GM 2011-08-19 transcript
From Pirate Party of Canada
Meeting was recessed from 8:17pm - 8:34pm and from 8:40pm until 9:00pm (where this record starts) due to lack of quorum. (All times are Eastern)
21:00 <@scshunt> And the recess is over
21:00 <+Extec> So, if a quorum is achieved, proceed without me, and consider all my votes
abstention until I return.
21:01 <+trailblazer11> 7 more
21:01 <+CloudQc> Just spending a few weeks in the Anonymous IRC, you quickly learn that
computer security is only an illusion created by our own ignorance of how to
bypass that security thus leading us to believe our system is secure.
21:01 <+StevenBradleyScott> scshunt: ...internet is a rather bad protocol..." <- brilliant.
21:01 <~Nuitari> we do have an online voting system available, but the problem is that we
need the quorum here
21:01 <@scshunt> StevenBradleyScott: hehe
21:01 <+SquareWheel> GPG is a good system, CloudQc.
21:01 < starshadowx2> Exactly CloudQc
21:01 <@scshunt> wait, 44
21:01 <+grep> If everyone had GPG, it would be very easy to do this because everyone
could just write a signed message like "proposal XXXXX, vote yes"
21:01 <@scshunt> missed Nuitari due to +a
21:01 <@scshunt> Do we have a motion for what we should do now?
21:01 <+DeepNorth> All your security are belong to us.
21:01 <+StevenBradleyScott> grep: If everyone had GPG, it would indicate it is very easy to do.
21:02 <+MikkelPaulson> can we proceed with the motion re: the conference?
21:02 <+MikkelPaulson> 45...
21:02 <+voronaam> GPG is good, but it has it flaws. For example I am in the office now, and I
don't have my private key with me (because company owns everything on its
computers)
21:02 < starshadowx2> Lots of people I know talk about Anon and LulzSec like they are criminals
by sharing data, but what better to make people become more secure?
21:02 <+SquareWheel> Ah, I've always wanted political meetings to have memes involved.
21:02 <+grep> CloudQc: Computer security is so bad because many programmers aren't very
clueful, which leads to heaps of subpar code.
21:02 <+CloudQc> I motion to start the meeting with a 90% quorum.
21:02 <+bob> killed irssi by accident.
21:02 <+Devern> If there are 25+ votes one way, does it matter if there 50?
21:02 -scshunt:#canada- please stop irrelevant discussion as we're currently in session
21:02 <+DeepNorth> Second
21:02 <+SquareWheel> Apologies.
21:03 < athlon866> do you need my password?
21:03 <@scshunt> Is there any objection to proceeding on an emergency basis?
21:03 <+DeepNorth> Who is chair?
21:03 <@scshunt> DeepNorth: I am for now
21:03 <+SquareWheel> athlon866, please do not post your password.
21:03 <+MikkelPaulson> athlon866: yes, you'll find it in your email
21:03 <@scshunt> athlon866: Log in at https://meetings.pirateparty.ca/login.php
21:03 <+StuartQF> No objection here scshunt
21:03 <+StevenBradleyScott> Devern: Quorum is not just about votes, it's about communication.
21:03 <+trailblazer11> Vanguard defense I guess is the latest targeted by antisec
21:03 <+psema4> scshunt: no objection here
21:03 <+DeepNorth> None here.
21:04 <+trailblazer11> sorry
21:04 <+thor> no objection
21:04 < freedom_watcher> proceed
21:04 < freedom_watcher> no objection
21:04 <+rcarrier> no objection
21:04 <+TSemczyszyn> no objection
21:04 <@scshunt> Ok, we'll proceed then. We need someone to serve as secretary.
21:04 <+DeepNorth> Can we (a) get everyone who is able to please log in and then ... change
the quorum number provisional upon acceptance and then conduct business as
if all were sound.
21:04 <@scshunt> I can do that, but I won't be able to produce a transcript
21:04 <@scshunt> DeepNorth: Unfortunately not
21:04 <+Chas> no objection
21:05 <+psema4> scshunt: I can do it for tonight
21:05 <@scshunt> DeepNorth: Since we need a mail-in vote for that
21:05 <+bob> I'm going ask, phone has no battery left, but I'm still "here" via screen.
21:05 <@scshunt> psema4: thanks
21:05 <+bob> afk*
21:05 <+PJIRC9388> .
21:05 <@scshunt> Are there any objections to psema4 serving as secretary?
21:05 <+CloudQc> Who knows (and is comfy with) how to secretarize meetings like these?
21:05 <@scshunt> psema4 has done it before
21:05 <+SquareWheel> No objection here.
21:05 <+trailblazer11> none
21:05 <+thor> no objection
21:05 <+Devern> No objections
21:05 <~Nuitari> no
21:06 <+Laslow> None
21:06 <+StevenBradleyScott> no
21:06 <+CloudQc> second psema4 then
21:06 <+StuartQF> No objections
21:06 < freedom_watcher> no
21:06 <+MikkelPaulson> let's proceed, please
21:06 <+Chas> no
21:06 <+gregb> none
21:06 <@scshunt> Okay, no objection, psema4 will serve as secretary pro tem
21:06 <+DataPacRat> No
21:06 <+SquareWheel> I think we all agree.
21:07 <@scshunt> Do we have a motion?
21:08 <+MikkelPaulson> okay
21:08 <+DeepNorth> Can someone speak to the rationale behind the changes?
21:08 <~Nuitari> DeepNorth: basically the old constitution has a lot of issues and is really
not adapted to the party
21:08 <~Nuitari> it was mostly borrowed from the green party
21:09 <+MikkelPaulson> the trousers are a bit baggy on us
21:09 <+DeepNorth> The old one was borrowed?
21:09 <+DeepNorth> If so, ugh.
21:09 <+CloudQc> Inspired (it sounds better than borrowed)
21:09 <@scshunt> heh
21:09 <+SquareWheel> I do hope nothing about homeopathy was left in.
21:09 <+drew1> it was pirated
21:09 <+SquareWheel> Heh
21:10 <+StevenBradleyScott> I move that the proposed changes be laid out by those that constructed them
so that the group can understand what is being proposed and why. Starting
with the change to quorum.
21:10 <+DeepNorth> Drew1 -- good one.
21:10 <+voronaam> Did any lawyer reviewed the draft?
21:10 <+DeepNorth> Secon
21:10 <+DeepNorth> Second StevenBradleyScott
21:10 <+Chas> second
21:10 <@scshunt> I won't be moving for the adoption of the constitution without a quorum myself
21:10 <+SquareWheel> Second.
21:10 <@scshunt> and when I do move it, I will go over it in detail
21:10 <+MikkelPaulson> can we still amend it?
21:11 <+MikkelPaulson> voronaam: not to my knowledge, no
21:11 <+adpaolucci> As with all political parties a good constitution is the basis of which the
general public will look onto us and base there views of us on.
21:11 <@scshunt> The document hasn't been officially brought forward to a meeting, so I
suppose we could
21:11 <+DeepNorth> I skimmed through the document and found nothing alarming.
21:11 <+MikkelPaulson> let's do so, then
21:11 <+MikkelPaulson> so we can get some business done today
21:11 <@scshunt> If we want to proceed that way, I will have to leave the chair
21:12 <+grep> Fixing A.1 so that the General Meeting doesn't fall on bad days (i.e.
Friday) would be nice.
21:12 <+MikkelPaulson> https://crm.pirateparty.ca/draft
21:12 <+SquareWheel> Regarding the quorum, I think we need a proper discussion on how many
people is necessary. If it will be a set value or algorithmic.
21:12 <+MikkelPaulson> I move that scshunt be permitted to leave the chair to participate in discussion
21:12 <@scshunt> No motion is necessary
21:12 <@scshunt> but I need a replacement
21:12 <+MikkelPaulson> being that he wrote it
21:12 <+MikkelPaulson> I will
21:12 <+StevenBradleyScott> Alright, I will chair it if that suits the party.
21:13 <@scshunt> Is there someone else willing to serve as chair? A knowledge of
parliamentary procedure is an asset.
21:13 <~Nuitari> scshunt: why don't you do both?
21:14 <+chadk> StevenBradleyScott: Fine by me.
21:14 <+CloudQc> conflict of interest
21:14 <@scshunt> Nuitari: I shouldn't participate in debate as chair. While everyone here
may have something to say so it may be inevitable, I am probably the most
partial person in the room, so I should not be in the chair.
21:14 <+CloudQc> I propose StevenBradleyScott as chairman
21:14 <+StuartQF> I'll second that
21:14 <+chadk> Seconded
21:14 <+voronaam> second
21:15 <+psema4> +1
21:15 <@scshunt> StevenBradleyScott and MikkelPaulson have been nominated; any further
nominations?
21:15 <+grep> Seconded
21:15 <+athlon866> Article II, Point 4 is missing a comma
21:15 <+MikkelPaulson> I'll withdraw
21:15 <+Chas> second
21:15 <@scshunt> athlon866: please raise concerns when we get to it
21:15 <+adpaolucci> second
21:15 <@scshunt> Okay, any objections to StevenBradleyScott serving in the chair?
21:15 <+MikkelPaulson> I'd like to speak to the consitution
21:15 <+MikkelPaulson> *constitution
21:15 <@scshunt> MikkelPaulson: hang on
21:15 <+StevenBradleyScott> MikkelPaulson: Thank you, I think that's appropriate.
21:15 <~Nuitari> scshunt: no objection
21:15 <@scshunt> I see no objection; StevenBradleyScott will be the chair pro tem.
21:16 <+thor> no objection
21:16 <+grep> scshunt: no objection
21:16 <STENO> New chair: StevenBradleyScott.
21:16 <@StevenBradleyScott> If there are no objections then I accept the appointment for the duration
of this meeting.
21:16 < scshunt> I move that when this meeting adjourn, it do so until 8:00 PM EDT on
Wednesday, August 24.
21:16 <+SquareWheel> How many members are currently signed in?
21:17 < scshunt> 48
21:17 <+sidek> OK
21:17 <+sidek> I can be here for just a teeny bit of time
21:17 <+sidek> and have to leave soon
21:17 <+MikkelPaulson> can you leave your client running?
21:17 <+sidek> so I agree with the adjournment
21:17 <+coldacid> i'll second that, scshunt
21:17 <+sidek> MikkelPaulson, I could
21:17 <+MikkelPaulson> we're almost there
21:18 <+sidek> I will be physically away from it, though
21:18 <+sidek> any good IRC apps for Iphone that I can download quickly?
21:18 <+voronaam> MikkelPaulson, I don't think leaving client running is an appropriate way
to meat quorum requirements.
21:18 <+chadk> Colloqy
21:18 <@StevenBradleyScott> It is agreed then, if this meeting should adjourn due to lack of quorum, we
shall resume on 8:00 PM EDT, Wednesday, August 24th.
21:18 <+chadk> I am using it now
21:18 <+DeepNorth> Does anyone know how to reach absentees who might be able to log in?
21:18 <+sidek> okay, I will be absent
21:18 <+sidek> I have to go now
21:18 <+chadk> sidek: Colloquy
21:19 <+sidek> BUT I will be downloading an IRC app for Iphone
21:19 <+sidek> and will pop up when I can
21:19 <+sidek> probably quite soon
21:19 <+voronaam> sidek: thank you!
21:19 <@StevenBradleyScott> sidek: thank you
21:19 <@StevenBradleyScott> I'd like to get the discussion underway in lieu of quorum, if no one has
any objections.
21:19 <+sidek> bye
21:19 <+RealPaul> none
21:20 <+MikkelPaulson> sidek: Colloquy is great
21:20 <+MikkelPaulson> if you don't mind spending a couple of bucks
21:20 <+thor> SteveHenderson: no objections
21:20 < scshunt> I move the document at
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&
srcid=0B6fMlT7CjwHnMDQ3NGMyZTYtMjkyYi00M2NiLWE3MzYtMDY4YzM0MGMxYmU5&hl=en_US
as a revision to the Party's Constitution and Bylaws.
21:21 <+MikkelPaulson> scshunt: for clarification, you removed the breakdown of portfolios in the
Federal Council, right?
21:21 < scshunt> MikkelPaulson: believe so. We'll come to it one way or another
21:21 < scshunt> (can someone second my motion please?)
21:21 <+MikkelPaulson> seconded
21:21 <+StuartQF> Seconded
21:22 <+grep> seconded
21:22 <+voronaam> second
21:22 <+adpaolucci> seconded
21:22 < scshunt> StevenBradleyScott: care to state the motion? :)
21:22 <+Chas> second
21:23 <@StevenBradleyScott> The move for the document at
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&
srcid=0B6fMlT7CjwHnMDQ3NGMyZTYtMjkyYi00M2NiLWE3MzYtMDY4YzM0MGMxYmU5&hl=en_US
be utilized as a revision to the Party's Constitution and Bylaws is passed.
21:23 < scshunt> Point of order: It's not passed. Not even close!
21:23 < scshunt> it's just been made; you need to state it so that it formally comes before
the assembly
21:23 <@StevenBradleyScott> scshunt: that's correct
21:23 < scshunt> (incidentally, we now have a quorum!)
21:23 <+MikkelPaulson> it hasn't gone to a vote yet, StevenBradleyScott
21:23 <+MikkelPaulson> woo!
21:23 <+coldacid> yay
21:23 <+SquareWheel> Excellent.
21:24 <+DataPacRat> :)
21:24 <+Fred> :)
21:24 <+SquareWheel> Can we quickly propose to lower our quorum rate in case anybody leaves?
21:24 <+voronaam> second SquareWheel
21:24 < scshunt> SquareWheel: No, unfortunately. It's in the constitution and only a
constitutional amendment could lower quorum.
21:24 <+DeepNorth> Can we do something about that membership fee until the party ramps up its
numbers?
21:24 <+SquareWheel> I see, thanks.
21:25 < scshunt> We could try to pass a constitutional amendment first to lower quorum so
that in the future even if the general revision gets through, we aren't stuck...
21:25 <STENO> === MOTION THAT THE DOCUMENT AT HTTPS://CRM.PIRATEPARTY.CA/DRAFT BE ADOPTED
AS A REVISION TO THE PARTY'S CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS ===
21:25 <STENO> scshunt has moved that the document at https://crm.pirateparty.ca/draft be
adopted as a revision to the Party's Constitution and Bylaws. A speaking period
of up to 5 minutes is now available for the scshunt to introduce the motion.
21:25 <STENO> ============================================================
21:25 < scshunt> Some opening words on this motion: I have the source document for the PDF.
I will make changes as they are adopted and reupload the document periodically
21:26 < scshunt> Please do nitpick spelling and grammar errors when we reach the appropriate
section (we will be considering by section, I presume?)
21:26 <@StevenBradleyScott> I believe that section is appropriate.
21:26 < scshunt> Thanks to everyone involved in proofreading and commenting on this - I am
certainly not the only person who's put a lot of work into this.
21:27 < scshunt> And thanks to all of you guys for coming out tonight, to help make this
political party become a real fighting force!
21:28 < MikkelPaulson> there
21:29 < scshunt> Are we going to use a speakers' list?
21:29 < MikkelPaulson> it's enabled right now, but given that StevenBradleyScott doesn't have
prior experience with Stenobot, I think we're better off leaving it off
21:29 < adpaolucci> Who currently has the floor?
21:29 <+scshunt> Ok.
21:30 <+adpaolucci> Who currently has the floor?
21:30 <+BrentSchaffrick> scshunt
21:30 <+voronaam> It is an open discussion
21:30 <+SquareWheel> Shall we discuss the draft, then?
21:30 <+DeepNorth> How do we 'raise our hand'?
21:30 <+CloudQc> The following will be enacted as a special rule of order: “General
meetings shall be held at 8:00 PM Eastern time on the 19th of each month in
the #canada channel on irc://irc.pirateparty.ca/ .” - As dicussed earlier,
perhaps we should pick a fixed day of the month (Such as, the 3rd Wednesday of
each month) to make sure not to fall on "Bad days" for certain people.
21:30 <+scshunt> We are doing section-by-section
21:30 <+scshunt> So Article 1. Name is first
21:31 <@StevenBradleyScott> scshunt: You have the floor to introduce the first section of the
constitution and your revisions.
21:31 <+DeepNorth> Move to accept A 1
21:31 <+voronaam> second DeepNorth
21:31 <+scshunt> DeepNorth: No motion to accept is necessary
21:31 <+freedom_watcher> second
21:31 <+Devern> Motion seconded
21:31 <+gregb> No.
21:31 <+scshunt> when we are done discussion, it's accepted automatically and we move on
21:32 <+voronaam> ok
21:32 <+gregb> In the first paragraph I see a "party" mispelled
21:32 <+gregb> as "pary"?
21:32 <+sidek> okay, ping me when the vote happens
21:32 <+scshunt> I move to strike out "Pary" and insert "Party"
21:32 <+thor> seconded
21:32 <+grep> seconded
21:32 <+adpaolucci> seconded
21:32 <+brux> second
21:32 <+SquareWheel> Second.
21:32 <+Fred> second
21:32 <+Chas> second
21:32 <+Devern> Second
21:32 <+gregb> a space between is"Parti"?
21:32 <+scshunt> After that, I'll move to strike out 'is"Parti' and insert 'is "Parti"
21:33 <+Extec> I have returned!
21:33 <+scshunt> actually, better, I'll withdraw those motions
21:33 <@StevenBradleyScott> It has been moved and seconded that we strike out "Pary" and insert "Party".
21:33 <+scshunt> point of order: I withdrew that motion
21:33 <+CloudQc> Perhaps we should not nit-pick on obvious spelling errors
21:33 <+scshunt> I move that the rules be suspended, and that I be given the power to
correct obvious spelling and grammer mistakes as long as I inform the assembly
of any changes I make in this fasion.
21:33 <+gregb> Asked to, earlier.
21:34 <+DeepNorth> Second re nitpick
21:34 <+RealPaul> can we not assume all typos will be corrected with the final draft
21:34 <+MikkelPaulson> seconded
21:34 <+CloudQc> I second scshunt
21:34 <+Extec> scshunt - Not until you learn to spell "grammar"
21:34 <+brux> second
21:34 <+Devern> Second on ignoring typos
21:34 <+scshunt> Extec: haha
21:34 <+MikkelPaulson> Extec: zing!
21:34 <+Chas> second * laugh *
21:34 <+adpaolucci> seconded
21:34 <+scshunt> RealPaul: We're writing the final draft now
21:34 <+grep> seconded
21:34 <+SquareWheel> Seconded, assuming all errors are reported.
21:34 <+Fred> second :)
21:34 <+Extec> scshunt - But otherwise, I support the motion.
21:34 <+grep> nice Extec
21:34 <+freedom_watcher> I motion we agree to correct any and all spelling errors in the document to
standard English (UK).
21:34 <@StevenBradleyScott> It has been movd and seconded that scshunt be given power to correct
obvious spelling mistakes, etc.
21:34 <+Fred> English (Canada), not UK
21:34 <+scshunt> (motions to supsend the rules are undebateable)
21:34 <+DeepNorth> Second Fred
21:35 <+freedom_watcher> agreed, sorry, I meant anything other then US
21:35 <+Extec> Sorry actually I would like to make an amendment to the movement.
21:35 <+Extec> That it only affects spelling and simple grammatical errors, as complex
grammatical errors may accidentally change the intention of the wording.
21:35 <+scshunt> motions to suspend the rules are also unamendable, this would have to be
defeated
21:35 <+BrentSchaffrick> hmm, good call
21:35 <+scshunt> also I said "obvious" and I have to tell you guys, so if you object you can
always revert it
21:36 <+Extec> Fair enough :)
21:36 <@StevenBradleyScott> Extec: let us please finish with discussing scshunt's motion
21:36 <+SquareWheel> I would feel comfortable as long as all corrections are noted.
21:36 <+scshunt> StevenBradleyScott: point of order; it's undebateable and should be put to
a (2/3) vote immediately
21:36 <+Extec> Can I get a final wording on the motion?
21:37 <+scshunt> "I move that the rules be suspended, and that I be given the power to
correct obvious spelling and grammar mistakes as long as I inform the assembly
of any changes I make in this fashion."
21:37 <+psema4> second
21:37 <@StevenBradleyScott> scshunt: I rule in favor that the motion is undebateable and put to a 2/3 vote.
21:37 <+freedom_watcher> seconde
21:37 <+adpaolucci> seconded
21:37 <+chadk> Second
21:37 <+brux> second
21:37 <+scshunt> StevenBradleyScott: call for a vote then!
21:38 <+CloudQc> lol
21:38 <+Vaytan> seconded
21:38 <+SquareWheel> Is there a proper voting procedure?
21:38 <+CCitizen> Ok I'm here (and figuring out how to login to stenobot is like pulling teeth)
21:38 <+MikkelPaulson> StevenBradleyScott: check your PMs
21:38 <+Extec> I assume it's handled through the bot?
21:38 <+Fred> Seconded
21:38 <+BrentSchaffrick> yes
21:38 <+MikkelPaulson> it will be in a moment, yes
21:38 <STENO> === MOTION THAT THE RULES BE SUSPENDED, AND THAT HE BE GIVEN THE POWER TO
CORRECT OBVIOUS SPELLING AND GRAMMER MISTAKES AS LONG AS HE INFORMS THE ===
21:38 <STENO> scshunt has moved that the rules be suspended, and that he be given the
power to correct obvious spelling and grammer mistakes as long as he informs the.
A speaking period of up to 5 minutes is now available for the scshunt to introduce
the motion.
21:38 <STENO> ============================================================
21:38 <@StevenBradleyScott> /msg sb motion vote
21:38 <STENO> === VOTE ON MOTION THAT THE RULES BE SUSPENDED, AND THAT HE BE GIVEN THE
POWER TO CORRECT OBVIOUS SPELLING AND GRAMMER MISTAKES AS LONG AS HE INFORMS THE ===
21:39 <STENO> === MOTION THAT THE RULES BE SUSPENDED, AND THAT HE BE GIVEN THE POWER TO
CORRECT OBVIOUS SPELLING AND GRAMMER MISTAKES AS LONG AS HE INFORMS THE PASSED ===
21:39 <STENO> ============================================================
21:39 <STENO> === MOTION THAT THE DOCUMENT AT HTTPS://CRM.PIRATEPARTY.CA/DRAFT BE ADOPTED
AS A REVISION TO THE PARTY'S CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS ===
21:39 <STENO> Discussion resumes on scshunt's motion that the document at
https://crm.pirateparty.ca/draft be adopted as a revision to the Party's Constitution
and Bylaws.
21:39 <STENO> ============================================================
21:39 <+scshunt> right then
21:40 <+MikkelPaulson> floooooding
21:40 <+SquareWheel> Well that was awfully complex.
21:40 <+scshunt> I have nothing to say about this
21:40 <+SquareWheel> 29 Yes, 0 No, 0 Abstain.
21:40 <+Extec> Can I suggest that a confirmation message be sent in response when you vote?
21:40 <+BrentSchaffrick> is there a way to turn off the "Stenobyte voice" spam?
21:40 <+MikkelPaulson> it normally is
21:40 <+MikkelPaulson> but I disabled the feature and forgot to put it back
21:40 <+Extec> Ah
21:40 <+MikkelPaulson> that's what the keys are
21:41 <+drew1> how do you check what you voted for (i know now its obvious)?
21:41 <+MikkelPaulson> they would normally be PM'd to you in response to casting a vote
21:41 <+MikkelPaulson> drew1: same answer
21:41 <+thor> drew1: read the notice from Stenobot
21:41 <+scshunt> All right, so I've fixed the two errors noted above
21:41 <+scshunt> Anything else on the name?
21:42 <+MikkelPaulson> let's keep moving
21:42 <+scshunt> StevenBradleyScott: may we proceed?
21:42 <@StevenBradleyScott> scshunt: Please go ahead.
21:42 <+scshunt> Okay, article II. Object
21:43 <+scshunt> This was written from scratch, but encompasses the same principles that the
Party has held since its inception
21:43 <+gregb> As far as the #2 point goes I prefer something like
21:43 <+gregb> That the processes of the GC be as transparent as possible and the
information used by the GC be as accessable to the public as possible.
21:43 <+SquareWheel> "As transparent as possible" is a little vague.
21:43 <+gregb> as Governments cannot be opaque or transparent on their own.
21:44 <+scshunt> Some other proposals (such as various bits about forms of voting and
democratic representation), but I do not believe we should add any principles now
since it might put people in the uncomfortable position of having to decide
between the new constitution and adding a principle they don't agree with.
21:44 <+rcarrier> agreed, we should formulate by which means we want to make it more transparent
21:44 <+DeepNorth> gregb what happened to accountability?
21:44 <+gregb> What is that?
21:44 <+DeepNorth> Agree with scshunt
21:45 <+trailblazer11> but this is just a statement of principles I guess we can't put too much
details in it reagrding how to make government transparent
21:45 <+trailblazer11> *regarding
21:45 <+scshunt> How about adding "in particular by ensuring that the public has easy access
to all government information where secrecy is not specifically needed" at the end?
21:45 <+SquareWheel> Still vague.
21:46 <+SquareWheel> The government determines what is needed, nothing is changed.
21:46 <+Extec> Yeah, unfortunately that's how it runs right now, and it's still totally broken.
21:46 <+CloudQc> I would go for "That the GC is entirely transparent and accountable on all
levels except if the physical safety of a group of individuals or an individual are at
high risk"
21:46 <+scshunt> CloudQc: Privacy too
21:46 <+gregb> What does accountable mean?
21:46 <+trailblazer11> we ant it to be systematic rather than subjective
21:46 <+trailblazer11> *want
21:46 <+CloudQc> privacy for a public affaire should not exist in my opinion
21:47 <+SquareWheel> I don't think that level of transparency is realistically possible, CloudQc.
21:47 <+scshunt> CloudQc: The government has to have lots of personal information of citizens
21:47 <+SquareWheel> As much as I wish it to be so.
21:47 <+DeepNorth> gregb -- good question. It *should* mean that there are mechanisms of
oversight and recall.
21:47 <+scshunt> CloudQc: Imagine if all your health records were made public
21:47 <+Extec> DeepNorth - There should be independent mechanisms of oversight and recall.
21:47 <+Wilson> item #1 change "against" to "with" the wording implies conflict between
innovators and users
21:47 <+SquareWheel> So we agree that a certain level needs to be specified, not everything can
be transparent.
21:47 <+gregb> transparency of process is achievable though.
21:48 <+CloudQc> Hmm let me reword then
21:48 <+gregb> and accessibility of information used by the processes.
21:48 <+Extec> gregb - Achievable, yes, desirable, possibly not.
21:48 <+rcarrier> how about the government should gradually make information available while
making to decision process (to make to documents public) transparent
21:49 <+rcarrier> sorry **the decision process
21:49 <+Extec> It already does that.
21:49 <+scshunt> That's why the current wording was "as possible"
21:49 <+DeepNorth> No, agree with gregb. It is desirable.
21:49 <+scshunt> These are very general statements, we don't need implementation details here
21:49 <+Extec> However in the current situation "gradually" is over a course of 90 years I
believe.
21:49 <+DeepNorth> Extec -- I know from personal experience that there is a lot of back room
dealing.
21:49 <+Devern> Reactionary transparency / as requested
21:49 <+SquareWheel> scshunt - I feel general statements should be avoided.
21:50 <+gregb> That the GC make processes transparent and information accessable as much
as possible.
21:50 <+SquareWheel> To rephrase, I feel vague statements should be avoided.
21:50 <+scshunt> SquareWheel: Why?
21:50 <+F49> scshunt: We may not need implementation details but we need some level of
detail, enough so that we can say with
specificity what exactly we *want* to happen
21:50 <+CCitizen> 90 years is better than the current state of copyright, just for reference
21:50 <+DeepNorth> agree with gregb
21:50 <+Extec> DeepNorth - Perhaps it should be required to at the very least be on
official record, however publication of official record subject to
parliamentary privlege?
21:50 <+trailblazer11> there needs to be set guidelines and not left to government discretion
21:51 <+SquareWheel> I agree.
21:51 <+scshunt> The problem is that the government must ultimately be the decider
21:51 <+F49> If at all possible, yes
21:51 <+scshunt> some body needs to decide what is possible to keep secrety
21:51 <+scshunt> *secret
21:51 <+TravisMcCrea> My personal opinion is that we have to come to the table realizing that we
have to compromise, if we state we want there to be only a couple of secrets,
they will want a few. I say we just say no secrets and then work to say "okay
a couple"
21:51 <+trailblazer11> what about a non-partisan body
21:51 <+F49> scshunt, yes, which is why there needs to be some sort of rational that the
government can produce as to why a document is hidden
21:51 <+Chas> how about the protectors of citizens
21:51 <+scshunt> F49: We do have such a system, broadly
21:51 <+F49> Even if the document cannot be produced, the rational should be
21:51 <+scshunt> the current access to information framework is not bad
21:51 <+Extec> TravisMcCrea - However you also run the risk of people simply saying
"absurd" and ignoring us.
21:51 <+gregb> "some body needs to decide what is possible to keep secret" - how about
Wikileaks?
21:51 <+CCitizen> Problem is if you make the government the decider they will always select
in favor of keeping secrets because knowledge is power
21:51 <+scshunt> but the implementation is incredibly pathetic
21:52 <+JustinDavidow> I agree here: these are objectives, not implementation guide lines.
21:52 <+DeepNorth> TravisMcCrea -- good point.
21:52 <+Extec> gregb - I think wikileaks proves that it is impossible to keep anything
secret :)
21:52 <+F49> Right, we need to clarify our objectives
21:52 <+SquareWheel> Okay, so let us come up with wording we all agree on.
21:52 <+JustinDavidow> the objective, we can all agree, is to make information available wherever
it's safe to do so, it it not?
21:52 <+trailblazer11> ok what about putting the burden on the government to justify why it should
be a secret
21:52 <+SquareWheel> Yes.
21:52 <+Extec> JustinDavidow - Yes.
21:52 <+TravisMcCrea> The problem with our party is that we are so reasonable as it is... that we
alienate a ton of our supporters who are way the hell out there by trying to
compromise, but our "middle ground" doesn't really gain us any additional
supporters
21:52 <+CloudQc> That the GC make processes transparent and that all information obtained by
the GC should be accessible as long as that information respects the privacy
of an individual and the safety of Canadian citizens.
21:52 <+F49> Its not quite wherever its safe to do so, since again, I'd prefer my
medical records to be kept secret
21:53 <+Devern> I agree with non-disclosure agreements, but any information should be
available to anyone who requests it
21:53 <+CloudQc> This should be clearer ;)
21:53 <+gregb> I like that, at least on first read.
21:53 <+Extec> TravisMcCrea - So are we working to build support, or are we striving to
reform government?
21:53 <+F49> CloudQc: nicely put
21:53 <@StevenBradleyScott> I believe the difficult is around the word "possible", if we'd like to
focus the discussion on that and alternatives.
21:53 <+trailblazer11> transparency applies to any thing related to business conducted by the
government on behalf of the public
21:53 <+RealPaul> yes well put, it is clear what we pirates want is a government that is
transparent.
21:53 <@StevenBradleyScott> *difficulty
21:53 <+TravisMcCrea> Extec, both... they are not exclusive of each other
21:53 <+JustinDavidow> Devern - I agree completely.
21:54 <+F49> an individual -> individuals?
21:54 <+MikkelPaulson> yes
21:54 <+Extec> TravisMcCrea - Unless you compromise on your intentions of reform in order
to build a larger base of support.
21:54 <+Devern> The idea is the GC can track who is receiving information
21:54 <+Gabe> CloudQc: Should we specify transparency a meaning "transparent to the
general public"? Problem is that everything is transparent to someone - just
not the average Joe.
21:54 <+TravisMcCrea> Extec, which is my point in why we should come in and just say "no secrets"
21:54 <+CloudQc> (i am a Québecer so perhaps and anglophone could fix minor wording errors)
21:54 <+scshunt> I move that the document be amended by inserting "and that Government
information should be made available to all citizens where it would not
compromise individuals' rights or safety" after "as possible at all levels".
21:54 <+CCitizen> The problem is that by definition everything the government does is
business conducted on behalf of the public
21:54 <+SquareWheel> SteveBradleyScott I agree, we need to decide how "loose" to make the
wording. Especially for a general statement.
21:55 <+Extec> TravisMcCrea, then the question is, are we agreed that this is the
direction the party wants to go?
21:55 <+brendon195> Seconded.
21:55 <+TravisMcCrea> Extec, I think thats why we are all here to find out ;)
21:55 <+CloudQc> Here: That the GC make processes transparent and that all information
obtained by the GC should be accessible to Canadians as long as that
information respects the privacy of an individual (or many individuals) and the
safety of Canadian citizens.
21:55 <+trailblazer11> yeah CCitizen just responding to concern about personal information being
revealed.
21:55 <@StevenBradleyScott> brendon195: was that for scshunt's motion?
21:55 <+DeepNorth> Say "no secrets" and provide a position paper to explain what this means.
21:55 <+brendon195> Yes it was.
21:55 <+TravisMcCrea> If you want a change in fundamentals of the party... during the
constitutional change time woudl be the best
time to do it ;)
21:56 <+rcarrier> maybe we could add that we want to use new technologies to make processes
transparent and elaborate in future discussions
21:56 <STENO> === MOTION THAT THE DOCUMENT BE AMENDED BY INSERTING "AND THAT GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION SHOULD BE MADE AVAILABLE TO ALL CITIZENS WHERE IT WOULD NOT
COMPROMISE INDIVIDUALS' RIGHTS OR SAFETY" AFTER "AS POSSIBLE AT ALL LEVELS". ===
21:56 <STENO> scshunt has moved that the document be amended by inserting "and that
Government information should be made available to all citizens where it would
not compromise individuals' rights or safety" after "as possible at all levels"..
A speaking period of up to 5 minutes is now available for the scshunt to introduce
the motion.
21:56 <STENO> ============================================================
21:56 <+Devern> But anyone can get the information freely, but a non-disclosure must be signed
21:57 <+BrentSchaffrick> that was odd
21:57 <+SquareWheel> I'm not sure I understand the point of the NDA.
21:57 <+CloudQc> No, no non-disclosure
21:57 <+SquareWheel> If the information is open, why is an NDA necessary.
21:57 <+TravisMcCrea> lol so then you could know some great abuse... and you couldn't share it?
21:57 <+F49> precisel
21:57 <+gregb> To start with I don't want access to all info, just the info used by the
processes in making the decision.
21:57 <+CloudQc> You see, secrets only breed 1 thing: Corruption.
21:57 <@StevenBradleyScott> scshunt: would you like to discuss your motion?
21:57 <+DeepNorth> non-disclosures are evil.
21:57 <+scshunt> When did we get onto the point of NDAs?
21:57 <+Extec> I don't think an NDA would ever be good or necessary.
21:57 <+JustinDavidow> It allows a person to reveal information to someone while knowing that
information will not be relayed without logging who has access to that information.
21:57 <+BrentSchaffrick> Devern - are you suggesting that all information in the government's domain
be open access to all citizens?
21:57 <@StevenBradleyScott> scshunt: Or are you widthdrawing it?
21:58 <@StevenBradleyScott> Let's please focus on scshunt's motion
21:58 <+Extec> So lets strike discussion of NDA in regards to the constitution and bylaws.
21:58 <+scshunt> StevenBradleyScott: I will; I just didn't want to make an introductory speech.
21:58 <+SquareWheel> Agreed.
21:58 <+TravisMcCrea> Extec, I agree
21:58 <+scshunt> ANYWAY
21:58 <+Devern> The NDA is to ensure only the GC is the only party releasing info,
consistency being the question
21:58 <+SquareWheel> I do not support NDAs.
21:58 <+Extec> I believe there is a motion being put to vote?
21:58 <+CloudQc> scshunt: Could you specify Canadian citizens on that motion? for obvious reasons
21:58 <+scshunt> I have made a motion, let's talk about that :)
21:58 <+CCitizen> NDAs are something for businesses, the government shouldnt have NDA's
although they might have privilaged information (like troop placements and such)
21:58 <+scshunt> CloudQc: I think it's pretty clear from context
21:58 <+drew1> Not everything must be known. But there needs to be a way of "verifying"
that the government is not lying.
21:58 <+Extec> Devern - That would be subject to parliamentary privlege, not an NDA.
21:58 <+TravisMcCrea> scshunt, can you give a link to the origional or paste what the entire text
would be with your amendment?
21:58 <+grep> How about defining "lease of information" and saying that people don't give
information to the government, they merely lease it. That way, the government has to
keep public all the information it owns (which obviously excludes the information
that doesn't belong to it).
21:58 <@StevenBradleyScott> Everyone, we are not discussing NDAs at this time.
21:59 <@StevenBradleyScott> we are discussing scshunt's motion.
21:59 <+Devern> Extec: Agreed
21:59 <+CloudQc> Yes, but the wording should be as perfect as possible =)
21:59 <@StevenBradleyScott> The motion is: that the document be amended by inserting "and that
Government information should be made available to all citizens where it would not
compromise individuals' rights or safety" after "as possible at all levels".
21:59 <+scshunt> \item That the Government of Canada needs to be as transparent and as
accountable as possible at all levels, and that Government information should be
made available to all citizens where it would not compromise individuals' rights or
safety;
21:59 <+scshunt> \item That Canadians have a fundamental right to privacy and that the laws
should both require that right to be respected and respect that right themselves; and
21:59 <+trailblazer11> what about making the government justify and defend why an information need
to be kept secrey
21:59 <+trailblazer11> *secret
21:59 <+scshunt> eek
21:59 <+trailblazer11> sorry
21:59 <+scshunt> first one is what it would look like
21:59 <+Extec> I'll second the motion.
22:00 <+scshunt> Extec: it's been seconded, we're now discussing it
22:00 <+SquareWheel> I think it's an improvement.
22:00 <+DeepNorth> I think we need much more time to review.
22:00 <+SquareWheel> I agree with DeepNorth. It is better but not complete.
22:00 <+scshunt> I think this wording properly addresses most of the concerns without getting too
specific
22:00 <+rcarrier> in the states, there are branches of the CIA the president doesn't have access to
22:00 <+TravisMcCrea> I think I could agree with that
22:00 <+CloudQc> Yes, it is definately improved from the original ;)
22:00 <+grep> I agree with DeepNorth, it's hard to check for loopholes in that in a matter of
minutes
22:00 <+rcarrier> the same can be true in canada for the CSIS
22:00 <+DeepNorth> Is it possible to have continuation ...
22:01 <+TravisMcCrea> btw what are the rules of order at this point considering your motion was moved and
seconded?
22:01 <+scshunt> In particular, the implementation detail of who controls the flow of information is not
really vital, I think
22:01 <+thor> rcarrier: please focus on the motion
22:01 <+F49> I think it can be amended again later if need be, for now, this is good
22:01 <+scshunt> TravisMcCrea: We are now debating it. When we're done, it will go to a vote. You can
move to amend the amendment (but no third-level amendments)
22:01 <+Extec> Yeah, I think we might need to clean up procedure here.
22:01 <+Devern> I second motion from scshunt
22:01 <+voronaam> I motion to put the motion to the vote, Wording makes sense to me.
22:01 <+scshunt> Does anyone not like this amendment?
22:01 <@StevenBradleyScott> My apologies, I have to leave the meeting. I move that MikkelPaulson takes the Chair.
22:01 <+TravisMcCrea> second voronaam
22:01 <+JustinDavidow> I also second the amendment.
22:01 <+BrentSchaffrick> me, in a way
22:01 <+CloudQc> i second the motion to move on to a vote
22:01 <+scshunt> I second StevenBradleyScott's motion
22:01 <+scshunt> if MikkelPaulson is around
22:01 <+MikkelPaulson> I am
22:01 <@StevenBradleyScott> any objections to MikkelPaulson taking the chair?
22:02 <+SquareWheel> None.
22:02 <+grep> I don't like it because it could be done better.
22:02 <+TravisMcCrea> Technically we should go in order of motions
22:02 <+psema4> none here
22:02 <+JustinDavidow> None!
22:02 <+TravisMcCrea> but no objection
22:02 <+trailblazer11> nope
22:02 <+RealPaul> nope
22:02 <+grep> no objection
22:02 <+Chas> nope
22:02 <+scshunt> TravisMcCrea: there's a motion stack
22:02 <+SquareWheel> Okay, shall we vote regarding the wording change, then?
22:02 <@StevenBradleyScott> In that case the motion is passed.
22:02 <+Extec> I think in this case, the chair's needing to leave is a bit more important
than the debate of the standing motion.
22:02 <+CloudQc> Put a 15 second timer or something instead of spamming No lol
22:02 <+MikkelPaulson> TravisMcCrea: to see the stack, type /msg sb motion list
22:02 <+drew1> I don't like the "safety" word
22:02 <STENO> New chair: MikkelPaulson.
22:02 <+TravisMcCrea> All sorts of fancy things
22:03 <+Extec> drew1 - Do you disagree with "safety" or how it may be interpretted?
22:03 <+CCitizen> I'm guessing it'd be the interpreation
22:03 <+grep> drew1: I thought of the same -- you could get away with hiding plenty of
information by saying "oh but it's for the safety of the people!"
22:03 <+SquareWheel> Can we paste the current proposed wording again?
22:03 <+F49> Ok, we are getting more input on scshunts motion, lets wait a moment before
bringing that to vote
22:03 <+Extec> In which case do we just need better clarification?
22:03 <+drew1> Rights is ok.
22:03 <+CCitizen> Considering how every time something happens we're asked to give up rights
for safety and security sake :P
22:03 <+DeepNorth> The new wording is better, but still does not feel right
22:03 <@MikkelPaulson> scshunt moved that the document be amended by inserting "and that
Government information should be made available to all citizens where it
would not compromise individuals' rights or safety" after "as possible at
all levels".
22:04 <+TravisMcCrea> yes then someone moved and someone else seconded that we go to vote on it
22:04 <+Extec> drew1 does have a point, in that corruption within government would
compromise the "safety" of the individuals involved.
22:04 <+drew1> maybe "immediate" danger would be an excuse
22:04 <+F49> I agree with drew1
22:04 <+SquareWheel> The TSA is an example of this.
22:04 <+BrentSchaffrick> I think the basic problem is you are trying to force the concept of
integrityinto government, when government is made of individuals, many of
whom have chose not to follow a path of personal integrity.
22:04 <+kelflar> I think dropping safety and just leaving in rights would work
22:04 <+voronaam> Extec: there is no protection against that in wording
22:04 <+F49> However, the danger not be immediate. How about "significant danger"
22:04 <+Extec> And yet at the same time, the entire point of the article is to reduce
corruption.
22:05 <+SquareWheel> F49 - Significant is vague.
22:05 <@MikkelPaulson> sorry, catching up here
22:05 <+CloudQc> Freedom is not a price worth paying for security.
22:05 <+DeepNorth> The 'safety' thing just provides a loophole that nullifies the intent
22:05 <@MikkelPaulson> voronaam has moved that the motion be put to a vote
22:05 <@MikkelPaulson> are there any objections?
22:05 <+grep> I agree with kelflar, for the lack of a better solution.
22:05 <+JustinDavidow> to some degree, one has to trust their government.
22:05 <+SquareWheel> I agree we drop safety.
22:05 <+Extec> MikkelPaulson - I object.
22:05 <+F49> CloudQc: Unfortunately there is some level of vagueness that will be necessary
22:05 <+Extec> I dont believe this has been hashed properly.
22:05 <+trailblazer11> agree with DeepNorth
22:05 <+SquareWheel> I agree, but we must decide what level.
22:05 <+Chas> yeah totally agree with deepnorth
22:05 <+grep> I agree with DeepNorth
22:06 <+SquareWheel> Okay, so vote to drop safety, then vote to change the wording?
22:06 <+scshunt> MikkelPaulson: don't bother with the bot to put that motion to a vote
22:06 <+CloudQc> Safety, without specifying safety for what, can also mean "safety from
investigation for my party funder"
22:06 <@MikkelPaulson> scshunt: that's why I didn't ;)
22:06 <+BrentSchaffrick> hmm, ya, "safety" could be already in under the premise of rights "the
right to life"
22:06 <+Chas> bill 52 is beign introduced for our safety soon , at the same time its what
we aim to end
22:06 <+scshunt> point of order: an undebateable motion is pending, we should shut up
22:06 <+DeepNorth> This is like a security problem where the government is the attacker.
22:06 <+F49> Safety -> "Personal Saftey"
22:06 <+scshunt> MikkelPaulson: point of order: please put the motion for the previous
question to a vote
22:07 <+F49> ?
22:07 <+Extec> scshunt - If you're going to call that undebateable as it stands, you're
going to get a severely split vote.
22:07 <+DeepNorth> You have to assume *bad* faith.
22:07 <@MikkelPaulson> I asked for objections
22:07 <+TravisMcCrea> scshunt, I just told him the same thing, there were no objections
22:07 <+Extec> MikkelPaulson - And I objected.
22:07 <+TravisMcCrea> asked him*
22:07 <+TravisMcCrea> where?
22:07 <+scshunt> MikkelPaulson: and you got one
22:07 <+scshunt> MikkelPaulson: so put it to a vote
22:07 <@MikkelPaulson> there were about 6 objections, TravisMcCrea
22:07 <+scshunt> it's an undebateable motion that requires a 2/3rds vote
22:07 <+F49> This is true order is being a bit messed with, but now there are objections
22:07 <+gregb> seven
22:07 <+Extec> MikkelPaulson - I object.
22:07 <+grep> count me in as an objection
22:08 <+F49> I'll add my objection to an immediate vote
22:08 <+TravisMcCrea> Oh sorry, my internet lagged yeah apparently I missed a whole block of
conversation actulaly.
22:08 <+DeepNorth> I think we have something better, but not good enough.
22:08 <+Extec> However, scshunt stated this motion is undebateable.
22:08 <+gregb> I think the idea though is to make the principles simple - expand on them
in later documents, etc.
22:08 <+TSemczyszyn> Agreed
22:08 <+Extec> MikkelPaulson, as chair, do you concur that the motion is undebateable, and
if so, please restate the standing motion.
22:08 <+thor> Extec: we can either vote against it, or he can withdraw it; we can't debate it
22:08 <+SquareWheel> Yes, but they musn't be vague.
22:08 <+DeepNorth> agree with gregb
22:09 <+trailblazer11> can we do amendment?
22:09 <+JustinDavidow> I agree. If need be, we can define saftey in an appendix with other def's
22:09 <+SquareWheel> I feel we should vote on it now.
22:09 <+Extec> Please stop debating for a second guys, I want clarification from the chair.
22:09 <+CloudQc> "As possible" = "Uncertainty" = "bad party image"
22:09 <+SquareWheel> Agreed.
22:09 <+SquareWheel> MikkelPaulson, please way in.
22:09 <+scshunt> Extec: the motion for the previous question is undebatable
22:09 <+SquareWheel> weigh*
22:09 <+scshunt> the motion to amend is debateable
22:09 <+scshunt> (previous question being the motion to put this immediately to a ovte)
22:09 <+scshunt> *vote
22:10 <+JustinDavidow> I agree, put it to a vote.
22:10 <+Extec> Correct me if I'm wrong, you're asking for a vote on a motion to vote?
22:10 <+SquareWheel> To confirm, we are voting on the inclusion of "safety" in the wording?
22:10 <+DeepNorth> I am not beating my wife, so how can I answer yes or no to the question?
22:10 <+BrentSchaffrick> vote on a motion to amend a motion i think
22:10 <@MikkelPaulson> sorry, fell behind a moment
22:10 <+scshunt> first we have to vote to vote
22:10 <+DeepNorth> Abstain
22:10 <+RealPaul> that was the original motion I believe
22:10 <@MikkelPaulson> Extec: I concur
22:10 <+SquareWheel> This is all a little silly.
22:10 <+Extec> Okay, so the first vote is to ratify the motion as it stands?
22:10 <+F49> Something needs to be included in the wording, but I think we are agreeing
that safety isn't quite it
22:10 <+scshunt> I'll add that if the motion is an improvement, we should vote it through
22:10 <+Extec> And if that fails, we debate?
22:11 <+scshunt> we can improve it afterwards
22:11 <+drew1> I think its ok if government keeps some information secret, as long as we
don't make decisions based on the secrets. For example: War in Iraq...
22:11 <+TravisMcCrea> Yes can I point out that we are only voting to vote
22:11 <+TravisMcCrea> so an objection is pointless anyway
22:11 <+TravisMcCrea> just vote no
22:11 <+scshunt> TravisMcCrea: it's not pointless to object if you want to vote
22:11 <+Extec> Okay, then I'll agree to withdraw my objection.
22:11 <@MikkelPaulson> shall I put the question?
22:11 <+Extec> Please do.
22:11 <+scshunt> MikkelPaulson: There is nothing else you can do
22:12 <+CloudQc> lol
22:12 <+psema4> lol
22:12 <@MikkelPaulson> eurm
22:12 <@MikkelPaulson> *erm
22:12 <+SquareWheel> Oh my.
22:12 <+Extec> Wrong button?
22:12 <+DataPacRat> ?
22:12 <@MikkelPaulson> yup
22:12 <+scshunt> MikkelPaulson: You have to put the motion for the previous question to vote
22:12 <+scshunt> it's undebateable
22:12 <+BrentSchaffrick> do you still have chair now?
22:12 <+scshunt> and unamendable
22:12 <@MikkelPaulson> I will as soon as I can get it back :P
22:12 <+SquareWheel> We have no chair?
22:12 <+TravisMcCrea> the motion was to vote on the amendment, we are to then have a debate on
having a vote, then have a vote to vote, then we can debate again or vote
in favour of the amendment
22:12 <@MikkelPaulson> give me a moment
22:12 <@MikkelPaulson> Stenobot is bugging out
22:13 <+scshunt> MikkelPaulson: stuff sb
22:13 <+Extec> TravisMcCrea - Try reading that back with a straight face.
22:13 <+psema4> lol
22:13 <@MikkelPaulson> oh nevermind
22:13 <@MikkelPaulson> guess I'm still chair
22:13 <+TravisMcCrea> Extec, it sounds silly but it makes sense
22:13 <+SquareWheel> This is incredibly meta.
22:13 <+Extec> Yes yes, procedure and all.
22:13 <@MikkelPaulson> voronaam has moved that the motion be put to a vote; all those in favour
please say yes, all opposed say no
22:14 <+TravisMcCrea> Aye
22:14 <@MikkelPaulson> there are 45 seconds available to vote
22:14 <+brendon195> yes
22:14 <+grep> aye
22:14 <+Vaytan> yes
22:14 <+BrentSchaffrick> no
22:14 <+RealPaul> yes
22:14 <+scshunt> aye
22:14 <+SquareWheel> Can we explain the motion? I'm a tad confused.
22:14 <+Wilson> yes
22:14 <+thor> yes
22:14 <+Devern> Yes
22:14 <+brux> yes
22:14 <+scshunt> SquareWheel: it's a motion to end debate on the amendment
22:14 <+TravisMcCrea> The motion is can we vote on the amendment
22:14 <+Extec> At least we're not having a vote on whether or not to debate. Although
technically speaking I supose that's exactly what this vote is :)
22:14 <+trailblazer11> aye
22:14 <+DataPacRat> yes
22:14 <@MikkelPaulson> (a 2/3 majority is required)
22:14 <+mib_s3ss7m> yes
22:14 <+SquareWheel> scshunt Thank you.
22:14 <+kelflar> yes
22:14 <+Chas> yes
22:14 <+TSemczyszyn> yes
22:14 <+DeepNorth> no
22:14 <+F49> aye
22:14 <+sidek> yes
22:14 <+gregb> no
22:14 <@MikkelPaulson> the voting time has elapsed
22:14 <+StuartQF> no
22:15 <+TravisMcCrea> I move to allow StuartQF's last second vote. If we were not going to
22:15 <@MikkelPaulson> the results are 18 yes, 4 no
22:15 <@MikkelPaulson> the motion passes
22:15 <+Extec> Sorry, has Stenobot desync'd?
22:15 <+F49> Travis: seconded
22:15 <+SquareWheel> I would agree, but it would change nothing.
22:15 <+scshunt> yes, let's not get hung up on irrelevant details
22:15 <@MikkelPaulson> now calling the vote
22:15 <STENO> === VOTE ON MOTION THAT THE DOCUMENT BE AMENDED BY INSERTING "AND THAT
GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SHOULD BE MADE AVAILABLE TO ALL CITIZENS WHERE IT
WOULD NOT COMPROMISE INDIVIDUALS' RIGHTS OR SAFETY" AFTER "AS POSSIBLE AT
ALL LEVELS". ===
22:15 <+scshunt> all of us want to go to bed eventually :)
22:15 <+BrentSchaffrick> so now we have agreed to vote
22:15 <+TravisMcCrea> just for the record, I voted yes... :) just want to try to keep democracy
going :P
22:16 <STENO> === MOTION THAT THE DOCUMENT BE AMENDED BY INSERTING "AND THAT GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION SHOULD BE MADE AVAILABLE TO ALL CITIZENS WHERE IT WOULD NOT
COMPROMISE INDIVIDUALS' RIGHTS OR SAFETY" AFTER "AS POSSIBLE AT ALL LEVELS".
PASSED ===
22:16 <STENO> ============================================================
22:16 <STENO> === MOTION THAT THE DOCUMENT AT HTTPS://CRM.PIRATEPARTY.CA/DRAFT BE ADOPTED
AS A REVISION TO THE PARTY'S CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS ===
22:16 <@MikkelPaulson> scshunt: did this require a 2/3 majority?
22:16 <STENO> Discussion resumes on scshunt's motion that the document at
https://crm.pirateparty.ca/draft be adopted as a revision to the Party's
Constitution and Bylaws.
22:16 <STENO> ============================================================
22:16 <+scshunt> MikkelPaulson: no
22:16 <@MikkelPaulson> okay
22:16 <@MikkelPaulson> the motion passes
22:16 <+SquareWheel> A close one, though.
22:17 <+Chas> darn stenobot 15 sec reading vote is way too quick i didint have time to cast
22:17 <+Chas> nm
22:17 <+gregb> so simple majority, not 2/3?
22:17 <+TravisMcCrea> Chas, lol me either
22:17 <+SquareWheel> Yes, I had trouble even finding it with all the bot spam.
22:17 <@MikkelPaulson> the vote is 45 seconds
22:17 <+Extec> Can I put forth a procedural motion?
22:17 <+BrentSchaffrick> same, having to scroll up past the spam, read, then type took me 40 sec
22:17 <+scshunt> Extec: yes
22:17 <+gregb> I barely made it and I was ready with a paste - bot spam is ridiculous
22:17 <+CloudQc> I would like to suggest to put the vote on stenobot at 90 seconds.
22:18 <+SquareWheel> Secnded.
22:18 <+grep> CloudQc: +1
22:18 <+Extec> I'd like to put forth that sb confirms votes by PM and that the vote time
be extended to 120 seconds.
22:18 <+scshunt> Let's not use stenobot
22:18 <+Chas> heh yeah same here need to scroll up read then scroll back down then type
22:18 <+scshunt> stenobot is frustrating
22:18 <+Devern> Aye. 2nd
22:18 <+SquareWheel> Or just disable the "can talk" notification.
22:18 <+grep> scshunt: that too
22:18 <+TravisMcCrea> I would like to amend your motion to also include having a revote of last vote
22:18 <+Vaytan> i agree on the 120 sec
22:18 <@MikkelPaulson> Extec: can't be done at this meeting without restarting the vote
22:18 <+Extec> MikkelPaulson - Fair enough, but can it be revised for future meetings?
22:18 <+gregb> And is it majority or 2/3? Please answer?
22:18 <@MikkelPaulson> we went to 60 seconds in the past and decided that it was way too long
22:19 <@MikkelPaulson> gregb: it's simple majority
22:19 <+thor> SquareWheel: your irc client can show/hide all sorts of things
22:19 <+Vaytan> mikkelpaulson maybe for the next one
22:19 <+DeepNorth> I think we need to look that over again later. It seems to me that we have
agreed to change ...
22:19 <+SquareWheel> thor I am using the built in mibbit client.
22:19 <+CloudQc> Well better it be too long than it be not long enough for certain people
22:19 <+Extec> btw - shy of going through my backlog, did we address the size of quorum
issue yet?
22:19 <+scshunt> Any member who voted for the motion to amend can move for its reconsideration
22:19 <+scshunt> Extec: that's muc hlater
22:19 <+F49> CloudQc: Yes
22:19 <+DeepNorth> The government should always be transparent.
22:19 <+DeepNorth> To ...
22:19 <+BrentSchaffrick> thor - what is the command to suppress voice give lose?
22:19 <+scshunt> but we can also move further amendments
22:19 <+Extec> scshunt - Okay, just wanted to check.
22:19 <+DeepNorth> The government should always be transparent except when it does not want to be.
22:19 <@MikkelPaulson> let's do this, then
22:19 <+DeepNorth> Or .. except when it isn't.
22:19 <@MikkelPaulson> no more voicing
22:19 <+Devern> I move for the immediate vote on quorum size
22:19 <+CloudQc> There is no sense in having a system that excludes party members from
voting. I would rather wait on them to have a better overal opinion
22:20 <@MikkelPaulson> I'll have to check up on it to see if it goes insane
22:20 <+scshunt> I've uploaded a new version; you can refresh it
22:20 <+DeepNorth> Second devern
22:20 <+RealPaul> transparency if necessary, but not necessarily transparency, eh DeepNorth?
22:20 <+SquareWheel> Devern Object. I want to discuss the wording first.
22:20 <+scshunt> Voting on quorum now is silly
22:20 <+Extec> Actually it's not.
22:20 <+scshunt> We won't change anything now
22:20 <+grep> Devern: Let's finish with the issue at hand.
22:20 <+DeepNorth> RealPaul -- yes.
22:20 <+scshunt> until the whole thing gets amended
22:20 <+Extec> How many members do we have on hand right now?
22:20 <+SquareWheel> We're in the middle of another issue.
22:21 <+RealPaul> A question regarding the objectives, should we add something about being a
part of the Pirate Party International, or should that have been in article 1?
22:21 <+F49> Lets finish the issue at hand indeed
22:21 <+scshunt> We have 56
22:21 <+Devern> Motion withdrawn
22:21 <+scshunt> Extec: we cannot change quorum here and now
22:21 <+scshunt> without a constitutional amendment
22:21 <+Extec> scshunt - So we are in real danger of losing the quorum.
22:21 <+TravisMcCrea> point of order, what is the current subject at hand?
22:21 <+TravisMcCrea> err sorry point of clearification ;)
22:21 <+scshunt> TravisMcCrea: Article II
22:21 <+SquareWheel> The wording of safety, I believe.
22:21 <+TravisMcCrea> Which has now been successfully amended?
22:21 <@MikkelPaulson> scshunt: 55 actually
22:21 <+Extec> Actually that motion passed.
22:21 <+scshunt> TravisMcCrea: correct.
22:21 <+scshunt> MikkelPaulson: oh
22:22 <+scshunt> The amendment passed. refresh the document for a new version
22:22 <+thor> document link for the new arrivals?
22:22 <+voronaam> The next question is to strike out "OR SAFETY", right?
22:22 <+TravisMcCrea> Okay so now we are discussing its merits in its current form and then going
to passed. and can you put a link to the document in the title?
22:22 <@MikkelPaulson> https://crm.pirateparty.ca/draft
22:22 <+TravisMcCrea> can it go into the title for people who may join late?
22:23 <+SquareWheel> Can we vote on the inclusion of "safety" in article 2?
22:23 <@MikkelPaulson> if you can make a motion of it, yes
22:23 <+scshunt> Is anyone going to move to strike "or safety" from the second bullet?
22:24 <+psema4> I'll move it
22:24 <+DeepNorth> What is the current text -- I assume we are talking about Article 2, P1?
22:24 <+scshunt> DeepNorth: at the link
22:24 <+gregb> I still don't know what accountability means, not trying to be be obtuse,
just that accountability needs someone/thing to be accountable to.
22:24 <+TravisMcCrea> second
22:24 <+grep> scshunt: I would like to, um, if I'm allowed to
22:24 <+F49> Yeah, I suppose the safety thing can go under right to privacy or
something. and yes, having safety there like that isn't quite what we want
22:24 <+SquareWheel> Frankly, I'm pretty sure I'd use the wrong term if I were to do so.
22:24 <+Extec> I will second grep's motion
22:24 <+SquareWheel> I'll second it.
22:24 <+SquareWheel> Let's cover grep's motion afterwards.
22:24 <+SquareWheel> Focus on one thing at a time.
22:25 <+Extec> Point of Order - What's the motion on the floor at present?
22:25 <+kelflar> what are we focusing on?
22:25 <+voronaam> Motion to strike out "and safety" after words "WHERE IT WOULD NOT
COMPROMISE INDIVIDUALS' RIGHTS"
22:25 <+F49> SquareWheel: I think you are confused
22:25 <+SquareWheel> Second.
22:25 <@MikkelPaulson> Extec: /msg sb motion list
22:25 <+SquareWheel> F49 - Yes, a little.
22:25 <+DeepNorth> Can we get the actual text?
22:25 <+scshunt> MikkelPaulson: grep moved, and it was seconded, to strike "or safety" from
the second bullet
22:25 <+voronaam> ok, sorry
22:25 <+scshunt> DeepNorth: please visit the link
22:26 <+Extec> Sorry, the motion right now is for the entire document as it stands?!
22:26 <STENO> === MOTION THAT "OR SAFETY" BE STRUCK OUT FROM THE SECOND BULLET OF SECTION
II ===
22:26 <STENO> psema4 has moved that "or safety" be struck out from the second bullet of
section II. A speaking period of up to 5 minutes is now available for the psema4
to introduce the motion.
22:26 <STENO> ============================================================
22:26 <+voronaam> seconded it then
22:26 <+scshunt> Ok, there we go
22:26 <+scshunt> I think this motion is a bad idea
22:26 <+F49> Why?
22:26 <+scshunt> While I share everyone's concern that safety is abusable as an excuse
22:26 <+SquareWheel> Feel free to explain. This is an open discussion.
22:26 <+gregb> I'd also like to see the whole "Government of Canada" gone ala #1.
22:26 <+mib_s3ss7m> Is safety not considered a right?
22:26 <+Wilson> safty is an extention of one's rights so the wording is a bit redundant
22:26 <+SquareWheel> Let's let scshunt speak.
22:26 <+Chas> citizen sfatey is already fully backed by the charter of rights
22:26 <+TravisMcCrea> gregb, one at a time
22:26 <+F49> mib: indeed
22:26 <+grep> mib_s3ss7m: some have argued that it's too broad
22:26 <+scshunt> the same is no less true of individuals' rights
22:27 <+voronaam> It states in item 3 that it is considered as right by PPC
22:27 <+voronaam> *PPCA
22:27 <+scshunt> safety is not an explicit righ
22:27 <+scshunt> *right
22:27 <+gregb> Well, I can't stick around to vote on every word change, I think the whole
thing is not acceptable (point 2, I mean).
22:27 <+TravisMcCrea> mib if you feel that safety is a right, then it would be redundant to say
rights and safety and thus it should be removed anyway
22:27 <+DeepNorth> The original was better.
22:27 <+drew1> or maybe "immediate safety"
22:27 <+Extec> Should we be addressing the chair or addressing scshunt?
22:27 <+grep> And in the intended meaning it is redundant with the "individuals' rights"
in the second bullet of Article 2
22:27 <+scshunt> Extec: in theory, the chair. In practice, go ahead and address me
22:27 <+DeepNorth> Safety of the person *is* a right under just about any charter.
22:28 <+F49> If we do include saftey, then I feel it needs to be restricted in some way,
"safety of the person"
22:28 <+DeepNorth> This has nothing to do with the text in question, though.
22:28 <+Extec> scshunt - Well I'd like some formal clarification to end these side-debates
and discussions.
22:28 <+Devern> How about we agree that amendments do not contradict constitutional rights
or freedoms
22:28 <+scshunt> Extec: formal clarification in what sense?
22:28 <+scshunt> Devern: we would need to amend the document to include that
22:28 <+TravisMcCrea> point of clarification - is there a reason that we are addressing schunt
and not just appointing him the chair?
22:29 <+scshunt> DeepNorth: that has plenty to do with it
22:29 <+Devern> And forget about what "transparency" encompasses
22:29 <+Extec> scshunt - In that we should have a specific and definitive topic of discussion.
22:29 <+scshunt> Extec: We do right now; it is the amendment
22:29 <+DeepNorth> scshunt -- no.
22:29 <@MikkelPaulson> TravisMcCrea: because he's the one who knows Robert's Rules
22:29 <+scshunt> DeepNorth: If people feel safety is a right, then the amendment is a good
idea and redundant
22:29 <+TravisMcCrea> lol I mean considering the chair is asking for his advice on procedures anyway
22:29 <+F49> Travis: scshunt is diagreeing with the motion, hence adressing scshunt. Or
that is my understanding
22:29 <+Extec> The amendment of which? The current motion is the summation amendment of
the draft constitution as it stands.
22:29 <+TravisMcCrea> exactly, so why not just make him the chair
22:29 <+grep> Let's put it this way -- is there any case that should be covered by the
term "individuals' safety" which is not covered by the term "individuals'
rights"?
22:30 <+Extec> So either the current motion is incorrect, or we're discussing the wrong thing.
22:30 <+scshunt> TravisMcCrea: because I am very involved in the discussion
22:30 <+scshunt> if people really don't care, I'll serve
22:30 <+TravisMcCrea> I would prefer it, honestly
22:30 <+Chas> conflict of interest
22:30 <+Extec> How?
22:30 <+F49> Chas: yes
22:30 <+DeepNorth> scshunt -- we don't willy nilly muddy up every single clause with a human
rights manifesto.
22:30 <+F49> but this is getting off topic fast
22:30 <+voronaam> grep, I do believe that any use of "safety" beyond human rights is an abuse
of the term by government
22:31 <+scshunt> I think the feeling is that safety is a right; I withdraw my objection to
the amendment
22:31 <+JustinDavidow> Agreed. We should be keeping things a little more focused.
22:31 <+mib_s3ss7m> I think any interpretation of safety that is not incliuded in rights is too
broad and able to be abused.
22:31 <+F49> voronaam: absolutely
22:31 <+TravisMcCrea> I would rather have someone who knows procedure just take the reigns of
this derailing debate... and I call point of order when there is something that
is unfair
22:31 <+Extec> scshunt - The problem with "safety" is it's not definitive by any stretch.
22:31 <+grep> voronaam: That was my point. If the word causes so much trouble and it is
redundant with the previous term, why keep it around?
22:31 <+SquareWheel> Shall we vote on the matter?
22:31 <+scshunt> I move the previous question.
22:31 <+Extec> Whereas our rights are clearly stated in the charter.
22:31 <+CloudQc> How does this sound: That the Government of Canada needs to be transparent
and accountable while maintaining that all information and documentation should
be made available to all Canadian citizens as long as it would not compromise
individuals’ rights;
22:31 <@MikkelPaulson> is there a second?
22:31 <+F49> lets not be too hasty in voting, the five minute period will be up soon eough
22:31 <+voronaam> grep, I agree, we should pass the amendment.
22:32 <+mib_s3ss7m> second
22:32 <+JustinDavidow> I second CloudQc's wording.
22:32 <@MikkelPaulson> scshunt has moved that the question now be put. all those in favour, please
say yes; those opposed say no
22:32 <+scshunt> aye
22:32 <+thor> yes
22:32 <@MikkelPaulson> 45 seconds are available for the vote
22:32 <+mib_s3ss7m> yes
22:32 <+brendon195> yes
22:32 <+F49> aye
22:32 <+brux> yes
22:32 <+JustinDavidow> Yes
22:32 <+kelflar> yes
22:32 <+BrentSchaffrick> yes
22:32 <+RealPaul> yes
22:32 <+freedom_watcher> yes
22:32 <+voronaam> yes
22:32 <+chadk> Aye
22:33 <+Devern> Yes
22:33 <+Chas> yes
22:33 <+ml> yes
22:33 <+drew1> yes
22:33 <+DeepNorth> yes
22:33 <+DataPacRat> yes
22:33 <+CloudQc> yes
22:33 <+SquareWheel> yes
22:33 <+grep> aye
22:33 <+Vaytan> Oui
22:33 <+trailblazer11> yes
22:33 <+David> yes
22:33 <+Extec> yes
22:33 <+TravisMcCrea> yes
22:33 <+psema4> yes
22:33 <+MikeBleskie1> yes
22:33 <@MikkelPaulson> the motion passes; I will now put the question
22:33 <+sidek> yes
22:33 <STENO> === VOTE ON MOTION THAT "OR SAFETY" BE STRUCK OUT FROM THE SECOND BULLET OF
SECTION II ===
22:34 <STENO> === MOTION THAT "OR SAFETY" BE STRUCK OUT FROM THE SECOND BULLET OF SECTION
II PASSED ===
22:34 <STENO> ============================================================
22:34 <STENO> === MOTION THAT THE DOCUMENT AT HTTPS://CRM.PIRATEPARTY.CA/DRAFT BE ADOPTED
AS A REVISION TO THE PARTY'S CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS ===
22:34 <+scshunt> The document has been updated
22:34 <STENO> Discussion resumes on scshunt's motion that the document at
https://crm.pirateparty.ca/draft be adopted as a revision to the Party's
Constitution and Bylaws.
22:34 <STENO> ============================================================
22:34 <+scshunt> TravisMcCrea: that feature is broken right now
22:34 <+TravisMcCrea> Okay good
22:34 <+TravisMcCrea> well not good, but good that its not me ;)
22:34 * psema4 wonders what corporations will think of that
22:35 <+CloudQc> I would like to motion that point #2 be completely rewritten to the
following: That the Government of Canada needs to be transparent and
accountable while maintaining that all information and documentation should
be made available to all Canadian citizens as long as it would not compromise
individuals’ rights.
22:35 <+SquareWheel> Is this the third rewrite now?
22:35 <+adpaolucci> four i think
22:35 <+F49> So 32 votes were cast, that means the remaining 23 abstained by default?
22:35 <+scshunt> F49: yes
22:35 <+adpaolucci> *fourth
22:35 <+voronaam> you wording doesn't include "at all levels" which is important to me
22:36 <+voronaam> And I am tired of this item already :)
22:36 <+F49> agree with voronaam
22:36 <+JustinDavidow> I prefer the current wording, Though I'd personally remove the "of Canada"
as it's needlessly there. :P
22:36 <+CloudQc> It is implicit that it is on all levels
22:36 <+DeepNorth> Government needs to be transparent and accountable
22:36 <+TravisMcCrea> Would it be horrible to not just say "Government of Canada" as to say that
we would also attempt to have Canada use it's positions within the UN to promote
this around the world?
22:36 <+chadk> Hmmmm… My id didn't come up...
22:36 <+brendon195> Can we please move on?
22:36 <+scshunt> I move that the first bullet be amended by striking "against" and inserting
"with", per Wilson's suggestion
22:36 <+CloudQc> Agreed with Travis there
22:36 <+SquareWheel> No one has seconded the motion to add "all levels"
22:36 <+TravisMcCrea> I mean, under current wording does that mean that we would gladly give over
Bradly Manning if he was within Canada?
22:37 <+TravisMcCrea> I would say that we should protect him under that
22:37 <@MikkelPaulson> is there a second for CloudQc or scshunt?
22:37 <+scshunt> MikkelPaulson: please ask for objections on mine; I expect you won't find any
22:37 <+TravisMcCrea> I move to amend
22:37 <+Extec> I will second scshunt's motion.
22:37 <+DeepNorth> second scshunt
22:37 <+TravisMcCrea> Sorry move to amend his poposal to remove Government of Canada
22:37 <+adpaolucci> All goverments and organizations
22:37 <@MikkelPaulson> scshunt has moved that the first bullet of section II be amended by
striking "against" and inserting "with"; any opposed?
22:37 <+adpaolucci> of any form
22:38 <+DeepNorth> No. Agree with scshunt's motion.
22:38 <@MikkelPaulson> hearing none, the motion passes
22:38 <+TravisMcCrea> Yes, sorry my keyboard keeps entering: I move to amend the motion by
CloudQc to remove "Government of Canada" for "all governments and
organizations of the world"
22:38 <+adpaolucci> I second that
22:38 <@MikkelPaulson> CloudQc's motion hasn't been moved
22:39 <@MikkelPaulson> it was never seconded
22:39 <+scshunt> it's been moved but not seconded
22:39 <+scshunt> hang on, I have a competing motion
22:39 <+scshunt> I move that the second bullet be replaced with "\item That governments to
be as transparent and as accountable as possible at all levels, and that
government information should be made available to all citizens where it
would not compromise individuals' rights;
22:39 <+TravisMcCrea> Which is why I amended his motion and then my amendment to his motion was passed
22:39 <+scshunt> (basically getting rid of Government of Canada)
22:39 <+JustinDavidow> I second that scshunt
22:39 <+TravisMcCrea> err was seconded
22:39 <+mib_s3ss7m> I dislike "as possible"
22:39 <+CloudQc> see, my problem is the "as possible" which remains vague
22:40 <+SquareWheel> I agree, "as possible" is a poor wording.
22:40 <+F49> I dislike removing the specificity to government of canada
22:40 <+SquareWheel> And in fact started this debate.
22:40 <+trailblazer11> on point #2, are there instances where temporary non-transparency might be
required like contract negotiation?
22:40 <@MikkelPaulson> scshunt: should I ask for unanimous consent or make a full motion of it?
22:40 <+CloudQc> "We paid for a study that cost us millions of YOUR tax dollars...
unfortunatly, its not possible to share with you guys"
22:40 <+TravisMcCrea> brb guys :P don't riot until I get back ;)
22:40 <+scshunt> MikkelPaulson: if you think we can get consent, ask for it
22:40 <+DeepNorth> I would vastly prefer something simple and forthright.
22:40 <+Wilson> I see no benefit in removing gov. of Canada
22:40 <+voronaam> Do we want PPCA to become an international power? I doubt that... So focus
on Canada is fine with me
22:40 <+SquareWheel> Nor do I.
22:40 <+scshunt> Wilson: why limit ourselves?
22:40 <+Chas> me neither wilson
22:41 <+F49> The Pirate party of canada should not strive to become an international power
22:41 <@MikkelPaulson> scshunt has moved that the second bullet of section II be replaced with
"That governments to be as transparent and as accountable as possible at all
levels, and that government information should be made available to all citizens
where it would not compromise individuals' rights". any opposed?
22:41 <+RealPaul> agree with Wilson on this matter.
22:41 <+TravisMcCrea> Not a world power, but a world example
22:41 <+JustinDavidow> It implys to me that one can define the boundries of gov't.
22:41 <+DeepNorth> 2. That government *must* be transparent and accountable.
22:41 <+F49> I'm opposed
22:41 <+DeepNorth> Notice the period.
22:41 <+trailblazer11> just say government then.
22:41 <+scshunt> I wish to withdraw the motion, it's mistyped
22:41 <+psema4> TravisMcCrea: Lead by example
22:41 <+DeepNorth> Move to make that the full text of bullet point 2
22:41 <+CloudQc> The of Canada restricts the ideology to this country only, whereas, the
Pirate party is an International movement.
22:41 <+Extec> MikkelPaulson - I seem to have missed where that differs from the previous?
22:41 <+Extec> Striking "GoC"?
22:41 <@MikkelPaulson> the Pirate Party is a Canadian party
22:42 <+CloudQc> I oppose scshunt
22:42 <+F49> Pirate party international is an international movement, the Pirate party
of canada is not
22:42 <+JustinDavidow> I support the changing of it to "That the Government needs to be" ...
22:42 <+voronaam> Anyways, if we come to the position of international influence, we can
amend it then.
22:42 <@MikkelPaulson> thanks F49
22:42 <+TravisMcCrea> But being a pirate is an ideology
22:42 <+SquareWheel> Agreed vprpnaa,/
22:42 <+SquareWheel> voronaam*
22:42 <+trailblazer11> government must be transparent except for exceptional circumstances?
22:42 <+DeepNorth> Not 'the government', but 'government' -- all government.
22:42 <+nlewycky> "That government must ..." refers to the concept of government (and refers
to all levels of government), while GoC refers to the federal govt.
22:42 <+Wilson> CloudQc than it can go in the pirate international, we are a canadian
party, and more to the point, a federal one
22:42 <+TravisMcCrea> part of the pirate ideology is humanism, that we all should have the same
rights regardless of borders
22:43 <+F49> The pirate party of canada is as of yet, not a provicial party either
22:43 <+trailblazer11> agree with nlewycky
22:43 <@MikkelPaulson> the Pirate Party of Canada will never be a provincial party
22:43 <+Extec> TravisMcCrea - That is idealogy in general, but this is a Canadian Federal
Political Party, and thus we must constrain ourselves within that scope.
22:43 <+Extec> (for now)
22:43 <+JustinDavidow> Federal all the way.
22:43 <+CloudQc> Lets rewrite it to: That Government must be transparent and accountable at
all levels and that government information should be made available to all
citizens where it would not compromise individuals' rights.
22:43 <+psema4> nlewycky: +1 insightful
22:43 <+Chas> this debate is non sense
22:43 <+F49> Unless you wish to federally regulate transparency within the provinces...
22:43 <+SquareWheel> I like that wording, CloudQc.
22:43 <@MikkelPaulson> is there a motion?
22:43 <+TravisMcCrea> We will eventually have provincial parties, if they are simply Pirate Party
of XXXX
22:44 <+TravisMcCrea> and are not affiliated
22:44 <+scshunt> I move to amend the amendment by replacing "governments to" with
"government must".
22:44 <@MikkelPaulson> TravisMcCrea: and they won't be subject to our constitution
22:44 <+CloudQc> Being the PPCA - it implies that Goverment means GoC but allows this to be
used (pirated) by another party ;)
22:44 <+Extec> CloudQc - Would you like to rephrase as a motion, please?
22:44 <+scshunt> I've moved CloudQc's wording as a motion
22:44 <+DeepNorth> The government of Canada is *already* as transparent 'as possible'. That is
the problem, not the solution.
22:44 <+Extec> Fair enough :)
22:44 <@MikkelPaulson> is there a second?
22:44 <+SquareWheel> I'll second that.
22:44 <+trailblazer11> let's try to move forward as much as possible or we'll be here all night
22:44 <@MikkelPaulson> okay
22:44 <@MikkelPaulson> yes please
22:44 <+JustinDavidow> Agreed
22:44 <+F49> agreed
22:45 <+TravisMcCrea> kk brb guys
22:45 <@MikkelPaulson> scshunt has moved to amend the amendment by replacing "governments to" with
"government must". any opposed?
22:45 <+CCitizen> I think people should note that we are in Canada and we are not the only
pirate party in the world thus specifying where we operate is a good idea
just to keep confusion between local parties to a minimum
22:45 <+Extec> CCitizen - Hence the party name.
22:45 <+trailblazer11> nope
22:45 <@MikkelPaulson> hearing none, the motion passes
22:45 <@MikkelPaulson> is there any further business?
22:45 <+scshunt> CCitizen: It's a statement of principles; no real reason for it to be
limited to Canada
22:46 <+CCitizen> Yep :) and I'm not opposed to changing it :)
22:46 <+trailblazer11> agree with scshunt
22:46 <@MikkelPaulson> for the record, we have lost quorum
22:46 <@MikkelPaulson> we're at 47
22:46 <+CCitizen> did we already vote on the quorum thing?
22:46 <+F49> shit?
22:46 <+DeepNorth> I am going to recuse ...
22:46 <+scshunt> the current motion is to amend the second bullet to read "That government
must be transparent and accountable at all levels and that government
information should be made available to all citizens where it would not
compromise individuals' rights."
22:47 <+F49> Is the current motion not moot without quorum?
22:47 <+scshunt> CCitizen: we cannot
22:47 <+JustinDavidow> I second that motion scshunt
22:47 <+DeepNorth> Oh ... was going to say that I would stay on and that you could use me for
the quorum.
22:47 <+Extec> And hence why I thought we should have discussed the quorum issue in
advance since it was the one thing that we could lose the ability to change :)
22:47 <@MikkelPaulson> scshunt: the motion passed
22:47 <@MikkelPaulson> unless there's an updated motion
22:47 <+scshunt> MikkelPaulson: the amendment to the amendent did
22:47 <@MikkelPaulson> as yes
22:47 <+Chas> quorum has been changed no?
22:47 <+Extec> No
22:47 <+scshunt> No, quorum has not been changed
22:47 <+Extec> We are apparently going through in order of articles.
22:47 <+scshunt> and can only be changed with a constitutional amendment
22:47 <+F49> so we are screwed
22:47 <+scshunt> We can proceed on an emergency basis
22:48 <+scshunt> and ratify the proceedings later
22:48 <+CCitizen> Why wouldnt people put the most important thing at the beginning?
22:48 <+DeepNorth> CCitizen we tried ...
22:48 <+scshunt> CCitizen: We cannot just change quorum
22:48 <+Extec> CCitizen - Ask scshunt and MikkelPaulson :)
22:48 <+DataPacRat> How quickly could we amend the constitution to change quorum requirements?
22:48 <+CloudQc> It's all equally important
22:48 <+F49> lets do that, and lets begin discussing the quorum issue
22:48 <+Extec> scshunt - A quorum can change quorum.
22:48 <+scshunt> Extec: No
22:48 <+scshunt> Extec: We need a constitutional amendment with a full vote for that
22:48 <+Extec> No? Do you feel it requires a full party vote?
22:48 <+scshunt> it does
22:49 <+scshunt> the constitution is quite clear on that
22:49 <+DeepNorth> Oh ...
22:49 <+Extec> Have we passed a motion to intiate said vote at least?
22:49 <+DeepNorth> That is a *good* thing. I understand now.
22:49 <+scshunt> No
22:49 <+drew1> so lets just vote on the whole constitution at once, and then it can be
more easily amended with the lower quorum
22:49 <+scshunt> let's just proceed while we still have a reasonable number of people
22:49 <+Extec> If we regain quorum this evening, can we do so, please?
22:49 <+CCitizen> Change the method of voting then... email everyone and take the vote over a
longer period of time than the 45 seconds we get in a meeting
22:49 <+scshunt> Extec: good idea
22:49 <+scshunt> let's
22:49 <+scshunt> but anyway
22:49 <+scshunt> let's get back on topic
22:49 <@MikkelPaulson> we're down to 46
22:49 <+scshunt> I move the previous question
22:50 <@MikkelPaulson> please
22:50 <+CloudQc> second
22:50 <@MikkelPaulson> scshunt: to amend the second bullet to read "That government must be
transparent and accountable at all levels and that government information
should be made available to all citizens where it would not compromise
individuals' rights." ?
22:50 <+scshunt> yes
22:50 <STENO> === MOTION TO AMEND THE SECOND BULLET TO READ "THAT GOVERNMENT MUST BE
TRANSPARENT AND ACCOUNTABLE AT ALL LEVELS AND THAT GOVERNMENT INFORMATION
SHOULD BE MADE AVAILABLE TO ALL CITIZENS WHERE IT WOULD NOT COMPROMISE
INDIVIDUALS' RIGHTS." ===
22:50 <STENO> scshunt has moved to amend the second bullet to read "That government must
be transparent and accountable at all levels and that government information
should be made available to all citizens where it would not compromise
individuals' rights.". A speaking period of up to 5 minutes is now available
for the scshunt to introduce the motion.
22:50 <STENO> ============================================================
22:50 <STENO> === VOTE ON MOTION TO AMEND THE SECOND BULLET TO READ "THAT GOVERNMENT MUST
BE TRANSPARENT AND ACCOUNTABLE AT ALL LEVELS AND THAT GOVERNMENT INFORMATION
SHOULD BE MADE AVAILABLE TO ALL CITIZENS WHERE IT WOULD NOT COMPROMISE
INDIVIDUALS' RIGHTS." ===
22:50 <+scshunt> please stop it with sb :(
22:51 <+CCitizen> Why we voting on things if they're notgonna count with less than 50 people?
22:51 <+CloudQc> sb is good (not perfect, but good)
22:51 <+Extec> scshunt - Do you have a better suggestion for a blind vote?
22:51 <+F49> Because we can amend the document
22:51 <+F49> And then if we regain quorum
22:51 <STENO> === MOTION TO AMEND THE SECOND BULLET TO READ "THAT GOVERNMENT MUST BE
TRANSPARENT AND ACCOUNTABLE AT ALL LEVELS AND THAT GOVERNMENT INFORMATION
SHOULD BE MADE AVAILABLE TO ALL CITIZENS WHERE IT WOULD NOT COMPROMISE
INDIVIDUALS' RIGHTS." PASSED ===
22:51 <STENO> ============================================================
22:51 <STENO> === MOTION THAT THE DOCUMENT AT HTTPS://CRM.PIRATEPARTY.CA/DRAFT BE ADOPTED
AS A REVISION TO THE PARTY'S CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS ===
22:51 <STENO> Discussion resumes on scshunt's motion that the document at
https://crm.pirateparty.ca/draft be adopted as a revision to the Party's
Constitution and Bylaws.
22:51 <STENO> ============================================================
22:51 <+scshunt> CCitizen: Because we still have a number of people, we can improve the
document so that next time we have quorum we don't waste the precious moments
on this sort of thing
22:51 <@MikkelPaulson> are there any further amendments on the motion?
22:51 <+CloudQc> We are amending a draft really (It technically doesn't require votes to
even do that)
22:52 <+CCitizen> Blah bah... I make a motion that we immediately vote on the quorum issue if
we get 50 people back here
22:52 <+scshunt> We can do no such thing
22:52 <@MikkelPaulson> unfortunately
22:52 <+scshunt> ^
22:52 <+trailblazer11> don't we have to pass the new constitution?
22:52 <+scshunt> yes
22:52 <+scshunt> so let's get trucking
22:52 <+JustinDavidow> I agree. quorum is what it is.
22:52 <+CloudQc> But by getting votes, it gives a clear indication of general agreement.
22:52 <+scshunt> any more discussion on article II?
22:52 <+Extec> scshunt - But we can put forth the motion to initiate said vote.
22:52 <+CloudQc> We can't pass the constitution tonight
22:52 <+F49> If we were to change quorum, what you change about it?
22:52 <+RealPaul> is it needful to keep the 'quorum' constantly throughout the meeting? It
seems to be if we had a quorum when the meeting was called to order, that
should be recognized
22:53 <+RealPaul> as the quorum
22:53 <+Extec> RealPaul - It is not at this time because we have lost it anyway.
22:53 <+SquareWheel> I think any votes require quorum.
22:53 <+JustinDavidow> I move that we move on from Article 2.
22:53 <+DeepNorth> RealPaul: I doubt that would work.
22:53 <@MikkelPaulson> in Parliament, if quorum is lost, it immediately adjourns
22:53 <+Extec> Right now we are voting on amendments to be made in the future.
22:53 <+JustinDavidow> Unless there are any objections.
22:53 <+scshunt> SquareWheel: is quite correct
22:54 <@MikkelPaulson> actually I believe there's a 10-minute recess, after which if there is
still no quorum it adjourns
22:54 <+Extec> However we are not voting on actually amending the document.
22:54 <+SquareWheel> Shall we move on to article 3?
22:54 <+DeepNorth> I would like to motion to set the next meeting and adjourn.
22:54 <+SquareWheel> We are making proposed changes for future quorum.
22:54 <+scshunt> MikkelPaulson: nah, that's just a rule of some bodies
22:54 <+CCitizen> Is 10 minutes long enough for these politicians to take a #2 and get back
to their seats :D
22:54 <+CloudQc> Second moving on from A2
22:54 <+Extec> DeepNorth - You can leave if you wish, we don't have a quorum. Right now
we are simply discussing amendments to the amendment.
22:54 <@MikkelPaulson> usually they're just eating pizza in the lounges anyway
22:54 <+JustinDavidow> lol
22:55 <+DeepNorth> I realize that I need to review this more thoroughly and can't do it online
in realtime.
22:55 <+trailblazer11> but if we make amendments now hopefully next meeting it will go faster
22:55 <+scshunt> DeepNorth: We won't get quorum back today
22:55 <+F49> Alright, lets move on from A2
22:55 <+scshunt> so you'll be able to come back Wednesday with comments
22:55 <+DeepNorth> I will stay logged in and you have my permission to use my 'seat' to make a
quorum.
22:55 <+trailblazer11> and have the amended consitution e-mailed for everyone to review
22:55 <+Extec> DeepNorth - If you wish to take part in discussions, I suggest you stay.
If you simply showed up to vote, you don't need to stay.
22:55 <+JustinDavidow> A3: Membership
22:55 <+trailblazer11> *draft
22:56 <+CCitizen> I say we should switch the method of voting from stenobot for 45 seconds to
some sort of longer duration like voting on a website or something
22:56 <+scshunt> I vote that we continue working on this amendment despite lack of quorum
22:56 <+scshunt> s/amendment/document/
22:56 <+trailblazer11> second
22:56 <+scshunt> s/vote/move/
22:56 <+DeepNorth> Extec -- Unfortunately, I think stuff has drifted enough that I need to
review offline.
22:56 <+scshunt> DeepNorth: please do
22:56 <+scshunt> DeepNorth: send me an email at scshunt@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
22:56 <+Extec> DeepNorth - I would suggest reviewing at a later date.
22:56 <+scshunt> DeepNorth: I will make sure your stuff comes up on Wednesday
22:56 <@MikkelPaulson> scshunt: you can't make that motion without quorum
22:56 <+mib_s3ss7m> Voting on the site over a week has been sued in the past, but we cant do
that for every little wording amendment
22:56 <@MikkelPaulson> ergo, it is self-defeating
22:57 <+mib_s3ss7m> used*
22:57 <+DeepNorth> scshunt -- for the record, none of what I have said or done here should be
construed as a vote of no confidence.
22:57 <+scshunt> MikkelPaulson: I'm effectively aksing that we proceed as an emergency meeting
22:57 <+F49> So right now we need 50 to make a qurorum, correct?
22:57 <@MikkelPaulson> correct
22:57 <+Extec> MikkelPaulson - Not so, we aren't making any amendments to the constitution
at this time.
22:57 <+DeepNorth> I commend the stalwarts for doing all this thankless work to bring us to
this point.
22:57 <@MikkelPaulson> technically quorum is needed to conduct any business
22:57 <+CloudQc> Debating / Disagreeing is NOT in any way no confidence =)
22:57 <+scshunt> MikkelPaulson: We can conduct emergency business though
22:57 <@MikkelPaulson> very well
22:58 <+TravisMcCrea> back
22:58 <+scshunt> it's not valid and will need ratification
22:58 <+scshunt> but we're just amending a document anyway
22:58 <+trailblazer11> but we can continue with the amendment and it will still be a draft for
member to consider
22:58 <+CCitizen> Why dont we move the quorum issue to the front of the queue for the next
meeting? :P
22:58 <+Extec> We're amending a draft amendment.
22:58 <+F49> CCitizen indeed
22:58 <+Extec> It will need to be voted on and ratified by a quorum at a later date.
22:58 <+trailblazer11> CCitizen, we need to pass the whole constitution
22:58 <+TravisMcCrea> Even if it was at the front, it can't be passed independantly
22:59 <+TravisMcCrea> could it?
22:59 <+scshunt> https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&
srcid=0B6fMlT7CjwHnOWMxYzhlNDktZTE3Ni00ZjMwLTk0NWEtZTBlYjZjZGM5MzA3&hl=en_US
is the version when we lost quorum
22:59 <+Extec> TravisMcCrea - I'm not sure what you mean?
22:59 <@MikkelPaulson> scshunt moved that the Assembly continue working on this document despite
lack of quorum. any opposed?
22:59 <+SquareWheel> So now we have a draft and a proposed draft, correct?
22:59 <+CCitizen> Question: How did the quorum crap become 50 people anyways?
22:59 <+trailblazer11> nope
22:59 <+TravisMcCrea> Extec, pass the rule the changes quorum
22:59 <+CloudQc> Doesn't look updated to me scshunt
22:59 <+Extec> CCitizen - Optimism.
22:59 <@MikkelPaulson> CCitizen: before my time
22:59 <+scshunt> CCitizen: it was in the original constitution
22:59 <+F49> I have no objections, at least.
22:59 <@MikkelPaulson> don't blame me
22:59 <@MikkelPaulson> :P
22:59 <+scshunt> CloudQc: eep, you're right
23:00 <+CCitizen> So hold a vote to destroy the old one then you can make a fresh one and
establish the quorum requirements right off the bat :D
23:00 <+TravisMcCrea> blame scshunt he was here for the first one ;)
23:00 <+F49> I think 10 for a quorum is too few, however. 20 is nice, and some things
can be conducted with half a qorum by the looks of things
23:00 <+Extec> Anyway, I agree with scshunt's motion that we should continue working on
this, with the acceptance that we cannot ratify.
23:00 <+scshunt> updated
23:00 <+scshunt> working draft updated too
23:00 <+Extec> F49 - I was going to work on an algorithm this evening for a dynamic quorum
level.
23:00 <+drew1> just make the new constitution say 1 thing: change quorum and keep old
constitution and then decide on more changes to constitution at a specified
date
23:00 <+CloudQc> Work on it now. Propose to members after. If most agree, then ratifying
should not be a problem
23:01 <+scshunt> F49: if the quorum requirement is reasonable, we should not conduct
emergency business
23:01 <+CCitizen> Just a note... the US Senate has a Quorum requirement of 12 people :P
23:01 <+Extec> CCitizen - The US Senate is.. 100 members?
23:01 <+scshunt> Point of order: this discussion of quorum is irrelevant
23:01 <+scshunt> can we please get back on track
23:01 <+Extec> Agreed.
23:01 <+trailblazer11> ok
23:01 <+CCitizen> I think it's probably more like 500
23:02 <+TravisMcCrea> CCitizen, no its 100
23:02 <+Extec> Each state is represented by 2 senators
23:02 <+trailblazer11> which section now?
23:02 <+JustinDavidow> Agreed, Back on track would be nice.
23:02 <+Extec> There are 50 states
23:02 <@MikkelPaulson> (sorry, forgot to declare: scshunt's motion passed)
23:02 <+JustinDavidow> Section 3?
23:02 <+F49> back on track, section 3
23:02 <+scshunt> yes, let's go to section 3
23:02 <+SquareWheel> Yes, what is the topic? Article 3?
23:02 <+F49> I have absolutely no problmes with section 3
23:02 <+chadk> member:scshunt: agreed
23:02 <+TravisMcCrea> its 218 in the house of reps which has 435 total members
23:02 <+Extec> Does anyone have objections to Article 3?
23:02 <+JustinDavidow> Agreed, it's clear and to the point.
23:02 <+mib_s3ss7m> agreed
23:02 <+trailblazer11> yeah
23:02 <+scshunt> Okay, III..1
23:02 <+JustinDavidow> Yes you do?
23:03 <+Extec> Propose to move on to III.1
23:03 <+RealPaul> only disagreement with article 3, may I suggest changing the age to
14..that seems to be the standard
23:03 <+SquareWheel> What about Article II section 4?
23:03 <+RealPaul> of other political parties
23:03 <+JustinDavidow> Second that Extec
23:04 <+scshunt> SquareWheel: we did article II already
23:04 <+SquareWheel> Sorry, I missed it.
23:04 <+Extec> SquareWheel - Do you have an objection to II.4 or are you just asking for
clarification?
23:04 <@MikkelPaulson> Extec: our process is on a de facto basis, so there's no motion needed
23:04 <+SquareWheel> Well, yes. But I feel the majority will disagree with me.
23:04 <+scshunt> SquareWheel: we spent the better part of two hours on it
23:04 <@MikkelPaulson> you can make a motion to amend any part at any time
23:04 <+scshunt> MikkelPaulson: No you can't
23:04 <+scshunt> MikkelPaulson: We're still proceeding as a meeting
23:04 <+SquareWheel> It's a big discussion, but should the internet really be a right?
23:05 <+JustinDavidow> I feel so.
23:05 <+scshunt> although MikkelPaulson never announced we were on article III
23:05 <+trailblazer11> access to information is
23:05 <+JustinDavidow> All telecommunication should be, IMHO.
23:05 <+scshunt> so technically we are on Article II
23:05 <+Extec> SquareWheel - Can you see a situation in which the government should be
permitted to revoke access, outside of incarceration?
23:05 <+DataPacRat> SquareWheel: Since certain government services are only available online... yes.
23:05 <+SquareWheel> Certainly.
23:06 <+Extec> Such as?
23:06 <@MikkelPaulson> scshunt: we never had a motion to focus specifically on article II
23:06 <+JustinDavidow> the ability to move information over a long distance, should be equal to
the right to move it short distances.
23:06 <+scshunt> The conversation I've generally heard within this party characterizes the
internet as a right
23:06 <+scshunt> MikkelPaulson: The chair said we were considering by paragraph
23:06 <@MikkelPaulson> that's just how discussion and amendments have been proceeding
23:06 <+scshunt> or section or whatever
23:06 <@MikkelPaulson> I see
23:06 <+StevenBradleyScott> MikkelPaulson: we agreed to proceed by section
23:06 <+Extec> Can I make a motion that we start from the top and work our way down point
by point?
23:06 <+F49> Its a strange right that you have to fork over a monthly subscription for :)
23:06 <+scshunt> Extec: that's what we're doing
23:06 <+Extec> I was under the impression thats what we were doing.
23:06 <+F49> Extec: no!
23:06 <+SquareWheel> Yes, eaxtly F49.
23:06 <+StevenBradleyScott> Extec: that started two hours ago.
23:06 <+SquareWheel> exactly*
23:07 <+scshunt> F49: Water is a right too but you pay for water lines
23:07 <+CloudQc> In the following, note the change of age (the rest is clarifications
really). I move to reword section as: Membership of the Pirate Party of
Canada shall be limited to those natural persons who are either Canadian
citizens or permanent residents of Canada and are at least fourteen years
of age at the moment of adhesion. Any person expelled from the party may
rejoin only if so authorized by a general meeting.
23:07 <+Extec> F49 - Not true, you have the right to shelter, however you don't have the
right to FREE shelter.
23:07 <+SquareWheel> But we have systems in place to shelter people.
23:07 <+Extec> F49 - Likewise, we are saying you have the right to internet, but you don't
have the right to FREE internet.
23:07 <+mib_s3ss7m> it says access to on equitable terms, not the government is going to pay
fro your broadband
23:07 <+trailblazer11> I have no problem with section 4. It does not say internet is a right but
equal access to telecommunication is
23:07 <+scshunt> Point of order: MikkelPaulson, what section are we discussion?
23:07 <+RealPaul> I agree with you cloudQc
23:07 <+Extec> SquareWheel - Those systems are not legally defined, but done on a
voluntary basis.
23:07 <+F49> What is with the gratuitous age change?
23:08 <+chadk> Cloudqc: seconded
23:08 <@MikkelPaulson> section III is presently under discussion
23:08 <+JustinDavidow> I agree with scshunt here.
23:08 <+scshunt> ok
23:08 <+JustinDavidow> Alright,
23:08 <+F49> object to the motion since I see no reason to make random changes
23:08 <+SquareWheel> Fair point, Extec.
23:08 <+scshunt> I see no reason to make the age change, the other two changes are unnecessary
23:08 <+Extec> F49 - You can revisit at a later date.
23:08 <+JustinDavidow> where did 12 years come from?
23:08 <+scshunt> no person is going to become younger
23:08 <+JustinDavidow> If I may ask?
23:09 <+scshunt> JustinDavidow: It was originally copied from the greens as far as I know
23:09 <+scshunt> and "Party" means what you think; see article I
23:09 <@MikkelPaulson> could someone else take the chair, please?
23:09 <+RealPaul> the age of young greens is 14-29
23:09 <@MikkelPaulson> I can't focus anymore
23:09 <+F49> I move for scshunt to take the chair
23:09 <+Extec> MikkelPaulson - The only people here I think have sufficient standing are
you and scshunt.
23:10 <@MikkelPaulson> and scshunt wrote the thing
23:10 <@MikkelPaulson> so he's out
23:10 <+RealPaul> Just going through the varioius party memberships, the minimum age seems to
be 14. Only the NDP seems to mention 'under 26'
23:10 <+JustinDavidow> http://greenparty.ca/party/documents/constitution
23:10 <+Extec> MikkelPaulson - Could you clarify why he's out? We're discussing an
amendment and amending it.
23:10 <+JustinDavidow> 1.1.5 A person who is at least twelve (12) years of age but less than
fourteen (14) years of age may be designated a Youth Member, without the
right to vote.
23:10 <+Extec> Whether he wrote it or not shouldn't be relevant.
23:10 <+scshunt> Extec: It is my motion ultimately under discussion
23:10 <+scshunt> And I am participating in debate
23:10 <+StevenBradleyScott> Extec: it is a conflict of interest.
23:10 <+scshunt> if I take the chair, I cannot guarantee impartiality
23:10 <@MikkelPaulson> well there's nothing that says he can't do it, but he should be able to
speak to it
23:10 <+Extec> scshunt - An we are unable to ratify it anyway.
23:10 <@MikkelPaulson> which he couldn't from the chair
23:11 <+scshunt> I /can/ do so from the chair, it's just suboptimal
23:11 <+trailblazer11> but it will still have to go through general meeting for ratification
23:11 <+Extec> Point of clarification - if we're unable to ratify at this time, what
difference does it make?
23:11 <+F49> Extec: exactly, so its not a problem
23:11 <+scshunt> Extec: we can progress the discussion
23:11 <+CloudQc> Well we do not have Quorum, so, he could take chair and still debate
23:11 <+scshunt> or if you mean impartiality, hopefully not too much
23:11 <+Extec> scshunt - We can progress the discussion with you as the chair, since we're
debating your work anyway.
23:11 <+CloudQc> we are only proposing right now, not ratifying
23:12 <+Extec> scshunt - Assuming you're willing to accept the chair :)
23:12 <+scshunt> There's no absolute rule against the chair debating, since the chair has
the fundamental right to debate
23:12 <+trailblazer11> agree
23:12 <+scshunt> I'm willing to take it
23:12 <+mib_s3ss7m> take it
23:12 <+StevenBradleyScott> CouldQc: It is the influence on the debate that is the issue
23:12 <+Extec> Well then I propose you do, as I don't think anyone else here currently has
sufficient standing within the group to handle it at this time.
23:12 <+scshunt> but only if everyone accepts that I may be less impartial than I would
otherwise be
23:12 <+CloudQc> It doesn't matter
23:12 <+JustinDavidow> I move that scshunt takes chair.
23:12 <+Levisan> 2nd
23:12 <+CloudQc> We aren't ratifying
23:12 <+Extec> I second JustinDavidow's motion.
23:13 <+JustinDavidow> Any objections?
23:13 <@MikkelPaulson> any objection?
23:13 <+StevenBradleyScott> scshunt: I believe that you have a good handle on the order of things and
believe we trust you. I have no objections to you taking the chair.
23:13 <+CloudQc> Anything done today is subject to change
23:13 <+trailblazer11> nope
23:13 <+MikeBleskie1> Not at all
23:13 <@MikkelPaulson> okay then
23:13 <STENO> New chair: scshunt.
23:13 <@scshunt> Ok then
23:13 <+CloudQc> The title of "chair" doesn't initimidate me enough to stop me from
proposing ideas. At worst? They get rejected.
23:14 <+SquareWheel> Let's move on then.
23:14 <+JustinDavidow> Article three?
23:14 <+Extec> CloudQc - True. And realistically, the "chair" cannot on his own refuse to
accept a motion.
23:14 <@scshunt> We're currently debating section III; if you want to discuss section II
more it should be done once we finish the paragraph-by-paragraph
23:14 <+RealPaul> I see that section JustinDavidow Voting member needs to be 14.
23:14 <+CloudQc> A3.1 - The age thing
23:14 <+SquareWheel> Okay. I think the majority sees the internet as a human right, anyway.
23:14 <+MikkelPaulson> I'm going to bed
23:14 <+JustinDavidow> the only note that I had was that it likely should move to 14 Years of age.
23:14 <@scshunt> MikkelPaulson: good night
23:14 <+MikkelPaulson> 44 attendees now
23:15 <+MikkelPaulson> night folks
23:15 <+SquareWheel> Good night.
23:15 <+RealPaul> night
23:15 <+JustinDavidow> MikkelPaulson Have a great night!
23:15 <+SquareWheel> And thanks.
23:15 <@scshunt> Is there any objection to replacing "twelve" with "fourteen"?
23:15 <+trailblazer11> night
23:15 <+Chas> no
23:15 <+StevenBradleyScott> I agree that it should move to 14 years of age in the case that there is a
legal requirement connected to it.
23:15 <+F49> wyes, I object
23:15 <+Levisan> no
23:15 <+mib_s3ss7m> no
23:15 <+brux> no
23:15 <+RealPaul> no, it is the standard
23:15 <+SquareWheel> But should it be?
23:15 <+Chas> 14 on a standard legal age
23:15 <+F49> Right now I see it as a random change
23:15 <@scshunt> F49 objects; the amendment cannot be made by unanimous consent
23:15 <@scshunt> F49: it was an arbitrary number to begin with, to be fair
23:16 <+Chas> at 14 you get special rights u dont have as a kid
23:16 <@scshunt> Is there a motion to replace twelve with fourteen?
23:16 <+RealPaul> and it seems to be the accepted practice of canadian political parties
23:16 <+Extec> Chas - You do?
23:16 <+StevenBradleyScott> Point of Order: Can F49 justify their objection?
23:16 <@scshunt> StevenBradleyScott: No justification is necessary
23:16 <+CloudQc> Here is a reword of my previous rewording: Membership of the Pirate Party
of Canada shall be limited to those natural persons who are either Canadian
citizens or permanent residents of Canada. Any member below the age of 14
does not have the right to vote. Any person expelled from the party may rejoin
only if so authorized by a general meeting.
23:16 <+JustinDavidow> I second CloudQc's cange.
23:16 <+JustinDavidow> *change
23:16 <+Extec> CloudQc - There is an objection currently.
23:17 <+F49> My objection is just that I see it as random, now I understand we want to
be like the greens.
23:17 <+SquareWheel> I just wanted to thank CloudQc for actually writing up these rewordings.
23:17 <+Extec> F49 objects based on he doesn't see the point of changing it. Does anyone
have a particular arguement *for* changing it?
23:17 <@scshunt> I'd suggest a few changes to that. First, drop "Party of Canada". Second,
replace "14" with "fourteen", and add " or to make motions at a general
meeting of the party."
23:17 <+CloudQc> I'm only clarifying what is already there :)
23:17 <@scshunt> CloudQc: if you don't want them, I'll state your motions as is
23:17 <@scshunt> *motion
23:17 <+DataPacRat> (I'll need to logoff soon; is anything other than a review of the draft
constitution, and proposing amendments to said draft, planned for tonight?)
23:17 <+mib_s3ss7m> To be blunt, do we trust the judgement and experiance of a 12 year old in
voting on party matters?
23:18 <+CloudQc> lemme read
23:18 <+SquareWheel> But shouldn't they have that right?
23:18 <+JustinDavidow> The issue with 12-14, is that it's a legal grey area, where children may
still not be considered as adults in Canada, if I'm not mistaken.
23:18 <+Extec> mib_abgbco - The problem with that is, I don't trust the judgement and
experience of anyone under 30.
23:18 <@scshunt> JustinDavidow: Children don't necessarily have capacity to contract until 19
23:18 <+trailblazer11> probably not DataPacRat
23:18 <+CloudQc> well you cant drop Party of Canada. Membership of the Pirate shall ;)
23:18 <+Chas> 18 in qc
23:18 <@scshunt> CloudQc: err, say "Party" instead of the full name
23:18 <+RealPaul> let's leave it at 14 without any mention of what happens if they are younger
23:19 <+trailblazer11> I am more comfortable with 14
23:19 <@scshunt> CloudQc has a motion first
23:19 <+Extec> RealPaul - We're not leaving it at 14, we're amending it to 14.
23:19 <+Extec> "leaving" it would be at 12.
23:19 <@scshunt> unless he withdraws it, we'll deal with it first
23:19 <+JustinDavidow> I agree, it should be ammended to 14.
23:19 <+RealPaul> sorry, you are correct
23:19 <+CloudQc> Ok - The Party (capital T and capital P works
23:19 <+RealPaul> I was thinking of one of the changes suggested Extec
23:19 <+SquareWheel> And "fourteen".
23:19 <+Chas> i know that in qc if you bare a child parents have no right whatsoever on
you and clincally you have the right to privacy
23:20 <+Chas> at 14 that it
23:20 <@scshunt> CloudQc: read article I. Then please restate your motion and I'll state it
23:20 <+CloudQc> because it has to be clearly written that it is membership of this very
party, not just any party.
23:20 <+Chas> so thats why id say 14 is the number
23:20 <+CloudQc> next let me explain the age part
23:21 <@scshunt> CloudQc: How about we do these separately?
23:21 <+CloudQc> ok
23:21 <@scshunt> Ok, F49: do you still object to changing the age?
23:21 <+F49> Eh, I'm satisfied, objection withdrawn
23:21 <@scshunt> Ok, any other objections to replacing twelve with fourteen?
23:21 <+F49> I just don't want that to be done frivolously
23:21 <+CloudQc> Reword: Membership of the Party shall be limited to those natural persons
who are either Canadian citizens or permanent residents of Canada. Any
member below the age of fourteen does not have the right to vote. Any person
expelled from the party may rejoin only if so authorized by a general meeting.
23:21 <+Extec> F49 - Chas feels it's not frivolous.
23:21 <@scshunt> I see no objection, "twelve" is stricken and "fourteen" is inserted
23:22 <+SquareWheel> Just curious, what does "natural persons" imply? As opposed to unnatural
persons?
23:22 <@scshunt> Is there a second to CloudQc's motion?
23:22 <+Extec> SquareWheel - We don't permit AIs.
23:22 <+SquareWheel> Good to know.
23:22 <@scshunt> SquareWheel: not corporations, which are legally persons
23:22 <+Extec> That too :)
23:22 <+SquareWheel> I see.
23:22 <+Chas> well im really serious abot it
23:22 <@scshunt> Chas: it's been amended
23:23 <@scshunt> I repeat, is there a second for CloudQc's motion?
23:23 <+Extec> I will second it.
23:23 <@scshunt> Ok
23:23 <@scshunt> CloudQc has moved that the section be amended to read "Membership of the
Party shall be limited to those natural persons who are either Canadian
citizens or permanent residents of Canada. Any member below the age of
fourteen does not have the right to vote. Any person expelled from the
party may rejoin only if so authorized by a general meeting.
23:23 <@scshunt> I'm going to take my liberty to correct the captilization of the second
"party" there
23:24 <+JustinDavidow> please do!
23:24 <+trailblazer11> ok
23:24 <+Extec> Fair enough. Down the road we'll probably need a preamble such as in legal
documents.
23:24 <+SquareWheel> I am pleased with that amendment.
23:24 <+CloudQc> Now the way this is worded, says that anyone below 14 may be a member, but
has no incidence on the right to vote. This goes well along with the ideal
of "Freedom" proposed by the Pirate Party movement which does not impose
membership restrictions based on age. This gives the freedom to someone
below 14 to express his right to think freely, which in reality, should be
encouraged.
23:24 <+Extec> (I'm not proposing to discuss it tonight though)
23:25 <+CloudQc> Party must be capitalised to ensure that it means that you are the member
of the Party inferred to in the actual document and not of another party.
23:25 <+Extec> CloudQc - Technically, you'r emisreading it.
23:25 <+Extec> Actually sorry
23:25 <+Extec> I misread :)
23:25 <+Extec> My mistake.
23:25 <@scshunt> I'd like to propose an amendment to the amendment by inserting " or to make
motions at a general meeting of the Party" after "right to vote"
23:26 <@scshunt> actually nevermind
23:26 <+CloudQc> well, if a 12 yo has a really good idea, should we ignore him because of age?
23:26 <@scshunt> just inserting "or to make motions" after "right to vote"
23:26 <+RealPaul> do we want to add anything about not being a member of another party?
23:26 <+SquareWheel> Motions should be allowed, but not votes. Yes?
23:26 <+TravisMcCrea> CloudQc, 12 year olds don't have good ideas
23:26 <+Extec> I have a question though. Does the system currently differentiate between
voting members and non-voting members?
23:26 <@scshunt> Nothing prevents him from suggesting a motion
23:26 <+mib_s3ss7m> someone else can make the motion on their behalf
23:27 <+SquareWheel> But actually making a motion?
23:27 <+SquareWheel> I see.
23:27 <@scshunt> If no one will vote for a motion, there's no sense in having it brought forward
23:27 <+StevenBradleyScott> scshunt: I'd like to propose an ammendment to the ammendment by simplifying
all of that to "participate as a member"
23:27 <+CloudQc> Oh yeah, true
23:27 <+trailblazer11> RealPaul: other parties do but should we?
23:27 <@scshunt> Is there a second and/or an objection to my proposed amendment?
23:28 <+CloudQc> I guess if a 12 yo is a member, chances are his parents will be too, so
they could motion for him
23:28 <+CloudQc> second
23:28 <+brux> second
23:28 <+StevenBradleyScott> I object: I'd like to propose an ammendment to the ammendment by
simplifying all of that to "participate as a member"
23:28 <+Extec> scshunt - I think we're objecting to the inclusion of "or to make motions
at a general meeting of the Party" actually.
23:28 <@scshunt> StevenBradleyScott: third-level amendments aren't allowed, but I'd caution
against that since that would be like saying "they are a member, but they get
no privileges of membership"
23:28 <+SquareWheel> What about a clause to allow younger members if voted in?
23:28 <@scshunt> I have moved to amend the amendment by inserting "or to make motions" after
"right to vote"
23:28 <@scshunt> KISS in my opinion
23:28 <+trailblazer11> with parents consent?
23:28 <+CloudQc> yes it has to be simple
23:28 <+CloudQc> not with parents
23:29 <+StevenBradleyScott> scshunt: That would depend on the interpretation of "participate", but I
withdraw my objection
23:29 <+CloudQc> because it gives an extra vote to the parent
23:29 <+SquareWheel> Assuming they share opionions.
23:29 <+RealPaul> just state what the criteria for full membership, canadian citizen, or
naturalized citizan, age 14 and not a member of another party?
23:29 <+Chas> second realpaul
23:30 <+CloudQc> well, whats wrong with being OK with the ideals proposed with 2 parties?
23:30 <+mib_s3ss7m> agrreed with cloudqc
23:30 <+Extec> Sorry, when did "not a member of another party" get injected there?
23:30 <+SquareWheel> Somebody proposed it.
23:30 <+CloudQc> It didnt
23:30 <+RealPaul> just asking questions
23:31 <+RealPaul> I'm looking at other party memberships for guidance.
23:31 <+Extec> I missed it if it occurred before RealPaul asked
23:31 <+Extec> Not that I disagree.
23:31 <+SquareWheel> I feel members should be able to be a part of multiple parties unless in a
position of power.
23:31 <@scshunt> sorry, was in the washroom
23:31 <+SquareWheel> Excluding regular votes.
23:31 <+Extec> "position of power"?
23:31 <+StevenBradleyScott> RealPaul: Part of our requirements for becoming a candidate includes being
a member of the party. To avoid members of other parties running for the
Pirate Party, as well as other potential obvious conflicts of interest, it
is best to have them only in one party at a time.
23:32 <+Extec> So should we formally include that then?
23:32 <+Chas> its common sense
23:32 <+RealPaul> agree
23:32 <@scshunt> No motion includes reference to limiting members to only one party
23:32 <@scshunt> discussion of that is out of order
23:32 <+CloudQc> I just dont see the point in shunning someone for also adhering to the
beliefs of another party.
23:32 <@scshunt> the currently pending motion is to insert "or to make motions" after "right
to vote" in CloudQc's amendment
23:32 <+mib_s3ss7m> how many potential conflcits of interest are there? We have a narrow focus
compared to the major parties
23:33 <+CloudQc> However, if you wanna become the leader of the PPCA, then it would be wise
not to be on the council of the NPD for example...
23:33 <@scshunt> CloudQc: that discussion is out of order
23:33 <+SquareWheel> I agree with CloudQc, but we'll cover it next.
23:33 <@scshunt> Is there any further debate on the pending motion?
23:33 <+CloudQc> ok back to subject
23:33 <+CloudQc> I second motion
23:33 <@scshunt> Is there any objection to the motion?
23:33 <+Extec> Sort of
23:33 <@scshunt> Ok
23:34 <@scshunt> Extec: do you have more to say?
23:34 <+CloudQc> (can I second a motion to amend my own motion?)
23:34 <@scshunt> CloudQc: yes, but it's already be seconded and stated
23:34 <+Extec> Do we have any way of differentiating between full and partial members?
23:34 <@scshunt> Extec: No. We could add one.
23:34 <+Extec> If no, then I suggest that membership would need to be limited to those of age
23:34 <@scshunt> Extec: but the proposal would limit some rights of members who aren't 14
23:35 <+Extec> Since otherwise we have zero way of knowing how old someone is when they
put forth a motion or vote.
23:35 <+Extec> Which could invalidate any votes.
23:35 <+trailblazer11> yeah that would just complicate things
23:36 <+RealPaul> so going back to the KISS rule, just have 14 as the age Extec?
23:36 <@scshunt> This discussion is not germane to the amendment at hand; please save it for
after the secondary amendment is disposed of
23:36 <+Extec> RealPaul - The age of membership, yes.
23:36 <+Extec> And that all members are full members by default.
23:36 <+RealPaul> that is good
23:36 <@scshunt> Is there any objection to the secondary amendment?
23:36 <+Chas> why are we talking about having support from 8 year olds seriously
23:36 <+CloudQc> Make a motion after this one passes/fail extec
23:36 <+Extec> Fair enough.
23:36 <@scshunt> Seeing no objection, the motion passes. The pending question is now to
amend article III to read Membership of the Party shall be limited to those
natural persons who are either Canadian citizens or permanent residents of
Canada. Any member below the age of fourteen does not have the right to
vote. Any person expelled from the party may rejoin only if so authorized
by a general meeting.
23:36 <+Extec> I withdraw my objection.
23:36 <@scshunt> err
23:37 <+Extec> Haha
23:37 <+Extec> Try again :)
23:37 <@scshunt> Seeing no objection, the motion passes. The pending question is now to
amend article III to read "Membership of the Party shall be limited to those
natural persons who are either Canadian citizens or permanent residents of
Canada. Any member below the age of fourteen does not have the right to
vote or to make motions. Any person expelled from the party may rejoin only
if so authorized by a general meeting.
23:37 <+CloudQc> now make your motion Extec :)
23:38 <@scshunt> Extec: Unless I misunderstand, what you want is exactly what the document
says right now
23:38 <@scshunt> membership is limited to those of age fourteen or higher
23:38 <+SquareWheel> Isn't it specifying that passing motions isn't allowed in the proposal?
23:38 <+Extec> Okay, I motion that it be reworded to : "Membership of the Party shall be
limited to those natural persons who are either Canadian citizens or permanent
residents of Canada, of at least fourteen years of age. Any person expelled
from the party may rejoin only if so authorized by a general meeting."
23:38 <+RealPaul> second
23:39 <@scshunt> Extec's motion is out of order as it is, modulo grammar, the existing wording
23:39 <+CloudQc> its not existing wording :S
23:39 <+SquareWheel> I get KISS, but I feel younger members should still be allowed to be
members -- even if they cannot vote or pass motions.
23:39 <@scshunt> The existing wording is "Membership of the Party shall be limited to those
natural persons who are Canadian citizens or permanent residents and are at
least fourteen years of age. Any person expelled from the Party may rejoin only
if so authorized by a general meeting.
23:40 <+Extec> SquareWheel - I agree, but we have no method of discerning age here, which
would invalidate votes.
23:40 <@scshunt> CloudQc's motion is to amend it as described
23:40 <+Extec> So until that system is in place, we cannot do that.
23:41 <@scshunt> If the amendment were adopted, we would have to go to greater lengths to
ensure verification of members at meetings
23:41 <+Extec> It's not a question of desirability, but actual plausibility.
23:41 <+CloudQc> ah ok if that is the existing wording then its good
23:41 <@scshunt> since every member is signed in, it is not technically impossible
23:41 <+CloudQc> It is always possible to lie ;)
23:41 <+bntly> You could easily issue youth membership.
23:41 <+Chas> motion at least fourteen years of age * when * when registering for yearly
membership ?
23:41 <+SquareWheel> As it is right now, can anyone prove if I am under 14 now? (I certainly
am, but you see my point)
23:41 <+SquareWheel> (Er, am over)
23:41 <@scshunt> Chas: that's seems redundant
23:41 <+Extec> SquareWheel has a point that might need to be addressed.
23:41 <+Extec> Perhaps not tonight though.
23:41 <+voronaam> Yes, we can add a checkbox "I verify that I am at least 14 years old" to
https://meetings.pirateparty.ca/login.php
23:42 <+SquareWheel> Agreed.
23:42 <+SquareWheel> With Extec. It can wait.
23:42 <@scshunt> SquareWheel: you signed up for the party; if you committed fraud while
doing so, not much we can do
23:42 <+Extec> But probably before we ratify the constitutional amendment.
23:42 <@scshunt> CloudQc: do you wish to withdraw your motion?
23:42 <+Extec> Can we get that on records in the minutes?
23:43 <+CloudQc> yes
23:43 <@scshunt> Ok, is there any objection to the motion being withdrawn?
23:44 <@scshunt> Seeing none, the motion is withdrawn
23:44 <+Extec> I'd like to point out that while some of this may seem quibbling and
pointless, it is a base necessity of being a valid and legitimate political party.
23:44 <@scshunt> Any further discussion of article III?
23:44 <+CloudQc> Shouldn't be allowed to withdraw a motion.
23:44 <+trailblazer11> yes
23:44 <+trailblazer11> III.1
23:44 <+CloudQc> errr
23:45 <+CloudQc> to object the withdrawal of a motion
23:45 <@scshunt> CloudQc: Once a motion is stated by the chair, it's in the hands of the assembly
23:45 <+trailblazer11> oops sorry
23:45 <@scshunt> it can't simply be withdrawn
23:45 <+CloudQc> Seen that way I understand ;)
23:45 <+Extec> trailblazer11 - Do you have an objection to III.1 ?
23:45 <+SquareWheel> Can we get a vote of hands regarding the member ship fee. A positive thing?
23:45 <@scshunt> Also, seeing no discussion, let's move on to III.1
23:45 <@scshunt> SquareWheel: straw polls are out of order
23:45 <+trailblazer11> yeah but I guess I should wait until we are done with the first paragraph of III
23:46 <+SquareWheel> Just to gauge interest.
23:46 <@scshunt> We are, there is no discussion
23:46 <@scshunt> SquareWheel: Straw polls are out of order. If you want to suggest removing
the fee, make a motion to strike this section
23:46 <+Extec> Okay, so III.1 membership fees
23:46 <+Extec> Objection to it, SquareWheel?
23:46 <+SquareWheel> No.
23:46 <+Extec> No?
23:46 <+trailblazer11> ok III.1. Shall lose their membership. Does that leave room for exec to
allow grace period?
23:46 <+Extec> Not to be a dick, but why did you bring it up then? :)
23:47 <@scshunt> trailblazer11: I don't think the exec should allow a grace period. If we
want we could write one in
23:47 <+SquareWheel> I feel it's worth discussing.
23:47 <+SquareWheel> Even if I support it.
23:47 <+Extec> SquareWheel - It's only worth discussing if there's dissent.
23:47 <+CloudQc> Well you can regain the Membership as soon as you pay again so theres no
point in a grace period
23:47 <+Extec> If we all agree, what's to discuss? :)
23:47 <+CloudQc> at worse you aren't a member for 13 days or something
23:47 <+trailblazer11> ok
23:47 <@scshunt> What Extec said
23:47 <+F49> Question: What is our member count, do we have quorum again?
23:48 <+bntly> 37 voiced.
23:48 <+Extec> Quorum is no longer relevant this evening I think.
23:48 <+SquareWheel> I was just gauging interest, Extec. I did not mean to cause disruption.
23:48 <@scshunt> The bit about free memberships is at the request of several current members
of federal council
23:48 <+F49> yeah, 37, ok
23:48 <@scshunt> and the reason free membership is optional is because you can skirt
financing rules by paying for membership
23:48 <+trailblazer11> ok no further objection for III.1
23:48 <@scshunt> Is there any further discussion?
23:49 <+CloudQc> well
23:49 <@scshunt> CloudQc: yes?
23:49 <+CloudQc> n/m
23:49 <+Extec> SquareWheel - Understandably, but if we discuss points we're in agreement
with, we'll be here for 6 hours.
23:49 <+CloudQc> its fine like that
23:49 <@scshunt> Ok
23:50 <@scshunt> Onwards to IV
23:50 <+CloudQc> well
23:50 <+CloudQc> no wait
23:50 <+CloudQc> We should actually allow a grace period
23:50 <+CloudQc> In the event that there is an election process for a Candidate representing
the PPCA
23:50 <+SquareWheel> Is there a downside to temporarily losing membership?
23:50 <+Extec> scshunt - Does a membership card need to be reissued if membership lapses?
23:50 <+trailblazer11> hmm
23:51 <+Extec> Or can an existing number just be renewed at any time?
23:51 <@scshunt> Extec: The document says nothing about membership cards
23:51 <+Extec> Does anyone know though?
23:51 <+voronaam> CloudQc is right. There is a requirement to be a member for 3 months prior
to elections
23:51 <+Extec> Because the grace period issue is moot if renewal of lapsed memberships is
possible.
23:52 <+voronaam> It would be a shame to loose a condidate only because he/she delayed
payment for one day
23:52 <+trailblazer11> the party may allow a free membership
23:52 <+Extec> voronaam - I disagree.
23:52 <+bntly> especially if we need to reissue them a card with a new number.
23:52 <@scshunt> A grace period doesn't solve this problem
23:52 <+Extec> What's the current membership fee? $10/yr?
23:52 <+Chas> yeah candidates elected should get free membership
23:52 <@scshunt> If they fail to pay for the grace period, then they may lose a day there
23:52 <@scshunt> Extec: yes
23:53 <+Extec> I'd suggest that if a candidate cannot keep his membership in order, he
shouldn't be a candidate :)
23:53 <+Chas> nothing like having a candidate elected who forgot to renew his membership
for a day turn into an indy
23:53 <+voronaam> fair enough
23:53 <+trailblazer11> well if we have a defector.... :)
23:53 <@scshunt> Chas: currently they can be awarded free membership but it's not automatic
23:53 <@scshunt> Chas: That wouldn't happen
23:53 <+Chas> i know im just adding a bit of humor
23:53 <@scshunt> ok :)
23:54 <+SquareWheel> We could say once a member, they will wave that 3 month period?
23:54 <+CloudQc> I move to append to the current text: An elected candidate automatically
gains free membership to the party during his time in office as long as he
serves as a member of the Party.
23:54 <+JustinDavidow> I second.
23:55 <+Chas> second
23:55 <@scshunt> CloudQc: mind if I suggest an alternate wording?
23:55 <+Extec> I object.
23:55 <+bntly> Second
23:55 <+CloudQc> go ahead
23:55 <+RealPaul> an elected mp gets 157 thousand a year, he or she can afford ten bucks
23:55 <+Chas> yeah but you always got to think of the what if
23:55 <+bntly> RealPaul: giving them free membership avoids problems.
23:56 <@scshunt> I suggest striking "members of the executive board and of the political
council" and inserting "members of the executive board and of the policial
council, as well as selected candidates and Members of Parliament representing the Party"
23:56 <+CloudQc> RealPaul - He can make a 1k$ donation every year (and I sure would) so the
10$ waive is nothing.
23:56 <+Chas> second scshunt
23:57 <@scshunt> Chas: Party affiliation in the House is not strictly tied to party membership
23:57 <+Extec> scshunt - Remaining optional at their discretion?
23:57 <@scshunt> CloudQc: Is this acceptable?
23:57 <+CloudQc> yes
23:57 <+CloudQc> perfect :)
23:57 <@scshunt> Extec: yes
23:57 <@scshunt> Ok
23:57 <+Extec> Okay
23:57 <+trailblazer11> ok
23:57 <+bntly> Awesome.
23:57 <@scshunt> The motion is as I stated it above
23:57 <+bntly> Second.
23:57 <@scshunt> any objections or debate?
23:57 <+Extec> The party secretary can keep tabs on whichever elected representatives we
have to make sure they renew or request free membership.
23:57 <+trailblazer11> nope
23:57 <+Chas> i agree scshunt forgot to add the representing part wich you covered
23:57 <@scshunt> actually, I have one
23:58 <@scshunt> we also need to replace "one or both of those Boards" with "one or more of
those positions"
23:58 <+RealPaul> this has been good, got to leave, good night all
23:58 <@scshunt> any objections to both of those changes?
23:58 <@scshunt> good night, RealPaul
23:58 <+bntly> nope
23:58 <+JustinDavidow> Good night RealPaul!
23:58 <+Chas> good night realpaul
23:58 <@scshunt> Seeing no objection, both amendments are adopted
23:58 <+Extec> scshunt - Seems fine to me.
23:59 <+CloudQc> I move to append to the current text: A membership may be renewed at any
time after expiration.
00:00 <@scshunt> CloudQc: Nothing prevents someone from rejoining after they leave
00:00 <+Extec> Is there anything that contradicts that?
00:00 <+trailblazer11> is that necessary?
00:00 <@scshunt> (unless they get kicked out)
00:00 <+CloudQc> (this will make it so we dont get a new number for renewing after expiration)
00:00 <+CloudQc> See, it is not rejoining, it is renewing
00:00 <+Extec> CloudQc - That's a systems issue, not a constitutional one.
00:00 <+SquareWheel> So once an ID is taken, it cannot be reassigned.
00:00 <@scshunt> member numbers are just incidental
00:01 <@scshunt> there's no particular reason explicitly putting renewal in would affect
member numbers at all
00:01 <+CloudQc> im thinking in database fashion here
00:01 <+Extec> CloudQc - Right, hence it's systems, not constitutional.
00:01 <@scshunt> I know what you're thinking, but the document says nothing about member numbers
00:01 <+CloudQc> where it would cleanup inactives
00:01 <+CloudQc> ok then I withdraw the motion
00:01 <+Extec> CloudQc - There's no need to cleanup inactives.
00:02 <@scshunt> nothing in the document would prevent member numbers from being assigned at
random daily :P
00:02 <+Extec> Even if every single person in the country was a member, it wouldn't burden a db.
00:02 <@scshunt> Ok.
00:02 <+CloudQc> lol true that
00:02 <@scshunt> Any more discussion of III.1?
00:02 <+SquareWheel> (Depending on the database software, hardware involved.... but yes, irrelevant)
00:02 <@scshunt> new version uploaded, by the way
00:03 <@scshunt> Ok, we're proceeding to article IV
00:03 <+Chas> link?
00:03 <+Extec> chas - it's the topic :)
00:03 <@scshunt> same link in title
00:03 <@scshunt> just refresh
00:03 <+CloudQc> see now point 4 is very clear :)
00:03 <+Chas> mibit client ...
00:03 <+TSemczyszyn> I cannot stay any longer, goodnight everyone.
00:03 <@scshunt> Good night
00:03 <+JustinDavidow> Goodnight TSemczyszyn
00:04 <+trailblazer11> good night
00:04 <+Extec> gimme a bit to read up on why we need so many executive positions.
00:04 <+SquareWheel> "Excepting the Leader and Deputy Leader" Err, is that "Accepting"?
00:04 <+Extec> Wait
00:04 <+bntly> SquareWheel: no.
00:04 <@scshunt> SquareWheel: no
00:04 <+CloudQc> Could be worded better as With the exception of the Leader and Deputy Leader
00:04 <+SquareWheel> My mistake.
00:04 <+Extec> What article discusses why we need a "Leader" *and* a "President"?
00:05 <+bntly> CloudQc: agreed
00:05 <+CloudQc> But thats just a syntax error on which we agreed could be corrected at will
by scshunt
00:05 <@scshunt> I've made CloudQc's suggested change
00:06 <@scshunt> Extec: Often in political parties the two are separate positions
00:06 <+SquareWheel> Great. Moving on?
00:06 <@scshunt> the Leader is the political leader, and the President is the administrative
manager
00:06 <+Chas> true
00:06 <+trailblazer11> Political side and administrative side
00:06 <+Chas> thats how it is most of the time
00:06 <+Extec> Okay, fair enough.
00:06 <+trailblazer11> so political side can concentrate on what they do best
00:06 <+CloudQc> yes there is a leader which is more of a PR guy and the guy seating in
parliament. The president is for the internal stuff usually.
00:07 <@scshunt> Formally defining the Leader as the political leader is possible and a
reasonable thing to do; I just now realized that I never put that in anywhere
00:07 <@scshunt> it's not necessary though, and I would be wary of giving the Leader too
much power accidentally
00:07 <+Extec> Something to work on later perhaps.
00:08 <+CloudQc> Move on to section V?
00:08 <+mib_s3ss7m> creating a new section rather than ammending existing ones may not be for
tonight
00:08 <@scshunt> I'm also splitting the last paragraph into two paragraphs since it is
inteded to apply to all elections
00:08 <+trailblazer11> ok
00:08 <+Extec> Agreed, scshunt.
00:08 <@scshunt> actually, the first sentence should really be a part of the preceeding paragraph
00:09 <@scshunt> I've updated a version with those changes
00:09 <+trailblazer11> so what is the term of office for the President?
00:09 <@scshunt> one year
00:09 <@scshunt> "... until the first general meeting one year or more after their election"
00:09 <+trailblazer11> or more?
00:10 <+CloudQc> yes more, so he can be re-elected
00:10 <+Extec> trailblazer11 - By up to a month.
00:11 <@scshunt> trailblazer11: So that he retains office until the meeting at which his
successor is elected
00:11 <+Extec> trailblazer11 - Unless you're proposing that we call a special meeting at
the 365 day anniversary?
00:11 <@scshunt> since they may not line up precisely on the same day each year
00:11 <+Extec> At the most it will be 13 months.
00:12 <@scshunt> yeah
00:12 <+trailblazer11> can that be simplified to one year or after their successor is elected?
00:12 <+CloudQc> Also keeps in mind that if the constitution changes in the middle of his
term to bi-monthly meetings, then he can still stay in office
00:12 <+Extec> trailblazer11 - I don't think that would be good.
00:13 <@scshunt> trailblazer11: Doing that means that we can't end the term early if we
don't like him except through formal discipline procedures, per RONR
00:13 <+CloudQc> I want to be elected as his successor after 6 months! And you cant stop the
election with that wording.
00:13 <+trailblazer11> ok. I think what you have is probably good. Can't think of a better phrase.
00:14 <@scshunt> CloudQc: No, it's actually the opposite
00:14 <@scshunt> With the current wording, the election can be rescinded and a new officer
put in place
00:14 <@scshunt> With "and until", then it cannot be
00:14 <@scshunt> and the only way to remove the officer, outside a formal discipline
procedure, is to wait it out
00:14 <@scshunt> we have too high turnover for that
00:15 <@scshunt> (if they're nice they'll resign... if not...)
00:15 <+CloudQc> lol true
00:15 <+trailblazer11> ok no more objection for that part
00:15 <+CloudQc> you brought up a good point though trail
00:15 <+CloudQc> proves we gotta word this carefully
00:15 <@scshunt> yeah
00:16 <@scshunt> Ok, moving on to V?
00:16 <+Extec> Hmmn, we already updated the part about the quorum?
00:16 <+CloudQc> no, this is a draft
00:17 <+CloudQc> not the current one
00:17 <+Extec> Yes I meant in the draft
00:17 <@scshunt> Ok, we're moving on to V
00:17 <+F49> wait a sec
00:17 <@scshunt> Extec: the draft always included either ten or fifteen as the quorum
00:17 <@scshunt> F49: oh?
00:17 <+F49> I'd prefer a larger quorum requirement
00:17 <+F49> 50 is obviously too much
00:17 <+F49> but with 10, you basically can make a quorum with the FC
00:17 <+F49> which I believe, is not the intention here
00:17 <+F49> or rather, the intention is to specifically prevent that
00:17 <@scshunt> Historically, we typically get 15-20 members
00:18 <+trailblazer11> what part talks about the quorum?
00:18 <@scshunt> trailblazer11: last sentence of article V
00:18 <+Extec> I think a quorum should be based on historical values as an algorithm.
00:18 <+F49> yeah, that's in V, not in IV
00:18 <+F49> sorry
00:18 <+SquareWheel> A percentage with 20 as a floor is good.
00:18 <+Extec> Not a percentage.
00:18 <+SquareWheel> True, not literally.
00:18 <+trailblazer11> what about we made it to something like 1% of members or 20 whatever is lesser?
00:19 <+Extec> I'd say something like 2/3rds of the average minimum for the previous 6
meetings.
00:19 <+SquareWheel> Well, how many members are there now?
00:19 <@scshunt> A floating quorum would be a pain
00:19 <+bntly> it really would.
00:19 <+trailblazer11> 2000+?
00:19 <+F49> percentage would be bad, because something like 1% are going to be active.
Its better just to make the quorum requirement larger when the party gets that
big
00:19 <+Extec> Hmmn wait that doesn't make sense.
00:19 <@scshunt> We currently have 2468 members according to the website
00:19 <@scshunt> I agree with F49
00:19 <+bntly> You can always update the quorom ammount later..
00:19 <+SquareWheel> Okay, so is 20 fair for now?
00:19 <+F49> 1% of that is 25 members?
00:20 <@scshunt> Even 1% is a little high based on previous attendance. We don't want to
have a "please come and make quorum" announcement again
00:20 <+Extec> How about 25% of the historical active attendance at general meetings for
the previous 6 meetings?
00:20 <@scshunt> I'd prefer 15
00:20 <+bntly> Extec: it'd be a pain
00:20 <+bntly> scshunt: agreed
00:20 <@scshunt> Extec: That would require recalculation every time
00:20 <+bntly> i think 15 is a good number
00:20 <+F49> I think 15 is quite reasonable
00:20 <+SquareWheel> It seems small to me.
00:20 <+Extec> scshunt - Yes, but not much, and the secretary should be able to handle that
00:20 <+CloudQc> I move to strike Ten members shall constitute a quorum at a general
meeting. and replace it with "Fifteen members shall constitute a quorum at a
general meeting."
00:20 <+trailblazer11> ok at least bigger than political council
00:21 <+F49> but if you are going to make changes to your constitution, a "please come
and attend" is probably warranted
00:21 <+JustinDavidow> I second CloudQc's movement.
00:21 <+CloudQc> Quorum doesn't have to be big. If people want to have their say, they'll
show up. Plain & Simple.
00:21 <+F49> 15 is I think a reasonable minimum, for the minimum requirement
00:21 <+bntly> CloudQc: second
00:21 <@scshunt> F49: Yes, but it shouldn't be "please come and attend so that we can do
this", it should be "please come and attend to voice your opinion"
00:21 <+Extec> scshunt - It would prevent the need to amend the constitution every time
membership expands significantly.
00:21 <+trailblazer11> yeah F49
00:21 <+F49> good point scshunt
00:21 <@scshunt> CloudQc has moved to strike "Ten" and insert "Fifteen".
00:22 <+F49> lets do this
00:22 <+SquareWheel> Okay, you've convinced me. Second.
00:22 <+bntly> Yep
00:22 <@scshunt> Are there any objections to this?
00:22 <+F49> bntly seconded ^^
00:22 <+trailblazer11> 15 is good
00:22 <+SquareWheel> We don't need the voting bot, I hope?
00:22 <@scshunt> SquareWheel: oh no
00:22 <+SquareWheel> Thank goodness
00:22 <+Extec> We're not using Stenobot anymore
00:22 <+F49> not if it passes unopposed
00:22 <+bntly> there are like 5 of us :P
00:22 <@scshunt> Seeing no objection, the motion is adopted
00:22 <+bntly> we're hopeless if we can't keep track of this ;)
00:23 <+CloudQc> lol that bot has its flaws. But I can see it being very good in the future.
00:23 <+Extec> Since we are unable to ratify, we don't need a formal vote, this is just a
discussion as to what to put forth at a future meeting
00:23 <@scshunt> yeah
00:23 <+Chas> the bot aint that bad if it woul get a 1 minute and a half timer on it
00:23 <@scshunt> but it will carry weight
00:23 <@scshunt> Chas: the bot is annoying to control and stuff
00:23 <+Extec> And streamline things.
00:23 <+Chas> debate ends and its 2 quick to even start thinking and come to a conclusion
00:23 <+Chas> ah ok
00:23 <@scshunt> I have another word to add on this section
00:23 <+Chas> but i like the way it handles votes and keep them anon
00:23 <+SquareWheel> Yes?
00:23 <+Extec> Since at least right now we can weed out the glaring errors and
questionable statements.
00:24 <@scshunt> There are no provisions for in-person general meetings because making sure
they were fair was quite difficult
00:24 <@scshunt> and consensus was that it would be easier to have a general meeting
authorize a committee to meet consisting basically of everyone who showed up
to a convention or something
00:24 <+Extec> scshunt - Considering how hard it is to get 50 members to do it via IRC,
you'd be lucky to get 5 attending in-person.
00:24 <@scshunt> Extec: This is for a big convention or something
00:24 <@scshunt> not regular meetings
00:24 <+JustinDavidow> I'd be there if I could. :P
00:25 <+Extec> scshunt - Even for a convention, at this time based on the size of the
party, it still wouldn't be "fair".
00:25 <@scshunt> The committee could then recommend changes which could be addressed at an
online meeting, thus giving everyone the ability to participate
00:25 <+bntly> I think there are 3 PPoC members where i am :P
00:25 <+CloudQc> Also, no real decisions should be taken IRL - Its unfair to those who arent
close
00:25 <+bntly> our meetings are mostly just drinking
00:25 <@scshunt> bntly: whereabouts?
00:25 <@scshunt> CloudQc: exactly
00:25 <+bntly> scshunt: Victoria, BC
00:25 <+Extec> Anyway, at this point that discussion is moot
00:25 <+bntly> our meetups also tend to be reddit meetups as well..
00:26 <@scshunt> Yes; any more discussion on this article?
00:26 <+CloudQc> lol reddit
00:26 <+bntly> CloudQc: ;)
00:26 <+CloudQc> i prefer 4chan
00:26 <+SquareWheel> I know one Facebook friend that has "liked" the Pirate Party. Not too big
over here, also BC.
00:26 <@scshunt> Ok, seeing none, let's move on to VI.1
00:26 <+SquareWheel> I have yet to attend a reddit meetup.
00:26 <+bntly> SquareWheel: they are pretty fun as an excuse to geek out and talk
00:27 <+Extec> Can I get a clarification on VI.1?
00:27 <@scshunt> Extec: sure!
00:27 <+drew1> just want to say that I lime Extec's idea of moving average for quorum
00:27 <+SquareWheel> It's a great way to get the "Forever alones" together, I imagine.
00:27 <+Extec> Paragraph 2 makes zero sense to me.
00:27 <+drew1> *like
00:27 <+Extec> drew1 - I think for now I'm going to leave it at 15 simply because a quorum
is just a minimum so that the party isn't overtaken by a small group of elites.
00:27 <@scshunt> Extec: The chief agent is the person responsible for managing the party's funds
00:28 <+trailblazer11> for accountant?
00:28 <+Extec> So essentially a treasurer?
00:28 <@scshunt> Right now, the chief agent is the Pirate Party of Canada Fund
00:28 <@scshunt> Extec: yeah, more or less
00:28 <+Extec> So that section allows for us to assign that to a corporation?
00:28 <+drew1> ya it can be amended later
00:28 <@scshunt> Extec: The law does
00:29 <@scshunt> This just provides that if we do assign that to a corporation, that
corporation's directors are allowed to attend meetings of the executive board
00:29 <@scshunt> and speak at them
00:29 <+Extec> But not vote.
00:29 <+Extec> or make motions.
00:29 <+Extec> Is that excluded if they are otherwise still a member of the executive?
00:30 <@scshunt> good point
00:30 <+Extec> (IE - if the president is also on the board of directors for the chief
agent corporation)
00:30 <@scshunt> yeah
00:30 <+bntly> What is a board member holds another position on council?
00:30 <+Extec> Perhaps that should be clarified to be safe?
00:30 <+bntly> *corporate board member
00:31 <+Extec> Would anyone like to propose the motion or should I?
00:31 <+bntly> go for it extec. :P
00:31 <@scshunt> any objection to striking "without the rights to vote or to make motions."
and inserting ". The directors of the chief agent do not have the right to
vote or to make motions at meetings of the Executive Board unless they hold
another position on the Board."
00:31 <+Extec> Works for me!
00:31 <+bntly> Go for it.
00:31 <+mib_s3ss7m> good
00:31 <+Chas> good
00:31 <+TravisMcCrea> I am SOO glad I brb'd :P I wasn't expecting you guys to still be at it
00:32 <+trailblazer11> ok that's good. Thanks Extec
00:32 <+SquareWheel> I'm multitasking here, did we move to change the number of quorum members?
00:32 <+Extec> yes, we bumped it to 15
00:32 <@scshunt> SquareWheel: It went to 15
00:33 <+SquareWheel> Okay, good to hear.
00:33 <@scshunt> TravisMcCrea: I'll keep going until we adjourn, or until I think we're not
getting a good slice of people participating
00:33 <@scshunt> by the way, mib_s3ss7m, you can use /nick to pick a more personal nickname
if you'd like. Or you can remain as you are :)
00:33 <+mib_s3ss7m> oh, thanks
00:33 <+Extec> scshunt - Or until you decide to step down from the chair :)
00:33 <@scshunt> Extec: true; I do need to be up tomorrow
00:34 <+SquareWheel> It is getting pretty late in most time zones, I'll be leaving shortly myself.
00:34 <@scshunt> All right, anything else for V.1?
00:34 <+trailblazer11> nope
00:34 <+TravisMcCrea> I was thinking "Branon.. thats a unique name"
00:34 <+JustinDavidow> I'm out, From Winnipeg Manitoba, have a great night everyone!
00:34 <@scshunt> Good night!
00:34 <+SquareWheel> Night.
00:34 <+Chas> midnight in here also im keeping a bit quiet also
00:34 <+drew1> so the quorum was changed to 15 without 50 present?
00:34 <+trailblazer11> night JustinDavidow
00:34 <@scshunt> drew1: The quorum hasn't changed.
00:34 <+Extec> drew1 - No.
00:34 <+SquareWheel> From 10.
00:34 <+CloudQc> I suggest to adjourn upon reaching arcticle VII
00:35 <@scshunt> drew1: The quorum requirement in the draft document has changed
00:35 <+drew1> ok..just amended the motion ok
00:35 <+Extec> drew1 - An official proposal has been made to amend the constitution to that.
00:35 <@scshunt> I tend to agree with ClodQc.
00:35 <+Chas> second cloud
00:35 <@scshunt> So, VI.2
00:35 <@scshunt> commends/questions?
00:35 <@scshunt> *comments
00:36 <+SquareWheel> Looks commendable to me.
00:36 <+SquareWheel> No problem here.
00:36 <+Extec> Actually can I put in a suggestion there?
00:36 <+SquareWheel> Shoot.
00:36 <@scshunt> Extec: if you couldn't, why would we be here?
00:37 <+Extec> In P2 can we reword it as "The Executive Board has the power to temporarily
delegate its authority..."?
00:37 <+Extec> I'd hate to see that wind up being permanent.
00:37 <@scshunt> Extec: It could delegate permanently if it so chooses
00:37 <+Extec> Should it have that right?
00:37 <+Extec> Because that basically disbands the executive in favour of the council
00:37 <+Chas> temporary could be good and bad in a sense
00:38 <+Brandon_MT> I think we want a way to go back from that
00:38 <@scshunt> Extec: It would always have the power to revoke the delegation
00:38 <+Extec> And it would be up to the council to reinstate the executive
00:38 <@scshunt> likewise the council can delegate power to the executive, but always would
have the power to revoke it
00:38 <+Extec> scshunt - In which case it would need to be temporary.
00:38 <+Extec> If it was "permanent" it could not be revoked.
00:38 <@scshunt> Extec: Not necessarily. The executive board could pass a motion delegating
power to the political council indefinitely
00:39 <@scshunt> and later rescind the motion
00:39 <+Extec> Yes, that would still be temporary.
00:39 <+CloudQc> here is your "way back": The Executive Board’s actions are subject to
change by, and shall not conflict with decisions of a general meeting.
00:39 <+Extec> Well, it's just quibbling, so I'll leave it for now.
00:39 <@scshunt> that too
00:39 <+CloudQc> So the way back is to propose in a general meeting
00:39 <+Extec> Fair enough.
00:39 <@scshunt> Extec: The Executive Board could, I suppose, be so stupid as to remove its
own power to revoke delegation. But it would have to do so very explicitly.
00:40 <+Extec> scshunt - Yes, but it'd be only subject in doing that to itself, no?
00:40 <@scshunt> Extec: yes
00:40 <@scshunt> Ready to move on?
00:40 <+Extec> I'm just concerned it could result in a concentration of power is all :)
00:40 <+Chas> i agree the council needs to hold some power to balance things
00:41 <+Chas> agree with extec
00:41 <@scshunt> Chas: Council has powers in the political area
00:41 <+trailblazer11> the council is part of executive board too right?
00:41 <@scshunt> which is its purpose
00:41 <+Extec> But if a GM can reverse a decision by the executive and the executive loses
its own power, I suppose it doesn't matter.
00:41 <@scshunt> TravisMcCrea: the Leader and Deputy Leader are
00:41 <@scshunt> not the whole council
00:41 <+trailblazer11> ic
00:42 <@scshunt> we already did VI.1 ;)
00:42 <+TravisMcCrea> Was that supposed to be trailblazer11 ?
00:42 <+Extec> Someone's abusing autocomplete.
00:42 <+trailblazer11> yes TravisMcCrea :)
00:42 <+TravisMcCrea> :P thanks for making me pay closer attention, regardless
00:42 <+trailblazer11> lol
00:42 <+Extec> Okay, so are we moving on to VI.3?
00:42 <@scshunt> yes
00:43 <@scshunt> Any more discussion here?
00:43 <+Chas> naye
00:43 <+Brandon_MT> none from me
00:43 <@scshunt> Ok
00:43 <@scshunt> VI.3 it is
00:43 <+CloudQc> if the EB is overly trying to control everything, they'll get a no
confidence vote slammed in their faces quickly enough that I don't think it
is a cause for concern.
00:43 <@scshunt> ^
00:43 <+SquareWheel> And as we've learned from Harper, a no-confidence vote gets you a promotion.
00:44 <+Extec> lol
00:44 <+Brandon_MT> lol
00:44 <+CloudQc> lol well conservatives are a "follow the leader" party so meh
00:44 <+Extec> SquareWheel - I don't think we have a supreme overlord position.
00:44 <+Extec> So I think we're probably safe.
00:44 <+Chas> lol
00:44 <+SquareWheel> Heh, alrighty then.
00:44 <+CloudQc> a.k.a. FTL party
00:44 * scshunt for BDFL
00:45 <+CloudQc> (FTL = for the loss) usually
00:45 <+Extec> Thanks for clearing that up :P
00:45 <+Chas> loved that 22 sketch about conservatives a whole pack of bad ideas mixed
togheter
00:45 <+bntly> CloudQc: Faster then Light?
00:45 <@scshunt> Any comment on the finances?
00:45 <+Extec> Nope.
00:45 <+Brandon_MT> no
00:45 <+bntly> scshunt: should council be able to call on the chief agent to give a report
at any time?
00:45 <@scshunt> Okay, next is VI.4
00:45 <+CloudQc> bntly : not in internet lingo ;)
00:45 <@scshunt> nevermind
00:45 <+bntly> CloudQc: ;)
00:45 <+Extec> Actually wait.. sorry I do have a comment about VI.3
00:45 <+bntly> sorry
00:46 <@scshunt> bntly: I would think so, but that is a matter between the Party and the
chief agent, since the Party does not directly have control over the chief agent
00:46 <+Extec> We should perhaps specify a definitive timeframe for the report.
00:46 <@scshunt> Extec: A speicific month of the year, you mean?
00:46 <+Extec> Yes.
00:46 <+Extec> Like perhaps at the start of the FY
00:46 <@scshunt> Well, political council elections are normally held in November.
00:46 <+trailblazer11> our fiscal year?
00:46 <@scshunt> but the FY is January-December
00:46 <+Extec> scshunt - That is actually ideal.
00:46 <@scshunt> (and when I say normally, I mean "will be")
00:47 <+bntly> scshunt: but it might be good to have language that allows the board/irc
channel/party to request or demand the chief agents report if needed?
00:47 <+Extec> scshunt - After all, you don't want those things coinciding.
00:47 <@scshunt> bntly: It doesn't make sense to write down the power to ask a question, I think
00:47 <@scshunt> Extec: true
00:47 <@scshunt> February?
00:47 <+Extec> Sure.
00:47 <@scshunt> actually, wait
00:47 <+bntly> scshunt: gotcha.
00:48 <@scshunt> when is the report due to EC
00:48 * scshunt goes to look
00:48 <+CloudQc> Its 1am (almost) here, time to go, im too tired now
00:48 <@scshunt> blargh, 6 months
00:48 <@scshunt> CloudQc: all right, I think we're almost done here
00:48 <+Brandon_MT> If a financial report was asked for at another time, would there be a
timefram is must be given in?
00:48 <+SquareWheel> Let's start to wrap up. We had 1 more?
00:48 <@scshunt> Be sure to come back Wednesday?
00:49 <@scshunt> Brandon_MT: the party could pass a resolution like "we request that our
chief agent provide a report by $DEADLINE" and if it wasn't complied with,
they could change the chief agent or something
00:49 <+Chas> im about to log also
00:49 <+Extec> Looks like May 30, scshunt
00:49 <+Brandon_MT> ok
00:49 <@scshunt> Extec: June 30 actually
00:49 <+bntly> scshunt: that is more what i ment >_>
00:49 <+bntly> me and language tonight, not so much.
00:49 <+CloudQc> Yeah, unless electricity lets me down, or if I spontaneously combust, I
should be here Wednesday.
00:49 <+Extec> Really?
00:50 <+Extec> I'll take your word for it :)
00:50 <@scshunt> bntly: the party is free to express its opinion or make a request; we don't
need a special rule for that
00:50 <@scshunt> Extec: (4) The chief agent of a registered party shall provide the Chief
Electoral Officer with the documents referred to in subsection (1) within
six months after the end of the fiscal period.
00:50 <+trailblazer11> Can we include link to the draft on our e-mail?
00:50 <@scshunt> trailblazer11: definitely will
00:50 <@scshunt> I'll also put differences between the versions
00:50 <@scshunt> anyway, back on topic
00:50 <+Extec> Okay, I was going by : DO submit the Registered Association Financial
Transactions Return by May 31 each year, ensuring that the following are
included
00:51 <+Extec> EC is a mess to find anything on.
00:51 <+Extec> So I was likely in the totally wrong section.
00:51 <+Brandon_MT> Will we be trying to vote on these changs with quorum wednesday?
00:51 <@scshunt> Brandon_MT: yes
00:51 <@scshunt> how about just replacing "a general meeting" with "the May general meeting"?
00:51 <+trailblazer11> what time? later I hope.
00:51 <+Extec> Works for me if you feel that's a good time. I just felt it should be
nailed down is all.
00:51 <@scshunt> trailblazer11: 8:00 EDT
00:51 <+Brandon_MT> I will most likely be unabled to attend, anyway to give vote ahead of hand
for anything unchanged from what we decided now?
00:52 <@scshunt> Any other suggestions for when to put the fiscal report?
00:52 <@scshunt> Brandon_MT: pardon?
00:52 <+Extec> Brandon_MT - Pretty sure we're not allowed to.
00:52 <@scshunt> oh, ahead of time
00:52 <@scshunt> No
00:52 <@scshunt> But the entire thing will go for an all-party vote
00:52 <+Chas> later all my brain cant compute anymore letters at this time , see you all
wednesday
00:52 <@scshunt> after it gets approved by the meeting
00:52 <@scshunt> good night, Chas
00:52 <+SquareWheel> Take care, Chas.
00:53 <@scshunt> Any objection to making May the month?
00:53 <+Brandon_MT> through website voting? Ok
00:53 <+SquareWheel> How many people do we have left?
00:53 <@scshunt> not that many actives
00:53 <+trailblazer11> I am here for few more minutes
00:53 <@scshunt> let's just finish the next section and adjourn
00:53 <+SquareWheel> I will be leaving shortly too
00:53 <+Extec> Agreed, scshunt.
00:53 <+trailblazer11> ok
00:53 <+Extec> (section, not article)
00:53 <@scshunt> Okay, seeing no objection and no more discussion, the amendment is adopted
and we will move on to VI.4
00:54 <+SquareWheel> I have to say though, quorum exists for a reason. Is this enough people to
make constitutional ammendments?
00:54 <@scshunt> SquareWheel: right now? no
00:54 <@scshunt> SquareWheel: but we won't be making any amendments
00:54 <+SquareWheel> I realize, but proposals still.
00:54 <+Extec> I dont't think we can really discuss VI.4 without more members of the
Executive here.
00:54 <+SquareWheel> I agree discussion is difficult with many.
00:55 <@scshunt> SquareWheel: we'll propose these to the meeting proper for review
00:55 <+SquareWheel> But I feel this may be too few.
00:55 <+Extec> I think it's moot anyway.
00:55 <+SquareWheel> Okay, if you feel it's enough.
00:55 <@scshunt> SquareWheel: every decision made here is subject to change
00:55 <+bntly> Yeah.. this is more just clarifying and flushing out
00:55 <+Extec> I move that discussing VI.4 without more members of the executive present
is a waste of time.
00:55 <@scshunt> Extec: As someone who suspects he'll get elected to exec, and having
watched the FC, I think weekly meetings are a very good idea
00:56 <+Extec> The FC?
00:56 <+SquareWheel> I agree with that.
00:56 <@scshunt> Extec: the current Federal Council
00:56 <+Extec> Oh
00:56 <+Extec> Painful!
00:57 <@scshunt> why painful?
00:57 <+trailblazer11> It's good to keep things moving
00:57 <+Extec> Either way, if any changes were going to be discussed, they should be
discussed with members (or likely members) of the executive.
00:57 <@scshunt> ok
00:57 <@scshunt> I move that we now adjourn
00:57 <+Extec> *nod*
00:57 <+SquareWheel> I second.
00:57 <+trailblazer11> agree
00:57 <+Brandon_MT> agree
00:57 <+SquareWheel> Any objections?
00:58 <@scshunt> Any objection to adjourning? Pursuant to the motion earlier, when it
adjourns, this meeting shall adjourn until 8:00 EDT, August 24
00:58 <@scshunt> (that's next Wednesday)
00:58 <+SquareWheel> EDT is -5, correct?
00:58 <+F49> one moment, want to take a last look at things
00:58 <+Extec> Can someone make sure to post the next meeting ASAP if it hasn't already been?
00:59 <@scshunt> Extec: yes, I will make sure a message is sent out tomorrow
00:59 <+F49> Ok, I'm good
00:59 <+Extec> 'k
00:59 <+Extec> I guess nothing left but to call it adjourned and bid everyone adieu.
00:59 <+Brandon_MT> Night everyone
01:00 <+F49> goodnight
01:00 <+SquareWheel> Excellent. Good work everyone.
01:00 <+trailblazer11> thanks scshunt for all your hard work
01:00 <+F49> indeed
01:00 <+Extec> I'd like to thank the various chairs of the evening, particularly scshunt
01:00 <+SquareWheel> Yes, thank you scshunt.
01:00 <+Brandon_MT> yes
01:00 <+F49> Cheers to scshunt
01:00 <+Extec> Good timing, MikkelPaulson hah
01:00 <+trailblazer11> night
01:00 <+SquareWheel> And Qc, if he/she were still around.
01:00 <+Brandon_MT> Just about to adjourn Mikkel
01:00 <@MikkelPaulson> seriously e
01:01 <@scshunt> All right, seeing no objection to the motion, the meeting stands adjourned
