(Redirected from 2007-09-05/log)
Jump to: navigation, search

Sep 05 21:03:36 <gavinbaker> so we're going over

Sep 05 21:03:50 <gavinbaker> iirc we left off at #17:

Sep 05 21:04:16 <skyfaller> we finished his comments

Sep 05 21:04:45 <skyfaller> we're at

Sep 05 21:05:05 <gavinbaker> the agenda is here:

Sep 05 21:05:14 <gavinbaker> oh, i forgot i cut out early last time

Sep 05 21:05:47 <gavinbaker> so the question is, should there be certain standards for chapter membership?

Sep 05 21:06:23 <skyfaller> well, we already have the standards that are written into the bylaws

Sep 05 21:06:43 <skyfaller> and I think this is the backwards attitude that made me really angry at the Harvard conference

Sep 05 21:06:47 <gavinbaker> the concern specifically is about having inactive chapters, people who registered and never did anything

Sep 05 21:07:14 <skyfaller> I think that if people aren't doing anything, it's at least partly our fault for not helping them figure out what to do, or how to do it

Sep 05 21:07:20 <gavinbaker> skyfaller: what are the standards in place to limit inactive chapters?

Sep 05 21:07:47 <skyfaller> right now the main way we get rid of inactive chapters is if they don't re-register at the beginning of the next school year

Sep 05 21:08:39 * mllerustad ( has joined #freeculture

Sep 05 21:08:47 <gavinbaker> hey mllerustad

Sep 05 21:08:52 <pyrak> what if they had to re-registed by semester?

Sep 05 21:08:59 * pyrak goes back to lurking

Sep 05 21:09:02 <gavinbaker> pyrak: we've been doing re-registration per year

Sep 05 21:09:20 <gavinbaker> we could do it per semester

Sep 05 21:09:26 <skyfaller> pyrak: would you want to reregister again each semester, just to prove that you still exist? it seems like unnecessary bureaucracy

Sep 05 21:09:31 <gavinbaker> either way, that's not written into the bylaws... is it?

Sep 05 21:09:33 <skyfaller> but it probably wouldn't be extremely harmful

Sep 05 21:09:55 <pyrak> my thinking was that perhaps you re-register at the beginning of the year because the officers are leaving and you dont want the group to die

Sep 05 21:09:58 <gavinbaker> oic:

Sep 05 21:10:03 <pyrak> but then halfway through the year you realize u dont really have time

Sep 05 21:10:06 <gavinbaker> "each chapter must re-register once a year"

Sep 05 21:10:13 <gavinbaker> IV.4

Sep 05 21:10:44 <pyrak> like the way that school clubs work at chadwick

Sep 05 21:10:52 <pyrak> you can only register them during the first few weeks of school

Sep 05 21:11:04 <pyrak> so people make stupid clubs that dont do anything the whole year

Sep 05 21:11:12 <pyrak> cus they dont want to lost their opportunity

Sep 05 21:11:21 <gavinbaker> so i guess the question of re-registration is a.) currently addressed in the bylaws, b.) therefore up for discussion

Sep 05 21:11:24 <skyfaller> I mean, chapters can just tell us that they're quitting, or the board can remove them if we really hate having idle chapters listed for a semester

Sep 05 21:11:43 <skyfaller> and chapters can register anytime at FC.o

Sep 05 21:11:44 <gavinbaker> leaving the question of registration aside for a sec

Sep 05 21:11:48 <pyrak> i realize its not impossible to start a chapter partway through the year, but people may re-register just because they were afraid of dying

Sep 05 21:11:55 <gavinbaker> what are the standards in place to limit inactive chapters?

Sep 05 21:12:06 <pyrak> i guess my point is sometimes you dont know if your group will actually work out until a little way through the year

Sep 05 21:12:21 <pyrak> perhaps that would be better remedied with an email or meeting asking for updates

Sep 05 21:12:22 <skyfaller> sure, and then you can just tell us and we'll remove that chapter

Sep 05 21:12:31 <skyfaller> I don't think we need to require extra re-registrations

Sep 05 21:12:43 <gavinbaker> leaving the question of registration aside for a sec

Sep 05 21:12:51 * pyrak lurks

Sep 05 21:12:53 <gavinbaker> what are the standards in place to limit inactive chapters?

Sep 05 21:13:10 <skyfaller> I don't actually know what that question means

Sep 05 21:13:14 <gavinbaker> <skyfaller> well, we already have the standards that are written into the bylaws

Sep 05 21:13:26 <gavinbaker> (pwned)

Sep 05 21:13:53 <skyfaller> ... right, re-registering once a year is mandatory, as is voting in elections

Sep 05 21:14:00 <skyfaller> according to

Sep 05 21:14:08 <skyfaller> there are no other requirements

Sep 05 21:14:16 <gavinbaker> whoa, we *mandate* voting?

Sep 05 21:14:20 <gavinbaker> that's weird

Sep 05 21:14:24 <gavinbaker> what is this, australia?

Sep 05 21:14:26 <skyfaller> well, they can abstain

Sep 05 21:14:32 <skyfaller> but they have to say "I'm abstaining"

Sep 05 21:14:35 <skyfaller> they can't just not respond

Sep 05 21:14:37 <gavinbaker> doesn't say they can abstain

Sep 05 21:15:00 <skyfaller> oh, hey, an outdated reference...

Sep 05 21:15:12 <skyfaller> Article IV must be referring to the voting section, which is now Article V

Sep 05 21:15:14 * skyfaller fixes

Sep 05 21:15:19 <gavinbaker> i think we should back up and look at this from a wider angle

Sep 05 21:15:39 <gavinbaker> question 1: do we have a bunch of inactive / questionably-active chapters?

Sep 05 21:15:57 <gavinbaker> i think the answer is clearly yes on that count... and always has been, as long as i've been around FC.o

Sep 05 21:16:28 <skyfaller> yes, although many inactive chapters have become active, and active chapters have gone inactive

Sep 05 21:16:48 <skyfaller> I wouldn't want to discriminate too much against inactive chapters b/c they are the seed for future chapters

Sep 05 21:17:22 <gavinbaker> well... if a chapter never holds meetings or events... exactly how are they a seed for anything?

Sep 05 21:17:59 <gavinbaker> if a chapter only exists as a name on our web site?

Sep 05 21:18:04 <skyfaller> well, for instance the only thing many chapters did last year was the Open Access Day of Action

Sep 05 21:18:21 <skyfaller> where we pinged them all and gave them the blueprints for an event and all the materials they needed

Sep 05 21:18:41 <skyfaller> if we had been more organized, and had more "pre-prepared" events and activities that chapters could do

Sep 05 21:18:48 <skyfaller> then maybe those inactive chapters would have been active chapters

Sep 05 21:19:05 <gavinbaker> ok, so it seems like paper chapters may have some potential, then

Sep 05 21:19:14 <skyfaller> it seems that many people are interested in the issues, and have time to run events, but not time to plan and brainstorm events

Sep 05 21:20:05 <skyfaller> that's better than mere "interest", but worse than an "established" chapter that can brainstorm, plan and execute events without any outside help

Sep 05 21:20:18 <skyfaller> mere interest can be handled with the proposed "interest lists"

Sep 05 21:20:36 <skyfaller> once there are enough people who are interested at a school, we can connect them and they can start a chapter

Sep 05 21:21:15 <skyfaller> but a paper chapter that can offer more than mere interest but which doesn't have enough manpower/manhours still can be recruited for important tasks / activities if they are told what to do

Sep 05 21:21:27 <skyfaller> many people who are interested in free culture are not natural leaders

Sep 05 21:21:36 <gavinbaker> interest lists aren't in the bylaws, but that doesn't preclude their existence

Sep 05 21:21:46 <gavinbaker> if there are chapters that really only are an interested person who will *never* do anything, then the interest lists may help with that somewhat

Sep 05 21:22:00 <skyfaller> yeah, "interest lists" don't have any rights or duties, so they don't need to be in the bylwas

Sep 05 21:22:02 <skyfaller> *bylaws

Sep 05 21:22:12 <gavinbaker> so it sounds like there are 3 categories of chapters

Sep 05 21:22:15 <gavinbaker> 1. chapters that do stuff

Sep 05 21:22:20 <gavinbaker> 2. chapters that might do stuff

Sep 05 21:22:26 <gavinbaker> 3. chapters that won't do stuff

Sep 05 21:22:46 <gavinbaker> the hope is that (3) will use interest lists if they exist, rather than registering as a chapter

Sep 05 21:22:59 <gavinbaker> which would capture the benefit just as well, and maybe better, than being registered as a chapter

Sep 05 21:23:07 <skyfaller> and (3) should become interest lists, I think, we won't call those chapters anymore... we just need to write the software to intelligently handle interest lists

Sep 05 21:23:17 <skyfaller> right

Sep 05 21:23:25 <gavinbaker> skyfaller: well, (3) could still register as a chapter, in the current system

Sep 05 21:23:28 <skyfaller> right

Sep 05 21:23:51 <skyfaller> but what that means is that in the past I've pressured people to register chapters who didn't really feel ready to start a chapter

Sep 05 21:24:03 <skyfaller> b/c we didn't have a lower level of participation for them

Sep 05 21:24:34 <skyfaller> e.g. Rebecca from Brown was really interested in the issues, but didn't feel like she knew enough about them to talk about them intelligently or recruit people

Sep 05 21:24:40 <gavinbaker> there is the Coordinator/board review

Sep 05 21:25:00 <gavinbaker> which could, in theory, direct interested but non-functional people to the interest list instead

Sep 05 21:25:08 <skyfaller> right

Sep 05 21:25:20 <skyfaller> well, you have to contact the board or someone in the org before you can get to the reg form

Sep 05 21:25:25 <skyfaller> the reg form is not on the open web

Sep 05 21:25:37 <skyfaller> so people who haven't talked to us can't register

Sep 05 21:25:44 <gavinbaker> skyfaller: well, currently. that doesn't necessarily mean it won't be

Sep 05 21:26:03 <skyfaller> ... heh, well, I won't be handling registrations if it's on the open web

Sep 05 21:26:14 <skyfaller> the spam sucks

Sep 05 21:26:15 <gavinbaker> anyway. i'm sympathetic to the commenter's concerns, but i'm not sure what we would do with the bylaws to address it

Sep 05 21:26:31 <gavinbaker> we have the requirement to re-register annually, to vote, and the coordinator/board review in the bylaws

Sep 05 21:26:51 <gavinbaker> (the mandatory voting, i think, should either be selectively enforced or should explicitly allow abstinence, but that's OT)

Sep 05 21:27:14 <gavinbaker> and, aside from the bylaws, we have the planned interest lists, which may siphon off people who really won't do anything at all

Sep 05 21:27:17 <skyfaller> I intended for it to allow abstinence... I meant for people to have to at least indicate that they're paying attention

Sep 05 21:27:24 <skyfaller> so that's my "legislative intent"

Sep 05 21:27:39 <skyfaller> perhaps we should write that in explicitly if it's not in there

Sep 05 21:27:48 <gavinbaker> skyfaller: we should make it clearer

Sep 05 21:28:04 <gavinbaker> there anyone else here?

Sep 05 21:28:30 <gavinbaker> ...maybe later, then

Sep 05 21:28:46 <mllerustad> :p

Sep 05 21:29:04 <gavinbaker> anyway. can we agree to add the ability to abstain from voting for board members explicitly in the bylaws?

Sep 05 21:29:34 <skyfaller> sure

Sep 05 21:30:34 <gavinbaker> k. RESOLVED

Sep 05 21:30:42 <skyfaller> ... I'm trying to think of unpredictable effects that would have

Sep 05 21:31:03 <gavinbaker> well, i think mandatory voting is weird altogether, but if it's going to exist, we have to let people abstain

Sep 05 21:31:38 <skyfaller> yeah, I think abstaining is fine

Sep 05 21:31:55 <skyfaller> I think the point was to make it clear that voting isn't a joke, it's important that chapters pay attention

Sep 05 21:32:42 <gavinbaker> voting, lol

Sep 05 21:32:44 <gavinbaker> funny joke

Sep 05 21:32:52 <gavinbaker> so back to the matter @ hand

Sep 05 21:33:13 <gavinbaker> the commenter suggests some standards we could implement before chapters could be admitted

Sep 05 21:33:13 <skyfaller> so should we add any more punitive measures against inactive chapters? I think no.

Sep 05 21:33:27 <gavinbaker> "required to hold regular meetings (where regular is at least once a month) and either have more than 10 members or have held two successful, documented events before becoming a full member"

Sep 05 21:34:08 <gavinbaker> so what, you're supposed to operate as a Free Culture chapter before joining FC.o, so we can't tell anybody that the chapter exists?

Sep 05 21:34:12 <gavinbaker> that sounds like a recipe for success

Sep 05 21:34:36 <gavinbaker> i don't think *prior* activity should be a requirement to join

Sep 05 21:34:53 <gavinbaker> if we're going to raise standards, they should require activity *after* joining

Sep 05 21:35:05 <skyfaller> I mean, to be fair to the commenter, they could just be an "interest list" first, but that would be retarded

Sep 05 21:35:34 <skyfaller> especially if we continue with the current practice of not giving any aid to chapters until they are official, registered chapters

Sep 05 21:36:08 <skyfaller> there seem to me to be good reasons to withhold aid until they've been vetted by a human and we have their contact info

Sep 05 21:36:30 <skyfaller> but if our aid in the form of care packages, web services, etc. are supposed to help them become a functional chapter

Sep 05 21:36:45 <skyfaller> then withholding it until they're *already* successful would be dumb

Sep 05 21:36:59 <skyfaller> so we could have... another level of chapterness?

Sep 05 21:37:13 <skyfaller> "unofficial" chapters that receive aid but aren't really chapters?

Sep 05 21:37:24 <gavinbaker> i think this is a bad system

Sep 05 21:37:25 <skyfaller> but is there really a point to that?

Sep 05 21:37:41 <gavinbaker> if we're going to raise standards, it should be standards for continued membership, not standards to join

Sep 05 21:37:53 <skyfaller> I definitely agree with that

Sep 05 21:37:55 <gavinbaker> other than maybe a standard that you must be legit with your school

Sep 05 21:38:00 <gavinbaker> but even that seems backwards

Sep 05 21:38:14 <gavinbaker> because why shouldn't chapters be able to recruit online, even if they're not registered with the school yet?

Sep 05 21:38:28 <skyfaller> yeah, some school bureaucracies are impossible to navigate

Sep 05 21:38:46 <skyfaller> sometimes you can't become officially registered with the school until you are already pretty successful and have been around for a year or two

Sep 05 21:38:59 <skyfaller> given that our org is only 3 years old, that would be kind of stupid

Sep 05 21:39:01 <gavinbaker> you just have to trust the coordinator/board to vet applications for membership, i think is the best system for joining

Sep 05 21:39:23 <gavinbaker> so that begs the question, should there be more standards to *remain* a member?

Sep 05 21:39:24 <peabo> (back to keyboard, logging, did you guys have a log last time when I completely forgot to be here?)

Sep 05 21:39:33 <gavinbaker> peabo: yep, np

Sep 05 21:40:01 <gavinbaker> we already had a suggestion about moving re-registration from once per year to twice per year (semesterly)

Sep 05 21:40:23 <pyrak> <skyfaller> ... I'm trying to think of unpredictable effects that would have

Sep 05 21:40:39 * pyrak lurks again

Sep 05 21:41:10 <gavinbaker> heh. predict the unpredictable!

Sep 05 21:42:05 <skyfaller> I think that punishing chapters that go inactive is the wrong attitude

Sep 05 21:42:15 <skyfaller> like, what was necessary to make our inactive chapters active? give them something to do!

Sep 05 21:42:19 <peabo> yeah, you should try to treat the symptom

Sep 05 21:42:27 <skyfaller> that's what I learned from the Open Access day of action

Sep 05 21:42:33 <skyfaller> give people something to do, they'll do it

Sep 05 21:42:50 <skyfaller> if we had planned that more in advance, instead of like 3 weeks ahead of time, it would have been even more effective

Sep 05 21:42:58 <peabo> there could be abook of Things that are Good Ideas and Things that Don't Work foir beginning a chapter

Sep 05 21:43:18 <skyfaller> and if we had followed it up with more stuff, instead of quitting after that, all of our chapters could have been awesome

Sep 05 21:44:03 <gavinbaker> well... there comes a point at which you can no longer blame FC.o for chapter failures

Sep 05 21:44:56 <skyfaller> sure

Sep 05 21:45:11 <skyfaller> I'm just pointing out that many chapters go inactive b/c they run out of things to do

Sep 05 21:45:16 <skyfaller> not because they are bad or lazy people

Sep 05 21:45:23 <skyfaller> they may be unimaginative or poor leaders

Sep 05 21:45:27 <gavinbaker> right, i don't think the goal was to punish people

Sep 05 21:45:33 <gavinbaker> but to minimize the list of soggy chapters

Sep 05 21:45:37 <skyfaller> but that doesn't mean we should kick their chapter

Sep 05 21:45:50 * e-star ( has joined #freeculture

Sep 05 21:45:54 <gavinbaker> hey e-star

Sep 05 21:46:07 <e-star> gavinbaker: hi

Sep 05 21:46:12 <gavinbaker> so what's the verdict, add any further standards for chapter membership?

Sep 05 21:46:25 <skyfaller> I don't think so, for the reasons above

Sep 05 21:46:29 <gavinbaker> e-star: we're @

Sep 05 21:46:42 <gavinbaker> skyfaller: yeah, i'm leaning toward no as well

Sep 05 21:46:43 <peabo> that's a reason to have a book (which obviously doesn't exist yet, but gets built over time) so that each new chapter doesn't just start at zero and have to invent the good things to do and discover what doesnt work

Sep 05 21:46:51 <gavinbaker> it's not a problem that should really be solved in the bylaws...

Sep 05 21:48:29 <skyfaller> peabo: yeah, that's something that has been proposed and attempted multiple times, but just hasn't been done properly yet

Sep 05 21:48:43 <skyfaller> but yeah, it's not something that can go in the bylaws

Sep 05 21:49:06 <peabo> yeah, I was rambling off-topic a little :-)

Sep 05 21:49:32 <gavinbaker> so RESOLVED to do nothing

Sep 05 21:50:01 <mllerustad> +1

Sep 05 21:51:26 <skyfaller> +1 to no punishment for idle chapters, we should do more to help them, and use the "interest list" to handle some schools that would have become inactive chapters before

Sep 05 21:51:59 <gavinbaker> k

Sep 05 21:52:08 <gavinbaker>

Sep 05 21:52:39 <gavinbaker> 1. is resolved - Coordinator

Sep 05 21:52:58 <gavinbaker> 2. "voting should be clarified" - seems he's referring to voting for board members - think that's fixed

Sep 05 21:53:16 <gavinbaker> 3. is resolved, iirc

Sep 05 21:53:23 <gavinbaker> (TELL ME that we added the Ratification part)

Sep 05 21:53:38 <gavinbaker> yeh it's there. 3 is done

Sep 05 21:53:58 <gavinbaker> 4. is resolved - Students for Free Culture

Sep 05 21:54:23 <gavinbaker> 5. is re: the Core Team, so... we'll table that to that discussion

Sep 05 21:54:46 <gavinbaker> 6. suggests we change the membership model, not doing that at this time

Sep 05 21:55:01 <gavinbaker> 7. is about licensing our stuff -- i missed that part of the convo

Sep 05 21:55:13 <gavinbaker> but i'm told it was already discussed & presumably decided

Sep 05 21:55:31 <gavinbaker> 8. is resolved - standards for membership

Sep 05 21:55:49 <gavinbaker> and that's it. can someone verify re: 7?

Sep 05 21:55:53 <gavinbaker> mllerustad, skyfaller ^^

Sep 05 21:56:00 <mllerustad> Yeah, we decided against it.

Sep 05 21:56:13 <mllerustad> What if licenses are antiquated, etc etc...

Sep 05 21:56:23 <gavinbaker> k

Sep 05 21:56:33 <gavinbaker> (for the record, there should be a written & formal policy, but not in the bylaws)

Sep 05 21:56:48 <gavinbaker> that's it for #19 then

Sep 05 21:56:51 <gavinbaker> 20.

Sep 05 21:57:03 <gavinbaker> oh i got a ++

Sep 05 21:57:13 <skyfaller> a ++?

Sep 05 21:57:22 <gavinbaker> skyfaller: you readz u learnz

Sep 05 21:57:47 <gavinbaker> ok, so the first bulletpoint is about membership mode...

Sep 05 21:58:12 <gavinbaker> so that's resolved

Sep 05 21:58:20 <gavinbaker> next is: what does the Coordinator do?

Sep 05 21:59:28 <gavinbaker> well... i think all of these questions are answered, directly or indirectly, in the bylaws

Sep 05 21:59:40 <gavinbaker> i.e. some things we decided not to decide, i.e. let the board / future figure it out

Sep 05 22:00:35 <gavinbaker> i'm very confused that he thinks that having a staff member wouldn't be hepful / necessary... suggests that the status of the organization is poorly-communicated

Sep 05 22:00:48 <gavinbaker> i.e. if people *knew* how shakily things get done, and how much never gets done...

Sep 05 22:02:00 <gavinbaker> anyway, i think we more or less resolved everything w/r/t the Coordinator

Sep 05 22:02:50 <skyfaller> yeah, pay is optional, a volunteer coordinator could exist if we can't afford one... they're not a member of the board... we know how they're appointed by the board....

Sep 05 22:03:00 <skyfaller> day to day means whatever the Board wants it to mean

Sep 05 22:03:23 <gavinbaker> no action: RESOLVED

Sep 05 22:03:26 <skyfaller> and we covered their power to appoint assistants etc.

Sep 05 22:03:27 <skyfaller> yeah

Sep 05 22:04:00 <gavinbaker> next point suggests tiered membership, "officially un-official" chapters

Sep 05 22:04:03 <skyfaller> +1 to this all being covered already

Sep 05 22:04:12 <gavinbaker> i think we discussed that this is not a great idea

Sep 05 22:04:24 <gavinbaker> how is the board elected, done

Sep 05 22:04:37 <gavinbaker> how to handle organizational contacts? not part of the bylaws

Sep 05 22:04:51 <gavinbaker> transparency for the board, we handled that

Sep 05 22:04:56 <gavinbaker> at least as a stopgap measure

Sep 05 22:05:11 <gavinbaker> chapter removal, i remember having an extensive discussion of that, isn't that right?

Sep 05 22:07:01 <mllerustad> Yeah.

Sep 05 22:07:01 <skyfaller> yeah, I think that having tiered chapters sounds too much like making things based on seniority, which is something that has always annoyed me

Sep 05 22:07:10 <gavinbaker> either chapters are members, and all chapters are equal, or individuals are members, and all individuals are equal

Sep 05 22:07:25 <gavinbaker> no other solution, e.g. tiered membership or weighted voting, makes sense

Sep 05 22:07:26 <mllerustad> Though, heh...

Sep 05 22:07:38 <gavinbaker> no "some chapters are more equal than others"

Sep 05 22:07:40 <mllerustad> Did the one-year wait for voting ever make it in?

Sep 05 22:07:51 <gavinbaker> mllerustad: i don't think so

Sep 05 22:07:53 <mllerustad> That was the compromise I suggested, but then the discussion asploded anyway...

Sep 05 22:08:04 <mllerustad> I don't mind if it's not in there, I just think it's interesting...

Sep 05 22:08:30 <gavinbaker> that seems like a reasonable compromise -- though not a year (i.e. if you join in September, you can't vote in the spring)

Sep 05 22:08:36 <gavinbaker> something like a semester

Sep 05 22:08:55 <gavinbaker> but i don't think anybody's concerned with the riffraff voting

Sep 05 22:09:11 <gavinbaker> as much as with the riffraff existing and getting dirt on our sunday clothes

Sep 05 22:09:24 <peabo> (or Microsoft trying to take over FC.o :-)

Sep 05 22:09:45 <gavinbaker> heh, i think the Coordinator/board approval should handle that

Sep 05 22:09:47 * mllerustad tells the Coordinator to stop approving Microsoft already!

Sep 05 22:09:58 <gavinbaker> "Approve or deny?"

Sep 05 22:10:06 <mllerustad> Lol...

Sep 05 22:10:16 <skyfaller> I'm actively opposed to making people wait to vote, as I already said it sounds to me like basing things on seniority which I find abhorrent

Sep 05 22:10:30 <skyfaller> we definitely need to put in the ability to abstain though

Sep 05 22:10:36 <skyfaller> that's a really important resolution

Sep 05 22:10:54 <skyfaller> if a new chapter doesn't feel qualified to vote (they don't know what's going on yet), they can just abstain

Sep 05 22:10:59 <mllerustad> Did someone already say RESOLVED: make abstaining explicit ?

Sep 05 22:11:49 <skyfaller> yeah

Sep 05 22:12:01 <skyfaller> we just need to remember to put that in :)

Sep 05 22:12:23 <gavinbaker> well, it says RESOLVED, so we'll find it

Sep 05 22:12:39 <mllerustad> (we're logging, right?)

Sep 05 22:12:50 <peabo> yes, I'll e-mail to Gavin

Sep 05 22:12:52 <gavinbaker> well, i don't think that requiring having 4 months seniority to vote is "abhorrent"

Sep 05 22:12:53 <skyfaller> I'm just pointing out that I think that's the only necessary fix to the voting problem

Sep 05 22:12:57 * gavinbaker has logs besides

Sep 05 22:13:20 <gavinbaker> but i'm also not sure that a delay before voting is necessary

Sep 05 22:13:26 <gavinbaker> so i'm happy to proceed w/o it

Sep 05 22:13:46 <skyfaller> I think it's unnecessary and complicates administration, and what are people really afraid of? people joining the org just to vote? nobody cares that much

Sep 05 22:14:05 <skyfaller> and if it were a serious problem, the vetting process should prevent it

Sep 05 22:14:12 <gavinbaker> yeah, although -- the filter to prevent that (coordinator/board) could have a conflict of interest there

Sep 05 22:14:20 <gavinbaker> if they're using sock puppets to be re-elected

Sep 05 22:14:36 <gavinbaker> but adding a time limit only requires you to plan ahead to cheat

Sep 05 22:14:40 <skyfaller> well, the whole board and the Coordinator would all have to be crooked

Sep 05 22:14:50 <gavinbaker> skyfaller: aren't we? ;)

Sep 05 22:14:51 <skyfaller> and if that's the case, the org is screwed anyway

Sep 05 22:15:05 <skyfaller> they can fix the election some other way

Sep 05 22:15:07 * gavinbaker takes payoffs from MPAA

Sep 05 22:15:18 <gavinbaker> yeah, by paying Mako to rig the software ;)

Sep 05 22:15:20 <gavinbaker> so, next

Sep 05 22:15:31 <gavinbaker> chapter removal, that's done, right?

Sep 05 22:16:38 <gavinbaker> (everybody say yes)

Sep 05 22:17:34 <skyfaller> yeah, we're done with chapter removal... the Board can remove chapters, and there is an appeals process

Sep 05 22:18:53 <gavinbaker> chapter dues, that's done

Sep 05 22:19:13 <gavinbaker> name, that's done (although Christopher helpfully comments that he has no comment, anyway)

Sep 05 22:19:25 <gavinbaker> licensing of stuff created, that's done

Sep 05 22:19:44 <gavinbaker> amendment process, that's pretty solid

Sep 05 22:19:51 <gavinbaker> dissolution, also done

Sep 05 22:20:09 <gavinbaker> 21:

Sep 05 22:20:26 <gavinbaker> wherein ben states that we should do things by consensus, and i state that we shouldn't

Sep 05 22:20:32 <gavinbaker> you can read my comments there

Sep 05 22:21:52 <skyfaller> I think that it may be reasonable to make the proposed Core Team use consensus, since the Board can break really nasty ties

Sep 05 22:22:06 <skyfaller> but that discussion can wait until we return to the Core Team proposal

Sep 05 22:22:51 <skyfaller> (one consideration is that if the Core Team is required to attend meetings together regularly, they may build up some sense of common identity together)

Sep 05 22:25:13 <skyfaller> ok, next?

Sep 05 22:25:31 <skyfaller>

Sep 05 22:25:49 <gavinbaker> yeah, you'll find no warm feelings for consensus decision-making from here

Sep 05 22:26:05 <gavinbaker> i think this is resolved

Sep 05 22:26:26 <gavinbaker> i mean, not that i'm thrilled with the solution we picked, but we picked one, and i'd rather stick with it and if necessary revisit later

Sep 05 22:27:03 <conley> Sorry, I know you all are in a meeting, but does anyone have any suggestions on good ways of limiting the technical content of free culture meetings? I have a lot of non-computer geeks (hurray!), but I think they are getting scared away. Even though a majority of the meetings don't have to do with FOSS, I they feel pretty left out when we get going on Sun releasing project darkstar under the gplv2, etc.

Sep 05 22:27:32 <peabo> only me and ChristopherB had any comments about this in the original context, so if it doesn't really ring any bells that's OK with me

Sep 05 22:28:29 <skyfaller> conley: we'll have to get back to you later, that is a problem that many chapters have

Sep 05 22:30:00 <gavinbaker> conley: umm, you can talk about remixing, that's not computers :D

Sep 05 22:30:10 <gavinbaker> but it is a common concern

Sep 05 22:30:28 <gavinbaker> 23:

Sep 05 22:30:35 <skyfaller> (which reminds me, we should be having chapter meetings where we address these problems)

Sep 05 22:30:35 <gavinbaker> he/she ftw

Sep 05 22:30:50 <gavinbaker> but this doesn't really matter

Sep 05 22:30:53 <skyfaller> I will stab you in the face if you use slashes in our pronouns

Sep 05 22:31:06 <mllerustad> Lol...

Sep 05 22:31:15 <mllerustad> I like 'hereinafter' :p

Sep 05 22:31:48 <peabo> every legal document needs one and at least one 'whereas'

Sep 05 22:32:08 <skyfaller> I think that the singular they is the only reasonable solution for the English language

Sep 05 22:32:12 <skyfaller> I could compromise on the arbitrary sprinkling of "she" through the document, even though that's a stupid game too

Sep 05 22:32:31 <peabo> yes, every alternative makes _somebody_ cringe

Sep 05 22:32:33 <skyfaller> (oh no, we had one more masculine pronoun than feminine pronoun! we're biased!)

Sep 05 22:32:47 <gavinbaker> let's just make up a pronoun

Sep 05 22:32:50 <gavinbaker> the interrobang

Sep 05 22:32:53 * mllerustad sprinkles femininity across the bylaws

Sep 05 22:32:59 <skyfaller> I used to use "ne" in all of my school documents

Sep 05 22:33:03 <mllerustad> ??

Sep 05 22:33:14 <mllerustad> hippie..

Sep 05 22:33:15 <skyfaller> yeah, neologisms are stupid

Sep 05 22:33:50 <skyfaller> (like the knights who say ne! and ne looks like he, so if you screw up, you can say "I mean to write ne!")

Sep 05 22:33:57 <peabo> (I once write a techincal manual whicch used nothing but names like 'Pat' and "Lee" to refer to instructions for procedures for people to follow, but I never found out whether it was appreciated or not Z:-)

Sep 05 22:34:08 <gavinbaker> ‽ = he or she

Sep 05 22:34:11 <gavinbaker> i'd be happy with that

Sep 05 22:34:30 <skyfaller> I've shifted my support to the singular they b/c (1) it's in common usage, (2) it's completely gender neutral, and (3) it's a single word instead of a phrase

Sep 05 22:34:36 <skyfaller> he or she is cumbersome

Sep 05 22:34:41 <mllerustad> Made-up words aren't "standard" English either... we may as well use a word that actually exists and is used by non-activists (ie "they"). :p

Sep 05 22:34:44 <skyfaller> it's easier to pronounce than he/she

Sep 05 22:34:46 <gavinbaker> dude, ‽ isn't a phrase, it's a single symbol

Sep 05 22:34:57 <skyfaller> gavinbaker: I can't see your interrobang

Sep 05 22:35:02 <gavinbaker> but let's but the grammar nerdence aside and move on

Sep 05 22:35:03 <skyfaller> it's just whitespace

Sep 05 22:35:07 <gavinbaker> skyfaller: you shoulda used ubuntu, then

Sep 05 22:35:16 <mllerustad> :p

Sep 05 22:35:18 <gavinbaker> 24.

Sep 05 22:35:22 <skyfaller> wait

Sep 05 22:35:25 <gavinbaker> i think we decided this doesn't have to go in the bylaws

Sep 05 22:35:26 <mllerustad> Wait, we didn't decide anything.

Sep 05 22:35:31 <gavinbaker> wtf, lamerz

Sep 05 22:35:32 <skyfaller> so can we resolve the singular they?

Sep 05 22:35:39 <mllerustad> I think pronouns have to go in the bylaws, somehow...

Sep 05 22:35:40 <gavinbaker> yeah fine ok go

Sep 05 22:35:44 <mllerustad> yay!

Sep 05 22:35:53 <mllerustad> RESOLVED: singular they!

Sep 05 22:36:00 <skyfaller> RESOLVED: the singular they is our gender-neutral pronoun of choice, and should be used throughout the bylaws

Sep 05 22:36:12 <gavinbaker> RESOLVED: gavin will pronounce it as an interrobang

Sep 05 22:36:19 <mllerustad> Okay. :)

Sep 05 22:36:19 <gavinbaker> as soon as he figures out how to pronounce a symbol

Sep 05 22:36:22 <peabo> and put that in the Definitions section so people don't think we're illietrate?

Sep 05 22:36:28 <peabo> illiterate

Sep 05 22:36:29 <mllerustad> Sure, why not...

Sep 05 22:36:38 <skyfaller> gavinbaker: well, ! is "chk" according to the band !!! and their fans

Sep 05 22:36:55 <skyfaller> so an interrobang would be "chk?!" in a very alarmed voice

Sep 05 22:37:06 <mllerustad> wakka !a wakka !a...

Sep 05 22:37:26 <skyfaller> punctuation porn music?

Sep 05 22:37:28 <gavinbaker> peabo: wouldn't want people to think we're illietrate ‽

Sep 05 22:37:37 <peabo> erm ! has an establishing meaning in linguistics as glottal stop :-)

Sep 05 22:37:44 <gavinbaker> 24.

Sep 05 22:37:48 <skyfaller> RESOLVED: the singular they should go into our definitions section :)

Sep 05 22:37:55 <skyfaller> ok, moving on

Sep 05 22:38:02 <gavinbaker> RESOLVED: to sneak an interrobang into the bylaws *somewhere*

Sep 05 22:38:10 <skyfaller> ?!

Sep 05 22:38:37 <skyfaller> I don't think we can ask questions in the bylaws, unless we have a preamble or something

Sep 05 22:38:43 <skyfaller> the bylaws are all about making definitive statements

Sep 05 22:38:47 <skyfaller> but anyway

Sep 05 22:39:05 <skyfaller> I don't think an Advisory Board has to go into the bylaws

Sep 05 22:39:10 <skyfaller> the Board can create it at will

Sep 05 22:39:19 <skyfaller> just like it can create any other committee

Sep 05 22:39:31 <skyfaller> it has no duties or powers in our org structure

Sep 05 22:39:34 <gavinbaker> also this symbol: UTF-16: 0x2620

Sep 05 22:39:43 <gavinbaker> otherwise known as ☠ to those who can see it

Sep 05 22:40:05 <skyfaller> so I don't think we need to write an Advisory Board into the bylaws

Sep 05 22:40:10 <gavinbaker> yeah resolved done

Sep 05 22:40:11 <gavinbaker> 25.

Sep 05 22:40:12 <skyfaller> I do agree that we should get one asap

Sep 05 22:40:35 <skyfaller> .... does that really need to go in the bylaws?

Sep 05 22:40:36 * gavinbaker feels like everyone he knows is on Wikimedia's advisory board except him :(

Sep 05 22:40:55 <gavinbaker> yeah i like having principles and stuff written into founding documents but it's not necessary at this time

Sep 05 22:41:47 <skyfaller> I mean, I feel like we'd have to bicker over what is FOSS etc... what are web standards? is OOOXML or whatever a standard? ;-)

Sep 05 22:41:53 <gavinbaker> wtf, everybody knows what foss is... define it as something that meets the free software definition and/or open source definition

Sep 05 22:42:12 <peabo> plus it would mean that nobody can play Flight Simulator during IRC meetings

Sep 05 22:42:13 <gavinbaker> well that's kind of the point... to have the principle written into the bylaws as something to aspire to

Sep 05 22:42:25 <gavinbaker> which raises issues for us to sort out

Sep 05 22:42:32 <gavinbaker> peabo: but you can play the hidden game in OO.o

Sep 05 22:42:54 <gavinbaker> and d00d, you can play OpenArena, which is where we should be having our meetings *anyway*

Sep 05 22:42:58 <skyfaller> :)

Sep 05 22:43:14 * gavinbaker rails poningru in the face

Sep 05 22:43:24 <gavinbaker> 26. is more important though

Sep 05 22:43:24 <gavinbaker>

Sep 05 22:43:28 <skyfaller> gavinbaker: let's punt the principles and practices to some other document, or a future amendment

Sep 05 22:44:24 <paulproteus> skyfaller, re: "the spam sucks": We can just require a CAPTCHA.

Sep 05 22:44:37 * paulproteus is still reading the scrollback

Sep 05 22:44:56 <skyfaller> paulproteus: yes, but our wiki has been getting spam despite us having a captcha?

Sep 05 22:45:02 <skyfaller> or is the captcha turned off?

Sep 05 22:45:48 <skyfaller> and once OLPCs get out in the wild, kids from Africa will be doing our spam instead of spambots

Sep 05 22:45:55 <skyfaller> captchas won't work anymore

Sep 05 22:46:00 <paulproteus> lol re: voting, lol

Sep 05 22:46:44 <peabo> skyfaller: you're one of those guys who say the glass is half-empty, aren't you? :-)

Sep 05 22:46:50 <skyfaller> paulproteus: has our wiki's captcha been turned off or not? and if it's on, why are we getting spam?

Sep 05 22:47:10 <skyfaller> anyway, I don't have much faith in anti-spam measures, I prefer to prevent 100% of spam when possible

Sep 05 22:47:26 <gavinbaker> meanwhile, back in topic-land...

Sep 05 22:47:39 <gavinbaker> i really think we need a non-discrimination clause

Sep 05 22:47:43 <gavinbaker> but, having misplaced UF's

Sep 05 22:47:53 <gavinbaker> i... guess i'd be ok with holding off

Sep 05 22:48:01 <gavinbaker> i mean... *somebody* should know where our constitution is.

Sep 05 22:48:15 <gavinbaker> (we had a whole meeting about this)

Sep 05 22:48:52 * mindspillage (n=kat@wikimedia/KatWalsh/x-0001) has joined #freeculture

Sep 05 22:49:10 <gavinbaker> mindspillage: * gavinbaker feels like everyone he knows is on Wikimedia's advisory board except him :(

Sep 05 22:49:38 <skyfaller> .... we could put in your ad-hoc non-discrimination clause

Sep 05 22:50:01 <mindspillage> gavinbaker: heh... it's a good crowd. :-)

Sep 05 22:50:28 <gavinbaker> well, leave it to California to have a thorough one:

Sep 05 22:50:39 * christine (n=christin@HOW-ABOUT-A-NICE-GAME-OF-CHESS.MIT.EDU) has left #freeculture

Sep 05 22:50:56 <gavinbaker> "on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, pregnancy, physical or mental disability, medical condition (cancer-related or genetic characteristics), ancestry, marital status, age, sexual orientation, citizenship, or status as a covered veteran."

Sep 05 22:51:18 <skyfaller> ... we probably could adopt all sorts of good language from existing bylaws

Sep 05 22:51:29 <skyfaller> the sexual harrassment policy on that doesn't look half bad either

Sep 05 22:51:30 <mindspillage> ...that's a very California-sounding policy. :-)

Sep 05 22:51:32 <gavinbaker> i mean, i can't imagine we'd want to discriminate against anyone on any of those bases, but i'm also not sure how necessary it is to include them all

Sep 05 22:51:34 <skyfaller> although it's probably unnecessary

Sep 05 22:52:01 * gavinbaker makes no comment about sexual liaisons within FC.o

Sep 05 22:52:12 <gavinbaker> just like /me makes no comment about such happenings at iSummit

Sep 05 22:52:20 <gavinbaker> but /me does lol, however.

Sep 05 22:52:53 <mllerustad> It's non-discrimination, not anti-sexual harassment...

Sep 05 22:53:03 <mllerustad> Thank god. :p

Sep 05 22:53:09 <gavinbaker> mllerustad, i assume skyfaller was referring to something else

Sep 05 22:53:13 <e-star> hey guys, when we first incorporated, did we do it w/o consulting a lawyer at all?

Sep 05 22:53:19 <gavinbaker> e-star: yep

Sep 05 22:53:23 <e-star> hmm

Sep 05 22:53:32 <skyfaller> e-star: nobody seems to be able to keep lawyers around

Sep 05 22:53:47 <e-star> yah rly

Sep 05 22:54:02 <pyrak> what if the pictures at /about were size by em?

Sep 05 22:54:05 <pyrak> that would be kinda neat

Sep 05 22:54:10 <gavinbaker> i don't know exactly how we'd implement some of those non-discrimination clauses... it'd be nice... but how would we accommodate someone with e.g. a mental disability?

Sep 05 22:54:21 <skyfaller> pyrak: ... are you in the right channel?

Sep 05 22:54:39 * pyrak lurks

Sep 05 22:54:39 <gavinbaker> pyrak: i don't think that is possible. but it is OT!

Sep 05 22:54:43 * gavinbaker hands pyrak a cookie

Sep 05 22:54:45 <peabo> or having to publish everything in English and French?

Sep 05 22:54:50 * pyrak munches

Sep 05 22:55:03 <gavinbaker> peabo: the Calif. statement didn't say anything about language

Sep 05 22:55:10 <mllerustad> national origin, though.

Sep 05 22:55:18 <gavinbaker> national origin isn't the same as language

Sep 05 22:55:27 <paulproteus> skyfaller, Wiki has been getting spam?

Sep 05 22:55:29 <peabo> yes, so it is maredly incomplete (although the langauge would presumably be Spanish if it did)

Sep 05 22:55:31 <mllerustad> *lawyers fight*

Sep 05 22:55:33 <peabo> markedly

Sep 05 22:55:56 <gavinbaker> to say "we do things in X language" does not necessarily discriminate against people from a country that doesn't speak X language

Sep 05 22:56:07 <skyfaller> paulproteus: yup

Sep 05 22:56:07 <paulproteus> Okay, hi everyone.

Sep 05 22:56:10 <gavinbaker> at least, not in the capacity of national origin

Sep 05 22:56:22 <poningru> gavinbaker: what?

Sep 05 22:56:28 <gavinbaker> anyway. just tell me whether we should add a non-discrimination clause now, or later

Sep 05 22:56:43 <gavinbaker> poningru: i was just screwing around. you don't have a copy of ffc's constitution, do you?

Sep 05 22:56:55 <gavinbaker> it's, er, missing. (at least the most recent revision)

Sep 05 22:56:56 <peabo> how is the time crunch of getting the bylaws out right now?

Sep 05 22:57:06 <poningru> gavinbaker: err no

Sep 05 22:57:09 <gavinbaker> oh, they're totally late, peabo.

Sep 05 22:57:10 <poningru> I guess we can grep through consus

Sep 05 22:57:29 <gavinbaker> poningru: p.s. where's jli? i saw jared posted asking wtf happened to ffc

Sep 05 22:57:31 <peabo> so we would have some time to incorporate the clause if we don't get it tonight?

Sep 05 22:57:31 <poningru> gavinbaker: did you talk to gloria?

Sep 05 22:57:38 <gavinbaker> poningru: i've done it before, yes

Sep 05 22:57:45 <poningru> gavinbaker: oh... I guess you didnt hear the news

Sep 05 22:57:48 <poningru> uh...

Sep 05 22:58:00 <paulproteus> poningru, ?

Sep 05 22:58:01 <gavinbaker> peabo: er, good question. are we going to finish finish tonight?

Sep 05 22:58:20 <gavinbaker> ( mllerustad, skyfaller ?) ^^

Sep 05 22:58:26 <mllerustad> I'd like to.

Sep 05 22:58:39 <mllerustad> And I have until midnight EST or later.

Sep 05 22:59:02 <gavinbaker> really? it'll be done?

Sep 05 22:59:17 <gavinbaker> mllerustad, if you tell me that everything was correctly implemented, i'll believe you.

Sep 05 22:59:28 <gavinbaker> because to not believe you would cause more work, probably for me

Sep 05 22:59:47 <gavinbaker> stop! unicode time: ☭

Sep 05 22:59:58 <skyfaller> ... hey, I saw that one

Sep 05 23:00:04 <peabo> Gavin, a naive google of UF constitution gets theis and other similar lineks: -- is that the same document you are looking for?

Sep 05 23:00:20 <mllerustad> gavinbaker: I haven't implemented anything from this meeting, but from the last meeting: yes, to the best of my ability.

Sep 05 23:00:23 <gavinbaker> skyfaller is clearly a commie, to have the unicode symbol for sickle & hammer

Sep 05 23:00:51 <gavinbaker> peabo: no, i'm certain (to three 9's) that the document i'm looking for doesn't exist on the web (though it ought to)

Sep 05 23:00:59 <gavinbaker> mllerustad: and all previous?

Sep 05 23:01:28 <peabo> some of the links are apparently from 2005

Sep 05 23:01:29 <mllerustad> Again, yes.

Sep 05 23:01:34 <mllerustad> Everything with a RESOLVED: is in.

Sep 05 23:03:19 <paulproteus> lol, "unicode time"

Sep 05 23:03:21 <paulproteus> STOP!

Sep 05 23:03:23 <paulproteus> Continue....

Sep 05 23:03:46 <peabo> Zero Width Non-breaking Space

Sep 05 23:03:48 <gavinbaker> k, well

Sep 05 23:03:54 <gavinbaker> then apparently we can finish tonight.

Sep 05 23:04:00 <paulproteus> UTF-32 Byte Order Mark

Sep 05 23:04:07 <gavinbaker> because i'd rather trust mllerustad than make more work for ourselves

Sep 05 23:04:09 <mllerustad> Oh dear.

Sep 05 23:04:14 <gavinbaker> (besides, the wikimonster will fix it)

Sep 05 23:04:15 <mllerustad> :)

Sep 05 23:04:34 <gavinbaker> so. non-discrimination clause, now or later?

Sep 05 23:04:37 <skyfaller> I don't care

Sep 05 23:04:51 <gavinbaker> i think it's important, but i don't anticipate us discriminating within the next 6 months

Sep 05 23:04:59 <gavinbaker> we may as well take our time and get it right

Sep 05 23:05:08 <skyfaller> put in your proposed one, it's probably good enough for the next 6 months

Sep 05 23:05:22 <skyfaller> we should get this thing vetted by a lawyer and have it amended in the spring

Sep 05 23:05:45 <gavinbaker> well, i'm curious to know what having such a statement commits us to, other than the principle

Sep 05 23:06:09 <mllerustad> gavinbaker: not discriminating if we ever hire someone?

Sep 05 23:06:15 <gavinbaker> mllerustad: is it only for hiring?

Sep 05 23:06:20 <gavinbaker> or for anyone to participate?

Sep 05 23:06:43 <gavinbaker> we had a clause in the constitution at UF, but anything that might have required more work, UF would take care of (because it's legally obliged to)

Sep 05 23:06:45 <mllerustad> not only approving chapters headed by hot females?

Sep 05 23:06:54 <peabo> if you actuallky hire someone, you are probably already subject to such terms wether they are in the bylaws or not

Sep 05 23:07:06 <gavinbaker> mllerustad: i don't think california included attractiveness in their clause.

Sep 05 23:07:14 <gavinbaker> given that it's california, i doubt it. :p

Sep 05 23:07:34 <gavinbaker> peabo: there are some laws that come into play with employment, right

Sep 05 23:07:54 <gavinbaker> but e.g. they don't include sexual orientation, at least not federally... maybe in certain jurisdictions

Sep 05 23:08:03 * gavinbaker posts SAD tag to ^^

Sep 05 23:08:24 <peabo> SAD = ?

Sep 05 23:08:41 <gavinbaker> peabo: SAD = :(

Sep 05 23:08:53 <peabo> oh, the obvious meaning :-)

Sep 05 23:09:20 <gavinbaker> so, everybody stop Quaking and decide whether we're including a clause at this time, so we can finish

Sep 05 23:09:29 <mllerustad> Okay, so we couldn't only approve chapters headed by females, regardless of hottness.

Sep 05 23:09:33 <mllerustad> Is that a problem?

Sep 05 23:09:45 <mllerustad> I would think not.

Sep 05 23:09:53 * e-star_ ( has joined #freeculture

Sep 05 23:10:23 <paulproteus> I vote +0.25 for stating non-discrimination policies.

Sep 05 23:11:45 <skyfaller> I don't really know what it binds us to, but I'm pretty sure that we won't base our hiring practices or chapter approval practices on discrimination

Sep 05 23:11:52 <gavinbaker> obviously, it's important to *have* this clause, but it might be more important to get it right. especially since i don't see us discriminating anyway, so it's not particularly pressing...

Sep 05 23:11:54 <skyfaller> so I don't think we have to worry

Sep 05 23:12:04 <skyfaller> OK, whatever, leave it out

Sep 05 23:12:09 <skyfaller> it's easier to not change stuff

Sep 05 23:12:38 <gavinbaker> unless anybody screams, this goes in the AMENDMENT pile, then

Sep 05 23:13:10 <skyfaller> let's move on

Sep 05 23:13:12 <gavinbaker> and that's my contribution, until i finish making this sandwich.

Sep 05 23:13:53 <skyfaller> next:

Sep 05 23:14:14 <skyfaller> Gavin says we can skip his comments

Sep 05 23:14:28 <skyfaller> I think we need to make a Principles and Practices document at some later

Sep 05 23:14:32 <skyfaller> later date

Sep 05 23:14:50 <skyfaller> which would cover things like what licenses we should use, and that we should use FOSS and follow web standards, etc.

Sep 05 23:15:00 <skyfaller> I don't think it should go in the bylaws

Sep 05 23:19:53 <gavinbaker> the next question has also been resolved

Sep 05 23:20:01 <gavinbaker>

Sep 05 23:20:06 <gavinbaker> hasn't it? i admit i don't remember

Sep 05 23:22:08 <mllerustad> Yeah, we came up with an escape clause that explicitly says the board takes back the powers temporarily.

Sep 05 23:22:30 <gavinbaker> k

Sep 05 23:22:36 <gavinbaker> 29.

Sep 05 23:22:37 <skyfaller> yeah, all duties pass to the board, and the board is required to begin a search for a coordinator quickly

Sep 05 23:22:44 * Differance ( has joined #freeculture

Sep 05 23:22:49 <gavinbaker> sez we should assign all copyright in software to the FSF

Sep 05 23:22:59 * grahl_ has quit (Client Quit)

Sep 05 23:23:02 <gavinbaker> skipping the conversation about whether that's a good idea, it doesn't need to go in the bylaws, imho

Sep 05 23:23:57 <gavinbaker> anybody else?

Sep 05 23:24:18 <skyfaller> yeah, that can be determined by the board

Sep 05 23:24:24 <skyfaller> and put into a principles and practices document

Sep 05 23:24:30 <skyfaller> or an amendment if necessary

Sep 05 23:25:02 * e-star has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))

Sep 05 23:25:36 <gavinbaker> anybody else?

Sep 05 23:26:50 <paulproteus> I think the idea of the license language is that if we go away, we don't want be another lousy orphan-work-generating entity.

Sep 05 23:27:48 <gavinbaker> paulproteus: we already have a clause in dissolution about assigning the copyright at that time

Sep 05 23:28:13 <paulproteus> gavinbaker, Good point, so I don't know the point of license language then.

Sep 05 23:28:23 <gavinbaker> moreover, i've said i think we should have our licensing in a formal policy, just not in the bylaws. it should be more flexible than the bylaws, since licenses come and go

Sep 05 23:28:27 <skyfaller> paulproteus: the suggestion is to assign everything to the FSF from the beginning

Sep 05 23:28:32 <skyfaller> instead of just when we dissolve

Sep 05 23:28:45 <gavinbaker> paulproteus: just because the FSF likes to take all copyright, assumedly because it makes it easier to enforce the GPL

Sep 05 23:29:01 <peabo> the time of dissolution is probably the worst time of all to make sure all the pieces of the software are kosher

Sep 05 23:29:12 <gavinbaker> but if somebody was really violating our license, i think we should be able to enforce it as well as they do, hopefully with their advice

Sep 05 23:29:46 <gavinbaker> peabo, i've said i think we should have a policy on all the software we create, just not in the bylaws.

Sep 05 23:29:59 <peabo> do we at present have any significant software that needs protection? if not, this is probably something to defere until after the board is elected

Sep 05 23:30:16 <gavinbaker> and dissolution seems like a better time than post mortem :)

Sep 05 23:30:26 <gavinbaker> yeah, as i've said, i don't think this needs to be in the bylaws.

Sep 05 23:30:29 <gavinbaker> last call?

Sep 05 23:30:57 <skyfaller> let's not put it in the bylaws, it can go in a principles and practices document at some later date

Sep 05 23:31:13 <peabo> skyfaller: I agree

Sep 05 23:31:22 <skyfaller> ok, next

Sep 05 23:31:34 <gavinbaker> 30.

Sep 05 23:31:43 <skyfaller> ... it's the second to last comment! we have to return to gavin's Core Team proposal after this

Sep 05 23:31:57 <gavinbaker> this is another thing that's super important, but might be better to run through the lawmill first

Sep 05 23:32:11 <gavinbaker> OTOH, i don't see how adopting bad language can *hurt* us here.

Sep 05 23:32:14 <gavinbaker> it has to be better than no language

Sep 05 23:32:20 <peabo> (urk, I am fighting off a cold, so I think I will just let the log run; I'll email it to you in the morning, Gavin)

Sep 05 23:32:22 <gavinbaker> half-assed indemnification is better than none

Sep 05 23:32:42 <gavinbaker> k, thx peabo, get well. have some delicious, 100% Florida orange juice(TM)!

Sep 05 23:32:53 <peabo> chicken soup :-)

Sep 05 23:32:57 <peabo> (afk)

Sep 05 23:33:03 <skyfaller> OK, let's steal that language, and amend it post-lawyer-review in the spring if it needs fixing

Sep 05 23:33:09 <gavinbaker> Arlington County sent me a handy pamphlet on pandemic flu if you need it.

Sep 05 23:33:28 <gavinbaker> skyfaller, i'm fine with that solution as a stopgap.

Sep 05 23:33:35 <gavinbaker> other comments from the cashew gallery?

Sep 05 23:35:04 <gavinbaker> k

Sep 05 23:35:10 <gavinbaker> so, back to the Core Team!

Sep 05 23:35:19 <gavinbaker> mllerustad or skyfaller, can you remind us where we left off last night?

Sep 05 23:36:46 <mllerustad> I came up with language after we stopped talking about it.

Sep 05 23:36:49 <mllerustad> Shall we start there?

Sep 05 23:37:02 <gavinbaker> worx 4 me!

Sep 05 23:37:12 <mllerustad> 'Kay. :)

Sep 05 23:37:25 <mllerustad> Section 5, with the language, is located here:

Sep 05 23:37:31 <skyfaller> wait, so RESOLVED: we adopt the indemnification text that Elizabeth stole from somewhere

Sep 05 23:37:34 <gavinbaker> whoa, confusing.

Sep 05 23:37:39 <gavinbaker> yeah, RESOLVED, good call.

Sep 05 23:37:47 <gavinbaker> man, i hope we remembered to say RESOLVED all the time.

Sep 05 23:37:54 <gavinbaker> (whoops, minutes :-/ )

Sep 05 23:37:56 <mllerustad> Section 2 is obviously all new, but I also added a line or two to Section 3.

Sep 05 23:38:00 <skyfaller> we didn't say resolved when we weren't taking action sometimes

Sep 05 23:38:10 <skyfaller> but I think we said resolved whenever we were taking action

Sep 05 23:38:48 <mllerustad> I pretty much cribbed the language from the comment, but I know there were some places where you weren't quite sure either, so I'm sure there are things to discuss. :)

Sep 05 23:40:08 <gavinbaker> mllerustad: did anything change in section 1?

Sep 05 23:40:17 <mllerustad> No.

Sep 05 23:40:27 <gavinbaker> (it would've been handy if you'd first saved the page un-edited, so i could look at a diff)

Sep 05 23:40:41 <mllerustad> True. :p

Sep 05 23:40:57 <mllerustad> The only differences in Section 3 is the bit about the Coordinator attending and taking minutes at Core Team meetings.

Sep 05 23:41:41 <gavinbaker> ...i'm going to paste over this with the original language, so i can see a diff

Sep 05 23:41:45 <skyfaller> ok

Sep 05 23:41:50 <mllerustad> Okay...

Sep 05 23:41:53 <gavinbaker> this is cribbed from the latest RC2?

Sep 05 23:41:59 <mllerustad> Yes.

Sep 05 23:42:27 <mllerustad> (unless there was language I added Monday after I wrote this in this section, but I don't think there was...)

Sep 05 23:42:54 <gavinbaker> diff:

Sep 05 23:44:37 <gavinbaker> ok, one note on membership

Sep 05 23:44:59 <gavinbaker> you shouldn't automatically become a member if you show up twice, you should have to apply for it

Sep 05 23:45:04 <gavinbaker> apply isn't the word i want

Sep 05 23:45:18 <gavinbaker> if you've come twice, you're in, but you have to ask, so it doesn't happen automatically

Sep 05 23:45:28 <gavinbaker> so it's like oh whoops i'm a member for showing up, even though i didn't want to be

Sep 05 23:45:54 <gavinbaker> that should keep down the turnover from people unintentionally joining

Sep 05 23:46:18 <skyfaller> heh

Sep 05 23:46:19 <skyfaller> yeah

Sep 05 23:46:24 <skyfaller> so... patch?

Sep 05 23:48:45 <gavinbaker> Any chapter member who attends two consecutive core team meetings may join the Core Team by notifying the chair that they wish to join. The Chair will announce new members at the beginning of each meeting

Sep 05 23:49:00 <gavinbaker> question, should people join at their second consecutive meeting, or the third consecutive?

Sep 05 23:49:12 <skyfaller> 3rd, I say

Sep 05 23:49:14 <gavinbaker> i.e. you attend 2, *then* you join; or, you attend 2 and join at the 2nd

Sep 05 23:49:32 <skyfaller> the 3rd doesn't have to be a consecutive meeting

Sep 05 23:49:40 <skyfaller> e.g. you could go to two in a row, skip a meeting, then join

Sep 05 23:51:14 <gavinbaker> what, then it's not consecutive anymore

Sep 05 23:51:33 <gavinbaker> ...what exactly does it prove that, at some point in the past, you attended 2 meetings in a row?

Sep 05 23:52:59 * gavinbaker waits for d00ds to say something

Sep 05 23:53:15 <skyfaller> hm... good point

Sep 05 23:53:19 <mllerustad> Not sure what you guys want...

Sep 05 23:53:21 <skyfaller> I guess that doesn't work

Sep 05 23:53:58 <gavinbaker> i mean, either 2 or 3, just pick

Sep 05 23:54:03 <gavinbaker> obviously, 3 is harder and 2 is easier

Sep 05 23:54:07 <skyfaller> have them join at the end of their second meeting

Sep 05 23:54:15 <skyfaller> second consecutive meeting

Sep 05 23:54:17 <gavinbaker> ...that's the same as joining at the beginning of the 3rd meeting

Sep 05 23:54:24 <gavinbaker> well, i guess it's not

Sep 05 23:54:26 <skyfaller> no, it's not

Sep 05 23:54:26 <mllerustad> Let's do beginning of the third.

Sep 05 23:54:34 <gavinbaker> after that point, you become subject to the regular absence rules

Sep 05 23:54:39 <skyfaller> gavinbaker: exactly

Sep 05 23:54:42 <gavinbaker> so you could miss the 3rd, as long as you didn't miss enough to get kicked out

Sep 05 23:54:57 <mllerustad> Hm, point.

Sep 05 23:54:59 <gavinbaker> --what if you have to leave before the 2nd one ends?

Sep 05 23:55:06 <skyfaller> 3 consecutive meetings could be hard for a college student with tests / exams

Sep 05 23:55:13 <mllerustad> gavinbaker: You could still email the chair before the third meeting...

Sep 05 23:55:16 <skyfaller> gavinbaker: then that sucks for you, you'll have to come back next week

Sep 05 23:55:16 <gavinbaker> btw, how *much* of the meeting do you have to attend to be considered "attending" for, er, attendance purposes?

Sep 05 23:55:30 <mllerustad> I think we can leave that to the chair...

Sep 05 23:55:59 <skyfaller> I think for purposes of joining, the whole thing

Sep 05 23:56:12 <skyfaller> maybe for purposes of keeping membership, it can be more lax

Sep 05 23:56:39 <skyfaller> but they should def stay for all of their first two meetings, so they can get a feel for what is going on

Sep 05 23:56:47 <mllerustad> "all"...

Sep 05 23:57:04 <mllerustad> I mean, hopefully the meetings will be shorter/more efficient than ours have been in the past, but..

Sep 05 23:57:16 <mllerustad> if you're five minutes late, do you not get credit?

Sep 05 23:57:18 <mllerustad> ten minutes?

Sep 05 23:57:45 <paulproteus> Let it say "all", and let people fight about those ten minutes if they have to.

Sep 05 23:58:02 <skyfaller> I think we should be draconian about it for purposes of joining the Core Team

Sep 05 23:58:07 <skyfaller> it might give people good habits

Sep 05 23:58:30 <skyfaller> but yeah, we could leave it up to the chair

Sep 06 00:00:51 * mecredis ( has joined #freeculture

Sep 06 00:01:11 <gavinbaker> hey mecredis

Sep 06 00:01:16 * paulproteus waves

Sep 06 00:01:33 <gavinbaker> you could say "all" and "it's up to the chair's discretion to decide what 'all' means"

Sep 06 00:02:04 * mecredis has quit (Client Quit)

Sep 06 00:02:18 * mecredis ( has joined #freeculture

Sep 06 00:02:59 <skyfaller> gavinbaker: but that might be arbitrary

Sep 06 00:03:08 <skyfaller> like, what if the chair is really discriminatory

Sep 06 00:03:13 <skyfaller> to people they like?

Sep 06 00:03:17 <gavinbaker> yeah, so... trust the chair?

Sep 06 00:03:38 <skyfaller> let's just say "all" for the first two meetings, and hold everyone to the same draconian standard for joining

Sep 06 00:03:40 <paulproteus> skyfaller, I think we're going to have to live with that; if people think it's unfair, they'll hopefully complain.

Sep 06 00:03:41 <gavinbaker> if you have a way to give the chair more limited discretion, but enough to account for stuff like being 5 minutes late, go for it

Sep 06 00:03:46 <skyfaller> two meetings of perfection isn't so much to ask

Sep 06 00:03:55 <gavinbaker> skyfaller: depends how long the meetings are

Sep 06 00:03:57 <paulproteus> Let's say "all" and understand that chairs are going to allow people to join the core team who join 30s late but not 30m late.

Sep 06 00:04:00 <gavinbaker> how often do our meetings start on time?

Sep 06 00:04:53 <skyfaller> I dunno, if people need to attend these meetings in order to join a "governmental" body, maybe meetings need to start and end on time

Sep 06 00:05:04 <gavinbaker> skyfaller: you can't just legislate that into magically happening

Sep 06 00:05:23 <gavinbaker> there needs to be discretion. whether we write it into the bylaws, or it happens by selective enforcement, it has to exist

Sep 06 00:06:21 <skyfaller> so, all of the meeting, plus or minus 2 minutes?

Sep 06 00:06:31 <paulproteus> Can't we just say "all" and trust the chair?

Sep 06 00:06:34 <gavinbaker> skyfaller: that's not discretion

Sep 06 00:06:38 <gavinbaker> you're still legislating

Sep 06 00:06:52 <gavinbaker> i'm fine with selective enforcement, per paulproteus

Sep 06 00:06:56 <skyfaller> ok

Sep 06 00:06:57 <skyfaller> fine

Sep 06 00:07:03 <skyfaller> I won't hold this up anymore, let's do that

Sep 06 00:07:09 <gavinbaker> in fact, if it's going to be selective enforcement, we may as well use the language that exists

Sep 06 00:07:16 <gavinbaker> which just says "you have to be at the meeting"

Sep 06 00:07:26 <gavinbaker> so the chair will decide if you were "at" the meeting, enough to count

Sep 06 00:07:28 <paulproteus> It should say "all" to make that point.

Sep 06 00:07:33 <gavinbaker> well, yeah, there is that.

Sep 06 00:07:39 <gavinbaker> sure, fine

Sep 06 00:07:45 <gavinbaker> so what about the other question, whatever it was

Sep 06 00:07:53 <gavinbaker> oh, second or third?

Sep 06 00:08:13 <skyfaller> paulproteus: I just lost the game, by reading an old IRC log where I was talking to you about losing the game :)

Sep 06 00:08:26 <paulproteus> Blah!

Sep 06 00:08:31 <paulproteus> I hadn't lost in weeks.

Sep 06 00:08:34 <skyfaller> :)

Sep 06 00:09:07 <skyfaller> everybody loses! mwahahaha....

Sep 06 00:09:07 <skyfaller> anyway

Sep 06 00:09:21 <gavinbaker> so what if you email the chair after the 2nd meeting?

Sep 06 00:09:24 <skyfaller> I say end of the second meeting

Sep 06 00:09:31 <skyfaller> I say they have to stay for the whole thing

Sep 06 00:09:33 <gavinbaker> you don't have to be at the 3rd, as long as you email before the 3rd

Sep 06 00:09:40 <skyfaller> "whole thing" being up to the chair

Sep 06 00:09:55 <gavinbaker> i'm suggesting "after" the 2nd, rather than at the end of the 2nd

Sep 06 00:09:59 <skyfaller> ok

Sep 06 00:10:04 <gavinbaker> because new members seems to be an odd thing to do at the end of a meeting

Sep 06 00:10:08 <skyfaller> whatever, that's fine too

Sep 06 00:10:15 <skyfaller> I don't care

Sep 06 00:10:36 <gavinbaker> so, after your 2nd consecutive meeting, you email or fill out a form or whatever system we set up

Sep 06 00:10:46 <gavinbaker> the bylaws can say "notify in writing" or something like that

Sep 06 00:11:09 <gavinbaker> (if you miss the 3rd meeting before emailing, then it's no longer consecutive -- to clarify legislative intent)

Sep 06 00:11:18 <skyfaller> sounds good

Sep 06 00:12:21 <gavinbaker> RESOLVED ^^?

Sep 06 00:12:31 <skyfaller> +1

Sep 06 00:12:46 <skyfaller> ... I think your ^^ defeats the purpose of RESOLVED, though

Sep 06 00:13:00 <skyfaller> Matt Price wanted us to summarize what we had just resolved

Sep 06 00:13:20 <skyfaller> so that you could tell what was resolved by just reading the RESOLVED lines

Sep 06 00:13:37 * e-star_ has quit ()

Sep 06 00:13:48 <gavinbaker> well

Sep 06 00:13:57 <gavinbaker> somebody who's not me can write that.

Sep 06 00:15:24 <skyfaller> RESOLVED: To join the Core Team, you must attend two consecutive meetings, after which you must ask the Chair of the Core Team in writing before the next meeting to add you to the Core Team

Sep 06 00:15:59 <gavinbaker> s/ask/notify

Sep 06 00:16:01 <gavinbaker> but +

Sep 06 00:17:20 <skyfaller> OK :) +1

Sep 06 00:17:43 <gavinbaker> the rest of 2.1 looks kosher

Sep 06 00:18:10 <gavinbaker> for 2.2, any reason we can't just crib the language from the board?

Sep 06 00:18:36 <gavinbaker> also, for the removal for cause, we still need that for the board and officers

Sep 06 00:19:02 <gavinbaker> and i don't think the language in 2.2. is sufficient, e.g. it doesn't say how to initiate a vote against someone to remove them

Sep 06 00:22:28 <gavinbaker> so...

Sep 06 00:23:20 <skyfaller> I really want to put a Secretary in the officers list

Sep 06 00:23:31 <skyfaller> I'm kind of disturbed that the Board doesn't have an official Secretary

Sep 06 00:23:42 <skyfaller> I'm concerned that minutes will not be consistently posted

Sep 06 00:23:43 <gavinbaker> well. stop thinking about that and think about the Core Team :p

Sep 06 00:23:51 <gavinbaker> isn't the Coordinator the secretary?

Sep 06 00:24:02 <gavinbaker> didn't we make the Coordinator the "secretary" of both the Core Team and the Board?

Sep 06 00:24:07 <skyfaller> oh, hm

Sep 06 00:24:11 <skyfaller> that would make sense

Sep 06 00:24:15 <skyfaller> but I don't remember

Sep 06 00:24:37 <skyfaller> The Coordinator shall be responsible for taking attendance and minutes at all Core Team meetings. The Coordinator shall assist in the implementation of Core Team decisions through coordinating volunteers or other appropriate means.

Sep 06 00:24:43 <skyfaller> doesn't say that they take minutes for the board

Sep 06 00:25:00 <skyfaller> but I guess the secretary position is taken care of for the core team, then

Sep 06 00:25:32 <gavinbaker> well, if C is the secretary for the Core Team, i don't see why s/he shouldn't be for the Board, too

Sep 06 00:25:40 <gavinbaker> if it makes you happy

Sep 06 00:25:42 <skyfaller> I guess the Board can decide to take minutes themselves

Sep 06 00:25:44 <gavinbaker> and lets us finish sooner

Sep 06 00:25:48 <skyfaller> or order the Coordinator to do it for them

Sep 06 00:25:54 <gavinbaker> the Board can do anything, they can order their minions to take minutes

Sep 06 00:26:10 <gavinbaker> ...subject to the minion's constitutional rights, of course

Sep 06 00:26:17 <skyfaller> right :)

Sep 06 00:26:22 * gavinbaker accidentally reveals he's not constructing a democracy. whoops!

Sep 06 00:26:26 <skyfaller> lol

Sep 06 00:26:28 <gavinbaker> so the Core Team?!

Sep 06 00:26:44 <gavinbaker> i know that out of 21 people in this channel, more than 2 are here.

Sep 06 00:27:19 <gavinbaker> <gavinbaker> for 2.2, any reason we can't just crib the language from the board?

Sep 06 00:27:55 <skyfaller> sure, let's crib that language

Sep 06 00:28:58 <gavinbaker> it looks cribb-able to me.

Sep 06 00:29:18 <mllerustad> Sure.

Sep 06 00:29:30 <gavinbaker> well, there's one part we have to change

Sep 06 00:29:34 <gavinbaker> but it's actually good

Sep 06 00:29:42 <gavinbaker> because it addresses another issue i had with the Core Team language

Sep 06 00:29:44 <gavinbaker> "The board shall elect a new chairperson after each board election, not including the election of interim board members."

Sep 06 00:29:48 <mllerustad> RESOLVED: crib language

Sep 06 00:30:14 <gavinbaker> that has to change to something like "....every 4 months"

Sep 06 00:30:32 <gavinbaker> well. that's not actually an improvement on the language in the draft

Sep 06 00:30:32 <skyfaller> right, as we have it in the current draft

Sep 06 00:30:45 <gavinbaker> but we want it to be elections in fall, spring, and summer, right?

Sep 06 00:30:48 <skyfaller> sure

Sep 06 00:30:54 <gavinbaker> to roughly coincide with semesters / summer vacation?

Sep 06 00:30:59 <mllerustad> Well, that's the natural way to do it, yes.

Sep 06 00:31:07 <mllerustad> Do we have to mandate that in the bylaws, though?

Sep 06 00:31:15 <gavinbaker> so we should probably make language to do that, rather than just arbitrary 4 month periods

Sep 06 00:31:18 <mllerustad> We don't give an election day for anythign else...

Sep 06 00:31:37 <gavinbaker> mllerustad: let's say, in the current bylaws, the first election for Core Team takes place in... March

Sep 06 00:31:47 <gavinbaker> 4 months later is... July...

Sep 06 00:31:56 <gavinbaker> so the next is in November

Sep 06 00:32:03 <mllerustad> Right...

Sep 06 00:32:08 <mllerustad> why would we do it that way?

Sep 06 00:32:09 <gavinbaker> well... i guess no matter how hard we try, it doesn't break that much.

Sep 06 00:32:17 <gavinbaker> nevermind me, i'm bad with calendars

Sep 06 00:32:20 <gavinbaker> carry on

Sep 06 00:32:44 <mllerustad> Okay.

Sep 06 00:32:48 <skyfaller> ...

Sep 06 00:32:48 <mllerustad> Any other problems?

Sep 06 00:32:52 <gavinbaker> so. RESOLVED, crib the language from the chair/vice of the board, but with elections every 4 months

Sep 06 00:33:00 <gavinbaker> no prolems with the chair stuff, no

Sep 06 00:33:04 <gavinbaker> the removal stuff is not specific enough

Sep 06 00:33:05 <skyfaller> OK, I also wanted to bring up voting

Sep 06 00:33:12 <gavinbaker> but we're still missing that for the board, too

Sep 06 00:33:36 <skyfaller> I wanted to propose using consensus voting for the Core Team, as Ben suggested

Sep 06 00:33:46 <gavinbaker> at this late time, i'm fine with crappy removal language, fix it later

Sep 06 00:33:51 <gavinbaker> though if we can fix it now, that'd be cool

Sep 06 00:34:02 <gavinbaker> skyfaller: well, let's go in order

Sep 06 00:34:08 <gavinbaker> unless you're proposing consensus for choosing the chair?

Sep 06 00:34:14 <skyfaller> ok, sorry

Sep 06 00:34:24 <skyfaller> no, that would probably be dumb

Sep 06 00:34:35 <gavinbaker> "every pirate only chooses himself"

Sep 06 00:34:43 <skyfaller> picking a chair just needs to happen, bad campaign ideas don't necessarily have to happen

Sep 06 00:34:47 <gavinbaker> ok, so next. weekly meetings

Sep 06 00:34:56 <gavinbaker> do we want to say weekly?

Sep 06 00:35:01 <gavinbaker> like, biweekly wouldn't be ok?

Sep 06 00:35:22 <gavinbaker> i think biweekly *might* be ok. i think i'd rather give the Core Team the leeway

Sep 06 00:35:32 <gavinbaker> any less frequent that that will fail, though

Sep 06 00:36:06 <skyfaller> wait, are we allowing absentee voting for the Core Team?

Sep 06 00:36:06 <gavinbaker> i would say no less frequent than biweekly, and no more frequent than weekly, with the exception of special meetings (which iirc we can also crib from the board)

Sep 06 00:36:19 <gavinbaker> skyfaller: we haven't gotten there, but no, we shouldn't be.

Sep 06 00:36:27 <skyfaller> can we just rip out that language when we steal the language from the Board procedures and not allow absentee voting? OK, good

Sep 06 00:36:38 <skyfaller> I was looking at the Board language that we're copying

Sep 06 00:36:44 <gavinbaker> skyfaller: note that we're *still* not talking about voting yet...

Sep 06 00:36:49 <skyfaller> oh, hm

Sep 06 00:36:55 <gavinbaker> so, comments on meeting frequency?

Sep 06 00:36:55 <skyfaller> I'm confused

Sep 06 00:37:21 <gavinbaker> 2.3

Sep 06 00:37:22 <gavinbaker> The Core Team shall hold regular weekly meetings.

Sep 06 00:37:26 <skyfaller> I like weekly-ness

Sep 06 00:37:42 <skyfaller> the Core Team is where time-sensitive stuff should get handled

Sep 06 00:37:45 <gavinbaker> we don't want to include the leeway to go biweekly?

Sep 06 00:37:57 <gavinbaker> weekly is like, 52 meetings a year

Sep 06 00:38:13 <skyfaller> I would hope that frequent meetings mean shorter meetings

Sep 06 00:38:17 <gavinbaker> during quieter times, like maybe the summer, i think it'd be good to have the flexibility to meet biweekly

Sep 06 00:38:37 * sunnywizar1 (n=root@ has joined #freeculture

Sep 06 00:39:05 * sunnywizar1 (n=root@ has left #freeculture

Sep 06 00:39:14 <skyfaller> I think that whoever is around over the summer should keep crunching along, and other people can rejoin when they get back

Sep 06 00:39:22 <skyfaller> sometimes stuff needs to get done over the summer

Sep 06 00:39:27 <gavinbaker> that sounds like a recipe for unnecessary burnout

Sep 06 00:39:32 <gavinbaker> i'm not *mandating* biweekly

Sep 06 00:39:33 <mllerustad> why?

Sep 06 00:39:36 <gavinbaker> i'm just keeping the option open

Sep 06 00:39:38 <skyfaller> the RIAA doesn't take summer vacations

Sep 06 00:39:40 <gavinbaker> in case it's quieter

Sep 06 00:39:47 <gavinbaker> skyfaller: we don't get paid like the RIAA does.

Sep 06 00:39:48 <mllerustad> It's during the summer that you have time, if the structure is there to keep you on top of things.

Sep 06 00:39:53 <gavinbaker> and yes, they *do* take summer vacations.

Sep 06 00:40:01 <skyfaller> It's fine for people to quit the core team for a while and come back

Sep 06 00:40:05 <skyfaller> it's not hard to get on and off

Sep 06 00:40:08 <gavinbaker> mllerustad: if you want to meet weekly, you still can

Sep 06 00:40:14 <gavinbaker> but if it's quieter, you can meet biweekly

Sep 06 00:40:15 <skyfaller> I think the institution itself should keep running year-round

Sep 06 00:40:21 <mllerustad> *shrug*

Sep 06 00:40:25 <skyfaller> OK, fine

Sep 06 00:40:25 <gavinbaker> consider that there will be volunteers and potentially cmtes of the Core Team

Sep 06 00:40:26 <mllerustad> I have to go soon...

Sep 06 00:40:30 <gavinbaker> or other teams or whatever

Sep 06 00:40:34 <gavinbaker> so work might happen there

Sep 06 00:40:37 <gavinbaker> not just in the Core Team

Sep 06 00:40:38 <skyfaller> how would you write the language?

Sep 06 00:40:53 <gavinbaker> "at least biweekly"

Sep 06 00:41:05 <skyfaller> let's say "at least every two weeks"

Sep 06 00:41:05 <gavinbaker> or "no less frequently than every other week"

Sep 06 00:41:15 <skyfaller> gavinbaker: that's fine too

Sep 06 00:41:16 <gavinbaker> something like that, i don't care

Sep 06 00:41:17 <paulproteus> Is it really necessary to dissolve the organization if the Core Team takes a month-long vacation?

Sep 06 00:41:23 <skyfaller> "biweekly" can be confusing

Sep 06 00:41:40 <gavinbaker> what about a max. limit? no more frequently than weekly?

Sep 06 00:41:44 <gavinbaker> i think we should have it

Sep 06 00:41:47 <skyfaller> gavinbaker: sure

Sep 06 00:41:49 <gavinbaker> you can have special meetings occasionally

Sep 06 00:41:50 <mllerustad> Why?

Sep 06 00:41:53 <gavinbaker> but it shouldn't be happening all the time

Sep 06 00:41:56 <gavinbaker> people will burnout

Sep 06 00:41:59 <gavinbaker> nobody will be able to join

Sep 06 00:42:04 <skyfaller> mllerustad: b/c membership is dependant upon attending

Sep 06 00:42:05 <gavinbaker> if you have like a billion meetings a week

Sep 06 00:42:08 <mllerustad> As long as special meetings can be called, sure.

Sep 06 00:42:15 <gavinbaker> the board can do special meetings, right?

Sep 06 00:42:33 <skyfaller> Special meetings may be called by the chair if the board needs to meet between regular meetings.

Sep 06 00:42:37 <gavinbaker> "Special meetings may be called by the chair if the board needs to meet between regular meetings."

Sep 06 00:42:42 <gavinbaker> yeah, we can crib that

Sep 06 00:42:55 <skyfaller> maybe we should specify that special meetings don't count in the attendance count?

Sep 06 00:43:10 <skyfaller> so they can call special meetings, but people don't get kicked out if they can't make it

Sep 06 00:43:11 <gavinbaker> well, they can't count against you

Sep 06 00:43:16 <gavinbaker> they could count *for* you

Sep 06 00:43:21 <gavinbaker> e.g. if you're joining

Sep 06 00:43:22 <skyfaller> OK, fair enough

Sep 06 00:43:54 <gavinbaker> that moderates the lack of incentive to come to special meetings, insofar as membership is an incentive

Sep 06 00:44:07 <gavinbaker> so: RESOLVED:

Sep 06 00:44:19 <gavinbaker> A.) no less frequently than every other week

Sep 06 00:44:28 <gavinbaker> B.) no more frequently than weekly

Sep 06 00:44:42 <gavinbaker> C.) chair can call special meetings

Sep 06 00:44:55 <gavinbaker> C.) (1) absence at special meetings doesn't count against you

Sep 06 00:45:06 <gavinbaker> last thing:

Sep 06 00:45:20 <gavinbaker> with the board, the chair unilaterally calls special meetings

Sep 06 00:45:25 <gavinbaker> that makes sense cus the board is small

Sep 06 00:45:36 <gavinbaker> the core team is big. should the chair be able to unilaterally call special meetings?

Sep 06 00:45:41 <skyfaller> hm, good piont

Sep 06 00:45:42 <skyfaller> *point

Sep 06 00:45:43 <gavinbaker> i guess otherwise you'd have to vote in advance

Sep 06 00:45:52 <gavinbaker> which, if it's a special meeting, may not be forseeable

Sep 06 00:46:16 <skyfaller> maybe the chair has to get a thumbs up from..... a board member? I don't know, what else can you do

Sep 06 00:46:19 <gavinbaker> so maybe the chair just calls them, and if they suck, then you kick out the chair

Sep 06 00:46:36 <skyfaller> yeah, I don't see how you can provide good oversight to the chair of the Core Team

Sep 06 00:46:49 <skyfaller> insofar as calling special meetings

Sep 06 00:46:50 <gavinbaker> ok yeah, just cribbing the special meeting language from the board

Sep 06 00:47:00 <gavinbaker> RESOLVED: as above

Sep 06 00:47:25 <skyfaller> don't forget to change the "he or she" to the singular they :)

Sep 06 00:47:41 <gavinbaker> whatever, somebody's gonna have to fix the grammar

Sep 06 00:47:51 <gavinbaker> we still have to run a spellcheck :)

Sep 06 00:47:55 <skyfaller> true

Sep 06 00:48:01 <gavinbaker> next: The Core Team makes mid-level decisions, such as determining Organization campaigns and projects, as delegated by the Board. The Core Team makes these decisions by majority vote of present members.

Sep 06 00:48:20 <gavinbaker> vague, but ok

Sep 06 00:48:29 <skyfaller> wait, can the Board do arbitrary things like remove the Core Team chair if they get annoyed?

Sep 06 00:48:29 <gavinbaker> for voting, i'd say "present and voting" not just present

Sep 06 00:48:50 <skyfaller> ok, we're not at removal of officers yet

Sep 06 00:48:52 <skyfaller> sorry

Sep 06 00:49:15 <gavinbaker> so i'm fine with the language, but changed to "present and voting"

Sep 06 00:49:16 <skyfaller> yeah, "present and voting" is a necessary change

Sep 06 00:49:28 <gavinbaker> skyfaller: oddly, i recall you wanted to suggest a silly change here.

Sep 06 00:49:31 <skyfaller> I want to talk about raising the bar to "consensus" instead of majority vote

Sep 06 00:49:37 <gavinbaker> and there it is

Sep 06 00:49:39 <gavinbaker> :P

Sep 06 00:50:01 <skyfaller> b/c I forsee problems with a chapter fielding 20 members to show up en masse to push a vote their way

Sep 06 00:50:13 <gavinbaker> well, there is a bar to membership

Sep 06 00:50:15 <skyfaller> in a consensus model, ballot-stuffing doesn't matter

Sep 06 00:50:18 <gavinbaker> you have to mean it to be a member

Sep 06 00:50:27 <gavinbaker> and the board can overturn anything anyway...

Sep 06 00:50:40 <gavinbaker> i'm not concerned with ballot-stuffing.

Sep 06 00:51:05 <gavinbaker> if enough people are legitimately interested and involved as to become and remain members, they're entitled to vote their way

Sep 06 00:51:06 <skyfaller> that's true, but I think it might be more useful for the board to decide when the Core Team gets stuck, rather than retroactively nullifying decisions

Sep 06 00:51:16 <gavinbaker> no

Sep 06 00:51:20 <gavinbaker> that's the opposite of useful

Sep 06 00:51:31 <gavinbaker> the board should meet *less* frequently than the core team

Sep 06 00:51:48 <gavinbaker> so the board should only rarely overrule the core team

Sep 06 00:51:55 <skyfaller> right, so the Core team has to fight it out for a couple meetings before they can punt to the Board

Sep 06 00:52:12 <gavinbaker> i'd rather let the core team decide, and the board rarely overrule them

Sep 06 00:52:24 <gavinbaker> than let the core team *not* decide, and force the board to decide

Sep 06 00:52:39 <skyfaller> I guess you have a point

Sep 06 00:52:42 <gavinbaker> "oh, the more-representative body can't decide, let's make the less-representative body decide"

Sep 06 00:52:54 <gavinbaker> it's like saying, if congress can't reach consensus, let the supreme court decide

Sep 06 00:53:01 <skyfaller> well, let's require a majority of those present and voting, so pluralities don't work

Sep 06 00:53:17 <gavinbaker> ...votes are either up or down

Sep 06 00:53:22 <gavinbaker> a plurality is a majority

Sep 06 00:53:28 <gavinbaker> unless you count abstaining votes

Sep 06 00:53:31 <skyfaller> really?

Sep 06 00:53:38 <gavinbaker> and even then, you have to have a lot of abstentions

Sep 06 00:53:39 <skyfaller> no, abstentions don't count, I think

Sep 06 00:53:47 <skyfaller> if you put in "present and voting"

Sep 06 00:53:55 <gavinbaker> abstaining is still voting

Sep 06 00:53:59 <gavinbaker> it's voting not to vote

Sep 06 00:54:08 <gavinbaker> otherwise chapters that abstain from voting on the board members get kicked out

Sep 06 00:54:25 <skyfaller> heh

Sep 06 00:54:32 <skyfaller> that's true

Sep 06 00:54:48 <skyfaller> well, if you make that explicit, then the distinction between pluralities and majorities matter

Sep 06 00:54:50 <gavinbaker> so there is a slight difference between plurality and majority... but it'll rarely happen

Sep 06 00:54:58 <skyfaller> OK

Sep 06 00:55:17 <skyfaller> well, if too many people are abstaining, then that may be a sign that it's an issue that isn't ready for a decision?

Sep 06 00:55:25 <gavinbaker> for clarity's sake, there are 4 responses to a vote

Sep 06 00:55:26 <gavinbaker> 1. yes

Sep 06 00:55:28 <gavinbaker> 2. no

Sep 06 00:55:31 <gavinbaker> 3. abstain

Sep 06 00:55:37 <gavinbaker> 4. (you don't vote)

Sep 06 00:55:43 <gavinbaker> 4 is e.g. you're afk

Sep 06 00:55:47 <skyfaller> right

Sep 06 00:55:56 <gavinbaker> just to be clear that not voting != abstaining

Sep 06 00:56:00 <skyfaller> OK

Sep 06 00:56:18 <gavinbaker> so i don't favor consensus any more than i did previously

Sep 06 00:56:23 <skyfaller> So do we want to allow abstainers to prevent a vote from passing?

Sep 06 00:56:32 <gavinbaker> i'd say yes

Sep 06 00:56:38 <gavinbaker> if you want to have more "consensus"

Sep 06 00:56:42 <skyfaller> which I do

Sep 06 00:56:44 <gavinbaker> i mean, consider the situation where it matters

Sep 06 00:56:57 <gavinbaker> like there's 6 votes yes, 5 votes no

Sep 06 00:57:13 <gavinbaker> if 1 person abstains, then if you need a majority, the vote fails

Sep 06 00:57:18 <gavinbaker> if you need a plurality, the vote passes

Sep 06 00:57:25 <skyfaller> right

Sep 06 00:57:32 <gavinbaker> in such a close vote, if your goal is to force greater consensus, you want the vote to fail

Sep 06 00:57:47 <gavinbaker> make people compromise more, until the abstainer or one of the No votes can vote yes

Sep 06 00:57:49 <skyfaller> one problem with this is, doesn't that make it all about how you phrase the question?

Sep 06 00:57:58 <gavinbaker> welcome to liberal democracy

Sep 06 00:58:00 <skyfaller> heh

Sep 06 00:58:23 <gavinbaker> so i'm happy with the system we've described, and ready to RESOLVE it

Sep 06 00:58:25 <skyfaller> I guess if it's obvious that someone is manipulating the question, then people may change their votes to defeat that

Sep 06 00:58:44 <skyfaller> so yes, let's resolve this

Sep 06 00:58:47 <gavinbaker> i mean, if you follow robert's rules, you have to vote on whether to vote

Sep 06 00:58:58 <gavinbaker> so if people don't understand the question, they won't proceed to a vote

Sep 06 00:59:10 <skyfaller> right

Sep 06 00:59:12 <gavinbaker> they'll vote down the motion to vote until they understand it

Sep 06 00:59:18 <skyfaller> ... are we following Robert's rules?

Sep 06 00:59:24 <gavinbaker> that's a good question. the board says it does

Sep 06 00:59:30 <gavinbaker> currently the Core Team is silent

Sep 06 00:59:38 <skyfaller> shouldn't we steal that language too?

Sep 06 00:59:39 <gavinbaker> ...i'm afraid the Core Team may not be ready to add to the bylaws

Sep 06 00:59:44 <gavinbaker> and there's other stuff, too

Sep 06 00:59:53 <skyfaller> ... can't we steal enough stuff from the Board to make it work? >.<

Sep 06 00:59:53 <gavinbaker> we're still missing a few things that were previously RESOLVED

Sep 06 01:00:02 <gavinbaker> * Run the final draft through a spellchecker

Sep 06 01:00:02 <gavinbaker> * Add removal for cause for board members

Sep 06 01:00:07 <gavinbaker> * Add definitions of specialized terms to Article III, Definitions

Sep 06 01:00:07 <gavinbaker> * Add removal for cause for officers of the board (removal from officer position)

Sep 06 01:00:07 <gavinbaker> * Specify that all fractions are rounded up to the next person (e.g. 2/3 of 7 people = 4.666 = 5 people required for threshold)

Sep 06 01:00:16 <skyfaller> aww

Sep 06 01:00:24 <gavinbaker> those need to be done...

Sep 06 01:00:35 <skyfaller> so what now?

Sep 06 01:00:43 <skyfaller> YABM?

Sep 06 01:00:53 <gavinbaker> i think so

Sep 06 01:00:59 <gavinbaker> we can aim to finish this weekend

Sep 06 01:01:03 <gavinbaker> it'll really be the last

Sep 06 01:01:10 <gavinbaker> if we get this stuff done before then

Sep 06 01:01:29 <skyfaller> ok

Sep 06 01:01:32 * skyfaller stabs self

Sep 06 01:01:48 <gavinbaker> Sunday?

Sep 06 01:01:54 <gavinbaker> late afternoon EDT?

Sep 06 01:01:55 * klepas ( has joined #freeculture

Sep 06 01:02:01 <skyfaller> sure, sounds fine to me

Sep 06 01:02:23 <skyfaller> ... I really want to stop attending these things, but it seems like the best way to do that may be to finish the bylaws

Sep 06 01:02:41 <gavinbaker> that's my plan

Sep 06 01:03:45 <gavinbaker> anybody else here?

Sep 06 01:05:05 <gavinbaker> oh wow, godwin's law was just invoked on the youtubes

Sep 06 01:05:07 <gavinbaker> anyway

Sep 06 01:05:23 <gavinbaker> Sunday at 5 pm EDT? and we'll be done, done, done, til stalin takes yer freedom away?

Sep 06 01:06:04 * e-star ( has joined #freeculture

Sep 06 01:06:56 * e-star has quit (Client Quit)

Sep 06 01:07:28 <skyfaller> sounds fine to me

Sep 06 01:07:39 <skyfaller> let's do it

Sep 06 01:07:49 <skyfaller> Karen's schedule says she is free then

Sep 06 01:07:53 <skyfaller> although she is currently afk

Sep 06 01:07:59 <gavinbaker> these bylaws take 300 fucking meetings. let's make em!

Sep 06 01:08:03 <skyfaller> ...

Sep 06 01:08:05 <gavinbaker> k, 5 pm Sunday

Sep 06 01:08:10 <gavinbaker> we'll finish then

Sep 06 01:08:20 <gavinbaker> anybody feel free to draft the stuff that's missing

Sep 06 01:08:20 <skyfaller> ... how many man-hours have gone into these @#$%ers

Sep 06 01:08:21 <skyfaller> ?

Sep 06 01:08:30 <gavinbaker> i'm not sure how useful the definitions section will be

Sep 06 01:08:36 <gavinbaker> since it'll only have like, 2 things in it

Sep 06 01:08:40 <gavinbaker> unless somebody writes a bunch more

Sep 06 01:08:44 <gavinbaker> which seems unlikely at this point

Sep 06 01:08:50 <gavinbaker> but anyway, it is what it is

Sep 06 01:08:56 <skyfaller> I mean, it makes more sense to put some stuff there than anywhere else

Sep 06 01:09:08 <skyfaller> and if lawyers get their hands on the document, they'll almost certainly add more

Sep 06 01:09:08 <gavinbaker> sure, but we haven't put most of that there ;)

Sep 06 01:09:16 <gavinbaker> lol, zany lawyers

Sep 06 01:09:25 <gavinbaker> k, YAFM

Sep 06 01:09:29 <gavinbaker> a la prochaine

Sep 06 01:09:56 * gavinbaker has changed the topic to: students for free culture | | Bug tracker: | In case of downtime: | Next bylaws RC2 meeting, Sunday 2007-09-09 @ 5 pm EDT: | Chapter re-registration now open!

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