User talk:Anthony.Sebastian/sandbox-test

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
  • See http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Anthony.Sebastian/sandbox-test#Revising_the_current_Charter. Anthony.Sebastian (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
• "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)