Just for the record, approval has never been taken in this way before in other votes and contexts, which is really going to serve as the operative precedent here absent anything else. Generally, we do not take a body's vote of approval to mean that at least one person voted in favor and no one has yet voted against it.

I don't have any particular objection to this bill passing (although I had asked a question because I had a concern about the form, and I did have a suggested amendment!) But my main concern is just making sure that this does not actually become a precedent.

Quote from: Owen Bottu on Today at 01:19:27 AMHi,

Could I join your party?

Welcome! I'll add you to our private party forum.

Well, I would suggest that you might want to rephrase and remove the last clause. "Whichever occurs first" ends up reading ambiguously because the appositive phrase in the sentence can be misread as another series without an Oxford comma, like in the next sentence. Replacing it with either/or seems like a better way to go in terms of the form here.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on Yesterday at 11:54:45 PM@Sir Lüc if you will forgive the 11th-hour request, please Clark the Caretaker Clarification Act. Under Lexh.H.2.1.5, one CRL member has recommended to accept the bill for Clarking, none have voted to reject, and there have been no amendments suggested.

I will grant this request, despite major doubts. I will post a full reasoning later - I worked at it for over two hours, including researching precedents, and I simply must move on now.

But in short - you can argue for either decision, depending on precedent and the extremely vague statutory provisions. I strongly object to the timeline of CRL review, because for a bill that was in the Hopper for a whole month, giving the CRL 1 day and 23 hours to review it is not an attempt at receiving a fair review. But, again, the law is so vague that time isn't a factor at all, and depending on how you look at precedent, one can easily argue that one positive review is enough for Clarking. (A dangerous precedent to set!)

I will therefore accept the bill for Clarking under something akin to Speaker Denison's Rule, ie, that when in doubt, one should allow for debate to continue, which in this instance means letting the bill on the Clark instead of "pocket vetoing" it by having it die in committee.

The law as written means that any instance when operation strays from a clean full approval from a full panel of reviewers is an opportunity for bad precedent and unintended consequences. This is one of those instances.

Thank you!!

Quote from: Owen Bottu on Today at 01:19:27 AMHi,

Could I join your party?

Welcome, Owen!!

@Baron Alexandreu Davinescu

Hi,

Could I join your party?

@Sir Lüc if you will forgive the 11th-hour request, please Clark the Caretaker Clarification Act. Under Lexh.H.2.1.5, one CRL member has recommended to accept the bill for Clarking, none have voted to reject, and there have been no amendments suggested.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 01:22:21 PMI don't quite understand the possible triggers here... So no one can be appointed unless someone has presented a petition for appointment of a seneschal or unless no one has and the Clark is being put together? Was that your intention with this bill?

The "caretaker" period, we'll call it, begins when the Ziu dissolves. It ends when either (a) a petition to appoint a Seneschal is presented to the King, or (b), the First Clark opens, whichever happens first.

Quote from: xpb on March 14, 2026, 10:23:19 PMnote: data collected by Breneir duing impulse #1 for Asgardia not including SWOT analysis has been submitted to their foreign ministry for review of accuracy - this is an information gathering step only, not establishing any specific relationship

Hey @xpb

In starting to finally get to work on the second report for the Dominion of Vancouver Island I noticed this note concerning the Asgardia report. Have you heard anything back from Asgardian Foreign Ministry?