Libraria and Ausitoria wrote:Valaran, i've made my arguments and I'm not convinced by yours. I'm not getting rid of anything more unless you get a proper majority for each.
Look, I was compromising on certain things, so you'd find the overall result more palatable. You asked (I'd say challenged but that has the wrong connotations) me to find areas that are worth cutting, which I did. Out of 40-odd suggestions, you agreed to cut 3. You have often elaborated on how flexible you are, and how much you prefer compromise. Hence why I pointed out where I thought measures were necessary, and where they were negotiable. A lot of the responses I got were dealing with theoretical points, or rhetorical flourishes... and not that much in the way of compromise. So I cut down further. Since however, after several rounds of that, you're just just going to issue a blanket statement that you're not interested, then this qualifies as a waste of time, and we should have either been discussing block legislation or changing the leadership from the get-go.
This both dis-incentivises any constructive action on my part, and instead of compromise, encourages me to simply circumvent your approval or input entirely and head straight for the council. To your credit, this is broadly what you suggested earlier on, but that doesn't make it good governance - next time should I still bother to try and get you on board?
As for the Summit office, Valaran wants it gone. Feel free to argue with each other.
Roski's proposals are interesting. I want the summit office gone because it barely does anything - Roski's idea is to make it do something, and to even encourage national cooperation (as opposed to top down IFC science edicts, or providing a mediocre counterpart to national science efforts that either trails behind the efforts of member-states or competes over the same resources, people and funding). Moreover, this would replace several offices and departments in the current hierachy. I think it needs a little more explanation for me to be completely sold on it, but that's an inventive solution.
Perhaps a vote on it is needed, as Mizrad suggests. However, I'd rather outline just what we need to vote on before deluging the council in legislation.
