GM 2012-02-15 transcript

From Pirate Party of Canada

20:16 -scshunt:#canada- Welcome, everyone, to the general meeting of the Pirate Party of Canada
20:17 -scshunt:#canada- We have a lot of business to get through, so let's try to be efficient. If at any time you have any questions about procedure or otherwise, please PM me. During debate, please also PM me indicating that you want to speak so that I can put you on a speaker's list, and things can move quicker
20:18 <@scshunt> The first order of business is the reading and approval of the minutes of the previous meeting. The draft minutes were distributed with the call of this meeting. Are there any corrections?
20:19 <@scshunt> Seeing none, the minutes are approved as circulated.
20:19 <+Sqratz> 1 vote for nobody?
20:19 <+Wilson> that is accurate
20:19 <@scshunt> Next up are reports.
20:19 <+Wilson> a vote for Rock I believe
20:19 <@scshunt> The President has a report.
20:20 <@scshunt> The Executive Board has been meeting regularly now; we are expecting a report on the finances of the Party sometime in the next month so I hope that we will have a proper financial report for presentation at the next general meeting in March.
20:21 <@scshunt> Are there any questions?
20:21 <@scshunt> None, ok. Next is the Secretary's report. RLim?
20:21 <%RLim> yes
20:22 <%RLim> Just want to report on Mike Bleskie's resignation
20:22 <%RLim> His resignation have not been formally accepted yet
20:23 <%RLim> Here's the original thread
20:23 <%RLim> https://www.pirateparty.ca/forum/index.php?topic=1230.0
20:23 <@scshunt> Ok, the question is on the acceptance of Mike Bleskie's resignation from the Political Council. Is there any objection to accepting the resignation?
20:24 <@scshunt> No objection, so the resignation is accepted.
20:24 -scshunt:#canada- To new joiners: Please PM your email address to RLim to sign in to the meeting
20:25 <@scshunt> That's it for reports; next is unfinished business and general orders
20:25 <@scshunt> There is no unfinished business, but we do have several general orders.
20:25 <@scshunt> The first is the election of the Political Council
20:25 <@scshunt> Before I put the question, I'd like to ensure that we can have an orderly debate on this
20:26 <@scshunt> so I'll briefly explain the procedure
20:26 <@scshunt> We will be putting the question out for debate and nominations
20:26 <@scshunt> Each member is entitled to two speaking turns, each no more than 10 minutes
20:26 <@scshunt> If a member wishes to vary these rules, they can make a motion to do so.
20:27 <@scshunt> You can ask questions of a speaking member, but they aren't obliged to answer, since it counts against their time
20:27 <+JMcleod> Do we have quorum?
20:27 <@scshunt> Yes.
20:27 < svulliez> All off-topic, unprofessional, and unorderly behavior can be found in #riffraff
20:27 <@scshunt> Bah.
20:27 <@scshunt> We do not have a quorum
20:28 <+JohannWeiss> What's quorum?
20:28 <@scshunt> We need three additional members for a quorum
20:28 <+Wilson> 15
20:28 <@scshunt> I had thought we had a few more signed in.
20:28 < svulliez> Haha, everyone text your pirate friends
20:28 <@scshunt> We have 12
20:28 <@scshunt> svulliez: you should sign in
20:28 <+khoover> well, hopefully 2 there
20:28 -scshunt:#canada- To new members who just joined, please send RLim your email address so that he can verify that you are a member
20:29 <%RLim> Channel | Bienvenue sur le canal IRC officiel du parti pirate du 
20:29 <%RLim> Canada | General Meeting at 8PM EST | Late comers please PM Rlim with your e-mail to get validated.
20:29 <@scshunt> oops
20:29 <+CCitizen> Might want to reference #riffraff channel in the topic so people know to go there to talk
20:30 <+khoover> does each jake count as a person?
20:30 <@scshunt> No.
20:32 <+JakeDaynesWork> No
20:32 < TravisMcCrea|Work> Bonjour Parti Pirate du Canada
20:32 <+JakeDaynesWork> I'm going to be moving from desktop to phone in a bit
20:34 <@scshunt> Sorry folks, can't do much without a quorum, and the bot is broken :(
20:34 <@scshunt> jhowell: see topic!
20:34 <@scshunt> Yay, that's a quorum!
20:35 <+CCitizen> Yay
20:35 <+svulliez> I texted all the Vancouver candidates, some are tied up temporarily
20:35 <@scshunt> cool
20:35 <+JohannWeiss> Huzzay
20:35 <@scshunt> (if you aren't validated, you can still participate at this stage)
20:35 <@scshunt> We have a quorum, so we will have to go back and accept Mike Bleskie's resignation again. Any objections?
20:35 <+JakeDaynesWork> no
20:36 <+JMcleod> no objection
20:36 < jhowell> sorry for the lateness! glad i could assist in making quorum
20:36 < jhowell> no objection
20:37 <@scshunt> Ok, seeing no objection, Mike's resignation is accepted.
20:37 <@scshunt> We'll move on to the Political Council elections
20:37 <+CCitizen> No objections here
20:38 <@scshunt> Each member will have two speaking turns, no more than 10 minutes each. Questions may be asked with the speaker's permission, but arguing with their speech is not (if you are unsure, ask if you can ask a question first)
20:38 <@scshunt> You can also nominate people or make motions when you are given the floor; if you do not speak, that won't count as a speaking turn.
20:38 <@scshunt> All nominations must be made from the floor at this meeting; if someone is not nominated here, they will not be on the ballot.
20:39 <@scshunt> If you have any questions, /please/ do send me a PM
20:39 <@scshunt> You can use debate to argue in favor of specific candidates, advocate your own election, or anything of the sort
20:40 <@scshunt> You can also argue against candidates, but derogatory speech will not be permitted
20:40 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> May we clarify derogatory? 
20:40 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> not to be "that guy"
20:41 <@scshunt> Once no one wishes to speak (or if debate is ordered closed by the meeting), then the ballot will be prepared. Voting will be done on the party website, if no one objects
20:41 <+svulliez> Personal attacks? Come on travis haha
20:41 <@scshunt> TravisMcCrea|Work: That's actually a really good question :)
20:41 <+Wilson> if you wouldn't call your mother it...
20:41 <+svulliez> You can attack actions and policies, not human beings
20:42 <@scshunt> No personal attacks
20:42 <+handler> unless they are a space reptile
20:42 <@scshunt> You can certainly express that you do not want to see someone elected for some reason or another, as long as it does not turn into a significant personal attack
20:42 <@scshunt> If you feel that debate is out of line, you may call them to order publicly; I will then rule on the debate.
20:42  * TravisMcCrea|Work strikes off the "your stupid" argument he has been preparing.
20:42 <@scshunt> If at any time I make a ruling that you disagree with, you can appeal that ruling to the meeting.
20:43 <+svulliez> *you're
20:43 <@scshunt> Any more questions before we move on?
20:43 <+JakeDaynesWork> nope
20:44 <@scshunt> Ok
20:44 <+CCitizen> I got one are we just assuming  everyone who posted on the forums is going to be voted on?
20:44 <@scshunt> CCitizen: No, as I said, they must be nominated.
20:44 <@scshunt> Nothing is stopping you from nominating everyone who posted, though.
20:44 <@scshunt> So, with that, the question is on the election of the Political Council; please PM me if you wish to speak or nominate.
20:45 <+svulliez> Just a reminder, you can join us in #riffraff for off topic discussion and community building
20:45 <@scshunt> JakeDaynesWork: You have the floor
20:45 <+JakeDaynesWork> As a long standing member of the party, with or without my absences
20:46 <+JakeDaynesWork> I have seen one individual stick through a lot with the party, and expend a lot of effort with the party as well, on many fronts.
20:46 <+JakeDaynesWork> As such, I would like to nominate Shawn Vulliez to Political Council
20:46 <@scshunt> Ok, Shawn Vulliez is nominated
20:46 <@scshunt> JakeDaynesWork: Any others?
20:46 <@scshunt> Ah, actually, one more thing. If you have the floor, and are done, please say "done"
20:46 <+JakeDaynesWork> I will allow others to speak their nominations
20:46 <+JakeDaynesWork> done
20:46 <@scshunt> that way I can move on the next speaker quickly.
20:47 <@scshunt> JohannWeiss is next
20:47 <+JohannWeiss> I'd like to nominate Jake Daynes
20:47 <@scshunt> Anything else?
20:47 <+JohannWeiss> Also would like to nominate Travis McCrea, James Wilson, and Christoph Leon
20:47 <@scshunt> Ok
20:47 <+JohannWeiss> Done
20:48 <@scshunt> Wilson, you are next
20:48 <+Wilson> Well, the previous speakers actually nominated the ones I wanted to lol
20:48 <@scshunt> haha
20:49 <@scshunt> Do you wish to speak or make any other nominations, or should we move on?
20:49 <+Wilson> I will add patrick fitzgerald
20:49 <+Wilson> done
20:49 <@scshunt> ok
20:49 <@scshunt> TravisMcCrea|Work: Your turn
20:49 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> I nominate the very worthy Sean (Shawn?) Hunt 
20:49 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> done
20:49 <@scshunt> svulliez: 
20:50 <@scshunt> *svulliez: It's your turn
20:50 <+svulliez> I nominate Harold Swinton and Eli Zbar
20:50 <+svulliez> I was just double checking that they hadn't already been
20:51 <@scshunt> One sec, I'll get the current list
20:51 <+svulliez> And Johann Weissgerber
20:51 <@scshunt> Shawn Vulliez, Jake Daynes, Travis McCrea, James Wilson, Christoph Leon, Patrick Fitzgerald, Sean Hunt, Harold Swinton, Eli Zbar
20:51 <@scshunt> All right. Done?
20:51 <+svulliez> And Johann 
20:52 <@scshunt> yeah.
20:52 <@scshunt> Ok, next up is LynnB
20:52 <+LynnB> My nominations have been covered now
20:52 <+LynnB> done
20:52 <@scshunt> Ok
20:52 <@scshunt> khoover:
20:52 <+khoover> I nominate Ken Hoover
20:52 <+khoover> done
20:53 <@scshunt> TravisMcCrea|Work: Your turn again
20:53 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> Because I want a large political council and because people can obviously not accept a nomination or just not get voted for: I nominate all actively voiced members of our channel
20:53 <@scshunt> Ok.
20:53 <+CCitizen> Did everyone who posted get nominated already?
20:54 <@scshunt> Apart from the present nominations, that is RLim, CCitizen, beanjammin, drew, handler, JMcleod, LynnB, Sqratz, and trevm
20:54 <+khoover> Ah, forgot to add, I also nominate Steve Henderson
20:54 <+svulliez> Ah I forgot Steve Henderson, someone nominate him
20:54 <@scshunt> unless I'm unaware of a username->person mapping
20:54 <@scshunt> Ok, I'll add Steve Henderson
20:54 <+drew> ok I nominate Steve Henderson
20:54 <@scshunt> For anyone just nominated: You do not have to accept the nomination and can have it withdrawn
20:55 <+trevm> CCitizen has already been nominated, or so I believe
20:55 <@scshunt> Possibly; I don't know his name offhand
20:55 <%RLim> yeah Patrick F
20:55 <@scshunt> ok
20:56 <+beanjammin> I would like to have my nomination withdrawn, I haven't been properly active in the party enough to this point.
20:56 <@scshunt> drew, handler, LynnB, Sqratz, and trevm: May I have your names for convenience, please?
20:56 <@scshunt> Ok
20:56 <+CCitizen> Yes that's me
20:56 <+Sqratz> Vaughn Male
20:57 <+drew> Andrew Karamaoun
20:57 <@scshunt> While we're doing that, does anyone wish to speak?
20:57 <+trevm> Trevor Mountney
20:57 <+LynnB> I would also like my nomination withdrawn please.
20:57 <@scshunt> LynnB: Ok, thank you
20:58 <@scshunt> No one has asked for debate; if there is no further debate, then the ballot will be prepared and debate will be closed.
20:58 <@scshunt> The current nominees are:
20:58 <+handler> scshunt: Duncan Hill
20:58 <@scshunt> handler: thanks
20:59 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> I motion to open the floor for debate
20:59 <@scshunt> Shawn Vulliez, Jake Daynes, Travis McCrea, James Wilson, Christoph Leon, Patrick Fitzgerald, Sean Hunt, Harold Swinton, Eli Zbar, Johann Weissgerber, Ken Hoover, Steve Henderson, Ric Lim, Jack McLeod, Vaughn Male, Trevor Mountey, Andrew Karamaoun, Duncan Hill
20:59 <@scshunt> TravisMcCrea|Work has moved to go to open debate, where everyone can speak at once. Is there a second?
20:59 <+svulliez> Could I request the other nominees post up barebones applications for the duration of the election if nothing else?
20:59 <+khoover> i second travis
20:59 <@scshunt> Ok. Any objection to proceeding in free debate?
21:00 <+jakedaynesphone> i second both travis and svulliez
21:00 <+drew> I'm a nominee?
21:00 <@scshunt> Seeing none, we will proceed to free debate. Everyone is free to speak at once, except if I interrupt to deal with business. There are 25 minutes available for debate; that amount can be adjusted by a motion.
21:00 <@scshunt> drew: Yes, TravisMcCrea|Work nominated everyone with voice, which includes you.
21:00 <@scshunt> drew: You can withdraw your nomination if you'd like.
21:01 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> drew: I would encourage you to remain in
21:02 <@scshunt> I don't see any debate; if there is no debate, then I will close the debate and the ballot will be prepared.
21:02 <+JMcleod> I would like to withdraw my nomination - I already have a voice on the exec board and anything I disagree with with the political board will be voted on by a general meeting through a motion. 
21:02 <+khoover> oi, hang on, preparing a statement
21:02 <@scshunt> ok
21:02 <@scshunt> JMcleod: ok
21:03 <+JohannWeiss> I'd like to re-state my support for every candidate who was at the debate last week (Shawn, Travis, Jake, James, and Patrick)
21:04 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> I am sure I should have SOMETHING to say.. but I encourage everyone to check out what I have said before https://www.pirateparty.ca/forum/index.php?topic=1565.0 
21:04 <+svulliez> I think a lot of us agree that a diversity of viewpoints is good and more hands on deck is better, so I encourage you to only not vote people in for good reasons
21:05 <+svulliez> I also encourage other candidates to not leave if they don't make council... We still would love your help.
21:05 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> "8 way tie for Council Leader"
21:05 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> :P
21:05 <+khoover> still working on statement
21:06 <+svulliez> That also applies to me, if I don't make it, I am staying around.
21:06 <+svulliez> I'm curious, does anyone disagree on the importance of a site redesign?
21:06 <+drew> I should put a statement in the Political Council Thread?
21:07 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> not with the general concept of a site redesign
21:07 <+handler> svulliez: I completely agree
21:07 <+JMcleod> how will the actually elections work, like say I think CandidateA fits well in the council, but think CandidateB is a better leader for our short term objectives, will I be able to vote for both but for B only as leader?
21:07 <+Wilson> not with the general idea no, just the extent
21:07 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> drew: you can, but you can just say it here too
21:07 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> Wilson: exactly
21:08 <+JohannWeiss> svulliez: I agree with a redesign
21:08 <+handler> When you look at the site right now, it is not content-focused
21:08 <+svulliez> JMcleod: No, you can only approve or disapprove
21:08 <+handler> The newest posts are tucked away in the bottom corner
21:09 <@scshunt> I would suggest posting in the forum. It is easier to read a forum than the logs here.
21:09 <+svulliez> JMcleod: I don't really like it, I'd prefer the council vote internally on a leader tbqh
21:09 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> Our site needs to be quickly educating people on who we are and what we stand for. I don't want to say "we should do it like everyone else is doing it" but look at every other political party's website. Those general design techniques are what we need to use as well... they all put thousands of dollars into researching the best layout for their site to earn voters
21:09 <@scshunt> Although I would ask that we focus discussion on the political council election, and not the website. I don't see how the two are related.
21:09 <+handler> TravisMcCrea|Work: I agree
21:10 <+JMcleod> Well only 2 people will get a vote for from me then, maybe 3, in that event :)
21:10 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> I am kinda iffy on the idea that the party needs a leader at all. 
21:10 <+khoover> we need a public face, is what
21:10 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> Though if we do have one, I sincerely hope it is Johann 
21:10 <+JMcleod> Well we need a leader, but leader really is the public face of the party. 
21:10 <+svulliez> Its required with elections canada to have one
21:11 <+khoover> ^ or that
21:11 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> svulliez: yeah a leader by name... 
21:11 <+Wilson> Its a legal requirement to have a leader
21:11 <+Wilson> damn shawn, beat me to it
21:11 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> There is a difference between having a symbolic leader, and a legal leader. 
21:11 <+svulliez> I agree that we shouldnt have too much power and authority invested in a single person
21:11 <@scshunt> JMcleod: And no, You will not be able to. You vote approving or disapproving each candidate; there is no way to separate the two votes under our system
21:11 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> Like I said, I am on the fence about it.. I am not AGAINST it
21:12 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> Just saying having a single position which defines the party seems a little counter to the general decentralized nature of what we fight for. 
21:12 <+svulliez> I may point out also that travis was once running for both President and Leader... :)
21:13 <%RLim> the person with the most vote becomes the leader
21:13 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> svulliez: and I stepped down from seeking both
21:13 <+drew> Ill admit I dont know the exact responsibilities of political board. I dont wanna take up a position with too much work.
21:14 <+JMcleod> omg that is sooo lazy
21:14 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> Drew, you vote on stuff and if you feel like it you come up with proposals on cool stuff that the party can do
21:14 <+JMcleod> actually its just to show up for thursday night meetings 
21:14 <@scshunt> drew: The Political Council is expected to meet at least biweekly and is responsible for all political and public-facing decisions of the party
21:14 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> it's not a full time job
21:15 <+drew> ok I can vote and discuss things weekly
21:15 <+beanjammin> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the powers of the party leader are defined by the party constitution. We can make of it what we want. I see no need for major concern about centralising power in one person if that's not what people want.
21:15 <+JMcleod> bi-weekly or weekly?
21:15 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> 6:14 PM <JMcleod> omg that is sooo lazy <= Personal Attack? (I don't have a problem with what he said, but that's why I asked earlier to define what is and isn't acceptable)
21:15 <+handler> I'd like everyone to consider electing me to the political board. I believe that I have some great ideas and the determination to make a useful contribution to the party.
21:15 <+JMcleod> no, the comment was lazy
21:15 <+Wilson> beanjammin: the general meeting over-rules all anyways
21:15 <+svulliez> Yeah, beanjammin is right... The current constitution affords no extra power to leader
21:16 <+JohannWeiss> Well the leader and deputy have a vote on both councils
21:16 <+svulliez> I like drew and I would encourage him to run, but not unless he wants to, there are going to be some expectations of participants
21:17 <@scshunt> The Leader and Deputy Leader are members of the Executive Board
21:17 <@scshunt> Additionally, the Canada Elections Act gives some power to the Leader. Most of that, however, cannot be used except where directed by the party.
21:17 <+JMcleod> Keep in mind that if you are voted on the PC you do not have to accept the role of leader and deputy leader should you win that nomination too. 
21:17 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> Also most of the Canada Elections Act stuff is in regards to election period
21:18 <@scshunt> Now is as good a time as any to state that I will not be taking the position of Leader or Deputy Leader
21:18 <+khoover> does one have to deny deputy if they deny leader, and/or vice versa?
21:18 <+JMcleod> yes
21:18 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> which unless we are graced by God with Dictator Harper dissolving parliament.... we don't have to worry about for now :P
21:18 <+JMcleod> if you deny leader, you deny deputy as ur role is to replace him
21:19 <+khoover> and if you deny deputy?
21:19 <@scshunt> Yes, the two must be declined as a package.
21:19 <+JMcleod> if you deny deputy then u werent chosen as leader anyways :)
21:19 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> (then it would go to 3rd place, which is what I guess your asking)
21:19 <+svulliez> I believe Johann, Myself and Jake are the only ones who have said they are willing to be leader
21:20 <%RLim> No maximum size, so the more the merrier. Leader and deputy get to vote on both board
21:20 <@scshunt> the position of Leader will go to the highest-approval candidate who is willing to accept the position
21:20 <@scshunt> Deputy Leader will go to the next highest-approval
21:20 <%RLim> It would be nice to have a large board to get more diversity of opinion
21:20 <+khoover> just about finished the statement, if i can have a bit more time. since i'm a relative unknown
21:20 <@scshunt> You do not have to decide now
21:20 <@scshunt> You can wait to see the results
21:21 <+CCitizen> I'm not going for leader but I think the debates before were good enough as well as the forums... Most of the communication should have been done before this point
21:21 <@scshunt> We only have 5 more minutes for debate.
21:21 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> CCitizen: I don't think khoover or drew were expecting to be nominated tonight
21:21 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> so.. that's fair :P
21:21 <+trevm> I posted a little write up on the political counsel election Board, if anyone's interested
21:22 <+drew> Im posting something on the forum...
21:22 <+CCitizen> True...
21:23 <+handler> If there is anything that people want to know about myself, feel free to ask
21:23 <+khoover> alright, finished it. I may have a career in speechwriting
21:23 <+svulliez> Awesome. I really do hope to see most of us on the board, I am excited about the party's future
21:23 < JakeDaynes> As I am in and out of signal - I would like to make one post while I can: I have seen many of the long-term nominees work very hard and long for the party, and I have heard the ideas from many of the new nominees. I would like to say that i am proud to be able to run and work next to all of you, and I would encourage everybody present and not to vote every nominee onto the board - you will not be disappointed.
21:23 <+svulliez> When did you newcomers first hear about us?
21:24 <+khoover> I joined back in '10, so, am I a newcomer still?
21:24 <+svulliez> And when did you first join up and why?
21:24 <+svulliez> Newcomer to the political election, I mean
21:24 <%RLim> JakeDaynes "not to"?
21:25 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> khoover: '10? n00b, I joined in '01 
21:25 <@scshunt> The time allocated for debate is about to expire; is there desire to extend the debate?
21:25 <+khoover> here
21:25 <+handler> yes
21:25 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> yes
21:25 <+handler> I move to extend the debate
21:25 <@scshunt> Any suggestion as to how long?
21:25 <+handler> another 5 mins?
21:25 <%RLim> 5 minutes for now
21:25 <@scshunt> Any objection to extending the debate for 5 minutes?
21:25 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> Instead of a time, who is still preparing something?
21:25 <+khoover> here
21:25 <+handler> I am
21:26 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> Can we just let them speak and once they are done... we move on?
21:26 <+svulliez> ^
21:26 <+trevm> I joined in 2009
21:27 <@scshunt> TravisMcCrea|Work: Hmm... not quite sure how to interpret that
21:27 <+khoover> I was in grade 10 when I first heard about and joined the party, being interested more in the name and imagery evoked by it, than the stance. Over time, it's evolved into more of a nuanced position, being agreement with a lot of the core values of the party.
21:27 <+handler> In response to svulliez's question, I joined the party in March 2011. I've been active here on IRC on and off for the past 11 months. I was only nominated to the political board today.
21:27 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> lol in the debate we were given 5 minutes to write our response as well... so maybe we can just close open debate. Give the floor to anyone who asks for it, give them 5 minutes to explain who they are... and then call it done
21:27 <@scshunt> TravisMcCrea|Work: Ok
21:27 <@scshunt> Order, please.
21:28 <@scshunt> I will take this as a motion to extend debate by 5 minutes, and a motion to amend it to change it to a motion to return to individual debate, and allow each member one speech of 5 minutes, and then put the motion to a vote.
21:28 <@scshunt> Does this sound correct?
21:28 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> Yes. 
21:28 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> (but I encourage only new candidates to take the 5 minutes for timesake)
21:28 <+svulliez> To
21:28 <@scshunt> Ok. I'll take handler's motion to add 5 minutes. Is there a second for TravisMcCrea|Work's motion?
21:28 <+svulliez> Yes
21:28 <@scshunt> Ok.
21:29 <@scshunt> The motion isn't debateable
21:29 <@scshunt> So without further ado, we will now vote on the question of whether or not to amend the motion to extend debate to a motion to return to individual debate, with each member being given one 5 minute speech
21:29 <@scshunt> This requires a majority to adopt the amendment; any motion to adjust speaking limits requires a two-thirds vote.
21:29 <+svulliez> Y
21:29 <@scshunt> All in favor of the amendment, say aye
21:29 <+JohannWeiss> y
21:29 <+handler> aye
21:29 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> Aye
21:29 <+Wilson> aye
21:29 <+JohannWeiss> aye
21:29 <%RLim> aye
21:29 <+khoover> aye
21:30 <+trevm> aye
21:30 <+LynnB> aye
21:30 <@scshunt> All opposed, say nay
21:30 <@scshunt> The ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. The question is now on the motion to return to individual debate, with each member being given one 5-minute speech. All in favor, say aye
21:30 <+khoover> aye
21:30 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> aye
21:30 <+handler> aye
21:31 <%RLim> aye
21:31 <+beanjammin> aye
21:31 <+JohannWeiss> aye
21:31 <+Wilson> aye
21:31 <+LynnB> aye
21:31 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> (technically its to "start" individual debate... not "return" to it)
21:31 <+svulliez> Aye
21:31 <@scshunt> All opposed, say nay
21:31 <@scshunt> TravisMcCrea|Work: All motions start in individual debate, so when you moved to free debate earlier, it was a change :)
21:31 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> ah :P Touche
21:32 <+Sqratz> aye
21:32 <@scshunt> The ayes have it and the motion is adopted.
21:32 <@scshunt> Each member will have one more 5-minute speaking turn; questions taken will count as part of that turn.
21:32 <@scshunt> Ken Hoover has the floor.
21:32 <+khoover> eh, can you go to the next person? still transcribing my notes
21:33 <@scshunt> Ok.
21:33 <@scshunt> Does anyone else wish to speak?
21:33 <+handler> I'll go next if no objects
21:33 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> (to those of you who were preparing things to say... this is that time... now or never so to speak)
21:33 <+handler> no one*
21:34 <@scshunt> handler: Please, go ahead
21:34 <+svulliez> Go handler !
21:34 <+handler> There are a few things that I would strongly advocate for on the political board.
21:35 <+handler> The first is a focusing in on what our collective goals are as a party.
21:36 <+handler> The second is improved communication within the party and to the public.
21:36 < haroldgraphene> Aha!
21:36 <+handler> Part of that would entail a revamp of the website.
21:37 < haroldgraphene> Excuse my tardiness gentlemen
21:37 <+svulliez> haroldgraphene: #riffraff
21:38 <+handler> Lastly, I would like to further promote the party as a source of technical information. We should be informing people people of the powers that their technology can be used for.
21:39 <+handler> e.g., how to secure your equipment, how to protect your privacy online.
21:39 <@scshunt> Ok, that is the end of your time.
21:39 <+handler> I know that we already do this to some extent, but I would like to see a bigger commitment and more consensus on information
21:39 <+handler> Thanks for listening
21:40 <@scshunt> khoover: Do you wish to speak now?
21:40 <@scshunt> (anyone else wishing to speak, please PM me)
21:40 <+khoover> yep, just finished
21:40 <+khoover> My name is Ken Hoover. I'm sure not a whole lot of the members I speak to today are familiar with who I am, given my low-key presence in the party up until this point. A couple of you may remember when I first joined the party in September of 2010, now having been around for a good portion of the party's existence. Now, I seek a more active role in the party, a role to shape the future and the public image of the party.
21:41 <+khoover> To offer a bit of my background, currently I am enrolled in grade 12, coming from Markham, ON - a town north of Toronto. I have always been interested in technology, and the workings behind it, currently having an admission offer from the University of Waterloo for bachelor studies in Computer Science, and a 95 average. I've also recently taken an interest in Philosophy, broadening my views towards morality, the relation it has with law, and
21:41 <+khoover>  how we determine what is and acquire knowledge. My political background is left-leaning, with a focus on the liberty of the individual within a working society. Some of my influences include Marxism, Aristotelianism, and the philosophical history offered by Alasdair MacIntyre.
21:41 <+khoover> What I offer, to the party, is not public-relations skills, though I have had to deal with the public during the course of employment. It is not leadership experience, although I do run layout and creative direction at the school paper. It may not even be breadth of knowledge, nor depth, for although I certainly know quite a bit about a couple things, I cannot say I know much about many more, nor am I an expert in what I do. What I offer is 
21:41 <+khoover> a fresh slate, a willing canvas for possibilities and ideas, an impetus for change. The party, as we all know, has become stagnant, and needs fresh life injected into it. I offer a person willing to act, and to get things done. I offer the person I am.
21:42 <+khoover> That's all I have to say.
21:42 <@scshunt> Ok.
21:42 <@scshunt> trevm: you have the floor
21:43 <+khoover> Oh, sorry, forgot to mention; I'll also change the website.
21:43 <@scshunt> trevm, Trevor Mountney?
21:43 <+handler> :)
21:43 <+trevm> I joined back in 2009, and I would suggest visiting the political counsel board for a quick run down about me
21:44 <+trevm> if I were to be elected to the counsel, my primary focus would be on our projects
21:45 <+trevm> I strongly believe we would be a party that does things to help our people even though we don't get elected
21:45 <+trevm> and I'll take a quick question if anyone has one
21:45 <+trevm> otherwise, I'm done
21:45 <+haroldgraphene> may I?
21:45 <+trevm> yes
21:45 <@scshunt> haroldgraphene: drew is next
21:45 <@scshunt> I'll put you in line after him :)
21:45 <+haroldgraphene> What kind of projects would you immediately undergo?
21:46 <@scshunt> oh, asking a question
21:46 <@scshunt> yeah, that's fine
21:46 <+haroldgraphene> You don't need to put me in line yet :) 
21:46 <@scshunt> drew, please hold up
21:46 <+trevm> well, there has been talk about how we can expand Capt
21:47 <+trevm> I believe Capt is a great project, but it hasn't gone as far as it can yet
21:47 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> (hear hear)
21:47 <+trevm> first I would look into what we can do with it
21:47 <@scshunt> nominees are:
21:47 <@scshunt> (oops, ignore)
21:48 <+haroldgraphene> Is that the only project you'd get started on?
21:48 <+trevm> well, I have not come up with any of my own
21:48 <+haroldgraphene> fair enough.
21:48 <@scshunt> Ok, that's the end of trevm's time
21:49 <@scshunt> drew is next.
21:49 <+drew> Ok. So I just got nominated today.
21:49 <+drew> My main experience with the Party is developping FOSS software like Pirate Linux
21:49 <+drew> I also helped with discussions and some parts of the constitution and the previous elections
21:50 <+drew> I think we should focus more on creating solutions.
21:50 <+drew> It's easy to say what's wrong with our system and that we need more Freedom and Transparency and Privacy. But how do we actually fix it?
21:51 <+drew> We should create solutions, communicate them to the public, get feedback, learn from the feedback.
21:51 <+drew> For example I thought yesterday maybe we can make a Github like thing where we put a act like C-30
21:52 <+drew> and edit it how we like, and show people the changes
21:52 <+svulliez> I am loving these applications btw
21:52 <+drew> also I favour more Proportional Representation in parliament.
21:52 <+drew> anyway that's all, feel free to ask for more info.
21:53 <@scshunt> Ok. I don't have anyone else in line to speak.
21:53 <@scshunt> The list of nominees, as a reminder, is:
21:53 <+haroldgraphene> Hm.
21:53 <@scshunt> Shawn Vulliez, Jake Daynes, Travis McCrea, James Wilson, Christoph Leon, Patrick Fitzgerald, Sean Hunt, Harold Swinton, Eli Zbar, Johann Weissgerber, Ken Hoover, Steve Henderson, Ric Lim, Vaughn Male, Trevor Mountey, Andrew Karamaoun, Duncan Hill
21:53 <@scshunt> Does anyone else wish to speak?
21:53 <+haroldgraphene> Yes I guess I'll make a brief statement
21:54 <@scshunt> ok, go ahead
21:54 <+haroldgraphene> I'm Harold Swinton, 24 years old I run an industrial equipment shop in the suburbs but live in East Vancouver.
21:54 <+haroldgraphene> I know some basic programming languages, cad software, html4, css....
21:55 <+haroldgraphene> I have a lot of experience in manufacturing and open source projects such as building a reprap and autonomous drones
21:55 <+haroldgraphene> reprap = open source 3d printer
21:56 <+haroldgraphene> I agree with drew on the front of solutions, we need to focus on solutions and avoid just criticizing everything.
21:56 <+haroldgraphene> What I want to bring to the party is this:
21:56 <+haroldgraphene> -Communication amongst engineering clubs in universities
21:57 <+haroldgraphene> -communication with the hackers (such as Vancouver Hack Society (VHS))
21:57 <+haroldgraphene> And I wish to innovate and make money for these individuals through promoting their open source/free business model
21:58 <+haroldgraphene> I also would like to build some discipline in this party. By this I mean giving responsibilities to members to do different jobs and expect them to go through with them
21:59 <+haroldgraphene> I think we should criticize our members fairly and without an insulting tone to make sure they're putting on a good face for our party.
22:00 <+haroldgraphene> lastly I've considered a name change of our party as well as a possible future merger with any other party that has similar goals to ours.
22:00 <@scshunt> Thank you, your time is up
22:00 <+haroldgraphene> I think we could use with some expansion.
22:00 <+haroldgraphene> Ok, questions?
22:01 <@scshunt> Questions count against your time, so I'm sorry but I'll have to move on to another speaker.
22:01 <@scshunt> TravisMcCrea|Work wishes to speak
22:02 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> I just wanted to make a quick addition to my stated platforms: I also wish to bring the Pirate Party of Canada to Quebec with a stronger presence. I have spoken with Parti Pirate of France to get some of their promotional materials and I want to work with our members of Quebec to create a presence that is well ingrained in their culture
22:02 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> done
22:02 <@scshunt> Ok
22:02 <@scshunt> Any more speakers?
22:02 <+handler> TravisMcCrea|Work: I like that
22:03 <+haroldgraphene> TravisMcCrea|Work: I also support that motion
22:03 <@scshunt> Ok, seeing no more debate, the motion will be put to a vote
22:04 <@scshunt> The ballot will be prepared. Do any candidates other than myself, James, and Travis wish to decline the leadership now?
22:04 <+svulliez> What motion?
22:04 <@scshunt> svulliez: The election of the PC
22:04 <+oxpirate> I decline leadership.
22:04 <+svulliez> Ah
22:04 <%RLim> I decline leadership
22:04 <+trevm> I decline leadership
22:04 <+handler> I will also decline leadership
22:04 <@scshunt> I also forgot Harold, who said he wished to decline in the other channel
22:04 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> I would rather decline upon being voted for leadership
22:04 <+drew> I just wanna run as member of board, not leader / exec
22:04 <+CCitizen> I decline leadership too
22:04 <@scshunt> TravisMcCrea|Work: ok
22:05 <+haroldgraphene> I decline leadership...
22:05 <+handler> I'm afraid that I have to leave. Best of luck to everyone in the election
22:05 <@scshunt> If you can, please stick around, we have more business to get through
22:05 <+handler> I'll have to catch up tomorrow
22:06 <@scshunt> Ok, so we will move on to future business
22:06 <@scshunt> We have another general order
22:06 <@scshunt> Wilson gave notice of an amendment to the constitution and bylaws. Wilson, are you prepared to move that?
22:06 <+Wilson> yup
22:06 <+Wilson> I motion that the quoted text be voted on by the membership and added to the constitution as principle 5 of Article II, Object:
22:07 <+Wilson> "That consulting with constituents in the formation and carrying out of a candidate's platform is more democratic and a marked improvement over the methods currently employed by the other federal parties. And that, as far as is reasonable, constituents be given final say on how their MP votes in parliament"
22:07 <+Wilson> Furthermore, that the membership vote on this proposal be delayed for a period not less than 1 month and not more than 6 months to allow it to be voted on at the same time as other proposals that require such a vote. 
22:07 <+Wilson> think thats it
22:07 < Rintaran> I'll second the motion.
22:07 <@scshunt> That should be considered two separate motions
22:08 <@scshunt> Rintaran: Can you please sign in? See the topic
22:08 <+khoover> I'll second the delay
22:08 <+haroldgraphene> I will also second that motion
22:08 <@scshunt> Ok, so we have a motion to add the following to the list of principles in Article II of the constitution
22:08 <+Wilson> thx Rintarin, khoover
22:08 <@scshunt> "That consulting with constituents in the formation and carrying out of a candidate's platform is more democratic and a  marked improvement over the methods currently employed by the other federal parties. And that, as far as is reasonable,  constituents be given final say on how their MP votes in parliament"
22:09 <@scshunt> After reviewing the rules, however, I can't find the motion to delay holding the vote to be in order. Motions cannot be postponed beyond the next meeting, as no action of this meeting can put a motion out of reach of a future meeting.
22:09 <+Wilson> can an exact date be set beyond that?
22:09 <@scshunt> No.
22:10 <@scshunt> You could withdraw the motion to be brought forward at a later date, move to postpone the motion to the next meeting, or proceed with it now, in which case it would be voted on alongside the PC elections
22:10 <+Wilson> Then I guess onlt the first part can be discussed
22:10 <+Wilson> hmm
22:10 <@scshunt> We could also discuss it, and then it could be postponed
22:11 <@scshunt> Another option would be to refer it to a committee or to the PC (or, theoretically, the EB)
22:11 <+Wilson> Does anyone have any questions/comments about the motion?
22:12 <+JohannWeiss> Sounds good to me
22:12 <%RLim> trying to recall a concern voiced by someone
22:12 <@scshunt> I actually do wish to debate this motion; JMcleod, could you take the chair?
22:12 <+JMcleod> oh hi
22:12 <+khoover> I have some concerns too
22:12 <@JMcleod> sure lemme just read up on whats going on
22:13 <+scshunt> we're currently discussing Wilson's motion to amend the constitution
22:14 <+drew> I dont think I like it...they can just vote for an independent then.
22:14 <+svulliez> I don't like it either
22:14 <+svulliez> It should be discussed with the rest of the platform
22:14 <@JMcleod> Alright then
22:15 <+Wilson> svulliez, this would amend the statement of principles, it would be up to the council on how to impliment
22:15 <+Wilson> ...as part of the platform
22:15 <@JMcleod> scshunt, you have the floor for 5 minutes
22:15 <+svulliez> I like the idea in theory but it needs to be adapted as we figure out out overall strategy
22:15 <+scshunt> JMcleod: 10 minutes, I believe?
22:15 <+svulliez> Our*
22:16 <@JMcleod> 10 ok 10
22:16 <+scshunt> Ok.
22:16 <+svulliez> There is no need to rush in constitutional amendments
22:16 <+scshunt> I am not opposed to this motion simply because it is a constitutional amendment; in fact, I applaud Wilson for having the courage to bring it forward
22:17 <+scshunt> That said, I oppose this, because I do not feel that giving constituents a legally binding say on how their MP votes is at all an expression of representative democracy
22:17 <+scshunt> Indeed, it would rather defeat the purpose altogether
22:17 <+scshunt> What is the purpose of debate in Parliament if the MP has no discretion in voting?
22:18 <+scshunt> What is the purpose of committee review, where the bill is carefully considered and witnesses are interviewed, and amendments may be adopted to perfect the bill?
22:18 <+scshunt> Making constituents have a final say on their MP's vote would simply be equivalent to a direct democracy, only many times less efficient
22:19 <+scshunt> There's also the matter of confidential sessions
22:19 <+scshunt> Sometimes, they are necessary
22:19 <+scshunt> They are common during war, where the Parliament supervises the military's participation
22:19 <+svulliez> I would sooner like to see a constitutional dedication to reason and evidence
22:20 <+scshunt> On top of that, there are rare occasions when secrecy is quite necessary
22:20 <+scshunt> svulliez: I am speaking and don't appreciate interruptions...
22:20 <+scshunt> I highly recommend reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Caper
22:21 <+scshunt> It is the story of a situation where Parliament convened in confidential session to pass a law without the knowledge of its enemies, to great effect
22:21 <+scshunt> If we give constituents final say on their MP's decisions, then there is simply no means by which we can expect confidential decisions to be taken
22:21 <+scshunt> We can hardly expect every Canadian citizen to keep a secret.
22:21 < thor> heh
22:21 < thor> seeing a new slogan peeking
22:22 <+scshunt> So that is a large part of why I oppose this. I should also add that I oppose direct democracy
22:22 <+scshunt> While there are certainly situations where it would be nice to exert more influence on MPs, such as by recall petitions, I don't feel that direct democracy is necessarily a good idea
22:22 <+haroldgraphene> May I speak?
22:23 <+scshunt> A large part of our government is structured on trying to keep control of important decisions away from the hands of the electors
22:23 <+scshunt> As an example, the Chief Electoral Officer and the Governor of the Bank of Canada are totally unaccountable, and with good reason
22:23 <+scshunt> Most people don't properly understand the decisions made. While most people are capable of understanding them, giving people the opportunity to vote without understanding the problem could be disastrous
22:24 <+scshunt> It's already bad enough in Parliament as it is; I don't think that injecting direct democracy will make this any better
22:24 <+scshunt> Any questions in the last minute or so of my time?
22:25 <+haroldgraphene> yes?
22:25 <+scshunt> haroldgraphene: you have a question?
22:25 <+haroldgraphene> Yes!
22:25 <+scshunt> ask away
22:25 <@JMcleod> 1 minute left
22:25 <+haroldgraphene> Would you still feel the same way about direct democracy if there was a better method of communication between constituents and the MP? such as an online correspondance application? Where the MP would still have the final say?
22:26 <+haroldgraphene> But that the constituents would be able to shape his perspective better on the issue?
22:26 <+haroldgraphene> (that is all
22:26 <+scshunt> haroldgraphene: Yes. I assume that any implementation would involve increased communication, but I don't feel that we can force people to be educated even on things like basic macroeconomics, which is vital for understanding fiscal policy, for instance.
22:26 <+scshunt> (done)
22:27 <+Wilson> "As far as is reasonable", not every bill would end with the MP having to vote this way if there is lack of public interest, campaigning on platform issues would also be off limits since the people have already voted on them.
22:27 <@JMcleod> Ok - Wilson, you now have floor for 10 minutes
22:27 <+haroldgraphene> Well the elected official wouldnt listen to those that are uneducated is the thing! (sorry)
22:27 <+haroldgraphene> (done)
22:28 <+Wilson> You mentioned several positions that are not elected and I agree they shouldn't. However, our politicians have a duty I feel to take constituent concerns into account more than they do now
22:29 <+Wilson> You mentioned several instances that are rare. In the case of parliament being called to vote on something in secret it is possible the MP would not have time to consult(see above)
22:30 <+svulliez> I think its too vague and not necessary
22:30 <+Wilson> We are the party of open government, sure there will still be issues that need to be secret but I think they are few and far between and certainly less than the current situation
22:31 <+svulliez> For the time being, although i appreciate it
22:31 <@JMcleod> Let Wilson have his time please.
22:31 <+svulliez> Yes, I am sorry. This little screen it's hard to tell what's going on
22:33 <+Wilson> As for the competence of voters...personally I think you put too little faith in them
22:34 <+Wilson> people like to feel they are voting to represent them, not to be some trained seal in Ottawa. 
22:35 <+Wilson> I think that addresses all of the concerns you raised. Questions?
22:35 <@JMcleod> 2 mins left for questions
22:35 <+scshunt> How do you intend to prevent voters from messing with appointed people because they make an unpopular decision, such as raising interest rates?
22:36 < ChristophLeon> Hello?
22:36 < ChristophLeon> Sorry I'm late!
22:36 <@JMcleod> Hello Christoph, please read topic
22:36 < ChristophLeon> (Where is the topic?)
22:36 <@JMcleod> | General Meeting at 8PM EST | Late comers please PM Rlim with your e-mail to get validated.
22:37 < ChristophLeon> Thanks. Will do.
22:37 <+Wilson> Messing with? keep in mind it is still the gov. not individuals who influence the appointed officials. It will encourage more compromise in parliament
22:37 <+svulliez> We are talking out of order in #riffraff 
22:37 <+drew> If it's not an issue that's part of the Pirate Party core platform, do you still want to allow constituents to have priority over it?
22:37 <@JMcleod> Time is over
22:37 <+drew> *it is an issue
22:37 <@JMcleod> svulliez, you now have the floor for 10 minutes
22:38 <+svulliez> I apologize for speaking out of turn.
22:38 <+Wilson> np shawn
22:38 <+svulliez> Everyone is allowed to talk in my 10 minutes
22:38 <+ChristophLeon> Thanks.
22:38 <@JMcleod> lol ok :)
22:39 <+svulliez> I like the concept behind the idea, but I don't think this is the time or way to implement it
22:39 <+trevm> it seems to me, that in that kind of situation, the MP would have make sure his constituents are educated 
22:40 <+svulliez> Constitutional amendments are fine, and I too want to add to that section
22:40 <+svulliez> Perhaps even so
22:40 <+svulliez> Something along these lines**
22:40 <+ChristophLeon> Oh man, I wish I could backtrack... I feel like I'm missing a lot here. I apologize for being late, I hate priorities today.
22:40 <+svulliez> But we should discuss it with the political council, and I think there could be unintended consequences for it
22:41 <+ChristophLeon> Which idea is it you like the concept behind, Shawn?
22:41 <+svulliez> In it's current form.
22:41 <%RLim> Well I strongly support the idea but lack of voters education is not lost on me.
22:41 <+Wilson> unintended consequences: specify?
22:41 <+svulliez> That consultative democracy is encouraged in the pirate party
22:41 <+svulliez> We should be seeking to further crowdsource
22:41 <+JohannWeiss> Since I can speak all over Shawn's time: It would be better to introduce when we have the tools to implement it. There isn't a practical way to get the opinion of your constituency, without spending large sums of money.
22:42 <+haroldgraphene> Yes I second what svulliez has said about consultation between MPs and constituents is important! Thanks for addressing that.
22:42 <+khoover> JohannWeiss, read (e-)mail, implement something similar to slashdot, make up forums
22:42 <+haroldgraphene> I also agree with JohannWeiss about his criticism.
22:43 <+svulliez> This actually may not go far enough, in my opinion, having the public image and rhetoric be based around our crowdsourced nature 
22:43 <+Wilson> thx khoover
22:43 <+svulliez> Would be highly beneficial
22:43 <+haroldgraphene> It could also be destructive, I mean look at occupy's "crowdsource"
22:43 <+JohannWeiss> khoover: How do you verify they are living in the correct riding?
22:44 <%RLim> and people have to take responsibility rather than getting carried away with what is hip. So starting point would probably to mandate open information and well documented justification of actions. none of this in the know club.
22:44 <+svulliez> We should crowdsource as much as possible, it brings good results. This specified type of crowdsourcing isn't necessary or proportionate for the pirate party at this point in time.
22:44 <+Wilson> svulliez: crowdsourcing risks getting uneven results across the country, my method does not
22:44 <+svulliez> That is my opposition to this motion.
22:44 <+ChristophLeon> Wilson, what is your method?
22:44 <%RLim> JohannWeiss, a system could be setup that moderator can verify if a user is from their riding. SOme sort of forum 
22:45 <%RLim> with upvote and downvote to give a quick poll to the representative
22:45 <+khoover> JohannWeiss, a log-in system, mayhaps?
22:45 <+khoover> distribute usernames and passwords to everyone with postal codes in a riding?
22:45 <+svulliez> I think local crowdsourcing is a good idea Wilson but I don't think this amendment is the way to go
22:46 <+haroldgraphene> khoover:  Yes exactly! A secure log-in that has some kind of way of identifying that you're not intruding on the rules.
22:47 <+haroldgraphene> RLim, Very well said!
22:47 <+JohannWeiss> I didn't mean it was impossible, but I think the system that is required should be built before we vote on it. It's a necessary component.
22:47 <+haroldgraphene> khoover, RLim could you maybe find resources and get started on this project? We can use it experimentally prior to attempting to push it on our government ;)
22:48 <@JMcleod> 1 final minute - if anyone else wants floor, PM me.
22:48 <+haroldgraphene> JohannWeiss and that is why we need to start now
22:48 <+haroldgraphene> Im done
22:48 <+svulliez> This deserves wider debate, it's interesting but let's not get ahead of ourselves
22:48 <+svulliez> Do we still have quorum?
22:48 <+khoover> I suppose we could borrow slashdot, and send pins to all registered members, combine that with member number...but yeah, scshunt is right. i believe so
22:48 <@JMcleod> Alright, 10 mins is up. 
22:48 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> I am here
22:48 <@JMcleod> Yes we still have Quorum
22:49 <@JMcleod> well I see we are 17
22:49 <@JMcleod> Ok scshunt has the floor
22:49 <+ChristophLeon> What is the minimum Quorum?
22:49 <+scshunt> ChristophLeon: 15
22:49 <+scshunt> I move to refer this motion to the Political Council.
22:49 <+Wilson> svulliez: I have been discussing similiar proposals for several months and put the delay in the original motion so there could be further debate
22:50 <+Wilson> I'd be willing to second that
22:50 <+khoover> i second scshunt, would be a good start
22:50 <+svulliez> I agree with scshunt 
22:50 <+ChristophLeon> Agreed, scshunt.
22:51 <@JMcleod> scshunt motions that the following motion: 
22:51 <@JMcleod> I motion that the quoted text be voted on by the membership and added to the constitution as principle 5 of Article II, Object:
22:51 <@JMcleod>  
22:51 <@JMcleod> "That consulting with constituents in the formation and carrying out of a candidate's platform is more democratic and a marked improvement over the methods currently employed by the other federal parties. And that, as far as is reasonable, constituents be given final say on how their MP votes in parliament"
22:51 <@JMcleod>  
22:51 <@JMcleod> be moved to the political council
22:51 <+JohannWeiss> seconded
22:52 <@JMcleod> The motion has been seconded by Wilson
22:52 <@JMcleod> scshunt now has the floor for 10 minutes to discuss this motion.
22:52 <+scshunt> I'll be quick here.
22:52 <+scshunt> I don't have objection to the idea of consultive democracy generally, and I do think it should be part of our platform.
22:53 <+scshunt> I like svulliez' suggestion of letting the new PC flesh it out
22:53 <+scshunt> So I would like to let the new PC come to a recommendation with it, and then bring it back to us in a month or two
22:53 <+scshunt> And of course, if we don't like what they suggest, we don't have to agree to it.
22:53 <+scshunt> And that way, concerns like my concerns over direct democracy can be dealt with by the PC as well
22:53 <+scshunt> (done)
22:54 <@JMcleod> Anyone else wish to have the floor for the current motion?
22:55 <@JMcleod> Ok no one. 
22:56 <@JMcleod> Does anyone object to that motion? If not it will be adopted. If so, we shall go to a vote.
22:57 <+ChristophLeon> May I ask scshunt to be specific in "fleshing it out"?
22:57 <@JMcleod> Ok no object, the motion to move "That consulting with constituents in the formation and carrying out of a candidate's platform is more democratic and a marked improvement over the methods currently employed by the other federal parties. And that, as far as is reasonable, constituents be given final say on how their MP votes in parliament" to the political council is adopted
22:58 <+scshunt> ChristophLeon: It is up to the PC to decide. They can recommend the motion back with or without amendments, or they can recommend it be defeated. Regardless of what happens, it is just an opinion. So by 'fleshing it out', I meant 'recommend amendments'
22:58 <@JMcleod> Obviously this will happen only once the new PC is elected
22:59 <@JMcleod> As the previous motion is now moved to the PC, perhaps scshunt would like to have chair back
22:59 <+scshunt> sure
23:00 <@scshunt> All right, that concludes the general orders. We are now on to new business. We had notice of a motion to appoint a candidate for the Toronto-Danforth riding.
23:00 <@scshunt> Does anyone want to move that motion?
23:00 <+JMcleod> Is loki here?
23:01 <+Wilson> Has anyone heard from the candidate?
23:01 <@scshunt> Andrii doesn't appear to be present
23:01 <+svulliez> No let's call it a night it's been 3 hours
23:01 <+JMcleod> I move to appoint Andrii to being a candidate of Toronto-Danforth
23:01 <@scshunt> Is there a second?
23:01 <+haroldgraphene> can I do the opposite of second?
23:02 <+JMcleod> svulliez - we kinda have to appoint, else we have no candidate at all for the bi-election
23:02 <+haroldgraphene> We might not want to have one if they're not ready.
23:02 <@scshunt> haroldgraphene: No, but you can argue against it. A second is merely an indication that someone else wants to see the motion considered
23:02 <@scshunt> Does no one wish to second the motion to appoint Andrii Zvorygin as candidate for Toronto-Danforth?
23:03 <+JMcleod> personally I'd have liked of him to show up so he could say how getting signatures had been going - if he cant get that, he still wont be on sheet
23:03 <@scshunt> Seeing no second, the motion won't be proceeded with; it can still be made later.
23:03 <@scshunt> Is there any other business?
23:03 <+JMcleod> Yes
23:03 <+ChristophLeon> Do we know that Andrii Zvorygin is both willing and capable?
23:04 <+JMcleod> We dont, hes not here! (actually)
23:04 <@scshunt> Order. People appear to be debating the motion. There was no second; it was not brought forward. If you wish to debate it, please bring the motion forward, and then it can be debated.
23:04 <+JMcleod> hasnt he already been seconded in the forum?
23:04 <+khoover> wait, are we about to volunteer a candidate?
23:04 <@scshunt> JMcleod: You have the floor
23:04 <+ChristophLeon> Then we should probably wait until he is - at another time.
23:04 <+ChristophLeon> If so in the forum, then I see no problem with it.
23:04 <+JMcleod> 1st - before floor, wasnt he seconded in the forum?
23:05 <@scshunt> JMcleod: Yes, but a motion here requires a second at the meeting.
23:05 <+JMcleod> If that doesnt count, why do we need seconds in forum?
23:05 <@scshunt> We don't, and I clarified that today :)
23:05 <+JMcleod> good
23:05 <+JMcleod> ok
23:05 <+JMcleod> I motion that the Pirate Party of Canada adopt a stance for the protection of children against adults that suffer psychiatric disorder named pedophilia and as such, requests that adults that commit child sexual abuse be punished by  a minimum of no less 
23:05 <+JMcleod> than 18 years in jail.
23:06 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> I will not second nor endorse that
23:06 <+ChristophLeon> I oppose.
23:06 <+TravisMcCrea|Work> (I don't believe in terms longer than 15 years for any crime)
23:06 <@scshunt> Is there a second?
23:06 <+khoover> can't tell if he's serious...
23:06 <+haroldgraphene> I oppose as well...
23:07 <+haroldgraphene> Sex offenders should be taken care of with social programs not penitentiaries
23:07 <+ChristophLeon> I second haroldgraphene
23:08 <+haroldgraphene> thanks :)
23:08 <@scshunt> Ok, I don't see a second. This motion will not be discussed either.
23:08 <@scshunt> Do we have any other business?
23:08 <%RLim> and if they keep re-offending? 
23:08 <@scshunt> Order, please.
23:08 <+ChristophLeon> I propose that dichotomous stances on any crime be abandoned, as the suspect may be the victim of more than one mental illness, and is then should be subject to a different type of treatment/punishment.
23:08 <+Wilson> I motion to end the meeting
23:08 <+haroldgraphene> I second that motion
23:09 <+khoover> I motion to discuss the situation with the IT Committee
23:10 <@scshunt> It has been moved and seconded to adjourn. While this is not debatable, if anyone knows of any business that needs consideration, they can summarize it
23:10 <+haroldgraphene> Thank you Sean.
23:10 <@scshunt> khoover appears to want to discuss the IT Committee
23:11 <@scshunt> Ok, all in favor of the motion to adjourn, say aye
23:11 <+khoover> currently, the IT Committee is effectively non-existent. The director - if we nominated one - isn't getting anything done, and the rest of the committee isn't doing anything to help.
23:11 <%RLim> aye
23:11 <+khoover> While I admit that I should probably try and raise activity, it doesn't help if i'm the only one
23:12 <@scshunt> All opposed, say nay
23:12 <+khoover> nay
23:12 <+JMcleod> nay
23:12 <+ChristophLeon> nay
23:12 <+JohannWeiss> nat
23:12 <+JohannWeiss> nay
23:13 <@scshunt> The nays have it and the assembly will not adjourn. Does anyone have any other business?
23:13 <+ChristophLeon> Let us discuss what khoover mentioned about the IT Committee
23:14 <@scshunt> We currently do not have an IT Director, as psema4's appointment expired at this meeting
23:14 <@scshunt> The members of the IT Committee are Ken Hoover, Jeremy Howell, Martin Alix,and Scott Elcomb
23:15 < jhowell> last meeting ended quickly and we didn't get a chance to coordinate with outside contact info
23:15 <@scshunt> Do we have a motion?
23:15 < jhowell>  nay
23:15 <@scshunt> If we do not have a motion, we will continue without an IT Director
23:16 < jhowell> I can't remember which came forward
23:16 < jhowell> but there was a fellow with 15yrs exp
23:16 <+psema4> I move that the selection of IT Director be postponed until the March meeting
23:16 <+ChristophLeon> Are there any IT issues which need addressing BEFORE March?
23:17 <@scshunt> Does psema4's motion have a second?
23:17 <+khoover> ChristophLeon, the site
23:17 < jhowell> i'd kinda like to talk about this for a few more minutes
23:17 <@scshunt> jhowell: We should have a motion to discuss something
23:17 <+psema4> jhowell, that's what the motion is for
23:17 <%RLim> second
23:17 <@scshunt> Ok
23:18 <@scshunt> The question is on the motion to postpone the selection of IT Director until the March meeting.
23:18 <+JohannWeiss> Can we hear from the IT members who are present?
23:18 <+psema4> present
23:18 <+khoover> ello
23:19 <+JohannWeiss> Well what's the situation, why should we postpone, what would help?
23:19 <+JMcleod> I dont like the idea of continuing with a director, perhaps we should have another director, so we can see who is best... if we try em for a month each ;)
23:20 <+psema4> JMcleod: a month isn't long enough
23:20 <+jhowell> I support a committee
23:20 <+JMcleod> I know (it was supposed to be a joke)
23:21 <+psema4> +1 for committee activity.  can i take the floor a moment?
23:21 <@scshunt> psema4: Go ahead
23:21 <+jhowell> i withdrew from the candidacy cuz it seemed like others wanted it more, and your style of IT requires more of an analyst (software) approach, whereas I am more Project Management and infrastructure. I'd work better as a collaborator imho.
23:22 <@scshunt> psema4: ?
23:22 <+psema4> Ok. First off, my apologies for what appears a lack of activity over the last month. I take full responsibility; I can also assure you that the selection of an IT director needs to be done with care
23:24 <+psema4> At the beginning of my term I released a schedule on the forms and sent out an email referring to it, however there were no participants
23:24 <+psema4> *forums*
23:25 <+psema4> the last week and half have been hell so I've not been able to get things under control.
23:25 <+psema4> Continuing without an IT Director is fine with me (run by committee) but we should have someone to point the ship
23:26 <+jhowell> agreed. the role of the IT Director should be more administrative, (coordinating, organizing) 
23:26 <@scshunt> The Committee needs a chair in the Director
23:27 <+jhowell> Yes
23:27 <+jhowell> decisions made as a group collaboration
23:27 <+jhowell> a misnomer for "IT Coordinator" I suppose :)
23:28 <+psema4> well it's a little more than that.  IT needs a direction to move towards.  goals to implement
23:28 <+jhowell> The question is---who here has the ability to do both
23:28 <+jhowell> that's the thing
23:28 <+ChristophLeon> Could said goals be decided upon by all of us? Vote for ideas?
23:29 <%RLim> yes ChristophLeon
23:29 <+psema4> we need systems that support the way our membership interacts with one another.
23:29 <+ChristophLeon> Could people not propose things about site layout, ease of access, etcetera, and then we can all take a vote on what we prefer?
23:29 <%RLim> First we need to fill the IT committee up with people
23:29 <@scshunt> RLim: There are currently five members, including myself ex officio
23:30 <@scshunt> actually, six, as Mikkel is also a member ex officio
23:30 <+jhowell> ChristophLeon The way I'd like to see it, is a committee that brings ideas to the table,discuss them and using the findings of the discussion to coordinate a series of projects based on the time and resources that we have available to us.
23:30 <+jhowell> and just implement them
23:30 <%RLim> yeah I suggest using mailing list since not everyone check forum. Martin Alix said he does not check forum and prefer mailing list if I remember correctly.
23:30 <+jhowell> RLim BINGO
23:31 <+psema4> +1000
23:31 <+jhowell> i'll meet in irc
23:31 <@scshunt> Can we please try to steer the discussion back to the matter at hand?
23:31 <%RLim> Martin Alix was one of the person who step up to be nominated for IT director in the last General Meeting
23:31 <+jhowell> but forums are too slow
23:32 <+jhowell> Is Martin Alix with us tonight
23:32 <@scshunt> No
23:32 <+jhowell> unfortunate
23:32 <+psema4> I'd like to give the IT committee one more month to work through the selection process and get the group working together effectively
23:32 <+jhowell> ok
23:32 <@scshunt> JMcleod: can you please take the chair again?
23:32 <+jhowell> Ok, I support psema4's motion
23:32 <%RLim> The term is also set to expire to expire after today's meeting. So we might need a motion extending the term?
23:32 <+JMcleod> sure
23:33 <+scshunt> I apologize for relinquishing the chair twice in one meeting; it's bad for me to get involved, but I feel that I should
23:33 <@JMcleod> go ahead
23:33 <+scshunt> The purpose of the IT Director is exactly as described; to manage the IT Committee, make sure it meets, and the like
23:33 <+scshunt> he's also the keeper of the root passwords
23:34 <+scshunt> but other than that, there's no reason it should be a one-man job
23:34 <+scshunt> As such, I would like to move to substitute a motion to appoint Jeremy Howell as IT Director in place of the pending motion. I feel his commentary here demonstrates that he is plenty qualified for the job.
23:34 <+khoover> phillipsjk, good timing.
23:35 <@JMcleod> is there any second to that motion
23:35 <+psema4> I second
23:35 <+jhowell> i can at least get communication going. I don't think the IT director necessarily needs to have 'power'. but someone needs to designate.
23:35 <+psema4> khoover has been in #itcomm practically since it opened
23:35 <@JMcleod> Anyone want to discuss this? Or does anyone oppose the motion?
23:35 <%RLim> yeah but we need a director to control the root password
23:36 <+jhowell> a good director should be able to recognize skills of the committee and divide up the workload. To get that started, we need someone appointed. :)
23:36 <@JMcleod> Ok so no one is opposing and no one asked for floor so the motion is adopted
23:37 <+scshunt> We're now dealing with the motion to appoint Jeremy Howell, yes?
23:37 <@JMcleod> yes
23:37 <+scshunt> ok
23:39 <+scshunt> (I think no one wants to debate)
23:39 <@JMcleod> Nope, does anyone oppose?
23:39 <+jhowell> I'm tryin' to be quiet on this one.:)
23:39 <+psema4> khoover do you have an opinion?  would you like to try your hand at it?
23:40 <+psema4> (just asking)
23:40 <+jhowell> afk?
23:40 <+khoover> possibly. I have no experience at it
23:40 <+jhowell> yo, khoover
23:40 <+khoover> mhmm?
23:41 <+jhowell> if you are interested and just need help
23:41 <+jhowell> i'm here man
23:41 <+scshunt> haha
23:41 <+jhowell> i'm just unsure about my schedule. 
23:41 <@JMcleod> the motion to postpone the selection of IT Director until the March meeting is the one which as adopted. Now we are on this one: to appoint Jeremy Howell as IT Director in place of the pending motion. I feel his commentary here demonstrates that he is plenty qualified for the job.
23:41 <+jhowell> if i'm motioned in
23:41 <+scshunt> Wait, what?
23:41 <+jhowell> i'll make the time
23:41 <@JMcleod> right^
23:41 <@JMcleod> ?
23:41 <+scshunt> I thought the motion to postpone selection was amended to be a motion to appoint Jeremy Howell as IT Director.
23:42 <+scshunt> since the motion to substitute was adopted
23:42 <@JMcleod> oh in that order
23:42 <@JMcleod> see I wasnt clear, its my fault
23:42 <+scshunt> no worries :)
23:42 <@JMcleod> I forgot to actually go backwards :) 
23:42 <+scshunt> haha
23:42 <+scshunt> We are debating the motion to appoint Jeremy Howell as IT Director, yes?
23:42 <+psema4> in place of the postponement or in addition to?
23:43 <+khoover> I guess I'd be willing to be director
23:43 <+khoover> jhowell, 
23:43 <+jhowell> khoover
23:43 <+scshunt> psema4: In place of.
23:43 <+scshunt> At least, that is my understanding.
23:43 <@JMcleod> It would be in the place of postponement but we should still ask again if there is opposition cuz it wasnt clear
23:43 <+jhowell> agreed
23:44 <+jhowell> I was unsure myself, it sounded like i'd be IT director til march
23:44 <@JMcleod> Alright then:
23:44 <+jhowell> but i'd be fine with that
23:44 <+jhowell> just to get the ball rolling, you know?
23:45 <@JMcleod> The motion is to drop the postponement motion, and instead, in its place, adopt the following: to appoint Jeremy Howell as IT Director
23:45 <@JMcleod> Is there any opposition or discussion to this (and is it clear enough)
23:46 <+psema4> i have a comment
23:46 <+jhowell> in that case---khoover, "I guess" should be replaced with some more conviction if you have intentions!
23:46 <@JMcleod> go ahead psema4
23:48 <+khoover> honestly, i'm just remarkably tired at this point, and know i have a long day tomorrow
23:48 <+jhowell> understood :)
23:48 <+khoover> so, calling it lucky that i can still read the chat
23:48 <@JMcleod> Still waiting on psema4's comment
23:48 <+psema4> I think it's in the best of interests of the party to have the IT committee working before settling on an IT director, as it'll affect the long-term direction.  The committee should have the final say.
23:49 <+scshunt> Four members of the committee are here.
23:49 <+psema4> right but there hasn't been much communication among them as yet.
23:49 <+psema4> as a group I mean
23:49 <+scshunt> I think we're getting into a chicken-and-egg problem here
23:50 <+scshunt> we need a director to have a good committee and a committee to have a good director
23:50 <+psema4> welcome to it.  :S
23:50 <+scshunt> let's just pick one and get on with it
23:50 <+jhowell> psema4, any suggestion on getting everyone communicating and what steps we'll take between now and march to achieve it?
23:50 <+scshunt> I think the big thing is having meetings
23:50 <+psema4> 1st off mailing list.  tonight.  then weekly meetings
23:51 <+jhowell> ok so whose in charge of the mailing list?
23:51 <+scshunt> I mean no offense to psema4, but he had a month to call a meeting and it didn't happen
23:51 <@JMcleod> For sake of clarity, The current motion, should it be accepted, would make jhowell the new IT director for a 1 year term.
23:51 <+psema4> no offense taken; it's true and I don't want to see it continue
23:52 <+psema4> I will object to the motion on the grounds that the committee has not yet met properly
23:52 <+scshunt> If we really don't think that jhowell is suitable as IT Director after this, we can change it
23:52 <+scshunt> while it's a 1-year term, we can always cut it short early
23:52 <+jhowell> psema4 makes a good point.
23:53 <+psema4> I support having jhowell as director, but I'm loathe to forward the passwords without getting to know him better.  (no offense jhowell)
23:53 <@JMcleod> perhaps a motion to scrap all that and give to jhowell the mandate to set up an IT board meeting by the next GM would be more appropriate, just saying
23:53 <+jhowell> if we can make the mailing list as a deliverable
23:53 <+jhowell> my work is done
23:53 <+jhowell> hey np
23:53 <+psema4> I'll setup a list tonight
23:54 <+scshunt> on the PPCA servers?
23:54 <+psema4> (it should be done anyway)
23:54 <+jhowell> The fire is lit--my job's done ;)
23:54 <+psema4> scshunt: i'll need to look at it, but if not I can use one of my temporarily
23:54 <+scshunt> ok
23:54 <+scshunt> haha jhowell
23:55 <+scshunt> I still think we should just appoint jhowell
23:55 <%RLim> psema4: do you have Martin ALix contact info?
23:55 <+scshunt> yes, we have it
23:55 <+jhowell> scshunt & I have been talking about this since october 1st
23:55 <+scshunt> and since I don't feel that we're getting anywhere, I'd like to move the previous question (that is, to end debate and take a vote)
23:55 <+jhowell> so, i've been literally waiting that long for some formation of an IT committee so i can be involved. I'm not a poltiical guy, but i support this
23:56 <%RLim> ok the temporary appointment term ends today so we need a motion to appoint someone
23:56 <+CCitizen> So is appointing Jeremy an interim position while the IT Committee decides on a final choice?
23:56 <+scshunt> CCitizen: No, appointing him proper
23:56 <+CCitizen> Alright then sounds good to me
23:56 <@JMcleod> Alright, so, does anyone oppose motion to move to appoint jhowell as director instead of waiting until next month to discuss this?
23:56 <+psema4> again i'll object to appoint another on the grounds that the committee hasn't met yet
23:56 <+ChristophLeon> Can we simplify this? - Who is volunteering to be appointed?
23:56 <@JMcleod> OK
23:57 <+scshunt> JMcleod: Parliamentary Inquiry. What motion is currently being debated? I am confused.
23:57 <+khoover> ^
23:58 <@JMcleod> Currently, the motion is to drop the postponement motion that was made, and instead, in its place, replace it by, adopt the following: move to appoint Jeremy Howell as IT Director.  (please sean, validate that this was clearly your intention in your motion)
23:58 <+scshunt> ok, yes
23:59 <+jhowell> O_o
23:59 <+scshunt> I move the previous question on all pending questions.
23:59 <+khoover> huh?
23:59 <+scshunt> It's a motion to end debate and take a vote
23:59 <+khoover> ah, ok
23:59 <@JMcleod> We were already going to take a vote :)
23:59 <+ChristophLeon> Let us voe.
--- Day changed Thu Feb 16 2012
00:00 <+ChristophLeon> Vote**
00:00 <+scshunt> it is undebateable and requires a two-thirds vote, if adopted, we'll just vote through the motion stack.
00:00 <+scshunt> Ok, I withdraw the motion
00:00 <@JMcleod> All in favor of the motion to "drop the postponement motion that was made, and instead, in its place, replace it by, adopt the following: move to appoint Jeremy Howell as IT Director.  (please sean, validate that this was clearly your intention in your motion)" say yay, all who oppose, say nay
00:00 <+scshunt> let's just vote already
00:00 <+scshunt> aye
00:00 <+khoover> aye
00:00 <+psema4> nay
00:00 <+JohannWeiss> nay
00:01 <+jhowell> oh are u kidding me?! I gotta be the tie breaker??
00:01 <+jhowell> lol
00:01 <+LynnB> nay
00:01 <%RLim> nay
00:01 <+jhowell> nay
00:02 <@JMcleod> Ok seems nay has it
00:02 <+CCitizen> nay, I think we rushed into this motion too quickly
00:02 <+psema4> we can't rush IT - it'll really mess things up for the party
00:02 <+JohannWeiss> So now the motion is to postpone?
00:02 <+scshunt> yes
00:03 <+khoover> yep
00:03 <+scshunt> I think
00:03 <@JMcleod> Motion is defeated, we are now going back to: motion to postpone the selection of IT Director until the March meeting
00:03 <+jhowell> I second the motion
00:03 <%RLim> can I amend it to add that the term extended to next month
00:03 <+scshunt> Who will chair the committee in this month?
00:03 <+psema4> RLim: March is next month :)
00:03 <+jhowell> well, like i said. psema4 has the torch. Provided the mailing list goes out--
00:04 <@JMcleod> Motion was already seconded, and you cannot amend it to say the same thing :)
00:04 <%RLim> yeah just want to explicitly state that term is extended so we don't postpne selection and left with no director
00:04 <+psema4> I can continue (and do a better job) of chair for another month
00:04 <@JMcleod> Oh ok RLim
00:04 <%RLim> the minutes states your term expires today
00:05 <+scshunt> Yes, we have no IT Director right now, and thus no chair of the IT Committee
00:05 <+jhowell> psema4, besides it'd be nice to work with you.. If you end up liking me enough for the root passwords, I'd be honored ;)
00:05 <+psema4> well thx :) it's not about liking anyone - it's about trust
00:05 <+psema4> ;)
00:05 <@JMcleod> RLim motions that the motion to postpone the selection of IT Director until the March meeting be replaced by a motion to postpone the selection of IT Director until the March meeting and extend the current interim director's mandate until then.
00:05 <@JMcleod> Are there any seconds?
00:05 <+jhowell> like = trust goes hand in hand in my world ;P
00:05 <+psema4> fair enough
00:06 <+scshunt> I'll second that
00:06 <+jhowell> i'll second
00:06 <+CCitizen> Does that mean Scott is still Interim IT Director until we meet up in March or the IT Committee decides on a permanent one?
00:06 <+scshunt> CCitizen: if adopted, until the March meeting
00:07 <+CCitizen> Ok sounds good to me, Might as well give them more time to get everything in order
00:07 <@JMcleod> Ok we are now discussing the motion to replace the previous motion by "replaced by a motion to postpone the selection of IT Director until the March meeting and extend the current interim director's mandate until then."
00:07 <@JMcleod> oops I failed at copypaste there
00:07 <@JMcleod> Ok we are now discussing the motion to replace the previous motion by "to postpone the selection of IT Director until the March meeting and extend the current interim director's mandate until then."
00:08 <+JohannWeiss> move to vote
00:08 <+jhowell> aye
00:08 <%RLim> aye
00:08 <+khoover> aye
00:08 <+LynnB> aye
00:08 <@JMcleod> Alright then, all in favor say aye, all against say nay 
00:08 <+JohannWeiss> aye
00:08 <+psema4> aye
00:08 <+LynnB> aye
00:08 <%RLim> aye
00:09 <@JMcleod> lol You all type aye faster than my sentence! 
00:09 <+khoover> aye
00:09 <+CCitizen> aye
00:09 <+ChristophLeon> aye
00:09 <@JMcleod> ok ok Motion adopted
00:09 <@JMcleod> Now
00:10 <@JMcleod> we discuss the following: the motion to postpone the selection of IT Director until the March meeting and extend the current interim director's mandate until then.
00:10 <+JohannWeiss> move to vote
00:10 <+jhowell> aye
00:10 <@JMcleod> Anyone want to discuss (first)
00:10 <@JMcleod> ?
00:10 <+CCitizen> didnt we just vote on that?
00:10 <+ChristophLeon> Yes we did.
00:10 <@JMcleod> No we voted on the amendment
00:11 <@JMcleod> Now that it has been adopted, we need to vote on the actual motion
00:11 <+ChristophLeon> Oh, okay... AYE
00:11 <+CCitizen> I second moving to vote then, we already  discussed it
00:11 <+khoover> ARRR
00:11 <@JMcleod> fun stuff really
00:11 <@JMcleod> Alright then, all in favor say aye, all against say nay 
00:11 <+khoover> ARR
00:11 <+scshunt> aye
00:11 <%RLim> aye
00:11 <+psema4> aye
00:11 <+jhowell> aye
00:11 <+JohannWeiss> aye
00:11 <+CCitizen> aye
00:11 <+beanjammin> aye
00:11 <+LynnB> aye
00:11 <@JMcleod> Alright then, motion adopted
00:12 <+jhowell> huzzah
00:12 <+scshunt> yay
00:12 <+ChristophLeon> aye
00:12 <+JohannWeiss> motion to end meeting
00:12 <+khoover> 2nd
00:12 <@scshunt> Ok, we have a motion to adjourn. Does anyone have any other business to bring up>
00:12 <@scshunt> ?
00:12 <+CCitizen> Did we discuss Andrii's running in the by-election?
00:13 <@scshunt> The motion died for lack of a second.
00:13 <+ChristophLeon> Yes.
00:13 <+JMcleod> No one seconded it
00:13 <+khoover> yeah, figured it'd be a bad idea in absentia to nominate
00:13 <+JMcleod> I have another piece of business but I think it can be decided out of GM so I'll pm u
00:13 <+ChristophLeon> Here here.
00:13 <+khoover> errr, reverse the last two word pairs
00:13 <+CCitizen> I'd like to bring it up again then and suggest we allow him an opportunity to accept since we wont know the results of the Political Council for at least a week
00:13 <@scshunt> Ok
00:13 <@scshunt> The question is on the motion to adjourn
00:13 <@scshunt> All in favor, please say aye
00:14 <+JMcleod> nay
00:14 <+khoover> ARR
00:14 <@scshunt> All opposed, please say nay
00:14 <+JohannWeiss> aye
00:14 <%RLim> aye
00:14 <+beanjammin> aye
00:14 <+ChristophLeon> aye
00:14 <+LynnB> aye
00:14 <+jhowell> aye
00:14 <+JMcleod> guess people are tired, thats fine :)
00:14 <+CCitizen> Alright then aye... hopefully we didnt miss out on a good opportunity
00:14 <+jhowell> if it is important keep it in your mind
00:14 <+JohannWeiss> If he had shown up for the GA it may have been different
00:14 <@scshunt> The ayes have it and the motion to adjourn is adopted. 
00:15 <+ChristophLeon> Truth.
00:15 -scshunt:#canada- The meeting is hereby adjourned.
00:15 <@scshunt> Thanks for coming out, everyone. Sorry for the long meeting and the small technical difficulties

View minutes.