Post by Polaris Seltzeris on May 16, 2020 19:27:50 GMT
Currently, when I look at the Executive Roster as well as the Internal Affairs policy page (https://totalfreedom.boards.net/thread/66359/internal-affairs-information-read), I see some contradicting information. On the executive roster, SKS and Zevante are the Executive Admin Officer and Assistant Admin Officer, respectively. Zevante also has the additional rank of "Internal Affairs". However, the Internal Affairs policy states that both SKS and Zevante are part of Internal Affairs, and that Assistant Admin Officer doesn't actually exist at all as Internal Affairs replaced it. Notably missing from any policy is how somebody actually becomes a member of Internal Affairs, it just states that SKS and Zevante are part of it without any information on in the future how somebody would become a member if we wanted more members or if somebody currently in the position retired. Additionally, given the contradictory information in the Executive Roster, it's unclear if "assistant officer" actually exists or not.
So, I'm presenting a suggestion to formalize policy just to make it clear how it all works, and the end result of this suggestion is to make these sorts of executive positions more democratic so that the community has some direct say in who's handling our affairs:
My proposal is that we create a new "Executive Policy" which defines the scope of the positions in the Executive Roster as well as how an executive receives their position. This policy states that for each executive position which currently exists, there is to be a snap election held when a position becomes vacant (this already occurs, but not in policy). An election would utilize approval voting (there was a separate suggestion I posted to implement this, it was accepted but not implemented) to make the results objectively fairer, the implementation being that on election polls people are allowed to vote for any number of candidates, not just one (meaning, if somebody liked two candidates, they can vote for both increasing the odds of another candidate winning). If somebody already has an executive position, they cannot run for another one. Election threads are began in an area for senior admins only for them to nominate themselves using a template chosen by the owner, and are moved to public forum view for poll voting at a time the owner decides.
The one who wins a plurality/majority of the vote is given the executive position, and the 2nd place winner is guaranteed an assistant position but may choose to opt out of such position. Up to 2 assistant positions may exist and one of them should always be filled by elections if more than one person runs for a position and they accept the position, the other can be appointed by the elected executive. If the 2nd place winner does not accept an assistant position, the 1st place winner must pick at least one assistant. If there are 2 assistants still in place after an election is held from prior appointments, then the winning executive may choose which assistant is replaced with whoever came in 2nd place.
That covers executives. In addition to that, it also seems that we elect forum moderators, so it would just be written in policy that for each vacant forum moderator seat an election is held (if there are multiple vacant seats, 2nd or 3rd place winners are also chosen). It also appears that we only have one forum administrator position which is separate from owner/executive positions that are tied into it, which is currently held by Steven, so that would be elected too, or if the owner or forum manager (Finest) chose to add another forum administrator then that would be elected as well.
So yeah, most of this we already do but there's contradictory information on different threads and it's not written in a policy that can be referenced to whenever there's confusion. I just put in some extra provisions which make it more fair and democratic for the community. To sum it up, just formalizing what we already do and also making it clear that we should be using approval voting to make it fairer for people and that 2nd place winners receive an assistant position.
So, I'm presenting a suggestion to formalize policy just to make it clear how it all works, and the end result of this suggestion is to make these sorts of executive positions more democratic so that the community has some direct say in who's handling our affairs:
My proposal is that we create a new "Executive Policy" which defines the scope of the positions in the Executive Roster as well as how an executive receives their position. This policy states that for each executive position which currently exists, there is to be a snap election held when a position becomes vacant (this already occurs, but not in policy). An election would utilize approval voting (there was a separate suggestion I posted to implement this, it was accepted but not implemented) to make the results objectively fairer, the implementation being that on election polls people are allowed to vote for any number of candidates, not just one (meaning, if somebody liked two candidates, they can vote for both increasing the odds of another candidate winning). If somebody already has an executive position, they cannot run for another one. Election threads are began in an area for senior admins only for them to nominate themselves using a template chosen by the owner, and are moved to public forum view for poll voting at a time the owner decides.
The one who wins a plurality/majority of the vote is given the executive position, and the 2nd place winner is guaranteed an assistant position but may choose to opt out of such position. Up to 2 assistant positions may exist and one of them should always be filled by elections if more than one person runs for a position and they accept the position, the other can be appointed by the elected executive. If the 2nd place winner does not accept an assistant position, the 1st place winner must pick at least one assistant. If there are 2 assistants still in place after an election is held from prior appointments, then the winning executive may choose which assistant is replaced with whoever came in 2nd place.
That covers executives. In addition to that, it also seems that we elect forum moderators, so it would just be written in policy that for each vacant forum moderator seat an election is held (if there are multiple vacant seats, 2nd or 3rd place winners are also chosen). It also appears that we only have one forum administrator position which is separate from owner/executive positions that are tied into it, which is currently held by Steven, so that would be elected too, or if the owner or forum manager (Finest) chose to add another forum administrator then that would be elected as well.
So yeah, most of this we already do but there's contradictory information on different threads and it's not written in a policy that can be referenced to whenever there's confusion. I just put in some extra provisions which make it more fair and democratic for the community. To sum it up, just formalizing what we already do and also making it clear that we should be using approval voting to make it fairer for people and that 2nd place winners receive an assistant position.