#governance | Logs for 2023-08-07
« return
[23:30:19] -!- audioguy [audioguy!~audioguy@Soylent/Staff/Developer/audioguy] has joined #governance
[20:12:34] -!- aristarchus has quit [Quit: Client closed]
[20:01:29] -!- aristarchus [aristarchus!~aristarch@595-01-1-74.hosted-by-worldstream.net] has joined #governance
[19:32:05] <janrinok> I will have my response ready by Thursday And you will able to annotate the Agenda with a confirmed intention for me to respond.
[17:06:19] <kolie> The community call out can probably go in this meta.
[17:05:28] <kolie> I can ask him to attend friday.
[17:05:24] <requerdanos> I was also going to call for experts with knowledge of entity formation that may be helpful to the committee and the greater community at the meeting
[17:04:30] <kolie> Separatix said he would answer questions / give any input.
[17:03:56] <requerdanos> Uh, (checks minutes) I think you were going to contact separatrix about NFP, as part of the answer to this
[17:03:02] <kolie> Has there been any progress on exploring potential entity sttructures and the pro cons
[17:02:34] <requerdanos> I plan to mention that the agenda will be published later, 24 or more hours before the meeting.
[17:02:09] <janrinok> Well, what you are asking for is really the Agenda. The only things that we know for certain that is should contain are "Actions arising from previous meetings". I have one action and kolie pick up 2 (I think).
[16:59:16] <requerdanos> Speaking of the meta post of later today, I request that committee members mention here things that should be in the post other than just the time/date/place of the upcoming meeting. After a few hours I will write a brief (hopefully) meta post covering same.
[16:56:58] <janrinok> It gives the impression that we are hiding things from the community - which is the exact opposite of what we are trying to achieve.
[16:55:58] <janrinok> requerdanos, I am not criticising the minutes. My point is that there is no reason to post things as disappearing links which are not visible a short time after they are posted. The question asked for a Board response.
[16:55:49] <fab23> requerdanos: but yes, I am with you, for meeting records it is the wrong tool
[16:54:04] <fab23> requerdanos: I am running a pastbot on some IRC networks, but the web site mentions that posts will be deleted after 24h
[16:51:27] <requerdanos> sure. they have their place, but "meeting records" isn't it.
[16:49:05] <fab23> requerdanos: which is fine for temporary long text instead of pasting to irc, it may not have the best for the case discussed. :)
[16:48:43] <kolie> Matt is ok with linode access being shared fyi. Just gotta poke NC to do it.
[16:48:03] <requerdanos> so to summarize, disappearing pastebin: bad.
[16:47:57] <fab23> kolie: long discussion deep in some channels, answer to the person in email and put it as an FAQ in the next Meta posting.
[16:45:58] <kolie> I'm aware - not sure why you think I am under any impression otherwise. As I said - I'm discussing it here as well because the questions may be held by others and me speaking about it here doesn't preclude any other actions on my part.
[16:44:54] <janrinok> Not everyone was on this channel when the meeting was held. They cannot see what was discussed in detail. You are reply as an official Board member.
[16:43:44] <kolie> Yea already was I generally respond to all my emails :)
[16:43:16] <janrinok> Fine - tell him not me!
[16:42:55] <kolie> It's not a mutually exclusive action to discuss something here.
[16:42:29] <kolie> I will respond to him I'm just discussing it here first.
[16:42:14] <janrinok> WRITE THE EMAIL TO THE GUY WHO ASKED THE QUESTION. WHAT WAS IN THE EMAIL?
[16:41:48] <kolie> They are ok with a newcorp.
[16:41:33] <kolie> They did consider it - they looked at it - and the discussion we had in the board meeting was - they don't want to gut the PBC.
[16:41:13] <janrinok> Just do it, please. YOU are a Board member.
[16:40:53] <janrinok> CHOCOLATE TEAPOT
[16:40:50] <kolie> And discussed that in length.
[16:40:34] <kolie> I mean - we said they didn't like the liability issues.
[16:39:14] <janrinok> Well, the people reading this channel couldn't tell that, could they. They cannot see what you pasted. We are meant to be open. There is a second offer that they have not even considered· The community member wanted an official response to a perfectly reasonable question which I cannot answer.
[16:38:27] <kolie> What they don't have a problem with is side stepping that issue and getting the same result.
[16:37:46] <kolie> They did look at it, and found the problems as stated.
[16:37:07] <kolie> Why aren't you looking into audio guys offer, whats the problem with the proposed solution.
[16:36:50] <kolie> That's where this email came from.
[16:36:22] <kolie> When I asked the essential response was similar to what I pasted above.
[16:35:36] <janrinok> Please can you get a response that the Board are happy with?
[16:35:18] <janrinok> I am asking you as a Board member.
[16:35:17] <kolie> I haven't gotten an answer on that one.
[16:35:04] <kolie> Ask the share holders.
[16:34:49] <janrinok> Well, several offers have been made recently and they have not been considered - why not?
[16:34:11] <kolie> I asked some other questions regarding documentation of shareholder history ( no suprises there ) - no other offers ever contemplated, no other weird stuff like juggs etc.
[16:34:01] <janrinok> In future we need to ensure that the text is available in the minutes and to anyone looking at the channel after the meeting.
[16:33:16] <kolie> "It really isn’t feasible to change everything in the PBC in the way audioguy seems to be envisioning simply because the PBC (and its shareholders) would not be able to assume liabilities associated with these changes. Even more importantly, there is no benefit that I can see to attempting to change the PBC. If the committee wants an entity with new bylaws, a new Board, and new shareholders, a new entity should be created."
[16:33:15] <kolie> His basic response
[16:32:54] <kolie> I honestly forgot the context
[16:32:39] <janrinok> kolie - the problem with the screen grab is that trying to access that url now gives a blank page - at least here for me. I can understand people wanting to know what it said.
[16:32:28] <kolie> So I think it's just more of a blanket thought of any and all unforseen problems that aren't yet cotemplated rather than Matt sees a specific issue and doesn't want it to blow up.
[16:30:32] <kolie> I even have a blanket policy for my kids you know - if my 5 year old fucks up another kid at school just in an accident or whatever theres been cases were parents have gone after the other for millions.
[16:29:22] <kolie> And just because you aren't doing anything wrong - you open yourself to frivilous claims you still have to defend properly.
[16:28:42] <kolie> There's a ton of risk in something like we are participating.
[16:28:20] <kolie> Liability is something I consider at all times. I had to think about it when I was considering a board position.
[16:27:09] <kolie> Matt is the one with the liability concerns - NC is just not involved for the most part and letting matt get the say here.
[16:26:28] <kolie> I guess technically a board member could have standing as well.
[16:26:16] <kolie> For that particular case.
[16:26:02] <kolie> The only people with standing are other shareholders.
[16:25:55] <kolie> You would have to have standing.
[16:25:51] <kolie> Re #3
[16:25:08] <kolie> His question re matts liability - unlikely as it is people are liability adverse in the US - especially people with assets to protect etc. I don't think anyones making a big deal out of it other than to realize there could be issues, and if they want a new bylaws and new board, well 5 birds one stone with newcorp.
[16:24:30] <kolie> Not there yet.
[16:24:19] <janrinok> I was more interested in the subsequent question/observation.
[16:23:14] <kolie> Yea let me look at it - quick notes. The email being referred to - I posted it as a screen grab earlier in that chat log.
[16:21:13] <janrinok> kolie - I sent you an email from one of our community.
[16:18:38] <janrinok> I am still working on my action from the last meeting. There appears to be scant formal description of the Management Committee, but it existed because the editor's policy document refers to it several times. I am aim to push something out by Thursday.
[16:16:29] <requerdanos> Since we said four days out, and Friday is four days away.
[16:16:07] <requerdanos> According to my math, today is the day for the meta announcing the upcoming meeting on Friday.
[16:15:42] <kolie> I haven't heard back from Matt about some of the stuff I sent over friday but I did bump him in a reply.
[09:26:04] -!- Kamiistarchus has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
[06:28:23] -!- Kamiistarchus [Kamiistarchus!~Kamiistar@37.19.izs.wnt] has joined #governance