Rules and Processes for our use of Loomio

If representative governance is the answer then we should all be in main stream parties. Pirate Parties around the world are pushing for increased democracy and participation and using a variety of methods. The most interesting of these is Italy where there is no board and all party decisions, including candidate selection and policy are made by liquid feedback.
If Craig is so worried that our membership will be swayed by populist arguments then we can institute safeguards. A proper constitution with safe guards including a human rights provision and a board veto (unanimous) on any loomio decision that they feel is against the good of the Party.
If we are not for the fullest participatory democracy possible in terms of culture and available technology then we moving out of the mainstream of the movement.

Loomio doesn't achieve that?
It provides for and encourages full participation of members, which will hopefully continue on with full participation in the democratic board elections. Loomio greatly enhances democracy with direct interaction and transparency; mob-rule doesn't.

@hubatmcjuhes

Am I right with the assumption that every member that registers for the main group also becomes a member of the policy group? If not: why not?

Any member of the Main group can join the Policy Group, but I think they currently need to be approved by an admin. If Loomio can be configured to automatically allow Main group members into the Policy Group, I would support that.

Am I right that all contents in the main group is visible to the public, i.e. without the need of a loomeo account?

Correct. In this respect, Loomio is like the Forums on pirateparty.org.nz.

What is the visibility of the policy group?

Not sure. I think there is a good argument for making the Policy Group visisble only to Members, particularly now that we are discussing potentially controversial policy ideas there, often under our public names rather than handles. Making these discussions private may allow people to express themselves more freely and honestly than if they are doing so in the public gaze.

@craigmagee has a theory that direct democracy = mob rule. Over the next few months, our use of Loomio will give us an opportunity to test that theory against reality. If in fact the decisions made by the membership using Loomio are more nuanced, and less knee-jerk than those made by the Board, then @craigmagee's theory will have been disconfirmed. In the meantime I think it's reasonable to take a cautious approach, and allow Loomio to remain subserviant to the Board/ MMORPG.

I'm kind of fascinated with having transparency for all our decision making processes. Personally I have got use to expressing myself publicly especially with the advent of FB where everything you say can be cut and pasted. If we do cut out the public will members be able to cut and paste or even quote what they see? Knowing the internet making that group private would be little guarantee that the info there would remain so...

Just checked, turns out Policy Group is currently publicly visible. Does anyone want to argue for a change to that? Despite what I said above, I’m happy being transparent - sunlight is the best disinfectant and all that.

Anyone who wants to comment using pseudonym to speak freely without experiencing discrimination at work etc should be free to do so, providing that the Membership Officers can confirm that pseudonym belongs to a paid up member.

When you start a discussion there is an option for it to be private or not.
It's good for them to be public. Potential members can see how things work and may be enticed to join so they can have their say. Google also indexes it.

@robueberfeldt you make a good point about things staying private on the net.

I'm unsure what security Loomio has chosen, but this being a political group that is serious. There will be many interested parties (pun intended), the likelihood that anything said would stay private in the long run is almost none.

One of my major issues with politics is the lack of transparency, I joined PPNZ as attempt to help shape a different kind of political party.

I think the population deserves better and more trustworthy representation.

I don't see why we would need policy discussions, and thus our decision making process, to be hidden from view. Yes there may be things said during those conversations that may not be great, but this will re-enforce the view that PPNZ is committed to transparency and true representation of their members views.

BTW: I am under the impression that there are a couple of discussions behind closed doors where a basic member like me cannot participate, yet alone look into. Most of those seem to have something like 'Press Release' in the title. What's going on there?

Pass on the 'press release' privacy issue, IDK. But now that someone has mentioned pseudonyms, I'm pretty keen for us to not use them not just for transparency sake but to make things workable. Tommy and David came to visit and we were trying to work out who the core movers and shakers were in the party, it was a mad list of pseudonyms with some people having a couple as well as their real names to make things even more confusing! A lot of this started when FB still accepted them but I don't think it is appropriate. I don't think we need a rule or anything as some people have serious personal privacy issues at stake, but where possible could people please use the names they use in real life. It wont be acceptable for candidates and the electoral commision. Just for communications etc it would make life simpler.