Loomio
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
http://wiki.pirateint.org/wiki/Collaborative_Organisational_Structure_Proposal
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
http://wiki.pp-international.net/Statutes

NV

Nikolay Voronov Tue 8 Sep 2015 9:09PM

no

L

Larose75 Wed 9 Sep 2015 12:59PM

can we discuss first ? ;-)

NV

Nikolay Voronov Wed 9 Sep 2015 2:22PM

2Larose75: we tried - https://www.loomio.org/d/WYt3ITKl/how-do-we-procede
there is no activity on discussion. Maybe be the problem is: members don't know what to discuss?
so we can answer on this question: how we can START such reform? We can take PPAU proposal and change it (it really needs a lot of changes if we want to move with this option), or maybe it's better to adopt current statute to our needs?
On the other hand: i feel that nobody knows what they exactly want from PPI, where is opinions? We stuck with this, but we need to move forward to prepare new statute for next GA.
Maybe you have suggestion about how to stir up discussion, or maybe we need some other platform for such discussion?

JER

Juan Esteve Ramos Tue 15 Sep 2015 8:30PM

My actual problem is that I have two nearly elections. One this month and the other on December... And it is really very dificult for me to be on all discussions.
But I think that discussion is really necesary and has to be discussed by a lot of pirates to be really accurate to reality.

NV

Nikolay Voronov Sat 19 Sep 2015 8:58PM

ok, i guess i can put my opinion on PPAU model right here:
I had (before onlineGA) discussion with Brendan about this model, so i know the main idea of this model and other details.
1. First of all, this idea based on 100% activity of our members, you might think that is great thing but you know that is utopy, some PPI members are inactive on international things. We don't know the real reasons: maybe they focused on internal things, maybe they just won't to do things with PPI, or maybe some parties are inactive in general. But PPAU proposal also contains "punishment" for such members. You can find some comments here:
http://wiki.pp-international.net/Talk:Online_GA_2015/SAPs/A_Collaborative_PPI_%28Complete_Statute_Overhaul%29 (btw, it have additional discussions which are very useful for our current discussions).
First version of that proposal had "Failure to pay fees after twelve (12) months will result in the member being automatically expelled from PPI.", and same thing for inactivity. I told to Brendan that it's bad idea and he changed "expelled" to "suspended". But it's still looks like "punishment". I don't like it, it will cause bad influence on PPI.
2. PPAU model says that "no GA's anymore", but GA's are important as "official" events which helps to promote PPI. From my link above "The General Assembly is replaced with the Steering Committee"
3. Steering committies are possible with current statutes (currently: standing committies), and current Board can act as secretary Administrative Board right now (if Board members will agree on that "unofficially". Or we can change current statutes for that.
4. We can adopt current statute and change "Board" to "Administrative Board" giving them only a secretary functions to put motions on vote.
5. Other things about voting procedure could be implemented in current statute too. It will be more easy to adopt current statute than dealing with PPAU model.

AR

Andrew Reitemeyer Sun 20 Sep 2015 2:19AM

I agree with Nikolay that General Assemblies are essential to maintain contact with the parties and organisations that PPI represents and is responsible. However I would like to see more informal interaction of more than just once a year. I see it as essential to engage people A standing online GA would be one answer to which would negate the need for a real world event. This could be replaced with one or more social events.
I like the idea of making changes that are within the current capabilities of the board and we can then present them at the next GA

The first move would be to establish a steering committee that would include the current board and others. The committee would initially act as an advisory panel to the current board. The board would mostly enact the decisions of the Steering Committee.

JER

Juan Esteve Ramos Wed 30 Sep 2015 2:29PM

And therse shoul be elections for that steering committee? Couldn't it be rotative?
Just taking a list of people interested in working and rotate them every month. For example.
There should be allways new ideas.. and people would have more time to disconnect and recharge every x months.

NV

Nikolay Voronov Wed 30 Sep 2015 5:26PM

2Juan: the idea is to attend all PPI members ( their representatives) to steering committee, no elections needed for that, Board will get only secretary functions to put questions on vote. Election every month (or even once per 3 months) isn't good idea, because members haven't enough time to do something. We have new board at least few months and not much things completed, frequent rotation will launch same processes again and again, and nothing will be done.

JER

Juan Esteve Ramos Wed 30 Sep 2015 6:34PM

you misunderstood me.. I never ment about every month election... but to have a rotative process of representatives, taken from one list of dedicated persons. For three reasons:
1) Not having the same guys doing all the things
2) Not burning the workers too much
3) Having an assumption of the real people that is going to work. Being on the list is compromising to work when it's your turn.

NV

Nikolay Voronov Wed 30 Sep 2015 7:16PM

2Juan: that's not gonna work, it's the decision of PPI-members who can represent their party at steering committee, most of parties have 1 or 2 representatives (international coordinators) on international arena and they can't provide more. It should be only the choice of certain PPI-member, they can do rotation at any moment according to their own statute and rules, it's not the PPI-business. Only local parties have right to decide who can represent party at committee and how long it would be.
The initial idea is: each party have representative (or they have right to send representative to any committee), so we can keep equality between PPI-members all the time

AR

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.

AR

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

Results Option % of points Voters
Agree 100.0% 1 AR
Abstain 0.0% 0  
Disagree 0.0% 0  
Block 0.0% 0  
Undecided 0% 26 AK JER L J NP IG FG KDV MP GE KS XS P RH NV CBJ NK AN

1 of 27 people have voted (3%)

NV

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

AR

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.

Thoughts?

NV

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)