2007-08-12/log/bylaws
From FreeCulture.org Wiki
Log file opened at: 8/12/07 12:24:55 PM
- gavinbaker (n=gavin@c-69-143-179-58.hsd1.va.comcast.net) has joined channel #freeculture
jibot: gavinbaker is Gavin Baker, a 3rd year political science student at the University of Florida and president of Florida Free Culture <http://uf.freeculture.org>. His Web site is www.gavinbaker.com
- gavinbaker has set the topic on channel #freeculture to FreeCulture.org: students for free culture | http://freeculture.org/ | Bug tracker: http://launchpad.net/web/+bugs | In case of downtime: http://fcostatus.wordpress.com/ | Meeting to discuss communication/collaboration tools for FC.o, 2007-08-12 at 5 pm EDT: http://wiki.freeculture.org/2007-08-12 | Bylaws RC2 meeting today at 2 pm EDT: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Bylaws
peabo: hi, gavin
- Signoff: ktetch (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
- ktetch (n=ktetch@adsl-074-166-105-206.sip.asm.bellsouth.net) has joined channel #freeculture
- ktetch H 0n=ktetch@adsl-074-166-105-206.sip.asm.bellsouth. K`Tetch
- gavinbakerH 0 n=gavin@c-69-143-179-58.hsd1.va.comcast.net Gavin Baker
- K`Tetch H 0n=ktetch@adsl-074-166-105-206.sip.asm.bellsouth. K`Tetch
- peabo H 0 n=peabo@c-24-147-25-140.hsd1.ma.comcast.net Peter Olson
- tannewt H 0 n=scott@gentoo/developer/tannewt Unknown
- ryanfaermaH 0 n=ryanfaer@crlspr-69.65.71.237.myacc.net Ryan Faerman
- mark007 H 0n=mark007@pool-71-101-200-240.tampfl.dsl-w.veriz Mark
- jibot H 0 i=andy@83.145.232.84 #JoiIto's bot
- rohitj H 0 n=rohitj@203.200.95.130 Rohit Jain
- skyfaller H 0 n=nelson@wikipedia/Skyfaller Nelson Pavlosky
- sj_ H 0 n=sj@wireless-19-47.media.mit.edu SJ
- Ax3 H 0 n=ax4@rada.voodoohosting.com ax4
- jli G 0 i=jli@gateway/tor/x-513ed214ca560d4b Jli
- ftobia H 0 n=chatzill@ool-18bb9b30.dyn.optonline.net Frank Tobia
- klepas G 0 n=klepas@unaffiliated/klepas Pascal Klein
- sahal H 0 i=hobo@outbound.silenceisdefeat.org can't get enough of that sugarcrisp...
- _sj_ H 0 n=sj@c-71-233-36-41.hsd1.ma.comcast.net sjk
- [autonomy]H 0 n=autonomy@c-71-232-117-225.hsd1.ma.comcast.net auto
- urgyen H 0 n=probably@c-24-23-192-90.hsd1.ca.comcast.net urgy
- poningru H 0 n=poningru@ip72-209-65-174.ga.at.cox.net Eldo Varghese
- danjared H 0n=danjared@HOW-ABOUT-A-NICE-GAME-OF-CHESS.MIT.ED D. Jared Dominguez
- paulproteuG 0 i=paulprot@29.145.221.202.bf.2iij.net Asheesh Laroia
- freeculture End of /WHO list.
- mllerustad (n=mllerust@c-69-143-179-58.hsd1.va.comcast.net) has joined channel #freeculture
jibot: mllerustad is a music nerd and Karen Rustad and a student at Scripps College in Claremont, CA and on FreeCulture.org's board
gavinbaker: hello party people
peabo: hi, gavin's here but seemes to be afk
peabo: oh, re-hi
mllerustad: hello, all. :)
gavinbaker: so who's here for the party?
skyfaller: I'm here to party
peabo: me
gavinbaker: _sj_ Ax3 danjared jibot mark007 mark007 paulproteus poningru sj_: courtesy ping
poningru: s/courtesy/annoying
poningru: ;)
- e-star (n=e-star@c-66-30-26-201.hsd1.ma.comcast.net) has joined channel #freeculture
gavinbaker: poningru: yeah, you ever got a "courtesy" wake-up call?
gavinbaker: today's menu ingredient of the today: http://wiki.freeculture.org/2007-08-12
gavinbaker: howdy e-star
skyfaller: t3h today!
e-star: hi
- Omnifrog (n=Omnifrog@c-68-60-206-179.hsd1.tn.comcast.net) has joined channel #freeculture
jibot: Omnifrog is the proud originator of Fair Use Day
- Signoff: K`Tetch (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
- K`Tetch (n=ktetch@adsl-074-166-105-206.sip.asm.bellsouth.net) has joined channel #freeculture
e-star: starting soon?
e-star: i can't stay for that long
mllerustad: So... dissolution: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Bylaws#Article_VI:_Dissolution
e-star: to me there's no reason why it has to be just to the EFF
e-star: it might as well be determined by the board at the time of dissolution
skyfaller: no, it just seemed like a simple default
- e1presidente (n=e1presid@216-15-61-221.c3-0.161-ubr3.lnh-161.md.cable.rcn.com) has joined channel #freeculture
jibot: e1presidente is David Riordan, a student at Hamilton College and is in the process of establishing a FC chapter there.
mllerustad: e-star: unless the board is really ineffective/absent, which would be likely in the case of dissolution
e1presiden: hey - sorry I'm late
mllerustad: I think it's worthwhile having a default.
e-star: mllerustad: not necessarily
mllerustad: We could debate on which default is the most appropriate...
e-star: mllerustad: fine, split between eff, cc, and pik
e-star: pk
skyfaller: I do think there should be a default, and that sounds like a fine default
skyfaller: it just seemed like it might do more good if it went to one place, but if this will let us reach consensus then that's fine
gavinbaker: hey e1presidente
mllerustad: I'm cool with splitting it... Really, I don't care who it goes to, as long as it's not the RIAA or something :)
gavinbaker: there ought ot be a default, just in case -- plan for the worst
e-star: yah, and it can always be changed
peabo: what is the triggering event for dissolution?
gavinbaker: e-star: right, the board can always decide otherwise -- right?
e-star: i just worry that if it's only one org it looks like we are too closely tied to them
e-star: gavinbaker: depends how we write it
skyfaller: e-star: understandable
gavinbaker: if not, we should say that the board can decide, and the bylaws just contain the default
gavinbaker: e-star: right, my question is what does it say now
gavinbaker: if it doesn't currently say that the board can choose, then it should
e-star: oh
gavinbaker: peabo: that's a good question, and we'll get there :)
e-star: "Unless the board decides otherwise through a four-fifths vote, the assets will be given to the Electronic Frontier Foundation in perpetuity. "
peabo: yea, but karen wondered about the board being ineffective or ABSENT
gavinbaker: i'm fine w/ e-star's language
e-star: gavinbaker: haha, that's copied
gavinbaker: ah. well then i'm fine with the language that's there ;)
e-star: gavinbaker: so just add split equally between PK, EFF, CC
mllerustad: peabo: It's true...that's why I think there should be a default, so that we know where the money goes even if the board isn't there to choose.
gavinbaker: what, and not FSF? ;)
e1presiden: that'll be part of the Stallman bath clause
e-star: "Unless the board decides otherwise through a four-fifths vote, the Organization's assets will be split equally between the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Creative Commons, and Public Knowledge. "
gavinbaker: i'd rather split it 4 ways, including FSF, with the proviso that if any org doesn't exist / doesn't want their share, it gets split among the rest
gavinbaker: would that be ok with everyone?
e1presiden: Sounds good, makes for a good failsafe.
- Signoff: ktetch (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
- ktetch (n=ktetch@adsl-074-166-105-206.sip.asm.bellsouth.net) has joined channel #freeculture
skyfaller: sounds fine
skyfaller: (let's not add any more organizations than 4 please, at some point it becomes silly)
gavinbaker: mllerustad, e-star ? ^^
mllerustad: +1
e-star: gavinbaker: ok
e-star: that's fine
e-star: w/ me
e-star: i think the latter is obvious
e-star: though
e-star: Unless the board decides otherwise through a four-fifths vote, the Organization's assets will be split equally between the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Creative Commons, the Free Software Foundation, and Public Knowledge. "
e-star: i don't think we need that in there
e-star: the proviso
e-star: mllerustad, skyfaller, peabo, e1presidente ?
e-star: yup
gavinbaker: e-star: you sure? could it hurt to be more specific?
peabo: peabo: abstaining until someone says I am eligible to vote :-)
e1presiden: With the current language, it could potentially be interpreted that if one of the organizations is no longer in existence, our assets designated for them would go into escrow until whatever their asset management provisions kick in.
e-star: gavinbaker: i was just trying to not overcomplicate things
gavinbaker: i'm with e1presidente, i'd rather have the specificity. it's only a sentence
e-star: okay, you guys write it up then
gavinbaker: "If any of these organizations is unable or unwilling to accept these assets, the share to be allocated to that organization shall be divided equally among the other receiving organizations."
gavinbaker: oh, here's an issue with dividing the shares among more than 1 group, though:
gavinbaker: not all assets are monetary
gavinbaker: e.g. domain names, copyrights
gavinbaker: how do you split the ownership of the domain freeculture.org?
mllerustad: gavinbaker: We don't own it, we rent it...
mllerustad: True about the copyrights, though.
e1presiden: ok
e1presiden: got it
e1presiden: monetary assets go to the orgs
gavinbaker: mllerustad: well, we control the domain
e1presiden: our IP goes public domain
gavinbaker: so as long as we control it, we should assign the control to someone
paulproteu: iirc, We do sort of own domains, it's just that what we own goes away if we stop paying.
peabo: whoever is listed as Admin contact has effective control of the domain
- urgyen has left channel #freeculture
e-star: any copyrights get a PD dedication
peabo: that would be Nelson
e-star: guys, honestly, i don't think we need to consider this in such minute detail right now
e-star: gavinbaker: i wonder if we could put it into the first sentence
gavinbaker: e-star: we should be able to resolve this pretty quickly if we just slog thru
gavinbaker: keep in mind that any copyrights would include any software, which we might prefer to have copyleft than in the PD
gavinbaker: but i guess i'd be ok with dedicating all copyrights to PD
e-star: Unless the board decides otherwise through a four-fifths vote, the Organization's assets will be split equally between the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Creative Commons, the Free Software Foundation, and Public Knowledge, or between whichever of these organizations able and willing to accept the them.
peabo: software that you want to assigned could be GPL'd by assigning it to the FSF (in fact, you could do that at any time)
e-star: yeah but if it's PD then it can also be GPL'd anyway
- Fear_of_C (n=nick@cpe-66-65-84-36.nyc.res.rr.com) has joined channel #freeculture
e-star: oops
e-star: no the
peabo: no, PD is incompatible with GPL
e-star: either "the assets" or "them"
gavinbaker: e-star: i like your language for the proviso
e-star: peabo -- not in this case
gavinbaker: we should just assign the copyright of any software to the FSF
e-star: Unless the board decides otherwise through a four-fifths vote, the Organization's assets will be split equally between the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Creative Commons, the Free Software Foundation, and Public Knowledge, or between whichever of these organizations able and willing to accept the assets.
gavinbaker: and they'll take care of it
e-star: peabo: it could be taken and released under the GPL as well
e-star: all copyrights dedicated to the PD
e-star: is what i say
peabo: (probably shoudl take this offlien: PD is incompatible with GPL, and FSF will accept a GPL project at any time anyway, b assigning it the copyright to FSG; but if software is PD, it is impossible to license it under GPL)
e-star: to try to not make this so complicated
e-star: peabo: why?
e-star: peabo: i can take it and re-license it under any license i want
e-star: peabo: if it's PD
peabo: because GPL uses copyright as its instrument to enforce the license
e1presiden: Shall we straw poll e-star's proposal?
gavinbaker: peabo: it can just be re-enclosed
e-star: peabo: i'm talking about relicesncing
gavinbaker: the same way that a book you buy of Alice in Wonderland will contain a copyright notice
e-star: er i can't type
e-star: gavinbaker: thank you
gavinbaker: oh, on the other hand, it'd be kinda questionable how enforceable any such copyright claim would be on something that's inherently PD
e-star: gavinbaker: it would be modifications
e-star: coming from the GPLed part
gavinbaker: e-star: well, modifications could always be GPL'ed, sure
peabo: yes, that's true, then it is no longer GPL, whcih would be irritating to some of the contributors
e-star: okay, whatever!
gavinbaker: but you could always take the PD part and take it proprietary
e-star: yup
e-star: that too
gavinbaker: i'm quite happy assigning the copyright on software to FSF
e1presiden: ok
e-star: fine
- Signoff: K`Tetch (Connection timed out)
- K`Tetch (n=ktetch@adsl-074-166-105-206.sip.asm.bellsouth.net) has joined channel #freeculture
e1presiden: I'm in favor of that
gavinbaker: for that matter, we could assign all copyright on non-software to CC, and let them deal with it
paulproteu: Gee, thanks.
e-star: i'd rather have it PD
e1presiden: ok
gavinbaker: e-star: at least if it's CC licensed you always know it's free; with PD not so, no need to say "this is free"
Fear_of_C: can someone fill me in on which "assets" we are referring to?
e1presiden: do we want to just say PD or PD'ed to internet archive?
Fear_of_C: it sounds like we are giving every piece of the org away
Fear_of_C: from the language
gavinbaker: Fear_of_C: that's right, this is in event of dissolution; everything must go!
Fear_of_C: gavinbaker: ok
peabo: e1presidente: there isn't any way to PD something selectively
e1presiden: It's like a firesale!
e-star: gavinbaker: there is no such thing as PD unless copyright expires so i'm saying a cc PD dedication or whatever
gavinbaker: hopefully this will never matter but it's kinda like writing a will, you want to have it right just in case
Fear_of_C: still trying to start fc labs, I would prefer GPL to PD
Fear_of_C: if something would happen to that software
e1presiden: no but I mean PDed so it's posted to internet archive rather than PDed and then lost
e-star: yes, GPL for software
paulproteu: Fear_of_C, That software will be (C) its individual contributors, not (C) fc.o.
e-star: PD dedication for everything else
Fear_of_C: paulproteus: ok, that's fine
gavinbaker: paulproteus: unless we consider it a work for hire / ask them to assign copyright
paulproteu: gavinbaker, Yes, unless the organization when it exists does that.
gavinbaker: which has sort of been implied-ly what we're doing, since the web site says "(c) FC.o" rather than "(C) contributors"
gavinbaker: and i think we should explicitly be doing that in the future
gavinbaker: but that's sort of another story
gavinbaker: at any rate, assume the Org has some assets, and you want something useful to happen to them if we die.
e-star: Upon dissolution, all software copyrights will be assigned to the Free Software Foundation and placed under a GPL license, and all other copyrights will be released under a Public Domain dedication or equivalent license.
gavinbaker: e-star: re: PD, you don't think CC by is better, so the user always knows it's free? (as long as it's still in copyright)
e-star: gavinbaker: this *is* a CC license!
gavinbaker: e-star: i said CC by
e-star: oh, sorry, i missed that
gavinbaker: well, i guess you get the same benefit from the dedication
e-star: no i'd rather PD
e1presiden: ok
gavinbaker: you're supposed to include the license on the dedication; though there's no way /noone to enforce it
e-star: right
e-star: heh
peabo: I think it is much cleaner to license all software to the FSF as it is created, rather than doing it at dissolution time
gavinbaker: if you assign it to CC and place it under CC by, then there is a way and a person to enforce the license, if necessary
e1presiden: Say we CC founders license it at that point, and for the 14 years which it's owned by one of the orgs, it's CC-BY
e-star: i'd rather PD
gavinbaker: peabo: i don't think we're going to do that, but at any rate, that's outside the context of this discussion
e-star: please guys
e-star: this is taking up too much time
gavinbaker: e-star: i'm not necessarily against PD, but could you tell me why you prefer it? i've noted what i consider the benefits of Attribution
peabo: ok
e1presiden: This is what happens when you get a bunch of lawyers together in a room to make a decision
e-star: gavinbaker: sometimes attribution can be annoying, and i think as an org we should promote the public domain
gavinbaker: does anybody else have a sense re: PD vs. CC by?
e-star: to me that is the basis of our very org in a sense
paulproteu: Europeans complain to me from time to time that you can't PD something in Europe.
Fear_of_C: CC eels better to me
gavinbaker: i still lean toward CC by but i'm not going to hold up consensus on PD if there's consensus, it certainly doesn't matter that much
gavinbaker: paulproteus has a point there
Fear_of_C: *feels better
peabo: so, the board by 4/5 may decide the nature of the license?
gavinbaker: peabo: no, this is in case all hell breaks loose
gavinbaker: peabo: this is the will, in case there's nobody to decide
e1presiden: I'm with e-star. While CC is a sister org, we're more fundamentally about granting true, pure open access
gavinbaker: ok -- if there's not consensus, is anyone going to *hold up* consensus either way?
paulproteu: I say we just say "all money resources split four ways, alll non-money to EFF peroid" and let them sort it out.
peabo: ok, and if we get archive.org to copy it, we have proof of publication as PD so nobody can steal it and claim copyright?
paulproteu: But I won't hold up consensus either way either.
Fear_of_C: as far as I see it, the primary difference is that PD would allow people to take it unattributed and commercially
e-star: paulproteus: that's a different issue
e-star: paulproteus: we're in the US
e-star: paulproteus: if we were based in europe, yes, it could be problematic
gavinbaker: peabo: no, if it's PD, then *anyone* can steal it and claim copyright. that's what it means to be PD
Fear_of_C: and I wouldn't want it to ever be used against our purposes
paulproteu: e-star, Okay.
gavinbaker: Fear_of_C: we haven't been using a non-commercial license, so they can already use it commercially
e1presiden: Fear_of_C: like there's any problem with that!
gavinbaker: e-star: right, but people in europe might want to use our stuff and be sure they're in the clear legally
Fear_of_C: gavinbaker: which, specifically, are we using?
gavinbaker: Fear_of_C: Attribution
Fear_of_C: ok, then my point still holds
gavinbaker: there was a simplicity in giving everything everyone to one person and letting them sort it out
Fear_of_C: I would rather ensure that it least be known where it came from
e-star: peabo: ???
Fear_of_C: my real preference would be Share-alike
gavinbaker: because even once we decided about copyright, there's still the domains to deal with -- and anything else that might be non-divisible
Fear_of_C: because even if we fall, our content could still propogate freely
e-star: gavinbaker: that's not an issue
e-star: peabo: the whole point of PD is that anyone can do whatever they want w/ it
e-star: peabo: although they'd have to make a derivative (low bar for this) to claim full copyright
gavinbaker: Fear_of_C: right, i like attribution, and most importantly i like the requirement that re-users have to provide notice that the work is free for anybody else to re-use. PD doesn't have that
- Signoff: ktetch (Connection timed out)
peabo: e-star: well, isn't it true that someone can claim copyright of PD material if there is no evidence that the material was already distritbuted?
peabo: ok, I understand low bar derivative
- brylie (n=brylie@CPE-75-81-97-106.kc.res.rr.com) has joined channel #freeculture
e-star: peabo: this is just a license
e1presiden: peabo: this is why we'd get it on Archive.org
e-star: peabo: not actually PD
gavinbaker: peabo: pretty much all our stuff is in archive.org / whoever else wants to mirror/cache us anyway, it's not like we'd have to worry about that really
e-star: sigh, let's just move on, if people really want cc-by, that's fine, but for the record, i prefer PD
gavinbaker: e-star: but the license says "treat this as PD"
peabo: I just want to be confident that nobody can force the origianl out of circulation by syaing it's really theirs
Fear_of_C: I think that if we are promoting free access, we need a license that ensures our stuff will always be free and that people will always be made aware of this
gavinbaker: peabo, i'm not sure how realistic a concern that is, but i suppose throughness doesn't hurt...
gavinbaker: most importantly i want to decide this
Fear_of_C: even if we are not around to promote this fact
gavinbaker: so how about this:
gavinbaker: 1. monetary and other divisible assets divided 4 ways as decided earlier
e-star: gavinbaker: yup
e-star: i'd rather not use by-sa, because it can cause incompatibilities
gavinbaker: 2. software (c) -> FSF -> GPL
gavinbaker: 3. non-software (c) -> CC -> by
gavinbaker: 4. other non-divisible assets -> EFF
e1presiden: That has my vote
Fear_of_C: ok
peabo: 5. good will -> everyone :-)
e-star: i still want PD
e1presiden: e-star: it looks like we're in the minority on this one
e-star: but i'm not going to hold this up on that basis
gavinbaker: does anybody have any objections / other preferences, except to use PD for #3?
e-star: what are we envisioning for #4?
gavinbaker: e-star: e.g. domains, anything else we don't currently anticipate
peabo: I onject to PD for software because there is a simple and effective alternative that works better
gavinbaker: (maybe physical assets?)
Fear_of_C: what happens if we outlive one of the 4 orgs?
gavinbaker: Fear_of_C: we've said the rest will go to the others
e1presiden: we already accounted for that
e-star: gavinbaker: again, we don't "own" the domains so much
e1presiden: We own the rights to the domains
gavinbaker: e-star: well, we own a property right of control for as long as we'd paid for them.
gavinbaker: *certain property rights
Fear_of_C: also, which GPL version?
e-star: yes, i know,
gavinbaker: Fear_of_C: FSF will decide
e-star: okay
e-star: fine
gavinbaker: ditto for which version of CC by
e1presiden: Shall we bring this to a vote
peabo: also, someone might want to run the Web site etc: maybe that is a #4 item
gavinbaker: re: #3: i won't hold up if we prefer PD, i just want us to choose. it seems like more people prefer CC by, so that seems like a good basis for by
gavinbaker: peabo: right, if someone wants to use the domain for something, we'd want to encourage that (and not leave it to the squatters); so non-divisible assets e.g. the domain go to EFF
e-star: gavinbaker: it's just not clear that the author was always fc.o
e-star: so it gets complicated, and that's another reason to prefer PD
gavinbaker: e-star: right, but assume that fc.o might own copyright at some point
gavinbaker: we can't PD dedicate or license anything we don't own anyway
gavinbaker: so this only applies to what FC.o owns, so just assume that FC.o probably owns something or will in the future.
gavinbaker: i consider that likely
peabo: gavin, estar: true, if fc.o never claimed a copyright then its not an asset, and nothing happens to it
e-star: okay whatever, let's just move on
e-star: gavinbaker: it is debatable who "owns" the copyright to our logo, etc.
gavinbaker: e-star: right. what i said ^^ still applies
e-star: yup, i realize
e-star: also the blog posts, etc
e-star: anyway, let's just move on please
gavinbaker: can we RESOLVE this minor point and continue?
e-star: yes
e-star: as i said before, i'm okay with it, even if i prefer something else
gavinbaker: RESOLVED: money and other divisible assets 4 ways (FSF, CC, PK, EFF); software -> FSF -> GPL; content -> CC -> by; domains and other non-divisible assets -> EFF
skyfaller: fine
skyfaller: works for me
paulproteu: And physical things like boxes of paper, staples are all "indivisible"?
e-star: hahaha
gavinbaker: paulproteus: probably, sure
peabo: I have only divided a staple by accident :-)
e-star: we can give our staples to the riaa :p
skyfaller: ... does CC actually want our content? I know FSF gets software copyrights assigned to them all the time, but how often does CC get content deeded to them?
paulproteu: Then great. I want to make sure that no one would have to get involved to decide which things to where, which would be dumb.
gavinbaker: skyfaller: i don't know. it's under an attribution license anyway, so it only matters in terms of enforcement or exceptions to the license (unlikely)
e1presiden: skyfaller: i'd say we're a special case
paulproteu: skyfaller, No, CC doesn't really, but whatever.
peabo: e-star: need to requisition a staple gun for that
e-star: okay, moving on
gavinbaker: so we've got consensus and we're moving on?
e-star: yup
skyfaller: sure, I think the CC thing is a little silly but I can't see what harm it can do
e-star: (that's also another reason to support PD dedication)
gavinbaker: i don't think anybody considers this ideal but hopefully none of this ever matters so this is honesty more than good enough
e-star: yup
e-star: so what's next?
gavinbaker: Wikimedia sez: "Upon the dissolution or winding-up of this Foundation, its assets remaining after payment, or provision for payment, of all debts and liabilities of the Foundation shall be distributed to a nonprofit fund, foundation, or Foundation which is organized and operated exclusively for charitable purposes and which has established its tax exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, or c
gavinbaker: orresponding provisions of subsequent federal tax laws."
gavinbaker: i think we should add that clause
gavinbaker: though i'm not sure how it jibes with what we just decided
skyfaller: sure... all 4 orgs are 501(c)3, no?
gavinbaker: i guess we just say, "subject to the aforementioned, ..."
skyfaller: this is an additional requirement if they decide to choose other charitable organizations to donate to
e-star: but does not indicate which one?
gavinbaker: also consider that the board could divide the assets another way than what we just specified -- so we should specify that they could only give them to a 501(c)(3)
skyfaller: yeah
peabo: gavin: "The Free Software Foundation (FSF) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization based in Boston, MA, USA."
gavinbaker: that's actually a legal requirement, i think, to be 501(c)(3) -- so good to have it in there now, in case we pursue that route
e-star: gavinbaker: we're not a 501c3
gavinbaker: yes, PK, EFF, and CC are all 501(c)(3)
e-star: gavinbaker: i don't see a need for that
skyfaller: e-star: but we may want to be in the future
e-star: skyfaller: sure
skyfaller: and I don't think our funds should go to non-charitable orgs
gavinbaker: e-star: well what if the board decides "let's give all assets to Bob" -- that's dumb
e-star: skyfaller: what if it's not a use-based org
gavinbaker: we should require that it can only go to charitable orgs
e-star: fine
e-star: er, US-based
skyfaller: heh :)
e-star: 501c3 is US-specific
gavinbaker: i guess we're just jingoists, then
skyfaller: then they can get money from FC Peru or something
skyfaller: they have their act together more than us anyway :P
skyfaller: let's move on
gavinbaker: consider that Wikimedia Foundation, international as it is, has this clause
e-star: let's just say non-profit, charitable organization
skyfaller: gavin makes a good point
gavinbaker: e-star: could we say "non-profit, charitable org, such as a 501(c)(3) as defined in US law"?
skyfaller: ... would that meet the legal requirement?
gavinbaker: skyfaller: it's only a requirement for 501(c)(3) orgs, which we are not
gavinbaker: if we become 501(c)(3), we may or may need to change the language. ianal
gavinbaker: but at any rate, we're not 501(c)(3) now so it's not a requirement now
skyfaller: I dunno, I guess I don't want to have people arguing over what a non-profit charitable org is
skyfaller: a clean legal definition is nice
gavinbaker: i really don't care either way, i just want to add this clause and move on
skyfaller: let's say 501(c)3
skyfaller: all of the orgs we are giving to by default are 501(c)3
skyfaller: odds are that the orgs we would be interested in the future will also be
e-star: so say they wanted to give it to icommons
e-star: they couldn't
e-star: how about 501c3 or equivalent
e-star: they might want to give it to icommons
e-star: etc
e-star: gavinbaker: sure
gavinbaker: skyfaller: unless they're not based in the US, as e-star points out
e-star: skyfaller: like icommons
e-star: let's just say 501(c)(3) or equivalent
gavinbaker: i'm happy either way -- there are advantages and disadvantages either way -- so let's just pick
e-star: also, by then, it may be somethign else in the US even
e-star: heh
skyfaller: if you think that is clear language that people can't monkey with, then OK
gavinbaker: i think it's clear enough, and it'd be hard to monkey with
skyfaller: 501(c)3 or the equivalent, fine
gavinbaker: ok -- RESOLVED?
gavinbaker: +1 from me
skyfaller: +1
Fear_of_C: +1
e1presiden: +1
skyfaller: any more votes up or down?
peabo: (abstain due to uncertain eligibility to vote)
e-star: +1
gavinbaker: oh lol, this clause is already in the bylaws draft!
skyfaller: lollerskaets
- gavinbaker tells self to RTFB
peabo: I IZ IN YOUR BYLAWS ALRDY
e1presiden: IM IN UR BYLAWZ, DIVIDIN UR ASSETS
gavinbaker: so is everybody ok with dissolution happening by 4/5 vote, and asset-distribution by 4/5? just to be clear
gavinbaker: i'm ok with it
e1presiden: +1
skyfaller: sounds good to me, although these fractions are getting silly
skyfaller: we have 2/3, 3/4, and 4/5 scattered around the bylaws
skyfaller: and it's a bit of a shame that we couldn't standardize a bit more
skyfaller: (also 1/2 for majority votes)
gavinbaker: yeah, they all seem pretty arbitrary to me. but i don't care, it doesn't matter
skyfaller: I think that from now on we should require pi board members to approve every measure
skyfaller: or maybe 1/0
gavinbaker: you divided by zero, oh shi---
skyfaller: :D
skyfaller: ok, moving on
gavinbaker: sounds like everybody's fine with 4/5
skyfaller: +1
gavinbaker: so peabo raised a good question earlier
gavinbaker: which i think is the last question about dissolution
gavinbaker: which is: should we have a self-destruct?
gavinbaker: an action which triggers dissolution, even if the board doesn't?
skyfaller: maybe if we run out of chapters?
gavinbaker: right now, dissolution only happens if the board votes it. that might be hard e.g. if there's no board
skyfaller: running out of board members is also a problem
gavinbaker: this is something we discussed a bit when talking about how many board members there should be, etc.
gavinbaker: if there are only 2 people willing to run for the board, maybe it's time to hang up the hat and go home, you know?
peabo: two board directors can defeat dissolution, for board size of 5
peabo: there could be a heated stalemate and meanwhile the organization isn't functioning effectively
gavinbaker: peabo: true, but i'm not sure we'd want 3 members to be able to dissolve over the objections of 2 -- that's why we set a high fraction
skyfaller: two people could reboot the organization, it only took 2 people to start it
skyfaller: 1 board member probably can't do it by themselves though
peabo: (I am taking an opposite position to what I said in the 8/5 meeting, that the board can fail and the organization continues along its last known good path)
e1presiden: Can we table this issue and move on?
gavinbaker: e1presidente: table until when?
gavinbaker: this is the last clause of the bylaws
e1presiden: ok
e1presiden: true
gavinbaker: we should go through the comments -- which we might not be able to accomplish before 5, when this meetings ends because a new begins
gavinbaker: so we might not finish today, entirely
peabo: fwiw: two board members can defeat dissolution for board size of 7 as well
gavinbaker: but we should at least get through the bylaws proper, and this is the last clause
- ktetch (n=ktetch@adsl-074-166-105-206.sip.asm.bellsouth.net) has joined channel #freeculture
gavinbaker: peabo: i guess i'm ok with that. dissolution isn't something we should be encouraging ;)
peabo: can we imagine a triggering event other than board action?
skyfaller: like I said, I think that if we're down to 1 board member we should quit
skyfaller: and if we're down to one chapter we should probably quit as well
gavinbaker: peabo: everybody dies and we want to give the assets away, rather than let them sit useless or be taken over by RIAA-pirates
peabo: skyfaller: how long does this probelm have to presiste before triggering?
peabo: persiste/persist
e-star: skyfaller: what if we change as an org
gavinbaker: skyfaller: i don't think i want to write in a chapters-based self-destruct, because the board might still be interested in working and just change the model from chapters-based to something else
e-star: skyfaller: and become more of a traditional ngo
gavinbaker: i wouldn't want to self-destruct before they could make that decision
skyfaller: OK, so it all hangs on the board?
e-star: skyfaller: and as a result don't have chapters or something
e-star: gavinbaker: yes
e-star: gavinbaker: my thoughts exactly
skyfaller: I'm a little skeptical about a not-chapters-based student group...
gavinbaker: well, if you can't get any board members / not enough board members, then the Org is fucked. chapters can continue without the Org, but the Org can't continue without the Org
skyfaller: but I won't hold up consensus over that
gavinbaker: skyfaller: i don't want to do it now, but if the board wanted to do it in the indefinite future, i don't want to prevent them
skyfaller: ok
gavinbaker: to be explicit, one option is simply not to have a self-destruct
gavinbaker: and if nobody's around, the assets just sit
gavinbaker: or whoever shows up takes over
peabo: until Bob Jones University joins as a chapter and takes over
gavinbaker: that option has some drawbacks, but one thing in its favor is simplicity
gavinbaker: if we can't figure this out now then i think i favor not having a trigger
skyfaller: we could just trust in the board to kill the org if things really go down the tubes
skyfaller: or write in an amendment later if experience teaches us not to trust the board :P
gavinbaker: i think i favor leaving this to a future amendment, unless somebody has a suggestion how to fix this.
gavinbaker: i'm not hearing a lot of answers
skyfaller: hm
skyfaller: how about not having an explicit self-destruct clause
peabo: skyfaller: that could be an example of a shared ethos which the board maintains without explicit memntion in the bypaws (or else in some way by appealing to the spirit of "purposes and Goals")
skyfaller: but letting either the chapters or the board kill the org
skyfaller: if the board is non-responsive, there may still be chapters who are around to close up shop
skyfaller: that gives us a little redundancy in case of one part of the org failing first
mark007: I am arriven!
skyfaller: let the chapters do it through the same process that they amend the bylaws, perhaps?
skyfaller: mark007: good job ;-)
mark007: Now comes the arduous task of catching up. A task I don't really feel like working on. Maybe I'll just read the last page...
gavinbaker: i think i like having an option for the chapters to dissolve the Org
gavinbaker: seems like a good idea
gavinbaker: but how exactly do you do it?
skyfaller: same as amending the bylaws, except the amendment is rm -rf
peabo: well, this is a blunt instrument, but you could pass an amendment that declares that the organization has dissolved
skyfaller: we should probably explicitly say in the bylaws that this option is allowed, so we know that either the board or the chapters can dissolve the org
gavinbaker: i think i'm fine with using the amendment process
gavinbaker: in the grim future of FC.o-anity, are we going to have 2 chapters bringing forward a dissolution amendment every 6 mo? ;)
skyfaller: lollerskates
gavinbaker: i suppose it's their right. but... gosh if that wouldn't get annoying, especially if it always gets voted down
skyfaller: if the other chapters don't care enough to vote it down, then we probably deserve to get shut down
skyfaller: then they can just flame the troll chapters until they shut up ;-)
peabo: there is already a provision for expelling problem chapters
skyfaller: heh
skyfaller: yeah, that might be worth using against troll chapters
gavinbaker: can we just +m them in future amendment rounds?
skyfaller: lol
e1presiden: heh
skyfaller: this is getting silly
skyfaller: let's say the chapters can also dissolve the org
gavinbaker: anyway, RESOLVED: we add a clause that chapters can dissolve the Org via the amendment process?
skyfaller: sure
gavinbaker: +1 from me
skyfaller: +1
skyfaller: more votes?
mark007: I haven't read the discussion enough to have an opinion.
gavinbaker: s/votes?/votes or comments?
peabo: gavin: 75 minutes until 5 PM
gavinbaker: sounds like consensus of whoever's paying attention
Fear_of_C: +1
gavinbaker: final issue with dissolution, then: self-destruct?
skyfaller: no self-destruct
gavinbaker: i vote no, just out of consideration for time
peabo: seens unnecessary
skyfaller: I think we can trust either the chapters or the board to kill the org if it comes time
gavinbaker: it might be valuable to have but hopefully it's never necessary, and if we want to add it we can do so in the future
skyfaller: one of them should succeed if things have really gone up the creek
- Signoff: K`Tetch (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
- K`Tetch (n=ktetch@adsl-074-166-105-206.sip.asm.bellsouth.net) has joined channel #freeculture
gavinbaker: if either the chapters nor the board will put us down, then i guess the assets just sit. but honestly i wouldn't expect us to have many assets of value in that case ... (though the domain is particularly nice)
gavinbaker: anyway, i'm fine w/ no trigger for auto-destruct. anybody else?
- Signoff: ktetch (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
gavinbaker: i wonder whether i should ping people as notice, or if everybody is willfully not paying attention / afk
Fear_of_C: i there is a trigger
Fear_of_C: it should be vetoable
e1presiden: I'm only marginally paying attention. i feel like this is bordering on irrelevancy
skyfaller: but we're just saying that there shouldn't be a trigger
Fear_of_C: that's fine, I guess
mark007: Perhaps a clause that if the board hasn't met for x amount of time (possible a year or two semesters) it should be dissolved?
mark007: Though, even that could possibly get out of hand.
skyfaller: is anyone enthusiastic about having an auto-destruct clause?
mark007: I don't feel that it's necessary.
skyfaller: mark007: no, that just means the board needs to be rebooted
peabo: not I
skyfaller: mark007: time for new elections
mark007: Yeah. I don't like an auto-trigger.
skyfaller: alright, then are we done?
Fear_of_C: seems so
Fear_of_C: I may go afk for a bit, btw
skyfaller: no prob
e1presiden: brb - my machine is on the verge of freezing up
gavinbaker: sounds like no self-destruct
gavinbaker: that gets thumbs-up from me
e1presiden: for the record I'm against self destruct
skyfaller: --self-destruct
gavinbaker: and so that's it for the first-run through the bylaws! :D
skyfaller: or self-destruct ---
gavinbaker: there was a part of the bylaws that we need to return to, though...
gavinbaker: V 1.1
gavinbaker: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Bylaws#Section_1.1._Board_Elections
skyfaller: oh, fun
- gavinbaker sighs a deep and heavy sigh
- skyfaller plays with traffic
gavinbaker: i guess, i'll start off with a proposal
- Signoff: e1presidente (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
gavinbaker: the proposal is this:
- ktetch (n=ktetch@adsl-074-166-105-206.sip.asm.bellsouth.net) has joined channel #freeculture
gavinbaker: anybody who doesn't like the chapters voting for the board, and would prefer individual chapter members voting for the board -- offer an amendment in the future
gavinbaker: we've already spent a ton of time on these bylaws, and we need to get a draft out ASAP
gavinbaker: we need to get a draft to the chapters to ratify, and we need to elect a new board
gavinbaker: and we want to do that before everyone goes back to school and is consumed by that
skyfaller: I think it's worth noting that having individual chapter members vote would require them to have standing in the organization, and we don't currently keep track of what individuals are in our org....
gavinbaker: some schools start in <2 weeks, so we're already going to hit that someone -- we want to hit it as little as possible
skyfaller: having indivdual human members would require a major rewrite to the bylaws
- e1presidente (n=e1presid@216-15-61-221.c3-0.161-ubr3.lnh-161.md.cable.rcn.com) has joined channel #freeculture
gavinbaker: well, without commenting on the relative value of either approach, i propose that solely out of time we just keep the bylaws the way they are, and anyone who prefers something else can offer an amendment in the future (and/or vote against ratification if it's that bad)
skyfaller: +1
gavinbaker: i think our amendment process is very solid so it should be very capable of dealing with such proposals
skyfaller: I think the most important question to ask is whether everyone is happy with the amendment process
mark007: I know that key club gives each club 2 votes.
mark007: Perhaps rather than give each chapter only one vote, we could enable individual chapters to split votes if there is disagreement.
mark007: But, that sort of thing could of course wait as an ammendment.
gavinbaker: mark007: but then the minority's vote is worth the same as the majority.
skyfaller: yeah, in the interests of time, I think we should just have people advance proposals like that as an amendment for the spring semester
gavinbaker: at any rate, i *strongly* prefer that we keep things as-is, 1 chapter:1 vote
e1presiden: gavinbaker: seconded
gavinbaker: i note that this is the 5th bylaws meetings, plus a preceding board meeting to discuss this, plus a lot of time and discussion via email, wiki, etc.
gavinbaker: i really, really want to finish these, the sooner the better.
mark007: Heheh. Understandable. These meetings go on crazy long...
skyfaller: mark007: I think it would be a little complicated given that we're voting for 5 board seats... so each chapter gets 10 votes? I don't think that's something we shoud hammer out as a rush job
gavinbaker: i'm not sure if e-star is still with us, but i'll ping her anyway out of courtesy because i know she might have an opinion on this.
skyfaller: if it's a good proposal, advance it as an amendment for the spring, I say
gavinbaker: skyfaller: re: rush job, exactly. this is a valuable discussion to have, we should take the time to really have it -- and we don't have that time now
mark007: Agreed.
mark007: I don't have strong feelings either way. I was just bringing up past experience.
gavinbaker: excuse me while i make lunch for a bit -- i'll be in and out for a sec.
mark007: Key club also has many more chapters than we do, which makes the two votes seem a lot smaller than they would be in our organization.
gavinbaker: i also note that proponents of another approach have had ample time to write up an alternative on the Talk: page, and haven't done so
gavinbaker: not to say that's their fault, or it should disqualify the idea, but to say that we shouldn't wait any longer, and should move on for now
skyfaller: brb
gavinbaker: (i'll also note that concerns about relative influence of chapters should be mitigated by the Core Team proposal on the Talk: page)
gavinbaker: so i say +1 to stick with chapters voting for the board, 1 vote per chapter.
gavinbaker: other votes / comments?
skyfaller: +1
e1presiden: +1
mark007: +1
gavinbaker: k, so that's that
gavinbaker: was there anything from the board elections section that we didn't clear up when we got stuck on the issue of who votes?
gavinbaker: looks like a couple things
gavinbaker: "Members of any chapter can nominate other members for board positions."
gavinbaker: that, i think we took care of
gavinbaker: yeah, that -> "Members of any chapter (as defined by the chapter) and current members of the board of directors can nominate themselves or other eligible individuals for board positions."
gavinbaker: next: "Members of the board of directors are elected by the liaisons of official chapters by plurality vote. Each chapter may cast one vote."
gavinbaker: the last sentence, we just decided to leave
e1presiden: Good
gavinbaker: the earlier one, though
gavinbaker: (1) on what basis do the liasions vote?
gavinbaker: i think we should say "per the procedures of that chapter"
gavinbaker: so each chapter decides how they cast they vote -- whether by plebiscite, or vote of the exec. board, or unilateral decision of the president or of the liaison, or random number generation -- it's up to them
gavinbaker: any comments or questions on that?
peabo: I agre, keep it simple from the organizations' perspective
- Signoff: K`Tetch (Connection timed out)
- K`Tetch (n=ktetch@adsl-074-166-105-206.sip.asm.bellsouth.net) has joined channel #freeculture
gavinbaker: anybody else...?
e1presiden: None
- Signoff: ktetch (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
skyfaller: +1
skyfaller: we could write up some suggestions
skyfaller: but those don't necessarily need to go in the bylaws
gavinbaker: ok, 6 minutes, that's plenty of time... moving on
gavinbaker: (2) do we want to use plurality?
gavinbaker: there was some talk of approval voting or some other method
skyfaller: so how exactly would plurality voting work?
- ktetch (n=ktetch@adsl-074-166-105-206.sip.asm.bellsouth.net) has joined channel #freeculture
skyfaller: whoever gets the most votes wins? so the people on the board are the 5 highest-polling candidates?
gavinbaker: right
gavinbaker: i'm less sure about how any other method would work
gavinbaker: are there any notes about this on Talk: page?
skyfaller: we'd have to figure out what to do if the last seat ties
gavinbaker: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Talk:Bylaws#Voting_Method
skyfaller: it doesn't matter if any of the higher-polling candidates tie, b/c they still have more votes than the next highest polling people
skyfaller: but if people tie for 5th place, then it matters
peabo: well, it could, if all 8 candidates get the same number of votes :-)
gavinbaker: oh wait, wrong comment
gavinbaker: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Talk:Bylaws#Board_of_directors_voting_method
gavinbaker: ok, so what's the drawback to plurality?
gavinbaker: that you might tie?
skyfaller: well, that can happen with approval voting too
gavinbaker: i mean, i could live with that, though hopefully it never occurs
e-star: gavinbaker: oops
gavinbaker: unless somebody has a better idea, i'm for keeping things as-is
e-star: skyfaller: i think we should think about preferential voting
skyfaller: alright, I'm thinking about it :) why would it be better than simple plurality voting?
e-star: because people get to indicate a preference among the candidates
e-star: as opposed to just picking 5
gavinbaker: e-star: how would that work?
skyfaller: (we should probably spell out that plurality means that each chapter gets one vote *per seat* if we do do plurality)
e-star: gavinbaker: mako has worked extensively on this issue
e-star: gavinbaker: as i've suggested several times, see hyperchat.media.mit.edu
gavinbaker: e-star: cool, so how would we use it here?
gavinbaker: i.e. how do we write it in?
skyfaller: (that link doesn't work)
e-star: oops
gavinbaker: e-star: i was looking for comments about this on the Talk: page and couldn't find any
e-star: hyperchad.media.mit.edu
e-star: iirc, you rank your top 5 people
peabo: there is also Instant Runoff Voting: http://www.fairvote.org/irv/faq.htm which is normally applied to one candidate but could probably work for doing them all iteratively
e-star: * plurality: Plurality Voting
e-star: * approval: Approval voting
e-star: * condorcet: Condorcet voting
e-star: * ssd: Schulze method (Condorcet voting with cloneproof Schwartz sequential dropping) (default)
e-star: * borda: Borda count
e-star: * runoff: Instant runoff voting (IRV)
e-star: http://hyperchad.media.mit.edu/selectricity-anywhere.html
- Signoff: mark007 (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
skyfaller: OK, so how do we choose between those?
- Signoff: e-star ()
skyfaller: ...kicked for flooding I presume :)
e1presiden: heh
- e-star (n=e-star@c-66-30-26-201.hsd1.ma.comcast.net) has joined channel #freeculture
e1presiden: welcome back
e-star: i think we should review them
e-star: sorry my wifi went out
gavinbaker: i think i'm happy with preferential voting, but how do we implement it?
gavinbaker: i.e. tell me what text we should write in and i support it
e-star: gavinbaker: mako has written software to handle it
e-star: gavinbaker: gpl'd of course, and i'm sure there's transparency as well if need be
gavinbaker: e-star: what text should we write into the bylaws, is what i mean
gavinbaker: right now it says "by plurality voting"
gavinbaker: how do we replace that clause
skyfaller: "vote however Mako says" ;-)
e-star: sorry, i'm looking at the various methods
skyfaller: what does Wikimedia use?
gavinbaker: next meeting starts in 15 min, fyi
peabo: Mako's default method is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method
e-star: yup, reading that now
skyfaller: yeah, the French and Spanish wikipedias use that method
e-star: skyfaller: good question
skyfaller: but what does Wikimedia itself use?
- Signoff: K`Tetch (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
peabo: Arrow's Theorem probably applies (i.e., there can be consitions in which something weird happens, but unfortunately that is true of all voting techniques of this type)
skyfaller: .
e-star: "All voters will have two votes, one for the Contributing Active Member Representative and one for the Volunteer User Representative. The election is run as First Past the Post, that is, the candidate with the most votes will be declared the winner."
e-star: oh wait that is old
gavinbaker: first past the post = plurality
gavinbaker: fwiw
e-star: hm..i should probably check with mako that it would be possible to do the preferential voting w/ his software
e-star: i will see him tonight
e-star: otherwise, with plurality, it would just be select 5 candidates
e-star: and the 5 people with the most votes would win?
gavinbaker: e-star: yeah, that's how it would work
gavinbaker: in case of a tie, *shrug*
e-star: right, preferential deals w/ that part well
gavinbaker: well, in case of a tie for the 5th seat
peabo: tie for the last place, toss a coin
e-star: in the case of a tie, expand the board to 7 :D
peabo: e-star: :-)
gavinbaker: i think i'd rather use preferential, but how do we pick which?
gavinbaker: i'm afraid we may not finish before we collide with the next meeting at 5 edt
peabo: The Schulze method may have theoretiucal advantages, but it is hard to explain
paulproteu: (BTW, there's a tech planning meeting in 15m, and it'd be nice to have some of you here at that meeting.)
e-star: i am willing to talk to mako about it tonight
peabo: I thing the best method is the simplest one, and we are not likely to get in trouble for it
skyfaller: I am also a bit concerned abouut having complicated voting methods that nobody understands ;-)
e-star: and get back to whoever w/ the results of that discussion
e-star: i.e. is it possible w/ his software w/ 5 candidates, etc
e-star: and is it transparent
e-star: etc
e-star: er, transparent but also private
e-star: (i'm thinking an admin can have access, etc.)
e-star: and if the results of that are just too complicated, we can go w/ plurality pick 5
gavinbaker: this is probably the part of the bylaws to write-in that a 3rd party runs the election
e-star: oh i thought we already added that elsewhere?
gavinbaker: as previously decided (i think when we were talking about the Coordinator) but that should probably go in this section
gavinbaker: since it's about the board elections, seems to make more sense
paulproteu: e-star, Please also ask him to compare his software to the Debian election system.
e-star: ok
gavinbaker: well, i guess we should just schedule the next meeting so we can get out of the way before the next one?
e-star: paulproteus: could you tell us more about that?
gavinbaker: *sigh* i hope we finish these someday.
e-star: gavinbaker: what's left?
gavinbaker: the rest of the board elections section
e-star: gavinbaker: i saw that we decided on 1 chapter/1 vote while i was on the phone
gavinbaker: comments on the talk page
e-star: which i'm not all too thrilled with
e-star: fred is also away right now, so he couldn't make it
paulproteu: e-star, He'll know better, but from what I recall it's a very pure Condorcet-based system that has anonymous voting as well.
gavinbaker: and then just reviewing the changes we decided as a check to the last-draft
e-star: paulproteus: aha, well that could work as well
skyfaller: e-star: guess he should have replied to my e-mail to the Board then about scheduling this meeting, huh?
e-star: skyfaller: i think he may be offlineish
e-star: heh
- Signoff: e1presidente ()
gavinbaker: so should we schedule the next (hopefully last??) meeting?
e-star: i am not free really after wed eve
- e1presidente (n=e1presid@216-15-61-221.c3-0.161-ubr3.lnh-161.md.cable.rcn.com) has joined channel #freeculture
skyfaller: I think this is entirely in line with the policy used with the Boycott Regal Cinemas campaign... doing something now is better than waiting for non-responsive people
skyfaller: so let's keep moving
peabo: 7 minutes
e-star: skyfaller: so you support that :)
skyfaller: e-star: well, I just want consistency here :P
skyfaller: you can't have it both ways
e-star: skyfaller: i wasn't saying we should
e-star: skyfaller: i'm not saying we should wait for him, i'm just explaining why he's not present
e-star: on the other hand, i will not be available after wed midday
skyfaller: OK
gavinbaker: so, monday or tuesday?
gavinbaker: or else e-star will be absent
gavinbaker: i'm afk next weekend -> next week
e-star: what is left to decide?
e-star: board election method
e-star: what happens when there's no ED
e-star: incorporation
e-star: ?
gavinbaker: <e-star> gavinbaker: what's left?
gavinbaker: <gavinbaker> the rest of the board elections section
gavinbaker: <gavinbaker> comments on the talk page<gavinbaker> and then just reviewing the changes we decided as a check to the last-draft
peabo: 501(c)3 possibly
gavinbaker: e-star: right, we haven't decided what happens when there's no Coordinator
gavinbaker: i'm not sure that incorporation / 501(c)(3) have to go in the bylaws
e-star: ah sorry, i missed those last two
gavinbaker: the board can decide incorporation / 501(c)(3)
skyfaller: gavinbaker: agreed
e-star: gavinbaker: we seemed to think the bylaws would decide that issue
e-star: hm, that's weird, because that's not what you guys said at the board meeting
gavinbaker: e-star: i'm not sure i ever thought that
gavinbaker: we could look in the log, i suppose
gavinbaker: i don't really care either way
gavinbaker: i'd just rather leave it to the board, so we can finish the bylaws sooner
skyfaller: well, I don't see how the bylaws can decide if we're 501(c)3, or even incorporated
e-star: what about what happens when there's no ED?
skyfaller: both of those require work before they can happen
gavinbaker: e-star: that's a topic we have to address
skyfaller: and the org won't be either incorporated or 501(c)3 when the bylaws are ratified
e-star: skyfaller: as in, if we *should* do it
gavinbaker: so this is what there is to discuss. so when's the next meeting?
e-star: but yes, we can leave that to the board then
skyfaller: yeah, time to punt to the next meeting
skyfaller: Tuesday night?
gavinbaker: *sigh* i could come on tuesday
gavinbaker: (meeting #7 re: the bylaws for me...)
skyfaller: I'll be really happy when these are finished and ratified
peabo: Tuesday is fine with me (i.e., I can do the backup log, but I will arrive late)
e-star: well we'll see if they'll be ratified in their current state
e-star: !
skyfaller: I got my thesis written quicker than these bylaws
e-star: also i'm a bit worried
e-star: that if we only give chapters a week or so to ratify
e-star: then some people might be on vacation
e-star: especially in august
gavinbaker: e-star: well, we have to have a draft before people can vote
skyfaller: e-star: I still say you should ratify so long as you're happy with the amendment process, but I guess it'll be up to your chapter
gavinbaker: e-star: at this rate, some people will be back in school by the time a vote is open
e-star: gavinbaker: yes, i'm talking about a separate issue
gavinbaker: e-star: right
gavinbaker: so when's the next meeting???
e-star: tuesday at what time?
skyfaller: 8pm EDT?
gavinbaker: as i said before, that's early on the west coast
e-star: that's prime dinner time
e-star: here
gavinbaker: but i'm not sure any west coast'ers are coming anyway
e-star: paulproteus: ?
gavinbaker: well, for those of us who have to work at 9am, i don't want to start it too late
skyfaller: 9pm EDT? that's getting late for people who have work in the morning
paulproteu: I'm pretty flexible, so don't worry about me.
e-star: yes, i was thinking earlier
e-star: 5 or 6pm
gavinbaker: considering these meetings have taken 4-5 hours previously
skyfaller: earlier means that people on the west coast can't make it, and people who work later than 5 may not be able to make it on the east coast until late
e-star: is better for me
gavinbaker: when we started at 8pm we ended at midnight-ish both times
e-star: okay well i have dinner plans on tues
e-star: so i can't do 8pm
e-star: i might be able to come in later
e-star: around 10ish
gavinbaker: i'd be fine with 6 pm edt, but i think that might make it harder for others, especially on the west coast who would still be e.g. at work
e-star: 6 is good for me
e-star: i think it's most important to see if people in here can make it
gavinbaker: i love how well consensus makes meta-decisions :-/
- Signoff: brylie ("Leaving")
skyfaller: 6 is OK by me
paulproteu: It's all good for me.
Fear_of_C: 6 mostly works for me
Fear_of_C: it's as good as any other time
gavinbaker: we could just say 6 and go with it
peabo: ok
gavinbaker: 6 pm edt on tuesday going once...
Fear_of_C: say 6, and see if anyne complains
gavinbaker: Fear_of_C: yeah, but we won't have much time to adjust if anybody does ;)
peabo: -3 minutes
gavinbaker: twice --
skyfaller: complain now, or forever hold your peace :)
skyfaller: your piece?
gavinbaker: sounds like 6 pm to me
peabo: gavin, I will e-mail backup log, but not until after this next meeting
e-star: cool
gavinbaker: thanks peabo
peabo: (I mean the one that just started :-)
gavinbaker: paulproteus: the channel's all yours
gavinbaker: thanks everybody
- e1presidenH 0n=e1presid@216-15-61-221.c3-0.161-ubr3.lnh-161.m David Riordan
- e-star H 0 n=e-star@c-66-30-26-201.hsd1.ma.comcast.net elizabeth
- ktetch H 0n=ktetch@adsl-074-166-105-206.sip.asm.bellsouth. K`Tetch
- Fear_of_C H 0 n=nick@cpe-66-65-84-36.nyc.res.rr.com gaim
- Omnifrog H 0 n=Omnifrog@c-68-60-206-179.hsd1.tn.comcast.net Omnifrog
- mllerustadH 0 n=mllerust@c-69-143-179-58.hsd1.va.comcast.net Karen Rustad
- gavinbakerH 0 n=gavin@c-69-143-179-58.hsd1.va.comcast.net Gavin Baker
- peabo H 0 n=peabo@c-24-147-25-140.hsd1.ma.comcast.net Peter Olson
- tannewt H 0 n=scott@gentoo/developer/tannewt Unknown
- ryanfaermaH 0 n=ryanfaer@crlspr-69.65.71.237.myacc.net Ryan Faerman
- jibot H 0 i=andy@83.145.232.84 #JoiIto's bot
- rohitj H 0 n=rohitj@203.200.95.130 Rohit Jain
- skyfaller H 0 n=nelson@wikipedia/Skyfaller Nelson Pavlosky
- sj_ H 0 n=sj@wireless-19-47.media.mit.edu SJ
- Ax3 H 0 n=ax4@rada.voodoohosting.com ax4
- jli G 0 i=jli@gateway/tor/x-513ed214ca560d4b Jli
- ftobia H 0 n=chatzill@ool-18bb9b30.dyn.optonline.net Frank Tobia
- klepas G 0 n=klepas@unaffiliated/klepas Pascal Klein
- sahal H 0 i=hobo@outbound.silenceisdefeat.org can't get enough of that sugarcrisp...
- _sj_ H 0 n=sj@c-71-233-36-41.hsd1.ma.comcast.net sjk
- [autonomy]H 0 n=autonomy@c-71-232-117-225.hsd1.ma.comcast.net auto
- poningru H 0 n=poningru@ip72-209-65-174.ga.at.cox.net Eldo Varghese
- danjared H 0n=danjared@HOW-ABOUT-A-NICE-GAME-OF-CHESS.MIT.ED D. Jared Dominguez
- paulproteuG 0 i=paulprot@29.145.221.202.bf.2iij.net Asheesh Laroia
- freeculture End of /WHO list.