Guild Meeting July 22nd, 10AM SLT

Forum for the CDS Artisan Guild


Moderator: SC Moderators

Jon Seattle
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 648
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 6:18 am

Post by Jon Seattle »

Michel just gave me this. Amazing:

--------

To: Dean of Scientific Council
CDS

RE: Guild Meeting - 22 July, 2007, 10 am slt

Madam Dean,

WHEREAS the Preamble to the CDS Constitution states that: "All branches of the government are bound to serve the public before themselves and to uphold the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights, Founding Philosophy, Constitution, local laws, the SL ToS, and Community Standards without exception";

WHEREAS no futher sessions of the RA are scheduled to take place until after 22 July 2007;

WHEREAS Section III, Article 1 of the CDS Constitution states that the Scientific Council's "governmental role is to interpret and enforce the constitution. Its service roll (ed. note: sic) is to resolve citizen disputes and moderate user forums and events";

WHEREAS Rose Springvale, an esteemed CDS citizen, was publicly accused in print, in the CDS forums, by Jon Seattle, Guild Secretary and current CSDF candidate for a Representative Assembly seat, principally but not soley of taking actions having as effect to undermine democracy and "hold the CDS to ransom";

WHEREAS Rose Springvale will be absent from the CDS due to important and unavoidable family commitments for the next two weeks;

WHEREAS the Guild Secretary, with full knowledge of the above and after having submitted of his own volition his resignation as Guild Secretary, takes it upon himself to suggest to Dnate Mars, the presumed Chair of the next Guild Meeting, to be held on Sunday, July 22, at 10:00 hrs slt in CDS, that the agenda of such meeting include

"...the following agenda items:

1. Ultimate ownership and/or trust argument for Guild work for sim design and installation on public land.

2. The right of Guild members to free speech on matters of Guild policy. Do we want to have these?';

WHEREAS permitting the Guild, a quasi-public organisation holding its Founding Charter from the Representative Assembly, to hold such a meeting at this time and on such matters would, in effect, deprive Rose Springcale of even her most basic right to face her accuser, reply to his charges, and justify her conduct and point of view; and

WHEREAS holding such a meeting would constitute an unconscionable violation of her basic constitutonal rights as stated in (for example) the above-quoted Preamble of the CDS Constitution, as well as wanton disregard of due process, the rule of law and any professional code of deontology currently in force in any reputable and respected professional organisation by Jon Seattle, an individual in flagrant conflict of interest between his current position as leading officer of a non-political quasi-governmental organisation and his candidacy for an RA seat as member of a major CDS political party;

THEREFORE I humbly request that the Scientific Council acting as a whole (or the Dean of the Scientific Council acting alone if required by the circumstances) carry out its constitutional duties and responsibilites as detailed above and

ISSUE AN INJUNCTION directing the CDS Guild to postpone any debate, discussion, decision or vote of the Guild on matters posted on the public CDS forums over the past week and touching, in part or in whole, directly or indirectly, upon the accusations brought against Rose Springvale, principally but not exclusively, by said Jon Seattle until the return of Rose Springvale to the CDS and until such time as she will be reasonably available to attend a Guild meeting, and to exercise her basic constitutional and human rights to to face her accuser, reply to his charges, and justify her conduct and point of view.

SUBMITTED humbly, this 21st day of July, 2007, by Michel Manen, CDS citizen.

User avatar
Bromo Ivory
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1428
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2024 11:38 am

Post by Bromo Ivory »

[quote="Patroklus Murakami":2xi8xv49]Utterly disingenuous, once more. Rose is not 'on trial' and the issues at hand can be discussed without any reference to her dispute with Jon.
[/quote:2xi8xv49]

Given there are raw feeling all around here - regardless of the "fault" and things flying around, I would ask Jon and Dnate and the Guild to postpone the discussion of this until Rose can return - and be part of the solution if she is willing. I manage people in RL, and I really hope we could approach this, not form a divisive point of view, but one where we mend fences.

Both parties feel hurt and very bruised - and I would like this to be something where we pullthe parties together.

Too often we get divisive - and I feel the community is our most valuable asset - and I would hate to see bad blood be generated since it weakens the community overall.

So - Jon, Dnate? Could we please postpone discussion on this until Rose returns?

==
"Nenia peno nek provo donos lakton de bovo."

Jon Seattle
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 648
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 6:18 am

Post by Jon Seattle »

I would like to explore the possibility of postponing just the discussions that concern Rose's accusations. I can see no reason to put off discussion of Guild business or even IP policy since that has nothing to do with who accused whom of what.

1. This means that while we will discuss IP policy we will avoid, strenuously, and discussion of that has happened up to this point. We will not discuss the various accusations, who said what, etc. The only question we will discuss is what to do next.

2. We will put off the Guild election so that Rose will have a fair chance to address these issues.

Bromo, DNate, is this acceptable?

User avatar
Bromo Ivory
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1428
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2024 11:38 am

Post by Bromo Ivory »

[quote="Jon Seattle":34caseew]I would like to explore the possibility of postponing just the discussions that concern Rose's accusations. I can see no reason to put off discussion of Guild business or even IP policy since that has nothing to do with who accused whom of what.

1. This means that while we will discuss IP policy we will avoid, strenuously, and discussion of that has happened up to this point. We will not discuss the various accusations, who said what, etc. The only question we will discuss is what to do next.

2. We will put off the Guild election so that Rose will have a fair chance to address these issues.

Bromo, DNate, is this acceptable?[/quote:34caseew]

Jon - Although I am not a Guild member, and I was just trying to work things out, I think this would work as a decent compromise, though I would very much prefer to wait until Rose returns to discuss the IP issue as well.

==
"Nenia peno nek provo donos lakton de bovo."

Dnate Mars
Veteran debater
Veteran debater
Posts: 285
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 9:32 am

Post by Dnate Mars »

I didn't even realise that Rose and her actions were really on the agenda to begin with.

The agenda is:

1. Ultimate ownership and/or trust argument for Guild work for sim design and installation on public land.

2. The right of Guild members to free speech on matters of Guild policy. Do we want to have these?

3. Do we want to go forward with the 3rd sim design or postpone it until other issues are worked out?

Where is it that we are going to accuse Rose of anything? I value what Rose has done for the Guild, and I thank her very much. Jon has raised some new, and completely valid, objections. If we can't keep this bickering out of the Guild, we will lose a lot more then just could be imagined. I do hope that you will be attending the meeting Michel. This must stop. Who wants to be part of an organization that is fighting like it is now? I know I don't.

Dnate Mars
Veteran debater
Veteran debater
Posts: 285
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 9:32 am

Post by Dnate Mars »

[quote="Bromo Ivory":2oe6o7bt][quote="Jon Seattle":2oe6o7bt]I would like to explore the possibility of postponing just the discussions that concern Rose's accusations. I can see no reason to put off discussion of Guild business or even IP policy since that has nothing to do with who accused whom of what.

1. This means that while we will discuss IP policy we will avoid, strenuously, and discussion of that has happened up to this point. We will not discuss the various accusations, who said what, etc. The only question we will discuss is what to do next.

2. We will put off the Guild election so that Rose will have a fair chance to address these issues.

Bromo, DNate, is this acceptable?[/quote:2oe6o7bt]

Jon - Although I am not a Guild member, and I was just trying to work things out, I think this would work as a decent compromise, though I would very much prefer to wait until Rose returns to discuss the IP issue as well.[/quote:2oe6o7bt]

As I see it we really can't wait another 3 weeks to start talking about the IP rights. I have a feeling that it will still take at least another 3 weeks before we get this all straightened out.

Does anyone know when Rose will be back from her vacation? I would want to wait for her before the final agreement is sent off to the RA for approval. Since the next RA meeting won't be until August, per the constitution, and the first meeting will be busy enough, I don't think we will present the bill to the RA until at least the second meeting. She will have plenty of time to read and review anything that we may change to her current draft.

User avatar
Bromo Ivory
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1428
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2024 11:38 am

Post by Bromo Ivory »

Hi Dnate -

I think Rose should be part of the discussion is all - the Guild does what it does - I am not a member - but I do think you would risk further alienating Rose. And if Rose *is* and advocate for the opposite of what Jon wants - havin ghte discussion without her will make her feel treated shabbily (And I try to avoid that whenever possible).

I think she is gone for 2 weeks - and I know you guys are anxious to get things underway since it does appear to have been festering for some time - and I would respect that - just realize there is possible further human cost.

That's all. I said my piece. :)

==
"Nenia peno nek provo donos lakton de bovo."

Dnate Mars
Veteran debater
Veteran debater
Posts: 285
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 9:32 am

Post by Dnate Mars »

[quote="Bromo Ivory":43vkkttr]Hi Dnate -

I think Rose should be part of the discussion is all - the Guild does what it does - I am not a member - but I do think you would risk further alienating Rose. And if Rose *is* and advocate for the opposite of what Jon wants - havin ghte discussion without her will make her feel treated shabbily (And I try to avoid that whenever possible).

I think she is gone for 2 weeks - and I know you guys are anxious to get things underway since it does appear to have been festering for some time - and I would respect that - just realize there is possible further human cost.

That's all. I said my piece. :)[/quote:43vkkttr]
With that said, I think I will let the New Guild decide if they think it is a good idea to continue with the IP discussion without Rose there. If the people that show up tomorrow want to move forward, fine we will. If it is decided to wait until Rose returns, that is also just fine by me.

It is always good to have a healthy debate with someone that doesn't let it get personal.

Post Reply

Return to “CDS Artisan Guild”