Can we please elect Council 5?

[BluePriest]

Actually, the "issue" of no new council being elected was not really raised before.  The rest of what i was going to say is already written here : http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,43505.msg1000380.html#msg1000380

Thats my point. Council was expected by the community to be a cycle, not a permanent thing. What Im saying is that its not an issue that should have to be brought up by the community before its discussed. Meanwhile, I went on to discuss other things, and plastique made a post that wasnt an attack on anything, and people went crazy.

[plastiqe]

willng3, you say that you would rather discuss "what to look for when electing Council 5" while your two most recent posts in this thread consist of questioning our motives and belittling our concerns.  Thanks for promising us that "things would eventually degrade back into our current position" (unless current council fixes it for us).  I disagree.  In fact, if it were up to me, council reforms are the first thing on my imaginary If-I-Got-Elected-To-Do-List.  I bet ddevans has some good ideas too.

I think this entire diatribe basically comes down to two things:  that I'm personally not Elite enough to be on the Best-Friends-Forever-Club and also the first lesson in kindergarten, SHARING.

If the problem before was that sometimes things didn't get done because SG wasn't around we've basically made it worse with 3 Admins because now.. "we're currently lacking [1 of 3] admin due to RL complications which consequently means that this discussion may take much longer than it would have otherwise."

perve is right when he says it shouldn't be up to council to re-elect themselves and majofa is right when he just passes the buck onto the Admins.  I'm just a common pleb like Oni but perhaps this isn't an issue for council and the Admins should make the decision.

Just do it @ Admins.

[willng3]

I tried to approach this with civility and maturity.  This is no longer possible.  Have fun with what remains of this discussion, I'm done.

[Cheesy111]

Spoiler for Hidden:

willng3, you say that you would rather discuss "what to look for when electing Council 5" while your two most recent posts in this thread consist of questioning our motives and belittling our concerns.  Thanks for promising us that "things would eventually degrade back into our current position" (unless current council fixes it for us).  I disagree.  In fact, if it were up to me, council reforms are the first thing on my imaginary If-I-Got-Elected-To-Do-List.  I bet ddevans has some good ideas too.

I think this entire diatribe basically comes down to two things:  that I'm personally not Elite enough to be on the Best-Friends-Forever-Club and also the first lesson in kindergarten, SHARING.

If the problem before was that sometimes things didn't get done because SG wasn't around we've basically made it worse with 3 Admins because now.. "we're currently lacking [1 of 3] admin due to RL complications which consequently means that this discussion may take much longer than it would have otherwise."

perve is right when he says it shouldn't be up to council to re-elect themselves and majofa is right when he just passes the buck onto the Admins.  I'm just a common pleb like Oni but perhaps this isn't an issue for council and the Admins should make the decision.

Just do it @ Admins.

This is not the way a council member would act.  I doubt I am the only one disappointed in you.

[artimies7]

I can help. Does someone need help? 'Cause you guys look as if you need help.

[BluePriest]

/attacks

Lets summarize all the suggestions so far.

Spoiler for Hidden:

1.  Public Polls for reference only (who the people want)
2.  Council selects their replacements based on applications (who council thinks would do a good job)
3.  Council 5 is elected for 3 months.  Council 6 is elected 3 months later.  The new rule should be that you can serve a max of 2 terms in council and then you have to sit one term out.  Council 4 has had a year so they all have to sit out of C5.
4.  Any council member that does not fufill their duties either by afking, being non-participatory, whatever else can be replaced at any time.

Public pool should be deciding.
There are many members in Council 4 that deserve to be in Council 5.

If the forum really desires new members on Council 5, I would suggest we elect a Council 5 and merge it with Council 4. Like stated above lots of people in Council 4 are still active and competent, plus we've actually lost a few council members over time on the two forums.

As a sidenote : Bear in mind that Council, like any other staff position, has time constraints, and electing a new Council can take a while especially if the process is application based.

I also consider that having multiple old members of it to help guide as a + more than a -. I would prefer an evenly split new and old council with the method of determining who stays to be decided based on how the new members would be added over the current council over a complete group of new people. Admins don't need to be council members either or could completely be the old guard.

Although I prefer a more open system where we know in general what council is actively doing and when at the least. We know when staff positions are added but do not have much of an idea at all what else they are doing (minus newsletter) and I consider that knowledge greater than the surprise of something new.

So if we expect for our staff to be the best people for the role they're appointed to, I don't believe it makes sense to overlook quality for the sake of "fresh blood"; by doing so (especially in the case of our current Council) you have a very good chance of omitting someone from the next term who would have been able to bring more benefit to the community through their contribution than someone who took their place.  The same can also be said of the popular vote system, which was changed, and for good reason.

 I will note right now that I have no problems with bringing in new members.  However, I refuse to believe that a system which forbids any 4th term members from returning is really what's best for the community.  Ideally what I think would be best would be one of two options.  Either we simply add new people to make the 12 complete again (with a chance to offer any current members to step down of course) as Higs said or we just do open applications and have the admins pick between them.
However, we should not even consider bringing a new Council into term until what SG left behind has been fixed because we'd be back to square one in no time at all.

If 3 months is too short then it can be 4 or 5. Or 6. Situations like a 4th council decides that 5th won't be elected should be avoided somehow imo (just in principle).

Personally I think having an application would be a good start, however, as SG did this as her main job, she was able to commit to all of that and really examine everything. . I think a better idea this go around would be to have the moderators or perhaps even councilmen (although they could theorettically create a monopoly out of this, I give our community the benifit of the doubt) sift through thePersonally I think having an application would be a good start, however, as SG did this as her main job, she was able to commit to all of that and really examine everything. . I think a better idea this go around would be to have the moderators or perhaps even councilmen (although they could theorettically create a monopoly out of this, I give our community the benifit of the doubt) sift through the applications and throw out certain ones that would definitly not work, and then from there have a community vote. Councilmen to me, sounds like something that would be elected by the people, and if we were to leave it completely up to mods, then I think the name should be changed.

I like the idea I read earlier that councilmen that become inactive could lose their seat instantly. The recall election in Wisconsin comes to mind. We just need some sort of safety net in case there was a problem with a certain councilmen. applications and throw out certain ones that would definitly not work, and then from there have a community vote. Councilmen to me, sounds like something that would be elected by the people, and if we were to leave it completely up to mods, then I think the name should be changed.

I like the idea I read earlier that councilmen that become inactive could lose their seat instantly. The recall election in Wisconsin comes to mind. We just need some sort of safety net in case there was a problem with a certain councilmen.

So things that still need decided

Council Term Length- If 3 is too little to learn the ropes, then perhaps 4, or 5. 6 seems rather long
New Blood Vs Old Blood- In the US, to prevent this from happening in Congress elections are held every 2 years but only half the people are up for re-election. This ensures that there are people in at all times that know what is going on. Perhaps this would work here.
REaffirm what the councils job is- Is the job of the council just to elect staff members? If there is an admin in any 1 area does that mean the council shouldnt be a part of it? The council has Identity Crisis and it needs to know what its Job is.
Election Procedure-We do not have any full time admins anymore, so having a strict admin based election process is probably not going to get us anywhere any time soon. Perhaps the best option would be, like I mentioned earlier, simply have the admins be screeners, and anyone that gets passed the screen is submitted to public polling.
If theres any other issues that need to be discussed, please let me know. So far, those seem to be the main things.

[plastiqe]

The longer you make the terms, the more of a long term commitment you're asking for from each Council member.  So long as we have timely elections I think 3 months is much better than half a year.

6 people max from the previous council and 6 new councilors, with a two term limit and recall elections for AFKers seems like a fair system.  I still think it should start with 12 new councilors in C5 and then we start the new system tho.

The problem with having a community vote to decide who is on council is that the current system has zero transparency.  This is obvious even in this thread as people not on the council have no idea what the council is up to.  This has to change otherwise council just remains a Best-Friends-Forever-Club no matter who is on it. 

There is no need for secret projects.  There is a need to have secret voting on staff positions because some people are highly sensitive and nobody likes drama.  Now if a project like "10 Questions for Zanz" is public, what is to say that a non-council member or even some random newb could stumble upon the thread and offer the most brilliant suggestion that no one had ever thought of.  I'm not sure on this, but I think I read somewhere that everything the current council is working on is swept away when the new council comes in, which is silly.  It shouldn't be councils job to be the idea men, they should be there to manage the ideas.  IE:  they are a Senate Oversight Committee, not the Ministry of Agriculture.  : P

[ZephyrPhantom]

I can help. Does someone need help? 'Cause you guys look as if you need help.

I can say we appreciate all constructive feedback and suggestions.

That being said; plastiqe, while I respect your thoughts and am closely keeping tabs on this topic I'm not exactly too encouraged by the fact you're getting people to disapprove of this thread.  We want to get input not detract from it.

perve is right when he says it shouldn't be up to council to re-elect themselves and majofa is right when he just passes the buck onto the Admins.  I'm just a common pleb like Oni but perhaps this isn't an issue for council and the Admins should make the decision.

I'd just like to note one loophole in this statement. Have you noticed all three admins are part of the Council? If they wish to discuss the issue with the Council, then they have full right to ask us accordingly for help, since they can fully monitor the discussion. (Which they have.)
My thoughts on the arguments summarized by BluePriest.

Council Term Length- If 3 is too little to learn the ropes, then perhaps 4, or 5. 6 seems rather long I see arguments in favor of both brevity and longterm. 4-5 months sounds ideal to me.
New Blood Vs Old Blood- In the US, to prevent this from happening in Congress elections are held every 2 years but only half the people are up for re-election. This ensures that there are people in at all times that know what is going on. Perhaps this would work here.  As noted in my first post, I would rather have a merge that results in a larger Council than a reelection that could potentially eliminate half of our members for the reason that IMHO benefits the Council greatly to have Staff Members from all parts of the forum, which improves communication between secret sections. Sure, the three admins could just link everything together but I feel that's asking a little much of three people (two who both have reasonable RL concerns). However at the same time merging old council with a new council into a larger combined council also allows a lot of new blood to come in (I was personally thinking we have ~6 more Council members, especially due to previous Council withdrawals.)
REaffirm what the councils job is- Is the job of the council just to elect staff members? If there is an admin in any 1 area does that mean the council shouldnt be a part of it? The council has Identity Crisis and it needs to know what its Job is.  Probably the hardest issue thanks to the fact SG overextended her control. I will set a baseline at 'we have to focus on certain projects and maybe establish deadlines' but that will have to be refined further.
Election Procedure-We do not have any full time admins anymore, so having a strict admin based election process is probably not going to get us anywhere any time soon. Perhaps the best option would be, like I mentioned earlier, simply have the admins be screeners, and anyone that gets passed the screen is submitted to public polling. Sounds like a fair compromise between public and private, though I would also let the Council filter the admissions to a slight degree.
If theres any other issues that need to be discussed, please let me know. So far, those seem to be the main things.

*snipped arguments converged with bluepriest's*

There is no need for secret projects. Then why are Competitions and Tournaments planned in secret? As an extension, why do all staff positions of >1 people have a Secret Section?

There is a need to have secret voting on staff positions because some people are highly sensitive and nobody likes drama. 
Now if a project like "10 Questions for Zanz" is public, what is to say that a non-council member or even some random newb could stumble upon the thread and offer the most brilliant suggestion that no one had ever thought of. Could be possibly done with a 'public' feedback/announcement thread for brainstorming and a 'private' discussion thread to filter ideas.  (sort of like how we have PvP feedback sections and a ‘Private PvP section(s)’ )
 
I'm not sure on this, but I think I read somewhere that everything the current council is working on is swept away when the new council comes in, which is silly.  It shouldn't be councils job to be the idea men, they should be there to manage the ideas.  IE:  they are a Senate Oversight Committee, not the Ministry of Agriculture.  : P So are you implying:
  1) We have no right to create ideas even though we’re part of a forum that thrives off having as many ideas as possible?
  2) If we do have that right, and wish to come up with an independent project that needs secret longterm planning like War, Brawl, etc…, but requires input from staff members from different parts of the forum that need to consistently communicate over a long period time, we have no right to privately discuss it and reveal all scraps of discussion to the public?

[BluePriest]

snip

Can we not let this topic stay focused on getting things done instead of attacks? I understand that some poeple didnt like his first thread, the tone was completely changed on this one though, and people are still complainign about the first one. Even plastique said look I dont think the first council should be in it, but that he would get over it.

[ZephyrPhantom]

snip

Can we not let this topic stay focused on getting things done instead of attacks? I understand that some poeple didnt like his first thread, the tone was completely changed on this one though, and people are still complainign about the first one.

I apologize if any of the yellow-marked comments to either you are Bluepriest sound like attacks (I was not intending them to come across as that.) My questions on plastique's post are mainly meant to question why plastic's suggestions are practical as I don't exactly see how they would be better, and some of them come across as onesided.

Please give feedback on the responses I left. (Again, I deeply apologize for any offense comments.)

[UTAlan]

To clear a few things up:

* When we made the forum move, Higs decided we didn't need to re-elect a new Council. There were multiple reasons for this, including the fact that we had active, useful, competent people on the council, there wasn't much community demand for a new council, and there weren't many projects which *needed* council guidance.

* Obviously, community demand has changed. You've all made that very clear. We are currently working on a solution for Council 5 which will not simply be a popularity contest, but bear with us while we fine tune the details of how that is going to work.

* We are not going to forbid Council 4 members from being on Council 5. We may limit how many can get re-elected, but we don't have term limits and we definitely aren't going to start fresh with 12 new members. If you don't like that, I'm sorry. That's how it is going to be.

* All that aside, this thread is on the edge of getting locked. Not because it is asking for a new council. Because it is a source of unnecessary drama and flaming. I haven't issued any warnings, edited any posts, or locked the thread yet, but I strongly considered all three. Everyone should take a step back and take a deep breath before posting anything else in this thread. If you have something to say that is negative in any way about specific people, this isn't the place to do so. Please PM the admins if you have concerns, otherwise keep it to yourself.

[ddevans96]

My opinion:

Council 4 is doing great, but it's simply not fair to certain people that either joined after their selection, were absent during their selection, or intentionally removed themselves from being selected.

My proposals:

• Hold an application process. 4th Council members are allowed to apply, but they will not automatically be selected. Admins are automatic.
• Admins, and 4th Council members wishing to resign, select people until there is a Council of 16, including Admins.
• Enforce a two-term rule, so that after this 4th Council, no one is a member of Council for more than 6 consecutive months. UT ninja-shot this down. I still think it promotes fairness.
• Allow departing (second-term or resigning) Council members to help Admins select members of the following Council.
• Allow Council to hold a recall, to vote and replace an inactive or poorly functioning member of the Council with a smaller one-person selection process.
• Create a Public Assembly thread, to allow non-Council members to submit questions and ideas to the Council.

This solves the problems of the length of the Fourth Council, the selection of further Councils, and inactivity within the Council to all be solved in a fair way, and allows the people more voice, but still limited, in Council ongoings.