CZ Talk:Editorial Council Resolution 0012

Richard wrote in the "Amendments" section:

I move the word "inactive" be changed to "advisory". Richard Jensen 16:57, 30 June 2008 (CDT)

You're free to do so, but this isn't the place where you do it. You make motions on the mailing list. Moreover, unless I'm mistaken, you cannot make motions until after the initial discussion period is concluded. (This is explained in our rules, if you're interested.)

I would oppose the amendment. These people are not advisors to us, for the most part, so that too would be dishonest. --Larry Sanger 21:21, 30 June 2008 (CDT)

All the editors help CZ right now now matter how many little edits they make on pages. They are a strong group of experts and we need such people to legitimize CZ as an intellectual enterprise worthy of attracting such people; to hassle them is not the way to win their stamp of approval. Richard Jensen 21:30, 30 June 2008 (CDT)

as for the procedures regarding amendments, Larry is wrong about the sequence of timing being explicit in the rules. However the rules do state "1 Before any resolution is made, it is preferable to discuss it among the larger community." -- that provision seems to have been violated in this case. Richard Jensen 21:44, 30 June 2008 (CDT)

It is no "hassle" to be informed that you are being placed on a list of inactive editors. As "Inactive Editors" they will still be editors and have the rights of editors. But if they want the honor of being listed among our main editors, they will have to participate. This is an active community of collaborators, not a traditionally edited project. Since people come and go at their own will, it is important that we maintain current records of who actually is participating, in much the same way that a coach might keep a current roster of who is playing for the team.

"It is preferable" does not mean "You must," of course. Not every issue that comes before the Council needs to be discussed in depth first with the community at large.

Finally, as to your claim, "as for the procedures regarding amendments, Larry is wrong about the sequence of timing being explicit in the rules." For one thing, the resolution hadn't even been accepted onto the agenda. Therefore, it was not even of a status that it could be amended: a resolution becomes a resolution officially recognized by the Council only when added to the Agenda. It probably isn't explicit in the rules that amendments and other motions cannot be made about resolution before private discussion, but it would not seem to be in good order to privilege a motion to amend over the initial motion to adopt a particular resolution. We ought to have an initial discussion period about the resolution I made, and then about your version. The proper procedure would seem to be for you to introduce your concerns and suggestions in that initial comment period, and then make your amendment motion once we're in the main discussion period.

Finally, I believe you might get more satisfaction and cooperation, if you were to make suggestions rather than pressing your case as aggressively as possible. --Larry Sanger 22:42, 30 June 2008 (CDT)

Calling senior people "inactive" is a useless insult--especially if the gaol is " more satisfaction and cooperation". The proposal is poorly phrased and not well thought out--due in part from its surprise landing here in violation of the #1 recommendation on the rules page to have informal discussions ahead of time. The idea of shaming scholars into doing little edits won't wash in the academic world. Losing credible editorial board people risks a reduction in the credibility of CZ among scholars, for the trivial gain of a few edits. I made a good faith effort to rescue the proposal by a simple amendment that Larry aggressively rejects. Richard Jensen 23:18, 30 June 2008 (CDT)

Richard, I'm afraid I can't respond to every detail without engaging in pretty much useless rhetorical jousting. But I would like to say that our roster of editors does not constitute an "editorial board," not in name, function, or reputation. Moreover, the point of the resolution is better stated as not "shaming" but as making our list of editors reflect reality. If someone has, for instance, virtually forgotten that he is even a CZ editor, which I'm sure is true of a number of our editors, it is not appropriate that we imply that he really has anything to do with the project anymore. We are not about "collecting names." --Larry Sanger 23:31, 30 June 2008 (CDT)

the resolution is poorly formed because the preamble "Whereas, Editorship of the Citizendium should mean something more than that someone has set up an account here;" is false. In fact all the editors have gone through a vetting process.It in reality means more than "someone has set up an account here." Richard Jensen 23:47, 30 June 2008 (CDT)