Official Chairman

This topic is dedicated to the discussion of the Official Chairman.

I don't think we need to change anything regarding the chairman. This is the current system, and it's very simple:

--The chairman will count regional votes for both elections and referenda.
--During the chairman election, the WA delegate counts votes.

I think we do need to add one thing, though. The chairman should have to post results of a vote within a given time after its completion; otherwise, we may end up like our second chairman, Zetting Miran, who didn't post vote results for over two weeks after their conclusion. That said, we have to make sure results are revealed promptly so that referenda can be completed smoothly and efficiently. I suggest, ehh, 4 days at the MOST.

I agree with GROSS, though four days is a bit much. Perhaps three?

@Vizindolf: I actually said four because I thought nobody would agree with anything shorter. Yes, I definitely will agree to three days instead.

I'm guessing that there is a lot of regional folklore that went around before I arrived.

I think that the Official Chairperson needs a different name. If the only thing they do is count votes, let's call them something like...Election Recorder, or something along those lines.

@Gatito: I am familiar with the first government and the founding nations other than myself; first, because I worked with them, and second, because I spent so much time recording their data on the website when I could.

Also, I don't think we really need to change the name; it's just like in real community councils or a governor's advisory council, where the chairperson records data from votes for safekeeping.

I actually think the chairman should be someone who is very active, therefore I think two days is reasonable, but even that's a stretch. Because anxious candidates will be awaiting results, impatiently, otherwise.

I agree, they should be. And, as I stated earlier, I am willing to move the period to a much shorter time than four days; so I will move my vote down to 2 days. However, we do need to make this more organized so we come to a definite decision:

Vote:
1. The chairman should not have a time limit in which to post vote results.
2. The chairman should have 4 or more days to post vote results. (please specify the number)
3. The chairman should have 3 days to post vote results.
4. The chairman should have 2 days to post results.
5. The chairman should have 1 day to post results.

Please pick an option; we'll conclude it when we have enough votes. If necessary, we will cover Gatito's proposal to change the name of the position once this is decided.

I vote option 4.

Option 4.

Option Three.

Option 4

4

I would vote for option 4. 

Option 5 is just silly.

I would have to agree with Qora, one day is entirely insufficient.

I do hope that we will be adding something into the Constitution saying that if the Chairman is on vacation that he/she will not be penalized for not providing the results in a timely manner.

@Vizindolf: Yes, don't worry about that. We'll treat it the same way we treat other expected period of activity: if they provide a viable excuse prior to the absence, they are exempted. Although I recommend that we use an alternative chairman in the event of one being gone for a while.

Ok, our vote is concluded, then, and the result is option 4: the chairman will have 2 days to post results before being penalized.

Are there any other suggestions/ideas we need to go over before moving on?

Nothing that I can think of on this end...

Yeah, I can't think of anything else.

The government discussion has dramatically slowed down. Let's pick up the pace!

I agree, I believe that it is time to move on to the next topic. We can always come back if we think of something else.

Right; let's move on, then.