Template:CharterVote2/46/Discussion

< RETURN TO THE MAIN PAGE
The Chief Constable shall establish a page for the recording of ratification votes and shall protect the page upon completion of the ratification election.

Would that be the current chief constable?

Yes  :)

• I agree D. Matt Innis 23:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't we have the current MC handle the new elections? Russell D. Jones 15:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

We don't have a MC. We do have an executive council that Joe is a member of, but I think it is defunct. D. Matt Innis 21:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Things come up once in a while but it was only ever meant to be a sounding board for the E-i-C Agree with Matt above. -Joe Quick 04:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, if Ruth will agree. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with Matt's text above, if Ruth agrees. Do we need provisions in case she does not? Should we inquire with her now? --Daniel Mietchen 23:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The voting here is really confusing to me. It seems people are agreeing to principles instead of charter language. So is this the text? Russell D. Jones 00:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• The current Chief Constable shall establish a page for the recording of ratification votes and shall protect the page upon completion of the ratification election.

• The current Executive Committee shall organize and conduct the initial elections for the Editorial Council and Managerial Council.

I agree D. Matt Innis 00:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, Ruth will probably still require help from someone on the constabulary, whether Hayford, me or Anton. She is not very computer literate. D. Matt Innis 00:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I switched them and let the exec comm manage the whole thing:

• The current Executive Committee shall organize and conduct the initial elections. for the Editorial Council and Management Council.
• The current Chief Constable shall establish a page for the recording of ratification votes and shall protect the page upon completion of the ratification election.

Agree. D. Matt Innis 19:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

:Agree. --Daniel Mietchen 21:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Has anybody yet run this by the current ExComm to see if they'll even do this? Russell D. Jones 00:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Tentatively disagree until there is feedback from the Executive Committee, which never pretended to be a representative body, only Larry's sounding board. Assigning it to them has a flavor of the mice voting to bell the cat, for some value of inoperative mice and cats. Howard C. Berkowitz 04:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Then suggest something else! We need something that we know will work. Russell D. Jones 11:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This will work. Joe is a member of the exec comm as well as Aleta and Larry. Ruth will delegate the duties to her constables. It will work. D. Matt Innis 11:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

What problem are we trying to solve here, by inserting a new body? The process with Constables seemed to work adequately to create the Charter Committee. If anyone needs to agree, it's Larry personally, to get his consent to hand over. This is a situation where we need his agreement. The ExecComm were his advisers -- let him suggest it if there's a reason. Personally, I think there's overcomplication here. Howard C. Berkowitz 14:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't care except that (1) the process we choose must work and (2) we have to identify a process. Matt believes this will work (but seems to suggest this will be delegated to the Constables anyway). I don't have enough experience with the ExComm to say otherwise. Russell D. Jones 14:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

see the charter drafting procedures Next Step where it states this at the bottom of the page:

• "Votes will be collected and tallied by the constabulary. They will be archived and will be accessible to the constables in case of future need. Individual votes will not be released but the results will be announced publicly. It will fall to the Editor-in-Chief to act on the results of the referendum and officially declare the charter ratified, rejected, or in need of revision. "

D. Matt Innis 15:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

That description, Matt, seems both reasonable and actionable -- and Larry has had time to object to it. Could we adopt that text, possibly with the word "current" before Editor-in-Chief? Howard C. Berkowitz 16:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

<Undent> Good Job! I say we delete this article since it's covered by the Charter-drafting enabling act. All my conditions are met. Russell D. Jones 17:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete, had some help from the forums! D. Matt Innis 17:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree--delete. --Howard C. Berkowitz 17:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree — delete. --Daniel Mietchen 20:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree to delete. Joe Quick 15:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)