Citco Reform Proposal

[Manson]

Hey y'all. Recently, LR resigned from the Citco, that got me thinking. What if there were five seats on the Citco? It would be a lot more efficient. It would be still be simple majority, and how likely is it that the majority of councillors are inactive? Applications would be processed extremely faster. Let me write up a draft.

The original text:

Article 7: The Citizenship Council
A: The Citizenship Council shall be composed of three Councillors.
B: One Councillor shall be appointed by the Delegate and one by the Officer with the longest continuous tenure as citizen. The manner of selection of the third Councillor shall be prescribed by the Assembly. Each appointment shall be subject to a confirmation in the Assembly, which requires a two-thirds majority vote.
C: Any citizen may initiate a petition calling for the removal of a Councillor. Once such a petition is signed by five citizens, a vote shall be held in the Assembly to remove the Councillor. Removal requires a two-thirds vote.
D: Once appointed, a Councillor shall serve until their resignation, loss of citizenship, removal from office or failure of a reconfirmation vote. A vacancy shall be filled in the same manner as the outgoing Councillor was appointed.
E: Every 1 May, all current Councillors shall be subject to reconfirmation votes. Reconfirmation requires two-thirds majority. If a Councillor is not reconfirmed, the position shall became vacant.
F: The Citizenship Council shall be responsible for the approval of citizenship applications, the retraction of citizenship of individuals who are no longer eligible or pose a security risk, and the maintenance of an active list of citizens.

My first draft:

Article 7: The Citizenship Council
A: The Citizenship Council shall be composed of five Councillors.
B: One Councillor shall be appointed by the Delegate, one by the Officer with the longest continuous tenure as a citizen, and one by this forum's admins as a collective.The fourth Councillor shall be appointed by the current Councillor with the longest continuous tenure as a citizen. The manner of selection of the fifth Councillor shall be prescribed by the Assembly. Each appointment shall be subject to a confirmation in the Assembly, which requires a two-thirds majority vote.
C: Any citizen may initiate a petition calling for the removal of a Councillor. Once such a petition is signed by five citizens, a vote shall be held in the Assembly to remove the Councillor. Removal requires a two-thirds vote.
D: Once appointed, a Councillor shall serve until their resignation, loss of citizenship, removal from office or failure of a reconfirmation vote. A vacancy shall be filled in the same manner as the outgoing Councillor was appointed.
E: Every 1 May, all current Councillors shall be subject to reconfirmation votes. Reconfirmation requires two-thirds majority. If a Councillor is not reconfirmed, the position shall became vacant.
F: The Citizenship Council shall be responsible for the approval of citizenship applications, the retraction of citizenship of individuals who are no longer eligible or pose a security risk, and the maintenance of an active list of citizens.

Let's discuss this.

[Nequedum]

I wouldn't mind, as a way to get more people involved with the region. Maybe with an option to keep at 3 if that's the Delegate's preference.

[Guy]

I'm interested in CitCo reform, but I'm not sure that enlarging the number of seats is necessarily the correct way to go about things for a couple of reasons. First, simple majority only kicks in once a week has elapsed from the moment of application, so it won't necessarily speed things up. We can change the law so that a majority would be sufficient from the moment of application, but I prefer to allow all councillors the chance to respond, rather than whichever three first do. Second, adding more people doesn't necessarily make it more likely that a majority of them would be active at any one moment. Going from 2/3 to 3/5 might be a slight improvement, but that assumes that the additional two people are active.

Personally, I am unsure whether I will seek to remain on the Council following the confirmation vote in two months' time, so it's quite possible that there'll be significant turnover on the Council (at the least relative to its historically stable membership) in the near future. Given that, I'm not sure that it would be a good idea to create two more vacancies to fill.

I do think that we need an admin on CitCo. This has been the case for many years now, and IP/email checks have become the norm: The process will be far less efficient without an admin on. My suggestion would be to convert Frattastan's seat (his was the longest-serving Officer appointment) to an admin appointment.

[frattastan]

Hey y'all. Recently, LR resigned from the Citco, that got me thinking. What if there were five seats on the Citco? It would be a lot more efficient. It would be still be simple majority, and how likely is it that the majority of councillors are inactive?

So you'd still need three different people to perform a background check and agree on the same thing. Got it.

[The Grim Reaper]

Stylistic suggestion:

"B: A Councillor shall be appointed by each of the following manners; 1) by the Delegate, 2) by the Officer with the longest continuous tenure as a citizen, 3) by the forum's admins as a collective, 4) by the current Councillor with the longest continuous tenure as a citizen, and 5) as prescribed by the assembly. Each appointment shall be subject to..."

Re: the problem being solved; councillors X, Y, and Z require a simple majority of two to make decisions, meaning that one person can be absentee. In your proposal, councillors A through E would require a simple majority of three. Whilst it is true that one extra person can be absentee, it also means that one extra person is also required to be /present/, which is also potentially problematic.

To boot, the way by which you achieve this is problematic - firstly, the admins selecting a councillor is ideologically touchy, but more importantly, you use a councillor to select another councillor. This doesn't just concentrate power, it also introduces a potential point of failure. Imagine that the appropriate councillor was to vacate their seat, and the current Councillor with the longest continuous tenure as a citizen is absentee - you now need consensus by the remaining councillors to make decisions. This can be avoided by just not using Councillors to appoint to the Council. It's also an unnecessary investment of power into the concept of longest continuous tenure, which can't really be taken for granted - particularly because it doesn't really cycle. It would defacto represent any hypothetical interests of that councillor twice over as long as they want it to - and if CitCo appointments were totally apolitical and objective, then you could just have that appointment itself be by consensus.

[Spartan Termopylae]

I don't think having 5 people on this would make it any more efficient. In fact i can see it Nabokov less so. I am against this

[wabbitslayah]

I don't think having 5 people on this would make it any more efficient. In fact i can see it Nabokov less so. I am against this

Not if it retains a simple majority. Though that makes a separate arguement of 3 vs 4 or 5.

[Deadeye Jack]

If we truly are looking for a more efficient CitCo, which I'll assume means they mask citizens more quickly from time of application, then I'm not really sure how going up to 5 necessarily helps. Perhaps we should ask the CitCo itself what reforms it thinks would be prudent to help streamline the process.

Barring that though, I feel like reducing the time limit needed for unanimous approval may help things along as long as there is still time to ensure security. Really though I don't know what the effects of that might be so I'd like to see what those currently on CitCo think would help increase efficiency or if it's even worth it or possible to.

I wouldn't mind, as a way to get more people involved with the region. Maybe with an option to keep at 3 if that's the Delegate's preference.

I don't really see how this would get different people involved in the region. Are you saying you'd put a newer citizen on the CitCo?

[Manson]

If we truly are looking for a more efficient CitCo, which I'll assume means they mask citizens more quickly from time of application, then I'm not really sure how going up to 5 necessarily helps. Perhaps we should ask the CitCo itself what reforms it thinks would be prudent to help streamline the process.

Barring that though, I feel like reducing the time limit needed for unanimous approval may help things along as long as there is still time to ensure security. Really though I don't know what the effects of that might be so I'd like to see what those currently on CitCo think would help increase efficiency or if it's even worth it or possible to.

I wouldn't mind, as a way to get more people involved with the region. Maybe with an option to keep at 3 if that's the Delegate's preference.

I don't really see how this would get different people involved in the region. Are you saying you'd put a newer citizen on the CitCo?

I believe he was just saying that with the added councillors citizenship wait time would be reduced, allowing people to get involved a lot quicker.

[Deadeye Jack]

I'm not sure where to post so I'll post it here since this is about amending the CitCo.

Given LR's resignation, is the Citizenship Council empowered to act on applications while his seat is vacant without waiting for 7 days? Logically I would say yes but in the Constitution 7A may outweigh 2C. Meaning since 7A says that CitCo consists of 3 members can a unanimous decision by 2 non vacant seats be considered to pass muster of 2C.

If the CitCo can't act in this transition period would it be worthwhile to amend the constitution to allow them to?

[frattastan]

Given LR's resignation, is the Citizenship Council empowered to act on applications while his seat is vacant without waiting for 7 days? Logically I would say yes but in the Constitution 7A may outweigh 2C. Meaning since 7A says that CitCo consists of 3 members can a unanimous decision by 2 non vacant seats be considered to pass muster of 2C.

I did bring this up with Guy after LR's resignation. His idea was that until the vacant seat is filled the Council consists of two members, so unanimity is by both of us. I agree with that, at least in this specific case.

I think that "unanimous" should be read contextually: approval has to be unanimous because any single Councillor has the power to block an applicant. If two members have approved the application the purpose of waiting up to seven days is to give the third one a chance to look it over and block it if they see a security risk. If there's no third member who could block the application, however, the wait would be pointless (the approval is already effectively "unanimous" because there's no-one else who can veto it - article 7a doesn't enter into it).

[thechurchofsatan]

Jack makes a fair point and I agree with fratt. Rather than add more seats it might be better to modify the time and/or number of votes required to process citizenship applications. Unanimous votes would be preferable in such situations. I don't think it would be prudent to put applications on hold so this suggestion would be, in my opinion better.

[wabbitslayah]

With the nomination of Catalyse, I want to question the usefulness of a CitCo as it is. Would it not be better to just relegate it to admins, since that's basically who are (sans LR) and who will be on it? I don't care about the nomination, but why does the CitCo have to be as it is?

[Deadeye Jack]

I read through some of the Assembly Archives and it appears at one time admins were in charge of citizenship decisions, but Sedge and CG no longer wanted any of that responsibility and so the CitCo in some form was created. I think there could come a time where something similar would happen. And I guess it protects the Citizens of TRR in a small way from an unruly admin. Anyway relevant discussions on the conception of CitCo are below

viewtopic.php?f=97&t=8327610

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/the_rr_ ... t6314.html

[Guy]

The view that I take is that vacant seats don’t count towards the constitutional thresholds for approval/removal. In the absence of a quorum requirement, I’d say that the citco is validly composed of members appointed and confirmed, even if there is only one.

[frattastan]

With the nomination of Catalyse, I want to question the usefulness of a CitCo as it is. Would it not be better to just relegate it to admins, since that's basically who are (sans LR) and who will be on it? I don't care about the nomination, but why does the CitCo have to be as it is?

The main argument is that the CitCo is accountable (you can remove its members with an Assembly vote), which seems better for a body that might take controversial or political decisions such as declaring an IC security risk. If we take a particularly bad decision or are so inactive that we barely check the forum, you can remove us (even if we are admins). If we held the position by virtue of being admins, however, the only form of accountability would be forcing a forum move, which has plenty of downsides associated with it.

Also keep in mind that, even if now it might end up being composed of admins, that's still a temporary situation (since as soon as a member resigns and is removed they may be replaced by any other citizen who is considered qualified for the job). If you change the Constitution to abolish the Council and assign its tasks to the admins that's going to permanent: no recalls or confirmations, no non-admin ever sitting on it again, etc.

[wabbitslayah]

With the nomination of Catalyse, I want to question the usefulness of a CitCo as it is. Would it not be better to just relegate it to admins, since that's basically who are (sans LR) and who will be on it? I don't care about the nomination, but why does the CitCo have to be as it is?

The main argument is that the CitCo is accountable (you can remove its members with an Assembly vote), which seems better for a body that might take controversial or political decisions such as declaring an IC security risk. If we take a particularly bad decision or are so inactive that we barely check the forum, you can remove us (even if we are admins). If we held the position by virtue of being admins, however, the only form of accountability would be forcing a forum move, which has plenty of downsides associated with it.

Also keep in mind that, even if now it might end up being composed of admins, that's still a temporary situation (since as soon as a member resigns and is removed they may be replaced by any other citizen who is considered qualified for the job). If you change the Constitution to abolish the Council and assign its tasks to the admins that's going to permanent: no recalls or confirmations, no non-admin ever sitting on it again, etc.

Well can admins be held accountable now? You could say fratt did a thing, it was bad, we (admins) remove fratt. But then if it's fratt did a thing, he is root, we cant remove him. Alternatively, either admin refuses to let fratt be held accountable or fratt as root in scenario holds himself accountable (somehow?)

You're two for two accountable or not accountable. If a Citco system is demolished in favour of admins by default being Citcom you run into the same qaundry of accountability only going in four ways. I don't honestly see an issue of accountability as something to be sacrosanct here. Admins are implicitly the most trustworthy. Two of you have been doing Citco for a long time and Cata won't turn heel. I don't ever seeing a time to have to hold ya'll accountable.

Maybe instead, the Assembly can force a review of a controversial "Citco/Admin" decision. Which with that I wouldn't have issue being able to do under the current system if it's already not in it in some form.

The only argument I think would hold the most merit, would be that an admin or multiple admins are simply tired of doing that job all the time. Basically CG/Sedge iirc what Jack said.

[Guy]

Citizenship Councillors, whether admins or not, are removeable by the Assembly. What fratt is saying, and I agree, is that if you make the CitCo purely composed of Admins, you will lose this accountability mechanism. All decisions of the Citizenship Council are appealable to the Assembly already.

To me, it doesn't matter whether a Councillor is an admin or not, so long as there is at least one admin councillor who can perform IP/email checks.

Admins are not by default members of the Citizenship Council - this is self-evident by the fact that for its entire existence there have always been non-admin members on it. This is the first time that it (might) be composed solely of admins, and I do not see why that is a problem. It's also unlikely that this situation will persist for long given that, as I said earlier earlier in this thread, it is probable that I will be stepping down sometime in the coming months or even weeks.

[wabbitslayah]

Hmm, I didn't see that. I just figured it would be simpler to leave it to admins. No one is completely impartial nor infallible, but I do feel other then technical maintenance and keeping some semblance of order, the last aspect is security. Which those three things as an admin is meant to be as close to being impartial and doing things for the sake of those aspects and nothing else. As I have said before by default the admins would be trustworthy enough and nothing else would ever surpass that.

No one but Manson has said it being solely admins being a problem, just to make sure you're aware. I'm just arguing for simplifying it back to admin rather than a mixed bag.

[Catalyse]

I think if there's a change to the Citizenship Council that would make functional sense would be to replace one of the appointees by an admin appointee, preferably that appointee appointed by the longest serving officer, since that seems like the most arbitrary out of the three appointees. The CitCo would have to rely on forum admins to do some types of checks either way. Would the admin appointee by nominated by who though? The admin tea

I don't take the CitCo as an avenue to get further involved in TRR, so I don't really see the logic to have more members nor do I think it's necessary for it to worker better. Though, perhaps, like Jack said, maybe reducing the time before an application can be approved by a simple majority would be good, and preferably, I'd like if looking at when a citizen was approved was easier, since often there's no mention of application approval on the citizenship application thread.

[Deadeye Jack]

Well I think if there is a few more who think it's a good idea, we could amend the 7 days wait to maybe 5 days, and do a very simple amend of Article 2C like so:

Article 2: Citizenship

A: Citizenship may be granted to any person who has a nation in The Rejected Realms and an account on TRR's forums.
B: All citizenship applications are subject to a security check by the Citizenship Council. Citizenship applications are to be approved if no security concerns are found.
C: Citizenship may be granted by a unanimous decision of the Citizenship Council, or if more than 5 days have passed since the application, by a majority vote. Any councillor may deny citizenship. Citizenship may be retracted by a majority vote of the Citizenship Council. A decision to deny or retract citizenship may be appealed to the Assembly as set out in Article 3.

Orange for the key section and underline for the actual change.

[Manson]

Okay so, here's my proposed amendment:

Article 7: The Citizenship Council
A: The Citizenship Council shall be composed of five Councillors.
B: One Councillor shall be appointed by the Delegate, one by the Officer with the longest continuous tenure as a citizen, and one by the regional government as a collective.The fourth Councillor shall be voted in by the Assembly following a simple majority vote. Any citizen may nominate another citizen to serve as a Councillor if the seat is empty. Nominations require the support of three other citizens to be considered and put to vote. The manner of selection of the fifth Councillor shall be prescribed by the Assembly. Each appointment shall be subject to a confirmation in the Assembly, which requires a two-thirds majority vote.
C: Any citizen may initiate a petition calling for the removal of a Councillor. Once such a petition is signed by five citizens, a vote shall be held in the Assembly to remove the Councillor. Removal requires a two-thirds vote.
D: Once appointed, a Councillor shall serve until their resignation, loss of citizenship, removal from office or failure of a reconfirmation vote. A vacancy shall be filled in the same manner as the outgoing Councillor was appointed.
E: Every 1 May, all current Councillors shall be subject to reconfirmation votes. Reconfirmation requires two-thirds majority. If a Councillor is not reconfirmed, the position shall became vacant.
F: The Citizenship Council shall be responsible for the approval of citizenship applications, the retraction of citizenship of individuals who are no longer eligible or pose a security risk, and the maintenance of an active list of citizens.

[Deadeye Jack]

So right now you're requiring a 5 person unanimous vote for 1 week without an accompanying amendment to Article 2.

I still think we're better with 3 people and reducing the time it takes to get to a simple majority CitCo vote than adding more councillors. That seems to be a better way to lessen application wait time

[Catalyse]

I don't see any good reason to increase the size of the CitCo, but good reason to decrease the minium time for not requiring an unanimous approval to accept citizenship.

Streamlining/shortening the process makes sense, and the waiting period length has been an issue a few times, but increasing the size of the CitCo doesn't seem to be the response to any issue in particular.

[Manson]

Hm, we could definitely do that. I second Jack's proposal and motion this to a vote.