GM 2010-12-07 transcript
From Pirate Party of Canada
The following is RAW. Things will be edited a little tomorrow to clean things up. This will include votes, system information, and formatting for visibility. Thank-you for your patience. - Shawn Gray, OCT (Federal Clerk)
[20:05] *** -scshunt@#canada- Hey folks, welcome to the meeting! [20:05] *** -scshunt@#canada- Because this meeting is likely to be big and long, we're limiting discussion to PPCA members only [20:05] <@MikkelPaulson> if you don't have voice, you're not authenticated: https://meetings.pirateparty.ca/login.php [20:06] <@scshunt> that [20:06] <+BrantfordPaul> thank you for the information [20:06] <+SteveHenderson> voiceget [20:06] <~Nuitari> If you are missing your PIN, please PM me your email address or member id [20:06] <+securr> Let's get this show on the road. :) [20:06] <+voronaam> And once more: there is another public room to discuss: #wikileaks [20:06] *** -scshunt@#canada- We have a few motions today, as described at https://www.pirateparty.ca/forum/index.php?topic=589.msg3601#new [20:07] <+TravisMcCrea> MikkelPaulson, you should put that in that in the title (that the channel is +m) [20:07] <@scshunt> TravisMcCrea: it is [20:07] <+DataPacRat> Then one thing I think is worth considering... is, instead of merely mirroring the existing Wikileaks leaks, the creation of a non-Wikileaks whistleblowing group by PPoC. "Let a million Wikileaks bloom", and all. [20:07] <+MikkelPaulson> TravisMcCrea: every person who joins get a PM telling them that they need to authenticate [20:08] <+Joshua> Leave that to the end Data, we have an agenda [20:08] *** -scshunt@#canada- Because of the large number of people and the potential for frustration, we will be doing one-at-a-time debate [20:08] <+DataPacRat> My apologies. [20:08] <+securr> DataPacRat: I think that kind of discussion should be separate from the Wikileaks discussion. As that scenario would be enormously complicated. [20:09] <+DanteX> agreed [20:09] <+TravisMcCrea> We have an agenda for this sub-meeting? Link? [20:09] <+SteveHenderson> I agree that DataPacRat's suggestion should be discussed at a later time though [20:09] <@scshunt> TravisMcCrea: Yes, I just linked it [20:09] <+khoover> https://www.pirateparty.ca/forum /index.php?topic=589.msg3512#msg3512 [20:09] <+MikkelPaulson> I move that the following agenda be adopted: https://www.pirateparty.ca/forum/index.php?topic=589.0 [20:09] <@scshunt> • Mikkel Paulson to move that the Pirate Party support in principle the actions of WikiLeaks, maintaining the reservation that personal information should not be needlessly compromised by leaked information [20:09] <@scshunt> • Travis McCrea to move that the Pirate Party join in protest in support of Wikileaks and Government Transparency on January 15th along side PPAU and other pirate parties [20:09] <@scshunt> • Joshua Doucet to move to host a mirror for WikiLeaks [20:09] <@scshunt> Is there a second for Mikkel's motion to approve this agenda? [20:10] <+Zblewski> I second. [20:10] <@scshunt> Okay [20:10] <@scshunt> Any objections? [20:10] <+BrantfordPaul> no objections here [20:10] <+TheBrightestNeon> no objections. [20:10] <@scshunt> Okay, the agenda is approved. [20:10] <@scshunt> MikkelPaulson, you are scheduled to mve the first motion. [20:11] <+MikkelPaulson> very well [20:11] <+MikkelPaulson> I move that the Pirate Party support in principle the actions of WikiLeaks, maintaining the reservation that personal information should not be needlessly compromised by leaked information [20:11] <+XauriEL> second [20:11] <@scshunt> Okay [20:11] <@scshunt> A few notes before we start debate [20:11] <@scshunt> We will be going one at a time [20:12] <@scshunt> Wasting time will not be permitted [20:12] <@scshunt> nor will personal attacks of any time [20:12] <@scshunt> please keep your debate reasonable [20:12] <@scshunt> You may speak twice total, to a maximum of 10 minutes [20:13] <@scshunt> I will try leaving the channel unmoderated at first [20:13] <@scshunt> but if people are constantly interrupting, etc. I will have to moderate [20:13] <@scshunt> MikkelPaulson has the first speech [20:13] <@scshunt> If you wish to speak, please send me a PM indicating this, I will try to generate a list of people scheduled to speak [20:14] <+MikkelPaulson> thanks scshunt [20:14] <+MikkelPaulson> you're all aware of the situation regarding WikiLeaks, no doubt [20:14] <+MikkelPaulson> a number of Pirate Parties around the world have come out in support [20:15] <+MikkelPaulson> with several even hosting mirrors [20:15] <+MikkelPaulson> however, we have the responsibility to ensure that our core values are not violated when responding to this issue [20:15] <+MikkelPaulson> WikiLeaks certainly supports open government, which is an important part of our platform [20:16] <+MikkelPaulson> however, they have also leaked significant amounts of personal information about private individuals, including the membership list for the BNP, a controversial registered political party in the UK, which resulted in firings, social sanctions, and other non-official measures taken against members [20:17] <+MikkelPaulson> this blatant disregard for the personal information of individuals is in violation of another point in our core values [20:17] <+MikkelPaulson> therefore, any action we take needs to be in consideration of these two conflicting points [20:17] <+MikkelPaulson> the Federal Council has the authority to act unilaterally in this regard [20:17] <+MikkelPaulson> and normally would, in the case of a less-controversial matter [20:17] <+MikkelPaulson> however, this is an extraordinary time [20:18] <+MikkelPaulson> and opinion within the party is as divided as it is outside [20:18] <+MikkelPaulson> therefore, I put it to the membership to decide how we should respond [20:18] <+MikkelPaulson> this first point is a broad one and should be where most of the debate takes place [20:18] <+MikkelPaulson> discussion of subsequent motions should be regarding specific actions to take based on what takes place neow [20:18] <+MikkelPaulson> *now [20:19] <+MikkelPaulson> I myself am divided on the matter, and look forward to your arguments [20:19] <+MikkelPaulson> please keep it civil and respectful [20:19] <+MikkelPaulson> that's all I have to say on the matter [20:19] <+JRivero> Thanks Mikkel [20:19] *** -scshunt@#canada- A quick note - If you are in the speaking queue, it would be appreciated if you can prepare your speech for copy-paste into your client to speed things along. [20:19] <@scshunt> Thanks Mikkel [20:19] <@scshunt> voronaam is first in the queue. [20:19] <@scshunt> voronaam? [20:19] <+voronaam> I think we should remove 'needlessly' from the statement- who will determine this matter? Personal information just should not be compromised. [20:20] <+voronaam> That is only small comment and subject I wanted to point out. [20:20] <@scshunt> Do you wish to move an amendment? [20:20] <+voronaam> Yes. [20:20] <@scshunt> If you do, we will debate and then vote on the amendment, and resume debate on the main issue [20:20] <+voronaam> Fine with me. Thank you. [20:20] <@scshunt> Does anyone second it? [20:21] <@rintaran> I'll second [20:21] <+TheBrightestNeon> second [20:21] <+JRivero> I do [20:21] <@scshunt> Okay [20:21] <@scshunt> voronaam has moved that the motion be amended by striking the work 'needlessly' [20:21] <+DanteX> second [20:21] <@scshunt> I will start up a separate reply queue [20:21] <+MikkelPaulson> only one second is needed [20:21] <@scshunt> voronaam has the right of first speech; do you wish to speak? [20:22] <+voronaam> No, thank you. That's all I have to say. [20:22] <@scshunt> Ok [20:22] <@scshunt> Also, I should note that at this point debate is limited to the amendment only [20:22] <@scshunt> MikkelPaulson is first [20:22] <+MikkelPaulson> thanks [20:22] <+MikkelPaulson> "needlessly" was included in the original motion to allow for the conflict between private and public information [20:23] <+MikkelPaulson> personal affiliation of public figures with persons or organizations that could compromise their position is arguably personal information [20:23] <+MikkelPaulson> yet this information also serves a public good, namely to identify potential biases and potentially to root out corruption in the system [20:24] <+MikkelPaulson> therefore, I do believe that the disclosure of personal information may be warranted in some isolated cases [20:24] <+MikkelPaulson> however, in the vast majority of cases, it's unwarranted and serves only for grandstanding [20:24] <+MikkelPaulson> thanks [20:24] <@scshunt> Thanks [20:24] <@scshunt> Next up is cshen [20:24] <+cshen> pass [20:24] <@scshunt> Okay then [20:24] <@scshunt> Chaoticfist? [20:25] <+Zblewski> Chaoticfist, your turn [20:25] <+khoover> he's muted [20:25] <@scshunt> He seems to be having authentication issues [20:26] <+MikkelPaulson> if you want to speak and are not voiced, you must authenticate at https://meetings.pirateparty.ca/login.php [20:26] <@scshunt> We'll work on Chaoticfist's authentication [20:26] <@scshunt> in the meanwhile, securr is next [20:26] <+MikkelPaulson> scshunt: shall we move to the next speaker until Chaoticfist is able to sort things out? [20:26] <+securr> Thanks, scshunt [20:27] <+securr> First of all, I agree with Mikkel. Of course respect to private information is something the Pirate Party does, and should support. [20:27] <+JRivero> how can I join the speaker's queue? [20:27] <@scshunt> JRivero: PM me (I've added you for now) [20:27] <+JRivero> thanks [20:28] <+securr> However, by striking the word needless, we eliminate our ability to form a more nuanced case by case response to individual leaks [20:28] <+securr> There are instances where it might be necessary for Wikileaks to reveal this information, and we shouldn't box ourselves into a single response. The Pirate Party needs the ability to judge individual leaks and make a [20:29] <+securr> determination with Wikileaks' approach was reasonable [20:29] <+securr> Only in that way, can we effectively decide to support or condemn the actions of the group [20:30] <+securr> Not including the word needlessly creates a rule that is too black and white to be effective. [20:30] <+securr> Thank you. [20:30] <@scshunt> Okay; next up is frazzydee, followed by JamesOBrien [20:30] <+frazzydee> I respectfully disagree with voronaam, and I somewhat echo scurr's sentiments. Not only is personal information a potentially broad term, but whether disclosure is appropriate depends on the facts. For example, a prominent politician lying about their residency or birthplace may be something the public has an interest in knowing. [20:30] <+JamesOBrien> I know that Pirate Party of Canada supports an open government, but to what extent? Have any of the wikileaks that have occurred so far cross the line of a 'too open' government? Does wikileaks have any guidelines to what it will and won't release in case we don't agree with any future releases? [20:30] <+frazzydee> As Mikkel mentioned, it could also be used to root out corruption. Again, depends on the facts. Wikileaks' publication of the BNP membership list exposed police officers engaging in prohibited activities (British police officers are not allowed to join the BNP) [20:30] <+frazzydee> Striking the word "needlessly" is, in my opinion, taking too hard a line, and such a rigid approach is unnecessary. [20:31] <+JamesOBrien> oops. :-( [20:31] <+frazzydee> </comment> [20:31] <@scshunt> JamesOBrien: Oh, sorry [20:32] <@scshunt> frazzydee's done; do you have anything else to say? [20:32] <+JamesOBrien> Nope. </comment too> [20:32] <+sidek> I'm sorry, but do have any rules of discussion for tonight? It looks like we might have a speak-in-turn rule... is that the case ? My internet was spotty till a minute ago. [20:32] <+sidek> do we, sorry [20:32] <+Zblewski> Yrd. [20:32] <+Zblewski> *Yes [20:32] <@scshunt> sidek: Yes, PM me to get in the queue [20:33] <@scshunt> Next up is mib_25rm2l [20:33] <+mib_25rm2l> I agree with frazzydee [20:33] <+mib_25rm2l> i think the publication of the BNP membership list was a good thing [20:33] <+mib_25rm2l> because they are douche bags [20:34] <+mib_25rm2l> and I don't think we should limit ourselves to ideals [20:34] <+Mykola> please keep this civil >.< [20:34] <+mib_25rm2l> ideals are good starting places [20:34] <+mib_25rm2l> but the real world is a lot messier [20:34] <+mib_25rm2l> done [20:34] <@scshunt> Okay, JRivero [20:34] <+JRivero> Personal info's protection is paramount, however as Mikkel stated, some organizations and people need to be uncovered, which would violate our principles but we also need to be flexible, and democratic. securr put it bettert than I did anyway. I second him. [20:35] <+JRivero> In a side note, in the specific case of the BNP, they regularlyy post personal information of anti-racism campaingners, which has led to crimes commited against them [20:35] <+JRivero> so we must support the leaks in a case by case basis. [20:35] <+JRivero> that is all, Thank you. [20:35] <@scshunt> voronaam is next [20:35] <+voronaam> I believe there is always a way to release documents of public interest without compromising personal information. Use of nicknames, codenames or removing parts of document from publication, for example. Wikileaks does not dedicate enough effort to editing documents prior to publication. Damaging not only its own image, but ideas of Open Government too. [20:36] <+voronaam> </comment> [20:36] <+MikkelPaulson> if your nick is mib_something or PJIRCsomething, please type /nick somethingmorememorable [20:37] <@scshunt> Okay, next is iJeff [20:37] <+iJeff> Personal information and privacy are important and should be acknowledged by the Pirate Party of Canada. As a political institution founded on the rights to freedom and privacy, the publication of personal information should be condemned unless said information is pertinent to the exposed documentation and without which, the revelation would lack legitimacy or potency. [20:37] <+iJeff> I in turn would motion to address the vague term of "needlessly" with the following: Support in principle the actions of WikiLeaks, maintaining the reservation that personal information should not be compromised by leaked information unless pertinent to the relevancy of the released documentation. [20:38] <+iJeff> This would both address the nature of adopting "needlessly" which breed ambiguity in the meaning of the term, and allow for a true case-by-case interpretation and reading of the information leaked. [20:39] <+iJeff> If the information is pertinent, and required for the leaked documents to possess power; it is fair-game and realistic to include. [20:39] <+iJeff> That is all. [20:39] <+XauriEL> point of order [20:39] <@scshunt> XauriEL: yes? [20:39] <+XauriEL> is iJeff introducing a new amendment [20:39] <+cshen> i believe so [20:40] <@scshunt> ah, sorry, I've been a little distracted [20:40] <@scshunt> iJeff: At this point, only amendments to the amendment would be permitted; if you want to add a separate amendment, you'll have to wait [20:40] <+iJeff> In essence, I mean to defeat the amendment but motion that better wording is required. [20:40] <+Joshua> second [20:41] <@scshunt> We're still debating the amendment [20:41] <+cshen> point of order: i agree, this amendment should wait till we're done with the current one [20:41] <+voronaam> It is very close to the initial request. Just not to strike but to replace with the explanation. [20:41] <+cshen> nested amendments get out of hand very quickly [20:41] <@scshunt> cshen: They are limited at two [20:41] <@scshunt> however, I do not believe it would make sense to replace the word "needlessly" with "Support in principle the actions of WikiLeaks, maintaining the reservation that personal information should not be compromised by leaked information unless pertinent to the relevancy of the released documentation. [20:42] <@scshunt> " [20:42] <+cshen> shall we continue with the original amendment? [20:42] <@scshunt> so I'll let cshen take his turn [20:42] <+iJeff> I would defend that it is, in essence, an elaboration on the use of "needlessly" [20:42] <@scshunt> actually, it looks like Chaoticfist is fixed [20:42] <@scshunt> we'll let him go now if he wants [20:42] <+cshen> It is conceivable that under some circumstances the personal information of an individual is not deserving of protection. For example, known dictators or perpetrators of genocide. An absolute declaration that all personal information is protected does not reflect the political and legal reality we live in. </comment> [20:43] <@scshunt> Chaoticfist? [20:43] <+Chaoticfist> Yep [20:43] <+Zblewski> Your turn [20:44] <@scshunt> Chaoticfist: Do you have anything to say> [20:44] <@scshunt> ? [20:44] <+Chaoticfist> ya typing something [20:44] <+Chaoticfist> sorry [20:45] <+Chaoticfist> Ok so for the most part i figure releasing personal info should be done as long as it is not the intention of the releaser to cause harm [20:45] <+Chaoticfist> I mean i belive in some cases there is a need to release personal information with regard to the documents [20:46] <+Chaoticfist> If it can be proved that, there is a clear threat to indivuals then the names/info should be withheald and i think we need to make that clear [20:47] <+Chaoticfist> However i fully support Wikileaks. Goverments have shown they can not be trusted to do business ethicly with secrecy [20:47] <+Chaoticfist> I hope i am not getting to off topic or into a rant [20:47] <@scshunt> It would be best just to be addressing the amendment now [20:47] <@scshunt> (I apologize for not enforcing this quite as much as I should have) [20:47] <@scshunt> Chaoticfist: do you wish to speak further? [20:47] <+Chaoticfist> no let soemone else go [20:47] <+Chaoticfist> my bad [20:47] <@scshunt> Okay [20:48] <@scshunt> As a note, there are currently four more speakers on the list; SteveHenderson is next [20:48] <+SteveHenderson> It seems to me that open government can result in better preservation of individual privacy. Wikileaks is an anomaly. The primary culprits behind violating individual privacy are in fact corporate and government entities. I believe that with a transparent government, people will be better informed of their rights and how corporations and governments abuse these rights. An educated population is needed in a democratic society. As far [20:49] <+MikkelPaulson> SteveHenderson: is this on the amendment? [20:49] <+SteveHenderson> However, we should all keep in mind that in the digital age, privacy is entirely relevant to how much someone wants your information. In my mind Wikileaks represents the anarchistic nature of the Internet. I would like to suggest an ammendment, detailing that PPC recognises that the spread of information is impossible to control given the role that technology plays in facilitating communication. [20:49] <@scshunt> SteveHenderson: Please comment only to the amendment at this point [20:50] <+SteveHenderson> Oh, my mistake. [20:50] <+SteveHenderson> That is all. [20:50] *** -scshunt@#canada- A quick point of clarification: Each person may speak twice to each issue, so speaking to the amendment does not exhaust your right to speak to the main motion or vice versa [20:50] <@scshunt> Okay [20:50] <@scshunt> Mykola is next [20:51] <+Mykola> cheers [20:51] <+Mykola> Striking the word "needlessly" from the motion deprives us of the control we would require in order to ensure that our policies are being upheld. [20:51] <+Mykola> If personal information should never be comprimised by leaked information then we would run the risk of allowing corrupt officials to act without public knowledge. There is a certain enticing air to the idea of having a brightline approach to the entire deal, but we need granular control to protect both the privacy of innocent people as well as to unveil any [20:51] <+Mykola> corrupt government action. [20:51] <+Mykola> iJeff is on to something with perhaps replacing the vague turn "needlessly" with something else, but I would widen his replacement by stating: [20:51] <+Mykola> "Support in principle the actions of WikiLeaks, maintaining the reservation that personal information should not be compromised by leaked information unless pertinent to the function of a truly open government." [20:52] <+Mykola> Yet if this would overstep the bounds of the current meeting then I would save this for later. [20:52] <+Mykola> Chaoticfist's argument for releasing personal information as long as it does not intend harm is flawed in that it still may cause unintended and needless damage to people. Not only that, but the intention of several of these leaks IS to harm corrupt government officials and as a pirate party of canada member I don't believe that there is a problem with [20:52] <+Mykola> opening the public's eyes to corruption [20:52] <+Mykola> . [20:52] <+Mykola> In summary, I would vote to keep the word "needlessly" in the statement for now until a version which better describes our exact intent can be written. [20:52] <+Mykola> that is all I have to say. thank you! [20:52] <@scshunt> Okay, a quick restatement of the questions [20:52] <@scshunt> The main motion is that the Pirate Party support in principle the actions of WikiLeaks, maintaining the reservation that personal information should not be needlessly compromised by leaked information [20:52] <@scshunt> An amendment has been moved to strike the word needlessly [20:53] <@scshunt> XauriEL is next, speaking to the amendment [20:53] <+XauriEL> just a few points I'd like to bring up [20:53] <+XauriEL> it has been mentioned that the BNP also release personal information [20:54] <+XauriEL> this is a tu-quoque fallacy [20:54] <+XauriEL> just because the BNP does it is not good reason that WikiLeaks also should [20:54] <+XauriEL> also on the matter of WikiLeaks potentially editing documents before release to preserve personal info [20:55] <+XauriEL> I was under the impression that WikiLeaks documents were released largely unedited [20:55] <@scshunt> Is this related to the amendment? [20:55] <+XauriEL> It's related to discussion that has occurred regarding the amendment [20:55] <+XauriEL> Am i being too broad in focus right now? [20:56] <@scshunt> I think so [20:56] <+XauriEL> Fair enough then, I've said my piece\ [20:56] <@scshunt> do you have anything specific to say in support or opposition of the amendment? [20:56] <+XauriEL> No, i was just meaning to clarify comments of others [20:56] <@scshunt> ok, do you mind if we move on, then? [20:56] <+XauriEL> go ahead [20:56] <@scshunt> Thanks [20:57] <+Zblewski> Excuse me [20:57] <+Zblewski> In the interest of time [20:57] <@scshunt> Yes? [20:57] <+Zblewski> since we can debate o this word for infinite amounts of time [20:57] <+Zblewski> I would like to move to a vote on the amendment [20:57] <+cshen> call the question? [20:57] <+MikkelPaulson> seconded [20:57] <@scshunt> All right [20:57] <+Mykola> sounds good [20:57] <@scshunt> Voting will take place by simple majority [20:58] <@scshunt> a two-thirds vote is required to call an immediate vote on the amendment [21:00] Vote passed 32 aye - 8 nay [21:01] <@scshunt> We will now proceed to vote on the motion to strike the word "needlessly". All in favour say "aye" [21:05] Amendment failed 9 aye - 32 nay [21:05] <@scshunt> iJeff has the floor now to introduce a different amendment [21:05] <+cshen> oops, posted too early, lets repeat: In similar spirit as iJeff and Mykola, I move to replace “needlessly” with “unreasonably”. Also like to call the question right now if alowed. [21:05] <@scshunt> Please, order [21:05] <+iJeff> To provide a more comprehensive stance for the PPCA, I motion that: [21:05] <+iJeff> the Pirate Party support in principle the actions of WikiLeaks, maintaining the reservation that personal information should not be compromised by the leaked content unless necessary to uphold the integrity of the publication. [21:05] <+iJeff> This amendment would elaborate more than the term "needlessly" provides. This assesses the problem in the use of "needlessly" that begs the question of "needed for what?" and "by which standards of necessity?" [21:05] <@scshunt> iJeff: please wait until we have a second to debate it [21:06] <+thaverkort> second [21:06] <@scshunt> Okay [21:06] <@scshunt> iJeff has moved that the word "needlessly" be struck and "unless necessary to uphold the integrity of the publication" be appended [21:07] <@scshunt> iJeff, you can now make a speech [21:07] <+Axon> we should have a good reason for choosing to release personal info and there needs to be a set of criteria that would permit that release [21:07] <+iJeff> This amendment would elaborate more than the term "needlessly" provides. This assesses the problem in the use of "needlessly" that begs the question of "needed for what?" and "by which standards of necessity?" [21:07] <@scshunt> Axon: Please wait your turn [21:08] <+Chaoticfist> Just a thought. Maybe the pirate party should consider. Get a team speak server for this as well. Keep votes on this but voice chat would be nice [21:08] *** -scshunt@#canada- please don't speak out of turn, especially on unrelated issues. I don't want to have to manage voice permissions [21:08] <+iJeff> Comprehensively denouncing the use of personal information is too broad of a policy. If the actual identification of an individual is entirely pertinent and necessary to the publication, it should be allowed. This is not to debate whether or not Wikileaks is right on all account, but it is for the PPCA to make official stance with enough room for later interpretation and explanation by the party. [21:08] <+Chaoticfist> Voice chat allows people to better speak and discuss their ideas and describe them. Just an idea [21:08] <+Zblewski> Chaoticfist: Off topic [21:08] <+sidek> Chaoticfist, I have something to say about that - the same thing I had to say when vent was proposed- but please wait till afterwards [21:08] <+Chaoticfist> sorry [21:09] <+iJeff> By adopting this principle, we may case-by-case analyze the necessity of the leaked information and deem whether or not the documents released may be as equivalently useful as if the personal information were redacted. [21:10] <+iJeff> This would give the PPCA room to support Wikileaks while distancing ourselves from any questionable actions it may make in the future. [21:10] <+iJeff> That is all. [21:10] <@scshunt> cshen would like to speak next [21:10] <+cshen> We are debating about a statement here, not government policy. There is no need to hash down exactly what we all agree to be the exceptions that are undeserving of privacy protection. It is sufficient to leave the statement vague without articulating an exact principle by which to judge leaks. [21:10] <+cshen> </comment> [21:10] <@scshunt> Okay, is there any further debate on this amendment? [21:11] <+Zblewski> No further debate. [21:11] <+Jeremy> yes, i have a brief comment [21:11] <@scshunt> Jeremy is next [21:11] <+Jeremy> it just seems to me that "unless necessary to uphold the integrity of the publication" is a confusing elaboration of "needlessly". The latter also allows us to consider leaks on a case-by-case basis [21:12] <+Jeremy> I don't find it necessary [21:12] <+Jeremy> thanks [21:12] <+TheBrightestNeon> I second jeremy [21:12] <@scshunt> Bradc is next [21:13] <+BradC> Thanks [21:13] <+BradC> I am of the understanding that these releases come in batches of thousands or more. Are we considering proofing each one prior to mirroring? Is this practical and achievable? Regardless, I agree with this amendment for added clarity. </comment> [21:13] <@scshunt> Jrivero is next [21:13] <+JRivero> <comment> In accord ith iJeff's motion, I think that as Party, and as humans, we all have the necessity to protect each other, in the most far-reaching sense of the word. Therefore, the "need" to publish certain personal info is justified on these grounds. We need to support Wikileaks on some cases of personal info disclosure, not in all. </comment> [21:14] <@scshunt> Okay, MikkelPaulson has something to say [21:14] <+MikkelPaulson> I'd like to observe to those quibbling over minor details that the Federal Council will be responsible for implementing the direction given us at this meeting, and we do have a certain degree of latitude in how this is to be done [21:14] <+MikkelPaulson> the purpose of this meeting is simply to receive feedback from the membership and help to guide our policy in the future [21:14] <+MikkelPaulson> that's all [21:14] <+MikkelPaulson> oh [21:15] <+MikkelPaulson> one other comment [21:15] <+MikkelPaulson> under normal circumstances, this would fall directly into the jurisdiction of the Federal Council [21:15] <+MikkelPaulson> we did have the authority to act independently on this [21:15] <+MikkelPaulson> I have opted to call the meeting before forming any solid decisions on the matter because I recognize that it's a potentially-divisive issue [21:16] <@scshunt> ok [21:16] <@scshunt> iJeff would like to speak again, I believe? [21:16] <+iJeff> The specificity of "unless necessary to uphold the integrity of the publication" still allows for room for broad interpretation without leaving it open to what seems to be reckless wording. The same freedoms of broad character are permitted while outlining to where we are considering this "need". It is not limiting to elaborate "needlessly" with more descriptive terms, it is merely clarifying. [21:16] <+cshen> move to call the question [21:16] <+MikkelPaulson> seconded [21:16] <@scshunt> out of order [21:16] <@scshunt> iJeff is speaking [21:17] <@scshunt> iJeff: do you have anything else to say? [21:17] <+iJeff> It is just as broad, and just as flexible, but it makes reference to the fact that if the personal information is important in what is being leaked, it may be released. That is the "need" that is meant by "needlessly" except explained in greater detail. The two mean the same in essence. [21:17] <+iJeff> That is all. [21:17] <@scshunt> Okay [21:17] <+cshen> move now [21:17] <@scshunt> No one else has asked to speak [21:17] <+cshen> ok nm [21:17] <@scshunt> so if no one minds, I'll call the vote right now [21:18] <+MikkelPaulson> go for it [21:18] <+Zblewski> I will move it [21:18] <+Zblewski> I move to vote on the amendment. [21:18] <@scshunt> Okay, voting is now on the amendment [21:18] <@scshunt> Zblewski: we're doing that [21:18] <+cshen> sorry, please reiterate the amendment, thanks [21:18] <@scshunt> the motion is that the word "needlessly" be struck and "unless necessary to uphold the integrity of the publication" be appended [21:18] <@scshunt> All in favour, please say "aye". All against, please say "nay" 21:21 Amendment fails 19 aye - 21 nay [21:22] <+Mykola> fair enough... the point is that we retained our level of control over the matter, we can decide on proper semantics later [21:22] <+Joshua> since it did, I'd like to call the question on the original motion [21:22] <@scshunt> SteveHenderson has the floor to move first [21:22] <+Mykola> to strike "needlessly"? [21:22] <+SteveHenderson> Alright, one moment. [21:22] <@scshunt> Mykola: no, that amendment was defeated [21:22] <+MikkelPaulson> no, that failed [21:22] <+SteveHenderson> As I accidentally said out of place before, It seems to me that open government can result in better preservation of individual privacy. Wikileaks is an anomaly. The primary culprits behind violating individual privacy are in fact corporate and government entities. I believe that with a transparent government, people will be better informed of their rights and how corporations and governments abuse these rights. An educated population [21:22] <+khoover> Mykola: the motion to support WL [21:23] <+SteveHenderson> However, we should all keep in mind that in the digital age, privacy is entirely relevant to how much someone wants your information. In my mind Wikileaks represents the anarchistic nature of the Internet. Subsequently, I motion that an ammendment be made detailing "the Pirate Party support in principle the actions of WikiLeaks, maintaining the reservation that personal information should not be needlessly compromised by leaked infor [21:23] <+Mykola> lol these were all amendments to that? [21:23] <+Mykola> holy crap [21:23] <+Chaoticfist> .... [21:23] <@scshunt> SteveHenderson: do you have a motion? [21:23] <+MikkelPaulson> SteveHenderson: you're being cropped off [21:23] <@scshunt> if not, there are others waiting to move [21:23] <+MikkelPaulson> there's a character limit to messages [21:23] <+SteveHenderson> My mistake [21:23] <+Chaoticfist> I say we move to support the original motion and vote [21:23] <+MikkelPaulson> the first paragraph I got as far as "An educated population" [21:23] <+Joshua> hence why i'd like to move to the vote [21:23] <+Zblewski> Chaoticfist: Out of order [21:23] <@scshunt> Order, please [21:23] <@scshunt> SteveHenderson has the floor [21:24] <+Chaoticfist> sorry [21:24] <+SteveHenderson> As I accidentally said out of place before, It seems to me that open government can result in better preservation of individual privacy. Wikileaks is an anomaly. The primary culprits behind violating individual privacy are in fact corporate and government entities. I believe that with a transparent [21:24] <@scshunt> SteveHenderson: Do you have a motion here? [21:24] <+SteveHenderson> government, people will e better informed of their rights and how corporations and governments abuse them. [21:24] <@scshunt> If not, you're out of order [21:24] <+SteveHenderson> Yes, one moment. [21:24] <+SteveHenderson> I motion that an ammendment be made detailing "the Pirate Party support in principle the actions of WikiLeaks, maintaining the reservation that personal information should not be needlessly compromised by leaked information. However, the Pirate [21:24] <+SteveHenderson> Party also recognises that in the digial age information is impossible to control. Thus, some responsibility falls on the individuals in society to ensurie that information leaked contributes to government transparency." [21:24] <@scshunt> Is there a second to this amendment? [21:25] <+SteveHenderson> Minus the typos. [21:25] <+Joshua> I believe we're finished going over the wording [21:25] <@scshunt> I see no second [21:25] <+securr> Agreed [21:25] <+JeffColeman> second [21:25] <+Joshua> darn [21:25] <@scshunt> JeffColeman: Was that a second to SteveHenderson's motion? [21:25] <+Joshua> or me? [21:26] <+JeffColeman> sorry, that was to the motion that information is impossible to control [21:26] <@scshunt> Okay [21:26] <+MikkelPaulson> I move a vote on the amendment [21:26] <@scshunt> hang on, I need to state it [21:26] <+cshen> second [21:26] <@rintaran> Second Mikke;' [21:27] <@scshunt> SteveHenderson has moved that the motion be amended by appending "However, the Pirate Party also recognises that in the digial age information is impossible to control. Thus, some responsibility falls on the individuals in society to ensure that information leaked contributes to government transparency." [21:27] <@scshunt> okay, now is time to do anything [21:28] <+MikkelPaulson> again, I move a vote on the amendment [21:28] <@scshunt> ok [21:28] <@rintaran> I second. [21:28] <+Joshua> second [21:28] <+cshen> second [21:28] <+JeffColeman> seconded [21:28] <@scshunt> Very well [21:28] *** acarne has quit IRC: Client exited [21:28] <+pphresh> seconded [21:28] <@scshunt> All in favor of calling the previous question, the amendment, say "aye". All against, say "nay". 21:30 Vote to vote passes [21:30] <@scshunt> I will now call the question on the amendment that the original motion be amended by appending "However, the Pirate Party also recognises that in the digial age information is impossible to control. Thus, some responsibility falls on the individuals in society to ensurie that information leaked contributes to government transparency." 21:31 Amendment Fails 19 aye - 26 nay [21:32] <@scshunt> The motion is defeated [21:32] <+Joshua> I move to suspend the rules and block future amendments [21:32] <+iJeff> second [21:32] <+BrantfordPaul> second [21:32] <+dzver> second [21:32] <+sidek> second [21:32] <@scshunt> All right [21:33] <@scshunt> All in favour, say "aye". All against, say "nay". This motion requires a two-thirds majority. 21:33 Motion passes 32-3 [21:34] <@scshunt> The ayes clearly have it; no more amendments will be permitted on this motion [21:34] <@rintaran> That looks like a strong mandate. [21:34] <@scshunt> Now we are back to debating the motion that the Pirate Party support in principle the actions of WikiLeaks, maintaining the reservation that personal information should not be needlessly compromised by leaked information [21:35] <+MikkelPaulson> how many speakers do we have left? [21:35] <@scshunt> securr was next in the speaker list [21:35] <+Chaoticfist> its to late but aye anyway [21:35] <@scshunt> There are currently 6 [21:35] <+securr> Thank you scshunt [21:35] <+MikkelPaulson> as mover, I have the right to close, do I not? [21:35] <@scshunt> MikkelPaulson: No. [21:35] <@scshunt> Only the right to open, which you had. [21:35] <+MikkelPaulson> okay, add me to the list then please [21:36] <+securr> I think we are all in agreement on publicly supporting Wikileaks, albeit with particular caveats, so I don't feel the need to address that further. What I would like to add though, is that it is the responsibility of the fourth estate to hold governments accountable. [21:36] <+securr> We have a long history of supporting journalists who reveal government and corporate secrets in order to better inform the public of wrong doing. The issue we face with Wikileaks is not one of content or method, but of medium. We have never had to deal with an entity that is capable of revealing so much, so quickly and one that does not look like the press in [21:36] <+securr> a way that we normally would recognize. However I contend that the members of Wikileaks are journalists. And they have been assisted on multiple occasions by some of the best journalists in the field. [21:36] <+securr> El Monde, The Guardian, The New York Times, the BBC, Der Spiegle, etc. The information is relevent, necessary, and fundamental to the proper functioning of democracy. Stating publicly that we are in support of their [21:36] <+securr> efforts reaffirms our support of the fourth estate and ensures that we are not frightened away from incredibly important work merely by a change in technology. [21:36] <+securr> That is all. Thank you. [21:37] <+JRivero> well said securr [21:37] <+Chaoticfist> ^^ [21:37] <@scshunt> Okay, next is SteveHenderson; after him there are 3 more speakers [21:37] <@scshunt> err, 4 [21:37] <@scshunt> missed MikkelPaulson there [21:37] <+SteveHenderson> I have nothing to say. [21:37] <+Rahmenlos> it's Der Spiegel, but moving along :) [21:37] <@scshunt> Okay [21:37] <@scshunt> Next is cshen [21:37] <+cshen> sec, copy+pasting [21:38] <+cshen> For me, the issue at this point isn't the leaks themselves, but rather the response to the leaks. With many western governments collaborating in a concerted effort to shut down Wikileaks without due process, it is an absolute aberration to the justice that our governments ostensibly champion. [21:38] <+cshen> It is disgusting that we have high level government officials pressuring companies to abandon Wikileaks and some even calling for Assange’s assassination. [21:38] <+cshen> The danger now isn’t the content of the diplomatic cables, it is something much greater, what’s on the line is the freedom of the press and the freedom from unjust interference by the state. [21:38] <+cshen> . For this reason I believe that it is important to take an ideological stand in full support of Wikileaks, notwithstanding understandable reservations about the content of the cables themselves. [21:38] <+cshen> Also 2 articles that I would like to highlight: [21:38] <+cshen> http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/12/wikileaks- editorial/ [21:38] <+cshen> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/wikileaks/dont- shoot-messenger-for-revealing-uncomfortable-truths/story-fn775xjq- 1225967241332 [21:38] <+cshen> thanks </comment> [21:39] <@scshunt> All right; next is Chaoticfist, with 2 following [21:39] <+Chaoticfist> I will let someone else go [21:39] <@scshunt> ok [21:39] <+Chaoticfist> I fully support the last few speakers [21:39] <@scshunt> JasonC is next, there's two following [21:39] <+Chaoticfist> i dont have much to add [21:39] <+JasonC> It is entirely possible to support Wikileaks without compromising our core values. Wikileaks, as an organization, does not aim to violate personal privacy. This is not a state aim of the organization. The fact that the Wikileaks has, on occassion, done so should not conflict with the core values of the pirate party and the stated aim of Wikileaks. [21:40] <+JasonC> Furthermore, we have a responsibility not just to our core value but to our supporters [21:40] <+JasonC> many of who think we should support wikileaks for what they are trying to do [21:40] <+JasonC> that is all [21:41] <+JRivero> good thinking, better said cshen, JasonC [21:41] <@scshunt> Okay, next is MikkelPaulson, followed by realyst [21:41] <+MikkelPaulson> thanks [21:41] <+MikkelPaulson> I'd like to make an observation regarding this motion before we go to a vote [21:41] <+MikkelPaulson> if it is defeated, it will not amount to a condemnation of WikiLeaks [21:41] <+MikkelPaulson> if anyone wishes to go that route, it will have to be moved as a separate motion [21:41] <+MikkelPaulson> it will simply amount to the party declining to become involved [21:41] <+MikkelPaulson> the Federal Council would issue a press release stating that after consideration we're unable to provide full support in principle or in material for WikiLeaks' actions [21:41] <+MikkelPaulson> therefore, I encourage you to vote not on whether or not you support WikiLeaks but on whether or not you see it as beneficial to the Pirate Party that we should do so [21:41] <+MikkelPaulson> as we are fairly late to the game, any support we would offer would be largely symbolic [21:41] <+MikkelPaulson> that's all I have on it [21:41] <@scshunt> Okay [21:41] <@scshunt> realyst? [21:42] <+realyst> Thank you, [21:42] <+realyst> We need not forget that Wikileaks did not leak any information. They are publishing information sent to them. They are deserving of the same protection offered the press, with which few people would disagree. [21:42] <+realyst> That they proactively attempt to minimize damages to innocent or private individuals should reenforce the need to offer our assistance. [21:42] <+realyst> While the major mandate of the Pirate Party in general has been IP reform, the need for reform has often been due to non transparent and misleading statements and policies benefitting certain vested parties at the expense of society as a whole. [21:42] <+realyst> The fight against additional restrictions in this regard has mainly been due to leaks; the ACTA agreement being a major one. [21:42] <+realyst> And it should be noted the original leaks letting the public know these ACTA consultations were happening in the first place were first published by Wikileaks itself. [21:42] <+realyst> Due to their cooperation with credible news agencies and their offers to the affected parties to assist in the clearing of possible dangerous information(to which they have yet to do so besides the "Don't post any of it" stance), [21:42] <+realyst> there is no indication that Wikileaks is doing anything but provide that which is necessary to the integrity of the information. [21:42] <+realyst> Due to the importance and the service Wikileaks has provided in the fight against curruption and IP abuse, [21:43] <+realyst> I believe that the Pirate Party of Canada follow its international brethren in giving them a hand when and if needed. [21:43] <+realyst> </comment> [21:43] <+Joshua> I move to end discussion [21:43] <+khoover> second [21:43] <+JRivero> second [21:43] <+Zblewski> second. [21:43] <+massiveAntenna> second [21:43] <+dzver> second [21:43] <+sidek> second [21:43] <+Joshua> only need 1 :) [21:43] <+Rahmenlos> ninethed [21:43] <+cshen> i don't think we had any more speakers anyways [21:44] <@scshunt> We actually did have a speaker lined up [21:44] <+cshen> ah [21:44] <+MikkelPaulson> I wouldn't mind making one subsequent statement [21:44] <@scshunt> But Joshua has moved to call the previous question. All in favour say "aye", all against say "nay". [21:44] <+MikkelPaulson> but the motion has already been made, unless realyst wants to briefly retract it [21:45] <@scshunt> (that the Pirate Party support in principle the actions of WikiLeaks, maintaining the reservation that personal information should not be needlessly compromised by leaked information) [21:45] <+acarne> Point of Order, if I'm reading the text of the motion correctly, "Pirate Party" should really read "Pirate Party of Canada" [21:45] <+frazzydee> guys, this is the main motion. I can't believe we had so much debate on minutia of wording, but suddenly want to end debate on the main point of discussion... [21:45] <@scshunt> Okay, hang on. [21:46] <@scshunt> frazzydee: you can't debate a motion to end debate. [21:46] <+Joshua> alot of points were made, it was time to call the question [21:46] <@scshunt> acarne: I will address that once the vote is dealt with [21:46] <@rintaran> (24-11) [21:46] <@scshunt> Thanks, rintaran [21:46] <@scshunt> This passes [21:46] <+frazzydee> scshunt: my apologies [21:47] <+iJeff> I believe there is misunderstanding as to what the vote was about [21:47] <+iJeff> <+cshen> this is the vote to vote [21:47] <+iJeff> <@scshunt> frazzydee: the main question [21:47] <+trailblazer11> vote or debate further? [21:47] <@scshunt> hang on [21:47] <+Joshua> ending discussion=vote to vote. it was the vote to vote [21:47] <@scshunt> were people confused by that vote? [21:48] <+iJeff> It was a vote to vote, no? [21:48] <+MikkelPaulson> I suspect so [21:48] <+Joshua> it was [21:48] <+Rahmenlos> I ayed to vote [21:48] <+cshen> earlier ones probably understood, latter ones not sure [21:48] <+Chaoticfist> I figured we were voting to end discussion and move to the main question [21:48] <+Fred> nope, not confused [21:48] <+Zblewski> I thought it was a vote to end discussion >_> [21:48] <+Joshua> knowing what they know now would anyone change their vote? [21:48] <@scshunt> Okay, it seems well-understood [21:48] <+JRivero> the lst one was [21:48] <+TravisMcCrea> scshunt, is it possible that you say what we are voting on in a different colour and bold? [21:48] <@scshunt> Now, for acarne's point of order [21:48] <+Joshua> Chaotic you are right [21:48] <+TravisMcCrea> That way official stuff doesn't get lost within everything else [21:49] <@scshunt> Is there any issue with amending the motion before the vote to add "of Canada" after "Pirate Party"? [21:49] <+Ian> None here. [21:49] <+khoover> nope [21:49] <+Rahmenlos> no issue [21:49] <+Zblewski> No objection [21:49] <+MikkelPaulson> it's unnecessary [21:49] <+JeffColeman> nope [21:49] <+spkd_> None [21:49] <+realyst> No, sir [21:49] <+cshen> i thought we're leaving the details to the federal council [21:49] <@scshunt> MikkelPaulson: Is that an objection? [21:49] <+MikkelPaulson> the motion will simply go to the Federal Council anyway [21:49] <+MikkelPaulson> yes [21:49] <+cshen> surely the statement would be longer than the question we're voting on [21:49] <@scshunt> Okay, there is an objection [21:49] <@scshunt> therefore we will move to the vote [21:49] <+dzver> i hope so too [21:50] *** -scshunt@#canada- The vote is on the motion that the Pirate Party support in principle the actions of WikiLeaks, maintaining the reservation that personal information should not be needlessly compromised by leaked information. [21:50] <+MikkelPaulson> this is to be voted online and by telephone [21:50] <+Joshua> He's correct [21:50] <@scshunt> Zblewski: explain how the voting is done [21:50] <+JasonC> were do we go to vote? [21:50] <+Zblewski> I will now explain [21:51] <+Zblewski> You will vote by entering in one of three things [21:51] <+Zblewski> FOR YES, VOTE "/msg ballotcast Y1", FOR NO, VOTE "/msg ballotcast N1", or TO ABSTAIN, VOTE "/msg ballotcast A1" [21:52] <+Rahmenlos> starting now? [21:52] <+Zblewski> Yes [21:52] <+Zblewski> Any time [21:52] <+realyst> remember to crop the quotes :P [21:52] <+Joshua> Voting via website also works? [21:52] <+Joshua> instead [21:52] <+Fred> Travis : :D [21:52] <@scshunt> You will also be able to vote online and by telephone at some point after the conclusion of the meeting [21:52] <+Zblewski> Joshua [21:52] <+MikkelPaulson> Joshua: telephone and web voting will be available starting tomorrow at 8 EST [21:52] <@scshunt> The site and phone line will not currently work [21:52] <+Rahmenlos> TravisMcCrea: nobody has seen it :) [21:52] <+Joshua> okay I will wait to mull things over [21:52] <+Chaoticfist> Please before having the vote. Make the question in a clear color. Just saying [21:53] <@scshunt> If you vote now, you will still have the opportunity to change the vote later [21:53] <@rintaran> The vote is on the motion that the Pirate Party support in principle the actions of WikiLeaks, maintaining the reservation that personal information should not be needlessly compromised by leaked information. [21:53] <+Joshua> ah k [21:53] <+cshen> do we get confirmation of the vote from ballotcast? [21:53] <+realyst> so I can submit my vote now in advance of tomorrow night? [21:53] <@scshunt> yes [21:53] <@scshunt> (@realyst) [21:53] <+realyst> great, thanks [21:54] <+frazzydee> cshen: I didn't get a confirmation either [21:54] <+Chaoticfist> How do we sumbit it in advace? [21:54] <+TheBrightestNeon> woah.. looked away for a few min, what'd i miss? [21:54] <@rintaran> You would see " *** - to ballotcast-: m1" where m1 = Y1, N1, or A1 [21:54] <@scshunt> rintaran: That's your client [21:54] <@rintaran> Damn, was hoping that was universal. [21:54] <@rintaran> Sorry all. [21:54] <@scshunt> Chaoticfist: /msg ballotcast Y1 or /msg ballotcast N1 or /msg ballotcast A1 [21:55] <+Chaoticfist> maybe i am stupid but what do these equal. I assum Y1 is yes [21:55] <@scshunt> yes [21:55] <+MikkelPaulson> yes/no/abstain [21:55] <@scshunt> Y1 = yes, N1 = no, A1 = abstain [21:55] <+Chaoticfist> thx [21:55] <+cshen> i assume the number is question number [21:55] <+Chaoticfist> and i just type that in here with /msg [21:55] <@scshunt> Okay, let's move on [21:56] <@scshunt> any voting questions should be directed to Zblewski [21:56] <@scshunt> TravisMcCrea is scheduled to move the next motion [21:56] <+TravisMcCrea> scshunt, let me grab the wording [21:57] <+TravisMcCrea> I move that the Pirate Party join in protest in support of Wikileaks and Government Transparency on January 15th along side PPAU and other pirate parties [21:57] <+TravisMcCrea> (That is supposed to be Pirate Party of Canada) [21:57] <+SteveHenderson> second [21:57] <+MattThomson> second [21:57] <+BrantfordPaul> second [21:57] <@scshunt> Okay [21:57] <@scshunt> As before, please send me a private message if you wish to speak to this motion [21:57] <@scshunt> TravisMcCrea, you have the right of first speech [21:58] <+TravisMcCrea> Pirate Party of Australia (PPAU) has been talking to other Pirate Parties in order to organize worldwide protests to protect Wikileaks. There is no single action that we should do, however, my idea was organize a bunch of meetups on the same day but where we pass out materials to support the Pirate Party and support Free Speech. [21:58] <+TravisMcCrea> The Mission Statement has been defined Planning protest action in regards to government transparency with the focus on wikilaks and the widespread calls for assange's assassination, making it clear that assassination calls are not acceptable. [21:58] <+TravisMcCrea> I feel that its important that we send a message that -- for or against wikileaks regardless -- killing journalists is not democratic... and killing anyone should be frowned upon. [21:58] <+TravisMcCrea> The date for this will be on January 15th 2011 [21:59] <+TravisMcCrea> Furthermore I think it would be very important to make a big stand in Calgary, due to the comments made on CBC [21:59] <+TravisMcCrea> >> Done << [21:59] <+Brandon> I must be leaving, can I advance vote on this? [22:00] <+MikkelPaulson> Brandon: you can vote after the fact online and by telephone [22:00] <+MikkelPaulson> instructions will be mailed out after the meeting [22:00] <+Brandon> thanks [22:00] <@scshunt> Does anyone else wish to speak to this? [22:00] <+MikkelPaulson> sure [22:00] <+iJeff> Are there speakers lined up? [22:00] <+sidek> Quick note, sorry if this is out of order : the 15th is a Saturday [22:00] <@scshunt> No, there are currently no speakers queued [22:00] <+MikkelPaulson> one ;) [22:01] <@scshunt> MikkelPaulson: go ahead [22:01] <+MikkelPaulson> okay [22:01] <+MikkelPaulson> regardless of my mixed feelings regarding WikiLeaks [22:01] <+MikkelPaulson> I do feel that calls for assassination are deplorable [22:01] <+MikkelPaulson> however, that's not what the motion says [22:02] <+MikkelPaulson> if we protest, we would be protesting all condemnation of WikiLeaks [22:02] <+MikkelPaulson> no doubt including Assange's situation, whatever that may be come the 15th [22:03] <+MikkelPaulson> regardless, I live in Edmonton, and if this were to go ahead I'm sure we could get a bunch of Edmonton members to head down to Calgary for a big rally there [22:03] <+MikkelPaulson> finally, I'd like to remind people (although they already seem to notice this) that the bulk of the discussion of WikiLeaks has concluded ***transcript has been cleaned to this point. Will return later -- FC*** [22:03] <+MikkelPaulson> from now on, let's keep debate on the specific actions that can be taken, rather than the merits of the organization [22:03] <+MikkelPaulson> thanks [22:04] <@scshunt> Okay; SteveHenderson is next in line. There are 4 more after him. [22:04] <+TravisMcCrea> Point of Clarification: If I may the motion is to protest "along side PPAU" -- by doing it "along side them" it should be implied that we use their mission statement. [22:04] <+MikkelPaulson> which is? [22:04] <+TravisMcCrea> Which was stated in my speech [22:04] <+TravisMcCrea> Planning protest action in regards to government transparency with the focus on wikilaks and the widespread calls for assange's assassination, making it clear that assassination calls are not acceptable. [22:04] <+MikkelPaulson> oh sorry [22:05] *** realyst has quit IRC: Quit: realyst [22:05] <+SteveHenderson> My only statement is that is that if PPC is to join in protest in support of Wikileaks and Government Transparency on January 15th, we have a decently sized base of support within the activist community in Calgary and a demonstration is more than possible. [22:07] <@scshunt> I think this is straying back into debate [22:07] <@scshunt> and it is SteveHenderson's turn to debate [22:07] <+SteveHenderson> I have finished doing so. [22:07] <@scshunt> oh ok [22:07] <+SteveHenderson> 20:06 <+SteveHenderson> My only statement is that is that if PPC is to join in protest in support of Wikileaks and Government Transparency on January 15th, we have a decently sized base of support within the activist community in Calgary and a demonstration is more than possible. [22:08] <@scshunt> By the way, if the motion is unclear, it might be reasonable to amend it (though I know how much we all love amendments now) [22:08] <@scshunt> iJeff is next [22:08] <+iJeff> Thank you, just a moment. [22:09] <+iJeff> Taking the opportunity to promote the PPCA's ideals on this day would certainly be a positive act. We should protest for journalistic freedom alongside the defense of such journalists from death threats. This should be the focus of the support we offer. If we demonstrate as a force too heavily on the basis of WikiLeaks support, we may be there more as WikiLeaks supporters than the PPCA supporting WikiLeaks. I support this move but propose that [22:10] <@scshunt> You got cut off at "propose that" [22:10] *** BrantfordPaul has quit IRC: Quit: BrantfordPaul [22:10] <+iJeff> Hm, can't find the cut off [22:11] <@rintaran> I support this move but propose that [22:11] <@scshunt> you may not see it on your client [22:11] <+cshen> "I support this move but propose that" [22:11] *** tecywiz121 has joined #canada [22:11] *** spkd_ has quit IRC: Quit: Colloquy for iPhone - (Link: http://colloquy.mobi)http://colloquy.mobi [22:11] <+iJeff> I support this move but propose that we place more emphasis on their journalistic drive's relation to our own doctrine toward free speech and journalism. I too agree that elaboration on the motion would be beneficial. The exact reasons for our protest should be outlined, but that may be done by the final decision in part administration. [22:12] <+iJeff> That is all. [22:12] <@scshunt> Okay. Jeremy is next. [22:12] *** Fred has quit IRC: Quit: Fred [22:12] <+Jeremy> my only comment is that someone needs to be sure materials are available for members to use, like pamphlets [22:13] <+MikkelPaulson> they will be [22:13] *** spkd_ has joined #canada [22:13] <+Jeremy> </comment> [22:13] <@scshunt> JasonC? [22:13] <+JasonC> one second [22:14] *** Ian has quit IRC: Quit: Ian [22:14] *** Stenobot sets mode +v spkd_ [22:14] <@scshunt> (there is currently one speaker in the queue after JasonC) [22:14] <+JasonC> I would like to suggest that if we are too have a demonstration whether for wikileaks or against journalist repression, we should accept donation on wikileaks behalf [22:14] <+JasonC> thats all [22:14] <@scshunt> I notice a lot of discussion here on the execution of such a protest [22:14] <+Nuitari> We can't because of the law [22:15] <@scshunt> but very little on the merits of the protest itself, which is the matter at hand [22:15] *** mib_hb7bba has joined #canada [22:15] *** mib_rovhgh has quit IRC: Quit: mib_rovhgh [22:15] <@scshunt> cshen is next [22:15] <+cshen> I would say that a protest in general support of wikileaks is appropriate in light of the extra-judicial efforts at censorship that is currently rampant amongst the western nations. </comment> [22:16] <+TravisMcCrea> Point of clearification: To Nuitari would that cause legal issues [22:16] <@scshunt> All right. [22:16] <@scshunt> Does anyone else have anything to say to the motion [22:16] <+TravisMcCrea> Oh sorry my internet lags a lot [22:16] <@scshunt> (and not to the execution of this protest?) [22:16] *** Stenobot sets mode +v tecywiz121 [22:16] <+Nuitari> We cannot accept donations on behalf of someone else [22:16] <+MikkelPaulson> especially not a foreign organization [22:17] <+Joshua> I move to end disscusion and by doing so call the question [22:17] <+securr> second [22:17] <@scshunt> I don't think such a motion is necessary, it seems that no one wishes to speak [22:17] <+MikkelPaulson> I don't think that's necessary as there are no more speakers [22:17] <+MikkelPaulson> beat me to it :P [22:17] <+Joshua> its basically just calling the question [22:17] <+cshen> let's vote [22:17] *** -scshunt@#canada- The motion is that the Pirate Party join in protest in support of Wikileaks and Government Transparency on January 15th along side PPAU and other pirate parties. [22:17] <+securr> has the code to vote changed scshunt? [22:17] <+Zblewski> This is a private vote. [22:17] <+Zblewski> Yes, it has [22:18] <+sidek> it's Y2 now, no? [22:18] <+sidek> and so on [22:18] <+Zblewski> Y2, N2, A2 [22:18] *** -scshunt@#canada- Zblewski will explain this vote; the procedure is vastly different from the previous one. [22:18] <+Zblewski> Vote whenever ready [22:18] <+MikkelPaulson> actually it's the same as the previous one [22:18] <+Zblewski> You should recieve a manual confirmation from ballotcast [22:18] <+Zblewski> Which is like Santa [22:19] <+Zblewski> because, ballotcast is really me [22:19] <@scshunt> Okay, let's keep things moving [22:19] <+SteveHenderson> lol [22:19] <@scshunt> We have one last issue [22:19] <+cshen> lol :P [22:19] <+TravisMcCrea> Is there a way to confirm that your vote has been cast? [22:19] <+khoover> you get pm'd shortly after [22:19] <+Rahmenlos> I guess I don't believe in you anymore, Zblewski :P [22:19] <+TravisMcCrea> The current system (at least for me) does not give any feedback [22:19] <+MikkelPaulson> no [22:20] <+khoover> by shortly, i mean within the next few minutes [22:20] <+securr> Correction: So for this vote is it Y1 or Y2? [22:20] <+cshen> 2 [22:20] <+cshen> this is question 2 [22:20] <+khoover> Y2, N2, or A2 [22:20] <+securr> Thank you. Mikkel's comment just confused me [22:20] <@scshunt> Joshua: I believe you're up to move the next motion. [22:20] <+MikkelPaulson> sorry [22:20] *** Lonnie has quit IRC: Quit: Leaving [22:21] <+dzver> will be able to verify our votes later online at (Link: http://vote.pirateparty.ca?)http://vote.pirateparty.ca? [22:21] * +garym has waited two minutes and no confirm pm yet [22:21] <+MikkelPaulson> dzver: no, but you'll be able to re-cast them if you want [22:21] <+Joshua> I move that the PPCA host a mirror for Wikileaks as described here (Link: http://213.251.145.96/mass-mirror.html)http://213.251.145.96/mass-mirror.html [22:21] <+Araashan> second [22:21] <@scshunt> Ok [22:21] *** mib_6vgl14 has joined #canada [22:21] <@scshunt> Joshua has moved that the Pirate Party of Canada host a mirror for WikiLeaks as described at (Link: http://213.251.145.96/mass-mirror.html.)http://213.251.145.96/mass-mirror.html. [22:21] <@scshunt> Joshua has the right to the first speech [22:22] <@scshunt> if you wish to speak to the motion, please send me a PM [22:22] <+Joshua> Okay well there is already 1005 mirrors for Wikileaks [22:23] *** mib_6vgl14 has quit IRC: Quit: mib_6vgl14 [22:23] <+Joshua> Frankly mirroring Wikileaks is a PR thing. Its saying something significant that we as a registered party in Canada are supporting Wikileaks in a real way [22:23] <+Joshua> Under the condition that we choose to support wikileaks (Mikkel's motion). Mirroring is a physical action that we can do to prove we are in support. So if you vote to support wikileaks you should also vote in support of a mirror. [22:23] <+Joshua> >done< [22:23] *** Mark2 has quit IRC: Quit: Mark2 [22:24] <@scshunt> SteveHenderson is next [22:24] <@scshunt> SteveHenderson? [22:25] *** Lonnie has joined #canada [22:25] <+SteveHenderson> Given the recent attempts at censoring Wikileaks (DDoS attacks, domain sezure, etc.) I feel that mirroring the site is one of the most effective things we can do to support them. [22:25] *** Lonnie has quit IRC: Quit: Leaving [22:25] <+SteveHenderson> that is all [22:25] <@scshunt> Okay, iJeff is next; there are 7 speakers queued after him [22:25] <+iJeff> The PPCA is an officially registered federal political institution of Canada. [22:25] <+iJeff> While we thoroughly support the efforts of Wikileaks, it is not the job of political institutions to take part, directly, in the facilitation of such external journalistic and freedom endeavours as Wikileaks. While our own institution may ideologically support their actions and existence, it is not our place to actively partake in their operations so as to retain the core principles of our own gathering and remain a legitimate political option fo [22:26] <+iJeff> The Pirate Party of Canada is not a branch or subdivision of Wikileaks; it is not our responsibility nor mandate to actively participate in external operations. We are not officially even an affiliate of the organization. [22:26] <+iJeff> By actively hosting a mirror, we're not throwing in support for their activities, but joining in the Wikileaks' institution's operations. That is not what we, vying for presence in the Canadian government and as a Federal political institution to integrate our doctrine in Canadian policy, should be doing. We may condone or condemn, but not actively deal in the revelation of an allied country's diplomatic secrets as a federal entity. We should ens [22:26] <+iJeff> Canada should not participate in the operations of WikiLeaks, but it should instead allow private server hosts from doing so from within Canada. [22:26] <+iJeff> That is all. [22:26] <+MikkelPaulson> you got cropped off [22:26] <+MikkelPaulson> lines 2 and 4 [22:26] <@scshunt> oh, yes you did [22:26] <+iJeff> Oh, where? [22:26] <@scshunt> remain a legitimate political option fo [22:27] <+MikkelPaulson> political option fo— and We should ens— [22:27] <@scshunt> there [22:27] <+iJeff> While our own institution may ideologically support their actions and existence, it is not our place to actively partake in their operations so as to retain the core principles of our own gathering and remain a legitimate political option for Canadian government. [22:27] <+iJeff> We should ensure the journalists' freedom to do so without doing their job. [22:27] *** tecywiz121_ has joined #canada [22:27] <+iJeff> doing their job for me* [22:27] *** Lonnie has joined #canada [22:27] <+iJeff> them* [22:27] <+iJeff> There. [22:27] <+iJeff> Sorry for the mess [22:27] *** tecywiz121 has quit IRC: NickServ (GHOST command used by tecywiz121_) [22:27] <@scshunt> Okay, thanks [22:27] *** tecywiz121_ is now known as tecywiz121 [22:27] <@scshunt> cshen is next. [22:28] <+cshen> sec [22:28] *** voronaam has quit IRC: Quit: Leaving. [22:28] <+cshen> Despite the mass number of existing mirrors, it would be meaningful not only as a show of support but also to do our part to safeguard the data on a Canadian server. The political party status – though not necessarily as significant as in, say, Sweden – should nevertheless afford better protection than individual-run mirrors. [22:29] <+cshen> The best possible support we can afford Wikileaks is to offer them a backup with the weight of the Party behind it. THAT is taking a stand for freedom and liberty, a move that shows the Party's commitment to a democratic society. [22:29] <+cshen> </comment> [22:29] <@scshunt> Thanks. [22:29] <@scshunt> frazzydee is next, with another 7 behind him [22:29] <+frazzydee> sorry just a few seconds [22:29] <@scshunt> no worries [22:29] <+frazzydee> I just want to echo the Swedish Pirate Party's statement: “This is one of our signatures. We don’t just talk. We act. Using our own resources and time, we help change the world rather than pass the buck, commission reports, and avoid responsibility” [22:29] <+frazzydee> I believe these same principles apply to the Canadian Pirate Party. We need to take a strong, principled approach, as this matter engages core values of our party. [22:29] <+frazzydee> We applaud newspapers for breaking stories in the public interest. Let's do the same for Wikileaks, which has been subject to widespread condemnation. This level of condemnation, stemming even from governments, would be very rare to see in the context of traditional press. [22:29] <+frazzydee> Mirroring Wikileaks is a good way to help throw resources behind them, and stand behind freedom of the press at a time when it is threatened. [22:30] <+frazzydee> </comment> [22:30] <@scshunt> Thanks [22:30] <@scshunt> securr is next. [22:30] <+securr> Thank you. [22:30] <+securr> I contend that the Pirate Party should join the other 1000 groups and individuals that have already set up mirrors to preserve and protect the dissemination of the profoundly important information Wikileaks has released. As stated before, we have a responsibility to protect the fourth estate and we can now see that it is clearly under attack. [22:30] <+securr> Wikileaks has been subject to numerous extra-judicial actions by the US government. They have had their servers taken offline, accounts frozen and Assange and more worryingly, his son, have been issued death threats by people both inside and outside the US government. The New York Times has also recently been threatened by members of the US government. [22:31] <+securr> It is important to note, that the actions Wikileaks and its media partners have undertaken are, as far as anyone can tell, completely legal and have a history of precedent behind them. If Wikileaks is not supported in the most concrete terms, these actions run the risk of scaring other investigative journalists away from doing what they are both legal [22:31] <+securr> ly allowed and morally obligated to do. By running a mirror, along with the 1000 or so people who already have, we ensure future investigative journalists that a large and powerful support network will be there for them if they too come under threat. That in turn will give journalists the strength to continue to do the work they so desperately need to [22:31] <+securr> do [22:31] <+securr> Courage is contagious, as Julian Assange himself has said. [22:31] <+securr> There are, of course, specific concerns about Wikileaks themselves. More importantly, the issue of how much information they redact and who decides. Wikileaks has, in the past made mistakes, sure, but no organization has been so open to criticism and so ready to internalize and act on that criticism. Wikileaks has enlisted the help of numerous [22:31] <+securr> journalists for their past three "megaleaks" and has even gone as far as to contact the state department for assistance in redacting the information. Clearly, they take their harm minimization policy seriously. These last leaks have been held and slowly released so that each cable can be scrutinized to ensure no harm can come of them and, according to [22:31] <+securr> both an investigation by the Pentagon and by the Australian government, the previous Afghan leaks have caused no harm. [22:32] <+securr> The act of hosting a mirror is a powerful message. It's a message to journalists everywhere that we, and the public, will protect them and their right to speak freely. The fact that we are a registered party makes that message even more powerful. It tells journalists that they have friends, supporters. Guardians. [22:32] <+securr> And in the pursuit of truth, they need not be afraid. [22:32] <+securr> Thank you. [22:32] <@scshunt> Thanks. Next up is rintaran [22:32] <@rintaran> Alright. [22:32] *** scshunt sets mode -o rintaran [22:33] <+rintaran> Wikileaks is not in need of a mirror. They have plenty and to provide an extra mirror at this point would accomplish only two things. [22:33] <+rintaran> 1) It would show we believe in sharing everything regardless. [22:33] <+rintaran> 2) it would show we don't have any care for the current laws and institutions of our country. [22:34] *** Stenobot sets mode +v tecywiz121 [22:34] <+rintaran> There are a number of things that Wikileaks has released that are in violation of not only the constitution of the party, but in violation of the various rights and freedoms that Canada upholds. [22:34] *** roger has quit IRC: Quit: roger [22:34] <+Joshua> elaborate [22:34] <+rintaran> We are not Sweden, and do not have the protection of our servers afforded to them. [22:35] *** mincognito has joined #canada [22:35] <+rintaran> The information being released is COPYRIGHTED and by hosting a mirror, we are in violation of our current copyright laws. [22:35] <+securr> Point of order? [22:35] *** tastle has joined #canada [22:35] <@scshunt> securr: yes? [22:35] <+SteveHenderson> If our mirror is seized it will be news, and spread word of both Wikileaks and PPC. [22:35] <+cshen> securr has a point of order [22:35] <@scshunt> SteveHenderson: it's not your turn to debate [22:36] <@scshunt> and securr has a point of order [22:36] <+Joshua> I move for 10 minutes of open discussion [22:36] *** mincognito has quit IRC: Quit: Leaving... [22:36] <@scshunt> out of order [22:36] *** mincognito has joined #canada [22:36] <@scshunt> securr has a point of order, allegedly [22:36] <+securr> It's important to note that the legal status of Wikileaks is under debate, but precedent dictates that their actions are legal under various whistleblower protection statutes. Copyright in this instance would not matter. [22:36] <+Joshua> once hes done [22:36] <+securr> That's all. [22:36] <@scshunt> it is still rintaran's speech [22:37] <+Joshua> Now I move for 10 minutes of open discussion [22:37] <+Joshua> bah [22:37] *** Stenobot sets mode +v tastle [22:37] <+SteveHenderson> secon [22:37] <+SteveHenderson> d [22:37] <@scshunt> that's out of order [22:37] <+rintaran> Still my turn to speak guys. [22:37] <@scshunt> rintaran hasn't finished speaking [22:37] <+Joshua> he said hes done [22:37] <+Joshua> ah [22:37] <+Joshua> k [22:37] <+Joshua> that was securr [22:37] <@scshunt> rintaran: Please continue [22:37] *** pz has joined #canada [22:38] <+rintaran> Many of the leaks would not qualify under the whistleblower protection statutes as there's nothign to really protect them from. [22:39] <+cshen> point of order: let's not get into the minute legalities which most people are not qualified for. [22:39] <+rintaran> The information, as irrelevant as many of the releases have been, is irrelevant. There are going to be ramifications, both good and ill by hosting a mirror. [22:39] *** Stenobot sets mode +v pz [22:39] <+rintaran> Prior to voting, I would ask that everyone consider what those ramifications could be, and whether it is worth going down that path. [22:40] *** Tux has quit IRC: Connection reset by peer [22:40] <+rintaran> Once it is done, there is no going back. If we get shutdown, there is no turning back on. [22:41] <+rintaran> No matter the press, is it worth aligning ourself, indivisively, with Wikileaks? I don't think it is. But its up to all of us to weigh both sides of it. [22:41] <+rintaran> </comment> [22:41] <+pz> is there any pressing need to host them? I was under the impression that there are enough hosts out there. [22:41] <+MikkelPaulson> no [22:41] *** matrix452 has quit IRC: Quit: matrix452 [22:41] <+pz> its just a solidarity thing then? [22:41] <@scshunt> Please don't debate out of turn guys [22:41] <@scshunt> It's now MikkelPaulson's turn, incidentally [22:42] <+pz> sorry [22:42] <+MikkelPaulson> firstly, as Joshua comment, WikiLeaks already has over a thousand mirrors already in operation, so our participation would be entirely symbolic, although it is well within our technical means to do so [22:42] <+MikkelPaulson> however, this isn't as simple as putting our money where our mouth is [22:42] <+MikkelPaulson> it also has potential to lead to legal trouble for the party in the future, depending how authorities react to those hosting mirrors [22:42] <+MikkelPaulson> if that happens, it is possible that we will be deregistered as a party, since Elections Canada requires that a party assert that its primary purpose is to contest elections, not to fight legal battles on behalf of foreign organizations [22:42] <+MikkelPaulson> also, hosting a mirror would constitute a blanket endorsement for EVERYTHING that WikiLeaks does, now and in the future, and not only that which we agree with [22:42] <+MikkelPaulson> our initial motion included the reservation that WikiLeaks should NOT be compromising personal information, which many members have spoken strongly in favour of, even going so far as to move amendments to reinforce that [22:42] <+MikkelPaulson> but some of the material that we would be facilitating the sharing of is just that: PERSONAL INFORMATION that should never have been released because of its compromising nature to private individuals [22:42] <+MikkelPaulson> which means that the action of maintaining a mirror would be contradictory to the statement included in the first motion, as well as in large part to OUR OWN IDEALS as a party [22:42] <+MikkelPaulson> furthermore, I submit that WikiLeaks' actions as a whole are detrimental to our goals, as their actions have resulted in governments tightening control over information, not willingly releasing it to the public [22:42] <+MikkelPaulson> as a political party, our prerogative is to encourage information to be willingly released by the government itself, not to be stumbled upon by third parties [22:42] <+MikkelPaulson> therefore, I encourage all members to vote against this motion, as I believe it would be ultimately detrimental to the party as a whole [22:43] <@scshunt> Are you done? [22:43] <+MikkelPaulson> yes [22:43] <@scshunt> Okay, Nuitari is next. There are 7 speakers after him [22:44] <+Nuitari> I do not mind hosting a mirror of wikileaks under the Pirate Party name, but I cannot allow hosting it to interfere with my business activities [22:44] <+Nuitari> That means that the Party would have to purchase dedicated hosting to handle the mirror, at the cost of the party [22:45] <+Nuitari> Canadian servers usually aren't cheap, and we need a dedicated server for that, or someone to donate us the access to their server as a non-monetary contribution [22:46] <+MikkelPaulson> would that not constitute an expense incurred on behalf of a third party and thus in violation of Elections Canada's rules? [22:46] <+Nuitari> we'd need to see the law in depth for that [22:46] <+Nuitari> but it could also be part of the campaigning a party does outside of election times [22:46] <+dzver> is not shared server/VM an option and why [22:47] <+Nuitari> dzver: easier for a hosting company to deactivate a shared server by claiming that the usage pattern is detrimental to the other customers on that server [22:47] *** MattThomson has quit IRC: Quit: MattThomson [22:48] <+tecywiz121> In any case, I'm already hosting a mirror, if you want to point at it, I would be fine with it [22:48] <+dzver> :) [22:48] <+Nuitari> that works for me [22:49] <+Nuitari> is the server in Canada? [22:49] <+tecywiz121> Sadly, no [22:49] <+MikkelPaulson> I know a good Canadian web host [22:49] <+Nuitari> I'd rather have it in Canada so that if it goes down we can make a point of how other countries are interfering with Canadian affairs [22:49] <+iJeff> But could the same not be done without aligning the entire party with WikiLeaks, and instead state that some of its party members are doing so? [22:49] <+Joshua> agree'd [22:49] <+Nuitari> With iWeb, it would run at 99$/month + taxes [22:50] <+cshen> shouldn't logistics and the final say on whether it's even legal be reserved for later? [22:50] <+TravisMcCrea> Can someone refresh me of the actual text of the proposal? [22:50] <@scshunt> Please limit this to Nuitari + questions to Nuitari [22:50] <+Joshua> We mirror wikileaks [22:50] <+securr> I agree. Let's determine whether we want to explore this first. And deal with the technical details at a later time. [22:50] <+rintaran> 22:21 Joshua moved that that the PPCA host a mirror for Wikileaks as described here (Link: http://213.251.145.96/mass-mirror.html)http://213.251.145.96/mass-mirror.html [22:50] <+securr> sorry [22:50] <+ChrisOBrien> I work for a good managed hosting company. I will inquire about space and get back to the party. [22:50] <@scshunt> TravisMcCrea: that the Pirate Party of Canada host a mirror for WikiLeaks as described at (Link: http://213.251.145.96/mass-mirror.html.)http://213.251.145.96/mass-mirror.html. [22:51] <@scshunt> Nuitari: are you done [22:51] <+Nuitari> yeah, I just wanted to point out to the logistics of it [22:51] <@scshunt> ok [22:51] <@scshunt> Next is garym [22:51] <+garym> I agree with iJeff in that we should not be hosting foreign docs, however we might do as the swiss did and broker DNS and connect wikileaks to potential hosts whom we could assist. as a new Pirate party we do need to show solidarity with international parties both for international and domestic credibility, but do we have admin resources to run a sovereign server under attack? it is like accepting donations for WL, we cannot, but could we tell [22:51] <+garym> folks where they can donate? could we use our network to find WL services should they need them? would that be a more appropriate role? as for the legality, how are these leaks different from the watergate tapes or pentagon papers; are these not gov't documents which FOIA requests /should/ disclose? [22:52] <@scshunt> Is that all? [22:53] <+garym> I suppose that boils down to a modified motion that we would support and facilitate a mirror in Canada, and promote it but not run or brand it. [22:53] <+garym> yes, done [22:53] <+securr> garym: A large portion of the documents are unclassified so theoretically yet. Another portion are classified at multiple levels of Secret. None are at Top Secret. The classified ones would not be released under a FOIA request. [22:53] <@scshunt> Okay, thanks. spkd_ is next [22:53] <+spkd_> thanks [22:53] <+spkd_> We must not downplay the importance of this by the fact that there are currently so many mirrors. The way Wikileaks and Assange have been treated since it's inception, and more specifically in the past week goes to show that these mirrors could also be taken down over time. Also, i think there should be more mirrors in Canada than there currently are, as we are on the fence being associated with the US on many issues, while we define ourselves independen [22:53] <+spkd_> tly having different cultural and political values. We must defend free speech in this sense. We must make a stand, as a political entity, to defend the messenger. Remember Wikileaks are not responsible for the act leaking the documents, but making them open to the public. It is time for political change, and political parties to act in this change. [22:53] <+garym> but does that make them copyright? [22:53] <+spkd_> ... [22:54] <+spkd_> I strongly disagree that the information contained in the releases are irrelevant. They are causing a worlwide political awakening. They are revealing the stand of many American diplomats in relation to US policy around the world. This not irrelevant. [22:54] <+spkd_> If we are to be worried about the legality of hosting the documents on our servers and backlash to the party, we are giving in to the fear-mongering process seeded by the US that our own government is taking part in. Technically, it should be physically separated from the party's assets. This is a matter of security, against both sides on this issue actually (those trying to DDoS the mirrors, others trying to peek at the content). I understand the implic [22:54] <+spkd_> ations, but have the courage to fight for the cause. [22:54] <+spkd_> </comment> [22:54] <+SteveHenderson> Hear hear! [22:54] <@scshunt> Okay; I think there was a little bit of clarification requested of securr's point of information [22:54] <@scshunt> securr? [22:55] *** MattThomson has joined #canada [22:55] <+cshen> which POI is this? [22:55] <+dzver> well said spkd_ [22:55] <@scshunt> 22:53 <+securr> garym: A large portion of the documents are unclassified so theoretically yet. Another portion are classified at multiple levels of Secret. None are at Top Secret. The classified ones would not be released under a FOIA request. [22:55] <@scshunt> 22:53 <+garym> but does that make them copyright? [22:55] <+securr> As far as I know, no. Once a requested under FOIA has been granted those documents are free to distribute. [22:55] <+cshen> Copyright isn’t an issue. These are government documents, whether classified or not. Copyright is merely an excuse that some (like amazon) use to abandon Wikileaks. [22:56] <+securr> But the embassy are a mixture of classified and unclassified. And you can't be sure if a FOIA would be granted until you make one. [22:56] <@scshunt> Okay, thanks [22:56] *** JasonC has quit IRC: Quit: JasonC [22:56] <@scshunt> Zblewski is the next speaker [22:56] <+Zblewski> Thank you. I will start off by saying that hosting these documents is not a good move for the party. [22:56] <+Zblewski> As PR Director, I would like to refute one person's comments in that "by hosting these files, we will be able to get an amount of PR". [22:57] *** Stenobot sets mode +v MattThomson [22:57] <+Zblewski> This is false, firstly because there are a ton of websites, both in the private and public sphere, now electing to host the same files, and so the effect of hosting the files is simply negated. [22:58] *** damiendube has joined #canada [22:58] * +garym thinks our PR statement should state that [22:58] <+Zblewski> Secondly, as Nuitari points out, it will be at the financial discretion of the party, since Nuitari already does so much out of the kindness of his heart, and by doing so, we are also putting his financial livelyhood in a difficult position. We can all agree that Nuitari does an amazing job for us, and so we shouldn't put a strain on his servers. [22:58] <+Zblewski> There is a lot of talk about moral obligation. [22:59] <+Zblewski> "the moral obligation to put this information out". [22:59] <+Zblewski> We are a political party. [22:59] <+Zblewski> We are not journalists. [22:59] <+garym> the moral obligation not to shoot the messenger is important. [22:59] <+Zblewski> We are not simple activists [22:59] <@scshunt> garym: Please don't speak out of turn here [23:00] <+Zblewski> We are in existence to work through the legal system [23:00] <+SteveHenderson> Do you not feel that we have an obligation to support efforts directly resulting in increased government transparency? [23:00] <+Zblewski> to change the system [23:00] *** PirateParty80 has quit IRC: Quit: PirateParty80 [23:00] <+Zblewski> I am speaking. [23:01] <+Zblewski> I have voted yes on the other two motions becuase I felt it was important to speak to the policy makers of this country to look at our own foriegn operations [23:01] <+Zblewski> And how we conduct ourselves [23:02] <+Zblewski> However, I fall short at hosting the files because we are supposed to be a group that works from within the framework of the law and the democratic system to achieve reform. [23:02] *** SteveHenderson is now known as SteveHenderson|AFK [23:02] <+Zblewski> There are serious questions of international law in play [23:03] *** Stenobot sets mode +v damiendube [23:03] <+Zblewski> And I, for one, want to show that we can support Wikileaks in a legal way [23:03] <+Zblewski> ./end [23:03] <@scshunt> Zblewski: Do you wish to answer SteveHenderson|AFK's question now? [23:04] <+Zblewski> My answer is: Through purely legal means only. [23:04] <@scshunt> Okay. [23:04] <+khoover> i motion for fellow members to stop stealing my points. [23:04] <@scshunt> cshen is speaking next, for the second time [23:04] <+cshen> Financial and legal problems are something that will have to be determined outside this discussion, For now I will comment on the basis that these are not significant problems. Such practical considerations will, of course, affect the ultimate course of action significantly. [23:04] <+cshen> I contend that even if we grant the negative impacts of mirroring that rintaran stated, the positive by-far outweights the negative. We would be mirroring not only the leaks of Wikileaks, but also an ideal of free press and freedom from interference. That is what I see Wikileaks in its current situation stands for. [23:05] <+cshen> Wikileaks has not been charged with a criminal offence in any country that I am aware of, and certainly not in Canada or the United States. Pre-emptively abandoning Wikileaks would only serve to chill legitimate free speech and undermine the very idea of the presumption of innocence. [23:05] <+cshen> The Charter provides a great deal of protection against unreasonable search & seizure, Canadian authorities will have to meet a minimum standard before authorized by warrant to interfere with our mirror. What are our rights if we fear using them? [23:05] <+cshen> I would just like to add that personally, the PPCA mirror would serve vicariously as my personal support for Wikileaks. My own website is hosted in the US and there is no chance in hell they would let me get away with mirroring the leaks. [23:05] <+cshen> The next best feasible thing would be to vote in favour of using a portion of my membership fees to support Wikileaks. I hope that others in a similar situation would join me in voting yes. [23:05] <+cshen> In the alternative, I would support garym’s suggestion of a “hub” rather than a host, as well. </comment> thanks! [23:05] <@scshunt> All right [23:05] <@scshunt> JeffColeman is next [23:05] <+Zblewski> Point of order [23:06] <+JeffColeman> Thanks--there's been a lot of comment so I'll try to be brief [23:06] <@scshunt> Yes? [23:06] <+Zblewski> After Jeff, actually [23:06] <@scshunt> uh, ok [23:06] <+Zblewski> go ahead [23:06] <+JeffColeman> I am in favour of mirroring Wikileaks for the following reasons: [23:06] <+JeffColeman> 1)As Falkvinge has pointed out in Sweden, action is an essential difference in the role of a pirate party. [23:06] <+JeffColeman> 2)As can be seen by comparing deCSS with AACS "09 F9 11", scale matters considerably. see (Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AACS_encryption_key_controversy)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AACS_encryption_key_controversy and (Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_v._Reimerdes)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_v._Reimerdes [23:06] <+JeffColeman> 3)Wikileaks do actually have the potential to affect us more directly than we might think, as in (Link: http://bit.ly/ieG90d)http://bit.ly/ieG90d [23:07] *** shepmobile has joined #canada [23:07] <+JeffColeman> 4)Regarding cost, we are over 2000 strong. If we decide to mirror the site, we should back up that decision with the finances to follow through without burdening Nuitari [23:07] <+JeffColeman> 5)Since posting a youtube video of your kids singing happy birthday is also a violation of copyright, concern that the publishing of leaked content be illegal is misplaced. At worst this would be a very principled move of civil disobedience, and any action taken against us as a result could only help us. [23:08] <+JeffColeman> 6)Being brave enough to take a risky action is the point of the action. Point 5 applies to non-copyright action taken against us as a result of such a move as well--this type of attention will only cause well-deserved coverage of our party and sympathy for it. [23:08] <+JeffColeman> Our PR director is right to point out that simply mirroring won't get us much coverage [23:09] <+JeffColeman> but any action taken against us as a result of mirroring would get us a LOT [23:09] <+JeffColeman> Taking everything raised so far into consideration, I believe we should mirror Wikileaks. [23:09] <+JeffColeman> </comment> [23:09] <@scshunt> Thanks. Zblewski, did you have a point of order? [23:09] <+Joshua> *cheer* [23:11] <+iJeff> Did I disconnect? [23:11] <@scshunt> iJeff: no, Zblewski hasn't said anything [23:11] <+cshen> nope [23:11] <+iJeff> Oh, okay. [23:11] <@scshunt> Given that he hasn't, I'll let iJeff take his turn speaking [23:11] <+khoover> has Zblewski d/c'd? [23:11] <+iJeff> Elaborated STATEMENT: We should defend the messenger, not BE the messenger. Nor can we do both at once. [23:11] <+iJeff> This is not about whether or not we endorse Wikileaks, we've already established that we do support them. This is about whether or not we should actively aid in their operations. [23:11] <+spkd_> no chatting with me :S [23:12] <+iJeff> SteveHenderson "If our mirror is seized it will be news, and spread word of both Wikileaks and PPC." [23:12] <+iJeff> That would marginalize the party as a fringe organization. [23:12] <+iJeff> By actively hosting a mirror, we run the risk of seriously damaging the legitimacy of the PPCA as a real, vote-able, political institution in Canada. [23:12] <+Zblewski> I don't [23:12] <+iJeff> I hope Mikkel doesn't mind me quoting his statement in #wikileaks, "if Elections Canada finds that our primary purpose is not to contest elections, we will be deregistered" this sums up my concern. [23:12] <+iJeff> We don't want to be a mere fringe party, we have to play by the existing rules if we are to eventually change them. [23:12] <+iJeff> We should commit ourselves to enacting policy changes, not feeble gestures of support to international journalists that introduce ambiguity to the party's legitimacy. [23:13] <+iJeff> If we are to conduct ourselves as a legitimate political institution in Canada, instead of merely hosting the content of Wikileaks, we should devise policy that would facilitate further leaks instead of working against existing laws by potential infringement in our platform for if we were granted seats in parliament. [23:13] <+iJeff> I encourage members to vote against this motion that would jeopardize the party's legitimacy in Canada. [23:13] <+iJeff> That is all. [23:13] <@scshunt> Thanks [23:13] <@scshunt> khoover is next, and there are 4 after him [23:14] <@scshunt> Apparently khoover does not wish to speak [23:14] <@scshunt> so trailblazer11 is next [23:14] <+khoover> I have nothing to add at this point [23:14] <+trailblazer11> If we are to host a mirror and Julian Assange decide to release all information, as he had threatened to do so if arrested, would we be culpable? We are not sure what are in those documents. Some allegedly would put innocent civilians lives at risk. [23:14] <+trailblazer11> Are we ready to face assault from the government if they decide to crackdown on mirror sites? Since it is more of a symbolic thing, let's not give excuse to the government to shut us down. We can do our job best by doing everything within the law and work our way out to change it. One less mirror is not going to hurt Wikileak effort. And we can work in tandem [23:14] <+trailblazer11> with them without compromising our position. It does not work as effectively if both of us are forced underground. [23:14] <@scshunt> It is worth noting that Julian Assange has, in fact, been arrested. [23:15] <+Joshua> Under an unrelated charge [23:15] <+cshen> point of information: on a questionable and in any case unrelated charge [23:15] <+trailblazer11> arrested, killed or wikileak disappeared on the internet [23:15] <+trailblazer11> I guess those are the three things mentioned [23:16] <+trailblazer11> sorry done [23:16] <@scshunt> Okay [23:16] <@scshunt> Joshua is next [23:16] <+JeffColeman> point of information: mirroring wikileaks is different than hosting the insurance file [23:16] <+Joshua> I would like to point out that ALL news sources such as BBC and CBC are also releasing these documents in tandam with Wikileaks giving each release far more publicity. [23:17] *** mkirkland has joined #canada [23:17] <+Joshua> Espically when releasing these documents are potientially illegal? Its clear to me Wikileaks is being unfairly criticized for throwing the first stone when other news sources are right in line to throw. [23:17] *** doconnor has quit IRC: Quit: doconnor [23:17] <+Joshua> By going against supporting Wikileaks your essientially saying every news source which has released the same information is equally as at fault. It has been stated that Wikileaks hasn't actually broken the law, and if it has then so have other new sources. [23:18] <+Joshua> sources. We would not be at risk to mirror Wikileaks nor could we be deregistered as a party due to legal matters. There is the potiential to be deregistered under some obscure provision in elections canada's rules. But let me point out that it would be down right hypocritical to say we support Wikileaks but not act on it. [23:18] <+iJeff> Point of information: BBC and CBC are not bound by the rules of Elections Canada to maintain their primary goal of taking political office. [23:18] <+tecywiz121> Question, how could WL's actions be illegal, and in what country? [23:18] *** Stenobot sets mode +v mkirkland [23:18] <+Joshua> I want to say thanks to those who spoke in favor and against the motion. A strong opposition is always a great thing in democracy. And I want to thank Jeff Coleman for his points [23:18] <+Joshua> done [23:18] <+cshen> point of information: could the Party not simply disconnect our mirror if and when the leaks have in fact been established to be illegal in Canada? why wait for the govn't to shut it down? [23:18] <+Joshua> none at the moment, no crimes [23:19] <@scshunt> cshen: that is a question, not a point of information [23:19] <+cshen> i thought you can ask questions [23:19] <+cshen> to get info [23:19] *** gregeh has joined #canada [23:19] <+Zblewski> Point of order :There are charges pending on the original leaker. The United States will likely be charging him with releasing restricted information. [23:19] <+Joshua> I believe it can [23:19] *** sandy has joined #canada [23:19] <+Joshua> This is Canada [23:19] <@scshunt> cshen: you can [23:19] <@scshunt> Zblewski: that's not a point of order [23:19] *** Stenobot sets mode +v sandy [23:20] <@scshunt> I would also like to add my own point of information: The Canada Elections Act requirement is actually that /one of/ our primary goals be to be field candidates; not necessarily our only goal. [23:20] <@scshunt> Anyways, garym is the next speaker [23:20] <+garym> I think where I stand on the Wikileaks is not on the leak per se, these leaks are going to happen Julian or no Julian, and as the digitally-conscious party I think we should state that. WL does not need us, leaks are a fact of life. The US state dept is in fact now experiencing exactly what we are saying about the dangers of online privacy, and Julian is displaying the /converse/ of what we mean by open government. So I think I oppose mirror [23:20] <+garym> ing, but support Julian's right to do so just as I support an open internet and denounce traffic shaping. Does that make sense? I think the content of the cables is a completely different issue, and frankly none of what's in there so far surrprises me, I /assume/ gov'ts lie (I remember Wim of Orange) but Julian should have a right to expose them without a fatwa against him. it's the death threats that make me want to help keep him online, th [23:20] <+garym> at seems a Pirate issue, but it's revenge against the US state machine that makes me want the content online, and that's a different thing. that's personal. [23:20] <+garym> </done> [23:21] <@scshunt> Thank you. securr is next. [23:21] <+securr> Thank you. [23:21] <+securr> This question is in relation to the Pirate Party's core interest in intellectual property and net neutrality. [23:22] <+securr> The MPAA has used censoring of WIkileaks as a proposition for various firewall-style initiatives during ACTA negotiations. [23:22] <+securr> (Link: http://www.boingboing.net/2010/09/21/mpaa-actas-censoring.html)http://www.boingboing.net/2010/09/21/mpaa-actas-censoring.html [23:22] <+securr> These issues are closely linked. [23:22] <+securr> And, just because we start hosting a mirror doesn't mean we can't stop. If Wikileaks does something egregious, or we are compelled by court order, we can simply comply. [23:23] <+securr> And that will more than likely keep our party out of harm's way. [23:23] <+securr> Thank you [23:23] <@scshunt> Okay, Jeremy is next [23:23] <@scshunt> there is no one queued beyond him [23:23] <+Jeremy> I'd just like to point out that not mirroring Wikileaks does not amount to not supporting Wikileaks [23:23] <+Joshua> Its hypocritical not too [23:24] <+Jeremy> It would be more of a concrete gesture, but even then it's only symbolic. [23:24] <+cshen> Joshua: not necessarily [23:24] <+MikkelPaulson> Joshua: absolutely not [23:24] <+Jeremy> It's not hypocritical, because as Mikkel has pointed out, some things hosted on wikileaks go against our policies. [23:24] <@scshunt> Joshua, that was out of order [23:24] <@scshunt> as were the responses to it [23:24] <+garym> would a dns be more practical for us and for him? [23:24] <+Joshua> sorry [23:24] <+cshen> =( [23:25] <+Jeremy> I'm not quite finished, but i'm losing my train of thought [23:25] <@scshunt> Jeremy: please go on, if you can [23:26] <+Jeremy> basically, when you're voting, please remember that you're voting on whether we should act as a mirror for wikileaks, and not on whether we support wikileaks. It is perhaps true that if wikileaks were to come in desperate need of mirrors, we would reconsider our position [23:26] <+Jeremy> it is a vote on whether we should now mirror the site. that is all [23:26] <+Jeremy> thank you [23:26] <+tecywiz121> POI: Jeremy, It is possible to host a mirror without hosting the entire site. If a particular leak goes against policy, leave it out. [23:26] <@scshunt> Does anyone wish to speak to this further? [23:26] <+cshen> i don't think that's how this one works [23:26] <+Jeremy> that's not relevant to what i was saying, but okay [23:26] <+cshen> i have a question [23:27] <@scshunt> yes? [23:27] <+tecywiz121> <Jeremy> It's not hypocritical, because as Mikkel has pointed out, some things hosted on wikileaks go against our policies [23:27] <+MikkelPaulson> I believe that it would be hypocritical to host material that contradicts our ideals [23:27] <@scshunt> Excuse me [23:27] <+cshen> when we vote, i presume it would be with the ceavat that it will not happen if the party simply does not have the financial resources or legal authority to do so, regardless of the vote, correct? [23:28] <+Zblewski> Correct: If there is significant financial or legal barriers [23:28] <+securr> Agreed [23:28] <@scshunt> cshen: This vote is not binding on the party as this is not an official general meeting, so it would be up to the federal council or another general meeting to make a responsible decision [23:28] <+MikkelPaulson> ultimately it will be up to the Council how to implement it [23:28] <@scshunt> Okay [23:29] <@scshunt> Does anyone else wish to speak further? [23:29] <@scshunt> If not, I'll close debate on this [23:29] <+spkd_> yes [23:29] <+cshen> so this would only be a vote to get the membership's direction on this, and we shouldn't necessarily be too concerned about the legalities at the vote [23:29] <+securr> Correct [23:29] <@scshunt> spkd_ has the floor [23:29] <+MikkelPaulson> cshen: well yes you should, I'd rather not ignore a motion passed by the membership [23:29] <+spkd_> There is action, and then there is reaction. Action is the political move to be doing right now. We have nothing holding us back until the government publicly states that we can not be doing this, and prove it through legal means. If this is a challenge, so be it. [23:29] <+Joshua> If its a legal threat to the party even I'm against it [23:29] <+Joshua> but its not at the moment [23:29] <@scshunt> Joshua: out of order again! [23:29] <+Joshua> sorry * [23:29] <+Joshua> lag*** [23:29] <+spkd_> ... [23:29] <+spkd_> ok [23:30] <@scshunt> please continue [23:30] <+spkd_> If we need to go through technicalities to separate our assets from the mirror, let's do it [23:30] <+spkd_> I'm done, thanks. Vote with your heart ;) [23:30] <+Joshua> :) [23:31] <+cshen> i'd like to move an amendment [23:31] <+securr> *eye twitch* [23:31] <+Zblewski> How can you amend this? [23:31] <@scshunt> cshen: What is the motion? [23:31] <+cshen> to add a conditional to the question, something like "will host mirror if financially and legally viable" [23:31] <+MikkelPaulson> seconded [23:32] <+spkd_> cshen: or "as long as" [23:32] <+spkd_> sorry [23:32] <+Joshua> Implied^ [23:32] <+cshen> that's alright, do i get to open? [23:32] <+MikkelPaulson> I think it's a bit redundant, but I'd rather have the motion make it clear that we have the option to reject it if need be [23:32] <@scshunt> spkd_: that's in order, trying to work out the exact text of the motion is fine [23:32] <+MikkelPaulson> sorry [23:32] <@scshunt> since cshen doesn't have a precise motion to move [23:32] <+Joshua> I agree with Mikkel [23:32] <+spkd_> agreed [23:33] <+cshen> sorry, what's the current wording? [23:33] <+iJeff> second Mikkel and motion to amend [23:33] <@scshunt> The current motion is that the Pirate Party of Canada host a mirror for WikiLeaks as described at (Link: http://213.251.145.96/mass-mirror.html.)http://213.251.145.96/mass-mirror.html. [23:33] <+cshen> ok [23:33] <+cshen> so i'll move to append "if doing so is financially and legally viable" [23:33] <@scshunt> ok [23:34] <+iJeff> second [23:34] <+Joshua> second [23:34] <+spkd_> seconded [23:34] <+MikkelPaulson> "if in the opinion of the Federal Council it is financially and legally viable"? [23:34] <+cshen> accepted [23:34] <+khoover> seconded [23:34] <+cshen> that's better =) [23:34] <+tecywiz121> I propose possible as opposed to viable [23:34] <+securr> please lets not do this [23:34] <+iJeff> the two are the same, tecy [23:34] <+tecywiz121> sorry [23:34] <+khoover> i want sleep... [23:34] <+cshen> ok [23:35] <+spkd_> securr: what do you mean? [23:35] <@scshunt> cshen: which would you like? [23:35] <+tecywiz121> not exactly, viable implies long-term success and possible doesn't [23:35] <+MikkelPaulson> bear in mind that you can vote over the next few days [23:35] <@scshunt> viable or possible? [23:35] <+cshen> i have no preference [23:35] <+securr> spkd: i meant, fiddle with wording. we know what the implication is [23:35] <+pz> permissable [23:35] <+cshen> viable sounds like it's clear enough [23:35] <+Zblewski> viable [23:35] <@scshunt> I'll go with that then [23:35] <+cshen> let's stick with that [23:35] <+tecywiz121> I'm fine with either [23:35] <+dzver> why should we add amendment if it is self-understandable? [23:35] <+garym> viable is perfectly possible [23:35] <+dzver> or is it not [23:35] <@scshunt> cshen has moved that the motion by amended by appending "if in the opinion of the Federal Council it is financially and legally vialbe" [23:36] <@scshunt> Are there any objections or discussion on this motion? [23:36] <+spkd_> securr: agreed [23:36] <+khoover> none [23:36] <+MikkelPaulson> I move the vote [23:36] <+frazzydee> dzver: To make it absolutely clear, so people don't vote against in fear of future legal troubles [23:36] <+cshen> i have a statement [23:36] <+iJeff> second [23:36] <@scshunt> MikkelPaulson has moved the previous question; cshen, your statement will have to wait [23:36] *** -scshunt@#canada- The vote is on whether to vote on the amendment [23:36] *** -scshunt@#canada- All in favour, say "aye", all against, say "nay" [23:36] <+iJeff> aye [23:36] <+spkd_> aye [23:36] <+Rahmenlos> aye [23:36] <+MikkelPaulson> aye [23:36] <+Zblewski> aye [23:36] <+tecywiz121> aye [23:36] <+frazzydee> aye [23:36] <+garym> aye [23:36] <+cshen> but i get to open, no? [23:37] <+khoover> aye [23:37] <+trailblazer11> aye [23:37] <+dzver> aye [23:37] <+Araashan> aye [23:37] <+rintaran> aye [23:37] <+JeffColeman> aye [23:37] <@scshunt> cshen: only if this motion fails [23:37] <+mib_2svdki> aye [23:37] <+securr> aye [23:37] <+Joshua> aye [23:37] <+acarne> aye [23:37] <+cshen> heh, that's alright then [23:37] <+BradC> aye [23:37] <+Modalsurrealist> aye [23:37] <+cshen> aye [23:37] <+khoover> sorry c [23:37] <+JStevens> aye [23:37] <+MattThomson> aye [23:37] <@scshunt> Okay, that seems pretty unanimous [23:37] <+pz> nay [23:37] <+cshen> lol [23:37] <+frazzydee> dammit pz! :P [23:37] <+securr> lawl [23:37] <+pz> who said that [23:37] <+pz> it was him [23:37] <+damiendube> aye [23:37] <+pz> go get him guys [23:38] *** -scshunt@#canada- The vote is that the motion by amended by appending "if in the opinion of the Federal Council it is financially and legally [23:38] <+pz> ill change it to aye :) [23:38] <+MikkelPaulson> aye [23:38] <+khoover> pz, i'm so tired i actually am laughing in real life. [23:38] *** -scshunt@#canada- +viable [23:38] <+Nuitari> aye [23:38] *** -scshunt@#canada- All in favour, say "aye", all against, say "nay" [23:38] <+iJeff> aye [23:38] <+Jeremy> aye [23:38] <+frazzydee> aye [23:38] <+khoover> aye [23:38] <+cshen> i think that's enough for a pass [23:38] <+Joshua> I agree [23:38] <+shep> aye [23:38] <+securr> Shall we vote on the motion itself now? [23:38] <+acarne> aye [23:38] <+garym> aye [23:39] *** jraw has joined #canada [23:39] <+cshen> yes, please [23:39] <@scshunt> All right, the amendment passes unanimously [23:39] <+pz> i have a question [23:39] <@scshunt> pz: yes? [23:39] <+pz> not about the amendment [23:39] <+pz> but in general, the swedish pirate party [23:39] <+pz> and their hosting [23:39] *** Stenobot sets mode +v jraw [23:39] <+Joshua> free discussion after the meeting [23:39] <+pz> i believe I read that they are afforded certain rights as an official political party [23:40] <@scshunt> is it relevant to this discussion? [23:40] <+khoover> it's a constitutional thing in Sweden, there's no counterpart in Canada [23:40] <+pz> i believe it is relevant [23:40] <+pz> just wondering if that fact has been made [23:40] <@scshunt> We are now back to discussing the amended motion the motion by amended by appending "if in the opinion of the Federal Council it is financially and legally [23:40] <+khoover> pof* [23:40] <@scshunt> *viable [23:40] <+MikkelPaulson> also it would only take effect if they were to be elected [23:40] <@scshunt> err [23:40] <@scshunt> The motion is that the Pirate Party of Canada host a mirror for WikiLeaks as described at (Link: http://213.251.145.96/mass-mirror.html)http://213.251.145.96/mass-mirror.html if in the opinion of the Federal Council it is financially and legally viable. [23:40] <@scshunt> shep would like to speak to it [23:41] <+shep> Thanks. [23:41] <+shep> I'm not so great with politics, but I am good with networks, so here's how I see it Hosting a mirror is a low impact, low cost, high-risk proposition. Hosting something like DNS is a high impact, high cost, low-risk proposition (we aren't hosting any documents, so we avoid legal issues). My only suggestion that we don't bind council/committee with a directive of "hosting a mirror" as opposed to something more open, like "providing techni [23:41] <+shep> cal resources". Perhaps I am proposing an amendment, I'm not sure. [23:41] <+shep> That's all. [23:42] <@scshunt> shep: It's been mentioned as a separate issue. You could propose an amendment, but in my opinion they are orthogonal questions, so it's best to let this one be decided on [23:42] <@scshunt> If you would like to move an amendment, however, you may [23:42] <@scshunt> Do you want to? [23:43] <+shep> Hm. I'm trying to think how I would word it. [23:43] <+MikkelPaulson> I think it would be within the Federal Council's authority to modify the motion as you suggest if necessary [23:43] <+MikkelPaulson> as a "next best thing" if the motion as worded now is unfeasible [23:43] <+securr> I think so. As we have previously raised it. [23:43] <+shep> MikkelPaulson, so the amendment is unnecessary? [23:44] <+MikkelPaulson> in my opinion it is [23:44] <+cshen> how about: The motion is that the Pirate Party of Canada host a mirror for WikiLeaks as described at (Link: http://213.251.145.96/mass-mirror.html,)http://213.251.145.96/mass-mirror.html, or to provide DNS or other technical assistance in the alternative, if in the opinion of the Federal Council it is financially and legally viable. [23:44] <@scshunt> In my opinion, that is not necessary [23:44] <+Joshua> let it slide [23:44] <+cshen> ok let's stick with the original wording [23:44] <+securr> I concur [23:44] <+spkd_> but he is also saying that it is high-impact vs low-impact in dns vs hosting the files [23:45] <+cshen> let's let the federal council do the cost/benefit analysis [23:45] <+spkd_> agreed [23:45] <+shep> The motion is that the Pirate Party of Canada host a mirror or providing technical resources for WikiLeaks as described at (Link: http://213.251.145.96/mass-mirror.html)http://213.251.145.96/mass-mirror.html if in the opinion of the Federal Council it is financially and legally viable. [23:45] <+securr> agreed. if its contentious the membership can be solicited for further input [23:45] * +garym thinks we could revisit the question if the situation worsens such that WL needs us [23:45] <+khoover> i move to end discussions, and proceed with voting. [23:45] <+iJeff> May I motion to close discussions? The Federal Council will be banging out the specifics anyway. [23:45] <+Joshua> second [23:45] <+securr> second [23:46] <+iJeff> Well, second Khoover then. [23:46] <+cshen> vote to vote? [23:46] <@scshunt> we can't have another motion while shep is making one [23:46] <+cshen> nobody seconded [23:46] <+shep> It's alright. I'm going to drop the motion. [23:46] <@scshunt> oh ok [23:46] <+securr> thank you shep [23:46] <+shep> Thanks for your time guys. [23:46] <@scshunt> Does anyone object to calling a vote on the main motion then? [23:46] <+cshen> =) [23:46] * +garym stays very quiet [23:47] <+cshen> let's do so [23:47] <+securr> lol [23:47] <@scshunt> All right [23:47] * +iJeff holds Garym's hand [23:47] <@scshunt> As before, we won't be conducting voting in-channel [23:47] <+Zblewski> So [23:47] *** ayes has joined #canada [23:47] <+Zblewski> this time [23:47] <+sidek> so.. Y3/N3/A3? [23:47] <+Zblewski> I'l re-iterate [23:48] <+spkd_> state the motion please [23:48] *** -scshunt@#canada- The motion is that the Pirate Party of Canada host a mirror for WikiLeaks as described at (Link: http://213.251.145.96/mass-mirror.html)http://213.251.145.96/mass-mirror.html if in the opinion of the Federal Council it is financially and legally viable. [23:48] <+Zblewski> To vote, input say "/msg ballotcast" followed by A3, N3, or A3 [23:48] <+iJeff> I'd like to formally thank @scshunt for moderating this debate. [23:48] <+khoover> you forgot Y3. [23:48] <+cshen> Y3, N3, or A3 [23:48] <+Zblewski> Sorry [23:49] <+Zblewski> correct [23:49] <+cshen> thanks scshunt! [23:49] <+iJeff> and for the Federal Council for permitting this discussion to take place. [23:49] <+JeffColeman> yes, thanks all for your patience [23:49] <+khoover> THREE ARRS FOR SHUNT! [23:49] *** Biogrand has quit IRC: Quit: Biogrand [23:49] <+cshen> and Zblewski for counting votes [23:49] <+spkd_> thanks scshunt! [23:49] <+Zblewski> I STOCKED UP ON TYLENOL [23:49] <+Araashan> thanks [23:49] <+securr> is voting upen? [23:49] <+securr> open? [23:49] <+garym> y [23:49] <+Joshua> and all yall for patiently sitting for nearly 4 hours [23:49] <+Zblewski> Voting is open [23:49] <+cshen> i voted alrady [23:49] <+sandy> what do A3/N3/Y3 refer to? [23:49] <+khoover> abstain, no, yes [23:49] <+iJeff> Abstain, No, Yes [23:49] <+MikkelPaulson> I have one final motion to make, if it's not out of order to do so [23:49] <+sidek> wait ,it's been 4 hours? [23:49] <+Zblewski> Sandy Y for yes, N for No, A for Abstain [23:49] <+sandy> Thanks [23:49] *** Stenobot sets mode +v ayes [23:50] <+khoover> second mikkel, if it's quick. [23:50] <+Joshua> yeah [23:50] <+sidek> MikkelPaulson, might as well make it [23:50] <@scshunt> MikkelPaulson: the meeting has not been adjourned [23:50] <+rintaran> Yes, it has been 4 hours. [23:50] <@scshunt> go ahead [23:50] <+MikkelPaulson> okay [23:50] <+securr> MikkelPaulson: I better get cake out of this. [23:50] <+cshen> the cake is a lie!!! [23:50] <+MikkelPaulson> I move that the web and telephone voting period be reduced from the customary 7 days to 3 in the interest of expediency [23:50] <+khoover> stop stealing my lines, already. [23:50] <+ayes> woot for wikileaks [23:50] <+securr> second [23:50] <+Zblewski> FOLKS, I WILL LEAVE BALLOTCAST UP FOR 2 HOURS AFTER THE MEATING [23:50] <+Joshua> second [23:50] <+sidek> second [23:50] <@scshunt> Ok [23:50] <+JeffColeman> seconded [23:50] <+pz> woot is owned by amazon which cut off wikileaks [23:50] *** shepmob7 has joined #canada [23:51] <+ayes> how about [23:51] <+Zblewski> AFTER 2 HOURS, YOUR VOTE MUST GO BY WEB OR PHONE [23:51] <+ayes> booya for wikileaks [23:51] <+MikkelPaulson> I don't know if this is out of order, though, as the people who would be affected are unable to vote [23:51] <@scshunt> The motion is that the web and telephone voting period be reduced from the customary 7 days to 3 in the interest of expediency [23:51] <@scshunt> Is there any objection to this [23:51] *** MattThomson has quit IRC: Quit: MattThomson [23:51] *** shepmobile has quit IRC: Ping timeout [23:51] <+Joshua> please no one object :P [23:51] <+Jeremy> ahhhh... hrmmm... [23:51] <+cshen> let's vote [23:51] <+trailblazer11> everyone will be getting an e-mail? [23:51] *** shepmob7 has quit IRC: Quit: shepmob7 [23:51] <+dzver> this has to be announced [23:51] <+pz> is there really a time issue here [23:51] <+Jeremy> i don't object, but if you notify people [23:51] <+MikkelPaulson> trailblazer11: yes [23:51] *** damiendube has quit IRC: Quit: damiendube [23:51] <+Jeremy> because people have been told they have a week [23:51] <+trailblazer11> k then [23:52] <+tecywiz121> Question, isn't that almost like taking away peoples voting rights? [23:52] <+garym> we weren't told we had a week until just a few hrs ago, so its not much worse notice to amend that only 5 hrs later [23:52] <+pz> i dont see why we can't have a week [23:52] <+khoover> oh **** [23:52] <+Joshua> No its shortening the time they have to vote, they still have 3 whole days to vote [23:52] <+pz> theres no rush [23:52] <+iJeff> It simply means people have less time to make their decision [23:52] <+MikkelPaulson> I presume that most people will have access to a telephone or web browser in the next 3 days [23:52] <+iJeff> and it can get to the Federal Council sooner [23:52] <+cshen> i think 3 days will be suffiient [23:52] <+tecywiz121> Alright, I'm okay with it [23:52] <+shep> If the vote is already decided, could the Federal Council move on? [23:52] <+securr> Regardless, you can vote nay if you disagree. [23:52] <+Joshua> -3 days- 72 hours is a long time [23:52] <@scshunt> Okay, I think this is enough debate so I'm going to have to ask people to calm down so we can have real debate [23:52] <+dzver> you must send emails about it [23:53] <+iJeff> This is more of a poll anyway. [23:53] <+pz> theres stuff that could be done in the meantime anyways [23:53] <@scshunt> or we could just drop this one way or the other [23:53] <+cshen> let's vote on this [23:53] <+tecywiz121> seconded [23:53] <+Joshua> snap vote [23:53] <+khoover> aye!@ [23:53] <+ayes> aye [23:53] <@scshunt> ok [23:53] <+pz> nay [23:53] <+tecywiz121> aye [23:53] *** jraw has quit IRC: Quit: jraw [23:53] <@scshunt> Any objections to me calling the vote right now? [23:53] <+pz> only because I don't see a reason [23:53] <+ayes> no [23:54] <+Jeremy> is there a vote going right now? [23:54] <+Joshua> we're about to [23:54] <+cshen> no, there isn't [23:54] <@scshunt> Jeremy: I'm just asking for objections; if you want to discuss this more, you can [23:54] <+khoover> does anyone mind if i post the logs? [23:54] <+Jeremy> no objections here [23:54] <+ayes> mikkel is moving in the interests of speed and efficiency, and I say we vote on it [23:54] <+dzver> will everyone be informed by email they have 3 days to vote? some people left [23:54] <@scshunt> khoover: the clerk is on it [23:54] <@scshunt> Okay, I see no objections [23:54] <+securr> Yes, Mikkel has stated that. [23:54] <@scshunt> We're moving to vote on reducing the voting period from 7 days to 3 [23:55] <+tecywiz121> only for this meeting, correct? [23:55] *** -scshunt@#canada- All in favour, say "aye", all against, say "nay" [23:55] <@scshunt> yes [23:55] <+khoover> scshunt: i meant besides on the wiki, ie. on any other sites i have [23:55] <+iJeff> aye [23:55] <+khoover> aye [23:55] <+spkd_> aye [23:55] <+Nuitari> aye [23:55] <+MikkelPaulson> aye [23:55] <+Araashan> aye [23:55] <+tecywiz121> aye [23:55] <+cshen> aye [23:55] <+pz> nay [23:55] <+securr> nay [23:55] <+ChrisOBrien> aye [23:55] <+garym> aye [23:55] <+Modalsurrealist> aye [23:55] <+mib_2svdki> aye [23:55] <+rintaran> aye [23:55] <+shep> aye [23:55] <+Jeremy> aye [23:55] <+JeffColeman> aye [23:55] <+BradC> aye [23:55] <+Joshua> aye [23:55] <+dzver> aye [23:55] <+cshen> wait are we started yet? [23:55] <+sandy> aye [23:55] <+trailblazer11> aye [23:55] <+MikkelPaulson> cshen: we're voting on the motion [23:55] <+Rahmenlos> Aye [23:55] <+acarne> aye [23:55] <+sidek> aye [23:55] <+ayes> aye [23:55] <@scshunt> The motion passes [23:55] <+Joshua> sweet [23:55] <+cshen> nice [23:55] <@scshunt> Is there any other business? [23:56] *** -scshunt@#canada- All right, thanks for suffering through this meeting! [23:56] * +securr considers motioning for cake. [23:56] <+shep> motion to keep us all up a few more hours. [23:56] *** -scshunt@#canada- A quick few words before we go [23:56] <+khoover> scshunt: i meant posting it on blogs or sites i may have [23:56] <+cshen> second [23:56] * +tecywiz121 slaps securr [23:56] *** -scshunt@#canada- First off, our next general meeting is on the 19th at the same time [23:56] <+MikkelPaulson> and will be about half as long x_x [23:56] <+rintaran> Khoover, post a link to the wiki on your sites, don't rehash the whole thing please. [23:56] <+securr> lol [23:57] <+spkd_> lol [23:57] *** -scshunt@#canada- Second, if you have any questions/comments/complaints/rants about the way this meeting was conducted, please drop me a line at chair@pirateparty.ca [23:57] *** Stenobot sets mode +v mincognito [23:57] *** RedHack has left #canada [23:57] *** frazzydee has quit IRC: Ping timeout [23:57] *** ayes has quit IRC: Quit: ayes [23:57] *** mincognito has quit IRC: Quit: Leaving... [23:57] <+cshen> oh right a lot of you are on the east coast, what time is it now? [23:57] *** -scshunt@#canada- and now, the moment you've all been waiting for... [23:57] <+Rahmenlos> well, good afternoon/night to everyone [23:57] *** mincognito has joined #canada [23:57] <+securr> I think we're good. Adjourned? [23:57] <+Joshua> midnight [23:57] *** -scshunt@#canada- MEETING ADJOUNRED!
Also see Minutes
