- Eagle 117
- |
- Exalted Legendary Member
- gamertag: [none]
- user homepage:
About the numbers...
No one really knows how much time and work being on this council is going to take, but I’m willing to bet that much of the “ground work” won’t necessarily have to be done by the council members themselves. A lot of the work involved in, for example, searching the entire 7th Column for interesting groups could be done by setting up a weekly thread for individuals within the community to nominate groups worthy of being in the spotlight the following week (just an example). It’s not like council members have too search out each and every individual group; there are more efficient ways of doing that. Looking at it from that angle, I believe that starting with 7 council members, whoever they are, would work. One could always add more council members if need be; however, it would probably be a bit discomforting having to kick excessive members off the council. If the council were to give each chosen member a title for which to carry out specific responsibilities, I think 7 members just might work.
Another thing worth considering is having permanent members on the council, such as the 7 member slots I’ve suggested, and also having rotating council seats available for anyone involved in the community. These rotating seats could be refilled by community vote every (fill in the blank) time period. This would promote involvement in the community, as I’m sure only those who are involved in the community would get voted in to participate on the council’s rotating seats.
Besides the obvious benefits of having an additional 7 council members to help in the work of the council, these rotating council members could have input in things like weekly articles/community news, help in adding fresh ideas to the council and overall community, be given a stake in the overall success of this experiment, and, most importantly, feel as if they are being heard, perhaps rewarded, for their efforts in the community. If these rotating council seats were to work then their seats would need to be equal in number, but limited in individual power, to that of the permanent council members. Having this balance would help to keep the council in check. For example, if the community felt that certain council members were doing a crappy job then the rotating council members could call for a council vote on the issue; their numbers being equal to that of the permanent council members. If the vote were to result with the minimum of a deadlock 50/50 (7 vs. 7), then policy could call for a community vote on the issue at hand; in this case, the issue at hand being certain permanent members being replaced for a not carrying out their responsibilities. Having an equal number of permanent and rotating council members would only help to ensure the efficiency of the council (more numbers), community involvement, and council accountability.
I know this all probably sounds a bit too in-depth for b.net. Nonetheless, it seems as if Bungie does NOT want a hand in the creation and/or successes and failures of this council. Following Bungie’s laid out behavior, the complete responsibility of this council lies at the community’s feet. I feel that laying out such policies as I’ve suggested will only benefit the community by giving its members a stake in the council’s success and actions. Feel free to comment. Oh, and yes... I know I sound as if I’m drunk on the American dream:-)
- Eagle 117
[Edited on 5/2/2005]