Opinion on the article pirate ship in the summer mælstrom of "clemens bartholdy"
Since i was named in the art of pirate ship in the summer mælstrom and some statements were tailored to me, which definitely do not meet the truth, i am forced to submit an opinion.
To the author
The author of the telepolis article is a very active member of the pirate party easter rich. Before the article of the article he wrote me under the name "uli meyrs" and asked me some questions that i already appeared very biased at that time. Therefore — and because no one knew this lord — i decided not to answer him.
The article was published under the name "clemens bartholdy" — the name that has already been used by the german high stake gerd postel as a pseudonym. Meanwhile, this mr. Meyrs / bartholdy is known in the forums of the pirate party under the name "golemxif" writing. (and this person raises me several times throughout the article, i had made myself incramidated by using a pseudonym…To)
Now to the statements that are tailored to me.
I have never made the system liquid feedback (lqfb) mood. On the contrary — as a technical aid for opinion and opinion formation i estate lqfb and keep it for a (almost) perfect tool.
But i see it very critically when it comes to decisive, especially if it is essential things like business orders, program items or even the statutes. The pirate party easter rich uses lqfb currently exactly for these areas.
Also, there are — not only from my side — serious security concerns, as well as the also the effort that there is a danger of democracy within the ppo through the current use of lqfb. This is above all relevant to the extremely low quorum for binding decluses set by the ppo.
Lqfb is definitely intended as an opinion-forming tool and becomes z.B. Also used in germany. Even the developers of lqfb reject the way the pirate party esterreich uses the tool as a questionable. To make everything differently than the others, just so that you make it different, especially in the case of lqfb is definitely not a good idea.
Another criticism of lqfb is for me that here only the "active" be embedded pirates. At that time the ca were. 40 people, currently it is a hundred. I always wanted to have a broad basis for opinions and surveys. Even people who are too complicated to lqfb, or people without internet access should have the opportunity to pay their opinion and participate. Therefore, i proposed to use other ways in addition to lqfb, such as.B. Sms surveys.
The trail of lqfb rejected the strict. With lqfb you currently have the possibility to determine a lot with a few people. Who does not use lqfb, is to blame even if his opinion is not guided. If there were other ways to participate in votes, the power of these few rapidly decreased.
In summary, i never went to "lqfb — yes or no", but about using this system meaningful with other systems.
The author refers to the exercise of my concerns as "mood" against lqfb and throws me too, i had myself behind one "pseudonym" hidden and goods "untarnished" has been. The choice of words once again shows that there are only black or woman in many cases at the ppo and that criticism is not welcome.
I have never pronounced on audioprotokolls of the board meetings, as in my opinion, this must be collapsed. But whereas i was very objectioned, the recording of the normal talks outside the meetings. I also do not consider an audio tube from working sessions to make sense or purposeful.
In particular, since these protocols were likely to be used in the ppo in the past to use excerpts from the context and to be misused.
The author calls me several times in the article "privacy freak" and as an opponent of transparency. Why? Because i believe that privacy is important and that exactly distinguishes must be made between protective data and data, which must be made transparent above all in the sense of democracy.
An area that should be kept transparent are party donations. However, these are not published at the ppo until today. Forums are also public areas and should remain publicly — with the exception of definitely marked internal work areas. What was once written in a public forum should — unless it was made from civil or criminal grosses — remain public -.
For the pirates there is the so-called "plants"-forum. This is not a closed work area, but rather a mullet, in which all unpleasant ies are postponed. This means also threads that have often been read and discussed will be moved there if you are unpleasant to the ppo.
Since, despite this behavior — by some members, the perfect transparency for ppos demanded and my attitude on privacy was always attacked, i had started a vote in consultation with two other members of the executive board of management, all in the spirit of basic democracy — to obtain the opinion of the base. Lqfb was therefore not used as a tool for this survey because i had only achieved a very small part of the ppo base. But i was the opinion of all important.
The data used came all from the members database, d.H. There were data specified for the purpose of contacting. The survey tool used "surveymonkey" seemed to me as a suitable tool (because there is an established company with years of experience) and the backup of cookies as absolutely sufficient.
In retrospect, i have exchanged myself here. In my former party colleagues. I had not expected that with such a serious question — the confidence question as to whether i should continue to work as a federal executive or not — people more pay attention to which tool is used than what the content of the survey is.
That afterwards a veritable debt reversal has been operated, i shocked me. The manipulation of the survey — a process that is normally considered immoral — was justified and preliminarily praised. I was accused, i had challenged the manipulation because i had not secured the survey well enough.
All the foregoing around the "causa itc" i have shown me that the ppo has put the technology in its value far over the people and thus realized that i can not work together with this party (s.A: here).
Outlook / bright spot?
The pirate party austria will remain a 2% party. I see this in the current state of this party as a success for democracy.
But it still needs to be said that not all members of the ppo are the same. In particular, in the state-of-the-farmers, many people work to make a better future — i wish you a lot of strength and gluck. For a change will not succeed in the ppo, as long as people have said to put the technique about people who hold insults and tiles for a good deal of handling and require transparency only from their opponents.
Stephan raab was in the federal board of the pirate party and is due to the affairs as well as 2 more imports and other members. Exit with other ex-pirates raab founded the rdo. After deduction of the then manipulated voices was the consent to stay as bv, roughly.