board77

Quote:

Question 4. Concerning eligibility.

Members will be eligible to serve as Mayor at the same time they are eligible to serve as an Admin/Ranger.

This clause confuses me.

Does it mean that one can be Mayor and Ranger at the same time?

Or does it mean that the eligibility criteria (ie 3 months and 100 posts) are the same for both positions?

I think it should mean the second, but if so, we should spell it out more clearly.

Quote:

C. The Mayor will have not have the authority to authorize members to speak or act on behalf of the board.

There are some stray words in that clause...should be

Quote:

C. The Mayor will have the authority to authorize members to speak or act on behalf of the board.

Reiterating Imp, there is a problem with the eligibility option. The current Mayor determines entry into the admin training pool based on continuous, visible, contributory presence. Will the Mayor pick who the next candidates for Mayor are going to be? I don't think we want that.

When someone enters the admin pool, they are placed on a roster so that members can object. Do we want to do that with the Mayor?

It seems to me that the nomination process Cerin suggested earlier makes more sense. The only requirement placed on the Mayor should be six months on the board and a nomination by someone else. If no one knows the nominee because the nominee's presence has been discontinuous, invisible and non-contributory, no one will vote for them.

Jn

Cerin, I had missed that post altogether. Sorry about that, but thanks for pointing it out to me.

Quote:

Regarding Question 3, option E. Has anyone here ever run for anything and lost? Is the runner-up likely to be feeling all rosy and helpful? I guess I'm asking if anyone with insight thinks this is a practical option.

That's definitely a reason to vote against this option, but not to remove it from ballot.

Quote:

Could we add an option, that both offices run for election, but not as a team? For some reason, I don't like the idea of running as a team.

Yes, I will add that option.

Quote:

Concerning Question 5

Could we consider adding a phase to the election process? Could we have the basis for the election be a nomination process. The membership would submit names of who they wanted to be Mayor, those people would agree or refuse to be considered, and then we would have the election?

pursuant to Jn's comments, I will add a nomination option under eligibility.

Quote:

Do we want to vote on the title for the back-up, if it is approved? 'Assistant to' as opposed to 'Deputy'?

I figured someone would raise that. I suppose we do need to do this.

Jnyusa wrote:

Re the question about a hidden forum for penalties, admin warnings, etc. ... what I had suggested was that the Mayor be given a thread for this purpose in the hidden admin forum that already exists.

We can create a new forum if we want to [shrugs] but it is not strictly necessary. TH asked what happens if we vote the new forum down, so maybe we could put on the ballot the additional choice of this being a thread in the hidden admin forum instead of a forum all its own. It would be a forum with only one thread in it, right? Two at most.

Voronwe, also I appreciate that you added 'Michel Delving' to the ballot, but I have some concerns about my own suggestion for which I would like some respones from the members of the committee before having to vote on it. This again would be a forum with very few threads in it - perhaps only two or three. I threw this out as a suggestion but do other people consider it necessary? Or perhaps unnecessary but charming? Or perhaps a great red herring? A lutefisk in the deli, as it were.

Jn, after reading these comments I agree that it is overly complicated and not necessary. I think that it is sufficient for there to be a thread in the hidden admin forum, and a thread in the unhidden admin forum, as well as a screen name, with no fancy monikers. Moreover, I am tempted to say that these are not even things that we should vote on, since it seems to me that what we have already approved mandates that these threads and screen name should exist. What do you think?

Impy wrote:

Or does it mean that the eligibility criteria (ie 3 months and 100 posts) are the same for both positions?

I think it should mean the second, but if so, we should spell it out more clearly.

I will spell it out more clearly.

Quote:

There are some stray words in that clause...should be

I will fix them.

Jnyusa wrote:

]It seems to me that the nomination process Cerin suggested earlier makes more sense. The only requirement placed on the Mayor should be six months on the board and a nomination by someone else. If no one knows the nominee because the nominee's presence has been discontinuous, invisible and non-contributory, no one will vote for them.

I will add this option to the eligibility section.

Okay, I have made the necessary edits to the ballots.

Impenitent wrote:

Quote:

C. The Mayor will have not have the authority to authorize members to speak or act on behalf of the board.

There are some stray words in that clause...should be

Quote:

C. The Mayor will have the authority to authorize members to speak or act on behalf of the board.

Impy, that's not at all what this choice was meant to say. Just the opposite, actually. I have edited it and hopefully it is clearer now.

Jnyusa wrote:

Voronwe, also I appreciate that you added 'Michel Delving' to the ballot, but I have some concerns about my own suggestion for which I would like some respones from the members of the committee before having to vote on it. This again would be a forum with very few threads in it - perhaps only two or three. I threw this out as a suggestion but do other people consider it necessary? Or perhaps unnecessary but charming? Or perhaps a great red herring? A lutefisk in the deli, as it were.

I'm afraid I didn't quite grasp the details of the proposition. Is it for a separate Mayoral Forum, either inside of Outside, or completely separate? Where is the hidden Admin. forum? I like the idea of creating a separate Mayoral forum, and I don't see why it would matter if it didn't have many threads (although I don't actually grasp at this point what those threads would be), and its very appealing to think of Mayoral records being kept in a place called 'Michel Delving.'

Clear as crystal, V.

I think I need to look more carefully at the Thain/Thainling options as they confused me a little - but that's because I'm a bear of little brain, probably.

Question 3. Concerning deputy or multiple office holders.

F. The deputy will be chosen separately from the Mayor (in a separate election if there is an election, or the next person on the list if there is not).

By 'separate election' you mean at the same time, but a different item on the ballot? In other words, rather than casting our vote for a team, we are casting two votes, for two individuals, but in the same election, on the same ballot? I wonder if you could make that clearer, because 'separate election' makes it sound like alot more trouble.


Question 5. Concerning selection of the Mayor.
B. The Mayor will be chosen in a membership-wide election between candidates who meet the eligibility requirements and choose to run.

Could we say, and choose to stand?

Voronwe: Moreover, I am tempted to say that these are not even things that we should vote on, since it seems to me that what we have already approved mandates that these threads and screen name should exist. What do you think?

Cerin: ... a separate Mayor forum, either inside of Outside ...

I can imagine the Mayor needing more than one thread, and I think that a subforum of Outside called Michel Delving would not untidy things too much - a place where everything related to the Mayor's office would happen and be posted. The Archive will not have a lot of threads in it, but we recognize that it needed to be separate from the Jury Room and Bike Racks. Same is probably true with Mayor's stuff.

But I do think that having one hidden forum - the Admin forum - is enough, and penalties etc. can go there. That would only require a Mayor's thread. And really, the reason the Mayor keeps that thread is for an extra check and balance on admins - that they know when to impose and lift penalties - so it makes perfect sense for the admins to be able to see it .

I do like the name Michel Delving, but out of courtesy to the members and respect for procedure we should vote on it.

So, what we are creating that is 'new' would be:

• A screen name "Mayor"
• A subforum of Outside called Michel Delving where the Mayor's lists would go
• A Mayor's thread inside the hidden admin forum

We can vote these up/down if no one has alternative suggestions. If there are alternative suggestions for handling the Mayor's business, people should speak up.

Jn

Cerin, where the forum management is, there's also a forum for storing deleted threads, and one containing sensitive info - these last two are not visible for normal users. The sensitive info forum is really just that: a collection of data not for general view, like passwords or the recent ToE ballot - no behind the scenes discussions going on there.

On the one hand, a special forum for mayoral things sounds nice, on the other hand I don't think it's necessary. I don't really feel so good about creating any more invisible forums.

Voronwe_the_Faithful wrote:

Quote:

And I have trouble imagining the "boardwide functions" (or "honorees").
(I know I suggested something like giving out the zillionth-post medal or so myself, but I didn't think it would be taken up - so, I'd be curious to hear what others imagine might be such functions?)

I'm not sure would these would be but I have no problem with including it. Of course, if you don't want to include it, vote against it.

The thing is, I can't make up my mind whether to vote for or against it, if I don't know what the option entails. That's why I'd like to hear some specific examples.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

B. The Mayor will be cognizant of transactions between board77 and the public, and may authorize members to speak or act on behalf of the board whenever such a function is needed.

How can the Mayor be expected to cognizant of transaction between b77 and the public? I don't understand what that duty entails.

That's one reason why I included as an alternative choice the option that I proposed. If you don't like any of the options, please feel free to suggest an alternative (as Alatar did).

Same as with the above: I don't know whether I'd prefer an alternative, if I don't understand the nature of the given suggestion.
Does it mean the mayor would have to keep an eye on whether something is going on that might affect b77? (Like new laws for internet use, for example.) Because if it means that, I don't think it's possible to expect that of anyone, but if it means something different, it might be ok.

Jny wrote:

And really, the reason the Mayor keeps that thread is for an extra check and balance on admins - that they know when to impose and lift penalties - so it makes perfect sense for the admins to be able to see it

I was thinking about just that (a forum visible only to the mayor) and had meant to address it in my post above, but on checking the forum permission panel etc, I think the admins can see everything in any case - it's not possible to make a forum visible only to one user, but not to the admins.
I definitely think the admins should see it - a forum visible by only one person sounds like a bad idea to me - but I think with at least this board, it's a moot point.

However, creating the new Mayor ID raises the question of its permissions: apart from possibly being enabled to see the admin forums (depending on where mayoral info is stored) it would have normal user permissions, wouldn't it?

If we store the mayor's info in the sensitive info forum that would mean the mayor would also have access to all the other sensitive info there.
I'm not sure whether that's a problem, I tend to think no, but I think people should be aware of that.

On the one hand, a special forum for mayoral things sounds nice, on the other hand I don't think it's necessary. I don't really feel so good about creating any more invisible forums.

It would not be an invisible forum, TH. I agree with you that we don't need another one. The penalties thread, which the Mayor is required to keep private, can go in the one invisible forum that we already have.

The proposal is to add a subforum to Outside that would contain Mayoral stuff. If you don't want this either, please suggest an alternative place for posting the admin pool and the roster of members entering the admin pool. The charter requires that these be posted prominently for members to view.

If we store the mayor's info in the sensitive info forum that would mean the mayor would also have access to all the other sensitive info there.

Yes, thanks for pointing that out, TH. The Mayor would be able to see everything the Admins see. Does the Mayor have to be given an admin panel in order to post in that forum, or can we enable permissions to write in that forum without enabling the Mayor to edit other people's posts and turn other people's permissions on and off?

Does it mean the mayor would have to keep an eye on whether something is going on that might affect b77? (Like new laws for internet use, for example.) Because if it means that, I don't think it's possible to expect that of anyone

It would mean, in my understanding, using the example I gave earlier, that if Lidless were communicating with New Line, it would not be without the Mayor's knowledge. Or that when Voronwe files the papers for our incorporation, the Mayor would be up to date on that process.

New laws for internet use - yes, that too, of course. How do you propose we ignore the laws of internet use? We have to be up to date on things that affect our existence. That doesn't mean the Mayor has to do constant research. But if php informs us of something new happening - and that info would go to Alandriel I guess - or if a member discovers something that would affect us, like the adoption of COPA affecting the TOE, then the Mayor should be told as well.

Jn

Jnyusa wrote:

It would not be an invisible forum, TH. I agree with you that we don't need another one. The penalties thread, which the Mayor is required to keep private, can go in the one invisible forum that we already have.

The proposal is to add a subforum to Outside that would contain Mayoral stuff. If you don't want this either, please suggest an alternative place for posting the admin pool and the roster of members entering the admin pool. The charter requires that these be posted prominently for members to view.

Ok, no problems with that.

Quote:

Does the Mayor have to be given an admin panel in order to post in that forum, or can we enable permissions to write in that forum without enabling the Mayor to edit other people's posts and turn other people's permissions on and off?

No he doesn't have to be an admin (that's why I asked, I'm hoping we won't make him one?) - he could just be in a special rights group, rather than "all members", like you, and have reading and posting rights for Sensitive info enabled.

Quote:

Does it mean the mayor would have to keep an eye on whether something is going on that might affect b77? (Like new laws for internet use, for example.) Because if it means that, I don't think it's possible to expect that of anyone

It would mean, in my understanding, using the example I gave earlier, that if Lidless were communicating with New Line, it would not be without the Mayor's knowledge. Or that when Voronwe files the papers for our incorporation, the Mayor would be up to date on that process.

New laws for internet use - yes, that too, of course. How do you propose we ignore the laws of internet use? We have to be up to date on things that affect our existence. That doesn't mean the Mayor has to do constant research. But if php informs us of something new happening - and that info would go to Alandriel I guess - or if a member discovers something that would affect us, like the adoption of COPA affecting the TOE, then the Mayor should be told as well.

Jn

Ah, ok, I understand that.
If it's just a case of telling the mayor of what goes on, that's ok with me.
Of course we have to be up to date with internet law (did I say otherwise?), but for me, saying "the mayor will be cognizant" meant that it's the mayor's duty to keep informed, ie having to follow the latest news about COPA for example. And I think that's asking too much of the office.
"The mayor should be told" is quite different from "the mayor needs to keep up to date" - I just wanted to know which is meant by the clause.

Th - maybe we should use the word 'aware' instead of cognizant. The ballot as it reads now doesn't say that the mayor has to keep up to date on everything ... it can be interpreted as a passive role, imo, which is how I view the Mayor - a record keeper, a clearinghouse for information.

Re special permissions - yes, if we can give the Mayor writing permission in the admin forum, that would be perfect. I too do not want the Mayor to have an admin panel.

Voronwe: there's one error on the ballot

[Question 4. Concerning eligibility.
PLEASE SELECT ONE:
A. Members will be eligible to serve as Mayor after being a member for three months and making at least 100 posts (as with Admins/Rangers).
B. Members will be eligible to serve as Mayor after being a member for three months and being nominated for the office by another
member. ]

Admins have to be on board six months, not three. I don't think the mayor should be less than an admin. And there is nothing about post count in the admin requirement. If it is added here as an option, there should be another option to exclude it.

If what you intended, though, was to make the requirements the same as Admins, but with one option including a nomination and the other option not including a nomination, then the choices should be A. 6 months, B. 6 months + nomination.

Jn

Thanks for your comments, guys. I will update the ballot accordingly. I also realized that I failed to add a question choosing the name of the deputy/assistant, so I will do that as well.

I have updated the ballot. Please share your further comments.

Last correction, Voronwe. Question 9:

If the Mayor's thread is in the Admin forum, the admins will be able to see it.

Either the question has to be changed to:

-- the mayor's private stuff (paraphrase) will be kept in a thread in the hidden admin forum

or ... if you still want to create this choice

--A new hidden forum will be created for use by the mayor

If you want a straight up/down vote on the Mayor using the hidden admin forum to store things that are not supposed to be public, then the question has to state that the admins can see it. And for those who only show up to vote, it's probably wise to add TH's observation that the Mayor will have permission to post in the forum without actually having admin powers.

Jn

Fixed. I hope.

Other comments?

Looks good, let's vote!

I agree with th.