(Redirected from 2007-07-17/log)
Jump to: navigation, search

Log for 2007-07-17.

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

link title

Meeting minutes and logs

2005-01-02 · 2005-01-03 · 2005-01-04 · 2005-01-06 · 2005-01-08 · 2005-01-12 · 2005-01-16 · 2005-01-19 · 2005-01-22 · 2005-01-23 · 2005-01-25 · 2005-01-26 · 2005-01-28 · 2005-01-30 · 2005-01-31 · 2005-02-02 · 2005-02-06 · 2005-02-13 · 2005-02-20 · 2005-02-27 · 2005-03-02 · 2005-03-06 · 2005-03-13 · 2005-03-16 · 2005-03-20 · 2005-03-23 · 2005-03-27 · 2005-03-30 · 2005-04-03 · 2005-04-10 · 2005-04-17 · 2005-04-24 · 2005-05-01 · 2005-05-08 · 2005-05-15 · 2005-05-22 · 2005-05-29 · 2005-06-01 · 2005-06-05 · 2005-06-06 · 2005-06-10 · 2005-06-12 · 2005-06-15 · 2005-06-15/Chatlog · 2005-06-19 · 2005-06-26 · 2005-07-03 · 2005-07-10 · 2005-07-17 · 2005-07-24 · 2005-07-31 · 2005-08-01 · 2005-08-07 · 2005-08-14 · 2005-08-17 · 2005-08-21 · 2005-08-28 · 2005-09-04 · 2005-09-11 · 2005-09-18 · 2005-09-24 · 2005-10-02 · 2005-10-09 · 2005-10-16 · 2005-10-23 · 2005-10-30 · 2005-11-06 · 2005-11-13 · 2005-11-16 · 2005-11-20 · 2005-11-27 · 2005-12-04 · 2005-12-11 · 2005-12-14 · 2005-12-18 · 2005-12-18 board meeting · 2005-12-21 · 2005-12-21 board meeting · 2005-12-23 board meeting · 2005-12-27 board meeting · 2006-01-01 · 2006-01-02 · 2006-01-07 · 2006-01-09 · 2006-01-22 · 2006-01-25 · 2006-02-12 · 2006-02-13 · 2006-03-02 · 2006-03-15 · 2006-03-22 · 2006-03-26 · 2006-03-29 · 2006-04-02 · 2006-04-09 · 2006-04-26 · 2006-05-07 · 2006-05-12 · 2006-05-14 · 2006-05-17 · 2006-08-16 · 2006-09-13 · 2006-09-17 · 2006-09-17/raw log · 2006-09-20 · 2006-09-20/raw log · 2006-09-27 · 2006-10-18 · 2006-10-18/transcript · 2006-10-25 · 2006-11-01 · 2006-11-08 · 2006-12-06 · 2006-12-06/Log · 2007-01-17 · 2007-01-21 · 2007-01-24 · 2007-02-07 · 2007-02-28 · 2007-02-28/Log · 2007-03-08 · 2007-03-21 · 2007-05-25 · 2007-06-29 · 2007-07-15 · 2007-07-15/log · 2007-07-17 · 2007-07-17/log · 2007-07-22 · 2007-07-22/log · 2007-07-29 · 2007-07-29/log · 2007-08-01 · 2007-08-05 · 2007-08-05/log · 2007-08-07 · 2007-08-07/log · 2007-08-08 · 2007-08-08/log · 2007-08-12 · 2007-08-12/log/bylaws · 2007-08-12/log/tools · 2007-08-14 · 2007-08-14/log · 2007-08-16 · 2007-08-16/log · 2007-09-03 · 2007-09-03/log · 2007-09-05 · 2007-09-05/log · 2007-09-09 · 2007-09-20 · 2007-10-07