View source for User:Daniel Mietchen/Sandbox/Votes-on-Charter-draft

''The following votes concern [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=User:D._Matt_Innis/CurrentDraft/RevisedStructure&amp;oldid=100688048 this version of the draft].''
{|
{{!}}Article
{{!}}Joe vote
{{!}}Joe comment
{{!}}Matt vote
{{!}}Matt comment
{{!}}Howard vote
{{!}}Howard comment
{{!}}Martin vote
{{!}}Martin comment
{{!}}Russell vote
{{!}}Russell comment
{{!}}Daniel vote
{{!}}Daniel comment
{{!}}Article
{{!}}Tally
{{!}}----
{{!}}preamble
{{!}}revise
{{!}}remove "update"
{{!}}revise
{{!}}as per Russell, agree to 'this' and okay with removing update
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}revise
{{!}}"agree to a social" ==&gt; "agree to this social"
{{!}}revise
{{!}}other word for "update"? / "a covenant" to "this covenent"
{{!}}preamble
{{!}}Revise (4)
{{!}}----
{{!}}1
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}revise
{{!}}another word than restricted
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}revise
{{!}}restrict? how about "participants shall be called citizens"
{{!}}revise
{{!}}is this necessary? The definition of "Citizens" is already in the preamble; real restrictions are in article 2
{{!}}1
{{!}}Not Accepted (3 revise; 3 accept)
{{!}}----
{{!}}2
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}revise
{{!}}#1 too easily abused
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}revise
{{!}}possibly delete "registers"
{{!}}2
{{!}}accept (4)
{{!}}----
{{!}}3
{{!}}accept
{{!}}but is it necessary?
{{!}}revise
{{!}}what mission?
{{!}}accept
{{!}}Could be combined with 11; see also 1
{{!}}revise
{{!}}role of editors needs to be defined in the charter, but this is not ideal
{{!}}accept
{{!}} but it's meaningless
{{!}}reject
{{!}}superfluous
{{!}}3
{{!}}not accepted (3 accept, 2 revise, 1 reject)
{{!}}----
{{!}}4
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}accept
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}revise
{{!}}"approved content"
{{!}}revise
{{!}}mention approval; move "in" before enumeration
{{!}}4
{{!}}Accept (5)
{{!}}----
{{!}}5
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}accept
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}
{{!}}
{{!}}revise
{{!}}probably better to exchange 4 and 5
{{!}}5
{{!}}Accept (5)
{{!}}----
{{!}}6
{{!}}accept
{{!}}but needs a subheading above it
{{!}}accept
{{!}}needs to be moved to editor section
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}but merge content of 8 into this
{{!}}Accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}6
{{!}}Accept (6)
{{!}}----
{{!}}7
{{!}}revise
{{!}}change point two to read: "to make decisions regarding content matters, and" and no "ly" on "incorrectly"
{{!}}revise
{{!}}get rid of "Group" of editors and #3
{{!}}revise
{{!}}accept Joe's changes
{{!}}
{{!}}
{{!}}Reject
{{!}}this article needs limits
{{!}}revise
{{!}}"assure" is problematic, otherwise as per Joe
{{!}}7
{{!}}Revise (5)
{{!}}----
{{!}}8
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}delete
{{!}}content to go into 6
{{!}}Accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}8
{{!}}Accept (5)
{{!}}----
{{!}}9
{{!}}revise
{{!}}Removal of Editor status shall require a formal decision by the Editorial Council and may be appealed.
{{!}}revise 
{{!}}to Joe's version or similar
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}original version preferred: why a right of appeal?
{{!}}Accept
{{!}}Joe's changes okay too
{{!}}revise
{{!}}as per Joe
{{!}}9
{{!}}Not accepted (3 accept, 3 revise)
{{!}}----
{{!}}10
{{!}}accept
{{!}}(with Matt's introduction)
{{!}}revise 
{{!}}revise
{{!}}accept
{{!}}clarify "original content"
{{!}}revise
{{!}}this role for the EC needs more thought
{{!}}revise
{{!}}To develop policy on original content should mean also not to ban it.
{{!}}revise
{{!}}clarify "original content"
{{!}}10
{{!}}Revise (4)
{{!}}----
{{!}}11
{{!}}revise
{{!}}very slightly: change "to" to "in"
{{!}}revise 
{{!}}per Joe "to" to "in"
{{!}}reject
{{!}}Could be used against EC/Editors deciding subject is unacceptable fringe, advocacy, etc.
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}Accept
{{!}}
{{!}}revise
{{!}}as per Joe
{{!}}11
{{!}}Not accepted (3 revise, 2 accept, 1 reject)
{{!}}----
{{!}}12
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept 
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}but this has come a long way from the original paragraph we hashed out last November.
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}12
{{!}}Accept as written
{{!}}----
{{!}}13
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}revise
{{!}}Define "general public" as college undergraduate
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}"general public" might need clarification
{{!}}13
{{!}}Accept (5)
{{!}}----
{{!}}14
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}revise
{{!}}In other words, accept
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}revise
{{!}}Specialist material — including original research — shall be welcome, within the limits set by the Editorial Council. It shall be put into context with background information and non-specialist material.
{{!}}14
{{!}}Accept (4)
{{!}}----
{{!}}15
{{!}}revise
{{!}}Articles formally judged to be of high-quality by editors shall be designated "approved", protected and kept permanently available.
{{!}}revise 
{{!}}like Joes version
{{!}}revise
{{!}}Joe's revision acceptable
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}Joe's revision acceptable
{{!}}revise
{{!}}as per Joe
{{!}}15
{{!}}Revise (4)
{{!}}----
{{!}}16
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}revise
{{!}}"Official Posts" must be clearly defined in Article 17, 18, or 19: "The Citizendium shall be governed by five official posts: MC, EC, ME, O, and Constabulary."  You have to declare your variables before you use them.  Declaring them here resolves confusion in Article 24.
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}16
{{!}}Accept (5)
{{!}}----
{{!}}17
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}revise 
{{!}}combine 17,18,19
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}revise
{{!}}revise as per Russell's comment on art. 16; merge with 18 &amp; 19
{{!}}17
{{!}}Accept (4)
{{!}}----
{{!}}18
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}revise 
{{!}}not "assisted by"
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}revise
{{!}}see art. 17
{{!}}18
{{!}}Accept (4)
{{!}}----
{{!}}19
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}revise 
{{!}}they have their own functions
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}revise
{{!}}see art. 17
{{!}}19
{{!}}Accept (4)
{{!}}----
{{!}}20
{{!}}revise
{{!}}slight: in third point, "and" should be "and/or"; in eighth point, remove extra word "the"
{{!}}revise 
{{!}}both Joe and Russell's good
{{!}}revise
{{!}}Joe's changes OK
{{!}}revise
{{!}}this is a horrible mess and needs complete rewriting -- probably into two or three articles
{{!}}revise
{{!}}Joe's changes okay; Period should be "90 days or more."  Add to last point that "should the referendum pass, the new seats shall be filled immediately from the pool of reserve members."
{{!}}revise
{{!}}as per Joe, but not convinced the 90-days limit should be in the charter
{{!}}20
{{!}}Revise (6)
{{!}}----
{{!}}21
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}revise 
{{!}}when is the ME elected?
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}revise
{{!}}clarifications needed on procedure
{{!}}Revise
{{!}}There is no explanation of how the ME is elected.
{{!}}revise
{{!}}as per Howard and Russell
{{!}}21
{{!}}Revise (4)
{{!}}----
{{!}}22
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}wording is fine and moving would be too.
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}revise
{{!}}needs more specification -- eg about chief constable
{{!}}Revise
{{!}}move
{{!}}accept
{{!}}needs "." at end
{{!}}22
{{!}}Accept (4)
{{!}}----
{{!}}23
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}revise 
{{!}}when is omb elected
{{!}}revise
{{!}}"Monitor" rather than "vet"
{{!}}revise
{{!}}the concept of combined councils has not been defined
{{!}}Revise
{{!}}move
{{!}}revise
{{!}}as per Matt
{{!}}23
{{!}}Revise (5)
{{!}}----
{{!}}24
{{!}}revise
{{!}}Do we really want *all* Citizens to be eligible?  Even those who join a few days before the election?  I think they should be required to have been members for at least 90 days and to have contributed to the project -- either through working on an article or serving in an official role -- in the 90 days prior to the election.
{{!}}revise 
{{!}}remove #4 "all officials have to contribute". what is contribute? Can Gareth Leng hold a position? does contribute mean edit?
{{!}}revise
{{!}}Agree with Joe. Also, by reference, etc., it needs to be clear "two offices" doesn't include Editor
{{!}}revise
{{!}}many problems here, needs discussion on precise terms and conditions
{{!}}Revise
{{!}}Clauses 5 and 6 should be moved to Article 30.
{{!}}revise
{{!}}as per Joe (though without 90-days rule) and Russell. Also: "eligible"
{{!}}24
{{!}}Revise (6)
{{!}}----
{{!}}25
{{!}}revise
{{!}}retain "good standing" and define it as "not banned"
{{!}}revise 
{{!}}remove good standing (even prisoners get to vote). replace vague sufficient time with 2 weeks.
{{!}}revise
{{!}}Prisoner votes get complex, but the point stands for non-banned citizens
{{!}}accept
{{!}}old version preferred
{{!}}accept
{{!}}Sp: qith --&gt; with
{{!}}revise
{{!}}retain "good standing"; also add temporal limit like "every Citizen registered before the beginning of the nomination period (or vote), unless they lose their good standing before the end of the voting period." Also spelling: "qith"
{{!}}25
{{!}}Revise (4)
{{!}}----
{{!}}26
{{!}}accept
{{!}}with Matt's deletion
{{!}}delete
{{!}}not sure if that is the same as accept deletion
{{!}}accept deletion
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept deletion
{{!}}
{{!}}revise
{{!}}feedback should be mentioned somewhere, but not necessarily in the charter; could go into interim guidance, though
{{!}}26
{{!}}Accept (5)
{{!}}----
{{!}}27
{{!}}accept
{{!}}with Matt's changes
{{!}}accept changes
{{!}}remove strikout text
{{!}}reject
{{!}} -- most concerned about O being the representative of the Citizens,different from ME
{{!}}revise
{{!}}reject changes, but may need minor tweaking
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept changes
{{!}}as per Matt
{{!}}27
{{!}}Accept (4)
{{!}}----
{{!}}28
{{!}}accept
{{!}}with Matt's changes; also see my note to article 30
{{!}}accept changes
{{!}}remove strikout text and add bold text
{{!}}revise
{{!}}change/clarify "vet"
{{!}}revise
{{!}}minor changes needed in wording
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}revise
{{!}}replace "vet"
{{!}}28
{{!}}Not Accepted (3 accept, 3 revise)
{{!}}----
{{!}}29
{{!}}revise
{{!}}"environment" is unclear
{{!}}revise 
{{!}}nominate or appoint constables - which is it?
{{!}}revise
{{!}}
{{!}}revise
{{!}}more precise wording and concepts needed
{{!}}revise
{{!}}"environment" must be defined; remove "and" in clause 2; Clause 3: advise who?; Clause 4: public awareness of what?
{{!}}revise
{{!}}as per Matt and Russell
{{!}}29
{{!}}Revise (6)
{{!}}----
{{!}}30
{{!}}revise
{{!}}this article properly belongs above article 28, and point four belongs in article 28
{{!}}revise 
{{!}}this article just sux... so how many members does the EC have?
{{!}}
{{!}}
{{!}}revise
{{!}}too many ambiguities; needs rephrasing and tightening
{{!}}revise
{{!}}Move: should be before individual discussion of councils; Clause 2: does that mean "Each council is resonsible for writing its own by-laws?"; Clause 4 should be moved to Article 28.
{{!}}revise
{{!}}as per Joe and Russell
{{!}}30
{{!}}Revise (5)
{{!}}----
{{!}}31
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}revise 
{{!}}should be clear that ME makes decisions about content (which constables can't do)
{{!}}reject
{{!}}Agree with Russell, although Clause 1 could apply to overlap with EC. Clause 2 would have to establish within MC policy, and allow for other representatives to be named case-by-case by the MC, or, as appropriate, EC
{{!}}revise
{{!}}check with original formulation -- things seem to be missing here
{{!}}revise
{{!}}Clause 1 sounds like the ME has power overlap with Constables; clause 2 sounds like power overlap with MC.  Is this all that remains of the ME?  Why have one?
{{!}}revise
{{!}}as per Russell, Howard, Matt
{{!}}31
{{!}}Revise (4)
{{!}}----
{{!}}32
{{!}}accept
{{!}}with Matt's changes, but I wonder if we should limit the ability of a group of Citizens to initiate a new referendum on a specific rule or guideline for a period of time after it has come up for a referendum.  We don't want to allow the possibility that a same minority could continuously or repeatedly push an issue just to tire everyone out and get their way.
{{!}}revise 
{{!}}when we get huge, it won't take much to create cabals that can force referendums infinitum
{{!}}accept
{{!}}Joe's point well taken
{{!}}revise
{{!}}this whole concept needs rethinking. Did we have this right in our draft submitted to Peter?
{{!}}revise
{{!}}The first two sentences contradict each other.  A citizen may demand a referendum (sounds like a right) but this right is meaningless unless you've got a six or more like minded citizens.  Uh, now that I think about it. the current quorum size for a referendum is 7.  Seven citizens at this point can call a referendum.  Joe's point is also important to consider
{{!}}revise
{{!}}as per Joe, Matt, Russell; what about coupling this to some function of the number of Citizens who made at least one edit during the month preceding the initiation of the referendum?
{{!}}32
{{!}}Revise (4)
{{!}}----
{{!}}33
{{!}}revise
{{!}}accept Matt's changes, and remove "but" from point one
{{!}}revise 
{{!}}address Russell's points
{{!}}accpt
{{!}}
{{!}}revise
{{!}}this is vague; needs to vest responsibility in a Chief Constable and determine who or what makes the community policy
{{!}}reject
{{!}}there is no explanation of how that "community policy" is to be established.  "where this is "  Where what is?  What is "this?"
{{!}}revise
{{!}}as per Russell 
{{!}}33
{{!}}Revise (4)
{{!}}----
{{!}}34
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}revise
{{!}}needs to be merged with 35
{{!}}Accept
{{!}}but see my next comment.  The O has become powerless
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}34
{{!}}Accept (5)
{{!}}----
{{!}}35
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}revise or reject
{{!}}Russell makes good sense
{{!}}revise
{{!}}i agree with russell
{{!}}reject if not revise
{{!}}This says that the ONLY power of the O is to refer the matter to an appropriate body.  I thought the O was to be more than a referral agency.  If he/she is, then language should be here to describe the powers and actions that the O can take.
{{!}}revise
{{!}}as per Russell
{{!}}35
{{!}}Revise (4)
{{!}}----
{{!}}36
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}36
{{!}}Accept as written
{{!}}----
{{!}}37
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}delete
{{!}}merge with 36
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}37
{{!}}Accept (5)
{{!}}----
{{!}}38
{{!}}revise
{{!}}for clarity, the opening should read: "An Appeals Board shall consist of Citizens who were not previously directly involved, as follows:"
{{!}}revise
{{!}}per Joe and add  to "not previously directly involved 'in the dispute'"
{{!}}reject
{{!}}More than 1 by EC and MC; prefer 3 but will accept 2
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}Joe's revision also acceptable
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}38
{{!}}not accepted (3 accept, 2 revise, 1 reject)
{{!}}----
{{!}}39
{{!}}accept
{{!}}with Matt's addition
{{!}}accept
{{!}}the appeal board just decides if there are grounds for appeal.  An editorial issue needs to go back to the EC and a behavior issue goes back to the MC.  We can't let the MC make an editorial decision.
{{!}}revise
{{!}}I don't understand it. Agree with Russell--why remand?
{{!}}delete
{{!}}this is already covered by existing procedure; why complicate things in this way?
{{!}}revise
{{!}}I think it means that the Appeals board may remand the case back to the MC for re-hearing.  Why can't the appears board just make its own ruling?
{{!}}revise
{{!}}better to give them the right to rule on their own, rather than always having to pass things back
{{!}}39
{{!}}Not accepted (3 revise, 2 accept, 1 reject)
{{!}}----
{{!}}40
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}open to Russell's revised phrase
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}revise
{{!}}revise phrase "be restricted to a smaller audience"
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}40
{{!}}Accept (5)
{{!}}----
{{!}}41
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}revise
{{!}}No official decision shall contravene this charter.
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}revise
{{!}}needs to acknowledge greater power of external laws
{{!}}revise
{{!}}"bound by THIS charter"; "decision reached" by whom?  Is this intended to be a limit on the powers of the officials?  It should say so.
{{!}}revise
{{!}}as per Russell
{{!}}41
{{!}}Revise (4)
{{!}}----
{{!}}42
{{!}}accept
{{!}}with Matt's deletion
{{!}}accept
{{!}}with Matt's deletions
{{!}}revise
{{!}}Restore deletion about impaired users
{{!}}revise
{{!}}this is a pot-pourri of different things. they need to be separated out and places elsewhere, if they are desired
{{!}}revise
{{!}}Deletion okay; clauses dealing with ME should be moved to Article 31; Last sounds like a saving clause, if so, is should be more clearly stated.
{{!}}revise
{{!}}reject deletion
{{!}}42
{{!}}Revise (4)
{{!}}----
{{!}}43
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}delete
{{!}}if we need to state the license in the charter
{{!}}revise
{{!}}Make it a generic "open source" license -- thinking of WP discussions
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}revise
{{!}}I'm not persuaded that the license must be explicitly stated.  Charter should give guidelines about acceptable licenses.;
{{!}}
{{!}}better not to state the exact license in the Charter, but to use a generic definition of "open", e.g. as per http://www.opendefinition.org/ : “A piece of knowledge is open if you are free to use, reuse, and redistribute it — subject only, at most, to the requirement to attribute and share-alike.”
{{!}}43
{{!}}Not accepted (3 revise, 2 accept, 1 reject)
{{!}}----
{{!}}44
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}revise
{{!}}to something true
{{!}}revise
{{!}}With trepidation since we don't know status of CF. Perhaps "the legal owner" or words to that effect if CF gets preempted?
{{!}}accept
{{!}}I dont know what to say on this issue
{{!}}REVISE
{{!}}Is the CF an official body?  if so it should be mentioned in articles 17-19; if I sit on the CF can I sit on the MC?  How is the CF elected?  Who are they?  what do they do?  Because we're a website we have to have an owner so we have to have something like the CF.
{{!}}revise
{{!}}role of the CF needs to be clarified; shouldn't it better go to transition rules? What if it never gets founded?
{{!}}44
{{!}}Revise(4)
{{!}}----
{{!}}45
{{!}}revise
{{!}}slightly: add "original" before the first instance of "Citizendium"
{{!}}revise
{{!}}what mission?
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}revise
{{!}}Will branches have their own EC/MC? Can one sit at the EC of several branches?
{{!}}45
{{!}}Not Accepted (3 accept, 3 revise)
{{!}}----
{{!}}46
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}revise
{{!}}agree with Russell, we will need to officially delegate that power
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}revise
{{!}}"Informally agree?"  that'll take forever.  How about Chief Constable or Secretary of EC?
{{!}}revise
{{!}}needs to be formal
{{!}}46
{{!}}Not Accepted (3 accept, 3 revise)
{{!}}----
{{!}}47
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}revise
{{!}}all Citizens registered before the announcement of the voting period on ratification
{{!}}47
{{!}}Accept (5)
{{!}}----
{{!}}48
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}48
{{!}}Accept (6)
{{!}}----
{{!}}49
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}reject
{{!}}lets face it, larry can stop it anytime he wants
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}reject
{{!}}But then what if Larry doesn't; i'm not ever sure why this is here; Larry doesn't need to approve anything (well, except that it's still his website).
{{!}}accept
{{!}}I think it is better to have such an official end to his role; we should make sure, though, that he hands over all info on financial and server matters; something for interim guidance?
{{!}}49
{{!}}Accept (4)
{{!}}----
{{!}}50
{{!}}revise
{{!}}slightly: add "honorary" before the word "title"
{{!}}revise
{{!}}per Joe.  again, larry can pull the plug anytime he wants
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}revise
{{!}}accept Joe's change; do we need to be explicit that the honorary title Editor in chief carries no powers or duties?
{{!}}revise
{{!}}as per Joe
{{!}}50
{{!}}Revise (4)
{{!}}----
{{!}}51
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}accept
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}Accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}51
{{!}}Accept as written
{{!}}----
{{!}}52
{{!}}reject
{{!}}I still believe there are good reasons to allow pseudonyms, so long as one or more responsible officials are made aware of them in case of disputes
{{!}}reject
{{!}}per Joe
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}accept
{{!}}
{{!}}52
{{!}}Accept (4, with 2 reject)
{{!}}----
{{!}}Addendum
{{!}}reject
{{!}}Leave it out and post it as recommendations by one or more of the committee members on a separate page associated with the charter drafting cluster.  Add an article under Part VII that states that Councils shall review current/previous policies and procedures for accordance with the charter and provide a link to our suggestions 
{{!}}reject
{{!}}agree with Joe. if there are good powers and duties they should be moved now
{{!}}
{{!}}
{{!}}delete
{{!}}contents can be included in a memorandum attached to hte charter
{{!}}Keep some of this.  A lot of the powers and duties got moved here.
{{!}}
{{!}}revise
{{!}}as per Russell
{{!}}53
{{!}}Not Accepted (3 reject, 2 revise)
{{!}}----
{{!}}
{{!}}
{{!}}
{{!}}
{{!}}
{{!}}
{{!}}
{{!}}
{{!}}
{{!}}
{{!}}
{{!}}
{{!}}    * Any Citizen accepting a nomination shall retreat immediately from any involvement in the election's organization.
|----
|}