GM 2012-02-15 transcript



20:16 -scshunt:#canada- Welcome, everyone, to the general meeting of the Pirate Party of Canada 20:17 -scshunt:#canada- We have a lot of business to get through, so let's try to be efficient. If at any time you have any questions about procedure or otherwise, please PM me. During debate, please also PM me indicating that you want to speak so that I can put you on a speaker's list, and things can move quicker 20:18 <@scshunt> The first order of business is the reading and approval of the minutes of the previous meeting. The draft minutes were distributed with the call of this meeting. Are there any corrections? 20:19 <@scshunt> Seeing none, the minutes are approved as circulated. 20:19 <+Sqratz> 1 vote for nobody? 20:19 <+Wilson> that is accurate 20:19 <@scshunt> Next up are reports. 20:19 <+Wilson> a vote for Rock I believe 20:19 <@scshunt> The President has a report. 20:20 <@scshunt> The Executive Board has been meeting regularly now; we are expecting a report on the finances of the Party sometime in the next month so I hope that we will have a proper financial report for presentation at the next general meeting in March. 20:21 <@scshunt> Are there any questions? 20:21 <@scshunt> None, ok. Next is the Secretary's report. RLim? 20:21 <%RLim> yes 20:22 <%RLim> Just want to report on Mike Bleskie's resignation 20:22 <%RLim> His resignation have not been formally accepted yet 20:23 <%RLim> Here's the original thread 20:23 <%RLim> https://www.pirateparty.ca/forum/index.php?topic=1230.0 20:23 <@scshunt> Ok, the question is on the acceptance of Mike Bleskie's resignation from the Political Council. Is there any objection to accepting the resignation? 20:24 <@scshunt> No objection, so the resignation is accepted. 20:24 -scshunt:#canada- To new joiners: Please PM your email address to RLim to sign in to the meeting 20:25 <@scshunt> That's it for reports; next is unfinished business and general orders 20:25 <@scshunt> There is no unfinished business, but we do have several general orders. 20:25 <@scshunt> The first is the election of the Political Council 20:25 <@scshunt> Before I put the question, I'd like to ensure that we can have an orderly debate on this 20:26 <@scshunt> so I'll briefly explain the procedure 20:26 <@scshunt> We will be putting the question out for debate and nominations 20:26 <@scshunt> Each member is entitled to two speaking turns, each no more than 10 minutes 20:26 <@scshunt> If a member wishes to vary these rules, they can make a motion to do so. 20:27 <@scshunt> You can ask questions of a speaking member, but they aren't obliged to answer, since it counts against their time 20:27 <+JMcleod> Do we have quorum? 20:27 <@scshunt> Yes. 20:27 All off-topic, unprofessional, and unorderly behavior can be found in #riffraff 20:27 <@scshunt> Bah. 20:27 <@scshunt> We do not have a quorum 20:28 <+JohannWeiss> What's quorum? 20:28 <@scshunt> We need three additional members for a quorum 20:28 <+Wilson> 15 20:28 <@scshunt> I had thought we had a few more signed in. 20:28 Haha, everyone text your pirate friends 20:28 <@scshunt> We have 12 20:28 <@scshunt> svulliez: you should sign in 20:28 <+khoover> well, hopefully 2 there 20:28 -scshunt:#canada- To new members who just joined, please send RLim your email address so that he can verify that you are a member 20:29 <%RLim> Channel | Bienvenue sur le canal IRC officiel du parti pirate du 20:29 <%RLim> Canada | General Meeting at 8PM EST | Late comers please PM Rlim with your e-mail to get validated. 20:29 <@scshunt> oops 20:29 <+CCitizen> Might want to reference #riffraff channel in the topic so people know to go there to talk 20:30 <+khoover> does each jake count as a person? 20:30 <@scshunt> No. 20:32 <+JakeDaynesWork> No 20:32 < TravisMcCrea|Work> Bonjour Parti Pirate du Canada 20:32 <+JakeDaynesWork> I'm going to be moving from desktop to phone in a bit 20:34 <@scshunt> Sorry folks, can't do much without a quorum, and the bot is broken :( 20:34 <@scshunt> jhowell: see topic! 20:34 <@scshunt> Yay, that's a quorum! 20:35 <+CCitizen> Yay 20:35 <+svulliez> I texted all the Vancouver candidates, some are tied up temporarily 20:35 <@scshunt> cool 20:35 <+JohannWeiss> Huzzay 20:35 <@scshunt> (if you aren't validated, you can still participate at this stage) 20:35 <@scshunt> We have a quorum, so we will have to go back and accept Mike Bleskie's resignation again. Any objections? 20:35 <+JakeDaynesWork> no 20:36 <+JMcleod> no objection 20:36 sorry for the lateness! glad i could assist in making quorum 20:36 no objection 20:37 <@scshunt> Ok, seeing no objection, Mike's resignation is accepted. 20:37 <@scshunt> We'll move on to the Political Council elections 20:37 <+CCitizen> No objections here 20:38 <@scshunt> Each member will have two speaking turns, no more than 10 minutes each. Questions may be asked with the speaker's permission, but arguing with their speech is not (if you are unsure, ask if you can ask a question first) 20:38 <@scshunt> You can also nominate people or make motions when you are given the floor; if you do not speak, that won't count as a speaking turn. 20:38 <@scshunt> All nominations must be made from the floor at this meeting; if someone is not nominated here, they will not be on the ballot. 20:39 <@scshunt> If you have any questions, /please/ do send me a PM 20:39 <@scshunt> You can use debate to argue in favor of specific candidates, advocate your own election, or anything of the sort 20:40 <@scshunt> You can also argue against candidates, but derogatory speech will not be permitted 20:40 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> May we clarify derogatory? 20:40 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> not to be "that guy" 20:41 <@scshunt> Once no one wishes to speak (or if debate is ordered closed by the meeting), then the ballot will be prepared. Voting will be done on the party website, if no one objects 20:41 <+svulliez> Personal attacks? Come on travis haha 20:41 <@scshunt> TravisMcCrea|Work: That's actually a really good question :) 20:41 <+Wilson> if you wouldn't call your mother it... 20:41 <+svulliez> You can attack actions and policies, not human beings 20:42 <@scshunt> No personal attacks 20:42 <+handler> unless they are a space reptile 20:42 <@scshunt> You can certainly express that you do not want to see someone elected for some reason or another, as long as it does not turn into a significant personal attack 20:42 <@scshunt> If you feel that debate is out of line, you may call them to order publicly; I will then rule on the debate. 20:42 * TravisMcCrea|Work strikes off the "your stupid" argument he has been preparing. 20:42 <@scshunt> If at any time I make a ruling that you disagree with, you can appeal that ruling to the meeting. 20:43 <+svulliez> *you're 20:43 <@scshunt> Any more questions before we move on? 20:43 <+JakeDaynesWork> nope 20:44 <@scshunt> Ok 20:44 <+CCitizen> I got one are we just assuming everyone who posted on the forums is going to be voted on? 20:44 <@scshunt> CCitizen: No, as I said, they must be nominated. 20:44 <@scshunt> Nothing is stopping you from nominating everyone who posted, though. 20:44 <@scshunt> So, with that, the question is on the election of the Political Council; please PM me if you wish to speak or nominate. 20:45 <+svulliez> Just a reminder, you can join us in #riffraff for off topic discussion and community building 20:45 <@scshunt> JakeDaynesWork: You have the floor 20:45 <+JakeDaynesWork> As a long standing member of the party, with or without my absences 20:46 <+JakeDaynesWork> I have seen one individual stick through a lot with the party, and expend a lot of effort with the party as well, on many fronts. 20:46 <+JakeDaynesWork> As such, I would like to nominate Shawn Vulliez to Political Council 20:46 <@scshunt> Ok, Shawn Vulliez is nominated 20:46 <@scshunt> JakeDaynesWork: Any others? 20:46 <@scshunt> Ah, actually, one more thing. If you have the floor, and are done, please say "done" 20:46 <+JakeDaynesWork> I will allow others to speak their nominations 20:46 <+JakeDaynesWork> done 20:46 <@scshunt> that way I can move on the next speaker quickly. 20:47 <@scshunt> JohannWeiss is next 20:47 <+JohannWeiss> I'd like to nominate Jake Daynes 20:47 <@scshunt> Anything else? 20:47 <+JohannWeiss> Also would like to nominate Travis McCrea, James Wilson, and Christoph Leon 20:47 <@scshunt> Ok 20:47 <+JohannWeiss> Done 20:48 <@scshunt> Wilson, you are next 20:48 <+Wilson> Well, the previous speakers actually nominated the ones I wanted to lol 20:48 <@scshunt> haha 20:49 <@scshunt> Do you wish to speak or make any other nominations, or should we move on? 20:49 <+Wilson> I will add patrick fitzgerald 20:49 <+Wilson> done 20:49 <@scshunt> ok 20:49 <@scshunt> TravisMcCrea|Work: Your turn 20:49 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> I nominate the very worthy Sean (Shawn?) Hunt 20:49 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> done 20:49 <@scshunt> svulliez: 20:50 <@scshunt> *svulliez: It's your turn 20:50 <+svulliez> I nominate Harold Swinton and Eli Zbar 20:50 <+svulliez> I was just double checking that they hadn't already been 20:51 <@scshunt> One sec, I'll get the current list 20:51 <+svulliez> And Johann Weissgerber 20:51 <@scshunt> Shawn Vulliez, Jake Daynes, Travis McCrea, James Wilson, Christoph Leon, Patrick Fitzgerald, Sean Hunt, Harold Swinton, Eli Zbar 20:51 <@scshunt> All right. Done? 20:51 <+svulliez> And Johann 20:52 <@scshunt> yeah. 20:52 <@scshunt> Ok, next up is LynnB 20:52 <+LynnB> My nominations have been covered now 20:52 <+LynnB> done 20:52 <@scshunt> Ok 20:52 <@scshunt> khoover: 20:52 <+khoover> I nominate Ken Hoover 20:52 <+khoover> done 20:53 <@scshunt> TravisMcCrea|Work: Your turn again 20:53 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> Because I want a large political council and because people can obviously not accept a nomination or just not get voted for: I nominate all actively voiced members of our channel 20:53 <@scshunt> Ok. 20:53 <+CCitizen> Did everyone who posted get nominated already? 20:54 <@scshunt> Apart from the present nominations, that is RLim, CCitizen, beanjammin, drew, handler, JMcleod, LynnB, Sqratz, and trevm 20:54 <+khoover> Ah, forgot to add, I also nominate Steve Henderson 20:54 <+svulliez> Ah I forgot Steve Henderson, someone nominate him 20:54 <@scshunt> unless I'm unaware of a username->person mapping 20:54 <@scshunt> Ok, I'll add Steve Henderson 20:54 <+drew> ok I nominate Steve Henderson 20:54 <@scshunt> For anyone just nominated: You do not have to accept the nomination and can have it withdrawn 20:55 <+trevm> CCitizen has already been nominated, or so I believe 20:55 <@scshunt> Possibly; I don't know his name offhand 20:55 <%RLim> yeah Patrick F 20:55 <@scshunt> ok 20:56 <+beanjammin> I would like to have my nomination withdrawn, I haven't been properly active in the party enough to this point. 20:56 <@scshunt> drew, handler, LynnB, Sqratz, and trevm: May I have your names for convenience, please? 20:56 <@scshunt> Ok 20:56 <+CCitizen> Yes that's me 20:56 <+Sqratz> Vaughn Male 20:57 <+drew> Andrew Karamaoun 20:57 <@scshunt> While we're doing that, does anyone wish to speak? 20:57 <+trevm> Trevor Mountney 20:57 <+LynnB> I would also like my nomination withdrawn please. 20:57 <@scshunt> LynnB: Ok, thank you 20:58 <@scshunt> No one has asked for debate; if there is no further debate, then the ballot will be prepared and debate will be closed. 20:58 <@scshunt> The current nominees are: 20:58 <+handler> scshunt: Duncan Hill 20:58 <@scshunt> handler: thanks 20:59 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> I motion to open the floor for debate 20:59 <@scshunt> Shawn Vulliez, Jake Daynes, Travis McCrea, James Wilson, Christoph Leon, Patrick Fitzgerald, Sean Hunt, Harold Swinton, Eli Zbar, Johann Weissgerber, Ken Hoover, Steve Henderson, Ric Lim, Jack McLeod, Vaughn Male, Trevor Mountey, Andrew Karamaoun, Duncan Hill 20:59 <@scshunt> TravisMcCrea|Work has moved to go to open debate, where everyone can speak at once. Is there a second? 20:59 <+svulliez> Could I request the other nominees post up barebones applications for the duration of the election if nothing else? 20:59 <+khoover> i second travis 20:59 <@scshunt> Ok. Any objection to proceeding in free debate? 21:00 <+jakedaynesphone> i second both travis and svulliez 21:00 <+drew> I'm a nominee? 21:00 <@scshunt> Seeing none, we will proceed to free debate. Everyone is free to speak at once, except if I interrupt to deal with business. There are 25 minutes available for debate; that amount can be adjusted by a motion. 21:00 <@scshunt> drew: Yes, TravisMcCrea|Work nominated everyone with voice, which includes you. 21:00 <@scshunt> drew: You can withdraw your nomination if you'd like. 21:01 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> drew: I would encourage you to remain in 21:02 <@scshunt> I don't see any debate; if there is no debate, then I will close the debate and the ballot will be prepared. 21:02 <+JMcleod> I would like to withdraw my nomination - I already have a voice on the exec board and anything I disagree with with the political board will be voted on by a general meeting through a motion. 21:02 <+khoover> oi, hang on, preparing a statement 21:02 <@scshunt> ok 21:02 <@scshunt> JMcleod: ok 21:03 <+JohannWeiss> I'd like to re-state my support for every candidate who was at the debate last week (Shawn, Travis, Jake, James, and Patrick) 21:04 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> I am sure I should have SOMETHING to say.. but I encourage everyone to check out what I have said before https://www.pirateparty.ca/forum/index.php?topic=1565.0 21:04 <+svulliez> I think a lot of us agree that a diversity of viewpoints is good and more hands on deck is better, so I encourage you to only not vote people in for good reasons 21:05 <+svulliez> I also encourage other candidates to not leave if they don't make council... We still would love your help. 21:05 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> "8 way tie for Council Leader" 21:05 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> :P 21:05 <+khoover> still working on statement 21:06 <+svulliez> That also applies to me, if I don't make it, I am staying around. 21:06 <+svulliez> I'm curious, does anyone disagree on the importance of a site redesign? 21:06 <+drew> I should put a statement in the Political Council Thread? 21:07 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> not with the general concept of a site redesign 21:07 <+handler> svulliez: I completely agree 21:07 <+JMcleod> how will the actually elections work, like say I think CandidateA fits well in the council, but think CandidateB is a better leader for our short term objectives, will I be able to vote for both but for B only as leader? 21:07 <+Wilson> not with the general idea no, just the extent 21:07 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> drew: you can, but you can just say it here too 21:07 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> Wilson: exactly 21:08 <+JohannWeiss> svulliez: I agree with a redesign 21:08 <+handler> When you look at the site right now, it is not content-focused 21:08 <+svulliez> JMcleod: No, you can only approve or disapprove 21:08 <+handler> The newest posts are tucked away in the bottom corner 21:09 <@scshunt> I would suggest posting in the forum. It is easier to read a forum than the logs here. 21:09 <+svulliez> JMcleod: I don't really like it, I'd prefer the council vote internally on a leader tbqh 21:09 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> Our site needs to be quickly educating people on who we are and what we stand for. I don't want to say "we should do it like everyone else is doing it" but look at every other political party's website. Those general design techniques are what we need to use as well... they all put thousands of dollars into researching the best layout for their site to earn voters 21:09 <@scshunt> Although I would ask that we focus discussion on the political council election, and not the website. I don't see how the two are related. 21:09 <+handler> TravisMcCrea|Work: I agree 21:10 <+JMcleod> Well only 2 people will get a vote for from me then, maybe 3, in that event :) 21:10 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> I am kinda iffy on the idea that the party needs a leader at all. 21:10 <+khoover> we need a public face, is what 21:10 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> Though if we do have one, I sincerely hope it is Johann 21:10 <+JMcleod> Well we need a leader, but leader really is the public face of the party. 21:10 <+svulliez> Its required with elections canada to have one 21:11 <+khoover> ^ or that 21:11 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> svulliez: yeah a leader by name... 21:11 <+Wilson> Its a legal requirement to have a leader 21:11 <+Wilson> damn shawn, beat me to it 21:11 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> There is a difference between having a symbolic leader, and a legal leader. 21:11 <+svulliez> I agree that we shouldnt have too much power and authority invested in a single person 21:11 <@scshunt> JMcleod: And no, You will not be able to. You vote approving or disapproving each candidate; there is no way to separate the two votes under our system 21:11 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> Like I said, I am on the fence about it.. I am not AGAINST it 21:12 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> Just saying having a single position which defines the party seems a little counter to the general decentralized nature of what we fight for. 21:12 <+svulliez> I may point out also that travis was once running for both President and Leader... :) 21:13 <%RLim> the person with the most vote becomes the leader 21:13 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> svulliez: and I stepped down from seeking both 21:13 <+drew> Ill admit I dont know the exact responsibilities of political board. I dont wanna take up a position with too much work. 21:14 <+JMcleod> omg that is sooo lazy 21:14 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> Drew, you vote on stuff and if you feel like it you come up with proposals on cool stuff that the party can do 21:14 <+JMcleod> actually its just to show up for thursday night meetings 21:14 <@scshunt> drew: The Political Council is expected to meet at least biweekly and is responsible for all political and public-facing decisions of the party 21:14 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> it's not a full time job 21:15 <+drew> ok I can vote and discuss things weekly 21:15 <+beanjammin> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the powers of the party leader are defined by the party constitution. We can make of it what we want. I see no need for major concern about centralising power in one person if that's not what people want. 21:15 <+JMcleod> bi-weekly or weekly? 21:15 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> 6:14 PM  omg that is sooo lazy <= Personal Attack? (I don't have a problem with what he said, but that's why I asked earlier to define what is and isn't acceptable) 21:15 <+handler> I'd like everyone to consider electing me to the political board. I believe that I have some great ideas and the determination to make a useful contribution to the party. 21:15 <+JMcleod> no, the comment was lazy 21:15 <+Wilson> beanjammin: the general meeting over-rules all anyways 21:15 <+svulliez> Yeah, beanjammin is right... The current constitution affords no extra power to leader 21:16 <+JohannWeiss> Well the leader and deputy have a vote on both councils 21:16 <+svulliez> I like drew and I would encourage him to run, but not unless he wants to, there are going to be some expectations of participants 21:17 <@scshunt> The Leader and Deputy Leader are members of the Executive Board 21:17 <@scshunt> Additionally, the Canada Elections Act gives some power to the Leader. Most of that, however, cannot be used except where directed by the party. 21:17 <+JMcleod> Keep in mind that if you are voted on the PC you do not have to accept the role of leader and deputy leader should you win that nomination too. 21:17 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> Also most of the Canada Elections Act stuff is in regards to election period 21:18 <@scshunt> Now is as good a time as any to state that I will not be taking the position of Leader or Deputy Leader 21:18 <+khoover> does one have to deny deputy if they deny leader, and/or vice versa? 21:18 <+JMcleod> yes 21:18 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> which unless we are graced by God with Dictator Harper dissolving parliament.... we don't have to worry about for now :P 21:18 <+JMcleod> if you deny leader, you deny deputy as ur role is to replace him 21:19 <+khoover> and if you deny deputy? 21:19 <@scshunt> Yes, the two must be declined as a package. 21:19 <+JMcleod> if you deny deputy then u werent chosen as leader anyways :) 21:19 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> (then it would go to 3rd place, which is what I guess your asking) 21:19 <+svulliez> I believe Johann, Myself and Jake are the only ones who have said they are willing to be leader 21:20 <%RLim> No maximum size, so the more the merrier. Leader and deputy get to vote on both board 21:20 <@scshunt> the position of Leader will go to the highest-approval candidate who is willing to accept the position 21:20 <@scshunt> Deputy Leader will go to the next highest-approval 21:20 <%RLim> It would be nice to have a large board to get more diversity of opinion 21:20 <+khoover> just about finished the statement, if i can have a bit more time. since i'm a relative unknown 21:20 <@scshunt> You do not have to decide now 21:20 <@scshunt> You can wait to see the results 21:21 <+CCitizen> I'm not going for leader but I think the debates before were good enough as well as the forums... Most of the communication should have been done before this point 21:21 <@scshunt> We only have 5 more minutes for debate. 21:21 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> CCitizen: I don't think khoover or drew were expecting to be nominated tonight 21:21 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> so.. that's fair :P 21:21 <+trevm> I posted a little write up on the political counsel election Board, if anyone's interested 21:22 <+drew> Im posting something on the forum... 21:22 <+CCitizen> True... 21:23 <+handler> If there is anything that people want to know about myself, feel free to ask 21:23 <+khoover> alright, finished it. I may have a career in speechwriting 21:23 <+svulliez> Awesome. I really do hope to see most of us on the board, I am excited about the party's future 21:23 < JakeDaynes> As I am in and out of signal - I would like to make one post while I can: I have seen many of the long-term nominees work very hard and long for the party, and I have heard the ideas from many of the new nominees. I would like to say that i am proud to be able to run and work next to all of you, and I would encourage everybody present and not to vote every nominee onto the board - you will not be disappointed. 21:23 <+svulliez> When did you newcomers first hear about us? 21:24 <+khoover> I joined back in '10, so, am I a newcomer still? 21:24 <+svulliez> And when did you first join up and why? 21:24 <+svulliez> Newcomer to the political election, I mean 21:24 <%RLim> JakeDaynes "not to"? 21:25 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> khoover: '10? n00b, I joined in '01 21:25 <@scshunt> The time allocated for debate is about to expire; is there desire to extend the debate? 21:25 <+khoover> here 21:25 <+handler> yes 21:25 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> yes 21:25 <+handler> I move to extend the debate 21:25 <@scshunt> Any suggestion as to how long? 21:25 <+handler> another 5 mins? 21:25 <%RLim> 5 minutes for now 21:25 <@scshunt> Any objection to extending the debate for 5 minutes? 21:25 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> Instead of a time, who is still preparing something? 21:25 <+khoover> here 21:25 <+handler> I am 21:26 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> Can we just let them speak and once they are done... we move on? 21:26 <+svulliez> ^ 21:26 <+trevm> I joined in 2009 21:27 <@scshunt> TravisMcCrea|Work: Hmm... not quite sure how to interpret that 21:27 <+khoover> I was in grade 10 when I first heard about and joined the party, being interested more in the name and imagery evoked by it, than the stance. Over time, it's evolved into more of a nuanced position, being agreement with a lot of the core values of the party. 21:27 <+handler> In response to svulliez's question, I joined the party in March 2011. I've been active here on IRC on and off for the past 11 months. I was only nominated to the political board today. 21:27 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> lol in the debate we were given 5 minutes to write our response as well... so maybe we can just close open debate. Give the floor to anyone who asks for it, give them 5 minutes to explain who they are... and then call it done 21:27 <@scshunt> TravisMcCrea|Work: Ok 21:27 <@scshunt> Order, please. 21:28 <@scshunt> I will take this as a motion to extend debate by 5 minutes, and a motion to amend it to change it to a motion to return to individual debate, and allow each member one speech of 5 minutes, and then put the motion to a vote. 21:28 <@scshunt> Does this sound correct? 21:28 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> Yes. 21:28 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> (but I encourage only new candidates to take the 5 minutes for timesake) 21:28 <+svulliez> To 21:28 <@scshunt> Ok. I'll take handler's motion to add 5 minutes. Is there a second for TravisMcCrea|Work's motion? 21:28 <+svulliez> Yes 21:28 <@scshunt> Ok. 21:29 <@scshunt> The motion isn't debateable 21:29 <@scshunt> So without further ado, we will now vote on the question of whether or not to amend the motion to extend debate to a motion to return to individual debate, with each member being given one 5 minute speech 21:29 <@scshunt> This requires a majority to adopt the amendment; any motion to adjust speaking limits requires a two-thirds vote. 21:29 <+svulliez> Y 21:29 <@scshunt> All in favor of the amendment, say aye 21:29 <+JohannWeiss> y 21:29 <+handler> aye 21:29 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> Aye 21:29 <+Wilson> aye 21:29 <+JohannWeiss> aye 21:29 <%RLim> aye 21:29 <+khoover> aye 21:30 <+trevm> aye 21:30 <+LynnB> aye 21:30 <@scshunt> All opposed, say nay 21:30 <@scshunt> The ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. The question is now on the motion to return to individual debate, with each member being given one 5-minute speech. All in favor, say aye 21:30 <+khoover> aye 21:30 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> aye 21:30 <+handler> aye 21:31 <%RLim> aye 21:31 <+beanjammin> aye 21:31 <+JohannWeiss> aye 21:31 <+Wilson> aye 21:31 <+LynnB> aye 21:31 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> (technically its to "start" individual debate... not "return" to it) 21:31 <+svulliez> Aye 21:31 <@scshunt> All opposed, say nay 21:31 <@scshunt> TravisMcCrea|Work: All motions start in individual debate, so when you moved to free debate earlier, it was a change :) 21:31 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> ah :P Touche 21:32 <+Sqratz> aye 21:32 <@scshunt> The ayes have it and the motion is adopted. 21:32 <@scshunt> Each member will have one more 5-minute speaking turn; questions taken will count as part of that turn. 21:32 <@scshunt> Ken Hoover has the floor. 21:32 <+khoover> eh, can you go to the next person? still transcribing my notes 21:33 <@scshunt> Ok. 21:33 <@scshunt> Does anyone else wish to speak? 21:33 <+handler> I'll go next if no objects 21:33 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> (to those of you who were preparing things to say... this is that time... now or never so to speak) 21:33 <+handler> no one* 21:34 <@scshunt> handler: Please, go ahead 21:34 <+svulliez> Go handler ! 21:34 <+handler> There are a few things that I would strongly advocate for on the political board. 21:35 <+handler> The first is a focusing in on what our collective goals are as a party. 21:36 <+handler> The second is improved communication within the party and to the public. 21:36 Aha! 21:36 <+handler> Part of that would entail a revamp of the website. 21:37 Excuse my tardiness gentlemen 21:37 <+svulliez> haroldgraphene: #riffraff 21:38 <+handler> Lastly, I would like to further promote the party as a source of technical information. We should be informing people people of the powers that their technology can be used for. 21:39 <+handler> e.g., how to secure your equipment, how to protect your privacy online. 21:39 <@scshunt> Ok, that is the end of your time. 21:39 <+handler> I know that we already do this to some extent, but I would like to see a bigger commitment and more consensus on information 21:39 <+handler> Thanks for listening 21:40 <@scshunt> khoover: Do you wish to speak now? 21:40 <@scshunt> (anyone else wishing to speak, please PM me) 21:40 <+khoover> yep, just finished 21:40 <+khoover> My name is Ken Hoover. I'm sure not a whole lot of the members I speak to today are familiar with who I am, given my low-key presence in the party up until this point. A couple of you may remember when I first joined the party in September of 2010, now having been around for a good portion of the party's existence. Now, I seek a more active role in the party, a role to shape the future and the public image of the party. 21:41 <+khoover> To offer a bit of my background, currently I am enrolled in grade 12, coming from Markham, ON - a town north of Toronto. I have always been interested in technology, and the workings behind it, currently having an admission offer from the University of Waterloo for bachelor studies in Computer Science, and a 95 average. I've also recently taken an interest in Philosophy, broadening my views towards morality, the relation it has with law, and 21:41 <+khoover> how we determine what is and acquire knowledge. My political background is left-leaning, with a focus on the liberty of the individual within a working society. Some of my influences include Marxism, Aristotelianism, and the philosophical history offered by Alasdair MacIntyre. 21:41 <+khoover> What I offer, to the party, is not public-relations skills, though I have had to deal with the public during the course of employment. It is not leadership experience, although I do run layout and creative direction at the school paper. It may not even be breadth of knowledge, nor depth, for although I certainly know quite a bit about a couple things, I cannot say I know much about many more, nor am I an expert in what I do. What I offer is 21:41 <+khoover> a fresh slate, a willing canvas for possibilities and ideas, an impetus for change. The party, as we all know, has become stagnant, and needs fresh life injected into it. I offer a person willing to act, and to get things done. I offer the person I am. 21:42 <+khoover> That's all I have to say. 21:42 <@scshunt> Ok. 21:42 <@scshunt> trevm: you have the floor 21:43 <+khoover> Oh, sorry, forgot to mention; I'll also change the website. 21:43 <@scshunt> trevm, Trevor Mountney? 21:43 <+handler> :) 21:43 <+trevm> I joined back in 2009, and I would suggest visiting the political counsel board for a quick run down about me 21:44 <+trevm> if I were to be elected to the counsel, my primary focus would be on our projects 21:45 <+trevm> I strongly believe we would be a party that does things to help our people even though we don't get elected 21:45 <+trevm> and I'll take a quick question if anyone has one 21:45 <+trevm> otherwise, I'm done 21:45 <+haroldgraphene> may I? 21:45 <+trevm> yes 21:45 <@scshunt> haroldgraphene: drew is next 21:45 <@scshunt> I'll put you in line after him :) 21:45 <+haroldgraphene> What kind of projects would you immediately undergo? 21:46 <@scshunt> oh, asking a question 21:46 <@scshunt> yeah, that's fine 21:46 <+haroldgraphene> You don't need to put me in line yet :) 21:46 <@scshunt> drew, please hold up 21:46 <+trevm> well, there has been talk about how we can expand Capt 21:47 <+trevm> I believe Capt is a great project, but it hasn't gone as far as it can yet 21:47 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> (hear hear) 21:47 <+trevm> first I would look into what we can do with it 21:47 <@scshunt> nominees are: 21:47 <@scshunt> (oops, ignore) 21:48 <+haroldgraphene> Is that the only project you'd get started on? 21:48 <+trevm> well, I have not come up with any of my own 21:48 <+haroldgraphene> fair enough. 21:48 <@scshunt> Ok, that's the end of trevm's time 21:49 <@scshunt> drew is next. 21:49 <+drew> Ok. So I just got nominated today. 21:49 <+drew> My main experience with the Party is developping FOSS software like Pirate Linux 21:49 <+drew> I also helped with discussions and some parts of the constitution and the previous elections 21:50 <+drew> I think we should focus more on creating solutions. 21:50 <+drew> It's easy to say what's wrong with our system and that we need more Freedom and Transparency and Privacy. But how do we actually fix it? 21:51 <+drew> We should create solutions, communicate them to the public, get feedback, learn from the feedback. 21:51 <+drew> For example I thought yesterday maybe we can make a Github like thing where we put a act like C-30 21:52 <+drew> and edit it how we like, and show people the changes 21:52 <+svulliez> I am loving these applications btw 21:52 <+drew> also I favour more Proportional Representation in parliament. 21:52 <+drew> anyway that's all, feel free to ask for more info. 21:53 <@scshunt> Ok. I don't have anyone else in line to speak. 21:53 <@scshunt> The list of nominees, as a reminder, is: 21:53 <+haroldgraphene> Hm. 21:53 <@scshunt> Shawn Vulliez, Jake Daynes, Travis McCrea, James Wilson, Christoph Leon, Patrick Fitzgerald, Sean Hunt, Harold Swinton, Eli Zbar, Johann Weissgerber, Ken Hoover, Steve Henderson, Ric Lim, Vaughn Male, Trevor Mountey, Andrew Karamaoun, Duncan Hill 21:53 <@scshunt> Does anyone else wish to speak? 21:53 <+haroldgraphene> Yes I guess I'll make a brief statement 21:54 <@scshunt> ok, go ahead 21:54 <+haroldgraphene> I'm Harold Swinton, 24 years old I run an industrial equipment shop in the suburbs but live in East Vancouver. 21:54 <+haroldgraphene> I know some basic programming languages, cad software, html4, css.... 21:55 <+haroldgraphene> I have a lot of experience in manufacturing and open source projects such as building a reprap and autonomous drones 21:55 <+haroldgraphene> reprap = open source 3d printer 21:56 <+haroldgraphene> I agree with drew on the front of solutions, we need to focus on solutions and avoid just criticizing everything. 21:56 <+haroldgraphene> What I want to bring to the party is this: 21:56 <+haroldgraphene> -Communication amongst engineering clubs in universities 21:57 <+haroldgraphene> -communication with the hackers (such as Vancouver Hack Society (VHS)) 21:57 <+haroldgraphene> And I wish to innovate and make money for these individuals through promoting their open source/free business model 21:58 <+haroldgraphene> I also would like to build some discipline in this party. By this I mean giving responsibilities to members to do different jobs and expect them to go through with them 21:59 <+haroldgraphene> I think we should criticize our members fairly and without an insulting tone to make sure they're putting on a good face for our party. 22:00 <+haroldgraphene> lastly I've considered a name change of our party as well as a possible future merger with any other party that has similar goals to ours. 22:00 <@scshunt> Thank you, your time is up 22:00 <+haroldgraphene> I think we could use with some expansion. 22:00 <+haroldgraphene> Ok, questions? 22:01 <@scshunt> Questions count against your time, so I'm sorry but I'll have to move on to another speaker. 22:01 <@scshunt> TravisMcCrea|Work wishes to speak 22:02 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> I just wanted to make a quick addition to my stated platforms: I also wish to bring the Pirate Party of Canada to Quebec with a stronger presence. I have spoken with Parti Pirate of France to get some of their promotional materials and I want to work with our members of Quebec to create a presence that is well ingrained in their culture 22:02 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> done 22:02 <@scshunt> Ok 22:02 <@scshunt> Any more speakers? 22:02 <+handler> TravisMcCrea|Work: I like that 22:03 <+haroldgraphene> TravisMcCrea|Work: I also support that motion 22:03 <@scshunt> Ok, seeing no more debate, the motion will be put to a vote 22:04 <@scshunt> The ballot will be prepared. Do any candidates other than myself, James, and Travis wish to decline the leadership now? 22:04 <+svulliez> What motion? 22:04 <@scshunt> svulliez: The election of the PC 22:04 <+oxpirate> I decline leadership. 22:04 <+svulliez> Ah 22:04 <%RLim> I decline leadership 22:04 <+trevm> I decline leadership 22:04 <+handler> I will also decline leadership 22:04 <@scshunt> I also forgot Harold, who said he wished to decline in the other channel 22:04 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> I would rather decline upon being voted for leadership 22:04 <+drew> I just wanna run as member of board, not leader / exec 22:04 <+CCitizen> I decline leadership too 22:04 <@scshunt> TravisMcCrea|Work: ok 22:05 <+haroldgraphene> I decline leadership... 22:05 <+handler> I'm afraid that I have to leave. Best of luck to everyone in the election 22:05 <@scshunt> If you can, please stick around, we have more business to get through 22:05 <+handler> I'll have to catch up tomorrow 22:06 <@scshunt> Ok, so we will move on to future business 22:06 <@scshunt> We have another general order 22:06 <@scshunt> Wilson gave notice of an amendment to the constitution and bylaws. Wilson, are you prepared to move that? 22:06 <+Wilson> yup 22:06 <+Wilson> I motion that the quoted text be voted on by the membership and added to the constitution as principle 5 of Article II, Object: 22:07 <+Wilson> "That consulting with constituents in the formation and carrying out of a candidate's platform is more democratic and a marked improvement over the methods currently employed by the other federal parties. And that, as far as is reasonable, constituents be given final say on how their MP votes in parliament" 22:07 <+Wilson> Furthermore, that the membership vote on this proposal be delayed for a period not less than 1 month and not more than 6 months to allow it to be voted on at the same time as other proposals that require such a vote. 22:07 <+Wilson> think thats it 22:07 < Rintaran> I'll second the motion. 22:07 <@scshunt> That should be considered two separate motions 22:08 <@scshunt> Rintaran: Can you please sign in? See the topic 22:08 <+khoover> I'll second the delay 22:08 <+haroldgraphene> I will also second that motion 22:08 <@scshunt> Ok, so we have a motion to add the following to the list of principles in Article II of the constitution 22:08 <+Wilson> thx Rintarin, khoover 22:08 <@scshunt> "That consulting with constituents in the formation and carrying out of a candidate's platform is more democratic and a marked improvement over the methods currently employed by the other federal parties. And that, as far as is reasonable,  constituents be given final say on how their MP votes in parliament" 22:09 <@scshunt> After reviewing the rules, however, I can't find the motion to delay holding the vote to be in order. Motions cannot be postponed beyond the next meeting, as no action of this meeting can put a motion out of reach of a future meeting. 22:09 <+Wilson> can an exact date be set beyond that? 22:09 <@scshunt> No. 22:10 <@scshunt> You could withdraw the motion to be brought forward at a later date, move to postpone the motion to the next meeting, or proceed with it now, in which case it would be voted on alongside the PC elections 22:10 <+Wilson> Then I guess onlt the first part can be discussed 22:10 <+Wilson> hmm 22:10 <@scshunt> We could also discuss it, and then it could be postponed 22:11 <@scshunt> Another option would be to refer it to a committee or to the PC (or, theoretically, the EB) 22:11 <+Wilson> Does anyone have any questions/comments about the motion? 22:12 <+JohannWeiss> Sounds good to me 22:12 <%RLim> trying to recall a concern voiced by someone 22:12 <@scshunt> I actually do wish to debate this motion; JMcleod, could you take the chair? 22:12 <+JMcleod> oh hi 22:12 <+khoover> I have some concerns too 22:12 <@JMcleod> sure lemme just read up on whats going on 22:13 <+scshunt> we're currently discussing Wilson's motion to amend the constitution 22:14 <+drew> I dont think I like it...they can just vote for an independent then. 22:14 <+svulliez> I don't like it either 22:14 <+svulliez> It should be discussed with the rest of the platform 22:14 <@JMcleod> Alright then 22:15 <+Wilson> svulliez, this would amend the statement of principles, it would be up to the council on how to impliment 22:15 <+Wilson> ...as part of the platform 22:15 <@JMcleod> scshunt, you have the floor for 5 minutes 22:15 <+svulliez> I like the idea in theory but it needs to be adapted as we figure out out overall strategy 22:15 <+scshunt> JMcleod: 10 minutes, I believe? 22:15 <+svulliez> Our* 22:16 <@JMcleod> 10 ok 10 22:16 <+scshunt> Ok. 22:16 <+svulliez> There is no need to rush in constitutional amendments 22:16 <+scshunt> I am not opposed to this motion simply because it is a constitutional amendment; in fact, I applaud Wilson for having the courage to bring it forward 22:17 <+scshunt> That said, I oppose this, because I do not feel that giving constituents a legally binding say on how their MP votes is at all an expression of representative democracy 22:17 <+scshunt> Indeed, it would rather defeat the purpose altogether 22:17 <+scshunt> What is the purpose of debate in Parliament if the MP has no discretion in voting? 22:18 <+scshunt> What is the purpose of committee review, where the bill is carefully considered and witnesses are interviewed, and amendments may be adopted to perfect the bill? 22:18 <+scshunt> Making constituents have a final say on their MP's vote would simply be equivalent to a direct democracy, only many times less efficient 22:19 <+scshunt> There's also the matter of confidential sessions 22:19 <+scshunt> Sometimes, they are necessary 22:19 <+scshunt> They are common during war, where the Parliament supervises the military's participation 22:19 <+svulliez> I would sooner like to see a constitutional dedication to reason and evidence 22:20 <+scshunt> On top of that, there are rare occasions when secrecy is quite necessary 22:20 <+scshunt> svulliez: I am speaking and don't appreciate interruptions... 22:20 <+scshunt> I highly recommend reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Caper 22:21 <+scshunt> It is the story of a situation where Parliament convened in confidential session to pass a law without the knowledge of its enemies, to great effect 22:21 <+scshunt> If we give constituents final say on their MP's decisions, then there is simply no means by which we can expect confidential decisions to be taken 22:21 <+scshunt> We can hardly expect every Canadian citizen to keep a secret. 22:21 heh 22:21 seeing a new slogan peeking 22:22 <+scshunt> So that is a large part of why I oppose this. I should also add that I oppose direct democracy 22:22 <+scshunt> While there are certainly situations where it would be nice to exert more influence on MPs, such as by recall petitions, I don't feel that direct democracy is necessarily a good idea 22:22 <+haroldgraphene> May I speak? 22:23 <+scshunt> A large part of our government is structured on trying to keep control of important decisions away from the hands of the electors 22:23 <+scshunt> As an example, the Chief Electoral Officer and the Governor of the Bank of Canada are totally unaccountable, and with good reason 22:23 <+scshunt> Most people don't properly understand the decisions made. While most people are capable of understanding them, giving people the opportunity to vote without understanding the problem could be disastrous 22:24 <+scshunt> It's already bad enough in Parliament as it is; I don't think that injecting direct democracy will make this any better 22:24 <+scshunt> Any questions in the last minute or so of my time? 22:25 <+haroldgraphene> yes? 22:25 <+scshunt> haroldgraphene: you have a question? 22:25 <+haroldgraphene> Yes! 22:25 <+scshunt> ask away 22:25 <@JMcleod> 1 minute left 22:25 <+haroldgraphene> Would you still feel the same way about direct democracy if there was a better method of communication between constituents and the MP? such as an online correspondance application? Where the MP would still have the final say? 22:26 <+haroldgraphene> But that the constituents would be able to shape his perspective better on the issue? 22:26 <+haroldgraphene> (that is all 22:26 <+scshunt> haroldgraphene: Yes. I assume that any implementation would involve increased communication, but I don't feel that we can force people to be educated even on things like basic macroeconomics, which is vital for understanding fiscal policy, for instance. 22:26 <+scshunt> (done) 22:27 <+Wilson> "As far as is reasonable", not every bill would end with the MP having to vote this way if there is lack of public interest, campaigning on platform issues would also be off limits since the people have already voted on them. 22:27 <@JMcleod> Ok - Wilson, you now have floor for 10 minutes 22:27 <+haroldgraphene> Well the elected official wouldnt listen to those that are uneducated is the thing! (sorry) 22:27 <+haroldgraphene> (done) 22:28 <+Wilson> You mentioned several positions that are not elected and I agree they shouldn't. However, our politicians have a duty I feel to take constituent concerns into account more than they do now 22:29 <+Wilson> You mentioned several instances that are rare. In the case of parliament being called to vote on something in secret it is possible the MP would not have time to consult(see above) 22:30 <+svulliez> I think its too vague and not necessary 22:30 <+Wilson> We are the party of open government, sure there will still be issues that need to be secret but I think they are few and far between and certainly less than the current situation 22:31 <+svulliez> For the time being, although i appreciate it 22:31 <@JMcleod> Let Wilson have his time please. 22:31 <+svulliez> Yes, I am sorry. This little screen it's hard to tell what's going on 22:33 <+Wilson> As for the competence of voters...personally I think you put too little faith in them 22:34 <+Wilson> people like to feel they are voting to represent them, not to be some trained seal in Ottawa. 22:35 <+Wilson> I think that addresses all of the concerns you raised. Questions? 22:35 <@JMcleod> 2 mins left for questions 22:35 <+scshunt> How do you intend to prevent voters from messing with appointed people because they make an unpopular decision, such as raising interest rates? 22:36 < ChristophLeon> Hello? 22:36 < ChristophLeon> Sorry I'm late! 22:36 <@JMcleod> Hello Christoph, please read topic 22:36 < ChristophLeon> (Where is the topic?) 22:36 <@JMcleod> | General Meeting at 8PM EST | Late comers please PM Rlim with your e-mail to get validated. 22:37 < ChristophLeon> Thanks. Will do. 22:37 <+Wilson> Messing with? keep in mind it is still the gov. not individuals who influence the appointed officials. It will encourage more compromise in parliament 22:37 <+svulliez> We are talking out of order in #riffraff 22:37 <+drew> If it's not an issue that's part of the Pirate Party core platform, do you still want to allow constituents to have priority over it? 22:37 <@JMcleod> Time is over 22:37 <+drew> *it is an issue 22:37 <@JMcleod> svulliez, you now have the floor for 10 minutes 22:38 <+svulliez> I apologize for speaking out of turn. 22:38 <+Wilson> np shawn 22:38 <+svulliez> Everyone is allowed to talk in my 10 minutes 22:38 <+ChristophLeon> Thanks. 22:38 <@JMcleod> lol ok :) 22:39 <+svulliez> I like the concept behind the idea, but I don't think this is the time or way to implement it 22:39 <+trevm> it seems to me, that in that kind of situation, the MP would have make sure his constituents are educated 22:40 <+svulliez> Constitutional amendments are fine, and I too want to add to that section 22:40 <+svulliez> Perhaps even so 22:40 <+svulliez> Something along these lines** 22:40 <+ChristophLeon> Oh man, I wish I could backtrack... I feel like I'm missing a lot here. I apologize for being late, I hate priorities today. 22:40 <+svulliez> But we should discuss it with the political council, and I think there could be unintended consequences for it 22:41 <+ChristophLeon> Which idea is it you like the concept behind, Shawn? 22:41 <+svulliez> In it's current form. 22:41 <%RLim> Well I strongly support the idea but lack of voters education is not lost on me. 22:41 <+Wilson> unintended consequences: specify? 22:41 <+svulliez> That consultative democracy is encouraged in the pirate party 22:41 <+svulliez> We should be seeking to further crowdsource 22:41 <+JohannWeiss> Since I can speak all over Shawn's time: It would be better to introduce when we have the tools to implement it. There isn't a practical way to get the opinion of your constituency, without spending large sums of money. 22:42 <+haroldgraphene> Yes I second what svulliez has said about consultation between MPs and constituents is important! Thanks for addressing that. 22:42 <+khoover> JohannWeiss, read (e-)mail, implement something similar to slashdot, make up forums 22:42 <+haroldgraphene> I also agree with JohannWeiss about his criticism. 22:43 <+svulliez> This actually may not go far enough, in my opinion, having the public image and rhetoric be based around our crowdsourced nature 22:43 <+Wilson> thx khoover 22:43 <+svulliez> Would be highly beneficial 22:43 <+haroldgraphene> It could also be destructive, I mean look at occupy's "crowdsource" 22:43 <+JohannWeiss> khoover: How do you verify they are living in the correct riding? 22:44 <%RLim> and people have to take responsibility rather than getting carried away with what is hip. So starting point would probably to mandate open information and well documented justification of actions. none of this in the know club. 22:44 <+svulliez> We should crowdsource as much as possible, it brings good results. This specified type of crowdsourcing isn't necessary or proportionate for the pirate party at this point in time. 22:44 <+Wilson> svulliez: crowdsourcing risks getting uneven results across the country, my method does not 22:44 <+svulliez> That is my opposition to this motion. 22:44 <+ChristophLeon> Wilson, what is your method? 22:44 <%RLim> JohannWeiss, a system could be setup that moderator can verify if a user is from their riding. SOme sort of forum 22:45 <%RLim> with upvote and downvote to give a quick poll to the representative 22:45 <+khoover> JohannWeiss, a log-in system, mayhaps? 22:45 <+khoover> distribute usernames and passwords to everyone with postal codes in a riding? 22:45 <+svulliez> I think local crowdsourcing is a good idea Wilson but I don't think this amendment is the way to go 22:46 <+haroldgraphene> khoover: Yes exactly! A secure log-in that has some kind of way of identifying that you're not intruding on the rules. 22:47 <+haroldgraphene> RLim, Very well said! 22:47 <+JohannWeiss> I didn't mean it was impossible, but I think the system that is required should be built before we vote on it. It's a necessary component. 22:47 <+haroldgraphene> khoover, RLim could you maybe find resources and get started on this project? We can use it experimentally prior to attempting to push it on our government ;) 22:48 <@JMcleod> 1 final minute - if anyone else wants floor, PM me. 22:48 <+haroldgraphene> JohannWeiss and that is why we need to start now 22:48 <+haroldgraphene> Im done 22:48 <+svulliez> This deserves wider debate, it's interesting but let's not get ahead of ourselves 22:48 <+svulliez> Do we still have quorum? 22:48 <+khoover> I suppose we could borrow slashdot, and send pins to all registered members, combine that with member number...but yeah, scshunt is right. i believe so 22:48 <@JMcleod> Alright, 10 mins is up. 22:48 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> I am here 22:48 <@JMcleod> Yes we still have Quorum 22:49 <@JMcleod> well I see we are 17 22:49 <@JMcleod> Ok scshunt has the floor 22:49 <+ChristophLeon> What is the minimum Quorum? 22:49 <+scshunt> ChristophLeon: 15 22:49 <+scshunt> I move to refer this motion to the Political Council. 22:49 <+Wilson> svulliez: I have been discussing similiar proposals for several months and put the delay in the original motion so there could be further debate 22:50 <+Wilson> I'd be willing to second that 22:50 <+khoover> i second scshunt, would be a good start 22:50 <+svulliez> I agree with scshunt 22:50 <+ChristophLeon> Agreed, scshunt. 22:51 <@JMcleod> scshunt motions that the following motion: 22:51 <@JMcleod> I motion that the quoted text be voted on by the membership and added to the constitution as principle 5 of Article II, Object: 22:51 <@JMcleod> 22:51 <@JMcleod> "That consulting with constituents in the formation and carrying out of a candidate's platform is more democratic and a marked improvement over the methods currently employed by the other federal parties. And that, as far as is reasonable, constituents be given final say on how their MP votes in parliament" 22:51 <@JMcleod> 22:51 <@JMcleod> be moved to the political council 22:51 <+JohannWeiss> seconded 22:52 <@JMcleod> The motion has been seconded by Wilson 22:52 <@JMcleod> scshunt now has the floor for 10 minutes to discuss this motion. 22:52 <+scshunt> I'll be quick here. 22:52 <+scshunt> I don't have objection to the idea of consultive democracy generally, and I do think it should be part of our platform. 22:53 <+scshunt> I like svulliez' suggestion of letting the new PC flesh it out 22:53 <+scshunt> So I would like to let the new PC come to a recommendation with it, and then bring it back to us in a month or two 22:53 <+scshunt> And of course, if we don't like what they suggest, we don't have to agree to it. 22:53 <+scshunt> And that way, concerns like my concerns over direct democracy can be dealt with by the PC as well 22:53 <+scshunt> (done) 22:54 <@JMcleod> Anyone else wish to have the floor for the current motion? 22:55 <@JMcleod> Ok no one. 22:56 <@JMcleod> Does anyone object to that motion? If not it will be adopted. If so, we shall go to a vote. 22:57 <+ChristophLeon> May I ask scshunt to be specific in "fleshing it out"? 22:57 <@JMcleod> Ok no object, the motion to move "That consulting with constituents in the formation and carrying out of a candidate's platform is more democratic and a marked improvement over the methods currently employed by the other federal parties. And that, as far as is reasonable, constituents be given final say on how their MP votes in parliament" to the political council is adopted 22:58 <+scshunt> ChristophLeon: It is up to the PC to decide. They can recommend the motion back with or without amendments, or they can recommend it be defeated. Regardless of what happens, it is just an opinion. So by 'fleshing it out', I meant 'recommend amendments' 22:58 <@JMcleod> Obviously this will happen only once the new PC is elected 22:59 <@JMcleod> As the previous motion is now moved to the PC, perhaps scshunt would like to have chair back 22:59 <+scshunt> sure 23:00 <@scshunt> All right, that concludes the general orders. We are now on to new business. We had notice of a motion to appoint a candidate for the Toronto-Danforth riding. 23:00 <@scshunt> Does anyone want to move that motion? 23:00 <+JMcleod> Is loki here? 23:01 <+Wilson> Has anyone heard from the candidate? 23:01 <@scshunt> Andrii doesn't appear to be present 23:01 <+svulliez> No let's call it a night it's been 3 hours 23:01 <+JMcleod> I move to appoint Andrii to being a candidate of Toronto-Danforth 23:01 <@scshunt> Is there a second? 23:01 <+haroldgraphene> can I do the opposite of second? 23:02 <+JMcleod> svulliez - we kinda have to appoint, else we have no candidate at all for the bi-election 23:02 <+haroldgraphene> We might not want to have one if they're not ready. 23:02 <@scshunt> haroldgraphene: No, but you can argue against it. A second is merely an indication that someone else wants to see the motion considered 23:02 <@scshunt> Does no one wish to second the motion to appoint Andrii Zvorygin as candidate for Toronto-Danforth? 23:03 <+JMcleod> personally I'd have liked of him to show up so he could say how getting signatures had been going - if he cant get that, he still wont be on sheet 23:03 <@scshunt> Seeing no second, the motion won't be proceeded with; it can still be made later. 23:03 <@scshunt> Is there any other business? 23:03 <+JMcleod> Yes 23:03 <+ChristophLeon> Do we know that Andrii Zvorygin is both willing and capable? 23:04 <+JMcleod> We dont, hes not here! (actually) 23:04 <@scshunt> Order. People appear to be debating the motion. There was no second; it was not brought forward. If you wish to debate it, please bring the motion forward, and then it can be debated. 23:04 <+JMcleod> hasnt he already been seconded in the forum? 23:04 <+khoover> wait, are we about to volunteer a candidate? 23:04 <@scshunt> JMcleod: You have the floor 23:04 <+ChristophLeon> Then we should probably wait until he is - at another time. 23:04 <+ChristophLeon> If so in the forum, then I see no problem with it. 23:04 <+JMcleod> 1st - before floor, wasnt he seconded in the forum? 23:05 <@scshunt> JMcleod: Yes, but a motion here requires a second at the meeting. 23:05 <+JMcleod> If that doesnt count, why do we need seconds in forum? 23:05 <@scshunt> We don't, and I clarified that today :) 23:05 <+JMcleod> good 23:05 <+JMcleod> ok 23:05 <+JMcleod> I motion that the Pirate Party of Canada adopt a stance for the protection of children against adults that suffer psychiatric disorder named pedophilia and as such, requests that adults that commit child sexual abuse be punished by a minimum of no less 23:05 <+JMcleod> than 18 years in jail. 23:06 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> I will not second nor endorse that 23:06 <+ChristophLeon> I oppose. 23:06 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> (I don't believe in terms longer than 15 years for any crime) 23:06 <@scshunt> Is there a second? 23:06 <+khoover> can't tell if he's serious... 23:06 <+haroldgraphene> I oppose as well... 23:07 <+haroldgraphene> Sex offenders should be taken care of with social programs not penitentiaries 23:07 <+ChristophLeon> I second haroldgraphene 23:08 <+haroldgraphene> thanks :) 23:08 <@scshunt> Ok, I don't see a second. This motion will not be discussed either. 23:08 <@scshunt> Do we have any other business? 23:08 <%RLim> and if they keep re-offending? 23:08 <@scshunt> Order, please. 23:08 <+ChristophLeon> I propose that dichotomous stances on any crime be abandoned, as the suspect may be the victim of more than one mental illness, and is then should be subject to a different type of treatment/punishment. 23:08 <+Wilson> I motion to end the meeting 23:08 <+haroldgraphene> I second that motion 23:09 <+khoover> I motion to discuss the situation with the IT Committee 23:10 <@scshunt> It has been moved and seconded to adjourn. While this is not debatable, if anyone knows of any business that needs consideration, they can summarize it 23:10 <+haroldgraphene> Thank you Sean. 23:10 <@scshunt> khoover appears to want to discuss the IT Committee 23:11 <@scshunt> Ok, all in favor of the motion to adjourn, say aye 23:11 <+khoover> currently, the IT Committee is effectively non-existent. The director - if we nominated one - isn't getting anything done, and the rest of the committee isn't doing anything to help. 23:11 <%RLim> aye 23:11 <+khoover> While I admit that I should probably try and raise activity, it doesn't help if i'm the only one 23:12 <@scshunt> All opposed, say nay 23:12 <+khoover> nay 23:12 <+JMcleod> nay 23:12 <+ChristophLeon> nay 23:12 <+JohannWeiss> nat 23:12 <+JohannWeiss> nay 23:13 <@scshunt> The nays have it and the assembly will not adjourn. Does anyone have any other business? 23:13 <+ChristophLeon> Let us discuss what khoover mentioned about the IT Committee 23:14 <@scshunt> We currently do not have an IT Director, as psema4's appointment expired at this meeting 23:14 <@scshunt> The members of the IT Committee are Ken Hoover, Jeremy Howell, Martin Alix,and Scott Elcomb 23:15 last meeting ended quickly and we didn't get a chance to coordinate with outside contact info 23:15 <@scshunt> Do we have a motion? 23:15 nay 23:15 <@scshunt> If we do not have a motion, we will continue without an IT Director 23:16 I can't remember which came forward 23:16 but there was a fellow with 15yrs exp 23:16 <+psema4> I move that the selection of IT Director be postponed until the March meeting 23:16 <+ChristophLeon> Are there any IT issues which need addressing BEFORE March? 23:17 <@scshunt> Does psema4's motion have a second? 23:17 <+khoover> ChristophLeon, the site 23:17 i'd kinda like to talk about this for a few more minutes 23:17 <@scshunt> jhowell: We should have a motion to discuss something 23:17 <+psema4> jhowell, that's what the motion is for 23:17 <%RLim> second 23:17 <@scshunt> Ok 23:18 <@scshunt> The question is on the motion to postpone the selection of IT Director until the March meeting. 23:18 <+JohannWeiss> Can we hear from the IT members who are present? 23:18 <+psema4> present 23:18 <+khoover> ello 23:19 <+JohannWeiss> Well what's the situation, why should we postpone, what would help? 23:19 <+JMcleod> I dont like the idea of continuing with a director, perhaps we should have another director, so we can see who is best... if we try em for a month each ;) 23:20 <+psema4> JMcleod: a month isn't long enough 23:20 <+jhowell> I support a committee 23:20 <+JMcleod> I know (it was supposed to be a joke) 23:21 <+psema4> +1 for committee activity. can i take the floor a moment? 23:21 <@scshunt> psema4: Go ahead 23:21 <+jhowell> i withdrew from the candidacy cuz it seemed like others wanted it more, and your style of IT requires more of an analyst (software) approach, whereas I am more Project Management and infrastructure. I'd work better as a collaborator imho. 23:22 <@scshunt> psema4: ? 23:22 <+psema4> Ok. First off, my apologies for what appears a lack of activity over the last month. I take full responsibility; I can also assure you that the selection of an IT director needs to be done with care 23:24 <+psema4> At the beginning of my term I released a schedule on the forms and sent out an email referring to it, however there were no participants 23:24 <+psema4> *forums* 23:25 <+psema4> the last week and half have been hell so I've not been able to get things under control. 23:25 <+psema4> Continuing without an IT Director is fine with me (run by committee) but we should have someone to point the ship 23:26 <+jhowell> agreed. the role of the IT Director should be more administrative, (coordinating, organizing) 23:26 <@scshunt> The Committee needs a chair in the Director 23:27 <+jhowell> Yes 23:27 <+jhowell> decisions made as a group collaboration 23:27 <+jhowell> a misnomer for "IT Coordinator" I suppose :) 23:28 <+psema4> well it's a little more than that. IT needs a direction to move towards.  goals to implement 23:28 <+jhowell> The question is---who here has the ability to do both 23:28 <+jhowell> that's the thing 23:28 <+ChristophLeon> Could said goals be decided upon by all of us? Vote for ideas? 23:29 <%RLim> yes ChristophLeon 23:29 <+psema4> we need systems that support the way our membership interacts with one another. 23:29 <+ChristophLeon> Could people not propose things about site layout, ease of access, etcetera, and then we can all take a vote on what we prefer? 23:29 <%RLim> First we need to fill the IT committee up with people 23:29 <@scshunt> RLim: There are currently five members, including myself ex officio 23:30 <@scshunt> actually, six, as Mikkel is also a member ex officio 23:30 <+jhowell> ChristophLeon The way I'd like to see it, is a committee that brings ideas to the table,discuss them and using the findings of the discussion to coordinate a series of projects based on the time and resources that we have available to us. 23:30 <+jhowell> and just implement them 23:30 <%RLim> yeah I suggest using mailing list since not everyone check forum. Martin Alix said he does not check forum and prefer mailing list if I remember correctly. 23:30 <+jhowell> RLim BINGO 23:31 <+psema4> +1000 23:31 <+jhowell> i'll meet in irc 23:31 <@scshunt> Can we please try to steer the discussion back to the matter at hand? 23:31 <%RLim> Martin Alix was one of the person who step up to be nominated for IT director in the last General Meeting 23:31 <+jhowell> but forums are too slow 23:32 <+jhowell> Is Martin Alix with us tonight 23:32 <@scshunt> No 23:32 <+jhowell> unfortunate 23:32 <+psema4> I'd like to give the IT committee one more month to work through the selection process and get the group working together effectively 23:32 <+jhowell> ok 23:32 <@scshunt> JMcleod: can you please take the chair again? 23:32 <+jhowell> Ok, I support psema4's motion 23:32 <%RLim> The term is also set to expire to expire after today's meeting. So we might need a motion extending the term? 23:32 <+JMcleod> sure 23:33 <+scshunt> I apologize for relinquishing the chair twice in one meeting; it's bad for me to get involved, but I feel that I should 23:33 <@JMcleod> go ahead 23:33 <+scshunt> The purpose of the IT Director is exactly as described; to manage the IT Committee, make sure it meets, and the like 23:33 <+scshunt> he's also the keeper of the root passwords 23:34 <+scshunt> but other than that, there's no reason it should be a one-man job 23:34 <+scshunt> As such, I would like to move to substitute a motion to appoint Jeremy Howell as IT Director in place of the pending motion. I feel his commentary here demonstrates that he is plenty qualified for the job. 23:34 <+khoover> phillipsjk, good timing. 23:35 <@JMcleod> is there any second to that motion 23:35 <+psema4> I second 23:35 <+jhowell> i can at least get communication going. I don't think the IT director necessarily needs to have 'power'. but someone needs to designate. 23:35 <+psema4> khoover has been in #itcomm practically since it opened 23:35 <@JMcleod> Anyone want to discuss this? Or does anyone oppose the motion? 23:35 <%RLim> yeah but we need a director to control the root password 23:36 <+jhowell> a good director should be able to recognize skills of the committee and divide up the workload. To get that started, we need someone appointed. :) 23:36 <@JMcleod> Ok so no one is opposing and no one asked for floor so the motion is adopted 23:37 <+scshunt> We're now dealing with the motion to appoint Jeremy Howell, yes? 23:37 <@JMcleod> yes 23:37 <+scshunt> ok 23:39 <+scshunt> (I think no one wants to debate) 23:39 <@JMcleod> Nope, does anyone oppose? 23:39 <+jhowell> I'm tryin' to be quiet on this one.:) 23:39 <+psema4> khoover do you have an opinion? would you like to try your hand at it? 23:40 <+psema4> (just asking) 23:40 <+jhowell> afk? 23:40 <+khoover> possibly. I have no experience at it 23:40 <+jhowell> yo, khoover 23:40 <+khoover> mhmm? 23:41 <+jhowell> if you are interested and just need help 23:41 <+jhowell> i'm here man 23:41 <+scshunt> haha 23:41 <+jhowell> i'm just unsure about my schedule. 23:41 <@JMcleod> the motion to postpone the selection of IT Director until the March meeting is the one which as adopted. Now we are on this one: to appoint Jeremy Howell as IT Director in place of the pending motion. I feel his commentary here demonstrates that he is plenty qualified for the job. 23:41 <+jhowell> if i'm motioned in 23:41 <+scshunt> Wait, what? 23:41 <+jhowell> i'll make the time 23:41 <@JMcleod> right^ 23:41 <@JMcleod> ? 23:41 <+scshunt> I thought the motion to postpone selection was amended to be a motion to appoint Jeremy Howell as IT Director. 23:42 <+scshunt> since the motion to substitute was adopted 23:42 <@JMcleod> oh in that order 23:42 <@JMcleod> see I wasnt clear, its my fault 23:42 <+scshunt> no worries :) 23:42 <@JMcleod> I forgot to actually go backwards :) 23:42 <+scshunt> haha 23:42 <+scshunt> We are debating the motion to appoint Jeremy Howell as IT Director, yes? 23:42 <+psema4> in place of the postponement or in addition to? 23:43 <+khoover> I guess I'd be willing to be director 23:43 <+khoover> jhowell, 23:43 <+jhowell> khoover 23:43 <+scshunt> psema4: In place of. 23:43 <+scshunt> At least, that is my understanding. 23:43 <@JMcleod> It would be in the place of postponement but we should still ask again if there is opposition cuz it wasnt clear 23:43 <+jhowell> agreed 23:44 <+jhowell> I was unsure myself, it sounded like i'd be IT director til march 23:44 <@JMcleod> Alright then: 23:44 <+jhowell> but i'd be fine with that 23:44 <+jhowell> just to get the ball rolling, you know? 23:45 <@JMcleod> The motion is to drop the postponement motion, and instead, in its place, adopt the following: to appoint Jeremy Howell as IT Director 23:45 <@JMcleod> Is there any opposition or discussion to this (and is it clear enough) 23:46 <+psema4> i have a comment 23:46 <+jhowell> in that case---khoover, "I guess" should be replaced with some more conviction if you have intentions! 23:46 <@JMcleod> go ahead psema4 23:48 <+khoover> honestly, i'm just remarkably tired at this point, and know i have a long day tomorrow 23:48 <+jhowell> understood :) 23:48 <+khoover> so, calling it lucky that i can still read the chat 23:48 <@JMcleod> Still waiting on psema4's comment 23:48 <+psema4> I think it's in the best of interests of the party to have the IT committee working before settling on an IT director, as it'll affect the long-term direction. The committee should have the final say. 23:49 <+scshunt> Four members of the committee are here. 23:49 <+psema4> right but there hasn't been much communication among them as yet. 23:49 <+psema4> as a group I mean 23:49 <+scshunt> I think we're getting into a chicken-and-egg problem here 23:50 <+scshunt> we need a director to have a good committee and a committee to have a good director 23:50 <+psema4> welcome to it.  :S 23:50 <+scshunt> let's just pick one and get on with it 23:50 <+jhowell> psema4, any suggestion on getting everyone communicating and what steps we'll take between now and march to achieve it? 23:50 <+scshunt> I think the big thing is having meetings 23:50 <+psema4> 1st off mailing list. tonight. then weekly meetings 23:51 <+jhowell> ok so whose in charge of the mailing list? 23:51 <+scshunt> I mean no offense to psema4, but he had a month to call a meeting and it didn't happen 23:51 <@JMcleod> For sake of clarity, The current motion, should it be accepted, would make jhowell the new IT director for a 1 year term. 23:51 <+psema4> no offense taken; it's true and I don't want to see it continue 23:52 <+psema4> I will object to the motion on the grounds that the committee has not yet met properly 23:52 <+scshunt> If we really don't think that jhowell is suitable as IT Director after this, we can change it 23:52 <+scshunt> while it's a 1-year term, we can always cut it short early 23:52 <+jhowell> psema4 makes a good point. 23:53 <+psema4> I support having jhowell as director, but I'm loathe to forward the passwords without getting to know him better. (no offense jhowell) 23:53 <@JMcleod> perhaps a motion to scrap all that and give to jhowell the mandate to set up an IT board meeting by the next GM would be more appropriate, just saying 23:53 <+jhowell> if we can make the mailing list as a deliverable 23:53 <+jhowell> my work is done 23:53 <+jhowell> hey np 23:53 <+psema4> I'll setup a list tonight 23:54 <+scshunt> on the PPCA servers? 23:54 <+psema4> (it should be done anyway) 23:54 <+jhowell> The fire is lit--my job's done ;) 23:54 <+psema4> scshunt: i'll need to look at it, but if not I can use one of my temporarily 23:54 <+scshunt> ok 23:54 <+scshunt> haha jhowell 23:55 <+scshunt> I still think we should just appoint jhowell 23:55 <%RLim> psema4: do you have Martin ALix contact info? 23:55 <+scshunt> yes, we have it 23:55 <+jhowell> scshunt & I have been talking about this since october 1st 23:55 <+scshunt> and since I don't feel that we're getting anywhere, I'd like to move the previous question (that is, to end debate and take a vote) 23:55 <+jhowell> so, i've been literally waiting that long for some formation of an IT committee so i can be involved. I'm not a poltiical guy, but i support this 23:56 <%RLim> ok the temporary appointment term ends today so we need a motion to appoint someone 23:56 <+CCitizen> So is appointing Jeremy an interim position while the IT Committee decides on a final choice? 23:56 <+scshunt> CCitizen: No, appointing him proper 23:56 <+CCitizen> Alright then sounds good to me 23:56 <@JMcleod> Alright, so, does anyone oppose motion to move to appoint jhowell as director instead of waiting until next month to discuss this? 23:56 <+psema4> again i'll object to appoint another on the grounds that the committee hasn't met yet 23:56 <+ChristophLeon> Can we simplify this? - Who is volunteering to be appointed? 23:56 <@JMcleod> OK 23:57 <+scshunt> JMcleod: Parliamentary Inquiry. What motion is currently being debated? I am confused. 23:57 <+khoover> ^ 23:58 <@JMcleod> Currently, the motion is to drop the postponement motion that was made, and instead, in its place, replace it by, adopt the following: move to appoint Jeremy Howell as IT Director. (please sean, validate that this was clearly your intention in your motion) 23:58 <+scshunt> ok, yes 23:59 <+jhowell> O_o 23:59 <+scshunt> I move the previous question on all pending questions. 23:59 <+khoover> huh? 23:59 <+scshunt> It's a motion to end debate and take a vote 23:59 <+khoover> ah, ok 23:59 <@JMcleod> We were already going to take a vote :) 23:59 <+ChristophLeon> Let us voe. --- Day changed Thu Feb 16 2012 00:00 <+ChristophLeon> Vote** 00:00 <+scshunt> it is undebateable and requires a two-thirds vote, if adopted, we'll just vote through the motion stack. 00:00 <+scshunt> Ok, I withdraw the motion 00:00 <@JMcleod> All in favor of the motion to "drop the postponement motion that was made, and instead, in its place, replace it by, adopt the following: move to appoint Jeremy Howell as IT Director. (please sean, validate that this was clearly your intention in your motion)" say yay, all who oppose, say nay 00:00 <+scshunt> let's just vote already 00:00 <+scshunt> aye 00:00 <+khoover> aye 00:00 <+psema4> nay 00:00 <+JohannWeiss> nay 00:01 <+jhowell> oh are u kidding me?! I gotta be the tie breaker?? 00:01 <+jhowell> lol 00:01 <+LynnB> nay 00:01 <%RLim> nay 00:01 <+jhowell> nay 00:02 <@JMcleod> Ok seems nay has it 00:02 <+CCitizen> nay, I think we rushed into this motion too quickly 00:02 <+psema4> we can't rush IT - it'll really mess things up for the party 00:02 <+JohannWeiss> So now the motion is to postpone? 00:02 <+scshunt> yes 00:03 <+khoover> yep 00:03 <+scshunt> I think 00:03 <@JMcleod> Motion is defeated, we are now going back to: motion to postpone the selection of IT Director until the March meeting 00:03 <+jhowell> I second the motion 00:03 <%RLim> can I amend it to add that the term extended to next month 00:03 <+scshunt> Who will chair the committee in this month? 00:03 <+psema4> RLim: March is next month :) 00:03 <+jhowell> well, like i said. psema4 has the torch. Provided the mailing list goes out-- 00:04 <@JMcleod> Motion was already seconded, and you cannot amend it to say the same thing :) 00:04 <%RLim> yeah just want to explicitly state that term is extended so we don't postpne selection and left with no director 00:04 <+psema4> I can continue (and do a better job) of chair for another month 00:04 <@JMcleod> Oh ok RLim 00:04 <%RLim> the minutes states your term expires today 00:05 <+scshunt> Yes, we have no IT Director right now, and thus no chair of the IT Committee 00:05 <+jhowell> psema4, besides it'd be nice to work with you.. If you end up liking me enough for the root passwords, I'd be honored ;) 00:05 <+psema4> well thx :) it's not about liking anyone - it's about trust 00:05 <+psema4> ;) 00:05 <@JMcleod> RLim motions that the motion to postpone the selection of IT Director until the March meeting be replaced by a motion to postpone the selection of IT Director until the March meeting and extend the current interim director's mandate until then. 00:05 <@JMcleod> Are there any seconds? 00:05 <+jhowell> like = trust goes hand in hand in my world ;P 00:05 <+psema4> fair enough 00:06 <+scshunt> I'll second that 00:06 <+jhowell> i'll second 00:06 <+CCitizen> Does that mean Scott is still Interim IT Director until we meet up in March or the IT Committee decides on a permanent one? 00:06 <+scshunt> CCitizen: if adopted, until the March meeting 00:07 <+CCitizen> Ok sounds good to me, Might as well give them more time to get everything in order 00:07 <@JMcleod> Ok we are now discussing the motion to replace the previous motion by "replaced by a motion to postpone the selection of IT Director until the March meeting and extend the current interim director's mandate until then." 00:07 <@JMcleod> oops I failed at copypaste there 00:07 <@JMcleod> Ok we are now discussing the motion to replace the previous motion by "to postpone the selection of IT Director until the March meeting and extend the current interim director's mandate until then." 00:08 <+JohannWeiss> move to vote 00:08 <+jhowell> aye 00:08 <%RLim> aye 00:08 <+khoover> aye 00:08 <+LynnB> aye 00:08 <@JMcleod> Alright then, all in favor say aye, all against say nay 00:08 <+JohannWeiss> aye 00:08 <+psema4> aye 00:08 <+LynnB> aye 00:08 <%RLim> aye 00:09 <@JMcleod> lol You all type aye faster than my sentence! 00:09 <+khoover> aye 00:09 <+CCitizen> aye 00:09 <+ChristophLeon> aye 00:09 <@JMcleod> ok ok Motion adopted 00:09 <@JMcleod> Now 00:10 <@JMcleod> we discuss the following: the motion to postpone the selection of IT Director until the March meeting and extend the current interim director's mandate until then. 00:10 <+JohannWeiss> move to vote 00:10 <+jhowell> aye 00:10 <@JMcleod> Anyone want to discuss (first) 00:10 <@JMcleod> ? 00:10 <+CCitizen> didnt we just vote on that? 00:10 <+ChristophLeon> Yes we did. 00:10 <@JMcleod> No we voted on the amendment 00:11 <@JMcleod> Now that it has been adopted, we need to vote on the actual motion 00:11 <+ChristophLeon> Oh, okay... AYE 00:11 <+CCitizen> I second moving to vote then, we already discussed it 00:11 <+khoover> ARRR 00:11 <@JMcleod> fun stuff really 00:11 <@JMcleod> Alright then, all in favor say aye, all against say nay 00:11 <+khoover> ARR 00:11 <+scshunt> aye 00:11 <%RLim> aye 00:11 <+psema4> aye 00:11 <+jhowell> aye 00:11 <+JohannWeiss> aye 00:11 <+CCitizen> aye 00:11 <+beanjammin> aye 00:11 <+LynnB> aye 00:11 <@JMcleod> Alright then, motion adopted 00:12 <+jhowell> huzzah 00:12 <+scshunt> yay 00:12 <+ChristophLeon> aye 00:12 <+JohannWeiss> motion to end meeting 00:12 <+khoover> 2nd 00:12 <@scshunt> Ok, we have a motion to adjourn. Does anyone have any other business to bring up> 00:12 <@scshunt> ? 00:12 <+CCitizen> Did we discuss Andrii's running in the by-election? 00:13 <@scshunt> The motion died for lack of a second. 00:13 <+ChristophLeon> Yes. 00:13 <+JMcleod> No one seconded it 00:13 <+khoover> yeah, figured it'd be a bad idea in absentia to nominate 00:13 <+JMcleod> I have another piece of business but I think it can be decided out of GM so I'll pm u 00:13 <+ChristophLeon> Here here. 00:13 <+khoover> errr, reverse the last two word pairs 00:13 <+CCitizen> I'd like to bring it up again then and suggest we allow him an opportunity to accept since we wont know the results of the Political Council for at least a week 00:13 <@scshunt> Ok 00:13 <@scshunt> The question is on the motion to adjourn 00:13 <@scshunt> All in favor, please say aye 00:14 <+JMcleod> nay 00:14 <+khoover> ARR 00:14 <@scshunt> All opposed, please say nay 00:14 <+JohannWeiss> aye 00:14 <%RLim> aye 00:14 <+beanjammin> aye 00:14 <+ChristophLeon> aye 00:14 <+LynnB> aye 00:14 <+jhowell> aye 00:14 <+JMcleod> guess people are tired, thats fine :) 00:14 <+CCitizen> Alright then aye... hopefully we didnt miss out on a good opportunity 00:14 <+jhowell> if it is important keep it in your mind 00:14 <+JohannWeiss> If he had shown up for the GA it may have been different 00:14 <@scshunt> The ayes have it and the motion to adjourn is adopted. 00:15 <+ChristophLeon> Truth. 00:15 -scshunt:#canada- The meeting is hereby adjourned. 00:15 <@scshunt> Thanks for coming out, everyone. Sorry for the long meeting and the small technical difficulties

View minutes.