Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

NetERC structure
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=20822		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  nealhunt [ Wed Jun 01, 2011 11:42 pm ]
Post subject:  NetERC structure
I mentioned in the other thread that I think it would be good to have a 4th or "alternate" member for the NetERC. This thread is to discuss that possibility.

As an alternate, I think it's a pretty straightforward concept. When one of the committee is absent for an extended period, they can step in to help out and vote as needed. It would help continuity, having someone already recognized as the "heir apparent" to any empty spot. It would also make it easier for the community at large to press for removal/replacement if it was generally felt someone should be removed.

The drawback, of course, is that this is sort of a "non-position." The person would be in a certain kind of limbo state of indeterminate status.


As far as an outright 4th member, we originally chose an odd number of members for voting - odd numbers means no tie. However, in reality, decisions have been made by consensus. There has been only one vote that was actually split and it was no cause for concern by anyone. Most of the decisions have been along the lines of "we will approve this list if you make this little tweak" or "we think it would be better with X, but we'll sign off on it and see what 1-2 years brings about." In light of that, I don't think maintaining an odd number is really important.

Having a full 4th member eliminates the negatives of an alternate.

As a possible "con" argument to that, this kind of consensus building has been slow and that is a major criticism of the project overall. _IF_ there was a drive towards faster, vote-based decisions, an even number might become an issue.


Let me know what you guys think.
Author:  frogbear [ Wed Jun 01, 2011 11:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: NetERC structure
With SG CS (CyberShadow) as a governing entity over the site and NetERC, I do not think a 4th is needed.

It is an interesting idea however.
Author:  GlynG [ Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:07 am ]
Post subject:  Re: NetERC structure
I think a 4th 'shadow member' sounds like a good idea.
Author:  Simulated Knave [ Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:12 am ]
Post subject:  Re: NetERC structure
I'd prefer 3+ shadow. A good trait in future ERC members would be a willingness to hang around the place, after all. :)
Author:  Dobbsy [ Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:28 am ]
Post subject:  Re: NetERC structure
Given I proposed it previously I have to say yes to a shadow member. :)
Author:  Angel_of_Caliban [ Thu Jun 02, 2011 1:39 am ]
Post subject:  Re: NetERC structure
3 Main members and 2 Junior Members?

3 Main Members and 1 Secretary?

5 Main Members?

1 Dictator?

12 Member Quorum?

3 Main Members and their 3 Apprentices?

Just throwing ideas out there....
Author:  CyberShadow [ Thu Jun 02, 2011 9:05 am ]
Post subject:  Re: NetERC structure
frogbear wrote:
With SG as a governing entity over the site and NetERC, I do not think a 4th is needed.


SG (as in, Specilist Games - thats what you are referring too.... ?) are no longer a governing entity over either the NetERC or this site. They were given a vote of 'no confidence' and were not interested anyway. Individual members of SG are always welcome to drop in and give opinions. While I would be more than happy to work with SG in the future, we must assume that this will not happen at this time.

I think that this is an interesting idea, with a lot of potential. My main concern is the remit for this fourth (fifth.... sixth...?) person. If one NetERC is 10 days late on a vote, does the shadow member step in, as this could change things. I would also worry that any shadow member is at times forced to vote on situations that they object to from the start, and them feeling that they 'would never have suggested we do this, and now I have to sort it out'. And what if one NetERC member is consistantly unavailable but occassionally pops in? I do agree that this is just a game and I dont want to turn it into a political exercise, but we really should formalise a few things. A little politics here should hopefully keep the fun in the process for the long run.
Author:  frogbear [ Thu Jun 02, 2011 9:21 am ]
Post subject:  Re: NetERC structure
CyberShadow wrote:
frogbear wrote:
With SG as a governing entity over the site and NetERC, I do not think a 4th is needed.


SG (as in, Specilist Games - thats what you are referring too.... ?)


Sorry, I was at work and not concentrating, I meant CS as in CyberShadow
Author:  adam77 [ Thu Jun 02, 2011 9:34 am ]
Post subject:  Re: NetERC structure
Yes, CS steps in when it all turns to custard, simple and effective :)
Author:  Mephiston [ Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:02 am ]
Post subject:  Re: NetERC structure
Ok, here is my 2p worth.

With 12 AC's allocated I think they should be the first line of any list approval process. They should all be actively creating or amending lists so should have a pretty good feel for what works and what doesn't.

That would leave the netERC as the final check point to ensure nothing really odd slips through the net list wise and the final port of call for rules debates. They should also set the framework and timings for updates, and crack the whip as required.

That would allow CS to sit to one side as a kind of ombudsman stepping in when necessary.
Author:  Kyrt [ Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: NetERC structure
I would suggest this system:
Four voters.
Defined time period for voting (e.g. 1 week).
Quorum is three votes.
Motions can only be passed by majority vote.
Abstentions are allowed.
The casting vote in case of tie goes in a specific order (usually the chair is first).

For example:
2 vote in favour, 1 votes against, 1 abstains = passed (2:1)
2 vote in favour, 1 votes against, 1 does not vote = passed (2:1)
1 votes in favour, 1 votes against, 1 abstains, 1 does not vote = not passed (1:1)
2 votes in favour, 2 do not vote = not passed (insufficient quorum)

This way, people who do not feel strongly on a topic do not have to vote for or against, you can handle one person being away, and ties are not a problem.
Author:  adam77 [ Thu Jun 02, 2011 10:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: NetERC structure
Mephiston wrote:
With 12 AC's allocated I think they should be the first line of any list approval process. They should all be actively creating or amending lists so should have a pretty good feel for what works and what doesn't.

That would leave the netERC as the final check point to ensure nothing really odd slips through the net list wise and the final port of call for rules debates. They should also set the framework and timings for updates, and crack the whip as required.

That would allow CS to sit to one side as a kind of ombudsman stepping in when necessary.


+2p
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/