Welcome to Gaia! ::

I think we're going about the constitution all wrong. I look at the thing right now and see incredibly trivial matters being addressed: name, address, duration, etc. We need to work on the actual detailed organization of the party. Such as who makes up the board of directors, how they are appointed, how long their term is, what their specific powers are, etc.

I propose that rather than organizing the constitution as it is now, we arrange it to have one or many Articles regarding the various branches of government, how they interact, integrate, communicate, and exercize power over various functions. Then an article regarding the general purpose and powers of the Novos party as a whole, probably towards the beginning of the Constitution as a Preamble or an entire article if deemed necessary. Another article will deal with amendments, ratification, and processes for decision making. Another will answer the question of how new governments and territories and peoples may enter the Party. Another will place restrictions on the governing figures, how they may exercize power, when, for what reason, exceptions to certain rules, what rules may never be broken, etc.

Keep in mind that we are creating not only a political organization but a world power, a global government. And that certain needs must be met. Power must be divided beyond merely the Board of Directors. The board of directors cannot manage all the businesses of the Novos party.

We might be able to gain insight into future needs be looking at current political parties, their struggles, and their constitution. I'm not sure what knowledge could be gained, but might help.

Although it is interesting, I disagree with your idea of the pre-constitution document. It would probably slow us down, more than it would help. I believe that the ten who are currently active (and any others who become active) should make a 'good enough' document that can be perfected later when there are others to help.

I will agree to this for now, but it may be necessary to completely rewrite the constitution as we grow in number and influence.

Yes, we still need the manifesto, but might it be good to first make rules/guidelines on how to come to decisions?

Myslec and I have discussed this and are not completely in agreement with one another. What we do agree on is that if we are going to have the deadlines on discussions, you need rules on how much time is allowed for discussion and how the end vote is decided.

For example:
There is a three week discussion time on a specific topic. At the end of this time there is a vote with only two possible answers: Finish Discussions/Pass Motion and Continue Discussions/Don't Pass Motion.
If there is a majority vote for "Finish Discussions/Pass Motion" then the discussion is made, no more discussion.
If the majority vote is for "Continue Discussions/Don't Pass Motion" then the discussion continues until the next deadline, where a similar vote will take place.

The choices I see for doing this is to include supportive articles in any proposed amendment. This way all required changes go through at once and there's no lag, but amendment discussions become more complicated and this may delay their implimentation. Or Supportive articles could be passes seperately to get the main body of it through more quickly. If the supportive aricles were discussed at the same time it would avoid a lag but would delay other full amendments.

I don't see how I could object to it. I'm not sure how we are going to decide on the poll options for when we vote on the amendment itself. Do we have the writer of the first version of the amendment produce a finalversion for us to vote for or against. Or do we have people produce several different versions and vote for the one we support most. Both of these would cause problems for an organisation of this size (the first would slow us down while we try to find the right version) and the other would require a [possibley unreasonable] amount of involvement by the current members.

In addition to this I think that any proposed revision to an amendment that is under construction, that is generally accepted by us(the crew), should be made to the amendment without the need for a formal vote. A vote should still be required to finalize and pass the amendment.