MaidenOfTheShieldarm wrote: |
Fixer, I'm afraid I don't see how that would happen. An oligarchy of Rangers on b77? Really?
It's not choosing a successor. I can't say "I want Poster Q to take over for me." or something. It's looking at the list, seeing who's next, and saying "Hey, can you Ranger next term?"
As long as the order of the list is maintained I can agree to allowing a Ranger to inform their successor of their term of service, but the order of the list must remain preserved in statute (with the already-present allowance for Rangers announcing their being unavailable being rolled down the list).
TED: addressing a few things I said I would address, then I'll be out of town for about ten days starting Sunday.
1. I looked throught the existing A.4 and your simplification and it doesn't look to me as if anything critical is missing. Couple questions:
a. You removed the right of Mayor to ask for an assistant. Is this only because you don't think it's necessary to say it in the Charter or because you don't want there to be mayorial assistants?
Not speaking for TED, but for my own position if someone acting as Mayor wants an assistant, the Mayor would simply need to give them access to the Mayor account. This does not need to be in statute because, should the Mayor desire for it to be so, it would become so. Requiring the Mayor not disclose the password is nigh unenforcable.
I have not changed my mind that this does not require a charter amendment, because Eru has also fufilled her duty when she delegates the responsibility for it and her delegate completes the task. But I don't object to changing the charter to reflect a different practice.
Bears repeating.
TheEllipticalDisillusion wrote: |
If you are going to move powers between articles the suggestions to move given powers must be considered all at once in documentation. To simply remove it from one to 'add it somewhere else later' is inappropriate procedure. Both articles should be addressed simultaneously and rearranged at the same time in order to prevent any responsiblity from becoming undelegated for any period of time.
Can't happen yet since the nothing is up for a vote, so effectively nothing has been changed.
I realized this after I had had a good night's sleep on the matter. However, *IF* the individual articles are brought to a vote separately (as some have requested) I want to make certain that responsibilities shifted from one article to the next are voted upon simultaneously to prevent lapses in coverage.
With regards to my participation in committee, my shifting of attention from online to offline requires I spend less time near a computer when not at work. As long as folks don't mind my only participating during the workweek, I will continue to act in my role.