borgs8472 wrote:Evening Mr Shadow foreign secretary I have lost your Skype, please message it to me.
Actual question, will this election just be a formality as you, a obviously qualified candidates runs for the open position? For instance, a powerful drive to instigate change /reform are a couple of issues to stand on, get lected then have a mandate to push though those issues. Other than effectiveness and inefficiency, what specially are you ut to change?
I ask this, not because you need to convince me of specific issues per se, rather I'm interested so see if you involve the wider membership to support reform, vs doing things more quietly from within
tuoni wrote:I have been mulling this over and come to the decision to throw my hat into the ring for a position on the Board.
tuoni wrote:I want the board to become an effective body - at the minute there is too much inertia to get things happening in a timely fashion. Hopefully I can help act as a catalyst to get things moving.
tuoni wrote:The board is a body of 12 people who are supposed to represent the members. This has not happened.
PeterBrett wrote:one of the important functions of the Board is to provide a longer-term direction and consistency to the party's activities, and this is reflected in the fact that Board members are elected for five years.
Thank you, I appreciate it.PeterBrett wrote:By the way, Ed, I second your nomination.
Please be assured this wasn't a personal attack! I appreciate that the NEC need to be responsive, etc - I have been a major part of that until recently. I would say, however, that the board hasn't really done much in terms of providing any direction at all. The operation of the board is glacially slow - by the time anything is decided by the board, it is such old news that it is almost deemed irrelevant.PeterBrett wrote:I consider this to be a somewhat simplified view of the Board's role. In particular, one of the important functions of the Board is to provide a longer-term direction and consistency to the party's activities, and this is reflected in the fact that Board members are elected for five years. In addition, it's important that the Board not, in general, second guess the decisions made by the NEC, as this would hamper their responsiveness and freedom to exercise the authority of the positions to which they have been elected.tuoni wrote:The board is a body of 12 people who are supposed to represent the members. This has not happened.
Actually, I disagree. If enough of the membership are pissed off enough with actions of the NEC, they should have every. damn. right. to call for an investigaion into it. Whilst this is a hypothetical, I am fairly shocked that you would suggest the membership should not be in a position to do such a thing if needed.PeterBrett wrote:We certainly do not want to get into a situation where members feel entitled to demand a full-scale Board investigation whenever they disagree with an NEC decision. In my view, normally the Board should only be visible to the membership at large in cases of serious misconduct, or when substantial changes need to be made to how the Party is run or its overall direction.
Whilst I don't disagree, I also don't think that the board should be 12 people who are less active than some of our membership without an elected position. Again, this is not intended to be an attack against any members of the board... but I would be surprised if the membership at large, even those who are active on our forums, could name even half of the members of the board. I realise I've been living in a little bubble of activity, but I want, now, to spread that out to the wider membership.Board members "represent" the membership by quietly, patiently and responsibly watching the Party's activities, and only using the Board's considerable power when actually necessary to protect the Party's integrity. The Board should be invisible unless things are actually are going wrong.
ajehals wrote:It's great to see you putting yourself up for this position. It would be ideal to have someone with your experience and drive on the board. <snip>
Both of these can, and should, feed into each other. I am currently in a position where I am co-ordinating the actions of Pirate parties globally - smoothing tensions and co-ordinating between fully establilshed parties on an international scale is, to me, no different to working internally within the UK. I actually hope that they can complement each other.ajehals wrote:Some quick questions:
What I would like to know is:
1. Whether you will be able to reconcile your responsibilities to the PPI board with those to our own?
Members of the board should be far more active in the party as a whole than they currently are. The board is probably in about the correct role as it should be in a party of our size. It should just be more responsive, rather than being a black hole.ajehals wrote:2. What you think the board should be doing within the Party?
Actually, I hope that is outside of the scope of this position.ajehals wrote:3. Where you would like to see the Party in 4(ish) years time?
tuoni wrote:I am in the position that I can offer several hours a night for Board-related stuff. Basically, I can put in as many hours as I am needed for, as I have done in the past.
liamreed wrote:Wow. A seconded statement is definatly something new and what I would like to see more oftern. Also you are the only candidate that has stated you will give as much time as the board requires which I think is something that shows that your looking to make the board more responsive to current events. Obviously correct me if this isn't a path you want the board to take.
Users browsing this forum: ichiro[crawler] and 1 guest