Pirate Party is in Danger

[glambert]

Perhaps you're right, there should've been a mailshot out, and we'll no doubt adopt that approach in the future, or at least something similar to get members updated quicker.

However, what is done is done, it was posted in the blog and the forum well in advance and I stand firmly behind my stance that our members should be checking for updates at least once a week, it only takes 10-15mins to read up and see what's going on.

[simonclifford]

Hi Glambert,

I do check the site regularly BUT THIS IS NOT ABOUT ME RUNNING, its about this election having legitimacy. Andrew in his interview even mentioned the election would be better with opponents. I believe we would have had some if the membership was informed by email.

If the nominations were re-opened I would nominate myself, after this thread how could I do anything but, make my case, and Andrew would almost certainly be elected, but it would be more legitimate. I would hope that at least one other would also be nominated.

I mean the nominations only closed a few days ago, would it be so tough to fix. I don't think so.

Regarding requiring members to check in at least once a week I cannot agree with. What do the stats say? We should have the numbers somewhere.

[glambert]

I don't "require" members to, members are free to do what they want and should remain that way, I just expect it from the majority as the majority are big internet users (I would imagine, as we've all joined via the internet in the first place).

Having met Andrew earlier today, I can quite clearly see that he has discovered a lot of information and gained priceless experience since the party was created and I firmly believe that he should remain as leader of this party for the foreseeable future as the party continues to grow and the members and exec continue to learn how things are done and improve on them time after time (year after year, election after election).

However, if someone wishes to stand against him, then I would encourage them to do so.

What my point is, instead of flaming at the exec for making a poor choice of method in getting the word out about these elections, what I would've done in your case would be to set up a discussion on here suggesting other methods that we could use in future. It's called constructive criticism

[simonclifford]

That's the condescending in a nice way, that's quite a talent, the wink really seals it.

If people are not required to check in, you just feel they should, then to be fair to them we should have actively contacted by email then, to tell them that the nomination of the leadership is taking place and now they have to speak up or accept Andrew as leader for the next couple of years, which is kind of a big deal.

Like I say what do the stats say, I reckon at most 20% of the membership check in weekly. The remaining 80% that missed the note, should lump it?

Whilst I am sure some of the points in this thread will resonate into future practice, I do feel that to give Andrew the best chance to argue strongly he needs strong foundations. An error has occurred, which we can remedy without much impact, or we can pretend it doesn't matter, sweep it under the carpet and hope it doesn't come up in the future and bite us in the ass.

But my bet is that is will. That is why I am pressing for a quick and easy fix now, and not the pain later.

In fact an email sent out recognising the possibility that interested members might not have had a chance to put a name forward will strengthen the party, as actions speak louder than words. Good intentions are nothing compared to good actions. This would be a great analogy for the party “we might be a young party, but when get it wrong we fix it”.

[cc]

And what is there to assure us that you won't bring in a bunch of your mates a day before the election to win it for you -- you know, just for kicks?

I'm sorry Simon, but we really know nothing about you. Andrew has proven himself through his contributions so far, but you showed up a minute before the election and are demanding that you are let in. I would rather see one of the other members who have contributed step up, even if it's just a formality to make the election more legit.

[epriezka]

As to your later point about sticking to an argument, I was simply trying to answer your points and many others in previous posts, so any sway from my original and continued point is simply to answer my critics. As for “throwing in a needless jibe ” followed by “Is there a Jeremy Morton School of Debate that I don't know about? ” threw me, but I think it is a Jibe, which speaks for itself really.

I know. I was being ironic. A bit levity now and then can defuse tension - so long as people spot it!

I don't see where in my discussion I have said anything that deserves these attacks on my character. If you can't debate the issues, but attack the messenger through slurs, you are not really debating, just name calling.

You're taking this far too personally. It's possible to dispute your views without attacking your character.

My point about telling volunteers what you want them to do, and if they agree to do it and they don't repeatedly, surely the answer is you replace them with someone more reliable. But this is very abstract.

There you go - you say it yourself. This is all very abstract. It's easy to talk about replacing people like there's a line of people waiting to step in at a moment's notice, but obviously that's not the case.

The rest of that paragraph smacked of excuses and I am not looking for that. The “oh we are so busy defence”; when you do something do it to the best of your ability and as part of a team, listen when a member gives you a helpful hint that something was missed.

I don't see why I need to make excuses. I'm no more responsible for this than anyone else. What's your excuse for not sending out the email to notify everyone?

I know numbers of posts seems to be held in high regard to those that post a lot, I think quality not quantity is most important. Another implied jibe, “oh I posted more than you, so that make me better/more committed”, really do people have to keep harping on like that.

I was pointing out you seemed to be new and/or hadn't been active in the party. Therefore trusting you with a serious responsibility is taking a chance as there's not much information available upon which to base a judgement about your character. That's not a jibe. If somebody sent you a CV which was a blank piece of paper, would you give them the job?

As to your last point, I was simply responding to your point of the same vein, suggesting that this thread was not created by any other member who is in such a role, and I am therefore the UNOFFICIAL election overseer (which as a post means nothing) in their absence.

I think this argument has become too much about pride and ego - and that's why I can't seem to defuse the tension even with making a joke or when using flattery (like suggesting you might make a good Election Overseer). Please don't paint yourself as the unofficial Election Overseer, because it's a serious job and I find it troubling that we've degenerated to the point where nobody is doing it or you do it unofficially by making a few forum posts. If you're true to your word, you can see the benefit of having someone perform this role - it would have been their responsibility to notify everyone about nominations. Then you would have a specific person to address your concerns to. Instead, we don't have someone doing the job and your concerns are directed to everyone - hardly a preferable state of affairs.

Have you heard of the concept of root cause analysis, or of the "seven why's"? To be very succinct it's about dealing with causes, not symptoms. You're diagnosing a symptom but you're not addressing the cause. Not sending out an email is a symptom of an organizational weakness. Not having well-defined roles allocated to specific people is the cause. If we want to have a healthy party, we need to address the causes not the symptoms. That's one reason why I suggested you put yourself forward for Election Overseer and become part of the solution as well as diagnosing the problem.

[scuzzmonkey]

ok, this is just getting ridiculous - i think we all agree on the following point.

yes it would have been good to inform the members through e-mail, an action that was sadly overlooked, and will be definitely utilised in the future.

however re-opening nominations and starting this whole process again, at a time where we really should already have confirmed our nomination choices and be out on the streets gathering support for the General Election, is only going to distract and detract from this goal.

So yes, it was a bad thing that the members were not informed through e-mail, but the further point that you are not seeing is that everyone who nominated themselves are regular users of the site, and - as I (and many others) said before - someone who is not a regular user would not get elected as there is nothing to base them off of - and as you said, actions speak louder than words, and all you have given us so far are words.

i'm really getting bored of this now - lol.

[jez9999]

That's a very good point, scuzz. People who knew about the nominations process are going to be regular users of the forum, and are thereform much more likely to be engaged with the party rather than just doing it on a whim having received e-mail telling them the nominations had started. That could actually be an argument *against* sending the e-mail about start of nominations, and announcing it somewhere where only people who are getting involved regularly can see it. Of course, for the actual vote, all members should be informed by e-mail (and indeed that's what happened).

[simonclifford]

CC Welcome to the party. Its great to add another voice to this debate.

I had the right to stand as did any other member, but even if I were to blow £500 to get 50 of my mates to join and vote for me do you think that would sway it? By the way I don't plan on doing this. I could have put myself forward in the first place, but thought some more active members were likely to.

Seriously Andrew has a lot of support, I think he is safe. That said, he agrees, running un-opposed “is probably a bad thing” to reference his interview from this weekend on the PirateParty UK Podcast (10.44mins in) with Eric Prieska. My recommendation enables this, plus gives us the high ground in future debate.

I agree with you on your last point, I would rather other members step up and I have made this point over and over, however due to this thread, should the nominations be extended, I cannot see how I could not stand.

[simonclifford]

Eric, Eric, Eric,Your first point, is well taken, that's what smiley's are for.

Second point, no I am not taking it personally, but clearly some of the comments made have been directed at me personally, but I don't think this weakens my argument just the name callers. But lets move on, this debate has matured since then.

On your third point, I think there are a lot of supporters just look at the 300 plus posts in the “introduce yourselves” thread and the 34 in “volunteer”. All of which are just throwing their hat in. If the volunteer section actually contained required activities, I am sure more numbers would be forthcoming. But to repeat, I am not asking for any heads to roll.

I hear you saying you don't need to make excuses and I agree but this: “The problem is there's a few hundred other things that also need doing and you've not probably thought of them.” looks like an excuse to me, which I repeat I am not looking for. I am just qualifying my comment.

I joined in November, I posted a brief intro in December but were I to run I would of course introduce myself. Look we are all new, the party is less than a year old. Most people don't know each other, that is not an argument for the “Founding fathers” to run the party like they have the only legitimacy. I believe the party is still finding form and I want to see an inclusive party, not one marginalised into Exec committee and everyone else, like the Spartan equals.

This comment was not solely directed at you, but earlier in the discussion the point about number of post was raise, and I think it is a week argument, that was my point there. Quality beats quantity every time.

As regards the unofficial election overseer, really, the hint is in the “unofficial” ie. Meaningless. My highlighting this point is a contribution for the benefit of the party. It is taking my time and yours we are all contributing to the party the best we can. I will not re-iterate my core point again, but it is my belief that my argument if accepted if for the betterment of the party.

Regarding the CV point is so hypothetical we could open a whole thread on that, lets leave out the hypotheticals, they are fruitless.

Your penultimate point, sorry I missed the compliment but do not see how not having an official role negates the ability of a member to raise an important point. Do you suggest without such a role such issues should not be aired? That doesn't sound like you. I am discussing this issue to the membership in the appropriate forum, how else should I raise the issue?

As to the other point, I assure you this has nothing to do my my ego or pride. I am fine thank you. But as a constructive comment Eric, phrases like “if you are true to your word” do imply, “but are you good enough to trust”. Its like saying “I am sure you are not a bigot, but how do people know?”, raises the idea that there is an implication that you might be, do you see. I am sure this was un-intentioned.

Regarding the cause, I think nobody thought to mention, “make sure an email is sent out about the nominations so the whole membership is aware”. This is because we are a young party, no harm no foul. However how we respond to the completely legitimate and simple mistake defines us. Which is simply addressed by sending out an email recognising the omission and allowing time to take the next steps.

If we can't take the simple steps to do the right thing how can people have confidence that we will do the right thing when its tough.

Look at the whole MP expenses scandal, do you think they will recover from that?

[simonclifford]

Suzzmonkey,

Our manifesto is yet to be written, there is time. And seriously if we get more votes than the monster raving loony party in the general election I would be surprised.

And really if you have read my posts, for the umpteenth time I am not expecting to become Party Leader, I think there is more chance that we win the next election than that heppening.

[rancidpunk]

People who knew about the nominations process are going to be regular users of the forum, and are thereform much more likely to be engaged with the party rather than just doing it on a whim having received e-mail telling them the nominations had started. That could actually be an argument *against* sending the e-mail about start of nominations, and announcing it somewhere where only people who are getting involved regularly can see it.

So to continue in the same vein, someone who pays to join the party wouldn't get to have a say in the election unless they met some sort of criteria that proves they are engaged with the party.

Is it post count you would base that on or perhaps the amount of land that they own?

[scuzzmonkey]

Suzzmonkey,

Our manifesto is yet to be written, there is time. And seriously if we get more votes than the monster raving loony party in the general election I would be surprised.

And really if you have read my posts, for the umpteenth time I am not expecting to become Party Leader, I think there is more chance that we win the next election than that heppening.

you managed you completely miss my point - smooth.

yes it would have been good to inform the members through e-mail, an action that was sadly overlooked, and will be definitely utilised in the future.

why can't we just leave it at that and move on already?

[jez9999]

People who knew about the nominations process are going to be regular users of the forum, and are thereform much more likely to be engaged with the party rather than just doing it on a whim having received e-mail telling them the nominations had started. That could actually be an argument *against* sending the e-mail about start of nominations, and announcing it somewhere where only people who are getting involved regularly can see it.

So to continue in the same vein, someone who pays to join the party wouldn't get to have a say in the election unless they met some sort of criteria that proves they are engaged with the party.

Is it post count you would base that on or perhaps the amount of land that they own?

I mentioned in my post that when it comes to *voting*, all members should be informed as best possible. I just thought it might be better to encourage the more engaged members to be the ones to actually nominate themselves for election. I admit I am not sure on this point. Maybe it would be a good idea, maybe not.

[rancidpunk]

I get what you meant Jez, I was more pointing out, in a roundabout way I admit, that making a statement that suggests that only people who meet certain criteria get a vote is not what I want to hear being suggested by someone standing for election to an official post.
Democracy and the freedom for all citizens to participate, however flawed it is, is something that is easily taken away once we allow restrictions to be placed on who has a voice or we start listening only to those with the loudest voices.

[jez9999]

rp, I said nothing of the sort.

I said that all members should be informed of *the vote*, I was talking about maybe not sending an e-mail being a good idea for the *nominations process* to encourage those who seem to take more of an active interest to stand. The nominations process and the vote itself are 2 different things.

[rancidpunk]

rp, I said nothing of the sort.

I said that all members should be informed of *the vote*, I was talking about maybe not sending an e-mail being a good idea for the *nominations process* to encourage those who seem to take more of an active interest to stand. The nominations process and the vote itself are 2 different things.

Still not really getting my point, the nomination process is intrinsically linked to the democratic right to vote. If a person wishes to take part in the democratic process they have the right to choose to stand for election or not. You can't just not tell them because they haven't been active on the forum, imagine extending that to a national level and not telling anyone there is going to be a general election until after the nominations process has finished.
Maybe that's the only way labour could hope to stay in power this time round, i.e. if nobody stood against them because they missed the secret deadline to stand.

[jez9999]

That's fair enough, and I take your point.

[simonclifford]

Scuzzmonkey,

Point 1, I did get your point, I just disagree and gave you the reasons why.

Point 2, for the reason of this whole thread. I see you are clearly of the sweep it under the carpet camp. Done.

I think that is a bad idea for the reasons I mentioned.

“And really if you have read my posts, for the umpteenth time I am not expecting to become Party Leader, I think there is more chance that we win the next election than that happening.”

As for my latter point you completely missed the point, or perhaps didn't bother to read.

[cc]

Ok, I'll break the general trend here and be the first one to (very cautiously) say, a mistake has been made, so why not leave the nomination process open until the actual election? It's not as if we'll need to print a different ballot if people enter late in the day, or that formalities ever did anyone any good...