New times, new vision, new ALFA?

[Rumple C]

I am paraphrasing now, but someone around here once told me that being Lead Admin is nothing but showing up once a month and posting about a new election and that it should be called "Election Admin" instead.

Ex-LA opinion - That person was probably doing a shit job at being Lead Admin. And there have been a few in recent memory (not heegz). The position is as much, or as little as someone makes it. In an ideal circumstance LA would be promoting ALFA to the world (as Public Relations falls under them), greasing personalities of the other admin so they're able to get on and co-operate, and most importantly (imo)... try to motivate and inspire the general population into playing more.

Running on a whim for the name plate, then snoozing on the job a week later lets down the population. I'd note that some LA's haven't even been able to motivate themselves to write "alfa election" on their calendar, and remember to run the things. Sadly true.

I've nothing against 1 year terms (or reducing positions to an unholy trinity of LA/PA, DMA, TA/IA), but jeez, you better get the right persons in the positions.

Good to see you floating ideas, Boomer.

[HEEGZ]

I like the idea of one year terms. After the LA election this month, we wrap up our spring election cycle, with a break for July before the fall election cycle starts up. We could just make this LA election the last 6 month term, with the upcoming election cycle being bumped up to 1 year terms. I agree with Zelknolf that doing a team election is not a good idea, but I like the 1 year term. Also, if someone doesn't make it the full year, we can always have an interim election, since a procedure is already in place to deal with that.

[kid]

I would also like to add that everyone should be eligible to vote, not just certain cliques of an ever decreasing pool of people.

Well, yeah, the current situation about only DMs and staff is kinda silly.
If we really want to make a criteria it should be much broader than that.
"Been at ALFA1/2 for a year", or whatever, to avoid... I don't know what really... a surprise coup?
Anyways, silly that we don't have voting power for everyone.

So again, as in with any ALFA discussion we have... It boils down, for me at least, to the same beloved game...
So who's call is it anyways?

[Zelknolf]

I'll vote for whatever term length; admin terms are, in practice, until the admin steps down. It's very hard to unseat an incumbent, and few people bother to try. We should have terms so that there's a defined date for a burnt-out admin to step down gracefully and with a sense of having completed what they signed up for, still. For some, such a breakpoint would decide whether or not they give it another go (and let's be honest-- we need people who are willing to do that; experience seems to come with stability. It trains tech folk toward smaller/sustainable/less-disruptive changes and trains personnel folk to broader views and more-agreeable mediation).

Making IA/TA/DMA elections be open to all members has been on the table for years, and should probably be proposed separately to make sure that we get the things we agree on. Stapling ideas that can come with different opinions together tends to sink both for grumps about the other. We just need an LA to formally propose the charter revision and for HDMs/Admin to vote on it (with the current population, it would probably pass)

[HEEGZ]

Bleh.

I would make the suggestion for charter revision now, but we are mid election. I guess it will have to wait for the next LA to take over. Self nominations are until the end of June 7 if anyone wants to run for LA and take on a few charter updates. I can help anyone with the transition and there is a low time commitment.

[Rumple C]

I suggest letting folks who run define their own terms.

"A vote for me, is a vote for me running the show for 7 months until I get busy etc etc"

[Swift]

What is the point of a Lead Admin in ALFA?

If nothing else, they are there to deal with issues that the other Admin cannot, for whatever reason (eg a player complains about the Player Admin meaning the PA is in no position to rule, kick it to lead to make the ruling) or as a tie breaker vote should the other Admin be split 2-2 for...whatever it is that might need an Admin vote.

As a circuit breaker alone, it is a good position to have. Better to reshape the position into something that people feel is more useful than once a month election posts than to do away with it entirely.

[oldgrayrogue]

Implement longer terms. Keep staggered elections. As to longer terms, of late it seems like admin tend to serve multiple terms anyway. Staggering prevents abuse by a group that wants to change AlFA to suit their image regardless of what the rest of the community wants.

[kid]

Staggering prevents abuse by a group that wants to change AlFA to suit their image regardless of what the rest of the community wants.

I don't understand how, can you explain?

To me spaced elections just seem like a bad way to work. like picking a new minister every couple of months.

I'd think that if you stick Zelk and Boom in a room together for a year... Then assuming both survive, there's an actual chance they'll work together. If they just know they have to wait a couple of month till the other get voted off, well, seems like less incentive to try and cooperate.

But to the first question, how do spaced elections prevent a "secret team" to get elected any better than all the elections held at the same time (As long as just one individual is running for each office)?

[Zelknolf]

Well, "secret teams" are less likely than "someone willing to bother all of their mostly-inactive friends to come and vote on a panel of elections." Your friends will get burnt out and start to ingore you if this is routine, but they're more likely to do it if it's once a year.



And, of course, folk work together on the things they agree on, even if that's a very short list. The amount of time that folk have to wait if other admin disagree with them won't change the strategy-- if you can't build support for a thing, you don't do the thing. Whether you hope for that to change in two months or ten doesn't matter; the support still isn't there at the moment of the decision, and you have to redirect efforts toward the things that more people want/agree on.

[boombrakh]

[Post deleted by author]

[kid]

Well, "secret teams" are less likely than "someone willing to bother all of their mostly-inactive friends to come and vote on a panel of elections." Your friends will get burnt out and start to ingore you if this is routine, but they're more likely to do it if it's once a year.

Eh, I get it, still slim imm. If someone is that eager to usurpe ALFA they'll do it over the span of a few months just the same. Maybe i'm naive, dunno.

If you like you can put some "activity" requirement before votes.
(Been active by certain criteria, a certain amount in the last year).

Otherwise... you can't really fear the voters. That's like Rommey would say we can't have votes on Mondays cause all the black people like to vote on that date.

It's less efficient to have a scattered team of admins, I would imagine.
Anyways, just blabbing. Don't care, you guys do the work, so do it as you like.

[Zelknolf]

And the counter is that the whole point of scattered groups is to make it hard to do things that are bad ideas. You want a bunch of folk who can/do fight each other; those scattered admin teams push everyone on them into doing things that people agree about.


If you just want efficiency, then we should drop democracy. Scrap the notion of a panel of admin entirely and move to a dictatorship. Seems that it would have a similar result to intentionally filling a panel with people holding the same opinions, but we wouldn't have to worry about the inefficiencies of furnishing the appearance of a more-diverse governing body.

[kid]

Na we already got the five admin and checks and balances between them.
Wouldn't want that changed.
But really am not gonna do any of the work so you folks do what you think best.

Oh and i never said they'll have the same opinions... can't imagine anyone replacing you or even foam till you guys are fed up.

[oldgrayrogue]

Make the term of each Admin 18 months with staggered elections once a year. Staggering is a check on the process to ensure continuity. If a group of 3 Admin only, for example, were elected to a 2 year term, they could conceivably change ALFA entirely within that time frame regardless of their election "platform" and of the desires of the community. Always having "holdovers" from prior administrations minimizes the risk of that happening.