GM 2012-05-16 transcript

 NOTE: Log times are in Central Time.

19:32 -scshunt:#canada- The meeting is called to order. 19:32 < CapnScotia> scshunt I think that a persons privacy is measured by ones self. A person can pick and choose what they desire to be private and keep secret from the rest of the world. Now days with Social Networking sites privacy is almost null,yet people still complain about personal privacy while plastering their life all over the internet. 19:32 <@scshunt> We do not have a quorum. 19:32 <@scshunt> Since the meeting is now in progress, I would ask that unrelated discussion come to a close. 19:33 <@scshunt> I will now entertain motions to adjourn or recess. 19:33 <+RLim> wait 19:33 < CapnScotia> I think that privacy is truly infinite and that it is up to the individual to choose what they want to be private and what they allow to be processed by the outside world 19:34 <@scshunt> CapnScotia: Please wait with non-meeting talk. 19:34 <@scshunt> RLim: ? 19:34 <+XFaCE> scshunt: I believe it is a motion to wait for more to come to fill the quorum 19:34 <+RLim> hmm how many more do we need 19:34 <+RLim> ? 19:34 <+XFaCE> 5 19:34 <+svulliez> five 19:34 <@scshunt> We need 5 more. 19:35 <+svulliez> join #riffraff for nonmeeting discussion 19:35 <+svulliez> I think we can make it. 19:35 <@scshunt> Is there a motion for a recess then? 19:35 <+RLim> I am not in a rush to go anywhere 19:35 < CapnScotia> Well im heading off for the night its been informative taking and reading on here and I will DEFINATLEY be back and looking forward to it..probably in about an hour(pregnant wife) 19:35 <+svulliez> I motion for a ten minute recess. 19:35 > /msg sb 1So 19:36 <+RLim> second 19:36 <@scshunt> Is there a second for the motion to recess? 19:36 <+XFaCE> err, third 19:36 <@scshunt> Is there any objection to taking a ten minute recess? 19:37 <+voronaam> Comment on that document in question. About PB block #5. I think it should be also necessary for user to be able to delete any automatically gathered information. google has this option... 19:37 <+XFaCE> I would like to ask mib_9jjpr6, who was previous active, why he has not joined the quorum yet 19:37 <+voronaam> It is not a motion to amend it, though. Since the meeting has not started yet 19:38 <@scshunt> Seeing none; I'll declare the meeting recessed until 20:48 EDT 19:38 <@scshunt> voronaam: that's just there for discussion 19:38 < mib_9jjpr6> XFaCE, I have no idea how to do that 19:38 <+XFaCE> are you a member? 19:38 < mib_9jjpr6> nope 19:38 <+voronaam> Great! That's the only comment I wanted to make. I like the document, in general. 19:39 <+XFaCE> mib_9jjpr6: Ok then. If you were, you could join the meeting. 19:39 < mib_9jjpr6> :) 19:40 <+voronaam> I could also comment a bit on that note about "some european countries" which do not allow to publish a photo without person's consent. I use to live in Russia... :) But I do not think it is a crucial part of the document. 19:42 <@scshunt> voronaam: It wasn't referring to Russia, actually 19:42 <@scshunt> I believe France and Germany have such laws 19:42 < mib_iojgkp> sup 19:42 <@scshunt> Hello, and welcome to the meeting. 19:43 <@scshunt> We're currently waiting a little bit longer in hopes that some more members show up. 19:43 <+voronaam> scshunt, I have friends in other european countries too. Let me know if you ever want to flesh out this note with hard data. 19:43 <+XFaCE> scshunt: Err, he was just here 19:43 <+thor> finger sandwiches and orange flavoured drink are on the table in the corner 19:43 yeah hold on i'm logging in now 19:43 <@scshunt> voronaam: I don't think so, given that it was just for comparison, and I don't think that the sentiment is that such a law should be implemented here 19:44 <@scshunt> if there is such a sentiment, then perhaps 19:44 <+voronaam> ok 19:44 <+RLim> how's the voting coming along? 19:45 <+drew> Policy Building Block #3 needs to be clarifyied as it can be interpreted to be against free speech 19:46 <@scshunt> drew: I think it is (and has to be) a restriction on free speech 19:46 <+RLim> which document are you referring to? 19:46 <@scshunt> Privacy law is, fundamentally, a restriction on free speech 19:46 <+XFaCE> azend: meeting time 19:46 <@scshunt> RLim: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12PNWkTqxNlg2jvt5W0vJaalHmoVQWevuP4LBybcL6kA/edit 19:47 <+XFaCE> ircerr: ready to join? 19:47 <+svulliez> I take issue with that explanation of privacy law, scshunt 19:47 <@scshunt> svulliez: noted 19:48 <@scshunt> The meeting is called back to order. 19:48 <@scshunt> I'll give a few for those who just joined us to sign in 19:48 XFaCE: ready to join what/where? pp? lolz. not as this nick. 19:49 <+XFaCE> ircerr: ok, wherever nick you want? 19:49 <+XFaCE> *whatever 19:49 <+XFaCE> ircerr: meeting 19:49 <+RLim> scshunt was there a motion before Shawn to recess or you just called the meeting to order at 30 minutes after? 19:49 <+svulliez> I don't think it's a type of restriction on free speech. I understand where you are coming from, but I think that there is a big difference between violating someone's privacy by spreading a rumor, and organizations systemically logging information for profit or other gain 19:49 <@scshunt> RLim: There was not, but recesses don't need to be noted 19:49 <@scshunt> All right, we now have a quorum, so we'll proceed now. 19:50 <+XFaCE> scshunt: no, that's only 14 19:50 <@scshunt> ah, you're right 19:50 <+RLim> so called to order at 20:32? 19:50 <+RLim> k 19:50 <+XFaCE> phillip quit for no apparent reason 19:50 <@scshunt> thanks 19:50 <+svulliez> The actual violation of privacy (which in the case of an individual would be reading a diary, text message, love letter etc. that did not belong to them) is distinct from the act of divulging the information you get, which should still be protected under free speech. If that makes sense. 19:51 <+svulliez> Privacy law is not necessarily a limit on free speech and it should not be. 19:51 <+XFaCE> svulliez: Ah, like songs that have been downloaded 19:51 hi 19:51 <+drew> People should be responsible with what they do with their data 19:51 <+XFaCE> fox: hi, are you a member? 19:51 <@scshunt> Hello, fox. We're currently in a meeting. Are you a member? 19:52 <+XFaCE> Is there an echo in here? 19:52 No, but would like to be. Sorry for interupting! I've been pretty active with PPUK though. 19:52 <+psema4> jhowell: you don't show as having voice - did you login? 19:52 <+drew> They should be given the tools to live in privacy, but not guaranteed privacy 19:52 <+XFaCE> fox: no problem, you can observe the meeting just fine 19:53 -scshunt:#canada- We /are/ in a meeting, even though we do not have quorum. Please limit discussion. 19:53 And what if I'd like to contribute? 19:53 <+XFaCE> fox: at present, you must become a member to do this 19:53 <+svulliez> You're free to contribute in #riffraff which is the casual channel 19:53 link? 19:53 <+XFaCE> #riffraff 19:53 <+XFaCE> just use your chat client 19:53 no no, to become memeber, sorry for interupting! 19:53 <+RLim> fox as long as you are a Canadian citizen also 19:54 <@scshunt> or permanent resident 19:54 <+RLim> thanks scshunt 19:54 eh, I'll ask on riffraff 19:54 proceed 19:54 <@scshunt> Thanks 19:54 <+RLim> oxpirate sign in 19:54 OpE^2 has all it's basic information finished except the OS X section~ 19:55 <@scshunt> oxpirate: We're in a meeting; please limit chatter. 19:55 My bad 19:55 <+XFaCE> phillipsjk: What happened? 19:55 <@scshunt> chatter! 19:57 <@scshunt> Seeing as we haven't yet made quorum, does anyone wish to suggest a motion again? 19:57 <+svulliez> Motion to recess for another 10 minutes, we're almost there 19:57 <+svulliez> jake will be home momentarily, he's stuck in traffic 19:57 <+voronaam> I have to go home (in the office atm). I'd like to make a motion for 30 minutes... 19:58 <+RLim> second 19:58 <+XFaCE> scshunt: We still only have 14 people 19:58 <@scshunt> uh, ok, let me check what happens here 19:59 <@scshunt> Ok, so the motion to recess is undebateable but amendable. So I'll take svulliez's motion since it was made first. The question is on the motion to recess for 10 minutes. Does anyone want to move an amendment? 20:00 <+voronaam> me. 20 minutes. 20:00 <@scshunt> Is there a second? 20:00 < Sexyboss> ORDER 20:01 <+RLim> second 20:01 <+XFaCE> Sexyboss: No unproductive chat pls 20:01 <@scshunt> Okay, it has been moved to strike 10 minutes and insert 20 minutes. If this motion is adopted then we are dealing with a motion to recess for 20 minutes, rather than one to recess for 10 minutes. We are not deciding whether to recess yet. 20:01 <@scshunt> The question is on the amendment. All in favor say aye, all opposed say nay. 20:01 <+RLim> aye 20:01 <+JohannWeiss> aye 20:01 <+thor> aye 20:01 <+XFaCE> aye 20:01 <+McGrath> aye 20:02 <+voronaam> aye 20:02 <+psema4> aye 20:02 < Merlin> aye 20:02 <@scshunt> Merlin: You are not signed in, so you cannot vote. 20:02 <@scshunt> If you are a member and having trouble signing in, talk to RLim 20:02 <@scshunt> The ayes have it and the motion is adopted. 20:03 <@scshunt> The question is now on the motion to recess for 20 minutes. 20:03 <+psema4> second 20:03 <+thor> Merlin: please log in at https://meetings.pirateparty.ca/login.php 20:03 <@scshunt> All in favor say aye, all opposed say nay. 20:03 <+psema4> zye 20:03 <+voronaam> aye 20:03 <+McGrath> aye 20:03 <+psema4> *aye 20:03 <+thor> aye 20:03 <+XFaCE> nay 20:03 <+adpaolucci> aye 20:03 <+Wilson> aye 20:04 <+phillipsjk> aye 20:04 <@scshunt> The ayes have it and the motion is adjourned. 20:04 <+JohannWeiss> aye 20:04 <+RLim> aye 20:04 -scshunt:#canada- This meeting stands recessed until 21:24 EDT 20:04 <+XFaCE> Can someone call a recess... to a recess? 20:04 <+XFaCE> Recessption 20:05 <@scshunt> huh? 20:06 <+XFaCE> scshunt: Joke haha 20:06 <+XFaCE> All in favour you think that the joke was funny, say aye 20:06 < DLS> aye 20:06 < DLS> :D 20:06 <+thor> abstain 20:07 <+XFaCE> all opposed 20:07 <+XFaCE> the ayes have it 20:07 <+JohannWeiss> aye 20:07 <+JohannWeiss> :) 20:08 Since we're recessed: 20:08 If anyone who uses OS X wants to write the guides on OpE^2 it would help the project immensely. The Mac section is all that's left, and if we get that done we'll have a complete wiki by the time C-11 and C-30 go through. 20:09 <+XFaCE> That's another thing, I should point out 20:10 <+XFaCE> Under C11, any person who legally buys Mac OS X, then uses that copy and information from the Internet to install OS X on his/her legally purchased computer would be in violation of C11 20:10 <+XFaCE> If that computer is not Apple-labelled hardware 20:10 < DLS> hmmmm, oxpirate promoting piracy... 20:10 < DLS> how wrong 20:10 <+XFaCE> Apple computers utilize TPMs which are easy to circumvent 20:10 DLS: Feels good being gangster. 20:10 < Recluse> can some one give me a link to c11? 20:10 <+XFaCE> I should also point this out in relation to the new Windows 8 arm devices 20:10 <+XFaCE> http://techrights.org/2012/05/16/mozilla-on-arm/ 20:11 XFaCE: This is a huge concern because ARM systems and tablets in general are going to become the most common consumer computers. We're entering the war on general computation. 20:11 < DLS> oxpirate: \m/ 20:11 <+McGrath> C-11: http://parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=5464444 20:12 <+psema4> XFaCE: can you clarify the MacOS / C11 issue? 20:12 <+psema4> (I'm not an Apple-anything user) 20:12 <+XFaCE> psema4: Apple computer utilize TPMs, in-so-that Mac OSX will only run on computers with the TPM present 20:12 < Recluse> whats the actual liklyhood of this bill passing? 20:12 <+XFaCE> There exists many legal, FOSS TPM implementations 20:12 <+XFaCE> Recluse: Very high 20:12 < Recluse> shit 20:13 <+psema4> Recluse: yeah, virtually gauranteed 20:13 <+JohannWeiss> oxpirate: I think the war will be easy to win because general computation is technologically superior 20:13 <+XFaCE> psema4: That allow users to install OS X on non-apple machines 20:13 <+XFaCE> McGrath: Hello my friend, how's your health? 20:14 Technologically superior perhaps but not more easily distributed to consumers. The CIA was talking earlier this year about how they'll be able to spy on people through their Internet-connected dish washers in the future. For a lot of consumers there will be no more privacy. 20:15 http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/03/petraeus-tv-remote/ < CIA stuff 20:15 <+McGrath> solution: don't buy an internet-connected dishwasher 20:16 < Recluse> ok let me rephrase that.. whats the odds of this bill actually being enforced? 20:16 <+McGrath> have your gateway blacklist all cia-lisenting posts 20:16 < DLS> jakedaynesppca: ahhh ben tabarnak!! 20:16 <+thor> oxpirate: i call bullshit on that pic of the general playing golf 20:16 <+thor> his Mii is swinging the opposite hand 20:17 Idk I just googled "CIA dishwasher spy" lol 20:17 <+JohannWeiss> :) 20:17 <@JakeDaynes> Sorry guys - ended up on the UK irc server for some ungodly reason 20:17 < DLS> hailing the queen, we know.. 20:17 <+psema4> lol 20:18 * XFaCE bows 20:18 <@JakeDaynes> incroyable! DLS! 20:18 <@JakeDaynes> salut~ cava? 20:18 <@JakeDaynes> ca va* 20:18 < DLS> crisse d'osti que ouais! 20:18 < DLS> pis toé mon vieux? 20:19 <@JakeDaynes> bien :) 20:19 < DLS> <3 20:19 <+XFaCE> Je ne comprende pas francais 20:19 <+CCitizen> do we have enough people to start stuff now? 20:19 <+psema4> Ich bin ein Berliner! 20:19 <+psema4> oh wait 20:20 <+psema4> l) 20:20 <+JohannWeiss> oxpirate: I guess I see the war on general purpose computation as having different win scenarios. I'm only really concerned if it becomes difficult or impossible to get a general purpose comupter. 20:20 <+JohannWeiss> I can't see that happening. 20:20 <+JohannWeiss> Many people may decide to buy locked devices (see the popularity of i-devices), but at the same time, opensource is progressing 20:21 Yeah, we're just going to be flooded with closed source spying devices :( 20:21 Thank science Android has a good market share. 20:22 Hopefully APPLE can't muscle them out of North American markets with their patent faggery daggery doo. 20:22 <+XFaCE> oxpirate: Can't want to get a Raspberry Pi with the Canadian GNU+Linux distro Arch on it 20:22 <+XFaCE> Actually, it comes with a Fedora derivative developed by Seneca on it by default 20:22 Canadian Arch? 20:22 <+XFaCE> oxpirate: Arch Linux was born in Canada 20:23 <+JohannWeiss> People are making the bad decision to buy those devices, but they *are* making the decision 20:23 <+phillipsjk> THe way I see it, very small or very large computers are likely to be exempt. 20:23 <+JohannWeiss> That's what's important to me 20:23 O. Neat. 20:23 <+psema4> XFaCE: publishing house Manning just asked me to review a proposal for a series of rasp pi books from the guy behind the Fedora arm distro (at Seneca in Toronto) 20:23 <+thor> oxpirate: android has a good market share, but a severely multi-faceted one as well; http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/05/android-fragmentation-one-developer-encounters-3997-devices/ 20:24 <+XFaCE> thor: that's not a bad thing 20:24 <+XFaCE> except for the threat from software patents 20:24 <@JakeDaynes> ^ +1 20:24 <+XFaCE> which aren't legal in Canada, yet 20:24 <+psema4> not true 20:24 <+psema4> they are in some cases allowed by CIPO 20:24 <+psema4> there was also just a consultation 20:24 <+XFaCE> psema4: I know, there is the ongoing debate over the Amazon one-click patent 20:24 -scshunt:#canada- The meeting will come to order 20:25 <@scshunt> I see that we now have a quorum, so we will proceed. 20:25 <@scshunt> The first order of business is the approval of the minutes from last meeting. RLim? 20:25 <+RLim> http://wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php/GM_2012-04-18_minutes 20:26 <@scshunt> Are there any corrections to the minutes? 20:27 <+JohannWeiss> It doesn't list the vote results from the commenting addition to the consituttion amendments 20:28 <+psema4> regarding robocalls: "Motion was adopted after debate and amendment with 5 ayes and 12 nays." ? 20:29 <@scshunt> RLim: JohannWeiss is correct; the disposition of the motion regarding the comment field is not recorded 20:29 <@scshunt> that motion was adopted 20:29 <@scshunt> psema4 is also correct; the motion was in fact defeated 20:29 <+RLim> ok thanks 20:30 <@scshunt> Any further corrections? 20:30 <+JohannWeiss> nope 20:30 <@JakeDaynes> none 20:31 <@scshunt> The minutes are approved. 20:31 <@scshunt> Now for reports. 20:31 <@scshunt> I have a President's report. 20:31 <@scshunt> First off, we had a number of constitutional amendments sent out to vote. Are there any objections to closing the polls on those now? 20:32 <+RLim> i object 20:32 <+XFaCE> Aye 20:32 <+XFaCE> I object as well 20:32 <@scshunt> Ok. Do you simply need time to vote or do you have a more fundamental objection? 20:33 <+RLim> I think we should give people more time to vote 20:33 <@scshunt> Okay, then I'll present the question. 20:33 <+RLim> chances are they might be voting while attending tonight's meeting 20:33 <@scshunt> Does anyone wish to make a motion to close the polls? 20:33 <+XFaCE> Indeed, there is a lot of material to read 20:35 <@scshunt> Seeing no motion to close the polls, we'll proceed, then. 20:35 <+JohannWeiss> no 20:35 <+phillipsjk> How were these polls advertised? 20:36 <@scshunt> By mailout to all members. 20:36 <+phillipsjk> paper mail? 20:36 <@scshunt> email 20:36 <+RLim> with the General meeting notice 20:36 <@scshunt> Seeing no motion to close the polls, I have a few more things to report. 20:36 <@JakeDaynes> as well as social media notifications 20:37 <+JohannWeiss> FYI: spam filters seem to block the general meeting notice 20:37 <+XFaCE> Was Identi.ca and Diaspora users notified? 20:37 <@scshunt> XFaCE: I do not know. 20:37 <+CCitizen> Do we need to make a motion to close the polls? 20:37 <+XFaCE> We should make sure, in order to re-enforce our commitment to those open platforms. 20:37 <@scshunt> CCitizen: Yes, given that there was an objection. 20:37 <@scshunt> It requires a two-thirds vote. 20:38 <+CCitizen> Can we close them at the end of the meeting then? 20:38 <+CCitizen> That would give everyone here ample time to vote 20:38 <@scshunt> We could, if the meeting agrees. 20:39 <+JohannWeiss> I'd rather give people more time. 20:39 <+RLim> yes 20:39 <+CCitizen> Also any way to tell how many voters have voted at the moment (hopefully more than we had for the PC elections) 20:39 <+RLim> or motion to close after a certain period of time? 20:39 <+JohannWeiss> I'm going to motion that the polls close in 7 days 20:39 <+XFaCE> I agree with JohannWeiss's motion 20:40 <@scshunt> JohannWeiss: Since it's not directly related to my report if we're closing them in the future, I'll ask that the motion wait until after reports 20:40 <+JohannWeiss> ok 20:40 <+XFaCE> As I will be away for 3 days without computer access, for me personally, this gives me more time to make a well-informed decision. 20:40 <+JohannWeiss> carry on with the report then 20:40 <@scshunt> First off, the Executive Board and Political Council for the most part agree that the division of the two bodies is a failed experiment. The two will be working much closer in coordination going forward, and I hereby give notice that at the next meeting of the Party, I or someone else will propose amendments to the constitution to merge the Political Council and Executive Board, including possibly merging all their powers together, or ... 20:40 <+CCitizen> Sounds good 20:40 <@scshunt> ... providing for a specific sub-body with powers, and to amend the manner in which the are elected to accomodate this merger. 20:41 <@scshunt> Second, work is going to regain a decent management structure for the Fund. 20:41 <+svulliez> I sing praise for this idea, because splitting our meetings has been a pain. 20:42 <@scshunt> Additionally, I know that a bunch of members were curious about membership cards. 20:42 <@scshunt> The letter accompanying them is being rewritten; as soon as it is done, they will be mailed out. 20:42 <@JakeDaynes> I would like to add that all cards as of March are printed and ready to go once I have the letter 20:43 <+XFaCE> Question, will newer cards be re-done with a new design reflecting the changed PPCA colour scheme and branding directive? 20:43 <@scshunt> JakeDaynes, do you want to answer that one? 20:43 <@JakeDaynes> As of this point in time, no, we will be sticking with the current membership card design 20:43 <+JMcleod> hey all 20:44 <@JakeDaynes> I believe that it will be changed over, but the current batch will be old style 20:44 <+XFaCE> Understood 20:44 <@scshunt> The IT Committee is progressing slowly; we've discovered potential issues with the legislation regarding non-monetary contributions that may hinder members' abilities to contribute. 20:44 <@scshunt> Unfortunately, as this is law, there is not much we can do about it. 20:44 <+XFaCE> Can you elaborate? 20:45 <@scshunt> Sure. 20:45 <@scshunt> The Canada Elections Act provides that the contribution limits apply to all contributions of goods, services, and funds, except for volunteer labour, which is defined as labour provided outside an individual's normal working hours, except if that individual is self-employed and normally charges for the service. 20:46 <@scshunt> Unfortunately, a number of our volunteers are in fact self-employed in the tech sector, and so the exception applies to them and IT work that they do for the party would be considered a contribution, and hence limited to $1200 a year 20:46 <+psema4> I'd like to mention that I've asked this to be a topic for discussion at next weeks IT committee meeting 20:46 <@scshunt> If they work over the limit, then in addition to the fines/jail time that the Party or members could face, the Party would have to repay the excess time. 20:47 <+svulliez> It's an outrageous law unfit for for the modern age. 20:47 <@scshunt> So if someone contributes $2400 worth of time, we would have to pay $1200 to that individual. 20:47 <+RLim> so how do you interpret the self employed section? because it's ridiculous to say self-employed don't have off work hours 20:47 <@JakeDaynes> Essentially, the act considers their regular working hours 24/7 20:47 <@scshunt> No, not quite 20:47 <+svulliez> We should allow them to work, record their hours, and have them stop at $1200 worth if we cannot find another solution 20:47 <+RLim> should we ask Election Canada and say WTF? 20:47 <@JakeDaynes> ^ 20:47 <@scshunt> For anyone, it is volunteer work if it is outside their normal work hours. 20:47 <+jhowell> ^^ 20:48 <@scshunt> Unless they are self-employed and they would normally charge. 20:48 <@scshunt> This is not an Elections Canada rule; this is very clearly stipulated by the Canada Elections Act. 20:48 <@JakeDaynes> So if I was self employed, but only work 9-5 m-f 20:48 <@JakeDaynes> it would still count as a non-monetary donation if I worked at 2am on a saturday 20:48 <@scshunt> JakeDaynes: Yes, but only on something you normally charged for. 20:49 <@JakeDaynes> That is correct 20:49 <@scshunt> If you were an indepedent lawyer, and you worked on the website, that would be ok. 20:49 <+XFaCE> What is the work the hypothetical self-employed person does is completely different from the work they would do for the PPCA? 20:49 <+thor> JakeDaynes: if you were self employed as a window cleaner, and the party asked you to do window cleaning on our HQ; it would count as contribution 20:49 <@scshunt> yes 20:49 <+XFaCE> *What if 20:49 <+JMcleod> What can be done is starting an NGO and only "charge" the party for implementation, so its 1 or 2 hours of work and not 25-30 hours for example ;) 20:49 <+svulliez> have one of them work as a co-ordinator (as that is not their regular profession) to cycle through helpers to do their $1200 worth 20:49 <@JakeDaynes> I understand, however, I'm stating that the act defines a self-employed person's regular hours as 24/7 in regards to work that they do for a living 20:50 <@scshunt> JakeDaynes: No, it does not. 20:50 <@scshunt> Attempting to circumvent the Act is also illegal. 20:50 <@scshunt> I will be talking with the individuals affected to try to figure out how best to approach their individual situations. 20:51 <+XFaCE> I should rephrase my question: does the type of work the individuals does for his/her self-employment and the PPCA a factor in the enforcement of the rule? 20:51 <+svulliez> I think we need one person to co-ordinate volunteers who knows their shit, and get a rotating cycle of IT helpers throughout the year 20:51 <+jhowell> yeah, I was considering an "if all else fails" scenario, wheras I make a special contract charging 0.01/hr with a 5 yr term :) 20:51 <@scshunt> jhowell: It must be accorded commercial value. 20:51 <+RLim> fair market value 20:51 <+JMcleod> Also, if a professional blogger joins the party... he cant blog? 20:51 <+jhowell> there's gotta be a way around it tho 20:51 <+jhowell> cuzall the non profit orgs I've worked with always get deals on everything they do 20:52 <@scshunt> Not-for-profit organizations are different. 20:52 <+RLim> it's like doing charitable work with your skills 20:52 <@scshunt> We are not a not-for-profit organization. 20:52 <@JakeDaynes> political parties != NPO 20:52 <+jhowell> hm ok 20:52 <@scshunt> We are a political party, and subject to very very different rules. 20:52 <@JakeDaynes> Technically could the IT team not work for the Pirate Party of Canada fund? 20:52 <+JMcleod> Of course there is, do you think the conservatives or liberals passed laws that they couldnt work around? 20:52 <@scshunt> JakeDaynes: That would constitute circumvention of the Act. 20:52 <+jhowell> I'd have to check to see which were non-profit vs non-for-profit 20:52 <@scshunt> so it would probably count as contribution violations 20:52 <@scshunt> plus attempts to circumvent. 20:53 <@JakeDaynes> I'm going to email EC and find out 20:53 <+RLim> yeah it's just silly that someone skilled at what they do can't volunteer much in a political party 20:53 <+psema4> I'd like to move that this discussion be postponed until the IT committee can discuss the situation more thoroughly and then bring it back to the GM. 20:53 <+svulliez> travismccrea wanted to merge our IT committee with a PPI IT committee 20:53 <@scshunt> Order. 20:53 <+svulliez> if we did that, would they be volunteering for PPI instead of us? 20:53 <@scshunt> Please, no discussion. There is no discussion. 20:53 <+phillipsjk> I second psema4 's motion. 20:53 <@scshunt> This is just a report; you are free to ask questions but this is not a time for discussion 20:53 <+RLim> actually that's relevant svulliez 20:53 <@scshunt> so I'll discard psema4's motion since we are having no discussion, and since members have a right to ask questions 20:54 <+XFaCE> What if the work the hypothetical self-employed person does is completely different from the work they would do for the PPCA? 20:54 <+svulliez> RLim: I know, right! :) 20:54 <@scshunt> XFaCE: As I said, only work for which they would normally charge is counted as a contribution. 20:54 <+RLim> We can just adopt what PPI have done 20:54 <+RLim> if we want 20:54 <@scshunt> It will need to be done carefully to avoid the rules. 20:55 <@scshunt> Especially the rules about non-{citizen,permanent resident}s contributing. 20:55 <@scshunt> Anyhow, are there any more questions? If not, my report is done. 20:55 <@scshunt> Ok. 20:55 <@scshunt> JMcleod: Do you have a report? 20:56 <+JMcleod> No I dont 20:56 <@scshunt> RLim: ? 20:56 <+RLim> nope 20:56 <@scshunt> svulliez: ? 20:57 <+svulliez> I can say a few words. 20:57 <+svulliez> We're trying to flesh out our social media team, if you would like to help run a more obscure social media account, PM me here or on the forums. 20:58 <+svulliez> that's all for now I suppose. 21:00 <@scshunt> TeamColtra: ? 21:00 < TeamColtra> I am currently heading the PNC meeting 21:00 <+RLim> PNC? 21:00 < TeamColtra> AND at work :P 21:00 <@scshunt> No report, then. 21:00 < TeamColtra> US Pirate National Committee 21:01 <@scshunt> I don't know any reports from committees or boards 21:01 <@scshunt> but perhaps the IT Director and Projects Manager wish to report? 21:01 <+svulliez> http://pr.piratepad.ca/149 - writing a press release about C-309 tonight after the meeting, all are invited to provide opinions and input 21:02 <@scshunt> CCitizen, jhowell: do either of you wish to report? 21:03 <@JakeDaynes> I would like to say a few things as VPN project manager 21:03 <@scshunt> As long as no one has a problem with that, go ahead. 21:04 * JakeDaynes checks to make sure he's not struck down by "Chair Lightning" 21:04 < DLS> do it Jake! 21:04 <@JakeDaynes> So, as some of you may be aware, the current VPN site, ostra.ca is simply a redirect back to a signup page on our existing site 21:05 <@JakeDaynes> This is set to change in the next week, as soon as our web server is setup with a drupal installation - I just wanted to report that it hasn't been forgotten, and once I have received the proper credentials to setup said drupal install, we will be starting the documentation process in order to better promote the VPN service 21:06 <@JakeDaynes> This will hopefully result in a much appreciated increase in party funds, which I hope can be applied towards other projects in the near future 21:06 <@JakeDaynes> -end- 21:08 <@scshunt> Ok. It looks like we're done with reports, so we'll move on then. There's no unfinished business or general orders, so we'll move on to new business. 21:09 <@scshunt> CCitizen: The agenda has your motion listed first. Would you like to make it? 21:09 <+XFaCE> I had a report 21:09 <+XFaCE> Or rather, have. 21:10 <+CCitizen> sure 21:10 <@scshunt> XFaCE: In what role? 21:10 <+XFaCE> As a contributor to the PPCA blog. 21:10 <@scshunt> Okay. As long as no one yells out that they object, go ahead :) 21:10 <+CCitizen> I'd like for us to adopt a special rule of order as follows 21:10 Sounds good to me. 21:10 <+CCitizen> Non-members shall normally be permitted to speak at meetings, including in debate. That permission may be withdrawn or reinstated for any non-member individually or for all as a group with a majority vote on an undebatable motion to do so. This motion is a question of the privilege of the assembly. The motion cannot be renewed or the opposite motion made after it is adopted unless it presents a fundamentally different question or 21:10 <+CCitizen> the parliamentary situation has changed. 21:10 No objections. 21:10 <+CCitizen> If you want translations and details it's also available at http://wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php/GM_2012-05-16_CCitizen_Motion 21:11 <@scshunt> CCitizen: Do you have any issues with letting XFaCE report first? 21:11 <+CCitizen> Ah he can go first 21:12 <@scshunt> XFaCE: go ahead 21:12 <+XFaCE> I would like to report that I am writing a follow-up to my "Bill C-11 - Harmful to Free Software" article, and will publish this follow-up to the PPCA website after it has been published to Techrights. 21:13 <+XFaCE> If anyone has anything they think should be contributed or noted in the article, please contact me through an IRC PM, or on Identi.ca or Diaspora. 21:13 <+XFaCE> -end- 21:13 <@scshunt> Okay. Do we have a second for CCitizen's motion now? 21:14 <+XFaCE> Second 21:14 <@scshunt> Okay. The question is now on the motion to adopted a special rule of order as described by CCitizen. Before we get into debate, are there any questions? 21:15 <+XFaCE> How would we deal with a situation where a troll has joined to disrupt the debate? 21:15 <+XFaCE> For example, suppose a user flooded the channel. 21:15 <@scshunt> That's not a question about the technical workings of the rule, so I'll let CCitizen handle that in debate. 21:16 <@scshunt> CCitizen: do you want to introduce your motion? 21:16 <+CCitizen> I'd guess we'd switch the channel to +m then take a vote on keeping it +m? 21:16 <+CCitizen> Same way you deal with any spam after all 21:16 <+JohannWeiss> Sounds sensible 21:17 <+XFaCE> My point specifically is that when flooding occurs, it is often very sudden and therefore difficult to contain quickly in many cases. 21:18 <+JohannWeiss> Can't that already happen? 21:18 <@scshunt> They would still be expected to follow the rules of debate and, since they do not have /rights/ to speak, I think that under this rule, the chair would still have the power to act unilaterally against non-members violating the rules. 21:18 <+phillipsjk> my reading of the proposal is that the specific troll can be muted as well. XFaCE seems to be asking what if a troll is account hopping to force us to cut off non-member debate? 21:18 a moderator would probably +m in that case without a vote 21:19 <@scshunt> I interpret the question of how do we react quickly. 21:19 <@scshunt> In the case of a disruptive member, they have a right to speak that can only be curtailed by the assembly, so a vote would normally have to be taken. But a non-member has no such right. 21:20 <@scshunt> svulliez: you aren't signed in, incidentally, so you don't have a right to speak :P 21:20 <@scshunt> Is there any more debate? 21:20 <+XFaCE> Do we trust the integrity of the IRC server not to fail in those circumstances? 21:20 I feel non-members are crucial, especially due to the fact of us being a small party. If we start to shut out non-members, what about supporters of the party etc., how do they debate and such? 21:20 <+JMcleod> TBH we may move away from IRC in the near future =) 21:21 I just see non-members are crucial, particularly due to the size of the party 21:21 <@scshunt> Is there any objection to allowing non-members to participate in debate on this motion? 21:21 No 21:21 <@JakeDaynes> no 21:21 <+JMcleod> There better not be or else! 21:21 <+JakeDaynes> :( 21:21 <+XFaCE> No, with the condition that we implement sufficient methods to maintain the intergrity of the server 21:21 <@scshunt> XFaCE: I don't think that the integrity of the IRC server is related to this motion. 21:22 <@scshunt> Is there any more debate? 21:22 <+XFaCE> scshunt: In an coordinated attack, this could have a double-whammy attach of driving the server offline as well as disrupting the meeting 21:23 <+CCitizen> Anyways it's to set the default to open speech rather than having to give permission 21:23 <+XFaCE> scshunt: Whereas if such an attack would to occur at any other time, it would be less of a problem 21:23 <+XFaCE> I agree with the goal of the motion, I just want to make sure that we establish conditions to accommodate this motion 21:23 <@scshunt> XFaCE: I can't participate in debate since I'm chairing, so unless you have a specific question, I'll have to refrain from talking about this. 21:23 <+RLim> I see one problem with CCitizen motion 21:24 <@scshunt> Although I appreciate that you've taken the step to address all remarks to the chair ;) 21:24 <+XFaCE> scshunt: My apologies, you were addressing to me, I was returning the favour :) 21:25 <@scshunt> RLim, XFaCE: Do you wish to continue talking? 21:25 <+XFaCE> I am finished for now, and eagerly await what RLim wants to say 21:25 <+CCitizen> what problems are there 21:25 <+RLim> say someone is being a pain, taking away their right to speak seems like censorship 21:25 <+XFaCE> RLim: Not necessarily 21:26 <+JMcleod> To be a pain, I think what is meant is ... 21:26 <+JMcleod> f 21:26 <+JMcleod> fs 21:26 <+JMcleod> fs 21:26 <+JMcleod> fsf 21:26 <+JMcleod> sf 21:26 <+JMcleod> s 21:26 <+JMcleod> sf 21:26 <+JMcleod> s 21:26 <+RLim> although the same thing could happen after you grant them the right to speak 21:26 <+JMcleod> See? 21:26 < MononcQc> Can't you indirectly spam using quit messages or nick changes anyway? 21:26 <+RLim> true MononcQc 21:26 <+JMcleod> For those who have those alerts on 21:26 <+XFaCE> JMcleod: times that by a thousand 21:26 <+RLim> I am done. I don't see a big deal. 21:26 <+jhowell> its censorship, but some people can't moderate themselves. think about it this way.. if we were in a boardroom and some one went off on a rant..is it professional? and how would we deal with them 21:27 <+XFaCE> Since this forum during meetings has rules for appropriate conduct, would free speech not apply fully in this case anyway? 21:27 <+svulliez> there is #riffraff for free speech, we could mute them and direct them there 21:27 <+svulliez> if they're being obnoxious 21:28 <+JMcleod> I move to send this motion to a vote 21:28 <+XFaCE> What is the definition of free speech in this case? 21:28 <+XFaCE> I think it is important to establish the baseline for what we are alluding to here. 21:29 <+jhowell> svulliez's statement is well within order i think 21:29 <+XFaCE> I agree 21:29 <+jhowell> obnoxiousness should be able to be pushed to another place 21:30 <+JohannWeiss> The motions wont change that 21:30 <+JohannWeiss> motion** 21:30 <+XFaCE> Are we using the exact Charter of Rights and Freedoms defintion of Free speech in this case? 21:30 <+svulliez> I second JMcleod's motion to go to a vote. 21:30 <+svulliez> I don't think this discussion is going to affect the outcome. 21:31 <+XFaCE> Perhaps not, but I do want clarification on what we are using as a free speech basline 21:31 <+XFaCE> *baseline 21:32 <+JohannWeiss> It's still no different from what we currently have 21:32 <+XFaCE> Which is? 21:32 <+svulliez> this discussion is fit for #riffraff I think 21:32 <+XFaCE> Very well 21:32 <+svulliez> scshunt: can we go to a vote now? 21:32 <@scshunt> The assembly has the right to exclude non-members. The chair has the power to use it unilaterally against disruptive guests. 21:32 <+XFaCE> I third the JMcleod motion 21:33 <@scshunt> Oh, sorry JMcleod, I totally missed that 21:33 <@scshunt> JMcleod has moved the previous question. 21:33 <@scshunt> This is a motion which is undebateable and requires a two-thirds vote. If adopted, we will proceed immediately to a vote on the main motion with no further debate. 21:33 <@scshunt> First off, is there any objection to proceeding directly to a vote on the main motion? 21:34 <@scshunt> Okay, seeing none, we'll just declare the previous question adopted. 21:34 <@scshunt> The question is on the adoption of the following special rule of order 21:34 <@scshunt> 22:10:42 <+CCitizen> Non-members shall normally be permitted to speak at meetings, including in debate. That permission may be withdrawn or reinstated for any non-member individually or for all as a group with a majority vote on an undebatable motion to do so. This motion is a question of the privilege of the assembly. The motion cannot be renewed or the opposite motion made after it is 21:34 <@scshunt> aopted ufnless it presents a fundamentally different question or 21:35 <@scshunt> 22:10:42 <+CCitizen> the parliamentary situation has changed. 21:35 <@scshunt> This motion requires a two-thirds vote. 21:35 <+phillipsjk> are the typos in the original? 21:35 <@scshunt> Yes. 21:35 <@scshunt> No wait, no they aren't 21:35 <@scshunt> don't know how they came in there 21:35 <+CCitizen> theres typos? 21:36 <+CCitizen> I just cut n paste it from the official notice version 21:36 <@scshunt> "adopted unless it presents a fundamentally different question or the parliamentary situation has changed." 21:36 <@scshunt> yeah, that was my copy-paste screwing up. 21:36 <@scshunt> Okay. Is everyone clear on the motion about to be voted on? 21:36 <@scshunt> All in favor, say aye. All opposed, say nay. 21:36 <+JakeDaynes> aye 21:36 <+phillipsjk> aye 21:36 <+Wilson> aye 21:37 <+XFaCE> Aye, with the condition that we implement sufficient methods to maintain the intergrity of the server 21:37 <+svulliez> aye 21:37 <+RLim> aye 21:37 <@scshunt> XFaCE: Conditions on votes are not permitted. You must vote either for or against. 21:37 <@scshunt> or not vote. 21:37 <+jhowell> aye 21:37 aye 21:37 <+psema4> aye 21:37 <+JohannWeiss> aye 21:37 <@scshunt> juzt4me: you do not get a vote. 21:37 <+XFaCE> Aue 21:37 <+XFaCE> *Aye 21:37 < MononcQc> aye (if I'm logged on somehow?) 21:37 <+CCitizen> aye 21:37 <@scshunt> MononcQc: You are not. 21:37 my bad, guess defeats being here haha 21:37 < MononcQc> forget about me then 21:38 <+thor> aye 21:38 <+RLim> not at all juzt4me, you can still give input 21:38 <@scshunt> Thank you for your votes. 21:38 <@scshunt> There are 11 votes in favor and 0 against. The necessary two-thirds having been achieved, the motion is adopted. 21:39 <@scshunt> Next item on the agenda is a motion which is attributed to Jeremy Howell, but I believe that JohannWeiss was the actual author? 21:39 <+RLim> did I make a typo in the agenda? 21:39 <@scshunt> yeah 21:39 <@scshunt> no big deal 21:39 <@scshunt> as long as someone moves it 21:40 <@scshunt> JohannWeiss: do you have it handy? 21:41 <+JohannWeiss> No, I had forgot TBH. I'm just trying to find it now 21:41 <@scshunt> Ok. We'll move on in the meanwhile then; the next item was Travis McCrea's candidacy. 21:41 <@scshunt> Do I have a motion to appoint Travis as the candidate for Vancouver Centre? 21:41 <+JMcleod> I move to appoint Travis McCrea as the candidate for Vancouver Centre 21:42 <+psema4> second 21:42 <+JakeDaynes> damn, beat me to it 21:42 <+Wilson> I second that 21:42 <+Wilson> damn 21:42 <+svulliez> I move to vote. 21:42 <@scshunt> It has been moved and seconded to appoint Travis McCrea as the candidate for Vancouver Centre. JMcleod, it is your motion; do you wish to speak first? 21:42 <+svulliez> Travis is clearly an active member in our community, and appropriate for the role. 21:43 <+JMcleod> No I do not 21:43 <@scshunt> Is there any more debate? 21:43 <+phillipsjk> Does Elections Canada require you to be a Canadian citizen to run? 21:43 <@scshunt> Yes. 21:45 <@scshunt> Seeing no more debate, the question is on the motion to appoint Travis McCrea as the candidate for Vancouver Centre. All in favor say aye, all opposed say nay. 21:45 <+drkaboom> Aye 21:45 <+XFaCE> Aye 21:45 <+svulliez> aye 21:45 <+JakeDaynes> aye 21:45 <+Wilson> aye 21:45 <+jhowell> aye 21:45 <+JohannWeiss> aye 21:45 <+McGrath> aye 21:46 <+CCitizen> aye 21:46 <+RLim> aye 21:46 <+JMcleod> aye 21:47 <@scshunt> There are 11 votes in favor and 0 opposed. The ayes have it and the motion is adopted. 21:47 <@scshunt> JohannWeiss: are you ready? 21:48 <+JohannWeiss> Yeah 21:48 <+JohannWeiss> I motion that we allow the EB to elect our IT head instead of the GM. 21:48 <+JakeDaynes> Seconded 21:48 <@scshunt> JohannWeiss: can you phrase that as an amendment to the existing rule. As a standalone motion it would be out of order due to conflicting with another rule. 21:49 <+XFaCE> Can you also elaborate on the initials that you are using? 21:49 <+JohannWeiss> A.6 Standing Committees 21:49 <+JohannWeiss> The following will be enacted as a special rule of order: 21:49 <+JohannWeiss> "The IT Committee shall be a standing committee of the Party, chaired by the IT Director. The IT Director will be elected by the Executive Board and serve for a term in the same manner as an officer. Additional members may be appointed or removed by the Executive Board or a general meeting as they see fit. The IT Committee is responsible and has power to oversee the technical operations of the Party. The IT Director shall have full access 21:49 <+JohannWeiss> The change is just in the second sentence 21:50 <@scshunt> Okay, JohannWeiss has moved to amend the special rule of order defining the IT Committee by inserting "by the Executive Board" after "The IT Director will be elected" 21:50 <@scshunt> Is there any debate on this motion? 21:50 <+XFaCE> Why do we want to do this? 21:51 <+JohannWeiss> I just thought it would be more efficient. We spent two months electing the last IT Director 21:51 <+XFaCE> Understood 21:51 <+JohannWeiss> The EB meets once a week, so the issue could have been resolved way faster. 21:51 <+JakeDaynes> Also, if the current director decides to ditch out, we don't want to have to wait a month or so 21:51 <+JMcleod> So its faster to appoint an IT director and the IT Board is a sub-board of the EB 21:52 <+RLim> but I thought the purpose of that is so EB does not have too much power by appointing a voting member 21:52 <+CCitizen> Actually the IT Committee was given the power to appoint it's own director last time we just had time coordinating 21:52 <+jhowell> ^ 21:52 <+XFaCE> Glad I asked. 21:52 <@scshunt> CCitizen: It was not. It was tasked with providing a suggestion back to the GM to make the appointment. 21:53 <+JohannWeiss> If there is serious problems with the IT Director, the membership can always petition for a special GM and trump the Executive decision 21:53 <+jhowell> also note that most of the EB is on the IT committee 21:53 <+jhowell> well. shouldn't say most. a portion of. 21:54 <+JohannWeiss> Any other debate on it or do we want to vote? 21:54 <@scshunt> Are you ready for the question? 21:55 <@scshunt> Okay 21:56 <@scshunt> The question is on the motion to amend the special rule of order defining the IT Committee by inserting "by the Executive Board" after "The IT Director will be elected". All in favor say aye, all opposed say nay. 21:56 <+JakeDaynes> aye 21:56 <+JMcleod> aye 21:56 <+phillipsjk> aye 21:56 <+XFaCE> aye 21:56 <+svulliez> aye 21:56 <+jhowell> aye 21:56 <+JohannWeiss> aye 21:56 <+McGrath> aye 21:56 <+RLim> aye 21:57 <+Wilson> aye 21:57 <@scshunt> There are 10 votes in favor and 0 against. The necessary two-thirds is attained and the motion is adopted. 21:57 <@scshunt> Does anyone have any further business? 21:58 <+XFaCE> Yes 21:58 <@scshunt> XFaCE: What is it? 22:00 <+XFaCE> For scshunt to explain himself in regards to his statements that he "would have to submit my resignation" in regards to the proposed PPCA consitutional amendments. 22:00 <@scshunt> Is there any objection to this? 22:00 <+JakeDaynes> none 22:01 <@scshunt> Ok. 22:01 <@scshunt> So I said in #riffraff that I feel that I would have to submit my resignation if the proposed constitutional amendments were adopted entirely. 22:01 <@scshunt> The basic feeling I have is that my role as President would fundamentally change if they were adopted 22:02 <@scshunt> The largest reason for this change would be due to number 10, which would move a lot of power from the President to the VP (and also the Leader to the DL) 22:02 <@scshunt> While it is not formalized anywhere, one role that I take on and that I feel that people expect of me as President is to serve as a facilitator for various aspects of the Party, and to ensure that things are moving. 22:03 <@scshunt> This amendment would remove my ability to do so, so I feel that the only thing to do would be to stop doing that. 22:04 <@scshunt> Additionally, some of the other amendments, particularly the ones that remove the formal definitions of the powers of the PC and EB and, to a lesser extent, the elections ones, would possibly create a number of issues with the constitution as it exists, issues that I have made efforts to point out. 22:04 <@scshunt> I feel that their adoption would be a significant rejection of my personal fulfillment of the role of the interpreter and moderator of the rules. 22:05 <@scshunt> I don't take any offense from the authors; they are of course doing what they see best for the Party. 22:05 <@scshunt> But I feel that if all the amendments were adopted as is, I would at least have to submit my resignation for the Party to accept or decline as it sees fit. 22:06 <@scshunt> If the Party rejected my resignation, I would continue the role in a different manner. 22:06 <@scshunt> If some but not all were adopted, I would have to feel the specific situation out. 22:06 <@scshunt> I don't want this to come off as a threat; you are plenty free to adopt the amendments and then reject my resignation, in which case I will certainly serve the remainder of my term! 22:07 <@scshunt> -done- 22:07 <@scshunt> Any questions? 22:07 <+JMcleod> When does that vote for amendments end? 22:07 <+JohannWeiss> We 22:07 <+JohannWeiss> ve yet to decide that 22:07 <+JohannWeiss> I was going to bring a motion forward to end it in 7 days 22:08 <+RLim> so currently, President and Leader sits in all committee and have voting rights? 22:09 <@scshunt> That is correct. 22:09 <+JMcleod> Yes, and I think it should remain the same, but we'll see what the party decides. 22:10 <+svulliez> I think either is a good system, it just changes things around a bit. 22:10 <@scshunt> I feel I should be honest; I expected the votes to be ended immediately, so I looked at the results to prepare to present them. It looks to me as if most people voted without considering carefully. Which is certainly not any of your faults (I hope), but I do feel a little bit hurt by this process. I'll certainly remain active and contribute as a member of the PC either way 22:11 <+svulliez> I move to present the results. 22:11 <+JMcleod> Technically the VP and DL are supposed to replace the Pres or Leader if needed. 22:11 <@scshunt> svulliez: The interim results? 22:11 <@scshunt> or do you wish to end the voting? 22:12 <+svulliez> If you've prepared the end the voting, I see no need to stretch it out 22:12 <+RLim> how many have voted? 22:12 <@scshunt> 32 22:12 <@scshunt> I won't answer any more than that without a specific motion to do so. 22:12 <+RLim> wonder if we will get anymore? 22:12 <@scshunt> We could send out more reminders, perhaps. 22:13 <@scshunt> svulliez has moved to end the polls on the constitutional amendments. Is there a second? 22:13 <+svulliez> Hm, it's not a particularly great turnout but I don't see where else we're going to get them from. 22:13 <+JakeDaynes> I'd recommend leaving it up for another 7 days, and promoting the vote through all forms of social media heavily 22:13 <+psema4> ^ 22:13 <+svulliez> I just want to see the results because Hunt saw them and I'm a curious guy, if people want to keep the votes open that's cool. 22:13 <@scshunt> I see no second, so the motion won't be considered. 22:14 <+psema4> I must say I'm a little disturbed 22:14 <+JMcleod> I move to present interim results (tis not an election of sorts) 22:15 <@scshunt> Is there a second? 22:15 <+JakeDaynes> seconded 22:15 <@scshunt> Hmm. 22:16 <+svulliez> Eugh, I'm not entirely sure about this. 22:16 <@scshunt> I think I'll rule that that's a motion to suspend the rules, since normally ballots are not looked at until counted. 22:16 <@scshunt> Such a motion is not normally debateable, although I think in the circumstances it may be prudent to make the motion debateable. Is there any objection to this? 22:16 <+svulliez> Nope, sounds good. 22:16 <+psema4> no objection to making it debatable 22:17 <@scshunt> Ok. The question is on the motion to present the current tally of votes from the constitutional amendment ballots. 22:17 <+phillipsjk> Is thre a pupose to showing the votes early, other thna to influence the vote? 22:17 <+RLim> what are we hoping to accomplish from this? 22:18 <+svulliez> ^ 22:18 <+svulliez> Rlim is on the money 22:18 <+JMcleod> Nothing precisely, to satisfy curiosity :) 22:18 <+RLim> oh Jack. Curiosity kills the cat. :P 22:19 <+XFaCE> I think we should hand over the results to a third-party 22:19 <+XFaCE> who can judge the presence of abnormalities 22:19 <+RLim> slightly off topic. maybe we should have electoral chief or officer 22:19 <+svulliez> good idea. 22:19 <+RLim> for the future 22:19 <+psema4> RLim: that's you IIRC 22:20 <+RLim> oh? lol 22:20 <+JohannWeiss> That's a great idea RLim, very needed 22:20 <@scshunt> Strictly speaking, it is the President's duty and power to appoint the tellers for a vote 22:20 <+psema4> Hrmm, I thought RLim's role was that of Clerk 22:20 <+psema4> (renamed to Secretary) 22:21 <@scshunt> I handled this one myself, although it was certainly a mistake for me to look at the results before the polls were officially closed. 22:21 <@scshunt> RLim is the Secretary, but that does not mean it is his responsibility to handle votes. 22:22 <@scshunt> Is there any further debate on the motion? 22:23 <+svulliez> I don't think we should do it. 22:23 <+XFaCE> If we are going to look at the results before we close the polls? 22:23 <+RLim> yes XFaCe 22:23 <+JMcleod> Well we perhaps should look at setting an end date for em instead 22:23 <+XFaCE> Why not just restart the polls completely? 22:24 <+svulliez> I feel kind of uncomfortable with the idea that your discourse in this meeting has been affected by the results you've seen, and you've threatened to resign over one of them passing, it's not an ideal situation in the slightest. 22:24 <+phillipsjk> XFaCE, not everybody who vated will be present at the meeting. 22:24 <+XFaCE> phillipsjk: I think there is enough to cause influence of the results 22:25 <+RLim> unless you want to withdraw JMcleod 22:26 <+psema4> influencing the results may not be a bad thing... 22:26 <+phillipsjk> Can't people change their votes untill the polls close? 22:26 <@scshunt> phillipsjk: yes 22:26 <+psema4> members can go back and actually read the ammendments 22:26 <+XFaCE> psema4: lol 22:26 <+psema4> XFaCE: not funny, I'm being more thorough in my reading of them right now 22:26 <+svulliez> I think that's a bit of an abuse, to try to change the results though 22:26 <+RLim> I would assume that they read the amendments and not vote blindly 22:27 <+RLim> *voted 22:27 <+XFaCE> RLim: I wouldn't be so sure 22:27 <+JohannWeiss> It seems like a bad precedent to set. If the membership wants to reverse a decision they can do so at the next meeting, when we officially hear the results 22:27 <+JMcleod> I dont think I can withdraw, someone would have to move that it be withdrawn ;) 22:27 <+psema4> RLim: I'm not so concerned about blind voting as misunderstandings 22:27 <@scshunt> JMcleod: Would you like to withdraw? It requires your consent as well as the assembly's. 22:28 <+JMcleod> Sure 22:28 <+JMcleod> But there has to be a vote on it 22:28 <@scshunt> Okay. Is there any objection to JMcleod withdrawing his motion to present to current tally of votes? 22:28 <@scshunt> Ok then 22:28 <@scshunt> The question is on JMcleod's request for persmission to withdraw his motion to present the current tally of ovtes. 22:28 <+svulliez> I don't think any of the amendments are so brutal that we need to tinker with the results based what sean hunt saw when he peeked ahead of time 22:28 <@scshunt> *votes 22:28 <+svulliez> sorry for speaking out of turn. 22:28 <@scshunt> This requires a majority. All in favor say aye, all opposed say nay. 22:29 <+RLim> aye 22:29 <+JakeDaynes> aye 22:29 <+svulliez> aye 22:29 <+XFaCE> nay 22:29 <+JMcleod> aye 22:29 <+MononcQc> aye 22:29 <+JohannWeiss> aye 22:29 <+phillipsjk> aye 22:29 <+psema4> aye 22:30 <@scshunt> The ayes have it and the request is granted, the motion is withdrawn. 22:30 <@scshunt> RLim: the motion should not appear on the minutes 22:30 <+RLim> k 22:30 <@scshunt> Is there any further business? 22:30 <+psema4> I 22:30 <+psema4> oops 22:31 <+psema4> I'll second the motion to close the polls in 7 days 22:31 <+JohannWeiss> Motion: To end the Const vote in 7 days 22:31 <@scshunt> Ok. 22:31 <@scshunt> It has been moved and seconded to close the pools for the constitutional amendment votes in 7 days. Is there any objection to this? 22:31 <+JakeDaynes> none 22:32 <@scshunt> Seeing none, the polls will close at 11:32 pm EDT next Wednesday. 22:32 <@scshunt> Any further business? 22:32 <+XFaCE> I move that we recognize that the motion to reveal the results was withdrawn, not defeated. 22:33 <@scshunt> in the minutes? 22:33 <+XFaCE> Correct 22:33 <+psema4> XFaCE: they'll be in the transcript 22:33 <+XFaCE> To quote: 22:33 <+XFaCE> [23:29] RLim: the motion should not appear on the minutes 22:33 <+XFaCE> [23:29]  k 22:33 <@scshunt> A transcript of the meeting is posted alongside the minutes. 22:33 <+phillipsjk> I second. 22:34 <@scshunt> The minutes are the official record of what happened; since the motion was withdrawn and not defeated, it is not recorded since it does not constitute a decision. 22:34 <@scshunt> It has been moved and seconded to suspend the rules and include the earlier withdrawn motion in the minutes. This requires two-thirds and is not debateable. 22:34 <@scshunt> All in favor, say aye. All opposed, say nay. 22:34 <+XFaCE> Aye 22:34 <+JakeDaynes> aye 22:35 <+JohannWeiss> aye 22:35 <+phillipsjk> aye 22:35 <+psema4> abstain 22:35 <+svulliez> aye 22:36 <+JMcleod> aye 22:36 <+MononcQc> abstain 22:36 <+RLim> aye 22:37 <@scshunt> There are 7 votes in favor and none against. The constitution requires that a number of affirmative votes equal to at least half of quorum be cast in order for a motion to be adopted. The chair thus votes in the affirmative, making it 8 votes, so the motion is adopted. 22:37 * psema4 interesting 22:37 <@scshunt> Is there any further business? 22:38 <+XFaCE> I would like to forware another motion 22:38 <@scshunt> sure 22:39 <+XFaCE> I would like motion that we discuss the form in which the relationship with the website Techrights should take 22:39 <+XFaCE> Specifically, that the relationship will not violate any Party rules and regulations 22:39 <+JMcleod> Techrights is one of our sites? 22:40 <@scshunt> XFaCE: Who is we? The meeting? 22:40 <+XFaCE> No 22:40 <+XFaCE> yes 22:40 <@scshunt> ok. 22:40 <+XFaCE> we=members present 22:40 <@scshunt> Is there any objection to this? 22:40 <+JMcleod> well if its not one of our sites... is this even receivable? 22:40 <+JakeDaynes> none, however - I would ask that if I leave, will we maintain quorum? 22:41 <@scshunt> Yes. 22:41 <@scshunt> JMcleod: We can certainly take a motion to discuss something. 22:41 <+JakeDaynes> Then unfortunately, I must leave - take care 22:41 <+JMcleod> ok then ;) 22:42 <+XFaCE> All right then 22:42 <@scshunt> So I see no objection, so we'll proceed to such a discussion. 22:42 <+XFaCE> For those who don't know, Techrights is an news and advocacy site run by Dr. Roy Schestowitz 22:43 <+XFaCE> and a member of the Bytes Media conglomerate 22:43 <+XFaCE> I am an editor and contributor to the site 22:43 <+JohannWeiss> What is our current relationship with them and how could it affect our party legally? 22:44 <+JohannWeiss> or rules/regs 22:44 <+XFaCE> Shortly after the authoring of my article, "Bill C-11 - Harmful to Free Software", I had an idea to create some relation with the PPCA 22:44 <+XFaCE> This relationship was sparked largely through a discussion between scshunt and schestowitz on the Techrights IRC channel 22:45 <+XFaCE> when scshunt stated he was against software patents. 22:45 <+XFaCE> Schestowitz then stated his approval of the party and its mission, and made a Techrights blog post confirming this support 22:46 <+psema4> link pls 22:46 <+XFaCE> one moment 22:46 <+XFaCE> http://techrights.org/2012/03/19/statement-of-ppca/ 22:47 <+XFaCE> Anyway, shortly thereafter, Roy and I had began the creation of "Techrights Canada", a portal located on the TR wiki 22:47 <+XFaCE> This portal was designed to serve as the conduit between the PPCA and Techrights 22:48 <+XFaCE> http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Techrights_Canada 22:49 <+XFaCE> In addition to the mission statement of TR Canada, authored by myself, there is also a paragraph that defines the relationship between TR and the PPCA that I was hoping to establish 22:49 <+XFaCE> I can quote the paragraph if required 22:50 <+XFaCE> Earlier this week, I presented this link to svulliez during a non-formal discussion in the #canada channel, and he gave his approval of the initiative. 22:50 <+XFaCE> Also, other members in the IRC stated it was ok to the use the PPCA site logo for a link to the PPCA site. 22:52 <+XFaCE> Now, what I was wishing to discuss specifically, is whether this relationship is acceptable in its current form. If so, I was wondering if there were ways there may be to even increase the relationship between TR and PPCA. 22:52 <+phillipsjk> May I make a suggestion? 22:52 <+XFaCE> sure 22:53 <+XFaCE> what is it? 22:54 <+phillipsjk> If you are concerned that this collaboration will be considered donations in kind, perhaps you should approach other political parties such as the NDP, libertarian and Green parties for similar collaberation. 22:54 <+JMcleod> Its always OK to link our logo, but not to say we approve without consent. Many of us in the party are in agreement with kopimism and think you are doing the sacred act of copying if you copy and paste our logo to any site :D (ok im exagerating a bit) 22:54 <+XFaCE> I should point out that Techrights is completely non-profit 22:55 <+psema4> JMcleod: well done :) 22:55 <+XFaCE> Also, when it was discussed, the problem that was pointed out was modifying the logo 22:55 <@scshunt> I would recommend verifying with Elections Canada that what you are duing is acceptable within contribution rules 22:55 <@scshunt> *doing 22:55 <+XFaCE> I would think it is 22:56 <+XFaCE> Unless there is a problem with Roy Schestowitz living in the UK 22:56 <+XFaCE> and not being a Canada citizen 22:56 <@scshunt> As long as he isn't doing anything which counts as a contribution, I don't think there would be 22:56 <+JohannWeiss> If it's a non-profit I can't see any problems 22:56 <+XFaCE> Otherwise, he is not self-employed and what he does on TR is completely in his spare time 22:56 <@Nuitari> scshunt: 3rd party rules would apply 22:56 <@scshunt> ^ yes, that 22:56 <+XFaCE> He has even written posts while being in the gym 22:57 <@scshunt> Best to talk to EC 22:57 <+XFaCE> Nuitari: Can you please elaborate? 22:57 <@scshunt> XFaCE: There are rules for third party advertising during elections. 22:57 <@scshunt> I'm not that familiar with them. 22:57 <@scshunt> I do not believe that they apply during non-election periods, but I could be wrong. 22:57 <@Nuitari> I don't think they apply outside of it 22:58 <@Nuitari> what is the legal form of techrights? 22:58 <+XFaCE> Are you saying that during elections, we would have to divest the TR-PPCA connection? 22:58 <@Nuitari> there would be limits to how much promotion (new articles) it would get 22:58 <@Nuitari> existing content is excluded from it 22:59 <+XFaCE> I'm not certain if Techrights has an official legal establishment 22:59 <+XFaCE> or title 22:59 <+XFaCE> From what I know, it does not 23:00 <@scshunt> The discussion seems to be at a close. Does anyone have a motion relating to it? 23:00 <+XFaCE> I will have to discuss this with Roy in order to be certain 23:01 <+JohannWeiss> I can't see this problem becoming serious before the next meeting, so why don't you discuss this with Nuitari and scshunt. 23:01 <@Nuitari> if they have an expense of less then 500$ then it won't matter 23:01 <+XFaCE> Very well. 23:01 <+JohannWeiss> Maybe also EC is necessary 23:01 <@Nuitari> there is no requirement to register 23:01 <+JohannWeiss> if** 23:01 <+XFaCE> Nuitari: As I said, the site is hosted in the UK 23:02 <+JMcleod> Seeing its midnight, I move to end this meeting. 23:02 <@Nuitari> well, it depends what qualifies as electiona dvertising 23:02 <+JohannWeiss> second 23:03 <+svulliez> I want to motion to have another GM at the end of votinh 23:03 <@scshunt> A motion has been made and seconded that the meeting adjourn. 23:03 <@scshunt> svulliez: Specific date and time? 23:03 <@Nuitari> http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=pol&document=index&dir=thi/que&lang=e 23:03 <+phillipsjk> I object. 23:03 <+svulliez> Can I motion to have the meeting on wednesday and close the voting earlier than previously stated? 23:03 <@scshunt> phillipsjk: to? 23:04 <+phillipsjk> ending the meeting 23:04 <@scshunt> svulliez: ok, brace yourself. 23:04 <+XFaCE> which wednesday? 23:04 <@scshunt> a bunch of procedure coming through here 23:04 <@scshunt> please everyone listen carefully, I don't want to repeat myself 23:04 <+XFaCE> I would like to clarify the date before any further action 23:04 <+JMcleod> ALRIGHT STOP, COLLABORATE AND LISTEN 23:04 <@scshunt> ^ 23:04 <@scshunt> Currently pending is a motion to adjourn. This is a privileged motion which takes precedence over every other motion except for one. 23:05 <@scshunt> That one is the motion to fix the time to which to adjourn i.e. set when the next meeting is. 23:05 <@scshunt> Howeever, svulliez would additionally like to change the time of the voting close. 23:05 <+adpaolucci> I 2nd the motion, its now 12:05am where I am 23:05 <@scshunt> since he voted in favor of the motion to close the polls, he can move to reconsider the vote on the motion 23:06 <@scshunt> and if reconsidered, the motion is open again and can be amended or defeated or what have you 23:06 <@scshunt> The motion to resconsider is special, because it can be made at any time during the meeting at which the decision it proposes to reconsider was adopted. 23:06 <@scshunt> But it can't necessarily be considered at that time. 23:07 <@scshunt> Once made and seconded, it pauses the effect of the previous decision until a time comes at which it can be considered. 23:07 <@scshunt> So svulliez, if you would like, you can move to reconsider the vote, and/or you can move to set the time to which to adjourn. 23:07 <+svulliez> I just want to go to bed now. I rescind my motion. 23:08 <@scshunt> phillipsjk: If you have other business that you wish to tell the assembly about before the motion to adjourn, you can state it briefly. 23:08 <+JMcleod> We can petition the president to call for a special GM to recieve results at another time. 23:08 <+svulliez> I feel like if we had a conclusive motion to do all those things at once, no one would object to our procedure 23:08 <@scshunt> svulliez: You can do that to, but it would be a motion to suspend the rules and carry a higher threshold. 23:09 <+XFaCE> Does the Wednesday meeting time (undefined still which wednesday) count as part of the motion svulliez is resending? 23:09 <@scshunt> The original motion as adopted was to close the polls in 7 days 23:09 <@scshunt> which was adopted at 11:32 EDT 23:09 <+phillipsjk> I was wondering if people wanted to cesure scshund for his handling of the consttutional vote. 23:09 <+XFaCE> Please define "censure" 23:09 <+svulliez> I believe it's appropriate but I don't have the time or energy tonight. 23:10 <@scshunt> A censure is a formal statement of reprimand 23:10 <+svulliez> It's a formal disapproval. 23:10 <+XFaCE> Thanks 23:10 <@scshunt> stating that the Party disapproves of someone's action 23:10 <@scshunt> Any more questions? 23:10 <@scshunt> Okay, seeing none, the question is on the motion to adjourn. 23:10 <@scshunt> All in favor say aye, all opposed, say nay. 23:11 <+JMcleod> aye 23:11 <+JohannWeiss> aye 23:11 <+XFaCE> Nay 23:11 <+XFaCE> I in fact still have not been answered on which Wednesday the next meeting will take place 23:11 <+RLim> aye 23:11 <+JohannWeiss> It'll be the standard meeting 23:11 <+JohannWeiss> Third wednesday of the month 23:12 <@scshunt> XFaCE: There is no time set for the next meeting, so we would go to the next regular meeting. 23:12 <@scshunt> June 20 23:12 <+XFaCE> thnak you 23:12 <+XFaCE> I change to "aye" 23:12 <+phillipsjk> aye 23:12 <+psema4> abstain 23:12 <+jhowell> aye 23:13 <+svulliez> abstain 23:13 <@scshunt> The ayes have it and the motion is adopted. 23:13 <@scshunt> You can still move to reconsider the vote if you'd like :P 23:14 -scshunt:#canada- The meeting is now adjourned.

View minutes.