User:Daniel Mietchen/Sandbox/Votes-on-Charter-draft

From Citizendium
< User:Daniel Mietchen‎ | Sandbox
Revision as of 02:41, 22 November 2023 by Inactive User Bot (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search


The account of this former contributor was not re-activated after the server upgrade of March 2022.


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 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 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 & 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 --> 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.
Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=User:Daniel_Mietchen/Sandbox/Votes-on-Charter-draft&oldid=905168"