|
Post by Ehrereich on Aug 19, 2015 16:47:17 GMT
Denounced.
The map should not belong to Markotovia specifically, and if there's a shared jurisdiction, it should be with the Minister of Internal Affairs. As the Map is a further extension of citizenship rights, and the purpose of the Ministry of Internal Affairs is ensuring internal , it should further fall upon that office.
The following section is taken from the Constitution (Article 5, Cabinet Role-Specific Duties)
Minister of Internal Affairs has the primary duty of harmonizing inter-party relationships and maintaining the Commonwealth-Parliament relationship. The Minister of Internal Affairs will oversee the Parliament, and ensure that the Parliament runs smoothly, and majority-passed legislation is brought before the Chancellor for approval. In addition, the Minister of Internal Affairs has the duty of managing the Citizenship Office, and handling citizenship for the entire region. At any point the Chancellor or Lord-Chancellor may ask to pull citizenship records, or enter the Office account.
I see no issue with the first half of the proposed amendment, furthering the capacity of the office in that it properly lines up term limits with the rest of the Cabinet.
|
|
|
Post by Markotovia on Aug 19, 2015 17:23:38 GMT
Denounced. The map should not belong to Markotovia specifically, and if there's a shared jurisdiction, it should be with the Minister of Internal Affairs. As the Map is a further extension of citizenship rights, and the purpose of the Ministry of Internal Affairs is ensuring internal , it should further fall upon that office. The following section is taken from the Constitution (Article 5, Cabinet Role-Specific Duties) Minister of Internal Affairs has the primary duty of harmonizing inter-party relationships and maintaining the Commonwealth-Parliament relationship. The Minister of Internal Affairs will oversee the Parliament, and ensure that the Parliament runs smoothly, and majority-passed legislation is brought before the Chancellor for approval. In addition, the Minister of Internal Affairs has the duty of managing the Citizenship Office, and handling citizenship for the entire region. At any point the Chancellor or Lord-Chancellor may ask to pull citizenship records, or enter the Office account. I see no issue with the first half of the proposed amendment, furthering the capacity of the office in that it properly lines up term limits with the rest of the Cabinet. For one, the map does not belong to me specifically. I'll be the one updating it, AFTER the Minister of Culture and I reach a unanimous decision. I don't think the MoIA should have jurisdiction over it because the map is for RPing purposes, not for official citizenship business
|
|
|
Post by Vista Major on Aug 19, 2015 17:33:23 GMT
ENDORSEDHowever, I disagree that the Chancellor should have bearing on unofficial meetings After consideration, I do agree with that. I'm going to remove that from the bill *victory*
|
|
|
Post by Vista Major on Aug 19, 2015 17:34:45 GMT
Denounced. The map should not belong to Markotovia specifically, and if there's a shared jurisdiction, it should be with the Minister of Internal Affairs. As the Map is a further extension of citizenship rights, and the purpose of the Ministry of Internal Affairs is ensuring internal , it should further fall upon that office. The following section is taken from the Constitution (Article 5, Cabinet Role-Specific Duties) Minister of Internal Affairs has the primary duty of harmonizing inter-party relationships and maintaining the Commonwealth-Parliament relationship. The Minister of Internal Affairs will oversee the Parliament, and ensure that the Parliament runs smoothly, and majority-passed legislation is brought before the Chancellor for approval. In addition, the Minister of Internal Affairs has the duty of managing the Citizenship Office, and handling citizenship for the entire region. At any point the Chancellor or Lord-Chancellor may ask to pull citizenship records, or enter the Office account. I see no issue with the first half of the proposed amendment, furthering the capacity of the office in that it properly lines up term limits with the rest of the Cabinet. For one, the map does not belong to me specifically. I'll be the one updating it, AFTER the Minister of Culture and I reach a unanimous decision. I don't think the MoIA should have jurisdiction over it because the map is for RPing purposes, not for official citizenship business I agree with that. The MC is a largely "ceremonial" or "unofficial" office, per se. It has little bearing on official business. Likewise, the Cabinet shouldn't have bearing over the MC.
|
|
|
Post by Ehrereich on Aug 19, 2015 18:45:48 GMT
Denounced. The map should not belong to Markotovia specifically, and if there's a shared jurisdiction, it should be with the Minister of Internal Affairs. As the Map is a further extension of citizenship rights, and the purpose of the Ministry of Internal Affairs is ensuring internal , it should further fall upon that office. The following section is taken from the Constitution (Article 5, Cabinet Role-Specific Duties) Minister of Internal Affairs has the primary duty of harmonizing inter-party relationships and maintaining the Commonwealth-Parliament relationship. The Minister of Internal Affairs will oversee the Parliament, and ensure that the Parliament runs smoothly, and majority-passed legislation is brought before the Chancellor for approval. In addition, the Minister of Internal Affairs has the duty of managing the Citizenship Office, and handling citizenship for the entire region. At any point the Chancellor or Lord-Chancellor may ask to pull citizenship records, or enter the Office account. I see no issue with the first half of the proposed amendment, furthering the capacity of the office in that it properly lines up term limits with the rest of the Cabinet. For one, the map does not belong to me specifically. I'll be the one updating it, AFTER the Minister of Culture and I reach a unanimous decision. I don't think the MoIA should have jurisdiction over it because the map is for RPing purposes, not for official citizenship business You're missing my point entirely. At no point should an individual member nation be written into the legislation. It should be a job filled by a specific cabinet member with provisions made to allow for transition in case the individual goes absent for protracted periods. See the recent debacle in which you were involved concerning the citizenship roster. The point remains that if you intend for shared jurisdiction, it should be split between two members of the cabinet (in this case, the Ministry of Culture I would certainly agree with). I am further proposing, as the current guidelines for placement on the map require a nation to be a resident or citizen, it would make the most logical sense that the second proprietor of the map be the individual charged with the citizenship roster- specifically, the Minister of Internal Affairs.
|
|
|
Post by Markotovia on Aug 19, 2015 21:15:54 GMT
For one, the map does not belong to me specifically. I'll be the one updating it, AFTER the Minister of Culture and I reach a unanimous decision. I don't think the MoIA should have jurisdiction over it because the map is for RPing purposes, not for official citizenship business You're missing my point entirely. At no point should an individual member nation be written into the legislation. It should be a job filled by a specific cabinet member with provisions made to allow for transition in case the individual goes absent for protracted periods. See the recent debacle in which you were involved concerning the citizenship roster. The point remains that if you intend for shared jurisdiction, it should be split between two members of the cabinet (in this case, the Ministry of Culture I would certainly agree with). I am further proposing, as the current guidelines for placement on the map require a nation to be a resident or citizen, it would make the most logical sense that the second proprietor of the map be the individual charged with the citizenship roster- specifically, the Minister of Internal Affairs. But in order to see who is a resident or citizen, I can simply look on the roster. I've done that for the entire existence of the map and it's worked fine
|
|
|
Post by Ehrereich on Aug 19, 2015 22:12:06 GMT
And I'm not disputing that, Mark. But if it is now an item under official purview, it doesn't need to be in the hands of a specific, individual member under legislation. It needs to belong to an office or offices collectively, and not be an item legislated to an individual. As it is now a governmental function due to the Ministry of Culture Act, it needs to be assigned to governmental offices, not an individual.
This would be the equivilent of a country writing a person in legislatively as the official cartographer without consideration for continuity, or transferance of power.
|
|
|
Post by Markotovia on Aug 19, 2015 23:45:09 GMT
And I'm not disputing that, Mark. But if it is now an item under official purview, it doesn't need to be in the hands of a specific, individual member under legislation. It needs to belong to an office or offices collectively, and not be an item legislated to an individual. As it is now a governmental function due to the Ministry of Culture Act, it needs to be assigned to governmental offices, not an individual. This would be the equivilent of a country writing a person in legislatively as the official cartographer without consideration for continuity, or transferance of power. But adding another Minister to impede on the map, when they shouldn't be, will just create more unneeded bureaucracy and make the map making process much slower and less inefficient
|
|
|
Post by Ehrereich on Aug 20, 2015 0:03:07 GMT
Not when you remove yourself from the equation. Or are you trying to say that you're completely unwilling to give up some measure of control of the map?
|
|
|
Post by Markotovia on Aug 20, 2015 0:23:19 GMT
Not when you remove yourself from the equation. Or are you trying to say that you're completely unwilling to give up some measure of control of the map? Well why would I remove myself from the map, that I started? I've agreed to allow the Ministry of Culture to work alongside me in accepting map claim applications. I don't think it's wrong that I don't want to remove myself from the mapmaking process that I started and that I have worked hard to maintain
|
|
|
Post by Ehrereich on Aug 20, 2015 2:04:36 GMT
Not when you remove yourself from the equation. Or are you trying to say that you're completely unwilling to give up some measure of control of the map? Well why would I remove myself from the map, that I started? I've agreed to allow the Ministry of Culture to work alongside me in accepting map claim applications. I don't think it's wrong that I don't want to remove myself from the mapmaking process that I started and that I have worked hard to maintain Because of a variety of reasons. First, it's now an official function of government, through legislation. Currently, that legislation states that it belongs to the Ministry of Culture. Second, because it's not about you. It's not about me. This is in the best interests of the region as a whole, because it exerts an official mechanism and allows courses of action in the event that you step outside and get hit by a bus, or lose interest, or what have you. Third, legislation SHOULD NOT name an individual to be in charge of anything. See previous points again, for the second time and actually consider this. Fourth, common sense dictates again, that the office in charge of the citizenship roster should be the one to work in conjunction with the Ministry of Culture to determine the following. I don't see how any of this is even remotely unreasonable. I am not denigrating what you've done with the map, nor am I making these points to punish you. You of all people should understand, especially after your recent trial, the need for clear and effective listing of responsibilities, as well as a means for those responsibilities to flow if you are unable to perform them for any of a wide variety of reasons.
|
|
|
Post by Acro on Aug 20, 2015 2:44:18 GMT
Denounced
|
|
|
Post by Ehrereich on Aug 20, 2015 2:56:15 GMT
On 19AUG15 at or around 2255EDT, Lavan Tiri and Sulania, who are having forum issues requested that their denouncements of this amendment be posted for them on the RMB.
|
|
|
Post by islesofazoria on Aug 20, 2015 3:12:28 GMT
I agree with the first change but not the second. When I was creating the bill it meant to be that the MoC shared the same term limit like the other Ministers. Originally when I was creating the bill it was my intent to have changes to the map be under the MoC, upon approval from the MoIA. It should be a sort of "checks and balances". Not one office should hold the power to both the citizenship roster AND the map. And especially it should not be under the control of a single member, because one day if they are not holding a position in cabinet, they shouldn't have control over it.
|
|
|
Post by TrinacriaSiciliana on Aug 20, 2015 3:53:18 GMT
I endorse this amendment with the following reservations:
While Mark has done a fantastic job with the map thus far, I agree that it is inappropriate to write a specific person into legislation. Perhaps a more agreeable solution would be to create a well-defined, non-Cabinet position (e.g., "Chief Cartographer") subject to votes of confidence/no confidence that shares map jurisdiction with either the MoIA or the MoC. That way, Mark could still have a hand in the map, but it would provide for better continuity in the event that Mark is incapacitated or otherwise unable to carry out his duties with the map.
While some might argue that the creation of another position is unnecessary, it might be the most pragmatic approach given Mark's willingness to take on the brunt of the responsibilities associated with managing the map.
In addition, I believe the map should be saved on a common account (cf. CFN Citizenship, CFN Archives) so editing capabilities can be shared without compromising the security of an individual user's NS account.
|
|