Oh okay. I was unaware the URL needed to change for the server change. Alright.

A constitutional vote takes five days - so it'd have to be Wednesday. I suspect the thing of major importance is no change is made until the vote concludes - if there some technical delays implementing the constitutional change, so be it. That'd be my opinion on the matter.

We should put it vote now though if you want to do it for Wednesday .

I motion to vote.

^ second.

Up to Vote.

So, for those voting against, what exactly is your backup plan?

I personally mostly voted against as I don't want the "to be decided" part in the charter. If that part was removed from the charter or something was specified, I would be much more likely to be supportive of it. Think that clause could potentially be abused if someone wanted to. Probably a different reason to most others voting against.

Do we even have to include the url in the charter in the first place?

(03-06-2015, 08:12 PM)Aramanchovia Wrote: I personally mostly voted against as I don't want the "to be decided" part in the charter. If that part was removed from the charter or something was specified, I would be much more likely to be supportive of it. Think that clause could potentially be abused if someone wanted to. Probably a different reason to most others voting against.

That part won't be in the Charter. It's just a temporary blank line that Unibot will fill in when the forum is transferred, as the exact URL is being discussed. We might get a domain.

It's a quirk of our Charter that there's no strictly legal way to change the official URL, unless the vote ends and the transfer occurs immediately after. The temporary blank line allows time for the transfer to happen, if I can't get to it immediately after the vote.

I would prefer it if we could find someone who is not politically active to host this.

In the six months I've been here, GR hasn't once gave me any reason to doubt him. I will continue to have faith in his ability to remain objective as an admin.

(03-06-2015, 08:12 PM)Aramanchovia Wrote: I personally mostly voted against as I don't want the "to be decided" part in the charter. If that part was removed from the charter or something was specified, I would be much more likely to be supportive of it. Think that clause could potentially be abused if someone wanted to. Probably a different reason to most others voting against.

As G-R explained, that was basically the only option I had to conceptualize what the proposal was about without an address decided on yet.