Template:CharterVote2/2/Discussion

< RETURN TO THE MAIN PAGE

I'm thinking that if we give the Management Council the right to decide who a Citizen is (without limiting that power), it may be too easy for them to vote out people like Scientologists without having to change the charter. Then the next thing you know it will be homeopaths, then chiropractors :). I'm suggesting that we only have numbers 2 and 3 as requirements for citizenship. D. Matt Innis 19:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

At this point we should delineate the rights of citizens. No citizen shall have their use of the site blocked or terminated on the basis of their nationality, race, religion, creed, gender, profession, education, residence, age (but see the saving clause wherein we should state that except where barred or limited by local law, the terms of this charter shall be enforced to the greatest degree possible), etc.

But I do think it important that we assign responsibility to the MC for enrolling new members. Of course, real names and agreement to the charter are perfectly acceptable. Jones 20:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that works for me. I can agree to that. D. Matt Innis 20:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Jones (No Citizen shall...). That's what Article 3 should be doing but doesn't do. Just fix the agreement between the singular noun and the plural pronoun. ;-) --Joe Quick 00:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Citizenship shall be open to anyone who meets a few basic conditions as defined by the Management Council, registers and contributes under his or her real name and agrees to the Citizendium's fundamental principles as defined by this Charter.

Citizens shall not have their application to join or their use of the site blocked or terminated, nor shall any dispute be resolved, nor shall any official or council of the Citizendium discriminate in favor or against Citizens (except to the degree that such discrimination promotes editorial expertise) on the basis of their nationality, ethnicity, race, religion, creed, gender, sexuality, profession, education, residence, age, name, or URL.

Are there any others? What about CZ status? Aside from deferring to expertise, shall we permit bodies to discriminate against authors in favor of editors? Having bars against discrimination on the basis of profession and education may interfere with the promotion of expertise. Russell D. Jones 15:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Politics or political affiliation. I like this formulation. -Joe Quick 18:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

To me, the second sentence in Russell's suggestion is too ambiguous (for instance, it could be read as "Citizens shall not have their application to join or their use of the site blocked or terminated.") and should be broken up in to smaller pieces. --Daniel Mietchen 20:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Please make a suggestion. Russell D. Jones 20:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Also I want the real-names' clause back in. Russell D. Jones 11:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• I agree to Jones' version with the real names in it as well. I think Jones' version is pretty unambiguous really. It says a lot and it says exactly what we want. I don't need it broken up, but I'll listen to alternatives. D. Matt Innis 12:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)