Nomination for Board - John Barron

[JohnB]

I would also like to put myself forward to become a Governor for the Party, now that I am no longer Nominating officer and am in a position to do so.

I have been active in the party more or less since it was founded, and I've seen how the party works (or sometimes, doesn't work!), I believe that I will be able to make a positive contribution to drafting amendments to the constitution, and where possible to try and anticipate not just what may be needed in a particular time and circumstances but also how that amendment might apply in different times and circumstances.

I also believe that we need something like the Board in existence, and that if we are serious about lasting as an organization we have to be able to sustain at least some structure for that - although the minutiae of such things are tedious in a way, they are also necessary, as is having a recognized and impartial way to handle arbitration, discipline, and appeal.

I hope that I will be seconded, and it would also be good to see more candidates for the Board come forward so that we could see a contested election for the vacant positions.

[azrael]

I'd be delighted to second John's nomination for the Board.

[tempest3k]

I'd second this, but azrael beat me to it!

[scuzzmonkey]

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.

[scuzzmonkey]

John, could I please get an answer for my question - thank you.

[JohnB]

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.

There is not that much which I would be in any hurry to see changed from that list, and in a similar way after the amendment which created the Board, and the subsequent round of amendment, I believe that we need not be in any rush to make further changes faster than necessary. So I would not, for example, want to see another round of constitutional amendments on quite the same scale as the last ones that came through.

The bringing of regional administrators into the constitution is a good example, I can understand why it was done (because they were member-elected, there was an imperative to consider doing that), and in one way I'm glad that was so, simply because it meant that past practice could not be overturned instantly by a change of view in the NEC, but forced a wider discussion about how we can or should operate. At the same time, and with other things as well, I think it can sometimes be an option not to formalize some things too quickly, because if policy and practice are still developing and in flux, it leaves both the NEC and individual members room to maneuver if such things aren't codified too rigidly too soon.

I'm very happy with the change that created the Board, and separated governance from executive operations. My main reason for standing now is to be part of keeping that organization structure going (12 governors is a lot of posts for us to fill, at our current stage of development), as well as me needing to reduce the time I was putting into the party - as you saw, you didn't get an instant response here, which was partly because I wanted to take a bit of time to think about what I was going to write, and partly due to finding time to respond.

I do think that the process for bringing amendments through perhaps can be expedited a bit, though it's basically sound, and I also think it's important that the Board be able to function effectively with less than 12 members, since it seems inevitable that it won't always be fully manned, and I'm dubious about replacing Governors piecemeal - for that reason when I learned that the Board nominations had been extended, I felt that was a good decision, even though it was a change to what had previously been announced, because I do not believe it would have been right to hold a vote with fewer candidates than vacancies, and then follow it with another vote for the remaining spot.

Similarly, I'm not wholly convinced about the quorum on the Board, of six governors, or how the constitution should be interpreted for that - my own belief is that if the Board ever fell below seven active members, it should dissolve and a new Board should form, with re-election for all posts. Some other things which I believe merit consideration is whether at some stage we should have a party chairman, perhaps drawn from the ranks of the Board, and that I would like to see the section which allows for

The Board may have other governance responsibilities that are as yet undefined in this constitution

removed from the constitution, as I believe that if there are other governance responsibilities that fall within the Board remit, we should specify what they are and bring amendments for member vote to approve them or not, and not rely on a clause as general as this presently is.

I am also conscious of a criticism which has been made of the way it all works at present, which is that when amendments are brought by a group set up the way the Board is, it could be very unlikely that it would fail to pass, by the nature of the process, and rather like the way it's very unusual for re-open nominations to even come close to winning a vote. In one way I think the vote process still is effective, in that it makes the Board unlikely to bring an amendment which won't pass, just as the presence of RON as an option can deter someone really unsuitable from trying to take a position unopposed if there aren't better candidates contesting it, even if it achieves the result by existing as possibility rather than actually happening.

At the same time, I think that it's important that amendments shouldn't be too easy to push through, and I worry a bit about what happens if something passes by a small margin, e.g. 55 % to 45 %. So far the only idea I've had to alter that would be to make future constitutional changes require a super-majority, e.g. two-thirds, rather than a simple majority - which could have its own drawbacks, on the other hand if we were changing the constitution and more than a third of the membership were opposed, maybe the Board should go back to the drawing board and prepare a better amendment in the first place, rather than being enacted first and then still having to do something about it.

Anyway I've gone on long enough for this evening, I do watch this thread and you will get an answer to posts here, not necessarily instantly however as you've seen.

[scuzzmonkey]

Thank you

I don't really have any follow up questions at present as I don't want to be seen as "picking on" certain candidates.

[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?

[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?

[JohnB]

Quite a few questions this morning I see, I'll answer them in sequence as follows.

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.

Yes, that's one reason I was willing to stand as a candidate for this.

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?

To be blunt, I see practical day-to-day work for the party as quite distinct from being a PPUK governor, and something which any particular governor might or might not be willing to take on, depending on their particular circumstances. So I don't see this question as relevant or appropriate in a Board nomination thread, as I certainly won't be responding quickly (or at all) to any such request for day-to-day practical needs as part of a governor role.

In my case, I probably will (and have already indicated my intention) to stay involved as a member on this sort of practical level, which will partly depend on what I can actually deliver reliably, and which I'll commit to when and where relevant - which is not in this thread

- 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)?

There are already other candidates with previous NEC experience, however that is always useful to have represented on the Board. It doesn't mean the NEC of the day would necessarily like everything I'd be willing to support as a governor, but it does mean that I will have some awareness of how any particular proposal might impact the operation of the NEC, both as it might apply at the time and as it would have in other circumstances I've seen.

- 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?

At present the constitution only refers to reform of copyright and patents, and makes no direct mention of privacy and freedom of speech, so it's fairly clear that needs some attention (the party is about much more than copyright and patents, and I've come to realize that our policy there is very much a consequence of our views on freedom of expression and privacy, rather than a cause in itself).

Right now, I find it hard to imagine a situation where I would feel I had to vote to exclude any of the current core areas from our constitutional aims, and unless there was some compelling reason I haven't yet imagined, I don't suppose that I would be willing to remain on a Board that wanted to put an amendment like that through - I would vote against, and if it passed the Board anyway I'd resign as a governor and campaign within the membership to vote against it.

- 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?

Transparency and open government - we already have this as a policy thread through everything we've been doing, but it's not stated as a core area and I believe it both stands alone as something popular and sensible we can get behind. It also complements all three existing core areas, from open data initiatives (ordnance survey maps, bus/train timetables, all kings of stuff) that shouldn't be "owned" under copyrights, to privacy (when privacy needs to apply, and when it shouldn't, such as dubious expenses paid to officials), and on to freedom of speech (if we don't know what's being decided behind closed doors, we aren't able to discuss it freely).

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?

One item has already been mentioned in this thread, that the constitutional aims specifically mention copyright and patents, but in truth we've always operated in terms of three core areas, and there's been discussion of what is appropriate or not to become a core area. So that needs some attention, and either to be generalized so that core areas are a bit more fluid and defined operationally rather than in the constitution, or to be made more specific so that everything we actually recognize as core is identified. There is a case to be made for both alternatives, and perhaps both options should be pursued and presented to the membership for their choice.

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 that's right, and that the Board should normally act as a collective rather than individuals. There have been times when that's really mattered, even though it sometimes seemed like nothing was happening while the Board sorted its collective thoughts out.

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 possibly think that the Board should have a regular Chair, and that the chair should not formally have any different powers from a governor but rather should be a procedural appointment. That need not be formalized into the constitution, unless it was expanded into duties beyond the board, for example, if the board chair also became Party Chairman and was invited to NEC meetings as a non-voting observer and liaison between the NEC and board.

That last is just one idea, of course, and there could be others. I am conscious however (and was conscious, while on the NEC), that since the changes in the constitution which prevent anyone sitting on both the Board and the NEC, that there isn't necessarily much direct communication between the two bodies, which I think needs addressing; another possible idea, rather than have a board chair, would be to get each governor sitting in as an observer on at least one NEC meeting a year.

With 12 governors, that wouldn't be every meeting, but could cover one a month, and I think might be a useful way for the NEC to have access to the board when making operational decisions, and for the board to get direct feedback on the current state of party operations. Anyway these are just ideas, there are many ways to "skin a cat" and as long as we find one that works that's the main thing.

And that''s more than enough to post and for anyone to read for now at least, I'd say, at least till the next questions or follow-up here.

[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?

[JohnB]

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?

Broadly speaking, I would say that different regions in the UK should have the level of autonomy that PPUK members in that region want to have, with the caveat that some things might be dependent on the actual level of political devolution that we find ourselves operating in.

So for example, if Scotland were to vote for independence in future, that would pretty much force a fully separate national Pirate Party, leader, policies, etc. Under the current circumstances, what we do is much more flexible, and it would be possible to have a more independent regional setup, with a distinct Scottish (or indeed, Welsh or London) leader, still within the overall PPUK rubric. If I'm honest, and looking at what it's taken to keep PPUK functioning so far, I'd doubt we are large enough to operate regional parties that independently today; but it could be possible in future, and I would have no strong feelings in principle for or against the idea, to me it would come down to what members in the region wanted and what PPUK members nationally were also happy to work with.

3. What about policies/manifestos for Scottish elections; should they be decided by the Scottish Party or the whole of PPUK?

Given the current setup, I would say that policies should be decided for the whole of PPUK, and that in a specific election that should be translated into manifesto relevant to that election, whether Scotland, London, or any other level down to local council. There should not, however, be anything in a specific election manifesto that conflicts with established PPUK-wide policy.

One reason for that is that we might well need to pick and choose which elections it makes political sense to fight, and apply funds gathered from PPUK members nationwide to those - and that would make it a big problem if members on the ground wanted to take their manifesto in directions that PPUK members overall wouldn't be comfortable with.

Again, it could be (and I would like to see) fund-raising in future at local levels, and put back into elections locally, and then this particular issue would be reduced - and there would be nothing wrong then with policy initiatives starting at that level, including fighting elections, and then being shaped and developed further, and adopted by us on a wider basis (or not) out of that process.

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?

This is a bit of an issue, because it isn't quite right, and it already isn't what we're actually doing. So it needs some work to put this right, I'm not going to claim that I have a perfect solution to this, because in truth I haven't got much further than recognizing the issue and that we need to deal with it. If elected to the Board, I'd expect therefore to start working with the other Governors to prepare a replacement for this clause that would improve matters.

6. Should PPUK have policies outside our core policies?

Broadly, I would say No: it is a great strength of ours that we are neither left-wing nor right-wing, and that we don't fit into the traditional mould of twentieth-century politics. So I believe that we should be strong in retaining that, and that we've seen our core policies do touch all areas of daily life and we can put that across.

Where other parties do have good ideas, and maybe also much more experience than us in setting policy, then we shouldn't be afraid to support them, and for our candidates to show they are both independent-minded and also willing to work with other elected representatives to get policy that works for the people who voted for us.

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?

On this one, I think that for constitutions, as with some other things, it is as good as possible not when there is nothing more to add, but there is no longer anything more to remove (without breaking it).

In that vein, I would like to see the "undefined responsibilities" clause on the table for removal, and put to member vote. Since the version of the constitution that created the Board became effective, there is now a process for further governance duties to be defined if necessary, and if there are any that need defining then I believe the Board should do so, and put the specific responsibilities arising from that to member vote - I do not believe that this clause should stand any longer.

[cabalamat]

6. Should PPUK have policies outside our core policies?

Broadly, I would say No: it is a great strength of ours that we are neither left-wing nor right-wing, and that we don't fit into the traditional mould of twentieth-century politics. So I believe that we should be strong in retaining that, and that we've seen our core policies do touch all areas of daily life and we can put that across.

When the party was founded, this was my opinion too.

But I now think we should have a wider range of policies, in part because when talking to people, many have said to me, in effect, "Yes I agree with you on filesharing, but X, Y and Z are more important issues for me, so I'll vote for someone else instead". How do you think Pirate candidates should respond when voters say that to them?

[JohnB]

6. Should PPUK have policies outside our core policies?

Broadly, I would say No: it is a great strength of ours that we are neither left-wing nor right-wing, and that we don't fit into the traditional mould of twentieth-century politics. So I believe that we should be strong in retaining that, and that we've seen our core policies do touch all areas of daily life and we can put that across.

When the party was founded, this was my opinion too.

But I now think we should have a wider range of policies, in part because when talking to people, many have said to me, in effect, "Yes I agree with you on filesharing, but X, Y and Z are more important issues for me, so I'll vote for someone else instead". How do you think Pirate candidates should respond when voters say that to them?

So far I remain unconvinced that having a fuller range of policies as something that would work for us. It would inevitably tend to evolve into becoming a full party platform, and we would lose the disruptive edge that we currently have, that we can say we represent a different kind of politics, with independently-minded candidates not tied to a particular party ideology but able and willing to represent the views of the electorate, and work with any of the major parties where their ideas stack up, which in some cases they do.

I look at the Greens as a case in point, they were seen as a single-issue party, and more or less had to broaden to a full platform for the reasons you say. However, that also means, as far as I can see, that much of their platform outside their core areas is a mixed-up half-thought through mish-mash of stuff that half or more of their candidates don't necessarily support or even understand.

For us, I think it's easier to stay focused, because as a civil rights movement for the 21st century, we are already not a single-issue party (we are not "the file-sharing party"), and I've found it fairly easy to get that across when speaking to voters.

To have, for example, a fully costed fiscal policy would be a nonsense, we don't have the skills to write one that would be credible, and we aren't going to form a government. Same with for example housing policy, I see the importance but I don't agree with your ideas about it, so if I stand for election under the Pirate name I will be saying that I will work with other elected representatives to get the right housing policy, and express my views on what would work for the community I live in; but it wouldn't be the same as what you might say, and I would repudiate a party policy in that area.

And plenty of other things are like that, as a Pirate politician I'd have to put my constituent's views first, and even overriding my personal views in some cases - and that would be part of my platform, the willingness to do that, though I'd also be open about what my own views are.

Anyway, all that's more relevant to when I put myself forward as a candidate, if elected as a Board governor my responsibility would be to the Party and our members, and I don't believe the constitution needs to say very much on what policies we have or whether it's restricted to the core aims or is expanded to a fuller program.

All I would say is that as a member, and nothing else, I personally presently continue to oppose excessive widening of our policies, if it happens I probably won't obey it, and probably would need to resign any posts / withdraw from the party.

[borgs8472]

as a Pirate politician I'd have to put my constituent's views first, and even overriding my personal views in some cases - and that would be part of my platform, the willingness to do that, though I'd also be open about what my own views are.

I'm assuming this is r.e. non core policies?

[JohnB]

as a Pirate politician I'd have to put my constituent's views first, and even overriding my personal views in some cases - and that would be part of my platform, the willingness to do that, though I'd also be open about what my own views are.

I'm assuming this is r.e. non core policies?

Yes, that's right - I think anyone elected when standing as a Pirate candidate can pretty much know they've got enough of their constituent's support to take that as read.

[borgs8472]

I disagree that a majority of constituents anywhere support our core policies.