| Poll: How should we proceed? You do not have permission to vote in this poll. |
|||
| Only full drafts | 8 | 53.33% | |
| Piecemeal | 5 | 33.33% | |
| Other — you best explain below | 2 | 13.33% | |
| Total | 15 vote(s) | 100% | |
| * You voted for this item. | [Show Results] |
| How to put this together |
Aiight, so I thought we were in some semblance of an agreement but apparently not.
So, let's take a quick three-day poll. Do we want (a) complete drafts of a charter and law; or (b) to do this piecemeal where we address the parts individually? Voting will end in like ... 72 hours.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
Either, or. Let people write what they feel they want. We can put it all together. There are some who have an idea what they want in specific areas and may not feel they need/want/ability to draft an entire Charter,
(04-18-2016, 10:32 AM)QuietDad Wrote: Either, or. Let people write what they feel they want. We can put it all together. There are some who have an idea what they want in specific areas and may not feel they need/want/ability to draft an entire Charter, Honestly, this is what I'm trying to avoid :  While, theoretically, I think it's a good situation. Practically speaking, I think I'll be a cluster.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
The procedures literally say people need to come with the complete proposals, and there's even a definition of what complete means.
I am going to bring a complete proposal. Doing this article-by-article only grants massive power to those who get to decide what articles we're going to debate. It's going to be a mess bringing all those together. It's going to be ridiculous trying to make an interwoven set of laws across dozens of threads. We said from the start that we wanted people to come to the table with complete proposals that we can debate, rather than doing it the way that clearly hasn't worked out well before. Why change now? If people want to work step-by-step on their own proposals, they can do that in Google Docs or on IRC or Discord, like I am. Come to the table with a whole set, though, so we can see exactly how the system is supposed to work. I don't want to see Belschaft's (or anyone else's) piecemeal approach become the official draft just because they're doing it here on the forums, and that's very likely to happen as others are working on completed drafts elsewhere. I get that Belschaft thinks we need to narrow down what the "broad solutions" are. But I included that language in the procedures because I want everybody to have the freedom to write their own full proposals without being pigeon-holed into predetermined policies. This step of the GC isn't us debating which specific policies we're going to adopt, but rather each of us writing our own thing that addresses all those broad issues. Once we all get our full proposals out there, it'll be much easier to negotiate and compromise on specific sections. It's basically how the WA works-- post a full draft, debate articles and clauses, and change those, rather than build a resolution step-by-step.
I see no reason why this has to be an "one or the other" situation; if Glen wants to put together an entire draft Charter in private, reflective of his own ideas and priorities, then I see no reason why he shouldn't. But at the same time, the approach I want to take is gathering input on each of the specific issues and then putting them together into a draft reflective of that; I could just come to the table with a complete draft based upon what I think is the best approach, but I think it will be more productive to approach this from a more collaborative and consensual angle.
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator ![[Image: B9ytUsy.png]](https://i.imgur.com/B9ytUsy.png)
What I don't want -- but see happening easily -- is for yours to become a "community draft" that we all have to end up working on, because other drafts aren't being written piece by piece on the forums too. I think it would be better for the GC if we could see full drafts, and how all the moving parts fit together. Then we can debate what's good and what's not, and by the end of that process we'll probably have a single complete proposal that marries the ideas of different complete drafts.
APC has made a full draft and after our party approves it and this vote is over we plan on submitting depending on those results.
Above all else, I hope to be a decent person.
Has Been What's Next? CoA: August 2016-January 2017
Minister of Foreign Affairs: October 2019-June 2020, October 2020- February 2021
(04-18-2016, 02:18 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: What I don't want -- but see happening easily -- is for yours to become a "community draft" that we all have to end up working on, because other drafts aren't being written piece by piece on the forums too. I think it would be better for the GC if we could see full drafts, and how all the moving parts fit together. Then we can debate what's good and what's not, and by the end of that process we'll probably have a single complete proposal that marries the ideas of different complete drafts. I agree 100% here. Full Drafts, so we can see how things fit together, or don't, and then we can adapt each one to fit and decide on the best complete one. Semi-Unretired
|
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
PREVIOUS ROLES 
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |