- e-star (firstname.lastname@example.org) has joined channel #freeculture
jibot: e-star is Elizabeth Stark from law.harvard.edu
e-star: guys, what's the conf call service we used to use?
peabo: I think everyone is away, waiting for it to be 5 PM
paulproteu: freeconference.com I think.
paulproteu: I know I've seen others use that.
e-star: hm ok
- price (email@example.com) has joined channel #freeculture
- contra (i=425ceedb@gateway/web/cgi-irc/irc.jpgclan.com/x-7a080fabeb836a9b) has joined channel #freeculture
jibot: contra is Ben from Swarthmore
- gavinbaker (firstname.lastname@example.org) has joined channel #freeculture
jibot: gavinbaker is Gavin Baker & his Web site is <http://www.gavinbaker.com/> & an alumnus of the University of Florida & co-founder of Florida Free Culture <http://uf.freeculture.org/> & an intern at SPARC <http://www.arl.org/sparc/>
- gavinbaker has set the topic on channel #freeculture to FreeCulture.org: student movement for free culture | http://freeculture.org/ | Bug tracker: launchpad.net/web/+bugs | In case of downtime: http://fcostatus.wordpress.com/ | Last Volunteers meeting: http://wiki.freeculture.org/2007-07-22 | Today: Bylaws RC2 meeting at 5 pm EDT, comments due then: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Bylaws
- Signoff: contra ("Dave2:CGI:IRC")
- parkerhiggins (email@example.com) has joined channel #freeculture
mecredis: we're doing IRC right?
- Signoff: mind|wandering ("Leaving")
gavinbaker: hi mecredis, e-star
gavinbaker: i suppose let's give people a few minutes to trickle in?
e-star: also, perhaps we should discuss process a bit
e-star: for the mtg?
gavinbaker: i sent a reminder on the list a few hours ago, but it'd be great to ping people individually who might be interested
e-star: like, how do we want to go through the issues
- cameronparkins (firstname.lastname@example.org) has joined channel #freeculture
mecredis: how we do the merge
gavinbaker: i just got a call from nelson and karen saying they'll be a bit late
gavinbaker: i'm going to grab something to eat while we give stragglers a few minutes. brb
christo_ph: i'd imagine that consensus on patches should allow us to come up with a single rc
christo_ph: so that, once approved, anything controversial can be submitted as amendment
mecredis: sounds good
mecredis: I hope Seth Johnson shows up
Differance: That woudl be me
Differance: e-star: ha?
gavinbaker: christo_pher: i'm not sure i follow. this will be the last chance to submit amendments (at least, on this draft)
Differance: But I intend to keep chiefly quiet
gavinbaker: we'll put the new draft out to chapters and give them an up-or-down vote
christo_ph: certainly there will be an amendment process that exists in the future, right?
gavinbaker: if they approve it, it passed, and future changes can go through the amendment process
mecredis: how's the chapter re-reg going?
gavinbaker: christo_pher: right, exactly
gavinbaker: mecredis: paulproteus got it up last night
mecredis: gavinbaker: live, public?
mecredis: can I check it out?
e-star: Differance: ?
Differance: nothing -- you looked like you found my participation worthy of a laugh
gavinbaker: mecredis: paulproteus has the link & pw, i don't think i remember it
Differance: It's probably true, actually
e-star: hm we should take a poll as to how many ppl are actually here for the mtg
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
mecredis: I don't intend on spending all evening in here
mecredis: can we get started soon?
Differance: e-star: ok
Differance: all: I don't regard myself as exactly qualified -- not a student, not a chapter, not nothing -- you should take my input accordingly
christo_ph: gavinbaker: okay, that is what i thought. however, there isn't necessarily a process for patching this draft other than consensus, so the farther we are from controversial amendments, the easier this will be, i am thinking
christo_ph: i agree, we should figure out who is here
christo_ph: and as fun as crafting our Bylaws is, i hope this won't take terribly long
Differance: all: (inasmuch as I bring input; let me reserve comment, okay)
e-star: what's the easiest way to take a roll call?
mecredis is here
mecredis: ?whois mecredis
jibot: mecredis is Fred Benenson. He founded Free Culture @ NYU & currently getting his masters at NYU's ITP. He currently lives in New York City & spends his time as a FreeCulture activist. He is a board member of FreeCulture.org & has held internships & fellowships for Creative Commons & volunteered for the EFF.
christo_ph: Are you guys here? [Arken] [autonomy] _sj_ abhay cameronparkins Cbrown1023_away danjared Differance e-star gavinbaker grahl_ jli K`Tetch klepas Lam_ mark007 Omnifrog parkerhiggins paulproteus peabo poningru price sahal tannewt venkatesh WillySilly
christo_ph: <-- here
peabo: Peter Olson, assoc member Free Software Foundation; amazability.com, no academic affiliation
e-star: we're taking a roll call
mark007: Estoy aqui
tannewt: hey hey
e-star: hm i hate to say it, but can people perhaps say their names?
Differance: ?whois Differance
jibot: Nobody has defined Differance yet
christo_ph: Christopher Budnick, Harvard Free Culture, Northeastern Free Culture
Differance: Differance = Seth Johnson
Differance: Seth Johnson is mostly with NY Fair Use
paulproteu: Hi, yes I'm here now.
price: I'm here.
paulproteu: Whoa, hey cameronparkins.
cameronpar: paulproteus: why the surprise??
e-star: price: gprice?
price: (namely Greg Price, at Harvard and MIT)
e-star: okay, shall we try to get started?
mecredis: Let's go section by section maybe
mecredis: talk about what's controversial
mecredis: and try to settle on it
paulproteu: (Asheesh Laroia, no academic affiliation, mostly observing, but I also am the Web Team Leader for freeculture.org and a software engineer at creativecommons.org.)
- ktetch (email@example.com) has joined channel #freeculture
ktetch: yes i'm here
mecredis: one thing that I saw come up
mecredis: was our name
mecredis: is not quite a sexy domain like freeculture.org
mecredis: but Students For Free Culture
mecredis: is a little more specific
Differance: (might want to grad that domain name, in any case) :-)
mecredis: yeah, we'll obviously get it
mecredis: we can go by FreeCulture.org informally
abhay: (Abhay Kumar, no academic affiliation, mostly observing, yadda yadda yadda)
mecredis: but perhaps our non profit / org should be Students for Free Culture
e-star: thoughts from others?
christo_ph: i think that Gavin's suggestion was that we keep "The main domain name of the organization shall be freeculture.org" and just change the name to Students for Free Culture
e-star: changing one's name can be hard for recognition, branding, etc
mecredis: I mean right now
parkerhigg: i don't think there's a problem with the official domain of "Students for Free Culture" being "freeculture.org"
mecredis: but when people ask us
poningru: woah new people?
Differance: ?whois poningru
jibot: poningru is claims to be a descendent of the Earl of Curry and a brown guy and a lamer and golimar
Differance: ?whois parkerhiggins
jibot: Nobody has defined parkerhiggins yet
christo_ph: the main concern I have with Students for Free Culture is that, even in here, many of us aren't students
parkerhigg: parkerhiggins is Parker Higgins, and doesn't know how to use IRC, basically. He's also a member of FC@NYU.
mecredis: christo_pher: good point
mecredis: so we have a couple of options
mecredis: go for "Students of Life for Free Culture"
christo_ph: there's a certain protection, that ben pointed out, in being a student or youth organization, but I am not sure that we best serve even our universities by being solely student, at least in name
e-star: christo_pher: yes, it's also a youth movement
mecredis: "Youth for Free Culture"
mecredis: but then that makes us sound like finger painters or something
christo_ph: it does
mecredis: How about Digital Freedom University?
christo_ph: is the principle of the name that we do not want to exclude non-students by want to remain youth-oriented?
mecredis: christo_pher: that seems to be it
Differance: Information Freedom University!
Differance: (hush Seth)
mecredis: I understand the worry
mecredis: that we might be splitting our message / brand
peabo: another principle is to distinguish the movement from the kind of ad hoc commtktee for yadda yadda that is really a front for corporate interests
Differance: I always thought the basic notion was to galvanize students, pull the university constituency together
price: I don't think "Students for Free Culture" really excludes recent graduates
price: it does convey the useful message that we're a youth organization and an activist organization
mecredis: Campus Free Culture
christo_ph: we also inherent some of the good will that SDS has accumulated
- Scudmissile (n=Scudmiss@188.8.131.52) has joined channel #freeculture
peabo: mecredis: sounds like cuture which is campus-free
jibot: Scudmissile is Andy at the University of Evansville, Indiana. He is majoring in Internet Technology and is passionate about music and the presentation of information.
mecredis: Sans-Campus CUlture
paulproteu: mecredis, Students for a Democratic Society, a big 60s student activism group iirc.
Differance: Students for a Digital Society
mecredis: so they must have had plenty non-students
mecredis: OK, I think if we just go down formally as "Students for Free Culture"
mecredis: and continue to call ourselves FreeCulture.org
mecredis: its not going to matter that much
mecredis: shall we move on?
abhay: Students for a Participatory Society?
peabo: another naming issue is the 'free' as in beer vs. freedom: some people like the word libre
paulproteu: I really want to know where skyfaller is...
mecredis: paulproteus: he's late
christo_ph: mecredis: i think that's fine
parkerhigg: mecredis: i agree.
poningru: gavinbaker: pick up your phone
mecredis: anyone else?
cameronpar: sounds good to me
cameronpar: although peabo has a solid point, and one that frustrates the hell out of me
mecredis: well that's a larger war
cameronpar: but the semantics of the english language are the least of our worries as an org.
mecredis: we'll leave it to RMS
Differance: free as a modifier for culture is not problematic that way
poningru: ok gavinbaker and skyfaller should be coming soonish
parkerhigg: peabo is correct, but i think there are greater benefits to holding onto the name recognition and domain and such that we have
Differance: free products, yeah
Differance: free stuff
Differance: but free culture no
parkerhigg: i agree with Differance here, yeah.
cameronpar: absolutely, i shoudln't have even brought it up, lets move on
cameronpar: no need to get into a discussion about it right now i dont think
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
mecredis: in what context exactly?
poningru: mecredis: future events might not be associated with 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
parkerhigg: e-star, poningru: i think the name is similar enough that there wouldn't be much of a problem. and if the domain is the same, i think it's even less of an issue.
paulproteu: (The above is a thought that indicates our possible lack of a need to rename.)
Differance: Students for Free Culture would not connect intutitively with freeculture.org? Not sure the disconnect is strong enough
price: are there really people who will be confused because they thought the group was called FreeCulture.org?
mecredis: I guess its a matter of how much we use SFC
cameronpar: i agree with parkerhiggins, on top of which, couldn't we contact the woman from the NYTimes and let her know?
price: frankly, I was only vaguely aware that was the name of the group
mecredis: if we jsut use it on the incorporation papers
abhay: i think that's what press releases are for.
price: I just thought of it as "Free Culture".
mecredis: yeah, I mean there aren't a lot of other people out there using it to refer to their movement
parkerhigg: put it this way--if there were a group called "Students for Free Culture" that wasn't us, i think it would be confusingly similar.
mecredis: parkerhiggins: good point
gavinbaker read scrollback
- Signoff: K`Tetch (Connection timed out)
christo_ph: to echo, i've always just called it "the free culture movement" or "FreeCulture"
mecredis: there are some issues with calling ourselves the free culture movement
mecredis: b/c people who have nothing to do with us
- skyfaller (firstname.lastname@example.org) 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
Differance: Only you folks come up on google for "students for free culture"
mecredis: and release CC work / etc
cameronpar: for the record, i never call our chapter part of the fc.org mvoement, i jsut say Free Culture USC
mecredis: yeah, and I say Free Culture @ NYU (which is just part of how NYU wants us to call ourselves)
skyfaller: hey folks, sorry I/we are late
skyfaller: Karen will be on in a sec
christo_ph: it looks like this was discussed back in 2005, as well, with the results of "A non-scientific poll: 2 for FC.org, 4 for Free Culture, 3 for Students for FC"
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.
e-star: another concern
e-star: is that if people want to start groups
poningru: I still think renaming is pointless
e-star: outside of schools eventually
e-star: that the name would be limiting
mecredis: I think the solution is to keep calling ourselves FreeCulture.org infomrally and collouquolly
mecredis: and just use Students for Free Culture on our incorporation papers
e-star: i'm okay with that..i think
mecredis: just so we're not bound to have a URL / etc. legally
skyfaller: mecredis: sounds like a good compromise to me
mecredis: gavinbaker: any thoughts?
parkerhigg: yeah, and then if we decide we need to change it later, it's not as big a deal
poningru: shh he's eating
mecredis: I mean the hope is
mecredis: anything having to do with free culture
mecredis: & people think of us
paulproteu: Yes, we are the first hit for Students for Free Culture. (off-topic: Due to a totally dumb error on my part, freeculture.org was not in the Google index or anyone else's search indexes for a couple of weeks, but that has been rectified.)
mecredis: so that's done
e-star: good, now moving on
mecredis: next section?
- Mana-chan (n=Mana_Ban@ool-44c41e7f.dyn.optonline.net) has joined channel #freeculture
mecredis: purpose and goals
e-star: is tim hwang here btw?
Mana-chan: Hi everyone~
mecredis: ... we need to nix "intellectual property" policy
skyfaller: we decided that Students for Free Culture was fine? awesome
mecredis: from the language
- mllerustad (email@example.com) has joined channel #freeculture
e-star: mecredis: agreed
mecredis: skyfaller: just in our incorporation
christo_ph: tim isn't here
- Mana-chan has left channel #freeculture
gavinbaker: hey. stop talking. i can't read scrollback fast enough ;)
paulproteu: I agree, mecredis. I think that someone did like the phrase being there - anyone know who that was / was that person?
mecredis: who knows / cares
gavinbaker: should i weigh in re: Students for Free Culture?
mecredis: but the point is
skyfaller: um, you mean in the bylaws? OK
e-star: it needs to go
mecredis: we need to get it out
mecredis: how about "information policy"
mecredis: ala IPac
gavinbaker: ok, well i'm going to, anyway.
gavinbaker: re: the mission statement, i don't care much, i'm sure we can come up with something good
e-star: gavinbaker: going to what?
christo_ph: i agree, it should be left out
gavinbaker: but re: the name, i don't like FreeCulture.org because it's vague
skyfaller: heh... I think people wanted to skim over that point... as long as Students for Free Culture is fine for the bylaws, we can argue later about the rest
mllerustad: gavinbaker: Let's move on...
gavinbaker: there's nothing that immediately identified us as a student organization
mllerustad: There are plenty of other things to argue about.
gavinbaker: and we sound like a web site, not an organization
mllerustad: And most of them are more pressing bylaws-wise.
mecredis: gavinbaker: well we'd be using it informally
gavinbaker: there's already some precedent for using Students for Free Culture (namely, paulproteus and skyfaller referring to it thusly at conferences)
gavinbaker: also, it says it on the new site design, as a tagline not a name. but i think it's a good name, and we can keep freeculture.org as the domain
skyfaller: gavinbaker: agreed, and it's always been on our website that we're a student org
mllerustad: gavinbaker: This doesn't matter for the bylaws. We've agreed to call ourselves Students for Free Culture in the bylaws.
Differance: Is it conceived as a membership condition?
gavinbaker: mllerustad: did we? if so, cool
mecredis: no no no
e-star: guys it's currently 11:40pm here
mecredis: we need to move on
e-star: and i cannot stay up very late and i'd like to attend the entire meeting
e-star: so i would like some kind of process
skyfaller: so if Students for Free Culture is fine for the bylaws, then we can move on
mecredis: the by laws re: the name are fine as the RFC says
e-star: where we could devote x amount of time
mecredis: err, RC
skyfaller: then we're moving on
e-star: to a particular point
mecredis: OK, Article II
mecredis: strike "intellectual property" and replace with "information policy"
e-star: for discussion, and then after that amount of time, call for a consenus
gavinbaker: can we fix Article II quickly, or will it take time?
mllerustad: mecredis: I'm fine with that.
e-star: mecredis: how about copyright and technology policy?
mecredis: e-star: that works
gavinbaker: i'm wondering if we should punt it to later, if we're agreed that it should be changed
skyfaller: information policy is better, I think
e-star: unless people are really stuck on trademarks or patents
e-star: skyfaller: to me information policy is very vague
gavinbaker: or if we can fix it asap, then we'll fix it
mecredis: I mean they'll come up
mecredis: and we don't want to pigeon whole ourselves
paulproteu: Well, the Cereality thing was over patents, after all.
skyfaller: e-star: we've done stuff on both trademarks and patents in the past
price: I don't know what "information policy" means
e-star: it sounds like it could be privacy issues
e-star: price: agreed
skyfaller: Barbie in a Blender was partially trademarks
e-star: skyfaller: barely
gavinbaker: e-star: i don't have a problem with the term "IP" (unlike some others), and it does include TM and patents
Differance: he Organization is a diverse, non-partisan group of students and young people founded to advance cultural participation in the digital age and to defend the public interest in policies for exclusive rights such as copyrights and patents.
mecredis: but like
gavinbaker: i actually think we shouldn't exclude ourselves from privacy, either
mecredis: look at this recent congressional hearing
mecredis: about p2p and privacy
e-star: technology policy needs to be there somewhere
mecredis: that almost certainly falls under "information policy"
e-star: a la net neutrality
peabo: ".. and to defend the public interest in the free exchange of ideas and creativity"
skyfaller: technology + information? is that good enough? copyright is definitely limiting
e-star: fine, technology and information policy ?
gavinbaker: i think IT policy
peabo: no need to make a noun of it, just say what the purpose is
mecredis: technology + information policy is OK with me
gavinbaker: is better than either info policy or tech policy
e-star: price: thoughts?
mecredis: change it
christo_ph: fine with technology and information policy
gavinbaker: "information technology policy"
paulproteu: Differance raises a good point in that we don't have to be concise in the bylaws on this point.
gavinbaker: i'd prefer ICT policy personally
gavinbaker: "information & communications technology policy"
skyfaller: (is anyone taking minutes, incidentally? I'd like to point out that taking minutes after the fact usually results in long delays in posting them)
Differance: to defend the public interest in information freedom?
gavinbaker: but it's not a common term in the US
mecredis: we should have copyright in there
skyfaller: (I'll take minutes now, but I missed the beginning)
gavinbaker: mecredis: can we have (c) as an example (e.g. "including copyright")? rather than its own thing
paulproteu: (thanks skyfaller, I'll just paste you the block you missed when you ask me for in a private message or post-meeting)
peabo: mecredis: if you have copyright, you need patent and maybe other things
e-star: gavinbaker: ICT policy seems a bit too specific
mecredis: gavinbaker: that sounds OK
mecredis: peabo: maybe
e-star: gavinbaker: and makes me not necessarily think of things like copyright..heh
mecredis: "Including copyright, patent and trademark"
Differance: ? I would say specifying specific areas sounds too specific
price: "copyright, patent, and technology policy"
Differance: ICT is general
e-star: price: okay
e-star: price: i'm fine with that
skyfaller: but there are other forms of information policy
Differance: (hush Seth) :-)
Differance: carry on
gavinbaker: skyfaller: anything not covered in "IT policy"?
e-star: let's face it, even the barbie case was a copyright one
skyfaller: like the database protection thing... is that copyright?
e-star: skyfaller: it's technology
gavinbaker: skyfaller: right, barbie wasn't IT, but it was IP
gavinbaker: that's why i say IT + IP
skyfaller: I think we should be as general as possible while making it clear what we do
e-star: "copyright, patent, and technology policy" is what i vote for
Differance: barbie was information
gavinbaker: what doesn't IT + IP cover? everything's there and it's pretty specific
skyfaller: I think that copyright and patent is too limiting
skyfaller: those could be examples of something broader
christo_ph: i'd suggest that we change "students and young people founded to advance cultural participation in the digital age" to "students and youth founded to advance cultural participation"
e-star: skyfaller: that's why we have technology
Differance: copyright, patent and information technology policy?
gavinbaker: (are we close to consensus or should we come back to this later?)
peabo: barbie is a trade dress issue, isn't it? you make something that looks like a barbie doll, people think it is associated with Mattell(?)
mecredis: peabo: not really, trade dress applies to restaurant wear / etc
mecredis: is my understanding
mecredis: but this is OT
gavinbaker: peabo: Mattell's claims were TM claims
mecredis: how about adding a sub thing
mecredis: to say
mecredis: "4. Advocate for reform in the realm of copyright, patent and trademark law."
e-star: gavinbaker: and copyright claims IIRC
gavinbaker: hey, does "policy" (of whatever sort) include everything? is supporting FOSS + free content really "policy"?
e-star: we def need technology policy in there as well
Differance: defend the public interest in information policy
skyfaller: sure, tech policy too
e-star: i.e. net neutrality, etc
gavinbaker: hey guys, IT = info + tech... you get both in one!
mllerustad: gavinbaker: Yeah, that's more "cultural"..
Differance: defend the public interest in information and communications policy
mecredis: it sounds like technology and information policy works
mecredis: that's as close to consensus as we've gotten
peabo: yes, because technology is being used as an instrument to make culture non-free (e.g., defeating fair use)
mecredis: I think we need to run with it
skyfaller: ok, so information and technology
mllerustad: mecredis: Agreed. We'll go with that for now.
price: can you say what "information policy" means?
skyfaller: now gavin was questioning "policy"?
price: I still can't
Differance: policy that affect our use of information
mecredis: I'd say it refers to the CPT trifecta
e-star: yeah, it's still unclear, and it's true that we do deal with quite a bit of copyright
price: ok; then let's say that.
skyfaller: price: it's "intellectual property" except we can't actually use that phrase ;-)
e-star: price: agreed
gavinbaker: price: both IPac and PK use "info. policy"
e-star: mecredis: okay, then put a footnote
e-star: it's admittedly not all that accepted
mllerustad: Well, it's the CPT trifecta, along with any other rights people might want to impose.
price: e-star: parenthetical, maybe
mecredis: e-star: defining information policy?
mllerustad: Broadcaster's rights, database rights...
e-star: mecredis: yes
mecredis: mllerustad: right
mllerustad: We'd have something to say about those...
Differance: it's all information
gavinbaker: can anyone tell me why "IT policy + IP policy" isn't what we want? e-star, mecredis ?
mllerustad: So it should be general enough to include those.
e-star: gavinbaker: IP standing for what?
Differance: we got these digital machines, see, and a dynamic Internet, see . . .
mecredis: gavinbaker: what do you mean by IP
gavinbaker: IT = information technology, IP = intellectual property
e-star: gavinbaker: b/c we don't like the use of the word property
mecredis: gavinbaker: intellectual property will not be used at all
gavinbaker: mecredis: wtf, it's an area of law
christo_ph: does anyone have language from their school club charters/constitutions/bylaws that might be useful?
gavinbaker: we can't just change the english language because it doesn't suit our purposes
mecredis: gavinbaker: I'm not sure what benefit we garner from this
Differance: But WIPO can . . .
gavinbaker: christo_pher: see the mission statement in the sidebar at uf.freeculture.org
skyfaller: gavinbaker: yes we can, but nobody will know what we are talking about
paulproteu: Correct me if I'm wrong, but "IP" doesn't exist in law, only (C), patent, trademark, and other separate fields. e-star?
mecredis: paulproteus: I agree
price: skyfaller: they will if we're clear
gavinbaker: paulproteus: it exists in law schools
e-star: paulproteus: exactly
gavinbaker: (which is where lawyers come from)
Differance: paulproteus: you are right, it's not in the copyright statutes, only came into vogue since 1980
price: that's why we say "copyright and patent" or "copyright, patent, and trademark"
paulproteu: So do Milky Way candy bars and beer bottles re: "it exists in law schools".
Differance: yes, lots of professors these days say it
gavinbaker: price: what about database rights, broadcast treaty, sui generis rights...?
gavinbaker: they're all IPRs
mecredis: we gain nothing by implicitly agreeing that intellectual property does exist
mllerustad: moral rights...
gavinbaker: mecredis: it exists
gavinbaker: whether it's like real property or not is the question
e-star: guys, please, let's make a decision and move on
price: so we name the major areas as examples
mecredis: gavinbaker: here we totally disagree.
gavinbaker: not whether it exists
mllerustad: "exclusive rights"?
skyfaller: OK, information policy
mllerustad: Americans might not use it, but the rest of the world does...
peabo: I still like the idea of spelling it out as a description of purpose rather than using noun phrases which people are free to disagree about as to their meaning
gavinbaker: they're property rights applied to non-real property, generated by the mind. intellectual property rights...
skyfaller: can we just do information policy + technology policy?
christo_ph: i agree with peabo
Differance: mllerustad: when we write law, we use "exclusive rights"
price: it may be time for a vote.
mecredis: skyfaller: I'm happy with that
Differance: we don't write law that says iIP
gavinbaker: skyfaller: can we make it information technology policy to be more specific?
gavinbaker: so we're not talking about biotech or something
price: gavinbaker: why shouldn't we be?
gavinbaker: or private aviation
mllerustad: gavinbaker: What if we want to work w/ UAEM or soemthing?
skyfaller: gavinbaker: what if we want to cover biotech? we shouldn't limit
Differance: biotech is attempting to appropriate biology as information
price: gavinbaker: pharma patents are quite relevant
gavinbaker: Differance: then it falls under "info policy"
mecredis: OK, here we either
gavinbaker: (this is why i wanted to say IPRs, that includes patents)
mecredis: or we use the consensus that has appeared
skyfaller: OK, "information policy and technology policy"
Differance: I say "information policy" == policy that affects our use of information
skyfaller: and the overlap of the two
gavinbaker: "technology" is super vague... anthropologists consider hand tools to be "technology"
gavinbaker: we're not talking about power tools guys
Differance: information policy or information technology policy
skyfaller: but the right to use power tools as we want might be relevant
gavinbaker: skyfaller: only if it falls under info policy!
gavinbaker: otherwise why would we care?
mecredis: information technology policy works
gavinbaker: let's not be so hypothetical
gavinbaker: and deal with what we already do & have done
skyfaller: works for me
mecredis: e-star: ?
mecredis: price: ?>
peabo: the consitution says "to promote progress in the arts and sciences" not "to implement copyright and patent policy"; it is a crisp and general statement of purpose
e-star: i'd still like copyright in there somewhre
e-star: b/c we do deal with it a LOT
price: let's take a vote
e-star: but in the interest of moving on, i'm able to live w/o it
mecredis: price: what are we voting on?
price: one proposal can be "information and technology policy"
Differance: let's list 20 options, vote one by one :-)
price: (or whatever you want)
poningru: err I dont like this voting thing
skyfaller: no, voting is dumb
price: another can be, say, "copyright, patent, and technology policy"
mecredis: let's vote to vote
Differance: that was a joke
gavinbaker: lulz @ voting
poningru: if we vote consensus hasnt been established
price: what, you'd rather just
price: well, consensus hasn't been established
christo_ph: there isn't consensus, but we need to move on, i'd think
skyfaller: consensus is the only way to proceed when we don't know who is qualified to vote or why
gavinbaker prefers democracy to consensus, but he's in the minority, and there's no consensus!
e-star: also, copyright isn't always IT policy
gavinbaker: is there consensus around info policy + IT policy? seems like everybody accepted that
Differance: information policy
poningru: I like the copyright, patent, and tech policy thing
price: so we can either pretend consensus based on a couple of people saying "move on"
gavinbaker: e-star: it's always info policy
christo_ph: skyfaller: that presupposed that consensus can be reached given a limited amount of time
poningru: ooh yeah
mecredis: can we add copyright as #4?
e-star: how about information and technology policy, including copyrights and patents
poningru: tech and info policy
price: or we can actually find out who wants what
skyfaller: e-star: sure
mecredis: e-star: that works
skyfaller: citing examples is fine
Differance: face it, we're in the situation we're in because we've all got tools to muck with information -- information policy
e-star: let's move on :D
Differance: sorry -- ws typing, not reading
mecredis: edit it!
mllerustad: I &TP, inc. (c) and P.
gavinbaker: i prefer "information technology" to just "technology", but i won't hold up the consensus
mllerustad: What's next?
mecredis: chapter membership...
mecredis: so the issue is
mecredis: how strict o make the requirements
mecredis: for being a chapter
mecredis: setting the bar low or high
gavinbaker: mecredis: i'm fine with the requirements in the bylaws
mecredis: me too
gavinbaker: you're a student and you say you want to make a chapter. you're in
mecredis: they're relatively uncontroversial
gavinbaker: i'm afraid we'll artificially exclude people otherwise
gavinbaker: is the person who objected in the comments here?
gavinbaker: or anybody else who objects?
gavinbaker: or can we accept the bylaws version as kosher?
mecredis: ...article 3 is down for the count
mecredis: moving on
christo_ph: i definitely don't agree
gavinbaker: christo_pher: type faster! ;)
e-star: christo_pher: do tell
christo_ph: we're referring to chapter membership, not regular membership, yes?
e-star: this is moving ahead a bit, but for elections, should we just let any chapter that has one person that sent an email once vote?
gavinbaker: christo_pher: the only "membership" is chapter membership, in the current bylaws
e-star: christo_pher: yes, and i agree that we should allow non-chapter members
e-star: such as paulproteus
gavinbaker: e-star: can you propose another solution?
mllerustad: e-star: We'll get there when we cover elections.
gavinbaker: mllerustad, right.
e-star: mllerustad: k
e-star: we could have requirements
christo_ph: i think there should be a minimum requirement for being a chapter if we're having chapters voting for board membership
e-star: as a "volunteer" member
paulproteu: I'm perfectly willing to serve a student organization but not be a member, by the way. Never having been part of a chapter I've always been okay with that.
e-star: a la attending several volunteer meetings and having worked on at least one project
Differance: I'm generally a proponent of open membership, but doing that requires a very different way of doing things, you guys are not heading that way . . .
e-star: and being on the volunteers list
christo_ph: and approval of chapters should be handled by the board, perhaps reviewed by the ED/F
mllerustad: e-star: Gavin's core-team proposal would allow people who aren't in chapters to participate.
e-star: are people willing to accept membership outside of chapters?
mecredis: Differance: this is all in preparation of getting FC.org set up as a 501c3
gavinbaker: e-star: why would we do this?
mllerustad: e-star: And non-members can be on the board, etc., given certain circumstances.
Differance: Well, membership isn't required for corporation
gavinbaker: e-star: everyone can participate, they just can't vote unless they're a chapter
Differance: it's just one thing you specify
gavinbaker: i think we want to be a chapter-based organization
gavinbaker: stay grassroots-based
e-star: gavinbaker: fine, but i think there should be some recognition
e-star: perhaps not even voting rights
christo_ph: a member-based organization could still be grassroots-baed
mllerustad: e-star: Core Team participation? The board?
mllerustad: There are opportunities, once we get far enough in the bylaws to talk about them :)
christo_ph: there isn't an inherent property within being chapter-ie
e-star: mllerustad: yes, core team participation could work
gavinbaker: e-star: keep in mind that being a "chapter" only requires filling out a form
e-star: gavinbaker: if we agree on that ;)
gavinbaker: and you don't even have to list yourself as "active", in the new system
mllerustad: gavinbaker: Well, and the ax-murderer filter.
gavinbaker looks around awkwardy, hides axe
skyfaller: well, currently the requirements for being a chapter are (1) we have your contact info, (2) you're sane and really support FC, (3) you're seriously interested in starting a chapter
paulproteu: gavinbaker, It's okay - you *are* the ax murderer in the ax murderer filter.
paulproteu: e-star, Being a chapter is not (necessarily) the same thing as voting, also, and we can analyze who can vote when we get there in the bylaws, I'd say.
Differance: ?whois axmurdered
jibot: Nobody has defined axmurdered yet
gavinbaker: paulproteus: happy to be the man on the 'inside' ... just don't cross me
christo_ph: I think there needs to be two tiers
e-star: skyfaller: i'm fine with that for now, although it's important that people renew
e-star: paulproteus: agreed
skyfaller: e-star: yes, renewing is vital
- Fear_of_C (firstname.lastname@example.org) has joined channel #freeculture
jibot: Fear_of_C is Nick from Swarthmore and organizing http://freeculture.org/blog/2007/01/20/free-culture-labs/
christo_ph: 1) you're interested and have filled out the required information
gavinbaker: given what paulproteus said, are we OK with chapter membership, and can move on to other aspects later?
christo_ph: 2) you've actually demonstrated involvement with the organization
paulproteu: christo_pher, That may be true; we're going to agree to call (1) "becoming a member chapter" and we may give (2) a name at a later point in this conversation.
gavinbaker: i.e. that "chapter membership" is not the only avenue for participation
gavinbaker: ( paulproteus, correct me if i'm paraphrasing you wrong )
paulproteu: gavinbaker, You're fine so far.
christo_ph: additionally, i think the current dues language should be replaced as gavin suggested
mllerustad: christo_pher: Agreed.
gavinbaker: christo_pher: given paulproteus's comments, are we OK with chapter membership? and we can move on to dues?
- Signoff: parkerhiggins (Connection timed out)
e-star: agreed on dues
mecredis: agreed on dues
Differance: i.e., no dues
skyfaller: so no dues, unless we have an amendment
christo_ph: sure, if there's interest in addressing general membership/voting later on
e-star: k, next
mllerustad: christo_pher: Definitely... we're just going through things in the order they're listed in the bylaws :)
gavinbaker: mllerustad, what an oddly logical way to proceed ;)
- mindspillage (n=kat@wikimedia/KatWalsh/x-0001) has joined channel #freeculture
Differance: ? jibot: axmurderer - Gavin Baker
christo_ph: i think it's difficult to address these piecemeal without having established general truths of operation of our organization, but whatever is quickest i'll bend to
e-star: oh yes
e-star: i'd like to make a proposal re: the use of national
e-star: i.e. that we don't use it when at all possible
Differance: The word?
e-star: "Each chapter's liaison must also vote in national elections for the Organization as detailed in Article IV."
gavinbaker: "the Organization"
gavinbaker: is how we should refer to it
e-star: gavinbaker: agreed
mllerustad: e-star: Agreed... I was working on an RC that standardized language, e.g. "Organization", "chapter liaison", etc...
gavinbaker: (sorry if we're skipping around)
e-star: we're getting an increasing number of inquiries from people wanting to start chapters around the world
e-star: and i'm afraid of alienating people
gavinbaker: also, everyone has to apply for permits before having sex with each other
skyfaller: yeah, national should go
mllerustad: So, cut "national"?
e-star: plus, we'd of course welcome non-american board candidates, etc
mllerustad: gavinbaker: :p
gavinbaker: "liaison permits"
e-star: actually i thought i'm not skipping
e-star: i thought this was the next section of the bylaws
gavinbaker: e-star: i don't know if we are, i was just apologizing in advance ;)
e-star: so we could say organization-wide elections
e-star: sorry, not as sexy
christo_ph: have we decided to leave article III, section 2, as it is?
mllerustad: e-star: Yeah, I see where you are.
mecredis: e-star: that's fine
mllerustad: christo_pher: I think so, though the question of 1.) if non-chapters can be members and 2.) who can vote is still open.
e-star: i think we're changing section 3 to gavin's wording
e-star: on dues
mllerustad: e-star: Agreed.
poningru: I wanna put in my liaison permit for ireland please
mllerustad rejects poningru's liaison permit
Differance: you might want to keep open the idea of how the relationship with the chapters will function
gavinbaker: poningru, you can't screw an island, dude
e-star: guys cmon
poningru: HA thats what they told king of england
mecredis: let's get through this
poningru: ok.. ok.. sorry
e-star: so are we okay with taking out "national"
christo_ph: just to backtrack, i think the current proposed function to allow new chapters in (they sign up, are interviewed, are recommended for or against, are approved) is overly heavy
price: e-star: can we say out loud in the channel what language we're discussing?
mllerustad: e-star: Agreed.
e-star: and using the Organization
price: (ie on dues)
Differance: You're empowering a whole slew of orgs and the relationship is just a "liaison"
e-star: price: sure, i already pasted it
paulproteu: BTW, dudes, feel free to erase the topic of the channel and use it for the current section topic.
mllerustad: III. Section 3.
- mliesenf (email@example.com) has joined channel #freeculture
christo_ph: current language: "The Board of Directors shall have the authority to adopt membership dues by a majority vote. At the time of the adoption of these by-laws, there are no dues required for membership in the Organization." new language: "There shall be no payment or dues required for membership in the Organization."
e-star: all in favor?
mecredis: sounds good to me
Differance: You might want to make it a relationship "according to the current policy"
Differance: I'm behind
christo_ph: sounds fine
e-star: now, III sec 4
e-star: i propose that we remove the word "national"
e-star: from this section and throughout the doc
mecredis: e-star: I AGREE
mecredis: arg, caps
- skyfaller has set the topic on channel #freeculture to http://wiki.freeculture.org/Bylaws#Section_4._Chapter_Responsibilities
gavinbaker: other than fixing the language per e-star, i'm fine with III sec 4
e-star: actually, elections for the Organization is fine
skyfaller: OK, strike "national" everywhere
e-star: good, who is making these changes btw?
mllerustad: e-star: It says "national" elections... That will be fixed.
mecredis: are these actually being implemented?
mecredis: is someone going to have to go through this log in a bit to do this?
e-star: right, i mean is someone doing it as we speak?
christo_ph: I'd still like to see III. Section 2 cleared up, especially with regard to "an endorsement of the national organization's mission," and the current process of approval
skyfaller: we'll take minutes and someone will change it later
mllerustad: Nelson is listing things people agree on changing/not changing, and I can put them together into an RC.
mecredis: I think it should be done now
gavinbaker: mecredis: i'll go through with a log, if someone provides me with a log ;)
mllerustad: mecredis: We're "taking minutes" of each decision made.
skyfaller: OK, Gavin + Karen can take care of implementing it
mllerustad: In order to write this.
christo_ph: if there's not enough time to discuss that now, just let me know, and i'll shut up
mecredis: fine, as long as its being kept track of
e-star: christo_pher: yeah probably beset to move on
e-star: er, best
e-star: sorry can't type tonight ;)
skyfaller: well, if someone isn't happy with something, maybe we shouldn't move on yet?
mllerustad: christo_pher: skyfaller and others could discuss how the current "axe-murderer filter" works... but preferably later.
mecredis: yes lets move on
price: it'd be better to keep track of it in public, though
gavinbaker: price++ | for being eminently reasonable throughout the meeting
skyfaller: christo_pher: so do you have an actual objection, or are you just asking for details?
mllerustad: gavinbaker: We should give out reasonability trophies at the end of the night.
e-star: section 5?
Differance: and axes
mecredis: I wanted to add something
price: like RESOLUTION: III.3 should be amended as christo_pher said at 18:17
price: or any other form
e-star: i know some people had issues with the lack of appeals process in 5.3
price: (gavinbaker: thanks)
e-star: yes, Removal for Cause
gavinbaker: oh, right. why's there no appeals process?
skyfaller: price: I'm taking minutes, I just haven't had the opportunity to put them on the wiki yet... it's hard to take minutes and participate :/
mecredis: ooh, oops
price: skyfaller: do it in the irc?
mecredis: was looking at the rong spot
skyfaller: price: ok, sure
price: with some conspicuous keyword, perhaps
mllerustad: I guess one question I had was, what does it mean to permanently kick out a chapter?
christo_ph: skyfaller: i have an objection and, yesterday, submitted the objection as, "It should be very easy to receive the support of our national organization, but for the sake of voting and full exploitation of chapter membership, we should establish basic requirements for full membership. Prospective chapters should exist as soon as we have their information. Further, as soon as they have established themselves (something we shou
price: RESOLUTION: Article II: "to defend the public interest in information and technology policy, including copyrights and patents"
mllerustad: Does that mean just the current leaders of the chapter won't be recognized?
e-star: also, all of section 5 depends on having an ED, EF. etc. this will come a bit later, but we need to think how this would work w/o an ED, especially in the short term
mllerustad: Or we can't ever have a chapter at that school again?
Fear_of_C: who is allowed to make a "complaint"?
price: RESOLUTION: strike "national" everywhere
skyfaller: christo_pher: your statement got cut off... link us to it on the wiki
price: I think that may be it for decisions taken so far, besides to let things be
christo_ph: I understand that the voting rights can be handled later, but I am still convinced that the current process of review by someone appointed by the ED/F, then review by the ED/F is silly
mllerustad: price: Also, no dues.
price: mllerustad: yeah, that was the first one I wrote. 18:22.
mllerustad: price: Oh, sorry.
mllerustad scrolls up
gavinbaker: christo_pher: it's not the best process, i agree
christo_ph: also, this doesn't actually makes sense: T"he chapter must then register with the national organization through a method established by the Board of Directors. This process includes submitting a form containing complete contact information for the official liaison, information regarding the chapter's current membership and status and an endorsement of the national organization's mission"
gavinbaker: in reality i don't think it would ever matter, christo_pher (re: chapter reg) ... but it's kinda silly in theory
gavinbaker: christo_pher: i think that part makes sense, actually. what don't you concur with?
e-star: does the form include a checkbox for endorsement of the mission?
christo_ph: it's not a matter of agreement, does it seek to set a minimum standard for registration while reserving the right of the Board of Directors to change that?
christo_ph: also, what is the mission? is that the mission statement? is it article II?
mllerustad: christo_pher: It says that the Board can specify how this carried out, but we're making these requirements of what will take place.
gavinbaker: e-star: the new form doesn't include a checkbox, yet, but i don't know if we have a "mission statement" yet either
christo_ph: or does it give an example of what a method established by the Board of Directors might look like?
mllerustad: It doesn't matter if the form's on paper or online, but it will have contact info on it.
christo_ph: so the method is the medium of submitting that information?
e-star: k, guys, if we can agree on the general process, the details of the form can be discussed later
christo_ph: "this process" is equated with "a method"
christo_ph: if they aren't the same, it should be reflected in the Bylaws
christo_ph: if they are the same, one should be removed or the process clarified as an example
mllerustad: christo_pher: The previous sentence specifically says "method".
christo_ph: right, and the following one says "This process"
mllerustad: "Process" refers to "registration."
e-star: christo_pher: would you like to propose an alternative wording?
christo_ph: which process?
Differance: I think it's saying the total method is indeterminate and TBD by the Board, and includes the process with submitting a form
mllerustad: Would "The process of registering" be clearer?
christo_ph: this process represents the noun phrase of "the method," which is why i'm terribly confused
christo_ph: i don't think arguing the wording is necessary, just the principle of what that means
christo_ph: does it mean that we want the board deciding the process of registration?
Differance: I think so
mllerustad: christo_pher: The method and the process are not the same.
christo_ph: we can sort that out later
mllerustad: Method (which the board decides) is online v. paper v. whatever.
Differance: I think it says only that whatever the total method is, the process includes . . .
mllerustad: (Django v. TurboGears v. PHP)
christo_ph: mllerustad: right, i know that, which means the Bylaws should be updated to reflect that if that's our principle
e-star: can we move on to section 5?
mllerustad: Process is the information/hoops to jump through.
e-star: we have a LOT more ground to cover
mllerustad: christo_pher: What did you think of my proposed verbage edit?
mllerustad: i.e. "The process of registering"
mecredis: e-star: agreed
mllerustad: instead of just "process"
christo_ph: mllerustad: I think that would be fine, along with changing "this process" to "the process"
mllerustad: christo_pher: Okay, cool beans.
mllerustad: Moving on.
e-star: okay i'm fine w/ that
skyfaller: yay resolution!
e-star: section 5, Termination of Chapters
gavinbaker: RESOLVED: (FIXME)
christo_ph: but have we decided that we want the EF/ED sending someone to interview the chapter, and then that report being made to the EF/ED, who has the sole responsibility of approving chapters?
price: can someone write in one place the change that was just approved?
mllerustad: christo_pher: They don't have sole responsibility. They make recommendations to the Board, who decides.
christo_ph: this was something we spoke about for at least 30 minutes on the friday before the conference, and haven't addressed here at all
price: (just so it's clear)
skyfaller: price: RESOLUTION: "this process" => "the process of registering"
christo_ph: mllerustad: right now they make the recommendation to the ED who approves it
price: skyfaller: excellent, thanks
christo_ph: mllerustad: what you suggested is what i'd like to see there instead
mecredis: so what are the issues
mecredis: with section 5
mllerustad: christo_pher: I think that's what we intended, but we can make the verbage clearer.
mllerustad: mecredis: Making it explicit that it's the board that approves chapters.
e-star: guys, again, we need something in place for when there's no ED/F
e-star: but i guess that comes later
mllerustad: Oh, d'oh, that's back in III.2.
skyfaller: e-star: I think that we need to have an ED/F, even if we can't pay them
christo_ph: mllerustad: that's not what was intended previously, it was argued that the ED should have that responsibility, and right now it says: "present their recommendations to the Executive Director for approval."
mllerustad: christo_pher: Oh, and also I can't read.
skyfaller: e-star: so I think saying "what if we don't have an ED/F" is like asking "what if we don't have a board?"
mllerustad wrote these a year ago...
christo_ph: mllerustad: I wasn't trying to insult you by re-pasting that, just trying to clarify what we were talking about.
mllerustad: christo_pher: No, it's cool.
christo_ph: mllerustad: was your intention in writing that to have the board have the responsibility?
christo_ph: if so, let's just update that
christo_ph: and that'll provide a means for approving chapters if we do not have an ED/EF
Differance: Consider having the Board appoint an empowered team with plenipotentiary power
gavinbaker: i don't want to have every new chapter go through the board
gavinbaker: the board shouldn't be meeting any more frequently than ~once a month
e-star: skyfaller: okay, but i don't think we can realistically have one w/o paying them
gavinbaker: and we need to approve chapters more frequently than that
mecredis: gavinbaker: agreed
Differance: Runs things, makes real decisions, no problem, until some formal process of Board injunction
christo_ph: gavinbaker: my suggestion is that each new chapter is automatically approved once given a sanity check, and that the board reviews them whenever it meets
mecredis: who's really going to bother a chapter registration system?
christo_ph: reviews new ones
e-star: yes guys, let's specify that the board can approve chapters via their email list
gavinbaker: christo_pher: ok. practically, what's the difference from the current system?
e-star: or something
christo_ph: gavinbaker: right now the board doesn't ever review them
e-star: so it doesn't have to be at the once-a-semeter meeting
mecredis: when would we say no?
skyfaller: e-star: well, I've served as ED/EF in the past basically, so it's not impossible, but generally I agree with you, so funding an ED/F should be a high priority
gavinbaker: mecredis: then why do we need this extra measure?
christo_ph: gavinbaker: the board also can definitely approve these without having a full meeting, we do have irc and mailing lists available
skyfaller: but let's argue about one thing at a time
mecredis: gavinbaker: that's my question
e-star: skyfaller: i still like coordinator :)
Differance: me too
e-star: skyfaller: also, the org was smaller then and i don't think you got much sleep :p
christo_ph: gavinbaker: plus, in the future if we decide to have a two-tiered chapter system, having initial approval (for access to digital resources) and then voting approval by the board makes sense
Differance: with plenipotentiary power! :-)
Differance: Set up an extraordinary process for the board to intervene
Differance: :-) Or not.
mllerustad: So right now are we arguing about:
mllerustad: 1.) The ED title/etc.?
mllerustad: 2.) Whether new chapters should be finally approved by the board?
e-star: yes, but that is supposed to come later
mllerustad: 3.) Or voting tiers for chapters?
gavinbaker: ok, so 1 comes later, 3 comes later
mllerustad: 2 is right now?
gavinbaker: 2... i don't really care... but i don't see the problem
mllerustad: Does anyone have any objections to making it so the board gets final approval of new chapters?
gavinbaker: these won't be perfect bylaws, i'm sorry to say. but we need something that will keep the ship afloat until we can perfect them
mllerustad: (III.2) btw
christo_ph: I would strike "An officer designated by the Executive Director will then interview the chapter contact and present their recommendations to the Executive Director for approval." and replace it with "Chapters will be temporarily approved upon fulfilling all requirements until fully approved by the Board of Directors, " or something similar to that
- skyfaller has set the topic on channel #freeculture to http://wiki.freeculture.org/Bylaws#Section_2._Becoming_a_Chapter
mllerustad: christo_pher: Okay.
mecredis: christo_pher: that sounds good
e-star: how about
skyfaller: what does that mean?
- mliesenf has left channel #freeculture ("Leaving")
- Signoff: mark007 (Connection timed out)
christo_ph: fully can be swapped for "officially"
mllerustad: skyfaller: It means we have the EF interview, if they're cool we can send them swag or whatever, until the board gets around to approving them officially.
christo_ph: and under voting, if we decide this is a concern, we can always distinguish between temporary chapters and official chapters
e-star: okay, i'm fine w/ that
christo_ph: but we can never address that if we don't want to
skyfaller: so they can e.g. have webspace from us without being a full chapter?
skyfaller: that seems odd
mllerustad: Why not?
e-star: also can we specify that the board doesn't have to hold a mtg to approve?
mllerustad: Fast turnaround, and if it turns out they're wacked out, the board has the power to kick them out.
e-star: as in, it can be done via their email list?
mllerustad: e-star: Sure.
christo_ph: that should be later on, under IV. 1, i'd think, but i don't mind it being there
e-star: so as to not take a semester to become officially approved!
e-star: ok, either way
peabo: I think e-mail consensus is a very practical solution
skyfaller: but I don't see how we can give chapters stuff before we decide that they're chapters
skyfaller: and they need stuff quickly for organizing purposes
mllerustad: skyfaller: Either way, it's one person deciding to give them swag.
e-star: skyfaller: under my proposal, the approval can happy very quickly
skyfaller: but it's not just swag, it's stuff like webspace
mllerustad: (slash webspace)
gavinbaker: skyfaller: i don't see a big problem.
mllerustad: It would be the EF under the current system anyway, making the same decision.
gavinbaker won't hold up consensus here, although he still doesn't really see the problem
Differance: So is the privilege of member ship -- swag?
mllerustad: All this does is add another step to be "official."
christo_ph: and now it's not bottle-knecked on a deputy of the EF
skyfaller: and being mentioned on our site so that other people can find them...
skyfaller: I mean, if we're giving them webspace that implies that we support them
e-star: we could try to specify an amount of time
skyfaller: if they're wacked out, we should know that already
skyfaller: before we help them
Differance: skyfaller: okay that's something
mllerustad: skyfaller: If they're wacked out, the EF would have made them full chapters under the current system anyway!
e-star: a notice of acceptance will be provided within 7 days of registration
mllerustad: Because it would only be their decision.
christo_ph: so you're saying that it's not that we're approving them too slowly, that it's too quick?
mllerustad: And the board would have to reverse it in those circumstances as well!
e-star: or of the decision, etc
skyfaller: I'm confused
gavinbaker: skyfaller: apparently ;)
christo_ph: skyfaller: as suggested with the revision, there's still a sanity check taking place
gavinbaker: this still has to go thru the Facilitator for the crazy check
gavinbaker: there's just another level, the Board
gavinbaker: so it's not 100% in the Facilitator's hands.. is that right, christo_pher ?
Differance: Why a sanity check before getting stuff?
Differance: There is another option
gavinbaker: and the Facilitator gives them "interim" approval
Differance: You can have protocol
mllerustad: Differance: That's what the interview is for.
Differance: and their participation is just following whatever the protocol is for whatever action you're doing
Differance: So let the freaks in
Differance: they're just not with it if they're not following protocol
gavinbaker: Differance: but that requires us to set protocol in advance
Differance: for each action
skyfaller: OK, I need to start over because I've been arguing with Karen and she confused me more ;-)
gavinbaker: and we have a lot else to figure out right now ;)
e-star: guys, does anyone agree it is good to set a timeframe for chapter approval?
Differance: not bylaws
e-star: as in, 7 days or so, via email?
mllerustad: Differance: Protocol is inflexible.. if it were to be set, it wouldn't be in the bylaws.
e-star: if not, it could drag on
mecredis: e-star: yeah
skyfaller: so let's get clear on the current way and how it's different from the proposed way
gavinbaker: e-star: if there's no practical difference between "interim" approval and "official" approval, i don't think it matters much
Fear_of_C: e-star: I agree
mecredis: how about we have 7 days to say "no"
mecredis: otherwise its automatic
- contra (firstname.lastname@example.org) has joined channel #freeculture
jibot: contra is Ben from Swarthmore
mecredis: because we don't want to hold them up
Differance: I say empower the ED/F and chapters to set up their own protocols
christo_ph: mecredis: i think that's a good default
mecredis: if there's no contest and people are too lazy to get around to approving
mllerustad: mecredis: I'd be cool with that, christo_pher ? skyfaller ?
Fear_of_C: mecredis: seems good
gavinbaker: mecredis: so it's like a veto in FL. the gov doesn't have to sign a bill, but if he doesn't veto it, it becomes law ;)
skyfaller: I still don't understand the proposal
Differance: The Board intervenes as needed
mecredis: Differance: indeed
mecredis: skyfaller: basically all chapters get approved
mecredis: and we have 7 days
mecredis: to say no
e-star: i'm fine w/ that
skyfaller: OK, that's fine
mllerustad: yay, agreement!
skyfaller: there probably should be some official way for the board to hear about new chapters
mecredis: someone say resolution
skyfaller: but I guess that probably doesn't need to be in the bylaws
mecredis: maybe paulproteus can build that is
mllerustad: RESOLUTION: Board gets seven days to say no to new chapters (III.2).
mecredis: e.g. fwd to email@example.com
peabo: is the Board able to make any decision by e-mail consensus, or just some specifically enumerated things like approvals?
mllerustad: peabo: I don't see why not, if they can get enough approvals via email to get the majority/supermajority necessary
contra: are there minutes up somewhere?
mllerustad: (which may be hard, since people hate email)
mllerustad: (hence, we have meetings.)
paulproteu: (I'm going afk for a bit, feel free to decide on the new international atomic energy rules while I'm gone.)
mllerustad: RESOLUTION: Nuke everything!!
christo_ph: mecredis: right, an email goes out, people reply with "yes" "no" or a concern, and then if there's a majority either way, it gets approved or denied
mecredis: but otherwise it just marches on
e-star: sounds good
gavinbaker: resolved, w00t
e-star: now, moving on
e-star: section 5!
mllerustad: Okay, should we go back to III.5.3?
mllerustad: (ie chapter nuking)
skyfaller: contra: not yet, I'm taking minutes though
mllerustad: I gave some questions earlier that I would like answered...
gavinbaker: why don't we have an appeals process there, at least?
mllerustad: When we "permanently" kick out a chapter, does that just mean as long as the current leadership is in charge, or that we can never have a chapter at that school again?
e-star: gavinbaker: agreed
christo_ph: i think we kick out that entity, not that school
gavinbaker: and can we clarify the reasons for kicking a chapter out or suspending them, at least to the standard "misfeasance malfeasance or nonfeasance"?
e-star: mllerustad: also a good point
e-star: yes, we should clarify the reason
e-star: and allow an appeal
mecredis: what about just removing them from our page
mecredis: I mean it's stupid to suspsend
Differance: I think you should say the (what are very minimal) consequences: removal from the site
mecredis: most of it is going to be lazy
christo_ph: i think that suspension is when they're just removed from our page
e-star: mecredis: could there be legal reasons though?
mecredis: e-star: or astroturf zombie chapters
e-star: it all depends on whether we want to incorporate
mecredis: ala JMU
mllerustad: Differance: Unfortunately, that depends on what we become capable of doing.
christo_ph: it might become useful to say "NYU FC" isn't a member of our organization
mecredis: yeah, indeed
mllerustad: Differance: i.e., if we had the capacity to fly people to our national conference, we wouldn't fly people we kicked out.
mecredis: NYU kind of wants that
Differance: mller: Ithink that removal from membership is relatively meaningless right now
mecredis: it's always been useful to say that we're merely a chapter rather than an offical arm
e-star: mecredis: ??
mllerustad: Differance: True.
mllerustad: Just saying, the future could be different.
Differance: I think it might not even be a matter of membership as such
e-star: let's just add an appeals chapter
e-star: and a requirement of a reason given
e-star: i mean
e-star: appeals process
e-star: i agree that we probably won't use this
e-star: so unless we want to strike it
e-star: let's fix it
mllerustad: Okay, so let's write an appeals process.
contra: is the wiki being updated as you change things?
gavinbaker: e-star++ | we need an appeals process
mllerustad: Would we delay that, say a year for things to cool down?
gavinbaker: it's be nice if we could clarify the "cause" for removal / suspension, too
mllerustad: contra: No, it's static for now... the page is protected.
Differance: I personally have no problems with no appeal, but I tend to just think of "in" or "out" as whether you're playing your role
gavinbaker: contra: it'd get out of hand otherwise ;)
Differance: Just to keep in mind -- you folks are making a whole lot out of membership and it's not terribly important
gavinbaker: if somebody registers a chapter and then goes and does crazy stuff (like threatens to blow up the white house or something), we want to be able ti distance ourselves from them quickly
gavinbaker: that's the main reason to have this section at all
e-star: so what should the appeals process be?
Differance: Yes, you take them off your site
mecredis: just write a paragraph
mecredis: about why you think you deserve it
mecredis: and send it to the board
mecredis: we'll decide and have final say
e-star: and send it to the board for reconsideration?
gavinbaker: mecredis: and the board has to respond within a certain period
mecredis: don't think it should be more complex than that
e-star: ok, 7 days?
gavinbaker: e-star, maybe 14
e-star: okay, 14 is fine
mecredis: whatever is fine with me
gavinbaker: especially if they need to talk to the chapter again or something
e-star: all in favor?
Fear_of_C: how about just letting the chapter re-apply for admission?
Fear_of_C: I don't see how this is really any different?
mecredis: that + write the little paragraph
Differance: I see that as useful
mecredis: (if the data has changed)
Differance: here's why: best is if you regard participation as playing your role
Fear_of_C: ok, agreed then
Differance: So "in" or "out" is objective
Differance: Application for reentry is consistent with that
Fear_of_C: also, it should be taken into account if the chapter is not the same people that were kicked
Fear_of_C: like if a certain university were ejected, but then they graduated and new people attempted to join
Fear_of_C: under the same name
mllerustad: Fear_of_C: We can give that as an example of circumstances where appeals would be valid, sure.
mllerustad: So, what are we resolving exactly?
mllerustad is taking minutes because skyfaller's tired of it ;)
skyfaller: *silence descends on the channel*
gavinbaker: it seemed like we were awfully close to a resolution. is it resolved? can we move on?
christo_ph: that the appeals process is sending a paragraph to the board to consider, which they will within two weeks
- Signoff: grahl_ (Client Quit)
skyfaller: wasn't the alternate suggestion that they just re-apply for entry, along with that paragraph?
ktetch: just from looking back at the last two hours of chat, it seems y'all are getting bogged down in minutae - set a basic setup, leave the details, but include a method for alteration, then fine-tune in practice
Differance: (I do that sometimes -- disregard me -- I am saying things that you might want to remember for reference)
skyfaller: or can those be reconciled / merged?
mllerustad: ktetch: It's bylaws. Of course we're arguing about minutia.
ktetch: are you creating, or modifying?
gavinbaker: well, we don't want to get too bogged down, because we need to finish tonight.
skyfaller: ktetch: creating :)
skyfaller: but we're modifying a draft
ktetch: then you don't bother with the minutae, just the basics, and see how the minutae plays out over the next few weeks of utilisation
mllerustad: Okay, so use the re-entry system, but also submit a paragraph, and the board *must* approve this time?
mllerustad: Do people agree on that as a system?
gavinbaker: mllerustad: wait, what? i thought they got auto-approved unless the board objects within 14 days
mllerustad: gavinbaker: In the normal entry thing, yes, only it's 7.
skyfaller: ktetch: unfortunately, we're having our chapters ratify the bylaws, and the current proposal is that the chapters have to approve future amendments... that's a heavy process
mllerustad: I think it makes sense that the board have a strong role int he re-entry of a previously whacked-out chapter...
skyfaller: ktetch: so it seems important to get it right the first time
mllerustad: skyfaller: c/right/mostly right
gavinbaker: mllerustad: i thought we settled on 14 for the normal case, but for the "re-entry" case, i think that requiring an ffirmative vote from the board makes sense, rather than "no objection = ok"
- gavinbaker has set the topic on channel #freeculture to http://wiki.freeculture.org/Bylaws#Section_5._Termination_of_Chapter_Status
Fear_of_C: just one thing, does it say anywhere whether board transactions like this are publicly available?
mllerustad: gavinbaker: If I scroll up, I think we agreed on 7 days for the normal case...
mecredis: ok we need a RESOLUTION
Fear_of_C: because I can see chapters wanting to know about something like this
mllerustad: gavinbaker: (Though, I wrote the resolution that time.)
skyfaller: we decided on 7 days for the normal case, 14 days for the re-entry case
mecredis: Fear_of_C: I think this log will almost certainly be public
mecredis: and this isn't a board meeting
gavinbaker: skyfaller: what? that's backwards
Fear_of_C: mecredis: not this log
mecredis: this is a general meeting, etc.
Fear_of_C: board transactions in the future, such as kicking a member group
gavinbaker: it's 14 days for the normal case
gavinbaker: we never decided for re-rentry
mecredis: gavinbaker: that's not how we decided it
Fear_of_C: do the other chapters know whether someone has applied for and been denied re-entry?
e-star: now i'm a bit confused
gavinbaker is really confused, reads scrollback
skyfaller: gavinbaker: that's definitely not what we decided, Gavin
christo_ph: gavinbaker: it's 7 days normally
mecredis: Fear_of_C: That's not so much the question
mllerustad: RESOLUTION: A removed chapter may appeal their removal by re-registering while sending a paragraph on why they should be re-added to the Board. The Board must decide whether to approve the chapter within 14 days.
mecredis: It's if a chapter goes defucnt / gets kicked out
christo_ph: i think 14 days is fine and we don't have to treat it under any other process, just add on an appeals process and let's move to Article IV
mecredis: mllerustad: thanks
mecredis: everyone: let's move on
gavinbaker is really confused, assumes everyone else is right and he's wrong, moves on
skyfaller: is everyone fine with mllerustad's resolution?
gavinbaker: mllerustad: only one question
gavinbaker: what if the board doesn't decide
gavinbaker: is the chapter back in or not
gavinbaker: (within 14 days)
skyfaller: wait, so a defunct chapter has to go through this too? what if they didn't even know about the previous chapter that died?
mecredis: What's the next section?
skyfaller: this happened with Brown recently
christo_ph: gavinbaker: i'd say it has to decide
Fear_of_C: skyfaller: I had that concern too
e-star: while sounds a bit weird
e-star: but yes
mecredis: skyfaller: it'd still be nice for them to get in contact with us
e-star: by sending a paragraph
mecredis: we shouldn't let them ride on coat tails
mecredis: even if they're ragged
skyfaller: well, wait
christo_ph: a defunct chapter shouldn't go through the appeals process
gavinbaker: can we make a distinction b/w "removal for cause" and "died for lack of activity"?
christo_ph: that's suspension, not removal
skyfaller: why wouldn't they be treated the same way as a new chapter
e-star: the board must decide whether to rescind their removal within 14 days
gavinbaker: "died for lack of activity" shouldn't make it harder for other kids 2 years later
skyfaller: gavinbaker: agreed
mllerustad: Yeah, I agree with gavinbaker.
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
e-star: skyfaller: yup
Differance: Why is there a time limit on the rescincion (is that a word?)
mllerustad: If the leadership has changed, previous nonfeasance shouldn't be an obstacle.
gavinbaker: Differance: to make the board act quickly
gavinbaker: Differance: and give a timeline for a decision being made
Differance: You're gonna make them? :)
mllerustad: christo_pher: Yes, but going dormant is also cause for removal...
gavinbaker: Differance: with guns and ammo if necessary
Differance: The chapter might . . .
Fear_of_C: I mentioned earlier that I think if chapter is reconstructed from new people, it shouldn't be penalized for what a predecessor with the same name did earlier
skyfaller: OK, so defunct chapters shouldn't have to go through elevated review by the board
gavinbaker: Fear_of_C: that's eminently reasonable
mllerustad: So should that be part of the resolution?
- Signoff: jli ("leaving")
e-star: RESOLUTION: A chapter removed for cause may appeal their removal by sending a paragraph on why they disagree with the removal to the Board. The Board must decide whether to rescind the removal within 14 days.
mllerustad: That if the chapter's leadership has had complete turnover, it can apply to be a chapter normally?
mllerustad: (also if it was kicked out for nonfeasance)
Fear_of_C: mllerustad: yeah
e-star: SPELLING: Section 5.4. Suspension
e-star: Independant of the power
gavinbaker: heh ;) /me looks @ skyfaller
e-star: wow, i can't even make edits!
gavinbaker: RESOLVED: to run this whole thing through a spellchecker
- jli (i=jli@gateway/tor/x-2dd037d65421053e) has joined channel #freeculture
mecredis: what's the next section?
poningru brings malfeasence charges against gavinbaker
poningru: he stole my beer
Fear_of_C: also, get several people to look over the final draft before ratification
Fear_of_C: don't want to have to ammend a grammatical ambiguity
Differance: jibot: gavinbaker = axe murder
skyfaller spellchecks Fear_of_C
poningru: w00t jibot is alive
mllerustad: RESOLVED: A chapter removed for cause may appeal their removal by sending a paragraph on why they disagree with the removal to the Board. The Board must decide whether to rescind the removal within 14 days. A chapter removed for nonfeasance whose leadership has experienced complete turnover may apply to join the Organization the same way as a new chapter.
gavinbaker: mllerustad: that's kosher by me
e-star: mllerustad: sounds good, although we may want to separate that into two parts
gavinbaker: e-star, agreed
e-star: mllerustad: because i think it's addressed in two different places, no?
mllerustad: e-star: yeah, I didn't want to risk screwing up paragraph breaks. :p
e-star: okay, article iv
- Cbrown1023 (n=HAL9090@wikimedia/Cbrown1023) has joined channel #freeculture
e-star: board of directors -- board elections
gavinbaker: everything under III sec 5 is OK?
e-star: gavinbaker: so it seems, others?
- gavinbaker has set the topic on channel #freeculture to http://wiki.freeculture.org/Bylaws#Article_IV:_Officers_and_Elections
e-star: oh hmm it looks like someone changed the bylaws
gavinbaker: IV 1.1, do we say how nominations are made?
e-star: from the copy i have locally
skyfaller: really? I don't see any edits...
christo_ph: the only change i see today was yours
gavinbaker: e-star: last change to text (other than yours re: spelling) was 2007-07-16 by skyfaller
e-star: anyway, i propose "Current or former members of the organization may nominate someone to run for the board, in which case, the nominee must accept. A candidate may also nominate him- or herself to run."
e-star: or something like that
gavinbaker: s/nominee must accept/nominee must accept to be eligible
e-star: fine w/ me
gavinbaker: e-star: what's a "member of the organization"?
gavinbaker: we never say, we only have members of chapters
- Signoff: klepas (Connection timed out)
e-star: ah yes, okay, of chapters
e-star: although what about the core issue?
gavinbaker: also, why should alumni be able to nominate?
gavinbaker: (no discrimination here)
e-star: gavinbaker: they can be on the board
e-star: gavinbaker: so i figured they should be able to nominate as well
gavinbaker: e-star: we could do it that way, but we don't have to
christo_ph: alumni will just have to attach themselves to a chapter how it is now
mllerustad: "Members of any chapter and current members of the board of directors can nominate themselves or other eligible individuals for board positions.
mllerustad: Members of the board of directors are elected by the liaisons of official chapters by plurality vote. Each chapter may cast one vote for each open seat. "
gavinbaker: i think christo_pher's point seems logical
e-star: yes, this is highly contentious
skyfaller: alumni can't vote directly, although they might be able to influence their alma mater chapters' votes
mllerustad: (was the verbage I wrote a while ago as a possible rewrite)
e-star: fine, but i still think alums should be able to nominate
christo_ph: if your chapter allows alumni as members, they're members
e-star: which is a different process from voting itself
e-star: if that makes sense
Fear_of_C: define elegible alumni: how long do you have to have been in a chapter to count?
Fear_of_C: and how long does that chapter have to have existed?
skyfaller: I think it should be simple
- mindspillage is now known as brain|food
christo_ph: Fear_of_C: that's determined by the chapter, i think
skyfaller: chapters should nominate, just like they vote
Differance: Might it be best to start with IV 1.3 - duries and Powers?
- Deaner_ (n=Deaner@184.108.40.206) has joined channel #freeculture
gavinbaker: i think skyfaller's suggestion is simplest, and so i like it
- Signoff: Cbrown1023_away (Connection timed out)
Fear_of_C: i think I liked skyfaller's too
mllerustad: My version is basically skyfaller's, while also allowing current board members to nominate.
gavinbaker: mllerustad's is OK too, in my book
Fear_of_C: I have to run, unfortunately; be back as soon as I can
skyfaller: the Organization doesn't have members below the chapter level currently, chapters have human members and the chapters decide how their membership works
christo_ph: so each chapter can nominate a single member?
- Fear_of_C has left channel #freeculture
e-star: i don't think chapters should nominate
mllerustad: Not in my verbage...
peabo: Fear_of_C: there is a complication of the alum was a member of a chapter which was replaced by a different chapter at the same school
e-star: the nomination process should be relatively open
mllerustad: You can nominate as many as you like.
gavinbaker: peabo: or replaced by no current chapter
e-star: to encourage as many people to run as possible
e-star: i think it should be members of chapters
e-star: and it can be anonymously
mllerustad: e-star: Agreed.
e-star: in fact, it should be
christo_ph: that's what you suggested, skyfaller ?
mecredis: there should be no limit on who can be nominated
gavinbaker: e-star: why should nominations be anonymous?
mecredis: why shouldn't they be?
gavinbaker: the point of a nomination is an endorsement
mecredis: what's it matter?
gavinbaker: you want to know who's endorsing whom
mllerustad: gavinbaker: I don't think she said they HAD to be anonymous...
mecredis: that's taken care of as soon as the person votes
e-star: gavinbaker: not necessarily
skyfaller: hm... christo_pher, that isn't what I suggested, but I can agree with this proposal... minus anonymity!
gavinbaker: mecredis: i dunno, couple hundred years of parliamentary procedure do it this way
Deaner_: e-star: (unencrypt your IM)
e-star: Deaner_: it's your fault
gavinbaker: i don't see any reason to have more secrecy than necessary in this org
mecredis: so we do it through the wiki
mecredis: have an account
e-star: okay, well i definitely think we should allow others to nominate
skyfaller: I was proposing that chapters have to agree to nominate, but that seems bad because then someone in the minority at a chapter wouldn't be able to nominate
christo_ph: why even mess around with nomination?
mecredis: the point is there should be no limitations of nomninations
christo_ph: if you want to run, you do
e-star: the way we do on my journal
mecredis: christo_pher: good point
e-star: is that we allow anonymous email nominations
gavinbaker: christo_pher's point is easy, too
mllerustad: christo_pher: In this verbage, it's called nominating yourself.
e-star: and then we send an email asking to confirm
Differance: Maybe the question is what are they being nominated for -- shouldn't you start with Duties and Powers?
mllerustad: This just makes it possible to publicly say that you nominate someone other than yourself, too.
gavinbaker: mllerustad: but then there's the question of who has the 'right' to nominate themselves
e-star: skyfaller: yes, i agree w/ that point
e-star: Differance: i'm going in order here
mllerustad: Differance: We'll get there.
e-star: i think it's important to allow people to nominate others
mllerustad: gavinbaker: Members of chapters and current board members.
Differance: I have no bone to pick on it -- just a suggestion for logic
Differance: carry on
e-star: perhaps the nominee could specify if they want to keep it anonymous or not?
skyfaller: no, no anonymity
gavinbaker: can we just have any chapter member nominate any chapter member or alumni? non-anonymously?
Differance: And it they're selected, they can remain anonymous!
christo_ph: i don't mind anonymity, but also can't see this being an issue
Differance: The Unknown Board Member!
e-star: no no
e-star: i meant
e-star: the person nominating
paulproteu: e-star, Why do you want anonymity for nominations? I don't see what it achieves that requiring knowing who nominated a person doesn't serve.
skyfaller: paulproteus ++
gavinbaker: e-star: i think that was sarcasm from Differance.
e-star: paulproteus: it's just how we've done it for my journal and it seems to have worked
Differance: it was constructive silliness
e-star: but fine, i'm okay w/ having no anonymity
gavinbaker: Differance: or destructive silliness :)
e-star: as long as others can nominate
e-star: which i think is the most important part
skyfaller: OK, so nominations from any chapter member or member of the board
e-star: and self-nominating
e-star: as well
skyfaller: right, *if* they are a chapter member or member of the board
gavinbaker: "any chapter member nominate any chapter member or alumni, non-anonymously; or any chapter member or alumni can self-nom"?
skyfaller: they can nominate themselves
e-star: okay, so what about an alumni?
mllerustad: The second part of my suggestion was "Members of the board of directors are elected by the liaisons of official chapters by plurality vote. Each chapter may cast one vote for each open seat. "
gavinbaker: ^^ add in "current board member" to both halves
- Signoff: cameronparkins ()
paulproteu: e-star, I guess alumni have to beg someone else to nominate them.
e-star: that seems a bit silly
gavinbaker: i'm fine within having alumni be able to nominate themselves or others
christo_ph: anyone can nominate anyone, including themselves
paulproteu: Alumni of chapters or of the board?
mllerustad: It still requires us to know who our alumni are.
christo_ph: i am going to anonymously nominate everyone
mllerustad: You guys don't know who all are members of FC Claremont, do you?
gavinbaker: chapter members, alumni of chapter members, board members
mllerustad: We don't have a national list of all our individuals involved in FC.o.
mllerustad: So we have no list of alumni either.
gavinbaker: mllerustad: it's a logistical problem, but we can fix it...
e-star: we can ask for verification from teh chapter leader
gavinbaker: we should probably have lists like that for other pruposes anyway
e-star: if need be
mllerustad: e-star: What if they were at the chapter five years ago?
paulproteu: e-star++ re: verification possible if need be
mllerustad: The current leader would have no way to know.
skyfaller: I dunno, I don't know if we want to have lists of members, it seems difficult to run nationally
skyfaller: it seems like something best left to the chapters
christo_ph: mllerustad: each chapter keeps track of its own alumni as part of its membership, is my idea
mllerustad: That requires a helluva lot more centralization than we have now.
e-star: christo_pher: yup
gavinbaker: christo_pher: but what if an alumnus' chapter no longer exists?
christo_ph: then they should reform it or find a different chapter
Differance: lost soul . . .
gavinbaker: i should note that the working definition for "chapter member" in the bylaws is "a student at a school with a chapter"
mllerustad: christo_pher: It also means that if your chapter isn't completely organized on compiling lists of once and future members, you're screwed.
gavinbaker: the chapter never actually keeps a list of members, at least not for FC.o purposes
skyfaller: I mean, the problem of proving that someone is an alumni would arise in the case of having them run for the board, as well as nominating them
skyfaller: so this isn't a silly debate
christo_ph: mllerustad: you don't need a list of future members or previous members, just current members, including alumni members
mllerustad: skyfaller: Point.
paulproteu: I think that we shouldn't require this kind of intense record keeping.
mllerustad: So former students still involved with the chapter are what we're talking about?
e-star: honestly, if no one has heard of the person, we can deal with it then
Differance: skyfaller: and the problem would be addressed the point of the election
gavinbaker: paulproteus: i'd like to have this intensity of record-keeping, but i'm also hesitant to mandate it.
christo_ph: mllerustad: yes
mllerustad: That's much more limited than everyone who ever was involved with FC.o, ever.
mllerustad: I'm okay with that.
paulproteu: gavinbaker, Agreed, and I agree with e-star that "we can work out how to verify if someone comes along who we can't verify".
mecredis: e-star I agree
mecredis: hopefully these are people who we know
christo_ph: chapter members includes alumni, i think
gavinbaker: paulproteus: i think that works as an ad-hoc solution, too. but i hope we figure out a better one, in the longer term
gavinbaker: if it's totally random people, i doubt they'll be elected, imho
mecredis: so let them run
skyfaller: gavinbaker: well, that depends on how we vote :)
gavinbaker: unless it's like Hilary Rosen and she buys off all the chapters
mllerustad: skyfaller: Then at least there's *somebody* so the board doesn't default.
skyfaller: what if there are 5 seats on the board, 4 normal candidates, and 1 random dude who no-one has heard of? would they not be automatically elected?
gavinbaker , for one, welcomes our new Rupert Murdoch overlords^Wboard members
mllerustad hit enter first while arguing verbally
christo_ph: skyfaller: it seems that if we're in a state where we can only come up with 4 + 1 for the board, that represents the organization pretty well
mllerustad: skyfaller: I'd rather have a random, interested person than no one at all.
Differance: I'd rather have an anonymous person
christo_ph: the current method of voting, however, which is chapter-based with 1 vote per chapter isn't quite representative
paulproteu: Unless it's an evil non-random maliciously interested person, I suppose.
mllerustad: paulproteus: Then we'll just shun them to death. :)
skyfaller: it does seem to me that our election process should allow chapters to actively vote against someone they don't want on the board, rather than let someone random be auto-elected
skyfaller: just like in school elections where people can vote "none of the above"
skyfaller: but we can fix that when we get to elections in the bylaws, I suppose
skyfaller: so let's finish the nomination question and move on
mllerustad: So are we still cool with "Members of any chapter and current members of the board of directors can nominate themselves or other eligible individuals for board positions." ?
gavinbaker: mllerustad: who's an "eligible individual" again?
mllerustad: (understanding that "members of any chapter" include alumni at chapters which allow alumni members)
gavinbaker: er... so alumni are handled at the chapter level... so if you're an alumnus/a, you better hope you chapter allows alumni members (and still exists)?
mllerustad: gavinbaker: According to the current bylaws, "Only current members of chapters, alumni of chapters, or people who have previously served the Organization in other capacities for at least a year shall be eligible to stand for election to the board. There is no limit to the number of terms that a person may serve on the board."
mllerustad: gavinbaker: If you want to nominate, yeah.
gavinbaker: mllerustad: are we using the same working standard for alumni (i.e. they're handled through each chapter) in both sections?
mllerustad: gavinbaker: You can still serve.
gavinbaker: i.e. for both nominations and for board membership?
mllerustad: gavinbaker: Hm...
gavinbaker: mllerustad: not asking about me
mllerustad: Yeah, I think so.
mllerustad: Because "people who have previously served" I think covers the rest.
gavinbaker: we probably want the language to be parallel and not different
christo_ph: gavinbaker: i can't imagine a chapter wouldn't want alumni members but if they don't, that's there prerogative
skyfaller: the "or people who have previously served the Organization in other capacities for at least a year" language is slightly odd, and we should probably talk about why it's there
gavinbaker: i'm uncomfortable with "people who have previously served the Organization in other capacities for at least a year" but i guess that'a d fiferent section
gavinbaker: christo_pher: remember that chapters may not exist forever
skyfaller: yes, it is a different section
gavinbaker: so you'd better hope your old chapter still exists after you graduate, if you want to participate
christo_ph: gavinbaker: likewise, this is a student/youth movement
mllerustad: gavinbaker: c/participate/nominate
gavinbaker: which raises the question of why alumni should be able to nominate at all, christo_pher
mllerustad: You've done something for the national org, so you can still do the board.
christo_ph: gavinbaker: this is something i completely disagree with, i'd much rather us take in older members, not have chapter membership, and open ourselves up to people outside of chapter affiliation
mecredis: OK we need to progress this
gavinbaker: mecredis: don't be so negative, man.
mllerustad: gavinbaker: :p
christo_ph: gavinbaker: but that's not going to happen, so let's be consistent
mecredis: This is an inordinate amount of time
mecredis: on a fairly simple subject
mecredis: basically we're trying to nail down
christo_ph: i have to leave in around 15 minutes, so i'd like to see us make more progress
price: I think the hard issue here is who votes.
mecredis: how people get nominated
mecredis: and how people vote
mecredis: nomination seems to be solved
mllerustad: Are we okay on the new nomination language that I proposed?
gavinbaker: can we just exclude alumni for the moment to make it simpler? and fix it in future amendments?
mecredis: anyone who cares to be
mecredis: can nominate
mllerustad: gavinbaker ?
skyfaller: so how about anyone who can run for the board can nominate for the board?
gavinbaker: chapter members + board members get to nominate. end of story?
mecredis: gavinbaker: that doesn't sound simpler
skyfaller: can we make the two standards the same at least?
Deaner_: Just jumping in here, but have we discussed preferential voting? Mako is working on an app for that right now... might work well for this.
e-star: Deaner_: i suggested it
gavinbaker: Deaner_: not there yet, sadly
price: that's probably a good idea
e-star: Deaner_: i would like to see it too :)
e-star: christo_pher: yup
e-star: price: ++
price: but it's probably second-order relative to the question of who the voters are
mllerustad: Okay, so are we agreed on the nomination language?
gavinbaker: "chapter members + board members get to nominate". RESOLVED?
mllerustad: Members of any chapter and current members of the board of directors can nominate themselves or other eligible individuals for board positions.
Deaner_: btw, the IRC chat messages are coming in floods of 30 for me, so if I seem slow to reply, that is why
mecredis: why can't anyone nominate again?
price: yeah, that seems fine
gavinbaker: mllerustad: are we including alumni in "chapter members" for your purposes?
mllerustad: gavinbaker: Yes.
gavinbaker: elsewhere in the bylaws, we're not
skyfaller: but the language of who is eligible for the board seems like it should be the same as who can nominate
skyfaller: to me, at least
mllerustad: gavinbaker: If their chapter takes them.
gavinbaker: mecredis: for logistical simplicity
christo_ph: gavinbaker: yes, chapters decide
gavinbaker: mllerustad, christo_pher: other places in the bylaws, we define chapter members, and it doesn't include alumni
mecredis: gavinbaker: why is more complicated to restrict who can nominate?
mecredis: why not restrict who can vote?
mllerustad: gavinbaker: Where?
mllerustad: We define chapters *as* members of the Organization.
gavinbaker: mllerustad: maybe it's in the core team text that skyfaller and i hammered out
mllerustad: We never design a chapter's members for it, do we?
e-star: skyfaller: agreed
mllerustad: gavinbaker: Oh. Then I guess we'll talk about it there.
price: so long as the voters are defined well, it doesn't matter who's eligible
gavinbaker: mllerustad: no, they're differnet purposes
mecredis: 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: and doesn't have anything to do with actual members of the club
christo_ph: gavinbaker: i think that's a mistake to define for chapters who their members are
gavinbaker: to avoid the logistical problem of membership lsits
mecredis: they obviously won't win
e-star: i think whoever's eligible to BE on the board should be eligible to nominate
gavinbaker: let alone alumni lists!
christo_ph: i agree with e-star
mllerustad: gavinbaker: I'm not sure that's necessary/good... but we can debate that there.
gavinbaker: christo_pher: we're not defining for chapters. we're defining for FC.o purposes, and there can be different defintiions
skyfaller: e-star: agreed, then we can just have the argument once :)
mecredis: me too
mecredis: wait wait
gavinbaker: mllerustad: i'm not sure the other way is good either, but it's definitely simpler than whatever monstrosity we're building here
mecredis: there are two issues here
mecredis: one is who gets nominated
mecredis: there seems to be an argument that we should restrict that
mllerustad: Okay, so adding "people who have contributed" to the list of people who can nominate?
e-star: mllerustad: sure
mecredis: I, along with other people, don't understand why that should be restricted
gavinbaker: mecredis: there are 3 issues actually
gavinbaker: 1. who gets to nominate
e-star: honestly, i don't see nomination as such a huge deal
gavinbaker: 2. who can be nominated
gavinbaker: 3. who can vote
- Signoff: abhay ()
mecredis: I saw 1 and 2 as the same
gavinbaker: should all 3 align?
gavinbaker: they don't, in the current draft
mecredis: no, 3 should be seperate
christo_ph: i think all three should be the same
skyfaller: I agree that 1 & 2 should be the same
gavinbaker: i think 1 + 2 should be the same
skyfaller: I think 3 should be separate
gavinbaker: and 3 should = chapters
skyfaller: I mean, a chapter couldn't be on the board
mecredis: that seems to make sense
e-star: +1 on 1+2
mecredis: so people seem to agree that 1 and 2 should be the same
christo_ph: i don't think chapters should be the ones voting
mecredis: anyone can nominate and be nominated
e-star: okay, all agreed that 1+2 should be the same?
price: that seems agreed
mecredis: but the fact that the domain of voters should be restricted should be the case
e-star: christo_pher: agreed that there is an issue there
gavinbaker: e-star: +1 on 1=2
mllerustad: So, to end #1...
e-star: okay good
mllerustad: RESOLVED: Members of any chapter (as defined by the chapter), current members of the board of directors, and people who have previously served the Organization in other capacities can nominate themselves or other eligible individuals for board positions.
skyfaller: christo_pher: well, we'll fight about that later, but I think that anything other than chapters voting would be mindblowingly complex
e-star: now to #3
mecredis: WHO GETS TO VOTE
gavinbaker: are we sure there should no parameters on 1=2?
skyfaller: hey, later is now
mecredis: Ok, right now its "1 vote per chapter"
e-star: and how many votes
gavinbaker: chapters just define whatever they want?
gavinbaker: "some random hobo is a chapter member and gets to run for the board"?
mecredis: why not
mecredis: no one will vote for him
e-star: i just find it problematic that chapters that could be quite large only have one vote
mecredis: gavinbaker: we're over this
gavinbaker: because we're a student organization
gavinbaker: not a hobo organization
mllerustad: Proposed verbage: "Members of the board of directors are elected by the liaisons of official chapters by plurality vote. Each chapter may cast one vote for each open seat."
christo_ph: gavinbaker: rms isn't going to be elected because of mit's chapter
mllerustad: (last four words being the changes)
e-star: and i'm not just trying to represent the large chapter contingency here
gavinbaker: what happened to consensus, guys
mecredis: e-star: I agree though I also represent the large chapter contigency
gavinbaker: i think everybody's being reasonable
mllerustad: I disagree, and I represent the small-chapter contingency...
e-star: so do people have other ideas?
mecredis: so how do we fix
gavinbaker: i've been not holding up consensus where i'm more or less OK
mllerustad: I don' think this is coincidental. :p
mecredis: the 1 chapter to 1 vote thing
gavinbaker: but i wil hold up conesnsus if chapters can define non-students as members
gavinbaker: we should be a student and chapter organization
gavinbaker: chapters of students
mllerustad: gavinbaker: No alumni, even ones chapters consider members?
e-star: especially b/c of the issues of 20-30 ppl deciding on one vote
christo_ph: i have to leave now, my suggestions are on the talk page
skyfaller: e-star: I think that (1) it's balanced out by the proposed Core team, which will probably have more members from larger chapters, and (2) smaller chapters should have equal representation, b/c they need the most help
- christo_pher is now known as chriso_away
e-star: mllerustad: also i'm somewhat concerned about nonexistent chapters
- Signoff: chriso_away ()
skyfaller: they shouldn't be discriminated against
mecredis: e-star: agree
mllerustad: e-star: Well, it's already 20-30 chapters deciding on a board... that's elections.
e-star: skyfaller: i'm not concerned about small, actual chapters
e-star: but instead chapters that don't really actually exist
mecredis: people who just signed up
gavinbaker: will the active/inactive chapter distinction make a difference?
mecredis: and went through our incmredibly easy registration process
gavinbaker: or "active"/"interested"?
e-star: other comments re: one chapter/one vote?
mecredis: not sure that that's the way to do it
gavinbaker: i think that having a separate list for interested people whoa ren't actually doing anything should be OK
mecredis: ok I think one chapter and one vote is in the right direction
e-star: the minority opinions in large chapters will surely not be heard
Differance: house: proportional to # of people
gavinbaker: i don't ascribe much malice to people who'd like to participate but don't have a chapter
price: an active/interested distinction seems like a way to do it
Differance: senate: 1 per chapter
peabo: maybe a chapter doesn't get to vote until it has been active for a set period of time?
mecredis: I think it should be something to # of people
gavinbaker: i think 1 chapter 1 vote is right, we just need to define what a chapter is for voting purposes
e-star: okay, so only active chapters vote then?
mecredis: though determining # of people is difficult
gavinbaker: and i think if we let people sort themselves into active/interested it won't be a problem
e-star: right--we need some kind of house/senate balance
gavinbaker: doing anything proportional will be crazy
gavinbaker: jesus christ 2 chambers?
e-star: skyfaller: i'm not sure the core team will provide that..but it might
gavinbaker: it's a board of directors
e-star: gavinbaker: not actually
mllerustad: Okay, I'm willing to compromise and set up a tiered system.
e-star: gavinbaker: i just meant a way to balance it out
gavinbaker: does CC EFF PK FSF have 2 chambers?
skyfaller: what kind of tiers though?
mecredis: FYI boards are almost never elected by members / chapters
e-star: gavinbaker: i don't want two chambers!
mecredis: but by board members themselves
mllerustad: Say, if you register, and make it a year (and re-register), you can vote.
e-star: mecredis: true
mllerustad: e-star? mecredis?
gavinbaker: mecredis: but we want to be "grassroots" right? = elected by members?
e-star: mllerustad: i'm fine w/ 6 months even
skyfaller: 1 chapter 1 "vote" (voting for multiple seats obviously involves multiple votes)
mecredis: yeah, that's fine
gavinbaker: mllerustad: i don't think a 1yr embargo would be terrible for voting, or even less
e-star: mllerustad: since there could be new but active chapters
e-star: 6 months?
price: sounds good
mllerustad: Okay, so would that alleviate the non-chapter voting powers fears?
price: though if it's 6 months
mecredis: what about rewarding competency?
mecredis: with votes?
e-star: price: ?
price: well, if it's a year then we can expect a re-registration
mecredis: we want to encourage people to work hard
mecredis: and develop functional chapters
gavinbaker: mecredis: how do you propose to do that in a fair way?
skyfaller: what? who determines competency?
mecredis: that have sustainability
gavinbaker: "you're competent, you're not"?
mecredis: wait wait
mecredis: before you freak out
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
skyfaller freaks out
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
e-star: price: i mean that they have existed for 6 months
gavinbaker: mecredis: we send them a valentine. that's the reward, not voting...
mllerustad: mecredis: So, give them the vote after 6 months/a year?
Differance: how about propotional to recruitment
mllerustad: That shows some competency.
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?
mecredis: staying alive for 6 months is good
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
ktetch: define 'staying alive'
e-star: at least during the school year
mllerustad: ...personally lobbying Congress and curing cancer is better?
Differance: it shoudl be quantitative
e-star: gavinbaker: agreed--flying out tmrw
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: 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
Differance: like recruit?
mecredis: Differance: perhaps
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??
mecredis: "my e-mail list is bigger than yours"
mllerustad: Differance: That just asks for padding your membership list... not objective at all.
e-star: or did anyone have any other suggestions?
mecredis: e-star: I had one
Differance: to roles.
mllerustad: e-star: I really really think it should be 1-chapter-1-vote.
skyfaller: there is one problem with the 6 mo rule
Differance: but that's something else . . .
e-star: mecredis: yes?
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.
gavinbaker: chapters get to vote, 1 chapter 1 vote.
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
mecredis: e-star: its more than that
mllerustad: Well, isn't that their problem?
mecredis: its that large chapters should be recognized
Differance: remember that all that's at stake is being listed on the website, and swag
mllerustad: I mean, we don't tell them *how* to figure out how to vote.
- Fear_of_C (firstname.lastname@example.org) has joined channel #freeculture
jibot: Fear_of_C is Nick from Swarthmore and organizing http://freeculture.org/blog/2007/01/20/free-culture-labs/
e-star: mecredis: yes?
gavinbaker: mecredis: what do you want? a trophy? why can't this be more egalitarian?
gavinbaker: 1 chapter 1 vote makes everybody feel equal
mllerustad gives mecredis a trophy of Ozymandias
mecredis: gavinbaker: that's not egalitarian
gavinbaker: not like "zomg i'll never be as good as harvard/nyu"
e-star: again, i'm worried about disparate viewpoints
gavinbaker: "i may as well give up now"
Differance: chil folks
e-star: guys, please
mecredis: I'm interested in creating an incentive
mecredis: and right now
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
mecredis: what we offer chapters is one vote
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
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
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
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
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
Differance: remember that all that's at stake is being listed on the website, and swa
gavinbaker: ktetch++ | let's do this and move on!
skyfaller: "please, join my e-mail list! then I can get more votes!"
mllerustad: Okay, so one chapter one vote?
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: i still don't like it
gavinbaker: e-star: every chapter will have to decide among themselves how to vote
price: gavinbaker, ktetch: this is the single most important and least changeable thing in the bylaws
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"
e-star: mecredis: so what is your suggestion?
gavinbaker: or you can get consensus if you want
gavinbaker: that's each chapter's problem'
e-star: gavinbaker: we don't have a president..heh
e-star: but anyway
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
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 ;-)
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
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: and chapters are our members
mecredis: it is not egalitarian
price: it is not egalitarian
skyfaller: we're a confederation of chapters
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
price: it is the antithesis of egalitarian
mecredis: it penalizes big chapters
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.
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?
Fear_of_C: in that, for example, someone who starts a chapter is not dictator-for-life
price: what are we, collectivists?
e-star: price: suggestions? :)
gavinbaker: paulproteus: that seems pretty unworkable
mecredis: price: decidedly not
price: chapters don't have rights
price: or ideas
paulproteu: gavinbaker, In that people might lie?
mllerustad: paulproteus: What counts as an activity? Who confirms it?
price: people do
mecredis: yeah, why not do a real vote
gavinbaker: price: and why shouldn't we define things at the chapter level?
mecredis: where people have to register
price: we might wind up with some form of one chapter / one vote
mecredis: say what chapter they're with
gavinbaker: mecredis: sounds like a clusterfuck to me
mecredis: and have that chapter vouch for them
skyfaller: defining things at the person level would be absurdly centralized
gavinbaker: to get potentially 100s of people registered
mecredis: gavinbaker: real voting?
skyfaller: and people seem to be suspicious of centralization
gavinbaker: and rely on chapters to vouch for them
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: 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
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
mllerustad: They focus on their chapter.
mllerustad: Which I think makes sense.
e-star: mllerustad: sure
mecredis: that's not a tenable model at all though
- Signoff: sahal (Success)
mecredis: an ideal situation is if all chapter members are interested in the national org
mecredis: in some respect
mecredis: and can have their voice heard
gavinbaker: mecredis: wait what??
skyfaller: Fear_of_C: I like your suggestion
gavinbaker: i thought you hated FC.org
gavinbaker: and wanted it to disappear
paulproteu: mecredis, I think that gavinbaker has a point about hobos.
mllerustad: gavinbaker: lol!
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)
gavinbaker: i think 80% of chapter members should focus on their chapter
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
gavinbaker: we don't want to overly centralize
gavinbaker: and make everybody spend their time paying attention to FC.org
mecredis: you're the ones that care so much
gavinbaker: rather than working on their campus
Differance: Um, duties and powers?
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
mllerustad: mecredis: Which are?
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
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: but also that doesn't penalize large ones
price: we could say chapters that have been around for some amount of time
gavinbaker: e-star: i don't think it exists
gavinbaker: without having 2 chambers
gavinbaker: which i refuse to consider
mecredis: why not trust the chapter heads?
gavinbaker: because it's incredible bureacracy
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
mecredis: to vouch for real votes?
paulproteu: mecredis, I suppose that's true re: trust.
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
gavinbaker: mecredis: because there's an inherent conflict?
gavinbaker: and no verification mechanism?
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?
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
e-star: mecredis: i think that was a joke
mecredis: sorry, not quite in the mood
skyfaller: If we start counting members, then we have the issue of differing values of members
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
e-star: somehow served as another chamber
e-star: in a way
gavinbaker: 1 chapter, 1 vote (after 6 months)? easy, relatively fair?
gavinbaker: e-star: anybody from any chapter can join the core team under the proposal on talk page
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
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.
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: 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.
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: 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
price: gavinbaker: no, that's nonsense; there's no reason it should do that
gavinbaker: there are checks and balances (i think!)
mecredis: so the core team counts as a chamber
e-star: i think we have too many things allocated to the board already
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.
skyfaller: but it's not a chamber, gah
Differance: I think the core team should get a whole lotta power
skyfaller: it's a different body
price: so how is the core team defined?
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
e-star: i'm not saying it needs to be a chamber
skyfaller: that makes different decisions
Fear_of_C: but if we explicitly give a different type of power to the core team
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
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
mecredis: 2 chambers is complicated
mecredis: but 2 votes isn't
mecredis: how about this
gavinbaker: not for an organization this size, it's too much
mecredis: we have two seperate votes
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
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
ktetch: Fear_of_C - then you modify the rules
mecredis: err, vouch for
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
e-star: gavinbaker: but apparently even that is pissing people off
gavinbaker: as well as incur all sorts of logiistical issues
e-star: gavinbaker: no comment
Fear_of_C: ktech: that's what I think we should avoid
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
Fear_of_C: ktetch: we would be repurposing the core team
gavinbaker: than 2 chapters that have more, and everybody else resents them
price: mecredis: so what are these two votes for?
mecredis: one is the big gross vote
price: mecredis: ie, what's the difference between them?
mecredis: of everytone gives a shit
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
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
mecredis: and we see how it falls out
mecredis: if there's a huge discrepancy
mecredis: then we do a run off
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
gavinbaker: the 6mo embargo for new ppl isn't accpetable to everyone??
gavinbaker: that's not enough?
price: a runoff under which vote?
mecredis: under the gross vote
e-star: skyfaller: it could be whoever shows up to the voting mtg
mecredis: and then have the chapters vote for that
skyfaller: there's no good way to count chapter members for voting purposes
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)?
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!"
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
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
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
mecredis: and have the 1 chapter per vote vote count as a equalizer
e-star: mllerustad: you too, thanks
Fear_of_C: we are already dealing with the federalist question
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
mllerustad: It's politics.
price: mecredis: and then have the chapters vote for that?
mllerustad: I don't think you can pretend otherwise.
gavinbaker: i note that the people who want to get away from 1:1 have made it that fight
mllerustad: So let's fix it.
Fear_of_C: e-start: mllerustad is right
Fear_of_C: e-star: typo
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
Differance: I actually don't think folks should get all uppity about democratizing everything.
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.
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"
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?
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
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
mecredis: skyfaller: I really disagree
e-star: skyfaller: i think the purpose of the org is to represent the chapters
e-star: and coordinate btw them etc
Differance: The states originally appointed Senators
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
Differance: It makes sense
mecredis: price: thank you
Differance: But I don't see the importance of voting right now
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
skyfaller: I think it's seriously bad to try to calculate membership numbers
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?
mllerustad: Differance: Until we have money. :/
price: e.g., what's "a huge discrepancy"?
gavinbaker: skyfaller++ | huge logistical issue
price: skyfaller: there's no calculating membership numbers
price: skyfaller: because people are voting
mecredis: basically no one is going to bother
price: that's the point
e-star: skyfaller: student orgs deal w/ elections all the time
mecredis: and hassling for ballot stuffing
mecredis: is not going to happen
skyfaller: why not? politics happens, people fight
skyfaller: and sock puppets happen
- K`Tetch (email@example.com) has joined channel #freeculture
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
mecredis: gavinbaker: can someone show me that method?
e-star: that let members vote
gavinbaker: e-star: name?
mllerustad: mecredis: As far as I know, STAND works this way.
gavinbaker: mecredis: isn't this how AMSA votes?
e-star: gavinbaker: students for a free tibet
mllerustad: (the student part of Genocide Intervention network)
mecredis: can I get links?
e-star: gavinbaker: individuals voted for the board
gavinbaker: e-star: wikimedia isn't a student org? and barely has chapters even?
mecredis: wikimedia is based on trust
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
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
mecredis: K`Tetch: the board
gavinbaker: everybody read skyfaller's comment
e-star: i like fred's idea
mecredis: e-star: thanks
mecredis: I'm also curious to see how it goes
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
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
gavinbaker: individual-based voting is untenable unless the Org has individual-based membership
e-star: could ignore the opinions of the chapter
Differance: It's an organization that want to do things
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
e-star: or any chapter
e-star: not just large
e-star: and just vote for what s/he wants
skyfaller: the *proposed* Core team
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
mecredis: gavinbaker: what if they're all hobos?
mllerustad: e-star: And their other members will machine-gun them.
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
mllerustad: And they will no longer be prez.
e-star: gavinbaker: i disagree w/ that then
gavinbaker: mecredis: in this case, the hobos get ignored
Fear_of_C: we need some standard for how chapters select their vote
mecredis: gavinbaker: by who?
gavinbaker: e-star: the chapters decide on their own how to vote
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
gavinbaker: who votes however s/he wants
mecredis: gavinbaker: but what if the chapter prez doesn't ignore them?
gavinbaker: Fear_of_C: that's why each chapter has elections?
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
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
mecredis: e.g., listens to them
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.
gavinbaker: Fear_of_C: err that's hard
poningru: the national org keeps a human members list
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
Differance: Founders are usually dictators for life in some strong sense
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
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
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
skyfaller: those standards should definitely be minimal
poningru: the dictator is DEAD
e-star: also i'd like to bring up the issue of NUMBER of board members
gavinbaker: skyfaller: super hard to define that...
price: gavinbaker: seriously? let's take mecredis' suggestion then
mecredis: if gavinbaker doesn't care
mecredis: let's do a dual vote
mllerustad: e-star: We'll get to it. I hope to God.
gavinbaker: whoever sticks around in this org
gavinbaker: will have to clean up the mess
skyfaller: I do care, I think a dual vote is a horrible idea
gavinbaker: in the future
Fear_of_C: gavinbaker: I care
gavinbaker: i still think it's dumb
mllerustad: I also care, quite a bit.
mecredis: skyfaller: are you afraid of ballet stuffing?
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
skyfaller: a dual vote screams schism to me
gavinbaker: but i'm fine with letting us screw this up for now
mecredis: Differance: you surely kid
Differance: I LOVE ballet stuffing
skyfaller: b/c then you could have two different boards
skyfaller: and then the project forks?
mllerustad: And then the pope flees to Avignon!
skyfaller: what happens if the two votes don't agree?
mecredis: then we do a primary like run off
Differance: No, the real issues would be discussed amicably
mecredis: we take the top 4 nominees
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
e-star: we could determine the results by using the dual vote 50/50
mecredis: on those
mecredis: e-star: that works too
Differance: membership conditions and representation are pernicious
Differance: you should just talk about what you want the organization to do
mllerustad: e-star: There's an odd member of board members.
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'
price: This may be something worth taking offline
Differance: get of like mind there first
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
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: otherwise we'll have an election and not know how many to elect
skyfaller: mecredis: no, it just doesn't do them extra favors.
K`Tetch: mecredis - why does it?
mllerustad: e-star: I have a proposed change, we'll get to it.
e-star: mllerustad: okay
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
price: skyfaller: do you have thoughts and ideas and rights, or does your chapter?
mecredis: and of those
price: skyfaller: I think people do.
mecredis: err, of chapter A has two nationally active members
mecredis: for instance
mecredis: but chapter B has 10 nationally active membres
mllerustad: price: *God Bless America plays in the background*
Differance: mecredis: I was talking about ballet stuffing not ballot stuffing :-)
skyfaller: the problem is that not all members are created equal :)
price: mllerustad: thanks
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?
mecredis: than the votes of Chapter A's members
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: 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
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.
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
- 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
- Signoff: Deaner_ ()
- brain|food is now known as mind|distracted
mecredis: skyfaller: I do think it is worth it
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
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.
K`Tetch: which is whta you're doing mecredis
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
mecredis: K`Tetch: which is why I'm suggesting a dual vote
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
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
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
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
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
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: or at least room for doubt
mecredis: which is why its a dual vote
skyfaller: mecredis: before we can have humans vote, humans must be in our bylaws
mecredis: and is checked by the 1:1 vote
Differance: I think more important is how you're going to assign executive power
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
mecredis: see price's comment
gavinbaker: i don't think we'll reach consensus on this
mllerustad: gavinbaker: But who flips it?
gavinbaker: so let's flip a coin now and pick either
mllerustad: Isn't that the point?
Differance: all this representation and membership conditions is pernicious
gavinbaker: mllerustad: i don't care. i have a quarter, if anyone trusts me
gavinbaker: to flip it
mecredis: Differance: agreed
Differance: Just start there
e-star: right now
gavinbaker: i just want to decide and now on
e-star: we're allowing one chapter / one vote to ratify the bylaws
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
gavinbaker: e-star: it depends what we write into the bylaws
e-star: well i'm fine w/ that much
e-star: but do chapters have to ratify changes?
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
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.
gavinbaker: i should point out that voting to ratify / approve amendments need not be the same as voting for board members, though it could be.
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: make the most basic system, and make it adaptable
mllerustad: Want to call each chapter and ask them how many members they have?
e-star: mllerustad: i don't think either of us should
- Deaner (n=Deaner@220.127.116.11) has joined channel #freeculture
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
Fear_of_C: K`Tetch: we are talking about how the rules are set; get that seriously wrong, and it propogates
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
gavinbaker: the quarter is here. i'll flip it as soon as anyone says to
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
Differance: And address first: the organizational powers
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?
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
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
Differance: and recognize that representation and membership conditions are inherently intractable
Differance: ah well, nobody listening
mecredis: Differance does has a good point here
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
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?
mecredis: gavinbaker: right
gavinbaker: the only requirements for chapters are to re-reigster
Differance: no, that's not my impression, gavin
- Signoff: ktetch (Connection timed out)
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
Differance: interested in setting up a working organization
mllerustad: mecredis: Then, either the board ignores it, or if it's in a "malfeasance" kind of way, they kick them out of the org.
Differance: they might have different views of that instrumentally
Differance: vis a vis representation,etc.
e-star: i hate to say it, but this issue is of critical importance
Differance: But they want to set up a workable org
mecredis: it is
Differance: Address powers and duties first
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
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
mecredis: K`Tetch: we're essentially at that stage
Differance: skyfaller: but that's the substantive issues t o addres
mecredis: there has been a trial run
Differance: not indeterminacies and intractable issues
mecredis: there are some chapters that are bigger than others
Differance: like representation and membership conditions
mecredis: and might not feel properly represented
Differance: You can have an amicable discussion if you start there
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
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?
mecredis: K`Tetch: this what we have a now, an interim board
K`Tetch: right, and how has it worked out?
gavinbaker: considering we've never voted, how can anyone feel underrepresented with 1 vote?
mecredis: K`Tetch: I'm not sure it has
K`Tetch: in what way hasn't it?
gavinbaker: if anything, the problem is with the structures, not the board members
skyfaller: mecredis: we've never had elections
gavinbaker: that's why i want so desperately to pass these bylaws
gavinbaker: i don't care who sits on the board
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
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.
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
e-star: mllerustad: hmm..
mecredis: skyfaller made a good point a while ago
mecredis: we, as an organization
mecredis: right now
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
skyfaller: mecredis: agreed
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.
mecredis: but I am less interested in the former
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...
e-star: mllerustad: right, i disagree
mllerustad: e-star: Me neither, but it would be very flexible.
mecredis: because members are what make up organizations
e-star: mllerustad: i think that large chapters can have a lot of needs as well
mecredis: not chapters
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
mecredis: this is a question
mecredis: is Free Culture a Chapter based organization
gavinbaker: my biggest concern is with the chapter that doesn't exist yet
mecredis: or a Member based organization, members who work in chapters
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
gavinbaker: we need an organization that's competent to help them
K`Tetch: else the group becomes unweildy to run
K`Tetch: if it's member based, whats the point of the chapters?
gavinbaker: mecredis: i say chapters, for both logistical and philosophical reasons
mecredis: gavinbaker: so we disagree here
gavinbaker: mecredis: gee, really? ;)
mecredis: well anyway
mecredis: I see politics and free culture
mecredis: at least to me
mecredis: has always been about members
mecredis: people you can count on
mecredis: to know the issues
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
mecredis: and make a difference
price: it's members that do things; chapters are how members get together every week or so
mecredis: it has never 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
gavinbaker: chapters are the structure where you get people together to do something useful
gavinbaker: and spread the word to the rest of your campus
price: and a way that members get help from other members
K`Tetch: ok, what are chapters for? what is the purpose of them?
gavinbaker: chapters give you something that members can't do along
price: k'tetch: see my comments
mecredis: K`Tetch: good question
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?
Differance: It's not either-or
Differance: you have to be able to execute
mecredis: Differance: unfortunately it looks like it is
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'
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
mecredis: in terms of voting
Differance: no, it's not
mecredis: peabo: they already have identity in the larger og
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
mecredis: price: exactly
Differance: you always have a divide between participation and execution
gavinbaker: mecredis: people have identity in their chapters, not in FC.org
Differance: It's not either-or
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.
gavinbaker: at least, more in their chapter than in FC.org
- Ax3 (firstname.lastname@example.org) has joined channel #freeculture
jibot: Ax3 is awesome.
mllerustad: And their subsequent participation in the national org is minimal.
mecredis: maybe not fc.o but free culture
gavinbaker: mllerustad, basically the same at UF
peabo: mecredis: yes, but for organizing a project that is most significant locally, you need a local sense of identity
mllerustad: I imagine that's true of other chapters.
e-star: mllerustad: in fact, i don't think it's clear that one necessarily has more needs than another. i think it depends a lot on context. for example, a small chapter with a few highly dedicated members may be doing just fine, but a large chapter trying to pursue a lot of projects that maybe isn't the most organized might need a lot more from the nat'l org. sorry to drag this out but i just don't think we should operate w/ that assumpt
skyfaller: BRB, gotta get a sweater
mllerustad: They don't 'identify' with FC.o.
price: nothing gets done by a chapter somehow collectively saying "let's do this" and making people do that; it's tried sometimes and it doesn't get done.
mllerustad: They identify with the local chapter.
Fear_of_C: look, I think that if we're not chapters, then we have to ask why only chapter members can get in
Fear_of_C: and why only college people can get in
Ax3: damn... not everyone all at once now... lol
Fear_of_C: I think that's a different org
Differance: price: yes, that's right
gavinbaker: price: chapters aren't a structure for coercion, they're a structure for cooperation
K`Tetch: don't try guessing at 'chapter needs' - certainly not by basing them on 'big or small' because you have no baseline for comparison, its just clouding the issue
price: gavinbaker: exactly
gavinbaker: price: without the structure for cooperation it doesn't happen. that's why the chapter matters
Differance: chapters is a stand-in here for another more basic thing
gavinbaker: that's why we should vest 'membership' at the chapter level
price: gavinbaker: so why do I lose voting power when I join a large chapter?
K`Tetch: price - what state do you live in?
gavinbaker: price: you never had voting power, let's be straight!
mllerustad: price: You don't have any voting power as an individual.
mllerustad: And if you're transferring schools over this.... eep...
Fear_of_C: the advantage for a chapter structure is that it hides individual details from the national org
gavinbaker: price: you only gain the ability to influence a vote at all by joining a chapter. that's the default, more or less, imho
mecredis: Fear_of_C: is that an advantage?
K`Tetch: yes mecredis
price: gavinbaker, mllerustad: we're talking about the structure we're going to establish; and in that structure I have power if I have a separate small chapter, and lose it by belonging to a large one
mecredis: but we're providing a disincentive for people to recruit more members
mecredis: its as simple as that
Fear_of_C: mecredis: if you are trying to handle the bureaucracy, then yes
K`Tetch: because the workload goes up at the square of the number of people interacting at that level (or members at that level)
skyfaller: mecredis: what???
gavinbaker: price: i *seriously* doubt that anybody cares enough about being able to vote for the board that it'll affect what kind of chapter they join.
mecredis: skyfaller: the more people there are in your chapter
mllerustad: price: The chapters are based at schools. Which presumably already does or doesn't have a chapter, which you presumably attend.
Fear_of_C: mecredis: no we're not
mecredis: the more overhead there is
mecredis: to vote for the board
Fear_of_C: one could possibly argue we are giving chapters an incentive to split
price: mllerustad: so am I in the Harvard or MIT chapter?
mecredis: and the less likely your voice will get represented
Omnifrog: i don't see what the big deal is. FC.o is a student based student run org. keep it that way but embrace outside membership, sheeesh
mllerustad: price: MIT.
price: mllerustad: one's small, one's large
mllerustad: At least, that's how it's counted on our chapter registration.
K`Tetch: mecredis - thats a fallacy, add more members lass members, it doesn't change the number of votes they have
Fear_of_C: but they already have plenty of disincentives to splitting or to getting smaller
mecredis: Omnifrog: this isn't a question of outside membership
gavinbaker: mecredis: getting more votes should *Never* be an incentive to recruit. you should recruit because you believe in the cause!
K`Tetch: if anything, adding more memebers adds to the quality of the one vote
price: mllerustad: I think Harvard FC disagrees.
Fear_of_C: this assumes, of course, that a school has one chapter
gavinbaker: price: what, i thought chapters didn't have thoughts ;)
skyfaller: Fear_of_C: ooh, that's a mindbender :)
price: gavinbaker: it's shorthand
Fear_of_C: skyfaller: this whole thing is a mindbender
mecredis: gavinbaker: then whats the incentive for a chapter to particiapte at all?
gavinbaker: price: why can't the chapters be shorthand for voting-for-the-board purposes?
price: gavinbaker: but in this context it's not limiting anyone's influence in a vote
mllerustad: e-star? Are you terribly opposed to MIT being a chapter for some reason?
K`Tetch: I did assume that there was some sort of 'exclusivity' franchise-type deal for the chapters
mllerustad: If so, why are they listed as one?
e-star: mllerustad: huh?
price: gavinbaker: anyone's free to disagree with my summary
gavinbaker: mecredis: because you believe in the cause, and you want to get help from other chapters and to help other chapters??
Fear_of_C: because we are re-debating one of the earliest constitutional issues
e-star: mllerustad: danjared is from mit
mllerustad: e-star: I dunno, ask price.
mecredis: gavinbaker: but what about having a "grassroots" board
e-star: mllerustad: price is still harvard fc, next year we'll see
Fear_of_C: and if it wasn't solved when they were founding the US, it's gonna be damned hard for us to
mecredis: that represents your voice
price: mllerustad: ask me what?
gavinbaker: mecredis: the board elected by chapters represents your voice
skyfaller: Fear_of_C: good point :)
mecredis: gavinbaker: but slightly less so if you're at a bigger chapter
mllerustad: e-star: Is he transferring, or just a matter of convenience....?
gavinbaker: mecredis: i totally disagree.
mllerustad: I guess I don't know the particular situation.
gavinbaker: as poningru noted, i'm coming from a "bigger chapter"
gavinbaker: and i think this is all hooey
e-star: mllerustad: price just graduated from harvard, and in the fall he will begin attending mit
mllerustad: e-star: Ah, cool.
Fear_of_C: I do see one issue with 1 vote/chapter, which is that we absolutely must decide who can be a chapter
gavinbaker: Fear_of_C: we had to do that anyway? and we've already decided it?
Fear_of_C: in cases where chapters are merged
mecredis: gavinbaker: fine you may disagree
skyfaller: hm, good question
jibot: JohnBolton is
mecredis: but I haven't heard a substantiative reason
Differance: People, I don't think you've even started talking
gavinbaker: jibot, thanks for being on topic
Fear_of_C: what I am talking about is, for example, let's say that the claremont colleges pull in members from each college
Differance: You want to figure out how you're going to run the organization
Fear_of_C: there are 5 of them, right?
skyfaller: Hey guys, I think we're running out the clock on this meeting... e-star is probably sleepy, and I'm about to get kicked out of this coffeeshop
Differance: Not vote
mecredis: I have to leave too
mecredis: to eat
gavinbaker: can i flip this coin?
Fear_of_C: under this system, we have to determine whether they are 5 chapters
K`Tetch: yeah, its been almost 4 hours
gavinbaker: and we can move on to the rest?
K`Tetch: you've been on this point for over an hour
mllerustad: Fear_of_C: That is a good point, that we haven't accounted for yet.
gavinbaker: i suggested the coin a long time ago. we're not going to hit consensus, but we have to decide
gavinbaker: if the chapters disagree so much, they'll vote the bylaws down
mllerustad: gavinbaker: We aren't finishing these tonight anyway...
mecredis: gavinbaker: indeed
Fear_of_C: gavinbaker: I'd rather table
e-star: can we move on?
e-star: to some other issues
mecredis: let's move on
mecredis: I have about 5 minutes
gavinbaker: mllerustad, Fear_of_C, we gotta finish tonight
e-star: like 3/4 ratification?
e-star: one chapter, one vote to ratify
Fear_of_C: gavinbaker: a coin flip is not a finish
e-star: 3/4 majority?
K`Tetch: why not have a distance limit - no chapter can be within 30 miles of another, and where that 30 mile radius hits multiple collegees, it's measured from the median point of them all
mllerustad: e-star: skyfaller and I won't have internet for the next three hours after we get kicked out of here....
gavinbaker: Fear_of_C: it's one way to finish.
skyfaller: well, we'll run out of power before we run out of internet
mecredis: K`Tetch: that doesn't seem like a good idea
mecredis: NYU v. Columbia
e-star: also, what to do in case of no ED/EF?
mllerustad: gavinbaker: Only if you coin-flip for every other issue too.
Fear_of_C: gavinbaker: promise you will clean up the mess if you flip it wrong
mllerustad: gavinbaker: The staff here are getting tetchy.
e-star: so much is dependent on an ED/EF
gavinbaker: Fear_of_C: i won't clean it up, but you young'uns will.
e-star: and i don't envision that we'll have the funding to hire one right away
Fear_of_C: gavinbaker: I am not willing to clean up a mess that you are leaving
gavinbaker: mllerustad: just tell them to leave the wifi on, and sit outside ;)
e-star: and i don't know if a volunteer would be willing to take on all of those responsibilities
gavinbaker: Fear_of_C: excuse me for staying around to help out at all
skyfaller: gavinbaker: we'll run out of power
mllerustad: gavinbaker: No plugins.
mecredis: we must assume that we'll have to pay someone for this
mecredis: volunteer isn't feasible
gavinbaker: mllerustad, skyfaller: hand crank
mllerustad: gavinbaker ++
e-star: so we need a backup plan
gavinbaker: we need a paid staff person
e-star: in the case of no ED/EF
skyfaller: e-star: I think it's critical to hire an ED/EF right away, b/c of the shortcomings of 100% volunteer labor
gavinbaker: there's so much work that can/should be done
gavinbaker: and we need someone who can concentrate on it full time
e-star: skyfaller: right, but what happens
gavinbaker: the only way anybody can do this full time is if they get paid.
e-star: skyfaller: for the 6 months or whenever when we have no funding
e-star: yes, understood
e-star: but see my above comment
skyfaller: e-star: we have $3000 in the bank and we have rich friends :P
e-star: also, if we're going to pay someone
e-star: we probably need to incorporate
skyfaller: I don't think it's impossible to find the funds quickly
mllerustad: e-star: They may not be full-time to begin with. Hell, they probably won't.
e-star: skyfaller: why don't you try to get money out of those rich friends :p
mllerustad: But they should be paid something, and we can do that.
gavinbaker: Larry raised $100K out of thin air? i think we can find $20K or something to pay a kid for a year
e-star: gavinbaker: that's a long story
e-star: gavinbaker: and it wasn't out of thin air
mllerustad: e-star: Their first job can be making grant proposals! :p
gavinbaker: e-star: well, this can be a long story too
gavinbaker: as long as we make it happen
e-star: gavinbaker: those 100k ppl love free culture
skyfaller: hey, we're getting kicked out
e-star: gavinbaker: but it's a bit sketchy
gavinbaker: can someone say what happens if there's no Facilitator?
e-star: my point is
e-star: we will nto have an ED right away
e-star: there's no way
e-star: so we need a backup plan
e-star: i don't think that's unreasonable
gavinbaker: how much of a problem is it if we don't have one right away?
price: so what's our plan for continuing this discussion?
mecredis: how is Tuesday night?
gavinbaker: somebody please answer my question. what happens? not just "it's bad", but specifically what happens
price: (as important as the pre-funding/pre-facilitator plan is too)
mecredis: gavinbaker: I have no idea
e-star: mecredis: bad
mecredis: this is why I'm not interested in an ED
mllerustad: e-star: They may be a volunteer to begin with, and they may be as effective as Nelson was.
e-star: gavinbaker: so much is dependent on an ED
e-star: gavinbaker: that i think a lot of processes wouldn't take place
mllerustad: But the plans will be in place to make it paid more than $3000, and effective.
gavinbaker: e-star: can you tell me what?
e-star: gavinbaker: according to the current bylaws
skyfaller: We need an ED to handle all the stuff that burns out volunteers so that we can have better survivability of volunteers :P
gavinbaker: i've seen the bylaws, they say some stuff. i'm convinced the sky falls if there's a lapse in Facilitator
gavinbaker: *not convinced
e-star: also, what about incorporation?
- DiffDude (n=Differan@dialup-18.104.22.168.Dial1.NewYork1.Level3.net) has joined channel #freeculture
gavinbaker: e-star, i'm all for it
gavinbaker: but should we (sadly) be making plans for the follow-up, and give up for tonight?
DiffDude: hi diffdude is differance, go disconnected
peabo: there is a large amount of paperwork involved in incoporation
gavinbaker: i feel like the UN or something, not meeting our deadlines
e-star: peabo: yes, we know
gavinbaker: peabo: no, there's very little, actually. i've done it
e-star: gavinbaker: well, maybe more if you actually renew :p
gavinbaker: there's a lot of paperwork in 501(c)(3), which is not the same thing
gavinbaker: e-star: it would have been filling out a form online if we'd renewed.
Fear_of_C: gavinbaker: sometimes it's better to not meet a deadline than to screw everything up to meet it
Fear_of_C: look at Windows ME
skyfaller: Fear_of_C: and look at Vista :P
gavinbaker: Fear_of_C: we've missed so many deadlines already, i just want to finish this soon.
e-star: gavinbaker: yes, agreed
mecredis: let's just make sure
gavinbaker: it's really important to have an effective org, and i want to make that happen ASAP
mecredis: we've implemented the changes so far
mecredis: so the chapters will have something to vote on
e-star: gavinbaker: i just think we should have a plan for interim facilitator
DiffDude: I think you have an interesting report to make
e-star: before we have funding to hire someone FT
e-star: assuming that's what we actually want to do
e-star: is paulproteus her?
mllerustad: e-star: How would the duties of the interim facilitator differ from those of the EF?
gavinbaker: i don't want to throw off our timeline too much
DiffDude: How concerned you were with crucial (timeless) issues
gavinbaker: otherwise we won't have a new board before the new year
e-star: mllerustad: i mean someone who can sit in
mllerustad: would have the same jobs, or the same job to give out the jobs.
DiffDude: It will be impressive
gavinbaker: and then people get all caught up in back-to-school
e-star: mllerustad: unless it's taken up by a group of ppl
mllerustad: e-star: Ah, okay.
e-star: mllerustad: my concern is that it could be too much for a fulltime student
Fear_of_C: I think that it was maybe naive to think we were going to settle the issue that led to a bicameral US legislature in one meeting
e-star: gavinbaker: agreed that this all needs to get settled ASAP
mllerustad: e-star: Yes, it definitely is... that's why we want it paid.
e-star: but it's hard to get ppl to apply for grants if we don't have the funding to pay them yet
DiffDude: You folks should skip to duties and powers, have that discussion offline
e-star: grant writing is a lot of work
gavinbaker: i wish we could "crowdsource" everything but that's a naive hope... we need someone who's responsible for (and has the time to make sure that) the trains run on time.
mllerustad: Until it is a paid position either, we have two choices: 1.) find one or two totally hardcore work freaks who do things for free, and/or 2.) get as much work as $3000 will buy, writing grant proposals and other things.
e-star: also if we have an EF, ideally they should have a work space somewhere
skyfaller: e-star: we got $3000 that someone gave to us without us even asking for it. I think if we actively ask we can get more.
e-star: skyfaller: 3k is very little
skyfaller: *especially* if we're organized once we ask
mecredis: yeah, that's a plane ticket
mecredis: and a week of owrk
e-star: skyfaller: i think you're underestimating the amt of effort that goes into funding
e-star: just ask Deaner
gavinbaker: mecredis: not everybody lives at your standard.
mllerustad: mecredis: To where? We don't have an office. They'd work wherever they are.
mecredis: gavinbaker: please.
gavinbaker: fundraising is not easy, but we'll make it happen, because it's that important
mllerustad: again, fundraising can be this person's first job.
mecredis: we're obviously going to have to sit down with them
mecredis: and hammer this out
mecredis: we'll want to interview
mllerustad: "Do your job and get some grants, or you don't get paid! Really!"
e-star: right, i was bringing up the issue of workspace
mecredis: mllerustad: thats an entirely untenable job proposition
mllerustad: mecredis: Yep, and it's all we can offer.
gavinbaker: it's really hard to ask anyone to do that, mllerustad
mllerustad: gavinbaker: I know.
gavinbaker: but i don't know to get around it...
skyfaller: unforutnately, I agree with mecredis
skyfaller: so we would need funds before we could hire
mecredis: skyfaller: thanks for the vote of confidence
mllerustad: But we can't pull funds out of our ass.
mllerustad: So who's going to do that job for free instead of for $3000?
DiffDude: I know all-volunteer orgs that work just fine
skyfaller: that doesn't mean that we can't have someone volunteer as a stopgap, without changing the parameters of the job
gavinbaker: DiffDude: it's a question of efficacy. we could do so much more
mecredis: DiffDude: they usually have a physical location
skyfaller: but they wouldn't be as effective or reliable as a full-time stafff person
mllerustad: DiffDude: We've tried it.
paulproteu: e-star, I was away but am now back.
mecredis: DiffDude: we don't
DiffDude: um, making it work isn't what you think
e-star: paulproteus: are you opposed to having an ED
gavinbaker: paulproteus: she means Facilitator. ;)
gavinbaker: (really guys... i don't like "ED"... let's call it something else!)
paulproteu: I'm not sure, e-star.
paulproteu: Is it really the best use of money?
mllerustad thinks of Bob Dole
mecredis: paulproteus: good question
paulproteu: If the answer is "yes because it lets us get more money" then yes, I'm for it.
gavinbaker: paulproteus: it does let us get more money, for one.
paulproteu: I also fear what happens when we don't have one.
gavinbaker: more importantly, it lets us get a lot more work done.
e-star: gavinbaker: coordinator?
gavinbaker: should we be scheduling our next chat?
mecredis: gavinbaker: yes
gavinbaker: e-star: coordinator, facilitator, i don't care
paulproteu: If we have structures in place for handling six months where we have no money, fine.
skyfaller: nobody cares what the name is anymore :)
paulproteu: I think we're going to have to rely on those structures no matter at some point, no matter what we do.
gavinbaker: mecredis: i agree, i think we (sadly) have to call it quits for tonight and try again later.
peabo: in order to do fundraising, don';t you need someone who has experience doing it, and has contacts to call upon?
paulproteu: Unless we have gobs and gobs of money one day.
mllerustad: gavinbaker: Agreed.
mecredis: so lets push voting another week
mecredis: and do this again next sunday
gavinbaker: peabo: it fell off the back of a truck
gavinbaker: is there anyway we can do this again before Sunday?
Fear_of_C: let's also set up a talk page
skyfaller: we can't do this the exact same way in a week
Deaner: mecredis: I can't wait!
e-star: mecredis: i can't make this time next sunday
e-star: i will be in taiwan
gavinbaker: or reach more consensus before then?
skyfaller: we'll have the same results in a week
Fear_of_C: so that thinking etc. can continue
mecredis: Deaner: I share your enthusiasm
e-star: and it will be at like 5am
Fear_of_C: I don't think that just pushing this off in a week is going to help
mecredis: skyfaller: I'm glad your so optimistic
skyfaller: we have to do something different
paulproteu: Earlier in the day would be okay with me, e-star.
skyfaller: mecredis: well, do the same old thing, get the same old results
Fear_of_C: I think that everybody thinking about this for longer will help
gavinbaker: i agree with Fear_of_C and skyfaller, we have to find a way around this impasse. how?
DiffDude: You folks should have a powwow about duties and powers first
mecredis: skyfaller: let's abandon all
mllerustad: skyfaller: So what do we do next time?
DiffDude: (I said again)
mllerustad: mecredis: Don't be so negative.
paulproteu: Next week, we only cover the issues that weren't RESOLVED here.
paulproteu: I'd say.
Fear_of_C: I think that we should be thinking about this over the course of the week, not just forgetting about it until a later deate
DiffDude: yes, mecredis, really
K`Tetch: like in any test, if theres a question you can't answer, do as much of the rest as you can, and then come back
skyfaller: agreed, we need to have a continuing conversation
gavinbaker: i agree with Fear_of_C. how can we do that?
mllerustad: I'll integrate the stuff we agreed on into the bylaws draft.
DiffDude: get that discussion out of the way
e-star: is there some way
mllerustad: Hopefully we can agree to leave the sections we got through alone and focus on the remaining issue.s
gavinbaker: also: next meeting, can we skip the chapter stuff and fix everything else, first?
price: mecredis: you should write down concretely your voting proposal
e-star: that we can do this asynchronously?
Fear_of_C: honestly, I think that voting is the one thing that can't be fixed
gavinbaker: e-star: i don't think we'll get great results that way
mecredis: price: I'm going to try to do that
DiffDude: I say skip the voting proposals
mllerustad: e-star: I really doubt it...
Fear_of_C: unless we can agree on an easy way to amend it later
DiffDude: duties and powers
skyfaller: mecredis: before you write down a voting proposal, write down a membership proposal
e-star: i'm worried about timezones
e-star: as i'll be in asia
Fear_of_C: and I think it's the one thing that can't be skipped either
mecredis: I said it
mecredis: membership is easy
Fear_of_C: unless we can agree on a way to fix it later
mecredis: we ask the chapter heads
skyfaller: mecredis: I don't think a voting proposal is valid until you have a model for membership for individual humans
mecredis: to vouche for the identities of their members
mecredis: and be honest
mecredis: and we trust them
skyfaller: mecredis: no, that's definitely wrong, sorry.
mecredis: and thats it
K`Tetch: of course, there is another problem - this might have been worked through by now, had someone been in charge of this meeting
Fear_of_C: mecredis: not such a great idea, because different chapters will define it differently
mllerustad: mecredis: Write that in bylaws speak, then.
gavinbaker: we need a way to resolve all the other issues *besides* the chapter-related stuff
skyfaller: mecredis: or at least, incomplete
e-star: guys, before we go
mllerustad: mecredis: And we'll see how it goes over.
K`Tetch: who's the head of the current interim board?
gavinbaker: as well as a way to break that impasse, too
e-star: can we approve a resolution on ratification?
mecredis: K`Tetch: no one
gavinbaker: K`Tetch: lulz, what do you mean, head?
mllerustad: e-star: of what?
e-star: at least so i can feel like we got something done in the last 2 hrs ;)
e-star: as in, percentage of chapters needed to ratify
mllerustad: e-star: We got through three articles!
e-star: voting process for chapters
K`Tetch: ok, then the interim board needs to appoint someone to run the next meeting, to keep it to the point, and get it m,oving
mllerustad: Yeah, does someone have something written for that?
Fear_of_C: i might be more amenable to a quick-fix (like a coin flip) if it came with a sunset clause
skyfaller: K`Tetch: that wouldn't be egalitarian, to have a head
mllerustad: I remember us agreeing 4/5, right?
gavinbaker: e-star, mllerustad: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Talk:Bylaws#Ratification_procedure
skyfaller: of course, Plato would kill me for saying that last sentence
mllerustad: Oh, right.
e-star: gavinbaker: i saw that
Fear_of_C: we could re-ratify that part later; I just don't want to accidently scuttle the org to get out of one meeting
e-star: and also, what counts as a chapter to ratify
gavinbaker: isn't that what we agreed on at the board meeting?
gavinbaker: so can we agree on that now, as an Org?
e-star: gavinbaker: yes but you said you wanted consensus here
mllerustad: I agree with gavinbaker's proposal.
gavinbaker: e-star, cool. is there consensus now? or should we just take it up next week?
mecredis: I gotta go eat
mecredis: good times FC.org
mllerustad: bon appetit!
e-star: okay all, i'm off to bed
- Signoff: DiffDude (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
e-star: just remember, it wasn't easy for the founders either ;)
gavinbaker: guess no decision now, we'l bring it up next time
gavinbaker: so when is next time??
- mecredis is now known as mec|eat
gavinbaker: and what are we doing before then?..
mllerustad: gavinbaker: I'm adding in the stuff we did agree on...
K`Tetch: skyfaller - there is no true egalitarianism, everyone is different, not equal, some are better at some thigns than others, utilise that
Fear_of_C: brainstorm like crazy
gavinbaker: Fear_of_C: k, how?
- Signoff: e-star ()
Fear_of_C: I'm thinking about that
mllerustad: Fear_of_C: Good work. :)
- Signoff: Differance (Success)
K`Tetch: just get someone who's used to running a meeting, to take control and get thigns going, there's been a lot of useless crap and tangental talking slowing everything down
gavinbaker: should we have some voting measure to get past an impasse like this? where consensus is failing?
Fear_of_C: this channel should stay active over the next week for sure
gavinbaker: i mean... we will, when we have new bylaws... but i mean for this purpose
skyfaller: gavinbaker: but how do we decide who gets to vote?
mllerustad calls up Hitler, sees if he's busy :/
Fear_of_C: so should the talk page
Fear_of_C: is there any way we can explicitly get people to debate an issue over the course of a week or so?
Fear_of_C: maybe send out some urgent calls for opinions to the various mailing lists
K`Tetch: yeah, 'debate every day, or you won't get a say'
Fear_of_C: probably, we need a fallback as well
mllerustad: Fear_of_C: We might want to take the voting issue to the lists.
peabo: KT :-)
mllerustad: I don't know if it would resolve anything. It probably wouldn't.
mllerustad: But that's the issue that needs to be the most transparent.
Fear_of_C: that's why we need a fallback
K`Tetch: it'll just confuse things more
Fear_of_C: I propose a sunset clause
skyfaller: expanding the people we talk to will just compound the problem
mllerustad: skyfaller: Because they will be completely opposed to each other?
K`Tetch: Fear_of_C - i think i did suggest that about an hour ago
mllerustad: We already are!
Fear_of_C: K`Tetch: maybe
K`Tetch: mllerustad - more people, the more pet theories, with convoluted reasons to suppor them
Fear_of_C: well, I think that everyone should have a voice here, maybe not a vote, but at least a voice
mllerustad: K'Tetch: But also general lines of what voting philosophies people hold, etc.
K`Tetch: its not that there aren't enough opinions, it's just that they're not being directed in a way to reach a concensus
mllerustad: Who knows, maybe lots of small chapters out there really want it to be based on chapter size or something.
Fear_of_C: and also, that more pet theories does not make this any more of a failure
mllerustad: I could be completely wrong.
Fear_of_C: I would just hope one person would come up with something better than what we have
mllerustad: They weren't in the meeting tonight, but if they read the list they could pipe up there.
gavinbaker: K`Tetch is right
Fear_of_C: that more of us could agree on
gavinbaker: we need better ways to direct this energy and reach a conclusion
K`Tetch: rule1) - forget maybe's - if you base your theory on a maybe, then its probbaly goign to be no good - at least initially
gavinbaker: hoping that a mailing list or another meeting will accomplish that will, i think, fail
mllerustad: gavinbaker: I don't think it'll fix the problem.
mllerustad: I don't know how to fix this problem.
K`Tetch: I've set up quite a few orgs over the past 10-15 years, i know what works, and what doesn't
mllerustad: But it's something.
Fear_of_C: I think that it can't make it worse
Fear_of_C: and we may as well
mllerustad: People should know about the dialogue that's going on in here.
Fear_of_C: I have another proposal, which is that we try both
peabo: one thing that might help is (for eample) to decide if the question of voting depends upon the definition of who can be a member, and then quite debating anything that is incompatible with that decision
Fear_of_C: or maybe more than 2 different ways
K`Tetch: having everyone is equal, and able to fillbuster, just gets nothing done, as people endlessly espouse how the maybe that validates their theory could come to pass
K`Tetch: peabo - how can you enforce the 'quit debating' without someone directing and leading the meeting?
Fear_of_C: it's weird, maybe not viable, but I sort of feel like saying "we do it this way one year, that way the next, then we go back to where we started, but with actual data"
mllerustad: K'Tetch: filibuster?
gavinbaker: mllerustad: essentially we've all been filibustering for the past 2 hours
mllerustad: Cloture is closing the IRC client.
gavinbaker: we need a way to reach consensus
K`Tetch: mllerustad - how you can just keep talking on a subject, until you feel like stopping, to put off conclusion of the matter under debate
gavinbaker: (which is why we're implementing bylaws).... (but we need a way to get there)
peabo: I'm proposing that we mutually agree to that principle
gavinbaker: i'm saying again, i'll be satisfied with a coin toss.
gavinbaker: if it sucks that bad, whatever we choose, we'll fix it later.
mllerustad: peabo: I think we know that that's a major element of the disagreement... but we disagree on which model to follow.
mllerustad: Which is the problem.
mllerustad: We disagree because we disagree.
mllerustad: gavinbaker: "we"?
K`Tetch: there is only one sensible way, and thats by not going by any maybes, set the most basic system possible, and re-evaluate after a set amount of time
mllerustad: gavinbaker: Weren't you going about how it's really, "you"...
mllerustad: *going on
peabo: so maybe we do the coin poss on that issue ... although it seems to me that departing from the chapter = member involves a major rewrite of everything
gavinbaker: mllerustad: "we" = "coin"
mllerustad: I mean that you're graduating anyway.
K`Tetch: chaper = national membership unit, each chapter gets one vote
skyfaller: peabo: exactly, departing from the model of chapters as our members would require completely scrapping our org structure
skyfaller: and starting over
K`Tetch: thats the simplest way, and the 'fairest'
gavinbaker: mllerustad: oh. the coin will decide. whoever's in the Org in the future will fix it, if it sucks
mllerustad: gavinbaker: The problem is, I'm *in* that Org from the future. Or maybe not, if it sucks enough.
Fear_of_C: if we coin toss, then there must be a sunset clause
mllerustad: I'm not so blase about the outcome.
Fear_of_C: 6mo for me is finals week
K`Tetch: Fear_of_C - that is blatently obvious, for any arbitary system
K`Tetch: so not 6 months
gavinbaker: mllerustad: i'm not blase either, but we gotta decide.
K`Tetch: 2-3 months should be long enough to see any problems, but short enough that they're not developing into major problems
gavinbaker: i'd rather have a bad decision than none...
K`Tetch: with the ability to act sooner
gavinbaker: K`Tetch: the problem is that it's not a REAL problem
gavinbaker: it's not like something will fail
K`Tetch: how do you know?
gavinbaker: it's just that some people will feel, i dunno, underappreciated.
mllerustad: gavinbaker: Yes, and we have to decide in a way where you don't have an "unfunded mandate" for figuring out a whole new constituency and running two elections instead of one.
K`Tetch: can you see into the future?
mllerustad: gavinbaker: Who's going to do that work?
Fear_of_C: the problem is that I think most "young'uns" will be occupied when it's not summer anymore
gavinbaker: mllerustad: presumably fred or of the proponents of that theory.
K`Tetch: what do you call a 'young un' anyway?
gavinbaker: we can't implement it if it's not written out
mllerustad: gavinbaker: Even if it was fair (which obviously I doubt), I think implementation-wise it's entirely unrealistic.
mllerustad: And we'll just be stuck again.
mllerustad: gavinbaker: He wasn't volunteering when I asked him.
peabo: one of the reasons I favor simplicity is that a voting system that you have trouble explaining is a voting system people won't trust ... I really like one vote one chapter for this reason
mllerustad: He and Elizabeth said no.
mllerustad: An "impartial third party" should run it.
mllerustad: Who the hell is that? And how do they have so much spare time?
K`Tetch: look, whats the big problem with the one chapter one vote system? that some people in large chapters, might feel underappreciated? sounds like two conditionals, and a segment are trying to make the definition
mllerustad: K`Tetch: Good question.
Fear_of_C: this is the constitutional convention all over again
gavinbaker: mllerustad: i think you're confusing writing out the new bylaws with running the election
gavinbaker: i thought i heard fred say he'd write things out
Fear_of_C: look, let's propose both
gavinbaker: but elizabeth say that none of us should run the actual election
Fear_of_C: and let people choose which one to ratify
gavinbaker: which seems Very Reasonable to me
mllerustad: gavinbaker: The bylaws give a mandate for how elections are to be run, at least in general terms.
Fear_of_C: or do we have a problem with ratification as well?
skyfaller: Fear_of_C: that sounds like a mess!
mllerustad: gavinbaker: So yes, they matter as to how much shit we'll have to wade through.
K`Tetch: look, hell, if you really want a 3rd party, *I'll* even voulenteer to help run the election
skyfaller: Fear_of_C: that's a schism right there
K`Tetch: at least the first one
Fear_of_C: skyfaller: I think we have a schism
mllerustad: gavinbaker: I still wonder who, then.
skyfaller: maybe we should just have two orgs
mllerustad: There's going to be a lot of coding and communication and crap involved... where do we contract that out?
Fear_of_C: skyfaller: I also think that it's better than tossing a coin
peabo: KT: maybe we can get Jimmy Carter :-)
skyfaller: one for large chapters and one for small chapters
gavinbaker: Fear_of_C: we don't, we just need people to refocus.
K`Tetch: he's not that far down the road from me peabo - when hes not building houses
- price has left channel #freeculture
- price (email@example.com) has joined channel #freeculture
gavinbaker: mllerustad: you're right, it would be more work. but its proponents are convinced that it's worth it
K`Tetch: and why is that?
gavinbaker: so it's not me you need to talk to, it's them
mllerustad: gavinbaker: I can ask them to contribute again. :p
Fear_of_C: I don't think refocusing is going to change their opinions - I don't think there's much that will
gavinbaker: K`Tetch: because you feel underappreciated? and/or they think that membership vests at the individual level, not the chapter level, regardless of the logistical work that causes.
K`Tetch: for a system other than one chapter one vote, all anyone has had to say has been based on conditionals - mights, coulds, and so on
gavinbaker: Fear_of_C: look, the Org isn't going die because we can't decide how to elect a board. that's stupid
gavinbaker: we all know there are bigger fish to fry
gavinbaker: and even if we don't all like the solution
Fear_of_C: yeah, well we're not frying them right now
gavinbaker: we'll all accept it
Fear_of_C: that's what I'm saying when I propose we take a vote
mllerustad: gavinbaker: Right, it's going to die because Nelson has better things to do. :p
gavinbaker: Fear_of_C: we have been frying fish, and we'll get even better at frying fish when we implement these bylaws.
Fear_of_C: the chapters that disagree strongly enough will accept it, I think
K`Tetch: right now, you're all busy debating if the fryer should had its gas lit by matches or a lighter
Fear_of_C: if we can agree on ratification
gavinbaker: Fear_of_C: we agree on ratification
gavinbaker: we'll bring it up next time
gavinbaker: but basically everybody is ok with it
skyfaller: well, wait
gavinbaker: even if they don't like the chapter model in general
gavinbaker: they're ok with using it for now, to get these passed
skyfaller: how can we be ratifying if our members are individual humans?
Fear_of_C: so then I think that this might be something to solve at ratification time
gavinbaker: skyfaller: ^^
mllerustad: skyfaller: Good question, you should ask someone.
Fear_of_C: that it won't kill us if that brings out the disagreements
skyfaller: we'd have to scrap ratification too if we change that
K`Tetch: you always have whats called 'initial exceptions'
gavinbaker: Fear_of_C: i think you may be on to something, where we could have an amendment to vote on alongside the bylaws.
gavinbaker: the amendment changes the model from chapter members to individual members
K`Tetch: else you're into chicken and egg territory
gavinbaker: and we can vote to ratify that
gavinbaker: if people don't like it, they vote it down, and vote for the bylaws with chapter model
Fear_of_C: skyfaller: I think you are right on principle, but that people are too tired to open that can of worms
skyfaller: gavinbaker: but that would be a whole new set of bylaws. You know those would be massive changes.
gavinbaker: this sounds like a good way to focus these energies
gavinbaker: skyfaller: i know they would be
gavinbaker: fred said he'd write them
gavinbaker: if they won't write them
gavinbaker: i won't be responsible
mllerustad: I thought offering the 6mo voting rights requirement would have solved this.... I thought we could compromise if we made it clear we weren't going to have random individuals voting on equal terms with Harvard.
gavinbaker: and we have to go with what we have
mllerustad: Did I play that card too quickly?
mllerustad: Is this politics?
K`Tetch: yes and no
gavinbaker: mllerustad: i thought so, too. i don't understand why it's not, which is why this is so confusing to me
gavinbaker: because i'm coming from a "big chapter" too
K`Tetch: politics usually has someone presiding \
mllerustad: K`Tetch: It's more fun when it doesn't :p
gavinbaker: so what if we do this
gavinbaker: 1) people who want this other model have a week to write it up
- Signoff: poningru (Connection timed out)
gavinbaker: 2.) talk for the next week about OTHER issues
gavinbaker: 3) we meet next week to hammer out the OTHER issues
gavinbaker: 4) we release a draft with the chapter model, and an amendment that switches us to the individual model
gavinbaker: 5) we open voting, and chapters vote on a.) whether to approve the bylaws and b.) whether to approve the amendment
mllerustad: gavinbaker: see skyfaller's issue with ratification procedure... :p
gavinbaker: mllerustad: but it's a non issue!
skyfaller: That makes sense to me, but it does assume that the chapter model is the default. Of course, it is the default, b/c that's the way it has always been, but people may not like that assumption
mllerustad: Otherwise, though, that looks like a good plan.
gavinbaker: elizabeth is OK with ratification on the chapter model
gavinbaker: i assume everybody else is, too
gavinbaker: otherwise there's no workable way whatsoever
gavinbaker: i think people will realize that
gavinbaker: we're pretty reasonable, even if i don't understand us all the time.
skyfaller: OK, I generally like this plan
Fear_of_C: skyfaller: I doubt everyone will be completely happy with everything
K`Tetch: no-one ever is
Fear_of_C: skyfaller: I think that if people agree to ratify this way, they will accept what gets ratified
peabo: the ratification procedure can't be based upon the proposed bylaws, because they don't exist at the time of the vote ... it has to be according to rules invented for the purpose of the initial vote
skyfaller: but I need more info on (4)
K`Tetch: and can be, despite all the attempts at egalitarialism, everyone is different
gavinbaker: peabo: wrong, the constitution defined what it would take for the constitution to be ratified. didn't it?
skyfaller: K`Tetch: I was mostly being sarcastic with that egalitarianism comment
gavinbaker: K`Tetch: where i mentioned egalitarianism it was about chapters being equal and nothing else
gavinbaker: chapters are certainly different but i think in the eyes of the org they should all be equal
gavinbaker: others disagree
K`Tetch: I am bad at detecting american (attempts at) humour - after 5 yerars you'd think i was at least slightly better...
skyfaller: gavinbaker: K`Tetch was talking about having someone to chair meetings, specifically
gavinbaker: K`Tetch: it's ok, we're bad at detecting british attempts at humor ;)
gavinbaker: K`Tetch: re: charing meetings, that would be awesome. if only we could decide ;) hence the bylaws
skyfaller: gavinbaker: and I made a wisecrack about how having a chair wouldn't be egalitarian
skyfaller: that's why winky faces are important, I suppose
- Differance (n=Differan@dialup-22.214.171.124.Dial1.NewYork1.Level3.net) has joined channel #freeculture
gavinbaker: i agree with Fear_of_C that i think people will accept what gets ratified if we do it this way
skyfaller: so gavinbaker, how do you propose to do (4)?
gavinbaker: skyfaller: remind me what (4) is
skyfaller: the default + the amendment
skyfaller: so chapters ratify the default (chapters model) first? and then they vote on whether to move to the individual members model?
mllerustad: skyfaller: Presumably at the same time, but yeah.
skyfaller: you can't do it at the exact same time
mllerustad: On the same ballot.
Fear_of_C: only worry I have is if people start questioning the ratification... hopefully, this same debate doesn't spread there
Fear_of_C: but it sounded like that was agreed upon and accepted
skyfaller: Fear_of_C: well, if that happens, then we're all screwed
gavinbaker: skyfaller: at the same time. it's on the same ballot
- Signoff: price ()
gavinbaker: Fear_of_C: right, and i don't think it will happen
skyfaller: gavinbaker: but you can't pass an amendment until you have the original
gavinbaker: skyfaller: it's like you vote on a bill in a senate or something
mllerustad: skyfaller: So list it first on the ballot. :p
gavinbaker: skyfaller: usually it's the other way actually
- Signoff: Differance (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
gavinbaker: you vote on amendments before you vote on the overall package
skyfaller: I see
- price (firstname.lastname@example.org) has joined channel #freeculture
skyfaller: well, I don't see the details
gavinbaker: but we could do it another way
gavinbaker: just have 3 options
gavinbaker: only one vote
gavinbaker: 1. chapters model
gavinbaker: 2. individual model
mllerustad: gavinbaker: Though, that may affect some people's votes... if some people would vote for it with the amendment but not without (or vice-versa) they need to see the outcome of hte other vote.
gavinbaker: 3. none of the above, i don't ratify
gavinbaker: mllerustad: that's why the 3 options might be better
skyfaller: I see
mllerustad: gavinbaker: What proportion would be necessary to ratify.
gavinbaker: mllerustad: you could do a run-off
gavinbaker: e.g. IRV
mllerustad: gavinbaker: That makes sense.
skyfaller: that sounds like a reasonable proposal, but what if NYU and Harvard go for (2) and everyone else goes for (1)?
peabo: voting the amendment first makes sense in that you would then have to rewrite everything that depends upon the membership model, but then we are still making the initial votce based on chapter = member, correct (because there aren't any individual members yet)
gavinbaker: skyfaller: that's what i'm exaplining
gavinbaker: IRV = rank your choices
- poningru (email@example.com) has joined channel #freeculture
mllerustad: skyfaller: That's up to them, isn't it?
gavinbaker: i would vote 1 as first preference, 2 as second preference, 3 as last preference
gavinbaker: if no option has a majority of first preferences, you drop the option with the most 'last' votes
gavinbaker: then you only have 2 options, so one of them gets a majority by default
gavinbaker: by ONLY concern and this is key
gavinbaker: is that this can't spread to other parts of the bylaws
gavinbaker: it's ok if we have one big difference
skyfaller: oh god
gavinbaker: but we can't have 1,000 votes
skyfaller: yes, that would be impossible
Fear_of_C: I don't think it will
skyfaller: I think and hope that this is our big conflict
gavinbaker: i haven't seen another issue that people are so deadset against
Fear_of_C: I think that this has been the killer issue since I saw the sparks fly at the national convo
skyfaller: gavinbaker: um, paid facilitator?
gavinbaker: i thought the Facilitator would be a bigger issue but people seem to be more ok with that
gavinbaker: though they're not sure how it will happen
mllerustad: skyfaller: It's more a matter of having a backup plan.
mllerustad: We can do that, and still have the position.
skyfaller: OK, point
gavinbaker: even people who aren't sure are willing to listen -- they're unsure, rather than dead set against it
mllerustad: I'm alright with that, I just hadn't heard that objection before and will need to work on it.
gavinbaker: unlike the chapters/individual thing, where everybody has already made up their mind
gavinbaker: and nobody seems able to convince anyone else
skyfaller: but doesn't that remind of the "transitional gov't" of communist utopias?
mllerustad: skyfaller: Please, God, please give us a charismatic dictator!
gavinbaker: skyfaller: no clue wtf you are talking about
mllerustad: skyfaller: didn't we say we wanted someone who made the trains run on time? :p
skyfaller: gavinbaker: it's a bad comparison, I'm mostly joking
gavinbaker: clearly this Facilitator needs to be someone hot and bi-curious, so they can sexually satisfy every chapter/individual into submission.
Fear_of_C: I think people have realized that the facilitator is not a power holder
Fear_of_C: and that therefore the debate has shifted to voting
mllerustad: gavinbaker: Nelson was saying earlier it should be executive fluffer, not executive assfucker. ;)
gavinbaker: i'm concerned about getting people to OK the core team thing, because i think this structure will be hollow without it
mllerustad: gavinbaker: The 'transitional government's a thing in Marxism. You have to have the brutality to get the communist utopia afterward. Unfortunately it hasn't panned out yet.
gavinbaker: but again, nobody seems to be AGAINST it, they're just not sure about it
gavinbaker: mllerustad: oh right. my commie history is kicking in, i still don't see the relevance though. guess it was a bad joke?
mllerustad: gavinbaker: Well, yes.
skyfaller: gavinbaker: yes, it was a bad joke, but what i was implying is that we'll never get to the paid facilitator if we have an alternate structure first
gavinbaker: so somebody save the log and let's go home.
peabo: well, I'm heading out ... I'll watch for e-mail
skyfaller: I don't have the full log, but I've saved what i have
gavinbaker: does somebody have the log from before skyfaller's arrival?
peabo: I do
gavinbaker: (i should probably turn on logging for these g-d meetings, huh)
gavinbaker: peabo: can you email it to me, or post it on the wiki?
skyfaller: gavinbaker: yes, you should
gavinbaker: peabo: if you want to email -> firstname.lastname@example.org
peabo: what e-mail address?
gavinbaker: peabo: preferably plaintext if you can ;)
peabo: of course
gavinbaker: i dont want to muck around with some crazy irc client's xml format ;)
skyfaller: @#$%ing Colloquy
mllerustad: Alright, time for a three hour drive.
gavinbaker: skyfaller: the one in KDE uses a weird format too
peabo: I'm running Mac IRCle, actually haven't yet looked at the log file it makes (I'm a noob)
skyfaller: gavinbaker: ORLY? glad to know it's not just Mac users who are suffering
mllerustad: gavinbaker: See ya. Or actually, probably not. Since sleep is good.
skyfaller: gavinbaker: Xchat does it well in plaintext
gavinbaker: skyfaller: i know. which is why i should it on, at least for meetings
gavinbaker: can somebody paste in the old /topic ?
skyfaller: paulproteus: do you have the old topic?
skyfaller: we lose
- gavinbaker has set the topic on channel #freeculture to zomg terrists gonna kill us
Log file closed at: 7/29/07 9:52:04 PM