Template:CharterVote2/2/Discussion

< RETURN TO THE MAIN PAGE

I'm thinking that if we give the Management Council the right to decide who a Citizen is (without limiting that power), it may be too easy for them to vote out people like Scientologists without having to change the charter. Then the next thing you know it will be homeopaths, then chiropractors :). I'm suggesting that we only have numbers 2 and 3 as requirements for citizenship. D. Matt Innis 19:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

At this point we should delineate the rights of citizens. No citizen shall have their use of the site blocked or terminated on the basis of their nationality, race, religion, creed, gender, profession, education, residence, age (but see the saving clause wherein we should state that except where barred or limited by local law, the terms of this charter shall be enforced to the greatest degree possible), etc.

But I do think it important that we assign responsibility to the MC for enrolling new members. Of course, real names and agreement to the charter are perfectly acceptable. Jones 20:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that works for me. I can agree to that. D. Matt Innis 20:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Jones (No Citizen shall...). That's what Article 3 should be doing but doesn't do. Just fix the agreement between the singular noun and the plural pronoun. ;-) --Joe Quick 00:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Citizenship shall be open to anyone who meets a few basic conditions as defined by the Management Council, registers and contributes under his or her real name and agrees to the Citizendium's fundamental principles as defined by this Charter.

Citizens shall not have their application to join or their use of the site blocked or terminated, nor shall any dispute be resolved, nor shall any official or council of the Citizendium discriminate in favor or against Citizens (except to the degree that such discrimination promotes editorial expertise) on the basis of their nationality, ethnicity, race, religion, creed, gender, sexuality, profession, education, residence, age, name, or URL.

Are there any others? What about CZ status? Aside from deferring to expertise, shall we permit bodies to discriminate against authors in favor of editors? Having bars against discrimination on the basis of profession and education may interfere with the promotion of expertise. Russell D. Jones 15:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Politics or political affiliation. I like this formulation. -Joe Quick 18:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

To me, the second sentence in Russell's suggestion is too ambiguous (for instance, it could be read as "Citizens shall not have their application to join or their use of the site blocked or terminated.") and should be broken up in to smaller pieces. --Daniel Mietchen 20:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Please make a suggestion. Russell D. Jones 20:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Also I want the real-names' clause back in. Russell D. Jones 11:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• I agree to Jones' version with the real names in it as well. I think Jones' version is pretty unambiguous really. It says a lot and it says exactly what we want. I don't need it broken up, but I'll listen to alternatives. D. Matt Innis 12:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The real names are in the preamble, so I am not sure we need them here again. But if you think so, I will go along. Also not sure whether we can consider the "fundamental principles" (a phrasing from very early on in the drafting process) to be defined in the Charter now. Furthermore, legal limits like minimal age for participation in online platforms are now covered by Article 41. As for simplifying, here is a try:

Citizenship shall be open to anyone who fulfills the basic conditions as defined by the Management Council and agrees to the policy principles defined by this Charter.

Citizens shall not have their application to join or their use of the site blocked or terminated on the basis of their nationality, ethnicity, race, religion, creed, gender, sexuality, profession, education, residence, age, name, or URL. Nor shall any official or governing body of the Citizendium discriminate in favor or against Citizens (except to the degree that such discrimination promotes editorial expertise), or any dispute resolved, on the basis of any of these criteria.

Probably needs further brushing but should be easier to parse than the previous version. --Daniel Mietchen 19:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. D. Matt Innis 19:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

After another look, I would prefer to keep

Citizenship shall be open to anyone who fulfills the basic conditions as defined by the Management Council and agrees to the policy principles defined by this Charter.

for article 2 and to move

Citizens shall not have their application to join or their use of the site blocked or terminated on the basis of their nationality, ethnicity, race, religion, creed, gender, sexuality, profession, education, residence, age, name, or URL. Nor shall any official or governing body of the Citizendium discriminate in favor or against Citizens (except to the degree that such discrimination promotes editorial expertise), or any dispute resolved, on the basis of any of these criteria.

to article 3. --Daniel Mietchen 22:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Do it. D. Matt Innis 00:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

<undent>
Here's a revision with the real names back in. There was a long debate in U.S. legal history about whether or not the Preamble to the Constitution was part of the Constitution or not. I'd rather not have that debate at CZ. Better to be clear and redundant. Russell D. Jones 00:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Citizenship shall be open to anyone who fulfills the basic conditions for participation as defined by the Management Council—including registering according to the real names policy—and agrees to the policy principles defined abide by this Charter.

Agree. --Russell D. Jones 00:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll think about it if you come up with a better word than 'opening'. We've already used register. D. Matt Innis 01:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

How's that? Russell D. Jones 02:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

too easy D. Matt Innis 02:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. D. Matt Innis 02:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Joe Quick 15:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

If there is ambiguity as to whether the preamble is part of the Charter or not, we can resolve the matter easily by making it explicit. Do we need a preamble if it is not binding? What about simply renaming the current preamble into article 1 (or even 0) of the Charter? Otherwise, I agree to the text (have inserted mdashes). --Daniel Mietchen 10:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm okay with either suggestion (except "article 0"). We can assign a number during re-numbering. Russell D. Jones 11:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. I'd rather not have a non-charter Preamble -- let's make it Article 1. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I like our preamble as a preamble. It doesn't have to be enforceable because all of the points are mentioned elsewhere (including here). I can see journalists using it as a new tag line for us: "The Citizendium is a collaborative effort to collect, structure, and cultivate knowledge and to render it conveniently accessible to the public for free. It is built online by volunteers who contribute under their real names and agree to a social covenant centered around trust." If we make it Article 1, it doesn't seem right. D. Matt Innis 00:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Matt. I think of the preamble as a mission statement, which is expanded and given life by the charter that follows. -Joe Quick 15:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)