User talk:Anthony.Sebastian/sandbox-test: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>John Stephenson (→Dispute resolution: new section) |
imported>Anthony.Sebastian No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
*specify EiC must be Editor | *specify EiC must be Editor | ||
**Done. [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] ([[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|talk]]) 22:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC) | |||
*specify at least 1 of the advisory group must be ordinary Author | *specify at least 1 of the advisory group must be ordinary Author | ||
**Done. [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] ([[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|talk]]) 22:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC) | |||
*revise Article 50 | *revise Article 50 | ||
*"or to modify it in any way": the original policy allowed an exemption for personal safety reasons; is it your intention to exclude the possibility of reverting to that? | *"or to modify it in any way": the original policy allowed an exemption for personal safety reasons; is it your intention to exclude the possibility of reverting to that? | ||
**An exemption for personal safety reasons should be included. However, I do not see the wording in http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Real_names_policy. How would you like to word it? [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] ([[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|talk]]) 22:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC) | |||
*"a final judgement will be made by the Citizendium Council": I thought this proposal was intended to deal with the problem of conciles fainéants | *"a final judgement will be made by the Citizendium Council": I thought this proposal was intended to deal with the problem of conciles fainéants | ||
**I rethought the matter and decided that the Citizendium Council should continue its legislative role, with approval or veto by the EIC, and with a mechanism for overriding a veto. [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] ([[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|talk]]) 22:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC) | |||
[[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] ([[User talk:Peter Jackson|talk]]) 09:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC) | [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] ([[User talk:Peter Jackson|talk]]) 09:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC) | ||
| Line 14: | Line 18: | ||
I think the proposal should specify how it would rewrite the Charter, i.e. which articles would change. 28 and 39 are currently vacant, so material could be inserted there. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] ([[User talk:John Stephenson|talk]]) 16:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC) | I think the proposal should specify how it would rewrite the Charter, i.e. which articles would change. 28 and 39 are currently vacant, so material could be inserted there. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] ([[User talk:John Stephenson|talk]]) 16:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC) | ||
**I believe that should be done by a new Charter-writing committee. In addition to vacant articles, several other articles would have to be changed considerably. [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] ([[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|talk]]) 22:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC) | |||
== Dispute resolution == | == Dispute resolution == | ||
Some of the points about who mediates disputes might be contradictory. Under 'Role' it says ''The Editor-in-Chief will be responsible for approving articles, adjudicating disputes[...]'' but the final two points under 'Role of the Managing Editor' it states that the ME shall still mediate or resolve disputes. Are the two offices equal in this respect, or does the ME only hear a dispute if the EiC declines to? Or does the EiC only rule over content and not administrative/legal/technical matters? [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] ([[User talk:John Stephenson|talk]]) 16:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC) | Some of the points about who mediates disputes might be contradictory. Under 'Role' it says ''The Editor-in-Chief will be responsible for approving articles, adjudicating disputes[...]'' but the final two points under 'Role of the Managing Editor' it states that the ME shall still mediate or resolve disputes. Are the two offices equal in this respect, or does the ME only hear a dispute if the EiC declines to? Or does the EiC only rule over content and not administrative/legal/technical matters? [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] ([[User talk:John Stephenson|talk]]) 16:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC) | ||
**I changed this so that only the ME will handle the dispute resolutions. [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] ([[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|talk]]) 22:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:26, 19 May 2016
Some thoughts (maybe more to follow):
- specify EiC must be Editor
- Done. Anthony.Sebastian (talk) 22:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- specify at least 1 of the advisory group must be ordinary Author
- Done. Anthony.Sebastian (talk) 22:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- revise Article 50
- "or to modify it in any way": the original policy allowed an exemption for personal safety reasons; is it your intention to exclude the possibility of reverting to that?
- An exemption for personal safety reasons should be included. However, I do not see the wording in http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Real_names_policy. How would you like to word it? Anthony.Sebastian (talk) 22:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- "a final judgement will be made by the Citizendium Council": I thought this proposal was intended to deal with the problem of conciles fainéants
- I rethought the matter and decided that the Citizendium Council should continue its legislative role, with approval or veto by the EIC, and with a mechanism for overriding a veto. Anthony.Sebastian (talk) 22:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Peter Jackson (talk) 09:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
I see now you're trying to increase the number of elected officials, which has been reduced steadily, from 14 to 4, since the Charter was adopted, because of shortage of people. Peter Jackson (talk) 10:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Charter
I think the proposal should specify how it would rewrite the Charter, i.e. which articles would change. 28 and 39 are currently vacant, so material could be inserted there. John Stephenson (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- I believe that should be done by a new Charter-writing committee. In addition to vacant articles, several other articles would have to be changed considerably. Anthony.Sebastian (talk) 22:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Dispute resolution
Some of the points about who mediates disputes might be contradictory. Under 'Role' it says The Editor-in-Chief will be responsible for approving articles, adjudicating disputes[...] but the final two points under 'Role of the Managing Editor' it states that the ME shall still mediate or resolve disputes. Are the two offices equal in this respect, or does the ME only hear a dispute if the EiC declines to? Or does the EiC only rule over content and not administrative/legal/technical matters? John Stephenson (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- I changed this so that only the ME will handle the dispute resolutions. Anthony.Sebastian (talk) 22:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)