Jump to: navigation, search

Log file opened at: 8/12/07 12:24:55 PM

gavinbaker ( has joined channel #freeculture

jibot: gavinbaker is Gavin Baker, a 3rd year political science student at the University of Florida and president of Florida Free Culture <>. His Web site is

gavinbaker has set the topic on channel #freeculture to students for free culture | | Bug tracker: | In case of downtime: | Meeting to discuss communication/collaboration tools for FC.o, 2007-08-12 at 5 pm EDT: | Bylaws RC2 meeting today at 2 pm EDT:

peabo: hi, gavin

Signoff: ktetch (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))

ktetch ( has joined channel #freeculture

ktetch H 0n=ktetch@adsl-074-166-105-206.sip.asm.bellsouth. K`Tetch

gavinbakerH 0 Gavin Baker

K`Tetch H 0n=ktetch@adsl-074-166-105-206.sip.asm.bellsouth. K`Tetch

peabo H 0 Peter Olson

tannewt H 0 n=scott@gentoo/developer/tannewt Unknown

ryanfaermaH 0 Ryan Faerman

mark007 H 0n=mark007@pool-71-101-200-240.tampfl.dsl-w.veriz Mark

jibot H 0 i=andy@ #JoiIto's bot

rohitj H 0 n=rohitj@ Rohit Jain

skyfaller H 0 n=nelson@wikipedia/Skyfaller Nelson Pavlosky

sj_ H 0 SJ

Ax3 H 0 ax4

jli G 0 i=jli@gateway/tor/x-513ed214ca560d4b Jli

ftobia H 0 Frank Tobia

klepas G 0 n=klepas@unaffiliated/klepas Pascal Klein

sahal H 0 can't get enough of that sugarcrisp...

_sj_ H 0 sjk

[autonomy]H 0 auto

urgyen H 0 urgy

poningru H 0 Eldo Varghese

danjared H 0n=danjared@HOW-ABOUT-A-NICE-GAME-OF-CHESS.MIT.ED D. Jared Dominguez

paulproteuG 0 Asheesh Laroia

  1. freeculture End of /WHO list.

mllerustad ( has joined channel #freeculture

jibot: mllerustad is a music nerd and Karen Rustad and a student at Scripps College in Claremont, CA and on's board

gavinbaker: hello party people

peabo: hi, gavin's here but seemes to be afk

peabo: oh, re-hi

mllerustad: hello, all. :)

gavinbaker: so who's here for the party?

skyfaller: I'm here to party

peabo: me

gavinbaker: _sj_ Ax3 danjared jibot mark007 mark007 paulproteus poningru sj_: courtesy ping

poningru: s/courtesy/annoying

poningru: ;)

e-star ( has joined channel #freeculture

gavinbaker: poningru: yeah, you ever got a "courtesy" wake-up call?

gavinbaker: today's menu ingredient of the today:

gavinbaker: howdy e-star

skyfaller: t3h today!

e-star: hi

Omnifrog ( has joined channel #freeculture

jibot: Omnifrog is the proud originator of Fair Use Day

Signoff: K`Tetch (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))

K`Tetch ( has joined channel #freeculture

e-star: starting soon?

e-star: i can't stay for that long

mllerustad: So... dissolution:

e-star: to me there's no reason why it has to be just to the EFF

e-star: it might as well be determined by the board at the time of dissolution

skyfaller: no, it just seemed like a simple default

e1presidente ( has joined channel #freeculture

jibot: e1presidente is David Riordan, a student at Hamilton College and is in the process of establishing a FC chapter there.

mllerustad: e-star: unless the board is really ineffective/absent, which would be likely in the case of dissolution

e1presiden: hey - sorry I'm late

mllerustad: I think it's worthwhile having a default.

e-star: mllerustad: not necessarily

mllerustad: We could debate on which default is the most appropriate...

e-star: mllerustad: fine, split between eff, cc, and pik

e-star: pk

skyfaller: I do think there should be a default, and that sounds like a fine default

skyfaller: it just seemed like it might do more good if it went to one place, but if this will let us reach consensus then that's fine

gavinbaker: hey e1presidente

mllerustad: I'm cool with splitting it... Really, I don't care who it goes to, as long as it's not the RIAA or something :)

gavinbaker: there ought ot be a default, just in case -- plan for the worst

e-star: yah, and it can always be changed

peabo: what is the triggering event for dissolution?

gavinbaker: e-star: right, the board can always decide otherwise -- right?

e-star: i just worry that if it's only one org it looks like we are too closely tied to them

e-star: gavinbaker: depends how we write it

skyfaller: e-star: understandable

gavinbaker: if not, we should say that the board can decide, and the bylaws just contain the default

gavinbaker: e-star: right, my question is what does it say now

gavinbaker: if it doesn't currently say that the board can choose, then it should

e-star: oh

gavinbaker: peabo: that's a good question, and we'll get there :)

e-star: "Unless the board decides otherwise through a four-fifths vote, the assets will be given to the Electronic Frontier Foundation in perpetuity. "

peabo: yea, but karen wondered about the board being ineffective or ABSENT

gavinbaker: i'm fine w/ e-star's language

e-star: gavinbaker: haha, that's copied

gavinbaker: ah. well then i'm fine with the language that's there ;)

e-star: gavinbaker: so just add split equally between PK, EFF, CC

mllerustad: peabo: It's true...that's why I think there should be a default, so that we know where the money goes even if the board isn't there to choose.

gavinbaker: what, and not FSF? ;)

e1presiden: that'll be part of the Stallman bath clause

e-star: "Unless the board decides otherwise through a four-fifths vote, the Organization's assets will be split equally between the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Creative Commons, and Public Knowledge. "

gavinbaker: i'd rather split it 4 ways, including FSF, with the proviso that if any org doesn't exist / doesn't want their share, it gets split among the rest

gavinbaker: would that be ok with everyone?

e1presiden: Sounds good, makes for a good failsafe.

Signoff: ktetch (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))

ktetch ( has joined channel #freeculture

skyfaller: sounds fine

skyfaller: (let's not add any more organizations than 4 please, at some point it becomes silly)

gavinbaker: mllerustad, e-star ? ^^

mllerustad: +1

e-star: gavinbaker: ok

e-star: that's fine

e-star: w/ me

e-star: i think the latter is obvious

e-star: though

e-star: Unless the board decides otherwise through a four-fifths vote, the Organization's assets will be split equally between the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Creative Commons, the Free Software Foundation, and Public Knowledge. "

e-star: i don't think we need that in there

e-star: the proviso

e-star: mllerustad, skyfaller, peabo, e1presidente ?

e-star: yup

gavinbaker: e-star: you sure? could it hurt to be more specific?

peabo: peabo: abstaining until someone says I am eligible to vote :-)

e1presiden: With the current language, it could potentially be interpreted that if one of the organizations is no longer in existence, our assets designated for them would go into escrow until whatever their asset management provisions kick in.

e-star: gavinbaker: i was just trying to not overcomplicate things

gavinbaker: i'm with e1presidente, i'd rather have the specificity. it's only a sentence

e-star: okay, you guys write it up then

gavinbaker: "If any of these organizations is unable or unwilling to accept these assets, the share to be allocated to that organization shall be divided equally among the other receiving organizations."

gavinbaker: oh, here's an issue with dividing the shares among more than 1 group, though:

gavinbaker: not all assets are monetary

gavinbaker: e.g. domain names, copyrights

gavinbaker: how do you split the ownership of the domain

mllerustad: gavinbaker: We don't own it, we rent it...

mllerustad: True about the copyrights, though.

e1presiden: ok

e1presiden: got it

e1presiden: monetary assets go to the orgs

gavinbaker: mllerustad: well, we control the domain

e1presiden: our IP goes public domain

gavinbaker: so as long as we control it, we should assign the control to someone

paulproteu: iirc, We do sort of own domains, it's just that what we own goes away if we stop paying.

peabo: whoever is listed as Admin contact has effective control of the domain

urgyen has left channel #freeculture

e-star: any copyrights get a PD dedication

peabo: that would be Nelson

e-star: guys, honestly, i don't think we need to consider this in such minute detail right now

e-star: gavinbaker: i wonder if we could put it into the first sentence

gavinbaker: e-star: we should be able to resolve this pretty quickly if we just slog thru

gavinbaker: keep in mind that any copyrights would include any software, which we might prefer to have copyleft than in the PD

gavinbaker: but i guess i'd be ok with dedicating all copyrights to PD

e-star: Unless the board decides otherwise through a four-fifths vote, the Organization's assets will be split equally between the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Creative Commons, the Free Software Foundation, and Public Knowledge, or between whichever of these organizations able and willing to accept the them.

peabo: software that you want to assigned could be GPL'd by assigning it to the FSF (in fact, you could do that at any time)

e-star: yeah but if it's PD then it can also be GPL'd anyway

Fear_of_C ( has joined channel #freeculture

e-star: oops

e-star: no the

peabo: no, PD is incompatible with GPL

e-star: either "the assets" or "them"

gavinbaker: e-star: i like your language for the proviso

e-star: peabo -- not in this case

gavinbaker: we should just assign the copyright of any software to the FSF

e-star: Unless the board decides otherwise through a four-fifths vote, the Organization's assets will be split equally between the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Creative Commons, the Free Software Foundation, and Public Knowledge, or between whichever of these organizations able and willing to accept the assets.

gavinbaker: and they'll take care of it

e-star: peabo: it could be taken and released under the GPL as well

e-star: all copyrights dedicated to the PD

e-star: is what i say

peabo: (probably shoudl take this offlien: PD is incompatible with GPL, and FSF will accept a GPL project at any time anyway, b assigning it the copyright to FSG; but if software is PD, it is impossible to license it under GPL)

e-star: to try to not make this so complicated

e-star: peabo: why?

e-star: peabo: i can take it and re-license it under any license i want

e-star: peabo: if it's PD

peabo: because GPL uses copyright as its instrument to enforce the license

e1presiden: Shall we straw poll e-star's proposal?

gavinbaker: peabo: it can just be re-enclosed

e-star: peabo: i'm talking about relicesncing

gavinbaker: the same way that a book you buy of Alice in Wonderland will contain a copyright notice

e-star: er i can't type

e-star: gavinbaker: thank you

gavinbaker: oh, on the other hand, it'd be kinda questionable how enforceable any such copyright claim would be on something that's inherently PD

e-star: gavinbaker: it would be modifications

e-star: coming from the GPLed part

gavinbaker: e-star: well, modifications could always be GPL'ed, sure

peabo: yes, that's true, then it is no longer GPL, whcih would be irritating to some of the contributors

e-star: okay, whatever!

gavinbaker: but you could always take the PD part and take it proprietary

e-star: yup

e-star: that too

gavinbaker: i'm quite happy assigning the copyright on software to FSF

e1presiden: ok

e-star: fine

Signoff: K`Tetch (Connection timed out)

K`Tetch ( has joined channel #freeculture

e1presiden: I'm in favor of that

gavinbaker: for that matter, we could assign all copyright on non-software to CC, and let them deal with it

paulproteu: Gee, thanks.

e-star: i'd rather have it PD

e1presiden: ok

gavinbaker: e-star: at least if it's CC licensed you always know it's free; with PD not so, no need to say "this is free"

Fear_of_C: can someone fill me in on which "assets" we are referring to?

e1presiden: do we want to just say PD or PD'ed to internet archive?

Fear_of_C: it sounds like we are giving every piece of the org away

Fear_of_C: from the language

gavinbaker: Fear_of_C: that's right, this is in event of dissolution; everything must go!

Fear_of_C: gavinbaker: ok

peabo: e1presidente: there isn't any way to PD something selectively

e1presiden: It's like a firesale!

e-star: gavinbaker: there is no such thing as PD unless copyright expires so i'm saying a cc PD dedication or whatever

gavinbaker: hopefully this will never matter but it's kinda like writing a will, you want to have it right just in case

Fear_of_C: still trying to start fc labs, I would prefer GPL to PD

Fear_of_C: if something would happen to that software

e1presiden: no but I mean PDed so it's posted to internet archive rather than PDed and then lost

e-star: yes, GPL for software

paulproteu: Fear_of_C, That software will be (C) its individual contributors, not (C) fc.o.

e-star: PD dedication for everything else

Fear_of_C: paulproteus: ok, that's fine

gavinbaker: paulproteus: unless we consider it a work for hire / ask them to assign copyright

paulproteu: gavinbaker, Yes, unless the organization when it exists does that.

gavinbaker: which has sort of been implied-ly what we're doing, since the web site says "(c) FC.o" rather than "(C) contributors"

gavinbaker: and i think we should explicitly be doing that in the future

gavinbaker: but that's sort of another story

gavinbaker: at any rate, assume the Org has some assets, and you want something useful to happen to them if we die.

e-star: Upon dissolution, all software copyrights will be assigned to the Free Software Foundation and placed under a GPL license, and all other copyrights will be released under a Public Domain dedication or equivalent license.

gavinbaker: e-star: re: PD, you don't think CC by is better, so the user always knows it's free? (as long as it's still in copyright)

e-star: gavinbaker: this *is* a CC license!

gavinbaker: e-star: i said CC by

e-star: oh, sorry, i missed that

gavinbaker: well, i guess you get the same benefit from the dedication

e-star: no i'd rather PD

e1presiden: ok

gavinbaker: you're supposed to include the license on the dedication; though there's no way /noone to enforce it

e-star: right

e-star: heh

peabo: I think it is much cleaner to license all software to the FSF as it is created, rather than doing it at dissolution time

gavinbaker: if you assign it to CC and place it under CC by, then there is a way and a person to enforce the license, if necessary

e1presiden: Say we CC founders license it at that point, and for the 14 years which it's owned by one of the orgs, it's CC-BY

e-star: i'd rather PD

gavinbaker: peabo: i don't think we're going to do that, but at any rate, that's outside the context of this discussion

e-star: please guys

e-star: this is taking up too much time

gavinbaker: e-star: i'm not necessarily against PD, but could you tell me why you prefer it? i've noted what i consider the benefits of Attribution

peabo: ok

e1presiden: This is what happens when you get a bunch of lawyers together in a room to make a decision

e-star: gavinbaker: sometimes attribution can be annoying, and i think as an org we should promote the public domain

gavinbaker: does anybody else have a sense re: PD vs. CC by?

e-star: to me that is the basis of our very org in a sense

paulproteu: Europeans complain to me from time to time that you can't PD something in Europe.

Fear_of_C: CC eels better to me

gavinbaker: i still lean toward CC by but i'm not going to hold up consensus on PD if there's consensus, it certainly doesn't matter that much

gavinbaker: paulproteus has a point there

Fear_of_C: *feels better

peabo: so, the board by 4/5 may decide the nature of the license?

gavinbaker: peabo: no, this is in case all hell breaks loose

gavinbaker: peabo: this is the will, in case there's nobody to decide

e1presiden: I'm with e-star. While CC is a sister org, we're more fundamentally about granting true, pure open access

gavinbaker: ok -- if there's not consensus, is anyone going to *hold up* consensus either way?

paulproteu: I say we just say "all money resources split four ways, alll non-money to EFF peroid" and let them sort it out.

peabo: ok, and if we get to copy it, we have proof of publication as PD so nobody can steal it and claim copyright?

paulproteu: But I won't hold up consensus either way either.

Fear_of_C: as far as I see it, the primary difference is that PD would allow people to take it unattributed and commercially

e-star: paulproteus: that's a different issue

e-star: paulproteus: we're in the US

e-star: paulproteus: if we were based in europe, yes, it could be problematic

gavinbaker: peabo: no, if it's PD, then *anyone* can steal it and claim copyright. that's what it means to be PD

Fear_of_C: and I wouldn't want it to ever be used against our purposes

paulproteu: e-star, Okay.

gavinbaker: Fear_of_C: we haven't been using a non-commercial license, so they can already use it commercially

e1presiden: Fear_of_C: like there's any problem with that!

gavinbaker: e-star: right, but people in europe might want to use our stuff and be sure they're in the clear legally

Fear_of_C: gavinbaker: which, specifically, are we using?

gavinbaker: Fear_of_C: Attribution

Fear_of_C: ok, then my point still holds

gavinbaker: there was a simplicity in giving everything everyone to one person and letting them sort it out

Fear_of_C: I would rather ensure that it least be known where it came from

e-star: peabo: ???

Fear_of_C: my real preference would be Share-alike

gavinbaker: because even once we decided about copyright, there's still the domains to deal with -- and anything else that might be non-divisible

Fear_of_C: because even if we fall, our content could still propogate freely

e-star: gavinbaker: that's not an issue

e-star: peabo: the whole point of PD is that anyone can do whatever they want w/ it

e-star: peabo: although they'd have to make a derivative (low bar for this) to claim full copyright

gavinbaker: Fear_of_C: right, i like attribution, and most importantly i like the requirement that re-users have to provide notice that the work is free for anybody else to re-use. PD doesn't have that

Signoff: ktetch (Connection timed out)

peabo: e-star: well, isn't it true that someone can claim copyright of PD material if there is no evidence that the material was already distritbuted?

peabo: ok, I understand low bar derivative

brylie ( has joined channel #freeculture

e-star: peabo: this is just a license

e1presiden: peabo: this is why we'd get it on

e-star: peabo: not actually PD

gavinbaker: peabo: pretty much all our stuff is in / whoever else wants to mirror/cache us anyway, it's not like we'd have to worry about that really

e-star: sigh, let's just move on, if people really want cc-by, that's fine, but for the record, i prefer PD

gavinbaker: e-star: but the license says "treat this as PD"

peabo: I just want to be confident that nobody can force the origianl out of circulation by syaing it's really theirs

Fear_of_C: I think that if we are promoting free access, we need a license that ensures our stuff will always be free and that people will always be made aware of this

gavinbaker: peabo, i'm not sure how realistic a concern that is, but i suppose throughness doesn't hurt...

gavinbaker: most importantly i want to decide this

Fear_of_C: even if we are not around to promote this fact

gavinbaker: so how about this:

gavinbaker: 1. monetary and other divisible assets divided 4 ways as decided earlier

e-star: gavinbaker: yup

e-star: i'd rather not use by-sa, because it can cause incompatibilities

gavinbaker: 2. software (c) -> FSF -> GPL

gavinbaker: 3. non-software (c) -> CC -> by

gavinbaker: 4. other non-divisible assets -> EFF

e1presiden: That has my vote

Fear_of_C: ok

peabo: 5. good will -> everyone :-)

e-star: i still want PD

e1presiden: e-star: it looks like we're in the minority on this one

e-star: but i'm not going to hold this up on that basis

gavinbaker: does anybody have any objections / other preferences, except to use PD for #3?

e-star: what are we envisioning for #4?

gavinbaker: e-star: e.g. domains, anything else we don't currently anticipate

peabo: I onject to PD for software because there is a simple and effective alternative that works better

gavinbaker: (maybe physical assets?)

Fear_of_C: what happens if we outlive one of the 4 orgs?

gavinbaker: Fear_of_C: we've said the rest will go to the others

e1presiden: we already accounted for that

e-star: gavinbaker: again, we don't "own" the domains so much

e1presiden: We own the rights to the domains

gavinbaker: e-star: well, we own a property right of control for as long as we'd paid for them.

gavinbaker: *certain property rights

Fear_of_C: also, which GPL version?

e-star: yes, i know,

gavinbaker: Fear_of_C: FSF will decide

e-star: okay

e-star: fine

gavinbaker: ditto for which version of CC by

e1presiden: Shall we bring this to a vote

peabo: also, someone might want to run the Web site etc: maybe that is a #4 item

gavinbaker: re: #3: i won't hold up if we prefer PD, i just want us to choose. it seems like more people prefer CC by, so that seems like a good basis for by

gavinbaker: peabo: right, if someone wants to use the domain for something, we'd want to encourage that (and not leave it to the squatters); so non-divisible assets e.g. the domain go to EFF

e-star: gavinbaker: it's just not clear that the author was always fc.o

e-star: so it gets complicated, and that's another reason to prefer PD

gavinbaker: e-star: right, but assume that fc.o might own copyright at some point

gavinbaker: we can't PD dedicate or license anything we don't own anyway

gavinbaker: so this only applies to what FC.o owns, so just assume that FC.o probably owns something or will in the future.

gavinbaker: i consider that likely

peabo: gavin, estar: true, if fc.o never claimed a copyright then its not an asset, and nothing happens to it

e-star: okay whatever, let's just move on

e-star: gavinbaker: it is debatable who "owns" the copyright to our logo, etc.

gavinbaker: e-star: right. what i said ^^ still applies

e-star: yup, i realize

e-star: also the blog posts, etc

e-star: anyway, let's just move on please

gavinbaker: can we RESOLVE this minor point and continue?

e-star: yes

e-star: as i said before, i'm okay with it, even if i prefer something else

gavinbaker: RESOLVED: money and other divisible assets 4 ways (FSF, CC, PK, EFF); software -> FSF -> GPL; content -> CC -> by; domains and other non-divisible assets -> EFF

skyfaller: fine

skyfaller: works for me

paulproteu: And physical things like boxes of paper, staples are all "indivisible"?

e-star: hahaha

gavinbaker: paulproteus: probably, sure

peabo: I have only divided a staple by accident :-)

e-star: we can give our staples to the riaa :p

skyfaller: ... does CC actually want our content? I know FSF gets software copyrights assigned to them all the time, but how often does CC get content deeded to them?

paulproteu: Then great. I want to make sure that no one would have to get involved to decide which things to where, which would be dumb.

gavinbaker: skyfaller: i don't know. it's under an attribution license anyway, so it only matters in terms of enforcement or exceptions to the license (unlikely)

e1presiden: skyfaller: i'd say we're a special case

paulproteu: skyfaller, No, CC doesn't really, but whatever.

peabo: e-star: need to requisition a staple gun for that

e-star: okay, moving on

gavinbaker: so we've got consensus and we're moving on?

e-star: yup

skyfaller: sure, I think the CC thing is a little silly but I can't see what harm it can do

e-star: (that's also another reason to support PD dedication)

gavinbaker: i don't think anybody considers this ideal but hopefully none of this ever matters so this is honesty more than good enough

e-star: yup

e-star: so what's next?

gavinbaker: Wikimedia sez: "Upon the dissolution or winding-up of this Foundation, its assets remaining after payment, or provision for payment, of all debts and liabilities of the Foundation shall be distributed to a nonprofit fund, foundation, or Foundation which is organized and operated exclusively for charitable purposes and which has established its tax exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, or c

gavinbaker: orresponding provisions of subsequent federal tax laws."

gavinbaker: i think we should add that clause

gavinbaker: though i'm not sure how it jibes with what we just decided

skyfaller: sure... all 4 orgs are 501(c)3, no?

gavinbaker: i guess we just say, "subject to the aforementioned, ..."

skyfaller: this is an additional requirement if they decide to choose other charitable organizations to donate to

e-star: but does not indicate which one?

gavinbaker: also consider that the board could divide the assets another way than what we just specified -- so we should specify that they could only give them to a 501(c)(3)

skyfaller: yeah

peabo: gavin: "The Free Software Foundation (FSF) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization based in Boston, MA, USA."

gavinbaker: that's actually a legal requirement, i think, to be 501(c)(3) -- so good to have it in there now, in case we pursue that route

e-star: gavinbaker: we're not a 501c3

gavinbaker: yes, PK, EFF, and CC are all 501(c)(3)

e-star: gavinbaker: i don't see a need for that

skyfaller: e-star: but we may want to be in the future

e-star: skyfaller: sure

skyfaller: and I don't think our funds should go to non-charitable orgs

gavinbaker: e-star: well what if the board decides "let's give all assets to Bob" -- that's dumb

e-star: skyfaller: what if it's not a use-based org

gavinbaker: we should require that it can only go to charitable orgs

e-star: fine

e-star: er, US-based

skyfaller: heh :)

e-star: 501c3 is US-specific

gavinbaker: i guess we're just jingoists, then

skyfaller: then they can get money from FC Peru or something

skyfaller: they have their act together more than us anyway :P

skyfaller: let's move on

gavinbaker: consider that Wikimedia Foundation, international as it is, has this clause

e-star: let's just say non-profit, charitable organization

skyfaller: gavin makes a good point

gavinbaker: e-star: could we say "non-profit, charitable org, such as a 501(c)(3) as defined in US law"?

skyfaller: ... would that meet the legal requirement?

gavinbaker: skyfaller: it's only a requirement for 501(c)(3) orgs, which we are not

gavinbaker: if we become 501(c)(3), we may or may need to change the language. ianal

gavinbaker: but at any rate, we're not 501(c)(3) now so it's not a requirement now

skyfaller: I dunno, I guess I don't want to have people arguing over what a non-profit charitable org is

skyfaller: a clean legal definition is nice

gavinbaker: i really don't care either way, i just want to add this clause and move on

skyfaller: let's say 501(c)3

skyfaller: all of the orgs we are giving to by default are 501(c)3

skyfaller: odds are that the orgs we would be interested in the future will also be

e-star: so say they wanted to give it to icommons

e-star: they couldn't

e-star: how about 501c3 or equivalent

e-star: they might want to give it to icommons

e-star: etc

e-star: gavinbaker: sure

gavinbaker: skyfaller: unless they're not based in the US, as e-star points out

e-star: skyfaller: like icommons

e-star: let's just say 501(c)(3) or equivalent

gavinbaker: i'm happy either way -- there are advantages and disadvantages either way -- so let's just pick

e-star: also, by then, it may be somethign else in the US even

e-star: heh

skyfaller: if you think that is clear language that people can't monkey with, then OK

gavinbaker: i think it's clear enough, and it'd be hard to monkey with

skyfaller: 501(c)3 or the equivalent, fine

gavinbaker: ok -- RESOLVED?

gavinbaker: +1 from me

skyfaller: +1

Fear_of_C: +1

e1presiden: +1

skyfaller: any more votes up or down?

peabo: (abstain due to uncertain eligibility to vote)

e-star: +1

gavinbaker: oh lol, this clause is already in the bylaws draft!

skyfaller: lollerskaets

gavinbaker tells self to RTFB



gavinbaker: so is everybody ok with dissolution happening by 4/5 vote, and asset-distribution by 4/5? just to be clear

gavinbaker: i'm ok with it

e1presiden: +1

skyfaller: sounds good to me, although these fractions are getting silly

skyfaller: we have 2/3, 3/4, and 4/5 scattered around the bylaws

skyfaller: and it's a bit of a shame that we couldn't standardize a bit more

skyfaller: (also 1/2 for majority votes)

gavinbaker: yeah, they all seem pretty arbitrary to me. but i don't care, it doesn't matter

skyfaller: I think that from now on we should require pi board members to approve every measure

skyfaller: or maybe 1/0

gavinbaker: you divided by zero, oh shi---

skyfaller: :D

skyfaller: ok, moving on

gavinbaker: sounds like everybody's fine with 4/5

skyfaller: +1

gavinbaker: so peabo raised a good question earlier

gavinbaker: which i think is the last question about dissolution

gavinbaker: which is: should we have a self-destruct?

gavinbaker: an action which triggers dissolution, even if the board doesn't?

skyfaller: maybe if we run out of chapters?

gavinbaker: right now, dissolution only happens if the board votes it. that might be hard e.g. if there's no board

skyfaller: running out of board members is also a problem

gavinbaker: this is something we discussed a bit when talking about how many board members there should be, etc.

gavinbaker: if there are only 2 people willing to run for the board, maybe it's time to hang up the hat and go home, you know?

peabo: two board directors can defeat dissolution, for board size of 5

peabo: there could be a heated stalemate and meanwhile the organization isn't functioning effectively

gavinbaker: peabo: true, but i'm not sure we'd want 3 members to be able to dissolve over the objections of 2 -- that's why we set a high fraction

skyfaller: two people could reboot the organization, it only took 2 people to start it

skyfaller: 1 board member probably can't do it by themselves though

peabo: (I am taking an opposite position to what I said in the 8/5 meeting, that the board can fail and the organization continues along its last known good path)

e1presiden: Can we table this issue and move on?

gavinbaker: e1presidente: table until when?

gavinbaker: this is the last clause of the bylaws

e1presiden: ok

e1presiden: true

gavinbaker: we should go through the comments -- which we might not be able to accomplish before 5, when this meetings ends because a new begins

gavinbaker: so we might not finish today, entirely

peabo: fwiw: two board members can defeat dissolution for board size of 7 as well

gavinbaker: but we should at least get through the bylaws proper, and this is the last clause

ktetch ( has joined channel #freeculture

gavinbaker: peabo: i guess i'm ok with that. dissolution isn't something we should be encouraging ;)

peabo: can we imagine a triggering event other than board action?

skyfaller: like I said, I think that if we're down to 1 board member we should quit

skyfaller: and if we're down to one chapter we should probably quit as well

gavinbaker: peabo: everybody dies and we want to give the assets away, rather than let them sit useless or be taken over by RIAA-pirates

peabo: skyfaller: how long does this probelm have to presiste before triggering?

peabo: persiste/persist

e-star: skyfaller: what if we change as an org

gavinbaker: skyfaller: i don't think i want to write in a chapters-based self-destruct, because the board might still be interested in working and just change the model from chapters-based to something else

e-star: skyfaller: and become more of a traditional ngo

gavinbaker: i wouldn't want to self-destruct before they could make that decision

skyfaller: OK, so it all hangs on the board?

e-star: skyfaller: and as a result don't have chapters or something

e-star: gavinbaker: yes

e-star: gavinbaker: my thoughts exactly

skyfaller: I'm a little skeptical about a not-chapters-based student group...

gavinbaker: well, if you can't get any board members / not enough board members, then the Org is fucked. chapters can continue without the Org, but the Org can't continue without the Org

skyfaller: but I won't hold up consensus over that

gavinbaker: skyfaller: i don't want to do it now, but if the board wanted to do it in the indefinite future, i don't want to prevent them

skyfaller: ok

gavinbaker: to be explicit, one option is simply not to have a self-destruct

gavinbaker: and if nobody's around, the assets just sit

gavinbaker: or whoever shows up takes over

peabo: until Bob Jones University joins as a chapter and takes over

gavinbaker: that option has some drawbacks, but one thing in its favor is simplicity

gavinbaker: if we can't figure this out now then i think i favor not having a trigger

skyfaller: we could just trust in the board to kill the org if things really go down the tubes

skyfaller: or write in an amendment later if experience teaches us not to trust the board :P

gavinbaker: i think i favor leaving this to a future amendment, unless somebody has a suggestion how to fix this.

gavinbaker: i'm not hearing a lot of answers

skyfaller: hm

skyfaller: how about not having an explicit self-destruct clause

peabo: skyfaller: that could be an example of a shared ethos which the board maintains without explicit memntion in the bypaws (or else in some way by appealing to the spirit of "purposes and Goals")

skyfaller: but letting either the chapters or the board kill the org

skyfaller: if the board is non-responsive, there may still be chapters who are around to close up shop

skyfaller: that gives us a little redundancy in case of one part of the org failing first

mark007: I am arriven!

skyfaller: let the chapters do it through the same process that they amend the bylaws, perhaps?

skyfaller: mark007: good job ;-)

mark007: Now comes the arduous task of catching up. A task I don't really feel like working on. Maybe I'll just read the last page...

gavinbaker: i think i like having an option for the chapters to dissolve the Org

gavinbaker: seems like a good idea

gavinbaker: but how exactly do you do it?

skyfaller: same as amending the bylaws, except the amendment is rm -rf

peabo: well, this is a blunt instrument, but you could pass an amendment that declares that the organization has dissolved

skyfaller: we should probably explicitly say in the bylaws that this option is allowed, so we know that either the board or the chapters can dissolve the org

gavinbaker: i think i'm fine with using the amendment process

gavinbaker: in the grim future of FC.o-anity, are we going to have 2 chapters bringing forward a dissolution amendment every 6 mo? ;)

skyfaller: lollerskates

gavinbaker: i suppose it's their right. but... gosh if that wouldn't get annoying, especially if it always gets voted down

skyfaller: if the other chapters don't care enough to vote it down, then we probably deserve to get shut down

skyfaller: then they can just flame the troll chapters until they shut up ;-)

peabo: there is already a provision for expelling problem chapters

skyfaller: heh

skyfaller: yeah, that might be worth using against troll chapters

gavinbaker: can we just +m them in future amendment rounds?

skyfaller: lol

e1presiden: heh

skyfaller: this is getting silly

skyfaller: let's say the chapters can also dissolve the org

gavinbaker: anyway, RESOLVED: we add a clause that chapters can dissolve the Org via the amendment process?

skyfaller: sure

gavinbaker: +1 from me

skyfaller: +1

skyfaller: more votes?

mark007: I haven't read the discussion enough to have an opinion.

gavinbaker: s/votes?/votes or comments?

peabo: gavin: 75 minutes until 5 PM

gavinbaker: sounds like consensus of whoever's paying attention

Fear_of_C: +1

gavinbaker: final issue with dissolution, then: self-destruct?

skyfaller: no self-destruct

gavinbaker: i vote no, just out of consideration for time

peabo: seens unnecessary

skyfaller: I think we can trust either the chapters or the board to kill the org if it comes time

gavinbaker: it might be valuable to have but hopefully it's never necessary, and if we want to add it we can do so in the future

skyfaller: one of them should succeed if things have really gone up the creek

Signoff: K`Tetch (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))

K`Tetch ( has joined channel #freeculture

gavinbaker: if either the chapters nor the board will put us down, then i guess the assets just sit. but honestly i wouldn't expect us to have many assets of value in that case ... (though the domain is particularly nice)

gavinbaker: anyway, i'm fine w/ no trigger for auto-destruct. anybody else?

Signoff: ktetch (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))

gavinbaker: i wonder whether i should ping people as notice, or if everybody is willfully not paying attention / afk

Fear_of_C: i there is a trigger

Fear_of_C: it should be vetoable

e1presiden: I'm only marginally paying attention. i feel like this is bordering on irrelevancy

skyfaller: but we're just saying that there shouldn't be a trigger

Fear_of_C: that's fine, I guess

mark007: Perhaps a clause that if the board hasn't met for x amount of time (possible a year or two semesters) it should be dissolved?

mark007: Though, even that could possibly get out of hand.

skyfaller: is anyone enthusiastic about having an auto-destruct clause?

mark007: I don't feel that it's necessary.

skyfaller: mark007: no, that just means the board needs to be rebooted

peabo: not I

skyfaller: mark007: time for new elections

mark007: Yeah. I don't like an auto-trigger.

skyfaller: alright, then are we done?

Fear_of_C: seems so

Fear_of_C: I may go afk for a bit, btw

skyfaller: no prob

e1presiden: brb - my machine is on the verge of freezing up

gavinbaker: sounds like no self-destruct

gavinbaker: that gets thumbs-up from me

e1presiden: for the record I'm against self destruct

skyfaller: --self-destruct

gavinbaker: and so that's it for the first-run through the bylaws! :D

skyfaller: or self-destruct ---

gavinbaker: there was a part of the bylaws that we need to return to, though...

gavinbaker: V 1.1


skyfaller: oh, fun

gavinbaker sighs a deep and heavy sigh

skyfaller plays with traffic

gavinbaker: i guess, i'll start off with a proposal

Signoff: e1presidente (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))

gavinbaker: the proposal is this:

ktetch ( has joined channel #freeculture

gavinbaker: anybody who doesn't like the chapters voting for the board, and would prefer individual chapter members voting for the board -- offer an amendment in the future

gavinbaker: we've already spent a ton of time on these bylaws, and we need to get a draft out ASAP

gavinbaker: we need to get a draft to the chapters to ratify, and we need to elect a new board

gavinbaker: and we want to do that before everyone goes back to school and is consumed by that

skyfaller: I think it's worth noting that having individual chapter members vote would require them to have standing in the organization, and we don't currently keep track of what individuals are in our org....

gavinbaker: some schools start in <2 weeks, so we're already going to hit that someone -- we want to hit it as little as possible

skyfaller: having indivdual human members would require a major rewrite to the bylaws

e1presidente ( has joined channel #freeculture

gavinbaker: well, without commenting on the relative value of either approach, i propose that solely out of time we just keep the bylaws the way they are, and anyone who prefers something else can offer an amendment in the future (and/or vote against ratification if it's that bad)

skyfaller: +1

gavinbaker: i think our amendment process is very solid so it should be very capable of dealing with such proposals

skyfaller: I think the most important question to ask is whether everyone is happy with the amendment process

mark007: I know that key club gives each club 2 votes.

mark007: Perhaps rather than give each chapter only one vote, we could enable individual chapters to split votes if there is disagreement.

mark007: But, that sort of thing could of course wait as an ammendment.

gavinbaker: mark007: but then the minority's vote is worth the same as the majority.

skyfaller: yeah, in the interests of time, I think we should just have people advance proposals like that as an amendment for the spring semester

gavinbaker: at any rate, i *strongly* prefer that we keep things as-is, 1 chapter:1 vote

e1presiden: gavinbaker: seconded

gavinbaker: i note that this is the 5th bylaws meetings, plus a preceding board meeting to discuss this, plus a lot of time and discussion via email, wiki, etc.

gavinbaker: i really, really want to finish these, the sooner the better.

mark007: Heheh. Understandable. These meetings go on crazy long...

skyfaller: mark007: I think it would be a little complicated given that we're voting for 5 board seats... so each chapter gets 10 votes? I don't think that's something we shoud hammer out as a rush job

gavinbaker: i'm not sure if e-star is still with us, but i'll ping her anyway out of courtesy because i know she might have an opinion on this.

skyfaller: if it's a good proposal, advance it as an amendment for the spring, I say

gavinbaker: skyfaller: re: rush job, exactly. this is a valuable discussion to have, we should take the time to really have it -- and we don't have that time now

mark007: Agreed.

mark007: I don't have strong feelings either way. I was just bringing up past experience.

gavinbaker: excuse me while i make lunch for a bit -- i'll be in and out for a sec.

mark007: Key club also has many more chapters than we do, which makes the two votes seem a lot smaller than they would be in our organization.

gavinbaker: i also note that proponents of another approach have had ample time to write up an alternative on the Talk: page, and haven't done so

gavinbaker: not to say that's their fault, or it should disqualify the idea, but to say that we shouldn't wait any longer, and should move on for now

skyfaller: brb

gavinbaker: (i'll also note that concerns about relative influence of chapters should be mitigated by the Core Team proposal on the Talk: page)

gavinbaker: so i say +1 to stick with chapters voting for the board, 1 vote per chapter.

gavinbaker: other votes / comments?

skyfaller: +1

e1presiden: +1

mark007: +1

gavinbaker: k, so that's that

gavinbaker: was there anything from the board elections section that we didn't clear up when we got stuck on the issue of who votes?

gavinbaker: looks like a couple things

gavinbaker: "Members of any chapter can nominate other members for board positions."

gavinbaker: that, i think we took care of

gavinbaker: yeah, that -> "Members of any chapter (as defined by the chapter) and current members of the board of directors can nominate themselves or other eligible individuals for board positions."

gavinbaker: next: "Members of the board of directors are elected by the liaisons of official chapters by plurality vote. Each chapter may cast one vote."

gavinbaker: the last sentence, we just decided to leave

e1presiden: Good

gavinbaker: the earlier one, though

gavinbaker: (1) on what basis do the liasions vote?

gavinbaker: i think we should say "per the procedures of that chapter"

gavinbaker: so each chapter decides how they cast they vote -- whether by plebiscite, or vote of the exec. board, or unilateral decision of the president or of the liaison, or random number generation -- it's up to them

gavinbaker: any comments or questions on that?

peabo: I agre, keep it simple from the organizations' perspective

Signoff: K`Tetch (Connection timed out)

K`Tetch ( has joined channel #freeculture

gavinbaker: anybody else...?

e1presiden: None

Signoff: ktetch (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))

skyfaller: +1

skyfaller: we could write up some suggestions

skyfaller: but those don't necessarily need to go in the bylaws

gavinbaker: ok, 6 minutes, that's plenty of time... moving on

gavinbaker: (2) do we want to use plurality?

gavinbaker: there was some talk of approval voting or some other method

skyfaller: so how exactly would plurality voting work?

ktetch ( has joined channel #freeculture

skyfaller: whoever gets the most votes wins? so the people on the board are the 5 highest-polling candidates?

gavinbaker: right

gavinbaker: i'm less sure about how any other method would work

gavinbaker: are there any notes about this on Talk: page?

skyfaller: we'd have to figure out what to do if the last seat ties


skyfaller: it doesn't matter if any of the higher-polling candidates tie, b/c they still have more votes than the next highest polling people

skyfaller: but if people tie for 5th place, then it matters

peabo: well, it could, if all 8 candidates get the same number of votes :-)

gavinbaker: oh wait, wrong comment


gavinbaker: ok, so what's the drawback to plurality?

gavinbaker: that you might tie?

skyfaller: well, that can happen with approval voting too

gavinbaker: i mean, i could live with that, though hopefully it never occurs

e-star: gavinbaker: oops

gavinbaker: unless somebody has a better idea, i'm for keeping things as-is

e-star: skyfaller: i think we should think about preferential voting

skyfaller: alright, I'm thinking about it :) why would it be better than simple plurality voting?

e-star: because people get to indicate a preference among the candidates

e-star: as opposed to just picking 5

gavinbaker: e-star: how would that work?

skyfaller: (we should probably spell out that plurality means that each chapter gets one vote *per seat* if we do do plurality)

e-star: gavinbaker: mako has worked extensively on this issue

e-star: gavinbaker: as i've suggested several times, see

gavinbaker: e-star: cool, so how would we use it here?

gavinbaker: i.e. how do we write it in?

skyfaller: (that link doesn't work)

e-star: oops

gavinbaker: e-star: i was looking for comments about this on the Talk: page and couldn't find any


e-star: iirc, you rank your top 5 people

peabo: there is also Instant Runoff Voting: which is normally applied to one candidate but could probably work for doing them all iteratively

e-star: * plurality: Plurality Voting

e-star: * approval: Approval voting

e-star: * condorcet: Condorcet voting

e-star: * ssd: Schulze method (Condorcet voting with cloneproof Schwartz sequential dropping) (default)

e-star: * borda: Borda count

e-star: * runoff: Instant runoff voting (IRV)


Signoff: mark007 (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))

skyfaller: OK, so how do we choose between those?

Signoff: e-star ()

skyfaller: ...kicked for flooding I presume :)

e1presiden: heh

e-star ( has joined channel #freeculture

e1presiden: welcome back

e-star: i think we should review them

e-star: sorry my wifi went out

gavinbaker: i think i'm happy with preferential voting, but how do we implement it?

gavinbaker: i.e. tell me what text we should write in and i support it

e-star: gavinbaker: mako has written software to handle it

e-star: gavinbaker: gpl'd of course, and i'm sure there's transparency as well if need be

gavinbaker: e-star: what text should we write into the bylaws, is what i mean

gavinbaker: right now it says "by plurality voting"

gavinbaker: how do we replace that clause

skyfaller: "vote however Mako says" ;-)

e-star: sorry, i'm looking at the various methods

skyfaller: what does Wikimedia use?

gavinbaker: next meeting starts in 15 min, fyi

peabo: Mako's default method is

e-star: yup, reading that now

skyfaller: yeah, the French and Spanish wikipedias use that method

e-star: skyfaller: good question

skyfaller: but what does Wikimedia itself use?

Signoff: K`Tetch (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))

peabo: Arrow's Theorem probably applies (i.e., there can be consitions in which something weird happens, but unfortunately that is true of all voting techniques of this type)

skyfaller: .

e-star: "All voters will have two votes, one for the Contributing Active Member Representative and one for the Volunteer User Representative. The election is run as First Past the Post, that is, the candidate with the most votes will be declared the winner."

e-star: oh wait that is old

gavinbaker: first past the post = plurality

gavinbaker: fwiw

e-star: hm..i should probably check with mako that it would be possible to do the preferential voting w/ his software

e-star: i will see him tonight

e-star: otherwise, with plurality, it would just be select 5 candidates

e-star: and the 5 people with the most votes would win?

gavinbaker: e-star: yeah, that's how it would work

gavinbaker: in case of a tie, *shrug*

e-star: right, preferential deals w/ that part well

gavinbaker: well, in case of a tie for the 5th seat

peabo: tie for the last place, toss a coin

e-star: in the case of a tie, expand the board to 7 :D

peabo: e-star: :-)

gavinbaker: i think i'd rather use preferential, but how do we pick which?

gavinbaker: i'm afraid we may not finish before we collide with the next meeting at 5 edt

peabo: The Schulze method may have theoretiucal advantages, but it is hard to explain

paulproteu: (BTW, there's a tech planning meeting in 15m, and it'd be nice to have some of you here at that meeting.)

e-star: i am willing to talk to mako about it tonight

peabo: I thing the best method is the simplest one, and we are not likely to get in trouble for it

skyfaller: I am also a bit concerned abouut having complicated voting methods that nobody understands ;-)

e-star: and get back to whoever w/ the results of that discussion

e-star: i.e. is it possible w/ his software w/ 5 candidates, etc

e-star: and is it transparent

e-star: etc

e-star: er, transparent but also private

e-star: (i'm thinking an admin can have access, etc.)

e-star: and if the results of that are just too complicated, we can go w/ plurality pick 5

gavinbaker: this is probably the part of the bylaws to write-in that a 3rd party runs the election

e-star: oh i thought we already added that elsewhere?

gavinbaker: as previously decided (i think when we were talking about the Coordinator) but that should probably go in this section

gavinbaker: since it's about the board elections, seems to make more sense

paulproteu: e-star, Please also ask him to compare his software to the Debian election system.

e-star: ok

gavinbaker: well, i guess we should just schedule the next meeting so we can get out of the way before the next one?

e-star: paulproteus: could you tell us more about that?

gavinbaker: *sigh* i hope we finish these someday.

e-star: gavinbaker: what's left?

gavinbaker: the rest of the board elections section

e-star: gavinbaker: i saw that we decided on 1 chapter/1 vote while i was on the phone

gavinbaker: comments on the talk page

e-star: which i'm not all too thrilled with

e-star: fred is also away right now, so he couldn't make it

paulproteu: e-star, He'll know better, but from what I recall it's a very pure Condorcet-based system that has anonymous voting as well.

gavinbaker: and then just reviewing the changes we decided as a check to the last-draft

e-star: paulproteus: aha, well that could work as well

skyfaller: e-star: guess he should have replied to my e-mail to the Board then about scheduling this meeting, huh?

e-star: skyfaller: i think he may be offlineish

e-star: heh

Signoff: e1presidente ()

gavinbaker: so should we schedule the next (hopefully last??) meeting?

e-star: i am not free really after wed eve

e1presidente ( has joined channel #freeculture

skyfaller: I think this is entirely in line with the policy used with the Boycott Regal Cinemas campaign... doing something now is better than waiting for non-responsive people

skyfaller: so let's keep moving

peabo: 7 minutes

e-star: skyfaller: so you support that :)

skyfaller: e-star: well, I just want consistency here :P

skyfaller: you can't have it both ways

e-star: skyfaller: i wasn't saying we should

e-star: skyfaller: i'm not saying we should wait for him, i'm just explaining why he's not present

e-star: on the other hand, i will not be available after wed midday

skyfaller: OK

gavinbaker: so, monday or tuesday?

gavinbaker: or else e-star will be absent

gavinbaker: i'm afk next weekend -> next week

e-star: what is left to decide?

e-star: board election method

e-star: what happens when there's no ED

e-star: incorporation

e-star: ?

gavinbaker: <e-star> gavinbaker: what's left?

gavinbaker: <gavinbaker> the rest of the board elections section

gavinbaker: <gavinbaker> comments on the talk page<gavinbaker> and then just reviewing the changes we decided as a check to the last-draft

peabo: 501(c)3 possibly

gavinbaker: e-star: right, we haven't decided what happens when there's no Coordinator

gavinbaker: i'm not sure that incorporation / 501(c)(3) have to go in the bylaws

e-star: ah sorry, i missed those last two

gavinbaker: the board can decide incorporation / 501(c)(3)

skyfaller: gavinbaker: agreed

e-star: gavinbaker: we seemed to think the bylaws would decide that issue

e-star: hm, that's weird, because that's not what you guys said at the board meeting

gavinbaker: e-star: i'm not sure i ever thought that

gavinbaker: we could look in the log, i suppose

gavinbaker: i don't really care either way

gavinbaker: i'd just rather leave it to the board, so we can finish the bylaws sooner

skyfaller: well, I don't see how the bylaws can decide if we're 501(c)3, or even incorporated

e-star: what about what happens when there's no ED?

skyfaller: both of those require work before they can happen

gavinbaker: e-star: that's a topic we have to address

skyfaller: and the org won't be either incorporated or 501(c)3 when the bylaws are ratified

e-star: skyfaller: as in, if we *should* do it

gavinbaker: so this is what there is to discuss. so when's the next meeting?

e-star: but yes, we can leave that to the board then

skyfaller: yeah, time to punt to the next meeting

skyfaller: Tuesday night?

gavinbaker: *sigh* i could come on tuesday

gavinbaker: (meeting #7 re: the bylaws for me...)

skyfaller: I'll be really happy when these are finished and ratified

peabo: Tuesday is fine with me (i.e., I can do the backup log, but I will arrive late)

e-star: well we'll see if they'll be ratified in their current state

e-star: !

skyfaller: I got my thesis written quicker than these bylaws

e-star: also i'm a bit worried

e-star: that if we only give chapters a week or so to ratify

e-star: then some people might be on vacation

e-star: especially in august

gavinbaker: e-star: well, we have to have a draft before people can vote

skyfaller: e-star: I still say you should ratify so long as you're happy with the amendment process, but I guess it'll be up to your chapter

gavinbaker: e-star: at this rate, some people will be back in school by the time a vote is open

e-star: gavinbaker: yes, i'm talking about a separate issue

gavinbaker: e-star: right

gavinbaker: so when's the next meeting???

e-star: tuesday at what time?

skyfaller: 8pm EDT?

gavinbaker: as i said before, that's early on the west coast

e-star: that's prime dinner time

e-star: here

gavinbaker: but i'm not sure any west coast'ers are coming anyway

e-star: paulproteus: ?

gavinbaker: well, for those of us who have to work at 9am, i don't want to start it too late

skyfaller: 9pm EDT? that's getting late for people who have work in the morning

paulproteu: I'm pretty flexible, so don't worry about me.

e-star: yes, i was thinking earlier

e-star: 5 or 6pm

gavinbaker: considering these meetings have taken 4-5 hours previously

skyfaller: earlier means that people on the west coast can't make it, and people who work later than 5 may not be able to make it on the east coast until late

e-star: is better for me

gavinbaker: when we started at 8pm we ended at midnight-ish both times

e-star: okay well i have dinner plans on tues

e-star: so i can't do 8pm

e-star: i might be able to come in later

e-star: around 10ish

gavinbaker: i'd be fine with 6 pm edt, but i think that might make it harder for others, especially on the west coast who would still be e.g. at work

e-star: 6 is good for me

e-star: i think it's most important to see if people in here can make it

gavinbaker: i love how well consensus makes meta-decisions :-/

Signoff: brylie ("Leaving")

skyfaller: 6 is OK by me

paulproteu: It's all good for me.

Fear_of_C: 6 mostly works for me

Fear_of_C: it's as good as any other time

gavinbaker: we could just say 6 and go with it

peabo: ok

gavinbaker: 6 pm edt on tuesday going once...

Fear_of_C: say 6, and see if anyne complains

gavinbaker: Fear_of_C: yeah, but we won't have much time to adjust if anybody does ;)

peabo: -3 minutes

gavinbaker: twice --

skyfaller: complain now, or forever hold your peace :)

skyfaller: your piece?

gavinbaker: sounds like 6 pm to me

peabo: gavin, I will e-mail backup log, but not until after this next meeting

e-star: cool

gavinbaker: thanks peabo

peabo: (I mean the one that just started :-)

gavinbaker: paulproteus: the channel's all yours

gavinbaker: thanks everybody

e1presidenH 0n=e1presid@216-15-61-221.c3-0.161-ubr3.lnh-161.m David Riordan

e-star H 0 elizabeth

ktetch H 0n=ktetch@adsl-074-166-105-206.sip.asm.bellsouth. K`Tetch

Fear_of_C H 0 gaim

Omnifrog H 0 Omnifrog

mllerustadH 0 Karen Rustad

gavinbakerH 0 Gavin Baker

peabo H 0 Peter Olson

tannewt H 0 n=scott@gentoo/developer/tannewt Unknown

ryanfaermaH 0 Ryan Faerman

jibot H 0 i=andy@ #JoiIto's bot

rohitj H 0 n=rohitj@ Rohit Jain

skyfaller H 0 n=nelson@wikipedia/Skyfaller Nelson Pavlosky

sj_ H 0 SJ

Ax3 H 0 ax4

jli G 0 i=jli@gateway/tor/x-513ed214ca560d4b Jli

ftobia H 0 Frank Tobia

klepas G 0 n=klepas@unaffiliated/klepas Pascal Klein

sahal H 0 can't get enough of that sugarcrisp...

_sj_ H 0 sjk

[autonomy]H 0 auto

poningru H 0 Eldo Varghese

danjared H 0n=danjared@HOW-ABOUT-A-NICE-GAME-OF-CHESS.MIT.ED D. Jared Dominguez

paulproteuG 0 Asheesh Laroia

  1. freeculture End of /WHO list.
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