Source: https://wiki.pirate-party.us/PNC_9/19/12
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 21:52:15+00:00

Document:
Motion to change amendment language to: "To be eligible to hold one of the positions set forth in Art. IV §1, a candidate must be an active member of their State Pirate Party, or actively involved in Pirate politics if no state party exists."
[21:08] *[@kusanagi] aight, i guess i'm running this.
[21:12] *[@kusanagi] is the acting qm in? sacha?
[21:15] *[@kusanagi] mildbeard, what's doing in MA?
[21:16] *[+mildbeard] This weekend we had a table at the Freedom Rally which was a cannabis legalization rally. MAPP has a pro-legalization policy.
[21:16] *[+mildbeard] We handed out every one of our fliers. My 10-year-old son Reilly handed out most of them. For some reason people were more willing to take them from a kid.
[21:17] *[+mildbeard] I steered him clear of the cloud in the middle of the crowd.
[21:17] *[+mildbeard] We're planning to see Gregory Engels of the German Pirate Party in late October. He'll be in the area on personal business.
[21:18] *[+mildbeard] Those are the most important things that come to mind for MA.
[21:18] *[+mildbeard] I think he's working in Boston area? Not exactly sure.
[21:18] *[+mildbeard] He gave a talk last year when he was in town.
[21:20] *[@kusanagi] WA is out, so MrSquared how's ORPP?
[21:28] *[+Zacqary] New York's got a lot of meetings on our schedule. I met with Josh Lafazan last week, an 18-year-old who got elected to my local school board. He's still remaining independent, but I got him interested. So we have a good, successful contact.
[21:29] *[+Zacqary] We have a new member who wants to run for mayor of New York City.
[21:29] *[+Zacqary] And she's a Ph.D. So that's credibility.
[21:29] *[+Zacqary] I'll arrange a meeting with her when Travis is here next week.
[21:30] *[+Zacqary] Also probably going to meet with someone from a local Occupy group interested in running for a Town Supervisor position.
[21:32] *[+Zacqary] So that's it, I think.
[21:33] *[@kusanagi] Cali is out, so HariSeldon, how have things been in WI?
[21:34] *[+HariSeldon] W madison. We project that this will gain us a large group of volunteers. However, because of the way funding cycles work at Uw madison, we might not be able to get help with a student org until next semester. I am continuing to attend what events i can at the capitol and tell people about PPWI.
[21:35] *[+HariSeldon] oh... sorry about the overlap.
[21:39] *[@kusanagi] is there a date planned?
[21:42] *[@kusanagi] Zacqary, bylaws committee update?
[21:43] *[Zacqary] Nothing to report. I've been taking a break from it.
[21:44] *[@kusanagi] anyone here from the convention committee?
06*[21:47] * @kusanagi listens for crickets.
[21:49] *[@kusanagi] Item 1: Proposed Rewording for Core Value 6 in the Pirate Constitution.
[21:50] *[@kusanagi] mildbeard, since this was MA's proposal, would you like to take the floor?
[21:51] *[+mildbeard] California had objected to the wording of core value 6. We tweaked the wording to make it better.
[21:51] *[+mildbeard] "We are a post-ideological values-based meritocracy. We place all options on the table. We choose a specific approach because the available evidence shows that it is the best way to promote our values. We do not make decisions based merely on tradition, popularity, authority or political expediency."
[21:52] *[+mildbeard] The substance of the objection by California was that they felt the core value would prevent a PIrate from supporting affirmative action.
[21:52] *[+mildbeard] The new wording is designed to make it clear that we want to use the best possible method to promote core value 7 (equality) and that affirmative action would be fine if it's the best way.
[21:52] *[+mildbeard] That's all I have really.
[21:54] *[@kusanagi] does anyone want to make a motion?
[21:55] *[Zacqary] Motion to pass this amendment?
[21:55] *[@kusanagi] anyone wish to second?
[21:57] *[+mildbeard] Does anyone have any discussion, objections, anything?
[21:57] *[@kusanagi] so, that we need a vote on. any additional debating on this, or are we good?
[21:57] *[+mildbeard] I'd like to move that any state be allowed to talk.
[21:58] *[CalebL*[laptop]] So, what we the specific changes? (before/after)?
[21:59] *[+mildbeard] OK here's the old wording.
[21:59] *[+mildbeard] We are a post-ideological meritocracy. Policy and decision-making must be based on evidence and scientific reasoning. The approach that works best, or the person who does the best job, must be chosen over the alternatives. Where possible, we avoid making decisions or selecting leaders based on tradition, popularity, authority or ideology.
[22:00] *[+mildbeard] And again, here's the new.
[22:00] *[+mildbeard] "We are a post-ideological values-based meritocracy. We place all options on the table. We choose a specific approach because the available evidence shows that it is the best way to promote our values. We do not make decisions based merely on tradition, popularity, authority or political expediency."
[22:] *[+mildbeard] Also, I should point out that we require a 3/4 majority to amend or add core values.
[22:04] *[+mildbeard] California had objected to the word "meritocracy" because they felt it would exclude affirmative action. Here we're trying to say we're talking about how to promote our values, rather than about hiring decisions or something else.
[22:07] *[@kusanagi] is that all on discussion?
[22:08] *[passstab] what do we think of s/our/American ?
[22:08] *[+mildbeard] You mean "promote American values"?
[22:09] *[+mildbeard] Well, I think we're trying to promote the values of the Pirate Party.
[22:10] *[+mildbeard] Some people would say that intellectual property is an American value. After all, it's in the Constitution.
[22:11] *[Zacqary] Actually, I'd argue that your payright system is in the Constitution and intellectual property is a misreading of it.
[22:11] *[+mildbeard] If we say "American" values, then I'm worried that we'll get into a fight over what that means.
[22:12] *[+mildbeard] If we are talking about the values of the Pirate Party, then it's less controversial because we're specifically defining what our values are in the Constitution.
[22:12] *[@kusanagi] personally, i would prefer pirate values.
[22:13] *[Zacqary] If we keep "our" will that be tolerable? I just want to get this thing passed already.
[22:13] *[Zacqary] We can always change it later.
[22:14] *[+mildbeard] I think "our" is OK because we've defined them explicitly. But I want to make sure there aren't any objections we haven't addressed, because I'd rather get it right slowly than get it wrong quickly.
[22:14] *[sacha] why can we not just leave it at values?
[22:15] *[Zacqary] "We choose a specific approach because the available evidence shows that it is the best way to promote our values." is the point of contention, sacha.
[22:16] *[Zacqary] That's what discussion is for.
[22:17] *[+mildbeard] I'm glad we got a criticism!
[22:20] *[+mildbeard] Is there anything else, or are we ready to call the question?
[22:21] *[+mildbeard] I'd like to move to vote.
[22:22] *[@kusanagi] ce all options on the table. We choose a specific approach because the available evidence shows that it is the best way to promote our values. We do not make decisions based merely on tradition, popularity, authority or political expediency.". we need 4.5 ayes to pass.
[22:24] *[itspara] Where are we?
[22:27] *[+mildbeard] Who'd have ever thought that Pirate math would be so complicated?
[22:29] *[sacha] unless is the hari person WI?
[22:30] *[@kusanagi] Another core value was proposed by California and the PNC came up with the following proposed wording.
[22:30] *[@kusanagi] "We stand for a government that promotes social institutions necessary for the empowerment, health, and well-being of all people."
[22:31] *[+mildbeard] I would like to move that we table this proposal until such time as California is here to explain their thinking.
[22:32] *[+mildbeard] I like it, but they really are the driving force and it would be unfair to talk about changes to the wording or anything without them.
[22:34] *[@kusanagi] An amendment was proposed that would change the existing language about the requirements for Captain and Officers. Article IV, Section 2, Item 1.
[22:34] *[@kusanagi] Doesn't say who proposed it.. mildbeard was thgat you?
[22:34] *[+mildbeard] I think it was a group effort.
[22:35] *[+mildbeard] The objection was that we would be limiting officers.
[22:36] *[+mildbeard] Now it says "To be eligible to hold one of the positions set forth in Art. IV §1, a candidate must be an active member of a Pirate Party based in a Member State of the PNC."
[22:36] *[+mildbeard] So neither Sacha nor Travis could be an officer.
[22:37] *[+mildbeard] So my proposed wording was "To be eligible to hold one of the positions set forth in Art. IV §1, a candidate must be an active member of their State Pirate Party, if one exists, or actively involved in Pirate politics if it does not."
[22:38] *[+mildbeard] I should say that Zacqary was the one who first pointed out this issue to me.
[22:41] *[+mildbeard] What would you suggest, CalebL*[laptop]?
[22:43] *[CalebL*[laptop]] "if one exists," could perhaps be removed.
[22:43] *[CalebL*[laptop]] and replace "if it does not" with "if there isn't an active State Pirate Party"?
[22:44] *[+mildbeard] So "...a candidate must be an active member of their State Pirate Party, or actively involved in Pirate politics if none exists." Would that be OK?
[22:45] *[+HariSeldon] you might want to say "if not state party exists"
[22:45] *[+mildbeard] kusanagi, can we accept a wording change as a friendly amendment?
[22:46] *[+HariSeldon] in other words, "...a candidate must be an active member of their State Pirate Party, or actively involved in Pirate politics if no state party exists."
[22:47] *[+HariSeldon] i know... but otherwise it sounds to me like pirate politics could cease to exist.
[22:47] *[+mildbeard] I'm OK with either wording, anyone else have an opinion?
[22:47] *[CullenMatthews] what about changing if no state party exists, a candidiate must be an active member of their state pirate party or in an active at large state?
[22:49] *[CalebL*[laptop]] Although, could 'active in Pirate politics' be considered too vague?
[22:49] *[+HariSeldon] i think that it's not particularly vague.
[22:50] *[+HariSeldon] but it puts no limiting factors on the would be candidates.
[22:51] *[+mildbeard] Well, remember that the candidate still has to get a majority of votes to be elected.
[22:51] *[+mildbeard] So if there's really something wrong with someone's candidate, then everyone will just vote against them.
[22:51] *[+mildbeard] So I agree, a little vague is OK.
[22:52] *[@kusanagi] I agree there.
[22:53] *[passstab] maybe get rid of the activity requirement altogether?
[22:53] *[CalebL*[laptop]] Any revision idea of your own kusanagi, or are you in agreement with the revision being discussed?
[22:55] *[+mildbeard] So is this what we're talking about? "To be eligible to hold one of the positions set forth in Art. IV §1, a candidate must be an active member of their State Pirate Party, or actively involved in Pirate politics if no state party exists."
[23:00] *[+mildbeard] OK then I move that we vote.
[23:00] *[Brendan] they could nominate unlimited persons.
[23:] *[sacha] is that in the bylaws?
[23:] *[+mildbeard] There's a section on Nomination.
[23:] *[Brendan] then I'd say membership of a state is a non-issue if nomination is done by a state board.
[23:] *[+mildbeard] We could amend that section but it would require a separate amendment.
[23:] *[Brendan] because I'd trust a member of the PNC to be able to make the appropriate decision on who to nominate.
[23:] *[@kusanagi] Brendan, I agree.
[23:02] *[+mildbeard] Can we leave the amendment to Section 2 (Eligibility) as it is, and entertain a separate amendment to section 3 (Nomination) at a future date?
[23:04] *[@kusanagi] Would you all be okay with that?
[23:05] *[+mildbeard] well, Section 3 could be interpreted to mean that an observer state can second the nomination.
[23:06] *[+mildbeard] but it seems to me like that is a whole separate can of worms.
[23:06] *[Brendan] kill ambiguous wording in the document asap.
[23:07] *[+mildbeard] Heh, personally I love "flexible" wording in the constitution.
[23:09] *[+mildbeard] I think I'd like to call the question if nobody objects.
[23:11] *[+mildbeard] hold on that wasn't my motion.
[23:12] *[+mildbeard] I wanted to leave the proposed wording change of section 2 as it is, and we can leave the proposed change of section 3 for another time.
[23:12] *[+mildbeard] I still want to change section 2 to read "To be eligible to hold one of the positions set forth in Art. IV §1, a candidate must be an active member of their State Pirate Party, or actively involved in Pirate politics if no state party exists."
[23:12] *[+mildbeard] But I can see that I was not being clear.
[23:15] *[sacha] "ok, so voting on leaving the proposed wording change of section 2 asis, and leaving the proposed change of section 3 for a later date"
[23:16] *[+HariSeldon] for reference, proposed wording change of sect. 2 : "To be eligible to hold one of the positions set forth in Art. IV §1, a candidate must be an active member of their State Pirate Party, or actively involved in Pirate politics if no state party exists."
[23:22] *[+HariSeldon] sooo... does that mean we need to vote on the changed wording?
[23:23] *[CalebL*[laptop]] after all, it was an amendment to a motion, I believe.
[23:24] *[CalebL*[laptop]] So are we going to vote on the amended motion then?
[23:24] *[+HariSeldon] move to vote on the amended wording.
[23:25] *[@kusanagi] so, what was the proposed amend?
[23:25] *[+HariSeldon] "To be eligible to hold one of the positions set forth in Art. IV §1, a candidate must be an active member of their State Pirate Party, or actively involved in Pirate politics if no state party exists."
[23:26] *[+mildbeard] And that's Article IV, Section 2, Item 1.
[23:26] *[CalebL*[laptop]] Well, including of tabling the change for Section 3 to vote at a later date as well?
[23:26] *[+mildbeard] Yeah, I think we already tabled section 3.
[23:28] *[sacha] so now we vote...?
[23:29] *[Brendan] a little hoarse.
06*[23:30] * +mildbeard slaps forehead.
[23:35] *[HariSeldon] sorry what happened?
[23:36] *[@kusanagi] next item: Massachusetts proposes that Amanda Johnson of Michigan be appointed Quartermaster until such time as elections are held for permanent officers.
[kusanagi] did jeff/quazarguy formally resign?
[mildbeard] It was my understanding that nothing formal happened at all. Since Sacha has been doing all the work, she deserves to be recognized and get a * next to her name.
[CalebL[laptop]] Lack of laptop charger, or?
[kusanagi] do we have any procedure to follow for resignatiion?
[mildbeard] Don't make the same mistake as me. I recently tried to hot wire my coffee maker and nearly electrocuted myself.
[kusanagi] If possible, I would like Jeff to email a resignation, to cover all bases.
[CalebL[laptop]] Or do you mean work on it while it was 'on'?
[mildbeard] I just needed some espresso REALLY BAD.
[kusanagi] and iirc, aren't elections in about 2 weeks?
[mildbeard] Well, let's table this issue for now. I will withdraw it if the elections really are going to happen on that date, but I can bring it up again if they are postponed.
[mildbeard] Anyone object to tabling so we can get an email from Jeff and Sacha can get her laptop in order?
[kusanagi] and since sacha is gone, will someone step up as qm?
[HariSeldon] or just until next meeting?
[mildbeard] And really it depends on when elections are happening.
[kusanagi] can i get a motion for it?
[mildbeard] Sorry I have to drop.
[00:00] *[@kusanagi] ah, night terrors..
[00:04] *[Sacha] What was the motion? To put in the agenda?
[00:06] *[@kusanagi] 5. Massachusetts proposes that the PNC choose to interpret Article III, Section 4 to mean that an observer state can apply for probationary status as a stepping stone to a future application for full membership. It is OK if this is a discussion item rather than a motion.
[00:07] *[+Brady] This needs to be implemented in some fashion.
[00:07] *[+HariSeldon] i like the idea a lot... do we have anyone from mass to talk about this?
[00:08] *[+HariSeldon] i lost track of who left.
[00:08] *[mildbeard] We intended probationary status to be something that would happen to a member state when their pirate party no longer meets the requirements for full membership.
[00:09] *[mildbeard] The question came up - what happens if an observer state is on the way to full member status but not there yet.
[00:09] *[+Brady] Is that supposed to be 'One'?
[00:10] *[mildbeard] Could that state apply to be a probationary state now, and apply for full membership later?
[00:10] *[mildbeard] I just wanted to get a feel for what people think about that.
[00:11] *[+Zacqary] I have to go, guys.
[00:11] *[+Brady] There should be official language alongside the first two points.
[00:11] *[+Brady] It only appears to apply to Member States falling from grace.
[00:12] *[+mildbeard] But do you think it's a useful idea?
[00:13] *[+Brady] That would probably be the quickest and most effective step.
[00:14] *[+mildbeard] Add a new 3 right after 2 and renumber the rest. Maybe change a few wordings that would seem to contradict it.
[00:14] *[+Brady] Newly hired employees can go through a short 'probationary' period.
[00:15] *[+Brady] It does not have to have a negative connotation.
[00:17] *[+mildbeard] Well, Section 4 item 5 seems to say that after a month we have to make a decision 1 way or another.
[00:17] *[+mildbeard] Which we have failed to do in the one case where this has come up.
[00:17] *[+mildbeard] Sorry, items 4 and 5.
[00:19] *[+mildbeard] Anyway, I just wanted this to be a discussion. I don't think we're ready to actually do anything with it.
[00:19] *[+Brady] It appears that everyone is in relative agreement.
[00:19] *[+Brady] Shall we motion to put this at the top of next weeks agenda?
[00:19] *[Sacha] Do we need a motion for that?
[00:20] *[+Brady] To "insert language into Section 4 explicitly detailing the process by which an observer state is recognized as a probationary state"?
[00:20] *[+mildbeard] Can we just note in the minutes that that was the consensus?
[00:20] *[+mildbeard] What Brady said.
[00:25] *[+Brady] Is that it for tonight?
[00:26] *[@kusanagi] travis will be in NY, and it's my anniversary with my fiance.
[00:27] *[+HariSeldon] yeah... don't bother with the pnc on your anniversary.
[00:27] *[+mildbeard] well somebody already said we'd be voting on officers the week after that.
[00:27] *[+HariSeldon] happy almost anniversary!
[00:28] *[+mildbeard] Ooh, can you post a photo?
[00:28] *[CalebL*[laptop]] So, shall the next meeting be the week thereafter?
[00:28] *[Sacha] when did we decide to vote on officers then?
[00:30] *[Sacha] to vote on officers or to wait and make an exception?
[00:31] *[+mildbeard] I think so too.
[00:33] *[Sacha] Will it be a captain decision or a vote you think?
[00:34] *[@kusanagi] do you want to go over that now, or.?
[00:34] *[+mildbeard] How about a 10/3 due date?
[00:35] *[Sacha] Since you two are in here, should I just make my changes to officers and committees right in the document?
[00:35] *[Sacha] or should I put them in the comments?
[00:35] *[+mildbeard] You mean for the amendments?
[00:35] *[Sacha] what do you think mildbeard?
[00:36] *[+mildbeard] Well, I find all the comments to be confusing.
[00:36] *[+mildbeard] Are we using piratenpad or are we using a google doc?
[00:37] *[+HariSeldon] it was by brain wave consensus that we voted to adjour.
[00:38] *[+mildbeard] We lost quorum when MrSquared left.
[00:38] *[+HariSeldon] ah... that too.
[00:38] *[+mildbeard] So we can vote or not :).
[00:38] *[+HariSeldon] ok, bye then. see you next week probably!
[00:39] *[+Brady] Shall we adjourn?
[00:39] *[+Brady] Well then, I must dash off into the night.
[00:39] *[+Brady] Thank you all for being amazing.
This page was last modified on 27 October 2012, at 03:25.

References: §1
 §1
 §1
 §1
 §1
 §1
 §1