== Rules Committee charter, final draft ==
	by John Eure

* Notes *

When this gets taken to the Board, I expect that Sam Gailey and I will be
included in the Board's discussion, since we've both proposed amendments.  
If Dawn wants, she can join in by "claiming" the last amendment (defining
the term "Quest year"), since I added it at her suggestion.  If anyone
else wants to be in on it, just speak up, and we'll see what happens.  I
don't know what the Board's policy on this is, but there's no harm in
asking...

To help deal with one of Adam's concerns, I've replaced the bit about 
interpretations being "sharply contested" with this:
	"Interpretations are normally decided through RC consensus.  Any 
	RC member may call for an interpretation to be decided by a formal 
	majority vote."
I figure that since I'm a member too, I can also call for a vote whenever 
I feel the need.  ;)

Also, I took out the procedure for dealing with interpretations that
someone thinks might be a change.  We can deal with this sort thing as it
pops up, and when we find a solution that we're all happy with, we can ask
the Board to put it in the charter.

And finally, I made Sam Gailey's time limit of 6 weeks the default, and 
have made mine the amendment.  I'm not terribly happy about having only 
heard from 3 people, but that's what I have to work with...


* The  Charter *

Proposal 1) Basic charter revision

-- Change the old Rules Committee charter:

The Rules Committee is responsible for maintaining consistency of rules
interpretation both during and between games, and will handle all rules
proposals except those which the Game World Committee is empowered to deal
with.  (Most Rules Committee business will be conducted over email).  
During games, members of the committee will act as Rules Marshals.

-- To this new charter:

The Rules Committee is responsible for maintaining and improving Quest's
rules set, in order to help Quest run events well.  The RC has five
primary duties:
	1) Individual members of the RC assist members of the Quest 
		community with rules-related issues.
	2) Individual members of the RC act as Rules Marshals during 
		events.
	3) The RC issues rules interpretations as needed.
	4) The RC reviews and votes on rules-related character proposals.
	5) The RC reviews and votes on rules change proposals.

The RC also handles other miscellaneous rules-related tasks, as they
arise.
	Unless otherwise specified, RC business is not secret, but does
not need to be publicly archived.  Anyone may keep personal archives if
they wish.  Vote margins must be announced with the results of votes.  
The current Rules Chair must archive the individual votes for the current
Quest year, and must provide them upon request.


Community Assistance:
	While RC members are not required to make proposals themselves,
they are encouraged to work with other members of the Quest community to
draft and co-sponsor proposals.  In addition, RC members should direct
rules-related feedback to the correct people, and should do their best to
answer rules-related questions.


Rules Marshalling:
	The duty of a Rules Marshal is to resolve rules disputes during
events, so that play proceeds smoothly and fairly.  The important factors
are consistency, speed, and on-the-spot fairness.
	Rulings should remain consistent within an event.  If necessary,
the problem should be addressed by an interpretation before the next
event.  Rules Marshal players may not adjudicate disputes to which they
are a party.


Rules Interpretations:
	Rules interpretations are issued by the RC as a whole, in between
events, to address ambiguities in the rules.  (Direct contradictions in
the rules are considered errata.)  Interpretations last until the rules in
question are changed.  The important factors are consistency, simplicity,
and game balance.
	Interpretations are normally decided through RC consensus.  Any RC
member may call for an interpretation to be decided by a formal majority
vote.  Interpretations are permitted to contradict the actual text of the
rules when necessary, and may always contradict a ruling made during a
game by a Rules Marshal.


Character Proposals:
	The RC reviews and votes on any character proposals that involve
rules-related questions.  (For example, Heroic Honor codes and racial
kits.)  This is in addition to any other requirements that the proposal
must meet (such as Game World Committee approval.)  The important factor
is game balance.
	Character proposals are decided by a formal two-thirds majority
vote.  They should be addressed as soon as possible.  While all proposals
must pass through a normal open discussion, character proposals may do so
anonymously.  Character proposals may also undergo an initial round of
closed discussion with only the RC, before the normal open discussion with
the full rules list.


Rules Change Proposals:
	The RC reviews and votes on all rules change proposals.  The
important factors are fun, accordance with Quest's purpose and character,
game balance, ease of use, and ease of transition from old rule to new
rule.
	Rules change proposals are decided by a formal two-thirds majority
vote.  Rules changes proposals are reviewed and voted on, either one at a
time, or in small groups of proposals.  Approved rules changes are
implemented in larger groups at the beginning of a future Quest year.  
The RC should carefully control the number and/or scope of the changes
being implemented in any given year, to help ensure an easy transition.
	Approved changes will be made available on the web, and announced
on Initium.  The Quest community will be given at least six weeks to
review and give feedback on an approved change.  The Rules Chair will
collect all such feedback, and near the end of the year will send it to
the RC for discussion.  If more than one-third of the RC feels that a
change should be reviewed, it will be removed from the list of approved
changes and re-proposed.


-- This charter will take effect immediately upon approval by the Board,
except for the "one month review period for changes" clause.  That will
take effect at the beginning of the next Quest year.


Proposal 2) Amendment:  1-month waiting period

-- Change "at least six weeks" to "at least one month".


Proposal 3) Amendment:  Board approval of rules changes

-- Add "All rules changes must additionally be approved by the Board
	before being implemented".


Proposal 4) Amendment:  explicitly define the term "Quest year"

-- Change the first reference to "Quest year" to "Quest year (defined 
	elsewhere as September 1 to September 1)".