Citizenship Commission Report

[Bromo Ivory]

..

[Bromo Ivory]

..

[Bromo Ivory]

..

[Bromo Ivory]

..

[Beathan]

Bromo --

You have failed to mention Pat's proposal of citizenship through membership in a landowning group. This is a far broader expansion of citizenship than the "couples" rule -- which is essentially no change.

It is telling, I think, that you give such short shrift to this option -- favoring instead the radical destruction of our territorial idea. I note that in all the discussion -- here, inworld, and on the CARE forums -- only you and Michel have opposed the idea that the CDS is and should be a territory. This is the essential question here -- and it is the thing that would be lost if options 1 or 2 is acted on.

I continue to oppose both options 1 and 2 -- and will vote accordingly in the RA. I hope that Pat represents his proposal -- which was not even presented in your report or (apparently) explored or discussed in your committee meetings.

Beathan

[Bromo Ivory]

..

[Beathan]

Bromo --

To say that I did not participate in the process is incorrect. I participated on the forums, which is and has always been my preference -- as I believe that forum posts are far more substantive and accessible than are inworld statements.

I am concerned that you, as chair, discount my forum posts. This suggests that you and your committee has failed to consider the discussion on these forums when making your recommendations. If so, please revisit your report. The forum posts were to be given at least equal weight and consideration with anything said inworld.

If you failed to give the forum posts proper weight, I would consider that grounds for the RA to entirelyt discount and disregard your report -- and would so recommend.

Beathan

[Bromo Ivory]

..

[Beathan]

Bromo --

In what way was I uncivil. I pointed out a defect in your report (an option raised on the forums was not mentioned and apparently not considered -- even though I and several other forum posters specifically highlighted it as our prefered option). I did not call you names. I did not attack you personally.

There is a difference between being critical (which is a good thing) and being uncivil (which is not). Now, to get personal, if you are so thin-skinned as to be unable to tell the difference, you should reconsider talking on any tasks of public responsibility in the future.

Note -- for an example of the proper way to handle public criticism, see Pat's post on his handling of the seven-day vote. It is a perfect example of proper grace in the face of public criticism. (In that case -- the criticism was also from me -- and, frankly, expessed in far harsher terms than I used when pointing out the lamentable failings of your report.)

Beathan

[Bromo Ivory]

I have taken into accoutna number of citicisms - and have taken the initiative to resubmit the report to the RA on Sunday.

I would like to thank Sleazy from bringing a couple of deficiencies to my attention, and I will have some numbers, and will generally strike the original conclusion and substitute something else with some more hard data

I have removed the original report from the forums,