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.

It is not the principles that is unique to us, it is the process we have to arrive at these principles and update it that makes us unique. We don't have some holy ideas we will hold on to whatever happens, that is more like a religion. Every idea we have is open to questioning and change. For that to be meaningful, we need everyone to be able to participate in that process. And that by nature exclude some people. So if we want to include everyone, we need to accept the our limitations (language and access) and actively eliminate the limitations. And that is not as easy as removing this line. It is a long term process and can take generations to overcome. In the meanwhile, we can try to address some of it by actively reaching out to people who are excluded.

I would go with young and old people. Scapping Educated Citizens both exclusive wording.

Intelligent people exist without Education so we could use this to.

But Citizen is exclusive because not all the people in the world have citizen status,

How about this, "We would like to engage with people who have access to the internet and can speak English initially (until we have a critical mass). We understand this is a limitation we need to overcome eventually. 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. Once we find enough people willing to do the translations, we can include more languages for participating in decisions too."

Also you can use the reply button below a specific comment for better readability of the thread.

Its getting better good to see that we are moving forward with discusion, eventually is not needed.

OK I can remove that. Once @Kannan V M and @Akshay agrees to this text, I will propose a vote.

"We engage with people who have the energy and the inclination to change the system." is something I think crisply captures the idea which can still sound inclusive.

If @Kannan V M @Bady @Abraham Raji and @michael john sinclair. agrees to the new wording. You can propose this change. I will close the current proposal.

I agree with @Akshay 's wordings. We can add reachoit and translation as a different goal.

Like "we recognize language is a barrier for communication and we understand the need for information available in different languages. We will do efforts for making information available in different languages with availability of volunteers."

Official language will be English? (this could go for a voting)

@Akshay can you propose the amendment then? @Kannan V M can you propose this as new goal? As for official language, English became the de-facto language. We can record it if that helps in some way.

Associate can propose?

I didn't come up with the need for this amendment. So, me proposing it would alter the history of the amendment.

Anyone can propose. It does not really matter, what matters is members support it and there is no disagreement. Can you propose it?

You came up with the wording. But it does not really matter who proposes it. I hope Kannan will propose it.

I think there should be a thread for constitution amendments, or subgroup. Otherwise amendments to constitution threads will scatter everywhere. Should I start a new thread just for this amendment or should we start thread for amendments in general?

https://codema.in/g/7qmru1SG/indian-pirates?q=Constitution%20amendment all threads start with "constitution amendment" in subject and can be easily found by a simple search. If we create a single thread that will easily become big and right now we cannot create any new sub groups (once we move to codema.in we can think about it), even then it means everyone will need to join that sub group. I think search option is sufficient to discover all amendments easily.

okay, then I'll create a new thread for it

Why you need a new thread? This were all the discussions happened. You can just create a new proposal here itself.

You need a new thread only when you want to propose a different amendment.

If you are worried about the subject, it can be changed as well.

@Abraham Raji I closed the new thread. Can you create a proposal here including suggestions by @Akshay . If we can find a wording acceptable to Akshay we can go ahead.

Since the last proposal sort of didn't get anywhere, I would like to propose the wording proposed my @Pirate Praveen as a result of the previous dicussions:

We would like to engage with people who have access to the internet and can speak English initially (until we have a critical mass). We understand this is a limitation we need to overcome eventually. 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. Once we find enough people willing to do the translations, we can include more languages for participating in decisions too.

This seems to explain our current conditions, acknowledge our limitations and sounds more inclusive than the current statement in the constitution. I urge everyone to participate in this proposal.

I don't think the limitation to english is helpful for India Pirates. If people want to connect with us and speak in their own language, we can answer if we understand that language. Considering @Pirate Praveen's election campaigning, I would suggest that we already engage or try to engage with non english speaking people. @Abraham Raji would you consider an amendment along these lines?

@piratekp @vikhamara just hiding the reality does not make us suddenly inclusive, accepting our limitations and working towards fixing that does. If we are not even willing to accept our limitations how are we even going to fix that? Engaging with people who don't speak English is not same as they having an equal opportunity to involve in our policy and decision making.

we have our limitations, yes. but does that have to be in a constitution? wouldn't such a statement seem elitist and hold back others?

Ah, I see your point. I would suggest that canvassing for votes from people who do not speak english is potentially a different problem then, but I can back this proposed change.

I think that is important limitation that everyone joining this group should understand. It does not say we want to remain the same, clearly states "initially" and something we want to address. It mentions some of the ways we can address the issues.

The question is, suppose we don't state this, how will those who don't know English and don't have access participate in the same way as you and me can? Just saying everyone is equal does not remove the inequalities, we have to acknowledge the inequality, understand its roots and address them.

When we are canvassing for votes, they only need to have voting rights. When we invite some one to join our group, we expect them to actively engage in our decision making process.

I was thinking about how, if ever, we can bring direct and peer-to-peer democracy in an inclusive way to speakers of all languages. We would either need a magical translation tool that eliminates language barrier altogether or interlocutors for every discussion (like perhaps the UN has?). We could define 5 or 6 official languages like UN. English, Hindi, Malayalam, Kannada, what else?

We then have to translate everything starting from the constitution into these languages.

But what about dissemination? What about decision making? Do you see a way internet is not a hard dependency in codema and riot? Now, is internet the only dependency? How is one supposed to know how to install codema and riot? How should they navigate the technological landscape required to reach codema.in?

There is no way I can imagine where Indian Pirates the way it operates can be inclusive to people who don't have a working knowledge of English and just enough knowledge on how to navigate the technologies we use to make direct democracy work.

Either we can give up direct democracy as a principle. Or we can give up language and technology skill inclusiveness.

I don't see a way we can have both. I'll be happy to be proved wrong.

@Pirate Praveen i agree that we should acknowledge our limitations. but we can be more careful in selecting the words so as not to give easily mistakable meanings. see how, for at least some, brutal honesty felt like elitism. this is something that can be avoided by having a better choice of words, without losing the essence of matter we like to present. for eg. see the last section of this comment.

See we don't have to support all languages in one go. When new people who volunteers to translate join us, we can expand the supported languages. Also we can have telephonic interface too for decision making or any other kinds of options. But I don't think we need to worry about it right now, as we can always do those things. I wonder if there will be the same enthusiasm to really include everyone rather than lip service to inclusion. I don't think giving up on direct democracy is an option, as that is unique and defining who we are. There are so many organizations with traditional hierarchies and who are inclusive in their books but in practice controlled by a few. If people don't think direct democracy can work, they always have many options, but if we give up on it, there are no other options for people who want to try direct democracy.

हम उन लोगों के साथ जुड़ना चाहते हैं, जिनके पास इंटरनेट तक पहुंच है और शुरू में अंग्रेजी बोल सकते हैं (जब तक कि हमारे पास एक महत्वपूर्ण द्रव्यमान न हो)। हम समझते हैं कि यह एक सीमा है जिसे हमें अंततः दूर करने की आवश्यकता है। हम भाषा और तकनीक की बाधाओं को दूर करना चाहते हैं जो दूसरों को भाग लेने से रोकता है। इसमें सामग्री का अनुवाद और इंटरनेट तक पहुंच से वंचित लोगों तक पहुंचने के तरीके खोजने जैसे कार्य शामिल हो सकते हैं। एक बार जब हम पर्याप्त लोगों को अनुवाद करने के लिए तैयार पाते हैं, तो हम निर्णयों में भाग लेने के लिए और भी भाषाओं को शामिल कर सकते हैं।

well ich i can translate this with 3 clicks i supose its ok to try and use other languages the question is does the translation make sense^^

Then we have the problem that there are people who can not read and write. So talking to people is still the best way to be a Pirate^^

Some meaning is lost in translation and we have 22 official languages some of them may not even have a good online translation service. There needs be a lot of work that needs to be done rather than just saying everyone is welcome.

We would like to engage with people who have Humanrights and let them know that they have them. People who have access to the internet and can speak English Can Help us build up our Group . We understand that their are Limitations 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. Once we find enough people willing to do the translations, we can include more languages for participating in decisions too.

I would go for something in this direction.

हम ऐसे लोगों के साथ जुड़ना चाहते हैं, जिनके मानवाधिकार हैं और उन्हें पता है कि उनके पास है। वे लोग जिनके पास इंटरनेट तक पहुंच है और अंग्रेजी बोल सकते हैं, हमारे समूह का निर्माण करने में हमारी सहायता कर सकते हैं। हम समझते हैं कि उनकी सीमाएँ हैं हम भाषा और प्रौद्योगिकी की बाधाओं को दूर करना चाहते हैं जो दूसरों को भाग लेने से रोकता है। इसमें सामग्री का अनुवाद और इंटरनेट तक पहुंच से वंचित लोगों तक पहुंचने के तरीके खोजने जैसे कार्य शामिल हो सकते हैं। एक बार जब हम पर्याप्त लोगों को अनुवाद करने के लिए तैयार पाते हैं, तो हम निर्णयों में भाग लेने के लिए और भी भाषाओं को शामिल कर सकते हैं।

ham aise logon ke saath judana chaahate hain, jinake maanavaadhikaar hain aur unhen pata hai ki unake paas hai. ve log jinake paas intaranet tak pahunch hai aur angrejee bol sakate hain, hamaare samooh ka nirmaan karane mein hamaaree sahaayata kar sakate hain. ham samajhate hain ki unakee seemaen hain ham bhaasha aur praudyogikee kee baadhaon ko door karana chaahate hain jo doosaron ko bhaag lene se rokata hai. isamen saamagree ka anuvaad aur intaranet tak pahunch se vanchit logon tak pahunchane ke tareeke khojane jaise kaary shaamil ho sakate hain. ek baar jab ham paryaapt logon ko anuvaad karane ke lie taiyaar paate hain, to ham nirnayon mein bhaag lene ke lie aur bhee bhaashaon ko shaamil kar sakate hain.

1. I agree and disagree with @Abraham Raji's proposal

2. I agree on the part where we should recognize language will be a barrier for communication.

3. But we should never discourage someone who prefer to talk in their native language. It should be the the speaker's choice.

4. While making that choice, speaker should understand the it will reduce the reach of the information they are planning to present.

5. There will be cases where speaker/listener has no option, but to use their native language.

6. This should be a part apology to those who prefer to use or don't understand English also a part future goal to attain translation in all possible languages with the availability of time and volunteers.

7. And in local groups, people might prefer using their native language.

8. I disagree with the choice of words that used to present the idea.

9. I suggest something like below.

We recognize language is a barrier for communication and we understand the need for information to be available in different languages. We do not discourage the use of native language in Pirate discussions, but it is preferred to use the commonly used language(s) for the sake of communication. We will do best of our efforts in making the information available in different languages with the availability of time and brave volunteers.

this sounds better, more polite and inclusive. but i have this concern with the content translation, considering the number of languages in our country and the volume of discussions — that has happened, is happening and will happen — i feel it's not at all practical to depend on manual translation. we'll have to wait for better translation tools, meanwhile we could keep trying to engage with people based on the linguistic capabilities of the volunteers.

Please open it as a proposal.

I don't think we have to follow an all or none approach. We can start with constitution, manifesto and website. Then may be all proposals, that itself will go a long way from where we are, even if we can't translate all discussions. Hopefully machine translation will be improved as we evolve in parallel to manual efforts too.

i'd like to make some modifications to the @Kannan V M's version as follows. i'll also wait for a couple of days so that others can suggest changes before opening a new proposal:

We recognize that using English as the primary language is a barrier for communication and we understand the need for information to be available in different languages. We do not discourage the use of native language for discussions, but it is preferred to use the commonly used language(s) for the sake of better communication since we have different people speaking different languages. We will work to the best of our efforts to make the information available in different languages, starting with the Constitution, Manifesto, website and all proposals, according to the availability of time and brave volunteers.

In my opinion no such statement is necessary in the constitution. How do we engage with people who don't speak English or don't have internet accessibility should be part of other short term execution plan not the constitution.

i agree with this opinion of @Hash Singularity. this makes me question the nature of goals specified in the Constitution, is it about how we want to improve internally or is it about how we want to improve the society? in my opinion it's better to separate both. we can also rethink whether to add goals to a separate document instead of the Constitution, but that's another debate.

That is already separate, we have a manifesto for everyone else to see, for example if they want to vote for us in an election and want to know our positions on issues and changes we want to bring. Constitution is for people who are part of the group or want to join the group.

okay. so the goals in the Constitution are internal goals, fine.

I think we should forsee about the possibilities of having discussions on what language to be used while pirate discussions, I think we should set that debate now n write the outcome in constitution.

website updated to reflect the changes: https://pirates.org.in/constitution