GM 2011-05-19 transcript

19:59 -Stenobot:#canada- ================== THIS MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER =================== 20:00 <@scshunt> Hey guys, welcome to the post-election general meeting of the Pirate Party! 20:00 <+MikkelPaulson> thank you 20:00 <@scshunt> If you guys have any questions, comments, complaints, or anything else about how the meeting is run, drop me a PM with /msg 20:00 <+MikkelPaulson> don't forget to authenticate 20:00 <+MikkelPaulson> if you need your ID and PIN, /msg me with your email 20:01 <@scshunt> First order of business: Mikkel has a leader's report on the election 20:02 <+MikkelPaulson> I'll be preparing a formal report in the coming days, still waiting on reports from a few candidates 20:02 <+MikkelPaulson> but I'll touch on some of the recommendations, and we can discuss the results 20:03 <+MikkelPaulson> you can find the per-riding results here: 20:03 <+MikkelPaulson> https://www.pirateparty.ca/forum/index.php?topic=1123.msg7050#msg7050 20:03 <+drew> did i do something, sorry 20:03 <+MikkelPaulson> I think we did pretty well for our first run, all things considered 20:04 <+MikkelPaulson> no, Stenobot just voices people who have logged in 20:04 <@scshunt> drew: nope, you're authenticated so it gave you the ability to speak 20:05 <+MikkelPaulson> the party-level recommendations in the post-election report are as follows: 20:05 <+MikkelPaulson> - we need to establish ridings associations 20:05 <+MikkelPaulson> *riding 20:06 <+MikkelPaulson> it makes the finances much easier to manage, and it gives us a good meter of the commitment of potential candidates if we require them to spearhead the establishment of an association 20:06 <+MikkelPaulson> - flyers and posters should be prepared in advance 20:06 <+MikkelPaulson> our candidates were going it alone in many cases, and we need better resources available for them 20:06 <+MikkelPaulson> - we should look into establishing more university clubs like at UW to step up recruitment and get better volunteer support for our campaigns 20:07 <+MikkelPaulson> - we need to compile information for candidates based on Elections Canada's resources 20:07 <+MikkelPaulson> - Directors should be prohibited from running without resigning or taking a leave of absence 20:08 <+MikkelPaulson> our Federal Council was seriously shorthanded and didn't have a single official meeting during the campaign, though we were in constant communication via other media 20:08 <+MikkelPaulson> - TV and radio ads should be produced in advance 20:08 <+MikkelPaulson> each ad was a scramble literally the night before, and it shows 20:09 <+rintaran> As the Federal Council is an executive and not a political lead of the Pirate Party, I think that makes sense. It isn't                 setup to be both. 20:09 <+MikkelPaulson> - the style guide needs to be completed pronto 20:09 <+MikkelPaulson> and finally 20:09 <+MikkelPaulson> - we need to have a more active role in planning future leaders' debates 20:09 <+MikkelPaulson> this one was a total gong show 20:10 <@scshunt> May I ask a question? 20:10 * MikkelPaulson sits down 20:10 <+MikkelPaulson> of course 20:10 <+rintaran> You left out a complete redo of the website to make it more useful... 20:11 <+MikkelPaulson> the report specifically has an eye on preparations for next election 20:11 <@scshunt> Is it legal for use to prepare things in advance? I understood we can't spend a dollar on the campaign without a                confirmed candidate 20:11 <+MikkelPaulson> the website redesign isn't election-related 20:11 <+MikkelPaulson> that's why we need riding associations 20:11 <+MikkelPaulson> they can spend and accept donations pre-campaign 20:12 <+rintaran> I had an agent information session recently that went into that with more detail. 20:12 <+rintaran> Provided the bills aren't paid/due until after the candidate's nomination is confirmed, it's all good. 20:13 <@scshunt> Ok, cool 20:13 <+MikkelPaulson> Elections Canada doesn't really care what we do with our money outside of elections 20:13 <+rintaran> It was a long meeting. Almost none of it applies to the campaign return I'm dealing with. :) 20:14 <+MikkelPaulson> good to hear, my agent wasn't able to make it and I was afraid he'd miss out on useful info 20:14 <+rintaran> Well, there was some. Even if your "Candidate Personal Expenses is $0, you still need to submit the form signed. 20:14 <+MikkelPaulson> if anyone else needs help logging in, /msg MikkelPaulson [your email address] 20:15 <+MikkelPaulson> yeah, that was interesting 20:15 <+MikkelPaulson> I was wondering about that one 20:15 <@scshunt> heh, that reminds me about a funny story. Ask me after the meeting 20:15 <+MikkelPaulson> I did incur quite a bit in personal expenses 20:15 <+MikkelPaulson> mostly food and bus fare 20:15 <+MikkelPaulson> but all of it has now been reimbursed 20:16 <@scshunt> Are there any other questions or comments on this report? 20:16 <+Jeremy> on the subject of university clubs, I'm co-founding a club that we'd be interested in having associated with the PPCA at the University of Toronto 20:16 <+MikkelPaulson> when I submit the official report it'll be open for further responses 20:16 <+MikkelPaulson> good to hear 20:17 <+MikkelPaulson> I'd love to have at least one Toronto candidate next election, so maybe you'll be able to stir things up enough 20:17 <+Jeremy> yeah, it's exciting. who would we talk to about collecting donations or possibly handling membership registrations? 20:17 <+Jeremy> or is that only done online? 20:18 <@scshunt> The FC are the ones to talk to, but in my experience it's good to get the club off the ground first 20:18 <+MikkelPaulson> universities often have strict rules regarding club finances 20:18 <+MikkelPaulson> so that'd be the place to start 20:18 <+MikkelPaulson> might help to talk to the directors of other new clubs too 20:18 <+MikkelPaulson> see what issues they ran into 20:19 <+MikkelPaulson> I'd also like to have some resources in place for people starting university clubs, but scshunt says that it                      varies too much from university to university to be terribly useful 20:19 <+Jeremy> U of T itself doesn't regulate much IIRC, apart from requiring you have an account with a certain number of co-signers 20:20 <+MikkelPaulson> I looked into it at the U of A and Grant MacEwan, and they require a club bank account, designated treasurer, and a certain percentage of members and directors who are university students 20:20 <+MikkelPaulson> basically what the requirements boil down to 20:20 <+Jeremy> is there any permission we need to be able to use the name or logo of the PPCA? 20:20 <+MikkelPaulson> normally no, to officially represent yourselves yes 20:21 <+MikkelPaulson> we'll pass a motion of the Federal Council or something affirming you as an official club 20:21 <+MikkelPaulson> just procedural basically 20:21 <+Jeremy> the thing is, we'd need a constitution with a name before we can get on our feet. is it fine to name ourselves "Pirate               Party of Canada, University of Toronto Chapter" or something similar? 20:22 <+Jeremy> without asserting the PPCA has recognized us 20:22 <@scshunt> I'm going to suggest we move on now, we're getting a little specific 20:22 <+MikkelPaulson> yeah, we can discuss it later 20:22 <+Jeremy> i just need a name of someone to contact. is it you, Mikkel? 20:23 <+MikkelPaulson> yeah 20:23 <+Jeremy> thanks 20:23 <+MikkelPaulson> well, i think rintaran would be your main point of contact with that sort of stuff 20:23 <+MikkelPaulson> but I can certainly field any questions too 20:23 <+rintaran> Yeah, I can be your contact if you require. 20:23 <+Jeremy> okay, that sounds good. I'll speak with you privately about it. we can move on 20:24 <+MikkelPaulson> any other responses to the leader's report? 20:24 <+rintaran> I think it would also be important to have some specific linking cues to regular issues prepared for candidates. 20:25 <+drew> is the report public? 20:25 <+MikkelPaulson> it will be, yes 20:25 <@scshunt> drew: It was just delivered here in channel; a more full report will be published when Mikkel finishes it 20:25 <+drew> ok 20:25 <+MikkelPaulson> and I'll also put together a section synthesizing common threads across the candidates' reports 20:25 <+MikkelPaulson> I have 5 so far I think 20:26 <@scshunt> The next (and last) item of business on the agenda was the idea of limiting the forums to PPCA members only 20:27 <+MikkelPaulson> Shawn Vulliez has been the one advocating this, but I can move it on his behalf 20:27 <+ArghMonkey> whew, thats better 20:28 <+rintaran> Also, it's only making it available to post by PPCA members only. Viewability was to remain as previous I believe. 20:28 <@scshunt> Ok, so MikkelPaulson moves that the PPCA forum posting priveleges be limited to members only. 20:29 <+MikkelPaulson> scshunt: not using Stenobot for this? 20:29 <@scshunt> By the way, if anyone not a member of the party would like to speak, please PM me 20:29 <+Jeremy> do we comment on the motion now? 20:29 <+ArghMonkey> this is my first time to the PP GM, whats on the list to discuss? is this free flow or is there a secretary? maybe take it into private if u can help fill me in quickly 20:29 <+MikkelPaulson> ArghMonkey: scshunt is the chair 20:29 <@scshunt> MikkelPaulson: give me a minute; I use this thing once a month on average 20:29 <+sleslie> Can I just chime in - I don't mind the idea of limiting posts to members, but viewability by all is a huge value to                the party 20:29 <+DataPacRat> I'd recommend against making the entire forum PPCA-members only; we need to attract as many new members as we can, and being able to converse with potentially-interested folk on the forum is one such. If /some/ of the forums were PPCA-member-only, that would be a more viable approach than making the entire forum limited to PPCA members for posting, IMO. 20:30 <+MikkelPaulson> /msg sb motion add mikkelpaulson that the forum posting privileges be limited to members only 20:30 <+sleslie> datapacrat agree 20:30 <@scshunt> Do we have a second to the motion? 20:30 <+sleslie> second 20:30 <+Jeremy> I agree with DataPacRat, and add that it would be good to have it viewable whether a person is a member 20:30 <+sidek> I agree that only /some/ should be limited as well 20:30 -Stenobot:#canada- === MOTION THAT THE FORUM'S POSTING PRIVILIGES BE LIMITED TO MEMBERS OF THE PARTY. === 20:30 -Stenobot:#canada- MikkelPaulson now has the floor. 20:30 <@scshunt> MikkelPaulson: Do you wish to introduce the motion? 20:30 <+MikkelPaulson> ah, that's better 20:31 <+MikkelPaulson> sure 20:31 <+MikkelPaulson> I guess a little bit of discussion has already happened 20:31 <+MikkelPaulson> but this is something that was raised at last week's Federal Council meeting 20:32 <+MikkelPaulson> the concern is that people are posting critical and/or combative messages in the forum without contributing anything themselves 20:32 <+MikkelPaulson> by requiring forum members to join the party, we can get a reasonable standard of involvement 20:33 <+MikkelPaulson> encourage people to become members, and make the forum more representative of the party 20:33 <+MikkelPaulson> the proposal as it stands now would leave public access as-is (maybe with a few more boards hidden) but allow only members to psot 20:33 <+MikkelPaulson> *post 20:33 <+MikkelPaulson> I'll open it up to discussion now 20:33 -Stenobot:#canada- MikkelPaulson's speaking period has ended. 20:34 <+sidek> Looking quickly at the boards, it seems to me that at least the election 2011 forums (and things like them) should not be locked up like that 20:34 <+MikkelPaulson> ah tehre we go 20:34 <+MikkelPaulson> sorry about that 20:35 <+sidek> Otherwise, there's less place to talk to candidates 20:35 <+MikkelPaulson> that's true, there are definitely some exceptions 20:35 <+sidek> we need to make it as easy as possible for people to talk to candidates - don't need a barrier 20:35 <+MikkelPaulson> we'll go on a board-by-board 20:35 <+Jeremy> while I haven't been active enough on the forums to know the problem well, I think on some forums such as Platform Discussion it would be more suitable to have postings open to all, but have it noted next to the person's name (under it?) whether they are a member 20:35 <+Jeremy> yes, board-by-board is best 20:35 <+drew> Just because someone pays $10, does it mean they will contribute positively? 20:35 <+ArghMonkey> Ok, I have to ask, rather ignorantly I might add because I dont use the forums here that much yet but isent there a public area that non members can post in and other areas where only members can post or are we talking about eliminating all non-members from being able to post on the forum? 20:35 <+MikkelPaulson> maybe establish a open board for non-members 20:35 <+MikkelPaulson> ArghMonkey: right now anyone can post anywhere, assuming they sign up for a forum account 20:36 <+DataPacRat> I approve of having at least one open board, per MikkelPaulson's suggestion. 20:36 <+drew> i think a good compromise would be to have at least one open board where anonymous users can post 20:36 <+ArghMonkey> I would agree to having one area open to anyone and having other areas, to be determined i guess, closed to                   members only 20:37 <+DataPacRat> Anonymous users is another topic entirely, isn't it? 20:37 <+MikkelPaulson> I'd be open to trying out anon posting as a trial period, but I don't think it'll work out too well 20:37 <+MikkelPaulson> I don't think it's unreasonable to amend it to this motion 20:38 <+rintaran> The idea was to have an open section, with registered forum users able to speak and ask questions. The remainder was to be viewable by all, but only postable by members of the Party to ensure that the direction of the party is                 led by its members and not by individuals who have no vested interest in the party itself. 20:38 <+DataPacRat> So - PPCA-only forums; one or more forums open to any registered user; and a 'wild west' forum allowing anonymous posting? 20:38 <+AdamS> I don't really see the value to an anon posting in this context 20:38 <+drew> anonymous = allowing private messages which lead to more freedom to express oneself. I think we all know this as its part of our values 20:38 <+rintaran> Not registered user. Pirate Party of Canada member. 20:38 <+ArghMonkey> anon users are a grab bag, lots of nonsense posts but it does give an added layer on anonymity, maybe even for members who want to "hide" for whatever reasons 20:38 <+MikkelPaulson> the implementation I'd go for would allow anyone to sign up with the forum, and prompt them to log in with their member ID and PIN 20:38 <+MikkelPaulson> once they've logged in once, they'll be added to a member group that grants the additional privileges 20:40 <+RicLim> anon group is good for those curious but don't want to sign up for an account to post 20:40 <+ArghMonkey> @DataPacRat - whats the downside to having an area with anon posters as the wild west? we have to assume that many people checking us out have no idea what they are doing and might simply want to post something without having to register on the forum 20:40 <+DataPacRat> I'm in favour of allowing anonymous communications - but I've also found that it's possible to use Tor to create a gmail account without any identifiable information, allowing for anonymous communication (if appropriate                   precautions are taken); and so anyone who wants to register with the forum and remain anonymous can do so even now. 20:40 <+drew> So in order for someone to express their opinions on some of the topics of discussion, they have to provide their address and credit card number? 20:40 <+AdamS> I suppose so, but for those discussing things actually going on in the party, would it get paid much attention? 20:41 <+Jeremy> on drew's comment, that's why I suggest Platform Discussion remain open 20:41 <+ArghMonkey> @Jeremy - totally open? 20:41 <@scshunt> I feel that an important thread has been missed - can this just be handled with more aggressive moderation, whether or not it is discriminatory against registered users? What's to stop someone from paying their $10 and then continuing to make the forums unpleasant? 20:41 <+MikkelPaulson> platform maybe not 20:41 <+Jeremy> i mean as it currently is, with it noted whether a person is a member 20:41 <+Jeremy> perhaps creating topics could be limited to members only 20:42 <+MikkelPaulson> we also want to encourage people to become members of the party 20:42 <+MikkelPaulson> at the moment the perks (awesome membership card) are pretty meagre 20:42 <+DataPacRat> scshunt: Metafilter requires a one-time $5 fee to register an account, and the commenting is astonishingly civil. 20:42 <+Jeremy> if you note clearly whether a person is a member in platform discussion, there will be this pressure to be               "recognized" as a member in discussions 20:42 <+Jeremy> that's worth the membership cost to a lot of people 20:42 <+ArghMonkey> @DataPacRat - but we dont have that kind of clout ... or do we ? 20:42 <+RicLim> what about my suggestion of chat on the side of the website. This will allow drop in people to just ask a question 20:43 <+drew> Ya just put a sign near the name of anyone who is a "verified user" 20:43 <+RicLim> then we don't need access for anon on forum 20:43 <+DataPacRat> DataPacRat: If someone /wants/ to spend a traceable $10 in order to be a bannable troll on the forums... might it                   not be worth that $10? 20:43 <+RicLim> kind of like this site 20:43 <+RicLim> http://www.streamingsoundtracks.com/ 20:43 <+DataPacRat> ^ -> ArghMonkey 20:44 <+Jeremy> I personally don't see the need for "anonymous" posting, since the current system is anonymous enough. 20:44 <@scshunt> Guys, please try to stay a little bit more on the topic 20:44 <+RicLim> But people might want to join discussion without joining until they have a better feel about the party 20:45 <+MikkelPaulson> hence the party open to all, and IRC of course 20:45 <+MikkelPaulson> *forum board 20:45 <+Jeremy> it is very, very easy to open a forum account 20:45 <+ArghMonkey> I picture three areas and I dont see why they cant all be implemented and work, one area with anon posts, moderated heavily but free flowing and open without registration, another bigger area, with the bulk of posts for registered users only and then another area for members only. Cant we have the best of all these things? 20:45 <+drew> give people the option to filter all non member posts 20:46 <+ArghMonkey> drew: i like that idea 20:46 <+DataPacRat> As long as there's at least one sub-forum, if not several, open to non-PPCA-members, I don't mind closing at least some of the forums to members-only. Maybe even open up a PPCA-member-only forum that's only viewable by PPCA-members. 20:46 <+ArghMonkey> i mean whats convenient for us isent the biggest concern no? we want ppl to come and contribute and join, thats only going to happen if we are inviting for EVERYONE 20:46 <@scshunt> I will remind that the current motion is to limit ALL access to the forums to party members only 20:47 <+rintaran> All posting access. 20:47 <+RicLim> not all. but the question is 20:47 <+ArghMonkey> scshunt: if its to limit all access i wouldnt support that personally 20:47 <@scshunt> Does anyone want to move an amendment, or would you prefer discussion first? 20:47 <+DataPacRat> May I move to amend the motion, to limit /some/ posting access while retaining some open access? Or would that be                   better as a new motion? 20:47 <+RicLim> is that all posting or all access? 20:48 <+rintaran> Posting priviledges according to the motion. 20:49 <+MikkelPaulson> I'd prefer to have only one board available to non-members 20:49 <@scshunt> DataPacRat: That would be fine as an amendment; the current text of the motion is "that the forum's posting priviliges                be limited to members of the Party." 20:49 <+Jeremy> I move to amend the motion, that certain forums be limited in posting to members only, other forums postable by anyone but indicating under the username of the poster whether they are a verified member, decided on a forum-by-forum basis, and that all forums be publicly readable. 20:49 <+Jeremy> that leaves ambiguous the one or many open question, which can be decided later 20:50 <+DataPacRat> I move an amendment: That the forum's posting priviliges be limited to members of the Party, *save for at least one sub-forum open to posts by all forum members*. 20:50 <+sidek> One sub-forum for non-members ? 20:50 <@scshunt> Is there a second? 20:50 <+sidek> I'd say the policy should be to allow access to everyone generally 20:50 <+AdamS> we would have to drop the "all forums to be publicaly readable" as I believe some have already been indicated as not being so 20:50 <+sidek> but close one or two forums for members 20:50 <+drew> maybe you can somehow allow the non member board to easily quote the member board, so that there can be a two forms of             the same discussion: one for members only and one for everyone 20:51 <@scshunt> Again, is there a second for DataPacRat's amendment? 20:51 <+ArghMonkey> DataPacRat: non anon posts in any of those areas? 20:51 <+MikkelPaulson> I'll second 20:51 <@scshunt> Ok 20:51 <+MikkelPaulson> though I'd rather the motion read that "some" boards be open 20:51 <+MikkelPaulson> as it leaves the implementation open with a bit of flexibility 20:52 <+ArghMonkey> thats what i was wondering 20:52 <@scshunt> it says "at least one" 20:52 <+ArghMonkey> k 20:52 <+DataPacRat> I'm willing to accept MikkelPaulson's changing of the wording from 'at least one' to 'some'. 20:52 <@scshunt> ok 20:53 -Stenobot:#canada- === MOTION THAT THE MAIN MOTION BE AMENDED BY ADDING 'SAVE FOR AT LEAST ONE SUB-FORUM OPEN TO POSTS BY ALL FORUM MEMBERS' TO READ "THAT THE FORUM'S POSTING PRIVILIGES BE LIMITED TO MEMBERS OF THE PARTY, SAVE FOR                        SOME SUB-FORUMS OPEN TO POSTS BY ALL FORUM MEMBERS" === 20:53 -Stenobot:#canada- DataPacRat now has the floor. 20:53 <@scshunt> DataPacRat: do you wish to introduce the motion at all? 20:53 <+DataPacRat> scshunt: I do 20:53 <@scshunt> go ahead then 20:54 <+DataPacRat> I move to amend, that the forum's posting priviliges be limited to members of the Party, *save for some sub-forums open to posts by all forum members* 20:54 <@scshunt> DataPacRat: You've moved it; I meant do you want to give an introductory speech :) 20:54 <+DataPacRat> scshunt: Oh. Wups. :) 20:55 <+DataPacRat> It's pretty simple - communication is the key to the party's growth, and the forum is one of our best lines of                   communication with the public. 20:56 <+DataPacRat> As one of our principles is freedom of speech, then it's in our best interests, as individuals and a Party, to                   maintain that line of communication. 20:56 <+DataPacRat> Thank you. 20:57 <+dc> forums require a bigger investment of time than most are willing to devote. a lot of communication takes place on twitter and youtube. 20:57 <+rintaran> Leaving an area open for all forum members was the original purpose, but it was unfortunately forgotten in Mikkel's                 wording of the original motion. 20:57 <+rintaran> Thank-you for making the motion to amend in this way. 20:57 <+sidek> dc, depends on the persoon 20:57 <+MikkelPaulson> yeah, I think the amendment is basically just a fix in the wording 20:57 <+sidek> if the only way I was able to talk to someone was twitter/youtube, I wouldn't talk to them 20:57 <+MikkelPaulson> I'd support it as-is 20:57 <+dc> sidek, exactly 20:58 <+MikkelPaulson> this doesn't necessarily have to be permanent 20:58 <+rintaran> In other words, we need multiple lines of communication. 20:58 <+MikkelPaulson> if the forum completely dies, we can reverse it 20:59 <+rintaran> I think we're moving beyond "just a forum" mentality at this point. 20:59 <+MikkelPaulson> IRC will still be a free-for-all, save for at meetings 20:59 <@scshunt> Any more discussion? 20:59 <+MikkelPaulson> since we're back to the motion now, I'll call a vote on the amendment 20:59 <+sidek> For lots of people, though, IRC is hard, weird and just unworkable 21:00 <+dc> sidek, my point is that the forums are not a great way to reach the most people possible. but are great for people who care about the party a great deal. 21:00 <+MikkelPaulson> the amendment is just to add a public board 21:00 <+MikkelPaulson> don't think there's anyone who would disagree with that but agree with the motion as a whole 21:00 <@scshunt> MikkelPaulson would like to call a vote on the amendment; is there a second? 21:00 <+coldacid> second 21:01 <@scshunt> Ok, we're going to do this vote manually; all in favor of stopping discussion and voting on the amendment, say 'aye'. All against, say 'nay'. 21:02 <@scshunt> Ok, the question is called. 21:02 -Stenobot:#canada- === VOTE ON MOTION THAT THE MAIN MOTION BE AMENDED BY ADDING 'SAVE FOR AT LEAST ONE SUB-FORUM OPEN TO                        POSTS BY ALL FORUM MEMBERS' TO READ "THAT THE FORUM'S POSTING PRIVILIGES BE LIMITED TO MEMBERS OF THE                         PARTY, SAVE FOR SOME SUB-FORUMS OPEN TO POSTS BY ALL FORUM MEMBERS" === 21:03 -Stenobot:#canada- === MOTION THAT THE MAIN MOTION BE AMENDED BY ADDING 'SAVE FOR AT LEAST ONE SUB-FORUM OPEN TO POSTS BY                        ALL FORUM MEMBERS' TO READ "THAT THE FORUM'S POSTING PRIVILIGES BE LIMITED TO MEMBERS OF THE PARTY, SAVE                         FOR SOME SUB-FORUMS OPEN TO POSTS BY ALL FORUM MEMBERS" PASSED === 21:03 <+MikkelPaulson> haha, slowed for flooding 21:04 <+coldacid> heh 21:04 -Stenobot:#canada- === MOTION THAT THE FORUM'S POSTING PRIVILIGES BE LIMITED TO MEMBERS OF THE PARTY. AMENDED === 21:04 <+MikkelPaulson> I know it's a bit wordy 21:04 <@scshunt> Is there further discussion on the motion? 21:05 <+MikkelPaulson> sorry, if you're waiting to log in, please visit https://meetings.pirateparty.ca/login.php 21:05 <+rintaran> I'm good, but then I've had more discussion on the motion than most. 21:05 <+MikkelPaulson> for some reason Stenobot forgot the URL 21:05 <+MikkelPaulson> it's been collecting dust for a few months 21:05 <+MikkelPaulson> I'll fix it later tonight 21:05 <+crime_minister> aye 21:06 <+MikkelPaulson> I'll call the question, then 21:06 <@scshunt> Is there any further discussion before we waste time with a vote? 21:06 -Stenobot:#canada- === VOTE ON MOTION THAT THE FORUM'S POSTING PRIVILIGES BE LIMITED TO MEMBERS OF THE PARTY, SAVE FOR SOME SUB-FORUMS OPEN TO POSTS BY ALL FORUM MEMBERS === 21:07 -Stenobot:#canada- === MOTION THAT THE FORUM'S POSTING PRIVILIGES BE LIMITED TO MEMBERS OF THE PARTY, SAVE FOR SOME SUB-FORUMS OPEN TO POSTS BY ALL FORUM MEMBERS PASSED === 21:07 <+MikkelPaulson> cool 21:08 <+MikkelPaulson> all right, we should have that implemented in the next week or so 21:08 <+RicLim> do we get confirmation code? I noticed there are some codes beside the votes 21:08 <+MikkelPaulson> we'll re-evaluate it at the next meeting 21:08 <+MikkelPaulson> you should have, but Stenobot isn't sending those right now 21:08 <+drew> how do we vote 21:08 <+MikkelPaulson> not sure why 21:08 <+RicLim> k 21:08 <+MikkelPaulson> it gives voting instructions in the announcement 21:09 <+MikkelPaulson> Stenobot (notice) MikkelPaulson has moved That the forum's posting priviliges be limited to members of                      the Party, save for some sub-forums open to posts by all  forum members. To vote yes, type /msg sb Y; to                      vote no, /msg sb N; to abstain, /msg sb A. The voting period will conclude after 45 seconds. 21:09 <+DataPacRat> Odd; I received no such announcement. 21:10 <@scshunt> It was sent to the channel 21:10 <+MikkelPaulson> for more info on how the procedure works, type /msg sb help voting 21:10 <+DataPacRat> There was probably some problem with me authenticating my party membership to sb. 21:10 <@scshunt> You're voiced, so you authenticated 21:11 <@scshunt> and you're in the channel, so you should have seen the notice 21:11 <@scshunt> did you see the ones with lots of === symbols? 21:11 <+coldacid> DataPacRat: what's your irc client 21:11 <+DataPacRat> scshunt: Not a one. 21:11 <@scshunt> coldacid: mibbit 21:11 <+coldacid> D: 21:11 <+DataPacRat> coldacid: The main website client, mibbit 21:11 <+MikkelPaulson> maybe mibbit doesn't show NOTICE messages... 21:11 <+MikkelPaulson> heh 21:11 <+MikkelPaulson> I'll have to look into that 21:12 * scshunt tests it 21:12 <+MikkelPaulson> if that's the case, I'll have to abandon that altogether 21:12 -scshunt:#canada- TEST NOTICE 21:12 <+drew> how do i know if my vote went through 21:12 <+DataPacRat> MikkelPaulson: I know I've voted on at least one previous chat with the client - maybe there was an upgrade to the software? 21:12 <@scshunt> who saw that notice? 21:12 <+MikkelPaulson> you voted too late 21:12 <+MikkelPaulson> I did 21:12 <+coldacid> i saw it 21:12 <+AdamS> I did 21:12 <+AdamS> (though I'm not on mibbit) 21:12 <+rintaran> I saw it. 21:13 <@scshunt> the mibbit client didn't 21:13 <@scshunt> I am going to recommend retaking the vote publicly so as to allow those who don't have mibbit to vote 21:13 <@scshunt> if anyone objects to the amendment, we can retake that vote too 21:14 <+RicLim> I did 21:14 <@scshunt> Ok, so first I'll entertain a motion do reconsider the vote on limited the forum posting priviliges; do we                have a mover? 21:14 <+DataPacRat> scshunt: May I ask how many people did vote with the current software? 21:15 <+MikkelPaulson> 8 21:15 <@scshunt> There were 9 votes on the amendment and 8 on the main motion 21:15 <@scshunt> I would recommend retaking at least the vote on the main motion 21:15 <+MikkelPaulson> I'll move 21:15 <@scshunt> is there any objection to reconsidering the motion? 21:15 <+sidek> second, if needed 21:16 <@scshunt> Ok, there's no objection 21:16 <@scshunt> Does anyone want to ask the reconsideration of the amendment too? 21:16 <+psema4> scshunt, MikkelPaulson Was unexpectedly afk - I didnt receive voting information from stenobot 21:16 <+MikkelPaulson> amendment was unanimous 21:16 <+MikkelPaulson> I don't think there's any need 21:16 <+MikkelPaulson> sigh 21:16 -Stenobot:#canada- DataPacRat's speaking period has ended. 21:17 <+MikkelPaulson> I swear it's acquired more bugs 21:17 -Stenobot:#canada- === MOTION THAT THE FORUM'S POSTING PRIVILIGES BE LIMITED TO MEMBERS OF THE PARTY, SAVE FOR SOME SUB-FORUMS OPEN TO POSTS BY ALL FORUM MEMBERS === 21:17 -Stenobot:#canada- MikkelPaulson now has the floor. 21:17 -Stenobot:#canada- MikkelPaulson's speaking period has ended. 21:17 <@scshunt> Is there any discussion on this motion? 21:18 <+AdamS> not from me, but we should copy and paste so those who can't see the notices can see it 21:18 <+MikkelPaulson> I call the question 21:18 <@scshunt> Yeah 21:18 <@scshunt> right, forgot 21:18 <@scshunt> MikkelPaulson has moved that the forum's posting priviliges be limited to members of the Party, save for some sub-forums open to posts by all forum members. 21:18 <@scshunt> No discussion? 21:19 <~Nuitari> I think we can just vote 21:19 <+crimeminister> agreed 21:19 <+MikkelPaulson> please 21:19 <@scshunt> Ok 21:19 <+dc> I haven't had time to use the forums, and do not have strong feelings one way or the other. 21:19 <+MikkelPaulson> bear in mind that the voting period is 30 second 21:19 <@scshunt> 45 seconds? 21:19 <+MikkelPaulson> dc: you can abstain or just not vote 21:19 <+MikkelPaulson> yeah, 45 21:20 <+MikkelPaulson> sorry 21:20 <@scshunt> All in favor please say 'aye'. All against please say 'nay'. You may remain silent to not vote. You have 45 seconds to vote. 21:21 <@scshunt> The voting period is over; the ayes have it and the motion carries 21:21 <+dc> doh 21:22 <@scshunt> sidek: sorry, you missed the end of the voting period by at least a minute there 21:22 <+MikkelPaulson> reaction time! 21:22 <@scshunt> dc: yours doesn't matter since you didn't vote; that's by definition an abstention 21:23 <+MikkelPaulson> actually only 35 seconds 21:23 <@scshunt> There are no more items on the agenda; is there any further business? 21:23 <+sidek> scshunt, my vote was fourth O_O 21:23 <+dc> scshunt: no kidding 21:23 <+MikkelPaulson> I'd like to make a brief announcement if I may 21:23 <+sidek> how did I miss it by a minute? 21:23 <@scshunt> sidek: hrm... that sounds like lag then. It definitely didn't affect the outcome 21:23 <@scshunt> IRC does occastionally have the problem that the messages don't all make it to the destinations in the same order 21:23 <+psema4> scshunt, sidek I cuncur 21:23 <+sidek> on my log, it's after Nuitari, but before RicLim 21:24 <@scshunt> MikkelPaulson: go ahead 21:24 <+MikkelPaulson> okay 21:24 <+MikkelPaulson> I'd just like to announce that I've received an offer for a web developer position in Montreal 21:24 <+crimeminister> congrats 21:24 <+MikkelPaulson> so I'll be moving there at the end of the month 21:24 <~Nuitari> congrats! 21:24 <+dc> congrats 21:24 <~Nuitari> I'll buy you beers 21:24 <+psema4> 'grats :) 21:24 <+DataPacRat> Congratulations. :) 21:24 <+MikkelPaulson> it'll definitely unbalance the geographical distribution of the council 21:24 <+RicLim> Congrats. 21:24 <+MikkelPaulson> but ah well, can't be helped 21:24 <+MikkelPaulson> thanks 21:24 <+dc> I've visited years ago. it's a beautiful city. I hope you enjoy it there. 21:25 <+MikkelPaulson> yeah, it's my favourite city in Canada 21:25 <+crimeminister> I lived there a few years ago; it was a blast 21:25 <+MikkelPaulson> (something I didn't want to say during the campaign...) 21:25 <+drew> good job. But who will take care of Edmonton? 21:25 <+MikkelPaulson> "I LOVE EDMONTON, WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?" 21:25 <+ArghMonkey> enjoy the two seasons, winter and road construction 21:25 <+dc> MikkelPaulson, that's funny 21:25 <+MikkelPaulson> I'm quite used to that in Edmonchuck 21:25 <+crimeminister> take the subway (or live downtown) 21:25 <+sidek> ArghMonkey, he's moving from Edmonton. It's the same there :D 21:26 <+MikkelPaulson> still have drew and BrentSchaffrick and a few others here 21:26 <+ArghMonkey> im a bad Canadian, i hate the winter 21:26 <~Nuitari> oh 21:26 <+sidek> I prefer winter to summer, TBH 21:26 <~Nuitari> we'll need someone to handle tshirts shipping in the west 21:26 <+crimeminister> we need to build domes over every major city 21:26 <+sidek> way too hot in the summer, and there's waaay too many bugs 21:26 <+MikkelPaulson> we can keep chatting about it after the meeting, just wanted to make the announcement on the record 21:27 <+ArghMonkey> sidek: u havent lived in vancouver then :) 21:27 <+sidek> mosquito infestation in Edmonton this year :( 21:27 <+sidek> ArghMonkey, I have not 21:27 <@scshunt> Do we have any further business? 21:27 <+rintaran> No, that was the agenda and we seem to have gone off to non-party matter. 21:28 <+MikkelPaulson> indeed 21:28 -Stenobot:#canada- ======================= MEETING ADJOURNED ========================

View Minutes