Membership approval

@praveenarimbrathod I hear your point. Frankly, the constitution needs more work. Why not extend the voting period pending the changes he suggests to the constitution or his disagreements, and we can update the constitution if needed or make a more informed refusal?

In my view, our constitution is very immature at this point and is not really a very refined yardstick for who is worthy of shaping this cause.

Perhaps situations like these can be converted into opportunities by initiating a dialogue and simultaneously refining the constitution to include or explicitly exclude things as our own political vision matures.

Edit: Also, this vote is confusing. If agreement with the constitution is mandatory, then how can membership be put to vote without the agreement?

Yes, we can change the constitution if we have a consensus. Let them propose amendments and we will consider them.

@vidyut, Balu initially did not say he has issues with the constitution. Once voting started he said, he don't agree, then he clarified he only needs clarity on something.

Since all remaining initial members have completed 6 months, moving decision making to permanent members sub group https://codema.in/g/yYP4OcV7/indian-pirates-permanent-members

@jacksonisaac @nandajavarma @truptirajeshkini @vidyut you may request permanent membership.