Having looked at the other comments present as of 04/14/2021, I think a lot of people are falling into the same trap I was about policy vs conceptual, because it can be a thin line. If we want to truly be conceptual I don't really think we can have anything that could be construed as a rule moreso than I guess like a sort of general philisophy and definitions.
I for instance prefer Lucio's phrasing in his examples of staff "should" do this because the "should" makes it clear (or clearer at least) that this is not a rule but a guideline.
Similarly while I agree with Bleeps 1,2,10,12 points I believe every other point goes too far in the "policy" direction of things. While I think it is quite tempting to want to putt the team structure or the staff levels in the charter because that's a foundational policy of how we do things, I do strongly believe it counts as policy, rather than as a conceptual framework, and thus, should not be included.
I strongly agree with the vast majority of what Meserach's thoughts on the matter. I'm especially fond of the idea of putting definitions of basic concepts such as "the site" and "the community". though, again, one must be careful not to blur the lines of definition vs policy by doing things such as defining "junior staff" and thus their powers which I believe would be firmly in the policy realm. I would also like to say, though I recognize we aren't to be bogged down in semantics, I especially enjoy the use of words like "duty" in one of the examples. I will say I am somewhat iffy on the idea of "how staff works" or how anything "works" being incorporated in the charter really because of the thin line between that and policy which, if we want to remain separate from in the charter, and we seem to, should be well separate from it with no
chance of confusing it for such.
For the previously stated reason, I disagree with Yossi's last four points listed, theoretically. I should elaborate that I believe that staff's levels and team structures shouldn't be lain out, really, because while unlikely, to my understanding that could change.
Levels have been added, teams have been added, and similarly they could be deleted on both counts, or the system could be abolished entirely for a different way of doing things. No matter the case on the most conceptual level we'd still be SCP staff and we should still follow whatever guidelines we lay out in the charter. If, however, there's an idea of how to do things better in regards to structure, completely reworking the team system, I feel like that shouldn't be impossible to implement due to the charter. In fact, I might even go so far as to say that physically if we're going conceptual that policy and charter should not interact. I think a conceptual charter should guide policy and policymaking, in the same way personal ethics or beliefs would, i.e. we should do this because its the right thing to do, and the "right thing to do" is laid out in charter, and people could disagree with this rather than we can't do this because the charter that teams work like this and we can't go against the charter, ya know?
Basically: anything we define (in the conceptual charter) shouldn't be subject to a potential change in definition
I 10000000% agree with Torc on everything they've said within this thread especially this "The preamble rarely has any enforceability or clearly actionable items, but it serves as the bellwether for the rest of the document. This is where we laying out our core ideologies/"what a successful community is" would come in."
