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.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on Today at 01:33:35 PMFelicieu Nadaliçă!

*Feliciă

I believe D:nă Schivă voted PER on RZ05 during the Joint Session.

Here's the link to the recording: clichetz aicì

Shoutout to the Secretary of State for recording and uploading!

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).

I'd like to thank everyone again who could attend. I may be biased, but I think today's session was a success, and I'm excited to have another session in February!

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.

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.

How's this?

I didn't really touch rule 5, except rename it. Let me know if something else needs changing.

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.

Quote from: Sir Lüc on January 09, 2026, 11:42:40 AMIf that's fine by @Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP , I'll take care of it. I don't know if Zoom requires accounts for everyone involved though, that could be a barrier to participation.

I don't mind.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 08, 2026, 07:01:36 PM@Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP , we should probably see if anyone has a version of zoom or teams or something that can do long meetings, so we're not limited to the free 40 minutes.

Discord doesnt restrict meeting lengths, but I'm a bit wary of suggesting that ever since we couldn't get the audio working in our most recent call.

EDIT: Just found out that Stage channels (as opposed to regular voice chat) only allow up to 5 people having their webcams enabled. We could still host the event there using a regular voice channel, but we wouldn't be able to have any spectators unless someone were to livestream it to Youtube or something.

Quote from: Sir Lüc on January 08, 2026, 06:24:56 AM1) I plan on sending a reminder to MZs and non-MZ Cabinet ministers, and a separate invitation for the wider citizenry, ideally on Saturday at the latest. The people in charge should let me know, here or somewhere more convenient, about as many details as they wish me to put in the mailers (eg. videocall link, final/tentative program, time and date, etc.)

2) The Chancery would be happy to assist with putting together a PDF version of an Order Paper, for reference and as a memento. Material like that is probably under the whole purview of the Ziu's presiding officers, actually, since it's something separate from the Clark; but since I don't think I have much else to do besides just showing up on the videocall to tally votes, I am happy to help if it's something people would like.

1) So far, the info on talossa.com is all there is. There is no link yet, if I'm honest I'm not really sure what platform this is going to be on. I'm guessing it's Zoom, but I don't use Zoom so I have no idea how that works. We'll need to discuss this one more I think...

2) That would be awesome!!, though I'm not sure if there is enough planned for a full Order Paper... Maybe the agenda and pre-submitted Terps, but nothing else is really planned (i.e. no one who pre-registered for speaking on any bill or anything like that, and no fixed times for any events except 11:00 TST being when it starts)

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)

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.

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!

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.

By the way, if anyone plans on giving a speech during the debates, please let me know beforehand so I can try to sort speakers in a way that makes sense. I know I coined the term "Informal Session" myself, but I don't want it to end up in shouting or people talking over each other or anything, and I don't want there to be any confusion on the procedure. Of course, if no one 'pre-registers', I'll just try to do things on the fly.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on December 31, 2025, 05:04:55 PMThis is inaccurate. PMQs in my country and I believe in Britain are submitted with a few days notice so that the Government can prepare a proper answer. That said, supplementary questions are extemporary.

Could I get those sent to me in advance as well, considering they are formally addressed to the Túischac'h?

I, too, will wait until the Informal Session to cast my vote.