New Constitution

User avatar
miguel
Posts: 695
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Post by miguel »

I agree with Kris, the percentage in favour of the change should be great. Otherwise only a bit over half of the (voting) community agrees to follow the 'new' council?!?

I don't see any reason why people would vote against it, as long as the needs and reasons for the changes are well documented for them. Personally I'd be happy with 80% in favor.

Frodo
Posts: 505
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 5:09 am
Location: NYC, NY

Post by Frodo »

Again, I recommend not shooting ourselves in the foot. How embarrassing will it be to not get 100 votes, or to not get 60 percent, and then to send out ANOTHER call for votes that "tries again"?

Why don?t we just leave the language loose, and in the constitution write ?there must be a majority of voters voting yes for the new constitution to pass? and THEN let?s contact every listserv we know of and get as many votes as we can, and THEN, after we win the vote, we?ll send out a message with the exact statistics (50, 100, 200? 55 percent, 90 percent, etc.) IF we consider the "statistics" favorable to us.

SO? the advantage to what was suggested by Mark is that people see we have a decent amount of people behind us. However, Mark?s advantage will most likely occur in the option I just suggested anyway (because we will advertise the statistics of the successful vote). The extra advantage of my option, however, is that in the event the voting does not occur in wonderful numbers (like 75 voters and only 59 percent) we can still go ahead, or we can talk amongst ourselves whether we feel comfortable calling this show of support a clear ?majority.?

If we feel certain now that none of US even would be comfortable with a new constitution that gets only 60 percent or a simple 51 percent "majority", then fine, but I would still strongly suggest that we don not set a "minimum number of voters", and we simply aim for a high amount, ehn publish what we got, fif favorable.

Frodo

charles jenkins
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 1:58 pm
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

Post by charles jenkins »

I agree with Joe's points. Personally, I feel that anyone that bothers to vote will most likely vote in favor of a new constitution, so setting a reasonably high % threshold shouldn't be a problem. The whole premise of a new constitution would be to enable a "fresh start" and update some of the less desirable elements of the old (speaking as a government worker - that's what you get when you allow a bureaucrat to craft a document :wink: ). So.. I can't really foresee anyone's opposition, unless a radical splinter group forms their own CoE and ratifies all existing UEP's! :wink:
"I say to you againe, doe not call up Any you cannot put downe"

Sfan
Posts: 141
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:59 am
Location: Königswinter, Germany

Post by Sfan »

Joe's suggestion is fine for me, too. Still I feel a little like cheating if we only have a total percentage (i.e. 75 % voted for and 25 % against something) instead of an absolut percentage (i.e. 20 % voted for, 15 % against, 65 % abstained). In the second case we need to know who is allowed to vote based on several lists, forum, etc. Which leads me to the total percentage methode.
Concerning the new constitution I suggest to set the limit to 2/3 (or even 3/4). These are standard wattles for democratic major decisions.

gkg
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 10:11 pm
Location: Prague, CZ

Post by gkg »

how about 66% of at least 100 votes
or
50+% of all eligible voters

to change the constitution?

Kuba

zarathustra
Posts: 671
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:26 pm

Post by zarathustra »

I like that idea, Kuba.

Please everyone take a look at the draft of a letter to silent-tower which I've written.
http://www.alfanos.org

zarathustra
Posts: 671
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:26 pm

Post by zarathustra »

Here is a first attempt at our new constitution. Please post any and all comments / thoughts / questions / objections / etc.

Council of Elrond Constitution (v.1.0)

Ratification:

Either:
(1) 100 votes and at least 66% in favor, or
(2) at least 50% of all eligible voters in favor

Composition:

• 9 voting members
• election every two years, from any source
• 8 slots open per election cycle (same deal as we have now: if not enough run, blah blah blah)
• chair chosen by exiting council as last action
• vice-chair chosen as first action of new council

non-voting members:
heads of national councils
leaders of CoE-sponsored projects
organizers of worlds & EC
Registrar
NetRep
Webmaster
others?

Powers:

• Maintenance of rules/rulings (see NetRep project)
• Changes in rules (HOW???)
• Recognition of active national/regional councils
• Others?

Voting:

• Voting to be done anonymously? (I’d actually prefer it were not, so that candidates can say “I voted for this” or “I voted against this”)

• Items may be discussed as long as anyone is interested
• An item may be transformed into a motion if someone makes such a motion
• It will only be voted on if seconded
• Once seconded, amendments may be proposed. If deemed friendly by person who made motion, they are immediately incorporated into the motion. If deemed unfriendly, a vote is taken. (note: a friendly amendment need not be seconded; an unfriendly amendment must be seconded, in which case it becomes a motion in its own right and must be voted upon before the item that it seeks to amend)
• After a motion is seconded, 1 week is allotted to discussion and the proposal of amendments; the chair may cut this time short if it is clear that there are none.
• After discussions and amendments are dealt with, there shall be 2 weeks in which to vote.
• Members may abstain; if more than 3 members abstain from a vote, it is null and void.
• A motion is considered to pass if at least 6 members vote and at least 5 members vote in favor.
• Amendments to constitution: these require at least 8 members to vote and at least 7 to vote in favor (?)
• Amendments to rules of the game: these require at least 8 members to vote and at least 7 to vote in favor; they also require at least 70% of active MECCG-ers (NEED TO DEFINE THIS) to vote, and at least 70% of voters to be in favor (?)
• [Chair gets veto power? (with 6-7 other members able to over-ride?)]

Projects:

Two types of projects: constitutional & supernumerary

Constitutional projects are always ensured by CoE, barring their removal from the constitution. These include
(1) NetRep,
(2) Council Formation / Help,
(3) Website,
(4) Worlds,
(5) email list,
(6) endorsements (e.g. Challenge decks, best scenarios, maybe some dream cards, maybe UEPs, maybe….)
(7) others?

[enumeration of precisely what these will do]

• Any other project is considered supernumerary and may be embarked upon if at least 5 members vote in favor of it
• A project always needs a leader, a plan, and a projected project; if any of these is noticeably lacking, CoE must reconsider the project and choose either to repair it or abolish it
Last edited by zarathustra on Fri May 19, 2006 2:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
http://www.alfanos.org

tharasix
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 4:29 am
Location: Richfield, MN

Post by tharasix »

I think it would be quite exceptional if we met either the 50% or the 100 votes on the constitution. From my experience, we never get that volume of votes.

thorondor
Council Member
Posts: 657
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:53 pm
Location: salzburg, austria
Contact:

Post by thorondor »

voting will be in 07, so i think everthing depends on what we are doing till then and how we show ourselves to the MECCG community. if we show alot of presence and if we manage to present some results fo our activities, then ireally think we will get a postiive voting on the new constitution.
right now i would agree, that chances are not so good.

zarathustra
Posts: 671
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:26 pm

Post by zarathustra »

I agree that the 50% of all eligible voters is impossible, considering all the lurkers on the silent-tower list.

However, with a some campaigning, I'd be surprised if we couldn't get 100 votes and 70% in favor.... But if Chad's worry comes true, then we would look pretty stupid -- so let's think about it.

Any thoughts on the constitution itself?
http://www.alfanos.org

tharasix
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 4:29 am
Location: Richfield, MN

Post by tharasix »

On the constitution itself, it seems complete but doesn't flesh everything out, as is obvious. You seem to want to make sure everything is in there, and it seems to be, from my standpoint.

Jambo
Posts: 888
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 3:01 pm

Post by Jambo »

Hi all, first post here. :)

Sorry if these seem newbie questions but as there's no such thing as a stupid question I'll go ahead and ask them anyway:

1. Why the new constitution? I'm not partial to the old so I don't know what you're hoping to replace, hence the question.

2. I agree that the risk of an embarrassing failure to acquire the necessary number of voters and or target % of yes votes could be extremely damaging. As Poland has a large number of players and if I've read correctly, doesn't really acknowledge the CoE and CoL rules, is one of the CoE priorities to try to bridge this gap?

3. Visibility of the CoE. Personally, I've always thought the CoE has not had enough of a visible presence in the past. One is asked to vote for CoE candidates every year and then that's all the average player ever sees of the CoE (presumably a lot goes on in the background?). To the average player the CoE has always been rather invisible. Is this something you aim to change?

4. Along those lines, is there any thought to have the CoE part of meccg.net, i.e. bringing things together under one unified banner? Or is the plan to remain a separate entity? If the latter, how does the CoE forum/site plan to fit in with meccg.net?

Cheers

Jamie

tharasix
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 4:29 am
Location: Richfield, MN

Post by tharasix »

Jambo wrote:Sorry if these seem newbie questions but as there's no such thing as a stupid question I'll go ahead and ask them anyway:

1. Why the new constitution? I'm not partial to the old so I don't know what you're hoping to replace, hence the question.
Stupid question!

Just kidding. The biggest issues are the lack of a documented way to modify the existing charter, and the fact that it explicitly refers to the silent-tower list as if it were to forever be representative of the online MECCG community. There are other, smaller issues that are being ironed out in the process, but those are the big ones.
Jambo wrote:2. I agree that the risk of an embarrassing failure to acquire the necessary number of voters and or target % of yes votes could be extremely damaging. As Poland has a large number of players and if I've read correctly, doesn't really acknowledge the CoE and CoL rules, is one of the CoE priorities to try to bridge this gap?
You can lead a horse to water...

I would think that there's strength in numbers, but Poland hasn't been explicitly mentioned in this sort of context. We are trying to get as many people under the CoE banner as possible, Poland included.
Jambo wrote:3. Visibility of the CoE. Personally, I've always thought the CoE has not had enough of a visible presence in the past. One is asked to vote for CoE candidates every year and then that's all the average player ever sees of the CoE (presumably a lot goes on in the background?). To the average player the CoE has always been rather invisible. Is this something you aim to change?
*cough, cough* NetRep? *cough*
Jambo wrote:4. Along those lines, is there any thought to have the CoE part of meccg.net, i.e. bringing things together under one unified banner? Or is the plan to remain a separate entity? If the latter, how does the CoE forum/site plan to fit in with meccg.net?
The CoE's relationship with the proprietor of meccg.net has always been tenuous at best. We recognize that there is a significant chunk of the MECCG community on there, but we need to tread lightly lest Wim decides to just take his ball and go home.

Jambo
Posts: 888
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 3:01 pm

Post by Jambo »

Thanks Chad. Regarding point 4 I thought that might be the case. So divided we stand, united we remain... ;)

thorondor
Council Member
Posts: 657
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:53 pm
Location: salzburg, austria
Contact:

Post by thorondor »

any progression here? please don´t feel pushed (whoever), but i´d really like to see a first draft of the new constitution. that would things easier to discuss about.
would any of the native speakers be so kind to do this?

Locked

Return to “Council Business - Agenda Items”