View source for PNC 5/16/12

{{PNC MINUTES NAV}}
::'''Agenda PNC MEETING'''::
::'''08/16/2012 18:00h PST'''
::IRC: irc.pirateirc.net
::Room: #pnc
::Wiki: [http://www.pirate-party.us/wiki/PNC_5/16/12 http://www.pirate-party.us/wiki/PNC_5/16/12]



'''Record of the meeting'''

==Attendees==

===Members of the PNC ===
Attending:
*QuazarGuy Washington
*Rush Florida
*Jarod, matuck Georgia
*Erik Zoltan Massachusetts
*MrSquared Oregon
*Liz Brunner, New York

excused:

unexcused:

===At Large Members of the PNC ===
*Itspara - Maryland
*Sacha - Michigan

===Others ===
*matuck

==Proceedings==

*Meeting opened at 9.02pm EST by Travis McCrea
*Meeting closed&nbsp; at&nbsp; _pm EST by&nbsp;
*Meeting chaired by Travis McCrea
*Secretary for this meeting is QuazarGuy
*Quorum is established. [] Members out of [] present
*Logging Enabled: Yes

==Review of previous minutes ==
*[https://pnc.piratenpad.de/PNC-5-9-2012 https://pnc.piratenpad.de/PNC-5-9-2012]

==Reports==

===Short report of the board members===

====Washington====
*looking for a candidate, someone over 35
**have from beginning of June until mid-July to get 1000 registered voter sigs to raise our dontations limit
*put up a new website

====New York====
*met with Stefan Korbe from PPDE
**he's sending some black&amp;white stuff from berlin
*HOPE talk has been submitted
**no word on approval yet
*&nbsp;Interviews with Lange of politik&amp;kommunication set for jun1 at 3pm
*More visitors coming to NY, plan to meet with them this weekend
*&nbsp;Zac Green has decided to run for NY Assembly
**working on collecting signatures so he can be on the ballot

====Florida====
*Florida offers NY copies of NSH for $4 + shipping
**Sweden bought 25 copies of the book
*Work is great on NSH2
*Brad Hall is now officially the FLPP Chairman

====Massachusetts====
*Our Representative candidate JP Hollembaek has had a large number of signatures challenged, and it looks like an uphill battle to get on the ballot.
*His district was recently gerrymandered, and a lot of people didn't realize they're now in a different district.
*We had a film festival over the weekend. The turnout was disappointing but we met some new potential members. I guess people like talks better than free movies.

====Georgia====
*received a "letter" about the TPP and posted it on the GA website
**[http://www.piratepartyofgeorgia.org/2012/05/response-from-johnny-isakson-about-tpp.html http://www.piratepartyofgeorgia.org/2012/05/response-from-johnny-isakson-about-tpp.html]
*Still trying to figure out how to go about filing the registration statement for the GA party

===Short Report From Committees ===

====IT Committee====

==Admission into the PNC for MI Pirates ==
*(Moved down by a proxy motion from Washington at the request of Sacha)
*Amanda seeks to have MI pirates moved from At-Large to full member.(This Needs A State Second)
**0.5 for, 3 against, 2 abstain (Using voting rules and criteria approved in Mass Pirates’ proposal)

==PNC Membership ==
*Mass Pirates Propose:
**Motion to allow observers to speak
***5 for, 1 abstain, at-large for
*A. PNC Member States must meet the following requirements.
**Motion to go line by line
***Passed
**A1. A PNC member state must adhere to the three main planks of the Pirate Party. It is not required to adopt, nor is it prohibited from adopting, any other positions.
***Passed 6 for, at-large for
**A2.<s> It must have at least four members.I</s>t must have a membership actively attempting to grow.
***Motion to change to "It must have a membership actively attempting to grow"
****5 for, 1 against, at-large for
***Passed 5 for, 1 abstain, at-large for
**A3. It should have both a PNC representative and an alternate, who must both be active members. The state must not miss PNC meetings.
***question "absentee voting only on items where the voter has read and agreed to the motion already"
****1 for, 2 against, at-large against
***motion to go back to voting on all at once
****Failed
***motion to go by block
****Passed
**A4. It must have an active web presence and an easy way to be contacted by prospective members.
**A5. If any existing PNC member state fails to meet these requirements, or if the state fails to send a representative to two consecutive meetings, then it can be placed in probationary status by a majority vote.
**The rest of section A
***5 for, at-large for

*B. Observer States
**Motion to add, "B6. Observer status can be revoked by a majority vote."
***4 for, at-large for
**4 for, at-large for
**B1. An observer state is any state that sends a PNC representative and which is not a PNC member state. New observer states must be approved by the PNC.
**B2. Observer states do not have a voice and do not have a full vote.
**B3. The chair can recognize PNC meeting participants with no voice at any time, and should give observer states an opportunity to comment prior to voting.
**B4. Any observer state may vote. The votes of all observer states are grouped together as one full vote, with each observer state receiving an equal fraction. A vote can carry or fail by a fractional amount.
**B5. In the event that there is only one observer state, it is given a half vote.
**B6. Observer status can be revoked by a majority vote.

*C. Probationary Status
**4 for, at-large for
**C1. A probationary member state has a voice in the PNC. It can propose agenda items in advance but cannot make motions.
**C2. A probationary member state's vote is counted as one half that of a full PNC member state.
**C3. After one month of probationary status, a state which still does not meet the requirements for full membership can be placed on inactive status by a majority vote.
***Motion to change to, "After one month of probationary status, a state which still does not meet the requirements for full membership can be demoted to observer status by a majority vote."
****4 for, at-large for
**C4. If a probationary state does meet the requirements for full membership, the probationary status can be removed by a majority vote.

*D. Inactive Status
**Motion to remove D
***4 for, at-large for
**D1. A PNC member state on inactive status has exactly the same standing as an observer state.
**D2. To return from inactive status, the requirements are the same as those for a new state to apply for PNC membership.


==AOB==
*Travis McCrea would like a list of contact emails for each state party, and phone numbers if available. If you have a phone number, also indicate if it should be included in the toll free number or not to allow people to call you directly
*Discussion on Jill Stein being our nomination person for president? Maybe try to contact her campaign and get her to know more of our stuff?
**Table
***3 for, 1 against


Next meeting: 05/23/2012

Meeting closed: at 1:10am EST


==Logs:==
*<@TravisMcCrea> Okay then I officially call this meeting to order, please everyone state their names and the state they represent.
>>> erixoltan has joined #pnc
*<MrSquared> MrSquared, representing Oregon
*<QuazarGuy> Jeff Talada, Washington
*<Rush> Bradley Hall, Chairman, FLPP, representing Florida
*<erixoltan> Erik Zoltan, Massachusetts
*<jarod_> Jarod  Georgia
*<@TravisMcCrea> Anyone else?
*<@kusanagi> liz brunner, ny
*<@TravisMcCrea> Last weeks agenda is here (Link: https://pnc.piratenpad.de/PNC-5-9-2012)https://pnc.piratenpad.de/PNC-5-9-2012 | do we agree that this is valid?
*<erixoltan> It looks OK to me!
*<@kusanagi> yep
*<@TravisMcCrea> When you have read and agreed to the agenda, please say so, so we can move on
*<itspara> Itspara, at large maryland
*<@kusanagi> read and agreed.
*<QuazarGuy> looks good
*<MrSquared> agreed
*<@TravisMcCrea> Okay I am going to call that good. First item of busniess
*<@TravisMcCrea> Reports from the states
*<@TravisMcCrea> (Link: https://pnc.piratenpad.de/PNC-5-16-2012)https://pnc.piratenpad.de/PNC-5-16-2012 we are on line 48
*<@TravisMcCrea> let's start with Washington
*<QuazarGuy> we're still looking for a candidate, someone over 35
*<QuazarGuy> we've put up a new website, washington.pirate-party.us
*<QuazarGuy> unfortunately it's down at the moment -__-b
*<Rush> lol
*<@TravisMcCrea> ((I am taking a washroom break, after Washington finishes, please follow in order as laid out by the agenda)
*<QuazarGuy> we have from beginning of June until mid-July to get 1000 registered voter sigs to raise our dontations limit
*<QuazarGuy> that's to run a candidate for president
*<QuazarGuy> that's all
*<@kusanagi> We met with Stefan Korbe from PPDE, he's sending us some black&white stuff from berlin. HOPE talk has been submitted, no word on approval yet, and emailed them for a table. Interviews with Lange of politik&kommunication set for jun1 at 3pm. More visitors coming to NY, plan to meet with them this weekend.
*<@kusanagi> From NY, this is.
*<Rush> Florida coming up
*<@TravisMcCrea> ((Back))
*<@kusanagi> oh, and Zac Green has decided to run for NY Assembly, so we're working on collecting signatures so he can be on the ballot.
*<@kusanagi> Cede the floor.
*<@TravisMcCrea> Okay Florida, you are up :)
*<Rush> Florida offers NY copies of NSH for $4 + shipping. We also just sent Sweden 25 copies of the book. Brad Hall is now officially the FLPP Chairman. Work is great on NSH2. Neeb High football rules.
*<Rush> I cede the floor
*<erixoltan> In Massachusetts, our Representative candidate JP Hollembaek has had a large number of signatures challenged, and it looks like an uphill battle to get on the ballot.
*<erixoltan> His district was recently gerrymandered, and a lot of people didn't realize they're now in a different district.
*<erixoltan> We had a film festival over the weekend. The turnout was disappointing but we met some new potential members. I guess people like talks better than free movies.
*<erixoltan> Those are the highlights for Mass.
*<erixoltan> TravisMcCrea, is it just PNC member states giving reports?
*<@TravisMcCrea> Yes,
*<@TravisMcCrea> other states provide reports and such in "Any Other Business"
*<erixoltan> ok
*<@TravisMcCrea> Georgia, you guys are up
*<jarod_> I received a "letter" about the TPP and posted it on the GA website (Link: http://www.piratepartyofgeorgia.org/2012/05/response-from-johnny-isakson-about-tpp.html)http://www.piratepartyofgeorgia.org/2012/05/response-from-johnny-isakson-about-tpp.html
>>> Sacha has joined #pnc
*<jarod_> Still trying to figure out how to go about filing the registration statement for the GA party
*<Sacha> What exactly is a registration statement?
*<jarod_> I was able to get another friend interested in helping, Ive been trying to build interest online.. I get likes on facebook and RTs on twitter but not much feedback
*<jarod_> that's part of my problem SACHA
*<jarod_> this is what i was told " political party or body must file a registration statement with the Secretary of State, city clerk, and the state political party or body executive committee"
*<@kusanagi> Sacha, what?
*<@kusanagi> oh
*<@kusanagi> derp
*<@TravisMcCrea> This period is for reports, not discussion. We can talk more later.
*<@TravisMcCrea> Please let jarod_ complete his report :)
*<jarod_> well that's the big things, most of the rest is just what ive always been doing... finding news and posting it a lot
*<@TravisMcCrea> Awesome. Was that all?
*<jarod_> yes, i wish i had more to report... myself and matcuk are the active two... everyone else is pretty much on stand by
*<QuazarGuy> you should try posting meeting times and events
*<jarod_> i was just thinking that earlier today
*<@TravisMcCrea> Perfect. Let's move onto Agenda Item 1
*<@TravisMcCrea> (we can discuss that later, we should just stick with the flow here)
*<@TravisMcCrea> Sacha: would like to propose her state being accepted into the PNC. This motion needs to be proposed by a state
*<@TravisMcCrea> Would any state like to make the motion that PPMI is accepted into the PNC?
*<Sacha> Wait, first
*<Sacha> shouldn't we talk about Erik's proposal?
*<Sacha> Or did we already?
*<@kusanagi> no, we did not
*<@TravisMcCrea> no, you were up first
*<Sacha> It makes more sense to start with that
*<Sacha> Can I choose to switch?
*<@TravisMcCrea> You will be held to higher standards by doing that
*<@TravisMcCrea> but sure
*<QuazarGuy> is that what you want Sacha?
*<Sacha> Yes
*<@TravisMcCrea> Right now all you need is a majority vote
*<@TravisMcCrea> Okay
*<Sacha> I don't want to skate in on the edge of my pants
*<Sacha> I will do things properly lol
*<QuazarGuy> I motion to switch the next item and the first item
*<@TravisMcCrea> Any objetions?
*<@TravisMcCrea> Okay seeing none, we will be moving Eriks motion first
*<@TravisMcCrea> Mass, your new admission policy is long, could you start off conversation
*<@TravisMcCrea> Also if we would like to have Sacha (or any other observer state's input) someone needs to make a motion to allow it
*<erixoltan> OK sure. Since we've been debating the requirements of a member state, I wanted to propose an objective standard so we'd all agree on what it means to be a member state.
*<@TravisMcCrea> After erixoltan has finished, Rush can speak next as I know he has some reservations about wording
*<Rush> Yes
*<erixoltan> I am completely open to amendments about the specific details of the proposal - I just think we should have an objective proposal.
*<erixoltan> that's pretty much all I have to say.
*<@TravisMcCrea> Due to the length of the motion, I am going to create a pad for it
*<QuazarGuy> can we just take each statement 1 at a time?
>>> k3nny has joined #pnc
*<erixoltan> sure
*<@TravisMcCrea> Okay we can do that too
*<@TravisMcCrea> Any objections?
*<QuazarGuy> I motion for line item approval?
*<QuazarGuy> is that the term?
*<@TravisMcCrea> That works
*<@TravisMcCrea> I will allow it, any objection?
>>> BayouMedic has quit IRC: Quit: AndroidIrc Disconnecting
>>> k3nny is now known as bayoumedic
*<Rush> My problems are with A2 and A3 so far. What constitutes members? FLPP has three officers and two hundred registered voters. Also, A3, this is Florida, we have hurricanes for several months and are without power for quite some time, it'd be hard to make a meeting when we have no 'lectricity
*<@TravisMcCrea> Rush: if we are doing line item
*<QuazarGuy> lets start with A1
*<@TravisMcCrea> Let's discuss them as they come up
*<Rush> I wrote that and I was gonna say it
*<@TravisMcCrea> :P no problem
*<Sacha> Am I allowed to speak right now?
*<@TravisMcCrea> no
*<@TravisMcCrea> no state has made the motion to allow non-members to speak on the motion
*<Rush> This affects non-members, so I say let them speak
*<erixoltan> second
*<@TravisMcCrea> Rush: do you want it completely open, or only to observer members?
*<Rush> what is MIPP?
*<erixoltan> Michigan Pirate Party
*<itspara> Michigan
*<Rush> Whichever one they are, let them speak, they'll be the ones affected
*<erixoltan> I move that we allow observer state reps to speak.
*<@TravisMcCrea> Rush: would you allow erixoltan's motion in stead of yours?
*<@TravisMcCrea> right now I am obligated to not recognize erixoltan's motion
*<erixoltan> I'm OK with either one.
*<Rush> sure
*<@TravisMcCrea> Well since he didn't reply we will just vote on his real fast
*<@TravisMcCrea> okay nevermind
*<@TravisMcCrea> lol all in favour of ALL observer members
*<@TravisMcCrea> having a voice in this conversation
*<@TravisMcCrea> say aye
*<Rush> aye
*<QuazarGuy> aye
*<erixoltan> eye
*<jarod_> aye
*<@kusanagi> abstain
*<QuazarGuy> at-large can vote
*<MrSquared> aye
*<@TravisMcCrea> ping itspara and Sacha
*<Sacha> If i'm at large then aye
*<@TravisMcCrea> Okay I am calling the vote
*<@TravisMcCrea> The ayes have it.
*<@TravisMcCrea> Observer members will have a voice here (still only an at-large vote)
*<@TravisMcCrea> itspara and Sacha you are free to speak
*<@TravisMcCrea> Okay now lets do this in an orderly fashion:
*<Sacha> yay and kay
*<@TravisMcCrea> A. PNC Member States must meet the following requirements.
*<@TravisMcCrea> A1. A PNC member state must adhere to the three main planks of the
*<@TravisMcCrea> Pirate Party. It is not required to adopt, nor is it prohibited from
*<@TravisMcCrea> adopting, any other positions.
*<Rush> I agree with A1.
*<erixoltan> I'm hoping this one will go smoothly :).
*<@TravisMcCrea> Is there any objection to A1?
*<QuazarGuy> I motion to accept this
*<Rush> second
*<@TravisMcCrea> All in favour of A1?
*<QuazarGuy> aye
*<Sacha> aye!
*<Rush> aye
*<MrSquared> aye
*<erixoltan> aye
*<@kusanagi> aye
*<jarod_> aye
*<@TravisMcCrea> I will call the vote now, QuazarGuy  please record the official tally on the pad
*<QuazarGuy> 7 for
*<@TravisMcCrea> okay next:
*<@TravisMcCrea> A2. It must have at least four members.
*<Sacha> We should define 'members'
*<QuazarGuy> what is the reasoning behind 4?
*<erixoltan> Actually the language here is specifically vague.
*<QuazarGuy> that too
*<itspara> I agree witch sacha
*<erixoltan> I am open to a different number.
*<Sacha> I think the number is good
*<Sacha> but I would use slightly more specific language with member
*<erixoltan> If you want to propose a definition that's OK with me - but note Rush's point about hurricanes and such. we should be flexible in our approach.
*<Sacha> at least toss in an 'active'
*<Rush> Do they mean officers or actual registered voters? Because if it's voters, then all y'all are no longer members
*<Sacha> I agree with that
*<itspara> A definition should be ammended to a2
*<Sacha> Well, we can use a definition like 'active member' and allow the state to define that
*<Sacha> trusting their opinion and judgment
*<Sacha> Or we can have a hard rule
*<@kusanagi> I'd prefer the rule.
*<itspara> Hard rule, otherwise it introduces outside influence
*<erixoltan> Obviously my kids wouldn't count as members, nor my uncle in Germany.
*<Rush> ...
*<@TravisMcCrea> I just can't wait until historians in the future laugh as we had to scape together 4 members to form our parties
*<Sacha> lol
*<Sacha> I think that the rule should be extremely flexible and vague though
*<@kusanagi> loliknowrite TravisMcCrea
*<Sacha> I would say... active involvement with the party and knowledge of the pirate platform
*<@TravisMcCrea> "Little did they know their glorious leader would in a few years later lead the party to extreme glory, changing the face of American poltiics and society forever" annyway sorry.
*<Sacha> Rush's point about hurricanes is extremely important
*<@TravisMcCrea> My personal opinion is that it is at the judgement of the PNC at the time of the vote.
*<@kusanagi> Glorious leader wouldn't be you, my dear. Back to the meeting.
*<QuazarGuy> I'm curious though, WA has about 8 people and we're taking our time, while CA has 1 or two and they've done almost as much as WA
*<erixoltan> How many active members (registered voters, even if not registered as Pirates) do each of our PNC members have?
*<@kusanagi> CA has a lot, apparently.
*<itspara> an actively involved member registered with the party, not necessarily to vote
*<@kusanagi> All of my members are voters, so that's about 8-10.
*<Rush> I have 200 voters
*<Sacha> I would agree with that
*<@kusanagi> oh derp
*<Sacha> Maybe, has attended at least one meeting or contacted the heads
*<QuazarGuy> most or all WA members are voters
*<@TravisMcCrea> erixoltan: point of clearification - does this simply add on to the current rule of having new members voted upon? Or replace it?
*<Sacha> I do not think that voters is a good idea
*<itspara> Voters is a terrible idea
*<QuazarGuy> it is more difficult in some states
*<Sacha> Like Michigan
*<erixoltan> TravisMcCrea, I think it would add to it but not subtract from it.
*<Sacha> lol, I looked at the rules. Jesus christ.
*<itspara> This should ammend the rule
*<@TravisMcCrea> Okay so then my suggestion still stands, these are more guidelines. The PNC is still free to vote against a party becoming a member. So having a set rule isn't required. The PNC can decide if the party has 4 members or nto
*<Sacha> I disagree with that
*<Sacha> I think it gives the PNC too much power
*<erixoltan> It's important that there has to be a majority vote for any of these rules. If Florida is hit by a hurricane, I for one will vote against putting them on probation.
*<QuazarGuy> or an Orion Steele who is equal to 8 members?
*<Sacha> potentially if a rep simply just is not liked, they could be kept out
*<Rush> How about who cares how many members the party has as long as it's a party?
*<Sacha> It introduces bias into the system
*<Sacha> Rush The problem is with defining a party, for example Michigan is not defined as a party rn
*<@TravisMcCrea> Sacha: the PNC is a body of state parties who have willingly come together. You can view it as a club of sorts. There is no requirement to be a part of the PNC to be a Pirate Party (though it's encouraged).. but the body of state parties should have the right to deny a state access
*<@kusanagi> QuazarGuy, apparently he's got like 20 people helping run capp.
*<QuazarGuy> oh that's awesome
*<erixoltan> The proposal includes specific guidelines as well as a requirement to vote. You can't vote a party out because you don't like them, if they have 20 members.
*<Sacha> TravisMcCrea Yes, but shouldn't they be held accountable to rules?
*<@TravisMcCrea> Yeah, which is why they have these guidelines
*<Sacha> Instead of simply using their own bias and changing things to fit their whim?
*<erixoltan> Sacha, that is not the proposal.
*<Sacha> Okay, what is the proposal?
*<@kusanagi> it's on the agenda.
*<QuazarGuy> I think erixoltan is saying these are automatic
*<erixoltan> The party should meet certain requirements. If they don't we can vote to put them on probation. If they meet the requirements, we can't put them on probation regardless of voting.
*<Sacha> Erixoltan I know, that is your proposal
*<Sacha> one sec
*<erixoltan> If the party fails to meet the requirements, they are not automatically put on probation. The states have some discretion.
*<Sacha> *<@TravisMcCrea> Okay so then my suggestion still stands, these are more guidelines. The PNC is still free to vote against a party becoming a member. So having a set rule isn't required. The PNC can decide if the party has 4 members or nto
*<Sacha> that is what I am talking about
>>> OrionSteele has joined #pnc
*<@kusanagi> speaking of OrionSteele
*<erixoltan> Sacha, that was agreed to at a previous meeting. When a new state applies, a majority vote is required to approve them.
*<OrionSteele> sorry! it sucks working late in California
*<@TravisMcCrea> erixoltan: has stated his motion is simply an addition to the previous rule which requires a majority vote from state parties
*<@TravisMcCrea> So no matter what, if you want to become a member of the PNC, you have to get a majority vote
*<@TravisMcCrea> even if you pass all these criteria
*<Sacha> I am talking specifically about "The PNC can decide if the party has 4 members or not"
*<@TravisMcCrea> This simply "weeds out" people before we have to vote
*<Sacha> It is saying that the PNC has the power to creatively interpret things so that they get what they want
*<QuazarGuy> I think it would be better to leave it more vague
*<Sacha> I think it is something that can cause tension in the future
*<@TravisMcCrea> Sacha: it can anyway
*<@TravisMcCrea> Sacha: the members are free to not vote for you for any reason they like
*<Sacha> If we leave it up to the state
*<erixoltan> Sacha, you are correct. For anything not explicitly stated in the motion, it is open to interpretation.
*<@TravisMcCrea> they don't have to explain their vote
*<Sacha> That's bullshit Travis
*<Sacha> and shouldn't be allowed
*<Sacha> they should have reasons based on facts
*<Sacha> and rules
*<Sacha> Not "well I don't like them, so no:
*<Sacha> "
*<@TravisMcCrea> The rules are that a state has to reach a majority approval from the current PNC
*<Sacha> Yes
*<@TravisMcCrea> Your party has to be accepted by it's peers. If you are doing things that can't get you a simple majority is a problem
*<Sacha> and the approval should be based on guidelines
*<Sacha> hardly true
*<itspara> Yeah, I can see trouble with that.... Unless maybe there is a way to override a decision with petition or something
*<Sacha> even last night after I went through everything I am doing
*<Sacha> for the state party
*<Sacha> I was told i'm doing nothing
*<Sacha> Most likely due to my delivery
*<erixoltan> Let me explain why it's vague.
*<Sacha> okay
*<erixoltan> This is a first attempt. We don't have enough experience doing this to get overly-specific. These rules should be developed and amended in the future, which the PNC has the power to do.
*<itspara> True....
*<erixoltan> We have to start with the assumption that all the states want to grow the party, and that we may disagree on some issues but we're all committed to the same ideals and we're all in this together.
*<QuazarGuy> what about, "It must have a membership actively attempting to grow"?
>>> kusi has joined #pnc
>>> ChanServ sets mode +o kusi
*<Sacha> I think that is fair QuazarGUy
*<@kusi> Had to switch
*<@kusi> !deop
>>> ChanServ sets mode -o kusi
*<Sacha> I think that personally, I would feel more comfortable if we allowed the states to define how they are doing
*<Sacha> Not the PNC
*<Sacha> Who knows better than the people involved if they are actively attempting to grow?
*<itspara> That works QuazarGuy
*<QuazarGuy> well the state must present to the pnc what they are doing to grow
*<@TravisMcCrea> Again the PNC is basically a club, you don't have to be a part of it. The PNC had formed specifically because things were not getting doen before and they wanted to create more of just a small alliance of states to get shit done.
*<erixoltan> So point of information, did anyone want to propose specific language to amend A2?
*<@TravisMcCrea> If states who are counter productive are simply allowed to join because they meet some small criteria
*<QuazarGuy> I motion to change A2 to "It must have a membership actively attempting to grow"
*<@TravisMcCrea> then it's back to the problem the PNC was created to avoid
*<Sacha> TravisMcCrea Counter productive in what way?
*<itspara> They should be able to join, but if no effort is made they can be placed on probation
*<Rush> let's see what jeff says
*<Sacha> I feel that we could add in a clause that you can kick out a represenative
*<Sacha> and not the state
*<Sacha> So say we all thought.. Rush was ruining everything
*<Sacha> and not being a productive member
*<Rush> lol
*<Sacha> *<3 u rush
*<Sacha> We could request a new representative from Florida
*<Sacha> and they could decline
*<Sacha> We should be equals
*<Sacha> Dealing with people we don't like is a sign of maturity
*<Sacha> I would hate the see the PNC turn into a toy that we threaten to take away if people don't 'play nice'
*<@TravisMcCrea> Okay there is a motion on the floor unless I am mistaken
*<@TravisMcCrea> I motion to change A2 to "It must have a membership actively attempting to grow"
*<@TravisMcCrea> is there a second?
*<erixoltan> I'm happy to accept this as a friendly amendment.
*<@TravisMcCrea> I can't recognize it as a friendly amendment, it substantially changes the meaning of thel ine
*<erixoltan> ok then I second
*<@TravisMcCrea> would we like to debate or just vote on it?
*<Sacha> I'm okay with voting
*<@TravisMcCrea> if you want to say somthing on it say something now (anything) or I am going to vote
*<kusi> Ok
*<itspara> Wait one moment please
*<@TravisMcCrea> kk
*<kusi> This leaves the state up to decide membership, and not evaluated by the pnc. As much as I am for the state, I think that's a pnc thing to decide
*<kusi> We have to review the state for a week anyway.
*<Sacha> I disagree with that
*<Sacha> I think it gives the PNC too much power over something they do not have knowledge of
*<itspara> Ok, im fine with it... If changes are needed they can be addressed in the future
*<itspara> Carry on
*<Sacha> the only thing that they can judge it on personal bias and experience
*<Sacha> unless we propose futher rules to define it
*<kusi> It's not personal bias. Experience maybe, but not bias.
*<@TravisMcCrea> kusanagi: I already said these are just guidelines. The PNC can still deny membership if it feels the number of members isn't suitable enough
*<erixoltan> I think it's up to both. The state defines their own policy, but the PNC has to vote on it - so it's not just one or the other.
*<Sacha> I feel that we should vote on that
*<@TravisMcCrea> exactly
*<@TravisMcCrea> Sacha: that's not inside this motion.
*<Rush> What if we can't grow as a party? What if everyone in Florida becomes a pirate?
*<Sacha> I know, that is why I asked my question
*<itspara> Further rules ARE needed, but should be added in the future
*<kusi> Rush: then that's perfect haha
*<@TravisMcCrea> Rush: I think this line is more for establishing membership
*<@TravisMcCrea> not maintaining it
*<QuazarGuy> Rush start having baby Pirates
*<itspara> When we have more of an understanding of how this rule affects the pnc
*<@TravisMcCrea> Or if every person in Florida does become a pirate, we can revise the rules :P
*<Sacha> Hmmm, question
*<Sacha> can we vote on this measure, agree on that
*<Sacha> and propose additional motions
*<Sacha> or vote to propose additional motions/move on?
*<@TravisMcCrea> You cannot propose motions
*<@TravisMcCrea> Members can
*<Sacha> I know
*<Sacha> Royal 'we'
*<@TravisMcCrea> But not until this entire motion as a whole has been dealt with
*<erixoltan> We're only on A2 - there's still a lot of ground to cover.
*<itspara> You can do it by proxy if you find a willing member
*<Sacha> So is state v. PNC
*<Sacha> part of this measure or not
*<QuazarGuy> I don't see the point
*<Sacha> Is there any other debate than that then?
*<Sacha> Because if there isn't.... i'd be in favor of simply moving on
*<@TravisMcCrea> can we have order. Lets vote on the amendment
*<erixoltan> The whole point of the measure is that the PNC has the power to put a state on probation, but is constrained by certain guidelines. If you disagree with that general idea, then you should vote against it.
*<@TravisMcCrea> As debate has gone off from the amendment at hand
*<@TravisMcCrea> One sec
*<@TravisMcCrea> The motion on the floor is to change A2 to "It must have a membership actively attempting to grow". All in favour say AYE all against it say Nay
*<erixoltan> aye
*<QuazarGuy> aye
*<kusi> Nay
*<itspara> Abstain
*<MrSquared> aye
*<Sacha> aye
*<Rush> what what
*<jarod_> aye
*<Rush> yeah, aye
*<@TravisMcCrea> I will call the vote now.
*<@TravisMcCrea> QuazarGuy: the usual question?
*<QuazarGuy> 5 for, 1 nay, 1 abstain and I don't know how to reconcile the at-large
*<QuazarGuy> would it just be at-large for?
*<@TravisMcCrea> yes
*<itspara> Abstain is neutral and can be counted as a nonvote mathmatically.... I think.
*<QuazarGuy> ok
*<QuazarGuy> so 6 for 1 nay
*<@TravisMcCrea> Thank you. Can we now vote on passing line A2 in it's current form?
*<@TravisMcCrea> (meaning is there an objection or someone who wants to debate further)
*<Rush> second
*<Sacha> I would want to debate the state v. pnc issue
*<@TravisMcCrea> Sacha: we know
*<@TravisMcCrea> but that's not right now
*<Sacha> but I feel it is something that can be discussed later
*<@TravisMcCrea> it's something that /must/ be discussed /later/ we cannot discuss it now.
*<kusi> Do you have something to discuss NOW
*<@TravisMcCrea> Okay voting has started for A2 "It must have a membership actively attempting to grow". all in favour say aye.
*<Rush> aye
*<kusi> Abstain
*<QuazarGuy> aye
*<erixoltan> aye
*<jarod_> aye
*<Sacha> I thought we alreay voted? Aye?
*<MrSquared> aye
*<@TravisMcCrea> No, we voted to approve it as an amendment. This is to vote that we approve the line
*<erixoltan> right
*<itspara> Aye
*<@TravisMcCrea> I am calling the vote now.
*<@TravisMcCrea> QuazarGuy:
*<QuazarGuy> 6 for 1 abstain
*<@TravisMcCrea> Okay we have lots of lines still to go. I would like to remind everyone that this rule will be recognized as a guideline, not a rule.. and that the PNC still has the authority to vote or not vote for any state to be admitted
*<Sacha> No one has voted for that yet
*<@TravisMcCrea> So if your objection to a line is rather small, I would prefer that you just go with the flow. I cannot require it, this is a democracy.
*<@TravisMcCrea> Sacha: it's embeded in the motion
*<Sacha> so i'll simply ignore you asserting it
*<Sacha> nuh uh
*<Sacha> you said it wasn't
*<Sacha> which is why I couldn't discuss it
*<@TravisMcCrea> It never said "this rule replaces our previous ruling"
*<Sacha> This is pointless
*<@TravisMcCrea> I am not going to debate this with you.
*<Sacha> can I suggest that we move on?
*<@TravisMcCrea> yes. So we are now on A3
*<@TravisMcCrea> Any objection to A3?
*<kusi> List it please?
*<kusi> I can't access the pad atm
*<erixoltan> A3. It must must have both a PNC representative and an alternate, who
*<erixoltan> must both be active members. The state must not miss PNC meetings.
*<kusi> Thank you.
*<jarod_> I don't have an alt....
*<Rush> I might have one
*<Sacha> Jarod_ can you find one?
*<Sacha> I think alts are very important, even if never used
*<kusi> Can you appoint one?
*<erixoltan> This brings up an important question.
*<jarod_> problem resolved
*<erixoltan> I felt it was important to have specific guidelines, but in writing this I constantly struggled to find wordings that wouldn't put us all on probation.
*<kusi> Haha
*<@TravisMcCrea> Honestly, perhaps some of the members of the PNC should be dropped into probo
*<erixoltan> Maybe change the first "must" to "should" but leave the second one as "must".
*<erixoltan> And it looks like I typed "must must"...
*<kusi> I'd prefer something like "the state must make an effort to attend meetings, making at least 50% of them. If the rep or alt cannot make it, they must inform the chair before hand.
*<QuazarGuy> I think we can find alternates relatively quickly
*<Rush> Look guys, Florida is fixing to have to leave soon
*<@TravisMcCrea> It's not my place to say, I just facillitate. I am just suggesting
*<kusi> Except an emergency, ie power outage,
*<Sacha> I would disagree with kusi I think it should be higher than 50 at least
*<@TravisMcCrea> My suggestion had been 80%
*<@TravisMcCrea> of the last 10 meetings
*<Sacha> I would feel comfortable with that
*<Rush> I've been to 100% and I'm tired as hell of this
*<QuazarGuy> lol ditto Rush
*<@TravisMcCrea> I think we can start having meetings far less frequently
*<Rush> When we get the PNC up and going, can we maybe have every other week or once per month?
*<@TravisMcCrea> at least every other week
*<kusi> Setting the bar low, Sacha.
*<erixoltan> Maybe we can do the details through liquid feedback or something...
*<kusi> Mhm
*<@TravisMcCrea> I would accept a friendly amendment of "should" instead of "must"
*<Sacha> Should we set the bar low for something like attendence? That is a good idea Erixoltan
*<QuazarGuy> how often do PPI member states meet?
*<@TravisMcCrea> if someone will propose it and erixoltan accepts it
*<itspara> Should bw more like 70
*<erixoltan> accept
*<@TravisMcCrea> I can't make proposals myself... someone else has to do it :\
*<itspara> But i have no strong feelings
*<@TravisMcCrea> QuazarGuy / kusanagi / Rush ? anyone want to sugggest should instead of must?
*<@TravisMcCrea> jarod_: too
*<QuazarGuy> thinking
*<jarod_> should, yes
*<QuazarGuy> what about amending "The state must not miss conventions"
*<@TravisMcCrea> Well I am going to accept the friendly amendment first
*<@TravisMcCrea> the new wording is now
*<@TravisMcCrea> A3. It must must have both a PNC representative and an alternate, who
*<@TravisMcCrea> must both be active members. The state must not miss PNC meetings.
*<@TravisMcCrea> whoops
*<@TravisMcCrea> A3. It must shouldhave both a PNC representative and an alternate, who
*<@TravisMcCrea> should both be active members. The state shouldnot miss PNC meetings.
*<erixoltan> must shouldhave
*<Rush> Look guys, I gotta go, I have to wake up early and go to the detention center in the morrow. If it matters, FL likes the rest of the items
*<erixoltan> thanks Rush
*<QuazarGuy> idk, I think not attending is like abstaining from voting
*<@TravisMcCrea> I will accept an absentee vote except for items that we amend
*<@TravisMcCrea> As soon as a line is amended then I will view his vote as invalid
*<QuazarGuy> should we allow absent voting?
>>> Jarod2 has joined #pnc
*<erixoltan> I don't think we need to make this even more complicated...
*<@TravisMcCrea> Which is why I am making it simple, he has read the agenda items, and he agrees to them. It's silly to deny him a vote to somthing he has read and agreed too
*<@TravisMcCrea> Anything that he hasn't read he can't vote on
*<@TravisMcCrea> so anything amdeded
*<erixoltan> would the chair entertain a motion to approve the whole thing, and then we can have motions to change any specific part that anyone doesn't like?
*<Sacha> I agree I think not attending means no vote
*<QuazarGuy> does voting absently mean they're attending?
>>> Rush has quit IRC: Ping timeout: 252 seconds
>>> Jarod has quit IRC: Ping timeout: 252 seconds
*<QuazarGuy> this is an important question
*<@TravisMcCrea> Sorry I got distracted by a call
*<QuazarGuy> what does everyone think?
*<QuazarGuy> should someone absently voting be counted as attending?
*<@TravisMcCrea> this is a valid question, I would love to hear input?
*<kusi> Ehhnn...
*<Sacha> I would say no
*<Sacha> Unless we are doing voting outside the meeting
*<MrSquared> what they attended a "majority" of the meeting, but had to leave?
*<Sacha> they miss all the discussion which may sway their vote
*<kusi> Yeah, it wouldn't count as attendance.
*<kusi> MrSquared: that's different.
*<erixoltan> The vote usually comes at the end of the debate, not before it. I think there's an important reason why we engage in debate. I usually have a slightly different opinion afterwards.
*<Sacha> Same here
*<@TravisMcCrea> that actually does make since.
*<Sacha> or in my case, more likely to compromise
*<QuazarGuy> a state absently voting is making an effort to affect the outcome of the meeting
*<erixoltan> Sacha, we have to wear you down like an old eraser...
*<Sacha> Erixoltan but worn down I become :3
*<Sacha> ish*
*<erixoltan> That's what I'm like anyway.
*<@TravisMcCrea> I am going to open up a vote:
*<@TravisMcCrea> All in favour of absentee voting only on items where the voter has read and agreed to the motion already, please say aye. If you are against, say nay
*<OrionSteele> i know we are not members, and so we are not allowed to talk...but i just want to throw it out there that California Pirate Party generally supports assigned voting rights. I agree with you that it is important to participate in the debate and then vote after...but the whole concept of transferring voting rights is that you give your right to vote to someone you trust and agree with on most issues. Presumably an absentee would discuss t
*<Sacha> nay
>>> jarod_ has quit IRC: Quit: Web client closed
*<Sacha> OrionSteele We can talk for this meeting, they voted on that earlier
*<OrionSteele> oh snap
*<QuazarGuy> nay
*<@TravisMcCrea> QuazarGuy: Jarod2 kusanagi kusi itspara erixoltan
*<erixoltan> OrionSteele, we're not talking about designating someone else to vote on your behalf. We're talking about saying what your vote is and then leaving before we debate a measure, and then having it count.
*<OrionSteele> got it
*<kusi> Aye
*<Jarod2> I have mixed feelings on this one
*<erixoltan> nay
*<Sacha> Jarod2 would you like to talk it out, or abstain?
*<@TravisMcCrea> the vote has actually already been called.
>>> Jarod has joined #pnc
*<bayoumedic> maybe only except the vote if no real debate was done
*<QuazarGuy> 1 for, 3 against
*<@TravisMcCrea> :P I meant was called. but yes it was time to call the vote too
*<@TravisMcCrea> Okay so we are not having remote voting
*<QuazarGuy> what I said beore
*<erixoltan> Well, we're all voting remotely.
*<OrionSteele> i say nay. "Most decisive and significant about these practices is that when the rules were agreed upon, anyone who was there, was there. Anyone who wasn't, wasn't. The idea of an absolutely perfect common entity was thus left to rot back at the European Home Ports." - Women Pirates book
*<kusi> Hah, erixoltan
*<Sacha> lolol
*<@TravisMcCrea> Well you know what I mean, we will not recognize Rush's votes tonght
*<erixoltan> yeh
*<@TravisMcCrea> There was also a motion on the floor to end line by line voting and vote on everything at once
*<@TravisMcCrea> is there a second?
>>> Jarod2 has quit IRC: Ping timeout: 252 seconds
*<erixoltan> I can't second my own motion.
*<erixoltan> The idea was to vote on it, and you can then vote to change it if you didn't like some part.
*<@TravisMcCrea> kusanagi: QuazarGuy Jarod kusi
*<kusi> Aye
*<kusi> er
*<kusi> Second
*<QuazarGuy> sort of the same, but line by line is more orderly
*<@TravisMcCrea> Okay all in favour of voting on everything at once
*<@TravisMcCrea> please say aye or nay
*<QuazarGuy> nay
*<erixoltan> aye
*<MrSquared> nay
*<Jarod> Nay
*<kusi> Aye
>>> BradyMobile has joined #pnc
*<@TravisMcCrea> Okay calling this
*<QuazarGuy> 2 for, 3 against
*<MrSquared> can i make a motion?
*<QuazarGuy> yes
*<MrSquared> i make a motion that we vote on each section (e.g. A, B, C, D)
*<Sacha> all of it at once?
*<MrSquared> to speed it up
*<MrSquared> each section at once
*<erixoltan> OK I'll second it.
*<QuazarGuy> amendments will still require their own votes
*<MrSquared> right
*<Sacha> Would 'you all' still be able to suggest amendments even after voting everything in?
*<@TravisMcCrea> brb the chair is kusi's for a second
*<Sacha> Or do 'you all' need to propose amendments now?
*<QuazarGuy> and people will still want to discuss individual parts
*<QuazarGuy> I don't see how this speeds it up
*<erixoltan> Under MrSquared's proposal, I would think we'd need to amend section A before approving it. We'd then move on to section B which we'd approve separaetely. The speed-up would come from voting once per section instead of once per line.
*<Sacha> Ahhh I see
*<Sacha> I support that
*<MrSquared> correct
*<Sacha> voting as a block rather than line per line
*<kusi> Right
*<itspara> Could result in less attention to detail
*<kusi> MrSquared: you're a state rep, right?
*<kusi> Oregon?
*<MrSquared> yes
*<kusi> Ok
*<itspara> Easily
*<kusi> It could, yes, but these are guidelines.
*<itspara> Exactly
*<kusi> It would make it easier for now though
*<MrSquared> im thinking that if we keep going at the current rate we wont get it done
*<erixoltan> We've taken 90 minutes to vote on A1 and A2.
*<kusi> It's running close to 2hrs long, this meeting.
*<Sacha> So.. should we vote
*<Sacha> or keep talking about the motion?
*<Sacha> Jw'
*<Jarod> We should have a time limit
*<erixoltan> kusi is acting chair
*<Sacha> I feel that we waste time talking about how we are wasting time >.>
*<Sacha> and what erixoltan said
*<kusi> Ok, since it's on the floor
*<kusi> Motion to vote by section. Aye or nay.
*<erixoltan> aye
*<QuazarGuy> abstain
*<itspara> Cautious aye
*<kusi> Aye
*<MrSquared> aye
>>> Brady has joined #pnc
*<Jarod> Aye
*<Sacha> aye
*<kusi> QuazarGuy: the count?
*<QuazarGuy> 5 for, 1 abstain
*<Sacha> 1 at large*
*<QuazarGuy> I included it in the fors here
*<Sacha> k
*<kusi> So that passes. Yay.
*<@TravisMcCrea> I will resume my place on the throne if kusi agrees
*<kusi> ...fiiiiiine.
*<@TravisMcCrea> Okay so the motion on the floor is approving section A
*<@TravisMcCrea> please carry on with debate
*<@TravisMcCrea> or if you guys are ready, lets vote
*<erixoltan> We approved A1 and A2. we amended but did not approve A3.
*<erixoltan> A4. It must have an active web presence and an easy way to be
*<erixoltan> contacted by prospective members.
*<erixoltan> A5. If any existing PNC member state fails to meet these requirements,
*<erixoltan> or if the state fails to send a representative to two consecutive
*<erixoltan> meetings, then it can be placed in probationary status by a majority
*<erixoltan> vote.
*<Sacha> I'm happy with both
*<Jarod> Aye
*<Sacha> Aye
*<@TravisMcCrea> Sorry there is no vote yet
*<@TravisMcCrea> :P
*<QuazarGuy> you motion to vote erixoltan
>>> BradyMobile has quit IRC: Quit: Bye
*<Jarod> Oops
*<Sacha> oh kay
*<erixoltan> If there's no debate I would move that we vote.
*<@TravisMcCrea> Yeah I don't see any debate - we can vote. All in favour of section A please say aye, against say nay
*<Sacha> aye
*<QuazarGuy> aye
*<kusi> Aye
*<erixoltan> aye
*<Jarod> Aye
*<MrSquared> aye
*<itspara> Aye
*<@TravisMcCrea> Calling it
*<QuazarGuy> 6 for
*<Sacha> Can we open discussion on B now?
*<@TravisMcCrea> Yes, we may now discuss b
*<erixoltan> B. Observer States
*<erixoltan> B1. An observer state is any state that sends a PNC representative and
*<erixoltan> which is not a PNC member state. New observer states must be approved by the PNC.
*<erixoltan> B2. Observer states do not have a voice and do not have a full vote.
*<erixoltan> B3. The chair can recognize PNC meeting participants with no voice at
*<erixoltan> any time, and should give observer states an opportunity to comment
*<erixoltan> prior to voting.
*<erixoltan> B4. Any observer state may vote. The votes of all observer states are
*<erixoltan> grouped together as one full vote, with each observer state receiving
*<erixoltan> an equal fraction. A vote can carry or fail by a fractional amount.
*<erixoltan> B5. In the event that there is only one observer state, it is given a
*<erixoltan> half vote.
*<erixoltan> The only new things are in B1 and B5, I think.
*<Sacha> My only problem is that I do not see a definition difference for probation in this
*<Sacha> If it is not a member state and sent a rep?
*<Sacha> How is it different than a probation state?
*<erixoltan> There is a slight difference.
*<erixoltan> Probation - you'd have a voice automatically. You'd have a half vote instead of a fractional vote that could be less than half.
*<Sacha> Well, I see a difference in the outcome
*<Sacha> rights*
*<QuazarGuy> you're gonna make my job hard
*<Sacha> but I not in the definition :/
*<itspara> Im kindof out now.... Let me know when mipp is brought up
*<Sacha> QuazarGuy: We could probably make a list
*<Sacha> itspara k
*<Sacha> a list for you*, so that you can tally according to it, with the rep names
*<Sacha> to make easier
*<QuazarGuy> that's what I do now
*<@TravisMcCrea> The chair would like to see an amendment of the following: B6: California, Michigan, and Maryland are exempt from meeting any requirements and will automatically be recognized as observer members. New observer mebmers wishing to be recognized must recieve a majority vote from the PNC.
*<Sacha> I think it is a really fair option
*<Sacha> You have to aply to be an observer member?
*<Sacha> Why?
*<@TravisMcCrea> (not that isn't an amendment, that is a suggestion for an amendment if any state wishes to propose it)
*<erixoltan> so moved
*<@TravisMcCrea> Is there a second to the motion?
*<erixoltan> I would like to move the last sentence of B1 as part of your amendment since you've made that redundant.
*<erixoltan> REmove
*<@TravisMcCrea> erixoltan: wherei s it redundant?
*<erixoltan> New observer states must be approved by the PNC.
*<erixoltan> We could remove that sentence from B1 and add your B6.
*<@TravisMcCrea> Ah I see
*<@TravisMcCrea> Nah lets just remove mine
*<@TravisMcCrea> since it's your motion
*<erixoltan> So I should withdraw my motion and leave B1 as is?
*<@TravisMcCrea> and hasn't been seconded so it can be changed more easily
*<Sacha> I would feel better if people were automatically given observer status...
*<@TravisMcCrea> No. Leave your motion but without the last line
*<Sacha> and it could be voted away
*<Sacha> in case of disruption, etc.
*<erixoltan> Travis I think you mean the following
*<erixoltan> B. Observer States
*<erixoltan> B1. An observer state is any state that sends a PNC representative and
*<erixoltan> which is not a PNC member state.
*<erixoltan> B2. Observer states do not have a voice and do not have a full vote.
*<erixoltan> B3. The chair can recognize PNC meeting participants with no voice at
*<erixoltan> any time, and should give observer states an opportunity to comment
*<erixoltan> prior to voting.
*<QuazarGuy> I motion to add, "B6. Observer status can be revoked by a majority vote."
*<erixoltan> B4. Any observer state may vote. The votes of all observer states are
*<erixoltan> grouped together as one full vote, with each observer state receiving
*<erixoltan> an equal fraction. A vote can carry or fail by a fractional amount.
*<erixoltan> B5. In the event that there is only one observer state, it is given a
*<erixoltan> half vote.
*<erixoltan> QuazarGuy - great idea
*<@TravisMcCrea> erixoltan: do you withdraw your last amendment proposal?
*<erixoltan> yes
*<@TravisMcCrea> and I assume "great idea" means "second"
*<@TravisMcCrea> :P
*<erixoltan> ok
*<@TravisMcCrea> Okay then it's been moved and seconded
*<@TravisMcCrea> The discussion on the floor is now "B6. Observer status can be revoked by a majority vote." being added
*<erixoltan> It's "the troll clause."
*<Sacha> I approve of that
*<MrSquared> i like that
*<Sacha> I think it is a great idea
*<@TravisMcCrea> Okay then lets vote
*<@TravisMcCrea> all in favour?
*<Sacha> and doesn't unneccesarily disempower people
*<QuazarGuy> aye
*<Sacha> Aye!
*<MrSquared> aye
*<erixoltan> aye
*<Jarod> Aye
*<itspara> Abstain
*<@TravisMcCrea> Okay calling it.
*<QuazarGuy> 5 for
*<@TravisMcCrea> Okay erixoltan can you edit the motion in the pad
*<erixoltan> yup
*<@TravisMcCrea> Do we need to debate it further or can we (please) vote on the section?
*<Sacha> I think we are good
*<Sacha> imo
*<@TravisMcCrea> Seeing no objections I am opening up section B as described on the pad for vote. All in favour please say aye
*<QuazarGuy> hold
*<@TravisMcCrea> ugh waaaiit wait
*<QuazarGuy> what does the last sentence in B4 mean?
*<QuazarGuy> " A vote can carry or fail by a fractional amount. "
*<erixoltan> let me give you an example.
*<@TravisMcCrea> in before what QuazarGuy ?
*<@TravisMcCrea> ;)
*<QuazarGuy> thought you wanted to vote on the section
*<QuazarGuy> oh missed that
*<MrSquared> ha
*<erixoltan> If a state is on probation then it gets a half vote. That half vote is still enough to carry a measure.
*<QuazarGuy> so if 60% of observers vote aye, does it count as 0.6 vote aye?
*<@TravisMcCrea> QuazarGuy: no it's still the same
*<erixoltan> yes. And that's enough to win.
*<@TravisMcCrea> oh
*<QuazarGuy> or 1 aye?
*<@TravisMcCrea> Sorry I read that as 1 aye, but if only one rep was here, then their half vote could swing it
*<erixoltan> If 60% vote aye, and 40% vote nay, that is a 0.2 vote majority.
*<erixoltan> Still enough to swing.
*<QuazarGuy> what does that mean
*<@TravisMcCrea> Okay you guys work that out I have to go have lunch. QuazarGuy or kusi can take the chair again.
*<QuazarGuy> 1 aye, or 0.2 aye?
*<@TravisMcCrea> kusanagi: has priority of course, but it's up to you guys bb in 15 or so
*<kusi> I'll take it.
*<QuazarGuy> when I go to count all the votes, how does a a 60% observer vote count?
*<erixoltan> The point of the last sentence in B4 is not how the votes are counted.
*<erixoltan> You can count the votes any way you see fit.
*<QuazarGuy> I don't understand
*<erixoltan> The point is that if the PNC members vote 2-2 and the observers vote 3-1, then the measure carries.
*<QuazarGuy> so observers only matter to swing a vote?
*<erixoltan> It is my understanding that under the current rules, the observer states get one vote as a group, and their votes are prorated to make one combined vote.
*<QuazarGuy> right
*<erixoltan> I was trying to write this into the measure. I was not trying to change it.
*<QuazarGuy> well right now, if they vote 3-1, it's 1 aye
*<erixoltan> Right, but what if the member states vote 3-2 and the observers vote 3-1?
*<QuazarGuy> I would say 4-2
*<erixoltan> sorry, I said that wrong.
*<Sacha> I feel that giving each person a proportional vote is good
*<Sacha> so if it is 3-1 in the example, it would be .75 for .25 against for .5 total?
*<erixoltan> If the observer states vote 3-1, I thought it was 0.75 for and 0.25 against. That was my understanding and that was what I tried to write.
*<QuazarGuy> but the way it's worded in B4 it might come out like 3.75-2
*<kusi> At the same time though, members should have more say than observers
*<Sacha> Would that work?
*<Sacha> Exactly kusi
*<Sacha> but observers would still have a say
*<Sacha> making it more fair* imo
*<QuazarGuy> oh like 3.75-2.25?
*<Sacha> more difficult to count perhaps, but after a while the system will be second nature
*<Sacha> yup yup
*<kusi> Yes, QuazarGuy
*<QuazarGuy> ok
*<QuazarGuy> ready to vote
*<Sacha> k
*<kusi> Motion to vote? Has ther been one?
*<QuazarGuy> idk, motion to vote on B
*<erixoltan> second
*<kusi> Motion to vote on section b. Aye to approve, nay to disapprove.
*<kusi> Aye.
*<QuazarGuy> aye
*<MrSquared> aye
*<erixoltan> aye
*<Sacha> aye
*<kusi> QuazarGuy: count?
*<QuazarGuy> 5 for
*<kusi> Vote called
*<erixoltan> Sorry QuazarGuy - I'll mail you a slide rule.
*<kusi> Hahaha
*<QuazarGuy> lol
*<kusi> Ok, next, section c
*<Sacha> lolol
*<Sacha> Okay, same thing as last time
*<kusi> Can someone c&p that?
*<erixoltan> yeah
*<erixoltan> C. Probationary Status
*<erixoltan> C1. A probationary member state has a voice in the PNC. It can propose
*<erixoltan> agenda items in advance but cannot make motions.
*<erixoltan> C2. A probationary member state's vote is counted as one half that of
*<erixoltan> a full PNC member state.
*<erixoltan> C3. After one month of probationary status, a state which still does
*<erixoltan> not meet the requirements for full membership can be placed on
*<erixoltan> inactive status by a majority vote.
*<erixoltan> C4. If a probationary state does meet the requirements for full
*<erixoltan> membership, the probationary status can be removed by a majority vote.
*<Sacha> My problem, what is the definitional difference between this and observation state?
*<Sacha> Is it a vote by the PNC?
*<erixoltan> Do you mean the criteria for being placed on probation, or the powers of a state once it's there?
*<kusi> C4 makes it different
*<kusi> And no, this is not a vote yet.
*<Sacha> The criteria for being placed on probation
*<Sacha> can you only be demoted to probation?
*<Sacha> Or is it a stopping point between observer and full member?
*<erixoltan> In section A we defined the requirements of being a PNC member state. You can't be on probation unless you've already been on the PNC.
*<kusi> I would believe it means you could be put onto probation.
*<Sacha> okay so then the way it would work it..
*<erixoltan> You'd be placed on probation if you don't currently meet the criteria.
*<kusi> erixoltan: that isn't explicit, but I thought it was implied.
*<erixoltan> It's in section A.
*<Sacha> observer ----> member ----->probation?
*<kusi> Derp
*<Sacha> I don't do well with implications
*<erixoltan> A5. If any existing PNC member state fails to meet these requirements,
*<erixoltan> or if the state fails to send a representative to two consecutive
*<erixoltan> meetings, then it can be placed in probationary status by a majority
*<erixoltan> vote.
*<Sacha> I prefer to have everything literal, I hate assumptions
*<Sacha> kk
*<kusi> Right, sorry there erik
*<erixoltan> np
*<MrSquared> so probation is defined in A, and is explained in C
*<Sacha> Could you add that a state must have been a member in the pnc?
*<kusi> It has been added in §A
*<Sacha> Just for my peace of mind... seeing what happened when things were not explicitly written in the debate surrounding michigan....
*<erixoltan> There is no provision to elevate an observer state to a probationary member - but I wouldn't be against adding such a provision.
*<Sacha> woot
*<Sacha> Well, is that part of what a probationary state is?
*<Sacha> Or should it be?
*<Sacha> When I was reading the proposal I thought it would be on the way to full member
*<Sacha> like if you didn't have four people but were actively working towards a party
*<Sacha> you would be on probation til you met the requirements
*<Sacha> but we changed that, so I dunno how it works now
*<erixoltan> That makes sense to me, and I wouldn't be against that sort of an amendment.
*<QuazarGuy> I'd rather include Probationary state votes with the observer votes
*<Sacha> I think the levels of votes are good
*<Sacha> more messy perhaps
*<Sacha> but I feel that it is a fairer way to deal with the situations we may come across
*<erixoltan> The intent of the measure was to have probationary be somewhere between full PNC member and observer.
*<Sacha> put another way it doesn't see fair to have people who are actively working towards a state party given the same powers as those who are passive
*<Sacha> and it doesn't seem fair to have those that have just started working, be a full member either
*<Sacha> That was simply my take on the matter though
*<QuazarGuy> I thought probationary meant they were failing to be active
*<Sacha> I think it could be both
*<Sacha> both a promotion from observer and a demotion from member
*<kusi> As did I QuazarGuy
*<erixoltan> It certainly means they don't meet the criteria in section A.
*<Sacha> Right
*<Sacha> Well where do we want to go from here?
*<Sacha> Would someone like to propose an amendment to the definition of probation status to clarify it?
*<Sacha> and then vote on that?
*<QuazarGuy> C3 should be changed to "placed on observer status"
*<erixoltan> I would propose that we vote on this section as is, and leave the question of whether to allow observers to be elevated to probationary status for another meeting. That would give us more time to craft a measure.
*<Sacha> I would agree that
*<Sacha> to both of those*
*<erixoltan> kusi, can I accept QuazarGuy's idea as a friendly amendment?
*<kusi> erixoltan: sure. Changes it slightly, but for the better.
*<QuazarGuy> consequently it will remove D
*<kusi> Imo >.>
*<kusi> C&p §D?
*<erixoltan> Right but I think we have to vote to remove D after we approve c.
*<QuazarGuy> right
*<erixoltan> D. Inactive Status
*<erixoltan> D1. A PNC member state on inactive status has exactly the same
*<erixoltan> standing as an observer state.
*<erixoltan> D2. To return from inactive status, the requirements are the same as
*<erixoltan> those for a new state to apply for PNC membership.
*<@TravisMcCrea> Umm
*<@TravisMcCrea> if they fail to meet, then they will be placed in observer status? >.>
*<erixoltan> here is QuazarGuy's amended wording
*<kusi> Oh shi.
*<kusi> Wait, no, then I don't think you can accept that.
*<QuazarGuy> not as a friendly amendment anyway
*<erixoltan> C3. After one month of probationary status, a state which still does
*<erixoltan> not meet the requirements for full membership can be returned to observer status by a majority vote.
*<erixoltan> Yes I agree that we have to vote on it.
*<erixoltan> It's a major change.
*<Sacha> Can they be given probationary status?
*<Sacha> Or is it observer or member in this example?
*<erixoltan> In C3, they have already been on probation for a month. At that point we have the option to vote them down to observer status if they haven't made any progress.
*<erixoltan> There's no requirement to do so. They could stay on probationary status indefinitely.
>>> kusanagi has quit IRC: Ping timeout: 240 seconds
*<kusi> Heh.
*<erixoltan> For example if we had a Louisiana party and it was Katrina.
*<kusi> Then there should be a clause for disasters
*<QuazarGuy> lol
*<QuazarGuy> let's vote please
*<Sacha> Or a clause for exceptions
*<Sacha> just general
*<kusi> TravisMcCrea: take the wheel
>>> Nedroj has joined #pnc
*<erixoltan> I don't feel that way - the point of the vote is that we have discretion for things we can't anticipate.
*<Nedroj> greetings, this is Jorden from Oregon
*<Sacha> True, they are not forced to make a vote
*<Sacha> Hello Jorden
*<@TravisMcCrea> Wheel taken
*<Nedroj> o/
*<@TravisMcCrea> The PNC has ultimate control to change anything at any point
*<@TravisMcCrea> So we don't have to plan for every senario
*<Jarod> I have to go, goodnight!
*<QuazarGuy> if planet X rams the Earth and the the last person standing is a Pirate we shall declare victory
*<Sacha> night Jarod!
*<@TravisMcCrea> We can have a 51% majority to remove PPNY from the PNC right now (well not right now, because we are in the middle of a motion) and if we have quorum they are removed
>>> Jarod has quit IRC: Quit: Yaaic - Yet another Android IRC client - (Link: http://www.yaaic.org)http://www.yaaic.org
*<kusi> You mean NYPP.
*<@TravisMcCrea> Of course, next week there would simply be another vote to reinstate them if needed.
*<Sacha> Okay we get it, the PNC is all powerful
*<@TravisMcCrea> The council of states (which is the PNC) have control over how they operate, yes
*<erixoltan> *<QuazarGuy> let's vote please
*<erixoltan> second
*<@TravisMcCrea> I don't see any reason not to. All in favour of Section C
*<@TravisMcCrea> please say aye
*<Sacha> aye
*<erixoltan> whoops
*<kusi> Aye
*<QuazarGuy> aye
*<erixoltan> we're voting on QuazarGuy's amendment first.
*<erixoltan> I hope
*<QuazarGuy> haha yes please
*<@TravisMcCrea> oh
*<erixoltan> C3. After one month of probationary status, a state which still does
*<erixoltan> not meet the requirements for full membership can be returned to observer status by a majority vote.
*<@TravisMcCrea> Sorry, I just came back.
*<erixoltan> np
*<@TravisMcCrea> All in favour of the amendment posted above - say aye
*<QuazarGuy> change returned to demoted
*<erixoltan> aye
*<Sacha> aye
*<QuazarGuy> aye
*<MrSquared> aye
*<kusi> Aye
*<@TravisMcCrea> Calling it
*<QuazarGuy> 5 for
*<QuazarGuy> returned implies they were an observer before
*<erixoltan> that's got to be oK for a friendly amendment.
*<@TravisMcCrea> Yeah
*<QuazarGuy> lol
*<erixoltan> so I'd like to accept the wording changed of "returned" to "demoted" in C3.
*<@TravisMcCrea> NO DICTATOR TRAVIS DEMANDS ALL VOTES
*<@TravisMcCrea> ;)
*<@TravisMcCrea> Is there any objection to erixoltan's suggestion?
*<QuazarGuy> ok, now I motion to approve C
*<@TravisMcCrea> Okay well seeing as no one is saying anything
*<@TravisMcCrea> I will accept no further debate
*<@TravisMcCrea> All in favour of section C
*<@TravisMcCrea> please say aye or nay
*<kusi> Aye
*<QuazarGuy> aye
*<erixoltan> aye
*<MrSquared> aye
*<Sacha> any
*<Sacha> aye*
*<@TravisMcCrea> Oregon, do you want to vote?
*<erixoltan> they did?
*<QuazarGuy> MrSquared is OR
*<@TravisMcCrea> Oh >.> Sorry
*<MrSquared> no worries
*<Sacha> lol
*<@TravisMcCrea> Calling it
*<QuazarGuy> 5 for
*<QuazarGuy> I motion to strike D
*<erixoltan> I second the motion. The amendment to c3 has made D redundant.
*<erixoltan> D. Inactive Status
*<erixoltan> D1. A PNC member state on inactive status has exactly the same
*<erixoltan> standing as an observer state.
*<erixoltan> D2. To return from inactive status, the requirements are the same as
*<erixoltan> those for a new state to apply for PNC membership.
*<@TravisMcCrea> Any debate on this motion?
*<Sacha> No
*<MrSquared> nope
*<@TravisMcCrea> all in favour of striking D
*<QuazarGuy> aye
*<erixoltan> aye
*<kusi> Aye.
*<MrSquared> aye
*<erixoltan> brb
*<Sacha> k
*<Sacha> aye
*<@TravisMcCrea> Calling it
*<QuazarGuy> 5 for
*<@TravisMcCrea> For the record if we lose any more states, we will lose quorum
*<QuazarGuy> what does AOB mean?
*<kusi> 3hrs.
*<matuck> i can step in for GA ... im the alt
*<Sacha> k
*<QuazarGuy> you could've stepped in earlier
*<@TravisMcCrea> QuazarGuy: it is where non-members can propose discussion points
*<matuck> sorry was working on some code
*<Sacha> Do we vote on Mi now?
*<Sacha> Or has that been moved to next meeting?
*<erixoltan> Yeah, after 3 hours do we want to adjourn and discuss MI first thing next week?
*<@TravisMcCrea> well washington had moved it
*<Nedroj> MrSquared called in the big guns to make sure Oregon stays active fyi
*<@TravisMcCrea> so they would have to revoke their motion
*<QuazarGuy> oh yeah, it's the next item
*<Sacha> does anyone want to suggest to move it to next week?
*<@TravisMcCrea> We can't have any motions
*<Sacha> It would be beneficial because i can give a more accurate statement of our members then
*<@TravisMcCrea> except QuazarGuy revoking it or us debating the issue
*<Sacha> ...
*<Sacha> tacit agreement?
*<Sacha> okay >.>
*<@TravisMcCrea> The motion is already on the table to have MIPP
*<@TravisMcCrea> QuazarGuy: can revoke his motion, or we can debate, that's up to Washington.
*<erixoltan> OK so if we're doing this, what is the motion?
*<@TravisMcCrea> I would prefer to just do it
*<QuazarGuy> debate
*<QuazarGuy> haha
*<@TravisMcCrea> Thanks QuazarGuy :) so MIPP is seeking membership. I would ask that someone also motion so that Sacha can speak for her state
*<erixoltan> I would like to disagree.
*<erixoltan> MIPP is not eligible to seek membership.
*<QuazarGuy> is MIPP applying for observer or member? since things have changed
*<erixoltan> They were on the original list of PNC members. Was there a vote to remove them?
*<@TravisMcCrea> They are an observer alraedy
*<erixoltan> That's not my understanding.
*<Sacha> Erixoltan No, not notice either.
*<@TravisMcCrea> erixoltan: They agreed to forfeit their membership (if it was even valid) at the end of last weeks meeting
*<QuazarGuy> well I guess at-large changed to observer
*<@TravisMcCrea> Because they wanted to be properly voted in
*<QuazarGuy> because observers now require approval
*<Sacha> Too much debate over not enough evidence
*<Sacha> so i think it is best just to work with the idea that they are observer, seeking membership
*<Sacha> easiest*
*<QuazarGuy> ok
*<@TravisMcCrea> The simple fact is that when reading the wording which MIPP used to promote their status as a member had too vague of wording and never actually made them a member of the PNC
*<@TravisMcCrea> It simply suggested that they /could/ be
*<@TravisMcCrea> can someone please move to allow Sacha to be able to have a voice?
*<QuazarGuy> I motion to allow Sacha to speak
*<erixoltan> so moved - I thought she already had one?
*<@TravisMcCrea> no it was for the previous motion only
*<erixoltan> aah
*<erixoltan> then I second
*<@TravisMcCrea> lol but obviously she should be able to sepak here
*<@TravisMcCrea> Okay well lets not vote and call it good
*<@TravisMcCrea> if anyone objects later, they can and we will vote
>>> Brady has quit IRC: Remote host closed the connection
*<@TravisMcCrea> Okay so I don't have a voice in this meeting either... and honestly I don't want my opinion to sway the vote.
*<@TravisMcCrea> So I will be remaining silent except providing clearification on rules and precident as viewed by me
*<QuazarGuy> I would like to ask Sacha to present her evidence that MI meets the criteria for being a member
*<Sacha> Okay, the criteria
*<erixoltan> I still think the removal of MI was highly irregular and improper.
*<@TravisMcCrea> erixoltan: she /voluntarily/ gave it up last week.
*<Sacha> Erixoltan there were really no rules and the sudden complete change in leadership led to it
*<Sacha> hopefully it can be avoided in the future
*<Sacha> Anyway
*<Sacha> The criteria as I understand
*<@TravisMcCrea> I had told her that I would recognize her as a member for the beginning of this meeting and we would debate if she could keep it or not, and she decided against that.
*<Sacha> 1. Demonstrate that MiPP is actively working toward state party status
*<Sacha> i'm guessing this means official status
*<Sacha> 2. Web prescence
*<QuazarGuy> not so
*<Sacha> Sorry
*<QuazarGuy> 1 is It must have a membership actively attempting to grow
*<Sacha> 1. Be actively attempting to grow
*<Sacha> 2. Web prescence
*<Sacha> 3. Rep and alternate that are active members
*<QuazarGuy> yes
*<Sacha> Is that all? Anything else?
*<QuazarGuy> you adhere to the three planks?
*<Sacha> Ahh and adhere to the three planks
*<Sacha> Okay so those four things
*<Sacha> 1. Do you adhere to the three planks
*<Sacha> Yes. I've been reading more on Falkinvige's (sp?) proposals about copyright and i'm in love
*<Sacha> that was the only platform I did not know too much
*<Sacha> both I and Kschap are completely on board
*<@TravisMcCrea> Falkvinge* :)
*<Sacha> Ty :3
>>> kusanagi has joined #pnc
>>> ChanServ sets mode +o kusanagi
*<Sacha> 2. Are you actively attempting to grow
*<QuazarGuy> you and kschap account for all of MI Pirates?
*<Sacha> To my knowledge
*<QuazarGuy> proceed
*<Sacha> He has three that he knows are interested but they are not actively involved in the shaping process right now
*<Sacha> 2. Are you actively attempting to grow
*<Sacha> The honest answer to this is not so much in the past. The past few weeks (since Kschap's return to the web) have been marked by a new push to get members
*<Sacha> We had a weekly meeting these past two weeks
*<Sacha> and at the last one discussed how we would like to go and some action steps for growth
*<@TravisMcCrea> May I ask your attendance?
*<Sacha> Just the two of us
*<@TravisMcCrea> and the medium of your meeting
*<Sacha> IRC Tuesday nights 8pm EST #mipp
*<QuazarGuy> could you say some of your theorized action steps?
*<Sacha> I'll cp the list
*<Sacha> better yet
*<Sacha> the google doc
*<Sacha> (Link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EsnWqdfPIuAKWNDBGbRnsIZUITFuS_XJKVgWG0hSvXE/edit)https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EsnWqdfPIuAKWNDBGbRnsIZUITFuS_XJKVgWG0hSvXE/edit
*<Sacha> It was made last night after our weekly meeting to summerize the points that were made
*<QuazarGuy> ping for quorum
*<@kusanagi> pong
*<matuck> Here
*<Sacha> I'm not finished yet though
*<QuazarGuy> just want to make sure Sacha isn't wasting her time
*<Sacha> ah okay
*<erixoltan> I'm here but have a toddler who keeps waking up, and could have to drop without warning.
*<Nedroj> here
*<@kusanagi> erixoltan, i feel the pain.
*<erixoltan> tx
*<@TravisMcCrea> I feel your pain too... I hate all children ;)
*<@TravisMcCrea> (jk of course)
*<Sacha> okay anymore questions for active attempt to grow?
*<QuazarGuy> you have a website?
*<Sacha> Yes
*<QuazarGuy> what's meet MIPP video?
*<Sacha> brb
*<@kusanagi> TravisMcCrea, you're the biggest kid i know.
*<Sacha> QuazarGuy A video to explain our platform, how we meet, who we are
*<@kusanagi> i think toby is more mature than you lol
*<Sacha> to go up on youtube and be passed around
*<Sacha> a visual way to attract people to the idea and something we can put on our website
*<QuazarGuy> do you intend to physically meet people through an event or something?
*<Sacha> Eventually
*<Sacha> Kschap lives closeish to Michigan state university
*<QuazarGuy> anyone else have questions?
*<Sacha> and I go to grand valley
*<Sacha> so when the school year picks up in the fall we will do a lot of in person things on campuses
>>> kusi has quit IRC: Quit: Bye
*<erixoltan> brb
*<Sacha> Also the web prescence
*<Sacha> google+ page: (Link: https://plus.google.com/102337121594819110275/posts)https://plus.google.com/102337121594819110275/posts
*<Sacha> facebook page: (Link: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Michigan-Pirate-Party/380478065331525)http://www.facebook.com/pages/Michigan-Pirate-Party/380478065331525
*<Sacha> facebook group: (Link: http://www.facebook.com/groups/204442193009462/)http://www.facebook.com/groups/204442193009462/
*<Sacha> website: (Link: http://michigan.pirate-party.us/)http://michigan.pirate-party.us/
*<Sacha> No content yet but they were created yesterday and today
*<QuazarGuy> that's good
*<@TravisMcCrea> Your facebook page doesn't even have a like from both of your members
*<QuazarGuy> :p
*<QuazarGuy> Sacha is a G+er
*<QuazarGuy> I have a question
*<Sacha> For sure :P
*<Nedroj> I'll like it now
*<Sacha> Yes?
*<Sacha> Thank you :3
*<Sacha> TravisMcCrea I created it 30 mins ago
*<Sacha> Not much time :3
*<QuazarGuy> currently, matuck is working on the states page on the national site such that it collects people into a state-wide mailing list
*<Sacha> All these things were formed after he went to bed
*<matuck> Move to vote
*<Sacha> QuazarGuy okay
*<QuazarGuy> would you benefit more from the state page linking to your site or to a mailing list?
*<@TravisMcCrea> There has been a motion on the floor to vote, this would be a move to previous question is there a second?
*<matuck> No
*<Sacha> QuazarGuy right now the way it is set up with matuck (per last night's conversation) we agreed to switch it to the state page
*<matuck> Withdraw
*<Sacha> So I chose to change theat
*<Sacha> that*
*<Sacha> I will get the state website set up with a mailing list through the page, i'm decent with wordpress
*<Sacha> I plan to work on the content with kschap this next week
*<QuazarGuy> ok
*<bayoumedic> New here from Louisiana - Looking for how I can 'fit in' with all this. I do web / mobil app  development as well as graphic design.  If anyone  needs help with a site I would be glad to.  Name is Jason btw
*<@TravisMcCrea> bayoumedic: that's super awesome. This is going to sound like I am totally shutting you down, but you should discuss that a little more in #uspp right now only full members and Sacha have a voice on this motion, about MIPP becoming a recognized member of the PNC
*<Sacha> BAYOUMEDIC EMAIL ME AT BELLE10152@HOTMAIL.COM *<3 *<3 *<3 *<#
*<bayoumedic> k thanks
*<QuazarGuy> is that all the criteria?
*<Sacha> I think so?
*<Sacha> Web prescence
*<Sacha> active involvement
*<Sacha> oh
*<Sacha> I am the rep and kschap is the alternate
*<Sacha> we have both been pretty involved with uspp meetings
*<Sacha> and both ragequit coincidentally
*<QuazarGuy> ok
*<@TravisMcCrea> Is there any more debate?
*<erixoltan> back for the moment
*<@TravisMcCrea> Okay I am going to end debate, but give me a second.
*<QuazarGuy> is there a motion on the table?
*<@TravisMcCrea> I am going to preface this vote for a second as I am considering this a "Major Vote", so I would like to make sure everyone is aware of exactly what they are voting on, and what instructions they have for voting.
*<@TravisMcCrea> It is my place to remind everyone that it is up to the discretion of every state whether to adopt a new member or not, it is also up to each and every one of you individually to decide if the party has met the burdens which have been set forth in the rules (primarily the motion made today by the Mass Pirate Party.
*<@TravisMcCrea> By voting "aye" below you will be giving approval to the MIPP to be given full voting rights as well as voice in these meetings and will become your peer. This /can/ be revoked later by majority vote, but this should be used as an extreme measure.
*<@TravisMcCrea> The motion is now on the floor, if you are in favour of MIPP becoming a full recognized member of the PNC vote aye. If you are against it, vote Nay. Ayes must outnumber both Nay and Abstentions (as is normal).
*<@TravisMcCrea> (vote)
*<erixoltan> point of order
*<@TravisMcCrea> Yes?
*<erixoltan> I was under the impressions that abstentions are not considered in determining whether a vote carries.
*<@TravisMcCrea> It must recieve a majority vote by the council
*<erixoltan> Otherwise an abstention would be the same as voting nay.
*<@TravisMcCrea> that means 50% of the vote + 1
*<QuazarGuy> oh
*<QuazarGuy> that makes sense
*<@TravisMcCrea> QuazarGuy, kusanagi, erixoltan, matuck, MrSquared, OrionSteele. itspara, and Sacha please cast your votes
*<QuazarGuy> nay
*<matuck> nay
*<@kusanagi> abstain.
*<MrSquared> nay
*<Sacha> i'm going to abstain as I have a clear agenda and that feels wrong
*<@TravisMcCrea> the chair would advise MIPP to vote in favour of their own state, as it shows your desire to be a state
*<@TravisMcCrea> err a member
*<QuazarGuy> all at-larges may vote right?
*<Sacha> Then i vote aye
*<erixoltan> abstain
*<@TravisMcCrea> QuazarGuy: is there any person who has not voted yet?
*<@kusanagi> OrionSteele.
*<@TravisMcCrea> All at-larges do have a vote, I notice we still don't have OrionSteele
*<QuazarGuy> I think all members have voted
*<@TravisMcCrea> I just want to ensure every voter has a chance to have their vote cast on a major vote
>>> Nedroj has quit IRC: Quit: Web client closed
*<@TravisMcCrea> But I think after being pinged enough times he isn't going to vote
*<@TravisMcCrea> I am calling it
*<QuazarGuy> to be clear I'm using the methods we approved today to count votes?
*<@TravisMcCrea> Yes
*<QuazarGuy> 0.5 for, 3 against, 2 abstain
*<Sacha> As a request, feel free to deny it
*<@TravisMcCrea> I am sorry Sacha but your membership into this council has been denied. You may appeal and try again.
*<Sacha> could those who vote nay explain why they voted nay
*<Sacha> except matuck as he already did
*<Sacha> so that when Michigan re-applies they will know what they need to improve upon?
*<QuazarGuy> while you and kschap seem to have made strides toward breaking through thinking and talking into doing, I'd like to see evidence of doing
*<Sacha> Okay, what is evidence of doing?
*<QuazarGuy> getting more people
*<Sacha> okay
*<QuazarGuy> and not being satisfied until you have the whole state
*<@TravisMcCrea> Sorry to cut this short, but we can discuss this at any point
*<Sacha> It doesn't matter anyway
*<Sacha> goodnight all, it was a good meeting
*<@TravisMcCrea> I would like to wrap things up, we still have "Any Other Business" - this would be where non-members can make proposals or would like to make comments
>>> Sacha has left #pnc
*<@TravisMcCrea> OrionSteele: itspara  do your states have anything they would like to add to the meeting?
*<@TravisMcCrea> (please just say yes if you do so I don't move on)
*<@TravisMcCrea> There was this:
*<@TravisMcCrea> Discussion on Jill Stein being our nomination person for president? Maybe try to contact her campaign and get her to know more of our stuff?
*<@TravisMcCrea> I don't know who suggested it but this should probably be voted on
*<@TravisMcCrea> though we can move it to next week
*<@kusanagi> rush did
*<MrSquared> i'd like to move it to next week
*<QuazarGuy> erixoltan offered to run as well
*<QuazarGuy> but he has to check with his wife first
*<@TravisMcCrea> lol
*<@TravisMcCrea> "Honey, can I run for president?"
*<QuazarGuy> well family support is very important when running for office
*<QuazarGuy> especially when he could be getting calls from reporters all day
*<@kusanagi> haha
*<@kusanagi> yeah, tell me about it
*<@kusanagi> i've gotten in major relationship trouble already >.>
*<@kusanagi> *<.*<
*<@TravisMcCrea> Okay well is there a motion to table this?
*<@kusanagi> and it's minor amounts of press
*<@kusanagi> motion to table
*<@kusanagi> that
*<@TravisMcCrea> Second?
*<MrSquared> second
*<@kusanagi> yay
*<@kusanagi> whoa, 4 hours guize.
*<@TravisMcCrea> in favour of tabling?
*<@kusanagi> geez
*<@kusanagi> aye
*<QuazarGuy> nay
*<matuck> aye
*<MrSquared> aye
*<QuazarGuy> :p
*<@TravisMcCrea> lol I was like "is QuazarGuy trolling us?"
*<@TravisMcCrea> "noo QuazarGuy doesn't troll"
*<MrSquared> =_=
*<@TravisMcCrea> >.> Which means I got double trolled
*<@TravisMcCrea> Anyway calling it
* @kusanagi highfives QuazarGuy
*<QuazarGuy> 3 for, 1 against
*<@TravisMcCrea> what was that? Did I hear someone motion to adjourn?
*<@TravisMcCrea> and a second?
*<@TravisMcCrea> perfect all in favour?
*<matuck> move to adjourn
*<QuazarGuy> second
*<@TravisMcCrea> perfect all in favour?
*<matuck> aye
*<@TravisMcCrea> :P
*<QuazarGuy> aye
*<MrSquared> aye
*<@kusanagi> ayeee
*<@TravisMcCrea> One more vote and I will call it
*<QuazarGuy> that's everyone here
*<@TravisMcCrea> oh
*<@kusanagi> lol
*<QuazarGuy> 4 for
*<@TravisMcCrea> in that case it's called
*<@kusanagi> yay
*<@TravisMcCrea> Thank you everyone
*<@TravisMcCrea> This meeting is adjourned until the 23rd

[[Category:USPP]]
[[Category:USPP Orgs]]
[[Category:Pirate National Committee]]
[[Category:PNC Minutes]]