Difference between revisions of "Archive:2007-08-05/log"

From FreeCulture.org
Jump to: navigation, search
(log of meeting 2007 August 5)
 
m (formatting)
Line 1: Line 1:
<nowiki>[[
+
 
 +
 
 
Log file opened at: 8/5/07 1:16:24 PM
 
Log file opened at: 8/5/07 1:16:24 PM
 +
 
*** Topic for #freeculture: FreeCulture.org: students for free culture | http://freeculture.org/ | Bug tracker: http://launchpad.net/web/+bugs | In case of downtime: http://fcostatus.wordpress.com/ | Bylaws RC2 meeting: http://wiki.freeculture.org/2007-07-29 | Meeting to discuss communication/collaboration tools for FC.o, 2007-08-12 at 5 pm EDT: http://wiki.freeculture.org/2007-08-12
 
*** Topic for #freeculture: FreeCulture.org: students for free culture | http://freeculture.org/ | Bug tracker: http://launchpad.net/web/+bugs | In case of downtime: http://fcostatus.wordpress.com/ | Bylaws RC2 meeting: http://wiki.freeculture.org/2007-07-29 | Meeting to discuss communication/collaboration tools for FC.o, 2007-08-12 at 5 pm EDT: http://wiki.freeculture.org/2007-08-12
 +
 
*** Topic for #freeculture set by gavinbaker on Thursday, August 2, 2007 12:37:32 AM
 
*** Topic for #freeculture set by gavinbaker on Thursday, August 2, 2007 12:37:32 AM
 +
 
#freeculture: peabo tannewt faceface ryanfaerman rohitj_ bheekling mark007 jli skyfaller klepas ftobia Ax3 Omnifrog K`Tetch poningru [autonomy] danjared paulproteus _sj_  
 
#freeculture: peabo tannewt faceface ryanfaerman rohitj_ bheekling mark007 jli skyfaller klepas ftobia Ax3 Omnifrog K`Tetch poningru [autonomy] danjared paulproteus _sj_  
 +
 
*** End of /NAMES list.
 
*** End of /NAMES list.
 +
 
*** Channel Mode is +n  
 
*** Channel Mode is +n  
 +
 
*** Channel created at Sunday, November 26, 2006 2:43:23 AM
 
*** Channel created at Sunday, November 26, 2006 2:43:23 AM
 +
 
*** #freeculture You need to be a channel operator to do that
 
*** #freeculture You need to be a channel operator to do that
#freeculture   peabo    H    0    n=peabo@c-24-147-25-140.hsd1.ma.comcast.net Peter Olson
+
 
#freeculture   tannewt  H    0                n=scott@gentoo/developer/tannewt Unknown
+
#freeculture peaboH0n=peabo@c-24-147-25-140.hsd1.ma.comcast.net Peter Olson
#freeculture   faceface  H    0                n=dmb@p57A0F0AF.dip.t-dialin.net Dan Bolser
+
 
#freeculture   ryanfaermaH    0        n=ryanfaer@crlspr-69.65.71.237.myacc.net Ryan Faerman
+
#freeculture tannewtH0 n=scott@gentoo/developer/tannewt Unknown
#freeculture   rohitj_  H    0                        n=rohitj@203.200.95.130 Rohit Jain
+
 
#freeculture   bheekling H    0                        n=bheeklin@220.225.2.107 Nirbheek Chauhan
+
#freeculture faceface  H0 n=dmb@p57A0F0AF.dip.t-dialin.net Dan Bolser
#freeculture   mark007  H    0n=mark007@pool-71-101-200-240.tampfl.dsl-w.veriz Mark
+
 
#freeculture   jli       H    0            i=jli@gateway/tor/x-b0f63977e720e7f0 Jli
+
#freeculture ryanfaermaH0n=ryanfaer@crlspr-69.65.71.237.myacc.net Ryan Faerman
#freeculture   skyfaller H    0                    n=nelson@wikipedia/Skyfaller Nelson Pavlosky
+
 
#freeculture   klepas   G    0                    n=klepas@unaffiliated/klepas Pascal Klein
+
#freeculture rohitj_H0n=rohitj@203.200.95.130 Rohit Jain
#freeculture   ftobia   H    0      n=chatzill@ool-18bb9b30.dyn.optonline.net Frank Tobia
+
 
#freeculture   Ax3       H    0                    n=ax4@rada.voodoohosting.com ax4
+
#freeculture bheekling H0 n=bheeklin@220.225.2.107 Nirbheek Chauhan
#freeculture   Omnifrog  H    0 n=Omnifrog@c-68-60-206-179.hsd1.tn.comcast.net Omnifrog
+
 
#freeculture   K`Tetch  H    0n=ktetch@adsl-074-166-105-206.sip.asm.bellsouth. K`Tetch
+
#freeculture mark007H0n=mark007@pool-71-101-200-240.tampfl.dsl-w.veriz Mark
#freeculture   poningru  H    0        n=poningru@ip72-209-65-174.ga.at.cox.net Eldo Varghese
+
 
#freeculture   [autonomy]H    0 n=autonomy@c-71-232-117-225.hsd1.ma.comcast.net auto
+
#freeculture jli H0  i=jli@gateway/tor/x-b0f63977e720e7f0 Jli
#freeculture   danjared  H    0n=danjared@HOW-ABOUT-A-NICE-GAME-OF-CHESS.MIT.ED D. Jared Dominguez
+
 
#freeculture   paulproteuG    0          i=paulprot@29.145.221.202.bf.2iij.net Asheesh Laroia
+
#freeculture skyfaller H0n=nelson@wikipedia/Skyfaller Nelson Pavlosky
#freeculture   _sj_     H    0                              n=sj@wikipedia/sj sjk
+
 
 +
#freeculture klepas G0n=klepas@unaffiliated/klepas Pascal Klein
 +
 
 +
#freeculture ftobia H0  n=chatzill@ool-18bb9b30.dyn.optonline.net Frank Tobia
 +
 
 +
#freeculture Ax3 H0n=ax4@rada.voodoohosting.com ax4
 +
 
 +
#freeculture Omnifrog  H0 n=Omnifrog@c-68-60-206-179.hsd1.tn.comcast.net Omnifrog
 +
 
 +
#freeculture K`TetchH0n=ktetch@adsl-074-166-105-206.sip.asm.bellsouth. K`Tetch
 +
 
 +
#freeculture poningru  H0n=poningru@ip72-209-65-174.ga.at.cox.net Eldo Varghese
 +
 
 +
#freeculture [autonomy]H0 n=autonomy@c-71-232-117-225.hsd1.ma.comcast.net auto
 +
 
 +
#freeculture danjared  H0n=danjared@HOW-ABOUT-A-NICE-GAME-OF-CHESS.MIT.ED D. Jared Dominguez
 +
 
 +
#freeculture paulproteuG0 i=paulprot@29.145.221.202.bf.2iij.net Asheesh Laroia
 +
 
 +
#freeculture _sj_ H0 n=sj@wikipedia/sj sjk
 +
 
 
*** #freeculture End of /WHO list.
 
*** #freeculture End of /WHO list.
    peabo: hello, usual suspects!
+
 
  K`Tetch: spam is an unfortunate thing now
+
peabo: hello, usual suspects!
  K`Tetch: even on forums
+
 
 +
K`Tetch: spam is an unfortunate thing now
 +
 
 +
K`Tetch: even on forums
 +
 
 
*** BrianRowe (n=Brion@71-32-81-197.tukw.qwest.net) has joined channel #freeculture
 
*** BrianRowe (n=Brion@71-32-81-197.tukw.qwest.net) has joined channel #freeculture
 +
 
--> peabo  test
 
--> peabo  test
    *peabo* test
+
 
BrianRowe: hello
+
*peabo* test
  K`Tetch: sup brian
+
 
 +
BrianRowe: hello
 +
 
 +
K`Tetch: sup brian
 +
 
 
*** Signoff: bheekling (Remote closed the connection)
 
*** Signoff: bheekling (Remote closed the connection)
BrianRowe: not much off for a few weeks for summer break
+
 
  K`Tetch: cool
+
BrianRowe: not much off for a few weeks for summer break
 +
 
 +
K`Tetch: cool
 +
 
 
*** gavinbaker (n=gavin@c-69-143-179-58.hsd1.va.comcast.net) has joined channel #freeculture
 
*** gavinbaker (n=gavin@c-69-143-179-58.hsd1.va.comcast.net) has joined channel #freeculture
BrianRowe: hi Gavin
+
 
 +
BrianRowe: hi Gavin
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: hi BrianRowe  
 
gavinbaker: hi BrianRowe  
 +
 
*** gavinbaker has set the topic on channel #freeculture to FreeCulture.org: students for free culture | http://freeculture.org/ | Bug tracker: http://launchpad.net/web/+bugs | In case of downtime: http://fcostatus.wordpress.com/ | Meeting to discuss communication/collaboration tools for FC.o, 2007-08-12 at 5 pm EDT: http://wiki.freeculture.org/2007-08-12 | Bylaws RC2 meeting: TODAY at 2 pm EDT: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Bylaws
 
*** gavinbaker has set the topic on channel #freeculture to FreeCulture.org: students for free culture | http://freeculture.org/ | Bug tracker: http://launchpad.net/web/+bugs | In case of downtime: http://fcostatus.wordpress.com/ | Meeting to discuss communication/collaboration tools for FC.o, 2007-08-12 at 5 pm EDT: http://wiki.freeculture.org/2007-08-12 | Bylaws RC2 meeting: TODAY at 2 pm EDT: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Bylaws
 +
 
*** gavinbaker has set the topic on channel #freeculture to FreeCulture.org: students for free culture | http://freeculture.org/ | Bug tracker: http://launchpad.net/web/+bugs | In case of downtime: http://fcostatus.wordpress.com/ | Meeting to discuss communication/collaboration tools for FC.o, 2007-08-12 at 5 pm EDT: http://wiki.freeculture.org/2007-08-12 | Bylaws RC2 meeting, TODAY at 2 pm EDT: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Bylaws
 
*** gavinbaker has set the topic on channel #freeculture to FreeCulture.org: students for free culture | http://freeculture.org/ | Bug tracker: http://launchpad.net/web/+bugs | In case of downtime: http://fcostatus.wordpress.com/ | Meeting to discuss communication/collaboration tools for FC.o, 2007-08-12 at 5 pm EDT: http://wiki.freeculture.org/2007-08-12 | Bylaws RC2 meeting, TODAY at 2 pm EDT: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Bylaws
            gavinbaker starts pinging: _sj_ Ax3 danjared jli mark007 paulproteus peabo poningru skyfaller  
+
 
  K`Tetch: gavinbaker - moonedit :-)
+
gavinbaker starts pinging: _sj_ Ax3 danjared jli mark007 paulproteus peabo poningru skyfaller  
 +
 
 +
K`Tetch: gavinbaker - moonedit :-)
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: K`Tetch: sorry, i don't follow?
 
gavinbaker: K`Tetch: sorry, i don't follow?
  K`Tetch: collaberation tools
+
 
 +
K`Tetch: collaberation tools
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: oh man, jibot's awol.
 
gavinbaker: oh man, jibot's awol.
  K`Tetch: its a multiperson text editor
+
 
  mark007: Estoy aqui.
+
K`Tetch: its a multiperson text editor
    peabo: hello
+
 
 +
mark007: Estoy aqui.
 +
 
 +
peabo: hello
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: K`Tetch: looks like gobby
 
gavinbaker: K`Tetch: looks like gobby
  mark007: I gotta run for lunch in a few minutes though.
+
 
  K`Tetch: i wouldn't know
+
mark007: I gotta run for lunch in a few minutes though.
  K`Tetch: but i love it - i'm just starting a session up to start work on a press release right now
+
 
  K`Tetch: *hint hint* brian
+
K`Tetch: i wouldn't know
 +
 
 +
K`Tetch: but i love it - i'm just starting a session up to start work on a press release right now
 +
 
 +
K`Tetch: *hint hint* brian
 +
 
 
paulproteu: gavinbaker, Hi.  I'm going to take a shower now.
 
paulproteu: gavinbaker, Hi.  I'm going to take a shower now.
 +
 
*** mllerustad (n=mllerust@c-69-143-179-58.hsd1.va.comcast.net) has joined channel #freeculture
 
*** mllerustad (n=mllerust@c-69-143-179-58.hsd1.va.comcast.net) has joined channel #freeculture
 +
 
gavinbaker: whee
 
gavinbaker: whee
 +
 
*** Scudmissile (n=Scudmiss@192.195.230.33) has joined channel #freeculture
 
*** Scudmissile (n=Scudmiss@192.195.230.33) has joined channel #freeculture
 +
 
gavinbaker: hi mllerustad, hi skyfaller  
 
gavinbaker: hi mllerustad, hi skyfaller  
 +
 
gavinbaker: er
 
gavinbaker: er
 +
 
gavinbaker: hi Scudmissile  
 
gavinbaker: hi Scudmissile  
#freeculture   ScudmissilH    0                      n=Scudmiss@192.195.230.33 Andy
+
 
#freeculture   mllerustadH    0 n=mllerust@c-69-143-179-58.hsd1.va.comcast.net Karen Rustad
+
#freeculture ScudmissilH0n=Scudmiss@192.195.230.33 Andy
#freeculture   gavinbakerH    0    n=gavin@c-69-143-179-58.hsd1.va.comcast.net Gavin Baker
+
 
#freeculture   BrianRowe H    0            n=Brion@71-32-81-197.tukw.qwest.net purple
+
#freeculture mllerustadH0 n=mllerust@c-69-143-179-58.hsd1.va.comcast.net Karen Rustad
#freeculture   peabo    H    0    n=peabo@c-24-147-25-140.hsd1.ma.comcast.net Peter Olson
+
 
#freeculture   tannewt  H    0                n=scott@gentoo/developer/tannewt Unknown
+
#freeculture gavinbakerH0n=gavin@c-69-143-179-58.hsd1.va.comcast.net Gavin Baker
#freeculture   faceface  H    0                n=dmb@p57A0F0AF.dip.t-dialin.net Dan Bolser
+
 
#freeculture   ryanfaermaH    0        n=ryanfaer@crlspr-69.65.71.237.myacc.net Ryan Faerman
+
#freeculture BrianRowe H0n=Brion@71-32-81-197.tukw.qwest.net purple
#freeculture   rohitj_  H    0                        n=rohitj@203.200.95.130 Rohit Jain
+
 
#freeculture   mark007  H    0n=mark007@pool-71-101-200-240.tampfl.dsl-w.veriz Mark
+
#freeculture peaboH0n=peabo@c-24-147-25-140.hsd1.ma.comcast.net Peter Olson
#freeculture   jli       H    0            i=jli@gateway/tor/x-b0f63977e720e7f0 Jli
+
 
#freeculture   skyfaller H    0                    n=nelson@wikipedia/Skyfaller Nelson Pavlosky
+
#freeculture tannewtH0 n=scott@gentoo/developer/tannewt Unknown
#freeculture   klepas   G    0                    n=klepas@unaffiliated/klepas Pascal Klein
+
 
#freeculture   ftobia   H    0      n=chatzill@ool-18bb9b30.dyn.optonline.net Frank Tobia
+
#freeculture faceface  H0 n=dmb@p57A0F0AF.dip.t-dialin.net Dan Bolser
#freeculture   Ax3       H    0                    n=ax4@rada.voodoohosting.com ax4
+
 
#freeculture   Omnifrog  H    0 n=Omnifrog@c-68-60-206-179.hsd1.tn.comcast.net Omnifrog
+
#freeculture ryanfaermaH0n=ryanfaer@crlspr-69.65.71.237.myacc.net Ryan Faerman
#freeculture   K`Tetch  H    0n=ktetch@adsl-074-166-105-206.sip.asm.bellsouth. K`Tetch
+
 
#freeculture   poningru  H    0        n=poningru@ip72-209-65-174.ga.at.cox.net Eldo Varghese
+
#freeculture rohitj_H0n=rohitj@203.200.95.130 Rohit Jain
#freeculture   [autonomy]H    0 n=autonomy@c-71-232-117-225.hsd1.ma.comcast.net auto
+
 
#freeculture   danjared  H    0n=danjared@HOW-ABOUT-A-NICE-GAME-OF-CHESS.MIT.ED D. Jared Dominguez
+
#freeculture mark007H0n=mark007@pool-71-101-200-240.tampfl.dsl-w.veriz Mark
#freeculture   paulproteuG    0          i=paulprot@29.145.221.202.bf.2iij.net Asheesh Laroia
+
 
#freeculture   _sj_     H    0                              n=sj@wikipedia/sj sjk
+
#freeculture jli H0  i=jli@gateway/tor/x-b0f63977e720e7f0 Jli
 +
 
 +
#freeculture skyfaller H0n=nelson@wikipedia/Skyfaller Nelson Pavlosky
 +
 
 +
#freeculture klepas G0n=klepas@unaffiliated/klepas Pascal Klein
 +
 
 +
#freeculture ftobia H0  n=chatzill@ool-18bb9b30.dyn.optonline.net Frank Tobia
 +
 
 +
#freeculture Ax3 H0n=ax4@rada.voodoohosting.com ax4
 +
 
 +
#freeculture Omnifrog  H0 n=Omnifrog@c-68-60-206-179.hsd1.tn.comcast.net Omnifrog
 +
 
 +
#freeculture K`TetchH0n=ktetch@adsl-074-166-105-206.sip.asm.bellsouth. K`Tetch
 +
 
 +
#freeculture poningru  H0n=poningru@ip72-209-65-174.ga.at.cox.net Eldo Varghese
 +
 
 +
#freeculture [autonomy]H0 n=autonomy@c-71-232-117-225.hsd1.ma.comcast.net auto
 +
 
 +
#freeculture danjared  H0n=danjared@HOW-ABOUT-A-NICE-GAME-OF-CHESS.MIT.ED D. Jared Dominguez
 +
 
 +
#freeculture paulproteuG0 i=paulprot@29.145.221.202.bf.2iij.net Asheesh Laroia
 +
 
 +
#freeculture _sj_ H0 n=sj@wikipedia/sj sjk
 +
 
 
*** #freeculture End of /WHO list.
 
*** #freeculture End of /WHO list.
 +
 
Scudmissil: hey
 
Scudmissil: hey
 +
 
mllerustad: gavinbaker: yo
 
mllerustad: gavinbaker: yo
      jli: hum.
+
 
 +
jli: hum.
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: here are some links:
 
gavinbaker: here are some links:
 +
 
gavinbaker: Bylaws RC1: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Bylaws
 
gavinbaker: Bylaws RC1: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Bylaws
 +
 
gavinbaker: Comments on bylaws: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Talk:Bylaws
 
gavinbaker: Comments on bylaws: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Talk:Bylaws
 +
 
gavinbaker: Agenda, log, and attendance from last meeting: http://wiki.freeculture.org/2007-07-29
 
gavinbaker: Agenda, log, and attendance from last meeting: http://wiki.freeculture.org/2007-07-29
 +
 
gavinbaker: Agenda for this meeting: http://wiki.freeculture.org/2007-08-05
 
gavinbaker: Agenda for this meeting: http://wiki.freeculture.org/2007-08-05
skyfaller: howdy
+
 
 +
skyfaller: howdy
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: ok, shall we?
 
gavinbaker: ok, shall we?
 +
 
gavinbaker: we got stuck on IV 1.1 last time, so we should skip that and come back to it
 
gavinbaker: we got stuck on IV 1.1 last time, so we should skip that and come back to it
skyfaller: sounds good to me
+
 
    peabo: gavinbaker: I'll send you the log of this one too
+
skyfaller: sounds good to me
  K`Tetch: thats what i was saying all the way through
+
 
 +
peabo: gavinbaker: I'll send you the log of this one too
 +
 
 +
K`Tetch: thats what i was saying all the way through
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: peabo, great
 
gavinbaker: peabo, great
            gavinbaker turns logging on too
+
 
skyfaller: paulproteus: enjoy the shower... that's what I was just doing ^_^
+
gavinbaker turns logging on too
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: paulproteus: enjoy the shower... that's what I was just doing ^_^
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: so, to review or for people who weren't here last time: we're going through the bylaws item by item and discussing questions & if anything should be changed
 
gavinbaker: so, to review or for people who weren't here last time: we're going through the bylaws item by item and discussing questions & if anything should be changed
 +
 
gavinbaker: this is particularly a time to note suggestions raised on the Talk: page
 
gavinbaker: this is particularly a time to note suggestions raised on the Talk: page
 +
 
gavinbaker: but, because the Talk: page isn't organized to make it easy, we'll go through the Talk: page item by item afterward
 
gavinbaker: but, because the Talk: page isn't organized to make it easy, we'll go through the Talk: page item by item afterward
 +
 
gavinbaker: to make sure everything gets a hearing
 
gavinbaker: to make sure everything gets a hearing
 +
 
gavinbaker: decisions are made, more or less, by consensus of those present (if you're here, that's you!)
 
gavinbaker: decisions are made, more or less, by consensus of those present (if you're here, that's you!)
 +
 
gavinbaker: and when we've decided something, we note it with RESOLVED so it's easy to find in the log :D
 
gavinbaker: and when we've decided something, we note it with RESOLVED so it's easy to find in the log :D
 +
 
gavinbaker: anyone who feels like taking minutes as we go along, feel free (if so, say so :D )
 
gavinbaker: anyone who feels like taking minutes as we go along, feel free (if so, say so :D )
 +
 
Scudmissil: i'm glad we resolved to use spell check last time
 
Scudmissil: i'm glad we resolved to use spell check last time
 +
 
gavinbaker: otherwise the job of writing minutes from the log will be done later, by $person
 
gavinbaker: otherwise the job of writing minutes from the log will be done later, by $person
 +
 
gavinbaker: Scudmissile: i think that was a very reasonable resolution as well :)
 
gavinbaker: Scudmissile: i think that was a very reasonable resolution as well :)
skyfaller: (or maybe it won't get done later, like last meeting's non-minutes)
+
 
 +
skyfaller: (or maybe it won't get done later, like last meeting's non-minutes)
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: skyfaller: just because it hasn't gotten yet doesn't mean it won't! in the year 2000
 
gavinbaker: skyfaller: just because it hasn't gotten yet doesn't mean it won't! in the year 2000
skyfaller: fair enough :)  continue
+
 
 +
skyfaller: fair enough :)  continue
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: i'll brb -- somebody want to start with Article IV, Section 1.2? http://wiki.freeculture.org/Bylaws#Section_1.2._Board_Structure
 
gavinbaker: i'll brb -- somebody want to start with Article IV, Section 1.2? http://wiki.freeculture.org/Bylaws#Section_1.2._Board_Structure
skyfaller: I
+
 
 +
skyfaller: I
 +
 
 
mllerustad: fyi: a copy of the bylaws with the edits we agreed upon last time is located here: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Bylaws_RC2
 
mllerustad: fyi: a copy of the bylaws with the edits we agreed upon last time is located here: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Bylaws_RC2
skyfaller: I'll put the current section we're looking at in the topic
+
 
 +
skyfaller: I'll put the current section we're looking at in the topic
 +
 
 
*** skyfaller has set the topic on channel #freeculture to http://wiki.freeculture.org/Bylaws#Section_1.2._Board_Structure
 
*** skyfaller has set the topic on channel #freeculture to http://wiki.freeculture.org/Bylaws#Section_1.2._Board_Structure
skyfaller: OK, so there are some obvious problems with this section
+
 
skyfaller: (1) Who decides how many board members there are?  and how do they do that?
+
skyfaller: OK, so there are some obvious problems with this section
skyfaller: (2) How can we ensure that there is competition for board seats while allowing the board to grow and shrink in size?
+
 
 +
skyfaller: (1) Who decides how many board members there are?  and how do they do that?
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: (2) How can we ensure that there is competition for board seats while allowing the board to grow and shrink in size?
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: well, why we don't go through line by line and see where there's agreement
 
gavinbaker: well, why we don't go through line by line and see where there's agreement
 +
 
gavinbaker: "The board of directors must have a chair, selected by the board. The chair arranges the time and method of meeting and sets the agenda."
 
gavinbaker: "The board of directors must have a chair, selected by the board. The chair arranges the time and method of meeting and sets the agenda."
 +
 
gavinbaker: ok, how does the board select the chair?
 
gavinbaker: ok, how does the board select the chair?
 +
 
mllerustad: "consensus"?
 
mllerustad: "consensus"?
 +
 
gavinbaker: i think we should specify
 
gavinbaker: i think we should specify
 +
 
gavinbaker: i'd favor simple majority vote
 
gavinbaker: i'd favor simple majority vote
 +
 
mllerustad: Or majority vote...
 
mllerustad: Or majority vote...
 +
 
gavinbaker: you have to have a chair -- it's not the sort of thing you should be able to hold up if you don't have consensus
 
gavinbaker: you have to have a chair -- it's not the sort of thing you should be able to hold up if you don't have consensus
 +
 
mllerustad: True.
 
mllerustad: True.
 +
 
mllerustad: "every pirate only votes for himself"
 
mllerustad: "every pirate only votes for himself"
 +
 
gavinbaker: mllerustad++
 
gavinbaker: mllerustad++
 +
 
gavinbaker: besides, a chair really shouldn't be controversial. in theory, the chair has no more authority than any other board member
 
gavinbaker: besides, a chair really shouldn't be controversial. in theory, the chair has no more authority than any other board member
skyfaller: so simple majority vote, where each person can vote once for one candidate only?
+
 
 +
skyfaller: so simple majority vote, where each person can vote once for one candidate only?
 +
 
 
mllerustad: Unless we allow even-numbered boards, and the chair tiebreaks.
 
mllerustad: Unless we allow even-numbered boards, and the chair tiebreaks.
 +
 
mllerustad: But sure.
 
mllerustad: But sure.
 +
 
gavinbaker: mllerustad: in that case, the chair still only has 1 vote, same as anyone else
 
gavinbaker: mllerustad: in that case, the chair still only has 1 vote, same as anyone else
 +
 
gavinbaker: they only get to use it in case of a tie
 
gavinbaker: they only get to use it in case of a tie
 +
 
gavinbaker: skyfaller, i'm not sure i understand your question
 
gavinbaker: skyfaller, i'm not sure i understand your question
    peabo: does the chair have to attend every meeting?  what in general happens if someone is absent and there is an even number of attendees?
+
 
skyfaller: you could have a vice-chair as well
+
peabo: does the chair have to attend every meeting?  what in general happens if someone is absent and there is an even number of attendees?
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: you could have a vice-chair as well
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: but it strikes me that we should should specify how chair candidates are nominated
 
gavinbaker: but it strikes me that we should should specify how chair candidates are nominated
 +
 
gavinbaker: peabo: right -- skyfaller said it -- we should have a vice-chair in case of the chair's absence
 
gavinbaker: peabo: right -- skyfaller said it -- we should have a vice-chair in case of the chair's absence
 +
 
mllerustad: peabo: I imagine they wouldn't have to... if there's an even number, and you don't get 50% + 1, then I guess it doesn't pass.
 
mllerustad: peabo: I imagine they wouldn't have to... if there's an even number, and you don't get 50% + 1, then I guess it doesn't pass.
 +
 
gavinbaker: peabo: the chair votes to break a tie (and only votes in event of a tie)
 
gavinbaker: peabo: the chair votes to break a tie (and only votes in event of a tie)
 +
 
gavinbaker: well, we should specify that ^^
 
gavinbaker: well, we should specify that ^^
 +
 
gavinbaker: but that's usually how a chair functions
 
gavinbaker: but that's usually how a chair functions
skyfaller: I dunno, i think we should scrap the vice-chair idea
+
 
    peabo: what about quorum? (I should look at the bylaws, I guess)
+
skyfaller: I dunno, i think we should scrap the vice-chair idea
 +
 
 +
peabo: what about quorum? (I should look at the bylaws, I guess)
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: some chair are also allowed to vote to make a tie, in which case the vote fails
 
gavinbaker: some chair are also allowed to vote to make a tie, in which case the vote fails
skyfaller: if the chair isn't there, you have to wait for the next meeting to break a tie
+
 
 +
skyfaller: if the chair isn't there, you have to wait for the next meeting to break a tie
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: peabo: currently the bylaws say 2/3 is quorum. we'll get there in a sec ;)
 
gavinbaker: peabo: currently the bylaws say 2/3 is quorum. we'll get there in a sec ;)
skyfaller: on the other hand, who runs the meeting in the chair's absence
+
 
skyfaller: ?
+
skyfaller: on the other hand, who runs the meeting in the chair's absence
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: ?
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: skyfaller: right, the point of a vice-chair is to run the meeting
 
gavinbaker: skyfaller: right, the point of a vice-chair is to run the meeting
skyfaller: I guess the whole problem of electing a chair is more interesting / important if they have different voting powers
+
 
 +
skyfaller: I guess the whole problem of electing a chair is more interesting / important if they have different voting powers
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: it's incidental that they can tie-breaking ability, but they have to give up their ability to vote in any other instance, so it's supposed to be a wash.
 
gavinbaker: it's incidental that they can tie-breaking ability, but they have to give up their ability to vote in any other instance, so it's supposed to be a wash.
 +
 
gavinbaker: skyfaller: the chair has to have "different" voting powers, because you need a way to make decisions
 
gavinbaker: skyfaller: the chair has to have "different" voting powers, because you need a way to make decisions
skyfaller: I think it might be better to keep it simple and have all board members be equal in voting power, and leave it open whether we want to have a permanent chair or rotating chair or something
+
 
 +
skyfaller: I think it might be better to keep it simple and have all board members be equal in voting power, and leave it open whether we want to have a permanent chair or rotating chair or something
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: our inability to effectively make decisions cripples us
 
gavinbaker: our inability to effectively make decisions cripples us
 +
 
gavinbaker: skyfaller: that's not "simple" at all, that's more complicated
 
gavinbaker: skyfaller: that's not "simple" at all, that's more complicated
 +
 
mllerustad: skyfaller: The problem is when "rotating" chair means "crowdsourced" chair...
 
mllerustad: skyfaller: The problem is when "rotating" chair means "crowdsourced" chair...
 +
 
gavinbaker: almost EVERY other board on the planet has an elected chair with the "powers" we've just described
 
gavinbaker: almost EVERY other board on the planet has an elected chair with the "powers" we've just described
skyfaller: that's true
+
 
 +
skyfaller: that's true
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: i'm not making this stuff up, just copying it
 
gavinbaker: i'm not making this stuff up, just copying it
 +
 
gavinbaker: i'm tired of reinventing the wheel, let's go with the tried-and-true
 
gavinbaker: i'm tired of reinventing the wheel, let's go with the tried-and-true
skyfaller: well, OK, let's say for the moment that we have a chair with voting powers and meeting-running-responsibilities as you describe
+
 
skyfaller: and a vice-chair which is the same when the chair isn't there
+
skyfaller: well, OK, let's say for the moment that we have a chair with voting powers and meeting-running-responsibilities as you describe
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: and a vice-chair which is the same when the chair isn't there
 +
 
 
mllerustad: Okay.
 
mllerustad: Okay.
 +
 
gavinbaker: skyfaller: "for the moment"? you mean, until/unless someone offers an amendment in the future?
 
gavinbaker: skyfaller: "for the moment"? you mean, until/unless someone offers an amendment in the future?
skyfaller: no, for argument's sake in the channel right now
+
 
 +
skyfaller: no, for argument's sake in the channel right now
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: skyfaller: well, i'd like to make a decision and stop arguing ;)
 
gavinbaker: skyfaller: well, i'd like to make a decision and stop arguing ;)
 +
 
gavinbaker: so can we make a decision?
 
gavinbaker: so can we make a decision?
skyfaller: well, I think that other decisions about the board are interrelated with this decisioon
+
 
skyfaller: *decision
+
skyfaller: well, I think that other decisions about the board are interrelated with this decisioon
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: *decision
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: skyfaller: such as?
 
gavinbaker: skyfaller: such as?
skyfaller: e.g. how many people are allowed to be on the board, and how that decision is made
+
 
 +
skyfaller: e.g. how many people are allowed to be on the board, and how that decision is made
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: (i remind everyone there are multiple sections of the bylaws we've never been through, and almost all of the comments, and the whole section we got stuck on last week -- so we should aim to be as quick as possible)
 
gavinbaker: (i remind everyone there are multiple sections of the bylaws we've never been through, and almost all of the comments, and the whole section we got stuck on last week -- so we should aim to be as quick as possible)
 +
 
gavinbaker: skyfaller: i don't see how that decision is related to having a chair and what the chair does.
 
gavinbaker: skyfaller: i don't see how that decision is related to having a chair and what the chair does.
 +
 
*** ericbailey (n=ericbail@71-210-157-161.mpls.qwest.net) has joined channel #freeculture
 
*** ericbailey (n=ericbail@71-210-157-161.mpls.qwest.net) has joined channel #freeculture
 +
 
gavinbaker: --oh, you know, should we have had everyone introduce themselves?
 
gavinbaker: --oh, you know, should we have had everyone introduce themselves?
skyfaller: perhaps :)  jibot is still missing
+
 
skyfaller: I'm Nelson Pavlosky, formerly from Swarthmore College, now GMU Law
+
skyfaller: perhaps :)  jibot is still missing
BrianRowe: ok, Brian Rowe Seattle University Law
+
 
 +
skyfaller: I'm Nelson Pavlosky, formerly from Swarthmore College, now GMU Law
 +
 
 +
BrianRowe: ok, Brian Rowe Seattle University Law
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: Gavin Baker, University of Florida - recent alumnus
 
gavinbaker: Gavin Baker, University of Florida - recent alumnus
    peabo: Peter Olson, associate member Free Software Foundation; amazability.com, no academic affiliation
+
 
            Scudmissile is Andy Scudder, rising senior at the Universit of Evansville
+
peabo: Peter Olson, associate member Free Software Foundation; amazability.com, no academic affiliation
 +
 
 +
Scudmissile is Andy Scudder, rising senior at the Universit of Evansville
 +
 
 
ericbailey: Eric Bailey, University of Minnesota
 
ericbailey: Eric Bailey, University of Minnesota
 +
 
Scudmissil: *University, rather
 
Scudmissil: *University, rather
 +
 
gavinbaker: mllerustad is Karen Rustad, Scripps College / Claremont Consortium, and is currently popping popcorn.
 
gavinbaker: mllerustad is Karen Rustad, Scripps College / Claremont Consortium, and is currently popping popcorn.
skyfaller: ooh!  popcorn!
+
 
skyfaller: is that everyone who is participating in this meeting?
+
skyfaller: ooh!  popcorn!
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: is that everyone who is participating in this meeting?
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: paulproteus is Asheesh Laroia, Web Team guy and currently in the shower, but implied he'd be back.
 
gavinbaker: paulproteus is Asheesh Laroia, Web Team guy and currently in the shower, but implied he'd be back.
skyfaller: alright, let's get back to work then
+
 
 +
skyfaller: alright, let's get back to work then
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: jli and mark007 said hello, but nothing else ;)
 
gavinbaker: jli and mark007 said hello, but nothing else ;)
 +
 
*** Fear_of_C (n=nick@cpe-66-65-84-36.nyc.res.rr.com) has joined channel #freeculture
 
*** Fear_of_C (n=nick@cpe-66-65-84-36.nyc.res.rr.com) has joined channel #freeculture
skyfaller: OK, I guess that electing a chair may be politically complex / conflict-inducing
+
 
skyfaller: so, are there model bylaws that we could look at for precedent as to electing a chair?
+
skyfaller: OK, I guess that electing a chair may be politically complex / conflict-inducing
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: so, are there model bylaws that we could look at for precedent as to electing a chair?
 +
 
 
Scudmissil: google gave me the American Sign Language Teachers Association....
 
Scudmissil: google gave me the American Sign Language Teachers Association....
 +
 
gavinbaker: skyfaller: let's not make this bigger than it is ;) we just need a reasonable way to manage this
 
gavinbaker: skyfaller: let's not make this bigger than it is ;) we just need a reasonable way to manage this
Fear_of_C: maybe other college-oriented orgs?
+
 
 +
Fear_of_C: maybe other college-oriented orgs?
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: which i suspect will be along the lines of "anyone may nominate another board member or themselves for chair"
 
gavinbaker: which i suspect will be along the lines of "anyone may nominate another board member or themselves for chair"
skyfaller: OK, so nominations first
+
 
 +
skyfaller: OK, so nominations first
 +
 
 
ericbailey: I have something somewhere about this..
 
ericbailey: I have something somewhere about this..
skyfaller: that sounds like a perfectly fine nomination system
+
 
 +
skyfaller: that sounds like a perfectly fine nomination system
 +
 
 
ericbailey: I'm gonna go rummage for a second..
 
ericbailey: I'm gonna go rummage for a second..
skyfaller: wanna put that in bylaws-language?
+
 
 +
skyfaller: wanna put that in bylaws-language?
 +
 
 
ericbailey: haha hold on a second
 
ericbailey: haha hold on a second
skyfaller: well, I'm sure that's what nominations will look like in any sane nomination system
+
 
skyfaller: elections are what I'm interested in seeing a model for
+
skyfaller: well, I'm sure that's what nominations will look like in any sane nomination system
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: elections are what I'm interested in seeing a model for
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: here's how AMSA does it: http://www.amsa.org/about/ppp/cbVIII.cfm
 
gavinbaker: here's how AMSA does it: http://www.amsa.org/about/ppp/cbVIII.cfm
skyfaller: hm... I see one online where the board has a president and a secretary
+
 
skyfaller: it would probably be good to have someone who is responsible for making sure that the deliberations of the board are made public and open
+
skyfaller: hm... I see one online where the board has a president and a secretary
skyfaller: e.g. taking minutes
+
 
 +
skyfaller: it would probably be good to have someone who is responsible for making sure that the deliberations of the board are made public and open
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: e.g. taking minutes
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: ok, AMSA looks very complicated. let me look for something simpler
 
gavinbaker: ok, AMSA looks very complicated. let me look for something simpler
skyfaller: the chair clearly shouldn't be responsible for that
+
 
 +
skyfaller: the chair clearly shouldn't be responsible for that
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: skyfaller: should that be a board member or the facilitator?
 
gavinbaker: skyfaller: should that be a board member or the facilitator?
skyfaller: hm, good point
+
 
skyfaller: the facilitator would be a good secretary
+
skyfaller: hm, good point
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: the facilitator would be a good secretary
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: on the one hand, you sort of want to insulate the board from the staff and vice versa
 
gavinbaker: on the one hand, you sort of want to insulate the board from the staff and vice versa
 +
 
gavinbaker: on the other hand, you want all the board members to be able to participate
 
gavinbaker: on the other hand, you want all the board members to be able to participate
skyfaller: I mean, controlling the minutes could be politically interesting if we were playing mind games with each other
+
 
 +
skyfaller: I mean, controlling the minutes could be politically interesting if we were playing mind games with each other
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: on the other hand, taking minutes is a form of participation, and you could see it as a trade-off the member makes willingly, similar to how the chair gives up their vote except in case of tie
 
gavinbaker: on the other hand, taking minutes is a form of participation, and you could see it as a trade-off the member makes willingly, similar to how the chair gives up their vote except in case of tie
skyfaller: "he who controls the past controls the future"
+
 
    peabo: at NESFA we have an elected Clerk, who takes minutes at each business meeting; in particular who records every motion, reads it back to the meeting as it was recorded prior to a vote
+
skyfaller: "he who controls the past controls the future"
 +
 
 +
peabo: at NESFA we have an elected Clerk, who takes minutes at each business meeting; in particular who records every motion, reads it back to the meeting as it was recorded prior to a vote
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: wonder if Wikimedia's got their bylaws online
 
gavinbaker: wonder if Wikimedia's got their bylaws online
 +
 
Scudmissil: yes: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_bylaws
 
Scudmissil: yes: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_bylaws
 +
 
Scudmissil: i can't edit them, though :( :p
 
Scudmissil: i can't edit them, though :( :p
 +
 
gavinbaker: heh
 
gavinbaker: heh
 +
 
Scudmissil: it looks much simpler than the NESFA's, anyway
 
Scudmissil: it looks much simpler than the NESFA's, anyway
 +
 
gavinbaker: here is one example of how a chair functions, but ignore the part about choosing a chair (it's not relevant for us) : http://www.sg.ufl.edu/branches/legislative/constitution/rules.pdf
 
gavinbaker: here is one example of how a chair functions, but ignore the part about choosing a chair (it's not relevant for us) : http://www.sg.ufl.edu/branches/legislative/constitution/rules.pdf
 +
 
gavinbaker: look for the term "Chairperson" under IX
 
gavinbaker: look for the term "Chairperson" under IX
 +
 
gavinbaker: re: choosing a chair, wikimedia doesn't seem very clear
 
gavinbaker: re: choosing a chair, wikimedia doesn't seem very clear
 +
 
Scudmissil: yeah
 
Scudmissil: yeah
 +
 
gavinbaker: it just says "by majority vote", but doesn't explain the process to get there
 
gavinbaker: it just says "by majority vote", but doesn't explain the process to get there
 +
 
gavinbaker: hey, let's decide this before we spend another half hour on one point ;)
 
gavinbaker: hey, let's decide this before we spend another half hour on one point ;)
 +
 
mllerustad: gavinbaker: Maybe that means we don't have to either?
 
mllerustad: gavinbaker: Maybe that means we don't have to either?
 +
 
mllerustad: Good enough for wikimedia... surely the board will be mature enough to not freak out about this not being spelled out.=
 
mllerustad: Good enough for wikimedia... surely the board will be mature enough to not freak out about this not being spelled out.=
skyfaller: what happens if there is a tie?
+
 
 +
skyfaller: what happens if there is a tie?
 +
 
 
mllerustad: tie =/= majority.
 
mllerustad: tie =/= majority.
 +
 
gavinbaker: mllerustad: i'm hesitant to leave anything undefined, since undefined decision-making processes are the bane of FC.o
 
gavinbaker: mllerustad: i'm hesitant to leave anything undefined, since undefined decision-making processes are the bane of FC.o
 +
 
gavinbaker: ok, so a tie isn't a majority, but how do you get a majority, then?
 
gavinbaker: ok, so a tie isn't a majority, but how do you get a majority, then?
 +
 
ericbailey: intimidation?
 
ericbailey: intimidation?
 +
 
gavinbaker: we could be like the pirate captains, and use plurality vote ;)
 
gavinbaker: we could be like the pirate captains, and use plurality vote ;)
            gavinbaker votes for Keira Knightly
+
 
BrianRowe: tie /= majority
+
gavinbaker votes for Keira Knightly
 +
 
 +
BrianRowe: tie /= majority
 +
 
 
ericbailey: what was that about the chair giving up their vote in a tie? though I guess that doesn't do much good when choosing a chair..
 
ericbailey: what was that about the chair giving up their vote in a tie? though I guess that doesn't do much good when choosing a chair..
    peabo: everyone votes for himself, then all the lowest vote candidates are eliminated :-)
+
 
 +
peabo: everyone votes for himself, then all the lowest vote candidates are eliminated :-)
 +
 
 
ericbailey: IRV?
 
ericbailey: IRV?
 +
 
gavinbaker: there's a maximum of 9 voters, we don't need IRV.
 
gavinbaker: there's a maximum of 9 voters, we don't need IRV.
 +
 
gavinbaker: well -- er -- do we? would it help?
 
gavinbaker: well -- er -- do we? would it help?
 +
 
mllerustad: gavinbaker: I'm cool with plurality voting.
 
mllerustad: gavinbaker: I'm cool with plurality voting.
skyfaller: wait, how does Wikimedia decide how many people are on the board?
+
 
 +
skyfaller: wait, how does Wikimedia decide how many people are on the board?
 +
 
 
ericbailey: mmm
 
ericbailey: mmm
skyfaller: they say "at least 7", but how many more than 7?
+
 
 +
skyfaller: they say "at least 7", but how many more than 7?
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: skyfaller: hold off on that for now.
 
gavinbaker: skyfaller: hold off on that for now.
 +
 
gavinbaker: so a.) can we decide the procedure now?
 
gavinbaker: so a.) can we decide the procedure now?
 +
 
*** brendan_ (n=brendan@pool-71-255-241-132.washdc.east.verizon.net) has joined channel #freeculture
 
*** brendan_ (n=brendan@pool-71-255-241-132.washdc.east.verizon.net) has joined channel #freeculture
 +
 
gavinbaker: b.) should we decide the procedure now, or just hope the board figures it out?
 
gavinbaker: b.) should we decide the procedure now, or just hope the board figures it out?
 +
 
mllerustad: I vote for plurality voting, by plurality vote. :p
 
mllerustad: I vote for plurality voting, by plurality vote. :p
 +
 
gavinbaker: i think we *should*, but i don't know if we *can* in a timely fashion
 
gavinbaker: i think we *should*, but i don't know if we *can* in a timely fashion
 +
 
gavinbaker: we've spent, what, 45 minutes on this?
 
gavinbaker: we've spent, what, 45 minutes on this?
 +
 
mllerustad: Eh, screw it.
 
mllerustad: Eh, screw it.
 +
 
mllerustad: If wikimedia doesn't need to specify this stuff...
 
mllerustad: If wikimedia doesn't need to specify this stuff...
BrianRowe: my experince on boards is that people work together to make choices and not everything needs to be spelled out.   
+
 
 +
BrianRowe: my experince on boards is that people work together to make choices and not everything needs to be spelled out.   
 +
 
 
mllerustad: The Board will decide its own procedures.
 
mllerustad: The Board will decide its own procedures.
 +
 
gavinbaker: ok, so let's put some text together.
 
gavinbaker: ok, so let's put some text together.
 +
 
gavinbaker: about how you get a chair.
 
gavinbaker: about how you get a chair.
 +
 
gavinbaker: and a vice chair?
 
gavinbaker: and a vice chair?
 +
 
*** Signoff: ericbailey ()
 
*** Signoff: ericbailey ()
skyfaller: ok
+
 
 +
skyfaller: ok
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: everybody agreed with that -- we'll put together some basic text about how you get a chair and a vice chair, leaving the details of the procedure to the board.
 
gavinbaker: everybody agreed with that -- we'll put together some basic text about how you get a chair and a vice chair, leaving the details of the procedure to the board.
 +
 
gavinbaker: er-- that was a question
 
gavinbaker: er-- that was a question
 +
 
Scudmissil: yeah, that sounds good
 
Scudmissil: yeah, that sounds good
skyfaller: anyone on the board can nominate themselves or anyone else on the board
+
 
skyfaller: elections are then held by majority vote
+
skyfaller: anyone on the board can nominate themselves or anyone else on the board
    peabo: the vice chair should be the one who gets the least number of votes; this gives the chair an incentive to show up at meetings
+
 
skyfaller: LOL!
+
skyfaller: elections are then held by majority vote
skyfaller: if there's a tie, the tied candidates have to duke it out in OpenArena
+
 
 +
peabo: the vice chair should be the one who gets the least number of votes; this gives the chair an incentive to show up at meetings
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: LOL!
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: if there's a tie, the tied candidates have to duke it out in OpenArena
 +
 
 
mllerustad: *Satan runs FC.o meetings*
 
mllerustad: *Satan runs FC.o meetings*
 +
 
gavinbaker: skyfaller++
 
gavinbaker: skyfaller++
skyfaller: most frags wins
+
 
 +
skyfaller: most frags wins
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: but if somebody has high ping and loses due to lag? ;)
 
gavinbaker: but if somebody has high ping and loses due to lag? ;)
skyfaller: OK, if deadlocked board elections turn out to be a problem, we'll just have to amend the bylaws later
+
 
 +
skyfaller: OK, if deadlocked board elections turn out to be a problem, we'll just have to amend the bylaws later
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: so let's due this in bylaws language
 
gavinbaker: so let's due this in bylaws language
skyfaller: this is simple, let's do it
+
 
 +
skyfaller: this is simple, let's do it
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: Section 1.2. can we rename the title to "Structure of the Board" for clarity? (rather than "Board Structure")
 
gavinbaker: Section 1.2. can we rename the title to "Structure of the Board" for clarity? (rather than "Board Structure")
 +
 
mllerustad: Sure, seconded.
 
mllerustad: Sure, seconded.
skyfaller: Can we please accept the use of the singular they in our bylaws?
+
 
BrianRowe: yes
+
skyfaller: Can we please accept the use of the singular they in our bylaws?
 +
 
 +
BrianRowe: yes
 +
 
 
mllerustad: "The board of directors must have a chair. Any board member can nominate themselves or another board member to be the chair. The chair is elected by the board by majority vote. The chair arranges the time and method of meeting and sets the agenda.
 
mllerustad: "The board of directors must have a chair. Any board member can nominate themselves or another board member to be the chair. The chair is elected by the board by majority vote. The chair arranges the time and method of meeting and sets the agenda.
 +
 
mllerustad: The board of directors also elects a vice-chair, also elected by majority vote. The vice-chair takes on the duties of the chair for meetings that the chair cannot attend."
 
mllerustad: The board of directors also elects a vice-chair, also elected by majority vote. The vice-chair takes on the duties of the chair for meetings that the chair cannot attend."
BrianRowe: great
+
 
    peabo: the line about quorum should specify that either the chair or vice chair must be present
+
BrianRowe: great
skyfaller: ... we've now spent an hour and 5 minutes on this *Sigh*
+
 
 +
peabo: the line about quorum should specify that either the chair or vice chair must be present
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: ... we've now spent an hour and 5 minutes on this *Sigh*
 +
 
 
mllerustad: peabo: Sounds good.
 
mllerustad: peabo: Sounds good.
            mllerustad waits for gavin to write his own redundant amendment instead of voting on this damn edit already
+
 
 +
mllerustad waits for gavin to write his own redundant amendment instead of voting on this damn edit already
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: fine, i've read it, and i still like mine better ;)
 
gavinbaker: fine, i've read it, and i still like mine better ;)
            skyfaller frags gavin
+
 
 +
skyfaller frags gavin
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: do we want to crib wikimedia's responsibilities of the chair?
 
gavinbaker: do we want to crib wikimedia's responsibilities of the chair?
            paulproteus waves
+
 
skyfaller: theirs is kind of weird and doesn't seem to mirror our structure
+
paulproteus waves
skyfaller: "The Chair shall have general supervision of the affairs of the corporation and shall make reports to the Board of Trustees at meetings and other times as necessary to keep Trustees informed of corporation activities"
+
 
skyfaller: WTF does that mean?
+
skyfaller: theirs is kind of weird and doesn't seem to mirror our structure
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: "The Chair shall have general supervision of the affairs of the corporation and shall make reports to the Board of Trustees at meetings and other times as necessary to keep Trustees informed of corporation activities"
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: WTF does that mean?
 +
 
 
mllerustad: It doesn't include leading meetings or anything like that.
 
mllerustad: It doesn't include leading meetings or anything like that.
 +
 
mllerustad: Which is the *main* thing we want our chair to do.
 
mllerustad: Which is the *main* thing we want our chair to do.
 +
 
mllerustad: I mean, I guess we could crib the signing stuff...
 
mllerustad: I mean, I guess we could crib the signing stuff...
skyfaller: the more bylaws I read the less I feel like we know what we're doing :/
+
 
BrianRowe: there chiar appears to be a kind of ED
+
skyfaller: the more bylaws I read the less I feel like we know what we're doing :/
 +
 
 +
BrianRowe: there chiar appears to be a kind of ED
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: skyfaller: cus we don't ;)
 
gavinbaker: skyfaller: cus we don't ;)
 +
 
mllerustad: skyfaller: the more bylaws I read the less I think ANYONE knows what they're doing
 
mllerustad: skyfaller: the more bylaws I read the less I think ANYONE knows what they're doing
skyfaller: I haven't even thought about who would sign for stuff
+
 
skyfaller: *they* haven't thought about who runs the meeting
+
skyfaller: I haven't even thought about who would sign for stuff
BrianRowe: I think we need to recruit an outside advisory board to of people who ahve been on boards to meet 2-3 times a year to help us and add soem experinced guidance.  I feel a little like this is the blind leading the blind
+
 
skyfaller: an advisory board is a great idea and we should have one, but they can't write our bylaws for us
+
skyfaller: *they* haven't thought about who runs the meeting
skyfaller: this needs to get done before we can do anything else
+
 
    peabo: keeping things simple, is there anything noticeably deficient about the rules we have so far?  will the board be unable to do anything the first time they meet?
+
BrianRowe: I think we need to recruit an outside advisory board to of people who ahve been on boards to meet 2-3 times a year to help us and add soem experinced guidance.  I feel a little like this is the blind leading the blind
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: an advisory board is a great idea and we should have one, but they can't write our bylaws for us
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: this needs to get done before we can do anything else
 +
 
 +
peabo: keeping things simple, is there anything noticeably deficient about the rules we have so far?  will the board be unable to do anything the first time they meet?
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: ok, get ready for paste-dump
 
gavinbaker: ok, get ready for paste-dump
 +
 
gavinbaker: Section 1.2. Structure of the Board
 
gavinbaker: Section 1.2. Structure of the Board
 +
 
gavinbaker: 1.2.1. Officers of the Board
 
gavinbaker: 1.2.1. Officers of the Board
 +
 
gavinbaker: 1.2.1.1. Chairperson
 
gavinbaker: 1.2.1.1. Chairperson
 +
 
gavinbaker: The board of directors shall have a chairperson.
 
gavinbaker: The board of directors shall have a chairperson.
 +
 
gavinbaker: The chairperson shall be elected by majority vote of the board. Any board member may nominate themself or any other member of the board for vice-chairperson. A board member may accept or decline a nomination. A board member must accept a nomination to be a candidate for chairperson.
 
gavinbaker: The chairperson shall be elected by majority vote of the board. Any board member may nominate themself or any other member of the board for vice-chairperson. A board member may accept or decline a nomination. A board member must accept a nomination to be a candidate for chairperson.
 +
 
gavinbaker: Notwithstanding the bylaws, the board may establish procedures for electing a chairperson.
 
gavinbaker: Notwithstanding the bylaws, the board may establish procedures for electing a chairperson.
 +
 
gavinbaker: The chairperson shall be responsible for: arranging the time and method of meetings of the board, setting the agenda for board meetings of the board, and presiding over meetings of the board.
 
gavinbaker: The chairperson shall be responsible for: arranging the time and method of meetings of the board, setting the agenda for board meetings of the board, and presiding over meetings of the board.
 +
 
gavinbaker: The chairperson shall not vote on motions except to break a tie.
 
gavinbaker: The chairperson shall not vote on motions except to break a tie.
 +
 
gavinbaker: 1.2.1.2. Vice-Chairperson
 
gavinbaker: 1.2.1.2. Vice-Chairperson
 +
 
gavinbaker: The board of directors shall have a vice-chairperson.
 
gavinbaker: The board of directors shall have a vice-chairperson.
BrianRowe: True I will make a spearate proposal about an adverory board so this is not side tracked
+
 
 +
BrianRowe: True I will make a spearate proposal about an adverory board so this is not side tracked
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: The vice-chairperson shall be elected by majority vote of the board. Any board member may nominate themself or any other member of the board for vice-chairperson. A board member may accept or decline a nomination. A board member must accept a nomination to be a candidate for vice-chairperson.
 
gavinbaker: The vice-chairperson shall be elected by majority vote of the board. Any board member may nominate themself or any other member of the board for vice-chairperson. A board member may accept or decline a nomination. A board member must accept a nomination to be a candidate for vice-chairperson.
 +
 
gavinbaker: Notwithstanding the bylaws, the board may establish procedures for electing a vice-chairperson.
 
gavinbaker: Notwithstanding the bylaws, the board may establish procedures for electing a vice-chairperson.
 +
 
gavinbaker: In the absence of the chairperson, the vice-chairperson shall be responsible for: arranging the time and method of meetings of the board, setting the agenda for board meetings of the board, and presiding over meetings of the board.
 
gavinbaker: In the absence of the chairperson, the vice-chairperson shall be responsible for: arranging the time and method of meetings of the board, setting the agenda for board meetings of the board, and presiding over meetings of the board.
 +
 
gavinbaker: When acting as chairperson, the vice-chairperson shall not vote on motions except to break a tie.
 
gavinbaker: When acting as chairperson, the vice-chairperson shall not vote on motions except to break a tie.
 +
 
gavinbaker: the rest of the stuff in 1.2 goes in 1.2.2, Procedures of the Board
 
gavinbaker: the rest of the stuff in 1.2 goes in 1.2.2, Procedures of the Board
 +
 
mllerustad: The specification of the vice-powers seems redundant, but otherwise that looks good.
 
mllerustad: The specification of the vice-powers seems redundant, but otherwise that looks good.
 +
 
gavinbaker: we could shorten the 4th paragraph of 1.2.1.2. could be shorten to, "In the absence of the chairperson, the vice-chairperson shall act as chairperson, with the duties and responsibilities of the chairperson."
 
gavinbaker: we could shorten the 4th paragraph of 1.2.1.2. could be shorten to, "In the absence of the chairperson, the vice-chairperson shall act as chairperson, with the duties and responsibilities of the chairperson."
 +
 
mllerustad: Sounds good.
 
mllerustad: Sounds good.
 +
 
mllerustad: Any other objections? Can we RESOLVE: this?
 
mllerustad: Any other objections? Can we RESOLVE: this?
 +
 
gavinbaker: +1 | resolved
 
gavinbaker: +1 | resolved
skyfaller: +1
+
 
 +
skyfaller: +1
 +
 
 
mllerustad: +1
 
mllerustad: +1
  brendan_: +1
+
 
            paulproteus abstains
+
brendan_: +1
 +
 
 +
paulproteus abstains
 +
 
 
mllerustad: Okay, let's do it.
 
mllerustad: Okay, let's do it.
    peabo: (I abstain as well; I didn't vote on anything last time either)
+
 
 +
peabo: (I abstain as well; I didn't vote on anything last time either)
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: ok, so for the rest of 1.2
 
gavinbaker: ok, so for the rest of 1.2
 +
 
gavinbaker: "The board of directors shall consist of an odd number of members no smaller than five and no larger than nine."
 
gavinbaker: "The board of directors shall consist of an odd number of members no smaller than five and no larger than nine."
 +
 
gavinbaker: shit, can we skip that for a second? that'll get confusing.
 
gavinbaker: shit, can we skip that for a second? that'll get confusing.
 +
 
gavinbaker: let's deal with the rest of 1.2 first and then come back?
 
gavinbaker: let's deal with the rest of 1.2 first and then come back?
skyfaller: ok... what do you want to look at?
+
 
 +
skyfaller: ok... what do you want to look at?
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: BrianRowe: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Talk:Bylaws#Structure:_Advisory_board
 
gavinbaker: BrianRowe: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Talk:Bylaws#Structure:_Advisory_board
 +
 
gavinbaker: sounds like we can skip it.
 
gavinbaker: sounds like we can skip it.
 +
 
gavinbaker: next line is: "At least two-thirds of the board must be present at a meeting for the board to conduct business."
 
gavinbaker: next line is: "At least two-thirds of the board must be present at a meeting for the board to conduct business."
 +
 
gavinbaker: peabo: there's the quorum ^^
 
gavinbaker: peabo: there's the quorum ^^
    peabo: and either the chair or vice chair must be present
+
 
 +
peabo: and either the chair or vice chair must be present
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: oh, makes sense. what happens if both the chair and vice chair are gone -- we cancel the meeting?
 
gavinbaker: oh, makes sense. what happens if both the chair and vice chair are gone -- we cancel the meeting?
skyfaller: yeah
+
 
 +
skyfaller: yeah
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: that stinks
 
gavinbaker: that stinks
skyfaller: well, there's no point to having a chair and vice-chair if we don't need them for the meeting, is there?
+
 
 +
skyfaller: well, there's no point to having a chair and vice-chair if we don't need them for the meeting, is there?
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: should we just have infinite vice-n chairs?
 
gavinbaker: should we just have infinite vice-n chairs?
 +
 
gavinbaker: i keed, i keed
 
gavinbaker: i keed, i keed
    peabo: what if they both resign? can the board conduct an election?
+
 
skyfaller: a chain of succession?
+
peabo: what if they both resign? can the board conduct an election?
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: a chain of succession?
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: peabo: you raise a very good point... let me fix that
 
gavinbaker: peabo: you raise a very good point... let me fix that
 +
 
mllerustad: peabo: The ED calls elections, currently.
 
mllerustad: peabo: The ED calls elections, currently.
    peabo: that gets involuted ... what if there is no ED yet?
+
 
skyfaller: what if there's no board yet?
+
peabo: that gets involuted ... what if there is no ED yet?
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: what if there's no board yet?
 +
 
 
mllerustad: what if everyone is dead!~
 
mllerustad: what if everyone is dead!~
skyfaller: this whole thing suffers from the bootstrapping problem
+
 
 +
skyfaller: this whole thing suffers from the bootstrapping problem
 +
 
 
*** facefaceface (n=dmb@p57A0E573.dip.t-dialin.net) has joined channel #freeculture
 
*** facefaceface (n=dmb@p57A0E573.dip.t-dialin.net) has joined channel #freeculture
            mllerustad gets nuked, along with the rest of fc.o
+
 
 +
mllerustad gets nuked, along with the rest of fc.o
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: oh, we should say that somebody serves as interim chair until we've elected one ;)
 
gavinbaker: oh, we should say that somebody serves as interim chair until we've elected one ;)
    peabo: Zombie Free Culture :-)
+
 
 +
peabo: Zombie Free Culture :-)
 +
 
 
paulproteu: And more seriously, could suffer from it again if people quit or so on.
 
paulproteu: And more seriously, could suffer from it again if people quit or so on.
 +
 
gavinbaker: b.) if you have an old chair, the old chair (or vice chair) serves as interim chair during the elections
 
gavinbaker: b.) if you have an old chair, the old chair (or vice chair) serves as interim chair during the elections
 +
 
*** Signoff: ryanfaerman ()
 
*** Signoff: ryanfaerman ()
 +
 
gavinbaker: a.) if you don't have an old chair (i.e. the very first time), something arbitrary like whoever's oldest.
 
gavinbaker: a.) if you don't have an old chair (i.e. the very first time), something arbitrary like whoever's oldest.
 +
 
gavinbaker: it really doesn't matter because it only exists during the very first chair election
 
gavinbaker: it really doesn't matter because it only exists during the very first chair election
skyfaller: sjuer
+
 
skyfaller: erm
+
skyfaller: sjuer
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: erm
 +
 
 
mllerustad: Sounds good.
 
mllerustad: Sounds good.
skyfaller: sure
+
 
 +
skyfaller: sure
 +
 
 
*** Signoff: Omnifrog ("Leaving")
 
*** Signoff: Omnifrog ("Leaving")
BrianRowe: sure
+
 
 +
BrianRowe: sure
 +
 
 
*** Signoff: poningru ("Coyote finally caught me")
 
*** Signoff: poningru ("Coyote finally caught me")
 +
 
*** poningru (n=poningru@ip72-209-65-174.ga.at.cox.net) has joined channel #freeculture
 
*** poningru (n=poningru@ip72-209-65-174.ga.at.cox.net) has joined channel #freeculture
 +
 
mllerustad: Okay, so we RESOLVE: the chain of succession bit?
 
mllerustad: Okay, so we RESOLVE: the chain of succession bit?
 +
 
gavinbaker: ok, not quite. going back to add in text about when you have elections
 
gavinbaker: ok, not quite. going back to add in text about when you have elections
 +
 
gavinbaker: 1.2.1.1. Chairperson
 
gavinbaker: 1.2.1.1. Chairperson
 +
 
gavinbaker: The board of directors shall have a chairperson.
 
gavinbaker: The board of directors shall have a chairperson.
 +
 
gavinbaker: The chairperson shall be elected by majority vote of the board. Any board member may nominate themself or any other member of the board for vice-chairperson. A board member may accept or decline a nomination. A board member must accept a nomination to be a candidate for chairperson. The board shall elect a new chairperson after each board election, not including the election of interim board members.
 
gavinbaker: The chairperson shall be elected by majority vote of the board. Any board member may nominate themself or any other member of the board for vice-chairperson. A board member may accept or decline a nomination. A board member must accept a nomination to be a candidate for chairperson. The board shall elect a new chairperson after each board election, not including the election of interim board members.
 +
 
gavinbaker: In the event of the chairperson's resignation, the board shall elect an interim chairperson. Interim board members shall be eligible to stand for election, to nominate, and to vote in in the election of an interim chairperson. The vice-chairperson shall preside over the election of an interim chairperson.
 
gavinbaker: In the event of the chairperson's resignation, the board shall elect an interim chairperson. Interim board members shall be eligible to stand for election, to nominate, and to vote in in the election of an interim chairperson. The vice-chairperson shall preside over the election of an interim chairperson.
 +
 
gavinbaker: Notwithstanding the bylaws ...
 
gavinbaker: Notwithstanding the bylaws ...
 +
 
gavinbaker: new language starts at "The board shall elect a new chairperson after ..." ^^
 
gavinbaker: new language starts at "The board shall elect a new chairperson after ..." ^^
 +
 
gavinbaker: with parallel language for vice-chairperson
 
gavinbaker: with parallel language for vice-chairperson
 +
 
mllerustad: Sounds good to me.
 
mllerustad: Sounds good to me.
 +
 
gavinbaker: interim board member = new member elected when old member resigns during term of board
 
gavinbaker: interim board member = new member elected when old member resigns during term of board
 +
 
gavinbaker: interim chairperson = new chairperson elected when old chair resigns during term of board
 
gavinbaker: interim chairperson = new chairperson elected when old chair resigns during term of board
 +
 
*** Signoff: poningru (Remote closed the connection)
 
*** Signoff: poningru (Remote closed the connection)
 +
 
gavinbaker: (we'll need to specify that in the bylaws)
 
gavinbaker: (we'll need to specify that in the bylaws)
 +
 
gavinbaker: i'm uneasy with the vice-chair running the election, if they're also a candidate for chair. but that's a problem with every election
 
gavinbaker: i'm uneasy with the vice-chair running the election, if they're also a candidate for chair. but that's a problem with every election
 +
 
gavinbaker: so are we ok with this language about when to have elections?
 
gavinbaker: so are we ok with this language about when to have elections?
skyfaller: fine
+
 
 +
skyfaller: fine
 +
 
 
mllerustad: Sure.
 
mllerustad: Sure.
BrianRowe: yes  
+
 
 +
BrianRowe: yes  
 +
 
 
mllerustad: Let's move on.
 
mllerustad: Let's move on.
 +
 
*** facefacefaceface (n=dmb@p57A0FB6B.dip.t-dialin.net) has joined channel #freeculture
 
*** facefacefaceface (n=dmb@p57A0FB6B.dip.t-dialin.net) has joined channel #freeculture
 +
 
gavinbaker: ok, so -- do we need to do anything about "person presiding over the election is also a candidate"?
 
gavinbaker: ok, so -- do we need to do anything about "person presiding over the election is also a candidate"?
 +
 
mllerustad: No.
 
mllerustad: No.
 +
 
gavinbaker: if so, how do we fix that?
 
gavinbaker: if so, how do we fix that?
 +
 
mllerustad: They just hold the meeting. What's the worst they could do?
 
mllerustad: They just hold the meeting. What's the worst they could do?
    peabo: they could refuse to hold the election; but in that case they could be removed for cause
+
 
 +
peabo: they could refuse to hold the election; but in that case they could be removed for cause
 +
 
 
mllerustad: peabo: Especially since they're only "interim" for the chair election; they can't do anything else.
 
mllerustad: peabo: Especially since they're only "interim" for the chair election; they can't do anything else.
 +
 
gavinbaker: i think this could be a problem, potentially, but it's not something we can fix right now. we'll have to fix it in the indefinite future, if it becomes a problem
 
gavinbaker: i think this could be a problem, potentially, but it's not something we can fix right now. we'll have to fix it in the indefinite future, if it becomes a problem
 +
 
gavinbaker: unfortunately
 
gavinbaker: unfortunately
    peabo: another edge case: when a board member resigns, there is an even number of members; can the board do anything at that point other than hold an election?
+
 
skyfaller: peabo: I agree, removal for cause is probably a good way to handle that
+
peabo: another edge case: when a board member resigns, there is an even number of members; can the board do anything at that point other than hold an election?
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: peabo: I agree, removal for cause is probably a good way to handle that
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: are we RESOLVED here?
 
gavinbaker: are we RESOLVED here?
 +
 
mllerustad: peabo: It has to get a majority.
 
mllerustad: peabo: It has to get a majority.
 +
 
mllerustad: A six person board requires four votes.
 
mllerustad: A six person board requires four votes.
 +
 
mllerustad: It still has the same powers.
 
mllerustad: It still has the same powers.
 +
 
*** Signoff: faceface (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
 
*** Signoff: faceface (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
    peabo: I was just confused by the language saying that the board must have an odd number 5, 7, or 9
+
 
 +
peabo: I was just confused by the language saying that the board must have an odd number 5, 7, or 9
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: peabo: right, we're coming to it...
 
gavinbaker: peabo: right, we're coming to it...
 +
 
gavinbaker: +1 | person presiding over an election can also be a candidate. (we're not saying anything to the contrary, so by default, it's true.) if it's a problem, we'll have to fix it in the future
 
gavinbaker: +1 | person presiding over an election can also be a candidate. (we're not saying anything to the contrary, so by default, it's true.) if it's a problem, we'll have to fix it in the future
skyfaller: sure
+
 
skyfaller: +1
+
skyfaller: sure
BrianRowe: +1
+
 
 +
skyfaller: +1
 +
 
 +
BrianRowe: +1
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: any other + or -?
 
gavinbaker: any other + or -?
 +
 
gavinbaker: ok, leaving it that way
 
gavinbaker: ok, leaving it that way
  mark007: I am re-returned.
+
 
 +
mark007: I am re-returned.
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: let's add removal for cause for officers of the board? + or -
 
gavinbaker: let's add removal for cause for officers of the board? + or -
 +
 
gavinbaker: +1 from me
 
gavinbaker: +1 from me
skyfaller: yeah, same procedure as removing someone from the board entirely
+
 
skyfaller: +1
+
skyfaller: yeah, same procedure as removing someone from the board entirely
  mark007: Gonna backtrack then I might join in.
+
 
BrianRowe: +1
+
skyfaller: +1
 +
 
 +
mark007: Gonna backtrack then I might join in.
 +
 
 +
BrianRowe: +1
 +
 
 
*** Signoff: rohitj_ ("Leaving")
 
*** Signoff: rohitj_ ("Leaving")
 +
 
*** conle1 (n=ibcliffo@spode.cs.vt.edu) has joined channel #freeculture
 
*** conle1 (n=ibcliffo@spode.cs.vt.edu) has joined channel #freeculture
 +
 
gavinbaker: oh, interesting
 
gavinbaker: oh, interesting
 +
 
gavinbaker: i'm pretty sure we agreed that there should be removal for cause for board members, as there is for chapters
 
gavinbaker: i'm pretty sure we agreed that there should be removal for cause for board members, as there is for chapters
 +
 
gavinbaker: but we haven't actually added that language yet.
 
gavinbaker: but we haven't actually added that language yet.
 +
 
gavinbaker: but when we do, we'll use the same language for removing an officer from their officer-ship
 
gavinbaker: but when we do, we'll use the same language for removing an officer from their officer-ship
 +
 
gavinbaker: + or -?
 
gavinbaker: + or -?
skyfaller: +1 for punting things to the future :P
+
 
 +
skyfaller: +1 for punting things to the future :P
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: +1 from me
 
gavinbaker: +1 from me
BrianRowe: +1
+
 
skyfaller: alright
+
BrianRowe: +1
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: alright
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: that'll be 1.2.1.3. Removal for Cause
 
gavinbaker: that'll be 1.2.1.3. Removal for Cause
 +
 
gavinbaker: ...some of this numbering may bear re-doing when we're done, but we may as well wait to do that.
 
gavinbaker: ...some of this numbering may bear re-doing when we're done, but we may as well wait to do that.
 +
 
gavinbaker: ok, so back to the issue of succession... what happens?
 
gavinbaker: ok, so back to the issue of succession... what happens?
 +
 
gavinbaker: if chair and vice-chair are gone, no meeting, done?
 
gavinbaker: if chair and vice-chair are gone, no meeting, done?
skyfaller: someone just runs the meeting, and if there's a tie then they can't decide that tied issue
+
 
 +
skyfaller: someone just runs the meeting, and if there's a tie then they can't decide that tied issue
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: ok, so who is "someone"?
 
gavinbaker: ok, so who is "someone"?
 +
 
gavinbaker: and we sure we want to have a meeting if both the chair and vice-chair are gone?
 
gavinbaker: and we sure we want to have a meeting if both the chair and vice-chair are gone?
 +
 
gavinbaker: seems like you probably don't want to do much without them in the loop
 
gavinbaker: seems like you probably don't want to do much without them in the loop
    peabo: should treat it the same as any lack of quorum
+
 
 +
peabo: should treat it the same as any lack of quorum
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: peabo: yeah, that's basically the question, should we just add "either the chair or vice-chair have to be there" as a condition for quorum?
 
gavinbaker: peabo: yeah, that's basically the question, should we just add "either the chair or vice-chair have to be there" as a condition for quorum?
 +
 
gavinbaker: i lean toward yes, and if both keep missing the meeting, you remove them for cause
 
gavinbaker: i lean toward yes, and if both keep missing the meeting, you remove them for cause
 +
 
gavinbaker: so it can't become too big a problem
 
gavinbaker: so it can't become too big a problem
skyfaller: removal for cause won't require a meeting?
+
 
 +
skyfaller: removal for cause won't require a meeting?
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: ...so when we write the procedures for removal for cause, we need to consider that you should be able to do it without the chair or vice-chair
 
gavinbaker: ...so when we write the procedures for removal for cause, we need to consider that you should be able to do it without the chair or vice-chair
 +
 
gavinbaker: *removal of an officer for cause
 
gavinbaker: *removal of an officer for cause
 +
 
gavinbaker: even if the chair shows up, you probably don't want the chair running the meeting to remove himself.
 
gavinbaker: even if the chair shows up, you probably don't want the chair running the meeting to remove himself.
skyfaller: yeah
+
 
 +
skyfaller: yeah
 +
 
 
*** Signoff: facefaceface (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
 
*** Signoff: facefaceface (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
 +
 
gavinbaker: so we don't have to decide the particulars this very moment, but is this framework OK? RESOLVED?
 
gavinbaker: so we don't have to decide the particulars this very moment, but is this framework OK? RESOLVED?
BrianRowe: ok
+
 
    peabo: for things that require 2/3 or 3/4 approval, is that of all the board members or just of those present?
+
BrianRowe: ok
skyfaller: OK, just mention in the language that if they keep missing meetings they can be removed for cause, per our unwritten procedure
+
 
 +
peabo: for things that require 2/3 or 3/4 approval, is that of all the board members or just of those present?
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: OK, just mention in the language that if they keep missing meetings they can be removed for cause, per our unwritten procedure
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: peabo: it should be "of members voting and present", we'll need to specify that
 
gavinbaker: peabo: it should be "of members voting and present", we'll need to specify that
 +
 
gavinbaker: ok, backtracking, where were we last?
 
gavinbaker: ok, backtracking, where were we last?
 +
 
gavinbaker: ok, so we decided how to deal with a chair and vice-chair not showing up
 
gavinbaker: ok, so we decided how to deal with a chair and vice-chair not showing up
 +
 
gavinbaker: what if the chair and vice-chair both resign?
 
gavinbaker: what if the chair and vice-chair both resign?
 +
 
gavinbaker: let's say $arbitrary-person acts as interim chair to preside over the election of replacements
 
gavinbaker: let's say $arbitrary-person acts as interim chair to preside over the election of replacements
 +
 
gavinbaker: (we need a flowchart for this!)
 
gavinbaker: (we need a flowchart for this!)
skyfaller: can people e-mail or wiki votes on subjects for meetings they know they'll be missing?
+
 
    peabo: $arbitrary only to elect the chair, who immediately assumes responsibility
+
skyfaller: can people e-mail or wiki votes on subjects for meetings they know they'll be missing?
 +
 
 +
peabo: $arbitrary only to elect the chair, who immediately assumes responsibility
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: i don't think so, unless the board decides otherwise
 
gavinbaker: i don't think so, unless the board decides otherwise
 +
 
gavinbaker: peabo: right
 
gavinbaker: peabo: right
 +
 
gavinbaker: skyfaller: we should say that only members present can vote, unless the board decides otherwise
 
gavinbaker: skyfaller: we should say that only members present can vote, unless the board decides otherwise
    peabo: skyfaller: is there a general mechanism for proxy?
+
 
skyfaller: ok
+
peabo: skyfaller: is there a general mechanism for proxy?
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: ok
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: because you don't want people voting on stuff they don't know about, and absent members will miss the discussion
 
gavinbaker: because you don't want people voting on stuff they don't know about, and absent members will miss the discussion
 +
 
gavinbaker: but there might be a time where the discussion has all happened, and the meeting is just to vote, in which case the board should be able to decide to allow absentee voting, if they so choose
 
gavinbaker: but there might be a time where the discussion has all happened, and the meeting is just to vote, in which case the board should be able to decide to allow absentee voting, if they so choose
 +
 
gavinbaker: peabo: i don't think proxy voting should be allowed
 
gavinbaker: peabo: i don't think proxy voting should be allowed
  mark007: Whew.
+
 
 +
mark007: Whew.
 +
 
 
*** poningru (n=poningru@ip72-209-65-174.ga.at.cox.net) has joined channel #freeculture
 
*** poningru (n=poningru@ip72-209-65-174.ga.at.cox.net) has joined channel #freeculture
  mark007: I'm caught up now, though :-)
+
 
BrianRowe: GL with the rest, headed out.  I will tread the minuetes later.
+
mark007: I'm caught up now, though :-)
 +
 
 +
BrianRowe: GL with the rest, headed out.  I will tread the minuetes later.
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: to clarify, i think proxy voting should explicitly be dis-allowed. you don't want non-board members on the board, that's the point of the board :)
 
gavinbaker: to clarify, i think proxy voting should explicitly be dis-allowed. you don't want non-board members on the board, that's the point of the board :)
 +
 
gavinbaker: BrianRowe: thx
 
gavinbaker: BrianRowe: thx
 +
 
gavinbaker: OTOH, i think absentee voting should be disallowed, and the board can make exceptions if they choose
 
gavinbaker: OTOH, i think absentee voting should be disallowed, and the board can make exceptions if they choose
skyfaller: OK
+
 
 +
skyfaller: OK
 +
 
 
*** BrianRowe has left channel #freeculture
 
*** BrianRowe has left channel #freeculture
  mark007: I agree with gavinbaker, here.
+
 
skyfaller: so what are we resolving?
+
mark007: I agree with gavinbaker, here.
    peabo: gavin, by proxy I meant board member A gives a proxy to board member B to vote in his stead
+
 
 +
skyfaller: so what are we resolving?
 +
 
 +
peabo: gavin, by proxy I meant board member A gives a proxy to board member B to vote in his stead
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: peabo: right, i'm against it.
 
gavinbaker: peabo: right, i'm against it.
    peabo: ok
+
 
 +
peabo: ok
 +
 
 
*** Signoff: poningru (Client Quit)
 
*** Signoff: poningru (Client Quit)
 +
 
gavinbaker: well, to be fair, there could be 2 kinds of proxy voting: 1 is where anyone can be a proxy, 2 is where only other board members can be proxies
 
gavinbaker: well, to be fair, there could be 2 kinds of proxy voting: 1 is where anyone can be a proxy, 2 is where only other board members can be proxies
 +
 
gavinbaker: i'm against both, but hypothetically we could allow one and not the other.
 
gavinbaker: i'm against both, but hypothetically we could allow one and not the other.
 +
 
*** poningru (n=poningru@ip72-209-65-174.ga.at.cox.net) has joined channel #freeculture
 
*** poningru (n=poningru@ip72-209-65-174.ga.at.cox.net) has joined channel #freeculture
 +
 
gavinbaker: is this a point people want to discuss further, or shall we make a resolution?
 
gavinbaker: is this a point people want to discuss further, or shall we make a resolution?
skyfaller: I guess we need to discuss
+
 
skyfaller: sometimes board members will miss meetings through no fault of their own, and they should be able to vote on stuff that has already been discussed
+
skyfaller: I guess we need to discuss
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: sometimes board members will miss meetings through no fault of their own, and they should be able to vote on stuff that has already been discussed
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: skyfaller: that can be via absentee voting, not just proxy voting.
 
gavinbaker: skyfaller: that can be via absentee voting, not just proxy voting.
skyfaller: stuff that is going to be debated at that meeting they probably should abstain from
+
 
skyfaller: ah
+
skyfaller: stuff that is going to be debated at that meeting they probably should abstain from
skyfaller: I see  
+
 
 +
skyfaller: ah
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: I see  
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: absentee = "I can't be there, here's my vote"
 
gavinbaker: absentee = "I can't be there, here's my vote"
 +
 
gavinbaker: proxy = "I'm not voting, whatever $person decides is my vote"
 
gavinbaker: proxy = "I'm not voting, whatever $person decides is my vote"
skyfaller: yeah, I guess absentee voting is what I support, not proxy voting
+
 
skyfaller: let's disallow proxy voting and make some absentee voting provision
+
skyfaller: yeah, I guess absentee voting is what I support, not proxy voting
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: let's disallow proxy voting and make some absentee voting provision
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: any further comments?
 
gavinbaker: any further comments?
 +
 
gavinbaker: ok, let's do this individually
 
gavinbaker: ok, let's do this individually
  mark007: Well, other than the need to discuss the provision...
+
 
  mark007: No
+
mark007: Well, other than the need to discuss the provision...
 +
 
 +
mark007: No
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: RESOLVED: board members shall not be allowed to vote by proxy
 
gavinbaker: RESOLVED: board members shall not be allowed to vote by proxy
 +
 
gavinbaker: +1 from me
 
gavinbaker: +1 from me
skyfaller: +1
+
 
  mark007: +1
+
skyfaller: +1
skyfaller: so how do we want to do absentee voting?
+
 
 +
mark007: +1
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: so how do we want to do absentee voting?
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: any other + or - on proxy voting?
 
gavinbaker: any other + or - on proxy voting?
 +
 
gavinbaker: ok, RESOLVED
 
gavinbaker: ok, RESOLVED
 +
 
gavinbaker: next:
 
gavinbaker: next:
 +
 
gavinbaker: RESOLVED: absentee voting on the board not allowed, except in exceptions as decided by board
 
gavinbaker: RESOLVED: absentee voting on the board not allowed, except in exceptions as decided by board
skyfaller: wait, how does that work?
+
 
 +
skyfaller: wait, how does that work?
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: the board decides using their own procedures
 
gavinbaker: the board decides using their own procedures
skyfaller: this seems important enough that we should decide it now
+
 
  mark007: Do we want to set a timeline for when it must be approved that $person gets an absentee vote?
+
skyfaller: this seems important enough that we should decide it now
 +
 
 +
mark007: Do we want to set a timeline for when it must be approved that $person gets an absentee vote?
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: we can't specify *everything*, at least not in a timely fashion. even if we could, it'd be questionable if we want to
 
gavinbaker: we can't specify *everything*, at least not in a timely fashion. even if we could, it'd be questionable if we want to
 +
 
gavinbaker: i think that it should be decided in advance whether to accept an absentee vote on a particular motion
 
gavinbaker: i think that it should be decided in advance whether to accept an absentee vote on a particular motion
 +
 
*** Omnifrog (n=Omnifrog@c-68-60-206-179.hsd1.tn.comcast.net) has joined channel #freeculture
 
*** Omnifrog (n=Omnifrog@c-68-60-206-179.hsd1.tn.comcast.net) has joined channel #freeculture
 +
 
gavinbaker: it can't be decided after the absentee vote has already been voted
 
gavinbaker: it can't be decided after the absentee vote has already been voted
skyfaller: agreed
+
 
  mark007: So, meeting prior?
+
skyfaller: agreed
skyfaller: it would have to be on the agenda in advance...  
+
 
skyfaller: I dunno about the prior meeting
+
mark007: So, meeting prior?
skyfaller: that sounds too constricting
+
 
 +
skyfaller: it would have to be on the agenda in advance...  
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: I dunno about the prior meeting
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: that sounds too constricting
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: well, can the board reach consensus by email before the meeting where the motion will be presented?
 
gavinbaker: well, can the board reach consensus by email before the meeting where the motion will be presented?
 +
 
gavinbaker: well, what about this
 
gavinbaker: well, what about this
 +
 
gavinbaker: 1. a board member may request an absentee vote prior to a meeting
 
gavinbaker: 1. a board member may request an absentee vote prior to a meeting
 +
 
gavinbaker: (i'm hesitant to have decision making take place outside of the meetings, so)
 
gavinbaker: (i'm hesitant to have decision making take place outside of the meetings, so)
 +
 
gavinbaker: 2. before the vote at the meeting, the board members present shall hear the request for absentee vote and decide whether to accept it
 
gavinbaker: 2. before the vote at the meeting, the board members present shall hear the request for absentee vote and decide whether to accept it
  mark007: That sounds good.
+
 
 +
mark007: That sounds good.
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: 3. the board member making the request may send their vote to the chair in advance of the meeting. the chair shall not reveal the vote to the board without the requester's consent (so you don't influence the decision about whether to accept the vote)
 
gavinbaker: 3. the board member making the request may send their vote to the chair in advance of the meeting. the chair shall not reveal the vote to the board without the requester's consent (so you don't influence the decision about whether to accept the vote)
 +
 
gavinbaker: 4. if the board accepts the absentee vote, the chair shall present the absentee member's vote, which will count equally with any other vote
 
gavinbaker: 4. if the board accepts the absentee vote, the chair shall present the absentee member's vote, which will count equally with any other vote
skyfaller: OK, that's fine
+
 
 +
skyfaller: OK, that's fine
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: it's kinda convoluted, but this shouldn't be happening often anyway
 
gavinbaker: it's kinda convoluted, but this shouldn't be happening often anyway
 +
 
gavinbaker: it should only be very limited circumstances that the board should allow absentee voting
 
gavinbaker: it should only be very limited circumstances that the board should allow absentee voting
 +
 
gavinbaker: i don't know how we legislate that, but i think it's ok to just say "in exceptional circumstances, the board can accept this"
 
gavinbaker: i don't know how we legislate that, but i think it's ok to just say "in exceptional circumstances, the board can accept this"
 +
 
gavinbaker: RESOLVED: what we just said? ^^
 
gavinbaker: RESOLVED: what we just said? ^^
    peabo: at the last meeting, it was decided that the board could approve membership of a new chapter by e-mail; is there any other action the board can do without a face-to-face meeting?
+
 
  mark007: +1
+
peabo: at the last meeting, it was decided that the board could approve membership of a new chapter by e-mail; is there any other action the board can do without a face-to-face meeting?
skyfaller: +1 ... it's the only way to handle the problem of a proposal changing at a meeting, and the absentee vote no longer being up to date
+
 
skyfaller: the people present can decide whether the absentee vote is still valid or needs to be ignored
+
mark007: +1
    peabo: or the vote gets tabled
+
 
skyfaller: true, they can table the vote as well, if they know that the person who is missing has serious objections and they think it's worth waiting
+
skyfaller: +1 ... it's the only way to handle the problem of a proposal changing at a meeting, and the absentee vote no longer being up to date
    peabo: can a board member attend by telephone?
+
 
skyfaller: but if they have quorum and want to move on, then they can vote without the missing member
+
skyfaller: the people present can decide whether the absentee vote is still valid or needs to be ignored
 +
 
 +
peabo: or the vote gets tabled
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: true, they can table the vote as well, if they know that the person who is missing has serious objections and they think it's worth waiting
 +
 
 +
peabo: can a board member attend by telephone?
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: but if they have quorum and want to move on, then they can vote without the missing member
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: peabo: it says the chair decides how meetings take place
 
gavinbaker: peabo: it says the chair decides how meetings take place
 +
 
gavinbaker: so they can be IRL, or IRC, or phone, or some combination, or whatever -- up to him/her
 
gavinbaker: so they can be IRL, or IRC, or phone, or some combination, or whatever -- up to him/her
 +
 
*** Signoff: skyfaller ("Leaving")
 
*** Signoff: skyfaller ("Leaving")
 +
 
*** skyfaller (n=nelson@c-69-143-179-58.hsd1.va.comcast.net) has joined channel #freeculture
 
*** skyfaller (n=nelson@c-69-143-179-58.hsd1.va.comcast.net) has joined channel #freeculture
skyfaller: whoops, wrong button
+
 
skyfaller: up to *them* ;-)
+
skyfaller: whoops, wrong button
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: up to *them* ;-)
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: just to clarify about absentee voting, this is for the cases where (1) a board member is missing for a good reason (e.g. unavoidable scheduling conflict) and (2) a motion is well-known and doesn't change substantively, and there's no substantitive discussion that reveals new information, at the meeting
 
gavinbaker: just to clarify about absentee voting, this is for the cases where (1) a board member is missing for a good reason (e.g. unavoidable scheduling conflict) and (2) a motion is well-known and doesn't change substantively, and there's no substantitive discussion that reveals new information, at the meeting
 +
 
gavinbaker: oh, should we write those conditions in?
 
gavinbaker: oh, should we write those conditions in?
skyfaller: might be good to put that language in the bylaws
+
 
skyfaller: yyeah
+
skyfaller: might be good to put that language in the bylaws
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: yyeah
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: ok, RESOLVED that we write those conditions into the absentee voting section?
 
gavinbaker: ok, RESOLVED that we write those conditions into the absentee voting section?
 +
 
gavinbaker: (of course, whether something is "substantive" is decided by the board when they vote -- there's no external standard or anything)
 
gavinbaker: (of course, whether something is "substantive" is decided by the board when they vote -- there's no external standard or anything)
 +
 
gavinbaker: +1 from me
 
gavinbaker: +1 from me
skyfaller: +1
+
 
 +
skyfaller: +1
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: + or - from anyone else?
 
gavinbaker: + or - from anyone else?
 +
 
gavinbaker: ok, i think that's pretty much everything about quorum
 
gavinbaker: ok, i think that's pretty much everything about quorum
  mark007: +1
+
 
 +
mark007: +1
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: when it says 2/3 of members, that means we round up to the next member, right?
 
gavinbaker: when it says 2/3 of members, that means we round up to the next member, right?
 +
 
gavinbaker: like, 2/3 or 7 is 4.666, so that means 5. 4 wouldn't be quite 2/3
 
gavinbaker: like, 2/3 or 7 is 4.666, so that means 5. 4 wouldn't be quite 2/3
skyfaller: yeah, we always round up, and we should say that in the document towards the top
+
 
  mark007: Yup
+
skyfaller: yeah, we always round up, and we should say that in the document towards the top
 +
 
 +
mark007: Yup
 +
 
 
*** Signoff: conle1 ("Leaving.")
 
*** Signoff: conle1 ("Leaving.")
 +
 
gavinbaker: er. 2/3 *of 7 (people) = 5 people
 
gavinbaker: er. 2/3 *of 7 (people) = 5 people
skyfaller: all fractions required for voting / quorum in the bylaws should always be rounded up
+
 
 +
skyfaller: all fractions required for voting / quorum in the bylaws should always be rounded up
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: how do we put that in bylaws language, and where should it go?
 
gavinbaker: how do we put that in bylaws language, and where should it go?
 +
 
gavinbaker: skyfaller: ^^
 
gavinbaker: skyfaller: ^^
skyfaller: maybe we should just mention that the first time we mention a fraction
+
 
 +
skyfaller: maybe we should just mention that the first time we mention a fraction
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: just a new article, at the end? it'll stick out like a sore thumb, but it'd be decided, at least.
 
gavinbaker: just a new article, at the end? it'll stick out like a sore thumb, but it'd be decided, at least.
skyfaller: well, logically it should come before the things it defines
+
 
skyfaller: so it should be towards the beginning
+
skyfaller: well, logically it should come before the things it defines
skyfaller: like after purposes and goals
+
 
 +
skyfaller: so it should be towards the beginning
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: like after purposes and goals
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: should we just add a Definitions article?
 
gavinbaker: should we just add a Definitions article?
skyfaller: yeah
+
 
 +
skyfaller: yeah
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: before Article III?
 
gavinbaker: before Article III?
skyfaller: yes
+
 
    peabo: sounds good
+
skyfaller: yes
 +
 
 +
peabo: sounds good
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: it won't say anything new, it'll just collect terms used throughout and define them
 
gavinbaker: it won't say anything new, it'll just collect terms used throughout and define them
    peabo: and it's an excuse to use the word 'hereinafter'
+
 
 +
peabo: and it's an excuse to use the word 'hereinafter'
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: RESOLVED: insert a new Article III, "Definitions", before the current Article III, and re-number accordingly
 
gavinbaker: RESOLVED: insert a new Article III, "Definitions", before the current Article III, and re-number accordingly
 +
 
gavinbaker: + or - time
 
gavinbaker: + or - time
skyfaller: +!
+
 
 +
skyfaller: +!
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: +1 from me
 
gavinbaker: +1 from me
skyfaller: RESOLVED: All fraction requirements for voting or quorum in the bylaws should always be rounded up
+
 
skyfaller: and that should be put in the Definitions section
+
skyfaller: RESOLVED: All fraction requirements for voting or quorum in the bylaws should always be rounded up
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: and that should be put in the Definitions section
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: +1 from me
 
gavinbaker: +1 from me
skyfaller: +1
+
 
 +
skyfaller: +1
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: more votes on either?
 
gavinbaker: more votes on either?
skyfaller: I guess not?
+
 
 +
skyfaller: I guess not?
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: k, RESOLVED
 
gavinbaker: k, RESOLVED
 +
 
gavinbaker: any other questions about quorum & related?
 
gavinbaker: any other questions about quorum & related?
 +
 
*** Signoff: brendan_ ()
 
*** Signoff: brendan_ ()
 +
 
gavinbaker: reminder, the original language was: "At least two-thirds of the board must be present at a meeting for the board to conduct business."
 
gavinbaker: reminder, the original language was: "At least two-thirds of the board must be present at a meeting for the board to conduct business."
  mark007: Blast, I keep missing the votes :-) Both would have been +1s :-)
+
 
    peabo: yes, the issue about e-mail approvals of chapter memberships
+
mark007: Blast, I keep missing the votes :-) Both would have been +1s :-)
 +
 
 +
peabo: yes, the issue about e-mail approvals of chapter memberships
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: peabo: noted, but that's not really in this section, is it? that's back with the chapter stuff
 
gavinbaker: peabo: noted, but that's not really in this section, is it? that's back with the chapter stuff
 +
 
*** SamRose (n=SamRose@c-71-197-16-217.hsd1.mi.comcast.net) has joined channel #freeculture
 
*** SamRose (n=SamRose@c-71-197-16-217.hsd1.mi.comcast.net) has joined channel #freeculture
    peabo: is that the only business that can be carried out by e-mail (it's special because it invoves time deadlines)
+
 
 +
peabo: is that the only business that can be carried out by e-mail (it's special because it invoves time deadlines)
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: yeah, i think so
 
gavinbaker: yeah, i think so
 +
 
*** Signoff: SamRose (Remote closed the connection)
 
*** Signoff: SamRose (Remote closed the connection)
 +
 
gavinbaker: anybody remember exactly what we decided there?
 
gavinbaker: anybody remember exactly what we decided there?
    peabo: perhaps other business could be carried out at the discretion of the chair
+
 
 +
peabo: perhaps other business could be carried out at the discretion of the chair
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: i know it was along the lines of, "if nobody objects in a week, it happens" -- but what if somebody objects? i can't remember
 
gavinbaker: i know it was along the lines of, "if nobody objects in a week, it happens" -- but what if somebody objects? i can't remember
 +
 
gavinbaker: and i'm afraid to open the log from last week :-/
 
gavinbaker: and i'm afraid to open the log from last week :-/
skyfaller: too bad nobody did minutes
+
 
 +
skyfaller: too bad nobody did minutes
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: well, i wonder if it's in RC2
 
gavinbaker: well, i wonder if it's in RC2
 +
 
gavinbaker: here it is: "The Board of Directors may vote, either in an official meeting or via email, to reverse the Executive Director's decision to approve the chapter within seven days of the approval."
 
gavinbaker: here it is: "The Board of Directors may vote, either in an official meeting or via email, to reverse the Executive Director's decision to approve the chapter within seven days of the approval."
 +
 
gavinbaker: so good point, what does it mean to "vote ... via email"?
 
gavinbaker: so good point, what does it mean to "vote ... via email"?
 +
 
gavinbaker: http://wiki.freeculture.org/index.php?title=Bylaws_RC2&diff=13398&oldid=13396 | at Line 24
 
gavinbaker: http://wiki.freeculture.org/index.php?title=Bylaws_RC2&diff=13398&oldid=13396 | at Line 24
skyfaller: people send votes to the Board mailing list, and if they get enough votes for quorum by the deadline the resolution passes?
+
 
skyfaller: otherwise it has to wait until the next meeting?
+
skyfaller: people send votes to the Board mailing list, and if they get enough votes for quorum by the deadline the resolution passes?
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: otherwise it has to wait until the next meeting?
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: well, there's two conditions: (1) enough votes to have quorum, (2) whether the motion passes or fails
 
gavinbaker: well, there's two conditions: (1) enough votes to have quorum, (2) whether the motion passes or fails
    peabo: no, it doesn't wait, it either passes or doesn't
+
 
 +
peabo: no, it doesn't wait, it either passes or doesn't
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: no, if the board doesn't fail the approval, it passes by default
 
gavinbaker: no, if the board doesn't fail the approval, it passes by default
 +
 
gavinbaker: that's what we decided, so as not to hold up the process of adding new chapters
 
gavinbaker: that's what we decided, so as not to hold up the process of adding new chapters
    peabo: the time limit is there for the benfit of the chapter, to force a definite decision
+
 
skyfaller: right, in the context of chapters, if the board doesn't actively stop it, the chapter is auto-approved
+
peabo: the time limit is there for the benfit of the chapter, to force a definite decision
skyfaller: sorry
+
 
 +
skyfaller: right, in the context of chapters, if the board doesn't actively stop it, the chapter is auto-approved
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: sorry
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: so should we add this to 1.2., as its own section?
 
gavinbaker: so should we add this to 1.2., as its own section?
skyfaller: there really should be a section in the Board section about voting by e-mail
+
 
 +
skyfaller: there really should be a section in the Board section about voting by e-mail
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: "Voting by E-mail (for Chapter Approval)" ?
 
gavinbaker: "Voting by E-mail (for Chapter Approval)" ?
skyfaller: which we can apply for things other than Chapter Approval if necessary
+
 
 +
skyfaller: which we can apply for things other than Chapter Approval if necessary
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: i'd like to write it that way, to say that this is the *only* issue where you vote by email
 
gavinbaker: i'd like to write it that way, to say that this is the *only* issue where you vote by email
 +
 
gavinbaker: voting by email is bad news, it's very poor for discussion
 
gavinbaker: voting by email is bad news, it's very poor for discussion
skyfaller: sure
+
 
 +
skyfaller: sure
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: you want people to be informed when they're making decisions
 
gavinbaker: you want people to be informed when they're making decisions
 +
 
gavinbaker: the only valid trade-off would be for time, which is the case with chapter approval
 
gavinbaker: the only valid trade-off would be for time, which is the case with chapter approval
skyfaller: aren't there things that need to be rubber-stamped other than chapter approval?
+
 
 +
skyfaller: aren't there things that need to be rubber-stamped other than chapter approval?
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: the board shouldn't be dealing with many very time-sensitive issues
 
gavinbaker: the board shouldn't be dealing with many very time-sensitive issues
skyfaller: that's true
+
 
skyfaller: so if e.g. we need to renew the freeculture.org domain name... who decides that?  The ED / Facilitator?  the proposed core team?   
+
skyfaller: that's true
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: so if e.g. we need to renew the freeculture.org domain name... who decides that?  The ED / Facilitator?  the proposed core team?   
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: ideally we'll know about that far enough in the future to approve it at a board meeting
 
gavinbaker: ideally we'll know about that far enough in the future to approve it at a board meeting
 +
 
gavinbaker: if we decide it's the sort of thing the board should decide
 
gavinbaker: if we decide it's the sort of thing the board should decide
skyfaller: well, would we let the Core team handle money?
+
 
 +
skyfaller: well, would we let the Core team handle money?
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: skyfaller: that's a different question...
 
gavinbaker: skyfaller: that's a different question...
    peabo: we could get one of those 100-year domain registrations :-) :-)
+
 
skyfaller: the reason I thought it might require Board participation is that it requires an expenditure of money
+
peabo: we could get one of those 100-year domain registrations :-) :-)
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: the reason I thought it might require Board participation is that it requires an expenditure of money
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: we need to discuss what the board *does* before we decide this
 
gavinbaker: we need to discuss what the board *does* before we decide this
 +
 
gavinbaker: so i propose 2 things
 
gavinbaker: so i propose 2 things
skyfaller: peabo: that's a little silly, who knows if domain names will still be relevant a century from now
+
 
 +
skyfaller: peabo: that's a little silly, who knows if domain names will still be relevant a century from now
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: 1. we RESOLVE the voting by email procedure above for chapter approval and add a section to IV 1.2
 
gavinbaker: 1. we RESOLVE the voting by email procedure above for chapter approval and add a section to IV 1.2
 +
 
gavinbaker: 2. we postpone further discussion of voting by email until we discuss board duties/powers
 
gavinbaker: 2. we postpone further discussion of voting by email until we discuss board duties/powers
skyfaller: OK, sounds fine to me... the details about e-mail voting should be moved to the Board section though, and out of the Chapters section
+
 
skyfaller: so that we can point all e-mail voting stuff to the same place, if we add other situations in which e-mail voting is required
+
skyfaller: OK, sounds fine to me... the details about e-mail voting should be moved to the Board section though, and out of the Chapters section
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: so that we can point all e-mail voting stuff to the same place, if we add other situations in which e-mail voting is required
 +
 
 
*** Signoff: facefacefaceface ("Leaving")
 
*** Signoff: facefacefaceface ("Leaving")
 +
 
gavinbaker: skyfaller: right, there's not much detail in the chapters section. we'll consider whether to replace what's there with a reference to "the procedure detailed in IV 1.2"
 
gavinbaker: skyfaller: right, there's not much detail in the chapters section. we'll consider whether to replace what's there with a reference to "the procedure detailed in IV 1.2"
skyfaller: Yeah, I'd like to consider and resolve that now
+
 
skyfaller: oh, there isn't much there
+
skyfaller: Yeah, I'd like to consider and resolve that now
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: oh, there isn't much there
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: well, all the draft says is "the board can vote via email"
 
gavinbaker: well, all the draft says is "the board can vote via email"
skyfaller: ok
+
 
skyfaller: so there's nothing ot move
+
skyfaller: ok
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: so there's nothing ot move
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: so we can just add a reference to "per the procedures in IV 1.2"
 
gavinbaker: so we can just add a reference to "per the procedures in IV 1.2"
skyfaller: sounds good
+
 
skyfaller: let's resolve that
+
skyfaller: sounds good
skyfaller: +1
+
 
  mark007: +1
+
skyfaller: let's resolve that
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: +1
 +
 
 +
mark007: +1
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: +1 to all that mess
 
gavinbaker: +1 to all that mess
skyfaller: moving on then
+
 
 +
skyfaller: moving on then
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: ok, well, one other thing
 
gavinbaker: ok, well, one other thing
 +
 
gavinbaker: can we say "there's no voting by email until/unless we say otherwise in the bylaws"?
 
gavinbaker: can we say "there's no voting by email until/unless we say otherwise in the bylaws"?
 +
 
gavinbaker: or should we not specifically ban it until we decide what to do about it?
 
gavinbaker: or should we not specifically ban it until we decide what to do about it?
 +
 
gavinbaker: i'd rather ban it by default, until we decide otherwise, because i find it very problematic
 
gavinbaker: i'd rather ban it by default, until we decide otherwise, because i find it very problematic
skyfaller: sure, let's ban it and then we can add exceptions
+
 
skyfaller: erm
+
skyfaller: sure, let's ban it and then we can add exceptions
skyfaller: just say that it's only allowed when specifically noted
+
 
 +
skyfaller: erm
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: just say that it's only allowed when specifically noted
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: i would say "Voting shall take place only in official meetings except as otherwise noted in these bylaws"
 
gavinbaker: i would say "Voting shall take place only in official meetings except as otherwise noted in these bylaws"
 +
 
gavinbaker: something like that. that kosher for everyone?
 
gavinbaker: something like that. that kosher for everyone?
 +
 
gavinbaker: mark007: courtesy ping | voting going on :)
 
gavinbaker: mark007: courtesy ping | voting going on :)
skyfaller: sure, sounds good for me
+
 
 +
skyfaller: sure, sounds good for me
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: +1 from me
 
gavinbaker: +1 from me
skyfaller: brb, I need to make lunch *sigh*
+
 
    peabo: by saying "official meeting" does that allow the chair to schedule an email meeting?
+
skyfaller: brb, I need to make lunch *sigh*
 +
 
 +
peabo: by saying "official meeting" does that allow the chair to schedule an email meeting?
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: um.
 
gavinbaker: um.
 +
 
gavinbaker: can we define "official meeting" as "a synchronous form of communication"?
 
gavinbaker: can we define "official meeting" as "a synchronous form of communication"?
  mark007: Sounds good.
+
 
 +
mark007: Sounds good.
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: we could also say "real-time" for clarity, says the lunch-making skyfaller  
 
gavinbaker: we could also say "real-time" for clarity, says the lunch-making skyfaller  
    peabo: blurf ... synchronous and wideband ... it's getting dard to specify, but you could quote th reasoning you said a few minutes ago about why email meetings are disallowed except in the case of chapter membership
+
 
 +
peabo: blurf ... synchronous and wideband ... it's getting dard to specify, but you could quote th reasoning you said a few minutes ago about why email meetings are disallowed except in the case of chapter membership
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: we could just add a note that says "E-mail shall not be considered synchronous communication"
 
gavinbaker: we could just add a note that says "E-mail shall not be considered synchronous communication"
  mark007: Heh. With as much as we jump in and out, IRC wouldn't even fit that description :-)
+
 
    peabo: yeah, an IRC meeting could fail because the server cloud becomes disjoint
+
mark007: Heh. With as much as we jump in and out, IRC wouldn't even fit that description :-)
 +
 
 +
peabo: yeah, an IRC meeting could fail because the server cloud becomes disjoint
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: oh, we should also say "synchronous communication where every member can directly communicate with all other members"
 
gavinbaker: oh, we should also say "synchronous communication where every member can directly communicate with all other members"
 +
 
gavinbaker: to clarify that everybody has to be in the same "room" at the same time, in whatever medium
 
gavinbaker: to clarify that everybody has to be in the same "room" at the same time, in whatever medium
 +
 
gavinbaker: i think in a chansplit, you just wait it out ;)
 
gavinbaker: i think in a chansplit, you just wait it out ;)
    peabo: also, for IRC, can you verify that every member is identified to NickServ by requiring a /msg to vote?
+
 
  mark007: Ooh.
+
peabo: also, for IRC, can you verify that every member is identified to NickServ by requiring a /msg to vote?
 +
 
 +
mark007: Ooh.
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: peabo: i think everybody should be verified by NickServ, but i don't think that should go in the bylaws
 
gavinbaker: peabo: i think everybody should be verified by NickServ, but i don't think that should go in the bylaws
  mark007: That is a good poin.
+
 
Fear_of_C: ah yeah, we need to make sure that people are who they say they are
+
mark007: That is a good poin.
  mark007: point*
+
 
    peabo: gavin :-)
+
Fear_of_C: ah yeah, we need to make sure that people are who they say they are
 +
 
 +
mark007: point*
 +
 
 +
peabo: gavin :-)
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: that can be part of the "the board shall adopt its own procedures" umbrella
 
gavinbaker: that can be part of the "the board shall adopt its own procedures" umbrella
 +
 
gavinbaker: to explain what i mean about everyone being able to communicate to everyone
 
gavinbaker: to explain what i mean about everyone being able to communicate to everyone
  mark007: We could have sham people voting.
+
 
 +
mark007: We could have sham people voting.
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: let's say Board Member X can't get online, but they can get to a phone
 
gavinbaker: let's say Board Member X can't get online, but they can get to a phone
 +
 
gavinbaker: X calls Board Member Y, who relays what's happening in IRC
 
gavinbaker: X calls Board Member Y, who relays what's happening in IRC
 +
 
gavinbaker: i don't think X should be considered part of the "official meeting"
 
gavinbaker: i don't think X should be considered part of the "official meeting"
 +
 
*** ryanfaerman (n=ryanfaer@crlspr-69.65.71.237.myacc.net) has joined channel #freeculture
 
*** ryanfaerman (n=ryanfaer@crlspr-69.65.71.237.myacc.net) has joined channel #freeculture
    peabo: right, it gets impossibly convoluted
+
 
 +
peabo: right, it gets impossibly convoluted
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: though Y can relay their comments, and their votes if the board decides to approve an absentee vote
 
gavinbaker: though Y can relay their comments, and their votes if the board decides to approve an absentee vote
 +
 
gavinbaker: but they're not in the meeting, for the reason peabo mentions
 
gavinbaker: but they're not in the meeting, for the reason peabo mentions
 +
 
gavinbaker: s/they're not/X is not
 
gavinbaker: s/they're not/X is not
 +
 
gavinbaker: so, draft RESOLUTION: "An official meeting shall be defined as a meeting held via a form of synchronous (real-time) communication where all members present may communicate directly to all other members present. E-mail shall not be considered a form of synchronous communication."
 
gavinbaker: so, draft RESOLUTION: "An official meeting shall be defined as a meeting held via a form of synchronous (real-time) communication where all members present may communicate directly to all other members present. E-mail shall not be considered a form of synchronous communication."
    peabo: I'm a lttl;e spectical that X can vote, since Y may not reliably relay the account of the discussion
+
 
 +
peabo: I'm a lttl;e spectical that X can vote, since Y may not reliably relay the account of the discussion
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: peabo: well, X will be able to see the vote after the fact, and notice if it was relayed improperly
 
gavinbaker: peabo: well, X will be able to see the vote after the fact, and notice if it was relayed improperly
 +
 
gavinbaker: + or - -- Fear_of_C, mark007, skyfaller ?
 
gavinbaker: + or - -- Fear_of_C, mark007, skyfaller ?
skyfaller: +!
+
 
 +
skyfaller: +!
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: +1 from me
 
gavinbaker: +1 from me
    peabo: no, I mean that because the discussion was not necessarily heard by X, X might have voted differently if he had heard
+
 
skyfaller: oh, huh
+
peabo: no, I mean that because the discussion was not necessarily heard by X, X might have voted differently if he had heard
Fear_of_C: I guess
+
 
 +
skyfaller: oh, huh
 +
 
 +
Fear_of_C: I guess
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: oh, well, peabo, that has to be accounted for when the board decides whether to accept an absentee vote
 
gavinbaker: oh, well, peabo, that has to be accounted for when the board decides whether to accept an absentee vote
skyfaller: yeah
+
 
 +
skyfaller: yeah
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: hopefully this never comes up frequently anyway
 
gavinbaker: hopefully this never comes up frequently anyway
    peabo: ok
+
 
skyfaller: hopefully if that's expected, they won't approve the absentee vote
+
peabo: ok
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: hopefully if that's expected, they won't approve the absentee vote
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: Fear_of_C: any comments, questions, sources of hesitation?
 
gavinbaker: Fear_of_C: any comments, questions, sources of hesitation?
  mark007: +1
+
 
 +
mark007: +1
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: ok, i think we've sussed out every issue with quorum and voting procedure...
 
gavinbaker: ok, i think we've sussed out every issue with quorum and voting procedure...
 +
 
*** tvol (n=timothy@adsl-69-232-239-95.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net) has joined channel #freeculture
 
*** tvol (n=timothy@adsl-69-232-239-95.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net) has joined channel #freeculture
 +
 
gavinbaker: yay
 
gavinbaker: yay
 +
 
gavinbaker: next: "The board of directors makes decisions by majority vote. A tie vote does not pass. Directors may abstain from a vote when they sense a conflict of interest, or for any other reason."
 
gavinbaker: next: "The board of directors makes decisions by majority vote. A tie vote does not pass. Directors may abstain from a vote when they sense a conflict of interest, or for any other reason."
 +
 
gavinbaker: ok, first sentence: do we need to say anything more about voting?
 
gavinbaker: ok, first sentence: do we need to say anything more about voting?
 +
 
gavinbaker: i think we should say how you call for a vote
 
gavinbaker: i think we should say how you call for a vote
skyfaller: I think that the "definition of fractions provision" clears a lot up
+
 
Fear_of_C: ok, when it says may abstain, are there any circumstances when they must abstain (ie conflict of interest)
+
skyfaller: I think that the "definition of fractions provision" clears a lot up
 +
 
 +
Fear_of_C: ok, when it says may abstain, are there any circumstances when they must abstain (ie conflict of interest)
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: Fear_of_C: i agree, we should require them to abstain in a conflict. but let's deal with that sentence when we get there :)
 
gavinbaker: Fear_of_C: i agree, we should require them to abstain in a conflict. but let's deal with that sentence when we get there :)
 +
 
gavinbaker: we should specify how you call a vote, like we specified how you nominate someone for chair
 
gavinbaker: we should specify how you call a vote, like we specified how you nominate someone for chair
 +
 
gavinbaker: usual procedure is 1. one person call for a vote
 
gavinbaker: usual procedure is 1. one person call for a vote
 +
 
gavinbaker: 2. another person seconds the vote
 
gavinbaker: 2. another person seconds the vote
 +
 
gavinbaker: 3. you vote on whether to vote
 
gavinbaker: 3. you vote on whether to vote
 +
 
gavinbaker: if a majority agrees, then you proceed to the vote
 
gavinbaker: if a majority agrees, then you proceed to the vote
skyfaller: can we skip 3?
+
 
skyfaller: it just seems like unnecessary bureaucracy
+
skyfaller: can we skip 3?
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: it just seems like unnecessary bureaucracy
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: skyfaller: if you want to encourage thorough discussion, you should require a majority vote before you move on, not just a "vote" by 2 members
 
gavinbaker: skyfaller: if you want to encourage thorough discussion, you should require a majority vote before you move on, not just a "vote" by 2 members
skyfaller: I guess discussion is good
+
 
 +
skyfaller: I guess discussion is good
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: the "vote" in 3 (on whether to vote on the motion) is non-debatable
 
gavinbaker: the "vote" in 3 (on whether to vote on the motion) is non-debatable
 +
 
gavinbaker: if you get a motion to vote and a second, you just vote up-or-down whether to proceed to voting to pass or fail the motion
 
gavinbaker: if you get a motion to vote and a second, you just vote up-or-down whether to proceed to voting to pass or fail the motion
skyfaller: and if people are uncomfortable with the quorum, e.g. all of the people on one side are absent but you still make quorum, then that would be a valid reason to want to postpone a vote
+
 
 +
skyfaller: and if people are uncomfortable with the quorum, e.g. all of the people on one side are absent but you still make quorum, then that would be a valid reason to want to postpone a vote
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: if the motion to proceed to a final vote fails, then you go back to discussion
 
gavinbaker: if the motion to proceed to a final vote fails, then you go back to discussion
 +
 
gavinbaker: people can also make motions to table an issue until later, of course
 
gavinbaker: people can also make motions to table an issue until later, of course
 +
 
gavinbaker: or you can keep discussing until people feel more comfortable passing or failing it
 
gavinbaker: or you can keep discussing until people feel more comfortable passing or failing it
 +
 
gavinbaker: it's the Robert's Rules way :D
 
gavinbaker: it's the Robert's Rules way :D
skyfaller: sigh... i probably should read that someday
+
 
    peabo: at NESFA we have some restictions on how this can be done; for instance you can't amend the motion but you can withdraw it and re-move the revised motion (the bylaws refer to Robert's Rules of Order but don't seem to talk about this specifically)
+
skyfaller: sigh... i probably should read that someday
 +
 
 +
peabo: at NESFA we have some restictions on how this can be done; for instance you can't amend the motion but you can withdraw it and re-move the revised motion (the bylaws refer to Robert's Rules of Order but don't seem to talk about this specifically)
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: skyfaller, keep hanging around lawyers and boards and you almost certainly will end up doing so
 
gavinbaker: skyfaller, keep hanging around lawyers and boards and you almost certainly will end up doing so
 +
 
gavinbaker: peabo: i don't quite follow you, can you explain what you mean?
 
gavinbaker: peabo: i don't quite follow you, can you explain what you mean?
    peabo: during the discussion someone may say they think the motion should be changed ... by withdrawing the motion, rend re-mving it, it is clear what is actually being voted on
+
 
 +
peabo: during the discussion someone may say they think the motion should be changed ... by withdrawing the motion, rend re-mving it, it is clear what is actually being voted on
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: ok... that seems compatible with what we've got
 
gavinbaker: ok... that seems compatible with what we've got
 +
 
gavinbaker: so... everybody understand the voting procedure proposed? any questions?
 
gavinbaker: so... everybody understand the voting procedure proposed? any questions?
skyfaller: OK, so if you want to change the proposal, you have to re-move it
+
 
skyfaller: and the 3 step procedure Gavin propose
+
skyfaller: OK, so if you want to change the proposal, you have to re-move it
skyfaller: *proposed
+
 
skyfaller: let's resolve that
+
skyfaller: and the 3 step procedure Gavin propose
skyfaller: can we get actual language?
+
 
 +
skyfaller: *proposed
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: let's resolve that
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: can we get actual language?
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: well, what peabo said doesn't have to actually be written in anywhere
 
gavinbaker: well, what peabo said doesn't have to actually be written in anywhere
 +
 
gavinbaker: and i'm not sure that writing it in would make it more clear, actually
 
gavinbaker: and i'm not sure that writing it in would make it more clear, actually
 +
 
gavinbaker: i think it'll just happen naturally
 
gavinbaker: i think it'll just happen naturally
 +
 
gavinbaker: like here -- "before we vote, can we see the new language again?"
 
gavinbaker: like here -- "before we vote, can we see the new language again?"
skyfaller: sure
+
 
    peabo: if there is a clerk, the clerk reads the motion as it was recorded in the minutes
+
skyfaller: sure
    peabo: before the vote takes place
+
 
#freeculture   tvol     H    0n=timothy@adsl-69-232-239-95.dsl.pltn13.pacbell. Timothy Vollmer
+
peabo: if there is a clerk, the clerk reads the motion as it was recorded in the minutes
#freeculture   ryanfaermaH    0        n=ryanfaer@crlspr-69.65.71.237.myacc.net Ryan Faerman
+
 
#freeculture   skyfaller H    0                    n=nelson@wikipedia/Skyfaller Nelson Pavlosky
+
peabo: before the vote takes place
#freeculture   Omnifrog  H    0 n=Omnifrog@c-68-60-206-179.hsd1.tn.comcast.net Omnifrog
+
 
#freeculture   poningru  H    0        n=poningru@ip72-209-65-174.ga.at.cox.net Eldo Varghese
+
#freeculture tvol H0n=timothy@adsl-69-232-239-95.dsl.pltn13.pacbell. Timothy Vollmer
#freeculture   Fear_of_C H    0          n=nick@cpe-66-65-84-36.nyc.res.rr.com gaim
+
 
#freeculture   ScudmissilH    0                      n=Scudmiss@192.195.230.33 Andy
+
#freeculture ryanfaermaH0n=ryanfaer@crlspr-69.65.71.237.myacc.net Ryan Faerman
#freeculture   mllerustadH    0 n=mllerust@c-69-143-179-58.hsd1.va.comcast.net Karen Rustad
+
 
#freeculture   gavinbakerH    0    n=gavin@c-69-143-179-58.hsd1.va.comcast.net Gavin Baker
+
#freeculture skyfaller H0n=nelson@wikipedia/Skyfaller Nelson Pavlosky
#freeculture   peabo    H    0    n=peabo@c-24-147-25-140.hsd1.ma.comcast.net Peter Olson
+
 
#freeculture   tannewt  G    0                n=scott@gentoo/developer/tannewt Unknown
+
#freeculture Omnifrog  H0 n=Omnifrog@c-68-60-206-179.hsd1.tn.comcast.net Omnifrog
#freeculture   mark007  H    0n=mark007@pool-71-101-200-240.tampfl.dsl-w.veriz Mark
+
 
#freeculture   jli       G    0            i=jli@gateway/tor/x-b0f63977e720e7f0 Jli
+
#freeculture poningru  H0n=poningru@ip72-209-65-174.ga.at.cox.net Eldo Varghese
#freeculture   klepas   G    0                    n=klepas@unaffiliated/klepas Pascal Klein
+
 
#freeculture   ftobia   H    0      n=chatzill@ool-18bb9b30.dyn.optonline.net Frank Tobia
+
#freeculture Fear_of_C H0 n=nick@cpe-66-65-84-36.nyc.res.rr.com gaim
#freeculture   Ax3       H    0                    n=ax4@rada.voodoohosting.com ax4
+
 
#freeculture   K`Tetch  H    0n=ktetch@adsl-074-166-105-206.sip.asm.bellsouth. K`Tetch
+
#freeculture ScudmissilH0n=Scudmiss@192.195.230.33 Andy
#freeculture   [autonomy]H    0 n=autonomy@c-71-232-117-225.hsd1.ma.comcast.net auto
+
 
#freeculture   danjared  H    0n=danjared@HOW-ABOUT-A-NICE-GAME-OF-CHESS.MIT.ED D. Jared Dominguez
+
#freeculture mllerustadH0 n=mllerust@c-69-143-179-58.hsd1.va.comcast.net Karen Rustad
#freeculture   paulproteuG    0          i=paulprot@29.145.221.202.bf.2iij.net Asheesh Laroia
+
 
#freeculture   _sj_     H    0                              n=sj@wikipedia/sj sjk
+
#freeculture gavinbakerH0n=gavin@c-69-143-179-58.hsd1.va.comcast.net Gavin Baker
 +
 
 +
#freeculture peaboH0n=peabo@c-24-147-25-140.hsd1.ma.comcast.net Peter Olson
 +
 
 +
#freeculture tannewtG0 n=scott@gentoo/developer/tannewt Unknown
 +
 
 +
#freeculture mark007H0n=mark007@pool-71-101-200-240.tampfl.dsl-w.veriz Mark
 +
 
 +
#freeculture jli G0  i=jli@gateway/tor/x-b0f63977e720e7f0 Jli
 +
 
 +
#freeculture klepas G0n=klepas@unaffiliated/klepas Pascal Klein
 +
 
 +
#freeculture ftobia H0  n=chatzill@ool-18bb9b30.dyn.optonline.net Frank Tobia
 +
 
 +
#freeculture Ax3 H0n=ax4@rada.voodoohosting.com ax4
 +
 
 +
#freeculture K`TetchH0n=ktetch@adsl-074-166-105-206.sip.asm.bellsouth. K`Tetch
 +
 
 +
#freeculture [autonomy]H0 n=autonomy@c-71-232-117-225.hsd1.ma.comcast.net auto
 +
 
 +
#freeculture danjared  H0n=danjared@HOW-ABOUT-A-NICE-GAME-OF-CHESS.MIT.ED D. Jared Dominguez
 +
 
 +
#freeculture paulproteuG0 i=paulprot@29.145.221.202.bf.2iij.net Asheesh Laroia
 +
 
 +
#freeculture _sj_ H0 n=sj@wikipedia/sj sjk
 +
 
 
*** #freeculture End of /WHO list.
 
*** #freeculture End of /WHO list.
skyfaller: (Gavin is writing proposed language)
+
 
 +
skyfaller: (Gavin is writing proposed language)
 +
 
 
*** Signoff: tvol ()
 
*** Signoff: tvol ()
 +
 
gavinbaker: uh, try this: The board of directors makes decisions by majority vote. At any time in discussion of a proposal, any board member may move to call the question; any other board member may second this motion. A motion to call the question is non-debatable and may not be amended. The $clerk shall read the proposal to the board. The board shall then vote on whether to call the question; if a majority of the board votes to call the
 
gavinbaker: uh, try this: The board of directors makes decisions by majority vote. At any time in discussion of a proposal, any board member may move to call the question; any other board member may second this motion. A motion to call the question is non-debatable and may not be amended. The $clerk shall read the proposal to the board. The board shall then vote on whether to call the question; if a majority of the board votes to call the
 +
 
gavinbaker:  question, the board shall proceed directly to voting on whether to approve the proposal. If a majority of the board does not vote to call the question, the proposal shall revert to debate.
 
gavinbaker:  question, the board shall proceed directly to voting on whether to approve the proposal. If a majority of the board does not vote to call the question, the proposal shall revert to debate.
    peabo: do we want a requirement for there to be a clerk at meetings?  it seems to be the most effective way to ensure that accurate minutes are kept
+
 
 +
peabo: do we want a requirement for there to be a clerk at meetings?  it seems to be the most effective way to ensure that accurate minutes are kept
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: peabo: yeah, we sort of avoided that question, it's on the list of things to come back to
 
gavinbaker: peabo: yeah, we sort of avoided that question, it's on the list of things to come back to
    peabo: it's the question that may not be amended, not the motion to call the question
+
 
            gavinbaker sighs | I forget all the special terms for this stuff
+
peabo: it's the question that may not be amended, not the motion to call the question
 +
 
 +
gavinbaker sighs | I forget all the special terms for this stuff
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: peabo: well, by default, any motion is amendable
 
gavinbaker: peabo: well, by default, any motion is amendable
 +
 
gavinbaker: so i could move to call the question
 
gavinbaker: so i could move to call the question
 +
 
gavinbaker: you then propose an amendment to my motion to call the question, to change that motion to a motion to go to lunch
 
gavinbaker: you then propose an amendment to my motion to call the question, to change that motion to a motion to go to lunch
 +
 
gavinbaker: that would be allowable unless we say otherwise...
 
gavinbaker: that would be allowable unless we say otherwise...
 +
 
gavinbaker: so the motion to call the question should be non-debatable and non-amendable
 
gavinbaker: so the motion to call the question should be non-debatable and non-amendable
 +
 
gavinbaker: if you pass the motion to call the question, then the question is also non-debatable and non-amendable (debate and amendments close at that point)
 
gavinbaker: if you pass the motion to call the question, then the question is also non-debatable and non-amendable (debate and amendments close at that point)
    peabo: ok
+
 
 +
peabo: ok
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: i.e. "proceed directly to voting, do not pass Go, do not collect $200"
 
gavinbaker: i.e. "proceed directly to voting, do not pass Go, do not collect $200"
 +
 
gavinbaker: (in other news, these bylaws are a hack job, but this is better than nothing)
 
gavinbaker: (in other news, these bylaws are a hack job, but this is better than nothing)
 +
 
gavinbaker: so... i pasted some language above. + or - ?
 
gavinbaker: so... i pasted some language above. + or - ?
    peabo: and because the clerk reads the possibly revised motion, everyone knows what they are voting about; sounds fine to me
+
 
 +
peabo: and because the clerk reads the possibly revised motion, everyone knows what they are voting about; sounds fine to me
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: for now let's say $clerk is the chair
 
gavinbaker: for now let's say $clerk is the chair
skyfaller: ok, then that's fine
+
 
skyfaller: +1
+
skyfaller: ok, then that's fine
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: +1
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: +1 from me
 
gavinbaker: +1 from me
 +
 
gavinbaker: are we done with the first sentence -- "The board of directors makes decisions by majority vote." ?
 
gavinbaker: are we done with the first sentence -- "The board of directors makes decisions by majority vote." ?
skyfaller: sure
+
 
skyfaller: ok, I want to propose that for the Board meetings we follow Robert's Rules wherever the bylaws don't specify anything
+
skyfaller: sure
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: ok, I want to propose that for the Board meetings we follow Robert's Rules wherever the bylaws don't specify anything
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: i agree
 
gavinbaker: i agree
 +
 
gavinbaker: if the meetings are synchronous that's easy schmeasy
 
gavinbaker: if the meetings are synchronous that's easy schmeasy
 +
 
gavinbaker: hopefully you never have to consult Robert's Rules, but at least there's an answer to any possible question that might ever arise about procedure
 
gavinbaker: hopefully you never have to consult Robert's Rules, but at least there's an answer to any possible question that might ever arise about procedure
 +
 
gavinbaker: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert%27s_Rules_of_Order
 
gavinbaker: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert%27s_Rules_of_Order
 +
 
gavinbaker: so we'll add a sentence at the end of this section that says "The board shall be governed, in order of precedence, by these bylaws, the rules and procedures of the board, and by Robert's Rules of Order."
 
gavinbaker: so we'll add a sentence at the end of this section that says "The board shall be governed, in order of precedence, by these bylaws, the rules and procedures of the board, and by Robert's Rules of Order."
 +
 
gavinbaker: RESOLVED, + / - ?
 
gavinbaker: RESOLVED, + / - ?
 +
 
gavinbaker: the lunch-making skyfaller says +1
 
gavinbaker: the lunch-making skyfaller says +1
            gavinbaker says +1
+
 
 +
gavinbaker says +1
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: what say ye?
 
gavinbaker: what say ye?
  mark007: +1
+
 
            mark007 knows a little bit about parliamentary procedure. Enough to loathe it, but to accept it as necessary :-)
+
mark007: +1
 +
 
 +
mark007 knows a little bit about parliamentary procedure. Enough to loathe it, but to accept it as necessary :-)
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: ok, in it goes
 
gavinbaker: ok, in it goes
 +
 
gavinbaker: ok, next sentence: 'A tie vote does not pass.'
 
gavinbaker: ok, next sentence: 'A tie vote does not pass.'
            Ax3 stretches
+
 
  mark007: I don't think it should ever happen, unless the chair abstains, but that sounds fine to mee.
+
Ax3 stretches
  mark007: I'm all for resolving that.
+
 
 +
mark007: I don't think it should ever happen, unless the chair abstains, but that sounds fine to mee.
 +
 
 +
mark007: I'm all for resolving that.
 +
 
 
*** brendan_ (n=brendan@pool-71-255-241-132.washdc.east.verizon.net) has joined channel #freeculture
 
*** brendan_ (n=brendan@pool-71-255-241-132.washdc.east.verizon.net) has joined channel #freeculture
skyfaller: hm... something is funny with our internet connection
+
 
 +
skyfaller: hm... something is funny with our internet connection
 +
 
 
*** Signoff: skyfaller (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
 
*** Signoff: skyfaller (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
 +
 
*** Signoff: gavinbaker (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
 
*** Signoff: gavinbaker (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
 +
 
*** skyfaller (n=nelson@c-69-143-179-58.hsd1.va.comcast.net) has joined channel #freeculture
 
*** skyfaller (n=nelson@c-69-143-179-58.hsd1.va.comcast.net) has joined channel #freeculture
  mark007: I guess that leaves just me and Ax3 and peabo to decide upon the bylaws...
+
 
  mark007: :-)
+
mark007: I guess that leaves just me and Ax3 and peabo to decide upon the bylaws...
skyfaller: whoops, sorry folks
+
 
 +
mark007: :-)
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: whoops, sorry folks
 +
 
 
*** gavinbaker (n=gavin@c-69-143-179-58.hsd1.va.comcast.net) has joined channel #freeculture
 
*** gavinbaker (n=gavin@c-69-143-179-58.hsd1.va.comcast.net) has joined channel #freeculture
  mark007: Rats, they're back.
+
 
skyfaller: our internet burped
+
mark007: Rats, they're back.
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: our internet burped
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: lulz
 
gavinbaker: lulz
 +
 
gavinbaker: can anybody post what happened in like the last $time, when the connection was pwnt?
 
gavinbaker: can anybody post what happened in like the last $time, when the connection was pwnt?
 +
 
*** mllerustad_ (n=mllerust@c-69-143-179-58.hsd1.va.comcast.net) has joined channel #freeculture
 
*** mllerustad_ (n=mllerust@c-69-143-179-58.hsd1.va.comcast.net) has joined channel #freeculture
 +
 
*** Signoff: mllerustad (Read error: 113 (No route to host))
 
*** Signoff: mllerustad (Read error: 113 (No route to host))
    peabo: starting where?
+
 
  mark007: 17:41 < gavinbaker> ok, next sentence: 'A tie vote does not pass.'
+
peabo: starting where?
  mark007: 17:44  * Ax3 stretches
+
 
  mark007: 17:45 < mark007> I don't think it should ever happen, unless the chair abstains, but that sounds fine to mee.
+
mark007: 17:41 < gavinbaker> ok, next sentence: 'A tie vote does not pass.'
  mark007: 17:47 < mark007> I'm all for resolving that.
+
 
  mark007: 17:49 -!- brendan_ [n=brendan@pool-71-255-241-132.washdc.east.verizon.net] has joined #freeculture
+
mark007: 17:44  * Ax3 stretches
  mark007: 17:49 < skyfaller> hm... something is funny with our internet connection
+
 
 +
mark007: 17:45 < mark007> I don't think it should ever happen, unless the chair abstains, but that sounds fine to mee.
 +
 
 +
mark007: 17:47 < mark007> I'm all for resolving that.
 +
 
 +
mark007: 17:49 -!- brendan_ [n=brendan@pool-71-255-241-132.washdc.east.verizon.net] has joined #freeculture
 +
 
 +
mark007: 17:49 < skyfaller> hm... something is funny with our internet connection
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: ok, sorry.
 
gavinbaker: ok, sorry.
 +
 
gavinbaker: yeah, we've said the chair can break ties, so it seems fine to leave this
 
gavinbaker: yeah, we've said the chair can break ties, so it seems fine to leave this
 +
 
gavinbaker: any other thoughts on this?
 
gavinbaker: any other thoughts on this?
            skyfaller thinks no thoughts
+
 
 +
skyfaller thinks no thoughts
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: RESOLVED: leave it
 
gavinbaker: RESOLVED: leave it
    peabo: no, but it seems like we need to decide how much more time to spend today
+
 
            gavinbaker +1
+
peabo: no, but it seems like we need to decide how much more time to spend today
  mark007: +1
+
 
 +
gavinbaker +1
 +
 
 +
mark007: +1
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: peabo: i'm cutting out in like an hour, tops
 
gavinbaker: peabo: i'm cutting out in like an hour, tops
skyfaller: RESOLVED: 'A tie vote does not pass.' <- this language is fine
+
 
skyfaller: +1
+
skyfaller: RESOLVED: 'A tie vote does not pass.' <- this language is fine
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: +1
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: ok, next
 
gavinbaker: ok, next
    peabo: ok, and maybe more use of the wiki for disussion is called for?
+
 
 +
peabo: ok, and maybe more use of the wiki for disussion is called for?
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: "Directors may abstain from a vote when they sense a conflict of interest, or for any other reason."
 
gavinbaker: "Directors may abstain from a vote when they sense a conflict of interest, or for any other reason."
 +
 
gavinbaker: i'd rather say "Board members" than "directors", for clarity / consistency
 
gavinbaker: i'd rather say "Board members" than "directors", for clarity / consistency
 +
 
gavinbaker: + / - ?
 
gavinbaker: + / - ?
skyfaller: fine, but you'll have to make sure that's consistent throughout the bylaws
+
 
 +
skyfaller: fine, but you'll have to make sure that's consistent throughout the bylaws
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: noted
 
gavinbaker: noted
 +
 
gavinbaker: RESOLVED: to always refer to members of the board of directors as "board members", not "directors"
 
gavinbaker: RESOLVED: to always refer to members of the board of directors as "board members", not "directors"
 +
 
gavinbaker: +1
 
gavinbaker: +1
skyfaller: +1
+
 
 +
skyfaller: +1
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: k
 
gavinbaker: k
skyfaller: weird... gavin's messages aren't reaching me
+
 
skyfaller: are other people seeing Gavin's messages?  or my messages, for that matter? ;-)
+
skyfaller: weird... gavin's messages aren't reaching me
    peabo: I see sjyfaller, gavin, mark, and myself, but not karen
+
 
 +
skyfaller: are other people seeing Gavin's messages?  or my messages, for that matter? ;-)
 +
 
 +
peabo: I see sjyfaller, gavin, mark, and myself, but not karen
 +
 
 
*** Signoff: ryanfaerman ()
 
*** Signoff: ryanfaerman ()
    peabo: (if she's talking)
+
 
skyfaller: she's not, she's left
+
peabo: (if she's talking)
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: she's not, she's left
 +
 
 
*** gavinbaker_ (n=458fb33a@bmw.hnvc.net) has joined channel #freeculture
 
*** gavinbaker_ (n=458fb33a@bmw.hnvc.net) has joined channel #freeculture
 +
 
gavinbaker: damn it
 
gavinbaker: damn it
 +
 
paulproteu: I'm reading but pretending not to.
 
paulproteu: I'm reading but pretending not to.
 +
 
paulproteu: I don't know what that counts for.
 
paulproteu: I don't know what that counts for.
 +
 
gavinbaker: as i tried to say
 
gavinbaker: as i tried to say
 +
 
gavinbaker: per Fear_of_C, we should say board members must abstain in the event of a direct conflict of interest
 
gavinbaker: per Fear_of_C, we should say board members must abstain in the event of a direct conflict of interest
 +
 
gavinbaker: and they can also abstain for any other reason
 
gavinbaker: and they can also abstain for any other reason
 +
 
gavinbaker: so the new language would be: "Board members must abstain from voting in the event of a conflict of interest. Board members may also abstain for any other reason."
 
gavinbaker: so the new language would be: "Board members must abstain from voting in the event of a conflict of interest. Board members may also abstain for any other reason."
 +
 
gavinbaker: RESOLVED: ^^ ?
 
gavinbaker: RESOLVED: ^^ ?
skyfaller: +1
+
 
 +
skyfaller: +1
 +
 
 
*** Signoff: jli (Remote closed the connection)
 
*** Signoff: jli (Remote closed the connection)
 +
 
gavinbaker: +1 from me
 
gavinbaker: +1 from me
 +
 
gavinbaker: k... resolved, i guess
 
gavinbaker: k... resolved, i guess
 +
 
gavinbaker: the only thing left in 1.2 is the number of board members (backtracking)
 
gavinbaker: the only thing left in 1.2 is the number of board members (backtracking)
 +
 
gavinbaker: "The board of directors shall consist of an odd number of members no smaller than five and no larger than nine."
 
gavinbaker: "The board of directors shall consist of an odd number of members no smaller than five and no larger than nine."
skyfaller: and that's the big one
+
 
skyfaller: I'm honestly not sure how to resolve this one
+
skyfaller: and that's the big one
    peabo: what is the beef?
+
 
skyfaller: how do we make sure that there is competition for all the Board seats, while allowing the board to grow and shrink in size?
+
skyfaller: I'm honestly not sure how to resolve this one
skyfaller: who decides what size the board should be?
+
 
 +
peabo: what is the beef?
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: how do we make sure that there is competition for all the Board seats, while allowing the board to grow and shrink in size?
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: who decides what size the board should be?
 +
 
 
paulproteu: Doesn't this mean that if <=9 people run, they'll all get seats?
 
paulproteu: Doesn't this mean that if <=9 people run, they'll all get seats?
    peabo: well, the lower limit of 5 seems pretty sensible
+
 
 +
peabo: well, the lower limit of 5 seems pretty sensible
 +
 
 
paulproteu: But if < 5 people run, then we're all doomed.
 
paulproteu: But if < 5 people run, then we're all doomed.
 +
 
paulproteu: But if >= 10 people run, there are meaningful elections.
 
paulproteu: But if >= 10 people run, there are meaningful elections.
skyfaller: yeah, it seems rather fragile
+
 
skyfaller: and if we have 9 people running, they shouldn't all get auto-elected
+
skyfaller: yeah, it seems rather fragile
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: and if we have 9 people running, they shouldn't all get auto-elected
 +
 
 
*** christopher (n=christop@c-69-253-126-113.hsd1.nj.comcast.net) has joined channel #freeculture
 
*** christopher (n=christop@c-69-253-126-113.hsd1.nj.comcast.net) has joined channel #freeculture
    peabo: if less than 5 run, waybe we deserve to be doomed -- you need to have a certain amount of enthusiam in the organization to get anything done
+
 
 +
peabo: if less than 5 run, waybe we deserve to be doomed -- you need to have a certain amount of enthusiam in the organization to get anything done
 +
 
 
paulproteu: I think that's bunk.
 
paulproteu: I think that's bunk.
skyfaller: but you can't just say "if only 4 people run, we auto-dissolve the organization"
+
 
skyfaller: the first obvious fix is to allow for 3 board members
+
skyfaller: but you can't just say "if only 4 people run, we auto-dissolve the organization"
skyfaller: we had 3 the first time we had a board
+
 
skyfaller: and I think that would be an acceptable minimum
+
skyfaller: the first obvious fix is to allow for 3 board members
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: we had 3 the first time we had a board
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: and I think that would be an acceptable minimum
 +
 
 
paulproteu: I think that if the organization has only three people who want to do national things because everyone else is active locally, we might be okay.
 
paulproteu: I think that if the organization has only three people who want to do national things because everyone else is active locally, we might be okay.
skyfaller: exactly, paulproteus  
+
 
skyfaller: but we still have the problem of making sure that seats are contested
+
skyfaller: exactly, paulproteus  
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: but we still have the problem of making sure that seats are contested
 +
 
 
*** christopher is now known as cbudnick
 
*** christopher is now known as cbudnick
    peabo: with three, all decisions other than majority have to be unanimous ... it seems a little strange to me though I don't see any specific reason why
+
 
skyfaller: well, it's less than ideal, but it's still fine
+
peabo: with three, all decisions other than majority have to be unanimous ... it seems a little strange to me though I don't see any specific reason why
    peabo: what stops working if the board doesn't make any decisions?
+
 
skyfaller: you have no way to resolve big, long-term questiosn
+
skyfaller: well, it's less than ideal, but it's still fine
skyfaller: *questions
+
 
skyfaller: short-term smaller questions can still be resolved elsewhere in the organization
+
peabo: what stops working if the board doesn't make any decisions?
skyfaller: so it's ok for the board to stop operations until an interim board member can be elected
+
 
    peabo: how many chapters are there now?
+
skyfaller: you have no way to resolve big, long-term questiosn
skyfaller: peabo: good question, we won't know until we re-register in the next few weeks
+
 
    peabo: I think thta bears on the question of whther we should be able to depend on getting 5 good contested seats
+
skyfaller: *questions
  cbudnick: what is the current schedule, are there going to be elections before the fall semester, or are we too far behind?
+
 
  cbudnick: (maybe this was discussed earlier today)
+
skyfaller: short-term smaller questions can still be resolved elsewhere in the organization
skyfaller: cbudnick: we're one week behind, maybe a little more... so it depends on when your semester starts, I guess
+
 
  cbudnick: september
+
skyfaller: so it's ok for the board to stop operations until an interim board member can be elected
skyfaller: the schedule hasn't slipped too much, we should be able to hold elections by the end of August if we don't slip more
+
 
 +
peabo: how many chapters are there now?
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: peabo: good question, we won't know until we re-register in the next few weeks
 +
 
 +
peabo: I think thta bears on the question of whther we should be able to depend on getting 5 good contested seats
 +
 
 +
cbudnick: what is the current schedule, are there going to be elections before the fall semester, or are we too far behind?
 +
 
 +
cbudnick: (maybe this was discussed earlier today)
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: cbudnick: we're one week behind, maybe a little more... so it depends on when your semester starts, I guess
 +
 
 +
cbudnick: september
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: the schedule hasn't slipped too much, we should be able to hold elections by the end of August if we don't slip more
 +
 
 
*** Signoff: gavinbaker (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
 
*** Signoff: gavinbaker (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
  cbudnick: (i think it's the 17th and the 3rd
+
 
  cbudnick: )
+
cbudnick: (i think it's the 17th and the 3rd
    peabo: elections by email?  let's see, have to reregister the chapters and establish who in each chapter says what the vote is?
+
 
skyfaller: peabo: we have over 20 chapters, I think
+
cbudnick: )
 +
 
 +
peabo: elections by email?  let's see, have to reregister the chapters and establish who in each chapter says what the vote is?
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: peabo: we have over 20 chapters, I think
 +
 
 
paulproteu: Pshaw!
 
paulproteu: Pshaw!
 +
 
paulproteu: You make us blush!
 
paulproteu: You make us blush!
skyfaller: peabo: forget about whether it's practical to get 3 or 5 or whatever contested seats... that's an empirical question that will change as circumstances change.  
+
 
skyfaller: there are two questions before us: (1) what happens if we run out of board members, and (2) how do we decide how many board seats there are?  also,  how do we keep the seats contested while allowing the size of the board to shrink/expand?
+
skyfaller: peabo: forget about whether it's practical to get 3 or 5 or whatever contested seats... that's an empirical question that will change as circumstances change.  
skyfaller: I guess that's really three questions, but the last two questions are related
+
 
 +
skyfaller: there are two questions before us: (1) what happens if we run out of board members, and (2) how do we decide how many board seats there are?  also,  how do we keep the seats contested while allowing the size of the board to shrink/expand?
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: I guess that's really three questions, but the last two questions are related
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: right, and it's not given that we want to allow the board to shrink/expand
 
gavinbaker: right, and it's not given that we want to allow the board to shrink/expand
 +
 
gavinbaker: we just want elections contested, a reasonable size for the board to do work, and opportunities for people to be involved
 
gavinbaker: we just want elections contested, a reasonable size for the board to do work, and opportunities for people to be involved
 +
 
gavinbaker: whatever achieves those criteria best is what we want
 
gavinbaker: whatever achieves those criteria best is what we want
    peabo: there could be a difference between the ideal size of the board and the size needed to function (which could be 3) where if the actual size is less than the ideal size there should be a campaign to get more members
+
 
skyfaller: well, realistically if the org expands to like 100 chapters, we should be able to add members to represent more points of view
+
peabo: there could be a difference between the ideal size of the board and the size needed to function (which could be 3) where if the actual size is less than the ideal size there should be a campaign to get more members
skyfaller: within some limits
+
 
 +
skyfaller: well, realistically if the org expands to like 100 chapters, we should be able to add members to represent more points of view
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: within some limits
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: what about this:
 
gavinbaker: what about this:
 +
 
gavinbaker: what does it really matter if we fail?
 
gavinbaker: what does it really matter if we fail?
 +
 
gavinbaker: i mean -- do we need to account for that now?
 
gavinbaker: i mean -- do we need to account for that now?
 +
 
gavinbaker: why not leave it in the hands of whoever's left?
 
gavinbaker: why not leave it in the hands of whoever's left?
 +
 
gavinbaker: fail as in, fail to get enough board members (for whatever definition of $enough)
 
gavinbaker: fail as in, fail to get enough board members (for whatever definition of $enough)
skyfaller: well, to some extent we're already specifying what happens when the org goes under... we currently say all funds go to the EFF, although there are some comments about that provision
+
 
skyfaller: some more details might be useful
+
skyfaller: well, to some extent we're already specifying what happens when the org goes under... we currently say all funds go to the EFF, although there are some comments about that provision
skyfaller: but we could just trust in our remaining members to honorably wrap up our business
+
 
 +
skyfaller: some more details might be useful
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: but we could just trust in our remaining members to honorably wrap up our business
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: i think that's the better option atm
 
gavinbaker: i think that's the better option atm
 +
 
gavinbaker: we've got a lot more to do than worry about something that's so hypothetical
 
gavinbaker: we've got a lot more to do than worry about something that's so hypothetical
 +
 
gavinbaker: frankly there's a more immediate question in deciding the board's size
 
gavinbaker: frankly there's a more immediate question in deciding the board's size
skyfaller: ok, let's not worry about what happens when we run out of board members, then
+
 
skyfaller: and move on to the question of deciding the board's size
+
skyfaller: ok, let's not worry about what happens when we run out of board members, then
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: and move on to the question of deciding the board's size
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: we could add the question of "what happens if we don't have enough?" to the list of questions to be considered in the indefinite future
 
gavinbaker: we could add the question of "what happens if we don't have enough?" to the list of questions to be considered in the indefinite future
 +
 
gavinbaker: can we RESOLVE that?
 
gavinbaker: can we RESOLVE that?
skyfaller: well, hold on
+
 
skyfaller: do our bylaws state that a board with less than the required number of members is an invalid board?
+
skyfaller: well, hold on
skyfaller: like, if we require 5 members, and 1 person resigns from a 5 member board, and they can't find anyone to run for the position of interim board member....
+
 
skyfaller: can the remaining 4 members still act to wrap up our business?
+
skyfaller: do our bylaws state that a board with less than the required number of members is an invalid board?
skyfaller: if they can, then we don't really have a problem, in the sense that the org isn't broken
+
 
 +
skyfaller: like, if we require 5 members, and 1 person resigns from a 5 member board, and they can't find anyone to run for the position of interim board member....
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: can the remaining 4 members still act to wrap up our business?
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: if they can, then we don't really have a problem, in the sense that the org isn't broken
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: i think we should clearly say that whoever's left can at least wrap up business
 
gavinbaker: i think we should clearly say that whoever's left can at least wrap up business
 +
 
gavinbaker: i mean, what is there to wrap up? the bylaws say, if we go kaput, everything goes to EFF
 
gavinbaker: i mean, what is there to wrap up? the bylaws say, if we go kaput, everything goes to EFF
 +
 
gavinbaker: other than that, what is there? the "assets" are disposed of
 
gavinbaker: other than that, what is there? the "assets" are disposed of
skyfaller: well, who knows what obligations we may pick up... if we did succeed in hiring an executive director / facilitator, there may be unpaid paychecks
+
 
 +
skyfaller: well, who knows what obligations we may pick up... if we did succeed in hiring an executive director / facilitator, there may be unpaid paychecks
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: i guess it's better to plan for the unexpected
 
gavinbaker: i guess it's better to plan for the unexpected
skyfaller: we might owe fees for e.g. merchandise
+
 
 +
skyfaller: we might owe fees for e.g. merchandise
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: so how do we say "if we get pwnt, whoever's left can still run stuff"?
 
gavinbaker: so how do we say "if we get pwnt, whoever's left can still run stuff"?
skyfaller: who knows
+
 
 +
skyfaller: who knows
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: and what if there's one 1 person left, or something like that?
 
gavinbaker: and what if there's one 1 person left, or something like that?
    peabo: there could be a dispute about how long the organization can be < 5 board memebers before it is declared kaput
+
 
skyfaller: well, first I'd like to amend the required board members to 3
+
peabo: there could be a dispute about how long the organization can be < 5 board memebers before it is declared kaput
skyfaller: b/c 3 is really an OK number
+
 
    peabo: that sounds like a safe thing to do
+
skyfaller: well, first I'd like to amend the required board members to 3
skyfaller: but if it goes below that, we could specify that after a certain time period the org should close up shop
+
 
skyfaller: and just leave it up to whoever is left to implement that
+
skyfaller: b/c 3 is really an OK number
 +
 
 +
peabo: that sounds like a safe thing to do
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: but if it goes below that, we could specify that after a certain time period the org should close up shop
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: and just leave it up to whoever is left to implement that
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: well, what do you mean by "required"?
 
gavinbaker: well, what do you mean by "required"?
 +
 
*** Signoff: cbudnick ()
 
*** Signoff: cbudnick ()
skyfaller: good question
+
 
skyfaller: I don't really know
+
skyfaller: good question
skyfaller: we won't elect less than 3 board members
+
 
    peabo: and we should explicitly state a number which is desired in the sense that elections are called for if the number of board membrsr is too small ... that way it is unlikely to fall as low as three
+
skyfaller: I don't really know
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: we won't elect less than 3 board members
 +
 
 +
peabo: and we should explicitly state a number which is desired in the sense that elections are called for if the number of board membrsr is too small ... that way it is unlikely to fall as low as three
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: ok. right now, we say 5 is the minimum. what happens if we have an election, and less than 5 eligible people run?
 
gavinbaker: ok. right now, we say 5 is the minimum. what happens if we have an election, and less than 5 eligible people run?
skyfaller: so perhaps if by the time we reach the next general election, i.e. the next school year, we can't find 3 people to run for the board, then it's time to pack up and go home
+
 
      Ax3: lol mark007  
+
skyfaller: so perhaps if by the time we reach the next general election, i.e. the next school year, we can't find 3 people to run for the board, then it's time to pack up and go home
      Ax3: I can't decide bylaws cuz Im not technically a member of uf.fco
+
 
 +
Ax3: lol mark007  
 +
 
 +
Ax3: I can't decide bylaws cuz Im not technically a member of uf.fco
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: Ax3, nobody's counting. comments welcome
 
gavinbaker: Ax3, nobody's counting. comments welcome
skyfaller: Ax3: you probably shouldn't vote, but we welcome your input
+
 
    peabo: skyfaller: or else the organization makes no long term decisions until it can be reinvigorated ... that's why I asked what stops working if the board does nothing
+
skyfaller: Ax3: you probably shouldn't vote, but we welcome your input
      Ax3: poningru, pong by the way
+
 
      Ax3: ok fellas :)
+
peabo: skyfaller: or else the organization makes no long term decisions until it can be reinvigorated ... that's why I asked what stops working if the board does nothing
skyfaller: I don't really konw
+
 
skyfaller: *know
+
Ax3: poningru, pong by the way
    peabo: there could be some other definition of organizational failure that triggers the diposal of assets
+
 
 +
Ax3: ok fellas :)
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: I don't really konw
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: *know
 +
 
 +
peabo: there could be some other definition of organizational failure that triggers the diposal of assets
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: right, we should specify what happens that triggers the self-destruct
 
gavinbaker: right, we should specify what happens that triggers the self-destruct
 +
 
gavinbaker: though that's later in the bylaws
 
gavinbaker: though that's later in the bylaws
skyfaller: OK, so you want to say that the board can't make decisions if it drops below 3 members?
+
 
    peabo: yes
+
skyfaller: OK, so you want to say that the board can't make decisions if it drops below 3 members?
skyfaller: and then allow the org to continue running anyway until it hits some other definition of dysfunctionality?
+
 
 +
peabo: yes
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: and then allow the org to continue running anyway until it hits some other definition of dysfunctionality?
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: wait. if it hits <3, that triggers self-destruct -- is that what you meant, peabo?
 
gavinbaker: wait. if it hits <3, that triggers self-destruct -- is that what you meant, peabo?
    peabo: and that it should have N members (like 5 for example) so that it probably won't drop to 3
+
 
    peabo: no, no self-destruct, just a hiatus of decision making until it successful elections
+
peabo: and that it should have N members (like 5 for example) so that it probably won't drop to 3
            paulproteus sniffles at fc.o hitting a heart
+
 
    peabo: so we say, we want 5 board members (call for elections is < that) but the board functions if it only has 3, and it suspends itself if < 3
+
peabo: no, no self-destruct, just a hiatus of decision making until it successful elections
      Ax3: lol i was just gonna say that paulproteus  
+
 
            gavinbaker_ hears zelda music
+
paulproteus sniffles at fc.o hitting a heart
      Ax3: might be a sign im irc-ing too much ...
+
 
 +
peabo: so we say, we want 5 board members (call for elections is < that) but the board functions if it only has 3, and it suspends itself if < 3
 +
 
 +
Ax3: lol i was just gonna say that paulproteus  
 +
 
 +
gavinbaker_ hears zelda music
 +
 
 +
Ax3: might be a sign im irc-ing too much ...
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: peabo, so when is self-destruct triggered?
 
gavinbaker: peabo, so when is self-destruct triggered?
 +
 
gavinbaker: what happens when the board is "suspended"?
 
gavinbaker: what happens when the board is "suspended"?
    peabo: by some other cirerion about the health of the organization (I don't have a suggestion)
+
 
    peabo: suppose the organization continues to do what the board has decided before, then it is still working even though it doesn't make new desisions for a while
+
peabo: by some other cirerion about the health of the organization (I don't have a suggestion)
    peabo: gack, typing way too fast :-)
+
 
skyfaller: (gavin is actually playing a Zelda mashup song on his computer now)
+
peabo: suppose the organization continues to do what the board has decided before, then it is still working even though it doesn't make new desisions for a while
 +
 
 +
peabo: gack, typing way too fast :-)
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: (gavin is actually playing a Zelda mashup song on his computer now)
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: from vgmix!
 
gavinbaker: from vgmix!
 +
 
gavinbaker: peabo, so the board never meets again until it gets more members?
 
gavinbaker: peabo, so the board never meets again until it gets more members?
    peabo: yes
+
 
 +
peabo: yes
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: what happens if it never gets more members?
 
gavinbaker: what happens if it never gets more members?
    peabo: then the organization continues along in with the same mission it had when the board was working, but there is an active campaign to get more board members
+
 
 +
peabo: then the organization continues along in with the same mission it had when the board was working, but there is an active campaign to get more board members
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: ...and if it never succeeds?
 
gavinbaker: ...and if it never succeeds?
 +
 
paulproteu: How will you know it never succeeds?
 
paulproteu: How will you know it never succeeds?
 +
 
paulproteu: Is "after seven years" the definition of "forever"?
 
paulproteu: Is "after seven years" the definition of "forever"?
 +
 
paulproteu: After two hours?  Five months?
 
paulproteu: After two hours?  Five months?
 +
 
gavinbaker: paulproteus: life + 75 years?
 
gavinbaker: paulproteus: life + 75 years?
    peabo: ultimately it depends upon the chapters being satisfied with what is being accomplished
+
 
 +
peabo: ultimately it depends upon the chapters being satisfied with what is being accomplished
 +
 
 
*** cbudnick (n=christop@c-69-253-126-113.hsd1.nj.comcast.net) has joined channel #freeculture
 
*** cbudnick (n=christop@c-69-253-126-113.hsd1.nj.comcast.net) has joined channel #freeculture
 +
 
paulproteu: gavinbaker_, So long as it's retroactively renewable by people who don't understand the effect of renewing it, I'm all for it.
 
paulproteu: gavinbaker_, So long as it's retroactively renewable by people who don't understand the effect of renewing it, I'm all for it.
    peabo: really, you have to assume there will be *some* enthusiam for having the organization
+
 
skyfaller: this whole conversation is bizarre
+
peabo: really, you have to assume there will be *some* enthusiam for having the organization
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: this whole conversation is bizarre
 +
 
 
*** Signoff: cbudnick (Client Quit)
 
*** Signoff: cbudnick (Client Quit)
skyfaller: I guess my feeling is that the board should still be able to meet and decide to close up shop
+
 
skyfaller: otherwise by the time you hit  <3 board members, it's too late to decide
+
skyfaller: I guess my feeling is that the board should still be able to meet and decide to close up shop
            paulproteus sniffles again
+
 
    peabo: that's why you want to set an idea membership size > 3
+
skyfaller: otherwise by the time you hit  <3 board members, it's too late to decide
    peabo: ideal
+
 
 +
paulproteus sniffles again
 +
 
 +
peabo: that's why you want to set an idea membership size > 3
 +
 
 +
peabo: ideal
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: but what if everyone stops caring? do we just stick around, potentially letting unscrupulous people populate the board (because nobody's voting, since nobody cares), or just sit on our assets rather than giving them to someone useful?
 
gavinbaker: but what if everyone stops caring? do we just stick around, potentially letting unscrupulous people populate the board (because nobody's voting, since nobody cares), or just sit on our assets rather than giving them to someone useful?
skyfaller: yeah, the unscrupulous people option is the one I worry about
+
 
skyfaller: it would suck if FC.o became an astroturf group or something bizarre
+
skyfaller: yeah, the unscrupulous people option is the one I worry about
    peabo: ok, you could say the organization dissolves if there is less than 3 for two years in a row
+
 
 +
skyfaller: it would suck if FC.o became an astroturf group or something bizarre
 +
 
 +
peabo: ok, you could say the organization dissolves if there is less than 3 for two years in a row
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: ...are we in any position to decide something?
 
gavinbaker: ...are we in any position to decide something?
skyfaller: we have to make sure that the remaining people can close down the organization before it's populated by weird or unscrupulous people
+
 
 +
skyfaller: we have to make sure that the remaining people can close down the organization before it's populated by weird or unscrupulous people
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: i don't feel like i'm any closer to understanding what to do.
 
gavinbaker: i don't feel like i'm any closer to understanding what to do.
 +
 
gavinbaker: despite our best efforts
 
gavinbaker: despite our best efforts
    peabo: well, even with a size of 5 there could still be an unfriendly takeover
+
 
 +
peabo: well, even with a size of 5 there could still be an unfriendly takeover
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: if there are at least 5 (non-shady) candidates, that means that people still care, so they'll vote against any shady candidates
 
gavinbaker: if there are at least 5 (non-shady) candidates, that means that people still care, so they'll vote against any shady candidates
skyfaller: I guess that's why it's important to make sure that seats are contested
+
 
 +
skyfaller: I guess that's why it's important to make sure that seats are contested
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: but if the org just continues in perpetutity long after anyone has stopped caring, there'll be no one to vote out the moles
 
gavinbaker: but if the org just continues in perpetutity long after anyone has stopped caring, there'll be no one to vote out the moles
skyfaller: we shouldn't have uncontested elections ever
+
 
 +
skyfaller: we shouldn't have uncontested elections ever
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: *ever again
 
gavinbaker: *ever again
skyfaller: right :)
+
 
    peabo: I guess I can't think of anything else to add
+
skyfaller: right :)
skyfaller: OK, so (1) the board should hold elections if it drops below 5
+
 
    peabo: oh, except that an upper limit of 9 seems sensible too, because a board that is too large may have difficulty deciding anything
+
peabo: I guess I can't think of anything else to add
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: OK, so (1) the board should hold elections if it drops below 5
 +
 
 +
peabo: oh, except that an upper limit of 9 seems sensible too, because a board that is too large may have difficulty deciding anything
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: well, doesn't the board always hold elections if it loses a member?
 
gavinbaker: well, doesn't the board always hold elections if it loses a member?
skyfaller: the board does always hold elections if it loses a member, that's true
+
 
 +
skyfaller: the board does always hold elections if it loses a member, that's true
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: yeah, i have no interest in touching the upper limit of 9 atm
 
gavinbaker: yeah, i have no interest in touching the upper limit of 9 atm
 +
 
*** Signoff: brendan_ ()
 
*** Signoff: brendan_ ()
skyfaller: sigh
+
 
skyfaller: OK, so there were two questions we were talking about: (1) what to do when we start running out of board members, and (2) how to decide the board's size
+
skyfaller: sigh
skyfaller: have we made any progress on either question?
+
 
 +
skyfaller: OK, so there were two questions we were talking about: (1) what to do when we start running out of board members, and (2) how to decide the board's size
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: have we made any progress on either question?
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: well, we raised some interesting points about (1), but i don't feel much closer to an answer
 
gavinbaker: well, we raised some interesting points about (1), but i don't feel much closer to an answer
    peabo: a criterion for increasing the size might be that there is evidence that all the existing board seats are well-contested
+
 
    peabo: meaning that additional seats would not be filled by default
+
peabo: a criterion for increasing the size might be that there is evidence that all the existing board seats are well-contested
skyfaller: ... as long as you don't remove the contested nature of the board seats by increasing it :)  
+
 
skyfaller: yeah
+
peabo: meaning that additional seats would not be filled by default
skyfaller: it def shouldn't be auto-increased ever
+
 
    peabo: yeah, I don't think increasing the size should be an automatic thing
+
skyfaller: ... as long as you don't remove the contested nature of the board seats by increasing it :)  
    peabo: we're back to "who decides the size" ... maybe one a year the chapters get to vote by a 2/3 majority or something?
+
 
    peabo: one/once
+
skyfaller: yeah
    peabo: to take effect the *following* year
+
 
skyfaller: no, not for the following year
+
skyfaller: it def shouldn't be auto-increased ever
    peabo: because?
+
 
skyfaller: the next year the candidate lineup would be different
+
peabo: yeah, I don't think increasing the size should be an automatic thing
 +
 
 +
peabo: we're back to "who decides the size" ... maybe one a year the chapters get to vote by a 2/3 majority or something?
 +
 
 +
peabo: one/once
 +
 
 +
peabo: to take effect the *following* year
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: no, not for the following year
 +
 
 +
peabo: because?
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: the next year the candidate lineup would be different
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: hmm, interesting. i guess you have to hope there are still enough candidates next year
 
gavinbaker: hmm, interesting. i guess you have to hope there are still enough candidates next year
skyfaller: there may be too many candidates this year, and not enough the next year
+
 
 +
skyfaller: there may be too many candidates this year, and not enough the next year
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: but i can't figure out how you'd vote to change the board size in the same year
 
gavinbaker: but i can't figure out how you'd vote to change the board size in the same year
 +
 
*** brendan_ (n=brendan@pool-71-255-241-132.washdc.east.verizon.net) has joined channel #freeculture
 
*** brendan_ (n=brendan@pool-71-255-241-132.washdc.east.verizon.net) has joined channel #freeculture
skyfaller: you'd have to vote on the size of the board first, then the board members themselves
+
 
    peabo: well, also because you don't want to cherry-pick the candidates during the current year election by rigging the board size
+
skyfaller: you'd have to vote on the size of the board first, then the board members themselves
skyfaller: that's the only way to decide it by chapter vote
+
 
 +
peabo: well, also because you don't want to cherry-pick the candidates during the current year election by rigging the board size
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: that's the only way to decide it by chapter vote
 +
 
 
*** cskaterun (n=cskateru@cpe-72-130-168-207.san.res.rr.com) has joined channel #freeculture
 
*** cskaterun (n=cskateru@cpe-72-130-168-207.san.res.rr.com) has joined channel #freeculture
    peabo: I wonder how much variance in enthusiasm there would be from one year to another -- one problem would be if several baord members become non-students at the same time
+
 
    peabo: (whether or not they are eligible thay may still want to do other things)
+
peabo: I wonder how much variance in enthusiasm there would be from one year to another -- one problem would be if several baord members become non-students at the same time
skyfaller: man, these bylaws are such a pain
+
 
    peabo: teh bylaws only reflect reality
+
peabo: (whether or not they are eligible thay may still want to do other things)
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: man, these bylaws are such a pain
 +
 
 +
peabo: teh bylaws only reflect reality
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: why don't we do the simplest thing
 
gavinbaker: why don't we do the simplest thing
 +
 
gavinbaker: set the board at a fixed number
 
gavinbaker: set the board at a fixed number
 +
 
gavinbaker: if it turns out to be a problem, someone can amend it in the future
 
gavinbaker: if it turns out to be a problem, someone can amend it in the future
skyfaller: alright
+
 
skyfaller: I'm with gavin
+
skyfaller: alright
    peabo: good idea, how about 5?
+
 
skyfaller: 5 is great
+
skyfaller: I'm with gavin
 +
 
 +
peabo: good idea, how about 5?
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: 5 is great
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: so, 5, 7, or 9, take your pick
 
gavinbaker: so, 5, 7, or 9, take your pick
skyfaller: it's 5
+
 
 +
skyfaller: it's 5
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: if there's a lot more candidates than 5, then there'll be good evidence to raise it next year
 
gavinbaker: if there's a lot more candidates than 5, then there'll be good evidence to raise it next year
skyfaller: we won't have enough competition if we set it higher
+
 
skyfaller: gavinbaker_: agreed
+
skyfaller: we won't have enough competition if we set it higher
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: gavinbaker_: agreed
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: i'm satisfied calling it 5 for now
 
gavinbaker: i'm satisfied calling it 5 for now
skyfaller: alright
+
 
skyfaller: that satisfies (2)
+
skyfaller: alright
skyfaller: what about (1)
+
 
skyfaller: are we just ignoring that problem?
+
skyfaller: that satisfies (2)
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: what about (1)
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: are we just ignoring that problem?
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: i think that's the best option we have for now
 
gavinbaker: i think that's the best option we have for now
 +
 
gavinbaker: unless someone comes up with a brilliant solution
 
gavinbaker: unless someone comes up with a brilliant solution
 +
 
gavinbaker: i haven't heard one that works well yet
 
gavinbaker: i haven't heard one that works well yet
skyfaller: OK, so even if 3 members resign, we'll let the board carry on?  
+
 
    peabo: perhaps we should see what happens the first year before deciding (1)
+
skyfaller: OK, so even if 3 members resign, we'll let the board carry on?  
skyfaller: yeah, I guess so
+
 
 +
peabo: perhaps we should see what happens the first year before deciding (1)
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: yeah, I guess so
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: let's just hope we don't run into (1) right away
 
gavinbaker: let's just hope we don't run into (1) right away
 +
 
gavinbaker: if we run into (1) we got bigger problems
 
gavinbaker: if we run into (1) we got bigger problems
skyfaller: I think we won't run into (1) right away
+
 
skyfaller: let's assume that when members resign, they'll hold elections and new people will run
+
skyfaller: I think we won't run into (1) right away
    peabo: I would be really discouraged if we can't get 3 members
+
 
skyfaller: if necessary, the remaining board can prod people into running
+
skyfaller: let's assume that when members resign, they'll hold elections and new people will run
 +
 
 +
peabo: I would be really discouraged if we can't get 3 members
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: if necessary, the remaining board can prod people into running
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: we'll put (1) on the list of things to solve some day, but not now
 
gavinbaker: we'll put (1) on the list of things to solve some day, but not now
skyfaller: so we've solved (2), and we're ignoring (1)
+
 
 +
skyfaller: so we've solved (2), and we're ignoring (1)
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: everybody ok with that?
 
gavinbaker: everybody ok with that?
skyfaller: well, we could consider (1) solved too
+
 
    peabo: +1 (if I'm eligible -- this vote seems more important to me)
+
skyfaller: well, we could consider (1) solved too
 +
 
 +
peabo: +1 (if I'm eligible -- this vote seems more important to me)
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: sure, it's "solved"
 
gavinbaker: sure, it's "solved"
 +
 
gavinbaker: the same way that throwing crap under your bed was a "solution" to "clean yer room"
 
gavinbaker: the same way that throwing crap under your bed was a "solution" to "clean yer room"
skyfaller: I figure if things go down the tubes, they could get the remaining chapters to accept an amendment to allow them to clean things up or whatever
+
 
    peabo: I have more science fiction books than shelf space, so I but them in boxes :-)
+
skyfaller: I figure if things go down the tubes, they could get the remaining chapters to accept an amendment to allow them to clean things up or whatever
    peabo: put
+
 
 +
peabo: I have more science fiction books than shelf space, so I but them in boxes :-)
 +
 
 +
peabo: put
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: skyfaller, if it's that bad, you might just stop ignoring the law
 
gavinbaker: skyfaller, if it's that bad, you might just stop ignoring the law
skyfaller: yeah
+
 
skyfaller: alright
+
skyfaller: yeah
skyfaller: let's consider them solved and move on
+
 
 +
skyfaller: alright
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: let's consider them solved and move on
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: er... delete "stop" from my last comment
 
gavinbaker: er... delete "stop" from my last comment
skyfaller: so we're done with "Board structure"?
+
 
 +
skyfaller: so we're done with "Board structure"?
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: ok. so 1.2 is fixed! totally and completely.
 
gavinbaker: ok. so 1.2 is fixed! totally and completely.
skyfaller: good riddance
+
 
 +
skyfaller: good riddance
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: i gotta go, at this point
 
gavinbaker: i gotta go, at this point
skyfaller: alright
+
 
    peabo: gavin, your hour is up!
+
skyfaller: alright
 +
 
 +
peabo: gavin, your hour is up!
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: 5 hours is plenty for one day :-/
 
gavinbaker: 5 hours is plenty for one day :-/
skyfaller: someone paste the log
+
 
skyfaller: and we'll call it a day
+
skyfaller: someone paste the log
    peabo: I have a contiguous log, where do you want me to put it?
+
 
 +
skyfaller: and we'll call it a day
 +
 
 +
peabo: I have a contiguous log, where do you want me to put it?
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: http://wiki.freeculture.org/2007-08-05/log
 
gavinbaker: http://wiki.freeculture.org/2007-08-05/log
    peabo: ok
+
 
skyfaller: peabo: thank you :)
+
peabo: ok
skyfaller: you're my hero
+
 
 +
skyfaller: peabo: thank you :)
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: you're my hero
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: geez, this was a slog
 
gavinbaker: geez, this was a slog
 +
 
gavinbaker: ok, we can't wait another week to do this again, we gotta ramp it up so we can pound this out
 
gavinbaker: ok, we can't wait another week to do this again, we gotta ramp it up so we can pound this out
 +
 
gavinbaker: how soon can we meet again?
 
gavinbaker: how soon can we meet again?
skyfaller: let's meet again Tuesday
+
 
    peabo: I'll wear my yellow DefectiveByDesign anti-DRM suit next time
+
skyfaller: let's meet again Tuesday
skyfaller: How about 9 pm EDT on Tuesday?
+
 
    peabo: ok
+
peabo: I'll wear my yellow DefectiveByDesign anti-DRM suit next time
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: How about 9 pm EDT on Tuesday?
 +
 
 +
peabo: ok
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: peabo, me too! http://alifelongsong.livejournal.com/66610.html
 
gavinbaker: peabo, me too! http://alifelongsong.livejournal.com/66610.html
 +
 
gavinbaker: tuesday @ 9 sounds ok to me
 
gavinbaker: tuesday @ 9 sounds ok to me
 +
 
gavinbaker: it'd be awesome if more people had used the wiki in the past week
 
gavinbaker: it'd be awesome if more people had used the wiki in the past week
skyfaller: argh, let's do 8pm
+
 
skyfaller: I forgot that these meetings take forever
+
skyfaller: argh, let's do 8pm
    peabo: well, why don't you put out a call to participate in the wiki?
+
 
skyfaller: if we start at 9 we won't be able to go long enough
+
skyfaller: I forgot that these meetings take forever
skyfaller: peabo: people left comments on the wiki, and never showed up to talk about them
+
 
skyfaller: I think we've had enough wiki participation, really
+
peabo: well, why don't you put out a call to participate in the wiki?
    peabo: some stuff has already been posted that related to the agenda for tuesday, right?
+
 
skyfaller: comments don't do any good if people don't show up to reach consensus
+
skyfaller: if we start at 9 we won't be able to go long enough
    peabo: true
+
 
 +
skyfaller: peabo: people left comments on the wiki, and never showed up to talk about them
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: I think we've had enough wiki participation, really
 +
 
 +
peabo: some stuff has already been posted that related to the agenda for tuesday, right?
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: comments don't do any good if people don't show up to reach consensus
 +
 
 +
peabo: true
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: at this point, we don't need more comments on the wiki, we need better comments
 
gavinbaker: at this point, we don't need more comments on the wiki, we need better comments
skyfaller: trust me, this meeting method is the quickest way to write these by-laws, any other method will take even longer
+
 
 +
skyfaller: trust me, this meeting method is the quickest way to write these by-laws, any other method will take even longer
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: people to sort through and start summarizing what's there
 
gavinbaker: people to sort through and start summarizing what's there
 +
 
gavinbaker: it's all a mess now and very time-consuming to make sense of
 
gavinbaker: it's all a mess now and very time-consuming to make sense of
skyfaller: we can reach agreements in synchronous meetings much faster
+
 
    peabo: 8 pm, I will be away from keyboard but I can be recoding as long as the channel is open before 6 pm
+
skyfaller: we can reach agreements in synchronous meetings much faster
 +
 
 +
peabo: 8 pm, I will be away from keyboard but I can be recoding as long as the channel is open before 6 pm
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: if we don't have synchronous meetings, we'll never reach agreement, skyfaller
 
gavinbaker: if we don't have synchronous meetings, we'll never reach agreement, skyfaller
skyfaller: gavinbaker_: agreed
+
 
 +
skyfaller: gavinbaker_: agreed
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: peabo, #freeculture is open 23/7/365 :D
 
gavinbaker: peabo, #freeculture is open 23/7/365 :D
skyfaller: peabo: this channel is always functional barring massive freenode failure
+
 
    peabo: ok
+
skyfaller: peabo: this channel is always functional barring massive freenode failure
#freeculture   cskaterun H    0    n=cskateru@cpe-72-130-168-207.san.res.rr.com Chris Barna
+
 
#freeculture   brendan_  H    0n=brendan@pool-71-255-241-132.washdc.east.verizo Brendan
+
peabo: ok
#freeculture   gavinbakerH    0                        n=458fb33a@bmw.hnvc.net [458fb33a] CGI:IRC User
+
 
#freeculture   mllerustadH    0 n=mllerust@c-69-143-179-58.hsd1.va.comcast.net Karen Rustad
+
#freeculture cskaterun H0 n=cskateru@cpe-72-130-168-207.san.res.rr.com Chris Barna
#freeculture   skyfaller H    0                    n=nelson@wikipedia/Skyfaller Nelson Pavlosky
+
 
#freeculture   Omnifrog  H    0 n=Omnifrog@c-68-60-206-179.hsd1.tn.comcast.net Omnifrog
+
#freeculture brendan_  H0n=brendan@pool-71-255-241-132.washdc.east.verizo Brendan
#freeculture   poningru  H    0        n=poningru@ip72-209-65-174.ga.at.cox.net Eldo Varghese
+
 
#freeculture   Fear_of_C H    0          n=nick@cpe-66-65-84-36.nyc.res.rr.com gaim
+
#freeculture gavinbakerH0n=458fb33a@bmw.hnvc.net [458fb33a] CGI:IRC User
#freeculture   ScudmissilH    0                      n=Scudmiss@192.195.230.33 Andy
+
 
#freeculture   peabo    H    0    n=peabo@c-24-147-25-140.hsd1.ma.comcast.net Peter Olson
+
#freeculture mllerustadH0 n=mllerust@c-69-143-179-58.hsd1.va.comcast.net Karen Rustad
#freeculture   tannewt  G    0                n=scott@gentoo/developer/tannewt Unknown
+
 
#freeculture   mark007  H    0n=mark007@pool-71-101-200-240.tampfl.dsl-w.veriz Mark
+
#freeculture skyfaller H0n=nelson@wikipedia/Skyfaller Nelson Pavlosky
#freeculture   klepas   G    0                    n=klepas@unaffiliated/klepas Pascal Klein
+
 
#freeculture   ftobia   H    0      n=chatzill@ool-18bb9b30.dyn.optonline.net Frank Tobia
+
#freeculture Omnifrog  H0 n=Omnifrog@c-68-60-206-179.hsd1.tn.comcast.net Omnifrog
#freeculture   Ax3       H    0                    n=ax4@rada.voodoohosting.com ax4
+
 
#freeculture   K`Tetch  H    0n=ktetch@adsl-074-166-105-206.sip.asm.bellsouth. K`Tetch
+
#freeculture poningru  H0n=poningru@ip72-209-65-174.ga.at.cox.net Eldo Varghese
#freeculture   [autonomy]H    0 n=autonomy@c-71-232-117-225.hsd1.ma.comcast.net auto
+
 
#freeculture   danjared  H    0n=danjared@HOW-ABOUT-A-NICE-GAME-OF-CHESS.MIT.ED D. Jared Dominguez
+
#freeculture Fear_of_C H0 n=nick@cpe-66-65-84-36.nyc.res.rr.com gaim
#freeculture   paulproteuG    0          i=paulprot@29.145.221.202.bf.2iij.net Asheesh Laroia
+
 
#freeculture   _sj_     H    0                              n=sj@wikipedia/sj sjk
+
#freeculture ScudmissilH0n=Scudmiss@192.195.230.33 Andy
 +
 
 +
#freeculture peaboH0n=peabo@c-24-147-25-140.hsd1.ma.comcast.net Peter Olson
 +
 
 +
#freeculture tannewtG0 n=scott@gentoo/developer/tannewt Unknown
 +
 
 +
#freeculture mark007H0n=mark007@pool-71-101-200-240.tampfl.dsl-w.veriz Mark
 +
 
 +
#freeculture klepas G0n=klepas@unaffiliated/klepas Pascal Klein
 +
 
 +
#freeculture ftobia H0  n=chatzill@ool-18bb9b30.dyn.optonline.net Frank Tobia
 +
 
 +
#freeculture Ax3 H0n=ax4@rada.voodoohosting.com ax4
 +
 
 +
#freeculture K`TetchH0n=ktetch@adsl-074-166-105-206.sip.asm.bellsouth. K`Tetch
 +
 
 +
#freeculture [autonomy]H0 n=autonomy@c-71-232-117-225.hsd1.ma.comcast.net auto
 +
 
 +
#freeculture danjared  H0n=danjared@HOW-ABOUT-A-NICE-GAME-OF-CHESS.MIT.ED D. Jared Dominguez
 +
 
 +
#freeculture paulproteuG0 i=paulprot@29.145.221.202.bf.2iij.net Asheesh Laroia
 +
 
 +
#freeculture _sj_ H0 n=sj@wikipedia/sj sjk
 +
 
 
*** #freeculture End of /WHO list.
 
*** #freeculture End of /WHO list.
skyfaller: so 8pm is fine?  arrriving late is OK, these meetings move slow anyway
+
 
            gavinbaker_ grumbles
+
skyfaller: so 8pm is fine?  arrriving late is OK, these meetings move slow anyway
 +
 
 +
gavinbaker_ grumbles
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: 8 pm tuesday it is
 
gavinbaker: 8 pm tuesday it is
skyfaller: I never want to write bylaws ever again
+
 
skyfaller: I'd much rather stab myself in the face
+
skyfaller: I never want to write bylaws ever again
    peabo: I have it on good authority that FC events always start late
+
 
skyfaller: or chew on glass
+
skyfaller: I'd much rather stab myself in the face
 +
 
 +
peabo: I have it on good authority that FC events always start late
 +
 
 +
skyfaller: or chew on glass
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: ok, i'm out.
 
gavinbaker: ok, i'm out.
 +
 
gavinbaker: thanks everybody
 
gavinbaker: thanks everybody
 +
 
gavinbaker: we got some stuff done, yay
 
gavinbaker: we got some stuff done, yay
skyfaller: peabo: thanks for coming
+
 
 +
skyfaller: peabo: thanks for coming
 +
 
 
gavinbaker: but we have a lot more to do, boo
 
gavinbaker: but we have a lot more to do, boo
 +
 
gavinbaker: see everybody on tuesday, whee
 
gavinbaker: see everybody on tuesday, whee
 +
 
*** Signoff: gavinbaker_ ("CGI:IRC")
 
*** Signoff: gavinbaker_ ("CGI:IRC")
 +
 
Log file closed at: 8/5/07 7:17:31 PM
 
Log file closed at: 8/5/07 7:17:31 PM
]]</nowiki>
 

Revision as of 04:59, 6 August 2007


Log file opened at: 8/5/07 1:16:24 PM

      • Topic for #freeculture set by gavinbaker on Thursday, August 2, 2007 12:37:32 AM
  1. freeculture: peabo tannewt faceface ryanfaerman rohitj_ bheekling mark007 jli skyfaller klepas ftobia Ax3 Omnifrog K`Tetch poningru [autonomy] danjared paulproteus _sj_
      • End of /NAMES list.
      • Channel Mode is +n
      • Channel created at Sunday, November 26, 2006 2:43:23 AM
      • #freeculture You need to be a channel operator to do that
  1. freeculture peaboH0n=peabo@c-24-147-25-140.hsd1.ma.comcast.net Peter Olson
  1. freeculture tannewtH0 n=scott@gentoo/developer/tannewt Unknown
  1. freeculture faceface H0 n=dmb@p57A0F0AF.dip.t-dialin.net Dan Bolser
  1. freeculture ryanfaermaH0n=ryanfaer@crlspr-69.65.71.237.myacc.net Ryan Faerman
  1. freeculture rohitj_H0n=rohitj@203.200.95.130 Rohit Jain
  1. freeculture bheekling H0 n=bheeklin@220.225.2.107 Nirbheek Chauhan
  1. freeculture mark007H0n=mark007@pool-71-101-200-240.tampfl.dsl-w.veriz Mark
  1. freeculture jli H0 i=jli@gateway/tor/x-b0f63977e720e7f0 Jli
  1. freeculture skyfaller H0n=nelson@wikipedia/Skyfaller Nelson Pavlosky
  1. freeculture klepas G0n=klepas@unaffiliated/klepas Pascal Klein
  1. freeculture ftobia H0 n=chatzill@ool-18bb9b30.dyn.optonline.net Frank Tobia
  1. freeculture Ax3 H0n=ax4@rada.voodoohosting.com ax4
  1. freeculture Omnifrog H0 n=Omnifrog@c-68-60-206-179.hsd1.tn.comcast.net Omnifrog
  1. freeculture K`TetchH0n=ktetch@adsl-074-166-105-206.sip.asm.bellsouth. K`Tetch
  1. freeculture poningru H0n=poningru@ip72-209-65-174.ga.at.cox.net Eldo Varghese
  1. freeculture [autonomy]H0 n=autonomy@c-71-232-117-225.hsd1.ma.comcast.net auto
  1. freeculture danjared H0n=danjared@HOW-ABOUT-A-NICE-GAME-OF-CHESS.MIT.ED D. Jared Dominguez
  1. freeculture paulproteuG0 i=paulprot@29.145.221.202.bf.2iij.net Asheesh Laroia
  1. freeculture _sj_ H0 n=sj@wikipedia/sj sjk
      • #freeculture End of /WHO list.

peabo: hello, usual suspects!

K`Tetch: spam is an unfortunate thing now

K`Tetch: even on forums

      • BrianRowe (n=Brion@71-32-81-197.tukw.qwest.net) has joined channel #freeculture

--> peabo test

  • peabo* test

BrianRowe: hello

K`Tetch: sup brian

      • Signoff: bheekling (Remote closed the connection)

BrianRowe: not much off for a few weeks for summer break

K`Tetch: cool

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

BrianRowe: hi Gavin

gavinbaker: hi BrianRowe

gavinbaker starts pinging: _sj_ Ax3 danjared jli mark007 paulproteus peabo poningru skyfaller

K`Tetch: gavinbaker - moonedit :-)

gavinbaker: K`Tetch: sorry, i don't follow?

K`Tetch: collaberation tools

gavinbaker: oh man, jibot's awol.

K`Tetch: its a multiperson text editor

mark007: Estoy aqui.

peabo: hello

gavinbaker: K`Tetch: looks like gobby

mark007: I gotta run for lunch in a few minutes though.

K`Tetch: i wouldn't know

K`Tetch: but i love it - i'm just starting a session up to start work on a press release right now

K`Tetch: *hint hint* brian

paulproteu: gavinbaker, Hi. I'm going to take a shower now.

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

gavinbaker: whee

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

gavinbaker: hi mllerustad, hi skyfaller

gavinbaker: er

gavinbaker: hi Scudmissile

  1. freeculture ScudmissilH0n=Scudmiss@192.195.230.33 Andy
  1. freeculture mllerustadH0 n=mllerust@c-69-143-179-58.hsd1.va.comcast.net Karen Rustad
  1. freeculture gavinbakerH0n=gavin@c-69-143-179-58.hsd1.va.comcast.net Gavin Baker
  1. freeculture BrianRowe H0n=Brion@71-32-81-197.tukw.qwest.net purple
  1. freeculture peaboH0n=peabo@c-24-147-25-140.hsd1.ma.comcast.net Peter Olson
  1. freeculture tannewtH0 n=scott@gentoo/developer/tannewt Unknown
  1. freeculture faceface H0 n=dmb@p57A0F0AF.dip.t-dialin.net Dan Bolser
  1. freeculture ryanfaermaH0n=ryanfaer@crlspr-69.65.71.237.myacc.net Ryan Faerman
  1. freeculture rohitj_H0n=rohitj@203.200.95.130 Rohit Jain
  1. freeculture mark007H0n=mark007@pool-71-101-200-240.tampfl.dsl-w.veriz Mark
  1. freeculture jli H0 i=jli@gateway/tor/x-b0f63977e720e7f0 Jli
  1. freeculture skyfaller H0n=nelson@wikipedia/Skyfaller Nelson Pavlosky
  1. freeculture klepas G0n=klepas@unaffiliated/klepas Pascal Klein
  1. freeculture ftobia H0 n=chatzill@ool-18bb9b30.dyn.optonline.net Frank Tobia
  1. freeculture Ax3 H0n=ax4@rada.voodoohosting.com ax4
  1. freeculture Omnifrog H0 n=Omnifrog@c-68-60-206-179.hsd1.tn.comcast.net Omnifrog
  1. freeculture K`TetchH0n=ktetch@adsl-074-166-105-206.sip.asm.bellsouth. K`Tetch
  1. freeculture poningru H0n=poningru@ip72-209-65-174.ga.at.cox.net Eldo Varghese
  1. freeculture [autonomy]H0 n=autonomy@c-71-232-117-225.hsd1.ma.comcast.net auto
  1. freeculture danjared H0n=danjared@HOW-ABOUT-A-NICE-GAME-OF-CHESS.MIT.ED D. Jared Dominguez
  1. freeculture paulproteuG0 i=paulprot@29.145.221.202.bf.2iij.net Asheesh Laroia
  1. freeculture _sj_ H0 n=sj@wikipedia/sj sjk
      • #freeculture End of /WHO list.

Scudmissil: hey

mllerustad: gavinbaker: yo

jli: hum.

gavinbaker: here are some links:

gavinbaker: Bylaws RC1: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Bylaws

gavinbaker: Comments on bylaws: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Talk:Bylaws

gavinbaker: Agenda, log, and attendance from last meeting: http://wiki.freeculture.org/2007-07-29

gavinbaker: Agenda for this meeting: http://wiki.freeculture.org/2007-08-05

skyfaller: howdy

gavinbaker: ok, shall we?

gavinbaker: we got stuck on IV 1.1 last time, so we should skip that and come back to it

skyfaller: sounds good to me

peabo: gavinbaker: I'll send you the log of this one too

K`Tetch: thats what i was saying all the way through

gavinbaker: peabo, great

gavinbaker turns logging on too

skyfaller: paulproteus: enjoy the shower... that's what I was just doing ^_^

gavinbaker: so, to review or for people who weren't here last time: we're going through the bylaws item by item and discussing questions & if anything should be changed

gavinbaker: this is particularly a time to note suggestions raised on the Talk: page

gavinbaker: but, because the Talk: page isn't organized to make it easy, we'll go through the Talk: page item by item afterward

gavinbaker: to make sure everything gets a hearing

gavinbaker: decisions are made, more or less, by consensus of those present (if you're here, that's you!)

gavinbaker: and when we've decided something, we note it with RESOLVED so it's easy to find in the log :D

gavinbaker: anyone who feels like taking minutes as we go along, feel free (if so, say so :D )

Scudmissil: i'm glad we resolved to use spell check last time

gavinbaker: otherwise the job of writing minutes from the log will be done later, by $person

gavinbaker: Scudmissile: i think that was a very reasonable resolution as well :)

skyfaller: (or maybe it won't get done later, like last meeting's non-minutes)

gavinbaker: skyfaller: just because it hasn't gotten yet doesn't mean it won't! in the year 2000

skyfaller: fair enough :) continue

gavinbaker: i'll brb -- somebody want to start with Article IV, Section 1.2? http://wiki.freeculture.org/Bylaws#Section_1.2._Board_Structure

skyfaller: I

mllerustad: fyi: a copy of the bylaws with the edits we agreed upon last time is located here: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Bylaws_RC2

skyfaller: I'll put the current section we're looking at in the topic

skyfaller: OK, so there are some obvious problems with this section

skyfaller: (1) Who decides how many board members there are? and how do they do that?

skyfaller: (2) How can we ensure that there is competition for board seats while allowing the board to grow and shrink in size?

gavinbaker: well, why we don't go through line by line and see where there's agreement

gavinbaker: "The board of directors must have a chair, selected by the board. The chair arranges the time and method of meeting and sets the agenda."

gavinbaker: ok, how does the board select the chair?

mllerustad: "consensus"?

gavinbaker: i think we should specify

gavinbaker: i'd favor simple majority vote

mllerustad: Or majority vote...

gavinbaker: you have to have a chair -- it's not the sort of thing you should be able to hold up if you don't have consensus

mllerustad: True.

mllerustad: "every pirate only votes for himself"

gavinbaker: mllerustad++

gavinbaker: besides, a chair really shouldn't be controversial. in theory, the chair has no more authority than any other board member

skyfaller: so simple majority vote, where each person can vote once for one candidate only?

mllerustad: Unless we allow even-numbered boards, and the chair tiebreaks.

mllerustad: But sure.

gavinbaker: mllerustad: in that case, the chair still only has 1 vote, same as anyone else

gavinbaker: they only get to use it in case of a tie

gavinbaker: skyfaller, i'm not sure i understand your question

peabo: does the chair have to attend every meeting? what in general happens if someone is absent and there is an even number of attendees?

skyfaller: you could have a vice-chair as well

gavinbaker: but it strikes me that we should should specify how chair candidates are nominated

gavinbaker: peabo: right -- skyfaller said it -- we should have a vice-chair in case of the chair's absence

mllerustad: peabo: I imagine they wouldn't have to... if there's an even number, and you don't get 50% + 1, then I guess it doesn't pass.

gavinbaker: peabo: the chair votes to break a tie (and only votes in event of a tie)

gavinbaker: well, we should specify that ^^

gavinbaker: but that's usually how a chair functions

skyfaller: I dunno, i think we should scrap the vice-chair idea

peabo: what about quorum? (I should look at the bylaws, I guess)

gavinbaker: some chair are also allowed to vote to make a tie, in which case the vote fails

skyfaller: if the chair isn't there, you have to wait for the next meeting to break a tie

gavinbaker: peabo: currently the bylaws say 2/3 is quorum. we'll get there in a sec ;)

skyfaller: on the other hand, who runs the meeting in the chair's absence

skyfaller: ?

gavinbaker: skyfaller: right, the point of a vice-chair is to run the meeting

skyfaller: I guess the whole problem of electing a chair is more interesting / important if they have different voting powers

gavinbaker: it's incidental that they can tie-breaking ability, but they have to give up their ability to vote in any other instance, so it's supposed to be a wash.

gavinbaker: skyfaller: the chair has to have "different" voting powers, because you need a way to make decisions

skyfaller: I think it might be better to keep it simple and have all board members be equal in voting power, and leave it open whether we want to have a permanent chair or rotating chair or something

gavinbaker: our inability to effectively make decisions cripples us

gavinbaker: skyfaller: that's not "simple" at all, that's more complicated

mllerustad: skyfaller: The problem is when "rotating" chair means "crowdsourced" chair...

gavinbaker: almost EVERY other board on the planet has an elected chair with the "powers" we've just described

skyfaller: that's true

gavinbaker: i'm not making this stuff up, just copying it

gavinbaker: i'm tired of reinventing the wheel, let's go with the tried-and-true

skyfaller: well, OK, let's say for the moment that we have a chair with voting powers and meeting-running-responsibilities as you describe

skyfaller: and a vice-chair which is the same when the chair isn't there

mllerustad: Okay.

gavinbaker: skyfaller: "for the moment"? you mean, until/unless someone offers an amendment in the future?

skyfaller: no, for argument's sake in the channel right now

gavinbaker: skyfaller: well, i'd like to make a decision and stop arguing ;)

gavinbaker: so can we make a decision?

skyfaller: well, I think that other decisions about the board are interrelated with this decisioon

skyfaller: *decision

gavinbaker: skyfaller: such as?

skyfaller: e.g. how many people are allowed to be on the board, and how that decision is made

gavinbaker: (i remind everyone there are multiple sections of the bylaws we've never been through, and almost all of the comments, and the whole section we got stuck on last week -- so we should aim to be as quick as possible)

gavinbaker: skyfaller: i don't see how that decision is related to having a chair and what the chair does.

      • ericbailey (n=ericbail@71-210-157-161.mpls.qwest.net) has joined channel #freeculture

gavinbaker: --oh, you know, should we have had everyone introduce themselves?

skyfaller: perhaps :) jibot is still missing

skyfaller: I'm Nelson Pavlosky, formerly from Swarthmore College, now GMU Law

BrianRowe: ok, Brian Rowe Seattle University Law

gavinbaker: Gavin Baker, University of Florida - recent alumnus

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

Scudmissile is Andy Scudder, rising senior at the Universit of Evansville

ericbailey: Eric Bailey, University of Minnesota

Scudmissil: *University, rather

gavinbaker: mllerustad is Karen Rustad, Scripps College / Claremont Consortium, and is currently popping popcorn.

skyfaller: ooh! popcorn!

skyfaller: is that everyone who is participating in this meeting?

gavinbaker: paulproteus is Asheesh Laroia, Web Team guy and currently in the shower, but implied he'd be back.

skyfaller: alright, let's get back to work then

gavinbaker: jli and mark007 said hello, but nothing else ;)

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

skyfaller: OK, I guess that electing a chair may be politically complex / conflict-inducing

skyfaller: so, are there model bylaws that we could look at for precedent as to electing a chair?

Scudmissil: google gave me the American Sign Language Teachers Association....

gavinbaker: skyfaller: let's not make this bigger than it is ;) we just need a reasonable way to manage this

Fear_of_C: maybe other college-oriented orgs?

gavinbaker: which i suspect will be along the lines of "anyone may nominate another board member or themselves for chair"

skyfaller: OK, so nominations first

ericbailey: I have something somewhere about this..

skyfaller: that sounds like a perfectly fine nomination system

ericbailey: I'm gonna go rummage for a second..

skyfaller: wanna put that in bylaws-language?

ericbailey: haha hold on a second

skyfaller: well, I'm sure that's what nominations will look like in any sane nomination system

skyfaller: elections are what I'm interested in seeing a model for

gavinbaker: here's how AMSA does it: http://www.amsa.org/about/ppp/cbVIII.cfm

skyfaller: hm... I see one online where the board has a president and a secretary

skyfaller: it would probably be good to have someone who is responsible for making sure that the deliberations of the board are made public and open

skyfaller: e.g. taking minutes

gavinbaker: ok, AMSA looks very complicated. let me look for something simpler

skyfaller: the chair clearly shouldn't be responsible for that

gavinbaker: skyfaller: should that be a board member or the facilitator?

skyfaller: hm, good point

skyfaller: the facilitator would be a good secretary

gavinbaker: on the one hand, you sort of want to insulate the board from the staff and vice versa

gavinbaker: on the other hand, you want all the board members to be able to participate

skyfaller: I mean, controlling the minutes could be politically interesting if we were playing mind games with each other

gavinbaker: on the other hand, taking minutes is a form of participation, and you could see it as a trade-off the member makes willingly, similar to how the chair gives up their vote except in case of tie

skyfaller: "he who controls the past controls the future"

peabo: at NESFA we have an elected Clerk, who takes minutes at each business meeting; in particular who records every motion, reads it back to the meeting as it was recorded prior to a vote

gavinbaker: wonder if Wikimedia's got their bylaws online

Scudmissil: yes: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_bylaws

Scudmissil: i can't edit them, though :( :p

gavinbaker: heh

Scudmissil: it looks much simpler than the NESFA's, anyway

gavinbaker: here is one example of how a chair functions, but ignore the part about choosing a chair (it's not relevant for us) : http://www.sg.ufl.edu/branches/legislative/constitution/rules.pdf

gavinbaker: look for the term "Chairperson" under IX

gavinbaker: re: choosing a chair, wikimedia doesn't seem very clear

Scudmissil: yeah

gavinbaker: it just says "by majority vote", but doesn't explain the process to get there

gavinbaker: hey, let's decide this before we spend another half hour on one point ;)

mllerustad: gavinbaker: Maybe that means we don't have to either?

mllerustad: Good enough for wikimedia... surely the board will be mature enough to not freak out about this not being spelled out.=

skyfaller: what happens if there is a tie?

mllerustad: tie =/= majority.

gavinbaker: mllerustad: i'm hesitant to leave anything undefined, since undefined decision-making processes are the bane of FC.o

gavinbaker: ok, so a tie isn't a majority, but how do you get a majority, then?

ericbailey: intimidation?

gavinbaker: we could be like the pirate captains, and use plurality vote ;)

gavinbaker votes for Keira Knightly

BrianRowe: tie /= majority

ericbailey: what was that about the chair giving up their vote in a tie? though I guess that doesn't do much good when choosing a chair..

peabo: everyone votes for himself, then all the lowest vote candidates are eliminated :-)

ericbailey: IRV?

gavinbaker: there's a maximum of 9 voters, we don't need IRV.

gavinbaker: well -- er -- do we? would it help?

mllerustad: gavinbaker: I'm cool with plurality voting.

skyfaller: wait, how does Wikimedia decide how many people are on the board?

ericbailey: mmm

skyfaller: they say "at least 7", but how many more than 7?

gavinbaker: skyfaller: hold off on that for now.

gavinbaker: so a.) can we decide the procedure now?

      • brendan_ (n=brendan@pool-71-255-241-132.washdc.east.verizon.net) has joined channel #freeculture

gavinbaker: b.) should we decide the procedure now, or just hope the board figures it out?

mllerustad: I vote for plurality voting, by plurality vote. :p

gavinbaker: i think we *should*, but i don't know if we *can* in a timely fashion

gavinbaker: we've spent, what, 45 minutes on this?

mllerustad: Eh, screw it.

mllerustad: If wikimedia doesn't need to specify this stuff...

BrianRowe: my experince on boards is that people work together to make choices and not everything needs to be spelled out.

mllerustad: The Board will decide its own procedures.

gavinbaker: ok, so let's put some text together.

gavinbaker: about how you get a chair.

gavinbaker: and a vice chair?

      • Signoff: ericbailey ()

skyfaller: ok

gavinbaker: everybody agreed with that -- we'll put together some basic text about how you get a chair and a vice chair, leaving the details of the procedure to the board.

gavinbaker: er-- that was a question

Scudmissil: yeah, that sounds good

skyfaller: anyone on the board can nominate themselves or anyone else on the board

skyfaller: elections are then held by majority vote

peabo: the vice chair should be the one who gets the least number of votes; this gives the chair an incentive to show up at meetings

skyfaller: LOL!

skyfaller: if there's a tie, the tied candidates have to duke it out in OpenArena

mllerustad: *Satan runs FC.o meetings*

gavinbaker: skyfaller++

skyfaller: most frags wins

gavinbaker: but if somebody has high ping and loses due to lag? ;)

skyfaller: OK, if deadlocked board elections turn out to be a problem, we'll just have to amend the bylaws later

gavinbaker: so let's due this in bylaws language

skyfaller: this is simple, let's do it

gavinbaker: Section 1.2. can we rename the title to "Structure of the Board" for clarity? (rather than "Board Structure")

mllerustad: Sure, seconded.

skyfaller: Can we please accept the use of the singular they in our bylaws?

BrianRowe: yes

mllerustad: "The board of directors must have a chair. Any board member can nominate themselves or another board member to be the chair. The chair is elected by the board by majority vote. The chair arranges the time and method of meeting and sets the agenda.

mllerustad: The board of directors also elects a vice-chair, also elected by majority vote. The vice-chair takes on the duties of the chair for meetings that the chair cannot attend."

BrianRowe: great

peabo: the line about quorum should specify that either the chair or vice chair must be present

skyfaller: ... we've now spent an hour and 5 minutes on this *Sigh*

mllerustad: peabo: Sounds good.

mllerustad waits for gavin to write his own redundant amendment instead of voting on this damn edit already

gavinbaker: fine, i've read it, and i still like mine better ;)

skyfaller frags gavin

gavinbaker: do we want to crib wikimedia's responsibilities of the chair?

paulproteus waves

skyfaller: theirs is kind of weird and doesn't seem to mirror our structure

skyfaller: "The Chair shall have general supervision of the affairs of the corporation and shall make reports to the Board of Trustees at meetings and other times as necessary to keep Trustees informed of corporation activities"

skyfaller: WTF does that mean?

mllerustad: It doesn't include leading meetings or anything like that.

mllerustad: Which is the *main* thing we want our chair to do.

mllerustad: I mean, I guess we could crib the signing stuff...

skyfaller: the more bylaws I read the less I feel like we know what we're doing :/

BrianRowe: there chiar appears to be a kind of ED

gavinbaker: skyfaller: cus we don't ;)

mllerustad: skyfaller: the more bylaws I read the less I think ANYONE knows what they're doing

skyfaller: I haven't even thought about who would sign for stuff

skyfaller: *they* haven't thought about who runs the meeting

BrianRowe: I think we need to recruit an outside advisory board to of people who ahve been on boards to meet 2-3 times a year to help us and add soem experinced guidance. I feel a little like this is the blind leading the blind

skyfaller: an advisory board is a great idea and we should have one, but they can't write our bylaws for us

skyfaller: this needs to get done before we can do anything else

peabo: keeping things simple, is there anything noticeably deficient about the rules we have so far? will the board be unable to do anything the first time they meet?

gavinbaker: ok, get ready for paste-dump

gavinbaker: Section 1.2. Structure of the Board

gavinbaker: 1.2.1. Officers of the Board

gavinbaker: 1.2.1.1. Chairperson

gavinbaker: The board of directors shall have a chairperson.

gavinbaker: The chairperson shall be elected by majority vote of the board. Any board member may nominate themself or any other member of the board for vice-chairperson. A board member may accept or decline a nomination. A board member must accept a nomination to be a candidate for chairperson.

gavinbaker: Notwithstanding the bylaws, the board may establish procedures for electing a chairperson.

gavinbaker: The chairperson shall be responsible for: arranging the time and method of meetings of the board, setting the agenda for board meetings of the board, and presiding over meetings of the board.

gavinbaker: The chairperson shall not vote on motions except to break a tie.

gavinbaker: 1.2.1.2. Vice-Chairperson

gavinbaker: The board of directors shall have a vice-chairperson.

BrianRowe: True I will make a spearate proposal about an adverory board so this is not side tracked

gavinbaker: The vice-chairperson shall be elected by majority vote of the board. Any board member may nominate themself or any other member of the board for vice-chairperson. A board member may accept or decline a nomination. A board member must accept a nomination to be a candidate for vice-chairperson.

gavinbaker: Notwithstanding the bylaws, the board may establish procedures for electing a vice-chairperson.

gavinbaker: In the absence of the chairperson, the vice-chairperson shall be responsible for: arranging the time and method of meetings of the board, setting the agenda for board meetings of the board, and presiding over meetings of the board.

gavinbaker: When acting as chairperson, the vice-chairperson shall not vote on motions except to break a tie.

gavinbaker: the rest of the stuff in 1.2 goes in 1.2.2, Procedures of the Board

mllerustad: The specification of the vice-powers seems redundant, but otherwise that looks good.

gavinbaker: we could shorten the 4th paragraph of 1.2.1.2. could be shorten to, "In the absence of the chairperson, the vice-chairperson shall act as chairperson, with the duties and responsibilities of the chairperson."

mllerustad: Sounds good.

mllerustad: Any other objections? Can we RESOLVE: this?

gavinbaker: +1 | resolved

skyfaller: +1

mllerustad: +1

brendan_: +1

paulproteus abstains

mllerustad: Okay, let's do it.

peabo: (I abstain as well; I didn't vote on anything last time either)

gavinbaker: ok, so for the rest of 1.2

gavinbaker: "The board of directors shall consist of an odd number of members no smaller than five and no larger than nine."

gavinbaker: shit, can we skip that for a second? that'll get confusing.

gavinbaker: let's deal with the rest of 1.2 first and then come back?

skyfaller: ok... what do you want to look at?

gavinbaker: BrianRowe: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Talk:Bylaws#Structure:_Advisory_board

gavinbaker: sounds like we can skip it.

gavinbaker: next line is: "At least two-thirds of the board must be present at a meeting for the board to conduct business."

gavinbaker: peabo: there's the quorum ^^

peabo: and either the chair or vice chair must be present

gavinbaker: oh, makes sense. what happens if both the chair and vice chair are gone -- we cancel the meeting?

skyfaller: yeah

gavinbaker: that stinks

skyfaller: well, there's no point to having a chair and vice-chair if we don't need them for the meeting, is there?

gavinbaker: should we just have infinite vice-n chairs?

gavinbaker: i keed, i keed

peabo: what if they both resign? can the board conduct an election?

skyfaller: a chain of succession?

gavinbaker: peabo: you raise a very good point... let me fix that

mllerustad: peabo: The ED calls elections, currently.

peabo: that gets involuted ... what if there is no ED yet?

skyfaller: what if there's no board yet?

mllerustad: what if everyone is dead!~

skyfaller: this whole thing suffers from the bootstrapping problem

      • facefaceface (n=dmb@p57A0E573.dip.t-dialin.net) has joined channel #freeculture

mllerustad gets nuked, along with the rest of fc.o

gavinbaker: oh, we should say that somebody serves as interim chair until we've elected one ;)

peabo: Zombie Free Culture :-)

paulproteu: And more seriously, could suffer from it again if people quit or so on.

gavinbaker: b.) if you have an old chair, the old chair (or vice chair) serves as interim chair during the elections

      • Signoff: ryanfaerman ()

gavinbaker: a.) if you don't have an old chair (i.e. the very first time), something arbitrary like whoever's oldest.

gavinbaker: it really doesn't matter because it only exists during the very first chair election

skyfaller: sjuer

skyfaller: erm

mllerustad: Sounds good.

skyfaller: sure

      • Signoff: Omnifrog ("Leaving")

BrianRowe: sure

      • Signoff: poningru ("Coyote finally caught me")
      • poningru (n=poningru@ip72-209-65-174.ga.at.cox.net) has joined channel #freeculture

mllerustad: Okay, so we RESOLVE: the chain of succession bit?

gavinbaker: ok, not quite. going back to add in text about when you have elections

gavinbaker: 1.2.1.1. Chairperson

gavinbaker: The board of directors shall have a chairperson.

gavinbaker: The chairperson shall be elected by majority vote of the board. Any board member may nominate themself or any other member of the board for vice-chairperson. A board member may accept or decline a nomination. A board member must accept a nomination to be a candidate for chairperson. The board shall elect a new chairperson after each board election, not including the election of interim board members.

gavinbaker: In the event of the chairperson's resignation, the board shall elect an interim chairperson. Interim board members shall be eligible to stand for election, to nominate, and to vote in in the election of an interim chairperson. The vice-chairperson shall preside over the election of an interim chairperson.

gavinbaker: Notwithstanding the bylaws ...

gavinbaker: new language starts at "The board shall elect a new chairperson after ..." ^^

gavinbaker: with parallel language for vice-chairperson

mllerustad: Sounds good to me.

gavinbaker: interim board member = new member elected when old member resigns during term of board

gavinbaker: interim chairperson = new chairperson elected when old chair resigns during term of board

      • Signoff: poningru (Remote closed the connection)

gavinbaker: (we'll need to specify that in the bylaws)

gavinbaker: i'm uneasy with the vice-chair running the election, if they're also a candidate for chair. but that's a problem with every election

gavinbaker: so are we ok with this language about when to have elections?

skyfaller: fine

mllerustad: Sure.

BrianRowe: yes

mllerustad: Let's move on.

      • facefacefaceface (n=dmb@p57A0FB6B.dip.t-dialin.net) has joined channel #freeculture

gavinbaker: ok, so -- do we need to do anything about "person presiding over the election is also a candidate"?

mllerustad: No.

gavinbaker: if so, how do we fix that?

mllerustad: They just hold the meeting. What's the worst they could do?

peabo: they could refuse to hold the election; but in that case they could be removed for cause

mllerustad: peabo: Especially since they're only "interim" for the chair election; they can't do anything else.

gavinbaker: i think this could be a problem, potentially, but it's not something we can fix right now. we'll have to fix it in the indefinite future, if it becomes a problem

gavinbaker: unfortunately

peabo: another edge case: when a board member resigns, there is an even number of members; can the board do anything at that point other than hold an election?

skyfaller: peabo: I agree, removal for cause is probably a good way to handle that

gavinbaker: are we RESOLVED here?

mllerustad: peabo: It has to get a majority.

mllerustad: A six person board requires four votes.

mllerustad: It still has the same powers.

      • Signoff: faceface (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))

peabo: I was just confused by the language saying that the board must have an odd number 5, 7, or 9

gavinbaker: peabo: right, we're coming to it...

gavinbaker: +1 | person presiding over an election can also be a candidate. (we're not saying anything to the contrary, so by default, it's true.) if it's a problem, we'll have to fix it in the future

skyfaller: sure

skyfaller: +1

BrianRowe: +1

gavinbaker: any other + or -?

gavinbaker: ok, leaving it that way

mark007: I am re-returned.

gavinbaker: let's add removal for cause for officers of the board? + or -

gavinbaker: +1 from me

skyfaller: yeah, same procedure as removing someone from the board entirely

skyfaller: +1

mark007: Gonna backtrack then I might join in.

BrianRowe: +1

      • Signoff: rohitj_ ("Leaving")
      • conle1 (n=ibcliffo@spode.cs.vt.edu) has joined channel #freeculture

gavinbaker: oh, interesting

gavinbaker: i'm pretty sure we agreed that there should be removal for cause for board members, as there is for chapters

gavinbaker: but we haven't actually added that language yet.

gavinbaker: but when we do, we'll use the same language for removing an officer from their officer-ship

gavinbaker: + or -?

skyfaller: +1 for punting things to the future :P

gavinbaker: +1 from me

BrianRowe: +1

skyfaller: alright

gavinbaker: that'll be 1.2.1.3. Removal for Cause

gavinbaker: ...some of this numbering may bear re-doing when we're done, but we may as well wait to do that.

gavinbaker: ok, so back to the issue of succession... what happens?

gavinbaker: if chair and vice-chair are gone, no meeting, done?

skyfaller: someone just runs the meeting, and if there's a tie then they can't decide that tied issue

gavinbaker: ok, so who is "someone"?

gavinbaker: and we sure we want to have a meeting if both the chair and vice-chair are gone?

gavinbaker: seems like you probably don't want to do much without them in the loop

peabo: should treat it the same as any lack of quorum

gavinbaker: peabo: yeah, that's basically the question, should we just add "either the chair or vice-chair have to be there" as a condition for quorum?

gavinbaker: i lean toward yes, and if both keep missing the meeting, you remove them for cause

gavinbaker: so it can't become too big a problem

skyfaller: removal for cause won't require a meeting?

gavinbaker: ...so when we write the procedures for removal for cause, we need to consider that you should be able to do it without the chair or vice-chair

gavinbaker: *removal of an officer for cause

gavinbaker: even if the chair shows up, you probably don't want the chair running the meeting to remove himself.

skyfaller: yeah

      • Signoff: facefaceface (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))

gavinbaker: so we don't have to decide the particulars this very moment, but is this framework OK? RESOLVED?

BrianRowe: ok

peabo: for things that require 2/3 or 3/4 approval, is that of all the board members or just of those present?

skyfaller: OK, just mention in the language that if they keep missing meetings they can be removed for cause, per our unwritten procedure

gavinbaker: peabo: it should be "of members voting and present", we'll need to specify that

gavinbaker: ok, backtracking, where were we last?

gavinbaker: ok, so we decided how to deal with a chair and vice-chair not showing up

gavinbaker: what if the chair and vice-chair both resign?

gavinbaker: let's say $arbitrary-person acts as interim chair to preside over the election of replacements

gavinbaker: (we need a flowchart for this!)

skyfaller: can people e-mail or wiki votes on subjects for meetings they know they'll be missing?

peabo: $arbitrary only to elect the chair, who immediately assumes responsibility

gavinbaker: i don't think so, unless the board decides otherwise

gavinbaker: peabo: right

gavinbaker: skyfaller: we should say that only members present can vote, unless the board decides otherwise

peabo: skyfaller: is there a general mechanism for proxy?

skyfaller: ok

gavinbaker: because you don't want people voting on stuff they don't know about, and absent members will miss the discussion

gavinbaker: but there might be a time where the discussion has all happened, and the meeting is just to vote, in which case the board should be able to decide to allow absentee voting, if they so choose

gavinbaker: peabo: i don't think proxy voting should be allowed

mark007: Whew.

      • poningru (n=poningru@ip72-209-65-174.ga.at.cox.net) has joined channel #freeculture

mark007: I'm caught up now, though :-)

BrianRowe: GL with the rest, headed out. I will tread the minuetes later.

gavinbaker: to clarify, i think proxy voting should explicitly be dis-allowed. you don't want non-board members on the board, that's the point of the board :)

gavinbaker: BrianRowe: thx

gavinbaker: OTOH, i think absentee voting should be disallowed, and the board can make exceptions if they choose

skyfaller: OK

      • BrianRowe has left channel #freeculture

mark007: I agree with gavinbaker, here.

skyfaller: so what are we resolving?

peabo: gavin, by proxy I meant board member A gives a proxy to board member B to vote in his stead

gavinbaker: peabo: right, i'm against it.

peabo: ok

      • Signoff: poningru (Client Quit)

gavinbaker: well, to be fair, there could be 2 kinds of proxy voting: 1 is where anyone can be a proxy, 2 is where only other board members can be proxies

gavinbaker: i'm against both, but hypothetically we could allow one and not the other.

      • poningru (n=poningru@ip72-209-65-174.ga.at.cox.net) has joined channel #freeculture

gavinbaker: is this a point people want to discuss further, or shall we make a resolution?

skyfaller: I guess we need to discuss

skyfaller: sometimes board members will miss meetings through no fault of their own, and they should be able to vote on stuff that has already been discussed

gavinbaker: skyfaller: that can be via absentee voting, not just proxy voting.

skyfaller: stuff that is going to be debated at that meeting they probably should abstain from

skyfaller: ah

skyfaller: I see

gavinbaker: absentee = "I can't be there, here's my vote"

gavinbaker: proxy = "I'm not voting, whatever $person decides is my vote"

skyfaller: yeah, I guess absentee voting is what I support, not proxy voting

skyfaller: let's disallow proxy voting and make some absentee voting provision

gavinbaker: any further comments?

gavinbaker: ok, let's do this individually

mark007: Well, other than the need to discuss the provision...

mark007: No

gavinbaker: RESOLVED: board members shall not be allowed to vote by proxy

gavinbaker: +1 from me

skyfaller: +1

mark007: +1

skyfaller: so how do we want to do absentee voting?

gavinbaker: any other + or - on proxy voting?

gavinbaker: ok, RESOLVED

gavinbaker: next:

gavinbaker: RESOLVED: absentee voting on the board not allowed, except in exceptions as decided by board

skyfaller: wait, how does that work?

gavinbaker: the board decides using their own procedures

skyfaller: this seems important enough that we should decide it now

mark007: Do we want to set a timeline for when it must be approved that $person gets an absentee vote?

gavinbaker: we can't specify *everything*, at least not in a timely fashion. even if we could, it'd be questionable if we want to

gavinbaker: i think that it should be decided in advance whether to accept an absentee vote on a particular motion

      • Omnifrog (n=Omnifrog@c-68-60-206-179.hsd1.tn.comcast.net) has joined channel #freeculture

gavinbaker: it can't be decided after the absentee vote has already been voted

skyfaller: agreed

mark007: So, meeting prior?

skyfaller: it would have to be on the agenda in advance...

skyfaller: I dunno about the prior meeting

skyfaller: that sounds too constricting

gavinbaker: well, can the board reach consensus by email before the meeting where the motion will be presented?

gavinbaker: well, what about this

gavinbaker: 1. a board member may request an absentee vote prior to a meeting

gavinbaker: (i'm hesitant to have decision making take place outside of the meetings, so)

gavinbaker: 2. before the vote at the meeting, the board members present shall hear the request for absentee vote and decide whether to accept it

mark007: That sounds good.

gavinbaker: 3. the board member making the request may send their vote to the chair in advance of the meeting. the chair shall not reveal the vote to the board without the requester's consent (so you don't influence the decision about whether to accept the vote)

gavinbaker: 4. if the board accepts the absentee vote, the chair shall present the absentee member's vote, which will count equally with any other vote

skyfaller: OK, that's fine

gavinbaker: it's kinda convoluted, but this shouldn't be happening often anyway

gavinbaker: it should only be very limited circumstances that the board should allow absentee voting

gavinbaker: i don't know how we legislate that, but i think it's ok to just say "in exceptional circumstances, the board can accept this"

gavinbaker: RESOLVED: what we just said? ^^

peabo: at the last meeting, it was decided that the board could approve membership of a new chapter by e-mail; is there any other action the board can do without a face-to-face meeting?

mark007: +1

skyfaller: +1 ... it's the only way to handle the problem of a proposal changing at a meeting, and the absentee vote no longer being up to date

skyfaller: the people present can decide whether the absentee vote is still valid or needs to be ignored

peabo: or the vote gets tabled

skyfaller: true, they can table the vote as well, if they know that the person who is missing has serious objections and they think it's worth waiting

peabo: can a board member attend by telephone?

skyfaller: but if they have quorum and want to move on, then they can vote without the missing member

gavinbaker: peabo: it says the chair decides how meetings take place

gavinbaker: so they can be IRL, or IRC, or phone, or some combination, or whatever -- up to him/her

      • Signoff: skyfaller ("Leaving")
      • skyfaller (n=nelson@c-69-143-179-58.hsd1.va.comcast.net) has joined channel #freeculture

skyfaller: whoops, wrong button

skyfaller: up to *them* ;-)

gavinbaker: just to clarify about absentee voting, this is for the cases where (1) a board member is missing for a good reason (e.g. unavoidable scheduling conflict) and (2) a motion is well-known and doesn't change substantively, and there's no substantitive discussion that reveals new information, at the meeting

gavinbaker: oh, should we write those conditions in?

skyfaller: might be good to put that language in the bylaws

skyfaller: yyeah

gavinbaker: ok, RESOLVED that we write those conditions into the absentee voting section?

gavinbaker: (of course, whether something is "substantive" is decided by the board when they vote -- there's no external standard or anything)

gavinbaker: +1 from me

skyfaller: +1

gavinbaker: + or - from anyone else?

gavinbaker: ok, i think that's pretty much everything about quorum

mark007: +1

gavinbaker: when it says 2/3 of members, that means we round up to the next member, right?

gavinbaker: like, 2/3 or 7 is 4.666, so that means 5. 4 wouldn't be quite 2/3

skyfaller: yeah, we always round up, and we should say that in the document towards the top

mark007: Yup

      • Signoff: conle1 ("Leaving.")

gavinbaker: er. 2/3 *of 7 (people) = 5 people

skyfaller: all fractions required for voting / quorum in the bylaws should always be rounded up

gavinbaker: how do we put that in bylaws language, and where should it go?

gavinbaker: skyfaller: ^^

skyfaller: maybe we should just mention that the first time we mention a fraction

gavinbaker: just a new article, at the end? it'll stick out like a sore thumb, but it'd be decided, at least.

skyfaller: well, logically it should come before the things it defines

skyfaller: so it should be towards the beginning

skyfaller: like after purposes and goals

gavinbaker: should we just add a Definitions article?

skyfaller: yeah

gavinbaker: before Article III?

skyfaller: yes

peabo: sounds good

gavinbaker: it won't say anything new, it'll just collect terms used throughout and define them

peabo: and it's an excuse to use the word 'hereinafter'

gavinbaker: RESOLVED: insert a new Article III, "Definitions", before the current Article III, and re-number accordingly

gavinbaker: + or - time

skyfaller: +!

gavinbaker: +1 from me

skyfaller: RESOLVED: All fraction requirements for voting or quorum in the bylaws should always be rounded up

skyfaller: and that should be put in the Definitions section

gavinbaker: +1 from me

skyfaller: +1

gavinbaker: more votes on either?

skyfaller: I guess not?

gavinbaker: k, RESOLVED

gavinbaker: any other questions about quorum & related?

      • Signoff: brendan_ ()

gavinbaker: reminder, the original language was: "At least two-thirds of the board must be present at a meeting for the board to conduct business."

mark007: Blast, I keep missing the votes :-) Both would have been +1s :-)

peabo: yes, the issue about e-mail approvals of chapter memberships

gavinbaker: peabo: noted, but that's not really in this section, is it? that's back with the chapter stuff

      • SamRose (n=SamRose@c-71-197-16-217.hsd1.mi.comcast.net) has joined channel #freeculture

peabo: is that the only business that can be carried out by e-mail (it's special because it invoves time deadlines)

gavinbaker: yeah, i think so

      • Signoff: SamRose (Remote closed the connection)

gavinbaker: anybody remember exactly what we decided there?

peabo: perhaps other business could be carried out at the discretion of the chair

gavinbaker: i know it was along the lines of, "if nobody objects in a week, it happens" -- but what if somebody objects? i can't remember

gavinbaker: and i'm afraid to open the log from last week :-/

skyfaller: too bad nobody did minutes

gavinbaker: well, i wonder if it's in RC2

gavinbaker: here it is: "The Board of Directors may vote, either in an official meeting or via email, to reverse the Executive Director's decision to approve the chapter within seven days of the approval."

gavinbaker: so good point, what does it mean to "vote ... via email"?

gavinbaker: http://wiki.freeculture.org/index.php?title=Bylaws_RC2&diff=13398&oldid=13396 | at Line 24

skyfaller: people send votes to the Board mailing list, and if they get enough votes for quorum by the deadline the resolution passes?

skyfaller: otherwise it has to wait until the next meeting?

gavinbaker: well, there's two conditions: (1) enough votes to have quorum, (2) whether the motion passes or fails

peabo: no, it doesn't wait, it either passes or doesn't

gavinbaker: no, if the board doesn't fail the approval, it passes by default

gavinbaker: that's what we decided, so as not to hold up the process of adding new chapters

peabo: the time limit is there for the benfit of the chapter, to force a definite decision

skyfaller: right, in the context of chapters, if the board doesn't actively stop it, the chapter is auto-approved

skyfaller: sorry

gavinbaker: so should we add this to 1.2., as its own section?

skyfaller: there really should be a section in the Board section about voting by e-mail

gavinbaker: "Voting by E-mail (for Chapter Approval)" ?

skyfaller: which we can apply for things other than Chapter Approval if necessary

gavinbaker: i'd like to write it that way, to say that this is the *only* issue where you vote by email

gavinbaker: voting by email is bad news, it's very poor for discussion

skyfaller: sure

gavinbaker: you want people to be informed when they're making decisions

gavinbaker: the only valid trade-off would be for time, which is the case with chapter approval

skyfaller: aren't there things that need to be rubber-stamped other than chapter approval?

gavinbaker: the board shouldn't be dealing with many very time-sensitive issues

skyfaller: that's true

skyfaller: so if e.g. we need to renew the freeculture.org domain name... who decides that? The ED / Facilitator? the proposed core team?

gavinbaker: ideally we'll know about that far enough in the future to approve it at a board meeting

gavinbaker: if we decide it's the sort of thing the board should decide

skyfaller: well, would we let the Core team handle money?

gavinbaker: skyfaller: that's a different question...

peabo: we could get one of those 100-year domain registrations :-) :-)

skyfaller: the reason I thought it might require Board participation is that it requires an expenditure of money

gavinbaker: we need to discuss what the board *does* before we decide this

gavinbaker: so i propose 2 things

skyfaller: peabo: that's a little silly, who knows if domain names will still be relevant a century from now

gavinbaker: 1. we RESOLVE the voting by email procedure above for chapter approval and add a section to IV 1.2

gavinbaker: 2. we postpone further discussion of voting by email until we discuss board duties/powers

skyfaller: OK, sounds fine to me... the details about e-mail voting should be moved to the Board section though, and out of the Chapters section

skyfaller: so that we can point all e-mail voting stuff to the same place, if we add other situations in which e-mail voting is required

      • Signoff: facefacefaceface ("Leaving")

gavinbaker: skyfaller: right, there's not much detail in the chapters section. we'll consider whether to replace what's there with a reference to "the procedure detailed in IV 1.2"

skyfaller: Yeah, I'd like to consider and resolve that now

skyfaller: oh, there isn't much there

gavinbaker: well, all the draft says is "the board can vote via email"

skyfaller: ok

skyfaller: so there's nothing ot move

gavinbaker: so we can just add a reference to "per the procedures in IV 1.2"

skyfaller: sounds good

skyfaller: let's resolve that

skyfaller: +1

mark007: +1

gavinbaker: +1 to all that mess

skyfaller: moving on then

gavinbaker: ok, well, one other thing

gavinbaker: can we say "there's no voting by email until/unless we say otherwise in the bylaws"?

gavinbaker: or should we not specifically ban it until we decide what to do about it?

gavinbaker: i'd rather ban it by default, until we decide otherwise, because i find it very problematic

skyfaller: sure, let's ban it and then we can add exceptions

skyfaller: erm

skyfaller: just say that it's only allowed when specifically noted

gavinbaker: i would say "Voting shall take place only in official meetings except as otherwise noted in these bylaws"

gavinbaker: something like that. that kosher for everyone?

gavinbaker: mark007: courtesy ping | voting going on :)

skyfaller: sure, sounds good for me

gavinbaker: +1 from me

skyfaller: brb, I need to make lunch *sigh*

peabo: by saying "official meeting" does that allow the chair to schedule an email meeting?

gavinbaker: um.

gavinbaker: can we define "official meeting" as "a synchronous form of communication"?

mark007: Sounds good.

gavinbaker: we could also say "real-time" for clarity, says the lunch-making skyfaller

peabo: blurf ... synchronous and wideband ... it's getting dard to specify, but you could quote th reasoning you said a few minutes ago about why email meetings are disallowed except in the case of chapter membership

gavinbaker: we could just add a note that says "E-mail shall not be considered synchronous communication"

mark007: Heh. With as much as we jump in and out, IRC wouldn't even fit that description :-)

peabo: yeah, an IRC meeting could fail because the server cloud becomes disjoint

gavinbaker: oh, we should also say "synchronous communication where every member can directly communicate with all other members"

gavinbaker: to clarify that everybody has to be in the same "room" at the same time, in whatever medium

gavinbaker: i think in a chansplit, you just wait it out ;)

peabo: also, for IRC, can you verify that every member is identified to NickServ by requiring a /msg to vote?

mark007: Ooh.

gavinbaker: peabo: i think everybody should be verified by NickServ, but i don't think that should go in the bylaws

mark007: That is a good poin.

Fear_of_C: ah yeah, we need to make sure that people are who they say they are

mark007: point*

peabo: gavin :-)

gavinbaker: that can be part of the "the board shall adopt its own procedures" umbrella

gavinbaker: to explain what i mean about everyone being able to communicate to everyone

mark007: We could have sham people voting.

gavinbaker: let's say Board Member X can't get online, but they can get to a phone

gavinbaker: X calls Board Member Y, who relays what's happening in IRC

gavinbaker: i don't think X should be considered part of the "official meeting"

      • ryanfaerman (n=ryanfaer@crlspr-69.65.71.237.myacc.net) has joined channel #freeculture

peabo: right, it gets impossibly convoluted

gavinbaker: though Y can relay their comments, and their votes if the board decides to approve an absentee vote

gavinbaker: but they're not in the meeting, for the reason peabo mentions

gavinbaker: s/they're not/X is not

gavinbaker: so, draft RESOLUTION: "An official meeting shall be defined as a meeting held via a form of synchronous (real-time) communication where all members present may communicate directly to all other members present. E-mail shall not be considered a form of synchronous communication."

peabo: I'm a lttl;e spectical that X can vote, since Y may not reliably relay the account of the discussion

gavinbaker: peabo: well, X will be able to see the vote after the fact, and notice if it was relayed improperly

gavinbaker: + or - -- Fear_of_C, mark007, skyfaller ?

skyfaller: +!

gavinbaker: +1 from me

peabo: no, I mean that because the discussion was not necessarily heard by X, X might have voted differently if he had heard

skyfaller: oh, huh

Fear_of_C: I guess

gavinbaker: oh, well, peabo, that has to be accounted for when the board decides whether to accept an absentee vote

skyfaller: yeah

gavinbaker: hopefully this never comes up frequently anyway

peabo: ok

skyfaller: hopefully if that's expected, they won't approve the absentee vote

gavinbaker: Fear_of_C: any comments, questions, sources of hesitation?

mark007: +1

gavinbaker: ok, i think we've sussed out every issue with quorum and voting procedure...

      • tvol (n=timothy@adsl-69-232-239-95.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net) has joined channel #freeculture

gavinbaker: yay

gavinbaker: next: "The board of directors makes decisions by majority vote. A tie vote does not pass. Directors may abstain from a vote when they sense a conflict of interest, or for any other reason."

gavinbaker: ok, first sentence: do we need to say anything more about voting?

gavinbaker: i think we should say how you call for a vote

skyfaller: I think that the "definition of fractions provision" clears a lot up

Fear_of_C: ok, when it says may abstain, are there any circumstances when they must abstain (ie conflict of interest)

gavinbaker: Fear_of_C: i agree, we should require them to abstain in a conflict. but let's deal with that sentence when we get there :)

gavinbaker: we should specify how you call a vote, like we specified how you nominate someone for chair

gavinbaker: usual procedure is 1. one person call for a vote

gavinbaker: 2. another person seconds the vote

gavinbaker: 3. you vote on whether to vote

gavinbaker: if a majority agrees, then you proceed to the vote

skyfaller: can we skip 3?

skyfaller: it just seems like unnecessary bureaucracy

gavinbaker: skyfaller: if you want to encourage thorough discussion, you should require a majority vote before you move on, not just a "vote" by 2 members

skyfaller: I guess discussion is good

gavinbaker: the "vote" in 3 (on whether to vote on the motion) is non-debatable

gavinbaker: if you get a motion to vote and a second, you just vote up-or-down whether to proceed to voting to pass or fail the motion

skyfaller: and if people are uncomfortable with the quorum, e.g. all of the people on one side are absent but you still make quorum, then that would be a valid reason to want to postpone a vote

gavinbaker: if the motion to proceed to a final vote fails, then you go back to discussion

gavinbaker: people can also make motions to table an issue until later, of course

gavinbaker: or you can keep discussing until people feel more comfortable passing or failing it

gavinbaker: it's the Robert's Rules way :D

skyfaller: sigh... i probably should read that someday

peabo: at NESFA we have some restictions on how this can be done; for instance you can't amend the motion but you can withdraw it and re-move the revised motion (the bylaws refer to Robert's Rules of Order but don't seem to talk about this specifically)

gavinbaker: skyfaller, keep hanging around lawyers and boards and you almost certainly will end up doing so

gavinbaker: peabo: i don't quite follow you, can you explain what you mean?

peabo: during the discussion someone may say they think the motion should be changed ... by withdrawing the motion, rend re-mving it, it is clear what is actually being voted on

gavinbaker: ok... that seems compatible with what we've got

gavinbaker: so... everybody understand the voting procedure proposed? any questions?

skyfaller: OK, so if you want to change the proposal, you have to re-move it

skyfaller: and the 3 step procedure Gavin propose

skyfaller: *proposed

skyfaller: let's resolve that

skyfaller: can we get actual language?

gavinbaker: well, what peabo said doesn't have to actually be written in anywhere

gavinbaker: and i'm not sure that writing it in would make it more clear, actually

gavinbaker: i think it'll just happen naturally

gavinbaker: like here -- "before we vote, can we see the new language again?"

skyfaller: sure

peabo: if there is a clerk, the clerk reads the motion as it was recorded in the minutes

peabo: before the vote takes place

  1. freeculture tvol H0n=timothy@adsl-69-232-239-95.dsl.pltn13.pacbell. Timothy Vollmer
  1. freeculture ryanfaermaH0n=ryanfaer@crlspr-69.65.71.237.myacc.net Ryan Faerman
  1. freeculture skyfaller H0n=nelson@wikipedia/Skyfaller Nelson Pavlosky
  1. freeculture Omnifrog H0 n=Omnifrog@c-68-60-206-179.hsd1.tn.comcast.net Omnifrog
  1. freeculture poningru H0n=poningru@ip72-209-65-174.ga.at.cox.net Eldo Varghese
  1. freeculture Fear_of_C H0 n=nick@cpe-66-65-84-36.nyc.res.rr.com gaim
  1. freeculture ScudmissilH0n=Scudmiss@192.195.230.33 Andy
  1. freeculture mllerustadH0 n=mllerust@c-69-143-179-58.hsd1.va.comcast.net Karen Rustad
  1. freeculture gavinbakerH0n=gavin@c-69-143-179-58.hsd1.va.comcast.net Gavin Baker
  1. freeculture peaboH0n=peabo@c-24-147-25-140.hsd1.ma.comcast.net Peter Olson
  1. freeculture tannewtG0 n=scott@gentoo/developer/tannewt Unknown
  1. freeculture mark007H0n=mark007@pool-71-101-200-240.tampfl.dsl-w.veriz Mark
  1. freeculture jli G0 i=jli@gateway/tor/x-b0f63977e720e7f0 Jli
  1. freeculture klepas G0n=klepas@unaffiliated/klepas Pascal Klein
  1. freeculture ftobia H0 n=chatzill@ool-18bb9b30.dyn.optonline.net Frank Tobia
  1. freeculture Ax3 H0n=ax4@rada.voodoohosting.com ax4
  1. freeculture K`TetchH0n=ktetch@adsl-074-166-105-206.sip.asm.bellsouth. K`Tetch
  1. freeculture [autonomy]H0 n=autonomy@c-71-232-117-225.hsd1.ma.comcast.net auto
  1. freeculture danjared H0n=danjared@HOW-ABOUT-A-NICE-GAME-OF-CHESS.MIT.ED D. Jared Dominguez
  1. freeculture paulproteuG0 i=paulprot@29.145.221.202.bf.2iij.net Asheesh Laroia
  1. freeculture _sj_ H0 n=sj@wikipedia/sj sjk
      • #freeculture End of /WHO list.

skyfaller: (Gavin is writing proposed language)

      • Signoff: tvol ()

gavinbaker: uh, try this: The board of directors makes decisions by majority vote. At any time in discussion of a proposal, any board member may move to call the question; any other board member may second this motion. A motion to call the question is non-debatable and may not be amended. The $clerk shall read the proposal to the board. The board shall then vote on whether to call the question; if a majority of the board votes to call the

gavinbaker: question, the board shall proceed directly to voting on whether to approve the proposal. If a majority of the board does not vote to call the question, the proposal shall revert to debate.

peabo: do we want a requirement for there to be a clerk at meetings? it seems to be the most effective way to ensure that accurate minutes are kept

gavinbaker: peabo: yeah, we sort of avoided that question, it's on the list of things to come back to

peabo: it's the question that may not be amended, not the motion to call the question

gavinbaker sighs | I forget all the special terms for this stuff

gavinbaker: peabo: well, by default, any motion is amendable

gavinbaker: so i could move to call the question

gavinbaker: you then propose an amendment to my motion to call the question, to change that motion to a motion to go to lunch

gavinbaker: that would be allowable unless we say otherwise...

gavinbaker: so the motion to call the question should be non-debatable and non-amendable

gavinbaker: if you pass the motion to call the question, then the question is also non-debatable and non-amendable (debate and amendments close at that point)

peabo: ok

gavinbaker: i.e. "proceed directly to voting, do not pass Go, do not collect $200"

gavinbaker: (in other news, these bylaws are a hack job, but this is better than nothing)

gavinbaker: so... i pasted some language above. + or - ?

peabo: and because the clerk reads the possibly revised motion, everyone knows what they are voting about; sounds fine to me

gavinbaker: for now let's say $clerk is the chair

skyfaller: ok, then that's fine

skyfaller: +1

gavinbaker: +1 from me

gavinbaker: are we done with the first sentence -- "The board of directors makes decisions by majority vote." ?

skyfaller: sure

skyfaller: ok, I want to propose that for the Board meetings we follow Robert's Rules wherever the bylaws don't specify anything

gavinbaker: i agree

gavinbaker: if the meetings are synchronous that's easy schmeasy

gavinbaker: hopefully you never have to consult Robert's Rules, but at least there's an answer to any possible question that might ever arise about procedure

gavinbaker: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert%27s_Rules_of_Order

gavinbaker: so we'll add a sentence at the end of this section that says "The board shall be governed, in order of precedence, by these bylaws, the rules and procedures of the board, and by Robert's Rules of Order."

gavinbaker: RESOLVED, + / - ?

gavinbaker: the lunch-making skyfaller says +1

gavinbaker says +1

gavinbaker: what say ye?

mark007: +1

mark007 knows a little bit about parliamentary procedure. Enough to loathe it, but to accept it as necessary :-)

gavinbaker: ok, in it goes

gavinbaker: ok, next sentence: 'A tie vote does not pass.'

Ax3 stretches

mark007: I don't think it should ever happen, unless the chair abstains, but that sounds fine to mee.

mark007: I'm all for resolving that.

      • brendan_ (n=brendan@pool-71-255-241-132.washdc.east.verizon.net) has joined channel #freeculture

skyfaller: hm... something is funny with our internet connection

      • Signoff: skyfaller (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
      • Signoff: gavinbaker (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
      • skyfaller (n=nelson@c-69-143-179-58.hsd1.va.comcast.net) has joined channel #freeculture

mark007: I guess that leaves just me and Ax3 and peabo to decide upon the bylaws...

mark007: :-)

skyfaller: whoops, sorry folks

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

mark007: Rats, they're back.

skyfaller: our internet burped

gavinbaker: lulz

gavinbaker: can anybody post what happened in like the last $time, when the connection was pwnt?

      • mllerustad_ (n=mllerust@c-69-143-179-58.hsd1.va.comcast.net) has joined channel #freeculture
      • Signoff: mllerustad (Read error: 113 (No route to host))

peabo: starting where?

mark007: 17:41 < gavinbaker> ok, next sentence: 'A tie vote does not pass.'

mark007: 17:44 * Ax3 stretches

mark007: 17:45 < mark007> I don't think it should ever happen, unless the chair abstains, but that sounds fine to mee.

mark007: 17:47 < mark007> I'm all for resolving that.

mark007: 17:49 -!- brendan_ [n=brendan@pool-71-255-241-132.washdc.east.verizon.net] has joined #freeculture

mark007: 17:49 < skyfaller> hm... something is funny with our internet connection

gavinbaker: ok, sorry.

gavinbaker: yeah, we've said the chair can break ties, so it seems fine to leave this

gavinbaker: any other thoughts on this?

skyfaller thinks no thoughts

gavinbaker: RESOLVED: leave it

peabo: no, but it seems like we need to decide how much more time to spend today

gavinbaker +1

mark007: +1

gavinbaker: peabo: i'm cutting out in like an hour, tops

skyfaller: RESOLVED: 'A tie vote does not pass.' <- this language is fine

skyfaller: +1

gavinbaker: ok, next

peabo: ok, and maybe more use of the wiki for disussion is called for?

gavinbaker: "Directors may abstain from a vote when they sense a conflict of interest, or for any other reason."

gavinbaker: i'd rather say "Board members" than "directors", for clarity / consistency

gavinbaker: + / - ?

skyfaller: fine, but you'll have to make sure that's consistent throughout the bylaws

gavinbaker: noted

gavinbaker: RESOLVED: to always refer to members of the board of directors as "board members", not "directors"

gavinbaker: +1

skyfaller: +1

gavinbaker: k

skyfaller: weird... gavin's messages aren't reaching me

skyfaller: are other people seeing Gavin's messages? or my messages, for that matter? ;-)

peabo: I see sjyfaller, gavin, mark, and myself, but not karen

      • Signoff: ryanfaerman ()

peabo: (if she's talking)

skyfaller: she's not, she's left

      • gavinbaker_ (n=458fb33a@bmw.hnvc.net) has joined channel #freeculture

gavinbaker: damn it

paulproteu: I'm reading but pretending not to.

paulproteu: I don't know what that counts for.

gavinbaker: as i tried to say

gavinbaker: per Fear_of_C, we should say board members must abstain in the event of a direct conflict of interest

gavinbaker: and they can also abstain for any other reason

gavinbaker: so the new language would be: "Board members must abstain from voting in the event of a conflict of interest. Board members may also abstain for any other reason."

gavinbaker: RESOLVED: ^^ ?

skyfaller: +1

      • Signoff: jli (Remote closed the connection)

gavinbaker: +1 from me

gavinbaker: k... resolved, i guess

gavinbaker: the only thing left in 1.2 is the number of board members (backtracking)

gavinbaker: "The board of directors shall consist of an odd number of members no smaller than five and no larger than nine."

skyfaller: and that's the big one

skyfaller: I'm honestly not sure how to resolve this one

peabo: what is the beef?

skyfaller: how do we make sure that there is competition for all the Board seats, while allowing the board to grow and shrink in size?

skyfaller: who decides what size the board should be?

paulproteu: Doesn't this mean that if <=9 people run, they'll all get seats?

peabo: well, the lower limit of 5 seems pretty sensible

paulproteu: But if < 5 people run, then we're all doomed.

paulproteu: But if >= 10 people run, there are meaningful elections.

skyfaller: yeah, it seems rather fragile

skyfaller: and if we have 9 people running, they shouldn't all get auto-elected

      • christopher (n=christop@c-69-253-126-113.hsd1.nj.comcast.net) has joined channel #freeculture

peabo: if less than 5 run, waybe we deserve to be doomed -- you need to have a certain amount of enthusiam in the organization to get anything done

paulproteu: I think that's bunk.

skyfaller: but you can't just say "if only 4 people run, we auto-dissolve the organization"

skyfaller: the first obvious fix is to allow for 3 board members

skyfaller: we had 3 the first time we had a board

skyfaller: and I think that would be an acceptable minimum

paulproteu: I think that if the organization has only three people who want to do national things because everyone else is active locally, we might be okay.

skyfaller: exactly, paulproteus

skyfaller: but we still have the problem of making sure that seats are contested

      • christopher is now known as cbudnick

peabo: with three, all decisions other than majority have to be unanimous ... it seems a little strange to me though I don't see any specific reason why

skyfaller: well, it's less than ideal, but it's still fine

peabo: what stops working if the board doesn't make any decisions?

skyfaller: you have no way to resolve big, long-term questiosn

skyfaller: *questions

skyfaller: short-term smaller questions can still be resolved elsewhere in the organization

skyfaller: so it's ok for the board to stop operations until an interim board member can be elected

peabo: how many chapters are there now?

skyfaller: peabo: good question, we won't know until we re-register in the next few weeks

peabo: I think thta bears on the question of whther we should be able to depend on getting 5 good contested seats

cbudnick: what is the current schedule, are there going to be elections before the fall semester, or are we too far behind?

cbudnick: (maybe this was discussed earlier today)

skyfaller: cbudnick: we're one week behind, maybe a little more... so it depends on when your semester starts, I guess

cbudnick: september

skyfaller: the schedule hasn't slipped too much, we should be able to hold elections by the end of August if we don't slip more

      • Signoff: gavinbaker (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))

cbudnick: (i think it's the 17th and the 3rd

cbudnick: )

peabo: elections by email? let's see, have to reregister the chapters and establish who in each chapter says what the vote is?

skyfaller: peabo: we have over 20 chapters, I think

paulproteu: Pshaw!

paulproteu: You make us blush!

skyfaller: peabo: forget about whether it's practical to get 3 or 5 or whatever contested seats... that's an empirical question that will change as circumstances change.

skyfaller: there are two questions before us: (1) what happens if we run out of board members, and (2) how do we decide how many board seats there are? also, how do we keep the seats contested while allowing the size of the board to shrink/expand?

skyfaller: I guess that's really three questions, but the last two questions are related

gavinbaker: right, and it's not given that we want to allow the board to shrink/expand

gavinbaker: we just want elections contested, a reasonable size for the board to do work, and opportunities for people to be involved

gavinbaker: whatever achieves those criteria best is what we want

peabo: there could be a difference between the ideal size of the board and the size needed to function (which could be 3) where if the actual size is less than the ideal size there should be a campaign to get more members

skyfaller: well, realistically if the org expands to like 100 chapters, we should be able to add members to represent more points of view

skyfaller: within some limits

gavinbaker: what about this:

gavinbaker: what does it really matter if we fail?

gavinbaker: i mean -- do we need to account for that now?

gavinbaker: why not leave it in the hands of whoever's left?

gavinbaker: fail as in, fail to get enough board members (for whatever definition of $enough)

skyfaller: well, to some extent we're already specifying what happens when the org goes under... we currently say all funds go to the EFF, although there are some comments about that provision

skyfaller: some more details might be useful

skyfaller: but we could just trust in our remaining members to honorably wrap up our business

gavinbaker: i think that's the better option atm

gavinbaker: we've got a lot more to do than worry about something that's so hypothetical

gavinbaker: frankly there's a more immediate question in deciding the board's size

skyfaller: ok, let's not worry about what happens when we run out of board members, then

skyfaller: and move on to the question of deciding the board's size

gavinbaker: we could add the question of "what happens if we don't have enough?" to the list of questions to be considered in the indefinite future

gavinbaker: can we RESOLVE that?

skyfaller: well, hold on

skyfaller: do our bylaws state that a board with less than the required number of members is an invalid board?

skyfaller: like, if we require 5 members, and 1 person resigns from a 5 member board, and they can't find anyone to run for the position of interim board member....

skyfaller: can the remaining 4 members still act to wrap up our business?

skyfaller: if they can, then we don't really have a problem, in the sense that the org isn't broken

gavinbaker: i think we should clearly say that whoever's left can at least wrap up business

gavinbaker: i mean, what is there to wrap up? the bylaws say, if we go kaput, everything goes to EFF

gavinbaker: other than that, what is there? the "assets" are disposed of

skyfaller: well, who knows what obligations we may pick up... if we did succeed in hiring an executive director / facilitator, there may be unpaid paychecks

gavinbaker: i guess it's better to plan for the unexpected

skyfaller: we might owe fees for e.g. merchandise

gavinbaker: so how do we say "if we get pwnt, whoever's left can still run stuff"?

skyfaller: who knows

gavinbaker: and what if there's one 1 person left, or something like that?

peabo: there could be a dispute about how long the organization can be < 5 board memebers before it is declared kaput

skyfaller: well, first I'd like to amend the required board members to 3

skyfaller: b/c 3 is really an OK number

peabo: that sounds like a safe thing to do

skyfaller: but if it goes below that, we could specify that after a certain time period the org should close up shop

skyfaller: and just leave it up to whoever is left to implement that

gavinbaker: well, what do you mean by "required"?

      • Signoff: cbudnick ()

skyfaller: good question

skyfaller: I don't really know

skyfaller: we won't elect less than 3 board members

peabo: and we should explicitly state a number which is desired in the sense that elections are called for if the number of board membrsr is too small ... that way it is unlikely to fall as low as three

gavinbaker: ok. right now, we say 5 is the minimum. what happens if we have an election, and less than 5 eligible people run?

skyfaller: so perhaps if by the time we reach the next general election, i.e. the next school year, we can't find 3 people to run for the board, then it's time to pack up and go home

Ax3: lol mark007

Ax3: I can't decide bylaws cuz Im not technically a member of uf.fco

gavinbaker: Ax3, nobody's counting. comments welcome

skyfaller: Ax3: you probably shouldn't vote, but we welcome your input

peabo: skyfaller: or else the organization makes no long term decisions until it can be reinvigorated ... that's why I asked what stops working if the board does nothing

Ax3: poningru, pong by the way

Ax3: ok fellas :)

skyfaller: I don't really konw

skyfaller: *know

peabo: there could be some other definition of organizational failure that triggers the diposal of assets

gavinbaker: right, we should specify what happens that triggers the self-destruct

gavinbaker: though that's later in the bylaws

skyfaller: OK, so you want to say that the board can't make decisions if it drops below 3 members?

peabo: yes

skyfaller: and then allow the org to continue running anyway until it hits some other definition of dysfunctionality?

gavinbaker: wait. if it hits <3, that triggers self-destruct -- is that what you meant, peabo?

peabo: and that it should have N members (like 5 for example) so that it probably won't drop to 3

peabo: no, no self-destruct, just a hiatus of decision making until it successful elections

paulproteus sniffles at fc.o hitting a heart

peabo: so we say, we want 5 board members (call for elections is < that) but the board functions if it only has 3, and it suspends itself if < 3

Ax3: lol i was just gonna say that paulproteus

gavinbaker_ hears zelda music

Ax3: might be a sign im irc-ing too much ...

gavinbaker: peabo, so when is self-destruct triggered?

gavinbaker: what happens when the board is "suspended"?

peabo: by some other cirerion about the health of the organization (I don't have a suggestion)

peabo: suppose the organization continues to do what the board has decided before, then it is still working even though it doesn't make new desisions for a while

peabo: gack, typing way too fast :-)

skyfaller: (gavin is actually playing a Zelda mashup song on his computer now)

gavinbaker: from vgmix!

gavinbaker: peabo, so the board never meets again until it gets more members?

peabo: yes

gavinbaker: what happens if it never gets more members?

peabo: then the organization continues along in with the same mission it had when the board was working, but there is an active campaign to get more board members

gavinbaker: ...and if it never succeeds?

paulproteu: How will you know it never succeeds?

paulproteu: Is "after seven years" the definition of "forever"?

paulproteu: After two hours? Five months?

gavinbaker: paulproteus: life + 75 years?

peabo: ultimately it depends upon the chapters being satisfied with what is being accomplished

      • cbudnick (n=christop@c-69-253-126-113.hsd1.nj.comcast.net) has joined channel #freeculture

paulproteu: gavinbaker_, So long as it's retroactively renewable by people who don't understand the effect of renewing it, I'm all for it.

peabo: really, you have to assume there will be *some* enthusiam for having the organization

skyfaller: this whole conversation is bizarre

      • Signoff: cbudnick (Client Quit)

skyfaller: I guess my feeling is that the board should still be able to meet and decide to close up shop

skyfaller: otherwise by the time you hit <3 board members, it's too late to decide

paulproteus sniffles again

peabo: that's why you want to set an idea membership size > 3

peabo: ideal

gavinbaker: but what if everyone stops caring? do we just stick around, potentially letting unscrupulous people populate the board (because nobody's voting, since nobody cares), or just sit on our assets rather than giving them to someone useful?

skyfaller: yeah, the unscrupulous people option is the one I worry about

skyfaller: it would suck if FC.o became an astroturf group or something bizarre

peabo: ok, you could say the organization dissolves if there is less than 3 for two years in a row

gavinbaker: ...are we in any position to decide something?

skyfaller: we have to make sure that the remaining people can close down the organization before it's populated by weird or unscrupulous people

gavinbaker: i don't feel like i'm any closer to understanding what to do.

gavinbaker: despite our best efforts

peabo: well, even with a size of 5 there could still be an unfriendly takeover

gavinbaker: if there are at least 5 (non-shady) candidates, that means that people still care, so they'll vote against any shady candidates

skyfaller: I guess that's why it's important to make sure that seats are contested

gavinbaker: but if the org just continues in perpetutity long after anyone has stopped caring, there'll be no one to vote out the moles

skyfaller: we shouldn't have uncontested elections ever

gavinbaker: *ever again

skyfaller: right :)

peabo: I guess I can't think of anything else to add

skyfaller: OK, so (1) the board should hold elections if it drops below 5

peabo: oh, except that an upper limit of 9 seems sensible too, because a board that is too large may have difficulty deciding anything

gavinbaker: well, doesn't the board always hold elections if it loses a member?

skyfaller: the board does always hold elections if it loses a member, that's true

gavinbaker: yeah, i have no interest in touching the upper limit of 9 atm

      • Signoff: brendan_ ()

skyfaller: sigh

skyfaller: OK, so there were two questions we were talking about: (1) what to do when we start running out of board members, and (2) how to decide the board's size

skyfaller: have we made any progress on either question?

gavinbaker: well, we raised some interesting points about (1), but i don't feel much closer to an answer

peabo: a criterion for increasing the size might be that there is evidence that all the existing board seats are well-contested

peabo: meaning that additional seats would not be filled by default

skyfaller: ... as long as you don't remove the contested nature of the board seats by increasing it :)

skyfaller: yeah

skyfaller: it def shouldn't be auto-increased ever

peabo: yeah, I don't think increasing the size should be an automatic thing

peabo: we're back to "who decides the size" ... maybe one a year the chapters get to vote by a 2/3 majority or something?

peabo: one/once

peabo: to take effect the *following* year

skyfaller: no, not for the following year

peabo: because?

skyfaller: the next year the candidate lineup would be different

gavinbaker: hmm, interesting. i guess you have to hope there are still enough candidates next year

skyfaller: there may be too many candidates this year, and not enough the next year

gavinbaker: but i can't figure out how you'd vote to change the board size in the same year

      • brendan_ (n=brendan@pool-71-255-241-132.washdc.east.verizon.net) has joined channel #freeculture

skyfaller: you'd have to vote on the size of the board first, then the board members themselves

peabo: well, also because you don't want to cherry-pick the candidates during the current year election by rigging the board size

skyfaller: that's the only way to decide it by chapter vote

      • cskaterun (n=cskateru@cpe-72-130-168-207.san.res.rr.com) has joined channel #freeculture

peabo: I wonder how much variance in enthusiasm there would be from one year to another -- one problem would be if several baord members become non-students at the same time

peabo: (whether or not they are eligible thay may still want to do other things)

skyfaller: man, these bylaws are such a pain

peabo: teh bylaws only reflect reality

gavinbaker: why don't we do the simplest thing

gavinbaker: set the board at a fixed number

gavinbaker: if it turns out to be a problem, someone can amend it in the future

skyfaller: alright

skyfaller: I'm with gavin

peabo: good idea, how about 5?

skyfaller: 5 is great

gavinbaker: so, 5, 7, or 9, take your pick

skyfaller: it's 5

gavinbaker: if there's a lot more candidates than 5, then there'll be good evidence to raise it next year

skyfaller: we won't have enough competition if we set it higher

skyfaller: gavinbaker_: agreed

gavinbaker: i'm satisfied calling it 5 for now

skyfaller: alright

skyfaller: that satisfies (2)

skyfaller: what about (1)

skyfaller: are we just ignoring that problem?

gavinbaker: i think that's the best option we have for now

gavinbaker: unless someone comes up with a brilliant solution

gavinbaker: i haven't heard one that works well yet

skyfaller: OK, so even if 3 members resign, we'll let the board carry on?

peabo: perhaps we should see what happens the first year before deciding (1)

skyfaller: yeah, I guess so

gavinbaker: let's just hope we don't run into (1) right away

gavinbaker: if we run into (1) we got bigger problems

skyfaller: I think we won't run into (1) right away

skyfaller: let's assume that when members resign, they'll hold elections and new people will run

peabo: I would be really discouraged if we can't get 3 members

skyfaller: if necessary, the remaining board can prod people into running

gavinbaker: we'll put (1) on the list of things to solve some day, but not now

skyfaller: so we've solved (2), and we're ignoring (1)

gavinbaker: everybody ok with that?

skyfaller: well, we could consider (1) solved too

peabo: +1 (if I'm eligible -- this vote seems more important to me)

gavinbaker: sure, it's "solved"

gavinbaker: the same way that throwing crap under your bed was a "solution" to "clean yer room"

skyfaller: I figure if things go down the tubes, they could get the remaining chapters to accept an amendment to allow them to clean things up or whatever

peabo: I have more science fiction books than shelf space, so I but them in boxes :-)

peabo: put

gavinbaker: skyfaller, if it's that bad, you might just stop ignoring the law

skyfaller: yeah

skyfaller: alright

skyfaller: let's consider them solved and move on

gavinbaker: er... delete "stop" from my last comment

skyfaller: so we're done with "Board structure"?

gavinbaker: ok. so 1.2 is fixed! totally and completely.

skyfaller: good riddance

gavinbaker: i gotta go, at this point

skyfaller: alright

peabo: gavin, your hour is up!

gavinbaker: 5 hours is plenty for one day :-/

skyfaller: someone paste the log

skyfaller: and we'll call it a day

peabo: I have a contiguous log, where do you want me to put it?

gavinbaker: http://wiki.freeculture.org/2007-08-05/log

peabo: ok

skyfaller: peabo: thank you :)

skyfaller: you're my hero

gavinbaker: geez, this was a slog

gavinbaker: ok, we can't wait another week to do this again, we gotta ramp it up so we can pound this out

gavinbaker: how soon can we meet again?

skyfaller: let's meet again Tuesday

peabo: I'll wear my yellow DefectiveByDesign anti-DRM suit next time

skyfaller: How about 9 pm EDT on Tuesday?

peabo: ok

gavinbaker: peabo, me too! http://alifelongsong.livejournal.com/66610.html

gavinbaker: tuesday @ 9 sounds ok to me

gavinbaker: it'd be awesome if more people had used the wiki in the past week

skyfaller: argh, let's do 8pm

skyfaller: I forgot that these meetings take forever

peabo: well, why don't you put out a call to participate in the wiki?

skyfaller: if we start at 9 we won't be able to go long enough

skyfaller: peabo: people left comments on the wiki, and never showed up to talk about them

skyfaller: I think we've had enough wiki participation, really

peabo: some stuff has already been posted that related to the agenda for tuesday, right?

skyfaller: comments don't do any good if people don't show up to reach consensus

peabo: true

gavinbaker: at this point, we don't need more comments on the wiki, we need better comments

skyfaller: trust me, this meeting method is the quickest way to write these by-laws, any other method will take even longer

gavinbaker: people to sort through and start summarizing what's there

gavinbaker: it's all a mess now and very time-consuming to make sense of

skyfaller: we can reach agreements in synchronous meetings much faster

peabo: 8 pm, I will be away from keyboard but I can be recoding as long as the channel is open before 6 pm

gavinbaker: if we don't have synchronous meetings, we'll never reach agreement, skyfaller

skyfaller: gavinbaker_: agreed

gavinbaker: peabo, #freeculture is open 23/7/365 :D

skyfaller: peabo: this channel is always functional barring massive freenode failure

peabo: ok

  1. freeculture cskaterun H0 n=cskateru@cpe-72-130-168-207.san.res.rr.com Chris Barna
  1. freeculture brendan_ H0n=brendan@pool-71-255-241-132.washdc.east.verizo Brendan
  1. freeculture gavinbakerH0n=458fb33a@bmw.hnvc.net [458fb33a] CGI:IRC User
  1. freeculture mllerustadH0 n=mllerust@c-69-143-179-58.hsd1.va.comcast.net Karen Rustad
  1. freeculture skyfaller H0n=nelson@wikipedia/Skyfaller Nelson Pavlosky
  1. freeculture Omnifrog H0 n=Omnifrog@c-68-60-206-179.hsd1.tn.comcast.net Omnifrog
  1. freeculture poningru H0n=poningru@ip72-209-65-174.ga.at.cox.net Eldo Varghese
  1. freeculture Fear_of_C H0 n=nick@cpe-66-65-84-36.nyc.res.rr.com gaim
  1. freeculture ScudmissilH0n=Scudmiss@192.195.230.33 Andy
  1. freeculture peaboH0n=peabo@c-24-147-25-140.hsd1.ma.comcast.net Peter Olson
  1. freeculture tannewtG0 n=scott@gentoo/developer/tannewt Unknown
  1. freeculture mark007H0n=mark007@pool-71-101-200-240.tampfl.dsl-w.veriz Mark
  1. freeculture klepas G0n=klepas@unaffiliated/klepas Pascal Klein
  1. freeculture ftobia H0 n=chatzill@ool-18bb9b30.dyn.optonline.net Frank Tobia
  1. freeculture Ax3 H0n=ax4@rada.voodoohosting.com ax4
  1. freeculture K`TetchH0n=ktetch@adsl-074-166-105-206.sip.asm.bellsouth. K`Tetch
  1. freeculture [autonomy]H0 n=autonomy@c-71-232-117-225.hsd1.ma.comcast.net auto
  1. freeculture danjared H0n=danjared@HOW-ABOUT-A-NICE-GAME-OF-CHESS.MIT.ED D. Jared Dominguez
  1. freeculture paulproteuG0 i=paulprot@29.145.221.202.bf.2iij.net Asheesh Laroia
  1. freeculture _sj_ H0 n=sj@wikipedia/sj sjk
      • #freeculture End of /WHO list.

skyfaller: so 8pm is fine? arrriving late is OK, these meetings move slow anyway

gavinbaker_ grumbles

gavinbaker: 8 pm tuesday it is

skyfaller: I never want to write bylaws ever again

skyfaller: I'd much rather stab myself in the face

peabo: I have it on good authority that FC events always start late

skyfaller: or chew on glass

gavinbaker: ok, i'm out.

gavinbaker: thanks everybody

gavinbaker: we got some stuff done, yay

skyfaller: peabo: thanks for coming

gavinbaker: but we have a lot more to do, boo

gavinbaker: see everybody on tuesday, whee

      • Signoff: gavinbaker_ ("CGI:IRC")

Log file closed at: 8/5/07 7:17:31 PM