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.

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.

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.

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.)

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on Yesterday at 12:13:54 PMA review of voting shows mixed support from the PA and URL on the Green Party's Sense of the Ziu concerning the deterioration of democracy in the United States. We call on both major parties to join us in expressing Talossa's grave concern especially since the US actions in Venezuela and threats against an ally (Denmark) over the status of Greenland.

And what is happening in places like Minneapolis with trigger-happy ICE agents...

Right, the meeting link will be https://unipd.zoom.us/j/88582238457?pwd=lrVZ5swd4T9ULUrviBoeHx9HjeiNm3.1. See you all there on Sunday!

Looks fine to me!  Thanks!

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 Yesterday at 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 Yesterday at 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.