board77

IS: no worries, I'm not offended – far from it actually for I really don't like being in power (far too many headaches ) But, and for as long as we're here on this phpbb it seems I'm stuck in the role as keeper, for as Holby pointed out (and thanks for your post, I'm deeply honoured by your trust) I am the registered 'owner/responsible' of b77. Nothing I or anyone else can do anything about – short of opening our own place - which I hope we'll get to in due time.

I like Jny's edit re Designating Spokesperson very much and I'm all for giving the Mayor discretionary powers to appoint people as he/she sees fit and as volunteers are available or to give volunteers that do come forward the go ahead.

Jny wrote:

The Mayor's job would be to know what's going on, particularly where the board interfaces with the outside world, and to decide when advice and consent of the admins or the members is needed - not to physically execute every transaction him/herself.

I agree 100%

As to backup to the Mayors position: I don't believe we need to formally elect anybody to run alongside him/her. When and if the Mayor needs help, he/she should be allowed to delegate freely either for a period of time (in case of holiday absence) or on a 'per job' basis, yet with the provision of keeping track of things and/or catching up after absences.
_______________
Resident witchâ„¢
a candle for Areanor

I like Imp's view of the office, but I'm not so sure about the role of the deputy. If there is a constant deputy, we'd need another election - all the same stress as for the mayor, but for a much minor role.
This makes what Alandriel says sound good: the mayor appoints someone if it's necessary.
However, this makes me worried about the power this gives him.

So:
- if there 's a constant deputy, I think rather than a second election, it should be just the runner-up of the mayoral election

- if we let the mayor appoint his own deputy when necessary, we'd need some safeguards against the mayor delegating unnecessarily, and always to their special friends or something like that.

Personally, I prefer the first option.

TH: - if we let the mayor appoint his own deputy when necessary, we'd need some safeguards against the mayor delegating unnecessarily, and always to their special friends or something like that.

What the mayor would be delegating is the power to record join dates on a spreadsheet.

I'm all for having procedures to guarantee impartiality but I'd like to save them for when impartiality is really needed. I really don't care if the Mayor delegates a job like this to his/her best friend.

Jn

I have removed the "PRELIMINARY" from the name of this thread, and have updated the second post with all of the various viable suggestions that people have made regarding the different issues. I believe that at this point I could draft a comprehensive ballot on this issue but I wanted to leave it up for discussion for a little longer before I did so. Pleae review the second post and comment as necessary.

Impenitent wrote:

1. The Mayor should be an elected position.
The mayor needs to be a person with a thick enough skin to roll with the punches for a long period of time (9 - 12 months?), so would need to be of robust enough constitution to cope with standing for election and cope with possibly not being elected.

2. The Mayor definitely needs back up! Unfair and unrealistic to expect 9 - 12 months service without real life intervening. A mayoral team would be best IMO - to peeople, elected at the same time, and they can sort out the tasks between them in accordance with interests, time available, etc.

3. The Mayor is a manager/coordinator/enabler - not making the decisions, but facilitating them and ensuring that records are kept and processes followed. So - would not BE a spokesperson, but would enable a spokesperson when the occasion arises (not create the occasion for a spokesperson).

2. This would be a Mayor and a Mayoral Assistant? (as opposed to Mayor and Second Mayor, or something of the sort?)
3. Re enabling a spokesperson, is this a unilateral decision, or does the Mayor consult with the admins/the membership and seek consensus? Does this need to be specified?

This seems different from what Jn has just said above, i.e., such situations 'will arise informally and not require decision making per se by the Mayor at all.'

So a situation arises, someone speaks to the Mayor about the situation and offers to handle it, and the Mayor officializes it by authorizing the person to speak for the board?

Alandriel wrote:

As to backup to the Mayors position: I don't believe we need to formally elect anybody to run alongside him/her. When and if the Mayor needs help, he/she should be allowed to delegate freely either for a period of time (in case of holiday absence) or on a 'per job' basis, yet with the provision of keeping track of things and/or catching up after absences.

This goes along more with the idea of volunteers to assist the Mayor. How about if the Mayor, upon election, solicits volunteers to be available to assist him/her, so that s/he knows who is available to call on should the need arise?

Actually, now with this notion of the Mayor needing to know what's going on 'where the board interfaces with the outside world, and to decide when advice and consent of the admins or the members is needed', I think I prefer the idea of an elected Mayoral team. That would mean they would both at all times be ready to fullfill any given Mayoral duty (which is less likely to be the case with volunteers, IMO).

Alandriel wrote:

Quote:

As to backup to the Mayors position: I don't believe we need to formally elect anybody to run alongside him/her. When and if the Mayor needs help, he/she should be allowed to delegate freely either for a period of time (in case of holiday absence) or on a 'per job' basis, yet with the provision of keeping track of things and/or catching up after absences.

I agree.


Jnyusa said:

Quote:

I'm all for having procedures to guarantee impartiality but I'd like to save them for when impartiality is really needed. I really don't care if the Mayor delegates a job like this to his/her best friend.

I agree.

we could certainly have a Mayor's Forum that was visible to all but postable only by the Mayors, perhaps in addition to a "secret Mayor's forum" for confidential information.

I would like to have a subforum "Michel Delving" maintained by the Mayor, where the admin pool and the roster of new entrants to the pool would be posted. That could also be where we put some member FAQ,s and a subforum where members can contact the mayor, especially for B77<->The World issues.

This would require a screen name called "Mayor" (or whatever the title) whose password would change with the officeholds, like the Administrator i.d. does right now, and a subforum with split permissions, like Outside is now, so that one subforum would only be postable by the Mayor and another by members.

Edit: sorry - I got confused about structure while writing this. If it were placed in Outside (which is what I was thinking) there would have to be two additional subfora - one called Michel Delving with restricted write permission, and another called the Mayor's lobby or something where everyone could post. If we created a new forum then the subfora within it would have different permissions. Clear as mud, right?

Regarding invisible forums ... we have an invisible admin forum right now, right? That is where warnings against admins should go, imo. I have to look up the formal complaint procedure again - if private, it should go there too. If public it could go in Michel Delving. Record of Penalties against members should, I think be kept in private ... the announcement of the penalty is public at the Hearing, but keeping the record until the penalty expires is not something that a person should have to view every time they open the board. So perhaps there could be a "Mayor's Thread" inside the invisible Admins forum where the Mayor would keep two updated posts (or more if necessary) - one for outstanding member penalties and one for outstanding admin warnings.

Quote:

This would be a Mayor and a Mayoral Assistant? (as opposed to Mayor and Second Mayor, or something of the sort?)

That's how I see it; one person responsible, the other as back up. And I would prefer TH's idea that there is one election, with runner up appointed as deputy.

Reasoning: Delegating freely is all very well - and issues of impartiality aside, I would prefer to know that the deputy is endorsed by the membership if we envision the Mayoral position as enabler, not just amanuensis.

AND - ready and willing to step into the ring whenever necessary, with appropriate know-how (I, for example, wouldn't know a spread sheet if I fell over one)

Quote:

Cerin wrote:

Alandriel wrote:

As to backup to the Mayors position: I don't believe we need to formally elect anybody to run alongside him/her. When and if the Mayor needs help, he/she should be allowed to delegate freely either for a period of time (in case of holiday absence) or on a 'per job' basis, yet with the provision of keeping track of things and/or catching up after absences.

This goes along more with the idea of volunteers to assist the Mayor. How about if the Mayor, upon election, solicits volunteers to be available to assist him/her, so that s/he knows who is available to call on should the need arise?
Actually, now with this notion of the Mayor needing to know what's going on 'where the board interfaces with the outside world, and to decide when advice and consent of the admins or the members is needed', I think I prefer the idea of an elected Mayoral team. That would mean they would both at all times be ready to fullfill any given Mayoral duty (which is less likely to be the case with volunteers, IMO).

I agree with Cerin; I like the idea of an endorsed deputy, who can step into the Mayor's shoes when called upon without causing any cries of outrage by any segment of the membership. S/he is elected; petty grievances against this person acting are therefore out of order.

Quote:

3. Re enabling a spokesperson, is this a unilateral decision, or does the Mayor consult with the admins/the membership and seek consensus? Does this need to be specified?

This seems different from what Jn has just said above, i.e., such situations 'will arise informally and not require decision making per se by the Mayor at all.'

So a situation arises, someone speaks to the Mayor about the situation and offers to handle it, and the Mayor officializes it by authorizing the person to speak for the board?

I don't see a contradiction; Mayor doesn't create situations, but when they arise, the Mayor has been authorized by the membership to give the nod to a spokesperson.

(And I really think the title "mayor" sucks. But...sigh...I'll swing with it.)

Quote:

And I really think the title "mayor" sucks. But...sigh...I'll swing with it.)

Impy, we have necessarily agreed on the term mayor. The only other option currently being considered is Thain, and if I constructed the ballot now, it would be a choice between those two. But its not too late to suggestion another reasonable alternative.

No, no, I'll swing with it.

Just had to...you know...say it. Just once.

I have posted a draft ballot for your viewing pleasure.

Looks great Voronwe.

That is really impressive, Voronwe. I found that discussion to be rather confusing, but you have laid it all out.

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.

Would it be feasible to have someone actually run for Deputy Mayor, but not as part of a team? Would someone want to be Deputy Mayor (actually that idea is much less scary to me than the idea of being Mayor). 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.


Concerning Question 5

Could we add 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?

Edit

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

Voronwe, I think that's very complete and very good.

Deputy Mayor...Assistant Mayor...vice Thain...second banana...

er

Sorry about that.

With regards to electing these two, I think a streamlined process is best, simple. Not multiple elections - would cause membership overload, I think.

We DO have to give thought to overlapping terms though; perhaps the elected team commences the training process X weeks/months or so before the serving team ends its term? Or the outgoing team stays on as consultants for X weeks/months after the handover?

The first team will be creating the substance of the role and will have the hardest job but after that, after they've fleshed out the role and the membership is used to the office of Thain having taken a particular path, it can't be a clean handover - some induction will be needed.

Excellent Voronwe. I'd like to add the option that the Mayor will automatically be the spokesperson to the relevant section (can't remember which one it was). Currently it actually reads like the Mayor can't be the spokesperson (without selecting themselves which would look like abuse of power).

Otherwise, very nice.

I like the idea of an election with no overlap. Adds a little excitement to the proceedings. It'd be nice to have fun here once in a while!

I like the ballot, mostly - just a few comments.

Quote:

A. The deputy or junior office holder would take office halfway through the term of the senior office holder, and would in turn become the senior office holder at the of the current senior officeholder's term, at which time a new deputy/junior office holder would take office.

In case this option wins, the first mayor would have to go for half his term without a deputy - wondering if we'd need some special provision to help out the first office-holder in that case.

(And there's a typo - the word "end" is missing, where I marked the text red.)

Quote:

2. There will be a private forum readable only by the Mayor(s) where a record of penalties against members and admin/Ranger warnings will be kept.

So, does this rule out keeping the record in the sensitive admin info forum? If this option is voted down, where do we keep those records?

Quote:

The duties of the Mayor include Record Keeping, Verification and Notification regarding various eligibilities, and scheduling Administrator terms of office, designating spokespersons, presiding at boardwide functions and greeting new members.

Greeting new members just means that a standard e-mail is being sent upon registration, doesn't it?
I mean when your registration is activated you get a confirmation e-mail anyway, which could contain the necessary info and the signature of the mayor - it would be nothing he or she actually would have to do.

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?)

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.

Jny wrote:

TH: - if we let the mayor appoint his own deputy when necessary, we'd need some safeguards against the mayor delegating unnecessarily, and always to their special friends or something like that.
What the mayor would be delegating is the power to record join dates on a spreadsheet.

I'm all for having procedures to guarantee impartiality but I'd like to save them for when impartiality is really needed. I really don't care if the Mayor delegates a job like this to his/her best friend.

I agree with what Imp said with respect to this, which is more pertinent than what I had in mind when I made the above objection.
What I was thinking of was only: what if we elect someone, and after a short while he or she delegates their duties to someone for weeks, and then again for a longish time - if we leave it up to the mayor to delegate duties without any safeguards, we might end up with having anyone doing the job except the person we elected to do it!

(But maybe there'd be safeguards against that sort of thing in the tex of how to remove an official already?)

(Imp, a spreadsheet is the sort of file you have in Excel (for example) - no idea why it's called that. In German we call it a calculation table. Just sayin', in case you fall over one! )

Alatar, I have added your proposed choice to the spokesperson section.

truehobbit wrote:

In case this option wins, the first mayor would have to go for half his term without a deputy - wondering if we'd need some special provision to help out the first office-holder in that case.

I think that needs to be considered a strike against this choice. I think it would get too complicated to add some special provision to cover this choice.

Quote:

(And there's a typo - the word "end" is missing, where I marked the text red.)

Fixed.

Quote:

Quote:

2. There will be a private forum readable only by the Mayor(s) where a record of penalties against members and admin/Ranger warnings will be kept.

So, does this rule out keeping the record in the sensitive admin info forum? If this option is voted down, where do we keep those records?

I would say that if this option is voted down, those records would have to be kept in the sensitive admin forum.

Quote:

Quote:

The duties of the Mayor include Record Keeping, Verification and Notification regarding various eligibilities, and scheduling Administrator terms of office, designating spokespersons, presiding at boardwide functions and greeting new members.

Greeting new members just means that a standard e-mail is being sent upon registration, doesn't it?
I mean when your registration is activated you get a confirmation e-mail anyway, which could contain the necessary info and the signature of the mayor - it would be nothing he or she actually would have to do.

Yes, that's correct.

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.

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).

If anyone else has any suggestions on the ballot, please speak up soon, so that we can get this vote underway.

Voronwe, did you see the questions I posed? I'll copy them here so that you don't have to go looking (if you already answered them, sorry!)

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.

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.


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?

Edit

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

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