PNC 8/22/12

From United States Pirate Party
Jump to: navigation, search
08/22/2012 21:00h EDT
Room: #pnc


Members of the PNC

  • Jake Ziering, California
  • Kyle DeVore, Oregon
  • Zacqary Adam Green, New York
  • Joseph T. Klein, Wisconsin
  • Jarod Smith, Georgia
  • Bradley Hall, Florida
  • Erik Zoltan, Massachusetts
  • Brady Dibble, Washington

  • none

  • none

    • Oklahoma, 6th week

At Large Members of the PNC

  • James Eastman Jr., Michigan
  • Cullen Matthews, Illinois
  • Benjamin Sauerhaft Coplon, Pennsylvania

Officers of the PNC

  • Travis McCrea, ID, Captain
  • Lindsay-Anne Brunner, NY, First Mate
  • Amanda Johnson, MI, Acting Secretary at the request of Jeff Talada, WA, Secretary


  • Meeting opened at: 09:00pm EDT by Travis McCrea
  • Meeting closed at: 11:31pm EDT by Travis McCrea
  • Meeting chaired by Travis McCrea/Lindsay-Anne Brunner
  • Secretary for this meeting is Amanda Johnson
  • Quorum is established: Members 8 out of 8 present
  • Logging Enabled: Yes

Review of previous minutes


Short report of the board members

  • Liquid feedback is going well and there are a few alpha testers. New Hampshire now has a state party.
  • No news
  • Working on recruiting friends and making a facebook page.
  • No news
  • Kicking butt and taking names. Starting to work on No Safe Harbor 2 and working on getting ahold of
New York
  • No news
  • Working on music project and internships. The Pirate Hour is hosting a prominent libertarian this week and California has a few reservations about the PNC constitution that will be discussed later in the meeting.

  • Tweeting and getting support on facebook. Continuing to work on web infrastructure.

4.2 - Short Report From Committees

IT Committee
  • No news

Bylaws Committee
  • Voting on the bylaws will be held next week. The bylaws committee will add a specific date to the bylaws.

Agenda Items

ad-hoc Convention Committee

  • Motion to create a convention committe
  • Passed with 5.5 aye
  • Chaired by Boson

5.2 California's concerns about the Constitution

  • Problem 1: The strictly science based approach to decision making.

Discussion will be moved to another time after a proposed amendment has been created.

  • Problem 2: Expanding the core values to include health care, education and access to the internet.

Representatives will take this amendment "We stand for a government that promotes social institutions necessary for the empowerment, health, and well-being of all people," back to their states for discussion and voting next week.


  • Motion to adjourn meeting
    • Quorum failed, captain ended the meeting anyway.
  • Next meeting: TBA at 9PM EDT
  • Meeting closed:11:31 pm


[21:00] <@teamcoltra> I call the meeting to order lets do roll call

[21:01] <Deamon> James Eastman Jr., Michigan

[21:01] == LolItsAnAcronym [] has joined #pnc

[21:01] == mode/#pnc [+v Deamon] by teamcoltra

[21:01] <MrSquared> Kyle DeVore, Oregon

[21:01] == mode/#pnc [+v MrSquared] by teamcoltra

[21:01] <jake> jake ziering, california

[21:01] == mode/#pnc [+v jake] by teamcoltra

[21:01] <CullenMatthews> CullenMatthews, Illinois

[21:01] <Zacqary> Zacqary Adam Green, New York

[21:01] == mode/#pnc [+v CullenMatthews] by teamcoltra

[21:01] == mode/#pnc [+v Zacqary] by teamcoltra

[21:01] <+Deamon> again, pretty sure Michigan doesn't get voice since it's observer status

[21:01] == mode/#pnc [-v Deamon] by teamcoltra

[21:01] <Bosun> Joseph T. Klein, Wisconsin

[21:02] == mode/#pnc [+v Bosun] by teamcoltra

[21:02] <Deamon> thank you

[21:02] <passstab> kbenjamin sauerhaft coplon Pennsylvania

[21:03] <Sacha> Amanda Johnson, Michigan. Deamon is the rep tonight.

[21:03] <@teamcoltra> So tonight's meeting has 5 out of 8 states present

[21:03] <@kusanagi> Lindsay-Anne Brunner, New York.

[21:04] <@teamcoltra> Sacha you are tonights Quartermaster at the request of Jeffery Talada

[21:04] <@teamcoltra> if you accept the responsibility

[21:04] == LolItsAnAcronym [] has quit [Quit: Leaving]

[21:04] <Sacha> I accept and am on time this week ;)

[21:04] <@teamcoltra> Sweet. So then lets review last weeks minutes

[21:05] <@teamcoltra> Once you have read and accepted last weeks minutes just say so

[21:05] <jarod_> Jarod Smith GA

[21:06] == mode/#pnc [+v jarod_] by teamcoltra

[21:06] <+Bosun> read and accepted

[21:06] <Deamon> Read

[21:06] <+jake> read and accepted

[21:06] <Rush> Bradley Hall, Florida

[21:07] <+CullenMatthews> read and accepted

[21:07] <+MrSquared> read and accepted

[21:07] <Rush> accepted and read

[21:07] == mode/#pnc [+v Brendan] by teamcoltra

[21:07] == mode/#pnc [-v Brendan] by teamcoltra

[21:07] <+Zacqary> Read and accepted

[21:07] == mode/#pnc [+v Rush] by teamcoltra

[21:08] <@teamcoltra> Okay let's do reports. Oregon is up first

[21:09] <mildbeard> Erik Zoltan, Massachusetts

[21:09] <@teamcoltra> MrSquared

[21:09] == mode/#pnc [+v mildbeard] by teamcoltra

[21:09] <+MrSquared> Yep, one sec

[21:10] <@teamcoltra> ( mildbeard I will go to you next )

[21:10] <+MrSquared> I am still in process in making a facebook page for ORPP, and I am going to update our website to have important information as well

[21:10] <+MrSquared> also I am looking to recruit one of my friends to help me out with this stuff

[21:10] <+MrSquared> that's all

[21:11] <@teamcoltra> Thanks MrSquared

[21:11] <@teamcoltra> mildbeard - Whats up with Mass?

[21:11] <+mildbeard> Our liquid feedback testing has gone well as far as I can see.

[21:11] <+mildbeard> We have a "Massachusetts" section but we also have a "United States" section and a few alpha testers from outside of Mass volunteered to help.

[21:12] <+mildbeard> There is now a New Hampshire Pirate Party.

[21:12] <+mildbeard> Both Jamie and I have been away so there's not much to report.

[21:12] == mode/#pnc [-v CullenMatthews] by teamcoltra

[21:12] <+mildbeard> that's it for Mass.

[21:12] <@kusanagi> Yay NH!

[21:13] <@teamcoltra> I have been talking to NH Pirates, dave (right?) seems to have a good plan

[21:13] <@teamcoltra> Thanks

[21:13] <@teamcoltra> Chris

[21:13] <@teamcoltra> not dave

[21:13] <+mildbeard> yep

[21:13] <+mildbeard> Chris helped found MAPP.

[21:13] <@teamcoltra> Georiga / jarod_

[21:13] == Takyoji[mobile] [] has joined #pnc

[21:13] <@teamcoltra> your up

[21:14] <+jarod_> no news

[21:14] <@teamcoltra> Brad/Rush Florida

[21:15] <+Rush> In Florida we are kicking butt and taking names. We're preparing to start actually working on NSH2 in a few weeks. We also were able to talk to Chris Sheats long enough to take control of Other than that, we're rocking.

[21:15] <+Rush> Done

[21:15] <@teamcoltra> :) Thanks Rush

[21:16] <@teamcoltra> New York / Zacqary

[21:16] <+Zacqary> Nothing to report. Unless I'm missing something, kusanagi?

[21:18] <@teamcoltra> jake you will be up if kusanagi has nothing else

[21:18] <@teamcoltra> Okay well since she's not replying

[21:18] <@teamcoltra> go ahead jake

[21:18] <@teamcoltra> whats going on in California

[21:19] <+jake> we don't have quite so much this week :) We're continuing work on our music project and internship proposals; we have a pirate hour this thursday with a prominent libertarian who we get to debate about some points of disagreement; and we've gone over the constitution and have some suggestions for potential revisions

[21:19] == kusanagi [] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]

[21:19] <+jake> if you're interested in either attending the pirate hour or being part of the music project, shoot an email to

[21:19] <+jake> m

[21:19] <+jake> done

[21:20] <@teamcoltra> Thanks jake

[21:20] <@teamcoltra> Bosun / Cheese State

[21:20] <+Bosun> Slow backend work on our web infrastructure. Tweeting our brains out. Upward trends continue on FB. Too many students and teacher members here preparing for school. Nothing else to report this week.

[21:21] == kusanagi [] has joined #pnc

[21:21] == mode/#pnc [+o kusanagi] by ChanServ

[21:21] <@teamcoltra> Sweet, thanks Bosun

[21:21] <@teamcoltra> Now is Caleb not here, or using a screenname that I don't recognize?

[21:22] <@teamcoltra> Okay I am assuming not, passstab or anyone else who is familliar with IT want to say anything?

[21:22] == jarod [~yaaic@66.87.npi.px] has joined #pnc

[21:22] <@teamcoltra> matuck- maybe?

[21:23] <@kusanagi> He's here

[21:23] <@kusanagi> Takyoji[mobile]: IT!

[21:23] <Deamon> Beuller?

[21:23] <passstab> whoa i'm familiar with IT?

[21:23] <@teamcoltra> I thought you were doing a project in IT

[21:23] <@kusanagi> Apparently not lol

[21:23] <@teamcoltra> :P I am just trying to get anyone who has anything to report on IT at all... but it looks like we will come back to it

[21:24] <@teamcoltra> Bylaws Committee - I know Sacha sent an email to the SAB so I will let her start

[21:25] <Sacha> Yay!

[21:25] <Sacha> I made up some by laws and sent them on the SAB list

[21:25] <Sacha>

[21:25] <Sacha> Here they are, I hope everyone was able to take a look at them

[21:25] <Sacha> and i'm not sure if we are going to discuss them now or... what we are going to do with them

[21:25] <Sacha> but they exist

[21:26] <Sacha> and that is all I plan on putting in there right now

[21:26] <Sacha> so... whatever El capitan wants to do I am down with

[21:26] <@teamcoltra> Did you set out an election bylaw? ie when elections will be held?

[21:26] <Sacha> No, we agree on two months prior right?

[21:27] <Sacha> For some reason I thought that was a constitutional amendment

[21:27] <Sacha> ~*adding*~

[21:27] <@teamcoltra> It was a constitutional amendment

[21:27] <@teamcoltra> which we set the requirement to have a bylaw dictating the time

[21:27] <@teamcoltra> Which is what I have been waiting on since I have no legal framework to call an election

[21:28] == Takyoji[mobile] [] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]

[21:28] <Sacha> Ahhh okay

[21:28] == jarod_ [] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]

[21:28] <+mildbeard> So is it a simple majority for the PNC to approve the bylaws - whenever we get to that?

[21:28] <+mildbeard> And also a simple majority to amend later?

[21:28] <@teamcoltra> Yeah

[21:28] <@kusanagi> I believe so

[21:29] <+mildbeard> k

[21:29] <@teamcoltra> I would suggest we go through these bylaws and just pass them

[21:29] <@teamcoltra> or not pass them

[21:29] <@teamcoltra> Most of them are basically enforcing the systems that we already have in place

[21:29] <+mildbeard> you mean individually, or all as a group?

[21:29] <+jake> dont we need to pass the constitution before we start bylaws?

[21:29] <Sacha> Jake We already did a few weeks ago

[21:29] <@kusanagi> jake: yeah, I think so.

[21:30] <@kusanagi> No, he means as a state

[21:30] <+Zacqary> Not everyone's ratified it yet.

[21:30] <+jake> I see

[21:30] <+mildbeard> The PNC approved the constitution but member states need to ratify before they can vote on the bylaws.

[21:30] <Sacha> I am confused about how that pertains to the by laws

[21:30] <@teamcoltra> But current members who have ratified the constitution should be able to vote on bylaws

[21:30] <+jake> gotcha

[21:30] <+mildbeard> what about at-large states?

[21:31] <Sacha> Who are the current members? Just for when I am voting so that I can get it down on a notebook

[21:31] <+Zacqary> Also, I'd prefer not to vote on these bylaws yet because I'm still working on some structural frameworks I'd like to propose.

[21:31] <+Zacqary> I can have these by next week.

[21:31] <Sacha> Mildbeard We have allowed them to vote in the past

[21:31] <+mildbeard> I'm wondering if they have to ratify, is all.

[21:31] <Sacha> I would be fine with allowing people to edit for a week if they have things they wish to change/add

[21:31] <@teamcoltra> Yeah mildbeard I honestly don't know, I was going to just accept their votes... but they have to ratify if they become full members

[21:32] <@teamcoltra> its required now

[21:32] == kusi [] has joined #pnc

[21:32] == mode/#pnc [+o kusi] by ChanServ

[21:32] <+jake> what is the process for making changes to the constitution at this point?

[21:32] <Sacha> Mildbeard I think it is required for them to become a state party but they are not considered parties so they can still vote. The ratification is just neccessary to become a full member from my understanding.

[21:32] <Sacha> Jake Making a motion and having I believe a 2/3rds to amend

[21:32] <+mildbeard> OK probably. I'm going to read it just to familiarize myself...

[21:32] <+jake> and I can both make a motion and vote, even before ratifying?

[21:33] <Sacha> How long was the exception we gave states?

[21:33] <@teamcoltra> I would also be willing to accept all states who have not ratified the constitution the same as at-large

[21:33] <@teamcoltra> it's stupid to not let them vote, but let at larges vote

[21:33] <@kusanagi> teamcoltra: that's what we've been doing, iirc.

[21:33] <Sacha> I thought that was how we were going to do it lol, they would just become glorified at larges

[21:34] <@teamcoltra> Exactly

[21:34] <@teamcoltra> I just don't think it's come up where I have had to do that

[21:34] <+Bosun> To further discussion, Wisconsin is willing to act as a conduit for any non ratified state who wishes to make a motion.

[21:34] <Sacha> How long was the exception?

[21:34] <+jake> alright

[21:34] <Sacha> And how long has it been since we voted on the consitution

[21:35] <@kusanagi> It was 6 months, I believe.

[21:35] <Sacha> also what states are full members so that I can write that down for when I am counting votes

[21:35] <@kusanagi> I could be wrong

[21:36] <@teamcoltra> We accepted it July 25th

[21:36] <@teamcoltra> I thought it was 2 months

[21:36] <+Bosun> Look at the minutes.

[21:36] == kusanagi_mobi [] has joined #pnc

[21:36] == mode/#pnc [+o kusanagi_mobi] by ChanServ

[21:36] == kusanagi [] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]

[21:36] <@teamcoltra> I am looking through them now Bosun

[21:37] <Sacha> <+QuazarGuy> "III.2.G. Ratify the PNC Constitution" <+mildbeard> We should add a time frame. <@teamcoltra> Ohh I see <@teamcoltra> I was thinking, nevermind :P <+mildbeard> "III.2.G Ratify the PNC Constitution within 6 months of its adoption, or prior to the member state's admission, whichever is later."

[21:37] <Sacha> 6 months

[21:37] <Sacha>

[21:38] <@teamcoltra> Yeah I was just getting to that spot

[21:38] <Sacha> ctrl + f <3

[21:38] <+mildbeard> It doesn't actually say that.

[21:38] <+mildbeard>

[21:38] <Sacha> Yup, it needs to be changed

[21:38] <Sacha> because as I remember Zach wasn't in and we couldn't edit without him

[21:39] <Sacha> Could you add me to the people that can edit that and i'll cross reference the amendments with the wording this week?

[21:39] <@teamcoltra> I think matuck- gave me editing privilages

[21:39] <@teamcoltra> Do you guys want to pause for a second to update it, or someone just query me and I will do it after

[21:39] <@kusanagi_mobi> We all have editing privs now

[21:39] <+mildbeard> Update it.

[21:39] <+mildbeard> We passed it, and it's important to have it right.

[21:39] <Sacha> Wait to edit it

[21:40] <Sacha> Until we find all of the errors

[21:40] <@teamcoltra> I am just going to update it

[21:40] <Sacha> Do you plan on going through the amendments and stuff or would you like me to and then send the notes to you?

[21:40] <Sacha> Or kusinagi can cuz she is the firstmate or someone else etc.

[21:41] <@teamcoltra> Oh... if there is a big list of things

[21:41] <@teamcoltra> then just compile a list for now

[21:41] <@kusanagi_mobi> I can do it.

[21:41] <@kusanagi_mobi> But just a note

[21:41] <@teamcoltra> Okay thanks kusanagi_mobi

[21:41] <@kusanagi_mobi> We all have editing privs now

[21:41] <@kusanagi_mobi> Anyone with a wiki account

[21:41] <@teamcoltra> Well let's keep going

[21:42] <Sacha> What do we wish to do with the bylaws

[21:43] <Sacha> I believe that is where we were

[21:43] <@teamcoltra> So do we want to pass bylaws or not? I would be in favour of it... otherwise it could be 6 months

[21:43] <+mildbeard> I'm not sure we're ready - maybe give us a week for final comments.

[21:43] <@teamcoltra> Who HAS ratified the Constitution?

[21:43] <+Bosun> Wisconsin

[21:43] <@kusanagi_mobi> NY, MA, WA..

[21:43] <@kusanagi_mobi> WI

[21:43] <+Zacqary> I'd like to wait till next week too because I'm still working on some stuff.

[21:44] <+Zacqary> And I think I'm still committee head, right?

[21:44] <+Zacqary> So.

[21:44] <+Zacqary> Yeah.

[21:44] <@teamcoltra> Zacqary :) Fair enough

[21:44] <Sacha> I am happy with waiting until next week, it will let me make it pretty

[21:44] <Sacha> Do we need a vote or are we good with this?

[21:44] <@teamcoltra> Can you guys include a date for elections (I would suggest September 5th)

[21:44] <@teamcoltra> in your bylaws

[21:44] <Sacha> No

[21:44] <Sacha> Unless it is something like

[21:44] <Sacha> "the second meeting of september"

[21:45] <@teamcoltra> No....

[21:45] <Sacha> or "the second wednesday" etc.

[21:45] <@teamcoltra> We specifically outlined this in the constitution

[21:45] <@teamcoltra> the general date was set in the constitution

[21:45] <@teamcoltra> but the exact date will be set by bylaw

[21:46] <Sacha> So we need to do a specific date

[21:46] <Sacha> Day and everything

[21:46] <@teamcoltra> yes

[21:46] <Sacha> What if the date ends up being on a saturday

[21:46] <Sacha> or a friday though

[21:47] <@kusanagi_mobi> So special meeting

[21:47] <@teamcoltra> It's a bylaw since it's so easy to be fixed every year

[21:47] <Sacha> or a terrible day for people to meet and vote

[21:47] <Sacha> That is so unnecessary though

[21:47] <Sacha> why fix something when we can do it right

[21:47] <Sacha> but we are screwed into it by the constitution

[21:47] <Sacha> I wish I had paid attention to that but nothing to do now I guess

[21:47] <@teamcoltra> You could set the date as "the third monday" or something

[21:47] <Sacha> We'll do it as we are required to do.

[21:47] <@teamcoltra> but it needs to be specific

[21:47] <+mildbeard> What exactly is the wording in the constitution?

[21:48] <Sacha> TeamColtra you mean like "21:45] <Sacha> or "the second wednesday" etc."

[21:48] <@teamcoltra> Sacha sorry I missed that - Yes that would be acceptable

[21:48] <+mildbeard> Can anyone point me to the exact language?

[21:48] <@teamcoltra> mildbeard

[21:48] <@teamcoltra> I am getting it

[21:48] <@teamcoltra> it was 2 weeks ago

[21:49] <Sacha> TeamColtra Kay, we will do it for sure then ^_^

[21:50] <Sacha> Also a quick notice to everyone: Is anyone having problems accessing the google docs? Because it is much more efficient for the by laws and I would like to switch activity to that document if possible as that is where the editing is taking place.

[21:50] <@teamcoltra>

[21:50] <@teamcoltra> Vote held to amend Article VI: Meetings Section 2 to add subpoint 3 with the text: A yearly convention shall be held for the purposes of party elections at a date specified in the bylaws

[21:51] <+mildbeard> So a convention doesn't mean that it's an in-person event?

[21:51] <@teamcoltra> No, it would be an econvention

[21:51] <@teamcoltra> :)

[21:52] == kusanagi_mobi [] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]

[21:52] <@teamcoltra> Basically the convention is to elect our leadership and approve a national presidential candidate if needed

[21:52] <+mildbeard> That's pretty flexible language, so the bylaws can use any way of saying what the date is as long as it's clear.

[21:52] <@teamcoltra> mildbeard that's what I was saying

[21:52] <+mildbeard> and I agree.

[21:53] <@teamcoltra> I made a mistake in saying the bylaws can't say "the second wednesday" or something

[21:53] == kusanagi [] has joined #pnc

[21:53] == mode/#pnc [+o kusanagi] by ChanServ

[21:53] <Sacha> Yeah, that is okay though. I am just relieved it can be that.

[21:53] <@teamcoltra> So anyway, Sacha / Zacqary please include something in the bylaws

[21:53] <+mildbeard> kusanagi has us surrounded :)

[21:53] <Sacha> I put it on the agenda so we're good and made a note in my to-do list ^_^

[21:53] <+Zacqary> Will do.

[21:53] <Sacha> So to wrap up the by laws committee

[21:54] <Sacha> We're going to switch to this google doc

[21:54] <Sacha>

[21:54] <Sacha> that is the only official place for editing that will be accepted

[21:54] <@kusanagi> mildbeard: sorry, working on fixing something and IRC keeps disconnecting

[21:54] <+Bosun> example from US code : The electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed, in each State, on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President.

[21:54] <Sacha> Please comment, ask questions etc. and then we can vote next week. Sound good?

[21:54] <@kusanagi> I really am not comfortable with using a google doc

[21:54] <+mildbeard> np kusanagi just smiling along with you

[21:54] <Sacha> Kusanagi why not

[21:55] <@kusanagi> We should e using piratepad, I think.

[21:55] <@kusanagi> And to restrict us to a Google doc is well, kind of ludicrous.

[21:55] <+Rush> Guys, I need to head out.

[21:55] <+mildbeard> a wiki page would be a good alternative because it tracks history.

[21:55] == Rush [] has quit [Quit: ajax IRC Client]

[21:56] <@kusanagi> Oooh, I like that one too, mildbeard

[21:56] <@teamcoltra> piratepad tracks history too

[21:56] <@kusanagi> It should be something we "own"

[21:56] <@kusanagi> A google doc lacks that feeling.

[21:57] <+Zacqary> Google Docs is easier for me, personally, but I can transfer my work to whichever system we need.

[21:57] <+mildbeard> A google doc might have a privacy concern if it wasn't part of our open government transparency.

[21:57] <@teamcoltra> lol you mean like the German pirate pad where your connection is intercpeted by a government line? It's honestly up to Zacqary

[21:57] <@teamcoltra> It's his committee

[21:57] <+Bosun> For continuity can we agree on piratepad?

[21:57] <passstab> kusanagi, is right we should be willing to sacrifice small functionality to use something that is FOSS and respectful of privacy

[21:58] <@teamcoltra> I am going to move on, because it's not a PNC matter - it's a committee issue. Join the committee and decide as a team if you have a preference

[21:58] <+mildbeard> hear, hear.

[21:58] <@teamcoltra> Agenda Items

[21:59] <@teamcoltra> Who was the one who proposed: ad hoc Convention Committee

[21:59] <+Bosun> Twas I

[21:59] <@teamcoltra> Bosun go ahead

[22:00] <+Bosun> I propose the formation of an ad hoc convention committe.

[22:00] <@teamcoltra> With the purpose of?

[22:01] <@teamcoltra> (I am not disagreeing, I am asking for clarity)

[22:01] == itspara [~AndChat64@69.255.xyx.lw] has joined #pnc

[22:01] <+Bosun> Of organizing our convention.

[22:01] <+mildbeard> Are you referring to the same convention that the bylaws committee has to set the date for?

[22:02] <+Bosun> Yes. …. organizing and publicity.

[22:02] <@teamcoltra> Would they manage voting and such?

[22:03] <+Bosun> We should inform the world that we are having a convention, even if small and even if virtual.

[22:04] <@kusanagi> I don't think a offline convention could be attended by many right now, but yes.

[22:05] <+Bosun> We would need to hatch a plan. It would be unwise to have delegates or candidates count votes. We need to be more above board than anyone else.

[22:05] <@kusanagi> We should tell everyone, especially in light of the Adbusters thing.

[22:05] <+mildbeard> sure why not.

[22:05] <+Bosun> We need to show that we walk the walk on transparency and democracy.

[22:06] <+Bosun> Even if it is laptops in a hotel room.

[22:06] <@teamcoltra> ;) just keep your webcam off

[22:06] <@teamcoltra> But seriously I agree

[22:06] <@kusanagi> teamcoltra: lol

[22:07] <+jake> ok I vote yes

[22:07] <+jake> lets make a committee

[22:07] <+mildbeard> who would be the committee chair?

[22:07] <@teamcoltra> Okay well can someone make a voteable motion

[22:07] <@teamcoltra> which is very specific

[22:07] <@teamcoltra> if you want the committee to handle voting -- it needs to say that

[22:08] <+mildbeard> I move that the PNC create a convention committee to be responsible for organizing the convention on the date to be specified in the bylaws, including voting, and to handle any associated publicity and promotions.

[22:09] <+jake> second

[22:09] <@teamcoltra> Do we want further discussion on it?

[22:09] <@teamcoltra> anyone disagree wit that?

[22:09] <@teamcoltra> with*

[22:09] <+Bosun> Yea that works … cuz I am a slow typist

[22:10] <+jake> lets proceed to vote

[22:10] <@teamcoltra> Okay all in favour of the motion the PNC create a convention committee to be responsible for organizing the convention on the date to be specified in the bylaws, including voting, and to handle any associated publicity and promotions.

[22:10] == kusanagi [] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]

[22:10] == kusi has changed nick to kusanagi

[22:10] <@teamcoltra> Please say aye, all against nay

[22:10] <+jake> aye

[22:10] <+Bosun> aye

[22:10] <+mildbeard> aye

[22:11] <passstab> aye

[22:11] <+Zacqary> Aye

[22:11] <jarod> Aye

[22:11] <@teamcoltra> Okay vote called

[22:12] <@teamcoltra> Sacha can you give the official total

[22:12] <Sacha> 5.5 for I believe

[22:12] <Sacha> my first count so check out my math :I

[22:12] == mode/#pnc [+v jarod] by teamcoltra

[22:12] <@teamcoltra> yes

[22:12] <@teamcoltra> thats righ

[22:13] <@teamcoltra> Okay does anyone want to volunteer to head the committee?

[22:13] <@kusanagi> Honestly, Bosun seems like he understands this well

[22:13] <@kusanagi> maybe?

[22:13] <+Bosun> Yeah … since I proposed it. BTW how do we setup an IRC channel?

[22:14] <+jake> I second Bosun

[22:14] <@kusanagi> Bosun, I can help with that

[22:14] <@teamcoltra> Bosun just join the channel

[22:14] <+Bosun> I would like volunteers.

[22:14] <+mildbeard> Type /join name-of-channel

[22:15] <+Bosun> ahh … ok

[22:15] <@teamcoltra> like if you want to create #boson just /join boson

[22:15] <+Bosun> gotcha

[22:15] <+Bosun> I need to RTFM.

[22:15] <@kusanagi> Bosun, lol

[22:15] <@kusanagi> it happens

[22:16] == BradyMobile [~Grizzly@208.54.tu.ylp] has joined #pnc

[22:16] <@teamcoltra> Okay so Bosun will head the committee

[22:17] <@teamcoltra> I think we can move on to 5.2

[22:17] <@teamcoltra> jake California's concerns about the Constitution

[22:17] <@teamcoltra> go ahead

[22:18] <+jake> ok

[22:18] <+jake> so there are a variety of suggestions, most of which I would characterise as linguistic

[22:18] <+jake> I could go through them all right now, but I think it would be better to submit a word doc

[22:19] <+jake> there's really two main issues, that make it so at this time we have to say no to ratification

[22:19] <+mildbeard> are there any major issues that would impact ratification?

[22:19] == jarod2 [~yaaic@70.147.pzk.nn] has joined #pnc

[22:19] <+jake> #1

[22:19] <+jake> Article 1 Section 3 "Values"

[22:19] <+jake> Value 6, currently worded as 6. Current Wording: "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"

[22:20] <+jake> we don't like it and would call for its removal altogether

[22:20] <+jake> There are enough elements of this that I find problematic that I would prefer it was done away with entirely. For one thing, meritocracy is an ideology, and though it claims to be neutral to a bunch of social issues like race, class, gender, etc., it can be convincingly argued that this neutrality supports status quo power structures. As a practical example of this, wouldn't the current wording prevent a pirate from endorsing affirmative ac

[22:20] <+mildbeard> what's the problem with it?

[22:20] <+jake> heehe

[22:21] == jarod [~yaaic@66.87.npi.px] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]

[22:21] <@teamcoltra> jake you got cut off

[22:21] <+jake> doh

[22:21] <+jake> how far

[22:21] <+jake> did it go?

[22:21] <@teamcoltra> California's concerns about the Constitution

[22:21] <@teamcoltra> err

[22:21] <@teamcoltra> t wording prevent a pirate from endorsing affirmative ac

[22:21] <+jake> prevent a pirate from endorsing affirmativeaction? What this plank implies to me is a sort of technocracy, where policymakers seethemselves as carrying out an essentially scientific mission in social and political space. Thisis just not how I view my relationship with politics. My belief in equality, for instance, is notgrounded in pragmatism - it is profoundly ideological.

[22:21] <+jake> If studies were to find that "theapproach that works best" did so in a non-equal manner (say, racial profiling at airports), Iwould remain opposed to such a thing on principle. If all policy must be based on scientificreasoning, am I disallowed from voting based on principle?

[22:21] <+jake> These questions become evenmore problematic when applied to the last line. Any approach that selects leaders based noton authority or popularity or tradition (or any combination thereof), but rather throughsupposed merit, seems destined to be anti-democratic. These are just a few of the CPP's concerns.

[22:22] <+Bosun> Can you suggest an alternative wording?

[22:22] <+Zacqary> Erik Zoltan wrote that passage, so I wish he were here to comment.

[22:23] <@teamcoltra> If studies that were peer reviewed proved 100% conclusively that some approach works best... than yes... I would believe we should follow it

[22:23] <+mildbeard> I'm Erik...

[22:23] <+Zacqary> OH

[22:23] <+Zacqary> DERP

[22:23] <+mildbeard> lol

[22:23] <@kusanagi> lol

[22:23] <@kusanagi> a wild zoltan has appeared

[22:23] <+jake> I don't think its modifiable in a way we would agree with.. at least not without such severe modifications that it might as well be done away with entirely, and a new form proposed

[22:24] <+Zacqary> The way I interpret values 6 and 7 are the Hacker Ethic, basically.

[22:24] <+Zacqary> So that's what I suggest we base any rewording on.

[22:24] <+mildbeard> I understand the objections jake has raised. They are serious issues and deserve to be dealt with.

[22:24] <+Zacqary> I do too.

[22:25] <+mildbeard> That said, I'm completely opposed to simply removing this value and leaving nothing in its place.

[22:25] <+Zacqary> As am I.

[22:25] <@teamcoltra> I don't think the Pirate Party should be in the business of making people "feel better", if the science supports conclusively a platform point... then we need to embrace it

[22:25] <+jake> I would be open to hearing alternate wordings brought forward at a later time - or would happily take back alternate wordings to my people and see what they think.

[22:25] <+mildbeard> We have major parties that actually don't believe in anything, and that have contradictory positions based on nothing more than rhetoric. The point of that value is that we need something more than that.

[22:27] <+mildbeard> On the other hand, it would be possible to take the words in the "values" section (not just this value) and twist them into something pretty horrible if we had cynical people who didn't know the difference between right and wrong.

[22:27] <@teamcoltra> Btw, California voted in favour of this concept when it was proposed before the constitution was passed.

[22:27] <+Zacqary> People can change their minds after thinking about things.

[22:27] <BradyMobile> Falkvinge's pirate wheel suggests that which is ' necessary, effective, proportionate, and evidence-based'.

[22:27] <+Bosun> Is this the point where we discuss post-modernism?

[22:27] <@teamcoltra> BradyMobile identify please?

[22:28] <+jake> Bosun, I hope not, unless we want our meeting to run on into infintiy

[22:28] <BradyMobile> Brady Dibble, Washington

[22:28] == mode/#pnc [+v BradyMobile] by teamcoltra

[22:28] <+Zacqary> I always thought we were a rather metamodernist party.

[22:28] <+Zacqary> Actually, never mind, let's not get into this.

[22:28] <+Zacqary> Shit shit shit abort.

[22:29] <Deamon> I'm postmetaultrasupermodernist

[22:29] <+mildbeard> So wait, that was only #1 of California's major issues right?

[22:29] <@teamcoltra> I'm a Pirate

[22:29] <+jake> Can we rephrase Value 6 as expressing an openness to dialog and debate about ideas; a willingness to give all people a chance both to be heard and to lead

[22:29] <@teamcoltra> jake you have the option to make a motion on #1

[22:29] <+Zacqary> That's Value 7.

[22:30] <@teamcoltra> though it doesn't seem popular... you can propose an amendment to the constituion

[22:30] <+jake> I dont have wording

[22:30] <@teamcoltra> kk

[22:30] <+Bosun> put the word 'democracy' in it

[22:30] <+jake> here's what I'm saying to mildbeard mostly

[22:30] <@teamcoltra> just wanted you to know that no one can prevent you from making a motion

[22:30] <+jake> If you could take out some of the stronger language in value 6 and roll some language into value 7, I believe you could maintain much of what you're trying to say without making the party seem obsessed with scientific rationality

[22:31] <+Zacqary> Bosun, I think democracy ought to be the logical conclusion of our values, not our values itself. It's a method. If a better system than democracy somehow comes along we should remain open to it.

[22:31] <+jake> that sort of amendment, if proposed and accepted, would allow california to ratify

[22:31] <+jake> I don't have wording for it right now; it should probably be thought about for at least a week

[22:31] <@teamcoltra> jake - It's my belief the party /should/ be obsessed with scientific rationality

[22:32] <+mildbeard> I think we can come up with a wording that would address the concern.

[22:32] <@teamcoltra> maybe not "obsessed" but highly dedicated

[22:32] <@kusanagi> obsessed is a very strong word.

[22:32] <+mildbeard> However I also feel that the concerns really wouldn't be a problem in view of the other core values in the document.

[22:32] <+Bosun> It is a constitution, not stone tablets from god.

[22:32] <+BradyMobile> Belief is a dangerous word.

[22:32] <+Zacqary> I think the problem with scientific rationality is that you have people like the hilariously-named Reason magazine claiming that as their ideology, and ruining it for all the other actually rational people in the world.

[22:32] <+jake> just to give a counbterpoint to that Travis, here in California we're working with a lot of artists and musicians who are very excited to be part of the party. that's not a fitting description of them. So I think it might be best for the party to leave room for individual discretiuon, on what we choose to be obsessed with

[22:33] <+jake> at least to a state level

[22:34] <+jake> so we had 1 more concern

[22:34] <+Bosun> Empirical evidence ..

[22:34] <+mildbeard> so there's a specific objection to science and meritocracy in value 6.

[22:34] <+mildbeard> actually post-ideological too.

[22:34] <+jake> this time it's an addition. we feel that the values as written do not expresses the progressive social agenda of the Pirate Party. If we are going to be the party of the Internet, we need to champion things like access to the Internet, which can be couched in the greater framework of progressivism and social welfare. The CPP has always felt this is at the core of being a pirate.

[22:35] <+jake> so we'd propose the additional value:We believe in a progressive government that promotes social institutions necessary for the broader goals of democracy, including but not limited to health care, education, and access to the Internet

[22:35] <+BradyMobile> Scientific reasoning is a neutral tool.

[22:35] <@teamcoltra> jake - to me it seems that California is taking a very "american" view of the word "science".

[22:35] <+BradyMobile> The method can be applied to humanitarian purposes.

[22:35] <+Zacqary> Well, actually, if you look at the numbers, a progressive government IS the approach that works best.

[22:36] <+Zacqary> So..that's value 6 right there.

[22:36] <+Bosun> Do you object to the word scientific or empirical reasoning as a philisophical point?

[22:36] <@teamcoltra> Zacqary exactly

[22:36] <+jake> theres no particular word we object to...

[22:36] <+Zacqary> Jake, I think what you're afraid of is bullshitters cherry-picking statistics and distorting facts rather than actual hard evidence. Because actual hard evidence supports exactly what you're asking for.

[22:36] <+mildbeard> Well, there's a specific reason why the progressive social issues other than equality weren't proposed for inclusion in the Constitution, so it makes sense to state what that is.

[22:37] <+jake> what I'm afraid of is not the bullshitters per se; it's the belief in infallible categories of truth like science that permit bullshitters such authority to peddle their bullshit

[22:37] <@teamcoltra> Zacqary lol your on a roll - I will just stay out of your way you are answering everything how I would ;)

[22:37] <+Bosun> Wiki the Wisconsin Idea.

[22:38] <@teamcoltra> True science cannot be bullshitted.

[22:38] <+jake> hard evidence is not a thing when applied to social science

[22:38] <@teamcoltra> It can be backed up

[22:38] <+jake> politics is not geology

[22:38] <@kusanagi> jake is right.

[22:38] <+mildbeard> The Pirate Party is a coalition of at least two very distinct ideologies - one is progressive and the other is libertarian. There are a lot of libertarians out there who wouldn't be comfortable with a progressive social agenda. I don't know if this is really a problem, but that's why I never proposed to put any social progressive language into the core values.

[22:38] <+jake> I think its hugely irresponsible to be a party based in and around participation through the internet that doesn't take a progressive stance on things like access to the internet

[22:39] <+jake> the libertarian "let people figure out connections for themselves" is simply not appropriate

[22:39] <+mildbeard> Access to the internet is definitely a core value and it's in the pirate wheel. If it's not covered in the core values then we should add it.

[22:39] <+Zacqary> It's one of the conclusions of the Pirate Wheel.

[22:39] <+Zacqary> So it can be in our platform.

[22:39] <@teamcoltra> jake I agree 100% with that... and every paper I have read on Internet access has shown children who have access to internet connections perform better in school

[22:40] <+mildbeard> The Massachusetts Pirate Party is very socially progressive, and we would vote in favor of social progressive policies.

[22:40] <@teamcoltra> Science is a way to combat some of the libertarian social things that are just not founded in truth.

[22:40] <+mildbeard> Hold on, are we talking about item #1 (value 6) or item #2 (add progressive value)?

[22:41] <+BradyMobile> Science can go either way depending on your interpretation of the results.

[22:41] <+jake> neither is being voted on at this time, it's a general discussion of CPP's concerns

[22:41] <+mildbeard> OK but I'm getting confused so I'd like to discuss them separately.

[22:41] <+jake> that makes sense

[22:41] <+jake> lets start with the former

[22:42] <+Bosun> Science is a method not a result.

[22:42] <+jake> Can the language just get toned down? "Policy and decision-making must be based on evidence and scientific reasoning." is sooo strong. You honestly believe politicians should never do what feels ethically right?

[22:42] <+mildbeard> On item 1 (value 6) I am still not sure that I understand in sufficient detail what California's objection is, in order to be able to propose alternative wording that would solve the problem and still keep the underlying point.

[22:43] <+jake> "The approach that works best, or the person who does the best job, must be chosen over the alternatives." is also too strong. It prevents one from being in favor of Affirmative Action, for example

[22:43] <+BradyMobile> Ethics are subjective.

[22:43] <+BradyMobile> e.g. Legitimate Rape

[22:43] <+mildbeard> FIrst of all, it absolutely doesn't prevent one from being in favor of affirmative action!!!

[22:44] <+mildbeard> We have a core value 7 which talks about equality. If affirmative action is a good way to promote equality then it's just fine.

[22:44] <+BradyMobile> If affirmative action is proven to produce the intended result.

[22:44] <+BradyMobile> Not just because it makes you feel warm and fuzzy

[22:45] <+BradyMobile> Mildbeard, was this your intention?

[22:45] <@teamcoltra> Exactly

[22:45] <@teamcoltra> Our policies shouldn't be based on making people feel better

[22:45] <+jake> then the two values contradict. Because in the interest of value 7, we can take someone who is not scientifically speaking the best for the job (in terms of test scores, experience) in favor of someone who benefits the diversity of the program

[22:45] <@teamcoltra> they should be about achieving positive results

[22:45] <+jake> value 6 says we must choose who is best for the job based on science

[22:46] <+Zacqary> The benefit from diversity outweighs the benefit from choosing the absolute best best best best person.

[22:46] <+mildbeard> Here's what we shouldn't do. We shouldn't adopt a policy because we're all liberal, and it makes us feel less guilty about some people suffering. We should look at all the alternatives and try them out, and go with something that works. In the current political climate, it's "us against them" and as long as we defeat the opposing party it really doesn't seem to matter very much whether we are screwing up people's lives and making the world a horrible place

[22:46] <+mildbeard> If affirmative action works then we should be in favor of it.

[22:46] <+jake> then the wording needs to express our lack of political cynicism

[22:46] <@teamcoltra> Exactly, and if it doesn't... let's find something that actually HELPS minorities.

[22:46] <+mildbeard> If we go with something else, then it's becaus we have found that it is actually a more effective way of promoting our core value of equality (value 7).

[22:47] <@teamcoltra> (not saying it doesn't, just saying IF it doesn't)

[22:47] <+Bosun> If it works. In some ways it has, but we still have racialy segregated slums.

[22:48] <+jake> the problem is that the debate will continue to rage about the exact science of 'whether or not it works'. because sociology is not exact science. This is why the CPP believes it is important for us to be able to make decisions on purely ethical grounds

[22:48] <+jake> which value 6 disallows

[22:49] <+mildbeard> The intent of value 6 is not to disallow ethical grounds.

[22:49] <+mildbeard> So we can change that aspect.

[22:49] <+jake> then perhaps it is worded too strongly

[22:49] <@teamcoltra> I don't want to get into the subject too much -- but income based affirmitive action seems to be much more promising than race based AA. However, by doing away with race based AA you run into the "emotional" impact of removing something you gave to minorities and redistributing it. This is what I want to avoid.

[22:49] <+Bosun> Can we add ethics into it?

[22:50] <+BradyMobile> Purely ethical grounds scares me.

[22:50] <@teamcoltra> Why are they exclusive of each other?

[22:50] <+jake> if value 6 can be reworded as a commitment to earnest and sincere policymaking based on what we feel is the best course of action

[22:50] <@teamcoltra> if you are helping people and you can prove it, then you are doing what's most ethical

[22:50] <+jake> haha

[22:50] <+mildbeard> Let me take a long hard look at the wording of value 6, taking this concern into account, and come back with a proposed rewording.

[22:50] <+jake> then Monsanto is a saint

[22:50] <+jake> :-)

[22:50] <+jake> ccause they own lots of research labs

[22:51] <+jake> that specialize in making proof of thingas

[22:51] <+BradyMobile> In the short run, maybe.

[22:51] <+BradyMobile> But the party is holistic

[22:51] <+jake> I agree with mildbeard

[22:51] <+Zacqary> Monsanto's very good at sounding like they know what the hell they're talking about.

[22:51] <+Zacqary> But not actually.

[22:51] <+jake> we should take up this debate at a later date when we have actual amendment wording

[22:52] <+jake> can we move to the second issue?

[22:52] <@teamcoltra> So we will come back to issue 1

[22:52] <+mildbeard> yes

[22:52] <@teamcoltra> lets move on

[22:52] <+jake> alright, the proposed added value

[22:52] <+jake> We believe in a progressive government that promotes social institutions necessary for the broader goals of democracy, including but not limited to health care, education, and access to the Internet.

[22:53] <+Zacqary> Again, I don't see how that's not a logical conclusion of the values we already have.

[22:53] <+jake> this is definitely part of CPP's core structure. We'd like to see something like it in the national language

[22:53] <+jake> it may be a logical conclusion

[22:53] <+jake> but its not said in any of the other values...

[22:53] <+mildbeard> There shouldn't be any sort of problem with the parts about health care, the Internet, and education.

[22:54] <+Zacqary> The values aren't supposed to dictate platform points.

[22:54] <+mildbeard> except that...

[22:54] <+jake> there is nothing in the values as stated that implies governmental responsibility to the citizens to provide infrastructure and services

[22:55] <+mildbeard> So is there anyone right now on the PNC who would have a problem with government spending on health care, and with terms like "social institutions", "progressive government" and so on?

[22:56] <+BradyMobile> I have an issue with the term progressive.

[22:56] <+jake> that can be omitted if the rest stands

[22:56] <+BradyMobile> It can be defined in non-pirate ways.

[22:56] <+mildbeard> BradyMobile, can you explain?

[22:57] <+jake> We believe in a government that promotes social institutions necessary for the broader goals of democracy, including but not limited to health care, education, and access to the Internet.

[22:57] <+BradyMobile> I do believe certain republican factions have also stated using the word.

[22:57] <+Bosun> I would prefer 'support' or 'advocate for' rather than 'belive in'

[22:58] <+jake> either is fine

[22:58] <+jake> 'stand for' is the preferred term in constitution as written

[22:58] == QuazarGuy [] has joined #pnc

[22:58] <+mildbeard> OK, but BradyMobile do you have an underlying issue with any of the concepts or is it just the word "progressive"?

[22:58] <+Bosun> OK

[22:58] <+Zacqary> I have a problem with terms in general. The more used a term is, the more I say we should avoid saying it. Because words like "progressive" have a zillion different definitions, some good, some pejorative, none consistent.

[22:58] <+jake> "We stand for a government that promotes social institutions necessary for the broader goals of democracy, including but not limited to health care, education, and access to the Internet."

[22:59] <+MrSquared> Aight guys, I have to go

[22:59] == MrSquared [webchat@65.182.wky.sjn] has quit []

[22:59] <+Bosun> universall access ...

[22:59] <+jake> I like that

[23:00] <+jake> We stand for a government that promotes social institutionsnecessary for the broader goals of democracy, including but not limited to health care, education, and universal access to the Internet.

[23:00] <+Zacqary> I agree with that entirely, Jake, but that's too specific for a value.

[23:00] <+mildbeard> I am worried that health care, education and internet access are not values but specific policies. I think we need a core value that expresses the underlying idea (which is very important) but just naming the policies may not quite capture the essential point.

[23:01] <+BradyMobile> I agree with mildbeard on this.

[23:01] <+Zacqary> Something about empowerment, maybe?

[23:01] <+jake> thats fine. Then I propose we keep the first sentence and expand from there

[23:01] <+BradyMobile> What about 'humanism'?

[23:01] <+jake> We stand for a government that promotes social institutionsnecessary forthe broader goals of democracy

[23:01] <+mildbeard> When we talk about health care, education and Internet access we are really saying that everyone is equally important and it's not acceptable that the few should be lying on golden beds while too many are starving.

[23:01] <+Zacqary> Even democracy I'd say is too specific, because that implies a specific system of government.

[23:02] <+jake> oh come on :P

[23:02] <+jake> thats too far

[23:02] <+mildbeard> I agree with Zacqary on that,

[23:02] <+Zacqary> Well, Falkvinge's with me on that one.

[23:02] <+jake> our party seems tied to the idea of democracy

[23:02] <+jake> how can we not be?

[23:02] <+Zacqary> Democracy's in like Tier 3

[23:02] <+Zacqary> Because democracy just happens to be the best tool for the job we can think of right now.

[23:03] <+Zacqary> Operative word being tool.

[23:03] <+Zacqary> We choose the best tools to achieve our goals. We don't make tools goals in and of themselves.

[23:03] <+mildbeard> The "health care issue" is not so much about medicine as about equality. In some ways we have a great health care system but too many people don't have access to it. We don't need to improve health care as such, just to make it universally accessible. It is an equality issue.

[23:04] <QuazarGuy> at the core, the Pirate Party is a civil right movement

[23:04] <+Zacqary> It's also a resilience issue. Society falls apart unless everyone's healthy. Come to think of it, I don't think we fully cover resilience in the values.

[23:04] <+Zacqary> Or maybe we do because of value 6.

[23:04] <+Zacqary> What works best.

[23:04] <+jake> I thought so too QuazarGuy

[23:05] <+Zacqary> So let's say "civil rights" instead of "democracy"?

[23:06] <+jake> but that's not what we mean

[23:06] <+Zacqary> Citizen empowerment?

[23:06] <QuazarGuy> they aren't really interchangable

[23:06] <+Zacqary> How's that?

[23:06] <+jake> I suppose we could say citizen empowerment...but id really rather just say democracy

[23:06] <+mildbeard> I think we need to have a strong underlying core value about equality that says everyone is equally important and we need a government that values the basic welfare of every citizen equally. And then we can adopt specific policies for things like health care, education, Internet and many other things that would support that value. Even affirmative action.

[23:06] <QuazarGuy> civil rights are freedom, democracy is a method of control

[23:06] <+Zacqary> We have equality in there.

[23:07] <+mildbeard> Zacqary yes we do, but it's not enough as it stands.

[23:07] <+jake> we have equality expressed in terms of NEGATIVE rights. The government will treat all people the same. the government won't allow discrimination. What we need is an affirmation of POSITIVE rights. the gov will act to level the playing field.

[23:07] <+mildbeard> it does say a level playing field.

[23:07] <+jake> the gov will provide health care to the poor; will get internet to places that dont have it

[23:07] <+Zacqary> "We believe in equality and a level playing field."

[23:08] <+Bosun> We stand for a government that promotes social institutions necessary for the empowerment of the people, a society were the humblest and weakest person

[23:08] <+Bosun> can enjoy the highest civil, economic, and social rights that the

[23:08] <+Bosun> biggest and most powerful possess.

[23:08] <+Zacqary> LOVE IT.

[23:08] <@kusanagi> yes!

[23:08] <+mildbeard> I think that's much closer to the mark.

[23:08] <+Bosun> Its a hashed A. Philip Randolph quote

[23:09] <+Zacqary> Honestly, what we have there is enough for me, but I'd be willing to add that ninth value just to make it more rock-solid and leave less to interpretation.

[23:09] <+Zacqary> Do you like Bosun's wording, jake?

[23:09] <QuazarGuy> add political to it

[23:10] <+jake> I like the first part

[23:10] <+jake> We stand for a government that promotes social institutions necessary forthe empowerment of the people"

[23:10] <+Zacqary> So just that?

[23:11] <QuazarGuy> for the equal empowerment?

[23:11] <+jake> the second part doesn't fully make sense to me. cause we're not saying everyone is entitled to the best health care, or the best internet, that all people should have the same economic privileges

[23:11] <+jake> we're not anti-capitalists

[23:12] <+mildbeard> That's a good point.

[23:12] <+jake> but the state should provide a minimum for its people...the idea of programs like medicaid and education grants is not to make society wholly level, but to provide safety nets

[23:12] <QuazarGuy> there should just be a floor that no one can fall below

[23:12] == teamcoltra [] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]

[23:12] <+Bosun> rights do not equal economic equity

[23:12] == passstab [~emily@xx.pirate] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]

[23:13] <+mildbeard> The enumeration of specific policies is generally out of scope for the Constitution. For example we are all about Copyright, but we don't mention it in the Constitution. We say "open culture". That's why I'm uncomfortable with words like "health care" and "education".

[23:13] <+Zacqary> Can we please ban the word "capitalism"? Also "socialism". They've lost all meaning.

[23:14] <@kusanagi> i don't think we can bar words from being used.

[23:14] <+Bosun> How about: We stand for a government that promotes social institutions necessary for the empowerment of all the people

[23:14] <+Zacqary> It's a figure of speech.

[23:15] <+jake> We stand for a government that promotes social institutions necessary for the empowerment of all people" is fine with me

[23:15] <@kusanagi> I like that as well.

[23:15] <+jake> can we say empowerment, health, and well-being of all people?

[23:16] <@kusanagi> we can say whatever you will agree on.

[23:16] <+jake> well thats what I would like :-)

[23:16] <@kusanagi> also, as travis pinged out, i'm stepping up as chair

[23:16] <+mildbeard> cool

[23:16] <+jake> anyway those are the CPPs two concerns

[23:16] <+jake> we dont have to vote about either now

[23:17] <+jake> there are also minor linguistic issues which we could ratify in spite of and address at a later date

[23:17] <+Zacqary> How many ratifying members are here right now?

[23:17] <@kusanagi> Ok.

[23:17] == teamcoltra [] has joined #pnc

[23:17] == mode/#pnc [+o teamcoltra] by ChanServ

[23:17] <QuazarGuy> the states will members will need more time to make sure their states agree

[23:17] <@kusanagi> Ok, he's back

[23:17] <+Zacqary> Oh right that

[23:18] <QuazarGuy> the members*

[23:18] <+Zacqary> Okay, let's not vote right now.

[23:18] <Sacha> All full members can vote until the six months is up, a reminder from what we found in the logs earlier

[23:18] <Sacha> Full member =/= ratifying yet

[23:19] <+Zacqary> So the wording we need to take back to our states is: "We stand for a government that promotes social institutions necessary for the empowerment, health, and well-being of all people." Correct?

[23:19] <+jake> yup

[23:19] <+Bosun> Seems like it ...

[23:19] <+jake> and we also want to come up with some kind of revised text for 6

[23:20] <+Zacqary> I'd be willing to strike the "scientific reasoning" portion of that but keep "evidence". I mean, evidence isn't a bad thing, right?

[23:20] <+Zacqary> Also maybe strike "the person who does the best job" just to avoid confusion re: affirmative action.

[23:21] <+jake> there's enough of it that warrants change that I dont think we're gonna come up with an agreed wording on this one just now

[23:21] <+jake> lets just try to come up with some kind of proposal for next week

[23:21] <+Zacqary> Okay.

[23:22] <+Zacqary> Anything else?

[23:23] <+jake> thats all from me

[23:24] <+Zacqary> So is it AOB time, Cap'n?

[23:25] <@teamcoltra> yes

[23:25] <+Bosun> #usahcc is the US ad hoc Convention Committee

[23:27] == jarod2 [~yaaic@70.147.pzk.nn] has quit [Quit: Yaaic - Yet another Android IRC client -]

[23:27] <@teamcoltra> Anything else that needs to be discussed?

[23:28] <@teamcoltra> or anyone want to motion to adjourn?

[23:29] <+Zacqary> Motion to adjourn.

[23:29] <+mildbeard> second

[23:29] <@teamcoltra> in favour?

[23:29] <+Zacqary> Aye

[23:29] <Deamon> aye

[23:29] <+Bosun> aye

[23:30] <+mildbeard> aye

[23:30] <@teamcoltra> Well we failed quorum

[23:30] <@teamcoltra> but it's alright

[23:31] <@teamcoltra> meeting adjourned