of the membership has used or understands Loomio voting - but we shouldn't rely on it - especially if we are trying to consolidate into internet.org.nz

On the 'voting off the island' amendments - I think the existing provisions for the principles of natural justice and clear process should work, including the provision for the Secretary to choose to bat away frivolous claims before examining them in detail with the exec. It is unclear to me what really happened with the various resignations or ejections from the executive to date - it would be good to have some minutes or transparent process around it explained at the AGM, and a clear process going forward.

@rossburrows :

I propose an amendment to the constitution to allow the Secretary to suspend any elected exec. member indefinitely who all the remaining exec. members unanimously vote as being guilty of conduct unbecoming to the best interests of Internet Party.

This is a lot of power to concentrate in very few hands, and comes with the danger of groupthink; the Exec being focussed on always agreeing, in fear of robust discussion and representing minority positions from the membership resulting in the person speaking up being disciplined by the others.

I'm not intimately familiar with the IP constitution, but in this situation, it's usual for a Special General Meeting to be called, and the decision about disciplining an Exec put back to the membership, whose representatives they are. This seems like a more democratic process, less vulnerable to kangeroo court processes inside the Exec.

The provision in IP Constitution allowing %75 of exec to remove a member isn't (in my view) actually about "discipline" or "bringing into dissrepute". It is about "what if an exec election delivers an exec that is disfunctional?" Obviously in the first instance we are expected to "get over it". But if that is given a really good faith attempt and exec is still disfunctional then there needs to be some circuit breaker so that the party does not languish headless. The most important thing is for those who put them selves forward and members voting have realistic idea of what exec is for. Conflict of ideas can be handled and is often a good thing, a fundimental conflict of purpose is very much harder to resolve.

Agree with @jobooth ...

I would prefer a distributed model of party websites though. Let's avoid the crash that happened when the main site went down.

I would love to see clearer minuting of the exec meetings. This is in fact the secretaries job isn't it, Fred? You do the minutes, at the next meeting the minutes are confirmed?

That would probably be time to release them, late enough that the exec is still ahead of the game and early enough that the membership can still keep up.

Having unrecallable delegates elected for a fixed period of time is already a step away from democracy (as we've seen with successive NZ governments!). A Exec of elected representatives is at least suppose to represent all the different perspectives within the party. With the Constitution change you propose Fred, a majority faction on the Exec could just kick other elected members off, and stack the Exec with their own supporters. This is not even representative governance, let alone democratic.

@fredlook

It is about “what if an exec election delivers an exec that is disfunctional?”

Ideally the inability of candidate A to work with candidate B should be disclosed honestly at the AGM, allowing the membership to elect an Exec who can work together. Failing that, as explained above, you call an SGM and hand the decision about how to proceed back to the membership, where it belongs.

I agree much of the membership has used or understands Loomio voting - but we shouldn’t rely on it - especially if we are trying to consolidate into internet.org.nz

Still trying to work out how this decision was made, by whom, and why. Especially since internet.org.nz offers no proposal engine at all. I brought up the question on the website thread, but with all the different subjects being discussed there, it got a bit lost.

@strypey I propose no change re removal of exec members , i was referring to the existing provision 8.14 . Its fairly standard and exists for good reason.

One thing we have learned from Loomio (and CIR in general) is that its a bad idea to just let individuals put proposals, A proposal needs to be appropriate, positive, logical, and do-able. They should be formated by an appropriatly skilled committee or they may do harm !

edit [oops thats 8.18]

I don't think the problem we have had with successive NZ govts is the un-recallable nature but instead that they lied through their teeth to get there and then were un-recallable.

As for representatives representing all of the party, that is supposed to be one of the responsibilities of an exec. Although, I can't remember that begin written anywhere in the constitution. Due to the nature of an election by numbers probably the worst we should hope for is each exec to represent a large majority of the electors.

The ability of the exec to work together is often not able to be ascertained at the election. As was shown at the last election, when people get the votes and a little bit of power things tend to fall apart if there is an inability to work as a team.

With the resignation of the last exec member to go sideways (James Abbott - I could try not to say his name but that just makes it sound like I am talking about Voldemort) the exec went from being locked in status to actually doing something so the ability of the exec to expel a member should be strengthened in my opinion. Unless we want to spend six months after every election unable to do anything due to one member? It should be simple but getting 50 members together at an SGM created by a broken executive was (8.18).

I am unsure whether the exec would be able to stack itself as well, as there is a clear directive to the sec that elections for new exec (8.19) must be carried out as soon as practicable. So all new exec would be elected by the members. Until that point they can only appoint ex officio members with no voting rights.

I agree with Strypey on the Loomio prospect. Loomio is open and solid and with appropriate moderation would be the best place for an election (remembering my views that we should be distributed as well).

@maelwryth As for exec representing "all of party" inthink this is really important and members should continue to be vigilent on this, and not to fall into the trap other parties have of appointing exec members who promote them selves as representing a particular faction. It is each exec member representing the interest of all , not a group of representitives of different factions!
I find loomio to be more user friendly than our forums. I think we should have our own instance there.
The problems of clutter and destructive behaviour can be mitigated in the initial setup and then good moderation.
The setting up of this particular instance makes it hard to bring in moderation after the fact.

"A house divided unto itself cannot stand"

It is essential that all exec members are on the same page whistling the same tune in harmony. That is the essence of leadership.

The public will judge any political party on how the party works internally, on the basis that if you can't govern yourselves amicably. how can you expect to help run a government?

That;s why I agree with Fred and Maelwryth on 8.14.

After J.A.s departure the party has felt fully functional and doing the right things from my perspective.

Hope the current climate continues . . .

some of you have mentioned SGM in your posts. now I have had to interpret the constitution, did my best, and stand by my actions, however I am open to other opinions going forward particularly as IMHO there is considerable ambiguity introduced by the constitution in the meaning of SGM, Please have a look at the items below and tell me what you think it means, or do you think it is not entierly clear what it means. in particular look at the wording of 7.9
Special General Meetings
7.9
A Special General Meeting of the Executive Committee may be called by the Party
Convenor or by a majority of the Executive Committee.
7.10
The time, place and agenda of any Special General Meeting shall be notified to all Members
no less than 10 working days prior to such being held.
7.11
Only such matters as notified in the agenda shall be considered at the Special General
Meeting.

and
7.12
The Party President is the Chairperson of the Annual General Meeting and any Special
General Meeting. In the event of absence of the Party President, the Executive Committee
members who are present shall appoint an interim Chairperson.
7.13
The Party Secretary shall be responsible for recording minutes and distributing them to the
Executive Committee.
7.14 Quorum for the Annual General Meeting and for any Special General Meeting must include:
7.14.1 At least 50 per cent of the Executive Committee; and
7.14.2 At least 10 per cent or 50 Full Members, whichever is the greater.

7.17
The Annual General Meeting and Special General Meetings shall, except where
decided otherwise by the Party President or Acting Chairperson, be open to the
public and the media as non-participating observers.

8.18 The Executive Committee may remove any member from its ranks, by a 75% vote of
all members of the Executive Committee at a Special General Meeting held for that
purpose, with one exception:
8.18.1 When the Party is represented in Parliament the rules for the Party Leader shall be
covered by clause 10.8 and 10.9

7.19 Who the #### wrote that? My initial reaction was that the convenor was KDC but having looked at a dictionary I am going to go with,"the person who calls the committee together" with the committee in this case being the exec.

7.10 Time, place, agenda, and ten days notice.
7.11 Drop no bombshells/ don't get sidetracked clause.
7.12 PP is chair or chair is appointed in PP's absence.
7.13 PS does minutes and distributes them to the exec after for confirmation.
7.14 Quorum = (half of Exec) and ((a tenth of the membership) or (50 members)) - whichever is greater
7.15 Proxy votes fine but not counted as numbers for the purpose of quorum.
7.16 Digital attendance is counted toward quorum.
7.17 SGM and AGM are open to public and media but they can participate.
8.18+ Fairly clear

7.9 which is the only clause that has any process for calling an SGM specifically says, "A Special General Meeting of the Executive Committee" nothing about any other sort of SGM, now there is no such animal as a "party convenor" anywhere else defined in const. so we fall back on majority of exec.

SO Is there only one species of SGM being an SGM of the Executive Committee?

Now if you thake that view, Every other reference to SGM can be legitimately interpreted as refering to "members" as Exec Committe members.... except 7.14 which blows that out of the water.

Now if you then decide that 7.14 takes precidence over 7.9 (which would be wrong, a subclause can modify its parent clause not directly contradict it)and re reading every reference to "members" (where they arnt specifically exec members ) as "party members" You end up with a Party SGM where all party members are notified, quorum of party members required BUT only EXEC members can vote!..... I dont think that would go down very well . Are there then two species of SGM and the constitution just forgot to say how to call a Party SGM?

So it appears to me that there are three ways we could go.
1 decide that 7.9 is wrong and "SGM of the Executive committe" dosent exist
2 decide that 7.14 is wrong and there is only "SGM of the Executive Committee"
3 decide that 7.9 is evidence of SGM of Executive Committee and 7.14 is evidence of Party SGM and use common sense to decide which one (or both) the other clauses are referring to. (and having ambiguity it is reasonable to ask "what did the constitution intend?)

There have been questions asked by other members about the constitutionality of ejecting James Abbott from the Exec. I find it disturbing that these questions are being ignored. If due process was followed, there should be documentation available describing the process that took place, with reference to the appropriate parts of the constitution. I have no confidence in an Exec which cannot show that it has the followed the constitution of the organisation it is running, and the lack of transparency opens the current Exec up to accusations of dirty politics.

I'm sure John Key would think it would be much more "efficient" and "productive" if his majority could arbitrarily vote all opposition MPs out of Parliament. There's a reason he doesn't have this power, and the same principle applies in any organisation with representative governance.

@strypey
https://www.loomio.org/d/TJKYaBU6/party-secretary-may-business.

https://www.loomio.org/d/Hb13CPp0/organisational-structure-and-internal-party-democracy

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_rage_and_narcissistic_injury

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie

The process was totally transparent ! Best not to just repeat stuff you hear without checking it our yourself first. If you have a specific question lets hear it. But please do aquaint yourself with the above first. Its all there.

@strypey

James Abbott was not expelled as far as I am aware, he resigned from the party. I am under the belief that he resigned as I was trying to have him removed for breaches of New Zealand law and bringing the party into disrepute.

This part of the parties history should be over, now more than ever. If you want to change the way the exec acts then get elected and change it but currently they don't appear to have to give us any information.

This in itself points to the complete lack of the ability in the exec to self correct with a rogue member.

Just to make my position clear here, I will repost a Facebook conversation I had with James Abbott on the 2nd of Sept.

EDIT - Wall of text, look at the edit for it.

So how about we get on with electing a proper exec which can make changes and not rehashing the past history of a resigned exec member.

EDIT - He was removed, I forgot that.

Amen, filled a few gaps that I wasn't aware of.

Actually, worse scenario than I thought. Let's all get over it and move on now . . .

1) @maelwryth the link provided by Fred makes it clear that James was expelled from the Exec. As a consequence he chose to resign his membership in the party.

2) An Executive cannot have an SGM (Special General Meeting). By definition a General Meeting (whether Annual or Special) is one that all current members of an organisation are informed of, and invited to. Additionally, the IP constitution appears to have quorum requirements for a meeting to qualify as an AGM or SGM.

3) Having read the links provided, I still see no documentation of the constitutional basis for removing Exec members. So far, the whole thing smells like a kangeroo court, where the Exec just made up their own process as they went along.

Please note, I have no idea whether James' behaviour justified expelling him from the Exec or not. It may be that he was being paranoid and delusional, as claimed. It may be that the various people speaking against him (and claiming he sanitised his Loomio posts after the fact) were indeed out to get him, in which case his comments would be justified.

What we can establish though, is whether the constitution was followed. Where are the minutes of the "SGM" the Exec held to eject James? Before anyone accuses me of dragging up the past, this is very relevant to the upcoming AGM. Whether we can trust and rely on members of the current Exec to be transparent in their processes and accountable to the membership affects whether or not to re-elect them.

@strypey
http://www.elections.org.nz/sites/default/files/bulk-upload/documents/internet_party_constitution_and_rules_13_may_14.pdf
Sec: 7.9
Sec: 8.18

@strypey OK, lets go through this, but lets refer to specifics? How about you lay out the method that should be followed for an exec to be removed, and we will start from there.

It is set out explicitly in constitution
Sec 7.9
Sec 8.18

I'm not intimately familiar with the IP constitution, but normally, since Exec members are elected by the membership at a General Meeting, to remove someone from the Exec (unless they resign) would require another General Meeting, which has enough members present to meet Quorum. Also, since Fred is proposing a constitutional amendment allow the Exec to expell members, I think it safe to assume the current constitution does not allow it.

That being the case, it would be good if the Exec admitted they knowingly broke the organisations rules, instead of pretending there was some constitutional basis to their action, and attempting to erect smokescreens of old Loomio threads which they hope we won't actually read. If James really was the liability the Exec are claiming (again, I have no idea), breaking the rules may have been for the best, given the chaotic state the party was in post-election. However, the least the Exec can do is be honest with members about it.

@strypey as i have said before i stand by my call but want to hear other views , Please set out here what you understand by sec 7.9. Please set out what you understand by sec 8.18

Sure, 7.9 must be interpreted in the context of Sections 7.10, 7.11, and 7.14. As I say, an SGM must be open to the full membership. In this constitution, members must receive notice of the SGM (including agenda) with at least 10 working days notice, and cannot make binding decisions without a quorum.

Frankly, I don't care for all this legalism. My suggestion would be to wind up the existing organisation, created for an entirely different situation, and replace it with a new one which reflects how the remaining members actually wish to organise ourselves. But if you want to keep the existing organisation going, you need to follow its rules to the letter, or at least admit it when you are not.

Well i dont have the luxury of selecting an interpretation to support one view , I must seek the interpretation that is most consistant overall. and that is that the constitution provides for both an SGM of the Party and an SGM of the Executive Committee. Someone had to make a call. and that someone was and is me. You will need to make some cogent argument if you wish to change my view. you have not raised any point that i have not thoroughly canvassed.
What do you understand by sec 7.9
What do you undestand by sec 8.18

I explained in the comment you are replying to what I understand by sec 7.9 and 8.18. It seems to me that "selecting an interpretation to support one view" is exactly what you are doing, by interpreting those two sections in isolation from the other sections around them. I find this troubling.

@strypey Ok agree to disagree . It is in the end my call and you have not given me reason to change it. discussion closed.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie#Bullshit

@strypey I would suggest again that the best way to change the constitution to your interpretation is to stand for the exec.

You say that you aren't intimately familiar with the IP constitution. Well, you will need to be to be on the exec so get studying, and then after you have come out of rehab (that is a joke), change it or clarify it or whatever you feel the membership needs you to do.

If you feel the current exec has interpreted it incorrectly then include that in your brief and let the membership decide.

Ok @fredlook , I'm happy to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you genuinely thought that was happened was constitutional.

It is in the end my call and you have not given me reason to change it. discussion closed.

Sorry Fred but this is not how accountability works in Incorporated Societies. As an elected officer, you are accountable to us, the members, for your use of the executive powers delegated to you by election. The onus is on you to justify your use of authority to the satisfaction of the membership. I welcome comments from other members more familiar with James Abbot and his behaviour in the party about whether they are satisfied that the constitution was followed when he was expelled.

Personally, I'm now quite convinced it was not. I've been candid about the fact I am not intimately familiar with the IP constitution (although I have read it). But I have served on the governance bodies of a number of Incorporated Societies, and I wrote the constitution for one of them. Thus, I am intimately familiar with what kinds of rules Incorporated Societies have, why they have them, and how they are structured.

Although I agree the wording in the IP constitution clause 7.9 appears ambiguous, a General Meeting (Annual or Special) is by definition a meeting of the membership, not a committee meeting. The Executive Committee could in theory have a Special Committee Meeting or Special Executive Meeting, but there is no provision for this in the constitution. What clearly should have happened to remove James Abbot is an SGM, following the rules in clauses:

7.10: The time, place and agenda of any Special General Meeting shall be notified to all Members
no less than 10 working days prior to such being held.

7.11 Only such matters as notified in the agenda shall be considered at the Special General Meeting.

7.14: Quorum for the Annual General Meeting and for any Special General Meeting must include:

7.14.2: At least 10 per cent or 50 Full Members, whichever is the greater

Please note 7.14 which clearly says "Quorum... for any Special General Meeting" (emphasis mine) and 7.14.2 which gives a minimum number of "Full Members" who must be present for the SGM to have quorum, and make binding decisions.

Again, where are the minutes of the Exec-only "SGM" in which James was expelled?

@maelwryth I'm sorry but I don't have the time or energy to serve on an Executive at the moment. Also, in my experience, unrecallable executives are unnecessary and risky. The discussion above is a good example of how elite Executive power can be misused, even presuming good faith and the best of intentions. In a 21st century democracy, it's possible to have an ongoing General Meeting online, and actively involve all interested members in making and actioning party decisions all the time. Until we are doing this, we are not the Internet Party, we are the house Kim DotCom built.

@strypey Bugger, but cest la vie.

I agree in principle on some points but not others. For instance,"The discussion above is a good example of how elite Executive power can be misused" is fairly harsh. :)

Where you blame the executive, I blame the constitution. In my eyes, the problem we have here an uninterested membership and that is something the constitution was not written to deal with.

Thank you, from me at least, for your input and honesty.

My reading of the constitution is that a member of the exec. can be removed by a special meeting of the exec. committee.

80% of the committee is greater than 10% of the membership so no constitutional override occurred.

There wasn't a single dissenting voice raised after the removal of James so that ipso facto implies that the removal had the unanimous backing of the membership.

Time to move on?

@rossburrows There is a fair chilling effect that lead to the silence (and mass exit of party involvement) after what on the face of it was the most popular elected official (James) seemed to be summarily booted off the exec that the members elected him too. I didn't join Internet Party for politics. I still want to change the world.

There were three of us in the Wellington team that essentially got deserted in late election and when whatever happened in the post-election meltdown. It left quite a bitter taste - it was then we started to hear some of the stories from the inside. I saw it from the perspective of the Mana people who took it in stride and aimed even higher. Many just left or gave up all hope. The spark that @fredlook and @grantkeinzley, @maelwryth et al lit again and got an exec re-formed was exciting to see. Not sure what happened to that spark. Some more politics? I'm unclear, and @strypey - thanks for seeking clarity.

I'm keen to clear the muddy waters at the AGM and start fresh with something accountable and transparent that can grow into what the Internet Party promised, and give that hope back to the 'Internet Party People' wherever they are - we have a year or so.. While I'm uncertain about my capabilities to serve on the exec, I'm up for it, if I get exec approval and some ratification - who knows, I might end up being in the core that rebuilds the party to take on the next election and does eventually change the world.

Sorry I don't pop in here much - but happy to chat further. Let fix this thing and get it working.

Thanks for that Jo, your feedback is welcome.

I understand that James was popular with some members of party, but he began to act as if he was the pope of the party, and began progressively turning on any members of the party who disagreed with his approach.

I thought in particular his abusive and ultimately malicious treatment of the female loomio contributors who spoke out was sufficient justification for him to be removed from an exec. position, if not arrested and prosecuted.

I took the positives from your input as encouraging signs that the combination of the double whammy of a disappointing election result and the aftermath of the exec. election outcome hasn't caused you to lose the hope and optimism we felt when the party kicked off.

Given the situation as it stands now, have you any suggestions to make regarding what you feel would help to rebuild your confidence in the Internet Party?

P.S. If you would like to stand for a position on the exec. I would be happy to nominate you or second you for the position.

I would also encourage you to stand . . .

@jobooth I think that spark has just been quietened by the day to day minutia of getting ready for the AGM. As I remember it (and my memories have already been false in one area so check it out) there was a concern that the exec didn't have the full backing of the party membership so it's primary purpose was to reboot the party with an AGM, get the party systems up and running again (and find out what they were) and get the website up and running.

Thus far we seem to have achieved;
The website.
We are near the AGM.
We have Facebook and Twitter up and running.
We have a membership database back.
We have a facility for members to join and leave again.
We have control of IP incorporated.
We have a donations facility.

Actually, this list should be added to. There has been a huge amount achieved in recent months by the exec and they "insert meadowlea ad".

I just think we are all tired, stretched, overworked, and waiting for the AGM.

In the other words, the groundwork is already being done as we speak for a successful relaunch of the party, when it is ready for that.

A successful exec. election could be fairly quickly followed up with a clarification of our stated vision and policy planks, and the election or selection of a media spokesperson.

One step at a time, and as Jo said, within a year from now, the Internet Party could be a force to be reckoned with at the next election . . .

There is a reason why i posted the link https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie#Bullshit
It is a form of dishonesty, and as a direct result of damage previously done on this list it is no longer allowed here. Now I am well aware that there is a continium from expressing uninformed opinion thru to promoting bullshit to mislead and it is hard to draw a line, but it is fairly easy to identify when it has been well and truely crossed! @strypey you are on warning. @jobooth The first paragraph of your last post missrepresents what actually happened and in so doing supports a dishonest meme. Please everybody be careful . A statement needs to be based on actual facts. An uninformed opinion should be identified as such IMUO (and seldom given!). @maelwryth dont be naive.

I have carefully explained, using reference to your own constitution, why the process used to expel James was not constitutional (putting aside the question of whether it was justified or necessary, which it may have been, I don't know). How about offering a counter-argument, rather than smears and threats?

@strypey did you not read my reasoning posted above that offered a counter argument to your allegation of unconstitutional removal?

It refers to the statement in the constitution regarding a majority of the exec. members OR (not AND) 10% of the membership, whichever is the greater . . .

80% of the exec. who therefore represent 80% of the members surely is the greater of the two . . .

Interesting, but lets get back to the AGM eh folks. This is the thread for it, and since James has left the party and Strypey wasn't there to make the decision and unfortunately isn't interested in standing, lets get on with it.

When will the Exec nominations be finalised and OK'd by the Exec?

The problem is not with strypey promoting an alternative reading of the const. It is his assertion that exec acted unconstitutionally. At the time I made the best call i could given the conflicting clauses. That was my responsibility. The exec acted on that call. Thats how it works. We acted in good faith. I still think it was the right call but that is not the point, if we get to the point of actuall reasoned argument I may be convinced differently, The members may instruct me differently, That still wouldent make the actions of exec at that time unconstitutional. If on the other hand you wish to continue to imply that I acted in bad faith in my decision or that exec acted in bad faith in accepting it then you must not do so here.

@maelwryth the nominations for members closes on oct 20, for exec oct 23 this to give exec opportunity to endorse if appropriate. Also in these three days i will attempt to clafify who consents and get 150 word pich from them, candidates announces ASAP after oct 23. Well thats the plan

Oct 21 - Executive nominations close. (as per email)
Oct 21 - Agenda requests closed?
Oct 23 - Executive approval of nominees completed.
Oct 24 - Successful Nominees announced.
Oct 24 - Agenda announced?
Oct 30 - Mail out with 150 word pitch? Facebook as well? and agenda?
Nov 7 - AGM

Some of that is from the email. We should really finalise it and post it on the calender/events page on the website? Also, we have no calender/events page on the website....just a meetups page............

Yes thats what we plan only i hope that the mailout will follow sooner after oct 23 , exec is aware that they gonna be real busy from oct20 to 23

I hadnt reall come to grips with agenda time what you propose is logical , exec meets wed (we meeting weekly till agm) so will put that to them. We are feeling our way in unknown waters so please continue to promp us , thanks

PROMPT!!! Lol, I need times and I need them well before hand so I can propose silly things to @chrisyong. Nailing down a definite calender is very important to me. I also think giving the candidates a week to work on their 150 word pitch is important.

For instance;
On Oct 31, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6...(depends on amount of candidates) we could post each 150 word brief on Facebook (need candidates permission?).

Also the agenda on Facebook?

The update after the AGM (you guys need to sort out a new Facebook person as well as I am having a relationship after the AGM).

A calender on the Main Site would be a goodness as well.

Right, step by step. @fredlook

7.1 - This seems under control except the Exec haven't published the agenda.
7.2 - Important to remember.
7.3 - Time - 7 Nov, Place - internet.org.nz
7.4 - Notified on time, provision for digital attendance communicated.
7.5 - Every year...check.
7.5.1 - Financial accounts, will they be published online, mailed to members, what format, have they been done?
7.5.2 - Has he written it....do we have a pres...oh we do. Have you written it Fred. Remember your hats!
7.5.3 - Sec report, has it been written. Also, remember your hat!
7.5.4 - What other business is there? Has this been finalised. Remember the final agenda is the responsibility of the exec so what do they want on it.
7.6 - IP Incorporated Assets meeting at internet.org.nz, is all paperwork done? Do you have a quorum set up to be there, etc...........
7.7 - Election of committee
7.8 - Can people vote what about disabled people, the blind, etc....
7.12 - No party President so exec will have to vote in an interim chairperson first to run the AGM. I suggest this is sorted out before hand. Do they know their responsibilities?
7.13 - Minutes, what form will they be in. How will they be recorded. If it is digitally is there a back up mechanism, etc.......
7.14 - Quorum, how are you going to count it? When do emails go out, when do they have to come back, what is the process and where is it documented....what is the backup.
7.14.1 - Quorum, do you have it?
7.14.2 - What is ten percent of the membership...at what time...who counts?

@fred look.

Hi Fred. I have been pondering the wisdom of allowing the leader of a rival political party operating under a pseudonym to launch personal attacks on the leadership and members of our own party.

Having failed in his attempt to attract our members into following his leadership, he now appears hell bent on undermining the authority of our Secretary, executive and splitting the party.

I suggest we take his defiant response to your first warning as having stepped over the line a second time and initiate an immediate ban on his use of loomio postings to disrupt our preparations for a very important A.G.M.

It's time to give this vexatious Trojan horse his oats . . .

Well said, Ross.

Point. If the AGM is to be smeared due to the use of emails, does that smearing begin on the 7th or end on the 7th and how long is it for?

my assumption is ending on the 7th starting on the 0th

strypey you may apply to rejoin this loomio in a week
[email protected]

Revised edition
Oct 21 - Executive nominations close. (as per email)
Oct 21 - Agenda requests closed?
Oct 23 - Executive approval of nominees completed.
Oct 24 - Successful Nominees announced.
Oct 24 - Agenda announced?
Nov 1 - Mail out with Executive hopefuls with 150 word pitch, agenda, voting mechanisms? Facebook as well?
Nov 7 - AGM complete

yup i guess we need to inform everybody fairly soon that we are taking agenda requests ending Oct 21 , probably do a social media ,forum, loomio post on around oct 14? o[pening agenda and reminding of closing date for nominations.

I am gathering all this stuff you are posting and try and get exec to run thru it tomorrow night.

Let's get the whole thing sorted by the end of this week if we can, AGM, everything all set up and ready to go so we can start fixing any problems. A good idea might be to document things as well, for instance, how votes were cast, where mistakes were made, ....so the next one can learn from it.

Nominees and Agenda Announced!

You can view the post here
......or the bios here.