GM 2011-01-19 transcript

[20:06] <@scshunt> All right, first off is official reports; I believe Mikkel has a Leader's Report [20:06] <@MikkelPaulson> indeed [20:07] <@MikkelPaulson> on Saturday we held rallies in Vancouver and Calgary to support WikiLeaks [20:07] <@MikkelPaulson> Calgary had about 15 people and from what I hear Vancouver was around 50–70 [20:08] <@MikkelPaulson> so not huge throngs, but we got some decent numbers [20:08] <@MikkelPaulson> and perhaps more importantly, we had coordinated rallies in 8 countries, over 20 in total [20:08] <@MikkelPaulson> as well as some decent news coverage [20:09] <@MikkelPaulson> you can find pics and links to news reports on the forum [20:09] <@MikkelPaulson> ayes: you were involved in the Vancouver rally, anything you'd like to add from that? [20:09] <@MikkelPaulson> or rather coordinated the whole thing [20:09] <+ayes> We seemed to get some new supporters out of it. everyone was interested in what the pirate party had to say. I think we have our work cut out for ourselves in the category of "people who attend rallies" [20:10] <+ayes> we had a dedicated crew of some 15-20 people the whole time, I don't know if they came pirates [20:10] <+ayes> but they left pirates [20:10] <+ayes> some were anonymous [20:10] <+ayes> we need more rallies, and public events. [20:10] <+ayes> they're going to make us grow a lot. [20:11] <+ayes> additionally, we got great media attention. [20:11] <@MikkelPaulson> that was my experience with the Calgary rally as well [20:11] <+ayes> We need to work with anonymous and other internet advocacy organizations on future protests, I think [20:11] <@MikkelPaulson> I think we had about 5 journalists there covering the event [20:12] <+ayes> the vancouver event was covered by at least 5 as well [20:13] <+ayes> i was on the radio about it, and a college paper out here is doing a big story on the pirate party soon because of it [20:13] <+ayes> we have caught the imagination of a youth journalist [20:13] <+ayes> We can catch that imagination in more minds, if we keep up visibility. [20:13] <+ayes> It went really well. [20:13] <+ayes> Thats all I hafta say. [20:13] <@MikkelPaulson> thanks [20:14] <@MikkelPaulson> and I agree [20:14] <@MikkelPaulson> I think we should also look at attending more rallies by other organizations [20:14] <@MikkelPaulson> getting out there with like-minded people and flying the flag [20:14] <@MikkelPaulson> literally [20:14] <@MikkelPaulson> is a great way to attract new members [20:14] <+ayes> The flag also works great as a regal cape [20:14] *** -scshunt@#canada- For reference, the agenda is https://www.pirateparty.ca/forum/index.php?topic=721.0 [20:14] <+ayes> if you are tall enough. [20:14] <@MikkelPaulson> I recruited three new potential members just riding the subway coming home from the rally with a big WikiLeaks sign on the seat beside me [20:15] <+ayes> While we were walking with the flag to the rally, we had cars honking positively at us, thumbs up, everything [20:15] <+ayes> it was surreal [20:16] <+ayes> People like it. [20:16] <@MikkelPaulson> awesome [20:16] <@MikkelPaulson> yeah, the flags were a great investment [20:16] <@MikkelPaulson> we should distribute a few to each major city in case of rallies [20:17] <+MikkelPaulson> anyone else have anything to add on the subject? [20:17] <+Zblewski> Nothing, except I wholeheartedly support mre flags. [20:17] <+Zblewski> *more [20:17] <+MissKitty> totally [20:18] <@scshunt> All right then [20:18] <+ayes> It would be cool to do a run of slightly smaller flags, I bet you there could be a decent proft margin there [20:18] <+acarne> I also concur regarding flags, and partnership. Although I'd caution against too direct association with groups like anonymous [20:18] <@scshunt> oh [20:18] <@scshunt> nevermind me [20:18] <+Zblewski> Anons just decided to show up. [20:18] <+MissKitty> i would buy one to wear as a cape, one for the wall and one for outside :) [20:18] <+Zblewski> There's no way we'd be allying with them. [20:18] <+MikkelPaulson> yeah, smaller flags would be good [20:19] <+MikkelPaulson> 3'x6' is pretty big [20:19] <+MikkelPaulson> mighty visible, but having one or two big ones and a bunch of smaller ones would probably work better [20:19] <+ayes> I think, in the future, And I don't want to be too controversial here, we aren't going to be as ashamed with the anonymous connection [20:19] <+ayes> right now there is some confusion about what anonymous is [20:19] <+shep> Those little plastic flag poles for your car too. [20:19] <+ayes> but I think the good side of anonymous is more present than the bad [20:20] <+ayes> and anons that I have met have all been amazing, thoughtful dudes [20:20] <+MissKitty> we can connect as long as we're clear on who they are, who we are, and where we diverge [20:20] <+ayes> and women [20:20] <+psema4> MissKitty +1 [20:20] <+MikkelPaulson> I have no problem with them showing up for our events or us for theirs [20:20] <+ayes> I wouldn't be opposed to directly partnering with anonymous on a certain initiatives such as rallies [20:20] <+ayes> but I don't want to blur the lines [20:20] <+ayes> I've never been an anon myself. I am just fond of some of their work. [20:21] <+MikkelPaulson> that might be pushing it, I'd say just let one side organize with the understanding that the other will be out in force [20:21] <+Zblewski> I was never an anon, but I did take part in a small protest while in England. [20:21] <+acarne> I would concur. No harm in supporting each other at events, or working together sporadicly. I would just not support any more formal partnership, at least at this point [20:21] <+MikkelPaulson> I don't think Anon is by definition capable of a formal anything [20:21] <+ayes> There couldn't be a formal partnership anyways [20:22] <+MikkelPaulson> being an anarchist collective and all [20:22] <+ayes> yeah, exactly [20:22] <+ayes> well, anarchist maybe [20:22] <+acarne> True. I meant more us formally acknowledging tryign to work with them [20:22] <+MikkelPaulson> indeed [20:22] <+shep> I was about to point that out as well. [20:22] <+ayes> anon is the will of the people in digital form [20:22] <+MikkelPaulson> it's anarchist (ie. leaderless) in internal structure if not in goals [20:22] <+MissKitty> ayes: well said [20:23] <%rintaran> Actually, I'd say it's the will of SOME people in digital form. They hardly represent the whole, though they do form a growing faction. [20:23] <+ayes> Either way, no matter what we say about anonymous, they're an ally [20:24] <+ayes> we'd be better off to keep on their good side [20:24] <+psema4> lol [20:25] <%rintaran> When our goals and methods are shared, they are an ally. When they are not, it's better to pretend they don't exist. [20:25] <@scshunt> Are we ready to move on, then? [20:25] <+ayes> yes [20:25] <+MikkelPaulson> go for it [20:25] <+ayes> for a while, I feel [20:25] <@scshunt> Ok [20:25] <+MissKitty> ok [20:26] <@scshunt> Next up is a report from the Standing Committee on Constitutional Refinement [20:26] <@scshunt> Who is delivering the report? [20:26] <+MikkelPaulson> I can do it [20:27] <@scshunt> Ok [20:27] <+MikkelPaulson> in November, the committee was tasked with rewriting a few bylaws to bring things in order with the Elections Act and make them more practical [20:28] <+MikkelPaulson> we amended the section regarding leadership elections in December [20:28] <+MikkelPaulson> and now we've taken on the second part, which is the way in which candidates are elected [20:28] <+MikkelPaulson> you can find the proposed amendment here [20:28] <+MikkelPaulson> http://piratepad.ca/ep/pad/view/ro.iy$y5ck$J6h/rev.1673 [20:29] <+MikkelPaulson> I'll briefly outline the changes, then move a 5-minute recess to allow you to read it in more detail [20:29] <+MikkelPaulson> the principal change is allowing the Federal Council to appoint candidates after the writ drops [20:30] <+MikkelPaulson> this was a problem that we discovered in the Winnipeg North by-election in November, when Jeff needed to be elected quickly in order to participate, but we were bound by the bylaw [20:30] <+MikkelPaulson> consequently, we had to introduce him as a de facto candidate until he could be approved by the General Assembly [20:30] <+MikkelPaulson> this should smooth things out a bit in that regard [20:31] <+MikkelPaulson> a few redundant sections have also been removed or rewritten, and generally I hope it's cleaner than the previous version [20:32] <+MikkelPaulson> the current version can be found here http://wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php/Constitution_and_Bylaws#Selection_of_Candidates_for_Member_of_Parliament [20:32] <+MikkelPaulson> with that, I move a 5-minute recess to allow you to read the proposed amendment [20:32] <@scshunt> Are there any objections to taking a recess? [20:33] <@scshunt> Very well; we shall return in 5 minutes [20:38] <@scshunt> Let's resume the meeting [20:39] <@scshunt> The chair will entertain a motion to adopt the bylaw amendments proposed by the Committee [20:39] <@scshunt> Is there a mover? [20:40] <%rintaran> I believe it is moved by the Standing Committee on Constitutional Refinement. [20:40] <+MissKitty> second [20:40] <@scshunt> All right [20:40] <@scshunt> Is there any debate on the motion? [20:40] <+trailblazer11> minor typo [20:40] <+trailblazer11> 5.6 [20:40] <+trailblazer11> shall not be be considered to be rejected [20:41] <@scshunt> Are there any objections to removing the word "be" from section 5.6 of the proposal? [20:41] <@scshunt> *one instance of [20:41] <%rintaran> Nope, I think we're good. [20:42] <@scshunt> Ok [20:42] <@scshunt> The motion stands so amended [20:42] <@scshunt> Is there any further debate? [20:42] <+MikkelPaulson> the updated amendment can be found here http://piratepad.ca/ep/pad/view/ro.iy$y5ck$J6h/rev.1679 [20:42] <%rintaran> The one further change in this section that was not pointed out earlier was the removal of membership length limitation. [20:43] <+MikkelPaulson> right [20:43] <%rintaran> As stands in the amendment, the moment you join the party and have received your membership papers, you will be able to apply as a candidate. [20:43] <+MikkelPaulson> sections 2.1 and 3.1 were stripped down to the bare minimum requirements [20:44] <%rintaran> I just wanted to make sure everyone caught that, as it's probably the only possibly contentious part of this amendment IMO. [20:44] <+MikkelPaulson> so it will be up to the General Assembly (ie. all of you) to decide if someone hasn't been a member long enough [20:44] <@scshunt> trailblazer11: I've sent you a PM; can you please respond? [20:45] <@scshunt> Also, any further debate? [20:46] <+MikkelPaulson> let's move on [20:46] <@scshunt> Ok [20:47] <@scshunt> This motion will have to be voted on by web and telephone [20:47] <+MikkelPaulson> we can take votes now, though [20:47] <@scshunt> Ok, can you explain that? [20:48] <@scshunt> I'm not familiar with the bot [20:48] <+MikkelPaulson> Stenobot can't do it yet [20:48] <+MikkelPaulson> but rintaran has all member IDs, so he can record votes [20:48] <@scshunt> Ok. [20:48] <@scshunt> Do people want to take some votes now? [20:49] <+MissKitty> sure [20:49] <@scshunt> ok [20:49] <@scshunt> rintaran: ready? [20:49] <+MikkelPaulson> up to you if you want to do it in the channel or via /msg [20:49] <+MikkelPaulson> I'd just do it in the channel [20:50] <%rintaran> Sure, I can record them. Use /msg sb  [20:50] <@scshunt> Ok [20:50] <+MissKitty> ok [20:50] <+acarne> I'm technically in class, and thus haven't been able to give the amendment my full attention. I'll reserve my vote for the web later [20:50] <+trailblazer11> aye nay? [20:50] <+MikkelPaulson> sorry, /msg sb [vote] doesn't work yet [20:50] <%rintaran> Ah, then lets do it in-channel. [20:51] <@scshunt> Ok [20:51] <+MikkelPaulson> I'll have it set up by next meeting [20:51] <%rintaran> Better than 10 windows... [20:51] <+MikkelPaulson> yup, definitely

Votes to be tabulated via online / web voting

[20:52] <@scshunt> The next item of business will be brought forward by trailblazer11. [20:53] <+trailblazer11> I move that the Federal Council be instructed to include economic and information ministries to the party platform [20:53] <%rintaran> Can we separate that into two separate motions please? [20:53] <+trailblazer11> ok [20:53] <%rintaran> Thank-you. [20:53] <+trailblazer11> I move that the Federal Council be instructed to include economic ministry to the party platform [20:54] <@scshunt> Is there a second? [20:54] <+MikkelPaulson> seconded [20:54] <@scshunt> Ok [20:55] <+trailblazer11> A lot of people are asking about our position on some other platform. And I find one of the important issue that need to be addressed is on economy [20:56] <+trailblazer11> I am just going to paste what I've posted [20:56] <+trailblazer11> I propose that as part of our open government platform, we recommend or mention forming an economic ministry. This agency would handle economic and monetary policy free from partisanship. Their mandate is fiscal policy based on systematic and transparent formula, with the interest of the state (hence its citizen) front and centre of its focus. [20:56] <+trailblazer11> Citizens includes individuals and businesses. Taxes and policies (e.g. Minimum wage, etc) are formulated carefully to ensure long term stability. While at the same time making sure essential services and infrastructures are always available and in good working conditions. [20:56] <+trailblazer11> The aim is to maintain stable tax rate across the board and prevent increases, while allowing temporary relief in forms of reduce taxes or EI premium, etc, should there be surpluses (and only after possible cyclical downturn are taken into account – e.g. Based on historical statistics). [20:58] <+trailblazer11> the idea is having bright minds on economy and math work on long term plans not influence by partisanship and 4 year term [20:58] <@scshunt> There is now open discussion [20:59] <+AdamS> while the concept of the policies sound like a good, mandating that a new ministry be created instead of including it in the finances portfolio may create competing minitries [20:59] <+Zblewski> I would like to oppose this for a simple reason [20:59] <+MikkelPaulson> well, the first point I'd like to raise is that the motion doesn't actually instruct the Council to do this or that with the subject, only that it be added [21:00] <+Zblewski> there are many policies that are valid. There is no one economic policy that cannot work. [21:00] <+Zblewski> The issue is that members of our party come from vast ideological backgrounds from left to right [21:01] <+MissKitty> and economic policy is one of the big ideological dividers [21:01] <+Zblewski> And by creating a committe that strives to find one option in economic policy would be a divide in the party [21:01] <+Zblewski> This was the reason why early on in our history, we introduced the Swedish PP -style bloc-neutral policy [21:01] <+Araashan> or it could alienate potential members. [21:02] <+Zblewski> It should be up to local candidates to decide the best option based on the wants of their constituent [21:02] <+Zblewski> s [21:02] <+MissKitty> but that's not practical -- a governing party needs an economic policy [21:03] <+Zblewski> Those living in Alberta will most likely not agree with those in Ontario, Or Quebec, or Newfoundland [21:03] <+MikkelPaulson> and we're not a governing party [21:03] <+trailblazer11> We are not choosing side. But by having team of economist establish set guidelines free from ideology it would take out the partisanship [21:03] <+MikkelPaulson> we may get some MPs elected, but I do not want to see a Pirate Party running a country [21:03] <+MissKitty> we need a basis for criticism of economic policy then [21:03] <+Zblewski> trailblazer11, there is no such thing as "free from ideology" in terms of economic policy [21:03] <+trailblazer11> But people are asking where do you stand on economy. It is too important not to have position [21:03] <+trailblazer11> a middle ground. [21:03] <+MissKitty> does each member criticize on the advice of constituents? [21:04] <+MikkelPaulson> yeah, economic policy is about the most ideologically-charged subject in politics [21:04] <+MissKitty> mikkel: exactly [21:04] <+Zblewski> We can consult with regional economic experts [21:04] <%rintaran> MissKitty: currently yes. If it isn't in the platform, then the PPCA has no official stance and it is up to the local candidate to decide based upon their constituency. [21:04] <+Zblewski> And use that as a basis for candidates [21:05] <+trailblazer11> But the way it is right now, either you are left and are against corporation or right against social service [21:05] <+MikkelPaulson> I don't support expanding our platform because the independence of our candidates has actually been a huge selling point in the past, both for the party in interviews with the press, and in Jeff's campaign [21:05] <+AdamS> thus leaving it to individual candidates would encourage dialog among elected members so that compromises could be made [21:05] <+trailblazer11> What I am proposing will be an independent neutral body [21:05] <+Zblewski> +1 AdamS [21:05] <+trailblazer11> voters are not experts on economic policy [21:05] <+MissKitty> so a PP MP would be free to comment on any economic policy unless it falls into one of our core areas? [21:05] <+Zblewski> Don't assume the voters aren't educated on basic economis [21:05] <+MikkelPaulson> voters don't like politicians telling them that they know what's best either [21:06] <+trailblazer11> they can give general guideline like balance between business and social service and infrasture [21:06] <+trailblazer11> *infrastructure [21:06] <%rintaran> Correct. [21:06] <+Zblewski> EVERYONE has an opinion. Go to a Tim Horton's and talk about taxes. [21:06] <+AdamS> experts are not experts on it either given the recent past [21:06] <+trailblazer11> I am not proposing politicians do the decision making [21:06] <+MissKitty> um, that's what politicians do [21:06] <+Zblewski> And we are in the business of politics. [21:07] <+trailblazer11> economist and mathematicians / statisticians. [21:07] <+MissKitty> ...give advice, but elected representatives make the decisions [21:07] <%rintaran> Hold a moment, Trail, weren't you just talking about including Citizens in the "ministry"? If you feel they don't have the knowledge necessary, than why should they be in the ministry? Additionally, isn't there already numerous economic think-tanks that release reports, including the Bank of Canada? [21:07] <+trailblazer11> instead of policy keep changing every 4 years and only looking after short term goal to be reelected [21:08] <+trailblazer11> yes on some policy but Flaherty make the call on other matters [21:08] <+Zblewski> Policy must change [21:08] <+Zblewski> the economy is fluid [21:08] <%rintaran> Flaherty makes the call based upon the information and advice of the finance ministry. [21:08] <+trailblazer11> taxes is raised because of short term planning and fiscal mismanagement [21:08] <+trailblazer11> then cut to buy votes [21:09] <+trailblazer11> why can't it be set to one formula [21:09] <+Zblewski> Economic collapses [21:09] <+trailblazer11> considering all parameters including down turn etc [21:09] <+Zblewski> innovations in the market [21:09] <+AdamS> our economy depends on the economy of other nations, [21:09] <+MissKitty> per zblewski, economic conditions change all the time [21:09] <+AdamS> nations whose political and economic situation we have no control over [21:10] <+MissKitty> there isn't one, ideal taxation plan [21:10] <+trailblazer11> then it can be adjusted and be flexible [21:10] <+trailblazer11> but it can be made more stable [21:10] <+psema4> trailblazer11: it would have to be an organic policy - the enconomy is like weather and inherently chaotic [21:11] <+MissKitty> taxation rates are, grosso modo, fairly stable [21:11] <+Zblewski> Nothing changes the fact that we represent multiple regions and multiple ideals [21:12] <+trailblazer11> So when asked what our economic policy will be? We'll find out when we consult the constituents after the election? [21:12] <+MikkelPaulson> no [21:12] <+AdamS> talk with them before an election [21:13] <+MissKitty> maybe if we keep our economic research/recommendations inside our core areas [21:13] <+trailblazer11> and how do you get everyone to agree? [21:13] <+MikkelPaulson> our candidates will go to their constituents with a policy pre-formed, or a commitment to build that policy from constituents' feedback [21:13] <+Zblewski> Exactly as Mikkel describes it [21:13] <+MikkelPaulson> what would be the point of a consensus? [21:14] <+Zblewski> Cosensus might mean half-baked ideas [21:14] <+MissKitty> in countries that have PR, smaller parties in coalitions have real input to gov't policy [21:14] <+MissKitty> not that we'll have to worry about that lol [21:14] <+trailblazer11> lol but from conversation with people [21:15] *** -scshunt@#canada- There are five minutes left in the discussion period. [21:15] <+trailblazer11> comments like it would be nice to know where you stand [21:15] <+trailblazer11> are you left or right (in terms of economy). they need to know that to vote for you. ALthough I don't agree on choosing left or right [21:16] <+Zblewski> People have appreciated the stance when I explained it to them [21:16] <+MikkelPaulson> so it's better/easier to ignore their opinions? [21:16] <%rintaran> Usually the response would be: "The Pirate Party has no official position, but from what the people of have told me, I believe we should " [21:16] <+trailblazer11> No. But have a body that could think for the long term [21:17] <+trailblazer11> not will this get me elected or re-elected [21:17] <+trailblazer11> ? [21:17] <+MikkelPaulson> but isn't that the point? [21:18] <+MikkelPaulson> maybe establish a long-term body in government [21:18] <+MissKitty> that's always a balance in politics -- if you can't get elected, your policies don't matter anyway [21:18] <+AdamS> "The Pirate Party has no official position, but from what the people of have told me, I believe we should create an independent body to create economic policy for the long term." [21:19] <+MissKitty> but we have stated clearly that we deliberately have no economic policy [21:19] <+MissKitty> each MP is guided by constituents [21:19] <+Zblewski> I explain it differently [21:20] *** -scshunt@#canada- Unfortunately, the time allocated for debate is up. [21:20] <+Zblewski> Call the web/phone polling? [21:21] <@scshunt> This motion does not need to be by web and phone [21:21] <+trailblazer11> it's just a suggestion [21:21] <@scshunt> It is merely an instruction to the FC; when the FC returns a platform that platform will have to go out. [21:21] *** -scshunt@#canada- We'll now vote on the motion that the Federal Council be instructed to include economic ministry to the party platform. [21:21] *** -scshunt@#canada- All in favor say 'aye'; all against say 'nay'.

Vote Results: Aye - 0, Nay - 7, Abs - 4

[21:23] <@scshunt> The next motion is the other half of trailblazer11's motion [21:23] <+trailblazer11> I move that the Federal Council be instructed to include information ministries to the party platform [21:24] <+MikkelPaulson> I'll second that as well [21:24] <@scshunt> All right. [21:24] <+trailblazer11> In support of our platforms such as open government and net neutrality, an Information and Cultural Ministry could be established. Their task would include: (1) Creating a system or interface to make dissemination of information intuitive and easily accessible with little effort. This might involve voter education or campaign to raise awareness. [21:24] <+trailblazer11> (2) This agency will include experts in modern technology and would replace CRTC's role. The intent is to maintain minimal government interventions and promote free flow of information unencumbered by censorship. However, the agency would be in charge of overseeing the enforcement of anti-competitive practices from private companies or businesses. [21:24] <+trailblazer11> companies or businesses. (3) Their mandate would include dealing with any entity who violates a private individual's privacy (e.g. Tracking user activities without permission, spyware, viruses, unauthorized telemarketing, etc). [21:24] <+trailblazer11> (4) Provide real-time tracking of internet backbone load. This would monitor health of what has become a crucial infrastructure for trade/commerce, communication and information/knowledge. It can also serve as an independent verification of major ISP's claim of strain on the system leading to ever increasing reduction in monthly bandwidth cap and speed [21:25] <+trailblazer11> throttling. It could be something like this or better. http://media.cns-snc.ca/ontarioelectricity/ontarioelectricity.html [21:26] <+trailblazer11> Sort of like an internet guardian I guess :P [21:26] <@scshunt> We'll move on to open discussion [21:27] <+MissKitty> now, this falls a lot closer to our back yard :) [21:27] <+MikkelPaulson> indeed [21:27] <+MikkelPaulson> now am I correct in assuming that this is a body you want to establish in government? [21:27] <+MissKitty> note that the link is to a site sponsored by a power provider (nuclear) [21:27] <+trailblazer11> yeah [21:27] <+MikkelPaulson> okay [21:28] <%rintaran> I like the idea of an information and cultural ministry, however I fear governments using that ministry to throttle free speech, internet, and culture much like they have done in Tunisia which has just disbanded it's Information Ministry as a result of the ongoing revolution. [21:28] <+MissKitty> need to be careful naming this body -- Information Ministry/Culture Ministry has...baggage [21:28] <+trailblazer11> MisskItty: yeah just as an example. Like a rela-time indicator of load and helath of the backbone [21:28] <+MikkelPaulson> well my personal opinion is that the proposed body is incoherent [21:28] <+trailblazer11> *health [21:28] <+Zblewski> I agree with this in principle; in that creating intuitive systems for citizens to track their own government's doings has its benefits [21:28] <+MikkelPaulson> the CRTC and the cultural aspects are quite separate [21:28] <+Zblewski> it needs to be retooled, but that would be a job for later on [21:28] <+MissKitty> it has transparency going for it [21:29] <+MikkelPaulson> and I don't think it's appropriate to merge basically our entire platform into one government entity [21:29] <+Zblewski> As a government program to boost transparency, why not. [21:29] <+MissKitty> as pointed out, it's not as if we'll be in a position to create gov't bodies [21:29] <+AdamS> some of the points sound like a re-purposing of the CRTC, others that should be spread across all ministries as ways of doing business [21:29] <+MissKitty> what with not governing... [21:30] <+psema4> any chance #4 could be done regardless of the motion? it would be a great public service for the party to provide [21:30] <+MissKitty> i like a lot of what trailblazer is saying though [21:30] <+trailblazer11> MIssKitty: but you want to show how we would go about governing to give people an idea of how we can be different [21:30] <+MissKitty> sure, ok [21:31] <+MikkelPaulson> I agree with trailblazer11, it's not like we'll have our way all the time with only a few MPs anyway [21:31] <+MissKitty> and yes, we should totally do #4 regardless [21:31] <+MikkelPaulson> but we should still advocate positions [21:32] <+MikkelPaulson> I'm wondering if we could use FOI to gain access to (and subsequently publish) the information in #4 as an independent watchdog, even from outside of government [21:32] <+MikkelPaulson> I agree that it sounds like a great idea [21:32] <+AdamS> indeed [21:32] <+AdamS> are those systems government run/owned? [21:32] <%rintaran> Perhaps changing the nature and scope of the CRTC to expand it into the internet realm, with certain provisions determining the maintenance of net neutrality may be an avenue to look at instead of a new ministry. [21:33] <%rintaran> With the slow death of television, that may be something worth looking into... [21:33] <+MikkelPaulson> I don't trust the CRTC with its fingers in even more pots… [21:33] <%rintaran> They wouldn't be the CRTC anymore though. They'd be whatever the hell we want to call the new commission. [21:33] <+trailblazer11> yeah that's why I said replacing CRTC with technology experts someone who actually understand the technology [21:34] <+MikkelPaulson> and ensure that ex-CEOs of telecom corporations are in the minority [21:34] <%rintaran> I think individual sections of this are not only doable, but advisable. I don't think this should all be one thing though. [21:34] <+trailblazer11> that's why I also put conflict of interest [21:34] <+trailblazer11> actually I forgot that part [21:34] <+MikkelPaulson> no, that's my biggest concern [21:34] <+trailblazer11> To ensure accountability and prevent abuse of power, as part of Open Government, all government official's wealth and financial information are made easily and readily available to the public. All government officials are expected to adhere to strict code of conduct and should be above suspicion. This means any act or association that would be deemed or even [21:35] <+AdamS> if we vote it up to the federal coucil, they get to re-work and re-word though, right? [21:35] <+trailblazer11> or even perceived as leading to conflict of interest should be forbidden. So any business dealings, courting for future employment from private companies, and awarding of contracts are matters of public record. These officials are audited regularly and are accountable to the voters via their representatives. [21:35] <+MissKitty> sry gotta go -- hungry family g'night [21:35] <+MikkelPaulson> not that anything in there doesn't make sense or isn't related to our platform, but it's just too much and too eclectic for one government entity [21:35] <+MikkelPaulson> night MissKitty [21:35] <+trailblazer11> night [21:35] <%rintaran> So long as the idea is in the platform, I think retooling by the FC into something more manageable and less single would work. [21:35] <%rintaran> G'night MissKitty. [21:35] <+Zblewski> We can introduce some of these points as selling points in our platform [21:35] <+AdamS> agreed [21:36] <+Zblewski> I think [21:36] <+trailblazer11> yeah if we mention it somewhere [21:36] <+Zblewski> regardless of whether this suggestion passes or not, FC will look it over [21:36] <+Zblewski> in terms of seperate ideas [21:37] <+MikkelPaulson> and it can't be amended because the motion doesn't actually include any of what you just said [21:38] <@scshunt> Is there any more discussion? [21:38] <+Zblewski> So, I'll be voting against, but we'll do whatever to incorperate these ideas [21:38] <+MikkelPaulson> likewise [21:38] <+MikkelPaulson> I think it's a good matter for discussion [21:38] <+Zblewski> Indeed [21:38] <+AdamS> yeah [21:38] <@scshunt> All right. [21:39] <%rintaran> See trail, aren't you glad I told you to break it up? [21:39] *** -scshunt@#canada- We will proceed to voing on the motion that the Federal Council be instructed to include information ministries to the party platform. [21:39] <+trailblazer11> definitely [21:39] <+trailblazer11> lol [21:39] *** -scshunt@#canada- All in favour, please say 'aye'. All against, please say 'nay'.

Vote results: Aye - 1, Nay - 6, Abs - 5 Motion fails

[21:40] <+Zblewski> As an addendum to this vote, let it be known this will be discussed by FC in the next 2-3 weeks. [21:41] <%rintaran> All that goes forth is the number. [21:41] <@scshunt> Is there any further business? [21:41] <%rintaran> I'm sure the candidates will be discussing it as well. [21:41] <+MikkelPaulson> indeed, so the timing is good [21:41] <+Zblewski> I have a quick announcement [21:42] <+Zblewski> May I? [21:42] <@scshunt> sure [21:43] <+Zblewski> Heya folks, if you haven't heard as of late, there was a popular uprising in Tunisia after many abuses by the autocratic ruler of 23 years, Ben Ali, were made known. [21:43] <+Zblewski> Three bloggers associated with the Pirate movement in Tunisia were jailed, as well as a French Pirate. [21:43] <+Zblewski> As far as I'm aware, all were released. [21:44] <+MikkelPaulson> that's correct [21:44] <+Zblewski> However, the exciting news is... [21:44] <+MikkelPaulson> false [21:44] <+Zblewski> One bloger, Slim Amamou, only days after his release, was appointed Secretary of State for Youth and Sport [21:44] <+Zblewski> However [21:45] <+Zblewski> he will do so as an independent, which, is still something to be proud of. [21:45] <+MikkelPaulson> indeed [21:45] <+Zblewski> And one more seperate thing [21:46] <+MikkelPaulson> unfortunately, the present government is still under the thumb of Ben Ali's supporters, so whether it hurts Slim and by connection PPTN remains to be seen [21:46] <+Zblewski> I intend to bring forth a motion in FC as soon as there is a full slate, to request a conversation with PPI to become a full member [21:46] <+Zblewski> PPI will have it's yearly assembly in Germany in March [21:47] <+Zblewski> Thus, if we ask to join, it must be before then [21:47] <+Zblewski> so, I am working on getting negotiations with PPI leadership going. [21:48] <+Zblewski> Such a motion will come up in our general meeting next month as well, if we go forth with this venture to discuss joining [21:48] <+psema4> a little off-topic, but wondering if there's been any news of the missing bulgarian cyber-security researcher? [21:48] <+Zblewski> Not that I am aware of. [21:48] <+MikkelPaulson> I have a statement as well if you're done [21:49] <+Zblewski> Anyways, that's all I have to say. [21:49] <+AdamS> awesome, thank you for getting in touch with PPI and doing the leg work there [21:50] <+MikkelPaulson> indeed, part of his duties as Director-at-Large is to act as PPI liason [21:50] <+MikkelPaulson> scshunt: may I proceed? [21:51] <@scshunt> sure; although perhaps we should adjourn the meeting formally and then continue [21:51] <+MikkelPaulson> okay; any other motions before that happens? [21:52] <@scshunt> Any other business? [21:53] ======================= MEETING ADJOURNED ========================

Also see Minutes