borgs8472 wrote:Possible duties:
* Reposting of PPUK ideas that are origonal but not sufficiently UK specific to warrant further discussions on PPUK
borgs8472 wrote:* Summary reports of PPI activities to PPUK on the forums (maybe in the mailshot in the future!)
borgs8472 wrote:* Tracking divergent EU views on EU leglisation relevant to pirate politics
borgs8472 wrote:* Encouraging UK members to participate on PPI where there is insufficient UK representation
borgs8472 wrote:* Encouraging non-UK members from PPI or elsewhere to participate in PPUK where non-UK representation is needed
borgs8472 wrote:* Seeking per country liasions (e.g. for piratenpartei.de, piratpartiet.se)
At the moment, I am not in a position to act as PPI liaison or international co-ordinator for PPI because of my current role within PPI (and it potentially creating a conflict of interest). Obviously in the event that I step down from (or am voted off) the Coreteam, I will be happy to put myself forward for such a role.andrewtindall wrote:I think the obvious candidate here would be Duke, if he's up for it.
epriezka wrote:That arguably covers most of what we discuss - the internet, patents, international law... none of them are very UK specific... and if it gets reposted to PPI, what do we expect them to do with it? They don't have policies because they're not a political party.
Surely PPI should produce one summary report of what they do and circulate it to all nations, instead of having all nations write their own separate summaries of what they see PPI doing?
[tracking divergent views] is a job for PPI (or rather PP Europe - to the extent that sub-classification exists) not a job for each national party.
What does this mean? Why would UK representation be insufficient? Why does the role involve encouraging others to participate and not just doing the participation itself?
Why not just rely on somebody using some common sense and asking for help on the rare occasions we need it?
Again, what is the goal here other than communication because we assume all communication is inherently good? Why look for bilateral comms with national parties outside of using PPI as a conduit for communication?
My point here is that not all communication is good.
We can prioritize. Too much communication or ineffective communications ends up becoming so much noise - and then rapidly turns into background noise as people learn to ignore it.
Fyi, I contacted the co-Presidents of PPI a couple of weeks ago, to ask them to participate in my podcast, so they could explain to interested listeners what PPI is for and what is happening with their planned international conference. Problem is, they've not been very good at responding to the request. Part of the reason for inviting them to interview is that I've asked questions about the role of PPI before, and felt there's been some reluctance/inability to answer. So maybe we should be fixing some more basic things about international communication before implementing this many-to-many nexus of communication. I mean, a lot of these suggested duties presuppose a knowledge of what PPI is there to do... but are you sure you know what PPI is there to do? I don't.
duke wrote:For example, I wonder how many PPUK members are aware of the current taskforces that PPI is running - the ACTA, conference and statutes ones - these were all advertised to PP leaders, posted on the PPI site and the mailing list, but from what I have seen, the information doesn't seem to have spread all the way to the PPUK membership.
duke wrote:It is important to remember that much of what is in our (current) manifesto cannot be achieved at the national level; even if we somehow won the next general election with an overwhelming majority, we wouldn't be able to reduce copyright without risking severe fines from international organisations. PPUK needs international support and co-operation.
duke wrote:Now, obviously you could say that as PPI's only job at the moment seems to be communicating with parties it should be our job to do all of this. Unfortunately, we do not currently have the time or resources (or authority) to chase up every party.
duke wrote:There are roughly two new parties starting up every week and we have had a lot of trouble getting in contact with the larger parties in particular (for example, it took about 2 weeks before we found out that our emails weren't getting through to PPSe or PPUK). Having an official international contact removes a large burden from both PPI and the PP leadership.
duke wrote:Another point worth considering is that PPI is still very young (and small); over the next few years we hope to get into a position where we can do a significant amount of lobbying at an international level (both lobbying governments etc. and corporations) and where we can commission (and publish) our own studies on various issues (a chance to "fight back" at all the studies that I and others have spent many hours ridiculing for their glaring errors and omissions) - while the need for a PPI liaison may not seem that great now, in a year or so, when both PPI and PPUK have grown, one could be very useful.
borgs8472 wrote:epriezka wrote:That arguably covers most of what we discuss - the internet, patents, international law... none of them are very UK specific... and if it gets reposted to PPI, what do we expect them to do with it? They don't have policies because they're not a political party.
I know no other suitable channel for coordinating advertising on international type file share sites to promote pirate parties. Do you have any better ideas?
borgs8472 wrote:epriezka wrote:Surely PPI should produce one summary report of what they do and circulate it to all nations, instead of having all nations write their own separate summaries of what they see PPI doing?
You're right, but I'm not seeing any PPI reports here, ideally at report would be disseminated to all pirate parties, but we have the language barrier to consider so I think multiple reps is an inevitability, we might as well take the inititive here.
borgs8472 wrote:Again, I'm getting no reports from PPI currently, are you?
borgs8472 wrote:epriezka wrote:My point here is that not all communication is good.
Disagree, disagree, disagree.
borgs8472 wrote:too many people kept starting new threads for each bit of news that they found on the web which led to the inevitable mess with nobody organising it.
borgs8472 wrote:epriezka wrote:We can prioritize. Too much communication or ineffective communications ends up becoming so much noise - and then rapidly turns into background noise as people learn to ignore it.
That's the whole point. I can't be bothered to check in at PPI regularly and see what's up because there's too much getting up to speed, looking for the pertinent vs irrelevent discussions. Hence the role of this person.
borgs8472 wrote:Indeed! Role of liason is to find out what PPI can do for PPUK and vice-versa!
rancidpunk wrote:If it's just about disseminating information I'll do it.
How? By posting our every move on each PP forum? By emailing pp.int.general or every individual pirate with everything we do? The "blog" on our front page is more of a place for major developments rather than posting every little detail.There's no need to coordinate if PPI just told people what they are doing.
What is relevant for one party may be trivial for another. So yes, it would be good if we could have someone working out what is relevant and filtering it and then distributing it to the parties... sounds a bit like a PPI liaison officer to me. Each party has their own ideas, their own priorities, their own agenda; yes PPI will try to focus on that which is common, but the 6 of us may have trouble working out the needs of dozens of parties. Given how many problems we are having within PPUK with communication between the few hundred members and the NEC, surely you would recognise the need to have intermediaries between such a large number of people (in the case of PPI, several orders of magnitude larger) and a small committee trying to work for them?Why doesn't somebody in PPI work out what is relevant and put some effort into doing the filtering of important from irrelevant on their website.
epriezka wrote:If the person volunteering is effectively speaking on behalf of PPUK, and PPI is speaking on behalf of the whole Pirate Movement, we should democratize the position - by having an election of the go-between or at least a member vote to ratify an appointment made by the exec. Otherwise, the position becomes an absurd anti-democratic loophole, where somebody with no support from the membership gets to talk on behalf of PPUK and hence gets to influence what the whole pirate movement says...
rancidpunk wrote:I most certainly don't want to anything more than pass the information backward and forwards between PPI and PPUK. That is not so complicated and I can't see a problem in letting all the members see the newsletter by posting it on a thread, complete transparency and all that. If it is speaking on behalf of PPUK I'd rather cross the channel in a bathtub.
duke wrote:epriezka wrote:snip
You wrote over 2000 words across those posts, I'll try to cover as much as I can.
duke wrote:surely you would recognise the need to have intermediaries between such a large number of people (in the case of PPI, several orders of magnitude larger) and a small committee trying to work for them?
epriezka wrote: 'Authorities' to write an encyclopedia? Don't need them.
borgs8472 wrote:If this was happening without organisation I wouldn't have proposed it.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests