GM 2011-03-24 transcript

19:59 -Stenobot:#canada- ================== THIS MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER =================== 19:59 <@scshunt> Hi everyone, and welcome to the general meeting of the Pirate Party of Canada 19:59 <@scshunt> If you haven't already signed in, please do so (https://meetings.pirateparty.ca/login.php) 19:59 <@scshunt> If you are unable to sign in, or if you aren't a member but find yourself wanting to speak at some point tonight, please PM me 19:59 <+MikkelPaulson> I don't know that our turnout is any better today than it was on the 19th 20:00 <@scshunt> we have at least a few people who aren't signed in 20:00 <+MikkelPaulson> but we did have a half-dozen people show up 15 minutes late after we'd adjourned 20:00 <@scshunt> indeed 20:00 <+MikkelPaulson> we should eventually designate a quorum 20:00 <@scshunt> We shall proceed with business unless someone would like to motion to recess 20:01 <@scshunt> (or motion to anything else) 20:01 <+MikkelPaulson> mib_nd1fxa and mib_w3it4c: https://meetings.pirateparty.ca/login.php if you're members 20:02 <@scshunt> The first item of business on the agenda is the candidacy of Travis McCrea 20:02 <+MikkelPaulson> unfortunately TravisMcCrea isn't able to be with us tonight 20:03 <+MikkelPaulson> though he reports that he's monitoring the channel and will respond to direct questions 20:03 <@scshunt> Do we have a motion to elect Travis McCrea as the candidate for Vancouver Centre? 20:03 * txwikinger motions to elect Travis McCrea as the candidate for Vancouver Centre 20:03 * psema4 seconds 20:04 <@scshunt> motion add txwikinger that Travis McCrea be elected as the candidate for Vancouver Centre 20:04 <@scshunt> err 20:04 -Stenobot:#canada- === MOTION THAT TRAVIS MCCREA BE ELECTED AS THE CANDIDATE FOR VANCOUVER CENTRE === 20:04 -Stenobot:#canada- txwikinger now has the floor. 20:05 <@scshunt> txwikinger: would you like to speak to your motion? 20:05 <+txwikinger> I think Travis is a very good candidate for representing the pirate party in the riding of                    Vancouver Centre 20:06 <+txwikinger> He has laready shown his commitment for the party and the value we stand for 20:07 <+txwikinger> I also think Vancouber Centre is a very good riding for us. We should be represented there 20:09 <@scshunt> You have less than a minute left 20:09 <+txwikinger> So I appreciate Travis' commitmeny and willingness to run and support his candidancy 20:10 -Stenobot:#canada- txwikinger's speaking period has ended. 20:10 -Stenobot:#canada- The speakers list is no longer active. It is no longer necessary to request to speak. 20:11 <+Zblewski> If I may, I hope I'm not going to interfere, but I'd just like to voice in opposition. 20:11 <+Zblewski> As much as Travis has been a pillar of our party 20:11 <+Zblewski> There are a few issues with his candidacy. 20:12 <+Zblewski> The main reasoning for my personal opposition, and that of a few members I know, is his recent inactivity. 20:12 <+Zblewski> We all know Travis is in transition to life in the country, so job hunting and such has meant he has not been here 20:13 <+DLS> would there be another candidate for V-N ? 20:13 <+MikkelPaulson> he's running for Vancouver Centre 20:13 <+DLS> sorry, V-C 20:14 <+MikkelPaulson> nobody immediately available 20:14 <+Zblewski> My second critisism, he has demonstrated that education would bew his focus. 20:15 <+Zblewski> The problem is, that the things he is hoping to push for are solely in the realm of provincial legislation. All of his platform is muddied by the fact that he doesn't yet have the knowledge of                 the distrobution of power in Canada. 20:15 <+Zblewski> This is a severe problem. 20:15 <+MikkelPaulson> I agree 20:16 <+MikkelPaulson> I can't support his candidacy either 20:16 <+MikkelPaulson> the good: I've met the guy and found him to be very friendly, personable, and committed to                      our causes 20:16 <+MikkelPaulson> he'd be a great asset working on someone else's campaign 20:16 <+MikkelPaulson> however, his platform is weak, and he doesn't have a very solid understanding of how Canadian politics works 20:17 <+MikkelPaulson> which is a bit important for a prospective politician 20:17 <+Zblewski> Travis, as a worker within the party, is an amazing talent. Has amazing ideas. But he has no chance of adequately representing himself well in debates or talking about the federal issues in which he                 needs to be covering. 20:17 <+JakeDaynes> So far I have to agree with Zblewski as well, especially on his inactivity point. As an individual myself who has ben hit with inactivity over the course of the past year or so, I understand the amount of time required for such an endeavor, and to be honest, I've had his mail with a paycheck sitting in my hallway for 2 and a half weeks without being collected 20:17 <+MikkelPaulson> https://www.pirateparty.ca/forum/index.php?topic=827.0 20:17 <+MikkelPaulson> ^ that's his application thread 20:18 <+DLS> i think it's kinda sad to shutdown our only possible candidate esp. when there's an imminent election coming up 20:19 <+MikkelPaulson> he's far from our only possible candidate 20:19 <+MikkelPaulson> we have 5 up for vote right now 20:19 <+MikkelPaulson> the Federal Council will have to approve the others due to time constraints, though 20:19 <+JakeDaynes> DLS: I would rather not have a candidate this round in V-C than have one whose campaign bombs 20:19 <+DLS> and is "Reply #9 on: March 16, 2011, 11:33:47 PM »" that much of beeing inactive? 20:19 <~Nuitari> hihi DLS 20:19 <+DLS> so outta those 5 at least 3 are definate good material? 20:19 <+DLS> hey Nuitari :) 20:20 <+MikkelPaulson> DLS: out of those 5, at least two are Zblewski and Nuitari 20:20 <+MikkelPaulson> so, definitely :) 20:20 <+Zblewski> And I can vouch for another 20:21 <+DLS> cool 20:21 <+Zblewski> But Travis needs to take some time to learn more about the system. 20:21 <+DLS> is V-C the bigest portion of V? 20:21 <+MikkelPaulson> does anyone have direct questions for TravisMcCrea? he mentioned that he'll leave the IRC client open to respond to direct addresses, even though he is at work right now 20:21 <+MikkelPaulson> Vancouver has quite a few ridings 20:22 <~Nuitari> TravisMcCrea: Do you have the funds for your campaign? 20:22 <+MikkelPaulson> Vancouver Centre is one of our strongest, and includes downtown 20:22 <+JakeDaynes> VC is kinda small in comparison to other GVA ridings 20:22 <+MikkelPaulson> geographically small 20:22 <+JakeDaynes> yes, that is what I mean 20:22 <+MikkelPaulson> http://aliencollective.com/ridings.php?candidates=24033,48012,35062,35064,46008,59013,59029 20:22 <+DLS> MikkelPaulson: thanks :) 20:22 <+MikkelPaulson> that's where we presently have candidates and candidate applicants 20:22 <+MikkelPaulson> Vancouver Centre is the little one 20:23 <+MikkelPaulson> I believe Travis mentioned that he did have the funds available for the deposit and a contribution                      to his own campaign 20:23 <+MikkelPaulson> so money shouldn't be an issue in his case 20:24 <~Nuitari> if Travis is willing to listen a bit, I'm in support 20:25 <+Yggdrasil> looking at this I cant help saying that we have the same color as the liberal party... 20:25 <~Nuitari> our is darker 20:25 <@scshunt> Please try to stay on the topic of Travis' candidacy 20:26 <+Yggdrasil> heh when we get elected it wont show well on tv ;) 20:26 <+DLS> Yggdrasil: i like your attitude :) 20:26 <~Nuitari> Even if the campaign is soso, I would still let Travis run as we all have to learn 20:26 <~Nuitari> we're all mostly new in this game and inexperiences 20:26 <@scshunt> There are five minutes remaining in the discussion period 20:26 <+MikkelPaulson> I've said my piece, anyway 20:26 <+shep> TravisMcCrea, what is your campaign strategy? (e.g. flyering, radio ads, etc) 20:27 <+MikkelPaulson> I'd love to support him 20:27 <+MikkelPaulson> but I can't 20:27 * psema4 is in agreement with Nuitari, moves to proceed with the vote 20:27 <+DLS> Nuitari: i agree 20:27 <+shep> Is anyone else up for the same riding? 20:27 <+MikkelPaulson> no 20:27 <+DLS> esp since we won't have the max amount of candidates anyways 20:28 <+DLS> well if TravisMcCrea doesn't get to run in V-C will he be running elsewhere? 20:28 <+MikkelPaulson> no 20:28 <+MikkelPaulson> if he loses this vote, he won't be able to run again for 12 months 20:28 <+shep> Then I have to admit, Nuitari has a point. Unless we think TravisMcCrea will actually damage the party, we should give him (and anyone else) a shot. 20:29 <+BrandonM> *new guy here* what has he done that makes us question his candidacy? 20:29 <+Zblewski> He's new to Canada, technically 20:29 <+Zblewski> He just recieved citizenship, and doesn't have enough knowledge of how the system works 20:29 <+coldacid> how new? 20:29 <+Zblewski> so 20:30 <+BrandonM> oh ok 20:30 <+DLS> Zblewski: i'm sure you'll be able to help him out 20:30 <~Nuitari> coldacid: few months 20:30 <+MikkelPaulson> BrandonM: and he hasn't presented a terribly compelling platform in my opinion 20:30 <+Zblewski> It will take a long time, DLS 20:30 <+Zblewski> and possibly a class 20:30 <+Zblewski> The risk is 20:30 <+Zblewski> That if he runs 20:30 <+MikkelPaulson> again, here's TravisMcCrea's application thread 20:30 <+MikkelPaulson> https://www.pirateparty.ca/forum/index.php?topic=827.0 20:30 <+BrandonM> is his platform posted in the forums? 20:30 <+BrandonM> oh you got it up already 20:31 <+coldacid> that if he runs... ? 20:31 <+Zblewski> his lack of knowledge will mean other candidates will pounce on him thoroughly 20:31 <+DLS> that's going too far now 20:31 <+Zblewski> Thus creating a bad public relations issue 20:31 <+Zblewski> No 20:31 <+Zblewski> it's not 20:31 <+MikkelPaulson> if they notice him 20:31 <+DLS> i think any candidate will sell itself just by the formula 20:31 <+Zblewski> He won't be taken seriously 20:31 <+MikkelPaulson> which is of course the primary concern for all of is 20:31 <@scshunt> Ok, the time allotted for debate has expired; if no one moves for an extension, I will call the vote 20:31 <+MikkelPaulson> *us 20:32 <+coldacid> i move to extend 20:32 <+Zblewski> I second 20:32 <+DLS> i don't think candidates will need to do much as our simple presence will cause bubble 20:32 <+DLS> s 20:32 <+shep> Zblewski, so you're worried that if TravisMcCrea runs, it could hurt the party? 20:32 <@scshunt> coldacid: Indefinitely or for a specific time? 20:32 <+coldacid> another 5 minutes, i suppose 20:32 <+Zblewski> shep: in the greater Vancouver region, yes 20:32 <@scshunt> Ok; coldacid has moved that debate be extended for 5 minutes. Any objections? 20:32 <+Yggdrasil> I think Travis but it woudl be nice if he couls get a PR training 20:32 <+shep> Zblewski, fair enough. Who else feels this way? 20:33 <@scshunt> Seeing none, debate is extended 20:33 <+Zblewski> It's not a matter of PR training, he's effective that way 20:33 <+MikkelPaulson> chances are national attention will be on Ottawa where we have two prospective candidates, and on Edmonton where the leader is running 20:33 <+MikkelPaulson> yeah, as far as PR goes, Travis is one of the most experienced among us 20:33 <+Zblewski> Travis requires proper civics lessons 20:33 <+shep> MikkelPaulson, I hear that guy has a pretty spiffy hat. 20:33 <+Zblewski> that 20:33 <+Zblewski> is what he needs 20:33 <+Yggdrasil> As most canadians 20:33 <+MikkelPaulson> he does indeed 20:33 <+coldacid> do we have anyone else running in any of the other vancouver ridings, perhaps? 20:33 <+DLS> if he can do interviews he's good imo 20:33 <+MikkelPaulson> coldacid: not yet 20:33 <+MikkelPaulson> but it's not too late 20:33 <+MikkelPaulson> the Federal Council has the ability to approve candidates once the writ drops 20:34 <+coldacid> ah 20:34 <+MikkelPaulson> so we will be doing that for at least 4 candidates already 20:34 <+coldacid> that'll be only a day or so though 20:34 <+MikkelPaulson> yes 20:34 <+psema4> most likely 20:34 <+shep> DLS, I wish we had a video of TravisMcCrea speaking. 20:35 <+MikkelPaulson> he's fairly well-spoken 20:35 <+coldacid> but a nay vote for travis means he can't run at all for 12 months... does this also preclude him from being appointed by the council if nobody else runs out in vancouver? 20:35 <+DLS> i think the party should focus on ppl w/ good oral skills for this election and put the rest in a box for now 20:35 <+MikkelPaulson> coldacid: correct 20:35 <+MikkelPaulson> it renders him ineligible for this election 20:36 <+MikkelPaulson> besides, we wouldn't override the General Assembly, even if we could 20:36 <+coldacid> are any of the candidates-to-be-appointed in the vancouver area? 20:36 <+shep> But TravisMcCrea is the last person to be put through a vote like this, yes? Any other candidates will be             vetted by council? 20:36 <~Nuitari> coldacid: no, he's the only one 20:36 <~Nuitari> well 20:37 <~Nuitari> CraigNobbs is in Langley which is nearish 20:37 <+coldacid> i'm not that aware of bc geography, so i'd not have a clue how nearish that is 20:37 <+MikkelPaulson> it's a suburb 20:37 <+coldacid> ok 20:38 <+coldacid> there enough support from vancouver area members to give him a good crash course on the system, btw? 20:38 <+MikkelPaulson> Vancouver is one of our more active cities 20:38 <@scshunt> The extended time has been expired; is there any further motions? 20:38 <+txwikinger> another reason for having a candidate 20:39 <@scshunt> Seeing none, I will put this to a vote 20:39 <+Zblewski> I second the vote 20:40 <+DLS> sure, let's do this 20:42 -Stenobot:#canada- === VOTE ON MOTION THAT TRAVIS MCCREA BE ELECTED AS THE CANDIDATE FOR VANCOUVER CENTRE === 20:42 -Stenobot:#canada- === MOTION THAT TRAVIS MCCREA BE ELECTED AS THE CANDIDATE FOR VANCOUVER CENTRE PASSED === 20:43 <+shep> wow 20:43 <~Nuitari> wow 20:43 <+psema4> close 20:43 <~Nuitari> closest vote ever 20:43 <+JakeDaynes> Close 20:43 <+shep> wtg TravisMcCrea! 20:43 <+MikkelPaulson> not quite 20:43 <@scshunt> Hang on 20:43 <+MikkelPaulson> we had a motion that was deadlocked once 20:43 <+MikkelPaulson> so it failed 20:43 <@scshunt> Due to an issue with the vote bot, I was unable to cast my vote which I should have been able to as this was a vote by secret ballot 20:43 <+MikkelPaulson> I move unanimous consent that scshunt be able to record his vote 20:43 <+shep> oh snap! 20:43 <+JakeDaynes> agreed 20:43 <+Zblewski> I second 20:43 <+MikkelPaulson> (though now it won't be secret...) 20:44 <+AdamS> agreed 20:44 <+shep> agreed 20:44 <+coldacid> agreed 20:44 <@scshunt> I'm okay with it not being secret 20:44 <+Zblewski> Any objections? 20:44 <+psema4> :( 20:44 <@scshunt> Okay, seeing no objection, I will cast my vote , bringing the motion to 6-6-1                (though please don't record my vote in the minutes) 20:44 <+psema4> no, but it's a little akward 20:44 <+shep> btw, does this vote continue online for a time? or is this it? 20:44 <+MikkelPaulson> this is it 20:44 <+AdamS> and raises some other questions 20:45 <@scshunt> shep: No 20:45 <+MikkelPaulson> TravisMcCrea is also asking to vote 20:45 <+coldacid> can people vote on motions that involve them personally? 20:45 <+psema4> we need a contingency process for situations like this. 20:45 <+MikkelPaulson> yes 20:45 <+Zblewski> Yes, they can 20:45 <@scshunt> They are allowed to, though it is generally viewed as bad form 20:45 <+coldacid> hmm 20:46 <@scshunt> TravisMcCrea should sign in if he wishes to ask to record his vote 20:46 <+txwikinger> why? 20:46 <+shep> I motion that TravisMcCrea be able to record his vote. 20:46 <+shep> (did I do it right?) 20:46 <@scshunt> shep: yes 20:46 <~Nuitari> yes I agree he should be able to vote too 20:46 <+MikkelPaulson> he's at work and probably doesn't have his PIN 20:46 <+AdamS> agree 20:46 <+Zblewski> Agree 20:46 <+txwikinger> Agree 20:46 <+MikkelPaulson> but I have no problem with him recording a vote 20:46 <+DLS> seeing that there are more and more users in here, shouldn't the voting period gets extended? 20:46 <+coldacid> agree 20:46 <+DLS> maybe 2 mins? 20:46 <+MikkelPaulson> particularly since he won't have a chance to do so later 20:47 <@scshunt> Are there any objections to Travis McCrea recording a vote? 20:47 <+MikkelPaulson> let's just call a new vote 20:47 <+MikkelPaulson> scshunt: wait a minute 20:47 <+Zblewski> I motion an alternative to call a new vote 20:47 <+Zblewski> Let's be fair to everyone, give everyone a minute to settle 20:48 <+MikkelPaulson> scshunt: you should be able to vote now 20:48 <+MikkelPaulson> I reloaded the data 20:48 <+shep> this is all so exciting 20:48 <+DLS> indeed 20:49 <+MikkelPaulson> okay 20:49 <+Zblewski> So, back to my motion? 20:49 <+MikkelPaulson> Travis is authenticated, and scshunt can vote for himself 20:49 <+MikkelPaulson> shall we redo the motion? 20:49 <@scshunt> May I ask a short recess while I look up what is in order right now? 20:49 <+MikkelPaulson> sure 20:49 <+teamcoltra> lol your telling me 20:49 <+Zblewski> You may 20:49 <+MikkelPaulson> I so move 20:49 <+psema4> second 20:49 <+teamcoltra> also anyone who didn't see my updated thread should view it before voting 20:49 <@scshunt> any objections? 20:49 <+JakeDaynes> none 20:49 <+psema4> teamcoltra: url? 20:50 <@scshunt> Ok, the meeting stands recessed 20:50 <+DLS> ETA? 20:50 <+teamcoltra> the one linked before... I am on my cell 20:50 <+teamcoltra> sorry 20:50 <+psema4> k 20:51 <+DLS> mr Hunt, sir? 20:51 <+shep> https://www.pirateparty.ca/forum/index.php?topic=827.msg6214#msg6214 20:51 <+AdamS> could whatever lead to the initial vote problem cause problems to others withou us knowing? 20:51 <+Zblewski> It shouldn't 20:51 <+MikkelPaulson> no 20:51 <+Zblewski> It's because he's special status by StenoBot 20:51 <@scshunt> I would recommend reading paragraph 8 of http://rulesonline.com/rror-08.htm 20:52 <+MikkelPaulson> and I modified the source (while it was running, I'm that awesome) so that scshunt can now vote 20:52 <+AdamS> ok, just wanted to make sure 20:52 <+Zblewski> Since he's chairing, it caused an issue 20:52 <@scshunt> what Zblewski sais 20:52 <@scshunt> *said 20:52 <@scshunt> as chair, I don't normally vote except in secret votes 20:53 <+MikkelPaulson> "It is a general rule that no one can vote on a question in which he has a direct personal or                      pecuniary interest. Yet this does not prevent a member from voting for himself for any office or                       other position..." 20:53 <+MikkelPaulson> scshunt: all votes are secret 20:53 <+MikkelPaulson> except the informal voice votes 20:53 <+shep> I voted for hope and change. 20:54 <+MikkelPaulson> okay, I don't see anything in there about repeating a vote with procedural irregularities 20:54 <+MikkelPaulson> but it sounds reasonable to me 20:54 * txwikinger agrees 20:55 <+shep> I don't really see the point of a re-vote, unless someone wants to change their vote. 20:55 <+MikkelPaulson> teamcoltra didn't get the chance to vote on his own candidacy 20:55 <+MikkelPaulson> also, did anyone get a response from SB when they voted? 20:55 <+Zblewski> I did not 20:55 <+shep> I did not get a response from sb 20:55 <+JakeDaynes> not that I noticed 20:55 <+MikkelPaulson> neither did I 20:56 <+MikkelPaulson> I'll have to look into it 20:56 <+JakeDaynes> nope 20:56 <+AdamS> not me 20:56 <+txwikinger> no 20:56 <+MikkelPaulson> it recorded all votes properly, though 20:56 <+coldacid> i didn't 20:56 <+psema4> I got the clerks' messages 20:56 <+MikkelPaulson> that's the main thing 20:56 <~Nuitari> I did not get a response 20:57 <@scshunt> Ok, I'd like to deliver a ruling, as such, on the situation 20:57 <@scshunt> Since the result has been announced, changes to the votes may be made only by unanimous consent 20:58 <@scshunt> However, if it is desired to retake the vote, a member who voted for the motion may move its reconsideration 20:58 <@scshunt> So I declare the motion lost 20:58 <+MikkelPaulson> I voted for the motion, and I so move 20:58 <@scshunt> Is there a second? 20:58 <+psema4> second 20:58 <+JakeDaynes> seconded 20:59 -Stenobot:#canada- === MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE DECISION NOT TO ELECT TRAVIS MCCREA AS THE CANDIDATE FOR VANCOUVER CENTRE === 21:00 -Stenobot:#canada- MikkelPaulson now has the floor. 21:00 <+MikkelPaulson> I think the motion is self-explanatory 21:00 <~Nuitari> move to immediate vote 21:00 <+MikkelPaulson> due to procedural irregularities, it is reasonable to reconsider 21:00 <+MikkelPaulson> I therefore call the vote 21:00 -Stenobot:#canada- MikkelPaulson's speaking period has ended. 21:00 <@scshunt> Does anyone object to taking the vote on reconsideration immediately? 21:01 <@scshunt> Actually, does anyone object to the reconsideration of the earlier vote? 21:01 <+shep> I'm so confused. 21:01 <@scshunt> shep: What's up? 21:01 <+svulliez> I object to anything except re-doing the vote 21:01 <+shep> what motion was lost? 21:01 <@scshunt> shep: the motion to elect Travis McCrea 21:02 <+MikkelPaulson> I figured we'd just go for a unanimous voice vote on this 21:02 <+MikkelPaulson> don't need to make it formal 21:02 <@scshunt> I see no objections to the reconsideration 21:02 <+DLS> redo the vote 21:02 -Stenobot:#canada- Discussion on MikkelPaulson's motion to reconsider the decision not to elect Travis McCrea as                        the candidate for Vancouver Centre has concluded. 21:02 -!- DainRautenstrauch [Dain@69DBEAB5.B8B51FE7.613204B2.IP] has quit [Ping timeout] 21:02 -Stenobot:#canada- === MOTION THAT TRAVIS MCCREA BE ELECTED AS THE CANDIDATE FOR VANCOUVER CENTRE. === 21:02 -Stenobot:#canada- txwikinger now has the floor. 21:02 -Stenobot:#canada- txwikinger's speaking period has ended. 21:03 <@scshunt> Is there any debate? 21:03 <+MikkelPaulson> call the vote 21:03 <+DLS> i think we all know what's at stake 21:03 -scshunt:#canada- I am about to call the vote; please be ready as you will have only 45 seconds 21:03 <+txwikinger> just vote 21:03 -Stenobot:#canada- === VOTE ON MOTION THAT TRAVIS MCCREA BE ELECTED AS THE CANDIDATE FOR VANCOUVER CENTRE. === 21:04 -Stenobot:#canada- === MOTION THAT TRAVIS MCCREA BE ELECTED AS THE CANDIDATE FOR VANCOUVER CENTRE. PASSED === 21:04 <+shep> wow 21:04 <@scshunt> The motion carries 21:04 <+shep> (again) 21:05 <+shep> well that was fun. 21:05 <+MikkelPaulson> BTW under the constitution candidates require approval of a 2/3 majority 21:05 <@scshunt> Actually, it would not have carried the first time 21:05 <+MikkelPaulson> which he got this time 21:06 <@scshunt> yeah 21:06 <+teamcoltra> thanks for your confidence guys I won't let you down 21:06 <+svulliez> you better start attending meetings travis :P 21:06 <+DLS> so that was pointless 21:06 <+shep> I meant "wow, again". Not "carries, again". 21:06 <+shep> Though I see why it looked like that. 21:06 <@scshunt> DLS: No, it wasn't pointless, it changed the result 21:06 <+shep> teamcoltra, congrats! 21:06 <+DLS> unt> Actually, it would not have carried the first time 21:06 <@scshunt> Now, let's get back to the agenda 21:07 <+MikkelPaulson> we have 4 more candidates who will be considered by the Federal Council 21:07 <+MikkelPaulson> three of whom are here tonight 21:07 <+MikkelPaulson> Nuitari, Zblewski, and trailblazer11 21:07 <+MikkelPaulson> the General Assembly can't vote on their candidacy 21:07 <+teamcoltra> thanks 21:07 <+teamcoltra> back to work though I will keep observing 21:07 <@scshunt> Before we get to that, PirateFox would like to ask for permission to speak in the debates 21:07 <+MikkelPaulson> but I wouldn't mind having a discussion session 21:07 <+MikkelPaulson> no objection 21:07 <@scshunt> Is there any objection? 21:07 <+JakeDaynes> no objection 21:07 <+psema4> none here 21:07 <+txwikinger> no objection 21:08 <@scshunt> Do we have a motion? 21:09 <+MikkelPaulson> how would you like to deal with a discussion session with candidates? 21:09 <@scshunt> I don't have any issue with that 21:09 <+MikkelPaulson> I also don't want to take up too much time 21:09 <@scshunt> Is there a motion for that? 21:09 <+MikkelPaulson> one at a time, or all at once? 21:10 <+MikkelPaulson> one at a time is probably better 21:10 <@scshunt> The agenda has motions to informally approve of the candidates 21:11 <+MikkelPaulson> ultimately the authority rests with the Federal Council due to short timing, but some semblance of democracy is nice 21:11 <@scshunt> Do we have a motion from anyone? 21:11 <+MikkelPaulson> okay 21:11 <+coldacid> i'd like to ask a question and perhaps propose something 21:11 <+coldacid> based on the answer i get 21:12 <+MikkelPaulson> shoot 21:12 <+coldacid> are there any plans to check in with party members in our larger ridings to see if any of them would be suitable to serve as candidates in teh upcoming general election? 21:12 <+coldacid> like, call or email members in ridings with at least 5-10 members? 21:13 <+MikkelPaulson> we've been sending out reminders in our newsletters for some time now 21:13 <+coldacid> hmm 21:13 <+MikkelPaulson> I think we have all of the candidates that we can expect 21:13 <+txwikinger> We surely should be a condidate in Waterloo Region! 21:13 <+MikkelPaulson> too many would also be taxing to our resources 21:13 <+MikkelPaulson> and yet we don't 21:13 <+coldacid> doesn't look like anyone here in the gta either 21:13 <+psema4> Not sure if this is right but I haven't seen a newsletter since Jan 21:14 <+MikkelPaulson> no we haven't been sending them out regularly 21:14 <+MikkelPaulson> we certainly will in April 21:14 <+MikkelPaulson> or when the writ drops 21:14 <+psema4> sounds good 21:14 <+MikkelPaulson> can we move along? I don't want to be here all night 21:14 <+MikkelPaulson> and we still have the platform to vote on 21:14 <+MikkelPaulson> actually maybe we should consider that first 21:14 <+MikkelPaulson> since we do have to go through that today 21:15 <+coldacid> sounds good 21:15 <+MikkelPaulson> I move that section 1 of the platform be adopted as recorded at                      http://wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php?title=Platform&oldid=3094 21:15 <@scshunt> Separate motions for each secion? 21:16 <+MikkelPaulson> yes 21:16 <@scshunt> that's rather unorthodox 21:16 <+MikkelPaulson> I guess we can lump it together 21:16 <@scshunt> I would expect paragraph-by-paragraph consideration, but it is normal to do the final vote all at once 21:16 <+MikkelPaulson> since this goes to telephone vote, it seems reasonable to approve it point-by-point 21:17 <+coldacid> i second 21:17 <+DLS> moving on? 21:17 <+MikkelPaulson> gradually 21:18 <@scshunt> come on stenobot... 21:18 <+MikkelPaulson> scshunt: what's the ruling? 21:18 -Stenobot:#canada- === MOTION THAT SECTION 1 OF THE PLATFORM BE ADOPTED AS RECORDED AT                        HTTP://WIKI.PIRATEPARTY.CA/INDEX.PHP?TITLE=PLATFORM&OLDID=3094 === 21:18 -Stenobot:#canada- MikkelPaulson now has the floor. 21:18 <+MikkelPaulson> okay, thank you 21:19 <@scshunt> <-- my fault for the delay 21:19 <+MikkelPaulson> the Federal Council has been writing the platform as directed a while back 21:19 <+MikkelPaulson> all sections were approved unanimously earlier today 21:19 <+MikkelPaulson> section 1 is fairly self-explanatory, so I'll cede the floor now 21:19 -Stenobot:#canada- MikkelPaulson's speaking period has ended. 21:19 <+psema4> I don't understand 1.3 21:19 <+txwikinger> I think there is an important point missing inpara 1 21:20 <+psema4> authors already have the ability to explicitly dedicate to the public domain 21:20 <+coldacid> i'm a bit concerned about 1.4 21:20 <+MikkelPaulson> not in Canada 21:20 <+psema4> ? 21:20 -scshunt:#canada- Do to the form of the motion, amendments will have to be moved by amending the URL. I                       would recommend collaborating on the document and then moving a single amendment 21:20 <+MikkelPaulson> the best you can do is to give an unlimited license 21:20 <+DLS> http://wiki.pirateparty.ca/INDEX.PHP?TITLE=PLATFORM&OLDID=3094 = 404 21:20 <+txwikinger> There should also be no statutory damages for non-commercial sharing 21:20 <+MikkelPaulson> but you can't revoke copyright without dying and allowing 50 years to pass 21:20 <+MikkelPaulson> DLS: it's case-sensitive 21:20 <+MikkelPaulson> http://wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php?title=Platform&oldid=3094 21:21 <+DLS> thanks 21:21 <+txwikinger> Otherwise civil suits can be as punitive as criminal ones (1.2) 21:21 <+txwikinger> Only real damages should ever be allowed 21:22 <+shep> txwikinger, good point 21:22 <+coldacid> agreed 21:22 <+MikkelPaulson> okay 21:22 <+MikkelPaulson> move an amendment? 21:23 <+txwikinger> I move to ammend para 1 to disallow statutory damages for non-commercial sharing 21:23 <+coldacid> seconded 21:23 <+txwikinger> and only allow real damages in civil proceedings 21:23 -scshunt:#canada- The motion does not have any actual platform content; amendments will have to be made by updating the URL in the motion 21:24 -scshunt:#canada- so this amendment is out of order 21:24 <+cshen> isn't it better to have the actual texts in the original motions rather than linking to it? 21:24 <@scshunt> Probably 21:24 <+MikkelPaulson> okay 21:24 <+MikkelPaulson> http://wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php?title=Platform&oldid=3096 21:24 <+MikkelPaulson> use that URL for the amendment 21:25 <+coldacid> cshen: when its an entire page? 21:25 <+cshen> it's being approved line by line isn't it? 21:25 <@scshunt> coldacid: I would not put the entire motion here 21:25 <@scshunt> cshen: Section-by-section 21:25 <+MikkelPaulson> if it were line-by-line we'd be here until tomorrow :P 21:25 <@scshunt> Actually, coldacid's point is a valid one; I'll just consider section one to be the text of the motion 21:25 <+cshen> i guess it's okay if the wiki's protected from random edits 21:26 <@scshunt> cshen: they're permalinked 21:26 <+cshen> oh okay 21:26 <+MikkelPaulson> I also protected the page 21:26 <@scshunt> are there any objections to amending section 1 to read as                http://wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php?title=Platform&oldid=3096? 21:27 <+svulliez> no 21:27 <+cshen> it looks good 21:27 <+txwikinger> no 21:27 <@scshunt> Ok, it is amended to read as linked 21:27 <@scshunt> Is there further debate? 21:27 <+coldacid> yeah 21:28 <+coldacid> on the issue of 1.4, i don't see why we need to eliminate crown copyright. my understanding has been that it can serve its purpose well, but that anything covered under it should be made freely available to citizens and residents of canada 21:28 <+txwikinger> .me agrees with coldacid 21:28 * txwikinger agrees with coldacid 21:28 <+cshen> what is the purpose? 21:28 <+sidek> I do not see any need to eliminate crown copyright either 21:29 <+coldacid> something like CC BY-NC-ND would be better 21:29 <+MikkelPaulson> what's the need to control it? 21:29 <+svulliez> Someone has suggested in the forums CC BY 3.0 21:29 <+MikkelPaulson> I paid for it 21:29 <+MikkelPaulson> I should be able to do whatever I want with it 21:29 <+psema4> I'm cshen - what's the purpose of Crown Copyright besides control? 21:29 <+coldacid> it's not so much control but protection 21:29 <+MikkelPaulson> what's the benefit to requiring attribution? 21:29 <+txwikinger> Well..you do not want people be able to change documents and claim they are official 21:30 <+MikkelPaulson> protection from what? 21:30 <+MikkelPaulson> people can change documents and claim they're official now 21:30 <+coldacid> just as txwikinger pointed out, he said better than me 21:30 <+txwikinger> Not under crown copyright 21:31 <+coldacid> stronger remedies with crown copyright for people who try that than without 21:31 <+MikkelPaulson> well such a claim would need to be verified in any case 21:31 <@scshunt> I would like to add what I see as an important point of information: Crown copyright is used in                Alberta to carefully control the dissemination of its standardized provincial high school exams. 21:31 <+sidek> Yes. 21:31 <+coldacid> hmm, i wasn't even aware of that, good point 21:31 <+cshen> i'd say it's beneficial to disseminate standardized exams 21:32 <+svulliez> I think that creative commons'ing crown copyright stuff might be a middleground? 21:32 <+cshen> they shouldn't be re-using questions in the first place 21:32 <+MikkelPaulson> the US doesn't have any government copyright at all 21:32 <+MikkelPaulson> and it works very well 21:32 <+sidek> Among other reasons for crown copyright, it does protect information like that 21:32 <+MikkelPaulson> if you look up CF equipment on Wikipedia, 90% of the photos are American photos of Canadian hardware from joint ops 21:32 <+sidek> It also lets governmental organizations generate money, which lowers the burden on taxpayers sometimes 21:33 <+sidek> While crown copyright might be overused, its outright elimination would inconvenience many 21:33 <+MikkelPaulson> the only case I can think of where governmental organizations actually sell the material they produce is Stats Canada 21:33 <+MikkelPaulson> mostly it's just out there and inaccessible for no reason 21:33 <+shep> the problem with crown copyright is that it is abused, used to restrict information from the public when it is politically beneficial to do so 21:33 <+coldacid> provincial fishing guides 21:34 <+psema4> CF-18 replacement requirements (although whether that was crown or US copyright I'm not sure) 21:34 <+svulliez> We could tackle the problem directly 21:34 <+shep> and why does crown copyright need to last 50 years? 21:34 <+svulliez> "copyright should not be used to withhold information" 21:34 <+cshen> government information should be freely disseminated as much as possible 21:35 <+cshen> svulliez: isn't that the whole point of copyright? 21:35 <+sidek> MikkelPaulson: would you consider Radio-Canada or CBC government organizations? 21:35 * txwikinger agrees with  free dissemination 21:35 <+sidek> If so, they sell stuff 21:35 <+coldacid> free dissemination is what's needed, we don't need to kill crown copyright for that 21:36 <+cshen> crown corporations can use regular copyright rather than crown copyright 21:36 <+sidek> Though one might consider them independent organizations that receive funding from the government... 21:36 <+MikkelPaulson> good question 21:36 <+MikkelPaulson> honestly I'm not sure 21:36 <+sidek> alright, so crown corporations, under our charter, could still copyright? 21:36 <+svulliez> Crown copyright is turning out to be a prickly pear 21:36 <+MikkelPaulson> indeed 21:37 <+cshen> I don't see a good reason to keep it that wouldn't be better solved by other means 21:37 <+sidek> if so, then I don't object to much, as long as the crown still had a method to control information that needed to be controlled (Alberta standardized exam) 21:37 <+sidek> needs to be controlled might be better phrasing... 21:37 <+coldacid> hmm 21:38 <+cshen> there's no need to control standardized exams (but i guess that's off topic) 21:38 <+svulliez> three things need to be addressed- 1. copyright shouldn't be used to withhold otherwise unavailable information from the public 2. 50 years is an absurdly long time 3. government information needs to                 be widely available 21:38 <+sidek> Also, if crown corporations can copyright, then you always run into, say, StatsCan spinning off Stats-Can-Corp to continue to copyright.... or the Army spinning off Army-photograph-ops-corp to              copyright 21:38 <+svulliez> abolishing crown copyright hits all three of the targets 21:38 <+AdamS> perhaps reforming crown copyright would be a better position? 21:39 <+coldacid> svulliez' points 1 & 3 would fall under open government/access 21:39 <+DLS> yes, reform 21:39 <+DLS> 10 years? 21:39 <+coldacid> which is where the issue of crown copyright should be anyway 21:39 <+coldacid> 10 years, with possibility of renewal for so many 10 year periods, with filing fee 21:39 * txwikinger agrees with Crown Copyright needs to be reformed toallow free access and distribution for all citizens 21:39 <@scshunt> I unfortunately have to say that I have some pressing personal issues and so I'll have to take my                leave of this meeting 21:39 <@scshunt> I'm sorry 21:39 <+DLS> and not after the artist's death 21:39 <+MikkelPaulson> I don't know if crown copyright is necessarily separate from normal copyright 21:40 <+DLS> coldacid: up to max 50 years? :) 21:40 <+coldacid> yeah 21:40 <+MikkelPaulson> if it's subject to the Berne Convention, then our options would be to eliminate it or leave                      it as-is 21:40 <+svulliez> its not 21:40 <+svulliez> its seperate 21:40 <+coldacid> make the filing fee sliding so the more renewals, the higher cost 21:40 <+svulliez> it's 50 years from creation 21:40 <+svulliez> not death+50 21:40 -Stenobot:#canada- New chair: MikkelPaulson. 21:40 <+coldacid> it's death+50 for individuals i believe 21:40 <+svulliez> Yes. 21:40 <+trailblazer11> yeah 21:40 <+txwikinger> well.. the crown does not die .. it is like corporation 21:40 <+cshen> i'm fine with reform 21:41 <+cshen> didn't think crown copyright would be so controvertial 21:41 <+coldacid> crown copyright is pretty much Copyright Act s12 according to wikipedia 21:42 <+txwikinger> Is the crown copyright here the same as the UK? 21:42 <@MikkelPaulson> I believe so 21:42 <+coldacid> close enough 21:43 <+txwikinger> http://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/ccl/aboutCrownCopyright.html 21:43 <+DLS> isn't there a timer running or something? 21:44 <@MikkelPaulson> oh, I'm Chair now apparently 21:44 <+coldacid> heh 21:44 <+DLS> and you said you didn't wanted to be here all night 21:44 <@MikkelPaulson> and I was doing phone canvassing too 21:44 <+DLS> which i second :) 21:44 <@MikkelPaulson> indeed not 21:44 <@MikkelPaulson> okay are we amending the crown copyright point? 21:45 <+DLS> ya 21:45 <+svulliez> I move that we replace "Eliminate crown copyright" with "Reduce crown copyright terms to 10 years"                 and add something along the lines of making it unlawful to use copyright to withhold government                  information from the public 21:45  * psema4 moves that we change point 1.4 to read "Reform crown copyright" 21:45 <+psema4> lol 21:45 <+sidek> ^ 21:45 <+svulliez> to the open government section 21:45 <+coldacid> i second psema4 21:45 <+sidek> I second psema4 21:45 <@MikkelPaulson> okay 21:45 <@MikkelPaulson> any opposed? 21:45 <+svulliez> I think it's vague, but it will do 21:46 <+txwikinger> no 21:46 <+AdamS> which are we agreeing to or opposing? 21:46 <+coldacid> it's okay for platforms to be vague, the devil's in the details after all 21:46 <+txwikinger> psema4 21:46 <+AdamS> agree with psema4 21:46 <@MikkelPaulson> amending the crown copyright point to read reform rather than eliminate 21:46 <+cshen> shall we vote? 21:46 <@MikkelPaulson> from the voice vote it sounds like it passed 21:46 <@MikkelPaulson> do you want to do a formal vote? 21:46 <+svulliez> wait- I object 21:46 <+cshen> no that's fine 21:47 <+svulliez> I think we should add something to it 21:47 <@MikkelPaulson> what? 21:47 <+svulliez> we should say what the intent of the reform is 21:47 <+AdamS> that would tie our hands if something can't work 21:47 <+AdamS> leaving it somewaht vague gives us some freedom of movement 21:47 <+cshen> it's probably good to leave it vague for now 21:47 <@MikkelPaulson> I don't have a problem with it as-is 21:47 <+DLS> svulliez: isn't that for the candidates to explain? 21:47 <+svulliez> crown copyright reform could mean making terms 5000 000 years 21:47 <@MikkelPaulson> shall I make a formal amendment of it? 21:48 <+DLS> MikkelPaulson: yes 21:48 <+txwikinger> reform to ensure free assessibilty to everyone 21:48 <+svulliez> The other instances in which we use the word "reform" 21:48 -Stenobot:#canada- ====== MOTION THAT POINT 1.4 BE AMENDED TO READ "REFORM CROWN COPYRIGHT" ======= 21:48 -Stenobot:#canada- psema4 now has the floor. 21:48 <+svulliez> we explicitly state the purpose of the reform 21:48 <+svulliez> this is a good thing. 21:48 <+svulliez> txwikinger's on the right track 21:49 <@MikkelPaulson> psema4: did you want to introduce? 21:49 <+AdamS> perhaps greater accessibility to everyone 21:49 <+DLS> what we're saying is that technology is getting in the way of culture and we need to decide if we want to            live in a world of culture or of outdated laws 21:50 <+svulliez> he said "Reform Crown Copyright" 21:50 <+psema4> I don't have any particular comments 21:50 <@MikkelPaulson> okay, I'll take that as a no 21:50 -Stenobot:#canada- psema4's speaking period has ended. 21:50 <+cshen> how about to facilitate open access? 21:50 <+coldacid> i move that the amendment be further amended to read "Reform crown copyright to prevent its use to                 deny government materials to residents of Canada" 21:50 <+psema4> I think it's an important topic that we need to investigate further 21:50 <+svulliez> bingo 21:50 <+psema4> coldacid: nice. 21:51 <+AdamS> I like cshen 21:51 <+AdamS> 's 21:51 <+txwikinger> coldacid: that does not prevent charging for it 21:51 <+coldacid> hmm 21:51 <@MikkelPaulson> too specific IMO 21:51 <+DLS> open and free for non-commercial usage access? 21:51 <@MikkelPaulson> there are other issues with crown copyright 21:52 <+shep> I think we need to abolish crown copyright. 21:52 <+cshen> sounds like this needs further discussion, leave it vague for now and amend it later? 21:52 <+svulliez> That's a pretty big one 21:52 <+svulliez> we all agree it's about access 21:52 <+txwikinger> leave it to just reform because we can not solve all of it now 21:52 <+svulliez> so lets make it vague and about access 21:52 <+coldacid> alright 21:52 <+coldacid> i withdraw my motion 21:52 <+DLS> sounds like a plan :) 21:52 <+svulliez> reform crown copyright to ensure open access to canadians 21:52 <+cshen> second 21:52 <@MikkelPaulson> shall we put the psema4's motion to a vote? 21:52 <+txwikinger> svulliez: that sounds good 21:52 <@MikkelPaulson> okay 21:53 <@MikkelPaulson> any objection to so amending the motion? 21:53 <+txwikinger> no 21:53 <+svulliez> heck of a prickly pear, that one 21:53 <+svulliez> glad we wrassled that nitty gritty a bit 21:53 <+svulliez> I love politics 21:53 <+cshen> lol 21:54 <+psema4> gives me an upset tummy :P 21:54 <+coldacid> that's what makes it fun, for sure 21:54 <+coldacid> speaking of tummies im getting somewhat nippish 21:54 -Stenobot:#canada- === MOTION THAT POINT 1.4 BE AMENDED TO READ "REFORM CROWN COPYRIGHT" AMENDED ==== 21:54 <@MikkelPaulson> ready for the vote? 21:54 <+DLS> ya 21:54 <+coldacid> yep 21:54 <+psema4> sure 21:54 <+Zblewski> indeed 21:55 <+txwikinger> sure 21:55 <@MikkelPaulson> okay 21:55 -Stenobot:#canada- === VOTE ON MOTION THAT POINT 1.4 BE AMENDED TO READ "REFORM CROWN COPYRIGHT TO ENSURE                        OPEN ACCESS TO CANADIANS" === 21:55 -Stenobot:#canada- === MOTION THAT POINT 1.4 BE AMENDED TO READ "REFORM CROWN COPYRIGHT TO ENSURE OPEN                        ACCESS TO CANADIANS" PASSED === 21:56 -Stenobot:#canada- === MOTION THAT SECTION 1 OF THE PLATFORM BE ADOPTED AS RECORDED AT                        HTTP://WIKI.PIRATEPARTY.CA/INDEX.PHP?TITLE=PLATFORM&OLDID=3094 AMENDED === 21:56 <@MikkelPaulson> okay, any further discussion or amendments? 21:56 <+cshen> no this is good 21:56 <+psema4> agreed 21:57 <@MikkelPaulson> call the vote? 21:57 <+cshen> call the vote 21:57 <+coldacid> yeah 21:57 <+txwikinger> yes 21:57 -Stenobot:#canada- === VOTE ON MOTION THAT THE PLATFORM BE ADOPTED AS RECORDED AT                        HTTP://WIKI.PIRATEPARTY.CA/INDEX.PHP?TITLE=PLATFORM&OLDID=3098 === 21:57 -Stenobot:#canada- === MOTION THAT THE PLATFORM BE ADOPTED AS RECORDED AT                        HTTP://WIKI.PIRATEPARTY.CA/INDEX.PHP?TITLE=PLATFORM&OLDID=3098 PASSED === 21:58 <@MikkelPaulson> okay then 21:58 <+psema4> May I move for a short 10 minute recess? 21:58 <@MikkelPaulson> sure 21:58 <+coldacid> i'd be up for the recess too 21:58 <+AdamS> second 21:58 <@MikkelPaulson> opposed? 21:59 <@MikkelPaulson> the assembly stands recessed 21:59 <@MikkelPaulson> trying to do phone canvassing at the same time is a challenge 21:59 <+trailblazer11> for your district? 21:59 <@MikkelPaulson> yeah 21:59 <@MikkelPaulson> well, I'm calling the Edmonton members 22:00 <@MikkelPaulson> trying to get them out for the campaign meeting on Sunday 22:00 <+trailblazer11> ic 22:00 <+cshen> is there a candidate for burnaby-douglas? 22:00 <@Zblewski> Nope. 22:00 <@Zblewski> Hiya! 22:00 <+cshen> i don't remember how the federal election works 22:00 <+cshen> we can only vote for parties that have candidates in our riding right? 22:01 <+sidek> ^ 22:01 <+sidek> we can 22:01 <@Zblewski> You can only vote for a candidate in your riding 22:01 <+sidek> gah, the use of ^ was so unclear 22:01 <@Zblewski> You don't explicitly vote for a party 22:01 <+cshen> ah yes 22:02 <+cshen> and we need 2% overall to get federal funding or some such? 22:02 <+txwikinger> or 5% in one riding 22:02 <+MikkelPaulson> 3% nationwide or 5% in the ridings in which we run candidates 22:02 <+cshen> ah i see 22:02 <+cshen> thanks for clarifying that 22:02 <+txwikinger> oh right the ridings you run 22:03 <+cshen> i gtg soon, can we vote on the platform online later? 22:04 <@Zblewski> Sorry, we're doing it here 22:04 <+cshen> ah okay, i'll try to stay as long as possible 22:04 <@Zblewski> It's a matter of speed 22:05 <+MikkelPaulson> cshen: yes, it'll go to phone/web vote 22:05 <@Zblewski> Waitwhat 22:05 <+cshen> oh? 22:05 <+MikkelPaulson> no? 22:05 <+svulliez> gotta go, keep it good, boys 22:07 <+psema4> what time's the vote of non confidence tomorrow? 22:08 <+txwikinger> no idea 22:09 <+cshen> oh i have another question 22:09 <@Zblewski> The meeting will resume in about a minute 22:09 <@Zblewski> Sure thing 22:09 <+cshen> when i joined i chose the one time membership fee 22:09 <+cshen> how do i change that to automatic recurring? 22:09 <+MikkelPaulson> email nuitari@pirateparty.ca 22:09 <+cshen> okay, thanks! 22:10 <@Zblewski> Okay 22:10 <@Zblewski> I think we can continue 22:10 <@Zblewski> so, first off 22:10 <@Zblewski> I'd like to request unanimous consent 22:11 <@Zblewski> There was a typo in the previous motion, it should have read "approve Section 1 of the platform" 22:11 <@Zblewski> But "Section 1 of" was ommitted by accident 22:11 <+MikkelPaulson> :$ 22:11 <@Zblewski> do I have unanimous consent? 22:11 <+cshen> yes 22:11 <@Zblewski> (to amend) 22:11 <+txwikinger> yes 22:11 <+coldacid> yea 22:12 <@Zblewski> Any oppose? 22:12 <@Zblewski> Carried. 22:12 -Stenobot:#canada- ============ MOTION THAT SECTION 2 OF THE PLATFORM BE ADOPTED ============= 22:12 -Stenobot:#canada- Zblewski now has the floor. 22:13 <@Zblewski> The section deals with Patents, and is straightforward 22:13 <@Zblewski> We wanted a short term length, and wanted to oppose gene-based patents 22:13 <+trailblazer11> I guess gene based cover foods 22:13 <@Zblewski> in addition to Software and business models 22:14 <+trailblazer11> looks good 22:14 <+MikkelPaulson> http://wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php?title=Platform&oldid=3098 22:14 <+MikkelPaulson> Zblewski: don't forget to use permalinks 22:14 <+cshen> for section 3, does that mean results of ALL medical trials 22:14 <+cshen> or all PUBLIC medical trials funded by the aforementioned funds? 22:14 <+MikkelPaulson> all public 22:14 <+MikkelPaulson> good catch 22:15 <+coldacid> how does patent reform lead to saved health care funds? 22:15 <+txwikinger> 5 year term means only one 5 year term, or two 5 year terms? 22:15 <+MikkelPaulson> only one 22:15 <+psema4> option for renewal? 22:15 <+MikkelPaulson> no 22:15 <+coldacid> also, are there any treaty obligations wrt patents that would cause problems with such a                 reduction in term length? 22:15 <+JakeDaynes> coldacid - generic drugs cost less than name brand ones, meaning that current-tech pharmacuticals would be available to hospitals for less, sooner 22:16 <+coldacid> ah 22:16 <@Zblewski> Time is almost up for introduction. 22:16 <+trailblazer11> you think they would have recoup their cost in 5 years? 22:16 <+MikkelPaulson> it's not about recouping cost, it's about protecting products during development 22:16 -Stenobot:#canada- Zblewski's speaking period has ended. 22:16 <+trailblazer11> you are right 22:17 <+MikkelPaulson> once a product is on the market, it's fair game IMO 22:17 <+coldacid> i saw something in passing on reddit recently where it said something about the costs to                 develop drugs being perhaps 10% of what the pharma companies claim 22:17 <+coldacid> if not less 22:17 <+MikkelPaulson> an Australian study last year found that pharma patents cost its health care system over $1 billion annually 22:17 <+cshen> coldacid: kinda like bandwith! 22:17 <+coldacid> cshen: yeah, pretty much 22:17 <+txwikinger> most of the costs are in the approval process 22:17 <+cshen> :P 22:18 <+MikkelPaulson> except for bandwidth it's more like 2% 22:18 <+psema4> coldacid: wrt treaty obligations - I'm sure there would be some hefty hurdles 22:18 <+JakeDaynes> look at it this way - a $15000 cell bill for data actually costs a nationwide carrier about 40 cents 22:18 <+coldacid> yeah, with bandwidth it's more like per mille or ppm, than percent 22:18 <+cshen> should we amend the medical trial part? 22:19 <+MikkelPaulson> I have no objection to doing so 22:19 <+coldacid> no, i like it 22:19 <+AdamS> I think so 22:19 <+coldacid> i was just curious 22:19 <+txwikinger> I am not so sure with treaties.. IIRC patents are for each jurisdiction seperately 22:19 <@Zblewski> I'm against changing it 22:19 <@Zblewski> just as a Diabetic 22:19 <+MikkelPaulson> txwikinger: I believe that's correct 22:19 <+coldacid> if there's any amendment to that point, it should maybe be that the wording about trials be                 clarified and moved to its own point 22:20 <+MikkelPaulson> of course, producing a product that's legal in Canada but protected by patent in the US wouldn't be very profitable 22:20 <+coldacid> other than that, i think the entire section is great as-is 22:20 <+psema4> txwikinger: there's a trend towards including IP legislation in trade agreements lately - ACTA, CETA, TPP, etc 22:20 <+cshen> i was thinking "...public pharmaceutical research, the results of which to be made publicly              available." 22:20 <+MikkelPaulson> cshen: would you like to make a motion of the amendment? 22:20 <+cshen> which'll cover not only medical trials 22:20 <+coldacid> if there's any issues with patent length, perhaps there should be allowance for patent renewals, but keep to 5 years without such renewal 22:20 <+cshen> but also other research 22:21 * txwikinger has not issues with the time limit 22:21 <+coldacid> i'll move what cshen's suggesting if he doesn't 22:21 <+AdamS> the way the patent line reads could be interpreted that way anyways 22:21 <+AdamS> second 22:21 <+cshen> just a little better wording 22:22 <+coldacid> indeed, that's all it needs -- just a bit of clarification 22:22 <@Zblewski> Do you have a wording? 22:22 <+cshen> see above 22:22 <+psema4> needs a correction - missing the word are ... "which are to be made..." 22:22 <+cshen> ah yes 22:22 -Stenobot:#canada- === MOTION THAT THE MOTION BE AMENDED TO "...PUBLIC PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH, THE RESULTS                        OF WHICH ARE TO BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE." === 22:22 -Stenobot:#canada- coldacid now has the floor. 22:23 <+coldacid> i think it speaks for itself, i have nothing to add 22:23 <@Zblewski> Anyone wish to call it? 22:23 <+cshen> let's vote 22:23 * txwikinger call for the vote 22:23 -Stenobot:#canada- coldacid's speaking period has ended. 22:23 <+MikkelPaulson> don't forget to end the speaking period 22:23 <+MikkelPaulson> ;) 22:24 -Stenobot:#canada- === VOTE ON MOTION THAT THE MOTION BE AMENDED TO "...PUBLIC PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH, THE                        RESULTS OF WHICH ARE TO BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE." === 22:24 -Stenobot:#canada- === MOTION THAT THE MOTION BE AMENDED TO "...PUBLIC PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH, THE RESULTS                         OF WHICH ARE TO BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE." PASSED === 22:25 <@Zblewski> Just a sidenote to MikkelPaulson that I had the same issue as Sean when voting 22:25 <+MikkelPaulson> as did I 22:25 <+MikkelPaulson> I'll look into it 22:26 <+MikkelPaulson> should be fixed now 22:26 <+MikkelPaulson> used require_once instead of require 22:27 -Stenobot:#canada- ========= MOTION THAT SECTION 2 OF THE PLATFORM BE ADOPTED AMENDED ========== 22:27 <@Zblewski> Sorry about that. 22:28 <@Zblewski> So, are we happy with the section as it stands? 22:28 <+txwikinger> yes 22:28 <+psema4> yes 22:28 <+MikkelPaulson> call the vote 22:28 <+coldacid> let's vote 22:28 -Stenobot:#canada- === VOTE ON MOTION THAT SECTION 2 OF THE PLATFORM BE ADOPTED AS SHOWN IN                        HTTP://WIKI.PIRATEPARTY.CA/INDEX.PHP?TITLE=PLATFORM&OLDID=3099 === 22:29 -Stenobot:#canada- === MOTION THAT SECTION 2 OF THE PLATFORM BE ADOPTED AS SHOWN IN                        HTTP://WIKI.PIRATEPARTY.CA/INDEX.PHP?TITLE=PLATFORM&OLDID=3099 PASSED === 22:30 <+MikkelPaulson> I move that section 3 of the platform be adopted as shown at                      http://wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php?title=Platform&oldid=3099 22:30 <+coldacid> second 22:30 -Stenobot:#canada- === MOTION THAT SECTION 3 OF THE PLATFORM BE ADOPTED AS SHOWN IN                        HTTP://WIKI.PIRATEPARTY.CA/INDEX.PHP?TITLE=PLATFORM&OLDID=3099 === 22:30 -Stenobot:#canada- Zblewski now has the floor. 22:30 <+MikkelPaulson> I moved that :P 22:30 <@Zblewski> Sorry about stealing your thunder =P 22:30 <@Zblewski> Go on 22:30 <+MikkelPaulson> I'll forgive you 22:31 <+MikkelPaulson> I think it's pretty self-explanatory 22:31 <+MikkelPaulson> I don't really feel the need to introduce any of them 22:32 <@Zblewski> Section 3 I had little issue with through the entire process 22:32 * txwikinger is happy with section 3 22:33 <@Zblewski> And the Privacy Commissioner has been asking for more power to act 22:33 * txwikinger calls for vote 22:33 <+psema4> I have one issue in 3.3 - "your right to personal privacy" sounds a bit odd; how about "every citizen's right to" 22:33 <+MikkelPaulson> second 22:33 <+cshen> or "the right"? 22:34 <+MikkelPaulson> I don't think we need to adopt verbatim 22:34 <+MikkelPaulson> as long as the meaning is right 22:34 <+psema4> in principle I agree 22:34 <+cshen> okay shall we vote? 22:34 <@Zblewski> Psema4, we'll fix it. 22:34 <+psema4> cool 22:34 -Stenobot:#canada- === VOTE ON MOTION THAT SECTION 3 OF THE PLATFORM BE ADOPTED AS SHOWN IN                        HTTP://WIKI.PIRATEPARTY.CA/INDEX.PHP?TITLE=PLATFORM&OLDID=3099 === 22:34 <+coldacid> it'll be vernacularized when explained to people anyway 22:35 -Stenobot:#canada- === MOTION THAT SECTION 3 OF THE PLATFORM BE ADOPTED AS SHOWN IN                        HTTP://WIKI.PIRATEPARTY.CA/INDEX.PHP?TITLE=PLATFORM&OLDID=3099 PASSED === 22:35 <@Zblewski> who will move the next motion 22:35 <+MikkelPaulson> I move that Section 4 of the platform be adopted as shown in                      http://wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php?title=Platform&oldid=3099 22:36 <@Zblewski> Any seconds? 22:36 <+coldacid> sure, i'll second 22:36 <+txwikinger> psema4: citizens is not broad enough ;) 22:36 -Stenobot:#canada- Zblewski's speaking period has ended. 22:36 -Stenobot:#canada- === MOTION THAT SECTION 4 OF THE PLATFORM BE ADOPTED AS SHOWN IN                        HTTP://WIKI.PIRATEPARTY.CA/INDEX.PHP?TITLE=PLATFORM&OLDID=3099 === 22:36 -Stenobot:#canada- MikkelPaulson now has the floor. 22:36 <+MikkelPaulson> thank you 22:36 <@Zblewski> >_> 22:36 -Stenobot:#canada- MikkelPaulson's speaking period has ended. 22:37 <@Zblewski> Very, very straightforward. 22:37 <+MikkelPaulson> it was a very short speaking period 22:37 <+coldacid> i'd like to suggest that something be said outright about access for indie isps actually 22:37 <@Zblewski> Care to expand? 22:37 <+cshen> and net neutrality in general 22:37 <+MikkelPaulson> I think fixing the CRTC is the solution to all of those issues 22:37 <+trailblazer11> Should we add something about throttling 22:37 <+MikkelPaulson> that is in the CRTC's domain, not the government's specifically 22:37 <+coldacid> i think it's something that needs to be done at the legislative level 22:37 <+coldacid> rather than the crtc 22:38 <+coldacid> even if the corporate interests are dethroned there 22:38 <+cshen> move to add a point: "ISPs should not discriminate internet traffic based on content" 22:38 <+txwikinger> well.. actually it is time for some corporations to be broken up 22:38 <+coldacid> the government should actively ensure that independents get access to the telco COs, etc 22:38 <@Zblewski> cshen 22:38 <@Zblewski> before you move 22:38 <@Zblewski> it should be said that this is an action plan, not a statement of principles 22:38 <+cshen> oh okay 22:39 <+cshen> withdraw that 22:39 <+cshen> then i agree with the earlier suggestion of mentioning independent ISPs 22:39 <+coldacid> i've actually written about "nationalizing" the last mile or at least breaking them off from the incumbents 22:40 <+coldacid> but there should be a clear path for indie isps and other service providers to get in at                 the CO level 22:40 <+coldacid> rather than forced to go further upstream 22:40 <+txwikinger> well doesn't have to be natioanlized.. but wholesales and retail in one corproation is                   a conflict of interest 22:40 <+txwikinger> as well as bandwidth provider and content provicer 22:41 <+coldacid> indeed, doesn't have to be the gov't or the municipalities owning the COs, just so long as it's not bell, telus, etc 22:41 <+coldacid> anyway, i'm thinking something along the lines of... 22:41 <+coldacid> "ensure access for independent service providers at the local level" 22:41 <+coldacid> not that specifically, but along those lines 22:42 <+txwikinger> what about ensure unfettered competition on the infrastructure 22:42 <+coldacid> that's probably a better way of putting it, yeah 22:42 <~Nuitari> the problem is that competing on the infrastructure isn't cheap 22:43 <+psema4> neither is pharma research 22:43 <+coldacid> unfettered _access to_ infrastructure? 22:43 <+txwikinger> coldacid: yes 22:43 <~Nuitari> psema4: no, but most of the worthwhile research is done through universities 22:44 <+txwikinger> hmm.. I think I would like to see competition more than access 22:44 <+txwikinger> UBB gives access but not necessarily competition 22:44 <+coldacid> they can't compete without hte access 22:44 <+AdamS> but who owns that which is being accessed? 22:45 <+coldacid> "Ensure unfettered access to telecom infrastructure for independent service providers,                 for the purposes of broader competition" 22:45 <+txwikinger> yeah that is better 22:45 <+coldacid> yeah, i'll move that 22:45 <@Zblewski> Should we explicitly mention UBB? 22:45 <+txwikinger> we probably find agreement to ban UBB 22:46 <+cshen> "in order to foster" 22:46 <+coldacid> it probably wouldn't hurt to say that explicitly, too 22:46 <~Nuitari> we definitely need a strong stance against UBB 22:47 <+txwikinger> well.. UBB can be ok... it should just not be the only option 22:47 <+coldacid> i amend my motion; i now move to amend the main motion to include the point "Ensure                 unfettered access to telecom infrastructure for independent service providers, in order to                  foster broader competition" 22:47 <+cshen> second 22:48 <+cshen> UBB as a concept isn't necessarily bad, if they charge a cent per gigabyte i'd be happy with that 22:48 <+txwikinger> cshen: yes and no monthly fee 22:48 <+cshen> ESPECIALLY if they get rid of the monthly fee 22:48 <@Zblewski> One mo' 22:48 <+coldacid> k 22:49 -Stenobot:#canada- === MOTION THAT A SUBSECTION BE ADDED TO SECTION 4 OF THE PLATFORM, READING, "ENSURE                        UNFETTERED ACCESS TO TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE FOR INDEPENDENT SERVICE PROVIDERS, IN ORDER                         TO FOSTER BROADER COMPETITION" === 22:49 -Stenobot:#canada- coldacid now has the floor. 22:49 <@Zblewski> Care to say anything on it? 22:49 <@Zblewski> Or go to a vote 22:50 <+coldacid> i think it's important that we make sure that in this section, we explicitly state our goals for improving the state of net neutrality in canada 22:50 <@Zblewski> That can be done in the ideology section 22:50 <@Zblewski> As stated 22:50 <+coldacid> by making this point clear, we're showing that we mean to do more than just nebulously reform the crtc 22:50 <@Zblewski> this is an action plan, not a statement of principles 22:50 * txwikinger calls for vote 22:50 <+coldacid> and this is an action 22:50 <+coldacid> hold on im not done 22:51 <+coldacid> i feel it's important for us to really spell this out in the platform 22:51 <@Zblewski> We have the promise here 22:51 <+coldacid> that we show our dedication to better access, and that we have ideas in mind for it 22:51 <@Zblewski> all the reasoning will be done in an accompanying ideology section 22:52 <@Zblewski> This is meant to be barebones 22:52 <+cshen> call to vote 22:52 <@Zblewski> In terms of reading 22:52 <@Zblewski> Objections to a vote? 22:52 <@Zblewski> The motion as it stands, I support 22:52 * txwikinger too 22:52 <+coldacid> let's vote 22:52 <@Zblewski> Okay. 22:53 -Stenobot:#canada- === VOTE ON MOTION THAT A SUBSECTION BE ADDED TO SECTION 4 OF THE PLATFORM, READING, "ENSURE UNFETTERED ACCESS TO TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE FOR INDEPENDENT SERVICE PROVIDERS,                        IN ORDER TO FOSTER BROADER COMPETITION" === 22:53 -Stenobot:#canada- === MOTION THAT A SUBSECTION BE ADDED TO SECTION 4 OF THE PLATFORM, READING, "ENSURE                        UNFETTERED ACCESS TO TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE FOR INDEPENDENT SERVICE PROVIDERS, IN ORDER                         TO FOSTER BROADER COMPETITION" PASSED === 22:53 -Stenobot:#canada- === MOTION THAT SECTION 4 OF THE PLATFORM BE ADOPTED AS SHOWN IN                        HTTP://WIKI.PIRATEPARTY.CA/INDEX.PHP?TITLE=PLATFORM&OLDID=3099 === 22:53 -Stenobot:#canada- Discussion resumes on MikkelPaulson's motion that Section 4 of the platform be adopted as shown in http://wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php?title=Platform&oldid=3099. 22:54 <@Zblewski> One moment 22:54 <@Zblewski> amendment will be added 22:54 <+MikkelPaulson> I'm on it 22:54 <+MikkelPaulson> http://wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php?title=Platform&oldid=3100 22:55 <+cshen> yay 22:55 <+coldacid> \o/ 22:55 -Stenobot:#canada- === MOTION THAT SECTION 4 OF THE PLATFORM BE ADOPTED AS SHOWN IN                        HTTP://WIKI.PIRATEPARTY.CA/INDEX.PHP?TITLE=PLATFORM&OLDID=3099 AMENDED === 22:56 <@Zblewski> Shall we continue? 22:56 <+cshen> yes 22:56 <+coldacid> yes, let's 22:56 <+MikkelPaulson> call the vote 22:56 <@Zblewski> Any objections to calling the vote? 22:56 <+coldacid> no objection 22:56 <+txwikinger> no 22:57 -Stenobot:#canada- === VOTE ON MOTION THAT SECTION 4 OF THE PLATFORM BE ADOPTED AS SHOWN IN                        HTTP://WIKI.PIRATEPARTY.CA/INDEX.PHP?TITLE=PLATFORM&OLDID=3100 === 22:57 -Stenobot:#canada- === MOTION THAT SECTION 4 OF THE PLATFORM BE ADOPTED AS SHOWN IN                        HTTP://WIKI.PIRATEPARTY.CA/INDEX.PHP?TITLE=PLATFORM&OLDID=3100 PASSED === 22:57 <+MikkelPaulson> I move that Section 4 of the platform be adopted as shown in                      http://wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php?title=Platform&oldid=3100 22:58 <+MikkelPaulson> sorry 22:58 <+coldacid> we just did section 4 22:58 <+MikkelPaulson> I move that Section 5 of the platform be adopted as shown in                      http://wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php?title=Platform&oldid=3100 22:58 <+MikkelPaulson> :) 22:58 <+psema4> second 22:58 <+coldacid> second, heh 22:58 <+cshen> would it be possible to jump to section 7 first? I have some comments i'd like to leave before              going 22:58 -Stenobot:#canada- === MOTION THAT SECTION 4 OF THE PLATFORM BE ADOPTED AS SHOWN IN                         HTTP://WIKI.PIRATEPARTY.CA/INDEX.PHP?TITLE=PLATFORM&OLDID=3100 === 22:58 -Stenobot:#canada- MikkelPaulson now has the floor. 22:58 <@Zblewski> Sorry 22:58 <@Zblewski> Will amend this 22:58 <+SteveHenderson>  As I was going to say before I was -v, why are we including decriminalization instead                         of outright legalization of non-commercial filesharing? 22:58 -Stenobot:#canada- === MOTION THAT SECTION 4 OF THE PLATFORM BE ADOPTED AS SHOWN IN                         HTTP://WIKI.PIRATEPARTY.CA/INDEX.PHP?TITLE=PLATFORM&OLDID=3100 AMENDED === 22:59 <+MikkelPaulson> cshen: sorry, we can go to that after 5 though 22:59 -Stenobot:#canada- MikkelPaulson's speaking period has ended. 22:59 <@Zblewski> SteveHenderson: We've concluded that section 22:59 <@Zblewski> Now 22:59 <+coldacid> PSIC, i should know what that stands for, shouldn't i? i feel dumb for asking tho 22:59 <+MikkelPaulson> senate reform seems a bit out of place to me 22:59 <+txwikinger> section 4 again? 22:59 <+MikkelPaulson> 5 23:00 <+txwikinger> ah 23:00 <+cshen> okay i'll try to stay around, i'll leave a note if i have to leave before then so you can continue as originally planned 23:00 <+coldacid> also agreed on senate reform 23:00 <@Zblewski> May I defend? 23:00 <@Zblewski> It was my addition 23:00 <+MikkelPaulson> be my guest 23:00 * txwikinger would prefer an elected senate 23:00 <+coldacid> txwikinger: that'd make it just as bad as commons :p 23:00 * psema4 ^ 23:00 <@Zblewski> Democratization is part of the opening process in my opinion 23:00 <@Zblewski> Now 23:00 <+MikkelPaulson> I like an appointed senate 23:00 <+MikkelPaulson> and I like Mike's idea 23:01 <+MikkelPaulson> just seems a bit odd in the PPCA platform 23:01 <+txwikinger> coldacid: Yeah democracy is very messy :) 23:01 <@Zblewski> The whole reason why I made this 23:01 <@Zblewski> was because The Senate has been, and is supposed to be, "the house of sober second thought". 23:02 <@Zblewski> This is why appointments were made. 23:02 <@Zblewski> An elected senate politisizes the senate, and indeed will make possible deadlock 23:02 <+txwikinger> Well.. if you make a senate fixed elections with 6 or 10 years term, it should be more                   sober too 23:02 <@Zblewski> Senator specialization and experience is key 23:02 <~Nuitari> txwikinger: not really 23:03 <~Nuitari> as soon as there are elections, things will get short term to whatever the length is 23:03 <@Zblewski> And the electorate may not get a good selection of candidates running on their own accord 23:03 <+MikkelPaulson> and I believe it's important that Senators be able to focus on long-term projects; MPs focus only on things that will have immediate benefit in 4 years (or in 2 years lately) 23:03 <@Zblewski> Now. 23:03 <+coldacid> my only issue with senate reform in the platform is it seems to me as an odd man out, so to                 speak 23:03 <@Zblewski> let me get to that 23:03 <+coldacid> i like the idea there, though 23:03 <@Zblewski> please 23:03 <+coldacid> k 23:03 <+MikkelPaulson> proceed 23:04 <+txwikinger> well but the appointment is political too 23:04 <@Zblewski> Yes, but not competitive 23:04 <@Zblewski> Which means much less empty promises 23:05 <+trailblazer11> I agree with having a means to recall a Senator 23:05 <@Zblewski> The recall system is used in some US states, and it allows for the application of appointments, but gives citizens control of those who are not performing properly. 23:05 <@Zblewski> NOW, onto why I feel it should stay in the platform 23:05 <+txwikinger> well.. governors can be recalled - not senators 23:06 <@Zblewski> In some US states, senators too. 23:06 <@Zblewski> Wisconsin included, and petitions are being collected there. 23:06 <@Zblewski> There is nothing saying that senate reform action is not a Pirate ideal. 23:07 <@Zblewski> It is part of making parliament work on behalf of Canadians, and most likely will mean Senators will be forced out of neccesity (sp?) to open the books on their actions 23:08 <@Zblewski> Giving people the freedom to act on what's bothering them. 23:08 <@Zblewski> That is my explaination. I feel that it belongs rightfully in our platform, and that is where it belongs. 23:08 <+coldacid> hmm 23:08 <@Zblewski> I do have an amendment though 23:09 <@Zblewski> to fix the description 23:09 * txwikinger has no issue with recall 23:09 <@Zblewski> I'll just describe it first 23:09 <+doconnor> I oppose the whole section. Our policy should be that all information subject to FOI should be                 released proactively. I don't like the senate section, too. 23:09 <+psema4> ? 23:10 <+coldacid> let's finish hearing out the senate topic first 23:10 <@Zblewski> "trigger a referendum on the recall in the next federal (or provincial?) election" 23:10 <@Zblewski> That was me being unsure 23:10 <+MikkelPaulson> ah yes 23:10 <+MikkelPaulson> I say provincial 23:10 <+psema4> must a referendum occur at the same time as an election? 23:10 <+coldacid> i agree 23:10 <+MikkelPaulson> Alberta elects senators at a provincial level 23:10 <+coldacid> the senate is organized along regional lines anyway 23:10 <+MikkelPaulson> which is a gong show 23:10 <+MikkelPaulson> and somehow all of the senatorial candidates are PC 23:10 <@Zblewski> psema4: Election sickness 23:11 <+MikkelPaulson> but yeah, doing recall at provincial elections makes more sense to me 23:11 <@Zblewski> I move to amend the section that reads "trigger a referendum on the recall in the next federal                 (or provincial?) election" to read as "trigger a referendum on the recall in the next                  provincial election". 23:12 <+coldacid> second 23:12 <+MikkelPaulson> no objections 23:12 <+psema4> none here but I think doconnor had some thoughts? 23:12 <@Zblewski> That's on the entire section 23:12 <+doconnor> Maybe we should have a vote on removing the senate section first 23:13 <+coldacid> right now we're amending it. after taht if you want to remove it, we can have a motion on that 23:13 <@Zblewski> Yes. 23:13 <+MikkelPaulson> I don't hear any opposition to the amendment, anyway 23:13 -Stenobot:#canada- === MOTION TO AMEND THE SECTION THAT READS "TRIGGER A REFERENDUM ON THE RECALL IN THE NEXT                        FEDERAL (OR PROVINCIAL?) ELECTION" TO READ AS "TRIGGER A REFERENDUM ON THE RECALL IN THE                         NEXT PROVINCIAL ELECTION". === 23:13 -Stenobot:#canada- Zblewski now has the floor. 23:13 -Stenobot:#canada- Zblewski's speaking period has ended. 23:13 <@Zblewski> I call the vote. 23:13 <+MikkelPaulson> seconded 23:14 <@Zblewski> Objections?\ 23:14 <@Zblewski> I will call the vote. 23:14 -Stenobot:#canada- === VOTE ON MOTION TO AMEND THE SECTION THAT READS "TRIGGER A REFERENDUM ON THE RECALL IN                        THE NEXT FEDERAL (OR PROVINCIAL?) ELECTION" TO READ AS "TRIGGER A REFERENDUM ON THE RECALL                         IN THE NEXT PROVINCIAL ELECTION". === 23:15 -Stenobot:#canada- === MOTION TO AMEND THE SECTION THAT READS "TRIGGER A REFERENDUM ON THE RECALL IN THE NEXT                        FEDERAL (OR PROVINCIAL?) ELECTION" TO READ AS "TRIGGER A REFERENDUM ON THE RECALL IN THE                         NEXT PROVINCIAL ELECTION". PASSED === 23:15 -Stenobot:#canada- === MOTION THAT SECTION 5 OF THE PLATFORM BE ADOPTED AS SHOWN IN                        HTTP://WIKI.PIRATEPARTY.CA/INDEX.PHP?TITLE=PLATFORM&OLDID=3100 === 23:15 -Stenobot:#canada- Discussion resumes on MikkelPaulson's motion that Section 5 of the platform be adopted as                        shown in http://wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php?title=Platform&oldid=3100. 23:15 <@Zblewski> Now 23:15 <@Zblewski> Now, docconnor? 23:15 <+MikkelPaulson> (sorry, Stenobot gets slowed down for flooding sometimes) 23:15 <@Zblewski> I believe you had an amendment 23:16 <+doconnor> I move that section 5.4 (senate reform) be removed 23:16 <@Zblewski> anyone second? 23:16 <+psema4> i'll second 23:17 -Stenobot:#canada- ===== MOTION THAT SECTION 5.4 (SENATE REFORM) BE REMOVED FROM THE PLATFORM ===== 23:17 -Stenobot:#canada- doconnor now has the floor. 23:17 <@Zblewski> So, reasoning behind removing? 23:17 <@Zblewski> I don't believe I've heard anything concrete past "it does not fit" 23:18 <~Nuitari> right, it just doesn't 23:18 <+doconnor> I don't think that senate reform is a core Pirate issue and doesn't need to be in the first draught of our plateform 23:18 <~Nuitari> and it's a quagmire I just don't think we need to address 23:18 <+MikkelPaulson> I personally agree with you 23:18 <+MikkelPaulson> but the senate is going to be a contentious issue within the party 23:18 <+doconnor> Maybe after a debate where a cencenus has been reached 23:18 <+MikkelPaulson> which is why it's good to keep the platform focused on matters of common ideology 23:19 <+MikkelPaulson> I absolutely think you should bring that up as a candidate 23:19 <@Zblewski> I'mma copyright it as my intellectual property. 23:19 <+psema4> lol 23:19 <+MikkelPaulson> there we go 23:20 <@Zblewski> so? 23:20 <@Zblewski> Anyone? 23:20 <+coldacid> i have to agree 23:20 <+MikkelPaulson> I think we discussed it suitably earlier 23:20 <+MikkelPaulson> I don't have anything more to add 23:20 <@Zblewski> I'm just surprised 23:20 <+coldacid> this isn't something we came together for; while i personally support senate reform, it's                 not why i joined the ppoc 23:20 <@Zblewski> That you guys in Fed council said absolutely nothing against it 23:20 <+MikkelPaulson> it didn't jump out at me, to be honest 23:21 <+MikkelPaulson> I looked at it and went, that's a neat idea, and then moved on 23:21 <+txwikinger> more democracy is fully part of the PPCA platform 23:21 <@Zblewski> That is my belief as well 23:21 <@Zblewski> Anyways 23:22 <+MikkelPaulson> but how we implement democracy varies 23:22 <+MikkelPaulson> a lot of our members will be in favour of an elected senate, or abolishing the senate altogether 23:22 <@Zblewski> Care to call it? 23:22 <+coldacid> yeah, let's vote 23:22 <+MikkelPaulson> second 23:22 <+txwikinger> yeah 23:22 <@Zblewski> objections? 23:22 -Stenobot:#canada- === VOTE ON MOTION THAT SECTION 5.4 (SENATE REFORM) BE REMOVED FROM THE PLATFORM === 23:23 -Stenobot:#canada- === MOTION THAT SECTION 5.4 (SENATE REFORM) BE REMOVED FROM THE PLATFORM PASSED === 23:23 -Stenobot:#canada- === MOTION THAT SECTION 5 OF THE PLATFORM BE ADOPTED AS SHOWN IN                        HTTP://WIKI.PIRATEPARTY.CA/INDEX.PHP?TITLE=PLATFORM&OLDID=3100 === 23:23 <@Zblewski> Wow. 23:23 -Stenobot:#canada- Discussion resumes on MikkelPaulson's motion that Section 5 of the platform be                        adopted as shown in http://wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php?title=Platform&oldid=3100. 23:23 <@Zblewski> Wooow. 23:23 <+coldacid> pretty close vote 23:23 <+MikkelPaulson> yeah 23:24 <+MikkelPaulson> new permalink: http://wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php?title=Platform&oldid=3101 23:24 <@Zblewski> Aaaanyways, I'll re-introduce it another time 23:24 <+SteveHenderson> I mean't to vote yes, but meh. 23:24 <+doconnor> What is the PSIC again? 23:24 <+txwikinger> Zblewski: more power to you :) 23:24 <+MikkelPaulson> public sector something something 23:24 <+coldacid> it's something probably best left to an online open house for the whole party to discuss,                 before moving forward with anyway 23:24 <+MikkelPaulson> Public Sector Integrity Commissioner 23:25 -Stenobot:#canada- === MOTION THAT SECTION 5 OF THE PLATFORM BE ADOPTED AS SHOWN IN                         HTTP://WIKI.PIRATEPARTY.CA/INDEX.PHP?TITLE=PLATFORM&OLDID=3100 AMENDED === 23:25 <@Zblewski> doconnor had opposed this entire section 23:25 <@Zblewski> care to re-iterate? 23:25 <+trailblazer11> I like doconnor's idea about it being passive. 23:26 <+trailblazer11> ehr 23:26 <+trailblazer11> sorry I mean proactively 23:26 <+trailblazer11> doconnor: Our policy should be that all information subject to FOI should be released                       proactively. I don't like the senate section, too. 23:26 <+MikkelPaulson> senate section is gone 23:27 <+trailblazer11> sorry just copy and pasting doconnor's previous comment 23:27 <+MikkelPaulson> oh quoting 23:27 <+MikkelPaulson> nvm 23:27 <+MikkelPaulson> the platform should be medium-term 23:27 <+MikkelPaulson> we aren't going to achieve full transparency in that time period 23:27 <+MikkelPaulson> so what goals are there that we can work towards? 23:27 <+doconnor> I move that 5.1 and 5.2 be replaced with "All information available by FOI request be                 released digitally and proactively" 23:28 <+MikkelPaulson> same reason we don't have a 10-year copyright on there 23:28 <@Zblewski> I'd like to counter 23:28 <+MikkelPaulson> make the motion first, if there's a second 23:28 <@Zblewski> wait 23:28 <+doconnor> It's hard to write policy on a Smartphone... 23:28 <@Zblewski> Before you do 23:28 <+txwikinger> proactively? 23:29 <+txwikinger> How would they know what people want to know? 23:29 <@Zblewski> I suggest that it could be proactive, while still making it easy for FOI requests 23:29 <@Zblewski> Because while the government might be releasing documents 23:29 <@Zblewski> it might not be YOUR documents 23:29 <@Zblewski> So, a combined approach 23:30 <@Zblewski> Would you agree to that? 23:30 <+txwikinger> yeah.. combined is fine for me 23:30 <@Zblewski> doconnor? 23:30 <+trailblazer11> txwikinger: it would be automatic 23:30 <+doconnor> Go ahead 23:31 <+txwikinger> trailblazer11: not realistic for all FOI 23:32 <~Nuitari> that's true 23:32 <~Nuitari> some FOI is for confidential information on people 23:32 <+trailblazer11> scan and file? 23:32 <@Zblewski> Okay, I suggest to add a segment at the top of section 5 that reads "Create a combined                 approach of proactive release of nonessential information to the public while easing                  access by request" 23:32 <+trailblazer11> excluding confidential files 23:33 <@Zblewski> feel free to reword 23:33 <+AdamS> perhaps re-word to nonpersonal from nonessential 23:33 <+txwikinger> trailblazer11: that is part of privacy 23:33 <+doconnor> Personal information isn't available by FOI, except for yourself 23:34 <+AdamS> so what is nonessential information? 23:34 <@Zblewski> Idunno 23:34 <+AdamS> and why was it created? 23:34 <@Zblewski> I just couldn't think of a better term 23:34 <+trailblazer11> unclassified? 23:34 <+psema4> that works for me 23:34 <+AdamS> then more things just get classified 23:34 <+trailblazer11> instead of nonessential 23:35 <+AdamS> just drop nonessential 23:35 <+txwikinger> also digital is one thing - could be pdf, however, it should also be in machine readable format where appropriate 23:35 <+trailblazer11> then there should be strict guideline on what get classified 23:35 <@Zblewski> "Create a combined approach of proactive release of non-classified information to the                 public while easing access by request" 23:35 <@Zblewski> I like non-classified 23:36 <@Zblewski> Is this okay? 23:36 <+doconnor> There are already FOI rules on what can be released. The release should just follow those 23:36 <+psema4> anything on redacting? 23:36 <+trailblazer11> that's why there need to be guideline for classifying or redacting 23:37 <+AdamS> that's why I don't think we should mention classified or essetnial all together 23:37 <+psema4> I need to step away for a few moments 23:37 <+AdamS> Create a combined approach of proactive release of information to the public while easing access by request 23:37 <@Zblewski> happy with that? 23:38 <@Zblewski> Everyone? 23:38 <+doconnor> Okay. 23:38 <+trailblazer11> sure 23:39 -Stenobot:#canada- doconnor's speaking period has ended. 23:39 -Stenobot:#canada- === MOTION THAT A SEGMENT BE INSERTED AS SECTION 5.1, STATING, "CREATE A COMBINED                        APPROACH OF PROACTIVE RELEASE OF INFORMATION TO THE PUBLIC WHILE EASING ACCESS BY                         REQUEST" === 23:39 -Stenobot:#canada- AdamS now has the floor. 23:39 -Stenobot:#canada- AdamS's speaking period has ended. 23:39 <+AdamS> nothing to add 23:39 <@Zblewski> I call the vote 23:39 <@Zblewski> Objections? 23:39 <+coldacid> none 23:40 <+doconnor> Does this make current 5.1 and 5.2 redundant? 23:40 <@Zblewski> No. 23:40 <@Zblewski> It's an insertion 23:40 <@Zblewski> So 5.1 becomes 5.2, etc 23:40 <+AdamS> but the topics do seems somewhat redundant now 23:41 <@Zblewski> MikkelPaulson? 23:41 <+coldacid> i dunno, 5.1 seems to speak more to how to lessen costs and speed process through particular technical means 23:41 <+MikkelPaulson> mm? 23:41 <+coldacid> the current 5.1 that is 23:41 <+txwikinger> insertion is fine 23:41 <+trailblazer11> but I guess we want to point out reducing cost because that was one of the reason the government have rolled back on access to information 23:41 <@Zblewski> I like it there because it describes what specific action will take place 23:41 <+coldacid> i think it fits in just fine without any redundancy 23:41 <+coldacid> call to vote? 23:41 <+AdamS> ok, makes sense 23:42 <@Zblewski> Objections to call he vote? 23:42 <+txwikinger> second the vote 23:42 <@Zblewski> I will now start the vote. 23:42 -Stenobot:#canada- === VOTE ON MOTION THAT A SEGMENT BE INSERTED AS SECTION 5.1, STATING, "CREATE A                        COMBINED APPROACH OF PROACTIVE RELEASE OF INFORMATION TO THE PUBLIC WHILE EASING                         ACCESS BY REQUEST" === 23:43 -Stenobot:#canada- === MOTION THAT A SEGMENT BE INSERTED AS SECTION 5.1, STATING, "CREATE A COMBINED                        APPROACH OF PROACTIVE RELEASE OF INFORMATION TO THE PUBLIC WHILE EASING ACCESS BY                         REQUEST" PASSED === 23:43 -Stenobot:#canada- === MOTION THAT SECTION 5 OF THE PLATFORM BE ADOPTED AS SHOWN IN                        HTTP://WIKI.PIRATEPARTY.CA/INDEX.PHP?TITLE=PLATFORM&OLDID=3101 === 23:43 -Stenobot:#canada- Discussion resumes on MikkelPaulson's motion that Section 5 of the platform be adopted as shown in 23:43 <@Zblewski> MikkelPaulson will make the change 23:44 <+coldacid> wb cshen 23:45 <+MikkelPaulson> http://wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php?title=Platform&oldid=3102 23:45 <+cshen> thanks, which section are we on? 23:45 <+coldacid> still on s5 23:45 -Stenobot:#canada- === MOTION THAT SECTION 5 OF THE PLATFORM BE ADOPTED AS SHOWN IN                        HTTP://WIKI.PIRATEPARTY.CA/INDEX.PHP?TITLE=PLATFORM&OLDID=3101 AMENDED === 23:45 <+cshen> awesome 23:45 <+coldacid> but we'll prolly finish it very shortly 23:45 <@Zblewski> Anything to modify? 23:45 <+coldacid> in fact, i'd like to call the vote 23:46 <@Zblewski> coldacid wishes to call, objections? 23:46 <+cshen> looks good 23:46 <@Zblewski> vote starting. 23:46 -Stenobot:#canada- === VOTE ON MOTION THAT SECTION 5 OF THE PLATFORM BE ADOPTED AS SHOWN IN                        HTTP://WIKI.PIRATEPARTY.CA/INDEX.PHP?TITLE=PLATFORM&OLDID=3102 === 23:47 -Stenobot:#canada- === MOTION THAT SECTION 5 OF THE PLATFORM BE ADOPTED AS SHOWN IN                        HTTP://WIKI.PIRATEPARTY.CA/INDEX.PHP?TITLE=PLATFORM&OLDID=3102 PASSED === 23:47 <+coldacid> for cshen's sake can we do s7 before s6? 23:47 <@Zblewski> Yes. 23:47 <+cshen> it's okay 23:47 <+cshen> i have time now 23:47 <+coldacid> oh ok 23:47 <+cshen> i just drove from home 23:47 <+cshen> to here 23:47 <+cshen> :P 23:48 <+coldacid> heh 23:48 <@Zblewski> Okay, anyone motioning? 23:48 <@Zblewski> I shall 23:48 <@Zblewski> that Section 6 of the platform be adopted as shown in                 http://wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php?title=Platform&oldid=3102 23:48 <+cshen> is it just me or is mibbit not displaying messages from stenobot? 23:48 <@Zblewski> Seconds? 23:48 <~Nuitari> it could be 23:48 <+coldacid> second 23:48 -Stenobot:#canada- === MOTION THAT SECTION 6 OF THE PLATFORM BE ADOPTED AS SHOWN IN                        HTTP://WIKI.PIRATEPARTY.CA/INDEX.PHP?TITLE=PLATFORM&OLDID=3102 === 23:48 -Stenobot:#canada- Zblewski now has the floor. 23:48 <@Zblewski> This was something that svulliez has pushed for 23:49 <@Zblewski> It's a point that didn't fit in any other section 23:49 <@Zblewski> But I agree with it in principle 23:49 <@Zblewski> laws such as those in Iceland are good examples 23:50 <+MikkelPaulson> I absolutely support this 23:50 <@Zblewski> So, any changes you wish to see? 23:50 * txwikinger totally agrees with this section 23:50 <+cshen> it looks great as is 23:50 <+coldacid> i think it's great as-is 23:50 <+AdamS> looks goog 23:50 <+AdamS> good 23:51 <@Zblewski> I call the vote, objections? 23:51 <+MikkelPaulson> none here 23:51 <+psema4> none here 23:51 <+coldacid> let's do it 23:51 * txwikinger seconds call to vote 23:51 <+trailblazer11> nope 23:51 -Stenobot:#canada- === VOTE ON MOTION THAT SECTION 6 OF THE PLATFORM BE ADOPTED AS SHOWN IN                        HTTP://WIKI.PIRATEPARTY.CA/INDEX.PHP?TITLE=PLATFORM&OLDID=3102 === 23:52 -Stenobot:#canada- Zblewski's speaking period has ended. 23:52 -Stenobot:#canada- === MOTION THAT SECTION 6 OF THE PLATFORM BE ADOPTED AS SHOWN IN                        HTTP://WIKI.PIRATEPARTY.CA/INDEX.PHP?TITLE=PLATFORM&OLDID=3102 PASSED === 23:52 <+MikkelPaulson> LAST ONE 23:53 * coldacid drumrolls 23:53 <@Zblewski> I move that Section 7 of the platform be adopted as shown in                 http://wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php?title=Platform&oldid=3102 23:53 <+AdamS> second 23:53 -Stenobot:#canada- === MOTION THAT SECTION 7 OF THE PLATFORM BE ADOPTED AS SHOWN IN                        HTTP://WIKI.PIRATEPARTY.CA/INDEX.PHP?TITLE=PLATFORM&OLDID=3102 === 23:53 -Stenobot:#canada- Zblewski now has the floor. 23:53 <+MikkelPaulson> this one I would like to comment on a bit 23:53 <+MikkelPaulson> it has been conspicuously absent from our platform 23:53 <@Zblewski> I yield directly to discussion to let Mikkel and cshen speak 23:53 -Stenobot:#canada- Zblewski's speaking period has ended. 23:54 <+MikkelPaulson> and prevented us from getting involved in certain cases, such as the police abuses during the G-20 summit 23:54 <+MikkelPaulson> when I think a pirate party was needed, but none was present 23:54 <+MikkelPaulson> so this is the one that I've been pushing for 23:55 * txwikinger has no problems at all with the section 23:55 <@Zblewski> cshen? 23:55 <+SteveHenderson> It wouldn't be terrible to make a full mention of section 2 of the charter. 23:55 <+txwikinger> It somehow states the obvious 23:55 <+cshen> the Charter contains a lot of provisions, many of which must be balanced against each other. 23:55 <+cshen> some rights have even been used to stifle free speech, which i believe is far more important. 23:56 <+cshen> i'd be much more comfortable to specify only the free speech, privacy, and legal rights 23:56 <+cshen> rather than "all of the charter" 23:56 <+psema4> interesting 23:56 <+MikkelPaulson> well the text as it is now specifically mentions that free speech will be                      championed 23:56 <+SteveHenderson> What about freedom of the press? Relevant to whistleblower protection. 23:56 <+cshen> that's part of free speech 23:57 <+AdamS> yes, but being willing to support all of the charter when they conflict would muddy the waters 23:57 <+MikkelPaulson> yeah, the Charter says freedom of speech, including freedom of the press 23:57 <+cshen> it's just that it's not possible to commit to ALL charter rights, and i'd rather not claim to do so 23:57 <+cshen> in order to give free speech that much more emphasis 23:57 <+psema4> your suggesting that the charter is flawed 23:57 <+cshen> no, it's designed to be balanced 23:57 <+doconnor> The charter says "freedo 23:58 <+cshen> but i would guess that free speech is far more important to ppca members than some              other rights 23:58 <+doconnor> We should change it to freedom of expression because that is what the Charter says 23:58 <+cshen> like, for example, the right not to be offended by others (okay, this isn't actually in               the charter, but you get the drift) 23:58 <@Zblewski> That damned notwithstanding clause. 23:58 <+doconnor> Plus it is more digital friendly term 23:59 <+SteveHenderson> >(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of                        the press and other media of communication; 23:59 <+cshen> it just seems that claiming to champion ALL charter rights isn't really the actual focus               of the party 23:59 <+coldacid> yeah, i like doconnor's suggestion 23:59 <+coldacid> but i think we should otherwise keep as it 23:59 <+SteveHenderson>  Particularly important considering the "other media of communication" 23:59 <+psema4> fair enough --- Day changed Fri Mar 25 2011 00:00 <+txwikinger> There is no freedom of speech btw 00:00 <+doconnor> (freedom of speech is the American term) 00:00 <+txwikinger> all freedoms are associated with responsibilities 00:00 <@Zblewski> hence section 2 00:01 <+cshen> ^ section 1 00:01 <@Zblewski> and good ol' reasonable limits 00:01 <@Zblewski> sorry. 00:01 <+txwikinger> section == copyright? 00:02 * txwikinger is ambivalent of that 00:02 <+doconnor> I move that "freedom of speech" be replaced with "freedom of expression" 00:02 <+cshen> i don't know for sure but i would guess that many if not most members would value free speech above other rights if they had to choose, am i right/wrong? 00:02 <+cshen> second that 00:02 <+txwikinger> I am currently in a tussle with the Press Complaints Commission in England 00:03 <+SteveHenderson> What about an ammendment to include "particularly freedom of thought, belief,                       opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of                        communication, in addition to the right to be free from unreasonable search                        and seizure"? 00:03 <@Zblewski> Motion acknowledged 00:03 <+cshen> "freedom of expression" is adequate and is taken to include all of that 00:04 -Stenobot:#canada- === MOTION THAT "FREEDOM OF SPEECH" BE REPLACED WITH "FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION" ==== 00:04 -Stenobot:#canada- doconnor now has the floor. 00:04 -Stenobot:#canada- doconnor's speaking period has ended. 00:04 <@Zblewski> Calling the vote? 00:04 <+coldacid> second 00:04 <@Zblewski> objection? 00:04 <+psema4> none here 00:04 <+doconnor> Freedom of expression is short and the common term for it in Canada 00:05 -Stenobot:#canada- === MOTION THAT "FREEDOM OF SPEECH" BE REPLACED WITH "FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION" PASSED === 00:05 -Stenobot:#canada- === MOTION THAT SECTION 7 OF THE PLATFORM BE ADOPTED AS SHOWN IN                        HTTP://WIKI.PIRATEPARTY.CA/INDEX.PHP?TITLE=PLATFORM&OLDID=3102 === 00:05 -Stenobot:#canada- Discussion resumes on Zblewski's motion that Section 7 of the platform be adopted as shown in http://wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php?title=Platform&oldid=3102. 00:06 <@Zblewski> MikkelPaulson will make the change. 00:06 <+txwikinger> irrelevant of the last amendment.. I do not understand why freedom of expression is more important as other freedoms orrights 00:06 <+MikkelPaulson> http://wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php?title=Platform&oldid=3103 00:06 <+txwikinger> How can you have true freedom of expression if you i.e. allow discrimination 00:06 <@Zblewski> I like section 7 just as much 00:07 -Stenobot:#canada- === MOTION THAT SECTION 7 OF THE PLATFORM BE ADOPTED AS SHOWN IN                        HTTP://WIKI.PIRATEPARTY.CA/INDEX.PHP?TITLE=PLATFORM&OLDID=3102 AMENDED === 00:07 <+cshen> being able to say what you want is generally regarded as the prerequisit for proper democracy 00:07 <+cshen> which in turn protects all the other rights 00:07 <+cshen> of course they're important 00:07 <+SteveHenderson> I would like to motion to replace "particularly infringement of freedom of speech and                       freedom from unreasonable search and seizure" with "particularly freedom of thought,                        belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of                        communication, in addition to the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure 00:07 <+txwikinger> well.. if you have dicrimination than some people have more right to say want they want                    than others 00:07 <+txwikinger> that is not real democracy either 00:08 <@Zblewski> Anyone second SteveHenderson? 00:08 <+cshen> but it comes into conflict when, for example, a group of people silence press freedom because               they don't like the subject 00:08 <@Zblewski> I'm not sure I see the major change Steve 00:09 <+MikkelPaulson> well, we're now into hour 5 of the meeting... 00:09 <+coldacid> i like it as is, i don't think steve's amendment is needed 00:09 <+SteveHenderson> It seems like a good Idea to be particularly specific. 00:09 <+SteveHenderson> ide* 00:09 <+SteveHenderson> idea* 00:09 <+cshen> it's not necessary to quote the exact wording 00:09 <+MikkelPaulson> even the WikiLeaks meeting wasn't this long 00:09 <+coldacid> mikkel, goes to show how important the platform is, doesn't it 00:09 <+psema4> After thinking about cshens comments about balance, I move to amend 7.1, striking "any and all" from the reference to violations of the Charter. 00:09 <+MikkelPaulson> guess so 00:09 <+txwikinger> cshen: maybe I need to tell you about my fight with the PCC in England :) 00:10 <+cshen> i second psema4 00:10 <@Zblewski> It appears SteveHenderson's motion is thereby defeaed, and I acknowledge psema4's motion 00:10 * txwikinger disagrees 00:11 -Stenobot:#canada- === MOTION TO AMEND 7.1, STRIKING "ANY AND ALL" FROM THE REFERENCE TO VIOLATIONS OF                         THE CHARTER === 00:11 -Stenobot:#canada- psema4 now has the floor. 00:11 <+psema4> I find cshens opening comments on this topic interesting... 00:12 <+psema4> claiming that we can and indeed will fight any violations in the Charter is risky 00:12 <+psema4> as soon as we fail once in doing so, we're in trouble 00:12 <+cshen> i'd just like to add that the charter is interpreted by the supreme court, it's not all that it               looks on paper 00:12 <@Zblewski> I can get behind that reasoning 00:13 <+txwikinger> Does it mean we agree with some violation if they are just the right ones? 00:13 <+psema4> simply striking those words does not negate that we view violations lightly, we will and can fight those violations just not all of them 00:13 <+psema4> *not* view (sorry) 00:13 <@Zblewski> It's a matter of picking our battles, txwikinger 00:14 <+cshen> i'd go as far as to say that it's impossible to stand for all charter rights as they have been interpreted by the courts 00:14 <+txwikinger> but it does not preclude to fight for any of them? 00:14 <+cshen> that's the whole purpose of s.1 00:14 <+cshen> of course, it still communicates a very strong endorsement of the charter ideals 00:15 <+cshen> and willingness to fight for our rights 00:15 <+txwikinger> everybody's rights 00:15 <+cshen> yes 00:15 <+txwikinger> ok.. I am fine with that 00:16 <+psema4> I cede the floor? 00:18 <+coldacid> shall we vote? 00:18 <+txwikinger> yes 00:18 <+cshen> i'm okay with that 00:18 <@Zblewski> objections? 00:19 -Stenobot:#canada- === VOTE ON MOTION TO AMEND 7.1, STRIKING "ANY AND ALL" FROM THE REFERENCE TO                        VIOLATIONS OF THE CHARTER === 00:19 -Stenobot:#canada- === MOTION TO AMEND 7.1, STRIKING "ANY AND ALL" FROM THE REFERENCE TO VIOLATIONS OF THE CHARTER PASSED === 00:20 -Stenobot:#canada- === MOTION THAT SECTION 7 OF THE PLATFORM BE ADOPTED AS SHOWN IN                        HTTP://WIKI.PIRATEPARTY.CA/INDEX.PHP?TITLE=PLATFORM&OLDID=3103 === 00:20 -Stenobot:#canada- Discussion resumes on Zblewski's motion that Section 7 of the platform be adopted as shown in http://wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php?title=Platform&oldid=3103. 00:20 <@Zblewski> MikkelPaulson will apply the change 00:21 <+MikkelPaulson> what change? 00:21 <@Zblewski> "striking "any and all" from the reference to violations of the Charter passes." 00:21 <+MikkelPaulson> ah 00:21 <@Zblewski> In the meantime 00:21 <@Zblewski> Anything else to discuss? 00:21 <+MikkelPaulson> http://wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php?title=Platform&oldid=3104 00:21 -Stenobot:#canada- === MOTION THAT SECTION 7 OF THE PLATFORM BE ADOPTED AS SHOWN IN                        HTTP://WIKI.PIRATEPARTY.CA/INDEX.PHP?TITLE=PLATFORM&OLDID=3103 AMENDED === 00:21 <+coldacid> i don't think so, move to call the vote 00:21 <+MikkelPaulson> second 00:21 <+cshen> looks great 00:22 -Stenobot:#canada- === VOTE ON MOTION THAT SECTION 7 OF THE PLATFORM BE ADOPTED AS SHOWN IN                        HTTP://WIKI.PIRATEPARTY.CA/INDEX.PHP?TITLE=PLATFORM&OLDID=3104 === 00:22 -Stenobot:#canada- === MOTION THAT SECTION 7 OF THE PLATFORM BE ADOPTED AS SHOWN IN                        HTTP://WIKI.PIRATEPARTY.CA/INDEX.PHP?TITLE=PLATFORM&OLDID=3104 PASSED === 00:23 <+coldacid> woot 00:23 <+coldacid> are we done yet? :D 00:23 <+MikkelPaulson> I move to adjourn 00:23 <+coldacid> SECOND 00:23 <+txwikinger> what was about the candidates? 00:23 <+MikkelPaulson> too late, I suspect all but Zblewski have gone to bed 00:23 <+coldacid> that came before the platform, and 'twas just travis tonight 00:23 <+MikkelPaulson> we'll schedule another session this weekend maybe 00:23 <+txwikinger> hehe 00:24 <@Zblewski> motion add MikkelPaulson that the meeting be adjourned with the Pirate Party of Canada's                 first General Election Platform completed 00:24 <+txwikinger> ok 00:24 <@Zblewski> oops 00:24 <+MikkelPaulson> :) 00:24 -Stenobot:#canada- psema4's speaking period has ended. 00:24 -Stenobot:#canada- === MOTION THAT THE MEETING BE ADJOURNED WITH THE PIRATE PARTY OF CANADA'S FIRST                        GENERAL ELECTION PLATFORM COMPLETED === 00:24 -Stenobot:#canada- Zblewski now has the floor. 00:24 <+MikkelPaulson> call the vote 00:24 -Stenobot:#canada- Zblewski's speaking period has ended. 00:24 -Stenobot:#canada- === VOTE ON MOTION THAT THE MEETING BE ADJOURNED WITH THE PIRATE PARTY OF CANADA'S                         FIRST GENERAL ELECTION PLATFORM COMPLETED === 00:25 -Stenobot:#canada- === MOTION THAT THE MEETING BE ADJOURNED WITH THE PIRATE PARTY OF CANADA'S FIRST                         GENERAL ELECTION PLATFORM COMPLETED PASSED === 00:25 <@Zblewski> Congratulations, we have a platform. 00:25  * coldacid applauds 00:25 <+MikkelPaulson> indeed we do 00:25 <+SteveHenderson> woot 00:25 <~Nuitari> great! 00:25 <~Nuitari> now we need a tv ad 00:25 <+MikkelPaulson> Zblewski: /msg sb meeting end 00:25 -Stenobot:#canada- ======================= MEETING ADJOURNED ========================

View Minutes