GM 2012-03-21 transcript

 Note: Log times are in Central Time.

19:20 -scshunt:#canada- The regular general meeting of the Pirate Party of Canada is called to order. 19:20 <@scshunt> First up, approval of the minutes. 19:20 <%RLim> http://wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php/GM_2012-02-29_minutes 19:21 <%RLim> http://wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php/GM_2012-02-15_minutes 19:21 <@scshunt> Does anyone have any corrections to the minutes of the special meeting held on the 29th? 19:21 <@scshunt> Or of the minutes of the regular meeting held on the 15th? 19:22 <@scshunt> Ok, seeing none, the minutes are approved. 19:22 <+Rintaran> No objections here. 19:22 <@scshunt> Next up is reports. I will deliver the President's report. 19:22 <@scshunt> There have been some difficulties getting things ramped up after the new governance was elected, but we seem to be speeding up 19:22 < TravisMcCrea> I am leaving shortly to attend a forum held by the NDP on C30 to have Pirate representation. 19:23 <@scshunt> Unfortunately, we haven't yet received a financial report from the Bakhoses who are currently managing the Party finances. The report should be available by the end of March, we're told. 19:23 <@scshunt> The IT Committee's been having some issues getting into a happy, stable situation 19:24 <@scshunt> So I do have on recommendation in that regard 19:24 <@scshunt> Other than that, I think that things are proceeding reasonably well into giving us a good, efficient structure. 19:24 o.O 19:25 Report is "President has difficulties, financial officers don't have any financial reports, IT committee having some issues, otherwise I think everything is good"? 19:25 <@scshunt> My recommendation is that the Executive Board be permitted to rescind the appointments of Ken Hoover, Martin Alix, and Jeremy Howell to the IT Committee. It is not that I have anything against them personally, but that the Executive Board should be able to fully manage the membership (except for the Director), but since the appointments were made by the general meeting in January, the Executive Board cannot go against them. 19:25 That sounds rather SNAFU :/ 19:25 <@scshunt> redacted: You are not signed into the meeting, you cannot speak without permission. 19:26 <@scshunt> Does anyone wish to move the recommendation? 19:26 Permission to speak, sir? 19:26 <@scshunt> Does anyone object to redacted being granted permission to speak? 19:26 <+JohannWeiss> no 19:26 <+psema4> none here 19:27 <+CCitizen> I would like to speak on the recommendation 19:27 <+adpaolucci> not at this time. 19:27 <@scshunt> CCitizen: Is that an objection to redacted speaking? Additionally, the recommendation hasn't been moved so it's not in order to speak to it. 19:27 * redacted facedesks 19:27 * wasme sighs 19:27 <+CCitizen> No objection to them speaking I'd like to speak after them 19:27 <@scshunt> Ok 19:27 <@scshunt> redacted: go ahead 19:27 Report is "President has difficulties, financial officers don't have any financial reports, IT committee having some issues, otherwise I think everything is good"? That sounds rather like "Everything is SNAFU and nothing is accomplished, but let's put it in a positive light" 19:28 I'm so glad we made sure I had permission that time though, thanks 19:28 <@scshunt> Thank you for your comments. 19:28 What would it take to admit that nothing is going well, nobody has done what they were supposed to ahve done? 19:28 <@scshunt> Because I don't feel that that is the case. 19:29 <+CCitizen> Now I'd like to note that the IT Committee decided on Jeremy Howell as the IT Direector. Removing him from the IT Committee would be counterproductive at this time since he's had less than a day to get ready for that position. 19:29 If I may? 19:29 <@scshunt> jakedaynes: Go ahead 19:29 <@scshunt> oh wait, you're not signed in :/ 19:29 <+voronaam> may I be next, please 19:29 <@scshunt> Ok, I'm actually going to call order here. 19:29 <@scshunt> We are not discussing a motion at hand 19:30 <@scshunt> Questions are permitted, but open discussion is not. 19:30 <@scshunt> If a member wishes to move my recommendation, they may, otherwise we will move on. 19:30 <+voronaam> Ok then. I have nothing to say yet in that case. 19:30 <+JohannWeiss> I'd like to ask for more information on the financial situation. 19:30 <+JohannWeiss> Why the delay? 19:30 <+adpaolucci> Do we happen to have a list of the responsibilities and objectives for the IT committee? 19:31 <@scshunt> JohannWeiss: Currently, our chief agent is the Pirate Party of Canada Fund, which is in practice Stephane Bakhos. 19:31 <@scshunt> His wife is responsible for the day-to-day finances. 19:31 It's only $16,000, representing 90% of our expenses, that aren't accounted for and we've been saying "we'll get around to accounting for that" for only a few months. Why the rush? Sheesh. 19:31 <@scshunt> This is not a new structure, and we have effectively no way to make things go faster. 19:31 <@scshunt> Trust me, we wish it did. :( 19:32 <+CCitizen> I wish we did too 19:32 <+psema4> scshunt: regarding your recommendation, could you respond to CCitizen regarding Jeremy Howell? 19:32 <+JohannWeiss> Has any explanation been given? 19:32 ...getting rid of the "not new structure" might be a start :/ 19:32 I'm out 19:32 /part 19:32 <@scshunt> ... we will be looking at changing this, but we have to work with what we've been given 19:32 <@scshunt> JohannWeiss: She is busy 19:33 <@scshunt> adpaolucci: The IT Committee is responsible for overseeing the Party's technical infrastructure. 19:33 <@scshunt> It's intentionally very broad 19:33 <@scshunt> psema4: The intent of the recommendation is not to remove them from the Committee, but to allow the EB to do so should they choose. 19:34 <+adpaolucci> Is there a current outline of there activites on the PPC wiki/forums? 19:34 <@scshunt> Either the EB or a GM can appoint members to the committee, but if a GM does, the EB can't cancel the appointment 19:34 <@scshunt> (since the EB can't override the GM's decisions normally) 19:34 <+wasme> 'normally'? 19:34 <@scshunt> wasme: Unless the GM chooses to allow them to 19:34 <@scshunt> If Jeremy Howell were appointed IT Director, then that would supersede this 19:34 <+jakedaynes> ! 19:35 <@scshunt> adpaolucci: I don't know of a good comprehensive guide at this point. My personal view is that the Party should be slowing down and trying to consolidate, but there is a careful balance of moving too slowly and moving too quickly 19:35 <+psema4> scshunt: I'll move your recommendation 19:35 <+wasme> scshunt: Um, so in other words 'the EB can't override the GM's decisions.' No need for 'normally'. 19:35 <@scshunt> wasme: Yes. 19:35 <@scshunt> Ok, is there a second for the recommendation? 19:35 <+adpaolucci> I also move your recommendation scshunt. 19:36 <@scshunt> Ok 19:36 <@scshunt> So the question is on the motion that the Executive Board be permitted to rescind the appointments of Ken Hoover, Martin Alix, and Jeremy Howell to the IT Committee. 19:36 <@scshunt> Is there any discussion? 19:36 * voronaam requesting permission to speak 19:36 <@scshunt> voronaam: go ahead, you're signed in 19:37 <+adpaolucci> I have nothing to add to the topic. 19:37 <+voronaam> I don't like moving away from general meeting decisions. If we need to override such a decision, it is not too complicated to get a new meeting 19:37 <+JohannWeiss> Does this mean that they can't get any work done until Monday? 19:37 <+voronaam> I can not imagine a situation when swift IT Committee reorganisation might be necessary. 19:38 <+shep> scshunt, so to be clear, we aren't directing the EB to actually rescind these positions, just giving them the power to should they need it? 19:38 <+voronaam> And that gives enough time for GM in any possible situation. That's all I have to say 19:38 <+jakedaynes> +1 voro 19:38 <@scshunt> Is there anyone else willing to chair so that I can participate more freely here? I don't want to come off as being impartial 19:38 <+JohannWeiss> I rescind my last question, I misunderstood 19:39 <@scshunt> shep: Yes 19:39 <@scshunt> In that case, is there any more discussion? 19:40 <@scshunt> Ok, then we will put the motion to a vote. 19:40 <@scshunt> All those in favour say aye, all opposed say nay. 19:40 <+voronaam> nay 19:40 <+wasme> aye 19:40 <+adpaolucci> aye 19:40 <+jhowell> aye 19:40 <+psema4> aye 19:40 <%RLim> aye 19:40 <+jakedaynes> Nay 19:40 <+drkaboom> aye 19:40 <+shep> aye 19:40 <+brendon195> aye 19:40 <+McGrath> aye 19:40 <+Rintaran> aye 19:40 <+JohannWeiss> aye 19:40 <+CCitizen> aye 19:41 <@scshunt> The ayes have it and the motion is adopted. 19:41 <@scshunt> JohannWeiss: You had a question? 19:41 <+JohannWeiss> Alright, I understand that we're mostly volunteers here, but that is a paid job and it is a reasonably large sum of money. I don't like the whole 'wait and see' approach to finances. So I wanted to know more details on how the EB has dealt with this? 19:42 <+JohannWeiss> Like when was the last communication about the issue made? 19:42 <@scshunt> We last asked Nuitari (Stephane) about it two Mondays ago. 19:42 <+wasme> Finances is a paid job? 19:42 <+JohannWeiss> I thought so, am I wrong? 19:42 <@scshunt> wasme: Yes. Mrs. Bakhos has been paid $400 for the year. 19:43 <@scshunt> The job is important to fulfill our reporting requirements as a political party 19:43 <+wasme> We pay an auditor, but they only look at the books once a year. I wasn't aware we were paying for regular bookwork. 19:43 <+wasme> If the job is a paid one then I expect better reporting then this. 19:44 <+jhowell> It is tax season. I can understand if she has other billable hours 19:44 <+jakedaynes> As do I 19:44 <+wasme> No, no excuses. You accept money you do your job. 19:44 <@scshunt> I agree; we should be finding volunteers willing to do this 19:44 <@scshunt> or if not, people doing the job more quickly 19:44 <@scshunt> and who are easier to contact 19:45 <+JohannWeiss> Yeah, either volunteers or paying someone removed from the party (so that we wouldn't have to worry about hurt feelings if we have to get critical) 19:45 <+wasme> If this was a volunteer position then I could accept a week or 2's delay once in a while (although not all the time). But if she's being paid she needs to do her *job*. 19:45 <@scshunt> Are there any other questions? I think we're getting into discussion here. 19:45 <+Rintaran> As I understand it, Mrs. Bakhos is not doing it beyond this year. 19:45 <+Rintaran> There was an agreement that we have to find someone new anyways. It's a good time to start looking. 19:46 <+JohannWeiss> So can I make a motion to direct the EB to do that or is it already being done? 19:46 <+jakedaynes> Battery dying. Logging out 19:46 <+CCitizen> Perhaps we should put out a general call to the membership to see if we have anyone with accounting experience? 19:47 <@scshunt> JohannWeiss: A motion would be in order, I would think it isn't necessary though. Rintaran is correct; she is not happy to continue the arrangement won't continue beyond the year. 19:47 <%RLim> and it's an important job because we can't afford to make mistakes 19:47 <@scshunt> although you would have to wait until after the reports are done, and we have another important report to deal with 19:47 <%RLim> scshunt so $400 is up to when? 19:47 <@scshunt> RLim: End of this year. 19:47 <@scshunt> (2012) 19:47 < Zeroedout> imho volunteers will get busy from time to time. something as important as finanices should have a guarentee 19:47 <+JohannWeiss> ^agreed 19:48 <@scshunt> Zeroedout: can you please either sign in or ask permission to speak? 19:48 < Zeroedout> my apologies 19:48 <@scshunt> thanks 19:48 <@scshunt> Ok, I don't think there are any more questions, so we will move on to the IT Committee's report. 19:48 <@scshunt> psema4? 19:48 <+JohannWeiss> Is there any possibility of ending it half way through the year? 19:48 <@scshunt> JohannWeiss: We could discuss that with her if we can find an alternative fast enough 19:49 <+wasme> I admit $400/year is cheap, but still, you accept money you make a commitment over and above volunteering. However unfortunately it'll be hard to find another accountant to work for that cheap. 19:49 < XFaCE> Aye! 19:49 < XFaCE> oops, too late 19:49 <+JohannWeiss> It sounds like she doesn't want to do it and it's not getting done in the timespan we'd like. Yes, then I'd like to make a motion to direct the EB to look for an alternative, possibly for the second half of the year. 19:50 <@scshunt> JohannWeiss: As I said, you'll have to wait until we get to new business, after reports. 19:50 <@scshunt> We have an important report from the IT Committee. 19:50 <+JohannWeiss> Alright, I'll do so 19:50 <@scshunt> psema4: Do you have the report? 19:50 <@scshunt> or perhaps jhowell? 19:50 <+jhowell> I have a summary of the meeting from last night 19:51 * psema4 apologies; stepped away for a moment. jhowell's summary is representative of the report 19:52 <+JMcleod> Hey all, just got done working, did I miss anything? 19:52 <@scshunt> JMcleod: I'll tell you by PM 19:52 <+psema4> A motion was passed, to have Jeremy 19:52 <+psema4> Howell (myself) assigned as the IT Director, if it is agreed upon in the 19:53 <+psema4> grr 19:53 <+jhowell> "general meeting" 19:54 <+psema4> First item to report was that the IT committee recommends Jeremy Howell take the position of IT Director, pending the approval of the general membership 19:54 <+psema4> scshunt: we need a motion to proceed to discussion and vote? 19:55 <@scshunt> Yes, you'll move that? 19:55 <@scshunt> The question is on the motion to appoint Jeremy Howell as IT Director. 19:56 <@scshunt> Any debate? 19:56 <+khoover> did the bit about EB overriding GM nominations pass? still busy compiling 19:56 <+Rintaran> Wasn't he just removed from the IT Committee moments ago? 19:57 <+psema4> Rintaran: no 19:57 <@scshunt> khoover: Yes 19:57 <+wasme> Why did we just approve a motion to thave the EB approve appointments to the IT committee and now we're asked to approve appointments to the IT committee? 19:57 <@scshunt> Rintaran: No, and this appointment would be separate and not subject to the previous motion. 19:57 <@scshunt> wasme: This is for the IT Director, which is a year-long appointment made by the GM. The EB can't appoint the director, although it can appoint the rest of the committee. 19:57 <@scshunt> The IT Director is a member of the Board 19:58 <+psema4> wasme: this is a continuation of the process started in january 19:58 <+wasme> This structure makes no sense. 19:58 <+CCitizen> I believe the IT committee's decision is in line with directive from the previous General Meetings. That said if there is any motions in play it should be to delegate oversight of the position to the Executive Board so we dont have another poorly worded motion like the previous where we thought Sean was trying to remove Jeremy from the committee 19:58 <+wasme> Why didn't we know about this before voting to have the EB appoint members to the IT board? Because if the GM has to appoint members of the IT board anyway ... I want a revote on the first motion. 19:59 <@scshunt> wasme: The GM only has to appoint the Director; the Board can appoint the rest of the committee. 19:59 <+wasme> scshunt: That's stupid. 19:59 <@scshunt> But since the members named before were appointed by a previous GM, they could not be removed by the Board. 19:59 <@scshunt> If you wish to move for a reconsideration, then we'll have to do that after this motion is dealt with. 19:59 <@scshunt> I apologize for the confusion. 20:00 <+wasme> scshunt: If the GM has anything at all to do with the IT board then it might as well appoint *all* the members. I thought the whole point of the previous motion was to delegate dealing with the IT board to the EB. 20:00 <+wasme> scshunt: that isn't acceptable. 20:00 <%RLim> wasme, because under the constitution who ever appoints the member is who the member would report to 20:00 <+wasme> scshunt: I cannot vote on this motion until the previous motion is resolved. 20:01 <@scshunt> May I recommend a short recess? 20:01 <+psema4> 15 minutes? 20:01 <@scshunt> so that we can discuss the situation more freely 20:01 <@scshunt> perhaps 10 20:01 <+JohannWeiss> Sure 10 min 20:01 <@scshunt> Is there any objection to a 10 minute recess? 20:02 * psema4 will brb 20:02 <+jhowell> nay 20:02 <+CCitizen> wasme: appointing all members would be bad because to put it bluntly... we'd only be able to put people on or remove them on a monthly schedule unless we have special meetings 20:02 <@scshunt> Seeing none, we'll recess for 10 mintes, feel free to grab some water. 20:02 <%RLim> so by putting them under EB, we don't have to wait for GM to make decisions 20:02 <@scshunt> wasme: The structure as it exists is that the Director is the chair of the committee, and the committee can have as many other members as the GM or EB see fit 20:03 <+wasme> CCitizen: We already hold 'special' GM whenever required, so why would that stick us with a monthly schedule if there was such a dire need to remove/appoint someone? 20:03 <@scshunt> I didn't really make this clear earlier, and I apologize, but the main reason I wanted the EB to have the power is that we don't really yet have a good definition of how many people should actually be on the committee 20:03 <+wasme> scshunt: So, why does the GM have to appoint the director? If your going to delegate do it properly or don't do it at all. 20:03 <@scshunt> wasme: The thinking was because the Director sits on the Board. 20:04 <+wasme> scshunt: Or what board? 20:04 <+wasme> On 20:04 <@scshunt> the Executive Board 20:04 <+wasme> scshunt: Uh, why? 20:04 <@scshunt> As the chair of a standing committee 20:04 <+CCitizen> wasme: It's easier for a body that meets on a weekly schedule to handle things than the GM which meets monthly. That is why we have an EB and PC to handle things 20:04 <+wasme> CCitizen: BUT THEN WHY DOES THE GM HAVE TO APPOINT THE DIRECTOR?! 20:05 <+JMcleod> Because the director is part of the EB. We cant just allow the EB to appoint a friend, that leads to corruption. So the GM must decide on which member becomes part of the EB. 20:05 <+wasme> I've said this over and over and over again 20:05 <%RLim> wasme as a director they get to vote so better that they are appointed by GM than EB 20:05 <+wasme> JMcleod: Then the GM should appoint the entire committee. 20:05 <@scshunt> wasme: As I said, that was the original thinking. You aren't the only one to disagree, but we can't simply change it at this motion because notice is required of that motion. 20:05 <+CCitizen> Looking from what Sean says it's bad idea to have a body appoint it's own members 20:05 <+JohannWeiss> In the constitutional amendments I'm bringing forward tonight, I addressed this specifically 20:05 <+khoover> and the reason the director's on the EB is to keep the EB honest/accountable to the committee 20:05 <@scshunt> JohannWeiss: is planning to give notice of such a motion tonight, I believe 20:05 <+CCitizen> Thats why the EB and PC are elected... 20:05 <+wasme> damnit, you people don't know how to run a meeting 20:06 <+wasme> Give us ALL the relevant information before making motions. 20:06 <+CCitizen> You know what you're right I dont :P thats why I'm not president hehe 20:06 <+JohannWeiss> I've posted it into the forums in two places 20:06 <+wasme> IN THE MEETING! 20:06 <@scshunt> wasme: When we resume, if you would like to go back to the previous motion, you can make a motion to reconsider, but it can't be considered until after the pending motion is dealt with. You could also move to put the pending motion on the table so that you can deal with the other motion. 20:06 <+wasme> scshunt: NO! 20:07 <+wasme> scshunt: You've fucked up the whole meeting. 20:07 <+JMcleod> No. you prepare for meetings. We wont start having 20 hour discussions. 20:07 <@scshunt> wasme: I apologize that you feel this way. I didn't really explain my motion properly; I'm sorry. 20:07 <@JakeDaynes> somebody want to pastebin me what I missed? 20:07 <%RLim> in fairness to wasme, 20:07 <+wasme> scshunt: So the motion is not valid. 20:07 <+JMcleod> This isnt a student association, get on with the program. Its a political party. 20:07 <+wasme> scshunt: withdraw it. 20:07 <@scshunt> wasme: The first motion was validly adopted, the second was validly made. 20:08 <+wasme> scshunt: NO IT ISN'T! You didn't supply all relevant information. 20:08 <@scshunt> You have a right to ask that the first one be revisited, but you can't force that. 20:08 <@JakeDaynes> Somebody pastebin me backchat please. 20:08 <@scshunt> Like, I apologize for the confusion. But it does not make any decision invalid. 20:08 <+wasme> Yes it does. 20:09 <+CCitizen> In any case can we get the Project Development Committee motion done next so we dont have to wait another month for it 20:09 <@scshunt> wasme: When we resume, if you wish, you can make a point of order, and I will rule on it, and you have the right to appeal, but I fear that will be a large waste of time. 20:10 <+wasme> scshunt: So you get to rule that you were right because you get to judge whether or not you were right. 20:10 <@scshunt> wasme: No, because there was a validly-taken vote and a majority agreed. 20:10 <+wasme> scshunt: That's fucked up. You can essentially do anything you want. 20:10 <@scshunt> I'm sorry that there wasn't a lot of understanding and I'm perfectly fine to revisit the motion. 20:10 <+wasme> I demand that scshunt be immediately removed from the position of president. 20:11 <+CCitizen> wasme: he cant do anything he wants 20:11 <@scshunt> wasme: You're welcome to make that motion during the meeting; that's a question of privilege so it /does/ take precedence 20:11 <@scshunt> additionally, you can move to suspend the rules and remove me temporarily 20:11 <+jhowell> may I put a motion to put the current motion on the table so we can revisit the current motion. 20:11 <+jhowell> once we get back from break? 20:11 <@scshunt> yes 20:12 <+JMcleod> Its been 10 mins 20:12 <+jhowell> ok 20:12 <@scshunt> Yes it has 20:12 -scshunt:#canada- The meeting is called back to order. 20:12 <@scshunt> jhowell: You wish to move to lay the question on the table? 20:12 <+CCitizen> Ok so where were we before we stopped? 20:12 <+jhowell> I request the motion to put the current motion on the table, so we can revisit the previous topic. 20:12 <@scshunt> Currently, we are discussing the motion that Jeremy Howell be appointed IT Director. 20:12 <@scshunt> Is there a second to Jeremy's motion? 20:12 <+adpaolucci> I second it. 20:13 <@scshunt> Ok, then we'll proceed to a vote since it's undebateable. If adopted, we put this aside and can take it back by a motion to remove it from the table. 20:13 <@scshunt> All in favor, say aye, all opposed, say nay. 20:13 <+wasme> So can I make my motion now or do I have to wait until you've approved everything? 20:13 <+CCitizen> aye 20:13 <@JakeDaynes> aye 20:13 <%RLim> aye 20:13 <+khoover> aye 20:13 <+wasme> nay 20:13 <+JohannWeiss> aye 20:13 <+JMcleod> nay 20:14 <+jhowell> aye 20:14 <@scshunt> The ayes have it and the motion to appoint Jeremy Howell as IT Director is laid on the table. 20:14 <@scshunt> wasme: You can now move to reconsider the previous motion. 20:14 <+Rintaran> aye 20:14 <+adpaolucci> aye 20:14 <+wasme> I move to remove Sean Hunt as president of the party. 20:14 <@scshunt> Is there a second? 20:14 <@JakeDaynes> I will second this 20:15 * psema4 sigh 20:15 <@scshunt> Ok, the question is on the motion to rescind Sean Hunt's appointment as President. Jack McLeod, as Vice President, will take over presiding during the motion. 20:15 <@JMcleod> Oh hi there :) 20:15 <@JakeDaynes> If I may speak on the motion? 20:16 <@JMcleod> Yes 20:16 <@JMcleod> Go ahead - You have floor for 10 mins 20:16 <@JakeDaynes> As a member of the political council, and as a member of this party, I have a certain obligation to ensure that the party runs as smoothly and efficiently as possible. 20:17 <@JakeDaynes> The new constitution, political and executive boards were supposed to help make this possible. 20:17 <@JakeDaynes> We were supposed to enter the new year, with new faces at the head of the party, and we were supposed to change how things were done to facilitate this efficiency 20:18 <@JakeDaynes> Over the past month and a bit, I, and others, have noted a sudden increase in bureaucracy that has actually become a detriment to the continued functioning of the administrative team. 20:19 <@JakeDaynes> At the head of this bureaucracy, I would point to Sean as a major cause for the Political board to have developed as slowly as it has been. I respect Sean in many ways, but I cannot sit and watch the party drown in unnecessary red tape. 20:20 <@JakeDaynes> It is for this reason that, though I support Sean as a contributing member of the Party, and as somebody I hope will continue to effectively contribute to the party, I cannot support him in a position of leadership such as that which he now holds. 20:20 <@JakeDaynes> Thank you. 20:20 <@JakeDaynes> done. 20:20 <@JMcleod> Alright, anyone else want to speak on this? 20:20 <+wasme> Jake covered much of what I wanted to say. I could re-iterate. 20:21 <+psema4> JakeDaynes: who are the administrative team? 20:21 <@JMcleod> Well its up to you. 20:21 <+wasme> Sean Hunt has been stuck on procedure to the point of being vastly detrimental to the actual functioning of the party. 20:21 <@JakeDaynes> The admin team is what i would consider EB and PC 20:21 <+psema4> k 20:22 <+wasme> I have some respect for the benefits of procedure, but when procedure because to detriment function then procedure, not function, is what needs to give way. 20:22 <+wasme> "procedure begins to" 20:23 <+wasme> I'm also increasingly concerned by the anti-democratic positions he takes on issues. I don't think a political party benefits from have an anti-democrat in a position of power. 20:23 <+wasme> Hunt's views are increasingly at odds with the membership - wanting to water down the Pirate position of radical IP reform and open, transparent government. 20:24 <+wasme> ANd he uses his position as President to push his more moderate agenda into Party documents. 20:24 <+psema4> wasme: can you substantiate? 20:24 <+psema4> (on the watering down comment specifically) 20:24 <+wasme> psema4: If you give me time I can give you log exerpts. But I'd need several minutes to find them. 20:25 <%RLim> just to answer psema's question earlier.the EB and PC can be found here 20:25 <%RLim> http://wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php/Executive_Board 20:25 <+wasme> The clearest example was the submission we were hoping to make to the HoC C-30 committee (but due to time constraints wasn't completed on time. It is my understanding it will be submitted to the Senate committee when it conviens.) 20:26 <%RLim> http://wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php/Political_Council 20:26 <+CCitizen> I dont think that would be necessary the whole digging through logs thing 20:26 <+wasme> The PC itself had a long argument I observed on whether or not a moderate, consilatory document Hunt authored himself should be submitted to the committee with the PPCA name attached. 20:27 <@JakeDaynes> Party Leader Shawn also disagreed with sending the document in question on behalf of the entire party in it's form as Hunt's draft 20:28 <+svulliez> I wanted it to be tied to his name, as he wrote it, and it was his position 20:28 <+scshunt> point of order 20:28 <+scshunt> it is wasme's turn to speak and he should not be interrupted other than for questions 20:28 <@JMcleod> Indeed. 20:28 <@JMcleod> If you want to the floor after wasme, please PM me 20:29 <+wasme> I think I'm more or less done. Although I expect others to dispute my statements, and I reserve the right to defend them if challanged. 20:29 <+svulliez> haha, you guys! 20:29 * svulliez wags finger affectionately 20:29 <@JMcleod> You may have 1 more turn on floor to defend your statements should anyone dispute them. 20:29 <@JMcleod> Does anyone else want the floor? 20:30 <@JMcleod> Ok, Sean Hunt has floor for 10 mins 20:30 <+scshunt> Thank you 20:31 <+scshunt> So, first off, I will address the accusation of being stuck n of being stuck to procedure 20:31 <+scshunt> I value rules and laws 20:31 <+scshunt> Rules and laws are not always perfect 20:31 <+scshunt> But I strongly feel that they should be followed. 20:31 <+scshunt> I disagree with wasme's opinion that if the rules and procedures are hampering action, then they should be ignored. 20:32 <+scshunt> Rather, they should be changed to fit reality. 20:32 <+scshunt> Wewe are a political party that gets rather annoyed if we see the government flaunting its own rules 20:32 <+scshunt> Why should we be any different? 20:33 <+scshunt> Admittedly, some of the rules of my design do not work all that wekl 20:34 <+scshunt> I don't think this is a serious danger to the party 20:34 <+scshunt> we have over 3 years to the next election 20:35 <+scshunt> I would rather that we have an efficient party then that took a little while longer to get going 20:35 <+scshunt> than a less efficient party that got known earlier and stalled 20:35 <+scshunt> As for my conduct earlier in this meeting, which I feel is on trial here even if not directly, I think that my actions were totally appropriate. 20:35 <+scshunt> wasme requested that we simply go back and ignore a validly-adopted decision while we were considering something else 20:36 <+scshunt> While he has a right to ask to reconsider a previous decision, so does the maker of another motion have the right to have his decision considered without interruption 20:36 <+scshunt> Applying the rules prevented the situation from becoming more muddied 20:36 <+scshunt> I do apologize for the confusion with regards to my recommendation 20:36 <+scshunt> In my view, it was simply a routine motion that should be made to smooth things along 20:36 <+scshunt> I did not make this clear, or people did not agree. 20:38 <+scshunt> Things have been getting better lately 20:38 <+scshunt> The EB has started meeting by voice chat and we've been much more efficient 20:38 <+scshunt> That has nothing to do with me, of course 20:38 <+scshunt> but I mean to make the point that we are accelerating and will continue to accelerate 20:39 <+scshunt> trying to move too quickly will be bad for the party. I think it is part of my duty as President to slow us down where it's appropriate. 20:39 <+scshunt> Lastly, to briefly address the comments re: the C-30 brief. 20:39 <+scshunt> My views are not a part of my position of president; I am also on the political council and that is separate 20:39 <+scshunt> But additionally, I didn't not want to push my views through as those of the party 20:39 <+scshunt> it was a misunderstanding, a miscommunication between myself and the rest of the PC, which I hope to clear up 20:40 <+scshunt> and I hope that we can revisit the brief in more detail before it gets submitted to senate 20:40 <+scshunt> done 20:40 <@JMcleod> Ok - JakeDaynes for 10 minutes has the floor. 20:40 <@JakeDaynes> I promise not to take up all 10 minutes, as I'm sure some of you are already boring of this infighting 20:42 <@JakeDaynes> I agree enough with Hunt in regards to changing rules to fit reality - but I believe that when they are becoming a large enough detriment on a specific occasion, that they should be pushed aside when all parties agree to do so, and looked at to change after the occasion has passed 20:43 <@JakeDaynes> Without going through said occasion by pushing past the detrimental rules, how are we to find what to change them to? 20:44 <@JakeDaynes> Another point of contention I have is the bending of rules, such as PC jurisdiction with the website. Due to the ambiguous nature of the PC's mandate - certain issues fall into a grey area, and I think it is up to us as those in leadership roles to take responsibility 20:46 <@JakeDaynes> During the course of our meetings, having Hunt on board with the PC has been a detriment to doing just that. Everything we try to touch that isn't 100% clearly in the PC realm, needs to be pushed to the EB, even if it is not necessarily under their mandate either. 20:46 <+scshunt> May I ask a question? 20:46 <@JakeDaynes> When I took interim leadership so long ago, it was because of red tape and the lack of activity. I'm slowly watching the party move back into that red tape. 20:46 <@JakeDaynes> go ahead 20:46 <+scshunt> How is that related to my functions as President? 20:48 <@JakeDaynes> It is my belief that your rigid adherence to the rules which are detrimental is impeding the party overall. This is proof to me that you should not be in such a position as to be able to deter the party so. 20:48 <@JakeDaynes> also, to go back to wasme, "wasme: I'm also increasingly concerned by the anti-democratic positions he takes on issues. I don't think a political party benefits from have an anti-democrat in a position of power." 20:48 <@JakeDaynes> It relates to using your powers on both sides of the admin team to control the party - in such a way that I believe the majority of members would disagree with 20:49 <@JakeDaynes> It is a conflict of interest for you to manage both sides, and I would like to see that conflict removed. 20:49 <@JakeDaynes> You may want us to start strong and steady, but if you don't give an engine enough fuel, it won't even start. 20:49 <@JakeDaynes> done. 20:51 <@JMcleod> Sean Hunt has floor for a final 10 minutes. 20:51 <+scshunt> I will try to be briefer this time; my connection hopefully won't drop partway through 20:51 <+scshunt> I want to address the notion of anti-democracy 20:51 <+scshunt> since it's been mentioned more than once 20:52 <+scshunt> It's my belief that democracy is a flawed system because it is not mandatory that someone be properly educated on issues before voting. 20:52 <+scshunt> We have systems, such as the central banks, designed to keep certain things away from the people for exactly that reason 20:52 <+scshunt> But in general, it's the system we have, because there's no fair way to decide who's been informed 20:53 <+scshunt> and I resent accusations that I'm an "anti-democrat" in this sense, especially when they are levied by someone who, earlier, asked me to ignore the democratic rule because the decision was made by people who might not have been properly educated on the issue before voting 20:54 <+scshunt> I don't see my presence on both the political council and executive board as a conflict of interest. I haven't gotten along that well with the political council, but I want this to change. I haven't even spoken to most of the political council by phone, and it's really damned hard to solve these issues over IRC 20:54 <+scshunt> but additionally, I have one other thing to say 20:55 <+scshunt> Running this party is a lot of work 20:55 <+scshunt> It's not going to be smooth sailing for anyone 20:56 <+scshunt> I have been and continue to be willing to put in that work, but I'm not interested in causing massive division. I hope that, regardless of how this decision goes, it will be accepted graciously by the losing side. 20:59 <+scshunt> I think that our long term is important, and we should strive to avoid pettiness. I've failedbat that once or twice, but it's a leaening experience. No matter who is in charge, disagreements will happen somewhere, and I do not plan on letting them stop us 20:59 <@JMcleod> OK - Next in line is wasme for a his final 10 minutes 21:00 <+wasme> Not my most important point, but first of all, on the charge that Hunt is anti-democratic I do believe he just made my argument for me. 21:00 <+wasme> Second, I must respond to his direct attack on me. 21:01 <+wasme> Some people *cough* told me during the break that it's my responsibility to research before a meeting. Now that's a really stupid way to look at it. If you want to forward a motion you should present all information on it. As I did with this motion. 21:01 <+wasme> If there are several inter-related motions they should *ALL* be presented before *any* vote is taken. 21:02 <+wasme> If this isn't the way the meeting rules work then the meeting rules are WRONG. 21:02 <+CCitizen> Can I ask a question? 21:02 <+wasme> Saying you can pass anything with incomplete or wrong information is like saying the robocall scheme was a-ok. 21:02 <@JMcleod> If he has time left aft the end of his time on floor and agrees to take your question. 21:02 <+wasme> Ok, done. Ask away. 21:03 <+CCitizen> How do you import an entire thread of discussion onto IRC?... part of the reason we use forums is to shunt some of the discussion like what we are having right now onto the forums so that we can handle more things with the precious little time that we have at meetings like the General Meeting because it only meets for a few hours every month 21:04 <@JakeDaynes> CCitizen: I think you would just link to it if I understand you correctly? 21:05 <+wasme> CCitizen: I don't read the forums unless directed to them. Modren web forums are a really ... less-than-good way to conduct a discussion. One of their biggest problems is there's no proper threading. 21:05 <+jhowell> I don't need 10 mins, but I'd like to just put in a small statement. 21:05 <+jhowell> when we're ready 21:05 <+wasme> CCitizen: You don't even do anything like link to the appropriate threads in the emails about the meeting. All there is is a link to the previous minutes. 21:06 <@JakeDaynes> we* dont 21:06 <@JMcleod> You dont need to take 10 minutes when you have floor, but you are 3rd in line and will get floor for your statement when the time comes :) 21:06 <+jhowell> thx. least i'm in it! 21:06 <+CCitizen> Ok... I suppose that helps but anyways this is taking quite a bit of our precious General Meeting time. That's all I have to say about that. 21:07 <+wasme> Anyway, if CCitizen doesn't have a follow-up question (?) and there's no other qestions I'm done. 21:07 <@JMcleod> Alright then, Shep has floor for 10 minutes 21:07 <+shep> Thanks. 21:07 <+shep> I wanted to add that I personally enjoy seeing the way Sean brings structure and consistency, and by extension, legitmacy, to both our meetings and our party in general. 21:07 <+shep> I can't imagine our meetings or our party being run effectively without the structure he has provided and enforced. 21:07 <+shep> Instead of being a hinderance, as is being suggested by some, I find this structure is the only guarantee that anything actually gets accomplished at all. 21:08 <+shep> Without structure, these meetings would just be noise. Only the loudest voices would be heard, and that isn't right. 21:08 <+shep> With regards to tonight, a member attempted to derail the flow of the meeting. 21:08 <+shep> While I don't doubt that member had the best of intentions in doing so, we can't allow this to happen. 21:08 <+shep> If we allowed this sort of thing to happen "when all parties agree", as has been suggested, that would only lead to chaos. 21:08 <+shep> If, from here on out, every time someone speaks up out of turn and wants to derail the flow of the meeting, does then everyone else have to speak up out of turn and discuss whether or not we are in agreeance? 21:08 <+shep> Having that very discussion disrupts the flow of any meeting, and everyone who objects would be forced to speak up right away. That's no way to run a meeting, especially on IRC. 21:08 <+shep> With respect to tonight's events, Sean rightly laid out the proper way of handling the possible error/infraction, but his advice was not heeded. 21:08 <+shep> If that member objected and could not vote on the current motion as a result, he (and others) could have abstained. 21:09 <+shep> So, in conclusion, I wanted to voice that I support both Sean and his methods. Thank you. 21:09 <@JMcleod> Ok, JohannWeiss now has floor for 10 minutes 21:10 <+JohannWeiss> I just wanted to say that as a member of the PC, what JakeDanes said earlier was accurate IMO. Done 21:11 <@JMcleod> Jhowell now has floor for 10 minutes 21:12 <+jhowell> I'll keep it brief. 21:12 <+jhowell> To form a proper opinion on whether or not Sean is capable of his position, i'd need something more tangible. To vote based on the action's I've had with him, might contradict his views on making uninformed decisions. 21:12 <+jhowell> However, in his defense, I've been talking about the creation of an IT Committee, and offering my help for the party since last October. Ultimately it was Sean that was making communication between the volunteers, when the current Director was unable to live up to his duties 21:12 <+jhowell> Do I think it was an intelligent move to bring up a motion like this at the beginning of the meeting? Probably not. Especially the way it was worded. 21:12 <+jhowell> This little snafu has burned away at least an hour of our personal time, the conversation did not need to escalate to this extent. To talk about someone artifically creating bureaucracy, and in doing so, creating more of a discussion around the topic, is in effect, circlejerking. 21:14 <+jhowell> In conclusion, I will be abstaining from this motion. However from prior actions with Sean, I think he's doing adecent job at keeping things orderly. Thank you 21:14 <@JMcleod> Ok that ends the queue. 21:14 <@JMcleod> If anyone else wants floor, speak up very quickly 21:15 <@JMcleod> Ok then. We will move on to the vote 21:15 <@JMcleod> The vote is on the motion to rescind Sean Hunt's appointment as President. As this is a motion to rescind without notice, it requires 2/3 of the vote. All in favor say 'aye' all opposed say 'nay'. 21:15 <@JakeDaynes> aye 21:15 <+wasme> aye 21:15 <+jhowell> abstain 21:15 <+drkaboom> nay 21:15 <+shep> nay 21:15 <+scshunt> abstain 21:15 abstain 21:15 <+Rintaran> nay 21:15 <+JohannWeiss> aye 21:16 <+adpaolucci> abstain 21:16 <+khoover> nay 21:17 <@JMcleod> Alright then, the nays have it. 21:17 <@JMcleod> Sean, feel free to retake the chair and resume the order of business. 21:18 <+CCitizen> Can we get onto the business of the Project Development Committee now 21:18 <@scshunt> The motion to appoint the IT Director is on the table; does anyone wish to take it from the table or make a different motion? 21:18 <@scshunt> CCitizen: you have the floor 21:19 <+CCitizen> I thought we voted on the IT Director portion already? 21:19 <@scshunt> No, we laid it on the table. 21:19 <@scshunt> A motion is needed to resume consideration. 21:19 <+CCitizen> That said... the details are located on the PiratePad at the moment... Anything that isnt in strike out is the motion: http://piratepad.ca/ISvd8sr10b 21:19 <@JakeDaynes> I move to resume considerations 21:19 <@scshunt> JakeDaynes: CCitizen has the floor so his motion will be considered 21:20 <@scshunt> Is there a second for CCitizen's motion? 21:20 <+JohannWeiss> seconded 21:20 <+CCitizen> Since I'm assuming everyone got notice of this preemptively we can skip ahead to voting if noone objects? 21:20 <+JMcleod> lemme read! 21:20 <@scshunt> Ok, the question is on the motion in the pad at http://piratepad.ca/ep/pad/view/ISvd8sr10b/sfIYKPxrb0 to adopt a new special rule of order and issue a direction to the Executive Board 21:21 <+CCitizen> Alright short form is it'll create a Standing Committee to handle project development like CaPT, VPN, EncryptEverything.ca and PirateBoxes. 21:22 <+JMcleod> Looks like it didnt change since last time I read it :P 21:23 <+CCitizen> Nope... I just strike-throughed all the old thought process before Sean helped write that out for me... So people can see my thought process too a bit most of the stuff with no authorship codes on it is mine 21:23 <@scshunt> Are you ready for the question? 21:24 <+CCitizen> Sure if there are any questions 21:24 <+Rintaran> I'm good to go straight to vote. It looks a lot like a proposal that we were trying to work before but were unable to implement in our old structure, but should be properly doable in the new one. 21:25 <@scshunt> Ok, in that case the question is on the motion in the pad. This motion requires a two-thirds vote and as a substantive motion, requires a half of quorum and so eight votes. 21:25 <@scshunt> All those in favour, say aye, all opposed, say nay 21:25 <+JMcleod> aye 21:25 <+CCitizen> aye 21:25 <+JohannWeiss> aye 21:25 <@JakeDaynes> aye 21:25 <+drkaboom> aye 21:26 <+LynnB> aye 21:26 <+adpaolucci> aye 21:26 <+khoover> aye 21:26 <%RLim> aye 21:27 <@scshunt> The ayes have it and the motion is adopted. 21:27 <@scshunt> Does anyone have furthre business. 21:27 <+JMcleod> Given that it is clear that some people do not like forums and/or find them confusing. 21:27 <+JMcleod> Given that not everyone has the time to move about such forums. 21:27 <+JMcleod> I move that the GM impose on both the EB and the PC to find a new, more modern, means of communication for the members of the party to write up motions intended for the General Meetings. 21:27 <+Rintaran> aye 21:27 <@JakeDaynes> seconded 21:28 <@scshunt> Ok, the question is on the motion by JMcloed. Is there any discussion? 21:28 <+psema4> please 21:28 <+JMcleod> Actually, its McLeod :) 21:28 <+JMcleod> e before o - just like in the alphabet 21:29 <@scshunt> Sorry 21:29 <@scshunt> I keep doing that 21:29 <+JohannWeiss> Can I ask a question of Mcleod 21:30 <+JMcleod> sure 21:31 <+JohannWeiss> Do you have any specific issues with the forums? I want to come up with better solutions, but I don't know what the specific issues are so we may change to something with the same problems. 21:31 <+wasme> May I suggest that simply listing the motions on the announcement email would be nice? This Project Development Committee was listed on the past one, which was nice. 21:31 <+wasme> If the meeting agenda isn't ready when the email is sent out at least include a link to the to-be-updated agenda. Maybe a dedicated meeting agenda page on the website? 21:32 <+JohannWeiss> ^ A piratepad could work pretty well for that (would need some admin things setup for it 21:32 <+JohannWeiss> ) 21:32 <+JMcleod> I dont always have the time to flirt through ALL threads. wasme earlier mentioned he hated them, he is not the first to voice such an opinion. So we need a more effective manner to communicate, that is what is obvious to me. 21:32 <%RLim> I'll try to link to the announcement thread since that's where people can post additional agenda 21:32 <+CCitizen> wasme: Thats because creating a standing committee requires notice and 2/3rds vote. Thus it had to be in the email. Although I agree a general agenda might be a good thing to adopt. 21:33 <%RLim> generally we want to have the agenda before the meeting. So everyone is encouraged to put the agenda in the announcement thread 21:33 <%RLim> or e-mail me 21:33 <+psema4> I advocate for rollowing our own such that it encompasses our various means of communications into one system 21:33 <%RLim> or Sean 21:34 <+JohannWeiss> I agree, but I prefer forums to IRC. I'm having trouble figuring out what would make us all happy. I'd say I prefer the piratepad to all of them above. How do I decide which to use though? 21:34 <+psema4> you don't. the communication system collects input from them all 21:35 <+CCitizen> Really... I think the best way for setting an agenda would be mailing Ric or starting a post for the next GM's agenda following the meeting 21:35 <%RLim> But I have concern linking to piratepad in my minutes. Example, CCitizen motion. After a while would piratepad link still works. What is the retention 21:35 <+psema4> the real problem we're facing in IT is a manpower shortage 21:35 <+JMcleod> Johann, we need a common one, obviously, next step of that whole plan, to have it be a part of the front page, and since Shawn advocates a site redesign, I think it should be taken into consideration. 21:35 <@JakeDaynes> I have already recommended LiquidFeedback like the Piraten user 21:35 <@JakeDaynes> use* 21:35 <+wasme> Well, my issue was being told that it's up to me to do research on motions before coming to a meeting. I think that's unresonable, *especially* when there's no meeting agenda anywhere. At least not that I've seen. Maybe you put one on the forums, but then at least *tell people about it*. 21:36 <+JMcleod> Well, before each meeting I go through forums to see what will be discussed, as I say, it is not effecient. I just expect everyone to take this as seriously as me :-) 21:37 <%RLim> what about I link to the announcement and make sure that meetin'gs announcement thread is up before I sent out the e-mail. would that be sufficient? 21:37 <+JohannWeiss> See I'm hearing a lot of different ideas and I don't know what's best. I'm fine with looking into it as the PC 21:37 <+wasme> RLim: That would at least be an improvement. 21:38 <+JMcleod> Well, the exact method is not the point of the motion, thats why I motioned to have it differed to the EB & PC 21:38 <+JMcleod> But it obviously has to change. 21:39 <+wasme> There's really no perfect solution here ... well, [Google] Wave would have been awesome for something like an evolving meeting agenda, but asking the IT people to set up a Wave server when they're already overworked ... 21:39 <+CCitizen> wasme: perhaps  you should make a motion adopting a general agenda that goes out with the notice... though some things get springed in a meeting like trying to vote out the president or giving the EB the power to remove some committee members 21:40 <+JohannWeiss> JMcleod: Agreed. I've got no further discussion 21:40 <+CCitizen> If such happens those would get put to the back of the agenda 21:40 <+wasme> CCitizen: Well, obviously you can't account for member-motions, but then you can hardly expect people to 'research ahead' such things anyway. 21:40 <@scshunt> Are you ready for the question? 21:40 <+JohannWeiss> yes 21:41 <@scshunt> The question is on the motion that the GM impose on both the EB and the PC to find a new, more modern, means of communication for the members of the party to write up motions intended for the General Meetings 21:41 <@scshunt> All in favor say aye, all opposed say nay. 21:41 <+JMcleod> aye 21:41 <+JohannWeiss> aye 21:41 <@JakeDaynes> aye 21:41 <+LynnB> aye 21:41 <+psema4> aye 21:41 <+wasme> aye 21:42 <+CCitizen> aye, although I still think It would be better to get the IT Committee to look at options and recommend 21:42 <+drkaboom> aye 21:42 <+wasme> CCitizen: Well, the EB and PC could always decide to ask the IT committee to do just that ... 21:42 <@scshunt> The ayes have it and the motion is adopted. 21:42 <+JohannWeiss> CCitizen: I'll be communicating with them when possible 21:42 <%RLim> aye 21:43 <@scshunt> drkaboom, JohannWeiss: Before we proceed further, I believe you each had notices of motions you'd like to give? 21:43 <+JMcleod> The IT committee is a branch of the EB technically 21:43 <+JohannWeiss> Yes, but I thought we were going to deal with the IT head thing first 21:43 <+drkaboom> yes 21:43 <@scshunt> drkaboom: go ahead 21:44 <@scshunt> drkaboom: ? 21:45 <+JohannWeiss> Notice of Motion: I have a series of constitutional amendments I will be bringing to the next GM. They can be found here ( https://www.pirateparty.ca/forum/index.php?topic=1972.0 ) 21:45 <+JohannWeiss> There's descriptions for all of them in a reply I wrote 21:45 <@scshunt> Thank you 21:46 <@scshunt> drkaboom doesn't appear to be answering, and I don't think his notice needs to be given at this meeting, unlike that for a constitutional amendment, so is there someone wishing to move to take the motion from the table? 21:46 <+JohannWeiss> I just wanted to also say that if any one else has any other amendments they want to discuss with myself and the committee that's been working on it, feel free to contact me. We're still working on possibly more if necessary 21:47 <@scshunt> Uh, anyone? 21:47 <+JMcleod> I move to take motion from the table 21:47 <+JohannWeiss> I'd like to put the motion back on the table that we vote on an IT head 21:47 <@scshunt> Ok, that's the motion. 21:48 <@scshunt> The question is on the motion to take the motion regarding the appointment of an IT Director from the table and resume consideration. All in favor, say aye, all opposed, say nay. 21:48 <+drkaboom> I'd like the members to support my candidacy for the riding of nepean-carleton in the nexst election. 21:48 <+drkaboom> A nomination would be nice. 21:48 <+drkaboom> David Ascroft 21:48 <+drkaboom> sorry - what was the query? 21:48 <+psema4> aye 21:49 <+JohannWeiss> aye 21:49 <+drkaboom> aye 21:49 <+LynnB> aye 21:49 <+JMcleod> aye 21:49 <+CCitizen> is this on the nomination? 21:49 <@scshunt> CCitizen: This is on resuming consideration 21:49 <@JakeDaynes> aye 21:50 <+wasme> If I read this correcting it's a vote on whether or not to vote on the IT director. 21:50 <+CCitizen> on the IT Director? 21:50 <+CCitizen> aye 21:50 <+JohannWeiss> ^yes 21:50 <+wasme> not in the IT director, but whether or not to vote on the it director 21:50 <+wasme> might as well get it over with: aye 21:50 <@scshunt> Ok, the ayes have it 21:50 <@scshunt> Resuming consideration of the motion to appoint Jeremy Howell as IT Director. 21:50 <@scshunt> Is there any discussion on the motion? 21:51 <+JohannWeiss> I move to a vote 21:51 <+JMcleod> second 21:51 <@scshunt> Ok, JohannWeiss has moved the previous question. 21:51 <@scshunt> This is a motion to immediately end debate and proceed to a vote. 21:51 <@scshunt> It's undebateable and requires a two-thirds vote. 21:51 <+wasme> abstain 21:52 <+JohannWeiss> aye 21:52 <@JakeDaynes> aye 21:52 <@scshunt> You are not voting on the motion to appoint yet. All those in favor of immediately going to vote on the motion to appoint after this vote, say aye. All who are opposed and wish to continue debate, say nay. 21:52 <+JMcleod> aye 21:52 <+CCitizen> aye 21:52 <+JMcleod> aye 21:52 fuck me we're voting on whether to vote 21:52 <+LynnB> aye 21:52 <+drkaboom> aye 21:52 <+jhowell> aye 21:52 <@scshunt> Ok, the ayes have it and the motion is adopted. 21:53 <@scshunt> The question is now on the motion to appoint Jeremy Howell as IT Director. All in favor say aye, all opposed say nay. 21:53 <+JohannWeiss> aye 21:53 <+CCitizen> aye 21:53 <+JMcleod> aye 21:53 <+LynnB> aye 21:53 <@JakeDaynes> aye 21:53 <%RLim> aye 21:53 <+wasme> nay 21:53 <+jhowell> abstain 21:53 <+khoover> aye 21:53 <+drkaboom> aye 21:54 <@scshunt> The ayes have it and the motion is adopted. 21:54 <+JMcleod> Point of order: Do we still have Quorum? 21:54 <@scshunt> Yes, there are 15 members present. 21:55 <@scshunt> drkaboom: You wished to give notice now? 21:56 <+drkaboom> yes if i could 21:56 <@scshunt> go ahead 21:57 <+drkaboom> I'd like to give notice that I intend to run in the riding of nepean-carleton with the support of the PP. 21:58 <+CCitizen> Can I make a suggestion or speak? 21:58 <@scshunt> Ok, that motion can be considered at the next GM 21:58 <+JMcleod> Is there a by-election there? 21:58 <+khoover> there a byelection there or something? 21:58 <@scshunt> CCitizen: what on? 21:58 <@scshunt> drkaboom is giving notice for the next GM 21:58 <+drkaboom> no - I just want my name up on the web page. the conservatives are already campagning. 21:58 <+CCitizen> I was going to mention he doesnt need to have the General Meeting appoint him as a candidate and that the Political Council can do that I believe. 21:58 <+drkaboom> thank you sean. 21:58 <@scshunt> CCitizen: The PC can do that only when an election is occurring 21:59 <@scshunt> JohannWeiss had a motion, I believe? 21:59 <+CCitizen> Ah well in that case I'm wrong ... It's probably one of those Robocall hit ridings 21:59 <+JohannWeiss> Motion: That the EB be directed to seek an alternative book keeper, possibly to replace our current one for the second half of the year. 21:59 <+JMcleod> Yeah if they are campaigning, (the PCC - federal party) then they are actually going against the law. 22:00 <+drkaboom> it seems to be a grey area. 22:00 <@scshunt> Is there a second for that motion? 22:00 <%RLim> i'll second it 22:00 <@scshunt> Ok 22:00 <@scshunt> The question is on the motion that the EB be directed to seek an alternative book keeper, possibly to replace our current one for the second half of the year 22:00 <@scshunt> Are you ready for the question? 22:00 <+JMcleod> What is a book keeper? 22:01 <+JohannWeiss> They take care of the financies 22:01 <@JakeDaynes> essentially the person that takes care of our finances (balances the books etc) 22:01 <+khoover> see accountant 22:01 <+CCitizen> Since we've already had some discussion on this topic earlier can we move on to the voting? I dont see this being something controversial 22:02 <@scshunt> Is there any other discussion? 22:02 <@scshunt> Ok, then the question is on the motion I just stated. All in favor say aye, all opposed say nay. 22:02 <+JohannWeiss> aye 22:02 <+CCitizen> aye 22:02 <+LynnB> aye 22:02 <@JakeDaynes> aye 22:02 <+jhowell> aye 22:02 <+wasme> aye 22:02 <%RLim> aye 22:02 <+psema4> aye 22:03 <+drkaboom> aye 22:04 <@scshunt> The ayes have it and the motion is adopted. 22:04 <@scshunt> Is there any further business? 22:04 <+CCitizen> Yes 22:04 <%RLim> aren't there two candidates 22:04 <%RLim> ? 22:04 <+drkaboom> yes 22:04 <+CCitizen> shawn gray wanted me to make a motion for him... I move that Robert McGrath be affirmed as Pirate Party of Canada candidate for Ottawa-Orleans. 22:04 <%RLim> btw drkaboom what's your real name? 22:05 <@scshunt> CCitizen: That motion is out of order as it requires notice. 22:05 <+drkaboom> david ascroft 22:05 <+JohannWeiss> Make notice instead then, there's no hurry\ 22:05 <@scshunt> CCitizen: Can we take this as notice for the next meeting? 22:05 <+CCitizen> Yeah consider it notice then... 22:05 <@scshunt> Ok. 22:05 <+drkaboom> for myself as well for nepean-carleton 22:06 <@scshunt> Is there any further business? 22:06 <+CCitizen> Also one last motion Shawn Gray asked me to make 22:06 <+drkaboom> may I speak on this? 22:06 <@scshunt> drkaboom: There's nothing to speak to at this point. 22:06 <+CCitizen> and I agree with it 22:06 <+drkaboom> it was related. 22:06 <+drkaboom> but can wait. 22:06 <+CCitizen> I move that a special rule be put in place forbidding the Pirate Party of Canada, or anyone working on their behalf, from using automated calls, or robocalls. 22:07 <+JohannWeiss> seconded 22:07 <+JohannWeiss> wait does that need a second? 22:07 <@scshunt> It does, but I do have a question 22:07 <@scshunt> Is that intended just to be a general rule of the party? 22:07 <@scshunt> or is the 'special' supposed to mean something else? 22:07 <@scshunt> a special rule of order is a rule governing the conduct of business at meetings and committees; this would not be one 22:08 <+JohannWeiss> so it would just be a rule 22:08 <+JohannWeiss> ? 22:08 <@scshunt> standing rule is the preferred term, I think 22:08 <@scshunt> yeah 22:08 <@scshunt> just trying to clarify 22:08 <@scshunt> (they require a different standard for their adoption) 22:08 <+CCitizen> I'm uncertain... thats the wording he used... I think the idea is that we shouldnt just use recorded messages. If we call someone there should be a human being on the line to talk to not a recorded voice message 22:08 <@scshunt> That sounds like a standing rule then. 22:08 <@scshunt> I'll take it as a motion for a standing rule? 22:08 <@JakeDaynes> yes 22:08 <+jhowell> we should probably include automation of unsolicited email in that rule 22:08 <+CCitizen> Ok that works 22:09 <@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. 22:09 <@JakeDaynes> seconded 22:09 <@scshunt> Are you ready for the question? 22:09 <+wasme> Can we discuss this a bit? 22:10 <+JMcleod> The problem with the robocalls was the message, not the calls themselves. Just an FYI 22:10 <@scshunt> go ahead 22:10 <@scshunt> wasme has the floor 22:10 <@scshunt> ln 4 22:10 <@scshunt> oops, sorry 22:11 <+wasme> We could either say, 'Well, this can be a useful tool, blah blah blah', and thus we should vote 'nay' to this motion, but I'm going to go the other way and suggest we should generalize the motion more 22:11 <+wasme> And rule out the use of *any* unsolicited messages - phone calls, faxes, email, ... and ... uh ... whatever other sorts of communication channels there are. 22:12 <%RLim> define unsolicited 22:12 <+psema4> indeed 22:12 <%RLim> would meeting notice be unsolicited? 22:12 <+wasme> (Of course 'unsolicited' is a key term there. If people sign up to emailing or telephone lists then, well, it's solicited.) 22:12 <@JakeDaynes> I would prefer some discussion on the forums so that people that could not stay the whole meeting etc could get some input 22:12 <+jhowell> unsolicited is the situation where we are communicating with people without them opting in out of their own free will 22:12 <%RLim> if they sign up for membership? 22:13 <@JakeDaynes> RLim: that is soliciting, they have sought us out 22:13 <+CCitizen> I find that most Canadians are annoyed when they pick up the phone and find a recording on the other end... We should strive to be better than the other political parties and have a live human being on the other end if we actually do some sort of telephone campaigning 22:13 <+wasme> RLim: No, because people have signed up for the party. And I assume we have an easy way for people to remove themselves from our mailing lists. 22:13 <+psema4> one form of communication is going door to door 22:13 <+jhowell> signing up for membership, is opting in (but ethically we should have a checkbox giving them the ability to opt out of mailing) 22:13 <+jhowell> and phone# a non-required field 22:13 <+CCitizen> A recording cant answer questions people may have after all 22:13 <@JakeDaynes> I move to postpone the motion in order to allow further discussion 22:14 <+JMcleod> Seconded 22:14 <@scshunt> JakeDaynes: Until when. The next GM? 22:14 <%RLim> I'd proposed at EB to have opt-in but that's for news and volunteer opportunity and such. General announcement and meeting notice will still be sent to everyone 22:14 <@JakeDaynes> sorry - lagged 22:14 <@JakeDaynes> until the next GM 22:14 <@scshunt> ok 22:15 <@scshunt> It has been moved and seconded to postpone the question until the next GM. This motion is debateable and requires a majority vote to adopt. The question is on the motion to postpone. Any discussion? 22:15 <+wasme> Well, maybe we could modify it to specify 'mass communication' or 'automated communication', so still allowing for door-to-door election campaiging. 22:15 <@scshunt> Please limit debate specifically do the matter of postponemtn. 22:15 <@scshunt> *postponement 22:15 <+wasme> oh, sorry. 22:15 <@scshunt> no worries 22:15 <@scshunt> forgot to put that in my spiel 22:16 <+CCitizen> I presume the debate would be moved to the Forums until the next general meeting? 22:16 <@JakeDaynes> correct 22:16 <+CCitizen> I can handle that... it's certainly something we should probably discuss a bit more as a whole party 22:16 <+JohannWeiss> Since we're kinda stuck on the forums for this long term discussion, anyone who prefers IRC could pop into the forum to suggest an IRC meeting time for discussion before the next GM 22:16 <@JakeDaynes> yeah 22:18 <@scshunt> Is there any further discussion on the motion to postpone? 22:18 <+JohannWeiss> no 22:18 <@scshunt> The question is on the motion to postpone the main question until the next general meeting. 22:19 <@scshunt> All in favor say aye, all opposed say nay. 22:19 <%RLim> aye 22:19 <+wasme> aye 22:19 <+drkaboom> aye 22:19 <+CCitizen> aye 22:19 <+JohannWeiss> aye 22:19 <+LynnB> aye 22:19 <@JakeDaynes> aye 22:20 <@scshunt> The ayes have it and the question is postponed. 22:20 <@scshunt> Is there any further business? 22:21 <+JMcleod> I move to adjourn the meeting. 22:21 <@JakeDaynes> seconded 22:21 <+CCitizen> yes but if someone else has anything 22:21 <@JakeDaynes> fuck, seconded already 22:21 <@JakeDaynes> lol 22:21 <+JMcleod> I wish to withdraw my motion :) 22:21 <@JakeDaynes> :( 22:22 <@scshunt> I haven't stated it so the motion is withdrawn 22:22 <+JMcleod> CCitizen has something so lets hear it 22:22 <+CCitizen> Alright 22:22 <@scshunt> any further business? 22:22 <+CCitizen> I propose that we promote Operation Encrypt Everything (www.encrypteverything.ca) on our webpage. As well I would recommend that we as a party move away from promoting Facebook and Twitter on our site and instead promote alternatives of Diaspora and Identi.ca 22:22 <+jhowell> oh you 22:23 <+psema4> lol 22:23 <+JMcleod> Those are 2 distinct motions 22:23 <+CCitizen> Ok well split them up into two parts then 22:23 <+JohannWeiss> I second the first motion 22:24 <@scshunt> You can move them as one if you'd like, although really "I would recommend" does not much of a motion make 22:24 <@JakeDaynes> aye to the first motion - making prorogue-ys 22:24 <@scshunt> Do you want to move them as one motion or separately? 22:24 <+CCitizen> I'll move them all separately to make things quicker I guess 22:24 <@scshunt> Ok. 22:25 <@scshunt> So the question is on the motion that we promote Operation Encrypt Everything (www.encrypteverything.ca) on our webpage. 22:25 <+CCitizen> Facebook and Twitter and Youtube (for video.ca as an alternative... had to go look that one up) 22:25 <@scshunt> I would like to debate this motion, so I'll hand the chair to Jack if he does not mind 22:25 <+CCitizen> so technically 4 small ones 22:26 <@scshunt> JMcleod: may I pass the chair to you? 22:26 <+JMcleod> Wait - Can CCitizen confirm that this is the motion he wants to move 22:26 <@scshunt> CCitizen: is it? 22:26 <+CCitizen> yes I want to promote encrypteverything.ca's work on our website 22:26 <+JMcleod> ok gimme chair :) 22:27 <@JMcleod> Ok so scshunt wishes to discuss this motion, therefor, he has floor first for 10 minutes. 22:27 <+scshunt> Ok. 22:27 <+scshunt> I have to state my strong opposition to this motion. 22:28 <+scshunt> It is not that I do not support the notion of the encrypt everything project, but that I do not think that we should be directly endorsing it, at least in its current form. 22:28 <+scshunt> I hope that everyone has the page up and is reading through it. 22:28 <+scshunt> The text on the front page is rather anti-establishment. 22:29 <+scshunt> I do not think that we want to be sending an "us vs. them" message as a political party. 22:29 <+scshunt> Especially given that we aspire to be them. 22:30 <+scshunt> I think that the idea of creating a campaign to help educate people on privacy is good 22:30 <+scshunt> but that is not what the site currently embodies 22:30 <+scshunt> If we want to be elected, we want people to look at us and say "I trust these people in charge of the nation" 22:31 <+scshunt> and quite frankly, I wouldn't feel that comfortable voting for someone supporting the site as it currently exists 22:31 <+scshunt> although it's gotten better over the last few days. 22:31 <+scshunt> done 22:31 <+scshunt> (unless anyone has questions) 22:31 <+CCitizen> Can I speak now? 22:31 <@JMcleod> Hold on. 22:32 <@JMcleod> I only count 14 members present, is Nuitari logged in? 22:32 <+scshunt> JakeDaynes is 22:32 <+psema4> names 22:32 <+scshunt> drkaboom coming back just gave us quorum again 22:32 <+psema4> sorry 22:32 <@JMcleod> ok then, CCitizen, go ahead for 10 minutes 22:33 <+CCitizen> The encrypt everything project is designed to educate and teach people to protect their own digital privacy. Yes there are a few members working on that project who are a bit anti-establishment but the fact remains is with legislation working its way through the government like C-30 we cant afford to stand still on this issue. 22:35 <+CCitizen> People need to protect themselves and only a government who is comfortable with their citizens having privacy should be one that is considered fit to rule. The existing parties generally are all for the invasion of privacy as long as it makes their corporate supporters a quick buck. What we need to do is make people wake up and realize how much they give away and how little companies actually value their privacy. 22:35 <+CCitizen> It's been said that people consider privacy to be worth about $0.65... in terms of whether they buy something or not... We need to try and change the public perception of that. End. 22:36 <%RLim> I want to make a quick comment 22:37 <@JMcleod> JohannWeiss is next - 10 minutes 22:38 <+JohannWeiss> My 2 cents: It's not going to tarnish our image to link to a page that helps people learn about encryption. This isn't us funding the page or even advertising it much, it's a link. 22:38 <+JohannWeiss> end 22:38 <@JMcleod> OK - RLim for 10 minutes 22:40 <@JMcleod> RLim with us? 22:41 <%RLim> yes 22:41 <%RLim> Just want to comment on Sean's statement that we aspire to be 22:41 <%RLim>               them. It's true that we aspire to be in government but certainly 22:41 <%RLim>              not secretive and surveillance hungry government. I think the 22:41 <%RLim>              encrypteverything works best along side promotion against C30 and 22:41 <%RLim>              increasing privacy violation by corporations 22:42 <%RLim> So I support linking that in our front page. 22:42 <%RLim> Privacy and open government is part of our platform 22:42 <%RLim> hope it's legible :P 22:43 <@JMcleod> It is, done? 22:43 <%RLim> done 22:43 <@JMcleod> Alright, scshunt for 10 minutes 22:44 <+scshunt> While I do think there is a place for a campaign explaining to people in reasoned terms what simple steps they can take to encrypt their data and keep it safe, this is not it. 22:44 <+scshunt> It could focus on such things as why encryption can be valuable---such as losing data to other people, having exes get access to your stuff, identity theft, and the like. 22:44 <+scshunt> That's not what this site is right now. Right now it's a tinfoil hat site. 22:45 <+scshunt> and there is very little actual reasoning backing it up 22:45 <+scshunt> that is the big issue I have with it, I guess. 22:45 <+scshunt> I like reasoning 22:45 <+scshunt> I don't think the site has enough of it for a political party to be linking to 22:46 <+scshunt> at least, not yet. 22:46 <+scshunt> That's about all I have to say, but I do have one technical amendment 22:46 <+JohannWeiss> Not wanting to interrupt, but wish to point out that if we don't vote soon we may lose quorum. 22:47 <@JakeDaynes> Yeah - the only reason I'm still here is quorum, I worked 3 9-5 shifts in 36 hours 22:47 <@JakeDaynes> I'm bagged 22:47 <+scshunt> I don't want this decision to be permanent, which one could read the motion as being, so I'd like to move that the motion be amended by adding "in the next month". I don't intend to have the link taken off after the month, but in case we do a redesign or something, I don't think we should still be stuck having this link on with only a GM able to take it off. 22:47 <@JMcleod> Thanks for staying with us then Jake :) 22:47 <@JakeDaynes> 9-5pm, 9-5am, 9-5pm <— not fun 22:47 <@JakeDaynes> yeah, no worries 22:48 <+scshunt> So I'm going to move that motion and be done. 22:48 <%RLim> by next month C30 and other will be history 22:49 <+CCitizen> Ok after this I'll move the other thing in one clump to speed things up 22:49 <@JMcleod> Ok, scshunt has moved that the motion be amended by adding "in the next month". If amended, the motion will read that we promote Operation Encrypt Everything (www.encrypteverything.ca) on our webpage in the next month. (Sean, do you mean, for the next month instead of in) 22:49 <+scshunt> ah, yes, go with for 22:49 <+scshunt> the motion doesn't have a second yet, so I'll amend it to say "for the next month" and ask for a second 22:50 <+drkaboom> seconded 22:50 <@JMcleod> ok 22:50 <@JMcleod> So the question is on amending the motion by appending "for the next month" 22:51 <@JMcleod> To speed things up, I would prefer if we moved on to a vote, but if anyone wishes to discuss this, please say so fast :P 22:52 <@JMcleod> So the question is on amending the motion by appending "for the next month". This motion requires a majority. All in favor say 'aye' all opposed say 'nay'. 22:52 <+drkaboom> aye 22:52 <%RLim> nay 22:52 <@JakeDaynes> nay 22:52 <+CCitizen> nay 22:52 <+JohannWeiss> nay 22:52 <+LynnB> nay 22:53 <@JMcleod> The nays have it, the motion is defeated 22:53 <@JMcleod> We are now back to the original motion 22:53 <+CCitizen> Can I make an amendment or something though... I would like to delegate it in such a fashion that if the IT Committee does a site redesign their hands are not tied 22:53 <@JMcleod> Yes you may. 22:54 <@JMcleod> The current motion reads: that we promote Operation Encrypt Everything (www.encrypteverything.ca) on our webpage. 22:54 <@JakeDaynes> "I move to amend the motion to be: We will promote EncryptEverything on our website to the best of the IT committee's capabilities pending the site re-design" ? 22:54 <+CCitizen> Amendment: If the IT Committee redesigns the site they are delegated the power to remove or move the link as they see fit. 22:55 <+JohannWeiss> second CCitizen 22:55 <@JMcleod> Ok then 22:55 <+JohannWeiss> move to a vote 22:55 <@JakeDaynes> aye 22:55 <@JMcleod> lol hold on 22:55 <%RLim> aye 22:55 <+scshunt> I move the previous queastion on all pending motions 22:56 <@JakeDaynes> lol… sleee~p! 22:56 <+CCitizen> lets get to voting we got one more motion after this 22:57 <@JMcleod> ok - vote on appending If the IT Committee redesigns the site they are delegated the power to remove or move the link as they see fit. All in favor say aye, all against say nay. Req. majority 22:57 jfhkjh' 22:57 <%RLim> aye 22:57 <+CCitizen> aye 22:57 <+jhowell> aye 22:57 <+JohannWeiss> aye 22:57 <+LynnB> aye 22:57 <@JakeDaynes> aye 22:58 <+scshunt> aye 22:58 <@JMcleod> Ayes have it. 22:58 <%RLim> is that a majority? 22:58 <+jhowell> i believe if we really REALLY wanted to, we could probably get around that by simply commenting it out. It'dtechnically still be there afterall. :) 22:58 <+drkaboom> aye 22:58 <+CCitizen> Alright I'll redo the last one in one bulk motion 22:59 <@JMcleod> So the question is on the motion that we promote Operation Encrypt Everything (www.encrypteverything.ca) on our webpage. If the IT Committee redesigns the site they are delegated the power to remove or move the link as they see fit. 22:59 <+JohannWeiss> move to a vote 22:59 <+CCitizen> Can we skip to voting we already had the debate? 22:59 <%RLim> yeah 22:59 <@JakeDaynes> aye 22:59 <%RLim> aye 22:59 <+wasme> aye 22:59 <+CCitizen> aye 22:59 <@JMcleod> So the question is on the motion that we promote Operation Encrypt Everything (www.encrypteverything.ca) on our webpage. If the IT Committee redesigns the site they are delegated the power to remove or move the link as they see fit. This motion requires a majority. All in favor say 'aye' all opposed say 'nay'. 23:00 <+scshunt> nay 23:00 <+JohannWeiss> aye 23:00 <+CCitizen> aye 23:00 <%RLim> aye 23:00 <+LynnB> aye 23:00 <@JMcleod> (anyone who voted above my statement will not be counted) 23:00 <+jhowell> nay 23:00 <%RLim> @jakedaynes wasme ccitizen 23:01 <@JakeDaynes> aye 23:01 <+adpaolucci> aye 23:01 <+CCitizen> i did mine twice 23:01 <+CCitizen> aye 23:01 <+wasme> aye 23:01 <+drkaboom> aye 23:01 <@JMcleod> Ok ayes have it. Motion is adopted 23:01 <@JMcleod> Any other business? 23:01 <+CCitizen> yes 23:01 <@JMcleod> Or wait 23:01 <+CCitizen> One last one... 23:01 <+CCitizen> I move that we promote more free or open source networks and video hosting services. Instead of promoting Facebook, Twitter and Youtube on our front page we should instead promote Diaspora, Identi.ca and video.ca. This is not meant as a restriction on the party from using those platforms to drive people to our website but as a restriction on us driving people to those websites which have been known to invade personal privacy. 23:01 <@JMcleod> Sean, take chair back :) 23:02 <+jhowell> why not promote everything or nothing 23:02 <@scshunt> Please don't discuss the motion until after it is stated; is there a second? 23:02 <+CCitizen> It's just meant to get facebook/youtube/twitter links off our front page 23:02 <+JohannWeiss> second 23:02 <@scshunt> Ok 23:02 <+JMcleod> I move to strike instead and replace it with also 23:02 <@scshunt> The question is on the motion made by CCitizen. 23:03 <%RLim> I second 23:03 <%RLim> JMcleod 23:03 <@scshunt> JMcleod: so that it reads "Instead of promoting .. we should also promote ..." ? 23:03 <+JMcleod> exactly 23:03 <@scshunt> Ok, the motion was moved and seconded 23:04 <@scshunt> So the question is now on the motion to strike the second instance of the word 'instead' and insert 'also'. If adopted, the motion will be  that we promote more free or open source networks and video hosting services. Instead of promoting Facebook, Twitter and Youtube on our front page we should also promote Diaspora, Identi.ca and video.ca. This is not meant as a restriction on the party from using those platforms to drive people to our 23:04 <@scshunt> Is there any discussion on the motion to amend? 23:05 <+JMcleod> Justification: We should not forget the majority which use those other services that we will have to appeal to if we want votes. 23:06 <@scshunt> Ok, the question is on the amendment I described above. 23:06 <@scshunt> All in favor, say aye, all opposed, say nay. 23:06 <+JMcleod> aye 23:06 <@JakeDaynes> aye 23:06 <+wasme> nay 23:06 <+CCitizen> aye 23:06 <+adpaolucci> aye 23:06 <+drkaboom> aye 23:06 <+JohannWeiss> aye 23:06 <%RLim> aye 23:06 <+jhowell> nay 23:06 <+LynnB> aye 23:07 <@scshunt> The ayes have it and the motion is adopted. 23:07 <@scshunt> The question is now on the motion that we promote more free or open source networks and video hosting services. Instead of promoting Facebook, Twitter and Youtube on our front page we should also promote Diaspora, Identi.ca and video.ca. This is not meant as a restriction on the party from using those platforms to drive people to our website but as a restriction on us driving people to those websites 23:07 <@scshunt> which ave been known to inv ade personal privacy. 23:07 <@scshunt> *which have been known 23:07 <+JMcleod> move to vote 23:07 <+wasme> May I point out the motion makes no sense now? 23:07 <@scshunt> *invade personal privacy 23:07 <~Nuitari> the wording is unclear 23:07 <~Nuitari> can we still have twitter and facebook or not on the front page? 23:08 <+wasme> The 2nd sentence no longer agrees with the 3rd. 23:08 <+JMcleod> ok then i dont move anymore so dont bother seconnding 23:08 <@scshunt> gimme a sec, I need to check something 23:10 <+JMcleod> The idea is that yes we should still link to FB and all - even if those sites suck. But wasme is right, the 3rd sentence doesnt agree with the 2nd. 23:10 <%RLim> move to amend "to promote diaspora, Identi.ca and video.ca more prominently" 23:10 <@scshunt> Ok, back 23:10 <%RLim> added the phrase more prominently 23:10 <+JMcleod> second RLim 23:10 <+CCitizen> ok that works... move to vote then since we already discussed  it? 23:10 <@scshunt> I rule wasme's point of order not well taken as the decision has already been passed by; the correct time to make the point of order would have been when the motion to amend was moved. 23:11 <@scshunt> CCitizen: Are you trying to move the previous question after the amendment is moved? 23:11 <@scshunt> and are you trying to do it on all questions? 23:11 <+CCitizen> actually 23:11 <@scshunt> (i.e. both the amendment and the main question) 23:11 <+wasme> scshunt: You never called for discussion. 23:11 <+wasme> (on the ammendment) 23:11 <@scshunt> wasme: I know. 23:11 <+CCitizen> can I withdraw it it's probably better handled by the PC 23:12 <@JakeDaynes> we lost johann, no more quorum 23:12 <@scshunt> phillipsjk signed in 23:12 <+JMcleod> We still have Quorum, phillipsjk is here :) 23:12 <@JakeDaynes> ah 23:12 <@scshunt> I'm going to ask everyone to quiet down for a sec while I deal with this. 23:12 <@scshunt> there's a few things going on 23:12 <@scshunt> First, CCitizen would like to withdraw the motion. This requires unanimous consent. Is there any objection to him withdrawing his motion? 23:12 <+CCitizen> yes I would like to withdraw it 23:13 <@JakeDaynes> and lynn... 23:13 <@JakeDaynes> no objection from me 23:13 <+CCitizen> It'd be better dealt with by the PC which meets tomorrow anyways 23:13 <~Nuitari> no objection 23:13 <%RLim> no objection 23:13 <@scshunt> Seeing no objection, the motion is withdrawn. 23:13 <@scshunt> Is there any further business? 23:13 <+CCitizen> Nope 23:13 <+phillipsjk> Can debate the amendment, or is that what is being withdrawn? 23:13 <+JMcleod> now, move to adjourn 23:13 <@JakeDaynes> seconded 23:14 <+JMcleod> its withdrawn phillips 23:14 <@scshunt> phillipsjk: The main motion was withdrawn, the amendment makes no sense now 23:14 <@scshunt> The question is now on the motion to adjourn. 23:14 <@scshunt> All in favor, say aye, all opposed, say nay. 23:14 <%RLim> aye 23:14 <+JMcleod> aye 23:14 <+drkaboom> aye 23:14 <@JakeDaynes> aye for the love of god 23:14 <+wasme> aye 23:14 <+phillipsjk> abstain 23:14 * JakeDaynes slaps phillipsjk with a giant trout 23:14 <@JakeDaynes> lol 23:14 <+CCitizen> aye 23:14 <+drkaboom> :O 23:15 <@JakeDaynes> I see two eyes and no nose :P 23:15 <@scshunt> The ayes have it, but I don't like that, so let's have a re-vote... nah, I'm just kidding. 23:15 <%RLim> lol 23:15 -scshunt:#canada- The meeting is now adjourned. 23:15 <@scshunt> I'd just like to say thanks to everyone for sticking it out 23:15 <@scshunt> I'm glad we managed to stay civil all meeting 23:15 <@JakeDaynes> alright - my bed is 36 inches away, I'm going to try and make it… if you don't hear from me, I loved you all. 23:15 <@scshunt> I hope to prove those who voted against me wrong and vindicate those who supported me. 23:16 <+phillipsjk> I figured I might get hurt I I voted to continue the meeting after showing up 4 hours late :P 23:16 <@scshunt> haha 23:16 <+JMcleod> phillipsjk: mini-resumé - jhowell is now IT director - we will promote encrypteverything.ca - scshunt is still president - EB can add people to ITboard (but it already could so wth?) - I think thats everything :P 23:16 <+drkaboom> I feel vindicated already! 23:16 <@scshunt> the correct thing to do is show up 4 hours late and then immediately move to adjourn :/ 23:16 <+CCitizen> what you mean scshunt cant do anything he wants? :P I thought president was all powerful... You know like Obama 23:16 <@scshunt> s=/=P= 23:16 <@scshunt> JMcleod: We can /remove/ people who we couldn't before 23:16 <+JMcleod> Oh yeah, there were a few notices too for next month 23:16 <+phillipsjk> I though you decided not to promote encrypt evverything. 23:17 <@scshunt> phillipsjk: no, we decided to 23:17 <+JMcleod> scshunt was against it, but majority decided otherwise 23:18 <+phillipsjk> I could have joined earlier, but was reading back-scroll. 23:18 <@scshunt> oh, one other question 23:18 <@scshunt> do people prefer the speaker-at-a-time approach? 23:18 <@scshunt> or the free-for-all approach? 23:18 <@scshunt> I was mostly doing free-for-all; Jack was mostly doing speaker-at-a-time 23:18 <+JMcleod> I prefer 1 speaker at a time personally 23:18 <@scshunt> I'm open to leaning one way or the other 23:19 -Stenobot:#canada- ======================= MEETING ADJOURNED ======================== 23:19 -Stenobot:#canada- This meeting stands adjourned. The transcript will be available online shortly. 23:19 -Stenobot:#canada- ============================================================

 View minutes.