EB 2012-02-27 transcript

NOTE: Log times are in Central Time. --- Log opened Mon Feb 27 19:54:01 2012 19:54 -!- RLim [kion@ppca-AD595B3.dynamic.mtsallstream.net] has joined #exec 19:54 -!- Irssi: #exec: Total of 6 nicks [0 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 6 normal] 19:54 -!- Irssi: Join to #exec was synced in 11 secs 19:55 -!- RLim_ [kion@ppca-1B6D3EAE.dynamic.mtsallstream.net] has quit [Ping timeout] 20:13 -!- svulliez [3262e8dd@ppca-655D9E04.mibbit.com] has joined #exec 20:18 <~scshunt> oy, how goes 20:21 -!- Irssi: #exec: Total of 6 nicks [0 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 6 normal] --- Log closed Mon Feb 27 20:25:02 2012 --- Log opened Mon Feb 27 20:25:03 2012 20:25 -!- RLim [kion@ppca-2B4340D2.dynamic.mtsallstream.net] has joined #exec 20:25 -!- Irssi: #exec: Total of 6 nicks [0 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 6 normal] 20:25 -!- Irssi: Join to #exec was synced in 11 secs 20:25 By the way, the thread in announcements that is encouraging input from members on the 3 specific topics, I'd specifically like to get exec council members' opinions as well 20:26 hey 20:27 hello psema4, how is it going? 20:30 it goes... and goes... and... 20:30 lol 20:33 Meeting time? 20:33 < JMcleod> hi 20:34 svulliez: scheduled for 21:30 iirc 20:34 < JMcleod> yeah it should be meeting time 20:34 JMcleod: allo 20:34 < JMcleod> salut 20:34 < JMcleod> scshunt and RLIM here? 20:35 think so 20:36 < RLim> yeah 20:37 < JMcleod> [21:24:30] <~scshunt> RLim, JMcleod, psema4? so hes probably gonna be back in a few minutes 21:40 < JMcleod> Alright then, seems he feel asleep 21:40 < JMcleod> we are 4 so lets start. 21:41 < JMcleod> 1st off, we should have minutes to approve 21:41 < RLim> http://wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php/EB_2012-02-20_minutes 21:42 < JMcleod> ok anyone disagree with that? 21:43 none here; I was not present 21:43 < JMcleod> ok approved without contest 21:43 < JMcleod> psema4 had a point he wanted to bring forward, go ahead 21:44 < RLim> wait 21:44 < RLim> another minutes that we are supposed to approve 21:44 < JMcleod> there are 2? 21:44 < JMcleod> ok 21:44 < JMcleod> lets see em ;) 21:45 < RLim> http://wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php/EB_2012-02-13_minutes 21:45 < RLim> there was no quorum but Sean said we need to capture those also 21:45 < JMcleod> Ah ok. 21:45 < JMcleod> Anyone wanna contest that? 21:46 < JMcleod> Approved unamimously 21:47 < JMcleod> unanimously* 21:47 < JMcleod> Do we also have to approve those from yesterday's meeting^ 21:48 < RLim> ah yes 21:50 < RLim> my apologies 21:50 < RLim> here it is 21:50 < RLim> http://wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php/EB_2012-02-26_minutes 21:51 < JMcleod> Alright, anyone disagree? 21:51 < JMcleod> approved 21:51 < JMcleod> Now 21:52 < JMcleod> I think I saw from emails that psema4 had a point to bring forward 21:52 Yes... 21:52 < JMcleod> Go ahead :) 21:53 This is in regards to Bill C-30. I'll refer to page numbers in this document: http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/hoc/Bills/411/Government/C-30/C-30_1/C-30_1.PDF 21:54 I'll try to keep it short and to the point... which is that we need this analyzed. 21:54 The reporting requirements (of a telecommunications service provider) are odds with many pirate's views on logging. 21:55 Directors are to be held "accountable". In particular, on page 36, para 60: 21:55 60. If a person other than an individual commits an offence under this Act, every 21:55 officer, director, agent or mandatary of the person who directed, authorized, 21:55 assented to, acquiesced in or participated in the commission of the offence is a 21:55 party to and guilty of the offence and liable on conviction to the punishment 21:55 provided for the offence whether or not the person that committed the offence has 21:55 been prosecuted or convicted. For greater certainty, an officer or director, or 21:55 any agent or mandatary who is an individual, is liable only to the punishment 21:56 Shucks. 21:56 woops, missed the last line: provided in respect of an individual. 21:56 on p30, para 39: 21:56 39. Every person who contravenes a provision, order, requirement or condition 21:56 designated under subparagraph 64(1)(p)(i) commits a violation and is liable to 21:56 an administrative monetary penalty not exceeding the prescribed maximum or, if 21:56 no maximum has been prescribed, to a penalty not exceeding $50,000, in the case 21:57 of an individual, and $250,000, in any other case. 21:57 If I can open a broader discussion about the VPN - who is running it now? 21:57 Who manages it and does tech support? 21:57 At this point I haven't done any work on VPN. My understanding is that we have approximately 30 subscribers. I'll follow up with Stephane tonight 21:58 Well, here is my concern, apart from C30: 21:59 I don't think we can provide the best VPN service available, and I think it's our MO to bring our users the best VPN service available 22:00 Even if that means recommending other services that we don't offer. 22:00 It's complex to provide good tech support for this service without stretching our resources thin. 22:02 I'm not certain if we'd be classed as a telecom provider, but I suspect so. The terminology is too vague. 22:02 This C30 thing feels like a nail in the coffin to me. Are there any really good reasons to keep pushing this service? 22:03 < JMcleod> we shouldnt be, but its very unclear 22:03 < JMcleod> Well, it gets us decent amount of funds per year 22:03 personally, I feel that, with time, this is a good thing to do. whether we have the resources to do it properly until then is another question. 22:03 I'd like to see a stop in registration, allowing existing subscriptions to run out, and giving former subscribers information on how to move to other potentially better services. 22:04 I am, needless to say, open to debate and not really intent on pushing this if others disagree. 22:04 < Nuitari> what's the problem with the vpn? 22:04 < JMcleod> C30 22:05 And whether the PPCA will be classified a telecom provider 22:05 *services* provider 22:05 also: takes resources to run that we could put elsewhere and is inferior to foreign VPNs 22:05 < Nuitari> it's all automated now 22:06 < JMcleod> When we get financial reports we'll be able to see how much it gets us though 22:06 < Nuitari> about 240$ per month 22:07 < RLim> $240 income? 22:07 < Nuitari> the expense would remain the same whether or not we continue the service as we need a server for the website 22:07 < Nuitari> RLim: yes 22:08 Nuitari: any thoughts on PPCA being a telecom services provider? 22:08 < Nuitari> where is it defined in the act? 22:08 1 sec 22:08 < JMcleod> I doubt we would be classified as a provider as we do not offer the internet, we only route someone elses internet connection 22:09 careful, these terms are... interesting ;) 22:09 for example, "communication": 22:09 “communication” means a communication ef- 5 22:09   fected by a means of telecommunication and 22:09   includes any related telecommunications data or 22:09  other ancillary information. 22:10 < JMcleod> “ telecommunications service” means a service, 22:10 < JMcleod> or a feature of a service, that is provided by 22:10 < JMcleod> means of telecommunications facilities, whether 22:10 < JMcleod> the provider owns, leases or has any other 22:10 < JMcleod> interest in or right respecting the telecommuni- 22:10 < JMcleod> cations facilities and any related equipment used 22:10 < JMcleod> to provide the service. 22:10 that's the one 22:11 < Nuitari> so pretty much anyone with a server... 22:11 < JMcleod> So someone employed by a telecom company is liable as he has interests? 22:11 that's GTALUG's politcal sub-group's view as well 22:11 < Nuitari> usually only directors are for companies 22:11 Nuitari: I started off with director liability ^ 22:13 < Nuitari> server costs us 171$/month, with taxes 22:13 there is a no-duplicity-of-work clause or somesuch. But when it get's to encryption I don't think they could realistically expect our ISP to be responsible for what goes through our VPN 22:14 this isn't something we need to deal with right now, but be aware of and actively researching in case the govt pushes is through 22:14 s/is/it/ 22:14 < JMcleod> Well, yeah, isnt the provider for the VPN our ISP? 22:15 < Nuitari> this is definitely a poorly written bill 22:15 agreed. i'd site other examples but i'd preaching to the choir i think 22:17 < JMcleod> Yeah we might need to get a lawyer if it passes 22:17 < RLim> EFF 22:17 < JMcleod> EFF? 22:17 Electronic Frontier Foundation 22:17 < RLim> nvm. don't know if they'll take Canadian 22:17 < RLim> co. 22:18 RLim, i have some contacts that might help 22:18 the EFF tried a mission to canada a few years back, during a liberal push on copyright 22:19 < Nuitari> yeah a lawyer would help 22:19 < Nuitari> however the bill is supposed to be sent to committee then come back rewritten 22:19 < Nuitari> can we participate in the commitee? 22:20 don't know :( 22:20 we do have some time to investigate our options though 22:20 < Nuitari> even after the committee there would be another reading /vote in house of commons and the senate right? 22:20 < Nuitari> so no need to rush and shut it off right now 22:20 < JMcleod> well yeah, we could maybe look into participating in the commitee 22:21 JMcleod: that's it from me for now on C-30 unless theres more discussion 22:21 yeah I wasn't saying 'lets hit the switch now' kinda thing, I forgot subscriibers are month-to-month 22:21 < Nuitari> no need to mention the vpn in the committee, just present a normal server operator who tries to do some small time hosting 22:24 < JMcleod> alright well thats something to search for, how to take part in a commitee 22:24 I have a topic I would like to bring up, if we're set on keeping the vpn going for the time being 22:25 < Nuitari> we could move the gateway to Lithuania 22:25 < Nuitari> http://www.hostex.lt/en 22:25 < Nuitari> not too expensive (20$) 22:26 < JMcleod> ok to keep this moving, if there is no motion on the VPN then we will move on 22:26 < JMcleod> If the IT Board wants to move to Lithuania they can come back with a motion to have it done 22:26 < JMcleod> move the gateway (not physically) 22:27 < JMcleod> Ok then, Shawn go ahead 22:29 < JMcleod> svulliez still with us^ 22:29 < JMcleod> ? 22:29 * psema4 has to step away for a few moments, back shortly 22:29 Apologies, tabbed browsing rules too much for this world. 22:30 < JMcleod> well go ahead :) 22:30 I was going to say that I've assembled the barebones of a social media guide 22:30 < JMcleod> you should get KVIrc - when someone mentions your name you get a notification :) 22:31 and I was going to ask you guys to join me in a piratepad tonight to tweak it and add to it, so we can officially implement it and get our hens in a row on that regard 22:31 http://pr.piratepad.ca/116 22:33 I was imagining we could pass the resolution to officially declare the Social Media committee opened, with me as the interim leader 22:33 and give me the right to assign the group guidelines, which after that will be governed by the social media committee 22:34 internally through democratic processes 22:35 You're all welcome to join the board too. 22:36 Once we have enough members to declare a leader, that leader will then join us here in the executive board. :) 22:40 < JMcleod> I think this is a PR thing and should be for the political board since it reaches out to the public 22:42 It's been approved by them, but we didn't do a vote last time. The executive board also has the power to create new boards 22:42 < JMcleod> Ah ok 22:44 < JMcleod> But what I meant was that a member of the PC should be the leader of social media stuff, much like we have a secretary on the exec board 22:45 Well, I am on the PC. 22:45 You think we shouldn't be open to applications from a broader group of people? 22:47 < JMcleod> Yes and no. I think for everything to do to with social media, we should have the leader and representatives only be able to use it. 22:47 < JMcleod> Now, the problem is defining representatives 22:49 I have to disagree, that's going to waste a lot of valuable time for leadership 22:49 if we provide guidelines for accountabilty, and allow members with less time to spend on party issues to offer to do it 22:50 could we have degrees of representitive-ness? 22:50 we can outsource the work and have it be equally effective, while having the council work on important party matters 22:50 < JMcleod> Its really the definition of a representative that is mission 22:50 < JMcleod> missing 22:50 the guidelines don't seek to define that, it is a different discussion altogether 22:51 the guidelines are specficlly about when you are posting as "the pirate party" 22:51 like when steve said stuff from behind the pirate party name on reddit that not everyone liked 22:52 this increases accountability by making us sign our posts, and only post along specific guidelines while using that name 22:52 < JMcleod> Oh yeah, post signing is definately needed. 22:53 < JMcleod> I was refering to the creation of a Social media board in itself, that it should be a Representative board headed by the PC 22:54 So, I'd like to make a motion, then, yeah? 22:55 < JMcleod> go ahead 22:57 I motion to officially create a “Social Media Board” and appoint Shawn Vulliez as interim leader. After a round of crowdsourced edits, the provided “Social Media Guide – Version 0.1” will become official party social media policy. 22:58 I'll second 22:59 -!- svulliez [3262e8dd@ppca-655D9E04.mibbit.com] has quit [Quit: http://www.mibbit.com ajax IRC Client] 22:59 < JMcleod> no need to second in exec meetings ;) 22:59 < JMcleod> gonna give svulliez a chance to get back online 22:59 -!- svulliez [3262e8dd@ppca-655D9E04.mibbit.com] has joined #exec 23:00 sorry, my browser crapped out 23:00 < JMcleod> ok wb 23:00 < JMcleod> Anyone wish to bring any further points or call to a vote the motion to officially create a “Social Media Board” and appoint Shawn Vulliez as interim leader. After a round of crowdsourced edits, the provided “Social Media Guide – Version 0.1” will become official party social media policy.? 23:01 < JMcleod> Ok motion adopted 23:01 call to vote 23:01 nm 23:03 * psema4 needs a cheat sheet for procedure :S 23:03 < JMcleod> lol 23:03 Cool beans. 23:03 < JMcleod> Robert’s 23:03 < JMcleod> Rules of Order 23:03 < JMcleod> (Newly Revised) 23:04 < RLim> lol I can't find my copy 23:04 < JMcleod> look for that in PDF 23:04 noted 23:04 I'm not sure if this is for this council, but it has to do with how the party conducts itself internally 23:04 < JMcleod> All pirates are free :) 23:04 I believe we should allow representatives to use pseudonyms even in official communications 23:05 On forms to elections Canada, legal names make sense. I get that. 23:05 But if I want my leadership profile to say my name is Albert Christianson or whatever makes me happy, I think we should allow it 23:05 < JMcleod> Well, I dont see why not. After all, to the government, we're just social security numbers, we dont really have names. 23:06 Also, it will be good for being welcoming to the transgender community, we have already a few in our community and I don't want to be unwelcoming 23:06 < JMcleod> Well, it depends on what you mean Shawn 23:07 many trans people identify by a name they are not literally assigned 23:07 < JMcleod> As the leader, or as a candidate, we shouldnt run around with fake names ;) 23:07 < JMcleod> But for the general membership, as long as we can verify they are Canadian, I dont see it as a problem. 23:08 I will concede that Candidates should not be running with a different name that is on the ballot 23:08 The problem is that if, for example, a transwoman is running for leadership someday and her name is still legally "eric shmidt" we should allow her to change her forum name and be referred to as "erica shmidt" if that is what she wants 23:09 < RLim> well Election Canada allows nickname if you can prove that people recognize you by that name 23:10 < JMcleod> what RLim said 23:10 really? for candidates specifically? 23:10 ala trademark? 23:10 < JMcleod> For candidates too I think 23:11 < RLim> yep 23:11 < JMcleod> But Erica Schmidt is one thing... j4cKK4774cKK would be different. 23:11 < RLim> My full name is Roderick 23:11 < RLim> but I go by Ric 23:11 < RLim> so they accepted that 23:11 Interesting. 23:11 < RLim> I have to show papers though 23:12 < RLim> e-mail and it makes it easy for me since official work paper addressed me by that name 23:12 JMcleod: +1 but where to draw the line? 23:12 < JMcleod> Exactly. 23:13 < JMcleod> But internally, it doesnt matter :) 23:13 drawing the line is an interesting point 23:13 < RLim> svulliez, so like trailblazer and ayes is ok? 23:14 < JMcleod> here, yes, on a ballot, not sure ;P 23:14 I think if someone strongly prefers a pseudonym, we should allow it as long as we can also verify their real identity 23:14 < RLim> since we are a party of pro psudonym and privacy I don't mind 23:14 on the ballot is up to elections canada really 23:14 < RLim> JMcleod by ballot you mean PC and EB? 23:14 < JMcleod> Yeah thats true 23:14 < RLim> *pseudonym 23:15 but I have no problem with someone telling the news cameras that their name is Air_Phoenix87 if thats what they really want and they're going to represent us well with what they say 23:15 and they are appointed to that kind of position, obviously 23:15 < JMcleod> but for internal elections, who cares what name they choose. If you want real names, vote for someone with a real name. 23:16 it's abnormal but it also highlights our commitment to allowing people to self identify 23:16 < JMcleod> As long as we can verify who they are for official papers 23:16 < RLim> ^ 23:16 part of the platform expansion I am sketching out is the right to self-identify, self-determination and autonomy 23:16 I think it's an important part of web generation politics. 23:17 on a somewhat related note 23:17 any thoughts on this discussion Nuitari scshunt psema4 ? 23:18 < Nuitari> very touchy subject especially in politics 23:18 i'm cautiously optimistic 23:18 < Nuitari> there is a credibility issue by going to eh media as Air_Phoenix87 23:19 I agree 23:20 But that can really be handled on a case-by-case basis, media representatives are going to be selected with that in mind. 23:20 < JMcleod> Air_Phoenix87 is fine imo, but people dont want to see that, they want a real name. 23:20 < Nuitari> forum is one thing, nick names are clearly fine there 23:20 < Nuitari> but when I talk to the media, I go with my real name, not Nuitari 23:21 < Nuitari> I think people who are going to be media representative should use their preferred real name (in case of transgender etc) 23:21 < RLim> it might be cool in some case but could get awkward 23:21 < Nuitari> or if there is a nickname, make it sound like a real name 23:21 Well, perhaps we could allow nicknames and pseudonyms internally, and prevent non-real sounding nicknames from representing the party 23:22 so I could change my leadership page and forum profile to call myself Bill David if that was what made me satisfied 23:22 but not Robot_man777 23:23 < Nuitari> right 23:23 < Nuitari> but unless people in your riding know you as Bill David you won't be able to campaign with that name 23:23 good place to draw a line 23:23 right. 23:24 So should we pass this as an official guideline, then? 23:25 < RLim> what's the motion? 23:26 to allow for total internal pseudonymity in the party, and allow people to run for leadership under pseudonyms as long as they are in the format of traditional Firstname Lastname type names 23:27 as long as people are providing their real information to us upon registration 23:27 when necessary, eg. leadership 23:28 I think you can sign up for a political party under a nickname, can't you? 23:28 like Ric Lim? 23:28 < Nuitari> we don't have a way to know if a name is real or not 23:28 < RLim> yeah but people know me by that name 23:28 < RLim> and Election Canada would ask for proof 23:29 I see. 23:29 < RLim> but internally, I am not too concern as long as we have their real info on registration 23:29 < RLim> I guess it give them freedom to use their pseudonym 23:30 Ok. Does someone want to flip that into a proposal for me? :) 23:30 < JMcleod> ok, so the motion is this? to allow for total internal pseudonymity in the party, and allow people to run for leadership under pseudonyms as long as they are in the format of traditional Firstname Lastname type names as long as people are providing their real information to us upon registration when necessary, eg. leadership? 23:32 i could see a claim for "discrimination" on the format 23:32 < JMcleod> which is? 23:32 Yeah, I can see that too 23:33 < RLim> is the format really necessary? 23:33 firstname lastname is a western name style 23:33 < RLim> if we are already allowing pseudonym 23:33 < Nuitari> change it to culturally recognisable format 23:33 for leaders and representatives we could just forbid numerals and nonstandard characters 23:33 that makes sense Nuitari 23:34 < JMcleod> well 23:34 < Nuitari> some official names have numerals 23:34 < JMcleod> yeah 23:34 < RLim> NUitari true, forgot about that 23:34 < JMcleod> I have a friend named Steve Arpad II on fb 23:34 < RLim> John Paul II 23:35 < RLim> yep there's even the third as in III 23:35 culturally recognizable cuts to the core of the issue I think 23:35 < Nuitari> there are a lot of cultures with 4+ names 23:35 < JMcleod> well write the motion instead of having me guess which is part of it and which is not 23:35 < JMcleod> I have 4 names officially, legally use 3, usually use 2 23:35 < JMcleod> :) 23:36 i have 4 names officially too 23:36 I'll write it as a motion 23:36 < JMcleod> yes please do 23:37 < JMcleod> Captain Shawn Kopimi Vulliez :D 23:37 < JMcleod> Nicknamed Slime mold too 23:37 < JMcleod> :D 23:38 < RLim> yeah I know someone with at least 4 + last name 23:38 < RLim> it's like their parents said let's put all these cool names together 23:38 < JMcleod> In quebec actually you can only have 2 last names :) Because of parents that are kinda dumb 23:39 < RLim> Chinese pass a law that number won't be allowed and the chinese characters must be easily read by computers. 23:39 < RLim> anyway I digress 23:40 I motion that from now on the Pirate Party of Canada shall officially allow for pseudonymity in internal communications, as long as users are providing accurate information when they sign up. Party representatives, if they are using pseudonyms, must use a culturally recognizable name format for their pseudonym. 23:40 Additionally if Party representatives are using pseudonyms they must use a culturally recognizable name format for their pseudonym. Non-representatives are still allowed to be known by usernames. 23:40 < JMcleod> lol yeah, cuz some chinese family wanted to name the child :) 23:41 < JMcleod> Alright, anyone want to discuss or ask a vote be taken on the following motion: that from now on the Pirate Party of Canada shall officially allow for pseudonymity in internal communications, as long as users are providing accurate information when they sign up. Party representatives, if they are using pseudonyms, must use a culturally recognizable name format for their pseudonym. Additionally if 23:42 < JMcleod> Additionally if Party representatives are using pseudonyms they must use a culturally recognizable name format for their pseudonym. Non-representatives are still allowed to be known by usernames. 23:43 < JMcleod> Seeing no complaints, the motion is adopted unanimously. 23:43 bravo. I love it when things are adopted :D 23:43 query 23:43 yes psema4 ? 23:44 < Nuitari> going to sleep 23:44 < JMcleod> does it make psema4 a party representative as he is on the IT board^ 23:44 night Nuitari 23:45 < JMcleod> or are the representatives only for mediatic purposes 23:45 i've been marked so on the forums for some time 23:45 < RLim> JMcleod actually a Chinese parent want to put @ because it read like some chinese word. Gov't said no. 23:45 < RLim> night Nuitari 23:45 < JMcleod> lol yeah that too 23:46 Ah maybe we should specify that representatives only have to use their culturally normative pseudonyms in official contexts, I don't mean to make them have to change their name on the forums too 23:46 < JMcleod> Make another motion then 23:47 wouldn't that be interal communications? 23:47 < JMcleod> yeah 23:47 < JMcleod> but the 2nd sentence isnt clear 23:48 i'm going to retract my query; it was in regards to my nick and hacker culture 23:48 < JMcleod> It could be interpreted as to include internal communications 23:48 (not cracker culture ;) ) 23:48 ok I'll change it to two simpler motions 23:48 I motion that from now on the Pirate Party of Canada shall officially allow for pseudonymity in internal communications, as long as users are providing accurate information when they sign up. 23:49 < JMcleod> First motion to reject the one that was just adopted 23:49 < JMcleod> :) 23:49 yes sir 23:49 I motion to recall the previous unanimous motion. 23:49 < RLim> can we do that? 23:49 < JMcleod> technically we can do anything. 23:49 < RLim> I'll just assume we could. scshunt can correct us later. :P 23:50 < RLim> because it's 5 board meeting? 23:50 < RLim> *member 23:50 < RLim> ok no objection 23:50 < JMcleod> In any meeting. But motions can be rejected for some reasons 23:50 < JMcleod> And I am saying, I wont reject it. 23:50 ok so heres my first motion 23:50 I motion that from now on the Pirate Party of Canada shall officially allow for pseudonymity in internal communications, as long as users are providing accurate information when they sign up. 23:51 should I paste the second motion too before we vote since we're pretty much guaranteed to pass it? 23:51 < JMcleod> Motion to recall accepted. 23:51 < JMcleod> no 23:51 I motion that party representatives when dealing with external communications must use a culturally recognizable name format if they are using a pseudonym. 23:51 < JMcleod> any discussion or demand to vote on that from now on the Pirate Party of Canada shall officially allow for pseudonymity in internal communications, as long as users are providing accurate information when they sign up. 23:51 < JMcleod> 1 motion at a time 23:51 ah whoops sorry. 23:51 <~scshunt> ****ing internets 23:52 <~scshunt> sorry 23:52 < JMcleod> Hi Sean 23:52 <~scshunt> hi 23:52 < JMcleod> Ok well we just passed a motion, recalled it, and are in the process of repassing the same thing but in 2 different motions for clarity's sake 23:53 <~scshunt> ah ok 23:53 < JMcleod> And as no one seems to oppose, the following motion is accepted : that from now on the Pirate Party of Canada shall officially allow for pseudonymity in internal communications, as long as users are providing accurate information when they sign up. 23:53 <~scshunt> hmm, gimme a sec 23:53 I motion that party representatives when dealing with external communications must use a culturally recognizable name format if they are using a pseudonym. 23:54 < JMcleod> Gonna get Sean up to us: 23:54 <~scshunt> Honestly, I think both of these motions are rather pointless 23:55 <~scshunt> skimming up; was there anything else other than social media? 23:55 c-30 23:55 < JMcleod> They are, but its just to have it clear because Shawn fears it may scare away transgenders 23:55 < RLim> transgender using different name 23:55 < JMcleod> We have a social media board 23:55 self-identification 23:55 < RLim> c-30 and concern about vpn 23:56 < JMcleod> We talked 1 hour about C-30 and the problems it might cause to our VPN service but no motion was made 23:56 < RLim> ok concentrate on pseudonym so that I can go to bed. :) 23:56 I do not think these motions are pointless. they are very important if we are going to be the political party of the internet. 23:57 < RLim> I guess it clarifies whether pseudonym are allowed for representative 23:57 < JMcleod> I suggested that if the IT board wishes to move the gateway to Lithuania, they can come back for us to approve the additional costs. 23:57 < JMcleod> Ok 23:57 <~scshunt> svulliez: I think they are pointless because I don't think they are a departure from the status quo; the old rule about requiring candidates to use their real names was removed 23:57 < JMcleod> Anyone wish to contest or call vote on the motion that party representatives when dealing with external communications must use a culturally recognizable name format if they are using a pseudonym. 23:57 <~scshunt> however, I suppose I can see the value 23:57 <~scshunt> but I wish to offer an amendment to this motion 23:58 < JMcleod> make a motion to amend it :) 23:59 <~scshunt> I move to amend the motion by substituting "that Party representatives shall, in official communications, use at least one name by which they are commonly known outside of the Party" --- Log closed Tue Feb 28 00:00:22 2012 --- Log opened Tue Feb 28 00:00:22 2012 00:00 I don't understand the distinction, seems like that opens it up even more 00:00 < JMcleod> I think thats his point, lemme write this out 00:01 because I am known as Consumer Reporter on some places on the internet, that doesn't mean I should be that here. 00:01 that openns it up to dark_p88 type business 00:01 < JMcleod> Anyone wish to dicuss or vote on the following motion: to replace the parent motion with "that Party representatives shall, in official communications, use at least one name by which they are commonly known outside of the Party" 00:02 <~scshunt> svulliez: The problem I see is that a "culturally recognizable name format" is what, exactly? 00:02 < JMcleod> Ok discussing :) 00:02 <~scshunt> What if my name is, say, Moon Unit Zappa? 00:02 the idea was originally that we wanted to distinguish between username pseudonyms and alternative names 00:02 <~scshunt> or "silver" 00:03 moon unit zappa is fine by me 00:03 <~scshunt> (caps included) 00:03 <~scshunt> or what if I go by dark_p88 in day-to-day life? 00:03 or psema4 00:03 I was originally arguing for that too hehe 00:04 but some though that it was a potential liability if we're telling the news cameras our name is dark_p88 00:04 <~scshunt> Possibly we should replace "outside of the Party" with "outside of the Internet" 00:04 <~scshunt> The common law generally allows you to take and use any name 00:04 <~scshunt> as long as it isn't for fraudulent purposes 00:04 could that be construed as descrimination against the net? 00:04 < JMcleod> The point is to force representatives to give out a credible image 00:04 I'm in favor of your existing amendment if everyone else is 00:05 <~scshunt> while to get documents updated, you need to make it official, you can still call yourself whatever you'd like 00:05 I think we will likely vet the credibility of media reps anyways 00:05 <~scshunt> that's also why I put "official" rather than "external" communications 00:05 apart from their pseudonym 00:05 <~scshunt> I should be required to not sign off my internal emails with "thatloser" 00:05 <~scshunt> at least when I'm acting in official capacity 00:06 that's what the motion did before you amended it 00:06 < JMcleod> This motion would allow scshunt & psema4 names so I am all for it. 00:06 <~scshunt> svulliez: no, it said external communcations 00:07 < JMcleod> It would also allow thatloser if you were bullied in school ;) 00:07 <~scshunt> JMcleod: Not sure about psema4, but I answer to "scshunt", so perhaps I would, at that. 00:07 the p is silent 00:07 external communications as in communications with the media, and the public 00:07 <~scshunt> svulliez: Yeah, but I mean internal communications too 00:07 <~scshunt> in official capacity 00:07 <~scshunt> like meeting notices and such 00:08 <~scshunt> at the very least, it's good to establish that association 00:08 so therefore psema4 can't sign his e-mails psema4 ? 00:08 <~scshunt> "who's sean hunt? I thought darkwizard_overlord_99 was the President?" 00:08 <~scshunt> the other option is just to drop this and do this if it becomes a problem 00:08 it would have been nice if you had been here when we already went over all this :P 00:08 <~scshunt> which, frankly, I'd be fine with 00:09 <~scshunt> sorry :P 00:09 < JMcleod> ok so anyone wish to call for a vote on the following: "that Party representatives shall, in official communications, use at least one name by which they are commonly known outside of the Party" 00:09 I'm fine with either my proposal or sean hunts being passed, which do you guys want to go with? 00:10 < RLim> just amend it if it becomes a problem 00:10 <~scshunt> I'm done talking :) 00:10 for the record, i don't mind using my name. many others only know me as psema4. 00:10 RLim +1 00:11 so we're going to go with the amended version, yeah? 00:11 < JMcleod> ok no contest so the motion is adopted (now the dumb part) 00:11 < JMcleod> Now that the motion to amend the previous motion is adopted, we must actually adopt it. 00:12 < RLim> lol 00:12 in favor. 00:12 < RLim> it just sounds funny but I got you 00:12 < JMcleod> Any discussion or call to vote on the motion that Party representatives shall, in official communications, use at least one name by which they are commonly known outside of the Party 00:12 < JMcleod> I so hate that part, but I can see why we have to actually do that 00:13 < JMcleod> ok no contest, adopted unanimously 00:13 <~scshunt> I apologize for this, but I have a point of order. I believe that the earlier motion adopted re: social media board is outside of the executive board's powers. 00:14 <~scshunt> Social media clearly relates to public relations, which is specifically not an issue on which we have say 00:14 < JMcleod> Ok, but we figured the executive board could create boards. 00:14 I don't think it is. I was lead to believe that both could create boards. 00:14 <~scshunt> The EB, PC, and GMs can all create committees; they report to the respective body 00:15 Seeing as the political council has already approved the concept and not voted on it... 00:15 seems needlessly bureaucratic to block it from starting now 00:15 < JMcleod> So we created the board. To me its internal affairs to better deal with external affairs 00:16 <~scshunt> The second half of the motion is definitely out of order, in my opinion, since it would involve the executive board creating social media policy, again a publicity affair 00:16 could we transfer authority if the PC motions to receive it? 00:16 motion to allow the social media board motion under the pretense that the political board has to affirm and validate the social media board motion 00:16 ? 00:16 <~scshunt> hang on, we have a point of order 00:16 <~scshunt> I would like a ruling from the chair, first. 00:17 < JMcleod> lemme just copypaste the whole thing 00:18 < JMcleod> [22:57:52] I motion to officially create a “Social Media Board” and appoint Shawn Vulliez as interim leader. After a round of crowdsourced edits, the provided “Social Media Guide – Version 0.1” will become official party social media policy. 00:19 by the way scshunt in the constitution the power of the respective boards are really ill defined IMO 00:19 < JMcleod> This was passed with the idea to give accountability to the members who communicate on the party's behalf. Therefor, I feel it is part of how the party is run internally. 00:20 < JMcleod> Thats why I accepted it in that form. 00:21 <~scshunt> Ok, I would like to appeal the ruling, which I assume to be a ruling of not well taken. 00:22 can you provide a tangible reason why stalling this process and making us stay here longer is going to functionally improve the pirate party? 00:22 It feels absurd to waste our time this way when so many tangible things need to be done around here. 00:22 <~scshunt> Because, as you said, the limits are not totally clear 00:23 < JMcleod> After a round of crowdsourced edits, the provided “Social Media Guide – Version 0.1” will become official party social media policy. This part is pretty much rendered useless by the creation of the board itself, so I kinda have to agree with him too. 00:23 <~scshunt> it's part of our job in this new system to feel out the boundaries specifically 00:23 can we transfer authority/ownership to the PC to expedite the matter 00:23 <~scshunt> No, the constitution specifically says that standing committees report to the body that created them. 00:24 k 00:24 <~scshunt> (unrelated to the matter of jurisdiction, I think it is far more appropriate for this to be a PC committee) 00:24 <~scshunt> svulliez: that's also why I apologized :) 00:24 the constitution doesn't specifically forbid moving transferring ownership though 00:25 <~scshunt> svulliez: It does since it defines who they report to. We can't change that. 00:25 yes we can, we're in charge of the party 00:25 we can do the things that are required 00:25 < JMcleod> Well I see representatives conduct on social media should be of the exec board, but the actual social media should be of the PC board. 00:25 <~scshunt> svulliez: No. 00:25 < JMcleod> You cant change the constitution 00:26 <~scshunt> ^ 00:26 <~scshunt> Nor can we break it 00:26 < JMcleod> Even if you are in charge 00:26 well you can, with a GM 00:26 <~scshunt> yes, but this board cannot 00:26 < JMcleod> Yeah with a GM 00:26 < RLim> ok so scshunt is appealing the ruling. scshunt what do you want done? Withdraw the motion, reverse the motion? 00:26 we don't need to jump through arbitrary hoops that we've set up if they're clearly holding us back 00:26 it's just absurd 00:26 <~scshunt> svulliez: Yes we do. 00:26 <~scshunt> We would expect the same of the government. 00:26 <~scshunt> see: wheat board 00:26 < RLim> svulliez why not have PC approve it on Thursday 00:27 < RLim> ? 00:27 <~scshunt> Rule of law. We don't get to break the rules. If we don't like them, we should change them. 00:27 < JMcleod> I see representatives conduct on social media should be of the exec board, but the actual social media should be of the PC board. 00:27 < JMcleod> What is your take on that Sean^ 00:27 <~scshunt> JMcleod: The question is whether or not the motion as adopted is within the constitution 00:27 <~scshunt> it's a yes or no 00:28 yeah, we could easily change the constitution to transfer ownership 00:28 < RLim> well reading the motion again. It is about guidelines. So more of a conduct of the representative 00:29 < RLim> *representatives. 00:29 <~scshunt> I mean, I think the motion is terrible and vague 00:29 <~scshunt> but that's because I'm really picky about these sorts of things 00:29 < JMcleod> In that case, I dont see it as breaking the constitution. 00:29 <~scshunt> JMcleod: Okay, I appeal. 00:30 < JMcleod> Not the way the constitution is written anyways. 00:30 <~scshunt> Arguments: The Political Council has the explicit power to approve external communications. 00:30 <~scshunt> I feel that this should be interpreted broadly. 00:31 clearly you are very picky about these things 00:31 lets give the political council opportunity to object then 00:31 <~scshunt> Approval can take many forms, and it doesn't need to be, nor should it be, limited to yaying or naying every single external communication 00:32 <~scshunt> If we set up a system of rules for external communications, then we are implicitly saying that we approve of communications meeting those guidelines and disapprove of ones that do not. 00:32 the political board is going to unanimously consent to this same thing, the difference is waiting 3 days to get started 00:32 which is of course, one of the things that we have been traditionally best at around here :) pointless delays 00:33 * psema4 must retire shortly 00:33 <~scshunt> To take a slightly different tack, consider if we adopted a rule saying that "Members must never sign posts on social media" and the political council adopted one saying that "Members must always sign posts on social media". 00:34 <~scshunt> Which would win? 00:34 < RLim> scshunt: are there any items in the guidelines that you see a potential problem with? 00:34 <~scshunt> Obviously the Political Council's would. 00:34 < JMcleod> Well if we interpret it like that, then it will have to be xfered to the PC but, during the 3 days, you can always make that pad writeup become official right from the start instead of waiting for reviews 00:34 <~scshunt> But the constitution specifically states that we don't have power over areas that the PC does. 00:34 <~scshunt> There is, except where power is delegated, no overlap. 00:34 <~scshunt> So if we would lose in a fight, we can't even make the move to begin with. 00:34 scshunt: I agree, so lets challenge it in the PC meeting instead of wasting everyones time tonight 00:35 <~scshunt> svulliez: You are completely and utterly missing the point here. 00:35 we can overturn it at the PC and take ownership there while still getting started right away 00:35 I'm not missing your point 00:35 < JMcleod> Yeah exactly, the constitution states that. 00:35 <~scshunt> How does the PC overturn our decision? 00:35 < JMcleod> However, the idea in which the motion is to be taken is the conduct, and not the messages that are being sent. 00:35 <~scshunt> they have no authority over our affairs? 00:36 by motion tonight, as I suggested, to allow the PC to review our decision 00:36 but I think you are missing the point that doing things is ALWAYS better than arguing about pedantic nothingness 00:36 and you are currently being the human embodiment of what typically holds the PPCA back 00:36 < JMcleod> its not nothingness. His points are as valid as yours. 00:36 <~scshunt> Order! 00:36 <~scshunt> Order! 00:36 < RLim> ok calm down 00:36 < JMcleod> Exactly, but I will never spam Order. 00:36 <~scshunt> Sorry, that was two in a row on two different things 00:37 <~scshunt> I request that svulliez take back his last sentence. 00:37 <~scshunt> And the first one was about the fact that he was drifting offtopic 00:37 *sigh* 00:37 < JMcleod> OK back on topic now: 00:38 I take back that you are the human embodiment of what typically holds the pirate party back, if my poetic language offends you 00:38 < JMcleod> The Executive Board has the power to delegate its authority to the Political Council as well as 00:38 < JMcleod> to members and committees of the Party, the Executive Board, and/or the Political Council as it 00:38 < JMcleod> sees fit 00:38 < JMcleod> It is on this topic that Sean is contesting the creation of the board. 00:39 <~scshunt> No, not at all. 00:39 < JMcleod> Right 00:39 < JMcleod> I fucked up the copypaste 00:39 <~scshunt> "and has full power and 00:39 <~scshunt> authority over its affairs in between general meetings except where authority is held by the Political 00:39 <~scshunt> Council, or as otherwise limited. 00:39 <~scshunt> " 00:39 <~scshunt> I am saying that this authority is held by the Political Council. 00:39 <~scshunt> and thus not by the Executive Board. 00:40 hrmm 00:40 < JMcleod> The Executive Board is responsible for the general affairs of the Party and has full power and 00:40 < JMcleod> authority over its affairs in between general meetings except where authority is held by the Political 00:40 < JMcleod> Council, or as otherwise limited 00:40 <~scshunt> oh ok :) 00:40 < JMcleod> This one :) 00:41 < JMcleod> By that, Sean is saying that member discipline and accountability is under the authority of the Political Council. 00:41 <~scshunt> No, that's not my argument at all 00:41 < JMcleod> Which is the goal we aimed for when creating the Social Media board. 00:41 I say that in the interests of fairness we allow the previous motion to stand, pending review by the Political Board at their next meeting. For expediency's sake. 00:41 <~scshunt> discipline, by RONR, is a matter exclusively of the general membership 00:42 <~scshunt> svulliez: That's exactly the sort of thing that I object to. 00:42 < JMcleod> Not sure we can do that like that Shawn 00:42 < JMcleod> But Sean, what is the problem with that Social Media board and how is it of PC affairs more than Exec affairs? 00:42 I don't see why not. Our power here is whatever the other board does not lay claim to, and there is no explicit part in the constitution that gives them that power 00:43 <~scshunt> svulliez: yes there is 00:43 we're testing the waters and explicitly allowing for clear boundaries to be set 00:43 < JMcleod> I would like to see it Sean, I may be tired but I read it twice, havent found a thing :) 00:43 <~scshunt> "The Political Council has the power and authority ... to approve external communications." 00:44 < JMcleod> Here is the whole paragraph, for context: 00:44 < JMcleod> VII.4 Powers & Duties 00:44 < JMcleod> The Political Council is a board responsible for the general public interface of the Party. The 00:44 < JMcleod> Political Council has the power and authority to speak on behalf of the Party, to set out Party 00:44 < JMcleod> policy, and to approve external communications. The Political Council's actions are subject to 00:44 < JMcleod> change by, and shall not con 00:44 < JMcleod> ict with decisions of a general meeting. 00:44 < JMcleod> The Political Council has the power to delegate its authority to the Executive Board as well as 00:44 also this disagreement is even more absurd in the light of the fact that travis, sean and I have enough votes to win internal votes on the political council and we are also on this council 00:44 < JMcleod> to members and committees of the Party, the Executive Board, and/or the Political Council as it 00:44 < JMcleod> sees fit. The Political Council has the power to adopt its own special rules of order. 00:44 < JMcleod> Yeah, but in that case Shawn, you still have to do it at the PC meeting. 00:45 <~scshunt> svulliez: Ultimately, the only body competent to fully resolve this matter is a GM. I'd rather not have to bring this up there, but if we simply decide that the motion is valid, and political council disagrees, then we are forced to resort to that. 00:45 <~scshunt> If we decide to have the motion "stand", then we are saying it was valid 00:45 whatever, I wish we didn't waste all this time 00:46 <~scshunt> I have more to say on that subject, but that's not related to the matter at hand 00:46 < JMcleod> Ok, well, our constitution needs definition improvements. 00:46 agreed. 00:46 <~scshunt> any definition will have interpretation issues 00:46 < JMcleod> What is Party policy? 00:46 <~scshunt> JMcleod: not clear from context, but was meant to refer to political policy 00:47 <~scshunt> position on issues, etc. 00:47 < JMcleod> Exactly what I thought. 00:47 < JMcleod> But, it could also mean that this: http://pr.piratepad.ca/116? is policy too 00:47 <~scshunt> That was not the intent 00:48 < JMcleod> Thats the problem with the constitution. 00:48 intent doesn't matter 00:48 <~scshunt> indeed 00:48 the constitution has a lot of huge problems 00:48 <~scshunt> Intent matters where the words are silent, unclear, or unambiguous 00:48 not to the interpreter, I mean 00:48 < JMcleod> If intent doesnt matter then Sean wins his contest hands down. 00:48 <~scshunt> s/unambiguous/ambiguous/ 00:49 <~scshunt> I'm not arguing that this falls under the policy section, I'm arguing it falls under the external communcation section 00:49 whats the point of building this elaborate mechanism of party action if the second the guy who knows what the intent was leaves 00:49 <~scshunt> And I refer back to the argument I mentioned about what would happen if we adopted one policy and the PC adopted the others 00:49 everyone is going to start misinterpreting it 00:50 < JMcleod> See, the problem is we passed that motion simply to make it fall under the policy section. 00:50 <~scshunt> svulliez: can we please focus on the matter at hand? 00:50 < RLim> it's like a general conduct guideline for members 00:50 I'm fine with the point being withdrawn because I would like to spend the rest of my evening not frustrated 00:50 <~scshunt> which point? 00:50 < RLim> the motion 00:50 < JMcleod> The board creation 00:50 if we can end this meeting sooner rather than later, we can live 3 more days without a social media guide 00:51 < JMcleod> But I am not fine with it, however, its 1 am 00:51 < RLim> scshunt, so your concern is once the board is created, under the constitution, they report to us 00:51 <~scshunt> Well there's currently an appeal on the table. 00:51 <~scshunt> s/on the table/pending/ 00:51 I have already spent the time I was going to spend on social media guidelines debating whether or not the motion we passed unanimously counts 00:51 <~scshunt> RLim: That's a concern, but not why I'm arguing why it's against our constitution. 00:52 < JMcleod> So how do we deal with appeals anyways? 00:52 < JMcleod> I am arguing it is not against the constitution, due to the intents. 00:53 <~scshunt> Vote. Majority required to overturn the chair's ruling. 00:53 < JMcleod> However, if intents dont matter, I wont even contend with Sean's argument. 00:54 < RLim> can you restate Sean's argument? 00:54 <~scshunt> My argument is that the motion would have us create a policy for how members are to conduct themselves with regards to external communication. 00:55 <~scshunt> In effect, the proposed policy would be a definition of what sorts of communications are approved by the party, and which aren't. 00:55 <~scshunt> But that is a matter solely in the hands of the Political Council and not the Executive Board. 00:55 < JMcleod> The Political Council is a board responsible for the general public interface of the Party. The 00:55 < JMcleod> Political Council has the power and authority to speak on behalf of the Party, to set out Party 00:55 < JMcleod> policy, and to approve external communications 00:56 < JMcleod> He argues that it falls under the external communcations approving. 00:57 If I leave this channel, will it prevent the conclusion from being reached? 00:57 vote on the appeal? 00:57 I honestly do not care what happens anymore I'm just butthurt about this time I am not spending doing other things. 00:57 lets vote 00:57 <~scshunt> svulliez: No. I don't think you're technically even a member since the results haven't been formally received by a GM. 00:57 < JMcleod> Therefor, there is an appeal to the chair's ruling that the motion was valid. You may vote yes to agree with the appeal, overturning the decision, destroying the motion. No to keep as is. 00:58 yes 00:58 <~scshunt> yes 00:58 < JMcleod> no 00:58 < RLim> no 00:59 *sigh* 00:59 < JMcleod> 2-2 00:59 ug 01:00 this is one of those line between tragedy and comedy things 01:01 <~scshunt> majority means it fails 01:01 <~scshunt> anyway 01:01 <~scshunt> svulliez: I think that you brought the wrong thing here for approval anyway 01:01 I mentioned that as I started talking about it, but everybody was on board and we discussed it and passed it 01:01 <~scshunt> You don't need these guidelines to be formally approved to ask people to post according to them, and then we can formally approve them with tweaks and people can change their behavior if necessary 01:01 unanimously 01:01 < RLim> I don't think it will affect content of external communication 01:01 < RLim> but anyway 01:02 <~scshunt> and we apparently now have a 1-member social media board, vis a vis you 01:02 <~scshunt> which is not much change from the status quo 01:02 < JMcleod> Ok and there is nothing on that says the PC has to wait for the GM to become leader officially. 01:02 < RLim> I guess it is a learning experience. 01:02 < JMcleod> the PC members & winners 01:02 ^ 01:02 <~scshunt> JMcleod: I consulted with RONR experts about how to handle the dispute 01:03 i move that we disband our social media committee in 3 days so as to allow the pc to create their own 01:03 the weeklong voting *was* the approval of the GM JMcleod scshunt 01:03 <~scshunt> I was informed that the election is not completed until the results are properly announced. 01:03 <~scshunt> So that people can raise any concerns they may have 01:03 <~scshunt> such as the issue with Travis an dJake 01:03 < RLim> sounds fair 01:03 <~scshunt> *and 01:03 <~scshunt> hence the special meeting 01:03 < JMcleod> who is RONR? 01:03 <~scshunt> JMcleod: Robert's Rules 01:04 <~scshunt> this should be looked at for next time, but it's a ways off 01:04 I am fine with that, we should write it into the constitution to have another GM at the end of the voting where we announce and approve the results 01:04 so we don't have to hold special ones, it will automatically happen and people will know before voting starts 01:04 <~scshunt> svulliez: the other issue with the motion as written is the definition of a "round of crowdsourced edits". When does it become official? 01:05 < RLim> scshunt, if there were no issues would it have required GM meeting? 01:05 <~scshunt> RLim: In theory yes. 01:05 < JMcleod> We arent bound to RONR though. 01:05 <~scshunt> svulliez: yes, or provide some other thing 01:05 <~scshunt> JMcleod: yes we are 01:05 it was discussed when the actual motion was originally being forwarded scshunt 01:05 < JMcleod> Really? 01:05 <~scshunt> JMcleod: Article IX 01:06 <~scshunt> modulo a minor typo I just spotted 01:06 I was going to personally, as the head of the board, set it in stone officially once I was satisfied 01:06 <~scshunt> svulliez: yet the motion provides no appointment mechanism 01:06 the guide would then be up for ongoing review and modification by the committee itself 01:06 <~scshunt> so only this board can appoint new people 01:06 < JMcleod> oh youre right 01:06 < JMcleod> The parliamentary authority of the Party shall be Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, and 01:07 < JMcleod> it shall govern the Party whenever applicable and where it does not con 01:07 < JMcleod> duly-adopted special rule of order. 01:07 <~scshunt> I've got a suggestion now. 01:07 <~scshunt> we're all tired 01:07 <~scshunt> and 3 days aren't going to make a huge amount of difference. 01:07 < JMcleod> Now to figure if the end of an election constitutes a duly-adopted special rule of order. 01:08 <~scshunt> especially if svulliez gets the gears rolling regardless of what happens 01:08 <~scshunt> no reason we can't ask for interested members or write policy with or without a committee 01:08 <~scshunt> svulliez, we can hopefully chat sometime and iron out a solid proposal for consideration Thursday. 01:09 k. 01:09 <~scshunt> and I'll make this whole thing up to you at some point myself 01:09 < RLim> JMcleod, yeah RONR is pretty common. We just have to learn it. 01:09 < JMcleod> I have it, but I didnt think we were bound to it. 01:09 < RLim> I got a booklet also from Toastmaster. But not sure where I put it. 01:09 I hope I hven't come off as too much of a dick, I just feel like I had it going, and I was all "yay! something happened" and then you came back and crushed my little dream with something I hadn't considered 01:10 <~scshunt> svulliez: no worries 01:10 < RLim> Maybe I'll find it when I start packing 01:10 so I have been frsutrated, but I forgive you for the difference in ideology, I understand the merit to your argument 01:10 <~scshunt> svulliez: I was trying to stay on topic so I wasn't sure if I should say "I like the idea, let's just get the pieces moving and not care about the committee for 3 days" in the argument over the rules. 01:11 thats pretty much the status quo, steve and I have been running the facebook for a month with no oversight whatsoever :P 01:11 <~scshunt> exactly 01:11 which is why I was excited to get these rules in place 01:11 but 3 days is fine 01:11 < RLim> next business 01:11 <~scshunt> No reason we can't post on the forums asking for feedback on them and for other people interested in manning the social media cannons 01:12 <~scshunt> which is what the next 3 days would have been anyway 01:12 < RLim> (let's move on to the business of sleeping if nobody have anything else) :P 01:12 < JMcleod> Check your emails 01:12 < JMcleod> :) 01:13 new mailing lists for eb & pc? should have 'em tomorrow 01:13 <~scshunt> awesome 01:13 < JMcleod> OK now I missed a bit with all that constitution unclarity 01:13 < JMcleod> Is the board valid or no? 01:14 < RLim> thanks psema4. I was going to ask about giving members option of selecting what degree / amount of e-mail they want. That could wait 01:14 < JMcleod> If not, its cuz shawn isnt officially a member of the board till the GM right? 01:14 < RLim> JMcleod nice 01:14 <~scshunt> JMcleod: The rest of us are 01:15 RLim, there are digest options. I'll post info on the wiki in a day or two 01:15 <~scshunt> and nothing has happened that falls into the category of Things That Must Never Happen 01:15 <~scshunt> so we're good 01:15 < JMcleod> Yeah, but is the board valid with a 2-2 vote 01:15 <~scshunt> oh 01:15 <~scshunt> yes 01:16 <~scshunt> because a tie vote means that the appeal fails 01:16 <~scshunt> tie votes are always failures 01:16 < RLim> psema4, yeah I am thinking of sending e-mail more often to keep them informed but probably opt-in would be better. 01:16 < JMcleod> Its what I thought 01:16 < RLim> Default will be special meeting or events only 01:16 <~scshunt> Yes, we should do that 01:16 < JMcleod> Now, its 1:15 am, so I'll stop haggling on details 01:16 < JMcleod> :) 01:17 < JMcleod> Anyone have anything else before we adjourn this meeting? 01:17 < RLim> my bed miss me already 01:17 < RLim> nope 01:17 none here 01:17 < JMcleod> meeting adjourned, see yall next monday.