WSC chair person

Saladin · Post by **Saladin** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 9:50 pm

Ok, now that it has been decided what form the WSC will take it's time to chose a chair person (moderator) and maybe a back up.

I suggest that the appointment last for one year and new elections are held every year.

So let's discuss the duties and 'powers' of the chair person and everybody should feel free to nominate somebody.

Let me start it off by nominating Tbert as chair person and Korexus as first back up.

TBert · Post by **TBert** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:03 pm

First off, let's talk about the powers the moderator or chairperson will have in the process. This quote is from the recently passed proposal.

The main regulators of the discussion will be the forum moderators and the original creator of the proposal (myself, in this case). They have the power to stop the discussion and start the vote, dependent on how active the discussion is. They also have the power to lock the discussion thread while voting is going on to avoid people trying to change the proposal after the vote starts. The final power they have is regulating the length of the voting, which, like discussion, depends on how active the voting thread is.

This needs to be made very clear. If we implement a single moderator/chairperson instead of using all the forum moderators as said above, they will have to have limits on their power. They will not be able to kill proposals, or force a change to the proposal. The moderator/chairperson should have three main powers.

- Keep the discussion thread for the proposal on topic, to keep discussions concise. This includes removing flamers that have no constructive purpose.

- Regulate the length of the discussion and voting time, based on set limits, with some flexibility to allow for an active discussion to continue, a dead discussion to end early, etc. This includes locking the discussion thread during voting, and locking the voting thread when the voting is complete.

- When voting is closed, the moderator/chairperson will do the final tally and announce whether the proposal passed or failed.

There are a few other things that a moderator/chairperson could do. They could take the final proposal (if it is passed) and integrate it into the current rules, especially if it applies to the WOK Council (aka WSC). People could submit proposals through the moderator/chairperson, maybe if a person doesn't know how to put their ideas into text or just doesn't like being the center of attention.

The main point about the moderator/chairperson is that there needs to be somebody that can regulate the discussions in the WOK Council, but nobody wants one person to hold too much power. Except maybe Chris, since... he does have too much power.

Vortan · Post by **Vortan** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 8:31 am

Well, my two penneth, for what its worth.

korexus for chair.

He does the programming. He works on WOK for free! If he says something cant be done, or is impractical from a programming point of view then his view should carry the weight. Anything else would be ludicrous. How do you make a programmer do something he doesn't agree with? You can't. It is impossible. Therefore the Chair should carry the right to veto a proposal PROVIDING that he can give valid reasons for doing so.

End of opinion.

Post by **korexus** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 8:41 am

(Intermittently back)

Yes, Vortan. You're absolutely right.

However, this whole issue arose because I currently have that veto and people get upset if their idea is turned down. (Even though I never actually refused to do anything the community wanted.)

So what is being suggested is that we put a set of words around the system we had in place and call it a new system. I don't mind, I just thought I'd point it out. - If people had any real objections to the way WoK worked before, those objections will still stand...

Also, on the programming side, Gaz is now producing EWoK code at least as well as I did when working on WooKIE and Rune is around more often. It makes sense to have all three experienced coders talking about what is possible, not just me. (That way, not only do we have more chance of knowing how to do something, but I don't have to take all the flak!

)

Not offering any solutions here, I know, just stirring up the mud a bit...

Chris.

Saladin · Post by **Saladin** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 11:54 am

Maybe Tbert name of 'moderator' is a better name for the position. As that is just what the chair person / moderator does, he moderates the discussions and puts suggestions to a vote. Nothing more nothing less. Certainly no veto right.

TBert · Post by **TBert** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 12:48 am

Sal, yeah moderator is a better word for it, Chairperson has a ring of power to it, which the moderator really won't have.

However, the question still remains, could the existing forum moderators handle this, or does a single person need to be given the duty?

Calidus · Post by **Calidus** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 1:42 am

I believe that the current forum moderators should handle this responsibility. If the moderators are not active enough on the boards, (dameon, duke, egbert) then we need to replace them with more level headed, highly active advanced members. (yep, leaves me out!)

Post by **korexus** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 10:54 am

Nominate TBert.

korexus.