ThorTheGreat
Caldari GoonWaffe SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO
|
Posted - 2010.03.24 01:24:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Dragon Greg
Originally by: Serenity Steele This looks to me like over-kill; both extending the period to 1 year PLUS making no limit on total number of sessions.
Taking the limit off enables good performers can do it for longer = good.
Extending the period to 1 year means: - non-contributing/incapable/stupid people stay longer = bad. - people will need to be kicked for non-participation = bad. - Still facing a risk of continuity every time the entire council can cycle = bad.
Would it not be better to state the terms are 6 months, existing members get an option to extend for 1yr? Council members nominating to step-down before election cycles, rather than having to be kicked because their life changes. A number of seats open each 6 month period, there is still continuity for people who get into it, there is still a chance to bow-out gracefully, there is still a medium-term period for new-blood to enter.
Not to mention the other interesting meta-gaming aspects of people demanding that specific council members step-down at the 6 month mark, encouraging others to stay the 1 year etc.
It would probably also have an interesting effect on the election periods, as there are less positions, people would have a greater impact on garnering votes to get in. The flip-side could ofc. be that larger voice powerblocks keep on inserting more candidates, with 2 strikes at the pie ;)
Looks like you're still thinking of the CSM as the CSM, whereas it seems CCP is moving ahead full speed encompassing CSM in SCRUM.
It is almost funny if it goes like announced now it'll bump into stuff players usually bump into in game, like kicking inactive directors and all that, I wonder if the chairman has a button to disband the CSM
As long as the CSM remains a political process, it will not become a viable stakeholder group within scrum since it solely represents special interest groups (representing polities) as opposed to general interest groups (representing clients).
This statement would make more sense if it wasn't the clients doing the voting.
|