User:Daniel Mietchen/Sandbox/Votes-on-Charter-draft: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 04:58, 16 July 2010

The following votes concern 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

revise

"agree to a social" ==> "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

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

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

revise

"approved content"

revise

mention approval; move "in" before enumeration

4

Accept (5)

5

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

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

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

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

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

but this has come a long way from the original paragraph we hashed out last November.

accept

12

Accept as written

13

accept

revise

Define "general public" as college undergraduate

accept

"general public" might need clarification

13

Accept (5)

14

accept

revise

In other words, 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

Joe's revision acceptable

revise

as per Joe

15

Revise (4)

16

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

revise

revise as per Russell's comment on art. 16; merge with 18 & 19

17

Accept (4)

18

accept

revise

not "assisted by"

accept

revise

see art. 17

18

Accept (4)

19

accept

revise

they have their own functions

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

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 --> 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

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

revise

needs to be merged with 35

Accept

but see my next comment. The O has become powerless

accept

34

Accept (5)

35

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

36

Accept as written

37

accept

delete

merge with 36

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

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

open to Russell's revised phrase

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

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

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

revise

all Citizens registered before the announcement of the voting period on ratification

47

Accept (5)

48

accept

48

Accept (6)

49

accept

reject

lets face it, larry can stop it anytime he wants

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

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

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

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.

User:Daniel Mietchen/Sandbox/Votes-on-Charter-draft: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 04:58, 16 July 2010

Navigation menu

Search