I've taken some stuff I wrote and never got around to posting last time
we talked about this stuff, and interlaced my repsonse to Siobhan's
points below in what I think are the main categories:
* Mission and Vision
I agree with that proposed by Axel previously, with a 'hierarchy'
addition by The Exiled:
"Convergence is the annual party put on by the denizens of the
alt.gothic hierarchy for the denizens of the alt.gothic hierarchy AND
ALL THEIR FRIENDS"
* Prebid/Voting processes
Last time we discussed, people seemed to think the current voting and
bid process is mostly ok with perhaps some better voter education and
some slightly tighter rules about having a.g. folks chairing or heavily
involved in the committee.
> 1. The mail-in registration. Originally intended to allow people from
> the newsgroup who had never been to a Convergence a vote. Final
> result; Voter registraion drives by bidding committees.
>
Voter registration drives are obviously bad, but it would be nice to
still be able to give votes to a.g.ers who haven't yet been able to make
it to convergence. Maybe an existing voter could sponsor 1 or 2 newbies
each year? Like invite codes?
> 2. Committees. Started off as people we know, now we're getting
> professional promoters. Do we restrict who can put in a bid? If so
> what restrictions make sense?
I think they can't just throw in a newsgroup representative as an
afterthought. A percentage of the committee rule is one option. (And
they must be active contributers. Not 'oh, I know where it is and might
have posted an ad for my club night there once.')
>
> 3. Voters. Who can vote? Do we maintain the current database system
> and modify how people get added? Do we ditch the database and find
> some other system? Say, go back to public voting on the newsgroup?
> Have the C*b*l just select the winner?
I think the feeling last time was voting was mostly ok, but I think we
should make an effort to educate people on what this thing's all about.
We should have resources available from altgothic.com about the
newsgroup, the history of convergence, advice about what to look for in
a bid proposal, etc. And there should be some sort of test. Maybe you
have to read the mission statement above and click 'I agree' like a ToS.
There might also be a question about current corruption present in the
database. I'm not 100% sure what the current rules are, but I think if
you didn't either vote in the most recent election or attend the most
recent Convergence, you should get thrown out. And given the nature of
Ybor and the election that preceded it, that should just about fix
everything up.
The weighted vote idea is interesting. I think I'm not for it, because
it weights Convergence attendance over newsgroup participation. And on
the other side I think public newsgroup voting would just be...messy.
* Committee and Convergence Presentation
I think we should probably have a few more rules ("guidelines"?) for
actually putting the thing on. It's all very well to say that people
should vote for committees with community members and community members
on committees should know what's in the best interest of the community,
but none of that is any sort of guarantee. I think at least a few rules
about limiting the number of bands, not advertising outside the internet
community, or capping the ticket prices would be helpful. The
alternative is something like giving the Cabal absolute veto power, but
I think rules are probably more workable for all involved.
* Addenda
MetaConvergence decisionmaking, it has been agreed, all takes place here
on alt.gothic. This should be...codified somewhere.
> 4. The C*b*l itself. More transparency? Elected? Fixed terms? Only
> previous C* organizers? Do you even care, as long as they get the job
> done?
>
I don't care now, because you guys all totally rock, but being a good
American I don't believe in creating any government without also
creating a sanctioned way to overthrow it. Maybe we give the populace
of alt.gothic the ability to call for current Cabal members to step down
if we feel it necessary? I'm *really* not sure on this one.
k, glad we're doing this
|
