LiquidFeedback/issue 29

Comments on both initiatives

What is the language in Brussels?

• What is the language in Brussels? I suggest changing language to language(s) to require that the co-president speaks both official languages.
  • This was updated in the "Hard rules for regional co-presidents" initiative.

Comments on the "Hard rules for regional co-presidents"

Paul speaks Dutch and English AND lives in Wallonia (Tournai now, soon Namur). Working in Brussels and staying in the city to avoid the commuters hell does not makes one less suited for the job. Paul has been elected based on his proposed program for the upcoming 12 months; develop crews in Wallonia.

Marouan lives in Brussels and is part of the Brussels crew(s). As such he is surrounded by people who both master Dutch and English (and more).

Hence here some facts:

Fact 1: Even if Brussels is the capital of Flanders and knowing most Flemish parties claim Brussels is Flemish territory, the first and most used language in the city remains French. Followed by English. Knowing the most registered boy's name over here is Mohamed it wouldn't be a surprise one day the second most talked language over here becomes arab. As such Marouan's passive knowledge of the English language isn't a problem nor an obstacle (and if arab becomes the second language then having Marouan will be an asset). Experience learned us that in Brussels it's quite exceptional to receive requests from Dutch or English speaking groups/press.

Fact 2: Regarding Federal communication(s) the party has a translation squad/group/team. Those gents are doing a very good job translating texts when needed. Only federal communications are issued by the coreteam (as an entity) and as such the coreteam has the needed language skills (NL/FR/EN/...) on board. Also, has been decided in the past that local/regional communication using the local language is very OK and even better (preferred on English). As such Paul and Marouan, mastering French, are fit for the job. As is Jonas for Flanders.

Fact 3: English is useful to manage international communication. We too can have our "ambassador diplomats" (and should have them) in charge of international relations (this too is quite a full time job).

FACT 4: 1+1=3. This means "united we stand". Everyone has stronger and weaker points, as a group we are performing better. This principle should be understood and be fairly obvious for open source advocates or Pirates claiming participation and co-operation as being part of their core values framework.

FACT 5: Even if the Belgian Pirate Party decided to use English as a vehicle for global communication this doesn't mean the Pirate Party decided it would be it's program to start DISCRIMINATING people based on their origins, culture, means, knowledge or skills. As such the PPBe always said "use EN if possible and if you want to be heard and understood by all. BUT you are free to use WHATEVER language to communicate". We should be very very careful when trying to put up "hard rules" going down that path.

SUGGESTION: Even if I understand the intent and perceived problem raised I can't understand why people are explicitly called by name. All of this providing wrong or let's say at least distorted information. This is quite an unfair approach which looks like a trial of intent. It might be a good idea to formulate the main idea(s) and leave out the finger pointing if you want to get receive support for your proposal.

Jonas' counter proposal already looks lots better. The "have to" became "should" (best case scenario).

Comments on the "No tentative rules on co-presidents"

I like the proposal and would support it if it wouldn't state we should exclude or leave empty seats. Where exactly is this right to exclude derived from and what makes it stand if you have both candidates for a seat and people wanting to vote for them ?

What about establishing a quorum? Example : Let's suppose a French speaking only candidate nobody knows about goes for the Flemish co-president seat. Without a quorum this person would be elected. whatever happens at voting time. Now, if the voting rule states that 51% or 75% of the voters have to have voted for that person then for sure that person wouldn't reach the threshold level. Which in turn means this person wouldn't be elected and the seat will stay empty.

Don't forget, it's all about people's support and voice. Not about whatever regulated perceived origins, culture, means, place of living, knowledge or skills (which is a horrible trap!). If we have a good "job description" for all of our positions this could be used as a "checklist" at time of evaluating candidates during the G.A. Up to the members to do their homework and ask the right questions.

Bike-shedding

• Acquainted is a very week word in my opinion, familiar might be better, an other word might be better still?
  • familiar it is
• change to: "express him or herself"
  • done
• I'm not quite sure what you mean with "No tentative rules"
  • I've looked it up and apparently I am indeed incorrect, I thought tentative meant obliging, I will replace it by hard. It is my opinion that everybody should at least theoretically be allowed to become co-president. Wherever they come from and whatever languages they do or do not speak. (P.S. I can't edit the title unfortunately)

At least half of the board should be able to express himself in English

• I believe you mean that this rule applies to the entire board not just the three co-presidents right?
  • correct, thanks for the feedback.