Archive:2007-07-17/log

Log for 2007-07-17. 18:06:18 	so while we wait for elizabeth 18:06:29 	i'll go over an ad hoc agenda 18:06:41 	basically we need to arrive at a way of getting new board members 18:06:43 	we need new faces 18:06:53 	and there are some provisions in the by laws 18:06:56 *	Fear_of_C (n=nick@cpe-66-65-84-36.nyc.res.rr.com) has joined #freeculture 18:06:56 	Fear_of_C is Nick from Swarthmore and organizing http://freeculture.org/blog/2007/01/20/free-culture-labs/ 18:07:15 	but they're not totally clera 18:07:20 	and that good 18:07:42 	yeah, I specifically would like to get these by-laws finished and have elections for a new board before the school year starts 18:07:47 	yes, that sounds good 18:08:01 	so Elizabeth and I thought we should add soemthing that stipulates nominations 18:08:06 	because its u nclear how people get nominated to run now 18:08:13 	sure, what would that entail? 18:08:13 *	gavinbaker figures he should pull up the bylaws 18:08:14 *	e-star (n=e-star@bdv75-8-82-247-15-212.fbx.proxad.net) has joined #freeculture 18:08:14 	e-star is Elizabeth Stark from law.harvard.edu 18:08:18 	e-star: howdy :) 18:08:19 	ah 18:08:21 	speak of the devil 18:08:21 	Salut, e-star. 18:08:24 	hi all 18:08:29 	apologies -- our wifi went out 18:08:35 	those French! 18:08:39 	 ok, I was just saying 18:08:42 	we need to clarify nominations 18:08:43 	and elections 18:08:44 	cool, so who's here? 18:08:46 	yes 18:08:47 	def 18:08:51 	i made some comments to that effect 18:08:52 	and more importantly, we should reform how people / chapters vote 18:09:03 	because I'm with e-star on the idea that one vote per chapter isn't great 18:09:15 	maybe in an ideally populated chapter situation it'd be good 18:09:24 	plus i think those that don't officially have chapters but are still involved (i.e. paulproteus) should still be able to vote 18:09:26 	well, here's why I think the 1 vote per chapter is good 18:09:29 	can i interject for a sec? 18:09:32 	but now it doesn't seem fair that fledgling chapters get rights 18:09:34 	is this just a meeting to discuss the bylaws? 18:09:35 	but wait 18:09:36 	because 18:09:43 	if so, why aren't we doing it on the talk page on the wiki? 18:09:45 	that was #3 on the agenda 18:09:50 	because we can finish this now 18:09:53 	we just need to get it over with 18:09:58 	gavinbaker: i already added my comments 18:10:00 	announce that there are a couple new board positions open 18:10:00 	:) 18:10:03 	and go from there 18:10:12 	we need to focus on getting some new people on the board before the Fall semester 18:10:22 	and wiki comments are good, but we can get stuff done quicker with a short IRC meeting 18:10:24 	mecredis: yes, agreed, but that's #3 18:10:36 	since i proposed the meeting, i'm going to try to moderate a bit 18:10:39 	so FIRST 18:10:45 	there's the issue of reincorporation 18:10:50 	right, that 18:10:51 	too 18:11:02 <e-star>	gavinbaker informed me that we almost surely do not exist anymore in florida 18:11:15 	good and bad news, if you will 18:11:16 	e-star: that's right 18:11:35 	our employer ID might still exist with the IRS 18:11:39 <e-star>	gavinbaker: ideally we should be 100% on that 18:11:42 	in which case we'd want to update it or close the old one 18:11:43 <e-star>	but in any case 18:11:54 	e-star: i'm hesitant to dig too deep, because we may owe them fines 18:11:59 	for not having filed sales tax reports 18:12:03 	lollerskates 18:12:08 	(and the awful truth comes out) 18:12:12 	loller what? 18:12:18 	I was lol'ing 18:12:26 	in a sarcastic way 18:12:28 <e-star>	gavinbaker: do you know what the minimum funding amount where you have to get an audit is in FL? 18:12:43 <e-star>	okay, anyway, we really need to figure out if we want to re-incorporate 18:12:47 	and if so 18:12:48 	where 18:12:51 	OK, reincorporation is great, and I'm all for it. But think it is a little backwards to incorporate before we're organized... I think that was a mistake last time 18:12:57 <e-star>	there is a lot of annoying administrative stuff that goes into it 18:13:01 <e-star>	skyfaller: wait 18:13:06 <e-star>	skyfaller: i'm getting into the reason 18:13:15 <e-star>	so icommons has officially asked us to be a member org 18:13:23 	e-star: no idea 18:13:23 <e-star>	which means we'll get certain voting rights, etc. 18:13:28 	i know we never actually *owed* any taxes 18:13:34 <e-star>	gavinbaker: k 18:13:41 	but because we had a tax account or whatever, we were supposed to file reports 18:13:44 	which we didn't always due 18:13:46 <e-star>	icommons sent me a letter 18:13:54 <e-star>	but in order to become a member org, we need to be a non profit 18:13:57 	when they came after us about that, is when i told them we don't exist, close the account 18:14:01 	zomg, e-star, for real? 18:14:07 <e-star>	paulproteus: yah 18:14:16 	e-star, In what country? (Can you forward the letter to board?) 18:14:16 <e-star>	and they're willing to help 18:14:21 	Um, oh. 18:14:21 <e-star>	paulproteus: i will 18:14:25 	and the corporate existence expires unless you renew annually 18:14:31 	i'll fetch it online 18:14:37 <e-star>	paulproteus: i wanted to discuss it at this meeting first 18:14:46 <e-star>	so basically, they're willing to aid us with incorporation 18:14:53 <e-star>	diane suggested california 18:14:55 	 to some extent 18:14:59 	California's a nice place. 18:15:00 	well, that sounds like a good idea to me 18:15:04 <e-star>	because the minimum for an audit there is $1million 18:15:07 	having someone help us is good 18:15:09 	because they have the highest amount of $ before there's an audit 18:15:15 	... and that also sounds good :) 18:15:15 <e-star>	but, that means we'll have to appoint someone in california 18:15:16 <e-star>	to do all of this 18:15:19 	but 18:15:24 	that means we need a man on the ground in CA 18:15:28 *	paulproteus gulps 18:15:29 <e-star>	or woman 18:15:30 *	mecredis looks at paulproteus 18:15:30 <e-star>	etc 18:15:33 	well, we have a few chapters there 18:15:39 <e-star>	we don't want it to be chapters 18:15:44 <e-star>	we need someone dedicated and responsible 18:15:45 	no, we need someone 18:15:46 	... I mean we have people there 18:15:46 	who is there 18:15:50 <e-star>	so that we don't expire again ;) 18:15:50 	not volunteer students 18:15:52 <e-star>	yah 18:15:58 <e-star>	another option could be mass 18:16:07 <e-star>	i'm fine w/ california if we can really have a dedicated person there 18:16:13 	yeah 18:16:20 	maybe Jon P might do it 18:16:21 	e-star: well, it should be an office, not a person, because people expire :P 18:16:39 	but that's a different issue 18:16:48 	anyway 18:16:50 	I can volunteer to do this, but I can't guarantee that I'll spend the next 100 years of my life as a resident. But I probably can for two or three. 18:16:58 	paulproteus: that sounds good 18:16:58 	yeah, that's the sort of thing I mean 18:17:02 	status: inactive -- http://sunbiz.org/scripts/cordet.exe?action=DETFIL&inq_doc_number=N05000005356&inq_came_from=NAMFWD&cor_web_names_seq_number=0000&names_name_ind=N&names_cor_number=&names_name_seq=&names_name_ind=&names_comp_name=FREECULTURE&names_filing_type= 18:17:07 	haha 18:17:10 	what a URL 18:17:21 	... yet another reason not to incorporate in Florida? ;-) 18:17:23 <e-star>	skyfaller: no we don't need an office 18:17:28 <e-star>	skyfaller: in california at least 18:17:38 	well, we should incorporate where we are going to have an office 18:17:41 	is my feeling 18:17:46 	hrm 18:17:46 <e-star>	skyfaller: no it really doesn't matter 18:17:49 	i don't think we should have an office, is my feeling 18:17:51 <e-star>	skyfaller: we just need a rep 18:17:56 	one other thing 18:17:57 	furthermore, i'm with e-star, in that it doesn't really matter 18:18:00 	MA is $500k before audit 18:18:01 	Right now I'd probably sign up to receive mail at the CC office rather than my home; I hope that's also okay.... 18:18:02 <e-star>	i'm okay with having some kind of office 18:18:05 	and NY is $200k before audit 18:18:07 <e-star>	but we don't need it in the same state 18:18:14 <e-star>	if paulproteus is willing to do it in cali, that's great 18:18:25 <e-star>	now i'd just like to compare filing fees 18:18:26 	I mean it's definitely something CC has been enthusiastic about supporting 18:18:30 <e-star>	in, say, ny vs mass vs cali 18:18:37 <e-star>	so i'd like to discuss the issue 18:18:42 <e-star>	of whether or not we'd like to incorporate 18:18:46 	e-star, What sort of help would iCommons actually offer? 18:18:50 <e-star>	and if so, whether or not we'd like to join icommons 18:18:57 <e-star>	let me dig up diane's response 18:19:03 	e-star, Great. 18:19:29 	Also, I've always been vaguely against incorporating, as far as I recall. I have difficulty believing the paperwork costs are worth benefits we'll actually get. 18:19:37 	And legal fees. 18:19:50 	But if iCommons will handle much of that for us, then I'm more interested in hearing about the benefits.. 18:19:55 <e-star>	paulproteus: i can see that perspective as well 18:20:00 	yeah, its not clear how much they will though 18:20:01 	paulproteus: being a non-profit is important for a number of reasons. I'm also ok with having a non-profit handle things for us 18:20:02 <e-star>	i guess it's a tradeoff vis-a-vis icommons 18:20:04 	they want us to be a member org 18:20:09 	One is tax-deductible donations, obviously. 18:20:14 <e-star>	guys 18:20:15 <e-star>	hold on 18:20:19 <e-star>	they're not going to do everything for us 18:20:25 	I also think we look a little more legit if we're tied to iCommons 18:20:31 <e-star>	it was more like, lending us a hand with advice, putting us in touch w/ a lawyer, etc 18:20:33 	e-star: thats what I was just saying 18:20:41 	yeah, but that's better than nothing 18:20:52 	and I think we're probably better starting doing that in CA 18:20:55 <e-star>	mecredis: definitely 18:20:57 	where CC has already done that kind of thing 18:21:01 	So we'll still have to pay (a) thousand(s of) dollars. 18:21:09 	paulproteus: probably not thousands 18:21:10 <e-star>	but even in reading diane's responses 18:21:16 <e-star>	it made me a bit nervous 18:21:20 <e-star>	about all of the administrative stuff 18:21:21 <e-star>	ha! 18:21:27 	disclaimer, DC loves administrative stuff 18:21:34 	my limited experience with her when I was at CC 18:21:39 	was that that was her domain 18:21:48 <e-star>	"It's not heavy lifting. The resident agent is simply a local person who must be available to receive a service of process if the organization is sued.  Legally, you must serve notice to anyone you sue, otherwise they can't be hauled into court.  To make sure that companies don't try to hide from such notices to avoid the litigation,the states require them to appoint someone local who, when served with a subpoena, will bind the 18:21:49 <e-star>	 18:21:49 <e-star>	Lots of law firms serve as agents for process and many will do it pro bono for charities.  You might ask someone at EFF, for example.  Otherwise, you can incorporate in CA by mail, but you will be subject to CA law so your counsel should be someone who knows CA law.  Also, if your main activities will actually take place in one particular jurisdiction, it gets complicated juggling multiple jurisdictions because you are also subje 18:21:49 *	jibot has quit (Remote closed the connection) 18:21:56 	so she comes off intimidating when its more like she's being thorough 18:22:00 	... pasting into the channel is for no! ;-) 18:22:04 	hahah 18:22:08 	jibot: definitely didnt' like that 18:22:13 	one sec 18:22:15 	forward us the email or something 18:22:44 	fyi, the admin stuff in FL is minimal -- re-register annually. the filing fee is something like $75/year 18:22:56 <e-star>	we'll only need to budget for an audit if we have more than $1 million/year in a budget 18:22:58 <e-star>	ha! 18:22:59 	as we know, you don't even have to file your bylaws to file in florida ;) 18:23:24 	... which might be a shortcoming of FL's system, now that I think about it ;-) 18:23:33 	hey, if you want to screw yourself, FL doesn't care 18:24:01 <e-star>	"Let's see if we can get the legal status in Florida sorted out first. If you wish, I'll be happy to follow up with your counsel.   Let me know how I can help." 18:24:13 	... so who is our counsel?  18:24:16 <e-star>	also from DC 18:24:22 <e-star>	well yeah, she just assumed we had one 18:24:24 <e-star>	heh 18:24:25 <e-star>	but anyway 18:24:27 	can you just forward the thread to us? 18:24:36 <e-star>	yes, i will 18:24:37 	attach them all and send it over 18:24:45 	groovy 18:25:08 	oh, the other admin thing you need in FL is a resident contact -- which was me 18:25:13 <e-star>	but the questions are (1) do we want to join icommons? 18:25:15 	those are the only things 18:25:20 <e-star>	(2) if so, then we have to re-incorporate 18:25:24 	(1) i'm for it. unless there are some crazy strings we don't know about 18:25:31 	(1) what are the pros and cons? 18:25:33 <e-star>	so as a result (3) do we want to re-incorporate 18:25:48 	(3) i'm for it, once we ratify these bylaws 18:26:09 	ok 18:26:12 	no more "invizible organazation" 18:26:12 	at this point 18:26:17 	(3) I also think that we should prioritize by-laws and electing a new board over re-incorporating, but I support re-incorporating in general 18:26:21 	there seems like a real benefit to incorporating 18:26:23 	gavinbaker++ 18:26:25 	e.g. being tied to iCommons 18:26:33 	p.s. tax-deductible donations 18:26:38 	limited personal liability 18:26:40 	FYI re: Calif. prices: e.g. http://www.amerilawyer.com/cal_nprft_inc.htm 18:26:40 	if we get 501c3 status 18:26:54 	right, but corp. is prereq to 501c3 18:26:59 	indeed 18:27:08 	even without 501c3, corp brings shield to personal liability 18:27:11 <e-star>	gavinbaker: tax deducatable?! 18:27:11 	this also means we can be a cause on facebook 18:27:14 	and no taxes on your own stuff 18:27:17 	paulproteus: We have that money. And it would enable us to get more. 18:27:18 <e-star>	er, deductable 18:27:25 	e-star: i like the other spelling better 18:27:27 <e-star>	right, need 501c3 18:27:46 	so incorporating is a prereq to a number of good things 18:27:48 	yeah 18:27:50 <e-star>	well skyfaller: good news 18:27:56 <e-star>	they also require that we have some kind of bylaws 18:27:57 <e-star>	i think 18:28:00 	lol! 18:28:04 	it also brings some admin responsibilities, but i feel confident we can handle them 18:28:09 	"The fee to apply for formal recognition with the Internal Revenue Service is $1,500 plus the IRS filing fees." (same link) 18:28:13 	as long as we stay on top of it 18:28:13 <e-star>	paulproteus: that's not the actual filing fee 18:28:14 	e-star: so my knee-jerk reaction is to support joining icommons, it sounds good, but why do we want to do it? what are the benefits? 18:28:24 	e-star, Right, and if we get a pro bono lawyer we can avoid that money. 18:28:28 	(and the un-benefits) 18:28:35 <e-star>	skyfaller: i forwarded the letter 18:28:36 	skyfaller: name brand power 18:28:47 	I mean, what does it mean to join iCommons? 18:28:49 	skyfaller: help! 18:28:50 	paulproteus: we have friends in high places. who can raise $100k at the drop of a hat, for a conference ;) 18:28:53 	what are our responsibilities? 18:29:13 	gavinbaker, I still am inclined to think that's Joi. 18:29:35 <e-star>	skyfaller: i think honestly, they're not entirely sure either 18:29:37 	paulproteus: he's our friend. he bought us dinner 18:29:41 	... Gavin, Karen, and I are about to start drinking wine I think 18:29:45 <e-star>	paulproteus: no, not joi 18:29:52 *	gavinbaker seriously considers whether we should be drinking, during a meeting, before dinner 18:30:02 <e-star>	guys, let's stay on task ;) 18:30:17 <e-star>	anyway, it appears that icommons member orgs will help in governance of the org 18:30:22 <e-star>	it's also an amount of prestige 18:30:25 <e-star>	er, brings an amt 18:30:27 	e-star: agreed 18:30:29 	e-star: link? email? 18:30:36 	oh, there it is 18:30:37 	its nice to have a non-profit mentor too 18:30:37 <e-star>	gavinbaker: check yr email 18:30:53 <e-star>	whether it will take away a bit of autonomy is a question 18:30:58 <e-star>	but i don't see that too much 18:31:20 	we need to pass a rule that icommons can't use .doc any more 18:31:24 	I don't think iCommons is capable of removing autonomy 18:31:24 	hm, how would it take away autonomy? 18:31:27 	gavinbaker++ 18:31:30 <e-star>	skyfaller: i'm all for passing bylaws as well, but i am not happy with them in their current state 18:31:38 <e-star>	skyfaller: you can see my comments on the wiki 18:31:48 	e-star: I did, and I agree that there are some things that need addressing 18:31:56 <e-star>	skyfaller: cool 18:31:58 	e-star: any idea why ronaldo emailed this invite to you in particular? 18:32:08 <e-star>	gavinbaker: yes, because they asked me at icommons at a lunch 18:32:41 	gavinbaker and I went to the iCommons organizational meeting at the summit. 18:33:05 	When people asked, Why a membership-based organization? Diane's response was mostly, Because at this point it's too hard to change that. Let's talk about something else. 18:33:05 	paulproteus: right, this is interesting in that light. 18:33:14 <e-star>	paulproteus: heh 18:33:17 	but atm, the "members" are CC 18:33:23 	i guess they're expanding that 18:33:29 <e-star>	paulproteus: when i asked them about membership, they were still a bit unclear about it 18:33:36 <e-star>	gavinbaker: yes, they are looking to do so 18:33:45 	Right, and they said they felt they needed non-CC members to look more independent themselves. 18:33:48 <e-star>	i also think this provides us with a good opportunity 18:33:55 <e-star>	we have mentoring 18:34:02 <e-star>	and we have a source of motivation 18:34:04 <e-star>	to get this done 18:34:04 *	tannewt has quit ("Leaving") 18:34:11 	e-star: I agree 18:34:24 	ok 18:34:29 	e-star, Can you be more specific? 18:34:43 	this all sounds like a good idea, but it seems *very* vague 18:34:47 	e-star: who, particularly, has committed to helping us incorporate? and will they help with 501c3? 18:34:53 	which is the only downside I'm currently seeing 18:35:06 	skyfaller: would it be less vague if we read all of iCommon's corporate articles, linked in this letter? 18:35:13 *	gavinbaker obviously hasn't had a chance to review them all 18:35:30 	well, I can't tell you that gavinbaker, seeing as I haven't read them either :P 18:35:33 	ok. *might* it be less vague? 18:35:42 	e-star: have you read all of this? 18:35:47 <e-star>	but then of course we have to deal w/ the resulting administrivia 18:35:56 <e-star>	gavinbaker: diane in her emails has offered toehlp 18:36:02 <e-star>	paulproteus: in what sense? 18:36:21 	e-star: with corp. only, or with 501c3, or just "help" in general? 18:36:23 	You say they'll mentor us - what mentoring will they provide? I don't understand that. 18:36:47 <e-star>	gavinbaker: well we only need to be incorporated to be a member 18:36:49 	And the "source of motivation" - just to clarify, you mean that this iCommons request is motivation for us to incorporate ourselves, right? 18:36:56 <e-star>	gavinbaker: if you'd like, i can ask for how much they'd be willing to ehlp 18:37:00 	(wine has already improved this meeting dramatically) 18:37:02 	e-star: right, but incorporating is easy schmeasy. it's 501c3 that's q eustion 18:37:27 	well, incorporating with good bylaws might be more difficult. i wouldn't know ;) 18:37:29 	I really really wonder why we can't pull the same junk Debian does, where Debian (the people doing interesting things) aren't a corporation, but they have some friends who made a 501(c)3 called Software in the Public Interest that accepts money and spends it on things that Debian people ask them to. 18:37:31 <e-star>	paulproteus: yes 18:37:44 	paulproteus: I'd be interested in that option as well 18:37:47 <e-star>	paulproteus: that's a possibility 18:37:54 <e-star>	but then we can't be members of icommons 18:37:59 <e-star>	unless we ask them to change their policy 18:38:00 <e-star>	heh 18:38:01 	paulproteus: i've wanted to do that, but we didn't have friends who were willing to do that 18:38:05 	FC.o itself doesn't absolutely have to be a 501(c)3, or even a corporation 18:38:12 <e-star>	skyfaller: agreed 18:38:12 	at least, PK wasn't yet willing to do that, until we got more shit together 18:38:18 	but no friends have stepped forward, as gavinbaker says 18:38:31 	gavinbaker, "yet" as of when? Also, I think we should be happy to accept someone doing this for us for a fee, now that I think about it. 18:38:34 	--are you sure Debian isn't a corp? sure it's not 501c3, but it's not a corp? 18:38:43 	gavinbaker, Hold on I'll double-check. 18:38:50 	paulproteus: yet as of the last time we asked, which was a long time ago, because we've been neglecting administrivia 18:39:07 	gavinbaker, Sure. 18:39:13 	paulproteus: if we have to pay a fee, why not just make the real thing happen? 18:39:23 <e-star>	okay, guys 18:39:32 	gavinbaker, Because if someone else stores our money for us, and we forget about it for a year, they handle it and we don't have to do any work. 18:39:32 <e-star>	i think we are going to have to make some key decisions here 18:39:32 	i mean, there are pros and cons either way. we shouldn't just assume one is better 18:39:43 <e-star>	it appears to me that our bylaws would actually require incorporation 18:39:51 <e-star>	unless we could find some other way to get funding for an ED 18:39:55 	e-star, Yes, I agree. But I want to eagerly explore my suggested low-administration option. 18:40:09 	e-star: i think the bylaws were meant to be coupled with incorporation 18:40:10 	("I agree" is re: "need to make decisions") 18:40:11 	yeah, paulproteus's suggestion is a valid option *if we have friends who will do it for us* 18:40:16 <e-star>	paulproteus: right, because no one likes administrivia..well at least almost no one 18:40:21 <e-star>	gavinbaker: yup 18:40:32 	skyfaller, iirc last time we talked about this there was someone willing to do it for a fee. 18:40:36 	Do you remember that too? 18:40:42 <e-star>	so we need to think about (1) whether we do want to incorporate again, and if so, we need to stick to it 18:40:44 	PK did offer in the distant past to help us out if we got our administriva together. I don't know if that offer is still open, but I would assume so 18:40:45 	paulproteus: the "fee" is usually something like a 20% cut on donatons 18:40:47 	The fee was money off the top rather than a fixed value, which I think is fine. 18:40:47 	*donations 18:40:49 	Right. 18:41:11 <e-star>	(2) whether we want to pass the bylaws in their basic form (detailed changes not withstanding) 18:41:22 <e-star>	(3) whether we want to join icommons 18:41:39 <e-star>	(4) whether we want an ED-type person and a physical location 18:41:40 <e-star>	etc 18:41:46 	PK's two requirements were (1) by-laws, (2) getting on the way to 501(c)3, i.e. incorporating and filling out all the 501(c)3 paperwork, and (3) writing a one-page document about who we are and why people should fund us 18:41:49 	e-star: i think we can't decide any at this meeting, except maybe (1) 18:41:56 	if I recall correctly 18:42:00 <e-star>	gavinbaker: when can we? 18:42:00 	we need more research and time to look over it 18:42:11 <e-star>	fine, but let's set deadlines 18:42:11 	e-star: well, i need to read the links in this letter before i can comment on (3) 18:42:19 <e-star>	gavinbaker: okay 18:42:34 	we've set a timeline for ratifying the bylaws, with or without changes 18:42:43 	that timeline also decides (4) 18:42:45 <e-star>	gavinbaker: well what happens to my and tim's comments? 18:43:00 	e-star: more people comment, and we have a meeting to produce a RC. then we vote. 18:43:05 	did you read the minutes from the meeting on sunday? 18:43:24 <e-star>	gavinbaker: i read the email..heh 18:43:34 	well, either we have to merge the comments before then and make them to your satisfaction or the Harvard chapter could refuse to ratify the by-laws 18:43:44 <e-star>	also, do we have an unstable version of the bylaws? 18:43:56 	no... should we? 18:44:16 	we could make one on the wiki, apart from the protected one 18:44:18 <e-star>	gavinbaker: yes, i think so 18:44:23 <e-star>	gavinbaker: then i could add the parts that i'd like 18:44:25 *	gavinbaker still wishes we had the GPLv3 revision system 18:44:26 <e-star>	etc 18:44:35 	yeah, a comment system would be ideal 18:44:38 	as the stable version 18:44:42 <e-star>	and as skyfaller also admitted, there are some outstanding issues 18:44:47 	the wiki is a more natural place for an unstable version 18:45:01 	ok, so it sounds like what we really need 18:45:03 	is a time line 18:45:07 <e-star>	okay, so what's a timeline for these issues? 18:45:08 	e.g. get comments in by x date 18:45:10 	mecredis: we have a timeline for the bylaws 18:45:18 	it's in the minutes from the meeting. 18:45:22 	basically we have 2 weeks for comments 18:45:24 	then we produce an RC 18:45:26 <e-star>	right, what about for re-incorporation 18:45:28 	which we have a week to vote on 18:45:32 <e-star>	gavinbaker: also, did we send that to discuss? 18:45:37 	e-star: we have to have bylaws that say whether we're a corporation or not 18:45:47 	e-star: no, nobody sent it to fc-disco, because it sucks. we can if we want 18:45:55 	it went to chapters list, so hypothetically it went out to the chapters 18:45:59 <e-star>	gavinbaker: we should 18:46:03 	I would very much like to see all the requirements of becoming a corporation laid out along with the benefits. 18:46:10 <e-star>	gavinbaker: not everyone forwards stuff from the chapters lsit 18:46:14 	On a wiki page separate from the the bylaws, that is. 18:46:15 	I think that the incorporation stuff should wait for the next board of directors to decide 18:46:18 	e-star: and what about janet and jay and all the random (l)users on fc-disco? 18:46:24 	some of us here may be on that board 18:46:30 	http://wiki.freeculture.org/Unstable_Bylaws 18:46:31 	but really it's something that requires an organization 18:46:32 <e-star>	gavinbaker: so what if they comment on the wiki 18:46:35 	There, an unstable copy. 18:46:43 <e-star>	okay, but that means that this will take a long time 18:46:54 <e-star>	i would prefer that this board decide on incorporation 18:47:04 	wait, what? how we can have a board without a corporation? that's weird 18:47:05 	e-star: well, the timeline gives us a new board by the end of August 18:47:11 	i guess it's possible, but still weird 18:47:16 <e-star>	although if we decide not to, the next board could always decide otherwise 18:47:16 	the bylaws should decide whether we're a corporation 18:47:31 	which means that, whoever comments and ratifies the bylaws needs to decide 18:47:44 	whether we're a corporation is a pretty basic question of corporate articles, and should be in the bylaws 18:47:58 <e-star>	gavinbaker: right now they're not phrased that way 18:48:02 <e-star>	gavinbaker: the bylaws that is 18:48:05 	e-star: well, they should be :) 18:48:14 	that's why we have a comment period 18:48:27 <e-star>	so basically this board is completely paralized? 18:48:38 <e-star>	gavinbaker: we absolutely need to send it out to other lists than just chapters 18:48:39 *	CTho (n=chris@cpe-72-177-113-240.austin.res.rr.com) has joined #freeculture 18:48:40 	e-star: what board ;) 18:48:42 	yeah, what is the point of any of this? 18:48:48 	yeah, I don't think we have any legitimacy, honestly 18:48:49 	mecredis: that's what i wondered 18:49:03 	basically this is me and e-star trying to be productive 18:49:09 <e-star>	guys, stop w/ the negativity please 18:49:10 	and take advantage of an offer FC has receieved 18:49:15 	mecredis: great, and thanks for it 18:49:19 	mecredis, I realize, and I also realize that I suggested not incorporating which is totally contrary to your offer. 18:49:24 	e-star-- | broken record 18:49:34 	e-star: It isn't negativity if it's a legitimate problem. 18:49:48 	paulproteus: indeed 18:49:51 	paulproteus: exactly, and how do we decide if we should incorporate or not? we don't know, because we don't have by-laws 18:50:02 <e-star>	mllerustad: not having any legitimacy?? 18:50:03 <e-star>	anyway 18:50:04 	I don't mean to be negative. Can someone who supports incorporation make a wiki page listing the benefits and costs precisely and accurately? 18:50:05 	this some insane bureaucratic catch 22 18:50:11 	are we going to have a vote between the 6 of us? what if it's a tie? 18:50:13 <e-star>	gavinbaker: i'm willing to work w/ you on an email to be sent out to discuss, etc 18:50:18 <e-star>	about bylaws 18:50:25 <e-star>	so far only tim and i commented the last time i was there 18:50:26 	e-star: send it to fc-disco if you want, i don't mind 18:50:31 <e-star>	so it clearly did not get out enough 18:50:32 	I amended them 18:50:40 	it should absolutely go out to fc-d 18:50:41 <e-star>	paulproteus: i'm okay with that 18:50:48 	ok, so that's simple 18:50:50 	we draft a letter 18:50:52 	to fc-d 18:50:53 <e-star>	paulproteus: i don't think debating it is negative 18:50:53 	saying 18:50:55 	chapters is the important list, because fc.o is a confederation of chapters. but it doesn't matter if it goes on disco or whatever 18:51:10 	but no one reads chapters 18:51:19 	e-star, Don't worry too much about the meta-talk of if I'm negative or not unless there's a problem. 18:51:20 	e-star: i really meant to reply to tim's email, and never got to it because i was traveling. i still have a draft saved. i apologize for not having more of a discussion then 18:51:26 <e-star>	gavinbaker: yeah, and some chapter reps don't fwd to chapters (even i didn't..oops) 18:51:29 	e-star, Would you be willing to write up such a wiki page? 18:51:47 <e-star>	gavinbaker: right but i'm saying we'd welcome more comments 18:51:48 	paulproteus: i'll write up some brief notes about pro/con on corporation 18:51:51 	there are a lot of people who are on FC-discuss who are not related to this organization in any meaningful way 18:51:56 	gavinbaker, Great, I look forward to it. 18:51:58 	e-star: right, more comments would be good, which is why we had the meeting on sunday 18:51:59 <e-star>	paulproteus: on incorporation? i'm honestly not 100% for it 18:52:06 <e-star>	gavinbaker: awesome, i can help too 18:52:14 	and many chapters are not represented in any way on FC-discuss 18:52:24 <e-star>	skyfaller: we can just send it to BOTH 18:52:26 	e-star, It's not important if you're for it or against it so long as you (and gavinbaker and mecredis and so forth) can help document the pros and cons. 18:52:33 	the pros/cons i'll probably just email out to you guys, and if someone wants to make a wiki and develop it more, be my guest 18:52:35 	so while it's fine to send things to FC-discuss, it's not the be-all and end-all of lists 18:52:36 <e-star>	skyfaller: worst thing that happens is that they make a comment and we don't use it 18:52:49 	e-star: agreed 18:52:55 	and I think the types that we're worried about 18:53:02 	are less likely to really bother at this level 18:53:04 	e-star: of course, now that we have an Unstable set of by-laws they could theoretically make dumb edits, but I accept your point 18:53:05 	they just like trolling 18:53:17 <e-star>	skyfaller: history 18:53:17 	i don't think anybody cares if it goes to fc-disco, but what's important is for the chapters to show up and participate, however that happens 18:53:18 <e-star>	etc 18:53:33 	e-star: at some point it gets unmanageable, but hopefully we won't reach that point. 18:53:39 	I would also like to point out that the blog automatically sends e-mail to FC-discuss 18:53:41 <e-star>	so how many chapters have to ratify them? 18:53:48 	that's why i didn't think it was particularly important/useful to have an unstable bylaws, but i don't mind if we do 18:53:53 	e-star: that's a question that needs to be answered in the by-laws I suppose 18:53:57 <e-star>	skyfaller: true, that's a good improvement 18:54:05 	e-star: yeah, that question should be answered in the bylaws. if it's not, it needs to be 18:54:10 <e-star>	skyfaller: well we can't p ass them if we haven't set that up 18:54:19 	personally, I think that all chapters that are part of FC.o have to ratify the by-laws 18:54:29 	well, i think we need like a 2/3 vote of existing chapters 18:54:34 	and all future chapters have to agree on joining 18:54:34 	but then we're stuck with the question of "what makes a chapter" 18:54:40 <e-star>	what if one chapter holds out because of x,y,z 18:54:44 	mecredis: there is a technical definition 18:54:49 	which is that they completed the form thing 18:54:53 	right 18:54:54 	then either you have to fix the by-laws, or give up on that chapter 18:54:59 	this is a good reason for chapters to re-register again 18:55:08 	but i really don't think unanimity should be required for the vote 18:55:19 	OK, point 18:55:21 	although accession for future chapters should require agreement 18:55:30 	mecredis, I want to talk with you (at some point; now if that's okay, later if it's not) about your concerns about giving fledgling chapters a vote. Can't we settle that problem by just requiring that the chapter have some basic existence for at least a year before getting voting rights? 18:55:30 <e-star>	yeah i'm afraid some ppl will be on vacation or whatever 18:55:34 <e-star>	or a chapter went inactive 18:55:36 <e-star>	and they won't vote 18:55:38 <e-star>	or soemthing 18:55:44 	I guess a 2/3 vote makes sense 18:55:45 <e-star>	then we'll just drag on 18:55:48 	e-star: that's why i think we should require chapters to re-register before we vote on this 18:55:49 	if that's the concern 18:55:55 <e-star>	or 3/4 18:55:55 	paulproteus: yeah, that's a decent criteria 18:55:56 <e-star>	even 18:55:59 	so we can drop the dead weight chapters that never really existed 18:56:04 	but yeah, I think the re-registration means that only active chapters will be involved 18:56:15 	so we have everyone re-register 18:56:18 	paulproteus: interesting suggestion 18:56:21 	gavinbaker: Agreed. 18:56:26 	then we have a decent clue over who are the active chapters 18:56:26 	paulproteus: any ETA on the new registration database? 18:56:32 	gavinbaker, Oh, no such ETA yet. 18:56:37 	)-: 18:56:47 	paulproteus: that might be OK in the future, but I think we're starting from a blank slate with chapters now 18:56:47 	Let me add some more FC.o-related things to my TODO. 18:56:53 	well, if we're going to require re-registration before we get to voting, that gives us less than 2 weeks. 18:56:53 <e-star>	also, in board elections, we shoudl DEFINITELY make use of preferential voting 18:56:56 	so I don't think we can require a year's activity right now 18:57:03 	skyfaller, I agree re: "blank slate right now". 18:57:20 <e-star>	so guys 18:57:21 	e-star: as in, instant runoff voting? 18:57:25 	e-star: preferential voting sounds fine 18:57:26 	e-star: i kind of feel like voting on the board makes sense to do on the level of individual chapter members, but it gets kinda messy, and i know skyfaller disagrees with me 18:57:30 <e-star>	see hyperchat.media.mit.edu 18:57:33 <e-star>	oops 18:57:41 <e-star>	http://hyperchad.media.mit.edu 18:57:45 	oh wait wait 18:57:54 	are we talking about preferntial voting in terms of voting method 18:57:58 <e-star>	gavinbaker: yes, it can get messy, but i wasn't talking about that 18:58:00 <e-star>	gavinbaker: yup 18:58:04 	or in terms of, some chapters get more votes than others? 18:58:27 <e-star>	gavinbaker: no 18:58:32 <e-star>	gavinbaker: voting method 18:58:35 	ok. disregard my earlier comment, then 18:58:44 <e-star>	so guys 18:58:50 <e-star>	are we not going to do ANYTHING? 18:59:03 <e-star>	or should we set a deadline to comment on reincorporation 18:59:07 <e-star>	and icommons membership 18:59:08 	I think we should have an organization before we incorporate, but incorporation is something we can put into the by-laws 18:59:11 	well, we're going to read this letter from iCommons. and we're going to work on the bylaws 18:59:20 *	tannewt (n=scott@gentoo/developer/tannewt) has joined #freeculture 18:59:22 	let's save iCommons until we have a real organization? 18:59:31 	like, with bylaws and maybe a corporate existance 18:59:32 <e-star>	skyfaller: how do you define an "organization"? 18:59:46 <e-star>	what is a real organization?? 18:59:54 	e-star, I'd like the deadlines to be information-oriented rather than action-oriented. 18:59:56 	e-star: 1.) bylaws, 2.) board. 18:59:56 	e-star: i just said. like, with bylaws and maybe a corporate existance 19:00:01 	mllerustad++ 19:00:07 	At least, this early on in the stage. 19:00:22 <e-star>	gavinbaker: yah i didn't see that till after i hit send :p 19:00:25 	i agree with paulproteus. we need time to make these decisions, unless there's some reason to do it another way 19:00:39 	with the bylaws, we want to pass them so we can elect a board before everyone goes back to school 19:00:54 <e-star>	but we need someone to decide on the process for ratifying the bylaws 19:00:58 	is there a similar reason to rush on deciding about iCommons? 19:01:05 	e-star: right, that'll have to be in the RC 19:01:07 <e-star>	gavinbaker: sort of 19:01:15 	e-star, Maybe you can ask how much rush there is? re: iCommons 19:01:16 	e-star: That is true. 19:01:19 	so we'll talk about it on the Talk page, and we'll make sure it's written into the RC 19:01:20 <e-star>	gavinbaker: i'm not sure that we want to do it a year from now 19:01:28 	Maybe we should discuss ratification method now? 19:01:34 <e-star>	mllerustad: sure 19:01:35 	yes, 19:01:36 	Because that is important. 19:01:37 	lets do that 19:01:40 	well, our timeline has bylaws and elections getting done by late August, as I said 19:01:48 	e-star: well, then the deadline is "ASAP." and right now, it's as important to do as the bylaws/board/corporation 19:02:02 	*more important 19:02:11 	Can I get the people writing up pro/con of incorporation to set a deadline for that, too, then? 19:02:14 	we need a drop dead date 19:02:18 	so that if comments don't get fixed by then 19:02:20 	and then the new board can decide about iCommons, or ask the chapters, or whatever they want to do 19:02:21 	then they don't go in 19:02:29 	mecredis: the comment period ends in 2 weeks 19:02:38 <e-star>	wait, i thought we were deciding on ratification? 19:02:40 	paulproteus: i'll send out some basic notes tonight 19:02:43 	we need to publish this timeline more officially than in the meeting minutes I suppose 19:02:47 	gavinbaker, s/send out/post to the wiki/ 19:02:49 	and then ratification is soon after? 19:02:51 	skyfaller: i sent it to chapters list. 19:03:00 	Can someone (I nominate skyfaller) make this prominent on our wiki? 19:03:03 	mecredis: Then a meeting to incorporate the comments, then ratification. 19:03:11 	paulproteus: i said i'd send an email. someone else can make a wiki, if they want 19:03:20 	gavinbaker, Sounds good then. 19:03:25 	Gavin and I will work on this timeline thing 19:03:43 	er. skyfaller, what? 19:03:47 	we have a timeline, don't we? 19:03:53 	oh 19:03:54 	gavinbaker, URL? 19:03:58 	I misunderstood Gavin 19:04:06 	*I* will work on making the timeline more prominent 19:04:11 	paulproteus: it's the minutes from the meeting. they're in the /topic 19:04:18 	gavinbaker, Okay, sure. 19:04:22 <e-star>	guys, i mean 19:04:24 <e-star>	can we vote 19:04:28 <e-star>	on the process 19:04:34 <e-star>	for bylaws ratification? 19:04:51 	*Gavin* willl work on sending out notes on incorporation, pros and cons 19:04:53 <e-star>	i saw 3/4 of chapters that register 19:04:56 	e-star: Well, I think we agreed that we should require chapter re-registration before the vote. 19:05:10 <e-star>	yes, but percentage 19:05:10 <e-star>	et 19:05:11 	(Which means that the new registration system needs to fit into this schedule) 19:05:11 <e-star>	c 19:05:16 	e-star: Right. 19:05:25 	So are people up for discussing that? 19:05:33 	paulproteus: we do need to work on that registration system... web team meeting soon? :) 19:05:48 <e-star>	also, maybe for those with the same info there's some way of just preserving it? 19:05:50 	Once we have re-registration, that gets rid of the problem of inactive chapters holding us up. 19:06:05 	and then we ask them 19:06:07 	Does that mean we can have 100% ratification, or do we still want to make it 2/3 or 3/4? 19:06:10 	to ratify the bylaws 19:06:17 	and I think it should be 2/3rds 19:06:18 <e-star>	i say 3/4 19:06:18 	but honestly 19:06:31 	lets think about how many people are going to sit through and read it 19:06:34 	i go for 2/3, but i don't have a major problem with 3/4 19:06:39 	either is fine by me 19:06:41 	what happens if no one bothers? 19:06:44 	i just don't want it to be unanimous, because then one person can hold it up 19:06:54 	mecredis: then it goes through. just like the old system of "consensus" ;) 19:07:04 	I think it's percentage of people who actually vote, not of total chapters, right? 19:07:10 	paulproteus: I should hope so 19:07:12 	paulproteus: Yeah, that makes sense. 19:07:17 	ok, so now let's vote 19:07:21 	2/3rds or 3/4s 19:07:26 	I don't really care 19:07:26 <e-star>	gavinbaker: agreed 19:07:27 	I say 2/3rds 19:07:30 	paulproteus: right, that makes sense 19:07:37 	I'd prefer 3/4... 19:07:38 	i'm with mecredis on 2/3 of chapters that vote. 19:07:39 <e-star>	i like 3/4 b/c it sets the scale a bit higher 19:07:40 <Fear_of_C>	I say 3/4s, though I'm somewhat neutral 19:07:41 	is there any reason to differentiate between the two? 19:07:55 <e-star>	if 1/3 of the chapters really disgree, then i think we hav ea problem 19:07:55 	3/4 looks more legit? 19:07:55 	sounds like 3/4s wins 19:07:56 	ok 19:08:03 	so next 19:08:05 	we need to publish this 19:08:06 <e-star>	if that makes sense 19:08:07 <Fear_of_C>	I think it needs as much popular support as we can give it up front 19:08:08 	Yay, a decision! 19:08:09 	3/4's! yay! 19:08:13 	decision++ 19:08:16 	"We will have bylaws by x date" 19:08:20 <e-star>	wooooo 19:08:21 	Well, 3/4 of a decision. 19:08:27 	skyfaller: So include that in your schedule notification thingie? 19:08:29 	OK, I will blog the timeline 19:08:30 	mecredis: that's been published. how can we better publish it, so people know? 19:08:30 	"3/4 of voting reregistered voting chapters will vote" 19:08:37 	gavinbaker: blog? 19:08:44 	mecredis: your last sentence was hilarious. 19:08:46 	that's a lot more front and center than the wiki 19:08:53 	LMAO! 19:08:59 	that's a great sentence, mecredis 19:09:05 	skyfaller: i can see you. and your ass is still on 19:09:05 	I agree, blogging this makes sense. 19:09:11 	only as ridiculous as this process 19:09:20 	gavinbaker: I'm laughing my virtual ass off 19:09:32 	Earlier I mentioned the wiki because I really want a "Process Portal" like what gplv3 had. 19:09:43 <e-star>	okay, let's blog the bylaws thing? 19:09:46 	ok, but still we should blog this 19:09:49 <e-star>	then it will automatically go off to fc discuss 19:09:50 	Okay. 19:09:53 	ok. volunteers to blog this? 19:09:54 	What's the date for the comments to be done? 19:09:55 	mecredis, Agreed, and I can make that process portal whatever thing. 19:10:00 	I volunteered to blog it 19:10:03 	mecredis: july 29 19:10:11 	cool 19:10:12 	so we just say 19:10:17 	The board is proceeding this way 19:10:18 	I volunteer to make sure skyfaller does it. :p 19:10:21 	may comments 19:10:22 	:P 19:10:25 	mllerustad++ 19:10:40 	walka walka this way 19:10:47 	yay on a productive meeting, everyone. anything else? 19:10:57 	I gotta split for dinner in 30 seconds 19:11:04 	mecredis++ 19:11:06 <e-star>	gavinbaker: so there's a meeting to discuss bylaws then? 19:11:12 	we'll discuss the bylaws 19:11:14 	e-star: on the evening of the 29th 19:11:16 	they'll be solid by the 29th 19:11:20 	to produce the RC 19:11:23 	and then we'll have the chapters vote 19:11:24 	by "consensus," i guess 19:11:25 	that sounds good 19:11:32 <e-star>	gavinbaker: okay, and how do people propose changes? 19:11:37 <e-star>	unstable version? or comments? 19:11:38 	e-star: on the Talk page 19:11:48 <e-star>	basically how do i get my comments to the stable version? 19:11:51 <e-star>	if that makes sense 19:11:52 	we told people in the sunday meeting that the Talk page would be the "official" place to comments 19:11:54 	I still worry about this unstable version 19:11:54 	e-star: Both. 19:11:55 	hrm 19:11:59 	skyfaller: Why? 19:12:03 	it'd be great to get a list of changes set into a preferential voting system 19:12:04 	e-star: i'm a bit concerned about the unstable, too 19:12:07 	I think it may be better to collect comments in one place 19:12:08 <Fear_of_C>	so am I 19:12:09 	let's collect the comments then make an RC. 19:12:19 <Fear_of_C>	because something that gets overwritten will be hard to display next to its successor 19:12:21 <e-star>	gavinbaker: whatever, it will just let people make changes to the text 19:12:37 <Fear_of_C>	if the document itself is being changed 19:12:38 	right, but can't you just suggest changes on the Talk page? 19:12:41 	let's not have people make changes to the text 19:12:44 	yeah, that will be the spot 19:12:44 	skyfaller: And it only makes our own job earlier when we're trying to make the RC. 19:12:47 	then it's a lot easier to compare multiple propsed changes 19:12:54 	skyfaller, I'd like to request that all future published documents about the new bylaws refer to http://wiki.freeculture.org/Bylaws_process. 19:12:54 	*easier 19:13:00 	we can take a quick vote on this, if it'll make anyone happy. 19:13:06 <e-star>	okay, fine, then let's say that people can propose changes to the text on the talk pages 19:13:10 	yeah 19:13:15 	e-star: that is what we said, and we can say it again :) 19:13:18 <e-star>	basically i just want an easy way to propose my changes to the text 19:13:18 	anyone is welcome to make an unstable version 19:13:19 <e-star>	fine 19:13:23 	but it doesn't mean we'll listen to it 19:13:24 	... so we have comments on both talk pages? 19:13:30 	or have to listen to it 19:13:32 <e-star>	but i am still unclear 19:13:35 	skyfaller: i thought we just agreed to scrap the unstable version... 19:13:36 	skyfaller: No, *the* talk page. 19:13:39 	OK 19:13:39 	no, just talk pages on Bylaws 19:13:39 <e-star>	on how i get my changes into the stable version 19:13:43 <e-star>	what is that process? 19:13:44 	we are scrapping the unstable version 19:13:49 	e-star: good question 19:13:54 	e-star: The RC writing meeting. 19:13:59 	that's what we're doing on the night of the 29th apparently 19:14:02 	e-star: you make comments. and show up to the meeting on july 29, or hope that at the meeting on july 29, whoever's there thinks it's a good idea 19:14:05 <e-star>	mllerustad: is there a voting process? 19:14:12 	yeah, we just need to publicize 19:14:13 	gavinbaker says consensus. 19:14:14 	it's "consensus," the good old way 19:14:16 <e-star>	gavinbaker: right, what is the process for getting changes? 19:14:16 	no, we should attempt consensus 19:14:32 <e-star>	right, okay, so consensus at that meeting then 19:14:46 	so, dispatch your minions, everyone 19:14:52 	yeah 19:14:58 	everyone get in comments by trhe 29th 19:15:02 	stack the meeting, just like MS at ANSI ;) 19:15:04 	so people who want changes made should make comments on the talk page for "Bylaws" 19:15:04 	we'll invite everyone who made them by then 19:15:05 	to be there 19:15:14 <e-star>	okay 19:15:15 	right 19:15:20 	we should add a tag to the top 19:15:20 	and then come to the meeting to make sure that they are merged the way they want them 19:15:21 	describing this 19:15:26 	mecredis: great idea 19:15:28 <e-star>	also, skyfaller, in the blog post, stress that this is very important to the future of the org 19:15:28 <e-star>	etc 19:15:31 	sure 19:15:47 	yes 19:15:53 	I'll add a tag to the bylaws 19:16:08 	i can has dinner now? 19:16:14 	no, I don't want anyone to pay attention to us, that's why I'm blogging it ;-) 19:16:18 	skyfaller: :P 19:16:33 	Alright, dinnertime! 19:16:37 	paulproteus: will you add the log of this meeting to the bylaws process page? 19:16:42 	hm 19:16:46 	k 19:16:47 	I made a meeting page 19:16:53 	http://wiki.freeculture.org/2007-07-17 19:16:57 	or, add it that page, and link it from the bylaws process page 19:17:16 	I would propose posting the log at http://wiki.freeculture.org/2007-07-17/log 19:17:19 	gavinbaker, Your "link it" idea is better. I'm linking it now. 19:17:32 	skyfaller, You post the log in the normal place and I'll link to the meeting page right now. 19:17:52 	ok. everybody dance now? 19:18:01 	e-star: thanks for calling this 19:18:05 *	ryanfaerman (n=ryanfaer@crlspr-24.233.176.219.myacc.net) has joined #freeculture 19:18:13 	C I A O 19:18:14 <e-star>	hahahaha 19:18:16 	I look forward to more knowledge and more action. 19:18:18 	mecredis, paulproteus, mllerustad, skyfaller, Fear_of_C, gavinbaker, lurkers: thanks for showing up 19:18:20 	Ciao, mecredis. 19:18:20 	e-star: Indeed, we actually did stuff! 19:18:23 <e-star>	yeah early 90s dance track refernce 19:18:34 	early90sdancemusic++ 19:18:38 *	mecredis has quit ("we can dance if we want to") 19:18:41 <e-star>	SEE, if we stay positive, we can actually get stuff done (maybe..) 19:18:46 <e-star>	okay, bye! 19:18:56 	SEE, if we drink, we can actually get stuff done! (maybe..) 19:19:05 	gavinbaker: very true... 19:19:09 	okay, bye! 19:19:35 *	skyfaller drinks to that 19:19:50 	Time to go back to working on code so other people can profit more. 19:20:16 	paulproteus: did you see my comment about having a web team meeting? 19:21:02 	skyfaller, Yes. The two parts I feel most qualified to work on in a way I don't know anyone else is are (a) backup (nearly done) and (b) the new chapters database. 19:21:21 	Oh, yeah, and offer blog hosting to chapters, only I think I'll let that slide. 19:21:25 	heh 19:21:41 	yes, the new chapters database is the next most important thing that we need to get done 19:21:49 	blog hosting would be the next big project 19:21:51 	after that 19:22:09 *	ryanfaerman has quit (Client Quit) 19:22:22 	So I can schedule to finish the work on backup tomorrow, and get a real ETA on the chapters DB (which might be short...) the following day. 19:22:34 	If I'm slick I can do the backup stuff tonight; depends. 19:22:37 	ok 19:22:39 	So that's your meta-ETA for you. 19:22:54 	paulproteus: we really do need to get the chapters database up by July 29th 19:23:00 	or July 30th 19:23:01 	Then put that on the timeline. 19:23:06 	OK 19:23:20 	just saying, there is a deadline independent of your ETA ;-) 19:23:29 	if the ETA falls after that date 19:23:33 	then we need to change some variables 19:23:39 	Sure. 19:24:20 	basically, if your ETA is before then, I can stop worrying 19:24:28 	otherwise I need to run around screaming and throw more wood on the fire 19:24:33 	Sure. 19:24:42 	ok :) 19:24:59 	I find http://wiki.freeculture.org/2007-07-15 very difficult to follow and difficulter to reference. Can I get you to digest the timeline aspect of it onto http://wiki.freeculture.org/Bylaws_process ? 19:25:38 	Is this picture of you in front of a vending machine? http://wiki.freeculture.org/User:Skyfaller 19:26:11 	no, it's in a bookstore 19:26:20 	that's a magazine rack to the right 19:26:23 	paulproteus: can we get SPI to run our ratification election? 19:26:34 	skyfaller, Aww, shucks. re: bookstore 19:26:42 	we need the votes to be public, but we don't want the votes public UNTIL the polls close 19:26:54 	because seeing how other people vote can affect your vote, which we don't want 19:27:09 	we also don't want to run it ourselves, because then whoever runs it has to be trusted 19:27:14 	easier to trust, you know, mako 19:27:20 	well, Asheesh is trustable, right? 19:27:22 	Alternately I guess I could abstain from voting. 19:27:26 	he doesn't have a chapter 19:27:31 	(Wikimedia ran SPI's board elections) 19:27:42 	mindspillage: comments here? ^^ 19:27:44 	gavinbaker, That's awesome. 19:29:02 	i wish i'd thought of this before the meeting ended, but hopefully we can figure out something that works for everybody. 19:29:33 	i figured we'd just use email or something, but obviously you see emails as you receive them, which we don't want. (at least, i don't want. i don't think we should want it.) 19:29:58 	gavinbaker: It was a little hastily done and made some tradeoffs; we were more concerned about some of our own people leaking results early (as happened in prior years) rather than other security conerns, so... should be better handled next year with more time. 19:30:48 	I agree that leaking results early is the problem we should be fearing most. 19:31:06 	Since all votes are public in the end, if someone says he didn't vote one way then the person recording is in question. 19:31:12 	paulproteus: well, we should be concerned about rigging or bugs, too. but if you make it public, then that's not really a concern 19:31:22 	and i assume it'll be public 19:31:39 	mindspillage: thanks for the info 19:31:51 	mindspillage: think we could get them to handle a small election on the quick? 19:32:27 	small = few voters. much easier system to verify eligibility than wikimedia elections (a list of email addresses) 19:32:37 	(or a password we give out, or something) 19:32:37 	gavinbaker: you could ask! 19:32:57 	I might ask through makol he has bette rcontact there. 19:33:07 	I was not at all involved in the election process; as a candidate I was out of it. 19:33:13 	paulproteus: can i ask you to send an email to the board members explaining what we just talked about? 19:33:20 	Sure. 19:35:15 	sweet 19:39:09 *	aphid (n=danmstud@dsl-63-249-87-11.cruzio.com) has joined #freeculture 19:41:03 *	mindspillage is now known as mind|wandering 19:44:03 	gavinbaker, There, sent. 20:00:45 	paulproteus: rock on. 20:03:51 	skyfaller: will you post the log here, please: http://wiki.freeculture.org/index.php?title=2007-07-17/log&action=edit link title