Got a link to back that statement up?




Agreed.

I left the current RoP out for a couple of reasons. One is that it was a draft written early on by the policy committee without input from or ratification by the membership (I think the intention was to have it go through a proper process once we had something sorted out to suggest), so I don't think it has either any official status or informal democratic basis. The other is, If you have a look through it, it's actually got bunches of question marks throughout in places where things were undecided, so I don't think it's really fit to be given official status. I was hoping that if there were concerns with the suggested RoP, members would raise these, and suggest what they would prefer, and these options could be included in the vote. You're right that there are no options, except that I do think having a vote of no confidence available makes it meaningful, because you can essentially say that the option you wanted isn't there (and by the sounds of it, I guess this will be the result of the vote). Having said that, if members do want the current RoP as an option, then it will be an option when the vote is rerun (which I guess it will be).

well, the current RoP is no *less* official than the one you're proposing, and that is an option in the vote. In fact, all it was waiting for in order to become official RoP was... actually *this vote*, which it then got excluded from. So yeah, it is a bit weird how this turned out.

[EDIT: and I absolutely encourage people to vote W - no confidence. As discussed elsewhere, there is nothing wrong with this option and it should not be considered any sort of tabboo.

The PC being able to move topics to a vote quickly depends on their confidence that people feel able to use the 'no confidence' option whenever they don't feel represented by the options.

In this case, the only clear option given is one that IMO makes things too complicated and leaves way too many possible loopholes. The core policy test is the only concrete thing we have that keeps us a Pirate Party and stops us drifting on the sea of popular opinion and whatever groups decide to try hijack the organization. Therefore my favoured course of action is to stick with the current RoP and make them official, and spend more time considering the consequenses in all situations before making any major changes to it.]

Yes, I didn't mean to say that what I'm suggesting has any official status. It's in the vote because I suggested it (and if other members had put forward suggestions for what they wanted in the vote, then those would be in there too). What I meant was that if the current RoP had any official status, or informal democratic basis, then I would have put it in the vote even if members hadn't suggested it.

Yup, I agree with this at least. Anyone who would like other option(s) should vote no confidence rather than not voting, then suggest the option(s) they would like, and they can go in when the vote is rerun.

If it's just the core policy test that you're concerned about, then we can run the vote with two issues, one for the core policy test, and one for the rest of the RoP. If there are other specific issues that members are concerned about, then we can add these to the vote, and vote on all the issues that are of concern. This way we can get RoP with every contentious issue sorted democratically, without having to wade through votes for things that aren't contentious. I personally don't see the point of including the current RoP in the vote wholesale since it's pretty rough (for one thing, as I mentioned, it's got bunches of question marks throughout), and I think it would make more sense to address each issue of concern individually. However if members want it in the vote, it will go in too.

So, you don't think that adopting the current RoP as the rules of procedure for the Policy Committee counted as suggesting them as an option for rules of procedure for the Policy Committee? Someone still had to *suggest* remaining with the status quo?

Even you yourself were talking about that suggestion (link)

heh, even mentioning "The intention was to put the rules of procedure to PPNZ for approval", and now saying they were never suggested to be approved?

As mentioned, the vote can still go ahead, people just have to be aware that the "status quo RoP" option is [W].

[EDIT: And I also prefer keeping the threshold in line with the 75% majority support which a unanimous Policy Committee holds. (Also note that only a unanimous PC can appoint a PPNZ leader). Also think it's a more appropiate test to prevent policy going non-Pirate walkabouts with dubious support based on a low turnout vote]

Actually, no. And I can't remember exactly where it came up, but I'm pretty sure that was the conclusion based on feedback from ECNZ. Hopefully someone else can find it again

Here's a copy of part of the post you referred to (emphasis added):At the time I thought I had made it clear what I was doing. Evidently this isn't the case, since you're not the only person who expected the current rules of procedure to be in the vote. If you read through the current rules of procedure, though, I do think it's evident that it's a draft, and not suitable for ratification.

The reason I suggested reducing this to a 2/3 majority is that I think decisions of the policy committee can be overruled by a 2/3 majority anyway.

They can only be overruled because the PC is not yet mentioned in the Constitution (meaning it is just a committee delegated by the board). Your 2/3 majority thing is making a long - term workaround (permanent RoP) for a short term bug (until the Constitution is reviewed).

Under the current Constitution, any 4 people on the Executive Council can legally do pretty much anything they like. 2/3 of the EC being able to overrule 3/4 of the PC is not the biggest problem here :p

A more appropriate *temporary* work around would just be to avoid considering much non-core policy until the Constitution is reviewed. Also, not abusing powers to overrule Policy Votes just to exploit a temporary loophole. (in fact, the EC already has something about this in its own RoP, though don't ask me where).

In short, I still think 75/25 is a more appropiate margin than 67/33, for policy *that is outside our core objectives*.

Fair enough. Given this, I'm happy with leaving the PC supermajority level at 75%.

The winning option was:

• [W] No confidence in the vote

Votes cast: 3 votes

The unadjusted Condorcet (head-to-head) results can be summarised as follows:

• 1st: [B] The PC suggestion of 21 June (linked)
  (the above option beats the below option by 1 vote / 33%)
• 2nd: [A] No Policy (leave to the discretion of the Policy Committee)

[W] No confidence in the vote (3 votes / 100%)

No confidence equals or exceeds 50%, so the vote is null and void.