Patrician Conclave Proposal

[deRougemont]

The Patrician class/rank has recently been under much scrutiny for it's stagnation. This is deserved considering how many Patricians exist, yet are not adequately fulfilling their role as a class of experienced, trusted and motivated "civil servants" they are expected to be at TWC.

However, I believe this rank, as currently conceptualized, should be encouraged for governing the site. This would both provide for an efficient management of the site as well as another method for recognizing those citizens who have gone above and beyond the call of their citizenship.

Unfortunately, there are proposals in the works calling for the abolishment or virtual abolishment of the Patrician class. My proposal is intended to provide an alternative to the calls for eliminating this class. My idea is in rough form, but I hope that by proposing it, those concerned with preserving the Patricians as conceptualized now, will help refine this proposal and -- if deemed worthy -- bring it to a vote.

Brief description:

A committee within the CdeC (which I will lovingly call a conclave), but preferably outside of it, will be chosen at regular intervals to keep an eye on active citizens posting within the Capitol forums. This conclave will individually choose 1 to 3 prospective citizens for nomination to Patricianship every month. When the conclave meets at the end of the month (per MSN or a special forum), they could trade their lists of candidates and briefly discuss them. Barring any objections, a master list of these candidates would then be sent to the CdeC for a vote.

Rough guidelines:

1.) This conclave should be small and composed of highly active/motivated Patricians. I think 3 members should suffice to stress their special task.

2.) The conclave should preferably be independent of the CdeC or any other organization as their focus should be entirely concentrated on finding new, qualified Patricians within the ranks of Citizens. In other words, it should be made very clear that their very reason for existence is for finding excellent candidates for Patricianship and nothing else.

3.) The search time period should last 1 month. During the middle of the month, the conclave will PM each other to work out a time for trading names of those they think are good candidates.

4.) Each member of the conclave should do his best to present a total of 3 candidates by the time of their meeting, no more. They can present fewer or no candidates if they believe it is the right thing to do given the quality of the candidate pool that month.

5.) Candidates on any given list will be briefly discussed and approved jointly by the conclave before moving the candidates' names on to the master list.

6.) Candidates on the master list will be contacted by PM by conclave members who will instruct the candidate that they have been chosen for nomination. The candidate will also be given a detailed formula of what a Patrician is and what their responsibilities would be should they accept the nomination.

7.) The new master list of assenting nominees will move on to a vote in the CdeC.

N.B.

This proposal is not meant to replace the current system of ad hoc patronization to Patricianship, but to act as a secondary measure for assuring a steady growth of the Patrician class.

Also, to avoid concerns that I am producing this measure merely to self-promote myself (as I am a mere citizen), should this measure pass, I will turn down any offers of Patricianship for myself for any length of time suggested.

In order to allay doubts that this measure will work, it will be necessary to have 3 Patrician volunteers to fill the first conclave. If you are a Patrician and interested in this succeeding, please post below.

[Ragabash]

But while Patricians have more control inside the Curia, rank itself is not bound to Curial participation but is a reward for contributions towards the site.

[deRougemont]

But while Patricians have more control inside the Curia, rank itself is not bound to Curial participation but is a reward for contributions towards the site.

Yes, and that's fine. While the conclave will be specifically tasked with promoting citizens whose contributions are found in the Capitol forums, the new Patricians will not be obliged to further participation there. Also, the conclave could promote citizens who do not post in the Captiol forums if they wish. They are not bound solely to the Capitol; the Capitol will however, be their focal point. The only "mandatory" action here is the task given to those who volunteer for the conclave. All other actions on the part of those nominated are completely voluntary. I don't think there's any break with tradition here, but correct me if I'm wrong.

[Hotspur]

It is also the class the "Civil Service" for TWC is drawn from and clearly there aren't enough active patricians to go around. Support.

And now I will channel Perikles:

"Grumble grumble harrumpf bureaucracy harrumpf grumble."

[deRougemont]

It is also the class the "Civil Service" for TWC is drawn from and clearly there aren't enough active patricians to go around. Support.

And now I will channel Perikles:

"Grumble grumble harrumpf bureaucracy harrumpf grumble."

Well, at least not enough active Patricians. That is the real problem. Thus, for this proposal to work, I will need 3 Patricians to volunteer for the first conclave should this measure be moved to a vote and succeed. Then this idea could start working immediately. After that, new Patricians or volunteers form the "old guard" could rotate into the conclave. I will have to figure out an appropriate length of time for each conclave. Perhaps three-month stints for each 3-man group?

Ideas?

Patricians: any volunteers?

[Perikles]

And now I will channel Perikles:

"Grumble grumble harrumpf bureaucracy harrumpf grumble."

Damn I am so predictable.

deRougement knows what I think of this already. The only thing I am going to say is we will end up back here in 2 months whatever we do.

[the Black Prince]

i'll support in the likely proposition that even should this pass, it'll never happen due to no patricians.


and for the record, i nominated this guy for patrician before he even told me about this idea, and was merely waiting for him to be eligible (7th april) before i brought him before the CdeC. i can produce PM timestamps if no one believes.
i don't believe this should stand in the way of a well deserving member whos both qualified and willing to contribute from being able to do so.



i like the idea, i really do... but i know i for one wouldn't be applying for this, and there seems to be a limit on the number of patricians willing to hold office. i know there are far more active patricians than the 18 patrician only offices... and yet..?

[deRougemont]

i like the idea, i really do... but i know i for one wouldn't be applying for this, and there seems to be a limit on the number of patricians willing to hold office. i know there are far more active patricians than the 18 patrician only offices... and yet..?

So now is the time for Patricians to take a stand as to whether they would like the rank to survive in its current form, correct? Or at least help promote a new class of Patricians to fill empty positions. This measure is the only way it will as of right now.

Also, sorry for putting you in a pickle over your nomination of me and this proposal BP. There are also several posts of mine defending the current Patrician rank before you asked me about becoming a Patrician myself. And as I said, I'm absolutely willing to forgo taking the rank if anyone sees it as a conflict of interest.

[Cymera]

Ahh, come on grandpa! We can come up with a solution if we try

[Perikles]

Ahh, come on grandpa! We can come up with a solution if we try

We have tried and come up with a solution here.



It find it ironic that imb, who wrote the reforms (as part of hex with mim), and I, who supported them, are now supporting their abolishment and reversal.

[Fabolous]

It find it ironic that imb, who wrote the reforms (as part of hex with mim), and I, who supported them, are now supporting their abolishment and reversal.

I find it unironic that I'm supporting the abolishment and reversal of the reforms... considering my efforts at the time to prevent them.


Though I still find Imb's turnaround to be mildly entertaining, he basically was the leader of the reforms... and then a couple months later when I started driving a hex convo about how the Curia had died he was behind me. (Amusing turn, and yet I can't say I wasn't pleased to see someone switch sides in a debate after they've been shown evidence.... we could use more of that...)

[Hotspur]

@ deRougemont
I've been reading the constitution (gasp!) and I don't think this proposal needs to go through the Prothalamos. Any council member can create a temporary committee, so you could just PM Obi. If the committee works the way you hope it will, then it can either be given an extension as a temp committee or become a permanent committee by vote. This way the committee could get started faster and if it's a disaster, it just goes away in 30 days.

[Elrond]

I think for the sake on transparency that if the commitee is formed that deRougemont shouldnt be a member of it, at least for the first month or so - it isnt a good idea for people to ask for groups such as this to be formed than to take a leading role in them. This is of course if he becomes a Patrician which I certinally think he deserves.

Its nothing personal I just think its not a good practice to start.

[imb39]

The ideas behind the reforms were and are perfectly valid. I suppose in the same way Communism is perfectly valid. It just didn't work in practice. I don't see the point on pursuing an system which fails on that score. Rolling back the reforms seems to be the only way to go in this particular case. It was a worthwhile attempt, in my book. I don't regret the attempt, not in the slightest.

[Fabolous]

The ideas behind the reforms were and are perfectly valid. I suppose in the same way Communism is perfectly valid. It just didn't work in practice. I don't see the point on pursuing an system which fails on that score. Rolling back the reforms seems to be the only way to go in this particular case. It was a worthwhile attempt, in my book. I don't regret the attempt, not in the slightest.

Yes, and its why you can be a good owner, you don't entrench yourself to a posistion, regardless of its validity.
(I'm not willing to accept that all the ideas behind the reforms were valid... but there is no point in having that debate for the 100th time. )

[imb39]

I think for the sake on transparency that if the commitee is formed that deRougemont shouldnt be a member of it, at least for the first month or so - it isnt a good idea for people to ask for groups such as this to be formed than to take a leading role in them. This is of course if he becomes a Patrician which I certinally think he deserves.

Its nothing personal I just think its not a good practice to start.

People who tend to come up with the ideas often lead committees such as this or, at least, take part.

Yes, and its why you can be a good owner, you don't entrench yourself to a posistion, regardless of its validity.
(I'm not willing to accept that all the ideas behind the reforms were valid... but there is no point in having that debate for the 100th time. )

No point in being inflexible over this. I think almost everyone acknowledges that there is a problem.

[Elrond]

People who tend to come up with the ideas often lead committees such as this or, at least, take part.

But not a new member - I have been a Artifex longer than he has been a member - It is often deemed that it is too early for me to do varous things.

In the case of dealing with the problems with the Patrician class I certainly think that everyone who is on the committee should have been a Patrician for a several months rather than several days.

I would again like to point out that its not personal - I dont think that any very recent Patrician should be one it not just deRougemont.

[deRougemont]

@Elrond

I completely understand. And as you can see in my first post in this thread, I am willing to not take part in my idea initially if it were to be a problem in getting it implemented; this despite imb's statement above (and the fact that I am not a Patrician, lol).

@imb39

What of hotspur's post above? Should Perikles' idea fail a vote, could we create a temporary conclave to bolster the Patrician ranks with those willing to save the rank (because it is obvious we are talking about either saving or abolishing the rank at this point)? Could we create this temporary conclave now if there should be enough Patricians to fill it?

I honestly don't see why this is such a big problem. I guarantee that if you promoted three active citizens in the Capitol right now, and implemented my idea, this entire ordeal would be solved. There are people who would be willing to save the rank, they just don't happen to Patricians yet. Why do away with the rank if we have not even tried a valid idea such as this one? Giving up the ghost on this issue is far too premature, IMHO. The negativity we're seeing here is disconcerting and I think goes far beyond this particular issue. If there are people willing to solve this issue in a positive manner, please allow us do it!

As to those who support this measure, post here stating you willingness to take part in the conclave idea. Only a strong show of support will turn this issue.

[Cymera]

How about this: Get some new blood in the Patrician class, let's try and have a couple of Patricians nominate about 3-5 members. It seems that much of the debate is centered around usefulness if the class in the Curia.

How long has it been since the last Patrician passed? Some new blood may help mend this issue. I am sure that some of the older, more experienced members will say that this has already been tried. If so, we could always give it another shot. What could go wrong with trying?

This debate is starting to get stagnant, there are at least two or three threads going on about the Patrician class in the Curia. Let's reach an agreement and implement it, for the good of the TWC.

What say you my fellow Citizens? and err ....... Grandpa?

[Elrond]

Although I am obvously biased about encouraging Patricians to sponsor Citizens, I agree with Cymera's suggestion.

I think that TWC needs to learn to adapt and run a system better rather than rewriting the consitution (which is what getting rid of Patricians would effectivly be) everytime there is problems.