Were Leafy and Satch the only two underage posters who were members when Article 6 was ratified? (If not, speak now or forever hold your peace.)
If they are, I will be glad to PM them and ask their opinion about being 'grandfathered.'
Regarding Lidless' post above and the discussion happening now in the Jury Room ... I don't have time to think hard about all the proposals being made, but would like to make a couple of comments regarding principle and/or completeness:
1. For those of us who do not have access to the ToE, it would be helpful if Estel's proposal would be posted ASAP in the Jury Room. That's the proposal that resulted from discussion within the ToE, is it not? It's hard to follow debate about items on that proposal without having the proposal itself to read.
2. Lidless, at first glance I have no principle objections to what you posted above except for one: I don't think any of this process should kick in until someone has actually requested entry to the ToE. It does not make sense (in my mind) for the ToE to have to discuss everyone who becomes eligible without knowing whether they even intend to join.
3. Cerin, regarding your proposal in the Jury Room, I like very much the idea of paralleling ToE objections with member objections to new Rangers but the groups performing each function do not have to be the same because the interested subsection of the membership is not the same.
It is Rangers who review objections to new Rangers, so it makes sense to me to have ToE members review objections to new ToE members. (I think Voronwe said this too, so I'm just adding that I agree with him.)
What we do with new Rangers is post their names as 'incoming' in Michel Delving, and all members are expected to review that post. It is the members' responsibility to check who's incoming and raise objections in timely fashion if they wish. Where new Rangers are concerned, the list stands for
10 days and I would suggest that it be the same for incoming ToE's. Their names could be on a list in the ToE forum for 10 days before they were actually admitted, and it would be the responsibility of ToE members to review the list and raise objections if necessary.
Regarding the nature of the objections themselves, I regret that I have reached no conclusion yet about a fair and equitable way to do this but I am thinking about it.
There is the possibility of having a three-option vote on every single incoming member: veto - delay for x months - accept. But I agree with Estel that the members at large are likely to view this as a re-introduction of 'invite threads' and might reject it out of hand for that reason. The counter-argument is that the ToE is by implication a closed, invitation-only forum, and I don't know what face we can put on it to make it look different. It might just be better to design it transparently for what it is and vote on every single person. I don't know. Still thinking.
The other possibility is for members to convey their objections privately to an officially neutral but not necessarily disinterested party. For example, perhaps the ToE needs to have its own standing committee that handles all issues concerning new members. Ideally, those who serve on the committee would rotate, and you would have then to set up standards by which the committee determined whether a new member was accepted or not, e.g. the number and nature of the objections required to keep them out. In such a set-up, I do agree with Cerin that where an entrant is asked to repair deficiencies before entering, the entrant has to be told what those deficiencies are. In the case of Rangers though, the identity of those who lodge the objection is kept confidential, and I believe we can do the same with the ToE without violating the charter, at least. Whether it makes sense from a moral perspective to allow anonymous accusers is something I don't want to think about tonight, but there is at least a precedent for that within the charter.
Voronwe, you suggested that any veto option must apply to existing members as well. As the charter stands now, people can be permanently banned form the ToE.
Article 5: Dispute Resolution in the Outside Forum
¶9 Offenses that Merit a Penalty
-- Offenses for which the maximum penalty is permanent suspension of access to a particular forum
• In the Thinking of England Forum, posting in a manner that ridicules, demeans or threatens other posters
I think (not sure yet, still thinking) that it makes sense to leave the removal of existing members to a jury to decide, because the current members of the ToE have already let that person in. If it turns out their judgment was bad, it feels to me that a 'higher jurisdiction,' so to speak, should be required to correct the situation.
By extension, though, it also makes sense to me that if a higher jurisdiction is required to correct the situation, then there must have been some discretion given to the forum itself for choosing its members in the first place. So ... I'm just trying to say that I think the forum should have the option of keeping someone out before they even enter, which is sort of the equivalent of an "immediate ban" under our charter, a power that is given to the lesser jurisdiction of our Rangers
until the person has been here seven days, after which the higher jurisdiction is required. This corresponds in my mind to having a 10-day waiting period in the ToE, during which time objections can be raised, and after which the person is considered 'accepted' and cannot be removed except by the higher jurisdiction.
(I probably could have said that in 50 fewer words.)
Anyway ... Off-topic:
Voronwe, you also said the following in the Jury Room which made me laugh:
as a veteran of an embarrassing number of these committees (all of them, actually )
We should bestow upon you a "Shoot the Moon Award" during the inauguration ceremony!
Jn