There's a minor thing to correct -- since the bill has two cosponsors, it should say "Noi urent..." (We pray) not "Ureu..." (I pray).

Otherwise, I see no issues with the form of this bill.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on July 23, 2023, 05:35:15 PMAnd talossa.com - our national domain name - expires today.

Crap.

During the transition, while doing the handover of credentials and accounts, I had advised the incoming Government that I had no access to the DoRoyal hosting portal. As a result of that, I had no means to transfer the access over to the new BoIR and the representatives of the new Government, and I suggested, verbatim,

QuoteFor the hosting portal (mostly for billing and tickets), you should ask Txec, I currently have no access to it, but as of last October I was still getting emails from that thing, as were Higgs and Grischun AFAIK - so the new BoIR will have to check on it and update the correct contacts.

But this was like one week before Wittpocalypse, so I don't blame anyone for not following up with that.

This does mean we might be in a bit of trouble right now, though, and I'm afraid I personally can't help, since I still have no means of accessing the portal to transfer access to the Burgermeister or pay the bill as an emergency measure.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on July 22, 2023, 05:11:17 PMI repeat: who designed these "optional questions"?

Actual answer: I believe it was Dan Forestal, in 2009, as part of the first census.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on July 20, 2023, 11:20:13 AM

Quote from: Sir Lüc on July 20, 2023, 11:14:43 AMI should have specified -- I wasn't saying this out of annoyance at all.

It's only that, I suppose, you *could* let the bill sit in the Hopper for exactly ten days and then rush the CRL to lock it in ASAP.

But IMO that doesn't mean you *should*, especially when the deadline for Clarking it is still relatively far away, since asking the CRL to act on a bill effectively signals that the proponent wants to end debate on the merits of the bill (rather than its form).

Thank you for pointing that out! That seems like an uncharitable interpretation of intent. And I am not sure what evidence or history justifies such an interpretation since people are not prohibited from continuing to comment even once the bill has moved to the CRL. In any event, for the record, that is not the intent rather I tend to try and move through procedures with alacrity.

Fair enough!

I went ahead and fixed that for you, Tric'hard

I should have specified -- I wasn't saying this out of annoyance at all.

It's only that, I suppose, you *could* let the bill sit in the Hopper for exactly ten days and then rush the CRL to lock it in ASAP.

But IMO that doesn't mean you *should*, especially when the deadline for Clarking it is still relatively far away, since asking the CRL to act on a bill effectively signals that the proponent wants to end debate on the merits of the bill (rather than its form).

No need to tag me twice in 20 hours :) Besides, what's the rush? The current Clark isn't even over yet.

From a strictly CRL standpoint, approved.

No backsies!

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on July 18, 2023, 09:29:37 PMSir Glüc da Dhi S.H.

👀 👀 👀

Thank you!

Approved.

Approved.

Oh, that's fair enough, I hadn't spotted that ambiguity. Your latest suggestion looks fine to me.

Huh, I was sure I had commented on this. I wanted to point out that your original language,

Quotenine Clarks non-consecutively within their three-Cosa term of office

didn't take into account that not all terms last three Cosăs. This has now been changed so my observation is moot.

However, the new language introduces another issue, in my mind - the removal from the same clause of

Quotenot being disqualified from voting by law

This was an important proviso, because it resolved the gray area stemming from the Amada Merþedes case. It wasn't confusing or ambiguous, it had a reason to be there. I suggest it be reinstated.

Approved.