Template:CharterVote2/19/Discussion

< RETURN TO THE MAIN PAGE
This article is being removed is it not? D. Matt Innis 13:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC) If not, I vote to remove it. D. Matt Innis 13:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it was agreed to retain the article as written. It's mundane, informational, and harmless. Russell D. Jones 14:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought it was combined, along with 17 and 18, into 17.

I don't think it is harmless. It puts the constables, OM and ME as 'assisting' the committees. It sounds as of they are arms of the committees. I think that sends the wrong message. They also assist others that are not members of the committees.

I think we should remove it. D. Matt Innis 14:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Why not simply replace "assisted" with "complimented"? -Joe Quick 15:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Either is acceptable to me. I'm not beholden to this article. Russell D. Jones 15:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Complimented is better, but why make the link at all. They all have their own separated duties. I can envision that their might be a time when the ME does not agree with either council. Obviously the councils will overrule, but how is that a compliment or an assistance? D. Matt Innis 16:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Like Russell commented, the article isn't core and like Matt observed, not entirely necessary. But it does introduce terms that are expanded upon elsewhere so that they don't come totally out of the blue. -Joe Quick 16:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Article 17

The Citizendium shall be devoted to transparent and fair governance with a minimum of bureaucracy. It shall have two governing councils: Management Council, Editorial Council, and three ancillary positions: Managing Editor, Constabulary, Ombudsman.

Article 18

It shall be governed by two Councils: an Editorial Council and a Management Council.

Article 19

It shall contain a Managing Editor, a Constabulary, and an Ombudsman.

D. Matt Innis 17:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Matt, you're right. These three are really repetitive. I agree with Matt's suggestion.

Sure, I'll go along with this. But I'd like us to focus more on what's not done (e.g. Article 20) Russell D. Jones 18:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I am fine with deleting 18 and 19 and agree that 20 & 52b need more attention right now. --Daniel Mietchen 20:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)