[Tristan Miller]

I agree of course that draft Minutes are better than none, but it is not as if these have not been seen before.

I expect they will not have been seen before by non-members, who don’t have access to the spintcom files section.

So their republication cannot be described as a flash of transparency.

There are other reasons besides transparency for making the plain-text versions available on spintcom: they are much easier to index and search.  Any decent mail client will let you easily search these minutes for keywords of interest, whereas it is not so easy to do this using the PDF versions.  Maybe not everyone needs to perform such searches on a regular basis, though I can attest that it is absolutely vital for preparing the agendas and responding to members’ queries about EC decisions.  (Members occasionally ask me at what EC meeting such-and-such was decided, and most of the time I can answer the question with a quick search of spintcom messages.  I expect that more resourceful members already do this themselves rather than bothering me, and I would prefer that they continue to do so!)

[Tristan Miller]

Sure, I agree.  But they are all I have available.  In principle it is possible to reconstruct the final minutes by looking ahead to the next month’s minutes and applying the amendments.  However, lately the EC has not been rigorously and unambiguously wording its amendments, or else the General Secretary has not been recording them verbatim in the minutes.  (I don’t know for sure which of these is the case, as I don’t attend the meetings myself.)  For example, there have been one or two occasions where the draft minutes neglected to include the names of new members, and when this was pointed out at the next meeting, the EC resolved only “to add the names”, without stating what the names actually were.  The EC and/or General Secretary may need to enforce some discipline in how amendments are worded and recorded.  (When I was taking minutes, it was a common practice to require all motions and amendments to be submitted in writing so that they could be recorded exactly in the minutes. I would always raise a point of order when a motion was worded too ambiguously.)

[Tristan Miller]

While I understand that BD has given an assurance to publish EC minutes in future on this forum would it also be possible for them to appear in email form on Spintcom to facilitate viewing by non-members and party members not able to access the Files section.

This is something the General Secretary had agreed to take on, though he had written to me a while back that he was unsure about the exact procedure.  I’ve posted the backlog of EC minutes from 2019 just now and have explained to the General Secretary the new procedure for posting the minutes to the spintcom mailing list.

[Tristan Miller]

I didn’t receive the minutes myself until last night.  I’ll add an item to the February EC agenda asking if anything can be done to get the minutes circulated in a more timely manner.

[Tristan Miller]

The Forum clock is correct.  Please check that you've selected the correct time zone in your account settings.

[Tristan Miller]

DJP wrote:

You can avoid by visiting the site via regular http rather than https

You can do that, but at the cost of security, since this makes it easier for malicious individuals to impersonate you or to discover your password.  We really ought to be automatically redirecting HTTP traffic to HTTPS…Anyway, the problem was indeed an expired certificate.  The certificate was automatically renewed before it expired, but for whatever reason the renewed version didn't get automatically installed, so the website was continuing to serve the old, expired one.  I installed the new one in such a way that (I hope) the problem will not recur.  HTTPS connections should be working again, and I encourage everyone to connect to the site that way only.

[Tristan Miller]

Matt wrote:

The teamspeak link is below. I don't know if this is free.https://www.teamspeak.com/downloads

It's free as in "available at no cost", but not free as in "respecting personal freedoms".  You can download and use the software, but you shouldn't assume that it will always remain available, or that it isn't also doing something nefarious without your knowledge.

[Tristan Miller]

Thanks for the suggestions!

Young Master Smeet wrote:

I've tried thinking of alternatives, based on simultaneous threadsFixes I'd suggest are: chair automatically presumed to second all motions (cuts out seconding emails).

That would definitely save time in putting motions on the floor, but I think it order to evaluate this suggestion further it's necessary to consider why motions in real-life meetings require seconders in the first place.  I suppose this is done mostly to avoid having the meeting discuss motions that attract so little support that they're unlikely to be adopted.  It's also done, I think, to ensure that such motions, which may be awkward, erroneous, or otherwise inappropriate, do not get published in the record.  The second reason doesn't really apply to online meetings, provided they're held in public, but perhaps the first does.  If the object of automatically seconding all motions is to save needless back-and-forth contrbutions, then how is that objective served by encouraging the meeting to discuss motions that have no support other than the mover?

Quote:

All voting happening at the end of the meeting (and the voting being the roll-call for attendance).

What about the case of mutually dependent (or mutually exclusive) motions?  Doesn't it often make sense to retain some sort of sequence in the voting?

Quote:

making a permenant chair branch post, so each meeting doesn't have to spend acres of time electing one).So you'd have three phases: agenda, discussion, voting.

I think this is a great idea, but there's nothing in the current Standing Orders that prevents branches from adopting it.  (Well, maybe a strict reading of Order 24 does — it could be changed from "If the Chair was not elected at the previous meeting" to "If the Chair was not elected at a previous meeting".)  The option of electing a standing chair could definitely be explicitly mentioned, so as to encourage its use.

[Tristan Miller]

Thanks for starting a new thread here.  (Your previous thread was in the NERB section, and the branch has formally complained to the EC about non-members posting there without permission.  Until that complaint is addressed, and in the absence of any obvious way to ask for such permission, I didn't want to post a reply there.)Anyway, in that thread, you opened with the following:

Quote:

As to online meetings: it is apparent that the Standing Orders at the moment are not fit for purpose, they are designed for teleconference or chat-room formats, not bulletin board or email lists.

I can't help but wonder whether you may be looking at an older copy of Branch Standing Orders.  Are you aware that they were revised in 2013 to include a set of orders designed specifically for bulletin boards and e-mail lists?  If you think those new orders are somehow deficient, that's fair enough, and it would be great to hear your suggestions on how they could be improved.  But I don't think it's fair to claim that they were not designed to be used for online correspondence.

[Tristan Miller]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Let's drop all this pretence, shall we, comrades. Rule this.. rule that…This has now become something more personal than procedural.  The simple fact is that one comrade does not have the confidence or trust of some other comrades. This is demonstrated by resignations from the AV committee and not just by issues being raised on the Twitter account by the same said members. Would the situation have become such a controversy if it involved another member from a different branch? I think not.

I strongly disagree.  The two issues, while related, are very easy to isolate from each other.  The EC, and its subcommittee the IC, have been presented with an unauthorized Twitter account that purports to speak on behalf of the whole party or perhaps the entire WSM.  It does not matter whether this account is operated by the comrade in question, or by a branch collectively, or by a trained monkey, or by the reincarnation of Karl Marx himself; it needs to be either endorsed by the party as a whole, or else rebranded to eliminate any confusion with an official mouthpiece of ours.  If NERB really is operating the account, then the resolution to this problem is perfectly clear: comply with the outstanding EC resolution to change the branding.  (Of course, the branch could also, if it wishes, seek official endorsement for the account from the EC.  If, and only if, it obtains such an endorsement, then the branding can be switched back.)  I'm at a loss to understand why this has not been done.The membership's confidence in the comrade in question is a much wider question that involves many other incidents and allegations.  As many of these relate to a moderation decision that is currently before the EC, I don't think it's appropriate for me to go into that issue here.

[Tristan Miller]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Just to reiterate, Tristan, I have not responded to any criticism with any form of abuse,

Sure.  I wasn't referring to any action of yours.

Quote:

however I must take up your point of not using "rule lawyerism"

Perhaps that wasn't the most appropriate term to use.  I was referring to the practice of invoking a rule, either selectively or in bad faith (i.e., knowing that it does not apply), in order to attempt to punish someone for having raised criticism in good faith.

[Tristan Miller]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Tristan, with respect, the report fromt he IC to the EC that I quoted reads as follows:"whether or not that account is being operated with the consent or NERB as a whole we urge the EC to take urgent action to enforce Rule 11"Just to clarify the report doesn't request the EC to reiterate it's decision to ask the operator to "rebrand" does it? It asks the EC to enforce rule 11 or go to Twitter to have the account closed down.

No, the report only asks the EC to enforce Rule 11.  How the EC decides to do this is unspecified.  This could be anything from officially endorsing the account to reiterating the request to rebrand the account to attempting to seize control of it.

Quote:

However given the information above, would I be correct in saying that if the branch request the operator to "rebrand" the account as the twitter feed of the NERB of The SPGB a companion Party of the World Socialist Movement and the operator complies with this request, the argument over this twitter account is resolved and the IC will be happy to recommend to the EC that any atttempts to close the account should stop?

I think it's a mischaracterization to say that there is an argument about the account and that there are ongoing attempts to close it.  The IC was alerted to a Twitter account of unknown provenance and informed the EC about it.  A Party member later informed the IC that he was operating it on behalf of NERB.  We still haven't been able to verify this – as I mentioned before, despite the EC's request, the account itself doesn't claim to be operated by NERB, and we haven't found any indication in the branch minutes that the account was set up at NERB's direction.  (If you can point us to the resolution in question, please do!)I can't speak for the other members of the IC, but if the account can be shown to be operated by or at the direction of NERB, and the account is rebranded to eliminate any possibility of confusion with an official account of the WSM/SPGB as a whole (or it actually gets endorsed by the EC as representing the SPGB as a whole), then for me that would largely resolve the issue.  The only remaining point is the fact that some of the material posted by the account doesn't accurately reflect the Party's politics, or seems offensive or delusional.  I don't think this is necessarily grounds for seeking to have the account shut down, but I do think that the Branch needs to establish some procedure for reviewing concerns raised in good faith by other comrades and members of the public.  Responding to comradely criticism with abusive insults and rules-lawyering is probably not the best course of action.

[Tristan Miller]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Without trying to go all Paxman on you, you stated that "My comment stands. There was never any objection to the 'branch' having a designated Twitter feed." Yet the report by the IC to the EC shows that the IC clearly objected to the branch's twitter feed. So your original statement of there never having been an objction cannot be correct, as I have quoted from the report raising the objection.

Tim, with respect, I think you are missing the operative word "designated". Where and how is the Twitter account in question designated as that of NERB?  Currently it brands itself as the "World Socialist Movement" and uses the SPGB logo.  Neither the title banner nor description makes any mention of NERB.In light of this, the EC (not the IC) unanimously requested that the account's operator "specify that the account is not officially endorsed by the party".  The account's operator must be aware of this request, because he sent the IC an e-mail confirming this.  I presume the other NERB members must also be aware of this request, because it is in the EC minutes, and all branches are expected to review the EC minutes at their business meetings.  So why does the account continue to present itself as that of the WSM or SPGB as a whole?  If NERB really has authorised this account, then it can very easily resolve the main concern of the EC (and the IC) by simply following the EC's request concerning the branding of the account.

[Tristan Miller]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Need any accompanying submission require to have a critical commentary alongside? Could not the content of one particular article be worthy of our full endorsement and the only qualification required being that on other matters, there may well be differences of opinion which need not be gone into in that current issue of the SS, all easily explained in a brief introductory paragraph or two.

I'd actually consider what you describe to be a critical commentary.  A critical commentary need not comprehensively address every point made by the original article, particularly if there's little or nothing in it we disagree with.

[Tristan Miller]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I recall we published a Chomsky article (although he was very unlikely to be aware of the fact) on intellectual ownership with an accompanying one that complemented it by ourselves. 

You must be thinking of "Intellectual property: A further restriction on personal freedom" which appeared in the January 2006 issue.  I can assure you that Chomsky was well aware in advance that his article was to appear in the Standard.  I was the one who solicited his contribution (which, while based on a speech he made, had not been previously published), and I wrote the commentary/rebuttal that accompanied it.  Everything was cleared in advance with the editorial committee.  From the outset it was agreed that we would not simply be giving Chomsky a platform to expound his own views.  Rather, we would use this opportunity to compare our views with his, highlighting for readers the similarities and, more importantly, the differences.  Chomsky himself was informed about and agreed to this setup.Personally I wouldn't be in favour of publishing articles by, or interviews with, non-members unless they were accompanied by a critical commentary from us.  But I'm very much in favour of doing so when we can provide such a commentary.  It's similar to how we've always operated at indoor and outdoor meetings, and the name recognition these contributors bring can help draw readers to our publications.

[Author]

Posts