Ethics and Code of Conduct Commission Meeting

[Gwyneth Llewelyn]

Hello all,

"Inherited" from the previous term, this commission has as its task to try to get four bills related to ethical behaviour of the RA members, establishing a Code of Conduct, and reviewing issues like conflict of interest (specially when members of Government rotate among several branches), to be summarised in a single set of laws.

As a preliminary date for discussion, I'm suggesting next Thursday, September 4th, at 3 PM SLT (meeting at the Praetorium in Colonia Nova). All citizens are welcome to participate.

For this first meeting we will have basically two points on the agenda:

1) Review all proposed bills that have been submitted so far (I will try to post links to all the threads discussing this issue);
2) Propose further documentation as inspiration and guidelines (example: RL Code of Conducts from several parliaments and representative assemblies from RL countries)
3) Establish a set time for further meetings, and a final date to deliver a set of recommendations back to the RA.

[Gwyneth Llewelyn]

[15:16] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Thanks so much for coming! And I have to apologise, I didn't do my homework
[15:16] Rain Ninetails: not for me
[15:16] Gwyneth Llewelyn: So hmm
[15:17] Gwyneth Llewelyn: There is a notecard with basically what was posted on the forums,
[15:17] Gwyneth Llewelyn: inside the urn
[15:17] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Just three points for today lol
[15:17] Bells Semyorka: thanks
[15:18] Gwyneth Llewelyn: ... and, well, the first point — finding the links to the four submitted bills —
[15:18] Gwyneth Llewelyn: ... I haven't found them... yet... or rather... I haven't looked long enough for them lol
[15:19] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Anyway
[15:19] Gwyneth Llewelyn: I take the responsibility for wasting your time, lol
[15:19] Gwyneth Llewelyn: for two reasons:
[15:19] Gwyneth Llewelyn: one, I actually suggested on the last term
[15:19] Gwyneth Llewelyn: that instead of addressing several separate (but related) issues
[15:19] Gwyneth Llewelyn: in isolated bills
[15:20] Gwyneth Llewelyn: that we instead tried to create an uniform Code of Conduct
[15:20] Gwyneth Llewelyn: that all RA members would uphold, when entering office.
[15:20] Gwyneth Llewelyn: This Code of Conduct would ultimately address a lot of issues raised in the past (and *heavilly debated*!)
[15:20] Gwyneth Llewelyn: For instance...
[15:20] Gwyneth Llewelyn: - conflict of interests
[15:21] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Either by asking all RA members to list their interests in the CDS (or sometimes outside of it), like: the groups they participate in, the land they own, etc
[15:21] Gwyneth Llewelyn: And to define in which cases members of the RA might move to other bodies of Government, or NGOs chartered by Government
[15:22] Gwyneth Llewelyn: There were a few bills suggesting things like a RA member not being allowed to drop from the RA and immediately move into the SC, to disapprove a law that did just pass in a session
[15:22] Jon Seattle: Oh, I just looked and it looks as if many of those bills were published in the RA discussion forum instead of the legialative dicussion forum. Thats why I could not find them earlier.
[15:23] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Aaah
[15:23] Gwyneth Llewelyn: thanks, Jon, perhaps that's why they were so hard to find
[15:23] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok
[15:23] Gwyneth Llewelyn: As a source of inspiration back then,
[15:24] Gwyneth Llewelyn: I started to read RL Code of COnducts
[15:24] Gwyneth Llewelyn: at least the ones in languages I understand... lol
[15:24] Gwyneth Llewelyn: the one for the British Parliament was naturally the first hehe (UK law is sort of a "middle ground" between US law and European law, so they're usually a good source for a preliminary inspiration!)
[15:26] Gwyneth Llewelyn: What I naturally found it (no surpises here!),
[15:26] Gwyneth Llewelyn: is that their Code of Conduct addresses *all* these issues.
[15:26] Gwyneth Llewelyn:
[15:26] Gwyneth Llewelyn: So, British MPs start to enter their interests in an official List of Interests
[15:26] Gwyneth Llewelyn: which is public
[15:27] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Then, when they're sworn in,
[15:27] Jon Seattle: what is an interest in their view?
[15:27] Gwyneth Llewelyn: almost everything
[15:27] Gwyneth Llewelyn:
[15:27] Gwyneth Llewelyn: It's a LONG document
[15:27] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Note that they don't seem to worry much about HAVING conflicting interests,
[15:27] Gwyneth Llewelyn: (or so I read it!)
[15:27] Gwyneth Llewelyn: but LISTING them, so that they cannot be accused of "having hidden agendas"
[15:28] Gwyneth Llewelyn: So, their agendas are PUBLIC
[15:28] Jon Seattle: Ah, just un-hidden ones
[15:28] Gwyneth Llewelyn: e.g. if someone states he's a VP for British Petroleum, you'll be expecting them to vote against eco-friendly laws
[15:28] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes
[15:29] Gwyneth Llewelyn: However, onestly, their document is WAY too large,
[15:29] Gwyneth Llewelyn: *honestly even
[15:29] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Another source of inspiration,
[15:29] Gwyneth Llewelyn: (back then)
[15:29] Gwyneth Llewelyn: were Code of Conducts of RL Chamber of Commerces hehe
[15:30] Gwyneth Llewelyn: for some reason, I've been part of *five* attempts to create a CoC in SL (most attempts fail)
[15:30] Gwyneth Llewelyn: and at some point I did summarise quite a few RL CoC Codes of Conducts
[15:30] Gwyneth Llewelyn: into a single proposal, as a basis for what should be deemed "business ethics"
[15:30] Gwyneth Llewelyn: now, "business ethics" is quite a different thing than "politician's ethics"
[15:31] Gwyneth Llewelyn: I know that
[15:31] Gwyneth Llewelyn: However, some principles are indeed sound.
[15:31] Gwyneth Llewelyn: So for this session, besides what we in the CDS have already written about,
[15:31] Gwyneth Llewelyn: I'd like to hear suggestions on further sources for inspiration
[15:31] Gwyneth Llewelyn: ... for example... the Olympics Code of Ethics
[15:32] Jon Seattle: Well, I am unclear on what out goals are -- I read some of the proposals (like this one http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=1772 ), and it seems to aim more at promoting turn-over than dealing with the the usual conflict of (financial) interest issues.
[15:33] Ana Lutetia gave you Belg Koba :: 04set2008.
[15:33] Gwyneth Llewelyn reads
[15:33] Jon Seattle: In most cases the worry is that someone will make decisions in government that will make them personally wealthier -- is that the main concern?
[15:34] Jon Seattle: (that is in RL government)
[15:34] Gwyneth Llewelyn: "wealthier" or "powerful"
[15:34] Gwyneth Llewelyn *nods*
[15:35] Jon Seattle: Here is Jamie's http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=1773
[15:35] Gwyneth Llewelyn: thanks, Jon, you're quite good at finding those
[15:35] Gwyneth Llewelyn: (much faster than me!!)
[15:36] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Your question remains unanswered
[15:36] Jon Seattle: Jamie's bill seems to adress a bit more of what I would call conflict of interest.
[15:36] Gwyneth Llewelyn: What do you think, Bells & Rain? Should we worry about "personal wealth"?
[15:37] Gwyneth Llewelyn: (note that a VOLUNTARY act that we had last term, when members of the RA posted their 'interests' inside and outside the CDS — like owning sims that they might wish to join to the CDS — I believe they had the issue about 'personal wealth' in mind)
[15:37] Bells Semyorka: I'm on a phone call atm, I havent been folloing chat too much
[15:37] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Aww sorry Bells
[15:37] Rain Ninetails: I'm here to see if I can get some context for this kind of thing.
[15:38] Jon Seattle: I remember vaguly that there was a third really long bill. Let me see if I can find it.
[15:38] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Rain, actually, I think you're really hitting the point, lol - we need to start with the context first
[15:39] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes, Jon, there was
[15:39] Gwyneth Llewelyn: from Beathan too I think
[15:39] Gwyneth Llewelyn: I remember there were at least 4, but some might be just reworded suggestions
[15:39] Jon Seattle: Here: http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1766
[15:39] Jon Seattle: I think that was it?
[15:39] Rain Ninetails: As a general principle, here, I doubt it matters, but II don't know enough specifics. So I am kind of observing.
[15:39] Jon Seattle: Or .. hmm that may be the first one.
[15:40] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Rain, the "original" context was mostly having some members of the RA dropping to enter the SC, and vice-versa; similarly, some noticed that people who were in the RA one term were on the New Guild on the other term.
[15:40] Gwyneth Llewelyn: This was viewed as being 'dishonest' to a degree
[15:40] Gwyneth Llewelyn: ie. a certain "abuse" of the freedom to circulate among the bodies of Government and push ahead certain views
[15:41] Jon Seattle: Not sure how the Guild could figure into this -- since it is certainly not part of the CDS government
[15:41] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Not directly,
[15:41] Gwyneth Llewelyn: but certainly as being part of the "list of interests"
[15:42] Gwyneth Llewelyn: I remember having listed once that I work for a Metaverse Development Company — which could be seen as a "competitor" to the Guild, so if, as a member of the RA, I started pushing for legislation to have the CDS outsource building work to RL content creation companies instead of the New Guild... I could be accused of being 'manipulating' legislation into my personal interest
[15:42] Jon Seattle: Sure. though keeping Guild members out of government (since anyone can be a Guild member just by showing up at a meeting) would not make much sense.
[15:43] Gwyneth Llewelyn: (granted, that's a far-fetched example!)
[15:43] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Also note that I'm not sure if the scope of this commission,
[15:44] Gwyneth Llewelyn: is just to address *RA members*
[15:44] Gwyneth Llewelyn: or to be used for further bodies of Government
[15:44] Gwyneth Llewelyn: (which in a way would mean that the RA would be "interfering" in other organisations' internal procedures)
[15:44] Gwyneth Llewelyn: I'd propose that we limit ourselves to an *RA* Code of Conduct.
[15:45] Gwyneth Llewelyn: No disagreement on that?
[15:45] Jon Seattle: It seems that, unless this will result in proposed consititutional amendments, we could only have influence on the RA.
[15:46] Jon Seattle: Perhaps on the executive? Not sure about that.
[15:47] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Good point.
[15:47] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok... we could try a different approach
[15:47] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Break up things into smaller things!
[15:47] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Namely...
[15:47] Gwyneth Llewelyn: What would be the principles behind this Code of COnduct? (I'm learning from you, Jon it worked well on the other commission!)
[15:48] Gwyneth Llewelyn: If those principles are good enough,
[15:48] Gwyneth Llewelyn: we could certainly encourage others to follow them (even if they'd write different codes of conduct of their own)
[15:48] Jon Seattle: yes, I like that approach
[15:48] Gwyneth Llewelyn: A typical example: transparency when listing interests
[15:48] Gwyneth Llewelyn: I think that's one that seems clear
[15:50] Jon Seattle: Well, it also depends on the problem we are trying to solve. Reading Walpole's post, he seems to want to make sure that those who are involved in government are replaced or limited in their influence. I am not sure if that is still a question we want to examine.
[15:50] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes, some sort of "forced rotativity"
[15:50] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Those are things I'd also rather avoid:
[15:51] Gwyneth Llewelyn: "forced rotativity"; exclusion of members from participating in the democratic institutions "just for the sake of letting others have their turn"
[15:51] Gwyneth Llewelyn: we also have the problem of having a limited number of people overall
[15:51] Gwyneth Llewelyn: what is a "governing elite" ?
[15:51] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Bells & Rain, do you feel that there is indeed a governing elite in the CDS?
[15:52] Gwyneth Llewelyn: If so, how could we avoid that "feeling"?
[15:52] Gwyneth Llewelyn: (I'm not asking Jon, lol — sorry, but I think I know the answer )
[15:53] Rain Ninetails: I mostly trust it to people that have the time and care about it.
[15:53] Gwyneth Llewelyn: hehe spoken like a true politician, Rain lol
[15:53] Gwyneth Llewelyn: oh, but people's time changes... over time (sorry for the pleonasm)
[15:54] Rain Ninetails: mmf
[15:54] Gwyneth Llewelyn:
[15:54] Gwyneth Llewelyn: With that I actually mean that a lot of the citizens who had time IN THE PAST might not have it in the future...
[15:54] Gwyneth Llewelyn: So 'rotativity' happens naturally, IMHO
[15:54] Gwyneth Llewelyn: I understand, however, the issue of someone getting their bills not passed in the RA;
[15:55] Gwyneth Llewelyn: and as a revenge,
[15:55] Gwyneth Llewelyn: get nominated to the SC
[15:55] Gwyneth Llewelyn: and start veto'ing bills from their former colleagues at the RA
[15:55] Gwyneth Llewelyn: I'd classify that as "unethical behaviour"
[15:55] Gwyneth Llewelyn: But... how to avoid it?...
[15:56] Jon Seattle: hmmm.. not sure it could be done without restricting the SC in some way -- which might provide a difficult constitutional issue
[15:57] Gwyneth Llewelyn: I'd be happy just with a pledge of NOT doing so
[15:57] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Instead of legislation to FORBID it.
[16:01] Jon Seattle: Well, holding office in two branches of government at the same time is problematic -- because of separation of powers
[16:01] Jon Seattle: and listing interests makes sense
[16:01] Gwyneth Llewelyn: But that one is clear —
[16:02] Gwyneth Llewelyn: it's on the Constitution
[16:02] Jon Seattle: ah, nods.
[16:02] Gwyneth Llewelyn: I mean, the clear cases
[16:02] Gwyneth Llewelyn: are on the Constitution
[16:02] Gwyneth Llewelyn: The problem are the "not-so-clear" ones
[16:02] Jon Seattle: And this part of jamie's bill: All persons holding a position as a member or officer of a branch of CDS government must make a public 'declaration of interest' statement to the CDS Forums (or appropriate substititute medium), if they act to approve or reject any action, in their official government role, that they reasonably can conclude would benefit themselves uniquely, as opposed to the general case of benefits that accrue generally to all CDS citizens.
[16:02] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Exactly.
[16:02] Jon Seattle: that sound sensible to me.
[16:02] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Very!
[16:03] Gwyneth Llewelyn: I would certainly recommend that paragraph as being part of the final bill
[16:03] Jon Seattle: Yes.
[16:04] Gwyneth Llewelyn: But I would add more things, which are not related exactly to the "conflct of interests"
[16:04] Gwyneth Llewelyn: For instance, general principles (not unlike what Claude suggested for the SC)
[16:05] Gwyneth Llewelyn: A moderated stance when in session
[16:05] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Abstaining from ad hominem attacks
[16:05] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Abstaining for making claims without proof
[16:05] Gwyneth Llewelyn: There is naturally a limit of how much of those things are supposed to be in a Code of Conduct, or we'll be accused to be limiting freedom of expression
[16:06] Jon Seattle: true. And interesting.
[16:06] Gwyneth Llewelyn: On the other hand, we could also introduce the concept of "defense of honour" (ie. every RA member has the right to request time from the LRA to defend their honour, if they feel they have been insulted)
[16:06] Gwyneth Llewelyn: (this can be abused a lot lol )
[16:06] Gwyneth Llewelyn: But it's part of the UDHR...
[16:07] Gwyneth Llewelyn: the right to express freely, and the right to defend your honour if you're insulted
[16:07] Gwyneth Llewelyn: More principles...
[16:07] Gwyneth Llewelyn: putting first the interests of the CDS before your own, or your factions' interests
[16:08] Gwyneth Llewelyn: (I'm just quoting a few by heart; I should have in front of me a notecard with the homework )
[16:08] Rain Ninetails: hi Sonja
[16:08] Sonja Strom: hi
[16:08] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Sonja ) welcome!
[16:08] Sonja Strom: hi everybody
[16:09] Jon Seattle: Well, I have a question also.. that might be included or not. I noticed that accusations of misconduct leveled at orginary citizens -- not in office (who often were not present) sometimes became part of offical transcripts of the RA.
[16:09] Jon Seattle: Hi Sonja
[16:09] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ah
[16:09] Jon Seattle: Would that be disallowed under "Abstaining from ad hominem attacks"?
[16:09] Gwyneth Llewelyn: I see Justice coming in!
[16:10] Bells Semyorka raises her hand
[16:10] Jon Seattle: Hi Justice
[16:10] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Oh Bells, do go ahead, we're quite informal here
[16:10] Bells Semyorka: vvell I cant help but think that this meeting is just another vvay of keeping a certian member of CDS out of the SC. Perhaps I missed the vvhole point of the chat that vvas given due to my phone call or that I'm missing the entire point all together, but the timing of this meeting in regards to the last RA meeting seem a little suspect to me.
[16:10] Sonja Strom accepted your inventory offer.
[16:10] Gwyneth Llewelyn: lol Bells
[16:10] Gwyneth Llewelyn: no way!
[16:10] Gwyneth Llewelyn: this meeting was scheduled for APRIL
[16:10] Sonja Strom: hello Justice!
[16:10] Bells Semyorka: ok
[16:11] Bells Semyorka: Just checking
[16:11] Jon Seattle: Bells, this meeting has something to do with the SC. Its really looking at those three bills from last term and discussing their merits.
[16:11] Justice Soothsayer accepted your inventory offer.
[16:11] Jon Seattle: *nothing
[16:11] Gwyneth Llewelyn: also,
[16:11] Gwyneth Llewelyn: we're NOT having any conclusions
[16:11] Gwyneth Llewelyn: for *several weeks*
[16:11] Gwyneth Llewelyn:
[16:11] Bells Semyorka: thanks Gvven
[16:11] Gwyneth Llewelyn: so even if there IS a recommendation to the RA,
[16:12] Gwyneth Llewelyn: it will be waaaaay long after a certain citizen has been confirmed as member of the SC
[16:12] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Don't need to worry
[16:12] Gwyneth Llewelyn: And hello Justice
[16:12] Jamie Palisades: Cheers, all you ethical people
[16:12] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Actually,
[16:12] Jon Seattle: Hi Jamie
[16:12] Gwyneth Llewelyn: my *personal* recommendation,
[16:12] Sonja Strom: Hi Jamie
[16:12] Gwyneth Llewelyn: (hi Jamie!)
[16:12] Rain Ninetails:
[16:12] Gwyneth Llewelyn: would be that IF the result of this meeting is really a Code of Conduct,
[16:12] Gwyneth Llewelyn: that it applies only for NEXT term
[16:13] Gwyneth Llewelyn: since the CURRENT memebrs of the RA are already "sworn in"
[16:13] Jon Seattle: Sounds fine to me.
[16:13] Justice Soothsayer declined your inventory offer.
[16:13] Gwyneth Llewelyn: so we can't be accused to be "ostracising" any CURRENT members of the RA by trying to push 'ethical conduct' on top of their heads
[16:13] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ah, Justice, I was trying to give you a notecard with the transcript so far...
[16:14] Jamie Palisades smiles- well that only applies to the oath of office, hm?
[16:14] Justice Soothsayer: got it, thanks, Gwyn
[16:15] Gwyneth Llewelyn: It's a *suggestion*, Jamie
[16:15] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Even if we suggest otherwise, the RA will ultimately decide
[16:15] Jon Seattle: lol, does it include our discussion on the phoenician language?
[16:15] Gwyneth Llewelyn: No Jon
[16:15] Gwyneth Llewelyn: haha
[16:15] Gwyneth Llewelyn: the best bit was cut out
[16:15] Justice Soothsayer mourns absence of best bits
[16:15] Jamie Palisades: JOnh, all I can really say to you is: vessel, vessel, squiggly lines, bird, eye.
[16:16] Gwyneth Llewelyn: rofl Jamie
[16:16] Gwyneth Llewelyn: For the sake of Sonja, Jamie, and Justice,
[16:16] Jon Seattle: lol, exactly! Jamie, it turns out to be almost the same and anchent hebrew -- I kid you not
[16:16] Gwyneth Llewelyn blames herself for doing a very poor job at her homework for today
[16:16] Gwyneth Llewelyn: So we were just loosely thinking about some basic principles
[16:16] Gwyneth Llewelyn: that would eventually become items on a "code of conduct"
[16:17] Gwyneth Llewelyn: things like transparency in listing interests; refusing to engage in ad hominem attacks; etc
[16:17] Gwyneth Llewelyn: I'd welcome suggestions at this point
[16:17] Gwyneth Llewelyn: lots
[16:18] Justice Soothsayer: Gwyn, we started the discussion on electoral commission with principles, so lets start with the same here: transparency
[16:18] Jon Seattle: brb
[16:18] Jamie Palisades: Gwyn,. are you only accepting comment on that one bill, this time>?
[16:18] Jamie Palisades: there were three of four bills referred to you
[16:18] Jamie Palisades: - disclosure
[16:18] Jamie Palisades: - oath
[16:18] Jamie Palisades: =conflicts of interest proibitions
[16:18] Jamie Palisades: - other stuff as i recall
[16:18] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Justice: yes, I was copying shamelessly Jon's own suggestion of establishing the principles first
[16:19] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Aye, Jamie, we briefly opened them (as Jon managed to find them hidden in the forums)
[16:19] Jamie Palisades:
[16:19] Sonja Strom: It seems to me like one thing that came up last term was if the RA can vote to ban someone from the meetings.
[16:19] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Of course.
[16:19] Gwyneth Llewelyn: It's on its procedures
[16:19] Sonja Strom: ah, ok.
[16:19] Jamie Palisades: hm how interesting - I wouldv;t thought that intrinsical to RA operatione rules and thus beyond scope here
[16:20] Jamie Palisades: but, shrug, anyone can have an opinion
[16:20] Jamie Palisades: Gwyn are we taking in use cases randomly at this point? If so I can add one
[16:20] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Please do, Jamie!
[16:20] Jamie Palisades: thx
[16:20] Jamie Palisades: You may recall one or two elections ago
[16:20] Jamie Palisades: the special midterm in the summer
[16:21] Jamie Palisades: Justice here was an SC member
[16:21] Jamie Palisades: and a candidate
[16:21] Jamie Palisades: in the election in which the SC was the referee
[16:21] Justice Soothsayer: and Gwyn too.
[16:21] Jamie Palisades: hm - thought she resigned first
[16:21] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ah, I did
[16:21] Jamie Palisades: but let me finish
[16:21] Jamie Palisades: here's the thing

[Gwyneth Llewelyn]

[16:21] Gwyneth Llewelyn: well, yes, finish please
[16:21] Jamie Palisades: I knwo of no impropriety that occured ..
[16:21] Jamie Palisades: .. but the appearnce
[16:22] Jamie Palisades: well Gwyn solved this by ... resigning ... in advance
[16:22] Gwyneth Llewelyn: aha, yes, the "Caeser's wife argument".
[16:22] Jamie Palisades: JHustice addressed it, accordiung to his own light s buyy announcing that as SC member he of course took part in ...
[16:22] Jamie Palisades: ... no decisions regarding the election ...
[16:22] Jamie Palisades: .. but well afterwards
[16:22] Jamie Palisades: locally in the US with judges we call this "recusal"
[16:22] Jamie Palisades: and
[16:22] Jamie Palisades: we ask people to do it proactively
[16:22] Jamie Palisades: and we ask peolpe to announce it in advance
[16:22] Jamie Palisades: same case:
[16:23] Jamie Palisades: different p[eople:
[16:23] Jamie Palisades: Alexicon was chancellor
[16:23] Jamie Palisades: Alexi wanted to serve as land custodian
[16:23] Jamie Palisades: a civil service job which p[ays
[16:23] Jamie Palisades: and whis ic appointed by .... anyone?
[16:23] Jamie Palisades:
[16:23] Gwyneth Llewelyn: I see
[16:23] Gwyneth Llewelyn: hehe
[16:23] Jamie Palisades: so the moral of the story according to me is this
[16:23] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok, the Chancellor's own code of conduct will probably not be reviewed by *this* commission
[16:24] Gwyneth Llewelyn: (but the example is good, yes)
[16:24] Jamie Palisades: people should be both prhibited from making gov't official decisions that probvide unique personal benefit to thesmlevesa...
[16:24] Jamie Palisades: ... and requrie to disclose such matters timely to the forums or etc.
[16:24] Jamie Palisades:
[16:24] Jamie Palisades: done
[16:25] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, I second that totally (with apologies to Justice )
[16:25] Jamie Palisades: perhaps the qord "adjudicate" or "regulate" belongs in there - not sure if Justice the Electionn official is "ebenfiitting" or just "regulating" Justice the candidate.
[16:25] Jamie Palisades: Let me clear ...
[16:25] Jon Seattle: yes, as you saw in the transcript, I think those provisions are both good.
[16:25] Jamie Palisades: Justice did nothign against our laws.
[16:25] Jamie Palisades: In fact I asked hgim quitely at the time
[16:25] Jamie Palisades: he sayd, god, no, I recused nmyself!
[16:25] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Exactly, it wasn't forbidden *at all*
[16:26] Jamie Palisades: as one might expecrt from a good guy like him.
[16:26] Jamie Palisades: still
[16:26] Gwyneth Llewelyn:
[16:26] Justice Soothsayer blushes
[16:26] Jamie Palisades: I assert that self-regulation of that class, which has acute conflicts of role, should be prohibited in the future
[16:26] Jamie Palisades:
[16:26] Jon Seattle: Well, also, I susect his resignation at the time would be problematic.. as Claude had a very hard time finding SC members with time to meet on any issue.
[16:26] Gwyneth Llewelyn: One suggestion that I brought was that "movements" between bodies of Government or NGOs chartered by the RA are not "limited", BUT that intentions to do so remain publicly announced in a List of Interests.
[16:27] Jamie Palisades smiels -- this means peolpe are free to use their government power to regulate their own personal condition .., btu must diosclose it?
[16:27] Gwyneth Llewelyn: No no — two things, Jamie
[16:27] Gwyneth Llewelyn: one would be to have as a principle
[16:27] Gwyneth Llewelyn: that a RA member affirms to uphold a code of conduct
[16:28] Gwyneth Llewelyn: where "personal benefit" (or to his faction) is not allowed
[16:28] Gwyneth Llewelyn: In some cases, the "personal benefit" might not be crystal clear; so, well, listing intentions in advance would be demanded
[16:28] Jamie Palisades: Let me just ask this: Related hypothetical: Should an SC member vote in an SC appeal of that person' s own acts as a citizen? Let's aay the allegedly commited a banishmen toffense. CLear ly they will be present they will be defending! but oughtthey get to vote as a JUDGE also?
[16:29] Jamie Palisades: It is this sort of thign that makles us look like a government
[16:29] Jamie Palisades: or a little inbred club
[16:29] Jamie Palisades: I orefer the former
[16:29] Gwyneth Llewelyn: hehe
[16:29] Jon Seattle: Jamie, do we have a say on SC rules here?
[16:29] Jamie Palisades: Let me tell you why I thikn we do
[16:29] Jon Seattle listens
[16:29] Justice Soothsayer: aye, the difference between a government of laws v a government of men/women/avatars
[16:29] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ah, *currently* there is onl the provision for excluding SC members from a vote if they're being impeached. Your scenario is not covered.
[16:29] Jamie Palisades: The RA received multilpe bills asking for change to the law
[16:29] Jamie Palisades: some would amend the consitution
[16:30] Jamie Palisades: constituional change is within the RA's pursviw - rather clearly so'
[16:30] Jamie Palisades:
[16:30] Jon Seattle: Yes, if we are discussing constitutional amendments.
[16:30] Gwyneth Llewelyn: hehe yes, but I think we might avoid to 'interfere' in the SC's own internal procedures.
[16:30] Jamie Palisades grins - always liked that quote, Justice
[16:30] Justice Soothsayer: and constitutional change could impose requirements on the SC\
[16:30] Jamie Palisades: You nmight
[16:30] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well. A Code of Conduct of the RA,
[16:30] Jamie Palisades: As a citizen in a democracy I find it acutely a matter on which I have a right to ask by legislature to act
[16:30] Gwyneth Llewelyn: doesn't even need to be a LAW
[16:31] Gwyneth Llewelyn: it can be only "internal procedures"
[16:31] Jamie Palisades: Gywn you seem to keep coming back to some voluntary thilg with no force of law.
[16:31] Jamie Palisades: whyever?
[16:31] Jamie Palisades: or do I misunderstand?
[16:32] Justice Soothsayer: Likewise, a Code of Conduct for the SC need not be a law, but for *us* to impose it, would probably require a constitutional amendment.
[16:32] Justice Soothsayer: *us* = non-members of SC
[16:32] Jamie Palisades: Personally, spekaing as the current chancel;lor, it;s my plan to use my term to lock down my own office so CDS can't be badly screwed up by myself or any other incumbent in the future I see no reason for the RA, SC, or this commission to approach things differently
[16:33] Jon Seattle: Jamie, as I understand that is not exactly true -- there are some issues that should be taken care of by change in constitution and law, but if I read what Gwyn is saying, she would like to go beying what can be legislated -- as an addiitonal thing
[16:33] Jamie Palisades: which I assume rq
[16:33] Jamie Palisades: oops soory
[16:33] Jamie Palisades: hm
[16:33] Jamie Palisades: so there is law, and thern there is what? a pledge? the conseuqence for noncompliance of which is what?
[16:34] Jon Seattle: Yes, I think a law + a pledge
[16:35] Jon Seattle: well, the problem as I see it is that some of that Gwyn was proposing, for example a pledge not to make arguments without evidence, would require massive amounds of interpretation
[16:35] Jon Seattle: thus not a likley law
[16:35] Jon Seattle: but as a personal pledge, it might be useful
[16:37] Jamie Palisades: ah
[16:37] Jamie Palisades: I was a Boy Scout
[16:37] Jamie Palisades: thrifty, courteous, all that
[16:37] Jamie Palisades: good principles
[16:37] Jamie Palisades: not much to do with law
[16:38] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok ok
[16:38] Gwyneth Llewelyn: hehe
[16:38] Gwyneth Llewelyn: basically, Jamie,
[16:38] Jon Seattle: well, are you still thrifty etc?! It may have done some good
[16:38] Gwyneth Llewelyn: I would prefer to avoid getting RA members *arrested* because they were, uh, not polite enough
[16:38] Gwyneth Llewelyn: (ie. making politeness a requirement in law)
[16:39] Gwyneth Llewelyn: That was my point
[16:39] Gwyneth Llewelyn: The way *I* personally view the existence of a "Code of COnduct" was more as a pledge upon your honour to follow some principles.
[16:39] Rain Ninetails: I am sure I am missing some thinngs, but
[16:39] Gwyneth Llewelyn: If you don't follow them as a RA member — let the citizens vote against you on the next elections
[16:40] Justice Soothsayer: fortunately our elections occur fairly frequently
[16:40] Gwyneth Llewelyn: exactly!
[16:40] Sonja Strom: I basically agree with that view.
[16:40] Rain Ninetails: is there a newspaper or "opion" place that would be, like, outside that ?
[16:40] Gwyneth Llewelyn: But obviosly I'm not saying that we can NOT recommend otherwise! ... that's just my OPINION.
[16:40] Jamie Palisades: gosah to me 6 months sems liek a long time in SL -- my experience i sthat voters do not seem to have acute memories here unless someone really sustains outrageous behavior the feedback lopp seems pretty lame -- but opinions can different
[16:40] Gwyneth Llewelyn: That would be a good idea, Rain — right now we just have the "official forums".
[16:40] Sonja Strom: Robert Walpole was a DPU member, so I felt I should try to represent his view, but our views were not the same.
[16:41] Sonja Strom: But now he is gone from the CDS, for better or worse.
[16:41] Gwyneth Llewelyn: I liked his contrarian opinions
[16:41] Gwyneth Llewelyn: always very refreshing to read.
[16:41] Sonja Strom: He is a Barrister in London in RL.
[16:41] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Jamie... so let's think on the reverse model
[16:42] Sonja Strom: I didn't know that until after he had left.
[16:42] Gwyneth Llewelyn: A "Code of Conduct" as an "internal procedure" would just mean that the worst the RA could do is to use it to exclude members from the session.
[16:42] Gwyneth Llewelyn: What would make it into a LAW imply?
[16:42] Gwyneth Llewelyn: pay fines if you're not polite?
[16:42] Gwyneth Llewelyn: get your land seized?:)
[16:42] Gwyneth Llewelyn: your citizenship revoked?
[16:43] Jon Seattle: Well, there are some things, basically the substance of Jamie's bill that probubly should be law, if they are not already.
[16:43] Jamie Palisades whispers to Gwyn -- doubel rents seems to be popular this year
[16:43] Gwyneth Llewelyn: haha
[16:43] Jon Seattle: As they regulate the working of governments.
[16:43] Gwyneth Llewelyn: well, or impeachment (ie. laying a groundwork for starting impeachment cases: if a RA member breaks the Code of Conduct, they're liable to be impeached)
[16:44] Jon Seattle thinks doubling every month ...
[16:44] Gwyneth Llewelyn: (right now it's not clear WHY people get impeached)
[16:44] Gwyneth Llewelyn: lol Jon
[16:44] Jamie Palisades: yes OR REJHECTED FO CONFIRMATION
[16:44] Justice Soothsayer: let's not even begin to get into the meaning of "grounds for impeachment"
[16:44] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, *some* parliaments force their members to pay fines if they miss a session
[16:44] Jamie Palisades: nice weather we're having
[16:45] Gwyneth Llewelyn: lol Jamie
[16:45] Jamie Palisades coughs - sorry - must be somethign in my throat
[16:45] Jamie Palisades: Gwyn
[16:45] Jamie Palisades: if it;s not off scope
[16:45] Jamie Palisades: on the pay to miss meetings thing
[16:45] Jamie Palisades: last term
[16:45] Jamie Palisades: Moon pointed out to me
[16:45] Jamie Palisades: gleefully
[16:45] Jamie Palisades: that i PT some bodyes kick you off it you miss meetings
[16:46] Jamie Palisades: so an RA member who misses and misses? gone
[16:46] Jamie Palisades: etc
[16:46] Jamie Palisades: just a note as we pass the topic
[16:46] Jamie Palisades: a chancellor who fails to do reports, maybe?
[16:46] Gwyneth Llewelyn: hehe I was not being serious on the fines
[16:46] Jamie Palisades: an SC who, oh, I duon;t know, fails to meet for nmonths?
[16:46] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ah, but for that, we have mechanisms, Jamie!
[16:47] Jon Seattle: hmmm.. not a bad idea .. I think really, we ought to insist on that. If they miss meeitngs they are not representing their constituents.
[16:47] Jamie Palisades: hmm mechanisms
[16:47] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Removal from office in the case of the Chancellor; impeachment in the case of the SC
[16:47] Jamie Palisades: IO will get to work on the scripting after this meeting
[16:47] Gwyneth Llewelyn: ha Jon
[16:47] Gwyneth Llewelyn: oh my, now I've opened Pandora's Box
[16:47] Gwyneth Llewelyn: (and it's full of L$ )
[16:47] Jon Seattle: lol
[16:47] Jamie Palisades: well Jon a faction can TODAY remove "its' RA member, maybe?
[16:47] Jon Seattle: Jamie, perhaps, we do not know..
[16:47] Jamie Palisades: Can''t I go to SP sand say, betahan's never here, do somethign? Or not?
[16:48] Gwyneth Llewelyn: You can certainly say anything
[16:48] Jamie Palisades: Now THAT's a change it law I;d love to see factions claim to be responsible for their RA members, heh heh
[16:48] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Oh!
[16:48] Gwyneth Llewelyn: They DO
[16:48] Jon Seattle: Yes, I agree with that one. Factions should be able to recall representitives.
[16:48] Jamie Palisades smiels and purses his lips. OK all you oldbie FICers. HAS a CDS faction ever reemoved its sitting RA member?
[16:49] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Section 3 - The Faction Leader
Factions are lead by the faction leader (SL group officer) who vouches for all members in public proceedings and is responsible for their proper ethical conduct. Faction leaders are those who receive the highest ranking in the faction.
[16:49] Jon Seattle: (it we are serious about factions being elected)
[16:49] Jamie Palisades: I will even claim that's an ethical issue - it helps accountabiolity
[16:49] Jamie Palisades: Jon we are deleadly serious
[16:49] Jamie Palisades: factions ubver alles
[16:49] Justice Soothsayer: NuCARE nearly did last term
[16:49] Jamie Palisades: 'all yoru math majors have insisted on it
[16:49] Jamie Palisades: factions rule us utterly
[16:49] Gwyneth Llewelyn: oh shush, we're not discussing factions today,
[16:49] Jamie Palisades: ... hypothertically hee hee
[16:49] Gwyneth Llewelyn: although you're welcome to do so on the Electoral Commission
[16:50] Jon Seattle: I think we are moving into electoral commission matters a bit
[16:50] Gwyneth Llewelyn: yes hehe
[16:50] Jamie Palisades: Fair scope point
[16:50] Gwyneth Llewelyn fines Jamie L$5 for being off-topic
[16:50] Gwyneth Llewelyn *snickers*
[16:50] Jamie Palisades: so
[16:50] Gwyneth Llewelyn: ROFL Justice — not YOU, but *Jamie?*
[16:50] Justice Soothsayer: no, i'm paying his fine!
[16:50] Gwyneth Llewelyn: lol
[16:51] Gwyneth Llewelyn: that's very gentlemanly of you, Justice
[16:51] Jon Seattle: anyway, I think it a good idea to do both here -- recommend a bill (like Jamie's) as well as recommending a pledge / code of conduct.
[16:51] Gwyneth Llewelyn is not returning the money but will make a donation at the Monastery
[16:51] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Jon, I would agree, yes
[16:51] Justice Soothsayer: Seems to me it is darn hard to legislate courtesy
[16:51] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Mostly for the following reason...
[16:52] Gwyneth Llewelyn: we DO have SOME conflict of interests listed on the Constitution and SOME laws.
[16:52] Gwyneth Llewelyn: We even put the word "ethics" in the Constitution (see above for the quote about the responsibilities of Faction Leaders towards a faction's members)
[16:52] Justice Soothsayer: Going back to the start of this discussion, I think transparency should be a key value.
[16:52] Gwyneth Llewelyn: But like Justice, I also think it's hard to "legislate courtesy2
[16:53] Jamie Palisades apologies for having an RL errand that will pull himaway in a moment -- should I take the bill I write before, make any edits that seem apropos from today's chats, and re-post?
[16:53] Jamie Palisades: that wil lNOT touch the disclosure issue
[16:53] Jamie Palisades: but would get us somewhere on "recusal" type stuff
[16:53] Gwyneth Llewelyn: you're welcome to do so, Jamie, but I don't expect a conclusion *today* — I would like some more discussion at this commission
[16:53] Jamie Palisades: oh yes - I just think draft bill language helps focus - or find flaws
[16:53] Gwyneth Llewelyn: The point of the whole commission, actually,
[16:54] Gwyneth Llewelyn: was that I personally don't think we should have a hundred different bills
[16:54] Gwyneth Llewelyn: addressing all the same issues
[16:54] Gwyneth Llewelyn: ie. one bill on transparency; one on conflicts; one on recusal... etc
[16:54] Jamie Palisades: also - hm - didn't Patroklus post on some prior and possible future disclosure approaches, too?
[16:54] Gwyneth Llewelyn: instead, we should have a framework of what constitutes ethical behaviour as a RA member.
[16:54] Gwyneth Llewelyn: (that's how I see things)
[16:55] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Now, if that becomes "internal procedure"... a law... or even a change of Constitution,
[16:55] Justice Soothsayer: Let me raise another issue here about values.
[16:55] Gwyneth Llewelyn: "to be discussed"
[16:55] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes, sure, Justice!
[16:56] Justice Soothsayer: Do we want to encourage more participation in govt by requiring either term limits or rules requiring someone to "stand down" for a period before accepting a different role in gov't
[16:56] Justice Soothsayer: or do we value experience, and want to encourage people to rotate through the branches of govt?
[16:56] Jamie Palisades: heh heh heh
[16:57] Jon Seattle: I would argue that doing so would be prolematic.. as a citizen, not at offical, my voting choice would be greatly limited by such a rule.
[16:57] Jamie Palisades: Darwin had a few things to say about inbreeding - though we are small and can only assume so many willing volunteers
[16:57] Jon Seattle: *an
[16:57] Sonja Strom: I would like to bring up a question, which is not really a yes or not question...
[16:57] Jamie Palisades: if there were a small elite, such a rule would obey Roberto Unger's socialist critque that the established power OIGHT to be disrupted to advantage disenfranchised and new stakeholders, grin
[16:57] Justice Soothsayer: Heh, spoken as a former legislator now executive, Jamie, speaking in response to a former legislator-onetime SC member-again legislator,
[16:58] Jamie Palisades: if there were ... hypotherically of course ...
[16:58] Sonja Strom: Have citizens felt that there was a problems with the current system not requiring rotation?
[16:58] Jamie Palisades: and I do apoligize for nmy timing, Thanks all, interestung stuff!
[16:58] Sonja Strom: Thanks Jamie
[16:59] Sonja Strom: I know Robert thought limits would be a very good idea, but I don't remember that his thinking was in regard to a real problem...
[17:00] Jon Seattle: I do think there is something to be said by having people compete in elections..
[17:00] Sonja Strom: although he did say the example of Gwyneth and Justice leaving the SC to run for RA was something to provide insight into what he was saying.
[17:00] Jamie Palisades waves & takes his leave
[17:00] Sonja Strom: bye Jamie
[17:00] Jon Seattle: Bye Jamie
[17:00] Gwyneth Llewelyn feels sorry for Jamie having to leave but thanks him so much for coming!
[17:01] Justice Soothsayer: Well, Sonja, it did come up as an issue in the election campaigns, though apparently not enough for block election of some former RA/SC members.
[17:01] Sonja Strom: ok
[17:01] Gwyneth Llewelyn: alas. If we had a thousand citizens, the problem would never occur I know it's a lame excuse
[17:01] Sonja Strom: I think the same - and said that in a response to Robert's posts in the Forum.
[17:02] Gwyneth Llewelyn: So I have to side with Jon when he says that as a citizen he feels sadly if his choices are limited, because we "enforce" rotation and might have to pick among a lot of bad choices just because the good ones are prevented to participate in Government.
[17:02] Sonja Strom: Yes, personally I agree with that too.
[17:02] Gwyneth Llewelyn: I prefer to 'raise' the 'ethical behaviour' banner instead
[17:03] Sonja Strom: Well, I agree with that as well! xD
[17:03] Gwyneth Llewelyn:
[17:03] Gwyneth Llewelyn: To be discussed (not today) is if we make ethical behaviour regulated by law, or just by internal procedures.
[17:03] Sonja Strom: I think what you said earlier about that made a lot of sense.
[17:04] Jon Seattle: yes, and I might not be able to have my views represented at all amoung new candidates, thus potentially removing my (and others) right to representation alltogerher.
[17:04] Jon Seattle: One point I think is important
[17:04] Jon Seattle: RA members are there to represent citizens, not for their own benifit
[17:04] Jon Seattle: they should act as representing the interests and views of their constituents
[17:05] Jon Seattle: so the question is not who gets to be an RA member..
[17:05] Jon Seattle: the question is are citizens being represented
[17:05] Gwyneth Llewelyn: (those two sentences of yours, Jon, *should* definitely be part of any code of conduct!)
[17:05] Jon Seattle:

[Gwyneth Llewelyn]

[17:05] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Hear, hear
[17:06] Gwyneth Llewelyn: I think that summarises quite well what I also personally had in mind.
[17:06] Gwyneth Llewelyn: If someone loses a bill at the RA, leaves the RA, and then goes to the SC to veto their former colleagues' bills as "revenge"... are citizens being represented?
[17:06] Gwyneth Llewelyn: I think *not*
[17:06] Gwyneth Llewelyn: So that kind of behaviour should be discouraged
[17:06] Gwyneth Llewelyn: (or forbidden)
[17:07] Jon Seattle: yes, but mind reading can be a bit difficult so the pledge approach might work..
[17:07] Jon Seattle: thay might, after all, have the purest of motives
[17:07] Rain Ninetails: oops excuse me. have to run.
[17:08] Sonja Strom: ok Rain, see you!
[17:08] Jon Seattle: See you rain
[17:08] Justice Soothsayer: I've got to go too, folks. Interesting discussion.
[17:08] Rain Ninetails:
[17:08] Sonja Strom: bye Justice
[17:08] Jon Seattle: Bye Justice
[17:09] Gwyneth Llewelyn: bye
[17:09] Justice Soothsayer: adios
[17:09] Gwyneth Llewelyn: One OTHER thing that I guess we should discuss
[17:09] Gwyneth Llewelyn: (and which Jamie also referred to)
[17:09] Gwyneth Llewelyn: is about the code of conduct of *factions*
[17:09] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Let me explain ...
[17:09] Gwyneth Llewelyn: in *some* RL parliaments,
[17:10] Gwyneth Llewelyn: the parliament can do a vote of no confidence in the Government
[17:10] Gwyneth Llewelyn: if a faction who won the elections
[17:10] Gwyneth Llewelyn: fails to follow their own manifesto
[17:10] Gwyneth Llewelyn: (ie. just used it demagogically)
[17:11] Gwyneth Llewelyn: This vote of no confidence always fails if the faction in Government has a majority of the seats, of course, but nevertheless it's a political message:
[17:11] Gwyneth Llewelyn: "your faction was not honest to your voters!"
[17:12] Jon Seattle: Interesting.
[17:12] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Now so far we have only considered INDIVIDUAL behaviour.
[17:12] Sonja Strom: But a vote of no confidence would be in the "government," right? I mean, the Chamber and the Prime Minister (?).
[17:12] Jon Seattle: How would it apply? Our actual givernment is kind of thin on the ground...
[17:12] Gwyneth Llewelyn: I wonder, though, if we should think about applying a pledge of 'honest behaviour' to factions
[17:12] Gwyneth Llewelyn: yes, yes, Sonja, of course!
[17:13] Gwyneth Llewelyn: note that I'm just brainstorming here
[17:13] Sonja Strom: So, I guess the CDS equivalent would be for the RA to be able to have a vote on the LRA (?)
[17:13] Sonja Strom: ok, sure
[17:13] Gwyneth Llewelyn: But imagine the following scenario...
[17:13] Sonja Strom: me too...
[17:13] Gwyneth Llewelyn: hehe yes
[17:13] Gwyneth Llewelyn: A RA member asks for the floor,
[17:14] Gwyneth Llewelyn: and starts insulting another RA member
[17:14] Gwyneth Llewelyn: When called to order
[17:14] Bells Semyorka: thanks for the information gyn and jon I have to run RL calls
[17:14] Sonja Strom: see you Bells!
[17:14] Bells Semyorka: Gvvyn
[17:14] Sonja Strom: hahaa
[17:14] Bells Semyorka: sorry I have no vvorking VV
[17:14] Gwyneth Llewelyn: ... they defend themselves saying: "my faction, in its manifesto, says that I should insult other RA members."
[17:14] Bells Semyorka: lol
[17:14] Sonja Strom:
[17:14] Gwyneth Llewelyn: lol Bells!!!
[17:14] Gwyneth Llewelyn: vvhat a pity
[17:15] Bells Semyorka giggles, bye
[17:15] Gwyneth Llewelyn: byeeee
[17:15] Bells Semyorka: bye Sonja
[17:15] Bells Semyorka:
[17:15] Jon Seattle: Bye Bells
[17:15] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well!... I guess we should adjourn
[17:15] Gwyneth Llewelyn: It would be unethical to continue... lol
[17:15] Sonja Strom: lol
[17:16] Sonja Strom: Thanks for hosting, Gwyneth.
[17:16] Sonja Strom: It seems to me a lot was discussed.
[17:16] Jon Seattle: yes, and all in a rush but its good to talk about these things I think.
[17:17] Sonja Strom: byebye for now
[17:17] Jon Seattle: Bye
[17:17] Gwyneth Llewelyn: hehe
[17:17] Gwyneth Llewelyn: well, it's a start
[17:17] Jon Seattle: yes nods
[17:17] Gwyneth Llewelyn: we just need to figure out if this is a good time
[17:17] Gwyneth Llewelyn: or if we should do it one hour later perhaps, since most people arrived after 4 PM

[Patroklus Murakami]

Looks like a productive meeting, sorry I couldn't attend.

I note the next meeting may be scheduled for 4pm (which is midnight in the UK). While it looks like you'll get some good participation at that time could I request that we have at least one of these meetings at more Euro-friendly hours? I know weekends are tough to find a time slot as so many are already taken up but we need a range if we are to be inclusive at these meetings.