Nomination for Board for Andrew Lyons

[Drew3000]

Hi all,

I'd like to offer myself as a member of the Board of Governor for the Pirate Party. I joined the party within hours of becoming a naturalised citizen and have been involved in advocacy and campaigns that are in line with what the Party is about for many years, including copyright and patent reform, net neutrality, protection of privacy and free speech. I'd be very interested in work aimed at enhancing and improving the party's constitution and participating in other activities of the board. Thanks to anyone that can second this nomination.

Andrew Lyons

[borgs8472]

Hi Andrew

Your membership isn't showing on the forum, you should have a blue name if the forum recognizes you as a paid member. I should also add that whilst there is an expectation of activity and general party participation as a governor, the role of the governor only extended to limited matters of constitution and internal, party governance - there's no additional attached mandate for supporting pirate activities through being a member

[azrael]

Hi Andrew! Glad to see you throwing your hat into the ring. One of the strange things about the Party operating mostly online is that we frequently feel we come to know people we only chat to online. So having actually met you in-person a few times and chatted about Piratey things I feel I know you even better!

I am going to hold off on immediately seconding you, because I want to see who else nominates themselves, as we are each limited (9.9 of constitution) to how many people we can second. In this case as there are 2 vacancies I can only second 2 candidates. Perhaps that's me being optimistic, but would be great to see many nominations to create a strong field of candidates.

[Gavman]

Hi Andrew

Your membership isn't showing on the forum, you should have a blue name if the forum recognizes you as a paid member. I should also add that whilst there is an expectation of activity and general party participation as a governor, the role of the governor only extended to limited matters of constitution and internal, party governance - there's no additional attached mandate for supporting pirate activities through being a member

This has been brought to my attention and I can confirm that Andrew is a paid up member of the Party in good standing and as such is fully eligible to stand.

[Drew3000]

Hi Andrew

Your membership isn't showing on the forum, you should have a blue name if the forum recognizes you as a paid member. I should also add that whilst there is an expectation of activity and general party participation as a governor, the role of the governor only extended to limited matters of constitution and internal, party governance - there's no additional attached mandate for supporting pirate activities through being a member

That's a weird one. According to my profile (just checked it to make sure) it says "Your membership is current and expires on 26th August 2012."

Strangely, there was an issue the other day in which I wasn't able to post, but that was cleared up. As for the other thing, supporting the other activities is my pleasure. Cheers.

[Drew3000]

Thanks, and no big. I'd like to see a lot of people run as well. We need more in-person meetups, I think, at least for local Pirate groups.

Hi Andrew! Glad to see you throwing your hat into the ring. One of the strange things about the Party operating mostly online is that we frequently feel we come to know people we only chat to online. So having actually met you in-person a few times and chatted about Piratey things I feel I know you even better!

I am going to hold off on immediately seconding you, because I want to see who else nominates themselves, as we are each limited (9.9 of constitution) to how many people we can second. In this case as there are 2 vacancies I can only second 2 candidates. Perhaps that's me being optimistic, but would be great to see many nominations to create a strong field of candidates.

[tuoni]

Hi Andrew

Your membership isn't showing on the forum, you should have a blue name if the forum recognizes you as a paid member. I should also add that whilst there is an expectation of activity and general party participation as a governor, the role of the governor only extended to limited matters of constitution and internal, party governance - there's no additional attached mandate for supporting pirate activities through being a member

That's a weird one. According to my profile (just checked it to make sure) it says "Your membership is current and expires on 26th August 2012."

Fixed. Apologies.

[topperfalkon]

I'm happy to second Andrew, presuming that none of the prior posts constituted a seconding.

I'd consider asking questions here, but I'll leave those for the campaigning period.

[Drew3000]

Thanks for vouching

Hi Andrew

Your membership isn't showing on the forum, you should have a blue name if the forum recognizes you as a paid member. I should also add that whilst there is an expectation of activity and general party participation as a governor, the role of the governor only extended to limited matters of constitution and internal, party governance - there's no additional attached mandate for supporting pirate activities through being a member

This has been brought to my attention and I can confirm that Andrew is a paid up member of the Party in good standing and as such is fully eligible to stand.

[Drew3000]

Thanks, and ask away when the time comes.

I'm happy to second Andrew, presuming that none of the prior posts constituted a seconding.

I'd consider asking questions here, but I'll leave those for the campaigning period.

[liamreed]

As most of the governors have stepped down due to time restraints how many hours a week would you be able to offer the board in a general week? I am aware that a member of the board does not require weekly amounts of time but I see it as a good benchmark.

[Drew3000]

I guess it would be variable, depending on what's going on. I work full time and have my kid around, but generally have some time to put in a few hours as needed, mostly weekend or evening.

[liamreed]

Thanks for the fast reply Andrew. To continue my line of questioning i'm going to copy a couple of andy's questions to ed to make sure we know everyones views before the vote.
What do you think the board should be doing within the party?
Where do you see the party being in 4 years?

[Drew3000]

Thanks for the fast reply Andrew. To continue my line of questioning i'm going to copy a couple of andy's questions to ed to make sure we know everyones views before the vote.
What do you think the board should be doing within the party?
Where do you see the party being in 4 years?

Well, one thing would be to continue to refine the PPUK constitution, which I think is a solid piece of work over all, especially in its brevity, but I think some areas could use more clarification. Particularly:

"If a member of the Party subsequently joins an organisation which the Board declares to be incompatible with membership of the Party, or if the member is found to be a member of such an organisation then the Board may revoke their membership of the Party without return of membership fees."

It may be good to lay out what an incompatible organisation would be, not that I know off the top of my head, but the conversation would be better had sooner than later.

In terms of where the party should be in 4 years, I'd like to see more aggressive fundraising and community work and more candidates running in elections. I'd like to see a PPUK MP.

I think that in UK and in Europe elections this year there were important lessons for, what shall we call them, "independent" parties. UK is different than Germany but there are still things to be learned. Likewise, in Bradford, parties should take note the real reasons why Galloway's party worked there outside of what the media coverage tells us about it. I think we have more things we can promote in different communities and we need to work on candidate preparation and support so when we do have them they're able to respond to local needs for an MP as well as our core issues.

[tuoni]

Well, one thing would be to continue to refine the PPUK constitution, which I think is a solid piece of work over all, especially in its brevity, but I think some areas could use more clarification. Particularly:

"If a member of the Party subsequently joins an organisation which the Board declares to be incompatible with membership of the Party, or if the member is found to be a member of such an organisation then the Board may revoke their membership of the Party without return of membership fees."

It may be good to lay out what an incompatible organisation would be, not that I know off the top of my head, but the conversation would be better had sooner than later.

for my part, I... <insert adjective here> disagree. I actually find it fairly offensive that any any "one" can decide that <insert something here> is "incompatible" in advance.

The rest, I can't comment, but that is one area I fucking hate. This is not about left/right. This is not about ideology. I would like to think we're beyond that...

[azrael]

Q1) 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)?

Q2) One of the Board's 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 any gaping holes where new clauses need to patch previous oversights?

Q3) 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 does not 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?

Q4) What is currently in the remit of the Board that should not be?

Q5) What is not currently in the remit of the Board and should be?

Q6) Can you highlight any problems that the Board has had that you wish to fix, and indicate how you would fix them?

Q7) 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.)

Q8) According to the constitution (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?

[Gavman]

Ok so following on from a discussion in another candidates thread, I would like to ask a few questions

i) do you see it as a Governors role to be active within the Party outside of filling the role of Governor?
ii) do you think it should be looked into making it expected of a governor to be more involved?
iii) are you involved already in other areas of the Party? If so would you mind giving a quick overview?

iiii) Do you believe the board should have more/less power? If so please explain why and what powers you think the board should lose/gain

[Drew3000]

Ok so following on from a discussion in another candidates thread, I would like to ask a few questions

i) do you see it as a Governors role to be active within the Party outside of filling the role of Governor?

Well, I think for myself I'll try to be as active as I can be. I am interested in local politics in my area so am keen to represent PPUK here (Southwark, though soon to be Lewisham as we're moving just a couple streets over but into another council).

ii) do you think it should be looked into making it expected of a governor to be more involved?

I think a person can give their all in a single role and that shouldn't be discounted, so I wouldn't make a cut-and-dry rule like that, I guess, though I'd encourage people to be more involved. By allowing people to take on roles that can fit around their work, family or other obligations we increase the chances of getting more people involved, so I don't think I'd make it a requirement. Active participants are cultivated over time. The gradual engagement approach keeps a person involved for years while expecting someone to be involved everywhere can lead to burnout.

iii) are you involved already in other areas of the Party? If so would you mind giving a quick overview?

I did some assistance with the conference organising crew a while back. I think I'm more suited toward policy and that sort of thing, but it was an interesting way to get to know what kind of venues existed around London.

iiii) Do you believe the board should have more/less power? If so please explain why and what powers you think the board should lose/gain

That's an interesting one. I think the board exists to keep the party on track and moving forward. I don't necessarily think that more power is needed to accomplish that, but I think the board members can be vocal advocates of applying the constitution and I think it can be expanded upon and clarified, especially in matters of arbitration and how it works, and in what (if anything) should apply as "Incompatible Memberships." If more powers are needed, then I'd be open to hearing what ideas people have for them and what that would entail.

[Drew3000]

Q1) 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 I bring a somewhat outsider perspective in that I try to look at the party and how it functions from the point of view of someone who's not directly involved in our issues. I'm interested in seeing how we can translate Pirate Party issues to people who don't see copyright and patent issues. I'm also interested in how we can get others who are active politically to take on our core issues. I work within an industry where people are very dear about intellectual property and copyright and they know my politics which leads to some interesting discussions/debates. Being able to listen to and respond to people's fears about these things is important, but I also think we can extend what our principles stand when it comes to other aspects like what can be referred to as "the commons."

I think we can do more in the constitution to strengthen party candidates ability to be more viable by tying our issues to local community issues and be seen as the party that's responsive to local needs, no matter if they're our core issues or if they're issues of interest to a constituency that are not addressed in our platform.

Q2) One of the Board's 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 any gaping holes where new clauses need to patch previous oversights?

I think constitutions are living documents or they're dead, so if it's going to remain relevant to the party it's going to ostensibly be a work in progress.

There are areas of the current version that I think need work. I'm interested in terms of the notion of "incompatible groups." Could someone in a different political party also be a PPUK member, for example? What if you had a Labour person who was sympathetic with our issues, but not going to leave Labour. Could they be a Red Pirate? Could a Conservative be a pirate party member as well? I think it's a thorny issue, but it needs clarifying.

Q3) 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 does not 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?

There's the advantage of the inherent check on power that comes with this model, but as you suggest, there's a downside in the amount of time it takes to decide on something. And while I think groups generally make for better decisions, there's a potential for some to be more passive in the group while others push forward their agendas. If a board is working well, then all participants should be vocal participants.

Q4) What is currently in the remit of the Board that should not be?

I don't see anything that should be removed outright. I think in the constitution, in item 7, where it says "The Board may have other governance responsibilities that are as yet undefined in this constitution" needs attention since it really is vague.

Q5) What is not currently in the remit of the Board and should be?

I think the board should exist to promote the smooth operation of the party and can be limited to those powers. I think there can be some advocacy work outside of that which could be defined, since in UK I think there's a real need to get our agenda understood by the wider public.

Q6) Can you highlight any problems that the Board has had that you wish to fix, and indicate how you would fix them?

Well, I think that the nature of PPPUK's almost entirely online organising has advantages and drawbacks and think that some additional in-person (even via skype) would be a good idea. We also need to promote more in-person connections outside the party.

Q7) 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.)

In the tradition of pirates, I'd say quite a lot of autonomy. I think we need to keep a set of agendas that do need to be upheld, but outside of that, be the party that represents truly local issues.

Q8) According to the constitution (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 think the board members should act as advocates for the party. We should be making our case more broadly and making it as inclusive as possible. We should be promoting and empowering members to use their creativity to hold local PPUK events where they are and increase our numbers through local meetups and organising.

[azrael]

Q1) 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 I bring a somewhat outsider perspective in that I try to look at the party and how it functions from the point of view of someone who's not directly involved in our issues. I'm interested in seeing how we can translate Pirate Party issues to people who don't see copyright and patent issues. I'm also interested in how we can get others who are active politically to take on our core issues. I work within an industry where people are very dear about intellectual property and copyright and they know my politics which leads to some interesting discussions/debates. Being able to listen to and respond to people's fears about these things is important, but I also think we can extend what our principles stand when it comes to other aspects like what can be referred to as "the commons."

I think we can do more in the constitution to strengthen party candidates ability to be more viable by tying our issues to local community issues and be seen as the party that's responsive to local needs, no matter if they're our core issues or if they're issues of interest to a constituency that are not addressed in our platform.

If you were elected to the Board how would you go about extending our principles?

What suggestions do you have for strengthening 'party candidates ability to be more viable' via the constitution?