When to Elect?

[Pryftan]

I don't see someone being shot at from beginning to end. If they got elected, people voted for them, why would they shoot them down before they even got a chance to prove themselves? If their opinion changes later on, then it's because of something they've done that the Writers didn't like, and that makes sense and is a logical balance to the election system.

I say "You can't vote out someone who hasn't been voted in" as application to the normal case rather than the extreme case you're talking about. Most of these types of projects end up at a point where nobody's sitting around HATING the leader. They just wish the leader would do something that they're not doing. If the leader was elected, he is obligated to lead and the people can justifiably press him into doing so. If he just walked in and declared himself project lead, set up a system and began work, and then suddenly had to move to his new apartment and didn't have time to go to forums for a month, there's not much people can do. I've seen that happen where people sit around, not wanting to kick him out but wishing somebody else would for them.

Elections make sure leaders are chosen by merit, as opposed to whoever wanted to speak the loudest. I talk a lot and I probably could grab the reins of the Showcase Age project. But I think people should decide if I'd be a good leader or not. Maybe the Writers feel I'm too passionate and would get too bothered if things weren't going right.

[Nadnerb]

People can only decide if you're a good leader or not if they see you leading. Generally, leading by example makes a better impression than forming a committee to choose a leader. So, why not try it?

Besides, building an age is a mostly artistic venture, and no amount of "focusing" and "pushing" is likely to get more out of people besides annoyance, and possibly comments to the effect that they wish they had more time to work on it.

[Pryftan]

I think the best way to prove what I'm saying is that no matter what, you and I could keep arguing until doomsday. We both think we're right and there's no clear leader between us. We can put it to a popular vote, but what if there are fifty such issues on one project that cause deliberation as heavy as this one? If someone is elected as a representative, we won't have to poll people on every single such problematic issue. We'd have a final say.

Without a leader, in order to resolve the argument between you and I, we need to wait for a week and hope enough people go on the forum to get reliable statistics on what they want.

[Trylon]

Ehm, a couple of cents from someone outside of the US here:

Where I'm living we don't have everyone elected as much as is done in the US. When looking at US shows and series, it always strikes me as odd, how much the American culture seems to center on voting. Probably the series I've seen put things a little out of context, but to me things like voting for e.g. a class president (a job that admittedly no student in the school where I work really wants) always seem quite a bit over the top to me, at least in the way it is presented on tv (even when I subtract all the nonsens elements around it, and keep only the essence).

Now, it seems to me that - as I've also seen on the other forums - people are trying very much to copy that system when wanting to establish a leadership. For example in having charters, election terms etc.

Having leadership elected like that for such a small group, seems quite over the top, and makes the so called leadership seem quite artificial to me. I'd feel more comfortable with a more natural flow, as a leadership will almost always establish itself in a small group, and when that is established most people will feel comfortable with it.

So instead of having all kinds of formal elections and stuff, I'd propose a more natural style. Let it flow a little, and all come naturally. And when (be it sooner or later) there is some form of election, don't over-formalize it.

Those where my 2 eurocents (about $0.026) worth of input.

[Pryftan]

I agree it doesn't need to be over-formalized. The essence of my position is that we're a bunch of artists with different passions and projects. I want to finish Tromegahl, but it's best for the Guild if I were to focus some of that time on a Showcase Age. A leadership council could help that process.

It's unfortunate that some formalization has to come into play in order to have a council, which is really meant to be a bit of informal organization to help things move smoothly. But I'm letting it be a little formal rather than saying "THESE PEOPLE ARE THE COUNCIL NOW" because I do think everyone should have a say in it. That's all.

[Nadnerb]

However, I don't see any age building projects developing arguments on the scale of this one. They're small enough teams, and get along well enough. Besides, even if there were a leader in our little argument, what are the chances that we would just argue with their decision too?

If you've got a preference for something in an age, then you can do something about it. If you're passionate about it, you'll likely put enough effort into it that it will be better.

I don't know why I'm still going back here, since my main argument seems to be that what you say doesn't really matter, I can ignore you. But the fact is that you're planning on setting up something that will affect more than just one age project. (unless of course, it's not, in which case, your position has changed a lot since I originally responded to Lontahv a while ago.)

In fact, it does seem to be shifting a lot. Originally the council was going to set everyone's age priorities and handle contact with cyan, which I noted we didn't really need at the moment. Then it was a leader focusing other people's free time on the showcase age. Why do we need a whole council to do that? Why do we need a grandiose charter, and a five person team to make people work on the showcase, and settle disputes about it's nature? Why don't you just go bump some threads and see how much good you can do, instead of building a giant structure to do it with?

[AtionSong]

I voted immediately, but for a different reason than the option stated. We've all heard the posts about Cyan subtly nudging us to start the guilds on our own. Even without a subtle endorsement from the big guys upstairs, I think it's clear that the Guild of Writers is starting to grow to a point where leadership is going to be necessary. I think that it's important that a few leaders are chosen, not necessarily to pop ages out at this point, but just to be able to continue to organize as the guild grows.

[Pryftan]

Arguing with a leader isn't arguing, it's complaining about something that's already decided. Much more futile and quick.

Yes, I'd like to set something up that would affect more than one Age project. But not individual projects like you're talking about. I mean projects like Yinfara and the Showcase Age that arose from the Guild and are fully Guild projects instead of independent groups like Icefall and SftSoK. Yinfara already had one of these arguments as to the design, and it was decided by a poll. It could have been decided by a project lead. The council would set up project leads and monitor their progress. But this isn't for individual Ages built outside our jurisdiction by friends. This is for Guildwide Ages.

My concept of the council is a little like the vice president's vote on the Senate. It's not always needed but when it is, it's used to decide very split decisions under circumstances that would otherwise not be decided.

And I agree with AtionSong that having leadership will make us look more organized to Cyan.

[Pryftan]

The way I see it is there should be a council of five or seven people. Most of the time, they're just the moderators of the forum, watching how projects are going. In most of these projects, either leaders will emerge, or the project will move forward completely community-based. There are only a few situations in which they do anything special:

1) The council moderates the monthly Guild meetings, and holds meetings for their issues when they are necessary (The council meetings are still public in the Writer's Pub; they're just concerned with council affairs, as I'll list below.)

2) A project loses all momentum, but there is sufficient work done on it for it to be resurrected. The council decides at one of their meetings to either appoint a project leader to rejuvenate the project, or let time pass and see if interest returns on it's own.

3) A project is moving slowly due to numerous arguments due to directional differences. The council chooses a project leader from the active participants, again at their public meeting.

4) For projects that are of significant interest to the Guild, the council will appoint a project lead.

5) The council acts as our contact with Cyan.


Other than this, the council will not interfere with any project other than giving assistance with their own talents.

As for project leaders, they are very much the same - Writers who go about their ordinary duties except when there is a difference of opinion as to content within the Age. In that event, the project leader chooses which direction to follow.

[BAD]

OK I to have a very different mental picture of what the GMs positions will be for. I'll explain my thoughts once I get them in proper order.