SC Transcript - 22 July 2008

[Claude Desmoulins]

Meeting on 2008-07-22
Those present:
Claude Desmoulins is in the chair.
Moon Adamant has indicated consent to be recorded.
Claude Desmoulins: The recorder is on. Please touch it.
Dnate Mars has indicated consent to be recorded.
Dnate Mars: heh
Claude Desmoulins: Let's get started.
Pip Torok has indicated consent to be recorded.
Cindy Ecksol has indicated consent to be recorded.
Claude Desmoulins: The first item is MT's challenge of the election.
Claude Desmoulins: There's been a fair amount of traffic on the forums about this. I hope people have had a chance to read it.
Moon Adamant: can you give us the link?
Claude Desmoulins: Comments from the rest of the SC?
Claude Desmoulins: I don't have forums up at the moment. Does someone else?
Cindy Ecksol: one moment....am looking
Moon Adamant: hi Dnate, hi Jamie
Dnate Mars: My thought is that there is really nothing to the claim. The CDS has always used the 0-count system, basically it was just brought up again because this time it actually mattered
Jamie Palisades: Cheers all.. Here merely as an observer failing some bizarre turn
Cindy Ecksol: hmmm...lots on the chancellor removal, but I do not see any posted conversation on MT's appeal other than the posting of the appeal and Jon's comments
Dnate Mars: We didn't decide anything after the fact anything
Gwyneth Llewelyn: hi
Cindy Ecksol: I agree with Dnate: Jon calculated and mentioned the 1-count only for his own intellectual curiousity
Pip Torok: hi G
Claude Desmoulins: Note. Stay off forums.
Claude Desmoulins: (to self)
Gwyneth Llewelyn:
Cindy Ecksol: his comments had no impact on us, they were merely commentary
Claude Desmoulins: I'd make two points here.
Claude Desmoulins: Re running the entire election is unneccesary because switching from 1 to 0 changes one seat.
Moon Adamant: hi Brian
Cindy Ecksol: a correction, claude....
Brian Livingston: (Hi All)
Cindy Ecksol: rerunning the election is irrelevant.
Cindy Ecksol: the Borda count has nothing to do with the election per se, it is applied after the fact to allocate seats
Claude Desmoulins: Right, Cindy.
Claude Desmoulins: Also, changing 1 to 0 didn't change the options available to voters, unlike last election where we had to decide elimination or no elimination before the polls opened.
Cindy Ecksol: exactly.
Claude Desmoulins: Ideally the RA would have settled this before the polls opened, as Jamie so kindly pointed out.
Claude Desmoulins: Since they didn't , it got tossed to us to sort out as best we could. I think we did that given our adherence to the mass of electoral precedent in the CDS,
Cindy Ecksol: claude, I would argue that there was nothing to settle: the 0-count has always been used except for Jon's mistaken use in the Jan 2008 election
Cindy Ecksol: and that one was corrected when noticed so ALL of the elections have used the 0-count to allocate seats
Claude Desmoulins: Is there a consensus to deny MT's petition then?
Cindy Ecksol: aye
Dnate Mars: aye
Claude Desmoulins: I concur.
Claude Desmoulins: Next.
Claude Desmoulins: Membership.
Claude Desmoulins: We're about to lose a member as Justice moves over to LRA.
Claude Desmoulins: Does anyone have nominations?
Cindy Ecksol: not I
Dnate Mars: MT Lundquist
Claude Desmoulins: I was going to toss out Jamie's name, and no I haven't asked him.
Claude Desmoulins: OK we have Jamie and MT.
Cindy Ecksol thinks we have a ways to go to get to 9...
Claude Desmoulins: Any comments on either candidate, and Dnate, have you asked MT about this yet?
Dnate Mars: I haave not, but here he comes
Cindy Ecksol: perhaps we should ask BOTH candidates
Claude Desmoulins: Do you want to speak in support of him?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: hi MT
MT Lundquist: o the sc sorry i'm late i got the hour wrong in conversion
MT Lundquist: if you will give me a moment i have a submission
Moon Adamant: hello MT.
Dnate Mars: First, I would liek to hear from them if they would be willing to serve and why they would like to
Claude Desmoulins: Is this new or the same one you sent me Sunday?
Claude Desmoulins: MT? Is this a new submission?
Gwyneth Llewelyn wonders if MT crashed...
Cindy Ecksol: Claude, perhaps we could have Jamie speak first?
Dnate Mars: We can move onto Jamie
Claude Desmoulins: Perhaps we could let Jamie speak while MT recovers and perhaps someone can catch him up.
Claude Desmoulins: Jamie...
Jamie Palisades: Hi there
Jamie Palisades: Just speakign up to evince being here
Jamie Palisades: Actually, this one comes as flattering but a bit of a surprise
Jamie Palisades: so thank you Cindy
MT Lundquist: sorry crashed
Claude Desmoulins: MT perhaps someone can send you a transcript so far while Jamie finishes.
Jamie Palisades: I have to admit I do not know how practically urgent it is that the SC have a complement of 9, but always assumed I;d ask to serve eventually ...
Jamie Palisades: ... my uncertainty at the moment comes from being asked to ru in the present upcoming term for Chancellor, though
Jamie Palisades: *run
Moon Adamant: ty MT
Claude Desmoulins: I don't know that it's vital we have a full 9, but I think more than 3 is desirable.
Claude Desmoulins: MT, Youi mentioned a sumbission...
Jamie Palisades: I really don;t understand how the various terms and vacancies overlap, etc., to be honest. but if it does not prevent my seeking to join the SC at a later time, might respectfulyl decline for now in view of the upcoming selection.
Cindy Ecksol: Jamie, if you would like to run for chancellor I'd say that's more pressing at the moment.
Dnate Mars: It is more important to have canidates that are willing and able to serve the CDS then then actual number
Claude Desmoulins: Yes, Dnate.
Cindy Ecksol: we will be looking for SC members for a long time I expect
MT Lundquist: thats the submission in open chat for the record
Jamie Palisades listens and nodes. Let me hush for themoment on this, then, but with thanks, and let you return to MT. If ths time comes and the SC is interested in hearing short comments from citizens in favor of his appointment, I will be happy to give mine.
MT Lundquist: but without the evidence from the forums
MT Lundquist: i can post to the forum later perhaps
Claude Desmoulins: MT has someone sent you the transcript so far?
MT Lundquist: he submission to the SC re the July 2008 CDS election That the election was run with two methods of counting the result That the two methods were believed by the election official (Jon Seattle) to not make any difference (see forum post below April 27th and Feb 5th 2008) Had the RA known that the two counts could make a difference it would have had the chance to legislate on the accepted method. In this election the two methods delivered a different result despite the previous prediction - this was therefore unexpected by the SC and their representative That this placed CDS and the SC in a difficult position i.e. having to decide 'after that fact and when the two possible results were known' which method to use That the difference in seat allocation could make a large political difference to the coming CDS RA session. That the SC does not represent all factions in CDS being one independant and two DPU members That the method chosen by the SC favours DPU (this to be fair may only be the appearance o
MT Lundquist: hat the method chosen by the SC favours DPU (this to be fair may only be the appearance of bias) That based on comments by Flyingroc all previous elections 'historically used a variant of the Borda system (aside from the past two elections) that weighted the lowest-ranked with 0 points' - which indicates that a new precedent was set for the last two elections. What method of counting gives the most representative government. Therefore it is submitted That this current election result be considered void. That the SC urgently request the RA to legislate on the method of counting to be used That the election be rerun using the agreed single counting method
MT Lundquist: sorry gwyn just imed you with that
Gwyneth Llewelyn: that's fine ... just go ahead in public chat lol
Claude Desmoulins: That was the first item on the agenda and we had already addressed it.
Dnate Mars: I have sent im the transcript
Dnate Mars: him*
MT Lundquist: excuse me but you didnt have my formal submission
MT Lundquist: with auguements and evidence
Claude Desmoulins: We are at the moment discussing Dnate's suggestion to invite you to join the SC.
MT Lundquist: i would ask you to consider my formal submission
MT Lundquist: or i will resubmit it again
Cindy Ecksol: MT, the first question on the table was whether we should even accept your appeal. we decided not to. so there is no need for any presentation on your part.
MT Lundquist: you have not addressed the points made in it
MT Lundquist: this then is a joke I'm afraid
MT Lundquist: becuase you have not considered the case presented
MT Lundquist: i just presented it
Cindy Ecksol: point of procedure, claude: was MT's correspondence not considered a complete appeal?
MT Lundquist: ok well i submit a new appeal
MT Lundquist: the one i just handed to you
Moon Adamant: did or did you nlot present it publically? (sorry, a bit late in the forums.....)
Claude Desmoulins: I think we have to a significant degree. The change from 0 to 1 or vice versa had no effect on the options placed before voters.
MT Lundquist: it has a difference in terms of the results seen by the voters
MT Lundquist: and should therefore be addressed
Claude Desmoulins: Furthermore, the whole thing is over one seat. Why revote the entire election if nly one seat is in contention here.?
MT Lundquist: read my submission and you will see
Dnate Mars: It has been addressed, the voters would have voted the same way no matter what the counting method was. We stuck with the historical 0 counting method we had always used.
MT Lundquist: the points are made there
Cindy Ecksol: MT, perhaps you do not understand how the Borda count calculation is used.
Claude Desmoulins: Furthermore, the entire issue may yet be moot depending on the extent to whic existing factions are able to fill vacant seats.
Moon Adamant raises her hand
MT Lundquist: yes but the result would be different depending on the counting method used
MT Lundquist: thats the point
MT Lundquist: therefore it does matter
MT Lundquist: and i do wish to point out this is not a NuCARE matter
MT Lundquist: but a matter for CDS
Cindy Ecksol: it has nothing to do with what happens in the voting booth. I ti sused AFTER the vote is reported to allocate seats
MT Lundquist: this is significant
Dnate Mars: There are only 2 options, either we go with the 0 or the 1. That is it. We have ceritifed that the 0 count method is the one to be used.
MT Lundquist: yes but it was decided after the fact
Cindy Ecksol: we have ALWAYS used the 0-count Borda to allocate seats.
MT Lundquist: by the SC
Claude Desmoulins: But in order for the counting method to justify a revote, you have to argue tthat voters knowing the count method would vote differently on an identical ballot based solely on that knowledge.
MT Lundquist: knowing the results
Cindy Ecksol: it was NOT decided after the fact, just reported.
MT Lundquist: and the sc is dominated by DPU
Dnate Mars: What you are asking is for us to basically overturn our own ruling to go with the other method
Claude Desmoulins: If you read the transcript carefully...
MT Lundquist: which was favoured by the result picked
Cindy Ecksol: Jon's comment about the 1-count was merely that -- commentary
Dnate Mars: We had no way of knowing what seats were up in question
Claude Desmoulins: I, who AFAIK was the only SC member knowing the scenario.
Cindy Ecksol: the SC was pretty much bound to use the 0-count unless RA had instructed us to do otherwise
MT Lundquist: inded if the election was rerun there might be a different result if the voters knew the effect of the counting system
MT Lundquist: why
Dnate Mars: I disagree MT
Claude Desmoulins: , did not share with Cindy and Dnate which factions were involved until after they reached a consensus on 0 borda.
Dnate Mars: The voters ranked who they thought was best, form first to last
MT Lundquist: FR states that in the last two elections the othercounting method was used
MT Lundquist: that sets a new precedent
MT Lundquist: you have not considered the facts
MT Lundquist: read the submission
Cindy Ecksol: this is simply NOT true. check the forums. Jon accidentally used the 1-count in January, but when FR and I noticed what had happened, we challenged it and he re-stated the seat allocation calculation using the 0-count
Cindy Ecksol: 0-count was also used in the by-election
Cindy Ecksol: in both cases it made no difference in the final allocation
MT Lundquist: yes and this time it did
Dnate Mars: FR and Jon were in agreement that the 0 score methode was the one to use
MT Lundquist: as i stated in the submission the election official
MT Lundquist: your election officuial
MT Lundquist: stated there would be no difference
Dnate Mars: We have reaffirmed this as the SC
MT Lundquist: therefore the RA was not advised of the possible outcome
Claude Desmoulins: The SC is not a policy making body. Any decision before the election regarding the counting system was the perogative of the RA.
Claude Desmoulins: Unfortunately they didn't exercise it.
MT Lundquist: therefore did not have the opportunity to correct the anomoly BEFORE the election
Dnate Mars: The counting method has been discussed many times in the past
MT Lundquist: I certainly would have addressed it if the SCs election official had advised me of the effect
Dnate Mars: going all the way back to the founding
Cindy Ecksol: MT -- you misunderstand. THere was NO anomaly -- the 0-count has always been considered definitive EXCEPT when jon mistakenly used the 1-count....and was corrected!
MT Lundquist: the RA would have had the opportunity to select the method properly
Claude Desmoulins: Is there any desire give MT's petiton on the part of the SC to revisit this?
MT Lundquist: may well have selected 0 or not
Dnate Mars: nay
Claude Desmoulins: And they do, for any forthcoming elections. I hope they seize that opportunity.
MT Lundquist: but would have been able to do so before this muddle appeared
Claude Desmoulins: I have two other items.
Claude Desmoulins: The New Guild has asked us about SC office space requirements.
Claude Desmoulins: I am not sure whether as we grow the idea is to give branches permanent homes.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: btw, I never expected (while I was at the RA) that any other voting method besides 0-count would be used, although, well, traditionally people like to post calculations made by several different methods, but that's ok, the vote count is public
Gwyneth Llewelyn: sorry
Claude Desmoulins: Given the nature of our branch I don't know that we need lots of permanent office space.
Claude Desmoulins: Thoughts from the rest of the SC?
MT Lundquist: WELL I HAVE TO SAY THAT THIS SESSION HAS BEEN A COMPLETE JOKE FROM THE START BEFORE I COULD ATTEND AND NOW THE UNWILLINGNESSOF THE SC TO CONSIDER THE SUBMISSION
Moon Adamant: may i?
Dnate Mars: Unless they want to have a special place for us to hold meetings, I see no need
Claude Desmoulins: We have considered it and respectfully don't agree with its assertions.
Claude Desmoulins: I would be fine using here or the Schloss on a fairly permament basis.
MT Lundquist: THEREFORE FOR WHAT ITS WORTH I SHALL INTRODUCE A BILL INTO THE FINAL SESSION OF THE RA ASK THAT THIS BE RECONSIDERED BY THEM
Moon Adamant: Mr. Dean, i would like to address some points regarding the SC spaces
MT Lundquist: THEY MAY WELL VOTE DOWN THAT BILL AS THEY ARE AFTER ALL A POLITICAL BODY
Claude Desmoulins: That's any citizen's right, MT. Please don't yell.
Moon Adamant: and i can hear you quite well, MT
MT Lundquist: HOWEVER I FEEL THAT CDS HAS NOT BEEN SERVED WELL BY THE SC TODAY
Claude Desmoulins: MT, Moon has the floor at the moment.
MT Lundquist: AND THIS NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED
MT Lundquist: THANKYOU
MT Lundquist: I HAND FINISHED
MT Lundquist: BUT I HAVE NOW
Claude Desmoulins: Moon...
Moon Adamant: may i then?
Moon Adamant: our specific concerns about SC spaces deal with your judiciary function
Moon Adamant: we would like to know if you would need a proper court, within a silence zone, for the hearing of witnesses
Cindy Ecksol: how would a silence zone work, moon?
Claude Desmoulins: Other than the silence issue a room is the Praetorium is set up for that purpose is it not?
Moon Adamant: well, chat radius is 20 meters
Moon Adamant: if you can isolate a parcel including the radius, nobody can enter and therefore nobody can hear the testimonials
Moon Adamant: and yes, Claude, but that silence zone now is going to be broken by the LA builds
Moon Adamant: which share walls with it
Claude Desmoulins: I see.
Moon Adamant: we have several solutions possible, i think
Moon Adamant: Brian has done the most of the work
Claude Desmoulins: There may be times when for a hearing a silence zone would be wanted.
Moon Adamant: the schloss is a good option because it's so big a parcel that it has the radius inside
Dnate Mars: An area with a zone such as that would be nice. It would also have to have outside object entry turned off
Moon Adamant: another option would be a skybox
Jamie Palisades raises his hand to note one small point about the SC's land accomodations.
Claude Desmoulins: Yes Jamie?
Jamie Palisades: vis a vis keeping order at meetings, smile ...
Jamie Palisades: I have learned a few things running the RA, and plan to submit back to the Guild and the new RA -- as part of my final report as LRA -- some recommendatiosn about precise parcelization of spaces used for public meetings, who holds land power there, etc. We have in CDS been a bit sloppy about some of these things. It's correctable though. Mentioning it here simply as an advisory and a prospective cross reference.
Jamie Palisades: Thanks
Claude Desmoulins: Could you set up the schloss that way without having to completely reconfigure the interior?
Moon Adamant: well, the schloss is an unique parcel
Moon Adamant: it has rooms and rooms
Moon Adamant: all of them unused
Claude Desmoulins: I'd rather use existing space if we can.
Moon Adamant: it's more a question of furniture than of anything else
Claude Desmoulins: Anything else?
Cindy Ecksol: I have another issue...
Moon Adamant: nothing else on the Guild
Cindy Ecksol: if we're done with space...
Claude Desmoulins: Go ahead, but I hope to wrap up the meeting in about 10 minutes.
Cindy Ecksol: should be short.
Cindy Ecksol: I'd just like to suggest that we close out our discussion about teh RA's removal of the chancellor....
Cindy Ecksol: since RA voted this past week to revoke it, making further discussion moot
Jamie Palisades 's ears perk up ... albeit not as impressively as Dnate's ...
Moon Adamant:
Claude Desmoulins: Given that the RA did what we asked, reconsidered the removal at an appropriately noticed meeting, I see the whole thing as a dead issue.
Dnate Mars: There is nothing left to rule, I say we close the issue
Cindy Ecksol: I just think it's a good idea for the SC to state clearly that we are closing the issue
Claude Desmoulins: Agreed.
Cindy Ecksol: ok, with you dnate?
Claude Desmoulins: We should make sure Pip gets his sentence in CDS history as the shortest serving Chancellor ever
Dnate Mars: lol
Moon Adamant:
Claude Desmoulins: I have one more comment before we close.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: hehe
Cindy Ecksol has one more thing before we close
Claude Desmoulins: I'd like to congratulate my predecessor on finally extricating herself from CDS governance.
Moon Adamant:
Gwyneth Llewelyn: mmh?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I believe I actually was re-elected, Claude
Claude Desmoulins: At the end of the month, Gwyn leaves office for the first time since Jan, 2005
Gwyneth Llewelyn: silly citizens.
Claude Desmoulins: Are you taking the third CSDF seat?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Uh, well, the CSDF will decide that tomorrow, but I was the third on the list, yes
Cindy Ecksol thinks those in power are always the last to know
Gwyneth Llewelyn: And Yoge was the 4th
Gwyneth Llewelyn: lol
Claude Desmoulins: My comments may have been a bit premature then,
Claude Desmoulins: My apologies.
Moon Adamant: ah well, maybe some day
Cindy Ecksol: claude before we go, can we come back to the SC nominees issue?
Moon Adamant: over the rainbow and all that
Claude Desmoulins: Quickly.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: hehe we'll see about that tomorrow, I certainly would appreciate 6 months of peace...
Cindy Ecksol: seems we should go out and come up with some solid nominations for the next meeting, eh?
Jamie Palisades: (uh oh does this mean Alexi needs to pay the rent on Gwyn to Beta next month again? ...)
Cindy Ecksol: as in "ask people ahead of time and ensure that they are willing"
Claude Desmoulins: Not a bad idea.
Cindy Ecksol: I would also appreciate it if we could set our next meeting now.
Dnate Mars: How soon do we want it?
Cindy Ecksol: this is the first meeting since I was appointed, much longer than a month ago
Cindy Ecksol: once per month is what's required
Gwyneth Llewelyn: uh-huh
Cindy Ecksol: I suggest we stick to it. we can always work on internal issues when there is nothing to be reviewed
Claude Desmoulins: My schedule is too much in flux to set a day and time today, though we perhaps could try to pick a week.
Claude Desmoulins: What are your Saturdays like?
Dnate Mars: As is mine, maybe mid-Aug?
Dnate Mars: say, 4 weeks?
Claude Desmoulins: Mid August will be a mess for me but we could aim for the week of the 11-18 perhaps?
Cindy Ecksol: I cannot do anything before 11:30am on Saturdays
Cindy Ecksol: yes, that week would be good for me.
Claude Desmoulins: And I'm only available earlier than that,
Dnate Mars: That sounds good, as it comes nearer, we can get exact dates and time
Cindy Ecksol: lol!
Cindy Ecksol: then we are not going to meet on Saturdays I guess
Claude Desmoulins: Let's use the internal calendar to post availabilities for the week of Aug 11-17.
Cindy Ecksol: ok, will do...
Dnate Mars: Ok
Cindy Ecksol: thanks!
Claude Desmoulins: Is there any other business?
Cindy Ecksol: I have some agenda items to suggest for next time also
Claude Desmoulins: Could you email them?
Cindy Ecksol: yes, will do...
Claude Desmoulins: Thanks.
Claude Desmoulins: If there's nothing else,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Can I ask a question?...
Claude Desmoulins: Yes
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, there are pending requests for arbitration by the SC
Claude Desmoulins: There are?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: is the SC planning to address any of them? (I know, not today)
Gwyneth Llewelyn *nods*
Claude Desmoulins: Please let me know what they are and we can put them on the next agenda.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: all right, Claude, you have at least two from me
Gwyneth Llewelyn: months ago
Gwyneth Llewelyn: but I'll re-send them
Claude Desmoulins: Thanks, and sorry about the confusion.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Basically, I just wished to know if they *will* be considered or simply dropped... that's all
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Not the date & time
Claude Desmoulins: Depending on how many months ago it may have been when my brain was lost during a RL move.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ahhh ok
Claude Desmoulins: It was not my intention that they disappear.
Moon Adamant:
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Good
Gwyneth Llewelyn: that's all, thank you
Claude Desmoulins: May we adjourn?
Cindy Ecksol: fine by me...
Dnate Mars: yes