AMENDEMENT - Bringing the TWCC in line with Content Administration

[Belisarius]

Article III. The Content Branch

The Content Branch oversees content produced on the main page of the site and the work of the official publications of the Site. The Chief of Branch shall have general organizational and administrative control of all content areas of the site

Senior Staff - Content Directors

Each Content Branch shall have a Content Director appointed by the Head of Content. Editors must be Citizens of the Forum. They shall have overall responsibility for running their section and ensuring that content produced for their section does not breach the Terms of Service.

Junior Staff

Junior Staff of the Content Branch are contributors and writers of the various publications and articles on the front page. They may be drawn from any rank, and are hired and fired by the Content Director of the group for which they contribute.

The Rationale -

Content reforms have merged the Wiki, Script and other groups into one united content staff, not all are editors.

2 - The content branch has been unable to function within the confines of the TWCC and has broken it on a regular basis. Unfortunately it was right to do so as we are hard pressed for staff as it is. The fact of the matter is that any attempt to recruit writers from the Curia has almost always gotten more volunteers form normal members and current staff then it ever has from the Curia. One need only look back at Calvins plea to the Curia to help revive the ES and the "response" it got. The Head of Content wants to be able to promote who he/she thinks is best regardless of ranks.

In addition phenomenally cool future projects might require us to get "outside help" and that "help" will have manager status. Instread of breaking the TWCC again as I did about a billion times when I was manager, I'm posting the realistic situation.

We cant work with limitations to Civitates anymore.

[T.C.]

Fully support. There's no need for the TWCC to strangle the Content Branch.

[Jom]

I support, too. The directors are appointed by the Head of Content so there's no need for them to be a citizen if the Head of Content's judgement is being used anyway to ensure that they are a good candidate.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Full support.

[irishron]

Support.

[karamazovmm]

support

[Viking Prince]

Support.

btw -- what is a Branch Manager? Maybe I should wait and support after I know what I am supporting.

(I think you mean Content Director)

[Belisarius]

Support.

btw -- what is a Branch Manager? Maybe I should wait and support after I know what I am supporting.

(I think you mean Content Director)

Mistake, Fixed

I cant imagine why the requirement existed to begin with - though similarly i find it hard to believe that anyone serving as an editor wouldnt qualify for citizenship anyway.

There have been cases where we want promote someone and they have been recommended for Civ but the Cdec has thought they are not ready yet.

[Spiff]

I cant imagine why the requirement existed to begin with - though similarly i find it hard to believe that anyone serving as an editor wouldnt qualify for citizenship anyway.

The idea of citizenship is to reward contribution to the forum, not to be a hurdle preventing contribution.

[Nole4694]

I support seeing as I came up with the idea first!

No really it is, I proposed getting rid of the requirement like a week after I joined the Curia... oh well. Lets hope it passes this time.

I will forgive your thunder stealing this once...

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

Support.

[Bokks]

A bit redundant now... but I support!

[Capt. Fozdike]

Fully Support.

[M D]

OMG WE HAVE BOKK'S SUPPORT

Support

[magpie]

Support!

[y2day]

support

[Katsumoto]

Seaport.

[Legio]

A TEAM SUPPORT

[karamazovmm]

weed support

can't we just move this to vote? there are enough supports here for anything to get through

[Bokks]

weed support

can't we just move this to vote? there are enough supports here for anything to get through

It hasn't been on the floor long enough.
Unless the constitution has changed--which is entirely likely, I'll have to do a brief revisit when I get the chance--I believe it has to be on the debating floor for two weeks or four days or some incriment of time between that.