I really like the idea of dissolution of an executive board to remove any dependence on a centralised administrative body so as to promote the freedom and initiative of individual/s to work on any projects of interest unhindered without needing 'endorsement' or 'validation' from an arbitrary 'official' organising entity - the merit is in the results of the work itself and the power of the people to choose. very profound. The Pirate Wheel is also very awesome.

This might be a bit off topic, but I was just wondering, if PPNZ were to run in elections, how are the candidates chosen?
I discussed this in depth in the IP Policy Incubator, and thought that the best method would be to run open elections from the membership at large in each electorate to designate each electoral candidate, and to run nationwide elections to determine a party list.
The election methodology would combine aspects of both approval voting and preferential (STV) voting. Ballots can list unlimited choices, and every member is a candidate to election by virtue of declaring membership. In this way everyone is treated as truly 'equal' in that no one needs to appoint themselves or be nominated to run (such acts are intimately connected to feeling of superiority/inferiority, they are anti-anarchist feelings that risk leading one to the darkside, it's sad that so many of our systems require that people discern a differentiation in value from others to be nominated to run), rather we are all running by the intrinsic virtue of our each and everyone's very own existence. In this proposed system, election ballots and the process of nomination have been conflated into a single part of the process to result in a system that is humanist and inclusive.
The appointed members for candidacy are those that receive the greatest overall populist quality of approval.
I feel that this kind of election is founded on similar principles that are the reason that lead to the creation of the Pirate Wheel and the dissolution of the PPNZ board.

Please see my recent comments here for a more specific description of the mechanics of a possible example of the potential election/appointment methodology I am proposing.

Also sorry if that comment is in the wrong thread, wasn't sure if it is appropriate or if there is any space for it to be shared or if the members might find the ideas valuable to consider at some stage during deliberations. Faafetai tele, Viliamu

Yes, @williamasiata candidate selection is a bit off-topic, and this an urgent discussion about party structure. You are welcome to start a new discussion thread about that, it's important, but not urgent.

Sorry I couldn't make it to the Mumble meeting tonight.

@hubatmcjuhes an elected "Secrets and Accounts" WG is just the Board by another name. The whole point of this exercise is to see if we can do without unrecallable delegation. I believe there should be elected officers, but as few as possible (Treasurer and Secretary, perhaps Co-Presidents/ Co-Leaders), and each with their own WG, which any party member can join.

All Core (constitutional) WGs need to document their deliberations and decisions on a member-facing (maybe even public-facing) Loomio subgroup, for accountability to other WGs, the broader membership, and supporters and allies. With our small active membership at present, most of us will need to be part of at least two WGs, so there is likely to be a lot of overlap and cross-talk anyway.

Proposed Core WGs
+ Hospitality (moderation, currently being handled in one ongoing discussion on the main group)
+ Secrets (secretarial and membership, currently 'Membership Rules')
+ Treasury (finances and fundraising, currently 'Executive', although some of its archived discussions may be more relevant to the 'Engine Room')
+ Communications (internal and public-facing comms, subgroup already exists)
+ Engine Room (digital infostructure, platforms, tech support, subgroup already exists)
+ Policy (discussion and drafting of policy*, subgroup already exists)

• when the members active in the Policy WG think they have a stable draft, a proposal can be made to pass a version (versioned by date) to the main group. Once that happens, a consensus (or supermajority if consensus can't be reached) decides if the version is adopted as official policy or not.

@williamasiata I find the ideas you bring up and that have been discussed in that thread you liked very interesting and important. I would love to participate in an in-depth discussion about that and I kindly like to ask you to start a separate discussion about that.

I wonder if it might be a good idea to wait with that until we have the new structure in place, though, as our resources are pretty limited and need to be focused right now. But I am really looking forward to having that discussion then, and I think I have a thought or two to contribute :-)