Personal statements from officers

[Trakgalvis]

As far as I see it the original structure did not scale, and the officer jobs had function creep to keep it working. A flatter organization can be worked in and would fix all the problems. It does need everyone to work at solving it, but it will not take long, if we are agreed it should happen. Are we? I am wiling to help.

I don't for a moment think the officers were doing anything evil, and we ought to drop that idea if we ever had it, but organization that do not scale fail in the way we are seeing.

[epriezka]

Okay, let's do this. I'm trying not to widen the rift, but it takes two people to reach a compromise. I don't believe you care for compromise so let's have at it.

Firstly, the Hindenburg reference was about the airship. I want the party to be led by people who are not afraid to say where they stand on important issues.

I'm not afraid. I just realize that hogging the front page of the website to rant on about my opinions is not the best job I can do for the party. It's called self-discipline, not fear.

To refuse to tell us where you stand publicly on issues on the grounds that you must remain aloof from such concerns is not fair and open with anyone.

I'm not refusing to tell people my opinions, I just want people to focus on more important things right now.

If you don't want to tell people then don't appear on Sky News on our behalf.

That's extremely insulting. F*ck off. Andrew was asked to appear and he asked if I could back up because I was the only one in range. I said to him he should do it, not me. In the end, he couldn't do it, so I jumped into the car and drove to the studio just to get the party some publicity. Now you're criticizing me for doing that, like the party is better off if we refused TV coverage. F*ck off for suggesting I'm not entitled to do that because I don't feel the need to prostrate myself to all your demands.

You can't wait to see which way people jump before giving your members feedback, that is not the job of the officers of this party.

I don't think you've got a f*cking clue about the job of the officers of the party. Here's another reason for not wanting to have the meeting recorded and shared with everyone - I don't want the weaker officers on display. That means specifically you. But as you are desperate for transparency, let's have some:

- I've attended all the officer meetings. You've missed quite a few.
- I understand what copyright is. You had to have it explained to you by the other officers because you didn't understand what it is.
- I've consistently posted agenda items in advance of the officer's meeting, and I set up the agenda, and I host the call, which was created because I prompted it. You've never even had the forethought to post an agenda item to tell the officers what you want to discuss before the meeting.
- You've never once said anything - ANYTHING AT ALL - about doing your job as nominations officer. That's because you've not done that job. You've managed forums and you've played with policy but never done a single thing to do with the role you volunteered to do and got elected to do. So, given that you've resigned, what progress have you made to hand over to your successors? F*ck all.
- You have talked about wanting to be a candidate. Why you can't see that it would be contradictory to have a nominations officer who also wants to be a candidate is beyond me.

Now we have some transparency. Great. I guess that will really help unity. Didn't want to do it, but couldn't let you stay on your high horse and give everybody else the wrong impression of what's really been going on.

I have never run from answering anything on these forums or anywhere else for that matter.

Good. Then you won't mind confirming the facts that I stated above. You won't mind confirming you've made no progress with putting in place a selection process for candidates. And don't say "it's too early to do anything" because that's just an excuse to wait for other people to do other things. In fact, it's not too early, as we've already announced one candidate for one constituency, yet you didn't even notice that the announcement rather implies your involvement wasn't needed.

I am not trying to smear you, I just don't think that Machiavellian scheming behind closed doors is the way any of us want this party to go.

You're not trying to smear me, then you compare me to Machiavelli. You're full of sh*t.

I want answers in public for our members to decide if the officers are doing the right things for our party. Why have we not had a vote on anything important?

You tell me, John. You headed up the policy working groups. Why has there been no vote on their work? Why didn't you arrange one?

Your arguments are all twisted. You're trying to make it sound like I'm against the members having votes. I'm all for the members having votes, but we need to present them with choices to vote about, not just have a free-for-all on blogs and forums. So instead of acting like a prima donna and blogging in an autocratic way, then resigning when a few people disagreed with you, why didn't you just set up some f*cking votes?

Who keeps the members informed of the decisions taken on their behalf, I want the minutes of the officers meetings published on the forum and I want the members to be able to come to any of the officers if they would like any questions put to officers at the meetings.

Of course you do. It's because you've not actually bothered to be an officer. You've spent the whole time confusing policy formation with party management. That's why you're now suggesting we all vote on the one thing that is making some progress - party management - instead of the one glaring omission that is the real reason why people feel excluded - that we've made no progress on policy. And yet again, let me point out you were running the policy working groups until last week, and I've never had any involvement in the formation of policy, so it's not like I'm being Machiavellian about party policy. Accuse me of being Machiavellian about managing the party's tax status if you like, but anybody with half a brain can tell that's not the sort of thing people want to vote about.

I have asked for this and you were the most vocal opponent to allowing this party and it's members to have a level of openess and to decide things democratically.

Wrong. I criticized you, in private, for writing your opinions on the blog. I only criticized you after you wrote an email asking for feedback! You were the Nominations Officer. Pushing your views about policy on to the blog has nothing to do with being democratic. It's the opposite. That is why, if you read my posts, I only talk about managing the party and helping the party to succeed. I don't state my opinions on policy because I don't have a special right compared to any other member of this party.

I don't see how the officers can continue to operate in the current manner. We have not produced any tangible efforts or displays of our abilities to lead this party, in fact most of what has been achieved has been in spite of the leadership, not because of it. Our members are clamouring to have their ideas heard and acted upon by the officers.

Great. Less than a month in, and you're complaining about lack of progress, yet all you've spent your time doing is getting into absurd and unproductive rows about policy. You were in charge of the policy working groups. Why did you complain - as much as every other officer - about the lack of input? Why did you suggest - like the other officers - that you might have to write the policy yourself if they didn't improve? Why didn't you find solutions instead of doing what you are doing now, pompously grandstanding whilst presenting only the half of the facts that are favourable to you?

Yet anyone who takes the initiative and actually does something appears to be seen as a problem instead of an asset. You have vetoed spending the members money on t-shirts, our leader suggested it and I am quite happy to volunteer here and now, in public to take delivery of 400 t-shirts printed using the silk screen method that Andy suggested.

Yes I did. I'm negotiating a bigger, exclusive deal with a supplier that has experience and will put its money up-front. I'm not keen on spending limited membership funds so you can learn, on the back of no real experience, how to sell t-shirts. If you're so good at selling t-shirts, take the money out of your own pocket like this supplier is suggesting he will do. It's easy to be reckless with money when it's other people's money. So yes, I am 'undemocratic' in that I will ALWAYS block the risking of the members money in stupid ways like this. And by the way, I think it would be better if you pointed out that the alternative was not your way or no way, but between your way and a much better way of reaching a merchandise deal.

I don't want to run the party's mail order dept but I will because it needs to be done now, our members can sell them and I am happy to post individual or bulk orders as long as the costs are covered by PPUK.

And that shows where you are going wrong. You now want to run merchandise. You wanted to run policy. You wanted to run the forums. How about you run the f*cking nomination process that you were appointed to run?

If we can't trust our members honesty or take a gamble on investing in them then why are we bothering at all. Andy may well need the deposit to stand in his constituency if the membership decides that it's what they want, but in no way do we need to spend money on an election agent,

I'm sorry John, but you display your own ignorance in public, and I can't help you because you misrepresent what I said. I said Andrew needs an election agent. In law, the agent has responsibilities. If there is no agent, Andrew needs to do those things himself. It's obvious that it would be better if he had someone to be agent than have to do it all himself, as well as being leader. I never once mentioned paying for an agent. Having an agent is not the same as paying for an agent.

we do it ourselves and if we are lucky enough to retain our deposit then that is great, if not we still live to fight another day.

Do what ourselves? Be the agent? One person, and one person only, has the legal responsibilities that go with being agent. So what the f*ck do you mean by 'we do it ourselves'? How does this compare to the point I made, which is that 'we'll need to find an agent for Andrew'?

I want to use the no copyright Swedish PP website design

Geez, you're stupid. The officers already tried to explain this to you in private. The Swedish PP website design, far from having 'no copyright' does have a copyright. In fact, the Swedes are quite coy about it. I've been talking to them, slowly and patiently, trying to get them to confirm the exact legal status. Unfortunately, I have not had a clear answer. 'No copyright' would be a clear answer, because if there was 'no copyright' then there would be a public announcement somewhere, saying the copyright owner had abandoned copyright. We can't find any announcement and the Swedish party has not been that helpful. That makes me think they've actually held on to copyright but don't want to be public about that. But if you'd actually help instead of ranting, you might want to spend some time talking to the Swedes and confirming the location of the 'no copyright' statement that you're convinced exists.

, all of it, and use it as a stunt to gain publicity for both our parties. You won't even let me put it to a vote of the members or even ask them for their thoughts, that is not our decision to take, it's theirs.

What the f*ck are you talking about? What the F*CK are you talking about? I won't let them take a vote on the website design? I don't give a sh*t about the website design. I don't care about it. So where does the idea that I'm stopping the members voting on the website design come from? It's f*cking bullsh*t and I'm tired of your crap. All I ever said was that Gavin can be trusted to get on with it and we should let him manage the website as he likes, so long as he meets the basic requirements. And all my requirements are to do with important things, like taking money and serving the party's interests, not some f*cking nonsense about the design.

We can do many things to get our message out there instead of just responding to press requests, lets make some news and remember what we are here for in the first place.

Well, I'm here to manage a party that has the goals that I share, so f*ck you. If you made half the effort that I had made on actually running the party you wouldn't be talking a lot of sh*t about what really got you upset - that you want to spend your time ranting on soapboxes and that anybody who dares to disagree with you is wrong and needs to be shouted down.

Here's some more transparency for everybody reading about the sorry spectacle of how the officer's calls go. John likes to raise his voice and insist 'we can't do THAT in the PIRATE PARTY' whenever it looks like he is going to be out-voted on a decision. In short, John doesn't much like democracy the instant he doesn't get his way.

Let's not see challenges to our authority every time someone does something for us, let our members spread the word for us without worrying about what they might say or do.

You're the one who moaned and bitched about all the things being said on the forum! I don't even have time to read most of it.

Get the flags and badges and anything else we can afford

Exactly. Get the things you can think of. Ignore all the other things you can't think of. Like all the boring sh*tty legwork I'm doing every day. So f*ck you for suggesting that flags and badges are the big issue when I don't even have manpower to meet our legal obligations, and am doing work that you should be doing - by pushing for the collection of data so we can actually identify where our members are versus the seats we want to fight, which is vital to having a process for selecting target seats and identifying candidates. That's something you've not even thought about as you worried about f*cking badges.

so that our activists can have the assets they need in place. We aren't a mainstream party so who cares if everything doesn't work out exactly as we hoped, I don't think anyone would expect us to be flawless in our policies or our publicity but if we don't get anything organised on the ground we won't have a party by the time the elections come around.

You're right about that, but your amateurism is no excuse for your complete failure to identify the priorities in order to have a party by the time the election comes around. Badges are f*cking easy. You don't need to register a political party to make badges. There's also a load of other things we REALLY NEED TO DO but, unfortunately, you've given it f*ck all thought, which is why you're talking about badges and I'm talking about mapping members to constituencies and confirming our tax status and budgeting our costs and... all the other things that aren't even on your radar.

Andy is our elected leader, he gets to direct us, not the treasurer or the nominating officer and he is answerable to our members.

And that's why I don't challenge Andrew and don't get involved with policy, because that would take away from him and interfere with the members' right to engage with him.

I am speaking for the members now as a member

No you are not. Here's a big lie. I wasn't going to say this publicly, I was going to mention it quietly, in the officer's meeting that you are so desperate to make transparent. John isn't even a member. I know, I see the member subs coming in. John hasn't bothered to join. 400 people had no problem reaching into their wallets and joining already, but you've not done it yet. So pull the other one when playing the "I'm just speaking for the members" line. You speak for nobody but yourself, you cheap git.

, we want results, not press interviews and vague allusions. Say and do controversial things, get our message across but most of all get the party organised so that we can shout about what we believe in, knowing that our leaders are giving us their full support and ensuring the logistics are in place to keep the party growing. A members vote is as valid as any officers, but only if they ever get to use it. We members

You're not a member, you cheap git.

are your biggest asset

Your passion would be an asset if you learned to control it. I'm not sure you can.

and there isn't one of us that wouldn't like to see more debates between officers on the forum.

How about this for a debating topic: any officer who is too cheap to pay the membership fee is a f*cking disgrace and utter hypocrite. Fancy debating that, transparently? I'll take you on any day.

The fact that I had to resign to bring all this into the open and publicly debate what I believe are poor decisions made in secret by the elected officers doesn't bode well for the future if this is how the party is going to continue being managed.

Rubbish. I've been covering your sorry ass and keeping your woeful behaviour secret because I didn't want to damage party unity. But you're like a bull in a china shop - smashing and destroying because you're an artless fool. So now it's all out in the open. Happy now?

You are a brilliant treasurer, but I believe that the party needs to be consulted on every decision we make

Rubbish. You could ask me about tax status but you wouldn't even think of the question. What you mean is you want to be consulted about things you care about, and not about other stuff you don't care about. You mean you want to make decisions when you have an opinion, and leave the rest to somebody else. But no group of people can work like that. You've got to delegate responsibility and give some people some freedom to get on with things. You had some of that freedom, by the way. You had the freedom to work on the nominations process. And you did sod all with it.

, or at least be given the opportunity to know what those decisions are and voice any opinions on the forum.

Yeah, you could have been ultra-democratic and asked for lots of opinions and lots of input on the nomination process. But you didn't, because you did nothing. It's easier to pick at other people's work than do something constructive on your own initiative.

So get the election for my old post started, let's start afresh, whoever wins, and get on with doing what is required of us as members and as officers.

I'm going to stand as Nominations Officer. How about that for giving the members a democratic choice, you self-serving, vain oaf.

Get your hands dirty, inspire us, motivate us, help us, lead us into the battles we have to fight and don't worry about the security or the dignity of the leadership and we will gain the respect of the members who will see how hard the officers work and will respect us enough to follow us into the fray.

Dignity? That's gone now, thanks to you. How hard the officers work? That's plain to see. Some of us work extremely hard. Idiots like you just bitch and moan and live in a fantasy world. Inspiration? You depress me, and you're clueless lack of political skill and organizational talent is all too transparent, though I was hoping to keep it quiet and to help you improve.

Great. What a pretty f*cking mess this is. Sorry about that, everybody, it's not what you want to see from two officers. But really, what was I supposed to do with John handing out half-truths, lies and smears? I wanted him to calm down and relax, but as he said himself, he wanted a confrontation. I tried to side-step it and I even tried to cover up his incompetence by not putting the meetings into the public domain. But he bangs on, completely unaware of himself or the damage he's doing. So, from my point of view, he set himself on a crash course of him-or-me. I didn't want that. I didn't put up ranty blog posts and abuse my authority. I didn't spread lies and innuendo about a fellow officer. John did. I'm sorry, but he gave me no choice but to defend myself properly, by pointing out the utter hypocrite that John is. He's not even a member of the party. So, for anyone reading this, I know you've been influenced to think that I'm some twisted manipulator trying to control the party. It's not so and I'm really sick of John's behaviour, which puts himself first and the party a distant second. Members, forgive this terrible public spat. As you know, I argue consistently that some things should be kept private. My reasons for doing that are consistently misrepresented by John. Now you can see the full facts, including the lurid details that John would rather have kept private. I'll trust you to decide who was working in the party's best interests.

[epriezka]

I share views with gavin and jez, I was under the impression that all elected officers were so elected to their specific roles, not to cast judgements on the rest of the party concerning issues which quite frankly have nothing to do with them and outlie their sphere of power. I had no problem with this until the party became finally registered, where it became apparent to me that such an attitude amongst some of the officers existed... And I found myself questioning their personal motives. This may be party due to the fact that I feel there is little communication between the officers and the party members outside news blog posts - I for one do not know where I stand due to the lack of communications concerning several issues and instead find myself under scrutiny from those who technically do not have the authority.

Curious to say how the officers will react to this, collectively.

Bliss, you stated publicly that the party would take members at an age that was contrary to party policy. There is no membership officer. At present, I am the only person who monitors membership by virtue of monitoring the flow of membership applications, and I verify them to ensure that applications are valid. Nobody else does that job - whether I should do it is immaterial. That is why I reprimanded you - you exceeded your authority and I wanted you to discuss your proposals about youth membership privately, as they impacted the job I am presently doing. Better that we discuss it and co-ordinate privately, instead of sending out contradictory messages in public.

May I also point out that, by your own admission, you have never been elected to any position. It is fair that I challenge your authority when you go on a public forum and make an announcement that looks like it states a decision that the party has made. I don't blame you. You are eager, but you ran ahead of any democratic process.

I'd be quite happy for there to be a membership officer. As it happens, I've been pushing hard for the introduction of new officers AND for a process where all members get to ratify the appointments to ensure they are democratically acceptable, without needing to slow the process of appointment down to a crawl through having lots of elections. Anybody who has spoken to me recently can vouch that is a goal I've been working towards. In fact, I have lined up two nominations that I was hoping to execute shortly.

[epriezka]

And as such we need to decide how we manage and how transparent the party will be before anything else, the mention that the officer meetings were supposed to be secret is absolutely outrageous in my opinion.

Gavin, put this into perspective. How many of your decisions are 'secret'? What have you done to make your decisions more 'transparent'? If everything is twisted to suggest that nothing should be secret (because secrecy is a bad thing), the logical consequence is that we end up with nothing being private, everyone being spied on. You draw a line somewhere. Anybody involved in this debate - John, Nani, yourself, myself, has done things they have not told the whole world about. So does that mean the party is overrun with secrecy? Hardly. For the most part, you do things, I don't care what you do, that's fine by both of us.

I think everyone understands and gave trust in the officers to manage things, nobody wanted a run-down or a justification for your actions on behalf of the party... but if someone was instructed to hide the fact you had meetings I am left wondering why was that the case? And as that's the case I would suggest too much transparency in the short-term, is better than secret meetings?

Gavin, look at the facts. I've sent emails to you. You didn't publish them so the whole world can see. You've sent emails to me, you didn't send them to everybody. There's no difference to keeping an email 'secret' to keeping a conference call 'secret'. It's people communicating. In this party, we respect that some communication should be private. A lot of communication can be private, not because the rest of the world needs to fear, but because what is said is of no importance to the rest of the world. We've been on a conference call together. Was something said that was secret and that needed to be shared with the whole world? For a period you were a participant in one of the 'secret' meetings you are now talking about. What was said in that secret meeting that you feel should have been made more public?

John, IMO, has acted outrageously and been genuine harmful to the party. I'm not saying that because I'm trying to shut him up. I want him to shut up because he's doing a lot of harm and spreading a lot of nonsense innuendo that is getting a lot of people worked up. Why he can't just see sense is beyond me...

[semanticist]

I am speaking for the members now as a member

No you are not. Here's a big lie. I wasn't going to say this publicly, I was going to mention it quietly, in the officer's meeting that you are so desperate to make transparent. John isn't even a member. I know, I see the member subs coming in. John hasn't bothered to join.

Even ignoring the rest, if this is true then having resigned John cannot run for election as an officer, per the constitution.

[rancidpunk]

First off let me just say that you, Eric, couldn't wait to get rid of Gavin from the conference call and I know that he wouldn't have been allowed to hear anything you didn't want him to. Up until I resigned I was still receiving emails from you outlining your strategy to reign Gavin in and limit his powers, why do you need to do that, has he abused his powers in some way that I do not know of?
Whilst you might claim that I am damaging the party by not shutting up I can't help getting the feeling that you are more worried about yourself than the party, and to that end I am calling on all the members to force a vote of confidence in all the officers who choose to remain in their post.
I want to be re-elected because members have read my opinions on all the topics that I will write about in my campaign. I want to have their mandate to continue because they know what I feel and not because I feel my position is secure enough to avoid saying anything of any substance.
As one of the weaker officers I just wouldn't feel right not going to the members and asking them to reelect me, especially as I missed one meeting and so deserve to face the wrath of the voters. Resorting to swearing just isn't very nice.
Since I don't have a bank account as you already know, being the treasurer, it shouldn't be too difficult to work out that I used my wife's paypal account to join.
You wanted me to concentrate on the forums, as you know I am willing to say what needs to be said and I am more than willing to argue politely with all members, something sadly lacking from our silent leadership committee.

[rancidpunk]

If I can't run for re-election that is not a problem, I will abide by our constitution.

[epriezka]

First off let me just say that you, Eric, couldn't wait to get rid of Gavin from the conference call and I know that he wouldn't have been allowed to hear anything you didn't want him to. Up until I resigned I was still receiving emails from you outlining your strategy to reign Gavin in and limit his powers, why do you need to do that, has he abused his powers in some way that I do not know of?

You're paranoid. We talk for hours. Why should Gavin sit in for hours on a call when he's not one of the officers? I suggested he should leave because we had digressed from the topic that concerned Gavin and we were wasting his time.

Whilst you might claim that I am damaging the party by not shutting up I can't help getting the feeling that you are more worried about yourself than the party, and to that end I am calling on all the members to force a vote of confidence in all the officers who choose to remain in their post.

You're an idiot. If I got thrown out now there would be an unholy mess with the finances, irrespective of what you think about me. I'm the only person who actually knows what our financial obligations are. I'm trying to manage bringing in more people and training them, and they may very well turn into good replacements for me, but you're running like a bull into a china shop - no plan, no clue, no idea of the damage you're doing.

I want to be re-elected because members have read my opinions on all the topics that I will write about in my campaign. I want to have their mandate to continue because they know what I feel and not because I feel my position is secure enough to avoid saying anything of any substance.

Here's a good place to start - become a member, you cheap git.

As one of the weaker officers I just wouldn't feel right not going to the members and asking them to reelect me, especially as I missed one meeting and so deserve to face the wrath of the voters.

You missed more than one meeting. I've missed none.

Resorting to swearing just isn't very nice.

Launching a personal attack on me isn't very nice either. So f*ck off.

Since I don't have a bank account as you already know, being the treasurer, it shouldn't be too difficult to work out that I used my wife's paypal account to join.

That means you're wife is a member, dullard. Other people can work out to email me if they didn't give the right details, why didn't you? I can't find anyone with the same surname as you. You can open a PayPal account in your own name, even if your wife has to loan you the money. You know, when becoming a member it might make sense to actually give the party your identity.

You wanted me to concentrate on the forums,

You wanted to concentrate on the forums. I didn't stop you.

as you know I am willing to say what needs to be said and I am more than willing to argue politely with all members, something sadly lacking from our silent leadership committee.

I'm not silent any more. So come on, speak up

- why did you do nothing as Nominations Officer?
- why do you raise your voice whenever you the other officers disagree with you?
- why didn't you create all the policy votes and discussions you said you wanted, when you had the chance?
- how do you respond to the many points I raised where I have called you a liar?
- if you're complaining about silence, how come I always blog about what I'm doing, and you always blog about your opinion?

[bones]

I am Rancidpunk's wife and I would just like to confirm that I have not yet joined the party. I have however used my paypal account to pay his membership. This is the reason that I am not listed as a pirate party member when I sign in. I would like to be assured that I have not joined the party as that decision is mine to take, not my husbands or your treasurers. Please don't drag me in to the argument, either of you.

[rancidpunk]

I have to thank you Eric for causing disruption in my home as well. I really don't understand the need for all this swearing from one of the party leaders in full view of the public. I would have expected better from you as an officer and a gentleman.

[epriezka]

I am Rancidpunk's wife and I would just like to confirm that I have not yet joined the party. I have however used my paypal account to pay his membership. This is the reason that I am not listed as a pirate party member when I sign in. I would like to be assured that I have not joined the party as that decision is mine to take, not my husbands or your treasurers. Please don't drag me in to the argument, either of you.

I have membership details at your address for a woman with a different surname to your husband. I don't know your name, but your explanation fits with the facts as I can see it. However, somebody gave the name of a woman to become a member. Obviously that means the member is the person with the name that was given. Memberships cannot be transferred around and it is important to give the right name when submitting a membership application.

[jamesmcm]

This thread is getting absurd.

Rancidpunk shouldn't have post opinions on the official blog. So accept it, apologize and don't do it again. We have no official policy on CP (so we just leave the law as it is) so it shouldn't warrant a post.

As it is this will just continue to escalate and will only bring harm, stop it.

[Trakgalvis]

This thread is getting absurd.

Rancidpunk shouldn't have post opinions on the official blog. So accept it, apologize and don't do it again. We have no official policy on CP (so we just leave the law as it is) so it shouldn't warrant a post.

As it is this will just continue to escalate and will only bring harm, stop it.

It certainly needs to cool down.

[bones]

This doesn't seem to concern me, I have asked you once not to bring me into the argument, so please respect my wishes.
Does this mean that I will have to open a paypal account for each member of my family that wishes to join?

[rancidpunk]

I would like to apologise to all the members of the PPUK for all the disruption and bad feeling I have caused, whether through posting the blog or just disagreeing over basic principles.
I agree that things need to cool down, so I will step back and not get involved in any more arguments.
If anyone wishes to ask me anything you can email/pm me or I will be on IRC from time to time.

[Trakgalvis]

I would like to apologise to all the members of the PPUK for all the disruption and bad feeling I have caused, whether through posting the blog or just disagreeing over basic principles.
I agree that things need to cool down, so I will step back and not get involved in any more arguments.
If anyone wishes to ask me anything you can email/pm me or I will be on IRC from time to time.

Thank you for that, and a very good idea.

[Duke]

Well, this does seem to be something of a pickle we've got ourselves into. While I don't always agree with the two of you, I voted for both of you and stand by that choice. I have no wish to argue any of this, just calmly suggest things. Anyways, as a member, here are my thoughts (there seem to be quite a lot of them):

It seems that there is a small amount of tension within the officers, and I wonder if that is partly due to the disproportionate allocation of tasks. I would imagine that, at the moment, the treasurer has rather a lot that needs to be done whereas until we have policies and a 'stable' membership, there isn't all that much for the nominating officer to do. The argument seems to have been triggered by the backlash from that blog post which I would think should be viewed as a constructive lesson (already I am led to believe that changes are being implemented on how the blogs work). We are all pretty new to this; people will make mistakes. They can either rip us apart, or make us stronger. I am hoping for the latter.

From what I recall, the initial elections for officers were rushed somewhat (not that I disagree with the results or think that they should be re-run) in order to speed up the registration process, with the understanding that they would be followed by elections for secondary officers. Nearly a month has passed since registration and there seems to have been no mention of this. If our Nominating Officer is resigning, the resulting election would be an opportunity to get some more officers elected. [Incidentally, I've been trying to find the original forum posts detailing what each officer post entails, but they seem to have been deleted – perhaps something to add to the wiki?] Here is my suggestion for a possible structure:

Leader – responsible for the general running of the party. What our current leader has been doing, and I don't think anyone has any issues with him (other than, perhaps, how overworked he might be).
-Deputy Leader – Someone at the leader's disposal to help with the workload, for standing in when the leader is elsewhere, a sort of back-up.
-Policy Officer* – Someone to be in charge of getting policy documents written, voted on and made known. Someone to coordinate (and drive) the working groups. Once policies are finalised, someone responsible for answering questions on them, making sure that the relevant other officers know what our policies are and ensuring any modifications/additions are made in a suitable way.

Campaigns – Responsible for publicity of all kinds; getting the word out, that sort of thing. (I haven't encountered anyone with a problem with our current officer, so I assume there are no issues there).
-Web Officer* – Someone to make sure the website and everything similar is all shiny and working properly (i.e. what the current Web team, led by Gavin, are doing).
-Press Officer* – Someone to keep an eye on our image in the media; arranging interviews for the leader, responding to queries and articles (making sure nothing inaccurate is said about us), making sure we have press releases for big news stories (like the Digital Britain report). Maybe also compiling a nice selection of official posters/avatars/signature images/desktop wallpapers for people to use (something that has already been started on the wiki and forum). Collating links to articles about us maybe.
-Merchandise Officer* – Someone in charge of any merchandise (probably communicating with the treasurer), sorting out t-shirts, mugs, cutlasses, that sort of thing.

Data Controller – no disrespect meant for the current officer, but I have very little idea what this officer does. I think that is just my ignorance, though.
-Membership Officer – An idea mentioned a few times already; someone to keep track of how many members we have, who they are (being able to link a real name to forum name, perhaps?), being able to answer queries on membership issues (like the current debate about rancidpunk's membership).
-Secretary – (this could possibly go elsewhere) Someone to keep an eye on things and generally know what's going on – arrange internal elections, make sure everyone is talking to each other (not fighting). Someone to take 'minutes' at meetings and make sure that, if people want them, they are available (no matter how boring; not a complete transcript, just a quick summary of what was discussed so us commoners don't get the chance to feel left out).

Nominating Officer – In charge of external elections. Responsible for coordinating things, making sure we have suitable candidates/agents etc. Obviously, so far, this hasn't involved much, but as May approaches, I expect a lot of work will be involved.
-Regional Officers? – once we are large enough, people responsible for different areas (England, Scotland, Wales, etc. possibly more restricted), to keep an eye on what the different rules are in different regions and help the nominating officer.
-EU Election Co-ordinator – someone to make sure we have candidates who know the rules for EU elections and (if we win any seats) coordinate MEP policy/voting.
-Local Election Co-ordinator – Same thing, but for local elections – possibly quite a hard job due to the various different kinds; make sure if people want to stand for their local whatever they can and have the party's support and guidance.
[obviously these last two aren't quite as urgent]

Treasurer* – Keep an eye on the money. May not sound like much, but from my limited experience of being a treasurer elsewhere, involves a lot of work.

* These people should (I think) be free to set up their own unelected teams (like the web team, policy working groups or a press gang) to help them.

Anyways, that is just a rough idea; obviously I'm not promising it is perfect and there are most likely things I have missed. Also, there would be nothing to stop someone keen holding more than one position (possibly one main position or up to two minor positions or a main/minor position and 2 team positions or as many team positions as you like – just to stop people getting too snowed under).

I would also suggest that we maybe have a section of the sub-forum for "offices" for each of the officers; where people can ask them questions directly (and openly), possibly with a FAQ for those that need it; to keep the general discussion forums for just that.

Feel free to add to, delete, amend and generally fiddle with this list however and wherever you like. If you want me to clarify anything, just ask either here, in PM or IRC where I am a habitual lurker, as some of you may be aware.

Anyways, just the thought of a member (who applauds all the work done by and for the Party so far, by the way).

Edit: in hindsight, perhaps this post should have gone somewhere else; I got a little carried away - oh well, if anyone wants to copy any of it elsewhere, feel free to do so.

[Trakgalvis]

I think whatever structure we have spreading the work load should be carefully considered, and should be reconsidered whenever the party doubles in size.

[epriezka]

...with the understanding that they would be followed by elections for secondary officers.

Here is my suggestion for a possible structure...

Good point. It is something the officers have been working towards, and I hope we'll be announcing more soon. Sorry for the apparent secrecy. It's not cloak and dagger, it's because we want to match up roles to likely candidates, so we can move more quickly than having lots of elections where there might not be people to do the jobs. For example, I'd love to have more people to help with the finances, but it would only make more work if I end up with people who have no experience and who I need to train. You'll hear more soon - apologies to tax your patience but trust me when I say I'm on the officer's call right now and the proposals will come out shortly.

[JohnB]

Well, this does seem to be something of a pickle we've got ourselves into. While I don't always agree with the two of you, I voted for both of you and stand by that choice. I have no wish to argue any of this, just calmly suggest things. Anyways, as a member, here are my thoughts (there seem to be quite a lot of them):

It seems that there is a small amount of tension within the officers, and I wonder if that is partly due to the disproportionate allocation of tasks. I would imagine that, at the moment, the treasurer has rather a lot that needs to be done whereas until we have policies and a 'stable' membership, there isn't all that much for the nominating officer to do. The argument seems to have been triggered by the backlash from that blog post which I would think should be viewed as a constructive lesson (already I am led to believe that changes are being implemented on how the blogs work). We are all pretty new to this; people will make mistakes. They can either rip us apart, or make us stronger. I am hoping for the latter.

From what I recall, the initial elections for officers were rushed somewhat (not that I disagree with the results or think that they should be re-run) in order to speed up the registration process, with the understanding that they would be followed by elections for secondary officers. Nearly a month has passed since registration and there seems to have been no mention of this. If our Nominating Officer is resigning, the resulting election would be an opportunity to get some more officers elected. [Incidentally, I've been trying to find the original forum posts detailing what each officer post entails, but they seem to have been deleted – perhaps something to add to the wiki?] Here is my suggestion for a possible structure:

Leader – responsible for the general running of the party. What our current leader has been doing, and I don't think anyone has any issues with him (other than, perhaps, how overworked he might be).
-Deputy Leader – Someone at the leader's disposal to help with the workload, for standing in when the leader is elsewhere, a sort of back-up.
-Policy Officer* – Someone to be in charge of getting policy documents written, voted on and made known. Someone to coordinate (and drive) the working groups. Once policies are finalised, someone responsible for answering questions on them, making sure that the relevant other officers know what our policies are and ensuring any modifications/additions are made in a suitable way.

Campaigns – Responsible for publicity of all kinds; getting the word out, that sort of thing. (I haven't encountered anyone with a problem with our current officer, so I assume there are no issues there).
-Web Officer* – Someone to make sure the website and everything similar is all shiny and working properly (i.e. what the current Web team, led by Gavin, are doing).
-Press Officer* – Someone to keep an eye on our image in the media; arranging interviews for the leader, responding to queries and articles (making sure nothing inaccurate is said about us), making sure we have press releases for big news stories (like the Digital Britain report). Maybe also compiling a nice selection of official posters/avatars/signature images/desktop wallpapers for people to use (something that has already been started on the wiki and forum). Collating links to articles about us maybe.
-Merchandise Officer* – Someone in charge of any merchandise (probably communicating with the treasurer), sorting out t-shirts, mugs, cutlasses, that sort of thing.

Data Controller – no disrespect meant for the current officer, but I have very little idea what this officer does. I think that is just my ignorance, though.
-Membership Officer – An idea mentioned a few times already; someone to keep track of how many members we have, who they are (being able to link a real name to forum name, perhaps?), being able to answer queries on membership issues (like the current debate about rancidpunk's membership).
-Secretary – (this could possibly go elsewhere) Someone to keep an eye on things and generally know what's going on – arrange internal elections, make sure everyone is talking to each other (not fighting). Someone to take 'minutes' at meetings and make sure that, if people want them, they are available (no matter how boring; not a complete transcript, just a quick summary of what was discussed so us commoners don't get the chance to feel left out).

Nominating Officer – In charge of external elections. Responsible for coordinating things, making sure we have suitable candidates/agents etc. Obviously, so far, this hasn't involved much, but as May approaches, I expect a lot of work will be involved.
-Regional Officers? – once we are large enough, people responsible for different areas (England, Scotland, Wales, etc. possibly more restricted), to keep an eye on what the different rules are in different regions and help the nominating officer.
-EU Election Co-ordinator – someone to make sure we have candidates who know the rules for EU elections and (if we win any seats) coordinate MEP policy/voting.
-Local Election Co-ordinator – Same thing, but for local elections – possibly quite a hard job due to the various different kinds; make sure if people want to stand for their local whatever they can and have the party's support and guidance.
[obviously these last two aren't quite as urgent]

Treasurer* – Keep an eye on the money. May not sound like much, but from my limited experience of being a treasurer elsewhere, involves a lot of work.

* These people should (I think) be free to set up their own unelected teams (like the web team, policy working groups or a press gang) to help them.

Anyways, that is just a rough idea; obviously I'm not promising it is perfect and there are most likely things I have missed. Also, there would be nothing to stop someone keen holding more than one position (possibly one main position or up to two minor positions or a main/minor position and 2 team positions or as many team positions as you like – just to stop people getting too snowed under).

I would also suggest that we maybe have a section of the sub-forum for "offices" for each of the officers; where people can ask them questions directly (and openly), possibly with a FAQ for those that need it; to keep the general discussion forums for just that.

Feel free to add to, delete, amend and generally fiddle with this list however and wherever you like. If you want me to clarify anything, just ask either here, in PM or IRC where I am a habitual lurker, as some of you may be aware.

Anyways, just the thought of a member (who applauds all the work done by and for the Party so far, by the way).

Edit: in hindsight, perhaps this post should have gone somewhere else; I got a little carried away - oh well, if anyone wants to copy any of it elsewhere, feel free to do so.

Suggest moving it to somewhere appropriate as a new post, some interesting ideas and with the membership expansion we should have the people to fill those shoes you mention. One role, that to my mind, the nominating officer could sensibly deal with, within the party as well as external, is to have an oversight of the process for nominating roles such as these, not so much to be involved but to be aware of the process, be comfortable that it's fair, and raise the issue if someone is doing too much, there's a conflict of interest, or some other significant issue with that person's appointment.