Security Council Reform Bill

Can I ask what is happening to this? I suspect a number of people changed their vote in the last version on the understanding that the bill would be revised and re-presented. Is that going to happen?
 
It seems like the only real sticking point is the requirements for the vice delegate. I can take a look at revamping that in the next couple days and propose an amendment, if no one else has something already written.
 
I've changed the endo requirement in clause 10 for the VD to the WAD's endo count minus 1/5 of all WA nations, and completely removed the 15-day requirement; I believe the "promptly" should be good enough, especially since changing it to and leaving it as 30 days, as suggested, may have to be changed in the future as the WAD's endo count grows, requiring the VD to gain more endos in the same timeframe. If the VD really slacks off on gaining the required endorsement count, a recall proposal should be sufficient, at least as a harsh reminder to the VD to gain endorsements.

(Darcania casts Revive on Security Council Reform Bill!)
 
Darcania:
I've changed the endo requirement in clause 10 for the VD to the WAD's endo count minus 1/5 of all WA nations, and completely removed the 15-day requirement; I believe the "promptly" should be good enough, especially since changing it to and leaving it as 30 days, as suggested, may have to be changed in the future as the WAD's endo count grows, requiring the VD to gain more endos in the same timeframe. If the VD really slacks off on gaining the required endorsement count, a recall proposal should be sufficient, at least as a harsh reminder to the VD to gain endorsements.

(Darcania casts Revive on Security Council Reform Bill!)
Click to expand...
I like these changes. Let's vote again!
 
The Bill is now in formal debate. Formal debate concludes in five days, at which time a vote shall be scheduled.
 
4. Whenever any computation results in fractions, the count will be rounded down to the nearest whole integer.
Click to expand...
Is there any good reason not to strike this clause? The only impact it has is to reduce endorsement requirements by 1 in some circumstances.
 
I suppose to make it clear what the requirements are in case anybody is confused about what to do with half an endorsement.

I'm not sure if it's required, though, and I'm also not sure it makes the most sense of the two options. I think in most cases the rounding should by default be up - that is, if you need 613.175 endorsements, then 613 is not sufficient. Just like if you need a majority of an odd number of voters to pass something or elect somebody, rounding down to the lower integer is not correct. I'd be in favor of striking it.
 
Considering the language of the rest of the bill ("at least", "exceeds", "meets or exceeds"), it seems to me that the rest of the proposal makes it clear in the absence of that clause to round up, which would make that clause necessary if that behavior wasn't desired... but I believe such behavior is desired, so I'll remove that clause and re-number accordingly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top