[LVS] Council Pre-Meeting Agenda (6/10/2018)

[ABParadigm]

I am hosting the next meeting in two-weeks time! Topics? Apologies? Post them below!

We also had a few unanswered questions from the last meeting that need discussion.

∙ How many caretakers?

∙ How are caretakers appointed?

∙ Do we assign an extra caretaker for active towns when it is between mayors?

Last meeting notes: https://zedwork.co.uk/wiki/Zedling_Council_Meeting_2018-09-22

[iiWolfyyy]

I got a question for ABP, are you sure you can host this meeting? You won't be going anywhere?

[Forseth]

My thoughts on Caretakers:

Given that the Caretakers only maintain some form of status quo and can't introduce any changes, I reckon a single Caretaker is ever needed. One who watches over the old, inactive warps that doesn't have a mayor. Whenever something that would normally need a Mayor arise, the caretaker reports to the Council (or Guardian If needed) and lets them decide. When a Mayor of an active warp becomes Inactive, they will be replaced in two weeks. The acting Caretaker can, within those two weeks, act as caretaker for said warp.

No vote on new caretaker for the inactive Mayor's warp, unless the acting Caretaker doesn't want or can't take the jobb.
No need for secondary Caretaker, unless acting Caretaker feels overwhelmed.
IF active Caretaker becomes Inactive, they will be replaced using the same rules as for replacing an inactive mayor.
IF active Caretaker resigns, the council elects a new one.

[tim]

I generally agree with forseth but the council should keep the power to appoint a separate care taker if it feels the current one is not up to the larger task ahead like managing a zookie warp.

[Spectatre]

Most of the time, the caretaker will be a temporary, interim position. An active town's mayor is removed, a caretaker steps in to maintain the warp and resolve player queries for the single month the mayor elections take to go through. Once the new mayor is appointed, the caretaker's role in that warp ends. The two roles should not co-exist.

The one other time we did this, a volunteer was voted into be caretaker during a single meeting. I'd suggest that could continue. If a bunch of different people volunteer, yay. If the same one or two people volunteer each time, yay. Caretakers should continue to be allowed to caretake multiple warps, also.

---
There was some discussion on what to do if a caretaker of the old warp towns (hi) went inactive. Simple solution would be to apply the same activity-check that we just decided on for the mayor. If at a meeting they haven't been on for two weeks, make a note - next meeting if they've still not been on, they get removed, and a new caretaker is appointed by simple vote.
This activity check would not apply to a caretaker in an active warp, because their role wouldn't last long enough for it to take effect anyway.
---

Sort of topic, sort of off-shoot of the above: Forest Hills. We need to start mayor-election proceedings there, and sort out the caretaker. That will hopefully be a thing that is resolved as we conclude the 'caretaker' topic.

[ABParadigm]

I agree with Spec entirely, I don't see why it needs new rules given the fact we just spent so long ironing out mayor rules. To Forseth's point, I agree two is unnecessary and we can elect a new caretaker if required, if the two-week check finds the caretaker to be inactive.

I do not think that we need an election for caretaker; it can be strictly council appointed and be raised at the time. If the systems fail us and we require a caretaker for a warp without a mayor, but the caretaker is nowhere to be found, we can appoint another caretaker strictly for that crisis. That being said, we certainly do not need a second caretaker complicating the role at all times.

Also, yes Spec, we should indeed be starting a new election as of this next meeting.

And Wolfy, I should be able to make it. In theory, I will also be making zedkins this week.

[Forseth]

Selecting a caretaker isn't something that needs to go on the forums, If that's what you mean ABParadigm. They can be chosen by the council at the time of the meeting. Still, they need to be volunteers and they need to be approved by the council.

I personally dislike the idea of checking for activity of Caretakers. At least in the same sense as the Mayors. The Caretaker isn't needed the majority of the time and only maintain a status quo, not having an active Caretaker wouldn't hurt the Inactive Warp or the server. All it would do is extend the duration of our meetings. I'd rather see that If someone was asking for the caretaker of an inactive Warp and not finding them, the inactivity could be questioned as a topic on a meeting. Activity of a Caretaker isn't needed for an active warp either, as it only remains without a mayor for a few weeks.

[Dax23333]

Having an inactive caretaker kinda defeats the point of the role though - to have somebody that can maintain the warp and answer player queries. You can't do that if you're inactive.

[Zedwick]

If someone was asking for the caretaker of an inactive Warp and not finding them, the inactivity could be questioned as a topic on a meeting. Activity of a Caretaker isn't needed for an active warp either, as it only remains without a mayor for a few weeks.

I don't think activity of all mayors/caretakers need to be checked every meeting either. My interpretation is for the rules over inactive mayors to come into effect only when a player brings it up at a meeting, and !lastseen is checked. I think the same would be fine for the caretaker, as you said, following the same process for removing and then looking for a new caretaker.

[Forseth]

If someone was asking for the caretaker of an inactive Warp and not finding them, the inactivity could be questioned as a topic on a meeting. Activity of a Caretaker isn't needed for an active warp either, as it only remains without a mayor for a few weeks.

I don't think activity of all mayors/caretakers need to be checked every meeting either. My interpretation is for the rules over inactive mayors to come into effect only when a player brings it up at a meeting, and !lastseen is checked. I think the same would be fine for the caretaker, as you said, following the same process for removing and then looking for a new caretaker.

Ah, that makes sense.