PC 2013-03-17 transcript

Transcript:



[17:31]  Anyways, seeing as we have quorum and it is 7:30 eastern, I am calling this meeting to order. [17:32]  well its 7:32 on my thing hehe [17:32]  Which bit of business would everyone like to tackle first? [17:32]  I'm a slow typist... [17:33]  We should basically do the one that allows us to work on Loomio if people think it's a good idea [17:33]  I can touch on mine [17:33]  since it's fast [17:33]  the TPB topic [17:33]  Do we have an update on that? [17:33]  ok, Travis. What did you find out? [17:33]  I need to talk to Geist [17:34]  Didn't get to it this week? [17:34]  I emailed, but never got a response [17:34]  ah k. [17:35]  So, next item? [17:35] <Wilson> So that is still on hold. You want to go into the Loomio plan, Travis? [17:35] <Travis_McCrea> Sure [17:36] == darknyan [~chatzilla@23.16.oo.huw] has joined #canada-pc [17:36] <Travis_McCrea> Okay so I am moving that we stop doing weekly meetings (that have agenda items at least) and move our discussion and decision making process to an asynchronous system, using the platform loomio [17:36] why loomio in particular? [17:37] <Travis_McCrea> pappasadrian loomio has good security, it's built in a language that isn't obscure, we already have a working model that seems to be usable and even enjoyable to everyone who has used it so far [17:37] <Travis_McCrea> (enjoyable is conjecture, usable is fact since everyone has used it successfully) [17:38] it's still in beta. what if it breaks down? [17:38] <Wilson> We return to weekly meetings [17:38] <Travis_McCrea> As Wilson said, but also we are running it on our own server, not using theirs [17:38] (other than that, i dont have any objections, i've seen its description, it seems to be awesome) [17:38] <Travis_McCrea> diaspora uses it as well [17:39] <Wilson> Loomio rules of Order (Draft) === [17:40] <Travis_McCrea> you mean === [17:40] <Travis_McCrea> ? [17:41] <Wilson> opps. Yah those [17:41] <CCitizen> I think it's good to at least give a try [17:42] <Wilson> btw Travis. Could you also join #canada-meetings? (EB meeting) [17:42] <Wilson> As long as we have clear rules on using it I'm up for trying it as well [17:42] <Travis_McCrea> can we pass the rules of order as a separate motion so we can hash things out [17:43] <Travis_McCrea> there are just a couple of things that I am fairly indifferent about, but it gets everything moving [17:44] we could probably try it out for a week or two before deciding on the issue [17:44] <Wilson> We can, but until we do we have no way of saying whether any motion is legitimate nor do we have any means of resolving, well, anything. [17:44] to see if it works for us [17:44] <Travis_McCrea> pappasadrian we have been using it for a week [17:44] oh? [17:45] <Travis_McCrea> yes, I emailed everyone, and then emailed everyone individually who hadn't logged in yet [17:45] apparently ive been way too much afk last week [17:45] sorry [17:46] <Travis_McCrea> Wilson then I move to vote on my motion - and then we will immediately hash out the RoO [17:46] <Travis_McCrea> which is just a couple of things, but it's pointless to work on RoO if it doesn't pass anyway [17:47] <Wilson> Ok. Can you state the motion? [17:48] <Travis_McCrea> that we stop doing weekly meetings effective immediately and move our discussion and decision making process to an asynchronous system, using the platform loomio [17:48] <Travis_McCrea> err [17:48] <Travis_McCrea> not effective immediately [17:48] <Travis_McCrea> that we stop doing weekly meetings effective after the adjourning of this meeting and move our discussion and decision making process to an asynchronous system, using the platform loomio [17:49] <Wilson> Can you include a clause allowing a meeting to be called if need be? [17:49] <Travis_McCrea> that we stop doing weekly meetings effective after the adjourning of this meeting and move our discussion and decision making process to an asynchronous system, using the platform loomio. An IRC meeting can be called for by email to the political council and 1 weeks notice. [17:50] <Wilson> ok. Is there any discussion or debate of the motion? [17:50] 1 week -> too much? [17:51] <Travis_McCrea> if it needs to be sooner we can agree to it on Loomio. 1 week gives everyone enough time to clear their schedule [17:51] alright [17:51] <Wilson> Any further discussion? [17:51] <Travis_McCrea> none here [17:51] <McGrath> I second the motion [17:52] <Wilson> Voting on the motion. Please vote aye or nay: [17:52] aye [17:52] <Wilson> aye [17:52] <Travis_McCrea> aye [17:52] <McGrath> Aye [17:53] <Travis_McCrea> CCitizen [17:53] also, darknyan ? [17:54] <Wilson> Motion passed: 4 aye/ 0 nay [17:54] <Travis_McCrea> He showed up after roll call (which is what I was using) [17:54] <Wilson> yah CC and Nyancat are here [17:55] <Travis_McCrea> Anyway, awesome. Let's hash out RoO real fast [17:55] <Travis_McCrea> the only thing I think we really need to agree on is the power of a "block" [17:55] <CCitizen> aye [17:55] <CCitizen> hehe [17:56] <Travis_McCrea> It is my opinion that we require a 75% majority if someone uses a block. CCitizen believes that it should remain at 50% but we should really listen to what the blocker has to say since it is clearly important to them. [17:56] <Wilson> far,far too late ;P [17:56] <Travis_McCrea> CCitizen if I misrepresented your thoughts please tell me [17:56] <Travis_McCrea> (50%+1 [17:56] it's not a block, really, Travis_McCrea [17:57] it's just a way to show that you highly disagree [17:57] <Travis_McCrea> It is called a block in the system [17:57] and should be an indicator that the topic needs to be discussed more [17:57] well, yeah, if we decide to use it as a veto, so be it [17:58] i dont think it's necessary though [17:58] <Wilson> yah. I don't think block needs additional authority. If anything it should extend the debate time, not the vote% needed [17:58] <Wilson> Ie. block adds 2 days to timer (if that is technically possible [17:58] <Travis_McCrea> Yeah we can do that. [17:59] i like that idea too [17:59] also, i think that line 17 is unnecessary [17:59] since loomio has a notification system [18:00] <Travis_McCrea> pappasadrian it does, but not when new topics are created [18:00] it says it sends a daily digest of events [18:00] idk what it includes in there [18:01] <Travis_McCrea> I don't think so… at least if it does, I will need to talk to the developers about it because I haven't got one yet. [18:01] but if it doesnt inform sufficiently, then yes, we should send the email out ourselves [18:01] <Travis_McCrea> And I can figure out if I am doing something wrong [18:01] <Travis_McCrea> Let's leave line 17 in there, because redundant is better than it not happening at all [18:01] check the email preferences [18:01] Send me a daily activity email summarising what’s been happening in my groups [18:02] <Travis_McCrea> I think a custom email is still better, it informs everyone in an email that doesn't get skipped over (daily emails tend to) [18:02] <Travis_McCrea> tells everyone that there is a matter that needs their attention [18:02] alright, no objections to that, as long as we dont end up spamming each other :P [18:03] should we require a proposal to be somehow seconded before it moves to voting? [18:03] <Wilson> Do we have agreement on the first 3 sections? (Out of curiousity) [18:03] <Travis_McCrea> Nah, if no one votes on it, it just dies with no quorum [18:03] true [18:04] <Travis_McCrea> :P I agree [18:04] Wilson, idk about " typically means if the proposal is passed, you will resign from the party" on line 25 [18:04] but otherwise it seems fine [18:05] <Travis_McCrea> I am okay with a rewording of that, it was there when the vote made it 75% to pass [18:05] <Wilson> I think that is just showing how serious using a block should be. Its not binding though and frankly I ain't either [18:05] <Travis_McCrea> Wilson thats kinda the idea. Something to show that we shouldn't just be throwing blocks around because we don't like something. [18:06] <Travis_McCrea> "oh this is going to pass and I don't like it so I am going to filibuster it for 2 days" [18:06] alright, so general consensus is that a block should not be typically used [18:07] if the block is revoked, do the two extra days stay? [18:07] <Wilson> Regardless, seeing no objection to the first two sections I am going to declare them passed (provided they are not further edited). [18:07] *revoked/resolved/whatever [18:09] <Wilson> We still need some way of handling the block as it is part of the software. Still, the language is unneccessary imo. Therefore I motion ", this should not be used lightly and typically means if the proposal is passed, you will resign from the party." be removed from the rules draft. [18:09] <Travis_McCrea> On passing a proposal my only thing is to reply to CCitizen and say that everyone should be given the chance to vote and have their opinion heard [18:09] <Travis_McCrea> Wilson I can agree to that [18:10] <Wilson> Any other debate of the motion? [18:11] <CCitizen> we voting on using it now or [18:11] <Travis_McCrea> actually Wilson [18:11] <Wilson> Nope. removing the section I highlighted [18:12] <Travis_McCrea> can we start the part to remove at "and typically" [18:12] <Travis_McCrea> and leave "this should not be taken lightly" [18:12] <Wilson> I'm ok with that [18:12] second Travis_McCrea [18:12] <McGrath> Also agree [18:13] <Travis_McCrea> the motion would be: reword line 25 to say "Voting Block means that you feel very very strongly against the proposal, this should not be used lightly; otherwise counts as a 'No' vote." [18:13] <Wilson> Any further discussion? (20 seconds) [18:14] "very very"? [18:14] <Wilson> afk chicken [18:14] i dont mind it, but it's weird, grammatically at least [18:16] but apparently nobody else cares so much [18:16] and i suppose there's no further discussion? [18:16] <McGrath> how about "you feel extremely strongly against..." ? [18:17] <Travis_McCrea> :\ they are words and we should honestly just use common sense on really basic stuff like this. [18:17] +1 (although a bit trivial - we all understand what it's telling us) [18:17] and +1 at Travis_McCrea [18:17] <Travis_McCrea> If the wording is going to make you cry every time you read it, then change it and I will agree to it [18:18] <Travis_McCrea> otherwise let's just accept it [18:18] <Travis_McCrea> or sneak in and change the words to something that seems grammatically correct without telling anyone, it will be our little secret ;) [18:19] <Wilson> back. chicken gone [18:19] okay, nevermind my objection [18:19] Wilson, i suspect we're ready to vote [18:19] probably [18:19] <Wilson> ok. We will proceed to vote on the motion. [18:19] <Wilson> aye [18:19] <Travis_McCrea> Aye [18:19] <McGrath> Aye [18:19] aye [18:19] <CCitizen> aye [18:20] <Wilson> Ok. motion passes 5 aye/ 0 nay [18:21] <Travis_McCrea> Sweet. I am locking the rules of order as a revision [18:21] <Wilson> Do we have agreement on the ===passing proposals=== section? [18:22] <Travis_McCrea> umm well there are comments on it [18:22] <Wilson> Thats why I asked [18:22] <Travis_McCrea> Which I addressed above: I don't think we should close votes just because they have the required number of yes votes [18:23] line 32 [18:23] "most of the time"? [18:23] <Travis_McCrea> That was also there from when 75% was required [18:23] <Travis_McCrea> let me address 31 first [18:23] <Travis_McCrea> If we close the vote after the required number of yes votes we 1) don't allow for someone to block and 2) don't allow a dissenter from swaying other people to say no [18:24] <Wilson> Technically RRoO specify certain types of motions require 75% (such as suspending the rules) [18:24] <Travis_McCrea> however, if there is 100% of the vote then I don't see why we can't end it. [18:24] <Travis_McCrea> Wilson we currently have none of those listed in our rules of order. Do you want to add those type of requirements? [18:25] <Wilson> Nope [18:26] <Travis_McCrea> I would actually love a failsafe that "the rules of order can be changed by a 75% vote of support by those who voted in the motion" that sounds complex but what i mean is that let's say that 5 of our 10 people stop being active in the PC, our loomio rules of order don't allow us to vote anymore (though we could call an IRC meeting) [18:26] <CCitizen> Well technically they could always bring the issue up again [18:26] <Travis_McCrea> So by having a 75% requirement of the people voting vs 50%+1 of the PC [18:26] <CCitizen> Actually they could still use loomio but you'd have a 7 day lag on most decidions [18:27] <Wilson> My two cents is we let votes run their full course. There are very few votes that require less than a week to make. [18:27] <Travis_McCrea> I agree with Wilson (and thanks for brining us back on track to both CCitizen and Wilson from my off topic suggestion) [18:28] <Wilson> Don't worry, I'll keep you on a short leash ;D [18:28] <CCitizen> And its usually 2/3rds+1 (66%+1) and that would be 2/3rds of a quorum which would be 4 (if only 6 people voted/showed up) [18:28] <CCitizen> functionally with a group this small simple majority and super majority type things are the same (50%+1 is also 4) [18:29] <Travis_McCrea> I also think we can have pirate ingenuity like always -- if we have 100% approval, just do it. Be damned the rules if we are in a hurry for something. [18:29] <Travis_McCrea> One of my promises I made when running for leader was to treat rules like guidelines -- and I think that we seriously should be doing more of that. These are what we should be doing, in cases where the rules don't work then we don't use them -- as long as we are democratic about how we circumvent them. [18:30] <Travis_McCrea> err or transparent about how we circumvent them [18:30] <Wilson> "I vote for tyranny" eh? [18:30] <Travis_McCrea> I am just saying that strict adherence to rules is what got our party to the place it is [18:31] <Travis_McCrea> We are pirates ;) [18:31] <Wilson> Regardless, this is getting off topic. [18:31] <Travis_McCrea> Yep [18:31] <Travis_McCrea> Can we remove line 30 and 31? [18:31] yes from me [18:31] <CCitizen> Thats part of the reason why I suggested we just close and declare a decision on things where we had more than a majority of the total people voting (IE. basically if everyone in a quorum number voted yes or no then that would be the decision because even if everyone else voted theycouldnt change the outcome) [18:32] <Travis_McCrea> CCitizen yeah, but that doesn't allow people who are voting no to sway other peoples vote [18:32] <CCitizen> The only way to change the decision would be to persuade people to change their votes... which they can do by reopening the issue in question if it's that important [18:32] <Travis_McCrea> Like I might have been on vacation, but come back and want to block it.. but if you close it, I can't block [18:33] <CCitizen> You could always come back and bring the topic up again (also explaining your reasons for bringing it up and why people shouuld change it) [18:33] <Travis_McCrea> Yes, but if you have already issued a press release saying the Party is supporting White Supremicists its' too late [18:33] <Wilson> I think its best to get something done once rather than encourage people to reopen things [18:34] <Travis_McCrea> I am all for doing things fast, and again from time to time I will probably break the rules (if anyone doesn't like it, they can try to open a VoNC), but in general the rule should be that we wait for 100% of the vote to be cast (and maybe even wait the full 7 days) [18:35] <Travis_McCrea> I think if nothing else we can wait the full 7 days in the beginning, if it's showing to be too much time… we can pass a motion to change it [18:36] <Wilson> Do we have a motion then? [18:36] <Travis_McCrea> I move to strike 30 and 31 [18:36] <Travis_McCrea> which are not actually rules anyway, they are suggestions [18:37] <Wilson> Is there debate on this? (30 seconds) [18:37] <Wilson> 30 and 31 are removed [18:37] cool [18:38] <Wilson> Same deal with 35 [18:38] <Travis_McCrea> are we discussing 35 or just accepting that it was part of 30 and 31 [18:39] <Wilson> No I'm asking if anyone has anything to say about it. [18:39] we can wait for a week for any kind of vote, i think [18:39] so it's unnecessary [18:39] <Travis_McCrea> We are talking about /* Actually a simple majority is quorum (50%+1) so that would mean (6/10) currently. Likewise to approve something requires a simple majority of the quorum (4/6) which means something could be approved with as little as 40% of the entire body voting if it has to run the whole 7 days. */ [18:40] <Wilson> thankyou Travis [18:40] <Travis_McCrea> This goes to the subject of "are we counting quorum as the number of people who voted, or the number of people who are in the PC" [18:40] <Travis_McCrea> which is a fair topic. Loomio counts it as the number of people who are in the PC [18:41] <Travis_McCrea> I think we should be using that as our standard as well [18:41] <Wilson> "Descisions are made by those who show up" As long as we have quorum that rule of thumb holds. [18:41] <Wilson> imho [18:41] <Travis_McCrea> Since these votes go on for a week and are asynchronous -- we should count the vote as every member who is a part of the PC. [18:42] <Wilson> Meaning what exactly? We need 6 people to vote yes to each motion? [18:43] <Travis_McCrea> yes. In a one week span people should be able to make 10 minutes out of their day to vote on the motions [18:43] <Travis_McCrea> At least that's how I see it, if you guys disagree then we can leave it as it has been "out of number of people who voted" [18:43] it seems alright, i think [18:44] and if it doesnt work, we could change it later [18:44] if 6 people dont typically show up to vote [18:44] <Travis_McCrea> pappasadrian since there were two options presented :) can you say which one you are referring to? [18:44] <Travis_McCrea> ah you beat me :P [18:44] :P [18:44] Does anyone on the PC know what email our Twitter is attached to? [18:45] <Travis_McCrea> try info@ [18:45] <Wilson> Shawn would know I think [18:45] <Travis_McCrea> or press@ [18:45] <Travis_McCrea> I think it was one of those two [18:45] <Travis_McCrea> anyway [18:46] <Travis_McCrea> I think that with an ongoing system like loomio we should all be considered "there" [18:46] It doesn't seem to be a @pirateparty.ca email [18:46] <Wilson> So yah. we need a decision on whether majority or quorum or majority of members is the way to go. [18:46] <Wilson> *of [18:47] <Travis_McCrea> I move to make quorum the loomio default of "everyone who is a member of the PC goes to quorum" [18:47] <Wilson> Any discussion of the motion? (30 seconds) [18:48] <McGrath> Wouldn't that be a problem if someine is on vacation [18:48] <McGrath> or sick [18:48] <McGrath> or otherwise unavailable [18:48] <Travis_McCrea> I am going to go on vacation starting tomorrow, but that doesn't mean I can't get wifi for 10 minutes at some point [18:48] <Travis_McCrea> Same thing if I am sick [18:49] <McGrath> I hate to think it, but maybe someone here isnt' as dedicated [18:49] <Wilson> imo doing it this way favours the 'no' side of any question as not showing up is the same as a no vote. [18:50] well, if more than 4/10 are sick [18:50] then we can call it a day, i suppose, and retry later [18:50] <Travis_McCrea> McGrath maybe I am too wrapped up in pirate world, but I think that if you are willing to serve as a member of the PC you should be able to find at least 10 minutes a week to do pirate work [18:50] <Travis_McCrea> I am not asking for you to sacrifice your life or anything like that… just 10 minutes a week [18:50] also, i agree with what Wilson said [18:51] <McGrath> I'd agree, but I always like to make room for the unexpected [18:51] it's a weird problem [18:52] <Travis_McCrea> I know it breaks roberts rules but can we do our vote as an A/B vote? So instead of saying aye or nay we say "Current" for the current "% of those who voted" and "New" for "% of total members" [18:53] <Wilson> Well that saves us a vote. I'm not opposed [18:54] <Wilson> Is there any further discussion? (20 seconds) [18:54] im not sure i understand, Travis_McCrea [18:54] actually, never mind [18:55] (it's a bit late for me, i process slowly) [18:55] == TeamColtra [~frextual@rah-481-961-42-410.buffalo.res.rr.com] has joined #canada-pc [18:55] <Wilson> Motion: I know it breaks roberts rules but can we do our vote as an A/B vote? So instead of saying aye or nay we say "Current" for the current "% of those who voted" and "New" for "% of total members" Please vote 'current' or 'new': [18:56] <TeamColtra> Are we voting on how to vote? or voting "Current" vs "New"? [18:56] probably the latter [18:56] <TeamColtra> I am guessing the latter: New [18:56] <Travis_McCrea> :) doesn't sound like anyone is objecting [18:56] abstain in both cases for me [18:56] <Wilson> Current [18:58] <Travis_McCrea> CCitizen darknyan McGrath [18:58] <Travis_McCrea> Broken_Syntax [18:58] <McGrath> Current [19:00] so we stay with the current? [19:00] <Wilson> k. Procedure will be "% of those who voted". Current 2, New 1, Abstain 1 [19:01] <Travis_McCrea> ugh I am sorry for not suggesting this before, but one more vote that we have a minimum of 4 votes? [19:01] <Wilson> By how awkward that was to work out I see why RRoO doesn't allow A/B options [19:01] <Wilson> Isn't that what quorum is for? [19:01] <Travis_McCrea> That's actually not why, it's because if a motion ties it normally fails. In this case, it couldn't have failed [19:02] <Wilson> ? [19:02] <Travis_McCrea> why Roberts Rules doesn't allow A/B but going to your question about quorum - right now we just have it said that a vote passes based on the total number of votes cast [19:03] <Travis_McCrea> there is no floor [19:03] <Travis_McCrea> meaning if 1 person votes, it passes [19:04] Travis_McCrea: Which definitely leaves a question as to whether it is representative of the beliefs of the whole. [19:04] <Wilson> "Since it requires a 51% vote of approval, quorum requires at least 51% participation." This doesn't cover it? [19:04] <Travis_McCrea> Oh I guess that does [19:04] <Travis_McCrea> ehh kinda [19:05] Wilson: but is that 51% of the quorom, or 51% of the council? [19:05] <Travis_McCrea> that section was supposed to be read as "since there needs to be at least 5 yes votes to pass, then obviously every motion will have quorum" [19:05] brokensyntax, both [19:05] <Wilson> I'm beginning to hate this section. [19:06] i think it means that at least 6 people need to vote [19:06] <Travis_McCrea> Let's just say that we need to have at least 4 people voting, approve it.. call it good, that way there is no question. [19:06] and at least 4 of them need to vote in favor [19:06] <Wilson> That's my understranding [19:06] (51%+1) [19:07] <Wilson> I'm with Travis. [19:07] yeh, me too, to get this over with [19:08] <Travis_McCrea> Oh sorry do we want 4 or 5? [19:08] <Travis_McCrea> >.> I know [19:08] <Travis_McCrea> 5 would be 50% [19:08] im okay with 4 [19:08] <Travis_McCrea> The old PC only had 8, right? I am not crazy? [19:09] <Wilson> Travis. Can you edit the whole section so we only need 1 vote on it? [19:09] <Wilson> Yes, it had 8 [19:09] <Travis_McCrea> Wilson, I don't know what other problems are with the section past this [19:10] * brokensyntax rubs his temples. [19:11] I hate coming in late, sorry guys. [19:11] <Travis_McCrea> Okay I think I got this [19:11] <Travis_McCrea> Yeah I have to pack soon for my trip tomorrow so I am with you. I don't want to rush,b ut I think this is good. Read the Passing Proposals section and tell me if you agree [19:11] <Travis_McCrea> https://www.piratepad.ca/p/LoomioRulesofOrder to anyone not in it [19:13] <Wilson> My internet is acting up so I'm not on there [19:13] <Travis_McCrea> ==Passing Proposals== [19:13] <Travis_McCrea> Voting uses basic majority most of the time [19:13] <Travis_McCrea> - For a vote to meet quorum it must have at least 40% of the group to vote. [19:13] <Travis_McCrea> - Once we have 100% voter turn out (of the group) or the time expires on the vote, it will close on it's own. [19:13] <Travis_McCrea> - Most proposals require a 50%+1 approval rating. [19:13] <Travis_McCrea> - If there is a block used on a proposal than it will add 2 days to the discussion - if there is a block serious work should be done to resolve that block. [19:13] So that's based on the entirety of the PC voting as we should have more than ample time barring grievous illness to attempt a vote. [19:14] ? [19:14] <Travis_McCrea> So now only 4 people have to vote [19:14] <Travis_McCrea> if 6 people are sick (i.e. a zombie apocalypse) we are taken care of [19:15] <Wilson> I'm going to move we vote on the section as tabled. Aye/nay to having the vote now: [19:16] <Travis_McCrea> Wait your motion is to table it, yet your saying to vote if we want to vote on it [19:16] <Travis_McCrea> Are we saying aye to tabling it, or aye to voting now? [19:16] <Wilson> aye to voting now [19:16] <Travis_McCrea> Aye [19:16] <Wilson> aye [19:16] <Travis_McCrea> Since we need a rules of order ;) [19:17] <Wilson> and since we technically have other things to get to [19:18] <Travis_McCrea> <3 Come on everyone, it's only 9:18 and the more we pay attention the faster this goes. [19:18] <Travis_McCrea> ^faster it goes the easier it is to pay attention [19:19] aye [19:19] aye [19:19] <Wilson> ok. Motion to go straight to the vote passes with 4 aye/ 0 nay. [19:19] <Travis_McCrea> I vote aye on the approval of LRoO [19:20] <McGrath> Ate [19:20] <McGrath> *Aye [19:20] <CCitizen> aye [19:20] <Wilson> aye [19:21] Aye [19:21] <Wilson> Motion passes 5 aye/ 0 nay. We have rules for Loomio. [19:21] (Better we are able to act than held back by seemingly arbitrary restriction, isn't that the whole point to Piracy anyway?) [19:22] <Travis_McCrea> :) exactly. Now what's next on the list Wilson [19:22] <Wilson> Did everyone get the messages I sent about the two FB messages? [19:23] <McGrath> Yep [19:23] yes [19:23] <Travis_McCrea> Yep [19:24] <Wilson> We have a person who wants to help out with G+ in exchange for free membership and a musician who wants advice on enering the indie market [19:24] I know I read one of them, I'm sure the other one is there as well. [19:25] What does the Google+ volunteer offer? [19:25] <Wilson> They wanted to start and maintain a Google+ site for us in exchange for free membership but we have G+ (just very underused) [19:26] <Wilson> Steve was concerned they might hijack it and I don't know enough about G+ to say otherwise [19:27] <Travis_McCrea> I know a lot of pirates who have migrated to G+ from FB [19:27] Volunteers for our social media sites are likely to become something we want as we try to renew our membership efforts and push out our image. Other thoughts? (The hi-jack thing is a real threat, but I'm sure we can come up with a solution to mitigate that issue.) [19:27] <Travis_McCrea> I would rather give them trust to do the right thing than to hold us back because we couldn't [19:28] <Travis_McCrea> If they hijack it, oh well… we were not using it anyway. We didn't lose anything. [19:28] <Travis_McCrea> I will have my G+ friends follow the page, and alert me if anything stupid happens. I would also tell them that we would reward them with a free yearly membership but we would want to see a couple months of activity first [19:28] Frankly, I don't think any of the parties (or their constituents) that would fall to such tactics are concerned enough with us to attempt sabotage. [19:28] <Travis_McCrea> or setup a month-to-month free membership account [19:29] <Wilson> ok. then let me put the motion to you: I motion we accept this offer to run our G+ platform in exchange for one year of free membership. [19:29] <Travis_McCrea> I still would like to put some asterisk on the free membership [19:29] <Travis_McCrea> because if we give them the membership immediately without them doing anything, they will quickly lose interest in helping. [19:29] I like the month2month concept. [19:30] <Wilson> Does that require us to vote it each month? [19:30] If there's a dead month, we can discuss it with them then and see what the issue is early. [19:30] <Travis_McCrea> Exactly [19:30] yep, with a requirement. perhaps at least one post per week or so [19:31] Any volunteer to co-ordinate the overseeing of such an effort? [19:31] <Travis_McCrea> Nah let's just give them some leash and see what they do with it? [19:31] <Travis_McCrea> brokensyntax I will "oversee" it [19:31] <Travis_McCrea> I don't G+ but I have some friends who do who will report back to me that I trust [19:31] that could work too Travis_McCrea [19:31] I think you and I have the same idea here Travis, you have my support. [19:32] That puts it in Travis' hands to decide if and/or when our volunteer needs to be motivated. [19:32] <CCitizen> Actually ... we can probably set it up so they can post to like facebook or twitter through our wordpress site [19:32] * brokensyntax I will of course follow the page myself ;) [19:32] <Travis_McCrea> I move that we accept the volunteer on a month to month basis and assign Travis McCrea to be coordinator of the task. [19:33] CCitizen:  I recall someone in IT wanting to set-up a page that would cascade through all our social media. [19:33] I second Travis_McCrea movement. [19:33] <Wilson> second [19:33] <Wilson> damn you  -_- [19:33] teehee [19:33] <Wilson> Is there further discussion? (30 seconds) [19:34] <Wilson> Please vote aye or nay to the motion: [19:34] None here, looks pretty straight forwards as Travis phrased it. [19:34] aye [19:34] Aye [19:34] <Wilson> aye [19:34] <CCitizen> aye [19:35] <Travis_McCrea> aye [19:35] <Wilson> The motion passes 5 aye/ 0 nay [19:35] @Travis_McCrea of course, I will be adding the page to my own G+ circles/following, not meaning to sound like I'm sticking you out alone with this, just that it's nice to have an authority to report to. [19:36] <Wilson> Now the fun part, Travis. Finding out who admins our G+ site [19:37] Wilson: LOL, quite true. [19:37] <Wilson> On a related note: We currently have NO guidelines for our social media team. [19:38] <Wilson> We can either hash out rules ourselves or ask the Social Media Committee to meet and do it [19:38] <Travis_McCrea> I think we can hash some out but let's use loomio [19:38] == pappasadrian [~pappasadr@gr.pirate] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] [19:38] <Wilson> yup. [19:39] == pappasadrian [~pappasadr@gr.pirate] has joined #canada-pc [19:39] <Wilson> So. that leaves the musician looking for assistance [19:42] As I stated in my e-mail, I do have some experience helping in that area. The more we know about her and her style of music the better we can help as music (or anything art) is very target/demographic specific. [19:42] <Travis_McCrea> I have no problem promoting someone who wants to use a CC licence -- but I think that's about it. "Canadian artist, check her out", maybe use our new found contacts at the pirate bay to pick her up if she is any good [19:43] <Wilson> Actually, I forwarded that. I'll check if they replied. [19:43] As far as endorsements, like Travis_McCrea says. Anyone who wants to promote public license gets my vote. [19:44] <Wilson> k, they replied. I'll forward it to the PC via email. [19:44] Kind of reminds me of the Piratebox project and its purpose. [19:46] <Wilson> brokensyntax Would you be willing to work with them directly. We can provide info but you are the only one with any direct knowledge I believe. [19:47] <Wilson> ie via email [19:47] I'd be happy to chat with them. [19:48] <Wilson> k. I'll dig up some stuff as well. Can I put them in touch with your @pirateparty.ca address? [19:48] That'll work. [19:48] <Wilson> k. [19:48] We can always invite them to visit us on IRC as well ;) [19:49] <Wilson> ok. we are getting to the bottem of the list [19:49] <Wilson> CC wanted to discuss tent/merchandise. I'm all for leaving that to Loomio [19:50] Loomio platform seems pretty slick. [19:50] <Travis_McCrea> I will be updating it graphically to have Pirate branding [19:50] <Wilson> So unless we want to discuss the Labrador by-election... [19:50] <Travis_McCrea> I would like to, I would first like to seek out N&L members [19:51] <Wilson> yah. [19:51] <Travis_McCrea> but I am considering staying at a hostel for 25 days or so and running myself -- though I would have to find out if my staying there would count as a party expense [19:51] That reminds me, I should see if I can track down the people who were willing to front the registration for me to run in Simcoe County. [19:51] <Wilson> But if that doesn't work I am preparing a riding overview for you, Travis [19:52] <Travis_McCrea> Please do, from what I understand they are fairly conservative there -- and I don't think my public support of Sea Shephered will go over well with the seal clubbers [19:52] Travis_McCrea: you're in N&L? [19:52] <Travis_McCrea> (not generalizing the population, just saying there are seal clabbers, and I won't go over well with them) [19:53] <Travis_McCrea> brokensyntax I can be for a month :) [19:53] <Wilson> the riding has actually voted consistantly Liberal with NDP in second. The Conservatives only did well recently [19:53] Travis_McCrea: Well, it is a way of life on the ice flows. [19:53] Wilson: Dissent amongst the voters? [19:54] <Wilson> Not for me to say. But no, saying bad things about the fishery will be a problem, Travis [19:54] That can only be good for a budding party. If we can make a splash in the area, we might be surprised with the turnout. [19:54] <Wilson> But, yah I should have the report done by next week [19:55] <Travis_McCrea> Though on the flip side, there might be a 10% population who are against the anti-science Fishing and Wildlife Ministry and would vote for me if I just ran on a platform (outside of PPCA platforms) of transparency within the organization. [19:55] <Travis_McCrea> If I could nail a 10% vote that would be awesome. [19:55] <Wilson> The real question is how much you want to spend on travel. [19:55] <Travis_McCrea> and the other parties would be too afraid to go after that demographic [19:56] <Wilson> *if you ran yourself [19:56] <Travis_McCrea> Wilson well my question is: would that travel be considered a party expense [19:56] <Travis_McCrea> because if it was I could only spend 1K [19:56] <Travis_McCrea> but if not, I am willing to spend what it takes [19:56] Travis_McCrea: Transparency is a big deal, and increasingly the public is realizing that. [19:56] <Wilson> We can't cover the 1k candidate fee but there are no rules about other funding (unless EC has some issues with it) [19:57] <Travis_McCrea> Well that's the question would it be considered a non-military donation because I am spending the money to run for the pirate party. [19:57] <Travis_McCrea> Also (or other thought) would it be counted against my spending limit and contribution limit to my own campaign? [19:57] <Wilson> probably [19:58] <Wilson> spending limit probably, contribution limit not sure [19:58] <Travis_McCrea> one second stay here [19:58] Travis_McCrea: If someone offered you lodgings, would you accept over staying at the hostel? [19:58] <Travis_McCrea> brokensyntax if I could get it [19:58] <Travis_McCrea> yes [19:58] == RLim [~kion@207.161.qzs.npm] has joined #canada-pc [19:58] I know it could make a huge dent in the budget. [19:59] <Travis_McCrea> RLim would my travel to Newfoundland and lodging be counted as a party expense [19:59] <Travis_McCrea> if I was running for parliament there? [19:59] <Wilson> The other option is you stick to the largest city and have at it there [20:00] <RLim> we want to minimize having to spent for a candidate's campaign [20:00] <Travis_McCrea> RLim I am not suggesting the party pay for it [20:00] <RLim> what does the riding looks like? [20:00] <Travis_McCrea> I am asking if it counts against my 1,200 donation limit [20:00] <RLim> well for campaigning it might count as campaign expenses [20:01] <RLim> I think you are allowed to spent for that [20:01] <RLim> darn I forgot all about it [20:01] <RLim> trying to remember during the election.... [20:01] <Travis_McCrea> I can make available a personal budget of $6,000 for this campaign -- so I doubt I would have much of a problem there [20:01] <RLim> You are allowed to spent for your campaing [20:01] <Travis_McCrea> but but it's if I am allowed to spend it [20:01] <Travis_McCrea> exactly [20:01] <RLim> I don't think that counts as contribution [20:01] <RLim> but not 100% sure [20:02] <Travis_McCrea> RLim can you talk to EC? [20:02] <RLim> I should start reading the agens guide book since we are at the Fund [20:02] <RLim> ok [20:02] <RLim> *agents [20:03] <Wilson> Actually since this is unlikely to lead to a motion. I motion to adjourn. (We can continue discussion afterwards) [20:03] <Travis_McCrea> yeah we can make a motion on loomio if we need to [20:03] <Travis_McCrea> at the adjournment of this meeting we officially transition to loomio [20:03] <Wilson> aye [20:03] <Travis_McCrea> aye [20:03] <McGrath> aye [20:03] <Travis_McCrea> unless you were agreeing with me and not aye'ing about your motion to adjourn :P [20:04] <Travis_McCrea> either way the ball is rolling [20:04] aye [20:04] <Wilson> Motion to adjourn passed 4 aye/ 0 nay

</PRE>

10:04 Eastern