#meeting-discuss | Logs for 2023-08-18
« return
[05:41:20] -!- mechanicjay [mechanicjay!~mechanicj@Soylent/Staff/Sysop/mechanicjay] has parted #meeting-discuss
[17:01:03] -!- kolie [kolie!~kolie@Soylent/Staff/Management/kolie] has joined #meeting-discuss
[17:01:03] -!- mode/#meeting-discuss [+o kolie] by ChanServ
[17:05:47] <janrinok> here
[20:19:08] <janrinok> ... and janrinok is here too
[20:19:18] -!- separatrix [separatrix!uid604772@un-620124.ilkley.irccloud.com] has joined #meeting-discuss
[20:27:03] * Fnord666 is here
[20:27:34] <separatrix> I’m here. I’m going to be grumpy.
[20:27:48] <janrinok> janrinok checking in
[20:28:06] <Fnord666> Just remember that 6 of the dwarves were not happy.
[20:29:05] <separatrix> I’m both dopey and a little bashful
[20:29:57] -!- notkolie79 [notkolie79!~notkolie@Soylent/Staff/Management/kolie] has joined #meeting-discuss
[20:29:57] -!- mode/#meeting-discuss [+o notkolie79] by ChanServ
[20:30:02] <notkolie79> im here as well
[20:30:08] <separatrix> I can already see a procedural train wreck here. The committee needs to elect a permanent chair already.
[20:30:48] -!- Deucalion [Deucalion!~Fluff@Soylent/Staff/IRC/juggs] has joined #meeting-discuss
[20:31:29] <separatrix> It would be helpful if those who are part of the committee would say so
[20:32:03] <separatrix> Ie those who are eligible to vote in decisions to be made
[20:34:41] <separatrix> is cosurgi a committee member? I’ve lost track of who’s who
[20:36:12] <separatrix> eye roll. It’s like there are no rules
[20:36:59] <separatrix> I mean, I thought the governance channel during meetings was only for people who are authorized to speak
[20:37:34] -!- cosurgi [cosurgi!~cosurgi@Soylent/Staff/Misc/cosurgi] has joined #meeting-discuss
[20:38:14] <notkolie79> As long as we get shit done it's what it is.
[20:38:47] <Fnord666> You are technically correct separatrix and that's the best kind of correct!
[20:38:49] <Deucalion> We could set it moderated
[20:39:05] <Deucalion> Would rather not though
[20:39:49] <separatrix> I don’t get why not. Unless you have control over who speaks, it can be gamed, and not just by those who are not on the committee.
[20:39:50] <Fnord666> That was my thought as well.
[20:40:10] <Fnord666> re moderated.
[20:40:17] <separatrix> BTW, only 4 people approved the minutes. You have eight members
[20:40:24] <Fnord666> If it looks like an issue is occurring we can take that step
[20:40:46] <separatrix> The minutes must be approved by a majority, which is 5
[20:40:58] <notkolie79> I voted on the minutes.
[20:41:03] <Deucalion> 5 approved
[20:41:08] <Deucalion> Unless I cannot count
[20:41:11] <Fnord666> A majority of the members present
[20:41:29] <separatrix> You abstained, Deuc
[20:41:29] <notkolie79> If you count the chair yea 5.
[20:41:56] <notkolie79> fnord, jan, req, mecha, myself
[20:41:58] <notkolie79> that is 5.
[20:42:08] <Fnord666> At least I think that's how it works as long as there's a quorum.
[20:42:23] <separatrix> Mechanicjay, requerdanos, janrinok, fnord
[20:42:43] <separatrix> If you have no meeting rules documented, I guess you guys can do whatever
[20:42:55] <separatrix> Kolie, you’re not a voting member of the board any more
[20:43:08] <Fnord666> Who said that?
[20:43:19] <separatrix> remember, you stepped down at the request of janrinok and audioguy
[20:43:34] <separatrix> They wanted you not only to not be chair, but to not vote. Am I remembering incorrectly?
[20:43:50] <Deucalion> Is kolie authorised to talk on behalf of the board?
[20:43:53] <separatrix> ¯\(°_o)/¯ look, I’ll shut up
[20:44:11] <Fnord666> As far as I can recall they just asked that he recuse himself as the chair
[20:44:48] <Deucalion> separatrix, don't do that - I'm rather enjoying your input :D
[20:45:03] <Fnord666> Deucalion: Not sure. I know he is relaying information provided to him by Matt at this point.
[20:45:08] <separatrix> :D glad you are. But man, is this ever a Robert’s Rules nightmare
[20:45:37] <separatrix> Last I knew, kolie was in fact authorized by the board to speak for the board, and even to make some decisions for them
[20:46:09] <Fnord666> It's the Bob's Rules of Order version.
[20:46:39] <separatrix> Fnord666 hahahaha
[20:47:13] <separatrix> Don’t “vacate” the floor, just yield it
[20:47:23] <notkolie79> I'm on the board , and am the COO of the pbc.
[20:47:31] <separatrix> (Sorry, Kolie, I’m being a sassy sidelined parliamentarian)
[20:47:39] <notkolie79> I'll yield your ass by vacating my peen from it.
[20:47:42] <notkolie79> lol
[20:47:54] <notkolie79> i love you sep hows your morning.
[20:48:06] <notkolie79> I haven't had coffee - I'm lucky I came up with the word vacate at all.
[20:48:09] <separatrix> Afternoon? 79 and getting hotter
[20:48:17] <separatrix> you’re doing great for a feral legislator
[20:49:06] <notkolie79> I guess we got a storm coming into socal.
[20:49:23] <separatrix> claps for janrinok, who “yielded” rather than “vacated”
[20:50:18] <separatrix> Kolie, if the board is reimbursed, do they really want money for the stock?
[20:51:14] <janrinok> separatrix, nobody knows....
[20:51:34] <notkolie79> separatrix, see the email.
[20:52:50] <notkolie79> https://soylentnews.org
[20:57:00] <separatrix> “The community has not been asked what it wants"??
[20:57:30] <separatrix> since when is there going to be a plebiscite
[20:57:38] <Deucalion> Indeed. SoylentNews is People :)
[20:58:10] <separatrix> Well, I’ve been asking for weeks now, how will the people be polled? Which people will be polled?
[20:58:20] <janrinok> we are community led - that is what is important. Do we want a NFP, PBC or something else. That is what you have been discussing?
[20:59:18] <requerdanos> merits and drawbacks of different entity types is on the agenda
[20:59:19] <separatrix> You are “community-led”…what does that mean?
[20:59:58] <janrinok> They have a say in how the site is run on major decisions.
[21:00:35] <separatrix> They have a say…who is “they” exactly? Readers? Commenters? Moderators? People with system access?
[21:00:47] <Deucalion> TBD
[21:01:10] <janrinok> The active community - as defined in the bylaws that you have seen and commented on to me in an email.
[21:01:44] <separatrix> The bylaws that you’re proposing, jan, or the bylaws that you expect will be the bylaws?
[21:02:03] <separatrix> IIRC, your definition of the “active community” is staff
[21:02:17] <janrinok> It doesn't change. All those people who have accounts - yes
[21:02:17] <Deucalion> :/
[21:03:09] <separatrix> Sorry, jan, by “accounts” you mean “system privileges”, right?
[21:03:29] <janrinok> NO - accounts, user names, You, me etc
[21:04:25] <separatrix> I don’t have that bylaw proposal in front of me, but I have glanced at it. Will there be a minimum of karma or posting to qualify someone with an account to vote?
[21:05:29] <janrinok> nope - and account.
[21:05:46] <janrinok> *an account
[21:06:51] * Deucalion goes to register 1000 accounts :P
[21:07:02] <separatrix> Exactly, Deuc
[21:07:22] <janrinok> too late - it has now been announce and that is the cutoff
[21:07:30] <separatrix> If you want me to game the system, I’ll get a bunch of friends to sign up and vote and then fugeddaboudit
[21:08:25] <janrinok> too late - it has been announced a few minutes ago. That is it!
[21:08:31] <separatrix> what’s too late?
[21:09:40] <separatrix> bytram, that’s why you should name a vice chair, precisely to *avoid* ad hoc ness. Ad hoc decisions are poorer decisions
[21:10:08] <janrinok> to create a new account that will have a voting right. 35172 is the lastest UID
[21:10:53] <separatrix> What will be the period before an election during which new accounts cannot vote — two weeks? Two months? \
[21:11:26] <requerdanos> two minutes?
[21:11:32] <janrinok> wait until this meeting is over. please
[21:12:03] <separatrix> ok
[21:19:28] <separatrix> this sideline conversation about editorial policy is offtopic
[21:19:59] <separatrix> The question of corporations can and should be resolved by paying a lawyer and/or accountant for exactly one hour of their time to answer everyone’s questions in a formal chat
[21:20:17] <separatrix> the real issue is the toxic existing bylaws, which have everyone fretting about “stock”
[21:23:14] -!- mechanicjay [mechanicjay!~mechanicj@Soylent/Staff/Sysop/mechanicjay] has joined #meeting-discuss
[21:23:15] <separatrix> Hire a lawyer, folks
[21:23:24] <mechanicjay> let's be a Farmers Coop 521(a)!
[21:23:40] <separatrix> Hahaha
[21:27:32] <separatrix> If you guys were to create a task force to report on nap corps, would the rest of the board trust their findings?
[21:28:02] <separatrix> you guys really should be soliciting a professional. One-time, swallow the cost, $150, maybe $200, for one hour of their time. Ask all the questions you ever wanted to ask.
[21:28:13] <separatrix> That way everyone will finally feel like the question has been settled
[21:29:51] <separatrix> Sure, ok, make the task force, but follow it up with that accountant/lawyer AMA so that y’all can have closure on the topic
[21:30:23] <requerdanos> Sounds like a good idea to me.
[21:30:44] <Deucalion> agreed
[21:33:01] <separatrix> “Everybody here has access” is not the same as publicly posted
[21:33:28] <janrinok> one step at a time.
[21:33:45] <Deucalion> Once we have a draft fleshed out I'm sure we can share
[21:33:46] <separatrix> that should be the first step
[21:34:40] <separatrix> But okay. Now that we’re in the bylaws, my question is still key: exactly what is the procedure for elections? This is where the “how long must an account be active to be eligible? Comes in
[21:34:42] <janrinok> well, where do you suggest we do it and how will you control it? And what is to protect it from another shutdown threat?
[21:35:02] <separatrix> How about archive.org?
[21:35:28] <notkolie79> Shutdown threat of bylaws? What's the concern.
[21:36:10] <separatrix> Why can’t the 0.1 draft — first I’ve heard it characterized so — be posted to “the community” on SN itself in the Meta section? Let opinions be posted therein
[21:36:51] <separatrix> It doesn’t have to be edited in a journal!
[21:37:04] <separatrix> Most people have comments! They can be put in or not by an editor!
[21:37:19] <janrinok> It can when it is ready - having half finished sentences is not much use
[21:37:39] <Deucalion> Meh - my numerology - v0.XX are drafts. v1.0 is the go live form
[21:37:56] <separatrix> Who is the Thomas Jefferson of this document? How will you decide what “ready” is? AFAIC, any draft is “ready”. Just get it out there
[21:38:02] <janrinok> It doesn't go live until it is approved
[21:38:08] <separatrix> Approved by WHOM
[21:38:23] <separatrix> nvm we’ll discuss after
[21:38:53] <janrinok> We are on revision 47 - how many of those revisions would you have wanted to see?
[21:39:25] <separatrix> First I’d like to know who “we” is who’s authoring and revising it
[21:39:44] <separatrix> And yes, I expected that the document would and could be edited via discussion on SN
[21:40:36] <janrinok> well please tell us how. We are only the editors
[21:40:40] <separatrix> Here go audioguy and janrinok revisiting complaints that are long-standing and well known
[21:41:07] <janrinok> I haven't said anything - don't accuse me of something I haven't done, thankyou
[21:41:25] <separatrix> you echoed audioguy’s complaint about the “theft” of SN
[21:41:41] <janrinok> I was replying to Deucalion
[21:42:15] <separatrix> “Only if we pay” whom, the Board to get the assets, or a government entity to form a new corp?
[21:43:00] <janrinok> You have had all week to ask questions like this rather than snipe at me in comments. Lets have this meeting first, shall we?
[21:43:30] <separatrix> sure.
[21:44:38] <separatrix> Audioguy’s assertion is the kind that he can only prove in court
[21:46:05] <separatrix> just called it SN Holding Corporation already, and don’t worry about putting the letters “PBC” or “LLC” or anything into the name. That can be changed later
[21:49:39] <Deucalion> The legal entity name is just that - a name. Call it "farts in a colander"
[21:50:13] <Deucalion> Agree on not putting PBC or LLC or NFP etc actually in the entity name.... that'd be silly
[21:50:16] * janrinok contacts GoDaddy and bags that name
[21:50:22] <mechanicjay> SoylentNews, operated by Farts in a colander -- a 521(c) Farmers Coop
[21:50:27] <requerdanos> I think it should be capitalized. yeah.
[21:50:45] <Deucalion> Too many Brussel Sprouts
[21:51:52] <separatrix> Farts in a Colander — the new scent-nation from Texas A&M Perfumeries, Inc
[21:51:53] <Fnord666> Lol
[21:52:27] * janrinok bags that name too
[21:53:12] <separatrix> scent-sation
[21:53:21] <separatrix> Dang it autocorrect
[21:53:44] <Fnord666> notkolie79: Do we have NC's response documented somewhere?
[21:54:09] <Fnord666> Now what celebrity will we have to line up to pimp it on television?
[21:54:25] <notkolie79> Email from NC regarding - why not just sign documents signing over liability:
[21:54:26] <notkolie79> Uh, I can't promise I'll have Internet access on that date. I can try, but I'm going to be travelling, and my schedule is unfixed. Most of next week is a wash as well, and consistent net access is going to be a question mark for August.
[21:54:27] <notkolie79> 1. The liability is that that the site is still running outdated Apache, and what happens in case of date breach or otherwise cause GDPR and such.
[21:54:27] <notkolie79> 2/3. I'm not sure what sort of guarantee could be made.
[21:55:03] <janrinok> separatrix, are you on your phone again?
[21:55:11] <separatrix> No laptop
[21:55:17] <janrinok> k
[21:55:28] <separatrix> rephrase: no, I’m on my laptop
[21:55:31] <notkolie79> So NC basically punted it and just repeated what he said before re: liability with the existing PBC. Matt actually answered and addressed it more or less.
[21:55:44] <Fnord666> thank you.
[21:55:59] <Fnord666> And that sounds about right. :)
[21:56:13] <janrinok> separatrix, that is what I thought you meant :)
[21:56:19] <separatrix> It only takes two of the three board members to approve a final deal, no? Does the board need to vote unanimously? While that’d be cleaner, I wonder if it’s required
[21:56:52] <Bytram> back (PC crashed)00000000000
[21:56:54] <Fnord666> I believe the current bylaws specify a simple majority
[22:01:07] <separatrix> jan, why are you and audioguy hung up on a formal statement rejecting the proffers? It seems that this governance committee has been your answer all along
[22:03:22] <janrinok> Because that is what is supposed to be done.
[22:03:53] <separatrix> According to…whom, exactly?
[22:03:58] <separatrix> Where does it say?
[22:04:16] <separatrix> Why is the board’s response of a governance committee not an adequate answer?
[22:04:19] <requerdanos> sure, it's supposed to be done, kind and respectful and all, but why do *you* care how the board responds, knowing that it's a no, regardless of manners and morals?
[22:04:42] <requerdanos> just righteous indignation? or what?
[22:04:57] <separatrix> Waits for an answer to requerdanos
[22:05:10] <requerdanos> just expressing curiosity.
[22:05:13] <separatrix> same
[22:05:16] <janrinok> They were sent formally. the response should be formal too
[22:05:40] <separatrix> yeah. That’s not a thing.
[22:05:51] <separatrix> “Should” is not a thing.
[22:06:08] <janrinok> I've got separatrix on 'ignore' at the moment. He can ask his questions in an email tomorrow.
[22:06:12] <separatrix> That’s a word that should [sic] never be in any bylaws, either. You use only “shall” or “may”
[22:06:27] <separatrix> ::tips hat to janrinok::
[22:06:55] <separatrix> Meanwhile, can we take up a collection to get bytram an iPad or something that won’t crash
[22:08:23] <separatrix> but for the sake of the irc log, this is what I’ve come to expect from jan: selective, elliptical answers to my questions
[22:10:13] <separatrix> Hey, I agree with Audioguy for once. I like all his points…except for the “Staff or Active Community” part. The Staff is a subset of the Active Community. It should just be the latter that’s named there.
[22:10:45] <janrinok> damn - it's tomorrow already
[22:11:10] <separatrix> haha sorry jr
[22:11:41] <Fnord666> Good morning janrinok!
[22:11:54] <separatrix> In early response to Audioguy: I think the Board said here, form this committee and make bylaws and we’ll agree to them
[22:12:08] <janrinok> lol - good morning
[22:12:40] <separatrix> but I feel like that’s the first statement from “Staff” that I’ve found reasonable. That’s good news.
[22:16:43] <separatrix> The question I would ask now in Governance channel would be: the Board has already responded to your challenge by asking the nine of you to create new governance that they would then approve so they can shed responsibility for the enterprise
[22:17:14] <requerdanos> That isn't a question, merely an astute observation.
[22:17:32] <separatrix> well, I guess the Q would be to audioguy: don’t you see?
[22:18:09] <separatrix> You say “second” to second, Deuc
[22:18:43] <separatrix> Then the chair says, “All in favor, say aye” and then everyone votes including the maker and seconder of the motion
[22:20:44] <Deucalion> Thanks
[22:21:55] <Fnord666> So what's after that? "All opposed, say ????"
[22:21:59] <separatrix> yep
[22:22:02] <Fnord666> nay?
[22:22:14] <separatrix> A quicker way is to take a “voice vote,” but we’re in irc
[22:22:22] <requerdanos> unless there's enough votes to pass the motion, in which case no need for those opposed to speak
[22:22:40] <separatrix> if anyone voting objects to a voice vote, where the individual votes are not recorded, they have the singular privilege of being able to call for a roll-call vote
[22:22:46] <requerdanos> in meetings I frequent we usually vote "no", not "nay"
[22:22:59] <separatrix> It’s more a matter of getting objections on the record if an objector wishes
[22:23:20] <separatrix> but in this forum, everyone has to “speak” by typing so it’s effectively a roll-call
[22:23:24] <Fnord666> My experience has only been that a voice vote or individual vote is taken only of it was too hard to determine if there was a majority using the previous method.
[22:23:39] <separatrix> Aye and nay are fine, yes and no are fine, as long as the vote is understandable
[22:23:48] <Fnord666> Although that is a good point re IRC separatrix
[22:23:52] <Deucalion> Yes / No seems fine to me - Aye / Nay... ffs it's not 1600 any more
[22:23:58] <separatrix> that’s another reason for a roll-call vote, fnord
[22:24:11] <Fnord666> Wait, I don't have to wear this powdered wig?
[22:24:12] <separatrix> I use aye and nay all the time
[22:24:25] <separatrix> But I agree these robes can be itchy
[22:24:40] <Deucalion> Probably walking down the street "nay nay nay nay nay and thrice nay and aye"
[22:24:55] <Fnord666> But breezy depending on what you wear, or chose not to, underneath them.
[22:24:59] <separatrix> sounds like a song
[22:25:18] <separatrix> literally the reason for robes and dresses, yep
[22:25:21] <separatrix> And kilts
[22:25:27] <Deucalion> Isn't it kilts that are notoriously breezy in the nether parts?
[22:25:46] <Deucalion> ninja'd
[22:26:15] <separatrix> if the word “commando” didn’t exist centuries ago I wonder what scotsmen used to describe that there kilt action
[22:26:46] <Fnord666> Just an FYI: kilts and black leather motorcycle seats do not go together in the summer.
[22:27:30] <separatrix> recipe for adhesive
[22:28:04] <Fnord666> Or probably in the winter either for that matter.
[22:30:40] <separatrix> cmn shows up and sees the horror he’s missed
[22:31:09] <Fnord666> lol
[22:40:12] -!- aristarchus [aristarchus!~aristarch@169.150.lpj.yi] has joined #meeting-discuss
[22:46:50] <Deucalion> You're a little late aristarchus
[22:47:44] <aristarchus> It's a time era issue.
[22:48:15] <requerdanos> We are currently in the computer-space era. Does that help? :)
[22:48:27] <Deucalion> All sound Greek to me
[22:49:27] <aristarchus> Calibrating my celestial navigation (Antikythera ) device.
[22:49:40] <Fnord666> I was just thinking of that same mechanism.
[23:16:23] <aristarchus> Any word on getting actual numbers on anything? Number of stocks, valuation?
[23:18:52] <requerdanos> it should be in the logs of the #governance channel
[23:19:43] <notkolie79> aristarchus the stock holders are known
[23:19:46] <aristarchus> Don't see any firm numbers there.
[23:19:52] <notkolie79> They "Hope" to recover their initial investment.
[23:19:59] <notkolie79> So that sets an upper limit.,
[23:20:22] <aristarchus> So what was that initial investment, and are there reciepts?
[23:20:43] <notkolie79> 5k each, and yea there would be record of it.
[23:21:41] <aristarchus> Funny, I thought it was 2k. Would be, or is?
[23:21:55] <notkolie79> There is.
[23:22:37] <notkolie79> bank statements, corp record.s
[23:23:08] <notkolie79> I dont think theres any doubt, but I also think everyone knows it isnt worth what went into it.
[23:25:55] <separatrix> but that at least brings the amount in question to an upper limit of four figures as the maximum possible amount that might be discussed
[23:44:23] -!- aristarchus has quit [Quit: Client closed]