Questions - Wynna

[Brokenbone]

I have possibly poorly understood what I think were some jurisdiction & Charter related views expressed in this thread, so if my question is already sort of answered, forgive me.

Admin portfolios are defined in the Charter. Most are vague enough that one could construe nearly any conceivable issue as falling into possibly EVERY portfolio. An example would be pretty much any change in game rules. DMA on alert because of standards, DM training, whatever. PA on alert because any change in game means the players are playing something different. TA on alert assuming that even a trivial script needs adjusting. This one's particularly tongue-in-cheek, but the IA could state a position as well because without the infrastructure upon which to play, there is no game at all, is there?

LA I've always just seen as the Charter champion, veto dispenser and PR head... I guess a game change could be ummm... good or bad PR or something.

Anyhow, what I think I'm seeing is a suggestion that whenever there's even the smallest overlap in jurisdictions on a given issue, that you plan to see that somehow cleared up? Possibly by involving even more Admin? Again, it's possible I'm just confused. I guess a little elaboration would be welcome.

[Twiggy]

Overturning a previous Admin decision is bad form. It opens the door to everything one Admin accomplishes being undone by the next Admin.

Doesn't that tie the hands of the electorate entirely? The Admin are not infallible collectively or individually. They can even make unilateral decisions in many instances if they wish.

The system of leadership in ALFA has several checks and balances built in. The quickest and easiest is Lead veto. However, in cases of poor judgment or unpopular policy where Lead supports the decisions, the final checks are the ability of the voters to elect a different Admin in the next session and the recall. What is the purpose of either action if Admin decisions should not be overturned? Should we be bound by unpopular policies, even those that are not game breaking, due to etiquette?

[Wynna]

Anyhow, what I think I'm seeing is a suggestion that whenever there's even the smallest overlap in jurisdictions on a given issue, that you plan to see that somehow cleared up? Possibly by involving even more Admin? Again, it's possible I'm just confused. I guess a little elaboration would be welcome.

I find the Charter pretty clear on what issues belong to which Admin. We really haven't had many jurisdictional challenges since the Charter came into being. If there's a small overlap in jurisdiction, I wouldn't expect there to be an issue. The Admin of ALFA have proved pretty capable of correctly identifying an issue and calling "Mine!" when a ball is hit to the outfield (pardon the Americanism). I can only really think of a few issues that have ended up in embroiled free-for-alls. The issue bringing it all up again is planetouched. Once or twice or a dozen times it was crafting. Although I'm sure others will respond quickly with something I've forgotten, it seems to me that the vast majority of the time, Admin are not only willing to take both ownership and input from others on an issue, but to concede ownership and provide input, too. The intent to provide a formal process is not an intent to change how any of how regular operating procedure has happened, but merely to cover the times when an issue grows to become an all consuming, pan-ALFA point of contention.

[Wynna]

Overturning a previous Admin decision is bad form. It opens the door to everything one Admin accomplishes being undone by the next Admin.

Doesn't that tie the hands of the electorate entirely? The Admin are not infallible collectively or individually. They can even make unilateral decisions in many instances if they wish.

The system of leadership in ALFA has several checks and balances built in. The quickest and easiest is Lead veto. However, in cases of poor judgment or unpopular policy where Lead supports the decisions, the final checks are the ability of the voters to elect a different Admin in the next session and the recall. What is the purpose of either action if Admin decisions should not be overturned? Should we be bound by unpopular policies, even those that are not game breaking, due to etiquette?

I suppose we could go round and round on which is potentially worse for ALFA, the expectation of all past decisions being overturned or the fatalism of nothing every being able to be changed...but we don't really have to because both are extremes that are never really going to happen.

An unpredictable ratio of decisions are always going to be unpopular with an unknown portion of the membership. It's not unpopularity that could see the overturning of a previous Admin decision, however, but illegality. If somehow an Admin block ramrods through a Charter-breaking issue, then of course it would be the responsibility of the next Admin (presumably after a quick recall vote by the constituency charged with the checking of actions on the irresponsible prior Admin) to review the issue. I don't have any idea how that could happen with the checks and balances built in as well as the watchful eye of a very savvy and vociferous community on all Admin actions, but if it did, then it would be up to the new Admin wishing to review that decision to prove illegality under ALFA's system of governance before proceeding with a review of the issue.

In the case that touched off this debate, Planetouched, there was no illegality of action on Admin's part. In the absence of specific guidelines for a cross-portfolio issue, Rotku admirably attempted to negotiate the vagueness of section 3.7 of the Charter:

3.7 General Authorities

The Administrators shall have authority to make any decisions for this community not otherwise described in this Charter.

Rather than see future Admin castigated for what seems to be a hole in the Charter, I grow more and more convinced with every question posed on this issue that it is more sensible to provide a process for these extreme cases by adding a clause to section 2.1 of the Charter defining such process.

[Mikayla]

Wynna:

Rather than see future Admin castigated for what seems to be a hole in the Charter, I grow more and more convinced with every question posed on this issue that it is more sensible to provide a process for these extreme cases by adding a clause to section 2.1 of the Charter defining such process.

My work here is done. Happy Thanksgiving (to those that celebrate it!).