Agree with this r.e. entirely missed reports. But sometimes RL or other factors can delay. Suggest add something like, repeated failures to submit reports after the 5th should result in notice from the EC. Continued repeated failures in an x month period after the warning the becomes a factor in ship viability.

As above regarding 3 EC and 3 CC member panel, with CCMAL as tiebreaker if needed, this group should hear the appeal and determine the outcome by majority vote.

As voting is the lifeblood of rule changes for our community, the mechanics of voting maybe should be moved into the constitution rather in a bylaw.

"has merit" sounds like a preliminary filter instead of the full appeal process/decision.

This bylaw doesn’t seem to say what happens if there are more than two options or candidates. Firstly, I think we need to cover that. Secondly, I’d suggest preferential voting/ranked choice where members are choosing between multiple candidates or options, because it gives a truly representative result.

A member that votes abstain should state whether the abstention is due to conflict of interest, insufficient information, or another general reason, but is not requried to provide futher information unless they want to.

For any vote cast as yes, no, or abstain, only yes and no votes are counted in determining whether a motion passes or fails. Abstain votes count only toward quorum and are not counted as votes against the motion.

vote notices and templates must accurately state the eligibility rules and the counting method, and no procedural note or template text may contradict the Constitution or Bylaws. If they do, the constitution and.or bylaws are the authoritative source.

Except in the case where the magistrate is the person proposing the vote. In other words, another person needs to propose the matter for a vote, and yet another person needs to second the vote.

If the EC is about to take an action that materially affects a ship's command team, the EC should provide a warning notice to the CO/FO with factual context.

This should be voted upon by the EC/CC jointly convened panel.

Any EC member that is a complainant, materially involved in the underlying dispute/issue must recuse themselves.

Written notice to be given to the CO of the specific bylaw or part of the constitution alllegedly breached, and a factual summary of the issue. The CO should get a response window (eg 7 days) before a vote, except when there's an urgent safety or community risk.

This is I assume related to PCs which is fine, but for PNPCs this provision is unrealistic. Writing for family members of other PC characters for instance. But there should be a permission chain involved when switching PNPCs to another writer.

I get the intent of this. But having this section permanently ceasing to have effect if the founder departs means there's potentially a hole for someone to continue the role in (a). So maybe "Founder" should be renamed to another role, "Primary Administrator" or something. Then change (d) to cater for the changing of the person who fills this role as necessary.

What is the reasoning behind this? Example - with Amity changes, we have created a part-time Ambassador character that is written by one of our writers in our group, under my overall direction. Sometimes I may write for this character too. This helps the campaign region and overall direction for IC story lines. I think the wording on (d) could be improved, and I'd like to see this provision relaxed.

Opportunity to change to San Francisco time

This should be a group that is an equal combination of CC and EC members, rather than the EC exclusively. Say 3 and 3.