Once we vote in the rules....
I propose that we proof read the rules to check for content errors that may contradict one another.
I suggest we proof read for typos.
I suggest we provide a means of keeping the rules current, to amend them as events play out that will show situations that were not included in the first draft.
Not to get bogged down in this now, but to have a procedure for amendments in place for when a situation crops up that merits that action.
But to stipulate that the situation MUST merit an amendment.
Who is involved with that? Do we all come back to discuss this again? Is that left to the hands of the council? Would leaving it in the hands of the council perhaps undo the hard work we have put into them?
Just something to think about for a last review before the rules are made public.
I would request that...while we are voting on rules, that once that one rule has been voted in, if there were items that needed to be added or reworded for the sake of clarity, that it be done at that time. I have been very tempted to explain my wording during the recent voting but do not wish to derail the thread.
If a rule needs to be picked apart, articles voted in, others thrown out, let us do that rather than throw out everything from the rule? Some items of proposed rules are being agreed to while others are not. It is the ones that are not that need to be refined or omitted.