[LVS] Council pre-meeting Agenda (Sep 21st)

[Spectatre]

Meeting!

Notes: https://zedwork.co.uk/wiki/Zedling_Coun ... 2019-09-07

Topics, absences? Write! vvv

[Dax23333]

I might actually make this one for once. Maybe.

I have a few topics/announcements! First, the announcements.

The Paradise Prismarine Farm is functional once again with a new grinder that is both faster then the previous design and actually works in 1.14. Unfortunatly the farm stops working if anybody is elsewhere in the nether, this is a bit of a design flaw but not as crippling as you might think.

Bone Yard now has a door as I was fed up with fixing it again and again.

And the topic! I would like to discuss the way people get elected onto the council. Currrently it is a bit of a strange procedure: Two council members have to (in secret) nominate the same person, who then has to get 3 votes to get in. So you have to luck out and have the same person nominated twice, and the council is entirely self electing which isn't great. I also don't see why the nominations should be done the way they are - usually in organizations like comittees (which the council is pretty similar to) you have somebody nominated and seconded in public to stand, which is then voted on by all rather than just the committee itself.

For comparison Zedkins does the following (shameless rip from Treis):
Public nomination / endorsement by 2 Zedlings
Vote in by majority of all present Zedkins&Zedlings.
Vote is only valid if : the majority is at least 3 people, 5 Zedkins&Zedlings have to be present, at least 1 Zedkins member or Zed or Lady B have to be present.

I think we should do what Zedkins do as well. It is the Zedling Council after all, would make sense for Zedlings to be able to actually elect people onto it...

[ABParadigm]

I agree, the nomination system really needs to be fixed. The current method was born because the method prior to it wasn't as rock solid as some members wanted. In retrospect, it was probably fine, there was just a member elected that a lot of members didn't want in the council at that time. Councillors felt pressured by voting in public, so we decided to get rid of public nominations and seconds in addition to public voting - which was a bit of a nuclear solution that was probably unnecessary.

Furthermore, I agree that the Zedkins solution would probably be the best. Let's be real, we could spend a half an hour trying to figure out a solution that will work, when the Zedkins have already proven theirs work. Also, the Zedkins actually have a pedestal to vote no. Speaking of...

I also believe there should be a reason to vote no on nominations. It may seem arbitrary originally, but please keep in mind we have had issues in the past with members joining the council that led to major issues down the line. I don't think there should be any exclusion by just one person, maybe three or four people voting no would cancel a vote. I just know that there was a council member in the past that did some very rude things that I would have liked to be able to vote no on. I know others had issues with this person - maybe their vote would have even been cancelled back then. Other councilors didn't even know these issues existed, and it really isn't right because they weren't issues you could just announce publicly. The fact they only needed three votes to join, and that the nominating and seconding members could vote again, made it way too easy to join the council. On that note...

I believe that the nominating and seconding members should not be able to vote during the voting stage of nominations. Again... this might prevent issues down the line. I think security is the goal, not exclusion. Please keep that in mind.

[Spectatre]

Tentative apology for this meeting, I'm moving my sister halfway up the country and may not make it back in time.

Voting system could definitely be simpler, there always tends to be a lot of queries on how it actually works. Below are shorthand explanations of the six regulations that pertain to new members/voting. One way to go about things is perhaps to go through these one at a time and see if they're okay, or want amending/removing as required. Link here for the full list for people who don't know - https://zedwork.co.uk/wiki/Zedling_Council

4) 1 member elected per meeting
5) Potential members need two council nominations, and win the vote (minimum 3 votes)
17) Nominations done by pm to host
19) Potential members need to be zedling, minimum
20) If there is a tie-vote between two nominees, highest recent meeting attendance is the tiebreaker
29) Host to check with nominees they're interested in joining council before voting, if player isn't online to ask the nomination doesn't proceed

So, for instance, getting closer to Dax's Zedlingy suggestion would mean leaving 4, 19, and 20, then amending 5, 17 and 29.
My 2c - reg. 5 - 'minimum 5 votes' may be a simpler way of stating their two voting regulations while getting the ~same result. Can't recall a meeting where we've had with fewer than 5 members, and/or no guardian present.
reg. 29 - could maybe be changed to asking that members nominating players have checked with the player beforehand/are generally aware of the player's interest to join council. One less step for the host.

[Forseth]

Oops, last minute cancel here from me. Sorry about that.