How many new board members

Considering the motion to increase the board size, the German party proposed 2 new members. Israel proposed 4 new members. I would like even more board members, or perhaps to have a Council of Elders where we could put board members who are very busy and have less time to volunteer with the board. I would also like to have a council of interns/young pirates, who would spend more time volunteering on specific activism and a group of mentors who would tutor them and provide supervision.


It will be reasonable if at least one of those new members of the Board (if not all of them) will be from the Party that has achieved an obvious electoral success.
I mean Czech Pirate Party.
People who are effective in their own country are more likely to be effective on international level too.

I do not agree with this proposal. A good candidate is someone with competences that can help the PPI to grow and that is really available.

International and national personal investment are quite different. So I do not think in this idea to have “booked seats” in the Board for some countries.
Actually the board is working really well with people from pirate parties haven’t achieved electoral success.

Really well or not quite well - the discussion on this matter would have sense if we agree - what goals do we set, and then look - what have we achieved.
On my opinion, one of our goals should be electoral success of Pirate Parties.
The success of any Pirate Party contributes to increasing authority of the whole Pirate Movement.

I think we lost site of the question, which is how many board members do we need to employ (as volunteers). I think the more the merrier. Also, regarding electoral success, I am more than happy to have successful representatives. I also want to remind everyone who runs that it involves a significant amount of volunteer work. We are most concerned that people who participate will actively volunteer and not simply use the position to promote their status. This is philanthropy, and the electoral nature of accepting volunteers is an unfortunate path dependence of our exclusive concepts of members and seniority. I really look forward to finding numerous new volunteers, and I hope we can provide them with titles that will satisfy their involvement.


I think we need to define what are the needs, and what are the Board obligations.

Actually some tasks are not fully cared because of a lack of time :

  • The training part (totally inexistent)
  • The policy part (forget by everyone including the member)
  • The member management (it’s took a lot of time to manage the different contacts and this have for consequences to lost contact with some parties, in particular the small ones)
  • The NGO part (really well handle by @keithg but it’s to much work to be a secondary task of the Secretary)

Moreover, some tasks need to be clearly handle by the board like the IT part. Actually Bastian is in charge of the IT but he is not a member of the board. The goal to have a member of the board in charge of IT is to allow a better communication and implementation of better tools according to the needs voiced by the GA and th Board.

We can add other tasks like event management, or communication management…

Actually we have 3 members of the board without precise missions. If we assign them a task this lefts 4 tasks to fill.

So, I think that 3 more members is enough because some tasks are not big (training can be joint with members managements / communication can be handle by the VP if he/she is the spokeperson).

The benefits of defining the tasks for the boards members is to allow people to candidate more precisely according to their skills.
This can be acted in the Board rules of procedures but the GA can define with the actual board what are the needs and what profile is expected.

(I hope I’m clear…)