board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

¶4: Hearings(Community Disruption): VOTING CLOSED

Post Reply   Page 4 of 6  [ 111 posts ]
Jump to page « 1 2 3 4 5 6 »
Author Message
truehobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 12 May , 2005 10:24 pm
WYSIWYG
Offline
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:37 pm
Location: wherever
 
Well, what we call the office shouldn't make such a difference, I think.

The definition of the office as envisaged is essentially what Voronwe said, I think:
Quote:
This position would be responsible for knowing what's what at b77, from keeping the lists of people eligible for admin and jury duty to being a resource about the by-laws for jurors and others.
We are hoping there won't be a great many hearings, so if we have one person whose job it is to know the charter well, and who will be in office for a long enough time to do that with some ease, that's the person to ask to oversee that a hearing goes right, when one takes place.
Quote:
Furthermore, the Mayor would have a conflict of interest in overseeing procedure for a hearing involving him/herself
We'd have the same problem with the role of admins in case of a hearing involving an admin, when they do the overseeing.
And if we had a special loremaster, then we'd have that problem in case there's a hearing involving the loremaster.
I think we should just suppose that hearings involving the mayor would be very infrequent indeed, and maybe just make a short provision for these cases (e.g. in case the Mayor is concerned an admin takes his role, or in case an admin is concerned the Mayor takes his role or whatever) - or just leave it till the time comes, because we can't care for all eventualities.

_________________

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
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 12 May , 2005 10:45 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5175
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Cerin wrote:
I don't think we can forget about the Mayor without nullifying the current Charter ratification. It seems to me we would need a rather compelling reason to do that.
Do you really think that we need to nullify the current article that is being overwhelmingly ratified just to change the name, even if the role that has already been approved is not changed? I would think we could do that in a separate vote when we get to the part of the agenda about the "Mayor". After all, we have talked about changing the name of the admin position to shirriff and I have consistently been told that we could go back and do that later. That would not nullify the specifics that we have already decided as to what the position entails. But perhaps I am wrong and that idea really is off the table, even though we never voted on it. If so, I'll be disappointed, but I'll live. ;)
Quote:
The role of Mayor as currently defined, and the role of procedural expert as we've discussed it seem very dissimilar to me. It doesn't make much sense to me to call them the same thing (especially if that would involve a complicated undoing of much of what we've already done).
Well, I think I've already stated why I think they are related and why the name "loremaster" would be a good name for both functions, so I won't repeat myself unless someone asks me too.
Quote:
I'm really not trying to be a pain in the neck, Voronwe. :)
Nor am I, though I'm sure it sometimes seems like it. I certainly appreciate your input, Cerin. :love:


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 12 May , 2005 11:49 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
truehobbit wrote:
The definition of the office as envisaged is essentially what Voronwe said, I think: This position would be responsible for knowing what's what at b77, from keeping the lists of people eligible for admin and jury duty to being a resource about the by-laws for jurors and others.

I believe you've isolated the bone of contention. :) I am not aware that the office of Mayor was ever generally envisaged as the position 'reponsible for knowing what's what at b77', and would therefore be expected to perform all duties that require knowing the Charter well.

I'm sure the office wasn't envisaged as including the duty of being a resource to juries, because it wasn't noticed until the outset of the discussion on dispute resolution that that function had been overlooked; it was then suggested that the Mayor could do that, too.

Voronwe_the_Faithful wrote:
Do you really think that we need to nullify the current article that is being overwhelmingly ratified just to change the name, even if the role that has already been approved is not changed?
I was responding (rather literally, as is my wont) to your statement that we could 'forget about the Mayor altogether.' I agree it doesn't sound nearly as drastic when put in terms of simply changing the name. :)

Quote:
I think it makes the most sense to combine the Loremaster and Mayor positions into one, and have two of them
So you're not suggesting having two different offices (one to keep track of admins and one to oversee hearings) that are called the same thing. You're suggesting having two identical offices that combine the duties of two previously separate offices? :scratch

It seems to be getting more complicated to me. (I'm afraid Jnyusa will never come back.) :(

Thank you, Voronwe. :love:


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 13 May , 2005 12:52 am
Offline
 
Posts: 5175
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Don't worry, I'll make her come back if I had to. :)

Actually, my idea is to make it simpler, not more complicated, by limiting the number of positions we are creating. The Loremaster position as I envision it would combine those tasks that required someone who was good at keeping track of things: e.g., keeping track of the lists of admin and jury volunteers, and keeping track of the relevant policies and procedures.

I think a lot of the confusion stems from the fluid nature of what we have called the Mayor position. It began with me suggestion that we use Tolkien's shire figurehead as the title for someone who would act as a spokesperson. But before we ever decided whether that was appropriate the name got usurped for this different kind of record-keeping responsibility.

Then the need for this other other function came up. It was when Alatar came up with the name Loremaster that it occurred to be that that name was appropriate for both of these functions. I personally would even be willing to give up my original idea of a "Mayor" acting as a spokesperson if the Loremaster position was adopted in the way that I am suggesting, with at least two people filling the position at one time (even MariaHobbit couldn't object to having more then one loremaster). It just feels right to me.

[For Idylle and other Foundation fans, yes, I do feel that I sometimes share Golan Trevize's talent.][/i]


Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 13 May , 2005 1:14 am
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
This also isn't creating two positions; it's creating one type of position and saying we need two people with that title, just as the admin position has been created and we decided we need five to seven people with the title of admin. Adding people doesn't equal adding complexity if they're serving the same role.

I really like the idea of two people serving one-year terms staggered by six months.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
IdylleSeethes
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 13 May , 2005 1:22 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 5:10 pm
Location: Bretesche
 
For the uninitiated,

Golan's ability to solve a problem transcended his knowledge of the problem.


Is that like George Bush in Iraq?


Edit:

Voronwe,

Something about Golan nagged me until a few minutes ago. Do you remember that he was banned from the first foundation?

Have we been living in the wrong trilogy?



Isn't there a thread about positions somewhere else?

Last edited by IdylleSeethes on Fri 13 May , 2005 2:26 am, edited 2 times in total.

_________________

Idylle in exile: the view over the laptop on a bad day
[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 13 May , 2005 2:13 am
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Primula_Baggins wrote:
This also isn't creating two positions; it's creating one type of position and saying we need two people with that title, just as the admin position has been created and we decided we need five to seven people with the title of admin.
It is not at all like that. All five admins have the same duties. We've been talking here about two distinct job descriptions -- one to keep track of admins, and the other to oversee hearings. Either Voronwe is proposing that two people share both positions, or he is proposing that two people each carry out one set of duties. (I'm not sure which he is proposing.)

What is the logic in first objecting to a second office being created to oversee hearings, and now advocating a second position be created to share the duty of overseeing hearings? I am totally flummoxed.

Voronwe, I don't understand why you voted against having a Loremaster, and now you want two. A vote for Loremaster would have given you exactly what you now say you want, except that the two distinct offices would have had two distinct titles.

1 Mayor + 1 Loremaster = two people carrying out two sets of duties

1 Loremaster + 1 Loremaster = two people carrying out two sets of duties

Two people carryng out two sets of duties = two people carrying out two sets of duties.

This is what you would have had had you voted for Loremaster. But you voted against Loremaster.

:scratch :scratch :scratch


Top
Profile Quote
Impenitent
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 13 May , 2005 3:39 am
Try to stay perky
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2677
Joined: Wed 29 Dec , 2004 10:54 am
 
I've come in late (as usual; blame my time zone) so please forgive me for recapping.

First,
Hobby wrote:
...Although, as an aside, while I agree with the possibility to shorten the process, I'm not sure I'm happy with the way this is phrased: toning down the penalty if the person appears to be sorry, sure - but let's not encourage admission of guilt with the promise of lesser penalties!...
Why not? Reality check here: we're not talking about assault, burglary, homicide...we're talking about maintaining a civil message board. That's all we want: guidelines to maintain a civil messageboard, and checks to ensure offenders cease offending - [not punitive measures! It's much more important to me that someone who's been eg saying nasty and insidious things is pulled up, admits yeah, I did it and then undertakes to stop doing it - than to punish the person for offending.

This is not aimed at Hobby! We all seem to have gotten a little lost amongst the branches and undergrowth and lost sight of the forest.

I would really like to keep the hearings procedure as simple as possible so that it can be flexible to apply to many situations. Surely we trust those who undertake administrative tasks (ie each other) enough to allow them some discretion? We can all fall on them like a ton of bricks if they go a foot wrong in any case.

Secondly, on the issue of Mayor vs Loremaster (or other name) - I agree they have been envisioned as different roles. I myself was very vocal in putting the case that the skill set required is very different but that was when I thought the mayor was to be used as a spokesperson.

I've navel-gazed since then, and I believe that having a team of Loremasters (I love that, lore meaning accumulated facts, traditions, or beliefs about a particular subject; knowledge acquired through education, experience, tradition or anecdote; material taught or learned) who can turn their hand to an assortment of tasks to do with keeping our records (our 'lore') and body of by-laws (also our 'lore') would work very well.

V says a team of two, with overlapping terms. I suggest three - but either way, a team of loremasters who can consult with one another and be consulted - so that they can take time and space for RL events without deleterious effect on the board.

They can be our record keepers and librarians, with understanding of the facts and figures and procedures - whether that applies to keeping records of who's on first and who's on next, or whether due process has been followed. They can specialise or share, depending on their own strengths and interests and who happens to be online when the query comes in.

I don't see why that couldn't work. It's a matter of re-defining the office and ratifying the name change - no wholesale throwing out of the baby with the bathwater required. And furthermore, it simplifies things rather than multiplying the number of offices required.

I've never liked the idea of a spokesperson. I'd have to be convinced of the need.

_________________

[ img ]

"Believe me, every heart has its secret sorrows, which the world knows not;
and oftentimes we call a man cold when he is only sad." ~Robert C. Savage


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 13 May , 2005 5:11 am
Offline
 
Posts: 5175
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Quote:
Voronwe, I don't understand why you voted against having a Loremaster, and now you want two. A vote for Loremaster would have given you exactly what you now say you want, except that the two distinct offices would have had two distinct titles.

1 Mayor + 1 Loremaster = two people carrying out two sets of duties

1 Loremaster + 1 Loremaster = two people carrying out two sets of duties

Two people carryng out two sets of duties = two people carrying out two sets of duties.

This is what you would have had had you voted for Loremaster. But you voted against Loremaster.
No, I voted against creating a new, separate position called Loremaster in addition to the Mayor position, because I want there to be only one position, that handles both the task that we previously assigned to the Mayor and the task that we are talking about assigning to the Loremaster position. I think this is appropriate because: (1) the two tasks, while different, will require the same type of skills; and (2) I don't believe that either task by itself is going to require that great a time commitment so we don't need to have different positions designed for each task. But I do think that there should be more then one person in the role so that if one person is not available the other can fill it, and also because since the position requires keep track of a lot of information it would be good to have at least one who is more experienced at it at all times.

Sorry I'm not being clear. I'm trying my best. :)


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 13 May , 2005 5:29 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
If a simple majority rejects the idea of creating this office, I am not going to run a subsequent vote to have three Loremasters instead of one.

Every comment made in the voting thread by members who rejected the Loremaster (except Voronwe) indicated that they saw no need for any extra people to be elected. I am not going to vote a second time on whether there should be additional elected officials. The vote we just took has to be honored.

Nor will I lead a current discussion on how to amend the nine clauses of Article 3 that describe the responsibilities of one person so that the job can be coordinated by three.

We described something very specific in the summary on Article 3. That was the creation of one Mayor whose function is record-keeping, and the members are still busy ratifying this. You cannot create something in this Article that effectively nullifies what the members are already voting on.

Here's where we stand now, imo:

• The Mayor cannot be overseer unless we remove him/her from the Appeals process. He/she cannot sit on the jury and be telling the jury what to do at the same time.

• If the Admins oversee, every time we install new admins, they will have to decide among them who is going to do this job, and believe me the interpretation of process will change every time the overseer changes.

•If we simply make no reference to an overseer, then every jury will interpret the process as they see fit, and every decision will be appealed.

So start thinking now about which of these alternatives you prefer: (1) the Mayor out of the Appeals process so that he/she can oversee the juries; (2) Either no one oversees or the admins oversee, and every jury decision might be appealed because of inconsistency; (3) the abolishment of appeals to avoid endless appeals.

I am not going to re-define the office of Mayor at this point in ways that require Article 3 to be amended. If you are determined to do it this way, someone else will have to lead the discussion.

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: Fri 13 May , 2005 5:50 am
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
I stand corrected, Jn.

Of the choices you offer, removing the mayor from the appeals process seems best to me. Having no appeals has a non-B77 flavor to me. Having admins oversee procedure just isn't going to work. As you say, there would be no consistency. There would also be little or no experience.

Providing consistency and experience in overseeing procedures is an essential role and must be given to the mayor, if Mayor and Admin are the only roles we will have.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
IdylleSeethes
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 13 May , 2005 6:25 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 5:10 pm
Location: Bretesche
 
Prim wrote:
Quote:
Of the choices you offer, removing the mayor from the appeals process seems best to me. Having no appeals has a non-B77 flavor to me. Having admins oversee procedure just isn't going to work. As you say, there would be no consistency. There would also be little or no experience.

Providing consistency and experience in overseeing procedures is an essential role and must be given to the mayor, if Mayor and Admin are the only roles we will have.
This seems to be the best we can make of the current situation.

_________________

Idylle in exile: the view over the laptop on a bad day
[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 13 May , 2005 1:23 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5175
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Quote:
I am not going to re-define the office of Mayor at this point in ways that require Article 3 to be amended.
It was not my intention to suggest this. I'm sorry if I gave that impression.

I'll shut up now. :(


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 13 May , 2005 1:48 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Could we return to the initial notion (as I dimly recall it) of a non-elective ad hoc advisory position for juries, to be requested by a jury from former jurors, for procedural help?

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 13 May , 2005 2:11 pm
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
What bothers me about that idea, Ax, is that not all juries will ask for this, and probably most of them will actually need the supervision. I was on a jury of three, people pretty cloely involved in the board, and we made two procedural errors in a very short and straightforward process.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 13 May , 2005 2:23 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Then could we rotate it as an assignment through a pool of willing former jurors, and have the person sit in on deliberation?

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 13 May , 2005 2:33 pm
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
That's a bit better, I think, but I still would rather see this be done by someone elected, i.e., the mayor. That would give complete consistency at least within one mayor's term.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 13 May , 2005 2:48 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Axordil wrote:
Could we return to the initial notion (as I dimly recall it) of a non-elective ad hoc advisory position for juries, to be requested by a jury from former jurors, for procedural help?
This would be my choice. Just make a note in the hearings section, that if juries want someone to keep an eye on procedure, they may ask a former juror to do so.
Quote:
Then could we rotate it as an assignment through a pool of willing former jurors, and have the person sit in on deliberation?
This is introducing more complications, and I don't think someone watching procedure needs to be in on deliberations.

Primula_Baggins wrote:
What bothers me about that idea, Ax, is that not all juries will ask for this, and probably most of them will actually need the supervision. I was on a jury of three, people pretty cloely involved in the board, and we made two procedural errors in a very short and straightforward process.
I agree that the position would have been useful, and I think those of us who felt that way should have taken the time to make our case more strongly, once it became clear that there were several committee members who were having difficulty keeping abreast of the discussion.

I am against the Mayor being involved in the hearings.

Quote:
So start thinking now about which of these alternatives you prefer: (1) the Mayor out of the Appeals process so that he/she can oversee the juries; (2) Either no one oversees or the admins oversee, and every jury decision might be appealed because of inconsistency; (3) the abolishment of appeals to avoid endless appeals.
2) No one oversees the hearing; a note that juries may ask a former juror to keep an eye on procedure.


I don't think we can do this without Jnyusa, and I'm concerned that her time for dealing with it this is running out. I suggest we remove the reference to procedural expert from the text on hearings, and move on to the next thing.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 13 May , 2005 2:54 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Prim: Of the choices you offer, removing the mayor from the appeals process seems best to me

I agree

I am not even going to offer committee members the option to give the overseer job to the admins because whether they can foresee it or not, I know what a big bloody mess that will create. It has to be the Mayor, and the Mayor has to be removed from appeals.

Voronwe: I undestood you up until the point where three Loremasters with revolving terms entered the picture. If you simply want the Mayor to do it, then your vote accurately reflected what you want, and I also agree with this solution as the only viable alterntive to a separate office.

We do not nullify Article 3 by changing the name of the mayor. I just don't want to mess with that now because the job before us is dispute resolution. We can discuss the name of the mayor when we do the article on the mayor.

Ax: to be requested by a jury from former jurors

Ax, I've got to place a moratorium on proposals for whole new procedures. There has to be some boundary on this discussion.

In talking about bench hearings we ended up with the same exact process that was in the sticky before we messed with it at all. So I could also have done something else for the last two weeks and come to the same outcome.

I do not want to modify this paragraph further with additional revolving roles and procedures that have to be coordinated among many people. That is why I am simply eliminating the option of letting admins be the jury overseers, besides the fact that there was opposition to this from several others in the larger discussion thread and in this one.

I am going to the first post now to turn this paragraph into a draft ballot, and creating threads for draft ballots on the other paragraphs that depend on this one.

A simple up/down vote.

Jn

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 13 May , 2005 3:05 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Prim--

And how many people are going to volunteer to do all that mayoral stuff, anyway? I am dubious...

jny--

sigh. I can't argue with you.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 4 of 6  [ 111 posts ]
Return to “Threads of Historical Interest” | Jump to page « 1 2 3 4 5 6 »
Jump to: