Charter reform proposals

[boombrakh]

...that every member should get to vote on every decision... which is simply not functional.

Gods no, you are completely right. But when it comes to something "big" like changing the Charter, I don't think that the "Bread and circuses" that are the polls is enough.

[Copper]

Players don't see what the developers do; and come and go as they are, votes from them could be counterproductive.

This might be a misplaced idea on a server-set as expansive and complex as ALFA, but: You need a solid unit of leading members who work towards the same goal, with the same envisioned image of the server in their mind. A singular vision refreshed with different perspectives and worked on with the active interest to make things always better: that leads to progress and reforms.

As a newbie, and saying this with the best intentions, I see a lot of great ideas and spirited arguments on the forums, but no feeling of "this is what ALFA is, and we all know it". But maybe that's also not what you'd like the servers to look like; maybe diversity of visions is why ALFA has stayed alive for as long as it has.

~ Copper

[Ithildur]

Wow Copper, I'm seriously impressed by your observations especially as a newcomer; I think they're quite astute.

This is slightly off topic so I won't say more here, but I think you've caught onto two core issues that have been plaguing for ALFA the last couple of years, perhaps longer.

It's not entirely off topic however, as you said:

You need a solid unit of leading members who work towards the same goal, with the same envisioned image of the server in their mind

I'm hoping this is where we end up; perhaps things like making adjustments to the charter will contribute towards that, though the charter alone will not guarantee the above takes place.



[edit] No no, like this Castano!

*casts Charm Person on Copper repeatedly until save is failed*

Hello my good friend Copper, it really would mean a great deal to me personally, as well as many other dear friends of mine, if you would consider taking up the DM wand.

[Castano]

+1 Copper.

There's people that come and go, and getting a charter vote right is hellishly easy - apply to DM!

[Swift]

I've been aware of the thread as of yesterday, and I've been looking back and forth at the suggestions.

While it is true LA has the power to Veto something the other admin do, I still am for Castano's proposal of requiring a majority vote for any major change to a major facet of ALFA. A veto should not be tossed callously, and if the majority vote one way, then the potential LA should want to see why the majority doesn't agree with him before he/she just cabashes it.

And if the 'majority' turns out to be 8 or 9 people because only 12 people vote, is that really how major changes to ALFA should be enacted?

This is what is so frustrating about this entire conversation. Everyone seems to admit that we struggle to keep our voting lists up to date, so instead of actually fixing that problem, we should change how voting works for major changes?

How are we even managing to run elections 10 out of every 12 months if the list of eligible voters is and seemingly always has been a problem? Shouldn't that be getting fixed before we consider changes to something that is, in all fairness, rarely used? We have not exactly made many changes to the charter since it was first put in place.

And how to you propose keeping lists up to date when we don't have a reliable way of doing so?

Shit happens, people disappear. You're acting as if we can track people when we can't.

Enforce compliance and actually hold people responsible like we used to?

First day of every month, DMA or Lead sends out a PM to all Admin and HDMs reminding them they have 7 days to ensure their list is up to date. Non-compliance has some form of penalty.

What is the point of limiting voting to a specific block if we can't be bothered making sure that we accurately maintain a list of who is eligible? What is basically being put forward here is that keeping the list accurate is simply beyond our capabilities, so we should just accept it and work around it. I think that is a rubbish notion.

[Castano]

Agreed Swift. The way DM voting lists work is HDMs are to cull their lists of people who have left and keep those on hiatus who will return in the near future.

That's the way we have always done it. I don't buy this "inaccurate voting list hypothesis" Anyways this is all off topic. I'll be moderating voting issues into a separate thread if we cannot stay on topic. This is a derail and is going to hurt the chances of people contributing to a reform proposal. So moderation is on people, take that discussion elsewhere.


What is on topic are 2 issues:

1. The make up of the Admin Board - do we keep the 5 we have or do we get a new board entirely. I am in favor of keeping the 5 spots we have and their areas of responsibility. If anyone thinks otherwise speak up.

2. What defines a "major" change such that an admin must get a majority admin vote to implement it. I listed some things above but we need a comprehensive list.

[HEEGZ]

What is on topic are 2 issues:

1. The make up of the Admin Board - do we keep the 5 we have or do we get a new board entirely. I am in favor of keeping the 5 spots we have and their areas of responsibility. If anyone thinks otherwise speak up.

I think we should keep our 5 admin and areas, so agree here.

2. What defines a "major" change such that an admin must get a majority admin vote to implement it. I listed some things above but we need a comprehensive list.

I'll wait on a first draft of a list before commenting here.

[Regas]

+1 to Heegz...

alfa elects five folks for admin, lets not over-think this, they're there for a reason, to run the place let the admin vote on issues bigger than one domain and smaller than charter amendments.

Not sure how we draw those lines, figure in part that should be lead's call though.

[Castano]

+1 to me and Heegz. I think in my draft I will keep the 5 spots and their titles. That leaves just the areas where the 5 must vote for a change. I intend to propose these be really big big things like the 3.5 ruleset our sourcebooks, disposition of the alfa website/url that sort of stuff. I'll put up a short list for debate by this weekend.

[Hialmar]

If we want to do this, I'd keep it simple and use the same voting constituency as for charter amendments.

Which is exactly what Veilan did with the 2 PCs vote.

So basically it would formalize something that we already used in the past.

[Swift]

For point 2,i don't think we can really have any sort of definitive list of what changes would require what vote, because we cannot predict what incoming Admin might want to do or how the mood of the community will change in the future.

While some will claim it just adds to the "all talk no action" perception that some have, debating the severity of a proposed change when they come up still feels like the best way and would lead to less ill feelings if people a change should have been majority Admin rather than one Admin alone. If the discussion is there, people can throw up their objections which can them be worked through.

[Castano]

Swift I hear you, this proposal to have LA make a proposal is there to deal with situations where people do not agree to get along and they are fighting each other. That way we know there is some core one person cannot tinker with and we can leave the rest to the domains. Right now admin do post on things. It's not always been the case.

Think of this as the 2-person system for launching nukes.