Pirate Party of Canada - Recent changes [en]

Contacts

2012-05-17T20:09:46Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:09, 17 May 2012
Line 202:		Line 202:
	* Localité : Montréal, QC		* Localité : Montréal, QC
	* Courriel : ekse.0x[at]gmail[dot]com		* Courriel : ekse.0x[at]gmail[dot]com
-
-	~~=== [[User:jpmonette\|Jean-Philippe Monette]] ===~~
-	* Nom: Jean-Philippe Monette
-	* Occupation: Baccalauréat en administration des affaires
-	* Localité: Montréal, QC
-	* Email: jpmonette[at]pirateparty[dot]ca
-	* Twitter: [http://twitter.com/jpmonette @jpmonette]

	=== [[User:Robin Millette\|Robin Millette]] ===		=== [[User:Robin Millette\|Robin Millette]] ===

GM 2012-05-16 agenda

2012-05-17T04:39:02Z

protected "[[GM 2012-05-16 agenda]]" [edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite)

GM 2012-04-18 agenda

2012-05-17T04:38:48Z

protected "[[GM 2012-04-18 agenda]]" [edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite)

GM 2012-05-16 transcript

2012-05-17T04:38:31Z

protected "[[GM 2012-05-16 transcript]]" [edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite)

GM 2012-04-18 transcript

2012-05-17T04:37:31Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:37, 17 May 2012
Line 1,237:		Line 1,237:
	00:10 -Stenobot:#canada- ============================================================		00:10 -Stenobot:#canada- ============================================================
	</PRE>		</PRE>
		+
		+	View [[GM_2012-04-18_minutes\|minutes]].

GM 2012-04-18 minutes

2012-05-17T04:36:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:36, 17 May 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	~~[DRAFT]~~
-
	The regular General Meeting of the Pirate Party of Canada was called to order at 20:10 Eastern Time, April 18, 2012 at irc.pirateparty.ca, irc channel #canada. The president was in the chair and the secretary was present.		The regular General Meeting of the Pirate Party of Canada was called to order at 20:10 Eastern Time, April 18, 2012 at irc.pirateparty.ca, irc channel #canada. The president was in the chair and the secretary was present.

GM 2012-05-16 transcript

2012-05-17T04:35:51Z

Created page with "<PRE> NOTE: Log times are in Central Time. 19:32 -scshunt:#canada- The meeting is called to order. 19:32 < CapnScotia> scshunt I think that a persons privacy is measured by ones..."

New page

<PRE>
NOTE: Log times are in Central Time.

19:32 -scshunt:#canada- The meeting is called to order.
19:32 < CapnScotia> scshunt I think that a persons privacy is measured by ones self. A person can pick and choose what they desire to be private and keep secret from the rest of the world. Now days with Social Networking sites privacy is almost null,yet people still complain about personal privacy while plastering their life all over the internet.
19:32 <@scshunt> We do not have a quorum.
19:32 <@scshunt> Since the meeting is now in progress, I would ask that unrelated discussion come to a close.
19:33 <@scshunt> I will now entertain motions to adjourn or recess.
19:33 <+RLim> wait
19:33 < CapnScotia> I think that privacy is truly infinite and that it is up to the individual to choose what they want to be private and what they allow to be processed by the outside world
19:34 <@scshunt> CapnScotia: Please wait with non-meeting talk.
19:34 <@scshunt> RLim: ?
19:34 <+XFaCE> scshunt: I believe it is a motion to wait for more to come to fill the quorum
19:34 <+RLim> hmm how many more do we need
19:34 <+RLim> ?
19:34 <+XFaCE> 5
19:34 <+svulliez> five
19:34 <@scshunt> We need 5 more.
19:35 <+svulliez> join #riffraff for nonmeeting discussion
19:35 <+svulliez> I think we can make it.
19:35 <@scshunt> Is there a motion for a recess then?
19:35 <+RLim> I am not in a rush to go anywhere
19:35 < CapnScotia> Well im heading off for the night its been informative taking and reading on here and I will DEFINATLEY be back and looking forward to it..probably in about an hour(pregnant wife)
19:35 <+svulliez> I motion for a ten minute recess.
19:35 < mikkidog> > /msg sb 1So
19:36 <+RLim> second
19:36 <@scshunt> Is there a second for the motion to recess?
19:36 <+XFaCE> err, third
19:36 <@scshunt> Is there any objection to taking a ten minute recess?
19:37 <+voronaam> Comment on that document in question. About PB block #5. I think it should be also necessary for user to be able to delete any automatically gathered information. google has this option...
19:37 <+XFaCE> I would like to ask mib_9jjpr6, who was previous active, why he has not joined the quorum yet
19:37 <+voronaam> It is not a motion to amend it, though. Since the meeting has not started yet
19:38 <@scshunt> Seeing none; I'll declare the meeting recessed until 20:48 EDT
19:38 <@scshunt> voronaam: that's just there for discussion
19:38 < mib_9jjpr6> XFaCE, I have no idea how to do that
19:38 <+XFaCE> are you a member?
19:38 < mib_9jjpr6> nope
19:38 <+voronaam> Great! That's the only comment I wanted to make. I like the document, in general.
19:39 <+XFaCE> mib_9jjpr6: Ok then. If you were, you could join the meeting.
19:39 < mib_9jjpr6> :)
19:40 <+voronaam> I could also comment a bit on that note about "some european countries" which do not allow to publish a photo without person's consent. I use to live in Russia... :) But I do not think it is a crucial part of the document.
19:42 <@scshunt> voronaam: It wasn't referring to Russia, actually
19:42 <@scshunt> I believe France and Germany have such laws
19:42 < mib_iojgkp> sup
19:42 <@scshunt> Hello, and welcome to the meeting.
19:43 <@scshunt> We're currently waiting a little bit longer in hopes that some more members show up.
19:43 <+voronaam> scshunt, I have friends in other european countries too. Let me know if you ever want to flesh out this note with hard data.
19:43 <+XFaCE> scshunt: Err, he was just here
19:43 <+thor> finger sandwiches and orange flavoured drink are on the table in the corner
19:43 < jhowell> yeah hold on i'm logging in now
19:43 <@scshunt> voronaam: I don't think so, given that it was just for comparison, and I don't think that the sentiment is that such a law should be implemented here
19:44 <@scshunt> if there is such a sentiment, then perhaps
19:44 <+voronaam> ok
19:44 <+RLim> how's the voting coming along?
19:45 <+drew> Policy Building Block #3 needs to be clarifyied as it can be interpreted to be against free speech
19:46 <@scshunt> drew: I think it is (and has to be) a restriction on free speech
19:46 <+RLim> which document are you referring to?
19:46 <@scshunt> Privacy law is, fundamentally, a restriction on free speech
19:46 <+XFaCE> azend: meeting time
19:46 <@scshunt> RLim: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12PNWkTqxNlg2jvt5W0vJaalHmoVQWevuP4LBybcL6kA/edit
19:47 <+XFaCE> ircerr: ready to join?
19:47 <+svulliez> I take issue with that explanation of privacy law, scshunt
19:47 <@scshunt> svulliez: noted
19:48 <@scshunt> The meeting is called back to order.
19:48 <@scshunt> I'll give a few for those who just joined us to sign in
19:48 < ircerr> XFaCE: ready to join what/where? pp? lolz. not as this nick.
19:49 <+XFaCE> ircerr: ok, wherever nick you want?
19:49 <+XFaCE> *whatever
19:49 <+XFaCE> ircerr: meeting
19:49 <+RLim> scshunt was there a motion before Shawn to recess or you just called the meeting to order at 30 minutes after?
19:49 <+svulliez> I don't think it's a type of restriction on free speech. I understand where you are coming from, but I think that there is a big difference between violating someone's privacy by spreading a rumor, and organizations systemically logging information for profit or other gain
19:49 <@scshunt> RLim: There was not, but recesses don't need to be noted
19:49 <@scshunt> All right, we now have a quorum, so we'll proceed now.
19:50 <+XFaCE> scshunt: no, that's only 14
19:50 <@scshunt> ah, you're right
19:50 <+RLim> so called to order at 20:32?
19:50 <+RLim> k
19:50 <+XFaCE> phillip quit for no apparent reason
19:50 <@scshunt> thanks
19:50 <+svulliez> The actual violation of privacy (which in the case of an individual would be reading a diary, text message, love letter etc. that did not belong to them) is distinct from the act of divulging the information you get, which should still be protected under free speech. If that makes sense.
19:51 <+svulliez> Privacy law is not necessarily a limit on free speech and it should not be.
19:51 <+XFaCE> svulliez: Ah, like songs that have been downloaded
19:51 < fox> hi
19:51 <+drew> People should be responsible with what they do with their data
19:51 <+XFaCE> fox: hi, are you a member?
19:51 <@scshunt> Hello, fox. We're currently in a meeting. Are you a member?
19:52 <+XFaCE> Is there an echo in here?
19:52 < fox> No, but would like to be. Sorry for interupting! I've been pretty active with PPUK though.
19:52 <+psema4> jhowell: you don't show as having voice - did you login?
19:52 <+drew> They should be given the tools to live in privacy, but not guaranteed privacy
19:52 <+XFaCE> fox: no problem, you can observe the meeting just fine
19:53 -scshunt:#canada- We /are/ in a meeting, even though we do not have quorum. Please limit discussion.
19:53 < fox> And what if I'd like to contribute?
19:53 <+XFaCE> fox: at present, you must become a member to do this
19:53 <+svulliez> You're free to contribute in #riffraff which is the casual channel
19:53 < fox> link?
19:53 <+XFaCE> #riffraff
19:53 <+XFaCE> just use your chat client
19:53 < fox> no no, to become memeber, sorry for interupting!
19:53 <+RLim> fox as long as you are a Canadian citizen also
19:54 <@scshunt> or permanent resident
19:54 <+RLim> thanks scshunt
19:54 < fox> eh, I'll ask on riffraff
19:54 < fox> proceed
19:54 <@scshunt> Thanks
19:54 <+RLim> oxpirate sign in
19:54 < oxpirate> OpE^2 has all it's basic information finished except the OS X section~
19:55 <@scshunt> oxpirate: We're in a meeting; please limit chatter.
19:55 < oxpirate> My bad
19:55 <+XFaCE> phillipsjk: What happened?
19:55 <@scshunt> chatter!
19:57 <@scshunt> Seeing as we haven't yet made quorum, does anyone wish to suggest a motion again?
19:57 <+svulliez> Motion to recess for another 10 minutes, we're almost there
19:57 <+svulliez> jake will be home momentarily, he's stuck in traffic
19:57 <+voronaam> I have to go home (in the office atm). I'd like to make a motion for 30 minutes...
19:58 <+RLim> second
19:58 <+XFaCE> scshunt: We still only have 14 people
19:58 <@scshunt> uh, ok, let me check what happens here
19:59 <@scshunt> Ok, so the motion to recess is undebateable but amendable. So I'll take svulliez's motion since it was made first. The question is on the motion to recess for 10 minutes. Does anyone want to move an amendment?
20:00 <+voronaam> me. 20 minutes.
20:00 <@scshunt> Is there a second?
20:00 < Sexyboss> ORDER
20:01 <+RLim> second
20:01 <+XFaCE> Sexyboss: No unproductive chat pls
20:01 <@scshunt> Okay, it has been moved to strike 10 minutes and insert 20 minutes. If this motion is adopted then we are dealing with a motion to recess for 20 minutes, rather than one to recess for 10 minutes. We are not deciding whether to recess yet.
20:01 <@scshunt> The question is on the amendment. All in favor say aye, all opposed say nay.
20:01 <+RLim> aye
20:01 <+JohannWeiss> aye
20:01 <+thor> aye
20:01 <+XFaCE> aye
20:01 <+McGrath> aye
20:02 <+voronaam> aye
20:02 <+psema4> aye
20:02 < Merlin> aye
20:02 <@scshunt> Merlin: You are not signed in, so you cannot vote.
20:02 <@scshunt> If you are a member and having trouble signing in, talk to RLim
20:02 <@scshunt> The ayes have it and the motion is adopted.
20:03 <@scshunt> The question is now on the motion to recess for 20 minutes.
20:03 <+psema4> second
20:03 <+thor> Merlin: please log in at https://meetings.pirateparty.ca/login.php
20:03 <@scshunt> All in favor say aye, all opposed say nay.
20:03 <+psema4> zye
20:03 <+voronaam> aye
20:03 <+McGrath> aye
20:03 <+psema4> *aye
20:03 <+thor> aye
20:03 <+XFaCE> nay
20:03 <+adpaolucci> aye
20:03 <+Wilson> aye
20:04 <+phillipsjk> aye
20:04 <@scshunt> The ayes have it and the motion is adjourned.
20:04 <+JohannWeiss> aye
20:04 <+RLim> aye
20:04 -scshunt:#canada- This meeting stands recessed until 21:24 EDT
20:04 <+XFaCE> Can someone call a recess... to a recess?
20:04 <+XFaCE> Recessption
20:05 <@scshunt> huh?
20:06 <+XFaCE> scshunt: Joke haha
20:06 <+XFaCE> All in favour you think that the joke was funny, say aye
20:06 < DLS> aye
20:06 < DLS> :D
20:06 <+thor> abstain
20:07 <+XFaCE> all opposed
20:07 <+XFaCE> the ayes have it
20:07 <+JohannWeiss> aye
20:07 <+JohannWeiss> :)
20:08 < oxpirate> Since we're recessed:
20:08 < oxpirate> If anyone who uses OS X wants to write the guides on OpE^2 it would help the project immensely. The Mac section is all that's left, and if we get that done we'll have a complete wiki by the time C-11 and C-30 go through.
20:09 <+XFaCE> That's another thing, I should point out
20:10 <+XFaCE> Under C11, any person who legally buys Mac OS X, then uses that copy and information from the Internet to install OS X on his/her legally purchased computer would be in violation of C11
20:10 <+XFaCE> If that computer is not Apple-labelled hardware
20:10 < DLS> hmmmm, oxpirate promoting piracy...
20:10 < DLS> how wrong
20:10 <+XFaCE> Apple computers utilize TPMs which are easy to circumvent
20:10 < oxpirate> DLS: Feels good being gangster.
20:10 < Recluse> can some one give me a link to c11?
20:10 <+XFaCE> I should also point this out in relation to the new Windows 8 arm devices
20:10 <+XFaCE> http://techrights.org/2012/05/16/mozilla-on-arm/
20:11 < oxpirate> XFaCE: This is a huge concern because ARM systems and tablets in general are going to become the most common consumer computers. We're entering the war on general computation.
20:11 < DLS> oxpirate: \m/
20:11 <+McGrath> C-11: http://parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=5464444
20:12 <+psema4> XFaCE: can you clarify the MacOS / C11 issue?
20:12 <+psema4> (I'm not an Apple-anything user)
20:12 <+XFaCE> psema4: Apple computer utilize TPMs, in-so-that Mac OSX will only run on computers with the TPM present
20:12 < Recluse> whats the actual liklyhood of this bill passing?
20:12 <+XFaCE> There exists many legal, FOSS TPM implementations
20:12 <+XFaCE> Recluse: Very high
20:12 < Recluse> shit
20:13 <+psema4> Recluse: yeah, virtually gauranteed
20:13 <+JohannWeiss> oxpirate: I think the war will be easy to win because general computation is technologically superior
20:13 <+XFaCE> psema4: That allow users to install OS X on non-apple machines
20:13 <+XFaCE> McGrath: Hello my friend, how's your health?
20:14 < oxpirate> Technologically superior perhaps but not more easily distributed to consumers. The CIA was talking earlier this year about how they'll be able to spy on people through their Internet-connected dish washers in the future. For a lot of consumers there will be no more privacy.
20:15 < oxpirate> http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/03/petraeus-tv-remote/ < CIA stuff
20:15 <+McGrath> solution: don't buy an internet-connected dishwasher
20:16 < Recluse> ok let me rephrase that.. whats the odds of this bill actually being enforced?
20:16 <+McGrath> have your gateway blacklist all cia-lisenting posts
20:16 < DLS> jakedaynesppca: ahhh ben tabarnak!!
20:16 <+thor> oxpirate: i call bullshit on that pic of the general playing golf
20:16 <+thor> his Mii is swinging the opposite hand
20:17 < oxpirate> Idk I just googled "CIA dishwasher spy" lol
20:17 <+JohannWeiss> :)
20:17 <@JakeDaynes> Sorry guys - ended up on the UK irc server for some ungodly reason
20:17 < DLS> hailing the queen, we know..
20:17 <+psema4> lol
20:18 * XFaCE bows
20:18 <@JakeDaynes> incroyable! DLS!
20:18 <@JakeDaynes> salut~ cava?
20:18 <@JakeDaynes> ca va*
20:18 < DLS> crisse d'osti que ouais!
20:18 < DLS> pis toé mon vieux?
20:19 <@JakeDaynes> bien :)
20:19 < DLS> <3
20:19 <+XFaCE> Je ne comprende pas francais
20:19 <+CCitizen> do we have enough people to start stuff now?
20:19 <+psema4> Ich bin ein Berliner!
20:19 <+psema4> oh wait
20:20 <+psema4> l)
20:20 <+JohannWeiss> oxpirate: I guess I see the war on general purpose computation as having different win scenarios. I'm only really concerned if it becomes difficult or impossible to get a general purpose comupter.
20:20 <+JohannWeiss> I can't see that happening.
20:20 <+JohannWeiss> Many people may decide to buy locked devices (see the popularity of i-devices), but at the same time, opensource is progressing
20:21 < oxpirate> Yeah, we're just going to be flooded with closed source spying devices :(
20:21 < oxpirate> Thank science Android has a good market share.
20:22 < oxpirate> Hopefully APPLE can't muscle them out of North American markets with their patent faggery daggery doo.
20:22 <+XFaCE> oxpirate: Can't want to get a Raspberry Pi with the Canadian GNU+Linux distro Arch on it
20:22 <+XFaCE> Actually, it comes with a Fedora derivative developed by Seneca on it by default
20:22 < oxpirate> Canadian Arch?
20:22 <+XFaCE> oxpirate: Arch Linux was born in Canada
20:23 <+JohannWeiss> People are making the bad decision to buy those devices, but they *are* making the decision
20:23 <+phillipsjk> THe way I see it, very small or very large computers are likely to be exempt.
20:23 <+JohannWeiss> That's what's important to me
20:23 < oxpirate> O. Neat.
20:23 <+psema4> XFaCE: publishing house Manning just asked me to review a proposal for a series of rasp pi books from the guy behind the Fedora arm distro (at Seneca in Toronto)
20:23 <+thor> oxpirate: android has a good market share, but a severely multi-faceted one as well; http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/05/android-fragmentation-one-developer-encounters-3997-devices/
20:24 <+XFaCE> thor: that's not a bad thing
20:24 <+XFaCE> except for the threat from software patents
20:24 <@JakeDaynes> ^ +1
20:24 <+XFaCE> which aren't legal in Canada, yet
20:24 <+psema4> not true
20:24 <+psema4> they are in some cases allowed by CIPO
20:24 <+psema4> there was also just a consultation
20:24 <+XFaCE> psema4: I know, there is the ongoing debate over the Amazon one-click patent
20:24 -scshunt:#canada- The meeting will come to order
20:25 <@scshunt> I see that we now have a quorum, so we will proceed.
20:25 <@scshunt> The first order of business is the approval of the minutes from last meeting. RLim?
20:25 <+RLim> http://wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php/GM_2012-04-18_minutes
20:26 <@scshunt> Are there any corrections to the minutes?
20:27 <+JohannWeiss> It doesn't list the vote results from the commenting addition to the consituttion amendments
20:28 <+psema4> regarding robocalls: "Motion was adopted after debate and amendment with 5 ayes and 12 nays." ?
20:29 <@scshunt> RLim: JohannWeiss is correct; the disposition of the motion regarding the comment field is not recorded
20:29 <@scshunt> that motion was adopted
20:29 <@scshunt> psema4 is also correct; the motion was in fact defeated
20:29 <+RLim> ok thanks
20:30 <@scshunt> Any further corrections?
20:30 <+JohannWeiss> nope
20:30 <@JakeDaynes> none
20:31 <@scshunt> The minutes are approved.
20:31 <@scshunt> Now for reports.
20:31 <@scshunt> I have a President's report.
20:31 <@scshunt> First off, we had a number of constitutional amendments sent out to vote. Are there any objections to closing the polls on those now?
20:32 <+RLim> i object
20:32 <+XFaCE> Aye
20:32 <+XFaCE> I object as well
20:32 <@scshunt> Ok. Do you simply need time to vote or do you have a more fundamental objection?
20:33 <+RLim> I think we should give people more time to vote
20:33 <@scshunt> Okay, then I'll present the question.
20:33 <+RLim> chances are they might be voting while attending tonight's meeting
20:33 <@scshunt> Does anyone wish to make a motion to close the polls?
20:33 <+XFaCE> Indeed, there is a lot of material to read
20:35 <@scshunt> Seeing no motion to close the polls, we'll proceed, then.
20:35 <+JohannWeiss> no
20:35 <+phillipsjk> How were these polls advertised?
20:36 <@scshunt> By mailout to all members.
20:36 <+phillipsjk> paper mail?
20:36 <@scshunt> email
20:36 <+RLim> with the General meeting notice
20:36 <@scshunt> Seeing no motion to close the polls, I have a few more things to report.
20:36 <@JakeDaynes> as well as social media notifications
20:37 <+JohannWeiss> FYI: spam filters seem to block the general meeting notice
20:37 <+XFaCE> Was Identi.ca and Diaspora users notified?
20:37 <@scshunt> XFaCE: I do not know.
20:37 <+CCitizen> Do we need to make a motion to close the polls?
20:37 <+XFaCE> We should make sure, in order to re-enforce our commitment to those open platforms.
20:37 <@scshunt> CCitizen: Yes, given that there was an objection.
20:37 <@scshunt> It requires a two-thirds vote.
20:38 <+CCitizen> Can we close them at the end of the meeting then?
20:38 <+CCitizen> That would give everyone here ample time to vote
20:38 <@scshunt> We could, if the meeting agrees.
20:39 <+JohannWeiss> I'd rather give people more time.
20:39 <+RLim> yes
20:39 <+CCitizen> Also any way to tell how many voters have voted at the moment (hopefully more than we had for the PC elections)
20:39 <+RLim> or motion to close after a certain period of time?
20:39 <+JohannWeiss> I'm going to motion that the polls close in 7 days
20:39 <+XFaCE> I agree with JohannWeiss's motion
20:40 <@scshunt> JohannWeiss: Since it's not directly related to my report if we're closing them in the future, I'll ask that the motion wait until after reports
20:40 <+JohannWeiss> ok
20:40 <+XFaCE> As I will be away for 3 days without computer access, for me personally, this gives me more time to make a well-informed decision.
20:40 <+JohannWeiss> carry on with the report then
20:40 <@scshunt> First off, the Executive Board and Political Council for the most part agree that the division of the two bodies is a failed experiment. The two will be working much closer in coordination going forward, and I hereby give notice that at the next meeting of the Party, I or someone else will propose amendments to the constitution to merge the Political Council and Executive Board, including possibly merging all their powers together, or ...
20:40 <+CCitizen> Sounds good
20:40 <@scshunt> ... providing for a specific sub-body with powers, and to amend the manner in which the are elected to accomodate this merger.
20:41 <@scshunt> Second, work is going to regain a decent management structure for the Fund.
20:41 <+svulliez> I sing praise for this idea, because splitting our meetings has been a pain.
20:42 <@scshunt> Additionally, I know that a bunch of members were curious about membership cards.
20:42 <@scshunt> The letter accompanying them is being rewritten; as soon as it is done, they will be mailed out.
20:42 <@JakeDaynes> I would like to add that all cards as of March are printed and ready to go once I have the letter
20:43 <+XFaCE> Question, will newer cards be re-done with a new design reflecting the changed PPCA colour scheme and branding directive?
20:43 <@scshunt> JakeDaynes, do you want to answer that one?
20:43 <@JakeDaynes> As of this point in time, no, we will be sticking with the current membership card design
20:43 <+JMcleod> hey all
20:44 <@JakeDaynes> I believe that it will be changed over, but the current batch will be old style
20:44 <+XFaCE> Understood
20:44 <@scshunt> The IT Committee is progressing slowly; we've discovered potential issues with the legislation regarding non-monetary contributions that may hinder members' abilities to contribute.
20:44 <@scshunt> Unfortunately, as this is law, there is not much we can do about it.
20:44 <+XFaCE> Can you elaborate?
20:45 <@scshunt> Sure.
20:45 <@scshunt> The Canada Elections Act provides that the contribution limits apply to all contributions of goods, services, and funds, except for volunteer labour, which is defined as labour provided outside an individual's normal working hours, except if that individual is self-employed and normally charges for the service.
20:46 <@scshunt> Unfortunately, a number of our volunteers are in fact self-employed in the tech sector, and so the exception applies to them and IT work that they do for the party would be considered a contribution, and hence limited to $1200 a year
20:46 <+psema4> I'd like to mention that I've asked this to be a topic for discussion at next weeks IT committee meeting
20:46 <@scshunt> If they work over the limit, then in addition to the fines/jail time that the Party or members could face, the Party would have to repay the excess time.
20:47 <+svulliez> It's an outrageous law unfit for for the modern age.
20:47 <@scshunt> So if someone contributes $2400 worth of time, we would have to pay $1200 to that individual.
20:47 <+RLim> so how do you interpret the self employed section? because it's ridiculous to say self-employed don't have off work hours
20:47 <@JakeDaynes> Essentially, the act considers their regular working hours 24/7
20:47 <@scshunt> No, not quite
20:47 <+svulliez> We should allow them to work, record their hours, and have them stop at $1200 worth if we cannot find another solution
20:47 <+RLim> should we ask Election Canada and say WTF?
20:47 <@JakeDaynes> ^
20:47 <@scshunt> For anyone, it is volunteer work if it is outside their normal work hours.
20:47 <+jhowell> ^^
20:48 <@scshunt> Unless they are self-employed and they would normally charge.
20:48 <@scshunt> This is not an Elections Canada rule; this is very clearly stipulated by the Canada Elections Act.
20:48 <@JakeDaynes> So if I was self employed, but only work 9-5 m-f
20:48 <@JakeDaynes> it would still count as a non-monetary donation if I worked at 2am on a saturday
20:48 <@scshunt> JakeDaynes: Yes, but only on something you normally charged for.
20:49 <@JakeDaynes> That is correct
20:49 <@scshunt> If you were an indepedent lawyer, and you worked on the website, that would be ok.
20:49 <+XFaCE> What is the work the hypothetical self-employed person does is completely different from the work they would do for the PPCA?
20:49 <+thor> JakeDaynes: if you were self employed as a window cleaner, and the party asked you to do window cleaning on our HQ; it would count as contribution
20:49 <@scshunt> yes
20:49 <+XFaCE> *What if
20:49 <+JMcleod> What can be done is starting an NGO and only "charge" the party for implementation, so its 1 or 2 hours of work and not 25-30 hours for example ;)
20:49 <+svulliez> have one of them work as a co-ordinator (as that is not their regular profession) to cycle through helpers to do their $1200 worth
20:49 <@JakeDaynes> I understand, however, I'm stating that the act defines a self-employed person's regular hours as 24/7 in regards to work that they do for a living
20:50 <@scshunt> JakeDaynes: No, it does not.
20:50 <@scshunt> Attempting to circumvent the Act is also illegal.
20:50 <@scshunt> I will be talking with the individuals affected to try to figure out how best to approach their individual situations.
20:51 <+XFaCE> I should rephrase my question: does the type of work the individuals does for his/her self-employment and the PPCA a factor in the enforcement of the rule?
20:51 <+svulliez> I think we need one person to co-ordinate volunteers who knows their shit, and get a rotating cycle of IT helpers throughout the year
20:51 <+jhowell> yeah, I was considering an "if all else fails" scenario, wheras I make a special contract charging 0.01/hr with a 5 yr term :)
20:51 <@scshunt> jhowell: It must be accorded commercial value.
20:51 <+RLim> fair market value
20:51 <+JMcleod> Also, if a professional blogger joins the party... he cant blog?
20:51 <+jhowell> there's gotta be a way around it tho
20:51 <+jhowell> cuzall the non profit orgs I've worked with always get deals on everything they do
20:52 <@scshunt> Not-for-profit organizations are different.
20:52 <+RLim> it's like doing charitable work with your skills
20:52 <@scshunt> We are not a not-for-profit organization.
20:52 <@JakeDaynes> political parties != NPO
20:52 <+jhowell> hm ok
20:52 <@scshunt> We are a political party, and subject to very very different rules.
20:52 <@JakeDaynes> Technically could the IT team not work for the Pirate Party of Canada fund?
20:52 <+JMcleod> Of course there is, do you think the conservatives or liberals passed laws that they couldnt work around?
20:52 <@scshunt> JakeDaynes: That would constitute circumvention of the Act.
20:52 <+jhowell> I'd have to check to see which were non-profit vs non-for-profit
20:52 <@scshunt> so it would probably count as contribution violations
20:52 <@scshunt> plus attempts to circumvent.
20:53 <@JakeDaynes> I'm going to email EC and find out
20:53 <+RLim> yeah it's just silly that someone skilled at what they do can't volunteer much in a political party
20:53 <+psema4> I'd like to move that this discussion be postponed until the IT committee can discuss the situation more thoroughly and then bring it back to the GM.
20:53 <+svulliez> travismccrea wanted to merge our IT committee with a PPI IT committee
20:53 <@scshunt> Order.
20:53 <+svulliez> if we did that, would they be volunteering for PPI instead of us?
20:53 <@scshunt> Please, no discussion. There is no discussion.
20:53 <+phillipsjk> I second psema4 's motion.
20:53 <@scshunt> This is just a report; you are free to ask questions but this is not a time for discussion
20:53 <+RLim> actually that's relevant svulliez
20:53 <@scshunt> so I'll discard psema4's motion since we are having no discussion, and since members have a right to ask questions
20:54 <+XFaCE> What if the work the hypothetical self-employed person does is completely different from the work they would do for the PPCA?
20:54 <+svulliez> RLim: I know, right! :)
20:54 <@scshunt> XFaCE: As I said, only work for which they would normally charge is counted as a contribution.
20:54 <+RLim> We can just adopt what PPI have done
20:54 <+RLim> if we want
20:54 <@scshunt> It will need to be done carefully to avoid the rules.
20:55 <@scshunt> Especially the rules about non-{citizen,permanent resident}s contributing.
20:55 <@scshunt> Anyhow, are there any more questions? If not, my report is done.
20:55 <@scshunt> Ok.
20:55 <@scshunt> JMcleod: Do you have a report?
20:56 <+JMcleod> No I dont
20:56 <@scshunt> RLim: ?
20:56 <+RLim> nope
20:56 <@scshunt> svulliez: ?
20:57 <+svulliez> I can say a few words.
20:57 <+svulliez> We're trying to flesh out our social media team, if you would like to help run a more obscure social media account, PM me here or on the forums.
20:58 <+svulliez> that's all for now I suppose.
21:00 <@scshunt> TeamColtra: ?
21:00 < TeamColtra> I am currently heading the PNC meeting
21:00 <+RLim> PNC?
21:00 < TeamColtra> AND at work :P
21:00 <@scshunt> No report, then.
21:00 < TeamColtra> US Pirate National Committee
21:01 <@scshunt> I don't know any reports from committees or boards
21:01 <@scshunt> but perhaps the IT Director and Projects Manager wish to report?
21:01 <+svulliez> http://pr.piratepad.ca/149 - writing a press release about C-309 tonight after the meeting, all are invited to provide opinions and input
21:02 <@scshunt> CCitizen, jhowell: do either of you wish to report?
21:03 <@JakeDaynes> I would like to say a few things as VPN project manager
21:03 <@scshunt> As long as no one has a problem with that, go ahead.
21:04 * JakeDaynes checks to make sure he's not struck down by "Chair Lightning"
21:04 < DLS> do it Jake!
21:04 <@JakeDaynes> So, as some of you may be aware, the current VPN site, ostra.ca is simply a redirect back to a signup page on our existing site
21:05 <@JakeDaynes> This is set to change in the next week, as soon as our web server is setup with a drupal installation - I just wanted to report that it hasn't been forgotten, and once I have received the proper credentials to setup said drupal install, we will be starting the documentation process in order to better promote the VPN service
21:06 <@JakeDaynes> This will hopefully result in a much appreciated increase in party funds, which I hope can be applied towards other projects in the near future
21:06 <@JakeDaynes> -end-
21:08 <@scshunt> Ok. It looks like we're done with reports, so we'll move on then. There's no unfinished business or general orders, so we'll move on to new business.
21:09 <@scshunt> CCitizen: The agenda has your motion listed first. Would you like to make it?
21:09 <+XFaCE> I had a report
21:09 <+XFaCE> Or rather, have.
21:10 <+CCitizen> sure
21:10 <@scshunt> XFaCE: In what role?
21:10 <+XFaCE> As a contributor to the PPCA blog.
21:10 <@scshunt> Okay. As long as no one yells out that they object, go ahead :)
21:10 <+CCitizen> I'd like for us to adopt a special rule of order as follows
21:10 < svulliez> Sounds good to me.
21:10 <+CCitizen> Non-members shall normally be permitted to speak at meetings, including in debate. That permission may be withdrawn or reinstated for any non-member individually or for all as a group with a majority vote on an undebatable motion to do so. This motion is a question of the privilege of the assembly. The motion cannot be renewed or the opposite motion made after it is adopted unless it presents a fundamentally different question or
21:10 <+CCitizen> the parliamentary situation has changed.
21:10 < svulliez> No objections.
21:10 <+CCitizen> If you want translations and details it's also available at http://wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php/GM_2012-05-16_CCitizen_Motion
21:11 <@scshunt> CCitizen: Do you have any issues with letting XFaCE report first?
21:11 <+CCitizen> Ah he can go first
21:12 <@scshunt> XFaCE: go ahead
21:12 <+XFaCE> I would like to report that I am writing a follow-up to my "Bill C-11 - Harmful to Free Software" article, and will publish this follow-up to the PPCA website after it has been published to Techrights.
21:13 <+XFaCE> If anyone has anything they think should be contributed or noted in the article, please contact me through an IRC PM, or on Identi.ca or Diaspora.
21:13 <+XFaCE> -end-
21:13 <@scshunt> Okay. Do we have a second for CCitizen's motion now?
21:14 <+XFaCE> Second
21:14 <@scshunt> Okay. The question is now on the motion to adopted a special rule of order as described by CCitizen. Before we get into debate, are there any questions?
21:15 <+XFaCE> How would we deal with a situation where a troll has joined to disrupt the debate?
21:15 <+XFaCE> For example, suppose a user flooded the channel.
21:15 <@scshunt> That's not a question about the technical workings of the rule, so I'll let CCitizen handle that in debate.
21:16 <@scshunt> CCitizen: do you want to introduce your motion?
21:16 <+CCitizen> I'd guess we'd switch the channel to +m then take a vote on keeping it +m?
21:16 <+CCitizen> Same way you deal with any spam after all
21:16 <+JohannWeiss> Sounds sensible
21:17 <+XFaCE> My point specifically is that when flooding occurs, it is often very sudden and therefore difficult to contain quickly in many cases.
21:18 <+JohannWeiss> Can't that already happen?
21:18 <@scshunt> They would still be expected to follow the rules of debate and, since they do not have /rights/ to speak, I think that under this rule, the chair would still have the power to act unilaterally against non-members violating the rules.
21:18 <+phillipsjk> my reading of the proposal is that the specific troll can be muted as well. XFaCE seems to be asking what if a troll is account hopping to force us to cut off non-member debate?
21:18 < svulliez> a moderator would probably +m in that case without a vote
21:19 <@scshunt> I interpret the question of how do we react quickly.
21:19 <@scshunt> In the case of a disruptive member, they have a right to speak that can only be curtailed by the assembly, so a vote would normally have to be taken. But a non-member has no such right.
21:20 <@scshunt> svulliez: you aren't signed in, incidentally, so you don't have a right to speak :P
21:20 <@scshunt> Is there any more debate?
21:20 <+XFaCE> Do we trust the integrity of the IRC server not to fail in those circumstances?
21:20 < juzt4me> I feel non-members are crucial, especially due to the fact of us being a small party. If we start to shut out non-members, what about supporters of the party etc., how do they debate and such?
21:20 <+JMcleod> TBH we may move away from IRC in the near future =)
21:21 < juzt4me> I just see non-members are crucial, particularly due to the size of the party
21:21 <@scshunt> Is there any objection to allowing non-members to participate in debate on this motion?
21:21 < svulliez> No
21:21 <@JakeDaynes> no
21:21 <+JMcleod> There better not be or else!
21:21 <+JakeDaynes> :(
21:21 <+XFaCE> No, with the condition that we implement sufficient methods to maintain the intergrity of the server
21:21 <@scshunt> XFaCE: I don't think that the integrity of the IRC server is related to this motion.
21:22 <@scshunt> Is there any more debate?
21:22 <+XFaCE> scshunt: In an coordinated attack, this could have a double-whammy attach of driving the server offline as well as disrupting the meeting
21:23 <+CCitizen> Anyways it's to set the default to open speech rather than having to give permission
21:23 <+XFaCE> scshunt: Whereas if such an attack would to occur at any other time, it would be less of a problem
21:23 <+XFaCE> I agree with the goal of the motion, I just want to make sure that we establish conditions to accommodate this motion
21:23 <@scshunt> XFaCE: I can't participate in debate since I'm chairing, so unless you have a specific question, I'll have to refrain from talking about this.
21:23 <+RLim> I see one problem with CCitizen motion
21:24 <@scshunt> Although I appreciate that you've taken the step to address all remarks to the chair ;)
21:24 <+XFaCE> scshunt: My apologies, you were addressing to me, I was returning the favour :)
21:25 <@scshunt> RLim, XFaCE: Do you wish to continue talking?
21:25 <+XFaCE> I am finished for now, and eagerly await what RLim wants to say
21:25 <+CCitizen> what problems are there
21:25 <+RLim> say someone is being a pain, taking away their right to speak seems like censorship
21:25 <+XFaCE> RLim: Not necessarily
21:26 <+JMcleod> To be a pain, I think what is meant is ...
21:26 <+JMcleod> f
21:26 <+JMcleod> fs
21:26 <+JMcleod> fs
21:26 <+JMcleod> fsf
21:26 <+JMcleod> sf
21:26 <+JMcleod> s
21:26 <+JMcleod> sf
21:26 <+JMcleod> s
21:26 <+RLim> although the same thing could happen after you grant them the right to speak
21:26 <+JMcleod> See?
21:26 < MononcQc> Can't you indirectly spam using quit messages or nick changes anyway?
21:26 <+RLim> true MononcQc
21:26 <+JMcleod> For those who have those alerts on
21:26 <+XFaCE> JMcleod: times that by a thousand
21:26 <+RLim> I am done. I don't see a big deal.
21:26 <+jhowell> its censorship, but some people can't moderate themselves. think about it this way.. if we were in a boardroom and some one went off on a rant..is it professional? and how would we deal with them
21:27 <+XFaCE> Since this forum during meetings has rules for appropriate conduct, would free speech not apply fully in this case anyway?
21:27 <+svulliez> there is #riffraff for free speech, we could mute them and direct them there
21:27 <+svulliez> if they're being obnoxious
21:28 <+JMcleod> I move to send this motion to a vote
21:28 <+XFaCE> What is the definition of free speech in this case?
21:28 <+XFaCE> I think it is important to establish the baseline for what we are alluding to here.
21:29 <+jhowell> svulliez's statement is well within order i think
21:29 <+XFaCE> I agree
21:29 <+jhowell> obnoxiousness should be able to be pushed to another place
21:30 <+JohannWeiss> The motions wont change that
21:30 <+JohannWeiss> motion**
21:30 <+XFaCE> Are we using the exact Charter of Rights and Freedoms defintion of Free speech in this case?
21:30 <+svulliez> I second JMcleod's motion to go to a vote.
21:30 <+svulliez> I don't think this discussion is going to affect the outcome.
21:31 <+XFaCE> Perhaps not, but I do want clarification on what we are using as a free speech basline
21:31 <+XFaCE> *baseline
21:32 <+JohannWeiss> It's still no different from what we currently have
21:32 <+XFaCE> Which is?
21:32 <+svulliez> this discussion is fit for #riffraff I think
21:32 <+XFaCE> Very well
21:32 <+svulliez> scshunt: can we go to a vote now?
21:32 <@scshunt> The assembly has the right to exclude non-members. The chair has the power to use it unilaterally against disruptive guests.
21:32 <+XFaCE> I third the JMcleod motion
21:33 <@scshunt> Oh, sorry JMcleod, I totally missed that
21:33 <@scshunt> JMcleod has moved the previous question.
21:33 <@scshunt> This is a motion which is undebateable and requires a two-thirds vote. If adopted, we will proceed immediately to a vote on the main motion with no further debate.
21:33 <@scshunt> First off, is there any objection to proceeding directly to a vote on the main motion?
21:34 <@scshunt> Okay, seeing none, we'll just declare the previous question adopted.
21:34 <@scshunt> The question is on the adoption of the following special rule of order
21:34 <@scshunt> 22:10:42 <+CCitizen> Non-members shall normally be permitted to speak at meetings, including in debate. That permission may be withdrawn or reinstated for any non-member individually or for all as a group with a majority vote on an undebatable motion to do so. This motion is a question of the privilege of the assembly. The motion cannot be renewed or the opposite motion made after it is
21:34 <@scshunt> aopted ufnless it presents a fundamentally different question or
21:35 <@scshunt> 22:10:42 <+CCitizen> the parliamentary situation has changed.
21:35 <@scshunt> This motion requires a two-thirds vote.
21:35 <+phillipsjk> are the typos in the original?
21:35 <@scshunt> Yes.
21:35 <@scshunt> No wait, no they aren't
21:35 <@scshunt> don't know how they came in there
21:35 <+CCitizen> theres typos?
21:36 <+CCitizen> I just cut n paste it from the official notice version
21:36 <@scshunt> "adopted unless it presents a fundamentally different question or the parliamentary situation has changed."
21:36 <@scshunt> yeah, that was my copy-paste screwing up.
21:36 <@scshunt> Okay. Is everyone clear on the motion about to be voted on?
21:36 <@scshunt> All in favor, say aye. All opposed, say nay.
21:36 <+JakeDaynes> aye
21:36 <+phillipsjk> aye
21:36 <+Wilson> aye
21:37 <+XFaCE> Aye, with the condition that we implement sufficient methods to maintain the intergrity of the server
21:37 <+svulliez> aye
21:37 <+RLim> aye
21:37 <@scshunt> XFaCE: Conditions on votes are not permitted. You must vote either for or against.
21:37 <@scshunt> or not vote.
21:37 <+jhowell> aye
21:37 < juzt4me> aye
21:37 <+psema4> aye
21:37 <+JohannWeiss> aye
21:37 <@scshunt> juzt4me: you do not get a vote.
21:37 <+XFaCE> Aue
21:37 <+XFaCE> *Aye
21:37 < MononcQc> aye (if I'm logged on somehow?)
21:37 <+CCitizen> aye
21:37 <@scshunt> MononcQc: You are not.
21:37 < juzt4me> my bad, guess defeats being here haha
21:37 < MononcQc> forget about me then
21:38 <+thor> aye
21:38 <+RLim> not at all juzt4me, you can still give input
21:38 <@scshunt> Thank you for your votes.
21:38 <@scshunt> There are 11 votes in favor and 0 against. The necessary two-thirds having been achieved, the motion is adopted.
21:39 <@scshunt> Next item on the agenda is a motion which is attributed to Jeremy Howell, but I believe that JohannWeiss was the actual author?
21:39 <+RLim> did I make a typo in the agenda?
21:39 <@scshunt> yeah
21:39 <@scshunt> no big deal
21:39 <@scshunt> as long as someone moves it
21:40 <@scshunt> JohannWeiss: do you have it handy?
21:41 <+JohannWeiss> No, I had forgot TBH. I'm just trying to find it now
21:41 <@scshunt> Ok. We'll move on in the meanwhile then; the next item was Travis McCrea's candidacy.
21:41 <@scshunt> Do I have a motion to appoint Travis as the candidate for Vancouver Centre?
21:41 <+JMcleod> I move to appoint Travis McCrea as the candidate for Vancouver Centre
21:42 <+psema4> second
21:42 <+JakeDaynes> damn, beat me to it
21:42 <+Wilson> I second that
21:42 <+Wilson> damn
21:42 <+svulliez> I move to vote.
21:42 <@scshunt> It has been moved and seconded to appoint Travis McCrea as the candidate for Vancouver Centre. JMcleod, it is your motion; do you wish to speak first?
21:42 <+svulliez> Travis is clearly an active member in our community, and appropriate for the role.
21:43 <+JMcleod> No I do not
21:43 <@scshunt> Is there any more debate?
21:43 <+phillipsjk> Does Elections Canada require you to be a Canadian citizen to run?
21:43 <@scshunt> Yes.
21:45 <@scshunt> Seeing no more debate, the question is on the motion to appoint Travis McCrea as the candidate for Vancouver Centre. All in favor say aye, all opposed say nay.
21:45 <+drkaboom> Aye
21:45 <+XFaCE> Aye
21:45 <+svulliez> aye
21:45 <+JakeDaynes> aye
21:45 <+Wilson> aye
21:45 <+jhowell> aye
21:45 <+JohannWeiss> aye
21:45 <+McGrath> aye
21:46 <+CCitizen> aye
21:46 <+RLim> aye
21:46 <+JMcleod> aye
21:47 <@scshunt> There are 11 votes in favor and 0 opposed. The ayes have it and the motion is adopted.
21:47 <@scshunt> JohannWeiss: are you ready?
21:48 <+JohannWeiss> Yeah
21:48 <+JohannWeiss> I motion that we allow the EB to elect our IT head instead of the GM.
21:48 <+JakeDaynes> Seconded
21:48 <@scshunt> JohannWeiss: can you phrase that as an amendment to the existing rule. As a standalone motion it would be out of order due to conflicting with another rule.
21:49 <+XFaCE> Can you also elaborate on the initials that you are using?
21:49 <+JohannWeiss> A.6 Standing Committees
21:49 <+JohannWeiss> The following will be enacted as a special rule of order:
21:49 <+JohannWeiss> "The IT Committee shall be a standing committee of the Party, chaired by the IT Director. The IT Director will be elected by the Executive Board and serve for a term in the same manner as an officer. Additional members may be appointed or removed by the Executive Board or a general meeting as they see fit. The IT Committee is responsible and has power to oversee the technical operations of the Party. The IT Director shall have full access
21:49 <+JohannWeiss> The change is just in the second sentence
21:50 <@scshunt> Okay, JohannWeiss has moved to amend the special rule of order defining the IT Committee by inserting "by the Executive Board" after "The IT Director will be elected"
21:50 <@scshunt> Is there any debate on this motion?
21:50 <+XFaCE> Why do we want to do this?
21:51 <+JohannWeiss> I just thought it would be more efficient. We spent two months electing the last IT Director
21:51 <+XFaCE> Understood
21:51 <+JohannWeiss> The EB meets once a week, so the issue could have been resolved way faster.
21:51 <+JakeDaynes> Also, if the current director decides to ditch out, we don't want to have to wait a month or so
21:51 <+JMcleod> So its faster to appoint an IT director and the IT Board is a sub-board of the EB
21:52 <+RLim> but I thought the purpose of that is so EB does not have too much power by appointing a voting member
21:52 <+CCitizen> Actually the IT Committee was given the power to appoint it's own director last time we just had time coordinating
21:52 <+jhowell> ^
21:52 <+XFaCE> Glad I asked.
21:52 <@scshunt> CCitizen: It was not. It was tasked with providing a suggestion back to the GM to make the appointment.
21:53 <+JohannWeiss> If there is serious problems with the IT Director, the membership can always petition for a special GM and trump the Executive decision
21:53 <+jhowell> also note that most of the EB is on the IT committee
21:53 <+jhowell> well. shouldn't say most. a portion of.
21:54 <+JohannWeiss> Any other debate on it or do we want to vote?
21:54 <@scshunt> Are you ready for the question?
21:55 <@scshunt> Okay
21:56 <@scshunt> The question is on the motion to amend the special rule of order defining the IT Committee by inserting "by the Executive Board" after "The IT Director will be elected". All in favor say aye, all opposed say nay.
21:56 <+JakeDaynes> aye
21:56 <+JMcleod> aye
21:56 <+phillipsjk> aye
21:56 <+XFaCE> aye
21:56 <+svulliez> aye
21:56 <+jhowell> aye
21:56 <+JohannWeiss> aye
21:56 <+McGrath> aye
21:56 <+RLim> aye
21:57 <+Wilson> aye
21:57 <@scshunt> There are 10 votes in favor and 0 against. The necessary two-thirds is attained and the motion is adopted.
21:57 <@scshunt> Does anyone have any further business?
21:58 <+XFaCE> Yes
21:58 <@scshunt> XFaCE: What is it?
22:00 <+XFaCE> For scshunt to explain himself in regards to his statements that he "would have to submit my resignation" in regards to the proposed PPCA consitutional amendments.
22:00 <@scshunt> Is there any objection to this?
22:00 <+JakeDaynes> none
22:01 <@scshunt> Ok.
22:01 <@scshunt> So I said in #riffraff that I feel that I would have to submit my resignation if the proposed constitutional amendments were adopted entirely.
22:01 <@scshunt> The basic feeling I have is that my role as President would fundamentally change if they were adopted
22:02 <@scshunt> The largest reason for this change would be due to number 10, which would move a lot of power from the President to the VP (and also the Leader to the DL)
22:02 <@scshunt> While it is not formalized anywhere, one role that I take on and that I feel that people expect of me as President is to serve as a facilitator for various aspects of the Party, and to ensure that things are moving.
22:03 <@scshunt> This amendment would remove my ability to do so, so I feel that the only thing to do would be to stop doing that.
22:04 <@scshunt> Additionally, some of the other amendments, particularly the ones that remove the formal definitions of the powers of the PC and EB and, to a lesser extent, the elections ones, would possibly create a number of issues with the constitution as it exists, issues that I have made efforts to point out.
22:04 <@scshunt> I feel that their adoption would be a significant rejection of my personal fulfillment of the role of the interpreter and moderator of the rules.
22:05 <@scshunt> I don't take any offense from the authors; they are of course doing what they see best for the Party.
22:05 <@scshunt> But I feel that if all the amendments were adopted as is, I would at least have to submit my resignation for the Party to accept or decline as it sees fit.
22:06 <@scshunt> If the Party rejected my resignation, I would continue the role in a different manner.
22:06 <@scshunt> If some but not all were adopted, I would have to feel the specific situation out.
22:06 <@scshunt> I don't want this to come off as a threat; you are plenty free to adopt the amendments and then reject my resignation, in which case I will certainly serve the remainder of my term!
22:07 <@scshunt> -done-
22:07 <@scshunt> Any questions?
22:07 <+JMcleod> When does that vote for amendments end?
22:07 <+JohannWeiss> We
22:07 <+JohannWeiss> ve yet to decide that
22:07 <+JohannWeiss> I was going to bring a motion forward to end it in 7 days
22:08 <+RLim> so currently, President and Leader sits in all committee and have voting rights?
22:09 <@scshunt> That is correct.
22:09 <+JMcleod> Yes, and I think it should remain the same, but we'll see what the party decides.
22:10 <+svulliez> I think either is a good system, it just changes things around a bit.
22:10 <@scshunt> I feel I should be honest; I expected the votes to be ended immediately, so I looked at the results to prepare to present them. It looks to me as if most people voted without considering carefully. Which is certainly not any of your faults (I hope), but I do feel a little bit hurt by this process. I'll certainly remain active and contribute as a member of the PC either way
22:11 <+svulliez> I move to present the results.
22:11 <+JMcleod> Technically the VP and DL are supposed to replace the Pres or Leader if needed.
22:11 <@scshunt> svulliez: The interim results?
22:11 <@scshunt> or do you wish to end the voting?
22:12 <+svulliez> If you've prepared the end the voting, I see no need to stretch it out
22:12 <+RLim> how many have voted?
22:12 <@scshunt> 32
22:12 <@scshunt> I won't answer any more than that without a specific motion to do so.
22:12 <+RLim> wonder if we will get anymore?
22:12 <@scshunt> We could send out more reminders, perhaps.
22:13 <@scshunt> svulliez has moved to end the polls on the constitutional amendments. Is there a second?
22:13 <+svulliez> Hm, it's not a particularly great turnout but I don't see where else we're going to get them from.
22:13 <+JakeDaynes> I'd recommend leaving it up for another 7 days, and promoting the vote through all forms of social media heavily
22:13 <+psema4> ^
22:13 <+svulliez> I just want to see the results because Hunt saw them and I'm a curious guy, if people want to keep the votes open that's cool.
22:13 <@scshunt> I see no second, so the motion won't be considered.
22:14 <+psema4> I must say I'm a little disturbed
22:14 <+JMcleod> I move to present interim results (tis not an election of sorts)
22:15 <@scshunt> Is there a second?
22:15 <+JakeDaynes> seconded
22:15 <@scshunt> Hmm.
22:16 <+svulliez> Eugh, I'm not entirely sure about this.
22:16 <@scshunt> I think I'll rule that that's a motion to suspend the rules, since normally ballots are not looked at until counted.
22:16 <@scshunt> Such a motion is not normally debateable, although I think in the circumstances it may be prudent to make the motion debateable. Is there any objection to this?
22:16 <+svulliez> Nope, sounds good.
22:16 <+psema4> no objection to making it debatable
22:17 <@scshunt> Ok. The question is on the motion to present the current tally of votes from the constitutional amendment ballots.
22:17 <+phillipsjk> Is thre a pupose to showing the votes early, other thna to influence the vote?
22:17 <+RLim> what are we hoping to accomplish from this?
22:18 <+svulliez> ^
22:18 <+svulliez> Rlim is on the money
22:18 <+JMcleod> Nothing precisely, to satisfy curiosity :)
22:18 <+RLim> oh Jack. Curiosity kills the cat. :P
22:19 <+XFaCE> I think we should hand over the results to a third-party
22:19 <+XFaCE> who can judge the presence of abnormalities
22:19 <+RLim> slightly off topic. maybe we should have electoral chief or officer
22:19 <+svulliez> good idea.
22:19 <+RLim> for the future
22:19 <+psema4> RLim: that's you IIRC
22:20 <+RLim> oh? lol
22:20 <+JohannWeiss> That's a great idea RLim, very needed
22:20 <@scshunt> Strictly speaking, it is the President's duty and power to appoint the tellers for a vote
22:20 <+psema4> Hrmm, I thought RLim's role was that of Clerk
22:20 <+psema4> (renamed to Secretary)
22:21 <@scshunt> I handled this one myself, although it was certainly a mistake for me to look at the results before the polls were officially closed.
22:21 <@scshunt> RLim is the Secretary, but that does not mean it is his responsibility to handle votes.
22:22 <@scshunt> Is there any further debate on the motion?
22:23 <+svulliez> I don't think we should do it.
22:23 <+XFaCE> If we are going to look at the results before we close the polls?
22:23 <+RLim> yes XFaCe
22:23 <+JMcleod> Well we perhaps should look at setting an end date for em instead
22:23 <+XFaCE> Why not just restart the polls completely?
22:24 <+svulliez> I feel kind of uncomfortable with the idea that your discourse in this meeting has been affected by the results you've seen, and you've threatened to resign over one of them passing, it's not an ideal situation in the slightest.
22:24 <+phillipsjk> XFaCE, not everybody who vated will be present at the meeting.
22:24 <+XFaCE> phillipsjk: I think there is enough to cause influence of the results
22:25 <+RLim> unless you want to withdraw JMcleod
22:26 <+psema4> influencing the results may not be a bad thing...
22:26 <+phillipsjk> Can't people change their votes untill the polls close?
22:26 <@scshunt> phillipsjk: yes
22:26 <+psema4> members can go back and actually read the ammendments
22:26 <+XFaCE> psema4: lol
22:26 <+psema4> XFaCE: not funny, I'm being more thorough in my reading of them right now
22:26 <+svulliez> I think that's a bit of an abuse, to try to change the results though
22:26 <+RLim> I would assume that they read the amendments and not vote blindly
22:27 <+RLim> *voted
22:27 <+XFaCE> RLim: I wouldn't be so sure
22:27 <+JohannWeiss> It seems like a bad precedent to set. If the membership wants to reverse a decision they can do so at the next meeting, when we officially hear the results
22:27 <+JMcleod> I dont think I can withdraw, someone would have to move that it be withdrawn ;)
22:27 <+psema4> RLim: I'm not so concerned about blind voting as misunderstandings
22:27 <@scshunt> JMcleod: Would you like to withdraw? It requires your consent as well as the assembly's.
22:28 <+JMcleod> Sure
22:28 <+JMcleod> But there has to be a vote on it
22:28 <@scshunt> Okay. Is there any objection to JMcleod withdrawing his motion to present to current tally of votes?
22:28 <@scshunt> Ok then
22:28 <@scshunt> The question is on JMcleod's request for persmission to withdraw his motion to present the current tally of ovtes.
22:28 <+svulliez> I don't think any of the amendments are so brutal that we need to tinker with the results based what sean hunt saw when he peeked ahead of time
22:28 <@scshunt> *votes
22:28 <+svulliez> sorry for speaking out of turn.
22:28 <@scshunt> This requires a majority. All in favor say aye, all opposed say nay.
22:29 <+RLim> aye
22:29 <+JakeDaynes> aye
22:29 <+svulliez> aye
22:29 <+XFaCE> nay
22:29 <+JMcleod> aye
22:29 <+MononcQc> aye
22:29 <+JohannWeiss> aye
22:29 <+phillipsjk> aye
22:29 <+psema4> aye
22:30 <@scshunt> The ayes have it and the request is granted, the motion is withdrawn.
22:30 <@scshunt> RLim: the motion should not appear on the minutes
22:30 <+RLim> k
22:30 <@scshunt> Is there any further business?
22:30 <+psema4> I
22:30 <+psema4> oops
22:31 <+psema4> I'll second the motion to close the polls in 7 days
22:31 <+JohannWeiss> Motion: To end the Const vote in 7 days
22:31 <@scshunt> Ok.
22:31 <@scshunt> It has been moved and seconded to close the pools for the constitutional amendment votes in 7 days. Is there any objection to this?
22:31 <+JakeDaynes> none
22:32 <@scshunt> Seeing none, the polls will close at 11:32 pm EDT next Wednesday.
22:32 <@scshunt> Any further business?
22:32 <+XFaCE> I move that we recognize that the motion to reveal the results was withdrawn, not defeated.
22:33 <@scshunt> in the minutes?
22:33 <+XFaCE> Correct
22:33 <+psema4> XFaCE: they'll be in the transcript
22:33 <+XFaCE> To quote:
22:33 <+XFaCE> [23:29] <scshunt> RLim: the motion should not appear on the minutes
22:33 <+XFaCE> [23:29] <RLim> k
22:33 <@scshunt> A transcript of the meeting is posted alongside the minutes.
22:33 <+phillipsjk> I second.
22:34 <@scshunt> The minutes are the official record of what happened; since the motion was withdrawn and not defeated, it is not recorded since it does not constitute a decision.
22:34 <@scshunt> It has been moved and seconded to suspend the rules and include the earlier withdrawn motion in the minutes. This requires two-thirds and is not debateable.
22:34 <@scshunt> All in favor, say aye. All opposed, say nay.
22:34 <+XFaCE> Aye
22:34 <+JakeDaynes> aye
22:35 <+JohannWeiss> aye
22:35 <+phillipsjk> aye
22:35 <+psema4> abstain
22:35 <+svulliez> aye
22:36 <+JMcleod> aye
22:36 <+MononcQc> abstain
22:36 <+RLim> aye
22:37 <@scshunt> There are 7 votes in favor and none against. The constitution requires that a number of affirmative votes equal to at least half of quorum be cast in order for a motion to be adopted. The chair thus votes in the affirmative, making it 8 votes, so the motion is adopted.
22:37 * psema4 interesting
22:37 <@scshunt> Is there any further business?
22:38 <+XFaCE> I would like to forware another motion
22:38 <@scshunt> sure
22:39 <+XFaCE> I would like motion that we discuss the form in which the relationship with the website Techrights should take
22:39 <+XFaCE> Specifically, that the relationship will not violate any Party rules and regulations
22:39 <+JMcleod> Techrights is one of our sites?
22:40 <@scshunt> XFaCE: Who is we? The meeting?
22:40 <+XFaCE> No
22:40 <+XFaCE> yes
22:40 <@scshunt> ok.
22:40 <+XFaCE> we=members present
22:40 <@scshunt> Is there any objection to this?
22:40 <+JMcleod> well if its not one of our sites... is this even receivable?
22:40 <+JakeDaynes> none, however - I would ask that if I leave, will we maintain quorum?
22:41 <@scshunt> Yes.
22:41 <@scshunt> JMcleod: We can certainly take a motion to discuss something.
22:41 <+JakeDaynes> Then unfortunately, I must leave - take care
22:41 <+JMcleod> ok then ;)
22:42 <+XFaCE> All right then
22:42 <@scshunt> So I see no objection, so we'll proceed to such a discussion.
22:42 <+XFaCE> For those who don't know, Techrights is an news and advocacy site run by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
22:43 <+XFaCE> and a member of the Bytes Media conglomerate
22:43 <+XFaCE> I am an editor and contributor to the site
22:43 <+JohannWeiss> What is our current relationship with them and how could it affect our party legally?
22:44 <+JohannWeiss> or rules/regs
22:44 <+XFaCE> Shortly after the authoring of my article, "Bill C-11 - Harmful to Free Software", I had an idea to create some relation with the PPCA
22:44 <+XFaCE> This relationship was sparked largely through a discussion between scshunt and schestowitz on the Techrights IRC channel
22:45 <+XFaCE> when scshunt stated he was against software patents.
22:45 <+XFaCE> Schestowitz then stated his approval of the party and its mission, and made a Techrights blog post confirming this support
22:46 <+psema4> link pls
22:46 <+XFaCE> one moment
22:46 <+XFaCE> http://techrights.org/2012/03/19/statement-of-ppca/
22:47 <+XFaCE> Anyway, shortly thereafter, Roy and I had began the creation of "Techrights Canada", a portal located on the TR wiki
22:47 <+XFaCE> This portal was designed to serve as the conduit between the PPCA and Techrights
22:48 <+XFaCE> http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Techrights_Canada
22:49 <+XFaCE> In addition to the mission statement of TR Canada, authored by myself, there is also a paragraph that defines the relationship between TR and the PPCA that I was hoping to establish
22:49 <+XFaCE> I can quote the paragraph if required
22:50 <+XFaCE> Earlier this week, I presented this link to svulliez during a non-formal discussion in the #canada channel, and he gave his approval of the initiative.
22:50 <+XFaCE> Also, other members in the IRC stated it was ok to the use the PPCA site logo for a link to the PPCA site.
22:52 <+XFaCE> Now, what I was wishing to discuss specifically, is whether this relationship is acceptable in its current form. If so, I was wondering if there were ways there may be to even increase the relationship between TR and PPCA.
22:52 <+phillipsjk> May I make a suggestion?
22:52 <+XFaCE> sure
22:53 <+XFaCE> what is it?
22:54 <+phillipsjk> If you are concerned that this collaboration will be considered donations in kind, perhaps you should approach other political parties such as the NDP, libertarian and Green parties for similar collaberation.
22:54 <+JMcleod> Its always OK to link our logo, but not to say we approve without consent. Many of us in the party are in agreement with kopimism and think you are doing the sacred act of copying if you copy and paste our logo to any site :D (ok im exagerating a bit)
22:54 <+XFaCE> I should point out that Techrights is completely non-profit
22:55 <+psema4> JMcleod: well done :)
22:55 <+XFaCE> Also, when it was discussed, the problem that was pointed out was modifying the logo
22:55 <@scshunt> I would recommend verifying with Elections Canada that what you are duing is acceptable within contribution rules
22:55 <@scshunt> *doing
22:55 <+XFaCE> I would think it is
22:56 <+XFaCE> Unless there is a problem with Roy Schestowitz living in the UK
22:56 <+XFaCE> and not being a Canada citizen
22:56 <@scshunt> As long as he isn't doing anything which counts as a contribution, I don't think there would be
22:56 <+JohannWeiss> If it's a non-profit I can't see any problems
22:56 <+XFaCE> Otherwise, he is not self-employed and what he does on TR is completely in his spare time
22:56 <@Nuitari> scshunt: 3rd party rules would apply
22:56 <@scshunt> ^ yes, that
22:56 <+XFaCE> He has even written posts while being in the gym
22:57 <@scshunt> Best to talk to EC
22:57 <+XFaCE> Nuitari: Can you please elaborate?
22:57 <@scshunt> XFaCE: There are rules for third party advertising during elections.
22:57 <@scshunt> I'm not that familiar with them.
22:57 <@scshunt> I do not believe that they apply during non-election periods, but I could be wrong.
22:57 <@Nuitari> I don't think they apply outside of it
22:58 <@Nuitari> what is the legal form of techrights?
22:58 <+XFaCE> Are you saying that during elections, we would have to divest the TR-PPCA connection?
22:58 <@Nuitari> there would be limits to how much promotion (new articles) it would get
22:58 <@Nuitari> existing content is excluded from it
22:59 <+XFaCE> I'm not certain if Techrights has an official legal establishment
22:59 <+XFaCE> or title
22:59 <+XFaCE> From what I know, it does not
23:00 <@scshunt> The discussion seems to be at a close. Does anyone have a motion relating to it?
23:00 <+XFaCE> I will have to discuss this with Roy in order to be certain
23:01 <+JohannWeiss> I can't see this problem becoming serious before the next meeting, so why don't you discuss this with Nuitari and scshunt.
23:01 <@Nuitari> if they have an expense of less then 500$ then it won't matter
23:01 <+XFaCE> Very well.
23:01 <+JohannWeiss> Maybe also EC is necessary
23:01 <@Nuitari> there is no requirement to register
23:01 <+JohannWeiss> if**
23:01 <+XFaCE> Nuitari: As I said, the site is hosted in the UK
23:02 <+JMcleod> Seeing its midnight, I move to end this meeting.
23:02 <@Nuitari> well, it depends what qualifies as electiona dvertising
23:02 <+JohannWeiss> second
23:03 <+svulliez> I want to motion to have another GM at the end of votinh
23:03 <@scshunt> A motion has been made and seconded that the meeting adjourn.
23:03 <@scshunt> svulliez: Specific date and time?
23:03 <@Nuitari> http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=pol&document=index&dir=thi/que&lang=e
23:03 <+phillipsjk> I object.
23:03 <+svulliez> Can I motion to have the meeting on wednesday and close the voting earlier than previously stated?
23:03 <@scshunt> phillipsjk: to?
23:04 <+phillipsjk> ending the meeting
23:04 <@scshunt> svulliez: ok, brace yourself.
23:04 <+XFaCE> which wednesday?
23:04 <@scshunt> a bunch of procedure coming through here
23:04 <@scshunt> please everyone listen carefully, I don't want to repeat myself
23:04 <+XFaCE> I would like to clarify the date before any further action
23:04 <+JMcleod> ALRIGHT STOP, COLLABORATE AND LISTEN
23:04 <@scshunt> ^
23:04 <@scshunt> Currently pending is a motion to adjourn. This is a privileged motion which takes precedence over every other motion except for one.
23:05 <@scshunt> That one is the motion to fix the time to which to adjourn i.e. set when the next meeting is.
23:05 <@scshunt> Howeever, svulliez would additionally like to change the time of the voting close.
23:05 <+adpaolucci> I 2nd the motion, its now 12:05am where I am
23:05 <@scshunt> since he voted in favor of the motion to close the polls, he can move to reconsider the vote on the motion
23:06 <@scshunt> and if reconsidered, the motion is open again and can be amended or defeated or what have you
23:06 <@scshunt> The motion to resconsider is special, because it can be made at any time during the meeting at which the decision it proposes to reconsider was adopted.
23:06 <@scshunt> But it can't necessarily be considered at that time.
23:07 <@scshunt> Once made and seconded, it pauses the effect of the previous decision until a time comes at which it can be considered.
23:07 <@scshunt> So svulliez, if you would like, you can move to reconsider the vote, and/or you can move to set the time to which to adjourn.
23:07 <+svulliez> I just want to go to bed now. I rescind my motion.
23:08 <@scshunt> phillipsjk: If you have other business that you wish to tell the assembly about before the motion to adjourn, you can state it briefly.
23:08 <+JMcleod> We can petition the president to call for a special GM to recieve results at another time.
23:08 <+svulliez> I feel like if we had a conclusive motion to do all those things at once, no one would object to our procedure
23:08 <@scshunt> svulliez: You can do that to, but it would be a motion to suspend the rules and carry a higher threshold.
23:09 <+XFaCE> Does the Wednesday meeting time (undefined still which wednesday) count as part of the motion svulliez is resending?
23:09 <@scshunt> The original motion as adopted was to close the polls in 7 days
23:09 <@scshunt> which was adopted at 11:32 EDT
23:09 <+phillipsjk> I was wondering if people wanted to cesure scshund for his handling of the consttutional vote.
23:09 <+XFaCE> Please define "censure"
23:09 <+svulliez> I believe it's appropriate but I don't have the time or energy tonight.
23:10 <@scshunt> A censure is a formal statement of reprimand
23:10 <+svulliez> It's a formal disapproval.
23:10 <+XFaCE> Thanks
23:10 <@scshunt> stating that the Party disapproves of someone's action
23:10 <@scshunt> Any more questions?
23:10 <@scshunt> Okay, seeing none, the question is on the motion to adjourn.
23:10 <@scshunt> All in favor say aye, all opposed, say nay.
23:11 <+JMcleod> aye
23:11 <+JohannWeiss> aye
23:11 <+XFaCE> Nay
23:11 <+XFaCE> I in fact still have not been answered on which Wednesday the next meeting will take place
23:11 <+RLim> aye
23:11 <+JohannWeiss> It'll be the standard meeting
23:11 <+JohannWeiss> Third wednesday of the month
23:12 <@scshunt> XFaCE: There is no time set for the next meeting, so we would go to the next regular meeting.
23:12 <@scshunt> June 20
23:12 <+XFaCE> thnak you
23:12 <+XFaCE> I change to "aye"
23:12 <+phillipsjk> aye
23:12 <+psema4> abstain
23:12 <+jhowell> aye
23:13 <+svulliez> abstain
23:13 <@scshunt> The ayes have it and the motion is adopted.
23:13 <@scshunt> You can still move to reconsider the vote if you'd like :P
23:14 -scshunt:#canada- The meeting is now adjourned.

</PRE>

GM 2012-05-16 minutes

2012-05-17T04:29:07Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:29, 17 May 2012
(One intermediate revision not shown)
Line 2:		Line 2:

	The regular General Meeting of the Pirate Party of Canada was called to order at 20:32 Eastern Time, May 16, 2012 at irc.pirateparty.ca, irc channel #canada. The president was in the chair and the secretary was present. Minutes from previous meeting was approved.		The regular General Meeting of the Pirate Party of Canada was called to order at 20:32 Eastern Time, May 16, 2012 at irc.pirateparty.ca, irc channel #canada. The president was in the chair and the secretary was present. Minutes from previous meeting was approved.
		+
		+	Reports were given by President Sean Hunt, Leader Shawn Vulliez, and IT committee member Jake Daynes.

	Patrick Fitzgerald moved for adoption of the following special rule of order:		Patrick Fitzgerald moved for adoption of the following special rule of order:
Line 17:		Line 19:

	XFaCE moved "to suspend the rules and include the earlier withdrawn motion in the minutes." The motion was adopted with 8 ayes, 0 nays and 2 abstain.		XFaCE moved "to suspend the rules and include the earlier withdrawn motion in the minutes." The motion was adopted with 8 ayes, 0 nays and 2 abstain.
		+
		+	Meeting was adjourned at 00:14 Eastern Time, May 16, 2012.
		+
		+	View [[GM_2012-05-16_transcript\|transcript]].

GM 2012-05-16 agenda

2012-05-17T04:24:11Z

New page

Our monthly General Meeting will occur at 8:00 pm Eastern time on May 16, 2012 (Wednesday) in the IRC channel #canada at irc.pirateparty.ca - SSL port 6697 (connect using any IRC client. You can also connect through several web options available from our site's 'Chat' link).

This month's agenda includes:

* Approval of last month’s General Meeting minutes. http://wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php/GM_2012-04-18_minutes
* Committee or Officer's Reports
* CCitizen to move for enactment of Special Rule of Order. http://wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php/GM_2012-05-16_CCitizen_Motion
* Jeremy Howell to move “to amend the special rule of order defining the IT Committee to allow the Executive Board to appoint the IT Director".
* Vote to affirm candidacy of Travis McCrea for Vancouver Centre

Any other business that may be brought forward.

Meeting minutes

2012-05-17T04:21:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:21, 17 May 2012
Line 5:		Line 5:
	! Minutes		! Minutes
	! Transcripts		! Transcripts
		+	\|-
		+	\| 2012 05 16
		+	\| [[GM_2012-05-16_agenda\|Agenda]]
		+	\| [[GM_2012-05-16_minutes\|Minutes]]
		+	\| [[GM_2012-05-16_transcript\|Transcript]]
	\|-		\|-
	\| 2012 04 18		\| 2012 04 18

Special Rules of Order

2012-05-17T04:18:17Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:18, 17 May 2012
Line 34:		Line 34:
	=Permitting non-members to speak during meetings=		=Permitting non-members to speak during meetings=
	Non-members shall normally be permitted to speak at meetings, including in debate. That permission may be withdrawn or reinstated for any non-member individually or for all as a group with a majority vote on an undebatable motion to do so. This motion is a question of the privilege of the assembly. The motion cannot be renewed or the opposite motion made after it is adopted unless it presents a fundamentally different question or the parliamentary situation has changed.		Non-members shall normally be permitted to speak at meetings, including in debate. That permission may be withdrawn or reinstated for any non-member individually or for all as a group with a majority vote on an undebatable motion to do so. This motion is a question of the privilege of the assembly. The motion cannot be renewed or the opposite motion made after it is adopted unless it presents a fundamentally different question or the parliamentary situation has changed.
		+
		+	=IT Committee=
		+	The IT Committee shall be a standing committee of the Party, chaired by the IT Director. The IT Director will be elected by the Executive Board and serve for a term in the same manner as an officer. Additional members may be appointed or removed by the Executive Board or a general meeting as they see fit. The IT Committee is responsible and has power to oversee the technical operations of the Party. The IT Director shall have full access to the computer systems of the Party except as otherwise ordered by a general meeting; additional access may be provisioned by the IT Committee. Both general meetings and the Executive Board may issue directions to the IT Committee.

GM 2012-05-16 minutes

2012-05-17T03:54:41Z

protected "[[GM 2012-05-16 minutes]]" [edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite)

Special Rules of Order

2012-05-17T02:53:49Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:53, 17 May 2012
Line 31:		Line 31:

	This rule cannot be suspended, as granting the power to suspend it would often defeat its purpose. Any majority strong enough to suspend this rule would be strong enough to adopt most of these votes without a telephone and Internet vote.		This rule cannot be suspended, as granting the power to suspend it would often defeat its purpose. Any majority strong enough to suspend this rule would be strong enough to adopt most of these votes without a telephone and Internet vote.
		+
		+	=Permitting non-members to speak during meetings=
		+	Non-members shall normally be permitted to speak at meetings, including in debate. That permission may be withdrawn or reinstated for any non-member individually or for all as a group with a majority vote on an undebatable motion to do so. This motion is a question of the privilege of the assembly. The motion cannot be renewed or the opposite motion made after it is adopted unless it presents a fundamentally different question or the parliamentary situation has changed.

GM 2012-05-16 minutes

2012-05-17T02:35:14Z

Created page with "[DRAFT] The regular General Meeting of the Pirate Party of Canada was called to order at 20:32 Eastern Time, May 16, 2012 at irc.pirateparty.ca, irc channel #canada. The preside..."

New page

[DRAFT]

The regular General Meeting of the Pirate Party of Canada was called to order at 20:32 Eastern Time, May 16, 2012 at irc.pirateparty.ca, irc channel #canada. The president was in the chair and the secretary was present. Minutes from previous meeting was approved.

GM 2012-04-18 minutes

2012-05-17T01:32:11Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:32, 17 May 2012
Line 25:		Line 25:
	Amendments was accepted after debates and amendments and will be submitted to the membership for a vote.		Amendments was accepted after debates and amendments and will be submitted to the membership for a vote.

-	Johann Weiss moved "to add a comments section to the ballot so that the voters can write in any questions/comments on them."	+	Johann Weiss moved "to add a comments section to the ballot so that the voters can write in any questions/comments on them." The motion was adopted with 7 ayes and 2 nays.

	David Ascroft moved "to appoint Robert McGrath as the candidate for Ottawa-Orleans." Motion was adopted with 9 ayes, 0 nays.		David Ascroft moved "to appoint Robert McGrath as the candidate for Ottawa-Orleans." Motion was adopted with 9 ayes, 0 nays.

EB 2012-05-14 transcript

2012-05-15T03:27:24Z

protected "[[EB 2012-05-14 transcript]]" [edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite)

EB 2012-05-14 minutes

2012-05-15T03:23:23Z

protected "[[EB 2012-05-14 minutes]]" [edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite)

Executive Board

2012-05-15T02:05:18Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:05, 15 May 2012
Line 137:		Line 137:
	! Members Present		! Members Present
	! Records in Vote Log (Y/N)		! Records in Vote Log (Y/N)
		+	\|-
		+	\| May 07 2012
		+	\| N/A
		+	\| [[EB_2012-05-07_minutes\|Minutes]]
		+	\| [[EB_2012-05-07_transcript\|Transcript]]
		+	\| Jack Mcleod, Ric Lim, Shawn Vulliez, Travis McCrea, Patrick Fitzgerald, Jeremy Howell and Stephane Bakhos.
		+	\| N
	\|-		\|-
	\| Apr 30 2012		\| Apr 30 2012
	\| N/A		\| N/A
	\| [[EB_2012-04-30_minutes\|Minutes]]		\| [[EB_2012-04-30_minutes\|Minutes]]
-	\|	+	\| [[EB_2012-04-30_transcript\|Transcript]]
	\| Jack Mcleod, Ric Lim, Shawn Vulliez, Travis McCrea, Patrick Fitzgerald, Jeremy Howell and Stephane Bakhos.		\| Jack Mcleod, Ric Lim, Shawn Vulliez, Travis McCrea, Patrick Fitzgerald, Jeremy Howell and Stephane Bakhos.
	\| N		\| N

EB 2012-05-14 minutes

2012-05-15T02:03:17Z

Created page with "The regular Executive Board meeting of the Pirate Party of Canada was called to order at 21:38 Eastern Time, May 14, 2012 at irc channel #exec, irc.pirateparty.ca. The president ..."

New page

The regular Executive Board meeting of the Pirate Party of Canada was called to order at 21:38 Eastern Time, May 14, 2012 at irc channel #exec, irc.pirateparty.ca. The president was in the chair and the secretary was present. In attendance were Sean Hunt (late), Jack Mcleod, Ric Lim, Travis McCrea and Jeremy Howell. The minutes from previous meetings were reviewed and approved.

The postponed motion "to accept xmux's resignation from the IT Committee." was taken up and adopted with 3 ayes and 0 nays.

The meeting was adjourned at Eastern Time.

View [[EB_2012-05-14_transcript|transcript]].

EB 2012-05-07 minutes

2012-05-15T01:50:22Z

protected "[[EB 2012-05-07 minutes]]" [edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite)

EB 2012-05-07 transcript

2012-05-15T00:26:41Z

Created page with "<PRE> NOTE: All log times are in Central time. (Eastern time -1 hr) 20:35 < JMcleod> Well anyone have business, I have 1 piece of business - thats it 20:36 < JMcleod> guess not,..."

New page

<PRE>
NOTE: All log times are in Central time. (Eastern time -1 hr)

20:35 < JMcleod> Well anyone have business, I have 1 piece of business - thats it
20:36 < JMcleod> guess not, so lets start by approving minutes of last week then
20:37 < RLim> http://wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php/EB_2012-04-30_minutes
20:37 < CCitizen> Aside from maybe considering making OpE^2 an official project
20:38 < JMcleod> umm Travis McCrea moved "that the Pirate Party of Canada officially merges it's operations into the PPI IT Committee". MOtion was adopted with 5 ayes and 0 nays. - wasnted it operations in the PPI IRC instead of committee?
20:40 < CCitizen> Perhaps we should revisit that one... it sounds like our IT team would basically be the same. I think the idea was collaborating rather than implication of a merge/takeover sort of deal. We already lost one member who flipped out when they saw that
20:40 < TeamColtra> No thereno that is right
20:41 < TeamColtra> but it should be "merged the PPCA IT committee with the PPI IT Committee"
20:41 < TeamColtra> not the entire PPCA operations :P
20:42 < RLim> should I just change that?
20:43 < TeamColtra> I don't think it would cause much fuss
20:43 < RLim> yeah
20:43 < CCitizen> Well the term merge seems overkill collaborate is probably a better wording since it's not like they'd be running our servers for us
20:43 < TeamColtra> Also on the last item, the admin team of the PirateIRC have promised that we would have control over #Canada
20:44 < JMcleod> at worse we can make a motion to clarify last week's motions
20:45 < CCitizen> yeah we should clarify at least that one
20:46 < JMcleod> Alright so lets accept the minutes first, then form a motion aimed to correct last week's wording
20:46 < TeamColtra> umm
20:46 < JMcleod> (we cant just change the minutes like that)
20:46 < TeamColtra> we can't accept them if we don't view them as accurate
20:46 < JMcleod> Well are they accurated to the wording of last week
20:47 < TeamColtra> No they are accurate to the wording that the person wrote them down
20:47 < JMcleod> If that is the wording that was moved, then its correct
20:47 < RLim> ok
20:47 < JMcleod> But I dont have the whole logs
20:47 < TeamColtra> that's not the wording that was moved, I am 90% positive of that
20:47 < TeamColtra> because scshunt or myself would have been like "no that's poor wordign"
20:47 < CCitizen> Lets just approve the minutes and fix it
20:47 < JMcleod> No wait, RLim, do you have a whole log of last week's meeting?
20:47 < TeamColtra> you can't approve minutes like that, it's why we have this part in the beginning of our meeting
20:48 < TeamColtra> lol it's not just a formality
20:48 < RLim> one sec
20:49 < JMcleod> found my logs, looking through em
20:50 < JMcleod> This was what we voted on: [22:59:48] <JMcleod> The question is on that "the Pirate Party of Canada officially merges it's operations into the PPI IT Committee" All in favor say aye , all against say nay.
20:51 < RLim> http://wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php/EB_2012-04-30_transcript
20:51 < RLim> unedited
20:51 < CCitizen> Ah so lets get it approved and fix things
20:53 < TeamColtra> Okay fair enough
20:53 < TeamColtra> :P I must have been crazy tired
20:53 < JMcleod> [22:49:22] <TeamColtra> I move the Pirate Party of Canada officially merges it's operations into the PPI IT Committee
20:53 < TeamColtra> as stated
20:53 < TeamColtra> :P Clearly super tired :P
20:53 < JMcleod> It seemed fine with the wording then, so we can fix this this meeting
20:54 < JMcleod> Anyone disagree on the minutes?
20:54 < CCitizen> Nope they seem to be accurate
20:54 < JMcleod> brb
20:55 < RLim> nope
20:55 < JMcleod> alright then, minutes are approved
20:56 < JMcleod> 1st piece of business, who takes care of our PPCA member cards?
20:57 < CCitizen> Isnt the card printer in Vancouver now?
20:57 < TeamColtra> yes
20:57 < CCitizen> Then I guess someone in Vancouver is responsible for it
20:58 < TeamColtra> Jake does
20:58 < TeamColtra> it's in Jake's house
20:59 < CCitizen> Ok so we blame Jake then? heh...
20:59 < TeamColtra> I am not stating that
20:59 < TeamColtra> just stating that the card printer is located at Jake's place.
20:59 < JMcleod> I dont want to blame anyone, I would like to have someone officially responsible for those
21:00 < CCitizen> Just kidding though I guess he's in charge of it then
21:00 < scshunt> ugh, sorry guys
21:00 < scshunt> I don't have an exucse, my own damn fault
21:02 < scshunt> anyway, membership cards are jake? Is he getting them out?
21:02 < JMcleod> Hi Sean
21:02 < jhowell> here, finally. sorry for the delay
21:03 < JMcleod> OK well hi guys
21:04 < JMcleod> Mini resumé: We voted on something last week that had bad wording and plan to revise it this week. We are currently discussing who has control of PPCA membership card printing
21:04 < CCitizen> got almost everyone here tonight
21:04 < scshunt> right
21:04 < scshunt> I read the backlog
21:05 < JMcleod> So Sean should take over of this since he's here =)
21:05 < scshunt> oh right
21:05 < scshunt> that
21:05 < scshunt> :P
21:05 < scshunt> Ok, membership cards
21:05 < scshunt> discuss things, etc. :P
21:06 < scshunt> Does anyone have anything else to say?
21:06 < JMcleod> Yes - So Jake has printer
21:06 < JMcleod> How often do they go out?
21:07 < scshunt> Don't know about that.
21:07 < scshunt> TravisMcCrea, can you follow up with him on that?
21:08 < scshunt> unless anything has anyone else to say, let's move along since there's nothing happening
21:09 < scshunt> Ok then.
21:10 < scshunt> Does anyone have any other business?
21:10 < TeamColtra> scshunt: can you ping TeamColtra
21:10 < TeamColtra> not now, but just when you do :P
21:10 < scshunt> TeamColtra: ping
21:10 < scshunt> wait, confused
21:10 < TeamColtra> Nothing, you were making a comment directed at me
21:10 < CCitizen> I think we were going to reword the whole merge IT thing
21:10 < TeamColtra> and it doesn't highlight me - unless you ping TeamColtra
21:11 < scshunt> ah, I see
21:11 < JMcleod> Yeah, we need to get that reworded
21:11 < scshunt> I agree about rewording that
21:11 < CCitizen> Should probably change it to collaborate...if we're moving the irc to PPI IRC we should probably join their channel anyways
21:12 < scshunt> So, I wasn't here last week.
21:12 < JMcleod> Kinda off topic, but why do the forums give me An Error Has Occurred! The topic or board you are looking for appears to be either missing or off limits to you.
21:13 < scshunt> But was there any particular reason we thought we needed to make this an explicit direction to the committee?
21:13 < scshunt> rather than giving the committee freedom?
21:13 < jhowell> it didn't seem like a harmful idea that anyone would get in a huff over :)
21:13 < CCitizen> True might be better handled by letting the IT Committee handle it
21:14 < CCitizen> Hehe... only xmux or was it wasme that flipped out over this?
21:14 < TeamColtra> brb need to move desks
21:14 < jhowell> xmux
21:14 < JMcleod> xmux flipped out
21:14 < RLim> xmux
21:14 < scshunt> wasme flipped over other things at the last gm
21:14 < jhowell> but.. imho he has similar qualities as wasme..
21:14 < JMcleod> wasme always flips out ;)
21:14 < scshunt> I mean, his point is correct. The motion as worded was bad
21:14 < CCitizen> Yeah
21:15 < jhowell> At the risk of calling shenanigans, if someone *wants* a reason to get out, they'll jump at a chance
21:15 < CCitizen> which is why i hope if we fix it he might come back but really I would hope people would wait more than 5 minutes before bailing
21:15 < scshunt> which reminds me, does anyone want to make a motion to accept xmux's resignation?
21:15 < jhowell> not saying its the case, just saying its possible that they wanted to do something--thought it was different and didn't want to leave gracefully.
21:16 < jhowell> I'll make a motion
21:16 < CCitizen> I'd rather make a motion to fix the wording then give him till next meeting to decide if he wants to keep resigning
21:16 < scshunt> Ok. It has been moved to accept xmux's resignation from the IT Committee.
21:16 < jhowell> ccitizen he's had plenty of time to respond via email
21:17 < CCitizen> ok
21:17 < jhowell> he's left the itcomm room, has not responded to any correspondence (at least to me)
21:17 < scshunt> he's not in my #canada logs either
21:17 < jhowell> yeah
21:17 < JMcleod> Ok so I move to correct the motion adopted last week, "the Pirate Party of Canada officially merges it's operations into the PPI IT Committee" to "the Pirate Party of Canada IT committee collaborates with the operations of the PPI IT Committee as the Pirate Party of Canada IT committee sees fit"
21:17 < CCitizen> did you try the mailing list
21:18 < jhowell> So, I think that's painting a picture
21:18 < scshunt> JMcleod: That motion is out of order for the moment, as we are currently discussing the motion to accept xmux's resignation.
21:18 < scshunt> I'm partial to agree with jhowell; we can always put him back if he indicates that he wants to get back in
21:18 < JMcleod> (Oh I dint see the actual motion?)
21:19 < scshunt> 22:16:28 < jhowell> I'll make a motion
21:19 < jhowell> if you'd like verbatim: "I put forward a motion to accept xmux's resignation from the IT Committee"
21:19 < jhowell> :)
21:19 < CCitizen> I'd say we should defer it until next week. Since we're fixing the source of the resignation
21:19 < JMcleod> ah ok :)
21:19 < scshunt> but I can see the other side too, since he hasn't been around at all
21:19 < jhowell> No opposition to that
21:20 < scshunt> CCitizen: is that a motion to postpone?
21:20 < CCitizen> Sure
21:20 < jhowell> if you'd like to wait, we can wait. its not like he has access to the system (Something I'd like to discuss in here too)
21:20 < scshunt> Ok. It has been moved to postpone the motion until next week.
21:20 < scshunt> Discussion?
21:20 < scshunt> Ok, are there any objections to postponing the question?
21:21 < jhowell> nothing that hasn't already been said from me. no objections
21:21 < CCitizen> Just it might look better to keep him on while we handle this than to kick him of and put him back on like IT is some sort of revolving door
21:21 < JMcleod> I wont object to that
21:21 < CCitizen> No objections here
21:21 < scshunt> Ok, seeing none, the motion is postponed to the next meeting.
21:21 < JMcleod> Ok so I move to correct the motion adopted last week, "the Pirate Party of Canada officially merges it's operations into the PPI IT Committee" to "the Pirate Party of Canada IT committee collaborates with the operations of the PPI IT Committee as the Pirate Party of Canada IT committee sees fit"
21:21 < TeamColtra> back
21:22 < scshunt> Ok, JMcleod has made the motion mentioned there.
21:22 < scshunt> JMcleod: Do you want to speak?
21:22 < JMcleod> im pretty sure that this is more precisely what we intended to vote on last week
21:22 < scshunt> 'ello svulliez
21:22 < JMcleod> (its really all I have to say)
21:23 < JMcleod> Since it was Travis' original motion, perhaps TeamColtra should see if it fits with his idea
21:23 < scshunt> Is there appetite to discuss rescinding it instead? If not, I won't bother since I wasn't there for the original and I'm not really interested in second-guessing a meeting that I wasn't there for
21:23 < CCitizen> Seems good ... also if xmux doesnt come back after fixing the wording well next week I'll have no qualms about taking his resignation
21:23 < TeamColtra> It's just correcting something that was said in a state of tiredness
21:24 < TeamColtra> I don't see it as a big deal
21:24 < JMcleod> But is my motion accurate?
21:24 < TeamColtra> unless we want to carry on merging our entire PPCA into the PPI IT Committee
21:24 < TeamColtra> :P
21:24 < TeamColtra> err
21:24 < TeamColtra> I wouldn't word it exactly like that though
21:25 < TeamColtra> it goes beyond the scope of the origional motion
21:25 < scshunt> in what way?
21:25 < JMcleod> oh? explain?
21:25 < TeamColtra> Because the idea is that the PPCA team actually merges into the PPI team. It just works on it's own projects
21:26 < TeamColtra> it's not a "when it sees fit" thing, they are merged. It just keeps it's own structure within that group
21:26 < scshunt> ah
21:26 < CCitizen> Probably better to write it as 'The IT Committee is fully authorized and encouraged to collaborate with PPI IT Committee'
21:26 < scshunt> In that case, I /will/ make a motion to amend this motion to be a motion to rescind the motion adopted last week involving the merger of the PPCA IT Committee operations with the PPI IT Committee.
21:27 < TeamColtra> "the Pirate Party of Canada officially merges it's IT operations into the PPI IT Committee"
21:27 < scshunt> yes, I would like to rescind that one.
21:27 < TeamColtra> would be keeping within the spirit of the first one
21:27 < JMcleod> Well we should rescind the first one
21:27 < JMcleod> Then adopt a new one
21:28 < JMcleod> I withdraw my motion
21:28 < TeamColtra> No, we should just patch / amend this one
21:28 < scshunt> It can't withdrawn unilaterally, especially not with a secondary amendment pending.
21:28 < scshunt> and TeamColtra objects, so I'll put it to a vote.
21:28 < JMcleod> Alright then ignore what I said =)
21:28 < scshunt> oh ok
21:28 < TeamColtra> JMcleod: already done ;)
21:29 < CCitizen> You could always use my wording. Lets them decide the level of integration and such
21:29 < scshunt> So then the question is now on the motion to amend JMcleod's motion to a motion to rescind the motion last week regarding merging the IT committee with PPI.
21:29 < scshunt> Please limit discussion to the relative merits of these two motions
21:30 < scshunt> I feel that rescinding is preferable to adopting a vague "they may collaborate" motion, since they can already collaborate and the less complicated and vague motions we adopt, the better
21:30 < CCitizen> which two are we working with?
21:30 < scshunt> JMcleod's motion to "to correct the motion adopted last week, "the Pirate Party of Canada officially merges it's operations into the PPI IT Committee" to "the Pirate Party of Canada IT committee collaborates with the operations of the PPI IT Committee as the Pirate Party of Canada IT committee sees fit"
21:30 < scshunt> and my motion to amend it to a rescindment
21:31 < CCitizen> Ah yeah I suppose rescinding it would be better... sounds like this should have been discussed in the IT Committee first anyways
21:31 < svulliez> that's nice and simple :P
21:31 < jhowell> hahah
21:31 < jhowell> you know--if ppl show up :)
21:32 < scshunt> We should take everyone off the committee again for not showing up :P
21:32 < scshunt> anyway, I don't see much discussion
21:32 < scshunt> so we'll go to a vote.
21:32 < JMcleod> I dont have much to discuss
21:32 < jhowell> well, we don't have much business to go over every week but after this we'll chat about that.
21:32 < RLim> again? how many weeks have it been? Did they miss couple or never show up?
21:32 < scshunt> JMcleod moved "to correct the motion adopted last week, "the Pirate Party of Canada officially merges it's operations into the PPI IT Committee" to "the Pirate Party of Canada IT committee collaborates with the operations of the PPI IT Committee as the Pirate Party of Canada IT committee sees fit"
21:33 < scshunt> The question is on the motion to substitute a motion to rescind the decision for the motion to amend it.
21:33 < scshunt> If adopted, we will be discussing a motion to rescind; if defeated, we will be discussing the original motion to amend.
21:33 < scshunt> All in favor, say aye. All opposed, say nay.
21:33 < scshunt> aye
21:33 < TeamColtra> nay
21:33 < jhowell> aye
21:33 < RLim> aye
21:33 < svulliez> aye
21:33 < CCitizen> aye
21:34 < JMcleod> nay
21:34 < scshunt> The ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted. The question is now on the motion to rescind the motion that the IT Committee merge its operations into the PPI IT Committee.
21:34 < scshunt> I don't think we want to actually merge our operations with PPI.
21:35 < scshunt> Collaboration is a good thing, but doing any sort of merger will just create more bureaucracy
21:35 < jhowell> we aren't.. no. its more of a collaboration, thinktank
21:35 < TeamColtra> so would that be to do away with all of this?
21:35 < scshunt> and we already have an it committee that doesn't do much
21:35 < jhowell> at least--it should be
21:35 < scshunt> TeamColtra: it would un-do the motion
21:35 < jhowell> if something like this happens, ---and we can discuss it later remember--
21:35 < TeamColtra> My question is we just passed: "the Pirate Party of Canada IT committee collaborates with the operations of the PPI IT Committee as the Pirate Party of Canada IT committee sees fit"
21:35 < TeamColtra> will this recend that?
21:35 < scshunt> No, we didn't.
21:36 < JMcleod> No we didnt pass taht
21:36 < scshunt> As I said, we just passed an amendment to change it into a motion to rescind.
21:36 < scshunt> now we are debating that motion to rescind.
21:36 < TeamColtra> Oh I see.
21:36 < TeamColtra> So now the motion on the floor is "the Pirate Party of Canada IT committee collaborates with the operations of the PPI IT Committee as the Pirate Party of Canada IT committee sees fit"
21:36 < CCitizen> Well after we rescind we can discuss new wording and such right?
21:36 < scshunt> TeamColtra: No.
21:36 < TeamColtra> but there is now a motion to rescind it?
21:36 < scshunt> 22:34:38 < scshunt> The ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted. The question is now on the motion to rescind the motion that the IT Committee merge its operations into the PPI IT Committee.
21:36 < TeamColtra> Yes
21:36 < scshunt> being, specifically, the motion adopted last week.
21:36 < TeamColtra> the amendment is adopted
21:37 < scshunt> the amendment to JMcleod's motion is adopted.
21:37 < JMcleod> yes, the amendment cancels out my motion
21:37 < scshunt> not the amendment to the one from last week, which is no longer being considered.
21:37 < TeamColtra> So what exactly does this do away with?
21:37 < JMcleod> The one with the bad wording of last week
21:37 < scshunt> If adopted, this would rescind last week's motion.
21:37 < TeamColtra> but we just amended it
21:37 < scshunt> No.
21:37 < JMcleod> No we didnt
21:37 < CCitizen> IMHO Easiest way to do things in the future is to rescind and rewrite... Rather than get multiple amendments going at once
21:37 < scshunt> We amended the motion to amend it.
21:37 < JMcleod> lol
21:38 < scshunt> TravisMcCrea: do you understand?
21:38 < TeamColtra> holy god... and whos on third, right?
21:38 < TeamColtra> :P
21:38 < scshunt> haha
21:38 < scshunt> no, whos out of order and sitting in the penalty box
21:38 < RLim> lol BTW have to leave in 30 minutes
21:38 < scshunt> anyway, are we clear now, TeamColtra?
21:38 < scshunt> sorry for the confusion
21:38 < CCitizen> Thats how I feel right now Travis...anyways are we voting on rescinding now?
21:38 < TeamColtra> ... not in the slightest, but I am going to let this play out
21:39 < TeamColtra> and hope that I get it
21:39 < scshunt> TeamColtra: ok. Right now, we are debating a motion to rescind last week's motion.
21:39 < CCitizen> The old wording then we can make a motion with the new wording
21:39 < scshunt> If you have further questions, PM please :)
21:39 < TeamColtra> Why can't we just create a new rule which superscedes it?
21:39 < CCitizen> Have we had enough discussion we can just vote and get to the next step where things arent as clear as mud?
21:40 < scshunt> TeamColtra: We just voted not to.
21:40 < TeamColtra> >.>
21:40 < scshunt> CCitizen: asking questions about procedure is in order, since ensuring that everyone is clear on what is going on is important.
21:40 < scshunt> if it strays into debate, I'll cut it off.
21:40 < scshunt> (even a motion to end debate can't stop questions about procedure)
21:41 < TeamColtra> Sorry I was following rules of order which means we have to vote on a motion
21:41 < TeamColtra> before a new motion is presented
21:41 < TeamColtra> you stated JMcleod moved "to correct the motion adopted last week, "the Pirate Party of Canada officially merges it's operations into the PPI IT Committee" to "the Pirate Party of Canada IT committee collaborates with the operations of the PPI IT Committee as the Pirate Party of Canada IT committee sees fit"
21:41 < scshunt> That is correct.
21:41 < TeamColtra> Which was the first motion on the floor
21:41 < scshunt> Then I moved to amend JMcleod's motion.
21:41 < scshunt> which is a subsidiary motion affecting JMcleod's.
21:41 < TeamColtra> that's not a valid amendment though
21:41 < scshunt> It's too late to raise a point of order on that point, so I won't rule on it.
21:42 < TeamColtra> Yes, except for when voting, I was expecting I was voting based on rules of procedure
21:42 < CCitizen> so at this point if we moved it to voting we'd basically be voting on rescinding the old flawed wording?
21:42 < TeamColtra> since I don't have enough time to read through every comment posted, I saw that above. Then I saw a vote, so I voted.
21:42 < scshunt> CCitizen: yes.
21:42 < CCitizen> Alright then lets do that and we can move on to the replacement bit
21:43 < CCitizen> which is what everyone seems to be wanting to get to
21:43 < TeamColtra> So we are all on the same page I call for a "standing vote" (or a revote in IRC terms) on the last motion
21:43 < scshunt> TeamColtra: I'm sorry, but you're straying into arguing with me, and we need to keep the meeting going. If you have a specific point of order, raise it and I will rule. If you have a question, ask and I will answer. Otherwise, please contact me privately.
21:43 < RLim> scshunt can you confirm CCitizen last comment will not be out of order
21:43 < RLim> once we vote to rescind
21:44 < RLim> *21:42 comment
21:44 < scshunt> RLim: Sure, gimme a sec.
21:44 < scshunt> TeamColtra: It's out of order to retake a vote by the same method, and simply revoting would be retaking it by the same method.
21:44 < scshunt> So I will rule that out of order, given the lack of distinction between how we voted and what we would do on a revote.
21:44 < CCitizen> I'm always out of order since TUEBL doesnt have a copy of RONR
21:45 < TeamColtra> we can all type /me stands if you really want to
21:45 < scshunt> RLim: It would be in order if it is different enough to present a substantially different question.
21:45 * JMcleod tries to emote
21:45 < JMcleod> oh it would work
21:45 < TeamColtra> I feel that the motion wasn't properly presented and broke rules of order.
21:45 < scshunt> I rule that it is too late to raise a point of order regarding the previous motion.
21:46 < TeamColtra> Which is why I am calling for a revote as RRs entitle me to
21:46 < CCitizen> Can I make a motion that we dispense with the rules of order and rescind the old wording? (then we can get to new business)
21:46 < TeamColtra> I dislike the idea of rescinding it, and would rather us just patch it
21:47 < TeamColtra> And had proper debate happened
21:47 < RLim> CCitizen you can call for suspension of the rule
21:47 < TeamColtra> I could have presented logical arguments againsti t
21:47 < scshunt> TeamColtra: I rule this request out of order as the rule to demand a standing vote is a rule allowing a member to demand a form of vote that provides an accurate comparison. Our voting was accurate. You do not have a right to reopen debate on a motion that has been decided, or to have it voted on again.
21:47 < CCitizen> Well then lets suspend the rules and get it done... stop dicking around with rules of order when we know what the hell we want to do and stop arguing over bureaucratic bullshit
21:48 < scshunt> Now, a motion has been made to suspend the rules and rescind last week's motion regarding merging the IT Committee with PPI.
21:48 < scshunt> This motion is not debateable; it requires a two-thirds vote.
21:48 < scshunt> All in favor, say aye. All opposed, say nay.
21:48 < scshunt> aye
21:48 < TeamColtra> nay
21:48 < CCitizen> aye
21:49 < jhowell> aye
21:49 < svulliez> aye
21:49 < JMcleod> nay
21:49 < RLim> aye
21:49 < scshunt> There are two thirds in favor and the motion is adopted. The motion from last week is rescinded.
21:50 < RLim> ok now can we introduce a new motion
21:50 < RLim> ?
21:50 < scshunt> Yes.
21:50 < scshunt> As long as it presents a substantially different question from something decided at a previous meeting
21:51 < TeamColtra> I still disagree with the chairs merging two motions together, because that was /not/ CCitizen's motion
21:51 < scshunt> 22:46:23 < CCitizen> Can I make a motion that we dispense with the rules of order and rescind the old wording?
21:52 < TeamColtra> I stand corrrected :)
21:52 < scshunt> So does anyone have any motion that they would like to present here.
21:52 < scshunt> ?
21:52 < CCitizen> We can rewrite it and make it acceptable now? Or do we have to do anything else
21:52 < RLim> CCitizen it has to be substantially different
21:52 < RLim> but go for it
21:52 < scshunt> Basically, it can't be a variation of wording on JMcloed's.
21:53 < scshunt> if it has any actual difference, then it's good
21:53 < scshunt> err
21:53 < scshunt> it can't be /only/ a variation of wording
21:53 < JMcleod> Yeah - so if it doesnt include to correct last week's motion, that was just rescinded, its good
21:53 < JMcleod> Because that would be a substantial difference from mine :)
21:54 < scshunt> Does anyone want to discuss anything else in the meantime?
21:54 < CCitizen> Technically last weeks motion doesnt exist anymore
21:54 < JMcleod> Exactly my point
21:54 < TeamColtra> Here is the problem
21:54 < jhowell> i wanna
21:55 < scshunt> jhowell: What matter?
21:55 < jhowell> not so much a motion but to request something we're having problems getting within the IT committee
21:55 < TeamColtra> I move "the Pirate Party of Canada officially merges it's IT operations into the PPI IT Committee"
21:56 < JMcleod> Can Travis explain the exact purpose he wishes to attain when doing that?
21:56 < jhowell> The IT Committee needs to slot in a piece of time with Nuitari to make sure everyone is able to successfully login to the servers, being able to confirm proper access
21:56 < jhowell> requesting this informally doesn't seem to be working
21:56 < TeamColtra> jhowell: which is why I had arranged you and Nuitari to talk
21:57 < TeamColtra> and get stuff done, and I told you
21:57 < scshunt> TeamColtra: is that the motion from last week verbatim?
21:57 < TeamColtra> get it now, because he is not going to be available for you later
21:57 < TeamColtra> scshunt: no it's a clearification
21:57 < TeamColtra> "the Pirate Party of Canada officially merges it's operations into the PPI IT Committee" was last weeks
21:57 < jhowell> Travis, we're talking but like i just said.. informally, its not working out
21:57 < jhowell> its tough to get the guys attention
21:57 < jhowell> just looking for some advice
21:58 < jhowell> once we got everyones login info solidified most of our agenda is complete
21:58 < scshunt> TeamColtra: I'm going to rule that out of order. The motion does not, in the chair's opinion, present a substantially different question.
21:58 < jhowell> or ready to initiate
21:58 < TeamColtra> scshunt: ugh that's the whole reason this thing came up in the first place
21:58 < scshunt> TeamColtra: you're welcome to appeal.
21:58 < TeamColtra> I appeal:
21:58 < CCitizen> actually it would be good to get Nuitari to help jhowell to set up other accounts for login
21:58 < scshunt> Ok, the ruling of the chair is appealed.
21:58 < JMcleod> I appeal too
21:58 < scshunt> The chair gets to speak first on an appeal.
21:59 < TeamColtra> The wording that was passed last week was too vague and actually stated that the PPCA should merge with the PPI's IT committee
21:59 < scshunt> Order,
21:59 < TeamColtra> which would obviously be bad
21:59 < scshunt> the chair gets to speak first
21:59 < TeamColtra> Speak your worshipfulness
21:59 < scshunt> I believe, from the context of the initial motion, that it is clear that the intent was to merge IT operations only. I cannot imagine any reasonable circumstance under which the motion could be interpreted as a motion to actually merge the entire Party into the IT Committee of PPI.
21:59 < TeamColtra> Sorry :\ that wasn't proper
22:00 < scshunt> not to mention something far beyond the jurisdiction of the EB
22:00 < TeamColtra> The wording that was passed last week was too vague and actually stated that the PPCA should merge with the PPI's IT committee, which would obviously be bad. We had agreed with the motion last week with a vote of 5 to 0
22:00 < TeamColtra> Sorry I pressed enter
22:02 < TeamColtra> The point is that we would have ignored it and left it as is... and no one would have cared about it... but we pulled it out to clearify the wording. That was the whole point of brining it up.
22:02 < JMcleod> ...
22:02 < scshunt> Is there any more discussion?
22:02 < TeamColtra> So you ruling the adjustment that we were initally intending to do being out of order is sily
22:02 < TeamColtra> done
22:03 < RLim> can I speak
22:03 < RLim> ?
22:03 < scshunt> sure
22:04 < RLim> I think the intent is clear that several people here want it amended. Travis, Jack and CCitizen
22:04 < JMcleod> The motion presented by TeamColtra is substantially different from last week's version as written out. We rescinded the motion, not the intent of the motion.
22:04 < RLim> and me
22:05 < RLim> so I moved to suspend the rule and allow a motion on joining PPCA IT and PPI's IT
22:05 < RLim> one sec
22:05 < RLim> can I amend the motion or introduce a motion
22:05 < RLim> ?
22:05 < RLim> There's no motion right now correct?
22:05 < scshunt> No, as we're currently handing the appeal.
22:06 < TeamColtra> RLim: you can't amend it unless he says that it is a valid motion
22:06 < TeamColtra> if he claims it invalid, then you can make your motion
22:06 < scshunt> If it's overturned, then TeamColtra's motion will be considered.
22:06 < Nuitari> jhowell: email me what is needed, nuitari@pirateparty.ca
22:06 < JMcleod> I would like to vote on the chair's ruling
22:06 < scshunt> Is there any further discussion on the appeal?
22:06 < RLim> ok quick I have to leave soon. But I think there should still be a quorum
22:06 < TeamColtra> scshunt: I think the members are in agreement that you should overrule
22:07 < TeamColtra> or atleast rough agreement
22:07 < scshunt> It has to go to a vote;
22:07 < TeamColtra> I need to leave too.
22:07 < scshunt> The question is on the appeal of the ruling of the chair.
22:07 < CCitizen> so which way do we vote to go handle the motion by Travis?
22:08 < scshunt> The chair ruled that TeamColtra's motion "the Pirate Party of Canada officially merges it's IT operations into the PPI IT Committee" was out of order due to being substantially similar to one rescinded earlier in this meeting.
22:08 < scshunt> The question is "Shall the ruling of the chair be sustained?"
22:08 < scshunt> A vote in favor is a vote to sustain the ruling that it was out of order.
22:08 < scshunt> A vote against is a vote to overturn the ruling and find instead that the motion was in order.
22:08 < TeamColtra> So I vote nay?
22:08 < scshunt> The question is "Shall the ruling of the chair be sustained?". All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say nay.
22:08 < JMcleod> nay
22:09 < TeamColtra> Nay
22:09 < RLim> nay
22:09 < scshunt> aye
22:09 < CCitizen> nay
22:09 < jhowell> abstain
22:09 < scshunt> The ruling of the chair is overturned. The motion is in order. The question is now on the motion that the Pirate Party of Canada officially merges its IT operations into the PPI IT Committee.
22:10 < TeamColtra> RLim: you have an amendment?
22:10 < RLim> I move to amend the motion
22:10 < TeamColtra> you actually make your amendment in your motion I believe
22:10 < scshunt> ^
22:10 < scshunt> What do you want the motion to say?
22:11 < scshunt> Uh, ok, we'll go back to debate on the primary motion then, in the meanwhile.
22:11 < scshunt> I oppose this motion.
22:12 < scshunt> Unfortunately, last week's meeting has left scrollback
22:12 < scshunt> but the reason I do is because this is not, as presented, a motion to merely cooperate with the PPI IT Committee.
22:12 < scshunt> It is a motion to merge.
22:12 < CCitizen> Personally I'd like to change it from 'merges' to 'collaborates'.. at this time anyways we dont know how well the personalities within both bodies will mesh and it's better to take things slowly
22:13 < svulliez> I think "merging" is too far too, I agree with hunt and patrick
22:13 < svulliez> especially if it's going to make some it members upset that we made the decision without them
22:13 < scshunt> I'm also opposed to making an explicit motion to collaborate as I think that the IT Committee is full of smart people, Patrick and Travis included, who will go collaborate with PPI as needed.
22:14 < scshunt> and every motion adopted is just a little more bureaucracy being added.
22:14 < CCitizen> Maybe we could encourage it... Is liquid feedback partlydeveloped by PPI or is that all PPDE?
22:15 < TeamColtra> I feel that by actually merging our operations with PPI we keep our intelligent team, plus we are adding a whole bunch of others
22:15 < Nuitari> CCitizen: fyi, it's vulnerable to XSS
22:15 < scshunt> I believe it's mostly PPDE, but I could be wrong.
22:15 < scshunt> TeamColtra: But at the cost of having our members having to work on PPI stuff.
22:15 < TeamColtra> not having to
22:15 < RLim> TravisMcCrea: Do you see any issue with IT collaboration if there's no motion?
22:15 < TeamColtra> just having the ability to
22:16 < scshunt> TeamColtra: it is hardly a merger if they don't become a single body!
22:16 < scshunt> which also brings up the question of whether we can do this at all, arguably.
22:16 < TeamColtra> scshunt: none of our IT Committee is forced to work on IT Committee projects
22:16 < scshunt> but this motion is too vague to make a reasonable decision of that
22:16 < TeamColtra> They just have the option to
22:16 < JMcleod> collaborates allows the ITcomm to pull out if ever the PPI IT makes a dumb decision and participate if its a great idea. Merger means they become one, so the word merge is not the correct word to use here. (lets not fuck up the wording again)
22:16 < scshunt> They have the responsibility to.
22:16 < RLim> sorry to get a bit off topic. But I a leaving and just want to leave this link for Sean for the amendment vote.
22:16 < RLim> http://wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php/GM_2012-04-18_Proposed_Amendments_to_the_Constitution
22:16 < RLim> night
22:16 < scshunt> RLim: thanks.
22:17 < TeamColtra> It's not as much a "merge" as it is "becomes a member of"
22:17 < scshunt> The fact that we can't even agree what this motion means makes me think it's a horrid idea.
22:17 < TeamColtra> lol because most of our motions we just all agree with eachother
22:17 < TeamColtra> and dance with puppies on rainbows
22:18 < scshunt> No, because a motion should be clear.
22:18 < TeamColtra> Can we use that wording to make people more happy? "PPCA's IT Committee becomes a member party of the PPI IT Committee"
22:18 < scshunt> A committee being a memory of a committee?
22:18 < scshunt> *member
22:19 < JMcleod> Can you rephrase that in French so I can understand that last one Travis?
22:19 < TeamColtra> It's really not that weird.. I don't think you are getting it. We still operate totally independantly, we just share the same IRC channel as everyone else, and probably would start using more globalized tools
22:20 < scshunt> JMcleod: note commité allait devenir un member de la commité de PPI
22:20 < TeamColtra> Just like our IT Committee might have a server team and a web team
22:20 < JMcleod> OK, but we should also word it in the sense that we are independant
22:20 < TeamColtra> the PPI IT Committee would have a Canada team a US team etc
22:21 < JMcleod> lol google xlate really sucks for that one
22:21 < svulliez> I don't think explicit commitment of a "merge" is required and it seems to be contentious to word it that way, so in the interests of expediency, can we just say "collaborates"?
22:21 < scshunt> TeamColtra: That is not what "merge" means.
22:21 < scshunt> Nor "become a member"
22:22 < TeamColtra> But I would like it (at least in my vision for it) to be clear that the teams should operate closely using the same communication channels.
22:22 < TeamColtra> scshunt: it doesn't negate it either
22:22 < scshunt> svulliez: Like I said, I think adopting a motion directing the committee to collaborate is a waste of time.
22:22 < TeamColtra> it's not an antonym
22:22 < JMcleod> merge/mərj/
22:22 < JMcleod> Verb:
22:22 < scshunt> TeamColtra: It means far more than that
22:22 < JMcleod> Combine or cause to combine to form a single entity, esp. a commercial organization.
22:22 < scshunt> ^
22:22 < JMcleod> Blend or fade gradually into something else so as to become indistinguishable from it.
22:22 < svulliez> It's not a waste of time; this discussion is
22:22 < scshunt> svulliez: agreed
22:23 < TeamColtra> yes, we would become a single entity: The PPI IT Committee, within that committee the PPCA would have it's team
22:23 < svulliez> merging is too strong a wording, let's just direct them to collaborate or defer to question to the IT committee themselves
22:23 < TeamColtra> I am okay with dropping merge
22:23 < scshunt> I support just letting the IT committee handle this as they see fit
22:23 < CCitizen> "The IT Committee of the Pirate Party of Canada is committed to continued collaboration and cooperation with the Pirate Party International IT Committee" <- This better
22:23 < JMcleod> make it a motion CCitizen
22:24 < scshunt> CCitizen: It doesn't DO anything
22:24 < TeamColtra> The IT Committee can hardly organize themselves into their own meetings, let alone decide on a new communication direction
22:24 < scshunt> it's ridiculous political doublespeak
22:24 < CCitizen> Yeah
22:24 < scshunt> yeho would have a fit, and rightly so
22:24 < CCitizen> How about we defer this to the IT Committee to handle?
22:24 < scshunt> TeamColtra: you're a member, you should perhaps help with that
22:25 < TeamColtra> scshunt: I have been at every meeting
22:25 < CCitizen> It isnt out of their mandate to handle such things is it?
22:25 < TeamColtra> Though most of them no one showed up
22:25 -!- jhowell1 [6ca29178@ppca-B6DDC28A.mibbit.com] has joined #exec
22:25 -!- jhowell [6ca29178@ppca-A3A5A5B2.mibbit.com] has quit [Quit: http://www.mibbit.com ajax IRC Client]
22:25 < svulliez> because irc meetings are laborous and sad
22:25 < JMcleod> Yeah, attendence seems to be a problem for the ITcomm
22:25 < svulliez> its no wonder people don't want to show up
22:25 < jhowell1> yeah
22:25 < jhowell1> ok couple things about the it committee meetings
22:25 < svulliez> asynchronous meetings are needed
22:25 < CCitizen> I'm hoping that IT Committee could use Piratepad to handle the meetings then everyone doesnt have to be there at the same time
22:25 < jhowell1> we're working on a frequency, and a method
22:26 < scshunt> This debate is getting offtopic.
22:26 < jhowell1> Collaboration is a better word
22:26 < JMcleod> Alright, so what we want to accomplish with the motion essentially is to enable the ITcomm to work with the PPI ITcomm right?
22:26 < jhowell1> we just want to formalize an open communication
22:26 < scshunt> No, I don't think we do.
22:26 < scshunt> Not the exec, anyway
22:26 < TeamColtra> scshunt: what's the question on the floor
22:26 < scshunt> TeamColtra: your motion.
22:26 < TeamColtra> yes
22:27 < TeamColtra> what's the wordnig
22:27 < TeamColtra> my scroll sucks
22:27 < scshunt> If there are structural problems with the IT Committee not doing things, that's not a problem that is solved by telling them to do more
22:27 < scshunt> that "the Pirate Party of Canada officially merges it's IT operations into the PPI IT Committee"
22:27 < TeamColtra> "the Pirate Party of Canada officially aligns it's IT operations into the PPI IT Committee"
22:27 < scshunt> in fact, the more we tell them to do without solving the structural problems, the worse they will get
22:27 < TeamColtra> err I move to amend "the Pirate Party of Canada officially aligns it's IT operations into the PPI IT Committee"
22:27 < scshunt> Ok.
22:27 < scshunt> TeamColtra has moved to strike "merge" and insert "aligns"
22:27 < JMcleod> a·lign/əˈlīn/
22:28 < JMcleod> Verb:
22:28 < JMcleod> Place or arrange (things) in a straight line.
22:28 < scshunt> err, strike "merges"
22:28 < JMcleod> Put (things) into correct relative positions.
22:28 < TeamColtra> JMcleod: it's the "ally" definition.
22:28 < TeamColtra> look up alliance
22:28 < CCitizen> That's quite a bit better
22:28 < JMcleod> 3. To ally (oneself, for example) with one side of an argument or cause:
22:29 < scshunt> I still think this whole thing is stupid.
22:29 < TeamColtra> ^ there
22:29 < Nuitari> wow this is more pointless then the meetings I have at work
22:29 < scshunt> ^^^^^
22:29 < TeamColtra> I move to previous question
22:29 < JMcleod> align makes sense
22:29 < scshunt> TeamColtra has moved the previous qestion on the amendment to strike "merges" and insert "aligns"
22:29 < TeamColtra> let's get the ball rolling
22:29 < scshunt> All in favor say aye. All opposed say nay.
22:29 < scshunt> aye
22:29 < CCitizen> aye
22:29 < TeamColtra> aye
22:29 < JMcleod> aye
22:30 < TeamColtra> svulliez: ?
22:30 < scshunt> There are two-thirds in favor. The question is now on the motion to strike "merges" and insert "aligns". The motion currently reads "that the Pirate Party of Canada officially merges its IT operations into the PPI IT Committee"; if this amendment is adopted, it will read "that the Pirate Party of Canada officially aligns its IT operations into the PPI IT Committee".
22:30 < TeamColtra> I move to previous question on the motion on the floor.
22:30 < scshunt> All in favor say aye, all opposed say nay.
22:30 < JMcleod> aye
22:30 < TeamColtra> oh yeah
22:31 < CCitizen> aye
22:31 < scshunt> aye
22:31 < TeamColtra> aye
22:31 < jhowell1> aye
22:31 < scshunt> The ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. The question is now on the motion "that the Pirate Party of Canada officially aligns its IT operations into the PPI IT Committee."
22:31 < scshunt> Now before the previous question
22:31 < TeamColtra> I move to previous question on the motion on the floor.
22:31 < scshunt> ...
22:31 < TeamColtra> :P go ahead
22:32 < CCitizen> we have a previous question?
22:32 < scshunt> it was withdrawn
22:32 < scshunt> I think this is a really bad motion. It's got no real meaning to it. It's ridiculously vague and basically doublespeak
22:32 < scshunt> redacted is a critic, but sometimes he's right
22:32 < scshunt> this motion is just a lot of doing nothing
22:32 < CCitizen> Ah mine was basically superceded by this so yeah withdrawn
22:32 < scshunt> and I'd rather not have official doing nothing.
22:33 < scshunt> Any more debate?
22:33 < CCitizen> debate on what?
22:33 < TeamColtra> I don't think there is any debate
22:33 < scshunt> The question is on the motion "that the Pirate Party of Canada officially aligns its IT operations into the PPI IT Committee."
22:33 < TeamColtra> CCitizen: on the motion
22:33 < scshunt> All in favor, say aye, all opposed, say nay.
22:33 < CCitizen> ah we probably had it already
22:33 < scshunt> nay
22:33 < TeamColtra> aye
22:34 < JMcleod> aye
22:34 < svulliez> aye
22:34 < CCitizen> aye
22:35 < scshunt> The ayes have it and the motion is adopted.
22:35 < scshunt> jhowell1: Now, to talk about credentials
22:35 < JMcleod> [22:07:19] <oxpirate> https://www.pirateparty.ca/forum/index.php?board=111.0
22:35 < JMcleod> [22:07:26] <oxpirate> Please read both threads
22:35 < JMcleod> [22:07:51] <oxpirate> Pass the link on to other elected reps at this point please. The sooner we get on this the better.
22:35 < scshunt> YOU should be handing out the credentials
22:35 < JMcleod> I dont have access to that board, what is it?
22:35 < jhowell1> pl
22:35 < jhowell1> ok
22:36 < JMcleod> oh n/m i have access now
22:36 < jhowell1> from what i understand, there are no credentials to give.. all authentication is done through certificate
22:36 < CCitizen> Yeah I set it so 'leadership' group can read (it's basically a combo of PC/EB)
22:36 < scshunt> jhowell1: You need to put that stuff in though
22:37 < scshunt> We can talk about it, but it should be you.
22:37 < scshunt> it's both part of your job description to have root to everything, and also a role directly given to you by the it committee.
22:38 < jhowell1> Nuitari's been emailed, since he seen the message earlier.
22:38 < jhowell1> we need a list of outstanding people who have not yet successfully accessed the system
22:38 < jhowell1> and a piece of his time to give us some basic instruction on how to get in and use it
22:38 < TeamColtra> What we need is a spreadsheet which states exactly who has access to what
22:39 < scshunt> jhowell1: sounds like a good job for the it director?
22:39 < scshunt> TeamColtra: or a page, or something, but yes.
22:39 < TeamColtra> spreadsheets are the nerdy way to do it
22:39 < scshunt> google docs or microsoft 365? :P
22:39 < TeamColtra> OpenOffice supports spreadsheets ;)
22:39 < TeamColtra> But realistically Google Docs ;)
22:39 < scshunt> TeamColtra: but not shared ones, and they WILL not get updated.
22:39 < jhowell1> Its just a matter of locking in time with Nuitari
22:40 < scshunt> No, it isn't.
22:40 < scshunt> Nuitari isn't needed for most of this stuff.
22:40 < jhowell1> I find it hit/miss in getting contact
22:40 < scshunt> Scott and I both have root to all the machines.
22:40 < TeamColtra> it's Nuitari it's always hard getting in contact with him, which is why when you need him you should have a list of things you want
22:40 < TeamColtra> and then get them.
22:40 < TeamColtra> or ask him
22:40 < scshunt> maybe Nuitari has the only admin to the CRM, but I dunno how it works
22:40 < jhowell1> It is because you're giving me access to a system i need to re familiarize with myself with
22:40 < scshunt> it's terrible, but we have bigger priorities to fix.
22:41 < scshunt> jhowell1: don't rely on Nuitari. There are others who can help you out.
22:41 < jhowell1> Ok, so who would be a better alternative to bounce questions off of then
22:41 < scshunt> the committee
22:41 < TeamColtra> Bounce everything off me
22:41 < TeamColtra> ;)
22:41 < TeamColtra> Anyway, I am going to lunch unless I am needed for something?
22:41 < jhowell1> haha ok how available are you Travis, and when is the best time to talk to you
22:41 < scshunt> if someone else knows, they can pick it up and reply.
22:41 < scshunt> otherwise Nuit will get to it eventually
22:42 < TeamColtra> jhowell1: realistically if you really need me - I am almost always available
22:42 < jhowell1> ok
22:42 < TeamColtra> I am always connected to IRC somehow
22:42 < jhowell1> I'll be bugging you tomorrow
22:42 < scshunt> as am I
22:42 < scshunt> and I have a lot of compilation to do tomorrow
22:42 < scshunt> so... swordfights!
22:42 < TeamColtra> I am going to lunch, unless there is somthing left to vote on?
22:42 < CCitizen> So did we finish voting on the new wording...
22:42 < jhowell1> dem call centre lunches
22:42 < TeamColtra> yes CCitizen :P
22:43 < CCitizen> Or we have a motion we're working on?
22:43 < TeamColtra> I hope they are still open >.>
22:43 * TeamColtra too late .. I am out ttyl
22:43 < scshunt> CCitizen: it's done
22:43 < scshunt> over my objections, but hey, that's democracy
22:43 < CCitizen> I'm going to make a motion... I'd like to switch Jake Daynes as Project Leader of CaPT for Travis McCrea (I believe they both wanted this anyways)
22:44 < scshunt> Ok, CCitizen has moved to have Travis McCrea replace Jake Daynes as project leader of CaPT.
22:44 < scshunt> Is there any objection to this?
22:46 < JMcleod> well itd be nice
22:46 < scshunt> Seeing none, the motion is adopted.
22:46 < scshunt> any other business?
22:46 < JMcleod> if travis would be here to say if hed want to do it
22:46 < scshunt> meh, CCitizen is the projects manager
22:46 < scshunt> I trust him
22:46 < JMcleod> True
22:46 < JMcleod> we can always change back if needed
22:47 < JMcleod> move to end this meeting for today :)
22:47 < scshunt> Any objections to adjourning?
22:47 < CCitizen> Yeah just one
22:48 < CCitizen> I'd like to motion that we consider the EncryptEverything.ca project an official project and if adopted place 0xPirate (Steve Henderson) in charge of it.
22:48 < scshunt> Ok. In that case we'll first have to vote on the motion to adjourn.
22:48 < scshunt> The question is on the motion to adjourn. All in favor, say aye. All opposed, say nay.
22:48 < scshunt> aye
22:48 < CCitizen> actually that can wait till next week
22:48 < CCitizen> aye
22:49 < JMcleod> aye
22:49 < jhowell1> aye
22:49 < scshunt> The ayes have it and the motion is adopted.
22:50 -scshunt:#exec- The meeting is now adjourned.

EB 2012-05-07 minutes

2012-05-15T00:14:55Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:14, 15 May 2012
Line 3:		Line 3:
	Jeremy Howell moved "to accept xmux's resignation from the IT Committee." The motion was postponed to the next meeting.		Jeremy Howell moved "to accept xmux's resignation from the IT Committee." The motion was postponed to the next meeting.

-	~~Sean Hunt~~ moved to ~~rescind~~ last ~~wek's motion by Travis McCrea~~ to ".~~..nerge~~"	+	Travis McCrea moved to strike "merge" and insert "aligns" to last week motions to read "that the Pirate Party of Canada officially aligns it's IT operations into the PPI IT Committee." The motion was adopted with 4 ayes and 0 nay.

-	The meeting was adjourned at Eastern Time.	+	Patrick Fitzgerald moved "to have Travis McCrea replace Jake Daynes as project leader of CaPT." The motion was adopted without dissent.
		+
		+	The meeting was adjourned at 23:50 Eastern Time.

	View [[EB_2012-05-07_transcript\|transcript]].		View [[EB_2012-05-07_transcript\|transcript]].

Main Page

2012-05-12T21:08:44Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:08, 12 May 2012
(One intermediate revision not shown)
Line 17:		Line 17:
	\|width="50%" valign="top" style="padding:1em; border:3px solid #393939; background-color:#DEDEDE"\|		\|width="50%" valign="top" style="padding:1em; border:3px solid #393939; background-color:#DEDEDE"\|
	= <font color="#393939">'''What's New? \| Nouveautés''' =		= <font color="#393939">'''What's New? \| Nouveautés''' =
-	* Political Council Minutes available for the new Council ([[PC_2012-03-01_minutes\|March 1st]], [[PC_2012-03-08_minutes\|March 8th]], [[PC_2012-03-15_minutes\|March 15th]], [[PC_2012-03-22_minutes\|March 22nd]], March 29th, [[PC_2012-04-05_minutes\|April 5th]], April 12th, [[PC_2012-04-19_minutes\|April 19th]])	+	* Political Council Minutes available for the new Council ([[PC_2012-03-01_minutes\|March 1st]], [[PC_2012-03-08_minutes\|March 8th]], [[PC_2012-03-15_minutes\|March 15th]], [[PC_2012-03-22_minutes\|March 22nd]], March 29th, [[PC_2012-04-05_minutes\|April 5th]], April 12th, [[PC_2012-04-19_minutes\|April 19th]], [[PC_2012-04-26_minutes\|April 26th]])
	* Updated [[Executive Board]] members		* Updated [[Executive Board]] members
	* Political Board transcript available for [[PB_2011-12-29_transcript\|Dec 29th, 2011]] and [[PB_2012-01-05_transcript\|Jan 5th, 2012]]		* Political Board transcript available for [[PB_2011-12-29_transcript\|Dec 29th, 2011]] and [[PB_2012-01-05_transcript\|Jan 5th, 2012]]

PC 2012-04-26 minutes

2012-05-12T21:07:37Z

Created page with "Called to order at 7:30 1. EB requested we clarify the purpose of CaPT <br> CCitizen's answer: "1) To promote BitTorrent as a distribution method for artists and other peo..."

New page

Called to order at 7:30

1. EB requested we clarify the purpose of CaPT <br>
CCitizen's answer:

"1) To promote BitTorrent as a distribution method for artists and other people who make content.
2) To share and preserve our cultural heritage"

Discussion ensues

''The purpose of CaPT is to promote BitTorrent as a distribution method for artists and other people who make content, and to share and preserve our cultural heritage. CaPT is not intended for copyright infringement or for distribution of illegal materials.''

Unanimous approval of the above wording

2. Apparently we don't have a welcome email for new members, so let's pick someone to make it.

- Johann and Shawn will take responsibility for writing a welcome email for next week. EB/IT will ensure that the emails are going out

3. EB also requested we look at the VPN promise
Several options discussed:

- banked accounts for emergency usage (eg. giving them to Tunisia in the Arab Spring) <br>
- give members a second account to gift <br>
- implement the system as it was intended to be

We need to inform the VPN subscribers

Question: Should we ask them for input before deciding what route to take?

Alt: Decide on an option, inform subscribers and ask for feedback

Conclusion: Jake will write up the email to inform subscribers of the situation and email it around. We will discuss and think on the options, and bring it back to the next meeting.

4. Minutes

No votes or conclusive statements.

5. James Wilson has a project idea for keeping tabs on MPs

When James has finished his project will will review and decide if we can approve it

Political Council

2012-05-12T21:01:17Z

Political Council, Feb 29 2012 - Present:

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:01, 12 May 2012
Line 148:		Line 148:
	\| Apr 19 2012		\| Apr 19 2012
	\| [[PC 2012-04-19 minutes\|Minutes]]		\| [[PC 2012-04-19 minutes\|Minutes]]
		+	\|-
		+	\| Apr 26 2012
		+	\| [[PC 2012-04-26 minutes\|Minutes]]
	\|}		\|}

Main Page

2012-05-12T20:55:07Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:55, 12 May 2012
Line 17:		Line 17:
	\|width="50%" valign="top" style="padding:1em; border:3px solid #393939; background-color:#DEDEDE"\|		\|width="50%" valign="top" style="padding:1em; border:3px solid #393939; background-color:#DEDEDE"\|
	= <font color="#393939">'''What's New? \| Nouveautés''' =		= <font color="#393939">'''What's New? \| Nouveautés''' =
		+	* Political Council Minutes available for the new Council ([[PC_2012-03-01_minutes\|March 1st]], [[PC_2012-03-08_minutes\|March 8th]], [[PC_2012-03-15_minutes\|March 15th]], [[PC_2012-03-22_minutes\|March 22nd]], March 29th, [[PC_2012-04-05_minutes\|April 5th]], April 12th, [[PC_2012-04-19_minutes\|April 19th]])
	* Updated [[Executive Board]] members		* Updated [[Executive Board]] members
	* Political Board transcript available for [[PB_2011-12-29_transcript\|Dec 29th, 2011]] and [[PB_2012-01-05_transcript\|Jan 5th, 2012]]		* Political Board transcript available for [[PB_2011-12-29_transcript\|Dec 29th, 2011]] and [[PB_2012-01-05_transcript\|Jan 5th, 2012]]

GM 2012-04-18 agenda

2012-05-10T02:43:21Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:43, 10 May 2012
Line 6:		Line 6:
	*Committee or Officer's Reports		*Committee or Officer's Reports
	*CCitizen to move for enactment of Special Rule of Order. http://wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php/GM_2012-05-16_CCitizen_Motion		*CCitizen to move for enactment of Special Rule of Order. http://wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php/GM_2012-05-16_CCitizen_Motion
-	*Jeremy Howell to move “to amend the special rule of order defining the IT Committee to allow the Executive Board to appoint the IT Director.	+	*Jeremy Howell to move “to amend the special rule of order defining the IT Committee to allow the Executive Board to appoint the IT Director".
	*Vote to affirm candidacy of Travis McCrea for Vancouver Centre		*Vote to affirm candidacy of Travis McCrea for Vancouver Centre
	*Member Motions		*Member Motions

	If anyone have any motion they would like to bring forward, please post it in this thread before the meeting.		If anyone have any motion they would like to bring forward, please post it in this thread before the meeting.

Constitution 2011-12-18

2012-05-10T02:37:41Z

VI.1 Composition:

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:37, 10 May 2012
(3 intermediate revisions not shown)
Line 26:		Line 26:
	The Party shall collect a membership fee annually from each member. Members of the Executive Board and of the Political Council, as well as selected candidates and Members of Parliament representing the Party, may, at their option, receive membership free of charge for the duration of their service on one or more of these positions. The Party may award free membership for a period of time not to exceed two years with approval of a general meeting, of the Executive Board, and of the Political Council.		The Party shall collect a membership fee annually from each member. Members of the Executive Board and of the Political Council, as well as selected candidates and Members of Parliament representing the Party, may, at their option, receive membership free of charge for the duration of their service on one or more of these positions. The Party may award free membership for a period of time not to exceed two years with approval of a general meeting, of the Executive Board, and of the Political Council.

-	Membership begins immediately when the fee is ~~�rst~~ paid, and may be paid for up to five years in advance. If a member is delinquent in paying the fee, they shall lose their membership.	+	Membership begins immediately when the fee is first paid, and may be paid for up to five years in advance. If a member is delinquent in paying the fee, they shall lose their membership.

	=Article IV. Officers=		=Article IV. Officers=
Line 49:		Line 49:
	==VI.1 Composition==		==VI.1 Composition==

-	The Executive Board shall consist of the ~~o�cers~~ of the Party and the chairs of any standing	+	The Executive Board shall consist of the officers of the Party and the chairs of any standing
	committees of the Party.		committees of the Party.

Line 56:		Line 56:
	==VI.2 Powers & Duties==		==VI.2 Powers & Duties==

-	The Executive Board is responsible for the general ~~a�airs~~ of the Party and has full power and authority over its affairs in between general meetings except where authority is held by the Political Council, or as otherwise limited. The Executive Board's actions are subject to change by, and shall	+	The Executive Board is responsible for the general affairs of the Party and has full power and authority over its affairs in between general meetings except where authority is held by the Political Council, or as otherwise limited. The Executive Board's actions are subject to change by, and shall
	not conflict with decisions of a general meeting.		not conflict with decisions of a general meeting.

Line 126:		Line 126:

	When meetings are held in this fashion, members shall be required to check in specifically for that meeting in order to establish quorum. Once checked in, a member shall be assumed present unless they disconnect. To safeguard against small groups, no motion shall be adopted at a meeting		When meetings are held in this fashion, members shall be required to check in specifically for that meeting in order to establish quorum. Once checked in, a member shall be assumed present unless they disconnect. To safeguard against small groups, no motion shall be adopted at a meeting
-	held by telecommunications unless the number of votes in the ~~a�rmative~~ is at least half of quorum.	+	held by telecommunications unless the number of votes in the affirmative is at least half of quorum.

	==IX.2 All-Party Ballots==		==IX.2 All-Party Ballots==

GM 2012-04-18 agenda

2012-05-10T02:35:49Z

Created page with "Our monthly General Meeting will occur at 8:00 pm Eastern time on May 16, 2012 (Wednesday) in the IRC channel #canada at irc.pirateparty.ca - SSL port 6697 (connect using any IRC..."

New page

Our monthly General Meeting will occur at 8:00 pm Eastern time on May 16, 2012 (Wednesday) in the IRC channel #canada at irc.pirateparty.ca - SSL port 6697 (connect using any IRC client. You can also connect through several web options available from our site's 'Chat' link).

This month's agenda includes:

*Approval of last month’s General Meeting minutes. http://wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php/GM_2012-04-18_minutes
*Committee or Officer's Reports
*CCitizen to move for enactment of Special Rule of Order. http://wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php/GM_2012-05-16_CCitizen_Motion
*Jeremy Howell to move “to amend the special rule of order defining the IT Committee to allow the Executive Board to appoint the IT Director.
*Vote to affirm candidacy of Travis McCrea for Vancouver Centre
*Member Motions

If anyone have any motion they would like to bring forward, please post it in this thread before the meeting.

GM 2012-01-18 agenda

2012-05-10T02:34:59Z

protected "[[GM 2012-01-18 agenda]]" [edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite)

GM 2012-02-15 agenda

2012-05-10T02:34:18Z

protected "[[GM 2012-02-15 agenda]]" [edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:08, 12 May 2012
(One intermediate revision not shown)
Line 17:		Line 17:
	\|width="50%" valign="top" style="padding:1em; border:3px solid #393939; background-color:#DEDEDE"\|		\|width="50%" valign="top" style="padding:1em; border:3px solid #393939; background-color:#DEDEDE"\|
	= <font color="#393939">'''What's New? \| Nouveautés''' =		= <font color="#393939">'''What's New? \| Nouveautés''' =
-	* Political Council Minutes available for the new Council ([[PC_2012-03-01_minutes\|March 1st]], [[PC_2012-03-08_minutes\|March 8th]], [[PC_2012-03-15_minutes\|March 15th]], [[PC_2012-03-22_minutes\|March 22nd]], March 29th, [[PC_2012-04-05_minutes\|April 5th]], April 12th, [[PC_2012-04-19_minutes\|April 19th]])	+	* Political Council Minutes available for the new Council ([[PC_2012-03-01_minutes\|March 1st]], [[PC_2012-03-08_minutes\|March 8th]], [[PC_2012-03-15_minutes\|March 15th]], [[PC_2012-03-22_minutes\|March 22nd]], March 29th, [[PC_2012-04-05_minutes\|April 5th]], April 12th, [[PC_2012-04-19_minutes\|April 19th]], [[PC_2012-04-26_minutes\|April 26th]])
	* Updated [[Executive Board]] members		* Updated [[Executive Board]] members
	* Political Board transcript available for [[PB_2011-12-29_transcript\|Dec 29th, 2011]] and [[PB_2012-01-05_transcript\|Jan 5th, 2012]]		* Political Board transcript available for [[PB_2011-12-29_transcript\|Dec 29th, 2011]] and [[PB_2012-01-05_transcript\|Jan 5th, 2012]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:55, 12 May 2012
Line 17:		Line 17:
	\|width="50%" valign="top" style="padding:1em; border:3px solid #393939; background-color:#DEDEDE"\|		\|width="50%" valign="top" style="padding:1em; border:3px solid #393939; background-color:#DEDEDE"\|
	= <font color="#393939">'''What's New? \| Nouveautés''' =		= <font color="#393939">'''What's New? \| Nouveautés''' =
		+	* Political Council Minutes available for the new Council ([[PC_2012-03-01_minutes\|March 1st]], [[PC_2012-03-08_minutes\|March 8th]], [[PC_2012-03-15_minutes\|March 15th]], [[PC_2012-03-22_minutes\|March 22nd]], March 29th, [[PC_2012-04-05_minutes\|April 5th]], April 12th, [[PC_2012-04-19_minutes\|April 19th]])
	* Updated [[Executive Board]] members		* Updated [[Executive Board]] members
	* Political Board transcript available for [[PB_2011-12-29_transcript\|Dec 29th, 2011]] and [[PB_2012-01-05_transcript\|Jan 5th, 2012]]		* Political Board transcript available for [[PB_2011-12-29_transcript\|Dec 29th, 2011]] and [[PB_2012-01-05_transcript\|Jan 5th, 2012]]