I must point out that for some reason the former Seneschal has disappeared from the list of MCs during the second Clark, thus making it seem the VoC failed 81-85 as his 17 seats are missing.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 30, 2024, 01:05:59 PMGood point. Do you think I should remove it as it is redundant? Also, co-sponsor? 😀

Sure! I think the provision is kinda redundant, but also we should probably-eventually-ideally review that other D.2.1 provision so that its meaning and scope get a bit clearer.

This looks fine to me.

The Seneschal name-drop makes me wonder how this bit of Lex.D.2.1 plays into this situation:

QuoteAccordingly, anything that any Minister can do (officially), the Seneschal may (if he desires) do himself.

This probably means that the Seneschal can not only make the envisaged appointment themselves, but also that they can presently serve on the CRL by performing the duties of the A-X (which is incidentally something I'd already talked about in that note on pre-First Clark CRL operation I re-shared recently)

I have submitted for Clarking the Title H Reorganisation and Correction Act through the database.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 29, 2024, 09:29:15 AMNice, I also have a proposal under review internally by TNC members right now.

I will be glad to work with you on that when it gets Hoppered!

Quote from: þerxh Sant-Enogat on January 27, 2024, 07:40:01 AMIn order to allow the Legislative Advisory Committee (el Comità da Redacziun Legislatïu, or CRL) to resume its operation

A quick note for the sake of posterity, so that there's no risk of someone in the future taking this as meaning that the CRL cannot operate without the A-X, or any other member, being absent.

The CRL has always been active and properly constituted throughout the now-Deputy A-X's compassionate leave, and at no time has its operation been somehow imperiled, including during the current Mençei's very drawn-out election and the service of the Senator for Fiovă as Acting Mençei, and during the vacancy in the office of Tuischac'h between Dissolution and my own re-election, where the CRL was actually operating as a two-member committee de jure, and not just de facto.

Further reading can be found here: https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=2829.0

Regardless, in the upcoming Clark I will be offering legislation to clarify this, and allow the A-X to delegate away their seat on the CRL, as part of my efforts to revamp Title H.

Moved to committee and approved. @Ian Plätschisch @Breneir Tzaracomprada

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 24, 2024, 05:54:18 PM

Quote from: Sir Lüc on January 24, 2024, 05:46:49 PM(Can I ask you to edit the original comment to reflect the latest version, @Miestră Schivă, UrN  ?)

If by that you mean "the first post in the thread", then that's done; but I'm not sure this is a good thing to do in future because it falsifies the historical record

You're not wrong, but otherwise there'd be no way to reliably know what the current working draft is. It's an unfortunate byproduct of our very informal way of doing things.

(There's certainly a discussion to be had on what the draft-to-Clark pipeline should look like in the CRL era so we can strike a balance between clarity, complexity and preservation of all stages of debate.)

(Can I ask you to edit the original comment to reflect the latest version, @Miestră Schivă, UrN  ?)

Moved to committee as requested.

Moved to committee as requested.

Moved to committee as requested.

The proposal has been put into bill form. Google Doc still online at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Dh1vI4Da54cWcinyVdbPpvw7mLQZkM9xt8O9VZ7z7Bs with thoughts on step 3 of the Title H spring cleaning.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 11, 2024, 01:22:07 PMOkay, the big thing I'd want revising is the language in the Terps section (1.2 et seq in your numbering). It refers to "PQ" and "c (PQ)" and I don't even remember what those were supposed to be - layers of editing, I suppose.

Yeah, absolutely. As I mentioned elsewhere, though, I'd first want to fix the H.21/22 mess and restructure the body of the title, and only then go on to take care of stuff like that in separate future bills. It will take longer, but it will also lead to better scrutiny and clearer legislation.

(That said, I totally won't wait for this to be adopted before opening up more Hopper threads with provisional proposals)

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 11, 2024, 10:29:21 AM@Sir Lüc https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=2902.msg24574#new
Thanks bae <3

Just to be clear, my intention (both in the initial post and the bump) was to ask for comments from all stakeholders before imposing a new rule, rather than imposing such a rule unilaterally.

What I meant in the bump message was that it occurred to me that my proposal would also solve the difficulties encountered by the Senator for Florencia in moving the bill to committee, since then a CRL member would take care of moving it to the right subboard on his behalf.