![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cosmolinguistWhat's your name, where are you from, and which committee(s) are you standing for?
Joe Otten, Sheffield, Federal Conference Committee
Are you standing for the first time or restanding? If first time what new thing do you bring that nobody else could; if restanding, what about your record are you most proud of that you think should make us vote you back in?
I was a runner up last time and came in a sub, part way through the meeting cycle for the last conference.
I have already taken steps to share the secrets of how to get your motions picked and how to get called to speak.
Are you standing for any other committees, if so which ones; and if elected to more than one how do you plan to divide your time?
Just the one.
Are you an active member of any SAOs, and if so which ones?
Liberal Democrats for Electoral Reform, Liberal Reform
(they're probably not actually SAOs)
I go to SLF conferences for the debate.
If someone asked you on the doorstep, the hustings or on TV to sum up in one or two sentences what the Lib Dems, uniquely, stand for – and then why anyone should vote for us – what are your answers?
We are uniquely optimistic, believe in people, and seek rational humane solutions to problems, where all the other parties will seek scapegoats. This is the same dirty trick whether they blame the rich, the poor, the English, the French, teachers, bankers, single parents, Jews, Muslims, Catholics or atheists.
What is your view on diversity quotas for committees? Should they be extended to cover more than just gender, scrapped totally, kept as is or something else?
Gender quotas are not making any difference at the moment - we are electing over 40% women and men to federal committees already. So I have no strong opinion either way.
Even with equal numbers on a committee, an inclusive culture is not guaranteed, and it is worth investing in training for all committee members (so that those who need it get it without an excuse for stropping about it.)
The last conference already introduced 10% quotas for disabled people, underrepresented ethnic backgrounds, and underrepresented sexualities and gender identities.
We need to consider social class and intersection too, but this is really very difficult.
Secrecy rules prevent the party knowing what committees are doing. What will you do to communicate with members; and in what circumstances is confidentiality justified?
Having been to FCC meetings I have seen very little that needs to be confidential. Openness has improved lately with publication of the main decisions and reasons for them, but we still don't know who votes for or against what which is the main thing we should be accountable for.
There are many votes and it would be a lot of work to record them all but I don't see why meetings can't be open to observers, recorded or webcast for members of the party.
How would you make Conference more accessible for people who currently cannot attend?
The whole process - not just the plenary debates - need to be opened up to online participation. The plenary needs to be seen as the culmination of a much broader debate including in local parties and online, not an isolated event.
What do you think needs to be done to improve the process of selecting the agendas for Conference?
We need an online collaboration platform - perhaps like the various Pirate Parties use - so that people can get together and produce better motions.
We need to find an alternative to rejecting important business as "too difficult". If it is too difficult for an hour's debate, maybe it needs some other process first.
The list of all candidates who have answered can be found here.
Joe Otten, Sheffield, Federal Conference Committee
Are you standing for the first time or restanding? If first time what new thing do you bring that nobody else could; if restanding, what about your record are you most proud of that you think should make us vote you back in?
I was a runner up last time and came in a sub, part way through the meeting cycle for the last conference.
I have already taken steps to share the secrets of how to get your motions picked and how to get called to speak.
Are you standing for any other committees, if so which ones; and if elected to more than one how do you plan to divide your time?
Just the one.
Are you an active member of any SAOs, and if so which ones?
Liberal Democrats for Electoral Reform, Liberal Reform
(they're probably not actually SAOs)
I go to SLF conferences for the debate.
If someone asked you on the doorstep, the hustings or on TV to sum up in one or two sentences what the Lib Dems, uniquely, stand for – and then why anyone should vote for us – what are your answers?
We are uniquely optimistic, believe in people, and seek rational humane solutions to problems, where all the other parties will seek scapegoats. This is the same dirty trick whether they blame the rich, the poor, the English, the French, teachers, bankers, single parents, Jews, Muslims, Catholics or atheists.
What is your view on diversity quotas for committees? Should they be extended to cover more than just gender, scrapped totally, kept as is or something else?
Gender quotas are not making any difference at the moment - we are electing over 40% women and men to federal committees already. So I have no strong opinion either way.
Even with equal numbers on a committee, an inclusive culture is not guaranteed, and it is worth investing in training for all committee members (so that those who need it get it without an excuse for stropping about it.)
The last conference already introduced 10% quotas for disabled people, underrepresented ethnic backgrounds, and underrepresented sexualities and gender identities.
We need to consider social class and intersection too, but this is really very difficult.
Secrecy rules prevent the party knowing what committees are doing. What will you do to communicate with members; and in what circumstances is confidentiality justified?
Having been to FCC meetings I have seen very little that needs to be confidential. Openness has improved lately with publication of the main decisions and reasons for them, but we still don't know who votes for or against what which is the main thing we should be accountable for.
There are many votes and it would be a lot of work to record them all but I don't see why meetings can't be open to observers, recorded or webcast for members of the party.
How would you make Conference more accessible for people who currently cannot attend?
The whole process - not just the plenary debates - need to be opened up to online participation. The plenary needs to be seen as the culmination of a much broader debate including in local parties and online, not an isolated event.
What do you think needs to be done to improve the process of selecting the agendas for Conference?
We need an online collaboration platform - perhaps like the various Pirate Parties use - so that people can get together and produce better motions.
We need to find an alternative to rejecting important business as "too difficult". If it is too difficult for an hour's debate, maybe it needs some other process first.
The list of all candidates who have answered can be found here.