board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Third Article, Third Paragraph: voting done

Post Reply   Page 1 of 3  [ 55 posts ]
Jump to page 1 2 3 »
Author Message
Jnyusa
Post subject: Third Article, Third Paragraph: voting done
Posted: Sun 03 Apr , 2005 10:45 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Article 3: Administrators
¶3. Selection of Administrators for a Term of Office


• Service as an administrator is entirely voluntary. It is not linked to service as a jury member except insofar as current administrators are barred from serving on certain juries. A member who has agreed to serve as an administrator and has entered the pool may withdraw their name at any time.

• Eligible members will enter the pool of full administrators when they feel capable and the full administrator who has been coaching them agrees that they are capable. They will then serve their term of office in the order in which they entered the pool, unless some reason prevents them from doing this. If the member is unable to serve a term when it is their turn, but knows when they will be able to serve, they may ask to be scheduled for a particular future term. Otherwise they will simply remain ‘next on the list’ until the timing of a term coincides with their ability to serve.

• The mayor will be responsible for keeping track of the eligibility of members, the order in which they enter the pool of full administrators, and the actual scheduling of terms of office.

• Guidelines in the selection of Administrators: Members will generally serve their term of office when it is their turn, but it is also advisable that the group of administrators serving at any particular time provide coverage for as many time zones as possible and include at least one person whose native language is not English. The mayor may adjust the scheduling of terms to meet this ideal situation as long as this does not result in members jumping too far forward in the queue or having their term of office postponed more than once when it is their turn and they are available. Members who are entering the pool of administrators should read and agree to the Code of Conduct for Administrators, Paragraph 6, below.

Final note: Everything concerning the mayor will have its own article.

Last edited by Jnyusa on Sun 19 Jun , 2005 5:38 pm, edited 9 times in total.

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 03 Apr , 2005 11:33 pm
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
Jn, this looks very good to me. It definitely can't have been easy!

I've been through it twice and haven't spotted any problems.

Last edited by Primula_Baggins on Mon 04 Apr , 2005 6:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 04 Apr , 2005 2:41 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Thanks, Prim. :)

I did edit a bit, to fix a typo and to make all the 'blue sentences' subjunctive.

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 04 Apr , 2005 4:23 am
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
Consistency is a virtue much admired by copyeditors. :)

As witness, me editing my last two posts here--late is better than never. :roll:

Last edited by Primula_Baggins on Mon 04 Apr , 2005 6:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Eruname
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 04 Apr , 2005 4:29 am
Islanded in a Stream of Stars
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 8748
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:24 pm
Location: UK
Contact: Website
 
Quote:
Question 3: Who will decide when a ‘junior admin’ is ready to be a full admin?

A. The approval of the full admin who coached them, with the agreement of the trainee, will be sufficient.

B. All trainees will stand for an up/down vote of the membership We will decide how to structure this vote only if the vote is desired by the majority.
I just want to make sure I'm understanding this correctly. The term 'junior admin' basically refers to anyone who meets the requirement to become an admin?

Is this basically a question of how admins will be decided upon, ie if they're eligible they'll be one vs. a membership vote is needed to approve each potential?

If choice A is chosen, will we be deciding upon how a full admin will go about coaching a junior admin? There's the experimental board that I started, but no structure has been laid out there at all. Basically it's just a way for people to see what admins can do and how they do it. The idea of an admin training camp has only been thrown around and not actually implemented.

_________________

Abandon this fleeting world
abandon yourself.
Then the moon and flowers
will guide you along the way.

-Ryokan

http://wanderingthroughmiddleearth.blogspot.com/


Top
Profile Quote
Nin
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 04 Apr , 2005 6:21 am
Per aspera ad astra
Offline
 
Posts: 3388
Joined: Thu 28 Oct , 2004 6:53 am
Location: Zu Hause
 
Nothing to add, it's complete enough and it seems to me more important to vote.

_________________

Nichts Schöneres unter der Sonne als unter der Sonne zu sein.
(Ingeborg Bachmann)


Top
Profile Quote
Lord_Morningstar
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 04 Apr , 2005 9:51 am
Offline
 
Posts: 2420
Joined: Thu 03 Mar , 2005 8:22 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia
 
Seems fine, when can we vote?


Top
Profile Quote
Alatar
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 04 Apr , 2005 10:47 am
of Vinyamar
Offline
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 4:39 pm
Location: Ireland
Contact: ICQ
 
Excellent Work Jnyusa, could I suggest addings the following option to Stage Two Question 4:

D. They serve a term of office in the order they entered the pool, unless some reason prevents them from doing this, in which case they may either withdraw from future consideration or agree a mutually suitable time to serve their term of office.

Note that if the mandatory rule is passed the "withdraw from future consideration" would have to be removed.

Also in Option C. The following:

"Current admins and admins in the pool"

does not allow for the option that an Elected Mayor could handle this scheduling.

Thanks,
Alatar

_________________

[ img ]
These are my friends, see how they glisten...


Top
Profile Quote
truehobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 04 Apr , 2005 10:56 am
WYSIWYG
Offline
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:37 pm
Location: wherever
 
I have a few questions, I'm afraid :) :

I think it's very difficult to vote in the first section without having an idea what that possible office of mayor or the suggested committe would be like.

The question, for me, boils down to how much decision making power would come with those offices.
If I remember rightly, we said the mayor would only check dates and send out e-mails, without making any decisions.
The suggested committee however seems empowered to make a decision on the member's suitability.
Do I read that correctly?

And what of option C, in which the admins do that job - in this option, do they decide who is suitable or do they just keep track of the dates?

On question 2, are we talking "mandatory" in the sense of "no way out", or "mandatory", unless the member has a good reason not to consider themselves eligible?

_________________

From our key principles:

We listen to one another, make good-faith efforts to understand one another, and we treat one another respectfully at all times.


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 04 Apr , 2005 2:11 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
TH--
I think the opt-out clause in question 4 covers the "mandatory" part.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 04 Apr , 2005 4:15 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Eru: Is this basically a question of how admins will be decided upon, ie if they're eligible they'll be one vs. a membership vote is needed to approve each potential?

Yes, that's my understanding of what people have suggested. If they're eligible and willing, they go to the roster automatically. If people want to vote on the admins, then that's the other option. This poll does not specify what kind of vote it would be - individuals, batches, etc. I figured it was easier to decide first if we needed a vote and then decide what kind.

If choice A is chosen, will we be deciding upon how a full admin will go about coaching a junior admin? There's the experimental board that I started, but no structure has been laid out there at all.

What most people have been saying is that the job is easy enough to learn that we don't need a formal procedure. Squiddy put a little training thread up which people have been saying is adequate.

What's different about this system is that people who are eligible will be able to perform some routine duties under the supervision of a full admin before they actually serve a term of office. So all three options basically create the category of 'junior admin.' We can figure out all the titles later.

Alatar: D. They serve a term of office in the order they entered the pool, unless some reason prevents them from doing this, in which case they may either withdraw from future consideration or agree a mutually suitable time to serve their term of office ... Note that if the mandatory rule is passed the "withdraw from future consideration" would have to be removed.

I think this option is basically contained in the other three. If adminning is voluntary and a person can't serve a particular term, then the term they do serve would have to be by mutual agreement. If we decide that it should not be mandatory, then I will add a provision to that statement that a person can remove themselves from the admin pool if they find they will not be able to serve at any time in the near future.

Also in Option C. The following: "Current admins and admins in the pool"
... does not allow for the option that an Elected Mayor could handle this scheduling.


Yes, that's right. Holby's suggestion was that we not create any new positions and just do it as we're doing it now.

The Mayor option in Stage One, Question #1 is not incompatible with Stage Two, Question 3, option C. That combination allows a mayor to do the tracking of eligibility while the admins (current and those in the pool) schedule the terms they actually serve.

TH: The suggested committee however seems empowered to make a decision on the member's suitability. Do I read that correctly?

Yes. Faramond suggested that there should be a pre-selection process and offered the idea of a committee to do it. If we decided upon this option and a member vote (in Stage Two), the potential admin would be vetted twice - once by the selection committee and once by the membership.

And what of option C, in which the admins do that job - in this option, do they decide who is suitable or do they just keep track of the dates?

In this question, the admins would only keep track of dates. There could still be a different way of determining when a term of office is actually served, including a membership vote.

On question 2, are we talking "mandatory" in the sense of "no way out", or "mandatory", unless the member has a good reason not to consider themselves eligible?

Mandatory in the sense of "no way out."

I can add a fourth option, where we specify acceptable excuses and it is otherwise mandatory. The acceptable excuses, then, would be determined later.

Jn

edit: ok, I added the fourth option to the mandatory question. The new option is designated B.

edit again: when can we vote: I'd like to start on Wednesday to give Alandriel a chance to read this one and to figure out who's still on the committee.

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Alatar
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 04 Apr , 2005 8:00 pm
of Vinyamar
Offline
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 4:39 pm
Location: Ireland
Contact: ICQ
 
Jnyusa wrote:
Also in Option C. The following: "Current admins and admins in the pool"
... does not allow for the option that an Elected Mayor could handle this scheduling.


Yes, that's right. Holby's suggestion was that we not create any new positions and just do it as we're doing it now.

The Mayor option in Stage One, Question #1 is not incompatible with Stage Two, Question 3, option C. That combination allows a mayor to do the tracking of eligibility while the admins (current and those in the pool) schedule the terms they actually serve.
I'm not trying to be nitpicky here, but I would prefer the looser wording that would allow for the possibility of a Mayor handling the tracking and scheduling. As currently worded the Mayor can only keep track of eligibility. I would like the option available that they could schedule also. That's currently not an option.

_________________

[ img ]
These are my friends, see how they glisten...


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 04 Apr , 2005 9:41 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Ah - Now I think I see what you mean, Alatar, but unless I'm still misunderstanding you, there's a problem with your suggestion.

First, I would have to add an option to Stage Two where the mayor appoints the people to serve each term of office after they've entered the pool. My understanding of your suggestion is that these appointments would be at the mayor's discretion - is that right?

If so, we would have two potential conflicts.

One, if the mayor option wins in the Stage One and the Stage Two questions, then we would have one person - the mayor - both deciding who was eligible and actually appointing the admins. I think I can safely say that putting all the control into the hands of one person is something that everyone opposed.

Two, if the mayor option wins in Stage Two but not in Stage One, the one vote will force us to create an office that people already said they don't want.

UNLESS, what you mean is that you want to specify that if we vote for a Mayor and we vote to let people become admins in the order that they enter the pool, the mayor is the one who will keep track of both eligibility and entry, then I would say that yes, it would naturally work that way and we can add that simplification if the vote turns out so. If the mayor's office is created, then I imagine that this person will be responsible for many kinds of record-keeping; but I don't want to jump too far ahead because everything we've done so far has required a lot of discussion.

The reason I don't want to add a mayorial specification to Stage Two questions is because we might vote not to create a mayor, and then the vote on the later question would be scuttled. I would like to say that no one will be confused enough to cast a contradictory vote, but ... ;) ... it would be better if the ballot itself were not contradictory.

OR ... I'm still misunderstanding what kind of change you are asking for, in which case let me ask you to specify the Question # and how you want the modification worded.

Meanwhile, I am going to add your earlier suggestion to the question about mandatory service, and specify that "not mandatory" also means that a potential admin can withdraw their name from the pool if necessary ... was that you or TH who asked about that? Well, anyway, I will fix it.

Jn

p.s. let me add one more thing about the wording of Option C in the last question ... a suggestion was made that admins should be able to enter in groups, so to speak, so that they serve with others whom they find compatible ... with their friends, in other words. Some people liked this idea because it would make the admin position more attractive, and others said this was something they wanted to specifically avoid. So I want to make sure that everyone knows what they are voting for. On the last question, the first two options (A & B) are both 'automatic' - the admin can decline to serve a particular term but cannot say, for example, 'me and member y and member z are going to serve together next November'. They can only accept a term of office when it's their turn. Though they could say, 'I can't do it now but I'll take the next term, or the one in November,' they could not choose who else would be available during the next term or in November. A and B differ only in how long a member has to wait if they turn down a term of office.

The third option (C) is not automatic - the admins put their heads together and decide how to divvy up the terms of office between them. They get to choose not only what term they serve but also the other admins with whom they would serve.

Clear? Not? Should it be worded better to make this clear?

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Alatar
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 04 Apr , 2005 10:07 pm
of Vinyamar
Offline
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 4:39 pm
Location: Ireland
Contact: ICQ
 
Quote:
what you mean is that you want to specify that if we vote for a Mayor and we vote to let people become admins in the order that they enter the pool, the mayor is the one who will keep track of both eligibility and entry, then I would say that yes, it would naturally work that way and we can add that simplification if the vote turns out so. If the mayor's office is created, then I imagine that this person will be responsible for many kinds of record-keeping
That's what I was getting at Jnyusa. Just wanted it clear.

Cheers,
Alatar

_________________

[ img ]
These are my friends, see how they glisten...


Top
Profile Quote
Holbytla
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 04 Apr , 2005 10:31 pm
Grumpy cuz I can be
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6642
Joined: Thu 09 Dec , 2004 3:07 am
 
I am still pndering all of this, but let me just say that there may be one or two things that I either do not agree with or have misinterpreted.
Just dropping in to let you know I am following along. I'll get back to you asap.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 04 Apr , 2005 10:32 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Thanks, Alatar! You've raised an important issue which is the way these various option would interact. I thought I would run through this so that people do understand what they are getting when they vote.

Questions 2 and 3 can be considered independently because they can be incorporated into any system that we design. Questions 1 and 4 cannot be considered independently. The various combinations of answers that we might give will result in six distinctly different systems.

1. [A + (A or B)] -- there will be a mayor who keeps track of eligibility, sends out all notices, and puts names on the training roster when members say they are willing/are forced to serve as admins. After going through training and getting the approval of their trainer and/or a vote of the membership, the mayor moves the member’s name to the admin pool and advises them when it is their turn to serve a term of office. The member can decline, but must then wait until it is their turn again.

2. [A + C] -- there will be a mayor who keeps track of eligibility, sends out all notices, and puts names on the training roster when members say they are willing/are forced to serve as admins. After going through training and getting the approval of their trainer and/or a vote of the membership, the mayor moves the member’s name to the admin pool. The member then decides together with their friends when they will serve their term of office.

3. [B + (A or B)] -- A selection committee reviews eligible members, decides who would make a good admin, and puts names on the training roster when approved members say they are willing/are forced to serve as admins. In this case, mandatory would mean that service is mandatory for those chosen by the selection committee. After going through training and getting the approval of their trainer and/or a vote of the membership, the selection committee moves the member’s name to the admin pool and advises them when it is their turn to serve a term of office. The member can decline, but must then wait until it is their turn again.

4. [B + C] -- A selection committee reviews eligible members, decides who would make a good admin, and puts names on the training roster when approved members say they are willing/are forced to serve as admins. In this case, mandatory would mean that service is mandatory for those chosen by the selection committee. After going through training and getting the approval of their trainer and/or a vote of the membership, the selection committee moves the member’s name to the admin pool. The member then decides together with their friends when they will serve their term of office.

5. [C + (A or B)] -- the current admins keeps track of eligibility, send out all notices, and put names on the training roster when members say they are willing/are forced to serve as admins. After going through training and getting the approval of their trainer and/or a vote of the membership, the current admins move the member’s name to the admin pool and advise them when it is their turn to serve a term of office. The member can decline, but must then wait until it is their turn again.

6. [C + C] -- the current admins keeps track of eligibility, send out all notices, and put names on the training roster when members say they are willing/are forced to serve as admins. After going through training and getting the approval of their trainer and/or a vote of the membership, the current admins move the member’s name to the admin pool. The member then decides together with their friends when they will serve their term of office.

Hope that helps.

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 04 Apr , 2005 11:26 pm
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
Governance by Chinese restaurant menu. . . . :D

That does help a great deal, Jn. Thanks!

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 04 Apr , 2005 11:42 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Holby - I cross posted with you earlier and did not see your post. Please do chime in when you have a chance.

Prim - :D

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
*Alandriel*
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 06 Apr , 2005 9:12 am
*Ex-Admin of record*
Offline
 
Posts: 2372
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 10:15 am
 
WOW - you people have been busy :D :D what a sight for sore eyes (too much sun ;) ) upon my return. :)

The draft ballot looks great to me though I have yet to catch up with the discussion thread. A quick head's up and :cheers from me, I'm back :D

_______________
Resident witch [ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 06 Apr , 2005 11:28 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Alandriel - So glad you're back! Hope your vacation was refreshing.

People have been anxious to vote on this, but Holby said he had a correction to make, and I haven't seen Farawen since she got back. So let me contact those two people and make sure we've got what we need, and then we can start voting.

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 1 of 3  [ 55 posts ]
Return to “Threads of Historical Interest” | Jump to page 1 2 3 »
Jump to: