Template:CharterVote2/28/Discussion

< RETURN TO THE MAIN PAGE

• The Editorial Council is responsible for content and style policies. In particular, it shall

1. vet, coordinate, and supervise the Editors and their activities, and
2. encourage and supervise development and organization of the Citizendium's content.

I'm fine with finding a different word for vet, but need some suggestions. D. Matt Innis 20:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Try this: Jones 21:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• The Editorial Council is responsible for content and style policies. In particular, it shall

1. Establish the qualifications for editors and establish the procedure for promoting citizens to editor status, provided that such qualifications and such procedures do not violate Article 2 (Editor status shall not be denied on the basis of an applicant's nationality, race, religion, creed, gender, profession, education, residence, age, etc.) of this charter;
2. coordinate and supervise the Editors and their activities; and
3. encourage and supervise development and organization of the Citizendium's content.

• • To Russell's clause 2, add "provide policy guidance to the Managing Editor and receive and resolve policy deficits identified by the Managing Editor." Howard C. Berkowitz 22:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I like Jones' formulation better. I agree to it.

I don't see any value to adding "provide policy guidance to the Managing Editor and receive and resolve policy deficits identified by the Managing Editor." The Manging Editor has enough people looking over his/her shoulder and just because the Manging Editor wants somethng to be resolved doesn't mean that the EC has to resolve it. Some things will be resolved through the dispute resolution process. Let the EC resolve whatever they want to resolve, regardless of what the ME wants. D. Matt Innis 22:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Wonderful Freudian typo, there, Matt -- I do tend to think of Manging Editor. My intent here was less to do as told by the ME -- a very clear encroachment on the authority of the EC -- than to make it clear the EC directs the ME in content matters. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Haha, you know I wanted EIC, maybe that's a good reason right there!

Yes, I am aware that that is what you are trying to do and I am trying to do the opposite. I don't expect we will ever agree. Just two different points of view. D. Matt Innis 23:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Revision to empower EC to control content, ajudicate content disputes and enforce its rules: Russell D. Jones 16:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• The Editorial Council is responsible for content and style policies. In particular, it shall

1. make all decisions regarding the content of the Citizendium;
2. establish the qualifications for editors and establish the procedure for promoting citizens to editor status, provided that such qualifications and such procedures do not violate any article of this charter;
3. coordinate and supervise the Editors and their activities;
4. encourage and supervise development and organization of the Citizendium's content;
5. adjudicate disputes over content among authors, editors, and/or Managing Editor, and impose its decisions upon the content of the Citizendium;
6. set its own rules and by-laws for its meetings; and
7. In the Editorial Council, be composed of a number of members corresponding to the quorum who shall be Editors while the rest of the members shall be Citizens who are not Editors. [Moved from Article 30]

• The Editorial Council shall enforce its decisions over content by reporting violations of its dispute resolutions to the constables; Citizens who do not abide by the decisions of Editorial Council pursuant to the resolution of a dispute have committed a behavioral infraction and shall be subject to action by a constable.
• Editorial Council members who are party to a dispute shall recuse themselves from their Editorial Council position for the deliberation of that dispute.

Agree Russell D. Jones 16:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Agree --Howard C. Berkowitz 16:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• Agree D. Matt Innis 17:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This is too long in my view. I suggest turning the first two bullets into separate articles (28.1 and 28.2 for now) and dropping the third one, which is covered in art. 5. Also think the second one needs simplification. Added "publicly" to the sixth point of the first bullet. This would give the following (added some capitalization):

28.1:

• The Editorial Council is responsible for content and style policies. In particular, it shall

1. make all decisions regarding the content of the Citizendium;
2. establish the qualifications for Editors and establish the procedure for promoting Citizens to Editor status, provided that such qualifications and such procedures do not violate any article of this charter;
3. coordinate and supervise the Editors and their activities;
4. encourage and supervise development and organization of the Citizendium's content;
5. adjudicate disputes over content among Authors, Editors, and/or Managing Editor, and impose its decisions upon the content of the Citizendium;
6. publicly set its own rules and by-laws for its meetings; and
7. be composed of a number of members corresponding to the quorum who shall be Editors while the rest of the members shall be Citizens who are not Editors.

28.2:

• The Editorial Council shall enforce its decisions over content by reporting violations of its dispute resolutions to the Constables. Failure to abide by the decisions of the Editorial Council pursuant to the resolution of a dispute shall be considered a behavioral infraction and subject to action by a Constable.

--Daniel Mietchen 12:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree to what you have here. Also okay with removing 3 if necessary. Will review if 2 is changed. D. Matt Innis 12:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I recall that the expectation that a member-who-is-party-to-a-dispute will be recused is specificed elsewhere; so dropping it here is okay. I'm still in agreement with this formulation. Russell D. Jones 12:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Good; I agree. Joe Quick 15:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with either. Do we have 5? Howard C. Berkowitz 02:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)