Current tally is 42 for @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu and 20 for @Munditenens Tresplet .

MCs who did not nominate anyone or cosponsor a nomination: @Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC @Bråneu Excelsio, UrN @Dr. Pôl dal Nordselvă @Barclamïu da Miéletz @Iac Éovard Valadeir @mpf @Munditenens Tresplet @Breneir Tzaracomprada @Muhammed Yasir and @xpb

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on April 22, 2025, 08:42:18 PM

Quote from: Sir Lüc on April 22, 2025, 05:01:00 AMI really don't like the reduction in the number of Senators without much thought to the massively increased power a single Senator would have - akin to a MC who could hold 33 seats.

A valid concern, though this is the main reason I sought a mild reduction in the power of the chamber as a whole to compensate.

But again, you reduce the number of senators because the transition would be simpler, which is a consequential change for a small, solvable issue, only to then rebalance it in a way that could be understandable for other reasons*, but has nothing to do with the starting issue to begin with. That to me is amputating an arm instead of putting a band-aid on a papercut, and then getting a prosthesis for the wrong body part.

Reducing the number of senators for an easily solvable transitional issue is indefensible. Let's revert back the change and keep this amendment focused on what this was supposed to do to begin with.




*: such as if the Senate continued to be skewed by provincial imbalance - hopefully not anymore - or if the Cosă needed to explicitly be the foremost nationally elected house of the Ziu.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 22, 2025, 03:47:47 PM

Quote from: Sir Lüc on April 22, 2025, 12:29:42 PMI'm not a member of the CRL, but I am both a member of the Scribery, which is legally bound to help draft bills and assist the CRL, and the Secretary of State, who would have ultimate authority about what goes on the Clark. I'm just trying to help with formatting and making sure a bill would work as intended, I'm not commenting on merit.

Thank you Luc, you are not a member of this body. For the record, neither am I. I am genuinely thankful for your help but I have been increasingly concerned that the CRL is just another broad public review (Hopper #2) rather than a mandated fine-tuning by the specific named officials in cooperation with the sponsors and co-sponsors. This is why I proposed collapsing the CRL into a longer review period within the Hopper last term.

This would be fair if my comments were on the merits of the bill, but I'm simply trying to help out with form and style (and in the case of the BHAID, consistency with existing legislation), which is what the CRL part of the Hopper is for and what the Scribery is legally called on to do; my comments were not intended as part of some "broad public review".

The main reasons I'm trying to help with these, and all other bills who will reach the CRL, are:

1. The CRL is short staffed, and also currently comprising an A-X who has never held public office before and a part-time Mençei;

2. Other than deputising for the Scribe I am now the Secretary of State, and while I cannot refuse bills except in very limited cases of obvious inOrganicity or huge flaws, I have an interest in ensuring all bills I put on the Clark are technically sound;

3. Additionally, by being the SoS I am no longer an MC, and not having to take a partisan position on each bill actually helps a lot in detaching from the merits and just focusing on "quality, correctness and consistency", which is exactly what the law calls on members of the Scribery to do.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 22, 2025, 10:56:54 AM

Quote from: Sir Lüc on April 22, 2025, 04:24:17 AMThe enacting clause is missing both a section number and the name of the thing you're seeking to amend (obviously the Organic Law, but this really should not have to be inferred by the reader)

Are you a member of the CRL?

I am a member of the Scribery, which is mandated by both H.2.1.5.1. and C.1.3.2. to assist the CRL and individual legislators in crafting bills for what concerns style and formatting - which is what I did both here and in other bills that were just referred to the CRL.

I'm not a member of the CRL, but I am both a member of the Scribery, which is legally bound to help draft bills and assist the CRL, and the Secretary of State, who would have ultimate authority about what goes on the Clark. I'm just trying to help with formatting and making sure a bill would work as intended, I'm not commenting on merit.

No no, I am not in the CRL, but the CRL is short staffed so I just thought I'd help out with matters of form.

Work in progress until I figure out how to put in provisions about how to manage the database itself (I was thinking a 1.2.1.1. enumerating recommendations about open sourcing, multiple access, hosting on national webpresence, etc. - but this would essentially be a sense of the Ziu)



BE IT ENACTED by the King, Senäts and Cosa of Talossa in Ziu assembled that El Lexhatx C.1.2.1 and C.1.2.1.1, which currently read:

Quote1.2.1. One member of the Chancery shall be the Royal Data Clerk, heading the Office of Dynamic Data Management. The function of the Office of Dynamic Data Management is to manage all computer records owned by the Kingdom of Talossa for its official functions and delegated to its care in order to help other Royal Households, Ministries or any other organization of the Kingdom which needs data management. The Royal Data Clerk may be the same person as the Secretary of State. The Royal Data Clerk shall be considered an Officer of the Royal Household.

1.2.1.1. Once the first Royal Data Clerk accepts his position, and once two members of the Cort pü Inalt have confirmed that they are in receipt of full and accessible backups of the database system currently hosted on talossa.ca, this database shall be considered to be the property of the Office of Dynamic Data Management and thus, the property of the Kingdom of Talossa.

are hereby repealed and replaced by the following:

Quote1.2.1. The Chancery may avail itself of a database system comprising a website and database backend, in order to facilitate the storage of information and records, the management of citizenship rolls, the operations of the Ziu, the holding of elections and censuses, and any other function which is delegated to or administered by the Chancery.

So noted.

Senses of the Ziu are nonbinding resolutions, and do not need CRL review. All other bills have been moved.

I like the basic idea; I proposed it first, of course, and would have much preferred to be the one working on it.

I really don't like the reduction in the number of Senators without much thought to the massively increased power a single Senator would have - akin to a MC who could hold 33 seats. I don't buy that "making transition easier" is a valid reason for this either, and I'll demonstrate that by amending V.7 from Mic'haglh's draft:

QuoteSection 7: Transitional Provisions
Upon the ratification of this provision, incumbent Senators shall be divided into two classes, based upon the provincial rotation established in law, with the first class of Senators to be comprised of half the number of Senators, beginning with the Senators whose terms were to expire at the general election following this provision's ratification, together with one of the Senators whose term was to expire at the next general election after that, as chosen by the Chancery by lot. The remainder of Senators shall compose the second class. The Senäts term of the first class shall expire upon the dissolution of the Cosă following this provision's ratification, and alternating classes thereafter.

Clearly the issue here is that the position is inconsistent with C.1.1.1 - as in, the new PermSec would not be the same as the other PermSecs as described in C.1.1 and subsections thereof; it would have the same name but different methods of appointment, different ways of determining job description, different rules for what other offices they can hold, a different relationship with its ministry (C.1.1.1 PermSecs implement government policy, other RCS heads do not), and so on. This would get very confusing very quickly.

If you're trying to make BHAID fall under the RCS, I would simply suggest retaining the position of Administrator as currently named, and also amending C.2 appropriately. The new C.1.8.1 is also largely unnecessary on account of the provisions already existing in C.3.2.

The enacting clause is missing both a section number and the name of the thing you're seeking to amend (obviously the Organic Law, but this really should not have to be inferred by the reader)

Should be noted that "revising" is nonstandard language (I'm taking it as meaning "amending", but interpretations may differ), and furthermore, that this would effectively repeal Berber Heritage Month.

Of course:

1. I suggest the Cosa should make explicit provisions for a deputy/acting Tuischac'h, because you never know, and

2. It shouldn't be so hard to elect a Tuischac'h, especially given the recent tradition of the Government acquiescing to the choice of the main opposition party - which I see no reason to discontinue.

Short answer: no, because the Senate always has at least an Acting Mençei, and there is always an A-X, or a deputy, or the Seneschal, and therefore the CRL always has a quorum (but it does mean it takes both of them to issue a recommendation on each bill in order to clear the CRL).

Long answer: https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?msg=23653

Note that CRL membership is already reflected in the moderator roles around the appropriate board(s), which I updated a week-ish ago.