Editorial Council Resolution 0007: Editorial Council membership rules

[Supten]

The period for open comments will start from Tuesday Nov 27, 04:30 hrs. UTC.
The text of the resolution can be found at http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Editorial_Council_Resolution_0007 : Editorial Council membership rules.

[Stephen Ewen]

As presently constituted, I dislike the portion on 10 elected persons brought in with simple vote and without discussion.  Firstly, the number is unacceptably high, especially given that there will be only 11 author representatives.  Secondly, this is unacceptably open to abuse; for example, it can be a way of bringing in persons to tip votes in certain directions.

[Martin Baldwin-Edwards]

Yes, the resolution significantly reduces the current power and autonomy of the Editorial Council. Whether or not this is desirable, I leave for others to say.

[Stephen Ewen]

If you are referring to author representation in the council, I strongly do not think it reduces its power. Rather, it increases it because it increases the legitimacy of it in the eyes of authors, who will otherwise just not take adequate liking to the project if left voiceless as regards the power of the vote.  If there is any problem here it is that it does not go far enough by splitting the council 50/50.  Good authors are not stupid, they just might lack traditional expertise in certain privileged topic areas.  Without doubt, authors are certain to occasionally enjoy wisdom from their life experiences that editors lack.  In any event, I surely do not envision "party line" votes as likely! 

Also, I would prefer to see an age minimum of 30 for all representatives.

[Martin Baldwin-Edwards]

No, I was not referring to author participation, which I support. I meant solely in terms of its structural position, it will be largely staffed by people with a temporary presence, who will feel awkward about confrontations on issues which they are new to. There has to be a balance between permanent and transient in any governance structure. Look at the US Supreme Court for an example of permanance; or various Italian governments in the last decades for examples of transience. Something in between is desirable.

[Stephen Ewen]

I agree that one year is too brief.  Once someone gets the job down, out they go.

[Robert_W_King]

Also, I would prefer to see an age minimum of 30 for all representatives.

I was having a conversation with someone recently about "age restrictions" and it really is a bunch of hogwash to set an age limit on anything.  I assure you that there are many people who drive poorly and dangerously at age 18 and above as they do when they reach age 16; there are many young people that abuse alcohol well before their 21st birthdays; and underage kids have no problems acquiring cigarettes if they're resourceful.

I think the focus should be on having people of good calibre being a representative rather than restricting it to some arbitrary age limit.  There is nothing that indicates someone is smarter (and to a greater extent, possesses greater critical thinking skills) at 30 than they do at any other "mature" age.

[Chris Day]

There is nothing that indicates someone is smarter (and to a greater extent, possesses greater critical thinking skills) at 30 than they do at any other "mature" age.

Is the issue about smart though?  I assume knowledge and maturity are being factored in too. We are all ignorant but I think we agree that this is greater when we are younger.

I do agree that younger participants have the potential to contribute equally if not better to any discussion.  I do not think that is generally true though and I assume it is that rationale that is the basis for the age limit although 30 does seem quite high.

[RJensen]

the criteria is not so much age as exposure to the higher learning--at university--so age 18 is a reasonable cutoff.

[Martin Baldwin-Edwards]

This age thing: I really would prefer that we focus on potential contribution. To some extent, that is predicated on experience which might imply a minimum age, but I am disinclined to support fixing numbers. Everything is relative: let people's abilities speak for themseves, and not use age as a proxy for ability.

[Stephen Ewen]

Why would the founders of the U.S. Constitution place a minimum age of 30 to serve as a representative in Congress?

One cannot be a constable unless 25 and a college graduate.  Why?  But one can be in the EC if 15?  16?  18?  How is this congruent?

[RJensen]

Wikipedia has many thousands of under-18 contributors and it really is one of their biggest problems.   We can require that CZ authors have at least one year at university, which makes the criteria directly relevant to our goal of reaching a university audience. ~~~~

[Chris Day]

One cannot be a constable unless 25 and a college graduate.  Why?  But one can be in the EC if 15?  16?  18?  How is this congruent?

To be fair the two roles are quite different. A cool head is required for the first, while organisational and editorial opinions are soliciated from the latter. A cool head is definitely a sign of maturity, although again we get back to the issue of hot headed 30 years olds.  Maybe the answer is a constable should be judged on their skills rather than age too?

Having said this I do support age limits for all of these postions but not as high as 30 and probably 18 is about right, as Richard describes above. Is this ageist? Certainly but this is inline with many other situations in our society.  Possibly younger contributors will see this as a slight but I would encourage younger users to use that time to contribute to content and become know in the community.  There is plenty of time to take a more active role in editorial issues and plenty of other roles with responsability that are available in communities such as citizendium.

[Stephen Ewen]

One cannot be a constable unless 25 and a college graduate.  Why?  But one can be in the EC if 15?  16?  18?  How is this congruent?

To be fair the two roles are quite different. A cool head is required for the first, while organisational and editorial opinions are soliciated from the latter.

More so, they are debating issues, mustering arguments for their position, and attempting to persuade opinions.  How is it a just matter when PhDs (which by itself is an age and maturity requirement) in the EC are paired in debate with college freshman?  Having educational and maturity requirements of authors in the EC best ensures that debate efficacious.

[Martin Baldwin-Edwards]

Why would the founders of the U.S. Constitution place a minimum age of 30 to serve as a representative in Congress?

One cannot be a constable unless 25 and a college graduate.  Why?  But one can be in the EC if 15?  16?  18?  How is this congruent?

The era in which the US Constitution was written [and this is one of the few good arguments against having a written constitution] was one where ability was seen as clearly and directly correlated with age. In fact, this was true until after World War II, when the rate of technological change started to increase and younger people gained more of a foothold in the labour market -- at least, in some countries. [Not in Greece, or the rest of this region, by hte way!] So, I see no reason to rely upon historical fixtures for our own  decisions.

The rules for Constables?: I have no idea why 25 and a graduate, other than because of WP experiences. Ask the people who devised them!

There might be a case for setting the age at 18, but I can think of good reasons to have one or two younger people to give a different slant on things. So, as I stated before: can we focus on real things and not on proxies?