Location:  mumble.piratenpartei-nrw.de:64738  
Channel:   International -> PPEU
Schedule:  XX.XX.2012   21:30 CEST
Minutes:   XX / Everyone
Chairman:  XX
Start:     21:41 CEST
End:       22:56 CEST
Approved:  Pending

This meet Next meet

1. Administration
2. Architecture
3. Vision
4. Statutes
   1. consensus vs. transversal majorities
   2. longer election period with easy vote of no-confidence
5. Your topic
6. Miscellanea

1. Daniele Monteleone (PP-IT)
2. Stefan Thöni (PP-CH)
3. Andreas Bernard (PP-DE)
4. Muriel (PP-CAT)
5. pakki (PP-DE)
6. ZombB (PP-DE)
7. Kai Gödde (PP-DE)

Candidates: everyone

Candidates: Krishna

Minutes
Comments (who): Approved

Comments (who): approved

http://wiki.ppeu.net/doku.php?id=euroliquid
Euroliquid model is the upgrade of individual membership model that take into consideration the party based model, assigning to each party a number of tokens (votes) on the basis of the weight that the party will have in PP-EU.

Discussion about the present & future role / status of euroliquid:

• the structure of euroliquid will provide and define the amount of people participating (delegation-system)
• all proposals shall be in english language
• everything will be build in the future (some months, a year)
• at the moment it's only a basis model, abstract, a formular
• 90% of pirates speaks english as second language
• in our liquidfeedback system we can take decisions in 36hrs if we need
• the resources will be set up gradually
• Robotica invites warmly to take into consideration the Weights calculation of Euroliquid for the other models.
• LqFb can be learned in 2 hours, anyway the tool will be used mostly by who is able to use it, the others just can delegate their trusty.

• the whole liquid thing is not discussed alre

ady and too early to implement. the discussion on the euroliquid mailing list has started since 2 weeks and there are 26 posts altogether at the moment.

• it will be difficult to find enough people, who will use the euroliquid at this early stage
• we need an overhead of people (translating etc.) to provide a functioning system
• we can not do this at the moment, there is nothing to win atm.
• lqfb is not even established/agreed upon in whole Germany

• we need a system, which works on a base which is accepted and practise multilingual base decision
• we need an individual model
• a delegation system is not necessary because we already have it in europe
• the idea of liquid feedback is, that every vote counts the same, and this must on long term be guaranteed in the euroliquid, too

• we can not build a mirror of the european parliament
• time is an important factor, that is reaction time

• I think it's nice to promote participation of everyone but it takes time to train people to do it, we will have to do it progressively
• we need to communicate & make trainings with people to give them the possibility to participate in the euroliquid, the language barriers would be a problem but also the time availability of the participants.
• why is it so useful in the case of a parties chamber?
• the time is important (resources?)
• most parties don't have enough people at this stage to really make an european pirate parliament clone (is the effort worth it for just a bunch of people?)
• I wouldn't make it mandatory for the parties to use it, maybe they already have a mechanism
• if we use this we need a board (and personally I would prefer not to have a powerful board)
• it's too soon for now. we can start building a platform for all european pirates to discuss items (board/forum/mailing lists)

• there are two aspects mixed up: membership in the local pirate party and the membership in the european liquid feedback
• only discussion is possible, no decisions

• if one disagrees to a topic, it's difficult to implement it in the program/statutes of the “PPEU”
• we have to search for consensus points (e.g. transparency of government, privacy…)
• if there is a majority in ratification in every pirate party there is also an overall majority of countries.

• At the high level it is easy to get agreements and consensus. Everyone agrees to “more transparency”. But if we start detailing what that means, a consensus becomes more and more unlikely. At a detailed level we already have conflicting ideas about core pirate topics.
• A consensus is a 100% agreement, which is very unlikely with transversal majorities. If you compute the majority opinion of each PP first and then try to compute the votes, it is as a matter of fact no transversal majority anymore.
• The point here is, we cannot have both.

• Board members and other functionaries cannot be delegates at the same time

• Elections will take time in the area of one hour

• If elections are that cheap and restricted to that time no issue. But spending every other assembly only about electing ourselves is too expensive.

Type: I=Information, T=Todo, R=Resolution
Status: plank=not started/late, silver coin=in time, golden eye patch patch=done