#governance | Logs for 2023-08-07
« return
[06:28:23] -!- Kamiistarchus [Kamiistarchus!~Kamiistar@37.19.izs.wnt] has joined #governance
[09:26:04] -!- Kamiistarchus has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
[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.
[16:16:07] <requerdanos> According to my math, today is the day for the meta announcing the upcoming meeting on Friday.
[16:16:29] <requerdanos> Since we said four days out, and Friday is four days away.
[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.
[16:21:13] <janrinok> kolie - I sent you an email from one of our community.
[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.
[16:24:19] <janrinok> I was more interested in the subsequent question/observation.
[16:24:30] <kolie> Not there yet.
[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.
[16:25:51] <kolie> Re #3
[16:25:55] <kolie> You would have to have standing.
[16:26:02] <kolie> The only people with standing are other shareholders.
[16:26:16] <kolie> For that particular case.
[16:26:28] <kolie> I guess technically a board member could have standing as well.
[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.
[16:28:20] <kolie> Liability is something I consider at all times. I had to think about it when I was considering a board position.
[16:28:42] <kolie> There's a ton of risk in something like we are participating.
[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.
[16:30:32] <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.
[16:32:28] <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.
[16:32:39] <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.
[16:32:54] <kolie> I honestly forgot the context
[16:33:15] <kolie> His basic response
[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."
[16:34:01] <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.
[16:34:11] <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.
[16:34:49] <janrinok> Well, several offers have been made recently and they have not been considered - why not?
[16:35:04] <kolie> Ask the share holders.
[16:35:17] <kolie> I haven't gotten an answer on that one.
[16:35:18] <janrinok> I am asking you as a Board member.
[16:35:36] <janrinok> Please can you get a response that the Board are happy with?
[16:36:22] <kolie> When I asked the essential response was similar to what I pasted above.
[16:36:50] <kolie> That's where this email came from.
[16:37:07] <kolie> Why aren't you looking into audio guys offer, whats the problem with the proposed solution.
[16:37:46] <kolie> They did look at it, and found the problems as stated.
[16:38:27] <kolie> What they don't have a problem with is side stepping that issue and getting the same result.
[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.
[16:40:34] <kolie> I mean - we said they didn't like the liability issues.
[16:40:50] <kolie> And discussed that in length.
[16:40:53] <janrinok> CHOCOLATE TEAPOT
[16:41:13] <janrinok> Just do it, please. YOU are a Board member.
[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.
[16:41:48] <kolie> They are ok with a newcorp.
[16:42:14] <janrinok> WRITE THE EMAIL TO THE GUY WHO ASKED THE QUESTION. WHAT WAS IN THE EMAIL?
[16:42:29] <kolie> I will respond to him I'm just discussing it here first.
[16:42:55] <kolie> It's not a mutually exclusive action to discuss something here.
[16:43:16] <janrinok> Fine - tell him not me!
[16:43:44] <kolie> Yea already was I generally respond to all my emails :)
[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.
[16:45:58] <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.
[16:47:57] <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.
[16:48:03] <requerdanos> so to summarize, disappearing pastebin: bad.
[16:48:43] <kolie> Matt is ok with linode access being shared fyi. Just gotta poke NC to do 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. :)
[16:51:27] <requerdanos> sure. they have their place, but "meeting records" isn't it.
[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
[16:55:49] <fab23> requerdanos: but yes, I am with you, for meeting records it is the wrong tool
[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.
[16:56:58] <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.
[16:59:16] <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.
[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).
[17:02:34] <requerdanos> I plan to mention that the agenda will be published later, 24 or more hours before the meeting.
[17:03:02] <kolie> Has there been any progress on exploring potential entity sttructures and the pro cons
[17:03:56] <requerdanos> Uh, (checks minutes) I think you were going to contact separatrix about NFP, as part of the answer to this
[17:04:30] <kolie> Separatix said he would answer questions / give any input.
[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
[17:05:28] <kolie> I can ask him to attend friday.
[17:06:19] <kolie> The community call out can probably go in this meta.
[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.
[20:01:29] -!- aristarchus [aristarchus!~aristarch@595-01-1-74.hosted-by-worldstream.net] has joined #governance
[20:12:34] -!- aristarchus has quit [Quit: Client closed]
[23:30:19] -!- audioguy [audioguy!~audioguy@Soylent/Staff/Developer/audioguy] has joined #governance