PNC 01/02/2022

Minutes

Record of the meeting

[7:58:35 PM] <pmchi> Ahoy! [7:58:38 PM] <yari> ahoy [8:00:09 PM] → Radiojoe has joined [8:00:15 PM] → Wodensday has joined [8:00:18 PM] <yari> ahoy folks [8:00:24 PM] <Radiojoe> howdee [8:00:25 PM] <Wodensday> Ahoy! [8:00:48 PM] <Wodensday> With kiwi back I may be able to be here for the whole meeting [8:01:02 PM] <Wodensday> Eyyy hey there Radiojoe! It's been a while [8:01:06 PM] <yari> yeah it's pretty nice that Kiwi is up again [8:02:19 PM] <Radiojoe> yeah, my apologies, I should be home safe now [8:02:22 PM] <Wodensday> I can't for the life of me use the other thing on mobile, which is very inconvenient [8:02:38 PM] <Wodensday> Hey man, no worries. I'm just happy to see you [8:02:45 PM] <yari> From what I know the only one who might otherwise show up is Joe, but in the meantime we do have a quorum [8:03:10 PM] <yari> WI is out for the night and so is jokeefe [8:03:48 PM] <Wodensday> Are we ready, then? [8:05:03 PM] <yari> Yeah let's go ahead and get started. [8:05:25 PM] <yari> Calling this meeting of the PNC to order at 9:05pm EST [8:05:28 PM] <yari> IDs please [8:05:39 PM] <Wodensday> Anthony Jay, INPP, Outreach chair [8:05:45 PM] <pmchi> Mitchel Davilo, Chicagoland/ILPP, Swarmcare Manager [8:06:05 PM] <yari> Rose Klein, CA [8:06:08 PM] <Radiojoe> William Dappen, CA [8:06:10 PM] <yari> PNC chair [8:06:44 PM] <yari> okay, fantastic. Does anyone have any reports to make? [8:07:00 PM] <yari> Wodensday, you have the floor. [8:08:34 PM] <Wodensday> This Tuesday, I will be presenting Outreach with some research regarding the physical media we plan to make. I think we might be able to provide the PNC with legit prototypes by the end of the month [8:09:04 PM] <yari> I'm glad to hear that, thank you. [8:09:12 PM] <Wodensday> That is all [8:09:18 PM] <yari> Any other reports? [8:09:32 PM] <pmchi> The letters to Rhode Island and Alaska were sent out, if and when I have a response, I shall relay the messaging. Officers and Chairs will be aware of our email from Pennsylvania. I myself haven’t reached out or replied but I did see Joe had. Yari, you’re the one who brought the initial email to our attention. I think bringing them in would be an excellent addition to the USPP, as well as being in elected officials and allow a platform for our [8:09:32 PM] <pmchi> friend Larry of the Philadelphia Pirate Party to have fellow Pirates organized with a party in PA. In fact, some of our more eager Pirates in the Discord are from PA, so I hope this is fruitful. Maryland has seen activity in the interest department, hopefully that can lead to a return of Maryland as a state party. [8:09:32 PM] <pmchi> Young Pirates proposal is put together, to my understand. I’ve been absent from previous meetings (my deepest apologies), so if Wodensday has presented it, disregard this portion. That’s all for Swarmcare. [8:09:46 PM] <pmchi> **understanding [8:10:35 PM] <yari> It has not been presented yet, but could be today or next week [8:10:56 PM] <yari> that email is an important topic, thank you for bringing it up, and thanks for sending out the letters. [8:11:40 PM] <yari> Any other reports? [8:15:17 PM] <yari> For my own part, I will say that I've added a few small changes to the discord, including some basic reorganization, emojis to hopefully help navigation, a pronoun bot for those who wish to use it, and I am adding an 'elected pirates' section to the webpage soon. [8:15:17 PM] <yari> I've been doing some basic webpage organization as well. [8:15:17 PM] <yari> As you all should have seen, I will be spending each Wednesday night working while on the discord vc, so if you have anything urgent you want to chat abt, feel free to pop on there. [8:16:33 PM] <yari> Is there any discussion of the items from reports before we move to new business? [8:16:46 PM] <Wodensday> All excellent additions to the Discord by the way. [8:16:57 PM] <Wodensday> I have no other comments, I just like the Discord work [8:18:49 PM] <yari> hearing none, let's move on to new business. [8:18:49 PM] <yari> I know that wodensday and pmchi wanted to show their plan for the youth pirates. Could I propose two brief resolutions before then? [8:19:09 PM] <yari> Are there other items of new business up besides that? [8:19:58 PM] <Wodensday> I think the brief resolutions would be the best use of our time currently [8:20:02 PM] <Wodensday> Our plans, as of right now, would be more of a discussion that might span a few meetings [8:20:28 PM] <yari> that makes sense [8:22:17 PM] <yari> currently, the bylaws specify that "The PNC may specify the operating procedures of a Subcommittee", but that anything past that is up to the committee. [8:22:19 PM] <yari> The PNC may specify the operating procedures of a Subcommittee [8:22:28 PM] <yari> ah sorry didn't mean to send that last one [8:22:35 PM] <yari> https://wiki.uspirates.org/w/index.php?title=Pirate_National_Committee_(PNC)/Bylaws#Article_VII:_Committees_--_Purpose.2C_Membership.2C_and_Operations [8:22:37 PM] <yari> link [8:22:45 PM] <yari> That's all fine and good [8:22:50 PM] <yari> I'm not proposing we change that [8:23:17 PM] <yari> However, I would like the PNC to consider specifying one thing, because there is currently *nothing* specified [8:23:59 PM] <yari> That one thing is that each subcommittee should have their minutes from each meeting posted in an accessible manner. [8:24:42 PM] <yari> discussion? [8:25:55 PM] <yari> Proposal would probably read as such: [8:25:55 PM] <yari> Proposed, that each subcommittee be required by the PNC to post their meeting minutes for each meeting in an accessible and public manner online. [8:26:02 PM] <Wodensday> Not to interrupt, but I believe that it may be best to have this discussion with more than one committee chair present, though I fully agree. This has no consequences for me other than that I should be more punctual about when I get the minutes in. But for the IT committee, for example, this would have decent consequences that should not be sprung [8:26:03 PM] <Wodensday> on the chair unprompted. [8:26:46 PM] <yari> that makes a lot of sense. [8:26:47 PM] <Wodensday> I doubt anybody would have any issues with this, but I want them to be present [8:27:07 PM] <yari> that is not something I had thought of, and is an excellent point. [8:27:12 PM] <yari> thank you for bringing that up [8:28:14 PM] <yari> is there any further discussion? Otherwise I will simply rescind the resolution and bring it up next week [8:30:09 PM] <yari> hearing none - [8:30:09 PM] <yari> The other small proposal I had was for the committee to switch to a secret/closed voting model. [8:30:09 PM] <yari> I'm not sure how we would cast secret ballots with the current platform we are using, but I'm sure we could find a way. [8:30:40 PM] <yari> Perhaps then the proposal is for us to assign someone to look into that technology and figure out the feasability [8:31:22 PM] <Wodensday> I understand where this is coming from, but I think I have to disagree in the name of transparency. [8:31:53 PM] <Radiojoe> What would be the benefit? [8:32:20 PM] ← XP_Studios has left (Quit: quit) [8:32:32 PM] <Radiojoe> Also I have a simple hybrid model which might be more friendly to transparancy [8:32:50 PM] <Wodensday> What we may gain via making our votes more abstract and less personal, the people who trust us would lose in knowing that their representatives are doing. [8:33:06 PM] <Wodensday> what* [8:33:33 PM] <yari> Hm. Perhaps this is also why I want individual votes instead of representatives. [8:34:29 PM] <yari> I'm curious what RadioJoe's hybrid model is [8:34:39 PM] <yari> Radiojoe [8:35:38 PM] <yari> And Wodensday I also see where you're coming from. [8:35:41 PM] → Wodensday_ has joined [8:35:48 PM] <yari> OH NO [8:36:01 PM] <Wodensday_> Anthony Jay, INPP (also) [8:36:07 PM] <yari> fantastic [8:36:12 PM] <Wodensday> Can confirm, switching to my phone [8:36:17 PM] <Radiojoe> well, what if we pm a selected party, and they release the results on both sides ex post facto, confirmation is on each voter [8:36:18 PM] ← Wodensday has left (Quit: Connection closed) [8:37:08 PM] <yari> when you say 'confirmation is on each voter' what do you mean? [8:37:20 PM] <Wodensday_> If our government did this, we’d hate them for it. [8:37:57 PM] <Radiojoe> well, if someone sees that the rep excluded them or put them on the wrong side they say so [8:38:08 PM] <Radiojoe> they already do it [8:38:14 PM] <Radiojoe> atleast this hybrid [8:38:24 PM] <Radiojoe> closed vote, open result [8:38:31 PM] <yari> its the damn electoral college [8:38:57 PM] <yari> you've just proposed the electoral college [8:39:05 PM] <yari> Am I reading that right? [8:39:19 PM] <Radiojoe> basically, and the senate, and the house of reps [8:40:19 PM] <yari> Yeah I'm going to just go ahead and rescind my motion on this. I don't like where this is going. I think I maybe just didn't think out the consequences. [8:40:31 PM] → Wodensday_10 has joined [8:40:37 PM] <Wodensday_10> Still Anthony Jay [8:41:16 PM] <yari> I do wonder if we can have closed voting for individuals, once we get to that. Is there a reason to have that once there's no represenative voting for you? [8:41:44 PM] ← Wodensday_ has left (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [8:41:55 PM] <Radiojoe> I'm not sure what the issue is, no less or more information would be released than the method used today [8:42:57 PM] <yari> Right now in the PNC you can see from the record what each individual votes for. [8:43:00 PM] <Wodensday_10> We’d just be obscuring voting as it happens. Which, I’m not fully opposed to, I’m just not really sold based on principle. [8:43:20 PM] <Wodensday_10> I don’t really think we should be doing any rollbacks on transparency. [8:44:36 PM] <yari> That's fair. And especially if the effect is the same, there's no reason to start pulling that line back. [8:45:27 PM] <Radiojoe> it would still be in the record, and it would mitigate any strongarming [8:45:39 PM] <Radiojoe> may I try and better represent this model? [8:45:42 PM] <yari> Sure [8:45:45 PM] <yari> of course [8:46:16 PM] <Radiojoe> Speaker: I propose A [8:46:49 PM] <Radiojoe> rep 1: *pm the speaker with  y/n vote, in this case yes* [8:47:01 PM] <Radiojoe> rep 2: *pm the speaker with y/n vote, in this case no* [8:47:10 PM] <Radiojoe> rep 3: *pm the speaker with y/n vote, in this case no* [8:47:51 PM] <Radiojoe> Speaker: the vote reads as a majority nay, one yay by rep 1, 2 nay by rep 2 and 3 [8:48:31 PM] <Radiojoe> the same info would be there as written, but outside influence would be minimized as much as possible [8:48:35 PM] <yari> I think ideally the Secretary would be the one receiving vote y/n and doing counts, but the point stands [8:48:50 PM] <yari> Thank you for the representation [8:48:52 PM] <Radiojoe> sure, just an example [8:48:53 PM] <yari> that was effective [8:49:12 PM] <Wodensday_10> I understand that strongarming is a thing, and why other organizations do it this way. And I think your example does help me better understand. [8:49:19 PM] <yari> Yeah its the same thing they do in senate [8:49:24 PM] <yari> right? [8:49:45 PM] <Wodensday_10> Though, I feel as if it might encourage strongarming off the record. Something that is still a massive problem in many democracies, including ours [8:49:53 PM] <Radiojoe> yes, I also thought they did that in all 3 [8:50:14 PM] <yari> Wodensday - that can't be solved by any system easily [8:50:16 PM] <Radiojoe> actually no, electoral college doesn't, my bad [8:50:29 PM] <yari> I don't see how this system encourages it? [8:51:11 PM] <Radiojoe> our system right now? [8:51:23 PM] <yari> The potential system [8:51:37 PM] <Wodensday_10> Encourage may not be the proper word. [8:52:16 PM] <yari> If anything it has less allowances for strongarming than other systems. [8:52:38 PM] <yari> You need to be able to hold something over the voter in order to strongarm them into the vote. [8:52:50 PM] <Radiojoe> at the very least voting for someone elses good graces [8:52:54 PM] <yari> There needs to be some sort of power dynamic [8:52:58 PM] <Radiojoe> in the meeting [8:53:38 PM] <Wodensday_10> I’m coming around to it a bit. [8:54:24 PM] <yari> The best way to massively reduce any kind of strongarming potential ever would be to hold all voting at the end of each session [8:54:36 PM] <yari> simultaneously [8:55:04 PM] <yari> All the debate happens first, and then voting happens at the end. That way there is no retaliatory voting [8:55:43 PM] <yari> But whether that's disruptive/difficult to run is a whole other question [8:57:00 PM] <Wodensday_10> After the explanation, I’d be more than willing to adopt Radiojoe’s system. [8:57:36 PM] <yari> I want to be conscious of the time and also of the fact that there was a proposal that we were supposed to get to and then I totally accidentally kicked it down the road with this other stuff (sorry). [8:57:36 PM] <yari> Should we set up a proposal/vote today on this? [8:58:35 PM] <Wodensday_10> Motion to extend our time by 10 minutes? [8:58:49 PM] <yari> second? pmchi or Radiojoe? [8:59:31 PM] <Radiojoe> aye [8:59:33 PM] <yari> it has been properly moved and seconded. Any objections? [9:00:03 PM] <yari> Hearing none, and continuing. The manner of voting is not specified in the bylaws as far as I can tell, just the required passage numbers. [9:00:27 PM] <yari> So I don't think this is a bylaws modification necessarily. [9:01:50 PM] <yari> Radiojoe, does this method of voting have a name? [9:02:02 PM] <yari> If so that would make this motion much easier [9:02:26 PM] <Wodensday_10> I propose that, from here onwards, the PNC votes via messaging the chair on an external form of communication. After all votes are received, the chair will type or read out the votes and which members cast said votes for the record. [9:02:30 PM] <Radiojoe> let me check [9:02:40 PM] <yari> or that! [9:02:50 PM] <yari> any seconds? Radiojoe pmchi [9:04:22 PM] <Wodensday_10> That’s a bit of a clunky wording that only makes sense within a chronically online organization, so anyone may feel free to tweak it. [9:04:22 PM] <yari> do we still have Mitch? [9:04:38 PM] <Radiojoe> seconded [9:04:42 PM] <Wodensday_10> Not sure [9:04:55 PM] <yari> properly moved and seconded. All in favor? [9:04:58 PM] <Radiojoe> also I guess it's just labelled as ballot voting [9:05:22 PM] <Wodensday_10> Aye [9:06:15 PM] <yari> Radiojoe pmchi [9:06:24 PM] <Radiojoe> aye [9:06:40 PM] <yari> pmchi do we have you? [9:06:44 PM] <Radiojoe> it seems pmchi may not be here [9:06:50 PM] <yari> seems that way [9:06:56 PM] <Radiojoe> is that still enough for a quorum? [9:07:06 PM] <yari> in which case, the motion fails, we do not have a quorum. [9:07:10 PM] <Wodensday_10> In this event, should we rescind discussion? [9:07:18 PM] <Wodensday_10> Yes, we have, alright [9:08:19 PM] <yari> Yeah we don't have a quorum so the meeting is officially done anyway. I'll go ahead and post minutes, because there was a meeting that took place [9:08:30 PM] <yari> Y'all can chat though [9:08:47 PM] <yari> We'll discuss more of these items next week when there are people [9:08:55 PM] <yari> Jitsi next time!