EB 2012-03-05 transcript

 NOTE: Log times are in Central Time 20:39 <~scshunt> Anyway, let's begin the meeting. 20:39 -scshunt:#exec- the meeting of the Executive Board is called to order. 20:40 <~scshunt> So, who has business for this meeting. I would like to talk about the PPI conference at some point 20:41 -!- tester [4618a1ed@ppca-B6DDC28A.mibbit.com] has joined #exec 20:42 -!- Unowho [Unowho@ppca-B6D40E41.snydernet.net] has joined #exec 20:42 -!- Irssi: #exec: Total of 9 nicks [0 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 9 normal] 20:43 <~scshunt> Okay, since no one else seems to be suggesting anything else right now, let's talk about PPI 20:43 I have business to talk about 20:43 ah fuck, whatever go for it 20:43 <~scshunt> ok 20:43 <~scshunt> TravisMcCrea, do you know the deadline for selecting delegates? 20:43 <~scshunt> Some background for the others: The PPI conference is coming up in April, and we can appoint delegates. Ideally we could send someone in person. 20:44 <~scshunt> (Also, does anyone know if we need to show up in person to vote?) 20:44 <~scshunt> But we're naturally low on funds 20:44 <~scshunt> We could also offer partway 20:44 I do not want to spend any money on that, way too much for too little payoff 20:45 < RLim> will there be an online conference? 20:45 With limited funds as we have, that is not a necessary expense. 20:45 <~scshunt> So I'll move that we allocate "$_____ to pay for sending a delegate to the PPI conference in April, to be allocated evenly among the delegates." 20:45 what? blank cheque? 20:46 <~scshunt> No, it's a motion with a blank 20:46 <~scshunt> we fill it in before voting on it if we want to adopt it; anyone can make suggestions to fill the blank and then we can vote on them one by one 20:46 <~scshunt> The question is on the motion I just stated. 20:47 I motion for $0 20:47 <~scshunt> I personally would not have much issue paying a small amount to help a delegate along, but I don't think we can pay for nearly a full ride. 20:47 to fill that hole 20:47 < JMcleod> I wont be in favor of a motion with a blank, just sayin 20:47 <~scshunt> We can't adopt a motion with a blank 20:48 <~scshunt> Nor can we properly accept 0 as a suggestion, since it makes a nonsensical motion, but does anyone have any objections with taking 0 as a suggestion and, if it is selected, just considering the motion to be killed by indefinite postponement? 20:48 < JMcleod> Were is the PPI conf? 20:48 There is no way that sending a delegate is going to help Canadians educate themselves on digital issues, nor help us get seatsin parliament 20:49 those things are our prerogative, in my opinion 20:49 sending someone is just another couple hundred bucks down the drain, much better spent on pirateboxes, pirate linux, site redesign, or a legal defense fund 20:50 < RLim> or amend the motion to allocate an amount and we can have a discussion 20:50 < RLim> I move to amend the motion to 20:50 <~scshunt> JMcleod: Prague 20:50 <~scshunt> RLim: You have to suggest a number. 20:51 < RLim> ok let's discuss it then 20:51 <~scshunt> The conference is the 14th and 15th of April 20:52 <~scshunt> I'm trying to look up plane ticket costs 20:53 < TravisMcCrea> SOrry for the late response guys 20:53 < RLim> I move to amend the motion to: “that we allocate an amount to pay for sending a delegate to the PPI conference in April, to be allocated evenly among the delegates. Exact amount to be decided once this motion passes.” 20:53 < TravisMcCrea> I think thats fair 20:54 -!- Braeson-Holland [braeson@ppca-6D344386.dsl.bell.ca] has joined #exec 20:54 <~scshunt> RLim: The motion is in order so I'll accept it, but the idea is that we decide on the amount then agree on the number, then vote on the final amount 20:54 <~scshunt> that is, we vote on which number fills the blank 20:54 <~scshunt> then we vote on the final approval of money separately 20:54 <~scshunt> if you would like to keep your motion going, that's fine, but it will probably spend more time to little effect 20:55 < TravisMcCrea> That seems logical too :P 20:55 < JMcleod> I think its a mistake, the PPI is not a necessary function for the party. We owe them nothing, they owe us nothing. If someone wants to go from the party, sure we can let him be the delegate. However, we shouldnt pay for that. 20:55 < RLim> ok 20:55 ^ 20:55 -!- tester [4618a1ed@ppca-B6DDC28A.mibbit.com] has quit [Quit: http://www.mibbit.com ajax IRC Client] 20:55 <~scshunt> RLim: Would you like to withdraw your motion or should I state it? 20:55 < RLim> yes I withdraw my motion 20:55 <~scshunt> Ok 20:56 <~scshunt> The cheapest flight I can find is just shy of $100 20:56 <~scshunt> *$1000 20:57 < RLim> what can we gain from this trip though? Right now I'd rather see us spent money on flyers and promotional materials. 20:57 < TravisMcCrea> The request doesn't actually state though that the Pirate Party must cover all expenses, just a request that if someone (who could be agreed on by the party, and who is willing and has the funds) could have that money given to them to use towards their trip 20:57 <~scshunt> Right. 20:57 <~scshunt> I think that connecting to PPI is a good thing generally, but I don't know if we can contribute a meaningful amount. 20:58 Let's be open about this: we're talking about Travis going 20:58 he is the one who wants to go. he has been nominated. 20:58 by another party, apparently 20:58 < TravisMcCrea> It doesn't have to be me, I do want to go. 20:58 <~scshunt> No, he's been nominated for Board, not to be our delegate 20:58 < TravisMcCrea> ^ 20:58 <~scshunt> As I said before, does anyone have an idea when the deadline is? 20:59 < TravisMcCrea> They used to set deadlines in the previous meetings, this one doesn't seem to have one 20:59 < TravisMcCrea> at least not on the wiki where it has been the past two years 20:59 <~scshunt> The previous year appears to have had a deadline of one month in advance or else a late fee; we'd be cutting it close 20:59 <~scshunt> TravisMcCrea: How much are you willing to pay for this if you are selected? 21:00 <~scshunt> I think that there is some value to sending someone because talking to successful people is a good thing 21:00 Doesn't look like a deadline for delegates has been set yet: http://int.piratenpartei.de/PPI_Conference_2012#Registration 21:00 <~scshunt> The German PP has had serious success 21:00 <~scshunt> Sending people to meet that group would be fantastic 21:00 < TravisMcCrea> I think I could cover 900 21:00 <~scshunt> (or person) 21:00 < TravisMcCrea> I feel that building a better relationship with PPI is important for our exposure and they are experts in campaigning and have larger movements than ours and as such could help us greatly. Yeah, it would be networking, yes we can network online, but having a physical presence and having actual conversations with people is a much more valueable networking opportunity than we can ever get online. 21:01 < RLim> ok if someone is willing to shoulder most of the cost 21:01 (brb) 21:02 < TravisMcCrea> Obviously there are other costs and stuff too, like a hostel and food and such. I am going to have a better idea on my own personal finances within 48 hours 21:02 <~scshunt> There's still hotel, transportation, and food 21:02 I'm fine with it if someone is willing to cover 100% of the cost, otherwise it's totally frivolous for a party in our circumstances 21:02 <~scshunt> Do you mind us asking why? 21:02 < TravisMcCrea> beat you ;) 21:02 <~scshunt> I don't think this is frivolous at all 21:02 < TravisMcCrea> I am taking out a 40K loan to make a rather large purchase... but it will also mean that I have a little more financial security 21:02 <~scshunt> ah 21:03 Do you want me to explain why I feel this is frivolous? Or was that directed at someone else? 21:03 <~scshunt> svulliez: You're welcome to voice your position 21:03 <~scshunt> But I think that PPDE, and by extension, PPI, is our #1 resource for strategy advice that is somewhat applicable to us and they are on our side 21:04 <~scshunt> We should use them sooner rather than later 21:04 < JMcleod> > For people that can't come in person streaming will be available at Piraten-Streaming.de. 21:04 <~scshunt> Going in person is so much better 21:04 <~scshunt> You can't go out for dinner with someone by livestream 21:04 < TravisMcCrea> Also if there was an amount set by the Pirate Party I could see if I could come up with the rest or not. If not, it doesn't hurt to approve the funding and then not give it if no one is willing to meet the terms of the funding 21:05 <~scshunt> Yeah. 21:05 <~scshunt> I'm going to propose a number; gimme a sec 21:05 We are just coming out of an election, most of us are new. We are low on funds. We need to be using our money to set a forward course for the party, and spend it wisely. 21:05 < JMcleod> Do we have financial reports for the party yet^ 21:05 Our function as a party (feel free to contest this) - is 2 things. 21:06 1. get seats in canada 21:06 2. get canadians talking about our issues 21:06 this fun little trip for Travis accomplishes neither of these things 21:06 <~scshunt> I think it does, becuase PPDE has done 2 things 21:06 <~scshunt> 1. get seats in Germany 21:06 <~scshunt> 2. get Germans talking about their issues 21:06 there is no information he can access there that cannot be accessed remotely from Canada 21:06 <~scshunt> We should learn from them, talk to them 21:07 <~scshunt> Yes there is. 21:07 < TravisMcCrea> 3. Get Canadians to hear about the Pirate Party of Canada. There are people (a good number of them) who follow European Pirate Parties who still don't know we HAVE a Pirate Party. Getting our name associated with better known parties is going to help us. (plus what scshunt just said) 21:07 <~scshunt> You can't chat nearly as much via webstream 21:07 it's disingenuous to pretend that getting Travis in the same room as them is going to make us better at taking on elections in the future 21:07 <~scshunt> You can't go out for dinner with 4 guys via webstreamm 21:07 < TravisMcCrea> ^ lol well maybe you could but it would be awkward 21:08 <~scshunt> You can't spend most of 2 days watching that webstream; you get bored or distracted 21:08 -!- yeho [x@ppca-956462A0.privacyfoundation.ch] has joined #exec 21:08 Travis is clearly biased because he would like us to help pay for his european vacation 21:08 <~scshunt> Travis probably shouldn't vote on this, no. 21:08 <~scshunt> But there's still 5 more of us here. 21:08 I am firm on this, $0 for this PPI conference. We cannot afford this. 21:08 < TravisMcCrea> Well I was going to respond to that svulliez I do feel weird arguing on behalf of it because it would be self serving 21:08 < TravisMcCrea> I wont be voting on it 21:08 < JMcleod> You can't spend money, when we have no financial reports from the last year. 21:08 * scshunt goes to find hotels 21:09 <~scshunt> JMcleod: We have about $6000-7000 in the bank 21:09 < TravisMcCrea> Prauge hostels are less than $20 a night 21:09 < JMcleod> Doesnt matter, whats the budget, where did we spend, why did we spend, where can we cut, that is what is needed. 21:09 Let's spend zero dollars on this, because we do not need to. 21:09 < JMcleod> We need financial reports. 21:10 I agree with JMcleod it'shard to make an informed decision without open finances 21:10 <~scshunt> I suggest $300. 21:10 That is $300 that would be better spent as a publicly announced donation to the Bradley Manning Defense Fund 21:10 <~scshunt> I don't think so. 21:11 <~scshunt> Who will listen. 21:11 < JMcleod> Really, why 300? just a random, arbitrarily decided number? 21:11 <~scshunt> We're playing the long game 21:11 Or to pay a graphic artist to design some pamphlets 21:11 <~scshunt> JMcleod: Because $300 is within our means, it will pay for hotel and food 21:11 <~scshunt> And I see this as an investment 21:11 < JMcleod> You cant just say, uhhhh 300, like that, show me financial reports you obviously have access to. 21:11 <~scshunt> Yes, there are other things we can spend money on. 21:11 <~scshunt> JMcleod: You were here when Nuitari gave us the ballparks 21:12 <~scshunt> Yes, we're working with just ballparks and yes, I want goddamn financial reports 21:12 < TravisMcCrea> I have said my piece I will let you guys work out the rest on this issue, as has been said me promoting the idea can be self serving. 21:12 <~scshunt> TravisMcCrea: Thank you. 21:12 <~scshunt> I move that we debate this for at most 10 more minutes. 21:13 <~scshunt> It's undebateable, requires a two-thirds majority. 21:13 <~scshunt> All in favor? 21:13 <~scshunt> aye 21:13 < JMcleod> sure 21:13 < RLim> wait 21:13 K 21:13 < RLim> voting for whether to debate? 21:13 <~scshunt> voting on limiting debate to 10 more minutes 21:13 < RLim> aye 21:14 < RLim> at most, ok 21:14 There is a burden of proof on Sean Hunt - the only person who wants to give Travis $300 - to prove that 21:14 < JMcleod> The other thing is, I would rather have the secretary of the party go if possible since normally they are the most informed on the current standing of a party ;) 21:14 1. sending him there is good for us 21:14 <~scshunt> All opposed? 21:14 <~scshunt> (please don't debate during a vote) 21:14 2. $300 is an appropriate amount of money to send 21:15 < JMcleod> 2/3 majority, we are 6 - 4 said yes is there a new board member I dont know of? 21:15 <~scshunt> Ok, that's 2-0. The motion is adopted, we will debate for at most 10 more minutes. 21:15 <~scshunt> JMcleod: we're on a clock now and it doesn't matter, it was adopted, let's move on 21:15 K like I said during voting like a rude boy: 21:15 <~scshunt> I heard you :P 21:16 Sean Hunt has not provided evidence that this is an effective use of party funds 21:16 and it really grinds my gears that this may end up with travis getting $300 to booze it up with international pirates 21:16 <~scshunt> 1. I feel that we need to be playing the long game. We are trying, fundamentally, to win seats next election. Publicity is an aspect of this, policy is an aspect of this, and campaigning will be a large aspect. 21:16 -!- nloewen [nathan@ppca-FFFEBB6.wp.shawcable.net] has joined #exec 21:17 that's just empty rhetoric, what is any way that having Travis be in europe is going to help us in canada 21:17 -!- xmux [x@ppca-E8D327E3.net] has joined #exec 21:17 < RLim> I doubt we will get much publicity in Canada other than on tech news 21:17 <~scshunt> He will be interfacing with the members 21:17 <~scshunt> There won't be publicity for it directly 21:17 <~scshunt> But what he will do is a) learn and b) networki 21:17 <~scshunt> *network 21:17 guess what 2 things the internet is great for 21:17 <~scshunt> He will be able to talk to other parties and find out what did and did not work for them 21:18 <~scshunt> This can be done with the internet, but nowhere near as effectively. 21:18 We can talk to them about that on the fucking internet! 21:18 (back) 21:18 < TravisMcCrea> wb psema4 21:18 <~scshunt> Yes, we can, but it will take longer and be less effective 21:18 All of us talking to them on the internet is way more effective than just travis talking to them in person 21:18 <~scshunt> I've been to conferences before 21:18 <~scshunt> They are usually worth it. 21:18 < JMcleod> And I dont like bogging down things, but we need financial reports before having any say on spending for the party, even for commercials. We cant just go around, spending, without analysing the data from last year first, that is generally a mistake. 21:19 <~scshunt> JMcleod: What do you expect to find in that data that might help us decide? 21:19 < JMcleod> How much we can really afford, outside of a budgetted amount. 21:20 <~scshunt> Most of the budget 21:20 <~scshunt> our ongoing costs are covered by donations iirc 21:20 < JMcleod> Donations are not a trustable source of income. 21:21 <~scshunt> back on topic to #1: No, it won't help us directly. But it will give us stronger and better members (or member) with more mature opinions on campaigning. And this will be an invaluable resource. 21:21 <~scshunt> And we will also get contacts that we can go to for advice, and they'll be more willing to help because we bothered showing up and talking to them in person. 21:21 <~scshunt> It makes an impression. 21:21 We need to split this up into two motions, really, - first - do we want Travis to represent us? and second,, do we want to pay for it? 21:21 <~scshunt> The first is a PC matter. 21:22 <~scshunt> Note that the motion does not respect selection of delegates at all 21:22 < Nuitari> Hi 21:22 < JMcleod> We need to have all our costs grouped up. From that, we need, at the very minimum a 20% reserve, we need to have the next 6 months already paid for. That is the bare minimum we need, but I'd like to get to 50%/12 months 21:22 < TravisMcCrea> Even in my first proposal I didn't say "that person should be me" just a person who can afford the costs, and is trusted by the party. Somewhere in the conversation, it was just assumed that the person was me (and I wrongly went along with it) 21:22 < JMcleod> Hey Nuitari :) 21:23 <~scshunt> For #2: This is based on the indications provided. I'll also suggest $200 based on conversation in #canada. This is not a whole lot of money and will mean that if someone, Travis or not, is going to go, they're still covering more than 80% of their trip cost, and I think it's slightly more within our means 21:23 < Nuitari> what's the financial questions? 21:23 <~scshunt> Nuitari: How much money do we have and how much of it can we spend, do you think? 21:23 < Nuitari> well, with the vpn being cashflow positive we can spend almost everything 21:24 $200/$300 is a meaningless sum to the total cost of the trip, and is also a meaningful cost to the party as a whole 21:24 < Nuitari> I'm looking up the current balances 21:24 $200 can go a long way locally 21:24 < RLim> What happened to the online meeting with PPI that we used to have? 21:24 < RLim> scshunt how much time do we have left? 21:24 < RLim> for the debate 21:25 <~scshunt> About 15 seconds, but you can motion to extend it 21:25 < JMcleod> But the VPN question about the C-11 is still up in the air 21:25 motion to extend debate 21:25 <~scshunt> svulliez: how long? 21:25 by five minutes 21:25 <~scshunt> ok 21:25 <~scshunt> Undebateable, 2/3rds vote 21:25 <~scshunt> All in favor? 21:25 <~scshunt> aye 21:25 < Nuitari> 5859.55$ in the bank account 21:25 aye 21:25 < Nuitari> 647.68$ in PayPal 21:25 < RLim> aye 21:26 <~scshunt> All opposed? 21:26 < JMcleod> opposed 21:26 <~scshunt> Ok. that's 3-1, debate is extended by 5 minutes. 21:26 < Nuitari> what question is debated? 21:26 <~scshunt> We have until 22:31:45 21:27 Whether or not to give someone $200 to go to the PPI conference 21:27 likely travis 21:27 <~scshunt> a motion that the Party allocate $______ to pay for sending a delegate to PPI conference in April, to be allocated evenly among the delegates. 21:27 <~scshunt> Suggested are $200 and $300 21:28 <~scshunt> (shawn wants to just see the motion die) 21:28 my suggested amount is $0 21:28 because we have much much better things to spend money on 21:28 < Nuitari> yeah 200$/300$ for a trip to EU wouldn't cover a night... 21:28 <~scshunt> I think $200 is ideal, as I think we should make long-term investments rather than short-term gains 21:28 < JMcleod> And I suggest we wait for financial report before deciding. 21:29 Travis is going to cover most of the cost because he wants to go anyways Nuitari 21:29 < JMcleod> Its not like we had 50k in bank 21:29 <~scshunt> That's enough for at least lodging for the weekend; but he would have to pay most of it. 21:29 < Nuitari> plane ticket 21:29 <~scshunt> JMcleod: Yes, but if we miss the opportunity, then we have to wait a year 21:30 <~scshunt> and I think this is an opportunity worth grabbing 21:30 that will not sink the party 21:30 < RLim> honestly I am conflicted. I've been to conferences and can appreciate the rapport and more relaxed conversation face to face meeting can provide. But at the same time $200 can go toward printing more flyers to distribute and raise our profile among Canadians.Also put an ad up 21:30 <~scshunt> We can allocate $200 to flyers later in this meeting if you'd like :P 21:30 well lets not treat this like a spending spree :) 21:30 < Nuitari> at some point the EB and PC need to come up with a plan to advertise the party 21:30 <~scshunt> very true 21:30 < JMcleod> Same argument, financial statements first, then we can talk about spending a part of that money 21:31 < Nuitari> and what the priorities are 21:31 <~scshunt> Maybe Travis can ask about that at the conference 21:31 < Nuitari> going to the PPI could help us a lot in knowing better how to campaign, what works etc 21:31 maybe we could ask about that.. on the internet... via email 21:31 <~scshunt> svulliez: that is not the same 21:31 < Nuitari> svulliez: it's true that in person is very different 21:31 <~scshunt> do you know much I'd love to be in a room with all right now? 21:31 <~scshunt> *you all 21:31 it also costs $200 less dollars to send an e-mail than send a Travis 21:32 -scshunt:#exec- time is up on debate 21:32 < TravisMcCrea> Well.. :P svulliez and myself are highly attractive people... there are not that many people who WOULDN'T want to be in a room with us 21:32 <~scshunt> Does anyone have any last-minute motions or suggestions? 21:32 I'm really unconvinced that travis is going to come back some master of political campaigning because he talked to some germans 21:32 -!- mode/#exec [+m] by scshunt 21:32 <~scshunt> If not, we'll proceed to vote on the suggestions from most expensive to least expensive 21:33 <~scshunt> Since anyone who votes for more expensive things will probably vote for lesser 21:33 <~scshunt> So, first, the question is on filling the blank in the motion that the Party allocate $______ to pay for sending a delegate to PPI conference in April, to be allocated evenly among the delegates with 300. All in favor say aye, all opposed say no. 21:33 -!- mode/#exec [-m] by scshunt 21:33 <~scshunt> nay 21:33 no 21:33 < JMcleod> no 21:33 < RLim> nay 21:34 < RLim> or no 21:34 <~scshunt> The nays have it and the question is defeated. 21:35 <~scshunt> The question is on filling the blank in the motion that the Party allocate $______ to pay for sending a delegate to PPI conference in April, to be allocated evenly among the delegates. with 200. All in favor say aye, all opposed say no. 21:35 < JMcleod> no 21:35 < TravisMcCrea> abstain 21:35 <~scshunt> yes 21:35 < RLim> nay 21:35 aye 21:35 nay 21:36 <~scshunt> The nays have it and the question is defeated. 21:36 <~scshunt> The question is now that the Party allocate $______ to pay for sending a delegate to PPI conference in April, to be allocated evenly among the delegates. 21:36 <~scshunt> I move that the motion be postponed indefinitely. 21:36 <~scshunt> Any debate? 21:36 < Nuitari> what about holding a fundraising ? 21:36 <~scshunt> that's separate, I think 21:37 <~scshunt> although can we fundraise specifically for something like that or does that violate fundraising to pass funds off to another organization? 21:37 < JMcleod> I like the postpone idea :) 21:37 <~scshunt> postpone indefinitely = kill 21:37 < RLim> No, it will be just fundraising for our party with a specific purpose 21:37 < Nuitari> we can't pass off the funds to another organisation, but we can fundraise to send someone there 21:37 <~scshunt> since we can't actually bring this to a vote without a number 21:37 <~scshunt> anyway, let's move on. I'm done debate. 21:38 I suggested $0 21:38 if postpone indefinitely means $0, I am willing 21:38 < JMcleod> 0 is not an amount, you cant propose 0$ 21:38 <~scshunt> It is an amount, but if it were slotted in, the motion would be a motion to do nothing, which is out of order 21:38 <~scshunt> Ok, the question is on the motion to postpone the main question indefinitely. 21:39 <~scshunt> unless anyone really wants to talk about it omre 21:39 <~scshunt> *more 21:39 <~scshunt> all in favor, say aye, all opposed, say nay 21:39 <~scshunt> aye 21:39 I move that we postpone this until we can consult with a mathematician on whether $0 is a finite amount or not >.> 21:39 < JMcleod> aye 21:39 < RLim> aye 21:39 abstain 21:39 < TravisMcCrea> abstain 21:40 <~scshunt> The ayes have it and the motion is adopted. The matter is postponed indefinitely. Any further business? (svulliez, gimme a sec) 21:40 <~scshunt> yeho: As a mathematician, I can confirm that it is :P 21:40 < RLim> wrong channel 21:41 < JMcleod> As a programmer, 0 = false, and sometimes, setting the variable to 0, destroys it. hehe 21:41 < RLim> lol 21:42 < Braeson-Holland> 0ff :3 21:42 <~scshunt> Oh right, committees 21:42 <~scshunt> in particular, IT committee 21:42 Yes 21:42 <~scshunt> psema4: Who wants to be on the committee? 21:42 We should appoint the people who want on that committee this meeting 21:42 Johann, Jake, Travis I recall 21:42 ConcernedCitizen ifaik - I haven't heard from anyone else. 21:43 <~scshunt> svulliez: lololol let's make IT a subset of PC 21:43 <~scshunt> (I'm done) 21:43 < RLim> What about Malix, Jeremy (?),... 21:43 <~scshunt> they're on it 21:43 svulliez: they're already on the it mailing list 21:43 <~scshunt> mailing list != committee 21:43 as for mailix & jeremy: haven't heard a peep - and they're on the mailing list too 21:43 according to Sean Hunt we must add them to the committee officially in this meeting 21:44 or else you can't get quorum / do anything 21:44 <~scshunt> something like that 21:44 < RLim> speaking of mailing list... I'll wait a bit 21:44 ~according to the rigid rules of bureaucracy~ 21:44 <~scshunt> Btw is everyone signed up for the executive mailing list? 21:44 < RLim> that's what I was going to ask because I seem to be talking to myself. :P 21:45 <~scshunt> I am 21:45 <~scshunt> or should be anyway 21:45 < Nuitari> what's the address to sign up ? 21:45 I am getting it to the wrong e-mail I think- shawnvulliez@pirateparty.ca 21:46 < TravisMcCrea> ummm did you have to sign up for it? 21:46 < Nuitari> nvm found it 21:46 <~scshunt> Nuitari: executive-subscribe@pirateparty.ca 21:46 <~scshunt> TravisMcCrea: ^ 21:46 < TravisMcCrea> Beautiful... :P as soon as psema4 stops being lazy and gets me my email address I will sign up ;) 21:46 scshunt: nice post :) 21:46 <~scshunt> psema4: glad to see someone got it 21:46 <~scshunt> psema4: can you try sending to make sure I can receive? 21:47 TravisMcCrea: working on it... lost 70GB over the weekend, including bunches of gpg keys 21:47 <~scshunt> actually hang on 21:47 <~scshunt> ouch 21:47 < TravisMcCrea> psema4 gonna use the "oh I lost 70GB of data" excuse? ;) 21:47 <~scshunt> CCitizen and Jake I know wanted on the committee 21:47 < JMcleod> Thats a lot of weight loss psema4, only 5 more weekens and youll look good 21:47 <~scshunt> I don't recall Johann wanting onto the committee 21:48 TravisMcCrea: Better than the dog I don't have having eaten my homework ;) 21:48 scshunt: I do recall Johann mentioning his interest... I have some emails from him in this regard as well 21:48 on the IT committee? 21:48 johann definitely wants on 21:48 <~scshunt> ok 21:48 <~scshunt> TravisMcCrea: do you want on? 21:48 he was complaining to me how the meeting didn't have quorum because of that technicality 21:49 JMcleod: :) 21:49 <~scshunt> this bureaucracy definitely serves a purpose; letting every random who expresses interest through to the committee with no filter is bad 21:49 < TravisMcCrea> scshunt yus plz :( 21:49 <~scshunt> and we need to be able to keep people away from the systems if necessary 21:49 <~scshunt> anyway 21:49 <~scshunt> TravisMcCrea: why the sadface? 21:49 < TravisMcCrea> :P the defeated look 21:50 <~scshunt> I move that Travis McCrea, Johann Weissgerber, Jake Daynes, and Patrick FitzGerald be appointed to the IT Committee. 21:50 <~scshunt> The question is on the motion stated. 21:50 <~scshunt> Any discussion? 21:50 < JMcleod> Who are they? And why should we appoint them? 21:50 < TravisMcCrea> Who is Travis McCrea? 21:50 ^ :) 21:50 < JMcleod> Yeah, you and Jake, I know. But the other 2 21:51 <~scshunt> Johann is the other member of the PC who wants in, and was apparently at the last meeting 21:51 <~scshunt> Patrick FitzGerald is CCitizen 21:51 < JMcleod> Ahh ok 21:51 < TravisMcCrea> Johann is another PC member (and I fully fully support his ability) and blahh scshunt beat me 21:51 <~scshunt> also hilarity ensues in the IT Committee being a subset... but whatever 21:51 I support the motion, I would like to pass it with expedience. 21:51 <~scshunt> I don't have to show up :P 21:51 <~scshunt> remember guys, commitment, etc. 21:52 < JMcleod> Yeah just wanted to know who they were :) 21:52 <~scshunt> Ok, seeing no more debate, the question is on the motion stated about 20 lines up. 21:52 <~scshunt> All in favor say aye, all opposed say no. 21:53 < JMcleod> aye 21:53 aye 21:53 aye 21:53 < TravisMcCrea> aye 21:53 <~scshunt> aye 21:53 < RLim> aye 21:53 <~scshunt> That's 6-0 21:53 <~scshunt> The motion is adopted 21:54 <~scshunt> The Secretary shall inform those new appointees who aren't present. 21:54 <~scshunt> Any more discussion? (hint: I think there's some somewhere :P) 21:54 yes! 21:55 I have a proposal for how to fund our projects, all of you have been messaged it earlier in this meeting 21:55 http://pastebin.com/fmwcwEdw 21:55 the concept is that we can automatically split up small amounts of funds to different projects, so we can more easily approve petty funds between meetings 21:56 for specific pre-determined projects 21:56 < Nuitari> what about projects that are generating profits (like the vpn)? 21:57 < Nuitari> or would the funds be to further develop it ? 21:57 < RLim> I guess sort of like a budget 21:57 yes, to further develop it 21:57 < JMcleod> I only heard of 3 of those projects 21:57 they've all been suggested in the forum at some time or another 21:58 < Nuitari> so basically every project would have 60$ per year? 21:58 <~scshunt> I really like the idea of allocating small bits of cash 21:58 <~scshunt> The less that has to be done at a high level, the better. 21:58 I like the concept, but I'm not sold on the weighting. For example, I'd put more into the defense fund and less into capt 21:58 < JMcleod> yeah, 60$ per year though, where do you go with that? 21:59 To start, yeah. The idea is that we can adapt it in time to meet our needs 21:59 <~scshunt> But doing this presupposes a project structure; we need that first 21:59 < Nuitari> scshunt: yeah well we still have to get all the receipts 21:59 < TravisMcCrea> I don't think we should assign funding to projects that havent' been officially adopted 21:59 <~scshunt> Nuitari: Yes, but even with receipts all expenditure needs to directly or directly go through here 21:59 < JMcleod> And I dont think we should create new projects until financial reports 21:59 <~scshunt> TravisMcCrea is correct, but this is just a discussion idea I think, right shawn? 22:00 $60/year covers a new hosted site for a project (like the VPN has), or could cover a lot of promotional materials, or an expansion of services, etc 22:00 < Nuitari> scshunt: we would be able to release funds only on the production of a receipt, or in having an invoice to pay 22:00 <~scshunt> Nuitari: Right, both are required. 22:00 scshunt: It would have to be split up into a few motions to be binding according to the way you do things 22:01 <~scshunt> svulliez: Do you want to do that today? 22:01 < RLim> but we could allocate and have something like a budget stating that a certain amount is set aside for a specific project. 22:01 We have not ever had an official channel to approve of projects, and it is needless to do that IMO 22:01 if we start approving money for these projects, and there is no action on them, no harm no foul 22:01 < TravisMcCrea> When it comes to funding them... 22:01 < Nuitari> wouldn't be the PC / EB be the channel for projects funding? 22:01 <~scshunt> Well, at the very least we would need to pick people in charge of them, and for some of them it's not clear 22:01 <~scshunt> EB is, but we can delegate that 22:02 <~scshunt> we can say "drew, you have $100 allocated to Pirate Linux, send receipts in to get reimbursed." 22:02 <~scshunt> we don't have to say for what 22:02 I'd say that's also unnecessary at this point, appointed heads. We can begin approving money for them before there is any action, it will provide incentive for people to get involved if nothing else 22:03 < TravisMcCrea> Or even decide if we want them? I am not fully convinced that we need a legal defence fund. And that's coming from a guy who is probably the one who is going to need it first ;) 22:03 <~scshunt> haha 22:03 < Nuitari> TravisMcCrea: that's the 1 item there that makes the most sense to have... 22:03 ^ 22:03 ^ +1 22:03 < TravisMcCrea> Nuitari - A legal fund for the PARTY yes 22:03 so we know, sure, there is $50 waiting for the sneakernet project if someone is going to come and start working on it 22:03 < TravisMcCrea> but how the proposal was made in the forums and in discussion, it's designed to be a fund to protect peoples rights and stuff 22:04 < TravisMcCrea> that should be left for the CCLA 22:04 <~scshunt> this sounds like a different question, really 22:04 < Nuitari> I like the idea overall 22:05 I would like to introduce these as binding motions tonight, scshunt - because sooner rather than later is best 22:05 <~scshunt> let's focus on budgetary structure 22:05 < JMcleod> Yeah, idea is good, question is how to proceed 22:05 < TravisMcCrea> If this is a discussion, that's awesome... but I wont be able to approve the blind funding of projects without at least an idea of what the money is doing and who is going to over see it and such 22:05 <~scshunt> svulliez: Ok. If you have an idea for a specific idea for what you want, I can help word it. It's hard for me to read minds though. 22:05 < TravisMcCrea> Especially projects that have never been officially adopted by the party 22:05 < JMcleod> I agree with Travis on that point 22:06 <~scshunt> well, Shawn is free to bring forth any motion he'd like 22:06 <~scshunt> we can debate it once it's proposed 22:06 < TravisMcCrea> of course, but I want to make my position clear to Shawn :) 22:06 < RLim> I don't know if I'll be out of order but this is in relation to budget also. Can we have the committee keep a record in online spreadsheet or something. To keep track of spending. Can just have a disclaimer that it has not been audited and there might be corrections. 22:06 < RLim> it will also make everything more transparent for our members 22:07 <~scshunt> Nuitari: what software is your wife using to keep track of finances? 22:07 < RLim> to track how the money are being spent even without waiting for official financial report 22:07 < Nuitari> scshunt: quickbooks 22:07 <~scshunt> ok 22:08 <~scshunt> (note to self: recruit more accounting students into the party) 22:08 < TravisMcCrea> lol 22:08 < TravisMcCrea> For business I use wave accounting, it's free... it's amazing 22:08 < RLim> go hangout in accounting area ~scshunt 22:08 < TravisMcCrea> it keeps track of the budget automatically and spectacularly 22:09 < TravisMcCrea> it's like mint.com but for business 22:09 I propose that the Executive board create six seperate funds that will be each granted $5 of funding from the general fund on the first of each month. Which projects are assigned to these funds shall be under the authority of the Political Council. 22:09 <~scshunt> hmm... 22:09 <~scshunt> who will approve expenditures for these funds? 22:10 These funds shall continue to receive party funds even while inactive, and without leader. But their funds shall be off-limits. 22:10 <~scshunt> and the PC appoints the leader? 22:10 < TravisMcCrea> He made the proposal scshunt I don't think your question is in order, correct? 22:10 < Nuitari> I think the motion should be more flexible 22:10 < Nuitari> more of a framework then specific funds / projects 22:10 <~scshunt> TravisMcCrea: It wasn't a motion; I'm trying to help work out what the motion is 22:10 I withdraw the motion. 22:10 < TravisMcCrea> :P it looked like a motion 22:10 < TravisMcCrea> and he withdrew it like a motion ;) 22:11 It was, hunt was just being an elitist. 22:11 <~scshunt> oh 22:11 <~scshunt> I didn't realise 22:11 <~scshunt> I thought you were just trying to say what you wanted so that we could work on wording 22:11 < Nuitari> EB could approve / cancel projects within a framework 22:11 Let's figure out how to best provide this specific service to the party 22:11 Nuitari wants to set up a more flexible framework 22:11 <~scshunt> I'm honestly a bit torn 22:11 May I also suggest that we begin each fund with an initial deposit as well? 22:11 <~scshunt> of course you may! 22:12 < JMcleod> Well EB can cut funding to a project if it wants to, being that finances are in EB hands 22:12 We should ideally be decentralizing funding for these projects, and making it easier to get access to the money you need when you are helping out with them 22:13 <~scshunt> it will not be easy 22:13 -!- nloewen [nathan@ppca-FFFEBB6.wp.shawcable.net] has quit [Quit: goodbye!] 22:13 <~scshunt> we need an agent to get receipts 22:13 <~scshunt> and currently there's one of those 22:13 <~scshunt> svulliez: So here's what I think your proposal amounts to: There are six fund accounts; the PC can assign a project to each and appoint a leader. The funds accumulate in each account and the leader can choose how to allocate them to the project. 22:13 < JMcleod> Yeah, Shawn, thing is, we need an invoice or receipt every time something is done with funds. 22:14 an additional layer of bureaucracy will only impede progress, we need to work out a system that prevents us from only being able to make small financial decisions on mondays 22:14 for example 22:14 <~scshunt> that I agree with 22:14 < RLim> But we could have structure where we lay out and says this much funds is available for such and such committeee 22:14 <~scshunt> we can also retroactively approve expenses if people are willing to risk it 22:14 < TravisMcCrea> I still suggest that these projects are officially adopted, if those would be officially created by us or by the PC. We have no idea what the non-established ideas would even do in practice if they need the funds if they need more funds... 22:15 I understand the need to have receipts and invoices, and I think we can figure out how to do that best 22:15 <~scshunt> svulliez: do you want to go with that or talk some more? 22:15 < JMcleod> Well Election Canada has rules that trump any of ours. 22:15 My suggestion is that we find a way to provide additional autonomy for people to step up to these projects and make them work 22:17 <~scshunt> We should do that, and we should do that as quick as possible 22:17 EC has no spending rules outside of election season, so if it was an issue we could suspend these projects when the writ drops 22:17 <~scshunt> We could discuss this on the forum (which we should have) over the next week 22:17 we don't need to give them money ahead of time, but drew is reassured that the $20 he spent on pirate linux is going to be reimbursed 22:18 and he can be reimbursed between meetings 22:18 < RLim> Like I said earlier, we could just set aside funds and guaranteed it to the project. So once they give us the receipt, they get reimbursed rightaway. 22:18 <~scshunt> has he spent $20? 22:18 just an example, sorry 22:18 < TravisMcCrea> Exactly, if Pirate Linux wants funding, I have no problem approving individual funding for it. 22:19 the idea is that we can slowly and automatically build up small amounts of funding for these projects, so people are encouraged to participate 22:19 and they don't need to come to a meeting to get their money back 22:20 we would need the agent to approve these anyways, but we wouldn't need a majority vote / debate 22:20 < TravisMcCrea> No, but they need to come to a meeting for us to decide if their vision is worthy of being funded in the first place 22:20 < JMcleod> Like a pre-approval of funds 22:20 Well, the actual projects, as they are promotional materials, are more the job of the Political Board TravisMcCrea ;) 22:21 < TravisMcCrea> But their funding needs are the requirement of the EB 22:22 yes, which is why I am proposing smaller funds that can automatically have petty cash for projects as they need it. 22:22 <~scshunt> http://piratepad.ca/dA8jywwG33 22:23 I am acknowledging we need to appoint these funds to specific things at the political board meeting, according to our rules 22:23 < TravisMcCrea> The EB can't fund a project that doesn't exsist, if we assign blind funding to a project the EB puts its faith into the PC to decide who would be worthy of what funds. 22:23 but if we get the funds started, and automatic, it encourages our friends at the Political board to get these projects started 22:23 <~scshunt> Who added that last paragraph? 22:24 TravisMcCrea: you haven't got faith in the PC? :/ 22:24 < TravisMcCrea> Of course since my position is in the PC mainly, but I don't want us given the ability to take away the checks and ballances created 22:24 We ALREADY have it in-place that "people could go to a meeting and request $4 reimbursement", nobody DOES. that proves that the idea is not working, and we need to drastically increase autonomy, even if only by $5 amounts, for these projects that are too-long neglected or lacking development 22:24 <~scshunt> Well nobody knows 22:24 <~scshunt> we could work on that too 22:25 < TravisMcCrea> Again, I am not saying reimbursement 22:25 <~scshunt> also who is purple? 22:25 < TravisMcCrea> I am saying it CAN be done as pre-funds, but only after they talk to the EB 22:25 < RLim> I am purpleish but not anonymous 22:25 < Nuitari> scshunt: can I write an alternative? 22:25 < Nuitari> RLim: change you color 22:26 <~scshunt> Nuitari: sure 22:26 <~scshunt> remember, it's fine to move something that looks good, we can talk specifics 22:26 <~scshunt> but we should get something on the table 22:26 <~scshunt> since we're starting the circle dance of "let's do something but what" 22:27 sorry folks, I have to leave prematurely 22:28 <~scshunt> no problem 22:28 -!- yeho [x@ppca-956462A0.privacyfoundation.ch] has left #exec [Leaving] 22:28 <~scshunt> any parting words you'd like us to consider? 22:29 < JMcleod> shawn, wtf, firefox 3.6.10? 22:29 -!- svulliez [3262e8dd@ppca-A3A5A5B2.mibbit.com] has quit [Quit: http://www.mibbit.com ajax IRC Client] 22:30 < TravisMcCrea> What about a larger sum and we actually create the "Project Fund" 22:30 <~scshunt> Nuitari: I'm confused about your suggestion 22:31 scshunt: no, but I owe Nuitari some phone numbers for the contact list... if you and Shawn could send them... ? 22:31 <~scshunt> psema4: ok 22:31 < TravisMcCrea> which can have an appointed leader and they can be a go-to when someone needs funding for their SANCTIONED project? 22:31 -!- svulliez [3262e8dd@ppca-78E3DEE8.mibbit.com] has joined #exec 22:32 Did I miss anything? 22:33 <~scshunt> no 22:34 < Nuitari> scshunt: basically the number of project funds should be a bit more floating and up to PC 22:34 <~scshunt> Can someone who supports one of these things move it already please? 22:34 < Nuitari> there would be a hard limit set for the number of funds revised each quarter or something like that 22:34 <~scshunt> so that we can focus discussion? 22:36 < Nuitari> can I move something? 22:36 <~scshunt> I don't remember offhand 22:36 <~scshunt> Not without consent 22:36 <~scshunt> I move to suspend the rules and allow Nuitari to make motions for the duration of the meeting. 22:37 < TravisMcCrea> I second? 22:37 <~scshunt> This motion is undebateable and requires a two-thirds vote 22:37 <~scshunt> All in favor? 22:37 <~scshunt> aye 22:37 < TravisMcCrea> aye 22:37 <~scshunt> All opposed? 22:37 < JMcleod> we dont second 22:37 < TravisMcCrea> I noticed, that's why I did the ? 22:37 <~scshunt> (this is KAOS) 22:37 < TravisMcCrea> :P 22:38 <~scshunt> There are two-thirds in favor; Nuitari may make motions. 22:38 < Nuitari> Resolved, that the Political Council may create a project fund for different Party projects. When they do so, the Council shall also appoint a manager to approve expenses against that Fund, which shall be limited to expenses related to that project. 22:38 <~scshunt> Nuitari: just the one? 22:38 < Nuitari> no 22:39 < Nuitari> copy paste is bugging 22:39 < Nuitari> Resolved, that at the start of each month, $5 shall be allocated to each Project Fund if the bank balance of the Party, minus any outstanding liabilities or allocated funds, exceeds $4000 If the general funds exceed 8000$ the funding automatically increases to 10$/month. Funding shall stop during electoral periods. 22:39 < Nuitari> Initial funding of 60$ shall be provided for any project 22:39 <~scshunt> tell me when you're done 22:39 < Nuitari> Resolved that the EB sets the maximum number of project funds available every quarter. 22:40 <~scshunt> Ok. 22:40 < Nuitari> that's it 22:40 < TravisMcCrea> Can I reply? 22:40 < Nuitari> the bookkeeping (to answer rlim and anonymous) is pointless as we have to do it anyways 22:40 <~scshunt> The adoption of the following resolutions has been moved: 22:40 <~scshunt> Resolved, that the Political Council may create a project fund for different Party projects. When they do so, the Council shall also appoint a manager to approve expenses against that Fund, which shall be limited to expenses related to that project. 22:40 <~scshunt> Resolved, that at the start of each month, $5 shall be allocated to each Project Fund if the bank balance of the Party, minus any outstanding liabilities or allocated funds, exceeds $4000 If the general funds exceed 8000$ the funding automatically increases to 10$/month. Funding shall stop during electoral periods. Initial funding of 60$ shall be provided for any project. 22:40 <~scshunt> Resolved, that the EB sets the maximum number of project funds available every quarter. 22:40 <~scshunt> Any debate? 22:40 < TravisMcCrea> yes 22:40 <~scshunt> good :P 22:41 < TravisMcCrea> I still think a general fund which can be allocated as needed would be better. Also if some projects don't need as much and some do, why should those projects be getting more and more funds that are not going to be used? 22:41 Who is this "manager" character and what does he do? 22:41 <~scshunt> he approves expenses 22:41 < Nuitari> TravisMcCrea: we can still allocate funds as needed for other expenses. this is to provide some basic funding for smaller projects 22:41 in what way? people come to him and say "I want to spend 20 bucks on __ is that cool?" 22:41 < JMcleod> Oh, and there has to be a limit on the amount of projects for to know how we are spending 22:42 <~scshunt> svulliez: Someone has to decide which thing is acceptable 22:42 < Nuitari> svulliez: that would be the point of the project manager 22:42 < TravisMcCrea> Nuitari but what if those small basic projects are not using their funding 22:42 < TravisMcCrea> your proposal gives them money anyway 22:42 < Nuitari> TravisMcCrea: they revert back to the general fund or is split back to other projects 22:42 TravisMcCrea: it sits there, not being used, no harm done 22:42 < TravisMcCrea> It sits there... not being used. 22:43 just like most of our money 22:43 < TravisMcCrea> At what point are we allowed to "tap into that" 22:43 nothing to shit yourself over 22:43 <~scshunt> IT's unclear what "available" means 22:43 < TravisMcCrea> Yeah but it's allocated funds 22:43 <~scshunt> also "electoral period" 22:43 < Nuitari> if the project is going to need it, that's fine sitting there 22:43 < TravisMcCrea> as opposed to our current funds which are available 22:43 < Nuitari> if they don't need it and tell us so, then we can decide how to reallocate it 22:43 <~scshunt> If the PC establishes a fund, then gets rid of it, is it available again? 22:43 -!- Braeson-Holland [braeson@ppca-6D344386.dsl.bell.ca] has quit [Ping timeout] 22:43 when the executive board says "we never spend money on the VPN, lets use that money for pirate linux" or whatever 22:43 < Nuitari> scshunt: yes 22:43 <~scshunt> Does the new fund that replaces it get a new 60$? 22:44 < Nuitari> scshunt: if it has been spent, yes 22:44 <~scshunt> So the PC could allocate a fund, spend $60, get rid of the fund, make a new fund, spend $60, ad nauseam? 22:45 Obviously the executive board would not let them do that 22:45 < Nuitari> scshunt: the EB would override such behaviour 22:45 < Nuitari> if not the agent 22:45 Here is my issue with that proposal: 22:45 <~scshunt> The PC could do this in a single night. 22:46 < JMcleod> Yeah, we need to limit the amount of boards 22:46 < TravisMcCrea> (side note... what happened to my proposal on the pad?) 22:46 < Nuitari> the agent ultimately has to decide what is ok and what isn't 22:46 <~scshunt> The EB can't override that behavior the way it's written 22:46 the PC isn't going to sit there abusing a loophole unchecked it's ridiculous that you're suggesting that 22:46 <~scshunt> at least, not how I understand it 22:46 < Nuitari> scshunt: well, 60$ for a new distinct project 22:46 you always understand things in the silliest most waste-of-time kind of ways though, don't you? 22:47 <~scshunt> svulliez: Probably they won't do it at a large scale 22:47 <~scshunt> but what if they really really want $120 for something? 22:47 < TravisMcCrea> scshunt is basically on the same path I am on 22:47 then they can ask the exec board like they would otherwise 22:47 < Nuitari> then they can ask for approval for 120$... 22:47 < Nuitari> or more 22:47 <~scshunt> or they can just abuse the loophole if the exec aren't cooperating 22:47 < TravisMcCrea> if there was just a general fund for everyone to take from, then we wouldn't have to decide when a project should have it's funds reallocated 22:47 < TravisMcCrea> it gives it unique oversight 22:48 < TravisMcCrea> and if a project needs a lot at one point, it would just have it. 22:48 that's what we already have champ 22:48 it's called the party funds 22:48 < TravisMcCrea> I am sure you didn't intend it, but I very much dislike being called "champ" (buddy, scout, etc) 22:49 < TravisMcCrea> svulliez yes, but there is a process to getting it 22:49 < TravisMcCrea> this would allow your project to have quick access to it 22:49 the concept here that is novel and worth pursuing is that it gives people more clearance to move forward on their own projects, there is still always going to be oversight 22:49 < TravisMcCrea> No going through EB PC or anything else 22:49 and there is always going to be limited funds 22:49 for these projects 22:50 < TravisMcCrea> Also no one answered where my proposal went on the pad 22:50 <~scshunt> TravisMcCrea: someone deleted it? look at the history, it'll be there 22:50 < RLim> TravisMcCrea: anonymous was typing all over stuff so I won't be surprised if it got erased. 22:50 someone probably deleted it or edited it,it was chaos in there 22:50 < TravisMcCrea> I found it and reput it 22:51 < Nuitari> TravisMcCrea: that's too much... 22:51 < TravisMcCrea> Nuitari mine is for every project 22:51 < TravisMcCrea> it comes out to the same amount 22:51 < TravisMcCrea> roughly 22:51 <~scshunt> TravisMcCrea: do you want to move that as a substitute? 22:51 < TravisMcCrea> 5 projects x $10 a pice 22:51 < TravisMcCrea> piece* 22:51 < TravisMcCrea> Yes 22:51 <~scshunt> Ok 22:52 < Nuitari> it's better to have separate accounts for each project 22:52 <~scshunt> It has be moved to substitute the following resolution for the pending resolutions: 22:52 It's just bizarre to me that we're argung over the specifics of the proposal instead of the idea behind it 22:52 < RLim> yeah 22:52 <~scshunt> Resolved, the EB establishes a Project Fund, this fund would be given $50 per month and would be led by a person appointed by the EB to allocate funds as needed (to authorized projects who have been approved by the PC. If party funds exceed $8000 the funds could be increased to $100 per month, and if party funds drop below $4000 (and when required by law) then additional funding would stop. 22:52 <~scshunt> All debate should now be limited to the merits of one proposal over the other 22:52 <~scshunt> Motions to amend either the pending main question or the proposed substitute are in order 22:52 < TravisMcCrea> Nuitari it actually creates much more beuracracy 22:53 <~scshunt> If the substitue is adopted, it will be the final form of the motion. If it is defeated, then the main motion may still be amended further 22:53 < TravisMcCrea> with your proposal we have to keep track of funding for multiple different projects 22:53 there is no need for us to vote on these specific proposals together, it takes a long time. We'd be better off approving the ideas of such funds and working out the exact wording later, between meetings 22:53 < TravisMcCrea> we have to allocate funding to different projects if one project isn't using it's funds 22:53 <~scshunt> svulliez: Please limit your debate to the matter at hand. 22:53 no. both of these proposals suck. 22:54 < TravisMcCrea> Seriously svulliez you are out of order 22:54 they totally miss the point of my entire motion and are just serving to be the base for a slapfight around specific wording 22:54 what we need to be discussing is what the purpose of this all is, and deciding on that collaboratively 22:55 < TravisMcCrea> point of order Shawn, if you want to make a counter proposal than make it. Otherwise please follow the rules. 22:55 < TravisMcCrea> then* 22:55 <~scshunt> Well taken. 22:55 spending hours discussing minutiae is going to kill this party 22:55 <~scshunt> Debate must be limited to the pending question, the motion to substitue 22:55 <~scshunt> svulliez: you can move to end debate if you'd like 22:56 < Nuitari> having 1 fund for all projects will create a lot of fighting between the projects as they'll each be pulling their side of the blanket 22:56 <~scshunt> I do prefer this general fund approach 22:56 < TravisMcCrea> I think that a general fund headed by someone set in charge by the EB would reduce a great amount of involvement from us 22:56 < TravisMcCrea> and keep things moving forward 22:56 I move to end the debate on these two motions and request that the two people who forwarded them withdraw them, because we need to discuss the purpose and scope of such things 22:56 < Nuitari> having the separate funds makes it clear what someone has left 22:56 < TravisMcCrea> Nuitari I don't see that happening 22:56 <~scshunt> The previous question has been moved 22:56 <~scshunt> it is undebateable and requires a two-thirds vote 22:56 <~scshunt> All in favor say aye, all opposed say nay 22:56 < TravisMcCrea> nay 22:56 we're disagreeing not just on small differences between proposals, but the function and scope of this all 22:56 <~scshunt> nay 22:57 aye 22:57 < RLim> aye 22:57 <~scshunt> There are not two thirds in favor, the motion is lost 22:57 < JMcleod> yah 22:57 <~scshunt> The motion cannot be made again until substantial progress has been made in debate 22:58 < RLim> ok\ 22:58 < TravisMcCrea> I don't think there would be substantial infighting 22:58 < TravisMcCrea> if there was then we can step up to fix it. It's much easier to then divide the funds up if the children can't play nice 22:58 < TravisMcCrea> than it is to consolidate 22:58 <~scshunt> there's some wording tweaks I'd offer, but I was actually envisioning something slightly differnet; namely, have each project have a manager, so you need approval by the manager and someone controlling the fund 22:59 <~scshunt> still two people vs. a group that meets only on Mondays 22:59 < JMcleod> I dont think the motion was acceptable, you cant motion a request that people withdraw their motion? If so next GM will never end. 22:59 < TravisMcCrea> JMcleod no that one wasn't valid 22:59 < TravisMcCrea> we didn't vote on that 22:59 <~scshunt> He moved to end debate, and requested that the motions be withdrawn 23:00 < TravisMcCrea> scshunt I am okay with that type of setup, but the funds should really be in a general account which is shared between the projects 23:00 <~scshunt> TravisMcCrea: I agree. 23:00 < TravisMcCrea> If a project grows large enough that it needs it's own fund, then we can give it it's own fund 23:00 < JMcleod> yeah, you cant request motions be withdrawn AND end a debate at the same time, that is my point 23:00 I object to these horrible descendants of my idea being debated as if they have merit- they both miss the point of the entire proposal and only serve to divide us based on arbitrary requirements 23:00 < TravisMcCrea> if a project is that large, then it probably has a large enough committee working on it 23:00 < TravisMcCrea> point of order shawn, seriously obey the rules or leave 23:00 <~scshunt> svulliez: You can move to amend either version if you'd like. 23:01 <~scshunt> You cannot argue against the whole concept at this point. 23:01 <~scshunt> You can argue in favor of one or the other. 23:01 <~scshunt> TravisMcCrea's point of order is Well-taken. Please keep debate germane to the topic. 23:02 < TravisMcCrea> As I was saying if a project is large enough that it is "hogging" the funds, then it is probably large enough to have it's own committee and it's own special funding 23:02 < JMcleod> I will vote for with these conditions: Limit to unspent funds banked, limit to amount of projects that can be created. <-- that is all. 23:02 Yes, I can put forward yet another amendment, but it's only going to serve to limit the discussion as you two are so intent on doing. 23:02 < TravisMcCrea> this "start-up" fund should just be a cookie jar, to help boost the project large enough that it get's it's own funding 23:03 <~scshunt> svulliez: The reason that we have motions is so that we can decide on final proposals 23:03 <~scshunt> or else the discus---actually you know what, this is a bigger waste of time. Let's get on with discussion of the motion at hand, it's your problem if you don't participate 23:03 the need for "final" proposals that are exactly worded is only going to slow down progress at every meeting the pirate party ever does/ 23:03 I am working on another motion. 23:04 < TravisMcCrea> Please take this out of channel, your just interupting actual debate / conversation about valid on-topic discussion 23:04 < TravisMcCrea> JMcleod do you have an opinion on either of the proposals? 23:06 they're not allowed to share their opinions on the matter, we're only allowed to discuss those two motions as compared to one another 23:06 <~scshunt> Or the concepts of the motions 23:06 <~scshunt> You are allowed to debate any concept related to why we should pick one over the other 23:06 < JMcleod> Yes, 1) we cannot create loopholes. 2) Inactive projects must have a limit to their "bank". 23:06 <~scshunt> You cannot at this stage argue for adopting neither, as arguing for the adoption of neither is not germane to the question of the amendment 23:07 < TravisMcCrea> JMcleod so then woudl you agree that just having a small bank for them would be better? That way there is never 'inactive' funds? 23:08 < JMcleod> Letting the PC create projects without limit, is a loophole, especially with initial funding. 23:08 < TravisMcCrea> JMcleod exactly, which is not my proposal 23:08 < JMcleod> A small bank for them would be better 23:08 <~scshunt> I move to substitute for the proposed substitute resolution the following resolutions: "Resolved, there shall be a Project Fund, available for use by projects approved by the Political Council. The Political Council shall appoint a manager or managers for each approved project. Expenses of less than $50 for an approved project may be approved by one of that project's managers in conjunction with either the President or the Vice-President." 23:08 < TravisMcCrea> there is $50 a month... the PC can create as many projects as they want 23:08 < TravisMcCrea> but they have the same $50 for all of them 23:08 <~scshunt> actually, minor change 23:08 <~scshunt> I move to substitute for the proposed substitute resolution the following resolutions: "Resolved, there shall be a Project Fund, available for use by projects approved by the Political Council. The Political Council shall appoint a manager or managers for each approved project. Expenses of less than $50 for an approved project may be approved by one of that project's managers in conjunction with either the President or the Vice-President." 23:08 <~scshunt> There we go 23:09 < TravisMcCrea> is there a reason we are pulling out the additional funding and removal of fudning? 23:09 <~scshunt> Since this is a secondary amendment, it can't be further amended 23:09 < Nuitari> doesn't that miss the point of having the project directing the fund spending? 23:09 <~scshunt> so it will be open to further amendment 23:09 I think that we're being forced to choose between multiple-funds, and a loophole, and single fund, no loophole. Which is a false dichotomy. The structure of the debate is limiting our capacity for meaningful discussion yet again. 23:09 I prefer multiple funds, but I'd like to close that loophole. 23:09 <~scshunt> The question is now on the motion to substitute in the proposed amendment 23:09 < JMcleod> Well im not sure we should have just 1 fund 23:10 < TravisMcCrea> it makes it easier though, because then we also just give extra funding to that one project 23:10 < TravisMcCrea> sorry that was out of order 23:10 <~scshunt> Nuitari: The idea is that the President or Vice-President (which were more chosen for the sake of putting something there) are just guardians to make sure that the expenses aren't completely stupid and make sure money is there and the like. 23:10 < TravisMcCrea> I agree with scshunt 23:10 < JMcleod> It should be per project, because what will happen is 1 project will use up 90% of it, and the jar will be empty for the next time 23:10 I would also like to make it easy for someone to be reimbursed between meetings if they have a receipt that was clearly spent on a pirate project. 23:10 < TravisMcCrea> 's substituion 23:11 <~scshunt> Ok. Is there any more debate on my motion to substitute? 23:11 < JMcleod> Its 12:10 am here, ive had a headache for 4 days, so im kinda slow, deal with it :) 23:11 < JMcleod> lemme read it first! 23:11 <~scshunt> ok 23:11 < Nuitari> scshunt: I think it's obvious that guidelines need to be written after either of the proposal is adopted and those guidelines will need to be debated as a whole later on 23:11 <~scshunt> Nuitari: probably a good idea 23:12 I have no idea how to contribute to this discussion anymore. What level of meta are we on? no counterproposals are allowed anymore? 23:12 < TravisMcCrea> I motion that the EB establishes a project fund which will have a leader appointed by the EB who is responsible in allocating funds to approved projects as needed. 23:13 < TravisMcCrea> (as my umm... counter proposal) 23:13 <~scshunt> svulliez: Correct; there are a limit of two amendments pending at once. But once we decide between mine and Travis', we can tweak more. 23:13 < Nuitari> wtf 23:13 < Nuitari> we have way too many things going on 23:13 <~scshunt> TravisMcCrea: You should vote for the one that is closer to what you want 23:13 <~scshunt> Ok, here is the situation: 23:13 <~scshunt> The main question is on the adoption of the following resolutions: 23:13 <~scshunt> 23:40:20 <~scshunt> Resolved, that the Political Council may create a project fund for different Party projects. When they do so, the Council shall also appoint a manager to approve expenses against that Fund, which shall be limited to expenses related to that project. 23:14 <~scshunt> 23:40:31 <~scshunt> Resolved, that at the start of each month, $5 shall be allocated to each Project Fund if the bank balance of the Party, minus any outstanding liabilities or allocated funds, exceeds $4000 If the general funds exceed 8000$ the funding automatically increases   to 10$/month. Funding shall stop during electoral periods. Initial funding of 60$ shall be provided for any project. 23:14 <~scshunt> 23:40:40 <~scshunt> Resolved, that the EB sets the maximum number of project funds available every quarter. 23:14 <~scshunt> The primary amendment pending is: 23:14 <~scshunt> to substitute 23:52:15 <~scshunt> Resolved, the EB establishes a Project Fund, this fund would be given $50 per month and would be led by a person appointed by the EB to allocate funds as needed (to authorized projects who have been approved by the PC. If party funds exceed $8000 the funds 23:14 <~scshunt> could be increased to $100 pe month, and if party funds drop below $4000 (and when required by law) then additional fundihng would stop. 23:14 <~scshunt> The secondary amendment pending is: 23:14 <~scshunt> 00:08:46 <~scshunt> I move to substitute for the proposed substitute resolution the following resolutions: "Resolved, there shall be a Project Fund, available for use by projects approved by the Political Council. The Political Council shall appoint a manager or managers for 23:14 < JMcleod> On Sean's proposal, I would really like financial reports. It must be amended to limit an amound of $ per month, but without reports, its not possible to determine the amount 23:14 <~scshunt> each approved project. Expense of less than $50 for an approved project may be approved by one of that project's managers in conjunction with either the President or the Vice-President." "Resolved, at the start of each month, $50 shall be put into the  Project Fund if the amount of unallocated Party funds, less outstanding debts, is greater than $4000, and an additional $50 shall be put into the fund if that amount is greater than $8000." 23:14 < TravisMcCrea> I move to vote on my admendment being ratifyied into the main proposal. 23:14 < TravisMcCrea> (wow that was horrible spelling, sorry) 23:15 you can't do that, we have to vote on the amendment to the amendment 23:15 <~scshunt> ^ 23:15 then the amendment 23:15 then the proposal 23:15 < RLim> what a mess 23:15 < TravisMcCrea> Okay lets go through it 23:15 < TravisMcCrea> :) 23:15 < TravisMcCrea> I move to vote on the amendments amendment 23:15 "RLim    what a mess" <<<<< 23:15 <~scshunt> The previous question has been moved on the pending secondary amendment; 23:15 <~scshunt> All in favor say aye, all opposed say nay 23:15 < TravisMcCrea> Nay 23:16 <~scshunt> aye 23:16 < TravisMcCrea> err sorry Aye 23:16 < Nuitari> nay 23:16 <~scshunt> Nuitari: you have no vote 23:16 nay 23:17 < JMcleod> nay 23:17 <~scshunt> There is not two-thirds in favor, the motion is lost 23:17 <~scshunt> debate resumes on the secondary amendment 23:17 < TravisMcCrea> You guys, that was the "vote to vote" 23:17 I move to vote 23:17 <~scshunt> svulliez: out of order 23:17 <~scshunt> that motion was just defeated 23:17 <~scshunt> although you could move to reconsider the vote 23:17 herp derp, well, this is confusing as fuck in case you can't tell 23:17 < TravisMcCrea> I call for a "standing vote" 23:18 roberts rules of wasting time are great for real meetings but this is IRC 23:18 <~scshunt> How about this 23:18 I would have voted aye on that last proposal if I understood what the heck I was voting on 23:18 < TravisMcCrea> scshunt I have a motion 23:18 <~scshunt> there appears to be no further debate on the secondary amendment 23:18 < TravisMcCrea> which is a valid roberts rules 23:19 < TravisMcCrea> it's a revote 23:19 <~scshunt> I propose that we just move on to vote on the secondary amendment. Is there any objection? 23:19 < TravisMcCrea> And I don't believe is debateable 23:19 I motion to destroy these amendments, and the proposal, and send them back to hades where they belong 23:19 < TravisMcCrea> point of order, you can't motion over a motion 23:19 < TravisMcCrea> (to both) 23:19 < JMcleod> :) 23:19 -!- Unowho [Unowho@ppca-B6D40E41.snydernet.net] has quit [Ping timeout] 23:19 < RLim> let's vote 23:19 <~scshunt> TravisMcCrea: I'm trying to provide an alternate solution that is faster 23:19 < TravisMcCrea> mines not debateable 23:19 < JMcleod> lol Travis owning you both at RROWT 23:19 just make sure we know what we are voting on 23:19 < JMcleod> Travis asked for a revote 23:19 <~scshunt> TravisMcCrea: Are you trying to object to my proposal as chair? 23:20 <~scshunt> I think it will accomplish the same goal in less of the time. 23:20 < TravisMcCrea> yes, I just want us to all vote now, knowing that this vote is just a vote to vote. 23:20 <~scshunt> Ok. 23:20 <~scshunt> Fine. 23:20 < TravisMcCrea> SO we don't confuse people and change things up 23:20 <~scshunt> hmm... wait 23:20 <~scshunt> no, ok 23:20 < TravisMcCrea> Everyone, this time, you are voting to decide if we are going to vote on the second amendment 23:20 <~scshunt> The question is on the previous question on the secondary amendmen.t 23:20 <~scshunt> If adopted, we will proceed to vote immediately on the secondary amendment 23:21 <~scshunt> All in favor, please say "aye" exactly 23:21 < TravisMcCrea> aye 23:21 < RLim> aye 23:21 <~scshunt> aye 23:21 < JMcleod> aye 23:21 aye 23:21 <~scshunt> That's everyone with a vote, the motion is adopted 23:21 <~scshunt> The question is on the motion to substitue the following resolutions: 23:21 <~scshunt> Resolved, there shall be a Project Fund, available for use by projects approved by the Political Council. The Political Council shall appoint a manager or managers for 23:21 <~scshunt> 00:14:35 <~scshunt> each approved project. Expense of less than $50 for an approved project may be approved by one of that project's managers in conjunction with either the President or the Vice-President. 23:21 <~scshunt> Resolved, at the start of each month, $50 shall be put into the  Project Fund if the amount of unallocated Party funds, less outstanding debts, is greater than $4000, and an additional $50 shall be put into the fund if that amount is greater than $8000. 23:21 <~scshunt> for the following resolution: 23:22 <~scshunt> Resolved, the EB establishes a Project Fund, this fund would be given $50 per month and would be led by a person appointed by the EB to allocate funds as needed (to authorized projects who have been approved by the PC. If party funds exceed $8000 the funds 23:22 <~scshunt> 00:14:25 <~scshunt>  could be increased to $100 pe month, and if party funds drop below $4000 (and when required by law) then additional fundihng would stop. 23:22 <~scshunt> in the primary amendment 23:22 <~scshunt> (please excuse the timestamps and <~scshunt>s in the text) 23:22 <~scshunt> All those in favor, please say aye. All opposed, please say nay. 23:22 < JMcleod> nay 23:22 <~scshunt> aye 23:22 < TravisMcCrea> (actually it wasn't, the motion was for your second amendment 23:22 < TravisMcCrea> but oh well 23:22 < TravisMcCrea> aye 23:22 < RLim> nay 23:22 nay 23:22 <~scshunt> The nays have it and the motion is defeated. 23:23 <~scshunt> The quesiton is now on the motion to substitute the following resolution 23:23 <~scshunt> 00:22:02 <~scshunt> Resolved, the EB establishes a Project Fund, this fund would be given $50 per month and would be led by a person appointed by the EB to allocate funds as needed (to authorized projects who have been approved by the PC. If party funds exceed $8000 the funds 23:23 <~scshunt> 00:22:03 <~scshunt> 00:14:25 <~scshunt>  could be increased to $100 pe month, and if party funds drop below $4000 (and when required by law) then additional fundihng would stop. 23:23 < TravisMcCrea> Aye 23:23 <~scshunt> for the following resolutions: 23:23 <~scshunt> 00:13:57 <~scshunt> 23:40:20 <~scshunt> Resolved, that the Political Council may create a project fund for different Party projects. When they do so, the Council shall also appoint a manager to approve expenses against that Fund, which  shall be limited to expenses related to  that project. 23:23 <~scshunt> 00:13:57 <~scshunt> 23:40:31 <~scshunt> Resolved, that at the start of each month, $5 shall be allocated to each Project Fund if the bank balance of the Party, minus any outstanding liabilities or allocated funds, exceeds $4000 If the general funds exceed 8000$ the funding 23:23 <~scshunt> automatically increases   to 1$/month. Funding shall stop during electoral periods. Initial funding of 60$ shall be providedI for any project. 23:23 <~scshunt> 00:13:57 <~scshunt> 23:40:40 <~scshunt> Resolved, that the EB sets the maximum number of project funds available every quarter. 23:23 <~scshunt> 00:14:06 <~scshunt> The primary amendment pending is: 23:23 <~scshunt> ignore the last line 23:23 <~scshunt> Debate resumes on the primary amendment 23:24 < Nuitari> scshunt: the original resolution should read 10$/month, not 1$/month 23:24 < RLim> tell me again why amendments are not allowed? 23:24 < TravisMcCrea> I move to previous question 23:24 <~scshunt> well taken 23:24 <~scshunt> RLim: They are allowed now 23:24 < RLim> ok 23:24 <~scshunt> although the previous question has been moved 23:25 < TravisMcCrea> RLim unless you have an amendment to my amendment 23:25 < RLim> which is? 23:25 < TravisMcCrea> then I withdraw 23:25 can we just vote our way back down to 0 motions? I don't think either of these will pass 23:25 < TravisMcCrea> I am moving to vote on my amendment to the main proposal 23:25 <~scshunt> ^ 23:25 < RLim> k 23:25 <~scshunt> That is what the previous question is 23:25 <~scshunt> So the question is now on the previous question on the primary amendment. If adopted, we will move directly to a vote on the primary amendment. 23:25 <~scshunt> All in favor say aye, all opposed say nay. 23:25 <~scshunt> nay 23:25 < JMcleod> aye 23:25 < RLim> aye 23:25 < TravisMcCrea> aye 23:25 < TravisMcCrea> (this is to vote to vote) 23:25 aye 23:26 < JMcleod> yes travis 23:26 <~scshunt> there are two-thirds in favor and the previous question is adopted. The question is now on the primary amendment I wrote above. 23:26 <~scshunt> All in favor say aye, all opposed say nay. 23:26 <~scshunt> Aye 23:26 < TravisMcCrea> aye 23:26 < JMcleod> nay 23:26 < RLim> nay 23:26 nay 23:26 <~scshunt> The majority is in the negative and the motion is defeated. 23:26 <~scshunt> The question is now on the main question; debate resumes 23:27 < TravisMcCrea> I move to previous question on the main motion 23:27 <~scshunt> Ok. 23:27 <~scshunt> The previous question has been moved on the main motion 23:27 < TravisMcCrea> (this is a vote to vote) 23:27 <~scshunt> Again, this requires a two-thirds vote to adopt, is undebateable, and will mean we proceed directly to a vote on the main motion 23:27 <~scshunt> All in favor say aye, all against say nay 23:27 < RLim> aye 23:27 < JMcleod> aye 23:27 < TravisMcCrea> aye 23:28 <~scshunt> nay 23:28 aye 23:28 <~scshunt> There are two-thirds in favor and the motion is adopted. The main question is now up for vote; allow me to restate it 23:28 < RLim> thanks 23:29 <~scshunt> The question is on the adoption of the following resolutions: 23:29 <~scshunt> Resolved, that the Political Council may create a project fund for different Party projects. When they do so, the Council shall also appoint a manager to approve expenses against that Fund, which shall be limited to expenses related to that project. 23:29 <~scshunt> Resolved, that at the start of each month, $5 shall be allocated to each Project Fund if the bank balance of the Party, minus any outstanding liabilities or allocated funds, exceeds $4000 If the general funds exceed 8000$ the funding automatically increases to 10$/month. Funding shall stop during electoral periods. Initial funding of 60$ shall be provided for any project. 23:29 <~scshunt> Resolved, that the EB sets the maximum number of project funds available every quarter. 23:29 <~scshunt> All in favor, say aye 23:29 aye 23:29 <~scshunt> all opposed, say nay 23:29 <~scshunt> nay 23:29 < TravisMcCrea> nay 23:29 < JMcleod> nay 23:29 cool beans, that was a fun way to spend an hour 23:30 so lets before we introduce any motions work out what we are trying to do here..? 23:30 <~scshunt> There is a majority and the negative and the motion is lost 23:30 <~scshunt> Is there any further business? 23:30 < RLim> yes 23:30 yes. 23:30 <~scshunt> RLim got it first. Ric? 23:30 < RLim> I move that we ask IT committee to setup a system to allow members to opt-in and subscribe to a more frequent e-mail update. E-mail to all members are maintained for announcement purposes and new e-mail group created for those who opt-in. The new e-mail group will be used to sent out updates, news, progress report, and volunteer opportunities or call for actions. 23:31 seconded. 23:31 <~scshunt> The above motion has been moved. 23:31 < JMcleod> [00:30:42]  yes 23:31 < JMcleod> [00:30:42] yes. 23:31 < JMcleod> First by hundreths of a second. 23:31 <~scshunt> indeed 23:31 < RLim> :) 23:31 <~scshunt> The question is on the motion moved by Ric. 23:31 no worries, its a good idea I can't see much time wasting from it... 23:31 < TravisMcCrea> I motion to move to previous question, I don't think many people disagree with this 23:32 <~scshunt> TravisMcCrea: if you will, I have one comment on wording 23:32 <~scshunt> otherwise I'll put the previous question 23:32 < TravisMcCrea> yes 23:32 < TravisMcCrea> go ahead 23:32 <~scshunt> We should word this so it doesn't create an ongoing decision 23:32 < TravisMcCrea> ;) It wasn't going to with my vote ;) 23:32 <~scshunt> the last two sentences create ongoing 'rules', effect 23:32 <~scshunt> *effectively 23:33 < TravisMcCrea> Oh I see what your saying 23:33 < TravisMcCrea> because it limits it 23:33 <~scshunt> right 23:33 <~scshunt> so I'd suggest something like we "direct the IT Committee to set up an opt-in mailing list for all members, intended to be used for news updates, volunteer opportunities, and calls for action." 23:34 < TravisMcCrea> That still leaves the iffy part 23:34 < TravisMcCrea> perhapse instead we ask IT committee to setup a system to allow members to opt-in and subscribe to a more frequent e-mail update. E-mail to all members are maintained for announcement purposes and new e-mail group created for those who opt-in. 23:34 <~scshunt> It's designed to set the intent 23:34 <~scshunt> but that's a "now" thing 23:34 <~scshunt> if we use a word like "maintained", that could be taken as a long-term decision 23:34 < TravisMcCrea> Honestly I don't want to deal with an amendment, I think it's good enough 23:35 < TravisMcCrea> If we need to amend it later, we have that authority. 23:35 < TravisMcCrea> I move for previous question 23:35 <~scshunt> "the new e-mail group will be used" creates an outstanding rule that needs to be followed, it seems silly 23:35 <~scshunt> Very well 23:35 I think this is a great time to make my point that we shouldn't bother spending time to tweak the wording inside meetings, we should pass the spirit of motions and set up the rules afterwards 23:35 <~scshunt> The question is on the previous question on Ric's motion to "ask IT committee to setup a system to allow members to opt-in and subscribe to a more frequent e-mail update. E-mail to all members are maintained for announcement purposes and new e-mail group created for those who opt-in. The new e-mail group will be used to sent out updates, news, progress report, and volunteer opportunities or call for actions. 23:35 <~scshunt> " 23:35 because we're all in agreement on what should happen! 23:35 <~scshunt> All in favor, say aye 23:35 <~scshunt> aye 23:35 < RLim> aye 23:35 < TravisMcCrea> (vote to vote) 23:35 < TravisMcCrea> aye 23:35 <~scshunt> wait, nay 23:35 aye 23:36 -!- drew [F4952D1DC8@ppca-C9341201.riws.ualberta.ca] has joined #exec 23:36 < JMcleod> aye 23:36 <~scshunt> There are two-thirds in favor; the previous question is ordered. 23:36 <~scshunt> the quesiton is on the motion (typos and all) that "we ask IT committee to setup a system to allow members to opt-in and subscribe to a more frequent e-mail update. E-mail to all members are maintained for announcement purposes and new e-mail group created for those who opt-in. The new e-mail group will be used to sent out updates, news, progress report, and volunteer opportunities or call for actions. 23:37 < TravisMcCrea> aye 23:37 <~scshunt> " 23:37 <~scshunt> All in favor say aye; all opposed say nay; 23:37 <~scshunt> nay 23:37 < RLim> aye 23:37 aye 23:38 < JMcleod> aye 23:38 <~scshunt> There is a majority in favor and the motion is adopted. The Secretary shall inform the IT Committee and ensure that the rules regarding the mailing lists shall be recorded. 23:38 <~scshunt> svulliez: 23:38 Cool, I have some conceptual motions over here. pick me. 23:40 < TravisMcCrea> .. he did 23:40 I would like to move (this is not a motion) that in the pirate party, in general, we discuss the spirit and intent of motions and approve them based on that, and work out the exact wording later to save time during meetings, and also make sure that we aren't caught up in pedantic discussion of terms instead of what we intend to accomplish 23:40 <~scshunt> I will resign if such a principle is adopted. 23:40 < TravisMcCrea> it's pretty bad 23:40 wow. 23:41 < JMcleod> Actually, that should be done before the meeting :) 23:41 <~scshunt> It is my role as President to administer the Party. 23:41 < TravisMcCrea> what JMcleod said 23:41 <~scshunt> If we formalize non-discussion, this makes administration really hard 23:41 < RLim> Yeah I like the idea of having motion on forum and start the discussion there 23:41 <~scshunt> advance discussion is good 23:42 <~scshunt> but it is not a substitute for participation at a meeting 23:42 < TravisMcCrea> plus creates horrible enforcement of policy 23:42 <~scshunt> but the last bit is what I was worried about 23:42 <~scshunt> "pedantic discussion of terms" is important 23:42 < RLim> no but hopefully major disagreement would have been sorted out by then 23:42 <~scshunt> for instance 23:42 < TravisMcCrea> "oh that's not a full policy that's just a spirit of a policy, I don't have to obey it" 23:42 <~scshunt> the motion we just adopted said that "The new e-mail group  will be used to sent out updates, news, progress report, and volunteer opportunities or call for actions." 23:42 No, that's an imaginary problem TravisMcCrea 23:42 <~scshunt> this could be interpreted in a number of ways 23:42 <~scshunt> Do I need to send out every update to this list now? 23:43 <~scshunt> Is there a requirement for me or someone else to use this regularly to send things out? 23:43 holy heavens you guys, are you kidding me? 23:43 < TravisMcCrea> scshunt we can have a little room for interpretation 23:43 <~scshunt> It is my role to administer the decisions of this Board. 23:43 <~scshunt> That was a decision of the Borad. 23:43 <~scshunt> It's not a particularly bad one 23:44 <~scshunt> it could be much worse 23:44 < TravisMcCrea> but certainly not svulliez's hey let's just start passing shit... then decide how we would actulaly do it later 23:44 The very point of my idea is that we won't be rigidly held to the exact wording as forwarded, which requires the whole amendements on top of amendments process 23:44 <~scshunt> Who decides what the precise meaning of the wording adopted is? 23:45 < RLim> yeah svulliez, I guess it would help if we have preliminary discussion in forum 23:45 <~scshunt> (I will set up a forum for the EB by the way) 23:45 <~scshunt> The only body capable of telling me what it meant is hte body that made the decision 23:45 < TravisMcCrea> Point of clearification, is there a motion or anything on the floor? 23:45 <~scshunt> and the only way they can do that is by adopting a motion 23:45 <~scshunt> TravisMcCrea: no 23:45 that's true, ric, but even then, meetings can get hung up indefinitely on little things that mean nothing 23:45 < JMcleod> Thatd be a good idea, and one for the PC while you're at it since they have meetings too 23:45 <~scshunt> TravisMcCrea: We are having informal discussion 23:45 < TravisMcCrea> because this seems like general chat, and if we are not going to propose soemthing, then we should adjourn 23:45 < TravisMcCrea> and talk about it later 23:45 <~scshunt> JMcleod: they have one 23:45 < TravisMcCrea> or talk about it after we adjourn 23:46 <~scshunt> Agreed, I move that the meeting adjourn. 23:46 < JMcleod> Wow, we are sooo slow. 23:46 no 23:46 no do not adjourn 23:46 < TravisMcCrea> the motion has been moved 23:46 I have specific motions that are important 23:46 < RLim> ok 23:46 You guys are like bullies, this is ridiculous 23:46 <~scshunt> The question is on the motion to adjourn. It is undebateable and requires a majority vote. Anyone with business may briefly describe that business. 23:46 < TravisMcCrea> svulliez vote nay, it's simple. 23:47 <~scshunt> First tell us what motions you want brought up 23:47 < TravisMcCrea> Or that :) 23:47 I didn't forward a motion because I didn't want to waste time discussing the specific wording, as per my motion itself 23:47 I want to bring up 23:47 < TravisMcCrea> scshunt would you be willing to withdraw to let him propose a motion? 23:47 -the roles of the exec and political board 23:48 -specific funding for vancouver area promotions 23:48 <~scshunt> TravisMcCrea: it is before the assembly, it will take just as long to withdraw it as to vote on it 23:48 < TravisMcCrea> Fair enough 23:48 < TravisMcCrea> I vote nay 23:48 < RLim> nay 23:48 <~scshunt> The quesiton is on the motion to adjourn; all in favor say aye; all opposed say nay. 23:48 nay 23:48 <~scshunt> nay 23:48 nay 23:48 < JMcleod> nay 23:48 < TravisMcCrea> let's remember svulliez that JMcleod is up waay past his bed time ;) 23:49 <~scshunt> There is a majority in the negative and the motion is lost. svulliez? 23:49 < JMcleod> no 23:49 < TravisMcCrea> svulliez you will need to make a motion though 23:49 < JMcleod> I usually do mindless killing in Guild Wars at this time 23:49 < JMcleod> I dont think, just let the bots kill :P 23:49 <~scshunt> svulliez: you have the floor 23:50 <~scshunt> are you going to do anything with it? 23:50 < RLim> proabably composing 23:50 yes, it takes a little while to type things believe it or not 23:50 <~scshunt> ok, just checking 23:51 < TravisMcCrea> Let's cool the jets svulliez (et anyone else who needs jets that need cooling) 23:51 < JMcleod> imagine if i had a point to bring up, started writing this when scshunt asked if he was gonna use it 23:52 I move that the executive board grants the Myself and Steve Henderson up to $60 each for printing of fliers, posters, and so on for the March 24th day of action. 23:52 <~scshunt> Do you mind if I stick your name in there so that it stands without context? 23:52 yes 23:52 we will provide receipts and get reimbursed,, not the money up front or anything. 23:52 < TravisMcCrea> yes you mind, or yes he can? 23:52 < JMcleod> you mind? 23:52 yes he can, sorry 23:52 any time that I am vague, assume I mean the less ridiculous thng 23:53 <~scshunt> It has been moved that the executive board grants Shawn Vulliez and Steve Henderson up to $60 each for printing of fliers, posters, and so on for the March 24th day of action. 23:53 < JMcleod> You are always vague... 23:53 < TravisMcCrea> lol we pass the motion which allows scshunt and steve henderson the 60 23:53 <~scshunt> Is there any debate 23:53 < TravisMcCrea> (because he would say "myself" 23:53 we're just working our little tooshes off getting this event together 23:53 < TravisMcCrea> I move to previous question... 23:53 <~scshunt> The previous question has been moved 23:53 <~scshunt> All in favor say aye, all opposed say nay 23:53 < JMcleod> Is Steve a member or a non-member friend of yours? 23:54 <~scshunt> nay 23:54 < RLim> aye 23:54 member 23:54 < RLim> member 23:54 < TravisMcCrea> aye 23:54 aye 23:54 <~scshunt> Order, no discussion during votes 23:54 < JMcleod> aye then 23:54 < TravisMcCrea> (this is a vote to vote again) 23:54 <~scshunt> very well, there are two-thirds in favor 23:54 <~scshunt> the previous question is ordered, the question is now on the motion with regards to the day of action just stated 23:54 haha, except for discussion about order during votes, that seems to be fine by you :P 23:54 <~scshunt> all in favor say aye 23:54 <~scshunt> aye 23:54 <~scshunt> Order! 23:54 aye 23:54 < JMcleod> aye 23:54 < TravisMcCrea> aye 23:54 < RLim> aye 23:55 <~scshunt> The ayes have it and the motion was adopted. 23:55 < TravisMcCrea> (points of clearification are ALWAYS acceptable) 23:55 <~scshunt> (sorry, had to) 23:55 clarification** TravisMcCrea 23:55 < JMcleod> well if you wouldnt call for votes while im typing itd be easier 23:55 lol 23:55 <~scshunt> JMcleod: sorry 23:55 <~scshunt> Requests for Information (i.e. questions) are usually acceptable, but not during votes 23:55 < TravisMcCrea> JMcleod if you have something to say... just say "wait" 23:55 shows exactly how RRO doesn't work online 23:55 < TravisMcCrea> and we can hold up for you 23:55 <~scshunt> svulliez: Actually, the previous question is meant to interrupt 23:56 <~scshunt> although we haven't been assigning the floor and taking turns 23:56 <~scshunt> we should do that that would be so cool right :P 23:56 <~scshunt> any more business? 23:56 yes one more motion 23:56 < JMcleod> i said, problem is its my 4th day with a headache, so im kinda numb cuz of the painkillers and i type slow 23:56 <~scshunt> JMcleod: ouch :( 23:56 < TravisMcCrea> Any other business? 23:57 < TravisMcCrea> otherwise I move to adjourn 23:57 yes... wait 23:57 < TravisMcCrea> kk 23:57 < TravisMcCrea> withdrawn 23:57 <~scshunt> btw, for future reference, when a lot of motions are pending, you can move the previous question on the whole stack, even in response to another motion for the previous question 23:58 < JMcleod> (so ive been playing guild wars, using a discordway (if you are familiar with the game) and just letting my AI do the work, I have been playing like shit and making mistakes : 23:58 < TravisMcCrea> (I don't think that's a point of clarification... lol but there are no motions :P ) --- Log closed Tue Mar 06 00:00:39 2012 00:17 <~scshunt> not yet 00:17 what is the name for voting to destroy the whole stack and just have a single clean motion? 00:18 <~scshunt> JMcloed has moved to insert "costing no more than 20$" after "domain name" 00:18 <~scshunt> I move the previous question on all pending questions. 00:18 <~scshunt> Before we vote four times 00:18 < TravisMcCrea> Thats fair (out of order) but fair 00:18 <~scshunt> is there any objection to adopting the amendments and the resultion motion "that the Board approve the purchas eof a .ca domain name, chosen by the PC, for the Operation Electronic Leviathan project."? 00:19 out of order but fair should be my custom title 00:19 < RLim> debate? 00:19 <~scshunt> RLim: I'm just asking for objections; the previous question is undebateable 00:19 < RLim> sorry 00:19 <~scshunt> if anyone objects we go vote 00:19 <~scshunt> "any objection" means "we're going to do this unless someone tells me not to" 00:20 no objections 00:20 <~scshunt> Seeing no objection, the motion "that the Board approve the purchase of a .ca domain name costing no more than 20$, chosen by the PC, for the Operation Electronic Leviathan project." is adopted. 00:20 <~scshunt> Any further business? 00:21 <~scshunt> as there is no further business... 00:21 < TravisMcCrea> I motion to adjourn/ 00:21 <~scshunt> Seeing no fruther business, the meeting is adjourned. 00:22 < JMcleod> its over, 4hours :S 00:22 <~scshunt> blargh 00:22 < RLim> yikes 00:22 < JMcleod> When you set up the forum 00:22 <~scshunt> I apologize for the terrible bits 00:22 <~scshunt> but thanks for sticking with it 00:23 < TravisMcCrea> For those of you who did 00:23 < JMcleod> Can we have Ric as moderator so he can sticky points of order for the next meeting 00:23 <~scshunt> noted 00:23 < JMcleod> So we can move faster through meetings 00:23 < RLim> ok 