GM 2010-11-19 transcript

Minutes for the General Meeting on November 11th, 2010
[20:05] <@scshunt> Okay, I'm calling the meeting to order [20:07] <@scshunt> If at any time you have any questions about how this meeting works, please private message me with /msg scshunt  [20:07] <@scshunt> The first order of business is to approve the minutes [20:07] <@scshunt> rintaran, can you please provide a link to the previous meeting's minutes? [20:09] <@scshunt> rintaran? [20:09] <%rintaran> The special meeting or the regular general meeting? [20:09]  (Link: https://www.pirateparty.ca/forum/index.php?topic=473.0)https: //www.pirateparty.ca/forum/index.php?topic=473.0 [20:09] <@scshunt> the general meeting [20:10] <%rintaran> (Link: http://wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php/GM_2010-11-01_minutes)http: //wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php/GM_2010-11-01_minutes for the special general meeting [20:10]  (Link: http://wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php /Minutes_Online_2010.10.19)http://wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php/Minutes_Online_2010.10.19 for the regular general meeting [20:10]  I have no problem with the minutes as posted [20:11]  me neither [20:12] <@scshunt> Okay, so the minutes will stand approved. [20:12]  okay [20:12] <@scshunt> First order of business, I believe Mikkel was going to introduce that? [20:12]  very well [20:13]  I move a discussion period to provide updates on the progress of the Winnipeg North by-election campaign [20:13] <@scshunt> Does anyone have any objections? [20:13] <@scshunt> Okay, we'll go into a discussion period [20:14] <@scshunt> MikkelPaulson: got anything to say? [20:14]  well, I think Zblewski|2 would be the one to introduce it if he's around [20:14]  Sure [20:14]  JeffColeman (who wasn't able to make it this evening) has been more in contact with him than me [20:15]  I'll start off by saying that Jeff has been conducting an excellent campaign. [20:15]  Some points: [20:15]  although I've definitely been following the campaign as well [20:15]  Jeff's social networking is fantastic [20:15]  so far, he is keeping up to the big boys, even surpassing them [20:16] <Zblewski|2> he's been doing several radio and TV interviews, and the press has recieved him very favourably [20:16] <Zblewski|2> Tomorrow he's doing a walkabout with CPAC [20:16] <MikkelPaulson> (just a reminder: Jeff was approved to represent the Pirate Party by the membership on November 1 and was officially nominated with the Returning Officer in Winnipeg North on November 6) [20:17] <Zblewski|2> In terms of public reception in Winnipeg North, he says his listening campaign has been getting some very interesting results [20:17] <Zblewski|2> some of which he has shared on Yotube and Facebook (with permission, of course) [20:18] <Zblewski|2> The issue for me is that he needs to be more assertive now, in what he wants to accomplish for the community [20:18] <Zblewski|2> although he is now addressing that in his debates [20:18] <MikkelPaulson> I agree [20:18] <Zblewski|2> Jeff has recieved $300 in finances from the Party [20:18] <MikkelPaulson> now that the listening stage of the campaign is over, I think he needs to start raising some of the definite points that he has heard [20:19] <Zblewski|2> Even though he was offered more since he was thrust into this commitment [20:19] <MikkelPaulson> since ultimately as a politician his job will be to speak on behalf of his constituents [20:19] <Zblewski|2> Yes [20:19] <Zblewski|2> So, that is the main thing to focus on, and I have asked him to focus on that [20:20] <Zblewski|2> I call him every few days, and so I can say with relative security that he is overall handling the campaign well. [20:20] <+Zblewski|2> I will now open up the floor. [20:20] <+MikkelPaulson> also, I'd like to add that I think he's had at least as much local media coverage as the mainstream candidates [20:20] <@scshunt> Yeah, the CBC coverage was awesome [20:21] <+MikkelPaulson> certainly more than the Conservative candidate, who didn't even bother to show up for the all-party debate [20:21] <+MikkelPaulson> where I have to say Jeff preformed very well [20:21] <+Zblewski|2> Indeed he did [20:21] <@scshunt> Do we have a link to the video of the debate? [20:21] <+MikkelPaulson> (Link: http://www.youtube.com/user/PegNorthPirate)http: //www.youtube.com/user/PegNorthPirate [20:21] <+Zblewski|2> Just various clips [20:21] <+MikkelPaulson> right there ;) [20:21] <%rintaran_> I was also impressed with the videos from the debate, though he still has to work on his nervous "ums" [20:21] <+MikkelPaulson> yeah, just the bits with Jeff in [20:22] <%rintaran_> His YouTube channel has been very informative. [20:22] <+MikkelPaulson> he's quite articulate nonetheless [20:22] <%rintaran_> I've enjoyed both the package episode, and his most recent "hello" [20:22] <+MikkelPaulson> I enjoyed this response [20:22] <+MikkelPaulson> (Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t33x9rW3Vuc)http: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=t33x9rW3Vuc [20:22] <%rintaran_> Not to mention the advertisement. [20:23] <+MikkelPaulson> particularly since that question was redirected to him by none other than the current favourite for the election [20:24] <%rintaran_> I dunno. I found his position to that question troubling. [20:24] <%rintaran_> He basically said "what we need to do to address crime is study crime" [20:24] <%rintaran_> I would have liked to see him say something like, we need to do both prevent and react, while studying crime. [20:24] <%rintaran_> Would be a stronger position without choosing either extreme. [20:25] <+DainRautenstrauch> has he even touched on anything copyright related? [20:26] <%rintaran_> I believe he did in his initial introduction. [20:26] <+MikkelPaulson> he was the leader of the Winnipeg FCC chapter, of course he has ;) [20:26] <+MikkelPaulson> hasn't posted video of the speeches yet though [20:26] <+DainRautenstrauch> ahh [20:26] <MissKitty> There's been a lot of discussion of crime, since a lot of constituents have brought it up to him [20:26] <+MikkelPaulson> yeah, Winnipeg North is quite low-income and crime is a major concern [20:27] <+MikkelPaulson> a few days after the writ dropped there was a double murder in the riding [20:27] <+MikkelPaulson> so it's definitely a major issue in people's minds [20:27] <@scshunt> I'm going to suggest we wrap this up as there isn't a ton of discussion going on [20:28] <+MikkelPaulson> I have no problem with that [20:28] <MissKitty> sure [20:28] <+Zblewski|2> Yarr [20:28] <+MikkelPaulson> if you have any questions or comments, you can email Jeff at jeff@pirateparty.ca or post in the forum [20:28] <@scshunt> Okay. rintaran_, I believe you had the next order of business? [20:28] <%rintaran_> Yes, just let me bring it up. [20:29] <%rintaran__> Apparently I'm having some connection issues, sorry everyone. [20:29] <DerekSilva> Hello everyone. Sorry I'm late - I'm on bedtime duty. :) [20:30] <@scshunt> no worries [20:30] <%rintaran__> The next issue on the agenda is the discussion of limitations to the position of Federal Clerk. [20:30] <@scshunt> Do you have a motion? [20:30] <+MikkelPaulson> PJIRC8793: no prob, not sure who you are though [20:31] <%rintaran__> (Link: http://wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php/Federal_Clerk)http: //wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php/Federal_Clerk [20:31] <%rintaran__> The above link puts forth a proposed guideline on this issue [20:32] <@scshunt> Okay, so you'd like to move its adoption as a party rule? [20:32] <%rintaran__> Even though elected to essentailly perform clerical duties, there's a lot of ways a clerk could mess things up, and I would like to instill a check and balance on the position. [20:32] <@scshunt> Can we get a motion first please? :) [20:32] <%rintaran__> Ok, it's a long one: [20:33] <%rintaran__> I move that # The position of Federal Clerk is determined annually, unless the position is vacated early. # There is no limit to the number of terms someone can hold the position of Federal Clerk # A Federal Clerk can be removed at the request of the Federal Council if they can provide proof that the Federal Clerk is involved in tampering and manipulating votes # A Federal Clerk can be removed at the request of the Federal Council for actions unbecoming a representative of the party # The forced removal of a Federal Clerk automatically denies that individual the opportunity to run for any elected position within the party (Federal Clerk, Federal Chair, Electoral Candidate, Director- at-Large, or Leader) for a period of no less than 4 years [20:34] <@scshunt> Okay [20:34] <@scshunt> Is there a second? [20:34] <@Zblewski> I second [20:34] <@scshunt> Ok, debate is now open [20:34] <@scshunt> if you'd like to make a short opening speech to it, you may, rintaran__ [20:35] <%rintaran__> Alright, sorry about the out of order bit. [20:35] <%rintaran__> Basically, I feel that without a defined check and balance to the position of Federal Clerk, it leaves too much of an opportunity for abuse within the party. [20:35] <+MikkelPaulson> by the way, IRC truncated your motion at "at the request of the Federal Council for actions" [20:36] <@scshunt> oh, yeah, thanks MikkelPaulson, that didn't occur to me. rintaran__, can you please pastebin the full text of the motion at a convenient time? [20:36] <%rintaran__> Really? The motion is the bullet points at (Link: http://wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php/Federal_Clerk)http://wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php /Federal_Clerk [20:36] <+MikkelPaulson> ▪The position of Federal Clerk is determined annually, unless the position is vacated early. [20:36] <+MikkelPaulson> ▪There is no limit to the number of terms someone can hold the position of Federal Clerk [20:36] <+MikkelPaulson> ▪A Federal Clerk can be removed at the request of the Federal Council if they can provide proof that the Federal Clerk is involved in tampering and manipulating votes [20:36] <+MikkelPaulson> ▪A Federal Clerk can be removed at the request of the Federal Council for actions unbecoming a representative of the party [20:36] <+MikkelPaulson> ▪The forced removal of a Federal Clerk automatically denies that individual the opportunity to run for any elected position within the party (Federal Clerk, Federal Chair, Electoral Candidate, Director-at-Large, or Leader) for a period of no less than 4 years [20:37] <%rintaran__> I also think that, even if a Clerk is abusing the position, without a defined, appropriate method of removal, there could be hazardous results from a forced removal. [20:37] <@scshunt> rintaran__: ah, ok [20:38] <%rintaran__> By having this set out in writing ahead of time, it creates the foundation of a proper position, with removal mechanism in place. It also prevents a corrupt Federal Council, from removing a clerk willy nilly, not that we're going to have one of those. [20:38] <@Zblewski> =P [20:38] <%rintaran__> And it means that when my one-year is up, I'm not required to renew the position should I decide I don't want it anymore. ;) [20:39] <MissKitty> Is there a legislative requirement to have this particular safeguard in place, or just a procedure of some kind? [20:39] <+MikkelPaulson> just our own procedure [20:39] <MissKitty> ok [20:39] <%rintaran__> This would be a policy and procedure internally. [20:39] <DerekSilva> Sounds to me like a good procedure/position to have. One person to keep the meeting minutes updated. [20:40] <MissKitty> nods [20:40] <+MikkelPaulson> if memory serves, it was scshunt and I who first proposed the position [20:40] <+MikkelPaulson> and DerekSilva, it's nice to have extra hands to help out with something like that for sure, but more important is that an impartial party have exclusive access to voting records [20:41] <+MikkelPaulson> as until recently I would have been able to tamper with votes at will [20:41] <+MikkelPaulson> not something I should have access to as leader of a party [20:41] <@Zblewski> FYI: He'd never do that [20:41] <+DerekSilva> True enough Mikkel. [20:41] <+MikkelPaulson> yeah, our party isn't exactly big enough to draw the corrupt and power-hungry just yet [20:42] <+DerekSilva> Let's hope not. [20:42] <+MikkelPaulson> actually, if it were, I'd be quite flattered [20:42] <MissKitty> Hate to be superficial, but we have to avoid even the appearance, or possibility, of that happening [20:42] <+MikkelPaulson> the point of what we're doing right now is the anticipation that one day we will be, and when that day comes, we want to have methods in place to deal with it [20:42] <+MikkelPaulson> exactly [20:42] <%rintaran__> Which is why I've come to you with this motion. [20:42] <MissKitty> ...."that" being tampering etc. [20:43] <%rintaran__> Exactly. [20:43] <+MikkelPaulson> I think most people who know me or the other members of the Federal Council personally know that the most you have to fear from us is being too busy with the rest of our lives to meet our duties here sufficiently [20:44] <@scshunt> I would like to speak to this; since everyone else seems to be engaged, I'd ask that I can do this while still sitting in the chair [20:44] <+MikkelPaulson> by all means [20:44] <+MikkelPaulson> but most people don't know us that way, and that's why we need these things in place [20:44] <+MikkelPaulson> however, I have one major problem with the motion as moved [20:44] <%rintaran__> The opening for redemption? [20:45] <+MikkelPaulson> Shawn (rintaran__) is quite right to say that we need to have procedure in place to recall a clerk in case of abuse [20:45] <+MikkelPaulson> but that can only be initiated by the Federal Council [20:45] <+MikkelPaulson> in case the clerk is found to be in collusion with the Council, there's no recourse for the membership [20:46] <%rintaran__> Interesting possibility. [20:46] <%rintaran__> I naturally question authority, but others may be more inclined to tow the line... [20:46] <+MikkelPaulson> and that's the problem that the position of clerk was originally created to avoid, that of undue influence by the Council over records [20:46] <+MissKitty> honestly never thought of that.. [20:46] <@scshunt> [20:47] <@scshunt> Personally, I think that we don't really need a complex set of rules like this. [20:47] <+MikkelPaulson> I thought you'd be first in line ;) [20:47] <+DerekSilva> What about a secondary clerk? Someone else who is engaged but doesn't hold a set on the Federal Council. [20:47] <+DerekSilva> Check & balance for the check & balance. [20:47] <+MikkelPaulson> Shawn isn't on the Council [20:47] <+MissKitty> we do need rules, much as I and many here have an allergy to authority [20:47] <@scshunt> The clerk serves at the pleasure of the assembly; I don't think there's any need to add extra checks [20:47] <%rintaran__> Any official jobs, should have a job description and a check & balance in place for accountability and transparency. [20:48] <%rintaran__> There should be one for chair too honestly, but I didn't feel it my place to compose that. [20:48] <@scshunt> Same with the chair; tradition dictates he serves at the pleasure of the assembly [20:48] <+DerekSilva> Fair enough. [20:49] <%rintaran__> Perhaps I should modify the motion, replacing "Federal Council" with "Federal Council or General Assembly" ? [20:49] <@scshunt> If there's an issue, the assembly can simply appoint a new one and possibly impose sanctions on someone who's violating the trust of the assembly [20:49] <+DerekSilva> I think that's where we're heading, yes, and makes sense. [20:49] <+MikkelPaulson> I agree [20:49] <@scshunt> I don't think we really need this formal policy [20:50] <+DerekSilva> Does it hurt to have it in place though? [20:50] <+MikkelPaulson> perhaps not [20:50] <+MikkelPaulson> and I have a problem with red tape when it gets in the way [20:50] <@scshunt> It does in the sense that it creates unnecessary bureaucracy [20:50] <+MikkelPaulson> but as I read it, this only serves to reinforce common sense with the power of (by)law [20:50] <@scshunt> as odd as it is for me to be arguing this point ;) [20:50] <+MikkelPaulson> which I have no problem with [20:51] <+MikkelPaulson> haha, yeah, I'd expect you to be on the other side of that one [20:51] <@scshunt> Rules very similar to this are already rules by virtue of us using Robert's Rules - which is the sort of reason we adopted an authority [20:51] <+MissKitty> red tape getting in the way of what? [20:51] <@scshunt> because we don't want to have to reinvent the wheel [20:51] <@scshunt> MissKitty: Anything [20:51] <+MissKitty> the procedure would only be invoked if there was a potential problem [20:51] <@scshunt> It specifies term limits for the secretary [20:52] <+MikkelPaulson> that's true [20:52] <@scshunt> Since there's no term limit and it's an appointed position, it's not much different than serving at the pleasure of the assembly [20:52] <+MikkelPaulson> I don't have a problem with people serving until they resign or are recalled [20:52] <%rintaran__> I do believe I was ELECTED not APPOINTED to this position... [20:52] <+DerekSilva> I was just about to write that MikkelPaulson. [20:53] <+MikkelPaulson> strictly speaking, election is a means of appointment [20:53] <%rintaran__> There was a vote on it, by your insistence... [20:53] <@scshunt> it's not a strong distinction [20:53] <@scshunt> at least in this case [20:53] <@scshunt> since 'elected' and 'appointed by the assembly' are basically the same thing [20:54] <+DerekSilva> MikkelPaulson and scshunt - would you prefer to see looser rules/bylaws then on the Federal Clerk? [20:54] <%rintaran__> I suppose, but you're appointed from above and elected from below. The first has you thrust upon others, the later has you chosen by them [20:55] <+DerekSilva> I mean, let's get some recommendations/ideas out here. [20:55] <@scshunt> I don't think we need any formal rules above the rules we inherit from Robert's Rules [20:55] <+MikkelPaulson> rintaran__: your role is to serve the membership, ergo you were appointed from above, that being the member body [20:55] <%rintaran__> I like the idea of a term limit for an annual evaluation by the assembly, something which should be done regularly anyways. [20:55] <+MikkelPaulson> I agree with scshunt, I have no problem with the motion as worded, but I don't think it's entirely necessary [20:55] <+MissKitty> The proposed rules are fair and protect the party from both the occurrence and the appearance of impropriety [20:56] <@scshunt> oh, can someone please move to extend debate? [20:56] <+MikkelPaulson> I so move [20:56] <%rintaran__> second [20:56] <@scshunt> when to? [20:56] <+MikkelPaulson> indefinitely [20:56] <+MikkelPaulson> but I think we're wrapping up anyway [20:56] <@scshunt> Okay, any objections to extending debate? [20:57] <@scshunt> Okay, we're good :) [20:57] <@scshunt> A requirement that the position be reevaluated annually or something would probably be fine [20:57] <+MikkelPaulson> unless no one has anything else to add [20:57] <@Zblewski> Call it. [20:58] <@scshunt> No one else? [20:58] <+MissKitty> nope, said my piece [20:58] <+DerekSilva> Same here. I'm good. [20:58] <@scshunt> Okay, I'll call the vote. The motion is to approve the bullet points at (Link: http://wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php/Federal_Clerk)http://wiki.pirateparty.ca /index.php/Federal_Clerk as rules regarding the clerk [20:58] <@scshunt> All in favor?


 * 4 Voted Aye

[20:59] <@scshunt> All against?


 * 0 Voted Nay
 * 2 Abstain
 * Motion Passes

[20:59] <@scshunt> The motion passes [21:00] <@scshunt> Further business? (let's be quick) [21:00] <+MissKitty> agenda items? [21:00] <+MikkelPaulson> rintaran__: mind if we skip the quality guide? I don't think that needs to be approved by anyone other than you [21:00] <+MikkelPaulson> (Link: https://www.pirateparty.ca/forum/index.php?topic=502.0)https: //www.pirateparty.ca/forum/index.php?topic=502.0 [21:00] <%rintaran__> If you're sure that's alright? [21:01] <+MikkelPaulson> any objections? [21:01] <@scshunt> we don't have a formal agenda [21:01] <@scshunt> you can just move something else [21:01] <+MissKitty> oh, ok [21:01] <%rintaran__> There is an agenda... [21:01] <%rintaran__> (Link: http://wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php/GM_2010-11-19_agenda)http: //wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php/GM_2010-11-19_agenda [21:01] <@scshunt> Agendas are not formal unless they're approved at the start of the meeting, which people have expressed interest in not doing. [21:01] <%rintaran__> Oh, then I guess we just have guidelines of what needs to be discussed... [21:02] <@scshunt> So do we have a motion of some nature? [21:02] <%rintaran__> Mikkel, I believe you have a motion on the selection of candidates? [21:02] <+MikkelPaulson> if rintaran__ isn't planning to proceed with the quality guide, I'll move the next item [21:02] <+MikkelPaulson> yes [21:02] <+MikkelPaulson> although modified a bit from the informal agenda [21:02] <@scshunt> s'okay [21:03] <+Zblewski> Shall it be my turn, then? [21:03] <@scshunt> if you have a motion/report [21:03] <+MikkelPaulson> one sec [21:03] <%rintaran__> No, Mikkel's phrasing a motion. [21:04] <@scshunt> (in the future, if people intending to move motions could write them up before the meeting, things would go faster) [21:04] <+MikkelPaulson> I move that the Selection of Candidates for Member of Parliament and Federal Council sections of the constitutional bylaws, as well as the motion just passed, be referred to the Constitutional Refinement Committee for reconsideration [21:04] <@scshunt> Do we have any objections to this? [21:04] <+Zblewski> No objections [21:04] <+MissKitty> no objection [21:04] <%rintaran__> So that includes the Federal Clerk stuff we just put through? [21:04] <+MikkelPaulson> yes [21:05] <+MikkelPaulson> may I introduce? [21:05] <+DerekSilva> I am unfamiliar with those sections, so I'll abstain from providing an opinion. [21:05] <%rintaran__> No objection then. [21:05] <@scshunt> MikkelPaulson: if no one has an objection, there's no need for a debate [21:05] <@scshunt> DerekSilva: do you want it to be debated? [21:05] <+MikkelPaulson> well, I'd like to provide a background anyway [21:05] <@scshunt> ok then [21:05] <+DerekSilva> scshunt: No, I'm confident in the others that are speaking. [21:05] <+MikkelPaulson> briefly [21:06] <@scshunt> MikkelPaulson would like to debate [21:06] <+MikkelPaulson> the two bylaws I mentioned are the most recent [21:06] <+MikkelPaulson> (Link: http://wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php /Constitution#Selection_of_Candidates_for_Member_of_Parliament)http://wiki.pirateparty.ca /index.php/Constitution#Selection_of_Candidates_for_Member_of_Parliament [21:06] <+MikkelPaulson> and both have serious problems [21:06] <+MikkelPaulson> the Federal Council bylaw is not in accordance with Elections Canada's requirements, so it needs to be changed before our next election now that we're registered [21:06] <+MikkelPaulson> that's a no-brainer [21:07] <+MikkelPaulson> as well, I'd like to discuss implementing staggered terms, with 2 directors elected every two years [21:07] * %rintaran__ nods consent to that point [21:07] <+MikkelPaulson> as for the Selection of Candidates section, I think we saw at the end of October that it works quite poorly [21:07] <+MikkelPaulson> the Federal Council was unable to approve Jeff even on an interim basis when time was of the essence [21:08] <+MikkelPaulson> as a result, we had to pitch him to the media as a candidate when we did not have the authority from the membership [21:08] <+MikkelPaulson> we bent the rules more than we should have, but following the rules to the letter would have resulted in us missing the deadline for registration as well as significant media exposure [21:08] <+MikkelPaulson> in this case, the rules got in the way, and I don't think it's unreasonable to discuss a change that would prevent that from happening again [21:09] <+MikkelPaulson> that's all I have on the matter, anyway [21:09] <@scshunt> Okay [21:09] <+DerekSilva> Is Jeff the candidate for Winnipeg North? [21:09] <+MikkelPaulson> yes [21:09] <+MissKitty> so, we need to 1) bring rules into alignment with Elections Canada and 2) revise rules for more flexilbility/time sensitivity? [21:09] <+MikkelPaulson> I'll provide a more detailed analysis in the committee if anyone is interested in joining that [21:09] <@scshunt> Does anyone have an objection to passing the motion as written above by Mikkel above? [21:09] <+MikkelPaulson> oh yes, and I forgot to speak to the third bit [21:10] <@scshunt> oh [21:10] <+MikkelPaulson> as we just moved the adoption of the limitations to the position of Federal Clerk, I think they should be incorporated into the constitutional bylaws, which is the only place where the limitations can have any real effect [21:10] <+MikkelPaulson> similarly, we may want to include limited checks and balances on other positions in the same section [21:11] <+MikkelPaulson> scshunt has been pushing for a somewhat long-winded code of conduct for forum moderators [21:11] <%rintaran__> It could probably be more eloquently stated if done in that route. [21:11] <%rintaran__> And be re-opened without need for amendment to add "or general assembly" to the checks and balances section. [21:12] <+MikkelPaulson> well, the Committee has the latitude to rephrase things a bit so long as the spirit remains intact [21:12] <@scshunt> The previous motion is still passed; it would be referring it to suggest possible amendments [21:12] <+MikkelPaulson> well my idea is to give the Federal Council the authority to appoint candidates if an election is already in progress [21:12] <+MikkelPaulson> while allowing the membership to retain the authority to withdraw the endorsement [21:13] <+MikkelPaulson> in progress/imminent [21:13] <+DerekSilva> That sounds fair. [21:13] <+MissKitty> so the Council would have nominating power, with possible veto by membership? [21:13] <+MikkelPaulson> yes [21:13] <%rintaran__> Most parties elect their candidate from their members in a local riding, but we're a little too small to go that route. [21:13] <+MikkelPaulson> I'd like to apply that principle on a blanket basis for all of the activities of the Council [21:13] <+MikkelPaulson> or almost all [21:13] <+MikkelPaulson> what the Council can do, the members can undo [21:14] <@scshunt> That applies by parliamentary tradition [21:14] <%rintaran__> I think I like that view. [21:14] <+MikkelPaulson> even if the nomination has already been approved by Elections Canada, the party can withdraw its support for a candidate [21:14] <@scshunt> But it is good to cement it [21:14] <+MissKitty> with good communication, that would be a great system [21:14] <+MikkelPaulson> rintaran__: definitely [21:14] <+MikkelPaulson> I think the most members we have in any riding is 29 [21:14] <@scshunt> May I suggest we move on? [21:15] <%rintaran__> Call the vote. [21:15] <@scshunt> Does anyone have any objections to this? [21:15] <+MikkelPaulson> one more comment [21:15] <+MikkelPaulson> the balance on the activities of the Federal Council has been one of the main goals of my push for openness, to conduct the activities of the Council increasingly by motions, and of course the position of the clerk [21:16] <+MikkelPaulson> stacking layers on top of one another until the membership is sufficiently aware of the activities of the Council that they are able to make an informed decision to reverse [21:16] <TravisMcCrea> DAMN IT I MISSED HIM AGAIN! [21:16] <+MikkelPaulson> sorry, that's all for me [21:16] <TravisMcCrea> I was cleaning up the house... [21:16] <@scshunt> TravisMcCrea: we're in the middle of a meeting [21:16] <@scshunt> Okay [21:16] <@scshunt> Any objections now? [21:16] <TravisMcCrea> Oh sorry >.> [21:16] <@scshunt> As a reminder, the motion is [21:16] <@scshunt> <+MikkelPaulson> I move that the Selection of Candidates for Member of Parliament and Federal Council sections of the constitutional bylaws, as well as the motion just passed, be referred to the Constitutional Refinement Committee for reconsideration [21:17] <+DerekSilva> Do we need a second? [21:17] <@scshunt> It has been seconded [21:17] <+DerekSilva> Then I have no objections. [21:17] <@scshunt> and, since no one has any objections, it is passed. [21:17] <@scshunt> Any further business? [21:17] <+Zblewski> Mine? [21:17] <@scshunt> sure [21:18] <%rintaran__> There's still the required update on the party platform [21:18] <@scshunt> rintaran__: I understand that the Federal Council has not prepared a report on it. [21:18] <+MikkelPaulson> that's correct [21:18] <@scshunt> Zblewski, do you have a report to deliver? [21:19] <+Zblewski> I have a quick report unrelated to Rintaran's business [21:19] <+MikkelPaulson> we've been somewhat occupied with the election process, so we haven't had the time to finalize that as requested [21:19] <+MikkelPaulson> PPI? [21:19] <@scshunt> ssh [21:19] <+Zblewski> Yes, MikkelPaulson [21:19] <@scshunt> Please go ahead, Zblewski [21:20] <+Zblewski> So, I would like to inform the members of PPCA that in the interest of resolving a long-standing Grey area, we will be deciding shortly after the by-election whether or not to start discussions with Pirate Parties International [21:21] <+Zblewski> For those of you not familiar with PPI, they are an international cluster of parties, mostly from Europe, all part of the Pirate movement [21:21] <+Zblewski> According to some PPI'ers, we are already considered an unofficial affiliate, which is also how we view it [21:22] <+Zblewski> At issue is official affiliation [21:22] <+Zblewski> there are several issues that must be discussed [21:22] <+MikkelPaulson> the PPI logo is found on your membership cards, for instance [21:22] <+Zblewski> such as possible financial obligations [21:22] <+MissKitty> advantages? [21:23] <+Zblewski> Advantages include networking with various media and legal contacts [21:23] <@scshunt> It's probably best to hold questions until the end [21:23] <+MissKitty> sorry [21:24] <+Zblewski> but All this will be discussed between Fed Council and PPI's Board of Directors, with PPCA members having a say in the entire process, of course, and it will be up to the membership to approve joining, if it comes to that point [21:24] <+Zblewski> But like I said, there are a /lot/ of things to work out beforehand if we are to consider joining [21:25] <+Zblewski> So, the vote to start dialogue will be after Nov 29 [21:25] <+Zblewski> and a memo will be sent to PPI if it passes federal council's first vote [21:25] <+MikkelPaulson> that vote will take place in the Federal Council [21:25] <+Zblewski> That concludes my report [21:26] <+DerekSilva> Anyone know what happened to their website? PPI's site isn't loading for me. I can only get a cached copy from Google. [21:27] <+MikkelPaulson> well, obviously I will refrain from forming any particularly firm opinion until we've opened discussions, but popular opinion seems to be that they are no longer as relevant as they once were, and have become somewhat corrupt over the years [21:28] <+MissKitty> corrupt?! [21:28] <+DerekSilva> How so MikkelPaulson? [21:28] <+Zblewski> They bicker [21:28] <+Zblewski> It's almost like politics is a game [21:28] <+MikkelPaulson> maybe "inefficient and bureaucratic" would have been a better way to put it [21:29] <+Zblewski> There is some movement toward fixing things [21:29] <+Zblewski> but the current council isn't efficient [21:29] <+MikkelPaulson> however, they do form the foundation of our party and our movement, so I am certainly open to becoming involved so long as our own involvement, financial or otherwise, doesn't prove to be too onerous [21:29] <@scshunt> Okay, thank you. [21:29] <+MikkelPaulson> and will actually be effective in helping to support the international movement, rather than just an organization [21:30] <+DerekSilva> Sounds fair to hope for that. [21:30] <+MissKitty> yep [21:30] <@scshunt> Is there any further business? [21:30] <+MikkelPaulson> I'm out [21:30] <+Zblewski> I have nothing [21:31] <+MissKitty> nothing right now [21:31] <@scshunt> The meeting stands adjourned

Also see the Minutes