[LVS] Council pre-meeting Agenda (November 2nd)

[Memery]

It seems that we have reached an understanding on wording at least so there's that...

@Forseth, the discussion around letting all Zedlings vote on new council members has been going on for some time now. I agree with ABP that letting those who care about how the server is run should be able to vote on council member elections.

The reality will most likely be this: one or two Zedlings who attend the meeting because they care about what's happening can add their votes in the mix. No Zedlings that I know on the server are inherently insidious and even if they were, they are in the minority and could not sway a vote.

The council has methods in place to remove in appropriate council members if the situation arises. Simple.

As for adding Yays or Nays, I didn't want to over complicate things but sure, this makes sense. If the nominee gets 6 votes (5 Yays and 2 nay) they are elected. If a member gets 6 votes (3 yay and 3 nay) they are not.

A hosts job is to pay attention to the meeting and chat so should be keeping on top of this anyway.

MY FINAL THOUGHTS ON THIS:
Whatever is concluded on this pre-agenda on the 2nd of November is what will be voted on. If you care about the topics, do you best to attend.

What I can guarantee is these changes will make little to no difference to the overall running of the council. HOWEVER, they have potential to make it much more friendly and fair for the server as a whole.

PS. In regards to Zeds topic I have little opinion, I think the wording is fine and we should move ahead

[AlyCatMeow]

Alright, here's my 2 cents.

1. I think nominations are making this entire procedure overly complicated and wasteful of time. It feels too much like voting twice. I find it unnecessary, superfluous, and redundant. (as a way of making my point, those 3 words mean exactly the same thing.) I think as a way to streamline this procedure, zedlings should present themselves to the council, the council should then decide if this particular zedling is a good fit for the council (is actually active, has participated in past meetings and shows a real interest in being a valuable part of the council) I'm told that's already being done, but quite frankly I don't see it (see point 3 for details) These things aren't even being deliberated upon. Seems to me, nominations are a way for council members to simply inject their friends onto the council. I think more should be done in the vetting process.

2. The way we are going about describing these new policies sound like a lot of word salad. Again, overly complicated. It's giving me a headache trying to read these things, and again, is wasteful of time.

3. I have a major issue with the way voting people onto the council is handled to begin with. It seems to me we're filling the seats for the sake of filling them and it's becoming quantity over quality. The meetings are always a mess because people are being voted on that are absolutely not taking it seriously. We have members on the council right now that are extremely inactive, as in they never play on lvs at all (I would know, I live on LVS because I have no life) and it's not even their inactivity that irks me, it's their attitude about the council. They do not participate in or contribute to council matters and all they do is complain about Zedwick, the server, the council, etc. without even attempting to give input for actual solutions. Long story short: They are drama queens who enjoy whinging. That is counterproductive for what the council is trying to accomplish and quite frankly it's annoying as hell.

I do understand that we are currently below capacity, but I don't understand the mentality of filling the council up with fluff. All it does is create a chaotic environment for meetings and eventually the members of council that actually do participate and contribute are going to want to leave to get away from all that nonsense. I know I am not alone in the way I feel about this, but I won't name names as I did not ask their permission. If they want to speak up about this particular matter, I encourage them to do so.

In conclusion, I'm saying (as a dear friend of mine once said) "This is sum bullsh*t and this f*ckery needs to change."

[Forseth]

Right, this is getting annoying. I'm having trouble following your logic here. Just to clarify:

Topic ONE:
-If a topic needs to be voted on, council agree the wording of the vote with the scribe, who posts it in the pre-agenda for the next meeting. Any members who will be absent at that meeting may register their vote on the pre-agenda.
-If the wording of a vote is changed during the meeting from how it is written on the pre-agenda, and an absent council member has submitted their vote on the pre-agenda, then the new wording for the vote must be submitted to the next pre-agenda, to be voted on in the following meeting.

That's fine by me. I think we should abstain from creating polls or gathering statistics on the forums, as it could create false results. Writing on the forum where you stand on a vote, is fine.

Topic TWO is about changing the nomination and election process.
As long as the change is an improvement, I'm fine with it. Currently, I only see it taking more time than it's worth.

-side note on different voting mechanics:
We can either do a minimum requirement of votes (Only Aye or Abstain is needed) or a Majority vote (Aye and Nay is needed) or using both (Aye, Nay and a minimum requirement of votes). The first one works for us, the second works but only If we accept members being voted in on a single Aye vote, the third works but takes up the most time.

[Spectatre]

On topic 1, Zed's 'votes automatically to go to forums' topic:

I think we should abstain from creating polls or gathering statistics on the forums, as it could create false results. Writing on the forum where you stand on a vote, is fine.

I think the intent of this is, if a vote is posted to the pre-agenda, and you weren't at that meeting, you have the opportunity to weigh in on it. If you have a strong opinion, but know you're not going to be at the next meeting, you can register your vote there, so it can be counted. Like absentee ballot/postal vote.

An issue with Zed's topic - let's be honest, the chances it will change at the council meeting is incredibly high given the nature of the council and I just think we need to have a stopping point where we stop kicking it to the pre-agenda.

One way to avoid this would be to take the first section of Khas' wording, and then remove the section section entirely. Wording is agreed, it goes to the pre-agenda, then goes straight to a vote at the next meeting, on the wording as written in the pre-agenda. Yes/No.

EG - Meeting 1, discussion is had on council colours. Most people think the colour should be red. Wording agreed on vote is 'Should council colours be red?'. Vote scheduled for meeting 2.
Discussion is had on pre-agenda of meeting 2.
Meeting 2: Vote takes place, straight away. Should council colours be red? If you agree, vote yes. If you don't agree (because there should be more discussion, because you think there shouldn't be colours, because you think they should be green), then vote no
Host adds in any absentee votes, and the vote passes, or it doesn't.

This means any 'absentee' votes can always be counted, as vote is on the agreed wording that was posted in the pre-agenda. People can always bring up a topic again if they feel strongly enough about it.
===
===
On topic 2, nominations/voting:

Strongly feel that when this is brought up at the meeting, it needs to be split into its component parts. Trying to tackle this as a whole is one of the things that got us into trouble last time.

I currently view it as three separate things:

Part 1: How does a Zedling get put to a vote?
The suggestion that a Zedling can just ask to be put to a vote is quick n' dirty. Skips nominations, but doesn't guarantee that they'll get on, as they still need to win a vote.
You could require that a zedling asks a council member to nominate them, but it seems an unnecessary extra step given they need to be voted in anyway.

zedlings should present themselves to the council, the council should then decide if this particular zedling is a good fit for the council

While allowing for me having misunderstood, I don't see this being materially different from Zedling presenting themselves to the council, and then the council voting them in, or not. If you think someone should be on the council, vote them in. If you don't, don't. Also, council membership isn't a tenured thing - there are several ways a member can be removed.
You're auto-removed if you get three attendance strikes, or are banned. If you miss six meetings in a row, regardless of apologies, you can be removed by majority vote. Members are expected to uphold the Code of Conduct - be respectful in meetings, help progress discussion in meaningful way, not be disruptive or insulting to others; but also, follow all rules and be model server members. If a member is falling foul of these, the Host has the power to issue Conduct Strikes - two of them, and you're also removed. I can't remember a single Conduct Strike being given, and perhaps that would change if more hosts were aware of them, or felt more empowered to issue warnings if members do fall out of order.

Part 2: How does the voting take place?
Would still maintain the initial suggestion that any zedling can vote, votes go to the host, if you get 5 votes, you're in.

Regulations 6 and 7 already open the door for non-members to register opinions and vote on topics, when invited to; this just removes the 'when invited to' section.

As 'no votes' as a concept have been introduced here, for the sake of progress on the ongoing topic, it should be addressed seperately from this, so I'm maintaining the suggestion of 'If you get 5 (yes) votes, you're in' here. 5 is still a fairly decent hill to climb, and you can currently abstain from voting.

Part 3: What to do if you consider someone 'unsuitable' for the council?
With reference to ABP, Aly, Mem and Forseth's thoughts on yes/no votes, 'vetting' and 'unsuitable' people

There's no regulation prohibiting someone voting 'no' to a member, so currently it's de facto practice from the council. Could be brought up as a simple question to Council/Zed, of whether voting 'no' is prohibited, or not.

Allow no votes? Still think 5 yes votes seems a sensible target, would agree with Mem that if there's an equal number of no and yes votes, the vote doesn't pass.

Don't allow no votes? Power of abstaining is still a thing. Don't want to make things awkward for the host, who is expected (though not instructed) to keep who voted how confidential. Removes the need for us to further quantify what makes someone a 'good' council member. Differences of opinion make for stronger resolutions, etc.?

Also, as above, there are mechanisms in place for removing council members if they run afoul of the code of conduct/are constantly missing meetings.

---
How a meeting goes is up to all of us collectively, to come together to has as constructive and focused a discussion as possible. Have a care for the host (some of whom are chairing their first meetings) who has to try and wrangle discussion forwards, the scribe whose job it is to try to summarise things in a coherent way, and fellow members who are, as we all are, trying to make some progress in some way towards...something.

To which end (somewhat), have beefed up the 'Host' description in the Council wiki page. It previously had less detail than the Scribes section and only covered conduct strikes - now includes Host commands and a few general practices hosts shouldn't be expected to 'know' innately.

[KhasOrn]

Tangential to the main topics (I believe I've made my position clear and am already prepared to vote decisively at the meeting).

Replies:

Members are expected to uphold the Code of Conduct - be respectful in meetings, help progress discussion in meaningful way, not be disruptive or insulting to others; but also, follow all rules and be model server members. If a member is falling foul of these, the Host has the power to issue Conduct Strikes - two of them, and you're also removed. I can't remember a single Conduct Strike being given, and perhaps that would change if more hosts were aware of them, or felt more empowered to issue warnings if members do fall out of order.

---

...the host, who is expected (though not instructed) to keep who voted how confidential.

---

How a meeting goes is up to all of us collectively, to come together to has as constructive and focused a discussion as possible. Have a care for the host (some of whom are chairing their first meetings) who has to try and wrangle discussion forwards, the scribe whose job it is to try to summarise things in a coherent way, and fellow members who are, as we all are, trying to make some progress in some way towards...something.

To which end (somewhat), have beefed up the 'Host' description in the Council wiki page. It previously had less detail than the Scribes section and only covered conduct strikes - now includes Host commands and a few general practices hosts shouldn't be expected to 'know' innately.

I offer the suggestion that the Council's longstanding tradition of having the newest member host be reconsidered due to the importance of the role, and the obvious reluctance a new member will have to issue conduct strikes, in keeping the meetings productive within the short time allotted.

Beefing up the 'Host' description is a great start to making the job easier, and of course returning members of the council will have no issue hosting, but it's apparent to me that some experience in the way the council is run (and how other hosts 'host') is a necessity for the proper execution of the role.

[Dax23333]

On the first topic, Zedwicks forum voting.
Khas's wording is good. I like this, makes sense. I'm not sure I actually like the idea itself as I can see it reducing council efficency even furthur.

On the nomination/voting protocol...
This was the one that me and ABP were mainly thinking of making an open vote to all present, rather than Zedwicks forum voting which is a seperate issue. The council already has the capicity to make other votes open to all (regulation 6) although this doesn't happen very often. The issie is that currently the council elections are run entirely by the council, making the Zedling Council a self electing entity. Opening votes to all Zedlings present makes it more democratic as the Zedlings are actually electing members rather than the council electing itself.

On the proposed protocol change:
1) Any Zedling present wishing to join the council can request a vote via the host
2) The host announces the candidate and receives votes via private message
3) Any Zedling may vote; a candidate is elected to the council if they receive at least 5 votes
4) More than one election can take place in a meeting

I don't like steps 3 and 4 here. Number of elected persons would be largly dependent on number of candidates and number of people online at the time. 5 is also quite a large number of votes to win. I suggest we use something along the lines of the following for steps 3 and 4:
3) Any Zedling may vote; the candidate is elected to the council with the most votes, with a minimum of 5 votes cast in the election.
4) Only one election can take place in a meeting.

Tie breaks as per regulation 20.


On the subject of hosts...
Yes, it is probably silly that the newest member gets lumbered with the most important job.
I suggest we seperate the 'Host' role from the role that is meant to keep control and create a new 'Chair' role where an experienced member can lead the meeting itself. This leaves intact the tradition of the council going to new members places to have the meeting, which is a nice thing but also puts somebody in charge who better knows how to actually run the meeting.

[ABParadigm]

I believe it was my mistake for bringing up the ayes and nays to begin with - we should focus on the original topic at hand (being the nomination system) rather than the tangent i brought into it. That will, hopefully, streamline our discussion a bit and get a vote passed.

[Memery]

Ok, im diving back into this sea of... um... bad things...

With regards to Yay or Nay. Put simply, the chances of someone getting 5 Yays and 6 nays is laughable considering we typically have like 10 people online per meeting, I know at least 8 of them are doing something more fun, like watching paint dry. I want to leave the election process as "If you get 5 Yays, you're in" and all Zedlings are allowed to vote. This isn't the first time we've changed elections. We were happy with the current system for 2 years, it's likely if the system isn't working brilliantly, it will be overhauled in the future. So, for now, let's just do it.

Once again, to cover concerns of Aly, there are systems in place to removed wayward council members. As one of the people who is keeping the strikes updated, I know who is active, who isn't and most importantly: WHY. I am keeping on top of it and will bring it up if I feel people need to be removed.

I am in support of Spec's motion to allow multiple elections per meeting. If we have 2 people (or more) who are good players and want to join, why is making them wait two more weeks going to make any difference? It's not. The member limit is a regulation. If we have more people who want to be on the council, then let them!

In regards to letting new players host. It's good to offer new players the right to host. It gets them involved, get creative and build an impressive location to meet at. Dax's suggestion of adding a new role, honestly I like it but I also HATE it. We are trying to take steps to make the council less "cliquey". Adding a role for "experienced" council members to take control is 2 steps forward and one step back. We'd also have to go through a big ol' faff regarding who has the right to be a chair, how long must they have been on the council etc etc...oh my god it hurts my poor head just thinking about it. ALL council members have a responsibility to keep on track, help the host and maintain a smooth meeting. Therefore, I strongly suggest we keep hosting selection the same.

MY FINAL THOUGHTS ON THIS (AGAIN): A lot of people in this thread sound like the elder penguins from the movie: Happy Feet. Let's just let people dance! PS let's all try now to keep on track. We have 2 proposals that WILL be voted on next week. Discussion is good but please be online to vote on them.

[Forseth]

One way to avoid this would be to take the first section of Khas' wording, and then remove the section section entirely. Wording is agreed, it goes to the pre-agenda, then goes straight to a vote at the next meeting, on the wording as written in the pre-agenda. Yes/No.

I think this makes the most sense. Take it as written. Should people want a different wording, they vote no. If the vote doesn't go through (more "No" than "Yes"), we can start all over with a new wording and a new vote.

[KhasOrn]

Hello again!

Okay, replies:

With regards to Yay or Nay. Put simply, the chances of someone getting 5 Yays and 6 nays is laughable considering we typically have like 10 people online per meeting, I know at least 8 of them are doing something more fun, like watching paint dry. I want to leave the election process as "If you get 5 Yays, you're in" and all Zedlings are allowed to vote. This isn't the first time we've changed elections. We were happy with the current system for 2 years, it's likely if the system isn't working brilliantly, it will be overhauled in the future. So, for now, let's just do it.

Yay & Nay should definitely be discussed in the future after the present decisions are made, but my 'two cents' on the matter is that 'nays', while "5 Yays and 6 nays is laughable" is true, are there as a counterweight; as in - if there actually are a significant enough amt of 'nays' to halt a nomination (for instance), there might be a few issues to look into and discuss. BUT again - that's for another time.

On the subject of hosts...
Yes, it is probably silly that the newest member gets lumbered with the most important job.
I suggest we seperate the 'Host' role from the role that is meant to keep control and create a new 'Chair' role where an experienced member can lead the meeting itself. This leaves intact the tradition of the council going to new members places to have the meeting, which is a nice thing but also puts somebody in charge who better knows how to actually run the meeting.

Hosting and Chair role separation should definitely be discussed in the future after the present decisions are made, but my 'two cents' on the matter is, I've actually repeatedly offered to 'host' while asking Forseth (for one) to be the 'Master of Ceremonies' cuz I've recognized the importance of that role and don't feel 'up to the task' most often, but I do love having everyone over to the Council Spaceship, so (in agreement with Dax) the ability to offer to 'host' with the ability to sub-contract the role of 'chair' would be nice IMHO. BUT again - that's for another time.

Once again, to cover concerns of Aly, there are systems in place to removed wayward council members. As one of the people who is keeping the strikes updated, I know who is active, who isn't and most importantly: WHY. I am keeping on top of it and will bring it up if I feel people need to be removed.

I do realise that I may be not on very often of late, it truly is because of a lot of IRL issues including work. My love of the game, LVS, Forest Hills and the Council has not changed and I hope to increase my frequency again. That being said I would completely understand should anyone want my resignation now or in the future based on absenteeism.

I am in support of Spec's motion to allow multiple elections per meeting.

Agreed