Firstly, I wanted to thank everyone who contributed to the previous NetERC thread - both for the suggestions and thoughts, and for keeping ti totally civil and friendly. Thanks guys.
Secondly, I wanted to briefly summarise the thread as I see it....
GoalsIts fairly unified about what we are actually looking for from any future ERC. As I see it, the goals are:
Get momentum, and continual and regular progress
Involve the community
Distribute workload and add in redundancy
Increase focus and give clear remit, to increase ownership
On top of that, the immediate priorities are:
Army book
NetEA web site; simplify structure and downloads
NetERC structure
Perhaps surprisingly, many of the suggestions were along the same lines, with most people apparently agreeing that increasing the size of the ERC while requiring a majority decision rather than absolute agreement was broadly desired.
As such, Evil & Chaos suggested a seperate army committee to oversee army development while the ERC concentrate on core rules development, and this was supported by Mephiston and Tiny-Tim. Ginger then expanded on this to include groups to focus on army lists, FAQ and rules, and promotion and tournaments, and mattthemuppet agreed that the size of the ERC should be increased. Moscovian also put forward groups for rules, army list development, playtesting, website development, document/formatting, publication, forum development, model resources and painting resources. He also put forward the suggestion of having the army list development group consisting of an army list committee and the ACs, where only a majority would be needed, not an absolute agreement, and that the total would be around 9 ACs, 1 or 2 rules members and 1 or 2 other members.
I put forward the idea of a 'second' for each ERC member, but it was pointed out that this would be a fairly dull job 90% of the time (I then wonder if this 'second' position should be attached to another role).
On top of this, several people (Ares, Ginger) called for a clear and focussed remit and set of responsbilities for both the NetERC and ACs.
So, broadly, thats the 'minutes' of the discussion. I think that two things jump out at me here. Firstly, its the agreements that the ERC should continue but with more members, and secondly that the remit needs to be crystalised and that specialisation of roles appears to be generally agreed on.
There was some discussion on the ACs inclusion within the ERC, both for and against, but I think that the broad conclusion was that the ACs should be a seperate body from the ERC, and that they are best more specialised and able to focus on niche list development, leaving the ERC to take a more macro view of army lists. There is also the issue of ERC members who are also ACs. While I understand that - in a perfect world - a person should only have a single role, I dont know if it is practical or realistic. However, I would hope that in future appointments, if a candidate already holds a role, it would count against them.
So, my proposal is this....
1. The NetERC and ACs remain seperate.
2. The NetERC is expanded to the following positions:
- chair
- rules development, FAQs
- army list development
- campaigns and suppliments
- tournaments and events
This gives an ERC of five members, and gives each member a specific remit. However, each of the four posts (aside from chair) could have a team of people, that they could organise themselves - with the army list development member having the ACs. The chair would set deadlines and lead the other four in asking them for specific results by certain dates. In addition, each ERC members team would be able to provide a 'second' for the ERC member for absences, etc.
3. A seperate role of web site/forum/discussion also exists, but is held by myself. I am a little hesitant on this, as it is the only position pre-filled and happens to be me!
![Cool 8)](./images/smilies/cool.gif)
However, I cant see any alternative, and I would make this a more open process and get other people involved as and when required.
So, please feel free to comment on the above. I am not sure that this goes far enough, to be honest, and I dont want it to come across as just a 'variation' on a theme. So, what do you think of the above, what would you change and what do you like?
Thanks.