[Cz-editcouncil] Editorial Council procedures: tentative proposal

[David Goodman]

Unless we expect a remarkable amount of new proposals, we may not need
all of this elaboration. But since this channel is intended to be a
way of dealing with major proposals, I agree we should set it up in a
way like this at the start, if only so we can defend what we are doing
among our colleagues here, most of whom are used to similarly formal
ways of working.
Are there any suggested items on the agenda so far? DavidGoodman

On 4/30/07, Dr. S N Sarbadhikari <supten at amrita.edu> wrote:
> Dear Larry,
> My responses:-
> 1. Agree that the mails from this mailing list should not overflow.
> Separate Wiki pages must be dedicated for each topic proposed by at least
> three members of the Editorial Council.
> 2. The Editor-in-Chief (EIC) - whoever it may be at any instant, may be
> the Ex-Officio Chair of the Editorial Council.
> 3. The vote is automatically tallied and reported by someone deputized by
> the Chair, and called something like the "Presiding Officer", immediately
> after the closing time. The Presiding Officer for any vote can be any of
> the members of the CZ-editcouncil - EXCEPT - the three proponents of the
> topic itself.
> 4. Ideally, if the EIC is the Ex-Officio Editorial Council Chair, s/he may
> not be the Chief Constable or any other similar post holder like the Chair
> of Technical Council, etc. The EIC and the Chief Constable may not be the
> same person at any time (may be after a period of one year from now?)
> 5. The initial rules framed for the working of this Council may be
> reviewed after 3 months, if there is any practical difficulty on handling
> the volume of topics which may arise then or later.
> Regards
> Supten
>
> > Maybe I should add that I also welcome any comments about this, or about
> > the
> > more general issue of Editorial Council procedures.  Your thoughts,
> > please!
> >
> > --Larry
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cz-editcouncil-bounces at mail.citizendium.org
> > [mailto:cz-editcouncil-bounces at mail.citizendium.org] On Behalf Of Larry
> > Sanger
> > Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 1:12 PM
> > To: 'The Citizendium Editorial Council'
> > Subject: [Cz-editcouncil] Editorial Council procedures: tentative proposal
> > Importance: High
> >
> >
> > All,
> >
> >
> > This is an extremely important mail, so I hope you'll read it.
> >
> > Let me kick off a discussion of Editorial Council procedures with some
> > very
> > loosely connected assumptions and constraints.   I have definitely put
> > some
> > thought and care into these remarks, which is why it has taken a while to
> > get them to you.  Bear in mind that this isn't my final word on any of
> > this,
> > but instead some remarks to get us started.
> >
> > I think the purpose of the Editorial Council is not, first and foremost,
> > to
> > discuss editorial policy, but to settle it.  That is, I see our primary
> > function as both determining and legitimizing important editorial
> > policies.
> > We aren't a debate society but a legislative body.
> >
> > I also see our function as a relatively high-level one; that is, we should
> > not leave ourselves open to every possible editorial question, because
> > that
> > might end up hamstringing the whole operation, which works best when
> > people
> > are self-directed.  In other words, let's not kill off the wiki way with a
> > bureaucracy.  Let's avoid, where possible, creating new bottlenecks where
> > whole classes of particular, ongoing decisions have to go through the
> > Council or its subgroups.
> >
> > Still, discussion and deliberation is something that should precede
> > voting,
> > and it should be something that, where appropriate--which is
> > usually--happens in a broader arena than this list.  Furthermore, when
> > discussion does happen on this list, I think it is important that it not
> > get
> > "out of hand," i.e., that the list not become too active.  At least, not
> > on
> > a regular basis.  Most of us are very busy and simply don't have time for
> > dozens and dozens of e-mails every day.  If the proceedings are too
> > active,
> > we in effect shut out those who don't have the time to keep up.  That's
> > inherently unfair.
> >
> > But I also think it's important to bear in mind that deliberation can take
> > place in new ways when it happens online.  There are important differences
> > between asynchronous discussions that take place online, via a wiki, a
> > mailing list, or a Web forum, and a face-to-face discussion.  So we can't
> > simply import Robert's Rules to this new context.
> >
> > When it comes to making decisions, I think it is best if we can set up
> > processes that avoid groupthink.  We're all familiar with the phenomenon
> > in
> > which a deliberative body (those called "committees" are infamous for
> > this)
> > gets some daft idea in its collective head.  Deliberative groups,
> > especially
> > when homogeneous, can sometimes be "echo chambers" and produce some quite
> > silly ideas.
> >
> > We also need to think very carefully about our purview.  I stipulate that
> > the Editorial Council is not the single sovereign authority over CZ; no
> > single person or body is to be the ultimate authority--except insofar the
> > law requires that there be one.   This council is primarily a legislative
> > body, and its legislative authority itself is limited to issues we might
> > describe as "editorial"--as distinguished from, say, behavioral and
> > technical.  It will be sharing authority on an equal basis with the
> > Constabulary, perhaps the Executive Committee, and quite possibly with
> > other
> > bodies later--for example, perhaps a technical decisionmaking body.
> >
> > Also, we must think frankly about what the role of the editor-in-chief
> > ought
> > to be with respect to the Editorial Council--bearing in mind that we are
> > describing a role, and not my personal preferences.  That's because, as I
> > have said repeatedly, I wish to step down 2-3 years after the project's
> > inception, largely in order to insure that the project really does become
> > sovereign and effectively self-governing.  See:
> >
> >  <http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/04/26/a-sovereign-community/>
> > http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/04/26/a-sovereign-community/
> >
> > In summary, then:
> >
> > *     We need a method of voting.
> >
> > *     But we also need a method for restricting the issues we vote on to a
> > manageable set, one that does not create unnecessary bottlenecks.
> >
> > *     We need a way to prevent over-activity on the list, and channel that
> > useful energy elsewhere.
> >
> > *     We should do something to prevent the "echo chamber" effect.
> >
> > *     We need to think about and agree on the principles behind our
> > purview a bit more carefully.
> >
> > *     The role of the editor-in-chief vis-a-vis the Editorial Council
> > needs to be clarified.
> >
> >
> > We need to establish the online equivalent of "Robert's Rules of Order."
> > Some of Robert's Rules can be transferred directly.  Others don't make any
> > sense in the context of a mailing list and wiki, because they concern the
> > way face-to-face assemblies are run, where one person can speak at a time.
> > Is there a parliamentarian on board who wants to take a crack at adapting
> > Robert's Rules to this new context--or at least to discuss in generalities
> > how to do so?
> > Here are some tentative proposals, then, to get the discussion started.
> > The
> > following are bare, casual suggestions, that need elaboration and/or
> > replacement, or even radical rethinking.  I'll post a revised set of rules
> > on the wiki after we've discussed them some more, and at some point, which
> > I
> > will determine alone, we will vote on any proposals.  Majority vote will
> > rule for purposes of adopting rules, although--to ensure that this body
> > remains true to the vision articulated in the Statement of Fundamental
> > Policies--I am going to reserve the right to veto proposals.
> >
> > Council Chair
> >
> > First, I believe there should be a position of Council Chair.  To begin
> > with, I would want to occupy this position, although I will want to hand
> > off
> > the position to someone else--but not until our procedures are well
> > established.  I am supposing that the Editor-in-Chief position would be an
> > "executive" one, which can propose rules, but which leaves the bulk of the
> > effort of working the rules out, and putting a stamp of approval on them,
> > to
> > an independent "legislative" body.  So I would occupy the Council Chair
> > only
> > in order to get the body started and off on the right foot.
> >
> > Making proposals
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *     Any Member may make a proposal on the wiki.  Nonmembers may not make
> > proposals, although they may approach a Member with a proposal.  Proposals
> > should be listed on a page linked from
> > http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Editorial_Council
> >
> > *     A proposal must be well worked out before it can be placed on the
> > agenda.  To ensure that it is well worked out, the proposal must be joined
> > by at least two other Members.
> >
> > *     Each new proposal should have its own wiki page.
> >
> > *     Argumentation about the merits of a proposal is not permitted either
> > on the wiki or on cz-editcouncil until it comes up for discussion.
> > Proposals should not be announced on cz-editcouncil until they are placed
> > on
> > the active discussion agenda.
> >
> > *     The editor-in-chief and chief constable may, in a way to be
> > determined, object to a proposal on grounds of improper purview.
> >
> > The agenda
> >
> > *     The agenda, populated by proposals, is divided into three sections:
> > queue; discussion; and voting.  "Queue" refers to a waiting area for new
> > proposals.
> >
> > *     The Chair's primary responsibility is to edit the agenda, which is
> > posted on the wiki at
> > <http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Editorial_Council>
> > http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Editorial_Council
> > That is, it's the Chair's job to move items from proposals, to the queue,
> > to
> > discussion, to voting.
> >
> > *     In editing the agenda, a set of rules and procedures will be
> > established.  For example, there should be minimum time periods
> > established
> > for discussion and voting, and a minimum time that something can reside in
> > the queue before some sort of action can be taken.
> >
> > *     Any Council Member may request a change (addition, deletion, edit of
> > item, or reordering) to the agenda; if the Chair refuses the change, the
> > Member may call a vote.  If the call for vote is seconded, then a vote is
> > announced.  (Such votes should be very time-limited--a 24 hour vote, say.)
> >
> > *     Alternatively, there might be a committee that either sets, or is
> > authorized to revise, the Chair's agenda.  The Chair would lead such a
> > committee.
> >
> > *     All new business (i.e., an item for discussion or vote) must be
> > announced on cz-editcouncil--not just on the wiki.
> >
> > Discussion
> >
> > *     "Official" discussion of a proposal ordinarily begins only as
> > follows.  A call for comment on the proposal is posted on the
> > cz-editcouncil
> > mailing list--which is made a moderated list.  Some specific amount of
> > time
> > is set, such as 48 hours.  All comments on the proposal are saved by the
> > moderator until that period elapses; then they are all posted at once.
> > This
> > is to avoid the echo chamber effect I mentioned above: each Member offers
> > his or her initial, non-binding opinion uninfluenced by others.  The hope
> > is
> > that we will enjoy the benefits of the full spectrum of opinion on a
> > question.
> >
> > *     Next, three methods of further commentary are used.
> >
> >
> > *     First, the proposal is posted on the Forums.  The proposal may not
> > be posted on the Forums until after the Council has initially weighed in.
> > Members may, but do not have to, contribute to the discussion on the
> > Forums.
> > They are asked, but not required, to read the results.
> >
> > *     Second, on a single wiki page, each member is given some set, fairly
> > small number of words (specified in the rules) to articulate his or her
> > position on the proposal.  Voting members are required to read this page
> > before voting.  Members may revise their statements throughout the
> > discussion period.  Nonmembers may not comment on this page.  We might set
> > up a distinct page for similarly brief comments from nonmembers, however.
> >
> > *     Third, any Member may elaborate a larger position statement on a
> > page such as
> > http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Proposal_0014/Sanger_opinion
> > These are linked from the proposal page.  Voting members are asked, but
> > not
> > required, to read these pages.
> >
> > *     There is no such thing as a filibuster.  Some rules analogous to
> > Robert's Rules, such as a motion to table a question, will be devised--but
> > adapted to mailing lists and/or wikis.  Motions are made on the
> > cz-editcouncil mailing list, not on the wiki.
> >
> > Voting
> >
> >
> >
> > *     A vote can be called only after a proposal has remained for a
> > minimum length of time in discussion.
> >
> > *     Three editors might be able to "call the question" and end
> > discussion, if the Chair has not yet done so.
> >
> > *     Except in rare cases where secret balloting is well-advised, voting
> > takes place on a wiki page.  We can simply create two columns, "Yes" and
> > "No" (or whatever the options are), and Members sign their names in the
> > appropriate columns.  I think it is important that we not offer
> > comments/justifications on the pages where the voting takes place.  We,
> > Council Members, merely sign our names.  Nonmembers may not vote.
> >
> > *     Voting is limited by time.  There should be a strict minimum of 24
> > hours for every vote, but more time is permissible.  The vote is
> > automatically tallied and reported by the Chair, or someone deputized by
> > the
> > Chair, immediately after the closing time.
> >
> > Notes
> >
> > *     No one, other than the editor-in-chief, chief constable, council
> > chair, and (perhaps) some other specifically designated persons, should
> > serve on any two or more of the Constabulary, Editorial Council, and
> > Executive Committee.  Perhaps even these should not serve on any more than
> > one.
> >
> > *     More specific rules regarding purview/jurisdiction will be posted.
> >
> > I'll be very curious to hear your comments on the above, which I am asking
> > for now.  I hope you will put thought into them, and please--let's not
> > have
> > any one person, including myself, dominate the discussion that follows.
> > Counter-proposals, amendments, etc., are welcome.
> >
> > --Larry
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cz-editcouncil mailing list
> Cz-editcouncil at mail.citizendium.org
> http://mail.citizendium.org/mailman/listinfo/cz-editcouncil
>


-- 
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.