[Cz-editcouncil] New Editorial Council

[Dr.Supten Sarbadhikari]

Dear Martin,
I agree that one of the purposes of this mailing list is indeed to exchange
our views on important matters.
However, as Larry points out, there is a set procedure (that we had duly
voted for) for bringing forth motions and there is a page assigned for
"Member position statements" there. Unfortunately, in the previous Council,
there weren't many members recording their views there.
I would again urge the interested members to bring forth a formal proposal
on the issue in question.
With warmest regards
Supten Sarbadhikari
The Chair

On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 4:21 AM, M. BALDWIN-EDWARDS <baldwin at panteion.gr>
wrote:

> Dear colleagues,
>
> Whereas Larry makes a correct statement of the rules, I should like to
> point
> out that there is no mechanism for preliminary discussion of possible
> resolutions. There is also no forum for EC members to comment on the
> implementation of existing rules, which was my actual email here.
>
> As there is no face-to-face meeting of the Editorial Council, there is a
> question of how council members can informally discuss amongst themselves.
> The Forum is not appropriate, and it seems that this mailing list is ruled
> out of order. Democracy is not served by preventing informal discussions
> within the legislative body.
>
> Martin Baldwin-Edwards
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Larry Sanger" <sanger at citizendium.org>
> To: "'The Citizendium Editorial Council'"
> <cz-editcouncil at voltaire.citizendium.org>
> Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 6:56 PM
> Subject: Re: [Cz-editcouncil] New Editorial Council
>
>
> > Point of order!
> >
> > I would like to remind members of the Council that, according to our
> > rules,
> > the mailing list is not actually intended for discussion of actual or
> > potential resolutions.  (See http://tinyurl.com/5mytzl : "'Official'
> > discussion of a resolution ordinarily begins only as follows...")  We
> have
> > been making an exception when we officially agree to bypass the
> resolution
> > process, i.e., for brief comments on motions for acceptance of a
> proposal
> > by
> > acclamation.
> >
> > I forget when this was decided, but as I recall, the reason for this
> rule,
> > briefly, is that it might have two bad effects: (1) it might make
> Council
> > membership too arduous, because it would require members to read too
> many
> > e-mails; and (2) it would tend to favor (unfairly) those who have the
> time
> > and inclination to speak out (and you know who you are ;-) ), which is a
> > feature of asynchronous online discussion and *not* of a traditional
> > face-to-face meeting under parliamentary rules.  More unconstrained
> > discussion can (and does) take place elsewhere, but I believe that the
> > seriousness of the Council's "parliamentary" mission and commitment to
> > fairness demands that we be a little more regimented.
> >
> > --Larry (ex-chair)
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Cz-editcouncil mailing list
> > Cz-editcouncil at mail.citizendium.org
> > http://mail.citizendium.org/mailman/listinfo/cz-editcouncil
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.citizendium.org/pipermail/cz-editcouncil/attachments/20080419/1cb2a470/attachment.html