Structure

[speedingbullet]

Are we going to vote to decide whether we need a committee? Or is there enough consensus there already to proceed?

I suspect a committee has the necessary support but hard to know for sure so think we should put it to the vote?

[CircusBear]

Are we going to vote to decide whether we need a committee? Or is there enough consensus there already to proceed?

I think it should be voted on, as i think there needs to be a seperate item in the vote for specifics of a committee, as I think that there are some formats of a committee that would be absolutely counter productive and would not vote for (ie if that was the only option for a committee I would actually vote for captains decision only).

I think a similar sentiment to this has been expressed by others in this thread too.

[mubo]

As much as I'd like a committee, I think we should wait to hear from some others. I think only half of the current TE have weighed in as is, and numerous others yet to chime in.

Agree with need to describe what we are voting for precisely, and the importance of getting a committee right.

I think we broadly agree that:
We need to add some structure for TE, be it a committee or some kind of process.
(please shout if you're happly with the current setup)

[Pipey]

All seems fair enough. Conscious that we don't want a long string of votes with no defined end point. Would be good for us to draw up a clear map of what votes might be expected depending on outcomes of each.

... we should wait to hear from some others. I think only half of the current TE have weighed in as is, and numerous others yet to chime in.

That's sensible of course, though these conversations have been going on for months now so there's been no lack of opportunity for everyone to have their say. Every voice is equal, TE or not. Important to emphasise that.

[mubo]

Never miss a points scoring opportunity.

[PeteW]

I've been relatively quiet about all of this, mainly because I don't have strong feelings. I guess I would prefer whatever happens (whether it is one man, a committee, or a mass-vote) to be well-organised and enthusiastically driven. I'm prepared to put up with a number of minor things that I may slightly disagree with, if that means that English BB is going to be lively and active. Stagnation is the worst case scenario.

I'm not a big fan of endless discussions and debating, so I would prefer a committee to have sensible discussions and make decisions. How about this as an idea:
- A committee of 5, comprised of the Eurobowl captain, and 4 elected members of the English community, who serve for 4 years, with one rotating off each year. An election can be held to appoint their replacement, and they have to have at least one year off before standing again. (At the start, the 4 members would be elected together, and random lot would then determine their initial length of service, 1, 2, 3 or 4 years. Subsequent appointments would each serve 4 years.)
- The committee can table ideas and motions based on the discussions of the community, or their own ideas, and pass them requiring a 3/5 majority.
- Anyone can step down, at which point the committee can draft someone to fill a casual vacancy until the end of that member's term.
- If a committee member does not attend X number of e-meetings, then the committee can dismiss them (requires 4/4) and replace with a casual.

This means we get community representation, and decisions are made wisely and quickly.

I think the EB captain should be voted for by the community each year, with a clear job description, including committee seat. The Captain must have played for TE in the past. I think they should have free rein to chose the team however they like, although it would be encouraged that they aim for highly competitive, with trying to wider the pool with a new member, if there is a good, competitive choice.

Those are my thoughts, but as I said, I don't have strong feelings, other than wanting to see Bloodbowl thrive.

[Edit: just reread previous posts - Purplegoo's idea of 2 year terms, with 2 in 2 out would be better than my 4 year terms.]

[Maverick]

So a few days further on with no further responses - how long do we wait for the TE masses that are clamouring to be heard?

[Purplegoo]

Yeah, I'm tending to agree with Maverick. While I'd really like more input from more coaches (we're past the need for heavy sitting on old hands now, I think), it appears we aren't going to get it, and we're threatening to give into nerd inertia. A month into the thread, I think everyone has had fair warning the conversation is happening and we can move to vote on what structure we want post 2018, as per the options outlined above:

a) Captain is elected, is the sole decision maker
b) 4 person + captain committee is elected, they are the decision makers
c) A window exists within which community members can table votes that add / change things, we're all the decision makers

Clearly there are things to work out later depending on which option we choose, but I think they're trivial in comparison to actually picking a direction. For instance, I think we should roll up who makes the decisions into this vote, but the length of a committee member term is something we can quickly finish off afterwards (if that concept wins). If we vote and / or wrangle on each and every aspect in turn, no-one is going to follow it or care enough to see it through.

[speedingbullet]

+1 to this ie let’s pick the direction by voting on the a, b, c options.

If the committee option is favoured then I assume this is a 3 vote process before we are all systems go?

1. Vote on a, b or c. If b wins then
2. Vote to select committee members, then
3. Vote to accept or reject a new charter that has been drafted by the committee

[Pipey]

This all sounds good, Phil. I think Speeding Jim is right about having a mapped out process of precisely what a vote for each option would trigger i.e. committee’s mandate etc.

1, then (if b) 2 followed by 3. This gets a plus one from me.

[Purplegoo]

Seems fine. I don’t think the charter really needs a vote, it’s just a short form of words that sets out the structure we’ve already discussed and voted for. It won’t contain anything controversial at that point. Whichever option wins can knock that out in a week or two.

Again, simple majority doesn’t work for the first vote - copy / paste above post.

[speedingbullet]

As the charter is the key document setting out how Team England (and the committee) operates, it seems reasonable for the community to get a vote on whether to accept or reject any new charter. If the committee is able to change the charter at will (without a community vote) then it perhaps gives too much power to the committee? Although perhaps I'm just paranoid!

[Purplegoo]

If you’d like a poll on it, I’m more than happy in principle, don’t get me wrong. I just think that, in practice, a) it’s going to be bloody tough to hold engagement and attention through (perhaps - depending on outcomes) 7 votes when b) the charter is just going to be the thing we voted on with some timescales and perhaps a no confidence back door attached to it. What is going be in there that is frightening? ‘We the committee / I the captain can do as I see fit re: TE matters’? So far as I understand it, that’s a brief summary of options 1 and 2 anyway. I think if in future a committee wanted to change the charter ('4 years is too few, I demand lifetime terms!') that should be subject to a vote, but this first draft isn't going to be difficult?

But I suppose I’m much less fussed about this than worried talking around in circles slows / stops anything happening at all.

[Purplegoo]

Another week down - feels like we've lost a bit of momentum.

I'm keen for us to install some sort of a structure, it appears three to five more have taken the time to post and agree. I think we have enough to progress to a bit of democracy, but I don't think I'm the right person to kick that along. I neither want to seem like I won't shut up until my thing happens nor create any risk (however negligible) that someone could misinterpret this as a NAF thing.

Any of the frequent posters fancy picking this up and running with it? Alex? Speeding..? I'll probably take a back seat now - if the general mood is that it's too much effort for too little reward (nice thing, but can't be bothered with the forum poll nonsense), happy to let it drop (although will feel uncomfortable the next time there is a peak of interest and stuff just sort of happens without structure).

[speedingbullet]

I’m happy to pick this up to push it through to an agreed structure. Expect a post early next week once I’ve done a little planning and returned from holiday.