If it 'leads to a motion or a decision by that institution into taking deliberate action or inaction' then, yes.

Sent from my KOB-L09 using Tapatalk

Founder of the Church of the South Pacific [Forum Thread] [Discord], a safe place to discuss spirituality for people of all faiths and none (currently looking for those interested in prayer and/or "home" groups);
And The Silicon Pens [Discord], a writer's group for the South Pacific and beyond!

Yahweo usenneo ir varleo, ihraneo jurlaweo hraseu seu, ir jiweveo arladi.

Salma 145:8

translate

The LORD is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in love.
Psalm 145: 8

Reply

I retract my motion to vote, since we're having discussions. Thanks for the comments, Escade!

I see several potential issues with this so to clarify:

"(1) Discussion within a government institution that leads to a motion or a decision by that institution into taking deliberate action or inaction is to be considered substantive discussion."

and:

"a. For a Cabinet term, discussions from the Cabinet and all ministries shall be released no later than 6 months after the completion of that term."

Does this mean Discord discussions as well? I mean each ministry has Discords with substantial conversations. Does this cover that and if so in what form? For example, FA discussions sometimes a year long over treaties or relations - is that covered? Those will be interesting to document forum side. 

Yes, it does cover Discord, though a good summary of the important points that may be relevant should be enough. Basically, it has to be enough to show what was decided and why it was decided.

Who is responsible after 6 months to release the conversations? For example, does the current cabinet choose or ask former cabinet members for approval?

It's always the current cabinet, not the one from back then, that decides when and what to release (otherwise you also have situations where peeps from back then aren't around anymore etc.).

That's not explicit in the draft, though - I'll make it explicit in the next draft, so thank you for that!

Should there be a clause that items of conversation especially those of a personal nature (vacations, etc) that often occur on Discord within more substantive discussions should be removed de facto? 

Talk about a vacation or such aren't substantive by the definition in the draft, and so wouldn't have to be included.

We have been all over the place with actually following the Sunshine laws so simple but clear would help here. As well as maybe an example as this hasn't been done in practice for a while.

Here's a real example of how I imagine a good summary of a Discord conversation, taken from the Court Reform thread:

We had a conversation between primarily Belschaft, Glen, and myself on Discord regarding the standard of evidence. Generally, we agreed that "clear and convincing evidence" is a preferable standard of evidence to "preponderance of the evidence", but Glen remarked that the term itself may, to the average reader, not convey the subtle position between "preponderance" and "beyond a reasonable doubt" that "clear and convincing evidence" is situated in. We therefore agreed that it's best to simply define it in place, rather than using the term.

Belschaft provided the definition "substantially more likely than not that it is true" from Cornell's legal dictionary. I'll be using that definition in the next full draft:

(3) The assigned justice will deliver with the opinion a verdict for each indictment contained within the case. The verdict shall be guilty if and only if the accused admitted guilt or the justice has determined preponderance of the evidence it substantially more likely than not that the criminal act occurred.

Right, I understand and saw that but what does it include - does it mean every discussion on the RA server related to a particular project (that's a decision - to host an event or to produce an article)?

Yeah but you don't have to include all the weird ideas popping up while brainstorming.

I mean, in theory this is interesting, in practice (regardless of how long Roavin's been talking about it) it's never been done in full even in the IRC era. Therefore, I think we'll need some guidelines and some clarity especially with calls to enforcement or potentially down the line legal action. 

The bill does include a mechanism to make sure that happens: the Audits!

Substantive can also just mean something that gets to the Assembly or it can mean treaty negotiations (even if they fizzled out), event organization (which could include Google docs), etc. 

Yup.

I would also like to see a clause added that removes personal information or details from Discord conversations because the nature of that medium makes it so that we do tend to talk a lot more about personal things (thinking specifically to the TRR discussions and some personal stuff Yuno mentioned, for example).

The Yuno stuff wouldn't be included in the summaries since that isn't substantive. But even if some of that were to make its way onto the forum (for example suppose we simply dumped the log), then before a Sunshine release we would redact that as per 2.4.

Reply

If it 'leads to a motion or a decision by that institution into taking deliberate action or inaction' then, yes.

Sent from my KOB-L09 using Tapatalk

Frankly, quoting the text which you've done now twice is insulting. If words and their interpretations were so simple and easy then we would not have the need to ever revise laws or otherwise engage the works of the Assembly.

What one person interprets and their understanding of the semantics and nuances of language may differ from another. Therefore, either contribute to actual discussion beyond thumbs up and requoting words or refrain from insulting people trying to parse through language of a law that we've historically had issues with and the current iteration of it and what will be interpreted as the modus operandi for the course of this law's potential existence.

The Sunshine Law has not been enacted as it was originally conceived or as of now by a great many institutions including the MoRA from the last term.  Figuring out the gap from what people have actually been doing or find reasonable and what they are expected to do, would be helpful to anyone who wants to be in compliance.

Escade

~ Positions Held in TSP ~
Delegate | Vice Delegate 
Minister of Regional Affairs, | Minister of Foreign Affairs | Minister of Military Affairs
~ The Sparkly One ~

My Pinterest

 

Reply

I apologise.

Founder of the Church of the South Pacific [Forum Thread] [Discord], a safe place to discuss spirituality for people of all faiths and none (currently looking for those interested in prayer and/or "home" groups);
And The Silicon Pens [Discord], a writer's group for the South Pacific and beyond!

Yahweo usenneo ir varleo, ihraneo jurlaweo hraseu seu, ir jiweveo arladi.

Salma 145:8

translate

The LORD is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in love.
Psalm 145: 8

(This post was last modified: 02-19-2018, 04:10 AM by Seraph.)

Reply

I like laws to be practical and at least give people the chance to be compliant. I mean I like to not break laws at least on purpose  

The reality is that over the past year (probably longer and ongoing before my return) no cabinet has been in compliance with the existing Sunshine law.  Then one substantial thing I've noticed since coming back is that the forum usage seems not even half of what it was during IRC times. Obviously we're adapting to Discord and forums (regardless of the steep decline) remain the best way to archive and hold a repository of our history. 

In fact, the ease with which a owner of a server can delete a Discord sometimes keeps me up at night. Still, having tried to copy an entire conversation from Discord to a Google Doc and how horrible that was (also about 20+ pages) makes it more practical to prune and either focus on summarizing.

Therefore, I'm suggesting some changes that make this a practical and realistic law:
 

Sunshine Act
An act to periodically publish threads in private government forums

1. Documentation

(1) Discussion within a government institution that leads to a motion or a decision by that institution into taking significant action or inaction is to be considered criticaldiscussion.

(2) All substantive Critical private discussions of government institutions must be documented on the regional forums for the purpose of persistence and posterity.

(3) Substantive  Critical discussions occurring via real-time communication methods should be reasonably summarized or have key parts quoted as deemed practical by the institution. may be quoted verbatim or reasonably summarized on the forums, as deemed most reasonable by that institution. If the communication via such a method cannot be saved, meeting minutes must be taken of that discussion.

2. Publishing of Discussions

(1) The substantive critical discussions of an institution shall, in due time, be released for public archival accessible to all members of the South Pacific.

(2) The release of discussions shall occur at the following times:
a. For a Cabinet term, discussions from the Cabinet and all ministries shall be released no later than 6 months after the completion of that term.
b. For a High Court case, they shall be released as soon as reasonably possible after the period for appeal has passed without an appeal being filed, or if an appeal was filed, after the final ruling has been announced.

(3) Discussions may be withheld from release if they are ongoing or directly related to another ongoing discussion, or if the public release of information contained therein threatens the security of the region or an ally. In addition, discussions that are deemed to be harmful if leaked or may cause future risks to the security of the region, allies, or friends should be withheld from release. 

(4) A discussion may be released in a redacted form by copying the discussion and censoring information not intended for public consumption. The normative copy of the discussion thread must then remain in the private forum.

(5) If reasonably possible, the institution should strive to release discussions containing classified information in redacted form, rather than withholding them. Any personally identifiable information must always be redacted upon release.

3. Audits of Discussions

(1) The assembly may appoint an individual to audit the discussions of an institution to evaluate compliance with the provisions contained herein, either with a simple majority and approval of that institution, or a three-fifths supermajority. The Council on Regional Security or the Legislator Committee may veto the appointment of such an individual for reasons of regional security. An individual appointed thusly will be granted access to all relevant forums and other considerably used communication platforms for no longer than 2 weeks.

(1) The CRS may appoint an individual to audit the discussions of the institution to evaluate compliance with the provisions contained herein. If the individual is not a member of the CRS they must be approved by the assembly, either with a simple majority and approval of that institution, or a three fifths supermajority.  An individual appointed thusly will be granted access to all relevant forums and other considerably used communication platforms for no longer than two weeks.

(2) The High Court, as part of a case, may compel an institution to grant the Court insight into related discussions.

I welcome your feedback and thoughts, especially on how to make this better. If we discuss and debate laws and come to compromises (instead of the recent trend towards lemming like approval of the majority of them and then often having to back to revise them) then maybe this will last longer and actually be followed!

<3

Escade

~ Positions Held in TSP ~
Delegate | Vice Delegate 
Minister of Regional Affairs, | Minister of Foreign Affairs | Minister of Military Affairs
~ The Sparkly One ~

My Pinterest

 

Reply

What would you propose as the guideline for what is significant action or inaction?

Reply

Honestly, I think this is less practical because there is now ambiguity as to what might be significant action or inaction. Either all such decisions are significant, in which case it's no different the new law as currently written, or only some are, in which case that needs to be clearly defined or we'll have hours of arguments about what should and should not have been recorded.

As tgr current wording already allows for summaries, I don't see much of a problem with summarising on the forums a Discord discussion which results in any action or decision not to act at the time it has taken place. .

Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk

Founder of the Church of the South Pacific [Forum Thread] [Discord], a safe place to discuss spirituality for people of all faiths and none (currently looking for those interested in prayer and/or "home" groups);
And The Silicon Pens [Discord], a writer's group for the South Pacific and beyond!

Yahweo usenneo ir varleo, ihraneo jurlaweo hraseu seu, ir jiweveo arladi.

Salma 145:8

translate

The LORD is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in love.
Psalm 145: 8

Reply

Briefly summarizing what had been discussed on Discord:

• "Significant action or inaction", as in Escade's draft, is too vague, but generally, people didn't mind loosening "deliberate action or inaction" in principle. An idea that was floated was "deliberate action or inaction outside of the Cabinet".
  
• We don't want to include the individual ministries in this (maybe in the future, but not now). RA and FA, especially RA, are too Discord-driven right now to make this reasonable, and besides they were never subject to Sunshine provisions anyway. Relevant things should be in the Cabinet, where documentation requirements will apply.
  
• The exemption for diplomatic talks is important; Escade's suggestion for 2.3 somewhat covers that but not fully.
  
• The audit mechanism is controversial.
  

Now, to move on, here are my suggestions:

First, what was called "substantive" in my original draft and "critical" in Escade's draft will be renamed to "significant". This is for optics, since the definition is supplied, but also helps with readability. Not everybody will immediately know what "substantive" is, "critical" is too a strong word, and "significant" is well known.

Second, redefine the definition for what we'll now call "significant discussion" to discussion that "leads to deliberate action or inaction taken beyond the Cabinet". This ensures that any procedural or casual blah blah within the Cabinet doesn't need to be documented, but anything that actually has an effect (for example, "Yes, we will give the assembly this treaty" or "No, SPSF won't do the stealth mission on this secret region") is documented.

Third, I would rephrase 2.3 to:

(3) Discussions may be withheld from release if
a. they are ongoing or directly related to another ongoing discussion,
b. if the public release of information contained therein threatens the security of the region or an ally,
c. if any personally identifiable information is contained therein, or
d. if they contain diplomatic conversations with other regions or organizations.

Fourth, let's remove the audit mechanism altogether. After reflecting on the discussion we had in #legislators-lounge, I realized that we don't really need it — if the Assembly wishes an audit to be performed, it can always appoint an auditor via resolution! No law needed.

How's this?

Reply

Could you post a complete "current" draft for me to look at? Easier than trying to work out what is/isn't in from the debate and edits.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

---

PREVIOUS ROLES

Former Delegate (x2.5)
Former Member of the Committee for State Security
Former Chief Justice of The High Court (x3)
Former Minister of Foreign Affairs (x2)
Former Chair of the Assembly (x3)
Former Minister of Security (x2)
Former Local Councillor (x2.5)
Former Forum Administrator
Former Minister of Media

Reply

Applying everything so far:

Sunshine Act
An act to periodically publish threads in private government forums

1. Documentation

(1) Discussion within a government institution that leads to a motion or a decision by that institution into taking deliberate action or inaction beyond that institution's inner working area is to be considered significant discussion.

(2) All significant private discussions of government institutions must be documented on the regional forums for the purpose of persistence and posterity.

(3) Significant discussions occurring via real-time communication methods may be quoted verbatim or reasonably summarized on the forums, as deemed most reasonable by that institution. If the communication via such a method cannot be saved, meeting minutes must be taken of that discussion.

2. Publishing of Discussions

(1) The significant discussions of an institution shall, in due time, be released for public archival accessible to all members of the South Pacific.

(2) The release of discussions shall occur at the following times:
a. For a Cabinet term, discussions from the Cabinet shall be released no later than 6 months after the completion of that term.
b. For a High Court case, they shall be released no later than 6 months after the ruling or, if appealed, the ruling on the appeal, has been announced.

(3) Discussions may be withheld from release if
a. they are ongoing or directly related to another ongoing discussion,
b. if the public release of information contained therein threatens the security of the region or an ally,
c. if any personally identifiable information is contained therein, or
d. if they contain diplomatic conversations with other regions or organizations.

(4) A discussion may be released in a redacted form by copying the discussion and censoring information not intended for public consumption. The normative copy of the discussion thread must then remain in the private forum.

(5) If reasonably possible, the institution should strive to release discussions containing classified information in redacted form, rather than withholding them. Any personally identifiable information must always be redacted upon release.

3. Audits of Discussions

(1) The High Court, as part of a case, may compel an institution to grant the Court insight into related discussions.

Reply