Restructure proposal discussion

Restructure proposal discussion

Postby BAD » Sun Sep 14, 2008 11:28 am

OK since it has been talked about, the council has decided to allow a period of discussion before this restructure proposal is put to vote.

Since this proposal is so important, as long as the majority of votes are for it, the council will implement it. If however there are compelling changes submitted in this thread, the vote will be suspended until those changes can be implemented.

Here it is:

Guild Councilors

There will be three Guild Councilors.


The roles of the councilors will be changed to suit the current and future condition of the Guild of Writers. Previously we have tried to focus on general areas that the guild would focus on. These new position will instead give the councilor a well defined job and reason to keep working on things. The new positions will
be:

Councilor of Artistic Direction. This person would initiate, oversee, and seek to get approval of all guild projects for the GOW. An example would be the showcase age. This could be as simple as delegating work to Directors (see below), or taking the project manager roll him/herself on important projects for the GOW. This person would also be responsible for getting artists, authors, and musicians to be involved with the GOW in ways that they will find interesting and engaging.

Councilor of Technical Direction. This person oversees and approves tools, plugins, services, and any other technical needs of the GOW. This person will be the editor in chief of the Wiki, they will run all of the tool projects created within the GOW, and they will ultimately be in charge of any code the GOW recieves from Cyan.

Councilor of Intra-Guild Relations. This person Administrates the forums and any other server the GOW uses. This person would handle informational releases, events, and announcements.

Shared responsibilities: Inter-guild and Cyan related business, initial proposal creation or approving for vote, and anything else that falls between the alloted jobs listed here.

In most non-critical matters the Guild Council has the authority to make decisions without the need of a proposal or representative approval.

These non-critical matters include:

- Day-to-day guild operations, like forum layout, adding new features to the website or guild infrastructure.
- Start-up of (non-permanent) special projects, either inter-guild or intra-guild.
- Matters concerning any of the tools developed at the GoW
- Organization of events, public-relations actions and other one-time activities.
- Any other matters that are of a non-permanent nature.

Matters that are clearly structural or permanent in nature, will be excluded from this arrangement and will need a proposal.

Experiments:

For trying out possible structure changes or projects that may be made permanent parts of the guild, the Guild Council has the authority to start them up "as an experiment". In cases of possible permanent structural changes, the time for the experiment will be one month maximum. For any other experiments it will be two months maximum. After the time for the experiment has expired, the Guild Representatives (see below) will vote on its continuation as a normal proposal. All experiments must be completely reversible. The representatives can counteract on these decisions immediately. For the counteraction to be considered valid, the proposal procedure has to be started within 48 hours of the decision being made public knowledge. This means that a simple draft proposal to counteract the decision must be posted in the decision forums.

Added procedure for Guild Councilors removal

If a Guild Councilor has been inactive or unreachable for four months or more, and s/he has not stated a valid reason for his/her absence, they will be declared MIA and automatically removed. The Council (aided by the Representatives) will search for a replacement, which will then be instated through representative vote.

The Guild Councilors will find people to fill the new positions of the Guild Directors. The positions of Guild Directors will replace the Assistant Councilor position.

Guild Directors

The Guild Directors are expected to help the members of the Guild Of Writers. If they cease to be active, they should be removed at the discretion of the Guild Councilors. They are the responsibility of the current Guild Councilors to maintain and pick. The requirements below are for the Councilors to follow when picking new Directors.

Requirements for Guild Directors

A candidate for Guild Director must meet the following requirements:

* Needs to be a GoW Representative. If one is taken off the list of Representatives it will also mean automatic discharge from the Guild Director position
* Needs to have some experience in the field e.g. the Tool Development director should actually know how to make tools for age building.

Guild Director positions will be made as they are needed by the Guild Councilors. It may end up that a director's job ends once a project is done, there by eliminating the need for the position. As this is replacing Assn. Guild Councilors, it should be noted that since the director position is more fluid, permissions and access to areas will be decided upon when the position is created. Certain positions may require more or less access depending on what the job requires.

Some Guild Director jobs will be, for the most part, permanent. These positions will not be treated any different.

Guild Representatives

Becoming a GoW Representative

Membership of the GoW representatives is open to anyone who wants, provided the following:

a) You feel you are a member of this guild: You haven't just signed up for the forum discussions.
b) You are able to be contacted through forum or PM's at short notice (not counting vacations).

If you cease to fit these requirements you will step down. If you are inactive on the forums (and haven't been in contact otherwise) for more than three months, you will be automatically taken off the list. This is only for practical reasons (e.g. vote count), once you return, you are welcome to rejoin instantly.

Sign up will be done through a yet to be determined system.

Representative booting

If a representative exhibits undesired behavior, a proposal can be put before the council to expel said representative from the position for a specified or unspecified time. In this special case, a discussion for the proposal is not needed, as long as a good explanation for the removal is given in the voting poll itself.

Proposal voting and proposing things

As a GoW Representative, you are expected to vote on proposals. However, you can also select the abstain option in any vote.
All votes will have three options:

* Accept
* Reject
* Abstain

Before a Council proposal is formally introduced, it will be put before the representatives for comments and suggestions.
After four days of review, it will be put on as a formal proposal, which cannot be changed during the voting process.

Procedure for proposals
1. A proposal is drafted by a representative or the council.
2. A new topic is made for it in the "Representative Discussion" section called "Discussion: <proposal name>".
3. The representatives and the council have four days to suggest changes to your proposal. If valid suggestions are made, the proposal procedure is suspended until those changes can be incorporated into the proposal.
4. Once all discussion and changes are finished a new topic is posted in "Submitted Proposals" called "Vote: <proposal name>" and the discussion topic for the proposal is locked. This new topic will have a poll in it and the final proposal (after discussion) This poll will stay open for 5 days. The representatives (and other guild members if they so choose) will vote "yes", "no", or "abstain".

Vote quorum requirements

Proposals need a vote count of at least 60% of the representatives to pass.
Generic proposals must get more than 50% of the votes to pass (this is 50% of the reps).
Proposals to change the guild structure, or to remove a councilor from the council will need 60% yes vote.

If a quorum is not reached, the proposal will be considered as Rejected. It can be reproposed afterwards however, if the need arises.

Representative forums

The "Internal Discussion" subforum will be renamed to "Representative Discussions" and repurposed to serve as the discussion forum. It will be publicly readable, yet only representatives will be allowed to post there.

Official proposal polls will be put in the "Submitted Proposals" subforum. The "submitted proposals" subforum will gain two subforums:

* Accepted Proposals
* Rejected Proposals


This will help separate current proposals from past proposals.

Voting by non-representatives

Non-representatives who have special interest in a certain proposal, can request the status of "temporary representative" for one proposal only. This position will be automatically granted on request, provided that the member in question is not currently a banned representative, or otherwise banned from this position by the representatives.


This discussion will be open for four days barring that no compelling changes are proposed.
BAD is as good as he gets
User avatar
BAD
 
Posts: 832
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 9:44 am

Re: Restructure proposal discussion

Postby andylegate » Sun Sep 14, 2008 2:29 pm

I don't have anything to add, or suggestions, etc. I do have a few questions though as I'm curious:

How is a Guild Councilor installed?
How long is their term?
How does any of this affect those who belong to more than one guild? (IE there is Me, I consider myself a Writer, but I'm also one of the Maintainers GM. However, rest assured I'm not going to be jumping up an volunteering for anything like this over here, mainly because I don't want people with fears of us Maintainers thinking anything bad. But their are others on here that belong to more than one guild, who are making Ages.)

er, I think I had a 4th question, but my granddaughter screaming for a cookie has made it slip my mind........
"I'm still trying to find the plKey for Crud!"
Image
Blender Age Creation Tutorials
3DS Max Age Creation Tutorials
User avatar
andylegate
 
Posts: 2348
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 7:47 am

Re: Restructure proposal discussion

Postby Robert The Rebuilder » Sun Sep 14, 2008 2:30 pm

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.


Guild Directors:

Immediately after a Guild Councilor announces the opening of a position for a Guild Director, the nomination period begins. During this 1 week nomination period, candidates are nominated for the position by other GoW members. Nominees must accept before the end of the nomination period. Note: Guild Concilors are exempt from taking a Guild Director position.


Following this will be a 1 week voting period. A poll for the position will be created, listing all nominees. 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 Director position will be for 6 months following the end of the voting period.


Guild Representatives:

The Guild Councilors will announce the sign-up period for Guild Representatives, and the number of positions available. During this 1 week period, any GoW member other than a Guild Councilor or Guild Director can sign up to be a Guild Representative.

Following this will be a 1 week voting period. A poll for each position will be created, listing all nominees. 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 Representatives position will be for 6 months following the end of the voting period.
Can we rebuild it? Yes, we can - here's how.

MOULagain KI# 1299

Myst Movie coming soon - spread the word!
User avatar
Robert The Rebuilder
 
Posts: 1383
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 7:24 am
Location: Virginia, US

Re: Restructure proposal discussion

Postby Paradox » Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:10 pm

Councilor of Technical Direction. This person oversees and approves tools, plugins, services, and any other technical needs of the GOW. This person will be the editor in chief of the Wiki, they will run all of the tool projects created within the GOW, and they will ultimately be in charge of any code the GOW recieves from Cyan.


Should be noted that there are no tool projects created within the GoW. PyPRP is developed independently of GoW, as is libPlasma and the tools associated with it. I believe Cyan intends the code to go to the tool developers rather than the GoW as a whole, but they haven't been too clear on that.
Paradox
 
Posts: 1290
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 6:48 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Restructure proposal discussion

Postby Nadnerb » Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:13 pm

I note that none of the current "GoW" tools were "created within the GoW", but were rather created independently, or by other groups. Therefore, the Councilor of Technical Direction will not be running any coding projects. (and I don't imagine any coders would appreciate being "run" by a temporary elected councilor either) However, the position of wiki maintainer and Cyan code contact seems useful. (though it seems unlikely that Cyan will honor that position based on their past contact patterns, though I will note that it is their stated intent to give any source to "the GoW" for them to distribute freely)
Last edited by Nadnerb on Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
Live KI: 34914 MOULa KI: 23247 Gehn KI: 11588 Available Ages: TunnelDemo3, BoxAge, Odema
Nadnerb
 
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 8:01 pm
Location: US (Eastern Time)

Re: Restructure proposal discussion

Postby Trylon » Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:18 pm

In repsonse to Robert's voting stuff above:

No! No voting for guild directors or representatives!

Guild directors are selected by the Council.
A proposal will be made to set them in office.

Proposed change wrote:The Guild Directors are expected to help the members of the Guild Of Writers. If they cease to be active, they should be removed at the discretion of the Guild Councilors. They are the responsibility of the current Guild Councilors to maintain and pick. The requirements below are for the Councilors to follow when picking new Directors.


Guild representative membership must be open to all who want to join. Sign-up and you're in. (Unless banned)
Basically it's just a list of people who want to vote on the proposals. It's there to make voting easier than waiting endlessly for a set percentage of forum members to vote.

Proposed change wrote:Membership of the GoW representatives is open to anyone who wants, provided the following:

a) You feel you are a member of this guild: You haven't just signed up for the forum discussions.
b) You are able to be contacted through forum or PM's at short notice (not counting vacations).


As to the Councilors themselves.... maybe... but I'd say that in any case both the remaining/previous council and the representatives should nominate people (after contacting them to see if they'd be willing). And previous councilors should be nominated by default. No campaining stuff though! Just nomination and voting.
One day I ran through the cleft for the fiftieth time, and found that uru held no peace for me anymore.
User avatar
Trylon
 
Posts: 1446
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 11:08 pm
Location: Gone from Uru

Re: Restructure proposal discussion

Postby Lontahv » Sun Sep 14, 2008 4:12 pm

Ok, I have some comments (things i'd like to see there, issues, etc.).

First of all:

We have 3 councilors. I feel like having 3 councilors is just to close new people out of the councilor-ship. Also, the problem with having 3 is that it gets more and more like a monarchy (say one of them is on vacation and the other is MIA :P ).

I think the things that the GoW should be aiming for right now is:
- Get some new faces in the councilor-ship
- Limit their terms so that there can be more new people in if the members have a "MEH" reaction to the current ones.
- Try to have people voting on proposals who care rather than a pile of people playing a big game of "follow the leader". :P

I will vote against the proposal if it stays in its current form.


Ok, here's the alterations/additions to be in the proposal (trying to be realistic here rather than asking for _exactly_ what I want):
- Keep the 5 councilors and make their jobs homogeneous--that is make them all have the same title and be simply 'Councilors'... a purely political group.
- Make the Mods and web-Admins be in a class of their own (permanent and non-partisan).
- Have the guild-activity specific parts be held by people whom the guild-councilors decide on.

Here's how the system would look:

Mods&Admins: they'd execute the things that the councilors and people will decide (about the website)
Councilors: The main job for these folks are to make sure that the GoW is running well. This will include: coordinating all of the Departmental-Leaders (making sure they are doing a good job), communicating with Cyan and making meaningful proposals for the people to vote on.
Departmental-Leaders: Assigned by the Council-body to assist and direct various matters (eg. the Departmental-Leaders of Building would be like the Councilor of building minus the councilor part). Having this position means that the help that people need isn't stifled by political agendas.


Ok, that's about it. I feel the original proposal proposed will just make The Structure needlessly complex rather than executing any real change.
Currently getting some ink on my hands over at the Guild Of Ink-Makers (PyPRP2).
User avatar
Lontahv
Councilor of Artistic Direction
 
Posts: 1331
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2007 2:09 pm

Re: Restructure proposal discussion

Postby Kato » Sun Sep 14, 2008 4:20 pm

We have three active councilors right now and no one's complaining.

I don't like the idea of a term limit--a Councilor will know when it's time to step down, and if they don't, a member proposal will put them in their place.

-Kato
Image
(explorer card designed and created by me)
User avatar
Kato
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 8:02 pm
Location: South USA

Re: Restructure proposal discussion

Postby Lontahv » Sun Sep 14, 2008 4:22 pm

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.
Currently getting some ink on my hands over at the Guild Of Ink-Makers (PyPRP2).
User avatar
Lontahv
Councilor of Artistic Direction
 
Posts: 1331
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2007 2:09 pm

Re: Restructure proposal discussion

Postby Tsar Hoikas » Sun Sep 14, 2008 4:23 pm

Lontahv wrote:We have 3 councilors. I feel like having 3 councilors is just to close new people out of the councilor-ship. Also, the problem with having 3 is that it gets more and more like a monarchy (say one of them is on vacation and the other is MIA :P ).

I think the things that the GoW should be aiming for right now is:
- Get some new faces in the councilor-ship
- Limit their terms so that there can be more new people in if the members have a "MEH" reaction to the current ones.
- Try to have people voting on proposals who care rather than a pile of people playing a big game of "follow the leader". :P


I would agree with you on a monarchy if the councilors had any real power... As for term limits, honestly, prove to me why that matters. I see no benefit from imposing term limits. I actually find it as a detraction from real work. Joe can't build his age if he's too busy electing new councilors every 6 months.

New faces? This is a perfect opportunity.

Did you not read the section on representatives at all? We have a vague plan on that so that we won't be wasting our time on people who don't give a crap.

To address your other concern(s), the new "Council" is your administrative group (only a bit more specialized than you wrote). The Guild Representatives are the new political group. The council has been somewhat demoted if you didn't notice. Guild Directors are your "departmental" leaders
Image
Tsar Hoikas
Councilor of Technical Direction
 
Posts: 2180
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 9:45 pm
Location: South Georgia

Next

Return to Public Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron