Council of Elrond

agree with wolfgang

Hi gents,

1st thanks to Eric to getting this thing done for us

as discussed before, I must go with Eric's point of view, as we did experience a drought of players lately . ..

Nicolai

Ok, I'll change that part then. Could change it to "the Council shall appoint a non-council member to monitor the votes," but that is equally fishy.

nb. the original charter doesn't address this point at all...

Sounds fine for me. I agree with the new charter.

All candidates will be listed on the CoE community discussion platform, and the CoE will appoint a registrar (who is not a member of the current CoE, and who is not going to be a candidate), who shall be responsible for maintaining this list and monitoring the votes.

@eric: any chance to avoid any fishy (whatever that exactly means) phrase?
anyway: i think the one collecting the votes for COE members should not be the chairman or any of the candidates. thats just too inviting for mistrust.

Fishy meaning it smells equally bad if the Council appoints someone on a case by case basis: if there are no structural/inherent checks and balances, correct democratic procedures and values are not guaranteed of course.

But this is all way too much for such simple affairs. I'll add 'independent non-council member' and be done with it.

btw. Draft is changed and updated with the above mentioned correction.

The new charter was approved by the last CoE session, as suggested, please new CoE, vote on it and we can make it official.
Eric: aye

Nicolai: aye

Mikko: aye

i agree with most of the new charter except this part:

Errata: The Council shall issue errata or rules changes as needed in order to perform her tasks.
- A team of three experts will be appointed by the Council to discuss all rules changes. This team shall include the NetRep.

In my oppinion, there is no need to make a new team. There is already the NetRep team that can take care of this.

As for the rest of the charter: aye.

@Marcos. Well the NetRep team discusses the workings and soundness of rules, not the necessity for changing them.
This is basically the same as in any government, there is an advisory legal institution, but it's parliament that makes decissions. The line about the CoE team is there to make sure that CoE take the initiative in errata, as a project, nothing more.

I got 4 votes now, awaiting 1 more to get clearance...

i still dont see the need to create a new team, when one that already exists can take care of that

Ok, let me put it another way then (though you might have deduced it from the above): there is no such team yet
to date, the NetRep has not made nor proposed any official errata, they did not want to do so, nor should we want them to do so. A ruling is not an erratum, just as a verdict is not a law, even if it amounts sometimes to the same thing

Sorry for the dealy. Aye.