[Draft] Procedure of the Deshret

[Cormac]

So you need to motion to vote seven days in advance of when you want to vote?

It has to go to vote within seven days, after a motion to vote and two seconds. That is to allow the Keeper some leeway in when to bring it to a vote -- if three other things are already at vote, he may want to wait a few days -- but not to let the Keeper indefinitely delay something, by mandating that it has to go to vote within seven days.

After a motion to vote and two seconds, the Keeper could bring a piece of legislation to vote immediately. The current language only ensures that he must bring it to vote within seven days.

I'm open to alternatives to this though, for sure.

[Charles Cerebella]

Ah I see. Seems complicated and far from ideal to me My preference would be to have a minimum period of discussion and then a procedure for moving to vote after.

[Old Federalia]

I think both of you have good ideas.

A minimum debating period is important, since people may will like a proposal and motion to vote right away before others have a chance to discuss it.

However, requiring a second reading would be cumbersome. Giving the Keeper the option to delay a vote beyond the minimum debating period is good, too. Seven days seems long, but I doubt a delay would extend past 4 or 5 days. The point on a delay would be to address any last minute grievances or to give all the councilors the chance to review the final draft.

Old Federalia - You bring up a valid point. What are everyone's thoughts on removing the "after all Councilors have voted" clause and extending the voting time to seven days? I would also be potentially fine with a quorum proposal but I'm not entirely sure how to word that, what threshold to set, etc.

I think removing the clause and leaving voting at five days would be ideal. In an open legislature, even one with mandatory monthly activity, I think the admittance of new councilors during a vote is going to be more common than all the councilors voting before 5 days. However, I'd also favor lowering the voting period from 5 days to 3 or 4, to encourage participation.

The wording for a quorum would be straight forward. If quorum is not reached, it will fail just as if everyone voted nay, so this isn't a strange idea or manipulative tool.

"For a vote to be valid, a quorum of 1/2 of all councilors must have cast a vote aye, nay or present."

[Cormac]

Okay, I've made edits to try to address some of the concerns raised. First, an edit to Section 2.1:

1. Any Councilor of the Deshret may introduce a proposal before the Deshret. A proposal will go to vote only after a mandatory consideration period of three days, which may be extended to seven days at the discretion of the Keeper. A proposal will then proceed to vote after a motion to vote on the proposal has been made by any Councilor and seconded by any two additional Councilors.

(a) The Keeper may at his discretion delay a vote for up to seven days if two or more proposals are already at vote.

This establishes a mandatory three day period for discussion, which can be extended to seven days by the Keeper. A proposal then proceeds to vote after a motion to vote is made by any Councilor and seconded by any two additional Councilors.

To avoid confusion, I've added a subsection (a) to allow the Keeper to hold off on a vote after a motion is made and seconded for up to seven days if two or more proposals are already at vote. Given that we have an activity requirement that removes Councilors from the Deshret if they miss three or more votes, it's not ideal for us to have three or more proposals at vote all at once as that would make it possible for a Councilor to miss enough votes to be removed from the Deshret in a week's time. I don't think it's beneficial for somebody who has one busy week but isn't on a declared leave of absence to be automatically removed from the Deshret and have to reapply.

I've also edited Section 2.3 as follows:

3. Any proposal, treaty, or agreement at vote before the Deshret, unless otherwise dictated by this Procedure or by constitutional documents, will only pass the Deshret if a simple majority of votes cast over a five day period are in favor of the proposal.

(a) For a vote to be valid, a simple majority of all Councilors must cast a vote of aye, nay, or present.

This removes the "after all Councilors have voted" language that several didn't like, as well as establishing quorum.

Thoughts?

[Treize Dreizehn]

I worry a bit about quorum rules tying things up for long periods of time, but honestly given that we're requiring activity to maintain Deshret Membership, it'll probably work out.

A few suggestions(which I'll leave to you to draft if you agree):

Someone should be in charge of administering a Keeper recall. The Vizier is probably a good choice.

There should be a method by which Deshreti can amend this document once it is adopted. It's unlikely we'll be prepared for every eventuality, and circumstances may change so that parts are outdated.

The Keeper should most certainly be a part of the cabinet, on the same level as a scribe, however, does that belong in this document or the constitution? Or in any document?

For now that's all that springs to mind, but that may not be the end of my input on this subject.

[Cormac]

I worry a bit about quorum rules tying things up for long periods of time, but honestly given that we're requiring activity to maintain Deshret Membership, it'll probably work out.

I had the same concerns about quorum, but came to the same conclusion you did regarding activity requirements.

A few suggestions(which I'll leave to you to draft if you agree):

Someone should be in charge of administering a Keeper recall. The Vizier is probably a good choice.

Good call, will edit.

There should be a method by which Deshreti can amend this document once it is adopted. It's unlikely we'll be prepared for every eventuality, and circumstances may change so that parts are outdated.

The Deshret could amend it through separate legislation (e.g., First Amendment to the Procedure Act, etc.). Are you saying there should be a simpler process? I'm open to that if you could describe what you think the process should be.

The Keeper should most certainly be a part of the cabinet, on the same level as a scribe, however, does that belong in this document or the constitution? Or in any document?

For now that's all that springs to mind, but that may not be the end of my input on this subject.

Actually not sure I agree with this, having seen what occurred recently in The South Pacific and the former Chair arguing that he was justified in his actions because he was accountable to the Assembly rather than the Cabinet. But it's something we can discuss. I do think this is a discussion better suited for the constitution than the Procedure though, because the constitution draft(s) right now allow the Pharaoh to choose the cabinet and including it here would conflict with that current wording.

[Cormac]

Anymore thoughts on this? I think it would be ideal if we could move this to vote before Christmas, so that we can begin an election for Keeper shortly after the New Year holiday. It really should be the elected Keeper rather than me overseeing the Deshret, as soon as possible.

[Treize Dreizehn]

Something about how in the absence of an elected Keeper, the Vizier shall serve as presiding officer of the Deshret, and shall be responsible for the speedy election of a replacement keeper in accordance with the established rules on election yadda yadda yadda.

Just in case one resigns.

Other than that, I think a Christmas Eve vote would be a nice start. If we're lucky we'll get a Keeper before New Years.

[Cormac]

Good call on providing for the absence of a Keeper, I didn't think of that.

Regarding the voting, I wanted to basically vote using the process in the Procedure. So to get a Keeper before New Year's we would need to start voting on the Procedure... basically nowish. But I also didn't want to disrupt the Keeper election with people having Christmas/New Year plans either.

[Treize Dreizehn]

I just really think having a Keeper before the New Years would be a very important step to point to with regards to our progress towards democracy and stuff.

But we ought not rush it if we don't absolutely need to.