Aaah, OK. That makes more sense. All right!

_________________
Jishin's KI: 82165

Ok, so here's my idea for Guild structure, including a Guild Council:

Guild Structure

5 Guild Masters, 1 of which is also Grand Master
The Grand Master's main responsibility is to act as the "Face" of the Guild and be its voice when an official announcement or statement is needed. The 5 Guild Masters represent the Guild in the Guild Council (More on that later).

To choose the Guild Masters, nominations are made and everyone votes. The top 5 vote totals are the Guild Masters. Once the Guild Masters are chosen, everyone, including the newly elected Guild Masters, vote for a Grand Master from the 5 Guild Masters. Highest vote total is the Grand Master.

For the sake of continuity, I don't think the positions should be rotated. If a Guild Master, or the Grand Master, wishes to step down, nominations will be made for a replacement and a vote taken. I think it should be possible for the Grand Master, when stepping down, to remain as a Guild Master if they choose to. If a no confidence vote is requested, it must be seconded and then everyone votes. If the vote succeeds (I think to succeed in a no confidence vote you should need 66%), nominations will be submitted for a replacement and a vote taken. If the vote fails, the Guild Master obviously retains their post and there will be NO punishment for the person that made the motion, the person that seconded it, or anyone that voted for it. In the event that a Guild Master wishes to step down and cannot remain at their position until a replacement is voted upon, an emergency, temporary appointment can be made by the remaining Guild Masters.

When decisions need to be made for the Guild everyone gets a vote. A simple majority, 51%, wins. In the event of a tie, the 5 Guild Masters votes will decide the outcome. If a Guild Master chooses to abstain from a tie-breaking vote (this decision must be made before that vote begins)and there is a tie amongst the remaining Guild Masters, the Grand Master breaks the tie.


Guild Council

The Council is made up of the Guild Masters from all the Guilds. 5 Lords are elected from the Council with no Guild having more than 1 Lord. The rules for voting on the Lords are the same as the rules for choosing and replacing Guild Masters.

When decisions need to be made, Guild members from every Guild vote with a simple majority winning. In the event of a tie, the Guild Council votes (my first thought was that Guild Masters from each Guild would all vote the same, depending on how their Guild voted). If there is a tie within the Guild Council, the votes of the 5 Lords will break the tie. Lords cannot abstain from voting.


Obviously there are still a lot more details that would need to be worked out, but I think it could work. Let me know what you think of the idea; feel free to rip it apart.

_________________
Frisky Badger
Guild of Maintainers
My opinions are my own and not necessarily those of the Guild of Maintainers.
KI# 00140468

Quick thought:

We probably want two people who have the "face"/speaker role -- a regular Speaker for most of the time, and a "Vice-Speaker" for when that person is sick, has a broken computer, is on vacation, needs a break from the craziness, etc.

FB -- I want to take a look at your proposal in more depth, but I have other stuff I need to run off and do now. (HA! As I keep typing.) My gut instinct is that overall, it's pretty good. There is something nagging me about rotation of positions, though. See, the thing is that everyone gets burnout, even on fun stuff like this. We need to have policies in place so that people can either take vacations or step down with no trouble.

Come to think of it ... it might be useful to have a "Guild Elder" title for folks who have served as Guild Master types but are no longer doing so -- more of an advisory role to the folks who are currently the GMs. Not something we need to worry about immediately, but perhaps something to keep in mind?

Small nitpick: I'd rather that the titles be less ... regal? ... and more sort of democratic. "Lord" is one of those loaded words, ya know? (And there are those of us who aren't "lords". )

I think we ought to combine both Montgomery's and FB's ideas here and AnElise's ideas about a larger structure on the AoG forums -- I think we're going to get a very solid structure worked out by combining all these ideas.

_________________
Jishin's KI: 82165

Just tossed out a KI mail to the 57 odd people that expressed interest in the "Maintainers Guild", well to as many as I have KI addresses for.

If you know one of the people on the list of those I don't have a KI for please have them contact me so I can add them to the list. In the next couple of days before the episode I plan on sending out a set of KI mail detailing the general details outlined by the group. Covering the basics of things planned in the meetings, and our talks both here and over on the AoG boards.

I'll be in contact over at the AoG to see about putting together the KI mail, but I'm off to the work age for the next nine hours.

Later.

_________________
Waymet

Jishin wrote:

Quick thought:

We probably want two people who have the "face"/speaker role -- a regular Speaker for most of the time, and a "Vice-Speaker" for when that person is sick, has a broken computer, is on vacation, needs a break from the craziness, etc.

FB -- I want to take a look at your proposal in more depth, but I have other stuff I need to run off and do now. (HA! As I keep typing.) My gut instinct is that overall, it's pretty good. There is something nagging me about rotation of positions, though. See, the thing is that everyone gets burnout, even on fun stuff like this. We need to have policies in place so that people can either take vacations or step down with no trouble.

Come to think of it ... it might be useful to have a "Guild Elder" title for folks who have served as Guild Master types but are no longer doing so -- more of an advisory role to the folks who are currently the GMs. Not something we need to worry about immediately, but perhaps something to keep in mind?

Small nitpick: I'd rather that the titles be less ... regal? ... and more sort of democratic. "Lord" is one of those loaded words, ya know? (And there are those of us who aren't "lords". )

I think we ought to combine both Montgomery's and FB's ideas here and AnElise's ideas about a larger structure on the AoG forums -- I think we're going to get a very solid structure worked out by combining all these ideas.

I agree Jishin, there are still a lot of details to work out. I hadn't thought about vacations and stuff like that, but my main concern with rotating the positions through everyone is that people will have different styles or ways they want to do things. It would be nice to have some consistency. As for the "Lord" title, I used that because that is what the D'ni used, but I agree that it does kind of feel "loaded".

_________________
Frisky Badger
Guild of Maintainers
My opinions are my own and not necessarily those of the Guild of Maintainers.
KI# 00140468

RE: Guild structure.

I'M LOVING THE ENTHUSIASM!!!!!

Whew. OK. Just had to say that.

My only nitpick -- or maybe I'm just being stubborn --but I feel really strongly about not having power rest in a single person, even as just a figurehead and tie-breaker. It has to do with examining the history of the guilds and their relationship with power.

The way I see it, the D'ni had a king, and his power was balanced by the collective cooperative power of the guilds. Then when there was no longer a King, the guilds formed "the five." And that's when things fell apart.

From an OOC standpoint, I have a really strong feeling that the DRC are going to eventually try to mess with the guilds, most likely in the form of Cate. It just seems like a REALLY powerful way to engage the explorers in the storyline -- have them pour their hearts into making the guilds a reality, then have Cate swoop in and attemtp a coup. Given the way she did this with the DRC, and her recent coments about her vision of the guilds running the affairs of the community, I'd ber very surpsised if she didn't. There's talk of a coming war and the coming of a "Him" -- and all signs point to Ahlsendar. We're going to have a power tripod -- the King, the Guilds, and Cate. The traditional balance between the King and the Guilds will be there, but do you think Cate will simply bow out of the mix?

So ... I'm very wary about putting the power of any guild in the hands of one person -- one person who Cate or the King could sway. No, a council of at least 5 should hold the power to prevent corruption. Ideally, I'd like to see all 5 guilds go this route (the Greeters already eschewed a single GuildMaster in favor of a group of equals), but I can only really push this idea for the one guild I support -- the Maintainers. And the Maintaienrs have an even further reason for going this route -- the Maintainers are traditionally feared and viewed as too-powerful. I want to nip that right from the get-go.

As for the "face/speaker" -- I think it should be somebody not on the council. Someone who's job is to take the voice of the council and share it. Someone who has no influence and who is not involved in the decisions they are reporting.

I plan to pitch this at the All-Guild Meeting as a suggestion for all of the guilds, and at least make some effort to make my concerns known. After hearing the response from the guild community at large, I think we'll have a better idea of how this might go over and maybe hear some alternate ideas that we like even better.

_________________

Montgomery - Maintainer Grand Master of Inspections (ret.)

*edited, see below*

Last edited by Lil Missy on Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:15 am; edited 2 times in total

I agree with Montgomery who said;

Quote:

My only nitpick -- or maybe I'm just being stubborn --but I feel really strongly about not having power rest in a single person, even as just a figurehead and tie-breaker.

Any Think-Tank is comprised of multiple persons, equally responsible for their part in contributing to the common goal of any issue. And, in this respect.. the creation of an infallible, well-oiled machine such as the formation of the GoM, or any other guild for that matter.

No final say should or has to rest on one individual, even if it may be rotated amongst a small knit group. If the group is, in fact, all for the benefit of the common good, then the motivation of each should ultimately result in compromise, within that group, on any decision, as equals to obtain the best decision for that issue/guild.

Furthermore, with regards to vacations, sick days and plain old "away teams". It would be easier to replace those members with a substitute when necessary, if the responsibilities are equally distributed amongst a few rather than one.

And one question. If the formation of the Elders does not consist of a final, overall vote of one...Would Cate then, oppose that guild of becoming "official" because of the lack of vulnerability? (If she does have ulterior motives).

On the Aug. 20th meeting....Should we or are we going to have a designated representative(s) for the GoM? I think it wise, in order to minimizes confusion, manage time more wisely and represent ourselves in a more professional, organized light! Just an idea....


oh...and my two cents... I dont like "Lords", either

_________________
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?

Otherwise known as AnElise KI #08563780

Lil Missy (my 6-yo daughter's name is Melissa; guess what we call her),

Jishin will be there and so will Warren, I think. And several others, most likely. Check the second post on the meeting topic -- it's a running roster of what's going on. Plus, of course, I'll be there.

_________________

Montgomery - Maintainer Grand Master of Inspections (ret.)

I'll be there for both meetings also.

Probably not as a rep for the Maintainers Group however since my typing is not that fast.

_________________
Waymet

Jishin is signed up to represent the Maintainers in the afternoon meeting. I am set to represent at the evening meeting. There is someone else with me.

These structure ideas are getting really good. We just got to make sure to listen to other guilds' ideas though when the time comes around to get this sorted out.

Montgomery wrote:

RE: Guild structure.

I'M LOVING THE ENTHUSIASM!!!!!

Whew. OK. Just had to say that.

My only nitpick -- or maybe I'm just being stubborn --but I feel really strongly about not having power rest in a single person, even as just a figurehead and tie-breaker. It has to do with examining the history of the guilds and their relationship with power.

The way I see it, the D'ni had a king, and his power was balanced by the collective cooperative power of the guilds. Then when there was no longer a King, the guilds formed "the five." And that's when things fell apart.

I agree with everything you said. I only added the Grand Master breaking ties so that a Guild Master could choose not to vote if he felt there was a conflict of interest. We could just as easily say that Guild Masters cannot abstain from voting and then it wouldn't be possible to tie.

Montgomery wrote:

From an OOC standpoint, I have a really strong feeling that the DRC are going to eventually try to mess with the guilds, most likely in the form of Cate. It just seems like a REALLY powerful way to engage the explorers in the storyline -- have them pour their hearts into making the guilds a reality, then have Cate swoop in and attemtp a coup. Given the way she did this with the DRC, and her recent coments about her vision of the guilds running the affairs of the community, I'd ber very surpsised if she didn't. There's talk of a coming war and the coming of a "Him" -- and all signs point to Ahlsendar. We're going to have a power tripod -- the King, the Guilds, and Cate. The traditional balance between the King and the Guilds will be there, but do you think Cate will simply bow out of the mix?

I'm not sure all signs point to Ahlsendar, but that's a debate for another time . I agree that Cate is likely to try and influence the Guilds, a lot. But if we have a good structure in place, we can prevent her from becoming to influential. There could always be a no confidence vote if it appears she has "gotten" to someone.

Montgomery wrote:

So ... I'm very wary about putting the power of any guild in the hands of one person -- one person who Cate or the King could sway. No, a council of at least 5 should hold the power to prevent corruption. Ideally, I'd like to see all 5 guilds go this route (the Greeters already eschewed a single GuildMaster in favor of a group of equals), but I can only really push this idea for the one guild I support -- the Maintainers. And the Maintaienrs have an even further reason for going this route -- the Maintainers are traditionally feared and viewed as too-powerful. I want to nip that right from the get-go.

Agreed. My ideas were just a rough outline. There would still need to be a lot of work done on how the Guild functions, policies and procedures for various occurences, etc.

Montgomery wrote:

As for the "face/speaker" -- I think it should be somebody not on the council. Someone who's job is to take the voice of the council and share it. Someone who has no influence and who is not involved in the decisions they are reporting.

I was thinking more about major announcements that the Grand Master would be announcing, but I like your idea....kind of like a press secretary...er...sort of .

Montgomery wrote:

I plan to pitch this at the All-Guild Meeting as a suggestion for all of the guilds, and at least make some effort to make my concerns known. After hearing the response from the guild community at large, I think we'll have a better idea of how this might go over and maybe hear some alternate ideas that we like even better.

I was doing some research and was reminded that within the Guild Council there was a High Council that consisted of the 5 Lords and the Grand Masters from the major Guilds. I think we could expand that to include the minor Guilds and have that be another step for tie breaking before it goes to just the 5 Lords. Trying to keep as many people involved will make it harder for decisions to be influenced from the outside. I think it would also be a good idea to stay away from "closed door" meetings, which would invite suspicion. I think the more transparent we are, the easier it will be for non-Guildmembers to trust us.

That being said, we can't have the whole cavern show up and put in their two cents at the Guild Council, try to imagine a DRC sighting only instead of requesting info from one person we are trying to make a decision . I'm not sure how we could prevent people from interupting, but it's something to think about.

Jishin wrote:

(And there are those of us who aren't "lords". )

Lil Missy wrote:

oh...and my two cents... I dont like "Lords", either

Fine 5 Lords and/or Ladies

_________________
Frisky Badger
Guild of Maintainers
My opinions are my own and not necessarily those of the Guild of Maintainers.
KI# 00140468

My thinking is very simular to many of yours on this subject of guild structure.

What I had in mind was one figure head which would visibly lead the guild. This would have been the Grand Master or Elder. Below him would be a series of either 5 or 7 guild masters. These Masters would be elected by either merit or by the community below them. The guild masters would choose a grand master from the community below them.

The masters resposiblities include displinary/communal duties. Basically there job is to be inwardly focused on the guild and its people. Where as the Elder focus is outwardly focused on the guilds image and talking to the DRC through their contact.

The Elders real job is PR, but also includes insuring that the guild has the appropreate resorces such as a website, or other tools. The elders would communicate the guilds vision. Elder/Grandmasters would also represent the 7 or 5 guild masters that operate the guilds functions.

The reason for 7 or 5 guild masters is not only for the sake of diversity but also to insure that someone will be on during a week. With 7 you have the possiblity of someone being on alteast once a day. Plus its uneven so when voting comes into question there cannot be a tie.

What I really want is a system which is as fair as it can be. That said I realize that being fair isn't always going to happen. As anyone who has run these types of organizations realizes that its near impossible to satisfy everyone. So createing a organization that is sturdy enough and flexible enough to work for everyone is a good thing to work toward, no matter if Cyan pulls the rug on it or not. If enough places are built, hopefully there will be places for all people to belong.

My intent is to create a guild of storytellers. I also want to make it work from the bottom up. In that I want the tellers to have the power and make the leadership work for them. Thats my vision for it anyway. I suspect problems with my system. I also expect that guilds will probably each have their own guild structures. I look forward too seeing what they have to offer and all guilds will need to balance OOC and IC. Guilds will likely have their own levels of OOC and IC, I have confidence that with practice they will master both.

My vision for the guilds doesn't mean much. But I believe the explorers should have the power to shape them how they see fit. Which means that we shouldn't have to wait for the DRC to provide anything. Its your time to shine and make these dreams a reality. If you work hard enough, and are creative enough I don't believe there are any real barriers between you and your goal.

Places like this thread is a great way to start. I hope to get lots of feedback on my ideas here.

Not to nitpick, and I'm jumping in late here, but I was wondering as far as the charter/guild structure and rules... is it going to be written down and possibly voted on? I would just feel better to have something set in stone if there's a dispute or something...

Oh, and our shirts aren't pink, they're Lightish Red...

Although on my monitor they look perfectly red to me...

_________________

Both hopefully starman3000.

_________________
Waymet