Guild of Writers

Shorah B'Shemtee,

The issue of leadership in the Guild of Writers has subject of many talks.
Not in the least among ourselves, but also among the other guilds.
To put it mildly, he general opinion outside has been that the Guild of Writers does not speak with one voice, and that it is not clear to them how to address the GoW, our presentation at the All-Guilds meeting of Saturday December 2nd has been a testimony to this.

This has to change. And this will change.
However, due to our different backgrounds, it has not been easy to define a system that everyone can live with.

Therefor, over the last course of two weeks I have been busy coordinating efforts with a group of my fellow guildmembers to establish a system that on one side will provide the Guild with the structure and leadership that we need to work with the other groups, and not in the last place Cyan itself once. On the other side, it will give all guild members maximum freedom and ensures that all guild members can have influence in the decisions of the Guild.
Many of the suggestions and issues brought up in previous discussions have been considered and taken into account when defining this new structure.

A full document describing the new structure can be found here,
You are strongly encouraged to read it before asking further questions, as it will answer quite a few of them already.

Over the course of the next week or two, Bad, Pryftan, and I will in conjunction with the H'Uru Team, make up a list of candidates for the five core Council positions.
This list will afterwards be submitted to the Guild for final acceptance. After that process is finished, we will have a full council.
The aforementioned document describes this process in more detail.
We will personally contact each candidate beforehand to see if they would be willing to be considered for the position.
Please note that we will not act as a temporary council, except on the issue of selecting people to be proposed for the positions.

Additionally I'd like to point out that we deliberately chose to have "Guild Councilors" rather than Grandmasters and Guildmasters, because these titles convey an air of too much authority, to accurately reflect the actual authority these people will have.

This effort has currently the explicit support of:
Bad
Paradox
Trylon
aloys
OnslaughtQ
Lontahv
ChaosSong
kyashii
Dovahn


Please forgive me if I omitted anyone from this list.

As I expect a number of questions on this issue, I invite you to all to use this thread to ask them and discuss this.

Peace,
--Trylon

This is a good effort, kudos to you all.
While I still don't agree with you on the fundamentals (such as "we need a structure" or "we need to speak with one voice" or "this has to change"), this is not important enough for me to argue against. Making Ages is important. Besides, my reasons are probably just personal.

Your proposal has a lot of merit and I'm sure it will meet the approval of everyone.

As I aided in writing this up, I will have no problem helping out answering questions.....

Wha...

While I admit this is definitely a good thing, I find it somewhat ironic that many people were saying "No structure, let's take it easy..." and suddenly we've got a complete guild structure complete with a forum. Where did this come from? Pardon me for not having read the rules in detail, but does it take into account all of the concerns that the community has?

And just out of curiosity, why do Trylon, Bad, and Pryftan get to choose candidates?

And also out of curiosity, why do you not expect this to be met with the same criticism that met Pryftan and my earlier proposal at a structure?

After that, however, I must admit that I am in full agreement with the ideas and give it support (so you can add me to the list of "supporters", unless that's just people from the discussion In Cavern the other day). This is basically just what we need at this point, if only to provide the guild with a figurehead.

Good work.

Dovahn

EDIT: /doh

Many of the suggestions and issues brought up in previous discussions have been considered and taken into account when defining this new structure.

EDIT 2: After reading this again, it came across as kind of negative. Sorry! Its intention was actually to ask questions, and when I say "Just out of curiosity", I actually mean that. Since I've been a proponent for some organization from the start, I'm just particularly interested in this process.

Dovahn wrote:And just out of curiosity, why do Trylon, Bad, and Pryftan get to choose candidates?

Just because someone has to do it, and they were involved in setting up this structure.
It is basically just a coordination effort, nothing more.
The ultimate decision lies with the Guild members themselves! If the guild doesn't agree with the proposed list, another list will have to be made.
Also - while the document does not state it - my post above states that it will also be done in conjunction with the H'Uru team members (who initiated this site, and by that the guild).

And also out of curiosity, why do you not expect this to be met with the same criticism that met Pryftan and my earlier proposal at a structure?

Out of curiosity too: Why do you assume that we don't expect it to be met with the same criticism?

This is fine.

I've created a thread over at the GoMa forum linking to this discussion.

It will be very interesting to see how this develops. The Greeters and Cartographers already had their structure and are sticking to it. The Messengers are getting better organized and less fighting now, but are still not at the level of doing something like this.
So other than ourselves (the Maintainers), it will be a learning experience for us to watch another guild try and form their structures and leaders.

@Trylon, and others that helped: I found your proposal that you drew up very thoughtful and considerate of everyone. I can not imagine anything else that hopes to satisfy everyone or make everyone happy. Kudos from me on it, it reads great.

While there are many over here that will insist or feel that no type of structure is needed, nor leaders of any kind, and insist that everything is working just fine, I'd like to point out that no, not everything is working just fine.
It is extremely difficult to communicate with a group that has no structure or represenatetives of any kind. Other guilds that would like to work on something together with a group that can not general speak with one voice or have someone that can speak for the majority, find that relationship hard to work with. Simply "post your question and ask it" is not the answer, as we've tried that, and have little to show for it.
Making Ages is important. Learning how to make them is too. So is developing the tools and things that go into making them.

But that can not be the only thing that encompasses this guild.
One of the things that will be looked at is: How well do the guilds work with each other and communicate?

I do understand that different guilds will have different attitudes, Writers being among the more "Free Spirited" of any. Maintainers being the more structured of any. However, no one wants a structure or leaders that would put a lid on your creative juices. That would be bad.
Structure and leaders should help enhance this instead. IMO, what Trylon and others have proposed will in no way keep people from being able to do what they want to do, or create what they want to create.

But it will really help in forming paths of communications with other guilds and groups.

I can tell you now that the Pre-GoMa backs this idea up completely and you have our support. Good Luck!

Andy Legate
Guildmaster of Training
Pre-Guild of Maintainers

Comments and questions.

1:
Why the disparity in voter participation? ie. A proposal agreed upon by 5 members only requires a 20% turnout whereas a proposal supported by 6 members requires 40%. I suggest a that 50% participation be required for either council or member submitted proposals. I know a 50% turnout may seem idealistic to some in light of previous polls.

2:
I also don't believe 'currently active forum members' accurately represents GoW participation. Many of the registered forum members don't consider themselves members of the GoW. I think a different form of roll is needed to accurately ascertain who considers themselves a member. Then the criteria could be 'guild members currently active on the forums'. Even if we accept that 'non-members' won't vote; we need a method to accurately determine participation. Perhaps difficult on an open board. No, I'm not in favor of access restrictions except possibly to GoW polls.

3:
I thinks polls should include an "abstain" choice as well as "accept" and "reject". This with the clarification that someone who believes more discussion is needed should vote 'reject' rather than 'abstain'. Perhaps an "abstain - non-member" could also be helpful here.

I think that's it for the time being. Now all I need is to get 5 members to agree with me.

@teedyo:

To address your points:

In regard to 1:
The difference you mention is not because of the number of members proposing, but because of who proposes it.
A Council Proposal allows for 20%, because council proposals could be frequent, and also have fequently items with less impact.
The Member proposal is included mainly as a failsafe mechanism, in case of a disagreement between the council and the guild as a whole. If there is no mistrust between the Council and the guild, the way to go would be to communicate your idea with the council and have them propose it.
If there is mistrust between the council and the guild, a proposal of such influence would need to be explicitly carried by a large part of the guild, in order to show that it is really something affecting the whole guild
So, this requirement, and the requirement of 5 persons to back it, is to ensure that Member proposals are done only on issues that are a serious issue in the guild.

In regard to 2:
I would advise the Council to be, to be open to the idea of refining the definition of "active guild members", if it turns out to be neccessary. That said, up until now, votes on issues regarding this and other guilds have always been open, and allowed for outside influence. Considering we are only part of a larger community, it seems fitting that outsiders could have some influence.

In regard to 3:
It is worth considering.

I think that's it for the time being. Now all I need is to get 5 members to agree with me.

Or just the council
(Oh wait, we have none yet )

Private discussion
Hidden forum, for private discussion among Councilors. A section of this will exclude the Assistant Councilors for Main Council discussions.

Ah yes, for our very secret discussions. Because there are topics, about making ages for a game, so sensitive they cannot be discussed publicly.



/Just teasing