PNC 10/17/12

Agenda PNC MEETING
 * 10/17/2012 21:00h EDT
 * IRC: irc.pirateirc.net
 * Channel: #pnc
 * Wiki: http://www.pirate-party.us/wiki/PNC_10/17/12

Attending

 * Orion Steele, CA
 * Bradley Hall, FL
 * Kyle Devore, OR
 * Zacqary Adam Green, NY
 * Erik Zoltan, MA
 * Jeff Talada, WA

Unexcused

 * WI
 * GA

Probation

 * OK, 12th week

At Large Members of the PNC

 * Rab Kay, Idaho
 * Caleb Langeslag, MN

Officers of the PNC

 * Travis McCrea, NY, Captain

Proceedings
Meeting closed at: 9:01 pm EDT by
 * Meeting chaired by Travis McCrea
 * Acting Secretary for this meeting is Amanda Johnson
 * Quorum is established: 5 Members out of 8 present
 * Logging Enabled: Yes

Review of previous minutes
http://www.pirate-party.us/wiki/PNC_10/10/12

Massachusetts

 * Still using liquid feedbck
 * New treasurer
 * Holding a crypto party this weekend, offering a dozen or so classes two at a time on how to protect your identity.
 * note: A crypto party is a party where people get together and teach each other how to use privacy tools like Truecrypt, TOR, and PG
 * thinking of using a blog with forums and comments to discuss new policies and get feedback from supporters

Oregon

 * Voice meeting over mumble soon

Florida

 * All three officers have been pretty busy
 * Rush is continuing to work on NSH 2
 * Working to create a club at a local university for young piratesW

New York

 * begun discussing an electoral alliance with the green party

California

 * upgrading forums and using liquid feedback
 * have two student interns, one for social media (will be replaced soon) and one for music management
 * 10th episode of pirate hour last week
 * have enough people to hold regional and state meetings
 * weekly meetings on mondays
 * working on legislation about spy drones to present to CA state legislator

Wisconsin

 * http://www.pirate-party.us/wiki/WAPP_State_Organization
 * organizational structure

IT Committee

 * sexy new forums are live at pirate-party.us/forum/
 * established new layout for forums
 * a new theme is being developed
 * waiting for content for website
 * registered uspirates.org

Bylaws Committee

 * We should dissolve this committee
 * motion to dissolve
 * motion passes 4 for, .5 at large for

Agenda Items

 * Creation of a Content Committee
 * Mildbeard, Zacqary, MrSquared, Rush, and Orionsteele shall be given authority and access to the website to create content


 * Amending the Constitution for IT Standards
 * discussion will be tabled for the IT committee to come up with standards


 * PNC State Rep Absence

AOB

 * Amending the bylaws (Sacha)
 * Meetings times and dates (Rab)
 * the idea of asynchronous meetings was discussed
 * motion to move discussion of meeting times and dates to the forums
 * 4 for, 1 at large for
 * Status of legal registration of the PNC
 * WA report
 * Is the PNC a national brand or is it a resource for the states, I keep seeing it make decisions like it is the first but the membership is of the second.
 * Motion to move discussion to email
 * Motion passes 3 for, .5 at large for


 * Next meeting: TBA at 9PM EDT
 * Meeting closed: 12:09am EDT

Logs

 * (21:01) Hear ye hear ye, I call this meeting to order and ask that all ye nobel gentlemen, gentlewomen, and gentlepersons declare your name and state for the records
 * (21:02) orion steele - california
 * (21:02) and also ye who be not nobel
 * (21:02) - Zacqary joined
 * (21:02) Kyle DeVore, Oregon
 * (21:02) Caleb Langeslag, Minnesota *(at-large)
 * (21:02) - teamcoltra set mode: +v OrionSteele
 * (21:02) - teamcoltra set mode: +v MrSquared
 * (21:02) - erixoltan joined
 * (21:02) - teamcoltra set mode: +v erixoltan
 * (21:02) Rab Kay *(guest Idaho)
 * (21:02) Amanda Johnson, MI
 * (21:02) Zacqary Adan Green, NY
 * (21:02) - mildbeard joined
 * (21:03) - teamcoltra set mode: +v Zacqary
 * (21:03) Erik Zoltan, MAPP
 * (21:03) - teamcoltra set mode: +v mildbeard
 * (21:03) - erixoltan left
 * (21:03) - mildbeard quit *(Client Quit)
 * (21:03) I am voicing Brad Hall of Florida as he has queried me that he is here, just preoccupied right now
 * (21:04) - teamcoltra set mode: +v Rush
 * (21:04) - mildbeard joined
 * (21:04) - teamcoltra set mode: +v mildbeard
 * (21:04) whoops
 * (21:04) Okay let's crank through this
 * (21:05) Sacha will be tonights QM, I am Travis McCrea the Captain. Meeting started at 9:01 EDT and we are going to start by reviewing last weeks minutes
 * (21:05) https://pnc.piratenpad.de/PNC-10-17-12
 * (21:05) I will give you guys 3 minutes to review and point out any discrepancies
 * (21:05) is that the minutes?
 * (21:05) or agenda?
 * (21:06) http://www.pirate-party.us/wiki/PNC_10/17/12
 * (21:06) sorry
 * (21:06) 3 minutes starting now :P
 * (21:07) Those minutes look like this week not last week?
 * (21:07) Bradley Hall, Florida
 * (21:07) http://www.pirate-party.us/wiki/PNC_10/10/12
 * (21:07) ftfy
 * (21:08) Thanks MrSquared
 * (21:08) Eventually I was going to get that right
 * (21:09) Okay
 * (21:09) Moving on
 * (21:09) mildbeard of Mass Pirates
 * (21:10) We have a crypto party this Sunday.
 * (21:10) We will be offering a dozen or so classes, two at a time, on how to protect your security online.
 * (21:10) We have a new treasurer.
 * (21:11) And similar to the Swedish Pirates, we are thinking of using a blog with comments and possibly a forum to discuss new policies and get feedback from our supporters.
 * (21:11) Of course we're still using liquid feedback.
 * (21:12) That's all that comes to mind.
 * (21:12) Sweet
 * (21:12) Thanks
 * (21:13) Washington and Oregon are absent
 * (21:13) err
 * (21:13) Washington and Georgia are absent
 * (21:13) Oregon is here with MrSquared
 * (21:13) Oregon is working on holding a voice meeting over mumble in the near future. A few of our members expressed interest and we are working on getting the time for when we can meet.
 * (21:13) That is it.
 * (21:14) Thanks
 * (21:14) Florida / Rush
 * (21:15) While we wait for Rush let's go to Zacqary
 * (21:15) from New York
 * (21:16) We've begun a dialogue with the New York Green Party about the possibility of an electoral alliance. New York has electoral fusion laws which allow parties to endorse candidates instead of running them, so getting some Pirate candidates on two ballot lines *(and having Green activists help us campaign) could be beneficial.
 * (21:16) Nothing official yet, though.
 * (21:17) I think that's it.
 * (21:17) Unless, teamcoltra, have you started Buffalo meetups yet?
 * (21:17) Not yet, but Aelish and I have actually gone out and found some print shops
 * (21:17) I live next door to one
 * (21:17) Oh nice.
 * (21:17) <Zacqary>Okay, I think that's it then.
 * (21:17) *(and Zacqary knows my love for print shops... I might be spending a lot of time there)
 * (21:18) California, long time no see. Whats going on with you OrionSteele
 * (21:18) <Rush>*(here)
 * (21:18) <OrionSteele>hi
 * (21:18) <OrionSteele>we have a lot but we can let Rush go first if you want
 * (21:19) Someone start writing, whoever presses enter first just keep going and the other will go next
 * (21:19) <OrionSteele>- we have enough people in california to hold local regional meetings in addition to our state level meetings. There is a group holding weekly meetings in San Diego and we coordinate with them weekly, and also keep them updated on PNC happenings.
 * (21:19) <OrionSteele>- we have 2 student interns helping us with social media and music management *(social media person is about to be replaced as they haven't done much)
 * (21:20) <OrionSteele>- we held the 10th episode of the Pirate Hour last Thursday with David Brin *(sci fi author, futurist, political analyst) and it was awesome. Tomorrow we will be speaking to a political analyst about propositions in california
 * (21:20) <OrionSteele>- we are going to launch the new website with liquid feedback and new forums some time in the next week *(hopefully)
 * (21:21) <OrionSteele>- currently looking for a voter registration drive coordinator who can help us keep track of registration cards
 * (21:21) <OrionSteele>- we are working with the CA secretary of state to take an inventory of our current numbers because some people have signed up for CAPP and then got voter cards that say they are not affiliated with any party so we have an investigation going on for each county to see whether they are actually recording our numbers
 * (21:22) <OrionSteele>- weekly meetings continue every monday and we are going to turn the Pirate Radio station on as soon as the website goes up
 * (21:22) <OrionSteele>- our next step is to draft legislation and present it to the CA legislature...i think we've decided on a law banning drone tech in our state
 * (21:23) <OrionSteele>there are other things going on but i think that covers some of the highlights
 * (21:23) awesome
 * (21:23) <Rush>All three officers of FLPP haven't been able to put as much time to FLPP as we would like, but I am slowly working on NSH2, it might be a month or so behind *(not been able to work on it as I'd like). We are working with a student to create the first Young *(Florida) Pirates club at a university in Florida. When successful, it will be a model for others. *(more)
 * (21:24) <Rush>*(continued) We're interested in CAPP's intern program and would like to learn more about it as we could totally use that here
 * (21:24) <Rush>Done.
 * (21:25) That sounds great, thanks both of you
 * (21:25) Wisconsin isn't here right?
 * (21:26) Okay
 * (21:26) I am going to take a little bit of privilege as the chair and ask to discuss something before all other reports and agenda items are discussed: Meeting times.
 * (21:27) We keep having so much to discuss that this topic keeps getting pushed back, and because we are having such low attendence after a couple hours we lose one or two people and we lose quorum
 * (21:27) let's make a doodle to choose a good time.
 * (21:27) mildbeard would you do the honors of making one up, because I am also going to type out something else?
 * (21:29) What I would like to do is hold meeting every other week *(and hopefully ween ourselves up to once a month, but we still have lots of stuff to cover). This hopefully will put less pressure on everything having to be decided by the PNC and give people more empowerment to just do shit.
 * (21:29) <Rab_K>wed doesn't work for me ever *(except tnight)
 * (21:29) What times should I put on the doodle?
 * (21:29) I would also like to cut out all reports from meetings, and have those emailed into a centeral address weekly where they will be published in some form *(on the wiki, or I was thinking maybe a github site)
 * (21:30) why not have meetings every single night >:)
 * (21:30) <Zacqary>I think we need to ask ourselves what the benefit of real-time discussion in IRC is vs. doing this in an asynchronous fashion like a discussion forum?
 * (21:30) <Rush>itspara No.
 * (21:30) mildbeard put 3-9 M-F 12-9 Sa/Su ?
 * (21:30) why not an irc as well as a forum?
 * (21:30) <CalebL[laptop]>I have a recommendation that member states utilize the mailing lists or *(newly revised forum) for debating some things to death before meetings, so that all that needs to be done is a final discussion and a vote, at meetings.
 * (21:31) Just so we can get a rough idea
 * (21:31) <Sacha>do we still have to ask permission to speak since this is an aob item?
 * (21:31) <Sacha>forum yay, mailing list boo
 * (21:31) everyone is invited to talk
 * (21:31) it affects us all equally
 * (21:31) <Sacha>I think we should try working with asynchronous meetings more seriously
 * (21:32) I, too, believe in asynchronous meetings. However, I think there is value in us all coming together to make decisions as well. It seems that when you have async meetings, people feel less accountable
 * (21:32) <Sacha>We talk about it but never work on it
 * (21:32) <Sacha>teamcoltra there are ways to prevent that
 * (21:32) <CalebL[laptop]>There's a nice shiny board specifically for the PNC, such as for forming/persuading/debating over motions/amendments.
 * (21:32) <Zacqary>How do people feel less accountable?
 * (21:33) sacha, I know there may be merging forums and mailing lists if that can be figured out... but thats a topic for IT meetings
 * (21:33) Zacqary because you can easily not participate and no one notices vs here where you get a big X next to your state
 * (21:33) <Sacha>itspara it was a reaction to caleb saying 'mailing lists'
 * (21:33) <Sacha>practically instinct no to go NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
 * (21:33) <Zacqary>As opposed to logging on just for the sake of being here and then zoning out and not participating in the discussion.
 * (21:34) <Sacha>zacqary exactly
 * (21:34) I personally prefer mailing lists, purely because mailing lists come to me vs me going to a forum
 * (21:34) <Zacqary>I've done that some nights honestly.
 * (21:34) <Zacqary>Simply because I had nothing to say.
 * (21:34) <Sacha>all the pnc needs to do is vote and discuss
 * (21:34) <CalebL[laptop]>teamcoltra: there's also RSS/Atom for the forum
 * (21:34) <Sacha>we can set aside one day like wednesday and for 24 hours the pnc can vote on it
 * (21:34) <Zacqary>It can be a forum that emails you.
 * (21:35) <Sacha>forums are perfect for discussion, my only issue is voting
 * (21:35) <CalebL[laptop]>and yes, a forum that emails you is what the IT committee's idea is for merging the mailing lists to the forum
 * (21:35) Here is the doodle poll
 * (21:35) <Zacqary>Voting can be done asynchronously too. Just set a 24 hour voting period.
 * (21:35) http://doodle.com/z2ytq3br86qf5vhx
 * (21:36) And just a note to people don't look at the date, just the days
 * (21:36) <OrionSteele>i think we should use forums to discuss agenda items and be able to identify things we need to decide about. It would be available all the time and if we work to keep it as an active space it would work well. This would free up time to schedule bi-weekly or monthly meetings to vote on the stuff discussed in the forums
 * (21:36) and your voting for a time the works best fory ou on that, does not negate us having async meetings
 * (21:36) <OrionSteele>the problem with mailing lists for me is that it comes to my mailbox and then gets drowned by all sorts of other stuff and it is very hard for me to keep an organized record of what happens via the mailing list
 * (21:36) - VLD joined
 * (21:37) <Sacha>good idea orion
 * (21:37) <Sacha>i agree with travis's most recent point
 * (21:37) to vote on a time?
 * (21:37) <Sacha>yes
 * (21:38) <Sacha>should we move discussion of the specifics of asynchronous meetings to the sexy new forums?
 * (21:38) <Sacha>Dey sexy.
 * (21:38) Maybe if we do async text meetings, we can do voice meetings every other week?
 * (21:38) <Sacha>why do voice
 * (21:38) I really think us all touching base with each other is a good thing, and I honestly prefer voice to IRC any day of the week
 * (21:38) <Sacha>I do not see what is so good about it
 * (21:38) because it's personable Sacha
 * (21:39) <OrionSteele>i like voice meetings.
 * (21:39) it's also much faster
 * (21:39) <Sacha>i find it irritating but if I am a minority I can suck it up
 * (21:39) <MrSquared>i also like voice meetings
 * (21:39) <CalebL[laptop]>Only people that it wouldn't work for, is those with satellite internet
 * (21:39) <CalebL[laptop]>But I don't think that's a problem with anyone here
 * (21:39) Our last voice meeting *(while it was short due to technical problems on my end) was very successful
 * (21:40) <Zacqary>Voice meetings are certainly easier for me to keep track of, personally.
 * (21:40) <MrSquared>we can mail some cans and string to people with that
 * (21:40) CalebL[laptop] I used to play XBL in rural alaska on a sat conection
 * (21:40) <Zacqary>But I don't think I could do it every week.
 * (21:40) was that the first one travis? or have there been more?
 * (21:40) Not every week. It also would be far less formal
 * (21:40) <CalebL[laptop]>Hopefully WebRTC will get established in web browsers; because then we could have it from a web browser, and have options for requesting to speak, etc
 * (21:40) It would be us just talking about our ideas, desires, and such.
 * (21:41) itspara?
 * (21:41) Oh yeah, that would be the first and last one
 * (21:41) <CalebL[laptop]>Voice meetings may be more difficult to keep records of
 * (21:41) Yeah CalebL[laptop], though we can record them
 * (21:41) <Rush>No voice meetings
 * (21:41) <CalebL[laptop]>Considering that we can automate the process in IRC, with an IRC bot
 * (21:42) we can record them, and someone can type notes as we go
 * (21:42) IRC and forums are good in terms of an audit trail.
 * (21:42) mumble has built in recording functions
 * (21:42) if theres any voting we can use a third party tool
 * (21:42) <Sacha>We should discuss this in the forums
 * (21:42) <Sacha>so we are not here until midnight discussing specifics~
 * (21:42) <Sacha>yay sexy new forums!
 * (21:43) The idea here is that we don't do weekly IRC meetings, we do async meetings on the forums, and then every other week we have a voice conversation using mumble or something
 * (21:43) the voice meetings would be for touching base, and not be mandatory
 * (21:43) but would be recorded and open for public record
 * (21:43) Informal PNC meetings
 * (21:43) <CalebL[laptop]>We'd need to revise our Constitution a bit then
 * (21:43) <OrionSteele>can someone post link to fourms?
 * (21:43) http://pirate-party.us/forum
 * (21:44) http://uspirates.org/forum/
 * (21:44) <OrionSteele>thanks
 * (21:44) <Rab_K>if not almost mandatory will decline
 * (21:45) I think the voice meetings would need to be optional.. but those who never show up might get brow beat, and miss out on valuable discussion
 * (21:45) <Sacha>brow beat?
 * (21:45) <CalebL[laptop]>So then how do we evaluate a state rep's perform of participating in 'async meetings'?
 * (21:46) <CalebL[laptop]>performance*
 * (21:46) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/browbeat
 * (21:46) CalebL[laptop] that was my one concern. We will just keep track of their voting
 * (21:46) <Sacha>I know what the hell it means, I mean in this context
 * (21:47) lmao
 * (21:47) <Sacha>What is your actual concern in the framework of a problem rather than an abstract acknowledgement
 * (21:48) Okay can we do this in parts so we can move on, as it was said if we try to look at the big picture we will get stuck talking about this all night. First step of just changing our weekly meeting to byweekly meetings. Would any state like to make that into a motion?
 * (21:48) One idea is we can try a bunch of different things and stick only with the ones that work, rather than getting too hung up on objections that may never be an issue.
 * (21:48) *(since I can't make motions)
 * (21:48) <Zacqary>Motion to switch to biweekly meetings
 * (21:49) <OrionSteele>second
 * (21:49) biweekly meaning every other week, not twice a week, correct?
 * (21:49) <OrionSteele>correct
 * (21:49) <Zacqary>Yes
 * (21:49) mildbeard yes
 * (21:49) <Rush>second
 * (21:49) whew
 * (21:49) Okay so conversation right now is on moving to biweekly meetings. We can discuss further issues later, but so we can be productive is there anyone against having meetings biweekly
 * (21:50) I think it's a great idea, as long as members can make a commitment to actually attend those meetings.
 * (21:50) <Sacha>I am against voting on it right now
 * (21:50) <Sacha>I think we are running into action
 * (21:50) <Sacha>without accurately thinking about what the problems are with the system we have now
 * (21:50) <Sacha>it isn't that "we have nothing to talk about"
 * (21:51) <Sacha>is a problem which would easily be solved
 * (21:51) No, it's that we have nobody to do the talking.
 * (21:51) <CalebL[laptop]>Weekly meetings are sufficient; I don't see why we're spreading it out to biweekly because of meetings being too long..
 * (21:51) <Sacha>Will bi-weekly meetings fix that?
 * (21:51) It could go either way.
 * (21:51) I think we will have more energy and also encourage people to do more of the talking outside of meetings
 * (21:51) <Sacha>I agree with Caleb, I think our issues are bigger than just bi-weekly meetings can fix
 * (21:52) <CalebL[laptop]>and it'll slow the process of the PNC even further
 * (21:52) <OrionSteele>i'd be willing to bet bi-weekly meetings are just as long as the meetings we are having right now, and it would free up some time in the off weeks for us to focus on local projects we have going on
 * (21:52) Realistically these meetings shouldn't have much discussion. You shouldh ave had the discussion with your state parties and come to hte meetings ready to vote
 * (21:52) It cuts in half our opportunities to get a quorum. It would only help if people actually show up to the biweekly meetings.
 * (21:52) <Sacha>Teamcoltra Based on what? What logical train of thought leads you to that conclusion?
 * (21:52) <Sacha>orionsteele I agree that it would give us more personal time
 * (21:52) <CalebL[laptop]>And we now have the resource of the forum to debate some things in forums, so that meetings aren't as long, so that IRC meetings can run more smoothly
 * (21:52) <Sacha>Mildbeard and actively participate,active partipation is an issue
 * (21:52) sacha good point.
 * (21:53) <Sacha>also keep in mind that Rab_K suggested this because he cannot make these meetings and times
 * (21:53) Then he *(and everyone) should fill out the poll http://doodle.com/z2ytq3br86qf5vhx#table
 * (21:53) <Sacha>this does nothing to solve the issue of having a mode of communication that cuts interested people out
 * (21:53) and tell us when does work
 * (21:53) Because right now the poll is saying Wednesday but moving it to earlier Wed
 * (21:54) <Sacha>Teamcoltra, thank you for posting that link could you please add it to the header in here and to the uspp
 * (21:54) <Sacha>I will put it in the forums if you would rather not
 * (21:54) <Sacha>That solves one problem
 * (21:54) <Rab_K>*(i don't expect everyone to accomodate me btw, although it would be neat to be involved in pnc mtg)
 * (21:54) <OrionSteele>well to be fair they aren't exactly easy for us to make every week either. We've had trouble the last month because we have meetings on monday, our video show on thursday, PNC meetings wednesday and we travel on the weekends so that's the reason i'm in favor of it.
 * (21:55) <OrionSteele>as we get bigger and coordinate with regional parts of CAPP it will be harder bc we have to hold meetings with them too
 * (21:55) <Sacha>Rab_K Everyone in here deserves to be accomodated equally so please don't worry about that imo
 * (21:55) <OrionSteele>and none of that includes meeting with people who aren't members of PP to try to get them to become involved
 * (21:55) <Sacha>Orionsteele I understand that but I think that your's is a special case
 * (21:55) Especially Idaho. :P
 * (21:55) <Sacha>I think that asynchronous meetings would also solve your issue
 * (21:55) <Rab_K>most Tuesdays I coud find a way
 * (21:56) Sacha this wouldn't negate having asynchronous meetings
 * (21:56) <CalebL[laptop]>We need to have some form of predictable voting times however
 * (21:56) <Sacha>Teamcoltra that is beside my point. My original point is that we should 1. Identify the issue
 * (21:56) this is just step one for us to agree that us all coming together and meeting at once should happen less frequently. We can still make bylaws or whatnot to have async meetings too
 * (21:56) <CalebL[laptop]>but I'm getting off topic
 * (21:56) <Sacha>2. Identify an action that would solve the issue
 * (21:57) <OrionSteele>thats true...i guess if i strip away our circumstances in our state my biggest problem with the PNC meetings is the inefficiency of this format. it takes so long to make a motion and vote on something that we are here for a long time and don't decide much, i agree that this is the larger problem and we need to be able to streamline things
 * (21:57) <Sacha>Orionsteele Exactly and I think that is a huge issue
 * (21:57) <Sacha>Not to sound like a broken record but we should use
 * (21:57) <Sacha>the new sexy forums to discuss this at length
 * (21:57) <Sacha>and give something that is so completely important to every member of uspp, all due consideration
 * (21:57) <Sacha>and not rush a vote
 * (21:58) <Sacha>just to move things along
 * (21:58) Exactly Sacha, use the forums, discuss things at length. Then every two weeks, come together hold quick official votes on things -- bobs your uncle
 * (21:58) "Sexy" new forums could allow a better discussion because of the more steady pace...
 * (21:58) I'm not allowed to post in the forums...
 * (21:58) <Sacha>Teamcoltra if after due discussion we come to that conclusion than I am happy
 * (21:58) <Sacha>mildbeard did you register?
 * (21:58) <Sacha>You have to do that because it is a completely new forum
 * (21:59) Sacha this /is/ that discussion
 * (21:59) <Sacha>teamcoltra we do not have time to go through all the details
 * (21:59) <Zacqary>Honestly I think the classic bulletin-board style of forum isn't the best method either. Ideally I'd like something that can morph between real-tme and async discussion depending on who's logged in. Kinda like Wave but not as overcomplicated. Only challenge is that I'm not sure such software exists.
 * (21:59) ah, it let me now - just a glitch.
 * (21:59) <Sacha>we have other things to discuss and this is too important
 * (21:59) <Sacha>to shove into an hour or even two and rush due to being tired
 * (21:59) <Sacha>How about this
 * (21:59) <Sacha>a vote on discussing it now or going to the forums
 * (22:00) <Sacha>then we can see how everyone feels and go for it
 * (22:00) <Sacha>of course the previous motion would need to be taken back
 * (22:00) <Zacqary>Motion to move this discussion to the forums
 * (22:00) Zacqary
 * (22:00) you need to revoke your previous motion first
 * (22:00) <Zacqary>Blah blah previous motion revoked formality etc etc motion to move this to the forums
 * (22:00) You can't have to concurrent motions
 * (22:01) <Zacqary>God these order rules are byzantine
 * (22:01) <Sacha>Zacqary I may have just fallen in loe with you.
 * (22:01) <Sacha>love*
 * (22:01) cant you table a motion and go to another?
 * (22:01) Yeah, realistically we can't just "revoke" it... we need to vote to table it. Which would be the best vote in this option anyway
 * (22:01) or am I getting confused with charges in a courtroom?
 * (22:01) THe reason is so that we can't just move past a motion that the body has moved and seconded
 * (22:02) it doesn't belong to anyone, it belongs to the floor
 * (22:02) <Sacha>Omfg starting a discussion in pnc about killing robert's rules
 * (22:02) Anyway I am going to accept Zacqary's motion as a motion to table this discussion until next week and have it further on the forums
 * (22:02) does anyone second it?
 * (22:03) second
 * (22:03) Okay all in favour of tabling this say aye, if you would like to discuss it further say nay
 * (22:03) <Zacqary>AYE
 * (22:04) aye
 * (22:04) <CalebL[laptop]>aye
 * (22:04) <Rush>aye
 * (22:04) <OrionSteele>aye
 * (22:04) AYE
 * (22:04) calling the vote
 * (22:05) Sacha can you please tally
 * (22:05) <Sacha>yes, 1 sec
 * (22:05) <Sacha>4 aye, 1 at large
 * (22:05) Okay so then back to reports - the IT Committe is up first CalebL[laptop]
 * (22:06) <Zacqary>I think if everyone said aye we can safely assume it passes
 * (22:06) <CalebL[laptop]>So, for the IT committee, we've now got the forum live and public.
 * (22:06) yay
 * (22:06) <CalebL[laptop]>As well as established the layout for the forum
 * (22:06) <CalebL[laptop]>The mailing lists shall later be merged to the forum, once we figure a reasonable means of doing so *(while keeping close to a mailing list format, for the mailing list end)
 * (22:07) - Rush quit *(Quit: http://www.mibbit.com ajax IRC Client)
 * (22:07) <CalebL[laptop]>A new theme is being developed, which closely emulates the feel of the current theme, but with some improvements
 * (22:07) <CalebL[laptop]>We're awaiting on Travis for new content
 * (22:07) <CalebL[laptop]>Once we have the content and theme, we'll be able to put a new iteration of the website live.
 * (22:08) <CalebL[laptop]>We also just today register uspirates.org as an alternate domain, as we've been having problems in regards of who owns the domain and granting access
 * (22:09) <CalebL[laptop]>And that's most of it
 * (22:09) - Rab_K is now known as Rab_K_
 * (22:09) Sweet
 * (22:09) Convention Committee
 * (22:09) who was on the committee outside of the Wisconsin team
 * (22:09) <Sacha>What about bylaws committee and officially dissolving it
 * (22:10) <Sacha>also deamon but he has been sketchy and busy lately
 * (22:10) We will get to it, I missed it
 * (22:10) <Sacha>Teamcoltra which is why I wanted to remind you ;)
 * (22:10) But first convention committee? anyone?
 * (22:11) Perhaps we should press ctrl-alt-del on the convention committee and try a do-over?
 * (22:11) <CalebL[laptop]>I don't think there's been anyone representing the convention committee for several meetings straight now
 * (22:11) CalebL[laptop] I remember you were working with them on the website for the convention or something, eh?
 * (22:11) <CalebL[laptop]>Not at all; I don't recall such
 * (22:11) mildbeard yes
 * (22:11) <Sacha>I do not recall that either
 * (22:12) well
 * (22:12) <Sacha>What is the purpose of the convention committee?
 * (22:12) Elections
 * (22:12) - Brady joined
 * (22:12) <Sacha>I personally think it should be the responsibility of the present officers
 * (22:12) I don't want to do it over. This goes to prove my point about force creating committees. Let's just do this with the PNC itself. I think we can throw together an election
 * (22:12) <Sacha>the only third party person that needs to be involved is someone not running
 * (22:12) Why not just schedule nominations for our next meeting and elections for the succeeding meeting?
 * (22:12) <Sacha>wat mildbeard said
 * (22:12) But it would be my suggestion that we talk over the details of how we are going to do the elections and then have something ready by next meeting
 * (22:13) <CalebL[laptop]>We need to have infrastructure for voting though
 * (22:13) <Sacha>let us use sexy new forums!!
 * (22:13) <Sacha>Srsly. The uses are endless people.
 * (22:13) <Sacha>Abuse them. Use them. Show them who is boss.
 * (22:13) I am not going to trust the voting system to forums that none of us have used yet *(no offense to the IT team)
 * (22:14) err it's not my call, but it's my strong recommendation to not vote using the forums
 * (22:14) <Sacha>I mean to discuss how to vote
 * (22:14) Actually... I believe you can do polling on the forums... unless caleb turned that off
 * (22:14) oh yeah for that for sure, we should use the hell out of the forums for discussing how to do it
 * (22:14) forum polling wouldn't enforce our voting rules.
 * (22:14) <CalebL[laptop]>Polling can be done. I just don't believe in silly little integers in a database that can be easily manipulated with no authenticity.
 * (22:14) However, I think we can at least open up nominations to be done next week.
 * (22:14) Probably anybody, not just members could vote.
 * (22:14) That means in the meantime we can figure out how elections will be held
 * (22:14) It could work... but it may not be the best method *(since we don't want people outside of the pnc voting, and we want to prevent fraud)
 * (22:14) <Sacha>I agree with teamcoltra
 * (22:15) <CalebL[laptop]>Perhaps we need an election committee? xP
 * (22:15) So should we have a motion to set the deadline for officer nominations as next week's meeting?
 * (22:15) <CalebL[laptop]>Just to give people a reason and structure to discuss it
 * (22:15) I also own the server that the votes would be cast too... and obviously I know I wouldn't tamper with it, but I feel uncomfortable with the thought people might think I could
 * (22:15) cast to*
 * (22:15) We could use limesurvey and individually give "survey" access to people by email
 * (22:15) <Sacha>I was bold and made a thread about elections just now
 * (22:15) <CalebL[laptop]>We also have to figure out who is eligible for voting
 * (22:16) <Sacha>Mildbeard I think we should
 * (22:16) Would someone like to make a motion that in the meantime nominations must be presented to the PNC at next weeks meeting?
 * (22:16) *(or before by emailing the SAB)
 * (22:18) <CalebL[laptop]>Point of Order: do we have quorum?
 * (22:18) <Sacha>caleb yes we do
 * (22:18) <Sacha>just barely
 * (22:18) I move that nominations be submitted either on SAB or at next week's meeting, and with a deadline of next week's meeting regardless of how they are submitted.
 * (22:19) second?
 * (22:19) <Zacqary>Secodn
 * (22:19) <Zacqary>SECOND
 * (22:19) <Zacqary>ff
 * (22:19) Anyone against this?
 * (22:19) <OrionSteele>nope
 * (22:19) <MrSquared>nope
 * (22:19) <CalebL[laptop]>Honestly. People. Pay attention to the screen.
 * (22:20) Okay well then let's just vote
 * (22:20) <Zacqary>Hence the problem with this format of meeting, Caleb.
 * (22:20) <CalebL[laptop]>We could go so much faster if everyone wasn't multitasking
 * (22:20) all in favour
 * (22:20) <CalebL[laptop]>aye
 * (22:20) <MrSquared>aye
 * (22:20) <OrionSteele>aye
 * (22:20) <Zacqary>Aye
 * (22:20) aye
 * (22:21) Called
 * (22:21) <Sacha>4 for, .5 at large for
 * (22:21) It looks like it passed but Sacha makes the final tally
 * (22:21) Okay next
 * (22:21) Sacha the bylaw committee was dissolved, yes?
 * (22:21) <Sacha>we should also vote about dissolving convention committee
 * (22:21) <Sacha>Teamcoltra, do we have automatic dissolution?
 * (22:21) <Sacha>or do we need to vote on it?
 * (22:22) <Sacha>1 sec
 * (22:22) <Sacha>TO THE BYLAWS
 * (22:22) I think we need a motion...
 * (22:22) <Zacqary>Motion to dissolve the bylaws committee
 * (22:22) <Zacqary>Aye
 * (22:22) <Zacqary>Oh wait we're not voting yet
 * (22:22) <Zacqary>Well aye
 * (22:22) <Sacha>needs a vote to dissolve
 * (22:23) anyone second Zacqary ?
 * (22:23) <CalebL[laptop]>Can I second a motion, despite being at-large?
 * (22:23) <OrionSteele>second
 * (22:23) <Zacqary>I'm going to travel forward in time to when someone seconds it and vote aye
 * (22:25) Zacqary I will make an effort to move faster, but we also need to follow some basic structure
 * (22:25) - Rab_K_ quit *(Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 * (22:25) All in favour of dissolution?
 * (22:25) <CalebL[laptop]>Aye
 * (22:25) <Zacqary>Aye
 * (22:25) <MrSquared>aye
 * (22:25) <OrionSteele>aye
 * (22:25) aye
 * (22:25) Called
 * (22:25) It passes Sacha can verify
 * (22:25) next
 * (22:25) Creation of Content Committee
 * (22:25) Whose motion is this?
 * (22:25) <CalebL[laptop]>No idea
 * (22:25) <CalebL[laptop]>Sacha, I assume
 * (22:25) Sounds like mine.
 * (22:26) mildbeard go ahead
 * (22:26) the idea was to have a specific committee that would be responsible for coordinating anyone who wants to provide content to the site, and for signing off on content in the event that there is any doubt if it is appropriate.
 * (22:27) Anyone want to second the motion of creating a content committee *(this just opens up debate, not lead to a vote)
 * (22:27) My idea is that this would be a "lean and mean" thing and accountable to the PNC if anyone thought it wasn't going well.
 * (22:27) <Sacha>no can we talk about it first
 * (22:27) <Sacha>I had ideas
 * (22:27) <Sacha>oh and can at large speak
 * (22:27) Move to create a content committee, accountable to the PNC and responsible for providing and approving content submitted to the site.
 * (22:27) <CalebL[laptop]>Discussion comes after a second
 * (22:28) <CalebL[laptop]>and I know I can speak, but I'm saying if I can second a motion or not
 * (22:28) <Zacqary>Second
 * (22:29) <CalebL[laptop]>Any discussion?
 * (22:29) I dislike the idea of creating this committee
 * (22:29) <Sacha>Yeah, I talked about in the wiki
 * (22:29) just like I was against creating a convention committee.
 * (22:29) When you don't let committees form organically they never work
 * (22:29) <Sacha>Teamcoltra my guess is be bold and you will use convention committee as an example
 * (22:29) <CalebL[laptop]>The role of content should be of whom is responsible of the public image of the party *(Chair, I believe)
 * (22:29) <Sacha>I disagree
 * (22:29) Sacha what committee HAS worked?
 * (22:30) Bylaws committee failed
 * (22:30) <CalebL[laptop]>If people have suggestions for content, then they can shove it to Travis and get it approved
 * (22:30) Constitional Committee failed
 * (22:30) <CalebL[laptop]>And done
 * (22:30) the IT committee has worked.
 * (22:30) <Sacha>Teamcoltra The committee that made this, the bylaws committee, the constitution committee, the bylaws committee
 * (22:30) the Convention Committee failed
 * (22:30) <Sacha>it depends on the people
 * (22:30) The constitutional committee did not fail.
 * (22:30) <Sacha>not how it is created
 * (22:30) <Sacha>Mildbeard all of those were a success
 * (22:30) <CalebL[laptop]>Argument of the bylaws committee is that it wasn't really a formal committee. Just to people talking over IM likely.
 * (22:30) mildbeard that's fair, but it did pander off there for a good few weeks
 * (22:30) <CalebL[laptop]>two people8
 * (22:30) <CalebL[laptop]>*
 * (22:31) <Sacha>Caleb bullshit, it was a committee
 * (22:31) <Sacha>and we had four people
 * (22:31) <CalebL[laptop]>IRC channel, mailing list, formal meetings?
 * (22:31) <Sacha>Caleb all of the above
 * (22:31) <Sacha>formal meetings were called up in IRC when I pulled people into #uspp-bylaws
 * (22:31) <Sacha>or #bylaws
 * (22:32) <Zacqary>Only a mailing list is necessary or a functioning committee, as I proved with the Constitution Committee.
 * (22:32) <Zacqary>Yeah, I screwed up with the bylaws because my personal life exploded around that time.
 * (22:32) I am not against having this committee. I am just asking that the people who want to be in this committee just come together and start making content for the website.
 * (22:32) <Zacqary>But I will be damned if formal meetings are a requirement for getting anything done.
 * (22:32) <Zacqary>I mean, look at this meeting.
 * (22:32) <Sacha>Teamcoltra that was my idea because I am already doing that.
 * (22:32) <Sacha>But you had to interrupt me.
 * (22:32) Sacha then perfect the committee isn't needed
 * (22:33) atleast not officially
 * (22:33) <CalebL[laptop]>But yes, teamcoltra makes a good point. Committees should already be doing their work, in order to prove their purpose and activeness
 * (22:33) I'm personally volunteering to act as chair of the content committee.
 * (22:33) <Zacqary>It's IRC. There's no such thing as an interruption.
 * (22:33) <Sacha>Zacqary I know, I was just pointing out that Travis didn't give anyone a chance to speak up about it
 * (22:33) <CalebL[laptop]>And no, what I listed are not required. It's just things that show whether something is structured or not
 * (22:34) <Sacha>Teamcoltra I talked to kusi abot putting this on the agenda in uspp sometime because it is good to say this committee will exist
 * (22:34) <Sacha>flock to it my brothers
 * (22:34) <Sacha>and the biggest reason why I want it
 * (22:34) <Zacqary>Sometimes structure is overrated.
 * (22:34) mildbeard so my suggestion stands, and I say this with respect because I know you do a lot of shit and do get shit done: get a group of people together and start working on things and show this board that the content committee should be a fully recognized part of this board
 * (22:34) <Zacqary>Adhocracy works.
 * (22:34) <Sacha>is so that caleb will stop asking you to do it
 * (22:34) <CalebL[laptop]>Then why are people bickering over having a special shiny label of being considered a committee with no special status? xP
 * (22:35) <Zacqary>I know, right?
 * (22:35) <Sacha>Caleb we're not
 * (22:35) teamcoltra - in that case I'm going to start telling people that they need to go through the content committee if they want to add anything to the site. Does anyone here object to that?
 * (22:35) Yes
 * (22:35) <Sacha>what I am bickering about is that I do not want to do a whole bunch of work, and then have the PNC come in and go JK NEW COMMITTEE LISTEN TO THEM
 * (22:35) <Zacqary>As chair of the Constitution Committee I hereby apologize for allowing anything about committees to go in that damn thing.
 * (22:36) <Sacha>Zacqary Calm down. I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about.
 * (22:36) <Sacha>The only use for a committee isn't to have a shiny label
 * (22:36) <CalebL[laptop]>So then what about "BE BOLD" and just doing the work?
 * (22:36) The idea is that a single body should not just be god of the content... not yet at least. That's my point, just make content and send it to me / kusi or the PNC and we will approve it for now, just like anyone can do
 * (22:36) <Sacha>and to dismiss people's concerns about structure because you are unconcerned is dismissive
 * (22:36) <CalebL[laptop]>Rather than complaining over a label?
 * (22:36) <Sacha>What you are asking for
 * (22:36) <Sacha>is for people to willingly take on the short stick
 * (22:37) <Sacha>so the PNC doesn't have to
 * (22:37) <Sacha>1. Do all the work
 * (22:37) <Sacha>with 2. No guarantee that it will even be accepted
 * (22:37) <Sacha>3. If people question your authority you have fucking none
 * (22:37) <Sacha>4. No oversight and no guarantee that your ideas will be accepted
 * (22:37) <Sacha>the PNC controls the website officially
 * (22:37) <CalebL[laptop]>This isn't touchy-feeling camp where we approve your content because we feel bad for you.
 * (22:38) <CalebL[laptop]>It's about who generates sufficient content period
 * (22:38) <CalebL[laptop]>If people have issues with the Chair's decisions, then get a new chair
 * (22:38) <Sacha>that is the stupidest thing I have heard of
 * (22:38) <CalebL[laptop]>rather than electing someone that doesn't represent you
 * (22:38) <Sacha>A leader is the final word
 * (22:38) <Sacha>that doesn't mean don't speak
 * (22:38) <Sacha>shut u
 * (22:38) <Sacha>up*
 * (22:39) <Sacha>and if you disagree
 * (22:39) I'm going to withdraw my motion. I'm satisfied with the general idea that we have basic approval to have a content committee on an ad-hoc basis without needing to be formally appointed by the PNC.
 * (22:39) <Zacqary>Thank you. Srsly people just do stuff.
 * (22:39) <Sacha>I hope you have fun with that
 * (22:40) <Zacqary>I'm sure they will.
 * (22:40) <CalebL[laptop]>Point of Order: can there be two at-larges for a state? I have another from my state that may want to speak at times
 * (22:40) What I am going to do for a happy middle ground, is to extend my authority to approve content for the website to mildbeard *(as well as Zacqary, MrSquared, Rush, and OrionSteele) as individuals. This way there is no bottle neck, if any of those people give your content the thumbs up, it can go on the website.
 * (22:40) they have all been active members of the party and I trust their judgement fully
 * (22:40) <OrionSteele>ok
 * (22:41) <Zacqary>Well thank you.
 * (22:41) <Zacqary>I appreciate that.
 * (22:41) Okay so now next topic?
 * (22:41) <CalebL[laptop]>So shall they pester the IT committee folk *(myself) to make the content changes, or should access be granted?
 * (22:41) CalebL[laptop] give them all access
 * (22:42) <CalebL[laptop]>Noted
 * (22:42) * teamcoltra let's them eat cake
 * (22:42) ;)
 * (22:42) <CalebL[laptop]>So, any response to my prompt? xP
 * (22:42) <CalebL[laptop]>regarding: <CalebL[laptop]> Point of Order: can there be two at-larges for a state? I have another from my state that may want to speak at times
 * (22:42) CalebL[laptop] we have never really gotten into this although I do see it as an issue
 * (22:43) You can have an at-large representative and an alternate. the alternate only does anything if the primary rep is not present.
 * (22:43) if you guys can work together, then I would suggest that you guys just take turns.
 * (22:43) If you guys are in conflict I think the PNC would have to decide
 * (22:43) <Sacha>teamcoltra it is in the constitution or the bylaws that you can't
 * (22:43) <Sacha>one state one voice unless you are an officer
 * (22:43) <CalebL[laptop]>And if not, can a person without any status speak?
 * (22:44) CalebL[laptop] when called upon just like any at-large *(or at least that's how I would enforce it without reading the rules)
 * (22:44) but one state, one vote thats the key part here.
 * (22:44) <CalebL[laptop]>Because I'm not sure if efk has anything to add. Otherwise proceed
 * (22:44) Also we try to make sure that one state isn't overwhelming the debate... but again I would just have to play that by ear
 * (22:44) Nothing at this time.
 * (22:45) <CalebL[laptop]>Understood
 * (22:45) Okay next topic: Amending the Constitution for IT Standards
 * (22:45) CalebL[laptop] brought this up *(though remember it will need a state to make the motion if we want it)
 * (22:45) CalebL[laptop] go ahead
 * (22:45) <CalebL[laptop]>actually I didn't bring it up in this verbage. xP
 * (22:46) <CalebL[laptop]>I was just emphasizing that I was envisioning for the IT committee to form IT standards, and have the PNC vote on it, just like any other motion.
 * (22:46) Your suggestions require a constitional amendment to add your requirements to the state eligibility requirements
 * (22:46) <CalebL[laptop]>This is a good point
 * (22:46) <Sacha>Was it even decided if they will be requirements or suggestions
 * (22:46) - Rab joined
 * (22:46) <Sacha>a suggestion will not being in the state membership requirements
 * (22:47) <CalebL[laptop]>I think there should be requirements, but that authority should be rarely used
 * (22:47) <Sacha>why should there be requirements
 * (22:47) What specific rules would you suggest?
 * (22:47) <CalebL[laptop]>For proper handling of personal information
 * (22:48) CalebL[laptop] could you lay it out as exactly how you would like it to be voted on?
 * (22:48) <CalebL[laptop]>Such as for recording private information for financial contributions, etc
 * (22:49) Well, we have a core value already about personal privacy. And no state can be admitted that doesn't adhere to that core value.  Also, a lot of that comes under the heading of election laws.  So I'm wondering what aspects of this aren't already covered?
 * (22:49) <CalebL[laptop]>Well, I envision that the IT committee would simply be for forming the standards, there doesn't necessarily need to be oversight within the committee
 * (22:50) <CalebL[laptop]>mildbeard: specific approved encryption algorithms, code security audits, etc
 * (22:50) <CalebL[laptop]>I think election laws are fairly vague, such as being "oh, just make sure it's 'secure'" and nothing more
 * (22:51) Hmm.
 * (22:51) <CalebL[laptop]>while a person could be using null encryption and MD4 hashing. xP
 * (22:51) <Sacha>Unless the IT group is willing
 * (22:51) <Sacha>to go in there and do it for every single state
 * (22:51) <Sacha>I think it is unfair to do so
 * (22:52) <CalebL[laptop]>Code audits would be for things that collect private information
 * (22:52) <CalebL[laptop]>And most of the software tools are used the same across states
 * (22:52) <Rab>the states can be helped by the best minds available via uspp
 * (22:52) <Sacha>If you will personally guarantee that you will help every single state party and potential party that struggles with it to be up to code
 * (22:52) <Sacha>Then I am fine with it
 * (22:52) <CalebL[laptop]>So it's a matter of auditing the choices, as well as any custom made solutions
 * (22:53) This is a very valid point, but I am not sure that it is the kind of thing that we should be putting in the Constitution. I'd be much more comfortable having it in the bylaws.
 * (22:53) <Sacha>Rab that isn't a guarantee, I dislike vague assumptions that help will be provided by vague people
 * (22:53) <CalebL[laptop]>But yes, I forgot to emphasize: what I'm speaking of is things that would be of requirement status; while there would still be some things that are recommendations as well
 * (22:53) <Rab>good point Sacha
 * (22:53) <Sacha>Mildbeard I personally feel that it was be prohibitive to people starting parties when they do not have backend knowledge of websites
 * (22:54) <CalebL[laptop]>There shouldn't be any wording that's specific to the IT committee in the Constitution, I believe
 * (22:54) sacha that's also a valid concern.
 * (22:54) <CalebL[laptop]>But we'll very likely be proving that infrastructure managed for the states
 * (22:54) <CalebL[laptop]>providing*
 * (22:54) <CalebL[laptop]>of hosting and so on
 * (22:54) <Sacha>Very likely is a could in the sky
 * (22:54) <Sacha>it leaves the option of failure
 * (22:55) <CalebL[laptop]>and if you can't securely handle information, you shouldn't be collecting it
 * (22:55) <Sacha>That is a personal opinion which should not be a requirement of becoming a state party
 * (22:55) Sacha, seriously?
 * (22:55) <Sacha>Yeah, seriously
 * (22:55) We should take this seriously. We are supposed to be THE party of privacy online.  We definitely should be trying to act in a way that would be a model for others to emulate.
 * (22:55) <Sacha>I think we should
 * (22:55) <Sacha>which should mean give people the ability to do it, help them to do it
 * (22:56) <Sacha>Don't expect them to do it and then punish them if they do not know how
 * (22:56) privacy everywhere, not just online
 * (22:56) Sacha if you don't know how, then don't collect the information
 * (22:56) but yeah
 * (22:56) <Sacha>I'm highly in favor of suggestions
 * (22:56) If you don't know how, reach out to someone who will help you
 * (22:56) <Sacha>Teamcoltra would not a registration form be a collection of information?
 * (22:56) <Sacha>teamcoltra And if no one answers?
 * (22:56) - VLD quit *(Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 * (22:57) <Sacha>No one is required to answer or help.
 * (22:57) <CalebL[laptop]>Because honestly, next thing someone will be doing is using a Google Docs form for collecting donations with storing credit card numbers and CVCs *(NEVER TO BE STORED) in plaintext
 * (22:57) <CalebL[laptop]>and that would be a massive liability
 * (22:57) <Sacha>Not a liability to the PNC caleb
 * (22:57) <Sacha>only to themselves
 * (22:57) we need to have an approach that splits the difference: that guarantees that we aren't mishandling anyone's private information, while at the same time not being an obstacle to growing the party into new states.
 * (22:57) <CalebL[laptop]>A liability to our public image as a whole
 * (22:57) <Zacqary>It's a liability to the entire notion of the Pirate Party
 * (22:57) Sacha yes it's a liability to the PNC.
 * (22:57) <Rab>never underestimate the power of cluelessness
 * (22:57) Of course, we do need to have different levels of security. If a person wants to create a form to collect name, zipcode, email address that shouldn't be forced to be encrypted or something
 * (22:58) <Sacha>Caleb ony as long as it takes each state to come out and say we're fine and here is what we are doing
 * (22:58) <Sacha>Like I said
 * (22:58) <Sacha>if you are not providing a guaranteed resource
 * (22:58) <Sacha>that will help people come into line with your requirements
 * (22:58) <Sacha>that is simply unfair
 * (22:58) Sacha then you are going to have to learn on your own, or not do it
 * (22:58) <CalebL[laptop]>It's REALLY not that hard to audit them
 * (22:58) <Zacqary>So let's guarantee it then. Why do we have a national body at all if we're not going to provide assistance to each other?
 * (22:59) <CalebL[laptop]>We don't have to host it for them to audit it; but it makes it dead simple.
 * (22:59) <Sacha>teamcoltra Proved my point. I was expecting you to say that.
 * (22:59) :) I appreciate you expect that I am going to say intelligent things
 * (22:59) <Sacha>Teamcoltra Cute. You know exactly what I meant.
 * (23:00) <Sacha>I agree with Zacqary
 * (23:00) <CalebL[laptop]>But they still have to be accountable to the standards
 * (23:00) This polarization of the argument is pointless and childish.
 * (23:00) <Sacha>If it is so easy
 * (23:00) <Sacha>then just be a guaranteed resource
 * (23:00) There's no need for it to be one or the other.
 * (23:00) It can be both.
 * (23:00) <Sacha>Mildbeard okay, what is your suggestion
 * (23:00) mildbeard elaborate?
 * (23:00) First, this shouldn't be a constitutional amendment.
 * (23:01) Let's ask the IT committee to come up with an auditing standard and a set of questions that can be asked when a state applies for membership.
 * (23:01) we have flexibility because it's still a majority vote.
 * (23:01) <Sacha>mildbeard the requirements for being a membership are in the constitution, it would not make sense to have it elsewhere.
 * (23:01) <CalebL[laptop]>It doesn't just end at them becoming a member, that's when they're just forming and have no resources.
 * (23:02) sacha I disagree.
 * (23:02) The PNC has to vote, and we can have questions we ask that aren't in the constitution, and that may influence our votes.
 * (23:02) <Sacha>mildbeard fair enough
 * (23:03) calebl[laptop] we should also ask the IT committee to create a set of objective standards for states to follow.
 * (23:03) but we shouldn't impose them retroactively on existing state parties.
 * (23:03) <Sacha>and a pledge to provide resources on how to create them
 * (23:03) <Sacha>mildbeard disagree
 * (23:03) Let's walk before w efly.
 * (23:03) <Sacha>why do old states get a blank state
 * (23:03) mildbeard - I am not sure about that last part, if security is going to be important, this one should apply to everyone *(and normally I am good on not going retroactive)
 * (23:03) I'm not saying existing states get a blank check.
 * (23:04) "I am an old party... so I get to store all passwords in plaintext"
 * (23:04) :D
 * (23:04) However we should proceed incrementally. Don't start as a requirement yet.
 * (23:04) <CalebL[laptop]>The PNC represents the states, if a majority of existing states can't meet a standard, and they vote it down, then it's not a standard.
 * (23:04) we will probably learn a lot in the process.
 * (23:04) <Sacha>mildbeard why should it be easier for an old party, won't that look worse on our image
 * (23:04) <Sacha>since image is the biggest concern voiced
 * (23:06) I'm not saying it should be easier for an old party. The rules should be the same for everyone. Just you need time if you already have a site and you already have written code or implemented stuff. Retrofitting is not an instantateous process.
 * (23:06) <CalebL[laptop]>Anyway, as I've stated, standards will be voted in by the PNC. If the standard is too daunting, or if people don't understand it, then all the states shouldn't be sheeple and just vote 'aye'. Simple enough.
 * (23:07) <CalebL[laptop]>The IT committee shall have no special status, just simply be for forming these standards and presenting them to the PNC.
 * (23:07) <Sacha>Sadly most of the states are sheeple
 * (23:07) We have to balance idealism and realism. Have a strong standard that applies to everyone, but understand that you can't just start kicking out states who are protecting privacy but don't use the same exact standard.
 * (23:08) Okay what I would like to do is have this tabled, ask the IT Committee to come together on a detailed set of dos and don'ts rulebook they would like to see implemented and we will go from there
 * (23:08) does that sound good?
 * (23:08) Our first concern should be to grow the party.
 * (23:08) <CalebL[laptop]>Good enough
 * (23:08) yes
 * (23:08) <Sacha>I agree with that mildbeard which is why i hate this so much
 * (23:08) <Zacqary>Sacha when I vote sheepleishly it's because I want the meeting to fucking end. That's a problem with the meeting format, not apathy.
 * (23:08) - QuazarGuy joined
 * (23:08) <CalebL[laptop]>That's a problem with representation. :P
 * (23:08) <Sacha>Zacqay still apathy
 * (23:08) <CalebL[laptop]>If you're not patient, you shouldn't be a rep
 * (23:09) <Sacha>caleb disagree
 * (23:09) <Sacha>way disagree
 * (23:09) <Sacha>teamcoltra I agree to what you said
 * (23:09) <Zacqary>Okay fine bye guys
 * (23:09) <CalebL[laptop]>I was at a meeting from 6am to 1am the next day in the same meeting, that's representation
 * (23:09) - Zacqary quit *(Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.89 [Firefox 15.0.1/20120905151427])
 * (23:09) QuazarGuy are you really here?
 * (23:09) <QuazarGuy>pad is private
 * (23:09) sweet
 * (23:09) - teamcoltra set mode: +v QuazarGuy
 * (23:09) right on time
 * (23:09) <QuazarGuy>what's up?
 * (23:09) https://pnc.piratenpad.de/PNC-10-17-12
 * (23:09) <QuazarGuy>Jeff Talada, WA
 * (23:10) that shouldn't be private
 * (23:10) <Sacha>caleb a narrow view of representation, but feel free to continue to disregard people's contributions based on your own subjective definition
 * (23:10) I didn't set it so I don't know but other people are in it
 * (23:10) i do hope you got breaks caleb
 * (23:10) <Sacha>hi jeff
 * (23:10) <QuazarGuy>works now
 * (23:10) <CalebL[laptop]>itspara: barely. Almost missed a vote by running off to get food, when a candidate was giving a speech
 * (23:11) Okay since we cannot have a vote on the last issue because it would not reach quorum we are just going to automatically table it
 * (23:11) <CalebL[laptop]>It was a Congressional District convention for official nomination of candidates
 * (23:11) *(there are only 3 people who saw the conversation who can vote to quorum, since QuazarGuy wasn't there)
 * (23:11) next topic *PNC State Rep Absence
 * (23:11) <Sacha>we hae quorum
 * (23:11) <Sacha>ohh nvm
 * (23:12) Whose agenda item is this?
 * (23:12) <CalebL[laptop]>Mine
 * (23:12) <CalebL[laptop]>So yes, if we have things in the Constitution, we should be enforcing them accordingly. Oklahoma has been probationary for 12 meetings now
 * (23:12) CalebL[laptop] - technically your motions would go into AOB but it's the last item anyway
 * (23:13) <CalebL[laptop]>You mentioned to have it as an official point instead of AOB, anyway
 * (23:13) <CalebL[laptop]>Here's the meeting attendance: https://docs.google.com/a/techsanity.us/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgWyxuBB8Bi-dC1TMFVTQnpMNFpIc0tnNmRtamlpZXc#gid=0
 * (23:13) <Sacha>caleb at-large is not allowed to put things as agenda
 * (23:13) :P We will discuss it later, just go on
 * (23:14) <CalebL[laptop]><CalebL[laptop]> Travis; shall I add my point about PNC State Rep Absence to AOB?
 * (23:14) <CalebL[laptop]> No make it a full point
 * (23:14) *(note that CalebL[laptop]'s list is in reverse chronological
 * (23:14) <CalebL[laptop]>Correct
 * (23:14) <Sacha>caleb, you are at large, we are not allowed to discuss it w/o it being in aoB or with permission
 * (23:14) CalebL[laptop] again, I am saying we will discuss it later. I am sure I did, but I was being stupid but now isn't the time to discuss where it goes)
 * (23:14) <CalebL[laptop]>It's been well over a month, as is the cutoff for probationary status, regarding Oklahoma
 * (23:15) Sacha, CalebL[laptop], everyone we ware not discussing if it should be discussed, we are just dicussing the point
 * (23:15) <Sacha>teamcoltra okay
 * (23:15) <Sacha>Then we shouldn't discuss it at another meeting
 * (23:15) <Sacha>ok quit the PNC and hasn't come back
 * (23:15) <CalebL[laptop]>Alternately, I was going to be an asshat and call for California to be put to probationary status, for being absent for many meetings
 * (23:15) <Sacha>bro is done
 * (23:16) <CalebL[laptop]>and Washington is liable as well
 * (23:16) <Sacha>Caleb do you still want to?
 * (23:16) I don't think you are being a jerk for following the rules
 * (23:16) <Sacha>I would personally rather change to probation status
 * (23:16) these are not personal attacks
 * (23:16) these are wakeup calls to the states who are affected
 * (23:16) <QuazarGuy>I would like to add, that it is very likely once all bureaucracy is in place meeting will become very rare
 * (23:16) <Sacha>also wat teamcoltra said as it was true, until the last point
 * (23:16) <CalebL[laptop]>And that's why I want these enforced
 * (23:16) I think attendance is important. We want to be careful not to kick out all of our member states thugh.
 * (23:17) <Sacha>I do not think attendance is important
 * (23:17) <Sacha>what are the major things that the pnc has produced
 * (23:17) We should modify our process to make it more inclusive.
 * (23:17) I actually think we removed Oklahoma as a member CalebL[laptop]
 * (23:17) <Sacha>and who produced them
 * (23:17) <Sacha>teamcoltra no we didn't
 * (23:17) after putting them on probation
 * (23:17) <CalebL[laptop]>So if we can't hold meetings do to lack of quorum, and state reps not representing their states, then there certainly are issues
 * (23:17) because there was big todo about it
 * (23:18) <Sacha>calebL the resolution shouldn't be to kick out states
 * (23:18) The argument that the PNC is not important has no weight here unless you are moving that we disband.
 * (23:18) <Sacha>Mildbeard I was saying that attendance is not important
 * (23:18) <Sacha>unless you want to change it to active participation
 * (23:18) Here is the thing people forget: When we have a state as a full member, they count towards quorum
 * (23:18) teamcoltra - you're right that's a critical issue.
 * (23:18) <Sacha>\
 * (23:19) <Sacha>We should just change the procces entirely imo, I do not think it is reflecting who actively participates in the uspp at large
 * (23:19) <QuazarGuy>I think there are extenuating circumstances
 * (23:19) What if we had two more states go inactive? We couldn't legally have meetings
 * (23:19) <Rab>if they miss x meetings, they don't count toward quorum
 * (23:19) <Sacha>and if our emphasis is participating in the states
 * (23:19) <Sacha>then why have that requriement
 * (23:20) <CalebL[laptop]>Does probationary states count towards quorum?
 * (23:20) <Rab>another solve: change quorum. I was on a board we went to 40% worked fine that year
 * (23:20) <QuazarGuy>the meetings every single week on the same day at the same time are a heavy burden
 * (23:20) - finn joined
 * (23:20) <Sacha>Caleb Not my knowledge
 * (23:20) <Sacha>What quazarguy said
 * (23:20) QuazarGuy I know, we discussed that first thing
 * (23:20) <QuazarGuy>oh
 * (23:20) <Sacha>and they are completely pointless if you do not care about the national level and only want to work on your state
 * (23:20) we are going to figure out what is best to solve for it and talk about it first thing next week
 * (23:20) <Sacha>which is what the PNC has said they are supposed to do
 * (23:20) to give people some time to mull it over *(even though that was my "homework" at last weeks meeting)
 * (23:20) Quazarguy - http://doodle.com/z2ytq3br86qf5vhx
 * (23:21) - finn quit *(Changing host)
 * (23:21) - finn joined
 * (23:21) <Sacha>Why do we have people primarily intereted in state level for whom these national meetings are merely a distraction being the main voting force
 * (23:21) <Sacha>the logic isn't there imo
 * (23:21) <CalebL[laptop]>I would believe that a rep should be able to arrange an alternate
 * (23:21) <CalebL[laptop]>Sacha, it's common practice over all other political parties
 * (23:22) <Sacha>CalebL[laptop] Most other third parties are failing to get elected into office in high enough numbers to matter
 * (23:22) <Sacha>Following what they do doesn't really make sense to me, but I am contrary
 * (23:22) Lets keep it on track
 * (23:22) <CalebL[laptop]>Oh, and the bipartisan parties have it working for them, amirite?
 * (23:23) <QuazarGuy>what's the doodle for? I thought weekly was discussed a problem
 * (23:23) <Sacha>CalebL they are currently running the country so yeah
 * (23:23) <Sacha>Quazarguy we are going to discuss bi weekly or monthly meetings in the forums
 * (23:23) QuazarGuy - it's for finding a better time that works for everyone. We've separately discussed making it bi-weekly and using the new PNC forum as a supplement.
 * (23:23) QuazarGuy even if it was biweekly or whatnot we would still need to know when people are available. We are also talking about asynchronous meetings, but we should discuss that in #uspp or something because we are on a different topic
 * (23:24) <CalebL[laptop]>Either way, if states continue to not be present, especially after changing to biweekly meetings in the future, I would encourage moving some states to probationary status
 * (23:25) I think the topic at hand is what do we do about these parties who are not attending? It's not my desire to kick any party out -- but if a party is hurting our ability to reach quorum then I would like them to stop that somehow.
 * (23:25) <QuazarGuy>have we tried assertive letters?
 * (23:25) California has been busy, but with the number of people they have in their party -- I think they should also be able to find someone to attend a meeting every once in a while
 * (23:25) QuazarGuy I usually try to call people
 * (23:26) <CalebL[laptop]>Partially unrelatedly, isn't it responsibility of QM for checking in on states *(including forming states, I think)?
 * (23:26) it is now CalebL[laptop]
 * (23:26) <Sacha>Not according to the bylaws it isn't
 * (23:26) <QuazarGuy>I agree with your assessment of CA
 * (23:26) <Sacha>and according to the bylaws the PNC has to vote new duties
 * (23:26) <Sacha>not the captain.
 * (23:27) Oh sorry it's just **They will maintain a database of PNC members.
 * (23:27) not actually following up with that list
 * (23:27) <Sacha>teamcoltra thank you for the correction, the duty is not officially assigned
 * (23:28) Okay does someone want to make a motion of some kind on this agenda item?
 * (23:28) if not we need to move on and you guys can discuss it more in the forums
 * (23:29) Okay we are moving on to amending the bylaws by Sacha
 * (23:30) <Rab>what does aob mean?
 * (23:30) <CalebL[laptop]>Any Other Business
 * (23:30) <Sacha>decision making was left out of the bylaws due to a copying error
 * (23:30) <Sacha>we should likely vote it into the bylaws
 * (23:30) <Sacha>http://piratepad.net/Tt7DOQkcqJ
 * (23:31) It seems like we already voted on it, no? can't we just rectify it if it's truly a copying error?
 * (23:31) <CalebL[laptop]>One thing I slightly worry about is inconsistency; as item 1 is already defined in the Constitution
 * (23:31) Sacha voting rights does not include at large
 * (23:31) <Sacha>mildbeard you told me that I had to vote
 * (23:31) <Sacha>I asked you last week.
 * (23:32) <Sacha>*eyes of disapproval8
 * (23:32) at large states can vote.
 * (23:32) <Sacha>I know
 * (23:32) <Sacha>this copying and pasting shit is not working
 * (23:33) "voting members" could easily be inferred to mean "full members"
 * (23:33) <Sacha>why did you say that
 * (23:33) <QuazarGuy>how dare thou condemn thine holy ctrl+c, ctrl+v
 * (23:33) <Sacha>they are in there as observing members
 * (23:33) except that voting rights are explicitly defined in the constitution?
 * (23:33) True
 * (23:33) <CalebL[laptop]>and "To specify if for example there is one aye vote and 10 abstaining votes the vote will still pass." should be fixed grammatically with commas and removing redundancy
 * (23:33) <CalebL[laptop]>such as
 * (23:34) - kusanagi quit *(Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 * (23:34) <CalebL[laptop]>"For example, if there is one aye vote and 10 abstaining votes, the vote will still pass."
 * (23:34) <Sacha>voting rights in the constitution
 * (23:34) <Sacha>say
 * (23:34) <Sacha>"Officers and Subcommittee Liaisons shall not participate in PNC votes, unless the Officer or Subcommittee Liaison in question is also acting as a State Representative.
 * (23:34) <Sacha>All other PNC participants shall vote according to the Bylaws."
 * (23:34) - passstab joined
 * (23:34) <Sacha>Caleb, then fix it. My grammar is terrible.
 * (23:35) <Sacha>Which is why i was a fan of editing the bylaws before going in
 * (23:35) <CalebL[laptop]>just as long as it isn't a seconded motion
 * (23:35) <Rab>minor editss and obvious errors need not be voted. substantive changes, yes
 * (23:36) So do we need this to be passed or was it passed last week?
 * (23:36) I think someone can easily go in and create an amended version of the bylaws containing stylistic and grammatical corrections, and we can just vote it in at the succeeding meeting.
 * (23:36) <CalebL[laptop]>But yes, isn't all this text actually already present in the Constitution?
 * (23:36) As far as the current omission, I think we already passed it, and we can just reflect the document to reflect that fact.
 * (23:36) <Sacha>Caleb no it isn't
 * (23:36) Works for me
 * (23:36) <CalebL[laptop]>not in this exact form, at least
 * (23:37) if any *(full member) objects they can do so and we will vote on it
 * (23:37) until then I consider it passed
 * (23:37) *(with yesterdays)
 * (23:37) cool
 * (23:37) I have to drop, do we have anything else?
 * (23:37) there were a few more points
 * (23:37) we are really close
 * (23:37) <CalebL[laptop]>Article III, Section 5 declares voting rights
 * (23:38) Actually *Status of legal registration of the PNC
 * (23:38) and washington
 * (23:38) can be done by email if thats okay?
 * (23:38) k
 * (23:38) <Sacha>k
 * (23:38) <QuazarGuy>report?
 * (23:38) Yes
 * (23:38) <CalebL[laptop]>Yes, we're just inquiring about the status of incorporating the PNC
 * (23:38) <QuazarGuy>I wanted to say something that might help other states
 * (23:38) Then we just have one last discussion point
 * (23:39) <Sacha>why not let them do a quickie?
 * (23:39) QuazarGuy go ahead
 * (23:39) <QuazarGuy>http://www.pirate-party.us/wiki/WAPP_State_Organization
 * (23:39) <QuazarGuy>I put this together for Washington
 * (23:39) <QuazarGuy>it's about organizational structure for a state party
 * (23:40) <QuazarGuy>and how to manage information for canvassing
 * (23:40) Non-profits cant affiliate themselves with you
 * (23:40) <QuazarGuy>I'll have to change that then
 * (23:41) <CalebL[laptop]>I would encourage an official recommendation for how to form local divisions of a state.
 * (23:41) They are still important and you can still work with them.
 * (23:41) <QuazarGuy>but I guess it depends on what affiliation means
 * (23:41) <Rab>this looks useful. thx!
 * (23:41) Really they can't do anything, a relationship would need to only go one way you supporting them.
 * (23:41) <QuazarGuy>but I must disclaim that this is how it works in WA
 * (23:41) It looks great though
 * (23:42) We have a good relationship with some nonprofits
 * (23:42) <Sacha>hey mildbeard can I publish your metaconstitution on the wiki?
 * (23:42) <QuazarGuy>basically everything works at the precinct level so there are literally thousands of openings for people to work towards spreading the pirate word
 * (23:42) Not to mention several other third parties
 * (23:42) <Sacha>sorry mentally related
 * (23:42) sacha yes
 * (23:42) Okay we had one last topic if QuazarGuy is done and then we can complete the PNC meeting
 * (23:42) Ooh please pirate it!!!
 * (23:42) without losing quorum and actually adjourning like normal peoples
 * (23:42) <QuazarGuy>yeah done
 * (23:42) <Sacha>Mildbeard I already have for UC :D
 * (23:42) *Is the PNC a national brand or is it a resource for the states, I keep seeing it make decisions like it is the first but the membership is of the second.
 * (23:42) <Sacha>That was me.
 * (23:43) <Sacha>and I would like to expand my question before opening up for debate please
 * (23:43) Why does it have to be either/or?
 * (23:43) This is rather a discussion topic, so it's also something that can get bumped into email and on the forums... but I thought I would let it be discussed for a few minutes before we actually adjourn
 * (23:43) <Sacha>I would like to expand my question before opening up for debate please
 * (23:43) ok ok
 * (23:43) <Sacha>sorry lol
 * (23:44) <Sacha>So can I go ahead and no interruptions please?
 * (23:44) <QuazarGuy>please go
 * (23:44) <Sacha>Okay are we a national brand or are we a resource for the states
 * (23:45) <Sacha>making decisions about the website
 * (23:45) <Sacha>making decisions about committees
 * (23:45) <Sacha>making decisions that affect the states and peope unrelated to states equallly
 * (23:45) <Sacha>equally*
 * (23:45) <Sacha>such a pnc member requirements
 * (23:45) <Sacha>speaks of a national brand
 * (23:45) <Sacha>that we are operating beyond the states
 * (23:45) <Sacha>if we are only a resource for the states
 * (23:45) <Sacha>for establishing communication
 * (23:45) <Sacha>then we should not be involved in any of those things
 * (23:46) <Sacha>If we are a national brand
 * (23:46) <Sacha>and that is our goal and that is how we are helping the states
 * (23:46) <Sacha>then allowing state representatives rights over individuals is fucked up
 * (23:46) <Sacha>we are all affected by the national image
 * (23:46) <Sacha>there are some people that are not interested in creating states
 * (23:46) <Sacha>there are people passionately involved in this party
 * (23:47) <Sacha>i.e caleb, me, itspara, efk
 * (23:47) <Sacha>that are not allowed equal status, powers or rights
 * (23:47) <Sacha>because of the emphasis on states
 * (23:47) <Sacha>if we are for the states, composed of states
 * (23:47) <Sacha>and keep this membership system, then we need to step away from anything that is not helping communication between states
 * (23:48) <Sacha>or providing resources, not requirements
 * (23:48) <Sacha>or we need to change what it means to be a full member of the PNC
 * (23:48) <Sacha>that is all sorry for the rant
 * (23:48) I think we are both a national brand and a resource for the states. We should denounce anyone who says they're a "Pirate Party" but they are pro DRM. And we should avoid imposing anything on the states that is unrelated to this brand.  And we should be the best possible resource for the states rather than an obstacle to them.
 * (23:49) we should have members at a national level from states where there is no organized pirate party. And people from member states who also want to participate at a national level.
 * (23:49) I see us as both. Individuals have no place in the the PNC, the PNC is here for the purpose of promoting the state parties and to create a national brand which people can identify with which then encourages more people to join and become members of their state parties. mildbeard's opinion at the beginning that we are both was spot on. I have encouraged Michigan to reapply for full membership for the past month or so now, so it's not
 * (23:49) as though you don't have an opportunity to be a full member.
 * (23:49) I don't see these things as being mutually exclusive.
 * (23:49) <CalebL[laptop]>Sorry that I disagree with you on a point, despite the complement. I'm adamantly involved, but I believe I should have full voting privileges, as I'm not an official representative of Minnesota.
 * (23:49) but what about a pirate party that is anti-gay?
 * (23:49) <Sacha>Teamcoltra My only opportunity is to waste my time on something i do not want to do
 * (23:50) i think we need a platform
 * (23:50) then don't bitch because you can't
 * (23:50) <CalebL[laptop]>If the MNPP was formed and an interim staff elected, and the state party was growing, and I had been elected chair, THEN I should have privileges.
 * (23:50) <Sacha>I desperately want to be involved at the national level, it is all I want to do
 * (23:50) <Sacha>I am fucking bitching
 * (23:50) passstab I agree. Other Pirate Parties are extending their platforms in this way.
 * (23:50) sweden
 * (23:50) Germany
 * (23:50) [23:50] i think we need a platform
 * (23:50) England
 * (23:50) ^THIS^
 * (23:50) <Sacha>because you are representing eople
 * (23:50) there is no national level... there are state levels which create a national body
 * (23:50) there is a national level
 * (23:50) <CalebL[laptop]>If I'm a random guy off the street, I shouldn't represent a whole state by being self-appointed
 * (23:50) I also think we need a comprehensive platform
 * (23:50) <Sacha>Then we cannot do anything at the national level
 * (23:51) <Sacha>calebL but in here you can
 * (23:51) <Sacha>but if you are not attached to a state and work your ass off as the head of IT
 * (23:51) <Sacha>you have to hook up with a state to even have a goddamn voice without permission
 * (23:51) The "national" does exist. its made up of states. A national platform would be a general representation of all the states beliefs
 * (23:51) This all-or-nothing thinking helps nobody. we are an international movement.
 * (23:52) <Sacha>Teamcoltra if you do that you are representing people who are not given access to being a full member unless they devote their precious time and energy to something they do not want to do
 * (23:52) <Sacha>I agree mildbeard, which is why I think that the focus should be on states and helping states
 * (23:52) <QuazarGuy>due to this argument being about semantics I motion to move the discussion to the mailing list and adjourn
 * (23:52) <Sacha>but not in the membership
 * (23:52) anyone want to second QuazarGuy ?
 * (23:52) Please do
 * (23:52) <Sacha>Quazarguy I would rather forums but would agree
 * (23:52) <QuazarGuy>forums, w/e
 * (23:53) I second - I agree with a lot of what Sacha is saying and don't think it should be controversial.
 * (23:53) Second from a member?
 * (23:53) Good.. all in favour?
 * (23:53) <QuazarGuy>aye
 * (23:53) <CalebL[laptop]>aye
 * (23:53) <MrSquared>aye
 * (23:53) aye
 * (23:54) - mildbeard quit *(Quit: Leaving)
 * (23:54) <CalebL[laptop]>I don't think OrionSteele has been present for over an hour, so we realistically don't have quorum *(despite the numbers)
 * (23:54) <CalebL[laptop]>xP
 * (23:54) regardless we are set
 * (23:54) good night guys
 * (23:54) <Sacha>lol we are set
 * (23:54) - MrSquared quit *(Quit: Web client closed)
 * (23:54) <Sacha>I am making a forums post though about it
 * (23:54) <Sacha>BE BOLD BE BOLD BE BOLD BE BOLD
 * (23:54) <CalebL[laptop]>Anyway, if we're to provide resources, then people should start rounding up together and doing that
 * (23:54) <Sacha>CalebL working on it with the wiki committee
 * (23:54) what exactly did we just approve?
 * (23:55) <Sacha>lol that is the main goal
 * (23:55) going to sleep
 * (23:55) not a statement, thats my answer to passstab
 * (23:55) <CalebL[laptop]>Tabling an agenda item to the next meeting and adjourn
 * (23:55) lol thanks
 * (23:55) <CalebL[laptop]>Even though I don't think you can have the two as a single motion. xP
 * (23:56) - passstab quit *(Remote host closed the connection)
 * (23:56) <CalebL[laptop]>But I could be wrong
 * (23:56) <Sacha>also please do comment in the forums
 * (23:57) <Sacha>also CalebL[laptop] for the sake of transparency and being honest, I think you are a bit judgmental and kinda a dick
 * (23:57) <Sacha>but I really respect you
 * (23:57) <Sacha>and appreciate how you throw out your opinions
 * (23:57) <Sacha>JSYK
 * (23:58) - VLD joined
 * (23:59) <QuazarGuy>CalabL you can't, but I didn't think anyone would care
 * (00:00) <QuazarGuy>Sacha is there a wiki discussion going?
 * (00:01) <Sacha>QuazarGuy not right now, I am going to move it over to the forums
 * (00:01) <Sacha>i also want to work on content for the website but I am shying away from that now, so i'll just work on wiki stuff
 * (00:03) - VLD quit *(Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 * (00:05) <QuazarGuy>we wiki people have the main page discussion tab
 * (00:06) <Sacha>yeah, that is true
 * (00:06) <Sacha>since they are doing something different with content we should use the discussion tab for wiki stuff
 * (00:07) <QuazarGuy>sure
 * (00:09) - itspara quit *(Quit: Web client closed)
 * (00:12) - itspara joined
 * (00:39) - Rab left
 * (00:49) - Brady quit *(Quit: Leaving)