Daily Actions are convenient ;)
Could you please explain me wheter “all have not cast” and “not all have cast” have the same meaning?
It seems that the existence of WS/SW isn’t stated anywhere..

The requirement is that all members in the list must certify that they support the proposal. So, if there isn’t a complete roll call of listed members visibly supporting it within 24 hours, then it fails. That way there’s no Chicago-style graveyard voting, or swiping members who just aren’t paying attention.

I tried reading that clause a few different ways, but I may not have the art form down pat, yet ;-)

I left out the directional aspect of the naming in my rule. First, it seems it’s pretty much directed in Ain’t No Party, and I haven’t proposed replacing that part. Second, I resist the implication that all Like-minded blocks see themselves revolving around the Speaker ;-) Perhaps someone will make that case :-)

Yeah, there is a difference between “all have not cast” and “not all have cast”.  As it reads now, no announcement will ever fail as long as somebody listed votes FOR.  Note that if Orienteering fails the first rule is added, but there is no rule named “Ain’t No Party” so the second part fails.  This is because there is no proposal named “Ain’t No Party”.  Not that I think this is an issue, but for the future.

I don’t like the idea that a new Orientation can immediately gain exactly what any other Orientation has.  Perhaps “any” was meant to be “all”?  In any case, it’s not really an issue at this point, that’ll just have to be addressed if Orientations gain special qualities.

Good points, and I apologize for my learning curve. I’d edit the grammar, and the messed-up reference if I wasn’t prohibited. What exactly is the protocol to repair obvious unintentional errors by the author?

As for the “any” vs “all” issue, I was intentional in using “any.” I’m not sure how, but there may come a time when one of the existing Orientations manages to gain powers that require a balance ;-)

The general protocol is that the proposal goes through as is and if someone desires they can make a new proposal to change it.

Though as stated in Rule 3.2 “If no MN has commented on it, an official post may be altered or removed by its author; otherwise this can only be done as allowed by the Ruleset.”

For this reason, if you catch an obvious mistake on a post with no comments you may want to PM the author to change it just to save time, assuming you want it to be fixed. You may not want to fix it though instead choosing to exploit it at some point in the future, while hoping no one else notices it.

I forgot to point out that if it is a spelling mistake it may be fixed per rule 1.1.

“MNs may correct obvious spelling and typographical mistakes in the Ruleset and their own Pending Proposals at any time.”

This only works if the spelling mistake doesn’t form a new word that allows it to still be a valid sentence.

Thanks. I did correct a misspelling before the first comment, but didn’t notice the bad reference until it was pointed out in a comment, so I reasoned that I couldn’t correct that.

So, if I have the opportunity, I’ll correct both the “all have not” and the reference to the rule name that should have been the proposal name.

Strong   - this is a flavor issue that should be the Speaker’s call.

I’m going to say .  The current (still to be implemented, but…) rules don’t state that SW or WS are the only orientations, just gives those as examples.  I think that there should be some way of changing Orientation once you’ve decided, but I don’t think that it should be a) this easy [you can name only yourself] or b) restricted to forming new orientations.

In addition, I don’t think that it actually makes sense to define a ‘new’ Orientation.  Aren’t all Orientations ‘current’, in the sense that if it’s an orientation in the English language, it’s a valid choice for your Orientation?

Thanks for clearing that up. If I understand what you said, then the proposal doesn’t restrict us to only two orientations?

My proposal meant to say the number of NMs needed to create a new Orientation was certainly more than one, and required verification that the new members be active and agreeable.

I’m not sure the Orientaion proposal allows anything but the two parties though. And, furthermore, prohibits you from changing once you’ve chosen.

But, on the off chance this hasn’t been defeated yet, I’ll self-kill.