GM 2011-05-19 transcript
From Pirate Party of Canada
19:59 -Stenobot:#canada- ================== THIS MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER ===================
20:00 <@scshunt> Hey guys, welcome to the post-election general meeting of the Pirate Party!
20:00 <+MikkelPaulson> thank you
20:00 <@scshunt> If you guys have any questions, comments, complaints, or anything else about how the meeting is run, drop me a PM with /msg
20:00 <+MikkelPaulson> don't forget to authenticate
20:00 <+MikkelPaulson> if you need your ID and PIN, /msg me with your email
20:01 <@scshunt> First order of business: Mikkel has a leader's report on the election
20:02 <+MikkelPaulson> I'll be preparing a formal report in the coming days, still waiting on reports from a few candidates
20:02 <+MikkelPaulson> but I'll touch on some of the recommendations, and we can discuss the results
20:03 <+MikkelPaulson> you can find the per-riding results here:
20:03 <+MikkelPaulson> https://www.pirateparty.ca/forum/index.php?topic=1123.msg7050#msg7050
20:03 <+drew> did i do something, sorry
20:03 <+MikkelPaulson> I think we did pretty well for our first run, all things considered
20:04 <+MikkelPaulson> no, Stenobot just voices people who have logged in
20:04 <@scshunt> drew: nope, you're authenticated so it gave you the ability to speak
20:05 <+MikkelPaulson> the party-level recommendations in the post-election report are as follows:
20:05 <+MikkelPaulson> - we need to establish ridings associations
20:05 <+MikkelPaulson> *riding
20:06 <+MikkelPaulson> it makes the finances much easier to manage, and it gives us a good meter of the commitment of potential candidates
if we require them to spearhead the establishment of an association
20:06 <+MikkelPaulson> - flyers and posters should be prepared in advance
20:06 <+MikkelPaulson> our candidates were going it alone in many cases, and we need better resources available for them
20:06 <+MikkelPaulson> - we should look into establishing more university clubs like at UW to step up recruitment and get better volunteer
support for our campaigns
20:07 <+MikkelPaulson> - we need to compile information for candidates based on Elections Canada's resources
20:07 <+MikkelPaulson> - Directors should be prohibited from running without resigning or taking a leave of absence
20:08 <+MikkelPaulson> our Federal Council was seriously shorthanded and didn't have a single official meeting during the campaign, though
we were in constant communication via other media
20:08 <+MikkelPaulson> - TV and radio ads should be produced in advance
20:08 <+MikkelPaulson> each ad was a scramble literally the night before, and it shows
20:09 <+rintaran> As the Federal Council is an executive and not a political lead of the Pirate Party, I think that makes sense. It isn't
setup to be both.
20:09 <+MikkelPaulson> - the style guide needs to be completed pronto
20:09 <+MikkelPaulson> and finally
20:09 <+MikkelPaulson> - we need to have a more active role in planning future leaders' debates
20:09 <+MikkelPaulson> this one was a total gong show
20:10 <@scshunt> May I ask a question?
20:10 * MikkelPaulson sits down
20:10 <+MikkelPaulson> of course
20:10 <+rintaran> You left out a complete redo of the website to make it more useful...
20:11 <+MikkelPaulson> the report specifically has an eye on preparations for next election
20:11 <@scshunt> Is it legal for use to prepare things in advance? I understood we can't spend a dollar on the campaign without a
confirmed candidate
20:11 <+MikkelPaulson> the website redesign isn't election-related
20:11 <+MikkelPaulson> that's why we need riding associations
20:11 <+MikkelPaulson> they can spend and accept donations pre-campaign
20:12 <+rintaran> I had an agent information session recently that went into that with more detail.
20:12 <+rintaran> Provided the bills aren't paid/due until after the candidate's nomination is confirmed, it's all good.
20:13 <@scshunt> Ok, cool
20:13 <+MikkelPaulson> Elections Canada doesn't really care what we do with our money outside of elections
20:13 <+rintaran> It was a long meeting. Almost none of it applies to the campaign return I'm dealing with. :)
20:14 <+MikkelPaulson> good to hear, my agent wasn't able to make it and I was afraid he'd miss out on useful info
20:14 <+rintaran> Well, there was some. Even if your "Candidate Personal Expenses is $0, you still need to submit the form signed.
20:14 <+MikkelPaulson> if anyone else needs help logging in, /msg MikkelPaulson [your email address]
20:15 <+MikkelPaulson> yeah, that was interesting
20:15 <+MikkelPaulson> I was wondering about that one
20:15 <@scshunt> heh, that reminds me about a funny story. Ask me after the meeting
20:15 <+MikkelPaulson> I did incur quite a bit in personal expenses
20:15 <+MikkelPaulson> mostly food and bus fare
20:15 <+MikkelPaulson> but all of it has now been reimbursed
20:16 <@scshunt> Are there any other questions or comments on this report?
20:16 <+Jeremy> on the subject of university clubs, I'm co-founding a club that we'd be interested in having associated with the
PPCA at the University of Toronto
20:16 <+MikkelPaulson> when I submit the official report it'll be open for further responses
20:16 <+MikkelPaulson> good to hear
20:17 <+MikkelPaulson> I'd love to have at least one Toronto candidate next election, so maybe you'll be able to stir things up enough
20:17 <+Jeremy> yeah, it's exciting. who would we talk to about collecting donations or possibly handling membership registrations?
20:17 <+Jeremy> or is that only done online?
20:18 <@scshunt> The FC are the ones to talk to, but in my experience it's good to get the club off the ground first
20:18 <+MikkelPaulson> universities often have strict rules regarding club finances
20:18 <+MikkelPaulson> so that'd be the place to start
20:18 <+MikkelPaulson> might help to talk to the directors of other new clubs too
20:18 <+MikkelPaulson> see what issues they ran into
20:19 <+MikkelPaulson> I'd also like to have some resources in place for people starting university clubs, but scshunt says that it
varies too much from university to university to be terribly useful
20:19 <+Jeremy> U of T itself doesn't regulate much IIRC, apart from requiring you have an account with a certain number of co-signers
20:20 <+MikkelPaulson> I looked into it at the U of A and Grant MacEwan, and they require a club bank account, designated treasurer,
and a certain percentage of members and directors who are university students
20:20 <+MikkelPaulson> basically what the requirements boil down to
20:20 <+Jeremy> is there any permission we need to be able to use the name or logo of the PPCA?
20:20 <+MikkelPaulson> normally no, to officially represent yourselves yes
20:21 <+MikkelPaulson> we'll pass a motion of the Federal Council or something affirming you as an official club
20:21 <+MikkelPaulson> just procedural basically
20:21 <+Jeremy> the thing is, we'd need a constitution with a name before we can get on our feet. is it fine to name ourselves "Pirate
Party of Canada, University of Toronto Chapter" or something similar?
20:22 <+Jeremy> without asserting the PPCA has recognized us
20:22 <@scshunt> I'm going to suggest we move on now, we're getting a little specific
20:22 <+MikkelPaulson> yeah, we can discuss it later
20:22 <+Jeremy> i just need a name of someone to contact. is it you, Mikkel?
20:23 <+MikkelPaulson> yeah
20:23 <+Jeremy> thanks
20:23 <+MikkelPaulson> well, i think rintaran would be your main point of contact with that sort of stuff
20:23 <+MikkelPaulson> but I can certainly field any questions too
20:23 <+rintaran> Yeah, I can be your contact if you require.
20:23 <+Jeremy> okay, that sounds good. I'll speak with you privately about it. we can move on
20:24 <+MikkelPaulson> any other responses to the leader's report?
20:24 <+rintaran> I think it would also be important to have some specific linking cues to regular issues prepared for candidates.
20:25 <+drew> is the report public?
20:25 <+MikkelPaulson> it will be, yes
20:25 <@scshunt> drew: It was just delivered here in channel; a more full report will be published when Mikkel finishes it
20:25 <+drew> ok
20:25 <+MikkelPaulson> and I'll also put together a section synthesizing common threads across the candidates' reports
20:25 <+MikkelPaulson> I have 5 so far I think
20:26 <@scshunt> The next (and last) item of business on the agenda was the idea of limiting the forums to PPCA members only
20:27 <+MikkelPaulson> Shawn Vulliez has been the one advocating this, but I can move it on his behalf
20:27 <+ArghMonkey> whew, thats better
20:28 <+rintaran> Also, it's only making it available to post by PPCA members only. Viewability was to remain as previous I believe.
20:28 <@scshunt> Ok, so MikkelPaulson moves that the PPCA forum posting priveleges be limited to members only.
20:29 <+MikkelPaulson> scshunt: not using Stenobot for this?
20:29 <@scshunt> By the way, if anyone not a member of the party would like to speak, please PM me
20:29 <+Jeremy> do we comment on the motion now?
20:29 <+ArghMonkey> this is my first time to the PP GM, whats on the list to discuss? is this free flow or is there a secretary? maybe
take it into private if u can help fill me in quickly
20:29 <+MikkelPaulson> ArghMonkey: scshunt is the chair
20:29 <@scshunt> MikkelPaulson: give me a minute; I use this thing once a month on average
20:29 <+sleslie> Can I just chime in - I don't mind the idea of limiting posts to members, but viewability by all is a huge value to
the party
20:29 <+DataPacRat> I'd recommend against making the entire forum PPCA-members only; we need to attract as many new members as we can,
and being able to converse with potentially-interested folk on the forum is one such. If /some/ of the forums were
PPCA-member-only, that would be a more viable approach than making the entire forum limited to PPCA members for
posting, IMO.
20:30 <+MikkelPaulson> /msg sb motion add mikkelpaulson that the forum posting privileges be limited to members only
20:30 <+sleslie> datapacrat agree
20:30 <@scshunt> Do we have a second to the motion?
20:30 <+sleslie> second
20:30 <+Jeremy> I agree with DataPacRat, and add that it would be good to have it viewable whether a person is a member
20:30 <+sidek> I agree that only /some/ should be limited as well
20:30 -Stenobot:#canada- === MOTION THAT THE FORUM'S POSTING PRIVILIGES BE LIMITED TO MEMBERS OF THE PARTY. ===
20:30 -Stenobot:#canada- MikkelPaulson now has the floor.
20:30 <@scshunt> MikkelPaulson: Do you wish to introduce the motion?
20:30 <+MikkelPaulson> ah, that's better
20:31 <+MikkelPaulson> sure
20:31 <+MikkelPaulson> I guess a little bit of discussion has already happened
20:31 <+MikkelPaulson> but this is something that was raised at last week's Federal Council meeting
20:32 <+MikkelPaulson> the concern is that people are posting critical and/or combative messages in the forum without contributing
anything themselves
20:32 <+MikkelPaulson> by requiring forum members to join the party, we can get a reasonable standard of involvement
20:33 <+MikkelPaulson> encourage people to become members, and make the forum more representative of the party
20:33 <+MikkelPaulson> the proposal as it stands now would leave public access as-is (maybe with a few more boards hidden) but allow
only members to psot
20:33 <+MikkelPaulson> *post
20:33 <+MikkelPaulson> I'll open it up to discussion now
20:33 -Stenobot:#canada- MikkelPaulson's speaking period has ended.
20:34 <+sidek> Looking quickly at the boards, it seems to me that at least the election 2011 forums (and things like them) should not
be locked up like that
20:34 <+MikkelPaulson> ah tehre we go
20:34 <+MikkelPaulson> sorry about that
20:35 <+sidek> Otherwise, there's less place to talk to candidates
20:35 <+MikkelPaulson> that's true, there are definitely some exceptions
20:35 <+sidek> we need to make it as easy as possible for people to talk to candidates - don't need a barrier
20:35 <+MikkelPaulson> we'll go on a board-by-board
20:35 <+Jeremy> while I haven't been active enough on the forums to know the problem well, I think on some forums such as Platform
Discussion it would be more suitable to have postings open to all, but have it noted next to the person's name
(under it?) whether they are a member
20:35 <+Jeremy> yes, board-by-board is best
20:35 <+drew> Just because someone pays $10, does it mean they will contribute positively?
20:35 <+ArghMonkey> Ok, I have to ask, rather ignorantly I might add because I dont use the forums here that much yet but isent there
a public area that non members can post in and other areas where only members can post or are we talking about
eliminating all non-members from being able to post on the forum?
20:35 <+MikkelPaulson> maybe establish a open board for non-members
20:35 <+MikkelPaulson> ArghMonkey: right now anyone can post anywhere, assuming they sign up for a forum account
20:36 <+DataPacRat> I approve of having at least one open board, per MikkelPaulson's suggestion.
20:36 <+drew> i think a good compromise would be to have at least one open board where anonymous users can post
20:36 <+ArghMonkey> I would agree to having one area open to anyone and having other areas, to be determined i guess, closed to
members only
20:37 <+DataPacRat> Anonymous users is another topic entirely, isn't it?
20:37 <+MikkelPaulson> I'd be open to trying out anon posting as a trial period, but I don't think it'll work out too well
20:37 <+MikkelPaulson> I don't think it's unreasonable to amend it to this motion
20:38 <+rintaran> The idea was to have an open section, with registered forum users able to speak and ask questions. The remainder
was to be viewable by all, but only postable by members of the Party to ensure that the direction of the party is
led by its members and not by individuals who have no vested interest in the party itself.
20:38 <+DataPacRat> So - PPCA-only forums; one or more forums open to any registered user; and a 'wild west' forum allowing anonymous
posting?
20:38 <+AdamS> I don't really see the value to an anon posting in this context
20:38 <+drew> anonymous = allowing private messages which lead to more freedom to express oneself. I think we all know this as its
part of our values
20:38 <+rintaran> Not registered user. Pirate Party of Canada member.
20:38 <+ArghMonkey> anon users are a grab bag, lots of nonsense posts but it does give an added layer on anonymity, maybe even for
members who want to "hide" for whatever reasons
20:38 <+MikkelPaulson> the implementation I'd go for would allow anyone to sign up with the forum, and prompt them to log in with
their member ID and PIN
20:38 <+MikkelPaulson> once they've logged in once, they'll be added to a member group that grants the additional privileges
20:40 <+RicLim> anon group is good for those curious but don't want to sign up for an account to post
20:40 <+ArghMonkey> @DataPacRat - whats the downside to having an area with anon posters as the wild west? we have to assume that
many people checking us out have no idea what they are doing and might simply want to post something without
having to register on the forum
20:40 <+DataPacRat> I'm in favour of allowing anonymous communications - but I've also found that it's possible to use Tor to create
a gmail account without any identifiable information, allowing for anonymous communication (if appropriate
precautions are taken); and so anyone who wants to register with the forum and remain anonymous can do so even
now.
20:40 <+drew> So in order for someone to express their opinions on some of the topics of discussion, they have to provide their
address and credit card number?
20:40 <+AdamS> I suppose so, but for those discussing things actually going on in the party, would it get paid much attention?
20:41 <+Jeremy> on drew's comment, that's why I suggest Platform Discussion remain open
20:41 <+ArghMonkey> @Jeremy - totally open?
20:41 <@scshunt> I feel that an important thread has been missed - can this just be handled with more aggressive moderation,
whether or not it is discriminatory against registered users? What's to stop someone from paying their $10 and then
continuing to make the forums unpleasant?
20:41 <+MikkelPaulson> platform maybe not
20:41 <+Jeremy> i mean as it currently is, with it noted whether a person is a member
20:41 <+Jeremy> perhaps creating topics could be limited to members only
20:42 <+MikkelPaulson> we also want to encourage people to become members of the party
20:42 <+MikkelPaulson> at the moment the perks (awesome membership card) are pretty meagre
20:42 <+DataPacRat> scshunt: Metafilter requires a one-time $5 fee to register an account, and the commenting is astonishingly civil.
20:42 <+Jeremy> if you note clearly whether a person is a member in platform discussion, there will be this pressure to be
"recognized" as a member in discussions
20:42 <+Jeremy> that's worth the membership cost to a lot of people
20:42 <+ArghMonkey> @DataPacRat - but we dont have that kind of clout ... or do we ?
20:42 <+RicLim> what about my suggestion of chat on the side of the website. This will allow drop in people to just ask a question
20:43 <+drew> Ya just put a sign near the name of anyone who is a "verified user"
20:43 <+RicLim> then we don't need access for anon on forum
20:43 <+DataPacRat> DataPacRat: If someone /wants/ to spend a traceable $10 in order to be a bannable troll on the forums... might it
not be worth that $10?
20:43 <+RicLim> kind of like this site
20:43 <+RicLim> http://www.streamingsoundtracks.com/
20:43 <+DataPacRat> ^ -> ArghMonkey
20:44 <+Jeremy> I personally don't see the need for "anonymous" posting, since the current system is anonymous enough.
20:44 <@scshunt> Guys, please try to stay a little bit more on the topic
20:44 <+RicLim> But people might want to join discussion without joining until they have a better feel about the party
20:45 <+MikkelPaulson> hence the party open to all, and IRC of course
20:45 <+MikkelPaulson> *forum board
20:45 <+Jeremy> it is very, very easy to open a forum account
20:45 <+ArghMonkey> I picture three areas and I dont see why they cant all be implemented and work, one area with anon posts, moderated
heavily but free flowing and open without registration, another bigger area, with the bulk of posts for registered
users only and then another area for members only. Cant we have the best of all these things?
20:45 <+drew> give people the option to filter all non member posts
20:46 <+ArghMonkey> drew: i like that idea
20:46 <+DataPacRat> As long as there's at least one sub-forum, if not several, open to non-PPCA-members, I don't mind closing at least
some of the forums to members-only. Maybe even open up a PPCA-member-only forum that's only viewable by PPCA-members.
20:46 <+ArghMonkey> i mean whats convenient for us isent the biggest concern no? we want ppl to come and contribute and join, thats
only going to happen if we are inviting for EVERYONE
20:46 <@scshunt> I will remind that the current motion is to limit ALL access to the forums to party members only
20:47 <+rintaran> All posting access.
20:47 <+RicLim> not all. but the question is
20:47 <+ArghMonkey> scshunt: if its to limit all access i wouldnt support that personally
20:47 <@scshunt> Does anyone want to move an amendment, or would you prefer discussion first?
20:47 <+DataPacRat> May I move to amend the motion, to limit /some/ posting access while retaining some open access? Or would that be
better as a new motion?
20:47 <+RicLim> is that all posting or all access?
20:48 <+rintaran> Posting priviledges according to the motion.
20:49 <+MikkelPaulson> I'd prefer to have only one board available to non-members
20:49 <@scshunt> DataPacRat: That would be fine as an amendment; the current text of the motion is "that the forum's posting priviliges
be limited to members of the Party."
20:49 <+Jeremy> I move to amend the motion, that certain forums be limited in posting to members only, other forums postable by anyone
but indicating under the username of the poster whether they are a verified member, decided on a forum-by-forum basis,
and that all forums be publicly readable.
20:49 <+Jeremy> that leaves ambiguous the one or many open question, which can be decided later
20:50 <+DataPacRat> I move an amendment: That the forum's posting priviliges be limited to members of the Party, *save for at least one
sub-forum open to posts by all forum members*.
20:50 <+sidek> One sub-forum for non-members ?
20:50 <@scshunt> Is there a second?
20:50 <+sidek> I'd say the policy should be to allow access to everyone generally
20:50 <+AdamS> we would have to drop the "all forums to be publicaly readable" as I believe some have already been indicated as not
being so
20:50 <+sidek> but close one or two forums for members
20:50 <+drew> maybe you can somehow allow the non member board to easily quote the member board, so that there can be a two forms of
the same discussion: one for members only and one for everyone
20:51 <@scshunt> Again, is there a second for DataPacRat's amendment?
20:51 <+ArghMonkey> DataPacRat: non anon posts in any of those areas?
20:51 <+MikkelPaulson> I'll second
20:51 <@scshunt> Ok
20:51 <+MikkelPaulson> though I'd rather the motion read that "some" boards be open
20:51 <+MikkelPaulson> as it leaves the implementation open with a bit of flexibility
20:52 <+ArghMonkey> thats what i was wondering
20:52 <@scshunt> it says "at least one"
20:52 <+ArghMonkey> k
20:52 <+DataPacRat> I'm willing to accept MikkelPaulson's changing of the wording from 'at least one' to 'some'.
20:52 <@scshunt> ok
20:53 -Stenobot:#canada- === MOTION THAT THE MAIN MOTION BE AMENDED BY ADDING 'SAVE FOR AT LEAST ONE SUB-FORUM OPEN TO POSTS BY ALL
FORUM MEMBERS' TO READ "THAT THE FORUM'S POSTING PRIVILIGES BE LIMITED TO MEMBERS OF THE PARTY, SAVE FOR
SOME SUB-FORUMS OPEN TO POSTS BY ALL FORUM MEMBERS" ===
20:53 -Stenobot:#canada- DataPacRat now has the floor.
20:53 <@scshunt> DataPacRat: do you wish to introduce the motion at all?
20:53 <+DataPacRat> scshunt: I do
20:53 <@scshunt> go ahead then
20:54 <+DataPacRat> I move to amend, that the forum's posting priviliges be limited to members of the Party, *save for some sub-forums
open to posts by all forum members*
20:54 <@scshunt> DataPacRat: You've moved it; I meant do you want to give an introductory speech :)
20:54 <+DataPacRat> scshunt: Oh. Wups. :)
20:55 <+DataPacRat> It's pretty simple - communication is the key to the party's growth, and the forum is one of our best lines of
communication with the public.
20:56 <+DataPacRat> As one of our principles is freedom of speech, then it's in our best interests, as individuals and a Party, to
maintain that line of communication.
20:56 <+DataPacRat> Thank you.
20:57 <+dc> forums require a bigger investment of time than most are willing to devote. a lot of communication takes place on twitter
and youtube.
20:57 <+rintaran> Leaving an area open for all forum members was the original purpose, but it was unfortunately forgotten in Mikkel's
wording of the original motion.
20:57 <+rintaran> Thank-you for making the motion to amend in this way.
20:57 <+sidek> dc, depends on the persoon
20:57 <+MikkelPaulson> yeah, I think the amendment is basically just a fix in the wording
20:57 <+sidek> if the only way I was able to talk to someone was twitter/youtube, I wouldn't talk to them
20:57 <+MikkelPaulson> I'd support it as-is
20:57 <+dc> sidek, exactly
20:58 <+MikkelPaulson> this doesn't necessarily have to be permanent
20:58 <+rintaran> In other words, we need multiple lines of communication.
20:58 <+MikkelPaulson> if the forum completely dies, we can reverse it
20:59 <+rintaran> I think we're moving beyond "just a forum" mentality at this point.
20:59 <+MikkelPaulson> IRC will still be a free-for-all, save for at meetings
20:59 <@scshunt> Any more discussion?
20:59 <+MikkelPaulson> since we're back to the motion now, I'll call a vote on the amendment
20:59 <+sidek> For lots of people, though, IRC is hard, weird and just unworkable
21:00 <+dc> sidek, my point is that the forums are not a great way to reach the most people possible. but are great for people who
care about the party a great deal.
21:00 <+MikkelPaulson> the amendment is just to add a public board
21:00 <+MikkelPaulson> don't think there's anyone who would disagree with that but agree with the motion as a whole
21:00 <@scshunt> MikkelPaulson would like to call a vote on the amendment; is there a second?
21:00 <+coldacid> second
21:01 <@scshunt> Ok, we're going to do this vote manually; all in favor of stopping discussion and voting on the amendment, say
'aye'. All against, say 'nay'.
21:02 <@scshunt> Ok, the question is called.
21:02 -Stenobot:#canada- === VOTE ON MOTION THAT THE MAIN MOTION BE AMENDED BY ADDING 'SAVE FOR AT LEAST ONE SUB-FORUM OPEN TO
POSTS BY ALL FORUM MEMBERS' TO READ "THAT THE FORUM'S POSTING PRIVILIGES BE LIMITED TO MEMBERS OF THE
PARTY, SAVE FOR SOME SUB-FORUMS OPEN TO POSTS BY ALL FORUM MEMBERS" ===
21:03 -Stenobot:#canada- === MOTION THAT THE MAIN MOTION BE AMENDED BY ADDING 'SAVE FOR AT LEAST ONE SUB-FORUM OPEN TO POSTS BY
ALL FORUM MEMBERS' TO READ "THAT THE FORUM'S POSTING PRIVILIGES BE LIMITED TO MEMBERS OF THE PARTY, SAVE
FOR SOME SUB-FORUMS OPEN TO POSTS BY ALL FORUM MEMBERS" PASSED ===
21:03 <+MikkelPaulson> haha, slowed for flooding
21:04 <+coldacid> heh
21:04 -Stenobot:#canada- === MOTION THAT THE FORUM'S POSTING PRIVILIGES BE LIMITED TO MEMBERS OF THE PARTY. AMENDED ===
21:04 <+MikkelPaulson> I know it's a bit wordy
21:04 <@scshunt> Is there further discussion on the motion?
21:05 <+MikkelPaulson> sorry, if you're waiting to log in, please visit https://meetings.pirateparty.ca/login.php
21:05 <+rintaran> I'm good, but then I've had more discussion on the motion than most.
21:05 <+MikkelPaulson> for some reason Stenobot forgot the URL
21:05 <+MikkelPaulson> it's been collecting dust for a few months
21:05 <+MikkelPaulson> I'll fix it later tonight
21:05 <+crime_minister> aye
21:06 <+MikkelPaulson> I'll call the question, then
21:06 <@scshunt> Is there any further discussion before we waste time with a vote?
21:06 -Stenobot:#canada- === VOTE ON MOTION THAT THE FORUM'S POSTING PRIVILIGES BE LIMITED TO MEMBERS OF THE PARTY, SAVE FOR
SOME SUB-FORUMS OPEN TO POSTS BY ALL FORUM MEMBERS ===
21:07 -Stenobot:#canada- === MOTION THAT THE FORUM'S POSTING PRIVILIGES BE LIMITED TO MEMBERS OF THE PARTY, SAVE FOR SOME
SUB-FORUMS OPEN TO POSTS BY ALL FORUM MEMBERS PASSED ===
21:07 <+MikkelPaulson> cool
21:08 <+MikkelPaulson> all right, we should have that implemented in the next week or so
21:08 <+RicLim> do we get confirmation code? I noticed there are some codes beside the votes
21:08 <+MikkelPaulson> we'll re-evaluate it at the next meeting
21:08 <+MikkelPaulson> you should have, but Stenobot isn't sending those right now
21:08 <+drew> how do we vote
21:08 <+MikkelPaulson> not sure why
21:08 <+RicLim> k
21:08 <+MikkelPaulson> it gives voting instructions in the announcement
21:09 <+MikkelPaulson> Stenobot (notice) MikkelPaulson has moved That the forum's posting priviliges be limited to members of
the Party, save for some sub-forums open to posts by all forum members. To vote yes, type /msg sb Y; to
vote no, /msg sb N; to abstain, /msg sb A. The voting period will conclude after 45 seconds.
21:09 <+DataPacRat> Odd; I received no such announcement.
21:10 <@scshunt> It was sent to the channel
21:10 <+MikkelPaulson> for more info on how the procedure works, type /msg sb help voting
21:10 <+DataPacRat> There was probably some problem with me authenticating my party membership to sb.
21:10 <@scshunt> You're voiced, so you authenticated
21:11 <@scshunt> and you're in the channel, so you should have seen the notice
21:11 <@scshunt> did you see the ones with lots of === symbols?
21:11 <+coldacid> DataPacRat: what's your irc client
21:11 <+DataPacRat> scshunt: Not a one.
21:11 <@scshunt> coldacid: mibbit
21:11 <+coldacid> D:
21:11 <+DataPacRat> coldacid: The main website client, mibbit
21:11 <+MikkelPaulson> maybe mibbit doesn't show NOTICE messages...
21:11 <+MikkelPaulson> heh
21:11 <+MikkelPaulson> I'll have to look into that
21:12 * scshunt tests it
21:12 <+MikkelPaulson> if that's the case, I'll have to abandon that altogether
21:12 -scshunt:#canada- TEST NOTICE
21:12 <+drew> how do i know if my vote went through
21:12 <+DataPacRat> MikkelPaulson: I know I've voted on at least one previous chat with the client - maybe there was an upgrade
to the software?
21:12 <@scshunt> who saw that notice?
21:12 <+MikkelPaulson> you voted too late
21:12 <+MikkelPaulson> I did
21:12 <+coldacid> i saw it
21:12 <+AdamS> I did
21:12 <+AdamS> (though I'm not on mibbit)
21:12 <+rintaran> I saw it.
21:13 <@scshunt> the mibbit client didn't
21:13 <@scshunt> I am going to recommend retaking the vote publicly so as to allow those who don't have mibbit to vote
21:13 <@scshunt> if anyone objects to the amendment, we can retake that vote too
21:14 <+RicLim> I did
21:14 <@scshunt> Ok, so first I'll entertain a motion do reconsider the vote on limited the forum posting priviliges; do we
have a mover?
21:14 <+DataPacRat> scshunt: May I ask how many people did vote with the current software?
21:15 <+MikkelPaulson> 8
21:15 <@scshunt> There were 9 votes on the amendment and 8 on the main motion
21:15 <@scshunt> I would recommend retaking at least the vote on the main motion
21:15 <+MikkelPaulson> I'll move
21:15 <@scshunt> is there any objection to reconsidering the motion?
21:15 <+sidek> second, if needed
21:16 <@scshunt> Ok, there's no objection
21:16 <@scshunt> Does anyone want to ask the reconsideration of the amendment too?
21:16 <+psema4> scshunt, MikkelPaulson Was unexpectedly afk - I didnt receive voting information from stenobot
21:16 <+MikkelPaulson> amendment was unanimous
21:16 <+MikkelPaulson> I don't think there's any need
21:16 <+MikkelPaulson> sigh
21:16 -Stenobot:#canada- DataPacRat's speaking period has ended.
21:17 <+MikkelPaulson> I swear it's acquired more bugs
21:17 -Stenobot:#canada- === MOTION THAT THE FORUM'S POSTING PRIVILIGES BE LIMITED TO MEMBERS OF THE PARTY, SAVE FOR SOME
SUB-FORUMS OPEN TO POSTS BY ALL FORUM MEMBERS ===
21:17 -Stenobot:#canada- MikkelPaulson now has the floor.
21:17 -Stenobot:#canada- MikkelPaulson's speaking period has ended.
21:17 <@scshunt> Is there any discussion on this motion?
21:18 <+AdamS> not from me, but we should copy and paste so those who can't see the notices can see it
21:18 <+MikkelPaulson> I call the question
21:18 <@scshunt> Yeah
21:18 <@scshunt> right, forgot
21:18 <@scshunt> MikkelPaulson has moved that the forum's posting priviliges be limited to members of the Party, save for
some sub-forums open to posts by all forum members.
21:18 <@scshunt> No discussion?
21:19 <~Nuitari> I think we can just vote
21:19 <+crimeminister> agreed
21:19 <+MikkelPaulson> please
21:19 <@scshunt> Ok
21:19 <+dc> I haven't had time to use the forums, and do not have strong feelings one way or the other.
21:19 <+MikkelPaulson> bear in mind that the voting period is 30 second
21:19 <@scshunt> 45 seconds?
21:19 <+MikkelPaulson> dc: you can abstain or just not vote
21:19 <+MikkelPaulson> yeah, 45
21:20 <+MikkelPaulson> sorry
21:20 <@scshunt> All in favor please say 'aye'. All against please say 'nay'. You may remain silent to not vote. You have
45 seconds to vote.
21:21 <@scshunt> The voting period is over; the ayes have it and the motion carries
21:21 <+dc> doh
21:22 <@scshunt> sidek: sorry, you missed the end of the voting period by at least a minute there
21:22 <+MikkelPaulson> reaction time!
21:22 <@scshunt> dc: yours doesn't matter since you didn't vote; that's by definition an abstention
21:23 <+MikkelPaulson> actually only 35 seconds
21:23 <@scshunt> There are no more items on the agenda; is there any further business?
21:23 <+sidek> scshunt, my vote was fourth O_O
21:23 <+dc> scshunt: no kidding
21:23 <+MikkelPaulson> I'd like to make a brief announcement if I may
21:23 <+sidek> how did I miss it by a minute?
21:23 <@scshunt> sidek: hrm... that sounds like lag then. It definitely didn't affect the outcome
21:23 <@scshunt> IRC does occastionally have the problem that the messages don't all make it to the destinations in the
same order
21:23 <+psema4> scshunt, sidek I cuncur
21:23 <+sidek> on my log, it's after Nuitari, but before RicLim
21:24 <@scshunt> MikkelPaulson: go ahead
21:24 <+MikkelPaulson> okay
21:24 <+MikkelPaulson> I'd just like to announce that I've received an offer for a web developer position in Montreal
21:24 <+crimeminister> congrats
21:24 <+MikkelPaulson> so I'll be moving there at the end of the month
21:24 <~Nuitari> congrats!
21:24 <+dc> congrats
21:24 <~Nuitari> I'll buy you beers
21:24 <+psema4> 'grats :)
21:24 <+DataPacRat> Congratulations. :)
21:24 <+MikkelPaulson> it'll definitely unbalance the geographical distribution of the council
21:24 <+RicLim> Congrats.
21:24 <+MikkelPaulson> but ah well, can't be helped
21:24 <+MikkelPaulson> thanks
21:24 <+dc> I've visited years ago. it's a beautiful city. I hope you enjoy it there.
21:25 <+MikkelPaulson> yeah, it's my favourite city in Canada
21:25 <+crimeminister> I lived there a few years ago; it was a blast
21:25 <+MikkelPaulson> (something I didn't want to say during the campaign...)
21:25 <+drew> good job. But who will take care of Edmonton?
21:25 <+MikkelPaulson> "I LOVE EDMONTON, WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?"
21:25 <+ArghMonkey> enjoy the two seasons, winter and road construction
21:25 <+dc> MikkelPaulson, that's funny
21:25 <+MikkelPaulson> I'm quite used to that in Edmonchuck
21:25 <+crimeminister> take the subway (or live downtown)
21:25 <+sidek> ArghMonkey, he's moving from Edmonton. It's the same there :D
21:26 <+MikkelPaulson> still have drew and BrentSchaffrick and a few others here
21:26 <+ArghMonkey> im a bad Canadian, i hate the winter
21:26 <~Nuitari> oh
21:26 <+sidek> I prefer winter to summer, TBH
21:26 <~Nuitari> we'll need someone to handle tshirts shipping in the west
21:26 <+crimeminister> we need to build domes over every major city
21:26 <+sidek> way too hot in the summer, and there's waaay too many bugs
21:26 <+MikkelPaulson> we can keep chatting about it after the meeting, just wanted to make the announcement on the record
21:27 <+ArghMonkey> sidek: u havent lived in vancouver then :)
21:27 <+sidek> mosquito infestation in Edmonton this year :(
21:27 <+sidek> ArghMonkey, I have not
21:27 <@scshunt> Do we have any further business?
21:27 <+rintaran> No, that was the agenda and we seem to have gone off to non-party matter.
21:28 <+MikkelPaulson> indeed
21:28 -Stenobot:#canada- ======================= MEETING ADJOURNED ========================
View Minutes
