board77

Marriahobbit, I suggest you revise your language. Calling an idea "silly" (furthermore, my idea) without joining the discussion and explaining your views to a more detailled degree than "it simply doesn't happen" is, in my point of view, offensive.
Meet me at the Bikeracks.

Thank you for the beautifully comprehensive summary, Jnyusa.

I have printed off the full text to read through at leisure (I feel that I have missed vast tranches through two weeks offline), though I am quite sure that I'll have nothing to complain of!

So, if we call the mayor(s) anything but "mayor" we can have as many as we like?

This is just a question of semantics and of the connotations a word has for each of us - why is that so important?

Is it "nomen est omen" or "a rose by any other name..."?

If we have the office as we are planning it now (no authority, no leading role), but called it "the great Zampano" - what difference would that make?

I'm normally a bit obsessed with semantics myself, so maybe it's just that there are no firm connotations with "mayor" in my mind that I don't have a problem with this term specifically, but I understand how it could be a problem if you do. So the question would just be to find out what term people in general find most appropriate.

(I would have a problem with "Sam" and "Rosie" though - that might mean that in a short time we'd have a whole dozen of little mayors! )

Something confusing this discussion somewhat, IMO, is the fact that the office of Mayor is mentioned in the current segment of the charter up for discussion (so that discussing the concept of Mayor and mayoral function is appropriate for this thread), but the idea of a second or lieutenant mayor (necessitated by the realization that there should be someone keeping track of hearings) was generated by the current Constitutional discussion in the Jury Room.

So could I suggest that perhaps any further discussion on the question of the second or lieutenant 'mayor' would best be made here

EMERGENCY! (Kick-starting the'Dirt and Wires' Convention) (This is the Business Room thread for comments on the ongoing work of the Constitutional Committee being conducted in the Jury Room.)

Would it be appropriate for an admin. to extract those posts concerning a second mayor and move them there, so that discussion here can return to consideration of the finished sections of the charter?

Mummpizz & I are continuing the double mayoral discussion in BikeRacks. I don't think the discussion is limited to only us, if I understand the rules right.

Cerin, I can't move posts from one thread to another--splitting off posts from a thread creates a new thread.

It might be as well to just steer this one back on course.

Sorry, wrong thread.

Wow .. that is all I can say
And THANK YOU to all of you who have worked so hard ! Shows the commitment (and madness:D) of those involved.

Will read the full text during my free time ( no honestly .. i will )

Just a reminder ...

for those of you who do most of your posting over the weekend, the voting to approve or disapprove this part of the Charter will begin next Monday, May 2, and last for fourteen days (two weekends inclusive)

If you have any concerns about this Article in its present form, please express them over the weekend.

Jn

I just read most of this thread, I am guessing the mayor thing should be called something else probably. Anyway I read the segment that was done up in the first post. That is the only thing we are discussing and voting on now right? I just want to be clear.

Wilma, yes. The content in the first post is the only thing we are voting on now.

Click on the link in that post to read the full text.

Jn

Well, people. It is TIME TO VOTE

Here are the rules.

We are voting to approve or reject Article 1 and Article 3 of our Charter, as prepared by the Committee.

Nothing in the proposed Articles has been contested, so nothing will be omitted from the text created by the committee. [please note that the issue of two mayors is not being voted on here.]

In order for this vote to count, a minimum of 39 members must vote.

In order for these Articles to be approved, 67% of the voters must approve them and not reject them.

The vote will remain open until Sunday, May 15, 11:59PM GMT so that it runs for two full weekends inclusive.

A poll will be added to the thread either by me immediately (if the program lets me do this) or by a kindly admin whom I will now contact.

You may begin voting as soon as the poll appears.

If you have forgotten what we are voting on, the summary of these two article and a link to the full charter articles is in the first post of this thread.

Thanks for your participation!!
Jn

Kudos to everyone involved.



Thank you for all of your hard work.
I am in awe.

Voted yes.

I have stickied this thread.

Hoity-toity!

I vote "yes," with gratitude for the committee's hard work.

Should I have started a poll asking whether I should sticky this poll?

Sorry for the admin spam

Edit: Thank you, Wampuscat. Though you make my siliness seem all the more silly.

Thanks, Sass and Wampuscat. It feels so darn good to see it starting to happen.

I guess that's why I felt I had to tease Voronwe, poor man. Poor only admin man.

What am I?

Chopped liver?



sorry.


Edit: Prim noticed me!!!

sorry again. I'm leaving now.