Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 30, 2025, 02:57:00 PMI hope this reform would eliminate both the Hopper and the CRL.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 30, 2025, 02:51:45 PMQuote from: King Txec on January 30, 2025, 11:05:28 AMI would be interested to see how multiple readings could be implemented.
Okay, imagine this:
- a bill is put up on the First Clark. The purposes of this "first reading" vote is just to vote on whether it's worth discussing.
- if it passes that vote, then during the Second Clark the bill goes back to the Hopper. This would include input on not only the substantive but the technical/proofreading aspects of the bill, which would ideally come from a civil service Clerk of the Ziu but failing that the current CRL would work.
- then it can be put up to actually be adopted on the Third Clark.
- Perhaps there could be provisions for one or more of these steps to be skipped in case of urgency.
This is the simplest way I can think of it, but we could make it more complicated, ask me how if you're interested.
Quote from: King Txec on January 30, 2025, 11:05:28 AMI would be interested to see how multiple readings could be implemented.
Quote from: King Txec on January 29, 2025, 05:40:59 PMPlease Clark this bill: https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=3768.msg31837#msg31837
-Txec R
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 29, 2025, 08:35:48 PMQuote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 29, 2025, 06:56:26 PMI would strongly support getting rid of the CRL, overall, and replacing it with a system of multiple readings.
I would support this as well. And I think, from what I can tell, Miestra supports it as well. I am in the odd situation that I will be voting against my own bill as well because I thought the way that the CRL review has been implemented by the previous SoS matched the intent and language of the law. I was wrong and I assume the new SoS will be interpreting the CRL review process (as outlined here by Gluc and Miestra) as something that does not prevent Clarking.
Quote from: Glüc da Dhi S.H. on January 29, 2025, 04:20:06 PMMy recommendations:
I greatly prefer this new definition of the Leader of the Opposition over the one that's currently in the OrgLaw, but that does mean this amendment immediately creates an inorganic Lexhatx article. I'm not sure if anyone has gone through the lexhatx to see if there are any other conflicts, but generally I think it's bad practice to make sweeping OrgLaw amendments and then fix (or have someone else fix) the lexhatx later, so ideally this bill would be accompanied by the appropriate changes to the lexhatx (including removing lex H.4.3) before it gets clarked.
I see no other immediate technical issues.