EVE Search - CSM Formal Meeting 3. Sunday 8th June (18:00 hours eve time)

All Channels

Jita Park Speakers Corner

CSM Formal Meeting 3. Sunday 8th June (18:00 hours eve time)

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.03 19:17:00 - [1] Edited by: Jade Constantine on 03/06/2008 19:17:32 3rd CSM Meeting: 8th of June 18:00 Eve Time Initial Agenda Items: 1. Alternates and Voting (if an alternate is empowered to replace a full rep for the meetings does can a rep come back mid-way through and take the alternates place once again?) (Hardin) 2. Processes behind future appointment of CSM committee (Hardin) 3. Update on Assembly Hall tweaks for CSM members (Jade) 4. Confirmation of CSM forum tools request document. (Dierdra) 5. Confirmation of Assembly Hall stickies, public template, + submission template. (Provisional public issues û have been on record for 7 days with significant public support or CSM rep advocacy -) 1. Science Industry + Secondary Market (Lavista) http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=782682 2. General Eve Forums improvement/fixing http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=778049 3. CSM should vote for its own chairman (Jade) http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=783042 4. Feasibility of Outposts going boom (Jade) http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=785568 5. Re-examination of 0.0 Sovereignty http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=777906 6. Reload all Ammo http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=783536 7. Small Freighters http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=781074 8. Drone Implants http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=781729 9. Multiple undocking points http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=779886 10. Rigged ships and cargo http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=779886 11. Aggression timer is too short/variable hull fix http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=780181 12. Improve Bombs http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=784572 13. Large Hull Exploration Vessel http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=779425 *** IÆd like all CSM representatives/alternatives that will be able to attend on Sunday to inform themselves about the council/public issues that weÆll be discussing in advance of the meeting. Please read the threads, check out the drafts and review the previous meeting minutes/chatlog so we donÆt waste any time allotted to us. If any CSM representative wishes items added to the agenda for Sunday please reply to this thread before 14:00 hours on Friday afternoon with a brief overview of the issue + link to the assembly hall thread. Make sure that the issue you are advocating will have been open to public debate for 7 days by the time of the meeting on Sunday. Note, order of the agenda will be tweaked if necessary to ensure that all CSM reps get their issues heard within the scope of the meeting. Note2, as a member of the electorate the best way you can ensure you get your issues onto the agenda is a) convince a CSM rep to bring it to the agenda directly, or b) make sure it gets a good debate and plenty of support and IÆll be inclined to add it anyways on my own authority in the interests of community. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.03 20:35:00 - [2] Originally by: Goumindong Nothing being done to facilitate discussion? The general conclusion was that posting issue threads in the Assembly Hall for seven day minimum was the best means of facilitating discussion. Quote: No word on what that template you voted on last time was? If you read the 2nd meeting chatlog you'll see that we didn't have it ready and had to defer - should have it up this week. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.03 20:54:00 - [3] Originally by: Goumindong Bull**, you never discussed it. Hell your post in the "Look at 0.0 sov" thread is "I support this" way to have a facilitate discussion! There is only a chance in hell of having a discussion if a CSM starts the topic and even then its flooded with ** by all the idiots who don't realize they don't need to "vote" anymore. I've told you before about swearing and insulting people in your posts Goum. Learn to behave with a little respect and maybe you'll get some discussion. Continue like this and you'll continue quite rightly being ignored. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.03 21:22:00 - [4] Edited by: Jade Constantine on 03/06/2008 21:22:41 Originally by: Goumindong You should not ignore anyone else when they use adjectives. I'll feel free to ignore anybody I consider fails on the basic standards of civilized debate Goum. Welcome back to my ignore list CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.04 13:18:00 - [5] Originally by: Papa Ina Originally by: Arithron Originally by: Viktor Amand -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I, personally, wish the representatives wouldn't give their own ideas (some of which lack popular support) priority over those which clearly have popular support with many more support posts. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Could you give an example of such ones? (La Vista) I can easily give an example: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=784572&page=2 20 'thumbs up (from 200,000), Jade supports it... Take care, Arithron To give a proper example you would have to also include an issue with more popular support being ignored in favour of this. As an aside it is also the CSM members rights to bring up issues which they feel are important to Eves future. That's why they were voted in. if you wanted a puppet council you should have voted for someone else. This really. I've actually been pretty wide-ranging in the issues I've nominated to the agenda thus far and looked for the highest levels of relative support as a tie-breaker. Its important we get the material for good meaty discussions at the Iceland summit and that means getting a move on in the selection of issues. Some candidates did stand on purely administrative platforms without opinions of their own, but by and large the eve electorate voted for people with outspoken views and the drive to get things done. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.04 17:53:00 - [6] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Also, Jade, your agenda has an error - the link to issue #11 is wrong. Please update it, so that we can be sure which issue you're referring to. Thank you Herschel, fixed it now. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.05 17:49:00 - [7] Originally by: Arithron As an aside, I note that the meeting this weekend, 8th June, is within the 14 day period before the meeting in Iceland. Does this mean that the agenda items discussed, which have to be submitted to CCP at least 14 days in advance, won't be addressed by CCP this time? Take care, Arithron As of this moment zero issues have been formally transmitted to CCP in the format of a submission template. Time constraints have been harsh, and we are doing our best to invent this process from the ground up. All parties are going to need to appreciate that the CSM document (full and summary) will be incomplete and inappropriate to the needs of the inaugural/founding session in certain aspects. We will be forwarding submission templates to CCP in advance of the Iceland meeting but these will fall short of the 14 day specification in the documentation and we're going to be asking CCP for their understanding and forbearance on the issue in the interests of making this inaugural session work. As an aside, I'm going to ask people to stop trying to play legal games with the founding CSM documentation for the apparent purpose of confusing the issues and making the task of the CSM harder than it should be. We will get these things resolved and will have the CSM documentation re-written where it needs to be revised and corrected. We are not going to slavishly adhere to the text where it needs revision and external input to ensure the CSM can be all it can be for the game of Eve and the community. For this inaugural session its my intention that we take 3 weeks worth of issues produced in template format and provide these to CCP 5-6 days in advance of the first CSM/CCP meetings. Yes this is certainly shorter than the 14 days specified but its my judgment call as CSM chair that this represents better value to the community than simply flying to Iceland with a grand total of zero issues added to the agenda after complying with the 7 day open discussion and 14 day prior submission rules in the documentation. Sometimes you have to bend the rules to get a decent outcome. This is one of those times. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.05 20:13:00 - [8] Originally by: Arithron No items on the agenda for CCP before flying to Iceland would be a failure of the current CSM council, rather than a failure of the rules. Nothing needs changing- you just have to make sure that meetings etc are held in the proper timeframe before the 14 day period, and issues are properly discussed and voted upon. Well we're altering the rules this time Arithron. I've told you the rationale. And I'm confident that eve-players will understand my intention to get more useful issues on the agenda for Iceland rather than less of them. You are free to disagree but this decision is made. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.05 20:15:00 - [9] Originally by: Inanna Zuni The following three topics will have completed seven days of 'the ability for discussion' by the date of the meeting: * Proposals for UI improvements * Replace double-click in a chat channel * Cargo hold size of ships in hangar but not in use Not surprisingly, for topics which will benefit everyone and are non-contentious, there are not an enormous number of responces, however they are all positive. eg. Originally by: Elseix UI improvements are second only to performance improvements in terms of positive effect on the entire eve community. IZ Adding them now Inanna, thank you. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.06 05:16:00 - [10] Originally by: Erotic Irony See also: monster trucks. It's a lost cause. Its a lost cause when monster trucks get voted through the csm. Thats not the same thing. Lucky we've got a spam-prevention function eh? CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.06 14:08:00 - [11] Submission deadline for discussion of Issues is now closed and that part of the agenda is fixed. Can I remind all CSM reps who took ownership of issues last time we need the formal submission templates filled out very soon as we will need to submit them to CCP by next week. At the moment I'm thinking of an extra meeting next week on Thursday where we'll vote final approval on the issues from week 2/3 prior to getting them bundled off to CCP. Thanks a lot! CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.06 17:24:00 - [12] Originally by: Arithron I see that you have now fixed the agenda for this meeting, so now, as chairperson, can you please publicly state answers to the following: 1. That presenting 60+ issues to a CSM meeting as 'One topic'(Science and Industry) is within the rules and guidelines. Yes. Quote: 2. Are you going to discuss each of the 60+ issues in turn? If the issue gets support and goes to the Iceland agenda yes we will. Quote: 3 Is there going to be a seperate vote on each of the issues from the Science and Industry PDF? Nope, we'll be voting on whether the issue of "industrial improvements" is a matter worth raising as a whole and will be treating the 60 "issues" as example problems afflicting science and industry at the moment. There will be discussion with CCP if this reaches the agenda but at some point we'll be relinquishing control of the document to the powers that be and trusting them to give a substantive response to the detailed issues. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.09 01:51:00 - [13] Okay this was a long and very hard meeting. The outcome led to the following decisions: 1. Can the elected candidate return to a meeting and regain voting rights when the debate moves on to the next item on the agenda (Issue passed) 2. 2nd issue is should an alternate step and begin voting when an elected rep leaves the meeting for whatever reason (Issue passed) 3. Update on Assembly Hall tweaks for CSM members (Jade) (communication from CCP delivered) 4. Confirmation of CSM forum tools request document. (Dierdra) (confirmed) 5. Confirmation of Assembly Hall stickies, public template, + submission template. (issue covered) 1. Science Industry + Secondary Market (Lavista) http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=782682 (Issue passed on the condition that document is split into major topics for individual confirming votes prior to submission - LaVista owns) 2. General Eve Forums improvement/fixing http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=778049 (Issue passed - Ankhesentapemkah owns) 3. CSM should vote for its own chairman (Jade) http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=783042 (Issue passed - Jade owns) 4. Evaluation of empire war dec mechanics (Diedra) http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=782220 (Issue passed - Dierdra owns) 5.Proposals for UI Improvements (Inanna) http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=783206 (issue passed Inanna owns) 6.Feasibility of Outposts going boom (Jade) http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=785568 (issue passed Jade owns) 7.Replace double-click in a chat channel (Inanna) http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=783218 (issue passed Inanna owns) 8.Cargo hold size of ships in hanger but not in use (Inanna) http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=783263 (Issue passed - Inanna owns) 9. Re-examination of 0.0 Sovereignty http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=777906 (Issue passed - Darius owns) 10. Reload all Ammo http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=783536 (Issue passed - Dierdra Vaal owns) 11. Small Freighters http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=781074 (Issue passed - Inanna Zuni owns) 12. Drone Implants http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=781729 (Issue passed - Hardin owns) 13. Multiple undocking points http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=779886 (Issue fails - 8 against 1 abstain) 14. Rigged ships and cargo http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=783373 (Issue passed - Lavista owns) 15. Aggression timer is too short/variable hull fix http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=780181 (Issue passed - Jade owns) 16. Improve Bombs http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=784572 (Issue passed - Hardin owns) 17. Large Hull Exploration Vessel http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=779425 (Issue failed - 5 against 3 for 1 abstain) Additional vote on the principle of simple majority voting: Initial Vote: 3 simple majority 4 qualified majority 2 abstain (Re-vote - after checking CSM PDF docs) 5 simple majority 1 qualified majority 3 abstain *** Formal minutes to follow, chatlog is already up. Our next formal meeting is going to thursday where are going to be ensuring that all issues going to Iceland are properly documented and ready for submission. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.09 03:10:00 - [14] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto After a power outage, I just got around to finishing my reading of the chatlogs, and I'm pretty ****ed off at the conduct of the meeting. The chair decided to arbitrarily mute a member of the Council who had done nothing wrong "til the vote", and then proceeded to re-mute her twice more without ever actually letting the block off until after the vote had already taken place. This is actually a technical problem we discovered with the chat channel : The first notification of a mute is where I muted Inanna (following polite requests, and two formal warnings against disruptive conduct.) The second notification of a mute (immediately before the vote) is actually me clicking "un-mute" which for some bizarre reason doesn't work and ends up kicking the person from the channel. The third notification of a mute is actually the un-mute once she'd been reinvited to the channel by me. = there are technical problems with the mute system in that channel. (we checked all this afterwards btw). But technical issues aside: Its the role of the Chair to moderate meetings. If people are refusing to ask to be recognized by the chair before speaking (while other CSM members are quite happy to do this) then its the responsibility of the chair to ensure that steps are taken when this conduct damages our ability to make progress. Polite requests were made, warnings were given. I took the step to mute the representative when she point blank refused to remain quiet while a vote was being conducted. The vice chair agreed with this step. Ultimately the CSM reps need to respect the authority of the chair to moderate meetings. If they don't then no progress can be made. If people don't like the way I handled this they are free to complain to CCP or whatever. But I'll continue to do my best to ensure we actually get things done rather than spending fruitless periods listening to endless cross talk and interruptions while other CSM reps are actually respecting the process of the meeting and waiting to be recognized before speaking their own points. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.09 10:40:00 - [15] Originally by: LaVista Vista This means a person effectively have to disrupt 3 times. So lets look at the logs from yesterday: [ 2008.06.08 19:47:37 ]Jade Constantine >no Inanna I'm giving you a formal warning [ 2008.06.08 21:35:52 ]Jade Constantine >Innana I'm giving you a second formal warning for this session for interruptions and interfering with the process of the chair [ 2008.06.08 21:36:58 ]EVE System >Inanna Zuni was muted by Jade Constantine., Effective until 2008.06.08 22:06:57, Reason: "till the vote". [ 2008.06.08 21:40:29 ]EVE System >Inanna Zuni was muted by Jade Constantine., Effective until 2008.06.08 21:10:28. [ 2008.06.08 21:44:06 ]EVE System >Inanna Zuni was muted by Jade Constantine., Effective until 2008.06.08 21:14:05. [ 2008.06.08 21:49:30 ]Jade Constantine >You were muted after a 2nd formal warning for disruptive behavior Innana Well? My logs look like this: [ 2008.06.08 21:35:52 ] Jade Constantine > Innana I'm giving you a second formal warning for this session for interruptions and interfering with the process of the chair [ 2008.06.08 21:36:08 ] Jade Constantine > Now then: [ 2008.06.08 21:36:11 ] Inanna Zuni > and what do you mean by that? [ 2008.06.08 21:36:13 ] Hardin > what is a formal warning? [ 2008.06.08 21:36:19 ] LaVista Vista > I'm sorry Jade? [ 2008.06.08 21:36:21 ] Inanna Zuni > "Formal warning" is a misnomer [ 2008.06.08 21:36:25 ] Darius JOHNSON > Your warnings don't mean a thing FYI [ 2008.06.08 21:36:35 ] Inanna Zuni > and how can I be interriptiing when I am completeing what i type? [ 2008.06.08 21:36:57 ] EVE System > Inanna Zuni was muted by Jade Constantine., Effective until 2008.06.08 22:06:57, Reason: "till the vote". * We had reached an issue that needed to be handled within that meeting. We had CSM members that that believed we needed a full majority 5/9 yes for an issue to reach the agenda, we had CSM members who believed simple majority was enough. We had been through one vote already that Inanna had refused to vote on and virtually protested through. Now we needed clarification because it was ridiculous and would have been a failure on the part of the chair to allow a meeting to close with the CSM split on what the interpretation of a successful vote actually was. [ 2008.06.08 21:34:00 ] Jade Constantine > I'm going to suggest we clarify right now [ 2008.06.08 21:34:06 ] Jade Constantine > Inanna your objection is noted [ 2008.06.08 21:34:09 ] Serenity Steele > motion to vote. * [ 2008.06.08 21:34:28 ] LaVista Vista > I think we just need to do something. 1+ over time still. [ 2008.06.08 21:34:29 ] Bane Glorious > i move we drop the whole thing and forget we ever discussed it because this is just asinine I can understand you were tired and frustrated but without clarifying those voting rules we had 4 CSM members who believed that we needed 5 yes votes for an issue to pass. That would have let to us publishing contentious minutes that would not have been acceptable to other members of the CSM. *** [ 2008.06.08 21:35:14 ] Inanna Zuni > Actually, I see no decisions on topics which we have taken which are compromised in any way Aside from the issue that finished with 4 yes 2 no 2 abstain that led to the discussion of voting majorities needed in the first please? An issue that 4 of 9 CSM members would consider hadn't passed and others would consider had passed? Now external commentators can certainly point things and say that as CSM members we should never have questioned simple majority voting but that doesn't change the fact that these things were questioned and once questioned the chair has the authority to hold a vote on the point of principle to clarify the issue and make sure the meeting ends with votes we all agree happened and game to results we are all clear on. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.09 10:53:00 - [16] As to the general complaints about muting raised here. I stand 100% behind what I did. And I'd do exactly the same next time, to any CSM member who ignores 2 formal warnings on disruptive behaviour. I'm expecting certain rules of courtesy from CSM members in council and these need to be respected if this process is going to go anywhere. Its been established that raising a hand "!" in channel is to be used to indicate a desire to speak. From there the chair recognizes individuals by name and they speak in order as called. Once we've moved to a vote on an issue it is not appropriate to continue debating against the notion of the vote - clarification can be asked for, its considered respectful behaviour to listen to clarification while its being given. Now text based meetings of this sort are extremely challenging - there is no verbal queue, no eye contact, and very little peer pressure on members of the council to behave properly. Yesterday's session is an example of what happens when moderation from the chair is not followed. We managed to get through the agenda by pure force of will and stubborn resolve on the part of the CSM officers however - if we'd ended on time - items 6 to 17 on the agenda would not have been heard. But it does show there are problems. I'm pretty unhappy with the in-game chat system and its functionality in this medium. The mute function does not work as it should do, the word limits mean that statements are broken up and its too easy for people to interrupt and break the flow of meaning. I'd personally be much happier with a voice meeting or even using IRC chat where the moderation functions work correctly. End of the day though, that agenda was discussed and resolved and what needed clarifying got clarified. I repeat, I'm a 100% behind the moderation decisions taken and will do exactly the same thing next time if people refuse to respect the process of the meeting and keep cross-talking and interrupting and behaving disruptively. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.09 12:07:00 - [17] Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Now it's the in-game chat system's fault you muted a CSM member without due authority. Chair has the authority to mute disruptive csm reps. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.09 12:29:00 - [18] I'm telling you the Chair has the authority to moderate meetings. That can involve muting disruptive CSM members in extreme circumstances. We can get involved in debate as to whether silencing a council member for 30secs while the chair was actually stating the terms of a vote that would allow us to finish a meeting that had ALREADY overrun by 2 hours is - "extreme circumstances" by all means. But ultimately I made the call and I'd do it again. If any CSM members feel this was wrong then its their right to bring up an issue for the next agenda proposing specific rules or limitations on moderation or indeed ideas as to how one does deal with ongoing and disruptive cross-talk and interruptions to keep a 2 hour meeting under a 4 hour timespan without having the sanction to silence a member who has already ignored repeated requests to follow the protocol of the meeting. Bring it to a vote by all means. If the CSM does manage to vote itself out of all moderation in text chat then we'll see where that takes us. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.09 12:40:00 - [19] Within wishing to interrupt the flow of goon flaming too much, could I ask a little favor and suggest you skip over to Meeting 4 sign off on items 12th June 20:00 hours and continue your wild flights of fancy and hilarious attempts to wind me up there please? (thats the current agenda for issues sign off that we need to get done by thursday and if you'd care to troll and flame me in that thread we can serve the dual purpose of keeping it bumped and letting you have your fun) Fair enough? CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.09 14:11:00 - [20] Originally by: Elsebeth Rhiannon That said, I agree completely on the following points: - The muting was jumping the gun. From the logs, the meeting was obviously getting heated and people were getting tired (not the least Jade himself). What should have been done was to call a break, let everyone cool off, and continue separately. - The idea that abstains count as no is bizarre in this case. Abstains should count as votes not cast. That is the point of abstaining in this kind of a meeting - letting whoever does have an opinion decide. Yes the meeting was overlong. But we were caught on the horns of dilemma there. Any issues that didn't get heard at that meeting were not getting on the Iceland agenda since they needed to be agreed and then have written documentation produced this coming thursday for submission to ccp. And if you review the logs - we actually got through the substantive issues in about an hour - and spent 3 hours arguing about complete tosh. Yes I was tired, yes I was hot and frustrated and yes I really wanted the meeting to end. But we had a seriously problem. Half the CSM thought the vote on issue 3 had failed, half the CSM thought it was successful. Thats where all the "wtf does abstention mean?" debate came from. Sure in the cold light of day I'm going to put my hand up now and say what I should have done was say: "I'm making a call on this this - Chair says we're using simple majority voting - moving on." (though I'm guessing that would have led to some toys being thrown out of prams and more accusations of chair claiming too much authority again - sometimes you can't win). But as it was we needed to get clarity on that issue to prevent a situation where ank was going to produce minutes showing one result for issue 3 where half the CSM thought it had gone the other way. I'd dearly have loved to call a break Elebeth, but we'd not have reconvened afterwards - people were desperate to be away and it would have led to us denying the electorate the chance to get some of their issues on the agenda. For all the drama and spats and foot-stamping and goon-trolling its led too I'm glad to have persevered and gotten to the end of the agenda. What led to me mute Inanna was her interference in the two separate votes on the simple majority issue. Doesn't matter she was right - (and I agreed with her on the principle) what mattered is that she was further stalling the process of a lengthy and fractious meeting by arguing against us having a vote to decide the issue. If she had gotten her way and there had been no vote we'd be arguing right now about whether issue 3 had passed or not, since at the midpoint of that meeting we had 4 CSM reps: Serenity Steele, Dierdra Vaal, Darius and Bane [ 2008.06.08 19:41:38 ] Bane Glorious > i'm voting A because that's what the CSM document's rules say Supporting the principle that 5/9 majority is required for a vote to pass. 3 CSM reps: Ank, Lavista, and myself Supporting the principle that simple majority is required. 1 CSM rep (Hardin/Tusko) not available to vote. and 1 CSM rep Inanna refusing to vote because: [ 2008.06.08 19:40:26 ] Inanna Zuni > I choose to decline to support or reject this proposal As it ended up THAT vote finished 4 yes 3 no (2 no opinions) which would actually have pushed through the notion of 5/9 majority voting being required. But it didn't finish the argument since 2 of the 3 no voters and 1 abstainer refused to accept the verdict believing (correctly as it turned out) that it contradicted the spirit of the founding CSM document. Hence the secondary vote on the issue with more information (supplied by Tusko) that led ultimately to an overturn of the earlier decision and confirmation of the principle of simple majority voting. Sometime you just need to get the vote done. People have a time to object. Once noted they need to shut up and vote (or abstain) - interfering with the process of a vote will earn a mute. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.09 14:29:00 - [21] Edited by: Jade Constantine on 09/06/2008 14:29:42 Originally by: Inanna Zuni "Goon-trolling"? I fail to see any occur last night (are you?) Talking about this thread obviously. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.09 14:30:00 - [22] Originally by: Inanna Zuni [ 2008.06.08 19:37:12 ] Jade Constantine > yeah to be honest I don't really understand the point of abstains and after more discussion wherein those who understand that 'abstain' is a perfectly rational and acceptable position to take argued with those who, seemingly, do not, Jade typed [ 2008.06.08 19:44:52 ] Jade Constantine > so I need inanna and Tusko to register a vote please and then, presumably because it suited you: [ 2008.06.08 19:46:32 ] Jade Constantine > okay I'm going to record no votes from Tusko and Inanna [ 2008.06.08 19:46:38 ] Jade Constantine > option A passes then despite [ 2008.06.08 19:46:44 ] Ankhesentapemkah > Objection! you "warn" me. How else would you interpret 4 yes votes, 3 no votes, and 2 CSM candidates that refuse to register a vote? I recorded you'd cast no meaningful vote (effectively an abstain) so the measure passed by simple majority voting 4 to 3. Quote: My view was that the editorialising, returning to subjects, and general bullying of myself suggests that there are issues in the present incarnation of the CSM. One cannot demand trust, one has to earn it. Ultimately Inanna you need to examine your own behaviour as well. Look back through the log and count the number of comments you interject without asking to be recognized by the Chair, look at your reaction to a vote being called, look at the generally insulting and demeaning way you post with accusations against the competence of other reps, continual correcting of grammar or spelling, haranguing other reps and the Chair and generally refusing to be called to order. I'm not expecting any kind of democratic resolution here Inanna, but I'm going to tell you right now that if you keep behaving as you did in that last meeting then I'll be warning you each time you speak without asking to be recognized and I'll be doing this not to bully or intimidate you, but since it is the only way to be fair to the other CSM reps, and to the electorate that voted for us to actually make progress in these committee meetings rather than listen to 101 interjections and snippy one-liners. If you (or any other) CSM rep don't think this is reasonable then you have the option of tabling a motion to suggest how we moderate these meetings in the future. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.09 14:41:00 - [23] Originally by: Erotic Irony Is there some good reason to do this in terrible text format? There is no way you're ever going to moderate anything as its not a discussion it looks like this: Quote: JC > ********************************* DJ > no u :cripes: LaVista > WHAT ABOUT ICELAND FFS ICELAND GARGLE GLOMP IZ > can I have a word here Diedra > lol Serenity > let not America go wrong in her first hour :( bane > lol LaVista > ok bye exam JC > bye bane > bye Darius> get out Just do it via voice coms so there is as little miscommunication as possible and so it has the pretense of question and answer. After all no one's accent is so egregious that this misbegotten text "method" offers any advantage. I think the CSM was so preoccupied with being romantically political and transparent that it forget no has ever had a meaningful exchange in between the lols and other dross. Sadly we've been told we have to use eve-chat. I Agree with you its horrible. There are terrible problems with text chat meetings particular in the moderation - there is simply no useful way to stop people interrupting and cross-talking over recognized speakers without muting them. Which as we see from this thread makes people jump six foot in the air with mortified outrage at the attack on their their civil rights. What I wouldn't give for channel commander powers in the moderation role here. Of course its all going to be different face to face because people by and large behave a lot better in physical proximity - but we are going to need solutions to this fiasco meaning form in the future. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.09 14:48:00 - [24] Originally by: Darius JOHNSON calling you on your attempts to editorialize and change the results of votes. Where you get off blaming everyone and everything else for this, or even insinuating that anyone else was doing anything untoward I don't know. Would you care to explain exactly what you mean by "editorialize" and "change results of votes"? These are serious accusations, I'd like to know precisely what you mean? CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.09 15:01:00 - [25] Originally by: Inanna Zuni And again you are being disrespectful to council members. An 'abstain' (which is, as I have noted, the vote I cast) is a meaningful vote, and that you choose to editorialise the decision I (and others on this and other motions) chose to make sadly shows you do not understand so seek to cast aspersions. [ 2008.06.08 19:40:26 ] Inanna Zuni > I choose to decline to support or reject this proposal [ 2008.06.08 19:41:18 ] Inanna Zuni > Why are you asking this pointless question? I took that to understand you were refusing to vote, I recorded your position as an abstain. You are quick to make these accusations of editorializing - but they have no real substance. Quote: Clearly this thread has gone on long enough and others have made the points that needed to be made. That you are not answering the questions asked of you is ... a pity ... and that you seeking to place the blame elsewhere, just sad. Yep its a long and sad thread and it does show a pretty poor side to the CSM for sure. All I can say is as distasteful as I find your behaviour in council I'll continue to try to work with you and give you the same respect as I afford to others involved with this process. If at the end of the day you find you can't follow the procedures of the council chamber you've got the option to raise a vote to change them I guess. Be assured that while you are introducing your vote I'll be keen to stop over people interrupting, talking above and generally trying to disrupt the points YOU are making. Funny that. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.09 15:10:00 - [26] Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Um... read the logs? Inanna called you on it. Hardin called you on it. I called you on it. Inanna was then muted. It's been quoted multiple times in this thread and I'm sure you've read it... Go ahead and play coy and offended though. I was asking to see if you actually understood the accusation you were making. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.09 15:24:00 - [27] Edited by: Jade Constantine on 09/06/2008 15:26:21 Originally by: Inanna Zuni Edited by: Inanna Zuni on 09/06/2008 15:19:19 Originally by: Jade Constantine [ 2008.06.08 19:40:26 ] Inanna Zuni > I choose to decline to support or reject this proposal [ 2008.06.08 19:41:18 ] Inanna Zuni > Why are you asking this pointless question? I took that to understand you were refusing to vote, I recorded your position as an abstain. You are quick to make these accusations of editorializing - but they have no real substance. And ... yet again, you are attempting (and failing) to obfuscate the point here. The vote had been held some minutes earlier! Your call for vote: [ 2008.06.08 19:33:38 ] Jade Constantine > ************************alll in favour of CSM electing its own chair .... aye or nay My vote: [ 2008.06.08 19:33:55 ] Inanna Zuni > Having read all the thread (http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=783042) and responses to my own posts therein, I'm still neutral on this; there are good and bad points to it. Abstain (tending towards reject.). You then tried to force the two abstentions (myself and Dierdra Vaal) to change our votes. even though [ 2008.06.08 19:38:15 ] Ankhesentapemkah > its their right to abstain. so you tried to re-open a concluded vote: [ 2008.06.08 19:40:25 ] Jade Constantine > please choose and, not surprisingly, I didn't bend to this attempt to run roughshod over the decision that the CSM had just made, resulting in [ 2008.06.08 19:40:26 ] Inanna Zuni > I choose to decline to support or reject this proposal [ 2008.06.08 19:40:36 ] Ankhesentapemkah > As stated previously, if 5 votes would be required then all abstains would count as no, so this is silly. Abstain is abstain. [ 2008.06.08 19:40:51 ] Jade Constantine > then please choose [ 2008.06.08 19:40:53 ] Jade Constantine > A or B where you again refused to accept my abstain vote. As I said, editorialising decisions to make them appear different to how they were presented and decided upon. IZ You completely misunderstood what was going on there Inanna. The electable chair vote ended with a 4/2/2 result and half the CSM committee felt that meant it failed, half felt it passed. We moved to a secondary vote on the principle of majority voting (in general) to clarify whether the result was a pass or a fail. Your behaviour makes a lot more sense now in retrospect if you actually did confuse these two issues and assumed it was a revote on issue 3 specifically. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.09 15:25:00 - [28] Edited by: Jade Constantine on 09/06/2008 15:25:24 Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Jade: The motion to kick alternates out of the room when a CSM has showed up late has passed. Rest of CSM: That's not what we said. That isn't what I said. Does that mean you are "editorializing" now? CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.09 16:51:00 - [29] Originally by: Ulstan ITT many people who are way too caught up in meaningless minutiae of the rules. Maybe they can combine with the mass of Jade Haters to prevent the CSM from accomplishing anything! Yeah that does seem to be the undercurrent - don't worry though Ulstan, we got a decent set of issues through regardless and if the CSM votes in Iceland to make an electable chair in the constitution I'll be happy to sit back and just promote good issues for the next 4 months of the term. I'm sure the next chair will enjoy herding these cats. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.09 16:58:00 - [30] Originally by: Hardin Edited by: Hardin on 09/06/2008 16:57:30 Quote: I'm sure the next chair will enjoy herding these cats. I suppose you would have preferred sheep eh Jade? Would you? CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.09 17:05:00 - [31] Originally by: Hardin Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah Last, I really want to thank all council members and alternates for their commitment in seeing the meeting through to the end, no matter how frustrating it was. Which is actually a good point. Despite the choas at stages all proposed business got done. We may end up all hating each other on CSM by the end of our time in Iceland - but if a result is delivered for the players of EVE it might well be worth it. I do wonder who will even want to stand enxt time though? To be honest its the light at the end of the tunnel. If we do actually get these issues into useful discussion and help get some decent changes through it all becomes worthwhile. These horrible meetings do have a purpose. End of the day all the forum trolling and nonsense means nothing if we make a positive impact on the game. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.09 18:25:00 - [32] Edited by: Jade Constantine on 09/06/2008 18:26:48 Originally by: Ulstan The more I look at the whole brouhahah over the issue of abstained votes, the more I shake my head in dismay. That issue should have been dealt with in about 10s. Abstaining votes don't count in any way whatsoever, that's why they're 'abstain' instead of 'yes' or 'no'. It just means "I'm here but lets pretend I'm not for the purpose of this vote" Anyway hopefully that's all threshed out now and future meetings can deal with more weighty matters. Yeah truth is everybody in that meeting FAILED. On that point. I failed to just make a judgment call and say "the votes count this way" Those in favour of the 5/9 decision (including Bane who actually said he saw it written that way in the document) failed. Those against the 5/9 decision failed to point out it was written otherwise in the docs. Inanna failed to actually explain herself rather than arching criticizing lack of committee knowledge and delaying the process All nine of us failed and as a result all nine of us wasted more than an hour on a ridiculous sequence of discussions and accusations and hotblooded confrontations that have led to the fiasco here today. (Then again I'd say a high proportion of the forum respondents on these numerous threads FAIL as well, because while they are frothing and snarling about this administrative stuff there are actually a number of real gamplay issues that have made the Iceland agenda they'd be better served by talking about). CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.09 18:28:00 - [33] Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Originally by: Jade Constantine Yeah truth is everybody in that meeting FAILED. On that point. I failed to just make a judgment call and say "the votes count this way" Those in favour of the 5/9 decision (including Bane who actually said he saw it written that way in the document) failed. Those against the 5/9 decision failed to point out it was written otherwise in the docs. Inanna failed to actually explain herself rather than arching criticizing lack of committee knowledge and delaying the process All nine of us failed and as a result all nine of us wasted more than an hour on a ridiculous sequence of discussions and accusations and hotblooded confrontations that have led to the fiasco here today. Now it's everyone's fault... well at least that's a step in a direction. Well Darius I'm talking about a specific vote there. You played a part in that as well as I did. Any of us COULD have actually read the docs and said "actually it says clearly that simple majority voting is the rule" - NOBODY did. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.09 22:06:00 - [34] Originally by: Silence Duegood Edited by: Silence Duegood on 09/06/2008 22:00:51 Jade - You viewed this thread - Linkage - you then responded with a positive vote and mentioned you'd bring it up in the CSM meeting. (Note - this thread was authored immediately once the CSM forum was active. The original thread is months old. The problem is YEARS old.) However, I seen no mention of its discussion, or of it even being brought up. I do apologise, I'll make sure its on there for next sunday and do my best to get it on the agenda okay? CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.09 22:45:00 - [35] Originally by: Arithron I'd suggest it meets the criteria. If LaVista can break them up as separate issues for vote, we'd be fine. [ 2008.06.08 19:18:34 ]Jade Constantine >Okay [ 2008.06.08 19:18:42 ]LaVista Vista >I will split them up and have the documents ready in 24-48 hours [ 2008.06.08 19:18:44 ]Inanna Zuni >LaVista ... I was explaining why I couldn't support the document en bloc [ 2008.06.08 19:18:48 ]Jade Constantine >I'm going to propose this to the vote on that proviso Now, exactly what did you vote on here? Did you vote that all these go to CCP, but be broken up into seperate issues first (hence making it appear that you had discussed all the issues (60+) and voted seperately on each one.. Or did you vote for the issues to be broken up and brought up at the meeting on Thursday, where you will again discuss them and vote... And, my final question, did you bypass the rule requiring each issue to be posted on the forum, due to workload etc? It certainly appears you have.... Are you saying that you think we shouldn't be able to support any of those issues in LaVista's document unless he presents 60 individual issues Arithron? I ask because we have a couple of other issues on the agenda that have several included - Inanna has a UI issue that has multiple fixes, Ank has a general fixes to the forum issue that has several issues there. Hardin is going to be supporting an RP issue that has plenty of individual sub categories? Let me get this straight. Are you saying that in your opinion we are breaking the rules of the CSM to vote these "grouped" issues onto the formal agenda for Iceland? (and a secondary question) If we do break (change) the rules on this - what are you proposing to do about it? CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.09 23:03:00 - [36] Originally by: Arithron I'm saying that having 60+ issues lumped in together stops discussion on EACH issue on the forums and in a CSM meeting. I do not believe it was the intention for 60+ issues to be voted upon in one go by a SINGLE CSM vote. There was very little discussion (in fact, you started voting before discussion...) on any of the issues before the vote. And, as you say, you should be able to support any of the issues that Lavista proposes...and not support others that you disagree with. By having them all together, you deny this. All issues should be posted seperate on the forum for discussion, regardless of what they are or how interconnected. Representatives can then choose to support each issue, or players can vote to support it. Okay you would advise LaVista to submit 60 submission docs and we'll confirm each one with a vote on Thursday right? (same with Inanna and her UI issues, Ank with the forum issues and Hardin with the RP issues?) Quote: What I'll do about it is ask CCP to make a ruling on it. I'm suprised that you haven't done so already and reported it to the public. You are welcome to right to CCP to make a ruling. I think you'll be a little disappointed at how forthcoming they are able to be at the current time with the patch tomorrow and timescale constraints however. Don't assume we've been completely failing to ask CCP opinion on things. Re LaVista and Inanna I'm going to ask them come and debate this issue with you first hand. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.09 23:25:00 - [37] Edited by: Jade Constantine on 09/06/2008 23:25:36 Originally by: Arithron Yes, LaVista needs to write 60+ topics for the threads, and the other representatives also. That's the rules you were elected under, that's what you have to do. This gives players a chance to discuss/debate each issue and for the representatives to do likewise, both on the forums and in the meetings. It also allows for the important vote on each issue seperately. Take care, Bruce Hansen Okay I've asked LaVista and the other candidates with multiple item issues via our internal mailing list to come and respond to you specifically here Arithron. I hope you'll either come to a rational compromise on the issue or I'll advise that they need to be split out. Okay? Give tomorrow for some discussion and I'll make a call in the evening. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.10 23:27:00 - [38] Originally by: Hardin I would also like to point out that Jade specifically told me to bring the item forward for discussion at the next meeting when I complained about being gagged by him at the previous meeting. Watch your language please Hardin. You were not "gagged" you were told you couldn't arrive at the latter half of a meeting and dislodge an empowered alternate. That was my read of the role of alternates - by being sworn into that meeting Husko was accepted as a full status representative for the duration of meeting: "and Alternates when serving in the place of Representativesùhave equal power on the CSM." I took a rule that you couldn't reasonable arrive late and dislodge an alternate sworn in as a representative for that meeting. Quote: The fact is that we as CSM candidates have been elected. The alternates were not. Yes the alternates can step in and have equal rights to the elected candidates when the elected candidates are absent for whatever reason, but not at the expense of excluding those who were rightfully elected when they are available to fulfil their duties. I think this is poor argumentation. We all received votes from the electorate and its entirely possible that one or more of the alternates will have to serve on the CSM in this session. You are making artificial distinction between the top nine and five alternates that I do not see in the CSM documentation. Quote: I would also like to point out - because it has been conveniently forgotten - that in addition to the clarification on when alternates should stand down in favour of the elected representatives I also put forward a proposal increasing the 'rights' of alternates by clarifying that they could step up when an elected CSM member dropped out of the meeting. Of course thats also problematic because in order to "step in" they'd need to be sworn-in. This would count as them having served on the CSM for the session and by my reading of the CSM rules I see no reasonable expectation they should be dislodged again should the "original nine" CSM rep return. Quote: In my opinion both these proposals were straightforward and sensible and the majority of CSM agreed. At the time they did, but most hadn't read the appropriate documentation and since the vote outcome contradicts the role of alternates on the CSM I'm going to declare it void pending feedback from CCP. I'm of the opinion now that we shouldn't be messing with the founding documentation - especially not in areas that concern voting privileges and the responsibilities and duties of CSM members. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.10 23:58:00 - [39] Edited by: Jade Constantine on 10/06/2008 23:57:56 Originally by: Aprudena Gist Where in the hell do you get off thinking you can void something that passed a vote? I don't know what in the hell you think of yourself in this council but you do not have any power to veto or unilateral power to do anything but facilitate a meeting. I'm declaring it void because I don't think we have the power to change the constitution outside of a formally-raised issue that is presented to the CSM/CCP conference. Just like I don't think we have the power to change the constitution on an electable chair. Just like we don't have the power to pass no-confidence votes or boot off elected members for being disruptive. Quote: It also quite clearly says that an elected Representative can move aside an alternate when they come back or did you fail at reading part of this document. Link please. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.11 00:09:00 - [40] Originally by: Darius JOHNSON The council felt otherwise and voted as such. :edit: This was before of course our right to do so was unilaterally revoked as a matter of convenience. Yep, the council was wrong on this instance and we can't be voting constitution changes that contradict the founding documentation. Next time lets ALL read the documentation a little more closely eh? CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.11 00:24:00 - [41] Originally by: Aprudena Gist Originally by: Kelsin I'll just reiterate: The Alternates WERE elected, and when serving in the place of an absent Representative should be treated the same as any other Rep. That they can be displaced at a time not of their convenience demonstrates inequality. Reading over the documentation about Alternates, there's a consistent theme that their substitution is not meant to be taken lightly: Originally by: CSM PDF Alternates may not be chosen arbitrarily to fill in at meetings if a Representative cannot be present. Instead, they must be selected in the order in which they were elected, beginning with the first Alternate (which was the 10th highest vote tally in the general election), and going up the last (14th highest vote tally) as determined by their availability. There are three reasons for this: to discourage reliance on Alternates, to prevent collusion with Alternates, and to honor the "weight" of each Alternate as determined by votes durng the election. I think having them act as placeholders or seat-warmers runs counter to the spirit of this sort of language, and as I said above, runs directly counter to the concept of them being fully equal to other Representatives when serving during a Council meeting. Yea i was just gonna dig this part out. It clearly shows they are supposed to sub in when an elected member can't be there but are relived when they come back. It doesn't show anything of the sort. They fill in for meetings when a representative cannot be there. They get appointed to rep status and they act in the meeting with the full and EQUAL powers of a representative for that meeting. Good heavens, talk about clutching at straws CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.11 15:50:00 - [42] Originally by: Arithron A meeting is not considered valid unless seven council membersùin any combination of Alternatives and Representativesùare present. The published meeting notes will display the members in attendance, and the main Transcript Vault will keep a running tally of the meeting attendance of all Representatives. Where applicable, Representatives are encouraged to post chat logs as a supplement to the meeting notes as well. The recommended guideline for meetings is at least once per week,with a minimum of nine Representatives present. This is from the CSM documents. The interesting part is highlighted by italics... Maybe alternates, once given voting status, keep it for the rest of the meeting, regardless of how many representatives come after they do? Take care, Bruce Hansen Another way to look at that is that a meeting needs a combination of nine (reps and alternates to begin) but it remains quorate as long as there is a combination of seven reps and alternates present. Of course this is me guessing and its very ambiguous - lets add it to list of things we need clarified by ccp I guess.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.