NFS Church

[Arria Perreault]

Despite the fact that the RA has decided to replace the church yesterday (infortunately without referendum), I think that the back up of the Old Church has to be completed first, before the installation of the new church. The Executive has also to make a serie of pictures of the Old Church (inside and outside) to be published on our portal and maybe on the SL portal. The RA has voted a law asking for such documentation.  
I have put in the agenda of the RA of yesterday a point to discuss a process for replacement of any public building. We had no time to discuss it. I will bring this point in the next meeting. The process of change must guarantee transparency, public participation and conservation of the former building in our archives. I am sure that with the time everyone will realize the value of our oldest building. There was a time where things made during the Middle Age were replaced by moderner ones. We see now only what is remaining and we cannot judge anymore the value of what is gone. 

[Ranma Tardis]

Does seem to be a shame this is happening. First the old government is sweep away and soon all of the old buildings will be gone.
Suppose I could change my sim to Neaultenberg. Would anyone want to contribute buildings?

[Rosie Gray]

This topic has been going in this thread where you can find all the information and more comments: http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3470

[Arria Perreault]

I think the topic is a bit different now. I deeply regret the current situation. If I knew we could get so easely a rollback, the RA meeting would have been different. At that time, we did not see any alternative. I admit I would have voted differently and at least I would have offered a possible choice to citizen through a referendum. Infortunately what is done is done. I guess we cannot change it.
I have an interesting question though. I would like to know why our Chancellor did not request the rollback immediately. Why did he wait until the RA meeting? I hope that Tor can answer this question.
For this reason, we have to see in the future to avoid such a situation. My goal now is to propose a process to make changes in our sims, buildings or landscape. As principle, I see that discussions are made before actions. Rosie has been elected as Secretary of the New Guild. I expect now that she organizes regular meetings to work with us the list of changes we have made. I don't think that it would be a good idea that she builds alone a Schloss on a skybox to propose it to us. This work has to be done in the community, by the community. We have a lot of private plots for people who love build. Public buildings belong to the community. The people who can have an opinion is not restricted to the small group of the RA, but to all citizen. The New Guild is also a democratic institution.
The RA wants also make sure that our public buildings are archived. It will give us a lot of work. It's an important task.
I think also that we have a group of people who want to act quickly. They want to make a lot of changes in order to make our sims and our community more attractive. I think that the result will be to erase what makes us unique and will transform our sims in something very common in SL. Sometimes it needs some courage to assume our difference. But being ourselves, we are always better than playing a role.

[Rosie Gray]

I will be calling a meeting of the New Guild soon where we will discuss what needs to be addressed first, as per the mandate of the NG. We will be reviewing past documents that have been on the Agenda for quite some time now, including but not limited to the proposed new Schloss. In the meantime, it would be nice if assumptions were kept to a minimum.

Thank you.
Rosie

[Rose Springvale]

Arria, i agree with you. I have not read the transcript to the RA meeting, but there is no reason a motion cannot be reconsidered at the RA meeting. As a citizen, i'm personally appalled that no referendum was held on this important matter, especially when it was proposed and had substantial agreement at earlier meetings. I don't feel any need to comment on the actions of the weekend. The thing that makes CDS different is democracy. We've all been frustrated by the time it takes to be democratic, but that is the lesson. Mistakes don't happen so often when process is in place and followed.

Iit is important to remember that the NG is an advisory body to the RA (NOT the chancellor) and has no intrinsic power of its own. Only on the direction of the Chancellor does the NG undertake such operations. And the Chancellor reports to and takes direction from the RA the elected legislature. That's how the rest of us are represented.

I

[Sudane Erato]

I have an interesting question though. I would like to know why our Chancellor did not request the rollback immediately. Why did he wait until the RA meeting? I hope that Tor can answer this question.

This underhanded insinuation about Tor's motives is regrettable and completely unfair. Maybe people in the community are not knowledgeable about rollbacks and Linden Lab's policy on doing them. While I cannot speak for Tor, I know for certain that it did not even dawn on me to request a rollback, nor did I have any expectation that LL would perform it if we asked when Tor brought it up to me on Sunday morning.

Linden Lab basically does not do rollbacks, on the instructions of their lawyers. I have not had any rollback request approved for several years now, nor I aware of anyone else who has had one approved. In brief, LL does not do rollbacks because of the ease with which individuals can steal no-copy items via a rollback. All they need to do is to take into inventory a no-copy item, and then request (or even just experience...) a rollback to before the moment they took that item into inventory. Voila. They are now in possession of 2 copies of that item. In the current state of assault on the protections of content creators, LL has long ago deemed that this situation is unacceptable. It is thus with complete shock that I received notice that LL had performed our rollback request.

Tor contacted me early Sunday morning about this possibility, saying that it had come up in brainstorming about what to do about the destroyed church. I said that I was extremely dubious that LL would agree, given the reasons above, and in fact I took no action on it, feeling it was useless. Then I received an email from him:

The RA would like to see if LL could rollback NFS to Friday 12:00 AM in order that we might try again to get a copy of the kirche. I do not know if they will accept it from me. But I will try if I don't here from you by this evening.

So I reluctantly filed the ticket. Much to my surprise they performed the rollback. To impugn Tor's motivations in this matter is quite unacceptable.

Sudane............................

[Aliasi Stonebender]

Linden Lab basically does not do rollbacks, on the instructions of their lawyers. I have not had any rollback request approved for several years now, nor I aware of anyone else who has had one approved. In brief, LL does not do rollbacks because of the ease with which individuals can steal no-copy items via a rollback. All they need to do is to take into inventory a no-copy item, and then request (or even just experience...) a rollback to before the moment they took that item into inventory. Voila. They are now in possession of 2 copies of that item. In the current state of assault on the protections of content creators, LL has long ago deemed that this situation is unacceptable. It is thus with complete shock that I received notice that LL had performed our rollback request.

Makes me wonder if whomever was working support that day happened to remember our name. :p

[Rose Springvale]

Not to argue the point, and i certainly don't fault Tor here, but i've never had trouble getting LL to do justified rollbacks. I am surprised that an owner's own deletion of prims qualified, but good for Tor for asking.

[Callipygian]

This underhanded insinuation about Tor's motives is regrettable and completely unfair. Maybe people in the community are not knowledgeable about rollbacks and Linden Lab's policy on doing them. While I cannot speak for Tor, I know for certain that it did not even dawn on me to request a rollback, nor did I have any expectation that LL would perform it if we asked when Tor brought it up to me on Sunday morning...
Sudane............................

Elsewhere Arria has moved from insinuation to an outright statement that she believes Tor chose not to act intentionally. In my opinion this moves things from 'regrettable' to 'unacceptable' and I hope Arria will reconsider what she has posted and offer Tor a public apology.

Calli

[Pip Torok]

Arria, i agree with you. I have not read the transcript to the RA meeting, but there is no reason a motion cannot be reconsidered at the RA meeting. As a citizen, i'm personally appalled that no referendum was held on this important matter, especially when it was proposed and had substantial agreement at earlier meetings.

Let's let some fresh air into this hothouse.

Rose is "personally appalled that no referendum was held on this important matter, especially when it was proposed and had substantial agreement (?) at earlier meetings"

-- Does she mean any referendum that had been proposed, by someone, before Sunday's meeting?

Think about it. A new candidate Kirche sits ready to be examined, but is not in its final place in the Marktplatz. At the same time, the previous edifice stands in the MarktPlatz, as it has always done. How on earth can we make any meaningful assessment until we have seen both Kirchen in situ? What value do we place in the result of such a referendum?

-- Does she mean that the RA should have proposed a referendum at Sunday's meeting in the context of my proposal?

Remember what my proposal said: "Rosie's Kirche straightway [to] be put in place of the present edifice. Then, after no more than one calendar month from the transfer, a referendum to be held to approve the transfer. If it (the referendum) falls, then the present edifice resumes its place, otherwise the Kirche remains"

By Sunday's meeting, one of the Kirchen had disappeared, possibly for good. Were the RA solemnly to propose a referendum between a Kirche that existed, and a second, which did not?

Please!

Pip Torok

[Rose Springvale]

Dear Pip,

A motion to reconsider the action taken without the facts as we know them today is what i have suggested. Nothing more.

I don't need to see the other edifice in place to know my feelings. If the RA does, that is certainly your prerogative. As the faction who championed referenda, i'm surprised at your willingness to rubber stamp without getting broader input.

Respectfully submitted,
Rose

[Rosie Gray]

Thanks for the breathe of fresh air Pip.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could have some courteous, civil discussion where everyone listened to and considered each others opinions and honest intentions instead of trying to find some technicality or mistake to twist things. The world - our Second Lives - would be a much nicer place.

Then again, maybe I'm dreaming.

[Arria Perreault]

By Sunday's meeting, one of the Kirchen had disappeared, possibly for good. Were the RA solemnly to propose a referendum between a Kirche that existed, and a second, which did not?

That's exactly why we did not vote a referendum. Now the Old Church is back. We can have one.

[Pip Torok]

By Sunday's meeting, one of the Kirchen had disappeared, possibly for good. Were the RA solemnly to propose a referendum between a Kirche that existed, and a second, which did not?

That's exactly why we did not vote a referendum. Now the Old Church is back. We can have one.

Hi Arria,

You are right. Or nearly. To explain:

I presume the referendum would run along the lines that I had proposed for Sunday's meeting, which was that

"Rosie's Kirche straightway be put in place of the present edifice. Then, after no more than one calendar month from the transfer, a referendum to be held to approve the transfer. If it (the referendum) falls, then the present edifice resumes its place, otherwise the Kirche remains".

... in other words, that the referendum focusses specifically upon whether Rosie's Kirche remains in the MarktPlatz after its one-month trial period.

Now, for this to happen, several factors need to be accounted for:

(1) The CA will need ownership and whatever other rights she requires for secure safeguard of both candidate Kirchen. For this, (2) and (3) at least would need to be in place, which are:

(2) Bladedancer, with help, needs to pin his Kirche to enable archiving and possible later re-rezzing.

(3) Both Bladedancer and Rosie need to have confidence that the CA holds secure, re-rezzable copies of their respective Kirchen.

(4) A member of the SC needs to supervise the transfer (and a second possible re-transfer after the referendum).

So yes, Arria, we can have a referendum.

Pip Torok