Template:CharterVote2/31/Discussion

< RETURN TO THE MAIN PAGE
Make it clear that he helps with decisions about content, not behavior:

• The Managing Editor has the following duties:

1. to ensure — by means of executive decisions — that the principles and policies of the Citizendium concerning content and style are effectively and coherently observed;such decisions shall be based on established policy unless required in the case of a policy deficit. They may be overruled by the appropriate Council.
2. to represent the Citizendium in its relations with external bodies, such as the mass media, and academic or non-academic institutions.

D. Matt Innis 20:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Agree D. Matt Innis 21:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree, reluctantly, with the first clause.
  • Second clause: to be a primary point of contact for external bodies, consistent with the principles and policies of the Citizendium about external relationships.
  • The language should make it clear there could be other representatives and all work within policy.
  • I would prefer seeing Clause 2 deleted, and Clause 1 reflect Russell's analogy that the ME is to the EC as Constables are to the MC. Actually, I'd rather see the ME deleted, but this is a compromise.

Howard C. Berkowitz 22:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I also prefer Howard's "to be a primary point of contact" to replace "to represent" for the same reason. D. Matt Innis 22:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Taking the above into account and adding a small piece of my own:

1. to ensure — by means of executive decisions — that the principles and policies of the Citizendium concerning content, style and community administration are effectively and coherently observed; such decisions shall be based on established policy unless required in the case of a policy deficit. They may be overruled by the appropriate Council.
2. to be a primary point of contact for external bodies in their relations with the Citizendium

Joe Quick 05:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree D. Matt Innis 12:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

What does "be a primary point of contact for external bodies" mean in practical terms? Does this mean that the ME becomes the name to which citizendium.org is assigned at the DNS? Does it mean that when someone contacts me about CZ, I'm to say, "go talk to our ME?" How will any "external body" plopping down on CZ ever know to contact our Managing Editor? What if a Lawyer wants content removed? Who will they contact? I'm willing to bet they'll look up the name attached to the DNS of citizendium.org and contact Larry. Is that what we want? Russell D. Jones 13:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

All good points.. Howard, what ya think? D. Matt Innis 13:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to be excessively long, but I think I can make some specific suggestions. As I consider them, however, it strengthens my opinions that the ME has confused reporting to both the MC and EC, and really should have the details worked out in the Councils, not Charter, if indeed the Councils decide the position is needed. Ask yourself, long and hard, if people would have created a position with only these two roles, or if they are simply what was left after fighting.

Apropos DNS: It's perfectly acceptable to have what is called either "role" or "person" information in DNS. "Role" would be DNSmanager@citizendium.org, while "Person" would be "MariaRodriguez@citizendium.org". DNS also provides for points of contact for administrative/billing, technical, and registration matters.

With the external roles ill-specified, we are forcing together things that aren't necessarily realistic skill sets. Ideally, the initial contact has media relations expertise and probably some basic legal knowledge. There will be external relations for things clearly within the primary purview of the EC, such as workflow integration -- hypothetically, we might need one person intimately familiar with the discipline and another familiar with the integration technology (and internal standards on how we use the technology with different organizations).

More and more, I come back to an idea first floated by Russell (credit, not responsibility): the ME can be to the EC as the Constables are to the MC: policy executors. Trying to make it a first point of contact for everything doesn't make good organizational sense. It's a role supporting Councils, not supplanting them unless one is of the belief that Councils can never be effective. Since the position can't be elected, under current rules, without actions by a functioning EC or MC, I see it properly as not a major office, but as a Task Manager (do we still have Task Managers) with a well-defined set of functions deemed necessary by the Councils. It's less that some of the ME functions don't need to be done and more that it may not be logical to vest them in the same person.

Task Manager. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking I'm going to go back to my first vote. D. Matt Innis 21:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with Matt about going back to the beginning. This discussion is going nowhere. I've revised the original to reflect that the ME is responsible to the EC; acts by the Const in enforcing behavioral rules are appealable to MC; acts of the ME enforcing content and style rules of EC are appealable to EC. Russell D. Jones 18:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• The Managing Editor has the following duties:

1. to ensure — by means of executive decisions — that the principles and policies of the Citizendium concerning content and style are effectively and coherently observed; such decisions shall be based on established policy unless required in the case of a policy deficit. They may be overruled by the appropriate Council. Acts of the Managing Editor may be appealed to the Editorial Council.
2. to represent the Citizendium in its relations with external bodies, such as the mass media, and academic or non-academic institutions.

Agree. Russell D. Jones 18:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The word appeal seems to say that the appeal board is part of the EC.. so I switched it back unless we come up with a better word. Also added "due process" so the EC has to take some decision-making course of action. D. Matt Innis 18:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• The Managing Editor has the following duties:

1. to ensure — by means of executive decisions — that the principles and policies of the Citizendium concerning content and style are effectively and coherently observed;such decisions shall be based on established policy unless required in the case of a policy deficit. Acts of the Managing Editor may be appealed overruled by the Editorial Council in due process.
2. to represent the Citizendium in its relations with external bodies, such as the mass media, and academic or non-academic institutions.

• Agree. D. Matt Innis 18:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Overruled, but not sustained? "in due process" sounds like "in due time" implying that the EC must overrule. How about "with due process." I don't agree with your reading of the phrase, Matt. But, I'd like to hear what the others think. Russell D. Jones 18:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

And now that it has been put back in, just, exactly, what is a "policy deficit?" Russell D. Jones 18:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Okay. I'll give you due process and raise you a defined policy.D. Matt Innis 19:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• The Managing Editor has the following duties:

1. to ensure — by means of executive decisions — that the principles and policies of the Citizendium concerning content and style are effectively and coherently observed;such decisions shall be based on established policy where defined.unless required in the case of a policy deficit. Acts of the Managing Editor may be appealed overruled by the Editorial Council in with due process.
2. to represent the Citizendium in its relations with external bodies, such as the mass media, and academic or non-academic institutions.

Agree. D. Matt Innis 22:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree to the above from Matt, reformatted here:

The Managing Editor has the following duties:

1. to ensure — by means of executive decisions — that the principles and policies of the Citizendium concerning content and style are effectively and coherently observed. Such decisions shall be based on established policy where defined. Acts of the Managing Editor may be overruled by the Editorial Council with due process.
2. to represent the Citizendium in its relations with external bodies, such as the mass media, and academic or non-academic institutions.

Agree --Daniel Mietchen 23:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree --Russell D. Jones 00:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Re-Agree. D. Matt Innis 01:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. Accepting clause 1 is something I consider a major compromise, but clause 2 is beyond my limits. Howard C. Berkowitz 04:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Joe Quick 15:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

As a result of forum discussion, I agree that the ME should be able to make interim decisions related to things other than content and style. From the perspective of those that manage the software decisions, leaving overruling of ME decisions to the EC only gives them concern that they will have no say in how the MEs decisions are then mitigated. I've added the MC in the overruling process in the below configuration to make this less of an issue. D. Matt Innis 13:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• The Managing Editor has the following duties:

1. to ensure by means of executive decisions that the principles and policies of the Citizendium concerning content and style are effectively and coherently observed; such decisions shall be based on established policy where defined. Acts of the Managing Editor may be overruled by combined votes of the Editorial Council and Management Council with due process.

1. to represent the Citizendium in its relations with external bodies, such as the mass media, and academic or non-academic institutions.

Agree. D. Matt Innis 13:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

So how is the ME different from a Constable under this language? Russell D. Jones 14:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Because the constable must 'only enforce currently defined policy' and 'cannot interfere with content or style issues'. The ME is needed to make interim content and style decisions as well as perhaps stopping a programmer from adding templates to the talk page (because we have no policy on that and it doesn't concern content). Adding the MC to the 'appeal' of the ME decision, gives them some say in determining the fate of such a decision. I don't see that a constable could do anything but stop the incivility that might occur as a result of bad tempers that might flare. They can't decide that the 'template' can stay or go. D. Matt Innis 14:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your example that the ME should intervene in cases where templates are being inappropriately used; but I don't see why any other citizen couldn't do that as well. We are rather good at self-policing. The ME would handle cases where an editor inappropriately assigned an article to their workgroup so that they could exercise authority over it. The ME would handle cases where authors are involved in edit conflicts that must be resolved, locking down pages where authors have strained into conflictual (but civil) behavior. In your example about the template, I'd imagine that the decision would be appealed to the EC who would decide. I don't see where or how this example is a gray area. The (main) talk pages are content areas. The ME should also remove userboxes from user pages. But, again, I don't see why a citizen couldn't just leave a friendly reminder on the user's talk page saying, "hey, we don't do that here." Russell D. Jones 14:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

How can a citizen do that? If someone adds a template to a talk page, what allows another user to take it down? All that is allowed is for a long metadiscussion about why it should or shouldn't be there. No-one has the authority to do anything about it, even a constable. An editor might be successful, but what happens when one editor wants it on his article. Now add a programmer that creates a bot that wants to automatically add a blue info box to every article. Until there is a committee decision, someone needs to be able to have the power to stop such an action. The only thing this does is allow the MC into the decision as well as the EC. By the way, I'm not so sure that the article talk page is considered 'content' or constables wouldn't be allowed to intervene. But that should be a committee decision (that I am sure that the MC should be a part of). I may not have the best solution written here, so I am still listening.D. Matt Innis 15:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a wiki! Anyone can edit anything (up to 3RR, which we have rather implicitly). First, I would hope that the MC would have a better handle on the bots than that. But if the MC approved such a bot and the EC didn't like it, then, yes, the ME could revert the changes (My! I'd have sympathy for his/her fingers though). I don't see that the ME is denied that power. Then, of course, you'd enter into a power struggle between the two councils, which should be resolved for the good of CZ by the two councils working out an acceptable policy. It's how nearly everything else is done here. If they can't work out an agreeable policy, it's up to the Citizens to either vote the bums out or pass a referendum that deals with the situation. It's everybody's Citizendium. If people don't like what's going on, it's their responsibility to become active in the governance and fix it. It's the fundamental principle of self-governing.

I guess you see that as not being content or style related and I do. The MC (under the previous language) had oversight authority of the ME. I don't see that was changed. Talk pages are where content discussions go on. I don't see that editors, the ME, or EC wouldn't have an interest in what goes on the (main) talk pages. User talk pages, of course, are not really their concern. Russell D. Jones 15:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Matt here (haven't looked at the forum discussion). I hadn't noticed that the ME was limited to EC-type responsibilities. I am firmly of the opinion that someone has to have the authority to make interim decisions in response to any situation that might arise and cause a flare-up during the time a committee will need to come to a resolution. Beyond symbolic figurehead status and first point of contact for certain outsiders, interim decision making is the substantial reason to have a Managing Editor. I'd even be willing to drop the external representative aspect of the job to retain the power to make management decisions on behalf of the MC. I modified Matt's proposed text:

• The Managing Editor has the following duties:

1. to ensure by means of executive decisions that the principles and policies of the Citizendium are effectively and coherently observed; such decisions shall be based on established policy where defined. Acts of the Managing Editor may be overruled by the Editorial Council or Management Council, whichever has oversight in the area of the decision concerned, with due process.
2. to represent the Citizendium in its relations with external bodies, such as the mass media, and academic or non-academic institutions.

-Joe Quick 15:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I like this but for the fact that for certain areas it gives the MC sole jurisdiction over the ME. The ME is to be the managing Editor, and thus should be under the jurisdiction of the EC. I like the joint power to overrule as stated in the earlier language. Russell D. Jones 15:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I think joint power to overrule held by the combined councils without individual power to do so held by separate councils presents too much of a barrier to actually overruling a decision. It could be a joint power too, but I think each committee should be able to act independently. -Joe Quick 15:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Joe, then, this gets back to my earlier question: How does this make the ME different from a constable? I see that the constables are different from the ME in that they can take action against behavior offenses, but if the ME is under the jurisdiction of the MC (for some things) and can take action against almost anything, then why not just have a constabulary that can take care of any problem? I didn't think that was what CZ wanted. And, yes, joint overrule means that ME decisions are difficult to revoke. That means that the ME needs to be prudent. Abuses of power will lead to more revocations and eventual recall. Russell D. Jones 15:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I can agree with either suggestion. The joint overrule does make it harder to overrule and gives the EC less power. The MC/EC jurisdiction choice can get gray if something like the site skin is under the EC or MC. Russell, the Managing Editor has components of both Councils (Management and Editorial). That's one of the reasons I went for it instead of the EiC. Also, because constables are not elected (and there will be many with different ideas), we want them only as enforcers of current law. Obviously, once we have made it through a couple years, we will have EC/MC case law that will leave less for the ME to decide about. D. Matt Innis 16:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Right. The constables only have the power to enforce rules that are already established. Maybe we should hand over enforcement of editorial rules to constables too. But there are always issues for which there are not clear rules. It is the ME's job to interpret precedent and the spirit of rules that do not clearly cover some particular instance and make a decision. The councils, both of them, are then responsible for coming up with a way to deal with similar problems in the future or to simply let the decision stand if they feel it is unique enough to not require a formal rule. In that process, they are empowered to overturn the ME's provisional decision. -Joe Quick 16:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

(undent) There have been two schools of thought about the role of the ME. One is simply to make faster interim decisions than could a Council. The other, more problematic from the standpoint of checks and balances, is that the ME should be the final Decider.

Joint overrule definitely leans toward the second position, and to me is both a recipe for conflict, and also a singular distrust of committees. I can only say that in a variety of professional organizations, small, agile and committed committees, something CZ has never had, are effective. They often designate one or more of their members to make interim decisions. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen anyone advocating the final decider on this committee. The ME decision would only be final if the councils could not agree to overrule. The issue that I am concerned with is the there are decisions that the MC needs to be allowed input. We either have to let them have input in all decisions (joint) or only in cases in their jurisdiction (will need someone to delegate the decision -OMB?). I agree that the smaller committee will be more likely to be able to develop a consensus. It's just a matter of which one we want.

Interesting letting constables enforce an editorial/ME/EC decision. I'm okay as long as it would not allow interpretation. In other words someone needs to designate to the constables that this is a specific enforceable ruling on that page. It shouldn't be something that is site wide until it is decided as such by one of the councils.

D. Matt Innis 17:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I hate to throw out new concepts at this late date, but perhaps I have an idea. Several things, such as the skin, or external representation on an editorial matter, have been suggested, which legitimately are joint matters. While the U.S. Congress is bicameral, there are several standing Joint Committees that have worked fairly well. Perhaps we need to add a provision for joint committees to be created by both Councils, committees with quite specific responsibilities for policy development. These would presumably be standing committees, in addition to the interim policy development committees the Councils are apt to set up.

Matt, would this meed your concern? I brought up Final Decider only because that's been a Forum issue. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

No, no final Decider. I think we agree on that. I think we're okay if we limit each council to matters within its jurisdiction and allow it to know when that jurisdiction applies. If jurisdiction overlaps, then both committees have a say and are free to set up a joint review if they wish. If one committee asserts jurisdiction and the other disagrees, then conflict resolution is in order, though I think this will happen very rarely since we've detailed their roles pretty clearly. -Joe Quick 18:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well said, Joe. I can think of things where jurisdictions can overlap, but very few of them seem matters where reasonable people -- hopefully the ones we reelect -- will recognize that and deal appropriately with the situation. If the major purpose of an ME is to resolve that conflict, it seems a lot of overhead for what should be extremely rare. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Okay, I'll go with each council jurisdiction, but don't we need to specify how many votes would overrule. Shouldn't we state they need a majority or even harder - say a unanimous vote? D. Matt Innis 21:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Definitely majority. I don't want to make it hard for the Councils to overrule the ME, or we lose sight of the inherent conflict of setting the ME against the Councils. With unanimous voting, you are potentially giving the ME more practical power and undercutting the Councils. The Councils, not the ME, are the direct democratic representatives. Remember that the Councils are going to deliberate issues and have individual accountability on voting, but there's really no mechanism for the Citizens to see how the ME develops his or her ideas. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a recipe for disaster. If we don't clearly specify what "content" is, and don't specify what ME issues are under the EC and which are under the MC, then any decision by the ME is going to be endlessly debated as "This is EC jurisdiction" or "This is MC jurisdiction." Joint oversight eases this problem. Russell D. Jones 23:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

In the immediately preceding note, I was simply referring to majority vs. unanimous vote. Far be it from me to suggest that the convolutions needed to make the ME work are rapidly resembling the epicycles needed to make a terracentric universe work. Again, I urge having the Charter not preclude having an ME, but to let the MC, EC and Citizenry define the specifics based on need. Does anyone have, alternatively, close governmental parallels of an ME-like function operating along with a loosely parliamentary system? Howard C. Berkowitz 23:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

(Sorry, I should have been clearer, I wasn't responding directly to Howard but to the overall suggestion.) Russell D. Jones 00:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

If articles 28.1 and 29 aren't clear enough regarding jurisdictional oversight of the ME, then they probably aren't clear enough about jurisdiction over day-to-day operations. Do you think we need to be more prescriptive? -Joe Quick 14:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

My comment, meant in good faith, is that we can't be more prescriptive without experience. Let the ME be defined in the Charter, but wait until the Councils' experience lets a more prescriptive, experience-based formulation be created. I am far less concerned about a ME assigned to deal with problems the councils do not believe they can solve, and far more concerned with creating a competitor to the Councils.

Again, I ask for examples, for any duty assigned, of organizations where the function is necessary. The closest examples that come to mind are political interest groups where an Executive Vice President or Executive Director is the public face, responsible only to the Board or an Executive Committee, and not to the general membership. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Howard, I hear you, but I don't agree. I think we need the ME desperately. My gut tells me that Russell is right that we are setting things up for trouble if we rely on good faith to decide if something is content or not. Since the EC is larger that the MC, it would give them a slight advantage anyway, which is probably proper. Therefore, this is the version that I will support:

• The Managing Editor has the following duties:

1. to ensure by means of executive decisions that the principles and policies of the Citizendium are effectively and coherently observed; such decisions shall be based on established policy where defined. Acts of the Managing Editor may be overruled by a combined simple majority vote of both the Editorial Council and Management Council. For this purpose, a simple majority must be greater than the combined quorums of both councils.
2. to represent the Citizendium in its relations with external bodies, such as the mass media, and academic or non-academic institutions.

Agree. D. Matt Innis 17:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Russell D. Jones 17:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree. --Daniel Mietchen 21:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Matt, in that draft, how does the representational role fit with the Council duties?

Please clarify what a simple majority of the combined quorums. Assume the quorum of the EC is 5 and the quorum of the MC is 4. Mathematically, that would require a vote of 9 -- unanimity -- to overrule if the attendance is poor.

That's the way I see it, too. So a quorum of 5 means we have 8 EC members and 4 means 6 MC members. So if we need 9 votes, then technically the EC only needs to get 1 MC member to agree while the MC needs to get 3 EC members to agree in the rare occurrence that they disagree. That's what I mean by the EC having a slight advantage over the MC. I think we want the EC to have that advantage. D. Matt Innis 01:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It's clear we have very different views of the desirability of an ME. To me, the difficulty of defining it in the absence of experience shows how theoretical the need may be. I am increasingly convinced there will be conflict, very quickly, between the ME and, especially, EC, if the EC does not have time to get established. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

There will inevitably be conflict between every body that we form. We aren't here to stop them, only to provide the decision process that allows a reasonably democratic solution (when desired) to be reached and a conclusion in any conflict. I think we've done that with the appeal process. D. Matt Innis 01:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree completely. More and more, the language seems to (1) put the ME in the role of first decider and (2) set up conflict between ME and councils. Howard C. Berkowitz 01:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Your math is all wrong with the quorums. The quorum for the EC is four, for the MC it's three. You'll need a majority of seven votes to overrule the ME, so that could be five MC members and two EC members, or seven EC members. Either way, someone on the EC will have vote to overrule the ME if he/she is overruled. Russell D. Jones 02:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Question: if there is to be an ME election in an extra-charter way, will you agree to give citizens the option of voting not to fill the position? Howard C. Berkowitz 17:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

No. D. Matt Innis 01:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Why not? I've always felt "none of the above" to be reasonable, and I see very little opportunity for any dissent to the idea of the ME. Howard C. Berkowitz 01:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The better question is why would we? Everything is connected; if they don't want an ME, then they don't want this charter. They will vote it down and start all over. D. Matt Innis 02:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Matt on this. This is a charter with an ME. If that's a deal breaker for you then don't vote for it. Russell D. Jones 02:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I will, then, disagree with this article and any other that pushes an ME in a manner I believe to be in conflict. I wasn't aware we were going to vote, as a Committee, on the Charter as a whole as well as its articles.

If that is the case, I will vote for the Charter as it's better than nothing, but I will do every legal thing I can to restrict or remove the ME in practice. End of comments on this article. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Matt in the (immediately) above exchange. -Joe Quick 14:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, I meant a vote in the ratification election. Russell D. Jones 14:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

(undent)I'm still not convinced that a combined vote should be required to overrule the ME. It makes sense in matters of overlapping jurisdiction, but it doesn't make sense to me in matters where jurisdiction is clearly defined. EC members would have a say in decisions by the ME about, say, software and MC members would have a say in ME decisions about, for example, citation style. Is that what you intend? -Joe Quick 14:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll stick my head in to say that Joe's comment, immediately above, seems very reasonable. The examples might be better; the user interface part of software could legitimately be EC, but not the resources or implementation. Howard C. Berkowitz 14:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, software decisions (e.g., mediawiki extensions) and template decisions have an impact on how writers write and how the content of this site is presented and developed. e.g., Shall we have bibliographies on the main article page or a subpage? This is a content issue addressed by software. It is not right that the editors of CZ should not have oversight on these issues. Conversely, citation style is simply a matter of content presentation over which the MC rightly should have no or little say (except as authors). Back-end decisions about how functionality is to be implemented have, or should have, no impact on authors, editors, or the visitors' experience. Russell D. Jones 14:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I obscured my point with examples. Neither council normally has a say in decisions made by the other council. I don't understand why they should have a say over decisions by the ME in the jurisdiction of the other council. -Joe Quick 14:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't either, Joe, my proposal was to have the ME overseen solely by the EC. Russell D. Jones 16:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

But, that leaves the EC to decide about issues of behavior, something that is purely MC related. The only other choice is to give the OMB the power to decide the jurisdiction in every case. D. Matt Innis 17:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Or, I suppose each council can 'choose' to combine their votes somehow. D. Matt Innis 17:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is the ME deciding about behavior? The MC establishes the Constables to do that. Is it being suggested that the ME is between the Constables and the MC? There might be a conflict on things such as software functionality and implementation, but I don't see why behavior even enters into the equation. Howard C. Berkowitz 18:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

We've been over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over this. This is the matter before us. Howard or Joe, suggest something so we can get on with it. Thanks. Russell D. Jones 21:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I did suggest something before. Here's a simplified version that might be acceptable.

• The Managing Editor has the following duties:

1. to ensure by means of executive decisions that the principles and policies of the Citizendium are effectively and coherently observed; such decisions shall be based on established policy where defined. Acts of the Managing Editor may be overruled by the Editorial Council or the Management Council with due process.
2. to represent the Citizendium in its relations with external bodies, such as the mass media, and academic or non-academic institutions.

If this is not accepted, then I'll reconsider the text with more support above. I don't want to hold things up.-Joe Quick 21:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I like this, Joe (as much as anything with the ME in it). May I suggest the second clause is not needed, because external representation will be defined by principles and policies?

I would add, after the first sentence of the first paragraph, "Individual behavior, however, remains within the scope of the Constabulary." Alternatively, insert "strategic" (or a better word) before "principles and policies". If the argument is that the ME is the representative of the "government" while the OMB represents the Citizens, the ME should not be getting into "tactical" behavioral issues -- think the difference between police and prosecutors. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

That leaves the door open for a majority of a quorum of 3 people on the MC to overrule a decision by the ME about a content edit. D. Matt Innis 23:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right, Matt. That takes me back to where I was before. I recognize the problem of disputed jurisdiction that Russell has brought up but I think joint council overrule is too much of a hurdle for repealing bad decisions.

Come to think about it, there might be another way. Try this:

• The Managing Editor has the following duties:

1. to ensure by means of executive decisions that the principles and policies of the Citizendium are effectively and coherently observed; such decisions shall be based on established policy where defined.
2. to make interim decisions on behalf of the Editorial and Management Councils when established policy does not provide guidance; these decisions shall be overridden by the establishment of relevant policy.
3. to represent the Citizendium in its relations with external bodies, such as the mass media, and academic or non-academic institutions.

This allows ME decisions to be replaced rather than withdrawn by the councils and restricts jurisdiction debates to policy oversight, which should be rather less contentious. -Joe Quick 03:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I like this better because it motivates the EC/MC to act. I want to see what others think. Russell D. Jones 12:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Joe's version. --Daniel Mietchen 13:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree. I think it's perfect! Good Job. D. Matt Innis 14:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree, with comments. Russell, if the MC/EC aren't activist, it's all doomed anyway. As far as point #3, is that not subsumed by #1? If the MC or EC makes a policy about external relations, then it's something to be carried out. My particular concern is that some external relations (e.g., the content aspects of collaboration) logically fall under the EC, with legal oversight by the MC, and the EC very well might want a subject matter expert to represent CZ. It's one thing to make the ME the primary or initial point of contact, but don't have the Charter suggest in any way that the ME is the sole representative. I would delete point 3 as covered by #1. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Howard, I don't think #3 is adequately covered in #1 and remains necessary. Anyone that is elected to the ME position is going to be approached by outside sources and this is important when considering who we are nominating for this position. Obviously, if we could control that, a totally different set of candidates would be possible, but we can't so everyone needs to know that facing the media is going to happen and should happen. If the ME says something damaging, then vote 'em out. I agree to leave #3 in. D. Matt Innis 21:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I also agree to leave #3 in, since #1 can only cover communication from CZ, yet it is important to also define a contact for communication to CZ, which #3 does. Plus, splitting the communication to and from CZ into different functions does not seem appropriate to me at Charter level. --Daniel Mietchen 22:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I prefer to leave #3 in too. We have all agreed to the text above, so I'm going to green the article with that text. -Joe Quick 14:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)