How should the Founders be organized?

[Gulliver]

Yeah PoD, I drifted off topic, I shouldn't be posting in places like this when I'm falling asleep >->

[PoD Gunner]

oh, no worries, Gulliver.

I did clarify those parts, but I guess I can clarify them more.

1. The Taijitu Founders Committee, hereafter called the Founders, is incorporated in Taijitu and subject to its jurisprudence. The Founders reserve the right to ignore arbitrary or capricious exercise of the judiciary's power by unanimous agreement.

2. The Founders will decide on rules and mechanisms for accessing Taijitu Founder by a majority vote.

3. The Founders may expel a member of the Founders, hereafter called a Founder, by the unanimous consent of the other founders.

4. The citizens of Taijitu, hereafter called the citizens, may propose a new Founder by a majority vote. The Founders may admit a proposed new founder proposed by majority vote.

5. The Founders may amend these bylaws by unanimous consent of the Founders with the consent of the citizens.

6. The Founders must seek to have an odd number of members.

7. Whenever these bylaws refer to the consent of the citizens of Taijitu a vote must be held for at least one week. Forum membership may be a requirement to vote.

8. Each Founder must promise to follow these bylaws.

9. Each Founder must make themselves available to each Senate during its term.

urgh that did clarify plenty as in I have no idea what you have clarified.

I have addressed some issues specifically:
1) why not set a specific number of 5 founders
2) why approve a new founder if all 5 are well, true to the region and active - so to speak why add a founder unless one or more is expelled. if you add a founder to already existing 5 you'd actually need to add two of them to keep them at an odd number.
3) explain point 5, 7 and 8: what bylaws?! point 2 states that the founders will decide on rules and mechanisms of the founder committee by a majority vote. passing a bylaw (in my non-native understanding a bylaw is an internal procedure of the founder committee) that needs the consent of the citizens? urgh. I understand the committee might want to address the citizens when deciding on an important issue but I was under the impression we have THIS when we need to do such. Each founder must promise to follow them bylaws? What's the point of that since we're speaking about internal regulations of a body that will expel its members if they do not follow the internal regulations?

[Eluvatar]

urgh that did clarify plenty as in I have no idea what you have clarified.

I have addressed some issues specifically:
1) why not set a specific number of 5 founders

I did not want to bind ourselves for the future if it was not necessary.

We could change things, and then require the Founders to accept some Founder selected by the citizens if they expel a Founder. I just thought a somewhat flexible system would be better.

2) why approve a new founder if all 5 are well, true to the region and active - so to speak why add a founder unless one or more is expelled. if you add a founder to already existing 5 you'd actually need to add two of them to keep them at an odd number.

At five yes the bylaws would require the addition to be followed by another addition. I expected this clause to be used to replace Founders that go completely inactive and unreachable, mainly.

3) explain point 5, 7 and 8: what bylaws?! point 2 states that the founders will decide on rules and mechanisms of the founder committee by a majority vote. passing a bylaw (in my non-native understanding a bylaw is an internal procedure of the founder committee) that needs the consent of the citizens? urgh. I understand the committee might want to address the citizens when deciding on an important issue but I was under the impression we have THIS when we need to do such. Each founder must promise to follow them bylaws? What's the point of that since we're speaking about internal regulations of a body that will expel its members if they do not follow the internal regulations?

This document is the bylaws. It has rules for amending itself. As the bylaws specify how the Committee gets citizen oversight, we can't let the Committee amend its bylaws without the consent of the citizens. The bylaws are not simply an agreement between the Founders; they are an agreement between the founders and the citizens.

The internal regulations on access to the Founder nation are not part of the bylaws and are not subject to citizen involvement.

[PoD Gunner]

Hehe thanks for the key, I understand it now.

I'd like to discuss only

5. The Founders may amend these bylaws by unanimous consent of the Founders with the consent of the citizens.

i propose we turn into

5. The Founders may amend these bylaws by unanimous consent of the Founders.

. Having the citizens consent on the Founders changing the bylaws as long as the TFT is not checked upon by the citizens might sound like a democratic provision but it will never happen. I'd rather we're honest about it.

number 7 sounds kinda odd to me but I think I understand what you mean to do by that. At the moment the only case when the consent of the citizens is needed is when choosing a new founder and then it's not really a consent but more a consultation since it will only happen when replacing an expelled founder is needed. I'm still not sure why we're leaving this loop-hole open but its easy controllable so I don't mind. One week is a fair amount of time to have the Founders get the feed-back of the citizen on major consultation issues. I think it's safe to leave it like that.

We should perhaps include a clause about not celebrating new Harry Potter issues the way we used to. 

[Eluvatar]

Except it's structured that TFC approves a founder selected by the citizens, not the other way around.

In addition, under these bylaws the Founders agree to be subject to the Court. Yes there is a condition for them to ignore it if they think it is overreaching, but that's a much more limited use for founder unanimity than founder unanimity being able to rewrite these bylaws entirely.

These bylaws make the Founders agree to abide by laws enacted by the Government unless they are enforced in an "arbitrary or capricious" manner. I think it is fundamental to these bylaws that the Founders should not be able to change their mind about this agreement unilaterally.

[PoD Gunner]

Hm. Ok, I guess its a matter of bending it the right way whenever necessary. Glad to see you finally adopt TFC
It's a go from my pov.

[Eluvatar]

I will begin a referendum on these bylaws soon.

[PoD Gunner]

I hate that word. Great! Good to see the other founders participating in this furious debate 

[Gulliver]

I have nothing to say D:

[PoD Gunner]

  I didn't mean you. You were interested from the beginning, you even called the wonderful product of my sublime intellect "awfully wordy"  

[Zimmerwald]

...why did the Founder CTE?

[Corgi]

I saw that.  A wee bit disconcerting.

[Eluvatar]

SORRY I'm on it

[Gulliver]

Oh dear this is not an auspicious start to your term as delegate. Though, it's a bit odd, since I don't seem to have gotten an email about the looming apocalypse, which I really should have, the forwarding worked fine when we tested it before. Anyway, I should hope that this'll be a prompt to resolve this finally. Starting this evening if possible. Immediately.

[Eluvatar]

The nation is revived, apocalypse emailing is now set, and all that jazz.

Also I am immediately beginning a vote on this.