board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Constitutional Convention Member Discussion Thread

Post Reply   Page 23 of 23  [ 451 posts ]
Jump to page « 119 20 21 22 23
Author Message
halplm
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 06 Jun , 2005 9:33 pm
b77 whipping boy
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 4:40 pm
 
Eruname wrote:
halplm wrote:
I suppose I can always go start my own board... and sit there all alone posting how evil PJ is...
:LMAO:

You could always invite Iavas. =:)
Oh, he would be the first I'd invite.

:devil:

_________________

I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.


Top
Profile Quote
MaidenOfTheShieldarm
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 06 Jun , 2005 10:23 pm
Another bright red day
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2402
Joined: Sat 12 Mar , 2005 10:35 pm
Location: Far from the coast of Utopia
 
halplm wrote:
This board, just like ANY board, is only as valuable as its posters. TORC placed it's vision ahead of its posters and it all fell apart.
Yes, but we don't have a "Vision". We just have a "mission" statement. Besides, that wouldn't happen here. . .
Quote:
Just having a "mission statement" provides an opportunity for the "mission" to be put ahead of a poster. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but who knows what the future will bring. Just having the mission statement implies that the board is something that it's not, at least to me.
I beg to differ. . . If we had a real mission statement with an actual mission, then we might (though I doubt it) get caught in the "you go against the mission, so you have to go" trap. But, we don't seem to actually have a mission in the mission statement (which is, I believe, what we were arguing about a page or two ago). It just says who we are, and it's very open ended. It doesn't head us in a particular direction.

I do see your point, and I'm just trying to explain mine. And I hope you don't find it necessary to leave. :)

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 06 Jun , 2005 10:41 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5169
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
To avoid confusion, I'm going to unsticky and lock this thread. Please continue to discuss the Mission Statement in the Mission Statement ratification thread here


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 28 Jun , 2005 12:34 am
Offline
 
Posts: 5169
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Just bumping this thread to point out to our new members (and remind our older members) that this is the place to post comments about the ongoing developments in the constitutional convention (still ongoing in the Jury Room).

This would also be as good a place as any to post any comments about any of the developments that have gotten us to this place, since the threads in the "Threads of Historical Interest" forum are not able to be posted in.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 08 Jul , 2005 5:32 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Allow me to bump this for the sake of our new members. I don't believe it has to be stickied, though, because there will be a passel of ratification threads going up shortly and discussion can take place there.

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 08 Jul , 2005 4:42 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Hi, committee members! :wave:

Thanks so much for taking care of these final dirt and wires issues!

:love:


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 08 Jul , 2005 6:36 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5169
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
:wave:


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 11 Jul , 2005 10:42 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Friends, we are discussing Privacy Policy in the charter committee, a topic that should be of broad interest.

RL names

If you have opinions about this, please express them. Now that we're visible to the world we're undergoing a sort of cultural change that needs (imo) conscious consideration by the members.

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 11 Jul , 2005 11:15 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Jnyusa wrote:
Anyway, I want to open this to discussion.

1. Do we agree that it is a necessary addition?

2. Is there more than one category of personal information, requiring separate handling?

3. Should we handle this as a Routine Power, a Special Power (for some cases perhaps), or add a Privacy Clause?


1. I agree that it is necessary to address this.

2. I'm not sure how far we have to go in specifying what sort of personal info is deletable (in the same way as we've left other things to Ranger discretion).

3. Here's one suggestion which involves a revision to para 4 & 5.

¶5: Special and Emergency powers of Rangers

• Edit Posts if they contain objectionable content (for example, abuse of another poster, defamatory remarks, pornographic, violent or distasteful content, or advertisement of products), or if they reveal personal information that compromises a poster's privacy.


To be accompanied by a revision in para. 4, something like:

Rangers may not:
•[moved edit to back of sentence] Delete posts or lock threads without permission of the originator unless the originator has engaged in conduct justifying an immediate ban, or edit posts except in the circumstances specified in para 5.


It seems to me the revision to para 4 might be advisable regardless of whatever else is done to accommodate the privacy concerns.


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 12 Jul , 2005 6:29 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
From this thread:

Article 7: Binding Votes: VOTE OVER: Discuss continued
Quote:
What we voted on, strictly, went like this:

A binding vote cannot be held for a proposition that has been defeated by an earlier vote during the past six months and the same proposition cannot be voted on more often than twice in one year. It is the responsibility of the Committee to determine whether the proposed vote is allowable. If the committee is divided, a straw poll will be taken and a simple majority of the committee members will decide whether the vote is allowable.

After two unvoted changes, the text reads like this:

A binding vote cannot be held for a proposition that has been defeated by an earlier vote during the past six months unless a genuine change of circumstances justifies holding an additional vote. It is the responsibility of the Committee to determine whether the proposed vote is allowable. If the committee is divided, a straw poll will be taken and a simple majority of the committee members will decide whether the vote is allowable.
Regarding the first version of the paragraph, I'm having trouble understanding how the committee could be divided on whether the vote is allowable, if the criteria are matters of fact (was the proposition defeated within the past 6 months, will voting constitute a third vote within the period of a year). So in the first version, I don't see the need for the last sentence.

Regarding the second version of the paragraph (and considering the continuing discussion of the wilko thread), is there a possibility of modifying the suggested change:

... unless a genuine change of circumstances or serious ramifications not previously recognized justify holding an additional vote.

Note: I know passions have run high in that discussion. I am making my observations dispassionately as opposed to advocating for a particular solution. I don't feel I have a firm grasp of all the ethical issues involved, but I am confident we will resolve this problem as we have all others before it -- with respect for all opinions and for the principles underlying the charter.

Quote:
This would in fact be the only place in the Charter where we stated that one Article must be used to override another Article. A strong argument can be made, I think, that such a provision is not appropriate. If a provision of some other Article is to be over-ridden it should be done through an Amendment process.
Could you spell this out explicitly? What is the Article that must be overriden by another Article, and where do we state it?


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 12 Jul , 2005 9:00 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Cerin:

I'm having trouble understanding how the committee could be divided on whether the vote is allowable, if the criteria are matters of fact

We anticipate that there might be serious disagreement as to whether a vote being proposed is actually the same as an earlier vote. The ballot might be approached differently, or there might be changed circumstances which argue in favor of a new vote. Someone has to make that decision, namely the committee, and they themselves might disagree.

... unless a genuine change of circumstances or serious ramifications not previously recognized justify holding an additional vote.

Cerin, I will carry this suggested revision down to the committee thread, however ....

I know passions have run high in that discussion.

... yes, that would be putting it mildly. I don't know how 'unforeseen consequences' will be received as a rationale for a revote.

Could you spell this out explicitly? What is the Article that must be overridden by another Article, and where do we state it?

Under Article 7: Binding Votes and Initiatives of the Membership there is the following paragraph:

¶5: Actions which cannot be undertaken without a Binding Vote of the Membership:
1. Moving to a new server
2. Altering the terms of ownership for the board
3. Elimination of a Forum and/or restructuring of the forums which would entail mass renaming and/or moving of subfora and threads.
4. In the deletion of threads, any departure from the policy stated in Article 8.
5. In the creation of new forums, any departure from the policy stated in Article 9.


#4 and #5 are questionable before they refer to departure from policy contained in two other Articles, which basically lets members use this Article to do an end run around the other two. If the terms of Articles 8 or 9 are not adequate to the situation, then the Article(s) should be amended, not overridden by Article 7.

Let me add, for those who have trouble keeping track of the Articles, that the one Cerin and I are discussing here is not up for ratification at this time.

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 23 of 23  [ 451 posts ]
Return to “Threads of Historical Interest” | Jump to page « 119 20 21 22 23
Jump to: