#staff | Logs for 2014-08-22

« return
[00:00:02] <mrcoolbp> I'm on board with that <g>
[00:00:05] <NCommander> Too big a board, and we fall on our own weight
[00:00:11] <Bytram> NCommander: agreed.
[00:00:12] <NCommander> Too small, and we get in a situation where one person playing tiebreaker
[00:00:14] <NCommander> i.e., mrcoolbp
[00:00:24] * mrcoolbp pulls hair out and eats it
[00:00:33] * Bytram saw his cat do that
[00:01:14] <Bytram> okay. let's go with that for now. 5-7 board members at soonest opportunity. agreed?
[00:01:35] <mrcoolbp> I could agree with that
[00:01:38] <matt_> me too.
[00:01:43] <NCommander> +1
[00:01:52] <NCommander> (or +2-4 in this case)
[00:02:03] <Bytram> okay... from my perspecitve it looks like the board is in unanimous agreement.
[00:02:11] <Bytram> motion carried. =)
[00:02:16] <NCommander> I'd like to get the current question solved though before we do that
[00:02:21] <mrcoolbp> ^^
[00:02:21] <NCommander> Bytram, there hasn't been an official vote
[00:02:57] <Bytram> NCommander: I just saw three votes for it, no?
[00:03:12] <mrcoolbp> Bytram: we want to solve this issue first
[00:03:13] <NCommander> Bytram, it has to be formally called with the wording of what we're voting for to prevent ambiguity
[00:03:16] <juggs> tacit agreement does not a vote make
[00:03:33] <Bytram> you guys are great!
[00:03:40] <NCommander> Ok, so backing up
[00:03:40] <Bytram> point made!
[00:03:47] <NCommander> I think I see why we're stuck
[00:03:55] <NCommander> Its ulitmately boiling down to ideology
[00:04:08] <NCommander> On how watchdogs should operate
[00:04:27] * matt_ looks to the US supreme court for inspiration :)
[00:04:30] <NCommander> I don't trust watchdogs to always be honest or act in the best interests of the community
[00:04:35] <NCommander> Matt does
[00:04:43] * NCommander may be oversimplifying but I think thats the gist of it
[00:05:21] <matt_> i think that's a fair assessment, but i would just add that a good watchdog recognizes that his own best interest is inextricably linked with the best interests of those he watches.
[00:05:28] <NCommander> The normal (perhaps only) legal mechanism available to force oversight conforms to matt_'s world model
[00:05:52] <juggs> Perhaps each board member should document their ideas on how they think the governance / oversight should function. Then reconvene to discuss.
[00:05:53] -!- TheMightyLaptop [TheMightyLaptop!~TheMighty@Soylent/Staff/Developer/TMB] has joined #staff
[00:05:53] -!- mode/#staff [+v TheMightyLaptop] by juggler
[00:06:06] * NCommander is taking the notion of stock at this point less of ownership, and more of a stewardship
[00:06:17] <mrcoolbp> yes
[00:06:17] <NCommander> juggs, I made some progress on it, and got stuck
[00:06:46] <mrcoolbp> NCommander: the stock issuance option isn't perfect, but I'm wondering do we have a better one?
[00:06:55] <NCommander> mrcoolbp, I'm coming to the conclusion of "no"
[00:07:00] <mrcoolbp> = /
[00:07:01] <juggs> NCommander, it's not good if you get stuck expressing your own thoughts on the matter :/
[00:07:02] <NCommander> At least, not one we could practically implement
[00:07:18] <mrcoolbp> juggs: problem is there are legal limitations
[00:07:32] <NCommander> I think, long term, we need the parent NFP
[00:07:38] <mrcoolbp> juggs: furthermore, non of us have a lot of experience in these matters
[00:07:53] <NCommander> Which then brings oversight closer to my model, or at least a middle ground between me and matt_'s view of the world
[00:08:42] <mrcoolbp> but who overseas the NFP!?!? = P
[00:08:46] <audioguy> issue some of the stock to staff-in-aggregate
[00:08:49] <juggs> mrcoolbp, I was thinking more along the lines of idealisations. Then bash those idealisations to fit with legal possibility. I guess that is what i happening here anyway. I'll shush :)
[00:09:05] <mrcoolbp> your fine
[00:09:08] <matt_> mrcoolbp, actually a valid point :)
[00:09:20] <mrcoolbp> matt_ could you address audioguy's question?
[00:09:21] <NCommander> the members of the NFP?
[00:09:32] <mrcoolbp> matt_ WRT issuing more stock to staff memebers
[00:09:50] <matt_> NCommander, i thought you envisioned a NFP without members?
[00:10:08] <NCommander> matt_, I've been somewhat convinced otherwise by my own arguments on this, and the need for oversight
[00:10:18] * Bytram notes: NFP == Not For People
[00:10:27] <NCommander> NFP = Not For Production
[00:10:55] * Bytram looks over at Hydrogen and nods knowingly
[00:11:14] <matt_> audioguy, well, i'm not against issuing stock more broadly, but in my view the idea is to avoid concentrating power in the board.
[00:11:43] <NCommander> matt_, a member NFP has issues, I won't deny that, but you're right about oversight. With a B-corp owned by a NFP, the "day-to-day" stuff is handled by those appointed
[00:11:50] <audioguy> the idea is to avoid concentrating power period. :-)
[00:11:59] <mrcoolbp> audioguy and paulej72 have a point, if anyone has "stock" in this organization, it's the people that have been working tirelessly on this project for 6 months in their free time.
[00:12:00] <NCommander> the NFP acts as both a long term advisory position, and as a circuit breaker incase we rock off into space
[00:12:10] <matt_> audioguy, in other words, the purpose of _this_ B-corp. is to "engage in and promote free and open journalism...". If the board and/or staff want to do something different, thats fine, but it may require a new entity.
[00:12:58] <Bytram> as I see it, we'ver got two parties, each trying to keep an eye on the other, and if there's less than 50% control, the other one can get out of line... but if you fix *that*, then the *other* party has more than 50% power, and we go around in circles.
[00:12:58] <mrcoolbp> matt_ that doesn't seem to be an arguement against issuing some stock to staff memebers
[00:13:13] <audioguy> Stock, board membership, and holdomg of debt all represent the aquisition of power by individuals. We are deciding now how that is to be apportioned. I would like to see it more spread out.
[00:13:18] <matt_> mrcoolbp, i am thinking of it more like the "stock bits". only the editors need editor bits, so only the editors get editor bits. editor bits aren't a reward for the amount of effort put in, they are a mechanism to enable a specific job to get done effectively.
[00:14:16] <mrcoolbp> matt_ my point is that the people that have not wavered in 6 months, the ones that have put in the hours, are probably the best-suited to "oversee" the mission
[00:14:33] <mrcoolbp> I could be wrong, but that's what I'm seeing them say
[00:14:43] <TheMightyLaptop> plus at even 50/50 split, 100% of parties have to agree to do anything. if staff get stock too only 51% do.
[00:14:45] <mrcoolbp> if the argument for stock is for oversight anyway
[00:15:02] <mrcoolbp> TheMightyLaptop: interesting
[00:15:12] <mrcoolbp> TheMightyLaptop:
[00:15:29] <mrcoolbp> Though we are only talking about a hopefully rare occurence in which the board needs to be overrulled
[00:15:34] <mrcoolbp> (sp)
[00:15:35] <NCommander> ah crud
[00:15:37] <NCommander> brb five minutes
[00:15:38] <Bytram> mrcoolbp++
[00:15:43] <NCommander> (dealing w/ land lord)
[00:15:44] <mrcoolbp> NCommander: okay
[00:16:09] <Bytram> we've been at this for over an hour... I make a motion for a 5-minute recess.
[00:16:22] <mrcoolbp> I'm in favor
[00:16:28] <matt_> seconded :)
[00:16:36] <TheMightyLaptop> smoke em if you've got em
[00:16:39] <mrcoolbp> --------5 minute rescess----
[00:16:47] <mrcoolbp> (sp)
[00:16:51] <Bytram> meet back here at 22 minutes past the hour (or so)
[00:23:13] <NCommander> Ok
[00:23:16] <NCommander> I'm back
[00:23:17] <Bytram> I'm seeing a glimmer of a solution. we're trying to handle a black-or-white *worst* case scenario. Like a process that is hogging 100% of the CPU. Instead of look at a 'kill -9' command, we need to have some ways to 'nice' the 'abberant' process. If we have *those* in place and working, we'll never get to the point where we have to pull the kill switch. And the community will help keep us 'nice' -- it'
[00:23:17] <Bytram> s in all our best interests.
[00:24:10] <Bytram> oh, and I'm back. =)
[00:25:12] <mrcoolbp> matt_ we're ready
[00:25:21] <matt_> ...and, back!
[00:26:12] * juggs present and correct for more OT comments
[00:27:03] <mrcoolbp> okay, so just as a "shot in dark" what about issuing stock to various staff memebers, what are the down-sides?
[00:27:10] <mrcoolbp> I'm sure there are some
[00:27:20] <TheMightyLaptop> mrcoolbp, ^^
[00:27:29] <matt_> #define "various staff members"
[00:27:30] * NCommander kicks his laptop
[00:27:32] <NCommander> Sorry
[00:27:35] <TheMightyLaptop> less of a hurdle to clear to screw something up with good intentions
[00:27:47] * NCommander notes he'd love to expense a new machine -_-;
[00:28:26] <mrcoolbp> okay, well I don't know where we stand at this point
[00:28:32] <matt_> mrcoolbp: [20:14] <+TheMightyLaptop> plus at even 50/50 split, 100% of parties have to agree to do anything. if staff get stock too only 51% do.
[00:28:56] <TheMightyLaptop> that also works as a pro. all depends on the situation.
[00:28:57] <NCommander> mrcoolbp, I'm standing on the ground
[00:29:02] <matt_> NCommander, the board must approve that expense! :)
[00:29:10] <mrcoolbp> yeah, but if there were 4 more people let
[00:29:14] <mrcoolbp> let's say
[00:29:19] <juggs> What would be the position should a staffer choose to leave staff?
[00:29:30] <mrcoolbp> yeah, that would make it complicated
[00:29:52] <mrcoolbp> audioguy: this is all in response to your questions^^^^
[00:29:53] <Bytram> matt_: that may require a one-by-one enumeration. but for a starting point, those who are now on staff and have been with us from within a month of the site going live until now.
[00:29:58] <TheMightyLaptop> probably 9/10 times they'd want to sell back their stock
[00:30:21] <Bytram> TheMightyBuzzard: and the board has the right of first refusal.
[00:30:21] <matt_> TheMightyLaptop, not when they see what they'd get for it ;)
[00:30:36] <mrcoolbp> TheMightyLaptop: and the board would have to approve that
[00:30:39] <mrcoolbp> I think.
[00:30:40] <juggs> TheMightyLaptop, quite possible. But does the corp have any funds to make the buy back?
[00:30:50] <mrcoolbp> not currently no
[00:30:57] <mrcoolbp> we don't really have many assets
[00:31:13] <mrcoolbp> that's why we're here tonight though. = _
[00:31:14] <TheMightyLaptop> fairly soon we'll have "some" funds though.
[00:31:15] <matt_> bank account is at ~80USD, i think.
[00:31:26] <mrcoolbp> ^matts money
[00:31:26] <Bytram> matt_: depends on how much a share is 'worth', right? is this where par value comes in?
[00:31:47] <mrcoolbp> yes, but then there's the "valuation" thing that I don't understand
[00:32:24] <Bytram> mrcoolbp: I think that is addressed in the part of the bylaws mentioning an appraisal ????
[00:32:28] <matt_> Bytram, so "par value" is basically the absolute minimum value. in other words, the corp. doesn't issue stock below the "par value".
[00:32:35] <NCommander> matt_, what happened to 20 dollars?
[00:32:46] <TheMightyLaptop> could be replaced with preferred stock if you're not on the staff/board/nfp but that's another whole bag of worms
[00:32:47] <matt_> NCommander, i think you mean 10 cents?
[00:32:59] <NCommander> matt_, I thought we had $100 USD in the bank account, that's what I have on the ledger
[00:32:59] <Bytram> that rings a bell.
[00:33:16] <matt_> NCommander, oh, you mean the bank account. we spent 15 USD to transfer sylnt.us, i believe.
[00:33:27] <mrcoolbp> ^^^^^^^^
[00:33:29] * Bytram was replying to matt_
[00:33:41] <NCommander> We need to get a system of making sure our ledgers are up to date
[00:33:46] <NCommander> */discussion for another time*
[00:34:34] <Bytram> it was previously mentioned long ago, that if the need arose, we could go to the community and ask for help in a particular situation. I think that would apply in this case, as well.
[00:35:07] <mrcoolbp> which need?
[00:35:29] <Bytram> we've been up-front about everything all along. Just put out a request that we need $amt to buy back shares (or whatever) and ask for (ugh) donations.
[00:35:59] <matt_> Bytram, we need to register with each US state in which we solicit donations, i believe.
[00:35:59] <Bytram> I was referring to, if the need arose to buy back shares, and we lacked the funds, to post a request to the community.
[00:36:09] <TheMightyLaptop> Bytram, why not just allow the sale of the stock to the folks who would otherwise be donating
[00:36:14] <juggs> Ask people to buy 1000 coffee mugs then :D
[00:36:22] <Bytram> ignore that detail, then, ask the cty to buy swag.
[00:36:30] <Bytram> juggs++
[00:36:31] <audioguy> The staff-in-aggregate was just one idea. It could be temporry. We could also let people buy in. People could be apporationed shares accoding to contributions, which would be shares which were an asset to the company. The thing is that I think there are many possibke ways to handle this that have not been expored.
[00:36:55] <matt_> TheMightyLaptop, a private sale of equity would require registration with the SEC, and various things, including us verifying that any investors meet accreditation standards, i believe.
[00:37:24] <mrcoolbp> audioguy: we are open to suggestions
[00:37:39] <Bytram> matt_: can the corp allocate shares to staff without a registration?
[00:37:48] <mrcoolbp> yes
[00:37:53] <TheMightyLaptop> matt_, yerk. pass then.
[00:38:11] <audioguy> I gues what I would like to see is the larger board take up this issue. Take a little time to really explore the possiblities.
[00:38:14] <matt_> audioguy, agreed on the exploring as many options as we can come up with. but, i also think that getting away from the notion of "buying" influence was a major part of the issue at hand.
[00:38:59] <NCommander> audioguy, I think the way to think of this is "these are the folks who watch the board"
[00:39:12] <NCommander> I'm not 100% convienced we're not drastically overhtinking this
[00:39:14] <audioguy> But influence is being bought by you and NCommander, in a sense. And by that fact no one lese had thsi opportunity.
[00:39:16] <Bytram> sunshine is the best disinfectant... post ownership stake allocations over time somewhere on the site.
[00:39:48] <mrcoolbp> I wonder if some aren't aware of matt_'s intangible contributions to the project (i.e. consulting on these matters and solely handling the incorporation/bank account etc.)
[00:39:56] <NCommander> what mrcoolbp said
[00:40:04] <NCommander> doesn't negate audioguy's point though
[00:40:15] <mrcoolbp> no
[00:40:32] <matt_> audioguy, note that the amount of $ that we contributed is different, but the proposed idea is for the number of shares to not be different.
[00:40:37] <audioguy> It not about his or NCommanders contributions.
[00:40:47] <matt_> audioguy, in that way, they are really a mechanism to provide oversight.
[00:40:47] <TheMightyLaptop> personally i think it's best to keep it to just the two of them until the NFP can get up and running and own a majority share.
[00:40:51] <mrcoolbp> but I think I'm seeing a notion for some that matt walked in and plumped a few thou down and now he would be able to control everything.
[00:41:31] <audioguy> That is what it looks like if you are not aware of the details.
[00:41:41] <Bytram> I can see how some could see it that way, but based on everything *I* have seen, he's been most patient and generous with his time and talents.
[00:42:05] <Bytram> just drawing up the drafts of the incorporation docs would have cost us some $bignum
[00:42:18] <audioguy> I wish there was a way to completely seprate money from contributions, which is part of why I suggested just issuing regular notes for debt.
[00:42:29] <Bytram> and if done wrong, would have cost even bigger $num to undo.
[00:42:36] <mrcoolbp> AND he's put a lot of money in, and after many conversations with matt_ I'm convinced he's not only benevolent, but he is a fine candidate to oversee this mission
[00:42:45] <Bytram> ^^^
[00:42:51] <mrcoolbp> I don't think anyone would say that NCommander is any different
[00:43:02] <audioguy> I believe you and NC andhime have met personally, correct?
[00:43:10] <mrcoolbp> correct
[00:43:13] <matt_> on at least 2 occasions.
[00:43:15] <mrcoolbp> yes
[00:43:21] <audioguy> An opportunity no others have had.
[00:43:24] <mrcoolbp> = (
[00:43:27] <Bytram> having met NCommander and having had some long conversations with him, as well, I have no doubts he's all in for the *community*
[00:43:34] <audioguy> Personal comtacte makes a difference.
[00:43:37] <mrcoolbp> audioguy: come out to boston, I have a spare bed = )
[00:43:42] <Bytram> I've met NCommander *twice*
[00:44:36] <mrcoolbp> matt_ question: what if SN has enough money rollin' around, and you two want to sell your shares, can you two force that?
[00:44:58] <matt_> mrcoolbp, you mean sell to a 3rd party?
[00:44:59] <audioguy> At any rate, I think broadening the base of power and money are both good.
[00:45:10] <mrcoolbp> matt_ yes, or sell to the Corp
[00:45:12] * NCommander has met a fair bit of the community, and will try and meet audioguy when I'm in his neck of the woods
[00:45:18] <Bytram> audioguy: in the widest sense of the term: diversify?
[00:45:48] * Bytram knows it's the wrong word, but can't think of any thing better
[00:45:59] <Bytram> hmm, 'dilute'?
[00:46:01] <matt_> mrcoolbp, so the board would need to approve. now, if we both agreed, we could force the issue, which i imagine would cause the board to resign, most likely.
[00:46:05] <paulej72> Ok my question is why are ws planning on issueing 50k shares each to NCommander and Matt if the current vauation is 10 cents the PBC is on the hook for 10K
[00:46:07] <audioguy> Meanig that it uncortable having the same people controlling the board and having all the stock.
[00:46:10] <NCommander> Just a note: I'm here, but just watchng to see how the conversation plays out.
[00:46:19] <mrcoolbp> paulej72: I"m getting to that
[00:46:28] <paulej72> k
[00:46:36] <mrcoolbp> I see two things
[00:47:00] <mrcoolbp> as just mentioned, I'm wondering what the implication of the two super-board memeber seats are... AND...
[00:47:02] <audioguy> uncomfortable :-)
[00:47:45] <mrcoolbp> the other is that if the two people want to keep their power, they have effectively donated a lot of money to the organization, which is a huge benefit for us
[00:48:04] <audioguy> Let other donate too.
[00:48:10] <TheMightyLaptop> yeah, it's dangerous but no more dangerous than what we have now. right now if both proposed holders agree to something, it WILL pass. ditto when they have stock.
[00:48:11] <mrcoolbp> There's the added plus that they happen to be worthy of said power
[00:48:13] <mrcoolbp> imo
[00:48:28] <mrcoolbp> audioguy: maybe you could pay some of the linode bills?
[00:48:44] <juggs> Then are we not back at the impasse of $$ buys influence?
[00:48:47] <mrcoolbp> or pay for a lawyer/cpa?
[00:48:55] <mrcoolbp> juggs: yes
[00:48:57] <audioguy> To me shares mean ownership of the company. I believe others here have earned the right to such a position.
[00:49:22] <mrcoolbp> might be a necessary evil unless matt and NCommander are willing to donate all their assetts AND turn over the power to whatever board gets elected
[00:49:37] <mrcoolbp> in my eyes they are investing in this organation, this vision
[00:49:39] * NCommander is, as noted yesterday
[00:49:40] <audioguy> I have offered to buy out matt completely in the past.
[00:49:49] <matt_> audioguy, also, keep in mind that i believe there are a lot of proponents of finding a way to pay staff.
[00:49:49] <mrcoolbp> NCommander: nod
[00:50:08] <audioguy> My offer of financial help still stands (I see not need to buy out matt now)
[00:50:26] <mrcoolbp> matt_ also said he'd be willing, BUT as I just mentioned, you two invest money, and you are incentivised to look after it. That's all I got for now
[00:50:39] <juggs> Maybe that's just the way it has to be mrcoolbp. Unless the US recognises something like a co-operative corporate structure where benefits accrue to all members of a community. I think that is a european concept though.
[00:50:40] <audioguy> What we actuallu have here is not 'stff' in the usual sense fo that word.
[00:50:44] <audioguy> staff
[00:51:00] <mrcoolbp> we are volunteerrs, yes
[00:51:01] <Bytram> audioguy: agreed.
[00:51:33] <audioguy> It is not uncommon even in strictly for profit businesses to give the people involved in a start shares, look at Microsoft.
[00:51:51] <mrcoolbp> we use that word because we have certain privs and powers (and responsibilities) in the day-to-day. It's not like we just decide to show up at a soup kitchen on a tuesday night
[00:52:08] <NCommander> I'd like to make a slight point
[00:52:16] <mrcoolbp> audioguy: but not in NFPs
[00:52:22] <mrcoolbp> NCommander: you have the floor
[00:52:28] <NCommander> I'm not sure I'm confortible with the corporation having an owner
[00:52:34] <NCommander> NFPs by definition don't
[00:52:45] <NCommander> and that's what we would have been if it wasn't for the pain involved in it
[00:53:31] <mrcoolbp> it's what we are modeling, yes
[00:53:31] <NCommander> We might loose the advantages of being a B corporation, but arguably, we did that to show we're on the level. As we discussed in meat space, we could have done all of this as a C corp
[00:53:42] <audioguy> Then perhaps there should be no stock at all.
[00:54:10] <NCommander> audioguy, the stock thing will rear its head again, but thats the way we legally sell ourselves to a NFP :-)
[00:54:13] <NCommander> */2 cents*
[00:54:19] <matt_> audioguy, my main argument against that is that we lose the benefit of being a public benefit corp.
[00:54:32] <matt_> since there is no mechanism to require the board to adhere to our public benefit purpose.
[00:54:50] <audioguy> Then there MUST be an owner to sell. Can there nit be an aggregate owner?
[00:55:02] <TheMightyLaptop> NCommander, don't sell to an nfp, do a stock swap. and again for each member site.
[00:55:17] <mrcoolbp> interesting ^
[00:55:42] <NCommander> audioguy, without stock being issued, the company owns itself, and is controlled by the board. A legal person so to speak
[00:55:43] <TheMightyLaptop> and swap enough to dilute existing shares to a small minority
[00:56:04] <paulej72> npfs dont have stock, correct?
[00:56:11] <matt_> correct.
[00:56:13] <Bytram> TheMightyBuzzard: very interesting...
[00:56:17] <Bytram> I, for one, do not expect a financial windfall out of my efforts... but, I most certainly *do* want to see the vision succeed, and took the issuance of stock to be a *means* to that end, not an end in itself.
[00:56:20] <TheMightyLaptop> crap. was a good idea other than that though.
[00:56:29] <paulej72> and how does the NPF by SN PBC?
[00:56:34] <paulej72> buy
[00:56:38] <matt_> an NFP can own stock.
[00:56:42] <matt_> of another entity.
[00:56:48] <TheMightyLaptop> nod nod
[00:56:53] <paulej72> what assesets
[00:57:04] <mrcoolbp> paulej72: 1$ for 100K shares = )
[00:57:06] <audioguy> Best delt with through who has the power to put people on the board, maybe.
[00:57:08] <mrcoolbp> I'll donate the dollar
[00:57:13] <TheMightyLaptop> swap would have given each member site an equal position in the nfp though
[00:57:42] <paulej72> then the shares that NCommander and Matt have would be worthless
[00:57:49] <audioguy> The electrical coop here elects its board through the membership.
[00:58:14] <audioguy> Board is completely seprate from the oprtatiomns people.
[00:58:17] <NCommander> paulej72, they effectively are, that's why issuing them before making money is easy
[00:58:30] <juggs> where is "here" audioguy - out of interest, feel free to decline to answer :)
[00:58:30] <audioguy> seems to work well.
[00:58:56] <paulej72> but that whole 10cents thing in the articles of incorportation must mean somthing
[00:59:21] <audioguy> Vernonia Oregon, Western Oregon Electric Coop
[01:00:02] <audioguy> But the debt owed to them would not be worthless, paulej72
[01:00:02] * NCommander notes he's been there
[01:00:25] <juggs> OK - so the US does recognise co-ops. I'd assumed the concept would be way too ~damn socialist~ to exist there :D
[01:00:29] * juggs ducks
[01:00:36] * NCommander fires juggs out of a cannon
[01:00:43] <juggs> weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
[01:00:49] <audioguy> We actually have many like this, farmers are big on coops
[01:00:55] <TheMightyLaptop> nah, voluntary socialism is peachy keen. we just object to forced.
[01:00:56] <Bytram> for completeness sake, according to: http://wiki.soylentnews.org ... FOURTH. The total number of shares of all classes of capital stock which the Corporation shall have authority to issue is One Million (1,000,000) shares, with a par value of $0.001 per share (the �Common Stock�).
[01:01:16] <paulej72> if the debt the worth something then the stock then worh something and the NPF would need real money to by the PBC
[01:01:21] -!- rand has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
[01:01:52] <NCommander> paulej72, the board can grant without accepting nything in return as far as I understand it
[01:01:54] <TheMightyLaptop> paulej72, we're a PBC. we're not obliged to make gainful fiscal decisions.
[01:02:18] <TheMightyLaptop> we absolutely can sell something for any value we like, even at a major loss.
[01:02:30] <audioguy> The company actually has assetes in the form of good will, work done by various staff, and other things. Just not 'cash'
[01:03:03] <paulej72> the grant NCommander and Matt 50K shares each and buy them back for a dollar for the lot :)
[01:03:04] <audioguy> All that is worth something.
[01:03:14] <TheMightyLaptop> audioguy, i agree but i don't think it's especially safe to open the stock floodgates wide before the nfp holds a majority.
[01:03:39] * NCommander fires a cannon
[01:03:43] <NCommander> FOlks
[01:03:47] <NCommander> We're getting stuck in a loop
[01:03:58] <mrcoolbp> yup.
[01:04:10] <matt_> indeed
[01:04:12] <NCommander> Let's boil it down to what we have
[01:04:16] <NCommander> Here's what we could defacto do
[01:04:22] <NCommander> 1. Nothing, board oversees itself
[01:04:28] <NCommander> 2. Issue stock according to matt_'s plan
[01:04:47] <NCommander> 3. Brainstorm a realistic scenario of oversight, perhaps as a longer term plan
[01:05:03] <mrcoolbp> ^ seperate from current issue I beleive
[01:05:15] <mrcoolbp> well related
[01:05:19] <NCommander> From what I see, if we go down the stock route, we're opening a massive can of worms
[01:05:19] <mrcoolbp> sorry, go on
[01:05:48] <NCommander> My viewpoint is if we issue stock, its for the purposes of oversight, and I've already hilighted the idiological issues
[01:06:08] <NCommander> Furthermore, audioguy's point is extremely valid as well
[01:06:36] -!- FunPika has quit [Quit: Leaving]
[01:06:44] <NCommander> We could argue it into submission
[01:06:49] <NCommander> But its not getting anywhere
[01:07:04] <NCommander> I'm also concerned if we vote for matt_'s plan as is, the staff are going to get a good chuck of resentment about it
[01:07:30] <mrcoolbp> looks that way = /
[01:08:09] <NCommander> THe fact is, at some point, something is going to have to give, and trust that things will play out
[01:08:41] <NCommander> hold on
[01:09:06] <NCommander> So
[01:09:26] <audioguy> Possible: issue everyone notes so there is some security for them that is official. Get the board up to size.
[01:09:32] <NCommander> Here's the question we need to ask
[01:09:40] <audioguy> (everyone owed)
[01:09:57] <NCommander> Do we as an organization trust ourselves to self-govern without going E-VIL to the point we can properly bootstrap a parent NFP
[01:10:04] <NCommander> which in turn has members elected from the community?
[01:10:23] <NCommander> If we do, then I think we see a course here
[01:10:31] <matt_> audioguy, issuing a debt instrument would require registration with the SEC, i believe, since we are a corporation. (it's easier for a natural person).
[01:10:37] <NCommander> If we don't, then I think we should go with matt_'s plan and hope matt_ and I can act as an anchor
[01:11:23] <audioguy> matt_: I don't think that is required for an ordinary promissory notes. Corporations use those every day.
[01:12:00] <matt_> audioguy, they do use them every day, but they comply with all securities laws or get in big trouble :)
[01:12:34] <audioguy> With not stock attached these are jusy ordinary biusiness loans.
[01:12:47] <mrcoolbp> "loans" are regulated
[01:12:56] <Bytram> NCommander: sounds good. seems to bypass much of the quicksand... yet, when the time comes that the NFP has been bootstrapped... then what? the NFP buys out the stock, keeps an eye on the PBC, and we're done?
[01:12:57] <audioguy> From banks.
[01:13:00] <matt_> fwiw, i agree with NCommander's summary of the issue, above.
[01:13:12] <mrcoolbp> me too
[01:13:47] <NCommander> Bytram, so, in my original plan, the NFP was board-only
[01:13:58] <NCommander> I think we need to seriously look at a member board vs. board-only
[01:14:04] <Bytram> I remember, yes.
[01:14:06] <NCommander> (members elect the borad of the NFP)
[01:14:12] <NCommander> (the NFP acts as oversight of the B-corp)
[01:14:18] <NCommander> Our watchdog so to speak
[01:14:46] <Bytram> nod nod
[01:14:56] <NCommander> Bytram, the NFP was envisioned with broader goals. the PBC exists primarily to run SN and its assets
[01:15:07] <NCommander> The NFP was more on freedom of press, etc.
[01:15:13] <Bytram> agreed.
[01:16:09] <Bytram> the NFP was the goal; the PBC was a *means* to get there, and the stock was a *means* to get the PBC bootstrapped to be able to pay the lawyers to ... =)
[01:16:25] <NCommander> Eh, on that last bit
[01:17:43] <Bytram> ugh. let me retry
[01:18:06] * NCommander is not going to force anyone's hand here
[01:18:06] <NCommander> But I think we need to come to a decision
[01:18:29] <Bytram> nvm, I'm stuck in a recursive loop. :/
[01:18:29] <NCommander> Else we throw it to the community and let all hell break loose
[01:18:29] * NCommander however feels if we do that, we put it in terms of oversight
[01:18:34] <NCommander> THere's of course no promise the community will not get indigestion on this
[01:18:42] * mrcoolbp hums stuck in the middle with you
[01:19:00] <TheMightyLaptop> oh they'll go apeshit and get their rage on
[01:19:02] * Bytram hums along - steeler's wheel, iirc
[01:19:08] <Bytram> TheMightyBuzzard: nod nod
[01:19:21] <NCommander> TheMightyLaptop, probably, its a pity I'm out of community sized pepto-bismol
[01:19:42] * matt_ likes throwing things to the wise community. my only concern, though, is that having stockholders to provide oversight of the board won't work unless >50% of the stockholders agree that there should be stockholders to provide oversight to the board :/
[01:20:02] <Bytram> matt_: nailed it.
[01:20:08] <NCommander> Ok
[01:20:13] <NCommander> Lets throw it to the community
[01:20:14] <matt_> NCommander, so you really can't recuse yourself from this one...
[01:20:21] <NCommander> I think thats the only thing we can do at this point
[01:20:27] <Bytram> without stock, the vision was the NFP would provide oversight to the board, right?
[01:20:30] <NCommander> I'll vote aye to whatever the winds blow
[01:20:39] <mrcoolbp> okay, so let's go for it
[01:20:42] <TheMightyLaptop> we're so gonna lose community members over this
[01:20:56] <mrcoolbp> NCommander: I"m assuming you'll dazzle us with your novel-writing skills again?
[01:21:04] * NCommander warms up the typewriter
[01:21:11] <Bytram> hold on a sec
[01:21:13] <audioguy> What we are missing is a number of very specifc options.
[01:21:18] <NCommander> I was about to get to that
[01:21:22] <NCommander> :-)
[01:21:33] <audioguy> Throw thjat to the community you will just get confusion
[01:22:00] <NCommander> I think we have a few proposals on the table
[01:22:04] <NCommander> 1. Matt's plan, as is
[01:22:28] <NCommander> 2. Proportional ownership across the staff, accepting the various cavaets that go with it
[01:22:35] <NCommander> (and the 50% issue)
[01:22:46] <NCommander> 3. NCommander's proposal, which is essentially "do nothing"
[01:22:57] <NCommander> sorry
[01:23:00] <NCommander> do nothing, then setup a NFP
[01:23:40] <NCommander> 4. Create a community advocation position or two on the board, with the understanding that its only under the boards goodwill that its respected
[01:24:30] <NCommander> I think that sums up the ideas that have been floating
[01:24:46] <Bytram> NCommander: I apologize, but what was matt_'s plan again? (a summary would suffice)
[01:24:51] <TheMightyLaptop> tell you right now they're going to want to be able to buy in too. better have an answer for that on tap.
[01:24:54] <mrcoolbp> some of those can overlap right?
[01:25:27] <matt_> Bytram, NCommander: matt_ would like the opportunity to edit the section on "matt_'s plan" before it goes live :)
[01:25:36] <Bytram> np
[01:25:49] <NCommander> TheMightyLaptop, tha twould by definition make us publicly taded
[01:25:53] <NCommander> Lets NOT IPO :-P
[01:26:04] <NCommander> *traded
[01:26:08] <Bytram> NCommander: yes, let's NOT.
[01:26:18] <TheMightyLaptop> not a suggestion just a warning to have an answer ready.
[01:26:29] * NCommander feels a cloud of doom over his head
[01:26:51] <matt_> things only go bad when you're "not expecting torches and pitchforks", iirc ;)
[01:27:20] <Bytram> matt_: but seriously, can you please summarize what your plan was... broad strokes are okay, I'm just drawing a complete blank atm
[01:27:23] * juggs swoops across the sky gathering all clouds of doom
[01:27:44] <NCommander> Bytram, matt_'s plan was issue stock to me and himself
[01:27:48] <matt_> Bytram, to summarize matt_'s plan:
[01:28:03] <matt_> simultaneously do the following 3 things:
[01:28:13] <matt_> 1. increase size of board from 3 to 5-7 directors.
[01:28:36] <matt_> 2. create board-level position of "Community Advocate" with veto power.
[01:29:18] <matt_> 3. issue equal number of shares of stock to NC and matt_ to create a means for providing oversight of the board.
[01:29:28] <NCommander> point three is the one in contention
[01:29:30] <NCommander> */just saying*
[01:29:50] <Bytram> matt_: thanks!
[01:30:23] <mrcoolbp> I'm going to need to adjourn soon, 2.5 hours already
[01:30:24] <matt_> true, but just wanted to be clear that my plan is not: issue shares of stock, and maintain stranglehold on board, etc. ;)
[01:30:53] <Bytram> question on point 2. ... is it necessary for the 'Community Advocate' to have veto power? what if we had, say, two or even three positions, with normal voting powers. would be enough of a counterforce, no?
[01:30:55] <NCommander> matt_, grow a beard, and stroke a white cat?
[01:31:20] * matt_ strokes his coffee++ mug
[01:31:24] <NCommander> actually, stepping back a moment
[01:31:30] <NCommander> Veto is a little iffy for me
[01:31:36] <NCommander> Conceptially, I agree, but ...
[01:31:45] <mrcoolbp> what about what Bytram suggested above?
[01:31:54] * NCommander nods
[01:31:58] <audioguy> With a larger, more diverse board, that position is less needed.
[01:32:01] * Bytram smiles
[01:32:08] <matt_> Bytram, veto would allow the board to expand arbitrarily.
[01:33:00] <NCommander> matt_, I think maybe something closer to the ability to force a referium
[01:33:02] <Bytram> matt_: allow? I think you mean *prevent* the board from expanding arbitrarily (i.e. to sufficent size to dilute the power of the advocate(s))
[01:33:06] <NCommander> vs. a flat veto
[01:33:15] <Bytram> hrmmmm.
[01:33:30] <paulej72> a community member with veto with no overide can be a evil as anyone
[01:33:34] <matt_> Bytram, oh, i mean that if a Community Advocate has veto power, then that power is not diluted as the board grows.
[01:33:57] <Bytram> paulej72: just a different person who can be E-VIL.
[01:33:58] <matt_> paulej72, which is why we need stockholders to provide oversight of the Community Advocate too :)
[01:34:01] <TheMightyLaptop> s'a hell of a lot of power for one person though
[01:34:03] <Bytram> matt_: ah, I see. thanks!
[01:34:07] <juggs> It also makes no sense if the existing board elects the Community Advocate
[01:34:18] * NCommander kicks the internet
[01:34:19] <audioguy> Roman Tribunes.
[01:34:21] <matt_> juggs, the Community Advocate should be directly elected by the communiity.
[01:34:25] <audioguy> two
[01:34:26] <juggs> nod
[01:34:46] <NCommander> I smell a voting issue croping up
[01:35:00] <juggs> oh $deity
[01:35:04] <Bytram> okay, I apologize for the side-tracking.... just wanted to get it clear in my mind what the item was. carry on!
[01:35:10] <paulej72> but should a community advocate have a unconditional veto power
[01:35:41] <mrcoolbp> we are thinking no
[01:35:41] <matt_> paulej72, that way they would not be able to actually _make_ policy, but they would be able to overrule any policy changes.
[01:35:56] <matt_> such as closing the source, for example.
[01:36:23] <paulej72> they could also block every normal business item as well
[01:36:38] <matt_> if they do that, the board will appeal to the stockholders to have them replaced.
[01:36:55] * NCommander notes board == stockholders
[01:36:56] <NCommander> In this case
[01:37:07] <matt_> which is why item 1. is increasing the board size :)
[01:37:18] <matt_> and so, the circle is complete :)
[01:37:41] * NCommander exhales
[01:37:42] <NCommander> Ok
[01:37:44] <Bytram> okay, can we at least all agree that there is no obvious, foolproof solution?
[01:37:45] <NCommander> I think I got it
[01:37:52] <TheMightyLaptop> quick point. with only two stockholders it's going to look awefully like an elite club if you boot a community advocate.
[01:37:53] <NCommander> Bytram, I think I can ack that
[01:38:05] <Bytram> IOW, there's gonna be some holes no matter what, let's just and keep 'em small.
[01:38:18] <Bytram> s/just/just try/
[01:38:33] <matt_> TheMightyLaptop, which provides a strong disincentive for the stockholders to act.
[01:38:37] <matt_> which is good.
[01:39:02] <NCommander> Ok
[01:39:07] <NCommander> I think I have enough to write this up
[01:39:12] <NCommander> Lets try and get this out the door on Monday
[01:39:30] <Bytram> and, at the moment, and after all this discussion, barring any surprises, I'm thinking matt_'s proposal looks good to me.
[01:39:32] * TheMightyLaptop nods
[01:39:55] <audioguy> With only two stockholders, and a larger board, power devolves from the board to the two stockholders, effectively giving them a more powerful voice if they are also on the board.
[01:39:56] <Bytram> it's not perfect, but it seems less imperfect than the others we've discussed.
[01:40:48] * NCommander once again feels like the third wheel
[01:41:02] <NCommander> But I think the only way we get out of this without resentment on all sides is if we poll the community
[01:41:12] <Bytram> so, add one more point to matt_'s proposal: 4. The board works to establish an NFP and transfer it's control to the NFP ASAP.
[01:41:34] <Bytram> i.e. the stock goes away (bought out with swag sales, e.g.)
[01:41:56] * Bytram is sure matt_ has more legally valid wording
[01:42:00] <Bytram> .
[01:42:17] <NCommander> Bytram, nothing can force the stock going away
[01:42:34] <NCommander> or at least nothing we can realistically do
[01:42:38] * matt_ would definitely like more detail in that item before adding it to a proposal (e.g., who is overseeing the NFP, etc.)
[01:43:17] <Bytram> well, if the stock was owned by the NFP, we'd be good, right?
[01:43:21] <TheMightyLaptop> NCommander, sell at an enormous loss 10x what was issued to you two to the nfp then issue no more. boom. solved.
[01:43:56] * NCommander nods
[01:44:03] <NCommander> Let me get this written up
[01:44:06] <NCommander> We'll take it to email
[01:44:07] <matt_> Bytram, meaning let's think about how to set up a non-evil NFP, as not all NFPs are automatically good.
[01:44:27] <Bytram> TheMightyBuzzard: there's an upper bound on the number of shares the PBC can issue. 2x would suffice.
[01:44:29] <juggs> Why should NCommander and matt_ take a financial hit on what they have laid out this far?
[01:44:36] <TheMightyLaptop> nod nod
[01:44:36] <Bytram> matt_: agreed!
[01:44:37] <juggs> thus*
[01:44:58] <TheMightyLaptop> juggs, nobody said we can't then buy back for a higher price.
[01:45:09] <NCommander> >.>;
[01:45:18] * NCommander is willing to take a fincancal hit ot escape this meeting
[01:45:20] <NCommander> :-)
[01:45:22] <audioguy> I do not think they should take a financial hit. I would refer a note to stock to give them something valid as a promise of payment.
[01:45:23] <TheMightyLaptop> har
[01:45:28] <paulej72> while I don’t want them to take a financial hit, there would be resentment if they made a profit from the stock
[01:45:32] <juggs> ok - I was reading out of context I think
[01:45:44] <Bytram> juggs: good point! I did not write what I meant above. the NFP could buy out matt_ & NCommander's stock and make them whole through the sale of swag or whatever.
[01:45:46] <mrcoolbp> paulej72: I agree with that statement
[01:46:25] <audioguy> Bytram, in other words, buy them out by issuing a note to be paid from swag sales.
[01:46:39] <matt_> paulej72, i think that both NCommander and I realize that that would be a pretty fast way to drive away our all-volunteer work force :)
[01:46:47] <TheMightyLaptop> nah, just wait for swag sales then buy them out with cash
[01:47:23] <audioguy> That could take a while. :-)
[01:47:24] <paulej72> matt_: but nothing in the orginal stock issue poropsal precluded that scenerio
[01:47:43] <Bytram> whateveer reasonably-legal thing that matt_ thinks will work, but basically get the stock out from being an issue atm (ceding the *control* to the PBC) whilst making matt_ and NCommander whole for their $ investments.
[01:48:01] * NCommander exhales
[01:48:03] <audioguy> ^^^
[01:48:22] <Bytram> ugh! ceding control to the *NFP*
[01:48:33] <TheMightyLaptop> how bout we close the meeting up, let NC go write his novel, and argue about it unofficially
[01:48:58] <juggs> roll on the discussions about governance of the NFP :)
[01:49:04] * NCommander is sitting here wondering if I should just ACK the most recent proposal
[01:49:32] <NCommander> I just dislike stirring up drama
[01:49:39] <TheMightyLaptop> NCommander, it would save a community shitstorm but it's your vote n you gotta live with it.
[01:49:40] <NCommander> Anyway, I'm going to go get on my bike
[01:49:40] <Bytram> NCommander: please, don't decide just so as to get the deciding done. I think we *have* made a lot of progress!
[01:49:53] <NCommander> Indeed
[01:50:09] * Bytram has debugged far more nasty code.
[01:50:10] <NCommander> In eithe rcase, we still have to let the community know
[01:50:13] <matt_> shall we reconvene this weekend for more discussion?
[01:50:19] * NCommander twiches
[01:50:21] <juggs> nods - much better meeting this time.
[01:50:23] * NCommander twiches more
[01:50:24] <matt_> or have we discussed to death?
[01:50:31] <NCommander> matt_, lets aim for sunday
[01:50:34] <mrcoolbp> sunday night might work for me
[01:50:35] <NCommander> Just to discuss my novel
[01:50:39] <mrcoolbp> 8pm EST?
[01:50:41] <Bytram> I can do AM (EDT) have evening shifts both sat and sun.
[01:51:09] <Bytram> juggs: agreed.
[01:51:14] <matt_> NCommander, ok. when do you think a draft will be ready?
[01:51:21] <juggs> Motions to have all times discussed as UTC :P
[01:51:41] <NCommander> actually
[01:51:44] <NCommander> Lets do something useful
[01:51:48] <mrcoolbp> oh?
[01:51:55] <NCommander> Official proposal: All times for meetings and such should be listed in UTC
[01:52:17] <matt_> with edt in parentheses? ;)
[01:52:20] <NCommander> ... though that actually might require a bylaw amendment >.>;
[01:52:28] <NCommander> matt_, great, we can use EDT when you're in EST
[01:52:32] <NCommander> *EVIL LAUGH*
[01:52:33] * Bytram seems to recall we already generally do that (with a couple other TZs added for clarity)
[01:53:16] <paulej72> crutchy mountain time
[01:53:30] <NCommander> AKADT :-)
[01:53:37] <mrcoolbp> okay so what midnight UTC Sunday?
[01:53:41] <juggs> Bytram, they seem to get listed as EDT / EST with UTC in parenthesis.
[01:54:02] <NCommander> juggs, that's because almost everyone is in EDT
[01:54:04] <NCommander> on staff
[01:54:15] <juggs> Errr... really?
[01:54:16] <NCommander> audioguy, myself, cosurgi, janirock are the outlyers
[01:54:23] <mrcoolbp> juggs: yup
[01:54:44] <matt_> mrcoolbp, midnight UTC Sunday works for me.
[01:54:45] <Bytram> So, though I am not on the board per se, I would *really* like to continue to participate... is there a chance we could take a day off for NCommander to write his novel, and reconvene Sunday 2014-09-24 at 14:00 UTC? (== 10:00 EDT)
[01:54:45] <juggs> fair enough
[01:55:02] <NCommander> I'm in AKDT (theorically), audioguy is PDT, cosurigi and janirock are UTC/UTC+1
[01:55:08] <NCommander> Everyone else is in EDT
[01:55:10] <Bytram> ohhhh... wait a minunte... might be able to do that! hold on
[01:55:15] <NCommander> Hence why its our defacto official time
[01:55:30] -!- pbnjoe [pbnjoe!~pbnjoe@Soylent/Users/313/pbnjoe] has joined #staff
[01:56:00] <paulej72> stats say most of the users are EST too
[01:56:00] * juggs shakes a fist at TZ nonsense then calms down
[01:56:13] <Bytram> matt_: midnight UTC sunday?? is that still sunday in EDT?
[01:56:23] <juggs> I thought our visitors were fairly spread paulej72
[01:56:24] <mrcoolbp> ug
[01:56:35] <NCommander> juggs, about half are US based, the rest is elsewhere
[01:56:55] <matt_> Bytram, i don't know, mrcoolbp said it first, i was just agreeing with him :)
[01:57:12] <matt_> i believe it is 8pm EDT.
[01:57:22] <paulej72> sunday
[01:57:35] <juggs> lol - I only brought it up as an amusing aside - I should have known better.
[01:57:56] <paulej72> Midnight is technically the next day
[01:58:05] <Bytram> paulej72: thank-you!
[01:58:18] <Bytram> hence my question.
[01:58:25] <juggs> feck - schedule it for 23:59 then
[01:58:37] <paulej72> easier to use 00-24 and it fixes itself
[01:59:20] <Bytram> so Sunday 2014-08-24 at 23:59 (UTC) == Sunday @ 7:59 PM, EDT.
[01:59:24] <NCommander> If I become dictator of the world, the first thing I'm doing is ambolishing timezones
[01:59:44] <NCommander> and then instituting metric time :-P
[01:59:46] <Bytram> and install a sun-dial in every yard =)
[01:59:56] <paulej72> UNCT Univerisal NCommander time
[02:00:10] <NCommander> I give you guys all a kilosecond to decide when our next meeting is :-P
[02:00:14] <Bytram> Okay, *that* I can do.
[02:00:25] <juggs> we could do with another time standard... we are surely lacking in candidates
[02:00:34] <mrcoolbp> NCommander, matt_ can we adjourn
[02:00:37] <mrcoolbp> ?
[02:00:48] <NCommander> second
[02:00:58] <mrcoolbp> this went way longer then I expected, I need to take care of some things before bed
[02:01:16] <matt_> Aye!
[02:01:20] <mrcoolbp> Aye!
[02:01:31] <mrcoolbp> NCommander ^
[02:01:38] <juggs> pls
[02:01:48] <Bytram> see y'all sunday, if not sooner! =)
[02:01:49] <mrcoolbp> for the love of FSM
[02:02:08] <Bytram> finite state machine? =)
[02:02:15] * NCommander goes to change into biking cloths
[02:02:23] <NCommander> Its a beatiful day and I'm going to take advantage of that!
[02:02:48] <audioguy> What city has the same time as UTC? I thought it was london, but it shows an hour off.
[02:03:03] <Bytram> 'tis well past dark here. enjoy your ride!
[02:03:26] <NCommander> audioguy, london introduced DST
[02:03:29] <NCommander> audioguy, check Paris
[02:03:30] <Bytram> audioguy: methiinks they have summer time, too. hence the off-by-one. /me could be mistaken, though.
[02:03:36] <juggs> audioguy, London is currently on BST (British Summer Time)
[02:03:57] <mrcoolbp> okay, goodnight everyone!
[02:04:02] <NCommander> We could just use Swatch Internet Time
[02:04:04] <juggs> night mrcoolbp
[02:04:08] <audioguy> paris doen;t work. DST would explain it, can't believe they were that foolish too.
[02:04:09] <Bytram> mrcoolbp: g'night! thank-you!
[02:04:16] <Bytram> matt_: many, many thanks!
[02:04:49] <NCommander> audioguy, its @128 right now :-)
[02:05:34] <mrcoolbp> .deop
[02:05:34] -!- mode/#staff [-o mrcoolbp] by juggler
[02:05:41] <mrcoolbp> too much burden = )
[02:05:50] <juggs> Can someone pls update #soylent topic - I have no record of what it was before
[02:05:58] <mrcoolbp> i do
[02:06:37] <Bytram> I couldn't help but notice, but in spite of the length of the meeting, and the potential gravity of the discussion, it was a calm and level-toned meeting. I *very* much appreciate the fact it was held so politely.
[02:06:54] <Bytram> mrcoolbp: I saved both #staff and #soylent... I'll fix
[02:07:27] <NCommander> COOL
[02:07:33] <Bytram> mrcoolbp: okay, so you already took care of #soylent.
[02:07:33] <NCommander> my employeer just approved my vacation time from two months ago
[02:07:34] <NCommander> :-)
[02:07:35] <audioguy> The flamers left when it got down to haed work :-)
[02:07:41] <audioguy> hard
[02:08:02] Bytram changed topic of #staff to: everyone that doesn't have a voice or operator status in this channel: your messages will be forwarded to the channel ops (if there are none, feel free to PM an active user in the channel). | This channel is logged: http://logs.sylnt.us
[02:08:07] <Bytram> .deop
[02:08:07] -!- mode/#staff [-o Bytram] by juggler
[02:08:20] <matt_> and... minutes posted: http://wiki.soylentnews.org
[02:08:24] <Bytram> audioguy: yuppers. we've got quite a crew here.
[02:08:36] <Bytram> matt_++ thank you!
[02:08:49] * Bytram wrote a script this am to do it, just in case.
[02:08:55] <Bytram> you beat me to it.
[02:08:59] <Bytram> =)
[02:09:02] <matt_> Bytram, np ;)
[02:09:10] <mrcoolbp> matt: want to announce the meeting at 23:59 NUTCED
[02:09:14] <NCommander> Kinda amazing what hatred of a common cause can do :-)
[02:09:20] <mrcoolbp> EST/EDTUTC WATHEVER
[02:09:34] <mrcoolbp> (on the staff mailing list)
[02:10:03] <Bytram> .deop
[02:10:03] -!- mode/#staff [-o Bytram] by juggler
[02:10:35] <mrcoolbp> AFK
[02:10:40] <matt_> mrcoolbp, sure!
[02:10:48] <mrcoolbp> (THANKS)
[02:11:43] Bytram is now known as Bytram|away
[02:15:43] <TheMightyLaptop> just surveyed a community member whose coffee i'm drinking. he says stocks for NCommander and matt_, revisit staff stock issuance when it's not a blocking issue.
[02:16:47] -!- Bytram|away has quit [Quit: Leaving]
[02:17:30] <matt_> community_member++
[02:18:25] <matt_> does anyone know who the list moderator is for lists.soylentnews.org?
[02:19:23] <TheMightyLaptop> not a clue
[02:19:42] <audioguy> Here - matt_
[02:20:06] <audioguy> You must post from the right address, and I think you can ok your own post if you follow the link.
[02:20:24] <matt_> audioguy, nice. i was just about to subscribe my @sn address to the list, which will also require your approval.
[02:20:56] <audioguy> I don't approve these because usually they are just mistakes that people would prefer not be seen. :-)
[02:21:08] <audioguy> (unless asked)
[02:21:29] <audioguy> That does - I thought you were on this long ago?
[02:21:39] <matt_> yeah, but it was my non-sn address.
[02:21:53] <audioguy> I think you can just change it.
[02:22:00] <matt_> oh. trying...
[02:22:17] <audioguy> if not unsub the old, sub the new.
[02:24:46] <matt_> audioguy, you are right. i was able to change it. will resend that pending email to the list now. thanks!
[02:24:57] <audioguy> ok, great
[02:26:25] -!- TheMightyLaptop has quit [Quit: heading home]
[03:22:25] -!- SirFinkus has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
[03:24:29] -!- SirFinkus [SirFinkus!~SirFinkus@l-64-313-06-125.hsd0.wa.comcast.net] has joined #staff
[03:45:45] -!- matt_ has quit [Quit: Web client closed]
[05:09:29] -!- pbnjoe [pbnjoe!~pbnjoe@Soylent/Users/313/pbnjoe] has parted #staff
[05:20:39] -!- NCommander [NCommander!~mcasadeva@Soylent/Staff/Sysop/mcasadevall] has parted #staff
[05:20:49] -!- NCommander [NCommander!~mcasadeva@Soylent/Staff/Sysop/mcasadevall] has joined #staff
[05:20:49] -!- mode/#staff [+v NCommander] by juggler
[12:39:17] -!- mechanicjay [mechanicjay!~jhowe@Soylent/Staff/Sysop/mechanicjay] has joined #staff
[12:39:17] -!- mode/#staff [+v mechanicjay] by juggler
[14:38:47] -!- Woods has quit [Quit: Web client closed]
[15:14:40] -!- Bytram|away [Bytram|away!~pc@Soylent/Staff/Developer/martyb] has joined #staff
[15:14:40] -!- mode/#staff [+v Bytram|away] by juggler
[15:15:21] Bytram|away is now known as Bytram
[15:45:54] blackmoore|afk is now known as Blackmoore
[15:50:55] -!- Woods [Woods!~41a24c20@Soylent/Staff/Editor/Woods] has joined #staff
[15:50:55] -!- mode/#staff [+v Woods] by juggler
[16:32:42] Bytram is now known as Bytram|afk
[16:50:38] Bytram|afk is now known as Bytram|away
[16:50:47] -!- Bytram|away has quit [Quit: Leaving]
[19:57:53] -!- FunPika [FunPika!~FunPika@Soylent/Staff/Wiki/FunPika] has joined #staff
[19:57:53] -!- mode/#staff [+v FunPika] by juggler
[20:28:00] -!- Woods has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
[21:46:16] -!- mechanicjay has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
[22:06:39] -!- Blackmoore has quit [Quit: Web client closed]
[22:49:44] -!- SirFinkus has quit [Quit: Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com]
[23:00:58] -!- SirFinkus [SirFinkus!~SirFinkus@l-64-313-06-125.hsd0.wa.comcast.net] has joined #staff
[23:12:34] -!- chromas has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
[23:14:44] -!- chromas [chromas!~chromas@62-36-590-45.dhcp.knwc.wa.charter.com] has joined #staff
[23:14:44] -!- chromas has quit [Changing host]
[23:14:44] -!- chromas [chromas!~chromas@0::1] has joined #staff