|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 26, 2015 8:00:37 GMT -6
How about we don't put things like that into law, but leave it up to the Chancellor. No reason having arbitrary requirements like that unless it becomes a problem, right? After all, if there's two earnest cartographers who want to start an awesome school of Talossan Geography or whatever, why would we say no, just because they don't have a third? No reason to make this any more complicated. Let's just leave it open and up to our appointee. Point, but, I still feel more comfortable laying out some sort of procedure, simply saying that schools could exist, so when it comes time everything is unified. What about
"Schools may be created within the Society for the purpose of focusing on a specific subject. The exact procedure for establishing a school shall be chosen by the President, who will also appoint a dean to supervise each school."
I feel like I have been as general as I can while still mentioning that schools could exist.
That seems good. Lays out expectations without hobbling with regulations. By the way, I have to say that you have become an excellent legislator in these past few months. Mostly, I think, because you practice so much with ten bills a Clark! But well-done! |
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001 
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Sept 26, 2015 9:01:46 GMT -6
So in essesnce, deparmental areas of the societys that only exist if there is an intrest and is controled by the president. Yes
Well, the executive of a school would be the dean of that school, does that answer your question? Schools would largely be autonomous from one another in my view, except for collaborative projects, but the bill is purposely vague on that topic. |
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Sept 26, 2015 9:04:27 GMT -6
By the way, I have to say that you have become an excellent legislator in these past few months. Mostly, I think, because you practice so much with ten bills a Clark! But well-done! Might I hold the record for most bills clarked as a first-term MC?  |
|
|
|
Post by Françal Ian Lux on Sept 26, 2015 9:30:15 GMT -6
How about we don't put things like that into law, but leave it up to the Chancellor. No reason having arbitrary requirements like that unless it becomes a problem, right? After all, if there's two earnest cartographers who want to start an awesome school of Talossan Geography or whatever, why would we say no, just because they don't have a third? No reason to make this any more complicated. Let's just leave it open and up to our appointee. I actually like Sir Alex's point. We might just insert a subsection saying something like "with enough support, the executive or head or whatever may be petition to intiate the formation of another school" something like that |
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Sept 26, 2015 9:46:40 GMT -6
By the way, I have to say that you have become an excellent legislator in these past few months. Mostly, I think, because you practice so much with ten bills a Clark! But well-done! Might I hold the record for most bills clarked as a first-term MC? Introduce a bill for this new honour, the “Mostclarking Cosămember Primus”. You could style yourself “Ian Plätschisch, MCP”.  |
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Sept 26, 2015 10:13:22 GMT -6
Might I hold the record for most bills clarked as a first-term MC? Introduce a bill for this new honour, the “Mostclarking Cosămember Primus”. You could style yourself “Ian Plätschisch, MCP”. I thought there was a rule against the creation of an award that the creator would receive
Didn't MPF get some heat for that when he tried to create the "Order of the Chancery"?
|
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Sept 26, 2015 11:27:58 GMT -6
Introduce a bill for this new honour, the “Mostclarking Cosămember Primus”. You could style yourself “Ian Plätschisch, MCP”. I thought there was a rule against the creation of an award that the creator would receive
Didn't MPF get some heat for that when he tried to create the "Order of the Chancery"?
There is an unwritten one, you are quite right. ;P |
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Sept 26, 2015 20:18:09 GMT -6
I thought there was a rule against the creation of an award that the creator would receive
Didn't MPF get some heat for that when he tried to create the "Order of the Chancery"?
There is an unwritten one, you are quite right. ;P I see than Txosue submitted one for me  |
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Sept 27, 2015 20:36:02 GMT -6
If the Society is to be divided into "schools" headed by "deans", why not just keep the University? Those sound like traditional university/college divisions.
Personally, I favour letting the Ziu create whatever formal subdivisions are thought advisable in the future.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Sept 27, 2015 21:17:10 GMT -6
If the Society is to be divided into "schools" headed by "deans", why not just keep the University? Those sound like traditional university/college divisions. Because "school" in the sense of the word I am using, doesn't imply education, but only a group of people. As I said when speaking with S:reu Ursum, I doubt that trying to rebrand the University would meet with much success.
Legislation is slow. Letting the Society be able to change itself would allow it to meet the needs of the citizenry faster than if a bill had to be proposed. |
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Sept 28, 2015 16:39:21 GMT -6
Because "school" in the sense of the word I am using, doesn't imply education, but only a group of people. Hmm. That strikes me as an unusual sense of "school", at least when used as the name of an institution, and especially in conjunction with the title "dean". It seems to me that "school" is used more universally to refer to a student-teacher educational institution (and has been so used for a lot longer) than other words like "academy", "college", or even "university". Legislation is slow. Letting the Society be able to change itself would allow it to meet the needs of the citizenry faster than if a bill had to be proposed. You say "slow", I say "stable". And stability is important for respectability, IMHO. Also, a planned division into academies (or whatever) would be more systematic and efficient than ad-hoc accretion of schools. A related thought: instead of (or in addition to) addressing subdivisions of the Society right off the bat, why not address membership in the society? If members/fellows/whatever of the Society are recognised upon admission as scholars in particular fields, then once the membership of the Society reaches a critical mass the designations of the members would facilitate taking a holistic view of the membership in crafting an optimal scheme for subdividing the society. |
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Sept 28, 2015 17:55:02 GMT -6
Because "school" in the sense of the word I am using, doesn't imply education, but only a group of people. Hmm. That strikes me as an unusual sense of "school", at least when used as the name of an institution, and especially in conjunction with the title "dean". It seems to me that "school" is used more universally to refer to a student-teacher educational institution (and has been so used for a lot longer) than other words like "academy", "college", or even "university". Legislation is slow. Letting the Society be able to change itself would allow it to meet the needs of the citizenry faster than if a bill had to be proposed. You say "slow", I say "stable". And stability is important for respectability, IMHO. Also, a planned division into academies (or whatever) would be more systematic and efficient than ad-hoc accretion of schools. A related thought: instead of (or in addition to) addressing subdivisions of the Society right off the bat, why not address membership in the society? If members/fellows/whatever of the Society are recognised upon admission as scholars in particular fields, then once the membership of the Society reaches a critical mass the designations of the members would facilitate taking a holistic view of the membership in crafting an optimal scheme for subdividing the society. As far as word choice, while some may think it strange, it really doesn't change the content of the bill. On your second point, I would have to agree with your fellow RUMPer AD, who advocated against a pre-planned division and against a pre-established fellowship. We don't really know how the Society will work out, so IMHO it would be a bit foolhardy to lay down details for it yet. If it becomes necessary, future legislation can take care of it. And I don't shy away from the prospect of future legislation |
|
