PNC 7/25/12

From United States Pirate Party
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Back to Pirate National Committee Back to PNC Minutes Back to United States


Agenda PNC MEETING
07/25/2012 21:00h EDT
IRC: irc.pirateirc.net
Room: #pnc
Wiki: http://www.pirate-party.us/wiki/PNC_7/25/12

Attendees

Members of the PNC

Attending
  • Max Bugrov, California
  • Joseph T. Klein/megan cochran, Wisconsin
  • Lindsay-Anne Brunner, NY
  • Jeff Talada/Brady O'bannon Dibble, Washington
  • Bradley Hall, Florida
  • Erik Zoltan, Massachusetts
  • Jorden, Oregon
Excused
  • Oregon
unexcused
  • Georgia
  • Oklahoma
probation
  • Oklahoma (second week)

At Large Members of the PNC

  • Amanda Johnson, Michigan
  • Benjamin Sauerhaft Coplon, Pennsylvania

Proceedings

  • Meeting opened at: 6:02 pm EDT by Travis McCrea
  • Meeting closed at: 12:13 am EDT by Travis McCrea
  • Meeting chaired by Travis McCrea
  • Secretary for this meeting is Jeff Talada
  • Quorum is established: Members 7 out of 8 present
  • Logging Enabled: Yes

Review of previous minutes

Reports

Short report of the board members 

Massachusetts
Washington
  • no report
Oregon
  • late
Georgia
  • absent
Florida
  • no report
New York
  • considering Pirate Choir 2
California
Wisconsin
  • no report

Short Report From Committees

IT Committee
PNC Charter Committee
  • Outstanding issues
  • Constitution RC3: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x1ci9G4fv3pqksGVTO5T-Soez2GZB95wrIvGdbnvNqs/edit#heading=h.kw6wi4aeknft
    • Motion to add a dissolution article:
      • Article VIII. Dissolution
        • Section 8.1. 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.
        • Section 8.2. Upon the dissolution or liquidation 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.
      • Passed 4 for, 2 against, at-large against
    • Motion to strike 3.2.G.
      • Passed 4 for, at-large for
    • Motion to add III.2.G. Ratify the PNC Constitution
      • Passed 4 for, 2 against, at-large (1/3 for, 2/3 against)

Agenda Items

  • Vote to adopt PNC Constitution
    • 7 for, at-large for
  • Motion that the current PNC leadership team keeps their roles until the next election
    • 6 for

AOB

  • PNC report suggestion
    • Officer reports will be added to the bylaws
  • AGPPP
    • CAPP and MAPP will maintain contact with PPDE


  • Next meeting: 8/1/12 at 9:00pm EDT
  • Meeting closed: 12:13am at EDT

Logs

  • <@teamcoltra> It is 1802PST and I call this meeting to order, lets have roll call
  • <max_CAPP> Max Bugrov, California
  • <Bosun> Joseph T. Klein, Wisconsin

>>> teamcoltra sets mode +v max_CAPP

  • <sadyya> megan cochran wisconsin

>>> teamcoltra sets mode +v Bosun

  • <@teamcoltra> Who between you will cast your official vote?
  • <sadyya> bosun
  • <@kusanagi> Lindsay-Anne Brunner, NY

>>> teamcoltra sets mode +v kusanagi >>> teamcoltra sets mode -o kusanagi

  • <+kusanagi> Zac said he would try to HEY
  • <+kusanagi> GIMME ACK MY ^
  • <+kusanagi> @
  • <@teamcoltra> Just trying to help out QuazarGuy
  • <@teamcoltra> Having + next to full members allows him to tally better
  • +kusanagi glares
  • <QuazarGuy> Jeff Talada, Washington
  • <@teamcoltra> and you are acting as a rep for NY, and your not the Deputy Chairman

>>> mildbeard has joined #pnc

  • <@teamcoltra> (and not as the dep*)
  • <Rush> Bradley Hall, Florida

>>> teamcoltra sets mode +v QuazarGuy >>> teamcoltra sets mode +v Rush

  • <+Rush> I need to step out for a bit, I heard something by the chicken pen
  • <mildbeard> Erik Zoltan, Massachusetts
  • <+kusanagi> I thought it was decided that I can act as both dep and rep?
  • <Brady> Brady O'bannon Dibble, WA, Observing
  • <+kusanagi> BRADY!!
  • <@teamcoltra> about time
  • <+kusanagi> Omg, hiiiiii

>>> teamcoltra sets mode +v mildbeard

>>> kusanagi has quit IRC: Read error: Connection reset by peer

  • <+QuazarGuy> done?
  • <@teamcoltra> QuazarGuy?
  • <+QuazarGuy> ahh sorry, my connection lagged a lot
  • <sadyya> joe is typing on an ipad could i have the voice please?

>>> kusanagi has joined #pnc >>> ChanServ sets mode +o kusanagi >>> teamcoltra sets mode +v sadyya

  • <+sadyya> thank you

>>> teamcoltra sets mode -v Bosun

  • <@teamcoltra> Okay so lets hear from our PNC Charter Committee
  • <passstab> may i?
  • <@teamcoltra> passstab may you?
  • <passstab> speak for pppa
  • <@teamcoltra> I was going to push state updates until AOB
  • <passstab> oh sorry

>>> Sacha has quit IRC: Quit: mipp

  • <@teamcoltra> Since you guys are not really required to be given an update time in the meetings... we just do it because we are interested, but I think we are all excited about getting to the PNC stuff
  • <@teamcoltra> unless someone disagrees

>>> Sacha has joined #pnc

  • <@teamcoltra> (you will still get to, just later)
  • <passstab> ok sorry
  • <+QuazarGuy> your first time, no apologies needed
  • <@teamcoltra> Brady / Sacha which of you are going to provide our update from the PNC charter committee
  • <Sacha> Brady do you have anything?
  • <Brady> I do not. I have been AWOL. Deepest apologies.
  • <Sacha> Me, we haven't done anything. All the comments on the document were resolved during last weeks meeting so we've been waiting for today's vote.
  • <Sacha> That is what i have at least, and np brady
  • <+mildbeard> I agree with Sacha's appraisal of it.
  • <@teamcoltra> Okay then let's do that
  • <@teamcoltra> Are we voting line item, or are we going to approve the complete document?

>>> kusanagi has quit IRC: Ping timeout: 240 seconds

  • <+QuazarGuy> whole document
  • <+Rush> Can I pop in for three lines?
  • <@teamcoltra> Rush yes
  • <+Rush> I'm talking to a PPI news person, they want contact info for all the state party leaders and a few other pieces of information. Can I turn over the contact list to her (and where is it?) and can I give her the mailing list address so she can just sign up to the SAB and get this probably a bit quicker
  • <+mildbeard> what's PPI?
  • <@teamcoltra> We don't have any organized contact list even if we all agree.
  • <@teamcoltra> Pirate Parties International
  • <+QuazarGuy> Travis, you have contacts for every state don't you?
  • <@teamcoltra> I have contact information, and I have been waiting for someone to dev me a basic contact list system so I can manage who is representing each state and what their contact info is... but it hasn't been built yet.
  • <+Rush> Wasn't there a contact list for emails?
  • <Sacha> Can kusanagi make one in google docs?

>>> kusanagi has joined #pnc >>> ChanServ sets mode +o kusanagi

  • <+mildbeard> They can get to each state website from the main page and get contact info. They can subscribe to the SAB list if they want to enter the melee...
  • <Sacha> How about the state leaders message brad their contact info if they are comfortable?
  • <+Rush> That'd work
  • <+max_CAPP> Yes.
  • <@kusanagi> I'm sorry, for what
  • <+Rush> CHeck your SAB email for details
  • <Sacha> Kusanagi State leadership info
  • <+sadyya> sab email? are we supposed to be on this?
  • <@kusanagi> Yes.
  • <+sadyya> where do we subscribe to this?
  • <@teamcoltra> Okay let's hop back on topic, if we need to discuss this more we can do so after the PNC Charter
  • <@teamcoltra> Someone query sadyya and help him/her privately?
  • <itspara> Couldnt there be a crm system set up to hold contact info?
  • <Sacha> I will
  • <passstab> me too please
  • <+QuazarGuy> (Link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x1ci9G4fv3pqksGVTO5T-Soez2GZB95wrIvGdbnvNqs/edit#heading=h.kw6wi4aeknft)https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x1ci9G4fv3pqksGVTO5T-Soez2GZB95wrIvGdbnvNqs/edit#heading=h.kw6wi4aeknft
  • <Sacha> go to uspp and we can talk about this more there imo
  • <+QuazarGuy> ^^ Constitution link
  • <@teamcoltra> I am going to wait until every person with a + next to their name to come back and say they have read it
  • <+mildbeard> I have read it.
  • <+max_CAPP> Reading -
  • <@teamcoltra> because of the importance of it, please actually read it and take your time dont feel pressured by the rest of us... take your time. :) If you have any questions comments or concerns say them here
  • <passstab> reading
  • <@kusanagi> I like it.
  • <+mildbeard> Tonight is my 14th wedding anniversary. It would be a great present if this passes. (But no pressure...)
  • <itspara> Looks good
  • <+QuazarGuy> read
  • <Sacha> mildbeard lololol
  • <+sadyya> red
  • <+sadyya> read*
  • <@kusanagi> Congrats eric
  • <+mildbeard> yeah that's a REAL long time.......
  • <@teamcoltra> mildbeard - I bet your wife would think it was a great present if you were not with us on the night of your anniversary ;)
  • <@kusanagi> Yeah..
  • <+mildbeard> touche
  • <+max_CAPP> Finished reading.
  • <@teamcoltra> Who are we waiting on?
  • <@teamcoltra> no rush, again, just wanting to make sure we are not all done and I think we are waiting on people
  • <+mildbeard> if they're reading it, they won't answer ;)
  • <@kusanagi> I think it's just sadyya, max_CAPP and myself done
  • <@teamcoltra> yeah but I was hoping someone else was paying attention
  • <+QuazarGuy> does it need a dissolution clause?
  • <@teamcoltra> kusanagi and mildbeard
  • <@kusanagi> ?
  • <@teamcoltra> QuazarGuy yeah, it does.
  • <@kusanagi> Oh...
  • @kusanagi dies laughing.
  • <+QuazarGuy> then we should add one
  • <@teamcoltra> we have one
  • <Sacha> What would the dissolution clause be?
  • <@teamcoltra> Article V section 2 B
  • <+mildbeard> That the PNC can vote itself out of existence?
  • <+QuazarGuy> well it has to do with dispersing assets
  • <passstab> section2 g looks silly
  • <@teamcoltra> It is usually required for incorporation in most states
  • <passstab> (of article 3)
  • <+mildbeard> Since the PNC can amend the constitution, it can add a dissolution clause if it is needed.
  • <Sacha> Passstab silly how?
  • <passstab> redundant
  • <+mildbeard> Yes it's redundant.
  • <+QuazarGuy> if we dissovle the PNC
  • <passstab> Meet all of the criteria set forth in the preceding subsections, with no exceptions.
  • <+QuazarGuy> it will need to disperse any money or assets it has
  • <passstab> wouldn't you like it to be more readable?
  • <Sacha> mildbeard passstab I do not really find it redundent because so far the PNC has said that these are just guidelines so if someone does not meet the requirements they could still be passed
  • <@kusanagi> It's perfectly readable, passstab
  • <Sacha> I thought that this was supposed to prevent this but that is my opinion
  • <+sadyya> dissolution is important especailly if a non profit
  • <passstab> it is but it make the entire document longer
  • <@teamcoltra> I agree with QuazarGuy, can we add that disbursement would be decided by the body who dissolves the PNC
  • <+sadyya> in other words the non for profit cant be moved into profit areas
  • <@teamcoltra> Because we can't just say "disbursed evenly between states" because right now, there are no (or few) states that can legally accept money anyway
  • <passstab> and implies other clauses are guidelines
  • <itspara> No, it shouldnt be chosen by the dissolver imo
  • <+QuazarGuy> looking to see if WAPP PAC has a reasonable dissolution clause we can copy
  • <Sacha> passstab A fair point, how to resolve it though. Take it out and vote with the knowledge that these will no longer be guidelines but hard and fast rules?
  • <+Rush> Florida can accept money
  • <+QuazarGuy> Article XIV. DissolutionSection 14.1. Dissolution of this Organization by consent shall require the unanimous agreement of the Board of Directors together with a simple-majority vote (51%) of the General Members at a General Meeting which has been publicized at least 30 days in advance to all General Members of the Organization for the purpose of taking this vote. Section 14.2. Upon the liquidation, dissolution, or winding up of the Organization, after all of its liabilities and obligations have been paid, satisfied, and discharged, or adequate provision has been made therefore, all of the assets of the Organization shall be distributed exclusively for such educational, charitable and scientific purposes as the Board of Directors (or such other persons as may be in charge of liquidation) shall determine. Any such assets not so disposed shall be disposed of by a court of competent jurisdiction of the county in which the principal office of the corporation is then located, exclusively for such purposes or to such organization or organizations, as such court shall determine, that are organized and operated exclusively for such purposes.
  • <passstab> no, take it out and make it a guideline as much as anything else is
  • <+QuazarGuy> just change a few words
  • <Sacha> passstab nothing else is a guideline in there
  • <passstab> then still take it out
  • <@kusanagi> Rush: ny cant.
  • <@kusanagi> passstab: why?
  • <Sacha> passstab Okay... so what I said?
  • <@kusanagi> Exactly why should it be taken out?
  • <passstab> if nothing is a guideline then that makes the rest less credible
  • <passstab> if all of it is then it makes it redundant
  • <Sacha> Right, which is why I said that we can take it out and vote with the understanding that nothing in the constitution is a guideline?
  • <+QuazarGuy> I don't know what you guys are talking about
  • <+mildbeard> Can we break the discussion into two separate topics, and discuss them separately, rather than talking over each other?
  • <passstab> or we could specify the guidelines
  • <+mildbeard> please?
  • <@teamcoltra> mildbeard good point
  • <@kusanagi> Yes, mildbeard
  • <@kusanagi> That seems far better
  • <@teamcoltra> We will talk about QuazarGuy's topic first since actually passstab hasn't been given a voice by this body yet
  • <passstab> should i stop talking?
  • <+QuazarGuy> the constitution needs a dissolution clause
  • <Sacha> Can I request that all at large members are allowed to speak for discussion the constitution?
  • <@teamcoltra> passstab yes, a state will need to actually give you a voice
  • <+mildbeard> I don't think it needs a dissolution clause, but am open to adding one.
  • <+QuazarGuy> I pasted a copy of the one from WAPP's PAC and it looks acceptable, just change a few words
  • <+QuazarGuy> if you look at the end of the pad
  • <+mildbeard> I would think we'd need a 2/3 majority to dissolve the PNC, and we wouldn't need a separate vote of at large members.
  • <+QuazarGuy> right, this is just copied
  • <+mildbeard> k
  • <+QuazarGuy> make fitting changes
  • <+mildbeard> I think that we come under the heading of FEC guidelines rather than being a nonprofit organization.
  • <+mildbeard> But I'm not a lawyer.
  • <+sadyya> it cant be because nonprofits cant lobby
  • <+mildbeard> right
  • <@teamcoltra> Well there are different 501(c) ___ organizations
  • <@teamcoltra> buut regardless I believe our FEC recognition has totally different guidelines and such than a 501(c) requirement anyway
  • <@teamcoltra> As mildbeard said
  • <+QuazarGuy> motion to allow at-large to speak
  • <+mildbeard> second
  • <+QuazarGuy> for the duration of the constitution discussion
  • <@teamcoltra> Is there any objection?
  • <@teamcoltra> seeing none
  • <@teamcoltra> Go ahead atlarges
  • <Sacha> Alright as far as non-profit I extremely doubt it
  • <@kusanagi> Doubt what?
  • <Sacha> the closest we could get to is an education and a majority of what the group did would have to be not political
  • <Sacha> That we could get that status at the PNC
  • <Sacha> Secondly I think that if we want to do a dissolution clause let's do it but I think we should take a quick vote after a motion and then get to business on crafting it
  • <+mildbeard> I just want to point out that Article II, Section 2 requires the PNC to keep written policies that are external to the Constitution. A lot of stuff wasn't included in this document because it was more appropriate as a by-law.
  • <@kusanagi> I agree with Sacha'w second point
  • <+sadyya> some where it should say No part of the net earnings of the organization shall inure to the benefit of any trustee, director, or officer of the organization, or any private individual (except that reasonable compensation may be paid for services rendered to or for the organization), and no trustee, director or officer shall be entitled to share in the distribution of any of the corporate assets upon dissolution of the organization.
  • <+mildbeard> That said, a dissolution clause is not a by-law, it would have to be constitutional.
  • <@teamcoltra> I agree with Sacha on the point that someone should make a motion to change that line, we will vote on it
  • <@teamcoltra> move on
  • <@teamcoltra> QuazarGuy are you writing up a motion?
  • <+QuazarGuy> ok I've changed the wording to work
  • <Sacha> Sadyya Would that be a by law or in the constitution? It seems more like by law stuff to me
  • <+QuazarGuy> motion to amend the constitution with the Dissolution article at the bottom of the pad
  • <+mildbeard> which pad?
  • <+QuazarGuy> (Link: https://pnc.piratenpad.de/PNC-7-25-12)https://pnc.piratenpad.de/PNC-7-25-12
  • <+mildbeard> thanks
  • <Sacha> It looks wonderful to me, I would vote for it
  • <+mildbeard> I don't like that wording on two counts.
  • <@teamcoltra> QuazarGuy you reduced the super majority required down to 50% + 1
  • <+QuazarGuy> oh
  • <+mildbeard> I don't think a simple majority is OK.
  • <+QuazarGuy> it was 51%, what do we want it to be?
  • <@teamcoltra> Err actaully I don't know what you said there in the first line
  • <+mildbeard> This must be a 2/3 majority at least.
  • <@teamcoltra> In the current version it's 2/3
  • <@teamcoltra> or 3/4
  • <+QuazarGuy> member states must be unanimous
  • <Sacha> Mildbeard It is only simple majority for non members so i'm okay with it, members have to be unanimous
  • <+QuazarGuy> ^ right
  • <+mildbeard> OK I guess but I don't know why a 2/3 wasn't OK.
  • <+mildbeard> Section 8.2 needs work though.
  • <+QuazarGuy> well if there are any states that want to keep it, why shouldn't they?
  • <Sacha> Mildbeard what do you recommend for that?
  • <Sacha> QuazarGuy I think that is why he wants to make it a higher threshold to make it even more difficult to dissolve.
  • <@kusanagi> Because it should be difficult.
  • <@kusanagi> It should be a last resort measure
  • <+QuazarGuy> it's already unanimous for member states
  • <+mildbeard> Look, the constitution can be amended by a 2/3 majority. So practically speaking, anything higher than 2/3 can be reduced later anyway.
  • <+mildbeard> So it's probably a moot point, as long as the dissolution clause doesn't specify less than 2/3. So I'm not objecting any more now that I read it better.
  • <+QuazarGuy> any other objections?
  • <+max_CAPP> Nope.
  • <@teamcoltra> I don't have any
  • <+mildbeard> Section 8.2, I keep reading it and I still don't know exactly what half of it means. I think we should simplify the wording so it's clear exactly what it means and so that it is much shorter.
  • <+sadyya> negitory
  • <+QuazarGuy> well WAPP copied this from ISOC
  • <+QuazarGuy> liquidation must remain
  • <+QuazarGuy> if the PNC is sued out of existence
  • <@teamcoltra> Check my 8.2 right below his
  • <+QuazarGuy> check my disagreement ^
  • <@kusanagi> Ha!
  • <@teamcoltra> Okay updated
  • <+mildbeard> That's clearer.
  • <+sadyya> good!
  • <+QuazarGuy> ok
  • <Sacha> I accept those changes
  • <Sacha> any1 wanna make a motion so that we can settle this if there is no more disagreement?
  • <+sadyya> i accept the changes as well they are well spoken
  • <+QuazarGuy> do we vote or just plop it in?
  • <+mildbeard> I don't believe we have editing privileges in the RC1 document right?
  • <+QuazarGuy> someone does
  • <@teamcoltra> Lets vote for it
  • <+mildbeard> Zacqary
  • <+QuazarGuy> I already motioned to vote
  • <+sadyya> second
  • <@teamcoltra> I need to put the changes here in IRC
  • <@teamcoltra> it might break up, I apologize
  • <@teamcoltra> --------
  • <@teamcoltra> The motion on the table is to vote on:
  • <@teamcoltra> Section 8.1. 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.
  • <@teamcoltra> Section 8.2. Upon the dissolution or liquidation 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
  • <@teamcoltra> may be consulted.
  • <Sacha> It is set to content only, so only Zach can change it. We can send him an email.
  • <+Rush> Wait
  • <@kusanagi> I'll text him
  • <+mildbeard> You have to add "Article VIII. Dissolution".
  • <+Rush> "Member States" why not "The leaader of each memebr state"
  • <+mildbeard> It means the representative of each state.
  • <@teamcoltra> I am sorry Rush but the motion has been moved and seconded
  • <+Rush> gotcha
  • <@teamcoltra> To vote.
  • <@teamcoltra> Let me try this again:
  • <+sadyya> move to combine the question on vote for both
  • <@teamcoltra> you can't
  • <@teamcoltra> for multiple reasons
  • <+sadyya> ok
  • <@teamcoltra> The motion on the table is to change Article VIII. with:
  • <@teamcoltra> All in favour say aye, all against this change say nay.
  • <+mildbeard> aye
  • <+sadyya> aye
  • <@teamcoltra> Section 8.1. 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.
  • <@teamcoltra> Section 8.2. Upon the dissolution or liquidation 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
  • <@teamcoltra> may be consulted.
  • <Sacha> I say no then as I agree with rush that the wording should be cleaned up as implying things causes issues
  • <+max_CAPP> aye
  • <Sacha> always.
  • <+QuazarGuy> aye
  • <+Rush> nay
  • <@kusanagi> Nay
  • <@kusanagi> Sacha: aye or nay
  • <Sacha> no = nay
  • <@kusanagi> Just was confused there, thanks
  • <Sacha> Np
  • <@teamcoltra> passstab?
  • <+Rush> Okay, I've been told that the states are to decide on their own how to vote
  • <@teamcoltra> Rush please wait
  • <+Rush> k
  • <passstab> obstain
  • <@teamcoltra> Okay I am calling the vote, QuazarGuy go ahead and tally votes
  • <+QuazarGuy> 4 for, 2 against, at-large against
  • <@teamcoltra> The motion passes
  • <@teamcoltra> As we don't have editor privvys on the document, we will assume the text on the pad is the replacement text there
  • <+mildbeard> Even though we've approved this change, we could still amend the language if Rush is not satisfied with the wording.
  • <@teamcoltra> Yeah
  • <Sacha> Couldn't we just change state members to state representatives?
  • <+mildbeard> Is it really unclear? Who else would it be referring to?
  • <@teamcoltra> passstab I couldn't explain earlier, but you don't have the ability to make motions as a non-member, that stays with member states
  • <@teamcoltra> and we were in the middle of a motion that was already seconded
  • <passstab> ok, thank you
  • <+Rush> I see it now, it means that the state party top people decide how they'd vote
  • <Sacha> Passstab if you want a motion message one of the + people and ask them to do it, that's what I do :P
  • <Sacha> Mildbeard To state members? I just like to be excessively clear but if no one thinks it is an issue and Rush is fine with it then I will be fine as well
  • <@teamcoltra> I don't see any confusion, if you wish to make a motion rush you can
  • <+Rush> I'm cool
  • <+QuazarGuy> what was the second issue?
  • <@teamcoltra> Okay can we move onto passtabs objection?
  • <@teamcoltra> Meet all of the criteria set forth in the preceding subsections, with no exceptions.
  • <@teamcoltra> Article III Section 2 G
  • <+QuazarGuy> context?
  • <+QuazarGuy> k
  • <+mildbeard> I think it could stay or go with no change in the meaning of the document. So I hope we don't have a very long and heated debate here.
  • <+QuazarGuy> what was the issue passtabs?
  • <passstab> it either takes credibility from the rest of it
  • <passstab> or if you don't want that
  • <+QuazarGuy> oh I see
  • <passstab> it is an arbitrary place to put it
  • <+QuazarGuy> it is unnecessary
  • <+mildbeard> I move to strike Article III, Section 2, item G from the document.
  • <+QuazarGuy> second
  • <@kusanagi> It may have been a placeholder for something else.. ah well
  • <passstab> second
  • <Sacha> Can we keep in mind that the rules there will not be guidelines? That was my only disagreement. As long as everyone is comfortable with that then I have no objection
  • <Sacha> Passstab you can't second either
  • <@teamcoltra> All in favour of striking Article III, Section 2, item G from the document.
  • <+mildbeard> aye
  • <@teamcoltra> vote aye against vote nay
  • <+QuazarGuy> aye
  • <passstab> aye
  • <+sadyya> aye
  • <Sacha> abstain
  • <itspara> Abstain
  • <@kusanagi> Aye
  • <@teamcoltra> okay calling it
  • <@teamcoltra> QuazarGuy
  • <+Rush> aye
  • <+QuazarGuy> do I count that?
  • <@teamcoltra> no
  • <+Rush> doesn't matter really
  • <+QuazarGuy> 4 for
  • <+QuazarGuy> at-large abstained
  • <Sacha> 3 for* passstab is at large
  • <+mildbeard> passstab voted aye
  • <+QuazarGuy> oh oopps
  • <Sacha> so it is 2 abstain to 1 at large
  • <Sacha> does that mean it is counted as an aye? Or how does that work?
  • <@teamcoltra> Since abstains count as null
  • <+mildbeard> it is counted as an aye
  • <@teamcoltra> then it would be at large in favour
  • <Sacha> k
  • <+QuazarGuy> 4 for, at-large for
  • <+QuazarGuy> ok
  • <@teamcoltra> Okay as the last one, we will accept G as being struck, regardless of it being in the release candidate
  • <@teamcoltra> was there any other concerns
  • <Sacha> not from me
  • <+mildbeard> I have one
  • <passstab> i do

>>> kusi has joined #pnc

  • <@teamcoltra> mildbeard first
  • <+mildbeard> I take it that a 2/3 majority will lead to passage of the constitution here. Although there is no process for obtaining ratification from State Parties, I will submit the text to the Massachusetts Pirate Party and request ratification from them.
  • <+mildbeard> I am just making this as a general comment - in view of our inclusive model of govt. transparency I think it's appropriate.

>>> kusanagi has quit IRC: Killed (NickServ (GHOST command used by kusi!~kusanagi@imwn-194-59-82-62.nycmny.fios.verizon.net))

  • <+mildbeard> But just my opinion.
  • <+mildbeard> That's all I have.
  • <+QuazarGuy> thought you were supposed to do that last week

>>> kusanagi has joined #pnc >>> ChanServ sets mode +o kusanagi >>> kusi is now known as kusanangi

  • <kusanangi> NY didn't.
  • <+mildbeard> I have asked MAPP for input and they have given it. But we've just amended the doc.
  • <+QuazarGuy> ok
  • <Sacha> Mildbeard should we add a section for ratification?
  • <Sacha> Or postpone the vote until next week?
  • <+mildbeard> I don't think so.
  • <+QuazarGuy> motion to extend the deadline one more week and skip the agenda item to vote on the constitution

>>> kusanagi has quit IRC: Client Quit >>> kusanangi is now known as kusanagi

  • <+mildbeard> Ratification is really external to the constitution. It has no meaning unless it has been ratified. The document should however specify how it can be amended.

>>> ChanServ sets mode +o kusanagi

  • <Sacha> Mildbeard ahh okay, would you second quazarguy's motion then?
  • <+mildbeard> That's why I'm suggesting asking the state parties to ratify it, just to dot all the i's and cross all the t's.
  • <+mildbeard> I don't want to skip. I am saying we vote now.
  • <+mildbeard> ANd then ask state parties to ratify.
  • <@teamcoltra> There is a problem there
  • <+sadyya> point of order has that motion died
  • <+mildbeard> That's what they did with the US Constitution.
  • <@teamcoltra> Yeah, but would that mean that states that don't ratify it will no longer be members of the new PNC?
  • <+QuazarGuy> you will no longer be a member state
  • <Sacha> I am fine with what mildbeard wishes and I think it is the best course of order, state ratitifcation is not needed for the constitution to pass it is just when the states adobt it
  • <+mildbeard> The document specifies the criteria for state membership. It doesn't say they have to ratify.
  • <+mildbeard> They might have some objection and want to participate in amending it.
  • <@kusanagi> I agree with mildbeard
  • <Sacha> Mildbeard so what you are saying is more a 'good practices' type of suggestion for state reps?
  • <+mildbeard> I'm saying it's a good idea even though it's not technically required.
  • <@teamcoltra> I really dislike this, then we have a Quebec situation... where you are a party in limbo and are considered a full member but never actually adopted the constituion
  • <@teamcoltra> but maybe you guys are seeing something I am not
  • <Sacha> TEamcoltra Why do they need to adopt the constitution?
  • <Sacha> It isn't required so it would be a non-issue imo
  • <@teamcoltra> Because then they are not bound to uphold the values of it.
  • <Sacha> They can have their own constitution
  • <+mildbeard> teamcoltra has a point.
  • <Sacha> Teamcoltra they are required to uphold the values in the membership requirements
  • <@teamcoltra> But they don't recognize those membership requirements
  • <+sadyya> if a state is operating under the const. is it not implyed they have ratified it?
  • <Sacha> teamcoltra they do to be members in the PNC
  • <Sacha> the constitution would only affect their practices not the PNC's authority
  • <+QuazarGuy> motion to add III.2.G. Ratify the PNC Constitution
  • <@kusanagi> seconded
  • <Sacha> Imo if the PNC adopts it then those are the rules in the PNC, outside it states an choose to ratify and have the same rules, but to be in the PNC they have to follow the rules of the PNC
  • <@teamcoltra> QuazarGuy is there text to that?
  • <+QuazarGuy> "III.2.G. Ratify the PNC Constitution"
  • <+mildbeard> We should add a time frame.
  • <@teamcoltra> Ohh I see
  • <@teamcoltra> I was thinking, nevermind :P
  • <+mildbeard> "III.2.G Ratify the PNC Constitution within 6 months of its adoption, or prior to the member state's admission, whichever is later."
  • <Sacha> I don't want to require the states to ratify
  • <Sacha> I think we should discuss this more before voting.
  • <Sacha> It makes no sense to me
  • <@teamcoltra> I feel that you accept the constittion when you accept being a member of this body
  • <+QuazarGuy> 6 months is a long time
  • <Sacha> Teamcoltra You can play by the rules of the PNC w/o accepting them for your own state
  • <Sacha> If you stick with those main goals I think it is fine
  • <+QuazarGuy> I think new states should ratify it as a requirement to be voted into the PNC
  • <Sacha> I feel that requiring that would be giving the PNC power over the state's personal practices which have nothing to do with the PNC
  • <+max_CAPP> Agreed.
  • <+mildbeard> I disagree strongly.
  • <Sacha> QuazarGuy Why though? What is the benefit of this?
  • <@teamcoltra> mildbeard with whom?
  • <+QuazarGuy> if the state doesn't accept it, they should form their own group
  • <+sadyya> until they have radifited the state may not offer amendments (freindly amendment)
  • <Sacha> Accepting the core values is already in there, a state could disagree with the wording of a random article for their own state
  • <+mildbeard> The constitution specifies that the only thing the PNC can do to the states is to remove their PNC membership. It can't interfere in their practices, and is prohibited from imposing too many things on them. The document is very clear on that point.
  • <+sadyya> strke that
  • <Sacha> and then they canot be a pnc?
  • <Sacha> pnc member*
  • <+max_CAPP> I think having the accept or form your own group only disables the power of Pirate Politics within the United States.
  • <+max_CAPP> accept it or form your own*
  • <Sacha> I agree with Max on this, having to accept the core values okay
  • <Sacha> Having to accept the officer positions? The names and the duties?
  • <Sacha> The membership types and what each member does?
  • <Sacha> That makes no sense.
  • <+QuazarGuy> I disagree, forming a second group, they may come up with somethign better and everyone abandons the first iteration
  • <+mildbeard> Ratification does not imply that a state agrees with everything in the document.
  • <+sadyya> true
  • <+QuazarGuy> ratification only means that the state accepts the terms of being in the PNC
  • <@kusanagi> yes
  • <@teamcoltra> max_CAPP you are not required to form your own group, you can always be a probationary member, or just not a member at all.. .without starting your own group. However, we have to have some basic controls to ensure that states are not running counter to pirate ideals. What if a state's pirate party doens't use a democratic process to appoint delegates (at some point in the future)
  • <@teamcoltra> (when we have delegates)
  • <+mildbeard> However I don't think we necessarily need to tie this to membership eligibility either.
  • <Sacha> QuazarGuy Wouldn't that be pointless then as you accept the rules when you join a group?
  • <Sacha> The PNC constitution only covers the PNC, there would be no point to ratify it.
  • <itspara> You agree to uphold them
  • <+QuazarGuy> Sacha, that's not in the Constitution right now
  • <@teamcoltra> If a state wants to be an authoritarian party, that's their right... but we shouldn't be forced to allow their membership to stand within the PNC when they do that
  • <Sacha> QuazarGuy Does it need to be?
  • <itspara> Not that you agree with the content of the rules
  • <+QuazarGuy> itspara, correct
  • <Sacha> TeamColtra I disagree, if they meet the rest of the guidelines then you should be. Unless you want to put in "do not be authoritarian" or specific practices they must do I disagree.
  • <+QuazarGuy> but once a member they have the ability to influence change
  • <Sacha> QuazarGuy It should be their choice if they want to. Instead of forcing to accept something they disagree with by people that should have no power over how they run their state party.
  • <+QuazarGuy> what?

>>> Nedroj has joined #pnc

  • <@kusanagi> At an astonishing 2 hours late, hi jorden.
  • <Nedroj> heh
  • <@kusanagi> ORPP was exccused.
  • <Nedroj> not quite 8pm yet
  • <+mildbeard> Actually looking back up, I think we have a motion on the table?
  • <+sadyya> yes please restate the motion
  • <@teamcoltra> We don't
  • <@teamcoltra> it wasn't seconded
  • <+mildbeard> *<QuazarGuy> motion to add III.2.G. Ratify the PNC Constitution
  • <+mildbeard> *<kusanagi> seconded
  • <@teamcoltra> Oh sorry
  • <@teamcoltra> But we are debating it
  • <@teamcoltra> are we now moving to vote on it?
  • <+sadyya> move to vote
  • <+mildbeard> second
  • <@teamcoltra> Since there seems to be a little bit of conversation left to be had, I will ask for a vote to make sure we are ready to vote. So this is a vote to vote (as per standard Roberts Rules)
  • <+QuazarGuy> aye?
  • <@teamcoltra> all in favour vote aye, against nay
  • <+mildbeard> THe motion to vote is based on an observation that we may be talking in circles.
  • <+QuazarGuy> aye
  • <+sadyya> aye
  • <Sacha> nay
  • <+mildbeard> aye
  • <@kusanagi> aye
  • <+Rush> aye
  • <+max_CAPP> nay
  • <passstab> aye
  • <@teamcoltra> Calling the vote
  • <itspara> Nay
  • <+QuazarGuy> 5 for, 1 against, at-large against
  • <@teamcoltra> I think the at large was undecided?
  • <+sadyya> point of order please restate the motion on the floor
  • <@teamcoltra> itspara was undecided
  • <@teamcoltra> err
  • <@teamcoltra> late
  • <itspara> Eh, ok
  • <itspara> Yeah, i was
  • <+QuazarGuy> at-large is 0.33 for, 0.66 against
  • <@teamcoltra> itspara lol it pains me to say it because I was on the nay side
  • <@teamcoltra> buuut
  • <@teamcoltra> alas
  • <@teamcoltra> We must now vote on the following:
  • <@teamcoltra> motion to add III.2.G. Ratify the PNC Constitution
  • <@teamcoltra> all in favour say aye, against say nay
  • <+QuazarGuy> aye
  • <+mildbeard> nay
  • <@kusanagi> aye
  • <+sadyya> aye
  • <Sacha> nay
  • <+max_CAPP> nay
  • <itspara> Nay
  • <passstab> aye
  • <+Rush> aye
  • <Nedroj> I hope you aren't looking at me
  • <@teamcoltra> (Link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x1ci9G4fv3pqksGVTO5T-Soez2GZB95wrIvGdbnvNqs/edit?pli=1#)https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x1ci9G4fv3pqksGVTO5T-Soez2GZB95wrIvGdbnvNqs/edit?pli=1#
  • <@teamcoltra> Nedroj
  • <@teamcoltra> Not that you are going to vote on this
  • <@teamcoltra> but so you can read it over
  • <@teamcoltra> calling the vote
  • <@teamcoltra> QuazarGuy
  • <+QuazarGuy> 4 for, 2 against, at-large (0.3 for, 0.6 against)
  • <+sadyya> move to pass the constitution
  • <Sacha> Can I suggest that we add language to define ratify in the wording so that states are very clear what it means
  • <Nedroj> ty
  • <@teamcoltra> Sacha you can, but can't make a motion
  • <+mildbeard> I don't think we should specify it.
  • <+mildbeard> I feel that would be interfering in each state's process.
  • <@kusanagi> well, i would think it's self evident
  • <itspara> ^that
  • <@kusanagi> mildbeard, that's what i meant
  • <+mildbeard> Every state may have a different approach and we should value that.
  • <Sacha> Mildbeard If we do not then the PNC can arbitraily decide if a state did or did not ratify it
  • <Sacha> Like the issues we have had with "actively attempting to grow"
  • <itspara> ^good point
  • <+max_CAPP> Yeup.
  • <Nedroj> "Meet all of the criteria set forth in the preceding subsections, with no exceptions." right?
  • <@teamcoltra> Nedroj we removed that
  • <@teamcoltra> but it's assumed already
  • <+mildbeard> We don't want to reach inside the state parties and tell them how to ratify. If we do that then the solution is worse than the problem.

>>> CalebLangeslag has joined #pnc

  • <itspara> Yeah
  • <@teamcoltra> Does someone want to make a motion (the last motion failed to get a second)
  • <Sacha> Nedroj We removed it becase it was redundent, it still applies that all things are required for membership
  • <+mildbeard> We have a bunch of committed pirates here who are all supposed to believe in open govt.
  • <Sacha> Mildbeard Are we not already doing that? I feel like if we clarify it at least they will know what they are agreeing to rather than failing to get membership when they apply due to it.
  • <@kusanagi> it just needs to actively trying to grow
  • <+QuazarGuy> if they have questions they can ask before they apply
  • <@kusanagi> that too
  • <+mildbeard> Constitutions should sometimes be flexible rather than getting overly specific.
  • <Sacha> Kusanagi but the people voting can subjectively decide what that means
  • <+mildbeard> sacha, give me an example.
  • <Sacha> Can I not be bitter and say Michigan?
  • <@kusanagi> ok
  • <+sadyya> point of order do we have any motions on the floor
  • <@kusanagi> for a svery long time, MIPP wasn't growing
  • <@teamcoltra> Point of order, there needs to be a motion. If no one is going to make a motion for Sacha's request, then there is not enough support for it to pass anyway
  • <passstab> what if there already is an elected official? than "actively trying to grow" might be a problem
  • <@kusanagi> there wasn't much being done, at least in my eyes
  • <@kusanagi> passstab, what?
  • <Sacha> Kusanagi Exactly my point. What if in your eyes Michigan isn't ratifying the constiution properly?
  • <@kusanagi> I don't mean to offend, but that was my reasoning. And I chose to abstain in that vote.
  • <@kusanagi> it just means to approve of it
  • <@kusanagi> fancy word
  • <Sacha> Kusanagi No, I totally agree with you now. But I use it as an example because I was flabbergasted at the time.
  • <@kusanagi> sure
  • @teamcoltra gavels
  • <@kusanagi> understandable
  • <@kusanagi> you shush
  • <@kusanagi> you potato.
  • <Sacha> So then approving of it would simply mean that they accept acting that way in the PNC
  • <@kusanagi> y7es
  • <Sacha> but do not have to adopt it for their state's constitution?
  • <@kusanagi> no
  • <+QuazarGuy> the member states need to be able to rationalize why the accepted a new member, if they can't do that, they vote nay
  • <@teamcoltra> The conversation is out of order, we need to have a motion to be discussing
  • <@kusanagi> not at all
  • <@teamcoltra> otherwise the debate is pointless
  • <@kusanagi> this is not pointless
  • <@teamcoltra> Yeah it is, because it's going no where. You can debate over a motion
  • <@teamcoltra> but you need to have the motion in place
  • <+sadyya> please offer a motion then
  • <Sacha> I cannot make a motion.
  • <Sacha> I'm not allowed.
  • <+QuazarGuy> I motion to adopt the constitution
  • <+sadyya> second
  • <+mildbeard> Approving the constitution means that a state party has a general level of approval and they are confident that any specific flaws in the document can be addressed with the process that the document itself has created. It does NOT mean that a state party agrees with everything in the document.
  • <@teamcoltra> Okay the motion on the table is to adopt the constitution. It has been seconded, debate should now centre around us passing the constitution
  • <Sacha> Mildbeard All i'm asking is that we put that right there in the document, so that people recognize that is how the PNC defines it.
  • <@kusanagi> raify just means to approve.
  • <@kusanagi> by majority
  • <+QuazarGuy> not even by majority
  • <+QuazarGuy> the state determines how it's approved
  • <+sadyya> exactly
  • <Sacha> Okay, so that doesn't mean that they have to adopt it. Or apply anything in the constitution to their party. Just that they approve that the PNC uses it?
  • <+QuazarGuy> and that they will abide by in when dealing with the PNC
  • <+mildbeard> It means that they say "we approve."
  • <@kusanagi> yes
  • <+mildbeard> That's probably all it means. The document is intentionally vague.
  • <Sacha> QuazarGuy Okay, so it has nothing to do with what they do as a state. Can we put that in there?
  • <+QuazarGuy> it isn't a replacement for a state's own organization
  • <+QuazarGuy> no
  • <Sacha> Okay then how about this
  • <+QuazarGuy> it's already in there in like article 1
  • <+QuazarGuy> it says it only applies to the PNC
  • <+sadyya> call the question
  • <Sacha> But we said that you have to ratify it to be in the PNC. So it goes against that. No one has put forth my motion so I will retract my objection and if there is a problem in the future where this is absused I will push for ratification.
  • <Sacha> That is the compromise that I offer for this.
  • <+QuazarGuy> no more discussion?
  • <Sacha> Not on my end
  • <+QuazarGuy> teamcoltra, let's vote
  • <@teamcoltra> Okay so right now the motion on the table is to pass the constitution
  • <+mildbeard> *<QuazarGuy> I motion to adopt the constitution
  • <+mildbeard> *<sadyya> second
  • <@teamcoltra> Oh actually, just because this is a big vote I want to dot my is and cross my ts
  • <@teamcoltra> can someone who is an actual member second it
  • <+QuazarGuy> and forget your apostrophes
  • <+mildbeard> second
  • <+QuazarGuy> sadyaa has a +
  • <Sacha> Sadyya is a member >.>
  • <Sacha> Wisconsin*
  • <@kusanagi> wow, good job there captain.
  • @kusanagi slowclaps.
  • <Sacha> Lol kusi gets sarcastic late at night :#
  • <@teamcoltra> Sorry that I am doing multiple things and I am trying to make sure everything is good
  • <Sacha> So then we can vote now?
  • <@teamcoltra> I don't want someone to come back later. Sacha yes, but I want to write out a bit before we vote
  • <@teamcoltra> give me a second
  • <+mildbeard> We already gave you two :).
  • <Sacha> kk
  • <+QuazarGuy> XD
  • <@kusanagi> yes, yes i do
  • <@kusanagi> wow
  • <@teamcoltra> We are all voting on the new constitution of the PNC. It's full version can be found here: (Link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x1ci9G4fv3pqksGVTO5T-Soez2GZB95wrIvGdbnvNqs/edit?pli=1#)https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x1ci9G4fv3pqksGVTO5T-Soez2GZB95wrIvGdbnvNqs/edit?pli=1# - please also note the amendments which were approved in tonights meeting which are included in this vote.
  • <@teamcoltra> this is a major vote and so I would like everyone to read through the constitution carefully
  • <@teamcoltra> and recognize this will be the document which runs the new PNC and will require a super majority to amend
  • <@teamcoltra> Everyone may now vote aye for in favour, or nay to vote against it.
  • <Sacha> aye
  • <+QuazarGuy> aye
  • <+sadyya> aye
  • <+mildbeard> aye
  • <+Rush> aye
  • <+max_CAPP> aye
  • <passstab> aye
  • <itspara> AYE
  • <@kusanagi> AYE
  • <+QuazarGuy> Nedroj?
  • <Nedroj> aye
  • <@teamcoltra> Vote called
  • <@teamcoltra> QuazarGuy
  • <+QuazarGuy> 7 for, at-large for
  • <+mildbeard> unanimous
  • <+mildbeard> awesome
  • <+mildbeard> brb, getting rum...
  • <+sadyya> ill join you mildbeard
  • <@kusanagi> wow
  • <Sacha> are we going to be able to do AOB tonight?
  • <Sacha> Or is it too late?
  • <Sacha> Before we dance in the rum :P
  • <@kusanagi> Congratulations guys.
  • <+QuazarGuy> I'm for AOB
  • <@kusanagi> we did it.
  • <@kusanagi> *<33
  • <@teamcoltra> I am going to ask someone makes a motion that the current PNC leadership team keeps their roles until the next election?
  • <@teamcoltra> or was that in teh constitution and I missed it?
  • <Sacha> Next to the by laws! :P
  • <+QuazarGuy> I'll make that motion
  • <+QuazarGuy> damn it
  • <+mildbeard> second
  • <+QuazarGuy> motion that the current PNC leadership team keeps their roles until the next election
  • <+mildbeard> wait when is the next election?
  • <+QuazarGuy> next week
  • <+mildbeard> OK then I second.
  • <@teamcoltra> Umm wait, shouldn't we have a nomination period?
  • <@teamcoltra> Lets discuss elections as a next topic
  • <+QuazarGuy> this week
  • <@teamcoltra> Okay that works
  • <@teamcoltra> lol though technically now we don't have QuazarGuy to count the votes officially even if we pass... but I think we can keep in the spirit of the pirate way and give us that little bit of leeway
  • <@kusanagi> i think that's okay
  • <@teamcoltra> Is there any debate on the motion, or do we want to vote?
  • <+QuazarGuy> huh?
  • <+mildbeard> vote
  • <@kusanagi> vote
  • <@teamcoltra> all in favour?
  • <+QuazarGuy> aye
  • <+mildbeard> aye
  • <@kusanagi> aye
  • <Nedroj> aye
  • <+sadyya> aye
  • <+mildbeard> sorry gotta go, crying child.
  • <@kusanagi> i know the feeling
  • <Sacha> What is the motion?
  • <@teamcoltra> take care mildbeard
  • <Sacha> To extend the PNC?
  • <+Rush> aye
  • <Sacha> Goodluck mildbeard
  • <@teamcoltra> Sacha to keep the leadership team until our election
  • <@kusanagi> pnc officers stay until next week's election
  • <Sacha> Can we please not have elections next week?
  • <@teamcoltra> Sacha we haven't actually written a rule on when elections will be
  • <Sacha> First of all we need a nomination period and I would like to have established by laws first
  • <@teamcoltra> the motion just states until the elections
  • <Sacha> Ahh okay that is the motion, i'm okay with the motion teamcoltra said
  • <@teamcoltra> Okay calling the vote

>>> teamcoltra sets mode +v Nedroj

  • <+QuazarGuy> 6 for
  • <+QuazarGuy> that's it
  • <@teamcoltra> Okay
  • <+QuazarGuy> anyone up for elections next week?
  • <Sacha> I've already said my piece on that, I don't want to rush elections as this time people will be in charge for like a year
  • <+QuazarGuy> do we want to meet next week?
  • <@teamcoltra> I would say that we should have at least a week long nomination period
  • <Sacha> Why wouldn't we?
  • <@kusanagi> 2 weeks
  • <Sacha> @quazarguy
  • <Sacha> I personally think we need by laws first but I am okay with the 2 weeks I suppose
  • <itspara> We should meet every week, no exceptions imo
  • <+QuazarGuy> we've passed the constitution, is there other business?
  • <@kusanagi> AOB?
  • <Sacha> Yup, two things from me
  • <passstab> one from me
  • <+QuazarGuy> who has PNC report suggestion?
  • <Sacha> Me
  • <+QuazarGuy> please describe it
  • <passstab> i need to go now thanks

>>> passstab has quit IRC: Remote host closed the connection

  • <Sacha> I think that each week the PNC officers should talk about what they did as officers that week
  • <Sacha> like the state reports
  • <Sacha> so QuazarGuy would say "I changed this and this on the wiki" etc.
  • <+QuazarGuy> I don't like to brag
  • <+QuazarGuy> :)
  • <Sacha> The reason for this is that i've heard Travis was being really good on the facebook and running that really well and when he talked about having a meeting
  • <Sacha> Well you did a wonderful job *<3 but this is more about transparency
  • <+sadyya> please excuse us we have to leave
  • <Sacha> so that we all know what the PNC is doing
  • <Sacha> Sadyya Have a good night ^_^
  • <+sadyya> ok thanks
  • <itspara> Well, we need a seperate way of keeping track of who is doing what

>>> sadyya has left #pnc: Leaving

  • <itspara> Like a ProjectManagement system
  • <Sacha> Itspara couldn't they be in the committee section and give a brief report just like the states?
  • <Sacha> Explain more?

>>> Bosun has quit IRC: Quit: Leaving

  • <itspara> Yes... I meant outside of meetings
  • <+QuazarGuy> I really don't want to do a TPS report every week
  • <Sacha> I think that would be useful as well, but I think it should happen in meetings too
  • <+QuazarGuy> I don't get paid
  • <Sacha> QuazarGuy States have to, if you didn't do anything then you can say nothing new
  • <+max_CAPP> Agreed - would be useful. Those reports are very helpful in terms of motivation and seeing what work is being done.
  • <Sacha> It is more a way to keep everyone in the loop and then we know that our Captain attended pirate hour or that there was an interview request etc.
  • <+QuazarGuy> for the past four months it would be, I took and stored the minutes every week
  • <Sacha> I agree with what max_capp said
  • <Sacha> QuazarGuy Okay so you would say that, every week
  • <@teamcoltra> I am not against it
  • <Sacha> it is one sentance is it really that much work for some transparency so that everyone knows what the officers are up to?
  • <+QuazarGuy> I just think that the officers are here to serve
  • <@kusanagi> says the guy with the best state so far, imo haha
  • <@kusanagi> *<3
  • <+QuazarGuy> if the officers aren't doing their jobs they should be replaced
  • <Sacha> QuazarGuy I don't see how that changes my point, shouldn't we know how theya re serving then?
  • <Sacha> How do we know unless we know what they are doing?
  • <+max_CAPP> Yeup.

>>> [bsod] has joined #pnc

  • <+QuazarGuy> you all know what their duties are

>>> Rush has quit IRC: Quit: (Link: http://www.mibbit.com)http://www.mibbit.com ajax IRC Client

  • <+QuazarGuy> if they aren't being met, then it should be obvious
  • <+max_CAPP> Constant reiteration of what work is being done is what is necessary - it's not the fact that people know what the duties are it's the due diligence to report on the work being done.
  • <@teamcoltra> QuazarGuy if your report would be "I updated the wiki and I tallied votes" every week, then that's what it is... and it's not any extra work for you
  • <+QuazarGuy> bragging implies that they are going beyond the requirements
  • <Sacha> QuazarGuy Duties are vague and for the captain it includes speaking and for you it includes keeping up the wiki (or is that kusinagi)
  • <[bsod]> mildbeard still here?
  • <Sacha> I never said bragging, you did
  • <Sacha> [bsod] Not sure, he had to step out for his kid for a bit
  • <[bsod]> ah
  • <+QuazarGuy> the wiki is everyone's job
  • <[bsod]> so whats up with the constitution, is it basically the draft that he proposed?
  • <@teamcoltra> [bsod] are you representing a party? because we are still in the middle of our meeting
  • <+QuazarGuy> my job is to take minutes, tally votes, and put them up for all to see
  • <[bsod]> oh sorry, and no
  • <Sacha> QuazarGuy No, it is not. It is a) impractical and b) excessive to give every single person in here to keep up the wiki
  • <[bsod]> are the meetings logged?
  • <Sacha> If that is not under an officer's job description then it needs to be added somewhere
  • <@kusanagi> yes
  • <@teamcoltra> [bsod] yes, and feel free to query me your other questions :)
  • <Sacha> [bsod] yes and posted on the wiki
  • <[bsod]> cool
  • <[bsod]> ill leave then
  • <@teamcoltra> no need to leave, just not interrupt (I mean this in the most polite way)
  • <+QuazarGuy> ok we can make reports part of the job description
  • <[bsod]> hehe okie
  • <Sacha> QuazarGuy Okay, thank you
  • <@teamcoltra> Do we want to vote on requiring weekly reports?
  • <@kusanagi> no
  • <+QuazarGuy> where are the job descriptions?
  • <+QuazarGuy> you can put it in the new bylaws
  • <@teamcoltra> Yeah it would be a bylaw
  • <Sacha> I thinkwe haven't written them yet due to bylaws
  • <Sacha> k, i'll keep it in mind then for the bylaws
  • <+QuazarGuy> AGPPP?
  • <Sacha> Me again
  • <Sacha> Does everyone know what AGPPP is here? And who all is still attending?
  • <@kusanagi> i is
  • <+QuazarGuy> please continue
  • <Sacha> Okay so the way it is right now is that the officers act as liasons to the German Pirate Party
  • <Sacha> My only problem with this (after thinking about it for a few days) is that it smacks of a national party
  • <+QuazarGuy> O.o
  • <+QuazarGuy> I thought anyone could do it
  • <Sacha> QuazarGuy There was a discussion on AGPPP on facebook and Karl asked for a few liasons who would speak on behalf of the USPP
  • <+QuazarGuy> we just picked Travis to make him more busy
  • <Sacha> Right we tossed up Travis and Kusanagi and I asked if we should make a committee or if it falls under the PNC
  • <@kusanagi> LOLOL QuazarGuy
  • <Sacha> it was said that it falls under the PNC but that really makes the PNC more of a national party
  • <Sacha> that can take actions on behalf of the states
  • <+QuazarGuy> I agree
  • <@kusanagi> i have a real name too
  • <Sacha> which I remember (and is why I withdrew from captain) that there was a hugggeee shit storm over that
  • <+Nedroj> gotta go, nite all
  • <Sacha> Kusanagi = Liz Brunner? Right?
  • <@kusanagi> yes
  • <itspara> Yes
  • <Sacha> nedroj night night :3
  • <+QuazarGuy> later nedrog
  • <Sacha> K, so Liz and Travis
  • <itspara> Bye Nedroj

>>> Nedroj has quit IRC: Quit: Web client closed

  • <+QuazarGuy> we can pick anyone we want
  • <+QuazarGuy> it doesn't have to be Travis
  • <Sacha> From what was said in the facebook it is a PNC thing, so is it like a committee
  • <Sacha> of 2-3 people that can be nominated, selected etc.
  • <@kusanagi> i was guessing, i admit
  • <+QuazarGuy> we didn't discuss it
  • <Sacha> or the PNC?
  • <@teamcoltra> I am okay with it being anyone, I can do it if needed
  • <@teamcoltra> I was thinking Rush, because he speaks German
  • <@teamcoltra> :P but he has other things
  • <Sacha> Ahh okay, so would it be okay if we added a AGPPP committee formation to the agenda next week and we can take care of it there?
  • <itspara> Sounds good to me
  • <+QuazarGuy> idk
  • <Sacha> And then if it ends up being the PNC it isn't a national party thing but an elected committee thing
  • <@kusanagi> sure
  • <@kusanagi> that works out
  • <+QuazarGuy> I would rather keep it informal
  • <@teamcoltra> AGP^3 is focused more on state parties... we decided that a big relationship with the PNC is pointless
  • <Sacha> QuazarGuy Me and Karl have been talking in PMs for the past few days and he wants a few people that will be selected to be liasons
  • <@teamcoltra> They wanted to help the two fastest growing and most promising parties, I gave California, and suggested they look at Mass as well
  • <Sacha> he feels really nervous about the whole thing and I think that is his way of getting responsibility on the american side
  • <+QuazarGuy> I was concerned that no Germans had joined
  • <@kusanagi> Sacha, haaaa!
  • <+QuazarGuy> I'd rather they talk to state parties directly
  • <+QuazarGuy> but Travis is good for finding state connections
  • <Sacha> Kusanagi He started speaking to me in german about how nervous he was :P I was like wut, english pls. xD QuazarGuy he would too but he said wait let me see
  • <@kusanagi> aww
  • <+QuazarGuy> I don't understand why he's nervous, if it doesn't work, it doesn't work
  • <Sacha> OH that isn't too bad then
  • <Sacha> YesterdayKarl Baptist
  • <Sacha> Answer: I would like to have just two or three pirates as a contact person, thats all. That there is everyone in one wasn't such a good idea
  • <Sacha> YesterdayAmanda Johnson
  • <Sacha> Everyone in one?
  • <Sacha> YesterdayKarl Baptist
  • <Sacha> that there is everywere a contact person in a state
  • <+QuazarGuy> in the beginning he wanted like 5-10 people
  • <Sacha> If you want we can ask him to attend next week? That was what he said to me in fb after making the post in AGPPP
  • <@teamcoltra> Sacha yeah but I have talked to him on Skype since then
  • <Sacha> Best place to go is the horse's mouth though
  • <+QuazarGuy> I think it would be better if the bigger states handle it and bring the news to everyone else here
  • <@teamcoltra> We should have an irc convo so everyone is on the same page
  • <Sacha> I agree with that Teamcoltra I think that in the beginning it will be okay to have a few people and most likely it will naturally scale up to include all the states
  • <Sacha> IT is a baby project right now and to my knowledge the first of its kind
  • <@teamcoltra> AGP^3 wanted one thing that they can teach American parties, and I suggested that one topic be "signature gathering and advertisement"
  • <@teamcoltra> They want to work directly with California to help them gain their 100K+ target
  • <@teamcoltra> and then once we get that, we can pass those skills onto the other parties
  • <+QuazarGuy> agreed
  • <Sacha> Okay cool, if they want that then we can connect them to the state
  • <+max_CAPP> California will be more than happy to centralize and pass on skills to other parties.
  • <Sacha> Do we want to ask AGPPP what they want, or make a committee to handle the liason or...?
  • <+QuazarGuy> I think the states can just do it
  • <@teamcoltra> max_CAPP do you have a good contact person we can put them in contact with
  • <+QuazarGuy> preferably someone who speaks German
  • <@teamcoltra> I was thinking Orion since he is like the one guy I know
  • <@teamcoltra> plus he has that german look going on :P
  • <+max_CAPP> A contact person from CAPP? they can contact us through calpirateparty@gmail.com
  • <+QuazarGuy> uh
  • <+max_CAPP> Orion will be handling it.
  • <@teamcoltra> :P you guys need a better email address
  • <+max_CAPP> We'll have that setup, working on other things in the mean time :P
  • <Sacha> QuazarGuy what if AGPPP requests contacts again though?
  • <+QuazarGuy> ask around and find someone who speaks German and is willing to liaison and teach CA Pirates
  • <Sacha> Okay
  • <Sacha> My AOB is done then
  • <+max_CAPP> Okay -
  • <+QuazarGuy> my comment is directed at max_CAPP
  • <+max_CAPP> So we should find someone who speaks German, then contact who and do what?
  • <@teamcoltra> max_CAPP btw, our german contact speaks english fluently
  • <@teamcoltra> and most of them do
  • <+QuazarGuy> Travis, you have Karl's email?
  • <+QuazarGuy> more or less
  • <@teamcoltra> :) it's just nice because I would love to have the person who is working with them also attend PPDE meetings
  • <+max_CAPP> Fair enough, so what should we be doing :)
  • <@teamcoltra> max_CAPP I will have him email you
  • <@teamcoltra> problem solved :P
  • <+max_CAPP> Sweet
  • <Sacha> Max_CApp do you want a link to his facebook? You can friend him and message?
  • <Sacha> Or I can give your's to him?
  • <+QuazarGuy> I think Travis solved it
  • <Sacha> I was just offering an alternative
  • <Sacha> but if it is solved it is solved
  • <@teamcoltra> (Link: http://i.imgur.com/zf9oe.gif)http://i.imgur.com/zf9oe.gif
  • <@teamcoltra> whoops sorry
  • <+max_CAPP> Problem solved, but my facebook is facebook.com/max.bugrov if anyone needs to contact :P
  • <Sacha> Is passstab still in?
  • <+QuazarGuy> lol that was quick
  • <Sacha> They said they had something in AOB
  • <+max_CAPP> :)
  • <+QuazarGuy> no
  • <+QuazarGuy> they wanted to brag
  • <Sacha> Ahh okay
  • <@teamcoltra> anyone want to call the meeting?
  • <Sacha> Can you please stop saying brag like that
  • <+QuazarGuy> motion to adjourn
  • <Sacha> It seems very dismissive to me, personal opinion
  • <@kusanagi> secxonded
  • <@teamcoltra> in favour?
  • <Sacha> Aye!
  • <+QuazarGuy> aye
  • <+max_CAPP> aye.
  • <@kusanagi> brag what/
  • <@kusanagi> aye
  • <+QuazarGuy> they wanted to report
  • <Sacha> thx
  • <@kusanagi> oh.
  • <@kusanagi> then he shoulda been on time.
  • <@kusanagi> :/
  • <Sacha> Travis wouldn't let them
  • <+QuazarGuy> -__-b
  • <Sacha> they tried to earlier in the meeting
  • <Sacha> and travis pushed it to AOB
  • <+QuazarGuy> kusi revealed her lack of attention
  • <@teamcoltra> Calling the vote
  • <+QuazarGuy> lots for
  • <@teamcoltra> QuazarGuy
  • <+QuazarGuy> none against
  • <@teamcoltra> time is 1713PM PST
Retrieved from "https://wiki.uspirates.org/w/index.php?title=PNC_7/25/12&oldid=1439"