Nomination for Board -- Philip Hunt

[cabalamat]

I would like to put myself forward for the Board of Governors.

In a sense, I was a Pirate before there was a Pirate Party; I have been involved in digital rights activism since 2001.

I was one of the people who set up the Party, and was its first Campaigns Officer.

I was the Party's Scotland organiser before RAOs were formally introduced.

I was the Party's first candidate in a local government election, winning what was at the time our best share of the vote (it is still our best vote share by a current party member).

I'm currently involved with the web team.

I've worked on the NEC with Andy and John, and like them have gained an insight into how the party functions, and what works and doesn't. I think the Party's constitution should be complex enough to cover edge cases and prevent arguments from happening, while at the same time be simple enough that it doesn't get bogged down in detail.

I also think that our struggle against injustice will be a long one, so the Board needs to take a long-term view as to how we can develop. (In this it complements the NEC, which is concerned with the day-to-day running of the Party).

If elected I will work hard to further the advancement of the Party. Unlike some former Governors, I will not do a runner and leave the Party; I'm in this for the long term.

I therefore invite members to second me if you think I would make a good member of the Board.

[infektor]

I would like to second Philip Hunt's nomination to the Board of Governors.

[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.

[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?

[azrael]

I also feel obliged to ask you the questions you asked me when I stood.

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?

[scuzzmonkey]

I also feel obliged to ask you the questions you asked me when I stood.

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?

I would like to register an interest and second these questions as you asked me the same when I stood.

[scuzzmonkey]

Phil, you have not answered a single question that has been asked of you, and yet;

Last visited:10 Aug 2011, 01:55

Are you taking this seriously at all? I genuinely find this behaviour disrespectful of both the members that have taken the time to ask you questions, and the questions asked by the leader, and (potentially) future fellow Governors.

[cabalamat]

I also feel obliged to ask you the questions you asked me when I stood.

That's reasonable. Here are some answers relating to devolved party structures:

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.)

PPUK activity in places with devolved administrations will work best if there are devolved PPUK structures in these regions. So I think there should be devolved structures. There is currently a proposal to abolish RAOs. If they are abolished, I think something needs to be put in their place, in devolved areas of the UK. As we get bigger, to fight council elections there will probably need to be party structures at that level too (but for now this can best be done on an ad hoc basis).

In terms of policy, I think that a devolved area should be able to have any policy that:

1. doesn't contradict higher party policy
2. doesn't bring the party into disrepute, and
3. the members of the devolved area agree with

This should apply at multiple areas of devolution. So e.g. the national party would make policies, then the Scottish party could make additional policies for Scottish parliamentary elections, and then pirates in Scottish council areas could make policies for those council areas. But a local party can't contradict a higher-level policy.

Incidentally, we may want to look at doing the same thing Europe-wide for the EU elections in 2014. So there might be an EU-wide Pirate Party platform which Pirate Parties sign up to (or choose not to), and then each national Pirate party with its own additional policies. Also (and I digress) we may want to discuss running on joint lists with the Greens, since Pirates and Greens are in the same group in the European Parliament.

2. Regarding Scotland, if there is a devolved party, should there be a Scottish leader?

If that's what Scottish pirates want. The same goes for other devolved regions.

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

I've answered this above. To summarise, I think Scottish pirates should be able to democratically choose any policies, so long as they don't contradict UK-wide PPUK policy or bring the party into disrepute. (Ditto for other devolved areas of the UK; I'm particularly thinking of the London assembly elections next year)

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?

We are a democratic party, and as such we should have whatever policies our members want, as chosen by balloting the party members. This applies nationally and in devolved areas.

[cabalamat]

Phil, you have not answered a single question that has been asked of you

Sorry about that. I'm doing it now.

[cabalamat]

7. What other constitutional changes, if any, would you like to see?

I think the rules for elections need to be tightened up.

During this current BoG election, the nomination period was extended in the middle of the election process. While it is entirely reasonable to extend nominations if there are less nominations than places to be filled, I do not think it is reasonable to change the rules in the middle on an election.

This is not the first election where members have complained of irregularities. During the leadership election in August/September 2010, there was sentiment that the NEC was trying to rush through the election too quickly. And during the Campaigns Officer election in January 2010, there was disquiet that someone had put their hat in the ring 9 minutes before the close of nominations.

I think that the timing of elections needs to be known in advance, with a fixed period for nominations (automatically extended if not enough people have come forward), followed by a fixed period for debate, followed by a fixed period for voting.

The lengths of time for these might be:

nomination - 2 weeks. Possible extension of 1 week.
debate - 2 weeks
voting - 2 weeks.

When deciding on lengths, we need a balance between a longer length (advantage: the party may get better people in important jobs) versus a shorter period (advantage: things get done more quickly). Because the party leadership is the most important position, it may make sense to have a longer timescale in party leadership elections. In elections where there is only one candidate, so the choice is between that candidate and RON, it may make sense to shorten the period of debate. To combat last-minute nominations, we might have a rule that if someone is nominated and seconded on the last day of nominations, the nomination period is automatically extended for a day.

On the subject of elections, we use the openstv software to count them. Openstv used to be an open source project (up to version 1.6), however it no longer is. The openstv website lies when it says it is still open source, because their new license doesn't permit redistribution. I think we should continue to use open source versions of openstv (I note that the last election, for nominations officer, used version 1.6). If necessary we should fork the project.

Update: we should also look at the rules for re-opening nominations (RON) in view of the fact that the current BoG election procedures may not be constitutional.

[cabalamat]

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?

One possible problem is if no-one thinks they "own" an issue, so things doing get done because everyone expects someone else to.

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?

One possiblility would be for the board to split up into sub-committees for various tasks. For example disciplinary panels containing 5 governors.

As to what works best, to be honest I don't know. Ask me again when I've been on the board for 6 months.

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?

The Chair (if their was one) would have been elected like all the other governors, and so ought to have the same powers -- not more, nor less.

[cabalamat]

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)?

I think there is a lack of long-term thinking in terms of where does the party want to be in 5 years and how do we get there. (I'll put my thoughts on this in another post).

- 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?

This is partly an academic question, because of course we don't have to discard any of our policies. (We do, however, have to do something similar: in our communications with the public we have to decide what policies to highlight).

I think the heart of what Pirates are about is copyright and patent policy reform. The internet has weakened the power of the copyright industry, who have responded with draconian new laws. As a response to this, Pirate Parties have sprung up throughout the world. These new laws have eroded freedom of speech and privacy, so it's natural that Pirates would be concerned about these too.

Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of democracy and western civilisation. It's something all parties give lip-service to, even when they are eroding it. So we're on pretty firm ground when we emphasize it.

Privacy is something we're potentially weak on. For example, some people like CCTV because they think it deters crime. If we say we're against it, we risk being accused of being on the side of the criminal.

So if I have to drop one, it'd be privacy. (But of course, we don't have to drop one).

- 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?

Housing policy reform.

At the moment it costs c.£60,000 to build a house but 3-4 times that to buy one[1]. The difference between the these prices means that when a person or couple want to buy their first house, they are forced to enrich rich landowners on top of having to pay for the house. So I think there should be a policy of affordable housing for all, either for rent or for purchase. This policy would be attractive to anyone who wants to buy a house in the future, anyone who's fed up with paying through the nose for rented accomodation and anyone on a council house waiting list[2]. Many people in their 20s and 30s feel that they'll never be able to buy a house, and such a policy would be attractive to these voters.

(Incidentally, if this policy is such a good idea, why don't the big parties support it? Because it would alienate older home-owners who see their house as a retirement nest egg, so it'd lose them votes. (Old people are more likely to vote than young people). But since hardly anyone votes for us now anyway, it'd lose us much fewer votes, and we'd be able to engage sections of the electorate who none of the big parties are attracting anyway. And the wonderful thing is, if we started doing this and getting lots of votes, the big parties wouldn't be able to do anything about it, because it'd still be a net vote loser for them.)

Notes:

1. If houses were mass-produced in factories instead of being individually handcrafted on site, they'd be even cheaper to build

2. in Edinburgh, this is about 10-15% of the electorate. If we could get them to vote for us...

[cabalamat]

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)?

I think there is a lack of long-term thinking in terms of where does the party want to be in 5 years and how do we get there. (I'll put my thoughts on this in another post).

PPUK is a single issue party. That is to say, there is one single issue that sums us up: freedom on the internet.

Other single issue parties are UKIP and the Greens.

The Greens got 8.6% in the 2009 Euro election and have 2 MEPs, 1 Westminster MP, 2 MSPs, 2 London Assembly members, 1 NI Assembly member and 150 councillors. UKIP got 16.5% in the Euro election and have 13 MEPs and 24 councillors.

Both parties are thus pretty successful. PPUK's goal over the next 5 years should be to try to achieve the same level of electoral success as them. As part of this, we should look at how they've achieved their success.

While the Greens and UKIP each have one single defining issue, they also have lots of other policies as well. (The same is true of the SNP: they are defined by Scottish independence, but have other policies). I believe that if we are to become as successful as them, we need to have policies on a wide range of issues.

When campaigning and talking to the public I've had plenty of people tell me that they agree with the Pirate Party on filesharing, but won't vote for us because they feel other issues are more important. Conversely, no-one has ever said to me that we have too many policies!

So, what sort of policies should we have? The detailed policies should be decided by the membership, but I think that the the sort of policies the party should seriously consider are ones that address the merginalisation of young people in modern society. I've already mentioned housing policy. Other issues the party might address are:

* the benefits system discriminates against young people. Under 25s get a lower level of Job Seekers Allowance, and under 35s get a lower level of Housing Benefit.

* university tuition fees, increased to £9000 in England.

* the Education Maintenance Allowance has been abolished in England

* reduce the voting age to 16. 16 and 17 year olds are affected by the above but are disenfranchised so have no say.

None of the major parties are seriously addressing these issues, so if we made them our own, there are a lot of people who would potentially vote for us. Furthermore, the sort of people who care about file sharing and other digital rights issues are likely to care about these issues too.

If I'm elected to the Board, I'll make sure that the issue of long-term policy development is raised, and that we go into future elections with a broad set of policies likely to be attractive to significant sections of the electorate.

[scuzzmonkey]

If I'm elected to the Board, I'll make sure that the issue of long-term policy development is raised, and that we go into future elections with a broad set of policies likely to be attractive to significant sections of the electorate.

I'm assuming that you are aware that the Board has in fact no weight based on policy decisions, and as such you could push for longer-term policies without actually being on the board? In fact, it might be even easier to do this without "The Board" hanging over your head - from personal experience it's a massive PITA to have to say "This is my personal opinion, and may/not reflective the opinion of The Board".

[cabalamat]

If I'm elected to the Board, I'll make sure that the issue of long-term policy development is raised, and that we go into future elections with a broad set of policies likely to be attractive to significant sections of the electorate.

I'm assuming that you are aware that the Board has in fact no weight based on policy decisions, and as such you could push for longer-term policies without actually being on the board?

Indeed, and in fact I have done. For example, at the start of this year we had a policy review (which didn't lead to any votes on policy, presumably because someone's eye wasn't on the ball) during which I proposed several policies that would have broadened our range of policies.

The Board's job isn't to decide our policies. Nor should it be, IMO: long-term policy making is a job for the membership, and in the short term the NEC and especially the leader have a role in responding to immediate events and issuing statements on them.

The Board, does IMO have a role in determining the structures and procedures through which the party does things, including determining policy. Later this year, we will have a policy review which will use software based on Reddit (in my role on the web team, I'll be working on this). Based on how that works out, the Party will no doubt learn lessons on what works and what doesn't, and from there I hope we'll be able to put more permanent structures in place regarding policy.

[cabalamat]

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'm involved with the web team, so I'll be doing work on the website over the next few months. Scottish local elections are in May 2012 and I'm hoping to be a candidate, so I'll be helping to organise pirates in Edinburgh. This is all irrespective of whether I'm elected to the board.

Regarding board work, my immediate priority, if I'm elected, will be to look at how we conduct elections and how this could be improved.

Regarding how the board does it's work, I don't intend making any suggestions/changes there until I've been on it for some time and I can get an idea as to what does and doesn't work.

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?

Yes.