PNC 5/2/12

Pirate National Committee Meeting - May 2nd 2012

Location: PirateIRC Network (irc.pirateirc.net #pnc)

[Webchat]

Chair: TravisMcCrea

Vice Chair: kusanagi

Secretary: QuazarGuy

Agenda:

 * Call to Order
 * Roll Call (Sign In - 5 Minutes)
 * State - Representative
 * Florida
 * Georgia
 * Massachusetts
 * New York
 * Oklahoma
 * Oregon
 * Washington
 * At-Large (Observers not represented - Votes Averaged)
 * Observers (Represented - No Voting Rights)
 * Discussion Points (30 Minutes)
 * Oversight of Committees
 * How much oversight should the PNC have over these committees/workgroups?
 * Benefits of Oversight
 * PNC is able to disburse monies to the committees
 * Committees to not have their own legal structure (PAC)
 * Since they are supposed to be collaborative bodies amongst the states, it is still the states decision
 * The PNC can reign in unruly individuals or abusers
 * Disadvantages of Oversight
 * Less freedom for the IT committee
 * PNC may prevent some speech such as hosting Wikileaks mirrors
 * Vote to bring IT committee back under oversight of PNC
 * Naming
 * Can &amp; should we even call ourselves the PNC?
 * http://www.fec.gov/ans/answers_party.shtml
 * Pirate Parties America PAC
 * Pirate Party PAC
 * United States Pirate Party
 * Pirate Party of the United States
 * Pirate Party //Only use the US when speaking nationally
 * Redirection &amp; de-emphasis of national activity
 * Alternative involvement for Pirates without state parties
 * Policy - Clarifying law and developing bylaws
 * Promotions - New State Party Development &amp; design work
 * Press - Collaboration between state parties for blog work, press releases, and media interaction
 * IT - Working on the national and international infrastructure
 * Color and logo - http://www.iPir.at/votingtbd
 * Orange Vs. Purple
 * Promotion of http://iPir.at/newstateguide
 * Moderated Discussion (20 minutes)
 * If conversation exceeds this time, it will be moved to the SAB list or the next meeting.
 * Adjourn
 * Alternative involvement for Pirates without state parties
 * Policy - Clarifying law and developing bylaws
 * Promotions - New State Party Development &amp; design work
 * Press - Collaboration between state parties for blog work, press releases, and media interaction
 * IT - Working on the national and international infrastructure
 * Color and logo - http://www.iPir.at/votingtbd
 * Orange Vs. Purple
 * Promotion of http://iPir.at/newstateguide
 * Moderated Discussion (20 minutes)
 * If conversation exceeds this time, it will be moved to the SAB list or the next meeting.
 * Adjourn

Minutes:

 * Minutes Approved
 * Vote on allowing IT committee to continue using drupal
 * 5 for, at-large neutral
 * Vote to reaffirm the position that the IT Committee is under the oversight of the PNC
 * 5 for, 1 abstain, at-large for
 * Ask the policy committee to research the legality of the name "Pirate National Committee" and to report back on alternatives at our next meeting
 * 5 for, at-large for
 * Involvement in the workgroups is restricted to those who are already a member of a state party or, in states which have no party, have registered their username and state with the USPP
 * amend to include email
 * 4 for, at-large for
 * rewritten to, "Involvement in the workgroups is restricted to those who are already a member of a state party or, in states which have no party, have registered their username, state, and email with the USPP for emailing when their area reaches threshold to start local organization. The state and email will remain hidden and anyone who must view it shall have taken an oath to never reveal personally identifiable information."
 * 4 for, at-large for
 * vote to pass the amended edition
 * 4 for, at-large for
 * Vote on purple or orange
 * 2 purples, 2 abstains, at-large purple
 * Adjourned
 * 4 for

Log:
>>> Brady has joined #pnc >>> itspara has joined #pnc >>> MrSquared has joined #pnc >>> Jarod has quit IRC: Ping timeout: 272 seconds >>> Jarod has joined #pnc >>> Rush has quit IRC: Ping timeout: 252 seconds >>> mortona2k has joined #pnc >>> jarod73_ has quit IRC: Ping timeout: 252 seconds >>> BradyMobile has joined #pnc >>> kusanagi has quit IRC: Ping timeout: 252 seconds >>> kusanagi has joined #pnc >>> ChanServ sets mode +o kusanagi >>> [erixoltan] has joined #pnc >>> [erixoltan] has left #pnc >>> mortona2k has quit IRC: Ping timeout: 264 seconds
 * <@TravisMcCrea> I would like to officially call this meeting to order, can I get a roll call?
 *  WA
 * <@kusanagi> NY
 * <@TravisMcCrea> With your name?
 * Erik Zoltan, Mass Pirate Party
 *  Florida
 *  Jeff Talada, Washington
 *  Brad Hall, Florida
 *  Jarod GA
 * <@TravisMcCrea> Is Oregon or Oklahoma here?
 *  OK really needs more than 1 person
 *  I'm going to be in and out, I'm announcing No Safe Harbor 2: Electric Boogaloo via various channels
 * <@TravisMcCrea> Rush: I believe you are supposed to be our agenda taker
 * <@TravisMcCrea> oh no
 * <@TravisMcCrea> that's QuazarGuy ?
 *  I am
 *  wait what?
 * <@TravisMcCrea> Okay :P
 * <@TravisMcCrea> Sorry my brain got fried for a second, I am at work :P
 * <@kusanagi> Lindsay-Anne Brunner, NY
 * <@TravisMcCrea> So I am not used to the rules of order that we use in the PNC meetings so please feel free to use points of order, I wont be offended.
 * <@TravisMcCrea> Can we start by agreeing on today's agenda?
 * <@TravisMcCrea> (Link: https://pnc.piratenpad.de/PNC-5-2-2012)https://pnc.piratenpad.de/PNC-5-2-2012
 * <@TravisMcCrea> If you have any objection to the agenda please speak now
 *  why is IT on there?
 * No objection, but what is the process for proposing agenda items for future meetings?
 * <@TravisMcCrea> Well that's where we are having a problem QuazarGuy because we agreed that we were going to let the IT Committee operate independantly
 * <@TravisMcCrea> yet, now there is some problems we need to clear up
 *  isn't the decision for wordpress vs drupal an IT thing?
 * <@kusanagi> It is an IT thing..
 * <@TravisMcCrea> I am going to go ahead and approve the agenda, seeing no objections.
 * <@TravisMcCrea> Now we can have this conversation :)
 *  ok
 * <@TravisMcCrea> Here is the thing - The main USPP website needs to be updated, it needs to be always functioning, and I feel that having a proper web presence is the responsibility of the PNC. I feel that the IT Committee should help by carrying out the needs of the PNC.
 * <@TravisMcCrea> In this case, I feel that our website would be much better served by a (better implimentation) of wordpress, while the IT Committee keeps working on their state party website in a box.
 * We previously agreed that the IT committee chair would be accountable to the PNC and we'd try not to micro-manage.
 * <@TravisMcCrea> erixoltan: yes, that's true. However, our web presence is a bit different than that.
 * Specifically not to impose technical decisions on them unless they failed to deliver.
 * Please explain specifically the distinction.
 * <@TravisMcCrea> erixoltan: if they just one day up and change the entire way we operate, then that creates bigger problems than just coding and such
 * That's why the IT chair is accountable to the PNC.
 * <@TravisMcCrea> Wordpress is much easier to maintain for non-developers. Because the PP will have a high turnover for volunteers, the main site should be a wordpress site so if anything goes wrong, it wont be hard to fix it.
 * Wordpress is definitely easy to work with. The functionality is inferior to the alternatives.
 * What does the IT committee have to say about this?
 * <@TravisMcCrea> erixoltan: however, we don't need the functionality that drupal provides. Actually I am worried that the extra fucntionality that they are trying to impose will HURT the party
 * So let me get this straight.
 * Correct me when I get it wrong.
 * <@TravisMcCrea> We need to keep the main site very very simple. The objective of the main USPP site should be to direct people to state parties and not encourage them to hang around the USPP site.
 * <@TravisMcCrea> (while still, obviously, having a beautiful website that represents the party well)
 * We have previously voted on a course of action with the goal of getting the website up and running quickly and without interfering in the details.
 * Now you want to impose your own control because you don't like the decisions the IT committee is making, and not because of a failure to accomplish results.
 *  hey matuck get in on this
 * ok ...
 *  what's going on with IT?
 *  specifically the national site
 * I dont like the idea of using wordpress.. we can keep drupal simple if thats what we want... but i dont think we should restrict ourselves with wordpress its not flexible and if we want to add stuff later its gonna be much arder
 * <@TravisMcCrea> erixoltan: no, because I am very very concerned about the direction they are taking it. I have listened to what matuck wants, and even his stated goals are counter productive to the goals of what the USPP site SHOULD BE
 * the site was pretty much ready to lauch just needed a theme.    but travis wanted to go with a wordpress install
 * Travis what is your vision of what it should be?
 * no i did not i said we could keep it simple but we shouldnt tie ourselves down from future growht
 * <@TravisMcCrea> (Link: http://themes.designcrumbs.com/demo/?theme=Campaign-WP)http://themes.designcrumbs.com/demo/?theme=Campaign-WP somthing that looks and acts a lot like this. A blog, that gives information. There will be a quick registration which will then forward that users details to state parties
 * <@TravisMcCrea> Nothing else.
 * So your vision is that the USPP site is merely a blog?
 * <@TravisMcCrea> erixoltan: a blog with information, but yes. Keep it away from being interactive
 * Your vision is wrong. Massachusetts votes to NOT INTERFERE with the IT COMMITTEE.
 * <@TravisMcCrea> So you feel that our parties future should be decided by developers instead of people who specialize in politics? That seems counter productive.
 *  I agree with keeping it from being interactive until the liquid democracy stuff works
 * I didn't say that. DOn't put words in my mouth.
 * <QuazarGuy> it probably shouldn't even have a blog or anything else with a date on it
 * <QuazarGuy> we don't have anyone to keep it up to date
 * <@TravisMcCrea> QuazarGuy: I feel that we can keep a blog active enough, my thought is actually to also auto feed RSS from states into our blog stream
 * <@TravisMcCrea> Not to mention we have Zak and myself who blog for Falkvinge.net fairly regularly so we can cross post
 * <QuazarGuy> whatever, it should only be implemented once we have the ability to fill it in
 * <@TravisMcCrea> QuazarGuy: we can hide dates if you want, but you are thinking along the right lines.
 * The website should have a forum, a wiki and a blog. It should have an interactive voting approach similar to liquidfeedback.
 * <@TravisMcCrea> No, that's what we tried before. That will make us top heavy again.
 * <QuazarGuy> but until we actually have it ready we shouldn't have it on the site
 * Just because you failed at it, doesn't mean it's an inherently bad idea.
 * <@TravisMcCrea> People feel comfortable when they get to hang out no the USPP site, because it's comfortable. They don't have to step out of their comfort zone and meet local people, they don't have to put in the work to start their own state party.
 * Your thinking on this is based on an invalid underlying assumption.
 * <@TravisMcCrea> We need to break people from that thought process and push them to their states.
 * We need to understand that everyone has different things to contribute, and not try to force people into a single vision of progress.
 * <QuazarGuy> I haven't seen the IT committee's plans
 * <@TravisMcCrea> What can they possibly contribute on a national level that will help the party?
 * Nothing in your opinion. Much in mine.
 * Why not simply disband the USPP according to your limited vision?
 * <@TravisMcCrea> please provide an example in your vision erixoltan
 * <@TravisMcCrea> that was a real question, not rhetoric
 * <@TravisMcCrea> What possibly can they provide?
 * <@TravisMcCrea> erixoltan: my vision is to use what has clearly been successful for PPEU and PPI which is a very very limited organizational body, and letting it's member states work things out
 * <QuazarGuy> Travis, have you seen my most recent email?
 * We get more state parties for one. By having a place where people from new states can come together and find each other, we can get better involvement. The MAPP was created when we had a forum to post on, and we were able to find each other there.
 * <@TravisMcCrea> not the most recent, only what I sent this morning
 * When you have provocative news events like SOPA, the impact is not limited to a single state; nor is the opportunity. The Swedish pirate party was formed when they had a major news event that drove people to them. The same thing will happen with the US Pirate Party.
 * <jarod73_> Honestly I feel that we should future proof our website, be it wordpress, drupal, or other... because if we have to change it later on it will be much harder than setting up the website now and saying "here this is how to use it"
 * If we neglect the national level, we will be missing out on the opportunity to get contributions from many enthusiastic people who are in states where there's not yet an organized party.
 * <@TravisMcCrea> We cannot compare PPSE to the USPP because they are smaller in population (and physical size if I understand correctly) than California
 * <@TravisMcCrea> And again PPI has also organized anti-ACTA protests
 * Also their electoral system is not winner take all. They have a lower entry barrier.
 * <@TravisMcCrea> USPP should simply enable it's members.
 * But the subject of our agenda is wordpress vs. drupal.
 * The underlying assumption that we only need wordpress because we'll never expand beyond a blog is something I personally disagree with.
 * <@TravisMcCrea> (Link: http://www.democrats.org/)http://www.democrats.org/
 * <jarod73_> i agree with erixoltan
 * <@TravisMcCrea> even democrats.org could be run on wordpress... and I think they are pretty big
 * <QuazarGuy> the plugins we plan to use for liquid democracy stuff are made for drupal
 * <@TravisMcCrea> PPDE does not have an integrated system, and yet people still use their services very easily
 * <QuazarGuy> all our developers have spent lots of time building a drupal site
 * <@TravisMcCrea> QuazarGuy: which they are not giving up
 * <@TravisMcCrea> they still had to do that work because the state parties will use Drupal
 * <@TravisMcCrea> (who choose to use it)
 * <@TravisMcCrea> The state parties NEED a comprehensive system
 * <jarod73_> The main reason I feel that we should have more than just a blog is with the two large parties everyone pretty well knows them and what they are about and it's easy to find someone who considers themself part of it.. but for us it's not the same.. plus we tend to fall on a more tech savy crowd so it makes sense
 * <jarod73_> (Link: http://www.lp.org/)http://www.lp.org/
 * <@TravisMcCrea> We want to over complicate things because we have a techy crowed, but in the end... the usability and simplicity for new volunteers and for readers falls to wordpress
 * <@kusanagi> Well, what about Ruby on Rails?
 * <@TravisMcCrea> kusanagi: shh
 * <@kusanagi> Excuse me?
 * <@TravisMcCrea> lol I am kidding. Sorry.
 * <@kusanagi> That's what I thought.
 * <@TravisMcCrea> lol we need a system that new volunteers can easily pick up.
 * <jarod73_> i was using the libratarian party website as an example
 * <@kusanagi> RoR is easy
 * <@TravisMcCrea> There are far more PHP people than there are RoR
 * <@kusanagi> So?
 * <CalebLangeslag> When you learn a language, it's not that hard to learn another
 * <@TravisMcCrea> and RoR people are usually busy with professional development. PHP kids are willing to just do stuff
 * its a bitch to install RoR with depencies and such we looked at running crabgrass
 * Anyone who wants to tell the IT committee what technology to use had better be willing to roll up their sleeves and start writing code.
 * <CalebLangeslag> But "PHP kids" likely don't know proper software development nor security, if you're pointing out that stereotype. :P
 * <@TravisMcCrea> erixoltan: I already did
 * <@kusanagi> I'm more than willing to write code, erixoltan. It's what I do.
 * <@TravisMcCrea> I already stated that I would do the work for Wordpress on my own
 * Me too. I'm not willing because I have other things to do.
 * <@TravisMcCrea> (with help of whomever would like to assist)
 * <QuazarGuy> I'm ready to vote on this
 * <CalebLangeslag> but yes, with RoR applications encountered so far, there's been dependency hell issues
 * <CalebLangeslag> SO
 * <CalebLangeslag> If you can get a running instance, then it could be reconsidered
 * <@kusanagi> Sure
 * <@TravisMcCrea> QuazarGuy: has moved to previous question, if you would like to move to vote, please vote aye
 * second the move to vote
 * <@TravisMcCrea> (basically you are voting on if you want to vote, or keep debating)
 * <QuazarGuy> vote aye
 * <CalebLangeslag> Nay?
 * aye
 * <@TravisMcCrea> CalebLangeslag: are you wishing to keep debating?
 * <Rush> aye
 * <CalebLangeslag> I just stopped in at the wrong time, to know the direction of the initial motion (before the vote to vote)
 * <@TravisMcCrea> CalebLangeslag: sorry you are right, that was a major duh on my part :P
 * <@TravisMcCrea> QuazarGuy: would you like to make a motion to vote on?
 * <QuazarGuy> vote aye to allow the IT committee to continue development using drupal
 * <jarod73_> aye
 * <QuazarGuy> aye
 * <@kusanagi> aye
 * aye
 * Aye
 * <Rush> aye
 * <CalebLangeslag> nay
 * <@TravisMcCrea> QuazarGuy: can you give the total (with whose vote counts as what)?
 * <@TravisMcCrea> I don't see anyone who checked ni as "at large"
 * <QuazarGuy> itspara and caleblangeslag, who are you?
 * <@kusanagi> CalebLangeslag should be al
 * <CalebLangeslag> Yes, I would be considered At-Large, sorry
 * <@kusanagi> they're both at large votes
 * <@TravisMcCrea> However that's just for the record: The vote passes.
 * I forgot to check in, i was late
 * <CalebLangeslag> (same)
 * <@kusanagi> it's fine
 * <@kusanagi> for future reference, just check in when you get here
 * <QuazarGuy> 5 votes for, and at-large vote nullified itself
 * Yeah, will do
 * <CalebLangeslag> Too bad I didn't get around in time to potentially sway debate, but oh well.
 * <QuazarGuy> ok, now that that's out of the way
 * <@TravisMcCrea> Though we skipped to that item, I believe the first item on the Agenda was Oversight of Committees
 * <@TravisMcCrea> In particular: How much oversight should the PNC have over these committees/workgroups?
 * <@kusanagi> Minimal.
 * Clarify what is meant by "oversight" because I think maybe there's some confusion over the term.
 * <QuazarGuy> legally, can we?
 * <QuazarGuy> or maybe the national committee should also be just an autonomous committee
 * <@TravisMcCrea> Who was the person who put this on the agenda? Perhaps you can speak on it?
 * <QuazarGuy> I think it's carried over from last weeks
 * <QuazarGuy> Brady might know
 * <Rush> Brady isn't here right now
 * <QuazarGuy> I think we should skip it and discuss it through email
 * <QuazarGuy> we sort of already are anyway
 * I think there's two separate questions. One is how much oversight CAN the PNC have and the other is how much oversighte SHOULD we have in order to get things done most effectively.
 * <QuazarGuy> I've been convinced over the past week or so that the PNC should only deal with presidential elections
 * If the state parties have created the PNC and then PNC has created these committees, then it would seem that it can have oversight.
 * But we're probably not an effective body to run the details of those committees, so we should avoid interfering too much imo.
 * <QuazarGuy> I think those other committees would've created themselves anyway
 * Is this a chicken and egg thing?
 * <QuazarGuy> eventually people will come along who know how to start up all these different committees and will do it without our approval
 * Are we going to have trouble answering this until we have a constitution?
 * <QuazarGuy> I still don't know what that's for
 * <QuazarGuy> these committees aren't ideological, they are functional
 * So if we ask a simple question like "what is the role of the PNC" - is there a clear answer?
 * <QuazarGuy> I think we all have a different idea
 * <QuazarGuy> and that's why we keep getting stuck
 * Agreed.
 * <@kusanagi> Was there not something that was voted on months ago that stated the job of the PNC?
 * <@TravisMcCrea> It was like two weeks ago
 * <@kusanagi> No
 * <QuazarGuy> maybe it would be more beneficial for us to form independant committees for each individual function
 * <@kusanagi> Voted to establish the PNC
 * <@TravisMcCrea> Oh, that. I know about two weeks ago we had made a motion that passed which basically said the PNC should be a very minimalist body
 * <@TravisMcCrea> whose focus should be the facillitation of state parties
 * <@kusanagi> Well, maybe you should go look that up.
 * <@kusanagi> It's from january.
 * <QuazarGuy> unfortunately, the wiki hasn't been reliable
 * <CalebLangeslag> The new wiki install is available
 * yeah but since we are going with drupal it iwll be moved into the drupal install
 * <CalebLangeslag> and isn't going to die soon: (Link: http://www.pirate-party.us/wiki/Main_Page)http://www.pirate-party.us/wiki/Main_Page
 * <@kusanagi> QuazarGuy, it's on the pad
 * <QuazarGuy> oh yay, it's back
 * <Brady> Ah
 * <Brady> What'd I do?
 * <QuazarGuy> it looks like IT is doing all the facilitating
 * <QuazarGuy> do we need a PNC to do facilitation?
 * We have a constitution due in June. Let's hope that when/if we get one, it will tell us the role of the USPP and the role of the PNC within the USPP and the relationship between the PNC and the committees, and that we will at least be less confused.
 * <Brady> I will present multiple options in the constitution.
 * <@kusanagi> erixoltan, yes. that was the big thing the pnc needs to do
 * <Brady> Different positions to be voted on.
 * great
 * <Rush> If we have a constitution due in June, shouldn't we work on that now and not try to get it in five minutes before it's due?
 * <@TravisMcCrea> I think the next agenda item is tied into this conversation, and will give us a motion to actually debate over:
 * <@TravisMcCrea> Vote to bring IT committee back under oversight of PNC
 * <QuazarGuy> (Link: http://www.fec.gov/ans/answers_party.shtml#qualify)http://www.fec.gov/ans/answers_party.shtml#qualify
 * <@TravisMcCrea> (that's not a motion to vote, taht's simply the topic)
 * So based on the conversation we had when we created the IT committee, I was under the impression that the committee chair is accountable to the PNC.
 * <QuazarGuy> link is to federal requirements for a national committee
 * <Rush> This meeting has gotten nowhere
 * The idea being that if matuck fails to put up a good site, we can decide to move in another direction.
 * <@TravisMcCrea> erixoltan: that is my belief too. I am just copy/pasting the motion.
 * <@TravisMcCrea> I think it's more just trying to reclearify this?
 * TravisMcCrea thanks, does anyone disagree with that interpretation?
 * <Brady> May I speak to this point?
 * <QuazarGuy> then it will be the interpretation we're voting on
 * <@kusanagi> I know, Rush.
 * <@TravisMcCrea> Brady: lol you were at the last second, I was bout to make the motion to vote ;)
 * <Brady> So I am granted floor?
 * <@TravisMcCrea> yes
 * <Brady> To the point of the PNC oversight of these committees/workgroups.
 * <Brady> The PNC is intended to represent the states.
 * <Brady> Therefore the IT committee would be essentially controlled by the states at a top level.
 * <Brady> This would be a light hand and almost an emergency power.
 * <Brady> So that, in the worst case, the PNC could act on behalf of the states to take back ownership of websites/servers/domains/data
 * <Brady> This is partly to protect 'property', but mainly to protect the privacy of data we end up obtaining.
 * <@kusanagi> Right.
 * I would like to generalize what Brady is saying, to make my interpretation of this more clear.
 * <Brady> In the end, we want a scalable structure for the IT committee, which allows many to be involved.
 * <Brady> That is all.
 * <@TravisMcCrea> The PNC should realistically (in my opinion) not have any/much data collected at all.
 * <@TravisMcCrea> but I know where you were going with it
 * There's a strong belief that the US Pirate Party has a very limited role, which I respect.
 * However within the USPP, the PNC should be the voice of the states and should exercise authority (within the limited role of the USPP).
 * That was my understanding. I want to state it explicitly in case there's a lot of disagreement.
 * <@kusanagi> I think yo and Brady are on the same page there
 * <@kusanagi> you*
 * <@TravisMcCrea> Is there any more discussion on the topic, or can we vote on the agenda point?
 * <@TravisMcCrea> (or would anyone like to suggest a counter motion)
 * <MrSquared> sorry I'm late :(
 * <@TravisMcCrea> MrSquared: can you identify for the record?
 * <MrSquared> MrSquared, representing Oregon
 * <@kusanagi> 90 minutes late..
 * <@kusanagi> I move to vote
 * <@TravisMcCrea> Okay seeing as there is no further discussion or debate. We will simply vote to reaffirm the position that the IT Committee is under the oversight of the PNC
 * <@TravisMcCrea> All in favour, say aye
 * aye
 * Aye
 * <MrSquared> aye
 * <@kusanagi> aye
 * <CalebLangeslag> Aye
 * <QuazarGuy> abstain
 * <QuazarGuy> 4 for
 * <Rush> aye
 * <jarod73_> AYE
 * <QuazarGuy> 6 for
 * <QuazarGuy> looks like it passes
 * <@TravisMcCrea> Okay I will call the vote QuazarGuy can you give the official tally?
 * <QuazarGuy> 6 for 1 abstain
 * <Rush> I'd say that's a paddlin
 * <Rush> I mean a pass
 * <@TravisMcCrea> Okay. It looks like the motion passes. Next order of business:
 * <@TravisMcCrea> Naming. It appears as though there is question over the name of the PNC.
 * <@TravisMcCrea> Was the person who put this on the agenda here to discuss it?
 * <@TravisMcCrea> Does anyone have any knoweldge of this topic?
 * <@kusanagi> it might be brady
 * <Brady> AYe
 * <@TravisMcCrea> Brady: is that yes it's yours... or a very late vote?
 * <Brady> Wrong terminology.
 * <Brady> I have no voting power here.
 * <@TravisMcCrea> Good point.
 * <Brady> In reference to the name - I am challenging the legality or convention of using the name 'National Committee'
 * <@TravisMcCrea> I am giving Brady the floor to discuss this topic
 * <Brady> Thank you.
 * <Brady> Essentially, in order to be recognized as a national committee there are some very high barriers.
 * <Brady> Realistically the soonest would be 2016, though pragmatically we're looking at 2020 to meet the requirements established by the FEC.
 * <Brady> At said point we could apply to be recognized.
 * <Brady> Until that point, I am not sure we can actually consider ourselves to be a national committee.
 * <Brady> While that does not matter while we are unofficial, it could pose problems when applying to be a PAC.
 * <Brady> I am suggesting an investigation into this reality and a rebranding ahead of time, based on traditional naming conventions.
 * <Brady> I cede my time.
 * <@TravisMcCrea> Do you wish to propose a motion for us to discuss?
 * <Rush> Guys, I need to head out. The name of the org doesn't really matter that much to me. Again, I want to say FLPP uses Orange and wants to keep it that way, I need to go
 * <QuazarGuy> so we need to pick a new name or do different things?
 * <Brady> I propose a motion to assign responsibility to research this, suggest other names, and present at the next meeting.
 * It looks like even for a PAC, the name wouldn't be an issue until we raise $1000.
 * Can we just have the name be assigned in the constitution?
 * <Rush> Oh, and send me a copy of the meeting
 * <@TravisMcCrea> Brady: would you find this acceptable "A motion to create a committee which will research the legality of our current name, and to find new alternatives which will report back by our next meeting"
 * Can we ask the policy committee to do it?
 * <QuazarGuy> there's a policy committe?
 * <@TravisMcCrea> Well we have no motion currently on the floor because his was kinda invalid, so if you would like to propose a motion with that in it erixoltan that would be fine.
 * <@TravisMcCrea> (A motion must be something we can vote on after debate)
 * <@kusanagi> how was that invalid?
 * OK so I would move to ask the policy committee to research the legality of the name "PNC" and to report back on alternatives at our next meeting.
 * <Brady> TravicMcCrea - this could also be assigned to the Policy workgroup as mentioned.
 * <Brady> We may need to establish this policy workgroup first.
 * <Brady> Officially
 * <@TravisMcCrea> Okay the motion on the floor is: to ask the policy committee to research the legality of the name "PNC" and to report back on alternatives at our next meeting.
 * <QuazarGuy> is there a policy committee and who is on it?
 * #policy
 * <QuazarGuy> and is policy going to work on it if assigned to them?
 * Yeah we'll have to.
 * There's been little interest in the policy committee, it might help to have an achievable task like that.
 * <QuazarGuy> haha ok
 * <QuazarGuy> vote?
 * <Brady> My motion was invalid.
 * <Brady> I have no rights to make a motion.
 * TravisMcCrea and I remixed it.
 * <@TravisMcCrea> Brady: yeah, your motion was remixed into a valid motion
 * <QuazarGuy> I motion this to be voted on right now, to ask the policy committee to research the legality of the name "PNC" and to report back on alternatives at our next meeting.
 * without attribution, sorry.
 * <@TravisMcCrea> Was there any further debate on the topic?
 * <@TravisMcCrea> (please just say yes if you have further debate)
 * <@TravisMcCrea> I am also just going to make a minor modification, please feel free to object... and will take the liberty of amending PNC to Pirate National Committee
 * <@kusanagi> erixoltan, ++;
 * ah, the other secret channel...
 * accepted as a friendly amendment.
 * <@TravisMcCrea> Seeing as there is no debate, we are now moving to vote: to ask the policy committee to research the legality of the name "Pirate National Committee" and to report back on alternatives at our next meeting.
 * <@TravisMcCrea> If you are in favour say aye
 * <@kusanagi> aye
 * <QuazarGuy> aye
 * <MrSquared> aye
 * Aye
 * aye
 * aye
 * <QuazarGuy> 5 for
 * <@TravisMcCrea> I will give 1 more minute
 * do I count?? last I checked IT comm is no longer part of PNC..
 * <QuazarGuy> I'm your vote mortona2k
 * kk
 * <@TravisMcCrea> Okay I am calling this vote, QuazarGuy can you give the official tally
 * <Jarod> Aye
 * <QuazarGuy> lol
 * <@TravisMcCrea> And allow Jarod :)
 * <QuazarGuy> 6 for
 * <@TravisMcCrea> The next topic is for: Redirection & de-emphasis of national activity - Alternative involvement for Pirates without state parties.
 * <@TravisMcCrea> Was the person who proposed this here?
 * <@kusanagi> From now on, the people who propose things reeaaaallly should be listed
 * Brady coughs/
 * <Jarod> Agreed lol
 * gesundheit
 * <@TravisMcCrea> lol I was going to say, I think they were all by the same person anyway ;)
 * <@TravisMcCrea> Brady: you have the floor
 * <Brady> Thank you.
 * <Brady> There is a good deal of discussion about this topic on the SAB list
 * <Brady> It may not be ready for discussion here.
 * <Brady> The idea is that while we plan to de-emphasize the national activity, there is a place for independent pirates in the committees and workgroups.
 * <@TravisMcCrea> (after you talk, can you include a motion for us to vote on.. so we can have something to debate)
 * <Brady> I am requesting the board to consider how we can balance de-emphasis of the national organization with the desire for individuals to be involved.
 * <Brady> I am proposing a motion that would restrict involvement in the workgroups to those who are already a member of a state party.
 * <Brady> I cede the remainder of my time.
 * <@TravisMcCrea> Brady: can you please make a motion?
 * <@TravisMcCrea> (without a motion on the floor, we can have endless discussion and get no where, thats why I request them)
 * <@kusanagi> I am proposing a motion that would restrict involvement in the workgroups to those who are already a member of a state party.
 * <@kusanagi> right there
 * <@kusanagi> lol
 * <QuazarGuy> that's an interesting motion
 * So in substance you're saying that if someone is from a state like NH, where they don't have a state party, that they couldn't be part of a workgroup?
 * Brady I was under the impression that as an observer I had no power to make a motion. I request my representative does so for me
 * <QuazarGuy> can he make his own motions?
 * <QuazarGuy> I don't think anyone objects
 * If the chairperson specifically asks, why wouldn't it be OK?
 * [22:57] *<TravisMcCrea> Brady: can you please make a motion?
 * <@kusanagi> TravisMcCrea asked him to propose a motion
 * <QuazarGuy> Brady, you can speak
 * <Brady> I motion that would restrict involvement in the workgroups to those who are already a member of a state party.
 * <Brady> I motion that involvement in the workgroups is restricted to those who are already a member of a state party.*
 * <@TravisMcCrea> Yeah, I don't see a problem with it in this case. We don't need to be hardcore on the rules.
 * <@TravisMcCrea> The motion on the floor is that involvement in the workgroups is restricted to those who are already a member of a state party.
 * <@kusanagi> Seconded.
 * <Brady> I have to step out.
 * <QuazarGuy> for discussion
 * <QuazarGuy> so it seems the idea behind this is to keep people state-centric
 * Well, I want to speak out against the motion. I think we're very fortunate if we get people who want to help and I don't think we have the luxury of turning them away. Everyone has different talents and not everyone is an organizer.
 * <@TravisMcCrea> I am not going to delegate speaking rolls as the debate has been fairly quiet, if people start talking over each other and it's confusing I may revoke that
 * <@TravisMcCrea> but it's been good so far
 * <@TravisMcCrea> (if that was a request for the floor erixoltan)
 * <QuazarGuy> how about instead, people who want to be involved in workgroups must also sign up for their state
 * Sorry, I may not be clear on the process. I don't have more to say.
 * <@TravisMcCrea> Oh okay. :) You just said I want to speak out, so I didn't know if that was going to be a request to say more :)
 * <@TravisMcCrea> Just didn't want you to feel I was neglecting you
 * thanks
 * <QuazarGuy> I don't see how we can keep people from helping if they have no state
 * <@TravisMcCrea> What we need to protect against is people who have no state, just luling around the USPP and never actually working to get their state going
 * <@TravisMcCrea> that was the problem the old pirate party had
 * <MrSquared> wouldn't people want to identify with their state?
 * <@TravisMcCrea> No, unfortunately many of them don't. It's a comfort thing, the USPP is much broader, you can just hang out online and chat about things
 * <@TravisMcCrea> without actually having to work
 * <MrSquared> Ah, I see (I'm just getting into this, so I don't know much of the history)
 * <QuazarGuy> so we should make it difficult to add themselves to a workgroup?
 * I appreciate the concern but think the motion goes too far.
 * <QuazarGuy> I just don't see how it's possible
 * <@TravisMcCrea> erixoltan: do you have an amendment or counter proposal?
 * No, not sure how to formulate it.
 * <@TravisMcCrea> Well if you need help formulating a motion, please feel free to query me. :)
 * <QuazarGuy> it really is quite a bit easier to sit infront of one's computer indefinitely than to go out and search for fellow Pirates
 * <@TravisMcCrea> exactly
 * <QuazarGuy> I think it's more achievable to drastically drop the amount of energy required to meet fellow Pirates than to stop people from participating nationally who have no state
 * <@TravisMcCrea> QuazarGuy: do you have a suggestion on how to do that?
 * <QuazarGuy> well matuck is working on it
 * <QuazarGuy> a way to take in people's contact info and send out an email once an area reaches a threshold
 * currently on the drupal site, the registration collects people's states
 * <QuazarGuy> that's really easy
 * so if people start using it, we'll have the means to do stuff like that
 * <QuazarGuy> we should probably shrink areas to counties or cities
 * future feature..
 * <QuazarGuy> haha yeah
 * How about a counter-proposal that would require people to register by state before they can participate in committees?
 * <QuazarGuy> does that violate people's privacy?
 * Not necessarily.
 * Handle and state.
 * <QuazarGuy> I think that's the most we can do
 * <MrSquared> That seems reasonable
 * <@TravisMcCrea> erixoltan: can that be an amendment proposal of "involvement in the workgroups is restricted to those who are already a member of a state party or in states which have no party, have registered their username and state with the USPP."
 * would probably also include email in the data taht way we could contact said people once state reaches threshhold
 * ad "or" after the comma and yes.
 * *add*
 * <@TravisMcCrea> There has been an amendment proposal to amend the motion to "involvement in the workgroups is restricted to those who are already a member of a state party or, in states which have no party, have registered their username and state with the USPP."
 * <@TravisMcCrea> This requires a second
 * <QuazarGuy> second
 * <@TravisMcCrea> Okay would we like to debate on this, or approve it
 * <@TravisMcCrea> (vote on it, not approve, sorry)
 * <QuazarGuy> vote
 * <QuazarGuy> second?
 * <MrSquared> seconded
 * <@TravisMcCrea> I will give a few moments for someone to state if they want to debate the valor of the amendment
 * <@TravisMcCrea> Otherwise we have to do a vote to vote... and that's annoyign :P
 * <QuazarGuy> lol I'm ready to tally
 * <@TravisMcCrea> Okay seeing no discussion, we will vote on the amendment making the new text: "involvement in the workgroups is restricted to those who are already a member of a state party or, in states which have no party, have registered their username and state with the USPP."
 * i think it needs to be ammended again to include email
 * so if someone doesn't want to affiliate with a sate, but can dev like mad, we won't let them
 * <@TravisMcCrea> (this is to amend the motion, not to pass the motion)
 * <@TravisMcCrea> (this is to amend the motion, not to pass the motion)
 * <@TravisMcCrea> All in favour of amending the motion, say aye
 * <QuazarGuy> they don't have to go to local meetings
 * aye
 * <QuazarGuy> but they will count in the threshold
 * <QuazarGuy> aye
 * <@TravisMcCrea> can we please have order while we vote :)
 * <MrSquared> aye
 * Aye
 * <Jarod> Aye
 * <@kusanagi> abstaining since i just found my charger
 * <@TravisMcCrea> I will give 2 more minutes
 * <QuazarGuy> do I have to record amendment votes?
 * <@TravisMcCrea> QuazarGuy: you should
 * <QuazarGuy> 5 for
 * <@TravisMcCrea> Okay I will call this vote
 * <@TravisMcCrea> QuazarGuy: can you please provide the official tally?
 * <QuazarGuy> 5 for
 * <@TravisMcCrea> Okay, so the new motion on the floor is "involvement in the workgroups is restricted to those who are already a member of a state party or, in states which have no party, have registered their username and state with the USPP."
 * <QuazarGuy> you forgot to add email
 * I think an IRC handle is enough and don't want to create a privacy concern.
 * <@TravisMcCrea> I honestly don't view any privacy concerns, you are signing up with a political party... it's generally expected of you to give personal information in most cases
 * <@TravisMcCrea> What we advocate for our government doing, does not have to equal what we feel private organizations (like we are) should do.
 * <@TravisMcCrea> People can opt out of an organization, they can't opt out of government
 * <QuazarGuy> no one sees the emails
 * <QuazarGuy> or states
 * <[erixoltan]> sorry, wife kicked me out of bedroom
 * <@TravisMcCrea> QuazarGuy, you are free to propose another amendment
 * <@kusanagi> LOL
 * <QuazarGuy> let me craft it
 * <@kusanagi> [erixoltan], I'm sorry to hear that
 * <[erixoltan]> I'm typing this from the doghouse :)
 * <@kusanagi> you mean sofa?
 * <@TravisMcCrea> Can we please have extra discussion in #social or #uspp
 * <[erixoltan]> yes sorry
 * <QuazarGuy> I motion this, Involvement in the workgroups is restricted to those who are already a member of a state party or, in states which have no party, have registered their username, state, and email with the USPP for spamming when their area reaches threshold to start local organization. The state and email will remain hidden and never viewed by anyone.
 * <@TravisMcCrea> would you accept a friendly amendment of "for emailing"
 * <@TravisMcCrea> instead of "for spamming"
 * <QuazarGuy> haha yeah
 * <QuazarGuy> Involvement in the workgroups is restricted to those who are already a member of a state party or, in states which have no party, have registered their username, state, and email with the USPP for emailing when their area reaches threshold to start local organization. The state and email will remain hidden and never viewed by anyone.
 * <@TravisMcCrea> Is there a second for this amendment?
 * <MrSquared> I second
 * <[erixoltan]> Point of order
 * <@TravisMcCrea> The amendment has been moved and seconded
 * <@TravisMcCrea> yes [erixoltan]
 * <[erixoltan]> I would go ahead and accept this as a friendly amendment if nobody here has a privacy concern over collecting the email.
 * <@TravisMcCrea> [erixoltan]: that wouldn't really be a valid objection to the amendment. You could argue against the amendment as a whole.
 * <@TravisMcCrea> However, the objection for a friendly amendment would have to take issue to the amendment itself
 * <@TravisMcCrea> (in this case "for spamming" becomming "for emailing"
 * <[erixoltan]> I'm sorry, I didn't realize we have to vote on a friendly amendment. My bad.
 * <@TravisMcCrea> we don't :P
 * <QuazarGuy> the whole thing was amended with a lot more
 * <@TravisMcCrea> but generally they have to be somthign that people wont object to
 * <[erixoltan]> ok
 * <QuazarGuy> should we vote on whether to accept the whole amendment?
 * <@TravisMcCrea> If I may speak against QuazarGuy's amendment for a second: the last part that it will never be seen by anyone is not going to be possible.
 * <@TravisMcCrea> If someone has database access they will see emails and states
 * <QuazarGuy> encryption
 * <[erixoltan]> Sorry I hae to suddenly drop.
 * <[erixoltan]> my apologies.
 * <Jarod> How many points to cover are left?
 * <@kusanagi> Women..
 * <@TravisMcCrea> you can't have two way encryption QuazarGuy
 * <@TravisMcCrea> If it can be encrypted and decrypted then it's going to be visable by people
 * <QuazarGuy> can we have the people managing the database take the postman oath?
 * That could work
 * <@TravisMcCrea> QuazarGuy: even if we did... your wording of the amendment says they cannot view it
 * <@TravisMcCrea> We would need a second level amendment to amend the amendment on the floor
 * <QuazarGuy> damn it
 * <@TravisMcCrea> Sorry to be the "rules guy"
 * <@TravisMcCrea> Jarod: one more topic
 * <@TravisMcCrea> which will be purple or orange
 * <QuazarGuy> no just figuring out how to fix it
 * <@TravisMcCrea> for our party colour
 * erixoltan is away: Gone away for now
 * <@kusanagi> can i suggest a fixed amend?
 * <QuazarGuy> ok
 * <QuazarGuy> got it
 * <QuazarGuy> Involvement in the workgroups is restricted to those who are already a member of a state party or, in states which have no party, have registered their username, state, and email with the USPP for emailing when their area reaches threshold to start local organization. The state and email will remain hidden and anyone who must view it shall have taken an oath to never reveal personally identifiable information.
 * <@kusanagi> that's good, i like
 * <@TravisMcCrea> Does this have a second?
 * <@kusanagi> yep me
 * <QuazarGuy> vote to inact or vote to amend?
 * <@kusanagi> i'm sorry, "inact" means what?
 * <QuazarGuy> enact?
 * <QuazarGuy> approve
 * <@kusanagi> oh
 * <@kusanagi> enact, then
 * <@TravisMcCrea> Does anyone haev debate on this amendment?
 * <@TravisMcCrea> I think erixoltan did but he went away
 * <@kusanagi> he had to leave
 * <@kusanagi> wife aggro
 * <QuazarGuy> I still have to make dinner, let's'a go?
 * <@TravisMcCrea> As the chair, I will speak for his general concern to this amendment which was: people have to reviel personal information.
 * <@TravisMcCrea> Anyway, seeing no debate
 * <@TravisMcCrea> we are not voting on the amendment Involvement in the workgroups is restricted to those who are already a member of a state party or, in states which have no party, have registered their username, state, and email with the USPP for emailing when their area reaches threshold to start local organization. The state and email will remain hidden and anyone who must view it shall have taken an oath to
 * <@TravisMcCrea> never reveal personally identifiable information.
 * <@TravisMcCrea> now*
 * <@TravisMcCrea> sorry we are /now/ voting on the amendment " Involvement in the workgroups is restricted to those who are already a member of a state party or, in states which have no party, have registered their username, state, and email with the USPP for emailing when their area reaches threshold to start local organization. The state and email will remain hidden and anyone who must view it shall have taken an
 * <@TravisMcCrea> oath to never reveal personally identifiable information."
 * <@TravisMcCrea> this is not to pass the intent of the amendment, this is to make this the official motion on the floor
 * <@TravisMcCrea> all in favour say aye
 * <QuazarGuy> aye
 * <MrSquared> aye
 * <@kusanagi> aye
 * <QuazarGuy> 3 for
 * Aye
 * <Jarod> Aye
 * <QuazarGuy> we really need shorter time limits for voting
 * <@kusanagi> 5 for
 * <@kusanagi> not even 2 minutes
 * <@TravisMcCrea> I am "eyeballing" 2 minutes
 * <@TravisMcCrea> Okay I am calling this vote. QuazarGuy what is the official tally
 * <QuazarGuy> 5 for
 * <@TravisMcCrea> Okay thats been passed
 * <@TravisMcCrea> In the sake of time I would ask someone to move to previous question on the motion on the floor
 * <@TravisMcCrea> which is " Involvement in the workgroups is restricted to those who are already a member of a state party or, in states which have no party, have registered their username, state, and email with the USPP for emailing when their area reaches threshold to start local organization. The state and email will remain hidden and anyone who must view it shall have taken an
 * <@TravisMcCrea> 8:46 PM *<TravisMcCrea> oath to never reveal personally identifiable information."
 * <QuazarGuy> I motion to vote for passing it
 * <MrSquared> I second
 * <QuazarGuy> Travis, make us vote
 * <@TravisMcCrea> okay is there any debate about just voting now?
 * <@kusanagi> no
 * <@kusanagi> almost midinght
 * <@TravisMcCrea> I just don't want to deny anyone the opportunity to speak by breaking the rules. However, I don't see any "yes"s so we are good :)
 * <@TravisMcCrea> since the motion is long, I will just ask that all in favour of the above motion, please say aye
 * <QuazarGuy> aye
 * <@kusanagi> aye
 * <MrSquared> aye
 * Yes
 * *aye
 * <Jarod> Aye
 * <QuazarGuy> 5 for
 * <@TravisMcCrea> I will call this
 * <@TravisMcCrea> QuazarGuy: is 5 the official tally?
 * <QuazarGuy> 5 for
 * <@TravisMcCrea> Good. Last topic, colour changing officially to orange or purple
 * <QuazarGuy> lol don't sound so canadian?
 * <@TravisMcCrea> Will anyone object that I break roberts rules and allow people to make an either or vote?
 * <QuazarGuy> this is for national that will not be forced onto states?
 * <@TravisMcCrea> The idea is to have a national colour which we hope states to adopt
 * <@TravisMcCrea> but they are not obligated to
 * <CalebLangeslag> Well, it should be an official recommendation for the states
 * <@kusanagi> NO U IN COLOR. MURRCA
 * <@kusanagi> sorry.
 * <CalebLangeslag> I hope there's discussion first, before voting
 * <@TravisMcCrea> the best thing is that I have arranged a great price with PPSE where we can get anything in their store for 50% off (Link: https://butik.piratpartiet.se/)https://butik.piratpartiet.se/
 * <@TravisMcCrea> (their prices are already very very low)
 * <@TravisMcCrea> There are no current parties that have stores that Ic an find that use purple... so we would have to buy our own merchandise which would be much more expensive
 * <MrSquared> I honestly think from a design standpoint, here in America, Orange would be a much better option
 * <@TravisMcCrea> Canada went with purple because it also gives us an in with the LGBT (and other letters) community.
 * Howso?
 * <CalebLangeslag> As it stands, most countries seem to use purple, it's also the first color (with it being originated in Sweden and all), and it could also have the connotation of Red (Republican) + Blue (Democrat) = Purple *shrug*
 * <CalebLangeslag> But I still freaking love orange, as of a color. xP
 * <@TravisMcCrea> because the colour resonates with the (non "leather") gay community.
 * <QuazarGuy> Germany uses orange and it seems to work with them
 * <@TravisMcCrea> At least here, our gay communities use purple frequently.
 * <@TravisMcCrea> It allows our colour to be incorporated into gay-friendly advertisements
 * <QuazarGuy> this is really coin flip worthy
 * <CalebLangeslag> Well, you never know, there may be further good points brought up shortly as well
 * <@TravisMcCrea> In the United States this would be a great direction to take, considering the LGBT community is so under represented in politics. Also again, cheap merchandise if we go purple
 * <@TravisMcCrea> Does anyone have any cheap merchandising options for orange? (not being a jerk, really I am asking)
 * Personally, as an lgbt individual, I don't really take colour into consideration when it comes to politics
 * But, thats just me.
 * <@TravisMcCrea> It's more how we use it in marketing
 * <QuazarGuy> does FL have a store? they use orange and refuse to change
 * <CalebLangeslag> I didn't even know the color had any relation to LGBT at all
 * <@TravisMcCrea> It could be a Canada thing, or a Vancouver thing
 * <@TravisMcCrea> I honestly am not really "in" on that community. I have done a pride march before, but that's about it
 * Its a global thing I believe
 * <CalebLangeslag> as of orange, I'm not quite sure what the standardized orange is. I can only find the official Pantone color for the Swedish Pirate Party, but not for the orange of the German Pirate Party.
 * <@TravisMcCrea> just saying it was a plus
 * It could be
 * <@kusanagi> CalebLangeslag, yes, it's supposed to rep QUILTBAG people
 * <QuazarGuy> (Link: http://www.zazzle.com/gifts?ch=floridapirates)http://www.zazzle.com/gifts?ch=floridapirates
 * <@TravisMcCrea> lol yeah well there is the highly over priced zazzel
 * <CalebLangeslag> and as an aside, if people dislike the "feminine" connotation of purple, there's always black as the secondary.
 * <CalebLangeslag> which is manly enough for guys to be able to wear. :P
 * <QuazarGuy> that's a point
 * <@TravisMcCrea> Honestly, I would be proud to wear a "non-manly" colour. and I think doing so gives us a better image
 * <CalebLangeslag> I love orange, but purple would probably be best to stay "most religious" to the Pirate Party movement.
 * <@TravisMcCrea> Does anyone at this point feel their opinion can be changed by further debate?
 * <MrSquared> I am fine with purple
 * <@TravisMcCrea> Okay so this vote will be different: Instead of voting aye, please vote "Orange" "Purple" or "abstain"
 * <QuazarGuy> abstain
 * Purple
 * <@kusanagi> purple
 * <CalebLangeslag> purple
 * <MrSquared> purple
 * <@TravisMcCrea> Purple
 * <QuazarGuy> 3 purples
 * <Jarod> Abstain
 * <@TravisMcCrea> okay I will call it
 * <@TravisMcCrea> QuazarGuy: official vote?
 * <QuazarGuy> 3 purples, 2 abstains
 * <@TravisMcCrea> Okay then the motion has been adopted to change the colour to purple
 * <@TravisMcCrea> I believe that was the last item, does anyone have any other busniess they would like to discuss?
 * <CalebLangeslag> State logos?
 * <CalebLangeslag> (I don't have anything specific to discuss on it though, just curious of what the current mindset is)
 * <@TravisMcCrea> Since you can't vote, and I think everyone is dying of tiredness... can someone motion to adjourn?
 * <QuazarGuy> second
 * <@TravisMcCrea> I can't actually make the motion
 * <QuazarGuy> oh I motion to adjourn
 * <MrSquared> i second
 * <@kusanagi> TravisMcCrea,
 * <@TravisMcCrea> all in favour?
 * <QuazarGuy> aye
 * <@kusanagi> CalebLangeslag just asked about the state of State logos.
 * <@TravisMcCrea> and i replied.
 * <MrSquared> aye
 * <Jarod> Aye
 * <QuazarGuy> I don't want to touch state logos CalebLangeslag
 * <QuazarGuy> 3 for adjourning
 * <@TravisMcCrea> lol we don't actually have quorum
 * <@TravisMcCrea> but because we don't have quorum it means we are adjourned anyway
 * <@kusanagi> aye
 * <@kusanagi> 4
 * <QuazarGuy> done?
 * <QuazarGuy> CalebLangeslag is at-large
 * <@TravisMcCrea> Yes, we are adjourned