Ratification poll for CoS Section Q - Amending the CoS

[ravensfire]

Shall we ratify the following as a section of the Code of Standards?

Q.  Amending the Code of Standards
  1. Polls to amend the Code of Standarsd shall be posted by the Judiciary
     upon succesful completion of a Judicial Review.
  2. Polls are to be in anonymous responder format (standard Forum 
     poll option). and follow the standard Forum Poll procedures.
    A.  Proposal must be in Yes/No/Abstain format. 
    B.  Polls will stay open until: 
      1.  All votes have been cast, or; 
      3.  The posted poll closing time has been reached. 
        1.  Minimum duration to run a poll is 48 hours. 
    C.  There is no quorum to amend the Code of Standards
    D.  A simple majority of support is required to adopt or alter a standard.

Relevant Discussion
Amending the CoS

Please vote as follows:
Yes
No
Abstain

This poll shall run for 4 days.

-- Ravensfire

 

[DaveShack]

I find this section troubling, and feel I have messed up by not continuing to focus on the remaining sections of the rules...

As written, the only way to amend the CoS is via a Judicial Review? That doesn't seem reasonable at all, how does a JR fit into it? A citizen should be able to propose a CoS amendment in a discussion, wait until the discussion dies down to post a poll, and voila, a new law is born.

 

[ravensfire]

Daveshack,

Remember that there are TWO types of Judicial Reviews. The first, and the one we have become far to familiar with, is the review of existing laws.

The second, which also applies to the Code of Laws, is the review of proposed legislation. If you'll review the law about it, the JR is to ensure that the proposed law does not conflict with current law.

That's it. It's a check to make sure that nothing was missed.

I wish you had commented on this earlier.

-- Ravensfire

 

[DaveShack]

OK, I can support that. A statement before Q.1 to the effect that "any citizen may propose an amendment by submitting the proposal as a request for judicial review" would have avoided the misconception, for those who haven't followed the rule making process closely.

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by DaveShack
OK, I can support that. A statement before Q.1 to the effect that "any citizen may propose an amendment by submitting the proposal as a request for judicial review" would have avoided the misconception, for those who haven't followed the rule making process closely.

Yeah, it could be a bit clearer. Both the CoL and CoS sections on amendments read the same. You almost need to read both of those AND the CoS section on JR's for proposed laws. Too much!

Two things to add to cleanup list, plus highlighting the need for a FAQ on the laws. Never thought we'd need that! But, there's never a good solution. If we tried to cover everything in the laws themselves, the length would probably double and the potential for inconsistencies would skyrocket.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other, and complaints all around! Someone remind me of this when we start this for DG5, please?

-- Ravensfire