PNC 7/18/12


 * Agenda PNC MEETING
 * 07/18/2012 21:00h EDT
 * IRC: irc.pirateirc.net
 * Room: #pnc
 * Wiki: http://www.pirate-party.us/wiki/PNC_7/18/12

Attending

 * Jeff Talada, WA
 * Erik Zoltan, Massachusetts
 * Max Bugrov, California
 * Kyle DeVore, Oregon
 * Lindsay-Anne Brunner, New York
 * Bradley Hall, Florida
 * Jarod, GA

probation

 * OK

At Large Members of the PNC

 * Megan Cochran/Joseph T. Klein, WI
 * James Eastman/Amanda Johnson, MI
 * Caleb Langeslag, Minnesota

Proceedings

 * Meeting opened at: 9:01 pm EDT by Travis McCrea
 * Meeting closed at: 12:09 am EDT by Travis McCrea
 * Meeting chaired by Travis McCrea
 * Secretary for this meeting is Jeff Talada
 * Quorum is established: Members 7 out of 7 present
 * Logging Enabled: Yes

Review of previous minutes

 * http://www.pirate-party.us/wiki/PNC_7/11/12

Massachusetts

 * attended Hope 9
 * trying to schedule a picnic on George's Island together with Anonymous
 * looking for a new Treasurer
 * written a proposed policy to replace copyright and patents that is designed to appeal to writers, musicians, video makers and inventors
 * circulated it and gotten great feedback
 * still working on VPN as well as liquid feedback which has some configuration issues

Oklahoma

 * absent
 * 1st week probation

Washington

 * nothing to report

Oregon

 * Rock the Ballot event on the 21st in Portland

Georgia

 * will be traveling up to boston friday
 * will be offline next week

Florida

 * nothing to report

New York

 * did the Pirate Choir last Saturday
 * it was still a success
 * will post video

California

 * created several versions of our logo, deciding on a standard we're going to be using for letter heads, social media, etc.
 * Made some pretty overlays for videos / standardizing our hangouts on g+ with them eventually
 * working on a newsletter template
 * Looking for server/hosting options to begin implementation of LF
 * had the debut of The Pirate Hour, where we interview David Bollier, Senior Fellow at the Norman Lear Center at the USC Annenberg School for Communication
 * http://youtu.be/4W6J9a9PBlU
 * Next Pirate Hour will feature Joe Matthews... scheduled for 9:30 pm PDT on Monday, July 23rd
 * trying to get James O'Keefe to do a pirate hour with us around July 30-beginning of august
 * trying to get the CA governor to participate in a debate with us about prop 39 on video
 * Smaller project that we are working on includes musicians and artists and the CAPP - distribution of sorts, details are still being worked out, this will include a concert seriese in attempt to promote CAPP and Artists that support us

IT Committee

 * absent

PNC Charter Committee

 * discussed outstanding issues

Agenda Items

 * WI application for membership
 * Website - http://www.pp-wisconsin.net
 * Has reps to be present at all meetings
 * Recruiting
 * Supports the three planks
 * Membership accepted with 7 for, 2 at-large for, 2 at-large abstains


 * adjourned 3 for, 1 abstain

AOB

 * Washington considering probation
 * Proposal: Require agenda to be posted 48 hours before meetings


 * Next meeting: 7/18/12 at 9:00pm EDT
 * Meeting closed: at 12:09 am EDT

Logs
>>> Deamon has left #pnc >>> Deamon has joined #pnc >>> jarod_ has joined #pnc >>> Channel6 has joined #pnc >>> teamcoltra changed the channel topic >>> sadyya has left #pnc: Leaving >>> jarod has joined #pnc >>> jarod has quit IRC: Client Quit >>> jarod has joined #pnc >>> jarod_ has quit IRC: Quit: Web client closed >>> matuck has quit IRC: Ping timeout: 240 seconds >>> coyo has quit IRC: Ping timeout: 264 seconds >>> jarod has quit IRC: Quit: Yaaic - Yet another Android IRC client - http://www.yaaic.org >>> coyo has joined #pnc >>> matuck_ has joined #pnc >>> Rush has quit IRC: Quit: http://www.mibbit.com ajax IRC Client >>> Channel6 has quit IRC: Quit: Leaving >>> MrSquared has quit IRC: Quit: Web client closed >>> sadyya has joined #pnc
 * <@teamcoltra> Can we do roll call?
 * that's great, nice site WI
 *  Jeff Talada, WA
 * Erik Zoltan, Massachusetts
 *  Zacqary Adam Green, New York
 *  Max Bugrov, California
 *  Kyle DeVore, Oregon
 *  Bosun aka Joseph T. Klein, Wisconsin
 * <@kusanagi> Lindsay-Anne Brunner, New York.
 * Megan Cochran sadyya
 * wisconsin rep
 * <@kusanagi> Don't need to give your handles, guys. Just name and state.
 * <@teamcoltra> Oh sorry I just got in from a long day out today
 * <@teamcoltra> so I didn't makethe agenda
 *  Bradley Hall, Florida (I may not be here all night)
 *  James Eastman Jr, Michigan
 * <@kusanagi> Deamon: are you the rep from MIPP tonight?
 *  FUCK
 *  hit enter
 *  sorry
 * <@kusanagi> ?
 * lmao
 *  Caleb Langeslag, Minnesota
 * hahaha niceeeee....
 *  ignore me
 * Zacqary is so confuse what is happen
 * <@kusanagi> Deamon: are you the rep from MIPP tonight?
 * QuazarGuy is confused by Zacqary's lack of grammar
 * <@teamcoltra> https://pnc.piratenpad.de/PNC-7-18-12
 * Zacqary internet
 *  Dallas? Sallad!
 * yes blame the internet for it makes everyone have poor grammar...
 * <@teamcoltra> Okay so I apologize for that...
 *  Moving on.
 * <@teamcoltra> http://www.pirate-party.us/wiki/PNC_7/11/12 can we all review last weeks agenda?
 *  So I have to identify again for some reason so Amanda "Johnson", Michigan
 * <@teamcoltra> any reason Johnson is in quotes?
 * <@kusanagi> Full real name, please Sacha
 *  To make sure that you say it as I know you are obsessed
 * <Sacha> saw*
 * <@kusanagi> It was not logged before
 * <Sacha> Full name was given, feel free to continue the meeting
 * can't we move on from that question?
 * <@kusanagi> And who is the rep, Sacha or Deamon?
 * <Deamon> Her
 * <Deamon> I'm sorry
 * <@teamcoltra> Does the conversation mean everyone has read and agreed to last weeks meeting minutes?
 * <Sacha> Is kay, pm me so that we can talk *<3
 * <QuazarGuy> my minutes from last week are sexy
 * <Channel6> I have no idea what is going on right now. This is amazing.
 * <@kusanagi> Looks good.
 * <Zacqary> I wasn't there soI defer to Liz.
 * Channel6 gets the popcorn.
 * minutes look ok except my name is misspelled :).
 * <Sacha> I see no issue with the mins
 * <@teamcoltra> blame QuazarGuy
 * excuse me ladys and gents i havent been feeling too well im leting joe take full floor for WI i need to bow out for now
 * sorry...
 * <@kusanagi> It's fine
 * <@teamcoltra> Okay erixoltan can  you give an update for mass
 * thanks kusangi ill be here next week
 * <MrSquared> i'm fine with the minutes
 * SplendidSpoon attended Hope 9 over the weekend but I haven't gotten a report yet on how it went.
 * We are trying to schedule a picnic on George's Island together with Anonymous.
 * We are looking for a new Treasurer.
 * <@kusanagi> Why with Anonymous?
 * <@kusanagi> The Bawston Anons?
 * Just based on some personal friendships - I don't actually know more than that.
 * <@kusanagi> Ah, okay.
 * I have written a proposed policy to replace copyright and patents that is designed to appeal to writers, musicians, video makers and inventors. I have circulated it and gotten great feedback, notably by Zacquary.
 * <Zacqary> THERE IS NO U IN MY NAME AAGGGH PEOPLE KEEP DOING THAT
 * And we're still working on VPN as well as liquid feedback which has some configuration issues.
 * Whoops sorry.!!!
 * <@kusanagi> Poor Zac.
 * <@teamcoltra> Zacqary kusanagi can you keep conversation until he is done?
 * <Zacqary> Sorry.
 * So that's pretty much everything for Massachusetts. On to whomever is next.
 * <@teamcoltra> Oklahoma? lol jk of course
 * <@teamcoltra> Oregon MrSquared
 * <MrSquared> Once again, a plug for the Rock the Ballot event on the 21st in Portland
 * <MrSquared> Details are on our Facebook group and last meeting's minutes
 * <MrSquared> and I may be getting someone I know to join the OPP
 * <MrSquared> to help me out with things since he is more politically inclined
 * <MrSquared> that is all
 * <@kusanagi> Awesome
 * <@teamcoltra> Sweet! Thanks for your report!
 * <Rush> OPP?
 * <@teamcoltra> Washington / QuazarGuy ?
 * <@teamcoltra> Rush Oregon
 * <Rush> oh
 * <QuazarGuy> nothing to report
 * <@teamcoltra> :P Which they might need to clearify when we get an Ohio party
 * <MrSquared> ok
 * <@teamcoltra> I guess we have an Oklahoma party already
 * <@kusanagi> It'll be orpp and ohpp.
 * <@kusanagi> :P
 * <@teamcoltra> Georgia / jarod_ matuck
 * <QuazarGuy> neither declared themselves present
 * <Rush> Neither signed in
 * <jarod_> nothing new here... also i will be traveling up to boston friday and will be offline next week
 * <@kusanagi> jarod_: awesome, are you stopping in ny? :D
 * <jarod_> i will be going through ny, but it will be really early in the morning.. i dont know if i will go through NYC though
 * <jarod_> just wherever my GPS takes me
 * <@kusanagi> That's a good way to go.
 * <jarod_> i hope.. i would hate to get lost there!
 * Tappan Zee Bridge
 * <@kusanagi> Oh god the tappan zee is bad
 * <Rush> Florida has nothing to report except for the future appearing dark and bleak and without hope.
 * <Zacqary> Hang in there, Brad. We love ya. *<3
 * <@teamcoltra> Well then hopefully New York has some more positive news?
 * <Zacqary> We did the Pirate Choir last Saturday.
 * <Zacqary> Only managed to get 4 participants, sadly, due to bloody pirates being bloody pirates. But it was still a success.
 * <Zacqary> We have video, which I'm going to try to edit and post tomorrow.
 * <Zacqary> We hope that the video will attract more attention and get people interested for coming to the next one, or organizing one in their own city.
 * <Zacqary> That's about all lately.
 * <@teamcoltra> Thanks for the report
 * <@teamcoltra> Okay California? max_CAPP
 * <max_CAPP> We've created several versions of our logo, deciding on a standard we're going to be using for letter heads, social media, etc. Made some pretty overlays for videos / standardizing our hangouts on g+ with them eventually.  Also working on a newsletter template.
 * <max_CAPP> Looking for server/hosting options to begin implementation of LF for the CAPP. This is an ongoing discussion.
 * <max_CAPP> We had the debut of The Pirate Hour, where we interview David Bollier, Senior Fellow at the Norman Lear Center at the USC Annenberg School for Communication. http://youtu.be/4W6J9a9PBlU
 * <max_CAPP> Now... Next Pirate Hour will feature Joe Matthews... scheduled for 9:30 pm PDT on Monday, July 23rd.
 * <max_CAPP> Also we are trying to get the CA governor to participate in a debate with us about prop 39 on video.
 * <max_CAPP> Smaller project that we are working on includes musicians and artists and the CAPP - distribution of sorts, details are still being worked out, this will include a concert seriese in attempt to promote CAPP and Artists that support us.
 * <@kusanagi> Prop 39?
 * <max_CAPP> Finally, We are also trying to get James O'Keefe to do a pirate hour with us around July 30-beginning of august...
 * <max_CAPP> Prop 39 deals with education.
 * <@kusanagi> What is the prop about?
 * <max_CAPP> Deals with charter schools within districts
 * <max_CAPP> Replacements, fixing, etc.
 * <max_CAPP> Also a question of finances / bonds.
 * <@kusanagi> Okay
 * <max_CAPP> If anyone has James contact, we would like to get him on our pirate hour!
 * <max_CAPP> Asides that, thats it for Cali.
 * I have his info, how can i give it to you?
 * <max_CAPP> tuggdb@gmail.com
 * k
 * <max_CAPP> ty :)
 * <@teamcoltra> Was that all max_CAPP ?
 * <max_CAPP> Yeup.
 * <@teamcoltra> Just a reminder to everyone that I am watching for the words "done" or "thats all" to move onto the next person, if you don't say that I assume you have more
 * <Rush> Oh, can I add something for Florida?
 * <@teamcoltra> (not going after you max, just a general reminder)
 * <@teamcoltra> Rush go ahead
 * <Sacha> Teamcoltra Rush already went
 * <Rush> Obama's flying into my town tomorrow. I'm gonna see if I can get a picture of Air Force One as it flies over my house.
 * <Sacha> nvm
 * <Sacha> sorry
 * Spray rum at it with a squirtgun.
 * <@kusanagi> Hahah
 * <QuazarGuy> brb
 * <@teamcoltra> Okay committees
 * <@teamcoltra> IT COmmittee / matuck
 * <QuazarGuy> back
 * <@teamcoltra> okay
 * <@teamcoltra> moving on
 * <@teamcoltra> Tonights first topic should be the state of WI would like to become a member of the PNC
 * <@teamcoltra> Can you guys pitch your case?
 * <Bosun> OK
 * <@kusanagi> A full member.
 * <Bosun> We have a web site http://www.pp-wisconsin.net
 * <Bosun> I belive wwe have the prereqisit number of members I can scrape up six currently
 * <Sacha> Request for at large to be allowed to speak?
 * <@teamcoltra> Please note you need to meet these requirements: http://www.pirate-party.us/wiki/PNC_5/16/12#6_-_PNC_Membership
 * <Sacha> In the debate of candidate*
 * <@teamcoltra> Sacha no one is speaking until they have finished their pitch
 * <Bosun> I don't see anything we don't meet. We can have a rep an and alternate at all meetings. We are working on recruitment
 * <Bosun> I'm not the fastetst chatter here … :-)
 * Can I move then to give all states a voice?
 * <@teamcoltra> erixoltan you can't make any motion until they are done
 * <@teamcoltra> :) because no one is speaking until they are finished, thanks :)
 * <@teamcoltra> Bosun are you finished, or do you have more?
 * <Bosun> We have done twitter and FB
 * <Bosun> we have registered with the Government Accountability Board.
 * <Bosun> se we have legal standing GAB is like the election commision
 * <Bosun> so ..
 * <Bosun> all done
 * <QuazarGuy> http://www.pirate-party.us/wiki/Pirate_National_Committee_(PNC)
 * <QuazarGuy> does WI accept the three planks?
 * <@teamcoltra> Okay erixoltan you mde a motion giving all states a voice
 * <Bosun> Yes we have put the three main planks front and center on the website
 * so moved
 * <Sacha> Can Erixoltan move now?
 * <Bosun> Yes
 * <@teamcoltra> Does someone second it
 * <QuazarGuy> do we need such a motion?
 * <Zacqary> I'd second it if I could speak.
 * I think it would be relevant for nonmember states to be able to share their perspective here.
 * <Zacqary> Oh you meant non-members.
 * <Zacqary> Yes, I agree.
 * <Zacqary> Seconded.
 * <@teamcoltra> yeah until someone objects I will allow this
 * <@teamcoltra> without a vote
 * <@teamcoltra> All states can speak
 * <Bosun> Any questions of WI?
 * <Sacha> Okay, the only issue that I can see is that I remember being discussed (i'm not sure how the captain is interpreting the vote in this case) that the state in question needed to be an active participant of the USPP/PNC
 * <Sacha> The wording is so ambiguous that i'm not sure if they need to be active participants of the National Party
 * <Sacha> or only their own party
 * <Bosun> OK, what would you like us to do?
 * <Zacqary> Where is that requirement listed?
 * <@teamcoltra> No state is obligated to vote strictly along the guidelines posted. Those are simply a minimum requirement.
 * <Sacha> "It should have both a PNC representative and an alternate, who must both be active members. The state must not miss PNC meetings. "
 * <@teamcoltra> Some states might require active participation or other things to vote for a state
 * I have no questions because I think it is clear that WI does in fact meet the membership requirements.
 * Sacha, I think that section means they must both be active members of the state party.
 * <Zacqary> Sacha, that's a post-acceptance requirement.
 * <@kusanagi> Sacha: they came in for the first time last week
 * <Sacha> Kusanagi Yeah. That's my issue.
 * <Sacha> Zacqary It is listed as a requirement of membership tho >.>
 * <@teamcoltra> Since members are not required to explain their vote, they can vote in favour or against a state for any reason.
 * <@kusanagi> no, it is a requirement to maintain membership.
 * <Zacqary> In the currently drafted Constitution we've defined it as active members of their State party.
 * <@teamcoltra> And they haven't missed the last few meetings
 * <Zacqary> To which no one has objected.
 * <Zacqary> So that's probably how we're defining it in the currently accepted requirements.
 * <Zacqary> Or that's how I'm defining it.
 * <Bosun> May I speak to the quesstion?
 * <@teamcoltra> This is an open discussion Bosun
 * <Zacqary> Go ahead, Bosun.
 * <@teamcoltra> feel free to talk and reply etc
 * <Bosun> It would help us in recruitments if we are accepted.
 * <@kusanagi> How so?
 * <Bosun> We are planning to do a full press on the press and we see acceptance by the PNC as a vital point to bring up when we issue are next press release.
 * <Sacha> Zacqary Are we voting according to the established requirements or the ones in the new constitution?
 * The rules give general guidelines but then leave it up to a majority vote. It is natural that everyone will have slightly differing interpretations, especially since we have only done this a few times.
 * <Zacqary> We're voting according to our opinions. The Pirate Code be more like guidelines at this point, y'arr.
 * We can't vote under the new constitution because we haven't ratified it yet.
 * <Zacqary> I'm just using it to frame my own opinion.
 * <Bosun> We will as swiftly as possible move to the tools of democratic control such as implementing a liquid feedback system ASAP
 * <QuazarGuy> Bosun, I would recommend saying that you're part of the Pirate movement in the US, not that you're part of the PNC
 * <Sacha> Okay, I retract my question and i'm simply going to vote whatever the neutral vote is as I think this is a complete joke.
 * <Sacha> I'm fine with going to vote
 * <max_CAPP> To expand on Bosun's point being a part of the PNC would give the PP more legitimacy in his state - this would generate more interest in the pirate party which means the party would only be more successful.
 * <Bosun> How so is it a joke?
 * <Zacqary> Please explain your objection, Sacha?
 * <@teamcoltra> She had this objection over 3 different meetings in the past, we replied to it every time
 * <Zacqary> I'm not clear on what that is.
 * <QuazarGuy> max_CAPP, what does PNC mean to non-Pirates?
 * we're getting bogged down in irrelevant side issues.
 * <@teamcoltra> Everyone agreed on this way of doing things, over and over again. As chair, I am going to ask that we keep our conversation on the admission of WIPP vs Sacha's dislike for our voting system.
 * I move that we vote on the question without further debate.
 * <Sacha> I politely disagree with Teamcoltra but I have no real objection.
 * <Zacqary> Actually I'd like to make one more point.
 * <@teamcoltra> Sorry there is a motion on the floor
 * <@teamcoltra> it needs to be seconded or objected to
 * <Zacqary> Well, I feel one more thing needs to be said in the debate, so I suppose I object to it.
 * <@teamcoltra> Okay seeing no other point, the motion fails
 * <@teamcoltra> err the motion failed to reach second
 * <@teamcoltra> Zacqary go ahead
 * <Zacqary> Now, while Wisconsin appears to meet all of our requirements, we just found out about them last week.
 * <Zacqary> And as far as I'm aware, the reason Michigan, for example, has been denied PNC membership is because they haven't been able to demonstrate growth.
 * <Zacqary> So. I'm not sure one week of watching Wisconsin is adequate evidence that they're growing.
 * <QuazarGuy> I also would like to see more data points in order to determine a trend
 * <Zacqary> They seem cool, but I think we ought to wait a bit longer.
 * Are we going to apply the same thinking to our existing member states? Which members are currently growing?
 * <Sacha> Shouldn't we?
 * <Bosun> Isn't this moving the target, is growth a written requirement for entry or for sustaining membership?
 * <Sacha> Bosun Yes
 * <Sacha> The first 'guideline' for membership is actively attempting to grow
 * <@kusanagi> You can't answer yes to a x or y question, Sacha
 * The intent of the language about growth had to do with the fact that we didn't want to give a specific number. It was not really intended to show a growth line. If we have that as a requirement, we'll have to put some of our existing member states on probation.
 * <Zacqary> That's a fair point, erixoltan.
 * <Sacha> Kusanagi it was a yes or no question, did you read it -_-
 * <@kusanagi> I read it. Apparently you didn't.
 * <Sacha> Erixoltan then what was the point of actively attempting to grow?
 * <@teamcoltra> Ladies
 * <@teamcoltra> Take it to PM if you need
 * <Zacqary> Girlfriens don't make me snap in a Z fo'ma'shun.
 * <QuazarGuy> I was going to suggest WA go on probation for this reason actually
 * <Sacha> Erixoltan Then what is the point of actively attempting to grow
 * A state that has 6 members has clearly been actively attempting to grow. They have a site and are working on liquid feedback. That is no small undertaking.
 * <Bosun> Wisconsin has a political divide that currently makes people disgusted with both parties. This is the time to act.
 * I am sure that they meet the requirements as they are written, and as they were intended.
 * <@teamcoltra> Let me just point out that regardless of your admittance into the PNC -You can grow as a party, and you can be supported by the PNC without being a member.
 * <@teamcoltra> member just gives you talking and voting rights.
 * <Bosun> We've done 2 radio interviews in the past week. We contacted the largest university newspaper in Milwaukee and I personally have friends in both Madison and Milwaukee's press.
 * <Sacha> Bosun What do you think being a PNC member can do for you?
 * <Zacqary> You know what? I retract my objection. Wisconsin, you guys have been doing awesome.
 * <Zacqary> Hell, New York's kinda slacking on the growth front anyway. I don't have much place talking about that.
 * <Bosun> We think being officially sanctioned gives us more credibility when we are recruiting membership and talking to the press.
 * <max_CAPP> Agreed with the above point.
 * <@teamcoltra> Bosun did you know that the Democratic party of Florida isn't sanctioned in the DNC
 * <@kusanagi> Zacqary: that's because of my accident, at least in part. :/
 * <Bosun> I think Iowa is also
 * <Zacqary> True, kusanagi.
 * <QuazarGuy> your actions are your credibility Bosun
 * <@teamcoltra> Bosun the point, is that even major political parties have states that are not sanctioned in their national committee -- yet they are still viewed by the media as no different than the others
 * <max_CAPP> I don't think the same applies for the Pirate Party
 * <Bosun> It is an international movement.
 * <max_CAPP> Rep/Dem are established and engrained political parties in the US, they hardly need to be established in a state for people to vote for them.
 * Excuse me, but the supposed irrelevancy of the PNC does not qualify as one of the criteria under which Wisconsin is being considered for membership.
 * <QuazarGuy> who goes around saying "I'm part of the national committee"?
 * it's not relevant
 * <@kusanagi> Travis does lol
 * <QuazarGuy> lol
 * <@teamcoltra> lol what state does?
 * <Zacqary> If we grant it, Wisconsin sure as hell will.
 * <Bosun> It matters to political wonks, many of whom are in the press here.
 * <@teamcoltra> Sure, and I am not discrediting the PNC. I think we have an important roll
 * <@teamcoltra> I am just wanting them to not feel discouraged if the vote doesn't go in their favour
 * <@teamcoltra> Is there more conversation or can we move to vote?
 * <Bosun> If we fail we will try try again.
 * <max_CAPP> move to a vote
 * <Zacqary> Second.
 * <@teamcoltra> Any objections
 * <@teamcoltra> Okay give me a second
 * <Zacqary> SECOND FOR FUCKSAKES
 * lmao
 * <@kusanagi> Lol
 * <QuazarGuy> who has voting rights?
 * <@kusanagi> CA, NY, MA, WA, uh
 * <@kusanagi> OR
 * <@kusanagi> GA
 * <@kusanagi> FL
 * <@kusanagi> If Rush is around
 * <QuazarGuy> do at-large?
 * <Sacha> QuazarGuy Yes, half votes remember
 * <@kusanagi> How many at large do we have, just 1?
 * <Zacqary> Did FL delegate to NY?
 * <@kusanagi> No, Rush is here
 * <QuazarGuy> *Megan Cochran/Joseph T. Klein, WI *James Eastman/Amanda Johnson, MI *Caleb Langeslag, Minnesota
 * <@kusanagi> Wi doesn't vote, but MI does
 * <Zacqary> And MN?
 * <@kusanagi> MN hasn't been accepted, iirc.
 * <Deamon> I'm striking my name from the roll, was a mistake
 * <@teamcoltra> Okay:
 * <@teamcoltra> I am going to preface this vote for a second as I am considering this a "Major Vote", so I would like to make sure everyone is aware of exactly what they are voting on, and what instructions they have for voting.
 * Sorry, is WI not an at-large state?
 * <@kusanagi> No
 * <@teamcoltra> It is my place to remind everyone that it is up to the discretion of every state whether to adopt a new member or not, it is also up to each and every one of you individually to decide if the party has met the burdens which have been set forth in the rules.
 * <Zacqary> I hardly think WI should be voting on their own acceptance.
 * <@teamcoltra> By voting "aye" below you will be giving approval to the WIPP to be given full voting rights as well as voice in these meetings and will become your peer. This /can/ be revoked later by majority vote, but this should be used as an extreme measure.
 * <@kusanagi> This is their 2nd meeting erixoltan, first app for any pnc membership.
 * point of information
 * <@teamcoltra> Only full members can vote for a new member of the PNC
 * The application before us is for full PNC membership, correct?
 * <@teamcoltra> Thats how all our previous membership votes have been held
 * <@teamcoltra> erixoltan yes
 * <Zacqary> States usually vote on their own acceptance?
 * just checking
 * <@teamcoltra> Zacqary no, only full members can vote on new members
 * So no at-large votes?
 * <Sacha> Teamcoltra The previous votes have never been held that way
 * <Zacqary> Oh. So no half-votes from at-larges then.
 * <Sacha> I voted in CAPP
 * <Sacha> and Itspara voted in MIPP
 * @teamcoltra checks
 * <QuazarGuy> I also recall Sacha voting for MIPP
 * <@teamcoltra> I stand corrected
 * <@teamcoltra> Sacha is correct
 * <Sacha> I was outright told by TeamColtra to vote as I abstained at first
 * <Sacha> for Mipp*
 * <@teamcoltra> all PNC members full and probationary can vote
 * <@teamcoltra> Sacha yes I did
 * <QuazarGuy> and observer aparently
 * <@teamcoltra> Stanard rules apply... the vote will require, however, 50% + 1
 * <Zacqary> So, WI votes on their own acceptance then? That's...weird. But okay. Should probably fix that bug when we adopt the new Constitution.
 * <Rush> What
 * <Rush> ]I'm here
 * <Zacqary> We're voting on whether to accept WIPP, Rush.
 * <Rush> Aye
 * <Zacqary> Not yet.
 * <Zacqary> We're about to.
 * <@kusanagi> Lol
 * <@teamcoltra> The motion is now on the floor, if you are in favour of WIPP becoming a full recognized member of the PNC vote aye. If you are against it, vote Nay. Ayes must outnumber both Nay and Abstentions (as is normal).
 * <@teamcoltra> Please no further conversation
 * objection
 * <Sacha> Abstain
 * ayes do not have to outnumber abstentions
 * an abstention would thus be a non-vote
 * a no vote
 * ayes must outnumber nays. Abstentions don't count.
 * <@teamcoltra> erixoltan we can discuss this after the vote, we wont finalize the result until your objection is addressed
 * <Zacqary> Agreed. Aye = +1, Nay = -1, Aye = 0.
 * <Rush> Aye
 * <max_CAPP> Aye.
 * <Zacqary> Aye
 * aye
 * <QuazarGuy> aye
 * <Sacha> Abstain in case it didn't count
 * Aye
 * <CalebLangeslag> Aye
 * <MrSquared> aye
 * <Rush> I'd say it's a safe bet WIPP is in
 * <@kusanagi> It does count, Sacha
 * <@teamcoltra> kusanagi because she voted already, so she wanted to make sure it was seen. This is why we don't have conversation during votes.
 * <Bosun> Wisconsin abstains as we don't believe in voting on our own question.
 * <Bosun> And we thank you!
 * <@teamcoltra> Bosun I encouraged Sacha to vote in favour of her party, and encourage you to do the same thing, as it shows your own interest in being a member of the PNC
 * <Bosun> Aye then
 * <@kusanagi> No, what he did is more respectable, at least in mmy eyes.
 * <@teamcoltra> Okay calling the vote.
 * <QuazarGuy> 8 counting abstentions like erixoltan wants
 * <@teamcoltra> Yes lets address this:
 * <@teamcoltra> http://pastie.org/4281449
 * <@teamcoltra> This was from our first vote for state membership (MIPP)
 * <Sacha> Congrats Bosun welcome as a full me :3
 * <@teamcoltra> after our new rules were in place
 * <Sacha> me = member
 * <@teamcoltra> Our rules for new members requires a "majority" vote, not a plurality
 * teamcoltra, I think you are confused about the difference between a majority and a plurality.
 * A plurality occurs when one option gets the most votes out of three or more possibilities. Abstentions not counting.
 * <Zacqary> Well, regardless, the PNC just got a bit cheesier. Welcome, Wisconsin. You're delicious.
 * <@teamcoltra> erixoltan plurality means the most votes... but does not reach 50%+1
 * A majority occurs when one option gets more ayes than nays, abstentions not counting.
 * <@teamcoltra> A majority means that we got a 50%+1 vote
 * yes
 * <Bosun> a round of cheese for everyone
 * abstentions not counting
 * <@kusanagi> Yay!
 * <Rush> I love cheese
 * <@kusanagi> I want cheddar
 * <@teamcoltra> Exactly, and the wording of the rule states "majority" not "plurality"
 * <Rush> Also, where the hell is Green Bay?
 * <Bosun> Just below the U.P.
 * <Zacqary> letmegooglethatforyou.com/?q=green+bay
 * <Sacha> Are we disscussing the constitution tonight?
 * <Sacha> Or is this the last order of business for the evening?
 * <Zacqary> Well, first, I put another item in AOB.
 * <Zacqary> If we're ready to move on to that?
 * <@teamcoltra> erixoltan do we wish to differ this conversation, since this will be the last state vote before the new rules are made anyway?
 * <@teamcoltra> and they won either way
 * <@teamcoltra> under true majority, simple majority, and plurality
 * True. but this will be an important issue later.
 * We can take it up off line
 * <@teamcoltra> Okay :)
 * <@teamcoltra> Okay we did say we would discuss the constitution tonight
 * <Zacqary> But first!
 * <Zacqary> Travis.
 * <@teamcoltra> We are not passing anything, I think we are just hearing out the constituion committees updates
 * <@teamcoltra> but go ahead
 * <@teamcoltra> Zacqary
 * <Zacqary> PLEASE. Post the agenda 48 hours before the meeting.
 * <Zacqary> This needs to be a rule.
 * <@teamcoltra> I have been failing at that, and I apologize
 * <Sacha> Am I allowed to ask a related question?
 * <@teamcoltra> be quick :)
 * <Zacqary> You just did.
 * <Zacqary> Sure, go ahead.
 * <Zacqary> =P
 * <@kusanagi> If possible, could you send it on the SAB list on Mondays?
 * <Sacha> As the agenda will start being up are we going to be allowed to add items to the AOB then?
 * <Sacha> Or have a more collaborative use of the agenda? Or will we simply see it
 * <Zacqary> If it's in pad form, I imagine you can edit it whenever the hell.
 * <@kusanagi> Not if it's locked
 * <@teamcoltra> We will leave it open
 * <@teamcoltra> but motions still have to be made by states
 * <@teamcoltra> err by full members
 * <Sacha> It was a question not a motion :P
 * <QuazarGuy> lol, do it or I'll move for no confidence
 * <Sacha> Anyway my questioned is answered, thank you L3
 * <Sacha> :3
 * <QuazarGuy> it's a policy thing
 * <Rush> I'm heading out
 * <@teamcoltra> Okay, are we all good on this?
 * <@teamcoltra> take care Rush
 * <Sacha> Bai Rush
 * <Zacqary> Seeya Rush.
 * <QuazarGuy> bye rush
 * <Zacqary> Anyway, is the 48-hour requirement currently a written rule?
 * <@teamcoltra> Zacqary no
 * <Zacqary> Motion to write it down somewhere.
 * <@teamcoltra> Zacqary we should be passing the new constition next week
 * <@teamcoltra> perhaps we can move onto the next item which is that constittion
 * <Zacqary> True.
 * <Zacqary> Okay.
 * <Bosun> In the interest of transparency, it is a good policy.
 * <Zacqary> Although that'd go in the Bylaws.
 * <Zacqary> But we'll deal with that.
 * <Zacqary> I'd like to move this along.
 * <QuazarGuy> I think Travis should write it on a post-it
 * <@teamcoltra> Okay, so Zacqary please give us an update
 * <Zacqary> Oh shit, kusanagi we shoulda mailed that to him earlier today.
 * <Zacqary> Anyway, yes, Constitution.
 * <@kusanagi> LOL
 * <Zacqary> So, last week, WA had some objections, correct?
 * <@kusanagi> It's fine, we have moar envelopes
 * <QuazarGuy> yeah
 * <QuazarGuy> we cleared up a bunch
 * <Zacqary> What's still outstanding?
 * <QuazarGuy> I'll have to look again
 * <Zacqary> All right, I'm gonna scroll down the document and look at the comments.
 * <Zacqary> First, bawwing about whether we're the United States Pirate Party or the People's Front of Judea.
 * <Zacqary> Ohhhh my god.
 * <Sacha> Yeah
 * <Sacha> That is still an issue that I guess we didn't settle
 * One outstanding question is the restriction that an officer cannot be the representative of their state, and that the state would have to in effect have 3 PNC representatives - a primary, the alternate, and the officer.
 * <Sacha> I thought we voted on it but I was told that we did not
 * <@kusanagi> No, it was settled.
 * <@kusanagi> It was not voted on.
 * Personally I'm against it. Others would like to strengthen the restriction.
 * <Zacqary> Right, yes. I think that's the big one.
 * <CalebLangeslag> Any link to the current document?
 * <@teamcoltra> erixoltan they would not have 3 representatives
 * <Zacqary> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x1ci9G4fv3pqksGVTO5T-Soez2GZB95wrIvGdbnvNqs/edit#heading=h.kw6wi4aeknft
 * <@teamcoltra> they would have 2
 * <@teamcoltra> and the officer would simply be of that state
 * <@kusanagi> 3 people from that state
 * <Sacha> I understand the limit on the Captain
 * <Sacha> because they should be completely neutral
 * <@teamcoltra> kusanagi is not a representative of New York
 * <@teamcoltra> she is a representative of the PNC
 * <Sacha> but I do not see the point for the other offiers
 * <@teamcoltra> who is from New York
 * <@kusanagi> Yes I am
 * <@kusanagi> I'm the alt.
 * <QuazarGuy> the quartermaster counts votes
 * Point being, it will make it harder for a state to contribute an officer.
 * <QuazarGuy> and the first mate fills in for either one
 * <Zacqary> Right, erixoltan, that's why we relegated the restriction to Captain.
 * <Sacha> QuazarGuy I would think that we will figure out a way to automate that as having someone counting them can introduce error
 * <Sacha> which would fix that problem
 * Zacqary, so is there any objection by anyone to the restriction that only the captain can't be the state rep or alternate?
 * and that the restriction doesn't apply to other officers?
 * <Sacha> I'm fine with it
 * <QuazarGuy> if a state is a member and they are growing, surely they could find a third person
 * <Zacqary> I thought you were objecting, erixoltan.
 * <@teamcoltra> I am okay with a states alternate being an officer. However, that officer will have to have the deputy (or another officer) fill in for them in the event that they have to represent their state
 * so teamcoltra does object.
 * <Sacha> TeamColtra Why?
 * <Sacha> What is the point of that?
 * <@teamcoltra> Conflict of interest
 * <Sacha> TeamColtra How so?
 * <Sacha> What are they doing that will cause a conflict?
 * <Sacha> The captain there is a clear conflict
 * <Sacha> First mate and quater master I do not see that except for the concern about counting votes
 * <@teamcoltra> I guess quartermaster can be independently verified
 * <@teamcoltra> (like votes cast, and everyone reviews the previous meetings minutes)
 * It would normally be a conflict of interest, except that we have produced a document which gives little real power to any of the officers. They have responsibility without power. Even the role of the captain is highly-constrained.
 * <Zacqary> I wasn't here last week and kusanagi stepped in as NY rep. Should that be disallowed in the future?
 * <Sacha> Well one sec guys
 * <@teamcoltra> Zacqary no, she just couldn't step in for NY Rep and step in for me at the same time
 * <@teamcoltra> I guess we are now all in agreement that it should be captain only
 * <Sacha> Well I would add that if there is a vote
 * OK and we can amend that to say that it also applies to the acting captain.
 * <Sacha> the quartermaster needs a different rep if they are counting the votes
 * <Bosun> Unless you have paid staff, volunteer organization can run into issues of have people to attend meetings.
 * <QuazarGuy> the officers are elected by the pnc, not the states
 * <QuazarGuy> the officers can't represent states
 * <@kusanagi> That can be verified independantly, Sacha
 * <Sacha> QuazarGuy Of course they can
 * we can also use voting software in the future.
 * <Sacha> Kusanagi Which I said -_-
 * <@kusanagi> Bosun has a point.
 * <Sacha> Bosun could you explain your point more?
 * <@teamcoltra> Point of Order - Can someone make the formal motion to allow non-members to speak?
 * <Zacqary> Motion to non-member blah blah blah yakkety
 * <Bosun> At the beginning this will primarily be a volunteer operation
 * <@teamcoltra> (if they want)
 * second
 * <@teamcoltra> Okay until there is an objection, non-members can discuss the constition
 * <Zacqary> Which they were already.
 * <Sacha> TeamColtra I'm part of the committee so I think it is already implied
 * <@kusanagi> It is a volunteer org, and probably will remain so.
 * <@teamcoltra> That was for a previous topic
 * <Sacha> Since I y'know, helped write it.
 * <Zacqary> Okay, we can all talk now. Enough discussion of who can talk and just talk.
 * <Sacha> Do we have any more issue really
 * <Sacha> Someone suggested that we leave it at an exception to the captain
 * <Sacha> and another person added that the quartermaster can be independently verified so no issue there
 * <Sacha> Does someone want to make a motion?
 * <QuazarGuy> officers only have to come from member states, but they aren't elected by the state to run for and officer position
 * you can include 'acting captain' as well
 * <@teamcoltra> Sacha we are not making motions on the constition
 * <Sacha> TeamColtra Then what are we doing?
 * <@teamcoltra> This is just discussion for the PNC Constition committee to consider, so they can fix the document for next week
 * We're just chatting about it.
 * <Sacha> Then why were there votes last week?
 * <Sacha> Okay then chatting
 * <@teamcoltra> You guys were supposed to be working out fixes to our objections of last week
 * <Sacha> So you voted to agree that you objected?
 * I thought we were going to vote today, too.
 * <@teamcoltra> and now reporting what you did to fix them
 * <Zacqary> All of those objections were from WA. And as far as I know they're fixed.
 * <@teamcoltra> erixoltan no
 * <Sacha> And changed the wording as a suggestion?
 * <@teamcoltra> we agreed to vote in two weeks
 * <@teamcoltra> (next week)
 * teamcoltra, no we didn't.
 * <Zacqary> There are, however, new objections in the comments thread of the document.
 * <Sacha> We agree to extend the committee for two weeks
 * <Zacqary> Which we will spend the coming week dealing with.
 * <Sacha> not to not vote
 * We voted to give the PNC two more weeks. we didn't say we wouldn't vote for 2 weeks.
 * <Bosun> Now Wisconsin will need to read all the minutes and the draft constitution.
 * <Bosun> ;-)
 * <Sacha> Why wait to vote when most issues can be dealt with right now?
 * <@teamcoltra> erixoltan: Vote was held to discuss this at a later date and extend the temporary PNC by 2 weeks and 1 day. Vote passes, unanimous 5 for.
 * <Sacha> "Extend the TEMP PNC by 2 weeks"
 * That doesn't say we won't vote on it again until 2 weeks from now. It doesn't preclude earlier votes.
 * <Sacha> Is not "Do not vote on constitution for 2 weeks"
 * <Bosun> Yes that is in the minutes.
 * <@kusanagi> Oh ffs.
 * <@teamcoltra> Okay, if it is at a point where we want to vote to approve it tonight, then by all means someone make the motion
 * <Zacqary> GUYS. WE WERE TALKING ABOUT WHETHER THE CAPTAIN OF THE PNC CAN ALSO BE A STATE REP.
 * <Zacqary> Which I think we all agree that no.
 * <Zacqary> But other Officers can be.
 * <Zacqary> Riiiiiight?
 * <@teamcoltra> Point of order well taken. Zacqary.
 * <@teamcoltra> Yes I agree 100%
 * <QuazarGuy> I disagree there
 * <QuazarGuy> the first mate can't be a state rep either
 * <Sacha> QuazarGuy Wait what why?
 * <Bosun> Transparency demands an adhearence to reasonable expectations. The reasonable expectation based on the minutes is two weeks.
 * <QuazarGuy> because they fill in for captain
 * <Sacha> The only time it would matter is when they do
 * <@kusanagi> On occasion
 * <Zacqary> So, that makes the current arrangement with kusanagi unconstitutional.
 * <@teamcoltra> QuazarGuy I don't think the first mate should be a state rep *IF* they are acting as Captain
 * <Sacha> Which we could write in that they need to have their alt there
 * <@kusanagi> If travis wasn't here, zac would need to be here
 * <Zacqary> Okay, so here's the thing.
 * <@kusanagi> Yes, what teamcoltra just said
 * <Zacqary> Let's say Travis isn't here.
 * <Zacqary> AND I'm not here.
 * <Zacqary> But Kusanagi is here.
 * <Zacqary> The result is that NY is considered absent.
 * <@teamcoltra> She would have to choose
 * <@teamcoltra> Yeah
 * <Sacha> No, she has to act as captain
 * <@teamcoltra> I guess she couldn't have a choice
 * <@teamcoltra> ^ yeah
 * <Zacqary> Exactly.
 * <QuazarGuy> so you find out at the meeting that captain can't be there and the alt isn't around to find out to be online
 * <Sacha> Officer comes before rep
 * <Zacqary> She has to act as Captain.
 * <Zacqary> SO.
 * And that's why I'm dubious about this whole thing.
 * <Zacqary> NY would be absent if I weren't there.
 * <@kusanagi> Or if I didn't pull Dan on
 * <Sacha> I think the real issue here is lack of communication
 * <@kusanagi> Which is next to impossible
 * <Sacha> We could set up something in the by laws which requires the captain to give 48 hours notice
 * <@teamcoltra> Lets say this is right now, and passed. My suggestion would simply be that NY has 2 alternates
 * <Sacha> unless there is a huge emergancy
 * Or if you set up two laptops next to each other and pretended to be Zac.
 * <Sacha> LOL
 * <@teamcoltra> Its not mandated
 * <@kusanagi> erixoltan: LOL
 * <@teamcoltra> just a suggestion
 * <@teamcoltra> Its NYs responsibility to have a representative
 * <Zacqary> Kusanagi, you have to learn how to use semicolons properly. Otherwise they'll catch on.
 * <QuazarGuy> if NY needs two alts then why not just make the officer not a rep
 * <Zacqary> Well, that's our problem.
 * <@teamcoltra> If their situation means that they are absent because Zacqary and Myself are not there
 * <@teamcoltra> thats not the PNCs problem to deal with
 * <@teamcoltra> thats NY's loss
 * <@kusanagi> Zacqary: I can too use a semicolon; I learned to do so years ago.
 * <Zacqary> We'll look into having a third alt in the EXTREMELY LIKELY EVENT that Travis is a derp at a horribly inconvenient time for me.
 * teamcoltra, the problem is that NY will be reluctant to contribute one of their luminaries as an officer.
 * <QuazarGuy> and if our captain were a state rep you could say the same thing
 * <@teamcoltra> Officers of the PNC are not proposed by the state
 * <QuazarGuy> right
 * <Zacqary> Well, we're not. But I see your concern, erixoltan.
 * <@teamcoltra> You are not "offering someone up"
 * <@teamcoltra> Anyone can apply
 * <@teamcoltra> They would, however, need a state sponsor (if we follow the rules of the last election, which I think we should)
 * <Sacha> Why?
 * <Zacqary> I can see how someone representing a smaller party MIGHT be reluctant to apply, though.
 * <@teamcoltra> If no state is willing to sponsor them, then obviously no state will vote for them anyway
 * <Zacqary> Perhaps recklessly, we're not.
 * <Zacqary> But we're from New Yawk, bitch. We crazy.
 * <@kusanagi> ^^
 * It would be irresponsible for a member to apply for an officer slot without ensuring that the state has adequate representation in the event that they win.
 * <Sacha> TeamColtra so then it is pointless and not needed, right?
 * <QuazarGuy> small states should be reluctant to make an offering of an officer
 * <@teamcoltra> Zacqary, can we have a level of decorum?
 * <Zacqary> We're pirates.
 * <Zacqary> What's decorum?
 * <Sacha> Wtf.
 * RUM!
 * <Sacha> Let's just not touch that please, what is the discussion?
 * <Bosun> behavior in keeping with good taste and propriety
 * decorative rum?
 * <@teamcoltra> Come on guys
 * <Sacha> QuazarGuy you have the issues
 * <Zacqary> Yes, I know. But we
 * <Sacha> Bosun sounds square to me yo
 * <@kusanagi> How we have it, actually, is there is a officer in NYPP who becomes our pnc delegate
 * <Zacqary> *we're pirates.
 * <Zacqary> Anyway.
 * <Sacha> QuazarGuy do you have a proposal that may be a compromise?
 * <@kusanagi> We don't have a secondary
 * <QuazarGuy> I did
 * <QuazarGuy> change captain to officer
 * <Sacha> QuazarGuy That isn't a compromise but okay. Is there an acceptable compromise to you?
 * My position is still to strike the entire provision.
 * <Zacqary> Okay, so, QuazarGuy says we keep all Officers from being State Reps, and Erixoltan says we restrict no one?
 * The compromise was to change officer to captain.
 * <Zacqary> What we have right now is the compromise, Sacha.
 * <QuazarGuy> I wanted something more strict a week ago
 * <@teamcoltra> Can we see some actual wordings?
 * <Sacha> Zacqary K, I was just trying to see if there was a way that we could add some provisions to settle it with QuazarGuy.
 * <@teamcoltra> IF you have a proposal, can we see what you would like the wording to be, in your perfect world
 * <Sacha> "To be eligible to hold the position of Captain set forth in Art. IV §1A, a candidate must not be a Representative of a Member State, or must abdicate the role of Representative upon election as Captain."
 * <Sacha> That is what it says
 * <@teamcoltra> :\ I think thats perfect, tbh
 * <Bosun> It seems reasonable.
 * <@kusanagi> It does
 * <Zacqary> And while I see erixoltan's point, it doesn't seem to have turned out to be a problem.
 * <QuazarGuy> a week ago I suggested it be all officers and that one can't run if it would mean their state goes on probation
 * I think it's acceptable starter language. We can amend it in the future if we have a corruption problem, or we can strike it in the future if we can't get a captain or whatever.
 * <Sacha> I am with Erixoltan
 * <Bosun> here here
 * @teamcoltra takes note: if he is Captain, don't be corrupt.
 * <Zacqary> QuazarGuy, I understand your objection, but in the interest of Getting Stuff Done™, would you be willing to accept the compromise currently written in the Constitution?
 * <Sacha> QuazarGuy We are still making the By laws so if you can think of something that can prevent corruption but not make it difficult to find officers we can look at it there.
 * <Sacha> TeamColtra Too late *<3
 * yeah, that guy's a pirate...
 * <QuazarGuy> I concede
 * <@teamcoltra> Okay so next point?
 * <Zacqary> Okay. But please don't feel like we're ignoring you. We'll all keep it in mind.
 * <@teamcoltra> Actually can I make a suggestion right now while it's on my mind
 * <@teamcoltra> we can move on after, I just want to say it:
 * <Zacqary> And we may end up changing it in your direction in the future.
 * <Zacqary> Go ahead.
 * <@teamcoltra> That we have an actual list of registered nicks, names, and numbers to each official representative of states? This allows: 1) me to call the representatives if needed for whatever reason. 2) prevents someone from hopping on and claiming they are a representative of a state, when they are not
 * <@teamcoltra> I think it should be a part of the constition for representatives of states
 * That's a good idea. The last thing we need is a rogue pirate cropping up :)
 * <Sacha> Teamcoltra Isn't that why we have to use our real names so that you can prevent that?
 * <@kusanagi> Full names, I would assume?
 * <@kusanagi> Sacha: point 1.
 * However I don't think it is a constitutional item. I think it would be more of a PNC rule.
 * <@teamcoltra> kusanagi yes, but Sacha that doesn't prevent anyone from coming in and saying "My name is John Doe of Wisconson"
 * <@kusanagi> ...erm, michigan
 * <@teamcoltra> erixoltan I would argue that it should be in the constition within the state representaive outline
 * <@teamcoltra> (sorry for the spelling)
 * <Sacha> TeamColtra If we have to register our nicknames anyway then why would we need full names?
 * <Sacha> Actually eww, I don't want to get into this. I dunno if it should be required and I remember that logging in here is a pain in the ass
 * <@teamcoltra> Full names are a formality of any group like ours (including all other major political parties)
 * <Sacha> and i'm lazy but if y'all think it is important it is easy enough to require
 * <@teamcoltra> err (all other major pirate parties)
 * We don't want to have the contsitution contain references to things like lists of names that are really operating procedures of the PNC. It would have the effect of tying our hands from adopting something better in the future. That's why we don't have any mention of IRC, for example.
 * <@teamcoltra> But I am not going to get into full names again
 * <Bosun> Wisconsin will put them into our report to the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board offer the URL as credentials.
 * <@kusanagi> No it's not Sacha
 * <Bosun> No John Does here.
 * <@teamcoltra> erixoltan so just make it a by-law?
 * <Sacha> Kusanagi ..... Yes it is. That is my experience and i'm sticking to my guns that it was a pain in the ass but if it is seen as important and needed then i'm fine.
 * <Sacha> I agree that it should be in the by-laws though
 * We could put something more general into the Constitution saying that the representatives and alternates must be known to the Captain, and leave the specific details for a by-law.
 * <Bosun> Big parties have credential comitees.
 * <@teamcoltra> erixoltan I love that compromise
 * <@kusanagi> It's /msg nickserv identify password.
 * k
 * <Zacqary> All right. Give me a specific wording.
 * <@teamcoltra> lol kusanagi I think he means like, checks ID, background, etc
 * <Zacqary> I'll put it in.
 * <@teamcoltra> I don't think we need to do that quite yet ;)
 * <Sacha> Kusanagi Yeah, a pain in the ass to remember that. I.r.r.i.t.a.t.i.n.g. and I don't know why you would argue with a personal opinion anywya.
 * <Sacha> We haven't written the by laws yet so we can just keep it in mind
 * <@kusanagi> Because it's based on laziness and a massive desire not to do much.
 * <Bosun> How about it being up to each state to provide credentials to the pnc.
 * <Sacha> Kusanagi Yeah... so why the fuck do you feel that is neccessary to address in the middle of a meeting instead of a) talking in private b)ignoring it
 * "The captain or quartermaster shall have the discretion to refrain from recognizing the primary or alternate representative of any member or observer state, if said representative is not formally registered or otherwise known to them. "
 * <QuazarGuy> yes
 * <Zacqary> I'll make a Section 6 for that under Art. III.
 * <@kusanagi> Perfect.
 * <Bosun> freindly suggestion Add … or as specified in the by-laws.
 * <Sacha> Wonderful
 * <Zacqary> Where do we add that part, Bosun?
 * <Zacqary> They may refrain from recognizing it as specified by the bylaws, you mean?
 * <@teamcoltra> erixoltan I am uncomfortable with that.
 * <@teamcoltra> I am uncomfortable with Sacha's adherence to our full-name rule... Does that give me the ability to not recognize her?
 * <@teamcoltra> NOt that I would
 * <@teamcoltra> but I might not be Captain next time, and I am not comfortable thinking they wouldn't
 * <Bosun> I was thinking recognittion rules may be more specificly outlined in the by-laws.
 * <Zacqary> What would you propose instead, teamcoltra?
 * Personally I think we have to assume that the captain will behave in a fair way if they don't want to be the subject of a no confidence vote. However that said, I'm OK if you want to change it in some way.
 * <@teamcoltra> That each state must register their representative with the captain.
 * <@teamcoltra> Leave it at that.
 * <@teamcoltra> representatives
 * <@teamcoltra> But after reading erixoltan I can accept that too, if nothing else the PNC can call a VoNC if he is being a douchebag
 * Just a sec.
 * So the sticking point is the part about "discretion" ?
 * <QuazarGuy> yeah
 * <QuazarGuy> the officers aren't allowed discretion
 * <@teamcoltra> With the current wording, we would either nerf the rule where it's pointless, or give even more power to the captain
 * <Bosun> If the captain controls the credentials, how do none recognized members vote him out?
 * Yeah good point Bosun.
 * <Bosun> A check is required.
 * <@teamcoltra> This is why I like the simple rule of having each state simply "check in" with the captain, to tell them
 * <Zacqary> So should we be relegating this question to the Bylaws and not the Constitution?
 * "All primary or alternate representatives of each member or observer state must be registered with the captain or quartermaster."
 * <@teamcoltra> ^ this
 * <@teamcoltra> ( erixoltan )
 * <Bosun> Postel's Law: "be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others"
 * <Zacqary> Striking Section 6, putting that into Section 3G
 * That would work too. I proposed this approach because it was the most that I was comfortable with putting in the constitution. We can have the whole thing in the bylaws and that would be perhaps even better.
 * I was answering teamcoltra, not commenting on what Zacqary said.
 * <Bosun> So by-laws can define "check in"
 * <Zacqary> Actually, no, that doesn't fit in 3G. Let me figure out where to stick it...
 * <@kusanagi> That's what she said
 * <Zacqary> Travis JUST PMed me that.
 * <Zacqary> But with he.
 * kusanagi, and what did she mean by 3G, I'm dying to know?
 * <Zacqary> Okay, let's do Section 6.
 * <@kusanagi> 3G?
 * <Zacqary> Doesn't fit anywhere else.
 * <@kusanagi> Oh, that's not as good as 4G. You need more Gs.
 * <Zacqary> Section 6: Registration of Representatives
 * <Zacqary> All primary or alternate Representatives of each Member or Observer state must be registered with the Captain or Quartermaster.
 * <Zacqary> Now it says that.
 * <Zacqary> Under Art III
 * <Zacqary> Is this issue resolved?
 * That's great. Now Sacha can argue that she's already registered, she doesn't have to give her full name every week .....
 * <Sacha> Nah,if I do that i'll have to be harassed by people in PM
 * <Sacha> and it isn't fucking worth it
 * <@kusanagi> You need to do t0it for sake of transparency.
 * <Zacqary> Please wait for Sacha to actually do something wrong before bitching at her.
 * <Zacqary> This isn't Minority Report.
 * <Sacha> We are not fucking arguing about this Kusanagi I have already had enough bullshit over daring to oppose the majority on an issue
 * <Bosun> No prior restaint.
 * I don't bitch, I merely needle...
 * <Sacha> Okay so then we agree
 * <@kusanagi> Knock it off with the language.
 * <Sacha> What is the next issue in the constitution
 * <@teamcoltra> Seriously guys, the name issue has been debated, it has been settled. Lets focus on topic.
 * <Sacha> Fuck no, do I really need to act like a five year old or can you back off?
 * <@teamcoltra> Sacha you are a guest in this conversation, as you are not a full member.
 * <Zacqary> GUYS I HAVE THE CONCH. Next issue.
 * <QuazarGuy> you guys can solve your issues in a pm
 * <Zacqary> Meeting frequency.
 * <Zacqary> That's the only other big unresolved objection.
 * <Zacqary> Art VI, Section 1A
 * <Zacqary> "The PNC shall meet as frequently as its members shall decide, but not less than once per month. "
 * <Zacqary> QuazarGuy objects because forcing everyone to meet regularly is pointless and counterproductive?
 * <QuazarGuy> right
 * <Zacqary> Here's a copypasta:
 * <Zacqary> I've been talking to a German Pirate and he was saying that if people need to meet, they just meet. They have two national meetings a year, but they are for functional reasons, candidates and such.
 * <Zacqary> I personally find these national meetings to be a waste of time and would much rather submit a monthly written report of my state's progress. The Quartermaster could file these on the wiki where all the states can look and share ideas. If a state wants advice, they can hold their own meeting, other states will show up.
 * <Zacqary> I don't want to put in place procedures that won't be followable in the next year. How are we going to require the attendance of 50 representatives? How are we even going to hold such a meeting?
 * <Zacqary> There are methods for doing things without meetings and in our case I feel those would be more effective. Everything can still be logged and transparent. We can meet as often as required by law.
 * <Zacqary> I'm inclined to agree that asynchronous "meetings" could be a lot more efficient.
 * <@teamcoltra> I, too, would like to see our PNC meet twice a year. Or even have a physical once a year meeting.
 * If the PNC is a waste of time then we don't need a constitution.
 * The language doesn't prevent asynchronous meetings.
 * <@teamcoltra> It's not that the PNC is a waste of time... it's just that having a meeting every week is pointless
 * <Sacha> What Erixoltan said but also how will we call a meeting?
 * <Sacha> If it will just be done when there is enough demand how will we measure that?
 * <QuazarGuy> but it does force synchronous meetings
 * <Zacqary> Like a play-by-email game of XCOM, for anyone who pretends they're old enough to remember that.
 * no it doesnt' force synchronous meetings.
 * <QuazarGuy> once per month
 * doesn't mean synchronous
 * <Bosun> Face meetings are good to have two or three times a year. Organizations like IETF do almost everything in e-comittes outside the meetings.
 * nor does it mean face to face
 * <@kusanagi> Zacqary: I do actually remember that ;-;
 * <QuazarGuy> I don't know what an asynchronous meeting is
 * <Zacqary> It's where we all email each other and call it a meeting.
 * <Zacqary> A really, really, really long meeting where sometimes hours pass in between people speaking.
 * <QuazarGuy> that's a stretch
 * Actually our collaboration on the constitution document is a great example of an asynchronous meeting.
 * <Zacqary> It is a stretch. Let's be stretchy.
 * <Zacqary> Stretching is good for you.
 * <QuazarGuy> again I think that's a stretch of the word meeting
 * true
 * <Zacqary> I do see your point, though
 * <QuazarGuy> if say NY says they want to meet about something, then whoever wants to can join that meeting
 * <QuazarGuy> that's what I want for meetings
 * <Bosun> A young organization needs more meetings, a mature one less.
 * Why don't we just strike the provision that it has to be once per month. Let's leave the time unspecified. It can be a bylaw rather than constitutional.
 * <Bosun> agree with that
 * <QuazarGuy> but every meeting should require a topic and I don't think attendance should be required
 * <Bosun> I do ..
 * attendance is important because we need a quorum.
 * <Bosun> BOF Birds of a fether meetings?
 * <QuazarGuy> quorum can work with votes
 * <QuazarGuy> why should quorum stop NY from holding a meeting about pirate choirs or something?
 * <Zacqary> Votes could also be done via email. No need to gather everyone into IRC for them.
 * anyway, if we can have some kind of an asynchronous meeting then we can have a quorum without needing to impact anyone's schedule or waste anyone's time.
 * <Zacqary> Exactly. I think the question is whether "meeting" is a good word for that.
 * <Zacqary> And, yeah, it's not.
 * <Zacqary> Do we have a better word?
 * <MrSquared> guys I have to go
 * That's the only reason I use "meeting" - I would prefer a different word.
 * <Zacqary> See! MrSquared illustrates why we need to have asynchronous meetings!
 * <Zacqary> Bye.
 * <MrSquared> ha! bye
 * <QuazarGuy> PNC votes?
 * <Bosun> ad hoc committees
 * <Zacqary> Can be done via email.
 * <Zacqary> We can set a due date for all votes being in.
 * <Zacqary> Google Wave would be wonderful for this kind of meeting.
 * <Zacqary> If it were still around.
 * voting software.
 * So have we discussed all the sticking points in the new constitution?
 * <Bosun> http://drupal.org/project/advpoll/
 * <Zacqary> We haven't resolved this one, I don't think.
 * <Zacqary> Other than striking the once per month requirement?
 * <QuazarGuy> change it to once per year, and we'll address it in an amendment when we know what meetings are
 * <Zacqary> Okay.
 * <Bosun> works for me.
 * Bosun, have you used it?
 * <Bosun> nope … I'll try it out
 * OK just checking.
 * <Zacqary> Okay, last outstanding objections are...
 * <Zacqary> Art III Section 5, which I made a fix to while we were talking.
 * <Zacqary> Previously 5A said "Officers and Subcommittee Liaisons shall not participate in PNC votes"
 * <Zacqary> Now it says "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."
 * <Zacqary> QuazarGuy, does that satisfy your objection?
 * <QuazarGuy> yeah
 * <Zacqary> Yaaaay.
 * I like it too.
 * <Zacqary> Okay, so...
 * <QuazarGuy> 4.1.c. change record to keep records of
 * <Zacqary> Sounds acceptable.
 * <Zacqary> Done.
 * <Zacqary> Only thing left is the fgsfding name question.
 * <Sacha> It really makes no sense to be PPUS if we want cohearancy
 * <QuazarGuy> coherency is relative
 * <QuazarGuy> we're not coherent with other countries
 * <Zacqary> PP(Country), (State)PP. Keeps us from confusing Pennsylvania with Panama.
 * Is there any reason why we have to be one or the other? I mean, there's no other USPP or PPUS right?
 * <Zacqary> The reason is that we have to write something official down.
 * <@kusanagi> It was something about the irs
 * <@kusanagi> Someone would know.
 * <Zacqary> Which was resolved, right teamcoltra?
 * <@teamcoltra> Umm
 * <@teamcoltra> I don't think we have any filings with the IRS anymore
 * <Zacqary> Well, what if we're PPUSA?
 * <Zacqary> That sidesteps that issue.
 * <Bosun> people like 2 letter ISO codes.
 * <@teamcoltra> ALl of our filings should have dissolved by now
 * <Zacqary> Pirate Party of the United States was on the IRS, not Pirate Party of the United States of America.
 * <Zacqary> So even if there is still a filing somewhere.
 * <Zacqary> Add "of America".
 * I still don't think that we have a problem being both. We can say USPP to John and PPUS to Joe. I really don't think this has to be a problem.
 * <Zacqary> And we're good.
 * <Zacqary> It doesn't. We just have to decide on the official document.
 * We can say that we're the party formerly known as the pirate party and change our name to an unpronouncable symbol.
 * <@teamcoltra> And honestly the PNC can really only call itself the PNC. What we decide to call ourselves to other people, or what other people call us is up to them
 * <Bosun> The party formerly known as ...
 * <@teamcoltra> Look at the GOP, Republicans, and RNC
 * <QuazarGuy> Pirate Party (United States)
 * <@teamcoltra> 3 names 1 party
 * <Zacqary> Yes. But for purposes of the official document I say we should use the international standard.
 * Hey guys, I'm going to write a new education policy and I just figured out what to call it.
 * No File Left Behind.
 * <@kusanagi> LOL
 * <Zacqary> Ololololol
 * <Sacha> LOOOOOOOOOOOL that is so funny Erixoltan
 * <QuazarGuy> does anyone care enough to stop what's already on the document?
 * <Zacqary> Who's Jarod Smith again?
 * <QuazarGuy> GA
 * <Zacqary> Right.
 * <Zacqary> Is he still here?
 * <QuazarGuy> no
 * <QuazarGuy> guess you can bitch at him in email
 * <Zacqary> Needle.
 * <Bosun> So is PPWI or WIPP … or Bull WIPP
 * <Zacqary> Anyway. I'm gonna resolve his comment and keep it as the Pirate Party of the United States of America. My name is better because it has more America in it than his.
 * <QuazarGuy> Bosun, pretty sure it's cool wipp
 * <Zacqary> Cool Hwipp.
 * <@teamcoltra> I still disagree with the PNC naming the party
 * <Bosun> cheese wipp
 * Midnight. I'm turning into a pumpkin.
 * <@teamcoltra> We simply operate as the PNC. We just all should start calling it PPUS
 * <@teamcoltra> and have general consensus thats what we are doing.
 * <Sacha> TeamColtra But won't that be confusing as we will still have NYPP and FLPP and WAPP etc.
 * <@teamcoltra> Sacha no, because those are state parties
 * <@teamcoltra> thats how we know
 * <Sacha> Shouldn't it just be the same across the board?
 * <Zacqary> If it's letters before PP, then it's a state.
 * <@teamcoltra> PPUS is a national movement (not party)
 * <Zacqary> If it's PP before letters, it's a country.
 * <@teamcoltra> ^
 * <QuazarGuy> well when we register for tax stuff, it will be as the PNC
 * <Zacqary> Right.
 * <Sacha> Okay, that makes sense then
 * <Sacha> I have no objections
 * <Zacqary> But every other national party does name itself in its own charter.
 * <QuazarGuy> then why do we need to say PPUS anywhere
 * <QuazarGuy> oh
 * <Bosun> pee puss
 * <@kusanagi> Oh IDPP is the best
 * <QuazarGuy> I know right
 * <Zacqary> When Hawaii forms they'll be HIPP.
 * @kusanagi laughs at teamcoltra
 * <Zacqary> And when Rhode Island forms, they'll be RIPPing CDs.
 * <@teamcoltra> Zacqary Hawaii is forming soon actually
 * <Zacqary> I know, we talked about that on the phone.
 * <QuazarGuy> and Washington will be WAPPing you all on the head
 * <@teamcoltra> Anyway, back to topic, was there anything else we needed to cover?
 * <Bosun> humor overload
 * <Zacqary> And Missouri will MOPP up the mess.
 * <QuazarGuy> XD
 * <Zacqary> I think all the outstanding objections are resolved.
 * <@teamcoltra> WYPP ?
 * <@teamcoltra> :D
 * <@teamcoltra> Anyone want to move to adjourn?
 * I'm glad that we don't have a state with the abbreviation FA...
 * <Zacqary> I would LOVE to move to adjourn.
 * <Zacqary> Let's do it!
 * <@teamcoltra> anyone want to second?
 * 2nd
 * <QuazarGuy> I was going to recommend WA for probation
 * <@teamcoltra> In favour?
 * <Zacqary> Oh wait
 * <@teamcoltra> Too late, moved and seconded
 * <Zacqary> Sorry. You can't punish yourself right now.
 * <Bosun> goodnight
 * <@teamcoltra> Bosun vote in favour
 * <@teamcoltra> or against
 * <Zacqary> We have to aye first.
 * <Zacqary> Aye.
 * ......because if we had a state with the abbreviation FA, then they'd be FAPP........
 * <Zacqary> We get it.
 * <Zacqary> Just adjourn this damn thing.
 * <QuazarGuy> abstain
 * aye
 * <Bosun> aye
 * <@kusanagi> Lol erixoltan
 * <@teamcoltra> We didn't reach quorum, so the meeting ends by lack of quorum
 * <QuazarGuy> I'm here
 * arrrrrrr
 * <@teamcoltra> Yeah but we now have 9 full members
 * <@teamcoltra> 4 votes is less than 50%
 * OK, adios either way :)
 * <QuazarGuy> OK is on probation
 * <@kusanagi> Lol
 * OY
 * <QuazarGuy> lol
 * <QuazarGuy> not letting you go easily
 * <Zacqary> Come on guys I have to go. My boyfriend is forcing me to level my Blood Elf Hunter. In an extremely peculiar reversal of how WoW usually affects romantic relationships.
 * <@teamcoltra> you can go Zacqary
 * <@teamcoltra> the meeting was adjourned
 * <@kusanagi> ....
 * <@teamcoltra> well... dissolved
 * <QuazarGuy> :-/
 * <@kusanagi> I HATE BELFS
 * <@teamcoltra> it failed quorum
 * <@kusanagi> GO PLAY A REAL HORDE
 * <@teamcoltra> either way, there is no meeting
 * <@teamcoltra> either way, there is no meeting