User Tools

Site Tools


PPEU.Statutes meeting minutes

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


Elect Keeper of the minutes

Candidates: everyone

Elect chairman

Candidates: Krishna

Approve last meeting's protocol

Comments (who): Approved

Approve today's agenda

Comments (who): approved

Previous ToDos
Topic What Who When Status
Architecture / 1.3. Individual membership separate structural and tools discussion in separate pads robotica silver coin
Hybrid model Another hybrid model by Alexander Spieß / Kai GöddeKai09.08.2012silver coin


1. Structure

1.2 Hybrid Model
WhoSteffen, Justus, crackpille, Abri, Phi95Bou, Exception, Polnetz, Marin, Torben

Euroliquid model (Bi-Chamber Permanent Assembly)
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


consensus vs. transversal majorities

  • 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.

longer election period with easy vote of no-confidence

  • 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.

Your topic


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

/var/www/ · Last modified: 2013/07/21 19:15 by