PC 2013-04-07 transcript

Transcript

Loomio Transcript (April 1st-7th)



 [Manifesto Creation/Expansion] Please read this: http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/media/uploads/Manifesto2012.pdf I would like us to go through this together and basically re-word what they have to Canadian relevant topics and wording. Really though I think they hit the nail on the head.  So do we just want to start putting sections in a piratepad and go through each section like that? Editing it all at once seems like a good way to make bad policy.  And now that I consider it. I would like concurrent discussion going on on our social media pages of each section. This does two things: 1. It involves our members (and a fair number of the public) in the process during the creation stage and not just the confirmation stage and 2. It provides a large group of people to give technical advice and opinion. I'd suggest 1 month discussion for each section (provided we don't add more) which means we will be done by the end of the year. Also, clarification needed: Are we re-doing our manifesto (which we already have) or are we creating the platform for 2015? There are a lot of sections to have 1 month for each... I would prefer to go day by day with each point...  Also, for some extra ideas https://www.piratenpartei.de/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/parteiprogramm-englisch.pdf The Germans move away from the core pirate issues though, and have something to say about all issues. IDK if PPCA wants to do the same, personally I'm against it.  @travis, I mean by each heading (each having multiple points). Without looking I think there is something like 6 or 7. Same question again: Are we re-doing our manifesto or converting this into our 2015 election platform?  @adrianpappas From my experience promoting the party to the public, being seen as a "one issue party" is a serious negative. It's fine to specialize and focus on the core pirate issues, but I believe we should have something to say on most subjects.  @jameswilson This would be our manifesto, and then we would generate actual platform points based on these. I think that we should look into the PPDE platform for ideas of things to add... but I really want to take the PPUK manifesto and use it as a base. They created it on reddit already, they did the crowed sourcing, it's been written, they even have the original ODF file that they will share for us so we can use the same sexy design. Our parties have such similar values and members, I think that using their manifesto will save us valuable time which would be used to get to roughy the same point.  I motion we proceed with the creation of the manifesto as follows: -The Political Council will spend a period of not less than 20, and not more than 30, days on each manifesto header (currently Digital Economy and Digital Rights, Economy and Jobs, etc) with the entire section open to revision.* -Concurrently a topic will be started on Facebook announcing the beginning of this project and introducing the first section. Effort will be taken to keep these posts visible. Facebook followers will be invited to assist by submitting their own revisions, expertise and comments. -Each section (header) will be dealt with in the manner described above. -At the end of this process the Political Council will wait at least one month before beginning the process of forming the 2015 Election Platform. to email the other members seeking agreement to do so or create a Loomio proposal to the same effect.  I think this will give each part of the manifesto the attention it needs.  @travis ok, though that does make the title of this discussion somewhat misleading. My two cents about the design is it ain't very sexy.  I like this but I would leave my vote at no until the time is from 10-20 days per section. Members of the party work like this: When we first talk about it for an hour, and then when we talk about finalizing it.  If we have 30 days, then 28 of those days will be only one person doing anything... and probably not even that.  You know if we're doing things with Loomio why dont we start on all of the different topics at once? Since each topic can be it's own thread here.  Agree with Travis. 30 days is too long. 15-20 would be best, IMO. <James Wilson> While I don't object to shorter terms per se I do question what the hurry is. The current motion would have us done the manifesto before 2014. I'd rather err on the side of having more time for revision rather than the side of not having enough. The sub-sections are substantive and we could easily spend a day or two on each one. Hell, researching to make sure we are not advocating a change that is already in place will take time. <Robert McGrath> As stated below, with longer terms people will just put it off and / or let someone else do the work until the last moment. I feel like the longer the term, the more likely people are to completely fail to give input when that last minuet comes up. <Travis McCrea> I created a counter proposal http://council.pirateparty.ca/discussions/16 Also it says it ends in 10 days, but ends in 7, I will call it when it says 3 days left) <Travis McCrea> I would like to create a counter motion for http://council.pirateparty.ca/discussions/13 please read this before commenting here. The discussion here should reflect your desire to have 15 days vs 30 days. Conversation about the manifesto itself should stay in the parent discussion. <Travis McCrea> I motion we proceed with the creation of the manifesto as follows: -The Political Council will spend a period of not less than 7, and not more than 15, days on each manifesto header (currently Digital Economy and Digital Rights, Economy and Jobs, etc) with the entire section open to revision.* -Concurrently a topic will be started on Facebook announcing the beginning of this project and introducing the first section. Effort will be taken to keep these posts visible. Facebook followers will be invited to assist by submitting their own revisions, expertise and comments. -Each section (header) will be dealt with in the manner described above. -At the end of this process the Political Council will wait at least one month before beginning the process of forming the 2015 Election Platform. need to email the other members seeking agreement to do so or create a Loomio proposal to the same effect. <James Wilson> I still don't see the point in a shorter timeframe but I don't disagree enough to vote no. <Jimmy Chen> I'd prefer a longer timeframe but more than happy to oblige. VOTE: <Travis McCrea> Aye <James Wilson> Aye <Patrick Fitzgerald> Aye <Robert McGrath> Aye <Adrian Pappas> Aye <Jimmy Chen> Aye <James Wilson> [Posting Rules for the Social Media Team] I can't really add more context than whats in the title but we will need rules for: -What makes a PPCA post -Accountability of posts -Passing along information <James Wilson> I'll post a proposal once we have a list talked out. Basic rules: -All posts must be signed using at least their initials or common username. -Social media team members will revert to their personal account in the comment section unless replying to a question directed at the party. <Robert McGrath> I propose: By default, most posts should be signed or initialed by the author. If for some reason issue is taken with the post, that same author should be held accountable and a retraction or apology should be expected, as appropriate. For posts dealing directly with party platforms (party information pieces, as opposed to world event FYI pieces), we may want to post "as the party" and not as ourselves. In such a case, posts should be reviewed and approved by at least one other PC member before being made available publicly. <Patrick Fitzgerald> Good point... though I think posts 'as the party' should be approved by the PC as a whole either as a vote or getting enough members to agree that would create a quorum of sorts (more than half of everyone agreeing). <James Wilson> I suppose another question is what platforms are all involved in our social media effort. Some, such as wikipedia and youtube, are not obvious as to their inclusion but should still be kept up-to-date. Others such as Facebook are no-brainers as far as inclusion goes. <Travis McCrea> I would put a block up to having to "review comments with another PC member" -- We can assume already that each of us could find at least one other member of the PC that would agree with us anyway, so let's skip the red tape. We need to develop comprehensive platforms, and then it would be my suggestion that our posts stick to our platforms. Since we don't have any I can't really say anything negative about posts that I don't like (especially those regarding guns). I think we should sign our posts (and I am sorry for not doing it, I am trying to get in the habbit of it). Though I also don't think that we should use the FB page to ever disagree or comment on each others actions. our social media should be a "one voice" sort of thing (not to take a page from the Cons). While we will have our names attached to posts, each post in my opinion should be read as if it was made by a single person. <Patrick Fitzgerald> Good point... though my point still stands... if we sign it 'as a party' it should be voted on. If you sign it as an individual then getting a person or two to take a look at it is all that should be needed since someone is taking responsibility for it. <Travis McCrea> I will be honest, you could create a rule saying posts made by the PPCA account must be voted on -- I will just willfully break the rule. We have the amendment that the leader doesn't have to do that, or we can just not do it. I don't want to sound like a dick, but I just know myself enough to know that I wont do it. <James Wilson> I think it goes a bit far to say posts by the PPCA need to be voted on. Especially when we haven't had major issues with posting as of yet. I think its reasonable to just ask our posters to use a bit of forethought before they put up a post. Which brings us to what qualifies as something the PPCA posts on. <James Wilson> Since conversation has died down I'm going to take a stab at making a proposal. <James Wilson> I motion the following be accepted as our Social Media Guidelines for posting: POSTING Before posting, a Social Media Team member will make sure the post falls into one or more of the following categories: -News about the Pirate Party of Canada. -News about Pirate movements around the world. -Laws or ideas being considered in Canada or worldwide that affect privacy, IP law, net neutrality and/or government transparency/accountability. -Uses and misuses of technology. -Announcements of party innitiatives. When posting, the Social Media Team member will sign their post at the bottom with either their name (full or partial), initials, or common nickname the party knows them by. Social media team members are discouraged from changing their signature except to provide more clarity who is posting. MODERATING Social Media Team members will revert to their personal accounts in the comment section of a post except for the following reasons: -Answering a question directed at the party. -Clarifying the original post. -Clarifying the party's stance Posts in the comment section follow the same guidelines as regular posts. It is not the Social Media Team's policy to remove posts or comments by others as we are the party of free speech. However, posts that are CLEARLY spam may be hidden. PASSING ON INFORMATION The party will on occasion be contacted privately through social media by people offering to volunteer or seeking information. These inquiries are to be passed on to the Political Council without undue delay. SCOPE These guidelines were written with Facebook in mind but effort has been taken to make this document useful for all PPCA social media platforms. In the event a specific point cannot be translated on to a specific social media platform the Social Media Team is asked to use their best judgement and common sense in moving forward, and to inform the Political Council of the difficulties encountered. <James Wilson> I *think* I touched on every point. <Patrick Fitzgerald> Under moderation we should also include removal and/or hiding of 'Troll posts' as well. <James Wilson> @patrick. I left out a hard and fast rule on troll posts for the simple reason it can be hard to identify troll posts and misidentification can lead to legitimate posts being removed. <Travis McCrea> Seems good so far. We may have to change things in the future but I like it. <Travis McCrea> Does this list purposely leave off commentary on other parties? I think that it is a fair part of democracy to show the failures in other parties as well as a great way to show that we are not an advocacy group but a real party who wants to do things different than other parties. <James Wilson> Commentary of other party's stances on Pirate issues would fall under "Laws or ideas being considered in Canada or worldwide that affect privacy, IP law, net neutrality and/or government transparency/accountability.". It doesn't give carte blanc to go after the other parties however. Mostly I feel it will keep us from getting close to the 'attacking for the sake of attacking' stance that people hate about Canadian politics. Ideally if a poster wants to post about another party they will have to show in their posts how it relates to us which is both good for clarity and good practice. VOTE: <James Wilson> Aye <Adrian Pappas> Aye <Robert McGrath> Aye <Jimmy Chen> Aye <Patrick Fitzgerald> Aye <Travis McCrea> Aye <Travis McCrea> [Monthly Political Council Mumble Meetings] We should meet up once a month in a voice chat and discuss what is happening with the party and what we want to see from it. This is where we can bitch about each other, fight, cry and make up as well. <James Wilson> Advantages of Mumble over Skype? <Robert McGrath> Over Skype? I don't want to use anything controlled by Microsoft, if I can avoid it. I'd ask why Mumble over Google Hangout, but someone would probably give the same answer. <Travis McCrea> Mumble is open source, reliable (if we use the PPI server), and has recording built in and moderation (if we ever needed it) <Patrick Fitzgerald> Dont forget Mumble is encrypted from end to end. It's more private than even talking over the POTS phone lines (which are all wiretapped by CSIS probably). <Adrian Pappas> I think that's a good idea, and will help us bond even more as a team. Also, +1 @Travis and Patrick for the reasons. Should we put it up for vote? <Travis McCrea> This vote is to hold a mumble meeting on the 3rd Sunday of every month (don't worry an email will go out reminding you) at 7:30PM EST <Patrick Fitzgerald> You could put it up for a vote but you should consider possibly setting a time and date for it. My schedule prevents me from being around 9pm-1am during the week and 6-10pm on the weekends. Until I find a better job that is. <Patrick Fitzgerald> Current work schedule means time wont work well for me. That said I'll just leave the decision to the group knowing I'll miss many of them. <James Wilson> As long as I remember to download the program I should be fine. <Travis McCrea> Patrick, you came to mind when creating the meeting. I felt bad because I know that you have a schedule that doesn't play well with everyone else'. Be assured that I will do my best to make sure your opinion is fully represented in meetings and we will include you however we can. If you want me to call you the day before (and discuss what we will discuss at the mumble meeting) or call you the day after (and tell you what was discussed) or both... I will do that for you. <Patrick Fitzgerald> Yeah dont worry too much about me. I stay in regular contact on IRC if anyone needs me for anything. I'm just glad with Loomio that I can participate and still keep my job which helps keep a roof over our heads. <Jimmy Chen> I personally find that mumble meetings sometimes are counterproductive due to disorder. I don't mind going ahead with it, however. <Travis McCrea> Then would you say you are abstaining @jimmychen ? Also you may have had disorganized mumble meetings, in my past they have always been highly successful. There is no hurt in voting yes, doing it once, and then not doing them anymore if they don't work. <James Wilson> @travis Actually the definition of a 'no vote' on Loomio is 'disagreement but willing to go ahead'. <Patrick Fitzgerald> Having VOIP meetings was something we tried in the past have been successful. We've done it with numbers of maybe 4-8 people... If the numbers are much larger than that it becomes difficult to have a voip meeting unless someone coordinates when people get to speak. <Travis McCrea> yeah if you are familliar with clan chats or something, maybe it would be disorganized. With 8 people max we will be fine. <Adrian Pappas> Any time after 7pm is a bit weird for me due to timezones. However, it's very understandable that I'm probably the only exception to that. So if voted in favor, I'll try to participate as much as I can. <Adrian Pappas> @jimmychen As far as I understand, the concept of these meetings is that they'll be more unofficial, a chance to discuss things and bond. So being counterproductive should not be of much concern. <Jimmy Chen> Since this is unoffical meetings, I will abstain. But I remain by my position that VOIP typically is unproductive in my experience for group work. This could be different as this is for a political council versus my organizations. <Steve Henderson> Definitely a better solution to VOIP than Skype. Some concerns with Skype: http://www.salon.com/2012/11/12/skype_hands_over_information_on_teen_wikileaks_fan/ https://www.eff.org/foia/foia-skype-surveillance <Patrick Fitzgerald> Mumble is far better than Skype due to privacy concerns. Also Mumble is built with encryption in mind. Meaning it's more secure than just plain old voip or skype (which has plenty of law enforcement back doors built in I'm sure) VOTE: <Travis McCrea> Aye <Patrick Fitzgerald> Abstain <James Wilson> Aye <Robert McGrath> Aye <Adrian Pappas> Abstain <Jimmy Chen> Abstain <Steve Henderson> Aye
 * If a Political Council Member wishes for the process to end before 30 days have passed they simply need
 * If a Political Council Member wishes for the process to end before 15 days have passed they simply

</PRE>