(Redirected from 2007-08-14/log)
Jump to: navigation, search

Log file opened at: 8/14/07 5:38:51 PM

Topic for #freeculture: students for free culture | | Bug tracker: | In case of downtime: | Bylaws RC2 meeting, 2007-08-14 at 6 pm EDT: | Meeting to discuss communication/collaboration tools for FC.o, today at 5 pm EDT:

Topic for #freeculture set by gavinbaker on Sunday, August 12, 2007 5:14:53 PM

  1. freeculture: peabo jli sj K`Tetch e-star tannewt skyfaller rohitj mark007 johnsu01 legind klepas mind|distracted ftobia jibot sahal _sj_ [autonomy] poningru danjared paulproteus

End of /NAMES list.

peabo H 0 Peter Olson

jli G 0 i=jli@gateway/tor/x-174b60a20d58eba5 Jli

sj H 0 SJ

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

e-star H 0 elizabeth

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

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

rohitj H 0 n=rohitj@ Rohit Jain

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

johnsu01 H 0 n=user@fsf/staff/johnsu01 John Sullivan (

legind H 0 legind

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

mind|distrH 0 n=kat@wikimedia/KatWalsh/x-0001 kat

ftobia H 0 Frank Tobia

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

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

_sj_ H 0 n=sj@wikipedia/sj 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.

Channel Mode is +n

Channel created at Sunday, November 26, 2006 2:43:23 AM

  1. freeculture You need to be a channel operator to do that

Signoff: skyfaller ("This computer has gone to sleep")

skyfaller ( has joined channel #freeculture

jibot: skyfaller is Nelson Pavlosky & has a blog at & was an intern at the EFF & was a victorious plaintiff in the Diebold case & co-founder of & claims to be a descendent of the Earl of Fruit

skyfaller: hey folks... anyone here for the bylaws meeting?

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

mllerustad: skyfaller: should we start?

skyfaller: let's give people 5 more minutes, and if still nobody else is here, then we'll start

paulproteu: I'm around, but I'm not really here for the meeting.

skyfaller: ... actually, either way we'll start

skyfaller: paulproteus: groovy :)

skyfaller: paulproteus: thanks for the chocolates!

paulproteu: skyfaller, Sure thing. (-:

paulproteu: Hey e-star, you 'round?

mllerustad noms paulproteus's chocolate :)

e-star: paulproteus: umm

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

skyfaller: paulproteus: incidentally, when can we get the chapter reg page up? should we call a meeting and rope other people into helping?

gavinbaker: oh crap

gavinbaker: sorry guys, i'm still at work -- i forgot about the mtg

paulproteu: Oh, crab.

skyfaller: gavinbaker: it's ok :)

gavinbaker: d'oh

skyfaller: you had 3 minutes before we started without you ;-)

paulproteu: Hey e-star, just wondering if you were going to be attending this meeting thing that I'll be watching but not quite attending.

e-star: ??

skyfaller: paulproteus: we know that she'll be umming, but will she be coming? ;-)

paulproteu: skyfaller, Never say that again in public.

e-star: paulproteus: i'll be hereish

e-star: hahaha

skyfaller: lollerskates

paulproteu: skyfaller, re: reg page: Good question. How about you ask me again later tonight?

paulproteu: I came to work early so I could leave early and have time for various things, I just forgot what those various things were.

skyfaller asks paulproteus again, later tonight

paulproteu: One of them is likely to be the reg page.

skyfaller: sounds good

skyfaller: alright, shall we get started?

e-star: oh, why did i think this was at 630

e-star: heh

e-star: i'm losing it

skyfaller: e-star: it's b/c you don't keep a calendar ;-)

e-star: skyfaller: no, b/c i'm losing it :p

skyfaller: alright, agenda is at everyone

skyfaller: we're on the last section of bylaws RC 1, and unfortunately the most contested


gavinbaker: hey guys i'm gonna head home so i'm not stuck in the ofc all night

gavinbaker: so i'll prob be back in 30-45 min

skyfaller: ok, see you soon gavin

gavinbaker: sorry bout that

gavinbaker: fyi what remains in IV 1.1:

gavinbaker: (1) choosing a voting system (e.g. preferential)

gavinbaker: (2) line 3 -- "Elections must be called..."

gavinbaker: (3) line 4 -- "Only current members of..."

gavinbaker: (4) line 5 -- "The executive director is..."

gavinbaker: when you/we get thru those, then we've completed our first run run the bylaws :D

skyfaller: hooray!

gavinbaker: and then we can slog thru the comments (any gripes, post 'em now!) and merge in the changes, and put it out for a vote

gavinbaker: but now i'm out (sorry!)

gavinbaker: good luck!

skyfaller: peace

Signoff: gavinbaker ()

driscoll ( has joined channel #freeculture

jibot: driscoll is representing South Boston, US

skyfaller: mllerustad: can you take minutes?

mllerustad: Sure.

skyfaller: (do you have previous minutes that you haven't posted yet?)

mllerustad: I've merged the resolutions that I've recorded, which is not all of them, but alas.

paulproteu: driscoll, Hey, BTW, does load for you?

skyfaller: you should probably also post the past resolutions on the corresponding meeting pages

mllerustad: true

skyfaller: but anyway, here we go

skyfaller: (1) choosing a voting system

skyfaller: e-star: have you talked to relevant people to help us decide what voting system we want?

e-star: driscoll: yoo

e-star: skyfaller: yes

mllerustad: e-star: also, did mecredis ever write up language for making individuals members, etc?

e-star: mllerustad: not sure

e-star: so i spoke to mako yesterday

skyfaller: what did he say?

e-star: getting to that ;)

e-star: well first, his software can handle our elections

e-star: *and* the cool thing about it is that we wouldn't even need a 3rd party to run it

e-star: the way the software works is that when you vote it assigns you a key

e-star: only you get this key

e-star: and it takes email addresses

paulproteu: (But anyone with server access could eavesdrop on the key assignment process.)

e-star: paulproteus: take this up w/ mako

paulproteu: e-star, Sure, okay. (-;

 driscoll: paulproteus: yep!

e-star: paulproteus: mako also said that the debian process does use schultze and is super complicated

e-star: paulproteus: requiring gpg keys etc etc

paulproteu: (driscoll, Super rad. Then those old dumb routing issues are finally resolved, good riddance.)

e-star: so anyway

e-star: then it posts a list

e-star: the first list is the email addresses of everyone who voted

e-star: the second list is that of the private keys and the votes associated w/ the keys

e-star: so i can go and verify that my email address is up there

e-star: and that my key is associated with my vote

e-star: everyone sees both lists

e-star: but they have no way of associating it

skyfaller: that sounds like an excellent voting system, so long as Asheesh's concern about privacy violations by sysadmins is addressed

e-star: i was thinking how to verify that only chapters vote

e-star: er, one per chapter

e-star: but the email address method could work quite well

skyfaller: well, we should be able to identify what chapter each e-mail address is from

mllerustad: Yeah, we can compare the list of emails with the list of liaison emails (which we have)

skyfaller: and if there are multiple from one chapter, something is wrong

mllerustad: (or ones we don't recognize)

skyfaller: right

skyfaller: ones that don't match recognized chapter liaisons are bad

paulproteus nods in vague approval, except that anyone who can eavesdrop on the emails that are sent (including by patching the software to BCC: him) can ruin the secrecy

e-star: okay

e-star: so

e-star: then to voting method

e-star: we discussed the difference between plurality and preferential

skyfaller: paulproteus: right, you should talk to mako about this problem, b/c that does sound vaguely disturbing in the privacy sense

e-star: paulproteus: i think you should have a word w/ mako..

e-star: well guys, there's also the chance that if a human runs it

e-star: s/he will tell someone

skyfaller: sure, I'm not saying that this concerns me enough to oppose the adoption of this software

e-star: or that i forward my vote to someone

e-star: so it's never foolproof

e-star: now, back to voting methods

skyfaller: but there may be someways to reduce the problem

mllerustad: skyfaller: but anyway.

paulproteu: I'll ask him outside this channel, and I think that his software is a good choice and that we have no choice but to trust the sysadmin who runs it in general.

skyfaller: yes, voting methods

e-star: so with plurality, if there are two candidates that are very polarizing, but half of the people like him/her, it's possible that s/he will still win a seat

e-star: with preferential, it tends to be more geared toward pleasing everyoen

mllerustad: Yeah.

e-star: if there is a candidate that is preferred by most, s/he will most likely get a seat

mllerustad: I personally would prefer a preferential/ranking system.

skyfaller: so do we want people who represent different viewpoints, or people who please everyone?

mllerustad: skyfaller: well, let's consider the job of the board...

mllerustad: The board is supposed to make the big, general, direction-of-the-org decisions.

mllerustad: It'd be good to have a general consensus behind those kinds of things.

skyfaller: but if there are polarized viewpoints in the org, and we elect middle-of-the-roaders, couldn't that put the board out of touch with the chapters, theoretically?

skyfaller: (I'm playing devil's advocate here)

mllerustad: Well, if you put two polarized people in a room, either they'll compromise (get a "middle-of-the-road" solution) or kill each other and do nothing.

skyfaller: hm, that's true

paulproteus mutters, No it's not and fights mllerustad.

skyfaller: lol!

skyfaller: paulproteus: do you have something to say on this subject?

paulproteu: Nothing constructive, no.

skyfaller: heh :)

skyfaller: I guess if we start off with middle-of-the-roaders, they'll reach consensus more quickly and kill each other less often

skyfaller: mllerustad: do you have any other reasons for preferring preferential voting?

e-star: we could even run the election both ways

e-star: and see if it would have been different

e-star: but then i guess we're left with the issue of what to do then

skyfaller: e-star: I think that's a bad idea... how do we choose which one is valid? there should only be one election, I'm sorry

skyfaller: I don't want to give people visions of parallel universes where their favored candidate won

mllerustad: *fc.o doppelgangers appear everywhere*

skyfaller: that sounds like a recipe for infighting

e-star: okay, well i'm okay with either method

e-star: does anyone else have feelings on it?

mllerustad: skyfaller: Also, it's what Infinityon30credits uses :)

skyfaller: it's OK to have sex with your doppelganger!

e-star: paulproteus: ??

mllerustad: It's generally considered one of the better voting methods for accurately demonstrating what the people generally want...

mllerustad: the "general will" if you will

skyfaller: the will of the people!

paulproteu: e-star, I'm confused, what are you confused by?

mllerustad gets punched by Rousseu

mllerustad: *Rousseau

e-star: paulproteus: i was asking if you had a preference

mllerustad can't spell french theorists

skyfaller: paulproteus: I think she was just pinging you to get constructive contributions ;-)

e-star: skyfaller: but i agree that it may be bad at representing opposing viewpoints

paulproteu: To choose between preferential vs. plurality?

e-star: mako's software, if we choose to use it, can do either method

skyfaller: e-star: I think mllerustad made a good point... what good does it serve if we get polarized viewpoints onto the board? it has to reach some compromise anyway, or get nothing done

paulproteu: Having two people on the board who disagree is okay.

paulproteu: I like preferential voting more.

e-star: exactly

mllerustad: Obviously polarized viewpoints will still exist in the org, and it's important that the board listen to them (through the lists and whatnot), but they're the ones who have to work through the debate and get things decided..

e-star: paulproteus: why?

paulproteu: I like when people express more information rather than less information.

e-star: i see

e-star: i worry, though

skyfaller: paulproteus: interesting way of putt ing it

e-star: that it may be hard for a chapter to rank people

e-star: especially since there are so many

paulproteu: e-star, That's a very very good point.

skyfaller: e-star: I share that concern

e-star: er, there may be multiple people in a chapter

e-star: so i think i'm leaning toward plurality

e-star: ha

e-star: i think it's a lot easier to come to a consensus

e-star: with a chapter

e-star: on 5 people

e-star: than actually ranking them

mllerustad: e-star: but a preferential system would allow minorities within chapters to get more of a voice...

e-star: mllerustad: how so?

mllerustad: make the majority's vote #1 and the minority's vote #2, etc.

e-star: hmm..i'm not so sure

skyfaller: true, providing more information can be bad if more information requires more fighting

mllerustad: I mean, it's up to the chapter.

mllerustad: But I think it leaves more room for compromise.

e-star: i think i prefer preferential for individuals

paulproteu: skyfaller, c.f. authoritarianism

e-star: and plurality for chapters

e-star: i just think it will be really hard as a group of 10-15 people to rank people

paulproteu: e-star, I think you're right and that plurality is fine and that an amendment after ratification can handle this if it's really a good idea to switch.

e-star: i wonder what gavinbaker would think

skyfaller: e-star: I dunno, I think mllerustad made a valid point... it could actually provide a way for chapters to end a battle over who to vote for...

mllerustad: e-star: me too, he's the politics major

e-star: skyfaller: i disagree

e-star: skyfaller: i think it will make it *more* complicated

e-star: because even if that's the minority vote, you could still include it as one of the 5

e-star: if that makes sense

skyfaller: ah... hm.

e-star: the ranking just adds a whole new dimension

mllerustad: e-star: the problem is if the majority wants five, and your candidate is number six, number six just gets a 'No' vote.

paulproteu: All I need to know about life I learned from machine learning: High dimensionality is bad.

mllerustad: It's all or nothing.

skyfaller: paulproteus: high dimensionality?

mllerustad: If it's ranked, if one of the top five doesn't win the election overall, your vote for #6 may still matter.

e-star: mllerustad: oh i see

e-star: mllerustad: i misinterpreted your comment

paulproteu: e-star, Could you give a ceiling of two votes per chapter or something?

paulproteu: I'm very easy to pursuade one way or the other apparently.

e-star: mllerustad: i thought you meant that it would be #2

skyfaller: (I have no preference between the two voting systems yet)

mllerustad: Ah, yeah, I used the example of alternating (if the majority and minority were like 51/49 or something, that would be a nice compromise)

skyfaller: paulproteus: what? two votes per chapter for 5 seats?

mllerustad: Obviously how a chapter negotiates its votes would be determined by the chapter.

paulproteu: Sure, then there's one real vote and one optional minority vote. I dunno, I'm just talking.

mllerustad: I just think that preferential voting is more flexible for chapters to accommodate minorities easily

e-star: mllerustad: coming from a group of 15 or so people, it could be a nighmare

e-star: nightmare

e-star: seriously

e-star: it's funny, because i do prefer preferential voting more generally

e-star: if we had individual member elections, i'd be all for it

skyfaller: paulproteus: I think you mean 10 total votes

skyfaller: paulproteus: 2 for each seat

paulproteu: Oh, I see.

mllerustad: I guess, I'm not terribly on either side.

paulproteu: I think I meant 5+1 or 5+2 votes actually.

mllerustad: Plurality would work, preferential would work.

mllerustad: I am in favor of something that works. :)

skyfaller: paulproteus's suggestion sounds like a possible compromise?

skyfaller: I'm not really sure what he is suggesting though

mllerustad: paulproteus: I guess, that assumes that you have an established minority and majority.

skyfaller: the loyal opposition!

mllerustad: What if you've got three rival factions?

mllerustad: Or something more complicated?

skyfaller: a parliamentary chapter!

paulproteu: It's preferential voting but you don't rank everyone, basically.

skyfaller: so 5 real candidate votes and 2 "honorable mentions"? ;-)

mllerustad: paulproteus: But what if you only think there are five good candidates?

skyfaller: that might require hacking mako's software a little

skyfaller: mllerustad: does preferential voting really deal well with that?

mllerustad: Not especially, but there the ranking weights some votes (the first few) more than the others.

mllerustad: Here the two count the same as the five.

mllerustad: (as I understand it)

skyfaller: well, not necessarily

mllerustad: How would you underweight them?

skyfaller: I was suggesting that the extra votes count less

skyfaller: 2/3rds or 1/2 or something

mllerustad: This is complicated....

mllerustad: This is very complicated....

mllerustad: This is something the French system should adopt.

skyfaller: I don't see how it's more complicated than some of the other voting methods that have been proposed

skyfaller: it's ranking with two ranks

mllerustad: So how does that work in tallying?

skyfaller: or plurality with a little ranking

mllerustad: You count the first five, and if that doesn't give you five majorities you go to the secondary votes?

skyfaller: I dunno, that might work too

skyfaller: I'm just brainstorming

mllerustad: (but it never could; only one majority would appear, if any)

mllerustad: So you'd always have to look to the secondary votes.

skyfaller: ORLY?

mllerustad: And you might not come up with five majorities in the end, if there are more than seven candidates.

mllerustad: Preferential/IRV guarantees majorities.

skyfaller: I guess I don't know what I'm talking about

skyfaller: and I cede the floor to people who do

paulproteus also steps back

skyfaller: IRL Karen is trying to explain to me how preferential voting actually works

Signoff: skyfaller ("Leaving")

skyfaller ( has joined channel #freeculture

skyfaller: d'oh, wrong button

skyfaller: so.... nobody thinks they know what they're talking about?

mllerustad: I think either ranking or "pick 5" would work.

mllerustad: They're systems people have used before, they're reasonably uncomplicated...

skyfaller: mllerustad: so you're happy with "pick 5"? or does it make you distinctly unhappy?

mllerustad: I prefer preferential/ranking (heh), but if people think that plurality makes more sense for the chapter context I'm cool with that.

ryanfaerman ( has joined channel #freeculture

mllerustad: I guess I can see that preferential would also have complications with the chapter choosing its votes

mllerustad: It really all depends on the chapter--how big it is, how much people agree, who's leading it, etc

mllerustad: So plurality would be fine with me. ;)

skyfaller: mllerustad: do you think that pick 5 would cause less infighting within a chapter or more?

mllerustad: I think that it would cause less, in that a minority's candidate would still have *a* vote that could matter later even if it were down the rank

e-star: skyfaller: i think that it would cause less

mllerustad: But at the same time it would probably be more complicated with people fighting over whether Person A should be ranked #1 or #2, etc

e-star: mllerustad: right, that's my concern

mllerustad: oh, skyfaller said pick 5

e-star: yes

mllerustad: I was evaluating preferential

mllerustad: But you know what I mean.

mllerustad: I guess it's a wash

mllerustad: .

e-star: peabo: yt?

skyfaller: aha, gavin just walked in

skyfaller: and said, what happens when you have ties?

skyfaller: pick 5 could result in a tie, or multiple ties

Signoff: sj (Read error: 113 (No route to host))

skyfaller: preferential voting would probably prevent ties

skyfaller: (it's a lot harder, if not impossible)

mllerustad: gavin proposes approval voting

mllerustad: which is like plurality, only you can vote up as many candidates as you want

skyfaller: that creates weird strategy hijinks, though

mllerustad: though that creates strategic hijacks

mllerustad: *hijinks

skyfaller: e-star: did mako say anything about which voting method might be best?

skyfaller: mllerustad: jinx

skyfaller: hijinx!

mllerustad: :p

e-star: skyfaller: we both prefer preferential, but we didn't discuss the chapter method, we were only thinking of the individual context

skyfaller: well, that's not very helpful :(

e-star: aha, approval voting!

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

e-star: that could get hard b/c then a lot of people could approve everyone

mllerustad: Yeah...

skyfaller: I think I actively oppose approval voting

e-star: gavinbaker: hello

mllerustad: You have to consider between making sure that everyone you like gets a vote and not watering down your own votes with more votes

e-star: we need your advice

gavinbaker: sorry d00dz

e-star: okay, so we're debating whether preferential voting can really work in a chapter context

skyfaller: it seems like people would lose b/c one chapter has some personal beef with them, and the norm is that everyone likes everyone

mllerustad: So, not approval voting.

e-star: i am worried that ranking candidates among 10-15 people could get next to impossible

gavinbaker: re: approval voting, i think it offers more opportunities to vote strategically than plurality

gavinbaker: strategic voting = bad

e-star: yes, mako was also making that comment about plurality vs. preferential

gavinbaker: e-star: you could stop ranking whenever you want (well, depending on which preferential method)

e-star: gavinbaker: what i mean is

e-star: gavinbaker: it will be really hard to get 15 people to agree on a ranking

e-star: gavinbaker: whereas it will be easy to get 15 people to agree on 5 candidates in no particualr order

e-star: er

e-star: easier

e-star: not easy

gavinbaker: e-star: well, maybe the chapter should choose a different way of deciding their votes, then

e-star: gavinbaker: but with preferential, you have to rank all candidates

gavinbaker: e-star: depends on which method you choose

e-star: gavinbaker: so my conclusion is that i prefer preferential in an individual context, and plurality in a chapter context

e-star: gavinbaker: i'm talking schultze

gavinbaker: some preferential methods let you rank as many or as few as you want

Omnifrog ( has joined channel #freeculture

jibot: Omnifrog is the proud originator of Fair Use Day

gavinbaker: well to be clear, there are other preferential methods besides schultze

e-star: gavinbaker: afaik with schultze, you rank all

e-star: okay

gavinbaker: if each chapter wants to like, poll every member to decide the chapter's votes... then why can't the chapter just do preferential voting?

gavinbaker: and then you just pass on those preferences as the chapter's vote

e-star: right, i saw it more as a group decision

e-star: trying to achieve maximum consensus

e-star: also, calculating the rank of people based on the chapter's ranks would not be easy, but i guess we could use mako's software for that too

e-star: er, based on members ranks

gavinbaker: e-star: right, just use the same software

gavinbaker: we've already said in the bylaws that each chapter can decide their own procedures

e-star: it's also much easier to verify plurality voting

e-star: fwiw

gavinbaker: so i don't see why we should be thinking about whether one method or another makes it easier or harder for chapters to vote a certain way

gavinbaker: if the chapter doesn't like it, they can decide their vote some other way

gavinbaker: plurality vote is simpler to understand, yes

gavinbaker: we just need something that happens in event of a tie

gavinbaker: btw, i'm assuming we're treating the board as a 5-member "district", rather than 5 separate "districts"

gavinbaker: or x-member, where x is the number of open seats

gavinbaker: if we treat as multi-member district you reduce the likelihood of tying

gavinbaker: because there are more votes in the aggregate

mllerustad: Right.

skyfaller: gavinbaker: yes, we were treating it as a 5-member district

mllerustad gerrymanders fc.o

skyfaller: that should be made explicit

skyfaller: yeah, we don't want to start drawing district boundaries

skyfaller: the internet knows no boundaries!

gavinbaker: you guys were here for an hour and didn't decide anything? ;)

skyfaller: .... yeah

gavinbaker: btw, plurality in a multi-member context is actually called plurality-at-large voting:

gavinbaker: --are we any closer to a decision?

gavinbaker: we can do this y'all :D

skyfaller: I'm reading Wikipedia

skyfaller: paulproteus: so, can we easily create multiple instances of mako's voting software, so that if chapters want to use it internally, they can?

paulproteu: skyfaller, Probably, iirc its RoR stuff.

gavinbaker: if we're running it anyway, i don't see any reason not to let chapters run it themselves

gavinbaker: s/run it themselves/run their own polls

gavinbaker: let's discuss some of the reasonable ways that chapters might decide their vote.

gavinbaker: 1) the Org liaison decides the vote unilaterally (b/c s/he is expected to know most about what's going on at the Org)

gavinbaker: 2) the president/chapter head decides the vote unilaterally (b/c s/he is the head honcho)

gavinbaker: 3) the exec board/equiv decides the vote (either by voting or by consensus)

gavinbaker: 4) the club membership decides the vote (either by plebiscite or by consensus)

gavinbaker: people who want to be difficult could do something else, but those are the reasonable ones, imho

gavinbaker: the methods which are made more difficult by preferential voting are only (3) and (4), and only when consensus is used

gavinbaker: if you just poll everyone, it's no more difficult than polling everyone in plurality voting

gavinbaker: (ok, you don't want to try it on paper, but it's not much more difficult)

gavinbaker: i don't consider this to be a major problem. so unless there's some *other* concern raised against preferential voting, i see no reason not to consider it

gavinbaker: one concern previously raised against preferential voting is that it's less transparent, because it's harder to understand

gavinbaker: that's valid. i don't know of any others

skyfaller: (e-star was also saying it can be harder to verify using mako's software)

gavinbaker: conversely, one concern raised against plurality voting is that there are more opportunities for tactical voting ( = bad)

gavinbaker: another concern raised against plurality is that it doesn't allow people to express preferences

gavinbaker: plurality also is more likely to result in ties

gavinbaker: those are the major characteristics i can see

e-star: skyfaller: not hard to verify the votes, can just be a bit complicated to verify the result

gavinbaker: yeah the math gets confusing

gavinbaker: so to some extent, if you don't understand the math you just have to trust the code

e-star: but people ‰ÅÊ chapters

abhay (n=abhay@ has joined channel #freeculture

jibot: abhay is Abhay Kumar

gavinbaker: e-star: what?

skyfaller: people chapters!

e-star: oh it was a not equals sign

gavinbaker: e-star: right, but what's that mean?

skyfaller: another concern raised against plurality is that it doesn't allow *chapters* to express preferences?

skyfaller: is that all that e-star meant to say?

e-star: right, i was saying that it's much harder that way

e-star: that's all

gavinbaker: ok

gavinbaker: so what can we decide?

gavinbaker has set the topic on channel #freeculture to students for free culture | | Bug tracker: | In case of downtime: | Bylaws RC2 meeting, today at 6 pm EDT:

mllerustad: plurality leads to ties, and doesn't express as much info...

gavinbaker: my main concern with plurality is that there's no good way of dealing with ties

gavinbaker: you have to pick some arbitrary way of deciding between the tied candidates

mllerustad: preferential might be harder if you want to use a consensus system for determining a chapter vote, but you don't *have* to do that

skyfaller: OK, here's my vote: let's do preferential voting if we can offer the technology to our chapters to run their own preferential elections (if they want to do it that way)

skyfaller: otherwise let's do plurality

skyfaller: I guess that's a bit of an empirical question, unfortunately

gavinbaker: i think, if you have 15 candidates and you have to choose 5, it's going to be hard to pick via consensus anyway

skyfaller: and if it really turns on that question, then that's a problem for finishing the bylaws

mllerustad: skyfaller: and if we did do plurality, I'd ask that we specify which arbitrary way we choose the winner of a tie

gavinbaker: even without having to rank, having to choose 5 from 15 will be killer

skyfaller: gavinbaker: good point

skyfaller: hm...

gavinbaker: mllerustad: if we choose plurality, we *must* spell out how we choose the winner of a tie

mllerustad: Yeah.

skyfaller: basically, I've come to the conclusion that preferential voting is better, but the chapters need a way to run their own internal elections if they want to hold internal elections

skyfaller: plurality voting can easily be done with pencil and paper

skyfaller: that's not true of preferential voting, it would be a royal pain to do it that way

skyfaller: or am I wrong?

skyfaller: I expect that many chapters will replicate whatever system we choose within their own chapter

skyfaller: if we choose plurality voting, odds are many of our chapters will choose their candidates using plurality voting internally... or so I think

gavinbaker: skyfaller: you could take votes on paper, but you couldn't tabulate them

gavinbaker: not without a calculator, at least

skyfaller: I dunno

skyfaller: I vote for preferential voting

skyfaller: I prefer it

mllerustad: joke's been made, skyfaller... :p

skyfaller: primarily b/c of the problem of ties

mllerustad: I also vote for preferential voting, and that we provide preferential voting software to chapters that want it

skyfaller: it could also be useful for chapters choosing their own officers, and other internal purposes

mllerustad: blogs, wikis, election software...

skyfaller: ... but, hm, crap, we'd have to get it up pretty quick if we want to have our board elected before the school year

e-star: mako's software is GLP

e-star: GPL

e-star: that is

mllerustad: c/school year/moon turns to blood

skyfaller: paulproteus: that would make it the web team's next priority after the chapter reg system

e-star: i'm still a bit skeptical

e-star: that it could complicate quite a lot of things

e-star: and that it's more difficult to verify

skyfaller: I think the whole thing is already complicated, and that to reflect life (which is complicated) you need a complicated election system ;-)

skyfaller: anyway, both you and mako prefer preferential voting

e-star: skyfaller: okay, so let's make things more complicated :p

e-star: skyfaller: yes, in an individual context

skyfaller: so maybe you shouldn't make an exception in this case

skyfaller: mako's software does preferential voting by default, no?

mllerustad: e-star: if it's best for individuals, then it can be used on individuals... for intrachapter elections :)

e-star: skyfaller: yes

mllerustad: e-star: chapters don't have to use consensus to choose their votes, and most won't

gavinbaker: wow, i don't want to be around when the moon turns to blood.

e-star: right, but then we're pretty much encouraging that they also use the software

skyfaller: I think this is a good decision to make, and I also think it's about time we made a decision

skyfaller: if this goes horribly, amend the bylaws for spring semester

e-star: okay, well then i think asheesh should talk to mako

gavinbaker: e-star: i don't think we'd be encouraging it, but just making it available for those who want it

gavinbaker: chapters are still free and equally encouraged/discouraged to use the other methods aforementioned

skyfaller: and what's wrong with encouraging GPL software anyway? :P

e-star: skyfaller: no no, it's not that

skyfaller: RESOLVED: paulproteus should talk to mako about installing voting software

e-star: yup

e-star: sure

e-star: skyfaller: i was saying, if we wanted to leave it to people to do it the way that they wanted to

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

skyfaller: e-star: we are leaving it up to people, just some options for making internal decisions will be harder than others.

skyfaller: but that's always true

skyfaller: and the hardness will differ among chapters

skyfaller: anyway, can we decide this already?

skyfaller: we've been here for 2 hours

Signoff: tannewt ("Leaving")

gavinbaker: e-star: as i said, we're still leaving it up to people to do it the way they want

gavinbaker: if they want to try for consensus among the membership, they still can

e-star: ok, what's next??

gavinbaker: (and i think that choosing 5 of 15, without ranking, will be difficult by consensus, too)

gavinbaker: if they want to do it with paper and pen, and not use the software, they can

gavinbaker: well, we didn't actually decide anything

gavinbaker: we have to choose a method of preferential voting

gavinbaker: there are like, .. many

skyfaller: OK, so RESOLVED: preferential voting, not plurality voting, for the board of directors elections

e-star: well mako's software either does condorcet or schultze

e-star: apparently debian also uses schultze

mllerustad: RESOLVED: also, we're gonna make mako's software available for chapter use

gavinbaker: ok, so if we want to use mako's, we have to pick one of those two

gavinbaker: RESOLVED: to clarify, all the open board seats are treated as one multi-member district

skyfaller: e-star: could you link to mako's voting software again?


skyfaller: can I just officially not care?

skyfaller: let's just use mako's default

mllerustad: (skyfaller has been reading wikipedia voting method articles)

skyfaller: he must have a reason for choosing it

gavinbaker: By default, all decisions are made with the Schulze method (Condorcet with Cloneproof Schwartz Sequential Dropping)

gavinbaker: ...i'm probably ok with that

gavinbaker: not that i know what it means

skyfaller: incidentally, I think we should establish an advisory board posthaste

skyfaller: we need someone we can ask about weird @#$% like this

skyfaller: or multiple people, really

skyfaller: e-star: mako's software also does IRV, which is a kind of preferential voting, incidentally

mllerustad: IRV is probably the simplest form of preferential voting...

gavinbaker: also borda count, plurality, and approval

mllerustad: At least, it's the only one I really understand.

gavinbaker: mllerustad: at least, it's the easiest to understand wtf is going on

skyfaller: OK, i vote for the system that people understand

mllerustad: IRV++

skyfaller: let's do IRV

skyfaller: I read the Schulze article and I'm no smarter than I was before

gavinbaker: one thing about IRV vs. condorcet methods is that condorcet methods give you more middle-of-the-road candidates

gavinbaker: it is possible for a candidate to be the most preferred overall without being the first preference of any voter

peabo: (back to keyboard) o joy! theoretic voting systems being comapred!

gavinbaker: peabo, it's a sad day

peabo: skyfaller: don't feel bad, it confuses me too and I have studied a lot of math

gavinbaker: peabo: that makes me feel better

gavinbaker: i don't think i mind IRV

gavinbaker: the most important thing i wanted to avoid were ties/run-offs

gavinbaker: IRV meets that criterion

peabo: yes, it is easy to explain ... I think that's important

gavinbaker: plus it takes less explaining than other preferential methods

skyfaller: OK, let's do IRV

mind|distracted is now known as mindspillage

peabo: I wonder if anyone has done an analysis of attacks that would actually be practical in circumstances we're likely to run into, to see if these systems that have especially good theoretic attributes are really worth worrying about

peabo: does Mako have anything to say about it?

gavinbaker: mindspillage: bad time to come back to this channel, i'm afraid.

skyfaller: we're not a mathematics society, I want a voting method peolpe understand, I honestly don't care if one of these other more complicated systems is better for some theoretical reason

gavinbaker: yeah, i think i'm with skyfaller there

gavinbaker: also, i'm hungry. so until i've eaten, my vote is for IRV

skyfaller: I vote harder for IRV

mindspilla: gavinbaker: haha... it's really scary how often I come back to this channel and have to check that I'm not in #wikimedia.

mindspilla: (you can ask Mako also about what Wikimedia decided to do; we stuck with approval this year because there wasn't enough time to change things around, but approval kind of sucks.)

mllerustad: RESOLVED: IRV.

skyfaller: anybody opposed to IRV?

skyfaller: speak now or forever hold your peace

skyfaller: (you can actually tally IRV on paper without being a wunderkind)

e-star: wait, hold on

skyfaller: ... have you not been paying attention for the last 10 minutes, e-star? :P

e-star: no i'm dealing with other things as well

e-star: i need to review this

skyfaller: alright, review faster :P

gavinbaker: IRV +1

skyfaller: I want to take Karen to a movie tonight before she flies home tomorrow

skyfaller: IRV +1

mllerustad: IRV +1, obviously

skyfaller: ... you're not reviewing faster, are you?

e-star: I'M LOOKING

skyfaller: one problem with IRC is that it makes it easy to not pay attention. Would you be holding up this meeting if we were talking on the phone?

e-star: i don't think i like IRV that much

e-star: actually

skyfaller: why not?

e-star: i don't think it encapsulates peoples preferences as well

gavinbaker: e-star: you still rank people

e-star: gavinbaker: but you eliminate

e-star: i don't like IRV

gavinbaker: e-star: a little while ago you didn't want to do preferential voting at all

gavinbaker: why does it matter if it's highly-preferential or less-preferential?

e-star: gavinbaker: no, i did, i just thought it would be complicated for chapters

skyfaller: well, this is a less complicated system

skyfaller: if our goal is to reduce complication, IRV is the clear winner

e-star: i prefer schultze

gavinbaker: well, i don't care much about whether it's preferential, it just needs to avoid ties and run-offs and not be complicated

e-star: cambridge uses IRV and it's a mess

skyfaller: I dare you to explain schulze

skyfaller: right now

e-star: schultze involves matricies

e-star: but it doesn't eliminate candidates like IRV does

gavinbaker: e-star: erm, and schultze won't be more of a mess, because nobody without a Ph.D in math will be able to understand it?

e-star: cambridge uses IRV and it's a mess

e-star: i don't like it

peabo: gavin: there's another factor in that we're strarting with approximate representations o begin with (at least in terms of that the actual people think) because of the chapter voting ... it seems to me there is a fair about of noise in the system because of this

skyfaller: can you go into more detail?

skyfaller: why is it a mess? why don't you like it?

e-star: peabo: do you know about IRV?

e-star: skyfaller: afaict, it encourages strategic voting

e-star: skyfaller: i'd feel better if we consulted mako on this

peabo: only what I have read recently, and I did used to vote in Cambridge and I know there were unhappy people because o the procedure

peabo: of course some candidates get eliminated, but does IRV eliminate candidates in a way that seems especially unfair?

skyfaller: e-star: you did already!

skyfaller: how many times are we going to consult mako?

gavinbaker: IRV encourages less strategic voting than plurality, if more than other preferential systems

e-star: skyfaller: i didn't even talk about IRV

e-star: i'm going to call him

skyfaller: OK, call him and report back I guess

skyfaller: we'll wait

e-star: yes let's move on

e-star: while i'm talking to him

peabo: meanwhile we can talk about SCO v. Novell :-) :-)

skyfaller: well, we don't want to move on, b/c you won't be paying attention, and we'll have to stop again

skyfaller: so we'll just wait while you're talking to him

e-star: mako says IRV is not very good

e-star: he's going to come on irc

mako ( has joined channel #freeculture

mako: greetings

skyfaller: howdy mako

mllerustad: Yo.

peabo: hi

e-star: mako is coming to the channel

e-star: aha

e-star: so mako, tell is why IRV is not very good

e-star: people here seem to prefer it to schultze b/c it's simpler

skyfaller: mako: we were in favor of IRV b/c we understand it, and we don't understand Schulze

e-star: er, tell *us*


mako: i don't think you understand irv as well as you think you do

mako: in irv, voting a candidate higher can cause your candidate to lose in several cases

mako: your preferred candidate

skyfaller: O RLY? hm, maybe you are right that I don't understand it

mako: yes, the example is described there

e-star: yes

mako: feel free to ignore the fact that hte page is comparing it to a condorcet method

e-star: those are the kind of things i've heard

e-star: about it

e-star: in cambridge

mako: condorcet is also pretty simple

mako: so imagine that you rank all of your choices

mako: and you make a matrix with the results

mako: where you "run" each candidate against every other candidate

mako: every time candidate a is preferred to b (i.e., ranked higher) you note that

mako: and vice versa

mako: and if a candidate a is preferred to b more times than vice versa, you say that candidate a is preferred to candidate b

mako: and if one candidate is preferred to all of the others, that person is the winner

mako: that's how condorcet, schulze, ranked pairs, and others work

mako: the only real difference is in how you deal with "circular defeats"

mako: a defeats b defeats c defeats a

gavinbaker: yeah there is more tactical voting in IRV than in other preferential methods

gavinbaker: for the record i'm OK with other preferential methods besides IRV

gavinbaker: as long as we pick one

mllerustad: would this be as much a problem with multiple candidates being chosen?

skyfaller reads

gavinbaker: i was going to pick the default in Selectricity Anywhere, just because it's the default, before i noticed it did IRV too

mllerustad: maybe one out of five might flip weirdly, in certain circumstances, but it seems that having multiple winners would stabilize this sort of thing

skyfaller: whoa, I just got a bunch of IRC messages all at once

gavinbaker: yeah i'm having lag issues sorry

mako: gavinbaker: i am less worried about tactical voting than the fact that voting your true preference can cause your most preferred candidate to lose

gavinbaker_ ( has joined channel #freeculture

gavinbaker: i'll try another instance and see if this is better

skyfaller: it is better :)

mako: mllerustad: it's the same problem

gavinbaker: clearly IRV is less-preferable from that standpoint, mako

e-star: mako: yes, that's what worries me as well

peabo: when you used these methods to iterate to pick the 5 board memebers, is the quality of the decision for the last candidate picked any better for one vs the other (or is that is unrelaitsic question to ask?)

gavinbaker: it's also a bit easier to explain, but i'm fine with another method, even if i don't yet understand it

skyfaller: mako: OK, given that IRV is bad, how do we decide between the other preferential voting methods?

e-star: mako: what's the difference btw schultze and condorcet? just the circular defeat thing?

mako: gavinbaker: it's easy to explain lots of methods that won't do waht you want

Signoff: K`Tetch ("Pirate Party of the US -")

mako: we could pick candidates randomly,that's very easy to explain but it doesn't do what people think would be useful in an election methods. neither does a method that causes candidates to lose by ranking them higher in certain situations

mako: in fact, that's worse than random in that particular case since it does the opposite of what people expect

e-star: right

e-star: so btw condorcet and schultze?

mako: skyfaller: well, you can trust evalauations of election methods based on a set of understandable election method criteria

skyfaller: (sadly, after we decide this issue I think we should quit... I guess we'll have to have yet another bylaws meeting, at which I'll stab myself in the face repeatedly)

mako: e-star: schulze *is* condorcet

skyfaller: it's a kind of condorcet

e-star: mako: there's no difference?!

e-star: oh right

e-star: mako: what kind of condorcet do you have that's not schultze?

skyfaller: do you have anything that's not spam?

mako: i have pure condorcet

mako: so condorcet has that problem that i mentioned before

e-star: mako: right, so how does that differ?

mako: which is that it's possible to get into circular defeats

e-star: i see

mako: a defeats b defeats c defeats a

e-star: i see

mako: and schulze is sort of hte State of the Art in resolving that situation

mako: in pure condorcet, it's just "there are three winners, lets go home"

mako: in schulze, you compare how close the defeats were

mako: to find the closest class.. i.e., the one that was closest to no real preference

mako: and you "drop" that one

mako: and then recompute

peabo: actually that works for us, there is no reason why we couldn't decide three seats at once, unless the three seats are involved in other cycles

e-star: mako: so we're wondering about verifying the results

mako: peabo: unless you have three people tied for the 5th seat

e-star: mako: and also about using your software on our site

mako: users will be able to verify that their own vote was recorded correctly

mako: and the tally list will be posted in an anonymized fashion

e-star: mako: right, we meant the results

mako: so anyone else can check it

e-star: mako: i already explained the vote verification process

e-star: i meant, computing the votes

mako: you can either run it through my implementation

mako: or through debian's

e-star: right

e-star: ok

peabo: mako: does your software display the intermediate calculations so someone can easily look at them and understand?

skyfaller: mako: what do we do if you and Debian disagree? :/

mako: there's another implementaiton here:

mako: skyfaller: find the bug?

mako: skyfaller: i've got lots of test cases in my system

gavinbaker: p.s. i'm happy to RESOLVE this in favor of schultze method, if others are agreed

mako: and i've had the code audited

mako: what if you have problems with any system?

e-star: mako: cool

e-star: well, plurality could be verified by hand ;)

e-star: gavinbaker_: i'm down w/ that

e-star: mako: should it be an issue to install your sw?

skyfaller: OK, I'm willing to go with the Schulze method, mako's explanations satisfy me that Schulze is better, even if I don't understand the math

e-star: on our site?

mako: e-star: 99% of the time, there will be a condorcet winner

mako: e-star: schulze method only differs from condorcet when there is no condorcet winner

e-star: mako: huh? i'm talking about the software

mako: i understand that

skyfaller: I do think that we should run the results through both mako and Debian's system though, just to be paranoid

e-star: mako: oic, getting back to my other q

mako: but you can just run it through any condorcet implementation

mako: or the one in the wikipedia article

e-star: cool

gavinbaker: did anybody answer peabo's question about the intermediate calculations?

mako: i'm not sure what language that is in

gavinbaker: that seems like a good feature to have

skyfaller: mako: does your software show the intermediate steps of the calculations?

skyfaller: I'm lagging, wtf

mako: skyfaller: not really

skyfaller: mako: I'd like to make that feature request, but that's OK

mako: it shows visualizations of the votes

skyfaller: ah, interesting

skyfaller: OK, I move that we choose the Schulze method and adjourn this meeting

mako: which unless it's very close usually imply the winner

mako: pretty clealry

skyfaller: we've been here for 2 hours 45 minutes

skyfaller: anybody opposed to the Schulze method?

peabo: mako: sounds good

skyfaller: RESOLVED: IRV actually sucks

gavinbaker: it'd be nice to show all the intermediate steps but it's not a blocker to adopting the software

e-star: hahaha

skyfaller: anybody opposed to Schulze?

skyfaller: going once

skyfaller: going twice

mllerustad: +1 Schulze

skyfaller: +1 Schulze

gavinbaker: the Schultze method used by default in mako's software, to be specific

gavinbaker: +1

skyfaller: e-star?

skyfaller: RESOLVED: Schulze method for the board elections

skyfaller: alright, let's end the meeting

peabo: gavin: I will send a log by e-mail (I started it around quarter of 6 when I ran out the door)

e-star: yes

e-star: PLUS ONE

skyfaller: alright, meeting is over

skyfaller: when is the next one?

gavinbaker: damn it, i hoped this would be the last

skyfaller: can we do Thursday?

gavinbaker: peabo, thanks, i wasn't here originally and thus lack log

gavinbakerH 0 [458fb33a] CGI:IRC User

mako H 0 Benjamin Mako Hill

abhay H 0 n=abhay@pdpc/supporter/student/Aranis Abhay Kumar

Omnifrog H 0 Omnifrog

gavinbakerH 0 Gavin Baker

ryanfaermaH 0 Ryan Faerman

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

driscoll H 0 driscoll

mllerustadH 0 Karen Rustad

peabo H 0 Peter Olson

jli G 0 i=jli@gateway/tor/x-174b60a20d58eba5 Jli

e-star H 0 elizabeth

rohitj H 0 n=rohitj@ Rohit Jain

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

johnsu01 G 0 n=user@fsf/staff/johnsu01 John Sullivan (

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

mindspillaH 0 n=kat@wikimedia/KatWalsh/x-0001 kat

ftobia H 0 Frank Tobia

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

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

_sj_ H 0 n=sj@wikipedia/sj 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.

gavinbaker: i wanted to go to the Neko Case concert on Thurs but it's sold out :-/ so i could come :(

skyfaller: aww

e-star: can we bring up what's left to discuss?

e-star: maybe we can quickly go through it?

gavinbaker: e-star: lines 3 4 and 5 of this section

gavinbaker: "Elections must be called when the number of board members threatens to drop below the minimum required, so as to fill any empty seats. Otherwise, elections will be called once a year in the spring for all seats on the board."

gavinbaker: that sounds really fishy

gavinbaker: what is "the minimum required"?

skyfaller: I think that's old

gavinbaker: can we just say, if somebody resigns you hold an election to fill the vacancy?

skyfaller: that language was from when we had the expanding/shrinking board

peabo: I woudl say ' the minimum specified' in order to make it clear that the board continues to function

gavinbaker: skyfaller: no, that language still exists

e-star: gavinbaker_: i support that

skyfaller: gavinbaker: yes, that language is still there, I meant that it shouldn't be there

skyfaller: b/c it dates from when we still had the expanding/shrinking board

skyfaller: it no longer makes sense

gavinbaker: e-star: you support what?

gavinbaker_ doesn't know what he supports

e-star: gavinbaker_: the language about if someone resigns, elections will be called to fill the seat

e-star: if someone resigns or leaves

e-star: etc

gavinbaker: e-star: oh, ok

gavinbaker: on what schedule?

skyfaller: yeah, that makes sense

paulproteu: I talked to Mako, and yes, the sysadmin must be trusted, but that's unavoidable.

paulproteus is just now catching up

paulproteu: I'm also willing to install the stuff.

gavinbaker_ only trusts the sysadmin if he posts me chocolate

paulproteu: Oh, Condorcet with cloneproof dropping is good.

paulproteu: peabo, BTW, there was a Wired article analyzing these various systems a few years back, like October 2004 or so.

peabo: thanks, I'll take a look

paulproteu: Big bowl of scrollback. Every single morning - it was driving me crazy!

gavinbaker: if you're going to hold elections after every resignation, you need a timeline for doing that

gavinbaker: e.g. nominations open 7 days after the resignation

paulproteu: Okay, I'm not reading all of that unless someone tells me to.

gavinbaker: nominations are open for 14 days

gavinbaker: paulproteus: you don't have to.

skyfaller: paulproteus: you don't have to, just think about installing mako's software

gavinbaker: then voting is open for 14 days

gavinbaker: that's just an example, with random numbers

mako: paulproteus: you don't have to trust me to note that votes were counted or tallied correctly

mako: you only need to trust me to note leak results or break anonymity

paulproteus nods

paulproteu: Agreed, and that's good.

mako: but in any case, you're probably better off having me run the election than someone involved in the organization

mako: or maybe not, depending on how much you think i care :)

skyfaller: mako: aren't you involved with the boston chapters?

mako: skyfaller: there's a boston chapter?

paulproteu: mako, Well, you've done FCOy MIT stuff iirc.

skyfaller: mako: harvard + MIT

skyfaller: etc.

skyfaller: I think paulproteus might be less involved than you are ;-)

peabo: yeah, where's BU?

skyfaller: but it's hard to say

skyfaller: peabo: no BU chapter, sorry

mako: yeah, i did some stuff at mit, but we're not organized

peabo: maybe they still remember John Silber

paulproteu: Hey, while you chat, I'm working on our OpenID server.

mako: i don't think there's an actual mit chapter

gavinbaker: paulproteus: is chapter reg done?

skyfaller: yeah, it does seem to be somewhat theoretical

gavinbaker: because thatt's higher Priority than OpenID.

skyfaller: paulproteus: OpenID isn't as important as chapter reg, we need chapter reg yesterday

gavinbaker: ok, lag seems to have gone away

Signoff: gavinbaker_ ("---|| Who kiced Me ||---")

paulproteu: Yes, but OpenID is More Fun. I'll finish OpenID, eat dinner, and then look at actually important things.

gavinbaker: paulproteus: k, as long as chapter reg happens soon, or else that's Bad

skyfaller: paulproteus: once again, do you need help with the chapter reg?

K`Tetch ( has joined channel #freeculture

skyfaller: I can call people and annoy them

skyfaller: it's my superpower

paulproteu: Hah.

paulproteu: skyfaller, I'll just patch up the existing system to meet some h4x0rability problems and call that that.

gavinbaker: so, if we're not going to talk about the bylaws we should probably end the meeting

gavinbaker: or at least schedule the next one

skyfaller: let's schedule the next one

skyfaller: and leave

skyfaller: I think that everyone's attention span is shorter than 3 hours

skyfaller: so, Thursday?

skyfaller: Thursday at 8pm EDT?

skyfaller: e-star? gavinbaker ?

gavinbaker: yeah, i seem to be bad at leaving the office before 6

gavinbaker: 8 pm would be ok by me

skyfaller: mllerustad says that she doesn't know if she can come, she doesn't know her schedule from now on

gavinbaker: man, do you think we'll finish the first run-through at that meeting?

gavinbaker: that would be spectacular

skyfaller: but 8pm is as good for her as any other time

skyfaller: that would rock

peabo: my computer will attend, and I will send a log of Thursday sooner or later :-)

skyfaller: e-star: ?

skyfaller: OK, it's resolved then, meeting on Thursday at 8pm

skyfaller: EDT

skyfaller: we'll get the log up later

skyfaller: with peabo's help

skyfaller: have a good night everyone

Log file closed at: 8/14/07 9:12:17 PM

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