[Cz-editcouncil] DISCUSSION - 0001: initial comments & public comment kick-off

[Larry Sanger]

Dear Editorial Council Members,

I have four announcements.

(1) The initial comment period is closed.  Below are the comments that I
received.

(2) We now enter a public debate period.  If there is no objection, I will
set this period at 72 hours; thus, official avenues of debate will be closed
on Saturday at 5 PM UTC/Noon EST.  The rules state: "The motion [to extend
debate], made by any other person, carries automatically if it is made and
seconded, and the amount of time requested is 24 hours or less."  This is
because the absolute minimum (at present) for voting on any motion is 24
hours, so it would take that long just to vote to extend debate.  (We might
extend it to 30 hours.)

(3) As Council Members you are not required to comment or vote, but you are
strongly encouraged to do so, particularly for this resolution.  Here is the
page where to comment: http://tinyurl.com/2m78nu

(4) To answer your questions and overcome your objections, I plan to create
a new version, which I will post on the talk page of the rules (similar to a
Draft page for approved articles).  I plan to post this by Noon EST Friday,
so that the Council can vote on the changes en masse as an amendment.

For other options of discussion, including Forums and lengthier statements,
please see:

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Editorial_Council_Resolution_0001#Discussi
on

The Chair

===========

Hi Larry, the rules look very impressive and seem fair at my first reading.
Thanks for your work, Jon 

Jon Radwan, Ph.D.
Communication Dept.
Seton Hall University
400 South Orange Ave.
South Orange, NJ 07079 

============

Perhaps I missed something but, it seems to me that the voting procedures
should specify a minimum amount of time that must pass before a voting date
is set once an item is moved from discussion to voting. 

As per below and my comments after:

Voting: 
> A vote can be called only after a resolution has remained for a minimum
length of time in discussion. The absolute minimum for resolutions, as
opposed to motions about resolutions, is 72 hours. 
.......... 
> Voting is limited by time. There should be a strict minimum of 24 hours
for every vote, but more time is permissible. Any Member may change his or
her vote before the close of voting. The vote is automatically tallied and
reported by someone deputized by the Chair, immediately after the closing
time.

For example, if an item has met the minimum amount of time requirements (as
well as all other requirements for the discussion stage), the Chair would be
prohibited from unexpectedly calling for a vote tomorrow or even sooner.

if we are going to limit the actual time period for the casting our votes,
there should be a reasonable minimum period of notification for the
scheduled vote.

Respectfully,
Gary Giamboi

=================

I have no amendments or changes to suggest for Resolution 0001. OK as is.
 
John Moffett

==============

I think it sounds good... and is a good starting point and anytime there is
a need to change the procedure we can do that. 


Cheers,
Gunther Lenz

=============

I think the general procedure is appropriate, although perhaps
over-complex--it is probably designed to simulate the private and public
lobbying, but it's more than we need--we are not discussing the fate of the
world.

first, I think we need no formal queue, unless it is expected we will have a
great deal of formal business. I think it unlikely.

second, I would replace the entire section 3.2  with something much simpler:
(the following is not necessarily exact wording--I'll work it up if there is
any sentiment along similar lines) 3.2.1 Initial discussion shall take place
for at least 48 hours in a private forum. 3.2.2 Subsequent discussion shall
take place in a public forum page for at least 72 hours. 3.2.3 The talk page
of the motion will be reserved for formal matters: amendments, rewordings,
etc. They should be discussed in the forums first.

and I would amend 3.4 to say that ,
Voting will first take place on the amendments, followed if appropriate by
continued private & public discussions before discussing the amended motion
The chair is responsible for arranging such matters.

also:
Considering various working patterns, a literal 24 hours requires either
very regular habits, or continuous monitoring of the list, and is not
necessary for the purposes of the council. I'd suggest rewording all these
at 30 hours.

Frankly, unless we are cooperative enough to work in a relatively informal
manner, the council will not be of much use. .

David Goodman

===============

1). As an initial document, I think we can work with it.  I do think the
amendment process is going to be important for all new resolutions as I
don't envision any one editor creating a resolution that won't require some
sort of amending as other workgroup editors get involved and new ideas are
introduced.  Keeping that in mind, I would like to see the amendment process
more explicit as to mechanics.
 
2). How many votes are required to pass an resolution or amendment?  Is it
majority, or 2/3, etc.
 
3).  A method for recinding a resolution will be needed someday.  How many
votes will be needed to recind a resolution or amendment?
 
4).  I see potential problems with my ability to respond in short order at
certain times of the year, etc.  Some editors may be away for 3, 5 or 7 days
at a time.  Maybe more time for the more important decisions?
 
The rest looks good, so far.
 
Matt Innis

===========

At the first glance the "CZ:Editorial Council Rules of Procedure" seem to be
adequately formulated, to begin with. The members of the EC may live in
different time zones (e.g. the Indian Standard Time for me is UTC/GMT +5:30
hours). Therefore some allowance may be given while calculating the time for
voting (especially when it is 24 hrs. or less). Regards Supten N.
Sarbadhikari

==============

Very good rules. I do appreciate the "Recess section" as the motion was
posted yesterday, the Labour Day, I was not there... if proposed during a
long week-end, a resolution could end up with a vote that would not have the
required quorum.  I would be great if we could set up an official holiday
calendar...

About the discussion, it is not really clear who will keep the initial
comments? Some kind of secretary.. ? 

Regards,

Anh Nguyen

==========

the resolution is in my opinion a good basis for efficient work. I agree
with it completely. There is only one aspect concerning votes that I would
like to point out. You did not limit the time for the quorum to be reached.
That might be a problem in times like the summer holidays. For how long can
a vote be postponed? Is it reasonable to accept a vote with a participation
of less then 40% under certain circumstances?

Best regards,

Regina Bouillon

==========

I would like to suggest to loosen the quite short time frames given in the  
Council Rules in several places.
As I was out of office last week, I had to experience myself that the  
given time frames could disallow council members to join the discussion  
and voting of a resolution, and most of the members are professionals  
which will have more or less time on travels and therefore limited web  
access. On the other hand I understand very well the need for short time  
frames in order to not prolong discussions and votings.

So my suggestion is to add a longer minimum time for discussions. Also the  
initial vote itself should be prolonged to 48 hours. And maybe a table of  
all times could be added to make the time frame a bit easier to understand.

Additionally, I could not find some rules of how discussions will find an  
end. I think, one of the problems of wikipedia are the endless debates,  
and at least for the resolutions there should be some kind of  
regularisation of the end of the discussion.

Kind regards,

Jochen Wendebaum
jochen at wendebaum.de

==========

Testing one, two, three....:-)

-Raymond Yee

==========

I've reviewed the resolution, and my only substantive concern right now is
that the chair, edit-and-chief, and constable have too much control over the
creation of the agenda and I believe that there are not enough procedural
safeguards in place in the resolution to prevent abuse of that power. I
don't have specific recommended changes now, but will continue to think
about that as the council deliberates. 


All the best,

Andrew Carpenter

==========

In the way things can get proposed the EIC is all-mighty. It seems  
too much influence in one person.
Wouldn't it be better to have - for the council a "board" of three  
that decide by majority what new proposals are to be on the agenda? It makes
it more transparent and less a one man's play. It does give  
editors a way to influence the part CZ will choose in the future.

cheers
Robert Tito