Nomination for Board - Harley Faggetter

[topperfalkon]

Ok, so I blame this all on the IRC crew, but I'm nominating myself for Board of Governors.

Why? Well, why not? Seems some people feel I've got a chance, so I may as well take it.

But on a serious note I think such an opportunity might finally give me the final shove I need to get properly involved in the Party. It'll give me a bit more experience working with political parties, which I currently lack. It'll also give me a chance to brush up on my skills of reasoning and negotiation and the like, which are getting a tad rusty these days.

So, as a bit of background, a bit about me.

I'm a 20 year old Software Tester working full-time in the Essex area. I'm technically based in London, but that's a tad bit complicated at the moment. I've spent a lot of time floating around online communities in the past 8 or so years and generally work my way quite quickly into positions where I have some oversight of that community. These communities have never been more than 50-60 people in size but it's given me the time and opportunity to learn how to deal with other people. These communities have always been exclusively English-speaking, but have had members across the world. I spend a large portion of my spare time lurking in various places across the internet or gaming.

Ok then, given the type of party this is, I'd imagine that summary encompasses a fair portion of our membership, with subtle variations. But hey, it's me putting the nomination up, so I thought I'd give you forewarning before someone actually is mad enough to second me (or eventually vote for me).

Still, I want to get involved in some way, and I'm passionate about the party's core aims and this is the way I feel I'll be best suited to help the Party.

Blimey, I do go on a bit, don't I?

[tuoni]

I'll second you!
Short-stuff : )

[topperfalkon]

Somehow I knew you would, it was you who talked me into this in the first place

[tuoni]

Somehow I knew you would, it was you who talked me into this in the first place

Total lies.

[scuzzmonkey]

Blimey, I do go on a bit, don't I?

Good, that is what we need.

My question is an arse, and is as follows - what do you think needs to be changed, or modified, out of the following, based on your view on what the Board _should_ be.

Please go on as much as possible.

Code of Practice

General
There will be monthly Board meetings, which all Governors will be expected to attend or to make apologies for. The meetings will usually be held in the #ppuk-board channel on the PPUK IRC server.

Six voting Governors are required for a quorum. A decision by the majority of those present is binding.

Making constitutional amendments
The process for making a constitutional amendment has seven steps:

Proposition of amendment to the Board. Anyone can do this* at any time!
Internal Board discussions.
Consultation with the NEC.
Post-NEC consultation internal Board discussions.
Consultation with members. This will usually occur via the Board of Governors forum.
Post-member consultation internal Board discussions.
Member vote.
These steps can be quite slow, but have seemed to work quite well so far.

You may, if you wish, discuss in advance with other in the members forum.

Discipline and arbitration
Disciplinary panels shall consist solely of 5 Governors selected on the Board's discretion, but subject to any further condition. Any Governor with a potential and significant interest in the matter before a disciplinary panel cannot sit on that panel.

A panel will be set up following an official request received by the Board for discipline of a Party member or arbitration of a dispute. The panel will sit for as long as necessary.

The panel will investigate all of the available facts, and come to a decision. The panel will act independently of the rest of the Board and of the NEC.

Decisions of the Board shall be binding on all members in the case of disciplinary matters, or on the appellant in the case of arbitration matters. The Board cannot be bound by decisions of a disciplinary or arbitration panel.

[topperfalkon]

I'll second you!
Short-stuff : )

OI!

You may be able to hide that on the forum, but the email notifications gave you away there!

[...]

Expect an email shortly

[tuoni]

I'll second you!
Short-stuff : )

OI!

You may be able to hide that on the forum, but the email notifications gave you away there!

<3

[topperfalkon]

My apologies for my retardedness last night... Here's my response to Scuzz's request.

Code of Practice

General
There will be monthly Board meetings, which all Governors will be expected to attend or to make apologies for. The meetings will usually be held in the #ppuk-board channel on the PPUK IRC server.

Six voting Governors are required for a quorum. A decision by the majority of those present is binding.

No objection here, although the ideal would be a fixed date or date range for these meetings (so either the 28th of each month or the last Saturday of each month, for example). Somewhat easier to get more Governors to attend if they know the date well in advance in order to plan around it.

Making constitutional amendments
The process for making a constitutional amendment has seven steps:

Proposition of amendment to the Board. Anyone can do this* at any time!
Internal Board discussions.
Consultation with the NEC.
Post-NEC consultation internal Board discussions.
Consultation with members. This will usually occur via the Board of Governors forum.
Post-member consultation internal Board discussions.
Member vote.
These steps can be quite slow, but have seemed to work quite well so far.

I'd expect these at a minimum. Perhaps keeping the general member base informed of what new propositions are being discussed may be of added use to get earlier feedback.

You may, if you wish, discuss in advance with other in the members forum.

Discipline and arbitration
Disciplinary panels shall consist solely of 5 Governors selected on the Board's discretion, but subject to any further condition. Any Governor with a potential and significant interest in the matter before a disciplinary panel cannot sit on that panel.

Happy with this.

A panel will be set up following an official request received by the Board for discipline of a Party member or arbitration of a dispute. The panel will sit for as long as necessary.

The panel will investigate all of the available facts, and come to a decision. The panel will act independently of the rest of the Board and of the NEC.

Decisions of the Board shall be binding on all members in the case of disciplinary matters, or on the appellant in the case of arbitration matters. The Board cannot be bound by decisions of a disciplinary or arbitration panel.

I'm not sure the panel's remit is entirely clear here. For instance, what punishments/penalties can the Board exact on members as part of disciplinary action? Are there punishments that cannot be given by the Board?
Also, what exactly does the last sentence "The Board cannot be bound..." mean?

[azrael]

The Board cannot be bound by decisions of a disciplinary or arbitration panel.

what exactly does the last sentence "The Board cannot be bound..." mean?

It means the disciplinary or arbitration panel cannot bind the Board to a particular decision. As the panel is appointed by the Board and may well be (even if partially) a subset of the Board, its authority sits just fractionally lower than the Board - otherwise this would allow a subset of the Board to over-rule the entirety of the Board - which wouldn't be practical as if the Board disagreed they could ultimately create and populate a new panel to reverse the decision.

[scuzzmonkey]

For instance, what punishments/penalties can the Board exact on members as part of disciplinary action? Are there punishments that cannot be given by the Board?

Well if I told you that - I'd be answering my own question - I want to know what you think.

[topperfalkon]

The Board cannot be bound by decisions of a disciplinary or arbitration panel.

what exactly does the last sentence "The Board cannot be bound..." mean?

It means the disciplinary or arbitration panel cannot bind the Board to a particular decision. As the panel is appointed by the Board and may well be (even if partially) a subset of the Board, its authority sits just fractionally lower than the Board - otherwise this would allow a subset of the Board to over-rule the entirety of the Board - which wouldn't be practical as if the Board disagreed they could ultimately create and populate a new panel to reverse the decision.

Ok, that makes perfect sense to me then.

For instance, what punishments/penalties can the Board exact on members as part of disciplinary action? Are there punishments that cannot be given by the Board?

Well if I told you that - I'd be answering my own question - I want to know what you think.

Ok then. I don't think the Board should be able to eject paid-up members, unless they're doing something illegal, or something that could bring the party into serious disrepute.
I think any higher-ranking member should be disciplined for a lack of discretion in public. Stuff like obviously sexist or racist remarks perhaps. Again especially if it brings the party in disrepute. I think no action should be taken against any member without first giving them a warning and a chance to redeem themselves, unless failure to intervene in the first instance directly threatens the continued existence of the party.

I think a standard suite of forum rules should be used. We should use a warning system and discipline users and members for poor behaviour on the forum (including stuff like insulting or attacking other users, posting grossly offensive material and/or links, etc.) and should be met with temp bans if persistent bad behaviour is encountered followed by permaban if the former fails to have an effect.

Other than that, I don't really know what the scope for infractions others may commit against the party may be. I don't know if there's any legal or constitutional obligation to punish members in a certain way for certain offences, but those are my ideas as it currently stands.

[topperfalkon]

*coughs*

I guess it's grilling time then. Who is going to be first?

[LozKaye]

Good to people contesting for the Board. This is a great way to be more involved with the party, as well as retaining the expertise we have.
In my position, I'm going to ask the same questions of each candidate.

The board has an overseeing role, which is a vital part of the functioning of the party. However, hopefully the workload should not be too great.
How do you see your practical work for the party developing?

The political and media environment we work in is fast developing . Stories change throughout the day, and if we are to be credible it is vital that we respond professionally and in a timely manner.

Can I count on you responding quickly if I need to phone / mail / tweet you with a practical task that needs doing?

[lhsi]

Questions for all candidates:

- What quality do you intend to bring to the Board that you feel is currently under-represented (or, that you feel is well represented, but think it is something the Board should have in abundance)?

- Hypothetically, if you had to vote to temporarily discard one of the core policies (Copyright and Patents, Privacy Policy, Freedom of Speech), which one would you choose? Which one would you argue the strongest for keeping above the other two?

- Hypothetically, if you had to add an additional policy that is not a current core policy (Copyright and Patents, Privacy Policy, Freedom of Speech), what would you recommend, and why do you think it fits in with current PPUK policies?

[topperfalkon]

The board has an overseeing role, which is a vital part of the functioning of the party. However, hopefully the workload should not be too great.
How do you see your practical work for the party developing?

I'd like to think that as well as taking part in any oversight I'd perhaps help get current members being more politically active and work on means of getting our numbers up, whether by sourcing new members from the friends and contacts of existing members or simply by broadening my own contacts. I'd like to a more serious role in discussing the future of the party and any party policies we may adopt or alter in the future.

The political and media environment we work in is fast developing . Stories change throughout the day, and if we are to be credible it is vital that we respond professionally and in a timely manner.

Can I count on you responding quickly if I need to phone / mail / tweet you with a practical task that needs doing?

Given that I work a full-time job that is prone to requiring overtime with the possible addition of an out-of-office support role in the not too distant future I'd be wary of committing myself to responding quickly to any given event. In any case I should be able to respond to any call within the day providing it does not require that I travel or if it does that the travel is local. My weekends are somewhat more flexible however.

Questions for all candidates:

- What quality do you intend to bring to the Board that you feel is currently under-represented (or, that you feel is well represented, but think it is something the Board should have in abundance)?

Well, I think the Board needs for all the people holding a position on it to be level-headed and capable of discussing issues and ideas as a group and coming to a consensus, which requires not only the ability to fight your corner, but to graciously concede defeat when in a losing position. I believe those are traits that I hold (although people are free to dispute that). I also think that the Board should be capable of taking its time to step back and assess ongoing situations rather than rushing into things, which can be catastrophic in some cases.

- Hypothetically, if you had to vote to temporarily discard one of the core policies (Copyright and Patents, Privacy Policy, Freedom of Speech), which one would you choose? Which one would you argue the strongest for keeping above the other two?

I would ditch Privacy Policy, because there are times that despite the tyranny it may entail, removing the rights of the public to their privacy can be in the interests of society.

- Hypothetically, if you had to add an additional policy that is not a current core policy (Copyright and Patents, Privacy Policy, Freedom of Speech), what would you recommend, and why do you think it fits in with current PPUK policies?

Net Neutrality, because it really is core to the way we regard the internet in the modern world. Do we make ISPs liable for the stuff their clients do, and thereby promote unacceptable surveillance by those ISPs? I'd be very worried to see that behaviour promoted, and I'm appalled that there are companies in the UK that have been known to undertake these practices even when the law didn't require it.

[azrael]

Question:

One of our core duties is in making sure the constitution is suitable for Party purposes. Do you think it is currently 'perfect'? If not what needs changing? Other than a few cosmetic things which might need tweaking to say what they ought to mean (though please highlight those too) - are there any clauses that are wrong in both wording and spirit and need to be done away with? Are there ay gaping holes where new clauses need to patch previous oversights?

[azrael]

Question:

My perspective of how the Board currently operates is that it does so generally as a single entity. Each Governor is only a twelfth (ideally) of the Board and therefore doesn't speak individually with the full weight as when the Board issues communications. This has benefits (maximises the number of brain cells put in to making decisions) and disadvantages (takes 12 people longer to make a decision than 1 person). Clearly this benefit and disadvantage are flip-sides to the same coin.

What other advantages and disadvantages have you seen or can you imagine that this lack of individual 'authority' causes? Do you think this is the best way for the Board to operate or do you think individual Governors should have greater autonomy and decision making outside of the Board? If so how would this work?

The Board currently operates without a 'regular' Chair person. Meetings have a rotating chair person. Do you think the Board ought to organise itself with a Chair to lead Board processes? If so how would you see this working? Should it rotate frequently through fixed terms? How long? If there was a Chair should the Board imbue them with greater powers than a regular Governor, or indeed fewer powers than a regular Governor?

[azrael]

Question:

What is currently in the remit of the Board that shouldn't be?

What is not currently in the remit of the Board and should be?

[topperfalkon]

Question:

One of our core duties is in making sure the constitution is suitable for Party purposes. Do you think it is currently 'perfect'? If not what needs changing? Other than a few cosmetic things which might need tweaking to say what they ought to mean (though please highlight those too) - are there any clauses that are wrong in both wording and spirit and need to be done away with? Are there ay gaping holes where new clauses need to patch previous oversights?

As per the hitch we had with a clash in NomOf and BoG vacancies elections last month, it may be prudent to update S10 on the constitution to make clear the due procedure for handling such an incident. I'm not sure what form that should take currently, however.

Question:
My perspective of how the Board currently operates is that it does so generally as a single entity. Each Governor is only a twelfth (ideally) of the Board and therefore doesn't speak individually with the full weight as when the Board issues communications. This has benefits (maximises the number of brain cells put in to making decisions) and disadvantages (takes 12 people longer to make a decision than 1 person). Clearly this benefit and disadvantage are flip-sides to the same coin.

What other advantages and disadvantages have you seen or can you imagine that this lack of individual 'authority' causes? Do you think this is the best way for the Board to operate or do you think individual Governors should have greater autonomy and decision making outside of the Board? If so how would this work?

I think it would largely depend on the individual specialisations each Governor would wish to take, and their level of competence in such matters. I think if a Governor is clearly in a better position to talk with authority on a certain issue (Duke, for instance, is usual exceptionally well versed in legal issues) they should be given that authority to whatever extent is deemed reasonable. When it comes to how the party itself should behave publicly, it should always remain a discussion for the board. I think that's clear enough, but feel free to ask for clarification when I'm a tad more awake!

The Board currently operates without a 'regular' Chair person. Meetings have a rotating chair person. Do you think the Board ought to organise itself with a Chair to lead Board processes? If so how would you see this working? Should it rotate frequently through fixed terms? How long? If there was a Chair should the Board imbue them with greater powers than a regular Governor, or indeed fewer powers than a regular Governor?

I think there should be a 'more regular' chair person. I believe the only additional power this should afford them is to allow them to force a yes/no decision when there's no majority on a vote/discussion. I don't have a strong view on this though, and I'm not really sure how I could develop my support for a more regular chair or specify any better what form it should take.

Question:

What is currently in the remit of the Board that shouldn't be?

What is not currently in the remit of the Board and should be?

I don't currently have any issue with the remit of the board.

[Gavman]

As these questions were asked of another candidate I would be curious to see the response from all other candidates to the following questions:

1. What level of autonomy should regions of the Pirate Party have? (I'm thinking particularly here of Scotland, but the same issues apply to other parts of the UK with devolved administrations -- Wales, London, and Northern Ireland.)
2. Regarding Scotland, if there is a devolved party, should there be a Scottish leader?
3. What about policies/manifestos for Scottish elections; should they be decided by the Scottish Party or the whole of PPUK?
4. Regarding our manifesto, the constitution says (2.1): "The principal aim of the Party is that the United Kingdom reforms its copyright and patent and privacy laws in a manner consistent with the opinions of the Party’s members." In your opinion, does this preclude us having policies outside these areas?
5. Does this part of the constitution need changing? If so, what to?
6. Should PPUK have policies outside our core policies?
7. What other constitutional changes, if any, would you like to see?
8. According to the constitution (8.3 [ed. now 8.7]): "The Board may have other governance responsibilities which are as yet undefined in this constitution." what other responsibilities do you think the board should have?