[PASSED] Sunshine Act |
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
I retract my motion to vote, since we're having discussions. Thanks for the comments, Escade!
(02-16-2018, 02:32 PM)Escade Wrote: I see several potential issues with this so to clarify: 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. (02-16-2018, 02:32 PM)Escade Wrote: 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! (02-16-2018, 02:32 PM)Escade Wrote: 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. (02-16-2018, 02:32 PM)Escade Wrote: 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: (02-14-2018, 05:13 PM)Roavin Wrote: 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. (02-16-2018, 11:27 PM)Escade Wrote: 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. (02-16-2018, 11:27 PM)Escade Wrote: 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! (02-16-2018, 11:27 PM)Escade Wrote: 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. (02-16-2018, 11:27 PM)Escade Wrote: 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. (02-17-2018, 04:45 AM)Seraph Wrote: If it 'leads to a motion or a decision by that institution into taking deliberate action or inaction' then, yes. 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
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
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: (02-09-2018, 05:46 AM)Roavin Wrote:Quote: 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
What would you propose as the guideline for what is significant action or inaction?
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
Briefly summarizing what had been discussed on Discord:
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: Quote:(3) Discussions may be withheld from release if 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?
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
Applying everything so far:
Quote: |
Users browsing this thread: |
1 Guest(s) |