[Cz-editcouncil] Call for comments for Resolution 0007

[Dr. S N Sarbadhikari]

Dear All,
This is to kindly remind all that the Resolution 0007 has been closed for
private comments. Now it is open for public discussion in the forum
[http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,1390.0.html] for 8 days.-
i.e., up to Wednesday December 05, 2007, 04:30 hrs UTC. Members may please
record their formal positions at
[http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Editorial_Council_Resolution_0007/Member_position_statements
].
I am attaching the 5 private comments received and am also uploading them
to the "Members' position statement" area.
Supten Sarbadhikari
Secretary, Editorial Council
Chair for the Motion as Larry is Sponsoring it.

Private Comments:-

1. To prevent the elected members from becoming a permanent Council
"elite," no one may be an elected member of the Council for more than
three years."
This is a very good idea, but the net result is that all of the
initial members will serve for three years, and then there will be a
100% turnover. There does not seem to be a method for phasing this, as
has always been done in such cases, starting with the US constitution
and its 6 yr senate terms. -- There needs to be a provision addition
for an initial division into thirds, serving one, two, and three years
maximum respectively. -David Goodman

2. I think the following sentence needs some more clarification: "To
prevent the elected members from becoming a permanent Council "elite," no
one may be an elected member of the Council for more than three years." I
understand the need for change. However, what does "for more than three
years" mean? - 3 years in a row? - 3 years in total for the life of the
person or council, whichever comes first? If it is the later, I disagree.
I think after an agreed waiting period, a person should regain their
eligibility. Also, we may want to consider limiting the number and length
of time certain groups may hold seats. If it is true "birds of feather
flock together," then having the same group sit on the council may give it
a certain slant or flavor. - Gary Giamboi

3. I am certainly open to debate on and adjustment of various components
of Resolution 0007. Toward the end of the open debate period, if
necessary, I will submit an amended version for vote. What is certainly
necessary in any case is that we solve the problems that the resolution is
aimed at solving. We need a way to change the Council on a regular basis,
to ensure that participants have some basic knowledge of the project, and
ensure that the selection is fair (and not politicizable, I would add). We
no doubt also need an explicit procedure for selecting the Chair and the
Secretary, although this is not addressed in the resolution. - Larry
Sanger

4. I agree with the idea of the Resolution 007. It would ensure that all
Council's members have good knowledge of the project and that Members have
a good participation on the Citizendium. But, I do not know if having a
selection process each year is optimal. It brings the risk that the whole
Council can be changed at one time. What could put the Council continuity
at risk. A procedure each month (or quarter) for XXX avalaible membership
would be better. Futhermore, we should also ensure that every main
Workgroup is represented in the Council. If not we could have a Council
where only one "area" is represented. It also give quite a lot of power to
the Secretary (or if not available the choosen person) as he "will
determine which of the members are eligible editors". But I do not know if
a completely automated selection process would be possible. - Anh.Nguyen

5. This resolution appears reasonable to me.  I did not see any changes I
would want to make. - Anthony.Sebastian