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 [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Arithron Gallente Trade Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.05 19:40:00 - [31] Edited by: Arithron on 05/06/2008 19:59:50 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 aren't playing legal games, these are the clearly stated rules in the CSM document, put up BEFORE the elections, which we all were well aware of. 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. Highlighting the rules and framework that the CSM works within doesn't confuse issues, it just draws your attention to something that you have to take into consideration and acknowledge. Afterall, you can still bring the meeting forward to Friday evening and get the agenda items submitted in time. By being aware of the requirements, you can avoid situations where you then need leeway etc. There actually isn't much wrong with the documentation that the CSM has to work within. Bypassing clearly laid-out criteria (eg, Lavista's 60+ issues into a single vote) or overlooking clearly stated rules (eg, Agenda items to CCP 14 days beforehand) don't require changes to any process...they require a little more care in the application to the process. If you follow this link (which, btw, is fantastic Serenity!) you can clearly see nine issues you can present to CCP and discuss, as you have already voted on them in meetings. http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=783002 Take care, Arithron
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.05 20:13:00 - [32] 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 - [33] 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!
LaVista Vista Conservative Shenanigans Party	Posted - 2008.06.05 20:15:00 - [34] Originally by: Arithron Bypassing clearly laid-out criteria (eg, Lavista's 60+ issues into a single vote) or overlooking clearly stated rules (eg, Agenda items to CCP 14 days beforehand) don't require changes to any process...they require a little more care in the application to the process. I'm sorry, but we didn't overlook anything. That must be you. If you read the chat logs from the first council meeting, you will see this: [ 2008.05.24 19:03:15 ] CCP Xhagen > The list of topics before the Iceland meeting has to be sent 7 days in advance (an exception due to the short period before the trip). Also, as for my 60+ issue, would you leave it already? If CCP finds it to be an issue, they will state so and just reject to make a statement and the issue will be split up for one of the other meetings with CCP.
Arithron Gallente Trade Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.05 20:32:00 - [35] No need to get personal.... The issue with the '60+ issues' isn't what CCP thinks about it- it's what the players, who want to comment and discuss each of the issues, think about it. Thats the point I am trying to make. How can we have trust in a CSM that is willing to vote on 60+ issues in one go, without allowing debate and discussion occur on each of them in the forums? Players also need to follow the same rules for proposing issues... Nine issues presented to CCP in a meeting ain't that bad! I appreciate that time is short, but quality, not quantity, should be the aim. Afterall, it's the first time such a meeting has occured...it should set a high standard for future CSM's to aspire too! I did miss the 7 day submission in the first meeting- I wasn't being picky by pointing out the 14 day thing, I just thought someone should point it out to avoid disappointment. Afterall, I DO want the CSM council to work, as I'll be standing again next time round. Take care, Arithron
Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.06 01:03:00 - [36] Originally by: Jade Constantine Edited by: Jade Constantine on 05/06/2008 20:22:12 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. We (meaning CSM+CCP) are altering the rules this time Arithron. I've told you the rationale. And I'm confident that eve-players will understand the 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. I am sorry, how are we going to get useful ideas on the agenda when you guys won't even give us official threads where we can explain the problems and concerns of changes? That is kinda like having big pharma write the medicare bill with no input from the public and claiming its been widely discussed and the public has had the chance to weigh in.
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.06.06 01:27:00 - [37] Originally by: Goumindong I am sorry, how are we going to get useful ideas on the agenda when you guys won't even give us official threads where we can explain the problems and concerns of changes? That is kinda like having big pharma write the medicare bill with no input from the public and claiming its been widely discussed and the public has had the chance to weigh in. God damn it, man, how thick-headed are you? Threads in Assembly Hall ARE OFFICIAL. ------------------ Fix the forums!
Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.06 02:38:00 - [38] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Originally by: Goumindong I am sorry, how are we going to get useful ideas on the agenda when you guys won't even give us official threads where we can explain the problems and concerns of changes? That is kinda like having big pharma write the medicare bill with no input from the public and claiming its been widely discussed and the public has had the chance to weigh in. God damn it, man, how thick-headed are you? Threads in Assembly Hall ARE OFFICIAL. where we can explain the problems and concerns of changes. You cannot do that in the Assembly Hall threads. They're rallies, not discussions.
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2008.06.06 03:31:00 - [39] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Originally by: Goumindong I am sorry, how are we going to get useful ideas on the agenda when you guys won't even give us official threads where we can explain the problems and concerns of changes? That is kinda like having big pharma write the medicare bill with no input from the public and claiming its been widely discussed and the public has had the chance to weigh in. God damn it, man, how thick-headed are you? Threads in Assembly Hall ARE OFFICIAL. where we can explain the problems and concerns of changes. You cannot do that in the Assembly Hall threads. They're rallies, not discussions. slap
Erotic Irony 0bsession	Posted - 2008.06.06 04:01:00 - [40] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Originally by: Goumindong I am sorry, how are we going to get useful ideas on the agenda when you guys won't even give us official threads where we can explain the problems and concerns of changes? That is kinda like having big pharma write the medicare bill with no input from the public and claiming its been widely discussed and the public has had the chance to weigh in. God damn it, man, how thick-headed are you? Threads in Assembly Hall ARE OFFICIAL. You seem to have only half read, official yes, discussions? Certainly not. Most of the posting in assembly is almost entirely spam in the form of /signed or simply blank posts with support checked--no one is interested in asking questions or clarifying, just shoring up hasty "support". Is this me too syndrome a discussion by any measure? ___ Eve Players are not very smart. Support Killmail Overhaul
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.06.06 04:51:00 - [41] Originally by: Erotic Irony You seem to have only half read, official yes, discussions? Certainly not. Most of the posting in assembly is almost entirely spam in the form of /signed or simply blank posts with support checked--no one is interested in asking questions or clarifying, just shoring up hasty "support". Is this me too syndrome a discussion by any measure? I've gone through this in other posts, but the short answer is yes. Look at this thread of mine, that I started specifically because Gou said that there ought to be debate even on that topic - 69 replies, 68 thumbs and a "They really should have this.". There's no debate there, because it's essentially undebatable - it's a good idea that everybody supports. Now, I'd love to get away from /signed spam, and I want to see CCP implement a system to vote without posting ASAP, but until we do it's a fact of Assembly Hall. That said, there's still plenty of discussion happening - look at this thread, that's had 139 comments in the past 24 hours, the vast majority of which were at least somewhat lengthy and debating the issue at hand. Frankly, if you don't think there's enough discussion, go chip in a few comments. And if you don't think there's enough opportunity for discussion(which is really the relevant part here), then all you have to do is acknowledge the possibility of you going and chipping in a few comments. That shouldn't be too hard, right? ------------------ Fix the forums!
Erotic Irony 0bsession	Posted - 2008.06.06 05:07:00 - [42] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Frankly, if you don't think there's enough discussion, go chip in a few comments. And if you don't think there's enough opportunity for discussion(which is really the relevant part here), then all you have to do is acknowledge the possibility of you going and chipping in a few comments. That shouldn't be too hard, right? The lack of real discussion is a symptom of a whole host of problems, not something you or I can ameliorate--it exemplifies the worst aspects of an internet forum: completely unmoderated, saturated in "me too" posts and there's too much thread overlap. Just posting more or more constructively means nothing in this context because of the volume of people spamming and structural limits of the forum. See also: monster trucks. It's a lost cause. ___ Eve Players are not very smart. Support Killmail Overhaul
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.06 05:16:00 - [43] 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!
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2008.06.06 09:11:00 - [44] Originally by: Erotic Irony Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Originally by: Goumindong I am sorry, how are we going to get useful ideas on the agenda when you guys won't even give us official threads where we can explain the problems and concerns of changes? That is kinda like having big pharma write the medicare bill with no input from the public and claiming its been widely discussed and the public has had the chance to weigh in. God damn it, man, how thick-headed are you? Threads in Assembly Hall ARE OFFICIAL. You seem to have only half read, official yes, discussions? Certainly not. Most of the posting in assembly is almost entirely spam in the form of /signed or simply blank posts with support checked--no one is interested in asking questions or clarifying, just shoring up hasty "support". Is this me too syndrome a discussion by any measure? I really would like to bring up the simple point once more that removing the posting from the supporting would greatly increase the effectiveness of the forum. In other words you either post to discuss or you just show support without having to spam. In other words adding a poll to each thread in the form of support or don't support. Becuase really people I'm hearing both sides of the world are ending. On one had you have people saying :it's official and works perfectly" on the other hand I hear "NOTHING WORKS IT'S NOT A DISCUSSION AT ALL!!" I'm sorry but I personally have been discussing threads on that forum, maybe people should just be less lazy. but lets face it not everyone has something to add some people might just think someone else's idea is great. in other words : YOU NEED BOTH FOR THE SYSTEM TO WORK the system currently is allowing for discussions trust me sure there is spam but that doesn't rule out the discussions taking place. I mean even if only 5 people have posted it's still a discussion lets not start judging how many posts it should take before it counts. and currently players can show their support to the threat meaning "I have nothing to add, I like your idea." The idea is to show CCP and the CSM what players want brought up the other goal is to discuss what should be brought up. Thus we need both, stop saying it's not one or the other it's both, it's just not done perfectly. But CCP can't remove the ability to vote for a thread to be brought up and it would be stupid for us to have another forum for each vited in topic for nothing but discussion... or would it? either way we have to work with it this year and next year we can see what went wrong AKA support = spam IN BETWEEN the discussions at hand. And it will be more successful.
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2008.06.06 09:13:00 - [45] Originally by: Erotic Irony Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Frankly, if you don't think there's enough discussion, go chip in a few comments. And if you don't think there's enough opportunity for discussion(which is really the relevant part here), then all you have to do is acknowledge the possibility of you going and chipping in a few comments. That shouldn't be too hard, right? The lack of real discussion is a symptom of a whole host of problems, not something you or I can ameliorate--it exemplifies the worst aspects of an internet forum: completely unmoderated, saturated in "me too" posts and there's too much thread overlap. Just posting more or more constructively means nothing in this context because of the volume of people spamming and structural limits of the forum. See also: monster trucks. It's a lost cause. Please note what you are currently doing by posting how badly your contradicting yourself.
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.06 14:08:00 - [46] 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!
Arithron Gallente Trade Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.06 15:02:00 - [47] 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. 2. Are you going to discuss each of the 60+ issues in turn? 3 Is there going to be a seperate vote on each of the issues from the Science and Industry PDF? Many thanks, Arithron
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.06 17:24:00 - [48] 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!
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.06 17:26:00 - [49] Perhaps CCP could (or be encouraged to) respond holistically to the Science and Industry document? So they read it over, get the general pitch, and respond in a more general sense at first so as not to get bogged down? Maybe this is already how they're planning on doing it, but I guess we'll see with the first meeting.
LaVista Vista Conservative Shenanigans Party	Posted - 2008.06.06 17:50:00 - [50] Edited by: LaVista Vista on 06/06/2008 17:51:47 Originally by: Kelsin Perhaps CCP could (or be encouraged to) respond holistically to the Science and Industry document? So they read it over, get the general pitch, and respond in a more general sense at first so as not to get bogged down? Maybe this is already how they're planning on doing it, but I guess we'll see with the first meeting. Satisfactory, in my eyes, is that they seriously look into those things and implement the "given" things, some which have been scream for, for years! I by no means expect an answer to ALL of them 60+ issues. Some of the ideas are indeed some major changes, which shouldn't be taken on lightly. But as long as they are discussed, I'm happy. EDIT: Some things I do expect a clear comment on though. I'm happy if at least the "Most wanted" things are covered.
Arithron Gallente Trade Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.06 19:17:00 - [51] The only way they are forced to discuss and respond to issues is when each one is debated/discussed by the CSM, and then voted upon in a meeting. Having them all lumped together is not, as far as the guidelines and rules state, satisfying this requirement. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for some love in the Science and industry areas! However, you set precedents for future CSM's, so it's important that everything is done correctly from the start. Denying debate and discussion on separate issues by lumping them all in together isn't useful or in the spirit of what the CSM was designed to do. It would be good to get a CCP ruling on this issue (presenting multiple issues for just one vote, without proper CSM discussion or player discussion on individual issues...since how can you properly discuss 60+ issues in a meeting or coherently on a thread?). Where do you get your definitive answer from, Jade, regarding multiple issues being allowed as one issue? Take care, Arithron
Arithron Gallente Trade Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.06 19:20:00 - [52] And, in question 2 above I asked if you were going to discuss the 60+ issues. It appears, from your answer, that you aren't going to in a CSM meeting, as required. Can you explain how bypassing one of the main responsibilities of a CSM is in keeping with what you were elected to do, and said you would do? This is a question to all CSM members, btw... Take care, Arithron
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2008.06.06 22:13:00 - [53] Edited by: MotherMoon on 06/06/2008 22:17:28 Originally by: Arithron And, in question 2 above I asked if you were going to discuss the 60+ issues. It appears, from your answer, that you aren't going to in a CSM meeting, as required. Can you explain how bypassing one of the main responsibilities of a CSM is in keeping with what you were elected to do, and said you would do? This is a question to all CSM members, btw... Take care, Arithron she said they will discuss all 60 issues. can you not read? 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. as in they will discuss all 60 issues. It's not the job of the 1st CSM meetings to discuss anything. They are only voting if the issue SHOULD be taken to CCP to BE discussed.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.06 23:57:00 - [54] I don't know Arithron, I think in some cases it might be much better to address a collection of issues together. A great thing about this game is how every part of it touches every other part of it, so if the CSM can vote on a document that addresses multiple aspects of a broad issue together, it might make a lot more sense than voting on a ton of individual bits. Kind of like passing a "package" of laws in a legislature.
Arithron Gallente Trade Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.07 18:08:00 - [55] Actually, if you read the CSM documents, you will see that members are to discuss and debate issues put to them by players or supported by a representative (via issue thread), then to vote on EACH issue. Jade has stated that they will discuss each issue in Iceland with CCP, not that the representatives will discuss each of the 60+ issues in the CSM meeting. Its important to have issues seperate and not all put together, so that the representatives can clearly see the arguments for and against issue, and also see the support for an issue (not for 35 of the 65 issues etc). I agree that many issues touch on others. However, this does not mean that the procedure should be circumvented in the interests of short meetings etc. The representatives stood, knowing that it will take a considerable amount of their time. Take care, Arithron
Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.08 00:40:00 - [56] Originally by: MotherMoon Thus we need both, stop saying it's not one or the other it's both, it's just not done perfectly. I've never said that the system is perfect or that its anyones fault. I have said that the CSM needs to take some initiative and make the threads in here where we can discuss the issues without the ****** mechanics getting in the way. It doesn't take ANY effort except making a post that says "discuss this issue in here" and then reading it. Hell you will probably save time since you now don't have to deal with the ** in the other thread.
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2008.06.08 04:26:00 - [57] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: MotherMoon Thus we need both, stop saying it's not one or the other it's both, it's just not done perfectly. I've never said that the system is perfect or that its anyones fault. I have said that the CSM needs to take some initiative and make the threads in here where we can discuss the issues without the ****** mechanics getting in the way. It doesn't take ANY effort except making a post that says "discuss this issue in here" and then reading it. Hell you will probably save time since you now don't have to deal with the ** in the other thread. You know I've never gotten that out of what you posted in the past Honesty here is my idea for next year. Step1. Assembly hall You post an issue you believe the CSM should take up with CCP. People just pure and simple vote or a CSM take it under their wing. The way the system turned out working. This topics will have no 7 day period or anything. Step2. CSM vote The CSM run thier weekly meeting and vote in what issues are important enough to bring up with CCP. Step3. Discussion thread A thread is started for each issue that will make it in for players to discuss what changes they want to see on the topic. The CSM simply read through it and write down what the players want or suggest. If so many player all have the same idea the idea HAS to go through to CCP. Step 4. last 7 days Once there are only 7 days left weekly CSM voting ends and they send off a document with every idea that is going to be brought up to CCP. the Discussion threads continue but at this point only CSM members can pick comments to add to document to be used at the meeting to reflect what the playerbase wants to see. Step5. CCP and CSM meet to discuss the topics they bring up, armed with documentation from the forums of what the payers have said on each topic. How does that sound? I mean really, shouldn't the discussion dicate WHAT is brought up to CCP not IF it should be brought up?
Inanna Zuni The Causality Electus Matari	Posted - 2008.06.08 09:38:00 - [58] Originally by: Arithron 1. That presenting 60+ issues to a CSM meeting as 'One topic'(Science and Industry) is within the rules and guidelines. 2. Are you going to discuss each of the 60+ issues in turn? 3 Is there going to be a seperate vote on each of the issues from the Science and Industry PDF? For myself, I split a number of issues across multiple posts so that each post only concerned itself with one area of EVE. I believe that this particular post is, to some extent, problematic in that it would have helped all pilots to consider it effectively if the 60+ items had been split according to their subject matter into more posts. However for this first time around with the first CSM there are clearly many issues which we will be putting to CCP for their guaranteed response which are going to be fairly uncontentious and receive wide-spread, even total, support. Splitting it up fully could have just flooded a page of the Assembly Hall for no actual benefit in the discussions, however I do feel that it would have been beneficial for 'ease of discovery' reasons, making it easier for pilots. IZ My principles
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.06.08 22:57:00 - [59] Chatlog is up. ------------------ Fix the forums!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.09 01:51:00 - [60] 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!

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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.