nsx

Moved by nsx and seconded by SkiAdcock:
This vote will close on Mar 18, 2011 at 11:40 AM Pacific Time or after all TalkBoard members have registered their vote, whichever comes first.

B747-437B

Great job nsx!

Thank you for listening to the concerns and acting to resolve them.

^^^

SkiAdcock

Potato - potatoe. Tomato - tomatoe. It's basically the same process that currently exists, but at least now any Prez who unexpectedly comes into the role won't have arrows flung at him/her because it's now formalized they are the Prez. Shrug.

Cheers.

B747-437B

You obviously fail to see the point. Just because Spiff came to power via that process does not mean that that process "currently exists". The procedure does not "exist" until it is codified. Spiff may occupy the office (indeed, he legitimately serves as the "Acting President" anyway with all powers and responsibilities of the office) but holds no moral authority as substantive President until this resolution passes.

And the arrows being flung at Spiff are not because of any problem with him personally, but rather because he has still not bothered to take time out of his busy schedule to respond to those of us who raised the issue either privately or publicly. That arrogance is a poor reflection on the office of the President.

SkiAdcock

Potato - potatoe on your first paragraph. I see the point. I don't necessarily agree w/ it. To me it's basically the same process/action. The current acting Prez does hold substantative once he switched up IMO because the guidelines never said otherwise. Now it's just formalized (presuming this passes) so there's no more of the illegitimate crap being slung around in future should the (presumably rare) situation ever occur again.

Actually you flung the arrows up front so lack of response after you flung them neither makes them valid nor makes a lack of response arrogant. I actually took it as a not wanting to get into a mudslinging fest.

Cheers.

cblaisd

For an American history analogy, President Tyler took the same approach in 1841, thank goodness.

B747-437B

If that's the best reason you can come up with, I'm even more grateful this is being codified.

SkiAdcock

The guidelines then & now will pretty much be the same, so it's not like there's a big difference.

Just some that threw out the illegitimate stuff (which I thought was pretty tacky) will now have to find something else to complain about

This is purely administrative. 'Nuf said.

Cheers.

B747-437B

The fact that the change needed to be made simply proves the point that there was a deficiency to begin with. You may dislike the fact that it was challenged as illegitimate, but that doesn't legitimize it.

cblaisd

^

Not to mention a solution in search of an actual problem.

kokonutz

There was an oversight in the guidelines. As the primary drafter of the guidelines I freely admit this. Jenbel, as my primary devil's advocate during the drafting the guidelines admits she missed it too.

We screwed up, the entire TB who drafted and approve the guidelines screwed up. You guys are fixing it.

B747-437B is correct, under the current guidelines Spiffy is Acting President. And nsx's position is illegitimate. Had I been on the TB when these illegitimate decisions were taken I would have protested. I watched them happen but was traveling and so didn't have the time or energy to protest.

But for future reference, the TB should NOT be making up rules on the fly or fudging 'interpretations' to cover problems with the rules. That's bad precedent. When a problem with the rules are found, the formal procedure for correcting the rules should be followed, imho, natch.

gleff

Spiff became TalkBoard President precisely following the rules in place at the time, "with all the rights, privileges and powers as if he had been the duly elected President."

There was no written discussion of filling a vacancy in the VP position. So it was handled exactly as any other TalkBoard issue is handled, including the creation of the TalkBaord guidelines and hte amending of those guidelines -- by supermajority vote of the TalkBoard.

And only the Host (was this amended to say Community Director? I haven't followed changes since I've stepped off the TalkBoard) can declare something "unconstitutional."

Rabble rousing over administrivia notwithstanding, we had a remarkable, peaceful transition of power. Rare in the world these days, actually ^

kokonutz

Lol, that's exactly what one would expect the former President-for-life to say.

But you qouted the TB guidelines very selectively. Here is what they currently say:

Now, you could make the case that Spiff was within his powers as acting President to call an election for the VP/Secretary because there was a lack of clarity regarding electing a VP/Secretary...except that there IS clarity regarding the elelction of both the President AND the VP/Secretary:

So it is clearly written that the only time an election for a VP could be called is after the election of a new President which can only happen no later than 4 weeks after the general election.

The thing is, my former lord and President-for-life, we never contemplated that you'd quit (or die, for that matter! ) half-way through a term. So we never provided for it. And I guess we assumed if a VP/Secretary quit or died halfway through a term the Prez would do his or her job.

So by the terms of the TB guidelines as they stand today, Spiff is technically the acting President, and the acting President conducted an illegitimate election of a new VP/Secretary.

I'm glad that nsx and SkiAdcock (and hopefully the rest of the TB) are fixing this mess we left in the guidelines now, but I would have preferred if the acting President had worked to fix the rules before conducting the election of a new VP/Secretary rather than simply ignoring them. And I wish that someone on the TB had objected to the violation of the rules by the acting President. Had I still been on the TB I certainly would have.

gleff

No,m actually I quoted the relevant piece of the guidelines that folks were selectively ignoring in order to make their case above....

The word 'acting' is in there. But the language very clearly says that the acting President is to be treated and afforded all power and authority as though s/he had been elected.

No illegitimacy whatsoever in the TB VP assuming the role of President. Period. No grey area at all. It's what the guidelines say.

Meanwhile, as departing TB President the former President did provide guidance on this point as called for by the guidelines. And the Host/Community Director was consulted.

All in accordance with the guidelines.

So it's not really surprising that your argument now collapses to the VP election was somehow illegitimate.

Except once we establish above that Spiff ought to be accorded all of the pwoers as though he had been duly elected, he's acting well within the guidelines.

And regardless, the TalkBoard itself was taking action based on 2/3rds majority, which is the fundamental source even of the guidelines themselves.

No, it proscribes that such an election shall take place at that time. It does not say that it is the only time such an election may take place. It does not say any other election is illegitimate. The guidelines are simply silent on the point, hence reverting to the previous pwoers and discussion in the event of ambiguity.

If it were otherwise then you would have to contend that being a day late at the beginning of a term would mean the TalkBoard could not have a VP for that term...

nsx

I wouldn't expect a former President-for-life to say anything...

...not if he was really President for life!
.