Nationality of voting members
Vidyut
Public
Seen by 328
I propose that since we are not currently with a goal of forming a political party, we are not required to restrict our membership to Indians. Nor is it stated anywhere on our website or constitution. We are networking with pirates from other countries, who are contributing their views and adding perspective as well.
In my view, community votes would not accurately reflect the consensus of all contributing thinkers here if they were denied a vote. It would mean equality within the community if we did not discriminate on basis of nationality among contributing members.
I do think that the subjects taken up in the community should remain restricted to those relevant to India - even when brought up by foreigners. We may look at some global issue - digital rights violations cross borders with impact very easily, for example, but it must be relevant to Indians.
Poll Created Fri 17 Jul 2015 7:24AM
Allow members of any nationality our normal membership levels Closed Mon 20 Jul 2015 6:37AM
I propose that we do not discriminate between contributing members on the basis of nationality, as long as the focus of the community remains on India and establishing a thriving community of Pirates in India.
Non-Indians contributing to the community but not being able to vote would essentially leave them unrepresented in the community. Not fair to them.
If we are not forming a political party from this group, we are not required to restrict membership - it is just an online group. Besides, none of our documents currently deny membership or voting rights to non-Indians, so it is an unstated norm, but not official restriction.
Results
| Results | Option | % of points | Voters | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
Agree | 33.3% | 2 |
|
| Abstain | 16.7% | 1 |
|
|
| Disagree | 50.0% | 3 |
|
|
| Block | 0.0% | 0 | ||
| Undecided | 0% | 127 |
|
6 of 133 people have participated (4%)
Vidyut
Fri 17 Jul 2015 7:26AM
I think this is fair and in alignment with our principle of direct democracy that all members have voice and those eligibe to vote must be determined on merit and contribution and not identity.
Pirate Praveen
Fri 17 Jul 2015 7:36AM
Since our focus is India, I don't think people who live outside can understand our situation. They can already share ideas and this is not just a discussion group.
⚓⚑Arjun⚓⚑
Fri 17 Jul 2015 8:30AM
If we aren't looking to form a political party , i don't see any point why other nationalities should be restricted
Balasankar C
Sun 19 Jul 2015 5:09PM
I think it should be Indian OR living in India. First one server NRIs and second one handles non-Indians who live here.
Akshay
Sun 19 Jul 2015 8:46PM
Just because someone is from a different country they needn't be not knowing India's problems.
Just because someone is from India, they needn't be aware of India's problems.
I think this should rather be solved by a change in the constitution ...
⚓⚑Arjun⚓⚑ Fri 17 Jul 2015 10:30AM
@praveenarimbrathod or if we could add them under a new category called "observers"
Akshay Sun 19 Jul 2015 8:52PM
There might be foreigners who can understand India's problems, just as there might be Indians who can't understand India's problems.
It'd be wrong to not let the former influence our decisions or to let the latter influence our decisions.
This problem of being India specific, India relevant should be solved by editing the constitution such that there are criteria according to which we can compare the issue at hand and see if Indian Pirates need to be worried about those issues; and then more criteria which will help us come to answers that are in line with the philosophy of Indian Pirates.
This could also be a chance to redefine how our memberships work and how the decision making process works. Like @vidyut said in another thread, everything need not be put to vote. And everyone need not become members. There needs to be some kind of a membership that allows one to participate and there needs to be some kind of a consensus building system that allows decisions to be made irrespective of the number of people in support/opposition.
Vidyut Mon 20 Jul 2015 3:18AM
I doubt if anyone here is immature enough to vote on something they don't understand. And if they do, it is unlikely to be a nationality related failing. Indians are just as likely to make stupid choices about India.
Also, I disagree that someone who has never been to India can't understand it. People are fundamentally the same, politics is fundamentally the same. India is so diverse that many in Kerala can't comment on Kolkata from Maharashtra can't comment on Meghalaya. If something said seems extremely unlikely, it will get clarified in discussions. If the person still feels strongly, they will cast a vote that others will feel inappropriate for India. But then votes can be perceived as inappropriate for many reasons beyond nationality. Regardless, it represents a perspective. In my view, when we start to gatekeep inclusion, we shrink our own organization. The list of reasons to consider a voice delegitimate just keeps growing. What happens when a sanghi joins the community? Indian, but give vote or deny vote? What happens when a Khap Panchayat type thinker joins? At some point we have to trust the collective wisdom to arrive at a whole picture that is larger than individuals.
That said, it isn't a crucial issue, because a persuasive opinion will convince more votes than their own.
In any case, this should be explicit in the constitution in membership information.
Pirate Praveen · Fri 17 Jul 2015 9:19AM
The discussions are means not an end in itself. I have no problem with nationality as such. It is fine if they are living in India.