If the plan is to have Informal Sessions every month, maybe it is time for us to determine some basic rules of procedure so we don't have to reinvent the wheel each time.
As I understand it, the last time we had anything of the sort was in 2022, during the 57th Cosă, with the now-Seneschal as Túischac'h. As such, would you like to share your experience with me and assist with writing a new set of hopefully permanent rules,
@Baron Alexandreu Davinescu ? If all goes well, I'd like to have the rules passed as a bill once they're finalised.
If anyone else has questions or ideas, feel free to share them here.
I don't remember it very well, but my Talossa notes have a lot of info. As I recall, almost none of this was necessary, since not a lot happened and there was no need for any of the appointed officers. The Doorkeeper and Sergeant at Arms was just appointed to manage the Zoom, I think.
Planned Agenda
I. Chair formally opens the Living Cosa and reviews rules very briefly.
II. Appointment by the chair of a Doorkeeper and Sergeant at Arms, to which the power to maintain order
is delegated as necessary.
III. Appointment by the chair of a Chaplain, who will be invited to give an invocation (non-religious).
IV. Apologies.
V. Invitation by the chair to the Seneschal to address the assembled Ziu.
VI. Invitation by the chair to the Leader of the Opposition to address the assembled Ziu.
VII. Terpelaziuns
VIII. Clark Business.
A. Reading by the chair of the current votes on the submitted bills, followed by voting on the bills. Each bill is handled individually.
C. Reading by the chair of the current confidence votes.
D. Voting on confidence.
IX. Adjournment.
Rules
Rules are drawn from standard rules of order for organizations.
Any MZ may make a motion during an appropriate time by asking to be recognized by the chair. Once the motion is stated, the chair will ask for a mick. If there is a mick, then the chair will restate the motion and debate will begin. Debate will continue until there are no more speakers who wish to be heard. Debate can be ended by a motion to consider the previous question, if micked and affirmed by a majority of MZs.
The Clarked bills may not be tabled, sent to committee, or amended.
There is only one privileged motion. At any time after a ruling of the chair, an MZ may move to overrule the chair.
At any point, an MZ may raise any of the following:
-Point of Order: Draws attention to a breach of rules, improper procedure, breaching of established practices, or so on.
-Point of Information: A member may need to bring up an additional point or additional information so that the other members can make fully informed votes.
-Point of Inquiry: A member may use a point of inquiry to ask for clarification on a matter of fact to make better voting decisions.
-Point of Personal Privilege: A member may use point of personal privilege to address issues pertaining to the comfort of the meeting, such as volume, muting, connection quality, or so on. Members may also use it to address the accuracy of published reports or the accuracy of a member's conduct.
These points may not be abused for personal commentary, debate outside of the established order, or other conduct not becoming a member of the Ziu. The chair may decline to recognize a member in such circumstances.
All rules for terpelaziuns will be scrupulously followed, but members are warned that officials of the Government are not required to be present at the Living Cosa and will not be expected in case of their attendance to have every fact on hand. Terpelaziuns which pertain to specific data or questions of fact should be lodged with the official in question through the normal procedure prior to the Living Cosa, so that the official may make inquiries. The terpelaziun period shall be cordial and orderly.
This obviously heavily draws from my experience in local government and activist groups, using rules for order common to a lot of groups.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 07, 2026, 04:35:02 PMThis obviously heavily draws from my experience in local government and activist groups, using rules for order common to a lot of groups.
That's perfectly fine. Most of my 'experience' with these things come from watching Bundestag broadcasts, so I'm grateful for every bit of real know-how that I can get!
Especially the proviso "majority of MZs" is confusing to me. Would, when voting on procedure, every attending MZ get one vote? Considering how the Cosă is composed, this seems unfair to me. But on the other hand, if MCs get as many votes as they have seats, how many votes do Senators get? Just one (extemely unbalanced), 25 (=200/8, but sort of arbitrary), some other number?
As a sidenote, it's because of things like this that I think of the status quo as a hindrance to more face-to-face events that needs to be overcome rather than something worth hanging on to.
It means a majority of the people present at the LC. This is problematic in some ways, such as the one you noted. A much bigger problem is that it privileges those people in attendance. I've been in a government meeting where the outcome hinged on the fact that one of the other people on the committee had the flu! Thankfully, people are usually cognizant of the fact that their reputation and working relationships with others do matter.
I gave serious thought to just running the meeting autocratically, and that's probably the better way to do it -- no vote to overrule the chair allowed.
And I'd agree with your side note, generally, and I think it's a good goal to move to a Real Cosa someday.
Here is a first draft. I'm prone to overthinking and overplanning, so there is a decent chance that this is way too much overhead and we won't end up needing any of it. Let me know if that's the case, or if you want to make other comments.
(EDIT: Outdated file removed)
My advice:
Delete 1b; you don't want people to be able to vote in new officers with arbitrary powers during proceedings.
1c should either be not specific or more specific; right now the only thing the chair would be able to do to enforce order would be to reprimand people. Just keep the first sentence.
These rules institute a filibuster, which I'm not sure is a good idea. Having a motion to end debate with a 2/3 majority requirement means that a minority can stop a bill from passing if they're willing to just talk until people quit.
What does "killing" or "indefinitely postponing" a bill here mean? Usually those would be covered by the term "tabling," which is when a bill is set aside (on the table) and no longer actively considered. Unless you're talking about the UK, in which case "tabling" a bill means that it is being actively considered.
You might want to reorganize your motions to separate out the privileged motions into their own category (points of order or personal privilege).
You decided to weight Senats votes for procedural votes by assigning them 25 seats, it seems like. This makes sense because it gives their chamber equal weight to the Cosa. I'm trying to think of ways to game this system, and nothing comes immediately to mind.
My own advice:
- 1b could make sense because, if Marcel has to take an unexpected break while the Mençei is not attending, the only recourse is recess. I disagree a temporary deputy would have arbitrary powers.
- 2b's second sentence is unclear - does it say that the motion to add an item requires a second to be voted on, or that an item can be added to the agenda by a proponent and a second, without a vote? In the first case, the second sentence should read "to be voted on" rather than "to be added"; in the second case, referring to the mechanism as a motion is probably incorrect, and either way the second sentence should say "such an item" instead of "such a motion"
- In 2c, I am not too sure why the shortest a recess can be is 10 minutes and not something unspecified or simply shorter
- 3b might allow for a deputy to the Tanaischteu in case they can't attend during Terps or at all
- 4b has a typo ("another member to speaker")
- I agree 5e's 2/3rds requirement to end debate is potentially dangerous on its own, unless the motion to start debate includes a time limit
- 6a has a typo ("billed")
Quote from: Sir Lüc on January 09, 2026, 11:41:09 AM1b could make sense because, if Marcel has to take an unexpected break while the Mençei is not attending, the only recourse is recess. I disagree a temporary deputy would have arbitrary powers.
The first rule there deals with Marcel needing a temporary deputy -- the Mencei would do it. Saying that a majority can appoint another deputy but with no limits on their possible power during the proceedings is just messy. If it's absolutely necessary that we have two deputies, then Marcel should just be able to appoint another.
That said: I don't think this matters much, so it's not a big deal either way. It's just a possible failure point that's not necessary, IMO.
Quote from: Sir Lüc on January 09, 2026, 11:41:09 AM- 2b's second sentence is unclear - does it say that the motion to add an item requires a second to be voted on, or that an item can be added to the agenda by a proponent and a second, without a vote? In the first case, the second sentence should read "to be voted on" rather than "to be added"; in the second case, referring to the mechanism as a motion is probably incorrect, and either way the second sentence should say "such an item" instead of "such a motion"
- In 2c, I am not too sure why the shortest a recess can be is 10 minutes and not something unspecified or simply shorter
- 3b might allow for a deputy to the Tanaischteu in case they can't attend during Terps or at all
- 4b has a typo ("another member to speaker")
- I agree 5e's 2/3rds requirement to end debate is potentially dangerous on its own, unless the motion to start debate includes a time limit
- 6a has a typo ("billed")
I agree with all of these. There's no real reason to include the possibility of a filibuster with the scope of what we're doing here.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 09, 2026, 08:49:37 AMMy advice:
Delete 1b; you don't want people to be able to vote in new officers with arbitrary powers during proceedings.
I was envisioning this to be used whenever either I or the Mençei are unavailable, but fair enough.
QuoteThese rules institute a filibuster, which I'm not sure is a good idea. Having a motion to end debate with a 2/3 majority requirement means that a minority can stop a bill from passing if they're willing to just talk until people quit.
It needing a 2/3 vote is something I took from Robert's Rules. Though now that I think about it, it also included a footnote that parliaments usually use a simple majority instead... I'll think about it. Alternatively there could be a time limit per person (5 to 10 minutes perhaps?).
QuoteWhat does "killing" or "indefinitely postponing" a bill here mean? Usually those would be covered by the term "tabling," which is when a bill is set aside (on the table) and no longer actively considered. Unless you're talking about the UK, in which case "tabling" a bill means that it is being actively considered.
From my understanding of Robert's Rules, tabling refers to a temporary setting aside of a motion in case something more urgent comes up, and tabled motioned can be brought back up again at a later time, whereas indefinitely postponing is killing a motion without a final vote outright. I figured keeping that distinction is important. Having both "killing" and "indefinitely postponing" in the same sentence however is a mistake on my part.
QuoteYou might want to reorganize your motions to separate out the privileged motions into their own category (points of order or personal privilege).
I thought I already did that... maybe I need to rename rule 5.
How's this?
I didn't really touch rule 5, except rename it. Let me know if something else needs changing.
Looks fine to me! Thanks!
A multi-part question came up as I was writing the mailer.
- The King can not hold any seats in either house, but he is Organically a member of the Ziu as the Crown-in-Parliament. He can also Hopper and Clark bills. As such, can the King take part in debate on bills? As a kind-of-MZ, should the King be able to vote on procedural issues?
- The Secretary of State also can not hold any seats in either house, and is not a member of the Ziu either; but he is the other non-MC and non-Senator who can Hopper and Clark bills. As such, can the SoS take part in debate on bills?
- Ministers are not required to hold seats in the Ziu and historically some didn't, as is the case of the current MinTech. Can any such non-MZ ministers take part in debate, or are they restricted to only answering Terpelaziuns, or are they barred from speaking altogether?
(This kind of boils down to how strict floor privilege is considered to be in Talossa, which is an unexplored matter. It's not too important an issue, but it would be helpful to know for sure beforehand.)
The King may debate, but not vote. The Secretary of State may do neither. No one else can speak unless invited to do so, which is what a terpelaziun does.
It's an interesting question, actually. In Germany, ministers who aren't MPs are allowed to participate in debates when the bill in question is on a topic that's part of their portfolio, in order to represent Government policies. I would be in favour of allowing something like this in Talossa, too.
Yeah, I assume that if any official requested to speak on a given bill within their portfolio (probably even if it wasn't in their portfolio, actually), they would be invited to do so. It's a good thing to permit, because the people carrying out our laws often have invaluable input on their form.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 10, 2026, 08:08:02 AMThe King may debate, but not vote. The Secretary of State may do neither. No one else can speak unless invited to do so, which is what a terpelaziun does.
While I mostly agree with you, as long as we don't have precedents or rules governing it, what you said is opinion and not fact - moreso because the Seneschal doesn't and shouldn't have any particular authority over the Ziu's operations.
Parliaments worldwide handle this stuff in wildly different ways and since the Ziu is not based on any individual one, we just can't make gut-feeling assumptions.
Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on January 10, 2026, 08:56:20 AMIt's an interesting question, actually. In Germany, ministers who aren't MPs are allowed to participate in debates when the bill in question is on a topic that's part of their portfolio, in order to represent Government policies. I would be in favour of allowing something like this in Talossa, too.
And this is precisely a perfect example of what I was getting at.
Quote from: Sir Lüc on January 10, 2026, 05:15:07 PMWhile I mostly agree with you, as long as we don't have precedents or rules governing it, what you said is opinion and not fact - moreso because the Seneschal doesn't and shouldn't have any particular authority over the Ziu's operations.
Parliaments worldwide handle this stuff in wildly different ways and since the Ziu is not based on any individual one, we just can't make gut-feeling assumptions.
Despite operating under a parliamentary system for decades, we kinda have to reinvent all the procedural aspects of it from scratch. We can (and probably should at some point) get together and properly think through all these intricacies, but until then I figured it would be good enough if I as the presiding officer were to go with my gut and common sense instinct, and members can appeal and set precedents explicitly whenever it's necessary, and then later we collect and codify these precedents.
Quote from: Sir Lüc on January 10, 2026, 05:15:07 PMQuote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 10, 2026, 08:08:02 AMThe King may debate, but not vote. The Secretary of State may do neither. No one else can speak unless invited to do so, which is what a terpelaziun does.
While I mostly agree with you, as long as we don't have precedents or rules governing it, what you said is opinion and not fact - moreso because the Seneschal doesn't and shouldn't have any particular authority over the Ziu's operations.
Parliaments worldwide handle this stuff in wildly different ways and since the Ziu is not based on any individual one, we just can't make gut-feeling assumptions.
Oh, yeah, I absolutely have no authority to say either way. I just think the answer for a lot of these flows pretty naturally from the respective roles in the law. I mean, the king is legally part of the Ziu but has no vote, so being able to speak but not vote in an informal session makes sense to me.
I agree with the basic idea that we should do what seems to work and then codify it.
I'm already tempted to modify the rules to include some things that established themselves on the 11th, and to sort of streamline things a bit (e.g. raising both hands for Points of Order, and also unifying some motions into that category akin to German club rules).
As promised, here's a new draft with most impromptu motions folded into Points of Order, as was practiced on the 11th and paralleling German club rules.
Feel free to comment on it. My hope is that we can at some point adopt these rules formally so they're no longer drafts.
Let's keep doing these and work out the bugs, if any. I think we saw last time that we should have a clock going or something on each bill, to keep everyone mindful of the time.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 13, 2026, 07:06:05 PMI think we saw last time that we should have a clock going or something on each bill, to keep everyone mindful of the time.
I could add a timer to my webcam if that helps.
That would be good. I think we can also have a reminder of the time when we pass a certain number of minutes on a given bill, maybe?
Sure. I mean, if time is really of the essence, members can always request a time limit via Point of Order, so that should be fine.
I agree, and I would have called cloture if necessary, but I also want to be mindful of the fact that it might seem aggressive to do that if someone else wants to speak -- it ends up being perceived as an attempt to stifle them, rather than a matter of time. So the moderator just giving a reminder of the time after ten minutes of debate on a bill might just be helpful without seeming like an attack, you know? Just a thought.
Thank you again... you did a great job. I know my pronunciation wasn't perfect but I think it was a lot better than it would have been without your tutoring!