Clarify discussion levels as amendment to constitution

If no blocks is green signal to proceed and blocks can only be for going against basic principles:

• Any suggestion not covered by basic principles can be manifested in the community - this can become a route to exploit the party name for activities that will alienate people.
• What is the difference between an undecided vote and a no vote, if only a block can prevent the proposed action?
• So, if I say for example, that Pirate Party should start a televised soap opera to reach out to people and everyone else thinks the idea is ridiculous but it doesn't go against our basic principles, I can make the pirate party look foolish even if I am the only person thinking it should be done?

My assumption of the votes was:

• Yes = in favor
• No = not in favor
• undecided
• Block = a veto for serious reasons regardless of how many votes in favor - as in beyond voting against, saying that it must not be done regardless of support it gets. It would mandatorily require a presenting of the reasons for the block and a separate discussion to consider them if the proposal wins.

In that sense, for a proposed action to happen, it would need more yes votes than no, and the absence of a block for a grudging yes, and more than 50% votes for a clear yes and of course more than 80% votes for a fairly consensual yes.

If one proposing is the only green vote he needs to do something in the absense of a block, you might as well go "I am deciding Pirate Party will be doing this and point out if it violates principles or shut up".

Additionally, I think that while a vote can be escalated up to resolve a tie, escalation should not be used as a means of overruling an unfavorable vote. If the proposers wish to go forward with it anyway, then they must present reasoning and ask for the same community to reconsider and vote anew. When something is put to the vote, it should be put before the correct forum (general/associate/permanent) - and voters on a proposal must not be arbitrarily changed in the event of an unfavorable vote. For merely getting an idea from larger community that is not binding on decisionmaking, the question should be asked appropriately.

I think issues that impact the image of every member of the community must be voted on by every member. For example, whether one likes to admit it or not, if Praveen faces a debacle at the election, it will be on record about us indefinitely. This is not to say it must not be done just because it is a risk, but if the community was explicitly created without intention of electoral politics, then anyone who joined with that understanding must have a right to accept or reject the rules being changed on them in a democratic manner.

Vidyut

Artistic handmade soaps by me ( https://vidyut.info )

Social Media: Twitter ( https://twitter.com/Vidyut ) Facebook ( https://facebook.com/theVidyut ) Google+ ( https://google.com/+AamJanata ) Diaspora ( https://poddery.com/i/62f15bc003f0 )

Blogs: Intellectual Anarchy ( https://aamjanata.com ) || Nisarga ( https://nisarga.info ) || tech ( https://vidyut.net ) || Homeschooling ( https://homeschoolingindia.in ) || Fek Le ( https://fekle.in )

I see the votes as,

Yes, agree and want to participate
No, disagree and will not participate.
Abstain, undecided or agree but will not participate
Block, against the principles and veto.

The levels are to prevent random persons from just vetoing anything.

If it is something that we missed in basic principles, but should be there, we should add it to basic principles. But why should the majority be allowed to stop someone if it in alignment with our principles?

Just anyone should not be allowed to stop something, so escalation helps to prevent that. On the other hand, the loose structure gives new comes maximum freedom to execute ideas.

So essentially, even if something has got no votes except proposer and all went no, because it could not be blocked, it can be done using our collective identity anyway? What sorcery is this?

Vidyut

Artistic handmade soaps by me ( https://vidyut.info )

Social Media: Twitter ( https://twitter.com/Vidyut ) Facebook ( https://facebook.com/theVidyut ) Google+ ( https://google.com/+AamJanata ) Diaspora ( https://poddery.com/i/62f15bc003f0 )

Blogs: Intellectual Anarchy ( https://aamjanata.com ) || Nisarga ( https://nisarga.info ) || tech ( https://vidyut.net ) || Homeschooling ( https://homeschoolingindia.in ) || Fek Le ( https://fekle.in )

Why would people invest hardwork into a place which easily could go in directions they won't support with absolutely no democratic method to prevent it? Basic principles are so primitive, they hardly cover anything at all. Some fanatic could propose a religious conversion camp and as long as there were no force involved, you'd be forced to allow it in all our names!!!

Vidyut

Artistic handmade soaps by me ( https://vidyut.info )

Social Media: Twitter ( https://twitter.com/Vidyut ) Facebook ( https://facebook.com/theVidyut ) Google+ ( https://google.com/+AamJanata ) Diaspora ( https://poddery.com/i/62f15bc003f0 )

Blogs: Intellectual Anarchy ( https://aamjanata.com ) || Nisarga ( https://nisarga.info ) || tech ( https://vidyut.net ) || Homeschooling ( https://homeschoolingindia.in ) || Fek Le ( https://fekle.in )

I don't support translating "Block" into a "Veto". For eg. what happens when 99 out of 100 members support a decision/proposal while the remaining one uses Veto?

"The levels are to prevent random persons from just vetoing anything."// Even this can't be considered foolproof because the number of permanent members can grow in time and if any one gets corrupted s/he will have complete power to block a decision/proposal as long as s/he like.

Let me state my opinions:

• A proposal should be rejected only if more than 50% of members "Disagree" on something. Additionally "Block" may be considered twice or thrice as powerful as a "Disagree" such that, say for eg., 10% or 25% of "Block" votes can be used to reject a proposal.

• "Abstain" can be considered as "I'm not in a state to vote agree or disagree, instead I'll go with the majority". If the proposal gets accepted abstained members will have a moral responsibility to participate. If the proposal gets rejected abstained members are free to participate or not.

1 more suggestion: More than 50% (can be increased if necessary) of "Block" votes against any member (whether permanent or not) can be used to cancel her/his membership. This is to ensure that Indian Pirates will not get filled by corrupted members beyond a limit. It can also prevent members from continuous misusing of Indian Pirates name.

@vidyut we could add an option to use block as a flag - 'needs permanent members approval'. Or we could even restrict new proposals to get support of at least one permanent member.

@ambadyanands when we see someone misusing veto, we know we are stuck, all previous decisions still stands and still continue doing good work. If really required those 99 can create a new group. In most groups, its the majority that wants to suppress dissent. The new group can make a tighter constitution.

but creating a new group whenever a permanent member uses veto against majority doesn't sound good, it'll only help to lose members. i still think a small % (say 10%) of "Block" should be used to reject a proposal instead of giving Veto power to an individual. as i said before, Veto power becomes a mess when the number of Permanent Members gets large. convince me otherwise and i'll change my mind.

another thing is that a clarification is needed regarding when a proposal should be rejected in general. the idea i suggested about using more than 50% of "Disagree" to reject a proposal isn't good and practical because it can be exploited when the total number of active members is less than 50%.

Praveen, this new groups thing is extremely problematic thinking. We have done this twice now and it seems to be getting acceptance as a method to deal with organizational problems - ditching the organization and creating new. We were over three hundred members now reduced to 75 with this "forking" business. This is a rubbish idea. I objected then, I do so now. You cannot plan a community to be ditched. If people have a problem, they will fork anyway, but designing in a manner that leaves holes to exploit, then instead of removing exploiters you kill the community, then this is a problem. To get people committing nad working to achieve something, there has to be some assurance that the project is enduring.

Vidyut

Artistic handmade soaps by me ( https://vidyut.info )

Social Media: Twitter ( https://twitter.com/Vidyut ) Facebook ( https://facebook.com/theVidyut ) Google+ ( https://google.com/+AamJanata ) Diaspora ( https://poddery.com/i/62f15bc003f0 )

Blogs: Intellectual Anarchy ( https://aamjanata.com ) || Nisarga ( https://nisarga.info ) || tech ( https://vidyut.net ) || Homeschooling ( https://homeschoolingindia.in ) || Fek Le ( https://fekle.in )