Forum talk:Global and regional issues/Eastern Ulethan Organisation of Independent Allies

This discussion has been closed and archived.

This discussion has been archived for reference purposes. New or further discussion on this topic should take place in the appropriate forum on a new page.

This is the discussion page for the setup of EUOIA. The Summarised proposal is what is currently being proposed. Old discussion is what has previously been discussed that lead to the proposal.

Questions that have to be answered:

Will there be an EUOIA parliament or not (see the appropriate chapter below)?
Where will the suborganisations and institutes be located (as far as they haven't been claimed yet)?

When these questions have been anwered, we can approve the current proposal. As soon as all member states' names are behind approved, the proposal for the EUOIA setup is approved after which we can update the Eastern Ulethan Organisation of Independent Allies|main page of EUOIA.

This proposal is:

Approved:
Not approved:
Undecided/didn't vote yet: Agarderia, Arcantonie, Belphenia, Darcodia, Eelanti, Eshein, Esthyra, Glaster, Kojo, Mauretia, Mergany, Orinoco, Reeland, Sãikyel, Viljanni, Wiwaxia, Wyster, Østermark

Summarised proposal

Based on what is discussed below, I (Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2017 (CEST)) propose the following setup for EUOIA (Updated 4 August 2018):

History and purpose

Ifgus's proposal for a general introduction to EUOIA's history (he mentions some nations, but you can of course add/change for yourselves at which point exactly your country joined):

After The World War, Eastern Uletha suffered a huge economic catastrophe, much like the rest of the world. The countries where struggling to become steady again, to stabilize their economy and to rebuild what was demolished. 
In April 20, 1962, Wyster, Mauretia, Mergany, Kojo and Eshein singed the Imperium Treaty which ordered the establishment of the Eastern Ulethan Economic Community|Eastern Ulethan Economic Support Alliance. The the goal of this economic organization was supporting each other economically to rebound from the catastrophe. 
In January 10, 1968, during a meeting of the alliance in Iola, for the fist time the nations started to think about expending the alliance to other fields such and trade, education (Rasmus Rasmusson: I'd prefer 'Scientific cooperation' here), foreign relations, etc. but no decision was made.
In July 3, 1976, during a meeting of the alliance in Bad Stanncatt, the Bad Stanncatt Treaty was singed and ordered on the expansion of the fields that the organization is responsible to and was, in fact, the beginning of the organization as it is today.

The purpose of EUESA > EUOIA:

1962 : EUESA as an economic support system for its member states.
1968 : starting talks about cooperation on field of trade, foreign relations, scientific development, etc., but no breakthrough yet
1976 : founding of EUOIA in Bad Stancatt (Mergany). The purpose of EUOIA is to facilitate cooperation between its member states in several fields through various suborganisations: member states can choose on which level they cooperate with other member states (or not) and therefore which suborganisations they join.

Organisation

The EUOIA has the following organs:

The Board of Governors

The Board of Governors is the main organ of EUOIA. It consists of two members per member state, who are appointed by the member states in any manner as they see fit. It has as its principal powers:

To decide the general action and policy of EUOIA, determine the structure and functions of its organs, and consider any matter relating to friendly relations among the member states;
To establish measures to coordinate the activities of the organs;
To promote collaboration, especially in the economic, technological, scientific, and cultural fields, between the member states and with other international organisations whose purposes are similar to those of EUOIA.
To approve EUOIA’s budget and determine the quotas of the member states;
To adopt its own rules of procedure and its agenda.

The BoG convenes at least twice a year, each time in another member state according to a rotating system.

The Secretariat

The Secretariat is the administrative organ of EUOIA and takes care of daily business. It is headed by the organisation’s Secretary General. It’s main tasks are:

To carry out those decisions of the BoG of which the implementation has not been assigned to another body;
To prepare the meetings of the BoG
To transmit to the member states the notice of the convocation of the BoG or any other EUOIA meeting.
To serve as a custodian of the documents and archives of EUOIA
To submit to the BoG at the first meeting session of each year an annual report on the activities of EUOIA in the past year, and on its financial condition.

The Secretariat will be located in Viljanni 43.76048°N, 130.15745°E.

The Secretary General is appointed by the BoG for one period of 1000 days; he or she originates from one of the member states. A Secretary General may not have the same nationality as his predecessor.

In case a Secretary General dies in office or is otherwise incapacitated during his term, his or her country of origin will appoint an interim Secretary General who will assume the duties of the Secretary General either until the moment that the original Secretary General will be able to resume his or her duties, or until the end of the original Secretary General’s 1000 days term.
The BoG, by a two thirds vote of their members, may remove the Secretary General from office, whenever the proper functioning of EUOIA so demands. The member state of origin of the removed Secretary General will appoint an interim Secretary General until the end of the original Secretary General’s 1000 days term.

If the 1000 days term is accepted and the first SecGen's term starts on 1 January 1977 (assuming that EUOIA was founded in its current form in July 1976), the list will be as follows:

	term start	term end
1	1/1/1977	27/9/1979
2	28/9/1979	23/6/1982
3	24/6/1982	19/3/1985
4	20/3/1985	14/12/1987
5	15/12/1987	9/9/1990
6	10/9/1990	5/6/1993
7	6/6/1993	1/3/1996
8	2/3/1996	26/11/1999
9	27/11/1999	22/8/2002
10	23/8/2002	18/5/2005
11	19/5/2005	12/2/2008
12	13/2/2008	8/11/2010
13	9/11/2010	4/8/2013
14	5/8/2013	30/4/2016
15	1/5/2016	25/1/2019
16	26/1/2019	21/10/2021

No Parliament?

I (Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2017 (CEST)) am still not convinced that a parliament is needed, especially from the beginning of EUOIA's existence. It depends on the depth of the integration of the member states and whether EUOIA is a super-governmental or an inter-governmental organisation. A parliament can however be created at a later moment; it could e.g. be part of current ongoing discussions.

I too don't think we need a parliament. I'd be okay with it being part of current negotiations, but I really think its superfluous. — Alessa (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2018 (CEST)

Let's vote about this! :D

Please fill in your username after 'yes', 'no', 'don't know/undecided':

yes, we need a parliament:
no, we don't need a parliament: Wyster, Mauretia
don't know/undecided:

Other specialised organisations and institutions

Member states don't have to participate in every of these organisations and institutions. In the list below, the provisional locations of each organisation/institute are added as far as they have been claimed. The year of foundation should be added. Please only claim an organisation/institute if your country participates in the cooperation (and if your country was a member of EUOIA at the time of the organisation's foundation; moving around offices if an original host country isn't available anymore for some reason, is possible, but of course rather expensive so it should be avoided). If multiple member states claim the same organisation/institute, we could vote about it.

Eastern Ulethan Economic Community (EUEC) > facilitates free trade and other economic issues (free movement, transport, ...), located in Mergany 47.14454°N, 131.36806°E
Eastern Ulethan Defense Association (EUDA) > common defense, located in Eshein 43.32081°N, 129.37818°E
Eastern Ulethan High Court of Justice (EUHCJ) > for e.g. settlement of disputes NOT a judicial union! Located in Wyster? (see Rasmus Rasmusson's question below)
Eastern Ulethan Institute for Science and Development (EUISD)
Eastern Ulethan Medical and Health Organisation (EUMHO), located in Mauretia 43.52203°N, 135.57141°E
Eastern Ulethan Energy Office (EUEO)
Eastern Ulethan Institute for Cultural Cooperation (EUICC) > including sport issues
Eastern Ulethan Investment Bank (EUIB) > loans for less developed member states, EUOIA sponsored projects, etc.?
Eastern Ulethan Diplomatic Bureau (EUDB) > common embassies etc.
Eastern Ulethan Space Agency Federation (EUSAF), if needed, located in Viljanni 43.8273°N, 130.4136°E

(Since there is no fixed location for the Board of Governors, the building I mapped in Wyster ( 51.97108°N, 129.99704°E) can be used for something else. Can I claim the High Court of Justice for that? -- Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 11:27, 4 August 2018 (CEST) )

Treaties and agreements

Member states don't have to participate in every of these treaties and agreements.

Founding Treaty
Free Trade Agreement (to be facilitated by EUEC)

Table of members and membership levels

Table removed due to broken templates and complete changeover in membership.

Table discussion

Some interesting and good discussion has started to come about here and on the EUDA page. It has made me thing more and more about what role Mauretia is playing/would play in the EUOIA. We all seem to have different desires about what the EUOIA should do. I think this is kind of cool. As much as most of us have developed (or mostly developed) countries, there are still some big differences. What if we allowed for a fluid membership? Even if this is only for the time being, it helps get collaboration off the ground and gives us things that we can incorporate into our mapping. Perhaps this is a good halfway point and compromise for those of us on opposite ends of the spectrum. In this way, the EUOIA can sponsor specific treaties and members can jump in as they wish. Perhaps, to further the compromise, there might need to be a minimum involvement (maybe a minimum of 3 areas to be a member)? I don't think that number should be too high, lest we run people off that we'd rather work with. Membership could be tracked with a simple table on the main article page. In the table a full participant has a green check and a partial participant has a faded check. Does this sound like something users are interested in? Happy mapping. Alessa (talk) 14:55, 22 March 2017 (CET) Restored accidentally deleted comment along with a quick edit to fix grammar after table was moved. —Alessa (talk) 06:37, 23 March 2017 (CET)

Thanks Alessa for the initiative. If I might ask, what exactly would "common embassies" include? Would that mean that the EUOIA would actually only have one embassy in third countries, which would represent all member countries? Also, open borders would need to be specified; does it mean free movement of goods and people like in the EU, e.g. every citizen of a member state may move to every country and work there without getting a visa, or would it only include a zero tariffs policy?Leowezy (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2017 (CET)

Hi, Leo. According to the discussion below and the embassies listed on the main article, the embassies are those in smaller countries like Myrcia, where it would not be economical for each member to have a separate facility. This doesn't mean that there can't be a separate ambassador at the shared space, and I don't think it is intended to preclude any member country from putting their own if relations would warrant it. For example, Mauretia may not have the means or interaction with Hoppon to place an embassy, but Kojo would given the newly-forming co-cultural bloc. So, Hoppon might have an EUOIA embassy for maybe Teberia and Mauretia separate from Kojo's. That's how I interpret it.

Next, yes, open borders needs to be clarified. In fact, the chart I created was just a mock-up as part of a proposal and not even intended for use! I'm flattered that people jumped right in. I've reorganized it (without changing information or what others put for their country). Of course, some of the things you mention also fall under the purview of sub-organizations like the EUEC or EUDA, and not everything is a potential forfeiture of sovereignty. Alessa (talk) 06:37, 23 March 2017 (CET)

Adding to what I just wrote: I think it's also important to point out that some of the points above presuppose others; for example, a political union would obviously "include" a simple non-aggression pact; A common currency can only be implemented if there's at least some degree of political cooperation, same goes with open borders (that means EU-like free movement of people) etc.Leowezy (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2017 (CET)

Correct. I hope my above comment explains that. I also should add that Mauretia might be willing to partake in a non-aggression pact but not necessarily the EUDA, even though EUDA would likely require the non-agg pact as a prerequisite. Alessa (talk) 06:37, 23 March 2017 (CET)

Thank you all for the discussion, especially Alessa for the table.

My intention with common embassies was to simplify the handling of foreign embassies for member states of EUOIA (simplify things is the main purpose of EUOIA for me), so as Alessa explained, there can be a common embassy in a country located. This makes sense in smaller (unimportant :) ) countries far away. The advantage is that not every member has to create hundreds of embassies and take care of them (in the case that the country is "lost", the embassy is illegally occupied by somebody else (I have many embassies in foreign countries, almost each month one gets lost, that's extremely time consuming), ...). A new user who joins EUOIA directly has, without any effort, some representations in other countries. Of course every member is welcome to set up an own embassy if there are special connections to that country (EUOIA shouldn't restrict your possibilities).
In my opinion, there will be too much information for such a simple table, it has to be much more detailed in the future: there should be some very general categories and in each category different options (and maybe sub-options). I think it is impossible to establish such a table suddenly, it's a long process to be more and more precise. My intention was that if somebody "hosts" one organization, one should also contribute ideas how to organize this part. At least each organization could have an "informal" group in which everybody is "member". The "Board of Governors" should be mandatory for every member, I see no reason to be part of EUOIA but not meeting other government leaders.
Another important issue of EUOIA (at least for me) is that there are no superpowers so far in OGF. Each member country on its own is negligible (sorry guys :) ). However, most countries (mine as well) claim to be the best, strongest, greatest nation on earth, just look at the annoying race in wiki-tables every day. So being part of EUOIA means being part of a strong, well organized "block" that nobody can disregard, no matter how it is really organized inside (e.g. still full sovereignty of each member).

--Mstr (talk) 07:51, 23 March 2017 (CET)

Membership requests

Request for Glaster to participate?

--Yuanls (talk) 15:46, 9 January 2016 (GMT)

Yes, you're very welcome! --Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2016 (CET)

Thanks! --Yuanls (talk) 15:48, 9 January 2016 (GMT)

Mergany would like to participate --Mstr (talk) 2:39, 12 February 2016 (GMT)

While I'm certain Rasmus would like to see a new member, I would suggest contacting him through private messaging to confirm that decision, as officially, I have no power to add members, as of now. --[[User:Yuanls|Yuanls(talk) 20:37, 12 February 2016 (GMT)

O but yes, you do Yanls! My intention is to make this a very broad organisation, so theoretically every Eastern Ulethan nation is welcome to join, just "apply" on this Talk page. So Mergany is welcome to join as well. I already mentioned my reservations regarding the Mergan names somewhere, but as long as they are accepted by the owners/moderators of OGF I see no reason to refuse Mergany as potential EUOIA member state :) --Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2016 (CET)

Thanks a lot! I already improved some names and hopefully I never "lose interest in elaborating [my] country". Is there anything I can contribute to EUOIA at the moment? --Mstr (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2016 (GMT)

Mostly discussion regarding the nature of the organisation; whether it's a low or more intensive profile organisation... --Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2016 (CET)

I would prefer an organization containing all matters, maybe not for all members (if they have their own ideas), but seeing EUOIA as a head organization which could take care of all issues the members do not want to take care of and of course promote the cross-linking of infrastructure, economy, ... in eastern Uletha. I'm not sure if I - as a new member - can participate in the discussion of basic decisions: using EUOIA as a word in a sentence, it is very hard to pronounce it (in all languages I know). Replacing the word Organis(z?)ation by Coalition or Partnership or something similar would solve this "problem"? --Mstr (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2016 (CET)

Regarding the pronunciation: I intended it to be something like /youwoya/ or /eewoya/ as pronouncing all five initials separately would indeed be complicated. In Wystrian language|Wystrian it will probably become something like Ah Uletha Headhyr Beesse Gacenne (AUHBG), which is not easy to pronounce either. Perhaps it would be the most convenient if /youwoya/ or /eewoya/ is adopted in the languages of all member states, also in order to avoid confusion. (And EUOIA is of course a small joke as only vowels are used, but if it is really troublesome we can change it.)

I agree with the idea of facilitating several issues by separate treaties and leave it up to the member states if they join each of those treaties or not. --Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2016 (CET)

Do you think we should advertise the organisation through the User Diary section? It might be a useful way to gain members. Or alternatively we can use private messages to message people who aren't normally available as well (E.g. Hellerick) --Yuanls (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2016 (GMT)

File:Talk EUOIA memb.png|400px|thumb|right|eastern Uletha|link=Special:FilePath/Talk_EUOIA_memb.png Advertising would speed-up the procedure, but what exactly shall we advertise? What belongs to "eastern" Uletha? other regional unions (economic, military, ...) in order to campare to are so far: South-West Astrasian Economic Alliance (SWAEA), Central Archanta Economic Union, Southern Uletha Economic Cooperation Council -> also in Uletha --Mstr (talk) 20:39, 13 February 2016 (CET)

I would have thought the area of admission would likely be any country north of the latitude of Belphemia and anywhere east of the longitude of Darcodia. --Yuanls (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2016 (GMT)

Let's keep it undefined for now. It would be a pity if we excluded potentially active member states on forehand based on a geographical technicality. We could make the discussion if a country is eastern ulethan enough part of the joining procedure. --Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2016 (CET)

I agree, to list the potential nations was only the first idea whom to ask for becoming a member, if there should be advertisement --Mstr (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2016 (CET)

Østermark Would like to participate, although it's a small and poor country with a big chip on its shoulder and, once I get writing more, sanctions against it for its whaling. Plus it's pissed off for having to share its island with the much more powerful Nucia, with which it has mixed relations at best. I would imagine that it would be under constant threat of being kicked out of the EUOIA but desperately wants to be part of it for the benefits. I would also imagine that the other nations involved would also find Østermark's involvement grating, because they contribute as little as they can while taking as much they can. --Demuth (talk) 11:44, 14 February 2016 (CET)

I think Østermark will be an asset to EUOIA as far as I'm personally concerned (Wyster may be less amused if Østermark behaves indeed like you describe); after all, it would be rather boring if all member states are friendly and cooperative :) --Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 11:53, 14 February 2016 (CET)

Exactly. Stir things up a bit! --Demuth (talk) 12:05, 14 February 2016 (CET)

Orinoco would like to participate --Easky30 (talk)

Belphenia would like to participate for economic reasons. BelpheniaProject (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2016 (CET)

Sãikyel would like to participate. Stara Zagora (talk) 03:14, 16 September 2016 (CEST)

Mauretia would like to be considered for participation, especially if it is for defense, environmental, and economic cooperation. I'm not in favor of a monetary or judicial union at this time, however. Alessa (talk) 02:21, 19 September 2016 (CEST)

Both countries are welcome to join! Please add yourselves to the wiki page. |Yuanls (talk) 08:13, 19 September 2016 (CEST)

Teberia would like to participate, too. --Doktorpixel14 (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2017 (CET)

You're welcome!--Mstr (talk) 06:37, 24 February 2017 (CET) THIS COUNTRY DOESN'T EXIST ANYMORE

Nelavia would like to participate. --Avit (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2017 (CET)

You are welcome to join! Please add your country's name to the list. Yuanls (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2017 (CET) DOES THIS COUNTRY STILL EXIST?

Eshein would like to participate --[[User:ifgus

Of course! Add your name to the list. -Yuanls (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2017 (CET)

I'm not sure to what degree exactly the cooperation between members is supposed to go; I don't think it would make sense for Kojo to join a EU-like transnational projects, but if it's "just" a very close political alliance of fully independent member states without a common legislature, Kojo would like to apply for membership.Leowezy (talk) 18:04, 19 March 2017 (CET)

Kojo is welcome to join, just add yourself to the list. On the subject of organisation, it does not appear to be as tightly bound as the EU is in real life. Look at talk:Eastern Ulethan Organisation of Independent Allies#organisation for more information. It appears to be a mostly economic union, although it has not been updated for quite a while now. I'm certain that we could clarify this if it was discussed. Yuanls (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2017 (CET)

Welcome Kojo!--Mstr (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2017 (CET)

Welcome aboard! One of the reasons Mauretia is involved is because it is a loose organization. That greatly appeals to me, as opposed to an EU-like group. Alessa (talk) 21:55, 19 March 2017 (CET)

Eelanti would like to participate and it was invited by Mauretia. So is it okay for Eelanti to join? Eevee (talk) 16:06, 3 December 2017 (CET)

Welcome to the EUOIA! Feel free to add yourself to the table of involvement above and the different discussions as you see fit. — Alessa (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2017 (CET)

Aressia can participate? --Jesus Antonio (talk) 03:25, 11 February 2018 (CET)

Esthyra would like to participate. We like an open border and some international trades. --Austinhuang (talk) 04:16, 11 February 2018 (CET)

Esthyra is welcome to join EUOIA. Feel free to add yourself to the table of involvement above and the different discussions as you see fit. Regarding Aressia I noticed that a week after the request was made, Jesus Antonio asked admins to delete the wiki page about Aressia. Is this request still active, or perhaps for another country? -- Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 13:56, 4 March 2018 (CET)

It's Garzibania now. I'll ask him about his participation. --Austinhuang (talk) 18:26, 4 March 2018 (CET)

Yes, i like to join --Jesus Antonio (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2018 (CET) GARZIBANIA'S PARTICIPATION UNCONFIRMED AS OF 4 AUGUST 2018

The small, and frankly underdeveloped Arcantonie would like to be able to join the EUOIA. This is due to my wishing to broaden economic horizons with other neighbours, however due to Arcan canon the country has been historically isolated as a result of numerous pseudo-civil wars and authoritarian rule. If I were to become a member, it will have probably only been recently eg) post-2000 due to internal politics. --Jake Knight (talk) 10:29, 14 June 2018 (GMT)

Hi, Jake. Sorry I just now saw this request when looking up something on this page. I've added your country to the list! Be sure to fill out how your country fits into the organization using the table above. If you need help with it, don't hesitate to ask. — Alessa (talk) 20:16, 3 July 2018 (CEST)

New discussion on the proposal (if any)

Mauretia affirms the actions and resolutions of the right and honorable dignitary from Wyster and would like under these circumstances to be a founding member (FM). It is in agreement that a parliament is not needed at this time and applauds the ideas put forth. Mauretia respectfully submits the possibility, given the generally peaceful nature of our planet, that one possible motivation behind the EUOIA founding was a peaceful collaborative effort as added above. :) — Alessa (talk) 19:59, 5 July 2017 (CEST)

I believe that the two BoG members from each country shouldn't be its leader but some elected "ambassadors", for instance like in the UN. I'm also siding the BoG will meet, like Alessa said, every other month or even once a month, and that's exactly why I think the leaders shouldn't be in the BoG. The leaders are swamped with governing their country as they can't do this too. With elected ambassadors, this is their only concern and it looks more realistic. with my idea of the BoG, it also needs a speaker, which should be the second most important individual in EUOIA, after the secretary general and the BoG should sit in a permanent place, maybe like Alessa said, in the Secretariat. I think the building Mstr have already mapped can be this building. About the parliament, I agree it's not necessary at the moment. maybe somewhere in the future. About the history, until we won't have an organized timeline we'll stay right where we are so I think that 1962 should be the year and every country will adjust it's history around it, otherwise nothing will happened. Ifgus (talk) 01:51, 23 July 2017 (EEST)

I agree with most of this, except the parmanent place: a rotating system would give the member states the opportunity to "show off" to each other (e.g. present their most modern, most idyllic, most historical meeting locations), so that's why I find that option more attractive. I agree however that this will become too chaotic if meetings are held every two months (what will they talk about btw?) so in that case a host country could be proposed for the duration of six months (like the European Union has); this could e.g. be the native country of the BoG speaker. -- Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 01:25, 23 July 2017 (CEST)

I see your point and I agree Ifgus (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2017 (EEST)

I think it's tine to vote and decide about the year (unless 1962 had been already chosen) and reason of establishment. I'm currently trying to build Eshein's history and the organization is a big part of it (at least I want it to be) so I think it's time to determine the history of the EUOIA, maybe a simple timeline? --Ifgus (talk) 01:22, 20 September 2017 (EEST)

For me 1962 is OK, unless there are better suggestions. What kind of major events (if any at all, apart from new members joining) will have taken place since EUOIA's creation? -- Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 08:54, 20 September 2017 (CEST)

I am also okay with 1962, but why did it form? For me, that's the determiner of the year. There seems to be the largest number of founding members if it had been a peaceful streamlining of existing treaties. Here's why I like this idea and the date of 1962: This year serves as an almost midway point between the last major global war and the present but is still in the aftermath of the conflict; countries are going to have their own complicated nexus of treaties and agreements, and the Glaster situation seems to still be very raw. Various eastern Ulethan states are going to be motivated to work together at this time. The EUOIA, if ratified and started in 1962, would be a logical consolidation of these treaties (hence, the tiered, multi-level membership) and done in the spirit of cooperation needed to form such an organization. This frees up users to have whatever treaties they would want with other EUOIA states before 1962. For example, Mauretia and Raiden already had a non-aggression pact and other cooperative efforts. Let's say that Eshein, Mergany, and Teberia were apart of that; then, this five-country treaty easily becomes a cornerstone of the EUOIA non-aggression treaty. Anyway, I'm all in for the 1962 and the peaceful cooperative reason for formation. In honor of the first edit on OGF, I'll have Mauretia's official ratification date be 25 November 1962. — Alessa (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2017 (CEST)

I think 1952 is a sensible year to choose, and Alessa has explained it well. Although this does not affect either Glaster or Agarderia, as they joined later.

Eshein took a part in the war, fighting with Ingeland, therefor it probably needed help recovering from the war. I think the EUOIA may was that help, besides the non-aggression pact, the organization could start as a joint effort of the 5 founding members to help each other recover from the war? Ifgus (talk) 12:38, 21 September 2017 (EEST)

Old discussion

Currency

I think all member states need to share a Currency and a license plate, much like the EU. --Ifgus (talk) 17:00, 19 march 2017

I think not. The EUOIA appears to abide by a far looser system than the current EU. However, this information is very outdated and will have to require further discussion. Yuanls (talk) 19:41, 19 March 2017 (CET)

I agree. Any restriction concerning national independency will limit the progress. But I think it does not mean that there must not be a common currency etc. In the case that several contries see it as a benefit (because they are not interested in the effort to have their own currency) they can collaborate of course. There are many issues that are too large for a single nation to handle.--Mstr (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2017 (CET)

I also agree with Yuanls. One of the thing that appeals most to me (and some other users) about the EUOIA is the fact that countries do not have to fork over sovereignty. I know that Mauretia would never agree to a monetary union or a few other things below. From its perspective, the country is a bit too Ulethoskeptic. If you wanted a currency union with some other member states, I'd encourage it. Latina Pound|A few countries in Tarephia have already done so. Check the area below: there are some countries that are open to it. Alessa (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2017 (CET)

you should read this http://www.pamojaeducation.com/course-companion/economics-eText/higher_level/module4_hl/page_29.htm

There are many advantages of a shared currency and not just the matter of putting effort in my own currency. I already have one. And if you are still against it, I thunk the rest of the organization's structure should be like EU, a parliament that gets it's power from the governments of the member States. ifgus (talk) 02:27, 21 March 2017 (EET)

Thank you for the link. I can only speak for myself here; but when I started Mauretia, I actually considered this very issue and weighed it carefully. It was part of a series of questions I asked myself about how advanced the country would be, its industries, how its economy would mix with others, etc. With regards to having the EUOIA be like the EU, I and many other users would respectfully disagree. That type of external control is not many of us want. Now, if you mean that the EUOIA has a parliament like the EU does, I think that's a great discussion. Is there some type of decision-making entity? Maybe it would be a council of ambassadors or a rotating semiannual summit? Personally, I'd like to see the EUOIA find its own way and not be modeled off of anything real-world. Perhaps others agree or disagree. I'd be interested to see what people say. Alessa (talk) 03:09, 21 March 2017 (CET)

Purpose

What should be this organisation's purpose?

Maybe as a counterweight against a powerful, aggressive country? When (or if) I finish Glaster, I am going to try and claim either UL085, UL070B, UL175 or some small island country. Perhaps we should advertise this in the diary section of OGF. --Yuanls (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2016 (GMT)

Country owners helping country owners with expert advice? (Origin) --Austinhuang (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2018 (CET)

History

Is EUOIA founded now, or was it founded somewhere in the past? If the latter; what has happened since?

Well if it's an alliance headed by Wyster, Glaster (or historically North Glaster) would probably have been involved in it as well. There was a bout of hostility between Ingerland and North Glaster in the 1960s, but I haven't yet explained why. Perhaps this has something to do with it?--Yuanls (talk) 15:50, 9 January 2016 (GMT)

I think The Organization founding time should be somewhere around the OGF/sandbox/World War|world war. It's always a time when organizations like EUOIA are created. Maby EUOIA Fought as one body? or perhaps is was founded as a result of the war, for the "next time"?--Ifgus (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2017 (EEST)

I would not believe this would be quite possible for Agarderia and Glaster. They were heavily supported by both Ingerland and Commonia. Both North Glaster and Agarderia fell to communism after the war. There is also the question of what nation(s) the theoretical alliance fought against. Commonia? UL099? Each other? Many of these questions will require further discussion. Providing that the only power that had significant interests in Eastern Uletha at this time was Commonia, and they were absolutely destroyed following the World War, I do not think your option is quite feasible. Perhaps Eastern Uletha came together afterwards as a sign of unity. Or perhaps their alliance was a part of a preexisting prewar anti-Commonian agreement. Yuanls (talk) 23:41, 27 March 2017 (CEST)

I agree that the post-war period would likely be a good time. But, remember that most of these real-world organizations started small (both in number of countries and scope). The EU was birthed out of the limited-area ECSC (1951 Treaty of Paris). Like Agarderia and Glaster, Mauretia would not likely be a founding member of the EUOIA. I could see it joining in an initial wave of expansion, which would be before Agarderia and Glaster. Therefore, I think a rolling timeline of member countries joining (much like the EU expanding) would be a good thing. This also means that the bureaucracy and lunacy of hoops countries have to jump through would be greater in later years. At the same time, that would easily account for the varying levels of involvement we have in our supertable at the top of the page. For example, Mauretia would not have joined a customs union. It would have joined other pursuits, however. Maybe that by 1975 some of these things came into being and made it worth the effort. This could explain why Mauretia is involved in the research and sciences but not in the military aspects; most potential military ideas would have been unappealing.

All this to say that perhaps pinning the timeline down rigidly when there is still a fluid membership may not be the wisest. For now, I'd endorse some vague statements like "the EUOIA originated out of ideas that spread at the conclusion of the last war." If you're really craving a history for the organization, perhaps something like this will serve as a starting point: "Smaller international agreements were gradually folded into the larger organization and expanded to other potential participants. In this way, the EUOIA gradually grew from an idea of intergovernmental cooperation to a complex umbrella organization that manages and promotes many different tiers of involvement." Cheers. Alessa (talk) 06:02, 28 March 2017 (CEST)

It's been a long time since something happened with EUOIA. I think it's time to start adding stuff to the page so the organization will begin to take shape. otherwise nothing happens. I believe that the first thing we have to do is timeline and to discuss the exact year of establishment and exactly how the EUOIA was created?, which countries started it? Let me know what you think. --Ifgus (talk) 17:00, 6 may 2017 (eest)

History is the most difficult issue, since most countries don't have a history and there is no world history. There are many inactive countries in the EUOIA region, so I hope we can get more members in the future. Maybe the EUOIA was founded because of economic reasons? or after a war? I think it is not so important yet, when and how it was founded, because it does not influence mapping. Countries should decide which role they want to play first. --Mstr (talk) 00:18, 7 May 2017 (CEST)

For member states without a history yet, this should be easypeasy: they can just add whatever we decide concerning the international events that created the need to establish EUOIA and add their own national history around it.

Regarding the reason why EUOIA was created, perhaps we should take the name literally: the Independent Allies suggest that there may be or may have been a not so independent organisation, e.g. a powerful (criminal?) economic organisation or ideology that somehow forced/blackmailed entire countries to adopt their system, leaving national governments powerless with democracy remaining in place only as a façade and corrupt politicians ruling the country. This system was eventually toppled by e.g. civil underground organisations and/or revolutions, after which the first 'liberated' countries founded EUOIA.

For this we would need a) a nasty economic system, and b) countries that are willing to adopt this system - at least as a part of their history (let's say that the system was at its height between the 30's and the 60's or so, with the EUIOA being founded e.g. in the 60's).

The advantage of having a non-territorial 'super power' is that countries themselves don't have to be the bad guys (we don't need superpower states) and we don't need to ask countries to play the bad guy role. If we define that the nasty economic system still exists, we don't need to determine which countries (obviously not member states of EUOIA) are still ruled by it; if a third player offers his country to take up that role all the better, but it's not really necessary for our purpose, I think.

Note that introducing an international (criminal) economic organisation as the Bad Guy may cause EUOIA member states having put in place some governmental back-up systems in order to avoid that private economic organisations don't get as much power as the (criminal) economic organisation gained. This means that e.g. libertarian systems will probably be out of the question in the EUOIA member states. If you think this touches too much your liberty to develop your country as you wish, we should find an alternative for the economic part (perhaps a religious sect or something like that?). --Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 14:33, 6 June 2017 (CEST)

Question about possible formats, moved from above (August 4th, 2018):

The EUOIA was founded in 1962 as (choose between the following by adding your country template behind one or more of the following options, and indicate if your country would have been a founding member (FM) in that scenario or joined later (JL)):

a reaction against a dominant military power with an unlikeable ideology (possibly because of a war with said power); {Wyster} (FM/JL), {Mauretia} (FM if Commonia or a few select other places, JL otherwise), {Eshein} (FM)
the successor organisation to a dismantled empire to which the founding member states belonged; {Wyster} (JL), {Glaster}[(FM), {Mauretia} (JL)
a reaction against an international criminal syndicate that owned large amounts of assets in the founding member states and had a strong influence on some governments. Military insurrection ensured that the syndicate was thwarted (although it still may exist outside EUOIA) and EUOIA was created as a watch dog. {Wyster} (FM), {Glaster} (JL, FM if origin in Commonia), {Mauretia} (FM if non-eastern Ulethan origin, JL otherwise), {Kojo} (JL), {Esthyra} (JL)
other: write your suggestion below:
- a peaceful effort by smaller countries to streamline collaborative efforts and simplify the burden of large-scale projets {Wyster} (FM), {Mauretia} (FM), {Kojo} (FM), {Eshein} (FM), Justinique (JL), Esthyra (JL)

Page

I wrote this history paragraph. let me know what you guys think is missing or needs to be changed:

After The World War, Eastern Uletha suffered a huge economic catastrophe, much like the rest of the world. The countries where struggling to become steady again, to stabilize their economy and to rebuild what was demolished. 
In April 20, 1962, Wyster, Mauretia, Mergany, Kojo and Eshein singed the Imperium Treaty which ordered the establishment of the Eastern Ulethan Economic Community|Eastern Ulethan Economic Support Alliance. The the goal of this economic organization was supporting each other economically to rebound from the catastrophe. 
In January 10, 1968, during a meeting of the alliance in Iola, for the fist time the nations started to think about expending the alliance to other fields such and trade, education, foreign relations, etc. but no decision was made.
In July 3, 1976, during a meeting of the alliance in Bad Stanncatt, the Bad Stanncatt Treaty was singed and ordered on the expansion of the fields that the organization is responsible to and was, in fact, the beginning of the organization as it is today.

Ifgus (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2018 (EET)

This is OK as far as I/Wyster am concerned. The World War hasn't been elaborated much yet though (as far as I can tell) but we can use that as a vague background reason for the time being. If it turns out that the idea of the World War doesn't really fit in EUOIA's history, we can always come up with something else. -- Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 10:41, 4 August 2018 (CEST)

Glastian Unification

If the EUOIA was around at the time, what would its stance be concerning the Glastian unification of 1979? Glaster was properly recognised as an existing nation in 1982. If you want some background information, read Glaster's wiki page. The Third Glastian Civil War page might help as well.

Situation of Glaster

I'd rather have a date from 1959 to 1961, maybe, for extremely convoluted historical and political reasons I will explain below. These reasons are, by all means, canon but are confined to my sandbox pages because of overwikification.

Commonian coup in Glaster in October 1947 results in the establishment of the Glastian Social Republic, which collapses the following month from a joint invasion by North Glaster, South Glaster, Latania, Agarderia and Communist Glaster.
Communist Glaster now have a section of eastern Agarderia, as well as the northernmost parts of Glaster, under occupation. file:Glaster_Occupation.png|right|300px|thumb|Glastian occupation in red|link=Special:FilePath/Glaster_Occupation.png
Following the very brief [[User:Yuanls/sandbox/Democratic_Republic_of_Agarderia#Recovery_of_Agarderia|Glastian-Agardirian War of 1948, Agarderia regained control of Glastian-occupied territories as a separate autonomous region. It was governed by the now-subordinate government of Communist North Glaster, which was based in Hevaney in Agarderia.
The Glastian government had full control of northern occupied Glaster, although Agarderian troops were present there to keep the Glastian government in line.

This takes me up to the end of my current, in-depth, historical planning. What comes next is yet to be written and involves an increase of Glastian nationalism in the early 50s, discontent of the Agarderian military presence and the eventual collapse of the Glastian occupation as a result, and a reunification with North Glaster. There was probably some tense standoff and possibly some small skirmishes between the democratic nations and the Communist-aligned nations of Karamsk, Latania and Agarderia. Neither North or South Glaster could join the EUOIA, unless Wyster was absent, as the Treaty of Mealle from 1828 banned any types of alliance between Glaster and Wyster. As a result, Glaster probably only joined the EUIOA in 1979. Sorry for all of this text, but I hope it helped form some new ideas. Yuanls (talk) 21:30, 5 July 2017 (CEST)

So we can leave 1962 as it is? :) -- Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 21:35, 5 July 2017 (CEST)

My reading of that makes me think we could leave it at 1962, but discussions and initial treaties could have started as early as 1959. After all, something this big would take time to pull off. Look how long it took the EU to come together, and they had the benefit of foundational organizations already in place. — Alessa (talk) 02:24, 6 July 2017 (CEST)

I agree. -- Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 12:12, 6 July 2017 (CEST)

I see what you mean and agree with your point. Yuanls (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2017 (CEST)

Organisation

Sub-organisations, sub-committees, headquarters, office locations, leading officials, ...

Before creating sub-organizations, we need a decision which issues could be covered by the EUOIA. I think it will take some time until we have some more members, but if there are at least 2 or 3 nations, which want to collaborate in an issue under the head of EUOIA, they can do so and EUOIA should provide a framework for it. This should be an ongoing process to give all future members the chance to play their role within the organization (and in order to avoid such a circus like the participation in the OGFIFA World Cup). At the moment there might be a headquarter (including a parliament or not?) and embassies of the members at some place (comparable to the Assembly of Nations in St. Richards), maybe somewhere in Wyster (as the initiating country)? --Mstr (talk) 19:03, 13 February 2016 (CET)

I agree that the sub-organisations (sorry, yes; I prefer the spelling with -s- for aesthetic reasons (I find -z- too 'agressive') and because it's used more often in Europe) should be created only after we have decided what EUOIA does for its member states. We can create a 'wish-list' to which participants can add issues. (see below). The Wystrian capital of Hreawirc could be a sufficiently neutral location for the EUOIA Headquarters; I don't mind if it's located elswhere, as long as the choice of the location is logical), so let's see first if other participants want their countries to take part. --Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2016 (CET)

What does your country want EUOIA to be/do?

Joint foreign policy: Wyster?, Glaster, Mergany, Mauretia?
Joint defense system: Mergany, Østermark, Eshein, Mauretia (but only to some degree)
Joint humanitarian aid: Mergany, Wyster, Glaster, Østermark as long as it is the recipient of much of the aid which of course it would squander, Eshein, Mauretia
Monetary Union: Wyster, Glaster(Maybe), Mergany (maybe)
Open borders: Wyster?, Mergany, Eshein
Joint legal system: Mergany (international questions), Wyster (idem), Eshein
Economy exchange: Mergany (free access for private companies within EUOIA as far as possible), Glaster, Østermark, Mauretia (but no further than Mergany wants)
Sustainability and environment protection: Mergany, Wyster, Glaster, Østermark would be in constant threat of being kicked out for this but I think this should definitely be a purpose, Mauretia
Open market within EUOIA with internal market protection against non-EUOIAn markets: Wyster? Glaster

Does this duplicate with the table above? --Austinhuang (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2018 (CET)

Flag

First proposals for a EUOIA flag File:EUOIA Flag proposal.png|600px|center|Flag proposal|link=Special:FilePath/EUOIA_Flag_proposal.png this proposal includes:

13 yellow/gold rings arranged in a ring (rings symbolize closeness/solidarity, 13 symbolizes ?, gold symbolizes wealth)
rising sun (symbolizes the east)
blue and white/grey color (blue for confidence, grey for wisdom or white for peace)

--Mstr (talk) 04:53, 21 February 2016 (CET)

Nice! Between these four I'd go for the gold rings + white sun version, as the white stands out better against the blue I think. --Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 09:45, 21 February 2016 (CET)

Here a revised version of it File:EUOIA Flag proposal2.png|300px|center|Flag proposal|link=Special:FilePath/EUOIA_Flag_proposal2.png --Mstr (talk) 00:14, 27 February 2016 (CET)

Structure

I added some notes on the main EUOIA page about EUOIA's structure: Board of Governors, Secretariat, Parliament?, with the latter containing a question mark, as I think that a parliament should be created only if EUOIA will affect the member states' citizens' lives directly (e.g. deciding if they can buy plastic bags, what medications are supposed to be healthy, etc.), i.e. when EUOIA turns out to become really influential; but feel free to differ of opinion on this one :) --Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 10:22, 21 February 2016 (CET)

Foreign affairs

What do you think about EUOIAn embassies in small countries on other continents instead of every country building its own? --Mstr (talk) 23:23, 27 May 2016 (CEST)

That could be practical. I'm not against that idea. --Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 09:12, 28 May 2016 (CEST)

I agree with the new idea. BelpheniaProject (talk) 10:58, 28 May 2016 (CEST)

totally for it.ifgus (talk) 22:29, 20 march 2017 (EET)

Board of Governors, Secretariat and Parliament? Any more?

Was there any decision concerning different organisations within EUOIA? What do we need? Here are some of my ideas, please comment, complete,...

Board of Governors, Wyster 51.97108°N, 129.99704°E Building NEEDED? See discussion below
Secretariat, Viljanni 43.76048°N, 130.15745°E <big>(?)</big>
Defense Association, Eshein 43.32081°N, 129.37818°E
Economic Community, Mergany 47.14454°N, 131.36806°E
- Aerotheon Group, Belphenia (common industrial project, not directly connected to EUOIA)
Space Agency Viljanni 43.8273°N, 130.4136°E NEEDED? See discussion below
- different department in other countries possible (mission planing, control, ...) who wants to participate?
Foreign Affairs (e.g. common representatives in smaller countries on other continents)
Court of Justice, Eshein?
Central Bank ? NEEDED? See discussion below
Transport Network? NEEDED? See discussion below
Scientific committee ?
- different projects possible
Medical and Health Organization, Mauretia 43.52203°N, 135.57141°E
Free Trade Association ?
(Atomic) Energy Community ?

--Mstr (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2017 (CET)

See below for more discussion: the necessity of some of the mentioned organisations depends on how deeply integrated EUOIA will be. E.g. a parliament, a space agency, perhaps even a central bank don't really seem necessary unless EUOIA will be some kind of European Union. Also I see that I mapped a building for the Board of Governors, but as these are the government leaders of each country who will probably meet only once or twice a year, a separate building just for that seems unnecessary. --Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 17:41, 5 July 2017 (CEST)

Board of Governors

Under Eastern Ulethan Organisation of Independent Allies#The Board of Governors|Organisation is written: "The Board of Governors (BoG) is the highest governing level of EUOIA and consists of the government leaders of the member states". However, below that line it is stated in the table that each member states has two seats in the Board of Governors. Since most countries have only one government leader, who is the second person? --Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 13:29, 5 July 2017 (CEST)

I might be wrong, but I take it to mean that there are two government officials from each country. Whether or not that is the prime minister/president/monarch/etc. is up to the country. At least, that's how I take it. Maybe I'm wrong here. — Alessa (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2017 (CEST)

That could be a possibility.. In the case of Wyster it would probably be the prime minister and the minister of foreign affairs. But I'm curious after other possibilities! --Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 17:31, 5 July 2017 (CEST)

If this is the case, Mauretia could choose two people from a myriad of options. Here's ten that I thought of just off the top of my head: (1) Cabinet foreign affairs minister; (2) Parliamentarian chair of foreign affairs committee; (3) Permanent unelected envoy (not ambassador level) from the queen; (4) Permanent elected envoy from the queen; (5) A new ambassador to the EUOIA; (6) A sitting ambassador to another EUOIA country (like Viljanni, since that's where the BoG meets); (7) Princess Nura or current heir to the throne; (8) Prime minister; (9) Queen Gabriela herself (doubtful); (10) Some random guy named Yos (Joe)… a lot of possibilities. — Alessa (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2017 (CEST)

I see your point. In that case it is maybe better to have each member state appoint two random diplomats for its two BoG seats. Btw the BoG doesn't meet in Viljanni; that was the proposed location for the parliament. Wyster was the proposed location for the BoG, but as discussed below two to six meetings per year don't really require a special building for that. They can organise their meetings in a different member state each time. -- Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 17:53, 5 July 2017 (CEST)

Ah, yes. Thank you for the correction. I was mistaken on which one was the BoG. I agree that a special building really isn't needed then with that few meetings. If there were to be a single, centralized location, it could just be a meeting space in the same building as the Secretariat. That way it's one building. But, I like the idea of rotating meetings! That shares responsibility, travel, etc. among all member countries. Let's add that to the list of clear, concise ideas you propose below. — Alessa (talk) 18:09, 5 July 2017 (CEST)

President, Secretary General

In the info table at the top on the right a President of EUOIA is mentioned; where does this function fit in the organisation? Could (s)he be the president of the Board of Governors? How is (s)he appointed? The name of the Secretary General is also mentioned already; under Eastern Ulethan Organisation of Independent Allies#The Secretariat|The Secretariat is written "The Secretariat is responsible for the daily management of EUOIA and is headed by the Secretary General, who is nominated by one of the member states according to a rotating system but who has to be confirmed by the BoG. The Secretary General serves one term of 5 years." In order for the SecGens (including the present one) to be known, we should know when EUOIA was founded and what the rotating system will be.--Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 13:44, 5 July 2017 (CEST)

I'm also confused as to how these fit in also. I feel like we've just (hurriedly) copied an EU-like model instead of going through the hard process of figuring out our own system. For example, I'm very concerned about why there is both a BoG and a parliament. Considering we have a flexible and rolling membership, I don't see what roles these would have. For example, let's assume that the president is really the figurehead of the BoG. I do think having a point person be the leader of the BoG could be a good idea, but it won't always work right. Why would a president from Agarderia be willing to lead discussions, speak with other nations, and craft resolutions for the EUDC when Agarderia isn't even a participant in that part of the organization? Mauretia would be needed for things relevant to non-aggression, so why would other countries want its votes tipping the scales in other EUDC discussions? With a decentralized system, having a single strong, outspoken president is not going to fit this model. What about the Secretariat? What role would that even serve? The same goes for parliament. To me parliament seems useless and an overreach into sovereignty, to be honest. Are there any ideas of how we might make something more creative and fitting to our different membership levels? — Alessa (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2017 (CEST)

I agree with most of this; a parliament isn't necessary until a deep political integration of the member states is wanted by the member states - which doesn't seem the case at the moment. The same for a president - as head of the BoG or in another form: I have the impression that this function will be exactly the same as that of the Secretary General, so I propose that we remove it. Technically speaking the BoG doesn't need a fixed president; it convenes probably just once or twice a year for policy making, adopting resolutions etc., so they can appoint a president of each meeting at those moments. The Secretariat however is the daily organisation of EUOIA: it has mostly administrative tasks and doesn't make policies (that is the BoG's task), but the Secretary General is EUOIA's face to the world. --Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2017 (CEST)

That makes sense, Rasmus. I think the BoG is sufficient too. I also really like your idea of a president that can be a figurehead on a meeting-to-meeting basis. In reality, the "president" is just the person who governs the meetings. That seems logical. I'd imagine that without a parliament that met regularly, the BoG would want to meet a little more than twice a year. There may not be a lot of integration between the countries, but not a lot gets done in just two meetings. Maybe every other month? That would be six meetings a year. I'd imagine emergency meetings could be called as needed. As for the Secretary General, I agree about the duplication and support removing it unless it is the head of the Secretariat. It seems needless. Also, thanks for clearing up the Secretariat for me. I still wonder, however, if a Secretary General from one country can really be a good face-to-the-world if it's not representing all aspects of the EUOIA. Maybe they can. Maybe I just don't trust politicians. :) — Alessa (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2017 (CEST)

The president of BoG would be the one who chairs the meetings; probably he or she is appointed at the start of every meeting, so he or she is not someone who can be the 'face' of EUOIA. That's why I prefer to keep the Secretary General for that. A Secretary General's foremost task is to represent EUOIA by the way, and not his or her country of origin, so it doesn't really matter if his or her country of origin doesn't participate in all aspects of the EUOIA. The table at the top of this page suggests that it will be really difficult to find countries that participate in all aspects anyway :) -- Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2017 (CEST)

Good thinking, Rasmus. I like this a lot. I'm curious to see what others think about it. It's logical and fits our flexible needs. Of course, we'd have to figure out how the EUOIA Secretary General is decided, how long a term is, when members joined etc. That brings us back to your original questions. Sorry for the round-about, but we've had a good discussion! :) — Alessa (talk) 17:52, 5 July 2017 (CEST)

Thanks, I've had some experience with fictional organisations in the past :) Seeing as there is a lot of confused information on this page and on the main site, I will see if I can summarise it in something that is better readable with some clear propositions; I've still a few holiday days left :) -- Rasmus Rasmusson (talk) 17:58, 5 July 2017 (CEST)

Great, Rasmus. If you're willing to pull all the bureaucratic items together into something small, go for it. Let me know if you need me to do anything. — Alessa (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2017 (CEST)</text>