CZ Talk:Charter/Archive 3

CZ Talk:Charter

Current talk page

none (to start Archive 1)

This page is dedicated to drafting a charter for Citizendium and should only be edited by those eight Citizens elected to the drafting Committee. The talk page is also reserved for them to discuss the evolution of the document. Other Citizens, please comment on the dedicated thread at the Citizen Forum. Non-Citizens can comment in a separate thread at the non-Member Forum.

This is the final version of the document drafted by the Charter drafting Committee. It shall be subject to a public vote.

Auxiliary pages

The following subpages of this page have been set up to help the drafting process. The same editing restrictions as to this page apply there unless noted otherwise.

Archives	· Brainstorm	· Drafting procedures	· Scope and structure of the charter	· Things to address but not in charter	· Definitions	· Ecology-Economy	· Feedback	· Editors, authors, and approval

The final discussions for each Article are also available.

Alternative views of Charter language

Speaking for myself, I am strongly opposed to having the position of Editor-in-Chief, although I would like to create the honored position for Larry alone of Founder and Editor-in-Chief Emeritus. Essentially, I see content dispute resolution, beyond the simple Editor level, handled by the Workgroup, then the Ombudsman, then a "quick decider" rotating from the Editorial Council, and then the full Editorial Council. There is much discussion of the rationale in the talk archives.

So as not to clutter this page unnecessarily, see more detailed text at User: Howard C. Berkowitz/C4. --Howard C. Berkowitz 17:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Interim guidance

Interim guidance may be repealed once the appropriate Body is in place, without Charter amendment

• All pseudonym accounts will be closed one month after ratification. Citizens may reapply under their own names. (Oversight: MC)
• Until the Editorial Council is elected, a temporary Managing Editor may be elected to make quick content decisions. The EC may choose to name such additional representatives, subordinate to the EC, if they find the rota system infeasible. (Oversight: EC). --Howard C. Berkowitz 17:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

How to keep track of things to change

In the forum discussions and elsewhere, a number of suggestions have come up that are likely to be reflected in further revisions of the draft, but we have no mechanism yet on how to keep track of these items. To this end, I will start a list of forum posts below which contain concrete suggestions for changes. I hope we can soon turn this into something more structured than a list (I would prefer a table which allows to highlight the concrete proposed changes, and for others to express YES/ NO/ ABSTAIN). --Daniel Mietchen 22:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• the Feedback page
• Milton's review of the Charter draft
• Peter's review of the Charter draft
• precautions for somebody stepping down from a function described in the Charter

Correction to headings

While I still do not support the concept of an editor-in-chief, I have changed the heading level of that entry so it is clearly subordinate to the Editorial Council. --Howard C. Berkowitz 04:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Our versions

I suggest that we each come up with our own versions with this same format and we meld them all. D. Matt Innis 19:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Matt's suggested version

I strongly oppose this individualist idea. We vote on the current draft and amend it accordingly, otherwise I am out of here. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 17:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't disagree, Martin. When I went through the exercise of mine, I found two basic things:

• It was possible to lower-case-edit the structure, reduce the number of headings, and clean up some duplicate or ambiguous text
• The real disagreements are in governance. By and large, the objections I've heard about membership and such are mostly due to lack of standardization in wording and could be easily fixed. If we focus on the substantive diagreements in discussion, and, I think, have ONE person at a time making the changes to the master text, this will go a lot more smoothly — oh, anyone can fix typos, but no one should be making format changes, major text moves, etc., without prior discussion/ --Howard C. Berkowitz 18:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)