GM 2012-04-18 transcript

 NOTE: Log times are in Central Time.

19:10 -scshunt:#canada- I call the general meeting of the Pirate Party to order. 19:10 <@scshunt> Welcome, everyone! 19:10 <+jhowell> hail 19:10 <+kelflar> hello 19:10 <@scshunt> First off, we have the minutes of the previous meeting to approve. Ric? 19:10 <+RLim> http://wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php/GM_2012-03-21_minutes 19:10 <+wasme> I object 19:10 <+wasme> According to Robert's Rules of Order the first thing we must do in approve the agenda. 19:11 <+wasme> "is approve" 19:12 <@scshunt> (While I look this up, I would appreciate if members could read over the linked minutes for corrections) 19:12 < CraigNobbs> Hello 19:12 <+RLim> refresh the page 19:12 <+RLim> hi CraigNobbs 19:12 <+wasme> scshunt: From the 'official' robert's rules website: http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#14 19:13 < [redacted]> it does seem to suggest that wasme is correct, if we wanted to be pedantic and bureaucratic, the agenda is the primary subject 19:13 <+CCitizen> Why did Steno steal voice from Travis and Rahmenlos 19:14 <+teamcoltra> because I didn't officially login we were approved manually 19:14 <@scshunt> Because they lost their PINs and I confirmed their membership against the database 19:14 <+CCitizen> ah 19:15 <+teamcoltra> I move to suspend the rules of order to allow previous minutes to be read 19:15 <+wasme> I object 19:15 <@scshunt> So, I'll rule wasme's point of order not well taken, as the adoption of an agenda only occurs in such a case where there is a provided agenda for adoption. If wasme would like to move the adoption of an agenda for the meeting, he can do so after the minutes are approved. 19:15 <+wasme> wtf? 19:16 <+wasme> Your violating your own rule ... AGAIN 19:16 <@scshunt> A meeting does not need an agenda to proceed. 19:16 <+jhowell> wasme, are you seriously going to waste another hour of everyones time like last meeting with rhetoric? 19:16 <+wasme> jhowell: Yes 19:16 <+jhowell> alright 19:17 < CraigNobbs> The bot isn't responding to allow me to "login" 19:17 <@scshunt> wasme: You can appeal my ruling, if you'd like. 19:17 <+wasme> If your going to use the rulens to beat up anyone opposed to the 'hidden agenda' of the executive then the executive should be held to those same rules. 19:17 < [redacted]> isn't every meeting just wasted time and rhetoric, honestly? In two years, the party has yet to accomplish shit...so this is unsurprising...bureaucratic infighting over some parliamentary rule of order 19:17 <+Rahmenlos> scshunt: I found my correct PIN. :) 19:17 <+wasme> scshunt: Fine, I appeal your ruling. 19:17 <@scshunt> Ok. The ruling of the chair has been appealed. 19:17 <@scshunt> As it relates to the order of business, it is not debateable. 19:18 <@teamcoltra> sorry this is easier 19:18 <+CCitizen> random chatter to #riffraff 19:18 <@scshunt> The point of order was that we must adopt an agenda first before proceeding to approve the minutes; the chair's ruling is that an agenda is not required. 19:18 <+jhowell> Everyone, count me out. When this childish nonsense is finished and people can act like grownups,i'll be happy to be a part of the GM. Until then, know that these meetings are a soapbox for people's personal agenda. 19:18 <@scshunt> The vote will be to sustain the ruling of the chair. 19:19 < [redacted]> -"these meetings", +"PPCA", I think 19:19 <@scshunt> Order, debate is not in order at this time. 19:19 < [redacted]> but I otherwise agree, what childish nonsense 19:19 <@scshunt> All in favor of sustaining the chair's ruling that the point of order was not well taken, say aye. All in favor of overturning the ruling and finding the point of order to be well taken, say nay. 19:19 <+wasme> nay 19:19 <+teamcoltra> aye 19:19 <+nealjennings> nay 19:20 <+McGrath> Aye. 19:20 <+RLim> aye 19:20 <+Wilson> aye 19:20 <+Rahmenlos> aye 19:20 <+JohannWeiss> aye 19:20 <+CCitizen> aye 19:20 <@scshunt> The ayes have it and the decision of the chair is sustained. 19:21 <@scshunt> Are there any corrections to the minutes? 19:21 <+teamcoltra> I move to censure wasme as he has a stated interest of holding up the meeting for the pure sake of holding up the meeting. This is not productive to the cause, and will simply drag out what will already be a long meeting 19:21 <+JohannWeiss> No 19:21 <+wasme> OK, I'm leaving this party entirely. We're now violating our own rule book just so the executive can do whatever it wants, fuck the membership. This party is dead 19:21 <@scshunt> That motion is not in order at this time. 19:21 <+svulliez> let's not antagonize anyone further 19:21 <+CCitizen> Lets get the importnat stuff done 19:21 <+RLim> I agree with svulliez 19:21 < [redacted]> I move for a non-binding clause of bullshit shenanighans against the entire party masturbating into a hat and pretending that it matters at all on the Canadian digital landscape 19:21 <+svulliez> That's a shame to see him go. 19:21 <@scshunt> Order, debate is not in order at this time 19:22 <@scshunt> I will not tolerate a violation of decorum by anyone. 19:22 <@scshunt> Last call for corrections to the minutes. 19:22 <+teamcoltra> none here 19:23 <@scshunt> Seeing no corrections, the minutes are approved. 19:23 <@scshunt> Moving on to reports from officers, boards, and committess. 19:24 <@scshunt> First, the President has a report. Stephane Bakhos, the chief agent, has informed me that the work reconciling the financial records is mostly done. There are a few issues (income lines do not line up; he suspects this is due to misaccounting of PayPal fees), and a formal report will be forthcoming. A broad-pictured report is available at 19:24 <@scshunt> http://pr.piratepad.ca/135 19:24 <@scshunt> password is p1r4t3 19:25 <@scshunt> I will try to answer any questions you have, but I have seen little beyond what is there. 19:25 <@scshunt> It was just finished today, by my understanding. 19:25 <+RLim> /names 19:27 < CraigNobbs> What does "Transfer from Candidates" mean, or more specifically, which candidates giving money for what? 19:28 <@scshunt> I believe that it refers to leftover money from candidates' campaigns, which by law go to the Party after an election. 19:28 <+CraigNobbs> Ahh... ok, thansk 19:28 <+CraigNobbs> err thanks 19:29 < CraigNobbs> Minor point... the dollar signs are at the wrong end of the numbers. =) 19:29 <@scshunt> he's French ;) 19:29 makes sense everything there is backwards...har har 19:29 ;) 19:29 im jk 19:30 <+CCitizen> I believe it means Mike borrowed $1000 from the party to run for office then completed his paperwork and returned the money back to the party 19:30 <@scshunt> That is a separate line. 19:30 <+awash> so 19:30 <+teamcoltra> do we really need to have +v? there is no +m in the channel. It's just annoying more than anything. 19:30 <@scshunt> teamcoltra: So that I can track who has votes, yes. 19:31 < ReadError> Just nit picking here, but a cleaner spread sheet would make it easier to keep track of information... is there even a formula present in it? 19:31 <@scshunt> and who I can just kick out if they are violating the rules, and who needs a motion for that to happen. 19:31 <+teamcoltra> ReadError this is just a piratepad copy of the financials, I doubt that this was how he came up with the numbers 19:31 <@scshunt> ReadError, cyclonis: are you members? 19:31 <@scshunt> The actual financial data is stored in QuickBook, as well as EFR (Elections Canada's reporting software) 19:31 < ReadError> Nope. Freeloading observer here. 19:32 i will be if i can find the login info for the webpage 19:32 :P 19:32 <+drew> In your email, search "Pirate Party pin" 19:32 <@scshunt> Ok. Just so you know, you don't have a right to speak; particularly on motions. If you want to speak on a motion, please ask me and I'll ask for permission for you. 19:32 < ReadError> So what, can you not export a proper excel file with those? I've never used those myself 19:32 <+teamcoltra> I move to allow freeloading observers voices (not +v) in this meeting 19:33 <+RLim> second 19:33 <@scshunt> teamcoltra: Including on motions? If so, that is a motion to suspend the rules. 19:33 <+teamcoltra> yes, to suspend the rules then. 19:33 <+teamcoltra> Everything except for vote 19:33 <@scshunt> Ok. 19:33 <+awash> what are u talking about ? 19:33 <+CraigNobbs> ummm... no... 19:34 <@scshunt> Travis has moved to suspend the rules to grant non-members permission to speak. This motion is not debateable and requires a two-thirds vote. 19:34 <@scshunt> All those in favor, please say aye. All opposed, please say nay. 19:34 <+teamcoltra> Aye 19:34 <+drew> aye 19:34 <+McGrath> nay 19:34 <+CraigNobbs> NAY 19:34 <+Wilson> aye 19:34 <+CCitizen> aye 19:34 <+svulliez> nay 19:34 <+RLim> aye 19:34 <+Rintaran> nay 19:35 <+awash> aye 19:35 <+JohannWeiss> aye 19:36 <@scshunt> The vote count was 7-4. The required two-thirds was not attained, so the motion is defeated. 19:36 < ReadError> Meh. 19:36 <@scshunt> Is there any further questions about the report? 19:36 <+JohannWeiss> When will the final report be available? 19:37 <+RLim> ReadError, you can still message scshunt for permission to speak 19:37 <@scshunt> Yes, that doens't preclude us from granting individual permission later. 19:37 <@scshunt> JohannWeiss: I don't know. I will be pressing for it to come out in the next week; the Executive need a comprehensive report to evaluate new spending. 19:38 <@scshunt> Okay, moving on, do any other officers wish to deliver reports? 19:39 <+svulliez> yes. 19:39 <@scshunt> Go ahead, Mr. Leader 19:40 <+svulliez> I just want to give an update on social media. We've doubled our followers on facebook recently, and broke 5000, which is cool even though facebook is not. Everyone who would like to help with social media in some way, email me at shawnvulliez@pirateparty.ca 19:41 <+svulliez> Or if you have any comments on the current social media practices, you can e-mail me there as well. Let us know what you'd like to see us do there, and we'll try to make it happen. 19:42 <+svulliez> Also, all of the constitutional amendments are pretty great, so you should probably read them good. 19:43 <+svulliez> I yield the floor 19:43 <@scshunt> Okay, teamcoltra, our Deputy Leader, would also like to deliver a report. 19:43 <+teamcoltra> I had the privilage of representing the Pirate Party of Canada in the Pirate Parties International General Assembly in Prauge (as a remote delegate, here in Vancouver). I wish to share what I had voted for and what I had expressed on behalf of myself and the Party. 19:43 <+JMcleod> hey all, excuse my lateness, may I know what the current question is? 19:43 <@scshunt> JMcleod: Currently the Deputy Leader is reporting 19:44 <+teamcoltra> First I had motioned to allow all Pirate Parties who were seeking application into PPI (even those with a late application) to be given the opportunity to speak, but eventually voted against their ability to actually be voted on since the rules were clear and they all had plenty of time to apply 19:46 <+teamcoltra> Second the Pirate Party of Tunisia (headed by the Pirate blogger who became a minister of parks and games) asked for persmission to join PPI as a full member. PPIs rules say only one Pirate Party from each country can be an official member, and Pirate Party Australia and I were discussing that there was an old Pirate Party in Tunisia already. It turns out this new tunisian pirate party tried to go behind the old ones backs seeking 19:46 <+teamcoltra> membership into the party 19:46 <+teamcoltra> I had hosted a meeting between the old pirate party of tunisia (which still exsists) and the new one, as well as Australia, New Zealand, UK, and myself to discuss if we would be in favour of the new PPTN becoming a member. 19:47 <+teamcoltra> We felt that due to the underhanded way that the new PPTN sought approval (without even discussing it with the second party), and because there were clearly internal issues that needed to be sorted out, that we wanted them to try again during the next election for membership 19:48 <+teamcoltra> I also ran for the board of PPI as an individual and had the second highest number of votes in my favour - and as such I am now a board member of Pirate Parties International; 19:48 <+teamcoltra> I spoke in support of the Pirate Party of Florida gaining membership as an observer. 19:48 <+teamcoltra> and I spoke out against the way the meeting was unfairly treating remote delegates along side PPNZ and PPAU 19:50 <@scshunt> is that all? 19:50 <+teamcoltra> The Pirate Party of Florida and myself also discussed the future of our book No Safe Harbour and we are now looking at ways to promote the book which promotes the Pirate Ideology 19:50 <+teamcoltra> thats all 19:50 <@scshunt> Ok, thank you. 19:51 <@scshunt> Any questions? 19:51 <+teamcoltra> :) I bored them all to sleep with my speech 19:51 <@scshunt> Ok, the executive board has a report as well. 19:52 <@scshunt> It can be read at http://pastie.org/private/ka3zwucqtwkbbw46boi2qq 19:52 <@scshunt> I should note at this point that I talked with Johann, the member bringing forward the proposed constitutional amendments, and he said that the inclusion of paragraphs three and four in item #4 was a mistake. 19:54 <+svulliez> Jake and I have reviewed liquidfeedback, and it's awesome. As a sidenote. 19:55 <+teamcoltra> ^as have I 19:55 <+teamcoltra> (and agree) 19:55 <+JMcleod> I asked to be in beta, but, no word yet 19:56 <@scshunt> Are there any further questions, before we move on? 19:56 <+JMcleod> But im gonna get a tshirt and a ton of bumper stickers (which I will weigh) 19:57 <@scshunt> Ok, now, we have had notice of a number of motions today 19:57 <@scshunt> By rule, constitutional amendments come first. 19:58 <@scshunt> But before that, we do have one motion postponed from last meeting. 19:58 <@scshunt> The question is now on the mtion that a standing rule be put in place forbidding the Pirate Party of Canada, or anyone working on their behalf, from using automated calls, or robocalls. 19:59 <@scshunt> If you wish to speak on the motion, please send me a private message (/msg scshunt ), and I'll add you to the list 20:00 <@scshunt> Rintaran wishes to speak on this motion. 20:00 <@scshunt> (as a side note, please prepare your remarks before your turn, if possible, as it will speed things up. Additionally, you are normally permitted only two speaking turns, and they are limited to 10 minutes each.) 20:00 <+Rintaran> The Robocall scandal has revealed that many parties utilize these automated callers. 20:01 <+Rintaran> Although in most cases automated callers have not been used to dissemminate false information, I think we should remove any possibility of doing so. 20:02 <+Rintaran> Additionally, by forbidding automated calls, and being the first party to publicly do so, it will be beneficial in many ways. 20:03 <+Rintaran> The public relations angle will be favourable, it contributes to our stance of preventing corruption and encouraging open government practices, 20:03 <+Rintaran> and it also keeps people from being annoyed at dinner time by an automated phone call they usually won't listen to anyways. 20:04 <+Rintaran> As a final point, it will also reraise the question of the robocall scandal that has somewhat faded as the budget has fallen and created its own micro-storm in the capital. 20:04 <+Rintaran> 20:04 <+teamcoltra> can I speak in opposition? 20:04 <@scshunt> I'll add you to the list 20:04 <@scshunt> JMcleod is next. 20:05 <+JMcleod> Hi. Ill post a wall of text in a sec 20:06 anybody on? 20:06 <+JMcleod> I feel this motion is a reaction to an outstanding scandal. We should not be getting into the habit of reacting to scandals. I don't feel we should bar us from future possibilities of using technology to our advantage. As the party is fingered when such scandals arise, it should be done only with consent of the party. From there, the Political Council can decide if it is worth the gain. 20:07 <+JMcleod> Therefor, I wish to move to amend the motion to add "without the Political Council's approval". 20:07 <@scshunt> Is there a second to this motion? 20:07 <+JMcleod> n/m the wall of text ;) 20:07 <+Rintaran> I can second the amendment. 20:07 <@scshunt> Ok. 20:07 <+svulliez> there's little point 20:08 <+JMcleod> At the moment yes, but for the future, no. 20:08 <@scshunt> JMcleod: has moved to amend the motion by adding "without the Political Council's approval". If adopted, the motion will be read "that a standing rule be put in place forbidding the Pirate Party of Canada, or anyone working on their behalf, from using automated calls, or robocalls without the Political Council's approval." 20:08 <@scshunt> Is there any objection to this amendment? 20:09 <+JohannWeiss> Don't we vote on it? 20:10 <@scshunt> Seeing no objection, the amendment is adopted. The motion is now a motion that a standing rule be put in place forbidding the Pirate Party of Canada, or anyone working on their behalf, from using automated calls, or robocalls, without the Political Council's approval. 20:10 <+teamcoltra> scshunt you didn't reply to jakedaynes 20:10 <+teamcoltra> err 20:10 <@scshunt> svulliez now has the floor. 20:10 <+teamcoltra> JohannWeiss 20:10 <+teamcoltra> I didn't say anything because I was waiting for his answer 20:10 <@scshunt> teamcoltra: I think I answered the question, but if no one objects, we have no need to vote since no one wishes to see it defeated. 20:10 <+svulliez> I don't think this is a good amendment because no one from the media is going to care, and it's going to limit our potential resources in the future. And it's an empty gesture because it can be reversed. 20:11 <@scshunt> Hmm, wait. 20:11 <+svulliez> If it passes I guess it won't matter, but I think it's not that great of a motion. 20:11 <@scshunt> The amendment has already been adopted, nobody objected. 20:11 <+svulliez> I said amendment but I meant motion 20:11 <@scshunt> Oh ok 20:12 <@scshunt> carry on then. 20:12 <+svulliez> That's all I have to say. This motion isn't great. 20:12 <@scshunt> Ok. Next is CCitizen. 20:13 <+CCitizen> I think it's a good policy to encourage our candidates and/or their staff to be present on the phone rather than relying on impersonal robocalls to get votes. People are inherently more forgiving of mistakes done by human beings when another human is present as opposed to being harassed by a robocall with false information. Some of the most annoying robocalls I've gotten personally are from charities and political parties which co 20:13 <+CCitizen> incidentally are exempt from the do not call list. Though with the new amendment to the motion it basically has the same effect as if we jut removed the motion entirely 20:13 <@scshunt> Next up is teamcoltra 20:13 <@scshunt> He's the last on my current list. 20:14 <+teamcoltra> My statment falls close to svulliez 20:14 <+teamcoltra> Every political party uses robocalls, and while they are annoying sometimes, they are also effective. It's easy to condemn them when we can't afford them, and I would always be in favour of us using phone banks and our own members calling people and telling them about the party... but robocalls on their own are not bad, it's only if people use them wrong. We are buying into the same type of thought process which gives torrents a bad 20:14 <+teamcoltra> name. Just because they can be used for copyright infringement, doesn't mean they are ONLY used for copyright infringement. On a PR side, we didn't use them before, and many (most?) people have never heard of us anyway, so it wont be any big deal that we are not going to be using them... most news agencies are smart enough to know that we are still along way from being able to afford robocalls anyway. 20:14 <+teamcoltra>  Ok, that's the last speaker on my list. Are you ready for the question? 20:15 <@scshunt> The question is on the motion that a standing rule be put in place forbidding the Pirate Party of Canada, or anyone working on their behalf, from using automated calls, or robocalls, without the Political Council's approval. All in favor say aye, all opposed say no. 20:15 <+svulliez> yes 20:15 <+JohannWeiss> no 20:15 <+svulliez> no 20:15 <+JMcleod> no 20:15 <+teamcoltra> nay 20:15 <+Wilson> no 20:16 <+kelflar> aye 20:16 <+CraigNobbs> nay 20:16 <+Rintaran> aye 20:16 <+CCitizen> aye 20:16 <+Rahmenlos> nay 20:16 <+RLim> nay 20:16 no 20:16 <+drew> nay 20:16 <+CraigNobbs> no 20:16 <+svulliez> (the 'yes' was sent at the same time as the question- not a vote) 20:16 <+drkaboom> aya 20:17 <+teamcoltra> drkaboom is that aye or nay? 20:17 <+shep> nay 20:17 <+drkaboom> aye 20:17 <@scshunt> In the chair's opinion, the nays have it and the motion is defeated. 20:18 <+thor> Aye 20:18 <@scshunt> JohannWeiss: you now wished to move the motions for which you gave notice? 20:18 <+thor> ahh shit 20:18 <@scshunt> It didn't matter. 20:19 <+JohannWeiss> I move motion #1 from "https://www.pirateparty.ca/forum/index.php?topic=2073.0 20:19 <+JohannWeiss> It's the third reply 20:19 <@scshunt> Before we get into the constitutional motions, a few remarks: 20:19 <@scshunt> You can see the current constitution at https://crm.pirateparty.ca/bylaws 20:20 <@scshunt> These motions must be voted on by the entire party 20:20 <@scshunt> If you wish for that not to happen, there is a motion called the motion to postpone indefinitely. 20:20 <@scshunt> This is debateable and requires a majority vote; if adopted, the main motion is dropped from consideration. 20:20 <+JohannWeiss> Should I have mentioned the commenting thing before the amendments? 20:21 <@scshunt> That can come after too, no big deal 20:21 <+JohannWeiss> Alright 20:21 <@scshunt> When these motions are sent for a vote of the entire party, a two-thirds vote is needed for adoption. 20:21 <@scshunt> If you have any other questions, please ask! 20:21 <@scshunt> With that, is there a second for Johann's first motion? 20:21 <+CraigNobbs> You're talking about Amendment #1? 20:21 <@scshunt> Yes. 20:21 <+svulliez> I second it 20:22 <@scshunt> Ok. The question is on motion #1, as described in the link. I will restate it if need be. If adopted, Article III will read as follows before the subsection: 20:22 <@scshunt> Membership of the Party shall be limited to those natural persons who are Canadian citizens or 20:22 <@scshunt> permanent residents and are at least fourteen years of age. 20:22 <@scshunt> To expel someone from the party requires a motion and a vote of the General Meeting. The intention to make this motion must be made at the previous month's General Meeting. The person in question will be informed through all available channels about the upcoming motion and will have the opportunity to be heard before the motion is put to a vote. The person will have 25 minutes to speak but may be granted more time if a simple majority of 20:23 <@scshunt> Does anyone wish to speak? If so, please PM me. 20:24 <@scshunt> If no one wishes to speak on the motion, it will be sent to the membership for a vote. 20:24 <+CraigNobbs> Can I make a motion to change the 25 minutes to 15 minutes? 20:24 <+teamcoltra> ^ 20:24 <+teamcoltra> I was thinking the same thing 20:24 <+svulliez> In favor 20:25 < F50> Indeed 20:25 <+svulliez> 25 minutes is a really long time 20:25 <+teamcoltra> Honestly if you have a month to prepare, and it's in text... 20:25 <+jakedaynes> like, ridiculously long 20:25 <+teamcoltra> you should be able to just copy/paste 20:25 <+svulliez> they should be given five seconds to make their case 20:25 <+svulliez> in copy and paste format 20:25 <@scshunt> CraigNobbs has moved to strike '25' and insert '15' in the motion. Is there any discussion on this motion? 20:25 <@scshunt> Order, please. 20:26 <+teamcoltra> Can I amend the amendment to 5 minutes? Or do I have to wait? 20:26 <+JohannWeiss> I'll just say as the original mover I support this change, it was pretty arbitrary to begin with 20:26 <+JMcleod> you have to wait 20:26 <@scshunt> teamcoltra: You can make that motion, yes. 20:26 <+teamcoltra> Then make it so. 20:26 -scshunt:#canada- please do not speak or make motions without PMing me first. 20:26 <+CraigNobbs> sorry 20:26 <@scshunt> Does anyone wish to have the floor? If so, please PM me. 20:27 <@scshunt> teamcoltra: has the floor. 20:27 <+teamcoltra> I would like to amend the amendment to be 5 minutes, not 15. Honestly with a month to prepare, you should be able to just copy and paste pre written text 20:27 20:28 <@scshunt> May I suggest using the procedure for filling a blank? 20:28 <@scshunt> We can have everyone suggest numbers and vote on them in session. 20:28 <@scshunt> s/session/sequence/ 20:28 <+F50> Five minutes is rather shot 20:28 <+F50> Sure you'd have a copy/paste bit 20:28 <@scshunt> Order 20:29 <+F50> My apologies 20:29 <@scshunt> Is there any objection to replacing the original 25 with a blank and taking any number of suggestions all at once? 20:29 None 20:29 <+F50> None here 20:29 <+CCitizen> Might be best to give them 10-15 minutes in case the wall of text triggers flood protection on IRC 20:30 <@scshunt> Ok, then the original motion will have the 25 stricken to make a blank. Suggestions to fill it already have been 25, 15, and 5. If you wish to make a suggestion, please make that suggestion when assigned the floor. 20:30 <@scshunt> phillipsjk has the floor 20:31 <+phillipsjk> Having tried to read Terms of service before siging up for services, 5 minutes for copoy& pasting is too short. 20:31 <+phillipsjk> Even if the text can be copy& pasted that quickly, it will take time for the meeting participants to read it. 20:32 <+phillipsjk> I Think a 15 minuite time is reasonable, and would correspond to about 5 pages of single-spaced text/10K characters. 20:33 <+phillipsjk> end. 20:35 <+svulliez> Let's vote 20:35 <+CCitizen> which are we voting on? 20:35 <+F50> What happens if someone responds to the inital wall of text? 20:35 <+jakedaynes> I'm going to aye all constitution amendments as laid out in the forums, and leave, because there are 20 cops with assault rifles surrounding my block/building, and I'd like to leave. 20:35 <+F50> Shouldn't there be a bit of a discussion at such a meeting? 20:36 <+teamcoltra> jakedaynes take pictures 20:36 <+F50> Indeed jake 20:36 <+RLim> jakedaynes be safe and don't get arrested 20:36 jakedaynes: Don't let them take you without a fight! 20:36 <+jakedaynes> so, just so everybody knows, I am voting AYE to all amendments as laid out by johann in the forum post 20:36 We'll reserve a place for you on the PPCA martyr page 20:36 <@scshunt> Sorry, my internet disconnected 20:36 <+JMcleod> Id try to piss em off in your place jake 20:36 <@scshunt> JMcleod: is next 20:36 <+CraigNobbs> yes, because the cops need to know that JAKE HAS DRUGS INSIDE OF HIS COMPUTER CASES!!! 20:37 <+teamcoltra> jakedaynes if there is an amendment? 20:37 <+teamcoltra> do you still vote in favour of it? 20:37 <@scshunt> Order 20:37 <@scshunt> JMcleod has the floor 20:37 <+JMcleod> I feel we should allow a reasonable time for members to read. Sure, a wall of text can be posted. 20:37 <+JMcleod> However, not everyone will have time to read this. 20:37 <+JMcleod> English is not everyone's mother tongue and some people may need more time to read. I also have concerns in the event that we change 20:38 <+JMcleod> GM systems, this may affect someone's defense. If we are going to kick someone from the party, the offense must be quite grave; 20:38 <+JMcleod> it wont happen often. Therefore I believe having more time rather than less time is fairer to the person that must defend his actions. 20:38 <+JMcleod> Hopefully though, we will not have to use this. I would be in favor of a 15 minute time allowance. 20:38 <+JMcleod> done :) 20:38 <@scshunt> Okay, CraigNobbs is next 20:38 <+jakedaynes> teamcoltra: that I will leave up to Johann, as he is aware of my positions on the amendments 20:38 <@scshunt> Order. 20:39 <+jakedaynes> oh shut it :P 20:39 <+CraigNobbs> 5 minutes is not long enough to answer much in the way of questions, let alone make a case when it may be long and drawn out 20:39 <+RLim> scshunt fyi while you are away jakedaynes proxy his vote to Johann 20:40 <@scshunt> Order, RLim, it's not your turn. And proxy votes are not permitted. 20:40 <@scshunt> CraigNobbs: please continue. 20:40 <+CraigNobbs> If someone is going to be kicked, 15 minutes should suffice... however 25 minutes is too long as a starting point.... 20:40 <+CraigNobbs> as it says that a simple majority can vote to extend their time if needed 20:41 <+CraigNobbs> I strongly suggest 15 minutes be the starting point. 20:42 <@scshunt> teamcoltra is next 20:42 <+teamcoltra> My motion stands at 5 minutes, plus there can be a Q & A session after. After the five minutes is up, it doesn't mean that they immediately go to vote, it just means they get 5 minutes before the topic is even discussed to prevent bias (as I read it) 20:42 <+teamcoltra> However, I believe that we already have a system in place to handle violations of rules and such under RRoO can the chair please explain the current process? 20:42 <@scshunt> Sure. 20:43 <@scshunt> Under Robert's Rules of Order, if the bylaws are silent on discpline, as ours are, then it provides a default disciplinary process. 20:43 <@scshunt> A member who feels that action should be taken makes a motion (in confidential session) to form an investigative committee to look at allegations. 20:43 <@scshunt> The committee then returns with a recommendation of either preferring charges, or dropping the matter. 20:44 <@scshunt> If charges are preferred, then a trial date is set, and the trial can be before a committee or the general meeting. 20:44 <+teamcoltra> ^ is that chosen by the person? 20:45 <@scshunt> A trial is held, and there are procedures for that. If the member is found guilty of the charges, then penalties may be imposed; expulsion requires a two-thirds vote. Other penalties could include removal from office or temporary suspension of rights. 20:45 <@scshunt> No, the trial date is set by the assembly setting the trial. Although nothing would stop them from asking the person. 20:45 <@scshunt> The member must be notified of the trial though 20:46 <@scshunt> teamcoltra: Do you have anything else to say? 20:47 <+teamcoltra> My motion on the amendment stands at 5 minutes, but after the motion is adopted or failed, I will be moving to retain RRoO on the subject and against this 20:47 <+teamcoltra> 20:47 <@scshunt> F50 is next. 20:48 <+F50> I think that a lot of this is going to rest on the interpretation of the amendment 20:48 <+F50> Is the time, 5 or 15 minutes to speak, going to be exclusive 20:49 <@scshunt> the proposed constitutional amendment currently reads "The person will have ___ minutes to speak but may be granted more time if a simple majority of the General Meeting agree." 20:49 <+teamcoltra> I would interpret that as exclusive 20:49 <+F50> Right, as I read it, this is not exclusive, but teamcoltra reads otherwise 20:50 <@scshunt> I would interpret it as saying that unless a majority agree, no more time is allowed. 20:50 <+F50> I think this needs to be clarified before we continue much further 20:50 <@scshunt> Do you wish to make an amendment, or another motion? 20:50 <@scshunt> You could move to postpone this question, or refer it to a committee. 20:50 <+F50> I would like to take a straw poll here if I may, can we quickly, and openly discuss which would be preferable? 20:51 <@scshunt> Straw polls are not in order as they cost time and don't have a clear outcome. people in China pirated so much software, if they were going to pirate anybody's software he'd certainly prefer it be Microsoft's. Today Gates openly concedes that tolerating piracy turned out to be Microsoft's best long-t] 20:52 <+CCitizen> Can I make a motion on it right now? 20:52 <@scshunt> You're next in line, so if F50 cedes the floor, yes. 20:53 <@scshunt> F50: are you done? 20:53 <+F50> oh good grief, we can spend the next 20 minutes having everone speak on the issue then. I'm trying to think of appropriate language for a motion but I don't have it all in my head as to the background ruleset that would be used 20:53 <+F50> so I'll let CCitizen make the motion, but one more point then: 20:53 <+F50> If it is to be exclusive, then I think at maximum 5, or whenever the person feels finished 20:54 <@scshunt> Ok. CCitizen? 20:54 <+CCitizen> IMHO unless we're kicking people out every meeting it doesnt really matter what time limit we set (though I figure 15 minutes is good because I dont know but many IRC servers have a flood protection setup and the participants still need to read the wall of text). We've only ever had one member ejected from the party in our history. Also I motion that we change the current blank space to 15 minutes and get this over with. 20:54 <+svulliez> ^ 20:54 <+JohannWeiss> ^ 20:54 <+Wilson> ^ 20:54 <@scshunt> That motion is not in order as we're currently filling the blank and we have a number of suggestions. 20:54 <@scshunt> However, I have no one else in my speakers list. 20:55 <@scshunt> So are you ready to vote on the blank? 20:55 <+JohannWeiss> So can we vote on the number of mintes then 20:55 <+JohannWeiss> ? 20:55 <@scshunt> The suggestions were 5, 15, and 25 20:55 <@scshunt> We'll vote on them in ascending order. 20:55 <+F50> Can we please clarify whether or not this time is exclusive 20:55 <+teamcoltra> Can we all just put down a number in our vote? 20:55 <+CCitizen> Well how do we handle a vote with multiple options? just l ist our preference? 20:55 <+teamcoltra> instead of aye or no... we all just put a number, which ever has the most times it occurs wins? 20:55 <+CCitizen> I would say it's exclusive since the persionw ould presumably have the floor for their portion 20:56 < [redacted]> I motion that we censure CCitizen for his typo 20:56 <@scshunt> F50: I would say that the time is exclusive unless more is granted. Interpreting the constitution would ultimately be up to the meeting at which the trial is held though, and be decided by majority vote. 20:56 How do other kangaroo courts handle defendants that talk too much? 20:57 < [redacted]> xmux, I believe Bobby Seal was tied and gagged at his trial 20:57 < [redacted]> we could try taking pointers from that? 20:57 <@scshunt> We can vote by listing the numbers preferred, but unless a majority is reached, we will have to vote again. 20:57 <+svulliez> can we vote for multiple options in one vote 20:58 <+svulliez> like I would vote "5 + 15" 20:58 <+svulliez> because both are fine, I want to not waste any more time 20:58 <+svulliez> because this is ridiculous 20:58 <@scshunt> Hmm... Yes, that would be fine; we could vote on all of them at once. 20:58 <@scshunt> Any objection to that? 20:58 <@scshunt> as for or against 20:58 <+teamcoltra> Nope 20:58 <+CCitizen> can we vote on 15 first then since that seems to have the most support? 20:58 <+F50> why? 20:58 <@scshunt> Here is what we are going to do, unless someone makes a motion to do otherwise: 20:59 <@scshunt> Each person will list all of the options which would be acceptable to them. 20:59 <+JMcleod> please let the chair determine how we are going to vote - we are wasting more time on finding a way to vote than voting. 20:59 <@scshunt> The smallest number to receive support from a majority of those voting will be entered. 20:59 <@scshunt> So list all numbers which are acceptable to you. 21:00 <+RLim> 10, 15 minutes 21:00 <@scshunt> So without further ado, the question is on filling the blank. 21:00 <@scshunt> In "The person will have ___ minutes to speak but may be granted more time if a simple majority of the General Meeting agree." 21:00 <@scshunt> The suggestions were 5, 15, and 15 21:00 <+drew> 5 21:00 <@scshunt> *5, 15, and 25 21:00 <+RLim> 10, 15 minutes 21:00 <@scshunt> Please list /all/ options acceptable to you. 21:00 <+phillipsjk> 5, 15 21:00 <+teamcoltra> 5 21:00 <+Wilson> 10, 15 21:00 <+svulliez> 5, 10, 15 21:00 <+F50> 5 21:00 <+JohannWeiss> 15, 25 21:00 <+JMcleod> 15, 25 21:01 <+kelflar> 5, 10, 15 21:01 <+CraigNobbs> 15 21:01 <+Rintaran> 5, 15 21:01 <+CCitizen> 5, 15, 25 21:01 <+shep> 15 21:02 <~Nuitari> 5 21:02 <@scshunt> A majority of those voting listed 5, and it was the smallest suggestion. So 5 is inserted. 21:02 <@scshunt> That portion of the motion now reads as follows: 21:02 <@scshunt> - Add a second paragraph after it stating: 21:02 <@scshunt> “To expel someone from the party requires a motion and a vote of the General Meeting. The intention to make this motion must be made at the previous month's General Meeting. The person in question will be informed through all available channels about the upcoming motion and will have the opportunity to be heard before the motion is put to a vote. The person will have 5 minutes to speak but may be granted more time if a simple majority o 21:03 <@scshunt> kelflar: wishes to speak 21:03 <@scshunt> and/or make a motion 21:03 <+CraigNobbs> 15 miuntes had 12 votes, while 5 minutes had only 10 21:03 <+kelflar> I think 'all available channels could be open to broad interpretation (news papers, TV, etc...) and we should use a narrower scope. I motion that "through all available channels" be replaced with "using all contact information submitted to the Party" 21:03 < MouseAnonE> Craig, it doesn't matter, scshunt said 5 won because "it was the smallest" 21:04 <@scshunt> CraigNobbs: As I said, the smallest number to receive majority support would be inserted. 21:04 < MouseAnonE> see? We were voting on what number was smallest...wait, what the FUCK? 21:04 <+CraigNobbs> that is completely arbitrary 21:04 <+F50> Indeed 21:05 <+teamcoltra> No one had objected, until the vote was over 21:05 <+teamcoltra> that being said, perhaps we should allow it to be 15 21:05 <@scshunt> The reason is that the normal blank-filling procedure is done least-to-greatest in a situation like this, on the basis that if the smaller number was defeated, anyone who voted for it would vote for the next smallest number 21:05 <+svulliez> Hey sean hunt can you stop kicking people out? It makes me embarrassed. 21:05 < HowDoIGetKickedThriceForSpeaki> I do not know the word for "quartrice", so don't do it again 21:05 <+F50> no shit 21:05 <@scshunt> It's the same guy 21:06 <+F50> ah 21:06 <+svulliez> Seriously, don't 21:06 <+teamcoltra> svulliez can you query the chair in private :) thank you 21:06 <+svulliez> you're making it worse 21:06 <+svulliez> He isn't responding to my PMs 21:06 <+F50> *sigh* 21:06 <@scshunt> I haven't received any from you 21:06 <@scshunt> Now, kelflar made a motion 21:06 <@scshunt> Is there a second? 21:07 <+Wilson> ill second 21:07 <@scshunt> Ok. 21:07 <@scshunt> It has been moved to strike "through all available channels" and insert "using all contact information submitted to the party." 21:08 <@scshunt> Is there any discussion on this amendment? 21:09 <@scshunt> Seeing none, it will go to a vote 21:09 <@scshunt> All in favor say aye, all opposed say nay 21:09 <+JohannWeiss> aye 21:09 <+kelflar> aye 21:09 <+Wilson> aye 21:09 <+thor> aye 21:09 <+teamcoltra> nay 21:09 <+phillipsjk> aye 21:10 <+shep> aye 21:10 <+JMcleod> nay 21:10 <+RLim> aye 21:10 <+CraigNobbs> aye 21:10 <+CraigNobbs>  aye 21:10 <@scshunt> I cannot count Jake's vote as he is not present. 21:11 <@scshunt> However, the ayes have it and the motion is adopted. 21:11 <@scshunt> The paragraph in question now reads 21:11 <@scshunt> ppca-B6DDC28A.mibbit.com 21:11 <@scshunt> oops 21:11 <+CraigNobbs> He's with me forever in my heart! 21:11 <@scshunt> “To expel someone from the party requires a motion and a vote of the General Meeting. The intention to make this motion must be made at the previous month's General Meeting. The person in question will be informed using all contact information submitted to the Party about the upcoming motion and will have the opportunity to be heard before the motion is put to a vote. The person will have 5 minutes to speak but may be granted more time 21:11 <+teamcoltra> Jakes vote cannot count, even if he did vote in favour of all of Johanns posted amendments, this was modified amendment and he would have no way of being in favour or against it. 21:11 <+JMcleod> Yeah, maybe the cops shot down Jake, making him no longer a member. ;) 21:11 <+svulliez> His vote won't count anyways unless we pass a special rule of order. 21:11 <@scshunt> Order, please. 21:11 <@scshunt> This meeting will take long enough. 21:11 <+CCitizen> Yeah... I was gonna say it was changed from the original.. but anyways lets get moving 21:11 <@scshunt> Is there any further discussion on the constitutionl amendment proposed. 21:12 <@scshunt> Seeing none, the motion will be submitted as amended to the membership for a vote. 21:13 <@scshunt> JohannWeiss: you have the floor 21:13 <+JohannWeiss> I move motion #2 from https://www.pirateparty.ca/forum/index.php?topic=2073.0 21:13 <@scshunt> Is there a second? 21:13 <+CraigNobbs> second 21:13 <@scshunt> Ok. 21:13 <@scshunt> The question is on motion #2 21:14 <@scshunt> Is there any discussion or amendment? 21:14 <+phillipsjk> don't we have to vote on the first ammendment? 21:14 <+JohannWeiss> No. The amendments go to an allparty vote. We only vote on them if someone wants to stop them form going to the all party vote 21:15 <+JohannWeiss> from** 21:15 <+phillipsjk> k. 21:15 <@scshunt> Last call for discussion or amendment on motion #2 21:16 <@scshunt> Seeing none, it will be sent to the membership for a vote. 21:16 <@scshunt> JohannWeiss: 21:16 <+JohannWeiss> I move motion #3 from https://www.pirateparty.ca/forum/index.php?topic=2073.0 21:16 <+RLim> where are we now 21:16 <+RLim> which article? 21:16 <+CraigNobbs> second 21:17 <+RLim> Article III.1? 21:17 <+JohannWeiss> RLim: They're grouped by amendments 21:17 <@scshunt> Yes. 21:17 <+JohannWeiss> It's because some are in more then one section 21:17 <@scshunt> The question is now on amendment #3. I can restate it or state the text as it would be amended if anyone would like. 21:17 <+RLim> so article V is amended? 21:18 <@scshunt> No, it is sent to the membership for a vote. 21:18 <@scshunt> A two-thirds vote is required. 21:18 <@scshunt> As I said earlier, we do not vote on them at this meeting. 21:18 <@scshunt> So, is there any discussion or amendment to #3? 21:19 <@scshunt> Seeing non, it will be sent to the membership for a vote. 21:19 <@scshunt> JohannWeiss. 21:20 <+JohannWeiss> I move motion #4 from https://www.pirateparty.ca/forum/index.php?topic=2073.0 21:20 <+CCitizen> Seconded 21:20 <+JohannWeiss> For some reference (Amendment #4 - Exclusion from holding multiple officer positions (#18 is added as a proviso)) 21:20 <@scshunt> Is there any discussion or amendment to #4? 21:21 <@scshunt> Ok, seeing none, it will be submitted to the membership for vote 21:21 <@scshunt> JohannWeiss. 21:22 <+JohannWeiss> I move motion #5 (Amendment #5 - EB is elected by all party ballot + Leader and Deputy Leader are elected from  the PC, during the EB election + elections are re-timed to avoid General  Election and the month of December + Add an abstain option to the PC  ballot) 21:22 <+JohannWeiss> from https://www.pirateparty.ca/forum/index.php?topic=2073.0 21:22 <+CraigNobbs> Seconded 21:22 <@scshunt> Any discussion or motions related to #5? 21:22 <+CCitizen> Yes 21:22 <@scshunt> CCitizen: you have the floor. 21:23 <+CCitizen> I'd like to add a provisio that if #5 and #6 are passed that we will undergo an immediate election in order to put the new electoral process to a field test 21:23 <+CraigNobbs> I am against this 21:24 <@scshunt> Is there a second to CCitizen's motion. 21:24 <+JMcleod> second 21:24 <@scshunt> CCitizen has moved that a proviso be added that if #5 and #6 are passed that we will undergo an immediate election in order to put the new electoral process to a field test. 21:24 <@scshunt> Does anyone wish to discuss this? 21:25 <+JohannWeiss> Yes 21:25 <+CraigNobbs> yes 21:25 <@scshunt> JohannWeiss: You have the floor, but please PM me. 21:25 <@scshunt> CraigNobbs: I'll put you in line. 21:25 <+JohannWeiss> O 21:26 <+JohannWeiss> I'll be quick: Our last election kind of lasted 3 months. I don't think we need to do that again right away, we need to get real business done for a little while. 21:26 <+JohannWeiss> That's all 21:27 <@scshunt> CCitizen would like to speak; since it's his motion, he has priority. 21:27 <@scshunt> CCitizen, go ahead 21:28 <+CCitizen> I realize that this would be a rather quick election. However, initially we were planning on an election in November. This would add another 3 months before we would vote on things and to be blunt it'd be nice to actually see these amendments in action in the event anything needs tweaking after this which I'm hoping it wont. 21:28 <+CCitizen> 21:28 <@scshunt> CraigNobbs is next 21:29 <+CraigNobbs> *claps* I agree with JohannWeiss wholeheartedly. We do _NOT_ need another election. It looks absolutely terrible to anyone on the outside looking at our faith in our leadership. Additionally, it is a HUGE waste of time on everyone's part. 21:29 <+CraigNobbs> end 21:29 <@scshunt> JMcleod: 21:30 <+JMcleod> I feel if #5 specifically passes that it would illegitimize the positions held by the EB as the positions were decided at a General Meeting. Therefore it is only fair to have the elections rerun if the constitution is amended. 21:30 <+JMcleod> I am againt the amendment itself, but very much for this proviso should it pass. 21:30 <+JMcleod> end 21:31 <@scshunt> RLim: 21:32 <+RLim> I have no problem with re-election for EB as long as it does not involve our PC 21:32 <+RLim> end 21:33 <@scshunt> CraigNobbs: 21:34 <+CraigNobbs> A provisio is written in #4 that Sean Hunt gets to keep all currently held offices until a new candidate has been elected and is was sent for a vote to the members. I believe that makes this point moot. 21:34 <+JohannWeiss> Does that need to be extended to the EB in a new proviso? 21:34 <+CCitizen> Ah damn it should have just read amendment #5 (I thought the EB and PC electoral ones were split up into separate amendments) 21:34 <+CraigNobbs> As in, we do not need to hold an election. 21:36 <+CraigNobbs> Additionally, I move to strike "The office of Leader can only be run for by someone on the Political Council." and ammend "The office of Leader can be run for by any current member in good standing. " 21:37 <+phillipsjk> second 21:37 <@scshunt> That motion is not currently in order until the proviso has been dealt with, since we can only consider one thing at a time. 21:38 <+CraigNobbs> ok. I will rescind my motnion until after this provisio is completed in its dealings 21:38 <@scshunt> Ok. 21:38 <@scshunt> Does anyone else wish to speak to the proviso or make a motion related to it (CCitizen?) 21:39 <+JohannWeiss> Doesn't look like it, so can we vote on it? 21:39 <@scshunt> Was just about to say 21:39 <+CCitizen> Well I was going to say I think it's better to run through the election process to see how it works which is why I made the Provisio in the first place. Rather than waiting what 9 months 21:40 <@scshunt> The question is now on the proviso. Since I'm not using my regular computer I can't copy-paste; can someone please copy-paste the one I stated earlier? 21:40 <+CCitizen> Since we're moving the electoral process from November to January/February 21:41 <+JohannWeiss> CCitizen has moved that a proviso be added that if #5 and #6 are passed that we will undergo an immediate election in order to put the new electoral process to a field test. 21:41 <@scshunt> Thanks. 21:41 <@scshunt> the question is on the addition of that proviso 21:41 <@scshunt> All in favor, say aye. All opposed, say nay. 21:41 <+JohannWeiss> nay 21:41 <+CraigNobbs> NAY 21:41 <+phillipsjk> nay 21:41 <+drkaboom> nay 21:41 <+JMcleod> aye 21:41 <+Wilson> nay 21:41 <+RLim> aye 21:41 <+CCitizen> aye 21:41 <+svulliez> aye 21:41 <+kelflar> nay 21:42 <@scshunt> The nays have it and the motion is defeated. 21:42 <@scshunt> The question is once again on motion #5 on the forum topic 21:42 <@scshunt> JMcleod. 21:42 <+JMcleod> I move to send #5 for a committee for review. 21:43 <@scshunt> Is there a second? 21:43 <+CraigNobbs> I move to strike "The office of Leader can only be run for by someone on the Political Council." and ammend "The office of Leader can be run for by any current member in good standing." 21:43 <+CraigNobbs> opps 21:43 <+CraigNobbs> sorry, ignore that 21:43 <+JMcleod> (for a committee to review) 21:43 <+JMcleod> typo 21:43 <+RLim> second 21:43 <+svulliez> it just came from committee review 21:43 <+CCitizen> how do I suggest we send it to the membership as planned... It's already been reviewed by the committee 21:43 <+svulliez> these were written by a committee 21:43 <@scshunt> Order, please. 21:43 <+svulliez> and the executive board was made aware of them much before this vote 21:43 <@scshunt> Order! 21:44 <@scshunt> JMcleod: Do you wish to specify now how big the committee should be and how it should be selected? 21:45 <@scshunt> (or eles to refer it to a standing committee, for whatever reason) 21:45 <@scshunt> If we don't do it now, we can handle this after the motion is adopted. 21:46 <+JMcleod> I believe the committee should be opened to all members who wish to participate and that this question should be reviewed via a piratepad. Im not a fan of selection processes and limits. 21:46 <+JMcleod> However, if necessary, lets handle it after adoption (if adopted) 21:46 <@scshunt> The point of a committee is that it is a small group of people with a specific task; a committee of anyone is meaningless. 21:46 <@scshunt> Ok. 21:47 <@scshunt> Then the question is on the motion that motion #5 be sent to a committee for review. 21:47 <@scshunt> Does anyone wish to speak to this motion? 21:47 <+CraigNobbs> yes 21:47 <@scshunt> JMcleod has the floor. 21:49 <+JMcleod> Alright, the reason I am motioning for this is that this section is confusing. It contains far too many changes that I feel would best be split up in 2 different motions. 21:51 <+JMcleod> Also, I believe having the whole EB put on an all party ballot would slow us down even more, considering the time the last PC ballot took place 21:52 <+JMcleod> There are some strong points, but I would much prefer a split in the ideas propose to have a say in each individually rather than to having to accept everything as a package. 21:53 <+JMcleod> Lastly, this needs a proviso to call for an EB election should it be accepted as it changes radically the choice process. 21:53 <+JMcleod> end 21:53 <@scshunt> CraigNobbs is next. 21:54 <@scshunt> Craig? 21:55 <+CraigNobbs> IMHO, this Amendment is no more difficult to understand than any of the others put forward. There is no reason to take more time to split it up and waste more man hours to over simplify it. If you wany all of it vote in the affirmative, if you don't want parts or all of it, vote in the negative. 21:56 <+CraigNobbs> This was already in a committee and should NOT be sent back to waste their time. They freely volunteer, but if people start sending things back for no reason other than to simplify it, then people will stop volunteering to go through these. 21:56 <+CraigNobbs> I move that we stop debating this motion and call a vote now. 21:56 <@scshunt> Is there a second? 21:57 <+JohannWeiss> second 21:57 <@scshunt> The previous question has been moved. 21:57 <@scshunt> This motion is undebatelabe and requires a two-thirds vote. 21:57 <@scshunt> If adopted, we will proceed immediately to vote on the motion to commit. 21:58 <@scshunt> All in favor of ordering the previous question and proceeding to a vote, say aye. All opposed, say nay. 21:58 <+JohannWeiss> aye 21:58 <+CraigNobbs> it was meant to stop the debate on JMcleaods mothion 21:58 <+svulliez> that's voteception. vote to vote to vote 21:58 <+CCitizen> nay 21:58 <+RLim> yeah why does it jump immediately to vote on motion? 21:58 <@scshunt> Okay, stop the voting. 21:59 <@scshunt> As I said, this is a motion for the previous question. 21:59 <@scshunt> If adopted, we will proceed immediately to vote on Jack's motion to send the motion to a committee (the motion to commit) 21:59 <@scshunt> If defeated, we will continue debate. 21:59 <@scshunt> All in favor say aye, all opposed say nay. 21:59 <+JohannWeiss> aye 21:59 <+RLim> ok sorry misunderstood 22:00 <+RLim> aye 22:00 <+phillipsjk> aye 22:00 <+CraigNobbs> aye 22:00 <+svulliez> aye 22:00 <+drkaboom> aye 22:01 <+Rintaran> AYE 22:01 <@scshunt> There are two-thirds in favor and the motion is adopted. 22:01 <@scshunt> We are now voting on JMcleod's motion to send this to a committee. 22:01 <@scshunt> All in favor say aye, all opposed say nay. 22:01 <+JMcleod> aye 22:01 <+JohannWeiss> nay 22:01 <+CraigNobbs> NAY 22:02 <+phillipsjk> nay 22:02 <+svulliez> nay 22:02 <+Rintaran> aye 22:02 <+CCitizen> nay 22:02 <+RLim> nay 22:03 <+drkaboom> nay 22:03 <@scshunt> The nays have it. The chair casts his vote in the negative; the motion is defeated. 22:03 <@scshunt> I move to reconsider the vote just taken. 22:03 <@scshunt> Is there a second? 22:04 <+JohannWeiss> What does that mean and why are you proposing it? 22:04 <+CraigNobbs> WTF !! 22:04 <+CraigNobbs> you must be joiking 22:04 <+svulliez> ^ 22:05 <+svulliez> This feels abusive, you would not be calling a re-vote if you agreed with it's results 22:05 <@scshunt> Okay, give me a second to address all this 22:05 <+RLim> but he voted in the negative hence nay 22:05 <@scshunt> First, the motion to reconsider is a motion to "undo" a vote and reopen the question it closed. 22:06 <@scshunt> It may only be made by someone who voted with the prevailing side in the motion, hence my vote (and hence why I voted at all) 22:06 <+CraigNobbs> denied... and that is gaming the system 22:06 <+JohannWeiss> ^ 22:06 <@scshunt> I made the motion because I realized during Craig's speech that there is a very good reason to send this to committee, but I did not have time to make the point as Craig's motion for the previous question was adopted. 22:07 <@scshunt> first, let me yield the chair 22:07 <@scshunt> Since I think JMcleod also has an opinion on this, is there anyone else willing to take it? 22:07 <+RLim> I'll take it 22:07 Thanks 22:08 The point of sending a motion to committee is to allow a committee to carefully consider the wording, and there is at least one major tweak that needs to be made 22:08 As written, it would put /all/ positions on the executive board up for election by all-party ballot, including standing committee chairs 22:08 <+CraigNobbs> I don't recall the debate being reopened. ORDER! 22:09 Hmm, fair; I'll ask to get in line 22:09 <+CraigNobbs> I believe that I was next in line after JMcleod 22:09 <@RLim> ok scshunt has the floor followed by svulliez 22:09 <@RLim> hold on 22:09 holding. 22:10 <@RLim> I can put you on line CraigNobbs but which queue were you in? 22:10 <+CraigNobbs> on the original debate... I PM'd scshunt WAAAAY back 22:10 <@RLim> since we this in with regards to Sean Hunt new motion 22:10 My motion was never seconded. 22:11 <@RLim> I'll give the floor to Sean Hunt then Shawn Vulliez then Craig Nobbs 22:11 <@RLim> ah ic 22:11 <@RLim> JMcleod you have anything to say at this point? 22:11 <+svulliez> so the motion should not be reopened? 22:11 AFAICT we're still debating #5 22:11 <+CraigNobbs> yes, we are 22:11 so let's give someone the floor and move on, we can all wait our turn 22:12 <@RLim> JMcleod first if he have anything to say 22:12 <+JMcleod> I wont be adding anything. I'll follow the suggestion of voting in the negative. 22:12 <@RLim> ok CraigNobbs 22:12 <+CraigNobbs> one sec 22:13 <+CraigNobbs> I move to strike "The office of Leader can only be run for by someone on the Political Council." and ammend "The office of Leader can be run for by any current member in good standing." 22:13 <@RLim> any second? 22:13 <+drkaboom> second 22:13 <@RLim> discussion on CraigNobbs motion? 22:14 <+JohannWeiss> Yes 22:14 <@RLim> ok JohannWeiss has the floor 22:15 <+JohannWeiss> This is the aplication of the idea that we should not vote for PC members at the same time as the Leader. Since the Leader has to be a PC member, it just makes sense that it would only be open to PC members. 22:15 <+JohannWeiss> The PC is elected one month, then the next month the EB is elected, with the PC members competing for the two spots on the EB that are open to them 22:16 <+JohannWeiss> end 22:16 <@RLim> any more discussion on the motion? 22:16 <+CraigNobbs> yes 22:16 <@RLim> go ahead CraigNobbs, scshunt next 22:17 <+CraigNobbs> While I understand the intent, councils and chairs, councilors and mayors, et al. are elected at the same time with people choosing what position they want to run for. 22:19 <+CraigNobbs> Additionally, there should be an emphasis on having LESS elections, not more. 22:19 <+CraigNobbs> I believe that it is a waste of time and resources to be constantly holding elections for each council and then one moth later for the chair/leader/etc. 22:20 <+CraigNobbs> We do NOT want to become a party of RED TAPE. Trust me when I say that it only causes headaches and you gain little to no return for it. 22:21 <+CraigNobbs> We do not need and shouldn't allow there to be so many elections. I am in favour of reducing the waste and red tape that is constantly being created by people and endless amounts of committees. 22:21 <+CraigNobbs> end 22:21 <@RLim> ok Sean? 22:21 I am not quite sure yet how I feel about the motion in general, because I feel there are good reasons for each side. On the one hand, electing from the membership provides a solution to the ugly case where we get people on PC who don't want to run for leader. On the other hand, this allows another means for someone to get on PC who already lost in the regular elections. Didn't get the 60% support? Run for Leader, and hope that the other g 22:22 end 22:22 <@RLim> scshunt it got cut off in the end 22:22 whereabouts? 22:22 <+JMcleod> the other g 22:22 second half: On the other hand, this allows another means for someone to get on PC who already lost in the regular elections. Didn't get the 60% support? Run for Leader, and hope that the other guy is less popular than you! I think that these questions should be given careful consideration. 22:23 <@RLim> ok svulliez 22:23 <@RLim> johannweiss you want to go first? 22:24 <+JohannWeiss> Sure 22:24 <@RLim> go ahead 22:25 <+JohannWeiss> Just want to clarify, there isn't more elections. We are simply adding an additional vote to the EB election. This was requested by many members because they didn't want the leadership vote tied to the PC votes 22:25 <+JohannWeiss> I agree that more elections could be bad, but It's not much more to add an additional vote to a current election. 22:25 <+JohannWeiss> end 22:25 <@RLim> ok svulliez 22:26 <+svulliez> If someone doesn't want to be on the Political Board, but does want to be Leader, that's a serious problem. This structure for elections makes sense- I'd actually be in favor of a more extreme version of it. To respond to Craig Nobbs has said, this does not add more red tape. 22:26 <+svulliez>. If our problem is with red tape, then we should look to leaving irc+RRoO for liquidfeedback, and loosening our interpretations of the constitution (which often binds the party to inaction, if you haven't noticed). This amendment causes no additional red tape, only re-orders the same basic election process. 22:26 <+svulliez> To respond to Sean Hunt's comment- it does not allow for people to run for Leader after losing for the Political Board, only people who were successfully elected may compete. They may campaign differently for leader than for the board. 22:26 <+svulliez> People who are rejected for the PB could run for EB positions too if they would like, but that has always been the case. This way we may have gotten people like Eli, Christoph, and the other last minute PB applicants more involved. 22:27 <+svulliez> Regardless, this is a fine system, I would be opposed to doing an election using it tomorrow, obviously we're not going to do that but 22:28 <+svulliez> let's just put it to all-party vote 22:28 <+svulliez> end 22:28 <@RLim> ok scshunt 22:28 I just wanted to say that the point of Craig's motion is exactly to make it so that it's not only members of PC who can run for leader 22:29 <+svulliez> put craig's motion to a vote? 22:29 <@RLim> any second? 22:29 <+svulliez> (I am not in favor of the amendment) 22:30 <+JohannWeiss> second 22:30 <@RLim> ok the question is on the motion to strike "The office of Leader can only be run for 22:30 <@RLim> by someone on the Political Council." and ammend "The 22:30 <@RLim> office of Leader can be run for by any current member in 22:30 <@RLim> good standing." 22:30 <@RLim> oops 22:31 <@RLim> all in favor of moving to vote on craig motion say aye, all oppose say nay. 22:31 <+CraigNobbs> AYE 22:31 <+JohannWeiss> aye 22:31 aye 22:31 <+CCitizen> nay 22:31 <@RLim> vote to vote 22:31 <+JMcleod> aye 22:31 <+drkaboom> aye 22:32 <+svulliez> aye 22:32 <+CraigNobbs> oh... then, NAY 22:32 <+phillipsjk> nay 22:32 <+phillipsjk> wait, what? 22:32 <+svulliez> it's a vote to vote on craig's amendment 22:32 <+svulliez> (say aye) 22:32 <+phillipsjk> (aye) 22:32 <@RLim> it is a vote whether we want to go on to voting on CraigNobbs motion 22:32 <+svulliez> (it's stupid... I know) 22:32 <+CCitizen> can I change mine to aye then 22:33 <@RLim> yeah 22:33 <+CraigNobbs> rofl 22:33 <+svulliez> thank goodness roberts rules of order and irc are a match made in heaven or else this may have been painful! 22:33 <+CraigNobbs> lol 22:33 <@RLim> looks like the ayes have it 22:34 <@RLim> Now we are voting on the motion 22:34 <@RLim> the question is on the motion to strike "The office of Leader can only be run for 22:34 <@RLim> by someone on the Political Council." and amend "The 22:34 <@RLim> office of Leader can be run for by any current member in 22:34 <@RLim> good standing." 22:34 <@RLim> all in favour say aye and all against say nay 22:34 <+CraigNobbs> AYE 22:35 <+phillipsjk> nay 22:35 <+JMcleod> nay 22:35 <+CCitizen> nay 22:35 <+JohannWeiss> nay 22:35 <+svulliez> (aye = any member can run for leader) (nay = only people who are also running for council can run for leader) 22:35 <+svulliez> nay 22:35 <+shep> aye 22:35 <+drkaboom> aye 22:35 <+CraigNobbs> NAY = only people who WERE ELECTED FOR COUNCIL can run for leader 22:35 Point of order, nothing other than voting and points of order is allowed during voting. 22:35 <@RLim> ^ 22:36 <+svulliez> no, only people who just ran for council and won can run for leader in the system- its not exclusive to people who have already been council members 22:36 <@RLim> the nays have it 22:36 <@RLim> back to discussion on amendment #5 22:36 <@RLim> scshunt have the floor 22:36 Ok. So. 22:37 I'm mildly opposed to this amendment in principle. 22:37 But I think there is a deeper issue with it having several wording issues. 22:37 At EB, we had some discussion about what happens if someone gets removed from office? 22:37 Can they even be removed from office early? 22:37 But on top of that, there are some other bits in this motion that I feel need amendment: 22:38 First, as some members appear confused by this, reading it carefully will find that "All Executive Board positions shall be voted on by an all-Party Ballot as described in Article IX.2. The positions that may be run for are President, Secretary and Leader. These elections shall occur at the next regular general meeting immediately after the Political Council elections." 22:38 So first we elect PC, and then EB, including Leader and Deputy Leader, the month afterwards. 22:39 This leads to issue #1: 22:39 If no one elected to PC wants to run for Leader, the current Leader retains their position. 22:39 for another year 22:39 If exactly one person does, I think that the current Deputy Leader remains, but not the current Leader. 22:40 Second, "All Executive Board positions" 22:40 <+CraigNobbs> and if that leader doesn't want the job? 22:40 All. 22:40 He could resign and then ??? 22:40 <@RLim> ok svulliez's turn 22:40 I'm not done 22:40 <@RLim> anyone who want to speak please message me 22:40 Probably we'd be left without a leader for a year. 22:40 Anyway, going back, all positions. 22:40 This includes, say, standing committee chairs. 22:40 <@RLim> sorry scshint 22:40 <@RLim> go ahead. I thought you mean that's all 22:40 nope 22:41 emphasis 22:41 <@RLim> nvm I see what's going on 22:41 And I know that someone is bringing forward a motion at some point (maybe not tonight due to length, but if not tonight then next month) to allow the EB to appoint the IT Director. 22:41 <+CCitizen> I was under the impression that standing committee chairs are appointed by the EB not elected by a GM typically 22:41 But if this amendment were adopted in its current form, it would supersede the existing rules. 22:41 since, being the constitution, it necessarily takes precedence. 22:42 <@RLim> any rebuttal or further discussion? 22:42 There's another technical issue which is admittedly obscure but rather important: Under Robert's Rules, the default form of voting is majority vote, not plurality. Which could result in several rounds of elections. 22:43 Now, I'd rather not waste a bunch more time trying to amend all these holes. 22:43 That's why I feel it would be better to direct a small group of people to consider it closely, and come up with suggested amendments to make it work. 22:44 <+CraigNobbs> I volunteer scshunt for this job  =D 22:44 And hence why I move to reconsider the motion to send this to a committee. 22:44 <+CraigNobbs> point conceeded. 22:44 <@RLim> svulliez you have the floor 22:44 is that a second? 22:44 <+CraigNobbs> I second 22:45 <@RLim> one sec sorry. scshunt moved to reconsider the motion to send this to a committee 22:45 <@RLim> svulliez have the floor 22:45 <+svulliez> We should amend the wording right now to get rid of the issues that Sean Hunt has suggested instead of sending it to a committee.. It wouldn't be hard, and we could move on. I want to get through all of this tonight, and it's already not looking good. 22:45 <+svulliez>. It's really awful that Sean Hunt is bringing these things up now instead of in the last month and a half where he had ample time to make issues of these problems. additionally, when the committee was actually going, he didn't participate. 22:46 <+svulliez> It's more slowdown, wasting time. It looks really bad. Fills me with shame. I want to be a party that is active. 22:46 <+CCitizen> We could amend it to mention Officer Positions are elected since that would work with the rest of the wording (about the President, Leader and Secretary being positions tht can be run for) 22:47 <@RLim> please message me if you want to speak. there is a queue 22:47 <+svulliez> I don't know what is the best use of our time right now, I may be broken down due to the constant slowdown with an intent to actually get out of here tonight, which is crappy, because it's making us make worse decisions 22:47 <+svulliez> instead of all this reconsidering stuff we could have passed it and patched the holes before the next election easily 22:47 <+svulliez> end 22:48 <@RLim> scshunt 22:48 The problem is that I'm not comfortable that we'll hit every single possible flaw tonight. If this is defeated I'll offer a suite of amendments to fix the problems I know of, but I would prefer careful consideration. 22:50 <+svulliez> #informal is a place to go and talk out of order without anyone saying "order" at you by the way 22:50 <+svulliez> /join #informal 22:50 <@RLim> ok JMcleod 22:50 As to not providing input sooner, I expected that the committee that produced these amendments would have reported them back to the Political Council, as it was directed to do, and I was caught off-guard when the members of the committee instead opted to send them directly to a general meeting. I did try to help and provide opinions over time, but I was busy, and the final wording was not available until earlier this week. 22:50 I feel that this is a major change, and it should not be rushed. 22:50 We have a long time before the next election anyway. 22:51 end 22:51 <@RLim> ok JMcleod 22:52 <+JohannWeiss> I "move the previous question on all pending questions" because I like to get sleep before working at 7 in the morning. 22:52 <@RLim> any second? 22:52 That's out of order; he doesn't have the floor 22:52 (point of order^) 22:53 <@RLim> JMcleod you still want the floor? 22:53 <+JMcleod> yeah 2sec 22:53 <@RLim> k 22:54 <+JMcleod> Firstly, for an active party, I would like to remind our Dear Leader that we lack a platform. 22:54 <+JMcleod> Also, the point of the committee is to put our trust in that committee to come back with something and that, without surveillance. 22:54 <+JMcleod> We could have watched, but given that English is a second language to me, I trust them. 22:54 <+JMcleod> I do not agree with the wording at the moment. 22:54 <+JMcleod> My previous points still stand. 22:54 <+JMcleod> End 22:55 <@RLim> JohannWeiss 22:55 <@RLim> you have the floor 22:55 <+JohannWeiss> We've been discussing this one for an hour and a half. we're not adopting anything, we're simply sending it for a vote. 22:56 <+JohannWeiss> I "move the previous question on all pending questions" because I like to get sleep before working at 7 in the morning. 22:56 <@RLim> any second? 22:56 (it's now in order to move the previous question on fewer things) 22:56 (in response, so to speak) 22:57 <+svulliez> second 22:57 * phillipsjk resists the urge to ammend that motion to be morer general 22:57 <@RLim> ok all in favour say aye - to end all discussion and vote on all motions. all oppose say nay 22:57 <+JohannWeiss> aye 22:57 nay 22:57 <+JMcleod> aye 22:57 <+CraigNobbs> AYE 22:57 <+phillipsjk> aye 22:58 <+drkaboom> aye 22:59 <+CCitizen> aye 22:59 <@RLim> the ayes have it 22:59 <@RLim> now we move to vote on the motion to reconsider the motion to send this to a committee. 23:00 <@RLim> all in favour of sending this motion to a committee say aye, all oppose - in which case it will be sent to member for a vote, say nay 23:00 <+JMcleod> aye 23:00 <+JohannWeiss> nay 23:00 aye 23:00 <+svulliez> nay 23:00 <+CraigNobbs> aye 23:01 <+phillipsjk> nay 23:01 <+drkaboom> nay 23:02 <@RLim> ok the nays have it 23:03 <@RLim> the question is now on motion to amend the constitution. amendment #5 https://www.pirateparty.ca/forum/index.php?topic=2073.0 23:03 <+CraigNobbs> you mean #6 23:03 #5 23:03 but that goes out to mail vote 23:03 so we're good! 23:03 <+CraigNobbs> we just finished #5 23:04 right 23:04 <@RLim> all in favour say aye, all oppose say nay 23:04 Point of order 23:04 We can't vote on a constitution amendment here 23:04 <+svulliez> aye 23:04 <@RLim> ok 23:04 <@RLim> you are right no need to vote on that 23:04 <+JohannWeiss> SO we're on to number 6 then? 23:04 <+CraigNobbs> yes 23:04 <+JMcleod> indeed 23:04 <@RLim> so it would be send for all-party vote 23:05 <@RLim> now onto #6 23:05 <@RLim> any discussion? 23:05 <+JohannWeiss> I motion #6 23:05 <+JohannWeiss> Amendment #6 – If the Leader and/or Deputy is an MP, then we will hold reelections for their position every 4 years 23:05 <@RLim> I mean any second 23:05 <@scshunt> thanks Ric 23:05 <+RLim> np 23:05 <+CraigNobbs> Second 23:05 <@scshunt> Okay, the question is on motion #6. 23:05 <@scshunt> Is there any discussion or motions? 23:05 <+CraigNobbs> I move to vote and skip all discussions 23:06 <@scshunt> CraigNobbs has moved the previous question. All in favor, say aye. All opposed, say nay. 23:06 <+CraigNobbs> aye 23:06 <+drkaboom> aye 23:06 <+JMcleod> aye 23:06 <+RLim> aye 23:06 <+JohannWeiss> aye 23:06 <+TalStar> aye 23:06 <+CCitizen> aye 23:07 <@scshunt> There are two-thirds in favor. The motion is adopted and motion #6 will be sent for all-party vote. 23:07 <@scshunt> JohannWeiss. 23:07 <+JohannWeiss> move the motion #7 (Amendment #7 - Relaxing PC/EB duties restrictions) 23:07 <+CraigNobbs> I move to suspend current rules and vote on amendments 7 through 11 without discussions to send for all-party vote. 23:08 <@scshunt> I'll take Craig's motion first, if there's a second. 23:08 <+drkaboom> second 23:08 <@scshunt> Ok, CraigNobbs has moved to suspend the rules and send motions 7-11 directly to all party vote. 23:08 <@scshunt> (convenient!) 23:08 <@scshunt> (sorry I couldn't resist) 23:08 <+svulliez> S! 23:08 <+svulliez> si! 23:08 <@scshunt> All in favor, say aye. All opposed, say nay. 23:08 <+JohannWeiss> aye 23:08 <+JMcleod> nay 23:08 <+drkaboom> aye 23:08 <+phillipsjk> aye 23:09 <+svulliez> aye 23:09 <+CCitizen> aye 23:09 <+CraigNobbs> aye 23:09 <+RLim> aye 23:10 <@scshunt> There are two-thirds in favor, and motions 7 through 11 will be sent for an all-party vote. 23:10 <+phillipsjk> YESS!!!! NO RULES! 23:10 <@scshunt> On to new business. 23:10 <+JohannWeiss> Swing! 23:10 <+CraigNobbs> I move to adjourn this meeting 23:10 <+JohannWeiss> Wait 23:10 <+svulliez> craig I want to give you a kiss, that was fun! 23:11 <@scshunt> Order, please. 23:11 <+JohannWeiss> There's one more quick thing I have to add to the amendments. 23:11 <+phillipsjk> THe last vote supsended the RRO. 23:11 <+JohannWeiss> A motion to add a comments section to the ballot so that the voters can write in any questions/comments on them 23:11 <@scshunt> CraigNobbs has moved to adjourn the meeting. Is there a second, or does CraigNobbs wish to withdraw? 23:12 <+svulliez> CraigNobbs: can you withdraw temporarily? 23:12 <+CraigNobbs> I will withdraw 23:12 <@scshunt> Ok 23:12 <@scshunt> JohannWeiss: You have the floor. 23:12 <+JohannWeiss> I motion to add a comments section to the ballot so that the voters can write in any questions/comments on them 23:12 <+svulliez> I support that 23:13 <@scshunt> I'll take that as a second then. 23:13 <@scshunt> Is there any objection to JohannWeiss's motion 23:13 <+RLim> nope 23:13 <+CraigNobbs> wait 23:13 <+CraigNobbs> I wish to speak 23:13 <@scshunt> Ok 23:13 <+CraigNobbs> sent the PM to the wrong person, sorry 23:13 <@scshunt> CraigNobbs: You have the floor 23:13 <+CCitizen> none here 23:14 <+CraigNobbs> It should be noted that this will increase the amount of work to process the ballots by an immense ammount. Comments and questions are what the forums are supposed to be for, not ballots 23:15 <+CraigNobbs> Think about this.. If you had to process all of these ballots? 23:15 <+JohannWeiss> I will read through the comments myself. 23:15 <+CraigNobbs> and what will happen with them anyways? the current motion has nothing in it to deal with them. 23:16 <@scshunt> I'll take that as a question, and since I will be managing the balloting, adding a comment field and database entry will not be much work. 23:16 <+CraigNobbs> That is what the forums are for though. Ballots are supposed to be extremely definitive and narrow in scope. adding this field will break that. 23:16 <@scshunt> It may delay the ballot by a few days as I have two exams this week, but I may not be able to get them out in the next few days anyway due to them. 23:17 <+CraigNobbs> I move to delay this motion until the next GM, and that this should be posted on the forums for discussion. 23:18 <@scshunt> Hmm... I will rule that motion in order, as nothing specifically says when the ballot has to be taken, so this would mean that if this motion were postponed, then I would not send the ballot out until next month to allow for this question to be decided before the ballot was sent out. 23:18 <@scshunt> Is there a second? 23:19 <+teamcoltra> second 23:19 <@scshunt> Ok. 23:19 <@scshunt> It has been moved to postpone the motion to add a comment field to the ballot to the next general meeting. 23:20 <@scshunt> RLim: has the floor 23:21 <+RLim> I think the idea is to have a comment field so that people who voted no could comment on why. This would help expedite future amendments. It is also a good opportunity to solicit comments from member who are normally too busy to attend GM or check forums 23:21 <+RLim> so I don't see the need to delay the vote to another month 23:21 <+RLim> worse is it would get rejected. ANd hopefully with the comments 23:22 <+RLim> Johann or whoever is doing future amendments have valuable feedback they can work from 23:22 <+RLim> end 23:22 <@scshunt> Okay, is there any further discussion? 23:22 <+CraigNobbs> myself 23:22 <@scshunt> go ahead 23:24 <+CraigNobbs> If people don't want to take the time to work within our current environment and wont take the time to be part of the discussion, why allow them to have a place to whine/complain/voice their thoughts if they dont utilize the existing infrastructures? 23:24 <+CraigNobbs> All of the valuable feedback is what you hear within the forums, on IRC, or from people who want to participate. 23:26 <+CraigNobbs> Everyone has an opinion and if they want their's heard, they should come and make use of the existing debating forums. 23:27 <+CraigNobbs> As I said previously, ballots are supposed to be extremely narrow in their scope. Adding this goes far beyond that. 23:27 <+CraigNobbs> end 23:28 <@scshunt> RLim. 23:28 <+RLim> I know we have a lot of members who work long hours and are pretty busy. They support us by being a member. I would hate to exlcude them because they are not active enough. I suspect some of the lurker I saw drop off irc is because of being accuse of not doing enough. Just my suspicion but it happens after one of those discussion so I won't be surprised 23:28 <+RLim> *exclude 23:29 <+RLim> end 23:29 <@scshunt> Anyone else wish to speak? 23:30 <@scshunt> Okay, the question is on the motion to postpone the motion to add a comment section to the ballot until next meeting. 23:30 <@scshunt> *next regular meeting. 23:30 <@scshunt> All in favor, please say aye. All opposed, please say nay. 23:30 <+JMcleod> aye 23:30 <+CraigNobbs> aye 23:30 <+RLim> nay 23:31 <+JohannWeiss> nay 23:31 <+svulliez> nay 23:31 <+phillipsjk> nay 23:32 <@scshunt> The nays have it and the motion is defeated 23:32 <@scshunt> The question is now on the mtion to add a comments section to the ballot so that the voters can write in any questions/comments on them 23:32 <+CraigNobbs> I move to vote on the issue at hand, suspending further discussions 23:33 <@scshunt> CraigNobbs: has moved the previous question. 23:33 <@scshunt> Is there a second? 23:33 <+JohannWeiss> second 23:33 <+RLim> doppleganger (sorry can't resist) 23:33 <@scshunt> the question is on the previous question. If adopted, then we will proceed directly to vote on the motion to add a comment section 23:33 <+phillipsjk> is this another vote vote? 23:34 <@scshunt> Yes 23:34 <@scshunt> All in favor, say aye. All opposed, say nay. 23:34 <+CraigNobbs> aye 23:34 <+JohannWeiss> aye 23:34 <+RLim> aye 23:34 <+phillipsjk> aye 23:34 <+JMcleod> aye 23:34 <+svulliez> aye 23:34 <+CCitizen> aye 23:35 <@scshunt> There are two-thirds in favor and the motion is adopted. The question is now on the motion to add a comments section to the ballot so that the voters can write in any questions/comments on them. All in favor say aye, all opposed say nay. 23:35 <+JohannWeiss> aye 23:35 <+thor> aye 23:35 <+RLim> aye 23:35 <+phillipsjk> nay 23:35 <+CraigNobbs> nay 23:35 <+JMcleod> aye 23:36 <+drkaboom> aye 23:36 <+svulliez> aye 23:36 <+CCitizen> aye 23:37 <@scshunt> The ayes have it and the motion is adopted. The President will add a comments section before starting the ballot. 23:37 <+CraigNobbs> If there are no further orders of business, I move to adjourn this meeting. 23:37 <+JohannWeiss> second 23:38 <@scshunt> It has been moved and seconded that the meeting be adjourned. This is not debateable, /however/, it is in order to do things like give notice of things to be brought up a future meetings (such as, say candidates for approval) or to give indication of business that still needs attention (such as, say, candidates for approval) 23:38 <+drkaboom> good time to get my name in 23:38 <+RLim> yeah 23:39 <@scshunt> Huh? 23:39 <@scshunt> brb 23:39 <+CraigNobbs> Dr. Kaboom!, are you running in S.Harper's riding? I'd totally vote for you! 23:40 <@JMcleod> Oh hi 23:40 <+RLim> it's part of the agenda to affirm the candidacy 23:41 <@JMcleod> There is further business we must go through before adjourning 23:41 <@JMcleod> Two notices were also given to move for affirmation of several candidates from Ottawa area; namely, David Ascroft for Nepean-Carleton, Robert McGrath for Ottawa-Orleans. Vote will be held to affirm both candidates during our meeting. If anyone else wants to run for those ridings, please attend the meeting or have someone represents you at the meeting. 23:42 <@JMcleod> Lets have someone move & second 1 candidate at a time 23:42 <+drkaboom> no - I'm going in nepean-carleton against pierre poilievre unless they split the riding on the 29th of apirl 23:42 <+drkaboom> april 23:42 <+drkaboom> yes 23:42 <@JMcleod> Anyone gonna move anything? 23:42 <+RLim> I move to affirm the candidacy of 23:43 <+drkaboom> I move robert mcgrath for ottawa-orleans 23:43 <+RLim> David Ashcroft 23:43 <+RLim> *Ascroft sorry 23:43 <@JMcleod> 1 at a time... ill pick 23:43 <@JMcleod> Do we have a second for Robert McGrath for Ottawa-Orleans? 23:43 <+RLim> do we still have forum? 23:44 <+RLim> second 23:44 <+RLim> nvm we do 23:44 <@JMcleod> Seems we are 16 from my side 23:44 <+CraigNobbs> yeah... but more than half of them aren't actually participating 23:45 <@JMcleod> It was moved to affirm Robert McGrath as candidate for Ottawa-Orleans. 23:45 <@JMcleod> But they are logged in and counted as present, if we would go by participation we would never get 15 .... some people sometimes vote too late. 23:46 <@JMcleod> Any discussion on the affirmation? 23:46 <@JMcleod> Anyone else seeking affirmation for Ottawa-Orleans? 23:47 <+CraigNobbs> I will be abstaining from these afirmations... just fyi 23:47 <+CraigNobbs> you still have 15 though 23:47 I would note there's a requirement that original main motions be adopted by at least half of quorum in favor 23:47 <+CraigNobbs> need 7 ayes 23:48 <@JMcleod> That is your choice. But It still requires 8 votes 23:48 8 23:48 <+CraigNobbs> I'm abstaining 23:48 <+RLim> so would it be better to postpone it for next GM? 23:48 We can still vote; if it fails, nothing stops it from being brought up again 23:48 <+RLim> or if they are not affirm, can it be borught up again next GM that 23:48 <+RLim> ok 23:49 <+RLim> let's do it 23:49 <+drkaboom> well we are at a trade show in osgoode this weekend. It would be nice to say we are official candidates. 23:49 <+RLim> yeah 23:50 <@JMcleod> We are voting on the affirmation of Robert McGrath as candidate for Ottawa-Orleans. All in favor say aye, all opposed say nay. This requires a majority of present quorum to pass. 23:50 aye 23:50 <+phillipsjk> aye 23:50 <+drkaboom> aye 23:50 <+RLim> aye 23:51 <+svulliez> aye 23:52 <+teamcoltra> aye 23:52 <@JMcleod> Vote failed due to lack of voters. 23:52 <@JMcleod> hold on 23:52 <@JMcleod> I cant see anything! Sean take chair 23:53 <@scshunt> ? 23:53 <+CraigNobbs> he closed his eyes and forgot to reopen them   XP 23:53 <@scshunt> Uh, ok then. 23:53 <+RLim> I was a bit concern there if he means literally or his computer screen 23:53 <@scshunt> Any other motions? 23:53 <+svulliez> wait, we can pass this 23:53 <+svulliez> and make him a candidate 23:54 <+svulliez> he's going to the trade show this weekend for us 23:54 <@scshunt> svulliez: Would you like to reconsider the vote? 23:54 <+svulliez> it would be great if we could reconsider it 23:54 <@scshunt> Ok, is there any objection to reconsidering the vote? 23:54 <+CloudQc> that was strange 23:54 <+CloudQc> everything stopped scrolling 23:54 <+svulliez> if johann is back now, and if craig votes yes 23:54 <+CloudQc> reconsider please 23:54 <+svulliez> we can get him that approval 23:54 <+RLim> where's CCitizen 23:54 <+CraigNobbs> I don't know anything about these potential candidates 23:54 <+RLim> ? 23:54 <@scshunt> Seeing none, the vote is reconsidered. The question is now on the motion to appoint Robert McGrath as the candidate for Ottawa-Orleans. 23:54 <+CloudQc> Obviously I am JMcleod 23:55 <+RLim> they meet regularly at Ottawa with Shawn Gray 23:55 <@scshunt> Does anyone wish to speak on the motion? 23:55 <+svulliez> it would be really great, he's doing the trade show for us, he's been meeting with shawn gray for a long time 23:55 <@scshunt> Order, please. 23:55 <+CraigNobbs> that's why I obstained. besides, without me, you only need 7 votes to pass 23:55 <@scshunt> Does anyone have any discussion on the motion? 23:56 <+svulliez> It would be exceptional if we could do this as a sign of good faith to this quality candidate. 23:56 <@scshunt> The question is on the motion to appoint Robert McGrath as the candidate for Ottawa-Orleans. All in favor say aye, all opposed say nay. 23:56 <+svulliez> aye 23:56 <+teamcoltra> aye 23:56 <+RLim> aye 23:56 <+JohannWeiss> aye 23:56 <+drkaboom> aye 23:56 <+CloudQc> aye 23:57 <+phillipsjk> aye 23:57 <+drew> aye 23:57 <+CCitizen> aye 23:57 <@scshunt> The ayes have it and the motion is adopted. 23:58 <+svulliez> I have a motion next please 23:58 <+RLim> next candidate? 23:58 <@scshunt> First priority goes to a motion to appoint David 23:58 <@scshunt> Does anyone wish to make that motion? 23:58 <+RLim> I move to affirm the candidacy of David Ascroft 23:59 <+CloudQc> second 23:59 <@scshunt> which riding is this again? 23:59 <+drkaboom> nepean-carleton 23:59 <+CloudQc> David Ascroft for Nepean-Carleton 23:59 <@scshunt> It has been moved to appoint David Ashcroft as the candidate for Napean-Carleton. 23:59 <@scshunt> Is there any discussion? 23:59 <+drkaboom> no 'h' 00:00 <+CloudQc> (he messes up my name every time too, no worries) 00:00 <@scshunt> Sorry, David Ascroft. 00:00 <@scshunt> lol 00:00 <@scshunt> I got it right tonight in my notes ;) 00:00 <+svulliez> I support this. He's been involved since the last election and he's a great candidate for 2015. 00:00 <+teamcoltra> (or sooner... lol yeah jk... wishful thinking) 00:00 <@scshunt> The question is on the motion to appoint David Ascroft as the candidate for Napean-Carleton. 00:01 <@scshunt> All in favor say aye, all opposed say nay. 00:01 <+teamcoltra> aye 00:01 <+phillipsjk> aye 00:01 <+drew> aye 00:01 <+svulliez> aye 00:01 <+RLim> aye 00:01 <+JohannWeiss> aye 00:01 <+CloudQc> aye 00:01 <@scshunt> The vote is 7-0. The chair casts his vote in the affirmative, bringing the affirmative to half of quorum. The ayes have it and the motion is adopted. 00:02 <@scshunt> svulliez. 00:02 <+svulliez> I motion to call on the IT committee to install liquidfeedback on our server and begin a trial run to work as an informal polling mechanism in the party until further notice, open to members only. 00:03 <@scshunt> The question is on the motion to call on the IT committee to install liquidfeedback on our server and begin a trial run to work as an informal polling mechanism in the party until further notice, open to members only. 00:03 <@scshunt> Is there any discussion? 00:03 <+teamcoltra> yes 00:03 <@scshunt> Go ahead. 00:04 <+teamcoltra> I have been interacting with PPDE and have been testing the LqFb system for a while... and I love it 00:04 <+teamcoltra> honestly they use it to even figure out where they are going out drinking 00:04 <+teamcoltra> and any tool that can solve both political and drinking issues... is a tool that I support 00:04 <+teamcoltra> 00:04 <+svulliez> hah 00:05 <@scshunt> Any more? 00:05 <+svulliez> Move to a vote? 00:05 <+phillipsjk> I have a concern about e-voting in general... 00:05 <@scshunt> Does anyone want to discuss? I don't want to waste time with a previous question. 00:06 <@scshunt> If anyone wants to talk, we'll go to the previous question 00:06 <@scshunt> Nope, ok 00:06 * phillipsjk seconds vote vote 00:06 <@scshunt> The question is on the motion to call on the IT committee to install liquidfeedback on our server and begin a trial run to work as an informal polling mechanism in the party until further notice, open to members only. 00:07 <@scshunt> All in favor say aye. All opposed say nay. 00:07 <+CloudQc> aye 00:07 <+svulliez> aye 00:07 <+RLim> aye 00:07 <+phillipsjk> aye 00:07 <+drkaboom> aye 00:07 <+drew> aye 00:07 <+JohannWeiss> aye 00:07 <+teamcoltra> aye 00:08 <@scshunt> The ayes have it and the motion is adopted. 00:08 <@scshunt> Any further business? 00:08 <+CraigNobbs> end the meeting? 00:09 <+phillipsjk> seconded 00:09 <+svulliez> I motion to allow for people who are leaving the meeting the delegate their vote to someone else :P 00:09 <+svulliez> I'll withdraw that, but let's make a version of that someday 00:09 <+svulliez> I'm in favor of sleeptime 00:09 <+CloudQc> move to adjourn 00:10 <+teamcoltra> I want to make notice I plan to move my candidcacy vote for the next meeting 00:10 <+CraigNobbs> seconded 00:10 <+teamcoltra> (for Vancouver Centre) 00:10 <@scshunt> teamcoltra: which riding? 00:10 <@scshunt> Ok 00:10 <@scshunt> Seeing no further business, I declare the meeting adjourned. 00:10 < CraigNobbs> good night all 00:10 -Stenobot:#canada- ======================= MEETING ADJOURNED ======================== 00:10 -Stenobot:#canada- This meeting stands adjourned. The transcript will be available online shortly. 00:10 -Stenobot:#canada- ============================================================

View minutes.