17/07/2017 DiEM Café, Elections, Report & Survey

Chair: Pedrojuán
Minute taker: Lea

Present: Pedrojuán, David, Giovanni, Amedeo, Adam, Kobe, Lea, Philipp & Alex (joined later)

  • The DiD politisation World Café – status and prospects

Technical side:

– A few final details are needed but most of it is finished (registration, login in, table setting, etc. all work).

– About the backend side there will follow information from Miguel.

Server: Cooperation with an independent Belgium newspaper for the server was planned, but they do not seem very proactive, so we have to talk about alternative options (details on Slack).

 

Volunteers:

– There is no support yet from the CC to get volunteers for the DiEM Café Trial Run but the e-mail to ask the DSC coordinators for help is already written.

– Philipp will send the e-mail to the DSC coordinators (finalise e-mail until Friday).

– Should we try once more to get Judith to send out the e-mail?

→ Discussion in the working group about how to urge the CC to give access to the             mailing list for the real event until Friday.

– By the end of the week e-mails for the DSC coordinators & the CC should be send out in parallel.

Date:

– July 21st would be too early

– The original idea was to get the feedback from the Café out before the dead lines of election/referendum are reached.

– Proposal for vote: July 29th trial run & August 5th real Café

>> Vote: 6 votes in favour, 2 abstentions (Alex joined after)

Time:

– Should we create a Doodle for members to decide which time would be best for them?

→ No, the trial run is a technical meeting, the content is not that important, for the real event time is more of an issue

– Proposed timeframe for trial run & real event: 2-5pm or 3-6pm

  • Discussion of CC elections & upcoming referendum on electoral expression

Elections:

Alex & his team from the DSC Leipzig are standing for the elections in order to really do coordination work, not political work. They don’t want to push their own agenda – they want their program to come from the DSCs – but instead be a coordinating force that keeps the other CC members on the coordinating path & creates a better communication between CC & members.

Why aren’t they on the website yet?

→ No application done yet because there were problems with their video but they will apply in the next two days.

Questions about the constellation (three people represented by one in the CC):

– How do you plan to react if a question is asked you didn’t yet discuss with your team?

→ Splitting is necessary: the workload (e.g. e-mails) will be shared but decisions stay within Alex’ responsibility.

→ That’s also where the veto position (control function) is important, so that there is no possibility of setting an agenda before members are being asked about it.

– How would you answer a case of exclusion on the ground of being more than one person applying?

→ It is one person applying with a backup of two people (the Pressenza group was             allowed to apply too).

– The candidates to face in the election are strong opponents: Do you have any other plans to promote your agenda?

→ Yes, they are but that’s no reason for not applying! It’s very          important for the          internal democracy.

→ And to clarify: It’s not a run between Yanis & the rest & it’s not a run against      Yanis. And it’s not a hopeless application because there is a real hunger in DiEM25         for exactly the things Alex & his team are proposing (democracy, representation,     transparency, more connection between CC & grassroots, the policy of politics).

→ There shouldn’t be too much promoting outside the official channel for that          would be quite the opposite of how Alex & his team understand a democratic election         procedure but there will be a small text translated into different languages to send to             DSCs for promotion.

 

Agreed upon: We are in the same line as Alex & his team.

 

Questions about DiD backing Alex & his team:

– Should DiD stay neutral or should it officially support Alex & his team?

– Any way how DiD could support Alex & his team in being elected?

 

Thoughts:

– It’s one thing to go to our own DSCs & tell them to vote for Alex & his team – it’s another thing to officially back them as DiD: Our neutrality as well as the neutrality of Alex & his team would be in question.

– But DiD could take a stand concerning ideas & not a particular candidate.

 

Answers from Alex:

– They do not intend to get officially supported by DiD for the same reasons mentioned above. But it could be very helpful to be promoted in the DSCs & maybe get some help with translations (Pedrojuán: French).

 

Thoughts about the elections in general:

– How the candidates stepping down have been chosen we do not know (Adam could ask how it was done) so this it is a matter of missing transparency & not a proof of the intention of the members of the CC to get the same CC as before.

– Nonetheless it was striking that the argument in the announcement of the six members stepping down was that they did so as a democratic gesture.

– But we shouldn’t overrate it – we can’t do anything about it, so we should mention it nicely in our report, but not discuss it again & again & waste precious meeting time over that.

 

Referendum:

– General thoughts about the referendum:

– The e-mails written by DSCs suggest that after Berlin all thought that the referendum would be about whether DiEM25 should become a party or not.

– There’s a problem with the nature of how the consultation was put forward itself. But the CC/volunteer coordinators are not going to listen to critique concerning this, so we should just put it into our first DiD Report.

– Is it even formally correct what is happening?

– A lot depends on timing: We should comment on questions as soon they are there. They asked for feedback so DiD should give it & not just concentrate on the Café. The problem there is that the questions evolved over a certain time, so one doesn’t really know on what to comment.

 

Letter from the DSC Lyon:

– The DSC Lyon asked for more discussion time before the referendum takes place. Quite a few DSCs supported it although there are a few disagreements. But this is the most important decision for DiEM25 yet so the timeframe is essential.

– Should DiD sign this letter too (if they haven’t send it yet)?

– Or should DiD write its own statement, separated from the Lyon-letter?

→ It would be counterproductive to write our own letter – there’s enough confusion             already.

 

Proposal: The letter from Lyon & our own are both there already. What we have to agree upon in this meeting is if we want to put either the Lyon-letter or our own to the whole DiD group for voting & therefore start an urgent procedure to decide if DiD will sign a letter to the CC as a group. The urgent procedure will be posted in Slack tomorrow.

→ A = put the Lyon-letter out

→ B = put our own letter out

→ C = do nothing

 

>> Vote: 5 votes for A, 0 votes for B, 1 votes for C

  • How shall we treat the survey results? Shall we make them public & if where, how & in what form?

Pedrojuán explains that a few meetings ago a decision was made that DiD would publish the results of the survey in the raw form & after that there would be an analysis from a group or single person.

Proposal: The combined results in numbers (Excel file) will be signed by DiD as a group, the analysis (Word file) will be signed by Lea & maybe Amedeo & Pedrojuán.

Question: Could some of the members present read the Word document & comment on it before it’s going to be published?

→ Pedrojuán & Philipp will try to do so.

→ Amedeo thinks it’s fine.

 

Decision: Both, Excel & Word file will be published in form of a Blog post next week at the latest (when Lea is happy with them).

  • Content proposal for the DiD report

Pedrojuán explains about the regular DiD Report we decided upon at our last meeting & the framapad structure (https://mypads.framapad.org/mypads/?/mypads/group/did-report-sept-2017-781fho7wi/pad/view/index-vx1fio7t9) he created for that.

Main idea: A serious, descriptive (e.g. lack of transparency) report without controversy.

Invitation: Join the channel & start discussions about the first report.

 

Questions:

– Are there no other topic than the separation of powers yet?

→ No, not yet.

– Will these reports be supported by numbers or feelings?

→ They shall be supported by facts (numbers, e-mails, situations that are obvious) not        opinion. They are supposed to ask questions to get answers, to summarise & quality        should prevail over quantity.

– Maybe we should use surveys & reports in combination?

→ This will be a topic of discussion for the next DiD meeting.

  • Date & Chair for the next meeting

Next meeting: Tuesday, 1st of August, 7pm

Chair: Amedeo (if he has a reasonably good connection – he will send a private message) or Philipp (if Amedeo can’t – but he will be 20 minutes late so someone else would have to start)