@pascaldk, instead of being misinformed on purpose, be aware that a lot is still open and to be defined, while other things have had a clear discussion. You are misinforming, creating anger, ... for no reason at all. Very undemocratic!

1 -> Is to handle the administration behind the ppbe account, clearly explained by Joris at the GA. Also,it can help in redistributing contacts who are interested in doing things.

2 -> replies have been given in the google doc to all questions about the statutes

3 -> crews are independent and we have never said otherwise

4 -> we trust Patrick too, but don't understand why there should be a problem with a democratic decision. Patrick could stay on the account together with the non-profit e.g.

5 -> if chances have been given to give arguments, a lot of pirates were there --> I don't see how this was not democratic.

6 -> No, it means it is a structure that has been applied somewhere else successfully, so we can focus on where our structure matters most and that is not in an asbl for administration, but maybe in the cobudget tool Damien suggested.

7 -> It is to support everyone who can use it. And anyone in Belgium could use it. Better to be united. Also, a national strategy makes sense as a base for the local. (e.g. with the basic text)

It seems that the time is not right to start a national vzw/asbl.
Since it is better to reach a consensus that everybody is ok with, especially to keep the unity under the Belgian pirates, and because it is not so urgent, I think we should delay the decision.
In the mean time pro's and contra's have to meet each other in a workgroup to discuss and search for a solution.

That is the weird thing @pattico that on the one hand, it is not urgent, but it was also not meant to take anything over, just support, not the most important thing we should discuss. I am afraid we are going to have a lot of other discussions which we should not have and there is a safety mechanism built-in: if the ag does not want it to continue the way it does, there is no problem. (a lot simpler than overdoing the same boring discussions (unless there is an absolutely interesting solution, but I have not seen nothing yet))

Boring discussions?

I would like to know who decided to not allow payment of memberships on the last GA?

The weird thing is : not talking about facts (the statutes).

Some people are still waiting for a link to read them by the way...
(unfortunately related pads are not accessible for the moment - 504 error)

EDIT : I added links to the Statutes (Google Doc) in the description

De kern ....

Het lijkt me veel beter dat we eerder zo goed of helemaal afstappen van de feitelijke vereniging (behoudens voor enkele bijzondere zaken, zoals privacy bescherming voor sommige piraten) en volledig werken binnen de nieuwe structuur.

Let's move all together to a ASBL/VZW form .... and leave the old structure for some exceptions ...

I'm jumping into the discussion.

You shoud first know that I'm not against the creation of a ASBL/VZX on principle. I actually think that it could be a good thing to have a moral entity that could be used to pay the the bills instead of relying on a bank account owned by a private person who I ignore the identity ...

That said, there are still things that bothers me with the current evolution of the situation.

1) I read somewhere that the statutes of this ASBL/VZW could not be changed. It is something that I think is unacceptable. If the pirate movement/party decides to handle things differently, there should be absolutely no way to forbid the changes that are wanted.

2) The current statutes suffer on some flaws in the current statutes that makes me think we should delay the creation of the ASBL/VZW and I'll give only one example. We want to be able to receive subsidies. Well, @patrickinstalle came up with a rules that states that if you want to be able to receive at least some type of subsidies, a mention of respect of human rights should be mentionned in the statutes. This is not present in our statutes so one of the goal we are pursuing for the creation of the ASBL/VZW will not be fullfilled because we didn't work enough on those statutes. Add to this my first point and you have something completely flawed.

3) Also, the goal of this ASBL/VZW is not completely clear to me and I guess, to other people as well. Is it a ASBL/VZW that is going to work like a foudation (Linux Foundation, Wikimedia Foundation) that will provide administrative services for a project ( in our case, the pirate movementL/party that will still be the one making proposition to change the society) or is it an other type of organism that is itself making the proposition ? In the first case, I don't understand why there is such a detailed explanation of its inner structure, why we are talking about proposition and votes (those shouldn't be the responsability of the ASBL/VZW) and other things alike. On the second case, it is a clear change in the spirit that first animated us as only identified pirates can join the ASBL/VZW and that, in order to join this ASBL/VZW you need to be elected or selected by members of the ASBL/VZW. If we do this, we loose de facto the participative democracy we are trying to push. I just wanted to state this out loud.

Anyway, I will conclude with my own opinion so you know where I stand; I'm in favour of an ASBL/VZW that works like a foundation. So, it would give and administrative support to the pirates and it would still be the pirates movement/party that still take all the strategic decisions. I don't see this in the current statutes ... This ASBL/VZW seems to be more than that which doesn't raise an envy to defend the creation of the ASBL/VZW as it is in its current form. Let me insist on the fact that it is its current form that raises my concern. If we can modify the statues (and preferably before the ASBL/VZW exists), I would be glad and if some elements are clarified, I could even actively support the project.

Bezin voor je begint is beslist geen verkeerde houding. Voor ernstige zaken ga je niet over één nacht ijs...

Het oprichten van een vzw op zich is niet de moeilijke kwestie, maar het maken van de juiste keuze's inzake werking, statuten, vestiging of vestigingen enz zijn dat wel. Het kan nooit kwaad om in die materie eerst meer adviezen in te winnen zowel inzake goede werking als juridisch, dan hals over kop te verzanden zoals het nu is.

bvb indien Vlaamse subsidies worden beoogd...

Voor Vlaamse vzw...

http://www.sociaalcultureel.be/volwassenen/verenigingen_subsidievoorwaarden.aspx
http://www.sociaalcultureel.be/volwassenen/verenigingen_regelgeving.aspx

Hoe zit het dan voor de andere gewesten... Er bestaat ook de vorm van internationale vzw... enz.

Daarom lijkt het mij eerder zinvol om een nieuwe werkgroep op te richten, die nu meer gegrond een nieuw voorstel maakt.

Daarom .... Kunnen we deze ronde besluiten met het voorstel om een nieuwe werkgroep vzw samen te stellen, die verdere adviesen in wint, de heikel punten samen brengt en onderzoekt om dan met een beter uitgewerkt voorstel naar voren te komen?

@ Tim van Oosterwyck.... waarop rust jouw stelling dat de statuut voorstellen niet voor herziening vatbaar zijn?

A) We hebben inmiddels wel nota genomen dat de iniatiefnemer Jan Cabouter is gestaakt.

B ) Er is duidelijk verzet binnen de beweging omtrent de vorm waarop alles nu zou moeten worden gerealiseerd.

C) Er zijn ook onregelmatigheden in het tot stand komen van de laatste algemene vergadering van de piraten feitelijke vereniging.