GM 2011-08-19 transcript

Meeting was recessed from 8:17pm - 8:34pm and from 8:40pm until 9:00pm (where this record starts) due to lack of quorum. (All times are Eastern)

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