Okay, folks, here it is! Your one-stop all-viewpoints-included thread for the Storting Reformation Amendment Act goodness
I'll be drafting something up in the immediate future (not today) to rectify what I think most people perceive as the flaws in the current Act, but what I shall do before that is group together the complaints a lot of people seem to share about how it is now.
1) The OA has no provision for a trust or probationary period before new citizens are allowed freedom within it to do and vote as they please. This came up in the original discussions, and was cast aside as not important, but I've seen others raise it again since. A simple trial period of a week before gaining full voting rights (can still be involved in the discussions) would serve easily to get around this.New suggestion: minimum post count requirement of around 15 posts before new members gain voting privileges in the OA - this is more a activity test than a security one but might lay some fears to rest.
2) Tyranny of the Majority. This came up in the IRC several times and is what spurred me to post in the ratification thread about voting NAY to sort out the issues we obviously still have with the Bill in its current form. One thing I suggested in the IRC as a response to this was a requirement for a certain period of debate (much as the UH has the 48 hr period) - say, a week or 5 days. This avoids the potential pitfall of the appearance of total support for a Bill and then a swift passage before someone can point out flaws or raise concerns.
During this timeframe, someone or someones should play Devil's Advocate and point out flaws or areas for improvement. This is to encourage a more critical eye when looking over legislation and ensure that in the future no Bill passes without first having been improved and revised to a higher standard. There is, after all, ALWAYS room for improvement.
The suggestion for a majority vote was somewhere between 65% and 70% of those voting, so we'd need to decide on which of those we want to implement. This is for passing legislation, not Veto.
3) The Veto. None of us really have a problem - or at least most of us don't - with Mootles having the veto, but perhaps a 2/3rd majority? And do we want someone or someones to hold an alternate veto power? Perhaps something like the Cabinet (or Officers in the new OA) who's duty it is to NOT VOTE on legislative matters but to hold a veto power in case it might be needed. Mootles would veto based on if it would damage the region, the Commission would veto more based on errors that might create loopholes etc that might have been missed.
This brings a little element of bicameralism back into the system, but if this Commission or whatever it ends up being called is elected via Officer Term periods then I think it could work and provide a minor incentive for people to be involved.
4) Abstaining. It's become clear that a simple "ABSTAIN" vote doesn't work in the contexts of ratifying such a colossal change to our legislative structure, and this raises issues with how it might work (or not work) in the future.
I propose, and I'm open to suggestion here, adopting @tatte's understanding of how Abstain votes work (posted here) and a change from Abstain to Abstain: Not Voting and Abstain: Neutral to allow greater understanding for the reasons behind people's abstentions. This is by no means perfect, but I'm sure between us we can all work it out.This is being dealt with by the current UH, and any changes made therein will reflect forwards onto the eventual procedural rules of an Open Assembly.
5) The role of Officers. Again, this came up on the IRC: what exactly would Officers do? I understand that the presiding officer would replace the Speaker, but the OA has the power to create new Offices and Officers. What sort of thing would they do? A Whip Officer has been suggested in order to secure as many votes on proposals as possible, as has a "Loyal Opposition" position (for Devil's Advocacy).
EDIT:
6) Procedural Rules / Code of Conduct. This seems to be widely accepted as conventional wisdom, but in order to avoid any flaming or overly boisterous debate a CoC should be included in the Procedural Rules. Ideas welcome as to what sort of behaviour should be frowned upon (NOT BANNED, we don't ban anything beyond actually illegal stuff, AFAIK) and what sort of punishments the OA can met out for breaking it.
As for Procedural Rules, getting them into the FL will prevent any changing of voting practice/behavioural expectations on a whim, not saying it would happen but it's best to be safe.This seems to be widely regarded as redundant, as we could legislate Procedural Rules into existence with an inbuilt supermajority requirement to avoid needless rules-editing.
What this Bill isn't supposed to achieve is boosting activity. What it IS supposed to achieve is a system of legislation that we can ALL support. I know there are some against you who are against open assemblies on principle, so please use this thread as a place of discussion for why that might be and ideas on how to get around those pitfalls and improve the Wintrean system as much as possible
Fire away, everyone! I'll edit this every day to include other areas we think could be improved, and then work them into a new draft of the Open Assembly bill within a few days
EDIT: Also, for future reference - amendments should contain the Law as it stands now and the Law as it will be changed to. This helps us keep track of what has and hasn't changed, and is generally good practice.
