Some issues for mailing list discussion

[Tommy Fergusson]

The following issues were not adequately resolved at the last SGM, so i'm now throwing them on the mailing list for at-length discussion.

1) What to do about the membership fee

There was a motion made, but the EC is not acting on it yet.

There is general agreement that there should be a normal fee of $10 and a lesser fee of $2, and that the intention is that the lesser fee is only used when $10 would be a barrier. Also, that it should be mentioned on the membership form.

The remaining issues are around whether to have a hard and fast rule (as opposed to a guideline) on who gets it and what they have to do to get it, and if so, what that rule should be.

(e.g. "students, unwaged, and people who can give a reason" vs "anyone" and "they just have to tick a different box on the membership form" vs "they have to sign something separate" vs "they just have to talk to someone")

2) What the relationship should be between Chapters and the Party

e.g. "The Party should exist to represent the chapters, so each chapter should be guaranteed a spot on the EC for their representative" (The party is subservient to the chapters) vs "The Party should exist to represent the members, as should chapters, any collaboration or cross representation between the two should be with mutual agreement on equal terms" (The Party and chapters are independent and equal) vs "The chapters should represent the Party. In the case of a dispute, the Party can replace chapter officers etc." (Chapters are instruments of the Party)

Please give your thoughts, however short or long. For more context, refer to the meeting minutes. https://docs.google.com/document/d/17HqNtRkuZHMimQ06zzJmMX3lETSgA-2qJ_1G68Jxty8/edit?hl=en&authkey=CMGAxIAG#

Regards

Meeting Chair, 26/27 March 2011 SGM

Tommy Fergusson

[Abraham Gray]

split the fee like you said and let the discretion of the person
signing them up prevail. Have a tick box on the form with 'normal'
and 'unwaged' but demand no proof, those who can afford will pay the
10. Don't worry about being so hierarchical and centralised, focus on
getting the 500 members and maybe release a set of guidelines for
approved actions and then anyone who is interested can use their own
initiative to advance the party.

just thoughts

Quoting Tommy Fergusson <tom...@pirateparty.org.nz>:

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the New
> Zealand Pirate Party (Auckland) mailing list.
> To post to the list, send an email to ppnz-d...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe, send an email to
> ppnz-dunedin...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit us at:
> http://groups.google.com/group/ppnz-dunedin?hl=en
> To see the main PPNZ discussion list, look at
> http://groups.google.com/group/ppnz/
>

[Tommy Fergusson]

On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 10:45 PM, Abraham Gray <graa...@student.otago.ac.nz> wrote:

split the fee like you said and let the discretion of the person signing them up prevail.  Have a tick box on the form with 'normal' and 'unwaged' but demand no proof, those who can afford will pay the 10.  Don't worry about being so hierarchical and centralised, focus on getting the 500 members and maybe release a set of guidelines for approved actions and then anyone who is interested can use their own initiative to advance the party.

Anything would have to cater to people signing themselves up from the join page. I agree that any volunteer recruiter who signs someone up on the discount shouldn't need to be 2nd guessed. 

1) What to do about the membership fee
There was a motion made, but the EC is not acting on it yet.
There is general agreement that there should be a normal fee of $10 and a
lesser fee of $2, and that the intention is that the lesser fee is only used
when $10 would be a barrier. Also, that it should be mentioned on the
membership form.
The remaining issues are around whether to have a hard and fast rule (as
opposed to a guideline) on who gets it and what they have to do to get it,
and if so, what that rule should be.
(e.g. "students, unwaged, and people who can give a reason" vs "anyone" and
"they just have to tick a different box on the membership form" vs "they
have to sign something separate" vs "they just have to talk to someone")

IMO, it should be "intended for students and unwaged people", though this should not mean anyone can't get it. We should ask for student ID's for student union affiliation purposes, but it shouldn't be a requirement for the discount.

I think the only requirement should be that they still want the discount after having a conversation with *someone* in PPNZ (e.g. the person recruiting them, or the membership officer), with the only requirement on the conversation being that it's comprehensible. the recruiter can ask whatever they want, e.g: 

Applicant: (ticks the discount box on the form, asks for a discount, or otherwise expresses that $10 is too much)

Recruiter: We're trying to get (chapter) affiliated with (student union), but we need xx ID numbers to do that, do you have a student ID we can use for that?

Applicant: cbf

Recruiter: Do you know anything about our plans for the election?

Applicant: idc

Recruiter: you still want the discount?

Applicant: yeah...

Recruiter: congrats, you're now a member. You owe us $2. (marks somewhere to indicate that a conversation happened)

2) What the relationship should be between Chapters and the Party
e.g. "The Party should exist to represent the chapters, so each chapter
should be guaranteed a spot on the EC for their representative" (The party
is subservient to the chapters) vs "The Party should exist to represent the
members, as should chapters, any collaboration or cross representation
between the two should be with mutual agreement on equal terms" (The Party
and chapters are independent and equal) vs "The chapters should represent
the Party. In the case of a dispute, the Party can replace chapter officers
etc." (Chapters are instruments of the Party)

 I think chapters should be independent from and equal to the party, with neither having any constitutional requirements to the other, though in practice they should work pretty closely together and make some sort of semi-permanent deal on candidate selection etc.

Chapter members should not need to be Party members, and Party members should not need to join their local chapter etc.

I'll try to structure this more like a poll (non-binding of course, just to encourage discussion). so far it is as follows:

Q1: Restrict it (0 votes), Specify "intended" group but don't limit it (2 votes), "intended for all" (0 votes)

Q2: tick a box (1 vote), sign something (0 votes), talk to someone (1 vote), show evidence (0 votes)

Q3: chapters rule (0 votes), independent & equal (1 vote), co-dependent & equal (0 votes), Party rules (0 votes

Im planning on calling an SGM on april 16th, so aim to have a good compromise to these questions by that time.