On topic 1, Zed's 'votes automatically to go to forums' topic:
Forseth wrote: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.
ABParadigm wrote: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.
AlyCatMeow wrote: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' peopleThere'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.