Syntagma Change Window

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

I strongly believe that the whole purpose of the Curia is to further the development of TWC, not to be a talking shop which debates and enacts endless minute changes to the Syntagma. This was imb's drive at the time of the ownership change and the membership of the site fully supported that and appeared very pleased with the new direction.

However, since then we appear to me to have quickly sunk back into the old mire of spending 90% of our time and effort amending the syntagma, or spending countless hours/threads/posts arguing whether it has been correctly followed or not.

Now, in RL I run large (very large) IT projects and management of change is a key part of what I do. When a project is getting derailed ('paralysis by analysis') then one simple way to get it to move forward is to provide set change windows which are the only times that people are allowed to propose changes to what the project is doing.

The way it works is:

• A set timeframe is proposed every month/quater/half year/year where changes can be debated and applied
• During the 'closed season' people can register a proposed change which includes a short description (usually about 3-4 lines) of why it needs to be implemented
• These proposals lie dormant until the start of the change window at which point they are all activated
• You then have a week to agree which of the changes will be applied and which won't
• Finaly, there is an over-ride where emergency changes can be made outside the change window, but this is very hard to get

For TWC I would therefore propose that we move to this system for changes to the Syntagma in an attempt to get the Curia business to concentrate on TWC rather than the Syntagma. This would mean:

• The last week of every second month is decreed as the Change Window
• Any changes proposed leading up to a Change Window are posted in a thread in the prothalmos with only the change title and the brief explanation
• At the start of the change window the Curator posts a voting thread where the Curia can vote for the 5 changes they wish to discuss, rejected changes can be carried forward to the next change window
• For the following week the 5 changes are fully discussed/explored and are then voted on in the normal way at the end of the week.
• The Curator retains the right to make gramatical changes to the Syntagma to correct simple errors
• An emergency change can be discussed and voted on outside the change window only with the agreement of the council

If it worked it would give us about 7 weeks in every 8 to discuss other things than the Syntagma - what would some people do with all that time!

What do people think?

[scottishranger]

I do like it, though I am scared that some proposal might get lost in the rush of activity and the last week.

[Garbarsardar]

I think it is an excellent idea.

But I also think that the reasoning is not entirely representative of the reality here. The "Curia" should not be confused with acts of individuals. The Curia is, I think, very well concentrated on TWC. Sometimes, it's true, we let ourselves be entangled by provocations but would you say in earnest that in general the "Curia" is endlessly bickering about the Constitution?

Anyway, I support this idea and I would go for even a 3 month time-frame.

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

I think it is an excellent idea.

But I also think that the reasoning is not entirely representative of the reality here. The "Curia" should not be confused with acts of individuals. The Curia is, I think, very well concentrated on TWC. Sometimes, it's true, we let ourselves be entangled by provocations but would you say in earnest that in general the "Curia" is endlessly bickering about the Constitution?

no, but we do spend a huge amount of time and effort on it and it looms large in every discussion or argument in Hex. I'd just like to move a lot of the focus it currently has off it and onto more productive things, hence this idea.

Anyway, I support this idea and I would go for even a 3 month time-frame.

As long as the route for emergency changes is still there the actual timeframes don't make a huge difference.

Another way to run it is you make the vote at the beginning of the change window a 2/3 majority (or any other threshold that has to be passed, ie. you could get a window where no change has recieved sufficient support to go to discussion), has the same sort of effect in the long run.

I do like it, though I am scared that some proposal might get lost in the rush of activity and the last week.

the thread for proposals has to be very, very closely managed and then closed a the time of the vote.

If people want to re-propose a change that didn't get supported they have to re-post it (cuts down on the frivoulous applications)

Let's all remember that the constitution itself is not necessarily flawed, as Garb points out. It's all in how we approach it and handle the frameworks established.

agreed, there is nothing really wrong with the Syntagma, but that then does beg the question why we spend such a large proportion of the time discussing it and amending it.

[Kagemusha]

I support this proposal completely. This way we would have some continuoty and time to see how the large lines of affairs develop. Also it would kill the biggering,becouse we would have to concentrate on the larger changes we want to see when the time for next Change Window would come.Great idea!

[gigagaia]

Let's all remember that the constitution itself is not necessarily flawed, as Garb points out. It's all in how we approach it and handle the frameworks established.

nevertheless, I support flexibility and windows to change what needs to be improved.

[Fabolous]

So the idea here is that if we don't let people change the constitution for 7/8ths of the time they will spend that time contributing to the site in other ways?

I'm not aware of a huge issue of the Curia discussing useless amendments and spending alot of time on them, other than certain members who clearly find that working on the constitution is how they like to spend their time, and those members are just going to stockpile changes from the time when they are not allowed to discuss problems to when they can.

Basically, I see this as creating a situation where either, the constitution becomes forgotten, or we have a horde of proposed changes during the allowed times and issues aren't given their proper consideration.

Further, I'm not big on unneed complexity, and this proposal reeks of it.

So I cannot say I find this proposal useful, needed, or at all helpful to solving anything.

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

Basically, I see this as creating a situation where either, the constitution becomes forgotten, or we have a horde of proposed changes during the allowed times and issues aren't given their proper consideration.

and the problem if the constitution is mostly forgotten is? The syntagma is just the rules of the site, it isn't the site. Take away the syntagma and TWC would still function just as well, maybe even better. By focussing on the rules to such an extent we miss the whole point of being here, which is TWC, the community and the further development of it.

If the site is working fine (which it currently seems to be) and staff are doing a good job (which they currently seem to be as witnessed by their ratifications) then why do we need to worry about the constitution?

We know it is there and we know we can fall back on it when we want to, why do we need to keep revisiting it?

Maybe the way to look at this idea is as a way of weaning an addict off its drug of choice. From my viewpoint the syntagma is the Curia's drug of choice and I feel we all need to be weaned off it.

If some people want to post lots of proposals in the thread that is fine, when the change window comes around we can all have a fun and manic week indulging in our Syntagma fix.

But it may, just may mean that we all look at other things on the site in the meantime and not reinforce ON's stereotype of the Curia being the place where a RPG was being held...

[Fabolous]

We know it is there and we know we can fall back on it when we want to, why do we need to keep revisiting it?

My fear is that it we will not be able to fall back on it... as it would be forgotten.

But it may, just may mean that we all look at other things on the site in the meantime and not reinforce ON's stereotype of the Curia being the place where a RPG was being held...

Oh yes, because if the Curia isn't filling whichever members expectations of its amazing ability to change the site despite the lack of anyone giving it the power to do so it has become an RPG.

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

My fear is that it we will not be able to fall back on it... as it would be forgotten.

it was forgotten in January and plaayed no part in the events that followed......

Oh yes, because if the Curia isn't filling whichever members expectations of its amazing ability to change the site despite the lack of anyone giving it the power to do so it has become an RPG.

why on earth do we have to wait for someone to 'give us the power'? We are the customers on this site, we already have the power. If you want things done propose them in the curia and people can discuss them (including the Council) and we can all agree how to progress them.

Putting it bluntly, as was amply demonstrated in January, the power is most definately not in the Syntagma, the power lies in the members hands and our ability to demand change.

Discussions about the syntagma or lack of it merely distracts from that, all the time we could be coming up with and expanding upon new ideas for TWC (expanding its game coverage, expanding its hosting of mods, expanding its hosting of mod tools are just a few) we instead have endless discussions about whether people should or shouldn't be senatorii, or what specific colours the ranks should have or any number of fairly meaningless items.

[Fabolous]

it was forgotten in January and plaayed no part in the events that followed......

What do you mean by that? It wasn't directly involved, no. If anyone wants the constitution to be a part of everything they would be crazy.

why on earth do we have to wait for someone to 'give us the power'? We are the customers on this site, we already have the power. If you want things done propose them in the curia and people can discuss them (including the Council) and we can all agree how to progress them.

I don't think there are many proposals that could be made by the Curia that would remain with the Curia or would ever come to pass. Can you think of any... ever?

That is massively more valuable to the community than discussions about the syntagma or lack of it which merely distracts from that, all the time we could be coming up with new ideas for TWC (expanding its game coverage, expanding its hosting of mods, expanding its hosting of mod tools are just a few) we instead have endless discussions about whether people should or shouldn't be senatorii, or what specific colours the ranks should have or any number of fairly meaningless items.

I disagree that those discussions stop the other discussions from happening, they just occur when the important discussion dont' exist.

[Muizer]

I fully support Tac's proposal. Not so much because I believe the Curia regulars should have their attention turned to other things. It's more that the continuous process of change makes it really hard to stay "in the loop". Anyone who already spends a lot of time on other things around the site is eventually going to drop out, if they managed to get involved at all. Concentrating all change into a short window actually makes it possible for more people to participate meaningfully in the Curia. I think it is certainly worth a try

[Perikles]

This is the best idea and I mean the best idea I've heard for a while, fully support.

[makanyane]

I like the idea, getting a sense of priorities over things that need / do not need changing would be good. Adding a time gap would also stop tendency for people to try and make proposals reversing or adding to recent changes before the affects of last changes have had time to work through.

Only two points -
1. not sure if this might make people tend to try and use the curial decision process for things it wasn't designed for, if they can't effect their legislation other way.

2. if the selected 5 proposals go to vote at same time it would be better if there was some way of considering overall effects of possible combination of votes. eg:
if proposal A). is that Patricians can stand for Tribunal, & proposal B). is that all citizens with 3 months experience automatically become Patricians. Then either proposal on its own might be fine, but combined effect of both might not be......

I think that's a general problem we have anyway that things tend to get taken in isolation but compressing decision period down might make overlaps worse.... (and no I don't have solution to that one )

EDIT: actually I might have solution - if the 5 changes were selected by vote they will have order of priority (number of votes). So if anyone claims interdependency between proposals - Curator rules if its true (should be relatively obvious) and if there is interdependency the proposal with highest number of initial votes goes first with other/s being delayed till outcome is known......

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

1. not sure if this might make people tend to try and use the curial decision process for things it wasn't designed for, if they can't effect their legislation other way.

I'd forgotten about them - they should probably be included in the Change Freeze, so we'd get up to 5 changes and 5 decisions?

2. if the selected 5 proposals go to vote at same time it would be better if there was some way of considering overall effects of possible combination of votes. eg:
if proposal A). is that Patricians can stand for Tribunal, & proposal B). is that all citizens with 3 months experience automatically become Patricians. Then either proposal on its own might be fine, but combined effect of both might not be......

EDIT: actually I might have solution - if the 5 changes were selected by vote they will have order of priority (number of votes). So if anyone claims interdependency between proposals - Curator rules if its true (should be relatively obvious) and if there is interdependency the proposal with highest number of initial votes goes first with other/s being delayed till outcome is known......

Good point, the way I see it happening (having thought about it) is that, the week leading up to the first vote the Curator (and probably Speaker) would have to be busy organising what should be voted on. This would include sorting out overlaps and interdependencies and combining them where feasible. If we had two mutually exclusive then you'd kinda assume only one would get selected into the 5, but if both did again we'd just rely on the Curator and Speaker to sort something out?

[Elrond]

I think once every 8 weeks isn't enough - theres simply two much that happens in that time - one week per 4 is suitable - theres enough for changes to be properly thought about without them happening too late.

[Tom Paine]

Oppose. Once a month maybe, but once every too months is far too infrequent to deal with things. No sovereign body of any sort met that infrequently. The Athenian Assembly, the most close relation to the Curia (which takes its name from a meeting of the Assembly, the ekklesia curia, the first of the month) met three times a month; once a month should do us, but certainly no less often.

[Cymera]

Agree with Ozy, I believe that this is a good idea, but it should occur more frequently. Either two weeks every two months, or once a month should serve the TWC well. Otherwise, excellent proposal.

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

happy to try once a month and see how it goes

I also think that the Curator & Speaker should have the ability to extend the week of discussions for specific items (ie. those of the 5 voted for that are turning out to be very contentious or very detailed).

A one week extension on their initiative, further extensions only on agreement of the council

[Cymera]

In that case you have my support. If it can be handled in a professional and organized fashion, then it would be a great idea. I have every confidence that it can be implemented well here.