Present: M-A, Ezequiel, Amedeo, Daniel, Gerhard, Phillip, Ville, Pedrojuán, Wessel, Lauri S, Giovanni
1.- “New procedures for DiD”
A new procedure has been proposed to approve the use of tools and simple procedures which do not entail larger consequences. This text was open for discussion and the period was extended.
It was approved to move this proposal into the voting phase. Mail will be sent, and voting will start in slack.
2.- Internal survey.
The working group has finished with the preparation phase. The text is now open for all DiD members to make amendments until next meeting. Mail must be sent to all DiD to announce the beginning of a new approval process.
Philip remark about biased questions. He will try to look at these and rephrase them.
Ville pointed out that organizing the survey without informing the CC could be seen as confrontational Wessel, Pedrojuán and Lauri agreed that it is our right to do it.
Ville pointed out that the question is framing it correctly. Philip add the CC could provide invaluable help using the org wide distribution list. He suggests linking the survey to the feedback to the CC (see details below, in point 3)
M-A says we should not expect a response. The risk exist of the survey being paralyzed by inaction if we rely on the CC. Philip proposed a series of e-mails before we go ahead with the survey. Pedrojuán suggest to communicate with a deadline and proceed according to plan if the CC does not respond.
3.- Feedback to the CC.
The text is now ready for the voting phase. A short summary by PJ to the new members. M-A indicates it is unlikely we get a response from the CC. She adds that if you want to confront the rise of the extreme right you need inclusive organizations which listen to people. This is not happening in DiEM.
Ezequiel has sent a mail to JM about the minutes and the transparency of the CC meetings. He asks for detailed minutes, not a set of bullet points.
Wessel has sent a letter to the JM asking why we do not get responses from the CC. She says they do not have the time.
Gerhard.- Different speeds are natural and necessary.
Pj explained the spirit of the letter with the Dublin example.
Gerhard agrees with the fact that such organization failures are not acceptable, but that there are different opinions and different speeds, but the weight of the political work must lye on the members.
Wessel- there are a few and there will be more issues undergoing an approval process. He proposed to create a tool to have an overview of which is in which state.
We will add the sentence to the letter announcing the survey. (Approved with no oppositions)
We go back to the survey. What will be the effect of launching the survey? It may be seen as a threat. We will ask them to distribute them from us.
M-A they are not going to send it. She is concerned about the numbers of o diemers. Are they being disappointed?
We will put it on our website. Embedding may be a problem.
Lauri – If they don’t help we go ahead.
Strategies not to let the CC sit on it. Pj – Announce the date in which the survey will be launched.
4 .- We skip the transparency network point left for next time.
5.- Update from the tooltester work group. The summary of their work can be found here. They will take at least two more weeks to make a proposal on the new DiD voting tool.
Phillip brought to the table discussion that the Nottingham DSC has started, concerning weather DiEM25 is not drifting from its original purpose, to claim democracy, into proposing a left wing agenda. It was agreed that this is a very important point, and a few questions will be added (Phil) to the survey about the party/movement dilemma.
Next meeting: Feb 7th 2017