Preamble Amendment

[Fabolous]

The Preamble of our Constitution currently dictates that the entirety of the first section of the Constitution, as well as the procedure for a VoNC, are only amendable by the excutive. It must be asked, why? Why is it that we can't change the Curial VoNC? Why is it that we can't can't change how long our own Speaker serves for? Why is any of the Constitution forbidden from improvement by the whole of the Curia?

This section goes directly in contrast to our guiding principle.

It isn't like hex is devoid of any ability to restrict Constitutional changes, you see, they have this little thing called a veto. Gives the excutive complete power over the amending of the entire Constituion. So why limit the creation of improvements to a third of our guiding document?


At best, this section causes a delay in the process as the same bill must get reproposed (and then go through the discussion and three days requirements), at worst it causes controversy (easily seen in the Curia at present). Sometimes, it is simply forgotten and ignored.



Therefore, I propose the Preamble be amended as such:

Preamble

This document exists to define the roles of the bodies that run and govern this site and community. The guiding principle of the site is to be that barring technical or fiscal obstacles, any considered mandate from the appropriate legislative body of contributing members will be implemented by the administrators.

This document is not absolutely authoritative. It is a compilation of the Curia, written and approved by the Citizens, which may become outdated or contain oversights. Furthermore, this document may be suspended by the administration by the procedure outlined herein.

Section 1 of this document and the procedure for a vote of No Confidence lie outside the remit of the Curia to modify or amend, unless such amendment is commenced and wholly authorised by the executive. The only exception to this is where an amendment changes the name of an Officer

[Tom Paine]

Oddly legal (we don't have protection on the protection... heh, oversight there tBP?)

Given the existence of the provisional veto I can't but support this, personally.

[Fabolous]

Oddly legal (we don't have protection on the protection... heh, oversight there tBP?)

Indeed. Oddly legal.

but the whole point was to protect the site from the bad feeling and 'staff vs. Curia' fighting that always accompanied staff vetos.

Well, staff vs. Curia was pretty much the existence of the Curia at some times, no? I realize the staff doesn't want the Curia randomly overhauling staff structure, but I'd like to think that wouldn't happen, and if such a bill was proposed I think people would understand a properly explained veto. Some vetos were rather poorly explained, or seemingly done on whims in the past, and of course this breeded resentment. I'd like to think we can communicate well at this point (especially with one such as the Speaker actively aiding this communication as part of his job). Further, I know from my time in hex that they are very careful about perception when they veto, so the proposals would be well explained. Very few remaining active members want to see staff-Curial wars return, and I honestly think they are not returning.

Now, perhaps I'm wrong and Curial members would radically change staff at first chance and when hex vetos them people would throw fits and we would have full scale staff vs. Curia wars to a level never before seen. But I doubt it.

I really think this would allow things to run much smoother, with no loss at all. But if there are problems, it is easily reversed, and you'll see me right amoung those calling for it.

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

I oppose, the whole point of the preamble, and moving things outside the Curia's influence, was to basically make it really plain what the Curia is there for (improve the site) and what the 'executive' is there for (run the site) and to finally stop the Curia trying to intefere in how the site is run (which was at the core of 99% of all the battles with ON).

Now, what we should be discussing is that the Speaker shouldn't be in section 1.....

[Tom Paine]

Then where should he, as a member of the Council (in section 1), be?

I don't like the delineation, I might add. The Curia should improve the site but isn't allowed to improve certain parts of it, is the status quo. Given the existence of the veto, I don't see the reason for that.

[the Black Prince]

oversight indeed.

Its there because Ian wanted it, its there so that the Curia could not on whim modify staff powers and staff structure, afterall, the staff have set up the current structure as that which works best for them for ian, and for the site. Any change to that needs to come from the staff themselves.

As to the VoNC, i believe that was included bevcause the taff were somewhat apprehensive about it being dramatically chnaged and overhauled and its scope and effect changed without that being decided and considered by staff first.

I guess mostly the section operates as a safeguard to prevent the staff having to veto these bills, afterall, any changes to staff is going to have to have staff approval.

[Tom Paine]

By oversight, I meant that the Preamble... didn't protect the Preamble.

I really don't see why we need the safeguard. In the end, we just need a staff more willing to veto where necessary rather than preventing legitimate discussion for fear of needing to veto it.

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

but the whole point was to protect the site from the bad feeling and 'staff vs. Curia' fighting that always accompanied staff vetos.

[Tom Paine]

I'm of the opinion that the current Curia aren't likely to create the need for such... and if they are, then the Preamble can be returned. maybe make it a temporary - two month? - trial period after which both Hex and Curia would have to ratify its more permanent removal?

[Muizer]

I'm of the opinion that the current Curia aren't likely to create the need for such... and if they are ....

They?

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

but maybe the reason things are so calm at the moment is that this is happening.

Apart from anything else, the Curia never has and (hopefully) never will have anything to do with the way staff is run (except for voting basic moderators). What on earth has it got to do with the Curia?

[Tom Paine]

I don't intend to create a need for the Preamble, so "they" is a perfectly good term - I can hardly talk about "we" whilst saying "I hope we won't". Its just an odd turn of phrase, it really is.

That is possible, Tac, but I'm hoping its not the case. And the reasoning is as follows. The Curia is designed for, meant for, and tasked with the improvement of the site. To do this without the ability to touch on staff affairs seems rather silly somehow.

[Scorch]

I support, Fab. This is definitely needed.

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

ok,

if you look at the long and illustrious history of the Curia over the last few years (and I don't mean that in any way sarcastically) every single fight the Curia had with ON was over this issue, that the Curia wanted to interfere in how staff is run.

All the time and effort that a large number of us Curialists in staff spent was in trying to persuade ON that the Curia was benign, and every time ON started to believe us the Curia would blow the whole thing out of the water by saying that it wanted to interfere in staff.

The Curia was nearly deleted at least 3 times that I personally know of over this very issue - and the last time it happened it was only saved by the impostition of (frankly daft) rules on who could and couldn't actually vote (ie. the rules I created only allowing Patricians to access the Curia).

Furthermore, when the Curia has had these powers in the past it just increased the navel gazing 'lets go tinker with the constitution' game that seems to (sadly) be the main driver for the place.

Our job as the Curia is to come up with ideas to improve the site, the user experience, the way the forums structure, new ideas for expansion and all that good stuff. We have a say (through Moderating Feedback, Curial Decisions, Q&A and the Tribunal) in how the moderation of the site occurs. We have a directly elected member of the Curia sitting on Hex (The Speaker).

Basically as members of an internet site we have huge influence over how it runs and how it is run.

So, even if you ignore all the history (and benign as imb is he is just as unlikely to want the Curia meddling in staff as any other owner) and ignore how much influence we already have, please answer me a simple question:

Why does the Curia need these powers?

[imb39]

I look at some of the crass proposals that have been suggested, such as this and am not overly enamoured.

[Elrond]

Personaly I think that this could result in ON style conflicts between Hex and the curia.

On a side note - its rather impressive that virtualy every member in the thread which imb posted the link for, is still here and active a year later.

[Perikles]

I look at some of the crass proposals that have been suggested, such as this and am not overly enamoured.

You never really liked that did you? See my sig...

Personally I don't see the need for this.

[imb39]

No, I thought is was a terribly poorly thought out idea at the time and time has only served to demonstrate it was even worse than I had originally concluded.

There is nothing stopping the curia making a suggestion etc about that section, but that's as far as it should ever go.

[deRougemont]

There is nothing stopping the curia making a suggestion etc about that section, but that's as far as it should ever go.

That's fair enough...

[imb39]

Very few things are written in stone. Circumstances change, new ideas come along. It would be foolish for anyone to simply expect things to stay as they are for time immemorial.

Fab is correct with his basic assertion that there should be a mechanism for change of any part of the Constitution. I draw the line, however, that the Curia can effect change on that section unless vetoed by Hex (which this does). As has been observed, this is a recipe for discord. If the argument is strong enough for change, Hex can initiate that change.