[DRAFT] Amend TRRMC’s Constituting Act

[Manson]

1. The Rejected Realms Media Corporation (the Corporation) is established.

2. The purpose of the Corporation is to publish media, with a focus on news and commentary, that is relevant to the Rejected Realms and NationStates broadly, through the Rejected Realms' regional platforms.

3. The Corporation enjoys editorial independence.

4. The Editor-in-Chief is the head of the Corporation. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for ensuring the Corporation achieves its purpose and managing the Corporation.

5. Any citizen may challenge for the position of Editor-in-Chief in the manner prescribed for an Officer of the Rejected Realms.

6. Members of The Corporation, more commonly referred to as “TRT Staff”, may choose to vacate the office of Editor-in-Chief pending a successful majority vote.

7. The Editor-in-Chief may choose to select another TRT Staff member, if deemed necessary, to serve as Deputy Editor-in-Chief, a role encompassing all the rights and responsibilities of the office of Editor-in-Chief in their absence. The office of Deputy Editor-in-Chief is to be filled at the Editor-in-Chief’s discretion, with it being their unexpressed right to dismiss or appoint a Deputy Editor-in-Chief at will.

8. In the event of the Editor-in-Chief’s resignation, the Deputy Editor-in-Chief shall assume the title of “Acting Editor-in-Chief” and all of the office’s responsibilities until a new Editor-in-Chief can be selected under the provisions outlined in Article 5.

[Minskiev]

Would say something along the lines of "a new EiC can be selected under the provisions of Article 5" or something.

[Manson]

Would say something along the lines of "a new EiC can be selected under the provisions of Article 5" or something.

Sure, edited.

[Guy]

Subject to some minor wording changes I will likely propose, I support in principle proposed sections 7 and 8.

There is a fundamental problem in section 6, in that ‘Members of the Corporation’ is undefined, and there is no criteria to determine whether someone is a Member. You would have to give the EiC the power to determine who is a Member, which in a sense goes against the idea that they would essentially ‘fire’ the EiC. As I recall, one of my previous proposals had a rather detailed framework regarding eligibility and applications for membership, as well as cessation of membership. We could seek to rely on that.

My preference would be to avoid all of that by giving the power in Section 6 to the Assembly, consistent with it being the Assembly that elects the EiC.

[Manson]

Subject to some minor wording changes I will likely propose, I support in principle proposed sections 7 and 8.

There is a fundamental problem in section 6, in that ‘Members of the Corporation’ is undefined, and there is no criteria to determine whether someone is a Member. You would have to give the EiC the power to determine who is a Member, which in a sense goes against the idea that they would essentially ‘fire’ the EiC. As I recall, one of my previous proposals had a rather detailed framework regarding eligibility and applications for membership, as well as cessation of membership. We could seek to rely on that.

My preference would be to avoid all of that by giving the power in Section 6 to the Assembly, consistent with it being the Assembly that elects the EiC.

Thanks for the feedback, Guy.

However, I disagree that the current draft fails to define membership. TRT Staff and “members” are equated to being one and the same in Section 6.

My thought process behind giving the power of vacating the office to TRT Staff rather than the Assembly is due to it being a more significant decision than a challenge, in my eyes.

Neq and others brought up electing the EiC with TRT Staff as voters, which I wouldn’t necessarily be opposed to, however, I think that’s currently impossible given how our numbers are looking right now.

But, back to Section 6. Forcing someone to vacate their office is effectively more than a vote of no confidence. Whether an EiC is MIA or simply just publishing ignorant shit that their staff doesn’t agree with doesn’t matter. I gave our staff this power in my proposal in an effort to appease those who want an even more independent TRT with less Assembly oversight while also addressing my own concerns about the possibility of a vote to vacate from the citizenry being held for the wrong reasons, and effectively the position being held hostage. While I don’t think that’s likely to happen, those are just a couple of the things I considered.

Additionally, something we may want to address is the question of whether or not a Deputy EiC would vacate their post following a successful motion passed by either staff or the Assembly.

Otherwise, I’m not opposed to any edits. I’m happy to receive more feedback from you and others in order to help make this presentable.

[NPS]

6 should be an assembly power, but if you're worried about a vote for the wrong reasons, we can have a quorum of greater than 50% for the recall to pass?

[BowShot118]

I agree that section 6 should be an Assembly power, in part due to the ambiguity of what a member is, and in part because making what a member is less ambiguous is just going to tie down the organisation in bureaucracy.

Fact of the matter is a maliciously inclined Assembly can vacate the Office via a challenge and then resigning regardless of whether or not they have access to a motion to vacate. Although, I'm not inherently opposed to the existence of motion to vacate the office even if I think it'll be disused in favour of a challenge. Since the overwhelming majority (if not all) of TRT's staff are citizens anyway, they can put forward a challenge or motion before the Assembly in the same way any citizen would.

6 should be an assembly power, but if you're worried about a vote for the wrong reasons, we can have a quorum of greater than 50% for the recall to pass?

How would this quorum work, as in a quorum of TRT staff or all citizens? Requiring 50%+ of citizens to vote on... anything is only going to make a motion impossible to pass. Requiring a Quorum of TRT staff may not be an inherently bad idea, but then it throws up the problem of ambiguity of who staff are, and a maliciously inclined Assembly can still use the challenge system to remove the EiC regardless.

Unless we strip all powers to elect and challenge the EiC away from the Assembly, there's not going to be any way to "protect" TRT from an Assembly with malicious intent, although I don't expect there'll be any problem in that regard anyway. TRT staff is as opinion diverse as the citizenry, there's no reason to expect an "us vs them" mentality in the future when one hasn't existed (with a few minority exceptions) for the past 8 years.

[Catalyse]

If power to select an EiC rests in the Assembly then I think it seems logical that the power to vacate the position should also be for the Assembly. Can't support this otherwise.

[Nequedum]

I am in favour of members holding a no-confidence vote as found in section 6. I am also happy for section 6 to go to a separate vote, as I believe sections 7 and 8 have their own merit as well.

I agree that there is confusion about who constitutes TRT Staff, especially among citizens who do not actively contribute to the publication. For this reason, I would prefer an amendment to section 6 around the vote of no confidence being held by "active members", with active being defined as anyone who has either publicly written or edited for any of the three latest issues.

Hence: "6. Active members of The Corporation, “TRT Staff”, may choose to vacate the office of Editor-in-Chief pending a successful majority vote. Activity for TRT Staff is to be understood as publicly writing or editing an article(s) in any of the three most recent issues or any special releases published during this time."

[Manson]

I’d be ok with the Assembly being able to vacate the office if the motion would have to be proposed by a member of the corporation, which I can define as well.

[BowShot118]

I agree that there is confusion about who constitutes TRT Staff, especially among citizens who do not actively contribute to the publication. For this reason, I would prefer an amendment to section 6 around the vote of no confidence being held by "active members", with active being defined as anyone who has either publicly written or edited for any of the three latest issues.

Hence: "6. Active members of The Corporation, “TRT Staff”, may choose to vacate the office of Editor-in-Chief pending a successful majority vote. Activity for TRT Staff is to be understood as publicly writing or editing an article(s) in any of the three most recent issues or any special releases published during this time."

I don't think we should be defining activity in law because it is both highly subjective, and subject to change. For example, your proposal places a higher bar for activity than is required by the newly updated policy set held by the Editor-in-Chief, which may in turn be changed by them or a successor.

I’d be ok with the Assembly being able to vacate the office if the motion would have to be proposed by a member of the corporation, which I can define as well.

I guess it depends on what the definition is, but this doesn't really add anything except a TRT staff exclusive method to only remove the EiC, not remove and replace. It doesn't exactly add any "protection" for TRT, nor any additional independence or freedom from Assembly oversight. It does feel a bit pointless

[Manson]

I think that layer of exclusivity would definitely be useful. It maintains that vacating an office forcibly is a “big deal” and gives the actual staff of the paper the decision as to when they think enough is enough.

[Goobergunchia]

I can't support anything that creates a motion to vacate any position that is eligible for challenge.

[Manson]

I can't support anything that creates a motion to vacate any position that is eligible for challenge.

Sad, it was previously apart of the act in 2020.

viewtopic.php?f=95&t=10031440

[Manson]

How do we feel about this?

(Edited line 6)

Still need to make more edits to define TRT Staff though. Consider this just a preview of how article 6 could work.

1. The Rejected Realms Media Corporation (the Corporation) is established.

2. The purpose of the Corporation is to publish media, with a focus on news and commentary, that is relevant to the Rejected Realms and NationStates broadly, through the Rejected Realms' regional platforms.

3. The Corporation enjoys editorial independence.

4. The Editor-in-Chief is the head of the Corporation. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for ensuring the Corporation achieves its purpose and managing the Corporation.

5. Any citizen may challenge for the position of Editor-in-Chief in the manner prescribed for an Officer of the Rejected Realms.

6. Any member of The Corporation, henceforth referred to as “TRT Staff”, may bring forth a motion to vacate the office of Editor-in-Chief to the Assembly which shall be considered successful pending a majority vote.

7. The Editor-in-Chief may choose to select another TRT Staff member, if deemed necessary, to serve as Deputy Editor-in-Chief, a role encompassing all the rights and responsibilities of the office of Editor-in-Chief in their absence. The office of Deputy Editor-in-Chief is to be filled at the Editor-in-Chief’s discretion, with it being their unexpressed right to dismiss or appoint a Deputy Editor-in-Chief at will.

8. In the event of the Editor-in-Chief’s resignation, the Deputy Editor-in-Chief shall assume the title of “Acting Editor-in-Chief” and all of the office’s responsibilities until a new Editor-in-Chief can be selected under the provisions outlined in Article 5.

[Chef Big Dog]

This thread will be archived in 2 days if no clear further interest is shown, on June 1st, 2023, at 3:46 PM EDT.

[Manson]

This thread will be archived in 2 days if no clear further interest is shown, on June 1st, 2023, at 3:46 PM EDT.

Objecting. Expect some edits soon.

[Chef Big Dog]

Sounds good

[Manson]

1. The Rejected Realms Media Corporation (the Corporation) is established.

2. The purpose of the Corporation is to publish media, with a focus on news and commentary, that is relevant to the Rejected Realms and NationStates broadly, through the Rejected Realms' regional platforms.

3. The Corporation enjoys editorial independence.

4. The Editor-in-Chief is the head of the Corporation. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for ensuring the Corporation achieves its purpose through the facilitation of member (henceforth referred to as TRT Staff) applications, publications, and a continued managing management of the Corporation.

5. Any citizen may challenge for the position of Editor-in-Chief in the manner prescribed for an Officer of the Rejected Realms.

6. Any member of The Corporation, or TRT Staff member, may bring forth a motion to vacate the office of Editor-in-Chief to the Assembly which shall be considered successful pending a majority vote.

7. The Editor-in-Chief may choose to select another TRT Staff member, if deemed necessary, to serve as Deputy Editor-in-Chief, a role encompassing all the rights and responsibilities of the office of Editor-in-Chief in their absence. The office of Deputy Editor-in-Chief is to be filled at the Editor-in-Chief’s discretion, with it being their unexpressed right to dismiss or appoint a Deputy Editor-in-Chief at will.

8. In the event of the Editor-in-Chief’s resignation, the Deputy Editor-in-Chief shall assume the title of “Acting Editor-in-Chief” and all of the office’s responsibilities until a new Editor-in-Chief can be selected under the provisions outlined in Article 5.

New draft. Iffy on the wording. Comments plz.

[Catalyse]

If any citizen may challenge the EiC why is not the same standard applied to a motion to remove the EiC?

[Manson]

If any citizen may challenge the EiC why is not the same standard applied to a motion to remove the EiC?

I’ve stated before that I find a motion to outright vacate the office a lot more dangerous than a challenge. I wanted to additionally grant more importance to staff members and allow them to have more of a say in the direction things are going. Ultimately I would’ve preferred restricting EiC elections to the staff as their own body since not all citizens are staff members but that’d likely be wildly unpopular..

[frattastan]

Only marginally related to your proposal (so it may be offtopic), but how do you feel about having fixed terms for EiC? These could be relatively long (6 months? 9 months? A year might stretch it) to avoid political pressure, but it would still mean that the Assembly is checking of TRT's health on a regular basis. This would hopefully avoid some situations with deeply inactive EiCs who aren't facing challenges.

[Catalyse]

Have them be elected every two Officer elections. Helps not overloading the Speaker with elections on different dates.

[Manson]

Only marginally related to your proposal (so it may be offtopic), but how do you feel about having fixed terms for EiC? These could be relatively long (6 months? 9 months? A year might stretch it) to avoid political pressure, but it would still mean that the Assembly is checking of TRT's health on a regular basis. This would hopefully avoid some situations with deeply inactive EiCs who aren't facing challenges.

If they’re elected by TRT staff, sure.

[Catalyse]

Only marginally related to your proposal (so it may be offtopic), but how do you feel about having fixed terms for EiC? These could be relatively long (6 months? 9 months? A year might stretch it) to avoid political pressure, but it would still mean that the Assembly is checking of TRT's health on a regular basis. This would hopefully avoid some situations with deeply inactive EiCs who aren't facing challenges.

If they’re elected by TRT staff, sure.

Care to explain why? The TRT is not some exclusive club, the EiC is still a public office.