Constitution & Structure proposal from Psyke: Discuss and propose your own

Proposed Structure
---------------------

The group could be divided up into sections members can be members of multiple sections (where this makes sense)
The branches of the group are upended from the traditional way of drawing organisation chart this is to imply that the people rule and not the officials

      [Sellers] + [Supporters] <-- these people run the group via voting not the officials, the officials serve the members
                |                  All members of any group are thought of as Members.
                |
    [Activists] + [Forum Moderators]
                |
         [Spokespersons]

Everyone in the group in any way is called a Member. All Members have 1 vote.

All voting is considered closed some time after 7 days. Forum Moderator Management decides when the vote is completed and the outcome.
Any Member may call for a vote of no confidence and if more than:

1. 50% of voters agree then the vote which has no confidence is redone once only with tighter controls decided by Spokesperson Management
   
2. 75% of voters agree then the Manager which has no confidence is removed and a elections called.
   

Subgroups:

1. Supporters (Level 1)
   A Supporter is a member who is abstaining from actions but supports the motives of the group
   
   
2. Sellers (Level 1)
   All Content makers and content sellers are in this group and can say they are in this group
   
   
3. Activitists (Level 2)
   Members in this group have decided to join in protests should the group vote to participiate in protests.
   This is somewhat like the militant wing of the Guild but they will obey all TOS and CS rules.
   Activitism is only authorised officially when voted on and passed by all voting members.
   In other words Activists serve the level 1 members and do not take unauthorised actions in an official capacity.
   Although what they do as individuals is between themselves and the Lindens.
   
   
4. Forum Moderators (Level 2)
   Forum moderators keep the forums sane and on topic. (We might need rules which dictate how and why posts can be removed?)
   Moderators serve level 1 members for the good of the whole. They can't do any actions for personal reasons or for other Managers, except:
   Forums Moderators can only be directed to take action from Spokesperson Management if a vote has a vote of no confidence passed.
   
   
5. Spokespeople (level 3)
   Spokespersons can only speak officially about a topic after voting has taken place on an issue.
   All other opinions are personal or speculative and must be stated as such.
   Spokespersons serve level 1 and 2 members and may not act officially without evidence that most level 1 & 2 members support the action being made.
   Spokespersons are the lowest members of the tree the Supporters and Sellers are the highest.
   Spokespersons have one power: They may act and dictate actions when a vote of no confidence in a previous situation has passed by the members.
   

Each Section is run by three Managers (or in the case of Forum Moderators six)
For example 3 people would be in the Sellers Management Team, Spokespersons Management Team, etc. Managers co-ordinate info with other Managers of the Guild. Managers post new info and new proposals in the Forums (as do all members). Where there is a dispute in how to proceed the three managers will have a private vote. No manager may abstain. This stops dictatorships and also allows Managers to have breaks, do things in real life etc. No Manager may change normal procedure without calling for a vote.

Unless prior arrangements have been made with the other 2 Managers, Managers absent for 4 weeks are automatically resigned.

Anybody may initiate a vote of no confidence in any Manager. If 75% or more of voters agree:

1. the Manager is removed from their position
   
2. a forum thread is started asking for each persons recommended replacement. You may not recommend yourself.
   
3. after one week a tally of names will be made and the top 10 recommendations with be put in a forum voting thread.
   
4. the winner is the new Manager.
   
5. any member may initiate a vote of no confidence in the election process and a greater than 50% agreement results in new elections.
   
6. No confidence in a particular election can only happen once.
   
7. A failed no confidence vote in a Manager shields them from another vote of no confidence for 3 months.
   

PROPOSED STRUCTURE #2
--------------------------------
I think everyone agrees that we need a management structure. I like Psykes idea as far as differentiating between Moderators/Spokesman/Activist/Supporter.
(FYI: Psyke and I have been close friends for many years, please dont perceive this as anything but an alternative suggestion)

I am a firm believer in K.I.S.S. I propose a group of 5 Officers all to be group elected by nomination. One of the 5 should be elected "Chairperson" to keep the Officers on track and serve as a spokesperson/lightning rod/scapegoat.

Everyone else would hold "Member" status within the group.

All decisions/focus/priorities are solicited by the group from a general agenda.

All decisions would be ratified first by the Officers then put to a vote by member poll.

We could nominate the 5 Officers and then let the Officers determine the Chair.

Officers should serve a specific term and rotate out. Say 1 year?

Voting should be anonymous. A simple "Hello, I voted" post is all that is needed.

We should have commitee's responsible for specific tasks..Promo/LL Lobbying/Activism (examples) the commitee's would be volunteer positions.

I am very interested in seeing us enact an impartial investigative branch in some form as Xandi outlined in her post here..

/108/91/124026/5.html#post1173175

Democracy and transparency are of the UTMOST concern to me personally (Psyke too) I do not want to see this group portrayed as elitest or clandestine. Which is another reason I believe it should always remain open to all. Thieves/Alts/Spies should all be welcomed IMO we want EVERYONE to know what we are up to. They will ultimately show their true colors, and those without an interest will naturally migrate.

This HAS to be PRINCIPLES before PERSONALITIES to be effective. This transcends politics or personal agendas.

A poll to determine whether the group stays open or invite only will be forthcoming soon. I weighed in. It should ultimately be the decision of the group as a whole IMO.

Banning/Kicking from the group should be a last resort. That could be one of the responsibilities of the elected officers.

Please offer your structure suggestions/support so we can get this group active.

Upcoming/In the works...

Logo Design Vote
Charter
Open/Invite Only Vote

I don't have a specific structure in mind but there are certain things I'd like to see in place. I like the idea of officers elected by the membership and 5 is a good number for officers.

Personally I'd like to see the general membership composed of individuals who are content creators and/or sellers. Committees for Lobbying/Activism/Investigation/Forum Moderation could be formed from those members interested in those activities.

I would like to see a separate non-voting section for supporters of the group, i.e. clients, buyers who support the purpose and function of the group. They could be called on to become involved in certain activities such as protests.

At any time the group is discussing "sensitive" matters, it should be able to adjourn to an executive session. Generally that has meant the officers but I think the general membership minus the supporter group should be involved.

Open or closed membership? I guess my scenario lends itself to invite only for the general membership with perhaps open membership for the supporting group.

Group structure is such a dynamic entity that we can pretty much tailor it to fit how we want. It just becomes a matter of what works best for us and pleases the majority. Because realistically there will never be 100% concensus.

Psyke, thanks for investing so much time into provoking us to some thoughtful decisions here.

I find myself leaning toward Stroker's concept most especially because of the transparency. Anytime you build towers with closed rooms, layers of politics are sure to follow. By choosing a small group of our peers to act at the executive level, they are able to more effectively vet ideas and move them to action. I also agree with a term-limited appointment to keep things from stagnating.

I think the idea of openly welcoming anyone to participate is also wise, trusting in the wisdom of the larger group to absorb and buffer the energy of disrupters and direct the flow in a positive way.

The idea of committees is also spot on. Allowing people to focus on areas of particular interest to them, we're more like to cultivate better results. Breaking down challenges and opportunities to be tackled by the group that's most readily engaged in the areas those things fit in will keep the process lean and fluid.

Thanks a bunch for the thought that's already been invested into this group. I'm starting to feel hopeful again.

Sue.

some great ideas in all these suggestions! personally, i tend to prefer things that accomplish the goals in as simple and concise a fashion as possible. i think the more complicated, involved and splintered off something is, the more likely you'll have confusion, differing interpretations of one rule/format or another, blatant violations and/or dissention...and that's the last thing that needs to happen in this group, as it will lessen the liklihood of us being taken seriously.

i do like the idea of committees and a handful of elected officers...i think too many cooks really DO spoil the broth. in addition, until things are settled once and for all with this, it's my understanding that current officers are really that for inviting purposes only...not to make any unilateral decisions...right or wrong?

as far as open/closed enrollment goes....i can see both sides to this. my initial reaction was we weren't being careful enough.....as the membership currently has a few members who have been sited at one time or another for doing some of the very things we want to eliminate. however....i also believe in the saying *keep your friends close and your enemies closer*

just my 2 cents

I think that open membership was closed yesterday, or has this been revised? I think committee and voting up officers is a good democratic way to move forward.

One thing I am wary of is this whole thing inSL becoming witch hunty. I've been told a few times my things have been ripped only to find the items are nothing like them. I think that we need to be vigilant but also be careful of paranoia.

I think we need to find a positive approach in communication with LL and concrete suggestions rather than knee jerk reactions.

I have to say I am surprised by the posts I have seen so far...we seem to all be on the same page for the most part. Keep it simple and effective and no politics. I love it!

Incidentally, whether we have open or invite-only membership, someone is going to have to keep an eye on them ... we have had people offering to tell us all about their awesome casino machines, and another well-known scammer had joined the group, I was told.

How we do that with open registration etc I do not know.
Cali

I have had lengthy conversations on the practicalities of organising and running the voting system. And basically the forums and SL don't have the features for a multiple position nomination and voting system. On top of that it would create numerous threads filling up the forums. There is also some concern that most members don't even read the forums. I am going to propose what I call the "Democratic Dictator" solution. LOL

We all have one thread where we post, if we decide to nominate ourselves, for election to the Chair. All nominees with then be put into a vote thread. If there is more than 10 nominees we will have multiple vote threads. Highest vote count wins the Chair. In the case of a tie. A new vote happens with only those tied. All votes close after 7 days. Results are decided by the moderator who first records the results at the end of 7 days. A screen shot will be taken as evidence and the thread locked.

The Chair then is a benevolent dictator who will decide what other positions there are and fills them how they see fit. They may choose to have a vote or they may choose to have a discussion or they may choose without discussion.

How do we keep the Chair honest? Any member can start a no confidence vote in the forums and if it passes with 50% or more after 7 days, then a new election happens. To stop trolls, this procedure can only happen 1 month after elected and 1 month after a previous no confidence vote.

I thought this had been hashed out too and I thought it had been decided that the 5 officers would be elected? I'd really like to participate in the choosing of leaders within the group. You'll never get 100% voting in any election and yes some people will complain about the outcome, just as they do irl. And even if they didnt' vote, they had that opportunity. To take away the opportunity somehow seems contrary to having a cohesive group.

If no one else has any proposals for the structure and voting I will starts a vote thread tomorrow between the 3 that have been suggested above. The vote will close after 7 days.

After that we will vote again for the chair/positions.