EB 2012-01-09 transcript

21:33 <@scshunt> ok, calling to order the first* meeting of the executive board 21:33 <@scshunt> trailblazer: ready to take minutes? 21:33 ok 21:34 <@scshunt> http://www.rulesonline.com/rror-10.htm#60 has more or less a good summary 21:35 <@scshunt> modify as appopriate 21:35 ok thanks 21:35 <@scshunt> we probably won't have exciting minutes, really 21:35 <@scshunt> but good to get in the habit all the same 21:36 yeah 21:36 <@scshunt> now, do we have any business? 21:36 <@scshunt> unfortunately, I appear to be the sole member of the intersection between tonight and last week 21:36 <@scshunt> ah right, we do have one item of business 21:37 <@scshunt> I move that the Party pay $400 to Stephane's wife to pay for her services in keeping records of the Fund. 21:37 <@scshunt> Any discussion? 21:38 <@scshunt> perhaps sub in 'Stephane Bakhos' just for clarity 21:38 k 21:38 <@scshunt> No discussion, any objection? 21:39 none here 21:39 <@scshunt> Ok, then the motion is adopted. 21:40 <@scshunt> do we want anything done in advance of the new executive/political elections? 21:41 the executive election will be held during the meeting right? 21:41 wait- how much money do we have? What percentage of our money did we just give away? 21:42 <@scshunt> yes 21:42 <@scshunt> give me a sec, it's here in the logs somewhere 21:42 That wasn't even a real vote, I was getting a drink of water when the motion was adopted for lack of "objection" 21:43 <@scshunt> ok, hang on, let's reconsider that one 21:43 <@scshunt> svulliez: please say if you're going to be away, otherwise I will assume unanimous consent 21:43 How long are we getting these services for? Are there any alternative offers for someone to do that? 21:43 <@scshunt> We had $6244 in cash last week; hosting is $169/month and is our biggest expense 21:43 <@scshunt> Oh, I did forget to mention the term. It's for the year, which is thus pretty cheap 21:44 <@scshunt> it would be nice if we could find a volunteer, but it's something that /needs/ doing right 21:44 <@scshunt> we should also get $1000 back if/when mikkel's electoral return gets defubared (I'm not counting on it) 21:45 ... so mikkel lost us a grand? 21:45 ... 21:46 <@scshunt> dain, actually 21:46 <@scshunt> I'm surprised Rintaran isn't here 21:46 Well, alright, Mikkel and Dain lost us a grand. 21:46 That's a lot of money. 21:46 That's really not cool. 21:47 Suddenly the $400 doesn't seem so bad, in exchange for a service. 21:47 <@scshunt> haha 21:47 You know, this is exactly why I didn't want to pay deposits out of party funds for directors. 21:47 <@scshunt> well, water under the bridge 21:48 Well, $1000 under the bridge, and down the river, possibly gone forever 21:48 Can I motion to never pay any election deposit out of party funds ever again? 21:49 <@scshunt> We can make that a rule, yeah 21:49 <@scshunt> let's deal with this $400 motion first 21:50 <@scshunt> Can I amend it to a motion "that the Party pay $400 to Stephane Bakhos' wife to pay for her services in keeping records of the Fund for 2012." 21:50 I suppose I am willing, for a year it's not so bad, if it assures it is done correctly. 21:51 ok 21:52 <@scshunt> yeah 21:52 <@scshunt> one of the things the new board will do is sort out the fund, but we can go with this for now 21:56 I want to talk recourse against Mikkel and Dain for this money lost... It is not acceptable. 21:56 I don't know what to do, but we can't just let it stand. Whoopsies, one thousand fucking dollars 21:56 <@scshunt> not now, before the next election 21:57 < Nuitari> hi 21:58 hi Nuitari 21:58 I'm frustrated because this is the first I heard of it, I want to be fair and kind, but for the love of kopimi- thats 100 members who bought memberships in good faith. 21:58 -!- You're now known as RLim 21:58 <@scshunt> agree 21:58 < Nuitari> actually dain and sqartz and mikkel 21:59 Their slapfight was sooo awful that we decimated our funds over it... It's just not cool. Its so- agh. I'm going to sit on this I guess. 21:59 < Nuitari> but mainly Mikkel for failing to tell Sqartz that he changed addresses 21:59 < Nuitari> the only way to get the 1000$ back would be to file a report but that's not possible because all the paperwork is lost in the mail 22:00 <@scshunt> did we promise to cover the loss, or was it presented as a loan? 22:00 < Nuitari> it was a loan however the condition was a payback on the return of the money from EC 22:00 < Nuitari> since we didn't know how long EC would take for that 22:00 <@scshunt> right 22:01 < Nuitari> turns out, it's pretty quick if things are done correctly 22:01 < Nuitari> the only thing that survived, afaik, is the bank printout of Vaugh Male's official agent account 22:01 < Nuitari> I don't even have Dain's :/ 22:01 < Nuitari> and everything was filed by hand instead of using EFR 22:02 <@scshunt> I think we should assume that this money is lost to the wind 22:02 < Nuitari> yeah that's what I'm assuming 22:02 <@scshunt> Sorry, wait, let's get back on track 22:02 < Nuitari> also the fund has declined becoming Mikkel's agent until things are sorted out 22:03 <@scshunt> agreed 22:03 How would be the most appropriate way to motion that nothing like this ever happens again? 22:03 <@scshunt> given the lack of discussion on the motion, can I put the question on the motion "that the Party pay $400 to Stephane Bakhos' wife to pay for her services in keeping records of the Fund for 2012." 22:03 <@scshunt> svulliez: a GM 22:04 <@scshunt> svulliez: since the executive board can't ever get around that 22:04 Why? 22:04 <@scshunt> if we make a decision here, it could be undone by a future exec board 22:05 < Nuitari> I'm not worried about that 22:05 me neither, seems arbitrary to me 22:05 <@scshunt> At the very least, we can make a decision and write it down 22:05 < Nuitari> yeah 22:05 <@scshunt> so that a future exec board would have to actually go to change the rule 22:05 We can bring it to the GM to ratify too 22:06 <@scshunt> we certainly have the power to enact such a rule; a GM merely gives it more sticking power 22:08 < Nuitari> wouldn't I be in COI for the motion ? 22:08 <@scshunt> you don't have a vote anyway 22:08 <@scshunt> but I don't see why 22:08 <@scshunt> ANYWAY 22:08 <@scshunt> the question is on the motion "that the Party pay $400 to Stephane Bakhos' wife to pay for her services in keeping records of the Fund for 2012." 22:08 <@scshunt> all in favor, say aye, all against, say nay 22:08 <@scshunt> aye 22:09 < RLim> aye 22:09 aye 22:10 <@scshunt> ok, the motion is adopted 22:11 < Nuitari> ok 22:12 < Nuitari> for the deposit, I think we need to have a contract with specific terms, such as the use of the EFR software and that everything must be done 2 months before the EC deadline 22:12 <@scshunt> I move that adoption of the following resolution: "Resolved, that the Party shall not offer any loans to candidates for their candidacy deposits." 22:12 < Nuitari> and that the candidate and agent are both liable for the loan 22:12 ^ 22:12 < RLim> amendment? 22:12 Well, hm. that sort of contradicts itself 22:12 < Nuitari> I think it's two different ways of handling it 22:13 How about two separate motions, a "no loans" motion and a "if you lose party money, you are liable" motion 22:14 < RLim> wither we allow loan and they are liable or not allow it at all. 22:14 < RLim> *either 22:14 < Nuitari> we could even include a repayment schedule if they delay things 22:14 I think issuing loans is just bad news up and down 22:14 < RLim> who would collect? 22:15 < Nuitari> it worked out ok for Zblewski 22:15 < RLim> yeah, I am just thinking would there be cases where we might want to help someone that we really like but can't afford a deposit? 22:16 < Nuitari> that's why I think a no loan approach is too limited 22:16 I have to disagree here- If someone needs the money so bad and they are so great for the party, they can find a loan from a member directly or from another source 22:17 Running in elections is not going to merit us a seat 99.99% of the time. it's just not worth the risk- its a lot of money and we have limited funds 22:18 Why gamble with borrowed money? The members would prefer us to spend the money on more tangible things, I am certain. 22:18 < Nuitari> I think it's more tangible to have someone represent them in their riding 22:19 <@scshunt> I think it's best to adopt this now and set the baseline; future exec could change it later if they'd like 22:20 In the FPTP system it's just like double daring $1000 to disappear, it's an awful practice 22:21 if an individual is so certain of the money being returned, they can lend the money themselves. the party coffer should be under a tight lock. 22:21 <@scshunt> what does FPTP have to do with it? 22:22 < Nuitari> svulliez: can't win if you're not in... 22:22 < RLim> For the next election, we probably want to require a candidate to have at least a certain level of local support to run. Maybe $1,000 is a good measure of whether they have that support or not. $10 from 10 person. 22:22 the fact that running in an election is just a vote splitting fashion show... 22:23 you can't win anyways, we got 1% of the vote after mikkel proudly told the georgia straight that we're "in it to win it" - its just cringeworthy 22:23 < RLim> lol can;t do math 22:23 <@scshunt> nah, all the minor parties do 22:23 it's a great party, great policies, but lets be realistic- we can't pretend to be this smart party with great ideas who is also completely delusional about the effectiveness of our democracy 22:24 <@scshunt> Personally I think that next time around, loans are generally going to be a bad idea 22:24 <@scshunt> and putting this in place now cements the notion that they'll be the exception and not the rule 22:25 < RLim> yeah. We want to encourage each candidate to be self sufficient. Last time we just want to raise our profile and have short time to prepare. 22:25 < RLim> I agree with scshunt 22:26 < RLim> although I think even the major party helps their candidates sometimes 22:27 < RLim> But let's just adopt this since it will not be set in stone 22:27 <@scshunt> they have money 22:27 <@scshunt> and time to pursue people who don't pay 22:27 < RLim> yeah that's my concern with giving out loan. We just don't have the resources to go after non-payment 22:29 < RLim> any more discussion 22:29 The missing money is probably the worst thing that has ever happened to the party 22:29 < RLim> "Resolved that the Party shall not offer any loans to candidates for their candidacy deposits." 22:31 <@scshunt> ok, no more discussion 22:31 <@scshunt> the question is on the adoption of the resolution "Resolved, that the Party shall not offer any loans to candidates for their candidacy deposits." 22:31 <@scshunt> All in favor? 22:31 <@scshunt> aye 22:31 < RLim> aye 22:32 <@scshunt> All opposed? 22:32 < Nuitari> nay, even if it doesn't count 22:32 aye 22:36 something like 20% of our operating budget is now a fart in the wind- there are no excuses for letting this happen again. 22:36 <@scshunt> The ayes have it, and the motion is adopted 22:36 <@scshunt> (sorry, got distracted) 22:36 <@scshunt> anything else to discuss? 22:38 <@scshunt> actually, I have something hopefully quick 22:38 < RLim> should we sent out a notice for general meeting 22:38 <@scshunt> RLim: that's your job, and it would be good to get one ready, yes :) 22:38 < RLim> a party-wide e-mail? 22:38 <@scshunt> yeah 22:38 <@scshunt> needs to be 22:39 < RLim> Nuitari, I need access. 22:39 <@scshunt> RLim: Do you have access to https://www.pirateparty.ca/forum/index.php?board=15.0 to post? 22:39 <@scshunt> I don't know of any business except for election of the board and then the IT director 22:40 < RLim> nope 22:40 <@scshunt> maybe some will pop up when you post there 22:40 * svulliez will be right back 22:41 <@scshunt> probably good to link that in the email 22:41 <@scshunt> oh. also include the minutes I sent you from the december meeting 22:41 <@scshunt> boring, but should be there for approval 22:42 <@scshunt> also please add that questions, etc. about the meeting can be directed to me 22:42 < RLim> you sent it to my gmail? 22:43 <@scshunt> no, pirateparty I think 22:43 <@scshunt> didn't have your gmail 22:43 <@scshunt> Nuitari: can you set RLim up a forward? 22:43 < RLim> so the political board will just be nomination and executive board election will be held during general meeting? 22:43 < RLim> is there an easier way to clear 30,000 e-mails on my pirateparty.ca e-mail? lol 22:44 < Nuitari> what is your account? 22:46 < RLim> riclim@pirateparty.ca 22:46 <@scshunt> bah, I'll send again 22:46 <@scshunt> (to gmail) 22:47 < Nuitari> how did you get so many emails there... 22:47 <@scshunt> sent 22:47 < RLim> I guess my campaign website is set to sent confirmation for each spam comments. 22:47 < Nuitari> not very smart... 22:47 <@scshunt> RLim: can you post to the announcements board? 22:47 < RLim> lol and I have not checked both for a while 22:48 < RLim> I can't post to announcement board 22:48 < Nuitari> RLim: I've cleaned up your inbox of all "a new comment on the post" emails 22:48 < RLim> thanks 22:49 < RLim> can I get posting privilege for our announcement board also 22:49 <@scshunt> yup I'll get that 22:52 < RLim> thanks 22:52 <@scshunt> what's your username? 22:53 < RLim> trailblazer11 22:54 <@scshunt> you should have access now 22:55 < RLim> hmm New Topic button is still not available 22:56 < RLim> only Mark Read and Notify 22:57 <@scshunt> O_o 22:58 <@scshunt> any more business, while we're here? 23:00 <@scshunt> RLim: fixed 23:00 Not for the exec board I guess, but I am thinking the PPCA should get a presence on public darknets 23:00 <@scshunt> Ok 23:00 <@scshunt> Nuitari, RLim? 23:00 < RLim> nope 23:03 <@scshunt> Ok, given that there is no more business, the meeting is adjourned.

Also see Minutes