Board of Directors Management

[PikeStance]

The current version ... a work in Progress
Feedback always welcome


I would like to float the idea of a "Board of Directors" approach to management.
This proposal is actually based on Council–Manager Form of governance. This is very common in small town USA.

The council–manager form is much like a publicly traded corporation. Under the form, an elected governing body, usually called a council, board of alderman, or similar title, is responsible for legislative functions such as establishing policy, passing local ordinance, voting appropriations, and developing an overall vision, similar to a corporate board of directors. The legislative body appoints a professional manager to oversee the administrative operations, implement its policies, and advise it. The manager position is similar to that of corporate chief executive officer(CEO), providing professional management to the board of directors. The position of “mayor” present in this type of legislative body is a largely ceremonial title, and may be selected by the council from among its members or elected as an at-large council member with no executive functions, similar to a non-executive chairman in a corporation.

Issues
+ The Curia currently lacks activity.
+ Citizenship efficacy is at a all time low.

Goal
+ Restore value to Citizenship by raising awareness thus raising efficacy.
+ The purpose is to provide a management apparatus that promotes activity and provide the central purpose of the Curia
+ The propose system creates a management structure to promote citizen action. It centralizes purpose while still allowing an individual citizen to actively participate.

---

The Number of Members of the Board.
Possible name of the Board; Centuriate (in keeping with TWC tradition of using the Roman terminology)
Elections
The Curia will elect members of the board. They will serve together and as a team for a four month period.
The person with the highest number of votes is elected Curator.

1. The Curator:
The Position is elected by the board
Responsibilities:
-Developing an overall vision for the board.
-Coordinating the efforts of all members of the board.
-Publishes monthly Curial Reports.
-Moderator of the Curia

2. The Censor:
The Position is determined by the Curator
Responsibilities:
-Supervises the referral process.
-The Censors ensures the referral process is followed maintaining objectivity throughout the process. The Censor will not vote, but may engage in discussion in cases.
-The remainder of the board will serve as judges on all referral cases.
-Reports all concluded cases to the Curator to be included in the Curial Reports.

3. The Praetor:
The position is determined by the Curator
Responsibilities:
-Updating the CMS
-Responsible for keeping citizens informed and encourages patronization by citizens.
-Creating and maintaining a PM list of citizens.
-Judges referral cases.
-Reports all activity to the Curator to be included in the Curia Reports.

4. The Quaestor
The position is determined by the Curator
Responsibilities:
-Cataloging and maintaining historical record of the site and Curia
-Recording all voting, registration of citizens, Decisions, and amendments.
-Judges referral cases.
-Reports all activity to the Curator to be included in the Curial Reports.

5. The Aedile:
Position is determined by the Curator.
Responsibilities:
-Supervise and coordinate all site and modding awards.
-Seek out candidates for citizenship and large awards and maintains a list potential f members for citizenship and a list of potential large award candidates.
-Judges referral cases.
-Special task coordinator (in needed)
-Reports all activity to the Curator to be included in the Curial Reports.

There will be one badge. The Bade will be Centuriate.
The terms used are for distribution of responsibility. Members may choose to indicate their area of responsibility in the user title or signature.

An interesting idea,.... Since the censor is an unpopular position. I have giving this idea some thought. I may have inferred it in the past.
Referral cases be judged by Citizens who have earned a large award and Admin (who they choose too). The Censor on the board would coordinate it to ensure participation.

---

Proposals/ Decisions
In Regards to Proposals/ Decisions. Blue is the new procedure
A) Citizen Initiated: Citizen create a proposal/ decision by posting a post in the Prothalomos. When three citizens voice support, a Thread is created and there is a vote. If passed, it is presented to the admin for approval or veto.
B) Board Initiated: A member of the board present a proposal/ decision. It is discussed when there is consensus the proposal is posted in the Prothalomos for a discussion after a week a vote thread is created. (There is alreasy three supporters)
C) Citizen Anonymous Initiated: A Citizen approach a board members with a proposal/ decision. The board member can be the "5th" Position or the board member assigned to outreach in relevant community. The Board member presents in either to the board following "B" procedure or directly in the Prothalomos in which it will follow "A" procedure.
Note: All discussion will be public viewed. Access can be determined. Board discussion can be restricted to posting and voting to board only or Citizens may post, but will not be able to vote.

---

Communication
A central component in any organization is communication. Passive communication is the least effective, but least intrusive form of communication. Active communication is the most effective, but could be intrusive depending on that manner in which it is communicated and the relative importance of communication. Many members are are almost entirely focus on their preferred interest. When one becomes a citizen, this does not change. Since citizenship is more than just an award then the site is more than just a site. One of the central questions we like to hear applicants answer is, Why do you want to be a citizen?" I think (based on communication I have had) desire to be informed, but their time is precious. Whenever you are a invested member of any organization, communication is key to knowing what is happening. The Curia (as an organization) has large failed in this capacity. We are left with a key question. How do we keep members of the Curia (citizens) informed? How do we do it so that it doesn't become intrusive or "too much noise?"

As indicated above, elections will be reduced to one every 6 months or one every 3 months (depending on 5 or 10 member board). Elections should also take place at a set time of the month. The Reasoning: Ideally, citizens primary focus should be on e the reason why they have contributed to forum. Limiting elections to a set time and limiting the number of elections is most ideal to ensure citizens remain focus on why they are here.
If elections take place between the *January 1- 15 with the board members taking office on 1 Feb. The next election will be *July 1-15 with Board members taking office on 1 Aug. (*Months are taken at random).

A consistent time for elections would allow citizens to focus on areas of their interest rather than have them periodically check the Curia.

Maximum Participation can be accomplished by either of the following;
1. The information can be conveyed via introductory email upon approval to citizenship.
2. Monthly email that will not only include election information, but information about citizenship applications, proposals/ decisions, Constitutional changes, .... (e.g. Curia Reports).

Every organization in which you may be a member communicate in some form. If the PM only convey elections, then PMs will be reduced to twice a year. If includes important events of the month, then onece a month. Both options is not intrusive when they convey information about a group to which you belong. This being said, I have had great success and 100% positive response sending PMs inviting citizens to participate in discussion and voting. More citizens participated in some capacity than any application ever when I have done this. The idea that citizens find this intrusive is a red herring.

---

Archived Proposals

(Option 1) 6 Member Board: Spoiler for Details:  Six board members are elected by the Curia. The Officers choose among themselves different areas of responsibility. For example, Curator, Censor, Historians, Praetor (Community Leader), and a fifth position. All members will act as "judge" in referral cases. The "censor" would be a neutral participant in the process. In a 5 member bar, the five members will serve in an Executive and Liaison position, except the Praetor. 1. The Curator: The position would be responsible for developing an overall vision and and appointment of certain positions. The Curator will be elected by the board. 2. The"Chief" Praetor: The position would focus on proposals regarding the site and allocating and coordinating the Liaison Officers of the board. The position will be elected by the board. 3. The "Chief" Censor: The Position would be responsible for ensuring referral procedure is followed. The Censor will not vote, but may engage in discussion in cases. The Censor will be elected by the board. 4. The "Chief" Historian The Position would focus on cataloging and maintaining historical record of the site and Curia (a question of debate). The position will be appointed by the Curator among board members. 5. The "Chief" Quaestor (Registrar) will responsible for recording all voting, registration of citizens, etc.... 6. The "Chief" Aedile: The position would oversee and coordinate with the admin all award (e.g. Modding Award). When not coordinating the awards effort, this position will be assigned by the Curator to assist other projects. The following would be Liaison Community Officers. Responsibilities: Maintaining open communication between the board and the community, responding to concerns and and proposing changes to the forum that would be beneficial to the community. The Liaison officers will also oversea all referral cases. + Modding Community Officer + Content (Blogs and AARs) Officer + Debate and Discussion Community Officer + Role-Playing Officer + Multiplayer/ Hotseating Officer Elections Five member board Procedure Elections for board members for a 6 member board should be 6 months. If staggered, the elections will take place every three months. A four month cycle is possible with elections taking place every two months. However, the 6 member board would work best as a team elected together. I give the details below in communication. (Option 2) 10* Member Board: Spoiler for Details:  As the proposed name should indicate, the number of board members will be based on 100 Citizens (Century). Today we have about 1000 citizens. This would mean a board of 10. *In theory, it will change as more citizens are added to the role. There will still be a define roles. Ideally the elections would be staggered (5 at a time is elected). The 10 member board would be better suited for Governance idea 2. The positions below are describe as if they are in a 10 member Board.... The 10 member board will be divided into two groups; Executive Officers and Liaisons Community officers. For the purposes of voting all 10 positions are equal. The Chief Executive Officers are as follows; 1. The Curator: The position would be responsible for developing an overall vision and and appointment of certain positions. The Curator will be elected by the board. 2. The"Chief" Praetor: The position would focus on proposals regarding the site and allocating and coordinating the Liaison Officers of the board. The position will be elected by the board. 3. The "Chief" Censor: The Position would be responsible for ensuring referral procedure is followed. The Censor will not vote, but may engage in discussion in cases. The Censor will be elected by the board. 4. The "Chief" Historian The Position would focus on cataloging and maintaining historical record of the site and Curia (a question of debate). The position will be appointed by the Curator among board members. 5. The "Chief" Quaestor (Registrar) will responsible for recording all voting, registration of citizens, etc.... The following would be Liaison Community Officers. Responsibilities: Maintaining open communication between the board and the community, responding to concerns and and proposing changes to the forum that would be beneficial to the community. The Liaison officers will also oversea all referral cases. + Modding Community Officer + Content (Blogs and AARs) Officer + Debate and Discussion Community Officer + Role-Playing Officer + Multiplayer/ Hotseating Officer A central emphasis of the proposal is awareness and communication. Having dedicated officers responsible to a specific community would be essential for gaining maximum participation and input from contributors of the site. The LCO's are not just there for citizens, but for the community at large. The Curia is viewed as that place. A place that no one wants to step into. This is the advantage of the system proposed. It would allow the Curia to function by proxy and at the same time preserve what is currently in practice. Ultimately, the goal is to build trust and a community spirit would develop and efficacy will increase. This will equate into greater participation thus circularly a better community. Citizens are intensely focus on their area of interest, so having a dedicated member of the community working with them and for them would build both community and action. Organization Breakdown Elections Ten member Board Procedure + Initial Process: 5 members will be elected first. This will be followed by the final five members rounding out 10 members in the next election 3 months later + The initial 5 member vote, the highest vote candidate will be the Curator, the second highest the Censor and the third highest the Praetor. The final two positions will be allocated by the Curator. + Second Vote: The initial group have the option to remind in their positions or opt for another position. If so, the second set may be elected or appointed according to the position. + Once a position has been won in an board election, the board member will remain until the member is no longer on the board, resign the elected or appointed position, or voted out (VonC) by the board if an elected position or the + Curator removes the member from their appointed position. + Any Board member can be removed by the Curia by a Vote of No Confidence. (Option 3) 6 Member Board (Decentralization Approach) Spoiler for Details:  The board will be composed of different areas of contribution (Communities). This will require a change in the way citizenship applications will be done. Each area of contribution will election there own member of the board They are as follows; + Modding Community + Content Community + Debate and Discussion (Including TW games discussions) Community + Role-Playing Community + Multiplayer/ Hotseating Community On the application, the Patron will indicate "Citizen" in the title. In the application the patron will suggest the community they believe their client have achieve substantial level of contribution. This will require additional badges. + Modding > Artifex + Content > Auctor + D&D/GD > Civitates + RPG > Aediles + MP/HS > Gladius Note: Not sold on the names, just came up with something to show. In the application, it will have the options to vote (e.g. Auctor | Artifex | No | Abstain). Each group will elect one member of the board. There will be one "at large" election. The Board will divide the responsibilities among them.

I am open to ideas....

[Frunk]

I can see the benefit of it. How would elections be handled?

[Lifthrasir]

Before people go further in the discussion, I suggest to read again this thread in which you can find posts like this one (and I fully agree on this):

Who is and who isn't suitable for a site staff role is no business of the Curia.

[PikeStance]

I can see the benefit of it. How would elections be handled?

Good question. The most ideal would be to elect all five together for a 6 month term. This way they act like a team and will promote consistent leadership. However, it may be necessary to elected in a staggered elections. However, since we would need 5 to start off with, then when the election cycle begins it is probably unlikely that we will an entire new council of five assuming that some members will opt to run for election.

Before people go further in the discussion, I suggest to read again this thread in which you can find posts like this one (and I fully agree on this):

That proposal is based on "doubling down" on role-playing approach. This proposal is not role- play but actual governance based on already and proposed officers of the Curia. It would be a complete waste of time to read that.
This proposal is actually based on council–manager form of governance. This is very common in small town USA.

The council–manager form is much like a publicly traded corporation. Under the form, an elected governing body, usually called a council, board of alderman, or similar title, is responsible for legislative functions such as establishing policy, passing local ordinance, voting appropriations, and developing an overall vision, similar to a corporate board of directors. The legislative body appoints a professional manager to oversee the administrative operations, implement its policies, and advise it. The manager position is similar to that of corporate chief executive officer(CEO), providing professional management to the board of directors. The position of “mayor” present in this type of legislative body is a largely ceremonial title, and may be selected by the council from among its members or elected as an at-large council member with no executive functions, similar to a non-executive chairman in a corporation.

[Lifthrasir]

Sometimes, I'm wondering how you read posts from others. I'm not pointing the topic of each threads (this one and the one linked) but the fact that you're proposing again to get someone from the Curia officially involved in Content Staff affairs which is not acceptable.

[PikeStance]

... I'm not pointing the topic of each threads (this one and the one linked) but the fact that you're proposing again to get someone from the Curia officially involved in Content Staff affairs which is not acceptable.

No one is directly involved with official content. The connection is with citizens within the community itself. Moreover, content refers to citizen contributions like blogs and AARs. Any proposals dealing with official TWC publication or official competitions should be done within the said organization.

[Lifthrasir]

The way the OP was initially written was confusing. With your edit, that's perfectly clear now. Thanks for the clarification.

[PikeStance]

No worries. If you have any other thoughts, please don't hesitate to share.

[StealthFox]

I like the idea of having the elected Curial positions collectively form some sort of Curial Council, but I don't see yet what point it would be, what additional responsibilities/duties they'd have. I don't like how you've positioned it as a conduit for proposing amendments, decisions, etc, that should still be open for all citizens to do.

[Lord William]

If you ask me, idea say we need 2 classes of citizens..... 1. those who’ve earned their citizenship and have become inactive 2. Those are and remain active

or we can just purge the none active citizens

this idea of a board wont change much in my opinion, we need to make citizenship exclusive again

[PikeStance]

I see what you mean. On the surface it seems it would be prohibitive. It is my belief that it will actually increased efficacy.
The problem now is very few citizens want to commit themselves directly with Curia and its politics. We have what can loosely be defined as "direct democracy" The Council or board would best be described as Representative democracy. In a business sense it is proxy arraignment.

There are still two ways in which citizens can proposed ideas; (1)by being elected on the board or (2)by proposing it through a board member. There are two board members to approach. There is the executive officer (the 5th position) or through a board member directly responsible for that area of the community. Ideally, it would be better if that member of the board is an active member of the forum. The advantage of this system is that the proposer may be willing to suggest an idea to a board member rather than present it themselves. Finally, there is a third way; it can be introduced via the current system through the Curia itself. A board member (The Curator) would then introduce it to the board for discussion. I would not object to an overrule procedure where it can be proposed, discussed, and three citizens can support. This would force a vote as it does now. However, this is what we have now and very few proposals (I honestly connect think of a single one in recent years) that has come from someone who does not regularly post in the Curia. The key is to present vetted ideas to the Curia and a PM requested their input (discussion and/or vote).

Another advantage is that it will allow those who prefer to concentrate on certain areas of the forum while at the same time participate when needed. An election every 6 months and occasional proposals would not be invasive. I am not sure how to handle citizenship application. It could be left as is or it could take place at an appointed time in the month. A discussion for a week and voting for a week. A total of two weeks. Another alternative is to have it submitted on the first of the month. A single PM announcing the group of citizens and then a vote at the end of the month or two weeks from then. The key is communication. Communication will increase participation and hopefully greater efficacy on the part of citizens.

[Sir Adrian]

Removing the ability to propose ideas would dilute the whole concept of citizenship. Wasn't that the whole idea behind citizenship in the first place?

A board would be very well suited in collaboration tasks - involving the curia in site projects and keeping it relevant. Your point about efficiency would be valid if the curia was flooded with site-relevant proposals. Right now we lack even irrelevant ones and basically nothing at 100% efficiency is still basically nothing.

[Ngugi]

Hahaha.

The lyric line "Don't know what I want, but I know how to get it" comes to mind.

To little activity? Needs more activity. Of what kind? Never mind that now, even less act for it now - no, let's create an activity to set up an institution to create activity.
Artificial, from beginning to end. Another C.A.T.
Empty. Yet hungry. Oh so hungry.

2 (...) Once it has been vetted, it is then presented to the Curia for further discussion and a vote. Since the board has already discussed it then it alreadz has the "support" it would need to have a vote.
-This has obvious advantages. It will allow for proposals to be discussed with minimal red tape or be bogged down with endless debate. The downside is that the board needs to be proactive on the site to ensure that citizens expressed their point of view. This should prevent the outburst of certain members regarding the movement of forums within the modding community.

Drivel, as is sapprent to all who consider it. If an idea can't survive an open, honest discussion and attract three supporters and call for a vote, its not because of a matter of "red tape" or the debate.
All this does, by some desired we might guess, is to cut down the time avilable for those affected (us) to thoroughly consider and to participate in the dicussion. Efficient. Sneaky. Obvious.

If you mean Gigantus movement of forums that was not a result of a Curial vote.



"Do, or do not - there is no electing a committee" as a renowned space frog once said.

we need to make citizenship exclusive again

It is already.
Arguably it never been more exclusive, compairing the total amount of registred members with amount of citizens, as well as active members compaired to active citizens. It do not matters for participation. Nor will removing those who are not TWC-active impact on activity.
And let's not even begin to scrutinize how citizenship would lose value was we to strip it from those who earned it.

On the surface it seems it would be prohibitive. It is my belief that it will actually increased efficacy.
The problem now is very few citizens want to commit themselves directly with Curia and its politics. We have what can loosely be defined as "direct democracy" The Council or board would best be described as Representative democracy. In a business sense it is proxy arraignment.

It is not a problem, except for the Curias ability to claim representation outwards. Was a lack of citizens "commit themselves directly with Curia and its politics" a problem you would labour to see more citizens coming to the Curia and participating. You do not: this proposal do in no way try to activate the citizenry. On the opposit it decrease citizenship participation in the Curial politics. Indeed, considering the fear of 'endless debate', less participation is actually what's rationally prefered, according to the OP argumentation. That will be efficient.

Yet efficacy is not our prime concern. And we are not a business.

As for the rest its no new tune: "let's create an activity to set up an institution to create activity".


The Curia is not the governing body of TWC, or even needed merely by fact of its existance. Fallacy of self-aggrandizing is easy at hand. Let's not.
The Curia is valuable. But in all that is significant [awards aside if you please] it governs only ourselves, a.k.a the citizenship - and that is what it is: a union. Our union here at need towards HEX and the owner (may we never face such days, as long ago occured under others rule), and permanent as an advisor in its intended role of representation the interest of influential members of the site's community.
In that role it can be important, in the case when the citizenry needs it and when the citizenry wants it. If the citizenry is not here, that is a sign that the members are not ill-handled on the site; as long as the Curia can maintan its functions and offices, for when needed, much activity elsewhere than in the Curia is merely healty for TWC.
At the exact same time, those here can act and do much good for TWC, the community and citizenry as well. But to use lacking Curia activity as an excuse to decrease citizens chance to affect decisions that affects us, for the sake of efficiency when efficiency is not warranted?
No.

I long ago came to the conclusion that my interest in the Curia was to prohibit it from impeding on the rights of citizenship.
The day I see this in the Prothalamos, I'll be there.

[PikeStance]

If you ask me, idea say we need 2 classes of citizens..... 1. those who’ve earned their citizenship and have become inactive 2. Those are and remain active
or we can just purge the none active citizens
this idea of a board wont change much in my opinion, we need to make citizenship exclusive again

Since there is a lack of application, I do not think exclusivity is the problem.

Removing the ability to propose ideas would dilute the whole concept of citizenship. Wasn't that the whole idea behind citizenship in the first place?
A board would be very well suited in collaboration tasks - involving the curia in site projects and keeping it relevant. Your point about efficiency would be valid if the curia was flooded with site-relevant proposals. Right now we lack even irrelevant ones and basically nothing at 100% efficiency is still basically nothing.

Representative democracy does not dilute the concept of democracy. That being said, the process to propose ideas is still there. Voting on all proposals are still there. The main point is increased communication and the ability of the Citizens to still actovely pursue their preferred activity rather than deal with daily routines of the Curia.

Drivel, as is sapprent to all who consider it.

This is not very nice to say. But, I am glad you treated such drivel with as much attention as you did.

If an idea can't survive an open, honest discussion and attract three supporters and call for a vote, its not because of a matter of "red tape" or the debate.
All this does, by some desired we might guess, is to cut down the time avilable for those affected (us) to thoroughly consider and to participate in the dicussion. Efficient. Sneaky. Obvious.[/QUOTE]
There are three ways in which a proposal could be made;
A. By a board member. The procedure is to debate, vote and then present to the Curia for further discussion and a vote. If through this method, there is already enough supporters for the measure to go to vote.
B. A citizen can approach a board member who then would propose on the citizens behalf. Then it follows the procedure as outlined in option A. It could also be proposed in the open in which it would follow the procedure outlined in option C
C. Is how proposals are made now.
Regardless procedure all citizens will have an opportunity to discuss and vote. Now measure can pass without passing the Curia.

If you mean Gigantus movement of forums that was not a result of a Curial vote.

No, I was referring to the creation of the Modding Community which was as a result of a Curia vote which is why I inferred it in the first place.

It is not a problem, except for the Curias ability to claim representation outwards. Was a lack of citizens "commit themselves directly with Curia and its politics" a problem you would labour to see more citizens coming to the Curia and participating. You do not: this proposal do in no way try to activate the citizenry. On the opposit it decrease citizenship participation in the Curial politics. Indeed, considering the fear of 'endless debate', less participation is actually what's rationally prefered, according to the OP argumentation. That will be efficient.

No, as I outlined above, it will actually result in more debate. The advantage of the board discussing an idea is that fewer people involved the more efficient the discussion will be in vetting the proposal. This is why committees are often form to resolves issues or bills. However, as I stated above, the citizenry will also have an opportunity to discuss and suggest amendments once it is in open discussion.

IYet efficacy is not our prime concern. And we are not a business.

Getting citizens involved is. I do not know what you mean when you say "we are not a business." The site is a business.

The Curia is not the governing body of TWC, or even needed merely by fact of its existance. Fallacy of self-aggrandizing is easy at hand. Let's not.
The Curia is valuable. But in all that is significant [awards aside if you please] it governs only ourselves, a.k.a the citizenship - and that is what it is: a union. Our union here at need towards HEX and the owner (may we never face such days, as long ago occured under others rule), and permanent as an advisor in its intended role of representation the interest of influential members of the site's community.

The role of the Curia has not changed in the past 5 years. This proposal does not change that in the least.

... in the case when the citizenry needs it and when the citizenry wants it. If the citizenry is not here, that is a sign that the members are not ill-handled on the site; as long as the Curia can maintan its functions and offices, for when needed, much activity elsewhere than in the Curia is merely healty for TWC.
At the exact same time, those here can act and do much good for TWC, the community and citizenry as well. But to use lacking Curia activity as an excuse to decrease citizens chance to affect decisions that affects us, for the sake of efficiency when efficiency is not warranted?
No.
I long ago came to the conclusion that my interest in the Curia was to prohibit it from impeding on the rights of citizenship.
The day I see this in the Prothalamos, I'll be there.

I do not know what else to say here. It doesn't change what currently exist as far as citizen participation. If anything, the proposal is designed to raise citizens awareness in site and curia affairs. For example, the role of board would be to reach out to members within specific communities which should encourage more participation. I have done this on my own with enormous success. I have sent out PMs to encourage citizens to participate in the Curia. There were a few who added their input and some shared some of their ideas to me about how the Curia could be improved. Ironically, I have included some of those ideas in this very proposal. I also sent PMs for two applicants for citizenship and they receive more votes than any applicants since the removal of the CdeC. Outreach works! This proposal promotes that in many ways.

[Iskar]

What Ngugi said.

In addition, a board of five members among a user base of about 10 active members is a joke. If we had 50 active Curialists, perhaps, but as of now it would just be a hydro-cephalic folly to make five members "vet" the proposals of the other five.

Activity on a leisure time internet forum happens when people deign to be active for their own reasons, not because some board of directors pokes them to.

[PikeStance]

In addition, a board of five members among a user base of about 10 active members is a joke. If we had 50 active Curialists, perhaps, but as of now it would just be a hydro-cephalic folly to make five members "vet" the proposals of the other five.

If there were 50 active members this would not be considered.

Activity on a leisure time internet forum happens when people deign to be active for their own reasons, not because some board of directors pokes them to.

That is the exact opposite I was told by citizens. Most are focus on their area of preferred contribution but would participate if they knew when something was happening. They just do not have the time to sometimes go to the Curia to find out.
The active list of posters is about 10, true, but voting there is about 35%-40% increase in participation, except when I "poke" them. When I poke them for applications it jumps about 250%.

Much of what Ngugi stated was not true about the proposal...
1. It did not alter or change the current procedure. They will remain in tact.
2. The point of the change was not to promote efficiency, but better communication which will increase participation.
3. Lastly, by limiting the amount time a person "needs" to view the Curia the more likely they spend actually participating in some form.
4. Either 5 or 10 the board will attract members since there will be a sense of purpose. Moreover, the Curator, overall importance may be reduce, the board in general will have a greater mandate. This is a key component of any desired position.

[Veteraan]

I'm not in favour of of this, at all. Ngugi has already stated most of the reasons why, so I will not repeat them here.

Also I personally am not comfortable with people poking, or sending PM's "on a larger scale" to other Citizens and members in order to get them voting on, or involved in certain things. Using the "results" of such actions to bolster once own argument in the discussion doesn't sit well with me either. However, I suppose it is not strictly prohibited.

That's all I will be contributing. I really couldn't stomach participating in another discussion where some of the arguments are repeated ad nauseam.

[PikeStance]

Also I personally am not comfortable with people poking, or sending PM's "on a larger scale" to other Citizens and members in order to get them voting on, or involved in certain things. Using the "results" of such actions to bolster once own argument in the discussion doesn't sit well with me either. However, I suppose it is not strictly prohibited.

The issue of PMs have been positive 100%. I am often thanked for my PM.

That's all I will be contributing. I really couldn't stomach participating in another discussion where some of the arguments are repeated ad nauseam.

I would prefer to think of this as a discussion. If there are issues, concerns, then I please to have the feedback. Ngugi comments were mostly a misunderstanding of what I had wrote in the OP.


------

I have made additional changes hopefully addressing some of the comments made.

[SoulGamesInc]

it decrease citizenship participation in the Curial politics.

I cant help but agree, having spent an hour-ish reading over this thread while drinking some tea - all British of me - I cant help but think this proposal may take away from the general citizenry and hand more power to a select few whom would seemingly (at least in some part) have a potentially considerable amount of control over proposals; arguably hindering rather than helping participation. While the average citizen would seemingly still be able to make proposals themselves, if that's the case why bother running it through these council members, especially if they start picking 'officers' among themselves? If I had a proposal (short of any opinion I might seek prior) I'd simply put it forward, not give it to anyone to handle on my behalf. I understand the appeal of desired 'efficiency' but don't feel the approach works here.

+ In part I've always felt one reason many new citizens shy away can boil down to it feeling daunting, or best left to the 'experienced' among the Curia. An inherently flawed thought, but present all the same. The more welcomed and equal new Civ's feel the better. I'd hate to make that potentially worse by saying "private message X to have your proposal considered" rather than encouraging them to go ahead and speak up themselves.

The advantage of the board discussing an idea is that fewer people involved the more efficient the discussion will be in vetting the proposal.

That's debatable. The disadvantage is having that proposal 'vetted' behind closed doors among a select few as opposed to openly among ourselves, largely why I'm not a fan.

If anything, the proposal is designed to raise citizens awareness in site and curia affairs. Outreach works! This proposal promotes that in many ways.

I'm all for awareness but perhaps a single Curia position/role for handling that 'outreach' or 'advertisement' would have a better effect (somebody actively focused on PMing a list of citizens on occasion, for example, with a news bulletin of sorts) than it being apart of a council seemingly designed to control at least some aspects on citizens behalf rather than taking part themselves? I can see and understand many citizens not being as active as we might like among the curia but don't think more control given to a select few users is the answer to raising participation, other than among the council itself whom would already be the active ones among us.

[PikeStance]

The disadvantage is having that proposal 'vetted' behind closed doors among a select few as opposed to openly among ourselves, largely why I'm not a fan.

+ In part I've always felt one reason many new citizens shy away can boil down to it feeling daunting, or best left to the 'experienced' among the Curia. An inherently flawed thought, but present all the same. The more welcomed and equal new Civ's feel the better. I'd hate to make that potentially worse by saying "private message X to have your proposal considered" rather than encouraging them to go ahead and speak up themselves.

Where in the proposal did you read anything is done behind closed doors. I have never proposed any proposal where it is done behind closed doors. I have not yet addressed the issue of access. It can either be, public view, but board members may only post and vote or open for viewing by citizens only in which only board member may post and vote, or Or citizens and board may post, full members can view , but only board members may vote. In cases, in which board members may only post, the Townhall (for citizens) and the Curial Commentary Thread (non-citizens) would be able to post comments.

As I previously stated, all decision made by the board must be debated for one week by all citizens and then voted on. All of this is included in the OP. Perhaps I should have my wife send you real Chinese tea instead of that Earl Grey tea

.....I cant help but think this proposal may take away from the general citizenry and hand more power to a select few whom would seemingly (at least in some part) have a potentially considerable amount of control over proposals; arguably hindering rather than helping participation. While the average citizen would seemingly still be able to make proposals themselves, if that's the case why bother running it through these council members, especially if they start picking 'officers' among themselves? If I had a proposal (short of any opinion I might seek prior) I'd simply put it forward, not give it to anyone to handle on my behalf. I understand the appeal of desired 'efficiency' but don't feel the approach works here.

Proposals do not need to be "run" through the Board.

Let's do a roll call of the more active members of this forum
1. PikeStance (Me)
2. Lift
3. Flinn
4. Iskar
5. Settra
6. Veteraan
7. Settra
8. Frunk
9. Stealthfox
10. Caligula
11. atthias

There are people like yourself who "pops" in to share a thought or two and some people on the list generally does that as well.
We already have a de facto small select of people.
Proposals do not need to be "run" through the Board. It would be board members purpose to investigate/ research any potential issues with the forum within their respective area and develop proposals to resolve any issues. To use a metaphor they are like market researchers ensuring that the forum is meeting demand. (More like a simile). Moreover, it would be boards purpose to develop a plan of action (a goal) and then develop proposals with the aim of achieving that goal. What we have no is a series of inconsistent proposals with contradictory goals in mind.

Lastly, people would be more interested in a position with a tangible meaningful purpose. People were interested in the CdeC because it had a meaningful purpose. The problem it had is that it was too large for what it needed to do. Too many members could "slide" on through without doing anything meaningful. Each board member will have a set goal and aim in mind.

I'm all for awareness but perhaps a single Curia position/role for handling that 'outreach' or 'advertisement' would have a better effect (somebody actively focused on PMing a list of citizens on occasion, for example, with a news bulletin of sorts) than it being apart of a council seemingly designed to control at least some aspects on citizens behalf rather than taking part themselves? I can see and understand many citizens not being as active as we might like among the curia but don't think more control given to a select few users is the answer to raising participation, other than among the council itself whom would already be the active ones among us.

The goal of the proposal is to increase awareness in order to increase participation. There is nothing preventing anyone from applying for a position on the board. In fact, a 10 member board would be much likely to be inclusive than exclusive. In the CdeC days anyone interested enough would eventually win one election and serve at least one term if they wanted to. I do not see this being any different. I do not think anyone at that time felt alienated from being part of the process.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and concerns. If you have any other concerns or suggestions, please do share.