Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Serenity Steele
Dynamic Data Distribution Ministry of Information
|
Posted - 2008.05.29 09:03:00 -
[31]
Edited by: Serenity Steele on 29/05/2008 09:03:45
Suggestion: This should be optional, as per:
Originally by: Inanna Zuni Should someone not want the additional responsibility of being Chair then they should, clearly, be permitted to resign that role without resigning their seat on the Council.
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=783042&page=1#9
Reason: Outright election by council members provides too much opportunity for bias through a single power block taking over the council (Not just an alliance, but an Ideology eg. Pirate/Carebear/PvP/Mission Runners)
|
Arithron
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.05.29 09:17:00 -
[32]
If this measure gains appropriate support I'll lobby for the change to be written into the CSM constitution
Well, you have the support of at least one representative (Serenity Steele) so looks like you can vote on this in a CSM meeting!
Take care, Arithron
|
Waterfowl Democracy
The Ministry of Indigenous Affairs GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.05.29 09:17:00 -
[33]
Actually it's already optional. You'd know this if you'd read the CSM document. It's kind of pathetic that at least two current members of the CSM haven't bothered to even read the founding document (Innai and Serenity).
I support this idea but I also support the idea that Jade should have stepped down as he said he would do before the election. I ask that this issue of lying to the electorate be discussed during the CSM meeting that discusses the change in the Chair election procedure.
|
AltBier
Blue. Blue Federation
|
Posted - 2008.05.29 12:30:00 -
[34]
Edited by: AltBier on 29/05/2008 12:32:11
Originally by: Jade Constantine If this measure gains appropriate support I'll lobby for the change to be written into the CSM constitution during the Iceland meeting after which (if successfully implemented) I intend to stand down there for an immediate re-vote on Committee chair.
Is it true that currently you could not stand for committee chair again if you had resigned ?
|
Ishina Fel
Synergy. Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2008.05.29 12:55:00 -
[35]
This is a very sensible and easy to implement suggestion that could help the council a lot. I definitely support this.
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.05.29 13:20:00 -
[36]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 29/05/2008 13:21:10
Originally by: Jade Constantine If this measure gains appropriate support I'll lobby for the change to be written into the CSM constitution during the Iceland meeting after which (if successfully implemented) I intend to stand down there for an immediate re-vote on Committee chair.
Is it true that currently you could not stand for committee chair again if you had resigned ?
Thats my read on the CSM document yes. It says if the chair stands down they must be replaced. But in any case, its not my intention simply to stand down and then stand again for some symbolic purpose alone. I would like to see the constitution changed so that in the future we get elected chair for the CSM meetings as a matter of course and guiding principle.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.05.29 13:23:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Arithron
Well, you have the support of at least one representative (Serenity Steele) so looks like you can vote on this in a CSM meeting! Arithron
Well it needs to be in public discussion for seven days so it won't be this weekends meeting but yes it can go forward for the next.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Sapphrine
Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2008.05.29 15:29:00 -
[38]
agreed
|
Kalinda Veldrin
|
Posted - 2008.05.29 15:57:00 -
[39]
I fully support this issue.
|
Waterfowl Democracy
The Ministry of Indigenous Affairs GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.05.29 16:10:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Jade Constantine But in any case, its not my intention simply to stand down and then stand again for some symbolic purpose alone.
Shame that it seemed that that was your stated intention before the election.
|
|
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.05.29 16:25:00 -
[41]
Edited by: Kelsin on 29/05/2008 16:25:50
Originally by: Jade Constantine If this measure gains appropriate support I'll lobby for the change to be written into the CSM constitution during the Iceland meeting after which (if successfully implemented) I intend to stand down there for an immediate re-vote on Committee chair.
Agreed, it's important that this be written into the constitution that governs this and future sessions of the CSM. There won't always be a correlation between the person who received the most votes and the person most suited to run meetings (though in this case it worked out).
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.05.29 16:52:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Jade Constantine Edited by: Jade Constantine on 29/05/2008 13:21:10
Originally by: Jade Constantine If this measure gains appropriate support I'll lobby for the change to be written into the CSM constitution during the Iceland meeting after which (if successfully implemented) I intend to stand down there for an immediate re-vote on Committee chair.
Is it true that currently you could not stand for committee chair again if you had resigned ?
Thats my read on the CSM document yes. It says if the chair stands down they must be replaced. But in any case, its not my intention simply to stand down and then stand again for some symbolic purpose alone. I would like to see the constitution changed so that in the future we get elected chair for the CSM meetings as a matter of course and guiding principle.
Thing is, the first guy to get the job doing something tends to stick. If you and the next couple all step down upon election, I doubt it will even be considered thereafter, there'll just be a chairman vote at the first meeting. For example, look at the use of [Issue] tags on this forum - they started when somebody decided to make a visual identifier to try to split stuff up a little in the first hour of this board, and probably 80% of threads copied him, simply because it was accepted practice. You're here right at the beginning, and that gives you more power than you think to set how the CSM will do business going forward. Use it. ------------------ Fix the forums! |
hollandnavigator
Samhain. Monkey Religion
|
Posted - 2008.05.29 16:56:00 -
[43]
/Signed
|
Windjammer
|
Posted - 2008.05.29 18:42:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Waterfowl Democracy Actually it's already optional. You'd know this if you'd read the CSM document. It's kind of pathetic that at least two current members of the CSM haven't bothered to even read the founding document (Innai and Serenity).
I support this idea but I also support the idea that Jade should have stepped down as he said he would do before the election. I ask that this issue of lying to the electorate be discussed during the CSM meeting that discusses the change in the Chair election procedure.
These guys never grow tired of being the rear ends of EVE. Goonswarm, if nothing else, is consistent.
|
Windjammer
|
Posted - 2008.05.29 18:49:00 -
[45]
I did not vote for Jade, but I'm very glad she is on the CSM and even happier she is the Chairman. The very fact she's made this post speaks well of her integrity. Her ability to handle the position was verified during the first meeting of the CSM where she faced an irritating situation with restraint and tolerance.
I'd be pleased for her to have the vote of the council endorse her current position.
Best regards, Windjammer
|
Rafe Udall
R.U.S.E.
|
Posted - 2008.05.29 19:07:00 -
[46]
Signed |
Gotrek65
Industrial Warlords Dominatus Phasmatis
|
Posted - 2008.05.30 00:59:00 -
[47]
Agreed
|
Brachis
Eve Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2008.05.30 01:21:00 -
[48]
Definitely supported.
"I do this with but one small ship and I am called a terrorist... you do it with an entire fleet and are called an Emperor." |
Aeo IV
|
Posted - 2008.05.30 01:24:00 -
[49]
Ether this, or allow us to directly elect the chairperson separately.
|
Efa Morgan
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 08:02:00 -
[50]
|
|
Tarun Thred
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 00:03:00 -
[51]
Makes sense.
tt
|
Iria Aristar
Blue Zenith Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 02:00:00 -
[52]
Edited by: Iria Aristar on 04/06/2008 02:05:55
Originally by: Inanna Zuni Edited by: Inanna Zuni on 28/05/2008 18:31:43 I am presently neutral on this.
Should someone not want the additional responsibility of being Chair then they should, clearly, be permitted to resign that role without resigning their seat on the Council.
Whether it should be the case that the incoming full Council should elect a Chair, as opposed to the Chair being the person with the best podpilot support is not so clear-cut. The present method has the benefit that is should be less problematic: the result is clear when the votes are counted.
A hypothetical: Canididate X receives the highest individual vote (I'm ignoring that the whole voting process needs a review for the moment) and under the current system would be Chair. However instead it goes to a vote of the new Council, upon which serve four members of the same Alliance, though in terms of the ballot they were in positions 6, 7, 8, and 9. They choose one of their number to be Chair instead.
Whether you consider that 'fair' or not is the question, but it is clearly against the spirit of what pilots voted for as there were at least five candidates receiving more votes than than the Chair.
As I said, I'm neutral on this for the moment ...
IZ
I agree w/ what Inanna said. However, I am not neutral. I'm against this proposal for the exact same reasons that Inanna is neutral for it. In my opinion, if the elected chair can not perform his/her duties then the chair position should follow the order of popular vote from the pod pilots. Neither the CSM nor CCP should EVER be able to call for a vote that changes who holds any CSM position without letting the pod pilots vote. Making this change would essentially destroy what CCP is trying to create.
Originally by: Grismar Having the chairman position rest with the member with the highest vote count doesn't seem to make sense.
I haven't read the constitution in detail, but I can see different ways for the CSM member with the most public votes to have some small advantage after the elections.
Some ideas that might work together and still give the majority vote winner an advantage: - the chairman position falls with the majority vote winner by default; - the chairman position has to be given up by the person holding it, starting an internal vote for a new chairman; - only CSM members who indicate they want the position of chairman can receive votes, if none of them want the position, it returns to the previous member holding it; - in case of a tie in the chairman election, the majority vote winner is the tie breaker;
My support for the basic premise at any rate, Grismar.
The suggestions outlined by grismar would be an effective way of selecting new chair, however i stand by the belief that the vote should not be internal but presented to the general community.
|
Arina Deturca
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 03:56:00 -
[53]
Edited by: Arina Deturca on 04/06/2008 03:57:48 No. I think our votes should mean something. The Council doesn't need more power. |
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 04:03:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Arina Deturca Edited by: Arina Deturca on 04/06/2008 03:57:48 No. I think our votes should mean something. The Council doesn't need more power.
So you don't think the council should effectively be able to elect who they want to plan meetings and moderate discussion?
I mean, if someone DOES get elected for chair, but this individual doesn't have the time nor will to do this job, surely he should be able to resign and have a vote put up to replace him?
I think this is a sensible idea.
|
Arina Deturca
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 05:13:00 -
[55]
Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: Arina Deturca Edited by: Arina Deturca on 04/06/2008 03:57:48 No. I think our votes should mean something. The Council doesn't need more power.
So you don't think the council should effectively be able to elect who they want to plan meetings and moderate discussion?
I mean, if someone DOES get elected for chair, but this individual doesn't have the time nor will to do this job, surely he should be able to resign and have a vote put up to replace him?
That's not exactly what Jade said, but I can answer that question for you, too: If you're not able to run for CSM, don't run for CSM. It's a large responsibility, and some people have jobs or school or a family. I can understand that. If you can't handle being a CSM, then don't run. You can still vote as a public member and push stuff through the forums, but if you don't "have the time nor will to do this job", then quit and let the person with the second-most votes lead the Council.
Anyway, since you didn't read it the first time, let me copy/paste for you:
Originally by: Jade Constantine I'd like to have the CSM constitution re-written to the effect that the majority vote winner is not automatically appointed Chairman but instead (stand-in chair) with the sole responsibility to handle an initial vote amongst committee members to select its own formal chair from the nine representatives
Basically, if enough people felt strongly enough about your campaign to vote for you the most, then you deserve to be the Chairman. I do not feel that the Council should have the power to vote internally for that seat. |
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 05:36:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Arina Deturca
Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: Arina Deturca Edited by: Arina Deturca on 04/06/2008 03:57:48 No. I think our votes should mean something. The Council doesn't need more power.
So you don't think the council should effectively be able to elect who they want to plan meetings and moderate discussion?
I mean, if someone DOES get elected for chair, but this individual doesn't have the time nor will to do this job, surely he should be able to resign and have a vote put up to replace him?
That's not exactly what Jade said, but I can answer that question for you, too: If you're not able to run for CSM, don't run for CSM. It's a large responsibility, and some people have jobs or school or a family. I can understand that. If you can't handle being a CSM, then don't run. You can still vote as a public member and push stuff through the forums, but if you don't "have the time nor will to do this job", then quit and let the person with the second-most votes lead the Council.
Anyway, since you didn't read it the first time, let me copy/paste for you:
Originally by: Jade Constantine I'd like to have the CSM constitution re-written to the effect that the majority vote winner is not automatically appointed Chairman but instead (stand-in chair) with the sole responsibility to handle an initial vote amongst committee members to select its own formal chair from the nine representatives
Basically, if enough people felt strongly enough about your campaign to vote for you the most, then you deserve to be the Chairman. I do not feel that the Council should have the power to vote internally for that seat.
You aren't quite getting the point I'm making.
I fully agree with you that you shouldn't run if you don't have time. But some people do run, because of a free trip to Iceland.
Also, I read Jades post and I have discussed this matter with him SEVERAL times. I'm just adding my perspective to it. So stop assuming I didn't read the thread because I don't make the same points as Jade.
But let me ask you. Do you think that the person with the most votes will always want, or is able to, moderate and plan meetings?
|
Arina Deturca
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 06:38:00 -
[57]
Originally by: LaVista Vista You aren't quite getting the point I'm making.
Yeah, I get that feeling too...
Originally by: LaVista Vista I fully agree with you that you shouldn't run if you don't have time. But some people do run, because of a free trip to Iceland.
That is entirely the wrong reason to run (are you naming any names...?) but I understand what you're saying. I don't believe that people who garner enough votes are those types of people though; I believe the people who made the top 9 votes put a lot of effort into their campaigns, and into the game as well.
Originally by: LaVista Vista Also, I read Jades post and I have discussed this matter with him SEVERAL times. I'm just adding my perspective to it. So stop assuming I didn't read the thread because I don't make the same points as Jade.
I only said that because you didn't respond to what I said. You were talking about something completely different, so I wanted to make sure we were on the same page...I apologize if I offended you.
Originally by: LaVista Vista But let me ask you. Do you think that the person with the most votes will always want, or is able to, moderate and plan meetings?
The person with the most votes is the person that the people feel is most capable for the position. That is what I am saying. What this thread is suggesting is that the people cede that power to the Council. That is what I am against. Anyone who applies for CSM, regardless of vote count, should want, or be able to, read the CSM charter and figure out what the roles of the Council are, should they be appointed.
Example one: if you have nine people who think they should each be Chairman, you run into problems.
Example two: there are a lot of people who are disappointed or upset or angry that members from GoonFleet are appointed CSM membership positions. They could force the CSM to do lots of things most of their "constituents" don't agree with, and I don't believe it is in our best interests to allow the Council to have more power than they already have.
|
Poreuomai
Mirkur Draug'Tyr
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 13:03:00 -
[58]
Edited by: Poreuomai on 04/06/2008 13:06:34
Originally by: Arina Deturca The person with the most votes is the person that the people feel is most capable for the position.
Not at all. The person with the most votes is the person whom most people wanted on the council.
Wanting someone to be on the council is not the same as wanting someone to be the chair.
It certainly says nothing about how willing or capable that person would be for the chair position.
|
Toramii
Le Moulin Rouge
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 13:24:00 -
[59]
Edited by: Toramii on 04/06/2008 13:23:45 Motion supported.
Thats a great candidate for the first vote and validates the Chairperson in the CSM councils eyes.
Also instills some faith in me that CSM may make a difference for the better.
|
Toramii
Le Moulin Rouge
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 13:28:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Poreuomai Edited by: Poreuomai on 04/06/2008 13:06:34
Originally by: Arina Deturca The person with the most votes is the person that the people feel is most capable for the position.
Not at all. The person with the most votes is the person whom most people wanted on the council.
Wanting someone to be on the council is not the same as wanting someone to be the chair.
It certainly says nothing about how willing or capable that person would be for the chair position.
Agreed, I never voted for the chair when I cast my vote, I only voted for the person that best represented my views on Eve.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |