CZ Talk:Management Council Motions Passed

From Citizendium
Jump to: navigation, search

Link to forum threads?

I am glad this page exists but would find it more useful if it contained links to the forum threads (if public) behind that decision. That helps in interpreting existing policy. --Daniel Mietchen 03:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Daniel, just as a guess, I would say that about 75% or more of our motions did not originate on the public forums. They originated within the MC itself. At this point, it would take a great deal of time to go back and search all of the forum thread to see if any were relevant to each of our many motions ... and we have no one available for such a task. - Milton Beychok 05:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Article 24 of the Charter says "The Citizendium shall be devoted to transparent and fair governance". Now this is just a question, not an accusation or even an observation, but do you think that the 75% (estimated) of decisions that have no public discussion fulfill Article 24? David Finn 10:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
David, not everything in life is black or white ... there are many shades of gray. What I said above was that about 75% of our passed motions were originated by members of the MC. The MC created four forum boards (see the definitions of those boards on the forums). Only one of those boards was complete private. The other three provided varying degrees of transparency into our discussions.
I can assure you that if all of our discussions of motions had been completely public and open to comments by all Citizens, we would still be discussing most of the motions ... and very little would have been accomplished. As is, we had two members resign because of the constant demand for new legislation, new appeals and the constant bickering on the public forums (the non-MC and non-EC forums). That is the best answer I can give you, David ... and it is my last word on this subject. Milton Beychok 16:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
What I have in mind here are links to the MC forum threads in which the respective motions were passed. Most of these are public in the sense of being readable by anyone with the URL. I completely agree that there is no point in trying to dig out any discussions prior to that. --Daniel Mietchen 18:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Daniel, that would still require searching for the MC forum threads to 33 passed motions in 2010 and 2011. Perhaps, when the MC is back up to full strength, someone might perform that chore. Milton Beychok 20:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I just performed a search for the full text of the first motion of 2011 as given on this cluster's main page ("The MC authorizes technical staff to transition to a 3 server configuration at Steadfast Networks and to work to complete a migration of all CZ applications by 22 January 2011.") as well as for parts thereof, both within the MC discussion board and via Google. This failed to bring about the thread with the discussion and voting for that motion.
While I understand that it may be too much to demand the past motion announcements on this page to be linked to their forum threads, I would strongly recommend to do that at least for any future entries on this page, and to use the exact phrasing of the motion. --Daniel Mietchen 18:54, 13 May 2011 (CDT)
I have adapted the formatting of the page, so as to render it more usable. I found the forum threads for several motions but also failed to find a record for Motion 2011-006. --Daniel Mietchen 19:19, 13 May 2011 (CDT)

2011-018, 23 April 2011

2011-018, posted on 23 April 2011, says "The seats of Chris Key, Joe Quick and Russell Jones are designated as those having a 1-year term.". Since this was several weeks after Chris had officially resigned his seat, does this indicate that the Motions page is reporting on Motions passed at least several weeks ago, or is there just a mistake with the edit? David Finn 13:14, 27 April 2011 (CDT)

David, faced with two resignations and possible a third one, it took time to discuss what to do, which seats should be so designated and it took even more time to get the votes amounting to our required quorum of three, since Russell was unavailable (with real-world problems) for quite a bit of time. You might also keep in mind that all of us have real-world lives that prevent us from working 24 hours a day on CZ problems. The posting of 2011-018 was done within 24 hours after the required three votes were cast.
With all due respect and with a smile on my face, we also have to spend time each day pondering and answering questions like your question here. Regards, Milt. - Milton Beychok 14:04, 27 April 2011 (CDT)
Thank you for taking the time to reply. I shan't apologise for asking the question - in this case it was a no-brainer that someone would ask since Chris had already resigned the seat, but I do realise that there is much pressure on the MC right now. I have tried to point out some of the MCs good work also! And I have noted that the MC have real-life issues - I think we can agree that the MC is spread pretty thin right now. David Finn 16:29, 27 April 2011 (CDT)


is wrong. Should be 18th, not 16th. Peter Jackson 08:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I have fixed the date. Dan Nessett 15:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)