CZ Talk:Charter drafting committee

I removed the box called "Nominated by" in order to make the nominations less personal. One can, if curious, always check the page history to see who nominated who. But not have personal alliances public I think is better. Russell D. Jones 13:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems right. I added that as an after-thought so that we would be able to easily control how many nominations each person makes. That can easily be done by checking the edit history, however. --Joe Quick 13:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Notify people who have been nominated

Some of the nominees may not be aware that they have been nominated (for example, Chris and Supten). I suggest that an email should be sent to all of the nominees and ask them to accept or decline. Milton Beychok 08:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. If nobody else does it in the next twelve hours or so, I'll do my best to make sure all of the nominees know they have been nominated and understand what they need to do. --Joe Quick 05:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice to see this

Let me know if I can help in any way. Stephen Ewen 01:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I hope this means that you plan to be active again. We miss you! Milton Beychok 02:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

See CZ/Fundamentals- the EIC is supposed to appoint this committee

According to Section V of CZ:Fundamentals, the EIC is supposed to appoint an Advisory Board to draft the Charter. The Charter so devised is to be final with the general CZ public unable to vote for or against it. However, the Charter must have an Amendment process. David E. Volk 14:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The Charter, presumably, is analogous with a country's constitution. Therefore, the drafters of the Charter are obliged to take into account both the immediate legitimacy of their text, along with the likely future need for revisions. The mechanism by which revisions could be made is clearly a point for debate -- balancing the need for the possibility of reform with the need for a measurable strong consensus for any future changes. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 15:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

According to the rules (which I just read now), there will be a popular vote to accept or reject the final charter text. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 15:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Now, are those Fundamentals the startup proposal, or do they have the legitimacy of a Charter developed by the community and with its agreement, after transparent discussion, to be governed by it? Yes, there was an original statement that the E-I-C would appoint the drafting committee, but is that necessarily an unchangeable decision based on the sentiment and consent of the community? Howard C. Berkowitz 16:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Martin, which rules are you talking about regarding the vote? The drafting a chart committee page mentions this, but that is something without any power. The ruling document at this time, I believe, is CZ:Fundamentals, which will only be superceded after an Advisory Committee drafts a new Charter. Thus, having someone suggest an election is not a valid reason to have such an election. Could you point me to whatever text you are referring to? David E. Volk 16:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we must use the Fundamental process to create the Charter. Accordingly, the EIC is to choose the advisory committee. I am comfortable with his forum comment to move forward in choosing a "community elected drafting committee." Under the Fundamental policy, it would certainly be possible for him to disband this "community elected committee" for one of his own choosing. However, it seems that it is up to this process to develop the necessary trust and consensus that the EIC is looking for in empowering it to draft a Charter. D. Matt Innis 16:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)