The Charter and do we need a Constitutional Committee?

[MShady]

Here's a thought...

Why does a gaming community need a constitutional committee?

I was a member of it post-Quake and helped to some degree. It was vital at the time to actually build the new Charter. I was happy to help in a very minor way...

Now it seems like it is more an obstacle to change.

Why should a community that elects 5 Admins and has many experienced HDMs and DMs require the Lead or CC to submit a charter change?

In a ways the CC has been a check and balance, but when the Lead Admin or CC head does not want to change something, what than? Nothing.

The changes being suggested about changing the constituncies do indeed require a Charter change. But why can't the changes be put to a DM or community vote?

I think ALFA would be well served by this change. The ability for DMs or other Admins to put up ballot initiatives hardly seems unreasonable. We're pretty much all adults here, right?

If there should be an obstactle to a change, it should be the voters who don't want the change rather than depending on the Lead or CC.

MShady

[Dorn]

Agreed.

We have a rulebook and standards
Establishes the rules by which we play and these give rise to the 'theme' of alfa

We have administrators
They offer choices (often from their staff) and ultimately make decisions to set direction on behalf of the community. Just make Infra responsible for timing elections.

We have Dms/players
They vote on issues the admin think are big enough to warrent everyone being involved (few) and they vote on making sure the asdmin are not loose-nuts who will take alfa away from it's path (elections and recalls)

[fluffmonster]

the CC isn't particularly important or therefore relevant to your concern. They run elections, and that's about it. getting rid of the CC wouldn't help with your problem.

I tried to get rid of it when the charter was done, but somebody wanted to keep it.

[MShady]

Running elections is fine. That bit is all good.

When it comes to modifying the charter though... why do we need them for that?

These changes people are talking about... if the Lead and/or CC head blocking/not acting on them seems like a real hinderance.

Why not just leave the Charter in the hands of the Admins and DMs? Have a Charter change work just like a Recall? 1 to submit the change, 2 to second and off to a vote on it?

[Squamatus]

I fail to see why a game project needs ~any~ committees. Or bylaws, or subsections, or focus groups, or more staff heads than players.

crushingbeauracracy is crushing

[ThinkTank]

Sorry squam, we need to form a committee to decide whether its correct to form a comittee on decideing if we need a constitutional committee. The result should be in some time 100 years after we'r dead.

[Lusipher]

This is why this place has had so much failure...because it ceased being a gaming project and it became goverment. Lets get back to having fun and have less red tap and sillyness. Myself included.

[Cassiel]

The CC brings three main things to ALFA as I see it as a former CC head:

First, as has already been mentioned, the CC is a disinterested group to run elections. That's important straight off.

Second, it collectively has a lot of experience in managing, interpreting, and understanding how the charter works. I will shortly post a half-dozen reasons why open elections need some serious thought, for instance. Because it exists and holds discussions openly, its experience on matters which have been discussed in the past is also a matter of public record in the appropriate forums (Constitutional Committee and CC proposals).

Thirdly, it's an impartial group. It draws its members from all quarters of ALFA - HDMs, ADMs, builders, players - and as such it can represent the views of those disparate groups to those people who, in the aftermath of the quake, it was decided should be able to change the way we do things. The charter specifies that lead can propose amendments, but so can the CC - thus change can come from a source other than lead.

Suggesting the CC are in some sense a block to change is ridiculous - the changes in the voting bodies in December 2006 were presided over by the CC. At the time, it is worth pointing out that a paltry 1 of 14 people wanted what is now being suggested.

[Senor T]

The CC has proven to be an effective moderator of ALFAn politics. For whatever reason, people tend to respect the CC's decisions when it comes to running elections and managing things, and that's valuable.

The CC also recommends charter changes. Currently only the Lead and CC can do that.

However, elected admins do indeed reduce the direct need for the CC to do all but govern the election process. The CC appointment system is perhaps the most cabal-like system in ALFA, but at the same time it's important that it stays outside of the political system as much as possible. I would think that an appointment system with approval from the admin body would be sufficient. Let LA appoint and the admins approve the members of the CC that will oversee the elections and call people out if they try to circumvent the charter.

As well, it'd make sense to let any admin recommend changes to the charter and just leave it at that. Relying on just one position to suggest changes to the rules seems risky.

[Cassiel]

The CC has proven to be an effective moderator of ALFAn politics. For whatever reason, people tend to respect the CC's decisions when it comes to running elections and managing things, and that's valuable.

Thanks, T - and props to kmj for keeping up the good work.

However, elected admins do indeed reduce the direct need for the CC to do all but govern the election process.

I'd suggest this would be more true if you'd said... "However, effective admins..." When admins are working well together and getting stuff done without pissing off all and sundry, the CC has very little to do apart from presiding over their re-election - and it's bloody nice when it happens, in my limited experience!

In terms of the CC appointment system, I think it is - as you say - extremely cabal-like, but I think it works pretty well. At the moment the check and balance is simple - if the CC lead isn't doing a good job, Lead Admin can depose them. So far we've not had any problems...

[fluffmonster]

The only function of any import the CC has done in a long time is manage voting for admin, recalls, and charter amendments. It is a big exaggeration to say its done anything else. One might claim that its an important backstop in its ability to propose charter amendments, but I see that as not just irrelevant but also contrary to its impartiality. The reason the CC lead as voting monitor works is precisely because of their impartiality, and its just not possible for the CC to take a stand on charter revision while maintaining that. Also, there has been plenty of occasion for the CC to propose charter amendment in response to charter shortcomings thus far but nothing has happened.

The CC is for the most part an anachronism of our past. Its like an appendix, though that would be overstating its relevance. The only part that matters is the voting monitor. There's no sense in keeping the CC, and at the same time there's no sense in spending any effort to get rid of it.

[paazin]

Well, a simple enough reason to modify it or scrap it altogether is that it increases the amount of communication and work needed for day-to-day business.

One notable example is the voter rolls; there's often confusion as to why people are omitted from the voting list, other people are present, etc. Scrapping the whole 'notifying the CC' and instead simply relying on our internal database should be fine substitute, effectively lowering the workload and confusion for everyone.

[Cassiel]

No offence, paazin, but the example you outline is *precisely* why we need a CC.

Internal rolls have, in the past, frequently been months out of date, and people have remained on the HDM/ADM lists long after they'd resigned or after their server had departed. Similarly, there have been a few cases of rush-through jobs being tried on appointments following the opening of self-nomination periods.

Of course, no one would be expected to know this unless they'd been on the CC or thought it through pretty bloody carefully - which is why I feel we need an impartial body to manage the electoral rolls, and you need that impartial body to have experience of what can go wrong. Simple as that. The same is true of charter amendments.

[Swift]

The only part that matters is the voting monitor. There's no sense in keeping the CC, and at the same time there's no sense in spending any effort to get rid of it.

+1

So we are all agreed then, this is a total non issue?

Good. Lets talk about something else now.