board77

Okay, I have eliminated the confusing questions 2 and 3, and added the additional choice that Cerin wanted in what is now question 2.

Any other changes that anyone would like to see?

Holby and Dindraug,

If the size of this board was expected to remain the same, I would agree completely with both of you. Informality works very well in small groups.

We don't know what the consequence of opening the board will be, but certainly the current membership will be strangers to the newer members, the knowledge of our past won't exist for new members, there will be no understanding of what we wanted to be and the environment we wanted to create , and we will all be equal when it comes to future decisions about the board. The current membership will be a minority and unable to control the direction of this board.

We are responsible for creating a home, not for the 150 of us who are here now, but for the several thousand who may be here later.

The way we can express our vision (sorry) is through the structure we create in this process. If what we create is amorphous, our vision will be transient. If we create a structure that reflects how we think we should relate to each other, then our vision has some chance of survival. All we are doing now is erecting the signposts to point the way, our way, when decisions must be made in the future. Whether or not it is accepted is another issue, but the only way we can influence the future is by creating the structure now.

Some of us once had strong feelings about the problems elsewhere that led to the creation of this place. I thought the problems included undefined procedures that could be changed on a whim, no transparency to whatever the procedure of the day was, and consequently a strong sense of unfairness in regulation of the board.

This is our chance to create something that is free of those problems. We can consciously decide that drifting aimlessly is what we really want, and that is OK, but our ideas and concerns won't be carried with it. We can also decide that we want to create an environment that reflects our ideas of what an online community should be, in a way that is able to be understood and used by the thousands that may come here in the future. If we choose to express our ideas, vagueness will not serve them well. If we can't find a way to express our ideas in a tangible way, no one will know what they are. The procedures and roles we create here are our expression of this.

Whether or not we create multiple elected positions now is probably irrelevant. The natural tendency is that they will eventually become so. What we call the positions is largely irrelevant. What is important is that we identify roles and the relationships between those roles, as they are likely to have some permanence. If we get the roles or relationships wrong, I think the board will be permanently crippled.

I find I have an objection on principle. I don't mind if my objection is not taken into account, but I feel the need to register it.

Per Idylle's observations:

We voted on the question of creating the office of procedural expert on the assumption that if the office were voted down, the Mayor would assume the duties. I believe this is inarguably the case, because after the vote on Loremaster, the duties of procedural expert were assigned to the Mayor in the text on Hearings (I think that would have been the text) without discussion; I then requested an alternate ballot excluding that option.

We then rejected the option of the Mayor overseeing hearings, in the knowledge that that meant there would be no assignment of that duty.

We never had the opportunity to vote on creating the position of procedural expert, in the knowledge that rejecting that idea meant there would be no assignment of the duty. That's what we're doing now, which is well and good.

However, I can see no justification for re-visiting the question of the Mayor overseeing hearings. I think the Mayor option should be removed from this ballot. We have already voted on that question.

I really like the new ballot!

Cerin, your objection is duly noted. I am not, however, going to remove that option from the vote. The alternative would be to not hold the vote at all, and I'm not going to do that either.

No, Voronwe. The alternative would be for the person who wants a re-vote on the question of the Mayor overseeing hearings, to request that re-vote in a separate thread, with a separate poll (as Jnyusa did when she requested a re-vote on the question of what to call a Hearing). If the committee agrees to that re-vote, that should be held first. If that passes, this vote would be unnecessary.

If that vote doesn't pass, then the people who voted for Mayor to oversee hearings will be able to vote for a first choice on Loremaster options, instead of wasting their first choice Loremaster vote on an already failed proposition. If even one person votes for Mayor as first choice in this ballot, then this vote will not reflect everyone's first choice on the new question being decided -- how to carry out the procedural oversight, if the need for procedural oversight is agreed to in the awareness that rejecting it means the duties will not be assigned.

The question of the Mayor overseeing hearings should not be on this ballot. This ballot should be reserved for the question we have not yet had the opportunity to vote on: the question of the need for a procedural expert, in the knowledge that rejecting the proposition means the duties will not be assigned.

Edited for clarity

Quote:

This ballot should be reserved for the question we have not yet had the opportunity to vote on: the question of the need for a procedural expert, in the knowledge that rejecting the proposition means the duties will not be assigned.

That is exactly what question 1 does.

I am not contesting that that is what question 1 does.

I am objecting to the question of the Mayor overseeing hearings, a question the committee has already decided, being included on the ballot for a question the committee has not yet decided.

Jnyusa demonstrated the correct procedure, IMO, for requesting a re-vote. My request is that that procedure be followed by whomever wishes to request the revote on whether the Mayor should oversee hearings.

Sorry, Cerin, I am moving forward with this as is.

VOTING IS NOW OPEN.

I said I did not mind if my objection was not taken into account, but now I find that I do mind.

I am going to abstain from this vote. I am not abstaining from this vote because I am having a tantrum over my request being denied. I am abstaining from this vote because I believe the ballot is improper, and I cannot in good conscience participate in the vote.

Question 1: B

Question 2:

#1=D
#2= C
#3= E
#4= B
#5=A

That is certainly your perogative. I'm sure that I need not point out that it will only serve to make it more likely that the result that you don't want will occur.

That is irrelevant.

Question 1:
A. I agree with this statement.

Question 2:
#1= E
#2= B
#3= C
#4= D
#5= A

Question 1:

A. I agree with this statement.

Question 2: Please state your preference for who should be responsible for performing this function.

#1= D
#2= C
#3= E
#4= B
#5= A

Question 1: A.

Question 2:
#1= D
#2= B
#3= C
#4= E
#5= A

Question 1: A

Question 2:

#1= D
#2= E
#3= C
#4= B
#5= A

Question 1:
A. I agree with this statement.

Question 2:
#1=C
#2=E
#3=D
#4=B
#5=A

Question 1: A

Question 2:
#1=D
#2=C
#3=E
#4=B
#5=A

Question 1:
B. I do not agree with this statement.

Question 2: Please state your preference for who should be responsible for performing this function.


#1= D
#2= C
#3= A
#4= E
#5= B

Oh, and just to add.....

Quote:

Some of us once had strong feelings about the problems elsewhere that led to the creation of this place. I thought the problems included undefined procedures that could be changed on a whim, no transparency to whatever the procedure of the day was, and consequently a strong sense of unfairness in regulation of the board.

The problems were not in just the undefined proceedures, but in the restrictions imposed by the people administrating said proceedures and their lack of understanding. I see little difference in what has happened here recently. The only real difference is that there is now a set of proceedures in place to complain about an issue, but this does not mean that any prolems or issues will be listened too.

Time will tell, and when the board is bursting to the seams with the hoards that will decend to turn this to Neverland, I do hope we have the open mindedness in place to deal with people.