Representative Assembly Transcripts – August 5, 2006 until Oct 28, 2006
Per Representative Assembly procedures, all meetings are recorded and transcripts posted for public review. The following are the transcripts for R.A. meetings for the 5th Assembly. Meeting on 2006-08-12 Gwyneth Llewelyn: when choosing the words for the “instatement” or “swearing-in” of the newly elected members, Missing lines: Chat recorder error Gwyneth Llewelyn: which preserves the right of professing any religion Meeting on 2006-08-26 Ashcroft Burnham: May I also suggest that we change “Neufriestadt-CDS” to “The Confederation of Democratic Simulators”? Justice Soothsayer has indicated consent to be recorded. Jon Seattle Several people suggested that we support this proposal exactly because What I am saying is that we can do much better than this. So I vote I’m going to vote yes, but I’d like to add that I just had an extremely productive chat with Jon and I think we can look at a very viable substantial amendment next meeting that I feel will address CSDF and DPU concerns. Moon is working on the drafting. obviously, i agree with Jon that this could be an opportunity to discuss citizenship. If we maintain that citizenship is defined as owning a bit of the homeland, so to say, then we are definetely limiting our number of citizens (don’t forget that CN won’t have any microplots – so, till we expand again, you rely only on the NFS ones). i also have my doubts about point 2. In what way can you rule out the anarchy of mainland if you only have, say, 512 m2 organized in middle of chaos? how can you discern it from the surrounding noise? Either in terms of territorial or political difference? On these, and on the other points that Jon has raised, i must vote no as well. see you all soon! 🙂 7 Day Discussion: Treasurer and Estate Owner Claude Desmoulins Any discussion on these bills? Claude Desmoulins Since I hear none, are we ready to vote? Also – My plan is to publish the entire email thread of each issue to the forum as a “transcript extension”. Any objection to this? hello all 🙂 Claude, no objections to transcript. I vote yes for both Treasurer and Estate Owner Bills. See you later! Moon I vote yes as well. Thanks. As I was reading the bills before voting, I noticed an inconsistency. The Treasurer bill allows someone to hold that office and another if granted a waiver by the SC. The EO bill lacks the waiver provision. I’d like to amend EO to make the two consistent. What say ye? I vote yes as well and have to objections to a transcript extension. To both bills, I vote yes…sorry for that. Since it has enough votes for passage as is, we’ll put the question of amending so as to create an SC waiver in the EO bill on Saturday’s agenda. I also vote yes on the bills. I’ll vote yet on both and no objections to transcripts being posted. Meeting on 2006-09-16 Gwyneth Llewelyn: So perhaps this would require a clarification bill? Jon Seattle: Gwyn, lol Meeting on 2006-09-23 Sudane Erato: that waivers shall not be inherited Pelanor Eldrich: Aue Ashcroft Burnham: If you can find none, you cannot honestly maintain your objection. Pelanor Eldrich: Take heart Ash, we’ll get there, we will. I value your diligient efforts, and we’ll try very hard to get it hammered out even if we need RL chat or voice. Meeting on 2006-09-30 Claude Desmoulins: aye Meeting on 2006-10-07 Jon Seattle: But here is a question. Say a Nazi group claimed to support the UN bill of rights. Is it just up to them to certify that acceptance? Gwyneth Llewelyn: In any case, the RA has some powers to override a “bad” decision of the Exec 😉 Meeting on 2006-10-14 Pelanor Eldrich: Ah, I forgot to send you the notecard, ok, my bad. Ashcroft Burnham: That’s too narrow, because judicial independence is not just about selection, although that is the most important part. Ashcroft Burnham: Well, the trial would be scheduled for the convenience of the parties and the judge. Ashcroft Burnham: Moon: how about both? Carrot and stick 🙂 Gwyneth Llewelyn: Moon and Pelanor, do you agree as well with Jon? 🙂 Gwyneth Llewelyn: That’s hard, Ash.
5th RA – 1
RA Meeting: August 12, 2006
Those present:
Claude Desmoulins is in the chair.
Moon Adamant: hello all 🙂
Justice Soothsayer: HI JOn
Justice Soothsayer: HI Moon
Jon Seattle: Hello
Justice Soothsayer: everyone have their coffee handy? it early AM for me.
Moon Adamant: shall we wait a few minutes ofr Pelanor?
Moon Adamant: oh, i have had two already 🙂
Justice Soothsayer has indicated consent to be recorded.
Claude Desmoulins: Good morning Jon.
Jon Seattle: Ah, 6 AM for me and Claude
Jon Seattle: Good morning Claude
Jon Seattle: Good morning Justice
Moon Adamant: good morning everyone 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: Let’s give Pel another 5.
Moon Adamant: sure 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: Don’t forget to touch the recorder 🙂
Jon Seattle: yes, please
Jon Seattle has indicated consent to be recorded.
Moon Adamant: ah, what i was about to ask 🙂
Moon Adamant has indicated consent to be recorded.
Moon Adamant reads the agenda and documents
Gwyneth Llewelyn: hello all 🙂
Justice Soothsayer: hi gwyn
Moon Adamant: hi Gwynnie 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn has indicated consent to be recorded.
Jon Seattle: Hi Gwyn! Was just reading
Jon Seattle smiles at Gwyn
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Hi, I’m doing other things as well… 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: Good morning Gwyn.
Jon Seattle: grabs something to drink, one moment
Jon Seattle: back
Moon Adamant: brb, one miute
Moon Adamant: back
Claude Desmoulins: Ok let’splow in and hope Pel wakes.
Claude Desmoulins: First budget.
Moon Adamant: ok 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: Nobody’s posted about this.
Claude Desmoulins: Are we happy with the draft?
Jon Seattle: I have no particular objections..
Moon Adamant: me neither
Justice Soothsayer: nor me
Claude Desmoulins: Shal we vote then?
Claude Desmoulins: All in favor ov approving the budget as submitted?
Moon Adamant: yea
Claude Desmoulins: Aye
Jon Seattle: yes
Justice Soothsayer: aye
Claude Desmoulins: Now back to franchulates
Claude Desmoulins: I know CSDF had some concerns.
Claude Desmoulins: Did the stuff last meeting answer your questions?
Jon Seattle: It did help. We still have concerns about the governance of the fracnhulates.
Jon Seattle: Nevertheless we generally are looking favorably at the idea.
Claude Desmoulins: Can you be more detailed about those concerns?
Jon Seattle: yes, it seems to me that we still have to work out the relationship between new sims, and the frach
Moon Adamant: there were several questions pertinent set in the forums
Jon Seattle: to the goverment. That is issues of a conferatation vs. republic.
Jon Seattle: It seems to me that we need to resove that issue before we know how franches relate to us.
Claude Desmoulins: But a franchulate has a very tight relationship to the national govt.
Moon Adamant: maybe the bill should address those questions too?
Claude Desmoulins listens
Jon Seattle: Yes, it should.
Jon Seattle: So, here is a question. Is a franch tied to another sim, or is is in effect a ‘sim’ like entity of its own.
Jon Seattle: that is as far as the proposed confed. structure?
Claude Desmoulins: Perhaps neither. Oh I see what you’re getting at.
Claude Desmoulins: You’re asking how will this work *if* we do sim reps, governors, etc.
Jon Seattle: Yes. I assume we will do something, since we do plan to expand.
Claude Desmoulins: Good question.
Claude Desmoulins: Since this is Pel’s bill I wish he were here to speak to it.
Jon Seattle nods
Jon Seattle: I want to speak to why we generally like the idea as well.
Claude Desmoulins: Ok. Why don’t you do that.
Jon Seattle: Sure. We see this as an opportunity to expand our democracy to new land-owning groups.
Jon Seattle: The exporonto group is a good example of one that might be able to take advantage of this.
Jon Seattle: We do not see this as an economic arrangement only, however. It has larger implications.
Jon Seattle stops talking
Jon Seattle smiles
Justice Soothsayer: seems to me there are 2 questions….
Claude Desmoulins rereads the bill.
Justice Soothsayer: 1) shall we have franchulates, and 2) how would they fit into our current and any future govt structure
Jon Seattle: yes.
Justice Soothsayer: the first question is the one on the table today; the second comes later.
Jon Seattle: Ah, no.
Jon Seattle: If this bill establishes the frach, then we have to be ready to cerate them.
Claude Desmoulins: Jon. The bill says that franchisees must “be citizens”.
Moon Adamant: i agree with you Jon
Claude Desmoulins: If we clarify that to mean that an avatar must hold non mainland NFS land before applying for one…
Claude Desmoulins: Then we could view the mainland franchulate as being outside the sim governance structure.
Moon Adamant: hmmm, clarification is always good 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: Something like this….
Claude Desmoulins: The franchulate is subject only to code provisions that apply to all NFS (ie the no porn rule)
Claude Desmoulins: I think my 2 yr old just got up
Claude Desmoulins: brb
Moon Adamant: kk 🙂
Jon Seattle: Yes, exactly. We need to make that relationship clear in the bill.
Claude Desmoulins: All voting is based on where the avatar hold his/her non mainland land.
Jon Seattle: As far as I can see the bill, is only a fincancial description.
Moon Adamant: yes, also, to continue my reasoning, i’d like to see that the bill included the answers that were given to the issues raised in forums, such as no sub-letting, etc
Claude Desmoulins: Apart from those things the franchulate is outside the themed covenants,
Claude Desmoulins: , and the franchisee may build upon it what he or she wishes.
Jon Seattle: It is not clear to me, from reading it, that it would even be under the no porn rule. So it does need to be expanded a bit.
Moon Adamant: yes Jo. also Claude, what you just said should be in it as well
Claude Desmoulins: We also need to redo CC&R to clarify what’s sim specific and what’s not.
Moon Adamant: Our main objection to the bill as it stands is the way as it stands
Moon Adamant: since, as Jon said, we are agreeable to the idea
Justice Soothsayer: sounds like some fine tuning is in order, but the concept is OK
Moon Adamant: but we do think further clarification is needed
Jon Seattle: yes, Justice, exactly.
Claude Desmoulins: I have to be in and out checking on toddler.
Moon Adamant: sure Claude, np
Jon Seattle nods and smiles at Claude
Justice Soothsayer: let’s table franchulates pending some re-drafting, w suggestions to be sent to PEl
Claude Desmoulins: Do we want to try to amend this here and now?
Jon Seattle: I think we can let Pel work on it.
Claude Desmoulins: Or I’m fine withthat.
Claude Desmoulins: (table and refer)
Jon Seattle nods
Claude Desmoulins: Next the first of FR’s propsed amendments.
Moon Adamant: i’d like to have Pel redrafting it with us, if we choose to redraft it in RA
Moon Adamant: Aticle VI, section 3?
Claude Desmoulins: Yes, ler’s let Pel redraft.
Claude Desmoulins: and Yes VI, 3
Moon Adamant: ok
Moon Adamant: and ok 🙂
Jon Seattle: One moment, pulling up
Moon Adamant: me too
Claude Desmoulins: His gist is that the constitutional ban on ultimatums does not in fact do much to prevent de facto ultimatums.
Moon Adamant: yes
Claude Desmoulins: Instead of threatening to leave, people just announce that they are, at which point…
Jon Seattle: True on the part of citizens .. since those would be protected speach I think.
Claude Desmoulins: you get a lot of “why?” and “Oh please don’t go.” and the reason they would have given an ultimatum usually gets discussed anyway.
Jon Seattle: But what does this language mean: In return the government will not issue discharge ultimatums to citizens.
Jon Seattle laughs
Justice Soothsayer: “love it or leave it”
Claude Desmoulins: I don’t *know*
Claude Desmoulins: I *presume*
Claude Desmoulins: that…
Claude Desmoulins: it was designed to prevent land reclamation without some sort of process.
Claude Desmoulins: Maybe we can ask an SC person if we can get her attention 🙂
Moon Adamant pokes the SC Dean…
Moon Adamant: oh, one sec
Jon Seattle: A due process clause would be very welcome. This one is rather vague.
Claude Desmoulins: Pel is en route.
Jon Seattle: Ah, good!
Jon Seattle: Gwyn just went offline.
Claude Desmoulins: So much for SC clarification 🙂
Jon Seattle: Lets wait a moment.
Justice Soothsayer: Hi Pel
Pelanor Eldrich: Once again, sorry guys.
Claude Desmoulins: Hi Pel
Jon Seattle: Hi Pelanor!
Pelanor Eldrich has indicated consent to be recorded.
Moon Adamant: back, sorry (phone)
Moon Adamant: ans hello Pelanor 😀
Pelanor Eldrich: Hiya!
Claude Desmoulins: 3 yr old
Moon Adamant: Gwyn is having some troubles, not sure if she will be able to relog
Pelanor Eldrich: So we’re amending franchulates…
Jon Seattle: Pel, feanch was tabled
Claude Desmoulins: No you’re going to amend franchulates 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: I’ll fill you in later.
Pelanor Eldrich: Ah…no sweat. Ok, will do. What’s next?
Jon Seattle nods
Jon Seattle: We are talking about the const. amendment to section VI
Claude Desmoulins: Do we want to vote on Vi-3 or replace it with some sort of process clause.
Jon Seattle: I think it would be a great idea to replace it with a due process clause. The language is so unclear.
Moon Adamant: indeed it is
Claude Desmoulins: Or do we want to modify the process clause in the existing Vi-2
Moon Adamant pulls that one up
Moon Adamant: wb Gwyn 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: Vi -2 as it now stands guarantees a week grace period and a hearing.
Claude Desmoulins: FR’s proposed vi-2 amendment would remove that.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I’m sorry guys.
Jon Seattle smiles at Gwyn
Claude Desmoulins: toddler
Jon Seattle: why remove that?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I just managed to lose all the transcript…
Claude Desmoulins: can we take 5?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Moon told me that you were asking why we have VI, 6?
Jon Seattle nods
Justice Soothsayer needs coffee anyways
Jon Seattle: Gwyn, actually we were wanting to clarify the language.
Moon Adamant: well, Gwyn, the wording of it is a bit unclear…
Jon Seattle: We think it is a due process clause, but that is not really clear.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, it’s rather simple, really
Gwyneth Llewelyn: It was designed to prevent something that actually happened before,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: citizens doing blackmail on the government,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: the government doing blackmail on the citizens.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: A silly example.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Imagine that Sudane gets crazy and says: “unless I get now a salary of L$100,000, approved in the budget,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: “I will leave NFS and demolish all structures inside the City”.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: So effectively, in some cases, individuals could blackmail the government…
Gwyneth Llewelyn: … but the reverse is even more worrying.
Claude Desmoulins: And a lot of good it did 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: The government could say: “unless citizen X says that she loves NFS, we’ll remove her land”.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well yes,
Jon Seattle: Ah, so it is a due process clause.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: it’s arguable if this ever happened
Gwyneth Llewelyn: And yes Jon.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: As said, it’s arguable if it suits any purpose,
Pelanor Eldrich: The GM/Sim/Estate owner is a special case, and we really haven’t addressed. I like having the clause in there to keep the departure process smooth.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: but as you know it was also a part of Ulrika’s process.
Pelanor Eldrich: For John Q. citizen.
Claude Desmoulins: But Vi-2 enumerates the triggers for citizenship revocation.
Jon Seattle: I think instead of removing it, we need to re-write it so that it is more clear what is required.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: The question is only what constitutes an “ultimatum”.
Pelanor Eldrich: Right, and maybe it’s best left in the penal code, outside the constitution.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: This was thoroughly discussed…
Gwyneth Llewelyn: … but eventually you’re right, Pelanor.
Jon Seattle: Well, in the US system due process is a constitutional concept, in effect it is a right of citizens.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: It was mostly meant to be as something immutable by simple law 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Indeed Jon.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: The founders wanted to make sure that the government does not threaten its citizens,
Claude Desmoulins: And vi-2 at present makes explicit a right to a hearing before revocation.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: without due process 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: (and vice-versa, of course)
Jon Seattle: yes, of course Gwyn
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ah yes, Claude ? but that is “after the fact”, ie.
Pelanor Eldrich: If is has zero utility and is unenforceable, it should be stricken. But I like it in principle if it can be binding.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: the government could THREATEN first.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: the citizen would leave next,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: and you would basically ignore the preocess “oh, since that epson left…”
Gwyneth Llewelyn: *person
Claude Desmoulins: I see your point. Gwyn, but how can we make it clear and enforceable?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Soooo this article prevents the THREATENING.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: You think it’s unenforceable?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Remember…
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Where are threats published?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Forums mostly.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: The role of moderating those,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: rely on the SC,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: who so far has OFTEN (not once or twice… but OFTEn) used that article,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: to prevent citizens or the government to issue public threats.
Moon Adamant nods
Jon Seattle: yes
Pelanor Eldrich: So the distinction is basically “I’m leaving right now if you don’t xyz” (illegal) vs. “I’m leaving in 7 days because xyz” (legal). right?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: More or the less, Pelanor.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Even the second case could be interpreted 🙂 Peoploe leaving… just leave,
Pelanor Eldrich: To be adjudicated by the SC of course.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: they shouldn’t make their leaving be “conditional” on something happening or not.
Claude Desmoulins: And what benefit do we get from splitting that hair?
Pelanor Eldrich: Right
Gwyneth Llewelyn: 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, we don’t get free power or cleaner air from it,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: just a better definition of civic duties.
Jon Seattle: Well, I think there is also the idea that the goverment should not issue threats, etc.
Pelanor Eldrich: The gov’t is not held captive by a large landholder.
Moon Adamant: well, it is important, as we say here, ‘to understand the mind of the legislator’ 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Of course, Jon.
Jon Seattle nods to Moon
Gwyneth Llewelyn: And indeed, pelanor.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: So if Anshe bought up the sim, and threatened to go away unless the land fees were reduced,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: she would be violating the constitution, if she vented that threat publicly.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: basically, the “threats” don’t affect individuals directly,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: but they make others think if they shouldn’t leave
Pelanor Eldrich: The other barrier to that is the fact that we limit land holdings by a single avi…however, with alts…maybe we still need this clause.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: if they happen to agree with the person issuing the threat
Claude Desmoulins: Here we get to the issue of constitution v Penal code since there’s no stated penalty for doing this.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: (either the government, or an individual)
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Indeed, Claude,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: that would be for the RA to decide.
Claude Desmoulins: BTW I probably only have about 15 min ,
Jon Seattle: But the clause is used by the SC to moderate the forum
Gwyneth Llewelyn: So the Const. defines the principle of “no ultimatums”,
Pelanor Eldrich: k
Gwyneth Llewelyn: the RA defines the legal framework for applying sanctions.
Claude Desmoulins: I move that we table.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: It is indeed, Jon.
Jon Seattle: Lets, while we table, work on a draft of new language for next meeting.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: new language? We’re going to do the meetings in Esperanto? 🙂 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: hehe
Claude Desmoulins: maybe even a bill to address apropriate penalties.
Moon Adamant: ok, agree with Jon 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: Ok Vi-2
Claude Desmoulins: I’d like to propose an amendment.
Pelanor Eldrich: Ok, well it gives flexibility to the penal code.
Jon Seattle listens
Pelanor Eldrich: listents
Moon Adamant listens
Pelanor Eldrich: stfus
Claude Desmoulins: Leave Vi-2 as isexcept for striking “or removing land tiers”
Gwyneth Llewelyn smiles at Pelanor
Moon Adamant: hmmmm
Claude Desmoulins: Even though the week cooling off is ofen not enforced.
Claude Desmoulins: I don’t know that it’s bad.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ah, you mean, because we don’t have groups and land tiers anyway?
Jon Seattle nods
Claude Desmoulins: Yes
Gwyneth Llewelyn: But did you approve the franchulates? 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: Also it forces the city to move slowly.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Sorry, as said, I lost all the transcripts.
Claude Desmoulins: It’s getting redrafted.
Pelanor Eldrich: franches were tabled
Gwyneth Llewelyn: We’ll have groups and land tiers when that gets approved.
Jon Seattle: Gwyn, we asked Pel to claify the bill, but CSDF generally stated support for some version of franch.
Moon Adamant: just for clarification:
Claude Desmoulins: In a franchulate model, a city “machine” (like Rudeen) is the official land owner.
Moon Adamant: this proposal is to change the LAST sentence only of this section, right?
Claude Desmoulins: So franchisees wouldn’t be removing tier.
Claude Desmoulins: first sentence of Vi-2
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Oh, I’m all for it. I just don’t understand why you’re proposing to remove the only sanction that is explicitly stated in the Constitution 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: what sanction is that?
Justice Soothsayer: Claude is proposing ONLY to strike “or removing land tiers”; he’d keep the rest of VI-2.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: You’re just removing the FIRST sentence, or all of VI-2?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Oh.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: And what is “the group” then?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Sorry, I got you wrong on that.
Claude Desmoulins: just the words or removing land tier.
Claude Desmoulins: brb
Moon Adamant: so what would be the final wording, this one?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: So it would state: “Citizens must give a one-week notice before leaving the group. n return the city guarantees a hearing and a one-week grace period before revoking citizenship. Citizenship may be revoked for violation of city laws or covenants, …”
Claude Desmoulins: the group exists even if by group we don’t mean an SL inworld one.
Claude Desmoulins: Yes
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok, seems peaceful.
Moon Adamant strauggle swith SL interface
Pelanor Eldrich: sees doves flying
Claude Desmoulins: further discussion on the amendment?
Moon Adamant: ok Gwyn
Gwyneth Llewelyn laughs at Pelanor
Claude Desmoulins: Seeing none
Moon Adamant: and lol Pelanor
Claude Desmoulins: All in favor of my amendment to the amendment.
Justice Soothsayer: aye
Claude Desmoulins: aye
Jon Seattle: oh my, recursion.
Jon Seattle: yes
Moon Adamant: yes
Pelanor Eldrich: aye(call aye)
Claude Desmoulins: any other discussion on the amendment as amended
Claude Desmoulins: ?
Pelanor Eldrich: dumb recursion joke
Gwyneth Llewelyn: 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: seeing none
Claude Desmoulins: All in favor of the amendment?
Justice Soothsayer: aye
Claude Desmoulins: aye
Pelanor Eldrich: aye (v2)
Jon Seattle: yea
Moon Adamant: aye
Claude Desmoulins: I’m going to ask Justice to speak to 5-6
Pelanor Eldrich: huzzah
Gwyneth Llewelyn: This s becoming easier 🙂
Justice Soothsayer: Thanks, Claude, I’ll be brief since you have to go soon.
Claude Desmoulins: Don’t worry that will end soon 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: hehe
Justice Soothsayer: This deceptively simple piece of legislation raises a lot of questions as our pre-meeting forum discussions have begun to identify…
Justice Soothsayer: 1) Do we need an executive? If so:
Pelanor Eldrich: We could amend to “Burger King”
Gwyneth Llewelyn sniggers at Justice
Justice Soothsayer: 1) Do we need an executive? If so:
Justice Soothsayer: 2) Should the executive be a separate branch of government or subject to one of the existing branches, and if so, which one?
Justice Soothsayer: 3) If the executive is a separate branch of government, does it replace the AC (Guild)?
Justice Soothsayer: 4) If the executive replaces the AC, what happens to the AC?s veto?
Justice Soothsayer: 5) How and by whom should the executive be selected?
Justice Soothsayer: 6) Would the executive have sim-level responsibilities or nationwide (multi-sim) responsibilities
Justice Soothsayer: 7) Under what circumstances could the executive be removed, and by whom?
Justice Soothsayer: 8) What should be the duration of the executive?s term?
Justice Soothsayer: 9) Should the answers to these questions be made in the form of legislation or a constitutional amendment?
Justice Soothsayer: I certainly don?t have all the answers (or even all the questions)…
Justice Soothsayer: But I do have a position on some of these issues.
Justice Soothsayer: First, I think we do need an executive, but I am not ready for sweeping constitutional change…
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Justice, brilliant presentation of all those questions!
Justice Soothsayer: We need to experiment with having an executive created by statute, not constitutional amendment….
Moon Adamant: yes, very good summary, Justice 🙂
Justice Soothsayer: not to supplant the AC but to supplement it…
Justice Soothsayer: an executive selected by and responsible to the duly elected representatives of the citizens in the form of the RA…
Justice Soothsayer: for the duration of this legislative session…
Justice Soothsayer: The next election campaign can be about whether the change has been good, should be kept or not, or should be a constitutional amendment or not…
Pelanor Eldrich: Ok, so this looks like a sim based executive under jurisdiction of the RA. Right?
Justice Soothsayer: That said, I will say this to our friends in CSDF:
Justice Soothsayer: understand why you would like this to be a constitutional amendment, and why some of your answers to these questions are different from mine…
Justice Soothsayer: And I do not want this passed today only by the DPU majority, but by a consensus of at least 4 of the RA…
Justice Soothsayer: So ultimately even though I am the sponsor of this bill, modeled on Ashcroft?s suggestions, I will vote ?nay? today unless we can come to an agreement of at least 4 of us (by constitutional amendment OR by statute)…
Justice Soothsayer: And I?m listening, so will now give up the soapbox. Than ks!
Moon Adamant nods
Gwyneth Llewelyn *raises hand*
Moon Adamant: lol, you’re quick Gwyn
Claude Desmoulins: Go ahead
Gwyneth Llewelyn: (I have a gesture for that 🙂 )
Justice Soothsayer: lol
Gwyneth Llewelyn: thank you claude,
Moon Adamant wonders if your hand will be stuck for ever like that someday… 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I just wanted to point out something, as a member of the SC.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: (while personally you all know that I’m for *any* type of executive. Having one that is badly structured is far better than nothing at all)
Gwyneth Llewelyn: But as a member of the SC, i have read Ashcroft’s arguments very carefully,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: and some of your own.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: There is just a SLIGHT problem at this point.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: The Guild’s powers are not “codified” ? either in law, or at the constitution.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: However,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: we have a precedent.
Claude Desmoulins doubts it’s slight 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Actually, two precedents.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Both were vetoes by the SC,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: once under my own term as LRA,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: and the 2nd time on the previous term
Gwyneth Llewelyn: It was considered that all matters financial,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: pertain to the Guild,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: *except* for teh budget,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: which is presented and approved by the RA.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: The reaqsoning for this came from the Guild’s veto on financial issues.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: It was considered at the time, that the RA plans,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: the Guild provides
Claude Desmoulins: So would one have to pass an amendment explicitly stripping the guild of its non veto financial powers?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: The RA budgets,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: the Guild has the money.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: No.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: What *needs* to be amended,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: or at least clarified (and with the two vetoes, I hardly see how you can do it without an amendment)
Gwyneth Llewelyn: is that the Guild somehow has never had any financial powers,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: but they were always the province of the RA.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: That’s the *least* that needs to be clarified.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Or else, the SC, in good conscience,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: would have at least to point out two instances when the RA tried to pass those powers into a new body,
Claude Desmoulins: rbb
Gwyneth Llewelyn: and was vetoed.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: So… the *form* of the executive is not a constitutional issue,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: it could be an amendment or legislation,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: the delegation of RA powers is clear,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: the delegation of any financial powers is forbidden, under precedent.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Recomemndation:
Gwyneth Llewelyn: at *least* amend the financial powers
Gwyneth Llewelyn: and the rest it’s up to you guys.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Alternative (very messy):
Gwyneth Llewelyn: since the Guild has no established procedures,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: and no legislative powers,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: it could nevertheless emit a “statement”,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: that it “delegates financial powers to the soon-to-be-created executive”.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Now this is way messier.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: How “legal” would that statement be? The Guild never wrote any such document.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: But at least it would be clear ? for the SC at least ? that the Guild is willing to delegate their powers as well,
Moon Adamant: that does NOT comprehend the Wicked Wicked Guildmeister Scenario, lol
Gwyneth Llewelyn: and not “have the RA” delegate any Guild powers to a third branch.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Indeed Moon,
Moon Adamant: i mean… what if the Gulild, somewhere in teh future, just decided not to?
Moon Adamant: Guild*
Gwyneth Llewelyn: under that scenario, a Wicked Guildmeister could simple revoke that statement
Jon Seattle: And so a future Guild could take back that delegation of powers.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: yes exactly.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: And stop the executive in its tracks. Not a good idea.
Justice Soothsayer: or perhaps a useful check on a Wicked Executive?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ashcroft’s reasoning (and I think Justice’s too) was mostly “but the Guild never had those powers”
Moon Adamant: you could even have a Dr. Jeckyl/Mr Hide Scenario…
Gwyneth Llewelyn: So, if it doesn’t ahve those powers,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: let’s amend the constitution to make CLEAR they didn’t have those powers to start with!
Gwyneth Llewelyn: ?nd keep my consicence happy 🙂
Jon Seattle: Yes, indeed.
Moon Adamant: 🙂
Justice Soothsayer: thanks, gwyn
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Otherwise, I’ll have to pull the argumentation for those two vetoes, and apply it again 😛 which I truly DON’t want to do… on a personal level, that is.
Moon Adamant: ok….
Jon Seattle: I will say, personally, that I am uncomfortable in any major change in the way we operate, that is
Moon Adamant: so in short, we have to first of all amend this issue?
Jon Seattle: not the specifics, but the meta-level, our
Jon Seattle: our procedures.
Claude Desmoulins: Although the SC could veto the amendment.
Claude Desmoulins: I’m sorry, but my son is up.
Jon Seattle: being set by law (that can change at any moment) rather than through constitutional means.
Justice Soothsayer: the son also rises?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, the “clarifying” amendments are historically never vetoed 😉
Claude Desmoulins: Any way we could adjourn and toss this all around in forums?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Heh. I just added a post to that thread…
Pelanor Eldrich: is glad Gywn’s here for this session.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Grr well, I personally hate the way we have to rely upon 7200 posts or so just to understand “intent”, instead of having it all properly codified 😛
Gwyneth Llewelyn: But ah well.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Also, the new Dean should be elected soon 😉
Pelanor Eldrich: Maybe we can start summarizing…
Claude Desmoulins: I mean adjourn the meeting and discuss the langueage of proposed amendments inthe forum.
Jon Seattle: yes
Claude Desmoulins: Is there an objection to adjournment?
Moon Adamant: ?sure
Jon Seattle: no objection
Moon Adamant: none here
Pelanor Eldrich: sure
Justice Soothsayer: adjourn
Pelanor Eldrich: listens for gavel
Claude Desmoulins: The we are adjorned. See you next week same time.
The meeting closed at 5:36 Linden time.RA Meeting: August 05, 2006
Gwyneth Llewelyn: usually, the more “modern” ‘oaths’ are not religious in nature,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: and even some religions actually forbid oaths explicitly.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: So I gave to each member a “neutral” version of the “affirmation act” ?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: meaning mostly that they will, according to their personal beliefs, strongly and solemnly affirm their willingness to serve.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Each one will, of course, have the freedom to make that affirmation into an oath
Gwyneth Llewelyn: and even swearing by their own personal religious beliefs ? if they so will 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Thus, the words might not be exactly the same 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: That said and done,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: let’s start, by the order the seats that were elected,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Claude Desmoulins, will you state your intentions to serve as a member of the Representative Assembly?
Claude Desmoulins: I, Claude Desmoulins, having been elected as a Member of the Representative Assembly of Neufreistadt/CDS…
Claude Desmoulins: , do solemnly affirm that I will faithfully discharge my duties as such to the best of my ability,…
Claude Desmoulins: , that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Republic of Neufreistadt/CDS , and that I will preserve protect and defend the Constutituion of Neufreistadt/CDS.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Thank you 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Jon Seattle, will you state your intentions to serve as a member of the Representative Assembly?
Jon Seattle: yes
Jon Seattle: I, Jonathan Seattle, having been elected as a Member of the Representative Assembly of Neufreistadt/CDS,
Jon Seattle: do solemnly swear affirm that I will faithfully discharge my duties as such to the best of my ability,
Jon Seattle: that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Republic of Neufreistadt/CDS,
Jon Seattle: and that I will preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of Neufreistadt/CDS.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Thank you 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Justice Soothsayer, will you state your intentions to serve as a member of the Representative Assembly?
Justice Soothsayer: I, Justice Soothsayer, having been elected as a Member of the Representative Assembly of Neufreistadt/CDS, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully discharge my duties as such to the best of my ability, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the
Justice Soothsayer: Republic of Neufreistadt/CDS, and that I will preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of Neufreistadt/CDS.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: That was fast, lol
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Thank you, Justice!
Sudane Erato: 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Moon Adamant, will you state your intentions to serve as a member of the Representative Assembly?
Justice Soothsayer: cut & paste!
Gwyneth Llewelyn: (that was the idea about the notecard, btw)
Moon Adamant: I, Moon Adamant, having been elected as a Member of the Representative Assembly of Neufreistadt/CDS,
Moon Adamant: do solemnly swear, on my honour, that I will faithfully discharge my duties as such to the best of my ability,
Moon Adamant: that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Republic of Neufreistadt/CDS,
Moon Adamant: and that I will preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of Neufreistadt/CDS.
Moon Adamant: 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Thank you, Moon.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Now, sadly, we’re lacking Pelanor… so his affirmation has to be postponed.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: The next step will be the reinstatement of a very old tradition in Neufreistadt,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: actually, one that only happened once 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: This was never put into writing,
Moon Adamant: lol
Gwyneth Llewelyn: but the Leader of the Representative Assembly, forerly called the “Burgermeister”,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: was expected to deliver a State of Address speech.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: So we may sit down now,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: and welcome Claude tohis speech 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: *to his
Sudane Erato: yay!!
Claude Desmoulins: My fellow citizens, we stand at a pivotal moment.
Claude Desmoulins: In the last fifteen months we have grown from a handful of brave souls on a private island that no one was sure could be sustained…
Claude Desmoulins: ….to a community of more than 35 members.
Claude Desmoulins: We have weathered our greatest storm…
Claude Desmoulins: …and answered one of the questions that precipitated the founding of the city, …
Claude Desmoulins: “Can a community survive the departure of its founders?”
Claude Desmoulins: The answer to that question is a resounding “Yes.”
Claude Desmoulins: As we look back at the last few months, we ask, “What makes Neufreistadt what it is?”
Claude Desmoulins: Is it our theme?
Claude Desmoulins: In this sim, Fachwerken coexist with ominous towers and Roman temples.
Sudane Erato: 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: Bauhaus and Biergarten stand mere tens of meters apart.
Claude Desmoulins: We prepare to expand into a sim filled with Corinthian columns rather than half timbered buildings.
Claude Desmoulins: Is it our theme?
Claude Desmoulins: It is not.
Claude Desmoulins: Is it our builds?
Claude Desmoulins: With no disrespect to the many fine builders here whose work you see throughout the city,…
Claude Desmoulins: …. it is not.
Claude Desmoulins: On April 28 and again on June 2, the virtual sun rose on a city with builds and roads and walls missing.
Claude Desmoulins: Did Neufreistadt end?
Claude Desmoulins: It did not.
Claude Desmoulins: Is it our documents?
Claude Desmoulins: While they are a civic framework unparalleled in Second Life,
Claude Desmoulins: they are not.
Claude Desmoulins: The turbulent events through which we have passed were triggered, in part, by a proposal to change those documents.
Claude Desmoulins: Some even suggested they be replaced entirely.
Claude Desmoulins: Despite the ensuing acrimony and disagreement, did Neufreistadt tear itself to shreds?
Claude Desmoulins: It did not.
Claude Desmoulins: Our greatest strength can be seen in our response to the calamity of June 2.
Claude Desmoulins: Ratherthan petitioning the SC for this or that,
Claude Desmoulins: or asking what bill had to be passed to fix things,
Claude Desmoulins: ,citizens came and asked, “What can I do to help?”
Claude Desmoulins: They came to rebuild something bigger and more important than their house or their lot.
Claude Desmoulins: What mattered for Neufreistadt at this darkest moment wasn’t the theme,
Claude Desmoulins: wasn’t the builds, and wasn’t the documents.
Claude Desmoulins: It was our sense of community that was , and is, our greatest strength.
Claude Desmoulins: As we go forward, many challenges await us.
Claude Desmoulins: How to expand — How to reform.
Claude Desmoulins: As we face these challenges, let us not forget our neighbors and neighnorhoods.
Claude Desmoulins: As we grow, let us not forget our community.
Claude Desmoulins: No matter what obstacles we face.
Claude Desmoulins: No matter what opportunities we seize.
Claude Desmoulins: This community can survive and thrive.
Claude Desmoulins: If we do so, we will do so…
Claude Desmoulins: …because we stand…
Claude Desmoulins: together.
Sudane Erato: yaya111 yay
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well thank you very much Claude!!!
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Excellent!
Moon Adamant applauds!
Justice Soothsayer: hear, hear!
Salzie Sachertorte: yeah!
Jon Seattle applauds
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Oooh this should be publiched on our web site!
Sudane Erato applauds
Sudane Erato: yes!!!
Gwyneth Llewelyn: aw. We have now Pelanor with us,
Ito Genji applauds
Salzie Sachertorte: Will do!
Sudane Erato: fabulous!!
Moon Adamant: excellent speech, Claude!
Gwyneth Llewelyn: and since the RA should start their meeting,
Jon Seattle: yes, Claude
Gwyneth Llewelyn: perhaps we could just “swear him in” briefly?
Pelanor Eldrich has indicated consent to be recorded.
Sudane Erato: sure
Pelanor Eldrich: Very sorry about being late.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok, Pelanor, will you stand up please? 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I’ll give you a moment to read the notecard … 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: and then, the question:
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Pelanor Eldrich, will you state your intentions to serve as a member of the Representative Assembly?
Pelanor Eldrich: Repeat after me….after me.
Pelanor Eldrich: I, Pelanor “Mappy Pants” Eldrich, having been elected as a Member of the Representative Assembly of Neufreistadt/CDS
Sudane Erato: 🙂
Pelanor Eldrich: …
Gwyneth Llewelyn *brandishes her sword*
Pelanor Eldrich: do solemnly affirm that I will faithfully discharge my duties as such to the best of my ability
Pelanor Eldrich: …..
Pelanor Eldrich: that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Republic of Neufreistadt/CDS, and that I will preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of Neufreistadt/CDS.
Sudane Erato: yay!!!
Justice Soothsayer: well done!
Gwyneth Llewelyn: All right, thank you, pelanor 🙂
Jon Seattle applauds
Moon Adamant laughs and waves Hi at Mappy Pants 🙂
Sudane Erato: hehe
Claude Desmoulins: All right
Pelanor Eldrich: Thanks.
Claude Desmoulins: Please touch the document box for agenda and notecards.
Pelanor Eldrich: Hi moon!
Claude Desmoulins: A gentle reminder to our vistors:
Claude Desmoulins: Per RA procedures, only Neufreistadt/CDS citizens may address the meeting. All are welcome to observe.
Gwyneth Llewelyn will silently slice the heads of those unwilling to comply 😉
Claude Desmoulins: I’d like to welcome or welcome back the members of the RA, the Dean, the Guildmeisterin and our visitors.
Claude Desmoulins: Let’s begin
Gwyneth Llewelyn *bows*
Salzie Sachertorte thinks we should disarm Gwyn
Sudane Erato: 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: lol
Sudane Erato: hehe
Moon Adamant: lol
Claude Desmoulins: NB 5-1 the Flag Act (proposed)
Jon Seattle laughs
Claude Desmoulins: For some weeks we have been discussing the provision of new “iconography” for the city.
Claude Desmoulins: This is an attempt to move that process forward.
Claude Desmoulins: The referenced design is Dianne’s.
Claude Desmoulins: It hangs outside her Platz shop.
Claude Desmoulins: discussion?
Moon Adamant: nothing to object
Sudane Erato: i think its great… altho she’s out of touch for the time being
Claude Desmoulins: Else I would have raised the IP issue with her and tried to settle that.
Sudane Erato: I think the owl is the perfect symbol for NStadt
Claude Desmoulins: Shall we vote?
Pelanor Eldrich: Regardless of the design, we need “something” as inconography. (BTW I like the design)
Pelanor Eldrich: sure
Moon Adamant nods
Claude Desmoulins: All in favor ?
Jon Seattle: yes
Pelanor Eldrich: yes
Justice Soothsayer: aye
Moon Adamant: yes
Claude Desmoulins: yes
Sudane Erato: yay!!
Sudane Erato: first act of the new session!
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I think this was the quickest ever…
Claude Desmoulins: Now 5-2
Moon Adamant: lol
Claude Desmoulins: Fundraising for expansion
Claude Desmoulins: Does someone wish to speak to this?
Sudane Erato: I will only say that I completely support this
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I do as well, but I’m just expressing a personal opinion 🙂
Pelanor Eldrich: I do as well, and would like to help offer bonds in the future for general CDS use (not as part of this bill).
Claude Desmoulins: Shall we vote?
Jon Seattle: yes,
Claude Desmoulins: All in favor?
Pelanor Eldrich: aye
Claude Desmoulins: yes
Jon Seattle: Aye
Justice Soothsayer: aye
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Oh my.
Gwyneth Llewelyn forsees a very different RA 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: *foresees
Claude Desmoulins: Now on to budget.
Moon Adamant: yes
Claude Desmoulins: This is just a discussion session
Claude Desmoulins: Sudane,
Claude Desmoulins: It’s your draft.
Sudane Erato: yes
Claude Desmoulins: Would you like to say anything?
Sudane Erato: oooh… I need it in front of me… one moment
Justice Soothsayer: I have one comment on the budget. I know why CN is separated, but I’d like to see it included in the totals as well. Its an important precedent.
Sudane Erato: thats a good point
Sudane Erato: the only real issue there..
Sudane Erato: is that the process of acquisition of CN.. per se…
Sudane Erato: is not an expense…
Jon Seattle nods
Sudane Erato: but rather a capital expenditure….
Sudane Erato: which will be returned…
Sudane Erato: but..
Sudane Erato: you’re right
Sudane Erato: I will combine them…
Justice Soothsayer: so maybe we need a capital budget?
Sudane Erato: well… we do
Sudane Erato: and that gets much moere complex
Sudane Erato: I have never yet evaluated the “value” of even NStadt
Gwyneth Llewelyn: aaah!
Sudane Erato: so… we have a ways to go to make a “real” capital budget
Justice Soothsayer: priceless!
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well hehe yes, Justice,
Moon Adamant: indeed, Justice!
Jon Seattle wonders if there any second life accounting firms as yet
Gwyneth Llewelyn: but I think that Sudane meant the assets 🙂
Salzie Sachertorte: Dual budgeting is very difficult –
Sudane Erato: yes.. hehe
Sudane Erato: the $$ value 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: mm hmm 🙂
Salzie Sachertorte: Then you have fights over which budget to allocate expenses to
Gwyneth Llewelyn: True, Salzie, although analytical accounting could work out fine…
Salzie Sachertorte has vast experience in this in RL.
Sudane Erato: 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn remembers to send Sudane a software package called “Business Plan Pro” 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Sudane, you have Windows or a Mac?
Sudane Erato: :)… win
Sudane Erato: and I have finally gotten my copy up
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok. Hmm. perhaps I’ll send that to you, then… it could help you out
Sudane Erato: so…
Sudane Erato: there are two primary parts
Sudane Erato: first part are the revenue projections…
Sudane Erato: followed by the *necessary* expenses
Sudane Erato: paying the tier
Sudane Erato: this budget *estimates* that those two elements… revenues minus necessay expenses
Sudane Erato: will yoield us L$145,000 for “diiscretionary spending
Sudane Erato: we can discuss of course, that number
Sudane Erato: but
Sudane Erato: it will be in that area
Sudane Erato: then..
Sudane Erato: to allocate the $$ available for discretionary spending…
Sudane Erato: we have my list of suggestions..
Sudane Erato: this is surely open for discussion and alteration
Sudane Erato: I will say right now..
Sudane Erato: that my biggest interest is in seeing the Lnad Management process thru
Sudane Erato: and in providing a real, substantial promotion/events budget
Sudane Erato: thats pretty much it
Sudane Erato: the CN budgeting is from the CH SPC
Sudane Erato: which is supervising that
Sudane Erato: CVN SPC
Sudane Erato: jesus
Sudane Erato: CN SPC 🙂
Sudane Erato: hehe
Gwyneth Llewelyn: thank you for all the thorough explanations 🙂
Jon Seattle smiles
Pelanor Eldrich: speaking…er, oh, sorry.
Pelanor Eldrich: thanks Sudane!
Claude Desmoulins: Comments?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Nothing to comment at this time,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: except for the comment on the forums ?
Moon Adamant: nothing to comment
Gwyneth Llewelyn: the authorisation should be from RA to the Guild
Sudane Erato: yes
Gwyneth Llewelyn: and not to the Guildmeisterinn 🙂
Sudane Erato: in whatever new form it may take
Claude Desmoulins: That was 5-2 and it was taken care of, I believe.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: (apologies to Pat who will be reading this later and complain about my pedantism 😉 )
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes, Pat suggested that.
Moon Adamant: lol
Pelanor Eldrich: I like the budget and have fully confidence in the AC, and specifically Sudane’s extensive past experience in both drawing up our budget, and handling the complex process of expansion.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Hear, hear!
Sudane Erato: :)/.. ty
Claude Desmoulins notes that he only has about 20 minutes or so to devote to this mornings meeting.
Moon Adamant: indeed 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: Welll let’s discuss it in forums.
Claude Desmoulins: Probably to vote on next week unless someone objects.
Pelanor Eldrich: *cough* –MUSH— *cough*
Jon Seattle: point of order. Would it be possible to deal with Gwynstreass before franchuletes?
Claude Desmoulins: Sure, any particular reason?
Pelanor Eldrich: sure
Pelanor Eldrich: less contentious for one.
Jon Seattle: Just because the frach. will require more discussion.
Claude Desmoulins: True
Justice Soothsayer: no objection. lets get the simple ones done first
Gwyneth Llewelyn: No vote on 5-2? 🙁
Claude Desmoulins: Been there done that.
Moon Adamant: i support the point of order
Claude Desmoulins: 5-4 then
Claude Desmoulins: I believe I canvased all the residents on Gwynethstr.
Claude Desmoulins: The gist would be to put the houses against the wall an the street behind.
Sudane Erato: yes
Moon Adamant: indeed
Claude Desmoulins: Everone would move south or southwest about 5 m
Claude Desmoulins: This lets us connect Gwynethstr to the platz
Claude Desmoulins: Wit the possibility of an extension to Kendrastr. running north of the Altenburg plot
Claude Desmoulins: Though that extension is not inthis bill.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: As one of the residents of Gwynethstr., like Claude mentioned, I was consulted and fully agree to the plan 🙂
Moon Adamant: i support this change in the urban tissue of n’stadt, both as a resident in teh street and from a technical pov
Moon Adamant: both in terms of urban design, as in the sense of a more perfect recreation of what a medieval build would be
Claude Desmoulins: Any other discussion?
Pelanor Eldrich: Let’s vote. Vote early! Vote often! (and not just in elections) 🙂
Moon Adamant: lol
Claude Desmoulins: All in favor?
Pelanor Eldrich: aye
Justice Soothsayer: aye
Moon Adamant: aye
Claude Desmoulins: aye
Jon Seattle: Aye
Claude Desmoulins: Because of Rl I’m afriad franchulates is the last thing we’ll get to this morning.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Goodie 🙂 When will the bulldozers arrive? 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: Ask Sudane 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I will!
Sudane Erato: I’ll plan the street moving…
Moon Adamant: lol
Jon Seattle laughs
Sudane Erato: shouldn’t be too hard
Claude Desmoulins: Sudane needs a hardhat.
Sudane Erato: haha
Claude Desmoulins: Now 5-3 Franchulates.
Sudane Erato: my head is already hard 🙂
Pelanor Eldrich: Again, I apologize for waking up late.
Claude Desmoulins: Since the explanation has already gone up in forums.
Claude Desmoulins: Let’s go straight to discussion.
Moon Adamant: kk
Moon Adamant: i have a comment… or more than one, lol
Pelanor Eldrich: sure…
Moon Adamant: we are aware that this bill relates to a proposa expressed in the DPU platform
Pelanor Eldrich: nods
Moon Adamant: we think that this discussion wil llead us in directly in the Confederation vs Republic discussion
Ito Genji subtly slips away for a moment
Moon Adamant: we don’t think that this issue should be discussed solely in terms of economics/financial
Moon Adamant: and that there are deeper issues realting
Moon Adamant: one question immediately occurs to me
Moon Adamant: the draft proposes
Moon Adamant: The franchulate is expected to fully uphold the CDS constitution and is treated as land annexed to the CDS.
Moon Adamant: end of quote
Pelanor Eldrich: I honestly think the bill could work equally well if we are a republic or a federation or a hair club for men.
Claude Desmoulins: Since the subsidiaries on the mainland have no political autonomy , how is this a step toward anything politically?
Moon Adamant: what would happen, i ask, if a sovereign RA in a franchulate would deliberate – in its sovereignity – to something against the CDS constitution?
Jon Seattle: A question: how would zoning be decided in a franch?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Hm? The franchulate bill doesn’t state that they would have “sovereign RAs”…
Pelanor Eldrich: ah, there’s no RA in a franch. The RA is here.
Claude Desmoulins: Franchulats don’t have RA’s anymore that your or my house has an RA.
Claude Desmoulins: They’re parcels.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes.
Claude Desmoulins: City parcels that don’t happen to be on sim.
Moon Adamant: so… how do they stand in a federation context?
Pelanor Eldrich: Right. At most the franch owner has say over zoning on his/her parcel. That’s the only extra power we offer and they tend to pay a premium for it.
Jon Seattle: If the DPU proposal is realized, this would present a problem.
Claude Desmoulins: They don’t
Claude Desmoulins: Since the DPU proposal hasn’t been realized…
Jon Seattle: Which land decision making body woud decide on how things are managed?
Claude Desmoulins: A valid point,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: RA comment: as long as this bill does not sggest or propose a Governmental reform, but just a way to add territory beyond the current sim, there are no constitutional issues at stake.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I mean, *SC comment
Moon Adamant: hmmmm, isn’t this contraditory then
Gwyneth Llewelyn: The way I read it, it’s just a way to add territory.
Jon Seattle smiles at Gwyn
Pelanor Eldrich: Right.
Claude Desmoulins: Since we don’t know what reforms may or may not pass.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Indeed, Claude. So from the PoV of the SC, this bill is totally harmless, lol
Jon Seattle: So, from a governance point of view, we really do not yet know what these will look like.
Claude Desmoulins: Only in the sense that were unsure how thy fit in to mlti sim
Claude Desmoulins: Kids are up.
Justice Soothsayer: this bill would extend the citys territory beyond the sim
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Indeed. All is well that way 🙂
Pelanor Eldrich: Think of it as buying a parcel in NFS, except it’s on the mainland and it’s a free covenant.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I mean, we changed from “tiered land” to “private island”,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: no constitution changes needed,
Claude Desmoulins: Shall we vote or table ere we adjourn?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: now we move to “private island + franchulates”,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: all is well 🙂
Jon Seattle: I would ask that we ajourn
Gwyneth Llewelyn: awww
Gwyneth Llewelyn: lol
Jon Seattle: or table..
Justice Soothsayer: second – my daughter’s up too!
Claude Desmoulins: Let’s table this and what we didn’t get to to same time next week.
Pelanor Eldrich: Ok, BTW way I apologize, this really should have been presented a la Ted Kennedy with Aides and big colorful graphic posters.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: lol
Moon Adamant: i agree to adjourn
Claude Desmoulins: Three bills isn’t bad given all the ceremony.
Claude Desmoulins: We are adjourned.RA Meeting: August 26, 2006
Those present:
Claude Desmoulins is in the chair.
Justice Soothsayer has indicated consent to be recorded.
Patroklus Murakami has indicated consent to be recorded.
Moon Adamant has indicated consent to be recorded.
Ashcroft Burnham has indicated consent to be recorded.
Jon Seattle has indicated consent to be recorded.
Sudane Erato has indicated consent to be recorded.
Claude Desmoulins: I call this meeting to order
Claude Desmoulins: Touch the document box for agenda etc.
Claude Desmoulins: OK, first back to franchulates.
Claude Desmoulins: I made some changes based on comments from last meeting.
Claude Desmoulins: Do these address the concerns everyone raised.
Patroklus Murakami: this is different from the original proposal that pel posted on the forums, yes?
Claude Desmoulins: The new material is under 3)
Claude Desmoulins: Yes
Patroklus Murakami: is this the first chance we’ve had to see it?
Claude Desmoulins: Yes,
Claude Desmoulins: sorry,
Patroklus Murakami: np claude 🙂 jUst wanted to be clear
Sudane Erato: well… it still uses the word “Sell” in descrbing how the City transfers the land to the Holder
Sudane Erato: and that is not accurate…
Jon Seattle: Oh, I have somewhat of an emergency Item, requested my Rubai this morning.
Sudane Erato: it must clearly be “Rent”
Ashcroft Burnham: Or “lease”?
Claude Desmoulins: Good point.
Sudane Erato: or the whole concept collpses
Sudane Erato: ok…
Claude Desmoulins: I’ll take that as a friendly amendment if there’s no objection.
Sudane Erato: just not “Sell” as commonly understood
Sudane Erato: sure
Justice Soothsayer: thanks for taking this on in Pel’s absence, Claude
Claude Desmoulins: Anything else?
Claude Desmoulins: We’ll look at Rubaiyat’s emergency item once we finish with this.
Jon Seattle: Can we table this item until we have time to discuss it with our group and study it?
Patroklus Murakami: oh dear! chat lag. i’m not seeing any show up
Moon Adamant: yes… i would like to look more carefully to the review
Sudane Erato: me neither
Moon Adamant: some chat lag here as well
Claude Desmoulins: I suppose another two weeks won’t kill it.
Patroklus Murakami: i didn’t see claude’s last set of words
Patroklus Murakami: k, np 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: What’s Rubaiyat’s emergency item?
Jon Seattle: Ah, Rubai tells me that he has no permissions on the MoCa?, and further that the building is still owned by the builder who is out of touch.
Sudane Erato: yes
Sudane Erato: thats true
Jon Seattle: He has been trying desparatly to get in touch with that person.
Moon Adamant: yes
Moon Adamant: does anyone here have a contact for keltrien?
Sudane Erato: i think we should delete it and rebuild
Claude Desmoulins: I have an email address somewhere.
Sudane Erato: yes… I do too
Sudane Erato: but he has not answered
Ashcroft Burnham: Is there still a keen-ness to have a MoCA in Neufreistadt, then?
Moon Adamant: ah!
Claude Desmoulins: I’d really rather not pay for the building again.
Ashcroft Burnham: I have to say, the current building looks terribly out of place.
Patroklus Murakami: i second that sudane. it does not sit well with the theme inside the city walls
Ashcroft Burnham: Maybe it’s something that’d be better in Colonia Nova?
Moon Adamant: definetely not
Claude Desmoulins: My impression is that CN will be more tightly themed than NFS
Ashcroft Burnham: After all, we have some kind of art gallery in Neufriestadt already now in the form of Das Joy Phim Haus.
Justice Soothsayer doubts that contemporary art fits an ancient roman theme any better than bavarian
Moon Adamant: Colonia Nova can’t hold another prim .)
Sudane Erato: hehe
Moon Adamant: and exactly justice
Ashcroft Burnham: Maybe a franchulate, then?
Jon Seattle: Ashcroft, the MoCa? is also an independant organization with the cooperative as only one element.
Moon Adamant: i think the MoCA, which is a very nice building, should preferably be moved to another location – but the problem is how to move it
Claude Desmoulins: I understand Rubaiyat’s concern but why not submit a bill through the usual method to authorize the deletion?
Ashcroft Burnham: Maybe, if it’s to be in Neufreistadt at all, it should be in the modernist area by the bridge?
Claude Desmoulins: I don’t see any good place for it to move to.
Moon Adamant: well, not just a deletion issue Claude
Sudane Erato: but it can ONLY be moved or altered…
Moon Adamant: if you delete it, what replaces it? how?
Sudane Erato: if we can locate Leltrien
Sudane Erato: Keltrien
Moon Adamant: exactly sudane
Claude Desmoulins: Since we seem unable to do that…
Sudane Erato: yes
Justice Soothsayer: why is this an emergency?
Claude Desmoulins: ….delete and rebuild may be the only option.
Sudane Erato: well…
Claude Desmoulins: That was sortof my question.
Moon Adamant: then we must discuss if if we are going to delete it, and how to rebuild it
Sudane Erato: if we really do have sustained energy to organize a MoCA program
Ashcroft Burnham: If we rebuild, I suggest that it go somewhere else.
Sudane Erato: then it is an emergency
Moon Adamant: Justice, the MoCa? has never fully functioned because of troublesome quirks like this
Claude Desmoulins: Hi Gwyn
Ashcroft Burnham: Hello, Gwyn 🙂
Patroklus Murakami: hi gwyn
Sudane Erato: hi Gywn! 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Hello all, sorry for being soooo late
Gwyneth Llewelyn has indicated consent to be recorded.
Moon Adamant: so, it never really had a fair chance
Jon Seattle: I understand from Rubai that his group has immedeate plans for development and that this is getting in the way of them doing anything in that direction.
Moon Adamant: hiya Gwynnie .)
Claude Desmoulins: It’s all rather irregular.
Moon Adamant: indeed jon
Claude Desmoulins: Whatever I may think of the build or its placement intra muros…
Moon Adamant: The MoCA trust is there and want to do work on it
Claude Desmoulins: ….I’d like some public discussion and awareness before we up and delet it.
Claude Desmoulins: *delete
Moon Adamant: i agree to that
Sudane Erato: i agree
Ashcroft Burnham: That does make sense.
Jon Seattle: Yes. I agree too.
Gwyneth Llewelyn certainly agrees
Ashcroft Burnham: But I do hope eventually to have a better view from my back window 😉
Sudane Erato: haha
Claude Desmoulins: I would suggest that someone ought draft a bill at least authorizing the deletion of the current build.
Jon Seattle: But I do want to make one point, that the issue of developing such institutions is not secondary to our role here.
Jon Seattle: I will ask Rubai to do that.
Claude Desmoulins: As a chartered group, let the moCA folk figure out how they wantto rebuild.
Ashcroft Burnham: We could just repeal the act authorising the MoCA, couldn’t we?
Claude Desmoulins: We want MoCA, just not the building
Ashcroft Burnham: Ahh, I see, yes 🙂
Sudane Erato: the existence of the MoCA is an asset
Gwyneth Llewelyn: 🙂
Moon Adamant: yes, we want MoCA
Ashcroft Burnham: Just a better building in a better place?
Gwyneth Llewelyn searches in her Inventory for a “We Want MoCA” T-shirt
Sudane Erato: hehe
Claude Desmoulins: so may we setthis aside?
Jon Seattle: Ah, Gwyn, I would love one of those.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Sadly, I need to do them first :))
Sudane Erato: :))
Jon Seattle: Yes, we should ask the MoCa? group to draft a bill.
Moon Adamant: if keltrien can be found, and i do recommend that a date be set to abandon all attempts
Claude Desmoulins: excuse me
Claude Desmoulins: three year old
Patroklus Murakami: awww 🙂
Patroklus Murakami smiles at claude and gets broody 🙂
Sudane Erato: hehe
Moon Adamant: a good solution can be to move the moca outside teh walls into public land and give it a park surrounding
Ashcroft Burnham: I agree 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: The Western Highlands wuld probably be the best place for it – the modernist area.
Moon Adamant: but i think we must define a limit in time to attempt contacting Keltrien, really
Sudane Erato: i’m of the opinion that it should stay where it is
Gwyneth Llewelyn: 15 seconds? 🙂
Moon Adamant: lol Gwyn
Jon Seattle: Yes, though I think the group may want to make more fudimental changes in the structure.
Ashcroft Burnham: 😉
Moon Adamant: and why Sudane?
Moon Adamant: it does ruin a bit the skyline there…
Ashcroft Burnham: Sudane: you don’t have it looming out of your back windows 😉
Sudane Erato: the MoCA is an urban institution
Jon Seattle listens to Sudane
Sudane Erato: hehe
Sudane Erato: and it should best be “central”
Moon Adamant: what if then pulling into altenstadt area?
Sudane Erato: to our energy
Sudane Erato: hmm…
Sudane Erato: that would be better
Moon Adamant: it is a lower level…
Ashcroft Burnham: Actually, it’d be just as easy to find in the Western Highlands as behind Old Altenburg.
Sudane Erato: it could be found, yes
Sudane Erato: but…
Gwyneth Llewelyn has really no suggestion as to the place
Claude Desmoulins: Can we waitfor a bill and see what the MoCA group wants to do?
Sudane Erato: such arrangements also have “symbolic” substance
Ashcroft Burnham: That could also work 🙂
Sudane Erato: I agree
Moon Adamant smiles at sudane
Claude Desmoulins: OK. On to the first of many proposed amendments.
Sudane Erato: the wishes of the MoCA group should be considered first
Gwyneth Llewelyn: All I can say is that the artistic movements in SL are finally “taking off”, so to speak, and we’re the only ones having an institution, planning now the *fifth* building, and still he haven’t done anything in 18 months about the MoCA
Jon Seattle: I agree, and also agree with Sudane about the MoCa? being symbolic and important.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Very much so, Jon!
Claude Desmoulins: This grows from Gwyn’s comments at last meeting.
Moon Adamant: i agree with Gwyn
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ah yes, excellent proposal, Claude
Moon Adamant: but we must have it functional!
Claude Desmoulins: It merely states that the Guilds fiance powers are enumerated, I’m taking Ash’s language suggestion as a friendly amendment.
Sudane Erato: yes!
Ashcroft Burnham: It was so intended 🙂
Sudane Erato: may I ask what concern this bill addresses?
Claude Desmoulins: If we wish to enumerate addtional powers we could ad them in
Claude Desmoulins looks at Gwyn
Claude Desmoulins: *add
Jon Seattle: It seems to me that this is an attempt to transfer those powers to the RA so it can dispose of them as it pleases.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Mostly, that currently you cannot delegate financial powers into an executive, since those powers are interpreted as being on the Guild,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: and thus only the Guild should be able to delegate them.
Jon Seattle: Not a legitimate way to change the organizational structure of our coorperative.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: however, both Justice and Ashcroft, I believe, have correctly pointed out that we should take a more literalistic approach on the Constitution,
Sudane Erato: and if the Guild is constitutionally replaced?
Justice Soothsayer: yes, this enables us to move forward on creating an executive
Moon Adamant: exactly Sudane
Jon Seattle: No, it does not, Justice.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: so, to clarify the issue once and for all, this amendment woukld clearly state that the Guild only has the financial powers that are stated in the Constitition, and end of story 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: Whatever we do about an executive, the Guild is useful in other respects.
Sudane Erato: but I suspect you caanot create an executive branch…
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Sudane, this amendment does not address that (also I tend to agree with Jon ? it does not “allow to move forward on creating an executive”)
Sudane Erato: without replacing the Guild’s constitutional powers
Ashcroft Burnham: Sudane: what exactly are the Guild’s constitutional powers?
Sudane Erato: :))
Gwyneth Llewelyn: It just clarifies what financial powers are, indeed, bestowed upon the Guild ? only those stated on the Constitution. And nothing else!
Sudane Erato: ahhh
Ashcroft Burnham: The text of the constitution limits them to bringing impeachment proceedings and vetoing revenue bills.
Moon Adamant: i think we’re adding to the constitutional confusion here…
Sudane Erato: :))
Jon Seattle listens to Moon
Claude Desmoulins: Jon, if you wish to assign additional finance powers to the Guild you could propose an amendment to this.
Moon Adamant: there is also a proposal for amenment that clearly establishes an executive branch
Jon Seattle: We have proposed an alternative amendment that does what this does. Lets move on and talk about that.
Moon Adamant: amendment*, even
Ashcroft Burnham: Actually, there are two competing proposals for amendments that establish executives 🙂
Patroklus Murakami: this issue really can’t be separated out from the need to establish and executive. i’m pleased to see that the dpu have conceded this can’t take place without a constl amendment
Ashcroft Burnham: Well, one amendment, one bill 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: mm hmm Ash 🙂
Moon Adamant: indeed pat
Justice Soothsayer: I think the proposed amendment is in the nature of a substitute to my proposed bill
Patroklus Murakami: maybe we should discuss those proposals rather than this amend which simply tinkers with the system and does not resolve the issue of substance
Moon Adamant: yes pat
Ashcroft Burnham: Presumably, the agenda entails discussing both?
Moon Adamant: it is really a substance issue that we must discuss
Ashcroft Burnham: Actually, the agenda order is a smidgen unhelpful in respect of discussing the executive…
Gwyneth Llewelyn: hehe
Patroklus Murakami: i agree ash 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: …the Guild Finance Powers amendment goes together with the Burgermeister Bill, and is the DPU’s combined proposal for an executive.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: mm hmm. Seems to be the strategy, yes 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: The Executive Branch Amendment Bill is the CDSF’s competing proposal.
Ashcroft Burnham: Would it not be more helpful if the merits of the two were discussed at once, head-to-head?
Patroklus Murakami: yes, it looks that way. but i haven\t seen anyone confrim that 🙂
Patroklus Murakami: *confirm
Moon Adamant waits for LRA
Jon Seattle: Indeed. However, the CSDF proposal has been drafted in consultation with Claude and Justice and addresses both of their concerns.
Claude Desmoulins: OK.
Claude Desmoulins: If we pas the CSDF proposal…
Claude Desmoulins: …what then is the disposition of the Guild
Claude Desmoulins: Can we also look at Sudanes TEM bill here?
Ashcroft Burnham: The phrase “doctrine of implied repeal” comes to mind… 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn leans back and enjoys 🙂
Sudane Erato: 🙂
Justice Soothsayer: i suggest we move right to the discussion of the CSDF proposal
Jon Seattle: agrees with Justuce on that.
Ashcroft Burnham: Have people had a chance to look at my technical comments on that Billyet?
Moon Adamant: agrees
Moon Adamant: yes, we did
Jon Seattle: Indeed Ashcroft
Ashcroft Burnham: 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: So, can anybody tell me what exactly “Neufreistadt-CDS” is?
Ashcroft Burnham: Will it become “Neufriestadt-Colonia? Nova-CDS” when we expand?
Justice Soothsayer: you are in the middle of it!
Ashcroft Burnham: No, I’m in Neufreistadt.
Ashcroft Burnham: The CDS doesn’t exist as such yet.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: haha Ashcroft
Sudane Erato: hehe… could someone identify which bill… we’re talking about???
Sudane Erato: i’m muddled 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: But waht about the TEM?
Ashcroft Burnham: But when it does, it will be conceptually distinct from Neufriestadt.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: well, please, some order here 🙂
Moon Adamant: lol sudane
Jon Seattle: Sudane, it is called: Proposed Executive Amendment
Jon Seattle: in the document box.
Sudane Erato: ahhhh
Sudane Erato: ok
Sudane Erato: thx
Claude Desmoulins: We can’t just ignore it in setting up whatever executive comes along.
Jon Seattle smiles at Sudane
Sudane Erato: my concern re the TEM/TEO
Ashcroft Burnham: Ignore what, Claude? I think that I’ve missed somethign..
Sudane Erato: is simply that whatever is approved…
Claude Desmoulins: The tem/teo
Sudane Erato: be compatible with what I have proposed
Ashcroft Burnham: Ahh 🙂
Justice Soothsayer: indeed, we will need to harmonize the executive powers with those of the estate manager
Sudane Erato: yes
Jon Seattle: We agree that the tresury also needs to be integerated into the constitution, but it does not actually contradict this amendment I think.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I agree, Jon.
Sudane Erato: if thats the case… then fine
Ashcroft Burnham: Of course, if the Guild Finance Reform Bill (or whatever it’s called) is passed, we could have a non-constiutional amndment bill stating, “There shall be created the office of Treasure of the Confederation of Democratic Simulators….
Ashcroft Burnham: …the Treasuer shall have the power…”
Gwyneth Llewelyn thinks that at this point there should be presented an order for discussing/voting these three bills on the table…
Moon Adamant: please… yes, Gwyn!
Claude Desmoulins: We shouldn’t do an exec that doesn’t address the TEM. imho.
Jon Seattle agrees with Gwyn
Justice Soothsayer: Jon, I have a mathematical question about your proposed amendment
Gwyneth Llewelyn: 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: “Lowest integer”?
Jon Seattle: Ah, yes. The floor function?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: hehe
Jon Seattle: Comes from all that computer science in school.. 🙂
Justice Soothsayer never majored in math
Gwyneth Llewelyn: 😀
Ashcroft Burnham: I had suggested “nearest whole nu mber” as a clearer alternative.
Gwyneth Llewelyn tends to agree with Ash on that.
Jon Seattle: Ah, but Ashcroft it is not at all then same as we grow.
Justice Soothsayer: Exactly how many of our 5 votes would it take to sack the executive?
Patroklus Murakami: does it mean you round to the nearest integer or automatically round down?
Patroklus Murakami: yes justice, that’s the key qn
Ashcroft Burnham: What do you mean, HJon?
Jon Seattle: The floor function, simply means removing any remainder. I can live with a nearest integer approach however.
Justice Soothsayer: Jon, that still doesn’t answer my question. How many votes would it take to sack? 4? 3?
Patroklus Murakami: aah! i thought so. so it would be 3/5 votes then?
Jon Seattle: Three.
Justice Soothsayer: Thanks
Patroklus Murakami: and if only four members are present (like today?)
Justice Soothsayer: Still 3.
Ashcroft Burnham: 3/5 is 0.6. 4/5 is 0.8. 2/3 is 0.6 (recurring).
Claude Desmoulins: But it takes three to appoint.
Ashcroft Burnham: So, the nearest whole number to 2/3 in a set of 5 is 3/5
Claude Desmoulins: I see some merit in requiring more votes to sack than to appoint.
Jon Seattle: Well, one option then, is to use the ceiling function to sack.
Claude Desmoulins: Ten the Chancellor isn’t just an extension of the RA majority.
Ashcroft Burnham: Or how about “nearest whole number plus one”?
Jon Seattle: the ceiling function is to always round up to the next heigher integer.
Justice Soothsayer: Or we could simply say a majority to appoint, and a 2/3rd vote to sack
Jon Seattle: Justice, or that.
Justice Soothsayer: which would mean, in our present size, 3 votes to appoint, 4 votes to sack
Justice Soothsayer: for those of us less mathematically inclined
Ashcroft Burnham: But the nearest whole number to 2/3 of 5 is 3 🙂
Sudane Erato: 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: *sigh*
Sudane Erato: hehe
Moon Adamant sighs too
Jon Seattle: Yes, of course Ash.
Claude Desmoulins: currently the bill says only that the RA appoints.
Ashcroft Burnham: So we’d still have to have a ceiling function or a “nearest whole number plus one” to have 4/5 being required for anythign.
Patroklus Murakami: since we now understand jon’s proposal on this, is it acceptable as currently drafted?
Justice Soothsayer: Claude, assuming that we are now in order to discuss the CSDF proposal, I move that we amend the proposed amendment to delete “rounded to lower integer” in section 7.
Jon Seattle: Claude, yes, 2/3 is not needed to appoint.
Claude Desmoulins: Could this lead in a multi candidate process tpo an election by plurality?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Uh…. you’ve lost me…?
Moon Adamant: pardon?
Patroklus Murakami: the RA can surely decide on its owne rules of procedure claude in those circumstnaces
Jon Seattle: Agrees with Justice’s proposal. Perhaps replace it with rounded to the nearest integer?
Patroklus Murakami: the only proviso is that a majority agree with teh fina choice
Justice Soothsayer: just delete “rounded to lowest integer” and it will be clear that a 2/3d vote is needed to sack.
Claude Desmoulins: As long as we’re clear on that.
Claude Desmoulins: I would prefer that amendment Justice.
Ashcroft Burnham: Actually, the easiest way of doing it, I’ve just realised, is simply to say “at least two thirds”.
Justice Soothsayer: exactly
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok.
Ashcroft Burnham: That makes it very clear: 3/5 < 2/3 whereas 4/5 > 2/3
Jon Seattle: not too bad Ashcroft.
Patroklus Murakami: yes ash, that works brilliantly
Ashcroft Burnham: 😀
Ashcroft Burnham: Are there any comments on the other suggestions that I made in my technical comments forum post?
Claude Desmoulins: If we approve this. what becomes of the Guild?
Jon Seattle: As the amendment says,
Justice Soothsayer: For the record, I support the sunset provision.
Jon Seattle: 9. Any power or responsibility assigned to the Artisan’s Collective by the constitution and precedent that overlaps those provided to the Chancellor in this amendment will be assigned to the Chancellor.
Ashcroft Burnham: Justice: did you read my comments on the problems created by sunset clauses in my forum post?
Justice Soothsayer: It is a nice compromise that keeps the guild in place if the sun sets on the executive.
Claude Desmoulins: Yes I saw that. What does 9 leave to the Guild?
Ashcroft Burnham: But the clause makes the sun set by default – what’s the reasoning for that?
Jon Seattle: Ah, the Guild does do other things.. really it becomes an independant citizen’s organization.
Moon Adamant: yes
Claude Desmoulins: Bu then why does it need to be enshrined in the constitution?
Claude Desmoulins: *But
Justice Soothsayer: and if we don’t reauthorise the executive in 2 terms, we’ll need the guild again
Ashcroft Burnham: As I explained in the forum, Clause 9 makes the constitution a mess: it requires an undertanding of all the vast precedent on the Guild’s powers not expressly stated in the constitution to be understood before the constitutional powers of the Chancellor.
Ashcroft Burnham: …can be understood.
Jon Seattle: Claude, exactly. That is why 9.
Jon Seattle: Claude, would you like to propose new wording?
Claude Desmoulins: It seems a lot of stuff to keep in the constitution as a fallback on the sunset clause.
Claude Desmoulins: Hard to think right now.
Moon Adamant: oh, i see your point
Ashcroft Burnham: I still don’t understand why a sunset clause is a godo idea.
Jon Seattle: Yes, Justice requested the sunset clause and we agreed.
Claude Desmoulins: Three year old is now on my lap as I type/
Justice Soothsayer: it forces the RA to review the idea of having an executive
Sudane Erato: hehe
Ashcroft Burnham: And causes it to disintegrate if there’s disagreement.
Ashcroft Burnham: Why should failure be presumed?
Justice Soothsayer: and is a compromise between those of us who would create an executive via an easily amended bill v a constitutional amendment
Claude Desmoulins: Which is OK, I guess, if we leave the current AC language in the constitution.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ah well, Ashcroft, let’s try the reverse argument… what prevents the RA to revoke the proposal after 3 months?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Nothing at all.
Claude Desmoulins: THe evaporation would then not create a vacuum.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: However, from a political point of view, a sunset clause means for the citizens: we’re willing to try this out and see if it works.
Ashcroft Burnham: Nothing, except that it would have to take the initiative to do so, and would, if it had any sense, make proper de-transitional provisions, rather than just repealing the whole amendment.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Indeed, Claude, I agree.
Ashcroft Burnham: What happens to exercises of authority by the Chancellor in the interim?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: It’s a *political* issue, Ashcroft. The way you explain and argue this proposal, with or without a sunset clause, is different.
Justice Soothsayer thanks Jon for incorporating my suggestions
Ashcroft Burnham: If the constitutional provision giving her or him the power to do those things is removed, are the acts retrospectively rendered void?
Justice Soothsayer and supports the proposed amendment
Ashcroft Burnham: Sunset clauses create vast instability that is quite dangerous.
Jon Seattle: Thanks Justice for making those suggestions!
Claude Desmoulins: Is this the number amendment?
Moon Adamant: inded, thanks Justice .)
Ashcroft Burnham: If something is going to be undone, it needs to be unpicked carefully rather than just evaporating automatically.
Justice Soothsayer: the CSDF proposed amendment posted on the forum (as amended today)
Moon Adamant: well, those are considerations, ashcroft, that can be discussed here… just the place
Patroklus Murakami: it’s called ‘proposed Executive amendment’ from the box of notecards on the table
Ashcroft Burnham: That’s what I’m doing – explaing why sunset clauses are bad for any provisions that create an ongoing bureaurocracy
Ashcroft Burnham: .
Claude Desmoulins: Yes I’m trying to kee track of which amendments to the executive amendment have been proosed.
Justice Soothsayer: just the one on math, so far
Ashcroft Burnham: I think that it would be very unwise to pass this bill witout carefull regard to all the technical comments that I made on the forum.
Ashcroft Burnham: Careful, even..
Patroklus Murakami: yes, on parts 6 and 7 remove ‘(rounded to the lower integer)’ and replace ‘a’ with ‘at least a’ in front of ‘two thirds’
Jon Seattle agrees with Pat
Claude Desmoulins: OK
Claude Desmoulins: let’s vote on that amendment.
Moon Adamant: indeed, that clears the number issue
Claude Desmoulins: that Pat just indicated.
Jon Seattle is in favor
Moon Adamant is in favour
Claude Desmoulins is in favor
Justice Soothsayer is in favor
Claude Desmoulins: OK. Now back to our discusions of Sunsets 🙂
Moon Adamant smiles at Claude
Ashcroft Burnham: 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: *yawn*
Gwyneth Llewelyn: lol
Sudane Erato: tsk Gwyn!
Jon Seattle laughs
Ashcroft Burnham: We have very pretty sunsets in Neufreistadt.
Sudane Erato: manners! 🙂
Moon Adamant shakes her head at gwyn .)
Justice Soothsayer: Ashcroft raises a good point – what happens to acts of the executive if the sun does set? I think the answer is that there is a presumption of constitutionality
Gwyneth Llewelyn is in a mean mood today… comes from only 5 hours of sleeping 😉
Ashcroft Burnham: Poor Gwyn.
Ashcroft Burnham: I still don’t see why failure is the default.
Ashcroft Burnham: One can require review without defaulting to failure in the event of disagreement.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Agreeable and understandable.
Claude Desmoulins: The politicla crux of this is that some are not ready to make this a sweeping permanent structural change.
Claude Desmoulins: Another thing I thought of…
Gwyneth Llewelyn: mm hmm, thus a compromise has to be met…
Ashcroft Burnham: It is best not to make it at all than to make it temporarily.
Justice Soothsayer: It is a question of math (says the non-math major). It will take 2/3rds to keep this in a constitution.
Moon Adamant: indeed, that has been one of the issues in this long discussion
Ashcroft Burnham: Compromises that are the worst of both worlds are not good compromises.
Claude Desmoulins: Could the whole government be gridlocked if the RA can’t agree on a Chancellor?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Hmm
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Not a bad point, Claude!
Ashcroft Burnham: That is possible.
Ashcroft Burnham: You could make a requirement that the bill be *debated* again.
Patroklus Murakami: i can sympathise with ashs position. but in RL messier compromises are made and life still goes on
Ashcroft Burnham: That would provide for mandatory review without presumed failure.
Jon Seattle: Claude, 2/3 is not required for apointment. If fact the RA can set its own rules.
Patroklus Murakami: if i may give an example?…
Ashcroft Burnham: Pat: people often make bad compromises. Taht doesn’t mean that we should make bad compromises.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Jon, thanks, I was asking Moon about the same issue.
Moon Adamant: Claude, i think, like in RL, that political negotaitions wil be maintained so that you’ll always have a chancellor
Gwyneth Llewelyn: so, assuming there is a majority party, they will very likely agree,
Patroklus Murakami: we often finalise EU legistlation in the middle of the night, on the basis of a compromise, in order to reach agreement
Gwyneth Llewelyn: or not, they’ll very likely establish a majority coalition anyway, soooo
Ashcroft Burnham: Why, then, make the converse possible?
Moon Adamant: indeed Gwyn
Patroklus Murakami: our laywers hate teh muddle that results. but it still (largely) works
Ashcroft Burnham: It is better not to agree than to agree on something that everyone agrees is worse than the status quo.
Claude Desmoulins: Any appontment process that does not require the support of a majority of the RA for the final appointee…
Ashcroft Burnham: I wouldn’t agree with you about it working 🙂
Patroklus Murakami: there are policitcal qns here too, and teh need for comporomise is part of that
Claude Desmoulins: …gives a Chancellorwithout much legitimacy,
Ashcroft Burnham: Who here actually beleives that presumed failure is good in and of itself?
Ashcroft Burnham: People keep making references to other people not being “ready” for a change – I can’t see how people who are not ready for one change would be any more redy for a change and then a change back three months later.
Ashcroft Burnham: Who are these mythical people?
Jon Seattle: Claude, in general the appointment would require a majority unless for some odd reason the RA agrees otherwise.
Claude Desmoulins: brb
Ashcroft Burnham: The other question is what happens to the funds appropriated to the office of Chancellor if the sun sets.
Ashcroft Burnham: And monies already expended.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: You want names & addresses, Ash? 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: And monies committed but not expended.
Moon Adamant: Claude, like Gwyn says, it will be supported for a coalition… ok, coalitions are more dynamic as regards constant negtiation – but that is not a bad thing per se
Ashcroft Burnham: And contracts made…
Moon Adamant: quite on teh contrary sometimes .)
Ashcroft Burnham: What about community events that were part-way through being planned?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, I’d definitely feel more comfortable if there would be no changes back in time,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: ie no retroactive deleting of executive acts
Ashcroft Burnham: Gwyn: that still leaves the problem of things that were in the middle of being done.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: this has also been part of the “tradition” here
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Not at all, Ash
Gwyneth Llewelyn: The RA is sovereign
Ashcroft Burnham: What about contracts entered into by the Chancelor but not executed?
Ashcroft Burnham: Or partially executed?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: They can always pick things half-way through and place it on someone else’s hands.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: And this happens *all the time* in NFS!
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Think MoCA,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: think event planning.
Ashcroft Burnham: That’s precisely why we should make sure that it doesn’t happen any more.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: All half-done things because the process was interrupted. We survive living with that.
Ashcroft Burnham: Our experience of things going wrong in the past.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ash ? it depends mostly on *people*
Patroklus Murakami: indeed, if the exec were to disappear responsibility would revert to the RA, who would have made the decision to ‘sunset’ the exec in the 1st place
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Indeed Pat.
Ashcroft Burnham: Just because we can manage when things go wrong doesn’t mean that we should deliberately make thigns more likely to go wrong.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Oh come on, Ash 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: The RA wouldn’t necessarily have made a positive decision to terminate the executive: on the proposal as it stands, the executive would be terminated even if most of the RA thought it should not be.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: You’re predicting the future, and seeing it dark and bleak,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: what about some optimism instead? 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: I’m seeing the *possibliity* for it to be dark and bleak, which possibility I’m emploring you to eliminate.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, estimate a probability of that possibility to happen
Ashcroft Burnham: Non-trivial.
Patroklus Murakami: and some recognition that politics involves compromise and the need to find a solution all can sign up to? even if it’s not perfect?
Ashcroft Burnham: That’s enough.
Ashcroft Burnham: Pat: I don’t follow your reasoning. The thing that we agree to must be athing that is good in itself.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Obviously I have to agree with Pat…
Justice Soothsayer: i think we’ve had a good discussion about this, but am ready to vote
Ashcroft Burnham: There’s nothing wrong with compromise as long as the product of that compromise is workable.
Ashcroft Burnham: This is not.
Jon Seattle also agrees with Pat
Claude Desmoulins: OK
Ashcroft Burnham: At least require only a simple majority to retiain it?
Claude Desmoulins: Ash your concerns are noted,
Ashcroft Burnham: Does the sudden silence mean that you’re peparing to vote, or are there technical problmes?
Claude Desmoulins: Let’s vote.
Moon Adamant nods
Gwyneth Llewelyn: 😀
Jon Seattle: yes.
Justice Soothsayer votes aye
Jon Seattle: votes for the amendment
Sudane Erato: please forgive my absence… desparate for more coffee
Moon Adamant votes yes for the amendment
Claude Desmoulins: aye
Gwyneth Llewelyn warns also that she’s having some issues with her laptops power adapter
Ashcroft Burnham: (Is this the amendment to the amendment or the whole executive amendent?)
Claude Desmoulins: whole thing.
Justice Soothsayer: i withdraw the Burgermeister bill.
Claude Desmoulins: Were there other amendments to the amendment on the floor?
Ashcroft Burnham: What about all the other technical concerns that I raised on the forum?
Ashcroft Burnham: There are lots of them, and they’re all important.
Ashcroft Burnham: I consider them all to be friendly amendments.
Patroklus Murakami: i think the vote has been taken, ash
Patroklus Murakami: without them
Ashcroft Burnham: Why weren’t they discusseD?
Claude Desmoulins: Jon were there amendments of Ash’s that you consider friendly.
Jon Seattle: Ah, most seemed to me to be about wording.. nothing critical. I say we move ahead.
Ashcroft Burnham: Wording is critical.
Claude Desmoulins: We need to be clear about what we just voted fo.
Sudane Erato: yes
Justice Soothsayer: We voted in favor of the PRoposed Executive Amendment, as amended by deleting “rounded to lower integer”
Claude Desmoulins: I think the section nine is covered by our wanting to keep Guild as bacjup.
Ashcroft Burnham: What about “Neufreistadt-CDS”?
Ashcroft Burnham: What about “each month”?
Justice Soothsayer: I have awakening child issues (the RL one, not my inner one) just like Claude.
Jon Seattle: I would point out two things here. One is that we have already voted. The other is that while we do want to listen to citizen’s proposals, we are still the RA. I would like to look to Justice and Gwyn for specific suggestions if changes are needed.
Claude Desmoulins: And the preamble establishes the chancellory.
Ashcroft Burnham: What about the scope of the anti-veto powers?
Ashcroft Burnham: Of course you have the power to regulate your own procedure and vote on things, I just don’t understand why those issues weren’t even discussed.
Claude Desmoulins: Ouch your’re right.
Claude Desmoulins: I know this is irregular.
Claude Desmoulins: I’d loke to propose an amendment to the constitution amending what we just passed to reflect Ash’s suggestions for 6…
Gwyneth Llewelyn *scratches head*
Claude Desmoulins: ….less the phrase rounded to the nearest whole number
Sudane Erato: 🙂
Moon Adamant: i must say this is becoming very confusing… 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: Yes – that’s redundant, actually, isn’t it?
Claude Desmoulins: Right now a veto override is by simple majority, I believe
Claude Desmoulins: de facto
Claude Desmoulins: since 2/3 rounded down is 3
Ashcroft Burnham: Ahh, no… the “at least two thirds” means that it’s not rounded down 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: right but that’s not in as it now stands
Ashcroft Burnham: As I said, 3/5 < 2/3, whereas 4/5 > 2/3
Claude Desmoulins: si it?
Ashcroft Burnham: Ohh, the unamended version with “lowest integer”? Yes, Isee.
Claude Desmoulins: is it?
Jon Seattle: /em scrolls back to Pat’s suggestion
Gwyneth Llewelyn ‘s brain melts down.
Claude Desmoulins: Can we vote on this. It makes the eto override require 2/3 +1 rather than 2/3 -1
Moon Adamant would like to point out that she has Rl work in 2 hours and can’t possibly be here for much longer
Claude Desmoulins: I owuld rather wait to do that until we agree on what cds is.
Claude Desmoulins: My kid’s up as well.
Ashcroft Burnham: That’s what the Judiciary BIll seeks to do 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: But, Claude, if that’s your concern, then it should read just “Neufreistadt”, to be amended later.
Claude Desmoulins: All in favor of the amendment to 6/…
Claude Desmoulins: aye
Jon Seattle: Claude, can you read the amended text.
Jon Seattle: as proposed
Justice Soothsayer: quickly, please 😉
Claude Desmoulins: Can’t cut and paste
Ashcroft Burnham: 6. The Chancellor shall have the power to veto any act of the Representative Assembly, except any bill to remove the Chancellor from office. The Representative Assembly may override a veto with a vote by at least a two-thirds majority
Moon Adamant: ouch, sorryfor that 🙁
Claude Desmoulins: That.
Ashcroft Burnham: No, actually…
Claude Desmoulins: Thanks Ash
Ashcroft Burnham: It should be…
Ashcroft Burnham: 6. The Chancellor shall have the power to veto any act of the Representative Assembly, except any bill to remove the Chancellor from office. The Representative Assembly may override such a veto with a vote by at least a two-thirds majority
Ashcroft Burnham: The word “such” is important 🙂
Jon Seattle: I vote in favor.
Claude Desmoulins: There we go.
Moon Adamant: voting now?
Claude Desmoulins: yes
Justice Soothsayer votes aye
Claude Desmoulins: Moon?
Moon Adamant votes yes
Claude Desmoulins: OK
Claude Desmoulins: I have to move adjournment here.
Jon Seattle: Thanks!
Moon Adamant: ok claude
Justice Soothsayer: thanks, claude
Sudane Erato: i must go too
Ashcroft Burnham: What about the “Neufreistadt-CDS” issue?
Moon Adamant: and thanks 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Forst, can I make a short announcement?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: *First
Jon Seattle listens to Gwyn
Claude Desmoulins: No time, perhasp write a bill /amendment for next meeting.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: totally RA-unrelated
Moon Adamant listens to gwyn
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Chili Carson, who is establishing the Chamber of Commerce,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: will be available to talk with us tomorrow at 4 PM SL time
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Sudane asked me to try to handle a meeting with her,
Moon Adamant: aaah, very good
Sudane Erato: yes… great!
Claude Desmoulins: Ok. and we are adjouned.
Patroklus Murakami: that’s good news. i’ll try to make it
Gwyneth Llewelyn: so that we could provide her with some insights on what we have done so far, what caveats and problems we’ve found
Moon Adamant: i amy have stopped working by then
The meeting closed at 5:39 Linden time.RA Meeting: September 09, 2006
Justice Soothsayer: there is lovely little hailstorm outside my window right now
Patroklus Murakami: bright and sunny in london town 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: There’s nothing like a hailstorm to pass the time whilst waiting for quoracy…
Patroklus Murakami: lol ash
Ashcroft Burnham: I’ve been looking into Lee’s endeavours with his LindeX rival.
Ashcroft Burnham: Still not set up yet, but that notecard in his shop is very interesting.
Justice Soothsayer: I think we should start even without a quorum, since the 7 day discussion & vote procedure is in effect
Justice Soothsayer: we would need a quorum to decide anything, but we have already decided to decide via email!
Ashcroft Burnham: Hmm, doesn’t seem to be much choice.
Ashcroft Burnham: It’s odd that Alaisi and Sudane aren’t here, though.
Justice Soothsayer: please touch the recorder if you havent done so already
Moon Adamant: indeed
Patroklus Murakami: yes
Patroklus Murakami has indicated consent to be recorded.
Ashcroft Burnham: Done.
Moon Adamant has indicated consent to be recorded.
Moon Adamant: and done too
Patroklus Murakami: done
Justice Soothsayer: Claude asked me to chair the meeting in his absence
Justice Soothsayer: since we will have a transcript, anything you say will be sent to the absent RA members
Justice Soothsayer: Lets start with 5-3, the Franchulates bill
Moon Adamant: ok
Justice Soothsayer: this one has been on the agenda for some time
Justice Soothsayer: frankly, i’m not that familiar with it to be ablet o answer a lot of questions
Moon Adamant: yes, and the DPU has revised it already, according to what has been discussed here
Moon Adamant: well, we feel that the revised text still doesn’t meet all questions raised
Justice Soothsayer: what issues are outstanding?
Moon Adamant: either here at the RA and by citizens at the foruns
Moon Adamant: we feel that there is still a need for clarity in some points
Moon Adamant: namely citizenship and some kind of definition about the property of the franchulated land
Moon Adamant: but i was thinking here that maybe that could be rewritten with reference to 5-11 Bill
Moon Adamant: which we are prepared to vote for
Justice Soothsayer: yes, citizenship definitions is on the table in the judiciary discussion
Ashcroft Burnham: I’m not sure that that’d resolve Moon’s query, though.
Ashcroft Burnham: The new definition of citizenship would be that a citizen is a person who “holds land under the Confederation of Democratic Simulators”.
Moon Adamant listens
Ashcroft Burnham: Specifically, “A citizen of the Confederation of Democratic Simulators is a resident of SecondLife? who has been granted title to any land by the Confederation of Democratic Simulators, and who holds title under the Confederation of Democratic Simulators
Ashcroft Burnham: … for as long as he or she holds such title.”
Patroklus Murakami: it’s never really been clear to me what problem this proposal solves. i’m not fundamentally opposed to it. but i’d like to know what happens when things go wrong
Ashcroft Burnham: Hello 🙂
Patroklus Murakami: hi aliasi 🙂
Moon Adamant: hello Aliasi 🙂
Justice Soothsayer: Hi Aliasi
Aliasi Stonebender: (cry pardon for lateness, folks – this is dark o’clock in the morning for me.)
Ashcroft Burnham: LOL!
Aliasi Stonebender has indicated consent to be recorded.
Justice Soothsayer: we were just discussing the franchulates proposal
Ashcroft Burnham: I think that Moon’s query boils down to this point:…
Patroklus Murakami: for example, would the cds then have responsibility for ‘policing’ the franchulated land?
Patroklus Murakami: what would that mean?
Ashcroft Burnham: …if a citizen of the CDS is a person who is granted title to land *by* the CDS, the Franculates proposal as it currently stands means that only the Franculate holders are citizens.
Ashcroft Burnham: And they have to be citizens already.
Ashcroft Burnham: And furthermore they can’t sublet.
Ashcroft Burnham: So it doesn’t actually enable us to expand our citizenship.
Moon Adamant: yes… it’s a bit of a vicious circle there
Patroklus Murakami: no, it doesn’t. but it does allow us to expand territory i suppose
Ashcroft Burnham: So, the question is: are franculates a way of expanding our citizenship, or just a way of letting existing citizens get mainland land more cheaply?
Justice Soothsayer: we do have microplots for citizenship, i think
Patroklus Murakami: yes justice, and those are available with or without the franchulate proposal. i’m not sure what this adds
Justice Soothsayer: nicely stated question, Ashcroft.
Ashcroft Burnham: Thank you 🙂
Patroklus Murakami: the latter, i think ash 🙂
Justice Soothsayer: since we are operating on the 7-day discussion & email vote rule, any further discussion on this bill?
Moon Adamant: if teh franchulates are meant to be a way to exand our community, then some issues must be adressed, like Pat’s issue about policing
Moon Adamant: expand+
Moon Adamant: hmmm, none, besides what has already been discussed here
Justice Soothsayer: OK, lets move on to the Treasurer and Estate Owner proposals
Justice Soothsayer: Moon, did I understand you were in favor of the estate owner bill?
Moon Adamant: yes
Moon Adamant: we have nothing against either 5-10 and 5-11
Moon Adamant: or*
Justice Soothsayer: I’ll just say that I think its important to have these roles defined before we select the new Chancellor, so he/she will know what positions are on the team.
Moon Adamant: indee
Moon Adamant: ndeed*
Justice Soothsayer: OK, on to Chancellor discussion, if there is nothing further on 5-10 and 5-11.
Moon Adamant: nothing more on those
Justice Soothsayer: Pat and Ali, thanks for coming this morning
Patroklus Murakami: you’re welcome 🙂
Moon Adamant smiles at pat and Aliasi
Aliasi Stonebender stifles a sleepyyawn. “I tried.”
Justice Soothsayer: lol
Ashcroft Burnham: Poor tired muffin.
Moon Adamant: 😀
Justice Soothsayer: you’ve each had a chance to say something in the forums, but i’d also like to open up the floor for comments from each of you.
Moon Adamant listens
Patroklus Murakami: should we flip a coin? or would aliasi like to choose to go first or second? I don’t mind 🙂
Justice Soothsayer flips the coin
Aliasi Stonebender: If you’d like to go first Pat, I don’t mind. Need another few moments.
Justice Soothsayer: and it is Heads!
Justice Soothsayer: so Pat, its all yours.
Patroklus Murakami: ok, i prepared some remarks. feel free to shut me up if i go on too long!
Patroklus Murakami: I am keen to take on the challenge of this new position because I think it will be vital to the development of Neufreistadt and the Confederation of Democratic Simulators. I also think I have the skills necessary to make it a success.
Patroklus Murakami: I’d like to say what I think the priorities are for the first Chancellor’s term and then why I think I’d make a good job of it.
Patroklus Murakami: The first priority is to reinvigorate the process of building Colonia Nova.
Patroklus Murakami: This is not meant as criticism of anyone involved in the Sim Planning Committee, but the process has stalled.
Patroklus Murakami: I think the new Chancellor needs to work with the SPC to develop a timetable for launch of Colonia Nova with key milestones (e.g. purchase of new sim, terraforming, sale of land, building and layout etc) identified and a project plan.
Patroklus Murakami: The second priority is to plan the next six months for Neufreistadt/CDS. This is the idea I put forward on the forums a few months ago.
Patroklus Murakami: The new Chancellor should develop a timetable for the next six months. This should include events e.g. Oktoberfest so that we know when things are coming up and can plan accordingly
Patroklus Murakami: But it should also include goals. We’re a very creative bunch and many ideas have been proposed for making our society better and learning from our past e.g. the establishment of a legal system, unifying the CDS websites and putting them under CDS contro
Patroklus Murakami: *control, learning lessons from the recent election, getting the MoCA operational.
Patroklus Murakami: We often lack follow-through though as projects are mooted and then not completed. I would set out concrete goals for completing projects over the next six months.
Patroklus Murakami: The timetable would also include planning for key community discussions e.g. What is our ‘mission’ now that we have achieved our initial goals? What kind of services should we offer? To our citizens? To all of Second Life?
Patroklus Murakami: Almost finished!
Patroklus Murakami: I think I have the skills to deliver this because this is one of the things I do in Real Life! I’m happy to elaborate on that if needed. But I think I’ve demonstrated that I have the skills to do this in Second Life as well.
Moon Adamant: 🙂
Patroklus Murakami: I’ve been organising weekly meetings for some months now for the CSDF. That means putting together papers, sending out notices and preparing transcripts of meetings.
Patroklus Murakami: It also involves ensuring that people are focussed in meetings and that action points are clearly assigned to people and that these are followed up on.
Patroklus Murakami: These are the skills I’d like to bring to this post. I think whoever is successful will have to get people together, agree a common purpose and largely achieve their goals through others rather than doing all the work themselves.
Patroklus Murakami: Thank you for listening 🙂
Moon Adamant: thanks Pat .)
Ashcroft Burnham: (Sorry for premature clapping earlier)
Justice Soothsayer: thanks, Pat. Moon, any questions for PAt before we turn to Ali?
Fernando Book: HI all.
Ashcroft Burnham: Hello 🙂
Patroklus Murakami: hi fernando
Fernando Book: Sorry for the interruption.
Justice Soothsayer: Hi Fernando, welcome
Moon Adamant: hello Fernando .)
Fernando Book: I’ve just bought a lot next to the MoCA
Moon Adamant: no questions, Justice 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: Congratulations 🙂
Moon Adamant: oh, welcome then Fernando!
Justice Soothsayer: welcome again, Fernando!
Moon Adamant: wouldn’t you take a seat?
Fernando Book: Thansk.
Fernando Book: *thanks.
Justice Soothsayer: Ali, are you ready?
Fernando Book has indicated consent to be recorded.
Aliasi Stonebender: Certainly.
Justice Soothsayer: the floor is yours
Aliasi Stonebender: In many ways, Pat made most of the points I would have. Which, to me, shows how obvious the need for these things are.
Patroklus Murakami: sorry, crashed
Aliasi Stonebender: Colonia Nova is badly stalled. Hell, the relocation of Gwynethstrasse is badly stalled.
Moon Adamant: wb Pat
Ashcroft Burnham: 🙂
Aliasi Stonebender: Similarly, we used to hold severeal events – the Expo, the winter festival, and so forth – and we’ve been distracted, and we need to pick that back up. So, again, I say nothing new.
Aliasi Stonebender: So, I’ll submit my qualifications, since I can’t improve on stating the problem.
Aliasi Stonebender: Firstly, I have much practical experience in these matters. I’m not at all diminishing Pat’s experience in running the CSDF, but I did much of what the Chancellor would need to do in a de-facto position back when I was more involved with the government
Aliasi Stonebender: as some of you may recall.
Aliasi Stonebender: Secondly, some of you may know of the group Squidsoft Collective and our various projects, such as the sim of Suffugium. While we’re an artistic and creative group, not a government
Aliasi Stonebender: I assure you, some of the practical situations have been very, very similar.
Aliasi Stonebender: The second thing I think I bring to the table is my relative nonpartisianship. Most of you know I am a member of the DPU largely because I disagree with them less, and (a long-standing nettle of mine) those in a faction have greater control over
Aliasi Stonebender: who gets elected in NFS than those who do not.
Aliasi Stonebender: But that’s never stopped me from showing up at a CSDF meeting, or indeed any meeting of any green dots anywhere in the sim. I’m nosy. 😉
Moon Adamant: lol
Ashcroft Burnham: Go green dots!
Aliasi Stonebender: In summary, those are what I see as my qualifications for this job – and I say that because it certainly will be one..
Aliasi Stonebender: Any questions?
Ashcroft Burnham: May I ask a question to both candidates?
Justice Soothsayer: which of you will chop down the tree that appears to be growing out of my neighbor’s house?
Patroklus Murakami: i’d put that at the top of my todo list, justice 🙂
Justice Soothsayer: lol
Aliasi Stonebender: I’ll get an axe.
Justice Soothsayer: Ashcroft, your question?
Ashcroft Burnham: How much free time do you both have to devote to the chancellor position, and is that likely to diminish in the foreseeable future?
Patroklus Murakami: would u like me t answer first?
Justice Soothsayer: go ahead
Aliasi Stonebender: My own free time is holding steady. While I’m involved with both work and school, we’ve recently hired more people at my RL job so my free time has actually increased.
Patroklus Murakami: i have a couple of business commitments in SL but they don’t take up much time. apart from full time work I have no other commitments. so i have a fair bit of time to devote to nfs
Patroklus Murakami: but…
Patroklus Murakami: i would want to put boundaries in place so that i’m not spending all my free time on nfs work. the boundary is negotiable but there will be a limit to my commitment
Patroklus Murakami: or my RL partner will kill me 🙂
Justice Soothsayer: how much time do each of you think the Chancellor job will take?
Patroklus Murakami: I think it’s like packing for a long trip, the job expands to fill the time available.
Aliasi Stonebender: Hm. Good question. I’d expect some of the routine work to take up a little time every day, with larger stuff such as CN or event planning taking more. I wouldn’t care to assign an exact number of hours.
Patroklus Murakami: So I would want to set a limit on my involvement so that my work in focussed.
Patroklus Murakami: It could be anywhere from 10 to 60 hours a week otherwise.
Aliasi Stonebender: 60 hours, and they want more. 😉
Moon Adamant: lol
Justice Soothsayer: yes, it does seem to be a black hole that could fill up all available space.
Patroklus Murakami: i hope that answers your qn ash 🙂
Moon Adamant: i’d like to add something about the CN issue, btw – but maybe after this
Justice Soothsayer: would either of the two candidates care to pose a question to the other?
Ashcroft Burnham: I’ve noticed that we now have available land once again after some citizens downsized their holdings: if we got full again, though, what would each candidate do to provide temporary accommodation to prospective citizens until CN was built?
Aliasi Stonebender: FEMA trailers in Altenburg. <_ <
Ashcroft Burnham: FEMA?
Moon Adamant: lol
Patroklus Murakami: i think the priority has to be to get CN on line. anythign else would be tinkering at the edges. that has to the focus. lol at aliasi's suggestion
Ashcroft Burnham: The idea of a market with stalls in Old Altenburg is not a bad one, however.
Aliasi Stonebender: (FEMA is the emergency management agency in the US. They badly botched the aftermath of hurricane Katrina.)
Ashcroft Burnham: Ahh, I see 😀
Ashcroft Burnham: LOL!
Patroklus Murakami: to answer justice's qn, i don't have any qns for aliasi. sorry 🙂
Aliasi Stonebender: But Pat has the meat of it. We need CN online. Anything else is half-ass.
Ashcroft Burnham: One final question from me: what are each of your views on delegation?
Justice Soothsayer: delegation of what, Ash?
Ashcroft Burnham: The more routine and mundane duties of the Chancellor.
Aliasi Stonebender: While I confess to being a do-it-yourselfer in many ways, I believe much of the job of an executive of any sort involves finding who can do a task and making them do it.
Ashcroft Burnham: (Or, indeed, individual specialised tasks).
Patroklus Murakami: delegation? it's how i get my RL job done! i manage a team of ten people, and most of teh work has to be done by others.
Patroklus Murakami: i think the most effective way of working in the chancellor position is to get other ppl to do what needs to be done.
Ashcroft Burnham: Hmm, each of your answers are very similar 😉
Patroklus Murakami: and there are plenty of ppl willing to help. it just needs focus i feel
Justice Soothsayer: Moon, do you have any questions?
Moon Adamant: no, just two comments
Justice Soothsayer: go ahead
Moon Adamant: one is about ash's question on delegation... i feel we RA need to give the chancellor the tools to delegate, and that is related to the Civil service Bill that is pending
Moon Adamant: another is just my comment on CN 🙂 it is true that teh work of the SPC is stalled - and that is my full blame entirely
Patroklus Murakami: i think that many ppl are involved in CN (including me!) so I don't think u can take all the blame moon
Moon Adamant: i've had rl dealines to meet - and so i couldn't give the full attention to SPC. that is passed now (i hope!) - but nevertheless
Aliasi Stonebender: Me as well, so hey, we all have egg on our face.
Aliasi Stonebender: The advantage of the Chancellor, no matter who's it, is you have one person to blame.
Patroklus Murakami: and a blame culture doesn't help ut so move fwd. it needs active participation from many
Patroklus Murakami: the chancellor will have clear responsiblity fo rmaking this kind of project happen
Moon Adamant: oh, i agree with you Pat - i do feel i ned to aknowledge it, though - and also to say that independently of who bcomes chancellor
Moon Adamant: i will be happy to work with either, and pass you the files and feedback - since i do think that the chancellor should now head this collective effort
Justice Soothsayer: thanks, moon
Justice Soothsayer: I just want to thank both Pat and Ali for coming this morning. You certainly have not made our task of deciding any easier!
Moon Adamant: no, you haven't 🙂
Justice Soothsayer: You both have so much to offer, and I truly hope whoever is not selected will continue to be most involved
Ashcroft Burnham: Hear, hear.
Patroklus Murakami: don't worry, i'm difficult to get rid of! 🙂
Justice Soothsayer: I just want to remind everyone that the 7 day rule is in effect, so there won't be a decision today.
Justice Soothsayer: I believe each of the RA members has a firstname.lastname(at)gmail.com email address....
Justice Soothsayer: so if you have anything further to add feel free to do so via email
Aliasi Stonebender: Oh, believe me. I intend to bug you all, be it chancellor or crazy woman who lives on the hill.
Moon Adamant: lol
Justice Soothsayer: lol
Ashcroft Burnham: Or crazy chancellor who lives on the hill?
Moon Adamant: ahahah
Moon Adamant: and she has an axe 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: Yes.
Ashcroft Burnham: And is a dragon sometimes.
Justice Soothsayer: I only have about 10 minutes or so remaining
Ashcroft Burnham: That's unfortunate.
Patroklus Murakami: wb fernando 🙂
Moon Adamant: wb Fernando
Justice Soothsayer: anything ffurther on the Chancellor?
Fernando Book: Sorry, I crashed.
Justice Soothsayer: wb Fernando
Justice Soothsayer: OK, hearing nothing else on the Chancellor, lets move on to the legal system
Ashcroft Burnham: 🙂
Justice Soothsayer: First, I just want to make a personal observation
Aliasi Stonebender: (And with that in mind, I don't have much to say on the bills, so if you'll excuse me, I shall run for the moment.)
Justice Soothsayer: As you know, about 2 weeks ago I submitted 5 separate bills for us to consider as a substitute to Ashcroft's detailed proposal
Patroklus Murakami: bye aliasi 🙂
Justice Soothsayer: bye Ali.
Moon Adamant: bye Aliasi 🙂
Fernando Book: Bye.
Justice Soothsayer: But in the last 2 weeks a combination of travel commitments and a very nasty labor strike at my RL job have left me virtually no time for NFS.
Justice Soothsayer: So yesterday I briefly restated my position in opposition to some parts of Ashcroft's proposal in the forums.
Justice Soothsayer: I'll try to get some more detailed comments out soon if RA members would like, but I am afraid the nasty strike is continuing.
Ashcroft Burnham: Well, can we discuss the issues in as far as we can here?
Moon Adamant: sorry to hear your RL is so troubled, Justice 🙁
Justice Soothsayer: thanks, Moon. It has been an interesting couple of weeks!
missing segment here
Ashcroft Burnham: If you have good reasons, tell me what they are, and we can discuss them. If you have not, then, however you feel, you should set your feelings aside and do what is right.
Patroklus Murakami: i don't think you can really accuse justice of genocide! (bit much ash :))
Ashcroft Burnham: I pose the question that I propose in the forums again: why should an ill-considered objection stand against a well-considered proposal?
Patroklus Murakami: i can't argue agaist the use of reason...
Ashcroft Burnham: (I wasn't saying that Justice has actually committed genoicde, or even want to..)
Ashcroft Burnham: Nobody can. That's what it is to be reason 🙂
Patroklus Murakami: but sometimes u know u r uncomfortable with a proposal, even if u can't clearly articulate why
Ashcroft Burnham: Then my question stands: why should an ill-considered objection stand against a well-considered proposal?
Patroklus Murakami: tho i agree u need to articulate why u feel that way in order to convince others
Patroklus Murakami: hi gwyn
Ashcroft Burnham: No, more importantly, it is wholly wrong to act in a way that binds others except acting in accordance with reason.
Ashcroft Burnham: If you can't find conclusive reasons, you must not act so as to affect others at all..
Ashcroft Burnham: Hello, Gwyn 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Sorry guys, I overslept 😛
Moon Adamant: hi Gwynnie 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn has indicated consent to be recorded.
Justice Soothsayer: We are people, not computers governed solely by logical rules
Ashcroft Burnham: We're discussing your favourite topic, Gwyn: the primacy of reason 🙂
Justice Soothsayer: Hi Swyn
Justice Soothsayer: *Gwyn
Gwyneth Llewelyn: oooh
Ashcroft Burnham: That's incoherent, I'm afraid, Justice: reasning is an inherent property of humans.
Ashcroft Burnham: Computers do not *reason*, since they have no goals.
Ashcroft Burnham: They merely calculate.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I'm afraid my brain hasn't registered enough caffeine in my system to make me rational enough for that.
Ashcroft Burnham: You cannot help but reaon when you think. The question is not whether you are reasoning at all, but whether you are reasoning well or badly.
Ashcroft Burnham: LOL!
Ashcroft Burnham: But my question is as yet unanswered: why should ill-considerd objections ever stand against well-considered proposals?
Fernando Book: Ashcrot, we're not the philosopher king of Plato's Republic.
Patroklus Murakami: i fear we're getting bogged down in the philosophical basis for decision-taking. can i ask a procedural qn
Patroklus Murakami: ?
Justice Soothsayer: yes, Pat?
Ashcroft Burnham: One cannot make any decisions or have any discussions without agreeing the pholospohical basis on which decisions are talen.
Ashcroft Burnham: Taken.
Fernando Book: In a democracy feelings counts.
Moon Adamant: i think Ah, it is natural for people to feel doubt, don't you agree?
Ashcroft Burnham: I'm not saying that feeling doesn't *count*: indeed, feelings are part of the goals of all reasoning processes: without feelings, there could be no reason.
Justice Soothsayer: PAt has the floor for a procedural question
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Human beings doubt all the time 🙂 For instace, I doubt that I can reason anything today.
Justice Soothsayer: and I am nearly out of time this morning
Ashcroft Burnham: But there's a differnece between taking feeligns into account in a reasoning process and acting irrationally on the basis of urge.s
Patroklus Murakami: how do u intend to vote on these competing amendment? if u pass ash's amendment the others are unnecessary. how doavoid passing conflicting or incomplete amendments?
Justice Soothsayer: I don't believe that has been decided, PAy.
Justice Soothsayer: *Pat.
Ashcroft Burnham: That is the inherent problem with the essentially incoherent notion of split bills.
Ashcroft Burnham: I agree that the process should be incremental, but my judiciary bill is one increment.
Ashcroft Burnham: One cannot move house one room at a time 🙂
Justice Soothsayer: My suggestion was to take the 5 proposals up in order. Another option is to introduce amendments one at a time to Ashcrofts' bill.
Ashcroft Burnham: The latter would be far preferable.
Patroklus Murakami: i think that needs to be clariified so we don't end up with a dogs dinner 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: Quite.
Moon Adamant: lol Pat
Ashcroft Burnham: I far prefer debating amendments to deal with specific concerns than having two structures to debate, one coherent and one not.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: hrrmpf
Ashcroft Burnham: Hrmph?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: When Ash's words start to make sense,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: it means that coffee is working 😉
Ashcroft Burnham: I'll take that as a compliment - I think 😉
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Suggestion: approve things "in general" and then go to specifics.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: hehe Ash ? yes
Ashcroft Burnham: Hmm, Gwyn - what do you mean exactly? How does one approve things in general?
Ashcroft Burnham: But not specifically?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, in some legislatures you have this option,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: (I think we used it once)
Gwyneth Llewelyn: when people can't agree on specific details
Fernando Book: In Spanish parliament a bill is voted to be taken into account
Gwyneth Llewelyn: They will first agree: "we will use Ash's proposals"
Justice Soothsayer: I need to bring this meeting to a close and continue the discussion in the forums
Fernando Book: The amendments are voted
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes Fernando, same in Portugal, actually
Ashcroft Burnham: I am disappointed that this meeting has acheived so little in terms of discussion of substance.
Gwyneth Llewelyn *nods* and seconds Fernando
Justice Soothsayer: I am going to withdraw my 5 bills and instead offer amendments to Ash's proposal
Fernando Book: And then there's a final vote on the whole bill.
Ashcroft Burnham: Well, that's some progress....
missing segment here
7 Day Discussion: Franchulates
Claude Desmoulins
In an attempt to address Moon's questions from yesterday:
Franchulates aren't about growing the citizen population, they are about:
1) Using tier break points to generate revenue for the city and land fee savings for citizens
2) Giving us a presence on the mainland . This is the big one. All of the various island government models are a counterpoint to the relative anarchy of the mainland. This is , AFAIK, the first attempt to leverage the less anarchic island systems into a mainland presence.
I'll let Pel jump in here.
Claude Desmoulins
Do people have comments and questions at this point? If nothing comes up in a couple of hours, let's vote on this thing.
Jon Seattle
It seems to me we are missing an important opportunity here. This bill
could provide a good way to incorporate outside groups into out
system. That could be a good way to grow.
What we need to do that is to add a mechanism that would allow someone
to become a member of our cooperative by virtue of residence in a
Franchulate. This would allow an entire group to join our political
system by bringing in their own land.
It also seems to me that there is no good reason for giving us
presence on the mainland if this is going to be viewed as, well,
someone from Neufreistadt owns some land on the mainland though some
complex tier-saving scheme. To make point 2 stick at all, this also
has got to be a political extension.
Without the political side this bill looks like an entry into some
economic game that may or might not be worth it after labor is
factored in. Why should we go there?
Best,
Jonathan
Justice Soothsayer
I think we have the mechanism for expanding our citizenship if we pass the franchulates bill: the microplots.
I agree with Claude that developing a mainland presence is a good thing, and could lead to some fast growth for us.
Claude, I'm casting my vote in favor of the bill.
Jon Seattle
Please explain to me how the microplots would work with this
fanchulates? Would someone be able to become a citizen by buying a
microplot on a fanchulate? As I read the bill the answer is no.
Justice, can you please tell me how a citizen owning land on the
mainland would lead to fast growth? There are many citizens who
already do.
Jon Seattle
to Justice, me, Moon, Pelanor
More options Sep 12 (3 days ago)
Ah, so they would have to acquire a microplot in the existing sim. We
are now completely out of those. If a group say with ten members
owning 8096 m2 on the mainland wanted to join each of the those ten
members would have to buy a (nonexistent) microplot. Their ownership
of the mainland would not count. In other words this bill would be
useless to aid expansion.
On 9/12/06, Justice Soothsayer
A non-citizen who has mainland land could acquire a microplot, thus making
the mainland land eligible for status as a fanchulate. The tier factor,
plus access to our other advantages of citizenship, could lead to growth in
our numbers beyond those who arleady hold land on the mainland.
it would help us incorporate new groups into our democratic system.
What is left, as far as I can tell, does not do much in that
direction.
no, and hope we can do another round.
Pelanor Eldrich
Moon Adamant
to Jon, Justice, me, Pelanor
More options Sep 12 (3 days ago)
very briefly, my comments.
Claude Desmoulins
to Moon, Jon, Justice, Pelanor
More options Sep 12 (3 days ago)
I always understood this particular bill as being mostly economic. I’m not opposed to doing something on the citizenship front, but I don’t think we have to do it in this bill. I look forward to Moon’s forthcoming proposal and vote yes on this one.
Moon Adamant
Jon Seattle
Claude Desmoulins
Pelanor Eldrich
Pelanor Eldrich
Claude Desmoulins
Justice Soothsayer
RA Meeting: September 16, 2006
Those present:
Claude Desmoulins is in the chair.
Claude Desmoulins: Please retouch the recorder.
Sudane Erato has indicated consent to be recorded.
Patroklus Murakami has indicated consent to be recorded.
Justice Soothsayer has indicated consent to be recorded.
Patroklus Murakami: done
Jon Seattle has indicated consent to be recorded.
Justice Soothsayer: ok
Sudane Erato: yes
Claude Desmoulins: Does everyone have the agenda?
Patroklus Murakami: yes
Justice Soothsayer: yes
Sudane Erato: yes
Jon Seattle: yes
Jon Seattle: Lets wait just a moment, Moon is almost here.
Sudane Erato: hi Moon! 🙂
Moon Adamant: hello everyone 🙂
Justice Soothsayer: Hi Moon
Patroklus Murakami: hi moon, nice entrance 🙂
Jon Seattle: Hi Moon! 🙂
Moon Adamant: sorry, i had to download teh update
Jon Seattle smiles brightly at Moon
Moon Adamant: lol pat
Moon Adamant: /m smiles brightly at Jon, thanks for tp 🙂
Patroklus Murakami thinks he will ‘ruth’ at some point today for that crack at moon 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: OK. Let’s get going.
Claude Desmoulins: First, a proposed amendment .
Claude Desmoulins: This just sets a time limit on the Chancellor exercising his/her veto.
Claude Desmoulins: Else we could have a veto months after the fact.
Patroklus Murakami: could i ask a qn about this proposed amendment?
Claude Desmoulins: Sure
Moon Adamant has indicated consent to be recorded.
Patroklus Murakami: what if the Chancellor is on holiday or otherwise unable to log in for more than two days?
Patroklus Murakami: does the power of veto depend on being available 365 days a year?
Claude Desmoulins: I would be fine with a slightly longer time limit.
Claude Desmoulins: But someone who wants this job should be expected to not diappear from the world for weeks at a time.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: knock knock 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: Note that the notification doesn’t happen in world
Sudane Erato: hi Gwyn
Patroklus Murakami: how about the next RA meeting as the limit, or two weeks. whichever is the sooner?
Jon Seattle: Hello Gwyn
Claude Desmoulins: It’s forum or wiki.
Patroklus Murakami: hi gwyn
Claude Desmoulins: Hi Gwyn
Jon Seattle smiles at Gwyn
Gwyneth Llewelyn smiles and waves
Moon Adamant: hi Gwynne 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn has indicated consent to be recorded.
Justice Soothsayer: hi Gwyn
Claude Desmoulins: That seems quite a long time.
Patroklus Murakami: i agrre claude, the new chancellor will be v busy, but even Prime Ministers and Presidents get a break 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: Anybody else have thoughts here? Could we split the difference ?
Jon Seattle: How about one week?
Justice Soothsayer: Since the RA posts transcripts, and has public meetings, I don’t think a week is too much time.
Claude Desmoulins: Fine with that.
Justice Soothsayer: or too little
Jon Seattle: That gives some time for technical issues, etc.
Patroklus Murakami: a week from when then? from when the RA transcript is posted?
Claude Desmoulins: Ok let’s put an amendment on the floor:
Claude Desmoulins: Change 48 hours of the passage of the act….
Claude Desmoulins: to seven days of the posting to the wiki of the act.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ah, I was writing something, but I don’t see anything wrong with that after all 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: Any problem with that?
Jon Seattle: File with me
Justice Soothsayer: OK with me
Moon Adamant: fine with me too
Claude Desmoulins: All in favor of the amendment to the amendment….
Claude Desmoulins: Aye
Jon Seattle: Ary
Jon Seattle: Aye
Moon Adamant: aye
Justice Soothsayer: aye
Claude Desmoulins: Now on to the amendment.
Claude Desmoulins: Further discussion?
Claude Desmoulins: Seeing none….alll in favor…
Justice Soothsayer: Aye
Jon Seattle: aye
Claude Desmoulins: Aye
Moon Adamant: aye
Claude Desmoulins: OK now back to our chancellor election.
Claude Desmoulins: This strikes me as a very clear contrast in work styles.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ah… great that someone noticed it as well 😉
Gwyneth Llewelyn leaves sarcastic mode.
Sudane Erato: 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: Both Pat and Aliasi are quite competent. They have, however, quite different approaches to problem solving.
Gwyneth Llewelyn agrees but shouldn’t say anything actually 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: There’s my $L1.
Claude Desmoulins: Any other comments or discussion.
Claude Desmoulins: ?
Sudane Erato: will Pat speak?
Justice Soothsayer: both candidates gave thoughtful presentations last meeting
Sudane Erato: ahh… sorry
Sudane Erato: i wasn’t there
Patroklus Murakami: well, i’m not sure what you want me to say! it hardly seems fair for me to speak when aliasi is not here
Sudane Erato: yes… forgive me…
Sudane Erato: not being aware of last meeting
Claude Desmoulins: I think both of you represented yourselves well in the previous transcript.
Patroklus Murakami: we both presented our case at last week’s meeting. the transcript is availabe for the RA members who were not there. i thought the vote was being taken over seven days? is that not the case?
Claude Desmoulins: It was but no one actually voted 🙂
Justice Soothsayer: well, it has been 7 days and we have not voted yet
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Good point, Justice 😉
Gwyneth Llewelyn makes notes.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: Let’s try voting then.. How about a roll call
Justice Soothsayer: like our meetings, the email meeting didn;t make it through the whole agenda
Claude Desmoulins: Moon?
Moon Adamant: my vote?
Claude Desmoulins: Yes I’m going alphabetical by avatar surname.
Moon Adamant: i vote on Pat for Chancellor
Moon Adamant nods
Claude Desmoulins: I vote for Ms. Stonebender
Claude Desmoulins: Jon?
Jon Seattle: I vote for Pat
Claude Desmoulins: Jusice?
Claude Desmoulins: Sorry
Justice Soothsayer: I;m voting for Ali, which means we have a tie; suggest we move this to 7-day (again) for Pel’s vote.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: lol
Claude Desmoulins: Yep, I expected as much.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: hehe so do I… but hmm
Gwyneth Llewelyn *scratches head*
Gwyneth Llewelyn: This is actually a bit irregular 🙂
Moon Adamant listens to gwyn
Jon Seattle: listens to Gwyn
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, if everybody in the RA votes on annuling the tie and calling for a 7-day vote, i guess that’s all right.
Claude Desmoulins: Any problem with that?
Justice Soothsayer: Or we could just have asecond round of votes.
Moon Adamant: no problem at all
Patroklus Murakami: i think you should be forced to stay here til u reach a decision
Sudane Erato: 🙂
Moon Adamant: lol pat
Jon Seattle: Gwyn, what is the usual procedure for breaking a tie?
Justice Soothsayer: lol
Patroklus Murakami: rather than waiting *another* week
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ah yes. The “Vatican voting procedures”.
Sudane Erato: no bathroom?
Jon Seattle: lol
Moon Adamant: lol sudane
Patroklus Murakami: no bathroom, food or water
Sudane Erato: :))
Justice Soothsayer: worse, no coffee
Patroklus Murakami: and i’ll start singing in ten minutes!
Gwyneth Llewelyn: hmm Jon, I guess that it was not truly ever discussed, Justice. Usually, a tie just means “nothing is decided”.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Noooooooo
Moon Adamant: uh oh… i was laready calling for a pizza 🙂
Sudane Erato: hehe
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, it could be worse, it could have been *me* singing 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: Under normal circumstances a bill would die.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes, what Claude said.
Jon Seattle will need a low-fat pizza
Claude Desmoulins: Since we have to elect someone, that doesn’t apply here.
Patroklus Murakami: here’s my problem claude, the RA called a 7 day vote..
Patroklus Murakami: you’ve had that and it’s resulted in a tie…
Patroklus Murakami: you now propose a furhter 7 days to get pel’s vote
Claude Desmoulins: In fact not.
Claude Desmoulins: The seven day procedure resulted in no vote at all.
Patroklus Murakami: i’m listening
Gwyneth Llewelyn: So we are effectively at the 3rd round of voting.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: One 7-day vote, one 10-min vote, and now another 7-day vote.
Claude Desmoulins: Although no ballots were cast during the seven day.
Claude Desmoulins: I suppose we could sit here and try to persuade someone to flip, but it seems an inefficient use of inworld time which is limited.
Patroklus Murakami: well, it’s a balance the RA has to decide on . which is a better use of your time, especially if yoiu feel the logjam is difficult to break. i will say this though…
Patroklus Murakami: youi have to balance putting up with a further week’s delay to this critical appointment, versus the items on today’s agenda
Moon Adamant: so what are the alternatives? I remind you also that i can only stay till 5, but i can give my vote in proxy to Jon if that is allowed, for the case Pel logs in later
Patroklus Murakami: i think makikng this decision is the most important one facing you right now
Justice Soothsayer: it need not be a full week; Pel could break the tie with an emailed vote at anytime.
Patroklus Murakami: but it’s a matter for yoiu to decided
Moon Adamant: i agree with you Pat
Patroklus Murakami: yes justice, or pel might not be reachable for a week. who knows?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I would tend to follow Justice’s suggestion, even fearing that it might set a precedent…
Gwyneth Llewelyn: But Pat also raises a good objection.
Claude Desmoulins: Despite its importance, I have serious doubts as to whether we’ll break the deadlock this morning.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Agreed.
Justice Soothsayer: Claude, I move we have another round of voting now at our meeting.
Justice Soothsayer: If we are still tied, then move to 7-day.
Claude Desmoulins: Is that acceptable?
Moon Adamant: hmmm, now now?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: We definitely need better procedures…
Justice Soothsayer: yes, now now.
Gwyneth Llewelyn smirks. 🙂
Jon Seattle: Gwyn, I very much agree.
Moon Adamant: and i do agree Gwyn
Moon Adamant: well, i do think i have stated my vote clearly… am not sure that it helps doing another vote immediately
Moon Adamant: but i am agreeable
Claude Desmoulins waits for Pat and Moon
Patroklus Murakami: i trust under this procedure we won’t have to wait a week for the answer? that the vote is called as soon as pel indicates his choice?
Claude Desmoulins: That’s fine by me.
Jon Seattle: yes. I could go with that.
Claude Desmoulins: OK
Claude Desmoulins: Round 2
Claude Desmoulins: Moon
Moon Adamant: i vote for Pat, again
Gwyneth Llewelyn: hehe
Claude Desmoulins: I vote for Aliasi again.
Claude Desmoulins: Jon
Gwyneth Llewelyn foresees the future.
Jon Seattle: I vote for Pat of course
Jon Seattle: lol Gwyn
Claude Desmoulins: Didn’t Gwyn make the “prophets of SL” list?
Claude Desmoulins: Justice
Justice Soothsayer: drum roll…..
Justice Soothsayer: I vote for Ali again.
Sudane Erato: 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: OK.
Gwyneth Llewelyn *shrugs*
Claude Desmoulins: Now on to 5-17
Gwyneth Llewelyn: lol Claude!
Claude Desmoulins: The treasurer act allows the treasurer to hold another position with an SC waiver, but the EO act has no such provision.
Claude Desmoulins: I like the separation in principle, but…
Moon Adamant listens to claude
Claude Desmoulins: ….both are positions we must have, and do we have someone to replace Sudane as treasurer and GM if we don’t pass this?
Sudane Erato: EO… really
Sudane Erato: GM will be gone
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Thanks for raising my own objections, Claude 🙂
Claude Desmoulins guesses he should ask Sudane which position she would keep if she had to choose.
Sudane Erato: the omission of the waiver from the EO bill was an oversight really
Sudane Erato: if I had to choose?
Sudane Erato: I guess EO… its less work :))
Claude Desmoulins: So we know which position we’d have to recruit for 🙂
Sudane Erato: honestly… I’m available for either
Claude Desmoulins: Any other discussion?
Sudane Erato: or both
Jon Seattle: well, I did like the idea of maintaining independance for the EO
Jon Seattle: but no strong objection
Sudane Erato: oh yes… I agree
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well… Sudane is right, that sooner or later the GM will cease to exist as a Governmental position ? hehe
Gwyneth Llewelyn: But that requires some rounds of discussion yet 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: I also lke it, but who do you know who is capable and willing to step into the treasurer spot?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I know an accountant… hehe
Sudane Erato: 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Sadly, she’s not a citizen yet 😉
Gwyneth Llewelyn winks at Sudane.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ah
Sudane Erato: :))
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I actually know another one, Ranma tardis.
Claude Desmoulins: And who is broadly trusted in our community?
Claude Desmoulins: Oh.
Claude Desmoulins: I didn’trealize Ranma was an accountant.
Jon Seattle: Ah, very interesting.. she may be an option if willing
Claude Desmoulins: I’d still liketo pass this so our hand isn’t forced.
Sudane Erato: yes, i agree
Claude Desmoulins: Ranma might say no after all.
Claude Desmoulins: All in favor…
Justice Soothsayer: aye
Claude Desmoulins: aye
Jon Seattle: I will say that I am worried about the longer term implications of this.
Moon Adamant: aye
Jon Seattle: But will go along. Aye.
Claude Desmoulins: If we find that there are enough competent people to keep the postitions separated, we can amend again later.
Jon Seattle: I would like to suggest an additional admendment that will require this to be re-examined in six months time.
Jon Seattle: As we did with the exec bill.
Claude Desmoulins: Thoughts?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Hm
Sudane Erato: i’d say that six months may be too short
Moon Adamant: i am agreeable
Sudane Erato: you’ve already had me for going on 2 yeras…
Gwyneth Llewelyn: hehe sorry, I’m just trying to think about the long-term implications here, but I don’t see, at the moment, anything that can’t be amended later.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: and good point, Sudane 🙂
Sudane Erato: and this role doesn’t change omnth
Sudane Erato: much
Moon Adamant: i think that with our expansion to CN and franchulates, a reassesment of EO may very possible be needed in the future
Sudane Erato: mybe 12 months?
Justice Soothsayer: we could reassess at any time
Sudane Erato: yes
Claude Desmoulins: Do you want an auto Sunset, Jon?
Jon Seattle: The thing that I am worried about is someone, in effect, becomming ruler of the community by gathering positions.. Say, SC, EO, and tresry
Sudane Erato: is that posible?
Claude Desmoulins: or Treausrer, GM, and EO? 🙂
Sudane Erato: 🙂
Jon Seattle: yes.
Jon Seattle: In Sudane, we have someone we trust. But will that always be true?
Claude Desmoulins: The EO has great power by owning the sim. Other than that…
Sudane Erato: listen…. some, such as Aliasi….
Sudane Erato: have pointed out that
Claude Desmoulins: Or would it be better to specifically grandfather Sudane?
Moon Adamant listens to Sudane
Sudane Erato: there is ultimately no control on the power of the EO
Sudane Erato: this is really a half measure
Moon Adamant: exactly, Sudane
Sudane Erato: which means…
Jon Seattle: Claude, I would be happier with either approach.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok…
Sudane Erato: that you will always have to “trust” the EO
Sudane Erato: under current LL rules
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, an untrustful EO will always have to pay LL for tier, soooo
Gwyneth Llewelyn: 🙂
Sudane Erato: this bill is just the best that cn be done under the circumstances
Claude Desmoulins: The problem with a forced sunset here is that unlike with theChancellor/Guild there is no fallback.
Jon Seattle: Sudane, oh, the bill aready passed. We are just discussing the amendment.
Sudane Erato: yes… I know…
Claude Desmoulins: And neither ofthese postitions can go vacant.
Sudane Erato: but the motivation for the ammendment
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Indeed, yes, and the amendment is not terrible. It even gives a provision on granting a waiver 🙂
Sudane Erato: is concern about the role of the EO
Jon Seattle: I would be happy with something that grand(monthered?) Sudane
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I don’t think that a sunset clause is really needed.
Sudane Erato: :))
Claude Desmoulins: I’m more inclined to leave as is. The waiver provision requires the consent of two branches (RA and SC) before it can be exercised/
Sudane Erato: the RA as well?
Claude Desmoulins: Oops
Jon Seattle: Yes, no RA as far as I can see.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: No RA, no
Claude Desmoulins: Sorry. Mental rust
Sudane Erato: 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: It would mean that the RA couldn’t exert a political power to get the EO into government 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Which is not too bad, I think.
Claude Desmoulins: Jon, what’s the exact form of your amendment?
Sudane Erato: please forgive me…. RL requires my departure 🙁
Justice Soothsayer: bye Sudane
Jon Seattle: Claude, on further discussion with my faction, I withdraw my amendment.
Sudane Erato: be back in an hour… if we are still meeting 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: OK, Bye.
Patroklus Murakami: bye sudane 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: OK
Moon Adamant: bye Sudane 🙂 *hugs*
Claude Desmoulins: On to civil service then
Jon Seattle: Bye Sudane
Moon Adamant: i will have to leave very shortly… but would like to vote still for Civil Service
Fernando Book: Hi all
Claude Desmoulins: first of all shall we amend Executive Branch to Chancellor?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: No 🙂
Patroklus Murakami: hi fernando
Fernando Book has indicated consent to be recorded.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Hola Fernando, buenos dias 🙂
Moon Adamant: hi fernando .)
Jon Seattle: Hi Fernando
Gwyneth Llewelyn: And I mean it, Claude, I try very hard to have you guys talk about “institutioons” and not “titles” 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: Then we need to be clear about the person or entity to which the phrase Executive Branch refers.
Patroklus Murakami: i agree with gwyn, better to keep it ‘executve branch’
Jon Seattle nods and agrees
Moon Adamant: well, we don’t need to, if our const says clearly that the Chancellor is the Executive Brnach
Claude Desmoulins: OK
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Thanks Moon. I wanted to point out just that.
Claude Desmoulins: This also solves the problem of what happens if we revertto the Guild.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: That’s it,
Claude Desmoulins: Questions or discussion on the civil service bill?
Moon Adamant: yes, but then the Guild must be clearly appointed in Const as holding the Exec Branch .)
Gwyneth Llewelyn: we could always say: “The Executive Branch will be a power of the Guild” (on a Bill), and this Civil Service Act will still hold.
Moon Adamant: but that, if it happens, can be dealed with at the time 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, bill or constitution.
Justice Soothsayer: I am not clear on what is meant by “Executive Act”
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Uh oh
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Now ? THAT is a good objection, Justice 🙂
Moon Adamant: Justice, i posted some thoughts on Exec Acts some time ago
Claude Desmoulins remembers going around and around about that phrase about a month ago 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes, I remember that I’ve posted some ideas on the forums as well
Gwyneth Llewelyn: And yes Claude
Justice Soothsayer: yes, I recall that as well, but I don’t think the bill makes it very clear
Gwyneth Llewelyn agrees with Justice
Gwyneth Llewelyn: *sigh*
Jon Seattle: well, it seems likley to me that the executive will be somewhat less formal in this case. Can we change the language to “executive action”
Gwyneth Llewelyn: hmm
Claude Desmoulins: Would you draft an action, though.
Claude Desmoulins: Draft implies a document
Gwyneth Llewelyn: mm hmm
Justice Soothsayer: I also think it might be wise to have an Executive in place before we start talking about his/her acts/actions.
Moon Adamant: the idea was the exec Acts being clearly written documents that would framework each executive action
Jon Seattle: I do think the excecutive will have to establish some procedures in writing. Claude, would you agree?
Claude Desmoulins: Somethink akin to policies and procedures?
Jon Seattle: Claude, yes.
Claude Desmoulins: Would it be betterto change Executive Acts to Policies and Procedures?
Moon Adamant: or to hmmm Decrees
Jon Seattle: I would be fine with that change.
Claude Desmoulins: Decrees sounds a bit “dictatorial”, no?
Moon Adamant: well, it is really a wording issue here
Gwyneth Llewelyn: hehe just old-fashioned term, Claude 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes.
Moon Adamant: the idea is that you should have a clear distinction
Moon Adamant: between RA legislation
Justice Soothsayer: “fiat” would be a synonym, though that is also an automobile
Fernando Book: Perhaps we can leave Laws for the RA and Regulations for the Executive Branch
Moon Adamant: and these frameworks for executive action
Claude Desmoulins: I propose an amendment to change executive acts to policies and procedures throughout.
Moon Adamant: hmmmm
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Justice ? on your point, i actually prefer it the other way round, ie. first establish what the Executive is going to do, how it will relate to other branches, and all that before someone is elected… that is correct
Patroklus Murakami: how about ‘directives’? any better?
Moon Adamant: what would you call then a delegation of an executive task by the chancellor on a civil servant? a policy? a procedure?
Jon Seattle: I agree with either wording. I tend to like politicies and procedures a bit better.
Jon Seattle: *policies
Justice Soothsayer: Lets talk about how this would work. First, the RA might pass a bill saying we need street signs….
Moon Adamant: nods
Justice Soothsayer: then the Executive would direct a civil servant to put up street signs of a certain size at each intersection.
Moon Adamant: exactly
Justice Soothsayer: That would be a “direction”, not really a policy.
Moon Adamant: by means of a written statement
Moon Adamant: we are discssing here the name of that written statement
Justice Soothsayer: I think WE are the policy-making branch, Claude.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: yes, i think that we all know what we’re talking about (mostly), we just have different words to name it 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: And in a sense, “policy” is RA.
Claude Desmoulins: I thought of executive acts/ policies as being more a flushing out of RA legislation.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: “execution of policy” is Exec
Claude Desmoulins: For example….
Claude Desmoulins: The RA passes said street sign bill.
Claude Desmoulins: Rather than debating size and color,they pass a general bill.
Patroklus Murakami: why not call them ‘implementation acts’? this is about implementation of RA policy
Gwyneth Llewelyn: RA: policy; Exec: strategy; Civil Service: tactics 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn is in a militaristic mode today.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Don’t read Sun Tzu before going asleep, guys 🙂
Justice Soothsayer salutes
Claude Desmoulins: The exec then writes a policy dealing with size and color and shape.
Claude Desmoulins: Which the civil service implements.
Jon Seattle laughs
Claude Desmoulins: If the RA doesn’t like the color policy, they can override it via legislation.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: The exec doesn’t really write a “policy”
Jon Seattle: I agree with Claude, that the exec will set some policies to flush out legislation.
Moon Adamant: everyone, i have to leave
Justice Soothsayer: “regulations and directives” might be a better term
Patroklus Murakami: bye moon:)
Moon Adamant: people are phoning me already
Justice Soothsayer: bye Moon
Claude Desmoulins: I’lltake that as a friendly
Jon Seattle: Justice, I am fine with that too.
Claude Desmoulins: Let’s vote on regulations and directives/
Claude Desmoulins: Aye
Justice Soothsayer: Aye
Moon Adamant: ok, aye as well – idea here is to clearl mark a difference between legisl acts and exec acts
Jon Seattle: Fine with me
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yay!
Claude Desmoulins: Other discussion on the whole bill?
Claude Desmoulins: Shall we vote?
Jon Seattle nods
Gwyneth Llewelyn *nods* vigorously 🙂
Moon Adamant: i can stay for the vote, if now
Claude Desmoulins: All in favor…
Jon Seattle: Aye
Moon Adamant: aye
Justice Soothsayer: aye
Claude Desmoulins: aye
Patroklus Murakami: hurrah!
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Hooray!
Claude Desmoulins: Shall we adjourn?
Moon Adamant: yay
Gwyneth Llewelyn: lol
Jon Seattle: Yes
Moon Adamant: ok, i really must leave
Patroklus Murakami: when is the next meeting claude?
Claude Desmoulins: Do we want next week?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Now that we have a truly established Civil Service, I propose a bill to change the name to “Bureaucratic Republic of Neufreistadt” 🙂
Moon Adamant: fine by me 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: I hope we can install a chancellor by then.
Patroklus Murakami smacks gwyn’s wrist
Gwyneth Llewelyn: So do I!
Gwyneth Llewelyn: and lol Pat
Claude Desmoulins: We are adjouned
The meeting closed at 5:17 Linden time.RA Meeting: September 23, 2006
Those present:
Claude Desmoulins is in the chair.
Ashcroft Burnham has indicated consent to be recorded.
Ashcroft Burnham: Good morning 🙂
Justice Soothsayer: Hi
Ashcroft Burnham: Hello, Sudane.
Justice Soothsayer has indicated consent to be recorded.
Sudane Erato: hello 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: Hello, Cinzia. Do take a seat 🙂
Cinzia Griffith: hi everybody 🙂
Sudane Erato: hi 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: You can see our democratic processes in all their glory 😉
Cinzia Griffith: sorry for the look
Ashcroft Burnham: You look fine. I like pink 😉
Cinzia Griffith: sure
Justice Soothsayer: rebooting brb
Patroklus Murakami: hi all
Cinzia Griffith: hi
Ashcroft Burnham: Hello 🙂
Sudane Erato: hello! 🙂
Sudane Erato has indicated consent to be recorded.
Moon Adamant: hello everyone 🙂
Jon Seattle: Hello everyone!
Cinzia Griffith: I was reading some of the documents
Cinzia Griffith: hello
Ashcroft Burnham: Hello John, Moon 🙂
Jon Seattle has indicated consent to be recorded.
Claude Desmoulins: Sorry, I’m rereading Ash’s bill.
Claude Desmoulins: It takes time 🙂
Patroklus Murakami has indicated consent to be recorded.
Sudane Erato: hehe
Cinzia Griffith has indicated consent to be recorded.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Sorry all. Having “missing image” problems 😛
Ashcroft Burnham: LOL!
Ashcroft Burnham: 😉
Ashcroft Burnham: Good afternoon, Gwyn 🙂
Cinzia Griffith: hi Gwyn
Jon Seattle: brb
Ashcroft Burnham: Gwyn, you’re missing textures.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Hello there, Ash.
Cinzia Griffith: hope not 🙂
Sudane Erato: hehe
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Still missing textures… ok, so nothing works…
Ashcroft Burnham: “Edit appearence”?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: No, that doesn’t help. Hmm. Not even deleting the cache helped.
Ashcroft Burnham: 🙁
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ah well. The weirdest bit is that *I* get the textures, so I’m sure they must be *somewhere* at LL’s servers.
Ashcroft Burnham: Yes, very odd.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok, no cerimonial robes for me then :))
Ashcroft Burnham: We can just imagine that you’re wearing a rather fetching white shirt and gloves…
Sudane Erato: hehe
Gwyneth Llewelyn: lol ty
Ashcroft Burnham: Maybe if you change clothes, it’ll work?
Cinzia Griffith: lol
Jon Seattle: back
Ashcroft Burnham: Aha! Fixed.
Ashcroft Burnham: 😀
Ashcroft Burnham: Nice dress….
Cinzia Griffith: wonderful
Gwyneth Llewelyn: hmm but that’s another one…
Gwyneth Llewelyn *shrugs*
Sudane Erato: :P)
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Now let me go back 🙂
Cinzia Griffith: I’m sorry but I really have to go…. I’ll leave no so I don’t disturb your meeting…
Moon Adamant has indicated consent to be recorded.
Ashcroft Burnham: Ohh, pity.
Cinzia Griffith: be back later, hope to be in time!
Gwyneth Llewelyn: What a pity, Cinzia!
Ashcroft Burnham: I do hope that you come later 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: See you soon, I hope 🙂
Cinzia Griffith: thank you for the invitation
Justice Soothsayer: more of changing session for Gwyn than meeting yet
Cinzia Griffith: bye Gwyneth, bye Ash
Ashcroft Burnham: (These meetings can go on for a bit, so we might all still be here when you get back 😉 )
Gwyneth Llewelyn: lol Justice indeed!
Jon Seattle: See you soon
Ashcroft Burnham: Cheerio for now, though 😉
Sudane Erato: 🙂
Cinzia Griffith: she’s a woman after all 🙂
Cinzia Griffith: that was important !!
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Actually, I thought we were waiting for Aliasi
Gwyneth Llewelyn: and right, right, Cinzia
Ashcroft Burnham: What about Pel?
Gwyneth Llewelyn is just a stereotype
Claude Desmoulins: Well we seem to hae a quorum but no Chancellot to install 🙁
Patroklus Murakami: bye cinzia
Cinzia Griffith: bye Patroklus
Claude Desmoulins: Gwyn, you have robes. Yea.
Patroklus Murakami: does that mean u have to install the runner up 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Whew
Gwyneth Llewelyn: thank you so much, Claude!
Sudane Erato: haha
Ashcroft Burnham: If she’s overslept (and I think that this really *is* 4 AM for her…), perahps one could move the initiation ceremony down the agenda?
Gwyneth Llewelyn feels much better now 🙂
Sudane Erato: no… its 7 AM
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Good for me, I haven’t found a mace anyway.
Sudane Erato: Aliasi is in florid
Claude Desmoulins: Well let’s start the meeting and shuffle the agenda.
Patroklus Murakami: the sword was pretty impressive
Ashcroft Burnham: Haven’t you? I remember a shop selling all sorts of medieval things somewhere on a private island in the South-West?, I think…
Ashcroft Burnham: I’m sure that it had maces.
Claude Desmoulins: Please touch the boxes.
Ashcroft Burnham: Finding it again is another matter…
Gwyneth Llewelyn: haha yes, Pat ? somehow, half the geeks in the world send me items to test :()
Gwyneth Llewelyn has indicated consent to be recorded.
Claude Desmoulins: Sudane did the mace.
Ashcroft Burnham: It had suits of armour and everything.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Oh, EXCELLENT :))
Gwyneth Llewelyn: And Ash ? I’m sadly out of cash, lol
Ashcroft Burnham: There’s probably a classified out there.
Ashcroft Burnham: Poor Gwyn 🙁
Ashcroft Burnham: In both senses of “poor”…
Gwyneth Llewelyn: hehe it’s all right, next week we’ll have more stipends 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: Ahh – you’re a premiumite, eh?
Gwyneth Llewelyn looks at the agenda now and hushes for a bit
Claude Desmoulins: 5-18 – Covenant revision
Claude Desmoulins: Thanks much to Gwyn, who drafted most of the CN stuff.
Gwyneth Llewelyn commends Claude for his excellent work into bringing that into a much more manageable form
Ashcroft Burnham: Might I propose a teeny friendly amendment?
Gwyneth Llewelyn was dreading that!
Claude Desmoulins: I put this up to the forums on Monday or Tuesday and nobody commented 🙁
Sudane Erato: 🙂
Claude Desmoulins listens
Ashcroft Burnham: “Nburg” should now be “Neufreistadt” 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, Claude, I’m commenting *now* for the record 😉
Ashcroft Burnham: (It’s under the “Platz zone” rules)
Claude Desmoulins: Of course it should.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ah, hawk-eyes, you are so right 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: That’s my proposed amendment 🙂
Fernando Book has indicated consent to be recorded.
Fernando Book: Hi all.
Sudane Erato: hehe
Ashcroft Burnham: And thank you, Gwyn 🙂
Sudane Erato: hi 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: I’ll take that as a friendly.
Ashcroft Burnham: As intended 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: Hello, Fernando.
Sudane Erato: have a seat!
Patroklus Murakami: how does this affect the current arrangements? what’s changing?
Claude Desmoulins: Most of the stuff about roof pitch and window size goes away,
Gwyneth Llewelyn *nods*
Jon Seattle nods
Claude Desmoulins: It establishes base covenants for cn
Patroklus Murakami: happy to see that go 🙂
Sudane Erato: 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: As well as distances between plots…
Claude Desmoulins: Rather than list by type ofrule, Everything is broken up by zone,
Claude Desmoulins: There is still a setback rule for zone O (valley)
Sudane Erato: yes
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes, and there is a “common” covenant, and just exceptions to it, on a case by case basis, which I think is much more manageable.
Patroklus Murakami: and who is supposed to enforce this?
Claude Desmoulins: Chancellor
Sudane Erato: 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Pat ? the Chancellor is 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: … with her mace.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: 😉
Ashcroft Burnham: LOL! No… with court orders :-p
Sudane Erato: hehe
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ah, of course
Gwyneth Llewelyn *slaps her forehead*
Sudane Erato: :))
Jon Seattle laughs
Patroklus Murakami: despite the contraventions of the code on the chancellor’s property and others in the city?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, the Chancellor will self-enforce herself first as a measure of good will 🙂
Patroklus Murakami: hehe 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: if not, she’ll have to face the new legal system… hehe
Sudane Erato: 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: And mind you, that WILL be a deterrent!
Sudane Erato: lol
Claude Desmoulins: Many of those contraventions outside the walls will cease to be so if we pass this.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Claude, you’re also reight about that.
Sudane Erato: i have an ammendment as an addition…
Sudane Erato: to Zone I
Sudane Erato: and that is that all parcels will have a house or shop
Sudane Erato: unless specifically waivered by the Chancellor
Claude Desmoulins: No parks allowed? What about Cyberneticia’s ?
Patroklus Murakami: how would that affect the park?
Ashcroft Burnham: The waiver?
Sudane Erato: in my role as GM
Sudane Erato: I gave permission to cy and to Gx…
Sudane Erato: to each have a single parcel without a build
Sudane Erato: those were the only two
Sudane Erato: the problem seems to be rampant
Patroklus Murakami: i thinkt that’s an important point
Gwyneth Llewelyn: “house” or “shop” can be as little as a bench and a gazebo?:)
Patroklus Murakami: otherwise the character of teh city inside the walls can be changed too easily
Sudane Erato: well, Gwyn, thats not the intent
Sudane Erato: yes, Pat..
Sudane Erato: thats my point
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok.
Ashcroft Burnham: The words “A building comprising a house and/or shop”?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Just to have it clarified, and on record 🙂
Sudane Erato: Ash, yes…
Ashcroft Burnham: 🙂
Sudane Erato: that would probably be fine
Claude Desmoulins: Other discussion on the amendment?
Sudane Erato: the issue might arise of grandfathering
Sudane Erato: i would give people a number of weeks or months to comply
Sudane Erato: or seek a waiver
Ashcroft Burnham: Sensible.
Ashcroft Burnham: 21 days?
Justice Soothsayer: couldn;t the Chancellor take care of that with a wave of the mace by granting “grandfather ” waivers?
Sudane Erato: sure
Gwyneth Llewelyn agrees with Sudane’s PoV on that
Sudane Erato: Justice, yes… true
Sudane Erato: whatever makes more sense
Claude Desmoulins: Another question is do waivers expire if the propoerty is transferred?
Sudane Erato: the legal detail is my weak point 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ah, interesting, Claude.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: So, are the waivers tied to the person or the plot?
Claude Desmoulins: But let’s take the building amendment first, then talk waivers.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Let’s ask our legal advisors for input here…
Gwyneth Llewelyn: (and ok)
Sudane Erato: yes, good question… I should hope they do
Ashcroft Burnham: 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: What, about waivers or about the building requirement?
Claude Desmoulins: Can we separate waivers from the building requirement?
Claude Desmoulins: I’d like to make a decision on Sudane’s amendment then move to a general discussion of waivers.
Jon Seattle nods
Sudane Erato: fine with me
Claude Desmoulins: Any other discussion on Sudane’s amendment?
Justice Soothsayer: well, Claude, Sudane;s amendment included “unless waived by the Chancellor”
Moon Adamant: nods
Claude Desmoulins: What about waived by the executive brance?
Sudane Erato: so i happily remov that… it appropriate
Claude Desmoulins: *branch
Claude Desmoulins nods at Gwyn.
Sudane Erato: if
Ashcroft Burnham: But that*refers* to a power of waiver that’s *defined* elsewhere, doesn’t it?
Claude Desmoulins: yes
Claude Desmoulins: So we could remove the waiver language from Sudane’s amendment.
Justice Soothsayer: I’m OK with allowing waivers, seems consistent with Chancellor’s powers to oversee “uses to which land is put”.
Ashcroft Burnham: You could have “unless waived in accrodance with a provision of this Act”.
Claude Desmoulins: Isn’t that implicit in all the rules though?
Ashcroft Burnham: Which bit?
Claude Desmoulins: That they can be waived
Gwyneth Llewelyn: The covenant rules?
Claude Desmoulins: Yes
Moon Adamant: i also agree with allowing waivers, providing that 1. waivers are tied down to function of structure and that 2. modifictions to an exception build must also be reviwed (this means, a waiver is not eternal)
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I’m not sure if they’re implicit ? either they are there, or they aren’t.
Ashcroft Burnham: Yes, actually, you’re right: not implicit, but explicit: “The executive has the power to grant case by case waivers of CC&R provisions. The RA may override said waivers via appropriate legislation”.
Gwyneth Llewelyn seconds Moon on that
Claude Desmoulins: he executive has the power to grant case by case waivers of CC&R provisions. The RA may override said waivers via appropriate legislation.
Gwyneth Llewelyn *nods* @ Ash.? That’s it.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: eek on typos
Ashcroft Burnham: So there needn’t be, as Claude points out, a specific waiver provision stated in the building requirement.
Sudane Erato: makes sense
Ashcroft Burnham: 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: thank you for the input, Ashcroft
Ashcroft Burnham: You’re welcome 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: Would you take that as a friendly?
Sudane Erato: sure!
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Moon’s argument still stands, though. Under which conditions does a waiver remain when a parcel’s ownership is transferred?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: But we can discuss it afterwards.
Claude Desmoulins: Technically some member of the RA needs to be the titular author here.
Justice Soothsayer: I’ll move Sudane’s proposed amendment
Sudane Erato: i invite anyone whos wishes
Claude Desmoulins: OK
Sudane Erato: ty
Claude Desmoulins: Any other discussion on Sudane’s amendment?
Moon Adamant: hmmm, can we have an actualized form of Sudane’s amendment? 🙂
Sudane Erato: sorry about that
Sudane Erato: i never wrote it
Ashcroft Burnham: “All parcels in the city zone must have on them a building that comprises a house and/or shop”
Ashcroft Burnham: I think that that captures the substance of it 🙂
Justice Soothsayer: Zone I: all parcels should have a house or shop
Sudane Erato: either one, yes
Moon Adamant: thanks Ash and Justice 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: I think the building wording is important
Ashcroft Burnham: Ahh, Justice, didn’t we agree that “a building that comprises a house and/or shop” would resolve problems that just saying “a house and/or shop” would create about what constitutes a house or shop?
Justice Soothsayer: fine either way
Ashcroft Burnham: A person can, after all, live in a cardbord box or sell things form a wheelbarrow 🙂
Sudane Erato: hehe
Claude Desmoulins: Are we ready to vote?
Ashcroft Burnham: (See Hobo Village and Port Neualtenburg respectively 😉 )
Claude Desmoulins: on the amendment
Jon Seattle: yes
Justice Soothsayer votes yes on the amendment
Moon Adamant: aye for the amendment
Claude Desmoulins: yes
Jon Seattle: yes, for the amendment
Claude Desmoulins: OK
Claude Desmoulins: Now let’s talk waivers
Moon Adamant: ok
Claude Desmoulins: If waivers are permanent, propoerties with waiver then become hot commodities.
Moon Adamant: waivers, i believe, should be tied down to the express function of build
Ashcroft Burnham: Isn’t the answer to allow the Chancellor to revoke a waiver at her discretion?
Sudane Erato: and they should be limited to only the current citizen!
Jon Seattle agrees with Moon
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ah, with appeal to the courts? Hmm
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well Sudane, that might be impossible to achieve. Imagine the following scenario:
Ashcroft Burnham: Well, there’ll always be the remedy of judicial review of unreasonable or capricious actions of members of the executive.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: – someone gets a waiver to build a tower of 30 m
Claude Desmoulins: Then you could have to rebuild every time a new chancellor with a different aesthetic cimes into office.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: The next owner gets the plot,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: but deletes the tower,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: and instead creates another tower.
Moon Adamant: hmmm, Ash, i’d prefer to stablish that since these buildings are exceptional, all alterations must be reviewed
Moon Adamant: and waivers can be revoked
Ashcroft Burnham: Claude: perhaps, then, Chancellors should have limited powers to make their waivers binding on themeslves in certain circumstances.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: The Chancellor says: “the waiver does not extend to you building. Please revert to the former one”.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: But that might be impossible, since the new owner may not have the old building any more!
Claude Desmoulins: Why not just have a waiver expire on the transfer of a property?
Fernando Book: I think that waivers must be linked to a concrete project. As the building remains the same, the waiver is valid.
Moon Adamant: indeed Fernando
Sudane Erato: but Gwyn, the new owner would not have the permission to keep enevn the old tower!
Ashcroft Burnham: Should not the scope of the waiver be at the discretion of the Chancellor?
Moon Adamant: Claude: because the owner can use the waiver and be imaginative about it 🙂
Patroklus Murakami: i think we should not allow one Chancellor’s decision to bind future ones
Sudane Erato: i think the waivers should always expire with transfer
Patroklus Murakami: so the waiver shouuld expire with transfer
Claude Desmoulins: I still worry about a new chancellor coming in and annuling all his predecessor’s waivers.
Sudane Erato: yes!
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Sudane, they might sell the plot AND the building.
Sudane Erato: but, Gwyn, they can’t!
Jon Seattle: Yes, I think we could consider wavers issued to buildings and not to indivduals or plots.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Hmm I prefer much more Fernando’s and Moon’s suggestion
Ashcroft Burnham: Claude: the answer to that might be that the Chancellor could *sell* waiver rights. The power to revoke a waiver that would otherwise exist would then be subject to the contractual rights of the purchasor.
Sudane Erato: they can sell the building, but not the permission to keep it there
Fernando Book: Perhaps the Exec. could have a kind of waiver register, with technichal spec of the waivers.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Waivers should be issued on *projects* (buildings) and not people.
Claude Desmoulins: Why can’t they Sudane?
Moon Adamant: indeed
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Why can’t they indeed?
Sudane Erato: because that the rule i propose! :))
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Imagine that we get the most wonderful buildings in SL just because they have been granted a waiver to make them 21 m instead of 20 m tall,
Justice Soothsayer: in our RL town, zoning variances (read: waivers) run with the land as long as the land is used in the same way
Claude Desmoulins: To make waoved structures non-transferrable?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: now when that person leaves, all those fantastic landmarks of SL architecture would be gone…
Sudane Erato: then the citizen can seek a new waiver
Moon Adamant: hmmm
Moon Adamant: sorry, i think you are complicating this whole question
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Justice ? around here, that is the norm as well. Once you get a permission to change a building, you need a *new* permission to change it, but the permission will be in effect forever
Ashcroft Burnham: The new occupier might find that process somewhat overly burueacratic, just to keep what is already ther.
Claude Desmoulins: I like the waievr applying to structure idea.
Moon Adamant: do it like this: if a citizen seeks a waiver for a build, he must therefore present a model or a project for that build
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Sudane, they can ? but imagine that the new Chancellor never liked the building anyway, and sees an opportunity to delete it now 🙂 Since it’s non-compliant anyway…
Gwyneth Llewelyn listens to Moon, since she has done that kind of thing iRL way too often 🙂
Sudane Erato: hehe
Moon Adamant: as long as the build is according to that model or project, the waiver stands
Ashcroft Burnham: /afk
Ashcroft Burnham: afk
Jon Seattle: Gwyn, indeed.
Fernando Book: Sorry, have to go. Bye.
Moon Adamant: indendently of who owns it
Claude Desmoulins: I like that idea
Moon Adamant: independently*
Jon Seattle: I like it as well.
Moon Adamant: the waiver then describes in wording also what are the important features to be preserved, say it’s windows, becuase they’re very important to overall look
Patroklus Murakami: so would a chancellor’s waiver apply indefinitely? how can it bind future chancellors’?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: It’s an Executive Action 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: Because we say it can.
Sudane Erato: :)… hi Pel 🙂
Pelanor Eldrich has indicated consent to be recorded.
Ashcroft Burnham: Hello, Pelanor 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: “By decree #23 of September 2006, the Chancellor announces that this house can have tall windows because they look cool.”
Moon Adamant: Pat – as long as the building corresponds to waiver description
Jon Seattle: Hi Pel
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Pelanor! Welcome :))
Gwyneth Llewelyn: And good morning to you 🙂
Justice Soothsayer: Hi Pel
Moon Adamant: irl, you don’t repaint whole towns because the mayor has chnaged and the new one likes green best
Moon Adamant: and hi Pel! :9
Pelanor Eldrich: Hi All, sorry I’m late…
Sudane Erato: hehe
Claude Desmoulins: Good morning Pel.
Patroklus Murakami: what, that future chancellor’s are unable to overturn? how do u turn it around if a rogue chancellor grants all sorts of mad waivers as a parting gift to the city?
Ashcroft Burnham: Don’t worry, Pel – we haven’t got the the Judiciary Bill yet 😉
Claude Desmoulins: Get the RA to do it.
Patroklus Murakami: you need the power to revoke these as well
Justice Soothsayer: waivers can be undone by RA action
Gwyneth Llewelyn: What Claude said.
Moon Adamant: then you define in what conditions can waivers be attributed
Pelanor Eldrich: More gyrating Ecuadorans. ..I’m sure that comment will look good on the transcript. 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: Which the RA can do
Ashcroft Burnham: LOL!
Claude Desmoulins: atributed.?
Claude Desmoulins can’t spell today.
Moon Adamant: say that you say that for instance, buildings with an important community role can be considered for waivers
Ashcroft Burnham: There’s a halfway house between what Sudane suggest and what Moon/Gwyn/other people suggest…
Sudane Erato: 🙂
Claude Desmoulins listens to Ashcroft
Patroklus Murakami: so we allow the RA to overturn the decisions of previous RAs but we don’t exted the same power to the executive
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Care to suggest it, Ashcroft? 🙂
Moon Adamant listens to ash
Patroklus Murakami listens to ash
Ashcroft Burnham: That is to grant a waiver to a person in generalised terms, and, once that person builds a structure that complies with that waiver, to permit that *structure* to stand despite transferance of the land to a new owner, but not any other structure that…
Jon Seattle listens
Ashcroft Burnham: …would comply with that waiver.
Moon Adamant: Ash, that is why i defend that waivrs are set to structures, not to people
Moon Adamant: see?
Patroklus Murakami: so they can keep the exact same buiilding? but not use the waiver to build something new? i prefer that
Aliasi Stonebender has indicated consent to be recorded.
Sudane Erato: hi!:)
Aliasi Stonebender staggers in blearily. Dark O’Clock.
Ashcroft Burnham: What I suggest is a sort of halfway house between the two: a waiver initially granted to a person, but, once concretised, attaching to the structure, too.
Ashcroft Burnham: Hello Aliasi 🙂
Moon Adamant: hmmmm
Moon Adamant: i am sorry, but that is not the way buliding or alteration permits function irl
Jon Seattle: Hi Aliasi! 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Welcome, Chancellor 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: That would allow continuity, but not require the Chancellor to get involved with detailed waiver specifications.
Sudane Erato: 🙂
Pelanor Eldrich: Hi Ali!
Moon Adamant: you approve prjcts in city halls, and define urban plans – it’s not because the person in question has a nice smile
Ashcroft Burnham: We were just talking about your powers.
Moon Adamant: and hi Aliasi 😀
Gwyneth Llewelyn: hehe
Sudane Erato: hehe
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, I tend to favour Moon’s approach. This is a case where buildings and their regulations are more important than the people that happen to like them or not.
Patroklus Murakami: hi aliasi
Pelanor Eldrich: That’s *POWERS*. 😉
Claude Desmoulins: Good morning, Aliasi.
Aliasi Stonebender: Hm. Still waking up, but if I may interject?
Claude Desmoulins: Shall we table briefly so as to install the Chancellor, then come back to the waiver discussion?
Moon Adamant: fine by me claude 🙂
Aliasi Stonebender: as you like.
Claude Desmoulins hands the floor to the Dean.
Ashcroft Burnham: I’m hoping that we’ll finally get around to the Judiciary to-day…
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Oh my, and I have no “cerimony” even
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Let’s do it AFTER the discussion
Claude Desmoulins: As you wish
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I think that Aliasi will not be terribly frustrated if she doesn’t get a nice cerimony *right now*
Claude Desmoulins: Moon, do you have an amendment to propose?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: just not to interrupt the RA’s meeting in full session ? we even have the whole RA present and all, and a major bill to discuss next 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: 😉
Moon Adamant: about waivers? i think that the text should read that the chancellor can allow waivers according to Bill XXX
Gwyneth Llewelyn: That’s already there.
Ashcroft Burnham: I have some suggested wording that would reflect the substance of Moon’s proposal.
Moon Adamant: and that a very simple Bill XXX must then be written
Gwyneth Llewelyn: “The executive has the power to grant case by case waivers of CC&R provisions. The RA may override said waivers via appropriate legislation.”
Claude Desmoulins: Except there’s no bill XXX
Claude Desmoulins: OK, I’ll throw one up
Ashcroft Burnham: “The Chancellor shall have the power to grant waivers of these regulations in respect of a particular structure or other land-use project, in respect of a particular plot. Once granted, the Chancellor may not revoke waivers”.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Every “power to grant” by the Chancellor is an Executive Action, duly noted and recorded 🙂
Moon Adamant: but that can be written yet – and meanwhile set a moratory on this particular article
Claude Desmoulins: Aliasi, did you have somethingyou wanted to add?
Aliasi Stonebender: Well, just this.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ashcroft, for the sake of consistency, I’d prefer to have just “the executive” instead of “the Chancellor” (I’m always pedantic about using the institution instead of the personal title)
Aliasi Stonebender: Considering that I derived what I presume to be my current authority to grant waivers from the existing precedent of the Artisianal branch
Ashcroft Burnham: Hmm, the exact opposite to the way in which it’s done in English law, but it doesn’t make a difference to the substance, I suppose.
Moon Adamant: Ash, not quite that yet – but let me listen to Aliasi, please
Aliasi Stonebender: and given the portion of the executive amendement that says th Chancellor has all powers that the amendment would grant that belong to the AC through precedent or explicitly…
Aliasi Stonebender: … I think, originally, Moon, having one person like it or not *was* part of the point; the judgement was as much an aesthetic one as anything else.
Aliasi Stonebender: Now, I do not suggest this should be the case.
Aliasi Stonebender: merely that it currently appears to be so.
Patroklus Murakami: i have to say good bye folks. see u later
Ashcroft Burnham: Pity… Cheerio!
Sudane Erato: bye Pat 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: Ciao
Moon Adamant: hmmmm, the decision to grant a waiver based on a project is generally a technical one
Jon Seattle: See you later Pat! 🙂
Justice Soothsayer: bye Pat
Moon Adamant: consider the MOCA case
Aliasi Stonebender: to coin a phrase… o rly?
Moon Adamant: you have a project for a build inside an area that has aurban plan – a covenant
Moon Adamant: an urban*
Aliasi Stonebender: I don’t seem to recall *my* waiver, back when I had my Tower, to have been technical… but then, things were chaotic at that time.
Moon Adamant: the MOCA project is clearly exceptional, so it is a clear case of a waiver
Sudane Erato: there has been no waiver “system” prior to now
Moon Adamant: yes, i am trying to define one 🙂
Sudane Erato: yes
Aliasi Stonebender: Oh, quite. and I agree with you.
Aliasi Stonebender: Just pointing out things as they appear to stand now.
Moon Adamant: now, you do know that most people do not like the MOCA
Sudane Erato: 🙂
Aliasi Stonebender: So I’ve noticed, Moon. 😉
Gwyneth Llewelyn: 🙂
Moon Adamant: but even so, it has some point in which it corresponds to the overall aesthetics of teh city, ex: it is made of dark stone, and not dazzling white marble
Sudane Erato: it was intended by the builder to be re-texed
Moon Adamant: otoh, it is very tall as regards the skyline . and that could be also a restriction in he urban plan, as regards waivers
Moon Adamant: say that the urban plan says, no height above 20 meters, ecept for special builds, in which this height can be 30 meters
Ashcroft Burnham: The Constitution says that the Chancellor has no power to change the overall theme of Neufreistadt…
Moon Adamant: so, this way, you can manage the urban tissue
Moon Adamant: yes Ash, but the covenant, declaring spcial conditions for waivers – limit condtions – is approved by the RA
Moon Adamant: see?
Moon Adamant: this is really a frame which we are talking here
Aliasi Stonebender: Although, Ashcroft, I think you’ll agree there’s a slight difference beween “Dianne’s spinny sign is OK” and “Yes, go ahead and build an elven fantasy castle”.
Ashcroft Burnham: The waivers are, though, are they not, limited by the constitutional provision requriing the Chancellor not to change the overall theme?
Moon Adamant: lol, exactly aliasi .)
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ah. Defining boundaries. Where to stop? 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: And yes, Ash
Gwyneth Llewelyn: And in any case, if the Chancellor gets too wild, there is the RA…
Claude Desmoulins: I’d really prefer to address permanence and only permanence here.
Moon Adamant: lol, i could show you an urban plan for a patrimony area i did that has 40 pages, defining paint colours, etc 😛
Jon Seattle: So, editing Ashcroft’s language slightly, I have “The executive shall have the power to grant waivers of these regulations in respect of a particular structure or other land-use project, in respect of a particular plot.”
Jon Seattle: “Once granted, the executive may not revoke waivers.”
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok.
Gwyneth Llewelyn likes that
Moon Adamant: “as long the build corresponds to the original description in waiver grant”
Moon Adamant: come on, you can even add a pic to the waiver text 🙂
Jon Seattle: Here: “The executive shall have the power to grant waivers of these regulations in respect of a particular structure or other land-use project, in respect of a particular plot as long the build corresponds to the original description in waiver grant.”
Claude Desmoulins: Let’s vote on that amendment
Jon Seattle: “Once granted, the executive may not revoke waivers.”
Jon Seattle: will that do?
Claude Desmoulins: Yes
Gwyneth Llewelyn does not object, SC-wise 😉
Claude Desmoulins: All in favor of Jon’s amendment?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: hehe
Jon Seattle: I vote aye
Moon Adamant: aye
Justice Soothsayer: aye
Claude Desmoulins: aye
Pelanor Eldrich: aye (carumba!)
Claude Desmoulins: One last question before we vote on the bill
Moon Adamant: LOL
Gwyneth Llewelyn: ROFL
Sudane Erato: :)….
Sudane Erato: sorry… I must go …
Claude Desmoulins: I made the no porn provision CDS wide.
Ashcroft Burnham: 🙁
Sudane Erato: RL!! 🙁
Gwyneth Llewelyn plans to introduce a pshycho test to validate the sanity of all members of the RA 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: Do we wantto make it NFS only (ie how wild do we want CN to be)
Moon Adamant: awwww Sudane, *hugs*, see you later .9
Jon Seattle: Bye Sudane, and thanks!
Ashcroft Burnham: In a mad world, only the mad are sane 😉
Sudane Erato: bye 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: Bye
Moon Adamant: ah Claude
Moon Adamant: i propose that CHN covenants may eventually be revised again
Moon Adamant: CN*
Claude Desmoulins: True, This is a start point
Moon Adamant: yes
Claude Desmoulins: ‘we can leave as is tjem
Claude Desmoulins: *then
Moon Adamant: so i think that for the moment that can stay
Claude Desmoulins: Any other discussion on the whole bill?
Gwyneth Llewelyn would prefer a single system for all covenants, even if locally the covenants are different
Moon Adamant: none, on my part
Gwyneth Llewelyn: This is just a comment ? please ignore me!
Ashcroft Burnham ignores Gwyn.
Moon Adamant: lol
Gwyneth Llewelyn: thank you Ash 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: Let
Jon Seattle laughs
Claude Desmoulins: ‘s vote — all in favor of the bill…
Jon Seattle: votes Aye
Claude Desmoulins: Aye
Justice Soothsayer votes aye
Pelanor Eldrich: Aye
Moon Adamant: aye
Ashcroft Burnham: Ahh, the sweet smell of unanimity 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Pelanor voted twice, Dean notes.
Moon Adamant: lol ash
Ashcroft Burnham: It’s a bit like Turkish delight.
Pelanor Eldrich: It was a stutter.
Ashcroft Burnham: LOL!
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Granted.
Claude Desmoulins: He wanted it to be clear he was voting and not howling in pain.
Moon Adamant: lol ash!
Gwyneth Llewelyn: mmmh Turkish delaight, yummy 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: and lol Claude 🙂
Moon Adamant: so… sticky? 😀
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok… ahead to the real work now,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: 5-9 😉
Moon Adamant doesn’t like turkish delight all that much
Claude Desmoulins: OK we have about another 15 minutes, So we can start on Judiciary.
Moon Adamant: ok 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: Who wants to start?
Ashcroft Burnham: And hopefully finish!
Ashcroft Burnham: I propose that you vote for it 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: Any questions?
Ashcroft Burnham: 😉
Justice Soothsayer: Claude, did you not get my proposed amenedments?
Claude Desmoulins: Thet are in the agenda, I thought.
Claude Desmoulins: *they
Ashcroft Burnham: My proposed amendments should cover all of the valid points of your issues.
Justice Soothsayer: fraid not, ash.
Pelanor Eldrich: 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: I notice that you haven’t raised any objections to them in the forums, or discussed them at all.
Ashcroft Burnham: Or responded to my post.
Ashcroft Burnham: Or given any reasons for not responding to my post.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Too busy perhaps? 😉
Justice Soothsayer: i’m not convinced about deleting alternative dispute resolution, and I support what others said in the forums about judicial appointment/removal
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Actually, I have seen several suggestions for amendments,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: but none were posted, so I’m not going to talk about them here.
Ashcroft Burnham: Can we structure this properly so as not to waste time.
Ashcroft Burnham: ?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes, agreed, Ash. Let’s.
Claude Desmoulins: Justice, sorry for the omission. Could you pass you amendments to everyone?
Moon Adamant: please 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: Let’s deal with judicial appointment and impeachment first.
Justice Soothsayer: yes, I have 2 amendments
Gwyneth Llewelyn clutters window now with open notecards.
Moon Adamant: oh, i got it Justice
Ashcroft Burnham: (1) What flaws, if any, can you find in my full and comprehensive rebuttal on the forums of your points in relation to judicial selection and removal?
Justice Soothsayer: i want a system that provides for more participation in judicial selection than yours
Justice Soothsayer: and allows more flexibility in removal (though you have moved a good way there, thanks)
Ashcroft Burnham: No, please answer my question instead of evading it: what specific flaws, if any, can you find in my reasoning in rebuttal to that very point that you made on the forusm?
Ashcroft Burnham: Forusm, even.
Justice Soothsayer: Ash, I’;m the one with the vote here, and I won’t vote for this as it stands.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: oooh
Ashcroft Burnham: Do you or do you not beleive that there are specific flaws in what I suggest?
Gwyneth Llewelyn leans back and watches 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: If not, why do you have your position?
Ashcroft Burnham: If so what are they?
Justice Soothsayer: yes, i believe we need more citizen participation in selection of judges
Ashcroft Burnham: You are deliberately refusing to address my specific points which I made in detail. Why?
Justice Soothsayer: and should not leave it up to one person (with SC veto)
Ashcroft Burnham: I explained precisely why that should not be so.
Gwyneth Llewelyn agrees with Justice in a sense, and there was such a good system devised by Moon for just that, but sadly Moon never posted it 😛
Ashcroft Burnham: You have failed to respond on the merits.
Ashcroft Burnham: Why?
Gwyneth Llewelyn thinks Ash is being deliberatly mean 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: No, that is not true.
Justice Soothsayer: frankly, I would much prefer elections, but willing to support appointment by our bodies of govt instead
Justice Soothsayer: as a compromise position
Moon Adamant has only 24-hour days…
Ashcroft Burnham: If a person has an objection, it must be on the merits. If a person cannot muster reasons, then the position is dishonest.
Ashcroft Burnham: My position is a compromise.
Claude Desmoulins: Would a general question about impeachment be appropriate here?
Justice Soothsayer: Supporting the idea of democracy applied to the judiciary is NOT DISHONEST.
Ashcroft Burnham: I have forumualted detailed and comprehensive arguments against any sort of political involvement in the selection of judges.
Ashcroft Burnham: You have failed to respond to those arguments.
Ashcroft Burnham: Yet you maintain your position.
Ashcroft Burnham: Now, my arguments, if not flawed, defeat yours.
Justice Soothsayer: Yes, I am adamant. (sorry, Moon)
Moon Adamant: lol, np .)
Ashcroft Burnham: If you still believe that your position is right, it follows that you must believe that my arguments are flawed.
Ashcroft Burnham: But it is logically impossible to believe that arguments are flawed without having a specific belief about a speicifc flaw.
Claude Desmoulins: This has come up before.
Moon Adamant: Ash, may i pose you a question?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Oh, the only argument that *I* personally have is that meritocracies without external input historically become conservative, and prevent fluid change, which is what is required by SL
Ashcroft Burnham: So, if you still genuinley hold your position, you must know of what speicifc flaws that mya rgument has.
Ashcroft Burnham: If you have none, then your position is not genuine.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: So at some point the judiciary will be at odds with the more liberal and adaptive remaining structures of government.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Perhaps not tomorrow, but in a few years.
Aliasi Stonebender: Cry pardon, Ash, Justice, but I think you two are talking at cross-purposes.
Moon Adamant: i get this idea that we will be having a meritocratic structure nside the state of the CDS… how could we not have it?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Devising a system where the citizens have *some* input on the process conducts to change (“reform”) of the judiciary
Ashcroft Burnham: Gwyn: the point is that the RA always has the power to make laws binding on judges. This is not the US, where judges can over-ride legislative actions by declaring them unconstitutional. That is the important point about our balance of powers.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ash, that argument is well noted indeed.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: And mind you, I also support the notion of meritocracies in democracy,
Justice Soothsayer: Indeed, thats why I’m willing to back off of judicial elections
Moon Adamant: Gwyn, they should not be allowed to make states inside the state
Aliasi Stonebender: We’re not the US, true enough – but neither are we the UK. We’re *us*.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: or else I would never have agreed with the way teh SC works. A body of knowledge should not go wasted just because of “populist” decisions
Ashcroft Burnham: The point is this: I have explained in detail precisely why any form of political involvement in the appointment of judges is extremely dangerous.
Claude Desmoulins: My kids are awake. I know Justice must leave soon.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: But yes, Moon’s argument prevails in this case.
Ashcroft Burnham: If nobody can muster an argument against those particular arguments, then it is quite wrong for a person to continue to make such an objection: utterly irrational and capricious.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Whew 🙂
Jon Seattle: Shall we continue this next week?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: haha Jon 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: I move adjournment as this clearly needs more hashing out.
Pelanor Eldrich: Ah, yes…politics… 🙂
Moon Adamant: well Ash… my question stands… how can we avoid that part of the structure of teh state be a meritocracy?
Gwyneth Llewelyn imagines that we’ll be here still at the End of Times arguing 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: This is insane: there has been a vast opportunity for this to be debated on teh forums, and nobody has taken it.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, Moon, to be honest, we have that on the SC right now.
Ashcroft Burnham: Every time that we come to a meeting, there is a brief flurry of discussion (if we ever get there) on which no substantive points are made, and it is put back.
Justice Soothsayer: well, if you all vote in favour of my 2 amendments, we could pass the bill quickly 😉
Moon Adamant: yes – and you do know my opinion
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ashcroft, people don’t have enough free time for *everything* 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: And then not discussed on the forums again.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: And actually I tend to see Justice’s amendments as a good compromise,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: even if it means mostly “a meritocracy controlling another meritocracy”
Gwyneth Llewelyn: but since that’s what we have,
Ashcroft Burnham: I disagree for the reasons that I have explained in very great deatil, and in relation to which not one single argument against those particular points has ever been raised.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I would certainly go with what we have, instead of pretending that there were alternatives that were never formally proposed 🙂
Pelanor Eldrich: What if we just passed this with amendments and then do the rehash and try to get common ground on Justice’s amendments. (Like the franch thing).
Ashcroft Burnham: No, Pel, because the amendments are wrong in form as well as substance.
Ashcroft Burnham: The current amendments, as they stand, prevent the same person from being the Chair of the Judiciary Commission and the Chief Judge of Common Jurisdiction.
Claude Desmoulins: I’m not ready to vote on this whole thing.
Pelanor Eldrich: Can the CSDF stomach that? Ok, but wrong enough to “Kill Bill” and wait for next week the the whole thing.
Ashcroft Burnham: We simply do not have enough people to do bot.
Ashcroft Burnham: Claude: then when will you be ready?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok, let’s hear WHY it is so wrong having the SC controlling the Judiciary. (Remember that the SC, at this moment, is still mostly apolitical in essence)
Ashcroft Burnham: It can hardly be said that there has not been enough time.
Ashcroft Burnham: Gwyn, was that a question to me or Justice?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: To you, Ash, since Justice suggested that as an amendment…
Gwyneth Llewelyn: And yes, i haven’t read your comment on the forums to that, if you have posted them 😛
Ashcroft Burnham: I have explained in very great detail on the forum (which is far more appropriate for lengthy and detailed sicussions than text chat) why Justice’s proposals are flawed.
Moon Adamant: hmmm, perhps we could discuss this in another way…
Ashcroft Burnham: I can’t possibly replicate here a post of many thousands of words.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, in that case, I cannot comment without reading them 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: A concern througout the process has been than the SC and the judiciary will become an unassailable power pulling strings behind the scenes, esp since they’re isolated from the restof the system.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: In that case, Claude, not even Justice’s amendments would help here.
Ashcroft Burnham: Moon: that’s been tried, but people fail to respond on the fourms, and then raise the same objections time and time again at the meetings without dealing with my rebuttals of them that I carefully made on teh fourms.
Ashcroft Burnham: Claude, why have you not posted that on the forums with a full explanation of what you mean, and detailed reasoning to support that?
Moon Adamant: oh, i was either thinking that a committe could discuss this – or that there could be brief discussions topic by topic, but i am just thinking still
Claude Desmoulins: Because , if you know the history of this place, you know that the issue’s been on the table for a *long* time.
Ashcroft Burnham: Moon: no text chat discusison is suitable for somethign like thsi.
Jon Seattle: Ashcroft, as much as the forums are important, this is the legislative body. We do not hold our deliberations on the forums for good reason. Forum discussions in general tend to lead to greater conflict
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Moon ? now that is a good proposal. Why don’t we form a “judicial discussion committee”,
Ashcroft Burnham: Claude: if it’s been on the table a long time, then there has been plenty of time to discuss it on the forums.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: one representative of each party,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: and everyone else who’d like to aprticipate,
Ashcroft Burnham: Jon: there’s no way that these issues can sanely be resolved in text chat: they’re too complex.
Justice Soothsayer: I thought the RA was the “:judicial discussion committee”
Moon Adamant: oh, not my proposal at all – this has been proposed in the forums, actually
Gwyneth Llewelyn: and get a committee to discuss it thoroughly, on the forums, by email, by smoke signals…
Ashcroft Burnham: Gwyn: if we have committees, we’ll be here until Christmas.
Ashcroft Burnham: Christmas 2020, that is.
Claude Desmoulins: Justice and I need to go.
Pelanor Eldrich: I basically read as much as I could but have put most of my energy sponsoring other things. I personally have no problem with the bill originially or as amended. However Justice is our point person on this.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: If we don’t, ash, what will happen is that the RA will never know what they should vote on,
Moon Adamant: hmmm, justice, we could appoint a commitee for counselling the RA on this
Pelanor Eldrich: And I don’t want to break ranks.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: and postpone it until the Earth blows up in atoms
Ashcroft Burnham: The RA should vote on my version.
Ashcroft Burnham: For all the reasons that I have given at length in the forusm.
Justice Soothsayer: Ashj, the order is to first consider amendments to the bill, then the bill itserlf.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Nobody will vote on anything that they have doubts on 🙂
Justice Soothsayer: *itself
Ashcroft Burnham: I have given detailed reasons for my position and proposed compromises. Justice has done neither since his latest amendments. Why?
Ashcroft Burnham: Only doubts for which there are good reasons should have any effect on a decision of this importance.
Ashcroft Burnham: I have seen no reasons to rebut any of the arguments that I make on teh forusm.
Moon Adamant: well, Ash, consider this
Ashcroft Burnham: Unless people can find some genuine reasoning that shows that the reasoning that I have set out on the forums is flawed, then I cannot see how anybody can honestly maintain an objection on the grounds already discussed.
Moon Adamant: i may hold a stand that the state should not hold meritocractic structures in it… this is a political stand
Ashcroft Burnham: How is that relevant unless you can show specific flaws in my specific arguments?
Jon Seattle: Calude, I move to put a time limit on this discussion of fifteen minutes.
Pelanor Eldrich: I’d like to call a vote on Justice’s amended version with the proviso that we hammer out more kinks next week.
Claude Desmoulins: I’m uncomfortable with that.
Claude Desmoulins: We need to tackle amendments singly
Ashcroft Burnham: Pel, that would be very dangerous: the system as Justice suggests is unworkable because it does not permit the same person to be Chair of the Judiciary Commission and Chief Judge of Common Jurisdiciton at once. There are not enough people..
Claude Desmoulins: What does that mean?
Claude Desmoulins: We have30 some odd citizens.
Justice Soothsayer: some of us odder than othere!
Claude Desmoulins: I’m sorry folks, But I move to table this whole shooting match to next meeting.
Aliasi Stonebender: As I so often get told… “we’ll expand”…
Ashcroft Burnham: Not enough people willing and able to take on two separate posts: (1) the Chief Judge of Common Jurisdiction; and (2) the Chair of the Judiciary Commission. Nobody has even applied to be PIO yet.
Jon Seattle: Supports claude’s proposal
Ashcroft Burnham: This is insane.
Aliasi Stonebender: That’s not strictly true, Ashcroft.
Pelanor Eldrich: Understood Ash, and I understand your frustration and really want this passed in some form.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: But that surely is not your major argument, Ashcroft
Aliasi Stonebender: (re: PIO application)
Ashcroft Burnham: There is vast opportunity to discuss the position on the forums, which nobody takes, and when it comes for debate in the RA, it’s always adjourned through lack of time.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I might remind you that there will be a SC election for a new Dean soon, so you-know-who might even become available… hehe
Claude Desmoulins: There’s a motion to table on the floor.
Pelanor Eldrich: Can we 7 day this?
Ashcroft Burnham: It’s a very important argument: the effects of lack of combination will be far more immediate than those of judicial selection and removal.
Ashcroft Burnham: We tried last time, and nobody voted on it.
Ashcroft Burnham: Or discussed it on the forums.
Claude Desmoulins: All in favor of tabling….
Claude Desmoulins: Aye
Pelanor Eldrich: We’re getting *closer*, no?
Moon Adamant: aye for tabling
Jon Seattle: Aye, in favor of tablig
Justice Soothsayer: aye
Ashcroft Burnham: I don’t see how, when Justice won’t move, or give any reasons why he won’t move.
Pelanor Eldrich: aye yai yai.
Moon Adamant: lol Pel
Ashcroft Burnham: I don’t see how we can ever get closer unless Justice stops refusing to engage in the merits of the issue, rather than repeating his general point over and over.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, actually, I’m almost fearing that this will *never* get voted
Ashcroft Burnham: Precisely.
Ashcroft Burnham: This is of very grave concern.
Claude Desmoulins: I now move adjournment.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Indeed, but democracy is the art of compromise,
Ashcroft Burnham: I have proposed compromises: Justice has given no reason for rejecting them.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: but that’s for the RA and the bill’s proponents to figure out: “what changes can be made so that everybody on the RA feels comfortable to vote upon the bill?”
Gwyneth Llewelyn: And forget logic ? this is politics, Ashcroft,
Ashcroft Burnham: He accused me of being immovable, even though I was already planning to compromise, yet he refused to move himself, or supply any reasons.
Moon Adamant: yes, exactly gwyn
Gwyneth Llewelyn: and politics is ruled by emotion, not logics.
Ashcroft Burnham: Nobody can forget logic.
Jon Seattle agrees with Gwyn
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I mean,
Ashcroft Burnham: That is an extremely dangerous position.
Justice Soothsayer agrees with Gwyn
Gwyneth Llewelyn: it won’t be through logical arguments that you’ll deal with emotional issues 🙂
Pelanor Eldrich: It took longer for franchs to get through than we’ve done on this. I think we’ll get this done faster.
Ashcroft Burnham: As I have stated, nobody can honestly hold an opinion unless he or she knows of specific arguments that defeat all contrary arguments.
Ashcroft Burnham: Dishonesty can never be tolerated.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ah, not at all, Ashcroft ? humans are not mindless robots thinking in yes/no terms,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: they deal with their feelings,
Ashcroft Burnham: That’s a misconceived way of approaching logic, Gwyn:
Justice Soothsayer: I think we are actually very close on a legal system, with the issues mainly being on who/how judges are selected/removed
Gwyneth Llewelyn: and their “feelings” show them that having states-inside-states is not “good”
Ashcroft Burnham: There’s a difference between *having* emotions and acting on irrational urges, rather than for reasons.
Moon Adamant: yes, i agree with Justice
Gwyneth Llewelyn: but they FEEL it that way, they don’t use modus ponens to prove it 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: And Justice ? that is certainly the case,
Ashcroft Burnham: Haven’t we already had teh discussion about the nature of reason/
Jon Seattle agrees with Justice as well
Ashcroft Burnham: , Gwyn?
Claude Desmoulins: Let’s adjourn
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I’ll be encouraging Moon to post her suggestion on that. I also think that this is the only issue needing to be agreed (compromised on) to get this bill passed.
Jon Seattle: Indeed.
Pelanor Eldrich: Ash, here’s what I’m afraid of. We need your hard work around here. What sometimes happens in this place is that the “perfect design” of someone is dropped or altered and doesn’t get passed.
Ashcroft Burnham: Why does anybody think that progress will be made if there’s sol ittle discussion on the forums?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: We had, Ash 🙂
Justice Soothsayer: Claude, I second, as I have a flight to catch
Pelanor Eldrich: People then get burned out, ticked off, alienated and leave. I don’t want that to happen to you.
Gwyneth Llewelyn also seconds Pelanor on that.
Claude Desmoulins: Any others willing to adjourn?
Moon Adamant: i do agree with you Pelanor
Claude Desmoulins: You can keep talking if you want.
Moon Adamant: ok, can adjourn
Claude Desmoulins: Adjourned
The meeting closed at 5:49 Linden time.RA Meeting: September 30, 2006
Those present:
Claude Desmoulins is in the chair.
Justice Soothsayer has indicated consent to be recorded.
Claude Desmoulins: Well, shall we begin?
Jon Seattle: Hi Justice
Ashcroft Burnham: We seem to be missing a few people…
Claude Desmoulins: If you haven’t touched the recorder please do so.
Moon Adamant: hello Ludo 🙂
Jon Seattle: Hi Ludo
Jon Seattle has indicated consent to be recorded.
Ashcroft Burnham has indicated consent to be recorded.
Claude Desmoulins: Good morning Ludo
Ludo Merit: Hi, Moon, Jon,
Ludo Merit: Claude, Justice, Ashcroft.
Claude Desmoulins: Sudane is, I hope en route
Ashcroft Burnham: 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: I’ve seen her online.
Moon Adamant: gwyn will log in a minute too
Ashcroft Burnham: Good 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: Ludo: Prime Maven? 😉
Ludo Merit: My title in Prism.
Ashcroft Burnham: What’s a Maven?
Justice Soothsayer: oy vey
Ashcroft Burnham: ?
Ludo Merit: Something like a Guru, but more toward knowledge than wisdom.
Ashcroft Burnham: Ahh… I see 🙂 I think…
Justice Soothsayer: maven is yiddish for expert
Ashcroft Burnham: Intereting…
Ludo Merit: Thank you, Justice.
Moon Adamant has indicated consent to be recorded.
Sudane Erato: sorry
Ashcroft Burnham: Hello, Sudane 🙂
Sudane Erato: Hello 🙂
Sudane Erato has indicated consent to be recorded.
Claude Desmoulins: OK. Let’s start with reports.
Claude Desmoulins: Are there any?
Jon Seattle: Hello Sudane 🙂
Sudane Erato: hi 🙂
Moon Adamant: hi Sudane 🙂
Justice Soothsayer: are we waiting for ALi?
Sudane Erato: i can report on acquiring the new sim, if thats appropriate?
Claude Desmoulins: She doesn’t have to be here and isn’t on at the moment.
Claude Desmoulins: It probably would be.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: hello all 🙂
Sudane Erato: hi Gwyn 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: Hello 🙂
Moon Adamant: do you expect a report from the SPC too?
Claude Desmoulins: Hi Gwyn
Moon Adamant: hiya Gwynnie 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: Ohh, Gwyn, missing textures 🙁
Claude Desmoulins: Perhaps something brief … 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Oh, not again, Ash!
Gwyneth Llewelyn *shrugs*
Ashcroft Burnham: Yes, alas… 🙁
Moon Adamant: lol, it will be brief
Gwyneth Llewelyn sues LL as soon as we have the legal system approved 😉
Sudane Erato: then Moon can incorporate my news
Moon Adamant: who starts, me or the Treasurer Report?
Moon Adamant: oh
Moon Adamant: ok 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: How about Treasurer
Moon Adamant: as the LRA prefers 🙂
Sudane Erato: well, I have little to report til the end of the month report
Jon Seattle: Hi Gwyn 🙂
Sudane Erato: except about the acquisition of CVN
Sudane Erato: and the progress on the loan project
Sudane Erato: so I will defer to Moon
Moon Adamant: ok 🙂
Sudane Erato: since those both relate to CN
Moon Adamant: SPC report
Moon Adamant: as you know, the work has been divided between several workgroups
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Aaah hello Pel 🙂 🙂
Pelanor Eldrich has indicated consent to be recorded.
Ashcroft Burnham: Hello 🙂
Pelanor Eldrich: Hello all, sorry I’m late. I had to get this ugly “map of Neualtenburg” stain out of my pants. 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: LOL!
Moon Adamant: building wg: in motion. ATM, discussing small aterations to plan to match survey, terraform starting soon, texture database in preparation
Gwyneth Llewelyn: hahaha
Sudane Erato: 🙂
Moon Adamant: lol, hi Pel 🙂
Jon Seattle: Hello Pel 🙂
Pelanor Eldrich: Hi all
Pelanor Eldrich: 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn has indicated consent to be recorded.
Moon Adamant: Promotion wg: our new PIO has been briefed on previous work, and, i believe is working already with the group
Gwyneth Llewelyn: uh-huh
Moon Adamant: Financial wg: all done, i believe
Sudane Erato: we expect to meet just after this mtg
Claude Desmoulins: Has someone proposed land fee rates?
Ludo Merit has indicated consent to be recorded.
Moon Adamant: Bureau wg: i have asked them to meet and solve the website and archiving matters
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Besides the original ones, proposed by Diderot loooong ago?
Sudane Erato: not to my knowledge Claude
Moon Adamant: Claude, i don’t think as yet, but should they?
Claude Desmoulins: Well before we can sell land we need to figure out prices.
Moon Adamant: or is it an exec action already?
Sudane Erato: hehe… yes
Claude Desmoulins: and have a plan if we’re going to have auctions for the hight demand plots ( say , riverfront)
Moon Adamant: they can certainly reccommend values, but do not set it, not in the scope of the SPC
Claude Desmoulins: *high demand
Claude Desmoulins: I imagine it will need an RA bill at some point.
Ashcroft Burnham: afk
Claude Desmoulins: But I se no reason for the finance wg no to do a recommendation to get the ball rolling.
Claude Desmoulins: *not
Sudane Erato: that makes sense
Moon Adamant: ok, the finance wg is then asked to reccomend land values 🙂
Pelanor Eldrich: In general does the RA have to approve all land use fee changes. I thought the chancellor and/or the GM might have power to do that.
Moon Adamant: well, Pel
Pelanor Eldrich: forgive me if that’s another forum thread.
Pelanor Eldrich: 🙂
Moon Adamant: the SPC is not a deciding committe for that, it just advises, If we advise on this, then i think the CDS can sort it out who does 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: Put it this way…
Pelanor Eldrich: Right, I just mean generally once it’s up. Like NFS.
Claude Desmoulins: ..Do you want the President/PM unilaterally setting your tax rates?
Sudane Erato: 🙂
Sudane Erato: or even worse, the Treasurer 🙂
Moon Adamant: oh, i am asking also because i don’t know how the NFS land fees were set orginally
Gwyneth Llewelyn smiles at the Treasurer 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Hmm
Gwyneth Llewelyn: The Treasurer set them 😉
Gwyneth Llewelyn: lol
Pelanor Eldrich: No, but I guess we’d want either their input or veto as it’s a financial bill. 🙂
Moon Adamant: lol
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, that’s reasonable, Pelanor.
Pelanor Eldrich: Pelanor needs CDS Civics 101. Thx, I’ll shuttup now. 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: LOL!
Sudane Erato: 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Contact Aliasi, Pel 🙂
Moon Adamant: lol Pel
Claude Desmoulins: Anything else from the SPC?
Justice Soothsayer: is there an estimated time of first sales?
Claude Desmoulins: OK
Claude Desmoulins: Back to judiciary
Ashcroft Burnham: 😀
Claude Desmoulins: I’m sure we all appreciate Ashcroft’s dedication and energy in doing yet another revision. Unfortunately…
Pelanor Eldrich: Everyone have caffeine at the ready?
Sudane Erato: hehe
Claude Desmoulins: …there hasn’t been a lot of time to digest it.
Claude Desmoulins: Ashcroft…
Jon Seattle listens
Ashcroft Burnham: Perhaps Moon and Justice could comment as to whether it meets their concerns?
Ashcroft Burnham: And incorporats the substance of what they wanted to do…? 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: …could you give us a summary of changes in the most recent version?
Ashcroft Burnham: Incorporates, even…
Ashcroft Burnham: Yes, all right…
Justice Soothsayer: and distribute via notecard please
Claude Desmoulins needs to install dwdiff.
Ashcroft Burnham: Essentially, the latest verision integrates the three amendments into the structure of the existing bill better.
Ashcroft Burnham: Notecard? Hmm, all right, hang on…
Pelanor Eldrich: I can scrape the specific forum posting and pass notecards if it helps.
Justice Soothsayer: actually, ashcroft gave it to me; i’ll pass them around
Ashcroft Burnham: I’ll reproduce my forum post…
Gwyneth Llewelyn notices for the record the helpfulness character of our RA member Pelanor Eldrich 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: Thank you 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: Hear hear…
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ah, thank you so much, Justice!
Moon Adamant: Justice, i got it, thanks 🙂
Jon Seattle: Thanks Justice
Ludo Merit: Thanks
Sudane Erato: ty 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: If you just want the details, go to the first subheading.
Pelanor Eldrich: There’s another card I have for the previous posting that highlights and explains the differences from version of 19th Sept.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Excellent.
Ashcroft Burnham: May I see it?
Justice Soothsayer: Ash, may I aska cuple of questions?
Ashcroft Burnham: Yes 🙂
Pelanor Eldrich: coming…
Justice Soothsayer: First, does the 29 Sept bill allow the same person to serve as Chief Judge and Chair of the Judiciary Commission?
Pelanor Eldrich: It’s also in the forums
Ashcroft Burnham: It deletes, as you had originally proposed, the section that specifically permits that.
Ashcroft Burnham: If you *really* want, we can add at the end (so thatI don’t have to renumber!) the wording in Amendment 1.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Thus, it’s left undefined, right?
Justice Soothsayer: But absent a prohibition, it is still possible, isnt it?
Claude Desmoulins: Justice, even if the overlap, is it less of an issue now that the CJ no longer appoints other judges?
Ashcroft Burnham: Hmm, conceivably.
Justice Soothsayer: OK.
Ashcroft Burnham: But, as I said, if you really want it could be added at the end of Article VI (section 23)
Justice Soothsayer: 2nd question: you propose a Public Judisial Selection Panel – members of whom must not be members of a faction, right?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ah, ty, Pel.
Ashcroft Burnham: That’s right, yes 🙂
Justice Soothsayer: Does anyone know how many factionless members we have?
Claude Desmoulins: Do you mean Article VII?
Ashcroft Burnham: The idea is to keep a balance between an apolitical judiciary and popular input into the judicial process.
Claude Desmoulins: About 20 I believe
Ashcroft Burnham: Well, I don’t suppose that anybody knows *exactly*.
Moon Adamant: thanks Pel, i got it 🙂
Justice Soothsayer: Section 19
Moon Adamant: hmm, i’d say more than actulally politically-commited ones
Justice Soothsayer: and if we don’t have anyone seeking at election time to join the PJSP, then the RA does its job, right?
Ashcroft Burnham: However, people who I imagine might be interested in sitting on the PJSP include Rudy, Chicago, Ludo, Tad, Redakisto, and possibly one or two otehr people who haven’t joined us yet.
Ashcroft Burnham: Yes, that’s right.
Ashcroft Burnham: A default provision in case there aren’t enough people.
Ashcroft Burnham: But the minimum number of people on the PJSP is 3.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok…
Ashcroft Burnham: And the worlkoad would be far less than the RA.
Justice Soothsayer: so why not have the RA perform the functions of the PJSP?
Ashcroft Burnham: Because members of the RA have other powers. The idea is to *separate* the powers to prevent the RA from using its existing powers to increase its de facto power by appointing judges on political grounds.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I might have some doubts on the issue of disallowing explicitly party members (ie. excluding the right of affiliation), but hmm, for the sake of a swift approval, I’ll remain silent on the issue 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: Or why not have the SC do it. I understand youur concern about the process being political, but….
Ashcroft Burnham: Members of the RA would, and membesr of the PJSP would not, have incentive to choose judges who would favour government.
Ashcroft Burnham: Claude: I thought that Justice wanted popular input… the SC is not popularly elected.
Claude Desmoulins: The SC is not political.
Claude Desmoulins: True
Claude Desmoulins: Point taken
Ashcroft Burnham: 🙂
Justice Soothsayer: I think the RA will end up doing the job of the PJSP, as I suspect most factionless members could care less.
Ashcroft Burnham: Well, we’ll have to see about that 🙂
Sudane Erato: 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: The people that I listed I suspect would be interested…
Ashcroft Burnham: As I said, it’s a light workload.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes, I’d say, let’s give it a try first.
Ashcroft Burnham: Indeed 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: Ludo – would you be interested in being elected to the Public Judiciary Scrutiny Panel?
Ludo Merit: Maybe.
Ashcroft Burnham: See? 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: Let me distill and tell me if I understand correctly.
Justice Soothsayer: btu we’re hoping Ludo will join DPU wink
Ashcroft Burnham: RIght 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: LOL! :-p
Sudane Erato: hehe
Moon Adamant: lol
Gwyneth Llewelyn: You might also invite Fernando Book 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: aww ok
Ashcroft Burnham: Yes, good idea 🙂
Moon Adamant: OR the CSDF 😉
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I’d suggest Diderot, but technically he’s SC 😀
Justice Soothsayer: Ludo is suddenly VERY popular
Gwyneth Llewelyn: … although hmm it seems that SC members are not excluded from the PJSP explicitly?
Ashcroft Burnham: She might be even more popular when you all read what she wrote about the judiciary and franchulates in the SecondLife? Business Magazine article to be published on Monday…
Ashcroft Burnham: Gwyn: do you think that they should be?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: awww really Ludo???
Claude Desmoulins: The Chair creates the code of qualifications and appoints the chief judge. As well as doingthe admin stuff (courthouses, officers of the court, etc.)
Justice Soothsayer: Ashcroft, I want to thank you for making considerable changes, and devising a good system for public input
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ash: no, I don’t think they should be.
Ludo Merit: Really Gwyn
Moon Adamant: indeed, i second Justice in my thanks 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, thanks and congratulations, then, Ludo!
Ashcroft Burnham: Thank you, Justice 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: Claude, may I correct one or two things in your distillation…?
Ludo Merit: I hope to get a sentence inserted at the last minute if the bill passes, that’s why I’m here.
Justice Soothsayer: If we make it clear that the Chief Judge & Judiciary Commission Chair should be 2 people, I am supportive of this bill.
Gwyneth Llewelyn also bows to Ashcroft for the extraordinary display of his compromising ability
Ashcroft Burnham: The Board creates the qualifications, and chooses which Judge shall be the Chief Judge.
Ashcroft Burnham: Thank you, Gwyn 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: The Chair of the JC does the administrative work.
Ashcroft Burnham: The Board is 7 Judges of Common Jurisdiction (or fewer, if there are fewer judges).
Ashcroft Burnham: They are elected (if there are more than 7) from among Judges of Common Jurisdiction by Judges of Common Jurisdiction in accordance with procedures laid down by the Chair of the Judiuciary Commission.
Ashcroft Burnham: (That’s the bit that incorporates Moon’s idea for what she originally called the “Order of Judges”) 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: Does the chair sit as a member of the board?
Moon Adamant: the CSDF finds that Ash’s revisions have resulted in a very good compromise and bill, so the CSDF supports this wording of teh bill also
Ashcroft Burnham: No, because the Chair is an administrator, not a judge. Only judges are eligable.
Claude Desmoulins: OK
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Indeed.
Ashcroft Burnham: Thank you, Moon 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: And the PJSP selects the judges from the approved pool?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ah, can I get a short clarification on a double negative here (sorry, my English is often not good enough to figure those out)
Ashcroft Burnham: Yes – when a vacancy arises, the Board invites applications, selects which applicants are suitably qualified, and submits the list to the PJSP to select as many judges as there are vacancies.
Sudane Erato: 🙂
Pelanor Eldrich: I couldn’t find it, but Ash also has a posting somewhere where he walks me through the selection process (bulleted list).
Ashcroft Burnham: The Chair decides how many judges that there should be.
Claude Desmoulins: One more question…
Ashcroft Burnham: It’s on the notecard 🙂
Pelanor Eldrich: thx
Pelanor Eldrich: 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: My question is on the powers of the Court of the Scientific Council, “With respect to the judiciary:” 2. Without prejudice to the specificity of the foregoing, the Scientific Council when sitting as a court shall not in any circumstances have the power
Claude Desmoulins: How does this all get rolling? Where do the first judges come from?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: to determine any appeal from any Court of Common Jurisdiction only on any or all of the following grounds:
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Aw, sorry, Claude. Yes, let’s hear the answer on your question first.
Ashcroft Burnham: Gwyn: that section is all about limiting the power of the CSC on appeals to where the Court of Common Jurisdiction has got the *constitution* wrong.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: All right, and not the *law*
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I get it.
Ashcroft Burnham: The idea is that the Court of Scientific Council can’t allow an appeal from a Court of Common Jurisdiction where it has just got the *law* wrong.
Ashcroft Burnham: 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: (Because that’s just a matter fro the Courts of Common Jurisdiction).
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Thanks, that’s what I wanted to make clear.
Ashcroft Burnham: 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn *nods* indeed thus my question 🙂
Justice Soothsayer: Claude, I would like to pose one friendly amendment – add at the end “”The Chief Judge shall not simultaneously serve as Chair of the Judiciary Commission.”
Ashcroft Burnham: Can we have that as Section 23 of Article VII?
Justice Soothsayer: fine with me, Ashcroft
Claude Desmoulins: Fine by me.
Ashcroft Burnham: About that part, of course, does anybody have any idea where we’re going to *get* a Chair of the Judiciary Commission?
Claude Desmoulins: I still would like to know how we get the first set of judges.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: In that case, Justice… there should be a provision for an “acting” Chief Judge/Chair if one of them leaves and we don’t find a replacement quickly enough.
Ashcroft Burnham: Ahh, right, let me explain that, Claude…
Ashcroft Burnham: The Chair of the Judiciary Commission is appointed by the SC.
Ashcroft Burnham: To get the first judge, we do this:
Ashcroft Burnham: Because there aren’t any judges to haev a Board, the SC qualifies judges instead.
Ashcroft Burnham: So, the SC will qualify people to be judges.
Claude Desmoulins: As much as I know where we’ll get a PJSP .
Ashcroft Burnham: Because there isn’t a PJSP yet, the RA will appoint the judge.
Claude Desmoulins: Is that in the text of the bill?
Ashcroft Burnham: So, before we have any judges or a PJSP, the SC will qualify, and the RA will appoint.
Justice Soothsayer: PJSP comes in the next election cycle
Ashcroft Burnham: Then, when the system gets going, the Board will qualify, and the PJSP will appoint.
Ashcroft Burnham: Justice: there are supposed to be able to be by-elections for the PJSP when there are fewer than 3 members…
Ashcroft Burnham: Ahh, but, Claude, we have a default provision for the lack of a PJSP 🙂 There’s no default provision for the lack of a Chair of the Judiciary Commmission.
Claude Desmoulins: Does the PJSP have a set term of office?
Ashcroft Burnham: Yes – the same as an RA term.
Justice Soothsayer: The default for the Chair of the Judiciary Commission is that the SC appoints one — pronto.
Claude Desmoulins: So the material about the SC and RA creating the initial set of judges is in the text of the bill?
Ashcroft Burnham: Gwyneth, you’re in charge of the SC – any ideas about where we get a Chair? 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: Yes 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I wonder which one should get appointed first 😉
Gwyneth Llewelyn has several chairs in her inventory
Ashcroft Burnham: Hmm, it doesn’t matter, but they both need to be done ASAP.
Sudane Erato: hehe
Ashcroft Burnham: :-p
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok, ok, bad pun 😛
Claude Desmoulins: Any other amendments?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I suggest that the SC places a notice on the forums for people to apply.
Justice Soothsayer: none from me, Ash has done a spectacular job
Gwyneth Llewelyn: But that doesn’t need to me in a bill.
Ashcroft Burnham: I get rid of the SC veto for judicial appointments that I added in the 19th version, because we now have the PJSP.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: *be
Ashcroft Burnham: Thank you, Justice 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn *nods* @ that provision, it makes sense.
Ashcroft Burnham: The other thing is that the PJSP is in charge of procuring or supplying ADR (and the RA can also procure ADR if there are fewer than 3 members of the PJSP).
Gwyneth Llewelyn: RA members, please note that this bill introduces a *lot* of changes beyond the legal system,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: it redefines/clarifies citizenship
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ah
Claude Desmoulins listens to Gwyn
Ashcroft Burnham: Of course, if it *really* wanted, the RA/PJSP could procure ADR from teh SC…
Gwyneth Llewelyn: and the marshals of the Peace, there is a tiny thingy I should ask…
Ashcroft Burnham: Yes, go on… 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: So on Chapter IV (as proposed), section 17:
Gwyneth Llewelyn: 17. Unless and until the Representative Assembly otherwise so orders by vote of simple majority, it shall be deemed to have delegated its powers to appoint Marshals of the Peace to the Chancellor, Guildmeister and to the Dean of the Scientific Council.
Pelanor Eldrich: We can easily get enough PJSP if we sell a few microplots. *evil grin*
Sudane Erato: hehe
Gwyneth Llewelyn: So this means that these three persons will be able, in turn, to appoint Marshals of the Peace, right?
Jon Seattle lol
Moon Adamant: lol Pel
Ashcroft Burnham: Yes, unless the RA says otherwise 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Later… on 22
Gwyneth Llewelyn: “the following persons shall be deemed to have been appointed as Marshals of the Peace: ”
Claude Desmoulins: Thanks for this catch.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: stating all members of the SC, LRA, Guildmeister
Ashcroft Burnham: Yes, again, default provisions 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: Why not the Chancellor as the third default?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok. Yes, that was question #1, Claude.
Ashcroft Burnham: Hmm, because I was basing my default on people who are already nominated under the Defense of the Republic Act.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Question #2 is what happens if the three “appointers” disagree on an appointment.
Ashcroft Burnham: And I didn’t think that Aliasi was one of those.
Ashcroft Burnham: But, the RA can easily appoint Aliasi 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok. Seems reasonable enough
Gwyneth Llewelyn: And the RA can always “unappoint” people.
Justice Soothsayer: she could appoint herself
Ashcroft Burnham: Ahh, well, the idea is that any one person can appoint a Marshal of the Peace.
Ashcroft Burnham: Yes, exactly 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: If other people disagree, then they can dismiss the person.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I really don’t wish amendments upon amendments upon amendments, juts to make sure the RA can vote on this and understand what they can easily do without much fuss 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: Indeed 🙂 That’s why I prepared an integrated draft instead of having amendments…
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes, thank you for that.
Ashcroft Burnham: BRB – afk for just a second…
Claude Desmoulins: Anything else or are we ready to vote on this thing?
Pelanor Eldrich: BTW if we don’t get this passed, I’d like to propose Dean hold rock/paper/scissors for deciding all cases with ADR being Prok flipping a coin.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: ROFL !!!!
Sudane Erato: hehe
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well… IT’S ON THE CONSTITUTION.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Really!
Justice Soothsayer: LOL – a judge recently ordered RPS in an RL case!
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Really?!
Sudane Erato: 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: Let’s vote.
Justice Soothsayer: the 2 lawyers couldn’t agree on where to meet, so he told them to do RPS on the courthouse steps.
Ashcroft Burnham: Back 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: All in favor of the Judiciary Amendment(s) and bills….
Ashcroft Burnham: Hang on, Claude..
Justice Soothsayer: do we need to vote on my amendment?
Claude Desmoulins: I thought it was a friendly/
Ashcroft Burnham: Apart from Justice’s amendment to-day, the 29th version incorporates all the three amendments on the agenda.
Justice Soothsayer: OK
Gwyneth Llewelyn *nods*
Ashcroft Burnham: So, we just have the 29th version and Justice’s amendment to-day.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: All righty :))
Claude Desmoulins: That was my understanding.
Justice Soothsayer: September 29th version, that is. Though it seems like there have been 28 others!
Ashcroft Burnham: Ahh, right, just to be clear 🙂
Sudane Erato: hehe
Claude Desmoulins: Anything else before we vote?
Gwyneth Llewelyn listens to thunder and drum rolls outside….
Pelanor Eldrich: Can we vote for Justice’s last minute amendent right after?
Ashcroft Burnham: LOL!
Claude Desmoulins: It was a friendly and thus doesn”t need to be voted on separately.
Pelanor Eldrich: ok
Justice Soothsayer: I thinky my amendment has been rolled into Ashcroft’s proposal
Gwyneth Llewelyn: “The crowd holds their breath… tension increases… dropleats of sweat slowly trickle down the RA member’s brows as they prepare to vote…”
Justice Soothsayer: so we’ll vote on the Sept 29th version as amended
Pelanor Eldrich: ok
Claude Desmoulins waits for Gwyn.
Ashcroft Burnham: 🙂
Sudane Erato: 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: All in favor…
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Sorry, Claude, don’t mind me 🙂
Moon Adamant: 🙂
Pelanor Eldrich: waits for drums…
Justice Soothsayer votes Aye, enthusiatically
Jon Seattle: votes Aye, without comment.
Claude Desmoulins: Aye
Moon Adamant: votes Aye, and congrats Ash for his work 🙂
Pelanor Eldrich: votes Aye last, with a flourish, for dramatic effect (as always)
Ashcroft Burnham: Thank you, Moon 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: 😀
Moon Adamant: lol Pel
Pelanor Eldrich: Thanks Ash
Gwyneth Llewelyn: No “aye caramba” today, Pel? 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: You’re welcome. And thank you for all your hard work…
Pelanor Eldrich: aye yi yi
Sudane Erato cheers!!!
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, congratulations everybody 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: Did anybody want to vote on appointing Aliasi as an MP now?
Ashcroft Burnham: Or maybe we should ask her first? 😉
Pelanor Eldrich: Heh, “The MPs are here”
Pelanor Eldrich: 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: No, we’re MRAs… 😉
Gwyneth Llewelyn launches fireworks
Claude Desmoulins: Let’s ask her and allow her to appoint herself if she wishes.
Moon Adamant: one thought
Sudane Erato: hehe
Pelanor Eldrich: It’s a pun, MP in American is Military Police/shore patrol.
Moon Adamant: shouldn’t the approval of a leagal sys be formally announced in some way?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Oh definitely,
Ashcroft Burnham: Hmm… the PIO?
Ashcroft Burnham: Somebody should tell Radakisto 😉
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I’ll be glad to post it on the website and talk to Nightwish
Sudane Erato: Nightwing
Ludo Merit: I just sent an IM to Ute Hicks to please add it to the article at past the last moment.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Thanks, Ludo 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: Thank you, Ludo 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I might get Hamlet to do something on the NWN
Pelanor Eldrich: Did we formally install Aliasi as Chancellor (legally, the ceremony can wait)
Pelanor Eldrich: ?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Aw
Gwyneth Llewelyn: We sadly skipped the cerimony.
Ashcroft Burnham: At this stage, might I formally announce my application to the SC to qualify as a judge? 🙂
Pelanor Eldrich: Next week.
Claude Desmoulins: Since she accepted and got elected I assumed it’s de facto done.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Hehe Ash
Pelanor Eldrich: k
Gwyneth Llewelyn agrees with Claude.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Even de jure, since it is on record on the transcripts.
Ludo Merit: Where ARE you going to get a Judiciary Chair?
Ashcroft Burnham: Good question…
Moon Adamant: maybe also some kind of Legal Sys 101 should be prepared?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ah, and of course the SC accepts your application, Ash
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Oh Moon ? excellent idea.
Ludo Merit: I’ll enroll, Moon.
Ashcroft Burnham: Yes… that’s a job for the Chair, isn’t it – publicity, training and education? 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Actually, “publicising” the legal system is somewhere on the bill as well.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes
Moon Adamant: ok 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: So, Moon, to do that, we need a chair.
Jon Seattle: In the future, for Chancellors, we really should have an oath of office.
Pelanor Eldrich: I’d like to formally recognise Ashcroft Burnham’s tireless professional grade work on the Judiciary and numerous other legislative works. My resolution to that effect didn’t make the agenda, so this is my personal thanks.
Claude Desmoulins: my preschooler is awake. I may not have long.
Gwyneth Llewelyn agrees with Jon.
Ashcroft Burnham: Thank you, Pel 🙂 That’s very kind…
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Is there time to go through the next issues?
Moon Adamant: hear hear pel! 🙂
Ludo Merit: Hear hear!
Moon Adamant: yes, please
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Some are easy 🙂
Moon Adamant: i remove my Amendment from agenda
Pelanor Eldrich: 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: Can we remove all the Judiciary amendments?
Justice Soothsayer: yes
Ashcroft Burnham: Please… 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Hmm
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Does this mean that ADR will be formally inexistent in the CDS then?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: (amendment #3)
Justice Soothsayer: no, its in the Sept 29th bill
Ashcroft Burnham: No – the PJSP has the power to procure or provide it.
Ashcroft Burnham: And, if there is no PJSP, the RA has the power to procure it.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ah sorry. I was reading two notecards with the same title 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes, you’re right. My apologies.
Ashcroft Burnham: 🙂
Ludo Merit: Were there two different judiciary notecards? I discarded one.
Ashcroft Burnham: The one that we passed is the 29th of September version, with Justice’s amendment at S. 23 of Article VII.
Ludo Merit: OK.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I would like to introduce a short motion,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: since Claude is short on time,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: but we have all RA members here,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: and the remaining bills are rather easy to discuss/vote
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I would suggest that, if Claude has to leave earlier,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: according to precent, the RA votes on an “Acting LRA” for the remainder of the session.
Claude Desmoulins isn’t leaving yet 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Thus beating the RA’s record today approving/disapproving 5 bills /amendments in a stroke, on of which the longest in NFS history.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Excellent news then 🙂 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: I just had to get breakfast going.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: oooh
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I withdraw the motion 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: Let’s move to Franchulate revision.
Pelanor Eldrich: 5-19 anyone?
Ashcroft Burnham: I have one or two questions about that…
Claude Desmoulins: Discussion?
Moon Adamant: sure .)
Ludo Merit: Where do I find a copy of that?
Ashcroft Burnham: The latest proposal says, amongst other things, this: “The CDS will only accept, in each legislature, that an area up to 1/16 of the total area of the CDS will join as a franchulate….
Ashcroft Burnham: … Applications for new franchulates may only be approved in the first two months after the election of the RA. ”
Gwyneth Llewelyn: (BTW, Moon’s original had numbered paragraphs)
Moon Adamant: Ludo, in the box
Ashcroft Burnham: Won’t that mean that we can expand only really, really slowly? What’s the benefit of that?
Moon Adamant: Ash, i have posted explanations on those two issues on the forums
Patroklus Murakami: hi everone
Ashcroft Burnham: Hmm, I haven’t seen them.
Ashcroft Burnham: Hello, Pat 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Welcome, pat!
Sudane Erato: hi Pat 🙂
Moon Adamant: hiya Pat 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: Also the 2 month rule means no franchulates in the current Session 🙁
Ashcroft Burnham: Moon: why is it good that we only expand very, very slowly?
Moon Adamant: reply to Claude’s questions on it
Jon Seattle: Hello Pat
Pelanor Eldrich: nods to Pat
Justice Soothsayer: hi Pat
Claude Desmoulins: afk
Moon Adamant: Ash: concerns have been raised on a too quick expansion
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Also, about new citizens needing some time to get used to citizenship.
Ashcroft Burnham: Hmm, there’s somewhere between, though, too quick and very, very slow!
Moon Adamant: also on these new citizens being not expert in our sys, so an adaptation period being needed
Ashcroft Burnham: But I think that those provisions limit our expansion far too much.
Moon Adamant: the rA can discuss these two figures
Pelanor Eldrich: Right, but if the RA approves applications one by one or as slates don’t we have all the control we need? Or is it important to hard code the upper limit of expansion in the bill?
Patroklus Murakami has indicated consent to be recorded.
Ashcroft Burnham: I agree with Pel.. there shouldn’t be a hardcoded limit. The government should decide what’s too quick on a case-by-case basis.
Jon Seattle: I personally would favor removing the growth limit, but I am willing to leave it if it helps the bill pass.
Pelanor Eldrich: I suppose the DPU could ram through “we annex Caledon as franches” so I see your point.
Ashcroft Burnham: But, Pel, why would that be a bad thing if Caledon were prepared to be subject to our laws?
Moon Adamant: the limits to expansion are not important (i agree with Jon) as far as the bill is concerned
Moon Adamant: as said, they can be changed from current value – or removed, if the RA sees fit
Ashcroft Burnham: If we limit our expansion, we could miss lots and lots of opportunities.
Claude Desmoulins: I thought the Chancellory approved Franchulate applications.
Ashcroft Burnham: We really don’t want to be turning people away.
Justice Soothsayer: I’m in favor of removing the limits; we could ask the Chancellor to report periodically and if we thought things were growing too fast we could do something
Ashcroft Burnham: That’s more sensible 🙂
Pelanor Eldrich: I personlly wouldn’t mind Caledon doing this. I know others and many real world countries such as Israel experience difficulty when assimilating massive numbers of immigrants.
Claude Desmoulins: Should we code a minimum franchulate size?
Moon Adamant: Claude
Gwyneth Llewelyn: They do indeed. The issue, Claude, is about, say, getting suddenly 200 new citizens with a vote, 15 days before the new term. This would change the whole of the CDS radically. A more careful approach should be used. 200 new citizens is great, if they are
Gwyneth Llewelyn: all familiar with CDS rules and laws and procedures.
Pelanor Eldrich: right
Claude Desmoulins: afk
Moon Adamant: we are trying to uniformise all land units into ONE basic land unit for citizenship
Ashcroft Burnham: Also, why is there a separate licence and charter?
Moon Adamant: ah, they’re not separate – though the wording can imply that
Ashcroft Burnham: Shouldn’t the concept of a charter be used to cover both: the document that is agreed upon between the CDS and the franchulate holders, that sets out the way in which the region is to be administered?
Ashcroft Burnham: Perhaps we should change the wording 🙂
Moon Adamant: the RA can propose and vote changes to wording 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ash, you raise a good point. Yes, I believe that the same thing should cover both, even if the Franchulate’s charter is “we have no charter” (as per your thoughtful suggestions on the forums)
Moon Adamant: but please, lol – organised 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: LOL!
Claude Desmoulins: I propose an amendment…
Ashcroft Burnham: Hmm, another wording issue…
Ashcroft Burnham: ” The joining of mainland parcels to the CDS under the Franchulate process implies, from its holders, the acceptance, validity and upholding of the laws, constitution and TOS of the CDS in the parcels. ”
Ashcroft Burnham: Surely franculating does more than *imply* upholding our law – it *mandates* it?
Moon Adamant: yes?
Moon Adamant: ah, ok
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Mandates, yes, sounds much better.
Pelanor Eldrich: feels like Dr. Frankenstein 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: LOL!
Moon Adamant: agree on new word
Claude Desmoulins: 1) drop the 1/16 provision 2) change 2 months to three months 3) create a 45 day one time window for franchulate application on passage
Gwyneth Llewelyn: lol Pel
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Explain 3) to us, Claude, please…
Ashcroft Burnham: Claude – why the time limit at all? Won’t that mean that, half the time, we won’t be able to expand at all?
Ashcroft Burnham: How about five months?
Moon Adamant: to deal with impending cases?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: “One time” window. Ah. You mean for now?
Moon Adamant: i prefer 3 months
Justice Soothsayer: I think the concern is about possible stacking the deck prior to elections
Ashcroft Burnham: Why?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Indeed, Justice.
Claude Desmoulins: I see Gwyn’s pont on last minute citizens.
Ashcroft Burnham: Yes, but three months is too big.
Jon Seattle: Indeed, Justice
Claude Desmoulins: So what ought it be?
Moon Adamant: because i think t takes 3 months to undertsand the intricacies of your legal sys, Ash, not to mention teh rest 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: Perhaps, instead of having a blanket prohibition on new franchulates within the last three months, require 2/3rds in the RA, or even unanimity in the RA?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: And it would be unfair to say something like “new citizens will only be able to vote on the subsequent term after their franchulate is established” or something, because that would be depriving citizens of their unalienable rights 😛
Ashcroft Burnham: (To acquire new franchulates in those last two or three months).
Moon Adamant: indeed Gwyn
Moon Adamant: hmmm, that is an idea Ash 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well
Ashcroft Burnham: Ahh, but, I don’t agree, Gwyn: had we not already mooted the proposition that all new citizens should have to have been citizens for a certain period of time before voting?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: That could be a posibility, yes.
Claude Desmoulins: I’d rather have a time limit than insert the RA into the approval process for individual parcels.
Ashcroft Burnham: Wouldn’t that be a more effective way of dealing with the problem?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, was that approved, Ash, or just discussed?
Ashcroft Burnham: So, new citizens on unchartered lands, 1 month after joining, on chartered lands 2 months.
Ashcroft Burnham: Just mentioned. Nobody’s fully discussed it yet, although there was some support on the forums.
Ashcroft Burnham: That would, of course, require a constitutional amendment.
Moon Adamant: hmmm, feeling a little lost in discussion already
Ashcroft Burnham: *But* it would help to solve a lot of the election rigging concerns that people have been having recently…
Pelanor Eldrich: smiles quietly.
Moon Adamant: what about discussing and voting alterations point by point?
Ashcroft Burnham: What would be really awful is having to turn away lots of keen potential franchulate holders who may never come back.
Claude Desmoulins: OK. I’ll take the complete drop of the time limit as a friendly ans write a voter amendment for next week,
Claude Desmoulins: Let’s split these
Claude Desmoulins: Amendment 1
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ash, I have to agree on that…
Claude Desmoulins: Drop the 1/16 rule
Ashcroft Burnham: 🙂
Pelanor Eldrich: It’s probably harder to rig an election with franches than it is with new 128m2 NFS and/or CN citizens.
Claude Desmoulins: Discussion on dropping the 1/16 rule….
Claude Desmoulins: afk
Moon Adamant: no objections
Pelanor Eldrich: no obj
Ashcroft Burnham: (Might I suggest the following further amendments: (1) change “Licnece” to “Charter”; (2) change “implies” to “mandates”)
Ashcroft Burnham: Hmm, actually, the charter/licence thing is a bit more substantive than that, as the Chancellor must approve a charter…
Ashcroft Burnham: And the current bill doesn’t actually say what a charter *is*…
Pelanor Eldrich: wonders if we shouldn’t rename this sim to wonkzone. 🙂
Moon Adamant: lol pel
Ashcroft Burnham: So, how about, “To create a franchulate, the Chancellor shall agree terms of a charter with the applicants for franchulate status…
Jon Seattle laughs and nods to Pel
Ashcroft Burnham: …that chater shall set out how the franchulate region shall be administered, provided always that it is in full conformity with the constiution and law of the Confederation of Democratic Simulators”.
Ashcroft Burnham: “Franchulate charters shall be noterised”.
Ashcroft Burnham: That would replace “Upon approval a Franchise License shall be notarised with the Notary of the CDS.” and…
Ashcroft Burnham: “Franchulates can define their own charters, as long they don’t conflict with the codes, Constitution and TOS of the CDS. These charters are valid on the franchulate area and must be notarised. ”
Pelanor Eldrich: Using a, *ahem* working Nota Bene notary in the Rauthaus.
Ashcroft Burnham: Yes, we need to get that working, we really do.
Moon Adamant: lol, indeed
Gwyneth Llewelyn: The Chancellor’s work 🙂
Pelanor Eldrich: is never done. 🙂
Moon Adamant: lol
Sudane Erato: oh… i wasn’t aware it wasn’t 🙁
Ashcroft Burnham: And then replace all other instances of “Licence” with “Charter”.
Justice Soothsayer: sorry folks, but I’ve gotta run
Justice Soothsayer: childcare issues
Ashcroft Burnham: Ahh. Cheerio… 🙂
Pelanor Eldrich: Np, thanks Justice
Moon Adamant: bye Justice, see you later 🙂
Patroklus Murakami: bye justice
Jon Seattle: Bye Justice
Gwyneth Llewelyn: aw bye Justie
Gwyneth Llewelyn: *Justice
Sudane Erato: 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: Justie – his new nickname? 😉
Jon Seattle lol
Sudane Erato: hehe
Ashcroft Burnham: What do people think of my suggested alterations re: Charter/licence?
Pelanor Eldrich: lol
Gwyneth Llewelyn: 🙂
Moon Adamant: Ash, can we discuss them in order?
Ashcroft Burnham: Order is always good by me 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: Me too (childcare) shall we kick things to seven day?
Ashcroft Burnham: But that’s for Claude to decide ultimately…
Moon Adamant: hmm, one question though
Claude Desmoulins: I thought the 1/16 drop amendment was on the floor.
Pelanor Eldrich: I think we’re close on Franch thing.
Jon Seattle: Pelanor, indeed.
Moon Adamant: who adds the wording change?
Ashcroft Burnham: I certainly hope so 🙂 Franchulates are important.
Pelanor Eldrich: drops the 1/16 like it’s hot.
Ashcroft Burnham: LOL!
Moon Adamant: yes, let it drop
Claude Desmoulins: Which wording change?
Ashcroft Burnham: Charter/Licence.
Moon Adamant: these we are discussing?
Claude Desmoulins: Let’s vote on dropping 1/16
Ashcroft Burnham: (See history above for my suggested rewording)
Moon Adamant: nods
Claude Desmoulins: All in favor
Moon Adamant: Aye
Claude Desmoulins: Aye
Pelanor Eldrich: Aye
Claude Desmoulins: OK
Ashcroft Burnham: Actually…
Ashcroft Burnham: One thought…
Jon Seattle: Aye
Claude Desmoulins: Does someone on RA wantto propose the wording amendment?
Pelanor Eldrich: I’ll propose it, what’s in it?
Ashcroft Burnham: Gwyn, did you say that you considered yourself to have the power to qualify me as a judge now, or does the SC need to meet to do that?
Ashcroft Burnham: Because, if so, the RA can vote on me now, can’t it?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: The SC has to meet, Ash
Ashcroft Burnham: Ahh, all right 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Sorry 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: I can only hope that it does so soon, then..
Ashcroft Burnham: Pel, my suggested rewording was above…
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Actually, it’ll be a one-person meeting, but I’ll respect the proper formalities…
Ashcroft Burnham: To create a franchulate, the Chancellor shall agree terms of a charter with the applicants for franchulate status…
Ashcroft Burnham: : …that chater shall set out how the franchulate region shall be administered, provided always that it is in full conformity with the constiution and law of the Confederation of Democratic Simulators”.
Ashcroft Burnham: “Franchulate charters shall be noterised”.
Claude Desmoulins: Also changing everthingto Charter, Ash?
Ashcroft Burnham: That would replace “Upon approval a Franchise License shall be notarised with the Notary of the CDS.” and…
Ashcroft Burnham: Yes 🙂
Pelanor Eldrich: squawks like a parrot and proposes that.
Ashcroft Burnham: Well, not *everything*, or else it would just read “charter charter charter charter…” :-p
Claude Desmoulins: Disucssion on wording?
Ashcroft Burnham: Change “licence” to “Charter” whenever it arises.
Moon Adamant: lol Pel
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok
Moon Adamant: no bjections
Claude Desmoulins: All in favor…
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I’d only like to see “covenants” mentioned as being part of the Charter, even if it’s obvious to all of us.
Ashcroft Burnham: My wording would also replace “”Franchulates can define their own charters, as long they don’t conflict with the codes, Constitution and TOS of the CDS. These charters are valid on the franchulate area and must be notarised. “”.
Moon Adamant: Aye
Jon Seattle: Aye
Ashcroft Burnham: Ahh, Gwyn, there’s a complex issue in relation to covenants that people don’t seem to have spotted yet…
Ashcroft Burnham: Which is that we seem to be riding two horses between having planning law as part of public or private law.
Moon Adamant: er…
Pelanor Eldrich: aye
Moon Adamant: Claude, also to change:
Claude Desmoulins listens to Ash.
Pelanor Eldrich: thanks God he didn’t go to law school.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok, I was silent during the voting, but explain your thoughts, Ashcroft, after Moon’s comments, please.
Ashcroft Burnham: “Covenant” implies “You must not do these things with your land because you’ve agreed not to with the person who sold it to you”.
Sudane Erato: hehe
Ashcroft Burnham: That’s private planning law.
Ashcroft Burnham: But, we have Acts of the Representative Assembly that define what how people should have their houses.
Moon Adamant: ” The joining of mainland parcels to the CDS under the Franchulate process implies…”
Moon Adamant: should read instead “mandates”
Ashcroft Burnham: So, public planning law is, “You must not do these things with your land because an Act of the RA says so”.
Jon Seattle: Ashcroft, in fact NFS is private, is it not?
Claude Desmoulins: Would changing covenant to zoning regulations clarify that?
Ashcroft Burnham: Yes, although, confusingly, SL now has a “covenant” built into the interface.
Claude Desmoulins: I propose an amendment to change implies to mandates.
Claude Desmoulins: Discussion…
Ashcroft Burnham: Claude, perhaps it’s best that the private/public planning law thing be a separate debate later…
Moon Adamant: no objections
Claude Desmoulins: So it’s a friendly
Claude Desmoulins: Perhaps.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I would recommend the change as well
Moon Adamant: and definetely agree Ash
Claude Desmoulins: Now the amendment to drop the time limit.
Jon Seattle: yes, friendly
Claude Desmoulins: Discussion…
Moon Adamant: whoa, have we voted on implies/mandates?
Pelanor Eldrich: We’re all friends here.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: It’s friendly
Moon Adamant: ah,ok, friendly, sorry
Claude Desmoulins: afk
Gwyneth Llewelyn: On the time limit, I have only two issues. 1) The RA hasn’t introduced yet a bill for changing the “period of adaptation of citizens” (ie. before they can effectively become full citizens)
Moon Adamant: i think time limeit can be set to three months, with an exception now to deal with pending cases
Gwyneth Llewelyn: and alternatively, 2) the concept of requiring a supermajority for exceptional approvals
Ashcroft Burnham: Hmm, time limits at all are too inflexible.
Ashcroft Burnham: The prospect of turning people away would be too high.
Ashcroft Burnham: It’s best to vote now on adding a time limit for voting.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Since introducing a new bil right now would be out of the agenda, may I suggest that we drop the time limit, but require a supermajority for approval *or* have a time limit like Moon suggested, but introduce a supermajority for exceptional cases?
Ashcroft Burnham: Let me find how to word it…
Claude Desmoulins: I’ve got to go soon.
Claude Desmoulins: Does anyone have significant issues with the group ownership bill?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: “Applications for new franchulates may only be approved in the first three months after the election of the RA, unless a supermajority of 2/3 of the RA agrees on a shorter term for special cases.”
Ashcroft Burnham: Article V, Section 3: No citizen shall be eligable to vote in an election for any public office unless he or she has been a citizen for not less than 28 days.
Claude Desmoulins: Here’s what I suggest….
Pelanor Eldrich: I don’t have issue with group as long as I can’t rig the next election by making de facto microplots out 128m2.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ah, Claude, let’s just wait a minute for Moon to log back in again
Ashcroft Burnham: Welcome back 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: OK
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Pel: hehe
Gwyneth Llewelyn: wb Moon!
Moon Adamant: sorry everyone 🙂
Jon Seattle: wb Moon
Moon Adamant: and thanks 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: Table remaining agenda.
Claude Desmoulins: Do a citizenship amendment per Ash’s suggestion first thing next week.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok…
Claude Desmoulins: A constitutional “voter registration deadline” would solve many of the problems we’re trying to address with time limits and parcel size minimums.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: and will 5-19 go on a seven-day vote, or tabled as well?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ah
Claude Desmoulins: Is that franchulates?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Claude, you’re right.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: yes, franchulates.
Moon Adamant: yes Claude
Pelanor Eldrich: yes
Claude Desmoulins: Table as well,
Pelanor Eldrich: we could 7 day franches, no?
Claude Desmoulins: A citizenship amendment would eliminate the need for franchulate time limits.
Pelanor Eldrich: ah, ok
Patroklus Murakami: yes, table surely? given that there are amendments still on the table
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Claude, I definitely agree.
Claude Desmoulins: Hence it would need to come first.
Pelanor Eldrich: ok
Gwyneth Llewelyn: So yes, let’s table it, get a citizenship amendment on the COnstitution, and then proposed 5-19 can be totally rewritten
Claude Desmoulins: Let’s adjourn
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Good, good 🙂
Pelanor Eldrich: We have a constitutional amendment procedure in place right. ?
Jon Seattle: Indeed.
Claude Desmoulins: Ashcroft has a draft ready.
Ashcroft Burnham: 🙂
Pelanor Eldrich: Makes an appointment with Aliasi for Civics…
Pelanor Eldrich: 🙂
Pelanor Eldrich: ok
Claude Desmoulins: See you next week.
Ashcroft Burnham: Cheerio! 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: We are adjouned
Sudane Erato: 🙂
The meeting closed at 5:56 Linden time.RA Meeting: October 07, 2006
Those present:
Claude Desmoulins is in the chair.
Jon Seattle: Hi Sudane. Fernando
Moon Adamant has indicated consent to be recorded.
Jon Seattle: Hi Justice
Claude Desmoulins: Good morning all.
Fernando Book has indicated consent to be recorded.
Sudane Erato: 🙂
Justice Soothsayer has indicated consent to be recorded.
Jon Seattle smiles brightly at Moon
Jon Seattle: Hi Claude
Claude Desmoulins: Please touch both boxes.
Jon Seattle has indicated consent to be recorded.
Sudane Erato has indicated consent to be recorded.
Claude Desmoulins: I imagine Pel will be along sooner or later.
Jon Seattle: hmm.. document box is slow.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Hello all 🙂
Sudane Erato: hehe… hi Gwyn 🙂
Jon Seattle: Hello Gwyn 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: Anyway. Let’s begin.
Fernando Book: Hi Gwyn 🙂
Moon Adamant: hi Gwyn 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: Good afternoon Gwyn.
Claude Desmoulins: we hav two versions of Judiciary Revision here. Justice’s is minimal — Ash’s less so.
Gwyneth Llewelyn *nods*
Claude Desmoulins: I suggest that we pass Justice’s and table Ash’s, encouraging him to submit his additional changes as a separate PCA next week.
Justice Soothsayer: mine, I hope, addresses what the SC proposed and nothing more at this time
Claude Desmoulins: That way, it we approve his additional changes and the SC takes issue, we aren’t left without Judiciary.
Gwyneth Llewelyn has indicated consent to be recorded.
Claude Desmoulins: Thoughts?
Moon Adamant: well, the CSDF is ready to vote the SC corrections
Claude Desmoulins: Which set?
Jon Seattle: Ah, Justice’s
Claude Desmoulins: OK
Sudane Erato: hi Pel 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: Any additional discussion on Judiciary 2.0?
Pelanor Eldrich has indicated consent to be recorded.
Justice Soothsayer: hi Pel
Moon Adamant: hi Pel 🙂
Fernando Book: Hi Pel 🙂
Jon Seattle: Hi Pel 🙂
Pelanor Eldrich: hiya
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Pelanor, just in the right time for a vote :))
Sudane Erato: 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: Good morning Pel.
Pelanor Eldrich: Good Morning everyone! Remember, vote early and vote often. 🙂
Sudane Erato: hehe
Moon Adamant: lol
Claude Desmoulins: Hearing none… all in favor of Justice’s Judiciary 2.0…
Jon Seattle: Aye
Moon Adamant: Aye
Claude Desmoulins: aye
Justice Soothsayer: aye
Gwyneth Llewelyn: … Pel fell asleep.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: 🙂
Sudane Erato: 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, it’s early korning for Pelanor, after all…
Gwyneth Llewelyn: *morning
Gwyneth Llewelyn: lol
Sudane Erato: yes!
Sudane Erato: hehe
Gwyneth Llewelyn: My typos have a life of their own 🙂
Jon Seattle: Pel?
Pelanor Eldrich: brb
Claude Desmoulins: While we wait for Pel to vote. I move we table Ash’s version/
Gwyneth Llewelyn: The SC does not recognise “brb” as a valid vote.
Sudane Erato: haha
Gwyneth Llewelyn: 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: Any objection?
Moon Adamant: .)
Jon Seattle: No objection here
Moon Adamant: none, Claude
Justice Soothsayer: no objection
Claude Desmoulins: OK.
Claude Desmoulins: I also forgot reports.
Claude Desmoulins: Are there any?
Moon Adamant: yes
Moon Adamant: I can report about CN
Claude Desmoulins: Why don’t you go ahead, Moon.
Moon Adamant: ok, thanks 🙂
Moon Adamant: Significant wrk has already been done
Moon Adamant: Terraforming it’s well on its way, with max and min heights having being already stablished
Pelanor Eldrich: give me 5 ok.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: ok ok ok ok ok (5 ok’s given as per request)
Claude Desmoulins: Pel can yo vote on 5-9 2?
Moon Adamant: also marking of some major builds and roads have been done
Moon Adamant waits for Pel
Claude Desmoulins: Sorry, Moon
Justice Soothsayer: is there anything we can or should do to reserve the empty space for a sim between NFS and CN?
Claude Desmoulins: No one can put one there w/o our consent, right?
Sudane Erato: thats correct
Justice Soothsayer: god
Justice Soothsayer: *good
Moon Adamant smiles at Sudane
Moon Adamant: hmmm
Sudane Erato: but… it is envisgaed that when the time comes to connect them…
Moon Adamant: since Pel is afk, shall i go on?
Claude Desmoulins: Yes, please.
Moon Adamant: after Sudane, that is
Sudane Erato: that we will re-locate to an entirely diff location
Sudane Erato: and re-arrange all sims according to a master plan
Sudane Erato: so the current orinetation is not important
Moon Adamant nods
Justice Soothsayer: Moon, is there a target date for opening CN lots for sale?
Moon Adamant: atm, we have decided than teh defined date shall be set around Oct the 15th
Moon Adamant: when we will assess work done
Sudane Erato: Nov
Sudane Erato: ahh… sorry yes
Moon Adamant: but we think between Nov 1st and Nov 15th
Sudane Erato: yes
Moon Adamant: ok…
Justice Soothsayer: splendid
Moon Adamant: hmmm
Moon Adamant: general plan has been revised, with only small corrections as to parcelling
Moon Adamant: and distributed to building and financial wg
Moon Adamant: financial wg is currently draftng a work budget and a pricing table
Moon Adamant: we have set also a resource archive for images for building wg
Moon Adamant: which will be available this weekend
Sudane Erato: 🙂
Fernando Book: Will it be a general sale, or we’ll have a period for citizens or buyers introduced by citizens?
Moon Adamant: fernando, the financial wg will estimate, i think, the advantages of a pre-reservation sys
Claude Desmoulins: There also may be some lots in sufficiently high demand (think waterfront villae) to merit some sort of auction.
Fernando Book: I see.
Moon Adamant: possibly
Moon Adamant: this is a matter for discussion between teh financial wg and the promotion wg
Claude Desmoulins: brb
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Promotion *cough* wg *cough* 🙂
Sudane Erato: hehe
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Is Brian around? 😉
Moon Adamant: we’ll tell them
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok.
Moon Adamant: anywayy hmmm
Moon Adamant: let me collect my thoughts
Moon Adamant: still on building
Moon Adamant: we have gathered volunteering for specific builds
Moon Adamant: that is, landmarks or public builds
Moon Adamant: we have also gathered volunteering for drafting specs for scripting needs
Moon Adamant: the promotion wg is also asking for volunteering for other content prduction, such as clothing, props, etc
Gwyneth Llewelyn *nods*
Moon Adamant: promotion wg is also defining the marketing strategy
Moon Adamant: hmmm
Moon Adamant: about Bureau wg tasks
Moon Adamant: i have insofar no information at this specific matter
Sudane Erato: 🙂
Moon Adamant: that is more or less that
Claude Desmoulins: back
Gwyneth Llewelyn *whistles innocently*
Claude Desmoulins: Is Pel still afk?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: wb Claude 🙂
Moon Adamant: wb Claude
Moon Adamant: the sum of report is: work is well on its way
Sudane Erato: yes!!
Claude Desmoulins: Let’s move on.
Sudane Erato: and it looks great!
Pelanor Eldrich: back
Justice Soothsayer: it sure does
Moon Adamant smiles at Sudane
Claude Desmoulins: I’d like tomove up 5-21 since the four after that link together.
Claude Desmoulins: Pel. Your vote on 5-9?
Pelanor Eldrich: Which is 5-9?
Claude Desmoulins: Judiciary 2.0 (Justice’s)
Pelanor Eldrich: Aye
Claude Desmoulins: OK.
Claude Desmoulins: Now 5-21
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Bravo!
Claude Desmoulins: Any discussion?
Sudane Erato: 🙂
Justice Soothsayer: that was simultaneously one of the quickest and longest votes ever.
Jon Seattle: Seems like a good clarification, that is 5-21
Gwyneth Llewelyn agrees.
Pelanor Eldrich: I had a wording change to the preamble of 5-21, Jon and Moon are ok with it.
Claude Desmoulins: Also means you don’t have to try to pull an RA quorum to pick amongst half a dozen dates late in the term.
Moon Adamant: yes, we are
Claude Desmoulins: What ws it?
Jon Seattle: Ah, we have two 5-21 s
Jon Seattle: lol
Moon Adamant: ah, i see!
Claude Desmoulins: Sorry 5-22 Election Scheduling.
Jon Seattle: We are working on election secduling bill
Pelanor Eldrich: My bad…proceed
Claude Desmoulins: Other discussion?
Claude Desmoulins: Seeing none.
Claude Desmoulins: All in favor…
Jon Seattle: Aye
Claude Desmoulins: Aye
Moon Adamant: Aye
Justice Soothsayer: aye
Pelanor Eldrich: Aye
Claude Desmoulins: Next
Claude Desmoulins: Voting amendment.
Claude Desmoulins: Jon and Moon.
Jon Seattle: Can we table the VA. This seems to me to be an issue that required greater discussion and perhaps a more compreshensive soluton.
Claude Desmoulins: Would this address your concerns? What would it do to the need for microplots?
Claude Desmoulins: Jon what are your issues?
Pelanor Eldrich: I personally like the strength of terminating microplots (raising the min “buy-in”) in *addition to* the voting restriction as long as it satisfies the UDHR
Jon Seattle: It seems to me that we need to address our definition of citizenship more broadly.
Moon Adamant agrees
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I would love to have a definition of citizenship *at all* 🙂
Sudane Erato: yes
Gwyneth Llewelyn: It’s “Implied” right now.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Not really “defined”:..
Gwyneth Llewelyn: And with franchulates, burghs, and whatever comes next… citizenship should be something *clear* to everyone.
Pelanor Eldrich: Wow, citizenship, and I’m kinda sorry I opened that can of worms would be something that we’d have to nail down this term to avoid the possbility of manipulating the next election if we don’t pass something.
Claude Desmoulins: I just don’t want Franchulates and group ownership and…. on ice until we wrangle this out.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: lol Pel
Moon Adamant: the matter is in dscussion atm in teh CSDF, most probably a proposal shall be presented to this RA soon
Justice Soothsayer: there is a definition of citizenship in the new judiciary bill
Claude Desmoulins: Doesn’t the Judiciary act have some citizenship…
Claude Desmoulins: What he said.
Justice Soothsayer: lol
Pelanor Eldrich: right, and it works unless we redefine citizenship. Citizenship isn’t on our faction platform this term.
Moon Adamant: Justice, we are trying to define a citizenship that doesn’t rest solely on a property principle
Jon Seattle: Well, with all this expansion, it seems to me to be an important issue. Especially as we look to new non-sim forms of expansion.
Pelanor Eldrich: Can we pass some of this stuff and revisit citizenship after a bill is written and discussed. We can quickly retrofit existing bills to fit whatever the new form of citizenship is. In fact we need to do some of that for some of our 4-x bills right
Pelanor Eldrich: anyway.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Hmm
Pelanor Eldrich: *now anyway.
Moon Adamant: i would like to ask about precedents on moratories
Claude Desmoulins: Moratoriums?
Moon Adamant: since Claude apparently feels that VA is needed for the other bills
Moon Adamant: and yes, Claude, sorry 🙂
Moon Adamant: if there is a precedent, we can proceed the discussion of other bills
Moon Adamant: and set them to wait for a citizenship definition
Pelanor Eldrich: BTW I have to leave in about an hour. Just FYI.
Claude Desmoulins: It just depends on which election gamingmechanism you wish to make more difficult.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Which ones are available? 😉
Pelanor Eldrich: As the expert in that field…
Gwyneth Llewelyn: LOL !
Sudane Erato: hehe
Jon Seattle lol
Pelanor Eldrich: With 128m2 and a 28 day restriction I’d have to buy votes twice at the 128m2 purchase price + land use and then double it because of the before and after payment.
Pelanor Eldrich: So a lock is $5-$10 USD per vote if land is available.
Claude Desmoulins: Mircoplot abolition makes the prospective manipulator require more money.
Claude Desmoulins: Voting “registration” requires of him/her more patience.
Moon Adamant: i understand the reasoning
Pelanor Eldrich: There isn’t any real barrier to buying votes other than raising the bar. This is a RL problem as well.
Claude Desmoulins: My CDSF colleagues were the ones who suggested the problem was grave enough to require immediate attention.
Jon Seattle: True, though I would rather see it raised a little higher. And also, as important, send a signal that this kind of thing is not accepted.
Pelanor Eldrich: Yes, I agree with Ranma that 128m2 equivalent should be used.
Pelanor Eldrich: At least as a starting point.
Claude Desmoulins: I don’t want the desire to make our electoral system less vulnerable to push us into a broad reform of citizenship before we’ve all agreed.
Pelanor Eldrich: It’s not a redefinition per se. It’s simply mplot termination.
Jon Seattle: But we also are very interested in expansion via non-sim approaches. And we see getting the citizenship definition right as key to getting acceptance for these new approaches.
Moon Adamant: the 128 figure, as said, is a handy figure, taking into account the urban plan of NFS
Claude Desmoulins: I was referring to the proposal the CSDF has said is forthcoming.
Pelanor Eldrich: Ah
Sudane Erato: on a technical notre… there are 4 Platz pacels which are 96 s/m…
Moon Adamant: (btw, the CN plan was altered to comply to a 128 m2 basic land unit)
Sudane Erato: they should be grandfathered into this
Claude Desmoulins: Hmmm.
Claude Desmoulins: Let’s back up.
Moon Adamant: indeed, Sudane – and one is mine, i will have to solve it too
Claude Desmoulins: Are there specific objections to a 28 day rule?
Pelanor Eldrich: You have to be a citizen to own a platz plot. If no mplots are allowed, you have to buy 128m2 reg. then a platz plot and if you sell the 128m2, you’re still paying more than the equivalent for 96m2 of platz, so it’s all good.
Jon Seattle: Ah, are we discussing the VA bill or 5-21 (2)?
Claude Desmoulins: VA
Moon Adamant: well, no specific objections per se
Justice Soothsayer: no
Pelanor Eldrich: I’m fine with it.
Moon Adamant: nevertheless, the CSDF will possibly present another proposal soon for citizenship
Gwyneth Llewelyn: 🙂
Pelanor Eldrich: Look forward to it. 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: I’d like to move forward on it, recognizing it’s not a complete solution.
Moon Adamant: yes, claude
Claude Desmoulins: Other discussion on VA?
Jon Seattle: Well, since we seems to be debating this anway, shall we vote?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, step by step approaches are not always nice, although the past 2 weeks somehow went against that trend 😀
Pelanor Eldrich: Heheh, Pel gets his citizenship bill proposed by the CSDF, *evil wicked laugh*.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: LOL
Sudane Erato: hehe
Gwyneth Llewelyn starts to fear Pelanor :=)
Jon Seattle laughs
Pelanor Eldrich: Where is my horns attachment, heheh.
Pelanor Eldrich: vote?
Claude Desmoulins: OK
Claude Desmoulins: All in favor…
Moon Adamant: Aye
Justice Soothsayer votes aye
Jon Seattle: Aye
Claude Desmoulins: aye
Pelanor Eldrich: Aye
Pelanor Eldrich: Bing-Badda-Bing!
Moon Adamant: lol
Sudane Erato: 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: hrrmpf
Claude Desmoulins: Now 5-19
Jon Seattle: I guess I will say a few words.
Claude Desmoulins: Who remembers where we we were on this?
Jon Seattle: This is the first in what may be a very important series of bills.
Moon Adamant: ah claude, i was hoping you could refresh my mind 🙂
Jon Seattle: Ah, we had voted to remove the limits on teritory.
Moon Adamant listens to Jon
Jon Seattle: I think we had two other proposed amendments, I do not remember the details.
Claude Desmoulins: We did some language hanges
Moon Adamant: there was a series of small corrections, i now remember
Moon Adamant: but i don’t remember which were voted
Pelanor Eldrich: Hmm
Moon Adamant: bcause we did vote some
Pelanor Eldrich: I think we got rid of 1/16, but don’t remember.
Pelanor Eldrich: I have a new objection.
Claude Desmoulins: Fortunately, theres a transcript. 🙂
Jon Seattle: runs to the wiki
Gwyneth Llewelyn: 🙂
Pelanor Eldrich: The exec brnach can delay a application…sounds like we put applications in a queue and never turn them down if a fiscally advantageous partnership can be reached.
Moon Adamant: well, that coud be inferred from your original proposal, Pel
Pelanor Eldrich: I don’t want the borough of “Nazi Rapist Pygmy Furries” to join the CDS, I’m sorry. I want the ablility to deny an application on whatever grounds avaiable to the Exec.
Moon Adamant: 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ah.
Moon Adamant: lol
Jon Seattle: Ah, has the transcript been posted? I do not see it on the wiki
Gwyneth Llewelyn: That is a good argument.
Moon Adamant: ah
Moon Adamant: Jon, on the forums
Claude Desmoulins: I see it.
Claude Desmoulins: On the wiki
Moon Adamant: well, pel, and what would be causes for non-acceptance?
Sudane Erato: if the Nazi rapists complied with all the applicable documents and covenants, wouldn;t the have to be accepted?
Jon Seattle: Oh, I see it now.
Pelanor Eldrich: Declared non-democratic philosophy.
Sudane Erato: but that would imply non acceptance of our documents
Fernando Book: If we set a list of causes of non acceptance it will seem there’s an universal right to join the CDS. Is there such a right?
Pelanor Eldrich: Refusal to uphold ToS, code and constitution.
Pelanor Eldrich: Bad breath, and others.
Moon Adamant: hmmm, that is contemplated by Chapter C
Moon Adamant: lol
Sudane Erato: exacvtl;y Moon
Moon Adamant: except bad breath
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I think there is only a list of clauses for *acceptance*, not the reverse.
Moon Adamant: 🙂
Sudane Erato: yes
Jon Seattle: It seems to me that any application has to support all of our constitution including the UN universal bill of rights.
Sudane Erato: exactly
Moon Adamant: it has indeed
Pelanor Eldrich: I’d like the chancellor (or someone) to be able to say no.
Moon Adamant: actually, i now remember that one of the corrections
Claude Desmoulins: OK. We dropped the 1/16th rule and did language changes.
Moon Adamant: was to change ‘implies’ to ‘mandates’ in chapter C
Moon Adamant: so we have a stronger emphasis
Claude Desmoulins: Yes
Sudane Erato: until they demonstarte that they do not indeed support it, i would think yes
Moon Adamant: i agree with you
Moon Adamant: i am also remembering
Pelanor Eldrich: I see it as joining the EU. You have to jump through a few hoops if you’re questionable.
Sudane Erato: hehe
Moon Adamant: wan’t there a suggestion that a chapter would have to be licensed as well?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well Jon, this is exactly the same thing as claiming to accept the constitution & laws when you “join up” as a citizen…
Moon Adamant: notarised, that is
Gwyneth Llewelyn: *Charter you mean, Moon?
Moon Adamant: yes, sorry
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes, I think that was the idea: charter + covenants.
Jon Seattle: Gwyn. indeed. Say, a noted greifer claimed a change of heart one day..
Sudane Erato: 🙂
Pelanor Eldrich: I want it understood that obtaining a franch is not an inalienable right to any SL resident. It is a privilege conferred by the CDS to compatible applicants.
Sudane Erato: Pel, then we have to define compatible
Moon Adamant: teh charter i think, would contain an explicit declaration of acceptance of our codes, Const and TOS
Gwyneth Llewelyn: That’s it, Jon. If Plastic Duck logs in and says he’ll comply bythe CDS’ rules, well, so long as Plastic accepts them… we can’t do anything about it.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Moon, indeed.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Pelanor… I agree. However,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: one thing is to validate acceptability
Moon Adamant: of course, in case of disrespect to this acceptance, then sanctions would be set
Gwyneth Llewelyn: the other is to reject an application based on things that the Exec “does not like”.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: So the Exec would have to explain why the reasoning.
Jon Seattle: Gwyn, I agree also. The exec should be limited in why she might reject an application.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: if a franchulate agrees upon everything… and the tier fees are currently favourable…
Gwyneth Llewelyn: meaning: there is no solid, objective reason NOT to deny an application…
Gwyneth Llewelyn: just subjective ones… well…
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Giving the Exec the power to reject an aplication based on subjective feelings, well, it’s a road I would avoid to walk.
Claude Desmoulins: I thought the acceptance proviion was originally designed to notforce CDS to take on a franchulate in an unfavorable tier situation.
Moon Adamant: and so it was our understanding from the original wording of teh franchulate bill
Jon Seattle: Here is what I propose. The Exec would have no power in the regard. The RA would have a period of 28 days to reject an application on a majority vote.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Indeed, Claude. And only then.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Hmm Jon. Well, why not.
Jon Seattle: In particular for doubts about the sincerity of supporting the constitution.
Pelanor Eldrich: Yes. Ok, Jon I’d go with that. Maybe trigger that vote with a recommendation from the Chancellor?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: oooh that is a dangerous path as well, Jon.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: People are innocent until proven otherwise ? in a court 🙂
Moon Adamant: hmmm, wan’t there some discussion about the Charter being cleared by the RA last week?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Not based on “personal feelings that they might violate the law in a moment in the future”
Claude Desmoulins: Does one really want the RA looking at eery franchulate app?
Moon Adamant: not all apps Claude
Pelanor Eldrich: Only those the Chancellor has a beef with, not that I expect a stampede or anything.
Moon Adamant: but it culd be a step, after a previous selection
Moon Adamant: done by Chancellor
Claude Desmoulins: Ah.
Jon Seattle: Here is what I fear: the population of NFS may reject this bill because it leaves the door way too open to, say, Nazi groups or greifers.
Moon Adamant: say that you have these guys that apply but in first chat they immediately say they won’t uphold our codes…
Claude Desmoulins: So essentially you’d like a provision to empower the RA to review rejections?
Moon Adamant: brb
Jon Seattle: Yes.
Jon Seattle: Actually, the RA should do the rejecting process.
Moon Adamant: back
Jon Seattle: I would not get the exec involved, because she is only one person.
Pelanor Eldrich: Right. We’re basically talking about annexation here. It’s a case by case review on mulitiple grounds if questionable. The Czech republic joins Slovakia, a compatible partner, not the Sultanship of Brunei.
Claude Desmoulins: if the RA does the rejecting…
Claude Desmoulins: how can you avoid the RA looking at every app?
Moon Adamant: what about doing it otherwise?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well. This is a rather hard issue, Jon.
Pelanor Eldrich: It’s all good unless the Chancellor objects to a particlular app, then the RA looks at it for a vote.
Moon Adamant: if teh Exec rejects, and the applicant requests, RA will look at it?
Jon Seattle: I will note, that offically the RA has this power anyway. That we are mearly making in plain in the language of the bill.
Ranma Tardis has indicated consent to be recorded.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: We have a list of requirements. Compliance with our institutions and code of laws.
Sudane Erato: hi Ranma
Pelanor Eldrich: sure, only the RA can reject.
Justice Soothsayer: hi Ranma
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Hello, Ranma
Ranma Tardis: Hi Sudane
Jon Seattle: Hi Ranma
Moon Adamant: hi Ranma 🙂
Ranma Tardis: Hi 🙂
Moon Adamant: suggestion of a procedure:
Claude Desmoulins: Good morning
Jon Seattle: And, I would also note that the RA does not require the exec to make such a decision.
Moon Adamant: the applicant fills in the papers, the Exec must give an answer in one month about applicability
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok so far…
Pelanor Eldrich: Hi Ranma. 🙂
Moon Adamant: if applicability is not recognised, then the applicant has 15 days to subject the application to RA
Moon Adamant: criteria for applicability are those stated
Claude Desmoulins: With the tier exception?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Just to interrupt briefly. I’m not against “investigating people’s past” in order to verify applicability. ie. if a certain group is well-established, publicly so, that they don’t care about any rules, but still say they will comply with *ours*, well,
Jon Seattle: Oh, I want to make sure that the RA may reject an applicant that has been accepted by the executive. Very important.
Moon Adamant: Claude, one thing at the time, please
Gwyneth Llewelyn: that would be certainly a reason for not validating an application.
Moon Adamant: criteria can be discussed as a whole
Pelanor Eldrich: Ah, ok Jon.
Moon Adamant: hmmmm
Pelanor Eldrich: Can the RA accept an applicant rejected by the Exec? (no right)
Pelanor Eldrich: *no, right?
Jon Seattle: Pel, of course.. we could always pass a bill ..
Moon Adamant: that is what we are discussing, lol – i would say we could with a qualified vote, maybe
Claude Desmoulins: I want to make sure the 15 day appeal doesn’t apply to finance. Should the RA be able to force the exec to accept an app that costs CDS money?
Pelanor Eldrich: Ok, throw that all in there and I’m fine with it.
Moon Adamant: ah, let’s think finance then
Moon Adamant: i think that escrows should be deposited only after applicability
Pelanor Eldrich: I initially wanted to give the exec more financial policy power. You all rightly pointed out that I don’t want the Pres unilaterally setting my taxes.
Sudane Erato: 🙂
Moon Adamant: so you would hmmm
Moon Adamant: have two phases, at least
Moon Adamant: one: applicability
Moon Adamant: two: the upper phases of process, ie, escrow, notarising, land transfer
Pelanor Eldrich: Yes, verify money is green and lack of stank breath.
Moon Adamant: lol
Sudane Erato: 🙂
Moon Adamant: between the two, i think the RA check could be inserted
Moon Adamant: what do you think?
Pelanor Eldrich: Detailed halitosis verification (with vote).
Moon Adamant: lol, people will come here and breath on your face, pel .9
Justice Soothsayer: heh
Sudane Erato: hehe
Claude Desmoulins: At the moment the only grounds for the exec to delay an application are financial.
Pelanor Eldrich: I’ll find a civil servant for that part. eeeewwwwwwww.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Financial, and non-compliance with the rules. If someone says “no, I won’t bow to your legal jurisdction” they are out.
Claude Desmoulins: Yes.
Moon Adamant: but the Chpater C implies another criteria for applicability
Moon Adamant: though i agree that it can be more reforced
Claude Desmoulins: Ah.
Moon Adamant: actually, teh bill can have a chapter for criteria
Claude Desmoulins: So do you have an amendment on the floor?
Claude Desmoulins: And can you reword for clarity?
Justice Soothsayer: yes, we need to see an amended version of the bill
Pelanor Eldrich: I have 30 mins.
Claude Desmoulins: *restate
Moon Adamant: say that you set a chapter D – criteria for Acceptance of Applications
Pelanor Eldrich: PS, sorry i didn’t bring this up earlier.
Moon Adamant: that has two articles
Claude Desmoulins: Personally it seems to me that these issues are rather substantive.
Moon Adamant: one is that the applicants must accept, validate and uphold the codes, etc, in their proposed Charters
Moon Adamant: second is that there must be a financially favourable situtation
Pelanor Eldrich: works for me
Claude Desmoulins: RA can override either?
Moon Adamant: so teh Exec can check aplicability against those two criteria
Claude Desmoulins: IS that an amendment?
Pelanor Eldrich: All I care about is that someone can say now on reasonable grounds.
Pelanor Eldrich: *no
Jon Seattle: Well, overriding the first would be a constitutional question. If we doubt the sincerity of their acceptance of our laws, then we cannot make them part of the CDS.
Moon Adamant: well, we can vote this amendment
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes, but those doubts need to be reasoned…
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I mean, “I don’t like your bad breath” is NOT a valid argument.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Sorry Pel 🙂
Sudane Erato: 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: Is this the chapter D amendment?
Moon Adamant: yes, it should be set higher… *likes organised docs*
Moon Adamant: but mind you
Moon Adamant: this ony defines criteria
Moon Adamant: we will have to return to the discussion on checks
Claude Desmoulins: So you;d lie us to vote on Chapter D?
Jon Seattle: I suggest we table and have Moon draft the amendment.
Pelanor Eldrich: 🙁
Pelanor Eldrich: sigh..ok
Moon Adamant: yes, then the new draft can incorporate all revisions voted
Jon Seattle: Do we want any other changes before we go into this final revision?
Pelanor Eldrich: Franches, the bill that just won’t die.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I think that suggestion is more reasonable. From what I’m hearing, there is still a lot of disagreement 😛
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Aww poor Pel
Claude Desmoulins: What do we want to do in time limiits?
Claude Desmoulins: I disagree.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: It’s not an easy one, you know?
Claude Desmoulins: 1. Criteria – Acceptance of laws/const/codes and financial suitability.
Moon Adamant: what do you suggest Claude?
Gwyneth Llewelyn listens
Jon Seattle: I will say, personally, this is a bill that I want very much to pass. But we must do it right.
Moon Adamant: ok
Pelanor Eldrich: You realize if we delay it, Ash will weigh in. 🙂
Sudane Erato: hehe
Claude Desmoulins: 2- Process /timing – Exec has 30 days to accept/reject. Applicant then has 15 days to appeal to RA Which must decide the appeal at its next mtg.
Moon Adamant: nods
Claude Desmoulins: 3 – drop the three month time limit.
Moon Adamant: ah, i remeber now
Jon Seattle: I think we are close enough that this need not be re-debated in the forum from scratch. We have some (rather minor) changes that make plain the powers that the RA already has.
Justice Soothsayer: can we move this to 7-day and do a final version via email?
Moon Adamant: there was also your suggestion for an one-off now because of pending applicatons that have appeared since5-3 was voted
Moon Adamant: what would be the time limit then?
Jon Seattle supports Justice’s suggestion
Moon Adamant: well, now it has to be 28 days, for fairness
Claude Desmoulins: Do we need one since we now have voter registration?
Justice Soothsayer: since Moon needs the time to review all the wikis and draft a final version
Jon Seattle: brb
Moon Adamant: indeed claude, all citizens must have same rights
Claude Desmoulins: So ordered, Any one person can move to 7 day,
Moon Adamant: and fine by me about 7-day
Pelanor Eldrich: Fine with me. The applicants have waited 8 months, if they’re even still in SL, they can wait another week.
Claude Desmoulins: How much time do people have left.
Claude Desmoulins: ?
Sudane Erato: 10 min here
Justice Soothsayer: about the same
Pelanor Eldrich: ditto
Moon Adamant: hmmm i should make lunch happen, but it’s really your time that matters 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: Can we get through group ownership?
Moon Adamant: sure, i’ll look at franch
Jon Seattle: back
Pelanor Eldrich: lets try
Jon Seattle: yes, please
Jon Seattle Smiles
Claude Desmoulins: Should we change NFS to CDS? 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes 🙂
Jon Seattle: Ah, I am still a little confused about the terminology. Sure.
Claude Desmoulins: So that’s a friendly.
Jon Seattle: Yes
Claude Desmoulins: Jon, I notice commercial organizations aren’t included.
Pelanor Eldrich: Yes, and I’m fine with the lang. You may want to change 128m2 to “the minimum citizenship requirements” (just in case we end up tweaking that).
Jon Seattle: Claude, my understanding is that commercial organizations are covered by another code. As they should be I think.
Pelanor Eldrich: It’s 4-11 and needs some amending in the future to accomodate some of the changes we’ve made.
Pelanor Eldrich: Actually all codes need to have Neualtenburg stricken and replaced.
Jon Seattle: This is intended to extend the right of group ownership to volunary groups an couples.
Claude Desmoulins: OK
Claude Desmoulins: Other discussion?
Pelanor Eldrich: nope
Moon Adamant: me neither
Claude Desmoulins: All in favor…
Moon Adamant: Aye
Jon Seattle: Aye
Claude Desmoulins: Aye
Justice Soothsayer: Aye
Pelanor Eldrich: Aye
Pelanor Eldrich: We can friendly amend later if needed.
Jon Seattle: Yes. Oh, also we should next meeting do something about the language change in past laws.. 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: I have very mixed feelings on microplot abolition.
Pelanor Eldrich: I’m ok, with the preamble changes I’ve discussed with Jon and Moon.
Jon Seattle: Pel as a friendly amendment to 5-21 (2)
Sudane Erato: i think it is entirely tied up with citizenship definition
Claude Desmoulins: I understand the concern, but…
Moon Adamant listens to everyone
Moon Adamant: but Claude
Claude Desmoulins: …I wonder how much the VA amendment solves the problem. And…
Moon Adamant: to which article expressly do you object?
Moon Adamant: there is unanimit that the minimal land unit should be 128 m2, or there abouts
Claude Desmoulins: For example, I own 300 something m2 and never use it.
Moon Adamant: ok…
Moon Adamant: i am listening
Pelanor Eldrich: Speaking as the expert in election rigging, I’d like to see microplots abolished.
Jon Seattle: Claude, but you should! Building is a fine thing.
Claude Desmoulins: I’m an ideal candidate to tier down as it were.
Claude Desmoulins: I prefer to push paper 🙂
Moon Adamant: 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Same here, hehe
Sudane Erato: hehe
Pelanor Eldrich: I’m not sure I follow the argument.
Moon Adamant: btw, once again: citizens’ acquired rights are NOT put in question with this bill
Jon Seattle: I would like to see them absolished, in part, because I do think we are about creating a shared 3D space. Oh, debate in the forums is nice too, but we could after all do that without second life.
Claude Desmoulins: We all know of citizens who’ve left because of RL budget issues.
Moon Adamant: hmmm Claude, 128 m2 is USD 1 per month
Moon Adamant: that is not an argument
Pelanor Eldrich: Ranma does make a good point. If you can’t spend a cup of coffee of month on the CDS, what kind of civic commitment do you have anyway?
Pelanor Eldrich: *per
Jon Seattle agrees with Pel
Moon Adamant: you can raise lindens enough to pay it in camping chairs and avatar contests, if need be
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I have to second Jon on this… SL is not about being a “forum debating society”…
Pelanor Eldrich: I agree with Gywn and have been gmailing and foruming too much in comparison to being in-world.
Claude Desmoulins: I wanted to raise the issue.
Moon Adamant: yes, i do agree that our territory is part of the ‘whole’ that is the CDS project
Moon Adamant: claude, about money issues: we can discuss also, at some later occasion, teh possibility to have jobs in teh CDS
Moon Adamant: we have some already: the Civil service roles
Claude Desmoulins: Ialso don’t want to shut the microplot door until franchulates is open.
Claude Desmoulins: We have a few.
Moon Adamant: others occur to me: tourist guides, say
Claude Desmoulins: We’re clear that this bill will not force any current microplot owner off their plot.
Moon Adamant: most clear on that 🙂
Jon Seattle: Yes, I think the work idea could be a very good thing. At least the citizen would get some land for a home.
Jon Seattle: Claude, indeed we are.
Claude Desmoulins: Do we need an amendment banning sale of microplots to other avatars?
Claude Desmoulins: Else they become a hot commodity.
Moon Adamant: no, i think 1 covers it
Claude Desmoulins: It does.
Moon Adamant: though mabe the ‘should’ should be replaced by ‘will not’
Moon Adamant: maybe*
Pelanor Eldrich: Right. 4 should read “the citizen expansion act (microplots)” with a bill reference.
Claude Desmoulins: Probably.
Jon Seattle: How about “will no longer”
Pelanor Eldrich: 1. CDS
Moon Adamant: exactly, Jon 🙂
Jon Seattle: Yes, also CDS
Moon Adamant: and yes, lol
Claude Desmoulins: Jon do you consider all these friendlies?
Pelanor Eldrich: Oh, yeah, and my preamble change.
Claude Desmoulins: Please remind me.
Justice Soothsayer: 1. The sale of microplots by CDS or by citizens is abolished.
Jon Seattle: Yes, the preample change and these wording changes.
Jon Seattle: All friendly.
Pelanor Eldrich: ok
Claude Desmoulins: What’s the preamble change?
Jon Seattle: Pel?
Justice Soothsayer: change NFS to CDS in preamble and elsewhere
Claude Desmoulins: Ah,
Jon Seattle: Pel has a change about the purpose of the bill.
Jon Seattle: Let me see if I can pull up his language. One second.
Pelanor Eldrich: It’s minor, it’s basically (Moon has it)…Reason for microplot was to increase population of CDS. In order to minimize potential for election fraud and to foster a committed and civic minded citizenry, blah blah is repealed and replaced as follows:
Pelanor Eldrich: Something like that.
Jon Seattle: The new language is:
Jon Seattle: to avoid the potential for electoral abuse and to ensure a committed, civic minded citenzry, we hereby repeal 4-11 (the citizen expansion act) and replace it as follows:
Claude Desmoulins: OK. Needed it for the record.
Claude Desmoulins: Any other discussion?
Pelanor Eldrich: It doesn’t change the substance, and most importantly, makes me look better for posterity.
Moon Adamant: none here
Moon Adamant: lol Pel
Sudane Erato: hehe
Claude Desmoulins: All in favor
Gwyneth Llewelyn: prrftftt
Justice Soothsayer: ready to vote
Claude Desmoulins: Aye
Moon Adamant: Aye
Jon Seattle: Aye
Pelanor Eldrich: Aye
Justice Soothsayer: Aye
Claude Desmoulins: OK.
Claude Desmoulins: franchulates is in seven day.
Claude Desmoulins: let’s do referenda first thing next week.
Jon Seattle nods
Claude Desmoulins: Any objections to adjopurnment?
Pelanor Eldrich: nods
Moon Adamant: none
Claude Desmoulins: *adjournment
Pelanor Eldrich: none
Justice Soothsayer: Claude, I may have trouble attending next week, can we make it 2 weeks?
Jon Seattle: Yes, please
Sudane Erato: sorry… must run
Sudane Erato: bye all! 🙂
Pelanor Eldrich: bye
Jon Seattle: Bye Sudane
Moon Adamant: bye Sudane 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: Two weeks is my wife’s birthday weekend.
Justice Soothsayer: I’ll be in a hotel & not sure if I’ll have access
Justice Soothsayer: but we can try
Jon Seattle smiles at Sundane
Claude Desmoulins: I may be away from my SL capable machine that weekend.
Pelanor Eldrich: gotta run, RL consitutional conference at the local law school.
Claude Desmoulins: We’re adjourned
Moon Adamant: bye pel, have fun 🙂
The meeting closed at 6:5 Linden time.RA Meeting: October 14, 2006
Those present:
Claude Desmoulins is in the chair.
Gwyneth Llewelyn has indicated consent to be recorded.
Ashcroft Burnham has indicated consent to be recorded.
Patroklus Murakami has indicated consent to be recorded.
Pelanor Eldrich has indicated consent to be recorded.
Moon Adamant has indicated consent to be recorded.
Moon Adamant: lol pel
Claude Desmoulins: Everything is going to seven day, due to Justice’s absence.
Claude Desmoulins: Let’s begin.
Ashcroft Burnham: That makes things very difficult.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Very much so 😛
Sudane Erato has indicated consent to be recorded.
Patroklus Murakami: claude, coudld you explain the reasoning for that?
Pelanor Eldrich: I feel we should still have this meeting and discuss the issues here.
Jon Seattle has indicated consent to be recorded.
Ashcroft Burnham: We can – and vote on it.
Claude Desmoulins: The procedures are written such that any RA member may, in advance of a meeting, request that any or all items be voted on in seven day.
Claude Desmoulins: Justice has so requested.
Gwyneth Llewelyn *nods*
Gwyneth Llewelyn: “It is, indeed, the procedure” 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: This really is extremely unhelpful.
Patroklus Murakami: who gets to decide? is that option always there? could be misused to delay legislation
Claude Desmoulins: Only by seven days.
Pelanor Eldrich: We could firm it all up in this discussion and vote on it via email tonight. No biggie.
Ashcroft Burnham: The problem with the seven day procedure is that it is all less public. There is no public meeting before people vote. There is always the possibility of private conversations between people on the subject of what they are going to vote on on which…
Ashcroft Burnham: …others have no chance to comment.
Patroklus Murakami: you have a quorum, you’re a legislative body, you should legislate. but if that’s the procedure i guess there’s nothing than can be done *shrugs*
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well Pat, as much as I dislike the idea, there is obviously a “common sense” here. You could, in effect, delay 7 days, table for the next meeting, then delay again, or even refuse to accept new bills
Claude Desmoulins: That possibility exists even in world.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: But an RA that uses that trick all the time, well, would probably get a reprimand 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: First, are there any reports?
Moon Adamant: i can report briefly on CN
Gwyneth Llewelyn listens
Claude Desmoulins: OK
Moon Adamant: ok
Pelanor Eldrich: Have we formally installed the chancellor? I promise pomp later.
Sudane Erato: haha
Moon Adamant: we ara ahead of schedule in building, since yesterday was the deadline for having the terraforming and parcelling
Sudane Erato: 🙂
Moon Adamant: and that is done long ago, thanks to Sudane
Ashcroft Burnham: 🙂
Moon Adamant: we are at this moment already building some of the final structures, such as bridge, roads, city walls and gates
Moon Adamant: also some housing
Moon Adamant: and have also determined some of teh special buildings
Moon Adamant: budget is being corrected now as well, and a pricing list is being done
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok
Moon Adamant: tehre is a promotion strategy being set, and we have an unofficial blog, thanks to Brian
Ashcroft Burnham: 🙂
Moon Adamant: let me see if i can retrieve the url for you
Sudane Erato: 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Excellent…
Moon Adamant: ok, will in a minute
Moon Adamant: at tomorrow’s SPC
Moon Adamant: we will stablish teh rest of teh schedule
Sudane Erato: yes!
Moon Adamant: namely, the dates for start of promotion campaign and sales, and the opening to public
Moon Adamant: btw, SPC meeting tomorrow is at usual hour, 1 PM
Moon Adamant: in Colonia Nova
Moon Adamant: that’s it
Moon Adamant: let em get the url for you
Claude Desmoulins: I have two things.
Moon Adamant: http://colonianova.wordpress.com/
Moon Adamant listens
Claude Desmoulins: First per the change in election scheduling…
Claude Desmoulins: The polls will open January 13 and the deadline for declaring candidacy/start of the campaign is December 29.
Moon Adamant: nods
Claude Desmoulins: Can’t say you weren’t warned.
Sudane Erato: hehe
Claude Desmoulins: Second, The revised franchulate bill has passed.
Claude Desmoulins: Any other reports or announcements?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: The world is not coming to an end tomorrow? 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: No. That’s next week.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ah. Whew
Sudane Erato: 🙂
Claude Desmoulins looks puzzled
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, there is something very very marginal
Gwyneth Llewelyn: but something that a few members of Neufreistadt are actively involved in, so perhaps I can comment a bit on it?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: If you wish?
Claude Desmoulins: Sure
Gwyneth Llewelyn: The SL Chamber of Commerce
Gwyneth Llewelyn: this has been a project by Chili Carson, an accountant iRL
Gwyneth Llewelyn: who is trying very painfully to set up a SL Chamber of COmmerce
Gwyneth Llewelyn: mostly promotion, advertising and information, support for RL businesses that come to SL, etc
Gwyneth Llewelyn: not unsurprisingly, half of the members of the organising team are NFSers
Sudane Erato: 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ashcroft even suggested that mediation services could be offered by the NFS legal system
Gwyneth Llewelyn: as an option
Ashcroft Burnham: Hmm, not strictly mediation…
Gwyneth Llewelyn: and NFS would probably have a “local branch” of the SL CoC in NFS
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well… arbitration
Ashcroft Burnham: Although, I suppose, if the PJSP organised mediation services, those could be offered, too.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Indeed
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, this project received a serious blow this past week,
Sudane Erato: yes
Ashcroft Burnham: I suggested that the CoC suggest that if people wanted binding dispute resolution that they enfranchulate with us 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: since Chili Carson, due to RL commitments, will not have much time to continue it.
Ashcroft Burnham: Oh 🙁
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Now… this is NOT an “NFS” thingy
Gwyneth Llewelyn: and some of the other non-NFS members are interested in continuing nevertheless. The issue here is… we could naturally go ahead
Gwyneth Llewelyn: and very easily embrace the project, but…
Gwyneth Llewelyn: … then it would become a NFS-only thingy
Sudane Erato: yes… which would limit its effectiveness
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Besides Ash and myself we also have Zeus and Rudy as members there. And indeed, Sudane, my fears exactly.
Patroklus Murakami: any active ppl from outside NFS?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, perhaps we could discuss a bit at the forums, if we want to make a statement about it, offer help officially, etc
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes, two
Gwyneth Llewelyn: one is a member of the Las Vegas chamber of commerce (Thor Eldrich)
Ashcroft Burnham: Maybe Zeus’s SLJobFinder could help to find people for it?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: the other, Hunter Glass, is a business manager or an accountant, I believe.
Fernando Book: Is there any possibilty to involve some of the big fishes that are coming to SL, like Sun, that has just opened its pavillion?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: That would be the idea, Fernando. There is already some work done to organise things ? http://slcocincubator.info
Claude Desmoulins: I doubt they’re intereested.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: We were starting to discuss promotion and advertising strategies.
Pelanor Eldrich: Hmmm, what if we all kind of worked on it here, but Gwyn or some other CDSer represent us there to avoid it looking like a big CDS only project.
Claude Desmoulins: They have their RL reputation and branding, what do they need with this?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Know-how, Claude.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: How to approach a new medium for advertising and business.
Ashcroft Burnham: I suspect that the CoC would be more useful for, and popular with, SL-only businesses.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, both, actually, Ash
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I mean ? *some* companies coming to SL work on private sims
Gwyneth Llewelyn: for their own, private, customers. They’re isolated from the grid. These would not need much input from anything like SL CoC
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Anyway
Gwyneth Llewelyn: let’s talk about it on the forums.
Ashcroft Burnham: Yes 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: Now back to everyone’s favorite item…
Ashcroft Burnham: 😉
Gwyneth Llewelyn cheers 😀
Moon Adamant: lol
Sudane Erato: hehe
Jon Seattle nods
Claude Desmoulins: There’s one thing in the PJSP impeachment provision about which I’m concerned.
Ashcroft Burnham: What’s that?
Claude Desmoulins: the appearence clause.
Ashcroft Burnham: Let me find the exact words…
Ashcroft Burnham: on the grounds on the grounds of gross incompetence, gross dereliction of duty, corruption, or conduct (arising at any time after the member publicly stated an intention to stand for election to the Public Judiciary Scrutiny Panel) tending to undermine..
Ashcroft Burnham: the independence or impartiality of the judiciary of the Confederation of Democratic Simulators, or appearing so to undermine
Ashcroft Burnham: Is it the “or appearing so to undermine” bit?
Claude Desmoulins: Yes.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ah.
Claude Desmoulins: It seems to me a low and vague threshhold.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Thus prone to abuse?
Moon Adamant: hmmm, i would say so
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Or better… if people appear to “undermine” the system, that should be proved during the impeachment procedure?
Ashcroft Burnham: Hmm… I have thought about that part – it may be somewhat redundant in any case because of the use of “tending to undermine” rather than “undermining”.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: … while “appearing to undermine”, well, that doesn’t need “proof”, just personal opinion 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Indeed Ash
Claude Desmoulins: I think you should have to prove that someone was actually undermining in order to impeach them.
Jon Seattle: I suppose this is intended to handle the situation where the PJSP appears to have lost its impartiality.
Pelanor Eldrich: Claude, sorry, Rock/Paper/Scissors really should be on today’s agenda.
Ashcroft Burnham: Having thought about it, it’s probably not necessary to add “or appearing so to undermine” if the test is conduct that *tends* to undermine the independence, etc., rather than having to wait until that independence has already been undermined, and…
Ashcroft Burnham: …only shutting the door after the horse has bolted.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes, Jon, but when it “appears to lose impartiality”, the burden of proof falls on the entity issuing the impeachment. They should be able to prove, in an impeachment court, that “due to this and that, the PJSP is undermining the system”
Ashcroft Burnham: So, if we can impeach for conduct of the sort that inherently has the capacity to undermine, then, as long as we don’t have to show that independence has already been compromised, then we probably don’t need to have something that says “or appearing…
Ashcroft Burnham: …so to undermine”.
Gwyneth Llewelyn tends to agree with Ash and Claude on this.
Claude Desmoulins: It says tends to undermine.
Gwyneth Llewelyn appears to tend to agree… 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: LOL!
Sudane Erato: hehe
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ah, English is such a lovely language 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: Quite 😉
Sudane Erato: haha
Ashcroft Burnham: So, in any event, having considered the matter, I’m happy for “or appearing so to undermine” to be removed, provided that the rest remains in tact.
Claude Desmoulins: I would offer an amendment to strike those five words (or appearing to so undermine)
Ashcroft Burnham: I have no objections to that.
Claude Desmoulins: OK
Ashcroft Burnham: Might I make a suggestion as to procedure at this juncture?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: 7 days vote…
Ashcroft Burnham: Yes – since we have waited a long time for this bill, why don’t we make the 7 day procedure as fast as possible using the following means:
Ashcroft Burnham: All those who are here indicate now what they will vote on the matter on the 7 day rule, and submit their votes by e-mail forthwith. Then Claude encourage Justice to do the same as soon as he can 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: Gwyn, when is the next SC meeting?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, none is set now, Claude.
Claude Desmoulins: I have one further question as well.
Ashcroft Burnham: I suspect that it might depend on when this matter is finalised…
Ashcroft Burnham: Yes… 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: What was it? 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: In any case, if this goes on a 7 day vote, the SC will only meet next week, I’m afraid.
Ashcroft Burnham: 🙁
Ashcroft Burnham: That’s why I made my expedition suggestion, with the hope of getting this all finalised by the end of this week-end at the latest.
Claude Desmoulins: This regards what the judicial independence language and clarifying what it means… my concern is that if it is broadly interpreted and agressively applied, it reduces the PJSP election to a “nice guy” contest.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: … but if every member of the RA votes later today by email, well, I think we could manage an emergency meeting of the SC tomorrow. It’s almost impossible to get all members to agree on a single time, but 3 out of 4 is usually quickly settled.
Ashcroft Burnham: Well, the interpretation and application is a matter for teh Court of Scientific Council.
Ashcroft Burnham: So, you’ll have to ask Gwyn how she anticipates it being interpreted and applied 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: oh LOL
Pelanor Eldrich: In other words, does it pass Diane’s smell test?
Claude Desmoulins: I was also concerned that the judicial authorities could use threat of impeachment to squelch the speech of members of the PJSP. For example….
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Pel, Dianne has been silent mostly, although she made that nice mug that I’ve placed on the table 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: Welcome back 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: Might a very sensitive judiciary threaten impeachment proceedings against a pJSP candidate who speaks out on some issue tangential to the judiciary (size of courthouses or something)
Gwyneth Llewelyn: wb Sudane 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: Although, missing textures 🙁
Claude Desmoulins: ,,
Moon Adamant: wb Sudane 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I see your point, Claude,
Sudane Erato: sorry
Ashcroft Burnham: Claude: people can threaten people with anything.
Claude Desmoulins: alleging that in so doing they are revealing bias ?
Ashcroft Burnham: The question is whether the threat will be serious or not.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: however, I might add that the power to “threaten” impeachment exists for everything else.
Ashcroft Burnham: Whether the threat will be serious or not depends on whether there is any real chance on the Court of Scientific Council finding against somebody on such a basis.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: And I would also believe that an entity trying to “threaten” the PJSP with impeachment all the time,
Claude Desmoulins: Let me give another example of this.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: would be in fact abusing a power,
Ashcroft Burnham: If you don’t trust the Court of Scientific Council to get it right, then why do you want to invest any authority in them at all?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: and thus also subject to impeachment as well by other entities.
Ashcroft Burnham: Yes, Gwyn, quite: improper threats might also be a sign of bias.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Exactly.
Ashcroft Burnham: And Claude, even if you think that that’s a proble, what solution do you imagine that’s consistent with preserving judicial independence?
Ashcroft Burnham: (Problem, even)
Claude Desmoulins: Hence my attempt to get a handle on where the juducal independence line is.
Fernando Book: Perhaps we can give the SC the power to sanction the impeacher if he brings a cases on very feeble grounds and only to harm.
Fernando Book: *a case
Ashcroft Burnham: Shall I give you some examples of my view on the matter? That won’t be determinative, but it’ll give an idea of what I intended, at least.
Claude Desmoulins: I agree that saying ” I’ll select Bob” is inappropriate,
Claude Desmoulins: Sure, Ash.
Ashcroft Burnham: Fernando: hopefully, the unsuccessful party will have to pay costs, and hopeless cases should be able to be struck out at an early stage.
Ashcroft Burnham: Things that *would* undermine independence include:
Gwyneth Llewelyn: And Fernando, I think that that power already exists 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: (1) “I will only appoint Marxist juges”.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: (sorry Ash I’ll hush)
Claude Desmoulins: brb
Ashcroft Burnham: (2) “I will only appoint judges who will favour the interests of businesses over consumers”.
Ashcroft Burnham: (3) “I will only appoint judges who will let me win if I bring a case”.
Ashcroft Burnham: (4) “I will not appoint any judges who live in the US because I don’t like their legal philosophy over there”.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: hehe
Ashcroft Burnham: Things that *would not* undermine judicial indepencdence include:
Ashcroft Burnham: (1) “I will only appoint judges who are not only intelligent, but are realistic in their approach, and are fair-minded”.
Ashcroft Burnham: (2) “I will seek to appoint judges who have enough free time provide a proper service”.
Ashcroft Burnham: (3) “I will not appoint any judges who I think would be so rude as to be uncivil to litigants in court”.
Ashcroft Burnham: (4) “I will watch the judiciary very carefully, and bring impeachment proceedings against any judge who shows any signs of bias”.
Ashcroft Burnham: I hope that that’s clear 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes, I think that is rather clear,
Claude Desmoulins: OK. I like what I’m hearing. Tell me if I have it right…
Gwyneth Llewelyn: judicial independence, in this context, is more “not showing favours to a group or to individuals”, and not necessarily specific personality aspects of the judge(s)
Ashcroft Burnham: And, Gwyn, also not using judiical selection to achieve legislative aims.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes, I think that is also right.
Ashcroft Burnham: (I.e., not using judicial selection to achieve what only legislation or executive action should be capable of doing)(.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Or rather, I mean, that would also be an “abuse” of powers.
Ashcroft Burnham: Yes, quite.
Ashcroft Burnham: Hence the example about Marxist judges.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, these are good guidelines, Ash.
Claude Desmoulins: Undermining independence is in essence making statements that juge selection will be based on nationality, political philosophy, or other criteria which would indicate how a judge is likely to decide a specific case
Gwyneth Llewelyn *nods* @ Claude
Ashcroft Burnham: Yes 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: Is that an accurate summary?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Should something be added for clarification on the Act?
Ashcroft Burnham: It is.
Claude Desmoulins: Could we append it as an appositve after…
Ashcroft Burnham: Well, what sort of thing had you in mind?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: That phrase of yours, Claude, seems a good point to add.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: A definition of “judicial independence”: “Undermining independence is in essence making statements that juge selection will be based on nationality, political philosophy, or other criteria which would indicate how a judge is likely to decide a specific
Gwyneth Llewelyn: case.”
Claude Desmoulins: Yep.
Ashcroft Burnham: And “a specific case” is ambiguous, because it could be read as referring to a particular case that the members of the PJSP have in mind at the time.
Ashcroft Burnham: And “in essence” is redundant.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: “Undermining independence includes, but is not limited to, making statements that judge selection will be based….”
Claude Desmoulins: How about ..
Claude Desmoulins: decisions as a member of the pjsp
Claude Desmoulins: iinsted of judge selection.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ah.
Ashcroft Burnham: Hold on a second whilst I think of a form of words…
Gwyneth Llewelyn waits with a smile on her lips 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: “Judicial independence, for the purposes of section whatever number it is is the independence of the judiciary from external pressure as to how contested points in individual cases are decided”.
Claude Desmoulins: Undermining independence is making statements that PJSP decisions will be based on nationality, political philosophy, or other criteria which would indicate how a judge is likely to decide a specific case
Ashcroft Burnham: Actually, I should add at the end, “or the procedure by which they are decided”.
Claude Desmoulins: Ash, would your wording cover exclusion based on Marxism or RL nationality?
Ashcroft Burnham: Yes, since Marxist judges would tend to (one would assume) decide contested legal points in cases in ways that are consistent with the Marxist philosophy.
Ashcroft Burnham: Similarly, a US judge might be more likely to decide contested points in individual cases in ways more consistent with a philosophy that praveails in the US.
Ashcroft Burnham: Prevails, even.
Claude Desmoulins: How does the rest of the RA feel about this?
Ashcroft Burnham: Hmm, “points” should be matters, so it should read:
Ashcroft Burnham: ” “Judicial independence, for the purposes of section whatever number it is is the independence of the judiciary from external pressure as to how contested matters in individual cases are decided, or the procedure by which they are decided”.
Pelanor Eldrich: would be a Groucho Marxist judge.
Ashcroft Burnham: LOL! :-p
Moon Adamant: lol pel!
Gwyneth Llewelyn: hmpppfffff
Ashcroft Burnham: (This wouldn’t actually stop Marxist or US judges being appointed, of course, but would stop members of the PJSP appointing judges *because* they are Marxist or from the US).
Claude Desmoulins: I’m fine w/ Ash’s language as friendly substitute to my amendment.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ah, good point Ash.
Moon Adamant: i definely suppor grouchomarxism as a viable political standing 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: Or at least saying they would do so.
Claude Desmoulins: Discussion on the amendment?
Claude Desmoulins: brb
Ashcroft Burnham: The extra wording should be inserted paranthetically in the relevant clauses so that it reads…
Jon Seattle invents marxist neo-liberal jeffersonian environmentalism just to see if it works.
Ashcroft Burnham: “…tending to undermine the independence or impartiality of the judiciary… (where “independence” shall mean wording as above).
Ashcroft Burnham: ”
Claude Desmoulins: We’ll vote seven day on it as well. Of course.
Claude Desmoulins: I’ lastly concerned about jury duty.
Claude Desmoulins: *I’m
Ashcroft Burnham: That’s a new concern that wasn’t raised at previous meetings, and that hasn’t been the subject of any SC reference.
Claude Desmoulins: We have no history of compulsion in CDS.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: BTW, would this phrase/item/clarificatio be inserted between section 19. and 20.?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ah
Gwyneth Llewelyn looks at juries now.
Ashcroft Burnham: Well, one can’t have trial by jury without requiring people to do jury duty.
Ashcroft Burnham: Trial by jury is *already* part of the constitution.
Ashcroft Burnham: It was before I came.
Ashcroft Burnham: Potential jurors will have the right to show cause to a judge as to why he or she should not have to undertake jury duty.
Ashcroft Burnham: RL commitments would be considered a sufficient reason.
Ashcroft Burnham: (Provided that they were not “I’ve decided to go for a long walk to avoid jury duty”, or the like…)
Claude Desmoulins: That was my concern.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: III, 6.: “… Hearings and trials not involving government officials will be overseen by a single Professor and judgment will be decided by a jury of peers.”
Moon Adamant: hmmmm… i see the number of rl commitments skyrocketing… 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: There could always be some provision (not in the constitution, but perhaps as an amendment to the Judiciary and Scientific Council (Finance) Bill, providing for compensation for jurors.
Ashcroft Burnham: My point has always been that we don’t know whether it’s practical or not until we try it, and there’s no reason to give up without even trying, given the great benefits that jury trial brings.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: When I read the proposed new method for juries, what I saw was the one getting “jury duty” could simply go to a Judge and declare they had some commitments and get an exemption from jury duty.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Oops. We lost our LRA 😛
Ashcroft Burnham: That’s a possibility: if nearly everyone was very keen to avoid jury duty, the system wouldn’t work.
Ashcroft Burnham: Yes 🙁
Moon Adamant: and as you can’t enquire about other people’s RL…
Fernando Book: Can’t we link the jury duty to a right, perhaps the right to vote?
Ashcroft Burnham: *But* the judiciary wouldn’t break down, because jury trial is not compulsory, but optional.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes, Moon is right on that.
Jon Seattle nods and agrees with Moon
Ashcroft Burnham: We wouldn’t be enquiring about anything 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Hmm fernando, let’s hear your suggestion.
Jon Seattle: What are the estimated needs for jury members during the first six months of operation?
Ashcroft Burnham: We’d serve people a jury summons, and if they wanted to be excused, they’d have to give a reason.
Ashcroft Burnham: That reason may or may not be an RL reason.
Moon Adamant: Ash, i meant that the Rl commitment would be the perfect, unprovable excuse 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well Jon, we DO have a case ready to be tried, and I’m quite sure it would benefit from a jury 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes, Moon is right.
Jon Seattle indeed.
Ashcroft Burnham: Moon: quite. If people were going to lie just to get out of jury service in sufficient numbers, we wouldn’t be able to have jury trials. But people may not do that. People may feel more loyalty towards us than that.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: You could always come up with an RL excuse.
Moon Adamant: i do hope so, ash
Fernando Book: If someone doesn’t want to be a jury, and doesn’t provide a satisfactory cause for exemption, he could be deprived of the right to vote in the next elections.
Ashcroft Burnham: They might not, but, if they don’t, we’re in no worse a position than if we don’t make provision for jury trial in the first place.
Moon Adamant: sure
Ashcroft Burnham: Hmm, interesting idea, Fernando. I was thinking more of a fine, actually…
Gwyneth Llewelyn: So, Fernando’s idea is intriguing 🙂 Jury duty is a *duty* ? if you fail your duty, that’s fine, but you get a suspension of one of your rights.
Jon Seattle: Fernando, I would not be in favor of that.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: It’s dangerous, though.
Jon Seattle: Quite dangerous.
Moon Adamant: it could be
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I would personally favour a fine.
Ashcroft Burnham: A fine is probably safer and more democratic. One should have to do something serious enough to warrant banishment to lose the right to vote 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes 🙂
Jon Seattle: Yes, a fine sounds like a better option
Fernando Book: But fines are a way for the richer to scape from a duty…
Fernando Book: *escape
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Let’s set the fine at, oh, say, L$500,000 if you have a valid excuse, and L$50,000,000 if you don’t have one 😀
Gwyneth Llewelyn: ROFL
Ashcroft Burnham: :-p
Moon Adamant: lol, prove validity, gwyn
Gwyneth Llewelyn: valid: accepted by a Judge for exemption from jury duty,
Jon Seattle: And what is a valid excuse?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: not valid: simply not showing up
Ashcroft Burnham: Fernando, the enforcement of jury duty is not very easy. It’s not absoutely impossible, but people can get around it. We are hoping that people won’t try too hard to get around it, and will feel some loyalty to us.
Patroklus Murakami: i would be against fining our citizens for not providing a valid excsue. who is to say that my excuse is not valid?
Ashcroft Burnham: If they don’t, however, we’re in no worse a position than we would be if we didn’t make povisions for jury service at all.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: The Judge is, Pat
Ashcroft Burnham: Pat: a judge 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Let me read that section again and quote from it…
Ashcroft Burnham: Just like in real life.
Moon Adamant: wait there\
Patroklus Murakami: hehe, indeed 🙂
Moon Adamant: imagine that i say that i have a rl commitment
Moon Adamant: unspecified
Jon Seattle: And how do you deal with time zone issues? For example, if someone scheduled a trial for 1 PM SLT during a weekday, I would not be able to attend.
Moon Adamant: you re saying
Patroklus Murakami: i think it’s a bad step, to try to compel people
Ashcroft Burnham: Jon: it being 3am at the relevant time would definitely be a valid excuse 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Jon, that would be a valid RL reason.
Ashcroft Burnham: We wouldnt’ want jurors who were half asleep anyway.
Moon Adamant: that the judge would have to infringe upon ToS to evaluate over my rl commitment
Ashcroft Burnham: Pat: we can’t have jury service without it.
Moon Adamant: what about paying them regally?
Ashcroft Burnham: How would the judge infringe anybody’s ToS?
Moon Adamant: 🙂
Moon Adamant: because Ash
Ashcroft Burnham: Asking a question doesn’t infringe anything.
Moon Adamant: he would have to ak
Moon Adamant: that is not my understanding of SL ToS
Ashcroft Burnham: But, actually, the judge wouldn’t have to ask anything.
Ashcroft Burnham: The person compelled to serve on a jury would remain so compelled unless he or she voluntarily told the judge of a good reason 🙂
Patroklus Murakami: let me be clear. i’m not opposed to making jury duty part of the CDS ToS, but i oppose the use of sanctions against those who choose not to
Jon Seattle: But then a judge could potentially get a particular regional pool of jurors by scheduling the trial at a particular time.
Moon Adamant: make the thing appealing instead, ash
Ashcroft Burnham: Pat: how can there be a *duty* to serve on a jury without a sanction for breaching that duty?
Ashcroft Burnham: Jon: that’s inevitable, but it’d be from a broad range of regions.
Patroklus Murakami: you cannot impose a sanction in any fair or measured way. so there’s no point in having it!
Ashcroft Burnham: Whatever the time of the trial was, some regions would inevitably be excluded. That applies to all people present during the proceedings. It’s an inevitable consequence of the way that SL works.
Ashcroft Burnham: Why can’t the sanction be fair or measured, Pat?
Moon Adamant: but you see Ash
Moon Adamant: imagine that the judge is, say, european
Moon Adamant: he could set it 5PM GMT or CET n a week day
Gwyneth Llewelyn suggests to abolish timezones altogether.
Sudane Erato: hehe
Ashcroft Burnham: Gwyn: we’d need to make the earth flat first.
Sudane Erato: yes
Jon Seattle: Gwyn, lol
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Hooray for a flat earth!
Moon Adamant: effectively barring a lot of people living westwards
Fernando Book: It’s necessary that the jury is in the place of the trial? I mean, there’s no voice inflexions to notice, or anything, and perhaps reading the transcript is enough?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Anyway… I think that we’re a little overreaching the scope of the discussion,
Fernando Book: I suppose that juries can’t ask questions…
Gwyneth Llewelyn: you seem to look upon very nasty Judges that cackle and glee in their secret hideouts and say “nyahaha let’s get some more fines from those nasty Australians and set the hearing while they’re asleep”
Ashcroft Burnham: Fernando: juries can send notes to the judge asking questions to be asked.
Jon Seattle: I do see that the time zone thing may be a future issue for contentious debate, but I am happy to leave it for now.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I would also think so, Ash
Moon Adamant: well, at 50.000.000 L$ it would economically interesting 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: The fines won’t be that high :-p
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Judges setting hearings *purposefully* to fine juries would be, well, abusive behaviour, and subject to review by the PJSP 😛
Ashcroft Burnham: The point is that there are some significant practical issues with juries, but we don’t know that they’re insurmountable. Unless nad until we do, it’s worth giving jury trial a go because of its many benefits.
Pelanor Eldrich: I’m gravitating towards Ranma’s concept of a cup of coffee unit of commitment ($1.50USD)
Ashcroft Burnham: Yes, quite, Gwyn 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: Hmm, Claude has been gone a long time…
Sudane Erato: yes 🙁
Pelanor Eldrich: ISP maybe…
Jon Seattle: I recommend $L 5. All we can do is symbolic. Is someone acutally working on an amendment to adress these issues?
Pelanor Eldrich: I’d go as high as $L350/missed session.
Ashcroft Burnham: A fine should be enough to be a disincentive to do wrong, but not so much as to make the person prefer to leave the CDS rather than pay it (if we want the person to leave, we’ll banish her/him).
Patroklus Murakami: i can’t believe that you’re seriously considering imposing fines on citizens for failing ot give a valid reason for jury duty
Ashcroft Burnham: But we don’t need to think about the levels of the fines now 🙂 We needn’t decide on the colour of the blinds until after we’ve put up the building…
Ashcroft Burnham: Pat: that’s how it works in real life.
Patroklus Murakami: do you believe that anyone would pay them?
Ashcroft Burnham: No more or less than any of the other things that we coudl fine people for.
Patroklus Murakami: we could lose citizens over this v easily
Pelanor Eldrich: True. Maybe $L5, but it’s on your record.
Moon Adamant: actually, colour of facade elements is part of teh project 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: But we’re discussing the Judiciary Act, which doesn’t specifcy the levels of fines… we’re straying, I think. I rather suspect that this is more a matter to consider once we’ve passed it rather than now.
Moon Adamant: i would say instead
Ashcroft Burnham: After all, you were all happy to pass those exact same jury provisions on two previous occasions…
Moon Adamant: make it appealing
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Aaah
Gwyneth Llewelyn: financial compensation.
Pelanor Eldrich: Yeah, let’s not talk penal code, that’s another conversation.
Ashcroft Burnham: Quite :-0
Ashcroft Burnham: 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: If you come to jury duty, you get one month free 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: No wait, that’s unfair
Sudane Erato: haha
Ashcroft Burnham: We’re not really in a position at this juncture to think numbers.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I mean, people with larger holdings would LOVE to be selected for jury duty 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: Quite.
Sudane Erato: hehe
Gwyneth Llewelyn: They’ll get a Linden Bear.
Sudane Erato: hehe
Jon Seattle: Actually, I think that all we can do in either direction will be sumbolic. The real reason to particate is civic duty. And, if a trial required tens of hours of being on-line, there will be nothing we can do.
Moon Adamant: hmmm, i want to discuss with you that odd notion of appealingness
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I agree, Jon, let’s be realistic on that…
Ashcroft Burnham: Those are problems that are best addressed *after* we pass the Act: after all, it doesn’t require that any given hearing be before a jury, but merely allows it to be so.
Moon Adamant: though i can share my fbulous Benshee as a prize for teh Best Juror 2006 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Voting is also a civic duty, but some don’t vote 🙂 (yes, I know that the Australians deal with that very nicely, but they’re one of the very few exceptions)
Ashcroft Burnham: If juries prove wholly impractical, they can be abolished, but we should at least given them a chance.
Patroklus Murakami: i think this is a discussion that would be better continued on the forums
Gwyneth Llewelyn agrees with both Ash and Pat at the same time 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: Yes, it’s not a discussion about whether to pass the Judiciary Act, after all 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: LOL!
Patroklus Murakami: how does the RA intend to proceed (or not) with it’s agenda for today with the LRA absent?
Moon Adamant: hmmmm
Gwyneth Llewelyn: The RA can appoint a “Temporary LRA”, there is precedent on that…
Moon Adamant: can we elect a secretary LRA?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: *for
Ashcroft Burnham: That’s probably wise.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes, it happened often.
Moon Adamant: ok
Gwyneth Llewelyn: During my own term, the Temporary LRA was made permanent, since she handled the procedures so much better than me 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Any volunteers? Moon? Jon? Pelanor?
Gwyneth Llewelyn fears the silence
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Rocks/paper/scissor? 😀
Sudane Erato: oops… lost fernando
Moon Adamant: er… loss or win?
Ashcroft Burnham: Hmm, they’re dropping like flies.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: LOL
Jon Seattle: I volunteer, and then move we adjourn to 7 day.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: thank you Jon 😀
Ashcroft Burnham: Hmm, I suggest that we don’t adjourn yet – there are things undiscussed that probably ought be looked at briefly.
Ashcroft Burnham: (At *least* briefly..)
Moon Adamant: yes
Jon Seattle: First, on my taking this role for the remainder of this meeting.
Moon Adamant: aye, jon
Patroklus Murakami: if you adjourn you must decide which of the bills are to be voted on over 7 days
Ashcroft Burnham: Might I suggest that the referenda bill needs more consideration before it’s passed?
Patroklus Murakami: wb fernando
Jon Seattle: Ah, Justice already requested that all bills on the agenda be voted that way.
Moon Adamant: well, the referenda bill, actually, has been in discussion for a long, long time
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, I do have LOTS of issues on the current referenda bill 😛
Ashcroft Burnham: Consideration (1) as to whether a majority of all those eligable to vote should be required, and (2) whether different parts of the constitution should be entrenched to different degrees.
Patroklus Murakami: indeed moon, since april if i recall correctly
Ashcroft Burnham: That doesn’t seem to have been discussed properly, and they’re both important issues.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: “discussed”, yes
Jon Seattle: Pel, are you okay with my taking the role, for this meeting, of LRA?
Moon Adamant pokes Pel
Sudane Erato: haha
Patroklus Murakami: i think you could quite reasonably decide to table those bills which have not had a full discussion at this meeting. eg.g the referenum CA
Fernando Book: I think also that the referenda amendment should be approved in a referendum.
Sudane Erato: lol Gwyn 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: My crams are not working on Pel 😛
Gwyneth Llewelyn: *charms
Jon Seattle: Well, I am hoping we can have a short discussion on referendum now.
Sudane Erato: hehe
Patroklus Murakami: i’d take pel’s silence as assent
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Tsk Pat.
Ashcroft Burnham: Before we get there, does everybody agree that the “hypothetical amendments the the judiciary bill” should not be made?
Jon Seattle laughs and waits on Pel
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Here comes Pel!!!!
Sudane Erato: yay!
Gwyneth Llewelyn: His hands are moving… will he type anything…
Pelanor Eldrich: I’m happy with Jon or Moon as temp LRA, but am fine keeping the discussion going.
Ashcroft Burnham: 🙂
Jon Seattle: Well, informally then, thens move on to referendum.
Sudane Erato: 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: … the audience holds their breath in anxiety…
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok
Moon Adamant: Jon
Sudane Erato: lol
Pelanor Eldrich: Gwyn, it’s not that kind of theatre…
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Oh!
Moon Adamant: may i propose something?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Sorry.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Sure Moon 😀
Jon Seattle: I will set a time limit of not passing the hour on this topic however.
Gwyneth Llewelyn *nods* @ Jon
Jon Seattle: Yes, Moon
Moon Adamant: since that we have only looked at one point in agenda
Moon Adamant: and we will have to vote in 7 days
Moon Adamant: can you please time discussion in other points
Moon Adamant: i do feel worried
Jon Seattle: Okay, at no later than the hour, let us move on to the two PCA bills for ten minutes each.
Moon Adamant: that we actually never have time to reach the bottom of agenda
Jon Seattle: So referenda for 15 minutes.
Ashcroft Burnham: The “hypothetical amendments to the judiciary bill” haven’t been discussed. I don’t mind that as long as that means that nobody takes them seriously 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, on the referenda, since I’ve been the major opposer to any kind of degeneration into “direct democracy”, I wish only to say that the LAST time this was discussed,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: a provision was added
Jon Seattle: We have already spent quite a bit of time on the judiciary and have other issues to discuss.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: that the referenda would take effect at the end of term,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: and any deliberations there would only have an effect when the subsequent RA was elected.
Ashcroft Burnham: Hmm, but Jon, if we’ve discussed an issue without resolving it, have we really used that time productively?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: This was to prevent “any other day we’ll have a referendum”
Moon Adamant: indeed, gwyn, i recall that perfectly
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Also, it meant that the RA would do more “constitutional conventiosn”;
Gwyneth Llewelyn: have a large number of amendments presented in a “package”
Gwyneth Llewelyn: call for ONE referendum in a term,
Ashcroft Burnham: Gwyn: would that mean that future constitutional amendments would *all* have to wait until the next term to be passed?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: and have the population ratify it, during the same day that the RA elections were held
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes Ash
Ashcroft Burnham: Goodness, that’d mean that we never get anywyere…
Patroklus Murakami: the RA could choose to do that, and it’s a good safeguard against abuse. but it would have meant that we would have had to wait til jan to get our judiciary for example
Gwyneth Llewelyn: This was viewed as a way to en sure that the RA & SC, actining in tandem, could not change the constitution so easily, as it is right now.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Not at all, Ash.
Ashcroft Burnham: Gwyn, you’re concerned about the RA calling the same referendum again and again until people agree with the RA, is that right?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: It would mean that we would concentrate on having a GOOD constitution, and legislate more and better.
Moon Adamant: define easiness?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: That as well, Ash
Gwyneth Llewelyn: And I’m also concerned,
Ashcroft Burnham: We shouldn’t make things difficult for the sake of it. Arbitrary time limts are too inflexible.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: that every other day (or week) we’ll be happy Swiss eagerly voting on *all* issues.
Ashcroft Burnham: You could prohibit a referendum on the *same* amendment more than once a term.
Moon Adamant: i would like people to understand, that atm, the mmendments are the most dififcult thing to pass in our system
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Nothing against the Swiss, of course 🙂
Moon Adamant: not only they have the need for a qualified vote, as they must be approved by another branch
Gwyneth Llewelyn: We’re constantly amending the same things in the Constitution, over and over again… redefining single words, removing a sentence, adding another…
Moon Adamant: i know that there is is notion running around
Gwyneth Llewelyn: And Moon is right.
Ashcroft Burnham: Gwyn: but does that actually cause us any problems? Are we in a better or worse position now for our ability to have done that?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: It takes quite a lot of compromise to make changes.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Oh Ash,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: It’s a philosophical thing 🙂
Fernando Book: I agree with Gwyneth that we need a sound (and short) constitution, and leaving everything else to laws.
Moon Adamant: that it is extremely easy, but n the contrary: it is the MOST DIFFICULT thing to do in our system
Ashcroft Burnham: Gwyn: that doesn’t answer the point. The philosophy is “we should do whatever has the best results” 🙂
Jon Seattle: I think that the constitution for us, has somewhat of a different role than the US constitution. Ours provides actually proceedues for decision making in a much more direct way. Closer, perhaps, to a european model.
Pelanor Eldrich: I’d prefer individual items on the referendum with up/down instead of a big omnibus package every term.
Ashcroft Burnham: Arbitrary time-limits are rife to cause stagnation and inflexibility.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well. I’m not yet convinced that degeneration into direct democracy IS the thing that brings the best results. From RL experience, and history, it leads to mostly stagnated, conservative societies (the public doesn’t embrace change)
Ashcroft Burnham: Just imagine where we’d be now if we’d had to wait until January for the Chancellor!
Patroklus Murakami: having to wait six months is a hellishly long time in SL terms. i think we would be likely to regret it
Ashcroft Burnham: I agree with Pat.
Ashcroft Burnham: What we need are *different* levels of entrenchment for different parts of the constitution.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Oh. Yes. That’s another story, I don’t have anything against the *current* model, since it *promotes* change,
Fernando Book: We can’t call for a referendum on a amendment only if a number of citizens (say, a 20%) ask for it.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: the only thing I have against the *proposed* model is that this “change” has to be validated by referenda 😉
Patroklus Murakami: i can’t see how this is degeneration into direct democracy. it’s providing a new check for const amends
Jon Seattle: Yes, I agree with Gwyn if our aim is to become a larger group. For very small groups (as we are not) direct democracy can work.
Fernando Book: *can
Gwyneth Llewelyn: oooh Claude is back!
Jon Seattle: *as we are now
Jon Seattle: wb Claude!
Pelanor Eldrich: crikey, Claude’s having a grand mal…ok.
Ashcroft Burnham: So, some parts should remain as they are now, requiring 2/3 RA, some parts should require simple majority of those voting at a referendum as well, and some parts 2/3 of those voting.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: wb Claude indeed!
Sudane Erato: wb Claude!
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Oh my.
Pelanor Eldrich: wb
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Which parts would be those, Ashcroft?
Claude Desmoulins: ISP frizzed out badly.
Ashcroft Burnham: That needs more discussion 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I agree.
Moon Adamant: wb claude
Ashcroft Burnham: The details of RA procedure, for example, probably just RA.
Jon Seattle: Claude, I temporarily served as chair. I set a time limit of 6 PM slt on refferenda, then ten minutes max on each of the PCA bills.
Ashcroft Burnham: Election scheduling: 2/3 referendum.
Claude Desmoulins: What on earth are we discussing?
Ashcroft Burnham: Citizneship: 1/2 referendum.
Ashcroft Burnham: And so on.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Referenda, Claude
Ashcroft Burnham: Jon had to take over as your deputy in yoru absence.
Jon Seattle: Yes, for 6 more minutes.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: To clarify: I’m just stating a personal opinion in this matter, btw
Patroklus Murakami: what would be your criteria for deciding which level each element of the constn needs?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: the bill for the referenda, as it stands, does not violate anything, from the point of view of the SC
Gwyneth Llewelyn: But… I can give you a good example. In our community, we already have a very large group resisting change.
Ashcroft Burnham: That requires further discussion. However, the broad principle would be that the more fundamental the pricniple, and the more important that it is at preventing abuses of power, the greater the level of entrenchment should be in respect of it.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: And critisising the RA/SC to be promoting so much change in such a quick time.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Change is *good* but people are conservative,
Claude Desmoulins: Can you give me a minute or two of relative quiet to catch up.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: representative democracy is the best solution to that.
Claude Desmoulins: 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: 🙂
Moon Adamant: indeed… last term, curiously, it was the opposite…
Ashcroft Burnham: Gwyn: it’s not always bad to be at least a little conservative. We should not be radical for the sake of being radical, nor conservative for the sake of being conservative: we should change everything that needs to be changed, and nothing that does not.
Ashcroft Burnham: Might I suggest that the referenda issue not be decided now, but discussed in greater depth on the forum?
Gwyneth Llewelyn would also kindly ask the RA for more time to discuss that on the forums or in-world meetings, whatever
Jon Seattle: Ashcroft, you may suggest, but we will decide.
Ashcroft Burnham: Indeed 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: 🙂
Moon Adamant: it has been posted for discussion on teh forum in hmmm June, i believe
Gwyneth Llewelyn: On the LL forums?
Moon Adamant: possibly before, i can only recollect this term
Patroklus Murakami: well, there are clearly issues that need further discussion
Ashcroft Burnham: The problem is that it’s not clear what views that people have on differential levels of entrenchment…
Ashcroft Burnham: And there’s no real discussion about the dangers of requiring a given proportion of total citizens, rather than those voting.
Moon Adamant: no, in our forums
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Hmm
Sudane Erato: please forgive me…
Sudane Erato: other obligations 🙁
Ashcroft Burnham: 🙁
Jon Seattle: Oh, thanks and bye Sudane
Claude Desmoulins: I’m also concerned with frequent referenda placing a heavy burden on voters.
Ashcroft Burnham: Yes – but that’s a reason in favour of having differential entrenchment, isn’t it?
Claude Desmoulins: We have anough trouble getting them to all vote twice a year.
Jon Seattle: I move that we extend this discussion for five minutes and then move on to the PCA bills
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, Claude, at the beginning everybody will vote against change. It’s in human nature.
Claude Desmoulins: How do youhave differenctial entrenchment within the constitution?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: After the third or fourth vote, people will simply ignore it
Ashcroft Burnham: Aha – for that, I have a cunning plan!
Gwyneth Llewelyn: thus the referenda will quickly just degenerate in a way where nobody votes, and no changes get approved.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Fines? 🙂
Ashcroft Burnham: Next to each section, there could be a symbol – perhaps a diamond shape.
Fernando Book: Fundamental rights require a referendum, some things in the Judiciary act require only the RA appoval.
Patroklus Murakami: that’s opinion gwyn, not fact
Ashcroft Burnham: One diamond would indicate 2/3 RA.
Ashcroft Burnham: Two diamonds would indicate 2/3 RA plus 1/2 of those voting in a referendum.
Ashcroft Burnham: Three diamonds would indicate 2/3 RA and 2/3 of those voting in a referendum 🙂
Claude Desmoulins: That’s a big change.
Claude Desmoulins: Intriguing.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Pat: that is what I call *valued opinion*, based on RL history, and even SL history (see the Feature Voting Tool!), as well as a good understanding of human nature 🙂 Of course it might be WRONG.
Pelanor Eldrich: fears the royal flush.
Ashcroft Burnham: LOL!
Ashcroft Burnham: But, Gwyn has a point: we must never set things up so that mere apathy can defeat change.
Pelanor Eldrich: It should be 2/3 or whatever of voters…
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ah, which is also dangerous, Pel.
Pelanor Eldrich: If the question is important, the citzenry will vote.
Ashcroft Burnham: Don’t bank on it.
Claude Desmoulins: Hence the value of tying referenda to the existing election.
Pelanor Eldrich: If they’re apathetic, well, tough shit.
Patroklus Murakami: surely it should be up to the RA to determine what would lead to ‘voter fatigue’ and adjust accordingly
Patroklus Murakami: rather than tie them into an inflexible timetable
Ashcroft Burnham: Claude: the problem with that is that the lag that it causes has the potential to create very serious problems.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Example: the franchulate act. Imagine that only people like Ranma would vote no, because the others simply wouldn’t care enough about it 😉
Jon Seattle: interesting.
Ashcroft Burnham: Gwyn does have a point: there are many things that people aren’t interested enough to vote in in great numbers.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Indeed.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Thus allowing the very few radicals to block the system
Ashcroft Burnham: Only the *really important* parts (no loss of citizenship without right to a trial, regular elections, etc.) should be entrenched more than they already are.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: If you define a threshold for a referendum to be valid,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: then people will block it by not even appearing for the vote.
Ashcroft Burnham: Yes.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: So there is no “easy way out” on that, I’m afraid.
Ashcroft Burnham: Hence differential entrenchment 🙂
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Referenda are good for things that are “generic” or “emotional”, though
Patroklus Murakami: but you ensure that constl changes which *are* made have the support of the people
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Example: “should we be a Republic, a federation, or a Constitutional Monarchy?”
Ashcroft Burnham: Regular elections is probably the single most important provision to entrench.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Neither choice will mean much in the long term. Just a different approach to things.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: So that could be asked from the people.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Or: “should NFS look more like a Swiss village, or a bavarian village?”
Jon Seattle: Claude, are we going to adress the other two bills today?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Also, the answer is not relevant to most of the things.
Ashcroft Burnham: (Also, Claude, we haven’t discussed the “hypothetical amendments”; if nobody wants to vote for them, then, that’s fine, but if people are thinking of voting for them, then it really ought be discussed.)
Claude Desmoulins: I think paying government officials needs public discussion in the forums.
Jon Seattle: Okay.
Ashcroft Burnham: THat’s probably right. I think that it’s a good idea to pay you, but that part hasn’t been discussed very much.
Moon Adamant: so those two are tabled and will not enter 7-day mode?
Jon Seattle: Thats fine with me, if we want to do it that way.
Pelanor Eldrich: Last comment on this for me. If the referedum is announced and RA members feel stronglhy about the issue, there will be campaigning to raise voter awareness. If the issue is important, the majority will turn out.
Ashcroft Burnham: Don’t bank on it.
Ashcroft Burnham: Most people don’t even vote in real-world elections.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I like your optimism, Pel, even if I don’t share it 🙂
Moon Adamant: the politically commited do
Claude Desmoulins: Chancellor exclusivity can I believe move to seven day.
Ashcroft Burnham: It was 26, wasn’t it, who voted at the last election out of then about 38 citizens?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes, Moon, but those are always the minority ? thus, representative democracy 😉
Claude Desmoulins: Any objection to that?
Jon Seattle: no objection.
Pelanor Eldrich: nope
Moon Adamant: no objection
Moon Adamant: what has been decided on referenda, sorry? table for forums?
Claude Desmoulins: Table referenda and compensation to forums
Moon Adamant: ok
Claude Desmoulins: Chancellor exclusivity to seven day with Judiciary.
Jon Seattle: Can we take up referenda next meeting?
Claude Desmoulins: I may need to go two weeks here.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: uh oh
Claude Desmoulins: Next weekend is my wife’s birthday.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: aaah
Moon Adamant: hmmm, btw, i can’t find the thread of referenda… does anyone know where it is?
Claude Desmoulins: we’ve been meeting at a blistering pace.
Ashcroft Burnham: Can’t you set up an RA meeting to discuss just uncontroversial things next week, that only require 3/5, such as appointing judges?
Ashcroft Burnham: Otherwise we’ll be here for ever.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Also, we have a pending trial, and no judges… 😛
Ashcroft Burnham: Quite.
Claude Desmoulins: We’ll discuss the meeting schedule in with other stuff.
Claude Desmoulins: What trial?
Ashcroft Burnham: Claude, since you can set the agenda, you can put on it in the week that you’re absent only the relatively uncontroversial things.
Ashcroft Burnham: It’d be worth three or four of you meeting next week *just* to appoint a judge.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: A citizen has been banned by a Marshal of the Peace. Now that citizen is entitled to a confirmation of that act through a trial.
Claude Desmoulins: I thought bannings had to be announced?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: They were.
Ashcroft Burnham: Ahh, yes, the delights of transitional provisions…
Claude Desmoulins: Where?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Hmm
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, the SC was notified 😀
Claude Desmoulins: I’ll be on email with all.
Ashcroft Burnham: Presumably, the pre-Judiciary Act banishment would be revoked by the passing of the Judiciary Act, and the person would have to be re-banished, with a Notice of Summary Banishment.
Claude Desmoulins: We’re adjourned.
Patroklus Murakami: don’t the provisoin of the ‘defence of the republic’ act still hold until the judiciary bill is finally passed?
Fernando Book: Bye all. I have to go.
Ashcroft Burnham: Yes – it’s the Judiciary Act that repeals it.
Jon Seattle: Bye Fernando
The meeting closed at 6:17 Linden time.