New Constitution

zarathustra
Posts: 671
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:26 pm

New Constitution

Post by zarathustra » Tue Apr 18, 2006 4:16 am

This thread will be for discussion of the forging of a new constitution for CoE. I'm too tired and full of sangria right now to post anything useful....
http://www.alfanos.org

gkg
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 10:11 pm
Location: Prague, CZ

Post by gkg » Tue Apr 18, 2006 3:06 pm

do you mean breaking the "enough of the silenttower list" ratification process without having it ratificated?

that's like declaring a dictatorship!!!!
:evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

Earendil
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:01 am
Location: Como, Italy
Contact:

Post by Earendil » Tue Apr 18, 2006 3:17 pm

gkg wrote:do you mean breaking the "enough of the silenttower list" ratification process without having it ratificated?
The problem is that the list has a lot of people with their subscription and a lot of them (the most, I fear) are not looking to meccg with an active role anymore. It will become more and more difficult to get the quorum.

And more, all the people with an active role in meccg transferred themself to meccg.net forum, which is a more versatile tool. So we need to, uh, "modernizate". How does it sounds?

that's like declaring a dictatorship!!!!
:evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:
hihihihihihi... Kuba will be the first Pripet partisan of meccg, maybe?
"...And he said that if I had the cheek to make verses about Earendil in the house of Elrond, it was my affair. I suppose he was right"

zarathustra
Posts: 671
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:26 pm

Post by zarathustra » Tue Apr 18, 2006 3:20 pm

I don't actually understand what the issue is, Kuba. We are talking about an entirely new constitution, a new CoE -- everything! The new constitution will take the place of the old one, rather than trying to amend it, as we attempted before. silenttower list will simply not be an issue in this because the new constitution will have its own ratification procedure (just as the original CoE one did)....
http://www.alfanos.org

gkg
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 10:11 pm
Location: Prague, CZ

Post by gkg » Tue Apr 18, 2006 3:24 pm

as I said, you are trying a HORRENDOUS PUTSCH
to overthrow the democratic system and raise a dictatorship

I have to defend rights of the poor people!!!!

Thrain II
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:38 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway
Contact:

New constitution

Post by Thrain II » Tue Apr 18, 2006 3:31 pm

Let's face it: silenttower is almost dead, it would be politely to say that 20% of the recipients is still active. Writing a new constitution based on MANY sources of voters etc. is absolutely necessary to keep CoE alive. Getting a reply from only 50% of the recipients of the mailing list is just not realistic at all.

Thrain II
Admiral Thrain II, G.A.B. Gold, Silver and White Mithril Team Leader

jhunholz
Posts: 200
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 7:24 pm

Post by jhunholz » Tue Apr 18, 2006 4:48 pm

I think its a good idea to revise/update/maybe rewrite the constitution, but I think if we say we're forming a "new governing body" many people won't go for it. I think we need to keep the CoE, but revise the document that governs us. If we disolve the CoE and start something new, I worry that others may decide to start their own CoE and we would risk splitting the community. But I do agree we need to rework and/or start over with the constitution.

zarathustra
Posts: 671
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:26 pm

Post by zarathustra » Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:18 pm

Interesting... I'm tempted to argue, however, that many people already ignore the current CoE, in part because we are no longer representatives of the worldwide community. How many people voted in the last election? Less than 50?... :(

Can we hear opinions from the rest of the (non-)members on whether they prefer the idea of an entirely new constitution, with a new CoE, new ratification -- new everything, or simply rewriting the old constitution? As I see it, there are a couple pros and cons for each position:

Pro-new-constitution / con-amendment:
(1) It's easier to justify a new constitution than a simple rewrite. This is, I take it, Kuba's point.
(2) Psychologically this is better: a fresh start :D

Pro-amendment / con-new-constitution:
(A) Josh's worry: this may tempt others to write a new constitution of their own and form splinter groups. How big of a concern is this? I can say for sure that no one in the USA will attempt such a thing....
(B) Minimalism: "why do more than is necessary?" The question is, though, how much is necessary?....
http://www.alfanos.org

jhunholz
Posts: 200
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 7:24 pm

Post by jhunholz » Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:32 pm

I tend to agree with Mark that many people do already ignore the CoE, but I'm hoping as we are becoming more active again this image will change. A good question to ask is will forming a new governing body accomplish this?

thorondor
Council Member
Posts: 629
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:53 pm
Location: salzburg, austria
Contact:

Post by thorondor » Tue Apr 18, 2006 9:09 pm

the major reason, why the silent tower list has become so silent, is the forum at meccg.net. a forum is always preferable for communication. the COE should have reacted to that much earlier!
also it?s up to the COE itself to paly a more active role again. here i think we are on a good way.

what would it mean, if we restart the COE? would it be a new version of the COE? or something totally new (which would demand a new name, too, i guess)?
the thing is, if we make something new, what happens to the old COE? there are some parts in the charter about the dissolution of the COE, iirc. but havent we just been elected for another term of THIS COE?
man, i hate such bureaucratic stuff!!!

i?d like to make a proposal:
as i see things, i total new start would look very smart to the public. i am sure there will be people who will ask for the legality of this.
acting within the rules of the current charter makes it impossible to make any important changes.
so let?s make a fair deal with the MECCG community.
we will set up a new constitution. we will continue the Council of Elrond. we will ask the whole MECCG community to accept the new constitution. only if we get a 3/4 majority, we consider the new constitution accepted. but there won?t be any minimum or percentage of voters.

the community should know, that we are doing something, the charter doesn?t provide for. still they should understand, that it?s a thing of necessity. sounds fair, doesn?t it?

zarathustra
Posts: 671
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:26 pm

Post by zarathustra » Tue Apr 18, 2006 9:32 pm

Perhaps I did not make myself clear about the idea of a new constitution. It would involve its own ratification procedure, similar to the old constitution's procedure. For example, we could follow Wolfgang's lead and specify that the new constitution will replace the old only if there are at least, say, 200 voters and a 3/4 majority. Imposing a high standard on ourselves like that will show to the community that we are not trying to effect a putsch, as Kuba has been concerned.
http://www.alfanos.org

Frodo
Posts: 505
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 5:09 am
Location: NYC, NY

Post by Frodo » Wed Apr 19, 2006 5:10 am

Could someone provide a little background info on the constitution thing? This is an important issue and we should take time to discuss the pros and cons here.

Question: Who chartered the original COE constitution to begin with, and on whose authority?

Question: Are we absolutely positive that there is NO WAY the current constitution can be interpreted to mean that we need a vote of "active" members, where "active" members can be interpreted as people who actually respond? Is there any flexibility here at all?

Question: Was there a way to figure out if there were dead email addresses on the Silent Tower List?

As we know, there's at least one person of rank who doesn't hold COe in high esteem, and dissolving Coe and starting again can be *extremely dangerous* if we don't get the votes according to whatever new quota standard we set--unless we're suggesting that we stay under the old constitution in the event of a failed vote.

I think Mark's suggested standard is too high. I don't understand what the big deal is with establishing a rule that says we simply need to win a majority of the *VOTES CAST.* Why do we need to have a minimum amount of votes cast to be a good vote? The best way we can protect ourselves to define "active players" is to simply call "active" those who are casting votes. Yeah yeah sure, it would be NICE if many players voted, but not everybody cares or wants to vote. There is nothing wrong with asking for a majority of votes cast; remember, they elected us anyway. We may as well have the power to make some decisions for them.

Frodo

thorondor
Council Member
Posts: 629
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:53 pm
Location: salzburg, austria
Contact:

Post by thorondor » Wed Apr 19, 2006 6:30 am

Who chartered the original COE constitution to begin with, and on whose authority?
the names of the founders of the COE are enlisted in the charter:
Charles Edward Bouldin, Hong Kong S.A.R., China
Nigel Buckle, England, United Kingdom
Anders Gabrielson, Gottaborg, Sweden
Joshua B. Grace, Minnesota, U.S.A.
Michael Hess, Indiana, U.S.A.
Jason Klank, South Carolina, U.S.A.
Martijn Steultjens, Utrecht, the Netherlands
Martin Toggweiler, California, U.S.A.
Brian Wong, British Columbia, Canada

i have heard that Charles Bouldin has set up the text. as far as i know, charles is still part of the mailing list, but he ceased to play an active role a long time ago.
Are we absolutely positive that there is NO WAY the current constitution can be interpreted to mean that we need a vote of "active" members, where "active" members can be interpreted as people who actually respond? Is there any flexibility here at all?
actually there is NOTHING in the charter about anything, that might change the charter. there is only the ratification process of itself, which is:
Ratification of this Charter shall become effective upon the affirmative vote of two thirds of the members of metw@silent-tower.org and such persons as shall communicate their vote by email to the Council Registrar or by web form on the egroups site by the date indicated by the Registrar of the Council.
so we may take this as a pattern for futher ratification processes. but its not a must, we may as well do otherwise.
Was there a way to figure out if there were dead email addresses on the Silent Tower List?
there should be a list of bouncing addesses. but probably only the admin has the right to look into it. but your doubts are very reasonable!
As we know, there's at least one person of rank who doesn't hold COe in high esteem, and dissolving Coe and starting again can be *extremely dangerous* if we don't get the votes according to whatever new quota standard we set.
exactly what i think. that?s why we have to be so careful and consider things very well in advance!!
I think Mark's suggested standard is too high. I don't understand what the big deal is with establishing a rule that says we simply need to win a majority of the *VOTES CAST.*
again, that?s what i think, too. i suggested NO minimum of voters. but i would like to see a big majority in agreement with the new constitution. just a simple +50% majority would be satisfying.

zarathustra
Posts: 671
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:26 pm

Post by zarathustra » Wed Apr 19, 2006 1:58 pm

Regarding the number of voters / percent of voters, I think we should at least have 100 people voting. Around 50 voted in the recent election, in which only 1 person could lose (poor brian...). If we contacted GAB, Wolfgang's list, the Spanish forum, etc., I'd be very surprised if we couldn't get at least 100 voters. This would look much better from a political point of view, as well: the new constitution would be seen as having a lot of support. How about 100 voters (we have over 10 on this forum already, after all ;)) and 60% in favor?
Last edited by zarathustra on Sat Feb 03, 2007 6:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
http://www.alfanos.org

Tegarend
Posts: 63
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 10:22 pm

Post by Tegarend » Wed Apr 19, 2006 2:01 pm

60% is a bit low IMO, if we're talking about the big constitution from which the CoE's power is derived.

Locked

Return to “Council Business - Agenda Items”