Template:CharterVote2/31/Discussion

< RETURN TO THE MAIN PAGE Make it clear that he helps with decisions about content, not behavior:


 * The Managing Editor has the following duties:


 * 1) to ensure &mdash; by means of executive decisions &mdash; that the principles and policies of the Citizendium concerning content and style are effectively and coherently observed;such decisions shall be based on established policy unless required in the case of a policy deficit. They may be overruled by the appropriate Council.
 * 2) to represent the Citizendium in its relations with external bodies, such as the mass media, and academic or non-academic institutions.

D. Matt Innis 20:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Howard C. Berkowitz 22:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree D. Matt Innis 21:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree, reluctantly, with the first clause.
 * Second clause: to be a primary point of contact for external bodies, consistent with the principles and policies of the Citizendium about external relationships.
 * The language should make it clear there could be other representatives and all work within policy.
 * I would prefer seeing Clause 2 deleted, and Clause 1 reflect Russell's analogy that the ME is to the EC as Constables are to the MC.  Actually, I'd rather see the ME deleted, but this is a compromise.


 * I also prefer Howard's "to be a primary point of contact" to replace "to represent" for the same reason. D. Matt Innis 22:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Taking the above into account and adding a small piece of my own:
 * to ensure &mdash; by means of executive decisions &mdash; that the principles and policies of the Citizendium concerning content, style and community administration are effectively and coherently observed; such decisions shall be based on established policy unless required in the case of a policy deficit. They may be overruled by the appropriate Council.
 * to be a primary point of contact for external bodies in their relations with the Citizendium
 * Joe Quick 05:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree D. Matt Innis 12:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What does "be a primary point of contact for external bodies" mean in practical terms? Does this mean that the ME becomes the name to which citizendium.org is assigned at the DNS?  Does it mean that when someone contacts me about CZ, I'm to say, "go talk to our ME?"  How will any "external body" plopping down on CZ ever know to contact our Managing Editor?  What if a Lawyer wants content removed?  Who will they contact?  I'm willing to bet they'll look up the name attached to the DNS of citizendium.org and contact Larry.  Is that what we want?  Russell D. Jones 13:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * All good points.. Howard, what ya think? D. Matt Innis 13:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to be excessively long, but I think I can make some specific suggestions. As I consider them, however, it strengthens my opinions that the ME has confused reporting to both the MC and EC, and really should have the details worked out in the Councils, not Charter, if indeed the Councils decide the position is needed. Ask yourself, long and hard, if people would have created a position with only these two roles, or if they are simply what was left after fighting.

Apropos DNS: It's perfectly acceptable to have what is called either "role" or "person" information in DNS. "Role" would be DNSmanager@citizendium.org, while "Person" would be "MariaRodriguez@citizendium.org". DNS also provides for points of contact for administrative/billing, technical, and registration matters.

With the external roles ill-specified, we are forcing together things that aren't necessarily realistic skill sets. Ideally, the initial contact has media relations expertise and probably some basic legal knowledge. There will be external relations for things clearly within the primary purview of the EC, such as workflow integration -- hypothetically, we might need one person intimately familiar with the discipline and another familiar with the integration technology (and internal standards on how we use the technology with different organizations).

More and more, I come back to an idea first floated by Russell (credit, not responsibility): the ME can be to the EC as the Constables are to the MC: policy executors. Trying to make it a first point of contact for everything doesn't make good organizational sense. It's a role supporting Councils, not supplanting them unless one is of the belief that Councils can never be effective. Since the position can't be elected, under current rules, without actions by a functioning EC or MC, I see it properly as not a major office, but as a Task Manager (do we still have Task Managers) with a well-defined set of functions deemed necessary by the Councils. It's less that some of the ME functions don't need to be done and more that it may not be logical to vest them in the same person.

Task Manager. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking I'm going to go back to my first vote. D. Matt Innis 21:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with Matt about going back to the beginning. This discussion is going nowhere. I've revised the original to reflect that the ME is responsible to the EC; acts by the Const in enforcing behavioral rules are appealable to MC; acts of the ME enforcing content and style rules of EC are appealable to EC. Russell D. Jones 18:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The Managing Editor has the following duties:
 * 1) to ensure — by means of executive decisions — that the principles and policies of the Citizendium concerning content and style are effectively and coherently observed; such decisions shall be based on established policy unless required in the case of a policy deficit. They may be overruled by the appropriate Council .  Acts of the Managing Editor may be appealed to the Editorial Council.
 * 2) to represent the Citizendium in its relations with external bodies, such as the mass media, and academic or non-academic institutions.


 * Agree. Russell D. Jones 18:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The word appeal seems to say that the appeal board is part of the EC.. so I switched it back unless we come up with a better word. Also added "due process" so the EC has to take some decision-making course of action. D. Matt Innis 18:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The Managing Editor has the following duties:


 * 1) to ensure &mdash; by means of executive decisions &mdash; that the principles and policies of the Citizendium concerning content and style are effectively and coherently observed;such decisions shall be based on established policy unless required in the case of a policy deficit. Acts of the Managing Editor may be appealed overruled by the Editorial Council in due process.
 * 2) to represent the Citizendium in its relations with external bodies, such as the mass media, and academic or non-academic institutions.


 * Agree. D. Matt Innis 18:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Overruled, but not sustained? "in due process" sounds like "in due time" implying that the EC must overrule.  How about "with due process."  I don't agree with your reading of the phrase, Matt.  But, I'd like to hear what the others think.  Russell D. Jones 18:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And now that it has been put back in, just, exactly, what is a "policy deficit?" Russell D. Jones 18:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, Okay. I'll give you due process and raise you a defined policy.D. Matt Innis 19:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The Managing Editor has the following duties:


 * 1) to ensure &mdash; by means of executive decisions &mdash; that the principles and policies of the Citizendium concerning content and style are effectively and coherently observed;such decisions shall be based on established policy where defined. unless required in the case of a policy deficit. Acts of the Managing Editor may be appealed overruled by the Editorial Council in with due process.
 * 2) to represent the Citizendium in its relations with external bodies, such as the mass media, and academic or non-academic institutions.


 * Agree. D. Matt Innis 22:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree to the above from Matt, reformatted here:
 * The Managing Editor has the following duties:


 * to ensure &mdash; by means of executive decisions &mdash; that the principles and policies of the Citizendium concerning content and style are effectively and coherently observed. Such decisions shall be based on established policy where defined. Acts of the Managing Editor may be overruled by the Editorial Council with due process.
 * to represent the Citizendium in its relations with external bodies, such as the mass media, and academic or non-academic institutions.


 * Agree --Daniel Mietchen 23:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree --Russell D. Jones 00:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Re-Agree. D. Matt Innis 01:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Accepting clause 1 is something I consider a major compromise, but clause 2 is beyond my limits. Howard C. Berkowitz 04:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. Joe Quick 15:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

As a result of forum discussion, I agree that the ME should be able to make interim decisions related to things other than content and style. From the perspective of those that manage the software decisions, leaving overruling of ME decisions to the EC only gives them concern that they will have no say in how the MEs decisions are then mitigated. I've added the MC in the overruling process in the below configuration to make this less of an issue. D. Matt Innis 13:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The Managing Editor has the following duties:


 * 1) to ensure by means of executive decisions  that the principles and policies of the Citizendium concerning content and style are effectively and coherently observed; such decisions shall be based on established policy where defined. Acts of the Managing Editor may be overruled by combined votes of the Editorial Council and Management Council with due process.


 * 1) to represent the Citizendium in its relations with external bodies, such as the mass media, and academic or non-academic institutions.
 * Agree. D. Matt Innis 13:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * So how is the ME different from a Constable under this language? Russell D. Jones 14:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Because the constable must 'only enforce currently defined policy' and 'cannot interfere with content or style issues'. The ME is needed to make interim content and style decisions as well as perhaps stopping a programmer from adding templates to the talk page (because we have no policy on that and it doesn't concern content).  Adding the MC to the 'appeal' of the ME decision, gives them some say in determining the fate of such a decision. I don't see that a constable could do anything but stop the incivility that might occur as a result of bad tempers that might flare. They can't decide that the 'template' can stay or go. D. Matt Innis 14:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with your example that the ME should intervene in cases where templates are being inappropriately used; but I don't see why any other citizen couldn't do that as well. We are rather good at self-policing.  The ME would handle cases where an editor inappropriately assigned an article to their workgroup so that they could exercise authority over it.  The ME would handle cases where authors are involved in edit conflicts that must be resolved, locking down pages where authors have strained into conflictual (but civil) behavior.  In your example about the template, I'd imagine that the decision would be appealed to the EC who would decide.  I don't see where or how this example is a gray area.  The (main) talk pages are content areas.  The ME should also remove userboxes from user pages.  But, again, I don't see why a citizen couldn't just leave a friendly reminder on the user's talk page saying, "hey, we don't do that here." Russell D. Jones 14:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * How can a citizen do that? If someone adds a template to a talk page, what allows another user to take it down?  All that is allowed is for a long metadiscussion about why it should or shouldn't be there.  No-one has the authority to do anything about it, even a constable.  An editor might be successful, but what happens when one editor wants it on his article.  Now add a programmer that creates a bot that wants to automatically add a blue info box to every article.  Until there is a committee decision, someone needs to be able to have the power to stop such an action.  The only thing this does is allow the MC into the decision as well as the EC.  By the way, I'm not so sure that the article talk page is considered 'content' or constables wouldn't be allowed to intervene. But that should be a committee decision (that I am sure that the MC should be a part of). I may not have the best solution written here, so I am still listening.D. Matt Innis 15:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a wiki! Anyone can edit anything (up to 3RR, which we have rather implicitly).  First, I would hope that the MC would have a better handle on the bots than that.  But if the MC approved such a bot and the EC didn't like it, then, yes, the ME could revert the changes (My! I'd have sympathy for his/her fingers though).  I don't see that the ME is denied that power.  Then, of course, you'd enter into a power struggle between the two councils, which should be resolved for the good of CZ by the two councils working out an acceptable policy.  It's how nearly everything else is done here.  If they can't work out an agreeable policy, it's up to the Citizens to either vote the bums out or pass a referendum that deals with the situation.  It's everybody's Citizendium.  If people don't like what's going on, it's their responsibility to become active in the governance and fix it.  It's the fundamental principle of self-governing.
 * I guess you see that as not being content or style related and I do. The MC (under the previous language) had oversight authority of the ME.  I don't see that was changed.  Talk pages are where content discussions go on.  I don't see that editors, the ME, or EC wouldn't have an interest in what goes on the (main) talk pages.  User talk pages, of course, are not really their concern.  Russell D. Jones 15:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Matt here (haven't looked at the forum discussion). I hadn't noticed that the ME was limited to EC-type responsibilities.  I am firmly of the opinion that someone has to have the authority to make interim decisions in response to any situation that might arise and cause a flare-up during the time a committee will need to come to a resolution.  Beyond symbolic figurehead status and first point of contact for certain outsiders, interim decision making is the substantial reason to have a Managing Editor.  I'd even be willing to drop the external representative aspect of the job to retain the power to make management decisions on behalf of the MC. I modified Matt's proposed text:
 * The Managing Editor has the following duties:
 * to ensure by means of executive decisions that the principles and policies of the Citizendium are effectively and coherently observed; such decisions shall be based on established policy where defined. Acts of the Managing Editor may be overruled by the Editorial Council or Management Council, whichever has oversight in the area of the decision concerned, with due process.
 * to represent the Citizendium in its relations with external bodies, such as the mass media, and academic or non-academic institutions.
 * -Joe Quick 15:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I like this but for the fact that for certain areas it gives the MC sole jurisdiction over the ME. The ME is to be the managing Editor, and thus should be under the jurisdiction of the EC.  I like the joint power to overrule as stated in the earlier language. Russell D. Jones 15:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think joint power to overrule held by the combined councils without individual power to do so held by separate councils presents too much of a barrier to actually overruling a decision. It could be a joint power too, but I think each committee should be able to act independently. -Joe Quick 15:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Joe, then, this gets back to my earlier question: How does this make the ME different from a constable? I see that the constables are different from the ME in that they can take action against behavior offenses, but if the ME is under the jurisdiction of the MC (for some things) and can take action against almost anything, then why not just have a constabulary that can take care of any problem?  I didn't think that was what CZ wanted.  And, yes, joint overrule means that ME decisions are difficult to revoke.  That means that the ME needs to be prudent.  Abuses of power will lead to more revocations and eventual recall. Russell D. Jones 15:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I can agree with either suggestion. The joint overrule does make it harder to overrule and gives the EC less power.  The MC/EC jurisdiction choice can get gray if something like the site skin is under the EC or MC.  Russell, the Managing Editor has components of both Councils (Management and Editorial).  That's one of the reasons I went for it instead of the EiC.  Also, because constables are not elected (and there will be many with different ideas), we want them only as enforcers of current law. Obviously, once we have made it through a couple years, we will have EC/MC case law that will leave less for the ME to decide about. D. Matt Innis 16:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)