Difference between revisions of "Archive:2007-07-29/log"

From FreeCulture.org
Jump to: navigation, search
(pasting)
 
m (fixing formatting)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
*** e-star (n=e-star@bdv75-8-82-247-15-212.fbx.proxad.net) has joined channel #freeculture
 
*** e-star (n=e-star@bdv75-8-82-247-15-212.fbx.proxad.net) has joined channel #freeculture
  
    jibot: e-star is Elizabeth Stark from law.harvard.edu
+
jibot: e-star is Elizabeth Stark from law.harvard.edu
  
    e-star: guys, what's the conf call service we used to use?
+
e-star: guys, what's the conf call service we used to use?
  
    e-star: anyone?
+
e-star: anyone?
  
    peabo: I think everyone is away, waiting for it to be 5 PM
+
peabo: I think everyone is away, waiting for it to be 5 PM
  
 
paulproteu: freeconference.com I think.
 
paulproteu: freeconference.com I think.
Line 13: Line 13:
 
paulproteu: I know I've seen others use that.
 
paulproteu: I know I've seen others use that.
  
    e-star: hm ok
+
e-star: hm ok
  
 
*** price (n=price@31-34-75.wireless.csail.mit.edu) has joined channel #freeculture
 
*** price (n=price@31-34-75.wireless.csail.mit.edu) has joined channel #freeculture
Line 19: Line 19:
 
*** contra (i=425ceedb@gateway/web/cgi-irc/irc.jpgclan.com/x-7a080fabeb836a9b) has joined channel #freeculture
 
*** contra (i=425ceedb@gateway/web/cgi-irc/irc.jpgclan.com/x-7a080fabeb836a9b) has joined channel #freeculture
  
    jibot: contra is Ben from Swarthmore
+
jibot: contra is Ben from Swarthmore
  
 
*** gavinbaker (n=gavin@c-69-143-179-58.hsd1.va.comcast.net) has joined channel #freeculture
 
*** gavinbaker (n=gavin@c-69-143-179-58.hsd1.va.comcast.net) has joined channel #freeculture
  
    jibot: gavinbaker is Gavin Baker & his Web site is <http://www.gavinbaker.com/> & an alumnus of the University of Florida & co-founder of Florida Free Culture <http://uf.freeculture.org/> & an intern at SPARC <http://www.arl.org/sparc/>
+
jibot: gavinbaker is Gavin Baker & his Web site is <http://www.gavinbaker.com/> & an alumnus of the University of Florida & co-founder of Florida Free Culture <http://uf.freeculture.org/> & an intern at SPARC <http://www.arl.org/sparc/>
  
 
*** gavinbaker has set the topic on channel #freeculture to FreeCulture.org: student movement for free culture | http://freeculture.org/ | Bug tracker: launchpad.net/web/+bugs | In case of downtime: http://fcostatus.wordpress.com/ | Last Volunteers meeting: http://wiki.freeculture.org/2007-07-22 | Today: Bylaws RC2 meeting at 5 pm EDT, comments due then: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Bylaws
 
*** gavinbaker has set the topic on channel #freeculture to FreeCulture.org: student movement for free culture | http://freeculture.org/ | Bug tracker: launchpad.net/web/+bugs | In case of downtime: http://fcostatus.wordpress.com/ | Last Volunteers meeting: http://wiki.freeculture.org/2007-07-22 | Today: Bylaws RC2 meeting at 5 pm EDT, comments due then: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Bylaws
Line 31: Line 31:
 
*** parkerhiggins (n=chatzill@12.198.114.2) has joined channel #freeculture
 
*** parkerhiggins (n=chatzill@12.198.114.2) has joined channel #freeculture
  
  mecredis: yo
+
mecredis: yo
  
  mecredis: we're doing IRC right?
+
mecredis: we're doing IRC right?
  
    e-star: yup
+
e-star: yup
  
 
*** Signoff: mind|wandering ("Leaving")
 
*** Signoff: mind|wandering ("Leaving")
Line 41: Line 41:
 
gavinbaker: hi mecredis, e-star  
 
gavinbaker: hi mecredis, e-star  
  
  mecredis: yzzah
+
mecredis: yzzah
  
    e-star: hiya
+
e-star: hiya
  
 
gavinbaker: i suppose let's give people a few minutes to trickle in?
 
gavinbaker: i suppose let's give people a few minutes to trickle in?
  
    e-star: yup
+
e-star: yup
  
    e-star: also, perhaps we should discuss process a bit
+
e-star: also, perhaps we should discuss process a bit
  
    e-star: for the mtg?
+
e-star: for the mtg?
  
 
gavinbaker: i sent a reminder on the list a few hours ago, but it'd be great to ping people individually who might be interested
 
gavinbaker: i sent a reminder on the list a few hours ago, but it'd be great to ping people individually who might be interested
  
    e-star: like, how do we want to go through the issues
+
e-star: like, how do we want to go through the issues
  
 
*** cameronparkins (n=cameronp@adsl-69-232-199-227.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net) has joined channel #freeculture
 
*** cameronparkins (n=cameronp@adsl-69-232-199-227.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net) has joined channel #freeculture
  
  mecredis: right
+
mecredis: right
  
  mecredis: how we do the merge
+
mecredis: how we do the merge
  
 
gavinbaker: i just got a call from nelson and karen saying they'll be a bit late
 
gavinbaker: i just got a call from nelson and karen saying they'll be a bit late
Line 67: Line 67:
 
gavinbaker: i'm going to grab something to eat while we give stragglers a few minutes. brb
 
gavinbaker: i'm going to grab something to eat while we give stragglers a few minutes. brb
  
    e-star: ok
+
e-star: ok
  
 
christo_ph: i'd imagine that consensus on patches should allow us to come up with a single rc
 
christo_ph: i'd imagine that consensus on patches should allow us to come up with a single rc
Line 73: Line 73:
 
christo_ph: so that, once approved, anything controversial can be submitted as amendment
 
christo_ph: so that, once approved, anything controversial can be submitted as amendment
  
  mecredis: sounds good
+
mecredis: sounds good
  
  mecredis: I hope Seth Johnson shows up
+
mecredis: I hope Seth Johnson shows up
  
    e-star: ha
+
e-star: ha
  
 
Differance: :-)
 
Differance: :-)
Line 83: Line 83:
 
Differance: That woudl be me
 
Differance: That woudl be me
  
  mecredis: nice
+
mecredis: nice
  
    e-star: cool
+
e-star: cool
  
 
Differance: e-star: ha?
 
Differance: e-star: ha?
Line 99: Line 99:
 
gavinbaker: if they approve it, it passed, and future changes can go through the amendment process
 
gavinbaker: if they approve it, it passed, and future changes can go through the amendment process
  
  mecredis: how's the chapter re-reg going?
+
mecredis: how's the chapter re-reg going?
  
 
gavinbaker: christo_pher: right, exactly
 
gavinbaker: christo_pher: right, exactly
Line 105: Line 105:
 
gavinbaker: mecredis: paulproteus got it up last night
 
gavinbaker: mecredis: paulproteus got it up last night
  
  mecredis: gavinbaker: live, public?
+
mecredis: gavinbaker: live, public?
  
  mecredis: can I check it out?
+
mecredis: can I check it out?
  
    e-star: Differance: ?
+
e-star: Differance: ?
  
 
Differance: nothing -- you looked like you found my participation worthy of a laugh
 
Differance: nothing -- you looked like you found my participation worthy of a laugh
Line 117: Line 117:
 
Differance: It's probably true, actually
 
Differance: It's probably true, actually
  
  mecredis: K
+
mecredis: K
  
    e-star: hm we should take a poll as to how many ppl are actually here for the mtg
+
e-star: hm we should take a poll as to how many ppl are actually here for the mtg
  
 
Differance: :-)
 
Differance: :-)
  
    e-star: Differance: oh no, that was to christohper
+
e-star: Differance: oh no, that was to christohper
  
 
gavinbaker: brb again, don't let me hold up the discussion if i'm not replying right away
 
gavinbaker: brb again, don't let me hold up the discussion if i'm not replying right away
  
    e-star: ok
+
e-star: ok
  
  mecredis: OK
+
mecredis: OK
  
  mecredis: I don't intend on spending all evening in here
+
mecredis: I don't intend on spending all evening in here
  
  mecredis: can we get started soon?
+
mecredis: can we get started soon?
  
 
Differance: e-star: ok
 
Differance: e-star: ok
Line 147: Line 147:
 
Differance: all: (inasmuch as I bring input; let me reserve comment, okay)
 
Differance: all: (inasmuch as I bring input; let me reserve comment, okay)
  
    e-star: what's the easiest way to take a roll call?
+
e-star: what's the easiest way to take a roll call?
  
            mecredis is here
+
mecredis is here
  
  mecredis: ?whois mecredis
+
mecredis: ?whois mecredis
  
    jibot: mecredis is Fred Benenson. He founded Free Culture @ NYU & currently getting his masters at NYU's ITP. He currently lives in New York City & spends his time as a FreeCulture activist. He is a board member of FreeCulture.org & has held internships & fellowships for Creative Commons & volunteered for the EFF.
+
jibot: mecredis is Fred Benenson. He founded Free Culture @ NYU & currently getting his masters at NYU's ITP. He currently lives in New York City & spends his time as a FreeCulture activist. He is a board member of FreeCulture.org & has held internships & fellowships for Creative Commons & volunteered for the EFF.
  
 
christo_ph: Are you guys here? [Arken] [autonomy] _sj_ abhay cameronparkins Cbrown1023_away danjared Differance e-star gavinbaker grahl_ jli K`Tetch klepas Lam_ mark007 Omnifrog parkerhiggins paulproteus peabo poningru price sahal tannewt venkatesh WillySilly  
 
christo_ph: Are you guys here? [Arken] [autonomy] _sj_ abhay cameronparkins Cbrown1023_away danjared Differance e-star gavinbaker grahl_ jli K`Tetch klepas Lam_ mark007 Omnifrog parkerhiggins paulproteus peabo poningru price sahal tannewt venkatesh WillySilly  
Line 159: Line 159:
 
christo_ph: <-- here
 
christo_ph: <-- here
  
    peabo: Peter Olson, assoc member Free Software Foundation; amazability.com, no academic affiliation
+
peabo: Peter Olson, assoc member Free Software Foundation; amazability.com, no academic affiliation
  
    e-star: rock
+
e-star: rock
  
 
parkerhigg: present.
 
parkerhigg: present.
  
    grahl_: eh?
+
grahl_: eh?
  
    e-star: we're taking a roll call
+
e-star: we're taking a roll call
  
 
Differance: present
 
Differance: present
 +
mark007: Estoy aqui
  
  mark007: Estoy aqui
+
tannewt: hey hey
  
  tannewt: hey hey
+
e-star: hm i hate to say it, but can people perhaps say their names?
 
 
    e-star: hm i hate to say it, but can people perhaps say their names?
 
  
 
Differance: ?whois Differance
 
Differance: ?whois Differance
  
    jibot: Nobody has defined Differance yet
+
jibot: Nobody has defined Differance yet
  
 
christo_ph: Christopher Budnick, Harvard Free Culture, Northeastern Free Culture
 
christo_ph: Christopher Budnick, Harvard Free Culture, Northeastern Free Culture
Line 189: Line 188:
 
paulproteu: Hi, yes I'm here now.
 
paulproteu: Hi, yes I'm here now.
  
    price: I'm here.
+
price: I'm here.
  
      Lam_: hmm?
+
Lam_: hmm?
  
 
paulproteu: Whoa, hey cameronparkins.
 
paulproteu: Whoa, hey cameronparkins.
Line 197: Line 196:
 
cameronpar: paulproteus: why the surprise??
 
cameronpar: paulproteus: why the surprise??
  
    e-star: price: gprice?
+
e-star:price: gprice?
  
    price: (namely Greg Price, at Harvard and MIT)
+
price: (namely Greg Price, at Harvard and MIT)
  
    price: yes
+
price: yes
  
    e-star: :)
+
e-star: :)
  
    e-star: okay, shall we try to get started?
+
e-star: okay, shall we try to get started?
  
  mecredis: please.
+
mecredis: please.
  
  mecredis: Let's go section by section maybe
+
mecredis: Let's go section by section maybe
  
  mecredis: talk about what's controversial
+
mecredis: talk about what's controversial
  
  mecredis: and try to settle on it
+
mecredis: and try to settle on it
  
 
paulproteu: (Asheesh Laroia, no academic affiliation, mostly observing, but I also am the Web Team Leader for freeculture.org and a software engineer at creativecommons.org.)
 
paulproteu: (Asheesh Laroia, no academic affiliation, mostly observing, but I also am the Web Team Leader for freeculture.org and a software engineer at creativecommons.org.)
Line 219: Line 218:
 
*** ktetch (n=ktetch@adsl-074-166-105-206.sip.asm.bellsouth.net) has joined channel #freeculture
 
*** ktetch (n=ktetch@adsl-074-166-105-206.sip.asm.bellsouth.net) has joined channel #freeculture
  
  mecredis: So
+
mecredis: So
  
    ktetch: yes i'm here
+
ktetch: yes i'm here
  
  mecredis: one thing that I saw come up
+
mecredis: one thing that I saw come up
  
  mecredis: was our name
+
mecredis: was our name
  
  mecredis: studentsforfreeculture.org
+
mecredis: studentsforfreeculture.org
  
  mecredis: is not quite a sexy domain like freeculture.org
+
mecredis: is not quite a sexy domain like freeculture.org
  
  mecredis: but Students For Free Culture  
+
mecredis: but Students For Free Culture  
  
  mecredis: is a little more specific
+
mecredis: is a little more specific
  
 
Differance: (might want to grad that domain name, in any case) :-)
 
Differance: (might want to grad that domain name, in any case) :-)
Line 239: Line 238:
 
Differance: grab
 
Differance: grab
  
  mecredis: yeah, we'll obviously get it
+
mecredis: yeah, we'll obviously get it
  
  mecredis: we can go by FreeCulture.org informally
+
mecredis: we can go by FreeCulture.org informally
  
    abhay: (Abhay Kumar, no academic affiliation, mostly observing, yadda yadda yadda)
+
abhay: (Abhay Kumar, no academic affiliation, mostly observing, yadda yadda yadda)
  
  mecredis: but perhaps our non profit / org should be Students for Free Culture
+
mecredis: but perhaps our non profit / org should be Students for Free Culture
  
    e-star: thoughts from others?
+
e-star: thoughts from others?
  
 
christo_ph: i think that Gavin's suggestion was that we keep "The main domain name of the organization shall be freeculture.org" and just change the name to Students for Free Culture
 
christo_ph: i think that Gavin's suggestion was that we keep "The main domain name of the organization shall be freeculture.org" and just change the name to Students for Free Culture
  
    e-star: changing one's name can be hard for recognition, branding, etc
+
e-star: changing one's name can be hard for recognition, branding, etc
  
  mecredis: I mean right now
+
mecredis: I mean right now
  
 
parkerhigg: i don't think there's a problem with the official domain of "Students for Free Culture" being "freeculture.org"
 
parkerhigg: i don't think there's a problem with the official domain of "Students for Free Culture" being "freeculture.org"
  
  mecredis: yeah
+
mecredis: yeah
  
  mecredis: but when people ask us
+
mecredis: but when people ask us
  
  poningru: woah new people?
+
poningru: woah new people?
  
  mecredis: etc...
+
mecredis: etc...
  
 
Differance: ?whois poningru
 
Differance: ?whois poningru
  
    jibot: poningru is claims to be a descendent of the Earl of Curry and a brown guy and a lamer and golimar
+
jibot: poningru is claims to be a descendent of the Earl of Curry and a brown guy and a lamer and golimar
  
 
Differance: ?whois parkerhiggins
 
Differance: ?whois parkerhiggins
  
    jibot: Nobody has defined parkerhiggins yet
+
jibot: Nobody has defined parkerhiggins yet
  
 
christo_ph: the main concern I have with Students for Free Culture is that, even in here, many of us aren't students
 
christo_ph: the main concern I have with Students for Free Culture is that, even in here, many of us aren't students
  
parkerhigg: parkerhiggins is Parker Higgins, and doesn't know how to use IRC, basically. He's also a member of FC@NYU.
+
parkerhigg: parkerhiggins is Parker Higgins, and doesn't know how to use IRC, basically.He's also a member of FC@NYU.
  
  mecredis: christo_pher: good point
+
mecredis: christo_pher: good point
  
  mecredis: so we have a couple of options
+
mecredis: so we have a couple of options
  
  mecredis: go for "Students of Life for Free Culture"
+
mecredis: go for "Students of Life for Free Culture"
  
 
christo_ph: there's a certain protection, that ben pointed out, in being a student or youth organization, but I am not sure that we best serve even our universities by being solely student, at least in name
 
christo_ph: there's a certain protection, that ben pointed out, in being a student or youth organization, but I am not sure that we best serve even our universities by being solely student, at least in name
  
    e-star: christo_pher: yes, it's also a youth movement
+
e-star: christo_pher: yes, it's also a youth movement
  
  mecredis: "Youth for Free Culture"
+
mecredis: "Youth for Free Culture"
  
  mecredis: but then that makes us sound like finger painters or something
+
mecredis: but then that makes us sound like finger painters or something
  
 
christo_ph: it does
 
christo_ph: it does
Line 295: Line 294:
 
Differance: LOL
 
Differance: LOL
  
  mecredis: How about Digital Freedom University?
+
mecredis: How about Digital Freedom University?
  
 
christo_ph: is the principle of the name that we do not want to exclude non-students by want to remain youth-oriented?
 
christo_ph: is the principle of the name that we do not want to exclude non-students by want to remain youth-oriented?
  
  mecredis: christo_pher: that seems to be it
+
mecredis: christo_pher: that seems to be it
  
 
Differance: Information Freedom University!
 
Differance: Information Freedom University!
Line 305: Line 304:
 
Differance: (hush Seth)
 
Differance: (hush Seth)
  
  mecredis: I understand the worry
+
mecredis: I understand the worry
  
 
christo_ph: *but
 
christo_ph: *but
Line 311: Line 310:
 
christo_ph: okay
 
christo_ph: okay
  
  mecredis: that we might be splitting our message / brand
+
mecredis: that we might be splitting our message / brand
  
    peabo: another principle is to distinguish the movement from the kind of ad hoc commtktee for yadda yadda that is really a front for corporate interests
+
peabo: another principle is to distinguish the movement from the kind of ad hoc commtktee for yadda yadda that is really a front for corporate interests
  
 
Differance: I always thought the basic notion was to galvanize students, pull the university constituency together
 
Differance: I always thought the basic notion was to galvanize students, pull the university constituency together
  
    price: I don't think "Students for Free Culture" really excludes recent graduates
+
price: I don't think "Students for Free Culture" really excludes recent graduates
  
  mecredis: Academcis?
+
mecredis: Academcis?
  
  mecredis: Co-eds
+
mecredis: Co-eds
  
    price: it does convey the useful message that we're a youth organization and an activist organization
+
price: it does convey the useful message that we're a youth organization and an activist organization
  
  mecredis: yeah
+
mecredis: yeah
  
  mecredis: Campus Free Culture
+
mecredis: Campus Free Culture
  
 
christo_ph: we also inherent some of the good will that SDS has accumulated
 
christo_ph: we also inherent some of the good will that SDS has accumulated
  
  mecredis: SDS?
+
mecredis: SDS?
  
 
*** Scudmissile (n=Scudmiss@192.195.230.33) has joined channel #freeculture
 
*** Scudmissile (n=Scudmiss@192.195.230.33) has joined channel #freeculture
  
    peabo: mecredis: sounds like cuture which is campus-free
+
peabo: mecredis: sounds like cuture which is campus-free
  
    jibot: Scudmissile is Andy at the University of Evansville, Indiana. He is majoring in Internet Technology and is passionate about music and the presentation of information.
+
jibot: Scudmissile is Andy at the University of Evansville, Indiana. He is majoring in Internet Technology and is passionate about music and the presentation of information.
  
  mecredis: hahah
+
mecredis: hahah
  
  mecredis: Sans-Campus CUlture
+
mecredis: Sans-Campus CUlture
  
 
paulproteu: mecredis, Students for a Democratic Society, a big 60s student activism group iirc.
 
paulproteu: mecredis, Students for a Democratic Society, a big 60s student activism group iirc.
  
  mecredis: right
+
mecredis: right
  
 
Differance: Students for a Digital Society
 
Differance: Students for a Digital Society
  
  mecredis: so they must have had plenty non-students
+
mecredis: so they must have had plenty non-students
  
  mecredis: OK, I think if we just go down formally as "Students for Free Culture"
+
mecredis: OK, I think if we just go down formally as "Students for Free Culture"
  
  mecredis: and continue to call ourselves FreeCulture.org
+
mecredis: and continue to call ourselves FreeCulture.org
  
  mecredis: its not going to matter that much
+
mecredis: its not going to matter that much
  
  mecredis: shall we move on?
+
mecredis: shall we move on?
  
    abhay: Students for a Participatory Society?
+
abhay: Students for a Participatory Society?
  
    peabo: another naming issue is the 'free' as in beer vs. freedom: some people like the word libre
+
peabo: another naming issue is the 'free' as in beer vs. freedom: some people like the word libre
  
    abhay: heh
+
abhay: heh
  
 
christo_ph: haha
 
christo_ph: haha
Line 369: Line 368:
 
paulproteu: I really want to know where skyfaller is...
 
paulproteu: I really want to know where skyfaller is...
  
  mecredis: paulproteus: he's late
+
mecredis: paulproteus: he's late
  
 
christo_ph: mecredis: i think that's fine
 
christo_ph: mecredis: i think that's fine
Line 375: Line 374:
 
parkerhigg: mecredis: i agree.
 
parkerhigg: mecredis: i agree.
  
  poningru: gavinbaker: pick up your phone
+
poningru: gavinbaker: pick up your phone
  
  mecredis: anyone else?
+
mecredis: anyone else?
  
    price: agreed
+
price: agreed
  
 
cameronpar: sounds good to me
 
cameronpar: sounds good to me
Line 385: Line 384:
 
cameronpar: although peabo has a solid point, and one that frustrates the hell out of me
 
cameronpar: although peabo has a solid point, and one that frustrates the hell out of me
  
  mecredis: well that's a larger war
+
mecredis: well that's a larger war
  
 
cameronpar: but the semantics of the english language are the least of our worries as an org.
 
cameronpar: but the semantics of the english language are the least of our worries as an org.
Line 391: Line 390:
 
cameronpar: exactly
 
cameronpar: exactly
  
  mecredis: we'll leave it to RMS
+
mecredis: we'll leave it to RMS
  
 
cameronpar: haha
 
cameronpar: haha
Line 397: Line 396:
 
Differance: free as a modifier for culture is not problematic that way
 
Differance: free as a modifier for culture is not problematic that way
  
  poningru: ok gavinbaker and skyfaller should be coming soonish
+
poningru: ok gavinbaker and skyfaller should be coming soonish
  
 
parkerhigg: peabo is correct, but i think there are greater benefits to holding onto the name recognition and domain and such that we have
 
parkerhigg: peabo is correct, but i think there are greater benefits to holding onto the name recognition and domain and such that we have
Line 413: Line 412:
 
cameronpar: no need to get into a discussion about it right now i dont think
 
cameronpar: no need to get into a discussion about it right now i dont think
  
  mecredis: yeah
+
mecredis: yeah
  
    e-star: i'm still concerned about the pr side of changing our name
+
e-star: i'm still concerned about the pr side of changing our name
  
    e-star: especially if, say, the  NYT article ever comes out
+
e-star: especially if, say, theNYT article ever comes out
  
  mecredis: in what context exactly?
+
mecredis: in what context exactly?
  
  poningru: right
+
poningru: right
  
  poningru: mecredis: future events might not be associated with us
+
poningru: mecredis: future events might not be associated with us
  
  mecredis: yeah
+
mecredis: yeah
  
 
paulproteu: Doesn't Cory Doctorow use something like "the students at freeculture.org" to refer to us?
 
paulproteu: Doesn't Cory Doctorow use something like "the students at freeculture.org" to refer to us?
  
  mecredis: so we just stick to FreeCulture.org
+
mecredis: so we just stick to FreeCulture.org
  
parkerhigg: e-star, poningru: i think the name is similar enough that there wouldn't be much of a problem. and if the domain is the same, i think it's even less of an issue.
+
parkerhigg: e-star, poningru: i think the name is similar enough that there wouldn't be much of a problem.and if the domain is the same, i think it's even less of an issue.
  
 
paulproteu: (The above is a thought that indicates our possible lack of a need to rename.)
 
paulproteu: (The above is a thought that indicates our possible lack of a need to rename.)
  
Differance: Students for Free Culture would not connect intutitively with freeculture.org? Not sure the disconnect is strong enough
+
Differance: Students for Free Culture would not connect intutitively with freeculture.org?Not sure the disconnect is strong enough
  
    price: are there really people who will be confused because they thought the group was called FreeCulture.org?
+
price: are there really people who will be confused because they thought the group was called FreeCulture.org?
  
  mecredis: I guess its a matter of how much we use SFC
+
mecredis: I guess its a matter of how much we use SFC
  
 
cameronpar: i agree with parkerhiggins, on top of which, couldn't we contact the woman from the NYTimes and let her know?
 
cameronpar: i agree with parkerhiggins, on top of which, couldn't we contact the woman from the NYTimes and let her know?
  
    price: frankly, I was only vaguely aware that was the name of the group
+
price: frankly, I was only vaguely aware that was the name of the group
  
  mecredis: if we jsut use it on the incorporation papers
+
mecredis: if we jsut use it on the incorporation papers
  
    abhay: i think that's what press releases are for.  
+
abhay: i think that's what press releases are for.  
  
    price: I just thought of it as "Free Culture".
+
price: I just thought of it as "Free Culture".
  
  mecredis: yeah, I mean there aren't a lot of other people out there using it to refer to their movement
+
mecredis: yeah, I mean there aren't a lot of other people out there using it to refer to their movement
  
 
parkerhigg: put it this way--if there were a group called "Students for Free Culture" that wasn't us, i think it would be confusingly similar.
 
parkerhigg: put it this way--if there were a group called "Students for Free Culture" that wasn't us, i think it would be confusingly similar.
  
  mecredis: parkerhiggins: good point
+
mecredis: parkerhiggins: good point
  
            gavinbaker read scrollback
+
gavinbaker read scrollback
  
 
*** Signoff: K`Tetch (Connection timed out)
 
*** Signoff: K`Tetch (Connection timed out)
Line 463: Line 462:
 
christo_ph: to echo, i've always just called it "the free culture movement" or "FreeCulture"
 
christo_ph: to echo, i've always just called it "the free culture movement" or "FreeCulture"
  
  mecredis: there are some issues with calling ourselves the free culture movement
+
mecredis: there are some issues with calling ourselves the free culture movement
  
  mecredis: b/c people who have nothing to do with us
+
mecredis: b/c people who have nothing to do with us
  
 
*** skyfaller (n=nelson@64.241.37.140) has joined channel #freeculture
 
*** skyfaller (n=nelson@64.241.37.140) has joined channel #freeculture
  
    jibot: skyfaller is Nelson Pavlosky & has a blog at http://nelson.freeculture.org & was an intern at the EFF & was a victorious plaintiff in the Diebold case & co-founder of FreeCulture.org & claims to be a descendent of the Earl of Fruit
+
jibot: skyfaller is Nelson Pavlosky & has a blog at http://nelson.freeculture.org & was an intern at the EFF & was a victorious plaintiff in the Diebold case & co-founder of FreeCulture.org & claims to be a descendent of the Earl of Fruit
  
  poningru: indeed
+
poningru: indeed
  
 
Differance: Only you folks come up on google for "students for free culture"
 
Differance: Only you folks come up on google for "students for free culture"
  
  mecredis: and release CC work / etc
+
mecredis: and release CC work / etc
  
 
cameronpar: for the record, i never call our chapter part of the fc.org mvoement, i jsut say Free Culture USC
 
cameronpar: for the record, i never call our chapter part of the fc.org mvoement, i jsut say Free Culture USC
  
  mecredis: yeah, and I say Free Culture @ NYU (which is just part of how NYU wants us to call ourselves)
+
mecredis: yeah, and I say Free Culture @ NYU (which is just part of how NYU wants us to call ourselves)
  
skyfaller: hey folks, sorry I/we are late
+
skyfaller: hey folks, sorry I/we are late
  
skyfaller: Karen will be on in a sec
+
skyfaller: Karen will be on in a sec
  
 
christo_ph: it looks like this was discussed back in 2005, as well, with the results of "A non-scientific poll: 2 for FC.org, 4 for Free Culture, 3 for Students for FC"
 
christo_ph: it looks like this was discussed back in 2005, as well, with the results of "A non-scientific poll: 2 for FC.org, 4 for Free Culture, 3 for Students for FC"
  
  mecredis: heh
+
mecredis: heh
  
 
paulproteu: christo_pher, URL for said poll?
 
paulproteu: christo_pher, URL for said poll?
  
paulproteu: skyfaller, There's been chatter about renaming that someone will have to fill you in on. Alternately, I could try to live-post a transcript.
+
paulproteu: skyfaller, There's been chatter about renaming that someone will have to fill you in on.Alternately, I could try to live-post a transcript.
  
 
christo_ph: http://swarthmore.freeculture.org/wiki/2005-10-18
 
christo_ph: http://swarthmore.freeculture.org/wiki/2005-10-18
  
    e-star: another concern
+
e-star: another concern
  
    e-star: is that if people want to start groups
+
e-star: is that if people want to start groups
  
  poningru: I still think renaming is pointless
+
poningru: I still think renaming is pointless
  
    e-star: outside of schools eventually
+
e-star: outside of schools eventually
  
    e-star: that the name would be limiting
+
e-star: that the name would be limiting
  
  mecredis: I think the solution is to keep calling ourselves FreeCulture.org infomrally and collouquolly
+
mecredis: I think the solution is to keep calling ourselves FreeCulture.org infomrally and collouquolly
  
 
parkerhigg: agreed.
 
parkerhigg: agreed.
  
  mecredis: and just use Students for Free Culture on our incorporation papers
+
mecredis: and just use Students for Free Culture on our incorporation papers
  
    e-star: i'm okay with that..i think
+
e-star: i'm okay with that..i think
  
  mecredis: just so we're not bound to have a URL / etc. legally
+
mecredis: just so we're not bound to have a URL / etc. legally
  
skyfaller: mecredis: sounds like a good compromise to me
+
skyfaller: mecredis: sounds like a good compromise to me
  
  poningru: right
+
poningru: right
  
  mecredis: OK
+
mecredis: OK
  
  mecredis: gavinbaker: any thoughts?
+
mecredis: gavinbaker:any thoughts?
  
 
parkerhigg: yeah, and then if we decide we need to change it later, it's not as big a deal
 
parkerhigg: yeah, and then if we decide we need to change it later, it's not as big a deal
  
  poningru: shh he's eating
+
poningru: shh he's eating
  
  mecredis: I mean the hope is
+
mecredis: I mean the hope is
  
  mecredis: anything having to do with free culture
+
mecredis: anything having to do with free culture
  
  mecredis: & people think of us
+
mecredis: & people think of us
  
paulproteu: Yes, we are the first hit for Students for Free Culture. (off-topic: Due to a totally dumb error on my part, freeculture.org was not in the Google index or anyone else's search indexes for a couple of weeks, but that has been rectified.)
+
paulproteu: Yes, we are the first hit for Students for Free Culture.(off-topic: Due to a totally dumb error on my part, freeculture.org was not in the Google index or anyone else's search indexes for a couple of weeks, but that has been rectified.)
  
  mecredis: OK
+
mecredis: OK
  
  mecredis: so that's done
+
mecredis: so that's done
  
    e-star: good, now moving on
+
e-star: good, now moving on
  
  mecredis: next section?
+
mecredis: next section?
  
 
*** Mana-chan (n=Mana_Ban@ool-44c41e7f.dyn.optonline.net) has joined channel #freeculture
 
*** Mana-chan (n=Mana_Ban@ool-44c41e7f.dyn.optonline.net) has joined channel #freeculture
  
  mecredis: purpose and goals
+
mecredis: purpose and goals
  
    e-star: is tim hwang here btw?
+
e-star: is tim hwang here btw?
  
Mana-chan: Hi everyone~
+
Mana-chan: Hi everyone~
  
  mecredis: ... we need to nix "intellectual property" policy
+
mecredis: ... we need to nix "intellectual property" policy
  
skyfaller: we decided that Students for Free Culture was fine? awesome
+
skyfaller: we decided that Students for Free Culture was fine?awesome
  
  mecredis: from the language
+
mecredis: from the language
  
 
*** mllerustad (n=mllerust@64.241.37.140) has joined channel #freeculture
 
*** mllerustad (n=mllerust@64.241.37.140) has joined channel #freeculture
  
    e-star: mecredis: agreed
+
e-star: mecredis: agreed
  
  mecredis: skyfaller: just in our incorporation  
+
mecredis:skyfaller: just in our incorporation  
  
 
christo_ph: tim isn't here
 
christo_ph: tim isn't here
Line 569: Line 568:
 
gavinbaker: hey. stop talking. i can't read scrollback fast enough ;)
 
gavinbaker: hey. stop talking. i can't read scrollback fast enough ;)
  
paulproteu: I agree, mecredis. I think that someone did like the phrase being there - anyone know who that was / was that person?
+
paulproteu: I agree, mecredis.I think that someone did like the phrase being there - anyone know who that was / was that person?
  
  mecredis: who knows / cares
+
mecredis: who knows / cares
  
 
gavinbaker: should i weigh in re: Students for Free Culture?
 
gavinbaker: should i weigh in re: Students for Free Culture?
  
  mecredis: but the point is
+
mecredis: but the point is
  
skyfaller: um, you mean in the bylaws? OK
+
skyfaller: um, you mean in the bylaws?OK
  
    e-star: it needs to go
+
e-star: it needs to go
  
  mecredis: we need to get it out
+
mecredis: we need to get it out
  
    e-star: IMO
+
e-star: IMO
  
  mecredis: how about "information policy"
+
mecredis: how about "information policy"
  
  mecredis: ala IPac
+
mecredis: ala IPac
  
 
gavinbaker: ok, well i'm going to, anyway.
 
gavinbaker: ok, well i'm going to, anyway.
Line 593: Line 592:
 
gavinbaker: re: the mission statement, i don't care much, i'm sure we can come up with something good
 
gavinbaker: re: the mission statement, i don't care much, i'm sure we can come up with something good
  
    e-star: gavinbaker: going to what?
+
e-star: gavinbaker: going to what?
  
 
christo_ph: i agree, it should be left out
 
christo_ph: i agree, it should be left out
Line 599: Line 598:
 
gavinbaker: but re: the name, i don't like FreeCulture.org because it's vague
 
gavinbaker: but re: the name, i don't like FreeCulture.org because it's vague
  
skyfaller: heh... I think people wanted to skim over that point... as long as Students for Free Culture is fine for the bylaws, we can argue later about the rest
+
skyfaller: heh... I think people wanted to skim over that point...as long as Students for Free Culture is fine for the bylaws, we can argue later about the rest
  
 
mllerustad: gavinbaker: Let's move on...
 
mllerustad: gavinbaker: Let's move on...
Line 611: Line 610:
 
mllerustad: And most of them are more pressing bylaws-wise.
 
mllerustad: And most of them are more pressing bylaws-wise.
  
  mecredis: gavinbaker: well we'd be using it informally
+
mecredis: gavinbaker: well we'd be using it informally
  
 
gavinbaker: there's already some precedent for using Students for Free Culture (namely, paulproteus and skyfaller referring to it thusly at conferences)
 
gavinbaker: there's already some precedent for using Students for Free Culture (namely, paulproteus and skyfaller referring to it thusly at conferences)
Line 617: Line 616:
 
gavinbaker: also, it says it on the new site design, as a tagline not a name. but i think it's a good name, and we can keep freeculture.org as the domain
 
gavinbaker: also, it says it on the new site design, as a tagline not a name. but i think it's a good name, and we can keep freeculture.org as the domain
  
skyfaller: gavinbaker: agreed, and it's always been on our website that we're a student org
+
skyfaller: gavinbaker: agreed, and it's always been on our website that we're a student org
  
 
mllerustad: gavinbaker: This doesn't matter for the bylaws. We've agreed to call ourselves Students for Free Culture in the bylaws.
 
mllerustad: gavinbaker: This doesn't matter for the bylaws. We've agreed to call ourselves Students for Free Culture in the bylaws.
  
skyfaller: BUT
+
skyfaller: BUT
  
skyfaller: exactly
+
skyfaller: exactly
  
 
Differance: Is it conceived as a membership condition?
 
Differance: Is it conceived as a membership condition?
Line 629: Line 628:
 
gavinbaker: mllerustad: did we? if so, cool
 
gavinbaker: mllerustad: did we? if so, cool
  
  mecredis: no no no
+
mecredis: no no no
  
    e-star: guys it's currently 11:40pm here
+
e-star: guys it's currently 11:40pm here
  
  mecredis: yeah
+
mecredis: yeah
  
  mecredis: we need to move on
+
mecredis: we need to move on
  
    e-star: and i cannot stay up very late and i'd like to attend the entire meeting
+
e-star: and i cannot stay up very late and i'd like to attend the entire meeting
  
    e-star: so i would like some kind of process
+
e-star: so i would like some kind of process
  
skyfaller: so if Students for Free Culture is fine for the bylaws, then we can move on
+
skyfaller: so if Students for Free Culture is fine for the bylaws, then we can move on
  
  mecredis: the by laws re: the name are fine as the RFC says
+
mecredis: the by laws re: the name are fine as the RFC says
  
skyfaller: ok
+
skyfaller: ok
  
    e-star: where we could devote x amount of time
+
e-star: where we could devote x amount of time
  
  mecredis: err, RC
+
mecredis: err, RC
  
skyfaller: then we're moving on
+
skyfaller: then we're moving on
  
    e-star: to a particular point
+
e-star: to a particular point
  
  mecredis: OK, Article II
+
mecredis: OK, Article II
  
  mecredis: strike "intellectual property" and replace with "information policy"
+
mecredis: strike "intellectual property" and replace with "information policy"
  
    e-star: for discussion, and then after that amount of time, call for a consenus
+
e-star: for discussion, and then after that amount of time, call for a consenus
  
 
paulproteu: +1
 
paulproteu: +1
Line 667: Line 666:
 
mllerustad: mecredis: I'm fine with that.
 
mllerustad: mecredis: I'm fine with that.
  
    e-star: mecredis: how about copyright and technology policy?
+
e-star: mecredis: how about copyright and technology policy?
  
  mecredis: e-star: that works
+
mecredis: e-star: that works
  
 
gavinbaker: i'm wondering if we should punt it to later, if we're agreed that it should be changed
 
gavinbaker: i'm wondering if we should punt it to later, if we're agreed that it should be changed
  
skyfaller: information policy is better, I think
+
skyfaller: information policy is better, I think
  
    e-star: unless people are really stuck on trademarks or patents
+
e-star: unless people are really stuck on trademarks or patents
  
    e-star: skyfaller: to me information policy is very vague
+
e-star:skyfaller: to me information policy is very vague
  
 
gavinbaker: or if we can fix it asap, then we'll fix it
 
gavinbaker: or if we can fix it asap, then we'll fix it
  
  mecredis: I mean they'll come up
+
mecredis: I mean they'll come up
  
  mecredis: and we don't want to pigeon whole ourselves
+
mecredis: and we don't want to pigeon whole ourselves
  
 
paulproteu: Well, the Cereality thing was over patents, after all.
 
paulproteu: Well, the Cereality thing was over patents, after all.
  
skyfaller: e-star: we've done stuff on both trademarks and patents in the past
+
skyfaller: e-star: we've done stuff on both trademarks and patents in the past
  
    price: I don't know what "information policy" means
+
price: I don't know what "information policy" means
  
    price: .
+
price: .
  
    e-star: it sounds like it could be privacy issues
+
e-star: it sounds like it could be privacy issues
  
    e-star: price: agreed
+
e-star:price: agreed
  
skyfaller: Barbie in a Blender was partially trademarks
+
skyfaller: Barbie in a Blender was partially trademarks
  
    e-star: skyfaller: barely
+
e-star:skyfaller: barely
  
 
gavinbaker: e-star: i don't have a problem with the term "IP" (unlike some others), and it does include TM and patents
 
gavinbaker: e-star: i don't have a problem with the term "IP" (unlike some others), and it does include TM and patents
Line 705: Line 704:
 
Differance: he Organization is a diverse, non-partisan group of students and young people founded to advance cultural participation in the digital age and to defend the public interest in policies for exclusive rights such as copyrights and patents.
 
Differance: he Organization is a diverse, non-partisan group of students and young people founded to advance cultural participation in the digital age and to defend the public interest in policies for exclusive rights such as copyrights and patents.
  
  mecredis: but like
+
mecredis: but like
  
 
gavinbaker: i actually think we shouldn't exclude ourselves from privacy, either
 
gavinbaker: i actually think we shouldn't exclude ourselves from privacy, either
  
  mecredis: look at this recent congressional hearing
+
mecredis: look at this recent congressional hearing
  
  mecredis: about p2p and privacy
+
mecredis: about p2p and privacy
  
    e-star: technology policy needs to be there somewhere
+
e-star: technology policy needs to be there somewhere
  
  mecredis: that almost certainly falls under "information policy"
+
mecredis: that almost certainly falls under "information policy"
  
    e-star: a la net neutrality
+
e-star: a la net neutrality
  
    peabo: ".. and to defend the public interest in the free exchange of ideas and creativity"
+
peabo: ".. and to defend the public interest in the free exchange of ideas and creativity"
  
skyfaller: technology + information? is that good enough? copyright is definitely limiting
+
skyfaller: technology + information?is that good enough?copyright is definitely limiting
  
  mecredis: OK
+
mecredis: OK
  
    e-star: fine, technology and information policy ?
+
e-star: fine, technology and information policy ?
  
 
gavinbaker: i think IT policy
 
gavinbaker: i think IT policy
  
    peabo: no need to make a noun of it, just say what the purpose is
+
peabo: no need to make a noun of it, just say what the purpose is
  
  mecredis: technology + information policy is OK with me
+
mecredis: technology + information policy is OK with me
  
 
gavinbaker: is better than either info policy or tech policy
 
gavinbaker: is better than either info policy or tech policy
  
  mecredis: yeah
+
mecredis: yeah
  
  mecredis: agreed
+
mecredis: agreed
  
    e-star: price: thoughts?
+
e-star:price: thoughts?
  
  mecredis: change it
+
mecredis: change it
  
 
christo_ph: fine with technology and information policy
 
christo_ph: fine with technology and information policy
Line 753: Line 752:
 
gavinbaker: "information & communications technology policy"
 
gavinbaker: "information & communications technology policy"
  
skyfaller: (is anyone taking minutes, incidentally? I'd like to point out that taking minutes after the fact usually results in long delays in posting them)
+
skyfaller: (is anyone taking minutes, incidentally?I'd like to point out that taking minutes after the fact usually results in long delays in posting them)
  
 
Differance: to defend the public interest in information freedom?
 
Differance: to defend the public interest in information freedom?
Line 759: Line 758:
 
gavinbaker: but it's not a common term in the US
 
gavinbaker: but it's not a common term in the US
  
  mecredis: we should have copyright in there
+
mecredis: we should have copyright in there
  
skyfaller: (I'll take minutes now, but I missed the beginning)
+
skyfaller: (I'll take minutes now, but I missed the beginning)
  
 
gavinbaker: mecredis: can we have (c) as an example (e.g. "including copyright")? rather than its own thing
 
gavinbaker: mecredis: can we have (c) as an example (e.g. "including copyright")? rather than its own thing
Line 767: Line 766:
 
paulproteu: (thanks skyfaller, I'll just paste you the block you missed when you ask me for in a private message or post-meeting)
 
paulproteu: (thanks skyfaller, I'll just paste you the block you missed when you ask me for in a private message or post-meeting)
  
    peabo: mecredis: if you have copyright, you need patent and maybe other things
+
peabo: mecredis: if you have copyright, you need patent and maybe other things
  
    e-star: gavinbaker: ICT policy seems a bit too specific
+
e-star: gavinbaker: ICT policy seems a bit too specific
  
  mecredis: gavinbaker: that sounds OK
+
mecredis: gavinbaker: that sounds OK
  
  mecredis: peabo: maybe
+
mecredis:peabo: maybe
  
    e-star: gavinbaker: and makes me not necessarily think of things like copyright..heh
+
e-star: gavinbaker: and makes me not necessarily think of things like copyright..heh
  
  mecredis: "Including copyright, patent and trademark"
+
mecredis: "Including copyright, patent and trademark"
  
 
Differance: ? I would say specifying specific areas sounds too specific
 
Differance: ? I would say specifying specific areas sounds too specific
  
  mecredis: brb
+
mecredis: brb
  
    price: "copyright, patent, and technology policy"
+
price: "copyright, patent, and technology policy"
  
 
Differance: ICT is general
 
Differance: ICT is general
  
    e-star: price: okay
+
e-star:price: okay
  
    e-star: price: i'm fine with that
+
e-star:price: i'm fine with that
  
skyfaller: but there are other forms of information policy
+
skyfaller: but there are other forms of information policy
  
 
Differance: (hush Seth) :-)
 
Differance: (hush Seth) :-)
Line 797: Line 796:
 
Differance: carry on
 
Differance: carry on
  
gavinbaker: skyfaller: anything not covered in "IT policy"?
+
gavinbaker:skyfaller: anything not covered in "IT policy"?
  
    e-star: let's face it, even the barbie case was a copyright one
+
e-star: let's face it, even the barbie case was a copyright one
  
skyfaller: like the database protection thing... is that copyright?
+
skyfaller: like the database protection thing... is that copyright?
  
skyfaller: oh
+
skyfaller: oh
  
    e-star: skyfaller: it's technology
+
e-star:skyfaller: it's technology
  
    e-star: policy
+
e-star: policy
  
gavinbaker: skyfaller: right, barbie wasn't IT, but it was IP
+
gavinbaker:skyfaller: right, barbie wasn't IT, but it was IP
  
 
gavinbaker: that's why i say IT + IP
 
gavinbaker: that's why i say IT + IP
  
skyfaller: I think we should be as general as possible while making it clear what we do
+
skyfaller: I think we should be as general as possible while making it clear what we do
  
    e-star: "copyright, patent, and technology policy" is what i vote for
+
e-star: "copyright, patent, and technology policy" is what i vote for
  
 
Differance: barbie was information
 
Differance: barbie was information
Line 821: Line 820:
 
gavinbaker: what doesn't IT + IP cover? everything's there and it's pretty specific
 
gavinbaker: what doesn't IT + IP cover? everything's there and it's pretty specific
  
skyfaller: I think that copyright and patent is too limiting
+
skyfaller: I think that copyright and patent is too limiting
  
skyfaller: those could be examples of something broader
+
skyfaller: those could be examples of something broader
  
 
christo_ph: i'd suggest that we change "students and young people founded to advance cultural participation in the digital age" to "students and youth founded to advance cultural participation"
 
christo_ph: i'd suggest that we change "students and young people founded to advance cultural participation in the digital age" to "students and youth founded to advance cultural participation"
  
    e-star: skyfaller: that's why we have technology
+
e-star:skyfaller: that's why we have technology
  
 
Differance: copyright, patent and information technology policy?
 
Differance: copyright, patent and information technology policy?
Line 833: Line 832:
 
gavinbaker: (are we close to consensus or should we come back to this later?)
 
gavinbaker: (are we close to consensus or should we come back to this later?)
  
    peabo: barbie is a trade dress issue, isn't it? you make something that looks like a barbie doll, people think it is associated with Mattell(?)
+
peabo: barbie is a trade dress issue, isn't it?you make something that looks like a barbie doll, people think it is associated with Mattell(?)
  
  mecredis: peabo: not really, trade dress applies to restaurant wear / etc
+
mecredis:peabo: not really, trade dress applies to restaurant wear / etc
  
  mecredis: is my understanding
+
mecredis: is my understanding
  
  mecredis: but this is OT
+
mecredis: but this is OT
  
gavinbaker: peabo: Mattell's claims were TM claims
+
gavinbaker:peabo: Mattell's claims were TM claims
  
  mecredis: how about adding a sub thing
+
mecredis: how about adding a sub thing
  
  mecredis: to say
+
mecredis: to say
  
  mecredis: "4. Advocate for reform in the realm of copyright, patent and trademark law."
+
mecredis: "4. Advocate for reform in the realm of copyright, patent and trademark law."
  
    e-star: gavinbaker: and copyright claims IIRC
+
e-star: gavinbaker: and copyright claims IIRC
  
 
gavinbaker: hey, does "policy" (of whatever sort) include everything? is supporting FOSS + free content really "policy"?
 
gavinbaker: hey, does "policy" (of whatever sort) include everything? is supporting FOSS + free content really "policy"?
  
    e-star: we def need technology policy in there as well
+
e-star: we def need technology policy in there as well
  
 
Differance: defend the public interest in information policy
 
Differance: defend the public interest in information policy
  
skyfaller: sure, tech policy too
+
skyfaller: sure, tech policy too
  
    e-star: i.e. net neutrality, etc
+
e-star: i.e. net neutrality, etc
  
  mecredis: ok
+
mecredis: ok
  
 
gavinbaker: hey guys, IT = info + tech... you get both in one!
 
gavinbaker: hey guys, IT = info + tech... you get both in one!
Line 869: Line 868:
 
Differance: defend the public interest in information and communications policy
 
Differance: defend the public interest in information and communications policy
  
  mecredis: it sounds like technology and information policy works
+
mecredis: it sounds like technology and information policy works
  
  mecredis: that's as close to consensus as we've gotten
+
mecredis: that's as close to consensus as we've gotten
  
    peabo: yes, because technology is being used as an instrument to make culture non-free (e.g., defeating fair use)
+
peabo: yes, because technology is being used as an instrument to make culture non-free (e.g., defeating fair use)
  
  mecredis: I think we need to run with it
+
mecredis: I think we need to run with it
  
skyfaller: ok, so information and technology
+
skyfaller: ok, so information and technology
  
 
mllerustad: mecredis: Agreed. We'll go with that for now.
 
mllerustad: mecredis: Agreed. We'll go with that for now.
  
    price: can you say what "information policy" means?
+
price: can you say what "information policy" means?
  
skyfaller: now gavin was questioning "policy"?
+
skyfaller: now gavin was questioning "policy"?
  
    price: I still can't
+
price: I still can't
  
 
Differance: policy that affect our use of information
 
Differance: policy that affect our use of information
  
  mecredis: I'd say it refers to the CPT trifecta
+
mecredis: I'd say it refers to the CPT trifecta
  
    e-star: yeah, it's still unclear, and it's true that we do deal with quite a bit of copyright
+
e-star: yeah, it's still unclear, and it's true that we do deal with quite a bit of copyright
  
    price: ok; then let's say that.
+
price: ok; then let's say that.
  
skyfaller: price: it's "intellectual property" except we can't actually use that phrase ;-)
+
skyfaller:price: it's "intellectual property" except we can't actually use that phrase ;-)
  
    e-star: price: agreed
+
e-star:price: agreed
  
gavinbaker: price: both IPac and PK use "info. policy"
+
gavinbaker:price: both IPac and PK use "info. policy"
  
    e-star: mecredis: okay, then put a footnote
+
e-star: mecredis: okay, then put a footnote
  
    e-star: it's admittedly not all that accepted
+
e-star: it's admittedly not all that accepted
  
 
mllerustad: Well, it's the CPT trifecta, along with any other rights people might want to impose.
 
mllerustad: Well, it's the CPT trifecta, along with any other rights people might want to impose.
  
    price: e-star: parenthetical, maybe
+
price: e-star: parenthetical, maybe
  
  mecredis: e-star: defining information policy?
+
mecredis: e-star: defining information policy?
  
 
mllerustad: Broadcaster's rights, database rights...
 
mllerustad: Broadcaster's rights, database rights...
  
    e-star: mecredis: yes
+
e-star: mecredis: yes
  
  mecredis: mllerustad: right
+
mecredis: mllerustad: right
  
 
mllerustad: We'd have something to say about those...
 
mllerustad: We'd have something to say about those...
Line 925: Line 924:
 
mllerustad: So it should be general enough to include those.
 
mllerustad: So it should be general enough to include those.
  
    e-star: gavinbaker: IP standing for what?
+
e-star: gavinbaker: IP standing for what?
  
 
Differance: we got these digital machines, see, and a dynamic Internet, see . . .
 
Differance: we got these digital machines, see, and a dynamic Internet, see . . .
  
  mecredis: gavinbaker: what do you mean by IP
+
mecredis: gavinbaker: what do you mean by IP
  
 
gavinbaker: IT = information technology, IP = intellectual property
 
gavinbaker: IT = information technology, IP = intellectual property
  
    e-star: gavinbaker: b/c we don't like the use of the word property
+
e-star: gavinbaker: b/c we don't like the use of the word property
  
  mecredis: gavinbaker: intellectual property will not be used at all
+
mecredis: gavinbaker: intellectual property will not be used at all
  
 
gavinbaker: mecredis: wtf, it's an area of law
 
gavinbaker: mecredis: wtf, it's an area of law
Line 943: Line 942:
 
gavinbaker: we can't just change the english language because it doesn't suit our purposes
 
gavinbaker: we can't just change the english language because it doesn't suit our purposes
  
  mecredis: gavinbaker: I'm not sure what benefit we garner from this
+
mecredis: gavinbaker: I'm not sure what benefit we garner from this
  
 
Differance: But WIPO can . . .
 
Differance: But WIPO can . . .
Line 949: Line 948:
 
gavinbaker: christo_pher: see the mission statement in the sidebar at uf.freeculture.org
 
gavinbaker: christo_pher: see the mission statement in the sidebar at uf.freeculture.org
  
skyfaller: gavinbaker: yes we can, but nobody will know what we are talking about
+
skyfaller: gavinbaker: yes we can, but nobody will know what we are talking about
  
paulproteu: Correct me if I'm wrong, but "IP" doesn't exist in law, only (C), patent, trademark, and other separate fields. e-star?
+
paulproteu: Correct me if I'm wrong, but "IP" doesn't exist in law, only (C), patent, trademark, and other separate fields.e-star?
  
 
gavinbaker: skyfaller++
 
gavinbaker: skyfaller++
  
  mecredis: paulproteus: I agree
+
mecredis: paulproteus: I agree
  
    price: skyfaller: they will if we're clear
+
price:skyfaller: they will if we're clear
  
 
gavinbaker: paulproteus: it exists in law schools
 
gavinbaker: paulproteus: it exists in law schools
  
    e-star: paulproteus: exactly
+
e-star: paulproteus: exactly
  
 
gavinbaker: (which is where lawyers come from)
 
gavinbaker: (which is where lawyers come from)
Line 967: Line 966:
 
Differance: paulproteus: you are right, it's not in the copyright statutes, only came into vogue since 1980
 
Differance: paulproteus: you are right, it's not in the copyright statutes, only came into vogue since 1980
  
    price: that's why we say "copyright and patent" or "copyright, patent, and trademark"
+
price: that's why we say "copyright and patent" or "copyright, patent, and trademark"
  
 
paulproteu: So do Milky Way candy bars and beer bottles re: "it exists in law schools".
 
paulproteu: So do Milky Way candy bars and beer bottles re: "it exists in law schools".
Line 973: Line 972:
 
Differance: yes, lots of professors these days say it
 
Differance: yes, lots of professors these days say it
  
  mecredis: plus
+
mecredis: plus
  
gavinbaker: price: what about database rights, broadcast treaty, sui generis rights...?
+
gavinbaker:price: what about database rights, broadcast treaty, sui generis rights...?
  
 
gavinbaker: they're all IPRs
 
gavinbaker: they're all IPRs
  
  mecredis: we gain nothing by implicitly agreeing that intellectual property does exist
+
mecredis: we gain nothing by implicitly agreeing that intellectual property does exist
  
 
mllerustad: moral rights...
 
mllerustad: moral rights...
Line 987: Line 986:
 
gavinbaker: whether it's like real property or not is the question
 
gavinbaker: whether it's like real property or not is the question
  
    e-star: guys, please, let's make a decision and move on
+
e-star: guys, please, let's make a decision and move on
  
    price: so we name the major areas as examples
+
price: so we name the major areas as examples
  
  mecredis: gavinbaker: here we totally disagree.
+
mecredis: gavinbaker: here we totally disagree.
  
 
gavinbaker: not whether it exists
 
gavinbaker: not whether it exists
Line 997: Line 996:
 
mllerustad: "exclusive rights"?
 
mllerustad: "exclusive rights"?
  
skyfaller: OK, information policy
+
skyfaller: OK, information policy
  
 
mllerustad: Americans might not use it, but the rest of the world does...
 
mllerustad: Americans might not use it, but the rest of the world does...
  
    peabo: I still like the idea of spelling it out as a description of purpose rather than using noun phrases which people are free to disagree about as to their meaning
+
peabo: I still like the idea of spelling it out as a description of purpose rather than using noun phrases which people are free to disagree about as to their meaning
  
 
gavinbaker: they're property rights applied to non-real property, generated by the mind. intellectual property rights...
 
gavinbaker: they're property rights applied to non-real property, generated by the mind. intellectual property rights...
  
skyfaller: can we just do information policy + technology policy?
+
skyfaller: can we just do information policy + technology policy?
  
 
christo_ph: i agree with peabo  
 
christo_ph: i agree with peabo  
Line 1,011: Line 1,010:
 
Differance: mllerustad: when we write law, we use "exclusive rights"
 
Differance: mllerustad: when we write law, we use "exclusive rights"
  
    price: it may be time for a vote.
+
price: it may be time for a vote.
  
  mecredis: skyfaller: I'm happy with that
+
mecredis:skyfaller: I'm happy with that
  
 
Differance: we don't write law that says iIP
 
Differance: we don't write law that says iIP
  
gavinbaker: skyfaller: can we make it information technology policy to be more specific?
+
gavinbaker:skyfaller: can we make it information technology policy to be more specific?
  
 
gavinbaker: so we're not talking about biotech or something
 
gavinbaker: so we're not talking about biotech or something
  
    price: gavinbaker: why shouldn't we be?
+
price: gavinbaker: why shouldn't we be?
  
 
gavinbaker: or private aviation
 
gavinbaker: or private aviation
Line 1,027: Line 1,026:
 
mllerustad: gavinbaker: What if we want to work w/ UAEM or soemthing?
 
mllerustad: gavinbaker: What if we want to work w/ UAEM or soemthing?
  
skyfaller: gavinbaker: what if we want to cover biotech? we shouldn't limit
+
skyfaller: gavinbaker: what if we want to cover biotech?we shouldn't limit
  
 
Differance: biotech is attempting to appropriate biology as information
 
Differance: biotech is attempting to appropriate biology as information
  
    price: gavinbaker: pharma patents are quite relevant
+
price: gavinbaker: pharma patents are quite relevant
  
 
gavinbaker: Differance: then it falls under "info policy"
 
gavinbaker: Differance: then it falls under "info policy"
  
  mecredis: OK, here we either  
+
mecredis: OK, here we either  
  
  mecredis: vote
+
mecredis: vote
  
 
gavinbaker: (this is why i wanted to say IPRs, that includes patents)
 
gavinbaker: (this is why i wanted to say IPRs, that includes patents)
  
  mecredis: or we use the consensus that has appeared
+
mecredis: or we use the consensus that has appeared
  
skyfaller: OK, "information policy and technology policy"
+
skyfaller: OK, "information policy and technology policy"
  
 
Differance: I say "information policy" == policy that affects our use of information
 
Differance: I say "information policy" == policy that affects our use of information
  
skyfaller: and the overlap of the two
+
skyfaller: and the overlap of the two
  
 
gavinbaker: "technology" is super vague... anthropologists consider hand tools to be "technology"
 
gavinbaker: "technology" is super vague... anthropologists consider hand tools to be "technology"
Line 1,057: Line 1,056:
 
gavinbaker: Differance++
 
gavinbaker: Differance++
  
skyfaller: but the right to use power tools as we want might be relevant
+
skyfaller: but the right to use power tools as we want might be relevant
  
gavinbaker: skyfaller: only if it falls under info policy!
+
gavinbaker:skyfaller: only if it falls under info policy!
  
 
gavinbaker: otherwise why would we care?
 
gavinbaker: otherwise why would we care?
  
  mecredis: information technology policy works
+
mecredis: information technology policy works
  
 
gavinbaker: let's not be so hypothetical
 
gavinbaker: let's not be so hypothetical
Line 1,069: Line 1,068:
 
gavinbaker: and deal with what we already do & have done
 
gavinbaker: and deal with what we already do & have done
  
skyfaller: ok
+
skyfaller: ok
  
 
mllerustad: Okay.
 
mllerustad: Okay.
Line 1,075: Line 1,074:
 
mllerustad: ITP.
 
mllerustad: ITP.
  
skyfaller: works for me
+
skyfaller: works for me
  
  mecredis: e-star: ?
+
mecredis: e-star: ?
  
  mecredis: price: ?>
+
mecredis:price: ?>
  
    peabo: the consitution says "to promote progress in the arts and sciences" not "to implement copyright and patent policy"; it is a crisp and general statement of purpose
+
peabo: the consitution says "to promote progress in the arts and sciences" not "to implement copyright and patent policy"; it is a crisp and general statement of purpose
  
    e-star: i'd still like copyright in there somewhre
+
e-star: i'd still like copyright in there somewhre
  
    e-star: b/c we do deal with it a LOT
+
e-star: b/c we do deal with it a LOT
  
    price: let's take a vote
+
price: let's take a vote
  
    e-star: but in the interest of moving on, i'm able to live w/o it
+
e-star: but in the interest of moving on, i'm able to live w/o it
  
  mecredis: price: what are we voting on?
+
mecredis:price: what are we voting on?
  
    price: one proposal can be "information and technology policy"
+
price: one proposal can be "information and technology policy"
  
 
Differance: let's list 20 options, vote one by one :-)
 
Differance: let's list 20 options, vote one by one :-)
  
    price: (or whatever you want)
+
price: (or whatever you want)
  
  poningru: err I dont like this voting thing
+
poningru: err I dont like this voting thing
  
skyfaller: no, voting is dumb
+
skyfaller: no, voting is dumb
  
    price: another can be, say, "copyright, patent, and technology policy"
+
price: another can be, say, "copyright, patent, and technology policy"
  
  mecredis: let's vote to vote
+
mecredis: let's vote to vote
  
 
Differance: that was a joke
 
Differance: that was a joke
Line 1,111: Line 1,110:
 
gavinbaker: lulz @ voting
 
gavinbaker: lulz @ voting
  
  poningru: if we vote consensus hasnt been established
+
poningru: if we vote consensus hasnt been established
  
    price: what, you'd rather just
+
price: what, you'd rather just
  
    price: sorry
+
price: sorry
  
    price: well, consensus hasn't been established
+
price: well, consensus hasn't been established
  
 
christo_ph: there isn't consensus, but we need to move on, i'd think
 
christo_ph: there isn't consensus, but we need to move on, i'd think
  
skyfaller: consensus is the only way to proceed when we don't know who is qualified to vote or why
+
skyfaller: consensus is the only way to proceed when we don't know who is qualified to vote or why
  
            gavinbaker prefers democracy to consensus, but he's in the minority, and there's no consensus!
+
gavinbaker prefers democracy to consensus, but he's in the minority, and there's no consensus!
  
    e-star: also, copyright isn't always IT policy
+
e-star: also, copyright isn't always IT policy
  
 
gavinbaker: is there consensus around info policy + IT policy? seems like everybody accepted that
 
gavinbaker: is there consensus around info policy + IT policy? seems like everybody accepted that
Line 1,131: Line 1,130:
 
Differance: information policy
 
Differance: information policy
  
  poningru: I like the copyright, patent, and tech policy thing
+
poningru: I like the copyright, patent, and tech policy thing
  
    price: so we can either pretend consensus based on a couple of people saying "move on"
+
price: so we can either pretend consensus based on a couple of people saying "move on"
  
 
gavinbaker: e-star: it's always info policy
 
gavinbaker: e-star: it's always info policy
  
christo_ph: skyfaller: that presupposed that consensus can be reached given a limited amount of time
+
christo_ph:skyfaller: that presupposed that consensus can be reached given a limited amount of time
  
  poningru: ooh yeah
+
poningru: ooh yeah
  
  mecredis: can we add copyright as #4?
+
mecredis: can we add copyright as #4?
  
 
christo_ph: *s
 
christo_ph: *s
  
    e-star: how about information and technology policy, including copyrights and patents
+
e-star: how about information and technology policy, including copyrights and patents
  
  poningru: tech and info policy
+
poningru: tech and info policy
  
    price: or we can actually find out who wants what
+
price: or we can actually find out who wants what
  
skyfaller: e-star: sure
+
skyfaller: e-star: sure
  
  mecredis: e-star: that works
+
mecredis: e-star: that works
  
    price: ==e-star
+
price: ==e-star
  
skyfaller: citing examples is fine
+
skyfaller: citing examples is fine
  
 
Differance: face it, we're in the situation we're in because we've all got tools to muck with information -- information policy
 
Differance: face it, we're in the situation we're in because we've all got tools to muck with information -- information policy
  
    e-star: good
+
e-star: good
  
    e-star: let's move on :D
+
e-star: let's move on :D
  
  mecredis: OK
+
mecredis: OK
  
 
Differance: sorry -- ws typing, not reading
 
Differance: sorry -- ws typing, not reading
  
  mecredis: edit it!
+
mecredis: edit it!
  
 
mllerustad: I &TP, inc. (c) and P.
 
mllerustad: I &TP, inc. (c) and P.
Line 1,179: Line 1,178:
 
mllerustad: What's next?
 
mllerustad: What's next?
  
  mecredis: chapter membership...
+
mecredis: chapter membership...
  
  mecredis: so the issue is
+
mecredis: so the issue is
  
  mecredis: how strict o make the requirements
+
mecredis: how strict o make the requirements
  
  mecredis: for being a chapter
+
mecredis: for being a chapter
  
  mecredis: setting the bar low or high
+
mecredis: setting the bar low or high
  
 
gavinbaker: mecredis: i'm fine with the requirements in the bylaws
 
gavinbaker: mecredis: i'm fine with the requirements in the bylaws
  
  mecredis: me too
+
mecredis: me too
  
 
gavinbaker: you're a student and you say you want to make a chapter. you're in
 
gavinbaker: you're a student and you say you want to make a chapter. you're in
  
  mecredis: they're relatively uncontroversial
+
mecredis: they're relatively uncontroversial
  
 
gavinbaker: i'm afraid we'll artificially exclude people otherwise
 
gavinbaker: i'm afraid we'll artificially exclude people otherwise
Line 1,205: Line 1,204:
 
gavinbaker: or can we accept the bylaws version as kosher?
 
gavinbaker: or can we accept the bylaws version as kosher?
  
  mecredis: ...article 3 is down for the count
+
mecredis: ...article 3 is down for the count
  
  mecredis: OK
+
mecredis: OK
  
  mecredis: moving on
+
mecredis: moving on
  
 
christo_ph: i definitely don't agree
 
christo_ph: i definitely don't agree
  
  mecredis: oh
+
mecredis: oh
  
 
gavinbaker: christo_pher: type faster! ;)
 
gavinbaker: christo_pher: type faster! ;)
  
    e-star: christo_pher: do tell
+
e-star: christo_pher: do tell
  
 
christo_ph: we're referring to chapter membership, not regular membership, yes?
 
christo_ph: we're referring to chapter membership, not regular membership, yes?
  
    e-star: this is moving ahead a bit, but for elections, should we just let any chapter that has one person that sent an email once vote?
+
e-star: this is moving ahead a bit, but for elections, should we just let any chapter that has one person that sent an email once vote?
  
 
gavinbaker: christo_pher: the only "membership" is chapter membership, in the current bylaws
 
gavinbaker: christo_pher: the only "membership" is chapter membership, in the current bylaws
  
    e-star: christo_pher: yes, and i agree that we should allow non-chapter members
+
e-star: christo_pher: yes, and i agree that we should allow non-chapter members
  
    e-star: such as paulproteus  
+
e-star: such as paulproteus  
  
 
gavinbaker: e-star: can you propose another solution?
 
gavinbaker: e-star: can you propose another solution?
Line 1,235: Line 1,234:
 
gavinbaker: mllerustad, right.
 
gavinbaker: mllerustad, right.
  
    e-star: mllerustad: k
+
e-star: mllerustad: k
  
    e-star: we could have requirements
+
e-star: we could have requirements
  
 
christo_ph: i think there should be a minimum requirement for being a chapter if we're having chapters voting for board membership
 
christo_ph: i think there should be a minimum requirement for being a chapter if we're having chapters voting for board membership
  
    e-star: as a "volunteer" member
+
e-star: as a "volunteer" member
  
paulproteu: I'm perfectly willing to serve a student organization but not be a member, by the way. Never having been part of a chapter I've always been okay with that.
+
paulproteu: I'm perfectly willing to serve a student organization but not be a member, by the way.Never having been part of a chapter I've always been okay with that.
  
    e-star: a la attending several volunteer meetings and having worked on at least one project
+
e-star: a la attending several volunteer meetings and having worked on at least one project
  
 
Differance: I'm generally a proponent of open membership, but doing that requires a very different way of doing things, you guys are not heading that way . . .
 
Differance: I'm generally a proponent of open membership, but doing that requires a very different way of doing things, you guys are not heading that way . . .
  
    e-star: and being on the volunteers list
+
e-star: and being on the volunteers list
  
 
christo_ph: and approval of chapters should be handled by the board, perhaps reviewed by the ED/F
 
christo_ph: and approval of chapters should be handled by the board, perhaps reviewed by the ED/F
Line 1,255: Line 1,254:
 
mllerustad: e-star: Gavin's core-team proposal would allow people who aren't in chapters to participate.
 
mllerustad: e-star: Gavin's core-team proposal would allow people who aren't in chapters to participate.
  
    e-star: are people willing to accept membership outside of chapters?
+
e-star: are people willing to accept membership outside of chapters?
  
  mecredis: Differance: this is all in preparation of getting FC.org set up as a 501c3
+
mecredis: Differance: this is all in preparation of getting FC.org set up as a 501c3
  
 
gavinbaker: e-star: why would we do this?
 
gavinbaker: e-star: why would we do this?
Line 1,273: Line 1,272:
 
gavinbaker: stay grassroots-based
 
gavinbaker: stay grassroots-based
  
    e-star: gavinbaker: fine, but i think there should be some recognition
+
e-star: gavinbaker: fine, but i think there should be some recognition
  
    e-star: perhaps not even voting rights
+
e-star: perhaps not even voting rights
  
 
christo_ph: a member-based organization could still be grassroots-baed
 
christo_ph: a member-based organization could still be grassroots-baed
Line 1,287: Line 1,286:
 
christo_ph: there isn't an inherent property within being chapter-ie
 
christo_ph: there isn't an inherent property within being chapter-ie
  
    e-star: mllerustad: yes, core team participation could work
+
e-star: mllerustad: yes, core team participation could work
  
 
gavinbaker: e-star: keep in mind that being a "chapter" only requires filling out a form
 
gavinbaker: e-star: keep in mind that being a "chapter" only requires filling out a form
  
    e-star: gavinbaker: if we agree on that ;)
+
e-star: gavinbaker: if we agree on that ;)
  
 
gavinbaker: and you don't even have to list yourself as "active", in the new system
 
gavinbaker: and you don't even have to list yourself as "active", in the new system
Line 1,297: Line 1,296:
 
mllerustad: gavinbaker: Well, and the ax-murderer filter.
 
mllerustad: gavinbaker: Well, and the ax-murderer filter.
  
            gavinbaker looks around awkwardy, hides axe
+
gavinbaker looks around awkwardy, hides axe
  
skyfaller: well, currently the requirements for being a chapter are (1) we have your contact info, (2) you're sane and really support FC, (3) you're seriously interested in starting a chapter
+
skyfaller: well, currently the requirements for being a chapter are (1) we have your contact info, (2) you're sane and really support FC, (3) you're seriously interested in starting a chapter
  
 
paulproteu: gavinbaker, It's okay - you *are* the ax murderer in the ax murderer filter.
 
paulproteu: gavinbaker, It's okay - you *are* the ax murderer in the ax murderer filter.
Line 1,307: Line 1,306:
 
Differance: ?whois axmurdered
 
Differance: ?whois axmurdered
  
    jibot: Nobody has defined axmurdered yet
+
jibot: Nobody has defined axmurdered yet
  
 
gavinbaker: paulproteus: happy to be the man on the 'inside' ... just don't cross me
 
gavinbaker: paulproteus: happy to be the man on the 'inside' ... just don't cross me
Line 1,313: Line 1,312:
 
christo_ph: I think there needs to be two tiers
 
christo_ph: I think there needs to be two tiers
  
    e-star: skyfaller: i'm fine with that for now, although it's important that people renew
+
e-star:skyfaller: i'm fine with that for now, although it's important that people renew
  
    e-star: paulproteus: agreed
+
e-star: paulproteus: agreed
  
skyfaller: e-star: yes, renewing is vital
+
skyfaller: e-star: yes, renewing is vital
  
 
*** Fear_of_C (n=nick@cpe-66-65-84-36.nyc.res.rr.com) has joined channel #freeculture
 
*** Fear_of_C (n=nick@cpe-66-65-84-36.nyc.res.rr.com) has joined channel #freeculture
  
    jibot: Fear_of_C is Nick from Swarthmore and organizing http://freeculture.org/blog/2007/01/20/free-culture-labs/
+
jibot: Fear_of_C is Nick from Swarthmore and organizing http://freeculture.org/blog/2007/01/20/free-culture-labs/
  
 
christo_ph: 1) you're interested and have filled out the required information
 
christo_ph: 1) you're interested and have filled out the required information
Line 1,345: Line 1,344:
 
*** Signoff: parkerhiggins (Connection timed out)
 
*** Signoff: parkerhiggins (Connection timed out)
  
    e-star: agreed on dues
+
e-star: agreed on dues
  
  mecredis: yeah
+
mecredis: yeah
  
  mecredis: agreed on dues
+
mecredis: agreed on dues
  
 
Differance: i.e., no dues
 
Differance: i.e., no dues
  
skyfaller: so no dues, unless we have an amendment
+
skyfaller: so no dues, unless we have an amendment
  
 
christo_ph: sure, if there's interest in addressing general membership/voting later on
 
christo_ph: sure, if there's interest in addressing general membership/voting later on
  
  mecredis: yeah
+
mecredis: yeah
  
    e-star: k, next
+
e-star: k, next
  
 
mllerustad: christo_pher: Definitely... we're just going through things in the order they're listed in the bylaws :)
 
mllerustad: christo_pher: Definitely... we're just going through things in the order they're listed in the bylaws :)
Line 1,367: Line 1,366:
 
*** mindspillage (n=kat@wikimedia/KatWalsh/x-0001) has joined channel #freeculture
 
*** mindspillage (n=kat@wikimedia/KatWalsh/x-0001) has joined channel #freeculture
  
Differance: ? jibot: axmurderer - Gavin Baker
+
Differance: ?jibot: axmurderer - Gavin Baker
  
 
christo_ph: i think it's difficult to address these piecemeal without having established general truths of operation of our organization, but whatever is quickest i'll bend to
 
christo_ph: i think it's difficult to address these piecemeal without having established general truths of operation of our organization, but whatever is quickest i'll bend to
  
    e-star: oh yes
+
e-star: oh yes
  
    e-star: i'd like to make a proposal re: the use of national
+
e-star: i'd like to make a proposal re: the use of national
  
    e-star: i.e. that we don't use it when at all possible
+
e-star: i.e. that we don't use it when at all possible
  
skyfaller: heh
+
skyfaller: heh
  
 
gavinbaker: e-star++
 
gavinbaker: e-star++
Line 1,383: Line 1,382:
 
Differance: The word?
 
Differance: The word?
  
    e-star: "Each chapter's liaison must also vote in national elections for the Organization as detailed in Article IV."
+
e-star: "Each chapter's liaison must also vote in national elections for the Organization as detailed in Article IV."
  
 
gavinbaker: "the Organization"
 
gavinbaker: "the Organization"
Line 1,389: Line 1,388:
 
gavinbaker: is how we should refer to it
 
gavinbaker: is how we should refer to it
  
    e-star: gavinbaker: agreed
+
e-star: gavinbaker: agreed
  
 
mllerustad: e-star: Agreed... I was working on an RC that standardized language, e.g. "Organization", "chapter liaison", etc...
 
mllerustad: e-star: Agreed... I was working on an RC that standardized language, e.g. "Organization", "chapter liaison", etc...
Line 1,395: Line 1,394:
 
gavinbaker: (sorry if we're skipping around)
 
gavinbaker: (sorry if we're skipping around)
  
    e-star: we're getting an increasing number of inquiries from people wanting to start chapters around the world
+
e-star: we're getting an increasing number of inquiries from people wanting to start chapters around the world
  
    e-star: and i'm afraid of alienating people
+
e-star: and i'm afraid of alienating people
  
 
mllerustad: Yeah.
 
mllerustad: Yeah.
Line 1,403: Line 1,402:
 
gavinbaker: also, everyone has to apply for permits before having sex with each other
 
gavinbaker: also, everyone has to apply for permits before having sex with each other
  
skyfaller: yeah, national should go
+
skyfaller: yeah, national should go
  
 
mllerustad: So, cut "national"?
 
mllerustad: So, cut "national"?
Line 1,409: Line 1,408:
 
Differance: hmm
 
Differance: hmm
  
    e-star: plus, we'd of course welcome non-american board candidates, etc
+
e-star: plus, we'd of course welcome non-american board candidates, etc
  
 
gavinbaker: </injoke>
 
gavinbaker: </injoke>
Line 1,417: Line 1,416:
 
gavinbaker: "liaison permits"
 
gavinbaker: "liaison permits"
  
    e-star: actually i thought i'm not skipping
+
e-star: actually i thought i'm not skipping
  
    e-star: i thought this was the next section of the bylaws
+
e-star: i thought this was the next section of the bylaws
  
 
gavinbaker: e-star: i don't know if we are, i was just apologizing in advance ;)
 
gavinbaker: e-star: i don't know if we are, i was just apologizing in advance ;)
  
    e-star: so we could say organization-wide elections
+
e-star: so we could say organization-wide elections
  
    e-star: sorry, not as sexy
+
e-star: sorry, not as sexy
  
 
christo_ph: have we decided to leave article III, section 2, as it is?
 
christo_ph: have we decided to leave article III, section 2, as it is?
Line 1,431: Line 1,430:
 
mllerustad: e-star: Yeah, I see where you are.
 
mllerustad: e-star: Yeah, I see where you are.
  
  mecredis: e-star: that's fine
+
mecredis: e-star: that's fine
  
 
mllerustad: christo_pher: I think so, though the question of 1.) if non-chapters can be members and 2.) who can vote is still open.
 
mllerustad: christo_pher: I think so, though the question of 1.) if non-chapters can be members and 2.) who can vote is still open.
  
    e-star: i think we're changing section 3 to gavin's wording
+
e-star: i think we're changing section 3 to gavin's wording
  
    e-star: yes?
+
e-star: yes?
  
    e-star: on dues
+
e-star: on dues
  
 
mllerustad: e-star: Agreed.
 
mllerustad: e-star: Agreed.
  
  poningru: I wanna put in my liaison permit for ireland please
+
poningru: I wanna put in my liaison permit for ireland please
  
 
christo_ph: okay
 
christo_ph: okay
  
            mllerustad rejects poningru's liaison permit
+
mllerustad rejects poningru's liaison permit
  
  poningru: NOOOOOOOOO
+
poningru: NOOOOOOOOO
  
  poningru: :(
+
poningru: :(
  
 
Differance: you might want to keep open the idea of how the relationship with the chapters will function
 
Differance: you might want to keep open the idea of how the relationship with the chapters will function
Line 1,457: Line 1,456:
 
gavinbaker: poningru, you can't screw an island, dude
 
gavinbaker: poningru, you can't screw an island, dude
  
    e-star: guys cmon
+
e-star: guys cmon
  
    e-star: please!
+
e-star: please!
  
  poningru: HA thats what they told king of england
+
poningru: HA thats what they told king of england
  
  mecredis: yeah
+
mecredis: yeah
  
  mecredis: let's get through this
+
mecredis: let's get through this
  
  poningru: ok.. ok.. sorry
+
poningru: ok.. ok.. sorry
  
    e-star: so are we okay with taking out "national"
+
e-star: so are we okay with taking out "national"
  
 
christo_ph: just to backtrack, i think the current proposed function to allow new chapters in (they sign up, are interviewed, are recommended for or against, are approved) is overly heavy
 
christo_ph: just to backtrack, i think the current proposed function to allow new chapters in (they sign up, are interviewed, are recommended for or against, are approved) is overly heavy
  
    price: e-star: can we say out loud in the channel what language we're discussing?
+
price: e-star: can we say out loud in the channel what language we're discussing?
  
 
mllerustad: e-star: Agreed.
 
mllerustad: e-star: Agreed.
  
    e-star: and using the Organization
+
e-star: and using the Organization
  
    price: (ie on dues)
+
price: (ie on dues)
  
 
Differance: You're empowering a whole slew of orgs and the relationship is just a "liaison"
 
Differance: You're empowering a whole slew of orgs and the relationship is just a "liaison"
  
    e-star: price: sure, i already pasted it
+
e-star:price: sure, i already pasted it
  
 
paulproteu: BTW, dudes, feel free to erase the topic of the channel and use it for the current section topic.
 
paulproteu: BTW, dudes, feel free to erase the topic of the channel and use it for the current section topic.
Line 1,491: Line 1,490:
 
*** mliesenf (n=mliesenf@ip70-185-100-28.ga.at.cox.net) has joined channel #freeculture
 
*** mliesenf (n=mliesenf@ip70-185-100-28.ga.at.cox.net) has joined channel #freeculture
  
    e-star: yup
+
e-star: yup
  
 
christo_ph: current language: "The Board of Directors shall have the authority to adopt membership dues by a majority vote. At the time of the adoption of these by-laws, there are no dues required for membership in the Organization." new language: "There shall be no payment or dues required for membership in the Organization."
 
christo_ph: current language: "The Board of Directors shall have the authority to adopt membership dues by a majority vote. At the time of the adoption of these by-laws, there are no dues required for membership in the Organization." new language: "There shall be no payment or dues required for membership in the Organization."
  
    e-star: all in favor?
+
e-star: all in favor?
  
  mecredis: sounds good to me
+
mecredis: sounds good to me
  
 
Differance: You might want to make it a relationship "according to the current policy"
 
Differance: You might want to make it a relationship "according to the current policy"
Line 1,509: Line 1,508:
 
christo_ph: sounds fine
 
christo_ph: sounds fine
  
    price: +1
+
price: +1
  
skyfaller: +!
+
skyfaller: +!
  
    e-star: +
+
e-star: +
  
    e-star: good
+
e-star: good
  
    e-star: now, III sec 4
+
e-star: now, III sec 4
  
    e-star: i propose that we remove the word "national"
+
e-star: i propose that we remove the word "national"
  
    e-star: from this section and throughout the doc
+
e-star: from this section and throughout the doc
  
  mecredis: e-star: I AGREE
+
mecredis: e-star: I AGREE
  
  mecredis: arg, caps
+
mecredis: arg, caps
  
Fear_of_C: agreed
+
Fear_of_C: agreed
  
 
*** skyfaller has set the topic on channel #freeculture to http://wiki.freeculture.org/Bylaws#Section_4._Chapter_Responsibilities
 
*** skyfaller has set the topic on channel #freeculture to http://wiki.freeculture.org/Bylaws#Section_4._Chapter_Responsibilities
Line 1,535: Line 1,534:
 
mllerustad: ++
 
mllerustad: ++
  
    e-star: actually, elections for the Organization is fine
+
e-star: actually, elections for the Organization is fine
  
skyfaller: OK, strike "national" everywhere
+
skyfaller: OK, strike "national" everywhere
  
    e-star: good, who is making these changes btw?
+
e-star: good, who is making these changes btw?
  
 
mllerustad: e-star: It says "national" elections... That will be fixed.
 
mllerustad: e-star: It says "national" elections... That will be fixed.
  
  mecredis: yeah
+
mecredis: yeah
  
  mecredis: are these actually being implemented?
+
mecredis: are these actually being implemented?
  
  mecredis: haha
+
mecredis: haha
  
  mecredis: is someone going to have to go through this log in a bit to do this?
+
mecredis: is someone going to have to go through this log in a bit to do this?
  
    e-star: right, i mean is someone doing it as we speak?
+
e-star: right, i mean is someone doing it as we speak?
  
 
christo_ph: I'd still like to see III. Section 2 cleared up, especially with regard to "an endorsement of the national organization's mission," and the current process of approval
 
christo_ph: I'd still like to see III. Section 2 cleared up, especially with regard to "an endorsement of the national organization's mission," and the current process of approval
  
skyfaller: we'll take minutes and someone will change it later
+
skyfaller: we'll take minutes and someone will change it later
  
  mecredis: ugh
+
mecredis: ugh
  
 
mllerustad: Nelson is listing things people agree on changing/not changing, and I can put them together into an RC.
 
mllerustad: Nelson is listing things people agree on changing/not changing, and I can put them together into an RC.
  
  mecredis: I think it should be done now
+
mecredis: I think it should be done now
  
 
gavinbaker: mecredis: i'll go through with a log, if someone provides me with a log ;)
 
gavinbaker: mecredis: i'll go through with a log, if someone provides me with a log ;)
  
    e-star: ok
+
e-star: ok
  
 
mllerustad: mecredis: We're "taking minutes" of each decision made.
 
mllerustad: mecredis: We're "taking minutes" of each decision made.
  
skyfaller: OK, Gavin + Karen can take care of implementing it
+
skyfaller: OK, Gavin + Karen can take care of implementing it
  
 
mllerustad: In order to write this.
 
mllerustad: In order to write this.
Line 1,575: Line 1,574:
 
christo_ph: if there's not enough time to discuss that now, just let me know, and i'll shut up
 
christo_ph: if there's not enough time to discuss that now, just let me know, and i'll shut up
  
  mecredis: fine, as long as its being kept track of
+
mecredis: fine, as long as its being kept track of
  
    e-star: christo_pher: yeah probably beset to move on
+
e-star: christo_pher: yeah probably beset to move on
  
    e-star: er, best
+
e-star: er, best
  
    e-star: sorry can't type tonight ;)
+
e-star: sorry can't type tonight ;)
  
 
christo_ph: okay
 
christo_ph: okay
  
skyfaller: well, if someone isn't happy with something, maybe we shouldn't move on yet?
+
skyfaller: well, if someone isn't happy with something, maybe we shouldn't move on yet?
  
 
mllerustad: christo_pher: skyfaller and others could discuss how the current "axe-murderer filter" works... but preferably later.
 
mllerustad: christo_pher: skyfaller and others could discuss how the current "axe-murderer filter" works... but preferably later.
  
  mecredis: yes lets move on
+
mecredis: yes lets move on
  
    price: it'd be better to keep track of it in public, though
+
price: it'd be better to keep track of it in public, though
  
 
gavinbaker: price++ | for being eminently reasonable throughout the meeting
 
gavinbaker: price++ | for being eminently reasonable throughout the meeting
  
skyfaller: christo_pher: so do you have an actual objection, or are you just asking for details?
+
skyfaller: christo_pher: so do you have an actual objection, or are you just asking for details?
  
 
mllerustad: gavinbaker: We should give out reasonability trophies at the end of the night.
 
mllerustad: gavinbaker: We should give out reasonability trophies at the end of the night.
  
    e-star: section 5?
+
e-star: section 5?
  
 
Differance: and axes
 
Differance: and axes
  
  mecredis: I wanted to add something
+
mecredis: I wanted to add something
  
    price: like RESOLUTION: III.3 should be amended as christo_pher said at 18:17
+
price: like RESOLUTION: III.3 should be amended as christo_pher said at 18:17
  
    price: or any other form
+
price: or any other form
  
    e-star: i know some people had issues with the lack of appeals process in 5.3
+
e-star: i know some people had issues with the lack of appeals process in 5.3
  
    price: (gavinbaker: thanks)
+
price: (gavinbaker: thanks)
  
  mecredis: 5.3?
+
mecredis: 5.3?
  
    e-star: yes, Removal for Cause
+
e-star: yes, Removal for Cause
  
 
gavinbaker: oh, right. why's there no appeals process?
 
gavinbaker: oh, right. why's there no appeals process?
  
skyfaller: price: I'm taking minutes, I just haven't had the opportunity to put them on the wiki yet... it's hard to take minutes and participate :/
+
skyfaller:price: I'm taking minutes, I just haven't had the opportunity to put them on the wiki yet... it's hard to take minutes and participate :/
  
  mecredis: ooh, oops
+
mecredis: ooh, oops
  
    price: skyfaller: do it in the irc?
+
price:skyfaller: do it in the irc?
  
  mecredis: was looking at the rong spot
+
mecredis: was looking at the rong spot
  
skyfaller: price: ok, sure
+
skyfaller:price: ok, sure
  
    price: with some conspicuous keyword, perhaps
+
price: with some conspicuous keyword, perhaps
  
 
mllerustad: I guess one question I had was, what does it mean to permanently kick out a chapter?
 
mllerustad: I guess one question I had was, what does it mean to permanently kick out a chapter?
  
christo_ph: skyfaller: i have an objection and, yesterday, submitted the objection as, "It should be very easy to receive the support of our national organization, but for the sake of voting and full exploitation of chapter membership, we should establish basic requirements for full membership. Prospective chapters should exist as soon as we have their information. Further, as soon as they have established themselves (something we shou
+
christo_ph:skyfaller: i have an objection and, yesterday, submitted the objection as, "It should be very easy to receive the support of our national organization, but for the sake of voting and full exploitation of chapter membership, we should establish basic requirements for full membership. Prospective chapters should exist as soon as we have their information. Further, as soon as they have established themselves (something we shou
  
    price: RESOLUTION: Article II: "to defend the public interest in information and technology policy, including copyrights and patents"
+
price: RESOLUTION: Article II: "to defend the public interest in information and technology policy, including copyrights and patents"
  
 
mllerustad: Does that mean just the current leaders of the chapter won't be recognized?
 
mllerustad: Does that mean just the current leaders of the chapter won't be recognized?
  
    e-star: also, all of section 5 depends on having an ED, EF. etc. this will come a bit later, but we need to think how this would work w/o an ED, especially in the short term
+
e-star: also, all of section 5 depends on having an ED, EF. etc. this will come a bit later, but we need to think how this would work w/o an ED, especially in the short term
  
 
mllerustad: Or we can't ever have a chapter at that school again?
 
mllerustad: Or we can't ever have a chapter at that school again?
  
Fear_of_C: who is allowed to make a "complaint"?
+
Fear_of_C: who is allowed to make a "complaint"?
  
    price: RESOLUTION: strike "national" everywhere
+
price: RESOLUTION: strike "national" everywhere
  
skyfaller: christo_pher: your statement got cut off... link us to it on the wiki
+
skyfaller: christo_pher: your statement got cut off... link us to it on the wiki
  
    price: I think that may be it for decisions taken so far, besides to let things be
+
price: I think that may be it for decisions taken so far, besides to let things be
  
 
christo_ph: I understand that the voting rights can be handled later, but I am still convinced that the current process of review by someone appointed by the ED/F, then review by the ED/F is silly
 
christo_ph: I understand that the voting rights can be handled later, but I am still convinced that the current process of review by someone appointed by the ED/F, then review by the ED/F is silly
  
mllerustad: price: Also, no dues.
+
mllerustad:price: Also, no dues.
  
    price: mllerustad: yeah, that was the first one I wrote. 18:22.
+
price: mllerustad: yeah, that was the first one I wrote. 18:22.
  
mllerustad: price: Oh, sorry.
+
mllerustad:price: Oh, sorry.
  
            mllerustad scrolls up
+
mllerustad scrolls up
  
 
gavinbaker: christo_pher: it's not the best process, i agree
 
gavinbaker: christo_pher: it's not the best process, i agree
Line 1,669: Line 1,668:
 
gavinbaker: christo_pher: i think that part makes sense, actually. what don't you concur with?
 
gavinbaker: christo_pher: i think that part makes sense, actually. what don't you concur with?
  
    e-star: does the form include a checkbox for endorsement of the mission?
+
e-star: does the form include a checkbox for endorsement of the mission?
  
 
christo_ph: it's not a matter of agreement, does it seek to set a minimum standard for registration while reserving the right of the Board of Directors to change that?
 
christo_ph: it's not a matter of agreement, does it seek to set a minimum standard for registration while reserving the right of the Board of Directors to change that?
Line 1,685: Line 1,684:
 
christo_ph: so the method is the medium of submitting that information?
 
christo_ph: so the method is the medium of submitting that information?
  
    e-star: k, guys, if we can agree on the general process, the details of the form can be discussed later
+
e-star: k, guys, if we can agree on the general process, the details of the form can be discussed later
  
 
christo_ph: "this process" is equated with "a method"
 
christo_ph: "this process" is equated with "a method"
Line 1,699: Line 1,698:
 
mllerustad: "Process" refers to "registration."
 
mllerustad: "Process" refers to "registration."
  
    e-star: christo_pher: would you like to propose an alternative wording?
+
e-star: christo_pher: would you like to propose an alternative wording?
  
 
christo_ph: which process?
 
christo_ph: which process?
Line 1,727: Line 1,726:
 
christo_ph: mllerustad: right, i know that, which means the Bylaws should be updated to reflect that if that's our principle
 
christo_ph: mllerustad: right, i know that, which means the Bylaws should be updated to reflect that if that's our principle
  
    e-star: can we move on to section 5?
+
e-star: can we move on to section 5?
  
 
mllerustad: Process is the information/hoops to jump through.
 
mllerustad: Process is the information/hoops to jump through.
  
    e-star: we have a LOT more ground to cover
+
e-star: we have a LOT more ground to cover
  
 
mllerustad: christo_pher: What did you think of my proposed verbage edit?
 
mllerustad: christo_pher: What did you think of my proposed verbage edit?
  
  mecredis: yeah
+
mecredis: yeah
  
 
mllerustad: i.e. "The process of registering"
 
mllerustad: i.e. "The process of registering"
  
  mecredis: e-star: agreed
+
mecredis: e-star: agreed
  
 
mllerustad: instead of just "process"
 
mllerustad: instead of just "process"
Line 1,751: Line 1,750:
 
mllerustad: Moving on.
 
mllerustad: Moving on.
  
    e-star: okay i'm fine w/ that
+
e-star: okay i'm fine w/ that
  
skyfaller: yay resolution!
+
skyfaller: yay resolution!
  
  mecredis: yeah
+
mecredis: yeah
  
    e-star: section 5, Termination of Chapters
+
e-star: section 5, Termination of Chapters
  
 
gavinbaker: RESOLVED: (FIXME)
 
gavinbaker: RESOLVED: (FIXME)
  
  mecredis: OK
+
mecredis: OK
  
 
christo_ph: but have we decided that we want the EF/ED sending someone to interview the chapter, and then that report being made to the EF/ED, who has the sole responsibility of approving chapters?
 
christo_ph: but have we decided that we want the EF/ED sending someone to interview the chapter, and then that report being made to the EF/ED, who has the sole responsibility of approving chapters?
  
    price: can someone write in one place the change that was just approved?
+
price: can someone write in one place the change that was just approved?
  
 
mllerustad: christo_pher: They don't have sole responsibility. They make recommendations to the Board, who decides.
 
mllerustad: christo_pher: They don't have sole responsibility. They make recommendations to the Board, who decides.
Line 1,771: Line 1,770:
 
christo_ph: this was something we spoke about for at least 30 minutes on the friday before the conference, and haven't addressed here at all
 
christo_ph: this was something we spoke about for at least 30 minutes on the friday before the conference, and haven't addressed here at all
  
    price: (just so it's clear)
+
price: (just so it's clear)
  
skyfaller: price: RESOLUTION: "this process" => "the process of registering"
+
skyfaller:price: RESOLUTION:"this process" => "the process of registering"
  
 
christo_ph: mllerustad: right now they make the recommendation to the ED who approves it
 
christo_ph: mllerustad: right now they make the recommendation to the ED who approves it
  
    price: skyfaller: excellent, thanks
+
price:skyfaller: excellent, thanks
  
 
christo_ph: mllerustad: what you suggested is what i'd like to see there instead
 
christo_ph: mllerustad: what you suggested is what i'd like to see there instead
  
  mecredis: OK
+
mecredis: OK
  
  mecredis: so what are the issues
+
mecredis: so what are the issues
  
  mecredis: with section 5
+
mecredis: with section 5
  
 
mllerustad: christo_pher: I think that's what we intended, but we can make the verbage clearer.
 
mllerustad: christo_pher: I think that's what we intended, but we can make the verbage clearer.
Line 1,791: Line 1,790:
 
mllerustad: mecredis: Making it explicit that it's the board that approves chapters.
 
mllerustad: mecredis: Making it explicit that it's the board that approves chapters.
  
  mecredis: right
+
mecredis: right
  
    e-star: guys, again, we need something in place for when there's no ED/F
+
e-star: guys, again, we need something in place for when there's no ED/F
  
    e-star: but i guess that comes later
+
e-star: but i guess that comes later
  
 
mllerustad: Oh, d'oh, that's back in III.2.
 
mllerustad: Oh, d'oh, that's back in III.2.
  
skyfaller: e-star: I think that we need to have an ED/F, even if we can't pay them
+
skyfaller: e-star: I think that we need to have an ED/F, even if we can't pay them
  
 
christo_ph: mllerustad: that's not what was intended previously, it was argued that the ED should have that responsibility, and right now it says: "present their recommendations to the Executive Director for approval."
 
christo_ph: mllerustad: that's not what was intended previously, it was argued that the ED should have that responsibility, and right now it says: "present their recommendations to the Executive Director for approval."
Line 1,807: Line 1,806:
 
mllerustad: Sorry.
 
mllerustad: Sorry.
  
skyfaller: e-star: so I think saying "what if we don't have an ED/F" is like asking "what if we don't have a board?"
+
skyfaller: e-star: so I think saying "what if we don't have an ED/F" is like asking "what if we don't have a board?"
  
            mllerustad wrote these a year ago...
+
mllerustad wrote these a year ago...
  
 
christo_ph: mllerustad: I wasn't trying to insult you by re-pasting that, just trying to clarify what we were talking about.
 
christo_ph: mllerustad: I wasn't trying to insult you by re-pasting that, just trying to clarify what we were talking about.
Line 1,829: Line 1,828:
 
gavinbaker: the board shouldn't be meeting any more frequently than ~once a month
 
gavinbaker: the board shouldn't be meeting any more frequently than ~once a month
  
    e-star: skyfaller: okay, but i don't think we can realistically have one w/o paying them
+
e-star:skyfaller: okay, but i don't think we can realistically have one w/o paying them
  
 
gavinbaker: and we need to approve chapters more frequently than that
 
gavinbaker: and we need to approve chapters more frequently than that
  
  mecredis: gavinbaker: agreed
+
mecredis: gavinbaker: agreed
  
 
Differance: Runs things, makes real decisions, no problem, until some formal process of Board injunction
 
Differance: Runs things, makes real decisions, no problem, until some formal process of Board injunction
Line 1,839: Line 1,838:
 
christo_ph: gavinbaker: my suggestion is that each new chapter is automatically approved once given a sanity check, and that the board reviews them whenever it meets
 
christo_ph: gavinbaker: my suggestion is that each new chapter is automatically approved once given a sanity check, and that the board reviews them whenever it meets
  
  mecredis: who's really going to bother a chapter registration system?
+
mecredis: who's really going to bother a chapter registration system?
  
 
christo_ph: reviews new ones
 
christo_ph: reviews new ones
  
    e-star: yes guys, let's specify that the board can approve chapters via their email list
+
e-star: yes guys, let's specify that the board can approve chapters via their email list
  
 
gavinbaker: christo_pher: ok. practically, what's the difference from the current system?
 
gavinbaker: christo_pher: ok. practically, what's the difference from the current system?
  
    e-star: or something
+
e-star: or something
  
  mecredis: eyah
+
mecredis: eyah
  
 
christo_ph: gavinbaker: right now the board doesn't ever review them
 
christo_ph: gavinbaker: right now the board doesn't ever review them
  
    e-star: so it doesn't have to be at the once-a-semeter meeting
+
e-star: so it doesn't have to be at the once-a-semeter meeting
  
  mecredis: when would we say no?
+
mecredis: when would we say no?
  
skyfaller: e-star: well, I've served as ED/EF in the past basically, so it's not impossible, but generally I agree with you, so funding an ED/F should be a high priority
+
skyfaller: e-star: well, I've served as ED/EF in the past basically, so it's not impossible, but generally I agree with you, so funding an ED/F should be a high priority
  
 
gavinbaker: mecredis: then why do we need this extra measure?
 
gavinbaker: mecredis: then why do we need this extra measure?
Line 1,863: Line 1,862:
 
christo_ph: gavinbaker: the board also can definitely approve these without having a full meeting, we do have irc and mailing lists available
 
christo_ph: gavinbaker: the board also can definitely approve these without having a full meeting, we do have irc and mailing lists available
  
skyfaller: but let's argue about one thing at a time
+
skyfaller: but let's argue about one thing at a time
  
  mecredis: gavinbaker: that's my question
+
mecredis: gavinbaker: that's my question
  
    e-star: skyfaller: i still like coordinator :)
+
e-star:skyfaller: i still like coordinator :)
  
 
Differance: me too
 
Differance: me too
  
    e-star: skyfaller: also, the org was smaller then and i don't think you got much sleep :p
+
e-star:skyfaller: also, the org was smaller then and i don't think you got much sleep :p
  
 
christo_ph: gavinbaker: plus, in the future if we decide to have a two-tiered chapter system, having initial approval (for access to digital resources) and then voting approval by the board makes sense
 
christo_ph: gavinbaker: plus, in the future if we decide to have a two-tiered chapter system, having initial approval (for access to digital resources) and then voting approval by the board makes sense
  
Differance: with plenipotentiary power! :-)
+
Differance: with plenipotentiary power!:-)
  
 
Differance: Set up an extraordinary process for the board to intervene
 
Differance: Set up an extraordinary process for the board to intervene
Line 1,885: Line 1,884:
 
mllerustad: 1.) The ED title/etc.?
 
mllerustad: 1.) The ED title/etc.?
  
    price: ==christo_pher
+
price: ==christo_pher
  
 
mllerustad: 2.) Whether new chapters should be finally approved by the board?
 
mllerustad: 2.) Whether new chapters should be finally approved by the board?
  
    e-star: yes, but that is supposed to come later
+
e-star: yes, but that is supposed to come later
  
 
mllerustad: 3.) Or voting tiers for chapters?
 
mllerustad: 3.) Or voting tiers for chapters?
  
    e-star: yes
+
e-star: yes
  
 
gavinbaker: ok, so 1 comes later, 3 comes later
 
gavinbaker: ok, so 1 comes later, 3 comes later
Line 1,917: Line 1,916:
 
mllerustad: christo_pher: Okay.
 
mllerustad: christo_pher: Okay.
  
  mecredis: christo_pher: that sounds good
+
mecredis: christo_pher: that sounds good
  
    e-star: how about
+
e-star: how about
  
skyfaller: what does that mean?
+
skyfaller: what does that mean?
  
 
*** mliesenf has left channel #freeculture ("Leaving")  
 
*** mliesenf has left channel #freeculture ("Leaving")  
Line 1,929: Line 1,928:
 
christo_ph: fully can be swapped for "officially"
 
christo_ph: fully can be swapped for "officially"
  
mllerustad: skyfaller: It means we have the EF interview, if they're cool we can send them swag or whatever, until the board gets around to approving them officially.
+
mllerustad:skyfaller: It means we have the EF interview, if they're cool we can send them swag or whatever, until the board gets around to approving them officially.
  
 
christo_ph: and under voting, if we decide this is a concern, we can always distinguish between temporary chapters and official chapters
 
christo_ph: and under voting, if we decide this is a concern, we can always distinguish between temporary chapters and official chapters
  
    e-star: okay, i'm fine w/ that
+
e-star: okay, i'm fine w/ that
  
 
christo_ph: but we can never address that if we don't want to
 
christo_ph: but we can never address that if we don't want to
  
skyfaller: so they can e.g. have webspace from us without being a full chapter?
+
skyfaller: so they can e.g. have webspace from us without being a full chapter?
  
 
christo_ph: right
 
christo_ph: right
  
skyfaller: that seems odd
+
skyfaller: that seems odd
  
 
mllerustad: Why not?
 
mllerustad: Why not?
  
    e-star: also can we specify that the board doesn't have to hold a mtg to approve?
+
e-star: also can we specify that the board doesn't have to hold a mtg to approve?
  
 
mllerustad: Fast turnaround, and if it turns out they're wacked out, the board has the power to kick them out.
 
mllerustad: Fast turnaround, and if it turns out they're wacked out, the board has the power to kick them out.
  
    e-star: as in, it can be done via their email list?
+
e-star: as in, it can be done via their email list?
  
 
mllerustad: e-star: Sure.
 
mllerustad: e-star: Sure.
Line 1,955: Line 1,954:
 
christo_ph: that should be later on, under IV. 1, i'd think, but i don't mind it being there
 
christo_ph: that should be later on, under IV. 1, i'd think, but i don't mind it being there
  
    e-star: so as to not take a semester to become officially approved!
+
e-star: so as to not take a semester to become officially approved!
  
    e-star: ok, either way
+
e-star: ok, either way
  
    peabo: I think e-mail consensus is a very practical solution
+
peabo: I think e-mail consensus is a very practical solution
  
skyfaller: but I don't see how we can give chapters stuff before we decide that they're chapters
+
skyfaller: but I don't see how we can give chapters stuff before we decide that they're chapters
  
skyfaller: and they need stuff quickly for organizing purposes
+
skyfaller: and they need stuff quickly for organizing purposes
  
mllerustad: skyfaller: Either way, it's one person deciding to give them swag.
+
mllerustad:skyfaller: Either way, it's one person deciding to give them swag.
  
    e-star: skyfaller: under my proposal, the approval can happy very quickly
+
e-star:skyfaller: under my proposal, the approval can happy very quickly
  
    e-star: happen
+
e-star: happen
  
    e-star: haha
+
e-star: haha
  
skyfaller: but it's not just swag, it's stuff like webspace
+
skyfaller: but it's not just swag, it's stuff like webspace
  
 
mllerustad: (slash webspace)
 
mllerustad: (slash webspace)
Line 1,981: Line 1,980:
 
mllerustad: So?
 
mllerustad: So?
  
gavinbaker: skyfaller: i don't see a big problem.
+
gavinbaker:skyfaller: i don't see a big problem.
  
 
mllerustad: It would be the EF under the current system anyway, making the same decision.
 
mllerustad: It would be the EF under the current system anyway, making the same decision.
Line 1,987: Line 1,986:
 
christo_ph: right
 
christo_ph: right
  
            gavinbaker won't hold up consensus here, although he still doesn't really see the problem
+
gavinbaker won't hold up consensus here, although he still doesn't really see the problem
  
 
Differance: So is the privilege of member ship -- swag?
 
Differance: So is the privilege of member ship -- swag?
Line 1,995: Line 1,994:
 
christo_ph: and now it's not bottle-knecked on a deputy of the EF
 
christo_ph: and now it's not bottle-knecked on a deputy of the EF
  
skyfaller: and being mentioned on our site so that other people can find them...
+
skyfaller: and being mentioned on our site so that other people can find them...
  
skyfaller: I mean, if we're giving them webspace that implies that we support them
+
skyfaller: I mean, if we're giving them webspace that implies that we support them
  
    e-star: we could try to specify an amount of time
+
e-star: we could try to specify an amount of time
  
skyfaller: if they're wacked out, we should know that already
+
skyfaller: if they're wacked out, we should know that already
  
skyfaller: before we help them
+
skyfaller: before we help them
  
Differance: skyfaller: okay that's something
+
Differance:skyfaller: okay that's something
  
mllerustad: skyfaller: If they're wacked out, the EF would have made them full chapters under the current system anyway!
+
mllerustad:skyfaller: If they're wacked out, the EF would have made them full chapters under the current system anyway!
  
    e-star: a notice of acceptance will be provided within 7 days of registration
+
e-star: a notice of acceptance will be provided within 7 days of registration
  
 
mllerustad: Because it would only be their decision.
 
mllerustad: Because it would only be their decision.
Line 2,017: Line 2,016:
 
mllerustad: And the board would have to reverse it in those circumstances as well!
 
mllerustad: And the board would have to reverse it in those circumstances as well!
  
    e-star: or of the decision, etc
+
e-star: or of the decision, etc
  
skyfaller: I'm confused
+
skyfaller: I'm confused
  
gavinbaker: skyfaller: apparently ;)
+
gavinbaker:skyfaller: apparently ;)
  
christo_ph: skyfaller: as suggested with the revision, there's still a sanity check taking place
+
christo_ph:skyfaller: as suggested with the revision, there's still a sanity check taking place
  
 
gavinbaker: this still has to go thru the Facilitator for the crazy check
 
gavinbaker: this still has to go thru the Facilitator for the crazy check
Line 2,053: Line 2,052:
 
Differance: for each action
 
Differance: for each action
  
skyfaller: OK, I need to start over because I've been arguing with Karen and she confused me more ;-)
+
skyfaller: OK, I need to start over because I've been arguing with Karen and she confused me more ;-)
  
 
gavinbaker: and we have a lot else to figure out right now ;)
 
gavinbaker: and we have a lot else to figure out right now ;)
Line 2,059: Line 2,058:
 
Differance: yup
 
Differance: yup
  
    e-star: guys, does anyone agree it is good to set a timeframe for chapter approval?
+
e-star: guys, does anyone agree it is good to set a timeframe for chapter approval?
  
 
Differance: not bylaws
 
Differance: not bylaws
  
    e-star: as in, 7 days or so, via email?
+
e-star: as in, 7 days or so, via email?
  
 
mllerustad: Differance: Protocol is inflexible.. if it were to be set, it wouldn't be in the bylaws.
 
mllerustad: Differance: Protocol is inflexible.. if it were to be set, it wouldn't be in the bylaws.
  
    e-star: if not, it could drag on
+
e-star: if not, it could drag on
  
  mecredis: e-star: yeah
+
mecredis: e-star: yeah
  
skyfaller: so let's get clear on the current way and how it's different from the proposed way
+
skyfaller: so let's get clear on the current way and how it's different from the proposed way
  
 
gavinbaker: e-star: if there's no practical difference between "interim" approval and "official" approval, i don't think it matters much
 
gavinbaker: e-star: if there's no practical difference between "interim" approval and "official" approval, i don't think it matters much
  
Fear_of_C: e-star: I agree
+
Fear_of_C: e-star: I agree
  
  mecredis: how about we have 7 days to say "no"
+
mecredis:how about we have 7 days to say "no"
  
  mecredis: otherwise its automatic
+
mecredis: otherwise its automatic
  
 
*** contra (n=blm@pool-141-150-249-136.pskn.east.verizon.net) has joined channel #freeculture
 
*** contra (n=blm@pool-141-150-249-136.pskn.east.verizon.net) has joined channel #freeculture
  
    jibot: contra is Ben from Swarthmore
+
jibot: contra is Ben from Swarthmore
  
  mecredis: because we don't want to hold them up
+
mecredis: because we don't want to hold them up
  
 
Differance: I say empower the ED/F and chapters to set up their own protocols
 
Differance: I say empower the ED/F and chapters to set up their own protocols
Line 2,091: Line 2,090:
 
christo_ph: mecredis: i think that's a good default
 
christo_ph: mecredis: i think that's a good default
  
  mecredis: if there's no contest and people are too lazy to get around to approving
+
mecredis: if there's no contest and people are too lazy to get around to approving
  
 
mllerustad: mecredis: I'd be cool with that, christo_pher ? skyfaller ?
 
mllerustad: mecredis: I'd be cool with that, christo_pher ? skyfaller ?
  
Fear_of_C: mecredis: seems good
+
Fear_of_C: mecredis: seems good
  
 
gavinbaker: mecredis: so it's like a veto in FL. the gov doesn't have to sign a bill, but if he doesn't veto it, it becomes law ;)
 
gavinbaker: mecredis: so it's like a veto in FL. the gov doesn't have to sign a bill, but if he doesn't veto it, it becomes law ;)
  
  mecredis: OK
+
mecredis:OK
  
skyfaller: I still don't understand the proposal
+
skyfaller: I still don't understand the proposal
  
 
Differance: The Board intervenes as needed
 
Differance: The Board intervenes as needed
  
  mecredis: Differance: indeed
+
mecredis: Differance: indeed
  
  mecredis: skyfaller: basically all chapters get approved
+
mecredis:skyfaller: basically all chapters get approved
  
  mecredis: and we have 7 days
+
mecredis: and we have 7 days
  
  mecredis: to say no
+
mecredis: to say no
  
    e-star: ok
+
e-star: ok
  
    e-star: i'm fine w/ that
+
e-star: i'm fine w/ that
  
skyfaller: OK, that's fine
+
skyfaller: OK, that's fine
  
  mecredis: OK
+
mecredis: OK
  
    e-star: WOO
+
e-star: WOO
  
 
mllerustad: yay, agreement!
 
mllerustad: yay, agreement!
  
skyfaller: there probably should be some official way for the board to hear about new chapters
+
skyfaller: there probably should be some official way for the board to hear about new chapters
  
  mecredis: someone say resolution
+
mecredis: someone say resolution
  
skyfaller: but I guess that probably doesn't need to be in the bylaws
+
skyfaller: but I guess that probably doesn't need to be in the bylaws
  
  mecredis: maybe paulproteus can build that is
+
mecredis: maybe paulproteus can build that is
  
 
mllerustad: RESOLUTION: Board gets seven days to say no to new chapters (III.2).
 
mllerustad: RESOLUTION: Board gets seven days to say no to new chapters (III.2).
  
  mecredis: e.g. fwd to board@freeculture.org
+
mecredis: e.g. fwd to board@freeculture.org
  
    peabo: is the Board able to make any decision by e-mail consensus, or just some specifically enumerated things like approvals?
+
peabo: is the Board able to make any decision by e-mail consensus, or just some specifically enumerated things like approvals?
  
mllerustad: peabo: I don't see why not, if they can get enough approvals via email to get the majority/supermajority necessary
+
mllerustad:peabo: I don't see why not, if they can get enough approvals via email to get the majority/supermajority necessary
  
    contra: are there minutes up somewhere?
+
contra: are there minutes up somewhere?
  
 
mllerustad: (which may be hard, since people hate email)
 
mllerustad: (which may be hard, since people hate email)
Line 2,153: Line 2,152:
 
christo_ph: mecredis: right, an email goes out, people reply with "yes" "no" or a concern, and then if there's a majority either way, it gets approved or denied
 
christo_ph: mecredis: right, an email goes out, people reply with "yes" "no" or a concern, and then if there's a majority either way, it gets approved or denied
  
  mecredis: yeah
+
mecredis: yeah
  
  mecredis: but otherwise it just marches on
+
mecredis: but otherwise it just marches on
  
 
christo_ph: otherwise,  
 
christo_ph: otherwise,  
Line 2,161: Line 2,160:
 
christo_ph: yes
 
christo_ph: yes
  
    e-star: sounds good
+
e-star: sounds good
  
 
gavinbaker: resolved, w00t
 
gavinbaker: resolved, w00t
  
    e-star: now, moving on
+
e-star: now, moving on
  
    e-star: section 5!
+
e-star: section 5!
  
  mecredis: phew
+
mecredis: phew
  
 
mllerustad: Okay, should we go back to III.5.3?
 
mllerustad: Okay, should we go back to III.5.3?
Line 2,175: Line 2,174:
 
mllerustad: (ie chapter nuking)
 
mllerustad: (ie chapter nuking)
  
skyfaller: contra: not yet, I'm taking minutes though
+
skyfaller: contra: not yet, I'm taking minutes though
  
    e-star: yes
+
e-star: yes
  
 
christo_ph: sure
 
christo_ph: sure
Line 2,189: Line 2,188:
 
mllerustad: When we "permanently" kick out a chapter, does that just mean as long as the current leadership is in charge, or that we can never have a chapter at that school again?
 
mllerustad: When we "permanently" kick out a chapter, does that just mean as long as the current leadership is in charge, or that we can never have a chapter at that school again?
  
    e-star: gavinbaker: agreed
+
e-star: gavinbaker: agreed
  
 
christo_ph: i think we kick out that entity, not that school
 
christo_ph: i think we kick out that entity, not that school
Line 2,195: Line 2,194:
 
gavinbaker: and can we clarify the reasons for kicking a chapter out or suspending them, at least to the standard "misfeasance malfeasance or nonfeasance"?
 
gavinbaker: and can we clarify the reasons for kicking a chapter out or suspending them, at least to the standard "misfeasance malfeasance or nonfeasance"?
  
    e-star: mllerustad: also a good point
+
e-star: mllerustad: also a good point
  
 
christo_ph: gavinbaker++
 
christo_ph: gavinbaker++
  
    e-star: yes, we should clarify the reason
+
e-star: yes, we should clarify the reason
  
    e-star: and allow an appeal
+
e-star: and allow an appeal
  
  mecredis: hrm
+
mecredis: hrm
  
  mecredis: what about just removing them from our page
+
mecredis: what about just removing them from our page
  
  mecredis: I mean it's stupid to suspsend
+
mecredis: I mean it's stupid to suspsend
  
 
Differance: I think you should say the (what are very minimal) consequences: removal from the site
 
Differance: I think you should say the (what are very minimal) consequences: removal from the site
  
  mecredis: most of it is going to be lazy
+
mecredis: most of it is going to be lazy
  
 
christo_ph: i think that suspension is when they're just removed from our page
 
christo_ph: i think that suspension is when they're just removed from our page
  
  mecredis: yeah
+
mecredis: yeah
  
    e-star: mecredis: could there be legal reasons though?
+
e-star: mecredis: could there be legal reasons though?
  
    e-star: heh
+
e-star: heh
  
  mecredis: e-star: or astroturf zombie chapters
+
mecredis: e-star: or astroturf zombie chapters
  
    e-star: it all depends on whether we want to incorporate
+
e-star: it all depends on whether we want to incorporate
  
  mecredis: ala JMU
+
mecredis: ala JMU
  
    e-star: haha
+
e-star: haha
  
 
mllerustad: Differance: Unfortunately, that depends on what we become capable of doing.
 
mllerustad: Differance: Unfortunately, that depends on what we become capable of doing.
Line 2,233: Line 2,232:
 
christo_ph: it might become useful to say "NYU FC" isn't a member of our organization
 
christo_ph: it might become useful to say "NYU FC" isn't a member of our organization
  
  mecredis: yeah, indeed
+
mecredis: yeah, indeed
  
 
mllerustad: Differance: i.e., if we had the capacity to fly people to our national conference, we wouldn't fly people we kicked out.
 
mllerustad: Differance: i.e., if we had the capacity to fly people to our national conference, we wouldn't fly people we kicked out.
  
  mecredis: NYU kind of wants that
+
mecredis: NYU kind of wants that
  
 
Differance: mller: Ithink that removal from membership is relatively meaningless right now
 
Differance: mller: Ithink that removal from membership is relatively meaningless right now
  
  mecredis: it's always been useful to say that we're merely a chapter rather than an offical arm
+
mecredis: it's always been useful to say that we're merely a chapter rather than an offical arm
  
    e-star: mecredis: ??
+
e-star: mecredis: ??
  
 
mllerustad: Differance: True.
 
mllerustad: Differance: True.
Line 2,251: Line 2,250:
 
Differance: I think it might not even be a matter of membership as such
 
Differance: I think it might not even be a matter of membership as such
  
    e-star: let's just add an appeals chapter
+
e-star: let's just add an appeals chapter
  
    e-star: and a requirement of a reason given
+
e-star: and a requirement of a reason given
  
    e-star: oops
+
e-star: oops
  
    e-star: i mean
+
e-star: i mean
  
    e-star: appeals process
+
e-star: appeals process
  
    e-star: sigh..1am
+
e-star: sigh..1am
  
    e-star: i agree that we probably won't use this
+
e-star: i agree that we probably won't use this
  
    e-star: so unless we want to strike it
+
e-star: so unless we want to strike it
  
    e-star: let's fix it
+
e-star: let's fix it
  
 
mllerustad: Okay, so let's write an appeals process.
 
mllerustad: Okay, so let's write an appeals process.
  
    contra: is the wiki being updated as you change things?
+
contra: is the wiki being updated as you change things?
  
 
gavinbaker: e-star++ | we need an appeals process
 
gavinbaker: e-star++ | we need an appeals process
Line 2,287: Line 2,286:
 
Differance: Just to keep in mind -- you folks are making a whole lot out of membership and it's not terribly important
 
Differance: Just to keep in mind -- you folks are making a whole lot out of membership and it's not terribly important
  
    e-star: perhaps
+
e-star: perhaps
  
 
gavinbaker: if somebody registers a chapter and then goes and does crazy stuff (like threatens to blow up the white house or something), we want to be able ti distance ourselves from them quickly
 
gavinbaker: if somebody registers a chapter and then goes and does crazy stuff (like threatens to blow up the white house or something), we want to be able ti distance ourselves from them quickly
Line 2,293: Line 2,292:
 
gavinbaker: that's the main reason to have this section at all
 
gavinbaker: that's the main reason to have this section at all
  
    e-star: so what should the appeals process be?
+
e-star: so what should the appeals process be?
  
 
Differance: Yes, you take them off your site
 
Differance: Yes, you take them off your site
  
  mecredis: just write a paragraph
+
mecredis: just write a paragraph
  
  mecredis: about why you think you deserve it
+
mecredis: about why you think you deserve it
  
  mecredis: and send it to the board
+
mecredis: and send it to the board
  
  mecredis: we'll decide and have final say
+
mecredis: we'll decide and have final say
  
    e-star: and send it to the board for reconsideration?
+
e-star: and send it to the board for reconsideration?
  
 
gavinbaker: mecredis: and the board has to respond within a certain period
 
gavinbaker: mecredis: and the board has to respond within a certain period
  
  mecredis: don't think it should be more complex than that
+
mecredis: don't think it should be more complex than that
  
  mecredis: yeah
+
mecredis: yeah
  
 
christo_ph: agreed
 
christo_ph: agreed
  
    e-star: ok, 7 days?
+
e-star: ok, 7 days?
  
  mecredis: sure
+
mecredis: sure
  
 
gavinbaker: e-star, maybe 14
 
gavinbaker: e-star, maybe 14
  
    e-star: okay, 14 is fine
+
e-star: okay, 14 is fine
  
  mecredis: whatever is fine with me
+
mecredis: whatever is fine with me
  
  mecredis: yeah
+
mecredis: yeah
  
  mecredis: 14
+
mecredis: 14
  
 
gavinbaker: especially if they need to talk to the chapter again or something
 
gavinbaker: especially if they need to talk to the chapter again or something
  
  mecredis: resolved
+
mecredis: resolved
  
    e-star: all in favor?
+
e-star: all in favor?
  
 
gavinbaker: +1
 
gavinbaker: +1
Line 2,339: Line 2,338:
 
christo_ph: +
 
christo_ph: +
  
Fear_of_C: how about just letting the chapter re-apply for admission?
+
Fear_of_C: how about just letting the chapter re-apply for admission?
  
Fear_of_C: I don't see how this is really any different?
+
Fear_of_C: I don't see how this is really any different?
  
  mecredis: that + write the little paragraph
+
mecredis: that + write the little paragraph
  
 
Differance: I see that as useful
 
Differance: I see that as useful
  
  mecredis: (if the data has changed)
+
mecredis: (if the data has changed)
  
 
Differance: here's why: best is if you regard participation as playing your role
 
Differance: here's why: best is if you regard participation as playing your role
  
Fear_of_C: ok, agreed then
+
Fear_of_C: ok, agreed then
  
 
Differance: So "in" or "out" is objective
 
Differance: So "in" or "out" is objective
Line 2,357: Line 2,356:
 
Differance: Application for reentry is consistent with that
 
Differance: Application for reentry is consistent with that
  
Fear_of_C: also, it should be taken into account if the chapter is not the same people that were kicked
+
Fear_of_C: also, it should be taken into account if the chapter is not the same people that were kicked
  
Fear_of_C: like if a certain university were ejected, but then they graduated and new people attempted to join
+
Fear_of_C: like if a certain university were ejected, but then they graduated and new people attempted to join
  
Fear_of_C: under the same name
+
Fear_of_C: under the same name
  
mllerustad: Fear_of_C: We can give that as an example of circumstances where appeals would be valid, sure.
+
mllerustad:Fear_of_C: We can give that as an example of circumstances where appeals would be valid, sure.
  
 
mllerustad: So, what are we resolving exactly?
 
mllerustad: So, what are we resolving exactly?
  
            mllerustad is taking minutes because skyfaller's tired of it ;)
+
mllerustad is taking minutes because skyfaller's tired of it ;)
  
skyfaller: *silence descends on the channel*
+
skyfaller: *silence descends on the channel*
  
 
gavinbaker: it seemed like we were awfully close to a resolution. is it resolved? can we move on?
 
gavinbaker: it seemed like we were awfully close to a resolution. is it resolved? can we move on?
Line 2,377: Line 2,376:
 
*** Signoff: grahl_ (Client Quit)
 
*** Signoff: grahl_ (Client Quit)
  
skyfaller: wasn't the alternate suggestion that they just re-apply for entry, along with that paragraph?
+
skyfaller: wasn't the alternate suggestion that they just re-apply for entry, along with that paragraph?
  
    ktetch: just from looking back at the last two hours of chat, it seems y'all are getting bogged down in minutae - set a basic setup, leave the details, but include a method for alteration, then fine-tune in practice
+
ktetch: just from looking back at the last two hours of chat, it seems y'all are getting bogged down in minutae - set a basic setup, leave the details, but include a method for alteration, then fine-tune in practice
  
 
Differance: (I do that sometimes -- disregard me -- I am saying things that you might want to remember for reference)
 
Differance: (I do that sometimes -- disregard me -- I am saying things that you might want to remember for reference)
  
skyfaller: or can those be reconciled / merged?
+
skyfaller: or can those be reconciled / merged?
  
 
mllerustad: ktetch: It's bylaws. Of course we're arguing about minutia.
 
mllerustad: ktetch: It's bylaws. Of course we're arguing about minutia.
  
    ktetch: are you creating, or modifying?
+
ktetch: are you creating, or modifying?
  
 
gavinbaker: well, we don't want to get too bogged down, because we need to finish tonight.
 
gavinbaker: well, we don't want to get too bogged down, because we need to finish tonight.
  
skyfaller: ktetch: creating :)
+
skyfaller: ktetch: creating :)
  
skyfaller: but we're modifying a draft
+
skyfaller: but we're modifying a draft
  
    ktetch: then you don't bother with the minutae, just the basics, and see how the minutae plays out over the next few weeks of utilisation
+
ktetch: then you don't bother with the minutae, just the basics, and see how the minutae plays out over the next few weeks of utilisation
  
 
mllerustad: Okay, so use the re-entry system, but also submit a paragraph, and the board *must* approve this time?
 
mllerustad: Okay, so use the re-entry system, but also submit a paragraph, and the board *must* approve this time?
Line 2,405: Line 2,404:
 
mllerustad: gavinbaker: In the normal entry thing, yes, only it's 7.
 
mllerustad: gavinbaker: In the normal entry thing, yes, only it's 7.
  
skyfaller: ktetch: unfortunately, we're having our chapters ratify the bylaws, and the current proposal is that the chapters have to approve future amendments... that's a heavy process
+
skyfaller: ktetch: unfortunately, we're having our chapters ratify the bylaws, and the current proposal is that the chapters have to approve future amendments... that's a heavy process
  
 
mllerustad: I think it makes sense that the board have a strong role int he re-entry of a previously whacked-out chapter...
 
mllerustad: I think it makes sense that the board have a strong role int he re-entry of a previously whacked-out chapter...
  
skyfaller: ktetch: so it seems important to get it right the first time
+
skyfaller: ktetch: so it seems important to get it right the first time
  
mllerustad: skyfaller: c/right/mostly right
+
mllerustad:skyfaller: c/right/mostly right
  
 
gavinbaker: mllerustad: i thought we settled on 14 for the normal case, but for the "re-entry" case, i think that requiring an ffirmative vote from the board makes sense, rather than "no objection = ok"
 
gavinbaker: mllerustad: i thought we settled on 14 for the normal case, but for the "re-entry" case, i think that requiring an ffirmative vote from the board makes sense, rather than "no objection = ok"
Line 2,417: Line 2,416:
 
*** gavinbaker has set the topic on channel #freeculture to http://wiki.freeculture.org/Bylaws#Section_5._Termination_of_Chapter_Status
 
*** gavinbaker has set the topic on channel #freeculture to http://wiki.freeculture.org/Bylaws#Section_5._Termination_of_Chapter_Status
  
Fear_of_C: just one thing, does it say anywhere whether board transactions like this are publicly available?
+
Fear_of_C: just one thing, does it say anywhere whether board transactions like this are publicly available?
  
 
mllerustad: gavinbaker: If I scroll up, I think we agreed on 7 days for the normal case...
 
mllerustad: gavinbaker: If I scroll up, I think we agreed on 7 days for the normal case...
  
  mecredis: ok we need a RESOLUTION
+
mecredis: ok we need a RESOLUTION
  
Fear_of_C: because I can see chapters wanting to know about something like this
+
Fear_of_C: because I can see chapters wanting to know about something like this
  
 
mllerustad: gavinbaker: (Though, I wrote the resolution that time.)
 
mllerustad: gavinbaker: (Though, I wrote the resolution that time.)
  
skyfaller: we decided on 7 days for the normal case, 14 days for the re-entry case
+
skyfaller: we decided on 7 days for the normal case, 14 days for the re-entry case
  
  mecredis: Fear_of_C: I think this log will almost certainly be public
+
mecredis:Fear_of_C: I think this log will almost certainly be public
  
  mecredis: and this isn't a board meeting
+
mecredis: and this isn't a board meeting
  
gavinbaker: skyfaller: what? that's backwards
+
gavinbaker:skyfaller: what? that's backwards
  
Fear_of_C: mecredis: not this log
+
Fear_of_C: mecredis: not this log
  
  mecredis: this is a general meeting, etc.
+
mecredis: this is a general meeting, etc.
  
Fear_of_C: board transactions in the future, such as kicking a member group
+
Fear_of_C: board transactions in the future, such as kicking a member group
  
 
gavinbaker: it's 14 days for the normal case
 
gavinbaker: it's 14 days for the normal case
Line 2,445: Line 2,444:
 
gavinbaker: we never decided for re-rentry
 
gavinbaker: we never decided for re-rentry
  
  mecredis: gavinbaker: that's not how we decided it
+
mecredis: gavinbaker: that's not how we decided it
  
Fear_of_C: do the other chapters know whether someone has applied for and been denied re-entry?
+
Fear_of_C: do the other chapters know whether someone has applied for and been denied re-entry?
  
    e-star: now i'm a bit confused
+
e-star: now i'm a bit confused
  
            gavinbaker is really confused, reads scrollback
+
gavinbaker is really confused, reads scrollback
  
    e-star: heh
+
e-star: heh
  
skyfaller: gavinbaker: that's definitely not what we decided, Gavin
+
skyfaller: gavinbaker: that's definitely not what we decided, Gavin
  
 
christo_ph: gavinbaker: it's 7 days normally
 
christo_ph: gavinbaker: it's 7 days normally
  
  mecredis: Fear_of_C: That's not so much the question
+
mecredis:Fear_of_C:That's not so much the question
  
 
mllerustad: RESOLUTION: A removed chapter may appeal their removal by re-registering while sending a paragraph on why they should be re-added to the Board. The Board must decide whether to approve the chapter within 14 days.  
 
mllerustad: RESOLUTION: A removed chapter may appeal their removal by re-registering while sending a paragraph on why they should be re-added to the Board. The Board must decide whether to approve the chapter within 14 days.  
  
  mecredis: It's if a chapter goes defucnt / gets kicked out
+
mecredis: It's if a chapter goes defucnt / gets kicked out
  
 
christo_ph: i think 14 days is fine and we don't have to treat it under any other process, just add on an appeals process and let's move to Article IV
 
christo_ph: i think 14 days is fine and we don't have to treat it under any other process, just add on an appeals process and let's move to Article IV
  
  mecredis: mllerustad: thanks
+
mecredis: mllerustad: thanks
  
  mecredis: everyone: let's move on
+
mecredis: everyone: let's move on
  
            gavinbaker is really confused, assumes everyone else is right and he's wrong, moves on
+
gavinbaker is really confused, assumes everyone else is right and he's wrong, moves on
  
skyfaller: is everyone fine with mllerustad's resolution?
+
skyfaller: is everyone fine with mllerustad's resolution?
  
 
gavinbaker: mllerustad: only one question
 
gavinbaker: mllerustad: only one question
Line 2,483: Line 2,482:
 
gavinbaker: (within 14 days)
 
gavinbaker: (within 14 days)
  
skyfaller: wait, so a defunct chapter has to go through this too? what if they didn't even know about the previous chapter that died?
+
skyfaller: wait, so a defunct chapter has to go through this too?what if they didn't even know about the previous chapter that died?
  
  mecredis: What's the next section?
+
mecredis: What's the next section?
  
skyfaller: this happened with Brown recently
+
skyfaller: this happened with Brown recently
  
 
christo_ph: gavinbaker: i'd say it has to decide
 
christo_ph: gavinbaker: i'd say it has to decide
  
Fear_of_C: skyfaller: I had that concern too
+
Fear_of_C:skyfaller: I had that concern too
  
    e-star: while sounds a bit weird
+
e-star: while sounds a bit weird
  
    e-star: but yes
+
e-star: but yes
  
  mecredis: skyfaller: it'd still be nice for them to get in contact with us
+
mecredis:skyfaller: it'd still be nice for them to get in contact with us
  
  mecredis: we
+
mecredis: we
  
    e-star: by sending a paragraph
+
e-star: by sending a paragraph
  
  mecredis: we shouldn't let them ride on coat tails
+
mecredis: we shouldn't let them ride on coat tails
  
  mecredis: even if they're ragged
+
mecredis: even if they're ragged
  
skyfaller: well, wait
+
skyfaller: well, wait
  
 
christo_ph: a defunct chapter shouldn't go through the appeals process
 
christo_ph: a defunct chapter shouldn't go through the appeals process
Line 2,515: Line 2,514:
 
christo_ph: that's suspension, not removal
 
christo_ph: that's suspension, not removal
  
skyfaller: why wouldn't they be treated the same way as a new chapter
+
skyfaller: why wouldn't they be treated the same way as a new chapter
  
    e-star: the board must decide whether to rescind their removal within 14 days
+
e-star: the board must decide whether to rescind their removal within 14 days
  
 
gavinbaker: "died for lack of activity" shouldn't make it harder for other kids 2 years later
 
gavinbaker: "died for lack of activity" shouldn't make it harder for other kids 2 years later
  
skyfaller: gavinbaker: agreed
+
skyfaller: gavinbaker: agreed
  
 
mllerustad: Yeah, I agree with gavinbaker.
 
mllerustad: Yeah, I agree with gavinbaker.
  
    e-star: agreed
+
e-star: agreed
  
 
christo_ph: suspension happens if a chapter doesn't vote or keep their information up to date and is activated by updating information or voting, i'd imagine
 
christo_ph: suspension happens if a chapter doesn't vote or keep their information up to date and is activated by updating information or voting, i'd imagine
  
skyfaller: this process is just for chapters that have done something bad and been suspended
+
skyfaller: this process is just for chapters that have done something bad and been suspended
  
skyfaller: erm
+
skyfaller: erm
  
    e-star: skyfaller: yup
+
e-star:skyfaller: yup
  
 
Differance: Why is there a time limit on the rescincion (is that a word?)
 
Differance: Why is there a time limit on the rescincion (is that a word?)
Line 2,543: Line 2,542:
 
gavinbaker: Differance: and give a timeline for a decision being made
 
gavinbaker: Differance: and give a timeline for a decision being made
  
Differance: You're gonna make them? :)
+
Differance: You're gonna make them?:)
  
 
mllerustad: christo_pher: Yes, but going dormant is also cause for removal...
 
mllerustad: christo_pher: Yes, but going dormant is also cause for removal...
Line 2,551: Line 2,550:
 
Differance: The chapter might . . .
 
Differance: The chapter might . . .
  
Fear_of_C: I mentioned earlier that I think if chapter is reconstructed from new people, it shouldn't be penalized for what a predecessor with the same name did earlier
+
Fear_of_C: I mentioned earlier that I think if chapter is reconstructed from new people, it shouldn't be penalized for what a predecessor with the same name did earlier
  
skyfaller: OK, so defunct chapters shouldn't have to go through elevated review by the board
+
skyfaller: OK, so defunct chapters shouldn't have to go through elevated review by the board
  
gavinbaker: Fear_of_C: that's eminently reasonable
+
gavinbaker:Fear_of_C: that's eminently reasonable
  
 
mllerustad: So should that be part of the resolution?
 
mllerustad: So should that be part of the resolution?
Line 2,561: Line 2,560:
 
*** Signoff: jli ("leaving")
 
*** Signoff: jli ("leaving")
  
    e-star: RESOLUTION: A chapter removed for cause may appeal their removal by sending a paragraph on why they disagree with the removal to the Board. The Board must decide whether to rescind the removal within 14 days.
+
e-star: RESOLUTION: A chapter removed for cause may appeal their removal by sending a paragraph on why they disagree with the removal to the Board. The Board must decide whether to rescind the removal within 14 days.
  
 
mllerustad: That if the chapter's leadership has had complete turnover, it can apply to be a chapter normally?
 
mllerustad: That if the chapter's leadership has had complete turnover, it can apply to be a chapter normally?
Line 2,567: Line 2,566:
 
mllerustad: (also if it was kicked out for nonfeasance)
 
mllerustad: (also if it was kicked out for nonfeasance)
  
  mecredis: sure
+
mecredis: sure
  
Fear_of_C: mllerustad: yeah
+
Fear_of_C: mllerustad: yeah
  
    e-star: SPELLING: Section 5.4. Suspension
+
e-star: SPELLING: Section 5.4. Suspension
  
    e-star: Independant of the power
+
e-star: Independant of the power
  
 
gavinbaker: heh ;) /me looks @ skyfaller  
 
gavinbaker: heh ;) /me looks @ skyfaller  
  
    e-star: wow, i can't even make edits!
+
e-star: wow, i can't even make edits!
  
skyfaller: lol
+
skyfaller: lol
  
 
gavinbaker: RESOLVED: to run this whole thing through a spellchecker
 
gavinbaker: RESOLVED: to run this whole thing through a spellchecker
Line 2,585: Line 2,584:
 
mllerustad: +1
 
mllerustad: +1
  
    e-star: k
+
e-star: k
  
Fear_of_C: ++
+
Fear_of_C: ++
  
 
*** jli (i=jli@gateway/tor/x-2dd037d65421053e) has joined channel #freeculture
 
*** jli (i=jli@gateway/tor/x-2dd037d65421053e) has joined channel #freeculture
  
  mecredis: ok
+
mecredis: ok
  
  mecredis: what's the next section?
+
mecredis: what's the next section?
  
            poningru brings malfeasence charges against gavinbaker  
+
poningru brings malfeasence charges against gavinbaker  
  
  poningru: he stole my beer
+
poningru: he stole my beer
  
Fear_of_C: also, get several people to look over the final draft before ratification
+
Fear_of_C: also, get several people to look over the final draft before ratification
  
Fear_of_C: don't want to have to ammend a grammatical ambiguity
+
Fear_of_C: don't want to have to ammend a grammatical ambiguity
  
Differance: jibot: gavinbaker = axe murder
+
Differance:jibot: gavinbaker = axe murder
  
 
Differance: :-)
 
Differance: :-)
  
            skyfaller spellchecks Fear_of_C  
+
skyfaller spellchecks Fear_of_C  
  
  poningru: w00t jibot is alive
+
poningru: w00t jibot is alive
  
mllerustad: RESOLVED: A chapter removed for cause may appeal their removal by sending a paragraph on why they disagree with the removal to the Board. The Board must decide whether to rescind the removal within 14 days. A chapter removed for nonfeasance whose leadership has experienced complete turnover may apply to join the Organization the same way as a new chapter.
+
mllerustad: RESOLVED: A chapter removed for cause may appeal their removal by sending a paragraph on why they disagree with the removal to the Board. The Board must decide whether to rescind the removal within 14 days.A chapter removed for nonfeasance whose leadership has experienced complete turnover may apply to join the Organization the same way as a new chapter.
  
 
gavinbaker: mllerustad: that's kosher by me
 
gavinbaker: mllerustad: that's kosher by me
  
    e-star: mllerustad: sounds good, although we may want to separate that into two parts
+
e-star: mllerustad: sounds good, although we may want to separate that into two parts
  
 
gavinbaker: e-star, agreed
 
gavinbaker: e-star, agreed
  
    e-star: mllerustad: because i think it's addressed in two different places, no?
+
e-star: mllerustad: because i think it's addressed in two different places, no?
  
 
mllerustad: e-star: yeah, I didn't want to risk screwing up paragraph breaks. :p
 
mllerustad: e-star: yeah, I didn't want to risk screwing up paragraph breaks. :p
  
    e-star: haha
+
e-star: haha
  
    e-star: k
+
e-star: k
  
    e-star: okay, article iv
+
e-star: okay, article iv
  
 
*** Cbrown1023 (n=HAL9090@wikimedia/Cbrown1023) has joined channel #freeculture
 
*** Cbrown1023 (n=HAL9090@wikimedia/Cbrown1023) has joined channel #freeculture
  
    e-star: board of directors -- board elections
+
e-star: board of directors -- board elections
  
 
gavinbaker: everything under III sec 5 is OK?
 
gavinbaker: everything under III sec 5 is OK?
  
    e-star: gavinbaker: so it seems, others?
+
e-star: gavinbaker: so it seems, others?
  
 
*** gavinbaker has set the topic on channel #freeculture to http://wiki.freeculture.org/Bylaws#Article_IV:_Officers_and_Elections
 
*** gavinbaker has set the topic on channel #freeculture to http://wiki.freeculture.org/Bylaws#Article_IV:_Officers_and_Elections
  
  mecredis: s/RESOLUVED/RESOLUTION
+
mecredis: s/RESOLUVED/RESOLUTION
  
    e-star: oh hmm it looks like someone changed the bylaws
+
e-star: oh hmm it looks like someone changed the bylaws
  
 
gavinbaker: IV 1.1, do we say how nominations are made?
 
gavinbaker: IV 1.1, do we say how nominations are made?
  
    e-star: from the copy i have locally
+
e-star: from the copy i have locally
  
skyfaller: really? I don't see any edits...
+
skyfaller: really?I don't see any edits...
  
 
christo_ph: the only change i see today was yours
 
christo_ph: the only change i see today was yours
Line 2,653: Line 2,652:
 
gavinbaker: e-star: last change to text (other than yours re: spelling) was 2007-07-16 by skyfaller  
 
gavinbaker: e-star: last change to text (other than yours re: spelling) was 2007-07-16 by skyfaller  
  
    e-star: heh
+
e-star: heh
  
    e-star: anyway, i propose "Current or former members of the organization may nominate someone to run for the board, in which case, the nominee must accept. A candidate may also nominate him- or herself to run."
+
e-star: anyway, i propose "Current or former members of the organization may nominate someone to run for the board, in which case, the nominee must accept. A candidate may also nominate him- or herself to run."
  
    e-star: or something like that
+
e-star: or something like that
  
 
gavinbaker: s/nominee must accept/nominee must accept to be eligible
 
gavinbaker: s/nominee must accept/nominee must accept to be eligible
  
    e-star: fine w/ me
+
e-star: fine w/ me
  
  mecredis: yeah
+
mecredis: yeah
  
 
gavinbaker: e-star: what's a "member of the organization"?
 
gavinbaker: e-star: what's a "member of the organization"?
  
  mecredis: onwards
+
mecredis: onwards
  
 
gavinbaker: we never say, we only have members of chapters
 
gavinbaker: we never say, we only have members of chapters
Line 2,673: Line 2,672:
 
*** Signoff: klepas (Connection timed out)
 
*** Signoff: klepas (Connection timed out)
  
    e-star: ah yes, okay, of chapters
+
e-star: ah yes, okay, of chapters
  
    e-star: although what about the core issue?
+
e-star: although what about the core issue?
  
 
gavinbaker: also, why should alumni be able to nominate?
 
gavinbaker: also, why should alumni be able to nominate?
Line 2,681: Line 2,680:
 
gavinbaker: (no discrimination here)
 
gavinbaker: (no discrimination here)
  
    e-star: gavinbaker: they can be on the board
+
e-star: gavinbaker: they can be on the board
  
    e-star: gavinbaker: so i figured they should be able to nominate as well
+
e-star: gavinbaker: so i figured they should be able to nominate as well
  
 
gavinbaker: e-star: we could do it that way, but we don't have to
 
gavinbaker: e-star: we could do it that way, but we don't have to
Line 2,695: Line 2,694:
 
gavinbaker: i think christo_pher's point seems logical
 
gavinbaker: i think christo_pher's point seems logical
  
    e-star: yes, this is highly contentious
+
e-star: yes, this is highly contentious
  
skyfaller: alumni can't vote directly, although they might be able to influence their alma mater chapters' votes
+
skyfaller: alumni can't vote directly, although they might be able to influence their alma mater chapters' votes
  
 
mllerustad: (was the verbage I wrote a while ago as a possible rewrite)
 
mllerustad: (was the verbage I wrote a while ago as a possible rewrite)
  
    e-star: fine, but i still think alums should be able to nominate
+
e-star: fine, but i still think alums should be able to nominate
  
 
christo_ph: if your chapter allows alumni as members, they're members
 
christo_ph: if your chapter allows alumni as members, they're members
  
    e-star: which is a different process from voting itself
+
e-star: which is a different process from voting itself
  
    e-star: if that makes sense
+
e-star: if that makes sense
  
Fear_of_C: define elegible alumni: how long do you have to have been in a chapter to count?
+
Fear_of_C: define elegible alumni: how long do you have to have been in a chapter to count?
  
Fear_of_C: and how long does that chapter have to have existed?
+
Fear_of_C: and how long does that chapter have to have existed?
  
skyfaller: I think it should be simple
+
skyfaller: I think it should be simple
  
 
*** mindspillage is now known as brain|food
 
*** mindspillage is now known as brain|food
  
christo_ph: Fear_of_C: that's determined by the chapter, i think
+
christo_ph:Fear_of_C: that's determined by the chapter, i think
  
skyfaller: chapters should nominate, just like they vote
+
skyfaller: chapters should nominate, just like they vote
  
    e-star: also
+
e-star: also
  
 
Differance: Might it be best to start with IV 1.3 - duries and Powers?
 
Differance: Might it be best to start with IV 1.3 - duries and Powers?
Line 2,733: Line 2,732:
 
*** Signoff: Cbrown1023_away (Connection timed out)
 
*** Signoff: Cbrown1023_away (Connection timed out)
  
Fear_of_C: i think I liked skyfaller's too
+
Fear_of_C: i think I liked skyfaller's too
  
 
mllerustad: My version is basically skyfaller's, while also allowing current board members to nominate.
 
mllerustad: My version is basically skyfaller's, while also allowing current board members to nominate.
Line 2,739: Line 2,738:
 
gavinbaker: mllerustad's is OK too, in my book
 
gavinbaker: mllerustad's is OK too, in my book
  
Fear_of_C: I have to run, unfortunately; be back as soon as I can
+
Fear_of_C: I have to run, unfortunately; be back as soon as I can
  
skyfaller: the Organization doesn't have members below the chapter level currently, chapters have human members and the chapters decide how their membership works
+
skyfaller: the Organization doesn't have members below the chapter level currently, chapters have human members and the chapters decide how their membership works
  
 
christo_ph: so each chapter can nominate a single member?
 
christo_ph: so each chapter can nominate a single member?
Line 2,747: Line 2,746:
 
*** Fear_of_C has left channel #freeculture
 
*** Fear_of_C has left channel #freeculture
  
    e-star: i don't think chapters should  nominate
+
e-star: i don't think chapters shouldnominate
  
 
mllerustad: Not in my verbage...
 
mllerustad: Not in my verbage...
  
    peabo: Fear_of_C: there is a complication of the alum was a member of a chapter which was replaced by a different chapter at the same school
+
peabo:Fear_of_C: there is a complication of the alum was a member of a chapter which was replaced by a different chapter at the same school
  
    e-star: the nomination process should be relatively open
+
e-star: the nomination process should be relatively open
  
 
mllerustad: You can nominate as many as you like.
 
mllerustad: You can nominate as many as you like.
  
gavinbaker: peabo: or replaced by no current chapter
+
gavinbaker:peabo: or replaced by no current chapter
  
    e-star: to encourage as many people to run as possible
+
e-star: to encourage as many people to run as possible
  
  mecredis: eah
+
mecredis: eah
  
    e-star: i think it should be members of chapters
+
e-star: i think it should be members of chapters
  
    e-star: and it can be anonymously
+
e-star: and it can be anonymously
  
skyfaller: hm
+
skyfaller: hm
  
    e-star: too
+
e-star: too
  
 
mllerustad: e-star: Agreed.
 
mllerustad: e-star: Agreed.
  
    e-star: in fact, it should be
+
e-star: in fact, it should be
  
 
christo_ph: that's what you suggested, skyfaller ?
 
christo_ph: that's what you suggested, skyfaller ?
  
  mecredis: there should be no limit on who can be nominated
+
mecredis: there should be no limit on who can be nominated
  
 
gavinbaker: e-star: why should nominations be anonymous?
 
gavinbaker: e-star: why should nominations be anonymous?
  
  mecredis: why shouldn't they be?
+
mecredis: why shouldn't they be?
  
 
gavinbaker: the point of a nomination is an endorsement
 
gavinbaker: the point of a nomination is an endorsement
  
  mecredis: what's it matter?
+
mecredis: what's it matter?
  
 
gavinbaker: you want to know who's endorsing whom
 
gavinbaker: you want to know who's endorsing whom
Line 2,791: Line 2,790:
 
mllerustad: gavinbaker: I don't think she said they HAD to be anonymous...
 
mllerustad: gavinbaker: I don't think she said they HAD to be anonymous...
  
  mecredis: that's taken care of as soon as the person votes
+
mecredis: that's taken care of as soon as the person votes
  
    e-star: gavinbaker: not necessarily
+
e-star: gavinbaker: not necessarily
  
skyfaller: hm... christo_pher, that isn't what I suggested, but I can agree with this proposal... minus anonymity!
+
skyfaller: hm... christo_pher, that isn't what I suggested, but I can agree with this proposal... minus anonymity!
  
 
gavinbaker: mecredis: i dunno, couple hundred years of parliamentary procedure do it this way
 
gavinbaker: mecredis: i dunno, couple hundred years of parliamentary procedure do it this way
  
  Deaner_: e-star: (unencrypt your IM)
+
Deaner_: e-star: (unencrypt your IM)
  
    e-star: Deaner_: it's your fault
+
e-star:Deaner_: it's your fault
  
 
gavinbaker: i don't see any reason to have more secrecy than necessary in this org
 
gavinbaker: i don't see any reason to have more secrecy than necessary in this org
  
    e-star: ha
+
e-star: ha
  
  mecredis: OK
+
mecredis: OK
  
  mecredis: so we do it through the wiki
+
mecredis: so we do it through the wiki
  
  mecredis: have an account
+
mecredis: have an account
  
  mecredis: whatever
+
mecredis: whatever
  
    e-star: okay, well i definitely think we should allow others to nominate
+
e-star: okay, well i definitely think we should allow others to nominate
  
skyfaller: I was proposing that chapters have to agree to nominate, but that seems bad because then someone in the minority at a chapter wouldn't be able to nominate
+
skyfaller: I was proposing that chapters have to agree to nominate, but that seems bad because then someone in the minority at a chapter wouldn't be able to nominate
  
 
christo_ph: why even mess around with nomination?
 
christo_ph: why even mess around with nomination?
  
  mecredis: the point is there should be no limitations of nomninations
+
mecredis: the point is there should be no limitations of nomninations
  
 
christo_ph: if you want to run, you do
 
christo_ph: if you want to run, you do
  
    e-star: the way we do on my journal
+
e-star: the way we do on my journal
  
  mecredis: christo_pher: good point
+
mecredis: christo_pher: good point
  
    e-star: is that we allow anonymous email nominations
+
e-star: is that we allow anonymous email nominations
  
 
gavinbaker: christo_pher's point is easy, too
 
gavinbaker: christo_pher's point is easy, too
Line 2,835: Line 2,834:
 
mllerustad: christo_pher: In this verbage, it's called nominating yourself.
 
mllerustad: christo_pher: In this verbage, it's called nominating yourself.
  
skyfaller: OK
+
skyfaller: OK
  
    e-star: and then we send an email asking to confirm
+
e-star: and then we send an email asking to confirm
  
 
Differance: Maybe the question is what are they being nominated for -- shouldn't you start with Duties and Powers?
 
Differance: Maybe the question is what are they being nominated for -- shouldn't you start with Duties and Powers?
Line 2,845: Line 2,844:
 
gavinbaker: mllerustad: but then there's the question of who has the 'right' to nominate themselves
 
gavinbaker: mllerustad: but then there's the question of who has the 'right' to nominate themselves
  
    e-star: skyfaller: yes, i agree w/ that point
+
e-star:skyfaller: yes, i agree w/ that point
  
    e-star: Differance: i'm going in order here
+
e-star: Differance: i'm going in order here
  
 
mllerustad: Differance: We'll get there.
 
mllerustad: Differance: We'll get there.
  
    e-star: i think it's important to allow people to nominate others
+
e-star: i think it's important to allow people to nominate others
  
 
mllerustad: gavinbaker: Members of chapters and current board members.
 
mllerustad: gavinbaker: Members of chapters and current board members.
Line 2,859: Line 2,858:
 
Differance: carry on
 
Differance: carry on
  
    e-star: perhaps the nominee could specify if they want to keep it anonymous or not?
+
e-star: perhaps the nominee could specify if they want to keep it anonymous or not?
  
    e-star: er
+
e-star: er
  
    e-star: sorry
+
e-star: sorry
  
skyfaller: no, no anonymity
+
skyfaller: no, no anonymity
  
    e-star: others?
+
e-star: others?
  
 
gavinbaker: can we just have any chapter member nominate any chapter member or alumni? non-anonymously?
 
gavinbaker: can we just have any chapter member nominate any chapter member or alumni? non-anonymously?
Line 2,877: Line 2,876:
 
Differance: The Unknown Board Member!
 
Differance: The Unknown Board Member!
  
    e-star: no no
+
e-star: no no
  
    e-star: i meant
+
e-star: i meant
  
    e-star: the person nominating
+
e-star: the person nominating
  
paulproteu: e-star, Why do you want anonymity for nominations? I don't see what it achieves that requiring knowing who nominated a person doesn't serve.
+
paulproteu: e-star, Why do you want anonymity for nominations?I don't see what it achieves that requiring knowing who nominated a person doesn't serve.
  
skyfaller: paulproteus ++
+
skyfaller: paulproteus ++
  
 
gavinbaker: e-star: i think that was sarcasm from Differance.
 
gavinbaker: e-star: i think that was sarcasm from Differance.
  
    e-star: paulproteus: it's just how we've done it for my journal and it seems to have worked
+
e-star: paulproteus: it's just how we've done it for my journal and it seems to have worked
  
 
Differance: it was constructive silliness
 
Differance: it was constructive silliness
  
    e-star: but fine, i'm okay w/ having no anonymity
+
e-star: but fine, i'm okay w/ having no anonymity
  
 
gavinbaker: Differance: or destructive silliness :)
 
gavinbaker: Differance: or destructive silliness :)
  
    e-star: as long as others can nominate
+
e-star: as long as others can nominate
  
    e-star: which i think is the most important part
+
e-star: which i think is the most important part
  
skyfaller: OK, so nominations from any chapter member or member of the board
+
skyfaller: OK, so nominations from any chapter member or member of the board
  
    e-star: and self-nominating
+
e-star: and self-nominating
  
    e-star: as well
+
e-star: as well
  
 
christo_ph: right
 
christo_ph: right
Line 2,911: Line 2,910:
 
mllerustad: Okay.
 
mllerustad: Okay.
  
skyfaller: right, *if* they are a chapter member or member of the board
+
skyfaller: right, *if* they are a chapter member or member of the board
  
 
gavinbaker: "any chapter member nominate any chapter member or alumni, non-anonymously; or any chapter member or alumni can self-nom"?
 
gavinbaker: "any chapter member nominate any chapter member or alumni, non-anonymously; or any chapter member or alumni can self-nom"?
  
skyfaller: they can nominate themselves
+
skyfaller: they can nominate themselves
  
    e-star: okay, so what about an alumni?
+
e-star: okay, so what about an alumni?
  
 
mllerustad: The second part of my suggestion was "Members of the board of directors are elected by the liaisons of official chapters by plurality vote. Each chapter may cast one vote for each open seat. "
 
mllerustad: The second part of my suggestion was "Members of the board of directors are elected by the liaisons of official chapters by plurality vote. Each chapter may cast one vote for each open seat. "
  
    e-star: ha
+
e-star: ha
  
 
gavinbaker: ^^ add in "current board member" to both halves
 
gavinbaker: ^^ add in "current board member" to both halves
Line 2,929: Line 2,928:
 
paulproteu: e-star, I guess alumni have to beg someone else to nominate them.
 
paulproteu: e-star, I guess alumni have to beg someone else to nominate them.
  
    e-star: that seems a bit silly
+
e-star: that seems a bit silly
  
    e-star: no?
+
e-star: no?
  
 
gavinbaker: i'm fine within having alumni be able to nominate themselves or others
 
gavinbaker: i'm fine within having alumni be able to nominate themselves or others
Line 2,955: Line 2,954:
 
gavinbaker: mllerustad: it's a logistical problem, but we can fix it...
 
gavinbaker: mllerustad: it's a logistical problem, but we can fix it...
  
    e-star: we can ask for verification from teh chapter leader
+
e-star: we can ask for verification from teh chapter leader
  
 
gavinbaker: we should probably have lists like that for other pruposes anyway
 
gavinbaker: we should probably have lists like that for other pruposes anyway
  
    e-star: if need be
+
e-star: if need be
  
 
mllerustad: e-star: What if they were at the chapter five years ago?
 
mllerustad: e-star: What if they were at the chapter five years ago?
Line 2,967: Line 2,966:
 
mllerustad: The current leader would have no way to know.
 
mllerustad: The current leader would have no way to know.
  
skyfaller: I dunno, I don't know if we want to have lists of members, it seems difficult to run nationally
+
skyfaller: I dunno, I don't know if we want to have lists of members, it seems difficult to run nationally
  
skyfaller: it seems like something best left to the chapters
+
skyfaller: it seems like something best left to the chapters
  
 
christo_ph: mllerustad: each chapter keeps track of its own alumni as part of its membership, is my idea
 
christo_ph: mllerustad: each chapter keeps track of its own alumni as part of its membership, is my idea
Line 2,975: Line 2,974:
 
mllerustad: That requires a helluva lot more centralization than we have now.
 
mllerustad: That requires a helluva lot more centralization than we have now.
  
    e-star: christo_pher: yup
+
e-star: christo_pher: yup
  
 
gavinbaker: christo_pher: but what if an alumnus' chapter no longer exists?
 
gavinbaker: christo_pher: but what if an alumnus' chapter no longer exists?
Line 2,989: Line 2,988:
 
gavinbaker: the chapter never actually keeps a list of members, at least not for FC.o purposes
 
gavinbaker: the chapter never actually keeps a list of members, at least not for FC.o purposes
  
skyfaller: I mean, the problem of proving that someone is an alumni would arise in the case of having them run for the board, as well as nominating them
+
skyfaller: I mean, the problem of proving that someone is an alumni would arise in the case of having them run for the board, as well as nominating them
  
skyfaller: so this isn't a silly debate
+
skyfaller: so this isn't a silly debate
  
 
christo_ph: mllerustad: you don't need a list of future members or previous members, just current members, including alumni members
 
christo_ph: mllerustad: you don't need a list of future members or previous members, just current members, including alumni members
  
mllerustad: skyfaller: Point.
+
mllerustad:skyfaller: Point.
  
 
mllerustad: Ohhhh...
 
mllerustad: Ohhhh...
Line 3,003: Line 3,002:
 
mllerustad: So former students still involved with the chapter are what we're talking about?
 
mllerustad: So former students still involved with the chapter are what we're talking about?
  
    e-star: honestly, if no one has heard of the person, we can deal with it then
+
e-star: honestly, if no one has heard of the person, we can deal with it then
  
Differance: skyfaller: and the problem would be addressed the point of the election
+
Differance:skyfaller: and the problem would be addressed the point of the election
  
 
gavinbaker: paulproteus: i'd like to have this intensity of record-keeping, but i'm also hesitant to mandate it.
 
gavinbaker: paulproteus: i'd like to have this intensity of record-keeping, but i'm also hesitant to mandate it.
Line 3,019: Line 3,018:
 
paulproteu: gavinbaker, Agreed, and I agree with e-star that "we can work out how to verify if someone comes along who we can't verify".
 
paulproteu: gavinbaker, Agreed, and I agree with e-star that "we can work out how to verify if someone comes along who we can't verify".
  
  mecredis: e-star I agree
+
mecredis:e-star I agree
  
  mecredis: hopefully these are people who we know
+
mecredis: hopefully these are people who we know
  
 
christo_ph: chapter members includes alumni, i think
 
christo_ph: chapter members includes alumni, i think
Line 3,029: Line 3,028:
 
gavinbaker: if it's totally random people, i doubt they'll be elected, imho
 
gavinbaker: if it's totally random people, i doubt they'll be elected, imho
  
  mecredis: right
+
mecredis:right
  
  mecredis: so let them run
+
mecredis: so let them run
  
skyfaller: gavinbaker: well, that depends on how we vote :)
+
skyfaller: gavinbaker: well, that depends on how we vote :)
  
 
gavinbaker: unless it's like Hilary Rosen and she buys off all the chapters
 
gavinbaker: unless it's like Hilary Rosen and she buys off all the chapters
Line 3,039: Line 3,038:
 
christo_ph: skyfaller++
 
christo_ph: skyfaller++
  
            mllerustad lolz
+
mllerustad lolz
  
mllerustad: skyfaller: Then at least there's *somebody* so the board doesn't default.
+
mllerustad:skyfaller: Then at least there's *somebody* so the board doesn't default.
  
skyfaller: what if there are 5 seats on the board, 4 normal candidates, and 1 random dude who no-one has heard of? would they not be automatically elected?
+
skyfaller: what if there are 5 seats on the board, 4 normal candidates, and 1 random dude who no-one has heard of?would they not be automatically elected?
  
            gavinbaker , for one, welcomes our new Rupert Murdoch overlords^Wboard members
+
gavinbaker , for one, welcomes our new Rupert Murdoch overlords^Wboard members
  
            mllerustad hit enter first while arguing verbally
+
mllerustad hit enter first while arguing verbally
  
christo_ph: skyfaller: it seems that if we're in a state where we can only come up with 4 + 1 for the board, that represents the organization pretty well
+
christo_ph:skyfaller: it seems that if we're in a state where we can only come up with 4 + 1 for the board, that represents the organization pretty well
  
mllerustad: skyfaller: I'd rather have a random, interested person than no one at all.
+
mllerustad:skyfaller: I'd rather have a random, interested person than no one at all.
  
 
Differance: I'd rather have an anonymous person
 
Differance: I'd rather have an anonymous person
Line 3,063: Line 3,062:
 
mllerustad: paulproteus: Then we'll just shun them to death. :)
 
mllerustad: paulproteus: Then we'll just shun them to death. :)
  
skyfaller: it does seem to me that our election process should allow chapters to actively vote against someone they don't want on the board, rather than let someone random be auto-elected
+
skyfaller: it does seem to me that our election process should allow chapters to actively vote against someone they don't want on the board, rather than let someone random be auto-elected
  
skyfaller: just like in school elections where people can vote "none of the above"
+
skyfaller: just like in school elections where people can vote "none of the above"
  
skyfaller: but we can fix that when we get to elections in the bylaws, I suppose
+
skyfaller: but we can fix that when we get to elections in the bylaws, I suppose
  
skyfaller: so let's finish the nomination question and move on
+
skyfaller: so let's finish the nomination question and move on
  
 
mllerustad: So are we still cool with "Members of any chapter and current members of the board of directors can nominate themselves or other eligible individuals for board positions." ?
 
mllerustad: So are we still cool with "Members of any chapter and current members of the board of directors can nominate themselves or other eligible individuals for board positions." ?
Line 3,075: Line 3,074:
 
christo_ph: yes
 
christo_ph: yes
  
skyfaller: +1
+
skyfaller: +1
  
  mecredis: sure
+
mecredis: sure
  
 
gavinbaker: mllerustad: who's an "eligible individual" again?
 
gavinbaker: mllerustad: who's an "eligible individual" again?
Line 3,109: Line 3,108:
 
christo_ph: *their
 
christo_ph: *their
  
skyfaller: the "or people who have previously served the Organization in other capacities for at least a year" language is slightly odd, and we should probably talk about why it's there
+
skyfaller: the "or people who have previously served the Organization in other capacities for at least a year" language is slightly odd, and we should probably talk about why it's there
  
 
gavinbaker: i'm uncomfortable with "people who have previously served the Organization in other capacities for at least a year" but i guess that'a d fiferent section
 
gavinbaker: i'm uncomfortable with "people who have previously served the Organization in other capacities for at least a year" but i guess that'a d fiferent section
Line 3,115: Line 3,114:
 
gavinbaker: christo_pher: remember that chapters may not exist forever
 
gavinbaker: christo_pher: remember that chapters may not exist forever
  
skyfaller: yes, it is a different section
+
skyfaller: yes, it is a different section
  
 
gavinbaker: so you'd better hope your old chapter still exists after you graduate, if you want to participate
 
gavinbaker: so you'd better hope your old chapter still exists after you graduate, if you want to participate
Line 3,123: Line 3,122:
 
mllerustad: gavinbaker: c/participate/nominate
 
mllerustad: gavinbaker: c/participate/nominate
  
  mecredis: yawn
+
mecredis: yawn
  
 
gavinbaker: which raises the question of why alumni should be able to nominate at all, christo_pher  
 
gavinbaker: which raises the question of why alumni should be able to nominate at all, christo_pher  
Line 3,131: Line 3,130:
 
christo_ph: gavinbaker: this is something i completely disagree with, i'd much rather us take in older members, not have chapter membership, and open ourselves up to people outside of chapter affiliation
 
christo_ph: gavinbaker: this is something i completely disagree with, i'd much rather us take in older members, not have chapter membership, and open ourselves up to people outside of chapter affiliation
  
  mecredis: OK we need to progress this
+
mecredis: OK we need to progress this
  
 
gavinbaker: mecredis: don't be so negative, man.
 
gavinbaker: mecredis: don't be so negative, man.
Line 3,139: Line 3,138:
 
mllerustad: gavinbaker: :p
 
mllerustad: gavinbaker: :p
  
  mecredis: uhm
+
mecredis: uhm
  
 
christo_ph: gavinbaker: but that's not going to happen, so let's be consistent
 
christo_ph: gavinbaker: but that's not going to happen, so let's be consistent
  
  mecredis: This is an inordinate amount of time
+
mecredis: This is an inordinate amount of time
  
  mecredis: on a fairly simple subject
+
mecredis: on a fairly simple subject
  
  mecredis: basically we're trying to nail down
+
mecredis: basically we're trying to nail down
  
 
christo_ph: i have to leave in around 15 minutes, so i'd like to see us make more progress
 
christo_ph: i have to leave in around 15 minutes, so i'd like to see us make more progress
  
    price: I think the hard issue here is who votes.
+
price: I think the hard issue here is who votes.
  
  mecredis: how people get nominated
+
mecredis: how people get nominated
  
  mecredis: and how people vote
+
mecredis: and how people vote
  
  mecredis: right
+
mecredis: right
  
  mecredis: nomination seems to be solved
+
mecredis: nomination seems to be solved
  
 
mllerustad: Are we okay on the new nomination language that I proposed?
 
mllerustad: Are we okay on the new nomination language that I proposed?
Line 3,165: Line 3,164:
 
gavinbaker: can we just exclude alumni for the moment to make it simpler? and fix it in future amendments?
 
gavinbaker: can we just exclude alumni for the moment to make it simpler? and fix it in future amendments?
  
  mecredis: anyone who cares to be
+
mecredis: anyone who cares to be
  
 
christo_ph: ===price
 
christo_ph: ===price
  
  mecredis: can nominate
+
mecredis: can nominate
  
 
mllerustad: gavinbaker ?
 
mllerustad: gavinbaker ?
  
skyfaller: so how about anyone who can run for the board can nominate for the board?
+
skyfaller: so how about anyone who can run for the board can nominate for the board?
  
 
gavinbaker: chapter members + board members get to nominate. end of story?
 
gavinbaker: chapter members + board members get to nominate. end of story?
  
  mecredis: gavinbaker: that doesn't sound simpler
+
mecredis: gavinbaker: that doesn't sound simpler
  
skyfaller: can we make the two standards the same at least?
+
skyfaller: can we make the two standards the same at least?
  
  Deaner_: Just jumping in here, but have we discussed preferential voting? Mako is working on an app for that right now... might work well for this.
+
Deaner_: Just jumping in here, but have we discussed preferential voting? Mako is working on an app for that right now... might work well for this.
  
    e-star: Deaner_: i suggested it
+
e-star:Deaner_: i suggested it
  
gavinbaker: Deaner_: not there yet, sadly
+
gavinbaker:Deaner_: not there yet, sadly
  
 
christo_ph: hyperchad?
 
christo_ph: hyperchad?
  
    price: that's probably a good idea
+
price: that's probably a good idea
  
    e-star: Deaner_: i would like to see it too :)
+
e-star:Deaner_: i would like to see it too :)
  
    e-star: christo_pher: yup
+
e-star: christo_pher: yup
  
    e-star: price: ++
+
e-star:price:++
  
    price: but it's probably second-order relative to the question of who the voters are
+
price: but it's probably second-order relative to the question of who the voters are
  
 
mllerustad: Okay, so are we agreed on the nomination language?
 
mllerustad: Okay, so are we agreed on the nomination language?
Line 3,205: Line 3,204:
 
mllerustad: Members of any chapter and current members of the board of directors can nominate themselves or other eligible individuals for board positions.
 
mllerustad: Members of any chapter and current members of the board of directors can nominate themselves or other eligible individuals for board positions.
  
  Deaner_: btw, the IRC chat messages are coming in floods of 30 for me, so if I seem slow to reply, that is why
+
Deaner_: btw, the IRC chat messages are coming in floods of 30 for me, so if I seem slow to reply, that is why
  
  mecredis: why can't anyone nominate again?
+
mecredis: why can't anyone nominate again?
  
    price: yeah, that seems fine
+
price: yeah, that seems fine
  
 
gavinbaker: mllerustad: are we including alumni in "chapter members" for your purposes?
 
gavinbaker: mllerustad: are we including alumni in "chapter members" for your purposes?
Line 3,217: Line 3,216:
 
gavinbaker: elsewhere in the bylaws, we're not
 
gavinbaker: elsewhere in the bylaws, we're not
  
skyfaller: but the language of who is eligible for the board seems like it should be the same as who can nominate
+
skyfaller: but the language of who is eligible for the board seems like it should be the same as who can nominate
  
skyfaller: to me, at least
+
skyfaller: to me, at least
  
 
mllerustad: gavinbaker: If their chapter takes them.
 
mllerustad: gavinbaker: If their chapter takes them.
Line 3,229: Line 3,228:
 
gavinbaker: mllerustad, christo_pher: other places in the bylaws, we define chapter members, and it doesn't include alumni
 
gavinbaker: mllerustad, christo_pher: other places in the bylaws, we define chapter members, and it doesn't include alumni
  
  mecredis: gavinbaker: why is more complicated to restrict who can nominate?
+
mecredis: gavinbaker: why is more complicated to restrict who can nominate?
  
  mecredis: why not restrict who can vote?
+
mecredis: why not restrict who can vote?
  
 
mllerustad: gavinbaker: Where?
 
mllerustad: gavinbaker: Where?
Line 3,239: Line 3,238:
 
gavinbaker: mllerustad: maybe it's in the core team text that skyfaller and i hammered out
 
gavinbaker: mllerustad: maybe it's in the core team text that skyfaller and i hammered out
  
    price: ==mecredis
+
price: ==mecredis
  
 
mllerustad: We never design a chapter's members for it, do we?
 
mllerustad: We never design a chapter's members for it, do we?
  
    e-star: skyfaller: agreed
+
e-star:skyfaller: agreed
  
 
mllerustad: gavinbaker: Oh. Then I guess we'll talk about it there.
 
mllerustad: gavinbaker: Oh. Then I guess we'll talk about it there.
  
    price: so long as the voters are defined well, it doesn't matter who's eligible
+
price: so long as the voters are defined well, it doesn't matter who's eligible
  
 
gavinbaker: mllerustad: no, they're differnet purposes
 
gavinbaker: mllerustad: no, they're differnet purposes
  
  mecredis: right
+
mecredis: right
  
  mecredis: so let's leave nominations open
+
mecredis: so let's leave nominations open
  
 
gavinbaker: we say "chapter member for FC.o purposes is any student at a school with an FC.o chapter"
 
gavinbaker: we say "chapter member for FC.o purposes is any student at a school with an FC.o chapter"
  
  mecredis: OK
+
mecredis: OK
  
 
gavinbaker: and doesn't have anything to do with actual members of the club
 
gavinbaker: and doesn't have anything to do with actual members of the club
  
  mecredis: so
+
mecredis: so
  
 
christo_ph: gavinbaker: i think that's a mistake to define for chapters who their members are
 
christo_ph: gavinbaker: i think that's a mistake to define for chapters who their members are
Line 3,267: Line 3,266:
 
gavinbaker: to avoid the logistical problem of membership lsits
 
gavinbaker: to avoid the logistical problem of membership lsits
  
  mecredis: they obviously won't win
+
mecredis: they obviously won't win
  
    e-star: i think whoever's eligible to BE on the board should be eligible to nominate
+
e-star: i think whoever's eligible to BE on the board should be eligible to nominate
  
 
gavinbaker: let alone alumni lists!
 
gavinbaker: let alone alumni lists!
Line 3,277: Line 3,276:
 
mllerustad: gavinbaker: I'm not sure that's necessary/good... but we can debate that there.
 
mllerustad: gavinbaker: I'm not sure that's necessary/good... but we can debate that there.
  
  mecredis: yeah
+
mecredis: yeah
  
 
gavinbaker: christo_pher: we're not defining for chapters. we're defining for FC.o purposes, and there can be different defintiions
 
gavinbaker: christo_pher: we're not defining for chapters. we're defining for FC.o purposes, and there can be different defintiions
  
skyfaller: e-star: agreed, then we can just have the argument once :)
+
skyfaller: e-star: agreed, then we can just have the argument once :)
  
  mecredis: me too
+
mecredis: me too
  
  mecredis: wait wait
+
mecredis: wait wait
  
 
gavinbaker: mllerustad: i'm not sure the other way is good either, but it's definitely simpler than whatever monstrosity we're building here
 
gavinbaker: mllerustad: i'm not sure the other way is good either, but it's definitely simpler than whatever monstrosity we're building here
  
  mecredis: there are two issues here
+
mecredis: there are two issues here
  
  mecredis: one is who gets nominated
+
mecredis: one is who gets nominated
  
  mecredis: there seems to be an argument that we should restrict that
+
mecredis: there seems to be an argument that we should restrict that
  
 
mllerustad: Okay, so adding "people who have contributed" to the list of people who can nominate?
 
mllerustad: Okay, so adding "people who have contributed" to the list of people who can nominate?
  
    e-star: mllerustad: sure
+
e-star: mllerustad: sure
  
  mecredis: I, along with other people, don't understand why that should be restricted
+
mecredis: I, along with other people, don't understand why that should be restricted
  
 
gavinbaker: mecredis: there are 3 issues actually
 
gavinbaker: mecredis: there are 3 issues actually
Line 3,305: Line 3,304:
 
gavinbaker: 1. who gets to nominate
 
gavinbaker: 1. who gets to nominate
  
    e-star: honestly, i don't see nomination as such a huge deal
+
e-star: honestly, i don't see nomination as such a huge deal
  
 
gavinbaker: 2. who can be nominated
 
gavinbaker: 2. who can be nominated
Line 3,311: Line 3,310:
 
gavinbaker: 3. who can vote
 
gavinbaker: 3. who can vote
  
    e-star: yup
+
e-star: yup
  
 
*** Signoff: abhay ()
 
*** Signoff: abhay ()
  
  mecredis: I saw 1 and 2 as the same
+
mecredis:I saw 1 and 2 as the same
  
 
gavinbaker: should all 3 align?
 
gavinbaker: should all 3 align?
Line 3,321: Line 3,320:
 
gavinbaker: they don't, in the current draft
 
gavinbaker: they don't, in the current draft
  
  mecredis: no, 3 should be seperate
+
mecredis: no, 3 should be seperate
  
  mecredis: fine
+
mecredis: fine
  
 
christo_ph: i think all three should be the same
 
christo_ph: i think all three should be the same
  
skyfaller: I agree that 1 & 2 should be the same
+
skyfaller: I agree that 1 & 2 should be the same
  
 
gavinbaker: i think 1 + 2 should be the same
 
gavinbaker: i think 1 + 2 should be the same
  
skyfaller: I think 3 should be separate
+
skyfaller: I think 3 should be separate
  
 
gavinbaker: and 3 should = chapters
 
gavinbaker: and 3 should = chapters
  
  mecredis: right
+
mecredis: right
  
skyfaller: I mean, a chapter couldn't be on the board
+
skyfaller: I mean, a chapter couldn't be on the board
  
  mecredis: that seems to make sense
+
mecredis: that seems to make sense
  
    e-star: +1 on 1+2
+
e-star: +1 on 1+2
  
  mecredis: so people seem to agree that 1 and 2 should be the same
+
mecredis: so people seem to agree that 1 and 2 should be the same
  
 
christo_ph: i don't think chapters should be the ones voting
 
christo_ph: i don't think chapters should be the ones voting
  
  mecredis: anyone can nominate and be nominated
+
mecredis: anyone can nominate and be nominated
  
  mecredis: right,
+
mecredis: right,
  
    e-star: okay, all agreed that 1+2 should be the same?
+
e-star: okay, all agreed that 1+2 should be the same?
  
    price: that seems agreed
+
price: that seems agreed
  
  mecredis: but the fact that the domain of voters should be restricted should be the case
+
mecredis: but the fact that the domain of voters should be restricted should be the case
  
 
mllerustad: Agreed.
 
mllerustad: Agreed.
  
    e-star: christo_pher: agreed that there is an issue there
+
e-star: christo_pher: agreed that there is an issue there
  
 
gavinbaker: e-star: +1 on 1=2
 
gavinbaker: e-star: +1 on 1=2
Line 3,365: Line 3,364:
 
mllerustad: So, to end #1...
 
mllerustad: So, to end #1...
  
    e-star: okay good
+
e-star: okay good
  
 
mllerustad: RESOLVED: Members of any chapter (as defined by the chapter), current members of the board of directors, and people who have previously served the Organization in other capacities can nominate themselves or other eligible individuals for board positions.
 
mllerustad: RESOLVED: Members of any chapter (as defined by the chapter), current members of the board of directors, and people who have previously served the Organization in other capacities can nominate themselves or other eligible individuals for board positions.
  
skyfaller: christo_pher: well, we'll fight about that later, but I think that anything other than chapters voting would be mindblowingly complex
+
skyfaller: christo_pher: well, we'll fight about that later, but I think that anything other than chapters voting would be mindblowingly complex
  
    e-star: now to #3
+
e-star: now to #3
  
 
christo_ph: okay
 
christo_ph: okay
  
  mecredis: yes
+
mecredis: yes
  
  mecredis: #3
+
mecredis: #3
  
  mecredis: WHO GETS TO VOTE
+
mecredis: WHO GETS TO VOTE
  
 
gavinbaker: are we sure there should no parameters on 1=2?
 
gavinbaker: are we sure there should no parameters on 1=2?
  
skyfaller: hey, later is now
+
skyfaller: hey, later is now
  
  mecredis: Ok, right now its "1 vote per chapter"
+
mecredis: Ok, right now its "1 vote per chapter"
  
    e-star: and how many votes
+
e-star: and how many votes
  
 
gavinbaker: chapters just define whatever they want?
 
gavinbaker: chapters just define whatever they want?
Line 3,393: Line 3,392:
 
gavinbaker: "some random hobo is a chapter member and gets to run for the board"?
 
gavinbaker: "some random hobo is a chapter member and gets to run for the board"?
  
  mecredis: why not
+
mecredis: why not
  
  mecredis: no one will vote for him
+
mecredis: no one will vote for him
  
    e-star: i just find it problematic that chapters that could be quite large only have one vote
+
e-star: i just find it problematic that chapters that could be quite large only have one vote
  
  mecredis: gavinbaker: we're over this
+
mecredis: gavinbaker: we're over this
  
 
gavinbaker: because we're a student organization
 
gavinbaker: because we're a student organization
Line 3,411: Line 3,410:
 
mllerustad: (last four words being the changes)
 
mllerustad: (last four words being the changes)
  
    e-star: and i'm not just trying to represent the large chapter contingency here
+
e-star: and i'm not just trying to represent the large chapter contingency here
  
 
gavinbaker: what happened to consensus, guys
 
gavinbaker: what happened to consensus, guys
  
  mecredis: e-star: I agree though I also represent the large chapter contigency
+
mecredis: e-star: I agree though I also represent the large chapter contigency
  
 
gavinbaker: i think everybody's being reasonable
 
gavinbaker: i think everybody's being reasonable
  
    e-star: cool
+
e-star: cool
  
 
mllerustad: I disagree, and I represent the small-chapter contingency...
 
mllerustad: I disagree, and I represent the small-chapter contingency...
  
    e-star: so do people have other ideas?
+
e-star: so do people have other ideas?
  
  mecredis: so how do we fix
+
mecredis: so how do we fix
  
 
gavinbaker: i've been not holding up consensus where i'm more or less OK
 
gavinbaker: i've been not holding up consensus where i'm more or less OK
Line 3,431: Line 3,430:
 
mllerustad: I don' think this is coincidental. :p
 
mllerustad: I don' think this is coincidental. :p
  
  mecredis: the 1 chapter to 1 vote thing
+
mecredis: the 1 chapter to 1 vote thing
  
 
gavinbaker: but i wil hold up conesnsus if chapters can define non-students as members
 
gavinbaker: but i wil hold up conesnsus if chapters can define non-students as members
Line 3,441: Line 3,440:
 
mllerustad: gavinbaker: No alumni, even ones chapters consider members?
 
mllerustad: gavinbaker: No alumni, even ones chapters consider members?
  
    e-star: especially b/c of the issues of 20-30 ppl deciding on one vote
+
e-star: especially b/c of the issues of 20-30 ppl deciding on one vote
  
    e-star: etc
+
e-star: etc
  
 
christo_ph: i have to leave now, my suggestions are on the talk page
 
christo_ph: i have to leave now, my suggestions are on the talk page
  
skyfaller: e-star: I think that (1) it's balanced out by the proposed Core team, which will probably have more members from larger chapters, and (2) smaller chapters should have equal representation, b/c they need the most help
+
skyfaller: e-star: I think that (1) it's balanced out by the proposed Core team, which will probably have more members from larger chapters, and (2) smaller chapters should have equal representation, b/c they need the most help
  
 
*** christo_pher is now known as chriso_away
 
*** christo_pher is now known as chriso_away
  
    e-star: mllerustad: also i'm somewhat concerned about nonexistent chapters
+
e-star: mllerustad: also i'm somewhat concerned about nonexistent chapters
  
 
*** Signoff: chriso_away ()
 
*** Signoff: chriso_away ()
  
skyfaller: they shouldn't be discriminated against
+
skyfaller: they shouldn't be discriminated against
  
  mecredis: e-star: agree
+
mecredis: e-star: agree
  
 
mllerustad: e-star: Well, it's already 20-30 chapters deciding on a board... that's elections.
 
mllerustad: e-star: Well, it's already 20-30 chapters deciding on a board... that's elections.
  
    e-star: skyfaller: i'm not concerned about small, actual chapters
+
e-star:skyfaller: i'm not concerned about small, actual chapters
  
    e-star: but instead chapters that don't really actually exist
+
e-star: but instead chapters that don't really actually exist
  
  mecredis: yeah
+
mecredis: yeah
  
  mecredis: people who just signed up
+
mecredis: people who just signed up
  
 
gavinbaker: will the active/inactive chapter distinction make a difference?
 
gavinbaker: will the active/inactive chapter distinction make a difference?
  
  mecredis: and went through our incmredibly easy registration process
+
mecredis: and went through our incmredibly easy registration process
  
 
gavinbaker: or "active"/"interested"?
 
gavinbaker: or "active"/"interested"?
  
    e-star: other comments re: one chapter/one vote?
+
e-star: other comments re: one chapter/one vote?
  
  mecredis: not sure that that's the way to do it
+
mecredis: not sure that that's the way to do it
  
 
gavinbaker: i think that having a separate list for interested people whoa ren't actually doing anything should be OK
 
gavinbaker: i think that having a separate list for interested people whoa ren't actually doing anything should be OK
  
  mecredis: ok I think one chapter and one vote is in the right direction
+
mecredis: ok I think one chapter and one vote is in the right direction
  
    e-star: the minority opinions in large chapters will surely not be heard
+
e-star: the minority opinions in large chapters will surely not be heard
  
 
Differance: house: proportional to # of people
 
Differance: house: proportional to # of people
Line 3,489: Line 3,488:
 
gavinbaker: i don't ascribe much malice to people who'd like to participate but don't have a chapter
 
gavinbaker: i don't ascribe much malice to people who'd like to participate but don't have a chapter
  
    price: an active/interested distinction seems like a way to do it
+
price: an active/interested distinction seems like a way to do it
  
 
Differance: senate: 1 per chapter
 
Differance: senate: 1 per chapter
  
    peabo: maybe a chapter doesn't get to vote until it has been active for a set period of time?
+
peabo: maybe a chapter doesn't get to vote until it has been active for a set period of time?
  
  mecredis: right
+
mecredis: right
  
  mecredis: I think it should be something to # of people
+
mecredis: I think it should be something to # of people
  
 
gavinbaker: i think 1 chapter 1 vote is right, we just need to define what a chapter is for voting purposes
 
gavinbaker: i think 1 chapter 1 vote is right, we just need to define what a chapter is for voting purposes
  
    e-star: okay, so only active chapters vote then?
+
e-star: okay, so only active chapters vote then?
  
  mecredis: though determining # of people is difficult
+
mecredis: though determining # of people is difficult
  
 
gavinbaker: and i think if we let people sort themselves into active/interested it won't be a problem
 
gavinbaker: and i think if we let people sort themselves into active/interested it won't be a problem
  
    e-star: right--we need some kind of house/senate balance
+
e-star: right--we need some kind of house/senate balance
  
 
gavinbaker: doing anything proportional will be crazy
 
gavinbaker: doing anything proportional will be crazy
Line 3,513: Line 3,512:
 
gavinbaker: jesus christ 2 chambers?
 
gavinbaker: jesus christ 2 chambers?
  
    e-star: skyfaller: i'm not sure the core team will provide that..but it might
+
e-star:skyfaller: i'm not sure the core team will provide that..but it might
  
 
gavinbaker: it's a board of directors
 
gavinbaker: it's a board of directors
  
    e-star: gavinbaker: not actually
+
e-star: gavinbaker: not actually
  
 
mllerustad: Okay, I'm willing to compromise and set up a tiered system.
 
mllerustad: Okay, I'm willing to compromise and set up a tiered system.
  
    e-star: gavinbaker: i just meant a way to balance it out
+
e-star: gavinbaker: i just meant a way to balance it out
  
 
gavinbaker: does CC EFF PK FSF have 2 chambers?
 
gavinbaker: does CC EFF PK FSF have 2 chambers?
  
skyfaller: what kind of tiers though?
+
skyfaller: what kind of tiers though?
  
  mecredis: FYI boards are almost never elected by members / chapters
+
mecredis: FYI boards are almost never elected by members / chapters
  
    e-star: gavinbaker: i don't want two chambers!
+
e-star: gavinbaker: i don't want two chambers!
  
  mecredis: but by board members themselves
+
mecredis: but by board members themselves
  
 
mllerustad: Say, if you register, and make it a year (and re-register), you can vote.
 
mllerustad: Say, if you register, and make it a year (and re-register), you can vote.
  
    e-star: mecredis: true
+
e-star: mecredis: true
  
 
mllerustad: e-star? mecredis?
 
mllerustad: e-star? mecredis?
Line 3,541: Line 3,540:
 
gavinbaker: mecredis: but we want to be "grassroots" right? = elected by members?
 
gavinbaker: mecredis: but we want to be "grassroots" right? = elected by members?
  
    e-star: mllerustad: i'm fine w/ 6 months even
+
e-star: mllerustad: i'm fine w/ 6 months even
  
skyfaller: 1 chapter 1 "vote" (voting for multiple seats obviously involves multiple votes)
+
skyfaller: 1 chapter 1 "vote"(voting for multiple seats obviously involves multiple votes)
  
  mecredis: yeah, that's fine
+
mecredis: yeah, that's fine
  
 
gavinbaker: mllerustad: i don't think a 1yr embargo would be terrible for voting, or even less
 
gavinbaker: mllerustad: i don't think a 1yr embargo would be terrible for voting, or even less
  
    e-star: mllerustad: since there could be new but active chapters
+
e-star: mllerustad: since there could be new but active chapters
  
    e-star: 6 months?
+
e-star: 6 months?
  
    price: sounds good
+
price: sounds good
  
 
mllerustad: Okay, so would that alleviate the non-chapter voting powers fears?
 
mllerustad: Okay, so would that alleviate the non-chapter voting powers fears?
  
    price: though if it's 6 months
+
price: though if it's 6 months
  
  mecredis: what about rewarding competency?
+
mecredis: what about rewarding competency?
  
  mecredis: with votes?
+
mecredis: with votes?
  
    e-star: price: ?
+
e-star:price: ?
  
    price: well, if it's a year then we can expect a re-registration
+
price: well, if it's a year then we can expect a re-registration
  
  mecredis: we want to encourage people to work hard
+
mecredis: we want to encourage people to work hard
  
  mecredis: and develop functional chapters
+
mecredis: and develop functional chapters
  
 
gavinbaker: mecredis: how do you propose to do that in a fair way?
 
gavinbaker: mecredis: how do you propose to do that in a fair way?
  
skyfaller: what? who determines competency?
+
skyfaller: what? who determines competency?
  
  mecredis: that have sustainability
+
mecredis: that have sustainability
  
 
gavinbaker: "you're competent, you're not"?
 
gavinbaker: "you're competent, you're not"?
  
  mecredis: wait wait
+
mecredis: wait wait
  
  mecredis: before you freak out
+
mecredis: before you freak out
  
    price: if it's 6 months we probably want some measure that they still exist
+
price: if it's 6 months we probably want some measure that they still exist
  
    e-star: price: for example, i'm thinking of the newly active brown chapter
+
e-star:price: for example, i'm thinking of the newly active brown chapter
  
            skyfaller freaks out
+
skyfaller freaks out
  
            gavinbaker decides texas is incompetent, kicks it out of the union
+
gavinbaker decides texas is incompetent, kicks it out of the union
  
  mecredis: I'm just saying we should have some way of rewarding those chapters that stay functional
+
mecredis: I'm just saying we should have some way of rewarding those chapters that stay functional
  
    e-star: price: i mean that they have existed for 6 months
+
e-star:price: i mean that they have existed for 6 months
  
    e-star: already
+
e-star: already
  
 
gavinbaker: mecredis: we send them a valentine. that's the reward, not voting...
 
gavinbaker: mecredis: we send them a valentine. that's the reward, not voting...
Line 3,605: Line 3,604:
 
mllerustad: That shows some competency.
 
mllerustad: That shows some competency.
  
  mecredis: mllerustad: yeah, but I'm curious if we can find a better metric
+
mecredis: mllerustad: yeah, but I'm curious if we can find a better metric
  
    price: e-star: sure; but do we want more than just that they signed up 6 months ago?
+
price: e-star: sure; but do we want more than just that they signed up 6 months ago?
  
  mecredis: staying alive for 6 months is good
+
mecredis: staying alive for 6 months is good
  
 
gavinbaker: guys it's been like 3 hours... can we hunker down please?
 
gavinbaker: guys it's been like 3 hours... can we hunker down please?
  
    e-star: price: sure, some indication that they've been active for that time
+
e-star:price: sure, some indication that they've been active for that time
  
    ktetch: define 'staying alive'
+
ktetch: define 'staying alive'
  
    e-star: at least during the school year
+
e-star: at least during the school year
  
 
mllerustad: ...personally lobbying Congress and curing cancer is better?
 
mllerustad: ...personally lobbying Congress and curing cancer is better?
  
    e-star: heh
+
e-star: heh
  
 
Differance: it shoudl be quantitative
 
Differance: it shoudl be quantitative
  
    e-star: gavinbaker: agreed--flying out tmrw
+
e-star: gavinbaker: agreed--flying out tmrw
  
 
gavinbaker: i repeat, we won't make something perfect, but we need something good enough
 
gavinbaker: i repeat, we won't make something perfect, but we need something good enough
  
  mecredis: I just think chapters should do more than stay alive
+
mecredis: I just think chapters should do more than stay alive
  
  mecredis: and if they get voting rights they should have more responsibility to do things that benefit free culture
+
mecredis: and if they get voting rights they should have more responsibility to do things that benefit free culture
  
skyfaller: it would have to be an objective standard that nobody could disagree with, otherwise it would seem arbitrary
+
skyfaller: it would have to be an objective standard that nobody could disagree with, otherwise it would seem arbitrary
  
 
Differance: like recruit?
 
Differance: like recruit?
  
  mecredis: Differance: perhaps
+
mecredis: Differance: perhaps
  
    e-star: so is it still one chapter/one vote?
+
e-star: so is it still one chapter/one vote?
  
 
gavinbaker: i prorpose we say you get to vote if you've been around for more than 6mo. PROPOSED -- can we make this RESOLVED and move on??
 
gavinbaker: i prorpose we say you get to vote if you've been around for more than 6mo. PROPOSED -- can we make this RESOLVED and move on??
  
  mecredis: "my e-mail list is bigger than yours"
+
mecredis: "my e-mail list is bigger than yours"
  
 
mllerustad: Differance: That just asks for padding your membership list... not objective at all.
 
mllerustad: Differance: That just asks for padding your membership list... not objective at all.
  
skyfaller: wait
+
skyfaller: wait
  
    e-star: or did anyone have any other suggestions?
+
e-star: or did anyone have any other suggestions?
  
  mecredis: e-star: I had one
+
mecredis: e-star: I had one
  
 
Differance: to roles.
 
Differance: to roles.
Line 3,657: Line 3,656:
 
mllerustad: e-star: I really really think it should be 1-chapter-1-vote.
 
mllerustad: e-star: I really really think it should be 1-chapter-1-vote.
  
skyfaller: there is one problem with the 6 mo rule
+
skyfaller: there is one problem with the 6 mo rule
  
 
Differance: but that's something else . . .
 
Differance: but that's something else . . .
  
    e-star: mecredis: yes?
+
e-star: mecredis: yes?
  
skyfaller: if we're creating the Org now, no chapters have existed until now
+
skyfaller: if we're creating the Org now, no chapters have existed until now
  
 
mllerustad: e-star: But I'm willing to have slightly higher standards for what counts as a voting chapter.
 
mllerustad: e-star: But I'm willing to have slightly higher standards for what counts as a voting chapter.
Line 3,669: Line 3,668:
 
gavinbaker: chapters get to vote, 1 chapter 1 vote.
 
gavinbaker: chapters get to vote, 1 chapter 1 vote.
  
gavinbaker: skyfaller: we'll say everybody previously registered counts. done?
+
gavinbaker:skyfaller: we'll say everybody previously registered counts. done?
  
    e-star: mllerustad: understood, but i also find problems w/ asking large chapters to agree on their favorite candidates
+
e-star: mllerustad: understood, but i also find problems w/ asking large chapters to agree on their favorite candidates
  
  mecredis: e-star: its more than that
+
mecredis: e-star: its more than that
  
 
mllerustad: Well, isn't that their problem?
 
mllerustad: Well, isn't that their problem?
  
  mecredis: its that large chapters should be recognized
+
mecredis: its that large chapters should be recognized
  
 
Differance: remember that all that's at stake is being listed on the website, and swag
 
Differance: remember that all that's at stake is being listed on the website, and swag
Line 3,685: Line 3,684:
 
*** Fear_of_C (n=nick@cpe-66-65-84-36.nyc.res.rr.com) has joined channel #freeculture
 
*** Fear_of_C (n=nick@cpe-66-65-84-36.nyc.res.rr.com) has joined channel #freeculture
  
    jibot: Fear_of_C is Nick from Swarthmore and organizing http://freeculture.org/blog/2007/01/20/free-culture-labs/
+
jibot: Fear_of_C is Nick from Swarthmore and organizing http://freeculture.org/blog/2007/01/20/free-culture-labs/
  
    e-star: mecredis: yes?
+
e-star: mecredis: yes?
  
 
gavinbaker: mecredis: what do you want? a trophy? why can't this be more egalitarian?
 
gavinbaker: mecredis: what do you want? a trophy? why can't this be more egalitarian?
Line 3,693: Line 3,692:
 
gavinbaker: 1 chapter 1 vote makes everybody feel equal
 
gavinbaker: 1 chapter 1 vote makes everybody feel equal
  
            mllerustad gives mecredis a trophy of Ozymandias
+
mllerustad gives mecredis a trophy of Ozymandias
  
  mecredis: gavinbaker: that's not egalitarian
+
mecredis: gavinbaker: that's not egalitarian
  
 
gavinbaker: not like "zomg i'll never be as good as harvard/nyu"
 
gavinbaker: not like "zomg i'll never be as good as harvard/nyu"
  
    e-star: again, i'm worried about disparate viewpoints
+
e-star: again, i'm worried about disparate viewpoints
  
 
gavinbaker: "i may as well give up now"
 
gavinbaker: "i may as well give up now"
Line 3,705: Line 3,704:
 
Differance: chil folks
 
Differance: chil folks
  
    e-star: guys, please
+
e-star: guys, please
  
  mecredis: I'm interested in creating an incentive
+
mecredis: I'm interested in creating an incentive
  
  mecredis: and right now
+
mecredis: and right now
  
 
mllerustad: omg, <huge school>'s chapter is so awesome... *fangirl swarm*
 
mllerustad: omg, <huge school>'s chapter is so awesome... *fangirl swarm*
  
skyfaller: I think that if the purpose of the Org is to serve the chapters, and larger chapters don't need as much service, we shouldn't weight votes in the larger chapters' favor
+
skyfaller: I think that if the purpose of the Org is to serve the chapters, and larger chapters don't need as much service, we shouldn't weight votes in the larger chapters' favor
  
  mecredis: what we offer chapters is one vote
+
mecredis: what we offer chapters is one vote
  
 
gavinbaker: mecredis: the incentive has to be intrinsic
 
gavinbaker: mecredis: the incentive has to be intrinsic
  
    e-star: i agree that we need to find a way to have representation that is fair
+
e-star: i agree that we need to find a way to have representation that is fair
  
    ktetch: look, start at one chapter-one vote, and if you don't like it, and it doesn't work well, CHANGE IT LATER
+
ktetch: look, start at one chapter-one vote, and if you don't like it, and it doesn't work well, CHANGE IT LATER
  
skyfaller: they count, but they shouldn't count more
+
skyfaller: they count, but they shouldn't count more
  
 
gavinbaker: the ability to get more votes is NOT going to make people recruit harder
 
gavinbaker: the ability to get more votes is NOT going to make people recruit harder
  
Fear_of_C: if people are recruiting to get more votes, that's messed up
+
Fear_of_C: if people are recruiting to get more votes, that's messed up
  
  mecredis: OK
+
mecredis: OK
  
    ktetch: you're getting nowhere because you want to have everything perfect right now, when its going to probably change anyway
+
ktetch: you're getting nowhere because you want to have everything perfect right now, when its going to probably change anyway
  
  mecredis: so one vote per chapter
+
mecredis: so one vote per chapter
  
 
gavinbaker: more votes is useless as a currency and will make no difference, hence worthless as an incentive, if not screwed up as Fear_of_C sez
 
gavinbaker: more votes is useless as a currency and will make no difference, hence worthless as an incentive, if not screwed up as Fear_of_C sez
Line 3,741: Line 3,740:
 
gavinbaker: ktetch++ | let's do this and move on!
 
gavinbaker: ktetch++ | let's do this and move on!
  
    e-star: sigh
+
e-star: sigh
  
    e-star: again
+
e-star: again
  
 
Differance: swag
 
Differance: swag
  
skyfaller: "please, join my e-mail list! then I can get more votes!"
+
skyfaller: "please, join my e-mail list!then I can get more votes!"
  
 
mllerustad: Okay, so one chapter one vote?
 
mllerustad: Okay, so one chapter one vote?
  
  mecredis: that's not exactly what I'm suggesting
+
mecredis: that's not exactly what I'm suggesting
  
    e-star: my concern is getting a consensus among all those people for votes
+
e-star: my concern is getting a consensus among all those people for votes
  
    e-star: i still don't like it
+
e-star: i still don't like it
  
 
gavinbaker: e-star: every chapter will have to decide among themselves how to vote
 
gavinbaker: e-star: every chapter will have to decide among themselves how to vote
  
    e-star: one/one
+
e-star: one/one
  
    price: gavinbaker, ktetch: this is the single most important and least changeable thing in the bylaws
+
price: gavinbaker, ktetch: this is the single most important and least changeable thing in the bylaws
  
  mecredis: e-star: I think you're right
+
mecredis: e-star: I think you're right
  
 
gavinbaker: e-star: you don't have to get conesnsus, you can say "the president decides who to vote for"
 
gavinbaker: e-star: you don't have to get conesnsus, you can say "the president decides who to vote for"
  
    e-star: mecredis: so what is your suggestion?
+
e-star: mecredis: so what is your suggestion?
  
 
gavinbaker: or you can get consensus if you want
 
gavinbaker: or you can get consensus if you want
Line 3,773: Line 3,772:
 
gavinbaker: that's each chapter's problem'
 
gavinbaker: that's each chapter's problem'
  
    e-star: gavinbaker: we don't have a president..heh
+
e-star: gavinbaker: we don't have a president..heh
  
    e-star: but anyway
+
e-star: but anyway
  
  mecredis: well it doesn't look like any chapter is going to get more than one vote
+
mecredis: well it doesn't look like any chapter is going to get more than one vote
  
 
gavinbaker: s/president/executive board/whoever shows up/however you want
 
gavinbaker: s/president/executive board/whoever shows up/however you want
Line 3,783: Line 3,782:
 
Differance: You have an executive
 
Differance: You have an executive
  
skyfaller: I do have some sympathy with e-star's position, that minorities at each chapter could lose out... but it *is* good enough for the USA ;-)
+
skyfaller: I do have some sympathy with e-star's position, that minorities at each chapter could lose out... but it *is* good enough for the USA ;-)
  
    ktetch: things will change, there's no getting around it - the best and most efficient way is to set up a basic framework, get thigns oeprating, and have a method for change that is flexible, and allows everything to be changed, don't try and over-define everything right now, you're just wasting time, because it'll never be exactly as you planned it when it comes to actual implimentation
+
ktetch: things will change, there's no getting around it - the best and most efficient way is to set up a basic framework, get thigns oeprating, and have a method for change that is flexible, and allows everything to be changed, don't try and over-define everything right now, you're just wasting time, because it'll never be exactly as you planned it when it comes to actual implimentation
  
skyfaller: and it seems absurdly difficult to figure out exactly how many votes any chapter should get
+
skyfaller: and it seems absurdly difficult to figure out exactly how many votes any chapter should get
  
 
gavinbaker: i'm really hesitant to define any kind of membership other than at the chapter level, or to define any chapter as being "better" than another, for all kinds of logistical and philosophical reasons
 
gavinbaker: i'm really hesitant to define any kind of membership other than at the chapter level, or to define any chapter as being "better" than another, for all kinds of logistical and philosophical reasons
  
skyfaller: 1 chapter 1 vote is egalitarian among chapters and simple
+
skyfaller: 1 chapter 1 vote is egalitarian among chapters and simple
  
skyfaller: and chapters are our members
+
skyfaller: and chapters are our members
  
  mecredis: ok
+
mecredis: ok
  
  mecredis: it is not egalitarian
+
mecredis: it is not egalitarian
  
    price: it is not egalitarian
+
price: it is not egalitarian
  
skyfaller: we're a confederation of chapters
+
skyfaller: we're a confederation of chapters
  
    e-star: skyfaller: i dislike the electoral college system..heh
+
e-star:skyfaller: i dislike the electoral college system..heh
  
Fear_of_C: it is a little strange that we are completely deferring voting rights to chapters, thought not necessarily bad; I sympathize with e-star, but I think the solution might be requiring how chapters pick leadership
+
Fear_of_C: it is a little strange that we are completely deferring voting rights to chapters, thought not necessarily bad; I sympathize with e-star, but I think the solution might be requiring how chapters pick leadership
  
    price: it is the antithesis of egalitarian
+
price: it is the antithesis of egalitarian
  
  mecredis: it penalizes big chapters
+
mecredis: it penalizes big chapters
  
  mecredis: this is not egalitarian at all
+
mecredis: this is not egalitarian at all
  
 
mllerustad: gavinbaker: I'm hesitant too, but I'm willing to have it be a time period because that's probably the most objective standard we're ever going to get.
 
mllerustad: gavinbaker: I'm hesitant too, but I'm willing to have it be a time period because that's probably the most objective standard we're ever going to get.
Line 3,817: Line 3,816:
 
gavinbaker: it's egalitarian to the chapters, not to the individual members
 
gavinbaker: it's egalitarian to the chapters, not to the individual members
  
paulproteu: I'm sorry, I haven't been reading scrollback, but can't we have an activity requirement? Like "Every chapter with one activity (like a meeting) in the past year" votes?
+
paulproteu: I'm sorry, I haven't been reading scrollback, but can't we have an activity requirement?Like "Every chapter with one activity (like a meeting) in the past year" votes?
  
Fear_of_C: in that, for example, someone who starts a chapter is not dictator-for-life
+
Fear_of_C: in that, for example, someone who starts a chapter is not dictator-for-life
  
    price: what are we, collectivists?
+
price: what are we, collectivists?
  
    e-star: price: suggestions? :)
+
e-star:price: suggestions? :)
  
 
gavinbaker: paulproteus: that seems pretty unworkable
 
gavinbaker: paulproteus: that seems pretty unworkable
  
  mecredis: price: decidedly not
+
mecredis:price: decidedly not
  
    price: chapters don't have rights
+
price: chapters don't have rights
  
    price: or ideas
+
price: or ideas
  
 
paulproteu: gavinbaker, In that people might lie?
 
paulproteu: gavinbaker, In that people might lie?
Line 3,837: Line 3,836:
 
mllerustad: paulproteus: What counts as an activity? Who confirms it?
 
mllerustad: paulproteus: What counts as an activity? Who confirms it?
  
    price: people do
+
price: people do
  
skyfaller: heh
+
skyfaller: heh
  
  mecredis: yeah, why not do a real vote
+
mecredis: yeah, why not do a real vote
  
  mecredis: ?
+
mecredis: ?
  
gavinbaker: price: and why shouldn't we define things at the chapter level?
+
gavinbaker:price: and why shouldn't we define things at the chapter level?
  
  mecredis: where people have to register
+
mecredis: where people have to register
  
    price: we might wind up with some form of one chapter / one vote
+
price: we might wind up with some form of one chapter / one vote
  
  mecredis: say what chapter they're with
+
mecredis: say what chapter they're with
  
 
gavinbaker: mecredis: sounds like a clusterfuck to me
 
gavinbaker: mecredis: sounds like a clusterfuck to me
  
  mecredis: and have that chapter vouch for them
+
mecredis: and have that chapter vouch for them
  
skyfaller: defining things at the person level would be absurdly centralized
+
skyfaller: defining things at the person level would be absurdly centralized
  
 
gavinbaker: to get potentially 100s of people registered
 
gavinbaker: to get potentially 100s of people registered
  
  mecredis: gavinbaker: real voting?
+
mecredis: gavinbaker: real voting?
  
skyfaller: and people seem to be suspicious of centralization
+
skyfaller: and people seem to be suspicious of centralization
  
 
gavinbaker: and rely on chapters to vouch for them
 
gavinbaker: and rely on chapters to vouch for them
  
    price: but it'll be because it's simpler, not because it's egalitarian
+
price: but it'll be because it's simpler, not because it's egalitarian
  
 
gavinbaker: mecredis: we have voting, it's just done by the chapters
 
gavinbaker: mecredis: we have voting, it's just done by the chapters
Line 3,873: Line 3,872:
 
gavinbaker: not by random hobos that chapters vouch for because they want more votes
 
gavinbaker: not by random hobos that chapters vouch for because they want more votes
  
skyfaller: b/c then the national org would have to define and track individual members
+
skyfaller: b/c then the national org would have to define and track individual members
  
 
mllerustad: mecredis: Many (most?) people involved in Free Culture chapters have nothing to do with the national org (for better or worse).
 
mllerustad: mecredis: Many (most?) people involved in Free Culture chapters have nothing to do with the national org (for better or worse).
  
Fear_of_C: everybody is talking at once
+
Fear_of_C: everybody is talking at once
  
 
mllerustad: They focus on their chapter.
 
mllerustad: They focus on their chapter.
Line 3,883: Line 3,882:
 
mllerustad: Which I think makes sense.
 
mllerustad: Which I think makes sense.
  
    e-star: mllerustad: sure
+
e-star: mllerustad: sure
  
  mecredis: that's not a tenable model at all though
+
mecredis: that's not a tenable model at all though
  
 
*** Signoff: sahal (Success)
 
*** Signoff: sahal (Success)
  
  mecredis: an ideal situation is if all chapter members are interested in the national org
+
mecredis: an ideal situation is if all chapter members are interested in the national org
  
  mecredis: in some respect
+
mecredis: in some respect
  
  mecredis: and can have their voice heard
+
mecredis: and can have their voice heard
  
 
gavinbaker: mecredis: wait what??
 
gavinbaker: mecredis: wait what??
  
skyfaller: Fear_of_C: I like your suggestion
+
skyfaller:Fear_of_C: I like your suggestion
  
 
gavinbaker: i thought you hated FC.org
 
gavinbaker: i thought you hated FC.org
Line 3,907: Line 3,906:
 
mllerustad: gavinbaker: lol!
 
mllerustad: gavinbaker: lol!
  
Fear_of_C: skyfaller: I'm glad you even saw it over the flurry of posts at the same time
+
Fear_of_C:skyfaller: I'm glad you even saw it over the flurry of posts at the same time
  
 
paulproteu: (really, about the incentive for ballot-box stuffing)
 
paulproteu: (really, about the incentive for ballot-box stuffing)
Line 3,915: Line 3,914:
 
gavinbaker: at least, chapter members should focus on their chapter 80% of the time
 
gavinbaker: at least, chapter members should focus on their chapter 80% of the time
  
  mecredis: I mean it in the context of being part of a discussions
+
mecredis: I mean it in the context of being part of a discussions
  
 
gavinbaker: we don't want to overly centralize
 
gavinbaker: we don't want to overly centralize
  
    e-star: agreed
+
e-star: agreed
  
 
gavinbaker: and make everybody spend their time paying attention to FC.org
 
gavinbaker: and make everybody spend their time paying attention to FC.org
  
  mecredis: you're the ones that care so much
+
mecredis: you're the ones that care so much
  
 
gavinbaker: rather than working on their campus
 
gavinbaker: rather than working on their campus
Line 3,929: Line 3,928:
 
Differance: Um, duties and powers?
 
Differance: Um, duties and powers?
  
  mecredis: I'm pointing out mllerustad's inconsistencies
+
mecredis: I'm pointing out mllerustad's inconsistencies
  
    ktetch: price - there should be nothing that is 'least changeable' nor 'most important' - if you want to look at something for a model, look at the US constitution, everything is changable in it
+
ktetch: price - there should be nothing that is 'least changeable' nor 'most important' - if you want to look at something for a model, look at the US constitution, everything is changable in it
  
 
mllerustad: mecredis: Which are?
 
mllerustad: mecredis: Which are?
  
    e-star: i'd like to find a way
+
e-star: i'd like to find a way
  
    price: so we're probably going to wind up with one vote per chapter, for chapters that are known to be active in some sense
+
price: so we're probably going to wind up with one vote per chapter, for chapters that are known to be active in some sense
  
 
gavinbaker: price, if we do something stupid with any part of the bylaws, i fully trust that we'll correct it in due time, this part included :D
 
gavinbaker: price, if we do something stupid with any part of the bylaws, i fully trust that we'll correct it in due time, this part included :D
  
    e-star: that doesn't ostracize small chapters  
+
e-star: that doesn't ostracize small chapters  
  
    e-star: but also that doesn't penalize large ones
+
e-star: but also that doesn't penalize large ones
  
    price: we could say chapters that have been around for some amount of time
+
price: we could say chapters that have been around for some amount of time
  
 
gavinbaker: e-star: i don't think it exists
 
gavinbaker: e-star: i don't think it exists
Line 3,953: Line 3,952:
 
gavinbaker: which i refuse to consider
 
gavinbaker: which i refuse to consider
  
  mecredis: why not trust the chapter heads?
+
mecredis: why not trust the chapter heads?
  
 
gavinbaker: because it's incredible bureacracy
 
gavinbaker: because it's incredible bureacracy
Line 3,959: Line 3,958:
 
mllerustad: e-star: Under this system, large chapters get one more vote than they ever had before! :)
 
mllerustad: e-star: Under this system, large chapters get one more vote than they ever had before! :)
  
    ktetch: right now, don't define active - define it if and when the definition of 'active' becomes a problem
+
ktetch: right now, don't define active - define it if and when the definition of 'active' becomes a problem
  
  mecredis: to vouch for real votes?
+
mecredis: to vouch for real votes?
  
 
paulproteu: mecredis, I suppose that's true re: trust.
 
paulproteu: mecredis, I suppose that's true re: trust.
  
    ktetch: because then you'll have some idea of how to define it
+
ktetch: because then you'll have some idea of how to define it
  
    price: we could add that the board has to approve a chapter for voting membership, which it can do after six months
+
price: we could add that the board has to approve a chapter for voting membership, which it can do after six months
  
 
gavinbaker: mecredis: because there's an inherent conflict?
 
gavinbaker: mecredis: because there's an inherent conflict?
Line 3,973: Line 3,972:
 
gavinbaker: and no verification mechanism?
 
gavinbaker: and no verification mechanism?
  
    peabo: each chapter gets log N votes, where N is the number of students enrolled at the school </geek>
+
peabo: each chapter gets log N votes, where N is the number of students enrolled at the school </geek>
  
 
gavinbaker: so the only choice is to trust them, which isn't Good?
 
gavinbaker: so the only choice is to trust them, which isn't Good?
  
  mecredis: peabo: that's not viable
+
mecredis:peabo: that's not viable
  
Fear_of_C: we could increase votes fractionally with more members, ie. emulate 2 houses, but I still think that's just bypassing the issue
+
Fear_of_C: we could increase votes fractionally with more members, ie. emulate 2 houses, but I still think that's just bypassing the issue
  
    e-star: mecredis: i think that was a joke
+
e-star: mecredis: i think that was a joke
  
  mecredis: hah
+
mecredis: hah
  
  mecredis: yeah
+
mecredis: yeah
  
  mecredis: sorry, not quite in the mood
+
mecredis: sorry, not quite in the mood
  
skyfaller: If we start counting members, then we have the issue of differing values of members
+
skyfaller: If we start counting members, then we have the issue of differing values of members
  
    e-star: well what if the core team
+
e-star: well what if the core team
  
    price: ktetch, gavinbake: it's least changeable in the sense that if you set up voting power one way, then try to change it to another, the people who have the power won't agree to change it
+
price: ktetch, gavinbake: it's least changeable in the sense that if you set up voting power one way, then try to change it to another, the people who have the power won't agree to change it
  
    e-star: somehow served as another chamber
+
e-star: somehow served as another chamber
  
    e-star: in a way
+
e-star: in a way
  
 
gavinbaker: 1 chapter, 1 vote (after 6 months)? easy, relatively fair?
 
gavinbaker: 1 chapter, 1 vote (after 6 months)? easy, relatively fair?
Line 4,003: Line 4,002:
 
gavinbaker: e-star: anybody from any chapter can join the core team under the proposal on talk page
 
gavinbaker: e-star: anybody from any chapter can join the core team under the proposal on talk page
  
    e-star: as skyfaller previously suggested
+
e-star: as skyfaller previously suggested
  
 
gavinbaker: so if there are 1000 harvard ppl who want to be on the core team, go for it
 
gavinbaker: so if there are 1000 harvard ppl who want to be on the core team, go for it
  
    peabo: sort of a joke, but I don't have any practical suggestion how to weight chapter membership ... it does give large chapters some extra consideration, but not too dramatically
+
peabo: sort of a joke, but I don't have any practical suggestion how to weight chapter membership ... it does give large chapters some extra consideration, but not too dramatically
  
paulproteu: I like the idea of the Board granting voting rights to chapters after e.g. 6 months. I further suggest that the grant happens by default if the Board does nothing, but the Board can actively refuse that grant if they choose.
+
paulproteu: I like the idea of the Board granting voting rights to chapters after e.g. 6 months.I further suggest that the grant happens by default if the Board does nothing, but the Board can actively refuse that grant if they choose.
  
 
Differance: Well, how about this: if you know the Board has limited powers, then 1 vote per chapter is palatable?
 
Differance: Well, how about this: if you know the Board has limited powers, then 1 vote per chapter is palatable?
  
Fear_of_C: e-star: because then we need to have membership constraints for the core team, otherwise everyone who wants to vote will join
+
Fear_of_C: e-star: because then we need to have membership constraints for the core team, otherwise everyone who wants to vote will join
  
Fear_of_C: and that would defeat the purpose of having a core list for volunteers  
+
Fear_of_C: and that would defeat the purpose of having a core list for volunteers  
  
skyfaller: e-star: dead on. The Core team would probably involve more people from larger chapters, at least if there are more *active* members at larger chapters.
+
skyfaller: e-star: dead on.The Core team would probably involve more people from larger chapters, at least if there are more *active* members at larger chapters.
  
    e-star: skyfaller: yes, potentially
+
e-star:skyfaller: yes, potentially
  
 
gavinbaker: the board is supposed to represent the chapters -- all of the chapters -- equally. it should be 1 chapter 1 vote for the board
 
gavinbaker: the board is supposed to represent the chapters -- all of the chapters -- equally. it should be 1 chapter 1 vote for the board
Line 4,025: Line 4,024:
 
gavinbaker: keep in mind the board has limited powers, as Differance sez
 
gavinbaker: keep in mind the board has limited powers, as Differance sez
  
    e-star: i think it might even be worth leaving some power to the core team
+
e-star: i think it might even be worth leaving some power to the core team
  
    price: gavinbaker: no, that's nonsense; there's no reason it should do that
+
price: gavinbaker: no, that's nonsense; there's no reason it should do that
  
 
gavinbaker: there are checks and balances (i think!)
 
gavinbaker: there are checks and balances (i think!)
  
  mecredis: so the core team counts as a chamber
+
mecredis: so the core team counts as a chamber
  
    e-star: i think we have too many things allocated to the board already
+
e-star: i think we have too many things allocated to the board already
  
  mecredis: I think this is kind of sane
+
mecredis: I think this is kind of sane
  
 
mllerustad: e-star: That is part of gavinbaker's proposal--to made mid-level decisions at the Core level.
 
mllerustad: e-star: That is part of gavinbaker's proposal--to made mid-level decisions at the Core level.
  
skyfaller: but it's not a chamber, gah
+
skyfaller: but it's not a chamber, gah
  
 
Differance: I think the core team should get a whole lotta power
 
Differance: I think the core team should get a whole lotta power
  
skyfaller: it's a different body
+
skyfaller: it's a different body
  
    price: so how is the core team defined?
+
price: so how is the core team defined?
  
    e-star: mllerustad: right
+
e-star: mllerustad: right
  
Fear_of_C: I think that the core team already has power, because it's the core team that implements everything
+
Fear_of_C: I think that the core team already has power, because it's the core team that implements everything
  
    e-star: i'm not saying it needs to be a chamber
+
e-star: i'm not saying it needs to be a chamber
  
skyfaller: that makes different decisions
+
skyfaller: that makes different decisions
  
Fear_of_C: but if we explicitly give a different type of power to the core team
+
Fear_of_C: but if we explicitly give a different type of power to the core team
  
skyfaller: e-star: understood, just saying :)
+
skyfaller: e-star: understood, just saying :)
  
 
gavinbaker: core -- call it a "chamber" if you want, i don't care. but it's not equivalent to the board, it's still bound to the board's decisions
 
gavinbaker: core -- call it a "chamber" if you want, i don't care. but it's not equivalent to the board, it's still bound to the board's decisions
  
Fear_of_C: we dilute what it is: it becomes both the volunteers' list, and the place for people who are interested in getting votes
+
Fear_of_C: we dilute what it is: it becomes both the volunteers' list, and the place for people who are interested in getting votes
  
 
gavinbaker: we don't want 2 equivalent chambers, that gets crazy
 
gavinbaker: we don't want 2 equivalent chambers, that gets crazy
  
  mecredis: 2 chambers is complicated
+
mecredis: 2 chambers is complicated
  
  mecredis: but 2 votes isn't
+
mecredis: but 2 votes isn't
  
  mecredis: how about this
+
mecredis: how about this
  
 
gavinbaker: not for an organization this size, it's too much
 
gavinbaker: not for an organization this size, it's too much
  
  mecredis: we have two seperate votes
+
mecredis: we have two seperate votes
  
  mecredis: one which is gross
+
mecredis: one which is gross
  
Fear_of_C: and what happens then is that people start joining core for purposes other than what was intended
+
Fear_of_C: and what happens then is that people start joining core for purposes other than what was intended
  
  mecredis: which is everyone who a chapter head can vote for
+
mecredis: which is everyone who a chapter head can vote for
  
 
gavinbaker: mecredis: i stand by my statement that the board should represent the chapters equally, otherwise you'll piss people off
 
gavinbaker: mecredis: i stand by my statement that the board should represent the chapters equally, otherwise you'll piss people off
  
    ktetch: Fear_of_C - then you modify the rules
+
ktetch: Fear_of_C - then you modify the rules
  
  mecredis: err, vouch for
+
mecredis: err, vouch for
  
skyfaller: no, no, 1 chapter 1 vote, b/c otherwise we have to fight over what constitutes a member
+
skyfaller: no, no, 1 chapter 1 vote, b/c otherwise we have to fight over what constitutes a member
  
 
gavinbaker: we can make the harvard d00dz happy but piss off everyone else
 
gavinbaker: we can make the harvard d00dz happy but piss off everyone else
  
    e-star: gavinbaker: but apparently even that is pissing people off
+
e-star: gavinbaker: but apparently even that is pissing people off
  
 
gavinbaker: as well as incur all sorts of logiistical issues
 
gavinbaker: as well as incur all sorts of logiistical issues
  
    e-star: gavinbaker: no comment
+
e-star: gavinbaker: no comment
  
Fear_of_C: ktech: that's what I think we should avoid
+
Fear_of_C: ktech: that's what I think we should avoid
  
    ktetch: why?
+
ktetch: why?
  
skyfaller: what if Swarthmore swears it has 300 members, b/c it has 300 people on its mailing list who show up at events sometimes
+
skyfaller: what if Swarthmore swears it has 300 members, b/c it has 300 people on its mailing list who show up at events sometimes
  
 
gavinbaker: i'd rather have 2 chapters that feel like they deserve more, and everybody else who is happy with the situation
 
gavinbaker: i'd rather have 2 chapters that feel like they deserve more, and everybody else who is happy with the situation
  
Fear_of_C: ktetch: we would be repurposing the core team
+
Fear_of_C: ktetch: we would be repurposing the core team
  
 
gavinbaker: than 2 chapters that have more, and everybody else resents them
 
gavinbaker: than 2 chapters that have more, and everybody else resents them
  
    price: mecredis: so what are these two votes for?
+
price: mecredis: so what are these two votes for?
  
  mecredis: basically
+
mecredis: basically
  
  mecredis: one is the big gross vote
+
mecredis: one is the big gross vote
  
    price: mecredis: ie, what's the difference between them?
+
price: mecredis: ie, what's the difference between them?
  
  mecredis: of everytone gives a shit
+
mecredis: of everytone gives a shit
  
  mecredis: who is in a chapter
+
mecredis: who is in a chapter
  
Fear_of_C: ktetch: which would mean that we'd probably end up making another team, to do what the core team was doing originally
+
Fear_of_C: ktetch: which would mean that we'd probably end up making another team, to do what the core team was doing originally
  
  mecredis: and the other is the 1:1
+
mecredis: and the other is the 1:1
  
    ktetch: you have a problem with how the rules interact with the running, you modify the rules. trying to micromanage the rules right now, without having implimentaed the most basic versioin, is foolhardy
+
ktetch: you have a problem with how the rules interact with the running, you modify the rules. trying to micromanage the rules right now, without having implimentaed the most basic versioin, is foolhardy
  
  mecredis: and we see how it falls out
+
mecredis: and we see how it falls out
  
  mecredis: if there's a huge discrepancy
+
mecredis: if there's a huge discrepancy
  
  mecredis: then we do a run off
+
mecredis: then we do a run off
  
  mecredis: of the people who didn't achieve any majority
+
mecredis: of the people who didn't achieve any majority
  
skyfaller: no, mecredis, b/c I don't think we can easily keep track of the number of members
+
skyfaller: no, mecredis, b/c I don't think we can easily keep track of the number of members
  
 
gavinbaker: the 6mo embargo for new ppl isn't accpetable to everyone??
 
gavinbaker: the 6mo embargo for new ppl isn't accpetable to everyone??
Line 4,141: Line 4,140:
 
gavinbaker: that's not enough?
 
gavinbaker: that's not enough?
  
    price: a runoff under which vote?
+
price: a runoff under which vote?
  
  mecredis: under the gross vote
+
mecredis: under the gross vote
  
    e-star: skyfaller: it could be whoever shows up to the voting mtg
+
e-star:skyfaller: it could be whoever shows up to the voting mtg
  
  mecredis: and then have the chapters vote for that
+
mecredis: and then have the chapters vote for that
  
skyfaller: there's no good way to count chapter members for voting purposes
+
skyfaller: there's no good way to count chapter members for voting purposes
  
  mecredis: skyfaller: then let it be sloppy
+
mecredis:skyfaller: then let it be sloppy
  
 
gavinbaker: we have to further "reward" the people who have been able to construct larger chapters (or at least 'promise' that they have more members, which nobody else can verify)?
 
gavinbaker: we have to further "reward" the people who have been able to construct larger chapters (or at least 'promise' that they have more members, which nobody else can verify)?
  
    e-star: skyfaller: student groups deal with that all the time
+
e-star:skyfaller: student groups deal with that all the time
  
            mllerustad flyers the campus, "Email this address and vote for This Dude, and I'll say you're a member!"
+
mllerustad flyers the campus, "Email this address and vote for This Dude, and I'll say you're a member!"
  
skyfaller: mecredis: what if Swarthmore swears it has 300 members, b/c it has 300 people on its mailing list who show up at events sometimes? What if they bring sock puppets to a proposed meeting?
+
skyfaller: mecredis: what if Swarthmore swears it has 300 members, b/c it has 300 people on its mailing list who show up at events sometimes?What if they bring sock puppets to a proposed meeting?
  
 
gavinbaker: this shouldn't be a reward. activism should be its own reward
 
gavinbaker: this shouldn't be a reward. activism should be its own reward
  
Fear_of_C: e-star: that means it's a logistical question as to who gets to vote
+
Fear_of_C: e-star: that means it's a logistical question as to who gets to vote
  
  mecredis: skyfaller: the point is to have two votes
+
mecredis:skyfaller: the point is to have two votes
  
    e-star: gavinbaker: let's not make this a fight btw big and small please
+
e-star: gavinbaker: let's not make this a fight btw big and small please
  
 
gavinbaker: e-star: we've already made it that fight
 
gavinbaker: e-star: we've already made it that fight
  
  mecredis: and have the 1 chapter per vote vote count as a equalizer
+
mecredis: and have the 1 chapter per vote vote count as a equalizer
  
    e-star: mllerustad: you too, thanks
+
e-star: mllerustad: you too, thanks
  
Fear_of_C: we are already dealing with the federalist question
+
Fear_of_C: we are already dealing with the federalist question
  
 
mllerustad: e-star: But it is.
 
mllerustad: e-star: But it is.
  
    ktetch: it's clear its getting nowehere right now - table it and move on, and come back to it
+
ktetch: it's clear its getting nowehere right now - table it and move on, and come back to it
  
 
mllerustad: It's politics.
 
mllerustad: It's politics.
  
    price: mecredis: and then have the chapters vote for that?
+
price: mecredis: and then have the chapters vote for that?
  
 
mllerustad: I don't think you can pretend otherwise.
 
mllerustad: I don't think you can pretend otherwise.
Line 4,191: Line 4,190:
 
mllerustad: So let's fix it.
 
mllerustad: So let's fix it.
  
Fear_of_C: e-start: mllerustad is right
+
Fear_of_C: e-start: mllerustad is right
  
Fear_of_C: e-star: typo
+
Fear_of_C: e-star: typo
  
 
gavinbaker: but i'd rather solve this and move on
 
gavinbaker: but i'd rather solve this and move on
  
    e-star: like i said, i was trying to find a solution that could please both
+
e-star: like i said, i was trying to find a solution that could please both
  
 
Differance: I actually don't think folks should get all uppity about democratizing everything.
 
Differance: I actually don't think folks should get all uppity about democratizing everything.
  
    e-star: heh
+
e-star: heh
  
    e-star: right now, the solution favors smaller chapters, no doubt
+
e-star: right now, the solution favors smaller chapters, no doubt
  
skyfaller: I think that the purpose of the national org is to help the chapters. Big chapters don't need as much help. Therefore they shouldn't get extra votes which would allow them to vote down positive proposals.
+
skyfaller: I think that the purpose of the national org is to help the chapters.Big chapters don't need as much help.Therefore they shouldn't get extra votes which would allow them to vote down positive proposals.
  
  mecredis: e-star: I think everyone agrees with that
+
mecredis: e-star: I think everyone agrees with that
  
 
gavinbaker: it sounds like everybody who's not from harvard or NYU is ok with "PROPOSED: 1:1 + 6mo embargo"
 
gavinbaker: it sounds like everybody who's not from harvard or NYU is ok with "PROPOSED: 1:1 + 6mo embargo"
  
    ktetch: gavinbaker - everyone seems a little worked up, move on, deal with other issues, let people have time to think and absorb, and come back to it at the end
+
ktetch: gavinbaker - everyone seems a little worked up, move on, deal with other issues, let people have time to think and absorb, and come back to it at the end
  
    e-star: price: ideas?
+
e-star:price: ideas?
  
 
gavinbaker: is that right? and if so, what can we do to resolve the concerns of people who don't like it?
 
gavinbaker: is that right? and if so, what can we do to resolve the concerns of people who don't like it?
  
    e-star: skyfaller: no, i don't agree
+
e-star:skyfaller: no, i don't agree
  
  poningru: its funny that gavinbaker comes from one of the largest uni's and e-star from one of the not so large uni's
+
poningru: its funny that gavinbaker comes from one of the largest uni's and e-star from one of the not so large uni's
  
 
Differance: The reason why we have a senate is because the states are supposed to have policymaking power
 
Differance: The reason why we have a senate is because the states are supposed to have policymaking power
  
  mecredis: skyfaller: I really disagree
+
mecredis:skyfaller: I really disagree
  
    e-star: skyfaller: i think the purpose of the org is to represent the chapters
+
e-star:skyfaller: i think the purpose of the org is to represent the chapters
  
    e-star: and coordinate btw them etc
+
e-star: and coordinate btw them etc
  
 
Differance: The states originally appointed Senators
 
Differance: The states originally appointed Senators
  
            gavinbaker checks the size of his mailing list ;)
+
gavinbaker checks the size of his mailing list ;)
  
    price: e-star: well, mecredis' idea is interesting, in part because it lets us see what difference the voting method makes
+
price: e-star: well, mecredis' idea is interesting, in part because it lets us see what difference the voting method makes
  
 
Differance: It makes sense
 
Differance: It makes sense
  
  mecredis: price: thank you
+
mecredis:price: thank you
  
 
Differance: But I don't see the importance of voting right now
 
Differance: But I don't see the importance of voting right now
Line 4,243: Line 4,242:
 
Differance: It's just web site and swag
 
Differance: It's just web site and swag
  
    price: but I'm not sure how to make it work as a voting method that decides things
+
price: but I'm not sure how to make it work as a voting method that decides things
  
skyfaller: I think it's seriously bad to try to calculate membership numbers
+
skyfaller: I think it's seriously bad to try to calculate membership numbers
  
skyfaller: and assign votes to them
+
skyfaller: and assign votes to them
  
Fear_of_C: e-star: define "favors"; are we assuming that all small chapters have common interest, that is opposed to that of large chapters?
+
Fear_of_C: e-star: define "favors"; are we assuming that all small chapters have common interest, that is opposed to that of large chapters?
  
 
mllerustad: Differance: Until we have money. :/
 
mllerustad: Differance: Until we have money. :/
  
    price: e.g., what's "a huge discrepancy"?
+
price: e.g., what's "a huge discrepancy"?
  
 
gavinbaker: skyfaller++ | huge logistical issue
 
gavinbaker: skyfaller++ | huge logistical issue
  
    price: skyfaller: there's no calculating membership numbers
+
price:skyfaller: there's no calculating membership numbers
  
  mecredis: right
+
mecredis: right
  
    price: skyfaller: because people are voting
+
price:skyfaller: because people are voting
  
  mecredis: basically no one is going to bother
+
mecredis: basically no one is going to bother
  
    price: that's the point
+
price: that's the point
  
    e-star: skyfaller: student orgs deal w/ elections all the time
+
e-star:skyfaller: student orgs deal w/ elections all the time
  
  mecredis: and hassling for ballot stuffing
+
mecredis: and hassling for ballot stuffing
  
  mecredis: is not going to happen
+
mecredis: is not going to happen
  
skyfaller: why not? politics happens, people fight
+
skyfaller: why not?politics happens, people fight
  
skyfaller: and sock puppets happen
+
skyfaller: and sock puppets happen
  
 
*** K`Tetch (n=ktetch@adsl-074-166-105-206.sip.asm.bellsouth.net) has joined channel #freeculture
 
*** K`Tetch (n=ktetch@adsl-074-166-105-206.sip.asm.bellsouth.net) has joined channel #freeculture
Line 4,281: Line 4,280:
 
gavinbaker: can anyone show me an example of another student chapter-based organization that has a voting method other than "1 chapter 1 vote"?
 
gavinbaker: can anyone show me an example of another student chapter-based organization that has a voting method other than "1 chapter 1 vote"?
  
    e-star: i was involved in one
+
e-star: i was involved in one
  
  mecredis: gavinbaker: can someone show me that method?
+
mecredis: gavinbaker: can someone show me that method?
  
    e-star: that let members vote
+
e-star: that let members vote
  
    e-star: heh
+
e-star: heh
  
 
gavinbaker: e-star: name?
 
gavinbaker: e-star: name?
Line 4,295: Line 4,294:
 
gavinbaker: mecredis: isn't this how AMSA votes?
 
gavinbaker: mecredis: isn't this how AMSA votes?
  
    e-star: gavinbaker: students for a free tibet
+
e-star: gavinbaker: students for a free tibet
  
 
mllerustad: (the student part of Genocide Intervention network)
 
mllerustad: (the student part of Genocide Intervention network)
  
  mecredis: can I get links?
+
mecredis: can I get links?
  
    e-star: gavinbaker: individuals voted for the board
+
e-star: gavinbaker: individuals voted for the board
  
    e-star: also
+
e-star: also
  
    e-star: wikimedia
+
e-star: wikimedia
  
 
mllerustad: http://www.standnow.org/
 
mllerustad: http://www.standnow.org/
Line 4,311: Line 4,310:
 
gavinbaker: e-star: wikimedia isn't a student org? and barely has chapters even?
 
gavinbaker: e-star: wikimedia isn't a student org? and barely has chapters even?
  
  mecredis: wikimedia is based on trust
+
mecredis: wikimedia is based on trust
  
    e-star: individuals vote for the board
+
e-star: individuals vote for the board
  
skyfaller: OK, if we're going to have members vote, then there have to be human members of the national org
+
skyfaller: OK, if we're going to have members vote, then there have to be human members of the national org
  
  K`Tetch: of how much immediate concern is the voting? is there anything right now to vote on?
+
K`Tetch: of how much immediate concern is the voting? is there anything right now to vote on?
  
    e-star: they need more than 1000 edits or so
+
e-star: they need more than 1000 edits or so
  
  mecredis: K`Tetch: the board
+
mecredis: K`Tetch: the board
  
 
gavinbaker: everybody read skyfaller's comment
 
gavinbaker: everybody read skyfaller's comment
  
    e-star: i like fred's idea
+
e-star: i like fred's idea
  
  mecredis: e-star: thanks
+
mecredis: e-star: thanks
  
  mecredis: I'm also curious to see how it goes
+
mecredis: I'm also curious to see how it goes
  
    e-star: but i agree that it's hard how to resolve a difference
+
e-star: but i agree that it's hard how to resolve a difference
  
 
Differance: I'd rather have a field commander -- this is not throwing off the yoke of the Crown
 
Differance: I'd rather have a field commander -- this is not throwing off the yoke of the Crown
  
Fear_of_C: K`Tetch: once this gets ratified, there is going to be an election for board member, I think
+
Fear_of_C: K`Tetch: once this gets ratified, there is going to be an election for board member, I think
  
    e-star: i'm also afraid that a chapter president of a large chapter
+
e-star: i'm also afraid that a chapter president of a large chapter
  
 
gavinbaker: individual-based voting is untenable unless the Org has individual-based membership
 
gavinbaker: individual-based voting is untenable unless the Org has individual-based membership
  
    e-star: could ignore the opinions of the chapter
+
e-star: could ignore the opinions of the chapter
  
 
Differance: It's an organization that want to do things
 
Differance: It's an organization that want to do things
  
  mecredis: e-star: exactly
+
mecredis: e-star: exactly
  
skyfaller: I'm sorry, i don't like the idea of "whoever shows up gets to vote"... that is actually how the Core team works, but that's different b/c it's not simply a vote
+
skyfaller: I'm sorry, i don't like the idea of "whoever shows up gets to vote"... that is actually how the Core team works, but that's different b/c it's not simply a vote
  
    e-star: or any chapter
+
e-star: or any chapter
  
    e-star: not just large
+
e-star: not just large
  
    e-star: and just vote for what s/he wants
+
e-star: and just vote for what s/he wants
  
skyfaller: the *proposed* Core team
+
skyfaller: the *proposed* Core team
  
 
gavinbaker: e-star: that's right! it's up to each chapter to decide how to do it
 
gavinbaker: e-star: that's right! it's up to each chapter to decide how to do it
  
    e-star: i don't like that
+
e-star: i don't like that
  
  mecredis: gavinbaker: what if they're all hobos?
+
mecredis: gavinbaker: what if they're all hobos?
  
 
mllerustad: e-star: And their other members will machine-gun them.
 
mllerustad: e-star: And their other members will machine-gun them.
Line 4,367: Line 4,366:
 
gavinbaker: e-star: the chapter's vote doesn't have to represent the whole chapter
 
gavinbaker: e-star: the chapter's vote doesn't have to represent the whole chapter
  
Fear_of_C: gavinbaker: I think we have to change that
+
Fear_of_C: gavinbaker: I think we have to change that
  
 
mllerustad: And they will no longer be prez.
 
mllerustad: And they will no longer be prez.
  
    e-star: gavinbaker: i disagree w/ that then
+
e-star: gavinbaker: i disagree w/ that then
  
 
gavinbaker: mecredis: in this case, the hobos get ignored
 
gavinbaker: mecredis: in this case, the hobos get ignored
  
Fear_of_C: we need some standard for how chapters select their vote
+
Fear_of_C: we need some standard for how chapters select their vote
  
  mecredis: gavinbaker: by who?
+
mecredis: gavinbaker: by who?
  
 
gavinbaker: e-star: the chapters decide on their own how to vote
 
gavinbaker: e-star: the chapters decide on their own how to vote
Line 4,383: Line 4,382:
 
gavinbaker: mecredis: the hobos get ignored by chapter prez
 
gavinbaker: mecredis: the hobos get ignored by chapter prez
  
Fear_of_C: because we don't want founder to be dictators-for-life, as I mentioned earlier
+
Fear_of_C: because we don't want founder to be dictators-for-life, as I mentioned earlier
  
 
gavinbaker: who votes however s/he wants
 
gavinbaker: who votes however s/he wants
  
  mecredis: gavinbaker: but what if the chapter prez doesn't ignore them?
+
mecredis: gavinbaker: but what if the chapter prez doesn't ignore them?
  
gavinbaker: Fear_of_C: that's why each chapter has elections?
+
gavinbaker:Fear_of_C: that's why each chapter has elections?
  
  poningru: so here's a thought
+
poningru: so here's a thought
  
 
gavinbaker: mecredis: then that's the chapter prez's decision, if that's how the chapter decided how to vote
 
gavinbaker: mecredis: then that's the chapter prez's decision, if that's how the chapter decided how to vote
Line 4,397: Line 4,396:
 
mllerustad: I mean, each chapter doesn't HAVE to be a dictatorship.
 
mllerustad: I mean, each chapter doesn't HAVE to be a dictatorship.
  
    e-star: well we could stipulate that voting must be representative of chapter members' opinions
+
e-star: well we could stipulate that voting must be representative of chapter members' opinions
  
  mecredis: e.g., listens to them
+
mecredis: e.g., listens to them
  
    e-star: etc
+
e-star: etc
  
Fear_of_C: gavinbaker: what I am saying is we have to specify what is a legitimate chapter election
+
Fear_of_C: gavinbaker: what I am saying is we have to specify what is a legitimate chapter election
  
 
mllerustad: They can choose to vote. They can choose a consensus. They can choose to not care.
 
mllerustad: They can choose to vote. They can choose a consensus. They can choose to not care.
  
gavinbaker: Fear_of_C: err that's hard
+
gavinbaker:Fear_of_C: err that's hard
  
  poningru: the national org keeps a human members list
+
poningru: the national org keeps a human members list
  
 
mllerustad: We can't control how individual chapters operate.
 
mllerustad: We can't control how individual chapters operate.
  
Fear_of_C: I may have missed that, but it didn't seem to be in the bylawy
+
Fear_of_C: I may have missed that, but it didn't seem to be in the bylawy
  
 
Differance: Founders are usually dictators for life in some strong sense
 
Differance: Founders are usually dictators for life in some strong sense
  
Fear_of_C: *bylaws
+
Fear_of_C: *bylaws
  
 
gavinbaker: can we just flip a coin to decide who gets to sit on the board? i seriously don't care at this point.
 
gavinbaker: can we just flip a coin to decide who gets to sit on the board? i seriously don't care at this point.
  
  poningru: whoever works on the national stuff becomes a national member
+
poningru: whoever works on the national stuff becomes a national member
  
 
Differance: This is not the American revolution, throwing off the crown
 
Differance: This is not the American revolution, throwing off the crown
  
skyfaller: Fear_of_C: I agree, some standards for how people may run their chapters might be worth having
+
skyfaller:Fear_of_C: I agree, some standards for how people may run their chapters might be worth having
  
            poningru throws off skyfaller  
+
poningru throws off skyfaller  
  
  K`Tetch: mllerustad - you can't, but you can specify a minimum level, such as the ability for the membership to remove the chapter head, and maybe elections for the chapter heads
+
K`Tetch: mllerustad - you can't, but you can specify a minimum level, such as the ability for the membership to remove the chapter head, and maybe elections for the chapter heads
  
skyfaller: those standards should definitely be minimal
+
skyfaller: those standards should definitely be minimal
  
  poningru: the dictator is DEAD
+
poningru: the dictator is DEAD
  
    e-star: also i'd like to bring up the issue of NUMBER of board members
+
e-star: also i'd like to bring up the issue of NUMBER of board members
  
gavinbaker: skyfaller: super hard to define that...
+
gavinbaker:skyfaller: super hard to define that...
  
    price: gavinbaker: seriously? let's take mecredis' suggestion then
+
price: gavinbaker: seriously?let's take mecredis' suggestion then
  
  mecredis: yeah
+
mecredis: yeah
  
  mecredis: if gavinbaker doesn't care
+
mecredis: if gavinbaker doesn't care
  
  mecredis: let's do a dual vote
+
mecredis: let's do a dual vote
  
 
mllerustad: e-star: We'll get to it. I hope to God.
 
mllerustad: e-star: We'll get to it. I hope to God.
Line 4,453: Line 4,452:
 
gavinbaker: will have to clean up the mess
 
gavinbaker: will have to clean up the mess
  
skyfaller: I do care, I think a dual vote is a horrible idea
+
skyfaller: I do care, I think a dual vote is a horrible idea
  
 
gavinbaker: in the future
 
gavinbaker: in the future
  
Fear_of_C: gavinbaker: I care
+
Fear_of_C: gavinbaker: I care
  
 
gavinbaker: i still think it's dumb
 
gavinbaker: i still think it's dumb
Line 4,463: Line 4,462:
 
mllerustad: I also care, quite a bit.
 
mllerustad: I also care, quite a bit.
  
  mecredis: skyfaller: are you afraid of ballet stuffing?
+
mecredis:skyfaller: are you afraid of ballet stuffing?
  
Fear_of_C: because I'm the one who's gonna clean up in 2 years
+
Fear_of_C: because I'm the one who's gonna clean up in 2 years
  
 
Differance: I bet this discussion would be a whole lot more substantive if you had started with Duties and Powers
 
Differance: I bet this discussion would be a whole lot more substantive if you had started with Duties and Powers
  
skyfaller: a dual vote screams schism to me
+
skyfaller:a dual vote screams schism to me
  
 
gavinbaker: but i'm fine with letting us screw this up for now
 
gavinbaker: but i'm fine with letting us screw this up for now
  
  mecredis: Differance: you surely kid
+
mecredis: Differance: you surely kid
  
 
Differance: I LOVE ballet stuffing
 
Differance: I LOVE ballet stuffing
  
skyfaller: b/c then you could have two different boards
+
skyfaller: b/c then you could have two different boards
  
skyfaller: and then the project forks?
+
skyfaller: and then the project forks?
  
 
mllerustad: And then the pope flees to Avignon!
 
mllerustad: And then the pope flees to Avignon!
  
skyfaller: what happens if the two votes don't agree?
+
skyfaller: what happens if the two votes don't agree?
  
  mecredis: then we do a primary like run off
+
mecredis: then we do a primary like run off
  
 
Differance: No, the real issues would be discussed amicably
 
Differance: No, the real issues would be discussed amicably
  
    e-star: well
+
e-star: well
  
  mecredis: we take the top 4 nominees
+
mecredis: we take the top 4 nominees
  
skyfaller: the only way that the two votes would agree is if the election is uncontested, IMHO
+
skyfaller: the only way that the two votes would agree is if the election is uncontested, IMHO
  
  mecredis: and then do the 1 chapter per vote
+
mecredis: and then do the 1 chapter per vote
  
    e-star: we could determine the results by using the dual vote 50/50
+
e-star: we could determine the results by using the dual vote 50/50
  
  mecredis: on those
+
mecredis: on those
  
    e-star: somehow
+
e-star: somehow
  
  mecredis: e-star: that works too
+
mecredis: e-star: that works too
  
 
Differance: membership conditions and representation are pernicious
 
Differance: membership conditions and representation are pernicious
Line 4,511: Line 4,510:
 
mllerustad: e-star: There's an odd member of board members.
 
mllerustad: e-star: There's an odd member of board members.
  
skyfaller: no, you can't have members that don't exist vote
+
skyfaller: no, you can't have members that don't exist vote
  
 
gavinbaker: i like how all these proposals involve extra layers of burueacuracy/procedure for no gain to anybody other than a very small group of 'large chapters'
 
gavinbaker: i like how all these proposals involve extra layers of burueacuracy/procedure for no gain to anybody other than a very small group of 'large chapters'
  
mllerustad: c/member/number
+
mllerustad:c/member/number
  
    price: This may be something worth taking offline
+
price: This may be something worth taking offline
  
 
Differance: get of like mind there first
 
Differance: get of like mind there first
  
  mecredis: skyfaller: you still haven't accounted for how the 1:1 vote penalizes the large chapters
+
mecredis:skyfaller: you still haven't accounted for how the 1:1 vote penalizes the large chapters
  
skyfaller: if the Org does not have human members, human members can't vote
+
skyfaller: if the Org does not have human members, human members can't vote
  
    price: mecredis writes up a specific proposal
+
price: mecredis writes up a specific proposal
  
    e-star: mllerustad: i know that, but we need a way to determine the number
+
e-star: mllerustad: i know that, but we need a way to determine the number
  
    e-star: mllerustad: otherwise we'll have an election and not know how many to elect
+
e-star: mllerustad: otherwise we'll have an election and not know how many to elect
  
skyfaller: mecredis: no, it just doesn't do them extra favors.  
+
skyfaller: mecredis: no, it just doesn't do them extra favors.  
  
  K`Tetch: mecredis - why does it?
+
K`Tetch: mecredis - why does it?
  
 
mllerustad: e-star: I have a proposed change, we'll get to it.
 
mllerustad: e-star: I have a proposed change, we'll get to it.
  
    e-star: mllerustad: okay
+
e-star: mllerustad: okay
  
skyfaller: not giving someone extra votes is not the same as penalizing them
+
skyfaller: not giving someone extra votes is not the same as penalizing them
  
  mecredis: K`Tetch: chapter A has 5 active member and chapter B has 50 active mebers
+
mecredis: K`Tetch: chapter A has 5 active member and chapter B has 50 active mebers
  
    price: skyfaller: do you have thoughts and ideas and rights, or does your chapter?
+
price:skyfaller: do you have thoughts and ideas and rights, or does your chapter?
  
  mecredis: and of those  
+
mecredis: and of those  
  
    price: skyfaller: I think people do.
+
price:skyfaller: I think people do.
  
  mecredis: err, of chapter A has two nationally active members
+
mecredis: err, of chapter A has two nationally active members
  
  mecredis: for instance
+
mecredis: for instance
  
  mecredis: but chapter B has 10 nationally active membres
+
mecredis: but chapter B has 10 nationally active membres
  
mllerustad: price: *God Bless America plays in the background*
+
mllerustad:price: *God Bless America plays in the background*
  
 
Differance: mecredis: I was talking about ballet stuffing not ballot stuffing :-)
 
Differance: mecredis: I was talking about ballet stuffing not ballot stuffing :-)
  
skyfaller: the problem is that not all members are created equal :)
+
skyfaller: the problem is that not all members are created equal :)
  
    price: mllerustad: thanks
+
price: mllerustad: thanks
  
Fear_of_C: peabo'
+
Fear_of_C: peabo'
  
  mecredis: that means that the votes of Chapter B's members are literally less valuable
+
mecredis: that means that the votes of Chapter B's members are literally less valuable
  
  K`Tetch: mecredis - what if chapter A had 7 nationally active members, and B had 3?
+
K`Tetch: mecredis - what if chapter A had 7 nationally active members, and B had 3?
  
  mecredis: than the votes of Chapter A's members
+
mecredis: than the votes of Chapter A's members
  
  mecredis: K`Tetch: the point is that it discriminates right off the bat
+
mecredis: K`Tetch: the point is that it discriminates right off the bat
  
skyfaller: unless we establish human membership in the Org, we don't have standards for what humans can vote
+
skyfaller: unless we establish human membership in the Org, we don't have standards for what humans can vote
  
skyfaller: so if people want to let individuals vote, then we have to define those individuals
+
skyfaller: so if people want to let individuals vote, then we have to define those individuals
  
skyfaller: it can no longer be left up to the chapters
+
skyfaller: it can no longer be left up to the chapters
  
  mecredis: skyfaller: good point
+
mecredis:skyfaller: good point
  
 
mllerustad: mecredis: Isn't that corrected by the Core Team thing? They get more say in the day-to-day decision sof the org, even if not in Board stuff.
 
mllerustad: mecredis: Isn't that corrected by the Core Team thing? They get more say in the day-to-day decision sof the org, even if not in Board stuff.
  
Fear_of_C: that logarithm thing is sounding real nice right now ;)
+
Fear_of_C: that logarithm thing is sounding real nice right now ;)
  
    e-star: skyfaller: i don't mind establishing human membership, esp. for those that don't have chapters
+
e-star:skyfaller: i don't mind establishing human membership, esp. for those that don't have chapters
  
 
*** Signoff: tannewt ("Leaving")
 
*** Signoff: tannewt ("Leaving")
  
skyfaller: this sounds like an administrative nightmare to me, but if people think it's worth it, then we can do it
+
skyfaller: this sounds like an administrative nightmare to me, but if people think it's worth it, then we can do it
  
 
*** Signoff: Deaner_ ()
 
*** Signoff: Deaner_ ()
Line 4,595: Line 4,594:
 
*** brain|food is now known as mind|distracted
 
*** brain|food is now known as mind|distracted
  
  mecredis: skyfaller: I do think it is worth it
+
mecredis:skyfaller: I do think it is worth it
  
  mecredis: but how about this
+
mecredis: but how about this
  
  K`Tetch: a chapter is a chapter, you can either look at it as a chapter pespective, or a person perspective, you can't use a chapter pespective but with a person element
+
K`Tetch: a chapter is a chapter, you can either look at it as a chapter pespective, or a person perspective, you can't use a chapter pespective but with a person element
  
Fear_of_C: establishing human membership is possible, but understand that then we are no longer a chapter confederacy
+
Fear_of_C: establishing human membership is possible, but understand that then we are no longer a chapter confederacy
  
mllerustad: skyfaller: If other people are willing to work on it *cough*, we can do it.
+
mllerustad:skyfaller: If other people are willing to work on it *cough*, we can do it.
  
  K`Tetch: which is whta you're doing mecredis
+
K`Tetch: which is whta you're doing mecredis
  
Fear_of_C: we are an organization of individuals in its own right
+
Fear_of_C: we are an organization of individuals in its own right
  
skyfaller: yeah, we do have to decide whether we're a confederacy of chapters or an org of individuals
+
skyfaller: yeah, we do have to decide whether we're a confederacy of chapters or an org of individuals
  
  mecredis: K`Tetch: which is why I'm suggesting a dual vote
+
mecredis: K`Tetch: which is why I'm suggesting a dual vote
  
    price: fear_of_c: that's what article II already says
+
price:Fear_of_C: that's what article II already says
  
  K`Tetch: because the 50-person chapter will have 50 different ways fof doing things anyway
+
K`Tetch: because the 50-person chapter will have 50 different ways fof doing things anyway
  
skyfaller: mecredis: no, but in order to have the second part of your vote, we have to have individual members who can vote
+
skyfaller: mecredis: no, but in order to have the second part of your vote, we have to have individual members who can vote
  
    price: "The Organization is a diverse, non-partisan group of students and young people" etc
+
price: "The Organization is a diverse, non-partisan group of students and young people" etc
  
Fear_of_C: if we are the latter, then I think we have to consider non-chapter members, and define what they are
+
Fear_of_C: if we are the latter, then I think we have to consider non-chapter members, and define what they are
  
  mecredis: skyfaller: right which is why we ask them to be honest
+
mecredis:skyfaller: right which is why we ask them to be honest
  
  K`Tetch: asking for honesty never gets it
+
K`Tetch: asking for honesty never gets it
  
skyfaller: mecredis: but we have to establish human membership, in the bylaws, and figure out what the standards for human membership are
+
skyfaller: mecredis: but we have to establish human membership, in the bylaws, and figure out what the standards for human membership are
  
  K`Tetch: no-one is honest even to themselves
+
K`Tetch: no-one is honest even to themselves
  
    peabo: Fear_of_C: I based it on enrollment in the school because of the notion of who is eligible to be a member of the chapter ... but people are more interested in actual contributing members
+
peabo:Fear_of_C: I based it on enrollment in the school because of the notion of who is eligible to be a member of the chapter ... but people are more interested in actual contributing members
  
  mecredis: K`Tetch: I'm not sure where you come up with that
+
mecredis: K`Tetch: I'm not sure where you come up with that
  
Fear_of_C: mecredis: nothing works when you ask people to be honest, because even if they are, then there is still doubt
+
Fear_of_C: mecredis: nothing works when you ask people to be honest, because even if they are, then there is still doubt
  
Fear_of_C: or at least room for doubt
+
Fear_of_C: or at least room for doubt
  
  mecredis: which is why its a dual vote
+
mecredis: which is why its a dual vote
  
  K`Tetch: exactly
+
K`Tetch: exactly
  
skyfaller: mecredis: before we can have humans vote, humans must be in our bylaws
+
skyfaller: mecredis: before we can have humans vote, humans must be in our bylaws
  
  mecredis: and is checked by the 1:1 vote
+
mecredis: and is checked by the 1:1 vote
  
 
Differance: I think more important is how you're going to assign executive power
 
Differance: I think more important is how you're going to assign executive power
  
  mecredis: skyfaller: they are
+
mecredis:skyfaller: they are
  
 
gavinbaker: i'm seriously PROPOSing that we flip a coin. and we'll either do mecredis's system or 1+1 after 6mo
 
gavinbaker: i'm seriously PROPOSing that we flip a coin. and we'll either do mecredis's system or 1+1 after 6mo
  
  mecredis: see price's comment
+
mecredis: see price's comment
  
 
gavinbaker: i don't think we'll reach consensus on this
 
gavinbaker: i don't think we'll reach consensus on this
Line 4,669: Line 4,668:
 
gavinbaker: to flip it
 
gavinbaker: to flip it
  
  mecredis: Differance: agreed
+
mecredis: Differance: agreed
  
 
Differance: Just start there
 
Differance: Just start there
  
    e-star: guys
+
e-star: guys
  
    e-star: right now
+
e-star: right now
  
 
gavinbaker: i just want to decide and now on
 
gavinbaker: i just want to decide and now on
  
    e-star: we're allowing one chapter / one vote to ratify the bylaws
+
e-star: we're allowing one chapter / one vote to ratify the bylaws
  
    e-star: yes?
+
e-star: yes?
  
 
mllerustad: gavinbaker: This is something I will vote against the bylaws based on.
 
mllerustad: gavinbaker: This is something I will vote against the bylaws based on.
  
  K`Tetch: gavinbaker - exactly what i said some 30 mins ago, set a basic, if somewhat flawed system, see how it works, if it needs adjustment, adjust it after you've seen how the basic system works in practice
+
K`Tetch: gavinbaker - exactly what i said some 30 mins ago, set a basic, if somewhat flawed system, see how it works, if it needs adjustment, adjust it after you've seen how the basic system works in practice
  
 
gavinbaker: e-star: it depends what we write into the bylaws
 
gavinbaker: e-star: it depends what we write into the bylaws
  
    e-star: well i'm fine w/ that much
+
e-star: well i'm fine w/ that much
  
    e-star: but do chapters have to ratify changes?
+
e-star: but do chapters have to ratify changes?
  
    e-star: mllerustad: this is something other chapters will too
+
e-star: mllerustad: this is something other chapters will too
  
 
gavinbaker: e-star: actually, not in the current draft, but in proposed change on talk page
 
gavinbaker: e-star: actually, not in the current draft, but in proposed change on talk page
  
    e-star: mllerustad: so i agree it's good to find a consensus
+
e-star: mllerustad: so i agree it's good to find a consensus
  
 
mllerustad: Both because I think struggling chapters need the most assistance and have the most at stake, and because realistically I'm one of the ones whose going to be stuck with the responsibility for coding/organizing/etc two levels of bureaucracy.
 
mllerustad: Both because I think struggling chapters need the most assistance and have the most at stake, and because realistically I'm one of the ones whose going to be stuck with the responsibility for coding/organizing/etc two levels of bureaucracy.
Line 4,705: Line 4,704:
 
mllerustad: mecredis: Would you like to run this election? e-star?
 
mllerustad: mecredis: Would you like to run this election? e-star?
  
  K`Tetch: right now, these detailed systems are all based on what-ifs, and theories and so on. The solutions proposed to deal with it would work for those conditions, but are those conditions going to happen - who knows
+
K`Tetch: right now, these detailed systems are all based on what-ifs, and theories and so on. The solutions proposed to deal with it would work for those conditions, but are those conditions going to happen - who knows
  
  K`Tetch: make the most basic system, and make it adaptable
+
K`Tetch: make the most basic system, and make it adaptable
  
 
mllerustad: Want to call each chapter and ask them how many members they have?
 
mllerustad: Want to call each chapter and ask them how many members they have?
Line 4,713: Line 4,712:
 
mllerustad: Etc?
 
mllerustad: Etc?
  
    e-star: mllerustad: i don't think either of us should
+
e-star: mllerustad: i don't think either of us should
  
 
*** Deaner (n=Deaner@12.178.120.187) has joined channel #freeculture
 
*** Deaner (n=Deaner@12.178.120.187) has joined channel #freeculture
  
    e-star: mllerustad: we'll need to find a rather impartial party
+
e-star: mllerustad: we'll need to find a rather impartial party
  
skyfaller: the problem is that if each chapter defines its members differently, then they can't vote together in a national election
+
skyfaller: the problem is that if each chapter defines its members differently, then they can't vote together in a national election
  
Fear_of_C: K`Tetch: we are talking about how the rules are set; get that seriously wrong, and it propogates
+
Fear_of_C: K`Tetch: we are talking about how the rules are set; get that seriously wrong, and it propogates
  
 
Differance: STRONG RECOMMENDATION
 
Differance: STRONG RECOMMENDATION
  
  K`Tetch: well, I aint a member, don't believe I can even be a member, even if there was a chapter nearby - how impartial is impartial
+
K`Tetch: well, I aint a member, don't believe I can even be a member, even if there was a chapter nearby - how impartial is impartial
  
 
gavinbaker: the quarter is here. i'll flip it as soon as anyone says to
 
gavinbaker: the quarter is here. i'll flip it as soon as anyone says to
Line 4,731: Line 4,730:
 
Differance: You folks should defer the representation and membership conditions
 
Differance: You folks should defer the representation and membership conditions
  
  K`Tetch: Fear_of_C - depends if you have a strong system in place to correct that
+
K`Tetch: Fear_of_C - depends if you have a strong system in place to correct that
  
 
Differance: And address first: the organizational powers
 
Differance: And address first: the organizational powers
Line 4,737: Line 4,736:
 
Differance: Once you hammer that out
 
Differance: Once you hammer that out
  
skyfaller: folks, this is an important question we can't skip, unfortunately... we're deciding what the boundaries of the org are, basically... who is a member?
+
skyfaller: folks, this is an important question we can't skip, unfortunately... we're deciding what the boundaries of the org are, basically... who is a member?
  
Fear_of_C: K`Tetch: are we not designing that system right now? maybe not directly, but deciding who votes will definitely affect it
+
Fear_of_C: K`Tetch: are we not designing that system right now?maybe not directly, but deciding who votes will definitely affect it
  
 
Differance: You will then be able to have a proper debate
 
Differance: You will then be able to have a proper debate
  
  K`Tetch: but basing the fine details on a system on a bunch of what-ifs is worse than just doing a basic system for a temp period, and seeing how it works out, because life is nothing if not unpredictable
+
K`Tetch: but basing the fine details on a system on a bunch of what-ifs is worse than just doing a basic system for a temp period, and seeing how it works out, because life is nothing if not unpredictable
  
skyfaller: we're deciding what the org *is* by deciding who it represents
+
skyfaller: we're deciding what the org *is* by deciding who it represents
  
 
Differance: and recognize that representation and membership conditions are inherently intractable
 
Differance: and recognize that representation and membership conditions are inherently intractable
Line 4,751: Line 4,750:
 
Differance: ah well, nobody listening
 
Differance: ah well, nobody listening
  
  mecredis: Differance does has a good point here
+
mecredis: Differance does has a good point here
  
  mecredis: basically
+
mecredis: basically
  
  mecredis: what happens if a chapter bucks the board
+
mecredis: what happens if a chapter bucks the board
  
 
gavinbaker: Differance: thanks for repeating this for the past several hours, but we've all read it and know what it says. the board's powers are not really what anyone objects to (oddly), it's how the board is chosen
 
gavinbaker: Differance: thanks for repeating this for the past several hours, but we've all read it and know what it says. the board's powers are not really what anyone objects to (oddly), it's how the board is chosen
  
    peabo: I agree with K`Tetch: one chapter one vote has the great advantage of simplicity
+
peabo: I agree with K`Tetch: one chapter one vote has the great advantage of simplicity
  
 
gavinbaker: mecredis: how would a chapter "buck" the board? what authority does the board have over the chapter?
 
gavinbaker: mecredis: how would a chapter "buck" the board? what authority does the board have over the chapter?
  
  mecredis: gavinbaker: right
+
mecredis: gavinbaker: right
  
 
gavinbaker: the only requirements for chapters are to re-reigster
 
gavinbaker: the only requirements for chapters are to re-reigster
Line 4,773: Line 4,772:
 
Differance: My impression is that people are very
 
Differance: My impression is that people are very
  
  mecredis: just saying Differance does have a point in trying to get us to outline the powers of the baord here
+
mecredis: just saying Differance does have a point in trying to get us to outline the powers of the baord here
  
 
Differance: interested in setting up a working organization
 
Differance: interested in setting up a working organization
Line 4,783: Line 4,782:
 
Differance: vis a vis representation,etc.
 
Differance: vis a vis representation,etc.
  
    e-star: i hate to say it, but this issue is of critical importance
+
e-star: i hate to say it, but this issue is of critical importance
  
 
Differance: But they want to set up a workable org
 
Differance: But they want to set up a workable org
  
  mecredis: it is
+
mecredis: it is
  
 
Differance: Address powers and duties first
 
Differance: Address powers and duties first
Line 4,793: Line 4,792:
 
gavinbaker: (it's a Washington state quarter. it's a fish on it, dudes. i can flip it and it'll be decided, and we can move on and Fix It Later if it turns out to suck.)
 
gavinbaker: (it's a Washington state quarter. it's a fish on it, dudes. i can flip it and it'll be decided, and we can move on and Fix It Later if it turns out to suck.)
  
    e-star: and if we don't find a consensus, people might not ratify the bylaws over it
+
e-star: and if we don't find a consensus, people might not ratify the bylaws over it
  
  K`Tetch: if this is such a big deal, do a trial run, an experiment if you will, lasting 3 months, and then back to another debate exactly like this one, to evaluate and modify if need be
+
K`Tetch: if this is such a big deal, do a trial run, an experiment if you will, lasting 3 months, and then back to another debate exactly like this one, to evaluate and modify if need be
  
skyfaller: unfortunately, we have to decide "power over whom" before we can decide what the powers should be
+
skyfaller: unfortunately, we have to decide "power over whom" before we can decide what the powers should be
  
  mecredis: K`Tetch: we're essentially at that stage
+
mecredis: K`Tetch: we're essentially at that stage
  
Differance: skyfaller: but that's the substantive issues t o addres
+
Differance:skyfaller: but that's the substantive issues t o addres
  
  mecredis: already
+
mecredis: already
  
  mecredis: there has been a trial run
+
mecredis: there has been a trial run
  
 
Differance: not indeterminacies and intractable issues
 
Differance: not indeterminacies and intractable issues
  
  mecredis: there are some chapters that are bigger than others
+
mecredis: there are some chapters that are bigger than others
  
 
Differance: like representation and membership conditions
 
Differance: like representation and membership conditions
  
  mecredis: and might not feel properly represented
+
mecredis: and might not feel properly represented
  
 
Differance: You can have an amicable discussion if you start there
 
Differance: You can have an amicable discussion if you start there
Line 4,819: Line 4,818:
 
Differance: get of like mind  
 
Differance: get of like mind  
  
  K`Tetch: mecredis - but no-one wants to take that step of just having an interim board, everyone wants to sort the perminant board makeup, based on their own pet theories of what's going to happen
+
K`Tetch: mecredis - but no-one wants to take that step of just having an interim board, everyone wants to sort the perminant board makeup, based on their own pet theories of what's going to happen
  
  mecredis: with only one vote
+
mecredis: with only one vote
  
    e-star: and even if we have one chapter/one vote, i'm assuming that we don't just vote for one person?
+
e-star: and even if we have one chapter/one vote, i'm assuming that we don't just vote for one person?
  
  mecredis: K`Tetch: this what we have a now, an interim board
+
mecredis: K`Tetch: this what we have a now, an interim board
  
  K`Tetch: right, and how has it worked out?
+
K`Tetch: right, and how has it worked out?
  
 
gavinbaker: considering we've never voted, how can anyone feel underrepresented with 1 vote?
 
gavinbaker: considering we've never voted, how can anyone feel underrepresented with 1 vote?
  
  mecredis: K`Tetch: I'm not sure it has
+
mecredis: K`Tetch: I'm not sure it has
  
  K`Tetch: in what way hasn't it?
+
K`Tetch: in what way hasn't it?
  
 
gavinbaker: if anything, the problem is with the structures, not the board members
 
gavinbaker: if anything, the problem is with the structures, not the board members
  
  mecredis: perhaps
+
mecredis: perhaps
  
skyfaller: mecredis: we've never had elections
+
skyfaller: mecredis: we've never had elections
  
 
gavinbaker: that's why i want so desperately to pass these bylaws
 
gavinbaker: that's why i want so desperately to pass these bylaws
Line 4,847: Line 4,846:
 
gavinbaker: as much as having ways to make decisions and get stuff done
 
gavinbaker: as much as having ways to make decisions and get stuff done
  
    e-star: mllerustad: i think the nat'l org helps smaller chapters while also helping larger ones -- in some cases, if they're pursuing larger projects, they'll need a lot of help too -- so i think it's a balance
+
e-star: mllerustad: i think the nat'l org helps smaller chapters while also helping larger ones -- in some cases, if they're pursuing larger projects, they'll need a lot of help too -- so i think it's a balance
  
  K`Tetch: ok, whats the current flaws with the until-now-board?
+
K`Tetch: ok, whats the current flaws with the until-now-board?
  
 
mllerustad: e-star: My proposed verbage made it one vote for each open seat... Gavin had a different suggestion that I liked, that you both vote for the size of the board (5, 7, or 9) and rank your top nine (or less, if there's fewer choices) candidates.
 
mllerustad: e-star: My proposed verbage made it one vote for each open seat... Gavin had a different suggestion that I liked, that you both vote for the size of the board (5, 7, or 9) and rank your top nine (or less, if there's fewer choices) candidates.
  
skyfaller: K`Tetch: it wasn't elected, it was self-appointed
+
skyfaller: K`Tetch: it wasn't elected, it was self-appointed
  
 
gavinbaker: rather than this crippling 'consensus' we have to work with now, that is so undefined and undefinable
 
gavinbaker: rather than this crippling 'consensus' we have to work with now, that is so undefined and undefinable
  
    e-star: mllerustad: hmm..
+
e-star: mllerustad: hmm..
  
  mecredis: skyfaller made a good point a while ago
+
mecredis: skyfaller made a good point a while ago
  
  mecredis: we, as an organization
+
mecredis: we, as an organization
  
  mecredis: right now
+
mecredis: right now
  
    e-star: mllerustad: not sure how i feel about voting for the size of the board
+
e-star: mllerustad: not sure how i feel about voting for the size of the board
  
  mecredis: need to decide if we are an organization made up of chapters or individual, human members
+
mecredis: need to decide if we are an organization made up of chapters or individual, human members
  
skyfaller: mecredis: agreed
+
skyfaller: mecredis: agreed
  
  mecredis: perhaps it is already clear
+
mecredis: perhaps it is already clear
  
 
mllerustad: e-star: I'm not saying larger chapters don't need any assistance, otherwise they'd have no reason to be involved nationally at all... But comparatively, there are both more smaller chapters and small chapters have more needs.
 
mllerustad: e-star: I'm not saying larger chapters don't need any assistance, otherwise they'd have no reason to be involved nationally at all... But comparatively, there are both more smaller chapters and small chapters have more needs.
  
  mecredis: but I am less interested in the former
+
mecredis: but I am less interested in the former
  
  mecredis: and more in the latter
+
mecredis: and more in the latter
  
 
gavinbaker: e-star: neither am i, but i can't think of a better way to set the size...
 
gavinbaker: e-star: neither am i, but i can't think of a better way to set the size...
  
    e-star: mllerustad: right, i disagree
+
e-star: mllerustad: right, i disagree
  
 
mllerustad: e-star: Me neither, but it would be very flexible.
 
mllerustad: e-star: Me neither, but it would be very flexible.
  
  mecredis: because members are what make up organizations
+
mecredis: because members are what make up organizations
  
    e-star: mllerustad: i think that large chapters can have a lot of needs as well
+
e-star: mllerustad: i think that large chapters can have a lot of needs as well
  
  mecredis: not chapters
+
mecredis: not chapters
  
  K`Tetch: well, what is the aim of the group - that should lead itself to be chapter-or individual based
+
K`Tetch: well, what is the aim of the group - that should lead itself to be chapter-or individual based
  
 
gavinbaker: i'd rather not do it pro forma and artifically exclude interested candidates
 
gavinbaker: i'd rather not do it pro forma and artifically exclude interested candidates
  
  mecredis: So
+
mecredis: So
  
  mecredis: this is a question
+
mecredis: this is a question
  
  mecredis: is Free Culture a Chapter based organization
+
mecredis: is Free Culture a Chapter based organization
  
 
gavinbaker: my biggest concern is with the chapter that doesn't exist yet
 
gavinbaker: my biggest concern is with the chapter that doesn't exist yet
  
  mecredis: or a Member based organization, members who work in chapters
+
mecredis: or a Member based organization, members who work in chapters
  
 
gavinbaker: and needs help getting started
 
gavinbaker: and needs help getting started
  
  K`Tetch: simplicity people, add in complications as it goes alone, but the basis for any group must be simplicity
+
K`Tetch: simplicity people, add in complications as it goes alone, but the basis for any group must be simplicity
  
 
gavinbaker: we need an organization that's competent to help them
 
gavinbaker: we need an organization that's competent to help them
  
  K`Tetch: else the group becomes unweildy to run
+
K`Tetch: else the group becomes unweildy to run
  
  K`Tetch: if it's member based, whats the point of the chapters?
+
K`Tetch: if it's member based, whats the point of the chapters?
  
 
gavinbaker: mecredis: i say chapters, for both logistical and philosophical reasons
 
gavinbaker: mecredis: i say chapters, for both logistical and philosophical reasons
  
  mecredis: gavinbaker: so we disagree here
+
mecredis: gavinbaker: so we disagree here
  
 
gavinbaker: mecredis: gee, really? ;)
 
gavinbaker: mecredis: gee, really? ;)
  
  mecredis: well anyway
+
mecredis: well anyway
  
  mecredis: I see politics and free culture
+
mecredis: I see politics and free culture
  
  mecredis: at least to me
+
mecredis: at least to me
  
  mecredis: has always been about members
+
mecredis: has always been about members
  
  mecredis: people you can count on
+
mecredis: people you can count on
  
  mecredis: to know the issues
+
mecredis: to know the issues
  
  mecredis: and show up
+
mecredis: and show up
  
  K`Tetch: discussion on this one point is comming up on the hour mark, table it, and move on to something else, come back to it in a little bit
+
K`Tetch: discussion on this one point is comming up on the hour mark, table it, and move on to something else, come back to it in a little bit
  
  mecredis: and make a difference
+
mecredis: and make a difference
  
    price: it's members that do things; chapters are how members get together every week or so
+
price: it's members that do things; chapters are how members get together every week or so
  
  mecredis: it has never been about chapters
+
mecredis: it has never been about chapters
  
 
gavinbaker: i see student organizing has always been about chapters
 
gavinbaker: i see student organizing has always been about chapters
  
skyfaller: mecredis: it has always been about chapters, that's where we disagree
+
skyfaller: mecredis: it has always been about chapters, that's where we disagree
  
 
gavinbaker: chapters are the structure where you get people together to do something useful
 
gavinbaker: chapters are the structure where you get people together to do something useful
Line 4,951: Line 4,950:
 
gavinbaker: and spread the word to the rest of your campus
 
gavinbaker: and spread the word to the rest of your campus
  
    price: and a way that members get help from other members
+
price: and a way that members get help from other members
  
  K`Tetch: ok, what are chapters for? what is the purpose of them?
+
K`Tetch: ok, what are chapters for? what is the purpose of them?
  
 
gavinbaker: chapters give you something that members can't do along
 
gavinbaker: chapters give you something that members can't do along
Line 4,959: Line 4,958:
 
gavinbaker: *alone
 
gavinbaker: *alone
  
    price: k'tetch: see my comments
+
price: k'tetch: see my comments
  
  mecredis: K`Tetch: good question
+
mecredis: K`Tetch: good question
  
skyfaller: if the point is grassroots activity at the local level, then the unit should be the local entity
+
skyfaller: if the point is grassroots activity at the local level, then the unit should be the local entity
  
  mecredis: skyfaller: what about the individual?
+
mecredis:skyfaller: what about the individual?
  
 
Differance: It's not either-or
 
Differance: It's not either-or
Line 4,971: Line 4,970:
 
Differance: you have to be able to execute
 
Differance: you have to be able to execute
  
  mecredis: Differance: unfortunately it looks like it is
+
mecredis: Differance: unfortunately it looks like it is
  
    peabo: chapters give members a sense of identity, which is important for getting project participation
+
peabo: chapters give members a sense of identity, which is important for getting project participation
  
  K`Tetch: again, whats the aim of the whole entity that is 'freeculture'
+
K`Tetch: again, whats the aim of the whole entity that is 'freeculture'
  
 
gavinbaker: the point is grassroots activity at the campus level, not the individual level -- that's our focus. imho, it should be
 
gavinbaker: the point is grassroots activity at the campus level, not the individual level -- that's our focus. imho, it should be
  
    price: skyfaller: almost every project around Harvard FC is some subset of people
+
price:skyfaller: almost every project around Harvard FC is some subset of people
  
  mecredis: in terms of voting
+
mecredis: in terms of voting
  
 
Differance: no, it's not
 
Differance: no, it's not
  
  mecredis: peabo: they already have identity in the larger og
+
mecredis:peabo: they already have identity in the larger og
  
 
Differance: that's only a view founded on one side
 
Differance: that's only a view founded on one side
  
    price: skyfaller: people that came up with an idea, thought it was interesting, went and did it
+
price:skyfaller: people that came up with an idea, thought it was interesting, went and did it
  
  mecredis: price: exactly
+
mecredis:price: exactly
  
 
Differance: you always have a divide between participation and execution
 
Differance: you always have a divide between participation and execution
Line 4,999: Line 4,998:
 
Differance: It's not either-or
 
Differance: It's not either-or
  
    price: things that get done are driven by individuals that want to do them
+
price: things that get done are driven by individuals that want to do them
  
 
mllerustad: mecredis: All of my members had never heard of FC.o before they joined.
 
mllerustad: mecredis: All of my members had never heard of FC.o before they joined.
Line 5,007: Line 5,006:
 
*** Ax3 (n=ax4@rada.voodoohosting.com) has joined channel #freeculture
 
*** Ax3 (n=ax4@rada.voodoohosting.com) has joined channel #freeculture
  
    jibot: Ax3 is awesome.
+
jibot: Ax3 is awesome.
  
 
mllerustad: And their subsequent participation in the national org is minimal.
 
mllerustad: And their subsequent participation in the national org is minimal.