GM 2011-06-19 transcript

From Pirate Party of Canada

20:12 [notice(#canada)] Okay, the general meeting is called to order
20:12 < cshen> well that answers that
20:12 -!- mode/#canada [+v cshen] by scshunt
20:13 <@scshunt> usual auth systems do not appear to be available today. Don't be someone other than yourself, k?
20:13 < Sexyboss> k
20:13 <+jfrancoisb> sure
20:13 <@scshunt> First order of business is to get ourselves a secretary
20:14 <+trailblazer11> If I don't get cut off, I can just cut and paste to html pr xhtml
20:14 <@scshunt> psema4, the regular secratary, isn't here
20:14 <+trailblazer11> *or
20:14  * shep /nick scshunt
20:14 <+shep> lol
20:15 <@scshunt> I can provide a log to sort through; generally the transcript needs to have a few things (votes) cut out
20:15 <@scshunt> and the minutes need to just reflect actions performed
20:16 <@scshunt> e.g. http://wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php/GM_2011-02-19_minutes
20:16 <@scshunt> (times are not strictly necessary)
20:16 <+trailblazer11> Ok I'll do it
20:16 <@scshunt> Any objections to appointing trailblazer11 secretary?
20:17 <+Nuitari_> no
20:17 <+jfrancoisb> no
20:17 <+Wilson> none
20:17 <@scshunt> you can just remain silent if I ask for objections
20:17 <@scshunt> ok, no objections, trailblazer11 is secretary. Thanks
20:18 <+trailblazer11> np
20:18 <@scshunt> https://www.pirateparty.ca/forum/index.php?topic=1207.msg7566#msg7566 is the agenda for today
20:18 -!- Rick [adb10ce6@ppca-A3A5A5B2.mibbit.com] has joined #canada
20:18 <@scshunt> Hey Rick
20:18 <@scshunt> here for the meeting?
20:19 < Rick> yup
20:19 < Rick> was hoping not to miss it
20:19 < Rick> first time
20:19 -!- mode/#canada [+v Rick] by scshunt
20:19 <@scshunt> Welcome!
20:19 <@scshunt> Wilson, would you like to make your motion?
20:19 <+Wilson> ok,sure.
20:20 <@scshunt> The motion is that the general meeting agree in principle with adding representitive democracy (delegate model) to our platform along with specifics on how representive democracy would work in Canada.
20:20 <@scshunt> Is there a second?
20:20 <+Wilson> There has been a fair amount of discussion about including representative democracy in our platform proper. I would like to move that the general assembly accept in principle doing so.
20:21 <+cshen> second
20:21 <@scshunt> Ok, the motion is as stated; Wilson, you have the right to the first speech
20:21 <+Wilson> ok
20:22 <+Wilson> basically the current mode of representation in Canada is this: The trustee model of representation is a model of a representative democracy. Constituents elect their representatives as 'trustees' (or 'entrust' them) for their constituency. These 'trustees' have sufficient autonomy to deliberate and act in favor of the greater common good and national interes
20:22 <+Wilson> I would like the party to commit to this : The delegate model of representation is a model of a representative democracy. In this model, constituents elect their representatives as delegates for their constituency. These delegates act only as a mouthpiece for the wishes of their constituency, and have no autonomy from the constituency. This model does not pro
20:23 <+Wilson> copy-paste fail
20:23 <@scshunt> There's a line limit
20:23 <+Wilson> so i see
20:23 <@scshunt> providing a link would probably be fine; any objections?
20:23 <+cshen> link seems to be more efficient
20:24 <@scshunt> go ahead and make a link then :)
20:24 <+Wilson> delegate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delegate_model_of_representation    trustee:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trustee_model_of_representation
20:26 <@scshunt> Do you have anything else to add?
20:26 <+Nuitari_> I would prefer
20:27 <+Nuitari_> that this is a telephone and web vote and not just IRC
20:27 <+shep> seconded
20:27 <@scshunt> This motion would not actually put it into the platform; it would merely suggest that we approve at this point about doing so
20:28 <+cshen> approve putting it in the platform, but not put it in?
20:28  * cshen is confused
20:28 <@scshunt> cshen: basically it's "This sounds like a good idea"
20:28 <+cshen> ah
20:29 <+ttonelli1> Wilson (or somebody else), can you provide a link to the forum thread with discussions on this topic?
20:29 <@scshunt> Nuitari_: if you'd like to continue with the motion to change the voting format, you may
20:30 <+Wilson> ttonelli1 I could but it will take time due to my internet connection
20:30 <+Nuitari_> if it is not to be included at this point then no
20:30 <@scshunt> ok
20:31 <@scshunt> Is there more discussion or are people still digesting?
20:32 <+doconnor> How does a deligate democratically determin the wishes of the people?
20:33 <+cshen> disregarding practical concerns, i'm not sure that the proposed model is clearly superior that i'd be willing to endorse inclusion of one preference over the other in the platform
20:33 <+shep> does he have to poll for every issue?
20:34 <+Wilson> shep depends on whether it is limited to non-pirate issues or not
20:34 <+cshen> it would boil down to direct democracy by proxy, which doesn't instill much confidence in me
20:34 <+Wilson> theoretically, he has already polled the people on things in his platform
20:35 <+jfrancoisb> at large, people don't really want to vote each times that sometime have to be decide.. sad but reality. This is my point
20:36 <+trailblazer11> true jfrancoisb but it would be nice to be able to have a say when you want to 
20:36 <+doconnor> New things always come up. If he just follows the platform its more like trusteeship.
20:36 <+Wilson> jfrancoisb It is a good point but neither do the people want to be ignored.
20:36 <+ttonelli1> with current technology, why do you need a representative? can't everybody always vote on every decision?
20:36 <+trailblazer11> that way you can stop like copywrong bill from being passed
20:36 -!- Nuitari_ [irchon@ppca-7EEAE71F.nuitari.net] has quit [No route to host]
20:37 <+trailblazer11> It's like by default they have proxy but you can withdraw and have your say. I think. I am not sure if that's what Wilson have in mind
20:37 <+jfrancoisb> i like the ttonelli1's point, this could be a nice sbject to develop
20:38 <+Wilson> doconnor the difference being the platform has already been voted on(election) a trustee can do whatever they want with no consultation at all
20:38 <+trailblazer11> I ponder on that before ttonelli1 but there's concern that people don't want to get involve on every issues. 
20:38 <+cshen> seems like the problem is people backtracking from their election promises
20:39 <+doconnor> Internet Direct Democracy happens to be one of my favourite topics: http://doconnor.homeip.net/blog/?p=143
20:39 <+trailblazer11> So a good compromise might be proxy vote for them by default. But if you become really concern about a bill you can withdraw and have your say.
20:40 <+trailblazer11> proxy vote means they vote on your behalf with what they deem as the best decision but you can choose to have your own vote if you want to
20:40 <+jfrancoisb> people dont want to be involve, true. But if every body can say what they want using technology and no move. Maybe many people would take the times (sorry for  mistake i'm french :))
20:42 <+ttonelli1> doconnor: we're slashdotting  your server ;-)
20:42 <@scshunt> jfrancoisb: Perhaps if you said what you're trying to say in French? I'm stumbling over that second sentence.
20:43 <@scshunt> We only have a few minutes left in the default debate period
20:44 <+trailblazer11> doconnor and wilson, not to hijack the discussion, but I think this is relevant, you should join research and innovation committee if you are not yet a member. We are thinking of researching and coming up with comprehensive proposal for reform. 
20:44 <+jfrancoisb> Je voulais dire que peut-être qu'en rendant le vote possible en utilisant les technologies actuelles (via Internet par exemple) peut-être que plus de gens serait portés à s'impliquer. Si on suit le modèle de democratie parlé précedemment
20:44 <+trailblazer11> *democratic reform
20:45 <+cshen> seems like proportional representation should be a greater concern than this
20:45 <+trailblazer11> there's other concerns about pure proportional representation also
20:46 <+Wilson> cshen You could think of this as 'making due' with our system until if/when PR comes into effect
20:46 <+cshen> california tried direct democracy, didn't work out so well
20:46 <+cshen> plus you have the same two models with PR
20:46 <@scshunt> jfrancoisb: does "I wanted to say that maybe if we used real technologies like the internet to make this sort of democracy possible, then maybe more people would get involved" sound accurate?
20:47 <+jfrancoisb> yes
20:47 <+ttonelli1> Switzerland has a direct democracy system, I think, at the local level at least...
20:47 <+cshen> elections canada is still dragging their feet on internet voting, with legitimate concerns about voter identification
20:47 <+Wilson> ttonelli1 it does
20:48 <@scshunt> The time allocated for debate has expired, we'll proceed to a vote unless someone moves extending it
20:49 <@scshunt> everyone ready to vote?
20:49 <+TeamColtra> I was trying to scroll up but missed a bit
20:49 <+TeamColtra> What is the exact wording?
20:49 <+TeamColtra> (of the proposal)
20:49 <@scshunt> Resolved, that the general meeting agree in principle with adding representitive democracy (delegate model) to our platform along with specifics on how representive democracy would work in Canada.
20:49 <+TeamColtra> Oh okay :)
20:51 [notice(#canada)] We're now going to vote on the motion I just stated. You will have 45 seconds in which to vote; say 'aye' or 'yes' if you are for the motion or 'no' or 'nay' if you are against it.
20:54 <@scshunt> Seeing no objection; shep's vote is recorded to make the motion 5-4. I would like to cast a tie-making vote to defeat the motion, but I am not sure if I can do so based on the rules of voting.
20:55 <+TeamColtra> How could you cast a tie breaking vote... if there is no tie?
20:55 <@scshunt> tie-making
20:55 <+TeamColtra> Oh
20:55 <@scshunt> As the chair, I do not vote except to influence the outcome
20:55 <+cshen> i have not heard of anything that allows tie-making, unfortunately
20:55 <@scshunt> If the motion is tied, it is lost
20:55 <+cshen> although if ties result in a defeat, that might be different
20:56 <+cshen> is there somewhere to look that up?
20:56 <@scshunt> http://rulesonline.com/rror-08.htm#46
20:56 <@scshunt> seventh paragraph
20:57 <+cshen> what counts as a ballot?
20:57 <@scshunt> secret vote
20:57 <+cshen> ah
20:57 <@scshunt> in which case I would vote normally
20:57 <@scshunt> so I think the correct thing to do is submit the ruling on this point to you
20:58 <+TeamColtra> ;) this is why its nice to have a bot
20:58 <+cshen> looks ok to me
20:58 <@scshunt> the issue here is that normally I can cast a vote here, except that shep's vote was added late, so I don't know if I can legally add my vote here without unanimous consent
20:58 <@scshunt> so I guess let's start - does anyone object to me adding my vote to make it a tie and defeat the motion?
20:58 <+Rick> i dont mind
20:59 <+TeamColtra> I didn't object to the late vote because it was a non-issue
20:59 <+cshen> i would have preferred that the possibility was mentioned prior to allowing shep's vote was decided
20:59 <+TeamColtra> however, I may have put more thought into the matter had I anticipated this as a result
20:59 <+TeamColtra> I will have to object to the added vote of scshunt I hope that doesn't make me a dick
21:00 <@scshunt> Okay, then I'll put the ruling to a vote
21:01 [notice(#canada)] Voting on whether or not I can am permitted by the rules to add my vote to the previous motion without unanimous consent, which is the normal requirement for changing a vote. 45 seconds as usual.
21:01 < MooCow> I'm not sure if it's been discussed already, but is there any plans about how the ISPs are screwing us with their incredibly low monthly caps?
21:01 <+cshen> technically
21:01:56 <+cshen> MooCow - not yet
21:02:36 <@scshunt> Sorry ttonelli1, jfrancoisb, you're votes were late
21:02:50 <@scshunt> (This 45-second thing isn't working so well today)
21:02:57 <+cshen> [offtopic] i was wondering why the rules had weird language... turns out it's the public domain (read: ancient) edition of robert's rules :P
21:03:04 <@scshunt> Are there objections to them recording their votes?
21:03:13 <@scshunt> cshen: Yes, those are the rules we are using
21:03:21 <+cshen> are we doing things manually right now?
21:03:24 <+TeamColtra> Yes, because we need to set the rules on voting time
21:03:28 <@scshunt> We have a rule
21:03:29 <@scshunt> 45 seconds
21:03:37 <@scshunt> oh I see, you meant you're objecting
21:03:40 <@scshunt> ok
21:03:41 <+TeamColtra> this issue has spanned about 6 minutes if you have a vested interest in it.. you should be paying attention
21:03:52 <+TeamColtra> Yes thats an objection
21:03:53 <+TeamColtra> sorry
21:03:56 <+cshen> seems reasonable
21:04:04 <+cshen> what TeamColtra said, that is
21:04:11 <@scshunt> Adding their votes is objected to; the point of order is decided that I cannot add my vote.
21:04:17 <@scshunt> Accordingly, I declare the main motion carried
21:05:09 <+shep> TeamColtra, I understand your point, but it was only a few seconds.
21:05:38 <@scshunt> The next item on the agenda is about the platform principles on the website
21:05:55 <+shep> seems like bad form to disregard their opinion.
21:06:14 <@scshunt> Please don't debate the correctness of the rule right now
21:06:22 <+shep> Okay, sorry.
21:06:47 <@scshunt> Wilson: you're up
21:06:58 <@scshunt> Although I wonder if this needs to be a formal motion rather than just a polite request to Nuitari
21:07:03 <+Wilson> I move that the general meeting agree in principle with having our statement of principles clearly displayed on the website and be labelled as such.
21:07:12 <@scshunt> is there a second?
21:07:38 <+cshen> second
21:07:43 <+Rick> i do
21:07:52 <+Rick> second this
21:08:03 <@scshunt> Ok
21:08:22 <@scshunt> Is there any objection to the motion?
21:08:24 <+cshen> a link to the statements would be appreciated
21:09:06 <@scshunt> cshen: Do you want me to hold off on the motion?
21:09:27 <+cshen> i'm just not sure which exact document we're referring to
21:09:52 <@scshunt> This motion isn't referring to an exact document; it's again an agreement in principle
21:10:04 -!- Rick [adb10ce6@ppca-A3A5A5B2.mibbit.com] has quit [Quit: Rick]
21:10:06 <+cshen> oh, sure, continue then, thank you
21:10:37 -!- Rick [adb10ce6@ppca-B6DDC28A.mibbit.com] has joined #canada
21:10:45 -!- mode/#canada [+v Rick] by scshunt
21:10:53 <+Rick> sorry i crashed
21:10:54 <@scshunt> Rick: Are you fine with this motion?
21:10:56 <+Wilson> I do believe this is it though http://docs.piratpartiet.se/Principles%203.2.pdf   Regardless, the about section is a mess and needs a seperation between principles and platforms
21:10:59 <+Rick> yes i am
21:11:14 <@scshunt> Ok; the motion is adopted by unanimous consent
21:11:50 <+Rick> displaying this will help other people to understand the principles of PPCA, i like it
21:12:18 <@scshunt> The next item was from Shawn Vulliez, who wanted to ask for approval to accept volunteership in lieu of membership fees.
21:12:51 <@scshunt> However, I do not believe such a motion would be in order, as the bylaws grant the power to set the membership fee to the various units of the party such as the Federal Council
21:13:41 <+Rick> im not sure i understand, can you explain it please ?
21:13:43 <@scshunt> An 'approval in principle' motion could be made, though, or we could move on and defer this issue until when Shawn is available to talk about it.
21:14:03 <@scshunt> Shawn said "I'd like to move to include accepting volunteerwork in lieu of membership fees." in the forum
21:14:09 <+shep> I don'
21:14:12 <+Wilson> scshunt I do believe the bylaws say the general assembly can over-rule the federal council in most matters
21:14:15 <+shep> t think $10/yr is too much to ask for.
21:14:26 <@scshunt> Wilson: Yes, but the bylaws specifically grant Council authority in this matter
21:14:38 <+Wilson> ok
21:14:54 <@scshunt> or to whichever part of the party is accepting the member, be it an EDA, the website, or what have you
21:15:14 <+Wilson> It would be better if shawn was here to make his argument
21:15:15 <+Rick> i think we should wait for Shawn to be present to explain his idea...
21:15:23 <+cshen> concur
21:15:26 <@scshunt> Do I hear a motion?
21:15:45 <@scshunt> Ok, looks like not
21:15:46 <@scshunt> onwards, then
21:16:03 <+cshen> move to table the issue
21:16:15 <@scshunt> cshen: We don't have an issue to postpone
21:16:18 <+cshen> ah
21:16:19 <@scshunt> nobody has moved a motion
21:16:22 <+cshen> nm then
21:16:23 <+cshen> lol
21:16:31 <+cshen> a bit distracted atm
21:16:49 <@scshunt> The last item we had was that Nuitari wanted to make a motion regarding placing a bit-coin miner on the website
21:17:19 <+shep> a miner? or a mining group?
21:17:53 <@scshunt> My understanding is that it was to be an opt-out Java applet that would use the visitor's computer to mine on behalf of the Party
21:17:53 <+Rick> both could be great, a miner on the website server and the members could be part of the PPCA mining group, if that exist
21:18:05 <@scshunt> The PPCA servers are already mining
21:18:23 -!- anti03 [c7543edc@ppca-B6DDC28A.mibbit.com] has joined #canada
21:18:27 <+cshen> from what i gather it's not exactly worth the cost of electricity :P
21:18:37 <+cshen> or effort for that matter
21:18:40 <+shep> cshen, depends on the going rate
21:18:47 <+cshen> true
21:19:06 <@scshunt> oh, also, an aside; Robert's Rules strongly recommends against the use of 'table' as a verb, as it can have very different meaning depending on the set of rules.
21:19:07 <+Rick> effort ? the computer is already running, i guess it wouldnt matter taking a small % or the cpu for that
21:19:08 <+shep> cshen, when it was $5 a btc, maybe not. When it was $30 btc ...
21:19:11 <@scshunt> Do we have a motion?
21:19:17 <+trailblazer11> So the java app allows our party to access a member's pc. It uses GPU?
21:19:19 <@scshunt> if not, there shouldn't be discussion
21:19:34 <+Rick> yes we have a motion
21:19:45 <@scshunt> No one has made any motion on this issue
21:20:15 <@scshunt> or any other
21:20:20 <+trailblazer11> ok I move that we place a bit-coin miner on PPCA website
21:20:26 <@scshunt> ok; is there a second?
21:20:29 <+Rick> honestly i dont really understand how a council works... but all i have to say is that i am for this idea, and would like to discus
21:20:30 <+shep> seconded
21:20:33 <+Rick> i second
21:20:48 <@scshunt> Ok
21:21:00 <@scshunt> trailblazer11 has moved that we place a bit-coin miner on the PPCA website
21:21:13 <+cshen> how would that effect accounting?
21:21:43 <+Wilson> ok, for the less technologically inclined: how does this benefit the party?
21:22:03 <+cshen> it's money
21:22:23 <+shep> Wilson, if we generate bitcoins, we can sell them for cash money
21:22:26 -!- BrentSchaffrick [44962e51@ppca-A3A5A5B2.mibbit.com] has joined #canada
21:22:44 <+trailblazer11> hi BrentSchaffrick
21:22:51 <+shep> http://www.bitcoin.org/
21:23:08 <+shep> There's a good video under "What is bitcoin?" if you have time to watch.
21:23:16 < BrentSchaffrick> hi :)
21:23:21 <@scshunt> cshen: My understanding is that the legal issues regarding bitcoin are ????, but Nuitari expects there won't be any issues as he views it unlikely that anyone will reach the $20 limit at which point the party is legally obligated to report the donation.
21:23:29 <@scshunt> Hello BrentSchaffrick. Want to join the meeting?
21:24:05 <+shep> scshunt, mining bitcoins can't really be called a donation unless that specific miner solves the block
21:24:12 <+Rick> bitcoins had a lot of trouble last week
21:24:18 <+Rick> and i just found this article... http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/06/bitcoin-price-plummets-on-compromised-exchange.ars
21:24:38 <@scshunt> Please try to limit discussion to the matter at hand, namely whether we should put a miner on the website.
21:24:39 < BrentSchaffrick> isnt this the meeting?  or in another channel?
21:24:43 <+handler> how much money is the party going to make from bitcoins?
21:24:46 -!- mode/#canada [+v BrentSchaffrick] by scshunt
21:24:50 <+shep> Yup, but that's a problem with one exchange. Not with bitcoins themselves.
21:24:57 <+Rick> yeah
21:25:15 <+Rick> we should put a bitcoin miner on the website
21:25:37 <+shep> handler, maybe very little, maybe a lot. Don't know until we try.
21:25:38 <+Rick> can we cast a vote ?
21:25:57 <+handler> how many people can we expect to use the bitcoin miner?
21:26:05 <+cshen> yea seems like an interesting experiment to try
21:26:10 <@scshunt> handler: You'd have to ask those questions of Nuitari, who isn't here
21:26:19 -!- doconnor [wircer@ppca-B668EBC9.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com] has quit [Connection reset by peer]
21:26:31 <+trailblazer11> BrentSchaffrick, in this channel. Discussing motion to put bitcoin miner in our website
21:26:34 <@scshunt> Rick: Debate first; you can move that we take the vote immediatelly, in which case we'll vote to end debate; it requires a two-thirds majority
21:26:51 <+shep> I'm ready to vote.
21:26:53 <+Rick> oh ok
21:26:56 <@scshunt> So I feel an important concern has been missed and it's my duty to point it out to this debate
21:26:58 <+handler> from what I understand, it isn't worth generating coins unless you are using a GPU to do it
21:27:31 <@scshunt> The proposal is to put an opt-out miner on our site, such that it will mine unless someone explicitly disables it
21:27:37 <+shep> handler, it isn't worth it for one person. If you have hundreds or thousands of computers in a mining pool, that's a different story.
21:27:46 <@scshunt> Thus there are disclosure issues here
21:28:07 <+cshen> perhaps an opt in model?
21:28:18 <+handler> i like opt-in better
21:28:22 <+shep> scshunt, it should be clearly stated at the top of the site.
21:28:37 <+cshen> not everyone would understand what the implications are even with a warning
21:28:54 <@scshunt> There is also an issue that if it is Java, many people will get popups warning them that the site wants to run a Java applet, likely before we can explain the purpose of that applet.
21:29:11 <+handler> people should be informed of what bitcoin is before they are able to use the miner
21:29:12 <+cshen> flash/silverlight?
21:29:23 <+cshen> I don't even have java installed
21:29:35 <+trailblazer11> Sound people might not like opt-out and might think it is like negative billing
21:29:36 <+ttonelli1> I don't even have flash/silverlight installed ;-)
21:29:37 <@scshunt> I don't know if flash and/or silverlight are technically possible, only that the one Nuitari wanted to use was Java
21:29:39 <+trailblazer11> *some
21:30:00 <+shep> I have a feeling that if it were opt-in, there's no point in doing this.
21:30:13 <+shep> If people want to opt-in, they will actually setup a gpu miner.
21:30:21 <+Rick> people who dont know what it is wont opt-in
21:30:24 <+trailblazer11> yeah, so maybe a visible notice on the website.
21:30:34 <@scshunt> If people want to discuss the merits of opt-in versus opt-out, it is probably advisable to move an amendment to that effect
21:30:35 <+cshen> people who don't know what it is won't opt-out either
21:30:48 <+trailblazer11> I mean opt-out but with a notice and link to more detailed explanation.
21:31:18 <+handler> I don't think anyone should be deciding what will be run on someones computer without their consent
21:31:44 <+cshen> that seems to be a principle that the party at least implicitly recognizes
21:32:27 <+shep> Since you have to allow the java app to run, it's already opt-in.
21:32:35 <+Rick> true
21:32:40 < anti03> i feel like i should say something.
21:32:42 <+trailblazer11> good point shep
21:32:46 <+shep> No one will be able to run the app without clicking "ok".
21:32:48 <@scshunt> anti03: are you a party member?
21:32:49 <+cshen> another issue: a java warning every time you visit the site would be very annoying
21:32:57 < anti03> yes
21:32:59 <+shep> cshen, you click click "always".
21:33:00 <@scshunt> anti03: ok then
21:33:03 -!- mode/#canada [+v anti03] by scshunt
21:33:04 <+handler> it should be opt-in but only after people are completely informed of what bitcoin is and what it will do
21:33:04 <@scshunt> have at 'er
21:33:17 <@scshunt> Any other members lurking who don't have +v?
21:33:50 <+shep> Well, since it's opt-in no matter what we do, we might as well do it right and have a detailed explanation before the app tries to load.
21:33:56 <+cshen> shep: what if you disallow
21:33:59 -!- doconnor [wircer@ppca-B668EBC9.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com] has joined #canada
21:34:16 -!- mode/#canada [+v doconnor] by scshunt
21:34:33 <+shep> cshen, Sorry, I don't follow.
21:34:37 <@scshunt> Please limit your debate to the merits of putting a miner applet on the website; that is the currently pending question
21:34:44 <@scshunt> if anyone would like to move to amend the motion, please do so
21:34:52 <@scshunt> if you're confused by this, please ask more
21:34:59 <@scshunt> Rick: did you see my PMs from earlier?
21:35:06 <+Rick> no sorry
21:35:16 <+cshen> shep: if you deny running the app, it'll pop up next time you visit. if you permanently refuse the app but change your mind, there'll be difficulties
21:35:42 <+cshen> i guess we should have moved a while ago
21:35:46 <+shep> I move to ammend the motion that the miner be opt-in with a clear explanation of what it will be doing.
21:35:53 <+cshen> second
21:36:16 <+shep> cshen, fair enough.
21:36:18 <@scshunt> shep: You have to move for specific amendment to the motion and I can't infer an obvious way to change the text
21:36:30 <@scshunt> for reference, the current text is "Resolved, that we place a bit-coin miner on the PPCA website"
21:36:59 <+anti03> sounds good
21:37:42 <+cshen> "resolved, that we place an opt-in bitcoin miner on the PPCA website"?
21:37:51 <@scshunt> cshen: That's the current motion
21:38:14 <+cshen> alternatively, "resolved, that we place a bitcoin miner on the PPCA website on an opt-in basis"
21:38:20 <+shep> I move to ammend the motion so that it reads "Resolved, that we place a bit-coin miner on the PPCA website that is opt-in and have will have a clear explanation of what it will be doing before loading".
21:38:21 <+Rick> i have to go now... is there any other vote coming ? if so, i am FOR the bitcoin miner on the website
21:38:32 <+cshen> ah that's even better
21:38:38 <+trailblazer11> second
21:38:44 <@scshunt> Rick: Unfortunately, absentee votes can't be taken. But thanks for coming, and sorry that the procedure scared you off
21:38:46 <+BrentSchaffrick> I second Sheps motion
21:39:10 <@scshunt> Ok, the motion is to amend the motion by inserting "that is opt-in and will have a clear explanation of what it will be doing before loading" at the end
21:39:22 <+Rick> its fine, thanks for explaining guys
21:39:25 <+handler> what if we also try it for 60 days or so and then evaluate it to see if we are making any money
21:39:50 <+cshen> wouldn't that just be another motion to discontinue if it doesn't work out?
21:39:51 <+shep> handler, that can be handled at later meetings
21:40:10 <@scshunt> Guys, please limit your debate again to this specific motion
21:40:22 <+anti03> take a note to bring it up in the next meeting
21:40:30 <@scshunt> If this were adopted as written, it would require a two-thirds majority to overturn the ruling
21:40:32 <+TeamColtra> Wait do you mean a bitcoin miner on the SERVER? I am lost as to what is meant by "on the website"
21:40:36 <@scshunt> s/ruling/decision/
21:40:54 <@scshunt> TeamColtra: A small Java applet that would use the visitors' computers to mine on behalf of the Party
21:41:00 <@scshunt> Is there any debate on shep's motion?
21:41:05 <+TeamColtra> Ahh, thats interesting
21:41:05 <+BrentSchaffrick> hmmm.  So the point of this is to provide a secondary surce of revenue for the PP?  Or too encourage the use of BitCoin? or both?
21:41:32 <+TeamColtra> What are the security concerns that would require an opt-in?
21:41:40 <@scshunt> BrentSchaffrick: I believe it to be the former, but you'd have to ask Nuitari. Right now we're just on the opt-out/opt-in issue.
21:41:42 <+shep> Should we be voting on my ammendment?
21:41:45 <+cshen> i guess we could amend it further to append "with review 60 days following implimentation"
21:41:59 <+BrentSchaffrick> I'm going to have to say that would be illegal then
21:42:10 <+BrentSchaffrick> or could get us in trouble with Elections Canada
21:42:19 <+TeamColtra> BrentSchaffrick, actually no
21:42:20 <@scshunt> BrentSchaffrick: Nuitari believes that this is legal
21:42:31 <+BrentSchaffrick> we cannot have revenue from corporations
21:42:41 <+TeamColtra> BrentSchaffrick, bitcoin isn't a corporation
21:42:46 <+BrentSchaffrick> unless all of the mining is done on home computers
21:42:46 <@scshunt> TeamColtra: He means from visitors
21:42:52 <+TeamColtra> Ah. 
21:42:52 <+BrentSchaffrick> right
21:42:57 <+trailblazer11> people will be contributing their computer resources
21:43:02 <+BrentSchaffrick> the visitors that install bitcoin
21:43:02 <@scshunt> Can we please dispose of this amendment first?
21:43:13 <+shep> BrentSchaffrick, noone is giving any revenue when mining
21:43:13 <+BrentSchaffrick> must be individials whose donations can be tracked
21:43:16 <@scshunt> TeamColtra had a real question
21:43:19 <+TeamColtra> Well my question wasn't answered as per the reason why we need opt-in
21:43:25 <+TeamColtra> is there a privacy concern?
21:43:42 <+handler> everything should always be opt-in by default
21:43:48 <+BrentSchaffrick> agreed
21:43:58 <+shep> TeamColtra, 1) transparency and good faith, 2) it's technology infeasible to run this app without alerting the using, due to the way java apps work.
21:44:14 <+handler> unless there is a good reason for there to be opt-out
21:44:17 <+shep> technologicallty
21:44:23 <+shep> ah I can't type on this laptop
21:44:28 <+BrentSchaffrick> transparency is one of the major points we campaigned on
21:44:32 <+TeamColtra> Yes... well of course you have to accept to run the java app but thats what I am wondering
21:44:37 <+TeamColtra> what other opt-in would be needed?
21:44:45 <+cshen> explanation of what bitcoin is
21:44:53 <+cshen> and what their computer would be doing if they run the app
21:44:56 <+shep> TeamColtra, explanation of what the app is doing.
21:45:20 <+anti03> if it's good for revenue then it's good, the details don't matter
21:45:35 <+TeamColtra> And opt-in should be required for everything that deals with privacy, but not with day-to-day functions of a server and such. We don't opt in to have our IP addresses recorded, they just are.
21:46:02 <+cshen> but this has the potential of generating money for the party at the user's cost (computing resources)
21:46:23 <+handler> No one can say how much money will be generated though
21:46:34 <+cshen> it's the principle isn't it
21:46:36 <+shep> TeamColtra, at first I thought the same as you, but I realized that if we are using java then we should explain the app before users get a pop-up, which means it's best to do it the way I ammedend it to read.
21:46:37 <+anti03> then we should ask if the user is willing to pay the cost
21:47:17 <+shep> TeamColtra, as cshen pointed out, if users click "no" then it would be hard to run the app in the future. The browser might never ask again.
21:47:33 <+cshen> anti03: which is exactly what shep's amendment would do
21:47:44 <+anti03> then I'm for it
21:48:03 <+TeamColtra> Yeah, I can see that, but not as much as an "opt-in" because they already have to do that through java, but rather a notification of what we are doing.
21:48:21 <+TeamColtra> in the end even if they "opt-out" the javaaplet would still be there. Their computer just wouldn't communicate with it
21:48:29 <+shep> TeamColtra, then that still could be considered opt-in.
21:48:30 <@scshunt> Are we ready for a vote on this issue?
21:48:37 <+TeamColtra> I would consider that a notification
21:48:41 <+cshen> a moment please
21:48:46 <@scshunt> ok
21:48:56 <+shep> TeamColtra, opt-in doesn't mean they have to opt-in twice.
21:49:12 <+trailblazer11> I can see possible concern when the java app pops-up and user have no idea what it is for.
21:49:18 <+TeamColtra> Well then we are voting on a function that is already built into java that we can't disable anyway?
21:49:24 <+cshen> well i imagine that it would be an image/container that explains what it is, with a link/button to load/activate the java applet if they want
21:49:25 <+shep> TeamColtra, Just as long as whatever opt-in is accompanied by, or preceeded by, an explanation.
21:49:33 <+shep> TeamColtra, it will meet my ammeded language.
21:49:42 <+cshen> at which point the built in java notification would be triggered
21:49:49 <+TeamColtra> So we should be voting on a notification... not an opt-in. Because no matter what we vote, there will always be an opt-in
21:50:01 <+cshen> i guess that is the technically correct language
21:50:05 <+shep> TeamColtra, to me that the same thing.
21:50:09 <+shep> that's.
21:50:11 <+TeamColtra> I am not trying to split hairs here, but it just seems like we should change the word in the amendment from "opt-in" to 'notification"
21:50:13 <+trailblazer11> ok can TeamColtra amend the amendment
21:50:13 <+cshen> we would want to explain what it is before the java notification pops up
21:50:23 <@scshunt> TeamColtra: would you like to move an amendment to that effect?
21:50:23 <+trailblazer11> ?
21:50:27 <+TeamColtra> yes
21:50:31 <@scshunt> Is there a second?
21:50:35 <+shep> I'll second.
21:50:35 <+TeamColtra> whats the current amendment again so I can modify it :P
21:50:35 <+cshen> i think opt in adequately describes what we're trying to do
21:50:36 <+trailblazer11> second
21:50:48 <+trailblazer11> Shep move to ammend the motion so that it reads "Resolved, that we place a bit-coin miner on the PPCA website that is opt-in and will have a clear explanation of what it will be doing before loading".'
21:50:51 <+shep> Since to me we're saying the same thing here, I don't mind changing the language.
21:50:59 <+handler> i agree with cshen
21:51:03 <@scshunt> Actually, I have to rule that out of order
21:51:26 <@scshunt> it does not make sense to replace like that; it would read "... that is notification and will ..."
21:51:45 <@scshunt> TeamColtra: can you suggest an alternate amendment?
21:51:50 <+TeamColtra> Resolved, that we place a bit-coin miner on the PPCA website that will have a clear explanation of what it will be doing before loading" 
21:52:00 <+cshen> i like shep's better
21:52:19 <+shep> I'd have to say I liked mine better as well.
21:52:21 <+TeamColtra> Resolved, that we place a bit-coin miner on the PPCA website that will have a clear notification of what it will be doing before loading
21:52:36 <+TeamColtra> Sorry I pressed enter too soon :P
21:52:41 <+shep> Ah
21:52:42 <@scshunt> Ok, TeamColtra has moved that the amendment be itself amended by striking out "is opt-in and will have a clear explanation of what it will be doing before loading" and inserting will have a clear notification of what it will be doing before loading
21:52:53 <@scshunt> (add quotes around that last bit)
21:53:06 <+shep> That's fine by me.
21:53:09 <+shep> seconded.
21:53:18 <@scshunt> Any debate on this issue?
21:53:28 <+cshen> i believe that striking is opt-in is not useful
21:53:33 <+BrentSchaffrick> on the amendment or the actual issue?
21:53:41 <@scshunt> BrentSchaffrick: The secondary amendment
21:53:45 <+TeamColtra> cshen, we can't vote against opt-in anyway.. so there is no point in including it
21:53:50 <+handler> i think that it is important to include opt-in in the motion
21:53:56 <+handler> or perhaps "user consent"
21:54:09 <+cshen> including it serves as a formal requirement rather than a practical one
21:54:11 <+shep> Guys, don't get too hooked on the semantics here.
21:54:22 <+shep> Or we'll be here all night.
21:54:23 <+cshen> it is already satisfied so i see no problems with leaving it in
21:54:25 <+TeamColtra> it's undemocratic to vote on something that you can't actually vote against. 
21:54:38 <+TeamColtra> Thus the removal of the opt-in
21:54:39 <+cshen> so imposing it is more democratic?
21:54:50 <+TeamColtra> cshen, the opt-in is included anywya
21:54:58 <+shep> Note that the spirit of the ammendment is still the same.
21:55:01 <+BrentSchaffrick> it cannot be imposed, that is the point
21:55:06 <+shep> At the end of the day, we should have the same result.
21:55:12 <+TeamColtra> we could say "no we want to force every person to use the applet no matter what" and the user will still get an opt-in
21:55:22 <+handler> opt-in should be included incase the technology changes to allow for opt-out set ups
21:55:35 <+cshen> i'd be in favour of the original language just to be explicit about our intentions that it be opt in
21:56:07 <+shep> Well, handler and cshen do have a good point TeamColtra. 
21:56:07 <@scshunt> Is there any further debate?
21:56:18 <+TeamColtra> scshunt, give us a moment
21:56:21 <+trailblazer11> yeah, they will have to opt-in before Java will run. But there is a clear notification so user can opt-in or not.
21:56:24 <+cshen> i'm ready
21:56:34 <+shep> TeamColtra, what if we don't use java, or java changes?
21:56:40 <+ttonelli1> nowhere in the text it is stated that it is Java, so it is not clear that it's opt-in; I like opt-in explicit
21:56:43 <+shep> The motion did not specify java.
21:57:12 <+cshen> using java satisfies the opt-in requirement, if it were another technology we may well have to built it in ourselves
21:57:31 <+TeamColtra> I don't think many other technologies would be able to fulfil it anyway
21:57:40 <+cshen> that is immaterial
21:57:44 <+shep> TeamColtra, Today, maybe not. What about a year from now?
21:57:44 <+TeamColtra> javascript may be theoretically possible, but not practical
21:57:50 <+trailblazer11> I see no harm in including opt-in.
21:58:13 <@scshunt> WebGL?
21:58:19 <+cshen> TeamColtra: just look at all the hardware acceleration work being done
21:58:25 <+handler> technology changes, our motion should be vendor/language neutral
21:58:40 <+cshen> agreed, we shouldn't be relyant on the technologies of the day
21:58:44 <+cshen> reliant*
21:58:48 <+TeamColtra> Thats fair enough
21:59:14 <+TeamColtra> I respectfully withdraw my amendment proposal
21:59:24 <@scshunt> Is there any objection to this withdrawal?
21:59:36 <+trailblazer11> no
21:59:39 <@scshunt> Seeing none, it is withdrawn
21:59:54 <@scshunt> The pending question is whether to amend the motion by inserting "that is opt-in and will have a clear explanation of what it will be doing before loading" at the end
22:00:01 <+cshen> i'm rather ready to vote on Shep's amendment
22:00:03 <@scshunt> Is there any further debate on this issue?
22:00:45 <@scshunt> All right; is anyone opposed to the amendment?
22:01:56 <@scshunt> All right, seeing no objections, I declare the amendment carried by unanimous consent
22:02:14 <@scshunt> The question is now that we place a bit-coin miner on the PPCA website that is opt-in and have will have a clear explanation of what it will be doing before loading
22:02:25 <+TeamColtra> I move to question if there is no debate
22:02:30 <+cshen> second
22:02:34 <+BrentSchaffrick> I am going to have to vote no on that one
22:02:34 <@scshunt> wait what?
22:02:41 <+BrentSchaffrick> and there is debate
22:02:47 <+cshen> nm then
22:02:52 <@scshunt> TeamColtra: are you moving the previous question (immediate end to debate) or are you simply asking me to call the vote?
22:02:52 <+cshen> why would you say no?
22:03:17 <+BrentSchaffrick> what is to stop me from going to work at night, when I am the only one there, and setting up all the computers at work to mine for the PP?
22:03:25 <+TeamColtra> Sorry previous question... its been a while since I have done parliamentary procedure
22:03:31 <+cshen> company policy?
22:03:38 <+shep> BrentSchaffrick, what is to stop you from doing that right now?
22:03:43 -!- Channel6 [no.tv4u@picture.unrelated.films] has joined #canada
22:03:46 <@scshunt> Ok; TeamColtra would like to move the previous question; is there a second?
22:03:51 <+BrentSchaffrick> I am gathering this is like SETI
22:03:55 <+BrentSchaffrick> and we cannot allow it
22:03:59 <+cshen> why not?
22:04:06 <+BrentSchaffrick> because we cannot control who gives the donations
22:04:11 <+TeamColtra> scshunt, lets hold off I thoguht we got all the debating out
22:04:14 <@scshunt> ok
22:04:28 <+BrentSchaffrick> we are required by law to ONLY accept donations from individuals
22:04:31 <@scshunt> the motion for the previous question is withdrawn
22:04:36 -!- Wilson [43c99033@ppca-655D9E04.mibbit.com] has quit [Quit: Wilson]
22:04:39 <+cshen> ok i'm not sure about that, would that be a problem?
22:04:40 <+shep> BrentSchaffrick, donations of money
22:04:40 <+TeamColtra> We can put a disclaimer that says that we hold in good faith each user responsible for only running the applet at home
22:04:44 <+TeamColtra> problem solved
22:04:44 <+BrentSchaffrick> not from corporations or non profits
22:04:45 <+shep> BrentSchaffrick, noone is donating money.
22:04:58 <+TeamColtra> and technically bitcoins don't fall under the money thing through EC
22:04:59 <@scshunt> If there is a legal issue, perhaps it would be best to refer it to the federal council so that the issues can be worked out.
22:05:01 <+BrentSchaffrick> bit coin = money? yes or no
22:05:09 <+shep> BrentSchaffrick, mining bitcoins != money.
22:05:10 <+TeamColtra> ^ BrentSchaffrick not officially
22:05:19 <+TeamColtra> they are only donating processing power
22:05:20 <+TeamColtra> not money
22:05:26 <+BrentSchaffrick> I can buy bitcoins with my real money, yes?
22:05:29 <+cshen> yes
22:05:34 <+TeamColtra> you can buy donuts with your real money too
22:05:35 <+cshen> you can buy bread with real money too
22:05:41 <+cshen> damn
22:05:42 <+cshen> lol
22:05:48 <+shep> mmm
22:05:49 <+cshen> donuts sound better
22:05:52 <+BrentSchaffrick> so if I donate bit coins to the PP, or bread, I am making a non-cash donation
22:05:56 <+TeamColtra> we were both thinking bakeries though
22:06:00 <+trailblazer11> well what's the rule in donation in kind
22:06:01 <+cshen> haha
22:06:04 <+trailblazer11> ?
22:06:06 <+shep> BrentSchaffrick, mining != donating. 
22:06:07 <+BrentSchaffrick> which elections canada requires us to track
22:06:07 <@scshunt> The elections law covers all forms of contribution; they do not need to be tangible
22:06:14 <+BrentSchaffrick> right
22:06:16 -!- doconnor [wircer@ppca-B668EBC9.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com] has quit [Ping timeout]
22:06:17 <+TeamColtra> mining if anything equals volunteering. 
22:06:21 <+shep> BrentSchaffrick, you could ming for 100 hours and give nothing.
22:06:25 <+BrentSchaffrick> no it isnt
22:06:25 <@scshunt> TeamColtra: Which is regulated
22:06:37 <+TeamColtra> and I don't even think that
22:06:40 <+shep> BrentSchaffrick, mining is not a cumulative thing. It's more like wining the jackpot at a lottery.
22:06:41 <+cshen> we wouldn't be able to resolve that issue right now
22:06:52 <+BrentSchaffrick> if you get paid in bitcoins, and bit coins can be exchanged for dollars, that is not volunteer
22:07:05 <+cshen> what would elections canada do if they did find that we were accepting bitcoin-mining donations improperly?
22:07:14 <+BrentSchaffrick> fine us
22:07:19 <+cshen> that amount?
22:07:19 <+ttonelli1> I heard somewhere here today that we just have to report if it's more than 20 dollars... is it possible for a single computer to generate more than that? if it hits the jackpot?
22:07:26 <+TeamColtra> Again, my disclaimer solves for all of these questions
22:07:36 <+cshen> i would tend to agree with teamcoltra
22:07:37 <+BrentSchaffrick> disclaimers do not solve this
22:07:38 <+TeamColtra> We can put a disclaimer that says that we hold in good faith each user responsible for only running the applet at home
22:07:45 <+TeamColtra> ^restated incase it got lost
22:07:46 <+cshen> although clickwrap agreements are pretty shaky
22:08:32 <+cshen> someone had the idea earlier of doing a 60 day trial run
22:08:42 <+handler> that was me
22:08:53 <+shep> cshen, I don't see the point of setting a time limit. We have montly meetings.
22:08:59 <+handler> i think any fundraising needs to have an evaluation
22:09:10 <+BrentSchaffrick> well, I am not sure this is legal, I think it is not.  That said, I am also opposed to this on moral grounds
22:09:21 <+TeamColtra> moral grounds?
22:09:27 <+cshen> it's already opt in
22:09:32 <+shep> Can we put this to council to research the legality?
22:09:46 <+shep> Or something?
22:09:47 -!- shep [shep@ppca-C54E1E24.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com] has left #canada [Leaving]
22:09:55 <@scshunt> I would very strongly recommend not believing that we ourselves can decide what is legal and what is not, and that we should refer this matter to the Federal Council
22:10:00 <+anti03> do we have a lawyer?
22:10:06 -!- shep [shep@ppca-C54E1E24.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com] has joined #canada
22:10:08 < shep> oops
22:10:12 -!- mode/#canada [+v shep] by scshunt
22:10:27 <@scshunt> anti03: No.
22:10:30 <+TeamColtra> Can we pass it with the condition that it then goes to federal council for final approval pending legal status?
22:10:30 <+cshen> well, here's the thing, even if you decide to go to work and bitmine using their computers, it wouldn't be the company donating that time since they're not exactly endorsing it
22:10:35 <+TeamColtra> That way we acn see if we even want it?
22:10:44 <+BrentSchaffrick> I believe that what is best for Canada is that all political parties are funded solely by the Federal Government (the taxpayer), and although we currently allow individual donations, as a society, we need to move towards not allowing this
22:10:45 <+cshen> that works, we've done that before
22:10:47 <+TeamColtra> if everyone votes no, there is no point in putting our resources into figuring out if its legal
22:11:03 <+cshen> agree w/ TeamColtra
22:11:20 <+BrentSchaffrick> schen - if you borrow money from a companies cash register to donate to the PP, that is also not allowed
22:11:24 <@scshunt> TeamColtra: yes, that can be done. Or it could be referred to Federal Council to report on its legality at a future meeting (a specific meeting can be ordered)
22:11:30 <+cshen> exactly
22:11:39 <+TeamColtra> I am writing an amendment
22:11:56 <+cshen> how is stealing company time any different from stealing cash from the company?
22:11:58 <+shep> TeamColtra, just ammend text to the end
22:12:07 <+BrentSchaffrick> it isnt
22:12:11 <+cshen> assuming your concern is that we can't accept corporate donations
22:12:14 <+cshen> it's illegal either way
22:12:20 <+handler> it costs the company for energy to run the machines
22:12:20 <+TeamColtra> We resolve that the Federal Council should investigate legality and implement a bit-coin miner on the PPCA website that is opt-in and have will have a clear explanation of what it will be doing before loading
22:12:32 <+BrentSchaffrick> my concern is we cannot accept donations that are not trackable to individials
22:12:39 <+shep> BrentSchaffrick, do you believe that parties should be able to sell bumper stickers to fundraise?
22:12:43 <+handler> i agree with BrentSchaffrick 
22:12:43 <@scshunt> TeamColtra: That's a directive to do it anyway no matter what the FC decides
22:12:49 <+BrentSchaffrick> and individuals have yearly limits
22:13:13 <+handler> let the FC look into it and report back next month
22:13:25 <+cshen> let's vote on whether we agree with it in principle
22:13:28 <+TeamColtra> We resolve that the Federal Council should investigate legality and if legal implement a bit-coin miner on the PPCA website that is opt-in and have will have a clear explanation of what it will be doing before loading
22:13:29 <+BrentSchaffrick> shep, as long as the fundraising is reported to elections canada, and everyone involved is not doing it to circumvent the 1100 a year rule
22:13:30 <+cshen> then use the FC's resources to research it
22:13:38 <@scshunt> I've seen a lot of ideas flying back and forth here
22:13:44 <@scshunt> Is there a motion?
22:13:47 <+TeamColtra> yes
22:13:48 <+cshen> second teamcoltra
22:13:53 <+TeamColtra> I propose an amendment
22:13:54 <+TeamColtra> we place a bit-coin miner on the PPCA website that is opt-in and have will have a clear explanation of what it will be doing before loading
22:13:56 <+TeamColtra> er
22:14:04 <+TeamColtra> We resolve that the Federal Council should investigate legality and if legal implement a bit-coin miner on the PPCA website that is opt-in and have will have a clear explanation of what it will be doing before loading
22:14:15 <+cshen> second
22:14:44 <@scshunt> Okay, TeamColtra has moved that the resolution be amended by substituting "that the Federal Council should investigate legality, and if, legal implement a bit-coin miner on the PPCA website that is opt-in and have will have a clear explanation of what it will be doing before loading"
22:14:49 <+TeamColtra> and technically its a resolution, so its non-binding anyway
22:14:55 <+handler> I think that we should hear from the council before deciding if we will implement anything
22:14:57 <@scshunt> TeamColtra: It is binding
22:15:15 <@scshunt> oops, mis-commaed
22:15:18 <+TeamColtra> it shouldn't be, because that goes against the definition of "resolution"
22:15:30 <@scshunt> "that the Federal Council should investigate legality and, if legal, implement a bit-coin miner on the PPCA website that is opt-in and have will have a clear explanation of what it will be doing before loading"
22:15:43 <+cshen> handler: thing is, if we don't agree with it in principle there's no point in researching the legality
22:16:10 <+handler> there is that too
22:16:17 <+TeamColtra> I move for previous question on the amendment (lets move along)
22:16:23 <@scshunt> IS there a second?
22:16:28 <+cshen> second
22:16:29 <+shep> handler, voting for this motion will force the FC to do this research.
22:16:33 <@scshunt> TeamColtra: let's not argue about the correctness of the terms suggested by the parliamentary reference
22:16:39 <@scshunt> Please stop all debate
22:17:03 <@scshunt> The previous question has been demanded. If this is adopted with a two-thirds majoriy, we will immediately go to vote on the amendment
22:17:20 <+TeamColtra> aye
22:17:23 [notice(#canada)] The vote is on ordering the previous question. You have 45 seconds to vote publicly and in-channel.
22:17:44 <+TeamColtra> (you are voting to vote... not voting for / against it )
22:18:12 <@scshunt> Okay, time is up
22:18:21 <@scshunt> I count 6 to 1
22:18:36 <@scshunt> The question is that the resolution be amended by substituting "that the Federal Council should investigate legality, and if, legal implement a bit-coin miner on the PPCA website that is opt-in and have will have a clear explanation of what it  will be doing before loading"
22:18:47 [notice(#canada)] The vote is on the aendment. You have 45 seconds to vote.
22:18:50 <@scshunt> *amendment
22:19:42 <@scshunt> I count 5 to 1
22:19:49 <@scshunt> The amendment carries.
22:19:53 <+TeamColtra> I now move for previous question on "that the Federal Council should investigate legality, and if, legal implement a bit-coin miner on the PPCA website that is opt-in and have will have a clear explanation of what it  will be doing before loading"
22:19:55 <@scshunt> The question is now on the resolution substituting "that the Federal Council should investigate legality, and if, legal implement a bit-coin miner on the PPCA website that is opt-in and have will have a clear explanation of what it  will be doing before loading"
22:20:07 <@scshunt> TeamColtra has moved the previous question; is there a second?
22:20:12 <+shep> second
22:20:15 <@scshunt> Ok
22:20:21 <+TeamColtra> This is a vote to VOTE on it... not a vote of support
22:20:31 [notice(#canada)] The vote is on ordering the previous question and ending debate on the main resolution. You have 45 seconds.
22:20:31 <+TeamColtra> if you vote against it it means you want to talk more.
22:20:54 <+cshen> seems like there is still desire to discuss the merits of the motion
22:21:18 <+BrentSchaffrick> what do we as a party believe should be the basis for party funding?
22:21:21 <@scshunt> The vote is 2 to 3; the previous question is not ordered and debate may continue
22:21:41 <+cshen> membership fees i would presume
22:21:44 <+TeamColtra> :P let us continue beating a dead horse
22:22:00 <@scshunt> oh god, I have no clue how much time is left in this debate ><
22:22:06 <+cshen> haha
22:22:15 <+cshen> probably well past it
22:22:18  * scshunt calls it 5 minutes
22:22:22 <+TeamColtra> BrentSchaffrick, I feel that we should get funding any legal way possible
22:22:31 <@scshunt> (you can appeal if you'd like but is it worth the effort?)
22:22:35 <+handler> any legal way?
22:22:38 <+BrentSchaffrick> membership fees are $10 per person per year, and prolly almost 0 once the hassle of making cards and sending them out is factored in
22:22:58 <+cshen> i believe there were free members at the beginning too
22:23:04 <+ttonelli1> I think Brent is asking what we believe should be the ideal, not what is legal today
22:23:13 <+TeamColtra> :P if selling my body for money was legal and could get the party more money... by damned I would be out on the corner. The party needs money to be successful. Grassroots is great but getting the seeds to plant the grass costs money
22:23:13 -!- Sqratz [Admin@ppca-65BB621B.ed.shawcable.net] has joined #canada
22:23:13 <+BrentSchaffrick> only actual donations are currently supposed to be our source of funding
22:23:17 <+BrentSchaffrick> correct
22:23:23 <+BrentSchaffrick> what do we want to stand for
22:23:25 <+BrentSchaffrick> ?
22:23:40 <+BrentSchaffrick> do we believe in making money however we can?
22:23:46 <+handler> i don't
22:23:48 <+shep> I don't see anything about funding in our platform
22:23:53 <+handler> it's not about making ideas
22:23:56 <+handler> err
22:23:59 <+BrentSchaffrick> or do we have principles we strive to uphold
22:23:59 <+handler> it's not about making money
22:24:11 <+BrentSchaffrick> ok, explain
22:24:14 <+TeamColtra> It's NOT about making money, but it is about having the money to tell people who we are.
22:24:21 <+shep> Until I do, I don't see a problem with the party fundraising.
22:24:27 <+cshen> i don't see what principles we would contravene by asking for bitcoin mining donations
22:24:39 <+TeamColtra> Do you know how many people went home and read about the party after seeing us on the ballot last election and THEN emailed me and said "hey if I knew thats what you stood for I would have voted for you"
22:24:47 <+handler> i don't think that we should accept bitcoin donations
22:24:52 <+shep> We aren't even asking for donations of money, but donations of computing resources that might result in money.
22:25:07 <+cshen> like SETI
22:25:12 <+BrentSchaffrick> right, but that is the same
22:25:16 < Sqratz> we should probably worry about accepting real money
22:25:16 <+trailblazer11> yeah
22:25:25 <+shep> I think we should primarily accept bitcoin donations over cash, to support the currency.
22:25:34 <+TeamColtra> I am with shep
22:25:43 <+cshen> i'm not sure going that far is warranted at this time
22:25:45 <+TeamColtra> and we are giving people a way to contribute to the party, without actually doing anything
22:25:50 <+BrentSchaffrick> ok, so you guys understand my view, and just disagree with me, that is fine
22:25:52 <+trailblazer11> I think this is more like volunteering
22:25:53 <+shep> Bitcoin stands for a lot of the same things the PPCA stands for. Privacy, for one.
22:26:04 <+handler> in my opinion, we are wasting our time debating about bitcoin which may not even bring in real useful money. we should be instead focusing on real donations.
22:26:10 <+cshen> well... it's not actually anonymous
22:26:19 < Sqratz> bit coins aren't even a viable way to make money
22:26:20 <+shep> cshen, it's as anonymous as chas.
22:26:22 <+shep> cash.
22:26:30 < Sqratz> and a really bad idea
22:26:33 <@scshunt> Okay so the time for debate is over; unless we have a motion to extend it, we'll proceed to a vote
22:26:34 < Sqratz> in my opinon
22:26:37 <@scshunt> Sqratz: are you a party member?
22:26:46 <+cshen> less so since with cash you don't have the entire transaction record readily available
22:26:49 < Sqratz> scshunt: yupp
22:26:52 <@scshunt> Sqratz: ok
22:26:55 -!- mode/#canada [+v Sqratz] by scshunt
22:27:11 <@scshunt> So is there any motion to extend the debate?
22:27:15 <+TeamColtra> lol no offense but are we going to at least check the member list to confirm that? I don't want to be a jerk... 
22:27:22 <@scshunt> please no debate at this point
22:27:23 <+cshen> move to extend it by 5 minutes
22:27:29 <@scshunt> is there a second?
22:27:33 <+handler> second
22:27:34 <+shep> cshen, you can make a throwaway wallet for a one-time transaction.
22:27:38 <@scshunt> TeamColtra: I don't have access; I'm doing the best I can
22:27:48 <@scshunt> All right
22:28:01 <+TeamColtra> I just don't know if I find the "are you telling the truth" method a relaible method
22:28:05 <+TeamColtra> reliable*
22:28:06 [notice(#canada)] The vote is to extend the debate by 5 minutes; it requires a two-thirds majority for adoption. You have 45 seconds to vote.
22:28:07 <+shep> TeamColtra, we can check votes at a later time.
22:28:56 <@scshunt> Okay, time's up
22:29:06 <@scshunt> 3 to 5, the debate is not extended
22:29:23 [notice(#canada)] The question is "that the Federal Council should investigate legality, and if, legal implement a bit-coin miner on the PPCA website that is opt-in and have will have a clear explanation of what it  will be doing before  loading"
22:29:32 [notice(#canada)] You have 45 seconds to vote
22:30:26 <@scshunt> The vote is 6 to 3
22:30:35 <@scshunt> The motion carries
22:30:41 <@scshunt> I'll inform the FC
22:30:48 <@scshunt> Is there any further business?
22:30:54 <+TeamColtra> Party?
22:31:00 <@scshunt> OUT OF ORDER
22:31:01 <+trailblazer11> one
22:31:01 <+cshen> damnit i was just going to say that
22:31:06 <@scshunt> trailblazer11: hmm?
22:31:09 <+trailblazer11> can I make an announcement
22:31:11 <+trailblazer11> ?
22:31:16 <@scshunt> sure
22:31:49 <+trailblazer11> Just a reminder that we have a PR committee meeting tomorrow. 8pm EST at #ppcapr. Everyone's welcome
22:31:56 <+trailblazer11> https://www.pirateparty.ca/forum/index.php?topic=1220.0
22:32:00 <+ttonelli1> I actually have a question too
22:32:16 <@scshunt> ttonelli1: It's probably best to save that for after the meeting, but you can ask if you'd like
22:32:41 <+ttonelli1> I thought we were out of order...
22:32:50 <+ttonelli1> I thought that meant the meeting was over, sorry
22:32:57 <+TeamColtra> lol no
22:33:01 <+TeamColtra> that meant a party was out of order
22:33:11 <+ttonelli1> oops
22:33:26 <+trailblazer11> teamcoltra was out of order :P
22:33:34 <@scshunt> that was me having a little fun :)
22:33:40 <@scshunt> Seeing no further business, I declare the meeting adjourned

View Minutes