Hi @Mab and @Emerodh, I will answer to some of the points raised.
The idea for our list was to have known pirate-friendly politicians and personalities that could give us an advantage. However, this uncertainty means that politicians who have the possibility to run for other lists who are guaranteed to be present on the ballots will choose that possibility, or delay their response keeping us as a “backup option”.
The alternative is of course to run with a list mostly composed by Pirates, and people who can take the challenge of running in an election where we could have to fight heavily just to be able to be present on the ballots. In this case we would be determined to challenge the upcoming signature requirements through the judicial system.
To do this though, as you remembered in your bullet point, it’s fundamental to have PP-IT’s input too.
I have no idea why PP-IT seems unaware of the decision taken at the 14th CM, as you wrote, because an initial contact regarding this topic was made by @solibo, who then wrote the following to Aldo Pazzaglia and me (I have Alessandro’s permission to post it) on February 14th:
I followed up on February 22nd:
I received an answer from Aldo on February 27th. I am not sure I can report it word by word, since I don’t have Aldo’s permission to share it, but basically in the first part he acknowledged the threat posed by the amendment I cited, and in the second he cited two “debts” that according to him Alessandro and I have towards PP-IT, asking us to settle it before proceeding to manage the emergency.
Please note that I already contested my “debt” through a lawyer in march 2021, as I reminded him in my follow-up, and I think @solibo contested his.
After our Assembly, on March 14th, I sent the following to Aldo:
As you can see, @Emerodh’s suggestion is exactly what we had in mind, but we lack input from PP-IT to be able to proceed with this plan.