Moderator: SC Moderators
[quote="NL 4-14 BILL FOR THE REGISTRATION AND INCORPORATION OF COMPANIES IN NEUALTENBURG":1vqkvce7]The ... Chamber of Commerce ... is an institution under the auspices of the Guild[/quote:1vqkvce7]
Hm .. is it currently being run by ..
* the Treasurer ?
* the Chancellor ?
* no one, aimlessly afloat in the ever expanding CDS-verse of magical CDS-constructs? 
TOP~
I'd say it's the responsibility of the Executive Branch (which means, to all intents and purpose, the Chancellor) according to my quick read of the Constitution.
[quote="CDS Constitution":2uax0bc1]Article II, Section 9 - AC Overlap
Any power or responsibility assigned to the Artisan's Collective by the constitution and precedent that overlaps those provided to the Chancellor in this amendment will be assigned to the Chancellor. [/quote:2uax0bc1]Any reason why you ask? As far as I recall, there are a couple of 'CDS Registered' companies, probably Eldritch Financial and one other.
Hi TOP,
Implementation of most bills falls under the executive (Chancellor). The treasurer is the position under the chancellor that most likely takes care of company registrations. The treasurer also holds (and reports on) corporation escrow.
Diderot had hoped to work on "fixing" the incorporation act and I'd also like to move towards his banking roadmap.
The traditional 'Chamber of Commerce' functions, as I understand it, are pretty much taken by the CDS Trader's Association NGO.
[quote="Pelanor Eldrich":3sobv5rb]Implementation of most bills falls under the executive[/quote:3sobv5rb]
Thanks for both your replies! Sounds logical, but I don't see that anywhere explicitly. Guess that isn't needed. Here's something strange:
The [url=http://208.101.22.58/~aliasi4/nburgwiki ... 4:3sobv5rb]Incorporation Act[/url:3sobv5rb], which is from March 2006, mentions Art. 7 of the Constitution, which to my knowledge always has been about the Judiciary. The Judiciary of which the bill was only [url=http://208.101.22.58/~aliasi4/nburgwiki ... t:3sobv5rb]approved in October[/url:3sobv5rb] and that only [url=http://208.101.22.58/~aliasi4/nburgwiki ... 1:3sobv5rb]appeared on the Wiki in December![/url:3sobv5rb] How is this possible? Both texts refer to each other so it doesn't look like a typo, and the Incorp. Act wasn't edited since March!
A code cleanup!
Hi Beathan: Any interest in jumpstarting the code cleanup commssion?
I thought a comprehensive code review and cleanup would be just the kind of excitement I need after archiving RA meeting transcripts.
-Pel
[quote="Pelanor Eldrich":3scmbdus]a comprehensive code review and cleanup would be just the kind of excitement I need[/quote:3scmbdus]
Whahahah! I was thinking of starting a "Perverts' Thread" when I was re-reading some Judiciary stuff the other day. You're welcome to start one!
As for the case above, I can't explain it unless Diderot somehow anticipated Ash's Judiciary, in detail even. The JA itself amended the Incorp. Act by changing 'Commercial Court' into 'Court of Common Jurisdiction' and 'Chief Judge', this was never reverted, neither by the act with the Soothsayer rules, nor by the act changing 'Chief Judge Superstar' to 'Dean of the SC'. So, although I can't explain it, I think doing an official amendment changing the Incorp. Act to it's original state would fix this one.
[quote="TOPGenosse":2p9jxqpn]Here's something strange:
The [url=http://208.101.22.58/~aliasi4/nburgwiki ... 4:2p9jxqpn]Incorporation Act[/url:2p9jxqpn], which is from March 2006, mentions Art. 7 of the Constitution, which to my knowledge always has been about the Judiciary. The Judiciary of which the bill was only [url=http://208.101.22.58/~aliasi4/nburgwiki ... t:2p9jxqpn]approved in October[/url:2p9jxqpn] and that only [url=http://208.101.22.58/~aliasi4/nburgwiki ... 1:2p9jxqpn]appeared on the Wiki in December![/url:2p9jxqpn] How is this possible? Both texts refer to each other so it doesn't look like a typo, and the Incorp. Act wasn't edited since March![/quote:2p9jxqpn]
Aaah, transposition errors - my favourites!
I think the reference is to Article III, Section 7 (the 7 and the 3 have been switched by mistake). If you look at the history of the constitution and check the Tue 14 of Mar, 2006 [05:27 UTC] version, you'll see that, under Amendement 4 the Constitution was amended as follows:
[quote:2p9jxqpn]Modifies Article III, Section 7 to read as follows:
SC members will provide alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in matters of disagreement involving one or more citizens or corporations of Neualtenburg. The SC may at its discretion provide such services in cases where neither party is a resident or corporation of Neualtenburg. A seperate procedural document is maintained by the SC defining the services offered and the conditions on which they are made available. This document may be amended by a simple majority vote among the chairs of the SC. [/quote:2p9jxqpn]This appears to still be part of the Constitution (I had a quick look to check).
That's very quick Pat! I took another look at the Constitution and it seems that the alternative dispute resolution clause from amendment 4 is also *replaced* by something else in amendment 19 (IMO no problem for the Incorp. Act). [url=http://forums.secondlife.com/showpost.p ... 2:376yvt41]Diderot's original draft for this bill[/url:376yvt41] shows that he writes [i:376yvt41]"section 7, article 3"[/i:376yvt41], but then apparently starts to correct himself INcorrectly!
[quote="Pelanor Eldrich":376yvt41]Hi Beathan: Any interest in jumpstarting the code cleanup commssion?[/quote:376yvt41]
Ah, that noble aim! 
[quote="TOPGenosse":1ynqd8sp][url=http://forums.secondlife.com/showpost.p ... 2:1ynqd8sp]Diderot's original draft for this bill[/url:1ynqd8sp] shows that he writes [i:1ynqd8sp]"section 7, article 3"[/i:1ynqd8sp], but then apparently starts to correct himself INcorrectly! [/quote:1ynqd8sp]
Sorry about that! It seems that what I have done was to do a search and replace to interchange uses of article and section in order to bring my enumeration in line with the terminology used in the Constitution. In doing so I unfortunately missed the fact that the existing references in the text were initially correct but were changed by my S&R operation. This means that all references to the Constitution in the Incorporation Act will need to have their use of article and section swapped back. You will notice that there are further references in the subsequent articles / sections whatever.
I can produce a revised draft if you like but I'm not sure how many are still using the provisions in the incorporation act - it seems to me the necessary government bureaucracy never came into action and perhaps it is time to refocus our efforts in light of our experiences with trying to build bureaucracy to support professionalisation in the CDS.
My personal opinion is that if we are to experiment with bureaucracy in support of commercialisation / professionalisation again it must happen as a modulary, project tender-based exercise to implement the support 100% in scripts - i.e. wholly independent of voluntarism, which may work well for building, socialising and eventmaking but is a terrible liability when it comes to administering a government.
[quote="Pelanor Eldrich":1ynqd8sp]Hi Beathan: Any interest in jumpstarting the code cleanup commssion?[/quote:1ynqd8sp]
Ah, that noble aim! [/quote]
[quote="TOPGenosse":wqcjy8rb][url=http://forums.secondlife.com/showpost.p ... 2:wqcjy8rb]Diderot's original draft for this bill[/url:wqcjy8rb] shows that he writes [i:wqcjy8rb]"section 7, article 3"[/i:wqcjy8rb], but then apparently starts to correct himself INcorrectly! [/quote:wqcjy8rb]
Sorry about that! It seems that what I have done was to do a search and replace to interchange uses of article and section in order to bring my enumeration in line with the terminology used in the Constitution. In doing so I unfortunately missed the fact that the existing references in the text were initially correct but were changed by my S&R operation. This means that all references to the Constitution in the Incorporation Act will need to have their use of article and section swapped back. You will notice that there are further references in the subsequent articles / sections whatever.
I can produce a revised draft if you like but I'm not sure how many are still using the provisions in the incorporation act - it seems to me the necessary government bureaucracy never came into action and perhaps it is time to refocus our efforts in light of our experiences with trying to build bureaucracy to support professionalisation in the CDS.
My personal opinion is that if we are to experiment with bureaucracy in support of commercialisation / professionalisation again it must happen as a modulary, project tender-based exercise to implement the support 100% in scripts - i.e. wholly independent of voluntarism, which may work well for building, socialising and eventmaking but is a terrible liability when it comes to administering a government.