Staff in the CdeC - Yes or no?

[Silver Guard]

I have ecently realised that staff can apply via patrician or Elder, and propose two courses of action:
1) Restrict Staff to the Elders Group
2) Remove staff from applying altogether

My reasoning for the latter is thus: the staff have an important role to take, not only are they patricians of the Curia, but they are also site moderators. In such a role controvocy WILL arise around them, as recently seen in H&G/Tac and earlier with tBP/Spartan/Crandar. As such I think the CdeC should become a non-staff body, the staff have far ranging powers, and I think the CdeC should not be inculded in this.
Site elders deserve the chance, these are the senatorii and divi, ex-staff, who have proven their worth, yet no longer have the burden of moderating, and opifex (pl?) who have proven their worth in contrabutions to the site. Both are long-serving members and as such deserve their own section to the CdeC.

[Belisarius]

If you mean staff as in Quaestors, if they have an interest in the Curia I think they should be allowed, as for Hex we wont apply.

[Richard the Lionheart]

Why doesn't anybody like us Quaestors?

[Perikles]

Exactly, I was on every frickin council they could come up with and I applied for before I joined staff, all I am is a Civitate that can ban...

But I doubt I'll apply...

[imb39]

OK, please read the discussion regarding this in the Curia, here.

It was a strong desire from Hex that we were not involved in terms of voting rights. In an effort to address the legitimate concerns about the numbers of 'Elders' available for this, we added Staff as they actually have a good over view of the forums - they do police it after all. If you wish to change this, then you'll need to propose an ammendment - but remember it was included deliberately.

Silver Guard, the CdeC was originally conceived do have virtually no Staff input at all (well in this incarnation).

[Aristocrat]

Personally I see no problem with junior staff being allowed on the CdeC, if they are promoted during their term in the council then they should have to step down (and I mean promoted to Hex).
However, they either have to be either as elders or as patricians, not both, and the site elders seems more reasonable.

[King Henry V]

I think staff should definetly be restricted to the site elders group. They have enough of a voice already in decisions and I think it would only be fair to allow others a chance to participate in government. However, I don't think staff should be completely banned from the CdeC, but there numbers should nevertheless be restricted in the Site Elders group. I think that either a maximum of three members of staff should be allowed to participate, or staff should be totally restricted from the group, yet nevertheless be allowed be allowed to voice their opinion but not vote on matters.

[imb39]

Staff are 'Elders'

[Belisarius]

Well legally speaking maybe, but in reality I dont even regard myself as an elder yet.

Since Junior staff are basically just civitates who can moderate, and since the Curia is basically a Civitates activity I see no reason why to restrict them, wont the voters make the choice?

[Muizer]

wont the voters make the choice?

If we trust the voter to elect a balanced CdeC there is no need for the elder-patrician at all. Personally I doubt it is needed, but I have no objection against some sort of safeguard. My main objection against the elders section was that there might be a structural shortage of currently active candidates in that pool. Staff, having the same qualifications as many (other) elders, are by definition active members, so I would consider them a welcome addition. The only problem I see is the possibility of staff members taking part in CdeC disciplinary processes brought about by warnings they issued themselves. I think that would need looking into. In general the relationship between warnings and CdC discipline remains a potential source of conflict, regardless of whether staff are on the CdeC or not.

[Perikles]

If we trust the voter to elect a balanced CdeC there is no need for the elder-patrician at all. Personally I doubt it is needed, but I have no objection against some sort of safeguard. My main objection against the elders section was that there might be a structural shortage of currently active candidates in that pool. Staff, having the same qualifications as many (other) elders, are by definition active members, so I would consider them a welcome addition. The only problem I see is the possibility of staff members taking part in CdeC disciplinary processes brought about by warnings they issued themselves. I think that would need looking into. In general the relationship between warnings and CdC discipline remains a potential source of conflict, regardless of whether staff are on the CdeC or not.

I think that in the tBP trial anyone too closely involved was not allowed to participate, so this doesn't matter...

[Ragabash]

I don't see problem with junior staff being in the CdeC, but do they have enough time and will to spend time with moderating and being a CdeC member. :hmmm:

I guess it's fine altough I must admit that moderating might take too much time from the CdeC responsibilties. Perhaps I will be proven wrong about this in the future.

[Tom Paine]

Actually those involved to closely, eg myself, elected not to involve ourselves; there was, however, no legal block to us involving ourselves.

[Spiff]

Actually those involved to closely, eg myself, elected not to involve ourselves; there was, however, no legal block to us involving ourselves.

Well it did say "Councillors of the CdeC are encouraged to abstain from voting if they feel their judgement may be unacceptably influenced by bias.", this encouragement could be very strong if it came from the rest of the cdec.

Maybe the current CdeC could do with a line to that effect somewhere too

[Obi Wan Asterix]

If staff = civitates what is the reason for restricting them?

[Publius]

I have no problem with staff taking part in this council. By virtue of their position they tend to be some of the more responsible and active members of the site, and Im all for having the best qualified people in the positions. Of course this doesnt mean I want to see the CdeC run by staff, but I do think that they should be free to apply. Becoming a moderator should not block you from participating in other facets of the site.

[Spartan]

If the active staff wishes to take an active part in the councils, I don't see a real issue with it. My only concern would be the time commitment necessary for both roles.

[Halie Satanus]

I would rather staff do take part in the CdeC, the more points of view the better, especially in civ votes. though perhaps the number should be restricted.

[Muizer]

How about a mixed solution? Something like:

• candidates are divided in three pools: patricians, staff and elders
• all candidates will be entered in a single multiple choice vote
• from the results are drawn the top 4 patricians and top 4 elders
• the other 8 seats are assigned to the remaining highest scoring candidates, regardless of the pool they are in

[Tom Paine]

Bad idea, Muizer. Then you are trying to insert a difference. As we staff are effectively civitates, and having served (albeit and still serving) as staff we are site elders, why not just put us in the site elders pool?