FC 2011-08-11 Transcript

[21:04] <@Rintaran> Well, sooner we start the better. Let's open then. [21:04] <~MikkelPaulson> let's do so [21:04] <~MikkelPaulson> I put on my robe and wizard hat [21:04] <~MikkelPaulson> and call the meeting to order [21:05] <~MikkelPaulson> I have two matters to discuss [21:05] <~MikkelPaulson> but first, Sean has requested to give us a status update on the constitutional update [21:05] <+scshunt> I'll let you take care of your business first [21:05] <@MikeBleskie> GO ahead [21:06] <+scshunt> it's more important [21:06] <~MikkelPaulson> you don't even know what my business was [21:06] <~MikkelPaulson> but okay [21:06] <+scshunt> yes but I'm an interloper :P [21:06] <~MikkelPaulson> first, I feel that we should have ice cream sundaes bi-weekly rather than twice a month [21:07] <~MikkelPaulson> *ahem* sorry [21:07] <@Rintaran> Can we change it out for Banana Splits instead? [21:07] <~MikkelPaulson> that's a question that I think we'll have to put to the members [21:08] <~MikkelPaulson> it represents a significant change in direction for the party, and I'm not sure that everyone will be comfortable with it [21:08] <~MikkelPaulson> first real bit is a brief announcement, our regular Montreal meeting was to take place tonight, but Stephane is unavailable [21:08] <~MikkelPaulson> so we'll work out some other day I guess [21:09] <~MikkelPaulson> secondly, and considerably more importantly, we need to make a decision now as to whether or not we want to proceed with the 2012 PPI conference bid [21:09] <~MikkelPaulson> Thomas tells me that Switzerland is considering a bid [21:10] <~MikkelPaulson> and if we are to make a successful bid, it needs to have plenty of advance planning [21:11] <@MikeBleskie> Switzerland? Well, I'm not sure. [21:11] <@MikeBleskie> They might be able to pull it off faster and with more gusto. [21:11] <@Rintaran> I still don't believe that we have the right resources available to push forward for this. [21:12] <~MikkelPaulson> perhaps [21:12] <+Nuitari_> hi [21:12] <@Rintaran> Thanks for joining us. [21:12] <~MikkelPaulson> on the other hand, maybe this is the way to mobilise those resources [21:13] <~MikkelPaulson> Nuitari_: we're discussing the 2012 PPI conference [21:13] <+Nuitari_> can't join [21:13] <+Nuitari_> baby problems [21:13] <@MikeBleskie> Gotcha [21:14] <~MikkelPaulson> bad news? [21:16] <~MikkelPaulson> I was thinking we could do the bid for May 19-20 [21:16] <~MikkelPaulson> Victoria Day long weekend [21:17] <@MikeBleskie> Toronto, I presume? [21:17] <~MikkelPaulson> and hold a PPCA conference in the same place on the 21st [21:17] <~MikkelPaulson> I think Ottawa or Montreal would be easier for us to organize [21:17] <~MikkelPaulson> since we have Stephane and I in Montreal and you and Shawn in Ottawa [21:18] <+Nuitari_> nothing bad just cranky [21:18] <+Nuitari_> got to go [21:18] <@Rintaran> Bleskie's in Sudbury, not Ottawa. [21:19] <~MikkelPaulson> right now yes [21:19] <@Rintaran> He's not returning in the fall. [21:19] <@MikeBleskie> I'm at Cambrian College now. [21:19] <~MikkelPaulson> no? [21:19] <~MikkelPaulson> and you say you've been out of the loop... :P [21:20] <~MikkelPaulson> even so, we have over half of the Federal Council within 2 hours of one another [21:20] <~MikkelPaulson> so it makes sense to do it in one of the cities [21:20] <+scshunt> yes but how long are they going to be FC? [21:21] <~MikkelPaulson> I'll continue to be engaged with the party after I leave my position as leader [21:21] <~MikkelPaulson> if the conference gets the green light I'll make that my personal project [21:22] <+scshunt> may I speak to this? [21:22] <~MikkelPaulson> sure [21:22] <+scshunt> I think it's a bit premature to do this given the big possibility that it goes south [21:23] <+scshunt> I'm more concerned with money than effort; I think we can find the effort to pull it off [21:24] <+scshunt> in any case, I think this is a GM issue [21:24] <~MikkelPaulson> it's definitely something that should be ratified by the Assembly, but if the leadership doesn't support it, it should go no further [21:26] <~MikkelPaulson> this has the potential to be a big promotional boost for the party if we handle it properly [21:27] <~MikkelPaulson> I'm concerned that we're losing momentum [21:27] <@MikeBleskie> And we have at least one person qualified to head the project [21:27] <~MikkelPaulson> and we need to do something to kick things into gear [21:27] <@Rintaran> I don't believe we'll be in any position to run it in 2012. I think, however, if we start planning and fundraising immediately, it would be a good idea to aim for 2013. And we should push that year at a GM as swiftly as possible. [21:28] <~MikkelPaulson> I was thinking that we could have a public round table on the second day of the meeting [21:29] <~MikkelPaulson> get some real discussion going with some of the heavyweights in the party [21:29] <~MikkelPaulson> invite Geist and Doctorow as well [21:29] <+scshunt> I'm hoping that the restructure will help gain momentum, but everything we can get is good [21:30] <~MikkelPaulson> thanks for your opinion, Sean; we'll hear more from you a bit later [21:31] <~MikkelPaulson> I'd like to get a status update from Stephane on the party's finances [21:31] <~MikkelPaulson> I know my campaign ended up turning a net profit [21:32] <~MikkelPaulson> scshunt reports that Nuit told him we were sitting around $3000 [21:32] <@Rintaran> Roughly a month ago, yes. [21:33] <@Rintaran> I haven't heard any numbers more recent. [21:33] <~MikkelPaulson> I doubt if there's much change [21:33] <@Rintaran> We really need to get a transparent database that's accessible by the Executive Board up post-ratification. [21:34] <~MikkelPaulson> among many, many other things [21:34] <~MikkelPaulson> what do you think we'd need to pull this off? [21:34] <@Rintaran> I finally managed to get a non-CD copy of the EFr software and Bleskie's return will be mailed out to the auditor tmw. Hopefully it'll come back in time for me to get it in and get reimbursed for his campaign... Computers going boom has done great damage here. [21:35] <@Rintaran> Well, we'd need a team of a 5 or 6 people dedicated specifically to getting it up and running. Part time at first, but the final 3-months they'd need to wrok FT to get it done proper. [21:36] <@Rintaran> It would be best to hire MediaCo to handle the remote conversation. They've done it for international conferences well in the past, and can work to a low budget if necessary. [21:36] <@Rintaran> It all depends on how well-executed we want, but we're easily looking at 10k for tech. [21:37] <@Rintaran> Compared to that, the rooms, other equipment rental, setup, etc are peanuts. Maybe 3-5k. [21:37] <~MikkelPaulson> what about revenue from attendance fees? [21:37] <@Rintaran> They're never done one outside of Europe, so we have no clue the kind of numbers to expect. [21:37] <~MikkelPaulson> I'm also not sure if PPI is prepared to provide any capital itself [21:37] <@Rintaran> That makes planning for an ROI based upon attendance difficult to predict. [21:38] <@Rintaran> What was the admission this year? [21:38] <@Rintaran> Price and attendee numbers would be best. [21:39] <~MikkelPaulson> I'm asking Mike on MSN [21:39] <~MikkelPaulson> apparently he's having IRC problems [21:39] <~MikkelPaulson> he'll look into it [21:39] <~MikkelPaulson> or you can hear it from the horse's mouth [21:39] <@MikeBleskie> Success [21:40] <@MikeBleskie> Mikkel says (9:38 PM): [21:40] <@MikeBleskie> do you know what the attendance at least year's conference was? [21:40] <@MikeBleskie> *this year [21:40] <@MikeBleskie> and the price tag [21:40] <@MikeBleskie> Mike says (9:39 PM): [21:40] <@MikeBleskie> I don't have exact figures, however I believe it may have been around 200 people, no idea on the price. I can have a number in your inboxes soon. [21:40] <@MikeBleskie> I meant 100 [21:40] <@Rintaran> We can do it a lot cheaper if we're willing to sacrifice the quality and the remote-feeds. [21:41] <@Rintaran> However, I'm sure you'll agree the remote aspect was the worst part of the conference this past year. [21:41] <@MikeBleskie> Remote access is a requirement IIRC [21:41] <@Rintaran> Exactly, and it has to be done well. [21:41] <@MikeBleskie> And as disastrous as it was [21:42] <@MikeBleskie> We need to show we can do it right, since it will be the Europeans dependant on it [21:42] <@Rintaran> They only had 100 attendees when they merely had hours to drive. We may be looking at only 1/3 the participants because of flying... [21:42] <@MikeBleskie> Many delegates did fly in [21:43] <@Rintaran> True, but the cost of flying within the EU versus going overseas is a big difference. [21:43] <@MikeBleskie> I remember that the icelandic volcano caused havok on many coming to the previous one [21:44] <@Rintaran> Still, we would be able to better count on Canada & US attendance. So if we were to go with 75% of this past year's attendance (which I think is generous), it all depends on what we want to include and what limitations we have for sponsors. [21:45] <~MikkelPaulson> indeed [21:45] <~MikkelPaulson> well, I think the first question we have to ask is if PPI will provide funding [21:45] <@Rintaran> From what I'm seeing in my files, they do not.] [21:46] <~MikkelPaulson> okay [21:46] <@Rintaran> It is possible that may chance with the new PPI council, but it does not appear to have been funded by PPI in the past. [21:47] <~MikkelPaulson> well, neglecting finances for the moment, do we have the human resources to pull this off? [21:47] <@MikeBleskie> And they have funding issues themselves [21:48] <~MikkelPaulson> if that's a no, all of the money in the world won't get us there [21:48] <@Rintaran> We have enough personnal in BC to begin planning, but they aren't skilled in this area. As for Ottawa/Montreal, there's some skill, but currently insufficient personnal. [21:48] <~MikkelPaulson> I'm willing to commit time to the project [21:48] <~MikkelPaulson> but I am working full-time [21:49] <~MikkelPaulson> so I won't be able to do a lot [21:49] <~MikkelPaulson> I'm hoping we'll be able to stir things up in Montreal [21:49] <@Rintaran> Hence my push to delay for 2013. Between Ottawa and Montreal we will be doing major pushes as far as starting local action over the next year. By this time 2012, we should have acceptable numbers in either area to benefit. [21:50] <~MikkelPaulson> I'd like to get some recruitment in Toronto as well [21:51] <@Rintaran> It also gives us time to push some major fundraising campaigns, and time for me to see about finding some potential sponsors in the small-business sector that are looking to expand their distribution internationally. [21:51] <@Rintaran> Oren may be of help along those angles. [21:51] <@Rintaran> Expanding activity in Toronto would be sweet too. I don't know who we have active there. [21:52] <~MikkelPaulson> no one [21:52] <~MikkelPaulson> that's the problem [21:52] <@Rintaran> It's one of the hazards of not having an accessible membership database. [21:52] <@Rintaran> Until we have an active member in the area energetically recruiting, I wouldn't expect to see much in the area. [21:52] <~MikkelPaulson> no [21:53] <~MikkelPaulson> but I go there periodically [21:53] <@Rintaran> How regularly? [21:54] <~MikkelPaulson> I've only lived in Montreal for 2 1/2 months now, it's pretty hard for me to say [21:54] <~MikkelPaulson> but I anticipate going down 4-5 times a year [21:55] <@Rintaran> Well, if you get able to predict it, you may be able to get a Destination Meeting Planner to get some advertising done prior to running a talk or recruitment event (say BBQ or LAN Party)... [21:56] <@Rintaran> But again, that would require resources we don't have. The ROI may pay off though. Depends on the kind of hype that could be created, [21:57] <~MikkelPaulson> better approach would be to reach out to like-minded local groups I think [21:57] <~MikkelPaulson> but we're getting off-topic [21:57] <~MikkelPaulson> Mike, what's your take on the conference? 2012 or 2013? [21:57] <@Nuitari> 2013 [21:57] <@Nuitari> for ppi [21:58] <~MikkelPaulson> noted [21:58] <@Nuitari> need $$$ [21:59] <~MikkelPaulson> MikeBleskie? [22:00] <~MikkelPaulson> okay, well I agree with Rintaran's assessment [22:00] <~MikkelPaulson> let's push for a 2013 conference [22:01] <@Rintaran> I would recommend informing the PPI of this as well. I don't think we'll end up having any competition if they know our intentions for that year. [22:01] <~MikkelPaulson> maybe [22:02] <~MikkelPaulson> I think if we put in a bid this year we'd win too, advance notice or no [22:02] <@Rintaran> We would, but it would be a horrible conference. [22:02] <~MikkelPaulson> indeed [22:02] <@Rintaran> By letting them know our intentions, it also prevents them from feeling like we don't want to be active participants in PPI. [22:03] <@Rintaran> They're expecting a bid, so we give it for a future year instead of this one. [22:03] <~MikkelPaulson> agreed [22:04] <@Rintaran> So, where do we want to consider running this shindig? Montreal, Ottawa, or Toronto? [22:05] <~MikkelPaulson> based on things as they stand now, I'd say Montreal [22:05] <@Rintaran> Sean likes MTL as well, and I tend to agree. [22:05] <~MikkelPaulson> Toronto is dead and conference space in Ottawa is at a premium [22:05] <@Rintaran> Depends on how high-end you want to go, but yeah, it is. [22:05] <@Rintaran> Ottawa loves meetings. [22:05] <@MikeBleskie> Don't remind me. [22:06] <@MikeBleskie> 2013 will be my prime target asa volunteer for the party [22:07] <@MikeBleskie> In the meantime I think our own growth strategy will be primary, followed by partnerships with other groups, including PI [22:07] <@MikeBleskie> *PPI [22:07] <@MikeBleskie> I can let the board know if this is how we're going to go [22:07] <~MikkelPaulson> please do [22:08] <@Rintaran> We need to get that membership survey distributed so we can collect the data. Then I can adjust the marketing plan, based upon new developments and resources, and we can push ahead again. [22:08] <~MikkelPaulson> Nuitari: can you take care of that? [22:10] <@Nuitari> what are the questions and possible answers / flow [22:10] <@Nuitari> ? [22:10] <~MikkelPaulson> Rintaran: still have that draft? [22:11] <@Rintaran> I do. I can resend it, however I believe Vulliez was reworking it a bit. I'll e- mail him and see where he is on it. [22:11] <~MikkelPaulson> okay [22:11] <@Rintaran> If he hasn't done anything, I'll fix up the suggestions and send it out to Nuitari right away. [22:12] <@Rintaran> The draft was too leading in its questions for my taste... [22:13] <~MikkelPaulson> okay [22:13] <~MikkelPaulson> I'd like to take another look as well [22:14] <@Rintaran> Let me see where Vulliez is with the rewrite. From my discussion with him it should be very extensive taking care of the bias and removing some that aren't relevant. [22:15] <~MikkelPaulson> on that note, I think it's scshunt's time to shine [22:16] <+scshunt> ok, so, the rewrite is nearing completion, as I'm sure you've noticed [22:17] <+scshunt> There's still some work to be done before and after bringing it forward [22:17] <+scshunt> the big question is whether we want to aim for getting it at the meeting on the 19th [22:18] <@MikeBleskie> Well, what's left? [22:18] <+scshunt> We would likely not get 50 people at that meeting (especially given that it's a friday), so we'd need to probably repeatedly adjourn from day to day in order to try to hit 50 [22:18] <+scshunt> The only truly needed thing is the objective [22:18] <@Rintaran> Object and Policy sections are both "TO BE WRITTEN" from what I see on a quick look. [22:18] <+scshunt> I want to put rules about policy in too [22:19] <+scshunt> but our old one doesn't have them, so it won't kill us to not have them ourselves [22:19] <+scshunt> I think whatever goes in should be conservative; we shouldn't add anything new since I don't want people to be stuck between rejecting the whole thing and accepting something new [22:20] <+scshunt> there will still be opportunity for amendment at the meeting, of course [22:20] <@Rintaran> I think the sooner we have this done, the better. If we can get the constitution adopted on the 19th, we can have elections for September. [22:20] <~MikkelPaulson> do web votes count towards quorum? [22:20] <+scshunt> we also need 15 members to bring it forward; I've got a listing at the bottom and would appreciate if you would add your names to it if you're reasonably confident [22:20] <+scshunt> MikkelPaulson: No. [22:21] <~MikkelPaulson> then we're screwed [22:21] <+scshunt> I don't think we are [22:21] <+scshunt> We've had big turnouts before. We just need to express that this is really important and even if you don't care, show up [22:22] <+scshunt> we need 50 present, we don't need 50 voting [22:22] <~MikkelPaulson> newsletter [22:22] <+scshunt> yes [22:22] <+scshunt> the notice would need to be sent out anyway [22:22] <@Rintaran> If we're looking for minimal challenges, we would have to transfer Principals from the old constitution to Object of the new... But I think we can boil our principals out better than that. [22:23] <+scshunt> I doubt we'll hit quorum next friday [22:23] <+scshunt> but we can adjourn the meeting from there to monday [22:23] <+scshunt> and just keep adjourning (and bugging people to show up and coercing people to join or the like) until we reach 50 [22:24] <+scshunt> The 30day and good standing requirements don't actually apply; they contradict language in the constitution [22:24] <+scshunt> (the constitution clearly says members get a vote) [22:24] <@Rintaran> Nuitari: Can you check and see when my membership is up for renewal? It must be soon. [22:25] <@Rintaran> Thanks for reminding me Sean. :) [22:25] <+scshunt> I'm actually overdue I think [22:25] <+scshunt> but I never got an email [22:25] <~MikkelPaulson> I think if we try that we'll get less people at each successive meeting, not more [22:26] <+scshunt> MikkelPaulson: It's possible, and at some point we'd certainly need to give up [22:26] <+scshunt> but I think that if we said to everyone "come back monday" most of them would [22:26] <@Rintaran> There's nothing that says they have to be there concurrently. [22:26] <@Rintaran> Only that 50 people need to have been at the meeting. [22:26] <+scshunt> No, they do, that's how quorum works [22:27] <@Rintaran> Well... We've only had quorum once... [22:27] <+scshunt> We could employ some tricks though [22:27] <+scshunt> for instance, we could approve the early draft and then continue to work on it while we have quorum in an effort to avoid loss of quorum stopping the whole thing [22:28] <+scshunt> (so that if quorum is lost, the thing is deemed approved as it was when we noticed quorum was gone) [22:30] <@Rintaran> Sounds like a plan. [22:31] <+scshunt> there are a few outstanding issues of significant scope [22:31] <+scshunt> like MikkelPaulson thinks it should be two documents rather than one I think? [22:32] <+scshunt> oh also do you guys have a suggestion for deputy leader? [22:34] <+scshunt> Rintaran, MikkelPaulson, Nuitari, ping [22:34] <+scshunt> MikeBleskie: too [22:34] <~MikkelPaulson> pong [22:34] <@Rintaran> I'm here. [22:34] <@MikeBleskie> pong [22:34] <@Rintaran> Was just writing in a comment on the constitution concerning the "object" section. [22:34] <+scshunt> MikkelPaulson: Am I correct about two documents rather than one? [22:34] <+scshunt> Rintaran: ah, ok [22:34] <~MikkelPaulson> yes [22:35] <~MikkelPaulson> I don't believe the heart of the constitution should be easily amended [22:35] <@Rintaran> I believe that technically, Bleskie is denoted at Deputy Leader at the moment. [22:35] <~MikkelPaulson> he's de facto deputy [22:35] <~MikkelPaulson> I don't have the authority to designate him officially [22:35] <@MikeBleskie> For deputy leader, nope, a lot of it is just follow along and act like the leader in absentia [22:35] <+scshunt> MikeBleskie: you won't be around much past the end of the summer though, will you? [22:35] <@MikeBleskie> Very little [22:35] <~MikkelPaulson> and should I leave or become incapacitated, it'll be up to the lot of you to decide amongst yourselves who will serve as interim leader in my absence [22:36] <+scshunt> under the current rules, yes [22:36] <+scshunt> the new rules have a Deputy Leader and it would be good to specify one in their adoption [22:36] <~MikkelPaulson> (finishing my previous thought) but we do need the ability to add and change some material without a huge amount of difficulty [22:36] <~MikkelPaulson> such as membership fees, for instance, if those end up in there [22:36] <@Rintaran> Actually Mikkel, we held a vote that gave Bleskie that position until such time as we are able to convene to set it forth directly. :) [22:36] <~MikkelPaulson> or council positions [22:37] <~MikkelPaulson> ah, nevermind then [22:37] <+scshunt> MikkelPaulson: I moved that out to be special rules of order [22:37] <~MikkelPaulson> I haven't had a chance to review the changes you made [22:37] <+scshunt> new standing committees can be made by two-thirds vote with notice at a meeting rather than needing a full party ballot [22:37] <+scshunt> other changes to board and council structure would require a full vote though [22:38] <+scshunt> I personally like the idea of an all-party vote to change the membership fee, but currently it's not specified so it would be a normal decision subject to later amendment [22:38] <~MikkelPaulson> including disbanding a standing committee? [22:38] <+scshunt> yes [22:38] <+scshunt> err no [22:39] <+scshunt> any changes to the standing committees would be done by the same in-meeting procedure [22:39] <~MikkelPaulson> okay [22:39] <@Rintaran> From what I'm seeing here, this works fine as a single document. [22:40] <+scshunt> since membership fee changes would be a regular decision, they could be amended by two-thirds or a majority with notice [22:40] <@Rintaran> We do need to hammer out those two remaining sections, but otherwise I'm not having trouble with what's written. [22:40] <+scshunt> oh I have two other points to work at [22:40] <+scshunt> nominations and in-person meetings [22:40] <@Rintaran> That's especially important given our 2013 bid. [22:41] <+scshunt> Mikkel expressed concern about the lack of rules regarding proxies [22:41] <@MikeBleskie> True [22:41] <+scshunt> in particular, allowing proxies period [22:42] <+scshunt> Writing up rules for proxies would be tricky, an alternative is just to ban in- person meetings and consider that the conference would do something like be a committee that would recommend but make no actual changes [22:43] <+scshunt> the thing is that there are no standard rules to fall back on for proxies, unlike with other rules of voting and such [22:44] <@Rintaran> I like that idea. [22:44] <@Rintaran> I would put in a provision that the committee recommendations be put to a vote at the following GM [22:45] <~MikkelPaulson> so treat them as select committees? [22:45] <@Rintaran> This way we can get the motions up in advance of the voting, allowing those unable to attend the in-person conference to read up on the matter at hand. [22:45] <@Rintaran> It gives all members their voice, even if they couldn't make it. [22:45] <@Rintaran> Probably the most open way we could do it given the exclusivity of in-person conferences. [22:46] <+scshunt> Rintaran: That would be something that we could just specify when we authorize the creation of the committee at a prior GM [22:47] <+scshunt> MikkelPaulson: yeah, we could just have the GM create a committee to meet at the conference [22:48] <@MikeBleskie> Mhm [22:49] <@MikeBleskie> This is why political parties suffer in Canada. [22:50] <+scshunt> MikeBleskie: why? [22:51] <@MikeBleskie> Well, considering the fact that the Marijuana Party barely survives based on it's clustered population [22:52] <@MikeBleskie> We do not have that advantage [22:53] <+scshunt> oh, you just mean distribution [22:53] <+scshunt> yeah [22:53] <+scshunt> so any objections to that? [22:53] <~MikkelPaulson> no [22:53] <@Rintaran> I'm good with it. [22:53] <~MikkelPaulson> works for me [22:54] <@MikeBleskie> Fine with me as well [22:54] <+scshunt> ok [22:54] <+scshunt> so now nominations [22:55] <+scshunt> a bit of context is required here, I think [22:55] <+scshunt> in parliamentary procedure, elections take place at meetings [22:55] <+scshunt> obviously we don't want our elections to the policial council to only happen at meetings [22:56] <+scshunt> (I think the people who don't show up regularly don't care about the other positions, so I think electing them at meetings is fine) [22:56] <+scshunt> the problem is that we then need a nomination procedure beyond "show up at the meeting and name someone" [22:57] <+scshunt> write-in votes are also generally implicitly permitted; disallowing them on the approval ballot (which is not strictly necessary but, in my opinion, a good idea) means we need to make sure that the nominations are fair [22:59] <+scshunt> thoughts? [22:59] <+scshunt> I don't really like the idea of tying nominations to the forums [23:00] <@Rintaran> Could be forums, e-mail to the party president or RO, or put forth at the meeting? [23:00] <+scshunt> Current text is to send to the secretary, but what if the secretary isn't around? [23:00] <+scshunt> that's the real issue [23:01] <+scshunt> the alternative is just using the "a friend can do it" method [23:02] <+scshunt> which works find for when the vote is at a meeting - no one is going to get a vote if they can't get at least one person to put them on the ballot [23:04] <~MikkelPaulson> sorry, I'm going to have to start getting ready for bed [23:04] <+scshunt> one would hope that if you posted a thing on the forum expressing your nomination, someone would bring it up at the meeting anyway [23:04] <+scshunt> MikkelPaulson: btw I'm in Montreal in September [23:04] <~MikkelPaulson> any other official business before I break quorum? [23:05] <~MikkelPaulson> scshunt: cool, you'll have to look us up [23:05] <~MikkelPaulson> dates? [23:05] <@Rintaran> I don't have anything that I specifically wish to bring forward at this time. [23:05] <+scshunt> weekend of the 17th-18th [23:05] <+scshunt> will likely be there thrusday-tuesday [23:05] <+scshunt> but busy friday-sunday [23:06] <~MikkelPaulson> hm, okay [23:06] <~MikkelPaulson> might do the Montreal meeting that Thursday [23:07] <+scshunt> ok I will hack at the document tomorrow and prepare a notice [23:07] <+scshunt> Nuitari: when will you be around tomorrow so I can send you a notice? [23:09] <~MikkelPaulson> okay, I'm out [23:09] <~MikkelPaulson> night folks [23:10] <@Rintaran> G'night Mikkel. [23:10] <@MikeBleskie> Night [23:13] <@Rintaran> Well, given Nuitari's silence and the lack of additional business, I suppose the meeting is adjourned.

Also see Minutes and 2011 Vote Log

Return to Federal Council Meetings