[LVS] Council Pre-meeting Agenda (October 7th, 2017)

[Spectatre]

^You would bring this up to a meeting you're not needing to sit through, eh This is one of those things that looks simple but could be pandora's box and take two hours to get nowhere.

I believe the voting component of the process works as intended, and it's the nominating that needs addressed.

Would suggest breaking it down into its component parts for discussion, and voting on each segment as it goes.

1 - When opening the floor for nominations, the Host should invite council members to put forward nominations.

Then:
1.1 If after a short time* there have been no endorsed nominations, the host should close nominations for the meeting and move on.

*in the hopes of removing some of the dead silence that happens during nominations. If a council member has a nomination in mind, they should come to that point fairly quickly.

2 - For any endorsed nominations, the Host should confirm with nominated player(s) whether they accept, prior to voting

This one is more complicated. As written, it needs the assent of the player to proceed, which would require the player's presence at the meeting. Previously presence at the meeting was not a requirement, only an advantage in the case of a tiebreak.

What happens to the nomination if a player is not present to accept it, or if an online player does not respond to the Host? Would suggest a vote to choose one of the options below

2.1 - If a player is absent, or fails to respond to the host:

A - their nomination cannot proceed to vote (all nominees must be present + accept nomination)
B - their nomination can proceed to vote if a council member accepts by proxy (vouching for nominee's wish to be on the council)
C - their nomination can proceed provisionally. In the event of a successful vote, the nominee is invited to join council and has until the next meeting to accept* - after this time they would need to be renominated.
D - a better idea than any of the above
*The time limit so as to avoid complication on nominations/voting in the next meeting

This post is probably going to be my exact trail of thought when this topic comes up, so sneak preview for those of you who are going to be there~

[Forseth]

I honestly don't care, both ways work fine although I would argue that spectatres and AB's versions could cause a waste of time. Once you reach step two, If the nominated players aren't interested in becoming members, you just wasted 5 or so minutes of the councils time. However the chance of that are low and probably won't be a problem.

[Aravero]

I gotta say, I think the point is moot.

I've attended a lot of meetings and I don't remember there being any where non-council players were asked if they wanted to be on the council before the council was asked for nominees. I believe there may have been cases where a councilor wanted to nominate someone and asked that someone specifically if they were interested.

There's a knife's edge here... It is possible that all councilors in attendance simply don't know a player is interested in participating in the council (one could certainly argue that these are best suited to the council). And, there is a rule in the wiki stating that non-members shouldn't talk without the permission of the council/host. So.. asking for interest could be counted under a "general" permission to address the council.

I personally don't think it's inappropriate to ask if anyone is interested.

If the council fails to name a nominee, there would be no need to continue to a vote. The host can, perhaps, ask if anyone is interested and then just name those parties for the record in the notes. That way councilors, including those not present at that meeting, can have a list of names to draw from for future nominations without creating the awkwardness of failing to nominate or endorse interested parties during that meeting. I know there have been times when I knew someone was interested in the council but simply didn't think of them when nominees were called for (you know.. like if the meeting was already three hours long) so this type of list might be helpful.

[Memery]

I agree with Ara on this point. As one of the few people has seen this council evolve since it started, I don't remember there ever being a meeting where council members or a host asking non-members for an interest to join. Many have expressed interest regardless of being asked though.

I don't this should warrant much discussion, but if people would prefer to re-affirm the council rules then go for it!

[SwayLight]

I've always had a personal issue with people asking non-council members first if they want to be on the council. I've seen too many instances of people who don't contribute much to anything to meetings getting elected as a council member simply because they're buddies with other people. I feel this needs some sort of addressing as well.

I believe the proposal alan's suggesting is far better than the current, although I still believe people will nominate friends over contributors but I'll digress on that.

[Dax23333]

Honestly I though what AB proposed (ask for nominations, nominate, ask if person would take position, vote) was what we were MEANT to be doing anyway. Though lately it has definatly been sliding. At least part of the reason for this I think is lack of obviosly enthusiastic non-council members attending, and people feeling pressured into voting somebody in each meeting. If there isn't anybody suggested immediatly, it isn't good to push it.

As for Spectatres suggestions, I think option A would be best as it is the only one that cannot end up in a mess of 'oh but I diddn't actually want to be on the council' or 'my friend wanted me to do it' etc etc.

[ABParadigm]

Aye, I agree with you Spec with option A. I do agree with you as well Dax; I am sure that the current voting pattern is being let slide, even if it is already in the current state I proposed. I believe that it needs to be addressed as I continuously feel as if I am pressured to nominate and/or vote for someone because they expressed interest to join the council.

As for Sway's reply, that's pretty spot on to where I'm at with this.

In short, I feel a non-member should only "express interest" when asked if they do express interest, as to not pressure a councillor to nominate them.

Whatever legitimate regulations, changed or otherwise, can be molded around what we agree on, although I feel that is pretty close to it.

[Aravero]

Things are being let slide. There are many things.

One could certainly argue that if we did more going through the motions, then the letting things slide might be boxed in?

A bit more formality in the order of business maybe? idk.

[Quicunque]

Please accept my apologies; I am unable to attend this meeting. My wife informs me that I must attend a band concert at that time.

[ABParadigm]

Aye Ara, even if the process itself doesn't legitimately change the formality of the process should be reworked. It has seemingly become more of an open process; many meeting items can be a more "fun and happy" and "loose" topic but nominations should certainly be set to a strict set of guidelines and held to them IMO.