CZ Talk:Charter/Archive 2

This talk page and its main page are dedicated to drafting a charter for Citizendium and should only be edited by those eight Citizens elected to the drafting Committee. Other Citizens, please comment on the dedicated thread at the Citizen Forum. Non-Citizens can comment in a separate thread at the non-Member Forum. The drafting period shall end when November 12, 2009 is over all around the globe.

To do list:

1. Agree on Structure.
2. Agree on Voting procedure.
3. Agree on Committee chairperson.

Auxiliary pages

The following subpages of this page have been set up to help the drafting process. The same editing restrictions as to this page apply there.

Definition:Encyclopedia ·	Things to address ·	Things to address but not in charter ·	Ecology-Economy ·	Editors, authors, and approval ·	Another subpage ·	Another subpage ·	Another subpage

Getting started

According to CZ:Charter drafting committee, we are supposed to base the drafting on CZ:Fundamentals. It's first point is "The nature of the project", which I have thus pasted into the draft page in order to get things rolling. Once we have agreed on the essence of this point, it will be more easy to proceed to other matters. I also think that, to reduce confusion in the interpretation of the terms used in the document, we should add links to appropriate pages in the main or CZ namespace, and if these pages do not exist yet, we should strive to create them. Keep in mind that any other Citizen can join the drafting of these pages, thus helping to clarify matters should we be unable to do so on our own (or vice versa). --Daniel Mietchen 21:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's some useful links to CZ:Home and the CZ:Policy_Outline page for reference. D. Matt Innis 00:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Point 6 should go, for several reasons. First, and I will elaborate on this, it is defining CZ with respect to being not-Wikipedia. Second, it's too fine-grained to be talking about specific markup and indexing concepts such as categories. Instead, we should be thinking of functional goals, such as better knowledge navigation, rather than features.

While there are those that believe the recent Nobel Peace Prize was awarded for the accomplishment of being not-Bush, we really have to break away from the idea of being not-Wikipedia, and state what we uniquely want to do. Point 1, therefore, is a little ambiguous, because there's no definition of "encyclopedia". We may well want to talk about the attributes of an ideal online encyclopedia, before trying to make it into draft text -- such an effort need not be lengthy. Perhaps a subpage, analogous to the CZ wishlist, talking about functions would be useful here. Howard C. Berkowitz 00:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

That's brings up a good question. Now that I look at it, we're supposed to be drafting "based on the Fundamentals". Maybe we should not be concentrating on whether we like the specific statements, but using them to draft how to make future policies such as "How to change the Neutrality policy", or "How the EIC will be elected", etc.. D. Matt Innis 00:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

redacted my false start! D. Matt Innis 00:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

"Based on" means, to me, that the Fundamentals are a guide. After all, the Fundamentals contain the statement, "The Charter will supersede the present Statement of Fundamental Policies, and it will include information about how it may be amended."

That being said, we need not rewrite everything. It may be, for example, that we agree completely with the spirit of the Neutrality Policy, but the experience of two years can give us ideas how to explain it in a manner both more clear and more effective. Howard C. Berkowitz 01:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

(EC)

Okay, I see what you mean. See below the section that I saw. I emboldened the "develops the ideas". I think we could spend all four weeks debating just these 6 points, but maybe our time would be better spent building on them and changing things as we find contradiction.

• Committee members will be given broad latitude to define which specific issues the draft engages and how it does so but they are expected to create a document that develops the ideas encoded in the current statement of fundamental policies and those that are implicit in the day-to-day operation of the wiki. The committee will also be allowed to determine the way it divides its work among its members and other logistical matters.

After the EC, it looks like we're still on the same page. D. Matt Innis 01:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) We could start by figuring the way that the community can change this draft, ie. do we trust it to popular vote or design it in such a way that it can only be changed by those with a working knowledge of its purpose - a committee chosen by the community, etc. I think we all agree that it shouldn't be too easy to change, but not impossible. It needs to be a "living" document, I would think. I'm willing to hear from all you political editors! D. Matt Innis 01:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it should definitely be a "living" document. For that reason, I think it is to our advantage to stay away from prescriptive language and overly specific details on certain points. Things will certainly change over time, so we would do best (I think) to draft a text that may be interpreted in novel situations; it must be clear about how it is to be interpreted yet not constrain future initiative. It should make crystal clear the intentions, purpose and vision of the project and how the members of the community are meant to work together toward that goal. I also think we should provide for other policies and documents to build off of the charter but be careful about how they are to do so. I do think we should be specific about the rights and responsibilities of people in each different position (author, editor, E-i-C, etc.) I agree with Howard that we should seek to craft an identity that does not simply define Citizendium as different from other projects. --Joe Quick 02:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Good. Let's add the judicial process in there as well. And it all needs to be done in such a way that no one group has all the power or the responsibility; checks and balances. Are you taking notes? :) D. Matt Innis 02:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Committee chairperson?

I'm thinking that we could use someone to keep us on track. D. Matt Innis 01:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I thought that too. But it seems we've started without one. Russell D. Jones 14:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't think we really need one but in case we do, here is my proposal: Have the role shift each day (measured in UTC), according to the following scheme (names sorted in reverse alphabetical order of the third letter of the given name, as discussed on the forum):

Name	Term 1	Term 2	Term 3	Term 4
Howard Berkowitz	10/16/2009	10/24/2009	11/1/2009	11/9/2009
Matt Innis	10/17/2009	10/25/2009	11/2/2009	11/10/2009
Russell Jones	10/18/2009	10/26/2009	11/3/2009	11/11/2009
Martin Baldwin-Edwards	10/19/2009	10/27/2009	11/4/2009	11/12/2009
Daniel Mietchen	10/20/2009	10/28/2009	11/5/2009
Meg Ireland	10/21/2009	10/29/2009	11/6/2009
Joe Quick	10/22/2009	10/30/2009	11/7/2009
Shamira Gelbman	10/23/2009	10/31/2009	11/8/2009

Daniel Mietchen 15:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Started subpages off draft

These can be informal, but I think will cut the edit conflicts. The first is CZ: Charter drafting/What are we?, which addresses the eternal question, "what is this thing called love encyclopedia?" (Hari Seldon, where are you when we need you?) Howard C. Berkowitz 02:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. We were stepping all over each other earlier. I've got some additions to that page.D. Matt Innis 02:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's another place to put our "things to address in the new Charter" CZ:Charter drafting/Things to address

We need a place to keep all these links organized... Daniel, any ideas? D. Matt Innis 03:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

My first shot at structuring is the #Auxiliary pages section I added on top of this talk page. --Daniel Mietchen 08:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

On a second thought, it may be better to define all crucial terms that are used in the text on dedicated definition pages, e.g. CZ:Charter drafting/Definitions/Encyclopedia, to which I just moved CZ:Charter drafting/What are we?, and to link to these definitions from the text. --Daniel Mietchen 10:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Deciding on the structure of the Charter

I don't have a problem starting with what's there, and also debating in some detail what should be defined as the nature of the project. I agree with Howard that some things are too detailed (we need concepts here) and negative definitions are "out". I do not wish to see any mention of "the other place" in the Charter, except perhaps parenthetically that refugees and tourists are welcome.

However, for the rest of the Charter I really do advocate deciding fairly soon what sections there will be, what those sections address, and why we will have them. That way we can start to build the skeleton, and later add some joints, muscles, flesh etc./.. So, let's not get into details, but focus on fundamental principles and institutional arrangements that (in our experience) CZ has needed in the last years. It has to be really conceptual at this point, so let's not rush it and allow everyone to speak.

For the above reason, at this point I am deferring my own suggestions for structure until we have more comments. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 03:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree and suggest that we decide within one week (i.e. until Oct 21 is over) about the phrasing of the Statement of purpose and of the nature of the project as well as about the names and hierarchy of the other points that should be in the charter. We would then have three weeks to flesh out the latter. I also think that we should document our agreement on the points that come up in a formalized way. As a test case, please indicate below (by signing with four tildes) whether you agree with the schedule I proposed in this paragraph, or whether you disagree or abstain:

Agree	Disagree	Abstain	Comments
Daniel Mietchen 10:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)			The table is not user-friendly, Daniel.Martin Baldwin-Edwards 14:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. --Daniel Mietchen 10:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, no time for arguments on this one. A more simple way to go about voting is to create three subsections, and to allow people to add comments to their votes. I'll try this below. Daniel Mietchen 15:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Tracking changes

I have made some changes to the text. To make it easier to follow, I have used the rule of strikeout for text to be deleted, and bold for text to be inserted. Do we have agreement on this as a protocol? Of course, we could just use the compare facility between different versions, but this seems more transparent to me. Also, we could have another page with the text appearing without markups: is it possible to do this automatically in some way? Martin Baldwin-Edwards 03:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

On that note, perhaps substantial changes should be proposed and deliberated here before they're made to the main page? Shamira Gelbman 16:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Distribution of Content

Regarding the line: "The Citizendium will make and keep useful information about its projects available free of charge and in perpetuity."

I take this to mean the content of the site not information about the content of the site. Russell D. Jones 14:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Voting procedure

I hereby propose that if we have to reach an agreement on some sort, we use a simplified voting — just adding our names (optionally with a comment) into one of the three following subsections within a section that briefly describes the scope of the vote. Simple majority counts, and the current or most recent chairperson in case of ties. Deadline for votes: 2 days from their announcement. --Daniel Mietchen 15:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree

Well, I made the proposal. --Daniel Mietchen 15:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Inspiration for keeping things short

Can be found here. --Daniel Mietchen 15:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

42. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

CZ as a Wiki

The salient point is not that it uses a particular software technique, but that preapproval is not always required.

Saying The Citizendium will be a wiki. potentially rules out databases, semantic networks, and other kinds of software that have been discussed for adding, to the compendium, things as diverse as gene maps and political relationship networks. The Charter should not limit the software. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that "wiki" is generally defined without that limitation; as, e.g., on dictionary.com: "A collaborative website whose content can be edited by anyone who has access to it." Shamira Gelbman 16:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with not specifying what the software will be. The wiki is built on a database. Russell D. Jones 16:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Shamira, that's a reason for not limiting to "wiki". There can be perfectly reasonable things in a compendium that take special knowledge to edit--it's not a content authorization issue. Even now, not everyone that has access to CZ can edit an Approved article. The point is that we don't want to impose unreasonable intellectual limitations. Not saying "wiki" is one less technical term in a charter meant to be straightforward. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Policy will be decided by the Editorial council.

Which policies? Content, behavioral? I'm not necessarily saying this can't be the same council.

The idea of trust or reliability marking, though, I think is fundamental enough that it should be addressed, at a high level, in the Charter. It is a differentiator implicit in expert guidance, which also needs to be somewhere. The details of marking need not be in the Charter. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Sole management and control of Citizendium shall be vested in the Editorial Council elected by the general membership. Composition, election, terms, meetings and committees for the Council shall be further set forth in the Bylaws.

I don't see that "sole management and control of CZ" will be vested in any one entity, unless that entity is going to include representation from every group.

D. Matt Innis 22:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

What is the source of that quote? Please use permalinks. Thanks! --Daniel Mietchen 22:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I added the link above. I think I see what Russell is trying to say, but this is a big change, so I have to ask "who makes up this Editorial Council?" I might consider it if anyone could be a member.

Let's stop this

I think we put the cart before the horse. We have no procedure to determine language. I have never been in the mood to start edit warring (that's why I'm here). Nor should that be our M.O. But we have established no protocol for how to proceed aside from the procedure that we are going to edit the content on a wiki. So, the last person to edit the charter wins? Is that how this is going to go?

I do think we need a chairman to bring some order to this adventure.

I do not think a chairmanship should be rotating as proposed above.

We should work article by article. Set the language and move on.

We don't even have a procedure to determine procedure.

Russell D. Jones 16:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this, Russell -- I hinted in a comment somewhere up earlier on this page, but probably could have been alot more explicit (and started a new section like you did). Shamira Gelbman 17:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm about to go out the door, to something more peaceful, a lecture on Palestine. :-(

Yes, by all means let's discuss here, but not necessarily article by article. We may need to agree on some definitions and goals first. My mantra is "what problem are you trying to solve?"

Back in a couple of hours. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we need to have some sort of unified strategy for tackling this. I think we should first figure out what needs to be included. Then we can proceed through those points. I think we need a chairman but not a rotating one.--Joe Quick 19:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Reluctantly, I agree that we need a single Chair. Daniel has tried to be very constructive, but there is no procedure, no protocol which allows a voice to all (even if we end up with majority decisions). I propose that (by email) we try to reach a consensus on a Chair in order to manage a protocol. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 19:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I'm out of the email loop. But, I like the idea of a chair, and letting that chair decide how we proceed, whether by splitting us up and giving us different sections, or having us all work together on each section one at a time. Any way we do it will work, but we need one person to pull it all together. Having said that, it would not be unusual for the highest vote getter to be named chairman. Or we could vote here. Or we could just ask Joe to do it. He did a great job getting us to this point ;-) D. Matt Innis 21:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Just checked, Matt: you are in the loop, but the best way to discuss such things is probably via a child board of the Charter Forums, as Shamira suggested. --Daniel Mietchen 21:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, Matt -- I accidentally left you off the distribution list I use, but you are on it now. Personally, I prefer the article space to the Forums, but I can live with Forums. Do note that there may be a few sensitive topics that do deserve preliminary email discussion, but they are certainly exceptions to the rule. Howard C. Berkowitz 22:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

How about sending me the email thread, just to make sure I'm not missing something important. D. Matt Innis 22:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Structure, not starting with detail

I repeat my point from above. We need to decide what the Charter will do, identify sections and proceed with consensus from those points. The draft ideas can be put here, or on the whiteboard that was set up, but there has not be some agreement on how to proceed. It can not be done by individuals just editing the page.Martin Baldwin-Edwards 19:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Russell D. Jones 19:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I said something similar in the #Getting started section and haven't changed my mind since (though I am prepared to change it on the chair person issue). I also think we should establish a procedure to reach consensus — that's why I set up #Voting procedure and hope someone else will comment on it. --Daniel Mietchen 19:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I could go either way on the chair issue; I think it might be worthwhile to assign different sections to individual (or pairs of) committee members for initial drafts, which could then serve as a basis for deliberation and revision by the committee as a whole. Shamira Gelbman 19:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)