NOTICE: Citizendium is still being set up on its newer server, treat as a beta for now; please see here for more.
Citizendium - a community developing a quality comprehensive compendium of knowledge, online and free. Click here to join and contribute—free
CZ thanks our previous donors. Donate here. Treasurer's Financial Report -- Thanks to our content contributors. --

CZ:Charter/Drafting procedures

From Citizendium, the Citizens' Compendium
Jump to: navigation, search

This page lists the procedures governing the drafting process that are not specified in CZ:Charter drafting committee.

Committee chairperson


Discussion brought over from

I'm thinking that we could use someone to keep us on track. D. Matt Innis 01:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I thought that too. But it seems we've started without one. Russell D. Jones 14:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Don't think we really need one but in case we do, here is my proposal: Have the role shift each day (measured in UTC), according to the following scheme (names sorted in reverse alphabetical order of the third letter of the given name, as discussed on the forum):
Name Term 1 Term 2 Term 3 Term 4
Howard Berkowitz 10/16/2009 10/24/2009 11/1/2009 11/9/2009
Matt Innis 10/17/2009 10/25/2009 11/2/2009 11/10/2009
Russell Jones 10/18/2009 10/26/2009 11/3/2009 11/11/2009
Martin Baldwin-Edwards 10/19/2009 10/27/2009 11/4/2009 11/12/2009
Daniel Mietchen 10/20/2009 10/28/2009 11/5/2009
Meg Ireland 10/21/2009 10/29/2009 11/6/2009
Joe Quick 10/22/2009 10/30/2009 11/7/2009
Shamira Gelbman 10/23/2009 10/31/2009 11/8/2009
Daniel Mietchen 15:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's stop this

Discussion brought over from

I think we put the cart before the horse. We have no procedure to determine language. I have never been in the mood to start edit warring (that's why I'm here). Nor should that be our M.O. But we have established no protocol for how to proceed aside from the procedure that we are going to edit the content on a wiki. So, the last person to edit the charter wins? Is that how this is going to go?

I do think we need a chairman to bring some order to this adventure.

I do not think a chairmanship should be rotating as proposed above.

We should work article by article. Set the language and move on.

We don't even have a procedure to determine procedure.

Russell D. Jones 16:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this, Russell -- I hinted in a comment somewhere up earlier on this page, but probably could have been alot more explicit (and started a new section like you did). Shamira Gelbman 17:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm about to go out the door, to something more peaceful, a lecture on Palestine. :-(
Yes, by all means let's discuss here, but not necessarily article by article. We may need to agree on some definitions and goals first. My mantra is "what problem are you trying to solve?"
Back in a couple of hours. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, we need to have some sort of unified strategy for tackling this. I think we should first figure out what needs to be included. Then we can proceed through those points. I think we need a chairman but not a rotating one.--Joe Quick 19:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Reluctantly, I agree that we need a single Chair. Daniel has tried to be very constructive, but there is no procedure, no protocol which allows a voice to all (even if we end up with majority decisions). I propose that (by email) we try to reach a consensus on a Chair in order to manage a protocol. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 19:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I'm out of the email loop. But, I like the idea of a chair, and letting that chair decide how we proceed, whether by splitting us up and giving us different sections, or having us all work together on each section one at a time. Any way we do it will work, but we need one person to pull it all together. Having said that, it would not be unusual for the highest vote getter to be named chairman. Or we could vote here. Or we could just ask Joe to do it. He did a great job getting us to this point ;-) D. Matt Innis 21:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Just checked, Matt: you are in the loop, but the best way to discuss such things is probably via a child board of the Charter Forums, as Shamira suggested. --Daniel Mietchen 21:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Apologies, Matt -- I accidentally left you off the distribution list I use, but you are on it now. Personally, I prefer the article space to the Forums, but I can live with Forums. Do note that there may be a few sensitive topics that do deserve preliminary email discussion, but they are certainly exceptions to the rule. Howard C. Berkowitz 22:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
How about sending me the email thread, just to make sure I'm not missing something important. D. Matt Innis 22:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)



Voting procedure

Discussion brought over from

I hereby propose that if we have to reach an agreement on some sort, we use a simplified voting — just adding our names (optionally with a comment) into one of the three following subsections within a section that briefly describes the scope of the vote. Simple majority counts, and the current or most recent chairperson in case of ties. Deadline for votes: 2 days from their announcement. --Daniel Mietchen 15:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


Well, I made the proposal. --Daniel Mietchen 15:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)