GM 2014-02-26 transcript

  hello  Hello  hey  Hey all  hi >#canada< PM RLim your e-mail for voice. hello  hey  how many are we from quorum?  Three, I think? about 3 +- CCitizen  phillipsjk: he is just lurking I think.  ping CCitizen  ping drew drew2_ TravisMcCrea  so close  here  always here <3 So, did you want to participate it a meeting?  Is the agenda set in stone or am I allowed to add to it? <TravisMcCrea> :) I guess I can stick around You are allowed to add to it. <Wilson> 'new business' covers additions That is why we approve the agenda. <TravisMcCrea> I would like to throw something into constitutional amendments <TravisMcCrea> I mean I can wait until new business too.. but since we would be on the topic >#Canada< Meeting is underway. Please direct off-topic discussion to #canada-riffraff Constitutional amendments require 1 months' notice. <Wilson> amendments require notice, so you can announce and discuss but it wouldn't come up till next meeting <Wilson> hey rej :) <TravisMcCrea> phillipsjk yeah, I want to give my one month notice <TravisMcCrea> <3 I know a couple of rules ;) <CraigNobbs> You do that during the new business section. you have to also have the wording for the amendment available (I believe) OK, I delete constitutional amendments from the end of the agenda. any other changes? <CraigNobbs> no. <CraigNobbs> my amendment is up for this meeting MOTION: Approve agenda as amended. <CraigNobbs> we don't need to amend the agenda <CraigNobbs> it is just raised during the "new business" time Ok, no second then. <RLim> second <RLim> nvm Are there any officers reports? <Wilson> none from the leader RLim? <RLim> I'll just present the Financial update posted on our forum <RLim> https://my.pirateparty.ca/node/153 <RLim> let me know if there are any question Ok, Any committee reports? (not aware of actively organized committees at the moment) <Wilson> I think we can safely say no. We need to confirm the election results: https://my.pirateparty.ca/node/148 If there are no objections, I MOTION: approve Executive Board results as published. <Wilson> Looks good. Second <Infovorr> Third. <MHoude> Second <RLeblanc> Second second <CraigNobbs> only one person needs to second <CraigNobbs> and no thirds, or more, are needed <CraigNobbs> just fyi thanks I actually didn't know <RLeblanc> same here! All in favor vote yes, else vote no (2 mins) <CraigNobbs> yes <chadkoh_> yes yes <Ervin> yes <RLeblanc> Yes <MHoude> Yes <RLim> yes <Wilson> yes yes <Infovorr> Yes. <MononcQc> yes <BobJonkman> YEs Maybe 2 mins is too long... I count 12 in favor, 0 against Carried. yes <BobJonkman> phillipsjk: I needed some of that time to read the report. CraigNobbs, do you have a copy of your constitutional amendment to present? <CraigNobbs> mmm... let me grab that... may take a minute Yes, good point psema4. Now is your chance to replace me as president. Yes, you in the corner there. The Secretary (Ric Lim) also wants to be replaced. <chadkoh_> see the current list here: https://wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php?title=Executive_Board <CraigNobbs> some of the documents have been removed from the wiki.... <RLim> what documents? <CraigNobbs> the previous agendas from the first half of 2013 <RLim> A lot of times those were not filled in <CraigNobbs> I know, but my motion was stored on one of those <RLim> phillipsjk: did a good job of making sure it's always filled <RLim> I nominate him for President again :) <RLim> once we are in that part of the agenda <RLim> not recent one? <RLim> here <RLim> https://www.pirateparty.ca/newsletter/ppca-2014-02-newsletter/ <RLim> at the bottom <RLim> you want me to paste them? <CraigNobbs> ah... thanks RLim XD <RLim> I thought we are doing the quorum first in case we lose quorum :) ^ <chadkoh_> +1 <CraigNobbs> I'll post them <CraigNobbs> notice to all... incoming wall of text... <CraigNobbs> Text of the proposed constitutional amendments: <CraigNobbs> "Article IV. Officers, excluding IV.1 Election", shall be stricken and replaced with the following: <CraigNobbs> The officers of the party shall be the Leader, the President, the Deputy Leader, the Vice-President,and the Secretary. These officers shall perform the duties given to them by this document, by the Party, or by the parliamentary authority of the Party. <CraigNobbs> Officers of the party are the members of the Executive Council, which comprise of the Leader, Deputy Leader, President, Vice President, and Secretary positions. <CraigNobbs> "Article IV.2 Holding Dual Positions" to be added: <CraigNobbs> A member can be nominated, elected, and hold up to and no more than two positions within the Executive Council; a maximum of one position on the Executive Board and a maximum of one position on the Political Council. To be elected to both the Executive Board and the Political Council, the member must be separately nominated and elected following the rules set out in this Constitution for each respective position. <CraigNobbs> A member who holds a position on both the Executive Board and the Political Council retains all rights, powers, and restrictions afforded both the respective positions as laid out by the Constitution. This is to allow the member to retain all rights of both positions and act independently of the other position held. <CraigNobbs> In all other matters, said member is considered a single entity [member], and is governed by the same rights and restrictions as every other member as the Constitution lays out. This is to ensure that the member is otherwise limited to their normal, single vote and consideration. <CraigNobbs> yes motion to accept the constitutional ammendments <BobJonkman> second <Ervin> yes <Wilson> technically its a motion to send it to the membership to be voted on but whatever :) <CraigNobbs> at this point, we'll open up the floor for discussion <CraigNobbs> anyone have anything to ask or say about this amendment? <chadkoh_> +1 git <BobJonkman> +1 git <chadkoh_> git diff although, wikimedia provides revisioning doesn't it? <BobJonkman> But not branching <CraigNobbs> https://wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php?title=Constitution_2012-06-20#Article_IV._Officers <TravisMcCrea> If we are going to make a constitutional amendment regarding membership of the two committees why can't we just merge them like we were talking about before?  current text: https://wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php?title=Constitution_2012-06-20#Article_IV._Officers <BobJonkman> So, an accepted amendment can be pulled, a rejected one is just a dead-end branch <CraigNobbs> @Travis: because they serve different functions. This amendment allows someone to serve on both if they want to any discussion of the motion? TravisMcCrea just asked a relevant question. IIRC that's how we were configured years ago <TravisMcCrea> I think, with the size of our current party... we should have one larger body which does both executive and political functions. While historically I was opposed to this, and still kinda am (because the people who are elected because they are good at book keeping are not nessesarily skilled in communicating with the public for instance) <TravisMcCrea> I think we are too small to have this level of separation in general <BobJonkman> A single body for an organization is problematic. For most organizations you have a division between Executive board, paid staff and regular membership. With PPCA it is good to add a separate Political Board <TravisMcCrea> BobJonkman that's true, with a larger organization... but with the level of turnover and size of PPCA <MononcQc> I think it would be interesting to avoid that level of separation, but mandate it past a certain size to split up <MononcQc> (a certain size or budget) Craig why did you remove the the proceedures for electing officers? <BobJonkman> TravisMcCrea: Separate boards is only a problem due to lack of volunteers to staff them all. CraigNobbs's amendments go a long way to solving the problem of not enough bodies <CraigNobbs> @phillipsjk. I didn't <TravisMcCrea> BobJonkman but we are a fluid enough party to be able to fix things as needed. When we grew into a larger party, we separated the boards, as we are shrinking a bit we can bring them back together. As we grow again we separate them. <TravisMcCrea> <3 we are like a gazzell isn't that what ' "Article IV. Officers, excluding IV.1 Election", shall be stricken and replaced with the following:' does? <BobJonkman> The structure is generally: membership votes in the Exec board, Exec board sets direction and hires staff, staff runs the organization. <CraigNobbs> @Travis, there is no need to at this point. We're large enough to have seperate boards and plan on growing. I don't see the need to amalgamante them. <BobJonkman> Staff should NOT be on the Exec board, that's a conflict. <TravisMcCrea> BobJonkman yes. We wont be there until well after the next general election (though for the General Election I would say that this board should create a dedicated team for the election to manage stuff like that) <CraigNobbs> @phillipsjk: no, it leave IV.1 Election completely intact oops reading fail on my part. any other discussion? <BobJonkman> TravisMcCrea: Election committees can be appointed by the Executive from within the membership. <BobJonkman> Large parties have individual Electoral District Associations, PPCA can make do with a single Elections Committee <BobJonkman> I'm ready to vote +1 <CCitizen> What are we voting on again? The motion to be voted on is: to accept the constitutional ammendments <TravisMcCrea> Single bodies are able to get more done, more efficently. No asking one side to give the other side something. When something needs to get done it gets done. Having checks and ballances is a good thing, when we are larger, but right now we are small. Let me use a pirate ship example: If we only have one cannon... then while having a big 50 gun gallian is cool... it makes us slow and easily defeated. However, if we have one <TravisMcCrea> cannon, we can put it on a tiny little corvette and run circles around bigger ships and defeat them with agility We only presented one so far though.. <BobJonkman> Single bodies are prone to lack of oversight. Transparent governance is difficult, slow and messy. <CraigNobbs> ... <CCitizen> Well technically I think we dont accept them, we send them to All Party Ballot for everyone to vote on. <CraigNobbs> For those who would like to see it as it would be in its complete form... <CraigNobbs> https://www.piratepad.ca/p/New_Article_IV._Officers <CraigNobbs> don't mind the lack of formatting... it was a quick job How about MOTION: Send CraigNobbs' constitutional amendment to an all-party vote. <TravisMcCrea> Line 14 is inherently broken due to leader having membership to all executive committees <BobJonkman> TravisMcCrea: I'm inclined to separate out the IT director from the Executive Council. IT is part of staff, subject to direction from the Exec. <BobJonkman> Can't have the IT guy voting to increase his own budget. Make a proposal, let the Exec Council decide, but the IT guy stays out of the decisionmaking <TravisMcCrea> BobJonkman even if that is the case, any other committee over seen by the EC would still break line 14 <CraigNobbs> @Travis: it is not <BobJonkman> That's why I don't want "staff" to be a part of either Executive or Political bodies. <TravisMcCrea> CraigNobbs lol you can't just say "no" and it not be broken <CraigNobbs> @Travis: it isn't broken <TravisMcCrea> BobJonkman also you are saying what you want not how it is right now <TravisMcCrea> (unless I missed it) <TravisMcCrea> we can't pass something on the assumption something will be done in the future <BobJonkman> TravisMcCrea: No, I'm regurgitating my position from 2009. <BobJonkman> But that's still my belief TravisMcCrea, the wiki entry for the current board gives that impression. <TravisMcCrea> I agree with it <TravisMcCrea> but the way it is right now, the leader position would inherently break line 14 <CraigNobbs> how <TravisMcCrea> because you are holding multiple positions on the EB <BobJonkman> (speaking of 2009, I see there's no info about meetings prior to October 2010 - what's up with that? https://wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php?title=Federal_Council_Meetings) <TravisMcCrea> as well as the position on the EC <TravisMcCrea> err <TravisMcCrea> PC <CraigNobbs> no you're not. It clearly states that you cannot hold more than one position within the EB <TravisMcCrea> Also is "EC" the PC and EB combined? <CraigNobbs> or the PC <TravisMcCrea> I haven't seen "EC" defined anywhere before (again I haven't read it in a while) <CraigNobbs> as I read it, yes. The EC is the EB and the PC combined But the leader is on th eEB <RLim> BobJonkman: don't know. Maybe they did not use wiki back then. Not sure where the old meeting minutes are <TravisMcCrea> (I am just asking for clarity sake) Leader is a PC position <Wilson_> think I dropped where is the discussion at? <TravisMcCrea> Wilson_ I will message you log of the last few minutes <CraigNobbs> As I read it, the Leader is part of the EB only to give input, but has no voting rights unless he's a tie breaker <Wilson_> thx The deputy leader is in there too. <TravisMcCrea> http://pastie.org/8798507 <BobJonkman> CraigNobbs: That seems wrong. President of the EC should be a non-voter unless there's a tie. Party Leader is just another Exec Board member <CraigNobbs> Party Leader is a PC member with full voting rights. They also sit on the EB to give input with no voting rights, unless a tie breaking vote is required. <RLim> I don't think that's how it's been I notice the EB is only 3 people without the PC seats. <RLim> Everyone except the agent and IT comm have voting rights <RLim> *IT admin <TravisMcCrea> Can we clear up the term "Executive Council" <TravisMcCrea> Leader, Deputy Leader, President, Vice President and Secretary positions <RLim> yes <BobJonkman> CraigNobbs: Tiebreaking is usually done by the Executive Director (called the President in this case) <RLim> the amendment would allow someone to be at both PC and EB. But when it comes to voting, their vote will only count once even if they hold 2 positions <TravisMcCrea> The Executive Board shall consist of the officers of the Party and the chairs of any standing committees of the Party. <= as per above the "Executive Council" is the officers of the party <CCitizen> Actually Travis the EB also has voting privileges for standing committtee heads (which is IT and the PDC) BobJonkman, I think they mainly are. <BobJonkman> Can somebody make a Venn diagram of these groups? <TravisMcCrea> Officers of the party are the members of the Executive Council which comprise the Leader, Deputy Leader, President, Vice President and Secretary positions. The positions of President, Vice-President and Secretary shall not be eligible to hold a position on the Political Council. <RLim> I think CCitizen is right <TravisMcCrea> CCitizen which is why line 14 is invalid <CCitizen> You can think of the IT Head as the director of IT. He's supposed to be managing volunteers and dealing with administrative stuff like making sure our servers and stuff get paid <RLim> or agent <Wilson_> Why isn't the amendment simply to remove "The positions of President, Vice-President and Secretary shall not be eligible to hold a position on the Political Council."? Can we temprarily pause discussion on the current motion/topic and deal with quorum? <RLim> right now I am handling that which make sense since agent have to keep track of expenses <TravisMcCrea> :) i think the proper term is "Motion to table discussion" <TravisMcCrea> which I second <RLim> motion to ... <RLim> there ^ <RLim> TravisMcCrea: said it <TravisMcCrea> BOOM! <RLim> but can you recall in the same meeting? The current motion: Table discussion: <BobJonkman> +1 motion to table discussion on amendments <TravisMcCrea> RLim yes <CraigNobbs> Travis... the amendment changes that as well <RLim> vote <Wilson_> aye <TravisMcCrea> aye <CraigNobbs> no <MononcQc> abstain <Infovorr> Aye. All in favor vote yes, else vote no (2 mins) <RLim> aye <RLeblanc> abstain <BobJonkman> Yes (to tabling discussion on amendments) <chadkoh_> abstain aye <CCitizen> aye aye <Wilson_> (and yes, I believe you can bring the motion back from the table by the same type of vote) <Wilson_> (or at the end of the meeting, whichever comes first) Count 7 in favor, 1 against, 3 abstain, carried. (wilson was a dupe) Motion: Send all-party ballot asking meeting quorum to be set to 10. <TravisMcCrea> Again in spirit of agility, I would like us to do away with "quorums" and "meetings" and stuffy things that only stifle the development of our party. Instead of having a lower quorum, why don't we pass a motion (albeit next month) which moves meetings to an asynchronous system. Our last experiment with them went exceptionally well and was only stymied by my own stupidity (which I take full credit for). <CraigNobbs> no <Wilson_> Do we have an A-system in place? <RLim> amendment? <CraigNobbs> no <CraigNobbs> we attempted this and it failed <RLim> Wilson_: we can use the current discussion <MononcQc> I'd prefer to try a lower quorum at first. <RLim> Just create a separate category or content type that says Async Meeting <CCitizen> Quorum is defined in the constitution <TravisMcCrea> Wilson_ we did, it was on one of my servers and I accidently reformatted the server thinking it was unused. <Infovorr> We could lower the quorum now and discuss the a-system next time. <TravisMcCrea> CCitizen but if we are making a change to the constitution we can change it to whatever, eh <TravisMcCrea> I disagree with CraigNobbs' assessment that it failed. It increased PC productivity dramatically If nobody likes my motion, is there a better one? <BobJonkman> TravisMcCrea: As it is, we're disenfranching a large portion of our membership by holding meetings in IRC. Many people will never have the technical chops to participate <CCitizen> You can only change the constitution by giving notice one meeting in advance and usually you'd need to give notice for that meeting as well (IE. it would be listed in the agenda for that meeting) <TravisMcCrea> BobJonkman exactly <MononcQc> phillipsjk, I'm waiting to see where the discussion leads before seconding <Wilson_> If the forums and Facebook comments were more active I'd be inclined to maybe support an A-system but as it stands they are not. <CCitizen> Hard to hold a meeting when your members are in 7 different timezones <MononcQc> A-system -> asynchronous <MononcQc> ? <TravisMcCrea> So instead of having meetings on IRC we could have one ongoing system online... using a system like https://www.loomio.org/ as we did before <Wilson_> just don't want to spell that each time ;) <CraigNobbs> We tried that and it did fail.  people stopped attending meetings and responce times increased.  Not to mention the massive failing of the technical issues that came with it <TravisMcCrea> Again the only flaw in the last system was that it wasn't moved to a party server with party backups (something I tried to get done multiple times, in my defense, but our IT director was a dick -- the one thing I think CraigNobbs and I agree on) <RLim> we can just use my.pirateparty.ca and mark subject with MOTION <RLim> You can create poll also <Infovorr> I'm seconding the motion to lower the quorum. Like CCitizen said, constitutional amendments need to be made in advance, so we could table that until the next general meeting. One problem I had with loomio is that I could no longer see PC meeting minutes because it was set to private, <TravisMcCrea> I would be okay moving them to forums, I think loomio does a better job since it was designed to do it... but anything is better than IRC meetings <Wilson_> @RLim which brings us back to the lack of activity on the forum. At least if you get people at the meeting they are inclined to vote <Infovorr> I do agree, though, that a system that's more open to non-computer savvy folks would be ideal. <TravisMcCrea> Loomio also sends out email notifications telling everyone there is a vote to attend <RLim> ok let's get the quorum done since people keep dropping <Infovorr> Second. <chadkoh_> Aye <TravisMcCrea> RLim if we pass it we still have to have a member vote right? <TravisMcCrea> Just to be clear <RLim> yeah <BobJonkman> If a meeting were to span a month, where motions could be voted on IRL at community meetings, with the results returned to the next meeting, non-computer people could participate in the running of the party :) <RLim> BobJonkman: good idea. We used to have local meetups <RLim> if we can get that going again, then the rep can just post it on behalf of the group <TravisMcCrea> RLim the good old days >#canada< Motion: Send all-party ballot asking meeting quorum to be set to 10. <MononcQc> how do isolated members deal with isolated meetups? <CraigNobbs> @Bob... lol, non computer people part of the ppca. <Wilson_> (also note that even if we move to an A-system, we still need a minimum number of people participating) <RLim> could happen CraigNobbs <Infovorr> Yeah, what about the more isolated party members? <TravisMcCrea> CraigNobbs -- I don't see why not, our platforms help all sorts of people To vote says yes, else say no (2 mins) <BobJonkman> CraigNobbs: It may be funny, but it's important for inclusion. <Infovorr> Yes. <RLim> once we release our mincome and have a mincome road tour :) <Wilson_> yes <CraigNobbs> sure, but I don't see it happening for some time <TravisMcCrea> aye yes <BobJonkman> Not allowing non-computer people is like not allowing non-male people <RLim> oh pessimist <CraigNobbs> yes yes <RLim> lol <RLim> aye <MononcQc> yes aye <chadkoh_> yes <CraigNobbs> not a pesimest... just a realist <RLeblanc> yes <MHoude> yes <RLim> it's good that we can just add those amendments to our EB ballot ^ Count: 12 yes, 0 no, Carried. <BobJonkman> yes, to all-member vote for changing quoum <BobJonkman> oops. BobJonkman, it even took me like 15 s to start the timer :) <TravisMcCrea> While between motions I am providing notice of me bringing the amendment next meeting of "Change the name of the party to "Best Party"" So, we need to nominate Executive Board members. <CCitizen> You realize that once upon a time Quorum was set to 50... and we had to get 50 people together to actually change it to 15... True Fact. <Infovorr> Welp. <CraigNobbs> for fucksake CCitizen: memories <BobJonkman> Things were a lot more active in the early days <CraigNobbs> @Travis: Don't be an asshat <TravisMcCrea> :P Less bureaucracy <CCitizen> I'd like to give notice to change the party's name to "The Best Damn Party Ever" :D <BobJonkman> TravisMcCrea: It is likely that such a name would not be approved by the Returning Officer AFAIK, notices don<t require seconds :P <Wilson_> Amendment noted and frowny-faced >:( +1 <TravisMcCrea> BobJonkman - Iceland's election system approved it for their pirate party <CraigNobbs> That has been discussed at length and always obtained a negative result <TravisMcCrea> they are pretty aggressive on things like that <RLim> thanks for that historic trivia CCitizen :) Thanks Wilson. <BobJonkman> TravisMcCrea: Iceland doesn't have our Returning Officer <TravisMcCrea> Well then it can be discussed again, and it's no risk to you CraigNobbs <RLim> CCitizen: sad that we can hardly get that number anymore <MononcQc> TravisMcCrea, in iceland the municipal party is the best party, not the national one. <Wilson_> (although going directly to the GM is a strat I approve of you populare.) <TravisMcCrea> BobJonkman that's true, but again they have pretty tight regulations (being highly progressive and consumer protective) <Infovorr> Well, if we try an A-system again we might be able to change things for the better. <CCitizen> Actually we had to try hard to get 50 people to show up... most of the time you'd see about 25-ish people on for a GM <TravisMcCrea> MononcQc that is true too... but it is still a Pirate Party <CraigNobbs> I'd like to give notice for an amendment that every physical meetup that everyone get turns to kick travis in the junk <MononcQc> hah <TravisMcCrea> Also while making announcements next meeting I will be proposing an amendment ending IRC meetings and moving things to a web medium <Wilson_> guys. Keep it civil bloody pirates ;) <RLim> BobJonkman: EC have rules about party names not sounding like they are independent Cand we do board nominations now? <RLim> or non-partisan <CraigNobbs> I'd like to vote on my amendment now <RLim> not sure if Best Party counts as non-partisan <RLim> oops sorry Mr. President <TravisMcCrea> We could make an argument that it is a part of our political heritage <CraigNobbs> ./sigh <TravisMcCrea> (though they are younger than us) do we have a second for untabling CraigNobbs' ammendment? second <Wilson_> saying you're the best is a partisan statement and I'm up for returning to Craig's motion MOTION: bring back CraigsNobbs' Constitutional amendment for discussion. <RLim> second <Wilson_> aye <TravisMcCrea> nay <RLim> aye <CraigNobbs> aye To vote yes, say yes, else says no. (2 mins) aye as for best party, have to remember that we have two official languages and the translation is way different. pirate is the same in both :) <Infovorr> Yes. <BobJonkman> Aye <MononcQc> aye yes <MHoude> yes yes >#canada< vote in progress <RLim> aye after call for vote <CraigNobbs> aye <CCitizen> aye aye <Vitriohl> aye <chadkoh_> aye Results: 14 in favor, 1 against. Carried. Current MOTION: Send CraigNobbs' constitutional amendment to an all-party vote. <TravisMcCrea> Line 2 removes the term "Executive Committee" which was defined as the group "Leader, the President, the Deputy Leader, the Vice-President,and the  Secretary. " <TravisMcCrea> It should be there <TravisMcCrea> Line 14 is flawed <TravisMcCrea> as stated before <CraigNobbs> look to line 3 <CraigNobbs> and line 14 is not flawed, as I already explained <TravisMcCrea> no you didn't -- you simply said "no it's not" <CraigNobbs> I explained after that <TravisMcCrea> In addition to the issues in the actual wording of the suggestion it's also un needed. What we need is to streamline the party. When we had meetings of 50 people, those were the days we had a single body. We were able to act fast and move quickly <MononcQc> can we have the link again? <TravisMcCrea> https://www.piratepad.ca/p/New_Article_IV._Officers <RLeblanc> Could I get a log of what happened in the past 10 minutes? <TravisMcCrea> http://pastie.org/8799274 sorry, what does travis see as the flaw on line 14? <TravisMcCrea> Having a single body could start putting us back in the right direction of political agility which we need at our size. I am a business owner, I understand the importance of transparency and accountability. However, as a party that is shrinking in size what we don't need is more rules and committees and groups and things. What we need is a group of people who are elected to get shit done, both politically and executively <RLim> TravisMcCrea: isn't that a separate motion? <CraigNobbs> That doesn't answer his question <TravisMcCrea> because i was typing that out before he asked <RLim> oh ok <BobJonkman> TravisMcCrea: And that shit needs to get done with the knowledge and approval of the membership. <TravisMcCrea> dysonsphere the problem is the executive board handles many committees and groups. It limits you to one position in the PC and one in the EB <TravisMcCrea> Which means that the leader is inherently breaking line 14 by being in every committee in the EB I think he said something about the EB chairing all committees, <TravisMcCrea> Line 14 is inherently broken due to leader having membership to all executive committee <TravisMcCrea> BobJonkman a single body does not negate transparency. yes i agree with the spirit of your statement travis, perhaps we could motion that for subsequent debate? <TravisMcCrea> Especially if they do all their work in the open using async communication platforms ;) <BobJonkman> Can't have a single, small body making decisions without getting feedback, discussion, approval, no matter how agile that is. <BobJonkman> That what the rules do, they ensure a fair, consistent process <CraigNobbs> @Travis: the leader does not sit on the committess, the deputy leader andthe vice president do. and they're committees, not the boards themselves <TravisMcCrea> dysonsphere the problem is once we start making patches in our constitution, it's harder to get the membership to approve another one right after. Why ask our membership to vote on allowing a person to be a part of both groups, to then again ask them to eliminate both groups and to create one <CraigNobbs> lol <TravisMcCrea> Then what two positions would he hold in the EB CraigNobbs ? ok. i see your point now. <CraigNobbs> because Travis wants to subvert the PPCA from within and this is the best that he can do <TravisMcCrea> lol conspiracy theory much? <CraigNobbs> No one would be able to hold more than one position on the EB. It clearly states that. <TravisMcCrea> Not clearly it says "no more than two positions within the Executive Council;" <RLim> ok down to 15 better hurry up <CraigNobbs> Read the whole thing Travis <CraigNobbs> IV.2 Holding Dual Positions <CraigNobbs> A member can be nominated, elected, and hold up to and no more than two positions within the Executive  Council; a maximum of one position on the Executive Board and a maximum  of one position on the Political Council. To be elected to both the Executive Board and the Political Council, the member must be separately  nominated and elected following the rules set out in this Constitution  for each respective position. <TravisMcCrea> that is a pointless part then, because you already address the limitations on each board in the next sentence. <CraigNobbs> It's right there <BobJonkman> One of the reasons membership declined was that the PPCA was not treated as a legitimate political party by its own members. This is not a fun joyride, this is a serious attempt at creating a government <TravisMcCrea> Again, I think it could be interepeted that committees would fall under that <TravisMcCrea> because it's not clearly written <CraigNobbs> they cannot and it is <RLim> other sections define who sits on committee <BobJonkman> When making a motion like "let's call ourselves the Best Party" you should ask yourself, would you do this if you were Prime Minister? <TravisMcCrea> BobJonkman I fully agree with that, which is why when I was leader I gave us a comprehensive policy (something Craig was very much against) <TravisMcCrea> BobJonkman of course, because we don't get taken seriously with the name "Pirate" <TravisMcCrea> look at any comment section on news articles about us in Canada <BobJonkman> Yes, and that was very much appreciated. Lack of policy was one of my big objections <chadkoh_> stay on target <RLim> note: we still have to nominate for EB <CraigNobbs> I was not against a comprehensive policy, just the way that you were implementing such radical ideas that shut out many members of the PPCA <BobJonkman> "Pirate" is very good branding. Hasn't stopped people from getting elected in other countries. Should we amend line 14 to read: "Executive board?" BobJonkman++ <BobJonkman> But, of course, they have proportional representation That is off-topic discussion. <CraigNobbs> @philiphsjk: No, it reads correctly <RLim> That sounds like a new body <RLim> I think he meant EB and PC <RLim> combined Could it be considered a label for both groups? <RLim> EB AND PC? <Wilson_> Guys, I'm going to suggest we look at the Officer section as it currently is: https://wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php?title=Constitution_2012-06-20#Article_IV._Officers Why not just remove "No Individual may hold more than one officer position" & "shall not be eligible to hold a position on the Political Council. " <chadkoh_> thanks Bob <CraigNobbs> @Wilson: I looked at doing that, however, that could leave it open to interpretation and may allow for abuse. The IV.2 was the resolution to that issue <TravisMcCrea> queried you BobJonkman - FYI Is there a second for Wilson_'s suggestion? it looks much simpler than the current proposal. <Wilson_> What type of abuse? <RLim> holding more than 2 position? <CraigNobbs> yes <Wilson_> If the members vote for that... <CCitizen> So someone can run for president and leader and secretary? <CraigNobbs> Without IV.2, yes We have burn-out as it is, I don't think we want one person in too amny positions. <CraigNobbs> and it'd give them 2 votes on the EB <CCitizen> Though I sorta like Wilson's a bit better <Wilson_> They could but I can't see the membership actually voting for that. <CCitizen> When we wrote the constitution we didnt want to concentrate power too heavily into say a single person <Infovorr> Which makes sense. <CraigNobbs> It wasn't for the majority of PPCA members. It was done to protect us incase of an attempted hostile takeover. There are several points within the constitution to protect against this exact issue i am new to this, but what is the reason to even allow one person to hold 2 positions? <Wilson_> Then add "Regardless of the number of positions held on the EB a person has 1 vote" <CraigNobbs> the PC and the EB deal with different issues. The PC is our public face while the EB handles the internal stuff. <Infovorr> Doesn't the constitution as it is right now prevent someone from holding more than one position? <CCitizen> I dont think there is a reason to allow such. At it's bare minimum the EB consists of 5 people (with existing standing committees it can be 7 people) <CCitizen> I think Wilson_ 's suggestion is fine if you keep the party of only one individual per officer position <CCitizen> err part not party <RLim> Last election CraigNobbs was forced to give up his PC position after winning VP at EB. The idea of the amendment was to allow the person to stay on PC. <CraigNobbs> As in the last election, we almost didn't have enough people to be on the EB. <RLim> Of course this means they could potentially be President and Leader. But limiting it to one vote prevents them having too much power. But it reduces number of cotes <Infovorr> Which effectively increases the weight of each remaining vote. <TravisMcCrea> I have caught something from the PPAU's constitution (thanks for Brendan for suggesting looking at it) which also raises an issue with CraigNobbs' suggestion. It doesn't take in consideration a person stepping down. Where you might hold two titles like Wilson did (or does?). http://pirateparty.org.au/constitution/#9.1(1) is a nice quick read. I think when making decisions about what we can do, we should look at what other <TravisMcCrea> parties are doing i agree with infovorr. it throws of fthe balance <RLim> Wilson's amendment can be changed to retaining their PC position as long as it is not an officers position? i just don't see the justification of holding more than one position <CraigNobbs> I think you infovorr missed something <RLim> That way they can still contribute as a PC member <Wilson_> Note: I have made no formal motion, just suggestions <CraigNobbs> That person retains their single vote as the member of the PC, and their single vote on the EB. <CCitizen> Personally I think Wilson_ is on the right track... All you need to do is remove "shall not be eligible to hold a position on the Political Council. " and it's fixed. Current MOTION: Send CraigNobbs' constitutional amendment to an all-party vote. <RLim> can Wilson_ move for an amendment <BobJonkman> Are the amendments still subject to revision? Yes, of course. <RLim> nvm. It's too far from an amendment. <Wilson_> PC and EB handle different things. So it is reasonable to say they might want to contribute in different ways <MononcQc> I think we can vote to move for an amendment to the amendment, then we gotta revote on the amended amendment? <RLim> Different section <RLim> ok oh, ok. just getting up to speed on the roles for the PC and EB. <BobJonkman> I don't think we can open a motion to accept the amendments if we're still revising them makes sense to be able to sit on both with one vote in each <Infovorr> True enough. <CCitizen> where's his amendment? I guess we can"t table this for next month, because Craig wants to run again. <CraigNobbs> https://www.piratepad.ca/p/New_Article_IV._Officers <CraigNobbs> @phillipsjk: yes <RLim> Move to amend <TravisMcCrea> lol well we better rush something because it helps craig <CraigNobbs> I've been attempting to get this into a meeting with quorum for over 8 months <CraigNobbs> @travis: don't be a dick <TravisMcCrea> No, I am just saying that it's not good policy making to rush something -- just because it's politically adventagous for someone <Wilson_> Well lets see if this works as a motion: Article IV. Officers: Strike "No Individual may hold more than one officer position" & "The positions of President, Vice-President and Secretary shall not be eligible to hold a position on the Political Council. " Add to end "Regardlees of number of positions held an member of the Executive Board has one vote". <CCitizen> Where's the current one again I think Wilson had a link TravisMcCrea, Instead of rushing, the meeting is going long. <BobJonkman> TravisMcCrea: Right! Democracy is a consensus building effort; difficult, messy and slow <RLim> I like Wilson's motion/suggestion <CraigNobbs> it's for the party travis. I want to be able to help. <RLim> anyone see any pitfall there? <CCitizen> I'd like to amend Wilson_ 's motion to keep the No individual may hold more than one officer position... Just because I dont think keeping all our eggs in one basket is a good idea <CraigNobbs> no.  I suppose that'll accomplish the same thing <RLim> but should leave no individual could hold more than one officer position <TravisMcCrea> Yes, I am still concerned that it will make passing meaningful amendments combining the two bodies later. <CraigNobbs> @CCitizen: then the amendment is pointless <Wilson_> I'm open to including that <RLim> sorry CCitizen was not reading while typing <TravisMcCrea> But as for the amendment itself... I see no issue with it <CCitizen> Why? you want to be Leader and President and Secretary Craig? <RLim> CraigNobbs: why? <RLim> how? <CraigNobbs> https://my.pirateparty.ca/forum/86 Current: https://wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php?title=Constitution_2012-06-20#Article_IV._Officers <CraigNobbs> The EB elections <CraigNobbs> there are 2 people so far. The consitution says that they would be President and VP. <RLim> that's what is next on the agenda <CraigNobbs> with CCitizens change, then I couldn't help in that regard anyway <RLim> nominate people <RLim> before it gets too late and people logoff <RLim> then there's no one left to coerce >:) <RLim> why not <CCitizen> I still think it's best to ensure we have 5 people on the EB... More voices is always better than less. That's why we made it so the PC can have more than 5 people in it. <RLim> ? <TravisMcCrea> I move to table this amendment so we can get other stuff done <CraigNobbs> Wilson_ 's amendment works <RLim> you are a member of PC not officer <TravisMcCrea> Important things like nominations <CraigNobbs> for the moment =) <RLim> do we really want one person holding two officer position? <CraigNobbs> if we get stuck for it <CraigNobbs> why not? <RLeblanc> My input on this is that I think research should be done on how other Pirate parties have handled theis issue. hostile takeovers and things <MHoude> Second Travis's motion any seconds for TravisMcCrea"s motion to table? <TravisMcCrea> ^ <CraigNobbs> we already have a motion on the floor <CCitizen> uhh I'll second Travis's motion <Wilson_> can we see it again? <BobJonkman> RLim: If the general membership elects a single person to two positions so that he has two votes, then that's done at the will of the membership. I don't see a problem with that CraigNobbs, which? <CraigNobbs> one sec... I'm scrolling up <RLim> But with the small size that we are right now, it opens us to hostile takeover like CCitizen said <RLim> err psema not CCitizen <TravisMcCrea> You can table in the middle of a motion <CCitizen> And need I remind people we almost got our party killed once already because we concentrated too much power into our last IT Head's hands <Infovorr> That's my concern. <TravisMcCrea> thats the whole point of a table Rlim said he liked wilson's motion, but did not actually second it. <RLim> Wilson_: said it was a suggestion not a formal motion <CCitizen> I think he said he liked my amendment to Wilson's motion <BobJonkman> RLim: Yes, hostile takeovers are a possibility. How many positions in the Political Council sit on the Executive Board? <CraigNobbs> Current Motion: <CraigNobbs> Current MOTION: Send CraigNobbs' constitutional amendment to an all-party vote. <RLim> yeah CCitizen <TravisMcCrea> I would like to make a point that my motion was moved and seconded <CraigNobbs> which we are discussing for amendment <Wilson_> @RLim I did introduce a formal motion further down tho CraigNobbs, yes, that is what we are voting to table (a second time) <MononcQc> I think we could vote on the current motion negatively, then vote on the modified amendment? <TravisMcCrea> And tables go before motions on the floor <CraigNobbs> right, and then Wilson_ suggested a change to my amendment which was acceptable <RLim> I agree with MononcQc Motion: table CraingNobbs's constitutional amendment, Moved by TravisMcCrea, second by MHoude <RLim> 22:24 <+MononcQc> I think we could vote on the current motion negatively, then vote on the modified amendment? <TravisMcCrea> thank you phillipsjk <CraigNobbs> we don't need to. I can modify my amendment now Vote yes if in favor, else no (2 mins) <TravisMcCrea> Yes <CraigNobbs> no <MononcQc> wait what's the amendment we're voting on right now? Original or modified? <CCitizen> yes <RLim> no <TravisMcCrea> MononcQc we are moving to table so we can get nominations before we lose quarum <BobJonkman> Yes, to tabling CraigNobbs amendment MononcQc, no formal ammendment. <MononcQc> yes abstain yes <Infovorr> Yes. <RLeblanc> abstain <MHoude> abstain <MHoude> I mean, yes. <chadkoh_> yes no Results Yes 8  No   3  Abstain 1 Carried <RLim> nominations! Now we need to do Executive Board nominations. <TravisMcCrea> ;) I nominate RLim (jk, sorry) <RLim> I nominate phillipsjk <chadkoh_> seconded <CCitizen> I nominate TravisMcCrea for Leader For what position? <RLim> president <TravisMcCrea> I decline any nomination CCitizen, Wilson is leader. <CCitizen> We're doing the EB nominations right? <RLim> yeah <CCitizen> Leader is one of those positions that is nominated for... also I'll Nominate Wilson for leader then Is there a second for the nomination of phillipsjk as president? <CCitizen> seconded <CraigNobbs> I'd like to run for VP again <CCitizen> Gotta run for President... cant just run for VP by the rules CCitizen, the way, I interpret it, the PC leader and deputy leader are automatically on the EB. <Wilson> sorry, dropped again phillipsjk - that was my understanding as well <CCitizen> No... Leader and Deputy Leader are voted on in the EB election... However, only people who hold positions on the PC are eligible to run for Leader we also need a Secratary <CCitizen> I nominate Ric Lim for Secretary <TravisMcCrea> I nominate psema4 for leader <RLim> BobJonkman: sort of. PC election is held first. Then EB. So the leader is elected during EB's election. But have to be someone from PC. Hope that make sense <TravisMcCrea> err <TravisMcCrea> president I decline any nominations; I'm already loaded <TravisMcCrea> $$ cha ching * with too much work <BobJonkman> RLim: Sadly, I didn't understand. But I will take it offline <Wilson> I nominate myself and Craig for leader. <TravisMcCrea> Then I nominate CCitizen for president <TravisMcCrea> and BobJonkman he seems pretty cool Wilson, ?? <RLim> second <Wilson> yes? Aren"t you leader already? <RLim> phillipsjk: no <RLim> we'll elect our leader in this ballot <RLim> The constitution was changed <TravisMcCrea> RLim were you seconding my nominations? <CCitizen> Everyone on the EB is holding their position UNTIL the results of the EB election are in then the positions are given to the new people <Wilson> ie I'm leader until the results of this ballot <RLim> I like the old one better. The top vote getter automatically becomes leader but <CraigNobbs> the positions are retained until the end on this meeting <RLim> TravisMcCrea: yeah times whatever number of second needed. <CCitizen> Actually they're retained until the results of the votes come in. Which will probably be sometime a week+ after this meeting is over. <MononcQc> do we untable the stuff then? <CraigNobbs> so, can we clear up who was actually nominated then? <CCitizen> I guess I just got nominated <RLim> who else is at PC? <RLim> who wants to get nominated <RLim> ? <CraigNobbs> I am <RLim> Or we'll just nominate them and apologize later <RLim> CraigNobbs: yeah you and Wilson are already nominated <CCitizen> I nominate Shawn Vulliez for Leader phillipsjk President by RLim, second CCitizen <RLim> I nominate MononcQc:for Leader <MononcQc> :| <CCitizen> Actually <CCitizen> phillipsjk, how about we do it an easier way <TravisMcCrea> To be clear on terminology we are nominating "president" not "leader" correct? <Wilson> Bring it on I can take ya >:D <RLim> I nominate chadkoh_ for leader <CCitizen> Call for nominations for a specific position first <CCitizen> like President then sort that out then move to secretary then leader Wilson Leader, by CCitizen, second Wilson <TravisMcCrea> I nominate mordecai for president <chadkoh_> I am pretty ties up with getting email from the PC <RLim> chadkoh_: ok Craignobbs President by Craignobbs, (I will second) CCitizen, nominated RLim (no second, believe he would decline), psema4 delcined any nominations <CraigNobbs> So just 3 people for EB positions (leader)? CraigNobbs, Wilson, and phillipsjk <CCitizen> I guess I'll accept... you know since Travis asked me nicely <RLim> phillipsjk: I don't mind being in the ballot if the president is as good as you and take minutes :P I'll second the nomination of RLim <RLim> I am loaded (with work not money) on being agent <CraigNobbs> lol CCitizen for president by TravisMcCrea, sencond by (RLim?) <RLim> yeah <CraigNobbs> So 4 people for EB positions (leader)? CraigNobbs, Wilson, phillipsjk, CCitizen <RLim> phillipsjk: and CCitizen is president No Leader and president are different. <CraigNobbs> derp... my bad <CraigNobbs> So 4 people for EB positions (president)? CraigNobbs, Wilson, phillipsjk, CCitizen <RLim> lol I received a suggestion that we break up the nominations into President, Leader (from PC), Secretary. <RLim> Sorry. <RLim> But I think Wilson is Leader only. Did someone nominate Craig as President <RLim> if not I'll nominate him <CraigNobbs> yeah... I self nominated and phillipsjk seconded <RLim> Does our constitution says anything about VP being the runner-up? <CraigNobbs> I believe it does <CraigNobbs> that was a change from last election <CraigNobbs> afaik <CraigNobbs> let me check <CCitizen> Yes <CraigNobbs> The office of President shall be awarded to the person who wins the election for the office of President. The office of Vice President shall be awarded to the runner-up in the election for the office of President <TravisMcCrea> I am no longer present for quorum (I stay logged in for logging purposes) - Good night guys Presidential candidates: CraigNobbs, CCitizen, Phillipsjk <CCitizen> You noinate for president and leader... the runner up fills the vp or deputy leader spot <CraigNobbs> and Wilson <Wilson> I decline a presidential nomination <CraigNobbs> ah <CraigNobbs> ok Leader Candidates: Wilson, CraigNobbs, Shawn Vulliez (by CCitizen no second?) Chadok (by Rlim (declined)) I'll second Shawn Vulliez <CCitizen> Who else is on the PC? So we know who we have to choose from? TravisMcCrea, nominated mordecai for President. <Wilson> https://my.pirateparty.ca/node/148 <RLim> mordecai: what's your fullname? <RLim> we already lost quorum though wait what? ahahaha uh, we appear to have lost quorm <RLim> so are the new nominations still balid second mordecai <RLim> *valid? I'll have to decline <CraigNobbs> bob trower and fred herbert <MononcQc> hhebert* thanks anyways <MononcQc> hebert** <RLim> no quorum <MononcQc> uuugh ffff <RLim> but existing nominations stands This is why meeting can"t be 3 hours. <BobJonkman> I don't think nominations require a quorum. We're not voting on anyting <RLim> I nominated MononcQc <MononcQc> yeah it's 11PM here. <MononcQc> I was nominated but nobody seconded. RLim: I prefer not to give my full name <RLim> not sure if there was second <CCitizen> Good point I am having trouble collating everything. <RLim> what's your ruling Mr. President <RLim> ? i will second MononcQc MononcQc, for what position? <CCitizen> Honestly I think we should keep quorum at 15 but institute a policy by which losing members allows us to continue to function as if we have quorum <MononcQc> I have no idea what position I was nominated for :B <BobJonkman> CCitizen: Yuck! -1 <CCitizen> Many NPO's have such in their bylaws <MononcQc> RLim, what was it? CCitizen, that is a bad idea. <RLim> wait <MononcQc> CCitizen, let's kick people then pass all the things <RLim> there <RLim> quorum <MononcQc> wooo quorum <RLim> sorry Wilson <CCitizen> We require half a quorum of yes votes to adopt anything... so if we drop below 15 we'd still require 8 yes votes for something to pass... as you lose members you give no votes more power <MononcQc> ah I see. <Wilson> np stupid internet <CCitizen> At least that would be how I'd structure it <Infovorr> Travis isn't actually here, though. He said he'd just be idling for logging purposes. <RLim> meh he can watch in his log <BobJonkman> but TravisMcCrea can't participate if he's not here, so shouldn't be a member of the quorum he did mention not to use him for quorum. <Infovorr> Yeah. <RLim> yes he did <RLim> does nomination needs to be voted on? <CraigNobbs> no <RLim> I guess eh <Wilson> a corpse does not count for quorum Rlim was position was MononcQc nominated for? <RLim> leader <RLim> CCitizen points out 8 yes vote <RLim> so let's wrap this up <RLim> who else for secretary?> <CraigNobbs> you =) Leader Candidates: Wilson, CraigNobbs, Shawn Vulliez MonoQC Presidential candidates: CraigNobbs, CCitizen, Phillipsjk Sounds right? <CraigNobbs> Secretary Candidate: RLim (the one and only) I was thinking of moving to a secretary role, but worry it is a lot of work. <CraigNobbs> sometimes I think that RLim lives, breaths, and dreams PPCA matters  =P <RLim> lol <Wilson> that must do a number on his sanity If I am secretary, I would decline the president position. <RLim> can we still nominate without quorum? <CraigNobbs> yup <CraigNobbs> there's no voting on nominations Why not? it only take 2 i gotta run guys <CraigNobbs> just someone to second.  Historically, we used to do this on the board Rlim what does a secretary do? EVERYTHING <Wilson> k, dyson. thx for coming lol <CraigNobbs> gnight dyson night all. till next time. <RLim> lol I can keep doing the minute as secretary. Have not really done much else as president. <RLim> take minutes, update records on wiki, etc. Keep track of all the things <RLim> post announcements <Wilson> +field questions from your clueless leader. <RLim> e-mail meeting notice, newsletter <RLim> update subscriber list for mailing list <CraigNobbs> communicate with elections canada <CraigNobbs> book keeping <RLim> CraigNobbs: bookkeeping is more role of agent <RLim> which I am trying to get phillipsjk into It's an underappreciated job - one that RLim makes look easy. <CraigNobbs> oh, lol. =) you just seemed to always do everything. <RLim> I am sort of chief agent. And will still hold responsiblity for most <RLim> but need more sitting agent <CraigNobbs> I'm going to miss my go to guy, RLim.  =( <RLim> oh membership list So we have secretary: Rlim then? <RLim> signups <RLim> LOL <CraigNobbs> lol <BobJonkman> Is the party's Chief Agent position an elected position? <RLim> BobJonkman: assigned by EB. <BobJonkman> From among the EB members? <Wilson> from anywheres <RLim> BobJonkman: yeah basically appointed by EB <BobJonkman> In that case the Chief Agent shouldn't be on the EB. It's one of those "staff" positions I mentioned earlier I guess I can run for secretary, see how many votes I get. <RLim> yeah they don't have voting rights <RLim> ah I see what you mean any seconds? <RLim> right now I am secretary so essentially could vote <Wilson> second I'll second bah :) <Wilson> too slow So secretary: Rlim, Phillipsjk then? <BobJonkman> At some point, those staffing conflicts need to be resolved. <RLim> so should I decline secretary position <RLim> ? <BobJonkman> Rlim: I believe that as Chief Agent you should not sit on the Board <CCitizen> Chief Agent is actually the Pirate Party of Canada Fund RLim, If you want. brb <RLim> yeah. CCitizen but I am head of the fund right now <BobJonkman> Chief Agent should receive direction from the Board. Again, that's a conflict of giving yourself direction <RLim> it should have more people in it but that's a problem, if we can't have someone from EB <BobJonkman> At this time there is probably no prohibition in the PPCA rules for that <BobJonkman> But *I* would like it to be a separate, non-conflicting staff position <RLim> we are already struggling to get someone for agent as it is. And EB seems less of a conflict than PC. <RLim> we need more agents <BobJonkman> PC doesn't influence staffing or other adminstrative functions. That's what EB is for. PC sets policy and deals with political matters I decline the presidential nomination. <RLim> yeah but PC can't sit as agent since they are likley to run as candidates <RLim> *likely Presidential candidates: CraigNobbs, CCitizen Leader Candidates: Wilson, CraigNobbs, Shawn Vulliez MonoQC <BobJonkman> That's right, anyone on either Board (EB or PC), or running as a candidate should not be a member of "staff" <RLim> I decline secretary position Secretary Candidates: Rlim, Phillipsjk <MHoude> Sorry guys, but it's getting late. Good night. Secretary Candidates: Phillipsjk <RLim> thanks MHoude night Motion: adjourn. <BobJonkman> Seems like we have a good slate of nominations. <Infovorr> Second. <BobJonkman> WIll nominations remain open until the next meeting? <CraigNobbs> before we adjourne <RLim> phillipsjk: check if this is correct <RLim> https://my.pirateparty.ca/node/167 <BobJonkman> "Gebruary" <RLim> lol thanks <Wilson> No, nominations end with this meeting followed by a vote shortly. CraigNobbs, yes? <CraigNobbs> can we recall a meeting next week for the amendment <BobJonkman> Wilson: See, that's a problem in getting participation from non-computer membership, who may want to run for a board position too BobJonkman, the meeting was announced twice. Is IRC really that hard? <BobJonkman> phillipsjk: Yes <Wilson> Which is why we had a forum set up for nominations...of which there were two. <MononcQc> I think what's hard is schedules and remembering it. <RLim> we do have web interface at pirateparty.ca/chat <BobJonkman> phillipsjk: It's not hard for you and me, but I'm on a number of political, environmental and social justice committees. <BobJonkman> The technical stuff, even just typing up minutes, always fall to me <Wilson> But to Craig's question: can we arrange that? <CCitizen> non-computer membership? We have that? I mean no offense but there's really no other way to do it. I mean we have me in Toronto, Wilson is in BC, Ric is in like Manitoba and I think we have a few people from the Atlantic provinces <BobJonkman> So, even though there are lots of people who share the principles of PPCA they are unable to participate <RLim> we should get local meetup started again <BobJonkman> CCitizen: That's why I like the idea of asynchronous meetings. <BobJonkman> Meeting IRL <BobJonkman> Having a meeting take a week or two. <BobJonkman> Correspondence by e-mail <Infovorr> It'd have to be in addition to online meetings. <Infovorr> Yeah. <BobJonkman> Mailing lists <BobJonkman> Postal mail <CCitizen> also looks like webchat works <CraigNobbs> it has to be before the confirmation of the polls wilson, yes, we could if we has quorum <CraigNobbs> otherwise we're SOL for the PC <BobJonkman> Democracy is difficult, messy and slow <RLim> ok I need to go to bed <CCitizen> You know in 3 years of me being involved in the party the only time we could have ever had a meeting was one time when Ric and Travis came to Toronto at the same time so they could hang out with Andrew and me <BobJonkman> I've been to two meeting here in KW <RLim> how many members is needed to call special meeting? <Wilson> 15 <BobJonkman> Actually three, but I was the only person to show up for one of them <CraigNobbs> as there are only two people for the PC, if I am unable to sit on two positions, there will be no deputy leader, and we have to redo the elections Special general meetings may be called with at least three days notice either by the Executive Board or Political Council with a two-thirds vote, or by the President upon presentation to him or her a petition of at least fifteen members of the Party. <RLim> what do you mean two people? <Wilson> nope. DL can be appointed by PC if there is a vacancy <CraigNobbs> CCitizen and myself <Wilson> (I was afterall) <CCitizen> CraigNobbs: Actually the PC can assign a Deputy Leader from it's own numbers so the PC can do that too. <RLim> that's president. you keep mixing them up. <CCitizen> wasnt Craig running for leader anyways? <CraigNobbs> From Article IV.1 Officers/Election   The office of President shall be awarded to the person who wins the election for the office of President. The office of Vice President shall be awarded to the runner-up in the election for the office of President. <RLim> ok I have to go soon MOTION: adjourn, moved by phillipsjk, second by Infovorr <CCitizen> Ah well we could always run a by-election ... but damn this gets confusing <CraigNobbs> I am running for Leader and President, though honestly, I prefer to be deputy leader and/or vice president <CCitizen> It's like I should work on writing Constitution v3.0 <BobJonkman> Does adjournment close nominations? Craing: the PC can call a special meeting with 3 days's notice. BobJonkman, I think it does. did you want to make other nominations? <BobJonkman> No, I don't know any of you :) <RLim> yourself? <BobJonkman> If I'm nominated I won't campaign for the position, although I'll serve if I'm elected. <Infovorr> Nominate someone completely at random. <BobJonkman> Infovorr: See, that just subverts the electoral system. I'm calling a vote on the adjournment motion' <BobJonkman> Whatever we decide here has real influence on the Canadian political scene. <Wilson> aye <Infovorr> Aye. <BobJonkman> A minor influence, but not zero. If in favor vote yes, else no. <BobJonkman> OK, yes to adjourn <RLim> aye (2 min) <CraigNobbs> yes >#canada< vote in progress <chadkoh_> yes <Wilson> (could I get a summary of what was decided today phillipsjk / RLim?) <MononcQc> yes Yes: 7 No Abstain Carried. <MononcQc> hopefully quorum is obtainable next time too. <Infovorr> Should be easier next time, at least. Wilson: https://wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php?title=Meeting_minutes <Wilson> and if you want a special meeting to vote on Craig's amendment send RLim a message either here or at info@pirateparty.ca (need 15) <Wilson> thx Hopefully I will do it 24 hours after the meeting, instead of 23 hour before the next one. Or the PC can do it with 2/3 vote >#canada< meeting end thanks for coming. <MononcQc> woo <RLim> MononcQc: on your question about isolated members. We used to post on forum saying there' s a meetup. Then member's who read them would show up <RLim> sadly due to forum being down for a while, the traffic have went down <RLim> but there's this one here <RLim> https://my.pirateparty.ca/forum/73 <MononcQc> right. I'm saying that if the main mechanism for policy decision is meetups, you're going to lose rural areas where isolated members won't realistically make it to meetups <RLim> where people can add new forum topic e.g. "Winnipeg Meetup and post date and time. <RLim> ah <RLim> forum <RLim> use my.pirateparty.ca <BobJonkman> This is why I suggest having meetings take 2 weeks from start to adjournment. People can meet IRL, make motions, vote on open motions, and discuss issues. Then those individual IRL meeting minutes are brought back to the PPCA Executive, votes are tallied, results are published (and maybe snail-mailed out). Then next month the 2 week cycle starts again. <BobJonkman> This does not meet TravisMcCrea's criteria for "agile" <Infovorr> But again, IRL meetings aren't viable for everyone. <MononcQc> the end question seems to be who do we want to be in the party. we should strive to be as inclusive as possible, briding both the physical and virtual worlds. *bridging BobJonkman, according to Robert's rules of oder, that would not be a meeting. In a meeting everybody has to be able to hear everybody else. I think we should be doing local meet-ups though. I've been trying to get local meetups going in my area for a while, to no avail. <BobJonkman> phillipsjk: I agree, Robert's is not adequate for our needs <CCitizen> You know how much it costs to snail mail out to 3000+ people :) <CCitizen> Probably like $1000... With a mailing house who does presort and all that stuff that gets you better prices for bulk mailing. We looked into it when we were working on getting signatures for the party. <CCitizen> Strictly speaking if you are going to nitpick about RROO... Deaf people would never use those rules or change them... I interpret the term 'hear' to mean receive communication in a meaningful manner. In which case text chat type meetings are still valid <CCitizen> I think the idea was to use it more as a guideline for an order of operations for motions and what not <CCitizen> Like how you can motion to adjourn even in the middle of someone else's motion or even if you lack quorum sort of thing <CCitizen> Personally I liked Loomio when we used it as an experiment with the PC/EB... but I dont think it would scale too well when you add like say 200+ people voting on something. </PRE>
 * RLim has changed the topic to: General Meeting in progress. Please /msg RLim to get voiced. Agenda: https://piratepad.ca/p/February_19_Agenda | For visitors who want to ask a question, allow 5-15 minutes for someone to answer on IRC. You can also post a question at our subreddit /r/piratepartyofcanada
 * CraigNobbs (~craignobb@184.65.mh.ih) has joined #canada
 * RLim gives voice to Vitriohl
 * RLim gives voice to CraigNobbs
 * psema4 (~scott@d95-88-58-317.home2.cgocable.net) has joined #canada
 * RLim gives voice to BobJonkman
 * RLim gives voice to MononcQc
 * RLim gives voice to phillipsjk
 * webchat_4042 (webchat@54-98-916-9.dsl.teksavvy.com) has joined #canada
 * webchat_4042 has quit (Client Quit)
 * JAbbott (webchat@54-98-916-9.dsl.teksavvy.com) has joined #canada
 * RLim has kicked chadkoh from #canada (as you wish)
 * RLim gives voice to Ervin
 * RLim gives voice to psema4
 * RLim gives voice to TravisMcCrea
 * webchat_6930 (webchat@69.158.po.oq) has joined #canada
 * RLeblanc (webchat@142.166.vih.zi) has joined #canada
 * webchat_6930 has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 * webchat_6459 (webchat@69.158.po.oq) has joined #canada
 * webchat_9891 (webchat@66-74-891-01.dsl.teksavvy.com) has joined #canada
 * webchat_9891 has quit (Client Quit)
 * JAbbott has quit (Quit: Web client closed)
 * RLim gives voice to RLeblanc
 * psema4 https://my.pirateparty.ca/forum/86 could use some love
 * webchat_6459 has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 * psema4 eof?
 * BobJonkman notes that it would be good to see amendments as diff files
 * phillipsjk is trying to find the sections struck.
 * BobJonkman or as a document with change tracking
 * RLim gives voice to CCitizen
 * psema4 retracts comment - missed CraigNobbs' response
 * patcon_ (~patcon@199.119.ryk.jix) has joined #canada
 * psema4 and speaking of not enough bodies, we should probably deal with quorom next
 * patcon has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 * azend (~quassel@094-9-818-15.cpe.teksavvy.com) has joined #canada
 * Wilson_ (webchat@75.152.rkv.tm) has joined #canada
 * Wilson has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 * RLim gives voice to Wilson_
 * BobJonkman hasn't read the current version of the PPCA constitution, but that's how it was done in the past
 * BobJonkman thinks IT and Agent should be separated out to the "staff" group
 * psema4 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 * baruch has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 * psema4 (~scott@d95-88-58-317.home2.cgocable.net) has joined #canada
 * RLim gives voice to psema4
 * psema4 has quit (Killed (NickServ (GHOST command used by psema4_)))
 * psema4 (~scott@d95-88-58-317.home2.cgocable.net) has joined #canada
 * psema4 apologies; it appears laptops require power x)
 * RLim gives voice to psema4
 * MHoude92 (~MHoude@243-252-757-351.cable.teksavvy.com) has joined #canada
 * BobJonkman doesn't know what "A-system" is
 * BobJonkman likes the idea of a participation system that includes non-computer people
 * MHoude92 has quit (Client Quit)
 * Anonymous230487 (~MHoude@243-252-757-351.cable.teksavvy.com) has joined #canada
 * MHoude has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 * Anonymous230487 is now known as MHoude
 * webchat_5505 (webchat@130.15.kii.rys) has joined #canada
 * RLim gives voice to MHoude
 * webchat_5505 has quit (Client Quit)
 * webchat_0337 (webchat@130.15.kii.rys) has joined #canada
 * BobJonkman was reading the backscroll
 * Postumus (Postumus@94.94.228.36.customer.cdi.no) has joined #canada
 * RLeblanc has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 * webchat_1362 (webchat@lzq-909-549-968-911.lnse0.ken.bigpond.net.au) has joined #canada
 * RLeblanc (webchat@142.166.vih.zi) has joined #canada
 * Brendan (~quassel@379-35-67-3.static.tpgi.com.au) has joined #canada
 * webchat_0337 has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 * Ervin has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 * BobJonkman recaps: "Executive Council" is the aggregate body, consisting of "Executive Board" and "Political Council"
 * webchat_4199 (webchat@130.15.kii.rys) has joined #canada
 * RLeblanc has quit (Quit: Web client closed)
 * Wilson_ has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 * BobJonkman thinks Party Leader isn't an elected position on the Executive Board, but an appointed position. Party Leader is elected to the Polictical Council
 * Wilson (webchat@75.152.rkv.tm) has joined #canada
 * patcon_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 * webchat_4199 has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 * webchat_5275 (webchat@130.15.kii.rys) has joined #canada
 * phillipsjk gets it now... the Leader and Deputy leader positions jsut have a small candidate pool: PC members.
 * Postumus has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 * RLim gives voice to Wilson
 * dysonsphere has quit (Quit: dysonsphere)
 * BobJonkman asks Does the secretary also keep the official corresponce with Elections Canada?
 * MHoude has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 * webchat_5484 (webchat@844-49-129-271.cpe.pppoe.ca) has joined #canada
 * webchat_5484 has quit (Client Quit)
 * BobJonkman thinks
 * Wilson has quit (Quit: Web client closed)
 * chadkoh_ has quit (Quit: Bai bai!)
 * patcon (~patcon@68.232.hi.xl) has joined #canada
 * patcon has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 * patcon (~patcon@199.119.ryk.jix) has joined #canada
 * Infovorr has quit (Quit: HydraIRC -> http://www.hydrairc.com <- Nine out of ten l33t h4x0rz prefer it)
 * patcon_ (~patcon@853-4-554-23.eng.wind.ca) has joined #canada
 * patcon has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 * Mozart has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 * psema4 has quit (Quit: leaving)
 * Mozart (~quassel@dyt447-440.static.internode.on.net) has joined #canada
 * Mozart has quit (Changing host)
 * Mozart (~quassel@PirateParty/AU/DeputySecretary) has joined #canada
 * CraigNobbs has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 * webchat_5275 has quit (Quit: Web client closed)