Constitution amendment: Remove second item from goals

But where is that definition in our constitution. The Constitution shouldn't create ambiguity. Your definition of educated may not be mine and a third person may have an entirely different understanding. Either way a cleanup is in order.

@Abraham Raji I don't disagree with you. But we have to see the context in which the goal was originally added and see what has changed. I don't know who added the sentence. @Pirate Praveen ?

I think I only added it in the very first draft. No one thought it was problematic until @Kannan V M brought it up. Now looking deeper with more exposure I can see there is potential for misunderstanding.

If you can propose an amendment to change the text to a more accurate representation of the goal, I can agree.

How about this change "We would like to engage with more young and educated citizens initially. We understand this is a limitation we need to overcome. We seek to remove the barriers of language and technology which prevents others from participating. This could include actions such as translation of content and finding ways to reach out to people who are denied access to the internet."

Removing the sentence doesn't make us suddenly inclusive towards non-young, non-educated citizens. Neither does existence of that sentence make us not inclusive.

@Akshay i disagree, existence of that sentence in the constitution does make us non-inclusive. it means we consider a special section of society as more important than others. this is different from giving importance to Women or Dalit issues because in such cases we're supporting under-privileged sections of the society to realize equal life chances which is definitely not the case with young and educated citizens. being young is a special, unearned advantage which qualifies as a 'privilege'. so i kindly request you to reconsider this proposal based on the terms of 'privilege'.

Well said 👏👏👏

Indian Pirates is a political organization that primarily operates through loomio, matrix, mastodon, diaspora, etc. From the beginning it has been web based and the principles of direct democracy find no other application. In that context, I find nothing wrong when one of the goals said that it is the young and "educated" that Indian pirates wants to work with. It definitely is a privileged section. I find nothing wrong that a small party decides to keep that as a goal. If people think they have to reach out to others, adding that as a separate goal seems more appropriate. That's why I said removing this suddenly doesn't make Indian Pirates inclusive. Also, when sentences are taken out of their original context, a lot of meaning is lost. That's why I request @Pirate Praveen who wrote it originally to clarify what was meant of it and what has changed.

@Akshay So it's like in this organization we do 'a' because we are capable of 'b'. Since 'b' is required for 'a', we need not worry about those who are not capable of 'b'. Sounds fair right? Except, 'a' isn't that important to begin with. The organization is it's ideals not it's methods, the methods are just means for the organization to implement it's ideals. If the need arises I'm sure we will change the methods, not compromise on our ideals but change the way we work. It is also worth noting that we're only capable of 'b' because we were born at the right place in the right time and through no virtue of our own. I don't think it's fine in any context for our constitution to say we only wish to work with a certain privileged class of the society. Your argument just sounds like an excuse someone would make to justify a class system.

i agree with what you said except the last part, technically speaking there's an issue with the last part you said:

I don't think it's fine in any context for our constitution to say we only wish to work with a certain privileged class of the society.

please note that the word 'only' is not there in the original goal. the word 'only' definitely make us non-inclusive, while the existence of the second goal in its current form creates a confusion regarding inclusion. it's due to that confusion it causes, i voted in favor of removing it.

also, from the following words of @Akshay we can see that he isn't against reaching out to others:

If people think they have to reach out to others, adding that as a separate goal seems more appropriate.