RA meeting 30 March 2008 - transcript

Closed forum for all Representative Assembly members. Everybody is allowed to see government in action, but posting and replying is restricted to RA members only.

Moderator: SC Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Jamie Palisades
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 639
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 3:56 pm

RA meeting 30 March 2008 - transcript

Post by Jamie Palisades »

See http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=1711 for a non-normative (unofficial) index of the action items and main points from this meeting.
Transcript of 30 March 2008 Representative Assembly Meeting
Recorded by Jamie Palisades (= "You", below)
Topic separators "===" inserted to separate agenda items
[2008/03/30 12:07] You: Any objection to us beginning? Beathan's bill has us on a tight schedule :)
[2008/03/30 12:07] Patroklus Murakami: you only did 1-3
[2008/03/30 12:07] MT Lundquist: hi gwyn
[2008/03/30 12:07] Beathan Vale: let's go
[2008/03/30 12:07] Gwyneth Llewelyn: hi ;)
[2008/03/30 12:07] You: it would of course require that we hold the Land debate until it comes up ...
[2008/03/30 12:07] Troy McLuhan: Hi
[2008/03/30 12:07] You: good
[2008/03/30 12:07] You: Hello al
[2008/03/30 12:07] Beathan Vale: Pat -- not true -- read the transcript
[2008/03/30 12:07] ThePrincess Parisi: hi
[2008/03/30 12:07] You: OK. ENOUGH
[2008/03/30 12:07] Gwyneth Llewelyn: hehe
[2008/03/30 12:07] You: please hold further land spats for the 'land spat' item - which we certainly do have :)
[2008/03/30 12:07] ThePrincess Parisi: and pat, beathan is a lawyer
[2008/03/30 12:08] You: Prin. Out of order. As will anyone else be. Hush, all, please.
[2008/03/30 12:08] Beathan Vale: lol -- not that that means much
[2008/03/30 12:08] Beathan Vale: OK
[2008/03/30 12:08] ThePrincess Parisi: oh did we start?
[2008/03/30 12:08] You: We're in session. 5 out of 5 seated RA members present.
[2008/03/30 12:08] You: As of now, Prin. Please note our agenda here:
[2008/03/30 12:08] You: http://forums.slcds.info//viewtopic.php?f=24&t=1699
[2008/03/30 12:08] You: Which I am following - and which has time limits.
[2008/03/30 12:09] You: First, woudl everyone present please assent to being recorded in our transcript.
[2008/03/30 12:09] ThePrincess Parisi shivers
[2008/03/30 12:09] You: I assent.
[2008/03/30 12:09] MT Lundquist: i assent
[2008/03/30 12:09] Sonja Strom: I assent
[2008/03/30 12:09] Patroklus Murakami: i consent to being recorded
[2008/03/30 12:09] Pip Torok: i assent
[2008/03/30 12:09] Danton Sideways: I assent
[2008/03/30 12:09] ThePrincess Parisi: i do too
[2008/03/30 12:09] Troy McLuhan: Me too
[2008/03/30 12:10] Sonja Strom: Welcome Cynwulf, please have a seat.
[2008/03/30 12:10] ThePrincess Parisi waves at troy
[2008/03/30 12:10] You: Thanks, Beathan would you look and see if we missed any, as a favor?
[2008/03/30 12:10] Gwyneth Llewelyn definitely does, so long as you use a Creative Commons Attribution License on all my words
[2008/03/30 12:10] Gwyneth Llewelyn: hehe
[2008/03/30 12:10] You: :) let's talk Gwyn about how to make that happen more generally?
[2008/03/30 12:10] You: later of course
[2008/03/30 12:10] Gwyneth Llewelyn *giggles*
[2008/03/30 12:10] You: item 1b
[2008/03/30 12:11] You: I call to your attention that we have some new methods that were proposed at the last meeting
[2008/03/30 12:11] You: They result in there being times and limits on each posted agenda item
[2008/03/30 12:11] Cynwulf Darwin: Sorry, O'm lagging
[2008/03/30 12:11] You: for today if no one objects, since Beathan wrote that procedure I will ask him informally to help me keep track of those times
[2008/03/30 12:12] Sonja Strom: no objection
[2008/03/30 12:12] You: for the future I think we need a parliamentarian, and will suggest something about that by our next meeting
[2008/03/30 12:12] Sonja Strom: ...except, he might have crashed.
[2008/03/30 12:12] You: haha
[2008/03/30 12:12] Sonja Strom: Welcome Alexicon.
[2008/03/30 12:13] You: hello all.
[2008/03/30 12:13] Alexicon Kurka: hi
[2008/03/30 12:13] You: Well, when Beathan is here :) I will ask for his informal help as available, then
[2008/03/30 12:13] You: next is item 1c
[2008/03/30 12:13] You: please review our agenda - at the Forum URI posted in open chat a few minutes ago
[2008/03/30 12:14] You: no action needed unless anyone wishes to amend .. and I have two items on that
[2008/03/30 12:14] ThePrincess Parisi: anyone needs a notecard agenda
[2008/03/30 12:14] Alexicon Kurka: yes please
[2008/03/30 12:14] You: 1. Is everyone on the RA OK with Alexicon's proposal to make nonhub permanent in CN being a no-fuyss consent item? He posted his recommendation last week
[2008/03/30 12:14] Jamie Palisades looks around for reactions
[2008/03/30 12:15] Sonja Strom: I think it is good.
[2008/03/30 12:15] Troy McLuhan: May I comment?
[2008/03/30 12:15] ThePrincess Parisi: yes
[2008/03/30 12:15] ThePrincess Parisi: it has been a great success and i hear NFS needs it too actually
[2008/03/30 12:15] MT Lundquist: i'm happy for a no specific tp yes
[2008/03/30 12:15] You: Let's see if there are any objhections first, Troy, if all agree, no need to debate
[2008/03/30 12:15] Troy McLuhan: When I teleport to "Colonia Nove" with no coordinates speicified, I end up in some kind of store without a door - very confusing
[2008/03/30 12:15] Troy McLuhan: "Colonia Nova"
[2008/03/30 12:15] ThePrincess Parisi: lol
[2008/03/30 12:16] ThePrincess Parisi: MTs shop
[2008/03/30 12:16] You: I hear no obj to it being a consent tiem - as item 1 f 1
[2008/03/30 12:16] You: ahem Troy? please wait for item 1 f 1 :) I will tell you
[2008/03/30 12:16] Gwyneth Llewelyn: (good, I had the same objection as Troy too!)
[2008/03/30 12:16] You: second agenda amendment question - we are on item 1C posted at http://forums.slcds.info//viewtopic.php?f=24&t=1699
[2008/03/30 12:17] You: Alexicon has reminded me that it's time for his monthly report to the RA
[2008/03/30 12:17] You: as Chancellor
[2008/03/30 12:17] Alexicon Kurka: we can do that at the end of the RA
[2008/03/30 12:18] You: any RA member object?
[2008/03/30 12:18] You: we have 5 mins of slack as scheduled, smile
[2008/03/30 12:18] ThePrincess Parisi: no
[2008/03/30 12:18] MT Lundquist: fine
[2008/03/30 12:18] Sonja Strom: no objection
[2008/03/30 12:19] You: good, done, ALexi is item - um - 11, moving open chat to 12
[2008/03/30 12:19] You: next item is 1d
[2008/03/30 12:19] You: This is simply a notice - please note: if you want to speak here ...
[2008/03/30 12:20] Gwyneth Llewelyn *raises hand*
[2008/03/30 12:20] You: on a specific item, you get some privilg\eged time to do so IF you notify me now :) IM is fine too
[2008/03/30 12:20] You: just a sec Gwyn
[2008/03/30 12:20] Sonja Strom: wb Beathan :)
[2008/03/30 12:20] You: under Beathan's 24 March rules, any citizen who wants to speak on an item gets special priority to speak if they say so now, smile. ... and I have one request so far FYI.
[2008/03/30 12:20] You: Yes Gwyneth?
[2008/03/30 12:21] Gwyneth Llewelyn: just wanted to know if speaking on the agenda points is limited to RA members...
[2008/03/30 12:21] Gwyneth Llewelyn: if not, may I sign myself in for 2a.? ;)
[2008/03/30 12:21] Beathan Vale: no
[2008/03/30 12:21] You: nope :)
[2008/03/30 12:21] Gwyneth Llewelyn: lol
[2008/03/30 12:22] Gwyneth Llewelyn: ok.
[2008/03/30 12:22] You: And let me refer to you the rules we are using: posted at:
[2008/03/30 12:22] You: http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php? ... &sk=t&sd=a
[2008/03/30 12:22] You: by the way
[2008/03/30 12:22] You: Patroklus has asked me some great questions about them - which we will need to work over - but I do not propose to takje them on live in today;s meeting
[2008/03/30 12:23] You: I hope to emulate the British model and "muddle through" for now :D
[2008/03/30 12:23] You: so
[2008/03/30 12:23] You: Gwyn did you have a specific agenda item in mind, so we can save you a slot?
[2008/03/30 12:23] Gwyneth Llewelyn: 2a
[2008/03/30 12:23] Gwyneth Llewelyn: possibly 3b
[2008/03/30 12:24] Sonja Strom: I would like to speak on 3a
[2008/03/30 12:24] You: OK, done :) agenda item 1e is ministerial announcement only:
[2008/03/30 12:24] You: if anyone sees flaws in the transcripts or summaries, please for heaven's sake post to correct them, or let me know :)
[2008/03/30 12:24] ThePrincess Parisi: we got to talk as RA members anyway sonja
[2008/03/30 12:24] You: item 1 f 1
[2008/03/30 12:24] Sonja Strom: ok, thanks TP, I was wondering about that.
[2008/03/30 12:24] Gwyneth Llewelyn: :)
[2008/03/30 12:24] You: Alexicon has a suggestion about the CN hub - can you state it, Alexi?
[2008/03/30 12:25] Alexicon Kurka: The Ra has decided to have a trail period in order to test the influence of direct TP on Colonia Nova
[2008/03/30 12:25] Alexicon Kurka: This trial period has expired
[2008/03/30 12:26] Alexicon Kurka: and has been concluded by a citizen's survey
[2008/03/30 12:26] Alexicon Kurka: The results of this survey is on the forums and supports making direct teleportation on Colonia Nova permanent
[2008/03/30 12:26] Alexicon Kurka: The RA should vote on that now
[2008/03/30 12:27] You: Here: http://forums.slcds.info//viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1692
[2008/03/30 12:27] You: May I suggest that until someone OBJECTS we treate it as consent without any debate
[2008/03/30 12:28] You: Troy? others> any prob with doing as Alexi suggested?
[2008/03/30 12:28] ThePrincess Parisi: not from me
[2008/03/30 12:28] Jamie Palisades looks around
[2008/03/30 12:28] Alexicon Kurka: You should also consider such a trial on NFS too
[2008/03/30 12:28] Gwyneth Llewelyn: No, no objections here either -- and I definitely second Alex's suggestion for NFS
[2008/03/30 12:29] ThePrincess Parisi: ive heard citizens say that alexicon
[2008/03/30 12:29] You: OK I call for a vote, then. Need a motion?
[2008/03/30 12:29] Beathan Vale: I so move
[2008/03/30 12:29] ThePrincess Parisi: second
[2008/03/30 12:29] You: Members please note your vote. I vote aye
[2008/03/30 12:29] ThePrincess Parisi: vote for both?
[2008/03/30 12:29] Beathan Vale: aye
[2008/03/30 12:29] ThePrincess Parisi: just cn or that we do both
[2008/03/30 12:29] MT Lundquist: aye
[2008/03/30 12:29] You: no for the agenda-ed item, CN only
[2008/03/30 12:29] ThePrincess Parisi: aye
[2008/03/30 12:29] Beathan Vale: just CN
[2008/03/30 12:29] Sonja Strom: aye
[2008/03/30 12:29] ThePrincess Parisi: kk
[2008/03/30 12:29] Beathan Vale: NFS not before us yet
[2008/03/30 12:29] You: :) unanimous
[2008/03/30 12:29] Alexicon Kurka: :)
[2008/03/30 12:30] You: and thank you Alexi and Troy
[2008/03/30 12:30] You: and let's have that NFS chat too - not gonna fit today though :P
[2008/03/30 12:30] Alexicon Kurka: sure
[2008/03/30 12:30] You: 2 :)
[2008/03/30 12:30] You: RA quorum
[2008/03/30 12:31] You: Beathan had indicated a plan to temporarily reduce the RA seat number
[2008/03/30 12:32] Beathan Vale: I would like to get the sense of the SC on that -- it would be pointless if they will invalidate it after the fact
[2008/03/30 12:32] You: I have two citizens as well who wish to speak
[2008/03/30 12:32] Beathan Vale: that would create even more confusion
[2008/03/30 12:32] You: :) I may suggest its not necessary
[2008/03/30 12:32] You: but irst
[2008/03/30 12:32] You: *first
[2008/03/30 12:32] You: I note no motion on the table
[2008/03/30 12:33] You: :) nothing to discuss- yet
[2008/03/30 12:34] You: I think Gwyn and Pat both indicated an interst - do either of them wish to make short remarks now, failing any motion pending?
[2008/03/30 12:34] Beathan Vale: I want to hear from Gwynn in particular -- I may withdraw my proposal
[2008/03/30 12:34] Patroklus Murakami: no thank you jamie. without a motion or proposal there's really nothing to discuss :)
[2008/03/30 12:34] Patroklus Murakami: if there is a motion i'd like to speak to it when it appears
[2008/03/30 12:34] Beathan Vale: Pat -- there is a proposal -- just not moved yet
[2008/03/30 12:34] You: And I may have a new motion to propose after that, smile
[2008/03/30 12:34] Beathan Vale: debate then move is the usual form
[2008/03/30 12:34] Patroklus Murakami: sorry, what is teh proposal? is there a text?
[2008/03/30 12:35] You: hang on all :)
[2008/03/30 12:35] Gwyneth Llewelyn: woops sorry
[2008/03/30 12:35] Beathan Vale: "Pending By elections, the size of the RA shall be temporarily reduced to 5" - a Cosntitional amendment
[2008/03/30 12:35] Beathan Vale: very short and clear
[2008/03/30 12:35] You: Beathan has made a suggestion in the 24 March transcript. It has not yet been made as a fomal motion
[2008/03/30 12:35] You: so :)
[2008/03/30 12:35] Patroklus Murakami: ok i'd like to speak against that
[2008/03/30 12:35] You: Gwyn has the floor
[2008/03/30 12:36] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Oh, I'll let Pat speak first.
[2008/03/30 12:36] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Just for one reason -- if there's no proposal,
[2008/03/30 12:36] You: then let's get Pat's take - noting, 2 minutes each I think
[2008/03/30 12:36] Beathan Vale: Gwyn -- you are the person I want to hear from
[2008/03/30 12:36] Gwyneth Llewelyn: the SC should not talk about things that aren't proposed
[2008/03/30 12:36] You: guys
[2008/03/30 12:36] Beathan Vale: depending on what you say, I may withdraw the proposal and save time
[2008/03/30 12:36] Gwyneth Llewelyn: lol
[2008/03/30 12:36] Beathan Vale: I have posted my proposal
[2008/03/30 12:36] You: GL and PM please elect to speak - or not - OK?
[2008/03/30 12:36] Beathan Vale: rather -- I just stated it here
[2008/03/30 12:36] Patroklus Murakami: i'd like to speak
[2008/03/30 12:36] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Pat first please.
[2008/03/30 12:37] You: go for it
[2008/03/30 12:37] Patroklus Murakami: There are two main problems with this proposal. It does not achieve what it sets out to, and what it sets out to do is illegal in any case :) This sets out to pretend that the two seats won by the CSDF in the general election don't exist because the CSDF is choosing not to occupy them.
[2008/03/30 12:37] Patroklus Murakami: We might call it the 'Zimbabwe proposal' since it aims to disenfranchise part of the electorate through government dictat.
[2008/03/30 12:37] Patroklus Murakami: This is not permissible in a democracy. Boycotting a parliament is a perfectly legitimate tactic used by many groups as a protest. Sinn Fein, for example, regularly stood for elections to the House of Commons in the UK but did not take their seats because they saw the British 'occupation' of Northern Ireland as illegitimate.
[2008/03/30 12:37] Patroklus Murakami: The UK government did not then abolish the seats because it was inconvenient. That would have been illegal. To take away these two seats is to deprive voters of representation.
[2008/03/30 12:37] Patroklus Murakami: "Aah" you might say, "but the CSDF has already deprived the voters of representation by resigning and leaving the seats empty". Well, no we haven't. We have chosen to make a political statement by keeping the seats vacant.
[2008/03/30 12:37] Patroklus Murakami: It is up to the voters, at the by-election if we stand, and in the general election to express their views on that. This assembly does not have the right to delete those seats just because it is inconvenient and meetings may be more likely to become inquorate. It also sets a dreadful precedent if you think about it carefully.
[2008/03/30 12:38] Patroklus Murakami: But, I'm afraid this proposal does not achieve it's desired aim. The January election result cannot be ignored.
[2008/03/30 12:38] Patroklus Murakami: f you reduce the number of seats from 7 to 5 temporarily you will have to fill the seats according to the vote in January *as if there were 5 seats*. By my reckoning that gives the CSDF two seats and Simplicity, NuCARE and the DPU one each.
[2008/03/30 12:38] Patroklus Murakami: In other words, if you pass this both Beathan and MT lose their seats! I'm pretty sure that's not what's intended but, it is the logical outcome!
[2008/03/30 12:38] Patroklus Murakami: that's all :)
[2008/03/30 12:38] You: thanks
[2008/03/30 12:38] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Excellent speech :)
[2008/03/30 12:38] You: Gwyn?
[2008/03/30 12:39] Gwyneth Llewelyn: The comment is but a brief one.
[2008/03/30 12:39] Beathan Vale: I am more likely to support my proposal after hearing Pat -- Gwyn
[2008/03/30 12:39] Beathan Vale: and Pat is wrong as a legal and Constitutional matter
[2008/03/30 12:39] Gwyneth Llewelyn: As most of you know, the SC has refrained from doing anything but literal interpretations of the constitution.
[2008/03/30 12:39] Gwyneth Llewelyn: However, there are really some cases where the SC cannot cross the arms and be silent...
[2008/03/30 12:40] Gwyneth Llewelyn: The problem here is simple. The RA has two unalienable rights:
[2008/03/30 12:40] Gwyneth Llewelyn: 1) it can set the # of RA members (changing the constitution)
[2008/03/30 12:40] Gwyneth Llewelyn: 2) it does set the dates for elections and by-elections (it's already there)
[2008/03/30 12:40] Gwyneth Llewelyn: So,
[2008/03/30 12:40] Gwyneth Llewelyn: in *theory*,
[2008/03/30 12:40] Gwyneth Llewelyn: nothing prevents the RA to set the number of members to "1"
[2008/03/30 12:40] Gwyneth Llewelyn: (or even zero)
[2008/03/30 12:41] Gwyneth Llewelyn: and the date for the next elections to 2567.
[2008/03/30 12:41] Gwyneth Llewelyn: In order to *prevent* that from happening,
[2008/03/30 12:41] Gwyneth Llewelyn: the SC has a mandate to interpret the law being passed according to the founding documents
[2008/03/30 12:41] Gwyneth Llewelyn: So... nothing has been proposed... so discussions are fine,
[2008/03/30 12:41] Gwyneth Llewelyn: BUT...
[2008/03/30 12:42] Gwyneth Llewelyn: an attempt to suddenly change the election rules before the by-elections, or suddenly reducing the number of members of the RA *after* people have voted
[2008/03/30 12:42] Gwyneth Llewelyn: is probably out of bounds, and will have to be considered by the SC
[2008/03/30 12:42] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Note --
[2008/03/30 12:42] Gwyneth Llewelyn: the citizens vote for factions, and factions get seats
[2008/03/30 12:42] Gwyneth Llewelyn: not necessarily 'people'
[2008/03/30 12:42] You: me notes the time but thinks this important - just let us know when done please.
[2008/03/30 12:43] Gwyneth Llewelyn: That's all mostly ;)
[2008/03/30 12:43] ThePrincess Parisi: we need seven seats i think
[2008/03/30 12:43] Gwyneth Llewelyn: We HAVE 7 seats.
[2008/03/30 12:43] Gwyneth Llewelyn: What we do is just 5 people for 7 seats ;)
[2008/03/30 12:43] Gwyneth Llewelyn: And that's all -- thank you Mr. LRA
[2008/03/30 12:43] You: :) we will talk more abut seats soon I think
[2008/03/30 12:44] You: and thank you
[2008/03/30 12:44] You: so
[2008/03/30 12:44] You: no motion on the table. May I make one?
[2008/03/30 12:44] You: I see no objections
[2008/03/30 12:44] You: I have reviewed the constitution carefully and note a dozen or so references to quorum. Most say "2/33rds" or "majority" without any reference to seated reps versus total possible seats. ...
[2008/03/30 12:45] You: One or two say "seats". ...
[2008/03/30 12:45] You: Proper legislative interpretation maixims guide us always to give effect to word distinctions. SO I conclude that where the Constitution says "seats" it means it - and where it does not, it is most likely to mean something different.
[2008/03/30 12:45] You: .. :) ...
[2008/03/30 12:45] MT Lundquist: makes sense
[2008/03/30 12:46] You: Also, the constitution permits the RA to set its own operating procedures, so long as they do not violate the constitution. And a rule by the RA to specify that all majority and supermajority votes shall be calculated based on the number of members then seated - except in those cases where the Constitution specifies seats -does not violate that Constitution
[2008/03/30 12:46] You: .. in my view, smile
[2008/03/30 12:46] MT Lundquist: i agree
[2008/03/30 12:46] Gwyneth Llewelyn: hehe yes, very good point ;)
[2008/03/30 12:46] You: .. and it would solve Beathan's issue about having a quorum risk, until the elections are over ..
[2008/03/30 12:46] You: so I so move.
[2008/03/30 12:46] MT Lundquist: second
[2008/03/30 12:46] You: Discussion?
[2008/03/30 12:47] You: we're a bit over time in the aggregate, but not much
[2008/03/30 12:47] You: the practical effect: 2/3rds of 5, and 2/3rs of the RA, will be 4, until the new members are seated.
[2008/03/30 12:47] You: and we won't need all 5 for quorum, smile
[2008/03/30 12:47] You: are you ready for a vote?
[2008/03/30 12:48] MT Lundquist: yes
[2008/03/30 12:48] You: Members please note their votes - I vote aye
[2008/03/30 12:48] Sonja Strom: Although I don't have so strong a feeling about this as Patroklus, I do agree with him. My view is, the RA has seven seats, and what we need is to hold the by-elections to fill the 2 empty ones. Simply that.
[2008/03/30 12:48] Gwyneth Llewelyn: (actually: "A vote in the RA is a simple majority vote of representative seats. Constitutional amendments require a 2/3 vote.")
[2008/03/30 12:48] Sonja Strom: My vote is nay.
[2008/03/30 12:48] You: Let's hold the vote
[2008/03/30 12:48] You: oh - never mind :) sonja WAS ready to vote
[2008/03/30 12:49] You: sorry :)
[2008/03/30 12:49] Beathan Vale: what are we voting on?
[2008/03/30 12:49] Sonja Strom: Yes, sorry, I was typing a discussion comment.
[2008/03/30 12:50] You: OK, I choose to cancel the vote as having been prematurely started by me :) if no-one objects
[2008/03/30 12:50] You: asking again: is there further comment?
[2008/03/30 12:50] Beathan Vale: on my 5 RA?
[2008/03/30 12:50] Jamie Palisades notes Gwyn's change of view
[2008/03/30 12:50] You: no, BV, it's not a motion
[2008/03/30 12:50] You: I made a motion
[2008/03/30 12:51] Beathan Vale: Based on Gwyn's comments and FR's post -- and despite Pat's partisan and legally incorrect speech, I withdraw my proposal
[2008/03/30 12:51] You: I object to the characterization of Pat, here, but note the proposal's off the table
[2008/03/30 12:51] You: now
[2008/03/30 12:52] You: we need to dispose of my motion pls :)
[2008/03/30 12:52] You: should l restate it?
[2008/03/30 12:52] MT Lundquist: please
[2008/03/30 12:52] MT Lundquist: for clarity
[2008/03/30 12:54] You: I moved that the RA adopt a rule that all majority and supermajority votes - and let's be clear and say meeting quorum also - shall be calculated based on the number of members then seated - except in those cases where the Constitution specifies seats. ...
[2008/03/30 12:54] You: and it was seconded .. and it is up for discussion
[2008/03/30 12:54] You: anyone?
[2008/03/30 12:54] Beathan Vale: worth a shot -- but I don't know that this overcomes the problems raised by the SC
[2008/03/30 12:55] Gwyneth Llewelyn: (the Constitution does not define a quorum; only the old procedures of the RA stated "A quorum for all RA business is equal to a minimum of 50%+1 members in attendance." which does not relate to seats)
[2008/03/30 12:55] Sonja Strom: To me this seems like another way of stating Beathan's proposal.
[2008/03/30 12:55] Beathan Vale: let's pass it -- use it for this RA meeting -- and send the SC a test case -- based on, say, the Green Sims bill
[2008/03/30 12:55] You: How the SC welcomes our attempts to stay open for business - or does not welcome them - is a topic for their meeting at 4 am tomorrow :)
[2008/03/30 12:55] Gwyneth Llewelyn: true, true
[2008/03/30 12:56] MT Lundquist: the difference being its already law sonja i think
[2008/03/30 12:56] Sonja Strom: If it is already law, then do we need to consider it?
[2008/03/30 12:56] You: I will speak in favor then
[2008/03/30 12:57] You: I think RA members who resign should not, by doing so, be capable of prevent the RA from doing business. Even accidentally. It's my view that the Constitution does not wish, or require, the RA to stop dead when a faction leaves :) And I attribute NO intent to anyone - just noting the practical effects.
[2008/03/30 12:57] You: Done. Anyone else, or are we ready to vote?
[2008/03/30 12:57] Beathan Vale: Hear Hear
[2008/03/30 12:57] MT Lundquist: ready
[2008/03/30 12:57] Beathan Vale: so moved
[2008/03/30 12:58] Jamie Palisades looks around (heh - more carefully this time) - I see no type-y motions
[2008/03/30 12:58] Gwyneth Llewelyn: ;)
[2008/03/30 12:58] You: OK then: members state your votes please
[2008/03/30 12:58] Beathan Vale: I can't second my own motion
[2008/03/30 12:58] Beathan Vale: wait -- no second on vote
[2008/03/30 12:58] MT Lundquist: second
[2008/03/30 12:58] Beathan Vale: kk
[2008/03/30 12:58] Beathan Vale: aye
[2008/03/30 12:58] Sonja Strom: nay
[2008/03/30 12:58] You: no need, was moved and seconded earlier :)
[2008/03/30 12:59] ThePrincess Parisi: aye
[2008/03/30 12:59] MT Lundquist: aye
[2008/03/30 12:59] You: I vote aye - and declare it passed by 4-1-0.
[2008/03/30 12:59] You: I note this is not a Constitutional amendment.
[2008/03/30 12:59] MT Lundquist: :)
[2008/03/30 12:59] You: and we move on to item 3
[2008/03/30 13:00] You: item 3 - election rules
[2008/03/30 13:00] You: I note that most o these items *would* be constitutional amendments
[2008/03/30 13:00] You: Prin, item 3a was yours? Minimum faction size?
[2008/03/30 13:01] ThePrincess Parisi: well this is something that i have talked with all RA members about so i am certain you all know
[2008/03/30 13:01] Beathan Vale: I want to address a global issue raised by Gwyn first
[2008/03/30 13:01] ThePrincess Parisi: and actually it wasnt even me first to tell it.....
[2008/03/30 13:02] You: Prin has the floor
[2008/03/30 13:03] You: m
[2008/03/30 13:03] You: Can I assume you are done, Prin?
[2008/03/30 13:03] Alexicon Kurka: I think she crashed
[2008/03/30 13:03] MT Lundquist: she crashed
[2008/03/30 13:03] You: if so Beathan's up
[2008/03/30 13:03] Beathan Vale: tough day for crashing
[2008/03/30 13:03] You: 'global issue'?
[2008/03/30 13:04] Beathan Vale: Gwyn indicates that there would be a "founding documents" problem if the RA changed the election rules prior to this election
[2008/03/30 13:04] MT Lundquist: i have her in voice
[2008/03/30 13:04] Beathan Vale: I don't see it
[2008/03/30 13:04] You: see what?
[2008/03/30 13:04] Gwyneth Llewelyn: "would" as in "possibly" -- it's a philosophical question, Beathan, not a constitutional one.
[2008/03/30 13:04] MT Lundquist: that there has been a dramatic increase in size since the first faction creation size of 3
[2008/03/30 13:05] Beathan Vale: the elections are called by the RA, and administered by the SC -- based on the then-current election rules
[2008/03/30 13:05] Beathan Vale: thus, there is should be no problem with an election rule change
[2008/03/30 13:05] MT Lundquist: therefore the proposal is to have 5 min members of a faction
[2008/03/30 13:05] Beathan Vale: as long as elections are held -- as required by the founding documents -- there should be no founding documents problem based on the details of "election rules"
[2008/03/30 13:05] Beathan Vale: that is all
[2008/03/30 13:06] Beathan Vale: That said -- I am not sure I support changing faction size or creation rules at this time
[2008/03/30 13:06] You: I have myself and Pat in queue
[2008/03/30 13:06] Beathan Vale: I think it is addressing a speculative problem about how (rumor has it) the CSDF will manipulate the election
[2008/03/30 13:06] You: others wish to speak?
[2008/03/30 13:07] You: done BV?
[2008/03/30 13:07] You: had your 'two minutes" :)
[2008/03/30 13:07] Beathan Vale: Let's give the CSDF a chance to behave appropriately before we assume they will do wrong
[2008/03/30 13:07] Gwyneth Llewelyn: (just on 3b, Jamie)
[2008/03/30 13:07] Beathan Vale: ;-)
[2008/03/30 13:07] Beathan Vale: now that is really all
[2008/03/30 13:07] You: Pat? anything on this item? (You having given me notice)
[2008/03/30 13:07] Sonja Strom: I would like to speak about it, Jamie.
[2008/03/30 13:08] Sonja Strom: After the CSDF.
[2008/03/30 13:08] Patroklus Murakami: hmmm, i only wanted to speak on 2
[2008/03/30 13:08] You: OK thx. Sonja?
[2008/03/30 13:09] Sonja Strom: OK, the DPU has considered this, and we think the party size for participation in elections should reflect 10% of the total population, as a ratio that would increase if the CDS grows.
[2008/03/30 13:09] Gwyneth Llewelyn *nods*
[2008/03/30 13:09] You: how diff from current rule? No minimum?
[2008/03/30 13:09] MT Lundquist nods
[2008/03/30 13:10] You: ?
[2008/03/30 13:10] Sonja Strom: There is some disagreement in the DPU about whether this is how things used to be or not - some say it was once that way, others say it was only a consideration in the past.
[2008/03/30 13:11] Sonja Strom: I believe with the current size of the CDS, it would require 4 members per party to participate in the upcoming by-election.
[2008/03/30 13:11] You: Any more, Sonja?
[2008/03/30 13:11] Sonja Strom: Done, thanks!
[2008/03/30 13:11] Sonja Strom: wb ThePrincess :)
[2008/03/30 13:12] You: is that a motion that you wish to make at this time, Sonja? I believe it would pass even the, um, most hostile possible SC view on voting numbers, if unaninimous here.
[2008/03/30 13:12] ThePrincess Parisi: ty lost interenet
[2008/03/30 13:12] MT Lundquist: i support sonjas view
[2008/03/30 13:12] Sonja Strom: I would like to hear what ThePrincess wanted to say to us.
[2008/03/30 13:12] You: MT maybe you could send Prin the last few minutes of chat?
[2008/03/30 13:12] ThePrincess Parisi: i dont know what happened.. but the pop has grown
[2008/03/30 13:12] ThePrincess Parisi: and the size of a faction hasnt
[2008/03/30 13:12] You: :)
[2008/03/30 13:13] ThePrincess Parisi: to start.. basically .. and with elimination off the slates
[2008/03/30 13:13] ThePrincess Parisi: then it is more imoportant to have a larger faction size to start with
[2008/03/30 13:13] ThePrincess Parisi: sorry
[2008/03/30 13:13] You: And Sonja's faction is suggesting a rule for increasing it - and you get your 2 minutes now :)
[2008/03/30 13:14] ThePrincess Parisi: ns iy esd and it was SP's idea
[2008/03/30 13:14] You: I am hearing no more comments. I would vote for the plan I Sonja described if it were moved and seconded now.
[2008/03/30 13:14] ThePrincess Parisi: it was 10 percent when it was made i think
[2008/03/30 13:14] You: but it isn't :)
[2008/03/30 13:14] MT Lundquist: move sonjas proposal
[2008/03/30 13:14] You: that's what she proposed, yes
[2008/03/30 13:14] ThePrincess Parisi: but they didnt think of growth so we are just verifying what the founders wanted
[2008/03/30 13:14] Beathan Vale: second
[2008/03/30 13:15] ThePrincess Parisi: third
[2008/03/30 13:15] You: well there you go
[2008/03/30 13:15] Gwyneth Llewelyn *raises hand* for a clarification on Sonja's words
[2008/03/30 13:15] Patroklus Murakami: hmm, no not really
[2008/03/30 13:15] Patroklus Murakami: point of information mr chairman
[2008/03/30 13:15] Beathan Vale: I think we should specify that we round down
[2008/03/30 13:15] You: Let's do discussion - Gwyn and then Pat
[2008/03/30 13:15] Gwyneth Llewelyn: thank you
[2008/03/30 13:15] ThePrincess Parisi: oh me too round down
[2008/03/30 13:15] Gwyneth Llewelyn: "I believe with the current size of the CDS, it would require 4 members per party to participate in the upcoming by-election."
[2008/03/30 13:16] Beathan Vale: I think it is more like 6-7
[2008/03/30 13:16] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Partys have two ways of being 'counted',
[2008/03/30 13:16] ThePrincess Parisi: yes that is true
[2008/03/30 13:16] Gwyneth Llewelyn: one is the number of total members,
[2008/03/30 13:16] Cindy Ecksol raises hand
[2008/03/30 13:16] Gwyneth Llewelyn: the other is the number of candidates for election ("the list")
[2008/03/30 13:16] Gwyneth Llewelyn: which of those two limits is the RA voting to change now?
[2008/03/30 13:16] Beathan Vale: members
[2008/03/30 13:16] ThePrincess Parisi: mmmmmm.. gwen
[2008/03/30 13:16] You: Gwyn has the floor
[2008/03/30 13:17] Gwyneth Llewelyn: (that was just the question, nothing more :) )
[2008/03/30 13:17] ThePrincess Parisi: she asked a question
[2008/03/30 13:17] You: Done posing your Q?
[2008/03/30 13:17] ThePrincess Parisi: well gwyneth i think we should do two as well as one
[2008/03/30 13:17] Gwyneth Llewelyn *nods* @ LRA
[2008/03/30 13:17] Beathan Vale: members -- from 3 to 10% of pop
[2008/03/30 13:17] ThePrincess Parisi: i didnt even think of that
[2008/03/30 13:17] Sonja Strom: I would like to make a motion.
[2008/03/30 13:17] You: OK, Sonja & MT - you suggested and moved that :)
[2008/03/30 13:17] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok, thank you Beathan
[2008/03/30 13:17] Sonja Strom:
"The minimum size requirement for a party to participate in RA elections shall be 10% of the total CDS population, rounded down."
[2008/03/30 13:17] You: Sonja, is it an amendment to the current motion?
[2008/03/30 13:17] ThePrincess Parisi: maybe tqo two candidates and then the ten percent
[2008/03/30 13:17] You: I will take it that way, hmn?
[2008/03/30 13:17] Gwyneth Llewelyn: thank you Sonja :) it's clear now.
[2008/03/30 13:17] ThePrincess Parisi: and what about candidates gwyn is right we need to clarify that
[2008/03/30 13:17] Cindy Ecksol still raising hand
[2008/03/30 13:18] ThePrincess Parisi: jamie see cindy
[2008/03/30 13:18] You: can we make that "faction" to use the constitutional term?
[2008/03/30 13:18] Beathan Vale: I don't think we need to do anything with number of candidates right now
[2008/03/30 13:18] Beathan Vale: yes
[2008/03/30 13:18] You: Yes - I have Pat then Cindy then others - but if the motion is seconded, it's that amendment to which we all must speak
[2008/03/30 13:18] Sonja Strom: Is a party a faction before an election?
[2008/03/30 13:18] Beathan Vale: party=faction
[2008/03/30 13:18] Sonja Strom: OK
[2008/03/30 13:18] You: yup
[2008/03/30 13:18] ThePrincess Parisi: yes
[2008/03/30 13:18] You: OK do we have a second?
[2008/03/30 13:19] ThePrincess Parisi: second
[2008/03/30 13:19] Beathan Vale: wait -- Cindy
[2008/03/30 13:19] You: OK then
[2008/03/30 13:19] You: psst
[2008/03/30 13:19] Sonja Strom: My RL understanding of a faction is that it is a party in Parliament.
[2008/03/30 13:19] You: Pat first then Cindy - if Pat has more
[2008/03/30 13:19] Patroklus Murakami: the reason for having a faction size of 3 had nothing to do with population size
[2008/03/30 13:19] Patroklus Murakami: it was the minimum size for a group set by Linden Lab
[2008/03/30 13:19] Patroklus Murakami: and the rules stated that you needed to form a group to have a faction
[2008/03/30 13:20] ThePrincess Parisi: then its two now
[2008/03/30 13:20] Patroklus Murakami: i don't think raising the bar is such a good idea
[2008/03/30 13:20] Patroklus Murakami: it doesn't affect us but.... some of the other factions would have had to disband if this rule had been in force for the last year :)
[2008/03/30 13:20] Sonja Strom: I would like to hear from Cindy too.
[2008/03/30 13:21] You: Pat, if that's your two minutes, I have Cindy, me, and - well - we'll see.
[2008/03/30 13:21] Patroklus Murakami: so, 'look before you leap' :)
[2008/03/30 13:21] You: Cindy? thx for your patience
[2008/03/30 13:21] Cindy Ecksol: ok, most democracies have a process for putting a candidate from a "new" party on the ballot that involves getting a certain number of signatures, usually based on a percentage of population from the voting district affected
[2008/03/30 13:22] Cindy Ecksol: there usually is no requirement for "party size" and I think the discussion here substantiates the idea that party size was simply a "code limitation" and not one that had any necessary basis in democratic principles
[2008/03/30 13:23] Cindy Ecksol: so what I would propose it that if you want to set a number for "people" in a party, the number you set should be the number of candidates standing for election. My feeling is that each party should post at least the same number of candidates required to fill a majority of the seats in the RA
[2008/03/30 13:24] Gwyneth Llewelyn: hear, hear :)
[2008/03/30 13:24] Cindy Ecksol: that makes a lot more sense than requiring a certain number of people in the party, gets us out of the business of claiming manipulation of the party lists and so on.
[2008/03/30 13:24] You: time? finished?
[2008/03/30 13:24] Cindy Ecksol: and it also resolves the problem that we had in the last election where a party won more seats than it had posted candidates for
[2008/03/30 13:24] Cindy Ecksol: yes, I'm done now
[2008/03/30 13:24] ThePrincess Parisi: good point cindy we can do both i think
[2008/03/30 13:24] You: Thanks - intelligent and helpful idea. But actually a completely different action - worth its own thought - different from the motion on the table. I'm in queue next. My own view is that I fear small factions being created purely to game or grief the system - at some future time - and so favor Sonja's proposal as it is now moved, seconded and amended here.
[2008/03/30 13:24] Cindy Ecksol: excuse me, but I don't think we need to do both that's my point
[2008/03/30 13:25] You: SO I guess I am agreeing with Prin
[2008/03/30 13:25] ThePrincess Parisi: hmm.. well
[2008/03/30 13:25] You: ahem :)
[2008/03/30 13:25] You: is there further disvussion? Here's why I ask: an agenda note - we are behind. That's OK - but any member can move to close debate and if they do, and there are objections, I will call for an immediate RA vote to close the discussion. Only way to keep to a schedule.
[2008/03/30 13:25] ThePrincess Parisi: lets vote
[2008/03/30 13:25] Beathan Vale: Cindy -- 1. we are discussing, as part od election reform, a move to direct election of individual candidates -- possibly without faction affiliation; 2. we vote for factions, not persons, so it should not matter if a factgion has twenty candidates or noe beofre the election
[2008/03/30 13:25] Beathan Vale: aye
[2008/03/30 13:25] You: so: further new comments? we have an amendment on the table
[2008/03/30 13:26] Sonja Strom: I do see how bringing up Cindy's idea is appropriate for consideration.
[2008/03/30 13:26] Cindy Ecksol: no, I do not favor moving to direct election.
[2008/03/30 13:26] Sonja Strom: However, I don't agree with her proposal for a couple of reasons.
[2008/03/30 13:26] Cindy Ecksol: but I think it is important that people know when they vote for the faction who is likely to fill the seats and can indicate their preferences
[2008/03/30 13:26] You: Sigh, smile - SOnja - hers is NOT onthe table just yet - can we discuss it after handling the current one?
[2008/03/30 13:27] Sonja Strom: This is getting off-topic a bit, yes.
[2008/03/30 13:27] Cindy Ecksol: sorry!
[2008/03/30 13:27] Beathan Vale: ok -- Sonja -- can you accept the amendments a friendly? I think they are
[2008/03/30 13:27] Cindy Ecksol: I was mostly speaking against the current proposal
[2008/03/30 13:27] Sonja Strom: What were the amenments?
[2008/03/30 13:27] You: Members are you ready to vote on Sonjs's AMENDMENT? As she stated - but using the word 'faction'
[2008/03/30 13:27] Sonja Strom: OK
[2008/03/30 13:27] ThePrincess Parisi: yes
[2008/03/30 13:28] MT Lundquist: yes
[2008/03/30 13:28] You: Good, smile. Members please state your votes. I vote aye.
[2008/03/30 13:28] Beathan Vale: aye
[2008/03/30 13:28] Sonja Strom: aye
[2008/03/30 13:28] MT Lundquist: aye
[2008/03/30 13:29] ThePrincess Parisi: qye
[2008/03/30 13:29] ThePrincess Parisi: aye
[2008/03/30 13:29] Cindy Ecksol thinks oy!
[2008/03/30 13:29] You: :)
[2008/03/30 13:29] You: Now we are on the main motion as amended - which pretty much is the text of the amendment. It requires a vote. I think you are ready to vote without re-hashing?
[2008/03/30 13:29] ThePrincess Parisi: yikes
[2008/03/30 13:29] Jamie Palisades mutters: and let's talk more about that idea Cindy -in its own time
[2008/03/30 13:30] You: trust me guys, you need to vote now to approve the original motion as Sonja amended it
[2008/03/30 13:30] ThePrincess Parisi: ok
[2008/03/30 13:30] MT Lundquist: k
[2008/03/30 13:30] You: I suggest you are ready to vote. If no objections, I vote aye (again:P)
[2008/03/30 13:30] MT Lundquist: aye
[2008/03/30 13:30] Sonja Strom: aye
[2008/03/30 13:30] ThePrincess Parisi: aye
[2008/03/30 13:31] Jamie Palisades reaches over and twangs a mohawk
[2008/03/30 13:31] Beathan Vale: aye
[2008/03/30 13:32] You: ah good. I declare it passed and will notify the SC
[2008/03/30 13:32] Gwyneth Llewelyn: :)
[2008/03/30 13:32] You: Let's take up Cindy's point next meeting, too

[Continued in next post to this thread]
[Apparently phpBB has a 60000 character limit!]

== My Second Life home is CDS. Retired after three terms
== as chancellor of the oldest self-governing sims in SL.
User avatar
Jamie Palisades
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 639
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 3:56 pm

RA meeting 30 March 2008 - transcript part 2 of 2

Post by Jamie Palisades »

[RA transcript for 30 March 2008, continued from prior post in this thread]

[2008/03/30 13:32] You: item 3b
[2008/03/30 13:32] MT Lundquist: yes i would like to discuss that
[2008/03/30 13:32] You: Several do. Let just mention this --
[2008/03/30 13:33] You: I put item 3b on the agenda just to dispose of it. So far as I know there are no proposals to cut down the RA size *for now*. Some have spoken for it as a possible future change, though. May I confirm that there;s no such plan *for now*, and we are unambiguously sticking with the constitutional calculation of 7 RA members for this term?
[2008/03/30 13:33] You: and if some one DOES want to change it NOW, let's hear it
[2008/03/30 13:33] Beathan Vale: no -- Pat had a proposal for a permanent reduction to 5
[2008/03/30 13:33] You: I have MT, and Pat
[2008/03/30 13:33] ThePrincess Parisi: nope
[2008/03/30 13:34] You: and will assume we are talking about NEXT term, then, good. Discussion: MT?
[2008/03/30 13:34] MT Lundquist: I'm happy with the existing arrangement
[2008/03/30 13:34] MT Lundquist: ie 7 seats
[2008/03/30 13:34] ThePrincess Parisi: me too
[2008/03/30 13:35] ThePrincess Parisi: per pop size.. but what about by elections has the pop changed
[2008/03/30 13:35] Moon Adamant waves silently hello to everyone present
[2008/03/30 13:35] ThePrincess Parisi: or is it when we started?
[2008/03/30 13:35] ThePrincess Parisi: idk
[2008/03/30 13:35] Beathan Vale: should be current pop at time of election
[2008/03/30 13:35] MT Lundquist: yes
[2008/03/30 13:35] Patroklus Murakami: this was my proposal. but it clearly doesn't have support yet so I'll propose it another time
[2008/03/30 13:35] You: Well, Prin, seems to me that scheme is measure once every six months, but we can al;ways ask the SC, smile
[2008/03/30 13:36] You: MT is done? Then Patroklus has the floor
[2008/03/30 13:36] ThePrincess Parisi: i see
[2008/03/30 13:36] Patroklus Murakami: i've said my piece
[2008/03/30 13:36] You: OK, I note no motion and no immediate plans for one. I suggest we move on - for now.
[2008/03/30 13:37] Gwyneth Llewelyn reminds the LRA that I asked to talk on 3b... ;)
[2008/03/30 13:37] You: Oh yes, but thought I heard you pass, sorry, please do - noting no active motion
[2008/03/30 13:38] Gwyneth Llewelyn: I just wished to remind that: "there shall be a special election to fill, for the remainder of the term, the seats left vacant."
[2008/03/30 13:38] Gwyneth Llewelyn: so the by-election is just for 2 seats, since 2 seats were left vacant.
[2008/03/30 13:38] Gwyneth Llewelyn: No more and no less :)
[2008/03/30 13:38] Gwyneth Llewelyn: That's all -- thank you
[2008/03/30 13:38] You: :)
[2008/03/30 13:38] ThePrincess Parisi: thank you gwyniieee
[2008/03/30 13:38] You: item 4
[2008/03/30 13:38] You: date for that election
[2008/03/30 13:39] Beathan Vale: Gwynn -- what is the soonest possible?
[2008/03/30 13:39] You: as I recall one must have 15 days for candidacy, then 7 days to run it, no?
[2008/03/30 13:39] You: G?
[2008/03/30 13:40] Gwyneth Llewelyn: two weeks campaigning starting immediately after this meeting, one week voting, unless the RA changes the rules
[2008/03/30 13:40] Gwyneth Llewelyn: yes Jamie
[2008/03/30 13:40] Gwyneth Llewelyn: and candidates willing to serve should email Claude asap ;)
[2008/03/30 13:40] Gwyneth Llewelyn: ie. today lol
[2008/03/30 13:40] You: SO you are saying that the campagining must start as soon as we leave this room? That suggests zero hours to declare candidacies
[2008/03/30 13:40] Gwyneth Llewelyn: not "must"
[2008/03/30 13:40] Gwyneth Llewelyn: but "could"
[2008/03/30 13:40] You: are you sayins that's a constitutional requirement, dear?
[2008/03/30 13:41] ThePrincess Parisi: can
[2008/03/30 13:41] Gwyneth Llewelyn: you set the dates ;)
[2008/03/30 13:41] You: ah - "soonest" - got it
[2008/03/30 13:41] ThePrincess Parisi: and when does a faction have to be declared ..
[2008/03/30 13:41] Beathan Vale: we need some time for declarations -- say an additional week
[2008/03/30 13:41] Beathan Vale: I need to twist some SP arms
[2008/03/30 13:41] ThePrincess Parisi: there was a time nuCARE had to declare before the elecion olast time
[2008/03/30 13:41] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Beathan's suggestion on the last RA meeting was rather sensible... one week 'setup'/announcements; two weeks campaigning; one week elections
[2008/03/30 13:41] ThePrincess Parisi: i think we need to give that time? or no new factions this time?
[2008/03/30 13:42] You: so for example we could say: 30 March start nominating; 6 Apiril close nominations, start campaigning; 21 April voting opens?
[2008/03/30 13:42] Beathan Vale: yes -- that works
[2008/03/30 13:42] You: (just an example, using Beathan's one week)
[2008/03/30 13:42] Gwyneth Llewelyn *nods* and agrees.
[2008/03/30 13:42] ThePrincess Parisi: so factions have to have already been declared?
[2008/03/30 13:42] You: is a week good for everyone?
[2008/03/30 13:42] Gwyneth Llewelyn: mmmh no, Princess -- they could do until the day the campaigning start
[2008/03/30 13:42] ThePrincess Parisi: we had to declare prior to the election a few weeks last time in the election
[2008/03/30 13:43] ThePrincess Parisi: well that is different than a regular election
[2008/03/30 13:43] ThePrincess Parisi: i am certain
[2008/03/30 13:43] ThePrincess Parisi: why is this different
[2008/03/30 13:43] ThePrincess Parisi: nuCARE had to be together well before the start of campaigning
[2008/03/30 13:43] ThePrincess Parisi: we had a deadline
[2008/03/30 13:43] Beathan Vale: let's say three days for new factions; 7 days for candidates, 2 week campaign, 1 week vote
[2008/03/30 13:43] ThePrincess Parisi: no we cant say
[2008/03/30 13:43] ThePrincess Parisi: it is in the constitution
[2008/03/30 13:43] Gwyneth Llewelyn: "No later than 15 days prior to the opening of the polls, faction members will report to the SC Dean their willingness or unwillingness to serve in the RA."
[2008/03/30 13:43] ThePrincess Parisi: i know it is , cos we had to stick to that to get ourselves to the
[2008/03/30 13:43] You: faction get tested (for existence and eligibility) on the same day as nominations close and campaigning opens, I think
[2008/03/30 13:44] ThePrincess Parisi: but this is about making a faction
[2008/03/30 13:44] Cindy Ecksol raises hand
[2008/03/30 13:44] ThePrincess Parisi: we need to make sure
[2008/03/30 13:44] Gwyneth Llewelyn: "If there are no declared candidates fifteen (15) days before and election, that faction will be considered a non-election faction and not be placed on the ballot for that term."
[2008/03/30 13:44] ThePrincess Parisi: we had a timeline much prior to reporting that
[2008/03/30 13:44] You: I see Cindy, then I have a Q for Gwyneth
[2008/03/30 13:44] You: Cindy?
[2008/03/30 13:45] Cindy Ecksol: seems to me that from what Gwyn has quoted all a faction has to do to "declare" is tell the RA 15 days before elections. I suppose with the new rule about faction size, the SC will also have to certify any previously unknown factions, but that looks like the rule...
[2008/03/30 13:45] ThePrincess Parisi: well there might be more than what she has quoted cin
[2008/03/30 13:45] Patroklus Murakami: and the current factions cindy :)
[2008/03/30 13:45] Cindy Ecksol: any faction (new or old) that does not talk to the RA will not be certified.
[2008/03/30 13:46] ThePrincess Parisi: we had to declare to sudane with nuCARE
[2008/03/30 13:46] Cindy Ecksol: I'm sorry -- to the SC, not the RA. Good point pat...
[2008/03/30 13:46] ThePrincess Parisi: way prior to the day of the campaign
[2008/03/30 13:46] Cindy Ecksol: 15 days
[2008/03/30 13:46] You: thanks
[2008/03/30 13:46] Gwyneth Llewelyn will answer to Princess' question once Jamie asks the question to me -- so that we're not getting hopelessly out of order here :)
[2008/03/30 13:47] ThePrincess Parisi: i think this needs to be clarified before this goes on
[2008/03/30 13:47] You: indeed, and thanks - and after Gwyn's short answer I have a procedural issue. Gwyn?
[2008/03/30 13:47] ThePrincess Parisi: im sorry but im sure we just did this three months ago
[2008/03/30 13:47] ThePrincess Parisi: can i not talk? oops
[2008/03/30 13:47] Gwyneth Llewelyn: :)
[2008/03/30 13:48] You: not just yet :) Gwyn's turn
[2008/03/30 13:48] Gwyneth Llewelyn is confused about the order -- Jamie, should I answer Princess first; answer your (unasked) question first; or shut up and wait for Princess to finish?
[2008/03/30 13:48] You: ha ha - answer the question previously asked please - or decline, of course
[2008/03/30 13:49] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok... well,
[2008/03/30 13:49] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Princess has a point actually.
[2008/03/30 13:49] Gwyneth Llewelyn: On the *regular* elections,
[2008/03/30 13:49] Gwyneth Llewelyn: BEFORE all the process starts,
[2008/03/30 13:49] Gwyneth Llewelyn: we have the "census".
[2008/03/30 13:49] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Estimating how many citizens there are in the CDS,
[2008/03/30 13:49] Gwyneth Llewelyn: because this will also define how many seats will be on the RA,
[2008/03/30 13:50] Gwyneth Llewelyn: and... how many candidates each faction needs to present
[2008/03/30 13:50] Gwyneth Llewelyn: So... on the *regular* elections,
[2008/03/30 13:50] Gwyneth Llewelyn: a bit before the campaigning starts,
[2008/03/30 13:50] You: so the census date is its own test, prior to faction nominations opening?
[2008/03/30 13:50] You: and who sets THAT date?
[2008/03/30 13:50] Gwyneth Llewelyn: yes, exactly, Jamie
[2008/03/30 13:50] You: :)
[2008/03/30 13:50] Gwyneth Llewelyn: ah, it's fixed... mmmh
[2008/03/30 13:50] ThePrincess Parisi: :) i had a point.
[2008/03/30 13:50] Gwyneth Llewelyn: But in the case of the by-elections,
[2008/03/30 13:51] Moon Adamant: afk
[2008/03/30 13:51] Gwyneth Llewelyn: we're just filling in a fixed amount of seats
[2008/03/30 13:51] Gwyneth Llewelyn: ie.
[2008/03/30 13:51] Gwyneth Llewelyn: you don't need to define a "full list"
[2008/03/30 13:51] Gwyneth Llewelyn: no new census is needed — the number of members of the RA *overall* will not grow or diminished
[2008/03/30 13:51] Gwyneth Llewelyn: *diminsh
[2008/03/30 13:52] Gwyneth Llewelyn: so as long as "any" faction which was valid at the beginning of term
[2008/03/30 13:52] Cindy Ecksol thinks "Wow! then anyone could declare themselves a new faction and hop into the pool if it's a by election!"
[2008/03/30 13:52] MT Lundquist raises hand
[2008/03/30 13:52] You: OK, answered then, I think, and thank you ...
[2008/03/30 13:52] Gwyneth Llewelyn: presents enough candidates....
[2008/03/30 13:52] Gwyneth Llewelyn: no no Cindy
[2008/03/30 13:52] Gwyneth Llewelyn: I don't read it that way :)
[2008/03/30 13:52] ThePrincess Parisi: may i post something please
[2008/03/30 13:52] Cindy Ecksol: sorry, put that up before you finished....
[2008/03/30 13:52] Cindy Ecksol: I understand
[2008/03/30 13:52] You: Gwyn has floor - then rule issue- then Prin
[2008/03/30 13:52] You: done G?
[2008/03/30 13:52] ThePrincess Parisi: i have found the chat
[2008/03/30 13:53] ThePrincess Parisi: text i mean
[2008/03/30 13:53] Gwyneth Llewelyn: That was basically the explanation why for the regular elections there is a previous "validation" on the factions...
[2008/03/30 13:53] Gwyneth Llewelyn: so, yes, that's all, Mr. LRA :)
[2008/03/30 13:53] You: Thanks - that's helpful - and may well be what Prin was remembering as an "earlier deadline". Running out of time on this item. Beathan's new rules want me to explicitly immediately ask for an extension of time - or we quit this item, or vote immediately. .. This overrides the current debate as a procedural requirement under the rules you lot passed last meeting :) ... Could we have a motion to set the timelines I specified (30 March / 6 April / 21 April) -- OR some other dates AS A MOTION -- OR shall we let this item fail -- OR shall we extend debate? RA members only on that first, please.
[2008/03/30 13:53] Cindy Ecksol raises hand
[2008/03/30 13:53] You: so
[2008/03/30 13:54] You: RA members - I have no motion - extend debate? or not?
[2008/03/30 13:54] ThePrincess Parisi: we have some info i need to give first so yes
[2008/03/30 13:54] You: any objections from other RAs?
[2008/03/30 13:54] MT Lundquist: no
[2008/03/30 13:54] You: Noting this will eat the rest of our time today?
[2008/03/30 13:54] ThePrincess Parisi: well we can start elections now i dont care
[2008/03/30 13:54] ThePrincess Parisi: is that it
[2008/03/30 13:54] ThePrincess Parisi: im confused
[2008/03/30 13:54] Jamie Palisades looks around ...
[2008/03/30 13:54] ThePrincess Parisi: i am ok with voting on this now
[2008/03/30 13:55] You: :) then listen to the nice chairman please
[2008/03/30 13:55] Cindy Ecksol raises hand
[2008/03/30 13:55] You: No vote 'cause no motion ... time extended ... Prin first then Cindy :)
[2008/03/30 13:55] ThePrincess Parisi: No later than 15 days prior to the opening of the polls, faction members will report to the SC Dean their willingness or unwillingness to serve in the RA. If there are no declared candidates fifteen (15) days before and election, that faction will be considered a non-election faction and not be placed on the ballot for that term. Based on the ranking form the general election, the faction members to be elected to the RA will selected based on the descending order of the number of points received based on the Borda-count of the rankings. The members will be selected until all available seats for the party are filled. If a member retires from the RA, a member with the next highest ranking in the same faction is takes a seat on the RA.
[2008/03/30 13:55] ThePrincess Parisi: thats all i had
[2008/03/30 13:55] ThePrincess Parisi: cindy
[2008/03/30 13:56] You: Yup. Cindy?
[2008/03/30 13:56] Cindy Ecksol: just wanted to clarify: gwyn, are you saying that for the by election only parties already certified for the main election are eligible? no new parties for the by election?
[2008/03/30 13:56] Gwyneth Llewelyn: *theoretically*, Cindy, yes, that's what it is
[2008/03/30 13:56] Cindy Ecksol: that makes TREMENDOUS sense...
[2008/03/30 13:57] Gwyneth Llewelyn: this is "a special election for X vacant seats"
[2008/03/30 13:57] ThePrincess Parisi: then lets vote
[2008/03/30 13:57] ThePrincess Parisi: thank you ladies
[2008/03/30 13:57] ThePrincess Parisi: you are so smart.. oh I'm out of order
[2008/03/30 13:57] Beathan Vale: so moved
[2008/03/30 13:58] You: OK we have NO timing motion for the election. I find that embarrassing. Will someone move some dates please. One set that has been suggested was solicit candidates from factions 30 March; close those and start campaigning 6 April; start balloting 21 April.
[2008/03/30 13:58] You: Move what, BV? :)
[2008/03/30 13:58] ThePrincess Parisi: i move we commence now
[2008/03/30 13:58] ThePrincess Parisi: i love a campaign
[2008/03/30 13:58] Gwyneth Llewelyn: :)
[2008/03/30 13:58] Beathan Vale: the last text you posted as clarified (theoretically) by Gwyn
[2008/03/30 13:58] Jamie Palisades refrains, carefully, from comment
[2008/03/30 13:58] ThePrincess Parisi: :)
[2008/03/30 13:59] You: got it. BV moves that calendar, and acknolwedging Gwyn's comments about eligible factions.
[2008/03/30 13:59] You: Can I take Prin's motion as a second?
[2008/03/30 13:59] MT Lundquist: second
[2008/03/30 13:59] You: Are you ready to vote?
[2008/03/30 13:59] Beathan Vale: rdy
[2008/03/30 14:00] You: Members please state your vote. I vote aye.
[2008/03/30 14:00] MT Lundquist: yes
[2008/03/30 14:00] Sonja Strom: aye
[2008/03/30 14:00] MT Lundquist: aye
[2008/03/30 14:00] Beathan Vale: aye
[2008/03/30 14:00] ThePrincess Parisi: yes indeedy
[2008/03/30 14:00] You: :) done and I will notify the SC
[2008/03/30 14:00] You: somehow I feel they may know
[2008/03/30 14:01] You: ...
[2008/03/30 14:01] Gwyneth Llewelyn: rofl
[2008/03/30 14:01] You: Agenda. It is 2 pm SLT.
[2008/03/30 14:01] ThePrincess Parisi: where is my nuCARE hat
[2008/03/30 14:01] Beathan Vale: election committee meeting to follow
[2008/03/30 14:01] You: Who among the RA must leave?
[2008/03/30 14:01] ThePrincess Parisi: i never leave
[2008/03/30 14:01] You: do we quit RA for today?
[2008/03/30 14:01] Beathan Vale: it's true -- she is always on
[2008/03/30 14:01] ThePrincess Parisi: mt needs to go night night
[2008/03/30 14:01] Beathan Vale: I think she must take some wild stimulants
[2008/03/30 14:01] MT Lundquist: yes i need to sleep sorry
[2008/03/30 14:01] You: Yuo *must* stop throwing me those straight lines, Prin dear
[2008/03/30 14:02] Alexicon Kurka: I have to leave so I request that we have some minutes if there are any questions for me from the RA
[2008/03/30 14:02] ThePrincess Parisi: coffee with mayan chockolate
[2008/03/30 14:02] You: OK I will confer with members - on the Forum - about these agenda items we keep shorting - and offer our apologies to Alexicon for not getting to his report today
[2008/03/30 14:02] Beathan Vale: ahh -- the euphemistic "Mayan Chocolate"
[2008/03/30 14:02] ThePrincess Parisi: like MINE
[2008/03/30 14:02] Alexicon Kurka: :)
[2008/03/30 14:02] You: Is someone moving to adjourn for the day?
[2008/03/30 14:02] ThePrincess Parisi: its a REAL bill jamie
[2008/03/30 14:03] MT Lundquist: i move
[2008/03/30 14:03] You: other wise on we go, smile
[2008/03/30 14:03] Beathan Vale: I want to have a brief public discussion
[2008/03/30 14:03] Alexicon Kurka: I am glad the RA recovered and functions optimal again.
[2008/03/30 14:03] ThePrincess Parisi: no i wanna go on can we with four
[2008/03/30 14:03] Beathan Vale: prior to adjournment
[2008/03/30 14:03] ThePrincess Parisi: thank you Alexicon
[2008/03/30 14:03] You: Prin, e can unil somene calls uorum, mile
[2008/03/30 14:03] Beathan Vale: just so that we don't have a meeting without that chance
[2008/03/30 14:03] Beathan Vale: if no one wants to talk, so be it
[2008/03/30 14:03] You: MT have made a motion to adjounr
[2008/03/30 14:03] ThePrincess Parisi: second
[2008/03/30 14:03] ThePrincess Parisi: he has to go
[2008/03/30 14:04] You: Immediate vote required then, I think -
[2008/03/30 14:04] Beathan Vale: no further business for vote -- just discussion -- let's stay without MT for sy 10 min
[2008/03/30 14:04] Beathan Vale: nay
[2008/03/30 14:04] ThePrincess Parisi: ok
[2008/03/30 14:04] MT Lundquist: aye
[2008/03/30 14:04] You: members please indicate your vote (whether to adjourn)
[2008/03/30 14:04] ThePrincess Parisi: aye
[2008/03/30 14:04] Sonja Strom: aye
[2008/03/30 14:04] ThePrincess Parisi: aye
[2008/03/30 14:04] ThePrincess Parisi: aye
[2008/03/30 14:04] You: that's three :)
[2008/03/30 14:04] Beathan Vale: OK
[2008/03/30 14:04] MT Lundquist: ok bye all
[2008/03/30 14:04] ThePrincess Parisi: night night
[2008/03/30 14:04] MT Lundquist: sorry i have to go
[2008/03/30 14:05] You: I abstain, and we are adjourned 3-1-1 - and those who wish shoudl stick around for Beathan's chat about - um - elections
[2008/03/30 14:05] Beathan Vale: election committee to follow -- and any citizens who want to harrass me as proxy for the RA can do so
[2008/03/30 14:05] You: NP, it;s late, thank you MT
[2008/03/30 14:05] ThePrincess Parisi: he gets up early
[2008/03/30 14:05] Alexicon Kurka: Bye everybody
[2008/03/30 14:05] You: we are adjoruned, thank you all
[2008/03/30 14:05] ThePrincess Parisi: can we have the sign in the CN form updated
[2008/03/30 14:06] You: and thanks Alexicon

== My Second Life home is CDS. Retired after three terms
== as chancellor of the oldest self-governing sims in SL.
Post Reply

Return to “Representative Assembly Discussion”