Restructure proposal discussion

[Tsar Hoikas]

Uhm... we've had 3 for all of... two days? Having three means that it's more risky. If two gang on on one of them then something's passed.

Also, having 3 means that one of them only has to convince one other councilor and he can get his idea though.

DID YOU EVEN READ THE PROPOSAL?!

Sorry, but there is an entire section dedicated to that.

[BAD]

For those who are worried the GOW will be holding tool developments hostage...

The Councilor of Tech will be running tool projects created by the GOW, or given to the GOW by people or groups who want to. If your independently developing a tool, it's not going to be taken from you.

[Lontahv]

"Councilors" sounds mighty political eh? Just call them the Admins.

[BAD]

Do you really not like the proposal Lon, or are you just upset it doesn't fit into what you envision this place to be?

If indeed a councilor does prove inactive any representative can create a proposal to replace them. It will have a four day discussion and go to vote.

60% is way reasonable to vote out a councilor.

That's how we are going to get things moving.

[Tsar Hoikas]

"Councilors" sounds mighty political eh? Just call them the Admins.

Or let's just give in to temptation and call them GODS. Has a nice powerful ring to it, doesn't it? Yes, even more powerful than admins...

[Lontahv]

Ok, you've convinced me. [Resolved]

[BAD]

Looks like there's nothing in the restructured proposal stating how any of the positions will be filled, or the term limits for those positions. I'll throw something out there to get the discussion started.

Guild Councilors:

During a 1 week nomination period, candidates are nominated for one of the three councilor positions by other GoW members. Nominees must accept before the end of the nomination period.

Following this will be a 1 week voting period. A separate poll for each position will be created, listing all nominees for that position. At the end of the voting period, the candidates with the majority (> 50%) of the votes will adopt that position. Ties will be settled by a 1-week run-off election, featuring only those tied candidates in the new poll.

The term for each Guild Councilor position will be for 6 months following the end of the voting period.

This would make sense if we had scores of qualified people clamoring for the guild councilor spots. That not being the case makes this completely unnecessary.

The current councilors will take these positions. We are not starting over, we are reforming a system that desperately needed it. If people wish to replace a councilor they merely have to be a representative and start a proposal.

[Chacal]

I think the concept of guild representatives is a good solution to the immediate problem with representation (as seen in a recent vote).
As for guild leadership structure, this proposition is better than the previous one, if you believe we need a leadership.

[Robert The Rebuilder]

[If people wish to replace a councilor they merely have to be a representative and start a proposal.

The revised document mentions that the councilors can suggest changes to a proposal by a representative. In the case of the proposal asking for the replacement of a councilor, what is to prevent the councilors from changing the proposed replacement candidate or from outright cancelling the proposal?

[BAD]

So what your saying is that by merely suggesting a change it becomes so, by the councilor?

Anyone can make suggestions to change something in a proposal. It's up to the person who proposed it to either make the changes or to ignore the persons request.

Councilors have no power to stop or change a proposal that they had not drafted themselves. That's actually one of the main points of this restructure. People complained that councilors had to much power. Now they have jobs and less power.