[Thork]

It seems we have overlooked this. I guess its setting out our roles and responsibilities and the intentions of the society.

Rather than have me just type one out and people nod and call it a day, I suggest people below add things they think should go into it. We'll then discuss the suggestions and finalise something we can be proud of.

I'll add stuff shortly, but I'd like to see what others include first, so I'm not too overbearing in my imput.

We will need to include rules of voting on edicts, membership to the council, elections, objectives of the council and possibly some performance indicators to make sure we are doing a good job.

[Tau]

Constitutional Amendments

First should be a way for non-council members to oppose parts of the constitution. As I've said, I'm a bit uncomfortable with giving ourselves absolute power. Not everyone should have the ability to suggest changes, of course, for obvious reasons.

Thus, one of our jobs should be to keep and maintain a list of people who are actual members of the society. This, I suppose, goes into Tom's thread about taking members. I guess we have a reason to do that now.

Official members will have the ability to run for council positions during elections, oppose council decisions (with a majority vote),  suggest issues to the council, and propose constitutional amendments. They should get their own board, as well, I think. Maybe make it private too. Might as well have a board where regulars can hang out and say whatever we want.

Also, let's format the posts like this, with the proposed addition to the constitution bolded at the top. Just makes it easier to browse.

[Tau]

Publicity

We should, of course, be expected to spread FET. We should have a responsibility to respond to significant events related to the society (for example, when politicians make Flat Earth Society jokes) as we deem fit, and to interact with the press on a semi-regular basis. We should also be expected to update the Society blog that Parsifal says exists.

[Thork]

Constitutional Amendments

First should be a way for non-council members to oppose parts of the constitution.

Why? They voted us to run the society so they didn't have to get involved in the clusterth*rk that is making any decision on a public forum.

As I've said, I'm a bit uncomfortable with giving ourselves absolute power.

You were voted into a position of power.

Not everyone should have the ability to suggest changes, of course, for obvious reasons.

So now you want to pick people who will share your ideologies anyway.

This, I suppose, goes into Tom's thread about taking members. I guess we have a reason to do that now.

No. we already voted to put that on hold until the society gained momentum. The problem with memberships is that you need to give something in return, be it a membership pack or a certificate or a T-shirt and to do that, you need to take people's money. Hence the reason we decided we could not give value for money in a society with so little public recognition at this point.

They should get their own board, as well, I think. Maybe make it private too. Might as well have a board where regulars can hang out and say whatever we want.

What is this nonsense? The society voted 5 people to make decisions. Not to go back and ask permission every time something comes up. There is an S&C bored if people on the forum want to make a suggestion.

Lets draft a constitution and have the 5 of us decide if its reasonable. That's what we are voted in to do. Run the society. So lets run it and stop worrying about asking absolutely everybody all the time.

[Tau]

Official Members

Goes into what I said before. If a member gets a majority vote from the council, they become an official member. Official members will have access to a hidden board and have the ability to nominate others for official membership, run for council positions during elections, oppose council decisions (with a majority vote), suggest issues to the council, and propose constitutional amendments.

______

We can hold off on making the official members, if you'd rather. But they have to exist eventually, and deciding what the point of them is might as well be part of the constitution. If all being an official member gets you is a poster, there's no point in having them at all. What's so terrible about making a specific list of people that are allowed to complain and run for office? It gives us the ability to officially ignore the angry noobs when they do it.

[Thork]

I absolutely hate that.

Membership should be up to those who want to join. Not an exclusive club of our mates.

And no. We don't need members constantly trying to change the constitution. S&C is a place for suggestions. If it gets enough support in the general forum, we can discuss it here.

Why are you trying to complicate this and involve so many people?

Lets draft a constitution, agree amongst ourselves and issue it. If the peanut gallery all hate a particular aspect, we can revisit it.

[Roundy]

I'm with Thork.  I'm uncomfortable with the whole idea.

[Tau]

Okay. But what about when The Knowledge wants to become an official member? Or EJ, for that matter? Should there be any restrictions whatsoever?

[Roundy]

I'm not sure I see why there should be.  Perhaps we can cut the line at someone like EJ, whose sole purpose of existence is to frustrate until the next time he's banned.

[Thork]

Okay. But what about when The Knowledge wants to join? Or EJ, for that matter? Should there be any restrictions whatsoever?

So what if they want to join? Why are you trying to exclude people who want to be here? I'd like to get rid of Markjo. Crudblud would like to get rid of me. Before long there will be no one left. FES has and always should be inclusive and tolerant.

[Roundy]

Thork is also correct in that we already have a forum in place for members who want to criticize the way we're doing things.  I think we should avoid unnecessarily complicating things.

[Tau]

Okay, then. What, exactly, should the point of official membership be then? What separates official membership from regular membership?

[Roundy]

Being willing to pay money to get the official badge?  I don't know, why do we need "official" members?

[Thork]

Forget membership for now. We have already decided its not the right time. We can revisit when we do.


So first suggestion for the constitution and subject to vote.

Any and all persons wishing to be a part of The Flat Earth Society may do so, subject to adherence to the forum rules as drafted by the forum administration.

Excellent. Lets write more.

[Tau]

So first suggestion for the constitution and subject to vote.

Any and all persons wishing to be a part of The Flat Earth Society may do so, subject to adherence to the forum rules as drafted by the forum administration.

Excellent. Lets write more.

Sounds good to me.

Forget membership for now. We have already decided its not the right time. We can revisit when we do.

In that case, we have to have a clause for adding to the constitution.

Upon a majority vote by the zetetic council, amendments may be made to this constitution

[Thork]

Super. Lets call them amendments instead of changes.

[Tau]

Super. Lets call them amendments instead of changes.

This has been amended.
__

Let's talk about the council. How long should our terms in office be, for one? I suggest Tom (president) gets a year, Thork and Roundy (upper council, or something) get 9 months, and myself and Secret User (lower council?) get 6 months. That sound decent?

[Roundy]

When was such a hierarchy ever established for council members?

I think the neighborhood of six months to a year is a fine length of term.

[Tau]

When was such a hierarchy ever established for council members?

I think the neighborhood of six months to a year is a fine length of term.

It wasn't. I'm suggesting it, right now. Tom was voted in pretty much unanimously, whereas Secret User and I won by slight majorities. It doesn't make any sense to me to give us both the same term in office.

[Thork]

Yeah, I'm not more important than other members and Tom is no more important than me. We all carry a single vote.

Personally I think I'll probably step down when I think a fresh face could be more useful than me.

I suspect other users may post less and become a burden for voting purposes.

This is a bit more complicated and needs attention. I suggest some kind of revote for a new member if someone misses a set amount of votes or is not present for a given time period.

Maybe if all 4 of the other members decide someone is not pulling their weight or is largely unhelpful or there are just better candidates to call upon, 4 votes would be enough to dispatch them from the council? That saves detail.