rancidpunk wrote: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.
rancidpunk wrote: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.
rancidpunk wrote:If you don't want to tell people then don't appear on Sky News on our behalf.
rancidpunk wrote: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.
rancidpunk wrote:I have never run from answering anything on these forums or anywhere else for that matter.
rancidpunk wrote: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.
rancidpunk wrote: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?
rancidpunk wrote: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.
rancidpunk wrote: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.
rancidpunk wrote: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.
rancidpunk wrote: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.
rancidpunk wrote: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.
rancidpunk wrote: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,
rancidpunk wrote: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.
rancidpunk wrote:I want to use the no copyright Swedish PP website design
rancidpunk wrote:, 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.
rancidpunk wrote: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.
rancidpunk wrote: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.
rancidpunk wrote:Get the flags and badges and anything else we can afford
rancidpunk wrote: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.
rancidpunk wrote:Andy is our elected leader, he gets to direct us, not the treasurer or the nominating officer and he is answerable to our members.
rancidpunk wrote: I am speaking for the members now as a member
rancidpunk wrote:, 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
rancidpunk wrote:are your biggest asset
rancidpunk wrote:and there isn't one of us that wouldn't like to see more debates between officers on the forum.
rancidpunk wrote: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.
rancidpunk wrote:You are a brilliant treasurer, but I believe that the party needs to be consulted on every decision we make
rancidpunk wrote:, or at least be given the opportunity to know what those decisions are and voice any opinions on the forum.
rancidpunk wrote: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.
rancidpunk wrote: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.
bliss wrote: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.
gavin wrote: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 wrote: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?
epriezka wrote:rancidpunk wrote: 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.
rancidpunk wrote: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?
rancidpunk wrote: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.
rancidpunk wrote: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.
rancidpunk wrote: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.
rancidpunk wrote:Resorting to swearing just isn't very nice.
rancidpunk wrote: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.
rancidpunk wrote:You wanted me to concentrate on the forums,
rancidpunk wrote: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.
bones wrote: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.
jamesmcm wrote: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.
rancidpunk wrote: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.
duke wrote: ...with the understanding that they would be followed by elections for secondary officers.
Here is my suggestion for a possible structure...
duke wrote: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).* 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.
-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).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.
-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.
-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).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.
-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).
-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.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.
-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]
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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests