Tue 8 Sep 2015 8:40PM

Shall we adopt the Australian model or change current statutes.

AR Andrew Reitemeyer Public Seen by 259

The Australian model can be seen here
This would need amending in any case
Vote yes if you want to adapt the Australian model
Vote no if you want to amend the current statutes


Andrew Reitemeyer Thu 1 Oct 2015 4:33AM

The current setup tends to slow down progress. The GA which meets once or twice a year is the ultimate deciding body and the board is both the steering and administrative body. The GA sets the goals and statutes and the board is supposed to carry them out.
What I think we need is a system that can free administrators to do what is expected of them and for there to be away to oversea their work and allow them to have changes made, when required, to statutes and goals to meet eventualities.That is what the steering committee would be able to do quickly and without having to organise a full GA.
How we do that is what we are here to do.


Poll Created Tue 6 Oct 2015 6:11PM

That the Boards functions be split into a Administrative and Supervisory Committees Closed Sun 18 Oct 2015 6:07PM

The Supervisory board will be charged with setting the direction of PPI for the term of its appointment (made at a GA) and overseeing the work of the Administrative Committee.
The Administrative Board is appointed by the Supervisory Committee and attends to the day to day running of PPI is responsible to the Administrative Committee.


Results Option % of points Voters
Agree 100.0% 1 AR
Abstain 0.0% 0  
Disagree 0.0% 0  
Block 0.0% 0  

1 of 27 people have participated (3%)


Nikolay Voronov Wed 21 Oct 2015 8:46AM

2Andrew: the explanation of your proposal is complicated and unclear, i see 4 bodies there: 1)Supervisory board 2)Administrative Board 3)Supervisory Committee 4)Administrative Committee
what's the duty of each body? How they formed or elected? i don't get it, detail explanation needed


Andrew Reitemeyer Fri 23 Oct 2015 6:28AM

The use of 'committee' and 'board' are interchangeable. So there would be two bodies the supervisory body and the administrative body. What I am trying to do is establish the broad structure and work out details once that is clear. If we have to have every detail worked out in advance for each proposal it will take ages. However it already is :)

What I have in mind is a supervisory body ( the supervisory committee -SC) elected by and responsible to the GA and for continuity only half the body would be elected each year - along the Swedish model to ensure continuity. The SC should also contain one or two members who are chosen by log - along the Icelandic model

The administrative body ( the administrative board AB) would be mostly appointed by the supervisory committee and be responsible to them. Members of the AB deal with the day to day running of PPI and are selected for their competence and skill.



Nikolay Voronov Fri 23 Oct 2015 9:33AM

we tried to implement swedish model during last GA but it didn't passed, of course we can continue talks on that.

your proposal raise many questions: who can be elected in AB? is that some member from SC or any other person?
and what we will have in that case? AB with no responsibility to GA?
ok, AB is for day to day running of PPI, but what's the duty of SC then? (besides of appointing of AB)

we have officially registered PPI HQ-organization (automatically - members of the Board), so who will be part of that organization (in case of your structure), AB or SC?

what issues\problems can be solved by your proposal\structure comparing to current structure? (i mean your GA->SC->AB model)