AU mod panel elections

alexman · December 8, 2003, 16:20

Please vote on what you think should be the format of the AU mod panel:

If you select a 3-member panel, the 4 candidates with the fewest votes will be dropped from the panel. In this case, vote for the candidates you think have the ability and time to fullfil their responsibilities as panelists.

If you select a 5-member panel, none of the 7 members will be dropped from the panel. We will have a quorum of 5 people on a panel of 7. You can still vote for any number of candidates, even if you think there should be a 5-member quorum on a panel of 7, just in case the 3-member panel ends up in majority.

The AU mod panel has these responsibilities:

Listen to input from the Apolyton University community in order to identify possible changes to the standard game that fit into the AU mod philosophy, or problems with modifications already present in the AU mod. This includes reading the AU mod thread, as well as AARs and DARs for AU courses, as many scenarios are used as tests for the AU mod.
Formulate official proposals for any change to the AU mod. In the case of new modifications, present a proposal to the community for discussion through a new thread. In the case of changes to the existing AU mod modifications, bump the relevant discussion thread by formulating the new proposal.
Vote on the resolution of each official proposal. Modifications may be incorporated on a trial basis, in case real-game testing is required to further evaluate the change. Panelists cannot abstain.
Implement any accepted proposal in the editor, create and upkeep the official documentation for the AU mod, and ensure that both the mod and the documentation are readily accessible the community.

ducki · December 8, 2003, 16:34

I voted 3 members, Dom, Thes, and Alex.
More than 3 I think would be tough to manage and keep commited and motivated.
Also, I think there's enough difference of opinion and enough experience among those 3 that we won't end up with too big a bias towards a single playstyle.

And as always, I've never seen any of them dismiss someone else's suggestion or proposal out-of-hand, so
I think they will listen to the community and make experienced, educated decisions that they feel will benefit AU.

vmxa1 · December 8, 2003, 18:13

Given the issues of real life the idea of a 7 memeber panel and having either 3 or 5 for a qorum makes sendse to me.
Three being the easies to attain.

Rhothaerill · December 8, 2003, 18:44

3 man panel with alexman, Dominae and lockstep. Those three have so far done the most in getting all the discussion for the AU C3C mod off the ground (especially alexman

).

Fosse · December 8, 2003, 20:51

I said 5, because three is too easy to get unbalanced decisions, in my opinion. I voted for alexman, Dominae, and Theseus because I know that they know the mod inside and out, have been with it for a very long time, and have good ideas.

Other candidates... nothing personal... I just don't actually know you guys as well. I'm sure you're good stuff, though!

MrWhereItsAt · December 8, 2003, 21:46

I will go for 5, as 3 Consuls are sometimes not quite enough in the ISDG. Moreover, 5 Judges in the SPDG for Civ3 worked well, where there was a quorum of 3.

ZargonX · December 8, 2003, 22:12

I'd have to go with a 5-member panel, sans me. There are far more qualified people who deserve to be on it, though I will still gladly assist when needed

Theseus · December 8, 2003, 22:46

I am still a fan of 7, with a quorum of 5.

(I also don;t want to vote anyone off...

)

Catt · December 9, 2003, 00:05

I voted earlier but was a bit unsure of how to vote. Are there two distinct votes - 3 or 5 member panel and then individual candidates with the top 3 or 5 forming the initial panel? I voted for a 5-member panel, and then voted for 5 individuals.

I think all candidates are qualified. Is Theseus' idea of a 7-member panel with a quorum of 5 feasible or not?

Catt

vmxa1 · December 9, 2003, 00:54

Yes all are fine people and I too do not like to see anyone be slighted. That is why I did not mention whom I voted for.
I also like the 7 panel 5 or 3 quorum.
From the AU demo style game and looking at some of the demo games, you can see it is not easy to hold things together over time.

alexman · December 9, 2003, 10:57

I'm not familiar with the concept of a quorum. How would that work in our case?

ducki · December 9, 2003, 11:08

A quorum is the minimum number of participants required for a vote on a given issue.

Stuie · December 9, 2003, 11:11

What ducki said.

So.... if you have a 7 member panel with a quorum of 5, at least 5 panelists would be required for a vote. That way if one or two people are absent for any period of time, AU can continue to move forward.

alexman · December 9, 2003, 11:29

So the fastest 3 or 5 people get to vote and the others live with their decision?

I like it. It will certainly speed up the mod creation process!

Stuie · December 9, 2003, 11:37

Or you set a deadline for votes to be in, extending it only if you don't have the required number.

alexman · December 9, 2003, 11:52

How about this: If the 5-panel membership wins the poll, it means people want more representation, so we will have a 5-member quorum in a panel of 7.

If the 3-panel membership wins, then it means people want a smaller panel, and there will be no quorum.

As I write this, the 5-panel membership is winning by 3.

Harovan · December 9, 2003, 11:58

For me, 3 is enough.

Theseus · December 9, 2003, 12:18

I had not previously voted... I am doing so now in a vote for 5, but by that I mean 7 members with a 5 member quorum.

lockstep · December 9, 2003, 12:41

I voted for a 5-person panel with alexman, Dominae, Nor Me, Theseus and myself.

A 3-person panel with alexman, Dominae and Theseus would also be fine with me, because I'm sure they are all open to suggestions from 'the people' (i.e. persons like me

).

I don't like the idea of a quorum because this again opens up the possibility of a tie after the necessary deadline (I don't believe in a 'fastest persons get to vote' principle).

vmxa1 · December 9, 2003, 13:46

It would not be a fastest to vote so much as it would be a min required. So if it was 7 member panel and 5 quorum, you need to have 5 to make it official. The fastest could be used in the case of even numbers voting. So if 6 voted and i was a tie, only the first 5 count.
Its strength is that you will not be stop by not having all of the panel all of the time. It also has a secondary benefit of not leaving many out of the process.

lockstep · December 9, 2003, 14:42

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
It would not be a fastest to vote so much as it would be a min required. So if it was 7 member panel and 5 quorum, you need to have 5 to make it official. The fastest could be used in the case of even numbers voting. So if 6 voted and i was a tie, only the first 5 count.

vmxa1, my problem with this rule is as follows: If an official proposal for a change to the AU mod is presented and a panel vote is called for, I'd like to have some time (e.g. 48 hours) to think about the proposal once again - it may be a controversial one, but I'm not allowed to abstain. And when I'm ready to cast my vote, I'd absolutely hate to discover that I'm voter no. 6 and my vote will possibly not count. (And I'd also hate to rush my vote so that it will count by all means.)

IMO, a panelist's vote that is cast within a given deadline should always count. And if a permission to abstain or a quorum (which is actually a permission to not cast a vote, i.e. abstain) produce a tie, we need other ways to resolve the tie than looking at date and time of the votes.

alexman · December 9, 2003, 14:48

OK, so if there is a tie after the time limit has expired, then we would force all 7 panel members to vote. A tie means that the decision is controversial enough to warrant the extra wait. If that takes too long, it will be time for new panel members to replace the old lazy ones for the next decision.

lockstep · December 9, 2003, 15:14

Sounds good.

all 7 votes cast ==> decision reached
(6 votes cast) AND (tie) ==> search for panel member no. 7, replace member as a last ressort
5 votes cast ==> decision reached
less than 5 votes cast ==> invalid vote, reconsider the whole panel thing

Definitely sounds good.

Tall Stranger · December 9, 2003, 17:51

Voted for a 5-member panel, and would like to see it run as discussed above (quorum of 5 votes, all 7 candidates included). Definitely agree with lockstep that some reasonable period of time is needed to ensure that panelists have an opportunity to carefully consider proposed changes.

MrWhereItsAt · December 10, 2003, 07:35

Quote:

Originally posted by lockstep
Sounds good.

all 7 votes cast ==> decision reached
(6 votes cast) AND (tie) ==> search for panel member no. 7, replace member as a last ressort
5 votes cast ==> decision reached
less than 5 votes cast ==> invalid vote, reconsider the whole panel thing

Definitely sounds good.

Sounds great. I will go with this.

alexman · December 10, 2003, 13:17

The poll should expire in about 3 hours.
Last chance to vote!

alexman · December 10, 2003, 16:57

It's official. We have a quorum of 5 people on a panel of 7. Thanks for voting!

Tassadar500 · December 11, 2003, 12:14

I don't understand why we need to make this complicated. There is no tie. The vote shows they want a 5 member panel with Theseus, Alexman, Nor Me, Dominae, Lockstep

alexman · December 11, 2003, 12:19

People who voted for the 5-member panel, actually support the quorum with a 7-member panel, as described in the first post.

We're all set!