CSM Meeting Minutes 5.014 raw log

CSM Meeting Minutes 5.014 raw log

Meeting took place on 12th Feb 2011

[ 17:02:12 ] Mynxee > .==================================CSM MEETING 014 CALLED TO ORDER==================================.
[ 17:02:33 ] Mynxee > x up for attendance
[ 17:02:43 ] mazzilliu > x
[ 17:02:47 ] TeaDaze > x
[ 17:02:51 ] Trebor Daehdoow > x
[ 17:02:58 ] Dierdra Vaal > x
[ 17:03:23 ] ALPHA12125 > x
[ 17:03:39 ] Helen Highwater > x
[ 17:03:46 ] Korvin > E
[ 17:03:47 ] Mynxee > sok posted in the meeting thread he is absent today due to another obligation
[ 17:03:49 ] Mynxee > x
[ 17:04:02 ] Mynxee > ok, i have no reminders. anyone else?
[ 17:04:39 ] Korvin > switch off oven in 30 min
[ 17:05:06 ] Mynxee > haah! k, moving on to proposals, mazz submitted one and linked to a wiki page for it but the wiki page is blank. however,
[ 17:05:09 ] Mynxee > http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Declassify_old_csm_communications
[ 17:05:17 ] Mynxee > since there's no content, i have no comments.
[ 17:05:22 ] mazzilliu > what
[ 17:05:25 ] mazzilliu > no way
[ 17:05:27 ] Mynxee > mazz you have the floor
[ 17:05:28 ] mazzilliu > i thought i submitted it
[ 17:05:34 ] mazzilliu > aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
[ 17:05:38 ] Mynxee > lol
[ 17:05:39 ] TeaDaze > http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Declassify_old_csm_communications_%28CSM%29
[ 17:05:42 ] mazzilliu > ok ill fix the wiki later
[ 17:05:58 ] Dierdra Vaal > maz just submitted the wrong link :P
[ 17:05:58 ] mazzilliu > oh there it is
[ 17:06:00 ] mazzilliu > thanks tea
[ 17:06:04 ] Mynxee > ah
[ 17:06:11 ] Mynxee > so it was the wrong link provided in the thread. okay
[ 17:06:15 ] TeaDaze > ISD helpfully change the subjects to have (CSM) on the end if you don't - and they don't (or the wiki doesn't) provide a link from the old page
[ 17:06:32 ] mazzilliu > the proposal is to declassify old csm communications just like how we declassify meeting minutes, since the forum conversations are basically csm ccp meetings
[ 17:06:54 ] Korvin > !
[ 17:06:55 ] mazzilliu > i am not sure how to best declassify email exchanges, but they should be included too
[ 17:07:05 ] Mynxee > korvin, go
[ 17:07:11 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 17:07:15 ] mazzilliu > this is something that is only really relevent for this csm because this is the first time ccp has had any real communication with us outside meetings
[ 17:07:20 ] Mynxee > (mazz you can speak freely in repsonse to questions; you don't have to !)
[ 17:07:24 ] mazzilliu > ok
[ 17:07:27 ] Korvin > first of all, it is clear that we cant just disclassify all info
[ 17:07:32 ] mazzilliu > of course not
[ 17:07:34 ] mazzilliu > just like the minutes
[ 17:07:36 ] Korvin > there is alot of repsonal info
[ 17:07:46 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 17:07:48 ] Korvin > like phones, emeils ets
[ 17:07:48 ] mazzilliu > definitely the telephone numbers and such should never go out
[ 17:07:51 ] mazzilliu > its going to need review
[ 17:08:04 ] mazzilliu > by somebody- another issue is we need to find the appropriate entity to do it
[ 17:08:09 ] Korvin > and some topics also
[ 17:08:13 ] Helen Highwater > !
[ 17:08:24 ] Korvin > so instead of disclosing it all
[ 17:08:35 ] ALPHA12125 > !
[ 17:08:38 ] Korvin > we can vote for particular treads and mail chains
[ 17:08:42 ] Korvin > [and]
[ 17:08:48 ] Mynxee > DV to
[ 17:08:49 ] Korvin > [end]
[ 17:08:51 ] Mynxee > *go
[ 17:08:51 ] mazzilliu > i am against voting to disclose something
[ 17:09:02 ] mazzilliu > if something is not NDA violating to disclose, it should be disclosed
[ 17:09:11 ] mazzilliu > or personal info-violating
[ 17:09:19 ] Dierdra Vaal > while I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea, there is a crucial difference between the minutes and the forums: people know the minutes will be published, while posts on the forums were made under the assumption that that information was private. ...
[ 17:09:43 ] Dierdra Vaal > What if a CSM member does not want his posts in a specific thread made public, even if they dont break the NDA?
[ 17:09:43 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 17:09:50 ] Mynxee > tea
[ 17:10:01 ] mazzilliu > maybe they shouldnt have made them
[ 17:10:07 ] mazzilliu > if they dont want anybody to see them
[ 17:10:13 ] TeaDaze > I have concerns that devs will be less willing to discuss issues and potential fixes if they then have to watch out for potential public release of those discussions if/when the feature was axed. Also agree with DV
[ 17:10:30 ] mazzilliu > the actual proposal said that devs would need to sign off on authorizing their posts to be made public
[ 17:10:36 ] mazzilliu > this is in line with the procedures for the Minutes
[ 17:10:37 ] TeaDaze > It isn't an issue for most CSM comments
[ 17:11:38 ] TeaDaze > Also the amount of work involved is significant and would likely fall on the CSM in the first instance - considering that prepping those types of documents is done by a small number of CSM most of the time I think it is an unfair additional load
[ 17:11:42 ] TeaDaze > [end]
[ 17:11:49 ] Mynxee > helen go
[ 17:11:54 ] Helen Highwater > How do you propose actually releasing this stuff? Do you just want to export it to a text file and zip it up? I'm not sure how it's goingto be feasible to actually release this stuff withou dropping a lot of work on someone (probably a CCP someone).
[ 17:12:13 ] mazzilliu > the amount of work is a big issue because we need to find someone willing to do it.  i asked the forum mods to give me their opinion of who is best suited to do the work but i havent gotten a response back
[ 17:12:19 ] Helen Highwater > There isn't really a useful way to automate that or even a decent channel to use. [end]
[ 17:12:25 ] Mynxee > i believe that potentially declassifying threads will impact the willingness of ALL to speak freely and ramble around about ideas that may never come to pass but which the community will misinterpret as "in the works". this could be detrimental to ...
[ 17:12:33 ] Mynxee > free flow of information. end.
[ 17:12:36 ] Mynxee > alpha go
[ 17:13:03 ] ALPHA12125 > i personally like korins idea more of a summary what is said. otherwise you end up with stuff that is blacked out of context. also if it really happens people just use nda stuff in each sentence so they cant really be disclosed.. also people...
[ 17:13:30 ] ALPHA12125 > talk diffrently if they know forum sperges are not going to pick every sentence appart and use it to make new threads
[ 17:13:33 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 17:13:40 ] ALPHA12125 > end
[ 17:14:06 ] Mynxee > if individual terms of CSMs can find members who are willing to do the "synopsis" work and deal with ccp to pass it for NDA then it might be useful. end.
[ 17:14:08 ] Mynxee > tea go
[ 17:14:34 ] TeaDaze > Also one of the stated aims is to make CSM members more accountable and I don't believe this will do that at all. Mostly because this stuff would be released well past the end of that CSM term and with the 1 year term limits there isn't much the players
[ 17:14:46 ] TeaDaze > can do to make use of this information in that context [end]
[ 17:14:55 ] mazzilliu > this proposal isnt for this csm's accountability, its for the next one
[ 17:14:58 ] mazzilliu > our term is basically over
[ 17:15:10 ] ALPHA12125 > !
[ 17:15:15 ] Mynxee > alpha go
[ 17:15:53 ] ALPHA12125 > with the discussed changes about overriding previous csm votes, they can just revert it though
[ 17:15:58 ] ALPHA12125 > end
[ 17:16:00 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 17:16:16 ] mazzilliu > wether they can revert it or not we cant force people to do work
[ 17:16:38 ] Mynxee > I'm opposed to verbatim releases of information in the internal forums and email exchanges, etc. it is impossible to catalog email stuff thoroughly anyway, honestly. a lot of one on one communication appears to happen bewteen ind csm members & devs ...
[ 17:16:41 ] mazzilliu > we have lots of experienced and enthusiastic forum crossposters at kugutsumen.com and i am sure they will love to help us out :D
[ 17:16:43 ] Mynxee > too. [end]
[ 17:16:47 ] Mynxee > tea go
[ 17:16:49 ] TeaDaze > But it would be 1+ years before any of the CSM6 discussions would be declassified (based on dev schedules) by which time some of the people on CSM6 will already be on CSM7 before the players can look at the declassified stuff from CSM6 ;) [end]
[ 17:17:06 ] mazzilliu > i dont think it will take longer than one year
[ 17:17:24 ] mazzilliu > petur usually gives very good turnaround time for nda checking
[ 17:17:47 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 17:17:56 ] Mynxee > tea
[ 17:17:59 ] TeaDaze > You need to better define "old" communication then
[ 17:18:20 ] TeaDaze > if you are talking 1 month old then it won't happen based on how long a feature takes to be developed
[ 17:18:36 ] mazzilliu > we can start with comms starting at the beginning of csm term
[ 17:18:40 ] mazzilliu > and finish with more recent comms
[ 17:18:43 ] TeaDaze > if you are talking 6 months then the accountability angle won't happen [end]
[ 17:18:59 ] Mynxee > I don't think this proposal is specific enough for me to be comfortable with supporting it. I am all for open communications but this will require a LOT of work and there is no clear plan identified about how that work might get done. as it will likely
[ 17:19:17 ] Mynxee > involve a lot of CSM member effort, i feel it is only right to define those specifics better. [end]
[ 17:19:39 ] mazzilliu > when the new forums are set up, a different section can be created for declassified csm forum posts
[ 17:19:53 ] mazzilliu > it will be easier if it is done gradually over the course of the term, instead of all at once like we have to do now
[ 17:20:12 ] mazzilliu > "Internal CSM deliberations and information keepingA private CSM discussion place � to ensure privacy for the CSM, not secrecy."
[ 17:20:36 ] Trebor Daehdoow > !
[ 17:20:41 ] Mynxee > trebor go
[ 17:20:44 ] Trebor Daehdoow > Since you are so much in favor of this mazz, why don't you go and take all of the CSM5's communications, do a first pass to edit it for NDA issues, get it approved by Pétur...
[ 17:20:54 ] mazzilliu > trebor it doesnt work that way
[ 17:21:02 ] mazzilliu > csm communications in that forum are categorically nda
[ 17:21:11 ] mazzilliu > even if its just you and me talking about shoes
[ 17:21:18 ] mazzilliu > and no devs speaking
[ 17:21:35 ] Trebor Daehdoow > ...and we'll see how much work it is.  Then we can decide. [end]
[ 17:21:56 ] mazzilliu > i think a voted on issue is the only way to put in a procedure for declassifying csm comms that happen in the forum or email
[ 17:22:06 ] mazzilliu > because there is no crossposting allowed, at all
[ 17:22:17 ] Mynxee > as an alternative approach, perhaps the proposal could be modified to say "threads marked "subject to declassification" " and whenever a thread is marked that the OP wants to eventually declassify, that indicator would be included from the get-go so
[ 17:22:30 ] Mynxee > people know what to expect regarding the conversation there. [end]
[ 17:23:12 ] ALPHA12125 > !
[ 17:23:15 ] mazzilliu > elected officials shouldnt expect secrecy
[ 17:23:19 ] Mynxee > alpha go
[ 17:23:55 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 17:24:08 ] ALPHA12125 > the thread marked would just lead to people posting stuff to look good so they can show later in their nex.t...
[ 17:24:19 ] ALPHA12125 > campaign that they work har
[ 17:24:22 ] ALPHA12125 > d
[ 17:24:28 ] ALPHA12125 > end
[ 17:24:36 ] Mynxee > dv go
[ 17:24:47 ] mazzilliu > yeah, maybe they will also post less things that make them look bad.  i dont see a problem with that
[ 17:25:14 ] Dierdra Vaal > I think mynxee's suggestion is a good one. While I applaud transparency, I think declassifying topics post facto risks reducing CCPs willingness to engage in brainstorming and discussion. As such, I will not support the original proposal...
[ 17:25:50 ] mazzilliu > the original proposal gives ccpers the option ot sign off on their posts or not.  their writings arent going to get leaked if they dont want it
[ 17:25:51 ] Dierdra Vaal > however, mynxee's idea would allow for ways to declassify threads afterwards, while making sure everyone involved knows this may happen from the start.
[ 17:25:52 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 17:26:05 ] Helen Highwater > !
[ 17:26:11 ] Mynxee > helen go
[ 17:27:19 ] Helen Highwater > If the CCP posts are removed from a discussion thread then the CSM posts that quote them will also need to be removed. Also the rest of the discussion around removed posts will be bereft of context. It's an impossible position I feel.
[ 17:27:23 ] Helen Highwater > [end]
[ 17:27:43 ] Mynxee > agreed [end]
[ 17:27:47 ] Trebor Daehdoow > !
[ 17:27:49 ] ALPHA12125 > !
[ 17:27:52 ] Mynxee > trebor go
[ 17:28:27 ] Trebor Daehdoow > If a particular csm wants something declassified, they should go to the trouble of doing all the work, and getting the approval of CCP and the other CSMs involved. [end]
[ 17:28:42 ] Mynxee > alpha go
[ 17:28:57 ] ALPHA12125 > so would a summary not be better, easier to handle (still alot of work) and be easier to declassify.
[ 17:28:59 ] ALPHA12125 > end
[ 17:29:59 ] Mynxee > i think maybe a case-by-case basis as suggested by trebor would be the only manageable way to handle it, done on the initiative of individual CSM members who want to see a particular discussion declassified. [end]
[ 17:30:11 ] Mynxee > (for full threads)
[ 17:30:23 ] Mynxee > and a synopsis is still a lot of work [end]
[ 17:31:34 ] Mynxee > as things stand, i can't support the original proposal but i might support a modified one that incoporates some of the ideas suggested here. are there more comments or are we ready to vote on this? [end]
[ 17:31:45 ] mazzilliu > when we vote
[ 17:31:52 ] mazzilliu > lets vote on the idea of declassifying csm comms in general
[ 17:31:58 ] mazzilliu > because there are so many implementation details
[ 17:32:07 ] Mynxee > no, we vote on the proposal as written. that's how it is done. [end]
[ 17:32:10 ] mazzilliu > and i am not sure we will be able to participate in them, if ccp cuts us off entirely from comms
[ 17:32:27 ] mazzilliu > well, i dont know if we have another meeting to re raise this issue
[ 17:32:27 ] TeaDaze > I suggest the proposal is reworked and voted on next meeting
[ 17:32:31 ] Mynxee > if you want to withdraw the proposal to work on it some more, so be it. [end]
[ 17:32:43 ] Dierdra Vaal > pretty sure we have more meetings to go :)
[ 17:32:46 ] Mynxee > we have potentially three more meetings
[ 17:32:48 ] mazzilliu > when is the next meeting?
[ 17:32:49 ] mazzilliu > ok
[ 17:33:01 ] Mynxee > second saturday fourth sunday as always
[ 17:33:10 ] mazzilliu > lets vote on the issue as is, so when you guys vote it down i can call you pussys in the raw chat logs
[ 17:33:15 ] mazzilliu > :D
[ 17:33:24 ] mazzilliu > then ill bring it again next meeting
[ 17:33:34 ] Mynxee > if that's what you prefer, fine by me. [end]
[ 17:34:02 ] Mynxee > Vote on Mazz's Proposal to declassify old csm communications as currently written. Y or N?
[ 17:34:04 ] Mynxee > N
[ 17:34:06 ] TeaDaze > n
[ 17:34:11 ] mazzilliu > y
[ 17:34:14 ] Trebor Daehdoow > N
[ 17:34:17 ] ALPHA12125 > n
[ 17:34:19 ] Dierdra Vaal > no
[ 17:34:23 ] Helen Highwater > No
[ 17:34:38 ] Korvin > B
[ 17:34:39 ] Korvin > n
[ 17:34:49 ] TeaDaze > Failed 7 against, 1 for
[ 17:34:51 ] mazzilliu > pppppppuuuuuuuuuusssssssssssssiiiiiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeeeesssssssssssss
[ 17:34:57 ] Dierdra Vaal > lol
[ 17:35:12 ] Korvin > i consider that as a sexual harrasment :P
[ 17:35:16 ] TeaDaze > I'll point out that you didn't manage to remove the cons from the proposal you cut and pasted from :P
[ 17:35:24 ] mazzilliu > LMAO
[ 17:35:26 ] mazzilliu > i forgot about that
[ 17:35:30 ] mazzilliu > god i hate wikis
[ 17:35:53 ] Mynxee > alright as there are no other proposals
[ 17:35:59 ] Mynxee > on to other business
[ 17:36:19 ] Dierdra Vaal > hehe
[ 17:36:23 ] Mynxee > DV wants a vote about CSM eligibility
[ 17:36:31 ] Mynxee > so you have the floor dv
[ 17:36:33 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok
[ 17:36:39 ] Dierdra Vaal > wall of text inc
[ 17:36:47 ] Dierdra Vaal > I know some of you already made a decision, but I hope you will read my argument with an open mind and possibly reconsider your opinion :)
[ 17:36:48 ] Mynxee > lol
[ 17:36:56 ] Mynxee > i will, yes.
[ 17:37:10 ] Dierdra Vaal > I would like to emphasise this is NOT about the candidacy of Larkonis, although it was obviously triggered by CCPs decision to let him run again.
[ 17:37:17 ] Dierdra Vaal > This issue is primarily about the trust relationship the CSM has with CCP, and the risk CCP is taking with these lax repercussions for severe breaches of the NDA.
[ 17:37:35 ] Dierdra Vaal > With this motion I would like the CSM to advise CCP to disallow CSM candidates from running if they have been removed from previous CSMs for breaching the NDA.
[ 17:37:48 ] Dierdra Vaal > The relationship between the CSM and CCP is in a large part based on trust. In order for CCP to be able to ask the CSM for advice or get our feedback on ideas, CCP needs to be able to trust that the CSM will keep this information to itself.
[ 17:38:01 ] Dierdra Vaal > If CCP cannot rely on the CSM to honour the NDA, they may very well choose not to disclose information at all - which is obviously counterproductive for the whole CSM process.
[ 17:38:24 ] Dierdra Vaal > Based on the current situation, the penalty for breaking the NDA is reasonably light. Only a short (30 or 60 day) ban, and a temporary (less than 2 years it would seem) ban from participating in the CSM.
[ 17:38:37 ] Dierdra Vaal > With Eve's level of metagaming, I think it is not unreasonable to imagine that the CSM may one day be told something that is worth 'falling on his sword for' for a CSM member: ...(cont)
[ 17:38:43 ] Dierdra Vaal > ...where the benefits from disclosing NDA information outweigh the temporary punishment.
[ 17:38:59 ] Dierdra Vaal > This would not only greatly damage the CSM's public image, but also risk a fatal blow to the trust relationship between CCP and the CSM.
[ 17:39:17 ] Dierdra Vaal > In order to protect the CSM as an institute and to make the punishment 'fit the crime' (risking permanent damage to the relationship between CCP and the CSM), I would like the CSM to advise CCP to dole out the harshest of punishments in these cases.
[ 17:39:42 ] Dierdra Vaal > Permanent exclusion from the CSM and possibly even a permanent banfrom Eve of all accounts of the offender (would require discussion with CCP).
[ 17:40:03 ] Dierdra Vaal > As I said, this is not about any one person. In fact, it may already be too late for CCP to change their criteria for CSM6 so even if this motion is accepted, Larkonis may still run.
[ 17:40:13 ] Dierdra Vaal > And while I do not trust him anymore, that is acceptable to me if we can still ask CCP to apply this advice for the CSM7 elections.
[ 17:40:33 ] Dierdra Vaal > Finally, I ask all of you who plan to vote against this issue the following: would you still vote No if the only person this would currently apply to was Ankhesemtapemkah?
[ 17:40:41 ] Dierdra Vaal > Because this isn't, and shouldn't be, about an individua. This is about protecting the CSM's working relationship with CCP.
[ 17:40:42 ] mazzilliu > !
[ 17:40:45 ] Dierdra Vaal > [end]
[ 17:40:47 ] Mynxee > if this is merely an advice to CCP, why does it require a vote?
[ 17:40:51 ] Mynxee > go mazz
[ 17:40:58 ] mazzilliu > first of all
[ 17:41:00 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 17:41:03 ] mazzilliu > will you be my valentijn?!?!
[ 17:41:06 ] mazzilliu > second of all
[ 17:41:08 ] Dierdra Vaal > YES
[ 17:41:44 ] Dierdra Vaal > (will reply to mynxee's question after maz)
[ 17:41:47 ] mazzilliu > i think this is CCP's choice, and even if it was ankhasdasd, the decision rests on their shoulders.  i dont think that we should forget that we have all probably slipped up once in a while with minor nda violations, simply due to the nature of the posit
[ 17:42:12 ] mazzilliu > position- we have to deal in secret info as well as interact with the public on ccps behalf, sometimes
[ 17:42:58 ] mazzilliu > and the nature of lark's violation is relatively minor, if ccp doesnt have a problem with it then i don't either.  the violation was not chronic or majorly damaging to ccp
[ 17:43:11 ] mazzilliu > ankh's violation was more severs so ccp response was more severe
[ 17:43:15 ] mazzilliu > severe*
[ 17:43:28 ] Korvin > like you know what was it )
[ 17:43:41 ] mazzilliu > well ankh remains banned, AFAIK, she has never logged in
[ 17:43:53 ] Dierdra Vaal > you finished, mazz?
[ 17:44:16 ] mazzilliu > my point is that i am ok with ccos decision
[ 17:44:18 ] mazzilliu > ccp*
[ 17:44:25 ] mazzilliu > if they say ankh can run again id be okay with that too
[ 17:44:26 ] mazzilliu > end
[ 17:44:32 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok I'll reply to mynxee's and maz's points now
[ 17:45:11 ] Dierdra Vaal > first, mynxee: this advice requires a vote because 1) we cant make statements/advice towards CCP in the CSMs name without being on the record in agreement and 2) we cannot order them to do anything, we can only advise.
[ 17:45:25 ] Dierdra Vaal > all our issues are advise.
[ 17:45:39 ] Dierdra Vaal > mazz: it is CCP's choice - which is why we can only advise them (not order them). However, the CSM has requested changes, or has been asked for feedback on changes to the CSM policy in the past. this would not be the first time.
[ 17:45:51 ] Dierdra Vaal > ...
[ 17:46:08 ] mazzilliu > !
[ 17:46:19 ] Mynxee > ok dv i can accept your position regarding why we are voting. but that siad...
[ 17:46:24 ] Mynxee > i don't feel CSM should be its own gatekeeper. There is no way to ensure trust regardless. I believe we may suggest an approach, but I feel it is CCP's job to set policy for CSM eligibility requirements. I'd like to see a more detailed CSM eligibility..
[ 17:46:25 ] Dierdra Vaal > I'm still typing
[ 17:46:33 ] Dierdra Vaal > so please dont interrupt
[ 17:46:36 ] Mynxee > policy that states all this stuff. (and okay, i'll shut up)
[ 17:47:09 ] Mynxee > (also tea, i think you're still next up in the queue then mazz)
[ 17:47:28 ] Dierdra Vaal > Larkonis' NDA breach WAS relatively minor, and did not extend outside the game. As such, it was not worth going to court for or anything major. However, it would be highly irresponsible for the CSM to gamble the reputation and relationship with CCP on..
[ 17:48:13 ] Dierdra Vaal > ,,,future infractions to also be "minor". There should be more systemic security through punishment, instead of a vain hope that everyone will behave and that CCP will forgive the CSM if one slips up.
[ 17:49:04 ] Dierdra Vaal > Also may I remind you of how CCP asked the CSM for feedback when they were considering removing term limits and increasing term length?
[ 17:49:15 ] Trebor Daehdoow > !
[ 17:49:25 ] Dierdra Vaal > arguably, that had much more impact on CSM procedures than this proposal would have.
[ 17:49:39 ] Dierdra Vaal > As such, I feel we are not out of place in here
[ 17:49:42 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok end
[ 17:49:54 ] Mynxee > tea go
[ 17:50:25 ] TeaDaze > I think it is up to CCP to evaluate the risks and deal with the punishments on a case by case basis. They should make it clear that an NDA violation can be punished by legal action because it is a signed legal document between them and each delegate.
[ 17:50:55 ] Dierdra Vaal > (replying to tea)
[ 17:51:02 ] TeaDaze > Also if this is going to a vote without an actual proposal raised then it won't have any visibility and will just be a footnote in the minutes
[ 17:51:40 ] TeaDaze > I was uncomfortable with CCP asking CSM4 if Lark could run again when it was clear they had already told him he could apply again in future
[ 17:52:15 ] TeaDaze > I can't make the call on if Ankh should be allowed to run again because her NDA violation has remained sealed
[ 17:52:58 ] TeaDaze > Thus I agree that the current policy of CCP making the call ofter an NDA violation is the best one. Nothing you suggest will make it less likely for somebody to break the agreement
[ 17:53:32 ] TeaDaze > And lastly there are far more concerning lack of transparencies with the election process than this relatively minor one [end]
[ 17:53:38 ] Dierdra Vaal > I believe that the 'possibility of severe repercussions' carries much less weight than the 'certainty of repercussions'. As such, having only lax repercussions as is currently the case may still lead to future CSMs chancing their luck and risking the...
[ 17:53:48 ] Dierdra Vaal > relationship between CCP and the CSM in the process.
[ 17:54:41 ] Dierdra Vaal > also, I would like to stress again that this is not aimed at specific individuals but simply imploring CCP to make it so that anyone who threatens the CSM's relationship with CCP will pay the highest price for it.
[ 17:54:56 ] Dierdra Vaal > next?
[ 17:54:59 ] Mynxee > mazz go
[ 17:55:38 ] mazzilliu > what i was going to say has been said
[ 17:55:52 ] Mynxee > trebor go
[ 17:56:13 ] Trebor Daehdoow > Damn, cut and paste stopped working.
[ 17:57:04 ] Trebor Daehdoow > While I sympathize with your concerns, what you are proposing is a zero tolerance / mandatory sentencing policy.
[ 17:57:19 ] Trebor Daehdoow > Experience has shown that these are generally a bad idea -- there needs to be some discretion.
[ 17:57:46 ] Trebor Daehdoow > Not all NDA breaches are equal -- a misdirected email is not the same as an intentional leak.
[ 17:57:55 ] Dierdra Vaal > for people who get removed from the CSM for an NDA breach. Yes, if the infraction is already severe enough to warrant immediate removal from the CSM, I'm all for zero tolerance.
[ 17:58:13 ] Dierdra Vaal > a misdirected email (similar things have happened in fact), wont lead to a removal
[ 17:58:19 ] Dierdra Vaal > intential NDA breaches will
[ 17:58:19 ] Trebor Daehdoow > And since CCP will typically be the injured party, they should decide what is the appropriate punishment.
[ 17:58:52 ] Dierdra Vaal > CCP isn't the only injured party. The CSM may very well be too
[ 17:59:00 ] Trebor Daehdoow > Now, that said, if I were CCP, there would have to be significant mitigating circumstances in order for leniency to be justified.
[ 17:59:19 ] Dierdra Vaal > either by damage to its public image/reliability, or by CCP no longer willing to share certain information. end
[ 17:59:31 ] Trebor Daehdoow > [end]
[ 17:59:35 ] Mynxee > I would much rather vote on imploring ccp to publish a more detailed policy document on CSM eligibility, to include addressing situations involving csm members who violate NDA. But...in the case of this specific proposed action...I would rather see...
[ 17:59:39 ] mazzilliu > !
[ 18:00:06 ] Mynxee > an official proposal and wiki page created for the matter. do you have any objections to doing that, DV? [end]
[ 18:00:31 ] Dierdra Vaal > I'll gladly do that, can have it done in 5 minutes. I was just under the impression Other Business stuff didnt need wiki pages
[ 18:01:03 ] Mynxee > it simply seems to be something that should be publicly documented considering its potential impact.
[ 18:01:06 ] Mynxee > mazz go
[ 18:01:15 ] mazzilliu > the possibility of leaks is a known risk to CCP.  i dont think the actions of an individual change this or introduce anything new to the equation.  if there was potential for harm of ccp csm relationship i would agree but i dont think there is any
[ 18:01:46 ] mazzilliu > even though we are just giving advice and not ordering i believe that it is a decision still best made by ccp
[ 18:01:56 ] mazzilliu > they know more than we do what exactly damages our relationship with them
[ 18:02:10 ] mazzilliu > so that's why i'm okay with them making the decision
[ 18:02:11 ] mazzilliu > end
[ 18:02:12 ] Dierdra Vaal > yeah, so they may disregard our advice
[ 18:02:28 ] Dierdra Vaal > but they may also take it on board, and it also shows that we as a CSM, take the NDA seriously
[ 18:02:38 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 18:03:39 ] Dierdra Vaal > anyone else?
[ 18:03:49 ] Mynxee > it sounds like we are about out of discussion. should we vote, or do you want to turn it into an official proposal? At the least, would like to see a wiki page for this even post-vote.
[ 18:04:22 ] Dierdra Vaal > I'm making the wiki page now, but since it most likely wont change the vote we can vote now. I've made my case.
[ 18:04:35 ] TeaDaze > What exactly are we voting on then?
[ 18:04:43 ] Mynxee > ok, please vote to permanently exclude pilots from future participation in the CSM if they are removed from CSM for breaking the NDA. Y or N?
[ 18:04:50 ] Dierdra Vaal > y
[ 18:05:04 ] mazzilliu > n
[ 18:05:10 ] TeaDaze > n - can't be a blanket statement
[ 18:05:19 ] Mynxee > N (because i think this is CCP's call, not ours, and they do it anyway case by case)
[ 18:05:29 ] Helen Highwater > n
[ 18:05:31 ] Trebor Daehdoow > n (for reasons stated above)
[ 18:05:38 ] ALPHA12125 > y - if ccp decided to remove them from csm
[ 18:05:39 ] Korvin > n - ccp decision matters
[ 18:05:57 ] TeaDaze > Failed 6 against, 2 for
[ 18:06:07 ] Dierdra Vaal > too bad. I'll wait for lark to break the NDA again with popcorn at the ready though ;)
[ 18:06:15 ] Korvin > :D
[ 18:06:22 ] Mynxee > :) i'll admit i was a dumbass if that happens.
[ 18:06:27 ] Mynxee > ok...just one more thing
[ 18:06:39 ] TeaDaze > I'll admit that CCP were dumbasses because they said he could run again :P
[ 18:06:42 ] Mynxee > made a csm6 Facebook elections page
[ 18:06:52 ] Mynxee > http://www.facebook.com/EVE.CSM.6
[ 18:06:57 ] Mynxee > however it seemse to be broken atm
[ 18:07:04 ] Mynxee > any other business?
[ 18:07:31 ] Trebor Daehdoow > works but not on igb
[ 18:07:38 ] TeaDaze > For the record I'd like to state that the Incarna letter discussed in the last meeting was delivered to CCP and depending on their actions over the next couple of weeks it might or might not be released to the public in some form or other.
[ 18:07:42 ] Mynxee > ah it's fixed now i see
[ 18:07:54 ] Mynxee > thanks Tea
[ 18:08:21 ] Mynxee > also just outlooking next meetings
[ 18:08:28 ] ALPHA12125 > reading zulus post i guess they start talking about it in multiple blogs
[ 18:08:29 ] Mynxee > potential dates are:
[ 18:08:35 ] Mynxee > Sun 27 FEBSat 12 MARFF late MARSat 9 APRSun 24 APR
[ 18:08:48 ] Mynxee > do we need a 12 mar meeting? or a 24 apr meeting?
[ 18:09:12 ] Dierdra Vaal > lets just scheduke the 27th one and see where we stand then?
[ 18:09:21 ] Mynxee > sounds fine to me
[ 18:09:37 ] Mynxee > that's it then
[ 18:09:45 ] Mynxee > Meeting adjourned