I agree with most of the proposal, I especially like the flexibility of the Directors positions. I also think that it is important to mark a clear separation between the purely administrative tasks for the Councilors and the more productive tasks of the Directors.
That being said here are a couple things:
Durations:
Numbers can easily make or break any system.
Councilor inactivity: 4 months: way too long IMO. When you have such a small council every person is important and every person should be aware of his/her responabilities. If someone goes away for over a month without warning his colleagues he/she doesn't deserve the position IMO (except for obvious special cases: health matters, accidents, other important personal issues etc). A lot of things can happen in four months. I'd suggest 1 month no more.
Proposal discussion prior to vote: 4 days; too short. If someone goes on vacation they usually go for at least a week, so what about 7 days? Case in point: this very discussion was posted on a sunday evening, which makes for the end of discussion on a tuesday evening, but not everyone can during the week take the time to discuss this (or even just to browse the forum). Obviously one could always vote 'No' to the proposal, but isn't the whole point of the discussion period to avoid that kind of 'default' vote?
Representatives inactivity: 3 months: Again I find that a little long, but that's less of a problem here.
Representatives I know I'm propably just arguing semantics here, but this name bothers me. Representatives look a awfull lot like regular Guild Members in the traditionnal sense, so for the sake of respecting long established naming traditions in the community shouldn't those simply be called Guild Members? (as opposed to simple forum members)
Technical question: How to keep a list of the Guild Representatives? Would a specific members group on the forum be setup?
Lack of an official PR/contact/spokespersonThis seem to be a recurrent problem, especially now that Dox has resigned. This is a very specific position, not something for a Councilor, but not a Director either IMO. It is specific because it's something that will at times be more important to the rest of the community than to ourselves. People outside our Guild need someone, a single person to identify easily, whose name should be on the front page of the site, and whose position should be clearly written in his/her signature on other Uru forums. And this single person would in turn interface with the council/directors. Also this IMO should be a permanent position.
I think a specific position should be created for that job, not a 'Director of PR' (although practically it would be the same thing).
Maybe simply a 'Guild Spokeperson'?
The 'only 3 councilors' issueAs has been pointed out 3 councilors is fine most of the time, but it can easily go down to one...(even zero if we want to be pessimistic) So I agree about the 'spare' councilors idea. If only just as an unintrusive security measure. This should be much like substitutes in sports: they who would be usually inactive, and only called in office for a given time when one (or more) of the regular Councilors are away/MIA.
As they would usually be 'inactive' they whould be allowed to be Directors, but in case they are put to use as fulltime Councilors, they should name a new director to replace them. (no voting here to speed up things)
"Make the Mods and web-Admins be in a class of their own (permanent and non-partisan"
That's an interesting point, mods in particular have nothing to do with all the political and decision making aspects of the Councilors/Directors.. mods by nature are supposed to be objective and non-partisan. So I agree they should be a separate entity. They should either be voted on or named by the councilors, and could be kicked by popular demand (ie: Proposal)