20:41 < gavinbaker> at this time, i'll ask that chatter not related to the bylaws please move to a backchannel
20:41 < gavinbaker> e.g. ##freeculture or something
20:41 < gavinbaker> and we'll commence with the bylaws meeting
20:41 < gavinbaker> and maybe even finish?!
20:41 < skyfaller> sounds like a plan
20:41 < contra> Fear_of_C: since you're here, you can represent Swat. I took a nap this afternoon, so I have to do my Organic Chem lab. :)
20:42 * contra fades away
20:42 < gavinbaker> agenda: http://wiki.freeculture.org/2007-09-03
20:42 -!- Differance [n=Differan@dialup-126.96.36.199.Dial1.NewYork1.Level3.net] has joined #freeculture
20:42 < Fear_of_C> contra: I might not be here continuously
20:42 < gavinbaker> the main thing for tonight is to review comments made on the wiki
20:43 < gavinbaker> which are at: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Talk:Bylaws
20:43 < Fear_of_C> contra: and I am trying to get started on the physics hw
20:43 < gavinbaker> we'll mainly go in the order they are on the page
20:43 < gavinbaker> though note that many of these comments may have already been addressed in previous bylaws meetings
20:44 < gavinbaker> we want to offer each comment the opportunity for a fair hearing
20:44 < gavinbaker> but we also have time constraints to be cognizant of
20:44 < gavinbaker> so we should feel free to just spend much time on most of the comments
20:45 < gavinbaker> remember that the bylaws don't have to be perfect, they just have to work
20:45 < gavinbaker> *to not spend much time
20:45 < gavinbaker> (whoops)
20:45 < gavinbaker> anyway, these don't have to be perfect, so let's make sure they work, and non-priority issues can be implemented in amendments
20:46 < gavinbaker> so here's #1: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Talk:Bylaws#Comments_By_Seth_Johnson
20:46 < Differance> Seems you've addressed the first oen
20:46 < gavinbaker> looks like this comment is referring to the draft mission statement, which has since been changed to address these concerns
20:46 < Differance> one
20:48 < gavinbaker> yeah, the term "intellectual property" no longer appears in the current draft
20:48 < skyfaller> see http://wiki.freeculture.org/Bylaws_RC2 for the current draft
20:48 < mllerustad> Then we have a suggestion of "Field Commander" instead of "Executive Director" (now "Coordinator")...
20:48 < mllerustad> Rather military and...well...commanding, I think...
20:49 < skyfaller> yeah, kind of... top-down?
20:49 < gavinbaker> well, in the interest of clarity, http://wiki.freeculture.org/Talk:Bylaws#Comments_By_Seth_Johnson is no longer relevant, so we'll move on
20:49 < gavinbaker> next: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Talk:Bylaws#Comments_By_Seth_Johnson_2
20:49 < gavinbaker> we also already addressed the name of the "Executive Director"
20:49 < skyfaller> too... hierarchical
20:50 < mllerustad> He also suggests a radically different organizational structure...
20:50 < Differance> Folks, you should seriously skip this one -- you're not at all coming from any kind of place where you understand it
20:50 < gavinbaker> um... i'm not sure the other comments here are useful at this time
20:50 < Differance> Life is all non-hierarchical and all, or something
20:50 < Differance> LOL
20:51 < mllerustad> Yeah...
20:51 < Differance> What's there is how to run an organization that executes tactics
20:51 < Differance> You guys can't even get past representation
20:51 < gavinbaker> i mean, the part about chapters is out of our hands, chapters do what they like
20:51 < skyfaller> he wants a small board?
20:51 < gavinbaker> OTOH, the part about a 3 person "board" has similarly been discussed and resolved
20:51 < Differance> You kinda have to start the right way -- you're starting you're own way -- the usual approach . . .
20:51 < skyfaller> I guess we can count that as support of the 5-member board over some other higher number
20:52 < gavinbaker> i think we've already discussed, generally speaking, the subjects of this comment, and should move on
20:52 < skyfaller> but what would a "community advisors position" be? Is that supporting the existance of an advisory board?
20:52 -!- tannewt [n=scott@gentoo/developer/tannewt] has joined #freeculture
20:52 < mllerustad> skyfaller: I think so... which is something we've discussed, but I think can wait until later in the life of the org.
20:53 < gavinbaker> skyfaller, i'm not sure how similar that is to an advisory board as commonly understood, because the proposal is a pretty different org structure
20:53 < Differance> Yep -- at the heart of this structure is that you have a small core, having Boards and all slows you down
20:53 < skyfaller> I guess he supports chapter participation
20:53 < Differance> You can just have ops, political, and go
20:54 < Differance> Where they can gun operations
20:54 < skyfaller> which might be a vote in favor of the Core Team model that Gavin proposed further down the page
20:54 < Differance> And the coordinator guns operations too
20:54 < gavinbaker> my POV is just the opposite, that we need more participation and not less
20:54 < Differance> I would say a core team needs to be three people
20:54 < Differance> never gets stymied
20:54 < Differance> Yep
20:54 < gavinbaker> too few people in charge is bad news, because it's not enough manpower to make good decisions and get work done, and people don't have ownership in the org
20:54 < Differance> That's the way you all are starting
20:54 < skyfaller> gavinbaker: agreed
20:54 < Differance> Ah well, if you say so
20:54 < skyfaller> OK, I think you're right, nothing interesting in this comment, let's move on
20:55 < Differance> Actually, it's the best advice on the page
20:55 < gavinbaker> next: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Talk:Bylaws#Comments_from_Tim_Hwang
20:55 < Differance> But you could never get there from where you are, so seriously, skip right over it
20:55 < gavinbaker> the first comment here asks how the board chooses a chair; IIRC we resolved that
20:56 < mllerustad> Yup.
20:56 < gavinbaker> yeah, we did: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Bylaws_RC2#Section_188.8.131.52._Chairperson
20:56 < gavinbaker> the next comment asks about removing the Exec Director (now "Coordinator")
20:57 < gavinbaker> i think we added a removal for cause clause
20:57 < mllerustad> Did we?
20:57 < gavinbaker> but unfortunately it doesn't appear to be written into RC2 yet
20:57 < gavinbaker> but i *think* we decided to do that
20:57 < mllerustad> I think we just said that the board has the power to terminate them.
20:57 < mllerustad> gavinbaker: I went through all the logs... I didn't see that.
20:57 < skyfaller> mllerustad: did you write stuff up for all the logs somewhere?
20:57 < gavinbaker> mllerustad: do you suppose you can link us to the log where we discuss removing the Coordinator?
20:58 < mllerustad> skyfaller: No, I didn't write things up... I went through and added each RESOLVED: thing to RC_2.
20:58 < mllerustad> gavinbaker: No... No one took notes, ergo, it could be anywhere.
20:58 < mllerustad> I was just searching for "RESOLVED"s.
20:59 < Differance> search for the string "remov"
20:59 < gavinbaker> hm, i think we're going to want minutes for each of the meetings -- at least of decisions made (which may or may not always be demarcated by "RESOLVED")
20:59 < mllerustad> Differance: If there's no RESOLVED attached to it, we didn't decide it.
20:59 < mllerustad> gavinbaker: Bit late...
20:59 < gavinbaker> mllerustad: that's not quite accurate...
21:00 < gavinbaker> mllerustad: yeah, it is late, but it's also important, i think
21:00 < Differance> So start the discussion afresh, or use the prior discussion for refreshing memory
21:00 < mllerustad> gavinbaker: Fine, we may have decided something without it, but if we did, that was stupid on our part because probably no one will ever find that decision again.
21:00 < Differance> search for the string "remov"
21:01 < mllerustad> gavinbaker: Do we even need removal for cause? Either way, they'd be removed by the board, right?
21:01 < mllerustad> Which is a power already enunciated.
21:01 < skyfaller> I just searched for the string "coordinator" and had little luck
21:02 < Differance> most of the discussion is probably all about that ol coordinator personage
21:02 < mllerustad> gavinbaker: If this was discussed, I don't think I was in attendance... I don't remember removal for cause for the ED/C.
21:02 < mllerustad> We may have discussed it for board members...
21:02 < skyfaller> I think it's fine to leave it up to the board's discretion as to whether to kill the coordinator or not
21:02 < Differance> And by what means
21:02 < Differance> and for what bounty
21:02 < mllerustad> Majority vote--the default for board decisions.
21:03 < mllerustad> It's quite lethal. :)
21:03 < Differance> Hmm
21:03 < Differance> That could be a really messy thing
21:03 < Differance> lots of one-person differences
21:03 < Differance> It's 7 people? or 5?
21:03 < mllerustad> Five.
21:03 < skyfaller> 5
21:04 < Differance> Do you want to make it easy or hard?
21:04 < gavinbaker> well, i can't find anything about removal for cause for the Coordinator
21:04 < gavinbaker> just that the board terminates the Coordinator
21:04 < gavinbaker> assumedly by majority vote
21:04 < Differance> simple majority?
21:04 < skyfaller> I mean, the board appointed him by majority vote, the same way they make most other decisions
21:04 < gavinbaker> i think it would be better to have some clarity about how to fire a Coordinator, in what circumstances s/he can be fired, etc.
21:04 < Differance> ah well, 5 is so small, little diff
21:05 < skyfaller> see http://wiki.freeculture.org/Bylaws_RC2#Section_1.2.2._Procedures_of_the_Board
21:05 < gavinbaker> but i'm not sure how important it is at this time
21:05 < gavinbaker> i.e. i think we could skate by and write in more detail later
21:05 < mllerustad> Alright.
21:05 < skyfaller> is there a quick fix? can we replicate language from somewhere else in the bylaws?
21:05 < Differance> high crimes and misdemeanors
21:05 < gavinbaker> skyfaller: i don't think there's a quick fix, because it's not just a matter of writing language, it's a matter of deciding what we want
21:06 < gavinbaker> i'm not sure what the standards should be for firing the Coordinator, so maybe we should just leave it to the board
21:06 < mllerustad> gavinbaker: Agreed.
21:06 < Differance> how many positions will be open on the board?
21:06 < skyfaller> Differance: all of them
21:06 -!- e-star [firstname.lastname@example.org] has joined #freeculture
21:06 < gavinbaker> Differance: they'll all be up for election
21:06 < Differance> there you go
21:07 < gavinbaker> Differance: i'm not sure how many of the current board members are running for re-election; at least 1 isn't
21:07 < Differance> As I'm an unofficial board member, I can tell you that 2 won't
21:07 < Differance> (joke)
21:08 < skyfaller> we could use similar language as the removal of chapters section for removal of the coordinator
21:08 < mllerustad> I really don't think it's necessary.
21:08 < gavinbaker> but skyfaller, i don't think there's much parallel b/w chapters and the Coordinator
21:08 * mindspillage notes, from the peanut gallery, that things that are operations rather than governance are mostly not given in detail in into Wikimedia's bylaws (so that operational detail can be changed without revising the bylaws)
21:08 < mllerustad> The Coordinator's an employee, not a member.
21:08 < skyfaller> mindspillage: good point
21:08 < gavinbaker> chapters are the "citizens" of FC.o, so it's important to delineate the circumstances in which they can be kicked out and the procedures for doing so
21:08 < mllerustad> Removing him/her is not as big a deal.
21:09 -!- e-star [email@example.com] has quit [Client Quit]
21:09 < gavinbaker> the Coordinator is a staffer, and serves at the -- what's the phrase? -- at the pleasure of the Org
21:09 < mllerustad> ho ho
21:09 < skyfaller> mmm... pleasure
21:09 < gavinbaker> i mean, i think i'd *rather* have some standards, but they're not very important
21:09 < gavinbaker> i.e. i'd rather amend them in later
21:09 < mllerustad> Let's move on to the next thing.
21:10 < skyfaller> yeah, let the board write up something after they get elected
21:10 < mllerustad> Is "day to day" too vague?
21:10 < gavinbaker> mindspillage: right, but FC.o is trying to be -- not to be snarky or anything -- more democratic than Wikimedia
21:10 < Differance> Ah, an employee? Then the Board decides any old way it pleases
21:10 < Differance> Not an issue
21:10 < gavinbaker> i mean, not even 100% of Wikimedia's board is required to be elected
21:10 < Differance> remember you're not setting up a constitutional republic
21:10 < gavinbaker> and the board basically decides how to define "community" i.e. who gets to vote
21:10 < gavinbaker> it's more purpose-oriented
21:10 < Differance> You're setting up a *private* organization
21:10 < mindspillage> gavinbaker: no, understood, but there are some principles that have worked for us and I thought I might share them.
21:11 < mllerustad> It still says "day to day", but we make it very clear that all duties come from/are determined by the Board.
21:11 < gavinbaker> whereas FC.o is purposefully trying to set up a community with checks and balances and "rights" for the members
21:11 < mindspillage> Separating out in to levels -- what should be bylaws, what should be resolutions, what should be policies referred to by bylaws and resolutions is a big source of debate. :-)
21:11 < Differance> I think if it's accepted that the Coordinator is an employee, then all you need is that the Board decides any way they please
21:11 < skyfaller> wait, which point are we arguing now?
21:11 < skyfaller> are we done with the standards for removing the coordinator issue?
21:11 < gavinbaker> mindspillage: right, and it might be that some of this stuff is better in a document other than the bylaws
21:11 < gavinbaker> but for now, the bylaws is all we'll have
21:11 < gavinbaker> so anything really important should go here
21:12 < mllerustad> Let's move on, guys.
21:12 < gavinbaker> and we can take things out of the "constitution" and move them into "statutes" later as warranted
21:12 < gavinbaker> so i'm happy with the answer to Tim's question is "the board fires the Coordinator, as decided by the board"
21:12 < mllerustad> gavinbaker: Okay, shall we move to the next point?
21:13 < gavinbaker> mllerustad, that's fine by me
21:13 < Differance> I always find it intriguing the way organizations always want to go this, let's set up a democratic representative republic approach. It's the source of a lot of difficulty
21:13 < Differance> :-)
21:13 < Differance> You can just do it
21:13 < Differance> oh well, carry on . . .
21:14 < mllerustad> Tim worries that "day to day" is too vague... The bylaws still say "day to day", but we make it very clear that all duties come from/are determined by the Board.
21:14 < skyfaller> this is supposed to be a representative organization that can represent students on FC issues on an (inter)national level
21:14 < mllerustad> Can this be something to put in "statute"?
21:14 < Differance> I see
21:14 < skyfaller> but yeah, that point is neither here nor there
21:14 < gavinbaker> ugh, i hate the phrase "day-to-day"
21:15 < gavinbaker> in this context
21:15 < gavinbaker> but the board defines what the Coordinator does, so it's just verbiage
21:15 < skyfaller> I think we can just punt to the board, the duties of the Coordinator will change based on various conditions, e.g. what volunteers there are
21:15 < mllerustad> Sounds good to me.
21:15 < skyfaller> whether the Coordinator is paid full-time or part-time
21:15 < skyfaller> etc.
21:15 < gavinbaker> a job description would be good, but it doesn't belong in the bylaws
21:16 < skyfaller> yeah, you shouldn't have to amend the bylaws to change what you want your employee to do
21:16 < gavinbaker> maybe a very broad outline might be OK... but i'm fine with just saying, the board can sort it out
21:17 < gavinbaker> we OK on that point?
21:17 < mllerustad> Yep. :)
21:17 < skyfaller> I mean, *very* broadly, the Coordinator's job is to serve the chapters, not command them as people feared from the title "executive director"
21:17 < skyfaller> but that's so broad as to be useless / empty of information
21:17 < gavinbaker> the next comment is about the transparency of the board
21:17 < gavinbaker> which i think is actually rather important
21:17 < skyfaller> (sure, we can move on to the next point)
21:18 < mllerustad> Yeah...
21:18 < gavinbaker> but there aren't any suggestions on how to do it
21:18 < mllerustad> I'm not sure what I think on that.
21:18 < gavinbaker> and i don't have any bright ideas either
21:18 < mllerustad> On the one hand, we want the board to be accountable to the chapters.
21:18 < gavinbaker> well, i think that the minutes (and log, if applicable) should be available to all members of chapters
21:18 < mllerustad> On the other hand, if we're making some sort of plans or dealing with something externally embarrassing or something, we may not want that available to everyone.
21:19 < skyfaller> yeah, we closed the Board's e-mail archives recently
21:19 < gavinbaker> i'm not saying that everything the board does should be open to the entire world, immediately
21:19 < skyfaller> they were open before, and people were concerned about it turning up on Google
21:19 < gavinbaker> although ideally we'll have some transparency to the outside world, not just internally
21:19 < mllerustad> Some, just not all...
21:19 < gavinbaker> but i can't imagine what objection people would have with the board's documents being available to members of chapters
21:19 < mllerustad> Right.
21:19 < skyfaller> I think we'll eventually need to make a private wiki or something that is open only to the chapters, for stuff like this... they're only responsible to the chapters, not the whole world
21:20 < mllerustad> So how do we make it chapter-only?
21:20 < skyfaller> mllerustad: that's a tech question
21:20 < gavinbaker> mllerustad: well, that's a technical question, that we can answer later
21:20 < mllerustad> 'Kay.
21:20 < gavinbaker> but before we rush forward with this
21:20 < skyfaller> an implementation question doesn't need to be answered in the bylaws
21:20 < gavinbaker> is there anything that chapters SHOULDN'T have access to, immediately?
21:20 < BrianRowe> no
21:20 < gavinbaker> any provisions for blacking things out, permanently or as a temporary 'embargo'?
21:21 < mllerustad> I don't think so.
21:21 < skyfaller> I can't imagine what... even processes to expell a chapter should be available to the chapter under threat of expulsion
21:21 < BrianRowe> budget, minuets of board meeting eveything should be transparent
21:21 < mllerustad> At least, I can't think of any example that would make that compelling.
21:21 < skyfaller> well... what about legal problems?
21:21 < mllerustad> Chapters shouldn't know about legal issues? or there may be liability issues with transparency somehow?
21:22 < gavinbaker> i mean, we should be cognizant that even if these documents are only available internally, the more people with access, the greater the possibility for a leak
21:22 < mllerustad> skyfaller: What do you mean?
21:22 < gavinbaker> and there might stuff that's sensitive
21:22 < BrianRowe> employee files may need to stay confidential, but that is a longer term issue beyond the bylaws
21:22 < gavinbaker> not saying there *is*, or what that would be, but it seems like there might be
21:22 < Differance> If it's a representative organization, then anybody can decide it's for the greater good to go public
21:22 < gavinbaker> Differance: but there might be some stuff that really *shouldn't* be public
21:22 < skyfaller> I can't really think of specific examples, I just remember for example that Gaim had to hide information about the name change to Pidgin b/c of trademark disputes
21:23 < gavinbaker> like employee files
21:23 < mllerustad> skyfaller: weird, why>?
21:23 < Differance> And those things are the stuff that hay's made out of
21:23 < skyfaller> Gaim couldn't share that process with the community for some reason
21:23 < skyfaller> I don't know why
21:23 -!- contra [firstname.lastname@example.org] has quit 
21:23 < gavinbaker> um, donor confidentiality
21:23 < gavinbaker> is big
21:23 < skyfaller> I don't know what legal problems would be too sticky to share with our members, but I could imagine there being something of the sort
21:23 < mllerustad> gavinbaker: Would that be in board minutes?
21:24 < mllerustad> Seems like something the Coordinator/some other employee would be dealing with.
21:24 < skyfaller> mllerustad: think iCommons, with their mysterious donor whose identity had to be kept secret
21:25 < mllerustad> Of course, the Coordinator is required to report to the Board... but they don't need to tell them who the donor was.
21:25 < gavinbaker> besides the minutes / log of meetings, i was thinking that the archives of the board mailing list should be available to chapter members
21:25 < skyfaller> (at least inside the meeting)
21:25 < BrianRowe> mnutes must be open, at least in npo's you have to publish the minutes.
21:25 < gavinbaker> mllerustad: what if the Coordinator doesn't feel comfortable accepting a donation, and asks the board to decide?
21:26 < mllerustad> an anonymous donation?
21:26 < gavinbaker> mllerustad: yeah, like iCommons got.
21:26 < skyfaller> well, then he can tell them who it is off the record
21:26 < skyfaller> and they can use a pseudonym in the public meeting
21:27 < BrianRowe> i am ok with anonumus donations as long as they do not have strings attached.
21:27 < skyfaller> "public" for the chapter members
21:27 < Differance> I think transparency is a function of the representative body
21:27 < Differance> They decide, and are accountable for the decisions
21:28 < Differance> That is, decisions about transparency or not
21:28 < Differance> If that's not the model, then basically you have a set of people
21:28 < Differance> who just decide
21:28 < Differance> executive-wise
21:28 < Differance> it's more like private
21:28 < Differance> just the other way
21:29 < Differance> But
21:29 < Differance> If you're thinking about transparency
21:29 < Differance> your thinking about representation
21:29 < gavinbaker> can we say the minutes/logs of board meetings are available to chapter members, and the board can black out things deemed necessary?
21:29 < gavinbaker> that's not a good permanent solution, but it seems like a decent stopgap
21:29 < skyfaller> gavinbaker: sounds reasonable... what about mailing list archives?
21:29 < gavinbaker> i don't want this issue to hold up the whole bylaws
21:30 < gavinbaker> and at some point, you have to trust the board to do the right thing
21:30 < BrianRowe> i woul make it pubic for anyone. letting the world know we are above board is as important to our reputation as giving general member access to information.
21:30 < mllerustad> gavinbaker: Where would this provision go?
21:30 < gavinbaker> BrianRowe: go ask other non-profit orgs
21:30 < gavinbaker> i'm 99% sure that EFF, CC, FSF don't release the minutes of their board meetings
21:30 < gavinbaker> probably not even to their own members
21:31 < gavinbaker> mllerustad: in the Board section, i guess
21:31 < BrianRowe> i sit on a board at Washington State Bar assosiation. All our meeting are public and we publish minutes
21:31 < skyfaller> mindspillage: anything to say about Wikimedia's practices? ;-)
21:31 < gavinbaker> e.g. under Section 1.2.2. Procedures of the Board
21:31 < mllerustad> BrianRowe: If we want to catch the RIAA/whoever by surprise for a protest or whatever, we probably shouldn't publish our plans to do so openly.
21:31 < Differance> If you wanted to catch the RIAA by surprise, you'd just have a Field Commander
21:32 < Differance> Agility and representative democracy ain't all that compatible
21:32 < skyfaller> BrianRowe: we closed our mailing list archives b/c we were discussing whether to support a certain potential ally
21:32 < Differance> Especially in the thick of battle
21:32 < mindspillage> Our minutes are public -- actually I think all nonprofits have to make their minutes public. Informal meetings generally not, most substantive discussions goes on the "internal" list wihich is board, staff, chapter boards, and some other core community members. Board does keep some things private -- less than most think and probably more than we should.
21:32 < skyfaller> which required discussing their shortcomings
21:33 < mllerustad> Differance: Doesn't mean we can't compromise. :)
21:33 < gavinbaker> i mean, on the one hand, with minutes you can white-wash things
21:33 < gavinbaker> the minutes could just say, "The board discussed accepting a donation from an anonymous donor."
21:33 < gavinbaker> but obviously, the log or recording (if one exists) would say more
21:34 < gavinbaker> similarly with a direct transcript, or with mailing list archives
21:34 < mllerustad> I think minutes would be good enough...but then minutes must be obligatory for any board meeting.
21:34 < skyfaller> minutes ought to be obligatory... look at the disaster this bylaws process has become without minutes :)
21:34 < gavinbaker> let me put this way: i want to make a decision soon ( = now), and we can't give this important fair consideration to make a really good decision without taking more time
21:35 < gavinbaker> so i want to find a compromise position temporarily
21:35 < gavinbaker> that can and should be revisited in future amendments
21:35 -!- pyrak [email@example.com] has joined #freeculture
21:35 < jibot> pyrak is parker phinney and madebyparker.com and head of chadwick free culture and a highschool senior
21:35 < skyfaller> let's say that board minutes should be public to the world, and leave everything else up to the Board?
21:35 -!- Randtke2 [firstname.lastname@example.org] has quit 
21:35 < mllerustad> skyfaller: I'm fine with that.
21:35 < skyfaller> and also say that minutes are obligatory for board meetings?
21:36 < skyfaller> the main problem with that is it requires one of the board members to be taking minutes in real-time, or for some non-board member to attend
21:36 < gavinbaker> skyfaller, i think i'd be happier to explicitly mention mailing list archives, meeting logs or transcripts or recordings, and other documents -- and just say "the board shall determine procedures for making these documents available to the membership"
21:36 < Differance> You do have to publish decisions in some language
21:36 < Differance> If that's fuzzy, you're vulnerable
21:36 < Omnifrog> haha, i fired comcast today
21:36 < gavinbaker> which doesn't require that any of it be made open
21:37 < Differance> If it's definite, you/re less vulnerable
21:37 < BrianRowe> I am fine with that minetes. If the board decides employment issues they may have to act privatly but they can still publish a minuetes latter
21:37 < skyfaller> I think we should require minutes to be public, the minutes would contain decisions without having to say exactly how they were decided
21:37 < gavinbaker> yeah, minutes have to be taken and published as the official record of what was decided
21:37 < gavinbaker> but they don't have to have much information about how decisions were arrived at
21:38 < skyfaller> unless the board wants to publish that info, of course
21:38 < gavinbaker> ideally we'll have a way to make at least some of that information available, to at least the membership
21:38 < gavinbaker> but i think that finding the exact proper balance for that is more than we can accomplish immediately
21:38 < skyfaller> OK, so we'll mention those other documents and say that the board should make them available to chapter members at the Board's discretion
21:38 < skyfaller> is that fine?
21:39 < gavinbaker> i'm fine with that
21:39 < BrianRowe> I am ok with that (published public minutes)
21:39 < gavinbaker> but to clarify something
21:39 < gavinbaker> are we saying the minutes are published to chapter members, or to the public?
21:39 < skyfaller> the minutes should be world-readable
21:39 < skyfaller> the public
21:39 < Omnifrog> everyone has log files. minutes are recorded weather you like it or not
21:39 < skyfaller> the decisions have to be public
21:40 < mllerustad> Omnifrog: Unless board meetings aren't held in this IRC channel...
21:40 < Omnifrog> lol
21:40 < skyfaller> if the board needs to talk privately, they probably won't do their talking here, it's true
21:40 < gavinbaker> any comments on why we should/should not make minutes public vs. only available to membership?
21:41 < skyfaller> minutes/decisions are inherently public
21:41 < mllerustad> skyfaller: Are they?
21:41 < skyfaller> hm...
21:41 < Omnifrog> different place, different logs
21:41 < gavinbaker> why does the RIAA need to know what we decided?
21:41 < mllerustad> If we decide to TP RIAA headquarters or something else requiring the element of surprise, that would be in the minutes.
21:41 < gavinbaker> our members need to know
21:41 < skyfaller> I guess I can think of decisions that we don't want the RIAA to know about
21:41 < Differance> You need a black budget
21:41 < gavinbaker> i think that transparency to the world can be beneficial
21:42 < Differance> For the dirty work
21:42 < gavinbaker> but i don't know how important/desirable it is to make EVERYTHING public to the world
21:42 < Differance> LOL
21:42 < skyfaller> we could just be vague in the public minutes... but that would suggest that we have to keep two versions of the minutes
21:42 < skyfaller> which would be retarded
21:42 < gavinbaker> i'm leaning toward letting the board decide on that point, and/or revisiting it in later amendments
21:42 < pyrak> for the record, pyrak likes transparency. a lot.
21:42 < gavinbaker> and the bylaws only say that the minutes have to be available to the membership
21:42 < mllerustad> "Minutes must be taken at all meetings and published for all members of the Organization. Other records, such as board emails, audio recordings, and logs, may be made available to the members of the Organization and/or the general public as the board sees fit."
21:43 < gavinbaker> mllerustad, i'd make a small amendment for clarity
21:43 < gavinbaker> Minutes must be taken at all meetings and published for all members of the Organization. Other records, such as board emails, audio recordings, and logs, may be made available to the members of the Organization as decided by the board. The board may also make procedures for providing access to these documents to the general public.
21:44 < BrianRowe> There will be things that need to be kept private, generaly the more open we are the better. I think the board can find a reasoable balance.
21:44 < mllerustad> Yeah.
21:44 < skyfaller> gavinbaker++
21:44 < mllerustad> I figure, most any board that this org will elect will probably err on the side of transparency...
21:44 < skyfaller> can we RESOLVE gavin's language?
21:44 < mllerustad> RESOLVED: gavin's language!
21:44 < gavinbaker> well, +1 from me.
21:44 < skyfaller> +1
21:44 < BrianRowe> +1
21:44 < mllerustad> +1
21:45 < gavinbaker> ok. Tim's next comment is that the Coordinator shouldn't be a board member
21:45 < Differance> "minutes, including decisions and vote counts" -- ?
21:45 < gavinbaker> which is a comment we've received a few other times
21:46 < skyfaller> Differance: whatever, the board can decide what "minutes" includes
21:46 < gavinbaker> Differance: i'm not sure how one would define "decision"
21:46 < Omnifrog> do you still have to be a student to start a fc chapter?
21:46 < gavinbaker> you could say that any time the board votes, that vote goes in the minutes
21:46 < Differance> ??
21:46 < Differance> You can't define a decision?
21:46 < gavinbaker> Omnifrog: yes, you still have to be a student to be a member of a student organization ;)
21:46 < gavinbaker> Differance: what is a decision?
21:47 < Differance> Why make any decisions then?
21:47 < skyfaller> Omnifrog: we did change the name of the org to Students for Free Culture in these bylaws
21:47 < Omnifrog> guh
21:47 < Differance> RESOLVED: That
21:47 < gavinbaker> if the board decides not to discuss something, is that a "decision"?
21:47 < Differance> We will have a butterscotch sundae party Sunday
21:47 < Differance> Ta da
21:47 < Differance> Geesh, you make a decison, you say what it is
21:47 < Omnifrog> i saw that discusion skyfaller
21:47 * skyfaller has a butterscotch sundae party
21:48 < Differance> They could decide to not make a decision
21:48 < mllerustad> Differance: Then how is that different than just letting the board decide what goes in the minutes and moving on?
21:48 < skyfaller> let the board decide what to put in the minutes, for goodness sake
21:48 < skyfaller> these bylaws are too long already
21:48 < gavinbaker> Differance, that doesn't get any closer to defining what a "decision" it. so it's not useful to specify that the minutes will include "decisions" if nobody knows what a "decision" is
21:48 < Differance> I guess it might matter depending on where issues come from
21:48 < gavinbaker> the only reasonable thing you could specify, without going into a lot of detail, would be to include every vote
21:49 < skyfaller> we could require that
21:49 < gavinbaker> i'm not sure that's a terrible idea
21:49 < Omnifrog> my daughter started at UTC this year. I been trying to get her to start a chapter
21:49 < Differance> If you're petitioned, you're going to answer that
21:49 < skyfaller> Omnifrog: good luck :)
21:49 < Omnifrog> i dont thinkk she will
21:49 < mllerustad> RESOLVED: include(votes);
21:49 < skyfaller> mllerustad++
21:49 < skyfaller> +1
21:50 < BrianRowe> +
21:50 < gavinbaker> +1 is fine
21:50 < Differance> (don't take it personally I'm not voting, BTW)
21:50 < Omnifrog> im not gonna stop bothering her about it though
21:50 < Differance> Don't see that as my role here
21:51 < skyfaller> alright, so the board has to publish minutes for the chapter members, everything else is up to their discretion
21:51 < skyfaller> next point?
21:51 < skyfaller> (well, and the minutes have to include votes)
21:51 < mllerustad> Do we want it so the Coordinator can't be a board member?
21:51 < mllerustad> Personally I think it's a good idea...
21:51 < skyfaller> I don't think that's necessary
21:51 < skyfaller> Gigi Sohn is both on the board of PK and an employee of PK
21:52 < skyfaller> and nobody is accusing her of wrongdoing
21:52 < gavinbaker> if there's a paid Coordinator in the tradition sense of a staffer, they shouldn't be on the board, imho
21:52 < skyfaller> she can just not vote on things where she has a conflict of interest
21:52 < gavinbaker> sure, but the membership of PK is whatever PK decides
21:52 -!- K`Tetch [email@example.com] has joined #freeculture
21:52 < Differance> I'm not sure anybody who wants the separation is here
21:52 < gavinbaker> ...gimme a sec to figure out what i mean.
21:52 < gavinbaker> i guess it's just a separation of powers thing
21:53 < gavinbaker> just good in general
21:53 < mllerustad> skyfaller: I'd agree... if we had a larger board.
21:53 < Differance> 7 board members! Yay!
21:53 < gavinbaker> i mean, here's one thing
21:53 < skyfaller> well, I'm not opposed to the requirement that the Coordinator not be on the board
21:53 < mllerustad> Otherwise, you're down to four votes for a decent number of the board's decisions.
21:53 < gavinbaker> if the board members are all students
21:53 < gavinbaker> they're probably not going to be the Coordinator
21:53 -!- klepas [n=klepas@unaffiliated/klepas] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
21:53 -!- klepas_ [firstname.lastname@example.org] has joined #freeculture
21:53 < gavinbaker> i don't know. i wish some of these people who want this had written WHY they want it
21:53 < mllerustad> gavinbaker: But board members don't have to be students... they just have to be students when they're first elected.
21:54 < skyfaller> gavinbaker: yeah, that would have been helpful
21:54 -!- WillaRand [email@example.com] has quit [Connection timed out]
21:54 < gavinbaker> mllerustad: is that true, or can alumni be elected? i don't remember
21:54 < Differance> Here's my guess:
21:54 < Differance> They want the executor to be separate
21:54 < Differance> And the board to be representative
21:54 < mllerustad> gavinbaker: "Members of any chapter (as defined by the chapter) and current members of the board of directors shall be eligible to stand for election to the board."
21:54 < Differance> They're the same people who want more on the Board
21:54 < gavinbaker> mllerustad: right, and the chapter can define alumni as members
21:54 < skyfaller> yeah, we don't let alumni run for election anymore
21:54 < mllerustad> Yeah...
21:55 < gavinbaker> which is a stupid hack, imho, but that's what we decided
21:55 < skyfaller> oh
21:55 < skyfaller> that's dumb, but ok
21:55 < mllerustad> skyfaller: welcome to politics! :p
21:55 < gavinbaker> i feel like i don't have enough info to decide either way
21:56 < gavinbaker> and i'd rather just leave well enough alone
21:56 < skyfaller> well, let's put it this way... what possible benefits would there be to having the Coordinator be on the board of directors?
21:56 < gavinbaker> if people want to change it, they can offer an amendment
21:56 < gavinbaker> and justify at that time why they think it's a good idea
21:56 < Differance> How is it now?
21:56 < gavinbaker> friendly clock reminder, we've been here for 1.5 hours
21:56 < Differance> separate or not?
21:56 < gavinbaker> and we're on comment 3 out of 30
21:56 < mllerustad> gavinbaker: Well, I think it would be better separated..but if we want to move on, we can.
21:56 < BrianRowe> i am ok either way.
21:57 < gavinbaker> Differance: currently, there's nothing that says that the Coordinator can't also serve on the Board
21:57 < skyfaller> it seems to me that the Coordinator would have intimate familiarity with the operations of the org, and would be useful to have around when making decisions, esp. if the Board is taking a hands-off role and may not be totally plugged in
21:57 < Differance> My take is that those not here and those here could go with separation
21:57 < gavinbaker> mllerustad: i think it might be better to separate it, but i don't have any real reasons why
21:57 < skyfaller> the Board could invite the Coordinator to attend meetings without them being on the Board
21:57 < gavinbaker> skyfaller: but you can get that benefit just by requiring the the Coordinator be present at board meetings
21:58 < mllerustad> gavinbaker: My reason is that it would reduce the functional board size for a significant number of decisions, since the Coordinator would have to recuse themself.
21:58 < gavinbaker> so you get their advice, without them having a vote
21:58 < mindspillage> (another note of interjection: our exec director -- or right now, our exec consultant -- is on the board mailing list and sees everything the board sees and attends all meetings, but is not actually on the board and is not entitled to vote on board resolutions -- discussions about the exec director are taken offlist in private, but those are rare)
21:58 < skyfaller> but it seems to me that if the Chapters think that the Coordinator wolud make a good board member, or the board member is elected and the board thinks they would make a good coordinator, why prevent that?
21:58 -!- Randtke [firstname.lastname@example.org] has joined #freeculture
21:58 < gavinbaker> mllerustad: well, how frequently do you think the Coordinator would have a conflict of interest?
21:58 -!- WillaRand [email@example.com] has joined #freeculture
21:58 < mllerustad> Well, the Coordinator will always favor her own appointments and chapter approvals..
21:59 < gavinbaker> mindspillage: is that per your bylaws, or just by circumstance?
21:59 < mllerustad> The Coordinator likes having a salary, preferably a larger one...
21:59 < mllerustad> The Coordinator may want more powers than originally allotted to the position...
21:59 < mindspillage> gavinbaker: by circumstance; it's changed previously but we found it's best if the coordinator knows everything.
21:59 < Differance> board has power of the purse
21:59 < skyfaller> mllerustad: right, they would have to abstain when there's a conflict of interest
21:59 < gavinbaker> skyfaller: i think if a board member applies for a job -- and the other board members decide who gets the job -- that makes it hard for the other board members
21:59 < Differance> The coordinator has unitary executive power
21:59 < mllerustad> skyfaller: Which would be for a significant chunk of the decisions, leaving you down a board member.
21:59 < gavinbaker> to vote down one of your fellow board members?
21:59 < Differance> :-)
21:59 < gavinbaker> probably pissing them off?
22:00 < gavinbaker> doesn't seem like a good way to encourage fraternity among the board members
22:00 < skyfaller> OK, fair enough
22:00 < skyfaller> so do we want to put in this requirement then?
22:00 < mllerustad> Let's do it. It's only a line.
22:00 < gavinbaker> mindspillage: but is the exec d00d prevented from being a board member?
22:00 < Differance> It sounded like everybody could go with it
22:00 < gavinbaker> mllerustad: i guess i'm ok with adding it
22:00 < Differance> I think that's what it means
22:00 < gavinbaker> it'll make some people not present happy, even if i don't know why
22:00 < skyfaller> ok, if it turns out that this was a bad idea people can always amend the bylaws later
22:01 < Differance> drop coordinator role if you want to be on board
22:01 < mllerustad> Alright.
22:01 < skyfaller> RESOLVED: The Coordinator cannot be on the Board
22:01 < skyfaller> +1
22:01 < BrianRowe> +
22:01 < mllerustad> +1
22:01 < gavinbaker> +1
22:01 < gavinbaker> we should specify that if any board member wants to apply for Coordinator, they have to resign first
22:01 < mindspillage> gavinbaker: no. (and right now it's a chix0r. :-))
22:01 < gavinbaker> mindspillage: when i say "d00d", it's gender-neutral :)
22:02 < gavinbaker> if you can apply while you're still on the board, and only have to resign if you get the job, it's the same conflict
22:02 < skyfaller> I have walked up to groups of girls and said, "what's up d00dz?"
22:02 < gavinbaker> where the other board members know they'll have to deal with you if they vote you down
22:02 -!- marshwiggleg [n=Owner@ip68-226-14-20.ga.at.cox.net] has left #freeculture 
22:02 < skyfaller> gavinbaker: fair enough
22:02 < skyfaller> let's add that requirement then
22:03 < gavinbaker> other comments on that? otherwise, can somebody draft a line in bylaws-speak?
22:04 -!- Cbrown1023 [n=Cbrown10@wikimedia/Cbrown1023] has quit ["THE EVIL INSTITUTION OF LEARNING CALLS MY NAME"]
22:05 < skyfaller> "If any board member wants to apply for Coordinator, they have to resign first"
22:05 < skyfaller> what's wrong with that?
22:05 < Differance> "likewise, if the Coordinator wishes to be on the Board, she must resign her position first"
22:06 < skyfaller> "likewise, if the Coordinator wishes to run for the Board, they must resign their position first"
22:06 < Differance> he or she
22:07 < Differance> lol
22:07 < mllerustad> Should that second part be in the elections section?
22:07 < skyfaller> the singular they is superior
22:07 < gavinbaker> stupid singular they
22:07 < gavinbaker> --
22:07 < mllerustad> we'll get to that comment later...
22:07 < Differance> the feminine neutral is groovy
22:07 < Differance> LOL
22:07 < skyfaller> Differance: it discriminates against men
22:07 < skyfaller> reverse discrimination is still discrimination
22:07 < Differance> I discriminate against men
22:07 < Differance> join me
22:08 < Differance> we'll build a better world
22:08 < Differance> together
22:08 < gavinbaker> ok so i'm fine with that language i guess
22:08 < skyfaller> Differance: sorry, I can't join you, you're a man
22:08 < gavinbaker> wherever it goes
22:08 < gavinbaker> +/-?
22:09 < Differance> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neutral_pronoun
22:09 < Differance> http://aetherlumina.com/gnp/
22:09 < Differance> (For future reference)
22:10 < skyfaller> RESOLVED: If any board member wants to apply for the Coordinator position, they must resign from the Board first. If the Coordinator wants to run for the Board, they must resign from the Coordinator position first.
22:10 < skyfaller> +1
22:10 < gavinbaker> +1
22:11 < skyfaller> any more +/- ?
22:12 < Differance> Brian? Mllerustad?
22:12 < mllerustad> I'm fine with the idea, I just don't know where to put it.
22:13 < mllerustad> Should the latter part go with the eligibility reqs for becoming a board member, or with the Coordinator section?
22:13 < skyfaller> mllerustad: put it wherever you want :) Sure, split it up
22:13 < mllerustad> 'Kay. :)
22:13 < Differance> I say put it all under coordinator
22:13 < Differance> it's a particular area -- about coordinators and their relationship with the board
22:14 < Differance> oops, you were already decided
22:14 < Differance> do what you decided, forget me
22:15 < skyfaller> it really doesn't matter either way, splitting it up is fine
22:15 < skyfaller> next point?
22:16 < mllerustad> Well, we changed the chapter approval/removal process...
22:16 < mllerustad> So that the board has the final say, instead of the Coordinator...
22:16 < skyfaller> yeah
22:16 < mllerustad> Which I think is what he wanted...
22:16 < skyfaller> that comment is no longer relevant
22:16 < skyfaller> yeah
22:16 < mllerustad> Skip to 4.2?
22:17 < skyfaller> yeah
22:17 < gavinbaker> uh
22:17 < gavinbaker> so the rest of tim's comments?
22:17 < mllerustad> Did we make it explicit that Coordinator-made groups don't get $?
22:17 < gavinbaker> idfk
22:17 < gavinbaker> the I stands for I, the D stands for don't, and the K stands for know
22:17 < Differance> The coordinator gets a black budget
22:18 < mllerustad> Wait, now it's just assistants.
22:18 < skyfaller> hm?
22:18 < mllerustad> Well, he's saying that both the board and the coordinator can appoint teams/assistants.
22:19 < skyfaller> right
22:19 < mllerustad> And that this could cause trouble, esp. if these were paid positions.
22:19 * gavinbaker is lost, in case anyone cares
22:19 < mllerustad> But the board can reverse appointments/firings now, so they get the final say.
22:20 < mllerustad> gavinbaker: What's so confusing?
22:20 < skyfaller> mllerustad: he was watching Homestar Runner
22:20 < mllerustad> Presumably, that power of review/whatever would help avoid duplication/nepotism...
22:20 < BrianRowe> paid postions should need board approval to create.
22:20 < mllerustad> Perhaps we should make that explicit...
22:20 < gavinbaker> well, when i read scrollback, it was just confusing, is all :-/
22:21 < Differance> since most of what you do is volunteer
22:21 < mllerustad> gavinbaker, skyfaller: Should we make it explicit that all paid positions must be approved by the board?
22:21 < Differance> why not
22:22 < Differance> just say coordinator can set up volunteers
22:22 < gavinbaker> mllerustad: well, the board doles out the money, right?
22:22 < Differance> transforming to paid is later
22:22 < Differance> by the board
22:22 < gavinbaker> so if the Coordinator has a budget for hiring d00dz, they can hire. otherwise, they can't
22:22 < mllerustad> Sure, but do we explicitly say that?
22:22 < Differance> power of the purse
22:22 < mllerustad> Oh wait
22:22 < mllerustad> "The board should approve important expenditures, appointments, and other major decisions by the Coordinator, as the board defines them."
22:22 < mllerustad> Okay, never mind. We're covered. :)
22:23 < skyfaller> mllerustad: so if the board wants to let the Coordinator appoint some paid positions, they can, otherwise they won't give the Coordinator that power
22:23 < Differance> Why not empower this coordinator to run shocktroop operations?
22:23 < skyfaller> yes, I would say we're covered
22:23 < Differance> just recruit volunteers
22:23 < Differance> okay, carry on
22:24 < gavinbaker> yeah i think it's kosher
22:24 < mllerustad> Alright, Tim's last comment is regarding ED verbiage, which we already changed... yay!
22:24 < skyfaller> he does have the power to appoint volunteers to volunteer positions, and the Board can veto them
22:24 < skyfaller> OK, so there is no longer a conflict b/c the Board has veto power over the Coordinator's actions, and can take away any appointment powers they don't want the Coordinator to have
22:24 < mllerustad> 'Kay, onto Elizabeth's comments?
22:25 < skyfaller> so we're done with Tim's comments
22:25 < skyfaller> moving on!
22:25 < gavinbaker> well, first things first
22:25 < gavinbaker> she wants a 7 person board
22:25 < gavinbaker> i'd rather have this election
22:25 < gavinbaker> and consider amending later
22:26 < mllerustad> Let's see if we really have ~14 people running first...
22:27 < Differance> Well, ~8 or 9 or more
22:27 < gavinbaker> so let's not change it?
22:27 < mllerustad> I'd rather not...
22:27 < Differance> How about putting out that you'll determine the numeric composition
22:28 < mllerustad> Of course, Elizabeth isn't here.
22:28 < Differance> based on the outcome in the election
22:28 < Differance> If there's say 2 more than 7
22:28 < Differance> then we'll have 7
22:28 < gavinbaker> Differance: it's not just numbers that matter
22:28 < gavinbaker> i don't feel it necessary to say anything else on this issue
22:28 < Differance> I like letters
22:28 < Differance> and punctuation too
22:28 < gavinbaker> 5 is OK, and people can revisit it later if they want
22:29 -!- skyfaller [n=nelson@wikipedia/Skyfaller] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
22:29 -!- skyfaller [firstname.lastname@example.org] has joined #freeculture
22:29 < Differance> Isn't her notion about representation of chapters?
22:29 < Differance> Seems that's what she said
22:29 < skyfaller> WTF, OS X just froze up completely... that like never happens
22:29 < skyfaller> anyway
22:29 < mllerustad> Differance: Right... so if the vast majority of candidates are from one school... that's not a reason to expand the board either.
22:30 < Differance> sounds right
22:30 < gavinbaker> we've discussed this extensively and i'm happy to move on.
22:30 < skyfaller> yeah, this is over
22:30 < skyfaller> it's 5 board seats for this election, if people don't like it they can amend the bylaws in the spring or some later date
22:30 < mllerustad> Alright, we already made it so the Coordinator =/= board member...
22:30 < Differance> tell me -- that' s not why she's not here, by any chance?
22:30 < mllerustad> We changed the position name...
22:30 < gavinbaker> yeah, and already changed the name to Coordinator
22:31 < gavinbaker> Differance: beats me why she's not here, she said she'd make it, so you'd have to ask her.
22:31 < BrianRowe> ready to move on
22:31 < gavinbaker> sometimes people show up, and sometimes they don't
22:31 < Differance> I'm a paranoia freak
22:31 < gavinbaker> ok, so what happens when there's no paid Coordinator?
22:31 < Differance> carry on
22:31 < mllerustad> Well, we don't have an explicit procedure, but the bylaws now say that all powers derive from the board.
22:32 < Differance> There's a volunteer coordinator!
22:32 < mllerustad> Therefore, the Coordinator's powers go to the board (where they came from in the first place).
22:32 < gavinbaker> whatever happens, we should make it explicit
22:32 < mllerustad> Differance: Or that. :)
22:32 < gavinbaker> because current the bylaws say that there *is* a Coordinator
22:32 < skyfaller> well, the board would have to appoint the volunteer coordinator
22:32 < Differance> Seems you want your coordinator because you want someone gunning things
22:32 < gavinbaker> although the bylaws don't say that the Coordinator has to be paid, iirc
22:32 < skyfaller> I think that it is clear that all powers derive from the board, and the board retains all powers that it hasn't parceled out
22:33 < gavinbaker> so someone could be appointed without payment
22:33 < Differance> The board is the ungainly thing, isn't it?
22:33 < Differance> Yes, you mainly want a plenipotentiary
22:33 < Differance> to move things and not get in her way
22:33 < skyfaller> Differance: well, it is supposed to be staffed by student representatives, who have limited time, so it is supposed to be relatively hands-off once things get rolling
22:33 < skyfaller> staffed => composed of
22:34 < mllerustad> So 1.) we "appoint" an unpaid puppet, and the board does everything (since it already owns all the power)
22:34 < mllerustad> 2.) We just explicitly say, "In the absence of a Coordinator, all of the Coordinator's powers and responsibilities return to the board of directors."
22:34 < skyfaller> mllerustad: well, it can tell the Coordinator to do whatever the volunteer coordinator has time for
22:34 < gavinbaker> note that said puppet can't be a member of the board, as previously decided
22:34 < mllerustad> skyfaller: Right, or that.
22:34 < skyfaller> mllerustad: is 2) not already clear from the bylaws?
22:34 < gavinbaker> so what's better, a coordinator who's only around occasionally, or no coordinator?
22:35 < Differance> If the board is listless, the coordinator kicks them by being proactive
22:35 < gavinbaker> skyfaller: i don't see any harm in ever being more explicit
22:35 < mllerustad> skyfaller: I think it's what would happen.
22:35 < mllerustad> But we may think it valuable to spell it out clearly.
22:35 < gavinbaker> if we know what something means, then there's no harm in saying so
22:35 -!- WillaRand [email@example.com] has quit [Connection timed out]
22:35 -!- Randtke [firstname.lastname@example.org] has quit [Success]
22:36 < skyfaller> OK, let's put that explicitly in then
22:36 < mllerustad> Let's spell it out... multiple people have asked about this, we may as well.
22:36 < gavinbaker> so, what's better: a coordinator who's only around occasionally, or no coordinator?
22:36 < skyfaller> I think it's obvious, but it can't hurt to say it again
22:36 < gavinbaker> i.e. the difference between a pro bono coordinator, or no coordinator = the board does everything
22:36 < mllerustad> RESOLVED: "In the absence of a Coordinator, all of the Coordinator's powers and responsibilities return to the board of directors."
22:36 < Differance> huh?
22:36 < gavinbaker> can someone answer my question?
22:36 < Differance> I say the difference is that the coordinator guns things
22:36 < gavinbaker> i'm not ready to resolve anything
22:37 < gavinbaker> there are 2 options and i'd like to know what the pro/con of each is
22:37 < gavinbaker> since this is a situation we're going to encounter
22:37 < skyfaller> gavinbaker: there are going to be situations in which there is no Coordinator
22:37 < gavinbaker> skyfaller: like what
22:37 < mllerustad> gavinbaker: In such a case, you'd probably have the "executive branch" more diffuse, e.g. multiple unpaid volunteers taking on some of the work, with the board getting the rest.
22:37 < skyfaller> like before one has been appointed, or after one has left
22:37 < Differance> If there is no coordinator, you're in a worse state than a listless board
22:37 < mllerustad> gavinbaker: I don't understand why we have to decide this...
22:37 < skyfaller> and it should be clear that all powers that the board has not delegated go back to the board
22:37 < skyfaller> I thought that was already clear
22:38 < mllerustad> gavinbaker: If having an unpaid coordinator is so bad, the board doesn't have to hire one.
22:38 < Differance> you can have the whole organization fall down to one person, who can keep it going
22:38 < gavinbaker> calm down
22:38 < gavinbaker> look
22:38 < gavinbaker> i would like to know the + and - of both options
22:38 < skyfaller> ... my IRC client is being wonky
22:38 < mllerustad> gavinbaker: Those aren't our two options.
22:38 < gavinbaker> i don't feel like we've discussed them very thoroughly
22:38 < skyfaller> there aren't two options
22:38 < gavinbaker> skyfaller: yes, there are
22:39 < gavinbaker> look
22:39 < gavinbaker> there will be times where there's no coordinator
22:39 < mllerustad> Right.
22:39 < gavinbaker> true
22:39 < Differance> why?
22:39 < Differance> kill the whole board and leave a coordinator then
22:39 < gavinbaker> but that doesn't mean that, when you don't have the money to hire a coordinator, your only option is to not have a coordinator
22:39 < Differance> geesh
22:39 < skyfaller> no, that's not what we said
22:39 < mllerustad> gavinbaker: Right...
22:39 < skyfaller> we said that when there is no coordinator, the board has the coordinator's powers
22:39 < mllerustad> The board could hire an unpaid coordinator.
22:39 < skyfaller> the board can appoint a coordinator
22:39 < skyfaller> at any time
22:39 < mllerustad> So then there's a coordinator.
22:39 < gavinbaker> skyfaller: what i'm getting at is
22:39 < skyfaller> whether the coordinator is paid or unpaid
22:41 < mllerustad> gavinbaker: I think the decision whether to hire an unpaid coordinator or have none at all is the board's decision, not ours.
22:41 < mllerustad> The bylaws allow for both situations.
22:41 < gavinbaker> look
22:41 < gavinbaker> i'm fine with the either RESOLUTION
22:41 < skyfaller> OK, Gavin just didn't want to end the discussion, he's fine with Karen's resolution
22:41 < gavinbaker> but that's not the end of the discussion
22:41 < gavinbaker> i thought we were going to end there and move on
22:42 < mllerustad> gavinbaker: Why do *we* have to discuss this?
22:42 < skyfaller> so we can resolve that and then consider other points
22:42 < mllerustad> We aren't the board, we aren't hiring anyone...
22:42 < Differance> Karen = mllerustad?
22:42 < gavinbaker> mllerustad: because there might be a good reason to *force* the board to hire people
22:42 < BrianRowe> i agree it is up to the board ... ready to move on
22:42 < mllerustad> Ah.
22:42 < skyfaller> RESOLVED: "In the absence of a Coordinator, all of the Coordinator's powers and responsibilities return to the board of directors." (and now we can discuss what we should do to ensure that a Coordinator is appointed)
22:42 < gavinbaker> like, not let time pass indefinitely without a Coordinator
22:42 -!- Randtke [email@example.com] has joined #freeculture
22:42 < mllerustad> (+1)
22:42 < skyfaller> +1
22:43 < gavinbaker> including when there's not the money to hire a coordinator
22:43 < BrianRowe> +
22:43 < skyfaller> OK, we're moving on
22:43 < gavinbaker> like, it might be worthwhile to ensure that there's a volunteer coordinator in place
22:43 < gavinbaker> particularly at the very beginning
22:44 < mllerustad> gavinbaker: And if there isn't a volunteer?
22:44 < gavinbaker> e.g. if we want to get out of this silly rut where the board does everything, which is to say, nothing happens
22:44 < gavinbaker> it might be worthwhile to pick someone
22:44 < mllerustad> I agree, but I don't think it's something that should be mandated.
22:44 < gavinbaker> mllerustad: well, if we can't find someone to take a job on a volunteer basis with no real responsibilities...
22:44 < gavinbaker> like, what could a pro bono coordinator be responsible for?
22:45 < gavinbaker> 'fine, fire me. i don't care, i don't get paid anyway'
22:45 < mllerustad> gavinbaker: If it's really that much of a puppet position... it really is no different than having the board do everything, isn't it?
22:45 < gavinbaker> mllerustad: is it?
22:45 < Differance> gavin: that's not a good coordinator
22:45 < mllerustad> They're only valuable if they do work.
22:45 < gavinbaker> Differance: of course not, and that's why we'll aim to have the money to hire one full-time
22:45 < Differance> The coordinator isn't there for the money
22:45 < gavinbaker> mllerustad: there might be a value even in someone who doesn't do much
22:46 < mllerustad> c/much/anything
22:46 < gavinbaker> for one thing, it pries open the board a bit
22:46 < mllerustad> ?
22:46 < gavinbaker> you know? because not everything is taking place inside the board
22:46 < mllerustad> right...
22:46 < gavinbaker> there's this other force at work, at least hypothetically
22:46 < gavinbaker> so that might be really valuable
22:46 < mllerustad> But that's never been true, especially if we ever get to the Core team ;)
22:46 < gavinbaker> if we want to get away from the structure where the board is isolated and everything happens in that black box
22:46 < Differance> The money makes them a bit obliged, but they're not going to have a point, saying, I'm not being paid anyway -- the point that matters will be whatever political issue at hand
22:47 < mllerustad> gavinbaker: See above.
22:47 < gavinbaker> there's also a benefit in having a coordinator
22:47 < gavinbaker> who does stuff
22:47 < gavinbaker> er
22:47 < gavinbaker> who makes decisions
22:47 < gavinbaker> like
22:47 < gavinbaker> even with the core team
22:48 < gavinbaker> every decision, however minor, would have to go through either the board or the core team
22:48 < gavinbaker> it's good to have an executive
22:48 < gavinbaker> someone who can just decide, i'm buying business cards, and i'm buying this style, from this vendor, and this is what they say
22:48 < Differance> Or a three-person set of plenipotentiaries.
22:48 < mllerustad> gavinbaker: In any situation where there's an unpaid potential-Coordinator who'd be willing to do things, it'd be an improvement on the Board and would be approved.
22:48 < gavinbaker> and they don't have to pass through a series of committees to do that
22:48 < mllerustad> The conflict situation is a puppet Coordinator.
22:48 < mllerustad> I don't think we should be forced to have a puppet Coordinator to satisfy the bylaws.
22:49 < mllerustad> Let the Board determine if it's worth it or not.
22:49 -!- christine [n=christin@HOW-ABOUT-A-NICE-GAME-OF-CHESS.MIT.EDU] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
22:49 -!- christine [n=christin@HOW-ABOUT-A-NICE-GAME-OF-CHESS.MIT.EDU] has joined #freeculture
22:50 < skyfaller> mllerustad: well, we could say that the board must search for a Coordinator
22:50 < skyfaller> but they don't have to appoint a *bad* Coordinator, e.g. one that won't do anything
22:50 < gavinbaker> yeah i wouldn't mandate that the board has to appoint a coordinator at any cost
22:50 < mllerustad> skyfaller: I'd be good with that.
22:50 < gavinbaker> but i kinda want to mandate that they search for one
22:50 < gavinbaker> ?def christine is greetings, Professor Falken
22:50 < jibot> christine is greetings, Professor Falken
22:50 < skyfaller> mandating that they search for a good coordinator is fine, although it seems like it doesn't have much teeth if that's all we say
22:51 < skyfaller> it is good to put our intention in the bylaws anyway, I suppose
22:51 < Differance> ?def God is Differance
22:51 < gavinbaker> i don't know what more teeth you could reasonable put it
22:51 < jibot> God is dead & ironic & the jibot of heavens & god exists because he closes the shops on Sundays. & Differance
22:51 < mllerustad> It gives their opponent something to point at during their campaign? ;)
22:51 < Differance> I really don't get this
22:52 < Differance> Coordinator is a privilege, isn't it?
22:52 < Differance> Isn't it great to be the coordinator?
22:52 < gavinbaker> if you want the job, it's a privilege
22:52 < gavinbaker> it's only great to be the king if you want to be the king.
22:52 < mllerustad> Differance: Ask Nelson ;)
22:52 < Differance> If nobody want the job, then give up freeculture
22:52 < skyfaller> gavinbaker++
22:53 < Differance> seriously
22:53 < skyfaller> well, there is the problem of only unqualified people wanting the job
22:53 < Differance> if it's really that people can't dedicate time, then that's really where you are
22:53 < skyfaller> e.g. the US Presidency
22:53 < skyfaller> way
22:53 < Differance> This is no unitary executive
22:53 < skyfaller> erm, anyway
22:53 < mllerustad> RESOLVED: "In the absence of a Coordinator, all of the Coordinator's powers and responsibilities return to the board of directors while they search for a new Coordinator." ?
22:53 < Differance> it's a coordinator who has dubious powers so far anyway
22:54 < Differance> RESOLVED: "In the absence of a Coordinator, all activity grinds to a halt"
22:54 < mllerustad> -1
22:54 < skyfaller> Differance: please don't make resolutions for us
22:54 < skyfaller> -1
22:54 < BrianRowe> -
22:54 < Differance> :-)
22:55 < skyfaller> don't confuse the logs, or I'll kick you from the channel
22:55 < gavinbaker> i mean, do we want to include some kind of timeline on which they should conduct a search?
22:55 < gavinbaker> or something...?
22:55 < mllerustad> I'd rather not complicate this further...
22:55 < gavinbaker> i just want to avoid everything being sucked into the board
22:55 < Differance> oh, I get it now
22:55 < gavinbaker> that's the situation that really precipitated making these bylaws
22:55 < skyfaller> I don't see how can include a timeline that wouldn't require the board to hire someone who isn't qualified
22:56 < gavinbaker> well
22:56 < gavinbaker> you can include anything without teeth
22:56 < BrianRowe> no, if that happens then we elect a new board that will hire a coordinator
22:56 < gavinbaker> you can say, you board will do a search on x timeline
22:56 < gavinbaker> it still doesn't force them to hire someone
22:56 < mllerustad> Then what is the timeline?
22:56 < skyfaller> but then what does it mean?
22:56 < gavinbaker> it doesn't really mean anything
22:56 < mllerustad> Within 72 hours of a Coordinator vacancy, the Board must begin their search?
22:56 < skyfaller> I'd rather not include meaningless language
22:57 < mllerustad> That's blah.
22:57 < gavinbaker> but it's a guideline at least...
22:57 < gavinbaker> it says, we don't want the board to go on forever without looking for a coordinator
22:57 < mllerustad> I don't think it guides.
22:57 < skyfaller> hm, I guess requiring them to start a search quickly is good
22:57 < gavinbaker> well, somebody figure out how to say what i mean (^^) and write that into the bylaws
22:57 < mllerustad> Lol...
22:57 < skyfaller> instead of just being like "hm, the Coordinator quit, and I like it that way"
22:57 < Differance> Remember that you will have chapters and members watching on
22:58 < mllerustad> skyfaller: if that's their attitude, it's not going to be a good-faith search anyway...
22:58 < Differance> They'll want to know why no new coordinator's being chosen
22:58 < mllerustad> That is true.
22:58 < skyfaller> mllerustad: sure, but it's something people can point to at the next election, or they could impeach board members for not following the bylaws faithfully
22:58 < Differance> You could say that the board will issue a call to the chapters
22:58 < skyfaller> it seems like it could be good to have guiding language
22:59 < gavinbaker> Differance: right, well theoretically there are chapters watching on now
22:59 < gavinbaker> and cf. how well that's worked
22:59 < Differance> Are you issuing calls for coordinators to them?
22:59 < skyfaller> Differance: there has been no such position
22:59 < gavinbaker> differance, a lot of stuff goes out, with very little response
22:59 < Differance> no, you're working on by-laws
22:59 < Differance> hmm
23:00 < skyfaller> Differance: the bylaws will create that position
23:00 < mllerustad> RESOLVED: "In the temporary absence of a Coordinator, all of the Coordinator's powers and responsibilities return to the board of directors. The board of directors shall begin a search for a new Coordinator within a week of the vacancy." ?
23:00 < Differance> have to say that at bottom, motion is created by you
23:00 < Differance> The only way anything works
23:00 < skyfaller> mllerustad: maybe require them to announce that the Coordinator position is vacant
23:00 < skyfaller> within 72 hours
23:00 < skyfaller> so that people know
23:00 < mllerustad> Okay.
23:01 < skyfaller> I think that's the best we can do
23:01 < skyfaller> with those requirements, people will know there is a position... and if obviously qualified people are applying and the board is rejecting them, then it's time to remove some board members
23:01 -!- Randtke [firstname.lastname@example.org] has quit [Connection timed out]
23:01 < mllerustad> "In the absence of a Coordinator, all of the Coordinator's powers and responsibilities return to the board of directors. Within 72 hours, the board of directors shall announce the vacancy to the chapters and begin a search for a new Coordinator."
23:02 < skyfaller> RESOLVED!
23:02 < skyfaller> +1
23:02 < mllerustad> +1
23:02 < BrianRowe> = (not for or against)
23:02 < gavinbaker> i guess that's +1
23:02 < gavinbaker> BrianRowe: any comments?
23:03 < BrianRowe> it odes not seem nessacery I think having the Coordinator potion in the by laws makes it clear we want one. we are getting bogged down in details.
23:04 < BrianRowe> i am ok with timeline or no timeline.
23:04 < gavinbaker> well, i still feel some unease about this, but i don't think we can legislate that away
23:04 < skyfaller> well, it doesn't take additional time to resolve this, since we've already taken the time to hammer out the proposition
23:04 < BrianRowe> true ready to move on
23:04 < skyfaller> and there isn't anything we can do to give it more teeth without forcing the board to choose an unqualified Coordinator if there aren't any qualified people
23:05 < skyfaller> so yes, let's consider that resolved and move on
23:05 < Differance> After this session, I'm going to explain a very basic problem with this project -- I think you're trying to solve your problem of stasis the wrong way
23:05 < skyfaller> Differance: that's nice, bring it up in the Spring
23:05 < skyfaller> right now we need to finish this
23:05 < Differance> Your plan is to get a coordinator and that's going to make it happen
23:05 < gavinbaker> Differance: i've got a great idea. give us a bit fat wad of cash, and problem will be solved
23:05 < Differance> I'll tell you what's really missing later
23:05 < gavinbaker> so elizabeth's next comment is about 1 vote per chapter
23:05 < Differance> In the spring
23:05 < Differance> if you will
23:05 < gavinbaker> which has been extensively discussed and decided
23:06 < gavinbaker> so i don't favor further discussion
23:06 < mllerustad> Yeah...
23:06 < Differance> Gavin: cash is not the issue
23:06 < Differance> really. But carry on
23:06 < skyfaller> I think there are many clear reasons to treat all chapters equally, not the least the administrative headache of having individual humans as members, and making sure that all chapters are treating membership the same way
23:07 -!- grahl_ [email@example.com] has quit [Client Quit]
23:07 * mllerustad looks down the list
23:07 < mllerustad> We decided to add preferential voting using Mako's thingie...
23:07 < mllerustad> We added nominations...
23:07 < mllerustad> We determined a number of board members...
23:07 < skyfaller> but since none of the people who were virulently against the 1 chapter 1 vote model are here, I say stick with the model currently in the bylaws rather than rewriting them completely (and burning more time)... so yes, let's move on
23:08 < mllerustad> We added appeals for chapter removal...
23:08 < mllerustad> We rewrote the dissolution thingie...
23:08 < BrianRowe> my first comment was on this too. I am good with 1 vote per chapter.
23:08 < mllerustad> ...how should we recognize our international-ness?
23:08 < mllerustad> We did get rid of all the "national"s in the text.
23:08 < gavinbaker> uh
23:08 < skyfaller> mllerustad: yeah, I think removing "national" was sufficient
23:08 < gavinbaker> i'm not sure what else we would do
23:09 < gavinbaker> translation of stuff?
23:09 < gavinbaker> doesn't seem like there's anything that should go in the bylaws
23:09 < skyfaller> nothing else we can put in the bylaws themselves, I think
23:09 < mllerustad> Hardly something to be in the bylaws.
23:09 < mllerustad> Yeah.
23:09 < gavinbaker> advisory board is a good idea, but does it need to be in the bylaws?
23:09 < mllerustad> Alright, final thing: advisory board?
23:09 < gavinbaker> board has the ability to establish one
23:09 < gavinbaker> implicitly
23:09 < skyfaller> brb
23:09 < gavinbaker> we could write one in if we want to, but what's the case for doing so?
23:10 < gavinbaker> not just the case for having an advisory board, but specifically for writing it into the bylaws
23:10 < mllerustad> I think we may want to write it in once we get one, but I don't think it's something to be working on right now...
23:10 < mllerustad> At the very least it can wait until spring.
23:12 < gavinbaker> sounds like RESOLVED: no action to me
23:12 < skyfaller> seems to me like the Board can create an Advisory Board
23:12 < skyfaller> and delegate... advise-giving responsibilities to it?
23:12 < mllerustad> gavinbaker: Sounds good.
23:12 < skyfaller> they have that power in the existing bylaws
23:12 < skyfaller> I don't see that we have to mandate it
23:13 < skyfaller> the Board will probably recognize it as a good idea and do it themselves
23:13 < mllerustad> Alright, onto BrianRowe's comments...
23:13 < BrianRowe> + (we NEED an advosiry board but we can deal with it later)
23:13 < BrianRowe> i think the voting was resolved 1 per chapter
23:13 < skyfaller> yeah, that's done
23:13 < gavinbaker> yeah, 1 vote per is done
23:14 < gavinbaker> more definition for the Coordinator? eh
23:14 < gavinbaker> i'm not sure that job description belongs in the bylaws, as previously discussed
23:14 < skyfaller> yeah, we already decided against specifying the Coordinator's job further in the bylaws
23:14 < mllerustad> The board can (and should!) come up with a very detailed job description...
23:14 < mllerustad> Yeah.
23:14 < BrianRowe> on the other point, I want to see a national calander of events not sure where to fit it in
23:14 < skyfaller> but that job description may change with the times and circumstances, etc., so writing it into a rigid document is a bad idea
23:15 < BrianRowe> i put it here beacuse i wanted to see someone respionsible for it
23:15 < skyfaller> BrianRowe: sure, it's a good idea, but it doesn't belong in the bylaws
23:15 < mllerustad> ..in the bylaws?
23:15 < BrianRowe> if we have no Coordinator then it falls back to the board. Have national meeting schedualed 3 weeks in advance has been an issue for west coasters
23:16 < mllerustad> ...right...
23:16 < mllerustad> Having a calendar isn't going to fix that...
23:16 < skyfaller> I mean, the org has to publicize its activities, everyone knows that
23:16 < BrianRowe> It makes people plan and think in advance.
23:16 < gavinbaker> symptom of not being able to get stuff gone
23:16 < gavinbaker> *done
23:17 < skyfaller> I think this is one of those things that will get sorted out naturally when/if we get a functioning org
23:17 < skyfaller> if not, bug the people who are responsible then, e.g. the Board, Coordinator, or the proposed Core Team
23:17 < BrianRowe> I am willing to put it on the back burner and bring it up again if the problems persit in a year
23:18 < skyfaller> well, you can bring it up sooner than that
23:18 < skyfaller> it's just not something we're going to put into the bylaws this time around
23:18 < skyfaller> let's move on
23:18 < BrianRowe> ok
23:18 < Differance> Seems he makes a good point about press releases -- or more genrally communciations
23:19 < gavinbaker> job description doesn't go in bylaws
23:19 < skyfaller> yeah, communications have to get done, but if we try to specify *everything* that the org has to get done, we'll be here all night
23:19 < Differance> I mean it from the standpoint of approving what goes out
23:19 < skyfaller> it's time to move on
23:19 < Differance> the theory
23:19 < skyfaller> next point
23:19 < Differance> does everything go up to the board?
23:19 < Differance> ah well, carry on
23:20 < mllerustad> Voting method... already fixed.
23:20 < skyfaller> Board of directors voting method - Karen .... we decided on Schulze or whatever
23:20 < skyfaller> so yeah, that's done
23:20 < skyfaller> next comment
23:20 < mllerustad> Ratification!
23:20 < gavinbaker> ratification procedure, i think we fixed?
23:20 < mllerustad> I think that's something we should have.
23:20 < mllerustad> Did we?
23:20 < mllerustad> I don't think we did...
23:20 < gavinbaker> er, maybe that's wishful thinking.
23:21 < gavinbaker> well, there's a proposed solution there, so look at that and see if it's satisfactory.
23:21 < mllerustad> Anything wrong with the language on the talk page?
23:21 < mllerustad> I think they're good. :)
23:21 < skyfaller> I don't think there is anything about ratification in teh current bylaws draft... let's put in Gavin's language
23:21 < mllerustad> Resolved: Gavin's ratification language
23:21 < mllerustad> +1
23:22 < gavinbaker> tell me if it's not good, otherwise i won't look at it again
23:22 < BrianRowe> +
23:22 < mllerustad> anybody?
23:22 < skyfaller> +1 ... it's good, I like that the ratification votes will be public once the voting period ends
23:22 < skyfaller> I think that's important
23:23 < mllerustad> Alright, awesome. :)
23:23 < skyfaller> I like comments that have proposed language... Gavin rocks
23:23 < skyfaller> next comment
23:24 < gavinbaker> yeah d00dz, "Web site" != "domain"
23:24 < gavinbaker> there are other things on the Internet that use domains other than Web sites, you know
23:24 < gavinbaker> paulproteus will back me up here.
23:24 < gavinbaker> if he were here.
23:24 < mllerustad> Lol...
23:25 < skyfaller> OK, fine... how about "The primary domain name of the Organization shall be <http://freeculture.org>."
23:25 < mllerustad> Fine with me.
23:25 < gavinbaker> k
23:25 < Differance> I think the official statement like that should include www.
23:25 < skyfaller> Differance: we deprecated www. :)
23:25 < Differance> oh hmm interesting
23:25 < Differance> carry on
23:25 < Differance> again
23:25 < skyfaller> www.freeculture.org redirects to freeculture.org
23:25 < Differance> :-)
23:26 < skyfaller> and not everything is the WWW
23:26 < skyfaller> there are other protocols on the internet
23:26 < skyfaller> that was the point of this comment
23:26 < Differance> And of course freeculture.org is everything
23:26 < Differance> yeah, like duh
23:26 < BrianRowe> + freeculture.org
23:26 < mllerustad> +1
23:26 < skyfaller> RESOLVED: "The primary domain name of the Organization shall be <http://freeculture.org>."
23:27 < gavinbaker> www. is only for Web sites, obviously ;)
23:27 < Differance> yeah, if you'd said the primary website, but you're right: domain name
23:27 < skyfaller> erm, "The primary domain name of the Organization shall be <http://freeculture.org/>."
23:27 < gavinbaker> NO
23:27 < gavinbaker> the domain name does not have http://
23:27 < mllerustad> ?
23:27 < gavinbaker> that's the protocol
23:27 < skyfaller> oh
23:27 < gavinbaker> for the Web
23:27 < skyfaller> heh
23:27 < skyfaller> d'oh
23:27 < gavinbaker> the domain name is just freeculture.org
23:28 < skyfaller> RESOLVED: "The primary domain name of the Organization shall be freeculture.org."
23:28 < mllerustad> RESOLVED: "The primary domain name of the Organization shall be freeculture.org."
23:28 < mllerustad> :p
23:28 < skyfaller> jinx!
23:28 < skyfaller> alright, next commnet
23:29 < skyfaller> http://wiki.freeculture.org/Talk:Bylaws#Chapter_membership
23:29 < gavinbaker> just a point of clarification, is the next comment
23:29 < gavinbaker> saying that the draft language wasn't clear
23:29 < gavinbaker> suggested that the board has to adopt the bylaws or something
23:29 < gavinbaker> there are 2 different ideas
23:29 < gavinbaker> 1. procedures in the bylaws
23:29 < gavinbaker> 2. procedures adopted by the board (in addition to the bylaws)
23:29 < gavinbaker> draft language didn't express that well
23:29 < gavinbaker> not sure if we changed the draft language since then
23:30 < mllerustad> no, we haven't
23:30 -!- ryanfaerman [firstname.lastname@example.org] has joined #freeculture
23:30 < mllerustad> "enumerated" is fine with me.
23:30 < skyfaller> um, instead of substituting some other unclear word, let's spell it out
23:31 < paulproteus> gavinbaker++ # re: the Internet
23:31 < Differance> why don't you just say it fuller: , and by such processes as are enumerated by the board"
23:31 < skyfaller> processes contained in these By-laws and adopted by the Board of Directors.
23:31 < skyfaller> 
23:31 < skyfaller> processes contained in these By-laws and adopted by the Board of Directors.
23:31 < skyfaller> 
23:31 < skyfaller> "...processes contained in these By-laws and additional procedures adopted by the Board of Directors." -- how about that?
23:31 < skyfaller> damn
23:31 * paulproteus re-vanishes
23:31 < skyfaller> I hate my IRC client
23:32 < skyfaller> why are there no good IRC clients
23:32 < gavinbaker> skyfaller: sure
23:32 < mllerustad> skyfaller: Sounds good to me.
23:33 < BrianRowe> +
23:33 < gavinbaker> kthxbai
23:33 < gavinbaker> next
23:33 < skyfaller> RESOLVED: "Membership in the Organization shall be limited to chapters duly recognized by the processes contained in these By-laws and additional procedures adopted by the Board of Directors."
23:33 < skyfaller> next
23:34 < mllerustad> gavinbaker: I don't understand what that adds...
23:35 < gavinbaker> ...it had a point when i wrote it
23:35 < skyfaller> I think that means they have to have read the Bylaws or pretend to have read them :)
23:35 < gavinbaker> i mean, i guess you never have to agree to the constitution to be bound by it
23:35 < gavinbaker> but i dunno
23:35 < gavinbaker> it might be worth saying, when a chapter joins, "btw these are our rules"
23:35 < mllerustad> FC.o EULA :p
23:35 < skyfaller> it seems good for people to know that the Bylaws exist
23:35 < gavinbaker> mllerustad: i was just thinking that :-/
23:36 < skyfaller>
23:36 < gavinbaker>
23:36 < skyfaller> what if they don't like the bylaws and want to amend them?
23:36 < gavinbaker> [invizible meeting]
23:36 < mllerustad> buh?
23:36 < gavinbaker> skyfaller: that's find if they want to amend them, as long as they know they're bound by what they say, not what they'd like them to say
23:37 < skyfaller> yeah, that's true
23:37 < mllerustad> gavinbaker: How does it really 'bind' a chapter, though?
23:37 < skyfaller> I mean, anything resembling a EULA is kind of disturbing
23:37 < mllerustad> It seems to have a lot more binding rules for the board/coordinator than for chapters.
23:37 < mllerustad> The only thing for chapters I can think of is the re-registration requirement...
23:38 < gavinbaker> doesn't necessarily have to be binding
23:38 < gavinbaker> i mean, insofar as these are the org's rules, they're binding
23:38 < gavinbaker> you can't just be like, "i get 50 votes, and that's just the way it is"
23:38 < Differance> It's also an elected board
23:38 < gavinbaker> everybody will just ignore you if you do
23:38 < mllerustad> gavinbaker: You can say that, just doesn't make it so :)
23:38 < gavinbaker> similar to if i decide i'm the president of the united states
23:38 < gavinbaker> it ain't necessarily so
23:39 < gavinbaker> skyfaller: anything resembling a EULA is disturbing? you mean, like a contract? aren't you going to law school?
23:39 < mllerustad> skyfaller is disturbed all the time... :p
23:39 * gavinbaker thinks of the anarchist lawyer: "my father is a doctor. it doesn't mean he believes in disease"
23:39 < Differance> We should set up a clickwrap application process
23:40 < Differance> ;-)
23:40 < gavinbaker> well, how else would we do it?
23:40 < mllerustad> "If you would like to view this website, please agree to our license agreement!"
23:40 < gavinbaker> mail them paper and make them sign it?
23:40 < gavinbaker> paper is so 20th century
23:40 < Differance> Not that bad an idea
23:40 < Differance> I spent years at Sony with them imagining the paperless office
23:40 < Differance> not what they had in the end
23:40 < Differance> :-)
23:41 < BrianRowe> (afk a few)
23:41 < gavinbaker> so decisions...
23:41 < skyfaller> ok, so are we ignoring this comment then? or do we have to write this in?
23:42 < mllerustad> I'd prefer to ignore it.
23:43 < gavinbaker> kthxnext
23:43 < gavinbaker> did we already adopt the next comment, that there are no chapter dues?
23:44 < Differance> I think so on July 29
23:44 -!- Fear_of_C [email@example.com] has left #freeculture 
23:44 < gavinbaker> yeah, done: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Bylaws_RC2#Section_3._Chapter_Dues
23:44 < gavinbaker> kthxnext
23:44 < gavinbaker> we changed all the references to "national organization" to "organization"?
23:45 < mllerustad> Yup.
23:45 < gavinbaker> then done
23:45 < gavinbaker> kthxnext
23:45 < gavinbaker> oh. "bylaws" or "by-laws". pick one
23:45 < mllerustad> bylaws.
23:46 < paulproteus> BTW, skyfaller says that swat wants to move web hosting really soon. I'll be free in 45m; meet me in ##freeculture if necessary.
23:46 < gavinbaker> bylaws++
23:46 < Differance> looking up by-laws and bylaws on merriam-webster
23:46 < gavinbaker> mllerustad, you seem to be the fixer, will you make sure there are no hyphenated "by-laws" in the text?
23:47 < Differance> searched by-law, they returned bylaw
23:47 < mllerustad> gavinbaker: 'Kay. :)
23:47 < gavinbaker> k
23:47 < gavinbaker> kthxnext
23:47 < Differance> no mention of the hyphenated form
23:47 < Differance> okay
23:47 < gavinbaker> already changed the name
23:47 < Differance> just one dictionary tho :-)
23:47 < gavinbaker> kthxnext
23:47 < gavinbaker> already changed the name to Coordinator
23:47 < gavinbaker> kthxnext
23:48 < skyfaller> it's the Core Team!
23:48 < gavinbaker> oh boy, the core team
23:48 < skyfaller> too bad Gavin never got around to writing model language
23:49 < skyfaller> but he did write out in exquisite detail how he imagines the Core Team functioning
23:49 < gavinbaker> i think that's the first time i've seen the word "exquisite" used in #freeculture
23:50 < mllerustad> question: who keeps track of whether a person has missed or made two consecutive meetings?
23:50 < skyfaller> ok, so what do people think of the proposal?
23:50 < gavinbaker> uh... the minutes?
23:50 < gavinbaker> the chair? the secretary? dunno
23:51 < mllerustad> Is there a secretary?
23:51 -!- Randtke [firstname.lastname@example.org] has joined #freeculture
23:51 < gavinbaker> i know. it doesn't exist yet
23:52 < skyfaller> ...
23:53 < skyfaller> .... Gavin has a link to where he was *going* to write a patch, but he never did
23:53 < skyfaller> sad
23:53 < gavinbaker> well, i wrote all this bollocks, so i'm relying on you all to take it from there. (to say what's good or not)
23:54 < skyfaller> ... someone is also going to have to write language to implement this in the bylaws
23:54 < mllerustad> I'm still not exactly sure what kinds of decisions the Core Team would make... could you give some examples?
23:54 < gavinbaker> uh
23:55 < gavinbaker> the more day-to-day stuff that the board shouldn't be doing
23:55 < gavinbaker> but higher level than the minutia the coordinator does
23:55 < gavinbaker> like, decide whether to sign this statement
23:55 < mllerustad> Right, it says that in the comment, but what?
23:55 < gavinbaker> what campaign to do
23:55 < gavinbaker> how to organize the org
23:55 < gavinbaker> the stuff the old core team used to do
23:55 < gavinbaker> with the really high-level stuff shuffled off to the board
23:56 < gavinbaker> and the really low-level stuff (what business cards to order) shuffled off to the coordinator
23:56 < skyfaller> and the Board can always veto if necessary
23:56 < mllerustad> 'Kay.
23:56 < skyfaller> since all power comes from the Board, the Board is just delegating
23:56 < mllerustad> I think we should make it a rule that the Coordinator attend Core meetings (be the non-voting secretary)?
23:57 < Differance> Sounds like the three-person plenipotentiaries I mentioned
23:57 < mllerustad> Then a.) We have someone responsible for attendance, and b.) the Coordinator stays on top of what the Core wants to do, and can help coordinate them in doing it.
23:57 < Differance> I thought the coordinator was a denigrated form of that
23:57 < skyfaller> mllerustad: that sounds good to me
23:58 < Differance> And likewise the issue of communciations
23:58 < Differance> actions have theory and practice
23:58 < Differance> you have a small group that decides that
23:58 < Differance> and guns things
23:58 < Differance> The board might step in if they got out fo hand
23:58 < Differance> but you empower them
23:59 < mllerustad> How often should the core team meet?
23:59 < mllerustad> It should be regular meetings, whatever it is...
23:59 < gavinbaker> either weekly or biweekly
23:59 < gavinbaker> but it has to be pretty regularly
23:59 < Differance> They should be the ones who make the org go
23:59 < gavinbaker> so stuff happens
23:59 < Differance> that's how stuff happens
23:59 < mllerustad> Alright.
23:59 < Differance> Jay, Brett and I powwow all the time
00:00 < mllerustad> ...I'm for it, but we can't add it without verbiage.
00:00 < skyfaller> biweekly is good
00:00 < skyfaller> erm
00:00 < skyfaller> I mean, I don't care
00:00 < skyfaller> weekly is fine too
00:01 < skyfaller> mllerustad: Gavin refuses to write the language, apparently
00:01 < skyfaller> I need to do law school stuff
00:01 < Differance> this is a bigger deal than the coordinator paid or not
00:01 < skyfaller> so I guess that means either mllerustad writes it or it doesn't make it into the bylaws
00:01 < Differance> you need to have three people who are just gunning things
00:01 < Differance> they like to, they will
00:01 < gavinbaker> i think i've pulled my weight on this bylaws process. i'm sure somebody can write this.
00:01 < mllerustad> :p
00:02 < mllerustad> We've all pulled more than our weight on this shit.
00:02 < Differance> except me :-)
00:02 < Differance> LOL
00:02 < skyfaller> Gavin is whining harder I guess
00:02 * mllerustad holds whine-off
00:02 < gavinbaker> anybody for cheese?
00:03 < gavinbaker> i can has whine with my cheezeburger?
00:03 < gavinbaker> look, maybe we can do this right now
00:03 < gavinbaker> if it's important enough to put in the bylaws
00:03 < gavinbaker> and we like the framework i wrote out on the bylaws
00:03 < skyfaller> ok, writing things by committee kind of sucks
00:04 < skyfaller> but I guess that's how we've done these bylaws
00:04 < gavinbaker> better than not writing things at all, imo
00:04 < skyfaller> which is what would happen if we don't write it now I guess
00:04 < Differance> it's a whole new wrinkle
00:04 < Differance> you went through a lot just on the coordinator
00:05 < Differance> And it's really the same issues
00:05 < Differance> only with a diff emphasis
00:05 < Differance> really empowering them
00:05 < gavinbaker> i'm really interested in having a core team because it gives people a way to be involved
00:05 < gavinbaker> which doesn't really exist now
00:05 < gavinbaker> other than volunteering to do work, which isn't terribly popular
00:06 < gavinbaker> well
00:06 < gavinbaker> what if we consider the rest of these comments
00:06 < gavinbaker> and take it from there
00:06 < Differance> what if there were a subset of the board?
00:06 < Differance> three who meet very regularly, galvanize action by
00:06 < Differance> deciding on what an action's going to say
00:07 < Differance> and do?
00:07 < Differance> And you might then amend the bylaws after trying that
00:08 < Differance> but you let them go right ahead
00:08 < Differance> (the other part tho is outreach; it's not just theory and practice as theory)
00:08 < Differance> (shutting up now)
00:09 < gavinbaker> <gavinbaker> what if we consider the rest of these comments
00:09 < skyfaller> OK, let's consider the rest of the comments and come back to the Core Team at the end
00:11 < skyfaller> next comment
00:12 < gavinbaker> well
00:12 < gavinbaker> there's kinda a lot, actually
00:12 < gavinbaker> maybe we should hang up our hat for the night
00:12 < Differance> brb
00:12 -!- Randtke [email@example.com] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
00:12 < skyfaller> some of it has already been covered
00:14 < gavinbaker> right but
00:14 < gavinbaker> it's still going to take a while
00:14 < gavinbaker> probably at least another hour
00:14 < gavinbaker> there's 13 more comments, some of them lengthy
00:15 < gavinbaker> even if we decide to take no action on any of them, it'll take a while to read and decide to move on
00:15 < skyfaller> I dunno, I'd like to push through and finish them
00:15 < skyfaller> this has taken too long already, and I think we can just skip a number of them
00:15 < skyfaller> let's go for another half hour and see where we are
00:15 < gavinbaker> i'm not suggesting we skip any
00:15 < gavinbaker> but that we schedule the next meeting
00:15 < gavinbaker> i imagine we all have to go to work or school in the a.m.
00:16 < gavinbaker> and sleep is your friend
00:16 < skyfaller> I guess that is true... sigh
00:16 < skyfaller> how about 15 minutes?
00:16 < skyfaller> I think we can crunch through a few more comments
00:16 < BrianRowe> it looks like a lot left, i think many of the comments could be tabled for the board to decide later (licenses choice, indemnification)
00:17 < gavinbaker> i don't think we'll accomplish much more tonight
00:17 < gavinbaker> i mean, look, there's hardly anybody paying attention
00:17 < gavinbaker> i'd rather just schedule the next meeting
00:18 < skyfaller> I don't think there are fewer people really than there were before
00:18 < gavinbaker> brb
00:19 < skyfaller> I'm going to keep going for 15 minutes, and then we'll see where we are
00:19 < skyfaller> Alright, so skipping the Core Team comment for the moment, let's look at http://wiki.freeculture.org/Talk:Bylaws#Comments_By_Fred_Benenson
00:20 < skyfaller> I think that the license decision is a little silly to put in the bylaws, honestly
00:20 < skyfaller> does the GPL cover all versions of the GPL? what if it becomes a bad / deprecated license in the future?
00:21 < skyfaller> but I suppose we could put it in and amend it later
00:21 < skyfaller> if those turn out to be bad license choices
00:21 < skyfaller> they do all seem like good license choices now
00:22 < Differance> back now
00:22 < Differance> getting tired are we?
00:22 < Differance> carry on
00:23 < skyfaller> I guess I'm fine with resolving that
00:23 < skyfaller> the main question is where to put the language
00:24 < mllerustad> Yeah...
00:24 < Differance> (If the GPL becomes deprecated, we better finally have the copyright revolution :-))
00:24 < skyfaller> hm...
00:24 < skyfaller> I dunno, maybe this shouldn't go in the bylaws
00:24 < skyfaller> it does seem kind of out of place
00:25 < skyfaller> sure wish Fred was here to argue his position
00:25 < skyfaller> I dunno, I think we should leave it out of the blyaws
00:25 < Differance> If you plan to finish the bylaws tonight, it's more important to address, but you might defer and ask him
00:25 < skyfaller> *bylaws
00:25 < skyfaller> let the Board adopt it as an official policy
00:25 < Differance> keep speaking right on top
00:26 < Differance> (I do that, that is)
00:26 < skyfaller> and have the ability to change it without amending the bylaws
00:26 < skyfaller> we shouldn't stuff everything into the bylaws just because it's the only policy document we have at the moment
00:26 < skyfaller> let's not resolve it
00:26 < Differance> defer
00:26 < skyfaller> let's reject that comment and move on
00:26 < Differance> oh -- reject?
00:27 < Differance> I won't stand in the way of it
00:27 < skyfaller> RESOLVED: We will not address what copyright licenses the Organization should use in the bylaws
00:27 < mllerustad> +1
00:27 < skyfaller> +1
00:27 < Differance> "at this time?"
00:27 < skyfaller> anyone else +/-?
00:28 < skyfaller> ok, next comment
00:28 < skyfaller> "We need provisions where the board is not only allowed to amend the bylaws, but modify them and rescind them if necessary. Probably a 4/5 vote."
00:28 * paulproteus plus ones also for not dictating licensing in bylaws
00:29 < skyfaller> that seems to go completely against the high standard we've set in the existing amendments process
00:29 < skyfaller> see http://wiki.freeculture.org/Bylaws_RC2#Article_VI:_Amendments
00:30 < skyfaller> I think it would be incorrect to let the Board amend the Bylaws by themselves, certainly not by a 4/5 vote
00:30 < mllerustad> *board passes "Emergency Law"*
00:30 < skyfaller> would even a unanimous vote be sufficient to prevent the Board from abusing that power?
00:30 < mllerustad> No...
00:30 < mllerustad> We already provide for bi-yearly amendment opportunities, and the procedure is well-defined now.
00:31 < skyfaller> it seems to me that making the bylaws difficult to make quick and easy changes to will discourage us from stuffing things like copyright licensing into the bylaws
00:31 < skyfaller> and will keep the bylaws to the minimum necessary to operate the organization
00:31 < skyfaller> and letting the board change e.g. how it is elected is definitely a no-no
00:32 < skyfaller> I think that leaving amendments in the hands of the chapters is necessary, and that's how things are in the current draft
00:32 < BrianRowe> - on letting board just change by-laws
00:32 < skyfaller> RESOLVED: Keep the current Amendments language, don't let the board just change the bylaws
00:32 < BrianRowe> +
00:32 < skyfaller> +1
00:33 < skyfaller> anyone else?
00:33 < skyfaller> OK, next comment
00:33 < Differance> (I think you said a whole lot more than necessary in your discussion, but no)
00:33 < skyfaller> the EFF thing in the Dissolution section has already been fixed
00:34 < skyfaller> next
00:34 < Differance> bravo
00:34 < skyfaller> "we need something about how the various [e-mail] accounts are administered."
00:34 < skyfaller> um, no. No we don't.
00:34 < skyfaller> That's way too fine detail to put into the bylaws, it's a technical/implementation question
00:35 * mllerustad wrote some Core Team stuff... http://wiki.freeculture.org/Bylaws_RC2_1 :p
00:35 < skyfaller> the Board has the power to sort out problems like that
00:35 < mllerustad> Yeah.
00:35 < skyfaller> thank you mllerustad !
00:36 < skyfaller> The Board has the power to order our webmaster to give them access to whatever, and to follow good security practices e.g. changing passwords often
00:36 * mllerustad should note that the coordinator section is also edited... but we're not discussing that comment right now :)
00:37 < skyfaller> OK, yeah, we'll return to that comment later
00:37 < BrianRowe> Ok, I am out for the night i need to prep cases for class. GL with the rest.
00:37 < skyfaller> BrianRowe: thanks for coming!
00:38 -!- BrianRowe [n=Brion@71-35-168-162.tukw.qwest.net] has left #freeculture 
00:38 < skyfaller> so yeah, I think the Board has the power to deal with all of the website issues already, we shouldn't micromanage this in the bylaws
00:38 < mllerustad> 'Kay.
00:39 < mllerustad> What's the next non-addressed comment?
00:39 < skyfaller> RESOLVED: We won't put anything about website/e-mail administration details in the bylaws, the Board already has the power to make all necessary policy
00:39 < skyfaller> alright, that's done, next...
00:39 < skyfaller> we've already fixed the Coordinator's title
00:40 < skyfaller> We decided not to let the Coordinator be on the Board, right?
00:40 < skyfaller> mllerustad?
00:40 < mllerustad> Right.
00:41 < skyfaller> ok, so my comment is taken care of
00:41 < skyfaller> "The board should meet infrequently," ... we set the maximium frequency at once every two weeks, right?
00:42 < skyfaller> I think that's sufficiently infrequent, and the board can decide to meet less frequently if they so desire
00:42 < mllerustad> "more than twice a month."
00:42 < mllerustad> Basically, yeah.
00:42 < skyfaller> current language: "The board must meet at least once a semester, and should not have regular meetings more than twice a month. Special meetings may be called by the chair if the board needs to meet between regular meetings. "
00:43 < skyfaller> I think that's good enough
00:43 < skyfaller> next comment
00:43 < mllerustad> I think Christina (she's CrimsonNinjaGirl, right?)'s comment is the next unaddressed one.
00:43 < skyfaller> Yes, board members will run against each other for re-election...
00:43 < skyfaller> (hold on, just reading the rest of Fred's)
00:43 < mllerustad> Which is, benchmarks for voting rights.
00:44 < skyfaller> "it might be nice to have a IRC "debate" where nominees/incumbents are asked questions:"
00:44 < skyfaller> I agree, but we don't have to put that in the bylaws, I don't think
00:44 < skyfaller> it's certainly not in the US constitution that there wll be debates
00:44 < mllerustad> Right.
00:45 < mllerustad> I have to go soon...
00:45 < skyfaller> yeah, I guess we should wrap it up
00:45 < mllerustad> (it shouldn't take this long to read pre-addressed comments... :/ )
00:45 < skyfaller> we decided on a voting system that addresses all of Fred's concerns
00:45 < mllerustad> Yes, we did.
00:45 < skyfaller> so yes, Crimsonninjagirl's comment is the next unaddressed one
00:45 < mllerustad> Christina's is the first new comment.
00:45 < mllerustad> Yes, yes it is.
00:46 < skyfaller> (just want the record to show that we read Fred's comments)
00:46 < skyfaller> mllerustad: how soon do you need to go?
00:46 < mllerustad> As soon as Carolyn gets back, which should be in a few minutes.
00:47 < Differance> (I am rather curious about Fred's absence)
00:47 < skyfaller> OK, let's call it a night then and decide on when the next meeting should be etc.
00:47 < mllerustad> 'Kay.
00:47 < skyfaller> I could do next weekend...
00:47 < mllerustad> Is Wednesday evening good for anyone?
00:47 < mllerustad> No?
00:48 < mllerustad> Dry week ends Saturday evening, I will probably be being social then...
00:48 < Differance> I don't know how many people are here to answer
00:48 < Differance> might want to put out word
00:48 < skyfaller> oh, well, I'm kind of busy during the week... I'm kind of busy generally
00:48 < mllerustad> Sunday?
00:48 < skyfaller> ... I really wanted to finish this tonight, oh well
00:48 < skyfaller> lemme go see when Gavin is free, brb
00:48 * mllerustad wonders where he went
00:49 < Differance> i forget how to do those action thingies -- how do you do it again?
00:49 < mllerustad> /me
00:49 < mllerustad> without [[ s
00:49 < Differance> ah and then the verb phrase
00:49 < mllerustad> Yup.
00:49 * Differance cries out in horror
00:50 < Differance> LOL
00:50 < skyfaller> mllerustad: ok, Gavin can do Weds evening
00:50 < skyfaller> is 8:30pm good on Weds?
00:50 < Differance> I'm good for it, likely enough
00:50 < Differance> :-)
00:50 < mllerustad> skyfaller: I'll be late, choir gets out at 5:30 PST.
00:50 < skyfaller> (Gavin is on a phone call)
00:50 < mllerustad> But I'll just grab dinner and run over.
00:50 < skyfaller> OK, how about 9pm then
00:51 < mllerustad> Sure, if that's not too late for you.
00:51 < mllerustad> You can start without me if you want.
00:51 < skyfaller> honestly, I probably won't be able to attend, Gavin will probably be running it
00:51 < mllerustad> 'Kay, we can argue about Core Team then...
00:51 < mllerustad> :)
00:51 < skyfaller> so I'd like to pick a time that you can make
00:52 < mllerustad> 9 is just fine with me. :)
00:52 < skyfaller> OK
00:52 < skyfaller> then that's the time
00:52 < skyfaller> 9pm on Weds evening
00:52 < skyfaller> ... it's too bad that we failed to take minutes once again
00:52 < mllerustad> skyfaller: I added the resolutions as we made them, refresh the RC_2
00:52 < skyfaller> oh, goodie :D
00:52 < Differance> that's pretty good, as minutes go
00:53 < skyfaller> mllerustad: you're my hero :)
00:53 * mllerustad and skyfaller PDA the IRC channel
00:53 < skyfaller> :)
00:53 < Differance> ick
00:53 < Differance> bleccch
00:54 * Differance smooches everyone heartily
00:54 < skyfaller> OK, I guess that's it for the night then
00:54 < skyfaller> have a good night everybody!
00:54 < Differance> night night
00:54 < skyfaller> thanks for coming
00:55 < Differance> ah well, such as it was . . .
00:55 < Differance> :-)