PNC 03/27/2022

Agenda

Old Business

• Pirate National Conference - planning committee proposal:
  • Dates proposed: Monday, May 30th through Sunday, June 5th
  • RFP proposed to be written this week
  • Proposed Keynote speakers
  • Proposed themes

New Business

• Pirate 101 iteration
• Mitch caucus proposal
• legalize federal marijuana protest on 4/20

Attending

• Mitchel Davilo, Chicagoland/ILPP, Swarmcare Manager
• Wodensday: Anthony Jay, INPP
• Joe: Joseph Onoroski, Treasurer, Massachusetts

Probationary States

• WI

Non-Voting

• jokeefe: James O’Keefe, Secretary, Massachusetts
• yari: Rose Klein, PNC Chair
• Oz: Ethan Osborne KYPP

Minutes

Record of the meeting

[9:05pm] yari: Calling this meeting of the PNC to order at 9:05pm EST
[9:05pm] yari: IDs please
[9:05pm] pmchi: Mitchel Davilo, Chicagoland/ILPP, Swarmcare Manager
[9:06pm] Wodensday: Anthony Jay, INPP
[9:06pm] Oz: Ethan Osborne KYPP
[9:06pm] jokeefe: James O’Keefe, Secretary, Massachusetts
[9:06pm] yari: Rose Klein, PNC Chair
[9:06pm] Joe: Joseph Onoroski, Treasurer, Massachusetts
[9:07pm] yari: fantastic. Reports! going in order ---> jokeefe, anything to report?
[9:09pm] jokeefe: IT: Had a meeting. Will update notes. Reached out to Bosun about updating crew. Also researched the process myself.
[9:09pm] yari: thank you jokeefe. Joe, anything to report?
[9:10pm] Joe: Nothing new. Have to do a report to the FEC by the 15th
[9:10pm] yari: thank you Joe. Oz, anything to report?
[9:12pm] Oz: Only that in our last KYPP meeting we decided to change the leadership council due to some logistical issues, and some members able to commit more than others.
[9:12pm] yari: thank you Oz. Wodensday, anything to report?
[9:13pm] Wodensday: Pirate-Libertarian Orientation event went very well. I believe we had ~11 active participants at one time, and more than that as a whole. I’ll be talking to outreach on Tuesday to establish a cheesy little Stop, Start, Continue report
[9:13pm] Wodensday: Other than that
[9:14pm] Wodensday: I have a meeting with the owner of ProudLibertarian.com scheduled for Thursday. They’re interested in making pirate merch. With the outreach committee’s approval, I went ahead and decided to start talks with the mutual understanding they could end at any time.This would be a long process with more departments than just mine involved, so if
[9:14pm] Wodensday: possible I’d love to hear some discussion on this from the PNC.
[9:14pm] Wodensday: Obviously, nothing is promised yet. Outreach is just incredibly curious.
[9:15pm] yari: thank you Wodensday. pmchi, anything to report?
[9:16pm] pmchi: Platform we discussed corporate accountability. I believe we’re going to stay on this subject for the time being for this week. On the Swarmcare end, we received an email about starting a party Nevada. I reached out today, I’ll provide updates (if any) as they come. Florida has a website and Twitter (and MatthewCrowley(FL) attending), so Florida is coming along quickly
[9:16pm] pmchi: That’s all from my end
[9:16pm] yari: thank you pmchi. is there any discussion or debate on the reports as given?
[9:17pm] Joe: Yes
[9:17pm] Joe: Pirate merch
[9:17pm] Wodensday: Hit me. I only gave you the condensed version, happy to answer questions
[9:18pm] Joe: So I understand, how is the work/profit to us/them going to be broken down.
[9:18pm] Wodensday69 joined the chat room.
[9:18pm] Wodensday69: Anthony Jay, IN
[9:18pm] Wodensday69: Oh lord, let me change that
[9:18pm] Wodensday69 is now known as Wodensday68.
[9:18pm] yari: So I understand, how is the work/profit to us/them going to be broken down. <--- the comment from Joe you just missed
[9:19pm] Joe: ty
[9:19pm] Wodensday68: I’m not entirely sure yet. From my understanding with libertarian candidates I’ve talked to (he makes some of their merch), both parties contribute and workshop designs together and then split the profit roughly evenly. I will have more details by Thursday.
[9:20pm] Wodensday left the chat room. (Ping timeout: 2m30s)
[9:20pm] Joe: Thank you
[9:20pm] yari: is there any further discussion or debate on the reports?
[9:21pm] yari: hearing none, and moving on to old business -->
[9:21pm] yari: Pirate National Conference - planning committee proposal:
[9:22pm] Wodensday joined the chat room.
[9:22pm] Wodensday: (Please forward me anything I missed)
[9:22pm] Wodensday68 left the chat room. (Ping timeout: 2m30s)
[9:23pm] Wodensday: ...I’m still here correct?
[9:23pm] yari: The committee has come up with some details, specifically:    Dates proposed: Monday, May 30th through Sunday, June 5th. Each day would consist of 4 time slots of 45 minutes, starting at 6pm EST.
[9:23pm] yari: 15 minute breaks between each
[9:23pm] yari: you didn't miss anything, wodensday - we moved on to old business
[9:24pm] Wodensday: Excellent
[9:24pm] yari: The ending time of each day would then be 9pm EST
[9:24pm] yari: sorry, 10pm EST
[9:24pm] yari: non 9
[9:24pm] yari: *not
[9:25pm] Wodensday: Have we touched on the event theme yet?
[9:25pm] yari: https://etherpad.pp-international.net/p/piratenationalconferenceplanning2
[9:25pm] papegaai: Title: Etherpad (at etherpad.pp-international.net)
[9:25pm] yari: this etherpad has the full schedule planned out
[9:26pm] yari: and no, we haven't talked about the theme
[9:26pm] yari: go for it Wodensday
[9:27pm] Wodensday: We came up with two theme proposals. One was Pirates Reborn, a continuation of the “pirate future” idea we had a few weeks ago that everyone enjoyed, but we also kicked around “Piece By Peace”, some sort of event theme that involves how to build a strong community that can take on challenges
[9:27pm] yari: the discord community voted more for the Pirates Reborn theme
[9:27pm] Wodensday: The popular option seems to be Pirates Reborn, it won our direct democracy poll on the discord and we all seemed to enjoy it earlier in the year as well. However, we wanted to provide the PNC with two options
[9:28pm] MatthewCrowleyFL joined the chat room.
[9:28pm] MatthewCrowley(FL) left the chat room.
[9:29pm] yari: additionally, I wanted to share with the PNC that our goal is to have the full RFP, the call to be published for talks, written by next week
[9:29pm] MatthewCrowley joined the chat room.
[9:30pm] yari: Also we have some ideas about who we would like as a keynote speaker
[9:30pm] Wodensday: Could MA or KY potentially give us some insight?
[9:30pm] MatthewCrowleyFL left the chat room. (Ping timeout: 2m30s)
[9:30pm] yari: (insight into --?)
[9:31pm] jokeefe: For keynote speaker, Wodensday?
[9:31pm] Wodensday: Generally, whether or not the findings of the committee are something to accept or if there is greater discussion
[9:31pm] Wodensday: For the stuff we have to pitch
[9:31pm] yari: ah, I was about to call for that
[9:31pm] Oz: I'm available for weekends during the weekends during the convention
[9:32pm] Oz: and possibly the Monday of
[9:32pm] yari: the additional insight of the PNC is useful in reviewing our schedule, plans, and intentions about the RFP and keynote.
[9:33pm] yari: is there discussion or debate about the committee's proposal?
[9:33pm] yari: would someone like to motion we pass it
[9:33pm] Joe: I would like pull speakers from other organizations, such as RCV, in order to continue spreading the pirate message.
[9:33pm] Joe: For speakers
[9:34pm] Oz: What was RCV again?
[9:34pm] jokeefe: If the PNC delegated planning for the conference to Outreach then it is in their purvey. If not, PNC decides.
[9:34pm] Joe: It could not hurt to offer some of our newer members a chance to speak in order to let the party at large know whom they are
[9:34pm] Joe: Rank choice voting
[9:34pm] Oz: oh roger
[9:35pm] Wodensday: Joe, sounds like you’re describing the RFP, so I think we’re on the same page there
[9:35pm] Wodensday: Also this was not assigned to outreach, we made a mini committee to send things to the PNC
[9:35pm] Wodensday: So, we can accept schedule and theme as we’ve discovered or hear pushback. At least, that’s my understanding
[9:36pm] yari: Yeah okay so let's just instead do this: What questions do people have about the plans we have made?
[9:36pm] Joe: Did you construct a working time-table?
[9:36pm] yari: linked above, Joe
[9:36pm] Joe: sry, missed it
[9:36pm] yari: https://etherpad.pp-international.net/p/piratenationalconferenceplanning2
[9:36pm] papegaai: Title: Etherpad (at etherpad.pp-international.net)
[9:37pm] yari: each time slot is 45 minutes, breaks of 15 mintes
[9:37pm] yari: time for Q&A built into each slot
[9:37pm] Joe: ty
[9:37pm] yari: 4 time slots per day
[9:37pm] yari: starting at 6pm EST, going until 10
[9:38pm] yari: any other questions?
[9:38pm] Joe: Day two I will not be able to attend. 
[9:39pm] yari: hearing no other questions, the next action item for the temp committee is creating the RFP so that we can get applications for the talks
[9:39pm] yari: also, we need to send out the keynote speaker requests
[9:39pm] yari: so if anyone has ideas for really great keynote speakers, send them to us in DMS
[9:40pm] yari: is there any objection to moving on?
[9:40pm] Wodensday: No objections here
[9:40pm] yari: Next, on to new business. --> Pirate 101 iteration
[9:41pm] yari: pmchi, Wodensday? you said I should put this on the agenda, so I did
[9:41pm] Wodensday: I don’t quite remember what our thought process was there haha.
[9:41pm] yari: how can we help with making the Pirate 101 a reality?
[9:42pm] yari: we've all agreed it's needed
[9:42pm] Wodensday: However, Pmchi liked the orientation and believed it to be a good basis for future Pirate 101 meetings.
[9:42pm] Wodensday: The #1 thing would be willing to spare your time. More than one host seems ideal. We planned for 2 and having 3 was amazing
[9:43pm] pmchi: Neither do I to be totally honest. I think we should just use these next two weeks to prepare and try and host the first Pirate 101 before the next IRC meeting. I thought the orientation was a great idea and format for the 101 course
[9:43pm] Wodensday: Other than that, send Mitch lesser discussed FAQs you can think of and let us know how you tend to go about explaining the party to newcomers
[9:43pm] yari: okay, I like that action item
[9:43pm] yari: send Mitch one FAQ that most people would miss
[9:43pm] Wodensday: Excellent.
[9:44pm] yari: that's an action item for everyone
[9:44pm] yari: Mitch, get your inbox ready
[9:44pm] Wodensday: Other than that, I think we should get to Mitch’s portion of the agenda which I assume is next
[9:44pm] yari: yes it is
[9:45pm] yari: Next up on the agenda, pmchi, you had a proposal about caucuses?
[9:45pm] yari: or - the opposite of caucuses?
[9:45pm] pmchi: Yes, I’d like to propose a motion to outlaw caucuses within the USPP
[9:46pm] Wodensday: Can I propose we flesh that out and define caucus?
[9:46pm] Wodensday: I’ll type something, give me a moment
[9:47pm] pmchi: Any group, outside of an official USPP meeting place, discussing USPP business with an intended goal in mind separate from the goals of the USPP as a whole
[9:47pm] yari: Do we have any seconds for that motion?
[9:47pm] Wodensday: A motion that no member of a state party or volunteer for the national party shall affiliate themselves with an organization or substructure that seeks to: promote one ideology over others within the USPP, promote partisan or tribal behavior between members of an “in” group or “out” group, promote the forwarding of a certain group’s goals
[9:48pm] Wodensday: over the party as a whole, or discourage the use of traditional party discussion channels in favor of partisan ones.
[9:49pm] yari: I have two motions here on the table, can we get a second on one of them?
[9:49pm] Joe: This is already a discouraged practice. If there are members that are not being transparent then please state whom.
[9:49pm] pmchi: If Wodensdays motion is sufficiently worded for everyone, I shall drop my motion in favor of seconding his. Other though I’d like the word “caucus” to be outright stated
[9:49pm] pmchi: *although
[9:49pm] NomadOfNorad: Yeah, this sounds like an unneccessary measure
[9:50pm] Wodensday: We do not have an official thing against it, nor is anyone engaging in this behavior. It only insures that it doesn’t happen (the LP is breaking apart over their caucus and they’d like to know we can remain in tact)
[9:50pm] Wodensday: Caucuses*
[9:50pm] Oz: when I think of caucus I was thinking of something of states having delegates, which is not a system we use currently correct?
[9:51pm] Joe: We are the party of transparency. Nothing official can occur without the PNC being a part of it.
[9:51pm] Joe: correct Oz
[9:51pm] yari: NomadofNorad, please give name and state in order to participate in a formal meeting
[9:51pm] Wodensday: I’ll withdraw my motion and instead re-instate it as- A motion that no member of a state party or volunteer for the national party shall affiliate themselves with a “caucus” or an organization or substructure that seeks to: promote one ideology over others within the USPP, promote partisan or tribal behavior between members of an “in”
[9:51pm] Wodensday: group or “out” group, promote the forwarding of a certain group’s goals over the party as a whole, or discourage the use of mainline party discussion channels in favor of partisan ones.
[9:51pm] NomadOfNorad: <<<< Florida.  And RL name is David C Hall.
[9:52pm] yari: thank you, Nomad
[9:52pm] pmchi: This is a future, cautionary measure. I don’t believe we are currently at risk of caucuses invading or that we have members caucusing behind our backs presently, but we are a party of open discussions and transparency. I believe caucuses to be in the outside forces. If you wish to move forward with your idea, then discuss at the table. Caucuses are secretive, ideologically purpose driven, and fundamentally anti-Pirate
[9:52pm] Joe: In principle, it's a nice thought, but this should not be a thing, The only reason I have to speak to pmchi after is due to an outreach matter that I have found,
[9:52pm] Wodensday: This isn’t an issue yet no, but it can technically currently happen? And we don’t want it to
[9:53pm] Wodensday: Pmchi are you willing to second now that I’ve included the word caucus?
[9:54pm] pmchi: I want everyone to look at the LP and the DNC. These are two parties filled with caucuses and I believe it only serves to further divide and stir internal conflict. The best ideas must come to fruition via conversation and discussion
[9:54pm] pmchi: Also I second Wodensdays second motion
[9:54pm] jokeefe: Would someone restate the updated motion?
[9:54pm] yari: properly moved and seconded, is there any further discussion or debate?
[9:54pm] yari:  A motion that no member of a state party or volunteer for the national party shall affiliate themselves with a “caucus” or an organization or substructure that seeks to: promote one ideology over others within the USPP, promote partisan or tribal behavior between members of an “in” 18:51:34 <Wodensday> group or “out” group, promote the forwarding of a certain group’s goals over the party as a whole, or discourage the use of mainline party disc
[9:54pm] Joe: Yeah, something like that would be a clear violation of our transparency foundation and would amount to political Darwinism with this body.
[9:55pm] Wodensday: A motion that no member of a state party or volunteer for the national party shall affiliate themselves with a “caucus”, or an organization or substructure that seeks to: promote one ideology over others within the USPP, promote partisan or tribal behavior between members of an “in” group or “out” group, promote the forwarding of a
[9:55pm] Wodensday: certain group’s goals over the party as a whole, or discourage the use of mainline party discussion channels in favor of partisan ones.
[9:55pm] Wodensday: Joe caucuses like this can be transparent entities, that’s exactly how they are in the parties we’re gaining concern from
[9:56pm] Joe: My second question would be how to investigate and what would be the stated steps if someone was to violate said anti-caucus rules.
[9:57pm] Wodensday: I’m not sure those are questions that are usually solved by motions, that feels like a judicial thing
[9:57pm] jokeefe: Is the motion just a directive or is it a by-laws change?
[9:57pm] Wodensday: Just a directive
[9:58pm] yari: is there any further discussion or debate?
[9:58pm] pmchi: Well maybe it would be best suited as a bylaws change? I’d like some discussion on that aspect
[9:59pm] jokeefe: To Joe’s point: what is are the ramifications if someone creates a banned caucus?
[9:59pm] Joe: I saw this as a by-law change, does not make much sense if it's just a directive with no actionable consequences