board77

APPROVED TEXT IS IN SECOND POST
_______________________________________________
Friends,

I started last night to change 'Admin' to 'Ranger' in the Actual Document So Far thread that's in this forum, and just found inconsistencies all over the place. It's too early for us to do this in a formal fashion but I wanted to start the thread and collect things here that have to be reviewed. So don't mind me while I hunt and gather. When we've finished all the Articles, we'll go through these items together, fix them, and let the members ratify these changes along with the last of the articles. Jn

Edit: while you work .. la-dee da-dee-da-da-daaa
People, I'm working my way through the ratified parts and making the changes that are: (a) cosmetic, such as consistency of punctuation and numbering throughout; and (b) already ratified, such as 'admin' to 'Ranger,' 'arbitration' to 'Hearing.' And I'm keeping a note of each instance here in this thread, except for the minor punctuation changes noted in the general list below.
____________________________________________________________
General Cosmetic Changes already completed

• ‘disenabled’ to ‘disabled’ throughout
• ‘admin’ to ‘Ranger’ throughout
• ‘arbitration’ to ‘Hearing’ throughout
• where article number changed, references to it changed =
• serial commas throughout
• minor corrections of punctuation,
• every Article number followed by a colon. No period or colon at the end of titles
• every ¶ number followed by a colon. No period or colon at the end of subtitles
• consistent use of bullet points (for lists only, not for clauses) and numbers (for sublists, instead of the double-bullet point)
• Periods at the end of all sentences. Semicolons at the end of intermediate list items or bullet points except when this would distort the sense of the clause
• capitalize Ranger, Mediator, Juror, Jury, Loremaster, Mayor throughout, as well as the names of fora
• Remove approval dates at ends of paragraphs and replace with ratification dates below the Article title.
• spellcheck everything.

Specific Cosmetic Changes Already Completed

Key Principles: “we remain mindful of the spirit of fellowship exemplified by Tolkien's Middle-earth and the inspiration that world brings” - removed misplaced comma.

Article 2: “unnecessarily stifle” changed to “stifle unnecessarily” to preserve parallel sentence structure.

Article 3, ¶4: has been changed from two separate sentences to two subsidiary clauses so as to make punctuation conform throughout.

• Create temporary Ranger positions when a majority of current Rangers agree this is necessary, provided that the appointees have served as Rangers in the past and no formal complaint has been issued against them for their actions as a Ranger; a temporary appointment will last for two full weeks and may be renewed one time (four full weeks in total);

• Lock, split, or move threads upon request of members, or when it is necessary to improve the coherence of a forum; the thread originator must be notified beforehand;

Article 3, ¶5: same story

5. If a sig pic is arguably pornographic, violent or distasteful it can be removed; and if the poster persists in reposting it, posting rights outside the Jury Room can be suspended until a Hearing decision is reached.

Article 3, ¶8: (misplaced capital letters and ‘if’ form of list also corrected so that each item of list begins with verb - very odd construction previously)

• An Immediate Hearing is required if a Ranger:
1. reveals private information obtained as a result of their office, such as profile information that members have made hidden or the contents of secret ballots cast by PM or email ;
2. gives another poster access to the administrator panel;
3. uses the board to boast about criminal behaviors and/or encourage other posters to engage in them.

Article 6:
Not every clause needed a paragraph number; gave title to last ¶
__________________________________________________
CORRECTIONS THAT MUST BE DISCUSSED

(1) Article 5, ¶3, under Jurors are selected in the follow manner

No juror may be a current administrator.

This belongs in ¶2


(2) Article 3, ¶2:
• The same person may serve as Ranger more than once, but not in two consecutive terms.
• A member may not begin a term of office if they are currently involved in any capacity in a Hearing involving another Ranger or a Hearing on a Ban.
• Registered members as of March 12, 2005 are eligible to serve as Rangers providing they have spent enough time on the experimental board to demonstrate an ability to perform the routine functions of a Ranger, and are not currently involved in any capacity in a Hearing involving another Ranger or a Hearing on a Ban.

I believe that in Article 5 (disputes) we specified that a member cannot begin a term of office if they are involved in a Hearing or if they are under a penalty. First underlined phrase be changed to “a Hearing,” and second underlined phrase be changed to “in a Hearing or under a penalty.”

(3) Article 3, ¶3:
• Service as a Ranger is entirely voluntary. It is not linked to service as a jury member except insofar as current Rangers are barred from serving on certain juries. A member who has agreed to serve as a Ranger and has entered the pool may withdraw their name at any time.

This was the old arbitration system. The sentence is redundant now over ¶2 and can be removed.

(4) Article 3, ¶3:

volunteers will remain on the training roster for at least ten days.

• While volunteers are on the training roster, all members are responsible for reviewing the roster to determine whether they know any good reason why a particular volunteer would not make a good Ranger and should not immediately enter the pool of full Rangers when their training is complete. If no member expresses a concern or objection volunteers will enter the pool of full Rangers without delay. If a member does have a concern or objection to a particular volunteer, these must be sent by email to the Administrator account, where they will also be forwarded to the Mayor so that the Mayor together with current Rangers can review them for merit.

It was expedient to list New Entrants separately from Rangers-in-training. New Entrants are listed when they agree to serve and they remain listed for 10 days. Rangers-in-training are listed as such for as long as they feel the need to train. Suggest that underlined passages above be changed as follows:

volunteers will remain on a roster of new entrants for at least ten days.

While volunteers are listed as new entrants

(5) Article 3, ¶4
• Edit or delete posts or lock threads without permission of the originator unless the originator has engaged in conduct justifying an immediate ban

Written before penalties were established. In fact, not all things that warrant editing are punishable by a ban under Article 5. Suggest this be changed to the following, which is also consistent with ¶5:

• Edit or delete posts or lock threads without permission of the originator unless the originator has engaged in conduct that warrants a Hearing or an immediate ban.

(6) Article 3, ¶5
• Temporarily suspend posting rights or restrict access to a forum:
1. In the Invite Forum, if information about the contents of an invitation thread has been revealed to a nonmember, access can be suspended [this provision becomes void if the Invite Forum is removed]
Clause #1 can be removed since we removed this forum while still writing/ratifying the charter. Other clauses must be renumbered.

(7) ¶5 Extraordinary Powers of Rangers
Such measures are temporary by their nature and subject to review by [some body as yet to be determined.]

this will be the Standing Committee for Charter Amendments

(8) ¶7 How to Contest Decisions of a Ranger
• In more serious cases, like bannings, or a poster feeling treated unjustly when having their posting rights restricted, etc. there is a more formal case from the outset and the procedures are described in the article on Member Rights.
• Members may contest in the following way any Ranger decisions made while exercising the routine powers of Rangers, such as edits, moving threads, etc.

There are no procedures described in Member Rights. I think what we were trying to say here was that if a Member is called to a Hearing, then the Hearing itself is the mechanism they use to state their side of the issue. So that this clause here only applies to lesser disagreements over the way routine powers were exercised. Suggest we rephrase both of these bullet points so that they read:

• If a Ranger has convened a Hearing, then the member will explain their side of the issue at the Hearing.
•Ranger decisions made while exercising routine powers (such as edits, moving threads, etc.) may be contested in the following way:

(9) Article 3, ¶8, under Grounds for formal complaint
• Failing to convene and oversee a Hearing when required, or refusing to convene a Hearing on a ban when this is necessary.

no longer necessary to distinguish two kinds of Hearing (formerly said ‘arbitration’). Can be changed to: • Failing to convene and oversee a Hearing when required

(10) Article 5, ¶5:
Hearings on a Ban are convened and conducted in the same manner as Hearings on a Community Disruption, except that a recommendation by a jury to ban a member for indefinite duration is not final.

Name change - clause should be changed to read:

Hearings on a Ban are convened and conducted as described in ¶4

(11) When we are done with Ratification, I suggest that full Administrative and Governance Procedures be posted in Jury Room (one post per Article); and those sections of the charter that deal with the Bike Racks be posted in the Bike Racks.

All suggested changes were approved unanimously. When ratified by the membership, the text of the Charter will be updated accordingly.

Corrections needed to make the Charter Consistent throughout. All of these are necessary but they involve changes of actual text or moving things around and so they need to be read and approved. Each change will be a separate question for your approval.

Question 1:

In Article 5, ¶3, under Jurors are selected in the follow manner, it says:

No juror may be a current administrator.

That provision belongs in ¶2.

PLEASE SELECT:
A. I agree to move the provision to ¶2
B. I do not agree

Question 2:

In Article 3, ¶2 it says:
• The same person may serve as Ranger more than once, but not in two consecutive terms.
• A member may not begin a term of office if they are currently involved in any capacity in a Hearing involving another Ranger or a Hearing on a Ban.
• Registered members as of March 12, 2005 are eligible to serve as Rangers providing they have spent enough time on the experimental board to demonstrate an ability to perform the routine functions of a Ranger, and are not currently involved in any capacity in a Hearing involving another Ranger or a Hearing on a Ban.

In Article 5 (disputes) we specified that a member cannot begin a term of office if they are involved in a Hearing or if they are under a penalty. The first underlined phrase should be changed to: a Hearing. The second underlined phrase should be changed to: in a Hearing or under a penalty.

PLEASE SELECT:
A. I agree to change the underlined phrases
B. I do not agree

Question 3:

In Article 3, ¶3 it says:

• Service as a Ranger is entirely voluntary. It is not linked to service as a jury member except insofar as current Rangers are barred from serving on certain juries. A member who has agreed to serve as a Ranger and has entered the pool may withdraw their name at any time.

That was written for the old arbitration system. The underlined sentence is redundant now over the provisions of ¶2 and can be removed.

PLEASE SELECT:
A. I agree to remove the underlined phrase
B. I do not agree to remove the underlined phrase

Question 4:

In Article 3, ¶3 it says:

volunteers will remain on the training roster for at least ten days.

• While volunteers are on the training roster, all members are responsible for reviewing the roster to determine whether they know any good reason why a particular volunteer would not make a good Ranger and should not immediately enter the pool of full Rangers when their training is complete. If no member expresses a concern or objection volunteers will enter the pool of full Rangers without delay. If a member does have a concern or objection to a particular volunteer, these must be sent by email to the Administrator account, where they will also be forwarded to the Mayor so that the Mayor together with current Rangers can review them for merit.

It proved expedient in Michel Delving to list New Entrants separately from Rangers-in-training New Entrants are listed when they agree to serve and they remain listed for 10 days. Rangers-in-training are listed as such for as long as they feel the need to train. I Suggest that underlined passages above be changed as follows:

volunteers will remain on a roster of new entrants for at least ten days.

While volunteers are listed as new entrants

PLEASE SELECT:
A. I agree to change the underlined phrases
B. I do not agree

Question 5:

In Article 3, ¶4 it says:

• Edit or delete posts or lock threads without permission of the originator unless the originator has engaged in conduct justifying an immediate ban

This was written before penalties were established. Not all things that warrant editing are punishable by a ban under Article 5. Suggest the underlined phrase be changed to the following, to make it consistent with ¶5:

• Edit or delete posts or lock threads without permission of the originator unless the originator has engaged in conduct that warrants a Hearing or an immediate ban.

PLEASE SELECT:
A. I agree to change the underlined phrase
B. I agree to change the underlined phrase

Question 6:

In Article 3, ¶5 it says:

• Temporarily suspend posting rights or restrict access to a forum:
1. In the Invite Forum, if information about the contents of an invitation thread has been revealed to a nonmember, access can be suspended [this provision becomes void if the Invite Forum is removed]

This entire clause can be removed because we removed the forum while still writing/ratifying the charter. Other clauses must be renumbered.

PLEASE SELECT:
A. I agree to remove this clause and renumber the other clauses
B. I do not agree

Question 7:

In ¶5, under Extraordinary Powers of Rangers it says:

Such measures are temporary by their nature and subject to review by [some body as yet to be determined.]

That body is now known. It is the standing Committee for Charter Amendments. I propose we insert the name of the committee now.

PLEASE SELECT:
A. I agree to insert the name of the committee
B. I do not agree

Question 8:

In ¶7: How to Contest Decisions of a Ranger it says:

• In more serious cases, like bannings, or a poster feeling treated unjustly when having their posting rights restricted, etc. there is a more formal case from the outset and the procedures are described in the article on Member Rights.
• Members may contest in the following way any Ranger decisions made while exercising the routine powers of Rangers, such as edits, moving threads, etc.

There are no procedures described in Member Rights. I think what we were trying to say here was that if a Member is called to a Hearing, then the Hearing itself is the mechanism they use to state their side of the issue. So that this clause here only applies to lesser disagreements over the way routine powers were exercised. I suggest that we rephrase both of these bullet points so that they read:

• If a Ranger has convened a Hearing, then the member will explain their side of the issue at the Hearing.
• Ranger decisions made while exercising routine powers (such as edits, moving threads, etc.) may be contested in the following way:

PLEASE SELECT:
A. I agree to amend these two clauses as shown
B. I do not agree

Question 9:

In Article 3, ¶8, under Grounds for formal complaint it says:

• Failing to convene and oversee a Hearing when required, or refusing to convene a Hearing on a ban when this is necessary.

It is no longer necessary to distinguish two kinds of Hearing (formerly said ‘arbitration’). This can be changed to: • Failing to convene and oversee a Hearing when required

PLEASE SELECT:
A. I agree to amend the clause as shown
B. I do not agree

Question 10:

In Article 5, ¶5 it says:

Hearings on a Ban are convened and conducted in the same manner as Hearings on a Community Disruption, except that a recommendation by a jury to ban a member for indefinite duration is not final.

We changed the name of simple Hearings. Clause should be changed to:

Hearings on a Ban are convened and conducted as described in ¶4

PLEASE SELECT:
A. I agree to amend the clause as shown
B. I do not agree

Question 11:

In Article 5, ¶5 it says:
• Convene a Hearing to reverse a ban if the following three conditions are met:
1. if the duration of the ban was not specified;
2. the banned poster has requested a new Hearing in writing;
3. at least one month has elapsed since the ban went into effect; Rangers can postpone a requested hearing longer but not more than three months.

Alandriel tells me that the underlined phrase in #2 must read:
... has requested a new Hearing in an email sent from the email address used to register;

PLEASE SELECT:
A. I agree to this addition
B. I do not agree

Looks fine.

I had to add a Question 11 to the ballot above. Forgot that I had a second list compiled by Alandriel. (Luckily only one thing on the list was a charter correction - the rest were Handbook corrections.)

Jn

The only 'quibble' I have with those is that I believe we need to wait with question number 7 as this is still undergoing discussion/ratification, right?

_______________
Resident witchâ„¢

Um, yes .... but if the members don't ratify the article which authorized the existence of those commitees, then we will come back here and try to rework the parts they didn't agree with, and submit it for ratification again.

It will not be a different committee doing the review, since none of the committees would be ratified under that circumstance.

What I would do, probably, is change the words "the committee on Charter Amendments" to "a committee on Charter Amendments" and leave it like that until the committee were actually authorized.

If we need such a committee in the interim ... well, it would be us, wouldn't it, because we won't dissolve until we get the necessary Article in a form that the members are willing to ratify them.

Jn

Yep
.. and please.. no one mention another interim committee




_______________
Resident witchâ„¢

Boo!

Question 11: "has requested a new Hearing in writing from the email address used to register" is IMO unclear—people might be thinking they're supposed to send an email to some address they emailed to when they registered.

How about "has requested a new Hearing in an email sent from the email address used to register."

Boo! yourself! Good to have you back!

yes - that wording is better - I'll make the change quickie quick because voting opens momentarily.
Jn

VOTING IS NOW OPEN

We'll vote for 48 hours until ~11:59 pm GMT on Saturday

THIS IS THE LAST BALLOT



Jn

1. A

2. A

3. A

4. A

5. A

6. A

7. A

8. A

9. A

10. A

11. A

Question 1: A.

Question 2: A.

Question 3: A.

Question 4: A.

Question 5: A.

Question 6: A.

Question 7: A.

Question 8: A.

Question 9: A.

Question 10: A.

Question 11: A.

Q1: A

Q2: A

Q3: A

Q4: A

Q5: A

Q6: A

Q7: A

Q8: A

Q9: A

Q10: A

Q11: A

1. A

2. A

3. A

4. A

5. A

6. A

7. A

8. A

9. A

10. A

11. A

1. A

2. A

3. A

4. A

5. A

6. A

7. A

8. A

9. A

10. A

11. A

1. A

2. A

3. A

4. A

5. A

6. A

7. A

8. A

9. A

10. A

11. A

Question 1:

A.

Question 2:

A.

Question 3:

A.

Question 4:

A.

Question 5:

A.

Question 6:

A.

Question 7:

A.

Question 8:

A.

Question 9:

A.

Question 10:

A.

Question 11:

A.

Question 1: A.

Question 2: A.

Question 3: A.

Question 4: A.

Question 5: A.

Question 6: A

Question 7: A.

Question 8: A.

Question 9: A.

Question 10: A.

Question 11: A.



Yay! Last ballot!

Question 1: A

Question 2: A

Question 3: A

Question 4: A

Question 5: A

Question 6: A

Question 7: A

Question 8: A

Question 9: A

Question 10: A

Question 11: A

VOTING IS NOW CLOSED

Alandriel voted in four of the five threads. She did not vote in this one and I don't think she'll be back now until Monday.

Anyway, I show unanimous approval of all eleven corrections.

After moving the ballot and results to the ballot archive, I'll show the final text version in the first post here.

The ratification thread will go up tonight or tomorrow.

Jn