ERT Governing Council

[COBOLdinosaur]

As a democracy, one of the things we are going to do it determine how decisions will be made. Right now we can just put things in a poll and hold a vote.  We are a small community and a lot of what we have been doing can be done with yes/no type proposals.  However as we progress it will start to get very difficult to continue that way, espeially for complex issues with many options.  Also if we continue with everyone voting directlythe voice of the Mentors will be lost as they get vastly out numbered by users.  The policy will start to resemble those of sites where users dominate because they pay for service (not mentioning any names).  So What I propose is:

• The site will be governed by a council of 10 elected members plus the Site Admin.
• 10 elected members repreent the groups within the membership : Mentors - 5; contributing members - 3; members - 2.
• Only the Site Builders will jave a vote in all stree categories.
• Only Mentors and Site Builders will have a vote of the Mentor representatives.  To be eligible to run for a Mentor position, a member must have a rank Mentor or higher.
• The contributing member representtives will be elected by members with a rank of Advisor or higher, but who are not Mentors. To be eligible to run as a contributing member representative, a member must have a rank of advisor or higher, but not be a Mentor.
• Member representives will be elected by members below the rank of Advisor who have a minimum of 10 posts. To run as a member representative the members must must have a rank lower than Advisor, have a minimum of 10 posts; and have been a member 30 days.
• For the purpose of qualification; eligibility is determined as of the date the election is called.  Members who join between the election call and the poll opening day will not be eligible to vote.
• Admin and Moderator positions have no bearing on eligibility to run for office or to vote.  Those administrative titles are ignored for the purpose of elections.

Yes it is a little complex.  Democracy is complex. Democracy for a special group within a Community gets really complex; but what we want to end up with is Expert Democracy, not another  marketing driven democracy for $10 Timmy.  We are still some months away for elections, but we need to start putting a structure in place, before we can go to govenance by elected members.

There is still a lot to do and agree on as we move forward, but I think the first thing we need to agree on is how we will govern the site.

[CrYpTiC_MauleR]

>>  The site will be governed by a council of 10 elected members plus the Site Admin.

I think thats too small of a group. I would go with at minimum 25 to distribute council powers better. Also council members, should be chosen according to high qualifications, and expertise. Not by preference, popularity or when member is not at all qualified for the position. Qualifications and expertise, must be all tech related since site will revolve around that aspect.

[Zyloch]

Or 26  :lol: If we're going to have equal representation for members and mentors, we need an even number (as it is now, 5 mentors 5 members).

[COBOLdinosaur]

The number of members will need to change over time, 10 elected accross the site is appropriate for a start. As the site expands we will likely want to elect a representative from each category and eventualy from each topic, but for a start with even just 10 we will likely find it is difficult to get enough qualified people to run.  While there is some power associated with being on council in will also involve doing work unrelated to being a Mentor and not everyone id going to be lining up to take it on.  My bet would be that at the end of the first year, most elected members will not want to be relected or will have dropped out of activity; because that is a normal pattern for new organizations where people run for the power and then find out the it is 10% exercise of power; 30% listening to complaints; and 60% doing work without a thank you.

Also council members, should be chosen according to high qualifications, and expertise. Not by preference, popularity or when member is not at all qualified for the position. Qualifications and expertise, must be all tech related since site will revolve around that aspect.

That is not a description that could be called a democracy.  It is an oligarchy, worse yet it is a technocracy.  That is a classic corporate governance structure.  Change two words "tech" to "marketing"; "council" to admins and it exactly describes the system of govenance in place at TOS.

There the result is policies that are harmful to experts, here we would very quickly develop policies that are harmful to those who are not experts.  We would of course not think we we being harmful, we would just be following the rules, and interpreting the rules to benefit ourselves whether we were fair or not; just like they do.  If a group within any Community is without power and representation, they will be discriminated against and beaten down.  That is just how it is.  It is human nature.  It has been that way forever, and it is not going to change because we have good intentions.  Given the structure you describe WE WILL beat down members, and they will go somewhere else; leaving us to wonder why no one comes to a site with so much expertise available.

With what I propose Mentors have a majority.  It does not matter who wins as a Mentor because if they are Mentors then they are already known to be technically qualified.  The second group may be less qualified, but will certainly not be technically backward, and as they aspire to be Mentors, it is likely that they are going to agree on many things; especially when it comes to the delivery of technical information.  The third group are members; some of whom may be morons.  They might even elect a moron.  So what! if you are going to have a democracy of some sort, you have to trust the members of the Communty to make wise decisions.  If you are going to have a very narrow technical definition for qualification; how do you determine that qualification?  A formal set of academic requirements; a written test; or some subjective determination made by an individual examiner or group of examiners who of course end up with the real power.

For a democracy to work it has to be broad based, and you have to have enough confidence in that form of governance to let the participants make mistakes and screw it up.

[nicholassolutions]

I agree with both Cd& and CM here. On the one hand, having people in charge who do not understand techical problems would be a disaster -- I cannot count the number of times over at EE I came across disagreements that really revolved around one expert knowing what was going on, and another expert having no clue, but arguing nonetheless. Having moderators who are similarly ignorant leads to immense trouble, because in technical areas, you actually only want so much democracy: not all opinions are created equal (i.e. the uninformed ones are worthless), and frankly experienced Mentors should not have to waste their time arguing over cut-and-dry technical topics. Without coming across as overly crass, if one user is objectively wrong, he needs to STFU and start listening, and the people in charge need to know the difference. This is only a narrow example of why people governing a technical site need to have technical know-how.

But on the other hand, as cut-and-dry as tech issues can be, it's very hard to come up with cut-and-dry measures of competence, and doing a good job of governing takes a lot more than coding skills (DanRollins over at EE, for example, is obviously competent but I would never want to work with him or put him in charge of decisions that affected me). For that matter, maybe it doesn't make sense to let anyone who is not competent even vote for representatives. Like Cd& said, this sounds more like Jim Crow than democracy.

What it comes down to is us, and how seriously we take this 'experiment'. People need to care enough to step back and elect governers who are qualified on many levels to do their jobs, and concede that it might not be best to elect the Class Clown or Mr. Popular. Our (USA) own political elections certainly are not always promising in this respect -- we've managed to elect some government officials (including the President) who are almost illiterate. But I think we have a better group of people here, in the sense that we care more (I'm hoping for more than the 30% maximum  voter turnout or whatever it is), we're all fairly well-educated, and that we all realize that we actually have the ability to make a difference here.

So, I think we need to trust ourselves --and push ourselves--  to elect people who can do the job....otherwise there is really no point in making this site a democracy at all. To me, 10 sounds like a fine number to start with, though I agree it makes sense to eventually increase that.

My $0.02....

Matt

[COBOLdinosaur]

Matt,

I think you highlight something important there.  Governing the site and managing threads are two different things.  The Council should not be dealing with whether or not some moron should be allowed to post stupid comments in PHP.  That is thread management.  In the ERT model the thread is a discussion in a classroom setting and the Mentor is in the same role as the prof in a lecture hall; they are in charge period.  

There are no moderators as such except for the Mentors themselves.  Mentors may disagree on the best way to solve something.  That is good.  The debate and discussion are exactly what we want.  When a wannabe post some stupidity.  They get shut down right then and there and if the behaviour persist, Then there are none of these games of "how many chances do I get".  They are gone and the only way they will ever be back is if the Mentor who asks for the suspension asks for them to be allowed to return.

Those are not issues the Council has to deal with.  The council has to deal with issues like what is "fair use" of copyright material; during what hours of the day should system maintenance be done; What new topics should be added.  How many editors do we need; given x amount of money available do we spend it on a new server or spend part of it on a re-conditioned server and use the rest for site promotion.  The only time the council should ever have to get involved in thread managment issues is if there is an issue between Mentors that they cannot work out on their own.  Those are not going to be technical issues.  They are going to be personality, style, and workrule issues.

I think as far as structure we still have a ways to go working out the jurisdiction, but I think we can say that the primary dividing line is going to be the forums.  Inside the forums the Mentors have the power and authority.  The editors are there to assist in a clerical role and the admins are available to take drastic measures when requested by a Mentor,  Outside the forums on a site wide basis the Council has jusrisdictin, and I expect that there will be some heated debates on who has the final word on some things; the local Mentors or the council.

We still have a lot to work out. Sometimes we will get it wrong and have to go back and change it.  It is one of the real treats about a democracy that a lot of people have to make the same mistake so no has to take the blame. You just go fix whatever you messed up and get on with it.

[nicholassolutions]

It was actually ocurring to me as I wrote that post that the council and the mods are not the same thing. The decisions you mention require a certain level of expertise themselves (for example, if you're choosing between a new server and site promotion, you have to understand server load issues -- otherwise you may attract extra traffic to a site that can't handle the work as it is). Nevertheless, I agree it takes more personal maturity and experience than tech knowledge to decide on most of the things you're suggesting.

. You just go fix whatever you messed up and get on with it.

That pretty much sums it up  :-)  I think as long as everyone takes things seriously and realizes that the decisions/people we vote for will make the site what it is in the future, we'll be OK.

[keneso]

Basically myunderstanding is the council will be an elected management, and if they do well they'll be reelected, otherwise there will be some changes.

If that is correct, then it is good to have a variety of backgrounds, not for the sake of representativeness, but for the diversity of opinions, which will give a wider view on issues, and thus improving the outcome of the final decision.

We need a new paradigm: the council should not be made by representatives of different parts of the community, as this would bring an opposition and conflictual debate, we should have a council, whose members understand the nature of the site, and putting aside personal egos work in the interest of the community/site.
Given the above, we will have a council, that even if not technical, will have the wisdom to seek the technical consultation before making technical decisions.

Of course there is the need for Cd&'s veto, as he is legally and financially responsible.

That said I would even reduce the number from 10 to 9, there is a reason for the Supreme Court to have 9.
The reason for an odd number is to avoid the stalling on an even voting.

[Daydreams]

The reason for an odd number is to avoid the stalling on an even voting.

Having an odd number is a good idea, or leave it at an even number and have Cd& be the tie-breaker (just in case) as he is legally and financially responsible.

Also the number of posts may not be a good indicator. There are many ways to run up the number of posts one makes.

Also.. once elected how long would the tenure be? Regular elections would solve the tenure problem. One could hold a position a long time as long as one is reelected.

[Huntress]

Also.. once elected how long would the tenure be? Regular elections would solve the tenure problem. One could hold a position a long time as long as one is reelected.

And that would be a good way to prevent premature burnout.

[COBOLdinosaur]

The council will be an odd number.  The first point of the proposal:

"The site will be governed by a council of 10 elected members plus the Site Admin."

As for length term we probably want to debate that in a seperate proposal once we have nailed down the structure, responsibilities and authority.  If we try to put too any thing togather in a single proposal and we start to get ammendments and variations on the theme it becomes very difficult to put it with just yes no alrternatives; and poor Coral will go vonkers trying to figue out what to ask.

[coral1]

>> and poor Coral will go vonkers trying to figue out what to ask <<

To late, "Images in Post" already did that.      8)

[COBOLdinosaur]

:sign5:

[keneso]

"The site will be governed by a council of 10 elected members plus the Site Admin."

Sorry I missed it :)
I still prefer 9 over 11.

As for length term we probably want to debate that in a seperate proposal once we have nailed down the structure, responsibilities and authority.

Agree.
We are learning how to consult productively ;)

[Jasper]

One of the things I think could be a problem is involvment.  If you have a couple "members", while they may think its "neat" in the beginning, they may change very fast, depending on the demands made of them being on the council.  The problem of "Whats in it for me?" is more then likely to come up with just "members" who really could just walk away at any moment and never look back.  They were not here in the beginning, they have no emotional ties.

Maybe that won't be a problem, but I think its worth discussing.

Jason