07/02/2017 Voting Results

DiD meeting 7.2.2017

Chair: Wessel, next time: 21.2. the chair is Tuulia

Minutes: Tuulia

  • Results on the vote for the quick voting procedure.
    • Unanimously accepted. Can be seen on the blog
  • Results on the vote “Feedback to the CC”
    • Unanimously accepted.
    • The question: how to go forward now – Pedro: use the coordinators list, send to JM and/or YV by email, Wessel: ask JM in an email how to contact the CC directly
    • Philip shared information on the CC workload, apparently some CC members like YV gets 200-1000 mails daily, better to contact Srecko who is likely the most open CC member, also sending an email to JM and using the coordinators list is good
    • Proposal by Wessel:
    • 1. send an email to JM and ask addresses of the CC: in case of no response
    • 2. send to JM and the coordinators list
      • Accepted, Wessel sends the email
  • Discussion on the internal survey https://toolsfordemocracy.titanpad.com/21. Initiation of the approval process.
    • there seems to be unrelated stuff in the beginning with deadlines
    • Philipp suggests to change the organization of the questions and rename the section “Grassroots democracy” because it is leading and suggests this is what we want
    • Distribution of the questionnaire was discussed in the last meeting
    • The questionnaire is already quite long
    • Wessel reminds that the text is already in the amendment phase, these amendments need to be agreed on this meeting and then we will put the questionnaire on vote
    • Pedro reminds that the questionnaire is not perfect and not the last one we will make
    • Lauri Snellman suggests that the section of “Internal democracy” should come first and we should reconsider if we want to ask questions of chancing the OP already, first we should establish what the ground is
    • Philip notes that questions need to be extremely clear so that the responses are valid
    • Tick-boxes are better than open answer items for processing answers later
    • some questions are overlapping, e.g. satisfaction with the OP and satisfaction with the internal structure
    • questions about OP are critical; do ppl have enough knowledge
    • most of the transparency section was good, “hot topics”-expression bad, maybe trending or current topics better
    • review the probability of some suggestions, if sth seems improbable, maybe it does not need to be on the questionnaire
    • we should have one or two questions on the VC, not too many – remove pressure from the VC
    • when you use different scale in the questionnaire, you need to explain it
    • maybe the question “My DSC has an effective polling system” is not needed, since many DSCs might be so small that they do not vote on issues
    • reconsider chancing diem-terminology to normal language, e.g. policy pillar
    • Lauri’s suggestion: reorder the survey sections (from first to last) 8. Internal democracy, 6. Transparency, 7. Communications, 1. Grassroots influence
    • Philipp’s suggestion put the Communications first, then internal democracy, transparency and grassroots influence – Philipp’s suggestion is agreed upon
    • Wessel: does anybody object to deleting questions on the OP – nobody objects
    • Approval of the final form of the survey is moved to the next meeting
  • Getting in touch with the VC: the only way to get proposals going (30 out of 100 VC members are needed)
    • If and when DiD wants to propose changes to the OP or any other proposals, DiD will need to contact the VC because getting the signatures of 1200 diemers is nearly impossible
    • What should be our to strategy to go about this
    • Philipp, we should but ourselves to vote on the VC
    • The next VC draft is in May (?)
    • How can the Diem members who are not part of the VC contact the VC as an institution? Vote whether this should be in the email – consensus: yes
  • Discussion topic started by Nottingham: should DiD take action on this issue? https://www.diem25.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=84&t=13061
    • Philip was in London and by the discussions there he was discouraged by taking further action, YV is not interested in democracy but economics, we should concentrate our efforts on the survey and find support for refocusing on democracy from there
    • Pedro: we as DiD should not comment whether DiEM should focus more on policy or democracy, at least not without referring to our survey results
  • Update of the Tooltesting WG: proposal for new voting tool(s) + proposal for collaboration tool
    • suggestion from Tooltesters: take up Loomio as voting platform, it can be used without being a Loomio-user (public), the only downside of Loomio is that it does not allow multiple-option vote but this is a common feature to all voting platforms, plus it does not have a mobile app
    • all members have now two weeks time to contribute to the proposal
    • in the next meeting we will vote on this
    • Tooltesters suggest a vote on Framapad is put forwards
    • Philipp had heard of represent.me -tool in London, it could be looked into in Tooltesters as it might be taken up in Diem later, so it would be good if DiD formed an informed opinion
    • Pedro: represent.me seems to be beyond our needs and more fitting for representative democracy than DiD
  • Meeting in Real life – an update and new perspectives
    • The CC-initiated meeting in Dublin in March will not happen
    • There will be a meeting by DSC Dublin in May/June which has a grassroots-orientation, main focus on World Café -type of discussions
    • Duration two days, on the first day World Café -type of Diem Ireland launch and on the second day could be the DiD meeting
    • This can be combined with a seminar organized by high profile Diemer, but the general focus will be on grassroots
    • Lauri: it is nice to see that the CC debates also the role of the famous diemers and how DSC members can participate in events, there is an opening
    • Suggestion: ask diders by Doodle when they are available to come to Ireland, are you ok to make this partly a DiD event?
  • A Spokesperson for DiEM25
    • Pedro: we need a person or people to connect diemers
    • Lauri: Spokesperson/-people sound too abstract, we should rather further the network-structure and get them institutionalized
    • Pedro: the way to establish network collectives is only when we get many ppl involved in the conversation, the spokesperson would be there to collect and connect those networks
    • 1. spokesperson/ppl would be elected by the people
    • 2. spokesperson/ppl would talk to a DSC at least once a month and channels their wishes forward
    • 3. spokesperson/ppl would talk in the voice of DiEM25
    • 4. spokesperson would talk to all the DSCs
    • This would be real coordination what is currently not happening
    • Philip: how should spokesperson go around the fact that there are tens of thousands of diemers and not the time to connect with each one of them – currently the CC members are really overworked
    • Wessel: we should start having a conversation (maybe as a working group) on the problems we are having with the organization before proposing solutions – is agreed upon
  • Discuss if votes can be  transferred. How to legitimate the transfer?