2007-07-29/log

From FreeCulture.org Wiki

e-star (n=e-star@bdv75-8-82-247-15-212.fbx.proxad.net) has joined channel #freeculture

jibot: e-star is Elizabeth Stark from law.harvard.edu

e-star: guys, what's the conf call service we used to use?

e-star: anyone?

peabo: I think everyone is away, waiting for it to be 5 PM

paulproteu: freeconference.com I think.

paulproteu: I know I've seen others use that.

e-star: hm ok

price (n=price@31-34-75.wireless.csail.mit.edu) has joined channel #freeculture

contra (i=425ceedb@gateway/web/cgi-irc/irc.jpgclan.com/x-7a080fabeb836a9b) has joined channel #freeculture

jibot: contra is Ben from Swarthmore

gavinbaker (n=gavin@c-69-143-179-58.hsd1.va.comcast.net) has joined channel #freeculture

jibot: gavinbaker is Gavin Baker & his Web site is <http://www.gavinbaker.com/> & an alumnus of the University of Florida & co-founder of Florida Free Culture <http://uf.freeculture.org/> & an intern at SPARC <http://www.arl.org/sparc/>

gavinbaker has set the topic on channel #freeculture to FreeCulture.org: student movement for free culture | http://freeculture.org/ | Bug tracker: launchpad.net/web/+bugs | In case of downtime: http://fcostatus.wordpress.com/ | Last Volunteers meeting: http://wiki.freeculture.org/2007-07-22 | Today: Bylaws RC2 meeting at 5 pm EDT, comments due then: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Bylaws

Signoff: contra ("Dave2:CGI:IRC")

parkerhiggins (n=chatzill@12.198.114.2) has joined channel #freeculture

mecredis: yo

mecredis: we're doing IRC right?

e-star: yup

Signoff: mind|wandering ("Leaving")

gavinbaker: hi mecredis, e-star

mecredis: yzzah

e-star: hiya

gavinbaker: i suppose let's give people a few minutes to trickle in?

e-star: yup

e-star: also, perhaps we should discuss process a bit

e-star: for the mtg?

gavinbaker: i sent a reminder on the list a few hours ago, but it'd be great to ping people individually who might be interested

e-star: like, how do we want to go through the issues

cameronparkins (n=cameronp@adsl-69-232-199-227.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net) has joined channel #freeculture

mecredis: right

mecredis: how we do the merge

gavinbaker: i just got a call from nelson and karen saying they'll be a bit late

gavinbaker: i'm going to grab something to eat while we give stragglers a few minutes. brb

e-star: ok

christo_ph: i'd imagine that consensus on patches should allow us to come up with a single rc

christo_ph: so that, once approved, anything controversial can be submitted as amendment

mecredis: sounds good

mecredis: I hope Seth Johnson shows up

e-star: ha

Differance: :-)

Differance: That woudl be me

mecredis: nice

e-star: cool

Differance: e-star: ha?

gavinbaker: christo_pher: i'm not sure i follow. this will be the last chance to submit amendments (at least, on this draft)

Differance: But I intend to keep chiefly quiet

gavinbaker: we'll put the new draft out to chapters and give them an up-or-down vote

christo_ph: certainly there will be an amendment process that exists in the future, right?

gavinbaker: if they approve it, it passed, and future changes can go through the amendment process

mecredis: how's the chapter re-reg going?

gavinbaker: christo_pher: right, exactly

gavinbaker: mecredis: paulproteus got it up last night

mecredis: gavinbaker: live, public?

mecredis: can I check it out?

e-star: Differance: ?

Differance: nothing -- you looked like you found my participation worthy of a laugh

gavinbaker: mecredis: paulproteus has the link & pw, i don't think i remember it

Differance: It's probably true, actually

mecredis: K

e-star: hm we should take a poll as to how many ppl are actually here for the mtg

Differance: :-)

e-star: Differance: oh no, that was to christohper

gavinbaker: brb again, don't let me hold up the discussion if i'm not replying right away

e-star: ok

mecredis: OK

mecredis: I don't intend on spending all evening in here

mecredis: can we get started soon?

Differance: e-star: ok

Differance: all: I don't regard myself as exactly qualified -- not a student, not a chapter, not nothing -- you should take my input accordingly

christo_ph: gavinbaker: okay, that is what i thought. however, there isn't necessarily a process for patching this draft other than consensus, so the farther we are from controversial amendments, the easier this will be, i am thinking

christo_ph: i agree, we should figure out who is here

christo_ph: and as fun as crafting our Bylaws is, i hope this won't take terribly long

Differance: all: (inasmuch as I bring input; let me reserve comment, okay)

e-star: what's the easiest way to take a roll call?

mecredis is here

mecredis: ?whois mecredis

jibot: mecredis is Fred Benenson. He founded Free Culture @ NYU & currently getting his masters at NYU's ITP. He currently lives in New York City & spends his time as a FreeCulture activist. He is a board member of FreeCulture.org & has held internships & fellowships for Creative Commons & volunteered for the EFF.

christo_ph: Are you guys here? [Arken] [autonomy] _sj_ abhay cameronparkins Cbrown1023_away danjared Differance e-star gavinbaker grahl_ jli K`Tetch klepas Lam_ mark007 Omnifrog parkerhiggins paulproteus peabo poningru price sahal tannewt venkatesh WillySilly

christo_ph: <-- here

peabo: Peter Olson, assoc member Free Software Foundation; amazability.com, no academic affiliation

e-star: rock

parkerhigg: present.

grahl_: eh?

e-star: we're taking a roll call

Differance: present mark007: Estoy aqui

tannewt: hey hey

e-star: hm i hate to say it, but can people perhaps say their names?

Differance: ?whois Differance

jibot: Nobody has defined Differance yet

christo_ph: Christopher Budnick, Harvard Free Culture, Northeastern Free Culture

Differance: Differance = Seth Johnson

Differance: Seth Johnson is mostly with NY Fair Use

paulproteu: Hi, yes I'm here now.

price: I'm here.

Lam_: hmm?

paulproteu: Whoa, hey cameronparkins.

cameronpar: paulproteus: why the surprise??

e-star:price: gprice?

price: (namely Greg Price, at Harvard and MIT)

price: yes

e-star: :)

e-star: okay, shall we try to get started?

mecredis: please.

mecredis: Let's go section by section maybe

mecredis: talk about what's controversial

mecredis: and try to settle on it

paulproteu: (Asheesh Laroia, no academic affiliation, mostly observing, but I also am the Web Team Leader for freeculture.org and a software engineer at creativecommons.org.)

ktetch (n=ktetch@adsl-074-166-105-206.sip.asm.bellsouth.net) has joined channel #freeculture

mecredis: So

ktetch: yes i'm here

mecredis: one thing that I saw come up

mecredis: was our name

mecredis: studentsforfreeculture.org

mecredis: is not quite a sexy domain like freeculture.org

mecredis: but Students For Free Culture

mecredis: is a little more specific

Differance: (might want to grad that domain name, in any case) :-)

Differance: grab

mecredis: yeah, we'll obviously get it

mecredis: we can go by FreeCulture.org informally

abhay: (Abhay Kumar, no academic affiliation, mostly observing, yadda yadda yadda)

mecredis: but perhaps our non profit / org should be Students for Free Culture

e-star: thoughts from others?

christo_ph: i think that Gavin's suggestion was that we keep "The main domain name of the organization shall be freeculture.org" and just change the name to Students for Free Culture

e-star: changing one's name can be hard for recognition, branding, etc

mecredis: I mean right now

parkerhigg: i don't think there's a problem with the official domain of "Students for Free Culture" being "freeculture.org"

mecredis: yeah

mecredis: but when people ask us

poningru: woah new people?

mecredis: etc...

Differance: ?whois poningru

jibot: poningru is claims to be a descendent of the Earl of Curry and a brown guy and a lamer and golimar

Differance: ?whois parkerhiggins

jibot: Nobody has defined parkerhiggins yet

christo_ph: the main concern I have with Students for Free Culture is that, even in here, many of us aren't students

parkerhigg: parkerhiggins is Parker Higgins, and doesn't know how to use IRC, basically.He's also a member of FC@NYU.

mecredis: christo_pher: good point

mecredis: so we have a couple of options

mecredis: go for "Students of Life for Free Culture"

christo_ph: there's a certain protection, that ben pointed out, in being a student or youth organization, but I am not sure that we best serve even our universities by being solely student, at least in name

e-star: christo_pher: yes, it's also a youth movement

mecredis: "Youth for Free Culture"

mecredis: but then that makes us sound like finger painters or something

christo_ph: it does

Differance: LOL

mecredis: How about Digital Freedom University?

christo_ph: is the principle of the name that we do not want to exclude non-students by want to remain youth-oriented?

mecredis: christo_pher: that seems to be it

Differance: Information Freedom University!

Differance: (hush Seth)

mecredis: I understand the worry

christo_ph: *but

christo_ph: okay

mecredis: that we might be splitting our message / brand

peabo: another principle is to distinguish the movement from the kind of ad hoc commtktee for yadda yadda that is really a front for corporate interests

Differance: I always thought the basic notion was to galvanize students, pull the university constituency together

price: I don't think "Students for Free Culture" really excludes recent graduates

mecredis: Academcis?

mecredis: Co-eds

price: it does convey the useful message that we're a youth organization and an activist organization

mecredis: yeah

mecredis: Campus Free Culture

christo_ph: we also inherent some of the good will that SDS has accumulated

mecredis: SDS?

Scudmissile (n=Scudmiss@192.195.230.33) has joined channel #freeculture

peabo: mecredis: sounds like cuture which is campus-free

jibot: Scudmissile is Andy at the University of Evansville, Indiana. He is majoring in Internet Technology and is passionate about music and the presentation of information.

mecredis: hahah

mecredis: Sans-Campus CUlture

paulproteu: mecredis, Students for a Democratic Society, a big 60s student activism group iirc.

mecredis: right

Differance: Students for a Digital Society

mecredis: so they must have had plenty non-students

mecredis: OK, I think if we just go down formally as "Students for Free Culture"

mecredis: and continue to call ourselves FreeCulture.org

mecredis: its not going to matter that much

mecredis: shall we move on?

abhay: Students for a Participatory Society?

peabo: another naming issue is the 'free' as in beer vs. freedom: some people like the word libre

abhay: heh

christo_ph: haha

paulproteu: I really want to know where skyfaller is...

mecredis: paulproteus: he's late

christo_ph: mecredis: i think that's fine

parkerhigg: mecredis: i agree.

poningru: gavinbaker: pick up your phone

mecredis: anyone else?

price: agreed

cameronpar: sounds good to me

cameronpar: although peabo has a solid point, and one that frustrates the hell out of me

mecredis: well that's a larger war

cameronpar: but the semantics of the english language are the least of our worries as an org.

cameronpar: exactly

mecredis: we'll leave it to RMS

cameronpar: haha

Differance: free as a modifier for culture is not problematic that way

poningru: ok gavinbaker and skyfaller should be coming soonish

parkerhigg: peabo is correct, but i think there are greater benefits to holding onto the name recognition and domain and such that we have

Differance: free products, yeah

Differance: free stuff

Differance: but free culture no

parkerhigg: i agree with Differance here, yeah.

cameronpar: absolutely, i shoudln't have even brought it up, lets move on

cameronpar: no need to get into a discussion about it right now i dont think

mecredis: yeah

e-star: i'm still concerned about the pr side of changing our name

e-star: especially if, say, theNYT article ever comes out

mecredis: in what context exactly?

poningru: right

poningru: mecredis: future events might not be associated with us

mecredis: yeah

paulproteu: Doesn't Cory Doctorow use something like "the students at freeculture.org" to refer to us?

mecredis: so we just stick to FreeCulture.org

parkerhigg: e-star, poningru: i think the name is similar enough that there wouldn't be much of a problem.and if the domain is the same, i think it's even less of an issue.

paulproteu: (The above is a thought that indicates our possible lack of a need to rename.)

Differance: Students for Free Culture would not connect intutitively with freeculture.org?Not sure the disconnect is strong enough

price: are there really people who will be confused because they thought the group was called FreeCulture.org?

mecredis: I guess its a matter of how much we use SFC

cameronpar: i agree with parkerhiggins, on top of which, couldn't we contact the woman from the NYTimes and let her know?

price: frankly, I was only vaguely aware that was the name of the group

mecredis: if we jsut use it on the incorporation papers

abhay: i think that's what press releases are for. 

price: I just thought of it as "Free Culture".

mecredis: yeah, I mean there aren't a lot of other people out there using it to refer to their movement

parkerhigg: put it this way--if there were a group called "Students for Free Culture" that wasn't us, i think it would be confusingly similar.

mecredis: parkerhiggins: good point

gavinbaker read scrollback

Signoff: K`Tetch (Connection timed out)

christo_ph: to echo, i've always just called it "the free culture movement" or "FreeCulture"

mecredis: there are some issues with calling ourselves the free culture movement

mecredis: b/c people who have nothing to do with us

skyfaller (n=nelson@64.241.37.140) has joined channel #freeculture

jibot: skyfaller is Nelson Pavlosky & has a blog at http://nelson.freeculture.org & was an intern at the EFF & was a victorious plaintiff in the Diebold case & co-founder of FreeCulture.org & claims to be a descendent of the Earl of Fruit

poningru: indeed

Differance: Only you folks come up on google for "students for free culture"

mecredis: and release CC work / etc

cameronpar: for the record, i never call our chapter part of the fc.org mvoement, i jsut say Free Culture USC

mecredis: yeah, and I say Free Culture @ NYU (which is just part of how NYU wants us to call ourselves)

skyfaller: hey folks, sorry I/we are late

skyfaller: Karen will be on in a sec

christo_ph: it looks like this was discussed back in 2005, as well, with the results of "A non-scientific poll: 2 for FC.org, 4 for Free Culture, 3 for Students for FC"

mecredis: heh

paulproteu: christo_pher, URL for said poll?

paulproteu: skyfaller, There's been chatter about renaming that someone will have to fill you in on.Alternately, I could try to live-post a transcript.

christo_ph: http://swarthmore.freeculture.org/wiki/2005-10-18

e-star: another concern

e-star: is that if people want to start groups

poningru: I still think renaming is pointless

e-star: outside of schools eventually

e-star: that the name would be limiting

mecredis: I think the solution is to keep calling ourselves FreeCulture.org infomrally and collouquolly

parkerhigg: agreed.

mecredis: and just use Students for Free Culture on our incorporation papers

e-star: i'm okay with that..i think

mecredis: just so we're not bound to have a URL / etc. legally

skyfaller: mecredis: sounds like a good compromise to me

poningru: right

mecredis: OK

mecredis: gavinbaker:any thoughts?

parkerhigg: yeah, and then if we decide we need to change it later, it's not as big a deal

poningru: shh he's eating

mecredis: I mean the hope is

mecredis: anything having to do with free culture

mecredis: & people think of us

paulproteu: Yes, we are the first hit for Students for Free Culture.(off-topic: Due to a totally dumb error on my part, freeculture.org was not in the Google index or anyone else's search indexes for a couple of weeks, but that has been rectified.)

mecredis: OK

mecredis: so that's done

e-star: good, now moving on

mecredis: next section?

Mana-chan (n=Mana_Ban@ool-44c41e7f.dyn.optonline.net) has joined channel #freeculture

mecredis: purpose and goals

e-star: is tim hwang here btw?

Mana-chan: Hi everyone~

mecredis: ... we need to nix "intellectual property" policy

skyfaller: we decided that Students for Free Culture was fine?awesome

mecredis: from the language

mllerustad (n=mllerust@64.241.37.140) has joined channel #freeculture

e-star: mecredis: agreed

mecredis:skyfaller: just in our incorporation

christo_ph: tim isn't here

Mana-chan has left channel #freeculture

gavinbaker: hey. stop talking. i can't read scrollback fast enough ;)

paulproteu: I agree, mecredis.I think that someone did like the phrase being there - anyone know who that was / was that person?

mecredis: who knows / cares

gavinbaker: should i weigh in re: Students for Free Culture?

mecredis: but the point is

skyfaller: um, you mean in the bylaws?OK

e-star: it needs to go

mecredis: we need to get it out

e-star: IMO

mecredis: how about "information policy"

mecredis: ala IPac

gavinbaker: ok, well i'm going to, anyway.

gavinbaker: re: the mission statement, i don't care much, i'm sure we can come up with something good

e-star: gavinbaker: going to what?

christo_ph: i agree, it should be left out

gavinbaker: but re: the name, i don't like FreeCulture.org because it's vague

skyfaller: heh... I think people wanted to skim over that point...as long as Students for Free Culture is fine for the bylaws, we can argue later about the rest

mllerustad: gavinbaker: Let's move on...

gavinbaker: there's nothing that immediately identified us as a student organization

mllerustad: There are plenty of other things to argue about.

gavinbaker: and we sound like a web site, not an organization

mllerustad: And most of them are more pressing bylaws-wise.

mecredis: gavinbaker: well we'd be using it informally

gavinbaker: there's already some precedent for using Students for Free Culture (namely, paulproteus and skyfaller referring to it thusly at conferences)

gavinbaker: also, it says it on the new site design, as a tagline not a name. but i think it's a good name, and we can keep freeculture.org as the domain

skyfaller: gavinbaker: agreed, and it's always been on our website that we're a student org

mllerustad: gavinbaker: This doesn't matter for the bylaws. We've agreed to call ourselves Students for Free Culture in the bylaws.

skyfaller: BUT

skyfaller: exactly

Differance: Is it conceived as a membership condition?

gavinbaker: mllerustad: did we? if so, cool

mecredis: no no no

e-star: guys it's currently 11:40pm here

mecredis: yeah

mecredis: we need to move on

e-star: and i cannot stay up very late and i'd like to attend the entire meeting

e-star: so i would like some kind of process

skyfaller: so if Students for Free Culture is fine for the bylaws, then we can move on

mecredis: the by laws re: the name are fine as the RFC says

skyfaller: ok

e-star: where we could devote x amount of time

mecredis: err, RC

skyfaller: then we're moving on

e-star: to a particular point

mecredis: OK, Article II

mecredis: strike "intellectual property" and replace with "information policy"

e-star: for discussion, and then after that amount of time, call for a consenus

paulproteu: +1

gavinbaker: can we fix Article II quickly, or will it take time?

mllerustad: mecredis: I'm fine with that.

e-star: mecredis: how about copyright and technology policy?

mecredis: e-star: that works

gavinbaker: i'm wondering if we should punt it to later, if we're agreed that it should be changed

skyfaller: information policy is better, I think

e-star: unless people are really stuck on trademarks or patents

e-star:skyfaller: to me information policy is very vague

gavinbaker: or if we can fix it asap, then we'll fix it

mecredis: I mean they'll come up

mecredis: and we don't want to pigeon whole ourselves

paulproteu: Well, the Cereality thing was over patents, after all.

skyfaller: e-star: we've done stuff on both trademarks and patents in the past

price: I don't know what "information policy" means

price: .

e-star: it sounds like it could be privacy issues

e-star:price: agreed

skyfaller: Barbie in a Blender was partially trademarks

e-star:skyfaller: barely

gavinbaker: e-star: i don't have a problem with the term "IP" (unlike some others), and it does include TM and patents

Differance: he Organization is a diverse, non-partisan group of students and young people founded to advance cultural participation in the digital age and to defend the public interest in policies for exclusive rights such as copyrights and patents.

mecredis: but like

gavinbaker: i actually think we shouldn't exclude ourselves from privacy, either

mecredis: look at this recent congressional hearing

mecredis: about p2p and privacy

e-star: technology policy needs to be there somewhere

mecredis: that almost certainly falls under "information policy"

e-star: a la net neutrality

peabo: ".. and to defend the public interest in the free exchange of ideas and creativity"

skyfaller: technology + information?is that good enough?copyright is definitely limiting

mecredis: OK

e-star: fine, technology and information policy ?

gavinbaker: i think IT policy

peabo: no need to make a noun of it, just say what the purpose is

mecredis: technology + information policy is OK with me

gavinbaker: is better than either info policy or tech policy

mecredis: yeah

mecredis: agreed

e-star:price: thoughts?

mecredis: change it

christo_ph: fine with technology and information policy

gavinbaker: "information technology policy"

paulproteu: Differance raises a good point in that we don't have to be concise in the bylaws on this point.

gavinbaker: i'd prefer ICT policy personally

gavinbaker: "information & communications technology policy"

skyfaller: (is anyone taking minutes, incidentally?I'd like to point out that taking minutes after the fact usually results in long delays in posting them)

Differance: to defend the public interest in information freedom?

gavinbaker: but it's not a common term in the US

mecredis: we should have copyright in there

skyfaller: (I'll take minutes now, but I missed the beginning)

gavinbaker: mecredis: can we have (c) as an example (e.g. "including copyright")? rather than its own thing

paulproteu: (thanks skyfaller, I'll just paste you the block you missed when you ask me for in a private message or post-meeting)

peabo: mecredis: if you have copyright, you need patent and maybe other things

e-star: gavinbaker: ICT policy seems a bit too specific

mecredis: gavinbaker: that sounds OK

mecredis:peabo: maybe

e-star: gavinbaker: and makes me not necessarily think of things like copyright..heh

mecredis: "Including copyright, patent and trademark"

Differance: ? I would say specifying specific areas sounds too specific

mecredis: brb

price: "copyright, patent, and technology policy"

Differance: ICT is general

e-star:price: okay

e-star:price: i'm fine with that

skyfaller: but there are other forms of information policy

Differance: (hush Seth) :-)

Differance: carry on

gavinbaker:skyfaller: anything not covered in "IT policy"?

e-star: let's face it, even the barbie case was a copyright one

skyfaller: like the database protection thing... is that copyright?

skyfaller: oh

e-star:skyfaller: it's technology

e-star: policy

gavinbaker:skyfaller: right, barbie wasn't IT, but it was IP

gavinbaker: that's why i say IT + IP

skyfaller: I think we should be as general as possible while making it clear what we do

e-star: "copyright, patent, and technology policy" is what i vote for

Differance: barbie was information

gavinbaker: what doesn't IT + IP cover? everything's there and it's pretty specific

skyfaller: I think that copyright and patent is too limiting

skyfaller: those could be examples of something broader

christo_ph: i'd suggest that we change "students and young people founded to advance cultural participation in the digital age" to "students and youth founded to advance cultural participation"

e-star:skyfaller: that's why we have technology

Differance: copyright, patent and information technology policy?

gavinbaker: (are we close to consensus or should we come back to this later?)

peabo: barbie is a trade dress issue, isn't it?you make something that looks like a barbie doll, people think it is associated with Mattell(?)

mecredis:peabo: not really, trade dress applies to restaurant wear / etc

mecredis: is my understanding

mecredis: but this is OT

gavinbaker:peabo: Mattell's claims were TM claims

mecredis: how about adding a sub thing

mecredis: to say

mecredis: "4. Advocate for reform in the realm of copyright, patent and trademark law."

e-star: gavinbaker: and copyright claims IIRC

gavinbaker: hey, does "policy" (of whatever sort) include everything? is supporting FOSS + free content really "policy"?

e-star: we def need technology policy in there as well

Differance: defend the public interest in information policy

skyfaller: sure, tech policy too

e-star: i.e. net neutrality, etc

mecredis: ok

gavinbaker: hey guys, IT = info + tech... you get both in one!

mllerustad: gavinbaker: Yeah, that's more "cultural"..

Differance: defend the public interest in information and communications policy

mecredis: it sounds like technology and information policy works

mecredis: that's as close to consensus as we've gotten

peabo: yes, because technology is being used as an instrument to make culture non-free (e.g., defeating fair use)

mecredis: I think we need to run with it

skyfaller: ok, so information and technology

mllerustad: mecredis: Agreed. We'll go with that for now.

price: can you say what "information policy" means?

skyfaller: now gavin was questioning "policy"?

price: I still can't

Differance: policy that affect our use of information

mecredis: I'd say it refers to the CPT trifecta

e-star: yeah, it's still unclear, and it's true that we do deal with quite a bit of copyright

price: ok; then let's say that.

skyfaller:price: it's "intellectual property" except we can't actually use that phrase ;-)

e-star:price: agreed

gavinbaker:price: both IPac and PK use "info. policy"

e-star: mecredis: okay, then put a footnote

e-star: it's admittedly not all that accepted

mllerustad: Well, it's the CPT trifecta, along with any other rights people might want to impose.

price: e-star: parenthetical, maybe

mecredis: e-star: defining information policy?

mllerustad: Broadcaster's rights, database rights...

e-star: mecredis: yes

mecredis: mllerustad: right

mllerustad: We'd have something to say about those...

Differance: it's all information

gavinbaker: can anyone tell me why "IT policy + IP policy" isn't what we want? e-star, mecredis ?

mllerustad: So it should be general enough to include those.

e-star: gavinbaker: IP standing for what?

Differance: we got these digital machines, see, and a dynamic Internet, see . . .

mecredis: gavinbaker: what do you mean by IP

gavinbaker: IT = information technology, IP = intellectual property

e-star: gavinbaker: b/c we don't like the use of the word property

mecredis: gavinbaker: intellectual property will not be used at all

gavinbaker: mecredis: wtf, it's an area of law

christo_ph: does anyone have language from their school club charters/constitutions/bylaws that might be useful?

gavinbaker: we can't just change the english language because it doesn't suit our purposes

mecredis: gavinbaker: I'm not sure what benefit we garner from this

Differance: But WIPO can . . .

gavinbaker: christo_pher: see the mission statement in the sidebar at uf.freeculture.org

skyfaller: gavinbaker: yes we can, but nobody will know what we are talking about

paulproteu: Correct me if I'm wrong, but "IP" doesn't exist in law, only (C), patent, trademark, and other separate fields.e-star?

gavinbaker: skyfaller++

mecredis: paulproteus: I agree

price:skyfaller: they will if we're clear

gavinbaker: paulproteus: it exists in law schools

e-star: paulproteus: exactly

gavinbaker: (which is where lawyers come from)

Differance: paulproteus: you are right, it's not in the copyright statutes, only came into vogue since 1980

price: that's why we say "copyright and patent" or "copyright, patent, and trademark"

paulproteu: So do Milky Way candy bars and beer bottles re: "it exists in law schools".

Differance: yes, lots of professors these days say it

mecredis: plus

gavinbaker:price: what about database rights, broadcast treaty, sui generis rights...?

gavinbaker: they're all IPRs

mecredis: we gain nothing by implicitly agreeing that intellectual property does exist

mllerustad: moral rights...

gavinbaker: mecredis: it exists

gavinbaker: whether it's like real property or not is the question

e-star: guys, please, let's make a decision and move on

price: so we name the major areas as examples

mecredis: gavinbaker: here we totally disagree.

gavinbaker: not whether it exists

mllerustad: "exclusive rights"?

skyfaller: OK, information policy

mllerustad: Americans might not use it, but the rest of the world does...

peabo: I still like the idea of spelling it out as a description of purpose rather than using noun phrases which people are free to disagree about as to their meaning

gavinbaker: they're property rights applied to non-real property, generated by the mind. intellectual property rights...

skyfaller: can we just do information policy + technology policy?

christo_ph: i agree with peabo

Differance: mllerustad: when we write law, we use "exclusive rights"

price: it may be time for a vote.

mecredis:skyfaller: I'm happy with that

Differance: we don't write law that says iIP

gavinbaker:skyfaller: can we make it information technology policy to be more specific?

gavinbaker: so we're not talking about biotech or something

price: gavinbaker: why shouldn't we be?

gavinbaker: or private aviation

mllerustad: gavinbaker: What if we want to work w/ UAEM or soemthing?

skyfaller: gavinbaker: what if we want to cover biotech?we shouldn't limit

Differance: biotech is attempting to appropriate biology as information

price: gavinbaker: pharma patents are quite relevant

gavinbaker: Differance: then it falls under "info policy"

mecredis: OK, here we either

mecredis: vote

gavinbaker: (this is why i wanted to say IPRs, that includes patents)

mecredis: or we use the consensus that has appeared

skyfaller: OK, "information policy and technology policy"

Differance: I say "information policy" == policy that affects our use of information

skyfaller: and the overlap of the two

gavinbaker: "technology" is super vague... anthropologists consider hand tools to be "technology"

gavinbaker: we're not talking about power tools guys

Differance: information policy or information technology policy

gavinbaker: Differance++

skyfaller: but the right to use power tools as we want might be relevant

gavinbaker:skyfaller: only if it falls under info policy!

gavinbaker: otherwise why would we care?

mecredis: information technology policy works

gavinbaker: let's not be so hypothetical

gavinbaker: and deal with what we already do & have done

skyfaller: ok

mllerustad: Okay.

mllerustad: ITP.

skyfaller: works for me

mecredis: e-star: ?

mecredis:price: ?>

peabo: the consitution says "to promote progress in the arts and sciences" not "to implement copyright and patent policy"; it is a crisp and general statement of purpose

e-star: i'd still like copyright in there somewhre

e-star: b/c we do deal with it a LOT

price: let's take a vote

e-star: but in the interest of moving on, i'm able to live w/o it

mecredis:price: what are we voting on?

price: one proposal can be "information and technology policy"

Differance: let's list 20 options, vote one by one :-)

price: (or whatever you want)

poningru: err I dont like this voting thing

skyfaller: no, voting is dumb

price: another can be, say, "copyright, patent, and technology policy"

mecredis: let's vote to vote

Differance: that was a joke

gavinbaker: lulz @ voting

poningru: if we vote consensus hasnt been established

price: what, you'd rather just

price: sorry

price: well, consensus hasn't been established

christo_ph: there isn't consensus, but we need to move on, i'd think

skyfaller: consensus is the only way to proceed when we don't know who is qualified to vote or why

gavinbaker prefers democracy to consensus, but he's in the minority, and there's no consensus!

e-star: also, copyright isn't always IT policy

gavinbaker: is there consensus around info policy + IT policy? seems like everybody accepted that

Differance: information policy

poningru: I like the copyright, patent, and tech policy thing

price: so we can either pretend consensus based on a couple of people saying "move on"

gavinbaker: e-star: it's always info policy

christo_ph:skyfaller: that presupposed that consensus can be reached given a limited amount of time

poningru: ooh yeah

mecredis: can we add copyright as #4?

christo_ph: *s

e-star: how about information and technology policy, including copyrights and patents

poningru: tech and info policy

price: or we can actually find out who wants what

skyfaller: e-star: sure

mecredis: e-star: that works

price: ==e-star

skyfaller: citing examples is fine

Differance: face it, we're in the situation we're in because we've all got tools to muck with information -- information policy

e-star: good

e-star: let's move on :D

mecredis: OK

Differance: sorry -- ws typing, not reading

mecredis: edit it!

mllerustad: I &TP, inc. (c) and P.

mllerustad: Gotcha.

gavinbaker: i prefer "information technology" to just "technology", but i won't hold up the consensus

mllerustad: What's next?

mecredis: chapter membership...

mecredis: so the issue is

mecredis: how strict o make the requirements

mecredis: for being a chapter

mecredis: setting the bar low or high

gavinbaker: mecredis: i'm fine with the requirements in the bylaws

mecredis: me too

gavinbaker: you're a student and you say you want to make a chapter. you're in

mecredis: they're relatively uncontroversial

gavinbaker: i'm afraid we'll artificially exclude people otherwise

gavinbaker: is the person who objected in the comments here?

gavinbaker: or anybody else who objects?

gavinbaker: or can we accept the bylaws version as kosher?

mecredis: ...article 3 is down for the count

mecredis: OK

mecredis: moving on

christo_ph: i definitely don't agree

mecredis: oh

gavinbaker: christo_pher: type faster! ;)

e-star: christo_pher: do tell

christo_ph: we're referring to chapter membership, not regular membership, yes?

e-star: this is moving ahead a bit, but for elections, should we just let any chapter that has one person that sent an email once vote?

gavinbaker: christo_pher: the only "membership" is chapter membership, in the current bylaws

e-star: christo_pher: yes, and i agree that we should allow non-chapter members

e-star: such as paulproteus

gavinbaker: e-star: can you propose another solution?

mllerustad: e-star: We'll get there when we cover elections.

gavinbaker: mllerustad, right.

e-star: mllerustad: k

e-star: we could have requirements

christo_ph: i think there should be a minimum requirement for being a chapter if we're having chapters voting for board membership

e-star: as a "volunteer" member

paulproteu: I'm perfectly willing to serve a student organization but not be a member, by the way.Never having been part of a chapter I've always been okay with that.

e-star: a la attending several volunteer meetings and having worked on at least one project

Differance: I'm generally a proponent of open membership, but doing that requires a very different way of doing things, you guys are not heading that way . . .

e-star: and being on the volunteers list

christo_ph: and approval of chapters should be handled by the board, perhaps reviewed by the ED/F

mllerustad: e-star: Gavin's core-team proposal would allow people who aren't in chapters to participate.

e-star: are people willing to accept membership outside of chapters?

mecredis: Differance: this is all in preparation of getting FC.org set up as a 501c3

gavinbaker: e-star: why would we do this?

mllerustad: e-star: And non-members can be on the board, etc., given certain circumstances.

Differance: Well, membership isn't required for corporation

gavinbaker: e-star: everyone can participate, they just can't vote unless they're a chapter

Differance: it's just one thing you specify

gavinbaker: i think we want to be a chapter-based organization

gavinbaker: stay grassroots-based

e-star: gavinbaker: fine, but i think there should be some recognition

e-star: perhaps not even voting rights

christo_ph: a member-based organization could still be grassroots-baed

christo_ph: *based

mllerustad: e-star: Core Team participation? The board?

mllerustad: There are opportunities, once we get far enough in the bylaws to talk about them :)

christo_ph: there isn't an inherent property within being chapter-ie

e-star: mllerustad: yes, core team participation could work

gavinbaker: e-star: keep in mind that being a "chapter" only requires filling out a form

e-star: gavinbaker: if we agree on that ;)

gavinbaker: and you don't even have to list yourself as "active", in the new system

mllerustad: gavinbaker: Well, and the ax-murderer filter.

gavinbaker looks around awkwardy, hides axe

skyfaller: well, currently the requirements for being a chapter are (1) we have your contact info, (2) you're sane and really support FC, (3) you're seriously interested in starting a chapter

paulproteu: gavinbaker, It's okay - you *are* the ax murderer in the ax murderer filter.

paulproteu: e-star, Being a chapter is not (necessarily) the same thing as voting, also, and we can analyze who can vote when we get there in the bylaws, I'd say.

Differance: ?whois axmurdered

jibot: Nobody has defined axmurdered yet

gavinbaker: paulproteus: happy to be the man on the 'inside' ... just don't cross me

christo_ph: I think there needs to be two tiers

e-star:skyfaller: i'm fine with that for now, although it's important that people renew

e-star: paulproteus: agreed

skyfaller: e-star: yes, renewing is vital

Fear_of_C (n=nick@cpe-66-65-84-36.nyc.res.rr.com) has joined channel #freeculture

jibot: Fear_of_C is Nick from Swarthmore and organizing http://freeculture.org/blog/2007/01/20/free-culture-labs/

christo_ph: 1) you're interested and have filled out the required information

gavinbaker: given what paulproteus said, are we OK with chapter membership, and can move on to other aspects later?

christo_ph: 2) you've actually demonstrated involvement with the organization

paulproteu: christo_pher, That may be true; we're going to agree to call (1) "becoming a member chapter" and we may give (2) a name at a later point in this conversation.

gavinbaker: i.e. that "chapter membership" is not the only avenue for participation

gavinbaker: ( paulproteus, correct me if i'm paraphrasing you wrong )

paulproteu: gavinbaker, You're fine so far.

christo_ph: additionally, i think the current dues language should be replaced as gavin suggested

mllerustad: christo_pher: Agreed.

gavinbaker: christo_pher: given paulproteus's comments, are we OK with chapter membership? and we can move on to dues?

Signoff: parkerhiggins (Connection timed out)

e-star: agreed on dues

mecredis: yeah

mecredis: agreed on dues

Differance: i.e., no dues

skyfaller: so no dues, unless we have an amendment

christo_ph: sure, if there's interest in addressing general membership/voting later on

mecredis: yeah

e-star: k, next

mllerustad: christo_pher: Definitely... we're just going through things in the order they're listed in the bylaws :)

gavinbaker: mllerustad, what an oddly logical way to proceed ;)

mindspillage (n=kat@wikimedia/KatWalsh/x-0001) has joined channel #freeculture

Differance: ?jibot: axmurderer - Gavin Baker

christo_ph: i think it's difficult to address these piecemeal without having established general truths of operation of our organization, but whatever is quickest i'll bend to

e-star: oh yes

e-star: i'd like to make a proposal re: the use of national

e-star: i.e. that we don't use it when at all possible

skyfaller: heh

gavinbaker: e-star++

Differance: The word?

e-star: "Each chapter's liaison must also vote in national elections for the Organization as detailed in Article IV."

gavinbaker: "the Organization"

gavinbaker: is how we should refer to it

e-star: gavinbaker: agreed

mllerustad: e-star: Agreed... I was working on an RC that standardized language, e.g. "Organization", "chapter liaison", etc...

gavinbaker: (sorry if we're skipping around)

e-star: we're getting an increasing number of inquiries from people wanting to start chapters around the world

e-star: and i'm afraid of alienating people

mllerustad: Yeah.

gavinbaker: also, everyone has to apply for permits before having sex with each other

skyfaller: yeah, national should go

mllerustad: So, cut "national"?

Differance: hmm

e-star: plus, we'd of course welcome non-american board candidates, etc

gavinbaker: </injoke>

mllerustad: gavinbaker: :p

gavinbaker: "liaison permits"

e-star: actually i thought i'm not skipping

e-star: i thought this was the next section of the bylaws

gavinbaker: e-star: i don't know if we are, i was just apologizing in advance ;)

e-star: so we could say organization-wide elections

e-star: sorry, not as sexy

christo_ph: have we decided to leave article III, section 2, as it is?

mllerustad: e-star: Yeah, I see where you are.

mecredis: e-star: that's fine

mllerustad: christo_pher: I think so, though the question of 1.) if non-chapters can be members and 2.) who can vote is still open.

e-star: i think we're changing section 3 to gavin's wording

e-star: yes?

e-star: on dues

mllerustad: e-star: Agreed.

poningru: I wanna put in my liaison permit for ireland please

christo_ph: okay

mllerustad rejects poningru's liaison permit

poningru: NOOOOOOOOO

poningru: :(

Differance: you might want to keep open the idea of how the relationship with the chapters will function

gavinbaker: poningru, you can't screw an island, dude

e-star: guys cmon

e-star: please!

poningru: HA thats what they told king of england

mecredis: yeah

mecredis: let's get through this

poningru: ok.. ok.. sorry

e-star: so are we okay with taking out "national"

christo_ph: just to backtrack, i think the current proposed function to allow new chapters in (they sign up, are interviewed, are recommended for or against, are approved) is overly heavy

price: e-star: can we say out loud in the channel what language we're discussing?

mllerustad: e-star: Agreed.

e-star: and using the Organization

price: (ie on dues)

Differance: You're empowering a whole slew of orgs and the relationship is just a "liaison"

e-star:price: sure, i already pasted it

paulproteu: BTW, dudes, feel free to erase the topic of the channel and use it for the current section topic.

mllerustad: III. Section 3.

mliesenf (n=mliesenf@ip70-185-100-28.ga.at.cox.net) has joined channel #freeculture

e-star: yup

christo_ph: current language: "The Board of Directors shall have the authority to adopt membership dues by a majority vote. At the time of the adoption of these by-laws, there are no dues required for membership in the Organization." new language: "There shall be no payment or dues required for membership in the Organization."

e-star: all in favor?

mecredis: sounds good to me

Differance: You might want to make it a relationship "according to the current policy"

gavinbaker: +1

mllerustad: Arrrr.

Differance: I'm behind

christo_ph: sounds fine

price: +1

skyfaller: +!

e-star: +

e-star: good

e-star: now, III sec 4

e-star: i propose that we remove the word "national"

e-star: from this section and throughout the doc

mecredis: e-star: I AGREE

mecredis: arg, caps

Fear_of_C: agreed

skyfaller has set the topic on channel #freeculture to http://wiki.freeculture.org/Bylaws#Section_4._Chapter_Responsibilities

gavinbaker: other than fixing the language per e-star, i'm fine with III sec 4

mllerustad: ++

e-star: actually, elections for the Organization is fine

skyfaller: OK, strike "national" everywhere

e-star: good, who is making these changes btw?

mllerustad: e-star: It says "national" elections... That will be fixed.

mecredis: yeah

mecredis: are these actually being implemented?

mecredis: haha

mecredis: is someone going to have to go through this log in a bit to do this?

e-star: right, i mean is someone doing it as we speak?

christo_ph: I'd still like to see III. Section 2 cleared up, especially with regard to "an endorsement of the national organization's mission," and the current process of approval

skyfaller: we'll take minutes and someone will change it later

mecredis: ugh

mllerustad: Nelson is listing things people agree on changing/not changing, and I can put them together into an RC.

mecredis: I think it should be done now

gavinbaker: mecredis: i'll go through with a log, if someone provides me with a log ;)

e-star: ok

mllerustad: mecredis: We're "taking minutes" of each decision made.

skyfaller: OK, Gavin + Karen can take care of implementing it

mllerustad: In order to write this.

christo_ph: if there's not enough time to discuss that now, just let me know, and i'll shut up

mecredis: fine, as long as its being kept track of

e-star: christo_pher: yeah probably beset to move on

e-star: er, best

e-star: sorry can't type tonight ;)

christo_ph: okay

skyfaller: well, if someone isn't happy with something, maybe we shouldn't move on yet?

mllerustad: christo_pher: skyfaller and others could discuss how the current "axe-murderer filter" works... but preferably later.

mecredis: yes lets move on

price: it'd be better to keep track of it in public, though

gavinbaker: price++ | for being eminently reasonable throughout the meeting

skyfaller: christo_pher: so do you have an actual objection, or are you just asking for details?

mllerustad: gavinbaker: We should give out reasonability trophies at the end of the night.

e-star: section 5?

Differance: and axes

mecredis: I wanted to add something

price: like RESOLUTION: III.3 should be amended as christo_pher said at 18:17

price: or any other form

e-star: i know some people had issues with the lack of appeals process in 5.3

price: (gavinbaker: thanks)

mecredis: 5.3?

e-star: yes, Removal for Cause

gavinbaker: oh, right. why's there no appeals process?

skyfaller:price: I'm taking minutes, I just haven't had the opportunity to put them on the wiki yet... it's hard to take minutes and participate :/

mecredis: ooh, oops

price:skyfaller: do it in the irc?

mecredis: was looking at the rong spot

skyfaller:price: ok, sure

price: with some conspicuous keyword, perhaps

mllerustad: I guess one question I had was, what does it mean to permanently kick out a chapter?

christo_ph:skyfaller: i have an objection and, yesterday, submitted the objection as, "It should be very easy to receive the support of our national organization, but for the sake of voting and full exploitation of chapter membership, we should establish basic requirements for full membership. Prospective chapters should exist as soon as we have their information. Further, as soon as they have established themselves (something we shou

price: RESOLUTION: Article II: "to defend the public interest in information and technology policy, including copyrights and patents"

mllerustad: Does that mean just the current leaders of the chapter won't be recognized?

e-star: also, all of section 5 depends on having an ED, EF. etc. this will come a bit later, but we need to think how this would work w/o an ED, especially in the short term

mllerustad: Or we can't ever have a chapter at that school again?

Fear_of_C: who is allowed to make a "complaint"?

price: RESOLUTION: strike "national" everywhere

skyfaller: christo_pher: your statement got cut off... link us to it on the wiki

price: I think that may be it for decisions taken so far, besides to let things be

christo_ph: I understand that the voting rights can be handled later, but I am still convinced that the current process of review by someone appointed by the ED/F, then review by the ED/F is silly

mllerustad:price: Also, no dues.

price: mllerustad: yeah, that was the first one I wrote. 18:22.

mllerustad:price: Oh, sorry.

mllerustad scrolls up

gavinbaker: christo_pher: it's not the best process, i agree

christo_ph: also, this doesn't actually makes sense: T"he chapter must then register with the national organization through a method established by the Board of Directors. This process includes submitting a form containing complete contact information for the official liaison, information regarding the chapter's current membership and status and an endorsement of the national organization's mission"

gavinbaker: in reality i don't think it would ever matter, christo_pher (re: chapter reg) ... but it's kinda silly in theory

gavinbaker: christo_pher: i think that part makes sense, actually. what don't you concur with?

e-star: does the form include a checkbox for endorsement of the mission?

christo_ph: it's not a matter of agreement, does it seek to set a minimum standard for registration while reserving the right of the Board of Directors to change that?

christo_ph: also, what is the mission? is that the mission statement? is it article II?

mllerustad: christo_pher: It says that the Board can specify how this carried out, but we're making these requirements of what will take place.

gavinbaker: e-star: the new form doesn't include a checkbox, yet, but i don't know if we have a "mission statement" yet either

christo_ph: or does it give an example of what a method established by the Board of Directors might look like?

mllerustad: It doesn't matter if the form's on paper or online, but it will have contact info on it.

christo_ph: so the method is the medium of submitting that information?

e-star: k, guys, if we can agree on the general process, the details of the form can be discussed later

christo_ph: "this process" is equated with "a method"

christo_ph: if they aren't the same, it should be reflected in the Bylaws

christo_ph: if they are the same, one should be removed or the process clarified as an example

mllerustad: christo_pher: The previous sentence specifically says "method".

christo_ph: right, and the following one says "This process"

mllerustad: "Process" refers to "registration."

e-star: christo_pher: would you like to propose an alternative wording?

christo_ph: which process?

Differance: I think it's saying the total method is indeterminate and TBD by the Board, and includes the process with submitting a form

mllerustad: Would "The process of registering" be clearer?

christo_ph: this process represents the noun phrase of "the method," which is why i'm terribly confused

christo_ph: i don't think arguing the wording is necessary, just the principle of what that means

christo_ph: does it mean that we want the board deciding the process of registration?

Differance: I think so

mllerustad: christo_pher: The method and the process are not the same.

christo_ph: we can sort that out later

mllerustad: Method (which the board decides) is online v. paper v. whatever.

Differance: I think it says only that whatever the total method is, the process includes . . .

mllerustad: (Django v. TurboGears v. PHP)

christo_ph: mllerustad: right, i know that, which means the Bylaws should be updated to reflect that if that's our principle

e-star: can we move on to section 5?

mllerustad: Process is the information/hoops to jump through.

e-star: we have a LOT more ground to cover

mllerustad: christo_pher: What did you think of my proposed verbage edit?

mecredis: yeah

mllerustad: i.e. "The process of registering"

mecredis: e-star: agreed

mllerustad: instead of just "process"

mllerustad: ?

christo_ph: mllerustad: I think that would be fine, along with changing "this process" to "the process"

mllerustad: christo_pher: Okay, cool beans.

mllerustad: Moving on.

e-star: okay i'm fine w/ that

skyfaller: yay resolution!

mecredis: yeah

e-star: section 5, Termination of Chapters

gavinbaker: RESOLVED: (FIXME)

mecredis: OK

christo_ph: but have we decided that we want the EF/ED sending someone to interview the chapter, and then that report being made to the EF/ED, who has the sole responsibility of approving chapters?

price: can someone write in one place the change that was just approved?

mllerustad: christo_pher: They don't have sole responsibility. They make recommendations to the Board, who decides.

christo_ph: this was something we spoke about for at least 30 minutes on the friday before the conference, and haven't addressed here at all

price: (just so it's clear)

skyfaller:price: RESOLUTION:"this process" => "the process of registering"

christo_ph: mllerustad: right now they make the recommendation to the ED who approves it

price:skyfaller: excellent, thanks

christo_ph: mllerustad: what you suggested is what i'd like to see there instead

mecredis: OK

mecredis: so what are the issues

mecredis: with section 5

mllerustad: christo_pher: I think that's what we intended, but we can make the verbage clearer.

mllerustad: mecredis: Making it explicit that it's the board that approves chapters.

mecredis: right

e-star: guys, again, we need something in place for when there's no ED/F

e-star: but i guess that comes later

mllerustad: Oh, d'oh, that's back in III.2.

skyfaller: e-star: I think that we need to have an ED/F, even if we can't pay them

christo_ph: mllerustad: that's not what was intended previously, it was argued that the ED should have that responsibility, and right now it says: "present their recommendations to the Executive Director for approval."

mllerustad: christo_pher: Oh, and also I can't read.

mllerustad: Sorry.

skyfaller: e-star: so I think saying "what if we don't have an ED/F" is like asking "what if we don't have a board?"

mllerustad wrote these a year ago...

christo_ph: mllerustad: I wasn't trying to insult you by re-pasting that, just trying to clarify what we were talking about.

mllerustad: christo_pher: No, it's cool.

gavinbaker: skyfaller++

christo_ph: mllerustad: was your intention in writing that to have the board have the responsibility?

christo_ph: if so, let's just update that

christo_ph: and that'll provide a means for approving chapters if we do not have an ED/EF

Differance: Consider having the Board appoint an empowered team with plenipotentiary power

gavinbaker: i don't want to have every new chapter go through the board

gavinbaker: the board shouldn't be meeting any more frequently than ~once a month

e-star:skyfaller: okay, but i don't think we can realistically have one w/o paying them

gavinbaker: and we need to approve chapters more frequently than that

mecredis: gavinbaker: agreed

Differance: Runs things, makes real decisions, no problem, until some formal process of Board injunction

christo_ph: gavinbaker: my suggestion is that each new chapter is automatically approved once given a sanity check, and that the board reviews them whenever it meets

mecredis: who's really going to bother a chapter registration system?

christo_ph: reviews new ones

e-star: yes guys, let's specify that the board can approve chapters via their email list

gavinbaker: christo_pher: ok. practically, what's the difference from the current system?

e-star: or something

mecredis: eyah

christo_ph: gavinbaker: right now the board doesn't ever review them

e-star: so it doesn't have to be at the once-a-semeter meeting

mecredis: when would we say no?

skyfaller: e-star: well, I've served as ED/EF in the past basically, so it's not impossible, but generally I agree with you, so funding an ED/F should be a high priority

gavinbaker: mecredis: then why do we need this extra measure?

christo_ph: gavinbaker: the board also can definitely approve these without having a full meeting, we do have irc and mailing lists available

skyfaller: but let's argue about one thing at a time

mecredis: gavinbaker: that's my question

e-star:skyfaller: i still like coordinator :)

Differance: me too

e-star:skyfaller: also, the org was smaller then and i don't think you got much sleep :p

christo_ph: gavinbaker: plus, in the future if we decide to have a two-tiered chapter system, having initial approval (for access to digital resources) and then voting approval by the board makes sense

Differance: with plenipotentiary power!:-)

Differance: Set up an extraordinary process for the board to intervene

Differance: :-) Or not.

mllerustad: So right now are we arguing about:

mllerustad: 1.) The ED title/etc.?

price: ==christo_pher

mllerustad: 2.) Whether new chapters should be finally approved by the board?

e-star: yes, but that is supposed to come later

mllerustad: 3.) Or voting tiers for chapters?

e-star: yes

gavinbaker: ok, so 1 comes later, 3 comes later

mllerustad: 2 is right now?

mllerustad: Okay.

mllerustad: Good.

gavinbaker: 2... i don't really care... but i don't see the problem

mllerustad: Does anyone have any objections to making it so the board gets final approval of new chapters?

gavinbaker: these won't be perfect bylaws, i'm sorry to say. but we need something that will keep the ship afloat until we can perfect them

mllerustad: (III.2) btw

christo_ph: I would strike "An officer designated by the Executive Director will then interview the chapter contact and present their recommendations to the Executive Director for approval." and replace it with "Chapters will be temporarily approved upon fulfilling all requirements until fully approved by the Board of Directors, " or something similar to that

skyfaller has set the topic on channel #freeculture to http://wiki.freeculture.org/Bylaws#Section_2._Becoming_a_Chapter

mllerustad: christo_pher: Okay.

mecredis: christo_pher: that sounds good

e-star: how about

skyfaller: what does that mean?

mliesenf has left channel #freeculture ("Leaving")

Signoff: mark007 (Connection timed out)

christo_ph: fully can be swapped for "officially"

mllerustad:skyfaller: It means we have the EF interview, if they're cool we can send them swag or whatever, until the board gets around to approving them officially.

christo_ph: and under voting, if we decide this is a concern, we can always distinguish between temporary chapters and official chapters

e-star: okay, i'm fine w/ that

christo_ph: but we can never address that if we don't want to

skyfaller: so they can e.g. have webspace from us without being a full chapter?

christo_ph: right

skyfaller: that seems odd

mllerustad: Why not?

e-star: also can we specify that the board doesn't have to hold a mtg to approve?

mllerustad: Fast turnaround, and if it turns out they're wacked out, the board has the power to kick them out.

e-star: as in, it can be done via their email list?

mllerustad: e-star: Sure.

christo_ph: that should be later on, under IV. 1, i'd think, but i don't mind it being there

e-star: so as to not take a semester to become officially approved!

e-star: ok, either way

peabo: I think e-mail consensus is a very practical solution

skyfaller: but I don't see how we can give chapters stuff before we decide that they're chapters

skyfaller: and they need stuff quickly for organizing purposes

mllerustad:skyfaller: Either way, it's one person deciding to give them swag.

e-star:skyfaller: under my proposal, the approval can happy very quickly

e-star: happen

e-star: haha

skyfaller: but it's not just swag, it's stuff like webspace

mllerustad: (slash webspace)

mllerustad: (etc)

mllerustad: So?

gavinbaker:skyfaller: i don't see a big problem.

mllerustad: It would be the EF under the current system anyway, making the same decision.

christo_ph: right

gavinbaker won't hold up consensus here, although he still doesn't really see the problem

Differance: So is the privilege of member ship -- swag?

mllerustad: All this does is add another step to be "official."

christo_ph: and now it's not bottle-knecked on a deputy of the EF

skyfaller: and being mentioned on our site so that other people can find them...

skyfaller: I mean, if we're giving them webspace that implies that we support them

e-star: we could try to specify an amount of time

skyfaller: if they're wacked out, we should know that already

skyfaller: before we help them

Differance:skyfaller: okay that's something

mllerustad:skyfaller: If they're wacked out, the EF would have made them full chapters under the current system anyway!

e-star: a notice of acceptance will be provided within 7 days of registration

mllerustad: Because it would only be their decision.

christo_ph: so you're saying that it's not that we're approving them too slowly, that it's too quick?

mllerustad: And the board would have to reverse it in those circumstances as well!

e-star: or of the decision, etc

skyfaller: I'm confused

gavinbaker:skyfaller: apparently ;)

christo_ph:skyfaller: as suggested with the revision, there's still a sanity check taking place

gavinbaker: this still has to go thru the Facilitator for the crazy check

gavinbaker: there's just another level, the Board

gavinbaker: so it's not 100% in the Facilitator's hands.. is that right, christo_pher ?

Differance: Why a sanity check before getting stuff?

christo_ph: right

Differance: There is another option

gavinbaker: and the Facilitator gives them "interim" approval

Differance: You can have protocol

mllerustad: Differance: That's what the interview is for.

Differance: and their participation is just following whatever the protocol is for whatever action you're doing

Differance: So let the freaks in

Differance: they're just not with it if they're not following protocol

gavinbaker: Differance: but that requires us to set protocol in advance

Differance: for each action

skyfaller: OK, I need to start over because I've been arguing with Karen and she confused me more ;-)

gavinbaker: and we have a lot else to figure out right now ;)

Differance: yup

e-star: guys, does anyone agree it is good to set a timeframe for chapter approval?

Differance: not bylaws

e-star: as in, 7 days or so, via email?

mllerustad: Differance: Protocol is inflexible.. if it were to be set, it wouldn't be in the bylaws.

e-star: if not, it could drag on

mecredis: e-star: yeah

skyfaller: so let's get clear on the current way and how it's different from the proposed way

gavinbaker: e-star: if there's no practical difference between "interim" approval and "official" approval, i don't think it matters much

Fear_of_C: e-star: I agree

mecredis:how about we have 7 days to say "no"

mecredis: otherwise its automatic

contra (n=blm@pool-141-150-249-136.pskn.east.verizon.net) has joined channel #freeculture

jibot: contra is Ben from Swarthmore

mecredis: because we don't want to hold them up

Differance: I say empower the ED/F and chapters to set up their own protocols

christo_ph: mecredis: i think that's a good default

mecredis: if there's no contest and people are too lazy to get around to approving

mllerustad: mecredis: I'd be cool with that, christo_pher ? skyfaller ?

Fear_of_C: mecredis: seems good

gavinbaker: mecredis: so it's like a veto in FL. the gov doesn't have to sign a bill, but if he doesn't veto it, it becomes law ;)

mecredis:OK

skyfaller: I still don't understand the proposal

Differance: The Board intervenes as needed

mecredis: Differance: indeed

mecredis:skyfaller: basically all chapters get approved

mecredis: and we have 7 days

mecredis: to say no

e-star: ok

e-star: i'm fine w/ that

skyfaller: OK, that's fine

mecredis: OK

e-star: WOO

mllerustad: yay, agreement!

skyfaller: there probably should be some official way for the board to hear about new chapters

mecredis: someone say resolution

skyfaller: but I guess that probably doesn't need to be in the bylaws

mecredis: maybe paulproteus can build that is

mllerustad: RESOLUTION: Board gets seven days to say no to new chapters (III.2).

mecredis: e.g. fwd to board@freeculture.org

peabo: is the Board able to make any decision by e-mail consensus, or just some specifically enumerated things like approvals?

mllerustad:peabo: I don't see why not, if they can get enough approvals via email to get the majority/supermajority necessary

contra: are there minutes up somewhere?

mllerustad: (which may be hard, since people hate email)

mllerustad: (hence, we have meetings.)

paulproteu: (I'm going afk for a bit, feel free to decide on the new international atomic energy rules while I'm gone.)

mllerustad: RESOLUTION: Nuke everything!!

christo_ph: mecredis: right, an email goes out, people reply with "yes" "no" or a concern, and then if there's a majority either way, it gets approved or denied

mecredis: yeah

mecredis: but otherwise it just marches on

christo_ph: otherwise,

christo_ph: yes

e-star: sounds good

gavinbaker: resolved, w00t

e-star: now, moving on

e-star: section 5!

mecredis: phew

mllerustad: Okay, should we go back to III.5.3?

mllerustad: (ie chapter nuking)

skyfaller: contra: not yet, I'm taking minutes though

e-star: yes

christo_ph: sure

mllerustad: I gave some questions earlier that I would like answered...

gavinbaker: mllerustad++

gavinbaker: why don't we have an appeals process there, at least?

mllerustad: When we "permanently" kick out a chapter, does that just mean as long as the current leadership is in charge, or that we can never have a chapter at that school again?

e-star: gavinbaker: agreed

christo_ph: i think we kick out that entity, not that school

gavinbaker: and can we clarify the reasons for kicking a chapter out or suspending them, at least to the standard "misfeasance malfeasance or nonfeasance"?

e-star: mllerustad: also a good point

christo_ph: gavinbaker++

e-star: yes, we should clarify the reason

e-star: and allow an appeal

mecredis: hrm

mecredis: what about just removing them from our page

mecredis: I mean it's stupid to suspsend

Differance: I think you should say the (what are very minimal) consequences: removal from the site

mecredis: most of it is going to be lazy

christo_ph: i think that suspension is when they're just removed from our page

mecredis: yeah

e-star: mecredis: could there be legal reasons though?

e-star: heh

mecredis: e-star: or astroturf zombie chapters

e-star: it all depends on whether we want to incorporate

mecredis: ala JMU

e-star: haha

mllerustad: Differance: Unfortunately, that depends on what we become capable of doing.

christo_ph: it might become useful to say "NYU FC" isn't a member of our organization

mecredis: yeah, indeed

mllerustad: Differance: i.e., if we had the capacity to fly people to our national conference, we wouldn't fly people we kicked out.

mecredis: NYU kind of wants that

Differance: mller: Ithink that removal from membership is relatively meaningless right now

mecredis: it's always been useful to say that we're merely a chapter rather than an offical arm

e-star: mecredis: ??

mllerustad: Differance: True.

mllerustad: Just saying, the future could be different.

Differance: I think it might not even be a matter of membership as such

e-star: let's just add an appeals chapter

e-star: and a requirement of a reason given

e-star: oops

e-star: i mean

e-star: appeals process

e-star: sigh..1am

e-star: i agree that we probably won't use this

e-star: so unless we want to strike it

e-star: let's fix it

mllerustad: Okay, so let's write an appeals process.

contra: is the wiki being updated as you change things?

gavinbaker: e-star++ | we need an appeals process

mllerustad: Would we delay that, say a year for things to cool down?

gavinbaker: it's be nice if we could clarify the "cause" for removal / suspension, too

mllerustad: contra: No, it's static for now... the page is protected.

Differance: I personally have no problems with no appeal, but I tend to just think of "in" or "out" as whether you're playing your role

gavinbaker: contra: it'd get out of hand otherwise ;)

Differance: Just to keep in mind -- you folks are making a whole lot out of membership and it's not terribly important

e-star: perhaps

gavinbaker: if somebody registers a chapter and then goes and does crazy stuff (like threatens to blow up the white house or something), we want to be able ti distance ourselves from them quickly

gavinbaker: that's the main reason to have this section at all

e-star: so what should the appeals process be?

Differance: Yes, you take them off your site

mecredis: just write a paragraph

mecredis: about why you think you deserve it

mecredis: and send it to the board

mecredis: we'll decide and have final say

e-star: and send it to the board for reconsideration?

gavinbaker: mecredis: and the board has to respond within a certain period

mecredis: don't think it should be more complex than that

mecredis: yeah

christo_ph: agreed

e-star: ok, 7 days?

mecredis: sure

gavinbaker: e-star, maybe 14

e-star: okay, 14 is fine

mecredis: whatever is fine with me

mecredis: yeah

mecredis: 14

gavinbaker: especially if they need to talk to the chapter again or something

mecredis: resolved

e-star: all in favor?

gavinbaker: +1

christo_ph: +

Fear_of_C: how about just letting the chapter re-apply for admission?

Fear_of_C: I don't see how this is really any different?

mecredis: that + write the little paragraph

Differance: I see that as useful

mecredis: (if the data has changed)

Differance: here's why: best is if you regard participation as playing your role

Fear_of_C: ok, agreed then

Differance: So "in" or "out" is objective

Differance: Application for reentry is consistent with that

Fear_of_C: also, it should be taken into account if the chapter is not the same people that were kicked

Fear_of_C: like if a certain university were ejected, but then they graduated and new people attempted to join

Fear_of_C: under the same name

mllerustad:Fear_of_C: We can give that as an example of circumstances where appeals would be valid, sure.

mllerustad: So, what are we resolving exactly?

mllerustad is taking minutes because skyfaller's tired of it ;)

skyfaller: *silence descends on the channel*

gavinbaker: it seemed like we were awfully close to a resolution. is it resolved? can we move on?

christo_ph: that the appeals process is sending a paragraph to the board to consider, which they will within two weeks

Signoff: grahl_ (Client Quit)

skyfaller: wasn't the alternate suggestion that they just re-apply for entry, along with that paragraph?

ktetch: just from looking back at the last two hours of chat, it seems y'all are getting bogged down in minutae - set a basic setup, leave the details, but include a method for alteration, then fine-tune in practice

Differance: (I do that sometimes -- disregard me -- I am saying things that you might want to remember for reference)

skyfaller: or can those be reconciled / merged?

mllerustad: ktetch: It's bylaws. Of course we're arguing about minutia.

ktetch: are you creating, or modifying?

gavinbaker: well, we don't want to get too bogged down, because we need to finish tonight.

skyfaller: ktetch: creating :)

skyfaller: but we're modifying a draft

ktetch: then you don't bother with the minutae, just the basics, and see how the minutae plays out over the next few weeks of utilisation

mllerustad: Okay, so use the re-entry system, but also submit a paragraph, and the board *must* approve this time?

mllerustad: Do people agree on that as a system?

gavinbaker: mllerustad: wait, what? i thought they got auto-approved unless the board objects within 14 days

mllerustad: gavinbaker: In the normal entry thing, yes, only it's 7.

skyfaller: ktetch: unfortunately, we're having our chapters ratify the bylaws, and the current proposal is that the chapters have to approve future amendments... that's a heavy process

mllerustad: I think it makes sense that the board have a strong role int he re-entry of a previously whacked-out chapter...

skyfaller: ktetch: so it seems important to get it right the first time

mllerustad:skyfaller: c/right/mostly right

gavinbaker: mllerustad: i thought we settled on 14 for the normal case, but for the "re-entry" case, i think that requiring an ffirmative vote from the board makes sense, rather than "no objection = ok"

gavinbaker has set the topic on channel #freeculture to http://wiki.freeculture.org/Bylaws#Section_5._Termination_of_Chapter_Status

Fear_of_C: just one thing, does it say anywhere whether board transactions like this are publicly available?

mllerustad: gavinbaker: If I scroll up, I think we agreed on 7 days for the normal case...

mecredis: ok we need a RESOLUTION

Fear_of_C: because I can see chapters wanting to know about something like this

mllerustad: gavinbaker: (Though, I wrote the resolution that time.)

skyfaller: we decided on 7 days for the normal case, 14 days for the re-entry case

mecredis:Fear_of_C: I think this log will almost certainly be public

mecredis: and this isn't a board meeting

gavinbaker:skyfaller: what? that's backwards

Fear_of_C: mecredis: not this log

mecredis: this is a general meeting, etc.

Fear_of_C: board transactions in the future, such as kicking a member group

gavinbaker: it's 14 days for the normal case

gavinbaker: we never decided for re-rentry

mecredis: gavinbaker: that's not how we decided it

Fear_of_C: do the other chapters know whether someone has applied for and been denied re-entry?

e-star: now i'm a bit confused

gavinbaker is really confused, reads scrollback

e-star: heh

skyfaller: gavinbaker: that's definitely not what we decided, Gavin

christo_ph: gavinbaker: it's 7 days normally

mecredis:Fear_of_C:That's not so much the question

mllerustad: RESOLUTION: A removed chapter may appeal their removal by re-registering while sending a paragraph on why they should be re-added to the Board. The Board must decide whether to approve the chapter within 14 days.

mecredis: It's if a chapter goes defucnt / gets kicked out

christo_ph: i think 14 days is fine and we don't have to treat it under any other process, just add on an appeals process and let's move to Article IV

mecredis: mllerustad: thanks

mecredis: everyone: let's move on

gavinbaker is really confused, assumes everyone else is right and he's wrong, moves on

skyfaller: is everyone fine with mllerustad's resolution?

gavinbaker: mllerustad: only one question

gavinbaker: what if the board doesn't decide

gavinbaker: is the chapter back in or not

gavinbaker: (within 14 days)

skyfaller: wait, so a defunct chapter has to go through this too?what if they didn't even know about the previous chapter that died?

mecredis: What's the next section?

skyfaller: this happened with Brown recently

christo_ph: gavinbaker: i'd say it has to decide

Fear_of_C:skyfaller: I had that concern too

e-star: while sounds a bit weird

e-star: but yes

mecredis:skyfaller: it'd still be nice for them to get in contact with us

mecredis: we

e-star: by sending a paragraph

mecredis: we shouldn't let them ride on coat tails

mecredis: even if they're ragged

skyfaller: well, wait

christo_ph: a defunct chapter shouldn't go through the appeals process

gavinbaker: can we make a distinction b/w "removal for cause" and "died for lack of activity"?

christo_ph: that's suspension, not removal

skyfaller: why wouldn't they be treated the same way as a new chapter

e-star: the board must decide whether to rescind their removal within 14 days

gavinbaker: "died for lack of activity" shouldn't make it harder for other kids 2 years later

skyfaller: gavinbaker: agreed

mllerustad: Yeah, I agree with gavinbaker.

e-star: agreed

christo_ph: suspension happens if a chapter doesn't vote or keep their information up to date and is activated by updating information or voting, i'd imagine

skyfaller: this process is just for chapters that have done something bad and been suspended

skyfaller: erm

e-star:skyfaller: yup

Differance: Why is there a time limit on the rescincion (is that a word?)

mllerustad: If the leadership has changed, previous nonfeasance shouldn't be an obstacle.

gavinbaker: Differance: to make the board act quickly

gavinbaker: Differance: and give a timeline for a decision being made

Differance: You're gonna make them?:)

mllerustad: christo_pher: Yes, but going dormant is also cause for removal...

gavinbaker: Differance: with guns and ammo if necessary

Differance: The chapter might . . .

Fear_of_C: I mentioned earlier that I think if chapter is reconstructed from new people, it shouldn't be penalized for what a predecessor with the same name did earlier

skyfaller: OK, so defunct chapters shouldn't have to go through elevated review by the board

gavinbaker:Fear_of_C: that's eminently reasonable

mllerustad: So should that be part of the resolution?

Signoff: jli ("leaving")

e-star: RESOLUTION: A chapter removed for cause may appeal their removal by sending a paragraph on why they disagree with the removal to the Board. The Board must decide whether to rescind the removal within 14 days.

mllerustad: That if the chapter's leadership has had complete turnover, it can apply to be a chapter normally?

mllerustad: (also if it was kicked out for nonfeasance)

mecredis: sure

Fear_of_C: mllerustad: yeah

e-star: SPELLING: Section 5.4. Suspension

e-star: Independant of the power

gavinbaker: heh ;) /me looks @ skyfaller

e-star: wow, i can't even make edits!

skyfaller: lol

gavinbaker: RESOLVED: to run this whole thing through a spellchecker

mllerustad: +1

e-star: k

Fear_of_C: ++

jli (i=jli@gateway/tor/x-2dd037d65421053e) has joined channel #freeculture

mecredis: ok

mecredis: what's the next section?

poningru brings malfeasence charges against gavinbaker

poningru: he stole my beer

Fear_of_C: also, get several people to look over the final draft before ratification

Fear_of_C: don't want to have to ammend a grammatical ambiguity

Differance:jibot: gavinbaker = axe murder

Differance: :-)

skyfaller spellchecks Fear_of_C

poningru: w00t jibot is alive

mllerustad: RESOLVED: A chapter removed for cause may appeal their removal by sending a paragraph on why they disagree with the removal to the Board. The Board must decide whether to rescind the removal within 14 days.A chapter removed for nonfeasance whose leadership has experienced complete turnover may apply to join the Organization the same way as a new chapter.

gavinbaker: mllerustad: that's kosher by me

e-star: mllerustad: sounds good, although we may want to separate that into two parts

gavinbaker: e-star, agreed

e-star: mllerustad: because i think it's addressed in two different places, no?

mllerustad: e-star: yeah, I didn't want to risk screwing up paragraph breaks. :p

e-star: haha

e-star: k

e-star: okay, article iv

Cbrown1023 (n=HAL9090@wikimedia/Cbrown1023) has joined channel #freeculture

e-star: board of directors -- board elections

gavinbaker: everything under III sec 5 is OK?

e-star: gavinbaker: so it seems, others?

gavinbaker has set the topic on channel #freeculture to http://wiki.freeculture.org/Bylaws#Article_IV:_Officers_and_Elections

mecredis: s/RESOLUVED/RESOLUTION

e-star: oh hmm it looks like someone changed the bylaws

gavinbaker: IV 1.1, do we say how nominations are made?

e-star: from the copy i have locally

skyfaller: really?I don't see any edits...

christo_ph: the only change i see today was yours

gavinbaker: e-star: last change to text (other than yours re: spelling) was 2007-07-16 by skyfaller

e-star: heh

e-star: anyway, i propose "Current or former members of the organization may nominate someone to run for the board, in which case, the nominee must accept. A candidate may also nominate him- or herself to run."

e-star: or something like that

gavinbaker: s/nominee must accept/nominee must accept to be eligible

e-star: fine w/ me

mecredis: yeah

gavinbaker: e-star: what's a "member of the organization"?

mecredis: onwards

gavinbaker: we never say, we only have members of chapters

Signoff: klepas (Connection timed out)

e-star: ah yes, okay, of chapters

e-star: although what about the core issue?

gavinbaker: also, why should alumni be able to nominate?

gavinbaker: (no discrimination here)

e-star: gavinbaker: they can be on the board

e-star: gavinbaker: so i figured they should be able to nominate as well

gavinbaker: e-star: we could do it that way, but we don't have to

christo_ph: alumni will just have to attach themselves to a chapter how it is now

mllerustad: "Members of any chapter and current members of the board of directors can nominate themselves or other eligible individuals for board positions.

mllerustad: Members of the board of directors are elected by the liaisons of official chapters by plurality vote. Each chapter may cast one vote for each open seat. "

gavinbaker: i think christo_pher's point seems logical

e-star: yes, this is highly contentious

skyfaller: alumni can't vote directly, although they might be able to influence their alma mater chapters' votes

mllerustad: (was the verbage I wrote a while ago as a possible rewrite)

e-star: fine, but i still think alums should be able to nominate

christo_ph: if your chapter allows alumni as members, they're members

e-star: which is a different process from voting itself

e-star: if that makes sense

Fear_of_C: define elegible alumni: how long do you have to have been in a chapter to count?

Fear_of_C: and how long does that chapter have to have existed?

skyfaller: I think it should be simple

mindspillage is now known as brain|food

christo_ph:Fear_of_C: that's determined by the chapter, i think

skyfaller: chapters should nominate, just like they vote

e-star: also

Differance: Might it be best to start with IV 1.3 - duries and Powers?

Differance: Duties

Deaner_ (n=Deaner@12.178.120.187) has joined channel #freeculture

gavinbaker: i think skyfaller's suggestion is simplest, and so i like it

Signoff: Cbrown1023_away (Connection timed out)

Fear_of_C: i think I liked skyfaller's too

mllerustad: My version is basically skyfaller's, while also allowing current board members to nominate.

gavinbaker: mllerustad's is OK too, in my book

Fear_of_C: I have to run, unfortunately; be back as soon as I can

skyfaller: the Organization doesn't have members below the chapter level currently, chapters have human members and the chapters decide how their membership works

christo_ph: so each chapter can nominate a single member?

Fear_of_C has left channel #freeculture

e-star: i don't think chapters shouldnominate

mllerustad: Not in my verbage...

peabo:Fear_of_C: there is a complication of the alum was a member of a chapter which was replaced by a different chapter at the same school

e-star: the nomination process should be relatively open

mllerustad: You can nominate as many as you like.

gavinbaker:peabo: or replaced by no current chapter

e-star: to encourage as many people to run as possible

mecredis: eah

e-star: i think it should be members of chapters

e-star: and it can be anonymously

skyfaller: hm

e-star: too

mllerustad: e-star: Agreed.

e-star: in fact, it should be

christo_ph: that's what you suggested, skyfaller ?

mecredis: there should be no limit on who can be nominated

gavinbaker: e-star: why should nominations be anonymous?

mecredis: why shouldn't they be?

gavinbaker: the point of a nomination is an endorsement

mecredis: what's it matter?

gavinbaker: you want to know who's endorsing whom

mllerustad: gavinbaker: I don't think she said they HAD to be anonymous...

mecredis: that's taken care of as soon as the person votes

e-star: gavinbaker: not necessarily

skyfaller: hm... christo_pher, that isn't what I suggested, but I can agree with this proposal... minus anonymity!

gavinbaker: mecredis: i dunno, couple hundred years of parliamentary procedure do it this way

Deaner_: e-star: (unencrypt your IM)

e-star:Deaner_: it's your fault

gavinbaker: i don't see any reason to have more secrecy than necessary in this org

e-star: ha

mecredis: OK

mecredis: so we do it through the wiki

mecredis: have an account

mecredis: whatever

e-star: okay, well i definitely think we should allow others to nominate

skyfaller: I was proposing that chapters have to agree to nominate, but that seems bad because then someone in the minority at a chapter wouldn't be able to nominate

christo_ph: why even mess around with nomination?

mecredis: the point is there should be no limitations of nomninations

christo_ph: if you want to run, you do

e-star: the way we do on my journal

mecredis: christo_pher: good point

e-star: is that we allow anonymous email nominations

gavinbaker: christo_pher's point is easy, too

mllerustad: christo_pher: In this verbage, it's called nominating yourself.

skyfaller: OK

e-star: and then we send an email asking to confirm

Differance: Maybe the question is what are they being nominated for -- shouldn't you start with Duties and Powers?

mllerustad: This just makes it possible to publicly say that you nominate someone other than yourself, too.

gavinbaker: mllerustad: but then there's the question of who has the 'right' to nominate themselves

e-star:skyfaller: yes, i agree w/ that point

e-star: Differance: i'm going in order here

mllerustad: Differance: We'll get there.

e-star: i think it's important to allow people to nominate others

mllerustad: gavinbaker: Members of chapters and current board members.

Differance: I have no bone to pick on it -- just a suggestion for logic

Differance: carry on

e-star: perhaps the nominee could specify if they want to keep it anonymous or not?

e-star: er

e-star: sorry

skyfaller: no, no anonymity

e-star: others?

gavinbaker: can we just have any chapter member nominate any chapter member or alumni? non-anonymously?

Differance: And it they're selected, they can remain anonymous!

christo_ph: i don't mind anonymity, but also can't see this being an issue

Differance: The Unknown Board Member!

e-star: no no

e-star: i meant

e-star: the person nominating

paulproteu: e-star, Why do you want anonymity for nominations?I don't see what it achieves that requiring knowing who nominated a person doesn't serve.

skyfaller: paulproteus ++

gavinbaker: e-star: i think that was sarcasm from Differance.

e-star: paulproteus: it's just how we've done it for my journal and it seems to have worked

Differance: it was constructive silliness

e-star: but fine, i'm okay w/ having no anonymity

gavinbaker: Differance: or destructive silliness :)

e-star: as long as others can nominate

e-star: which i think is the most important part

skyfaller: OK, so nominations from any chapter member or member of the board

e-star: and self-nominating

e-star: as well

christo_ph: right

mllerustad: Okay.

skyfaller: right, *if* they are a chapter member or member of the board

gavinbaker: "any chapter member nominate any chapter member or alumni, non-anonymously; or any chapter member or alumni can self-nom"?

skyfaller: they can nominate themselves

e-star: okay, so what about an alumni?

mllerustad: The second part of my suggestion was "Members of the board of directors are elected by the liaisons of official chapters by plurality vote. Each chapter may cast one vote for each open seat. "

e-star: ha

gavinbaker: ^^ add in "current board member" to both halves

Signoff: cameronparkins ()

paulproteu: e-star, I guess alumni have to beg someone else to nominate them.

e-star: that seems a bit silly

e-star: no?

gavinbaker: i'm fine within having alumni be able to nominate themselves or others

gavinbaker: s/within/with

christo_ph: anyone can nominate anyone, including themselves

paulproteu: Alumni of chapters or of the board?

mllerustad: It still requires us to know who our alumni are.

christo_ph: i am going to anonymously nominate everyone

mllerustad: You guys don't know who all are members of FC Claremont, do you?

gavinbaker: chapter members, alumni of chapter members, board members

mllerustad: We don't have a national list of all our individuals involved in FC.o.

mllerustad: So we have no list of alumni either.

gavinbaker: mllerustad: it's a logistical problem, but we can fix it...

e-star: we can ask for verification from teh chapter leader

gavinbaker: we should probably have lists like that for other pruposes anyway

e-star: if need be

mllerustad: e-star: What if they were at the chapter five years ago?

paulproteu: e-star++ re: verification possible if need be

mllerustad: The current leader would have no way to know.

skyfaller: I dunno, I don't know if we want to have lists of members, it seems difficult to run nationally

skyfaller: it seems like something best left to the chapters

christo_ph: mllerustad: each chapter keeps track of its own alumni as part of its membership, is my idea

mllerustad: That requires a helluva lot more centralization than we have now.

e-star: christo_pher: yup

gavinbaker: christo_pher: but what if an alumnus' chapter no longer exists?

christo_ph: then they should reform it or find a different chapter

Differance: lost soul . . .

gavinbaker: i should note that the working definition for "chapter member" in the bylaws is "a student at a school with a chapter"

mllerustad: christo_pher: It also means that if your chapter isn't completely organized on compiling lists of once and future members, you're screwed.

gavinbaker: the chapter never actually keeps a list of members, at least not for FC.o purposes

skyfaller: I mean, the problem of proving that someone is an alumni would arise in the case of having them run for the board, as well as nominating them

skyfaller: so this isn't a silly debate

christo_ph: mllerustad: you don't need a list of future members or previous members, just current members, including alumni members

mllerustad:skyfaller: Point.

mllerustad: Ohhhh...

paulproteu: I think that we shouldn't require this kind of intense record keeping.

mllerustad: So former students still involved with the chapter are what we're talking about?

e-star: honestly, if no one has heard of the person, we can deal with it then

Differance:skyfaller: and the problem would be addressed the point of the election

gavinbaker: paulproteus: i'd like to have this intensity of record-keeping, but i'm also hesitant to mandate it.

christo_ph: mllerustad: yes

mllerustad: That's much more limited than everyone who ever was involved with FC.o, ever.

mllerustad: Okay.

mllerustad: I'm okay with that.

paulproteu: gavinbaker, Agreed, and I agree with e-star that "we can work out how to verify if someone comes along who we can't verify".

mecredis:e-star I agree

mecredis: hopefully these are people who we know

christo_ph: chapter members includes alumni, i think

gavinbaker: paulproteus: i think that works as an ad-hoc solution, too. but i hope we figure out a better one, in the longer term

gavinbaker: if it's totally random people, i doubt they'll be elected, imho

mecredis:right

mecredis: so let them run

skyfaller: gavinbaker: well, that depends on how we vote :)

gavinbaker: unless it's like Hilary Rosen and she buys off all the chapters

christo_ph: skyfaller++

mllerustad lolz

mllerustad:skyfaller: Then at least there's *somebody* so the board doesn't default.

skyfaller: what if there are 5 seats on the board, 4 normal candidates, and 1 random dude who no-one has heard of?would they not be automatically elected?

gavinbaker , for one, welcomes our new Rupert Murdoch overlords^Wboard members

mllerustad hit enter first while arguing verbally

christo_ph:skyfaller: it seems that if we're in a state where we can only come up with 4 + 1 for the board, that represents the organization pretty well

mllerustad:skyfaller: I'd rather have a random, interested person than no one at all.

Differance: I'd rather have an anonymous person

christo_ph: the current method of voting, however, which is chapter-based with 1 vote per chapter isn't quite representative

paulproteu: Unless it's an evil non-random maliciously interested person, I suppose.

Differance: :-)

mllerustad: paulproteus: Then we'll just shun them to death. :)

skyfaller: it does seem to me that our election process should allow chapters to actively vote against someone they don't want on the board, rather than let someone random be auto-elected

skyfaller: just like in school elections where people can vote "none of the above"

skyfaller: but we can fix that when we get to elections in the bylaws, I suppose

skyfaller: so let's finish the nomination question and move on

mllerustad: So are we still cool with "Members of any chapter and current members of the board of directors can nominate themselves or other eligible individuals for board positions." ?

christo_ph: yes

skyfaller: +1

mecredis: sure

gavinbaker: mllerustad: who's an "eligible individual" again?

mllerustad: (understanding that "members of any chapter" include alumni at chapters which allow alumni members)

gavinbaker: er... so alumni are handled at the chapter level... so if you're an alumnus/a, you better hope you chapter allows alumni members (and still exists)?

mllerustad: gavinbaker: According to the current bylaws, "Only current members of chapters, alumni of chapters, or people who have previously served the Organization in other capacities for at least a year shall be eligible to stand for election to the board. There is no limit to the number of terms that a person may serve on the board."

mllerustad: gavinbaker: If you want to nominate, yeah.

gavinbaker: mllerustad: are we using the same working standard for alumni (i.e. they're handled through each chapter) in both sections?

mllerustad: gavinbaker: You can still serve.

gavinbaker: i.e. for both nominations and for board membership?

mllerustad: gavinbaker: Hm...

gavinbaker: mllerustad: not asking about me

mllerustad: Yeah, I think so.

mllerustad: Because "people who have previously served" I think covers the rest.

gavinbaker: we probably want the language to be parallel and not different

christo_ph: gavinbaker: i can't imagine a chapter wouldn't want alumni members but if they don't, that's there prerogative

christo_ph: *their

skyfaller: the "or people who have previously served the Organization in other capacities for at least a year" language is slightly odd, and we should probably talk about why it's there

gavinbaker: i'm uncomfortable with "people who have previously served the Organization in other capacities for at least a year" but i guess that'a d fiferent section

gavinbaker: christo_pher: remember that chapters may not exist forever

skyfaller: yes, it is a different section

gavinbaker: so you'd better hope your old chapter still exists after you graduate, if you want to participate

christo_ph: gavinbaker: likewise, this is a student/youth movement

mllerustad: gavinbaker: c/participate/nominate

mecredis: yawn

gavinbaker: which raises the question of why alumni should be able to nominate at all, christo_pher

mllerustad: You've done something for the national org, so you can still do the board.

christo_ph: gavinbaker: this is something i completely disagree with, i'd much rather us take in older members, not have chapter membership, and open ourselves up to people outside of chapter affiliation

mecredis: OK we need to progress this

gavinbaker: mecredis: don't be so negative, man.

gavinbaker: (lulz)

mllerustad: gavinbaker: :p

mecredis: uhm

christo_ph: gavinbaker: but that's not going to happen, so let's be consistent

mecredis: This is an inordinate amount of time

mecredis: on a fairly simple subject

mecredis: basically we're trying to nail down

christo_ph: i have to leave in around 15 minutes, so i'd like to see us make more progress

price: I think the hard issue here is who votes.

mecredis: how people get nominated

mecredis: and how people vote

mecredis: right

mecredis: nomination seems to be solved

mllerustad: Are we okay on the new nomination language that I proposed?

gavinbaker: can we just exclude alumni for the moment to make it simpler? and fix it in future amendments?

mecredis: anyone who cares to be

christo_ph: ===price

mecredis: can nominate

mllerustad: gavinbaker ?

skyfaller: so how about anyone who can run for the board can nominate for the board?

gavinbaker: chapter members + board members get to nominate. end of story?

mecredis: gavinbaker: that doesn't sound simpler

skyfaller: can we make the two standards the same at least?

Deaner_: Just jumping in here, but have we discussed preferential voting? Mako is working on an app for that right now... might work well for this.

e-star:Deaner_: i suggested it

gavinbaker:Deaner_: not there yet, sadly

christo_ph: hyperchad?

price: that's probably a good idea

e-star:Deaner_: i would like to see it too :)

e-star: christo_pher: yup

e-star:price:++

price: but it's probably second-order relative to the question of who the voters are

mllerustad: Okay, so are we agreed on the nomination language?

gavinbaker: "chapter members + board members get to nominate". RESOLVED?

mllerustad: Members of any chapter and current members of the board of directors can nominate themselves or other eligible individuals for board positions.

Deaner_: btw, the IRC chat messages are coming in floods of 30 for me, so if I seem slow to reply, that is why

mecredis: why can't anyone nominate again?

price: yeah, that seems fine

gavinbaker: mllerustad: are we including alumni in "chapter members" for your purposes?

mllerustad: gavinbaker: Yes.

gavinbaker: elsewhere in the bylaws, we're not

skyfaller: but the language of who is eligible for the board seems like it should be the same as who can nominate

skyfaller: to me, at least

mllerustad: gavinbaker: If their chapter takes them.

gavinbaker: mecredis: for logistical simplicity

christo_ph: gavinbaker: yes, chapters decide

gavinbaker: mllerustad, christo_pher: other places in the bylaws, we define chapter members, and it doesn't include alumni

mecredis: gavinbaker: why is more complicated to restrict who can nominate?

mecredis: why not restrict who can vote?

mllerustad: gavinbaker: Where?

mllerustad: We define chapters *as* members of the Organization.

gavinbaker: mllerustad: maybe it's in the core team text that skyfaller and i hammered out

price: ==mecredis

mllerustad: We never design a chapter's members for it, do we?

e-star:skyfaller: agreed

mllerustad: gavinbaker: Oh. Then I guess we'll talk about it there.

price: so long as the voters are defined well, it doesn't matter who's eligible

gavinbaker: mllerustad: no, they're differnet purposes

mecredis: right

mecredis: so let's leave nominations open

gavinbaker: we say "chapter member for FC.o purposes is any student at a school with an FC.o chapter"

mecredis: OK

gavinbaker: and doesn't have anything to do with actual members of the club

mecredis: so

christo_ph: gavinbaker: i think that's a mistake to define for chapters who their members are

gavinbaker: to avoid the logistical problem of membership lsits

mecredis: they obviously won't win

e-star: i think whoever's eligible to BE on the board should be eligible to nominate

gavinbaker: let alone alumni lists!

christo_ph: i agree with e-star

mllerustad: gavinbaker: I'm not sure that's necessary/good... but we can debate that there.

mecredis: yeah

gavinbaker: christo_pher: we're not defining for chapters. we're defining for FC.o purposes, and there can be different defintiions

skyfaller: e-star: agreed, then we can just have the argument once :)

mecredis: me too

mecredis: wait wait

gavinbaker: mllerustad: i'm not sure the other way is good either, but it's definitely simpler than whatever monstrosity we're building here

mecredis: there are two issues here

mecredis: one is who gets nominated

mecredis: there seems to be an argument that we should restrict that

mllerustad: Okay, so adding "people who have contributed" to the list of people who can nominate?

e-star: mllerustad: sure

mecredis: I, along with other people, don't understand why that should be restricted

gavinbaker: mecredis: there are 3 issues actually

gavinbaker: 1. who gets to nominate

e-star: honestly, i don't see nomination as such a huge deal

gavinbaker: 2. who can be nominated

gavinbaker: 3. who can vote

e-star: yup

Signoff: abhay ()

mecredis:I saw 1 and 2 as the same

gavinbaker: should all 3 align?

gavinbaker: they don't, in the current draft

mecredis: no, 3 should be seperate

mecredis: fine

christo_ph: i think all three should be the same

skyfaller: I agree that 1 & 2 should be the same

gavinbaker: i think 1 + 2 should be the same

skyfaller: I think 3 should be separate

gavinbaker: and 3 should = chapters

mecredis: right

skyfaller: I mean, a chapter couldn't be on the board

mecredis: that seems to make sense

e-star: +1 on 1+2

mecredis: so people seem to agree that 1 and 2 should be the same

christo_ph: i don't think chapters should be the ones voting

mecredis: anyone can nominate and be nominated

mecredis: right,

e-star: okay, all agreed that 1+2 should be the same?

price: that seems agreed

mecredis: but the fact that the domain of voters should be restricted should be the case

mllerustad: Agreed.

e-star: christo_pher: agreed that there is an issue there

gavinbaker: e-star: +1 on 1=2

mllerustad: So, to end #1...

e-star: okay good

mllerustad: RESOLVED: Members of any chapter (as defined by the chapter), current members of the board of directors, and people who have previously served the Organization in other capacities can nominate themselves or other eligible individuals for board positions.

skyfaller: christo_pher: well, we'll fight about that later, but I think that anything other than chapters voting would be mindblowingly complex

e-star: now to #3

christo_ph: okay

mecredis: yes

mecredis: #3

mecredis: WHO GETS TO VOTE

gavinbaker: are we sure there should no parameters on 1=2?

skyfaller: hey, later is now

mecredis: Ok, right now its "1 vote per chapter"

e-star: and how many votes

gavinbaker: chapters just define whatever they want?

gavinbaker: "some random hobo is a chapter member and gets to run for the board"?

mecredis: why not

mecredis: no one will vote for him

e-star: i just find it problematic that chapters that could be quite large only have one vote

mecredis: gavinbaker: we're over this

gavinbaker: because we're a student organization

gavinbaker: not a hobo organization

mllerustad: Proposed verbage: "Members of the board of directors are elected by the liaisons of official chapters by plurality vote. Each chapter may cast one vote for each open seat."

christo_ph: gavinbaker: rms isn't going to be elected because of mit's chapter

mllerustad: (last four words being the changes)

e-star: and i'm not just trying to represent the large chapter contingency here

gavinbaker: what happened to consensus, guys

mecredis: e-star: I agree though I also represent the large chapter contigency

gavinbaker: i think everybody's being reasonable

e-star: cool

mllerustad: I disagree, and I represent the small-chapter contingency...

e-star: so do people have other ideas?

mecredis: so how do we fix

gavinbaker: i've been not holding up consensus where i'm more or less OK

mllerustad: I don' think this is coincidental. :p

mecredis: the 1 chapter to 1 vote thing

gavinbaker: but i wil hold up conesnsus if chapters can define non-students as members

gavinbaker: we should be a student and chapter organization

gavinbaker: chapters of students

mllerustad: gavinbaker: No alumni, even ones chapters consider members?

e-star: especially b/c of the issues of 20-30 ppl deciding on one vote

e-star: etc

christo_ph: i have to leave now, my suggestions are on the talk page

skyfaller: e-star: I think that (1) it's balanced out by the proposed Core team, which will probably have more members from larger chapters, and (2) smaller chapters should have equal representation, b/c they need the most help

christo_pher is now known as chriso_away

e-star: mllerustad: also i'm somewhat concerned about nonexistent chapters

Signoff: chriso_away ()

skyfaller: they shouldn't be discriminated against

mecredis: e-star: agree

mllerustad: e-star: Well, it's already 20-30 chapters deciding on a board... that's elections.

e-star:skyfaller: i'm not concerned about small, actual chapters

e-star: but instead chapters that don't really actually exist

mecredis: yeah

mecredis: people who just signed up

gavinbaker: will the active/inactive chapter distinction make a difference?

mecredis: and went through our incmredibly easy registration process

gavinbaker: or "active"/"interested"?

e-star: other comments re: one chapter/one vote?

mecredis: not sure that that's the way to do it

gavinbaker: i think that having a separate list for interested people whoa ren't actually doing anything should be OK

mecredis: ok I think one chapter and one vote is in the right direction

e-star: the minority opinions in large chapters will surely not be heard

Differance: house: proportional to # of people

gavinbaker: i don't ascribe much malice to people who'd like to participate but don't have a chapter

price: an active/interested distinction seems like a way to do it

Differance: senate: 1 per chapter

peabo: maybe a chapter doesn't get to vote until it has been active for a set period of time?

mecredis: right

mecredis: I think it should be something to # of people

gavinbaker: i think 1 chapter 1 vote is right, we just need to define what a chapter is for voting purposes

e-star: okay, so only active chapters vote then?

mecredis: though determining # of people is difficult

gavinbaker: and i think if we let people sort themselves into active/interested it won't be a problem

e-star: right--we need some kind of house/senate balance

gavinbaker: doing anything proportional will be crazy

gavinbaker: jesus christ 2 chambers?

e-star:skyfaller: i'm not sure the core team will provide that..but it might

gavinbaker: it's a board of directors

e-star: gavinbaker: not actually

mllerustad: Okay, I'm willing to compromise and set up a tiered system.

e-star: gavinbaker: i just meant a way to balance it out

gavinbaker: does CC EFF PK FSF have 2 chambers?

skyfaller: what kind of tiers though?

mecredis: FYI boards are almost never elected by members / chapters

e-star: gavinbaker: i don't want two chambers!

mecredis: but by board members themselves

mllerustad: Say, if you register, and make it a year (and re-register), you can vote.

e-star: mecredis: true

mllerustad: e-star? mecredis?

gavinbaker: mecredis: but we want to be "grassroots" right? = elected by members?

e-star: mllerustad: i'm fine w/ 6 months even

skyfaller: 1 chapter 1 "vote"(voting for multiple seats obviously involves multiple votes)

mecredis: yeah, that's fine

gavinbaker: mllerustad: i don't think a 1yr embargo would be terrible for voting, or even less

e-star: mllerustad: since there could be new but active chapters

e-star: 6 months?

price: sounds good

mllerustad: Okay, so would that alleviate the non-chapter voting powers fears?

price: though if it's 6 months

<