I'd like some clarity around what happens with species when they are created as NPC races initially and then tagged with a TBD / Non-Reviewed Species tag for the ILI.

Is the process to go from a species introduced in our game's canon (for NPCs), to TBD / Non-Reviewed, to anything else (e.g. Permitted, Restricted, Forbidden) the one outlined here?

What about the process for a canon (from the shows) species to go from TBD / Non-Reviewed to, say, Restricted or Forbidden - does that go through this same voting process?

Finally, should we not perhaps codify in the bylaws our species review process (i.e. proposal, 7 day wait, if no veto it's approved, etc)?

I'd like to suggest explicitly including Wiki content and Image Collective works to this

While I heartily agree with this statement, should we perhaps clarify somewhat further what constitutes bad behaviour within the CC context and what the consequences / mechanisms are there?

Where is this defined? Or is this essentially a "we reserve the right to do this" and the details will be determined if/when it happens?

It may be worth clarifying that these ranks are recognized OOC, though other rank structures may be used for IC purposes (e.g. Marine ranks, civilian 'ranks' for the FDC, Enlisted officers, etc).

Should this be clarified that this applies only to those with voting rights (or is this clear enough as is, given the definitions provided previously in the CON?)

I've commented on the relevant bylaw section overview this membership class (BL3) below, but in short, it was not assumed that this pilot would automatically become part of the CON / Bylaws after 1 year but requires a follow-up decision by the CC.

I've commented on the relevant bylaw section overview this membership class (BL3) below, but in short, it was not assumed that this pilot would automatically become part of the CON / Bylaws after 1 year but requires a follow-up decision by the CC.

Per the Pilot Program's wording, as it was voted in:

After the trial period the membership will have the option to permanently adopt the program, to modify it as necessary, or to end the pilot without restriction.

I do not believe there has been a subsequent vote on whether or not to permanently adopt the program, to modify it, or to end it. I think before this is codified into a bylaw it ought, therefore, to go through a process to determine whether or not the CC actually wants to move forward with this program.

TLDR: It was not assumed that this pilot would automatically become part of the CON / Bylaws after 1 year but requires a follow-up decision by the CC.

What about EC members who are put on suspension without the typical disciplinary processes taking place? I understand this is sort of an "elephant in the room" - but this did take place in the past year. Yes, that member eventually retired, but in cases such as this is the expectation that the suspended member (who was not removed from the EC via the disciplinary process) would return after X amount of time (e.g. 6 months) back into the previously-held EC position? Would that position remain vacant for the duration of that time?

I think, considering this has happened it may be worth clarifying what is expected for EC members who are suspended (or disciplined, etc) but not removed from the EC via the disciplinary process.

What does this mean? Can we be more clear about what constitutes a "reasonable time"? Is that a week? Two weeks? A month? etc

How/when is this measured? At what point is it determined that someone has failed to meet this criterion for continued participation in the CC?

Looking into the bylaws, I see that it is Quarterly. Perhaps it's worth noting that the measurement of this % is established in the bylaws.

How is this meant to take place? Should we elaborate on what the procedure is here?

A majority of the Yes / No votes, right? Abstentions should not count as votes in this % tally, otherwise they will always be treated as no votes since they are not Yes.

Is it worth baking into this section that it should automatically be removed from the constitution, without need for an amendment, if the Founder permanently departs? Twenty years from now (god or whatever willing) we may well no longer have a need for this Section in the CON. Might be nice to have that housekeeping anticipated.

It may be worth noting their role in the "Emergency Authority" structure since Wolf has been explicitly removed from that listing in favour of role-based terminology. Just for clarity.

Considering we are only referring to one person here, what is the value in being vague in the language and saying "the person who founded the community" instead of just identifying the specific individual we're talking about? I think that would be more clear especially for newer members who may not know who this is.