Minutes/National Council/2017-06-28
< Minutes | National Council
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 |
Meeting Minutes
This document is a record of a meeting. Do not edit this document without contacting the relevant group first.
|
Start: 20:32 AEST
End: 21:31 AEST
Attendance
- Simon Frew
- David Crafti
- Thomas Randle
- Mark Gibbons
- Fletcher Boyd
- Emily Seivers
- Peter Fulton
- Andrew Downing
Minutes
Previous meeting minutes
Twitter Shitstorms
Frew : Between the tweet supporting a Wikileaks rally and Brendan’s attack on a discuss thread, we have had a rough time on social media, to put it mildly. Frew : There is an underlying problem here, that we haven’t addressed, the entire political environment has changed from when we formed as an organisation. Frew : Whereas some other organisations have a clear ideology, agenda and message that encompass politics as a whole, we have a range of different ideologies and come together around the core platform. Frew : The election of Trump has broken politics and what were unquestioned assumptions that we have relied on have become controversial for some members and supporters and not without reason Frew : To illustrate, free speech is founded on a consensus that all participants act in good faith, this consensus has been broken by the alt-right, who use targeted trolling, doxxing and threats to drive their opponents off social media. The response on the left is to organise antifa groups to try to stop the bigots organising, which in turn gets met with calls for free speech by the very people using threats to shut down others speech. Frew : Many people think we have entered a period reminiscent of the 1930s and equate Trump and his supporters with Fascists. One (ex?) member had decided that due to speaking with Milo Yiannopolous and Nigel Farrage, that Assange was a fascist now, and that supporting calls for his freedom equated to us supporting fascism. Frew : I’m not raising this to debate it now, I am raising it to show that a foundational position has become controversial and we need to work out how we relate to the debate where it is in the popular consciousness. Frew : I think pretty much everyone in the Pirate Party sits in the libertarian left quadrant of the political compass and the differences between members politics aren’t that great. I think everyone wants freedom and equality, some err on the side of freedom, others err on the side of equality, but everyone likes both. Frew : I think we need to re-assert our position as techno-utopians. We need to create a vision that is attractive to the majority of young people, we need to show a way to a better life for all. Frew : I think it is worth talking about the politics before we talk about how we operate as an organisation Frew : I have more to say, but will leave it here for now AndrewD : No argument with any of that MarkG : Yeah. There's just certain topics we need to avoid for a while. CAPT-Irrelevant : If not entirely. Rundll : Thanks Simon, good view points, we have entered even more complex political times. MarkG : Anything about gender and identity politics has no upside for us Rundll : At least our movement has a vision for what to do about it, even if we cannot yet know what all the answers will be. AndrewD : Can't agree with the topic avoidance strategy though AndrewD : What kind of political party can hope to succeed if it can't address social issues? AndrewD : or even talk about them? Rundll : ^^ this is an interesting topic we should probably discuss via email so people have time to collect thoughts AndrewD : in a pro-free speech party CAPT-Irrelevant : Some topics need to be brought up with disclaimer that any views put forward by anyone is not guaranteed to be true representation of the party. AndrewD : Well, stick that up on the Discourse banner if you like Rundll : --> https://discuss.pirateparty.org.au/faq CAPT-Irrelevant : Rundll, Fletcher: I came up with an idea tonight. A splash screen (or equivalent) to show on the discuss forum landing page if they are a guest to get that very disclaimer I mentioned above. CAPT-Irrelevant : And that if they wish to proceed, to acknowledge it. MarkG : Oh, we address social issues. But through our own frame, not through the frames people are trying to impose on us Rundll : CAPT-Irrelevant: when congress is over we can replace the Congress banner Fletcher: We can do the first part, I don't think discourse supports forced acceptance Rundll : with a reminder topic about civility and it being an open discussion space CAPT-Irrelevant : I hope that some attacks have been taken out of context, but we need disclaimers to protect ourselves. dcrafti : I think it could be worthwhile, if there are topics about which we're not going to talk, to state that they exist, and to state the reasons why we don't think discussion will be productive. Then talk about our policies that would fix the cause of the issues, instead of the symptoms. Like UBI is about equity, which will achieve feminist goals, witho dcrafti : ut having to use any other organisation's approaches. Fletcher: I think it's worth recognising that while councillors can talk about sensitive topics on discourse and not locking every thread that has the opportunity to cause a backlash is in line with the tenants of the party there is the other side CAPT-Irrelevant : It's hard to challenge the naysayers on limited functional platforms. AndrewD : MarkG: What would that look like? the "our own frame" thing ? Fletcher: We'd have a few more members, a few of which were reasonably strong supporters, if councillors were able to show some restraint. Fletcher: Free speech is great but as elected officers we're held to more than that. EmilyS : We're supposed to be professionals MarkG : Well, some topics are manipulated culture war traps designed to wedge the other side of the issue Fletcher: exactly. MarkG : we should just not get trapped CAPT-Irrelevant : EmilyS: The negative aspect of social media/web 2.0 is that it's easy to criticize with virtually no repercussions to the accusation. Frew : I'ma paste in the rest of the stuff I have MarkG : you can tell by the language usually whether someone is just looking to start a flame war dcrafti : @MarkG, +1 Fletcher: (responses may be delayed, desk is covered in liquid) Frew : Having transparent discussions will always risk stuff that is said on a semi-private forum going public. Frew : Edeities pirate memes went viral on Reddit during the election Frew : This week's debate is another one Frew : It will happen from time to time because anyone can go and start referencing a discussion, it gives ammo to anyone who wants to do us damage… like Brendan. Frew : I am okay with occasional controversies stirred up from the forums, it is the price of transparency. We are warts and all. AndrewD : MarkG: avoiding those topics also cedes those arenas to them Frew : I do think we need a clear way to both handle the offending thread and the outrage it generates. I don’t really have a good handle on what to do here. MarkG : That's OK. Nobody wins in those arenas anyway Frew : Deleting tweets, cutting off discussion etc aren’t ideal solutions, but we need a way to deal with such shite Frew : We have to pick our battles, and remember what we post on discuss is public Frew : personal views can reflect on the whole party CAPT-Irrelevant : Did any TAS members resign because of the call for them to resign due to the announcement about us advertising the free assange protest or whatever it was? Fletcher: I talked down two. Frew : nice one Fletcher :D Rundll : CAPT-Irrelevant, we usually don't discuss membership stuff too specifically here, just fyi MarkG : I'm not surprised that the gender politics thread turned into an outrage fest but the Assange thing surprised me Fletcher: I don't know how many other tas members were in the resignations CAPT-Irrelevant : Rundll: I get that. It's fine, hence my own ambiguity. Rundll : Over email though for broad questions CAPT-Irrelevant : What I don't believe is someone who still appears/appeared to be one of our own did not raise the issue to DRC or other relevant channels. CAPT-Irrelevant : And went straight to twitter. AndrewD : I think we have a few people that got burnt by the Wikipeaks Party implosion. They're probably quite sensitive. Frew : Nah, it was tied to Assange's shitty personal politics dcrafti : We should remind members about the DRC, and how to contact them. Frew : which people equate defending Assange from US persecution with defending his politics dcrafti : I'm currently wearing my Wikileaks hoodie, though not with the same feelings as when I bought it. Fletcher: Don't forget that the DRC is the final place for disagreements in the party, there are steps outlined in the constitution before that. Rundll : ^^ yep MarkG : That's not a very good precedent - check whether you support someone's politics before you defend their civil rights Rundll : Can we move to outcomes for what we need to do or change or move on to the next topic? dcrafti : The internet lacks nuance, because mischaracterising people's positions and attacking them for it, in bad faith, plays well to echo chambers who won't read source material. Frew : how do we deal with negative publicity from what should be largely internal shit? dcrafti : Frew, as it stands, what's the extent of the negative publicity? dcrafti : I only heard about this from the email to NC Frew : I dont care about occasional bad comments, I just think we need to have a good plan to deal with it MarkG : I don't think we need a process, just awareness that members of the NC are easily seen as representing the party. Just step cautiously around outrage bait Frew : a few resignations... loss of some votes Rundll : Good question Rundll : Since we don't really have an internal that isn't publicly visible not much. Peoples opinions are their own. Controversial topics are solved as platform/policy at Congress. dcrafti : Maybe send out a reminder to previous supporters who now think we're satan, that our actual policies are still things they support. Frew : anyone posting on the forums as a member needs to have some awareness MarkG : I wouldn't chase after rage quitters Frew : nah EmilyS : Agreed AndrewD : yarp Rundll : agreed dcrafti : Maybe post that same message publicly, so that the people on the sidelines see us as reasonable in the face of monkey faeces. AndrewD : ^^ + mention commitment to free and open speech MarkG : I don't think we will lose enough votes to matter, and people inclined to rage quitting will always find a reason in the end CAPT-Irrelevant : If it's of any consideration, there's no mass outrage on twitter, where our twitter handle is mentioned. Rundll : agreed AndrewD and MarkG Frew : "PPAU debates everything transparently, if you don't like what someone says on our forums, sign up and argue it" dcrafti : I'm not as fussed about people quitting as I am about trying to use it as an opportunity to get our policies out to a wider audience and gain new support. EmilyS : @frew I'm down with that :p dcrafti : I'm pretty sure Brendan will still put us ahead of LNP, because he knows our policies are better. AndrewD : Yep - invite them in to make their point. Best argument wins. Rundll : I think the ties in with CAPT-Irrelevant suggestion earlier, I'm inclined to have a general reminder topic on discuss in a few weeks about how debate works as per a lot of the good content in that discuss faq
Congress
Equipment hire
- $3000 because an operator was accidentally included, will be amended
Voting
- Tests will be run before congress
General Business
Stripe
- Thomas and Mark to coordinate after the meeting
Motions
- MOTION: Approve last meeting's minutes as presented
- Put by: Simon Frew
- Ayes: 8 (Simon Frew, David Crafti, Thomas Randle, Mark Gibbons, Fletcher Boyd, Emily Seivers, Peter Fulton, Andrew Downing); Nays: 0 (); Abstains: 0 ()
- Motion carries
- MOTION: Adjourn meeting
- Put by: Simon Frew
- Ayes: 6 (Mark Gibbons, Simon Frew, Fletcher Boyd, Peter Fulton, Thomas Randle, Andrew Downing); Nays: 0 (); Abstains: 0 ()
- Motion carries