GMP Act discussion

[Arria Perreault]

I receive and propose to general discussion:

An Act, Adopting the General Master Plan for the Confederation of Democratic Sims, February 2009.

A proposed General Master Plan ("GMP") was prepared and made available for citizen review and comment on ______ and posted here: http://masterplan.slcds.info/.
Subject to the review provisions of this Act, the Representative Assembly adopts the GMP as presented, to be effective until amended or revoked.

1.Scope: The GMP shall be consulted as guidance for the addition and placement of all new territory to be added to the CDS, in whatever manner addition is made.

2. Operation. All proposed sim additions shall be submitted in writing to the Chancellor. The Chancellor shall take one of the following actions:

a. Accept the proposal as written and refer the proposal directly to the RA for disposition.

b. Refer the proposal to the New Guild, for advice, recommendation of whether the proposal fits within the GMP, and other recommendations as the guild sees appropriate. Within 15 days after receiving the proposal, (the "Guild Review Period") the New Guild shall advise the Chancellor of its conclusions regarding feasibility and advisability of the territorial expansion, or seek additional time, which shall be allowed at the discretion of the Chancellor. At the end of the Guild Review Period, the Chancellor shall submit the proposal for expansion with the guild recommendation, if any, to the R.A. for disposition.

c. Reject the proposal. If appropriate, the Chancellor shall recommend that the Proponent seek assistance from the New Guild or other advisors to bring the project within the scope of the GMP.

3. Amendment: Once adopted, the GMP may only be changed by a two-thirds majority of the Representative Assembly.

4. Effective Date: This Act shall be effective 15 days from the date of adoption, to allow comment and revision by the New Guild and the community. Revisions and amendments shall be submitted and voted on at the first meeting of the RA occurring 15 days after the date of adoption.

In the section of the forum reserved to the RA members, I have read a GMP Adoption draft doc: http://forums.slcds.info/viewforum.php?f=24

My remarks are:

- the discussion to this draft should be open to everyone, because it can concern every citizen who intend to make a proposal for a sim.
- I was expecting a revision of the GMP in order to adapt it to the LL price policy, not a legislation about GMP.
- The point 2 is problematic. I consider that every proposal should be submitted to the RA in a process, which may be transparent. I think that only the Guild can make recommandations on sim's project and these recommandations must be only technical.

[symokurka]

Thanks Arria. I try to specify:

1. Ofcourse (as usual) any citizen can propose a bill or amendments to this "Adoption Procedure" , and btw i would highly appreciate this effort.

2. My opinion is that we have to distinguish between three phases
a) defining and voting the procedures for "running" GMP, for specific Updates, for general Revision (as soon as possible).
b) adoption of "running" GMP as is or partially or with minimum updates (within max 15 days)
c) new general GMP Update (within two/three months)

Warm regards

[Patroklus Murakami]

It's clear that there has been a lot of work put into the GMP by Symo and others over the past year or so. I'm very grateful for all the work that has been put into planning for our community's expansion. My comments here are related to the bill that is before the RA for consideration and should not be taken as criticism of the GMP itself or of the people who have worked so hard on it.

Thanks for starting this thread Arria and for your clarifications Symo. When I first read this yesterday I thought 'uncontroversial'. So much so that I didn't raise this at the CSDF meeting yesterday.

Now I've had time to think about it I see a number of problems with this.

I agree with Arria that point 2 is problematic. It turns the Chancellor into the 'gatekeeper' who decides what happens to proposals for expansion. The Executive has never had this role previously, it has been reserved to the Representative Assembly. It is quite different, for example, from the "In-Theme Expansion Act"where the RA initiates the decision to expand and the Executive Branch works to coordinate and plan the project (as the Constitution envisages). It is quite different from the competitions we hold for designing new themes where, again, the RA has the central role and the right of initiative.

Now, you could argue that acting as 'gatekeeper' falls within the Chancellor's remit as the Constitution says "The Chancellor will serve as the executive of CDS, working to coordinate and plan community projects." but I think this would be a misreading of the intent when this office was established. The powers of the Chancellor were limited to those stated in Article II, Section 2. The only one which is relevant here is the first one: "The Chancellor of CDS shall, subject to the laws of CDS, have the power... to determine the use to which any and all land in CDS shall be put." This was with relation to existing land, not to future expansion.

The RA might want to expand the Chancellor's remit to become the 'gatekeeper' and coordinator of expansion but that needs to be through constitutional amendment, not through a standard bill. It would be good to see the rationale for this change. How is the CDS supposed to benefit? I think point 2 should be amended to the effect that all proposed sim additions are submitted in writing to the RA to reflect current practice.

The second problem is with point 3 which sets the GMP on the same level as the Constitution by requiring a 2/3 majority in future RA sessions to amend it! I can understand the desire to provide a degree of certainty and to have a reasonably settled plan to work from but tying the hands of future RAs seems wrong to me. Let's think about this from the perspective of a future RA session - let's say they want to amend the GMP and there is a majority to do so, but not a 2/3 majority. What this RA would be saying, in effect, is that it knows better than any future RA and is in such a privileged position that it can demand a higher level of agreement than is needed now to pass the GMP Act in the first place! It would mean that 4 out of 7 RA members now get to frustrate the will of a majority of RA members in the future. I'm sure this was not the intent but it is the effect.

Finally, I think we need more clarity on what the RA is being asked to agree to. I followed the link in the draft bill to the website and found a number of blog posts, the first of which is a set of survey results. Is the GMP Map 03? Or is it all the maps? I'm sure it's clear to all those who have been involved in the process but we need to be clear for future citizens who will not have been involved in the GMPs development and who will have to interpret whatever laws are passed now.

[Gwyneth Llewelyn]

I would also like to start to thank the New Guild, and Symo in particular, as well as Moon and all the others who put so much effort on an extraordinary GMP. Like Pat, my comments are not against the GMP per se, the current one or future ones, neither a criticism of the excellent work done so far by the New Guild on it. I couldn't be happier about the GMP!

If I read this text correctly, and after Arria's and Pat's comments, it seems that, the GMP is a "more powerful tool" to expand the land in the CDS — one that completely eclipses NL 8-2, "In Theme" Expansion Act and side-steps it neatly. This I'm afraid is inconsistent — a convenient loophole to avoid going through the very demanding, but highly transparent, steps delineated on NL 8-2.

I would certainly agree on "clarifying legislation". As noted on the proposal, NL 8-2 effectively presumes the existence of a GMP, but does not give indications on how a GMP shall be produced, designed, or maintained. This is only present in NL 8-4:

The New Guild shall also create, update and maintain a CDS master plan under which future expansions in land area and themes shall occur.

But there is no direct provision to officialise the master plan as being the one to be consulted. An Act effectively making the current GMP to be used to the exclusivity of any other is not a bad idea (in the sense that we know which GMP is in force, and which one should be picked to define the themes for NL 8-2/8-4 to be applied). I agree there might have been some oversight in that regard, and I'm glad to have a bill that clarifies this.

In effect, NL 6-2 New Guild Establishment Act (sadly incorrectly linked on the CDS portal) validates the New Guild Charter, which is viewable here. The charter only defines that work one by the New Guild on behalf of the CDS on new sims will be made according to a master plan, but it does not say that the New Guild has to create it.

Thus, this is what I can agree with the proposed bill:

A proposed General Master Plan ("GMP") was prepared and made available for citizen review and comment on ______ and posted here: http://masterplan.slcds.info/.
Subject to the review provisions of this Act, the Representative Assembly adopts the GMP as presented, to be effective until amended or revoked.

1.Scope: The GMP shall be consulted as guidance for the addition and placement of all new territory to be added to the CDS, in whatever manner addition is made.

This introduces the "legality" of the current General Master Plan, indicates that it has to be used to te exclusion to any other, and defines the GMP as the "guidance" to be consulted for NL 8-2 (and to a degree, NL 8-4) too.

No further items are needed on this proposed bill. The rest seems a "replacement" for 8-2 and 8-4 which is very worrying. It simplifies the whole process by eliminating a lot of steps that were clearly defined as methodologies for in-theme (public) expansion and private expansion. It doesn't even distinguish between both types: it's not clear if "all sims" mean private development or public expenditure. It also disregards the financial overseeing — it only mentions "feasibility and advisability" (8-2 specifies in much detail what kind of documentation should be provided on all projects). It doesn't mention budgeting. It doesn't determine a method for offering the plots on new sims for sale, of setting up the prices, or of mandatory advertisement of the sales. It disregards intellectual property of the builders. It doesn't address citizenship in the new sims to be added. And finally, it doesn't even mention who acts as Estate Owner during the building process or after it.

Now, I understand that probably the purpose of this new act is to allow for more flexibility when adding new sims: basically, any type of project and/or method could be used, so long as the Executive approves it and the RA doesn't vote against it. But the work done in NL 8-2 and NL 8-4 show that we started from the exact opposite definition: not all methods of adding sims might be agreeable, mostly because dealing with "every sim as an exception" becomes unmanageable long-term. The purpose of NL 8-2 was to establish how every publicly funded sim ought to be planned and delivered. The purpose of NL 8-4 was to establish how every private development ought to be planned and delivered. In either case, the purpose and aesthetics of the new sims were left, respectively, in the hands of the Chancellor and the BAC/New Guild; the political decision to go ahead was in the hands of the citizens (e.g. through their representatives in the RA).

If "more flexibility" is desired, I would recommend that new legislation is passed to define different models (e.g. mixed public/private sims, for instance...) but they would have to be in the spirit of NL 8-2 and NL 8-4 with at least the same amount of detail, definition of approval and responsibilities, aesthetic considerations by the New Guild, and political will by the RA. I'm afraid the proposed bill does not only not address either of these, but it is a "loophole bill" to allow pretty much everything to be approved on a case-by-case basis.

Also, as Pat noticed, it makes changing this law as strong as a Constitution Amendment. That "technicality", by itself, is pretty much a contradiction in terms that should be overviewed by the Scientific Council: we have strict rules to adopt Constitutional Amendments, and we cannot vote a bill with simply majority that can only be changed with an absolute supermajority.

So, I strongly oppose this propose bill, except for the paragraph quoted above, which I believe would facilitate the understanding that the GMP we currently have is, in fact, the GMP legally in force, an omission from NL 8-2 (or the Guild charter empowerment law) that I think we should correct.

Oh and could I ask one of the SC moderators to move this topic into "Legislative Discussion", please? It would be more appropriate there than on "General". Thanks!

[Jamie Palisades]

I saw this draft -- http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=2328 -- about two days ago, and very much appreciate the work that Symo and others are putting into our planning framework. Usually, I'd rather chat with the writers first, about such matters, but a posting on Friday, and a plan to adopt on Sunday, does not give me a lot of time to converse during a busy RL weekend. So I apologize to Symo for the timing of these comments. In case the RA wanted to act today, here they are.

Understanding the consequence of the GMP is as important as the Plan itself.
-- As of today, the GMP is a Guild work which guides, but does not *limit*, the RA or Chancellor in land expansion decisions.
-- As of today, we have several different alternative methods, under CDS law, for sim expansion. All but one have some controls and limits; the unlimited one is the power of the RA to approve anything as a special custom deal, subject to constitutional constraints. (By the way, that last method is the one that Gwyneth proposed we use for Arria's 5th sim plan, last Autumn.)

I think the general idea of having the RA officially endorse the GMP is a good one. But I see some technical problems with this bill:

-- I agree with the CSDF postings that draft section 2 may contradict some of the existing land expansion laws we have. Some of the current laws let the Chancellor act first, others let the RA act first, etc. (It's a tangle. That's why I wrote that summary 6 months ago.) Before the RA acts, we should be clear whether the intent of this new bill is to repeal or supercede some of those other laws.

-- Like Pat Murakami, I am not sure that a legislative bill that imposes a 2/3rd RA vote requirement "works", technically. That would require some discussion, or else it would be easily circumvented. Do we really want the GMP to be a constitution-level document? And if we do this, probably the *original* GMP will also need at least a 2/3rds vote.

-- This also raises some questions about the centrality of the Guild to CDS government. The Guild was designed to be a help, and a contractor, but not a governing body. Do we want its word literally to become law, binding the RA, instead of guidance? If the RA adopts a GMP, as recommended here, will the RA be allowed to change the GMP by itself, afterwards, *without* the Guild?

-- CSDF suggested that section 1 of the draft only be adopted. I see little use to that. It would have no legal effect, and only states what is true anyway today -- we think the GMP is important, and we *think* about it before we add sims.

-- Also, our CDS constitution requires that we seek citizen comment for any change to land use fundamentals like sim theme changes. See Article 2, sections 3 & 4: http://portal.slcds.info/index.php?id=135 So any plan that "just opens a sim", without a public posting of the plans, and time period for comments, might be unconstitutional. Perhaps the GMP itself, as well as individual sim purchase decisions, should be made subject to some specific posting/comment requirements, if we write it into law.

Finally, to be selfish about CDS needs, I am more concerned about getting specific answers from the Guild that the community needs soon, than about the legislation. Those specific questions have been raised in meetings, and I have summarized them in the appropriate Forum thread here: http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php? ... 927#p12927

Legislation of this kind probably *is* a good idea, also, once discussed and refined. And please do note, none of these comments detract from my gratitude that the GMP authors have given us excellent work -- which we HAVE used to guide us.

Regards JP

[Jamie Palisades]

Just re-posting a pointer to my prior comments here from early February. I still have (so far as I know) no answers to the questions about holes and uncertainties in the proposed GMP legislation. The GMP seems to be serving us ... a a useful respected but volunteer advisory document .. I am NOT yet convinced that giving it more force of law will give us anything more. But I do see the downsides. still. Regards JP