#governance | Logs for 2023-08-25

« return
[22:24:03] <audioguy> SSSSH - don't say parliamentarion out laoud, janrinok willput it in the bylaws.
[22:21:43] <notkolie> That's why I make it clear when I'm "idle/good"
[22:21:33] <notkolie> irc its a little slower
[22:21:26] <notkolie> rogers works better in person when you can see people.
[22:21:21] <audioguy> Yeah they do that for amazing stuff "Without objection, Serbia will be bombed"
[22:20:54] <mechanicjay> God help us if we get to the point of needing a parliamentarian.
[22:20:20] <audioguy> I mean 'Roberts' :-)
[22:20:07] <mechanicjay> ooh, I like that!
[22:19:45] -!- aristarchus has quit [Quit: Client closed]
[22:19:43] <audioguy> Some of the formality even of Roget cold be reduced. Like what the US congree does, a LOT: "Unless there is an opjection, The minutes will be taken as read and approved" - glare around the room fo 5 seconds - "Hearing no objection, the minutes are approved"
[22:19:32] <Deucalion> Time for me to hit the hay also, working tomorrow. Thanks all and laters o/
[22:18:17] <Bytram> janrinok: Hope they they are extra sweert!
[22:16:51] <janrinok> they wil be - just not enough of them :)
[22:16:33] <Bytram> janrinok: Sweet dreams!
[22:16:27] <mechanicjay> bonne nuit!
[22:16:26] <Deucalion> night janrinok
[22:16:18] <Deucalion> And good luck requerdanos making minutes of that wandering path :D
[22:16:07] <janrinok> goodnight gang!
[22:16:02] <mechanicjay> Seriously, I spent an hour prepping for last time
[22:15:51] <Bytram> agreed!
[22:15:39] <mechanicjay> :D
[22:15:27] <Deucalion> I think you did a fine job having been chucked in the deep end with no notice - so thank you
[22:15:05] <Deucalion> oops :D
[22:15:03] <mechanicjay> This is what you all voted for!
[22:14:52] <mechanicjay> I have failed in my duty as chair to set the next meeting officially
[22:14:36] Deucalion changed topic of #governance to: SoylentNews Governance Committee - Next Meeting Friday Sept 1st 20:30 UTC | This channel IS logged and publicly displayed here https://logs.sylnt.us
[22:14:27] <mechanicjay> damn, yes!
[22:14:16] <Deucalion> Next meeting Next Meeting Friday Sept 1st 20:30 UTC ?
[22:13:56] <Bytram> Understood but I want it known *why* I was absent.
[22:13:02] -!- soylentil68 has quit [Quit: Client closed]
[22:12:56] <mechanicjay> Bytram: not a problem!
[22:12:32] <Bytram> I apologize for being late. I had some financial matters I needed to attend to.
[22:12:28] <notkolie> aristarchus, whats up man
[22:12:05] <aristarchus> Thank you to the Governance committee for paying attention to the meeting-discuss channel!
[22:11:12] <mechanicjay> I'll be in channel for a bit for further discussion if anyone is interested
[22:10:57] <Bytram> aye
[22:10:53] <mechanicjay> thank you everyone
[22:10:51] <mechanicjay> we are ajourned
[22:10:44] <mechanicjay> aye
[22:10:32] <requerdanos> aye
[22:10:07] <audioguy> aye
[22:10:05] <janrinok> aye
[22:10:02] <notkolie> aye baby.
[22:09:55] <mechanicjay> seconded
[22:09:43] <audioguy> Yes, and under hard cicumstances.
[22:09:37] <notkolie> Motion to adjourn :)
[22:09:20] <janrinok> mechanicjay, good job, it is getting short each week!
[22:09:19] <audioguy> IF we adjourn we can get back to work :-)
[22:09:06] <notkolie> It's not a problem having shares perse either - we just have to define how those shares function in a share holding corp.
[22:08:51] <Deucalion> Give it 10 minutes then if nothing from the community adjourn? Time now: 22:08 UTC
[22:08:44] <audioguy> Thats what I thought,jst wanted to confirm that.
[22:08:40] <mechanicjay> which is something we're trying to get away from.
[22:08:35] <notkolie> Close corps have restriction on share transfers.
[22:08:31] <mechanicjay> In that it a small number of private owners
[22:08:22] <mechanicjay> I did take a quick look at that as well, my brain was melting about 1:00am at that point, but it didn't strike me as particular suitable.
[22:08:21] <notkolie> A close corp is not a fit for us. It's similar to an llc.
[22:07:47] <audioguy> There was one more type I haven't looked at at all yet, a 'close corp' - probably unsuitable bu that should be confirmed.
[22:06:50] <janrinok> not much noise yet
[22:05:07] <Deucalion> ty
[22:04:59] <mechanicjay> We got a lot of ayes, the floor is open for community dicsusion
[22:04:54] <audioguy> Parts of the bylaws, yes.
[22:04:33] <Deucalion> Is the floor in here open for community discussion yet or no?
[22:04:16] <audioguy> Yes - cmn32480 still has not submitted his?
[22:03:54] <mechanicjay> audioguy: I think corp structure has a little influence on the bylaws -- I don't think either thing should be happening in isolation.
[22:03:44] <janrinok> Can I ask for more help with the bylaws pse - the more contributors the easier the work becomes. I have lost 3 weeks of spare time so far...
[22:03:37] <Fnord666> Thanks. Later.
[22:03:22] <Deucalion> Fnord666 o/
[22:03:21] <Bytram> Fnord666: Laters!
[22:03:08] <mechanicjay> farewell Fnord666!
[22:03:05] <audioguy> Before anything gets too serious.
[22:02:57] * Fnord666 has a hard stop at this point and must depart.
[22:02:47] <audioguy> aye, but we still have to finish the bylaws
[22:02:28] <Fnord666> aye
[22:02:27] <notkolie> aye.
[22:02:23] <Deucalion> aye
[22:02:22] <Bytram> aye
[22:02:18] <mechanicjay> aye
[22:02:17] <requerdanos> aye
[22:02:14] <janrinok> aye
[22:02:11] <mechanicjay> All in favor:
[22:02:00] <Deucalion> seconded
[22:01:56] <audioguy> Just - no chicken coops please.
[22:01:51] <mechanicjay> Okay, I move to open this for community discussion.
[22:01:45] <Bytram> agree: "I also would welcome info on a coöp"
[22:01:32] * janrinok notes it is tomorrow
[22:01:25] <mechanicjay> Okay, I'll take that as an action item
[22:01:24] <Deucalion> Damn now we have coops and bovines?
[22:01:07] <Fnord666> Agreed re additional research on a co-op as a boverning structure.
[22:01:03] <audioguy> Don't worry, that willcomethe moment the meeting is adjourned.
[22:00:31] <mechanicjay> Actually, I withdraw the question, I can't quite form it properly.
[22:00:26] <requerdanos> I also would welcome info on a coöp
[21:59:45] <Deucalion> I would welcome further investigation of co-op
[21:59:26] <Bytram> audioguy: Was just wondering
[21:59:25] <mechanicjay> Okay, my question for the board surrounds the dollars.
[21:59:09] <janrinok> mechanicjay, you had a question for the board?
[21:58:28] <audioguy> Ifthere is a reson to look at a euro base, let us know Bytram?
[21:58:24] <mechanicjay> Okay, that's my take on this -- happy to discuss this at length and continue the research on coops if the comittee wills it.
[21:57:57] <Bytram> TY!
[21:57:42] <audioguy> US
[21:57:36] <Bytram> Are we talking US or European coop?
[21:56:47] <audioguy> Paer of what caught my eye was when I read the bylawsfor the coop here, and how it uses 'shares' - not stock. If the coop accidentally make a profit it can go into those users shares.
[21:56:36] <mechanicjay> There may be restrictions on the corporate officers, but those duties are perfunctory in this setup
[21:56:31] <Fnord666> I assume there are physical coops that span states so it should work.
[21:55:50] <mechanicjay> I don't believe there are any restrictions on memberships, which is a big win as we have members everywhere.
[21:55:28] <mechanicjay> Fnord666: So like any busness, you're first governed by the rules of the state you're in, then by any Federal Tax Stuff.
[21:55:07] <mechanicjay> There would be some details to work out as to what constitutes a voting member, but it seems to me something like, "Hey you sub'ed, congrats here's your voter ID card for the next year"
[21:54:39] <Fnord666> Are coops too tied to geopgraphical location or could we adapt it for our needs?
[21:54:06] <mechanicjay> The idea of a body of voting members is something we've been aspring to, but never quite reaching.
[21:53:49] <audioguy> I had exactly the same reaction.
[21:53:18] <mechanicjay> As I was researching, I really caught on to the idea of a coop, and how similar it is to the way we've run for years.
[21:53:04] <Fnord666> agreed. Let's move on.
[21:52:08] <mechanicjay> Yes, and I have a question for the board as well.
[21:52:04] <notkolie> What org structure you preferred?
[21:51:58] <notkolie> Can I ask you based on your research
[21:51:49] <audioguy> AS we have been trying to get the board to do since the first proffere was submitted.
[21:51:48] <notkolie> mechanicjay
[21:51:47] <janrinok> agreed
[21:51:45] <mechanicjay> seconded
[21:51:45] <notkolie> One second.
[21:51:41] <Deucalion> motion to move on
[21:51:34] <janrinok> when I see the original email......
[21:51:33] <notkolie> Thats why I want to stop bickering over the board and its decisions and just set a direction.
[21:51:15] <notkolie> Discussing what terms are ok to agree on - that's part of building the agreement.
[21:50:55] <notkolie> Which is why the terms will be in a signed agreement.
[21:50:23] <audioguy> Past board verbalpromises have not been kept. We are past that.
[21:50:08] <mechanicjay> Is there any other new business before opening up to community questions?
[21:49:51] <janrinok> copy the original email to us all pse
[21:49:50] <notkolie> But I speak for the board already on that - so you have it from the board.
[21:49:45] <audioguy> Great, kolie
[21:49:42] <notkolie> If that's what some would like to see.
[21:49:36] <mechanicjay> Okay.
[21:49:25] <notkolie> I withdraw the motion. I will get an email documenting the intent and propose again.
[21:49:05] <audioguy> no
[21:49:00] <janrinok> it hasn't been seconded?
[21:48:16] <audioguy> Still we should wait on this until the appropriate time.
[21:48:12] <janrinok> until then we have nothing
[21:47:58] <janrinok> show me the document and i will agree to the creation rather than exploration
[21:47:54] <notkolie> It will be part of the sale agreement.
[21:47:46] <audioguy> Fine, put it in writing.
[21:47:36] <mechanicjay> Okay. So notkolie is there a motion? (or one to be restated)?
[21:47:36] <notkolie> That was never not their intent but we have discussed exactly that.
[21:47:08] <notkolie> audioguy - I speak for the board - that is agreeable terms.
[21:46:58] <janrinok> so not in writing
[21:46:54] <audioguy> If they are to close up the pbc permanently, remome it altogether and put that in writing, THEN I would consider it.
[21:46:50] <janrinok> requerdanos, we can do that. We just don't have to commit today to specifically doing that when there are still unknowns
[21:46:49] <notkolie> They've stated as much.
[21:46:46] <notkolie> But it will include all IP and assets.
[21:46:39] <notkolie> There is no trade mark.
[21:46:25] <notkolie> It will be part of the transfer of the domain and ip.
[21:46:25] <Fnord666> They will need to transfer all IP including trademarks, copyrights, etc. related to SN.
[21:46:18] <notkolie> There will be a legal agreement to the assets and wind down yes.
[21:46:13] <requerdanos> Seems to me we should form an organization, incorporated or not, to receive the assets belonging to soylentnews, to operate and maintain same
[21:46:08] <janrinok> in writing?
[21:45:52] <notkolie> That will be part of the terms.
[21:45:46] <notkolie> But they will wind down / not use it.
[21:45:39] <notkolie> I don't either mechanicjay.
[21:45:33] <mechanicjay> audioguy: I don't understand why that matters?
[21:45:31] <notkolie> Ok well part of the deal is to include the wind down of the PBC.
[21:45:20] <audioguy> This one has ahsitory though.
[21:45:03] <notkolie> Ok? That doesn't mean anything. Anyone can register any entity name they want at any time.
[21:45:01] <audioguy> It woud be a legal nightmare.
[21:45:00] <janrinok> I would like to see that in writing first
[21:44:48] <notkolie> The terms of the transfer would include the wind down / termination of the PBC as an entity.
[21:44:47] <audioguy> The NAME of the PBC is Soylent News PBC!
[21:44:23] <notkolie> They will not be using the soylentnews name.
[21:44:16] <notkolie> The organizatin name is meaningless. They will transfer the domain.
[21:43:55] <requerdanos> we have their non-cooperation on using the existing pbc
[21:43:54] <notkolie> I speak for the board on what's included.
[21:43:53] <audioguy> We cannpt have two orgs using the same name.
[21:43:52] <mechanicjay> Deucalion: I think we're trying to figure out if we want to second the motion. A little discussion seems approrpiate
[21:43:48] <notkolie> Everything under the PBC
[21:43:44] <requerdanos> well, we have more than that
[21:43:32] <audioguy> Right now all we habe is an indication that it might sell us 'some' assets. Not good enough.
[21:43:14] <notkolie> I am open to no entity and can ammend it as such
[21:43:09] <Deucalion> and why are we discussing it the motion is not seconded?
[21:42:58] <audioguy> The reason yo gut and us the PBC is to gain complete controlof it to avoid complications later.
[21:42:54] <notkolie> mechanicjay, Just about - I mean I can think of creative things to change that but I don't think its fruitful and I talk to them ALOT.
[21:42:47] <Deucalion> not agreeing to the motion as it precludes the possibility of there being no entity at all
[21:42:33] <mechanicjay> notkolie: It's been my understanding that reusing the PBC is a non starter for the current owners?
[21:42:15] <janrinok> but you are committing us to creating a new entity - when we don't even know how we will get there.
[21:42:06] <mechanicjay> I think we've been doing that with the bylaws work, and with the corp structure research work
[21:42:05] <notkolie> If we have any compelling reasons to gut and use the PBC let's hear them now.
[21:41:44] <notkolie> But we need to focus on what is to become.
[21:41:29] <notkolie> I don't think that needs to be considered - it's a corner case - we aren't necessarily limiting it.
[21:41:19] <requerdanos> I would think that we would gain direction and purpose. Right now our mission is to explore, like cpt. kirk and co.
[21:41:12] <notkolie> I want to finish the discussion that we need to seek to gut and use the PBC.
[21:40:50] <audioguy> too early
[21:40:47] <janrinok> what do we gain by doing that?
[21:40:19] <notkolie> If we second it then we are open for discussion.
[21:40:08] <notkolie> My motion is that we see the golden path going forward as forming a new entity and installing bylaws into it.
[21:39:50] <notkolie> Right so - continuation of early discussions.
[21:39:29] <mechanicjay> Kolie, you have the floor
[21:39:18] <mechanicjay> As we have no item 4 because the chair can't count, we'll move on to 5a)
[21:39:00] <mechanicjay> OKay. Thank you for the update
[21:38:38] <janrinok> yes
[21:38:22] <mechanicjay> As am I. Jan, are you done?
[21:38:06] <notkolie> I'm good to move on.
[21:37:52] <notkolie> I think they are a fine draft and treating htem as fluid is gfine.
[21:36:33] <janrinok> There is not point in tying this meeting up with it now
[21:36:17] <janrinok> There isn't one question.....
[21:35:55] <notkolie> What was the question?
[21:35:46] <janrinok> That doesn't answer my questions but we can discuss it later elsewhere
[21:35:42] <notkolie> The specifics of which do not need to necessarily be put into the bylaws verbatim.
[21:35:13] <notkolie> But the bylaws will reference it and use it.
[21:35:05] <notkolie> And that can be tbd.
[21:35:01] <audioguy> In practice
[21:34:59] <notkolie> What I am saying is that the bylaws will say to follow a published editor criteria / training.
[21:34:57] <Bytram> I am here.
[21:34:40] <audioguy> The sysadmins have always been looser.
[21:34:30] <janrinok> It is pages long - you don't mean that
[21:34:25] <audioguy> For the Editors :-)
[21:34:20] <notkolie> That's what we are discussing right?
[21:34:14] <notkolie> In the proposed bylaws.
[21:34:06] <janrinok> IT IS DOCUMENTED.
[21:33:49] <notkolie> It seemed like the suggestions where not throwing it out but rather making modifications which delineate the powers and roles more cleanly and evenly. I don't think the entire structure was objected to. We can also resolve that the training be documented and published in a later document.
[21:33:32] <janrinok> I yield
[21:33:28] <janrinok> I respectively suggest that, kolie and sep get together and sort out suggested bylaws to cover the changes to any management that they intend or even think will be necessary...
[21:32:35] <janrinok> I do not know how training will be completed, or how a leader should accept somebody into his team, or lots of other things that have been questioned....
[21:31:41] <janrinok> If we HAVE, then somebody has to decide what the new structure will be for management. I do not know it....
[21:31:07] <janrinok> Others are suggesting that the Team Leaders and the Mangement Committee have stepped way out of line. I disagree but it is a view....
[21:30:26] <janrinok> Sep has made some interesting comments, ty. Some of them are really cosmetic and can be actioned very quickly....
[21:29:46] <janrinok> So that is what we have written. The structure that we have today.....
[21:29:25] <janrinok> The Draft was just that. A draft for discussion. I am assuming that the staff are on this committee because they know how things work....
[21:28:48] <janrinok> ty. I ask that you save questions for the end, I will yield when I have finished...
[21:28:20] <mechanicjay> I guess so, Jan, please proceed
[21:27:37] <janrinok> chair, is that all comments compete now?
[21:27:19] <Fnord666> Ah, ok. Thanks.
[21:27:19] <audioguy> He was criticsingstuff we had already changed - that is what I mean by confusion.
[21:26:21] <notkolie> https://soylentnews.org is the actual entry.
[21:26:00] <notkolie> https://soylentnews.org
[21:25:46] <janrinok> I think that ag is referring to was sep's journal
[21:25:45] <notkolie> One from a non committee member as well.
[21:25:32] <notkolie> I didn't take it as they were both drafts was that a misconception going around?
[21:25:20] <notkolie> They are both wip and just ideas and were flagged as such.
[21:25:17] <Fnord666> Which/where is the second (earlier?) draft?
[21:24:48] <audioguy> The problem wa we had two different drafts go out at the same time, quite different.
[21:23:57] <audioguy> WE should probably approve draft here first.
[21:23:56] <notkolie> For discussion and really open to anything.
[21:23:48] <notkolie> I don't think it was an issue, it should be discussed and open, and it was noted it was an early draft and just ideas.
[21:23:32] <janrinok> nope
[21:23:15] <audioguy> did anyone here give permission to make that older draft public? That sort of things causes great confusion
[21:23:06] <janrinok> I will tell you....
[21:22:47] <notkolie> Just trying to figure out how much of a flux its in atm.
[21:22:37] <janrinok> I will give my statement when you have all finished
[21:22:15] <notkolie> Will the revision have some of the discussed content changes, or is it largely minor/medium revisions of the existing draft?
[21:22:12] <janrinok> ... and they both came out on the same day
[21:21:49] <notkolie> It was mentioned that not a lot was incorporated as this was just a draft
[21:21:47] <Fnord666> For the record the draft can be found at https://soylentnews.org
[21:21:37] <notkolie> I see there was a lot of comments and activity back and forth in the journals.
[21:21:26] -!- soylentil68 [soylentil68!~soylentil@216.68.rwp.gwu] has joined #governance
[21:21:12] <audioguy> I just made mine.
[21:20:57] <mechanicjay> Okay, the floor is open for comments
[21:20:41] <janrinok> then please do, then if I may I wll make mine
[21:20:26] <janrinok> We have published the Committee's First Draft of the bylaws. If people on this committee wish to make a statment...
[21:20:23] <audioguy> What I see is we have done a lot, well past the halfway point,but still fine tuning and make small additions.
[21:19:46] <mechanicjay> Well, for the record can you give a one or two sentance summary on where things currently stand?
[21:19:04] <janrinok> I am - but I would rather hear other comments first please
[21:18:46] <mechanicjay> Okay, 3b) Status report on the progress of ByLaws. I tagged janrinok in the agenda, janrinok are you able to speak about this breifly?
[21:18:24] <Deucalion> Thanks mechanicjay
[21:18:21] <janrinok> ty mechanicjay
[21:18:09] <audioguy> Good job, by the way. Learned somethng.
[21:18:01] <mechanicjay> audioguy yarp!
[21:17:52] <audioguy> mechanicjay, did you put any of this up on the wiki?
[21:17:52] <notkolie> sure. lets move on then.
[21:17:44] <Fnord666> We have the informationthat we will need for future discussions.
[21:17:43] <mechanicjay> agreed -- notkolie, this question can be answered last as part of new bus.
[21:17:21] <audioguy> agree
[21:17:08] <Fnord666> I would like to thank mechanicjay and audioguy for their research into this. We should move on and table the discussion on that topic for now.
[21:16:29] <notkolie> mechanicjay, which way based on your reading are you leaning towards?
[21:16:14] <mechanicjay> requerdanos: That feels like it would be overstepping the charge I gave myself last week :) I know which way I'd like to go, but that's for later.
[21:15:49] <notkolie> I go to the library to read curated content.
[21:15:44] <notkolie> Not the author.
[21:15:38] <notkolie> You are the library.
[21:15:38] <requerdanos> mechanicjay, does your report come with a recommendation as to entity type(s) to pursue?
[21:15:30] <notkolie> Doesn't reduce the educational value.
[21:15:25] <notkolie> The fact that you don't make the content, but only display it
[21:15:14] <notkolie> I come to a source that educates me on topics I like.
[21:15:09] <notkolie> I get value from being educated about what's going on.
[21:14:14] <mechanicjay> notkolie: as far as news orgs go,as we don't generate any news, except about our internal dramas, I question what the educational value would be.
[21:14:11] <notkolie> writeoff.
[21:14:07] <notkolie> And yea a large donor might be inclined to do so if its a right off.
[21:13:29] <notkolie> A lot of organizations give free software, licenses etc.
[21:13:21] <notkolie> And the ability to get things under the 501c status.
[21:13:12] <audioguy> So basically it is just filling out some forms each year.
[21:13:01] <mechanicjay> exactly, so that is basically moot. So the main benefit would be for the write-off benefit for our subscribers
[21:12:26] <audioguy> If you have 0 net profit, there is no federal tax. Except for companys large enough to qualify for minimum tax - as far as I know.
[21:12:06] <mechanicjay> Again though, I don't think taxing of profits is really a thing we need to worry about.
[21:11:42] <Fnord666> audioguy: I believe that's true and the ones that allow for tax deductible donations are going to be harder to qualify for.
[21:11:32] <mechanicjay> audioguy: that is my understanding as well, those are the two main thrusts.
[21:11:21] <audioguy> I have never seen any of our users demanigna tx writeoff.
[21:10:43] <notkolie> It doesn't restrict the bylaws too much what 501c we are approved under.
[21:10:24] <audioguy> My sense is that thereare two aspects to the whole non-profit things - oneis no federaltaxes,the other is for donors being ablke to write off donations
[21:10:22] <notkolie> There may be more applicable ones - but we meet the criteria for a 501c3.
[21:10:04] <notkolie> I wouldn't discount it outright.
[21:09:25] <notkolie> https://transition.fcc.gov
[21:09:22] <notkolie> Uhm see my notes in #meeting-discuss - but several news organizations already use 501c3
[21:08:59] <mechanicjay> This concludes my report, I open the floor for questions
[21:08:24] <mechanicjay> And seem very much like not what we do here -- which is be a revenue neutral site supported by the membership.
[21:07:42] <mechanicjay> Other corp types, (S corp, C corp, PBC (b) corp) are all geared toward shared and ownership and what happens with profits and how those corporate profits are taxed.
[21:05:58] <mechanicjay> I fell upon research coops in general, and each state has different rules governing how coops are run and organized. For tax filing with the IRS with a coop, one simply needs an EIN and fill out the coop specific return forms. -- ie. a coop doesn't have to be non-profit according to the irs, just that some coops can be depending on their buisness model.
[21:04:44] <audioguy> Yeah, I remember seeing that section mentioned eectrical coops
[21:04:02] <mechanicjay> The c(12) coop thing, is interesting, but I wasn't able to dig up a lot and it seems really geared toward public utilities -- which we just aren't.
[21:03:28] <mechanicjay> of particular note is that there are hard limits for a c7 on "Services provided to the public" which kinda sinks that right there.
[21:02:57] <audioguy> sorry
[21:02:56] <notkolie> Sure.
[21:02:48] <mechanicjay> Please hold comments till the ned
[21:02:39] <mechanicjay> However, this falls downs with the The club must have an established and limited membership of individual
[21:02:39] <requerdanos> utility coops are 501(c)12
[21:02:24] <audioguy> There must be one for coops,since my local coop has it?
[21:02:19] <notkolie> Doesn't clubs have a requirement for closed membership?
[21:02:15] <mechanicjay> So, that's kind of like us in that revenue is generated directly from the membership, and that the primary purpose is for the pleasure and recreation of the memebrs
[21:01:31] <mechanicjay> The next closest 501(c) I found that kinda fit what we do, is a 501(c)7 -- Clubs
[21:01:03] <mechanicjay> while I'm somewhat entertained by the specificity of the final two categories, SN doesn't really fit into any of those. One could make a claim that a News org has an education mission, but that's a pretty far stretch for us
[21:00:09] <mechanicjay> Religious Educational Charitable Scientific Literary Testing for Public Safety to Foster National or International Amateur Sports Competition Prevention of Cruelty to Children or Animals Organizations.
[21:00:03] <mechanicjay> Of note, the IRS recognizes 501(c)3 as being in the following fields:
[20:59:46] <notkolie> Is that a specific subtype of a 501c or all 501cX's you are reporting on?
[20:59:27] <audioguy> say more
[20:58:31] <mechanicjay> I dug quite a bit deeper into the notion of a 501(c)$ type charity. There has been some notion of a 501(c)3 Non-profit. I believe I've found that that is essential a non starter given the business we are in.
[20:57:09] <mechanicjay> First I would like to thank audioguy as he did a bunch of information gathering on the topic which was super helpful to me.
[20:57:07] <Deucalion> Oh... ignore me
[20:56:53] <Deucalion> 3 ? Or were there none?
[20:56:26] <mechanicjay> Okay, item 3a, my report on corporate structure research
[20:56:09] <mechanicjay> great, the ayes have it
[20:56:08] <notkolie> aye
[20:56:06] <notkolie> ate
[20:55:53] <Deucalion> aye
[20:55:47] <requerdanos> aye
[20:55:44] <mechanicjay> aye
[20:55:40] * janrinok aye
[20:55:39] <audioguy> aye
[20:55:39] <mechanicjay> of the approving the agenda
[20:55:38] <Fnord666> aye
[20:55:29] <mechanicjay> all in favor
[20:55:20] <Fnord666> I second requerdanos motion
[20:55:12] <Fnord666> No worries.
[20:55:07] <notkolie> I approve the agenda as listed.
[20:55:07] <requerdanos> I move to accept the agenda as amended, 4 or no 4
[20:54:55] <mechanicjay> Sorry, editing on the fly here. It doesn't matter
[20:54:25] -!- separatrix [separatrix!uid604772@un-620124.ilkley.irccloud.com] has joined #governance
[20:54:22] <requerdanos> I think 4 was abandoned.
[20:54:02] <Fnord666> What happened to 4?
[20:53:54] <mechanicjay> 6) Adjourn
[20:53:52] <mechanicjay> 5b)Comments from the community.,
[20:53:50] <mechanicjay> 5a) Discussion about committe direction
[20:53:48] <mechanicjay> 5) New Business
[20:53:46] <mechanicjay> 3b) report from Jan on Bylaws
[20:53:46] <mechanicjay> 3a) Update from Mechanicjay on corporate structures
[20:53:46] <mechanicjay> 3) Committee Member Reports on previously assigned tasks
[20:53:46] <mechanicjay> 2) Proposed Agenda
[20:53:46] <mechanicjay> 1) Previous Minutes
[20:53:29] <mechanicjay> Okay, proposed agenda (as I think I understand it):
[20:53:29] <Deucalion> Does kolie need a second to get an agenda item added?
[20:53:06] <audioguy> Rather get things right.
[20:52:57] <audioguy> Same here janrinok
[20:52:41] <mechanicjay> Yes, Deucalion, that's right.
[20:52:29] <janrinok> And I don't like being rushed with new proposals
[20:52:27] <Deucalion> It'll be 5a then 5b) Comments from the community ??
[20:52:26] <audioguy> We need to finish present work first. I think that is reasonable.
[20:52:05] <janrinok> that would be a cleaner solution
[20:51:44] <Fnord666> It's just a new item to be brought up under new business. We don't have to debate it right now.
[20:51:34] <audioguy> inother words,'not decided' yet
[20:51:10] <audioguy> That dependes upon our negotiations as well.
[20:50:51] <mechanicjay> Nope, still waiting on approval, once people understand kolie's agenda item
[20:50:51] <janrinok> I thought so too
[20:50:32] <audioguy> I thought we already approved the aganda,if not, sorry.
[20:50:17] <notkolie> So we are to form a new org then audioguy
[20:49:50] <audioguy> I propose the diretion whould be finish the bylaws, then gather into and determine what type of org
[20:49:50] <notkolie> We are just approving the agenda, lets get it on if theres to be a discussion.
[20:49:48] <mechanicjay> Sorry, notkolie, I think were a little muddled here, can you state a clear New Buisness Item for 5a.
[20:49:31] <notkolie> requerdanos, essentially.
[20:49:03] <notkolie> If we don't like the proposal or disagree vote no.
[20:48:52] <notkolie> I'd like a vote from those present on what direction that is.
[20:48:35] <notkolie> I don't want to waste time and I want the committee to clarify it's direction.
[20:48:17] <requerdanos> janrinok, looks to me like he wants to vote on whether we just "explore" forming a new entity, or whether we actually work to "form" one
[20:48:13] <audioguy> Please let kolie make a clear proposal
[20:48:05] <notkolie> That's what the agenda item is.
[20:47:54] <janrinok> not until somebody explains what we are talking about
[20:47:44] <notkolie> I want to discuss and vote on the committee direction to clarify that direction.
[20:47:27] <mechanicjay> is that a second?
[20:47:26] <janrinok> I don't understand the addition
[20:47:05] <notkolie> I approve it with the addition.
[20:46:53] <Fnord666> I make a motion that we accept the proposed agenda
[20:46:49] <mechanicjay> We have a proposed agenda above, with the addition of a 5a) about discussing or voting upon on structre
[20:46:30] * Deucalion shushes
[20:46:19] <Deucalion> no
[20:46:17] <mechanicjay> no
[20:46:12] <notkolie> Are we discussing hte item now?
[20:46:03] <Deucalion> What is there to vote on?
[20:46:03] <notkolie> If its not ready we vote appropriately.
[20:45:58] <audioguy> Just thought I woudmentin that :-)
[20:45:57] <mechanicjay> Okay, we're getting off track here
[20:45:57] <notkolie> But I'd like to add it to the agenda to discuss.
[20:45:49] <notkolie> So we can discuss and vote today as we please based on that.
[20:45:40] <notkolie> I didn't want to propose a type.
[20:45:21] <audioguy> The oder we had was to finish the bylaws, then select a type most suited. Not quite there yet.
[20:45:10] <mechanicjay> Sorry I missed that, as I said, I wasn't ready to be chair! Yes, can you bring that up as part of new business after we hear the progress reports?
[20:45:09] <Fnord666> Would you post a link to your comment please?
[20:45:06] <notkolie> Is that to be discussed today?
[20:44:50] <notkolie> MechanicJay, If you feel your report is necessary for that, I will wait to motion for that if you feel it would be prudent.
[20:44:49] <janrinok> can we at least hear mechanicjay's presentation on the subject ?
[20:43:57] <audioguy> Sometime workload does not match meeting schedules
[20:43:57] <notkolie> I have an item I posted in the meta post for the agenda. I'd like to move and if seconded, discuss and vote on the direction we are moving in wrt setup of the proposed entity.
[20:43:31] <audioguy> I propose this be a short meeting- we stillhave commens coming in and are adding stuff and fixing stuff in the bylaws.
[20:43:12] <mechanicjay> Kolie accepted a note in the current minutes with the correction, moving on.
[20:42:33] <mechanicjay> 6) Adjourn
[20:42:31] <mechanicjay> 5a) Comments from the community.,
[20:42:29] <mechanicjay> 5) New Business
[20:42:27] <mechanicjay> 3b) report from Jan on Bylaws
[20:42:25] <mechanicjay> 3a) Update from Mechanicjay on corporate structures
[20:42:25] <mechanicjay> 3) Committee Member Reports on previously assigned tasks
[20:42:25] <mechanicjay> 2) Proposed Agenda
[20:42:25] <mechanicjay> 1) Previous Minutes
[20:42:25] <mechanicjay> With a quick edit of last weeks agenda, I propose the following agenda for today:
[20:42:24] <Deucalion> point of order - kolie accepted the minutes before raising that note
[20:42:03] <notkolie> Good with that.
[20:41:55] <mechanicjay> Sounds like they're approved, with the note above
[20:41:50] <audioguy> note
[20:41:44] <audioguy> we can not that inthis weeks minutes
[20:40:59] <notkolie> Around 5b.
[20:40:50] <notkolie> The minutes didn't reflect my leaving towards the end.
[20:40:44] -!- aristarchus [aristarchus!~aristarch@156.146.oz.umh] has joined #governance
[20:40:19] <notkolie> aye
[20:40:18] <notkolie> https://soylentnews.org
[20:40:18] * janrinok aye
[20:40:13] <Deucalion> aye
[20:40:13] * mechanicjay aye
[20:40:10] <mechanicjay> All infavor:
[20:39:58] <audioguy> aye
[20:39:57] <Fnord666> seconded
[20:39:46] <janrinok> proposed
[20:39:23] <mechanicjay> So first would be approval of last weeks minutes
[20:39:14] <mechanicjay> Okay, a formal agenda wasn't proposed as far as I know -- but I think we could follow the same basic format as last time
[20:38:01] <Deucalion> indeed
[20:37:36] <mechanicjay> quorum
[20:37:29] <mechanicjay> wtf
[20:37:27] <mechanicjay> Okay, 7 of are here, sounds like a quarrum
[20:37:00] <notkolie> good for side bars :)
[20:36:28] <notkolie> I'm also active in #meeting-discuss
[20:36:22] <audioguy> And I am not using a vpn
[20:35:48] <notkolie> It's a complex issue resulting from accessing at work over vpn and its not a quick fix so - I setup a rdp for this.
[20:35:48] <audioguy> I have been bumped off a lot in the past.
[20:35:29] <notkolie> I get dc'd every 1m:30s.
[20:35:20] <audioguy> ah
[20:35:12] <notkolie> I am having issues with how I normally access irc.
[20:35:00] <audioguy> Why do you use notkolie?
[20:34:21] <notkolie> I am here and I am kolie. Check my whois for verification.
[20:33:39] * requerdanos here
[20:33:36] <audioguy> audioguy here
[20:33:36] * Fnord666 present
[20:33:34] * Deucalion here
[20:33:28] * janrinok here
[20:33:07] <mechanicjay> Let's take roll while I gather my wits
[20:33:03] -!- progo [progo!~progo@2600:4041:42a6:nwsh:rjhn:ximq:ytip:prvq] has joined #governance
[20:32:59] <mechanicjay> Okay, Well, I need a minute
[20:32:48] <Deucalion> 20:54
[20:32:36] <mechanicjay> Sorry, I missed that note
[20:32:26] <notkolie> He said he was ill prepared to chair today due to surgery.
[20:32:17] * Fnord666 can be the acting recliner
[20:32:12] <mechanicjay> ho ho, not prepared for that, but if cmn32480 doesn't show, I guess so.
[20:31:32] <notkolie> mechanicjay, I guess you are acting chair then?
[20:30:56] * Fnord666 wanders in and sits quietly in the back
[20:26:45] <Deucalion> So now we know kolie sleeps on his bathroom floor
[20:26:28] <mechanicjay> Go old timey with a chamber pot and dump it out the window in the morning on to the peasants.
[20:25:35] <notkolie> Gotta have a good pelvic floor.
[20:25:25] <notkolie> Arc it into the toilet.
[20:25:11] * janrinok hates getting out of bed for a pee.... but it is better than the alternative!
[20:24:00] -!- mode/#governance [+o audioguy] by Deucalion
[20:23:07] <Deucalion> hi janrinok
[20:22:57] <janrinok> hi mj, juggs
[20:22:45] * Deucalion achieves sentience
[20:22:13] * mechanicjay is here
[20:14:27] * janrinok is falling asleep already....
[20:09:49] <requerdanos> So far my efforts have not procured a substitute.
[20:09:24] <requerdanos> pre-meeting announcement: I, your humble secretary, will be unavailable on Sept 1 (Doctor appointment), Sept 8 (vacation to Florida), and Sept 15 (still in Florida). Someone else will need to do the taking of the notes for minutes and such.
[19:56:58] <janrinok> I hope the surgery was successful, however, and that in the longer term you will feel better.
[19:54:53] <chromas> =agenda
[19:54:47] <chromas> Do we need a chair bot?
[19:54:18] <cmn32480> I'm not in any shape to talk in, much less manage this meeting. thought I would be...
[19:53:38] <cmn32480> all - I'm still feeling pretty shit from my surgery yesterday. (the anesthesia really knocked me for a loop, as are the pain killers).
[19:52:54] <janrinok> \o
[19:52:40] <notkolie> o/
[19:51:14] * janrinok checking in
[18:09:16] -!- audioguy [audioguy!~audioguy@Soylent/Staff/Developer/audioguy] has joined #governance
[17:37:47] -!- BosS [BosS!~info@63-29-985-71.static.zebra.lt] has parted #governance
[17:37:31] -!- BosS [BosS!~info@63-29-985-71.static.zebra.lt] has joined #governance
[09:51:36] -!- aristarchus has quit [Quit: Client closed]
[09:42:35] -!- aristarchus [aristarchus!~aristarch@89.187.gys.y] has joined #governance
[02:37:30] -!- kolie [kolie!~kolie@208.91.qqu.m] has joined #governance
[02:36:45] -!- kolie has quit [Quit: ZNC 1.8.2 - https://znc.in]
[02:12:27] -!- kolie [kolie!~kolie@208.91.qqu.m] has joined #governance
[02:11:13] -!- kolie has quit [Quit: ZNC 1.8.2 - https://znc.in]