Difference between revisions of "PNC 4/10/13"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
==== 1.4 - Other ==== | ==== 1.4 - Other ==== | ||
*Wisconsin - Francis Klein | *Wisconsin - Francis Klein | ||
| − | |||
=== 2 - PROCEEDINGS === | === 2 - PROCEEDINGS === | ||
Revision as of 20:51, 8 May 2013
::PNC Meeting Agenda::
- --- 4/10/2013 21:00h EDT ---
- IRC: irc.pirateirc.net
- Room: #pnc
- Wiki: http://uspirates.org/wiki/PNC_4/10/13
Minutes
- Motion to allow observer states permission to speak freely for tonight's meeting
- motion passed 3 - 0
- Discussion of constitution ratifications:
- possibly do away with bylaws, as constitution states same information
- new pirate pad for ratification discussion opened:
1 - ATTENDEES
1.1 - Members of the PNC
- Attending
- Florida - Bradley Hall
- Oregon - Kyle DeVore
- New York - Daniel Gorski
- Florida - Steven Smith
- Wisconsin - Morgan Thompson
- Excused
- Unexcused
- California
- Washington
- Massachusetts
- Probation
1.2 - At Large Members of the PNC
- Maryland - Nick
- Ohio - Dale Craft
1.3 - Officers of the PNC
- Captain - Lindsay-Anne Brunner
- First Officer - Caleb Langeslag
- Quartermater - Daniel Gorski
1.4 - Other
- Wisconsin - Francis Klein
2 - PROCEEDINGS
- Meeting called to order at: 9:05pm EDT
- Meeting chaired by Lindsay-Anne Brunner
- Secretary for this meeting is Daniel Gorski
- Quorum is established: 5 out of 8 Members present
- Logging Enabled: Yes
3 - Review of previous minutes
http://www.pirate-party.us/wiki/PNC_4/3/13
4 - REPORTS
4.1 - Short Report From Committees
IT Committee
- n/a
5 - Agenda Items
- Reworking of the constitution: http://uspirates.org/Pirate_Constitution_annotated.pdf
- AOB -
- Next meeting: TBA
- Meeting closed: 12:43 AM EDT
- Logs of the IRC Meeting -
Apr 10 21:05:38 <kusanagi> Meeting opened at 9.05pm EDT. PLease state your full name, State and representatives, please announce tat you are representing your state. Apr 10 21:06:06 <kusanagi> Lindsay-Anne Brunner, NY, PNC Captain Apr 10 21:06:22 <DaleCraft> Dale Craft, OH, Chairman Apr 10 21:06:55 <kusanagi> chairman of OHPP? Apr 10 21:07:30 <DaleCraft> Yeah, sorry. Apr 10 21:07:45 <Rush> Bradley Hall, FL, FLPP Chairman Apr 10 21:08:19 <mistersquared> Kyle DeVore, Representing ORPP, Oregon Apr 10 21:08:33 <OyajiVyse> Daniel Gorski, New York Apr 10 21:08:53 <narrenburg> Steven Smith, Florida youth member Apr 10 21:10:02 * itspara (webchat@s-85-726-668-82.hsd2.md.comcast.net) has joined #pnc Apr 10 21:10:24 <itspara> Nick, Maryland (Observer) Apr 10 21:10:38 <ToArmsMHearties> Morgan Thompson, representing Pirate Party of Wisconsin Apr 10 21:11:27 <kusanagi> DaleCraft, you understand that you're from a state party that is not yet PNC recognized, correct? Apr 10 21:11:34 <kusanagi> Rush, you're the rep? Apr 10 21:11:40 <Rush> Yes, for now Apr 10 21:11:48 <kusanagi> OyajiVyse, clarify position for the record Apr 10 21:11:52 * kusanagi gives voice to mistersquared Apr 10 21:11:59 * kusanagi gives voice to ToArmsMHearties Apr 10 21:12:04 * kusanagi gives voice to Rush Apr 10 21:12:08 <OyajiVyse> done Apr 10 21:12:18 <kusanagi> no.. Apr 10 21:12:27 <kusanagi> Your position. State it in here. Apr 10 21:12:31 <kusanagi> for the log Apr 10 21:12:31 <OyajiVyse> oh, sorry Apr 10 21:13:02 <OyajiVyse> Daniel Gorski, New York Pirate Party Representative, Quartermaster of USPP Apr 10 21:13:10 <kusanagi> Thank you. Apr 10 21:13:43 * kusanagi gives voice to OyajiVyse Apr 10 21:14:00 <kusanagi> ok, awesome, yay quorum Apr 10 21:14:07 <kusanagi> Ok, few things first Apr 10 21:14:10 <itspara> :) Apr 10 21:14:32 <kusanagi> I'd like to suspend the "observer states have to ask a member to speak" rule Apr 10 21:14:35 <kusanagi> Just for tonight Apr 10 21:14:53 <mistersquared> sure Apr 10 21:15:00 <ToArmsMHearties> without objection Apr 10 21:15:19 <kusanagi> Mainly because of the subject matter Apr 10 21:16:45 <kusanagi> to be formal, i'll need a vote from the member states Apr 10 21:16:56 <kusanagi> if someone doesn't mind putting that motion forward Apr 10 21:17:33 <Rush> I, Brad Hall, FLPP Chairman, do hand over FLPP's voice to Steven Smith. Apr 10 21:17:42 <OyajiVyse> motion to allow observer states to speak freely for tonight's meeting Apr 10 21:18:01 <ToArmsMHearties> second that Apr 10 21:18:32 <kusanagi> Vote opened. To allow non-member states free speaking privileges tonight, vote aye. Apr 10 21:18:37 <OyajiVyse> aye Apr 10 21:18:39 <narrenburg> Aye Apr 10 21:18:41 <mistersquared> aye Apr 10 21:20:28 <kusanagi> ToArmsMHearties, Apr 10 21:21:18 * HariSeldon (webchat@neg-93-80-655-10.uwnet.wisc.edu) has joined #pnc Apr 10 21:21:39 <HariSeldon> hey is the meeting happening? or no quorum? Apr 10 21:21:42 <kusanagi> Vote called, Ayes have it, 3 - 0 Apr 10 21:21:44 <narrenburg> Quorum met. Apr 10 21:21:49 <kusanagi> HariSeldon, please identify for the record Apr 10 21:22:03 <HariSeldon> Francis Klein, Wisconsin Apr 10 21:22:40 <kusanagi> thank you Apr 10 21:22:48 <HariSeldon> point of information - what was the most recent vote? Apr 10 21:23:08 <OyajiVyse> to allow observer states to speak freely Apr 10 21:23:12 <kusanagi> thanks Apr 10 21:23:34 * para has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) Apr 10 21:24:02 <ToArmsMHearties> aye Apr 10 21:24:03 <ToArmsMHearties> sorry Apr 10 21:24:09 <HariSeldon> Chair, I request permission to leave this meeting for a short period of time - I must walk to another building. Apr 10 21:24:17 <kusanagi> Ok, so that constitution. ToArmsMHearties was awesome and went through it, making it legally compliant. I'm sure many of you have seen the revisions Apr 10 21:24:20 <kusanagi> HariSeldon, granted Apr 10 21:25:19 <kusanagi> also, RONR compliant Apr 10 21:25:54 <kusanagi> we've been sitting on it for a while now, mostly because we've not been able to get a meeting together that actually went through the changes and managed to stay on track Apr 10 21:26:26 <kusanagi> As they stand, the current Constitution and Bylaws conflict each other. Horribly. Apr 10 21:26:48 * ToArmsMHearties nods Apr 10 21:27:23 <kusanagi> I'd like to fix the constitution tonight and do away with the bylaws entirely. Intention or not, we don't need both to state the same thing done two different ways. Apr 10 21:27:43 <kusanagi> at a later date, if the PNC decides it's needed, special rules of order can be adopted. Apr 10 21:28:14 * HariSeldon has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) Apr 10 21:28:18 <ToArmsMHearties> I'm working on a copy with all the noted changes made as we speak Apr 10 21:28:39 <kusanagi> For those who haven't seen the noted copy of the constitution, it is in this week's agenda Apr 10 21:29:29 <ToArmsMHearties> a thought occurred to me Apr 10 21:29:33 <narrenburg> Point of information: Would it not be more efficient and easier for representatives to track changes and comment if such a copy were in Google Docs, with special permissions? Apr 10 21:29:46 <ToArmsMHearties> the membership section applies specifically to the PNC. Apr 10 21:29:47 <kusanagi> narrenburg, I'm not a fan of Google Docs Apr 10 21:30:24 <ToArmsMHearties> I think it may be better suited in the PNC section. Apr 10 21:30:50 <kusanagi> ToArmsMHearties, noted. Apr 10 21:30:54 <ToArmsMHearties> and have a blanket membership thing that says anyone who's a member of a state party is a member of the national. Apr 10 21:31:04 <kusanagi> There is no national membership Apr 10 21:31:13 <ToArmsMHearties> erm Apr 10 21:31:19 <ToArmsMHearties> then whence come the USPP? Apr 10 21:31:35 <kusanagi> USPP is the "coming-together" of state parties Apr 10 21:31:46 <ToArmsMHearties> so in other words, it's a confederation Apr 10 21:31:49 <kusanagi> yes Apr 10 21:32:28 <ToArmsMHearties> which means that if someone is a member of one of the member parties to the confederation, they're also a member of the confederation itself, which is what I just said before. Apr 10 21:33:02 <ToArmsMHearties> this is how other parties do things Apr 10 21:33:09 <ToArmsMHearties> I speak from first-hand experience Apr 10 21:33:42 <ToArmsMHearties> being a part of a county party in the Democratic Party of Wisconsin is how you become a DPW member. Apr 10 21:33:45 <ToArmsMHearties> same thing Apr 10 21:33:52 <kusanagi> Oh, I see. Apr 10 21:35:36 <kusanagi> That was a confusing point before Apr 10 21:36:10 <kusanagi> Anyway Apr 10 21:36:11 <ToArmsMHearties> for example Apr 10 21:36:15 <ToArmsMHearties> actually Apr 10 21:36:17 <ToArmsMHearties> can I message you? Apr 10 21:36:20 <kusanagi> yes Apr 10 21:36:45 <kusanagi> So, as for a GoogleDoc, I'm not so keen on it, mostly because they kind of have sketchy privacy issues Apr 10 21:37:00 <kusanagi> but if there's nothing better.. that's fine Apr 10 21:37:45 <kusanagi> my other concern was this going on fopr more than one meeting Apr 10 21:38:08 <kusanagi> And the changes ToArmsMHearties made were some time ago, and i'd like to get it implemented Apr 10 21:39:20 <DaleCraft> May we have a full run down of the changes beforehand? I have the document that states all the changes, but it would be nice if it had more context. Apr 10 21:39:34 * matuck_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) Apr 10 21:39:49 <narrenburg> Piratenpad is good too, and I'd imagine it would be secure, but it's harder to annotate with comments where needed Apr 10 21:39:55 <kusanagi> the original can be found over at http://www.pirate-party.us/wiki/Pirate_National_Committee_(PNC)/Constitution Apr 10 21:40:03 <kusanagi> narrenburg, that's what i was thinking Apr 10 21:40:04 <narrenburg> And at some point, the colors may get annozing. Apr 10 21:40:13 <narrenburg> annoying* Apr 10 21:41:38 * HariSeldon (webchat@neg-93-80-655-10.uwnet.wisc.edu) has joined #pnc Apr 10 21:41:50 <kusanagi> yeah Apr 10 21:42:01 <HariSeldon> Francis Klein, Wisconsin back aboard y'er ship Apr 10 21:42:01 <kusanagi> but i'd rather annoying over less privact Apr 10 21:42:07 <kusanagi> -t+y Apr 10 21:43:06 <kusanagi> Does anyone have a preference, GDoc or Piratenpad? Apr 10 21:43:27 <DaleCraft> The latter. Apr 10 21:43:35 <OyajiVyse> Piratenpad Apr 10 21:44:08 <narrenburg> Piratenpad in general Apr 10 21:44:20 <narrenburg> But GDoc is more extensible for me. Apr 10 21:44:34 <narrenburg> However, pad is the consensus, so, pad. Apr 10 21:45:21 <ToArmsMHearties> diseregard my last; doing so would considerably change the way the Pirate Party operates. giving a membership provision in the USPP constitution would create a deliberative body of the whole of all members of the USPP Apr 10 21:45:34 <ToArmsMHearties> and that could cause a lot of issues. Apr 10 21:46:50 <kusanagi> OyajiVyse is making a pad now Apr 10 21:47:47 <kusanagi> do you guys want to go over everything sect. by sect with the changes adn add it to the pad as we agree? Apr 10 21:48:41 <kusanagi> Or some other method Apr 10 21:49:12 <OyajiVyse> okay, the pad to find this at is: Apr 10 21:49:14 <OyajiVyse> https://pnc.piratenpad.de/PNC-Constitution-Ratifications Apr 10 21:49:51 <CalebLangeslag> It's currently flagged as members-only, (which is default) Apr 10 21:50:35 <kusanagi> its open Apr 10 21:51:40 <kusanagi> So, The whole of article 1 is done away with Apr 10 21:52:48 <kusanagi> And things are merged into others Apr 10 21:54:39 <CalebLangeslag> ToArmsMHearties, I'm unclear of your point. Are you implying that with an addition of a membership provision, that there'd be no delegate/alternate system, and that everyone would all as equally be considered members, or? Apr 10 21:54:48 <CalebLangeslag> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberative_assembly Apr 10 21:54:50 <kusanagi> CalebLangeslag, yes Apr 10 21:57:15 <kusanagi> Also, throughout the document, there are references to a state Apr 10 21:57:25 <kusanagi> that should be clarified as meaning a state party Apr 10 21:57:30 <CalebLangeslag> To my understanding, isn't it the state parties that are the members to the PNC, which select their own delegates to the PNC; whereas membership of the states is already covered and explained? Apr 10 21:57:55 <kusanagi> yes, under the current explanation Apr 10 21:58:21 <ToArmsMHearties> Caleb: it would create a whole new body politic Apr 10 21:58:39 <ToArmsMHearties> the USPP would become its own beast. Apr 10 21:59:09 <ToArmsMHearties> that's why I said disregard my earlier statement about a membership provision Apr 10 22:00:04 * kusanagi gives voice to narrenburg Apr 10 22:00:08 * kusanagi removes voice from Rush Apr 10 22:02:40 <kusanagi> So.. any thoughts? Apr 10 22:03:07 <DaleCraft> Sect by Sect. Apr 10 22:03:12 <DaleCraft> (if we're still talking about that) Apr 10 22:03:24 <kusanagi> No, I'm already working through the revisions. Apr 10 22:03:44 <CalebLangeslag> Although the changes are dependent on each other Apr 10 22:04:16 <kusanagi> yep Apr 10 22:05:59 <kusanagi> So, do you propose we go ahead and approve the whole shebang? Apr 10 22:06:26 <CalebLangeslag> Strike everything and add everything? Apr 10 22:06:54 <kusanagi> Pretty much.. is that what you want to go for? Apr 10 22:08:00 <CalebLangeslag> I think that may be the "cleanest" approach, because otherwise things will have to get reworded for each motion as everything gets moved around. Apr 10 22:08:16 <ToArmsMHearties> I'm working on this Apr 10 22:08:44 <ToArmsMHearties> I believe I have all the stuff reworked, now I'm just trying to make it look pretty Apr 10 22:08:54 <CalebLangeslag> We also need a clause at some point that authorizes the use of IRC for meetings Apr 10 22:09:03 <ToArmsMHearties> ah, yes, there is that Apr 10 22:09:10 <CalebLangeslag> Which could be very short and expanded upon later of it's details Apr 10 22:10:59 <CalebLangeslag> Just have the acronym spelled out, so that it's definitive Apr 10 22:11:11 <DaleCraft> ^ Apr 10 22:11:47 <kusanagi> (Internet Relay Chat, for those playing the home game) Apr 10 22:14:58 <CalebLangeslag> I guess it may even have to be expressed as something overriding RONR, as textual meetings allegedly do not constitute as a deliberative assembly Apr 10 22:15:08 <CalebLangeslag> page 98, 11th Edition Apr 10 22:15:17 <ToArmsMHearties> ? Apr 10 22:15:23 <ToArmsMHearties> right Apr 10 22:15:35 <ToArmsMHearties> but constitution already overrides ROND Apr 10 22:15:37 <ToArmsMHearties> RONR* Apr 10 22:15:42 <ToArmsMHearties> it's inherent. Apr 10 22:16:04 <CalebLangeslag> Yes, that's understood, but just for clarity sake, perhaps Apr 10 22:16:12 <ToArmsMHearties> but if you feel better about it, you can state "Notwithstanding rules contained in RONR, blah blah IRC blah blah" Apr 10 22:18:28 <CalebLangeslag> And technically I think we could have called for recess or something, considering the delay. xP Apr 10 22:19:41 <kusanagi> technically Apr 10 22:19:42 <CalebLangeslag> Is there a Google Doc URL that it's being compiled on, or is it being worked on privately right now? Apr 10 22:20:00 <ToArmsMHearties> privateely, as I'm doing it in InDesign Apr 10 22:20:06 <ToArmsMHearties> Why I'm doing it there, I don't know Apr 10 22:20:07 <CalebLangeslag> D: Apr 10 22:20:08 <ToArmsMHearties> :P Apr 10 22:20:20 <CalebLangeslag> TeX ye mortal fools Apr 10 22:20:23 <kusanagi> there is the pad that was opened Apr 10 22:20:27 <mistersquared> woo InDesign! Apr 10 22:20:30 <CalebLangeslag> which contains no content Apr 10 22:20:44 <kusanagi> yeah, because I was asking the others for input Apr 10 22:21:33 <CalebLangeslag> If we're to have a nice clean final copy, it ought to be compiled from TeX/LaTeX, rather than an output-specific format like InDesign where the content is probably not semantic Apr 10 22:22:32 <kusanagi> can anyone here do that? Apr 10 22:22:41 <kusanagi> Caleb, I assume you can? Apr 10 22:23:08 <CalebLangeslag> Yes; I can also use Mozart's work for reference Apr 10 22:23:39 <Brendan> lol Apr 10 22:23:49 <Brendan> USPP relies on work of PPAU to write constitution. Apr 10 22:23:51 <Brendan> news at 11! Apr 10 22:24:07 <Brendan> https://github.com/ppau/documents also. Apr 10 22:24:13 <ToArmsMHearties> I'd love to be able to put stuff in that piratenpad Apr 10 22:24:22 <ToArmsMHearties> but I can't Apr 10 22:24:33 * puddle (~para@s-85-726-668-82.hsd2.md.comcast.net) has joined #pnc Apr 10 22:25:08 <kusanagi> why not? Apr 10 22:25:20 <kusanagi> it's open Apr 10 22:25:32 <kusanagi> Brendan, not now Apr 10 22:25:33 <ToArmsMHearties> Sorry Caleb, I'm a print graphics designer, not a LaTeX coder. :P Apr 10 22:26:36 <CalebLangeslag> Just work in plaintext right now, and we refactor into other formats later. :P Apr 10 22:26:38 <mistersquared> looks like it pasted in chat Apr 10 22:27:27 <OyajiVyse> can people still not edit on the pad? Apr 10 22:27:31 <ToArmsMHearties> damned thing killed all my formatting Apr 10 22:28:03 <OyajiVyse> yeah, noticed that, sorry Apr 10 22:30:15 <ToArmsMHearties> and yeah, I can't do any of the editing on my own. I'm just staring at you making the edits, Apr 10 22:31:16 <kusanagi> that's odd Apr 10 22:32:03 <OyajiVyse> try now? Apr 10 22:32:22 <ToArmsMHearties> k Apr 10 22:32:24 <ToArmsMHearties> works now Apr 10 22:34:12 <kusanagi> I need to step away for a bit. Apr 10 22:34:22 <kusanagi> CalebLangeslag, can you chair quick? Apr 10 22:36:29 <CalebLangeslag> I can; I'm just not sure how that would properly be done in RONR Apr 10 22:36:45 <CalebLangeslag> of what motion would be necessary Apr 10 22:42:51 <kusanagi> it was an informal handover. Apr 10 22:43:22 <kusanagi> I'm sure we can account for Toby related issues as an informal handover Apr 10 22:43:30 <ToArmsMHearties> we're going to have to cross check this for broken references Apr 10 22:43:48 <HariSeldon> i have to leave Apr 10 22:44:00 <HariSeldon> sorry Apr 10 22:44:36 * HariSeldon (webchat@neg-93-80-655-10.uwnet.wisc.edu) has left #pnc Apr 10 22:56:32 * Rush has quit (Quit: http://www.mibbit.com ajax IRC Client) Apr 10 23:06:01 <kusanagi> just a heads up, if you're wondering why we're so quiet, we're on the pad Apr 10 23:06:05 <kusanagi> actually Apr 10 23:06:06 <ToArmsMHearties> lol Apr 10 23:06:19 <kusanagi> we should have the discussion here and not the chatbox there Apr 10 23:06:25 <kusanagi> this is logged easier Apr 10 23:06:54 <narrenburg> Would the chatbox be copypasted into official log? Apr 10 23:08:03 <ToArmsMHearties> COPYPASTA! Apr 10 23:08:12 <ToArmsMHearties> delicious, delicious copypasta Apr 10 23:08:27 <kusanagi> it would be Apr 10 23:08:33 <kusanagi> OyajiVyse, please make not of that Apr 10 23:08:37 <kusanagi> note Apr 10 23:09:21 <OyajiVyse> to copy the padchat into the logs? Apr 10 23:10:20 <kusanagi> yeah Apr 10 23:12:21 <OyajiVyse> noted Apr 10 23:29:56 <narrenburg> Point of personal privilege - I spent the last five minutes microsleeping in front of my laptop. I think it's time for me to go. Apr 10 23:30:52 <narrenburg> May I be excused for slumber? Apr 10 23:31:24 <kusanagi> We lose quorum Apr 10 23:31:30 <narrenburg> Fine. Apr 10 23:31:41 <narrenburg> I'll see what I can do. Apr 10 23:32:02 <narrenburg> (Which means, 2min bouts of microsleep.) Apr 10 23:35:04 <CalebLangeslag> If you want phone notification when the motion is brought up, I can do so Apr 10 23:35:23 <narrenburg> PM? Apr 10 23:35:34 <CalebLangeslag> Sorry for all the waiting; this should have all been done in advance and wasn't intended to be done during the meeting Apr 10 23:52:17 <DaleCraft> I'm getting off for the night, I've got things to do tomorrow and I need to be rested. Sorry for leaving so early. Good night everyone. Apr 10 23:52:31 * DaleCraft is now known as DaleCraftAFK Apr 10 23:52:36 <OyajiVyse> goodnight Apr 10 23:52:58 <narrenburg> If only Florida wasn't a member just this night. Apr 10 23:54:28 <kusanagi> I'm sorry :( Apr 10 23:54:34 <kusanagi> I really thought it would be faster Apr 10 23:54:50 <narrenburg> Luckily, I can have MC, PP and IRC open at the same time. Apr 10 23:55:00 <narrenburg> So I can switch between the three. Apr 10 23:57:08 <kusanagi> ok, coming back here Apr 10 23:57:28 <kusanagi> mistersquared, please be awake Apr 10 23:57:35 <ToArmsMHearties> oi Apr 10 23:57:48 <mistersquared> i am Apr 10 23:57:50 <kusanagi> YES! Apr 10 23:57:54 <kusanagi> We still got it Apr 10 23:57:56 <kusanagi> <3 Apr 10 23:57:57 <mistersquared> whats up Apr 10 23:58:02 <kusanagi> mistersquared, I owe you a beer Apr 10 23:58:03 <narrenburg> Votetime Apr 10 23:58:09 <narrenburg> And a beer. Apr 10 23:58:11 <narrenburg> That's what's up. Apr 10 23:58:20 <mistersquared> sweet Apr 10 23:58:26 <itspara> What are we voting on now? Apr 10 23:58:52 <kusanagi> narrenburg, i gotta brew some, evertually Apr 10 23:59:02 <kusanagi> i think the new constitution/bylaws Apr 10 23:59:09 <narrenburg> Well, a few people are saying that that the language of this constitution is good for a vote. Apr 11 00:00:09 <kusanagi> I think it is Apr 11 00:00:47 <OyajiVyse> looks good to me Apr 11 00:00:59 * itspara quickly goes over it Apr 11 00:01:57 <itspara> Im sorry... but the values keep seeming more and more like mush to me without a platform Apr 11 00:02:04 <itspara> but otherwise... it looks fine Apr 11 00:02:15 <kusanagi> itspara, it's like you already knew what was next Apr 11 00:02:19 <itspara> / not a complaint about the constitution Apr 11 00:02:25 <kusanagi> I know Apr 11 00:03:32 * Sacha2 (~sacha@o-65-06-20-978.hsd1.mi.comcast.net) has joined #pnc Apr 11 00:04:04 <itspara> im still going through it right now Apr 11 00:04:10 <itspara> I was slow to start Apr 11 00:04:11 <itspara> sorry Apr 11 00:04:13 <kusanagi> itspara, take your time Apr 11 00:04:29 <kusanagi> Anyone else still going through everything? Apr 11 00:04:37 <ToArmsMHearties> move to approve changes to Constitution, renaming as bylaws, eliminating previous documents. Apr 11 00:04:54 <kusanagi> (that's a broad movement) Apr 11 00:05:08 <kusanagi> Anyone wish to second? Apr 11 00:05:09 <ToArmsMHearties> well Apr 11 00:05:15 <ToArmsMHearties> that's sort of what we're doing here Apr 11 00:05:20 <kusanagi> I know, it was a joke Apr 11 00:05:23 <kusanagi> a bad one Apr 11 00:05:24 <ToArmsMHearties> lol okay Apr 11 00:05:27 <CalebLangeslag> And also cite: https://pnc.piratenpad.de/PNC-Constitution-Ratifications Apr 11 00:05:38 <itspara> mild caveat... I feel that limiting elections to specifically shulze may be a tad restrictive... but thats just me. I am aware its not considered restrictive normally Apr 11 00:05:53 <CalebLangeslag> It can be amended at a later time Apr 11 00:06:13 <kusanagi> Yeah, if it is restrictive, we can change it later Apr 11 00:06:30 <ToArmsMHearties> sounds like the purpose of a second is achieved Apr 11 00:06:31 <kusanagi> there will not have to be anything like this again, and guys, I really apologize for how long it took Apr 11 00:06:34 <ToArmsMHearties> there's discussion Apr 11 00:06:34 <ToArmsMHearties> :P Apr 11 00:06:41 <kusanagi> CalebLangeslag can't second Apr 11 00:06:55 <Sacha2> Is this still the PNC meeting or is it open to anyone Apr 11 00:07:06 <kusanagi> PNC Apr 11 00:07:07 <itspara> Also... shouldn't the purpose of the PNC also be to promote the party? Apr 11 00:07:43 <ToArmsMHearties> true, but kusa and itspara have both started discussion Apr 11 00:07:47 <ToArmsMHearties> that sounds like a second to me. Apr 11 00:08:02 <passstab> wha? Schultz-- Apr 11 00:08:35 <ToArmsMHearties> so I do believe the motion is before us... Apr 11 00:08:40 <itspara> Let me finish reading it over first pre-vote Apr 11 00:08:49 <OyajiVyse> seconded Apr 11 00:08:53 <itspara> ok, done. Apr 11 00:09:06 <CalebLangeslag> There's been two hours to read it Apr 11 00:09:33 <ToArmsMHearties> I, for one, welcome our robot overlords... err, the new founding documents. Apr 11 00:09:43 <mistersquared> lol Apr 11 00:09:59 <itspara> I wanted to go over it one last time, I am finished though now. Apr 11 00:10:16 <kusanagi> narrenburg, you're up too, right? Apr 11 00:10:24 <narrenburg> Grudgingly. Apr 11 00:10:28 <passstab> i think we should elect officers via approval, not Schultz Apr 11 00:10:47 <kusanagi> I saw a second.. is there any further debate? Apr 11 00:11:11 <ToArmsMHearties> without objection, move the question? Apr 11 00:12:00 <kusanagi> wait Apr 11 00:12:06 <ToArmsMHearties> okay Apr 11 00:12:29 <kusanagi> Guys, I know it's late Apr 11 00:12:37 <kusanagi> But is there any further debate? Apr 11 00:12:48 <mistersquared> none here Apr 11 00:12:51 <narrenburg> Not from the sunshine state. Apr 11 00:12:56 <ToArmsMHearties> as I said, I asked to move the question if there's no objection. :P Apr 11 00:13:00 <kusanagi> lol Apr 11 00:13:06 <passstab> i don't like schultz :P Apr 11 00:13:23 <narrenburg> Please reiterate why you don't like the Schulze method. Apr 11 00:13:28 <passstab> ok Apr 11 00:13:46 <passstab> it falls into the same problems that FPTP does Apr 11 00:14:13 <narrenburg> Continue, if you choose. Apr 11 00:14:44 <passstab> a voter can better affect the outcome by putting the more popular candidate ahead of the one they prefer Apr 11 00:14:58 <narrenburg> noted Apr 11 00:15:03 <passstab> approval doesn't have that problem Apr 11 00:15:21 <passstab> (range is ok also) Apr 11 00:15:52 <itspara> Approval and range are condorcet methods as well, correct? Apr 11 00:16:10 <passstab> no Apr 11 00:16:28 <ToArmsMHearties> and this is why I put this irssi session in a screen instsnce Apr 11 00:16:35 <itspara> No, nvm Apr 11 00:16:39 <itspara> I was wrong. Apr 11 00:16:41 <ToArmsMHearties> it's now on my ohobe Apr 11 00:16:46 <ToArmsMHearties> phone* Apr 11 00:17:00 <CalebLangeslag> if this helps: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method#Comparison_table Apr 11 00:17:47 <narrenburg> This one is no good when comparing Approval to Schulze. Apr 11 00:17:52 <narrenburg> As there is no Approval voting. Apr 11 00:18:10 <passstab> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system#Compliance_of_selected_systems_.28table.29 Apr 11 00:18:17 <narrenburg> Correct. Apr 11 00:18:30 <ToArmsMHearties> tfisSchulze? Apr 11 00:18:31 <itspara> I would back allowing any Condorcet or Cardinal voting methods Apr 11 00:18:54 * itspara thinks he has his methods straight now Apr 11 00:19:03 <itspara> Much wider, and allows variety. Apr 11 00:19:06 <ToArmsMHearties> wtf is Schulze? Apr 11 00:19:11 <CalebLangeslag> for reference, Schulze method is the most common voting method in the other Pirate Parties, which is part of the reason that we're doing likewise Apr 11 00:19:28 <passstab> it is unlikely for range(which approval is a subset of) to fail cond in specific instances Apr 11 00:19:49 <itspara> It would allow shulz and approval / range to be used Apr 11 00:20:18 <narrenburg> According to this table, approval is very shaky on the majority criterion (which, I think others would agree, is a core criterion for fair voting systems), and fails the mutual majority criterion. Apr 11 00:20:18 <CalebLangeslag> ToArmsMHearties, you rank each candidate in order of what order you prefer them, and the Schulze method algorithm calculates the result. Apr 11 00:20:49 <CalebLangeslag> Such as if you abhor a specific candidate, and put them at the bottom, that negates from their score (IIRC). If you have someone at the top, it adds to it Apr 11 00:20:58 <ToArmsMHearties> oh instant runoff Apr 11 00:21:20 <CalebLangeslag> If two candidates are highly controversial, but there's a second one that everyone can generally agree on, that second one will likely win Apr 11 00:21:28 <itspara> NOT IRV Apr 11 00:21:45 <itspara> Shulz is NOT IRV Apr 11 00:21:51 <ToArmsMHearties> yeah that's instant runoff voting Apr 11 00:22:12 <passstab> because that would require that most preferred candidate gets less then the most tolerated candidate and is more then 50% Apr 11 00:22:13 <narrenburg> The innards of Schulze and IRV are different. Apr 11 00:22:13 <ToArmsMHearties> or at least my understanding of it Apr 11 00:22:15 <narrenburg> Very different. Apr 11 00:22:15 <itspara> Both are ordinal systems... but they are not the same Apr 11 00:22:24 <Brendan> are we now arguing about voting systems? Apr 11 00:22:26 <CalebLangeslag> Is my explanation wrong/misleading? Apr 11 00:22:32 <kusanagi> Brendan, we're sill in a meeting Apr 11 00:22:46 <Brendan> well, if you need my input on Schulze, let me know. Apr 11 00:22:51 <passstab> those systems both have the same problem as FPTP Apr 11 00:23:01 <narrenburg> Speaking of which... Apr 11 00:23:18 <narrenburg> One of the most important criticism of First Past the Post is the spoiler method. Apr 11 00:23:20 <itspara> Shulze is a condorcet method, wheras IRV is not Apr 11 00:23:21 <ToArmsMHearties> all I know is a dinner meeting for two and a half hours and I'm sick (fun with gastoenteritis) Apr 11 00:23:44 <narrenburg> Spoiler effect* Apr 11 00:23:47 <narrenburg> I'm tired. Apr 11 00:23:55 <ToArmsMHearties> we've been in this meeting for two and a half hours. voice recognition isn't perfect. Apr 11 00:24:00 <narrenburg> Does the Schulze method suffer from the spoiler effect? Apr 11 00:25:10 <narrenburg> And how does the Approval voting system mitigate? Apr 11 00:25:36 <passstab> i was talking about Latter no harm/help Apr 11 00:26:36 <passstab> or rather that you will help the candidate who stand a better chance the one you prefer Apr 11 00:27:09 <itspara> people should drink caffeine because after this I am bringing up more fun stuff :D Apr 11 00:27:19 <passstab> in ranked you will always give your favorite candidate the top rank Apr 11 00:27:44 <CalebLangeslag> We're not holding elections tomorrow. Can we hold this debate onto another meeting? :P Apr 11 00:28:42 <CalebLangeslag> since there isn't a clear amendment to the motion formed after this amount of debate Apr 11 00:28:52 <ToArmsMHearties> well I won't be here for it, itspara. i jave to be and school tomorrow at 1 p.m. and then I have to drive to Green Bay for an appointment and then I have to drive back. and I currently feel like shit. Apr 11 00:29:05 <ToArmsMHearties> have to be at* Apr 11 00:29:09 <kusanagi> there was a seconded motion Apr 11 00:29:24 <kusanagi> is there any proposals to revise? Apr 11 00:29:28 <passstab> http://www.electology.org/approval-voting Apr 11 00:29:34 <narrenburg> At this point, no. Apr 11 00:29:53 <CalebLangeslag> Then someone should call the question Apr 11 00:30:19 <ToArmsMHearties> I asked to move the question 20 minutes ago Apr 11 00:30:30 <kusanagi> It was seconded Apr 11 00:30:44 <CalebLangeslag> If it was seconded, then we should have voted then. :P Apr 11 00:30:54 <CalebLangeslag> Unless if I'm unclear Apr 11 00:31:15 <ToArmsMHearties> no I mean move the question as in we either take a vote or vote on whether or not we vote on it which requires a two-thirds majority Apr 11 00:31:25 <kusanagi> I called for further debate Apr 11 00:31:30 <itspara> nevermind.. I wont bring up the issue I was thinking of Apr 11 00:31:39 <ToArmsMHearties> but moving the question actually requires a second itself Apr 11 00:31:43 <kusanagi> Oh Apr 11 00:31:45 <kusanagi> derp Apr 11 00:31:56 <narrenburg> oy vey iz mir Apr 11 00:32:23 <ToArmsMHearties> and there's no debate on moving the question; only a vote Apr 11 00:32:33 <ToArmsMHearties> know thy rules lol Apr 11 00:32:37 <kusanagi> it's laaate Apr 11 00:32:39 <kusanagi> anyway Apr 11 00:32:58 <kusanagi> ToArmsMHearties moves the question on taking a vote. Apr 11 00:33:02 <kusanagi> Any seconds Apr 11 00:33:03 <kusanagi> ? Apr 11 00:33:12 <narrenburg> I second this motion. Apr 11 00:34:11 <kusanagi> To the vote it goes. Aye to approve the new changes, change constitution's name to bylaws, and scrap the old documents Apr 11 00:34:21 <kusanagi> All those in favor, please say aye! Apr 11 00:34:24 <OyajiVyse> aye Apr 11 00:34:26 <itspara> Aye Apr 11 00:34:29 <narrenburg> AYE! Apr 11 00:34:34 <mistersquared> aye Apr 11 00:34:46 <ToArmsMHearties> well I was doing a nice way by asking if there is any objection but you objected Apr 11 00:34:47 <ToArmsMHearties> :P Apr 11 00:34:48 <ToArmsMHearties> aye Apr 11 00:35:04 <kusanagi> At-larges? Apr 11 00:35:13 <ToArmsMHearties> sounds like we move to voting on the question, then. Apr 11 00:35:17 <kusanagi> YAY Apr 11 00:35:48 <ToArmsMHearties> as to the main motion, Wisconsin votes aye. Apr 11 00:36:14 <kusanagi> Alright, to the motion. Aye to approve the changes, change the constitution to the bylaws and scrap the old documents Apr 11 00:36:37 <OyajiVyse> aye Apr 11 00:36:45 <narrenburg> Aye. Apr 11 00:36:48 <mistersquared> aye Apr 11 00:36:53 * passstab has quit (Quit: Leaving) Apr 11 00:37:01 <kusanagi> All those in favor? Apr 11 00:37:10 <kusanagi> ToArmsMHearties, just you Apr 11 00:37:16 <kusanagi> itspara, too Apr 11 00:37:30 <itspara> AYE Apr 11 00:37:41 <ToArmsMHearties> I said aye earlier Apr 11 00:37:45 <kusanagi> oh, that works too Apr 11 00:37:48 <ToArmsMHearties> "as to the main motion..." Apr 11 00:38:02 <kusanagi> i need better glasses and vote called Apr 11 00:38:12 <CalebLangeslag> and how is that in order? xP Apr 11 00:38:13 <kusanagi> 4.5 - 0 - 0 Apr 11 00:39:14 <kusanagi> rather, 4.5 aye, 0 nay, abstain Apr 11 00:39:19 <kusanagi> yay new doc Apr 11 00:39:23 <itspara> woop Apr 11 00:39:24 <kusanagi> 0 abstain Apr 11 00:39:28 <kusanagi> woot Apr 11 00:39:45 <CalebLangeslag> And someone should entertain the motion to adjourn Apr 11 00:39:46 * narrenburg plays the house music Apr 11 00:39:47 <kusanagi> Ok, it is there anything, ANYTHING else? Apr 11 00:39:52 * ToArmsMAndroid (~droid@65-49-684-558.lightspeed.oshkwi.sbcglobal.net) has joined #pnc Apr 11 00:39:56 <CalebLangeslag> (after any other business) Apr 11 00:40:43 <kusanagi> OyajiVyse, narrenburg mistersquared anything? Apr 11 00:40:51 <mistersquared> nope, im good Apr 11 00:40:54 <kusanagi> If not, you can move to adjourn. Apr 11 00:40:56 <narrenburg> I'm too tired to say anything, but I have nothing. Apr 11 00:41:14 <OyajiVyse> move to adjourn for tonight Apr 11 00:41:23 <mistersquared> second Apr 11 00:41:24 <ToArmsMHearties> second Apr 11 00:41:42 <kusanagi> vote to adjourn. all in favor Apr 11 00:41:43 <kusanagi> ? Apr 11 00:41:45 <narrenburg> AYE! Apr 11 00:41:51 <mistersquared> AYE Apr 11 00:42:06 <ToArmsMAndroid> Irssi connectbot was being stupid Apr 11 00:42:09 <ToArmsMAndroid> Sye Apr 11 00:42:13 <ToArmsMAndroid> Aye Apr 11 00:42:18 <OyajiVyse> aye Apr 11 00:42:28 <kusanagi> any others? Apr 11 00:42:51 <kusanagi> 4 aye, 0 nay, 0 abstain Apr 11 00:42:53 <kusanagi> vote called Apr 11 00:42:56 <kusanagi> have a great night
- Logs of the PiratenPad Meeting -
April 10, 2013 22:06Caleb Langeslag: I assume it's being worked on at a different location on Google Docs, or? 22:25Morgan Thompson: ARTICLE I: Pirate Party of the United States of America These Bylaws shall govern the association known as the Pirate Party of the United States of America, hereinafter referred to as the Party. ARTICLE II: Object Section 1. Mission The Party shall: 1. Give voice to the Core Values of the Party. 2. Adopt and promote statements of policy which implement these Core Values. 3. Nominate and assist in the election of Pirate candidates for the offices of President and Vice President of the United States, and support Party and Party-endorsed candidates for public office. 4. Promote the growth of state and local Pirate Parties, and assist in their activities. Engage in any other activities incidental or related to the above Section 2: Core Values Pursuant to this mission, we, the Pirate Party of the United States of America, form the Party on the basis of the following Core Values: 1. We stand for open culture. No one should have the power to prevent the free exchange and expression of ideas, tools, or works. 2. We stand for transparency and openness. Government activities should not be hidden from the public. 3. We stand for individual privacy. The amount of oppression in a society is inversely proportional to its privacy protections. Individuals must be free to make personal decisions that do not harm another person. 4. We are anti-monopoly. No monopoly should be able to prevent works, tools, or ideas from: being freely used, expressed, exchanged, recombined, or taught; nor to violate individual privacy or human rights. A creator's right to be compensated for their work or idea is only acceptable within these limitations. 5. We stand for individuals over institutions. Universal human rights apply only to human beings, and not to corporations, limited liability organizations, or other group entities. 6. We are a post-ideological values-based meritocracy. We place all options on the table. We choose a specific approach because the available evidence sh ows that it is the best way to promote our values. We do not make decisions based merely on tradition, popularity, authority or political expediency. 7. We are egalitarian. We believe in equality and a level playing field. We accept input from all sources, and we value all people equally. 8. We actively practice these values. We hold ourselves accountable for our own adherence to these principles. ARTICLE III: Membership Section 1. Pirate National Committee Membership 1. At least two delegates from each State Pirate Party which meets the qualifications set forth in Art. III §2, hereinafter referred to as Representatives. A State which sends Representatives to the PNC shall be considered a Member State with Representation in the PNC for the purposes of this document. 2. At least one delegate from each State Pirate Party which does not yet meet the qualifications set forth in Art. III §2, hereinafter referred to as Observers. A State which sends Observers to the PNC shall be considered an Observer State for the purposes of this document. 3. At least one delegate from each Subcommittee formed by the PNC as set forth in Art. V, hereinafter referred to as Subcommittee Liaisons. Section 2: State Eligibility In order to be eligible to send Representatives to the PNC, a state must: 1. Be home to a Pirate Party which is actively attempting to grow. 2. Adhere to the Core Values. 3. Appoint one Primary Representative and at least one Alternate Representative, both of whom must be active members of the state’s Pirate Party. 4. Regularly send a Representative to attend PNC meetings. 5. Maintain an active web presence with an easy method of contact by prospective members. 6. Apply for Representation, as set forth in Art. III §3. 7. Ratify the PNC Bylaws Section 3: Representation The process by which states may apply for Representation in the PNC is as follows: 1. The Applicant State shall ask a current Representative in the PNC to be a Sponsor for their application. 2. At a PNC m eeting, the Sponsor shall move to grant Representation to the Applicant State, which shall pass by majority vote. At least one prospective Representative from the Applicant State shall attend this meeting. 3. If the motion passes, the prospective Representatives from the Applicant State shall be declared Representatives to the PNC. The Applicant State shall be declared a Member State of the PNC. 4. If the motion does not pass, the prospective Representative(s) from the Applicant State shall be declared to be Observer(s), and the Applicant State an Observer State. The Applicant State shall be informed by the PNC what actions it must take to be eligible for Representation. 5. At the PNC’s discretion, an Observer State may be granted a Probationary Membership, as set forth in Art. III §4, by a majority vote. 6. Alternatively to Art. III §3.1, the Sponsor may move to declare the prospective Representative(s) of the Applicant State to be declared Observer(s), in the event that the Sponsor does not believe that the Applicant State is eligible for Member State status. Section 4: Probation A State may be declared, by majority vote of the PNC, a Probationary State if any of the following conditions are met: 1. No Representative from the Pirate Party of the State attends two consecutive PNC meetings, or: 2. If the Pirate Party of the State no longer meets the requirements set forth in 3. An observer state can apply for probationary status as a stepping-stone to full membership. Art. III §2. The following subsections describe the Probationary process: 3. The status of Probationary State shall persist for a minimum of one month. 4. After this month, the PNC shall review whether or not the Pirate Party of the Probationary Member State meets the requirements set forth in Art. III §2. 5. If the PNC finds that the Pirate Party of the Probationary State meets the requirements set forth in Art. III §2, the Probationary State shall be declared a Member State. Otherwise, the Probationa ry State shall be declared an Observer State. 6. In the event that the Pirate Party of the Probationary State has been dissolved, has become inactive, or is otherwise uncontactable, the PNC may use its discretion to eject the Probationary State from the PNC instead of declaring it to be an Observer as per Art. III §4.5. Special cases: 7. At any time throughout the probationary period, the Representatives of the Probationary State may voluntarily declare their state to be an Observer, ending the Probationary process. 8. If the Pirate Party of a State does not adhere to the Core Values, the PNC shall not put the State on Probation but shall eject it by a ¾ (three-fourths) majority vote. Section 5: Voting Rights 1. Officers and Subcommittee Liaisons shall not participate in PNC votes, unless the Officer or Subcommittee Liaison in question is also acting as a State Representative. 2. All other PNC participants shall vote according to the Bylaws. Section 6: Registration of Representatives All primary or alternate Representatives of each Member or Observer state must be registered with the Captain or Quartermaster. ARTICLE IV: Officers Section 1: Positions The PNC shall be facilitated by the following Officers: 1. The Captain or Chairperson, who shall manage all administration and operations of the PNC, act as the chairperson and spokesperson of the Party, and facilitate PNC meetings. 2. The First Officer or Vice-Chair, who shall assist the Captain in managing the administration and operations of the PNC, and conduct business on behalf of the Captain or the Quartermaster in the event that the Captain is absent or incapacitated. 3. The Quartermaster or Secretary and Treasurer, who shall keep records of the minutes and logs for meetings, tally votes, and maintain a database of the members who compose the PNC as set forth in Art. III §1. Section 2: Eligibility 1. To be eligible to hold one of the positions set forth in Art. IV §1, a candidate must be an active member of thei r State Pirate Party, or actively involved in Pirate politics if no state party exists. 2. To be eligible to hold the position of Captain set forth in Art. IV §1.1, a candidate must not be a Representative of a Member State, or must abdicate the role of Representative upon election as Captain. Section 3: Election Election of Officers shall occur: 1. For all Officer positions, once every year at the Annual Meeting set forth in Art. VI §2. 2. For an Officer position which is vacated out of schedule, as soon after the vacation as possible. The election procedure for an Officer position shall be as follows: 1. Officers shall be elected by Schulze Method via silent ballot. 2. Representatives to the PNC shall be eligible to vote in the election. 3. Prior to the election, the PNC shall elect an Election Committee of at least three persons to supervise the silent ballot, and to independently calculate the results. ARTICLE V: Executive Section 1: Purpose 1. The fundamental purpose of the Pirate National Committee, hereinafter referred to as the PNC, is to serve as the governing and organizing body for the Party. 2. The PNC shall adopt the most open, inclusive and egalitarian procedures and technologies available for running the Party’s web presence, for collaboration, and for conducting its own meetings. Section 2: Platforms 1. The PNC may adopt such optional platforms and policies as it sees fit by a majority vote. It may further enhance these mandatory platforms with optional positions by a simple majority vote. 2. None of the PNC’s optional platforms or positions shall be imposed on member states or individual members. Party members are free to disagree with optional platforms and policies. Section 3: No Confidence Measure 1. At any time during a PNC meeting, any Member State’s Representative or acting Representative may call for a vote of No Confidence on the grounds that the PNC’s processes are fundamentally unfair or fatally flawed, and that new Officers are needed. On ce seconded, there shall not be a delay of more than 30 minutes in voting on such a motion, and it requires a ⅗ (three-fifths) majority to pass. 2. If a No Confidence measure passes, then the following sequence of events shall occur: 1. The terms of all PNC Officers shall end immediately. 2. The Representative who motioned for the No Confidence measure shall act as Temporary Captain, and the Representative who seconded it shall act as Temporary First Officer and Quartermaster. 3. The Temporary Officers shall immediately facilitate the selection of new permanent Officers. ARTICLE VI: Meetings Section 1: PNC Meeting 1. The PNC shall meet as frequently as its members shall decide, but not less than once per year. 2. The PNC shall use the most effective and most inclusive collaboration tools available to meet and vote on decisions. 3. A quorum shall be 50% of all states, Probationary states, and Observer states, where Member states are counted as one and Probationary and Observer states are counted as one-half. Section 2: Building State Parties 1. The Party shall hold such meetings and/or social gatherings as may be needed to build the membership of the party at a state and local level. 2. The Party shall use all means at its disposal to provide support to such groups as shall arise at a state level, as well as locally, nationally and internationally to support this goal of facilitating the creation of State Parties in all 50 States and every US Territory. 3. A yearly convention shall be held for the purposes of party elections at a date specified in the bylaws. Section 3: Purpose, Membership, and Operations 1. A Subcommittee shall be a working group formed by act of the PNC to achieve a specified purpose. 2. A Subcommittee shall be composed of active members of any Pirate Party located in a Member State or Observer State. Section 4. Meetings to be held by IRC 1. Notwithstanding rules contained in RONR, meetings held by USPP shall be conducted via Internet Relay Chat, o n a publicly accessible and publicized server. Article VII: Committees Section 1: Purpose, Membership, and Operations 1. A Subcommittee shall be a working group formed by act of the PNC to achieve a specified purpose. 2. A Subcommittee shall be composed of active members of any Pirate Party located in a Member State or Observer State. 3. The PNC may specify the operating procedures of a Subcommittee and any criteria for its membership not otherwise specified in these Bylaws. Any operating procedures or membership criteria not specified by the PNC shall be determined by the members of the Subcommittee. ARTICLE VIII: Parliamentary Authority The rules contained in the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR) shall govern the Party in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these bylaws and any special rules of order the Party may adopt. ARTICLE IX: Amendment 1. In general, these Bylaws can be amended by a ⅔ (two-thirds) supermajority vote of the PNC. Initial ratification requires the same majority vote of the temporary PNC. The exception is that a ¾ (three-fourths) vote of the PNC is required to ratify each individual Core Value, to amend or remove existing Core Values, or to add new Core Values. 2. Following ratification by the PNC, this initial Bylaws or any amendment to it must be ratified by ⅔ (two-thirds) of State Parties using their own internal ratification procedures. The votes of Pirate Parties located in Observer States and Probationary States are not counted for Bylawsal ratification or amendment. ARTICLE X: Dissolution 1. Dissolution of this PNC by consent shall require the unanimous agreement of the Member States together with a simple-majority vote (50% + 1) of Member States and Observer States at a General Meeting which has been publicized at least 30 days in advance to all Member States and Observer States of the PNC for the purpose of taking this vote. 2. Upon the dissolution or liquidat ion of the PNC, after all of its liabilities and obligations have been paid, satisfied, and discharged, all of the assets of the PNC shall be distributed for such educational, charitable and scientific purposes as the Member States (or such other persons as may be in charge of liquidation) shall determine. If an agreement cannot be met for the disbursment of funds, then a court of arbitration may be consulted. 22:26Morgan Thompson: it stripped all my formatting. 22:26Morgan Thompson: :( 22:28Steven Smith (Guest): Needs a little more pink. 22:29Lindsay-Anne Brunner: hm 22:29Morgan Thompson: lol 22:34Kyle DeVore: There is an option to remove the highlighted colors 22:34Kyle DeVore: right next to "undo" 22:35Lindsay-Anne Brunner: caleb: see irc 22:35Lindsay-Anne Brunner: if anyting comes up, caleb is chair till i get back 22:37Morgan Thompson: okay wtf just happened to section 4? 22:40Caleb Langeslag: Art II, Sec 6:. Shouldn't it be "All primary AND alternate Representatives"? 22:40Caleb Langeslag: Because a person could register just one or the other 22:41Caleb Langeslag: Also, perhaps there should be verbage requiring the registration of the order of alternates as well 22:45Caleb Langeslag: Sorry, Article III (not II), Sec 6 22:46Morgan Thompson: if states want co-equal reps, they can 22:46Morgan Thompson: err 22:46Morgan Thompson: co-equal alternates 22:46Morgan Thompson: in that case, it's whoever gets there first. lol 22:46Caleb Langeslag: Then that would be at-large delegates 22:46Morgan Thompson: but you could specify 22:47Morgan Thompson: I think it's up to the state to tell the USPP who is who, and if they want co-equal alternates or reps, they should. But they still only get 1 vote. 22:48Caleb Langeslag: Or perhaps another way would be: have order of alternates on record, if the state wants their alternates to be ordered 22:49Dale Craft: I like States having some sort of autonomy from the USPP. It models our current system of government. 22:49Lindsay-Anne Brunner: That's how it has been 22:49Lindsay-Anne Brunner: Dale's using my color XD 22:50Caleb Langeslag: QUICK! Sue him for infringing your intellectual property of that color! 22:51Caleb Langeslag: Article III, Sec 3, Line 6. "Art. III § .1" 22:51Dale Craft: lel, oops 22:51Caleb Langeslag: Is that citing Sec 1, Line 1, or? 22:56Morgan Thompson: how's that? 22:56Caleb Langeslag: Lastly, there's: Art III, Sec 5, Line 2 and Art VI, Sec 2, Line 3; both of which reference the separate defunct "Bylaws" 22:56Morgan Thompson: nope 22:56Morgan Thompson: ARTICLE I: Pirate Party of the United States of America These Bylaws shall govern the association known as the Pirate Party of the United States of America, hereinafter referred to as the Party. 22:56Morgan Thompson: The Constitution is being renamed the Bylaws 22:56Morgan Thompson: since the term is synonymous, legally speaking 22:57Caleb Langeslag: They're referencing the document itself which does not declare what the line is intended to reference 22:57Caleb Langeslag: A yearly convention shall be held for the purposes of party elections at a date specified in the bylaws. 22:57Morgan Thompson: oh 22:57Morgan Thompson: yeah 22:57Morgan Thompson: that's a problem 22:57Caleb Langeslag: and "All other PNC participants shall vote according to the Bylaws. " 22:57Morgan Thompson: rules of order? 22:57Caleb Langeslag: Which referenced the procedure of handling votes, I believe 22:57Morgan Thompson: instead of bylaws, in this instance? 22:58Caleb Langeslag: Perhaps 22:58Caleb Langeslag: or just declare it right there 22:59Morgan Thompson: yeah, that could work, or you could establish it as "a date set by the PNC" 23:00Morgan Thompson: and there could be a convention committee 23:01Morgan Thompson: that should fix 3.5.2 23:02Morgan Thompson: because RONR sets forth voting procedures. 23:02Lindsay-Anne Brunner: we can add that in 23:02Lindsay-Anne Brunner: it was sept, iirc 23:02Caleb Langeslag:http://uspirates.org/wiki/Bylaws 23:05Morgan Thompson: how's that? 23:06Caleb Langeslag: Am I reading this wrong? "States are not counted for Bylawsal ratification or amendment. " 23:07Lindsay-Anne Brunner: I don't even 23:07Lindsay-Anne Brunner: Does that make any sense? 23:07Morgan Thompson: where? 23:07Dale Craft: haha. 23:07Morgan Thompson: I must be getting senile in my old age lol 23:08Caleb Langeslag: Art IX, Line 2 23:08Caleb Langeslag: Also, are you sure you can just say "the edition of Robert's Rules of Order (...)" 23:09Caleb Langeslag: Wouldn't it be less disputable if it explicitly says the '11th Edition'? 23:09Morgan Thompson: no 23:09Morgan Thompson: Robert's Rules of Order is a book that has been out of print since 1913. 23:09Caleb Langeslag: in Art VIII 23:09Morgan Thompson: look in the front of your copy. 23:10Morgan Thompson: it's on the first pages how to cite it. 23:10Caleb Langeslag: I added the ellipses so that I didn't have to explicitly say Newly Revised, to express the point to you. xP 23:10Morgan Thompson: RONR is VERY specific 23:10Morgan Thompson: Robert's Rules of Order, Revised, has been out of print for a couple decades, too. 23:10Caleb Langeslag: Alright, I've verified your statement to the book itself 23:11Morgan Thompson: I designed that statement with that in mind ;) 23:11Caleb Langeslag: My point was to say for it to explicitly state 11th Edition instead of "current edition". I was not conveying on removing "Newly Revised" from the paragraph 23:12Morgan Thompson: no 23:12Morgan Thompson: that way the rules evolve 23:12Caleb Langeslag: But regardless, I got the point. It does clearly state that you can say "the current edition of" 23:12Morgan Thompson: because otherwise some time in the future, we're no longer using the current edition when everyone else is. 23:12Dale Craft: I don't think we should cite any book in the Constitution. It's extra work, and fairly sketchy - and lazy, mind you. It's better we either copy & paste whichever passage we're citing into the constitution, or rewrite it accordingly. 23:13Morgan Thompson: Dale, I appreciate your input, but this is standard, boilerplate language. 23:13Caleb Langeslag: and that's not even a sound proposal 23:13Morgan Thompson: the whole point is to cite other rules so we don't have to write them all. 23:14Morgan Thompson: I don't know about the 11th ed. but the 10th ed. is over 700 pages long 23:14Morgan Thompson: It's there to cover contingencies. 23:15Morgan Thompson: The whole reason I was even brought in on all of this is my expertise in writing sound bylaws, and EVERY set of well-written bylaws cites a parliamentary authority. 23:16Morgan Thompson: It's not always RONR (it's not the only player on the block; just the largest), but RONR is the most common. 23:17Morgan Thompson: Here's a history of Robert's Rules. 23:17Morgan Thompson:http://www.robertsrules.com/history.html 23:18Caleb Langeslag: Art VI, Sec 4: I'd strike "and publicized" 23:18Morgan Thompson: in fact, this is where I got the text for Art. VIII:http://www.robertsrules.com/authority.html 23:18Caleb Langeslag: Or perhaps shall I go ahead and make some minor additions to the section? 23:19Morgan Thompson: why not publicized? 23:20Morgan Thompson: we want people to come and join us 23:20Caleb Langeslag: It should be stated that: if a meeting is to be held via IRC, that the server's location (whether by domain or IP address) is listed, as well as the designated channel that the meeting will be conducted on, will be sent as part of the prior notification of the meeting 23:21Morgan Thompson: sounds great 23:21Morgan Thompson: butr 23:21Morgan Thompson: but 23:21Morgan Thompson: you have to establish the authority to conduct meetings by IRC, as well. 23:21Caleb Langeslag: I think "publicized" could be ambiguous to interpretation 23:22Caleb Langeslag: Anyway, my verbage should be reworded, and note that it would be an addition, not a replacemnt 23:24Morgan Thompson: RONR Section 1, page 5, line 1 (in 10th ed. sadly), "The call of a meeting is a written notice of the time and place, which is mailed or distributed to all the members of an organization a reasonable time in advance. 23:24Morgan Thompson: " 23:25Morgan Thompson: I really need a copy of the 11tth ed. >.< 23:25Caleb Langeslag: Yea, I'm not seeing it on the exact page 23:25Morgan Thompson: anyway 23:25Morgan Thompson: look up "Call of a meeting" in the index 23:27Morgan Thompson: The server and channel seems to me to be the place of an IRC meeting. 23:28Lindsay-Anne Brunner: it is 23:28Caleb Langeslag: Since IRC isn't covered in RONR, shouldn't it be defined of what additional information is needed for the call of meeting, rather than it being implied? 23:28passstab: have we argued about article IX section one? 23:28Caleb Langeslag: Basically it's a question of whether it should be inferred or explicit 23:28Morgan Thompson: that's a good argument, actually. 23:28Caleb Langeslag: Is there a concern regarding Article IX that you have? 23:29passstab: it could be changed by 2/3 23:29Morgan Thompson: that's a pretty high standard. 23:29passstab: to get rid of "the exeption" 23:30Morgan Thompson: yeah 23:30Morgan Thompson: I mean, as I said, 2/3 is a high standard. that's a high enough margin to curtail member rights. 23:31passstab: IMO getting rid of the exeption makes the most sence, but i know i wont win that one 23:31Morgan Thompson: in RONR, that is 23:31Morgan Thompson: like 23:31Morgan Thompson: setting limits to debate 23:31Morgan Thompson: ending debate 23:31Morgan Thompson: reconsidering a motion 23:31Morgan Thompson: tabling a motion 23:32Caleb Langeslag: I believe what's being asked is for most of everything in Line 1 to be striked, starting from "The exception is that (...)" to the end of the line 23:32Morgan Thompson: suspending the rules (temporarily( 23:32Morgan Thompson: ) 23:32Morgan Thompson: right 23:32Morgan Thompson: what I'm saying is that the 2/3 majority is a commonly accepted standard to protect the rights of the members. 23:33Caleb Langeslag: Isn't that view mutual though? 23:33Morgan Thompson: majority with notice, 2/3 majority with no notice, majority of all membership. those are the 3. 23:33Morgan Thompson: that protect rights, that is 23:35Morgan Thompson: I was studying to be a Registered Parliamentarian for a while. That's where I picked that up. 23:36Morgan Thompson: RPs can pimp out their services, in some instances, for pay. :D 23:36Lindsay-Anne Brunner: too bad we have no funds XD 23:37Morgan Thompson: my friend Robert Shuck in Madison is a Professional Registered Parliamentarian. He can write binding decisions on procedure. 23:37Caleb Langeslag: I'm asking though: are you opposing passstab's view, which is to leave the 2/3rds part, and strike the 3/4ths part? xP 23:37Morgan Thompson: no, I'm not. In fact, I'm agreeing. 23:37Caleb Langeslag: Alright, understood. I didn't understand why you were restating your views 23:38Caleb Langeslag: Remove it if there's no objections, and make sure it's noted as a change 23:39Caleb Langeslag: Shall I expand upon the IRC section? 23:39Morgan Thompson: sure, why not 23:39Caleb Langeslag: I believe it should be "may", yes 23:39passstab: why do we specify IRC? 23:40Lindsay-Anne Brunner: We need to specific the meeting place 23:40Steven Smith (Guest): Let's not limit ourselves. 23:40Caleb Langeslag: Fix anything with grammar or word choice, if desired 23:40Morgan Thompson: passstab, so we can continue to have meetings via IRC 23:40Steven Smith (Guest): NVM. 23:40Morgan Thompson: it's a well-known and supported protocol. 23:41Steven Smith (Guest): I was going to say "publicly available," but that might be vague. 23:41passstab: but what if we want to have meetings on mumble?(for example) 23:41Morgan Thompson: what's mumble? 23:41Caleb Langeslag: VoIP 23:41Morgan Thompson: see, I've never heard of that 23:41Steven Smith (Guest): Great for clans. 23:42Caleb Langeslag: Also, we can add a section for teleconferenced meetings 23:42Steven Smith (Guest): And small political partieis. 23:42Steven Smith (Guest): parties* 23:42Morgan Thompson: as long as everyone can hear everyone else at the same time, it's covered under RONR. 23:42Caleb Langeslag: and Mumble would be more encouraged over IRC, in the eyes of RONR 23:42passstab: why not just say any free protocal? 23:42Caleb Langeslag: It's too risky. We're talking of IRC in a specific implementation 23:43passstab: what is the risk? 23:43Caleb Langeslag: If we have an audio-based meeting, we can be agnostic of what protocol it uses 23:43Caleb Langeslag: as of how it would be worded in the bylaws 23:43Morgan Thompson: exactly. you can use a teamspeex server if you want to, under RONR 23:43Caleb Langeslag: But we're not going to replace the IRC clause with something that opens it up to absolutely anything 23:43Caleb Langeslag: Because there's differences between written text and speech 23:44Morgan Thompson: exactly 23:44Caleb Langeslag: Lastly, shall I add a section for user authenticity, or add that later? 23:44Morgan Thompson: and if we don't specify, someone could use a proprietary chat software in order to exclude people. 23:44Steven Smith (Guest): Disadvantage of audio parlance: 23:44Steven Smith (Guest): Much larger archive sizes. 23:44Morgan Thompson: sure 23:44Caleb Langeslag: I think we've got a fairly functional document and I don't know of any outstanding issues or any undefineds 23:44passstab: thats why i said /free/ 23:45Steven Smith (Guest): Also, who's gonna do stenography? 23:45Morgan Thompson: even then, passstab 23:45Morgan Thompson: just because it's free 23:45Morgan Thompson: it can be obscure 23:45Morgan Thompson: not many people have heard of the Gizmo Project, but it existed. 23:45passstab: true 23:45Caleb Langeslag: Anyway; instead of this debate, are there any other necessary changes? 23:45Morgan Thompson: and it was FOSS 23:46Morgan Thompson: what did you have in mind for user authenticity? 23:46Caleb Langeslag: Yes, add 'name' 23:46Caleb Langeslag: domain name is clearer 23:46Caleb Langeslag: Cold strike "address" 23:47Morgan Thompson: meh 23:47Morgan Thompson: I like it 23:47Morgan Thompson: it works 23:47Caleb Langeslag: For authenticity, it's supposed to be whether or not the user is authentic, and not a sockpuppet or anything 23:47passstab: isn't that caviot implied? 23:48Caleb Langeslag: So that it's not disputed, if there's a trusted procedure specified 23:48Morgan Thompson: lol sockpuppet 23:48passstab: (whether by domain name... 23:48Morgan Thompson: something about using PKI for auth? 23:48Caleb Langeslag: Such as: a person having a registered nickname with the network services (and that nickname being on-record with PNC), and authenticate accordingly. 23:48Morgan Thompson: I'm auth'd in by x.509 cert. 23:49Morgan Thompson: that works too 23:49Caleb Langeslag: If a person isn't registered with nickserv, then they can authenticate to the chair (or perhaps 'party officers') via other contact information on record 23:49Morgan Thompson: like a GPG-signed email? 23:49Caleb Langeslag: such as by text message, email, instant message, etc. As long as it's a form of trusted contact that's on record for that person 23:49Caleb Langeslag: That as well 23:50Caleb Langeslag: The user can perhaps choose the extent of their authentication required 23:50Morgan Thompson: you know my GPG key has an embedded .jpg in it? 23:50unnamed: is this the bylaws or constitution? 23:50Morgan Thompson: same thing 23:50Morgan Thompson: legally speaking 23:50Caleb Langeslag: Pictures are supposedly discouraged for GPG, for the sake of "false sense of security" 23:51Morgan Thompson: lol 23:51Morgan Thompson: it exists for a reason 23:51unnamed: was legally speaking an answer to me? 23:51Morgan Thompson: you can recognize my face when you're talking to me face-to-face 23:51Morgan Thompson: yeah 23:51Caleb Langeslag: Kleopatra and some key managers don't implement it for that reason, supposedly 23:51Lindsay-Anne Brunner: who's the unnamed? 23:51Caleb Langeslag: "same thing" was the answer to you. 23:51Caleb Langeslag: and as well as "legally speaking" 23:52passstab: sacha 23:52Morgannyla Thompson: "bylaws" and "constitution" are synonymous 23:52Caleb Langeslag: Anyway, how shall the authentication section be written? 23:52Caleb Langeslag: Or shall we just do that later? 23:52Dale Craft: I'm getting off for the night, I've got things to do tomorrow and I need to be rested. Sorry for leaving so early. Good night everyone. 23:52Morgannyla Thompson: I liked how you put it 23:52Caleb Langeslag: Because again, I think we've got enough for now 23:52Nicholas DeSalvio: Where are we right now? 23:52Lindsay-Anne Brunner: It's okay, been a long night dale 23:53unnamed: why do we need bylaws when there is already a constitution 23:53Morgannyla Thompson: exactly. we're getting rid of them. 23:53Nicholas DeSalvio: Constitution == Bylaws 23:53Morgannyla Thompson: actually, they'll be reclassed as special rules of order, in all likelihood 23:53Nicholas DeSalvio: so... yeah 23:54Caleb Langeslag: Special Rules of Order in terms of IRC auth, or? 23:54Morgan Thompson: dafuq happened to my name? 23:54Lindsay-Anne Brunner: if they're kept 23:54Morgan Thompson: no 23:54Morgan Thompson: caleb: present bylaws 23:54Caleb Langeslag: the old ones?http://uspirates.org/wiki/Bylaws 23:54Lindsay-Anne Brunner: caleb: yeah 23:54Morgan Thompson: right, they'll likely become special rules of order or something 23:55Morgan Thompson: or just die 23:55Caleb Langeslag: Or striked, i think there's conflicting language 23:55Morgan Thompson: stricken 23:55Morgan Thompson: :P 23:55Morgan Thompson: sorry, grammatik macht frei 23:55Caleb Langeslag: So, shall this be voted on finally? 23:56Morgan Thompson: uhhh 23:56Morgan Thompson: slight problem there 23:56Caleb Langeslag: State your concern 23:56Morgan Thompson: do we still have a quorum? 23:56Steven Smith (Guest): FLPP here 23:56Morgan Thompson: WIPP 23:57Lindsay-Anne Brunner: yes we shoulf 23:57Lindsay-Anne Brunner: NY is still up 23:57Morgan Thompson: that's 3 23:57Morgan Thompson: any others? 23:57Morgan Thompson: :P 23:57unnamed: there is already a constituion which states half of this 23:57unnamed: why be redundent? 23:57Morgan Thompson: This IS the constitution 23:58Caleb Langeslag: NY, FL, WI, and OR 23:58Morgan Thompson: google "synonymous." facepalm.jpg 23:58Morgan Thompson: sorry 23:58Lindsay-Anne Brunner: We still have quorum! 23:58Caleb Langeslag: We have quorum 23:58Morgan Thompson: I've got a GI bug right now 23:58Morgan Thompson: and I'm not feeling the greatest 23:58unnamed: there is already a fucking constitution that was made months ago 23:58Morgan Thompson: so I'm a bit snippy 23:58unnamed: and has been ratified by the states 23:58Morgan Thompson: uhhh, yeah 23:58Morgan Thompson: I made it. 23:59unnamed: why the hell is it being replaced instead of amended 23:59Morgan Thompson: this is the product of it 23:59Morgan Thompson: because the current one sucks 23:59Morgan Thompson: I didn't make the one currently in force, btw 23:59Caleb Langeslag: Sections have been moved, and a few things removed. 23:59unnamed: this is a product of the old constitution? 23:59Caleb Langeslag: Yes 23:59Steven Smith (Guest): Yea. 23:59Lindsay-Anne Brunner: dear Amanda: the constitution was bad. we needed to redo it 23:59Steven Smith (Guest): The old one was FUBAR 23:59unnamed: how does the current one suck 23:59unnamed: BARELY anything was changed 23:59Lindsay-Anne Brunner: um, okay April 11, 2013 0:00Steven Smith (Guest): More file cabinets. 0:00Steven Smith (Guest): And some clarifications. 0:00unnamed: the old one was fine and don't call me amanda you know it annoys me 0:00Lindsay-Anne Brunner: that's your name, isn't it? 0:00Caleb Langeslag: Does not authorize IRC, was not in NOMOMECPA order, etc 0:00Lindsay-Anne Brunner: Anyway, back to IRC guys. 0:00Caleb Langeslag: Yes, back to IRC 0:01Morgan Thompson: to the IRCmobile! 0:01unnamed: okay i'm just going to leave, it is absolutely absurd that the only useful thing the pnc can think to create is something which already exists 0:01Steven Smith (Guest): A lot of the reforms are based on this 0:01Steven Smith (Guest):http://uspirates.org/Pirate_Constitution_annotated.pdf 0:01Steven Smith (Guest): No, don't go. 0:02Caleb Langeslag: They're at-large, and only present to criticize our orders of business 0:03Lindsay-Anne Brunner: ok, everyone irc. kthx 0:05unnamed: Steven Smith I honestly see no point in making so minute little changes 0:05unnamed: Shouldn't the PNC have something better to do like 0:05unnamed: interviews 0:05unnamed: policy 0:06unnamed: fundraising 0:06Lindsay-Anne Brunner: there were major changes 0:07unnamed: The only changes I see are moving things around and wording changes 0:07unnamed: What will these changes possibly do 0:07Steven Smith (Guest): There are a lot of omissions too. 0:07unnamed: The biggest issue with the PNC under Travis is that it was one big circle jerk of figuring out how to be the PNC instead of getting shit done 0:07Lindsay-Anne Brunner: fix things that were made broken by the previous set of bylaws and constitution 0:07unnamed: This is even more of a circle jerk 0:07Lindsay-Anne Brunner: not really. 0:08unnamed: Fix things that were made broken? 0:08unnamed: What? 0:08Lindsay-Anne Brunner: read the bylaws and the constitution together 0:08unnamed: Have I been gone for so long that the primary issues were getting people to show up 0:08Lindsay-Anne Brunner: well, you'd know them, you wrote them 0:08unnamed: The bylaws are fucked up 0:08unnamed: They should have been re-written instead of the constitution 0:09Lindsay-Anne Brunner: not 0:09unnamed: They were not ready to be voted on Which you know I said 0:09Lindsay-Anne Brunner: not the case 0:09Steven Smith (Guest): (1) The bylaws are fubar. (2) Bylaws are in essence amendments. 0:09Lindsay-Anne Brunner: they were messed up in any case 0:09Steven Smith (Guest): (C) Get rid of the bylaws, uphold and amend the hemp itself. 0:09Lindsay-Anne Brunner: there were inaccuracies all over, the two docs constantly conflicted 0:09unnamed: Steven Smith what is your point 0:09Lindsay-Anne Brunner: he's answering your questions as to what was done 0:09unnamed: The second document shouldn't have existed 0:10unnamed: Why edit the first doc 0:10unnamed: when the second was just messed up and need to be recreated 0:10Lindsay-Anne Brunner: no 0:10Lindsay-Anne Brunner: both were bad 0:11Lindsay-Anne Brunner: Morgan did parlimentary work, knows RONR better than breathing 0:11Lindsay-Anne Brunner: (I don't remember exactly what she did, forgive me) 0:11Lindsay-Anne Brunner: everything is now RONR compliant 0:11Lindsay-Anne Brunner: there aren't conflicting documents 0:11Lindsay-Anne Brunner: and we're all happy 0:12Steven Smith (Guest): well, not all of us 0:12unnamed: There are like 15 people 0:12unnamed: no one fucking needs robert's rules of order 0:13unnamed: Why would anyone in their right mind write Robert's Rules into the constitution 0:13unnamed: how can you assess the first if the second is agreed to be inaccurate? it seems like most of what is being pointed out as being wrong is just 'confliction'. 0:13Lindsay-Anne Brunner: because that's what the PNC's been using for like, a year 0:15unnamed: It doesn't matter 0:15unnamed: It shouldn't be in the constitutino 0:15unnamed: Do what you want to do 0:15unnamed: You do not need to mandate it for all future PNC iterations 0:15Lindsay-Anne Brunner: I've got someone who wrote docs like this all the time to help 0:15Lindsay-Anne Brunner: Then future iterations can change it s'il vois plait 0:16unnamed: The only thing making a strict constitution will result in is it being re-written everytime someone else comes 0:16Lindsay-Anne Brunner: vous, even 0:16unnamed: Why would you want them to do that 0:16Lindsay-Anne Brunner: it's not strict 0:16Lindsay-Anne Brunner: calm down, amanda. 0:16unnamed: Stop using my goddamn name 0:16unnamed: I have told you 0:16unnamed: Now honor what I patiently and persistently ask you to do 0:16Lindsay-Anne Brunner: then what am i supposed to call you? 0:17unnamed: Call me Sacha 0:17unnamed: Which is what my handle always is 0:17unnamed: or call me unnamed in here 0:17unnamed: Or don't address me, just reply 0:17Lindsay-Anne Brunner: there's like, 3 unnamed 0:18alsounnamed: it wont update. on my side anyway 0:18alsounnamed: solved. 0:19unnamed: Liz, Are they talking? Until other people are talking you do not need to name people 0:23Lindsay-Anne Brunner: Now who are you? 0:23Lindsay-Anne Brunner: ;-;