Convocation

there are about 50 active, i.e. "paying" pirates. It's a number which I believe contains most of the active ones, which have been informed about proceedings over the last few months.

And sorry, if we have pirates whom we never see or hear from, except for on GA's to block proceedings, then I do think they're "worth less". I do so because I think we all want to move forward. If they also want to, then they should not be blocking in the first place and if they have reasons and want to express them, they have been given the time.

Look, a GA is not to discuss things, it is to formalise things. It is difficult enough to discuss between 10-12, and time-intensive enough to then spread that vision around to all crews - let alone to repeat these discussions when there's 50 around. I'd keep the wording as is already written. There's not a single vote against it - yet?

_That said. I do think adding more information is a good idea:

Bullet one has the URL to piratelab.be and can be added with the url to the piratepads which were used to register development and negotiation steps.

Bullet two has a link to the Google Docs.

Bullet three - for the time being, has nothing or nigh-nothing - some parts are written in the piratepads from bullet one. But we are running behind what should be the schedule with it._

I don't know about that number of Pirates. According to you, they are "most of the active ones", so you admit yourself not all active Pirates are informed.

No Pirate is worth less than another, it's in the values of the Pirate Party. This is a pretty bad thing to say of you, tbh.

So, you're saying that there are Pirates you don't know, who didn't participate in the last months in the works for reasons you also don't know. You say that these Pirates are going to block you for reasons you don't know. Finally we should also suppose that these Pirates (the "worth less" according to you) have the same information as you on the topics you worked on.

I don't make that bet, see, so I want to make sure that all Pirates share the same information. And I believe that this is a reason good enough to not send the convocation until we work on that. My experience from past GA's makes me believe that it is often the lack of information that made people block a proposal.

So, do you really want to keep your stance and send incomplete/inaccurate convocations or do you want to contribute in making sure that all Pirates have the same information to take a decision?

Renaud - I merely repeated your use of words - and I even put them between quotes. It neither is very kind to slap them back in my face like that. But ok - never mind. That's a detail.

I do think I did make it clear what I meant. And I do stick to my point. If pirates, unseen for months, pop up at the GA to block proposals, discussed out in the open for months, then we are NOT moving forward, but merely stalling things. Even if they have very valid reasons. We have done everything to make them aware of what is going on - limited only by our disorganised way of communication. Facebook and piratepads mainly. Note that organisation was the first thing I wanted to address, but after Mab's speech at summer event (about Iceland elections), it became clear to me that there indeed should be more priority on these topics proposed as an agenda for the GA.

I am not at all promoting sending incomplete invitations. Quite on the contrary. All links to relevant information needs to be attached. If they want to react, they are given clean deadlines. All very transparent IMHO.

The experience you had with pirates blocking a proposal is the main reason why I have been doing more than one meeting a week ever since July. Summer event, Recess of Recession, Extracting Entropy, PirateLab, ASBL last Sunday and again this Saturday. PirateLab again Sept 24th. I went to Antwerp crew meetings, to these in Mechelen and drinks in Antwerp, Mechelen and the new Aalst crew and I'll attend them again the coming weeks. Why do I do that? To make sure nobody gets left out and everybody active gets the same information. It is a bit difficult for me to address the unknown idle ones huh? I have not went to Leuven, Gent and Brugge, because I know these crews are aligned already. Same for Brain l'Alleud, Waremme and Liège.

Is there me pushing a bit? I suppose so.

So, just need to add the links to the translation in French on Agenda GA and it is done. But it would be in handy if @vanecx could check the translation.

I'm aware there is a deadline getting closer, but it would be kind of you if you don't try to force-push things by making me do things I made clear I disagreed with. Let's work on solving issues first, I'll gladly help tomorrow for translation.

We all agree to inform in the best way possible. We can easily links to agenda next lab, pad of piratelab.be, loomio discussions here, ... I don't think that's a huge work.

Ok, you proposed a wiki page, but that should not take ages either...

Thing is - I'd like to avoid them during the GA. That is why I am investing obscene amounts of time going to all these meetings. Have I mentioned that I am also calling about these a few hours a week with various persons? Including with Jan Van Opstal last week Saturday mind - to make sure everybody has the same information.

I will focus on the topic of this thread, since I don't really have time to re-read all this discussion. I suggest that we get some inspirations from the invitations sent for the last GA (March 2016). Then, we can write together on a piratepad, since it would be definitively easier.

Here is the template used for last GA : http://piratepad.be/p/Newsletter-February2016
and here is the pad I propose to use for the incoming GA : http://piratepad.be/p/Invitation-October2016

Side note: I can send the invitations through mailchimp (our newsletter tool), unless there is some better tool for this (which would be awesome, because I would love to get rid of mailchimp, but that's another debate maybe)