Proposals and Such

Because I feel this exchange on Skype should be posted here:

Rax: I definitely like the idea of decentralizing power within the clergy. Quite frankly I would like to see it in the temple as a whole.That said, would each vote be given a time period? The benefit of a synod is that votes are passed relatively quickly, especially since the clergy hasn't exactly had the best turnout for votes in the past. What are your envisioned parameters for pass/fail?

Ros: Please can we have this discussion in forum? But what I'd like to see is a quarterly "check in" thread for clergy. So on the first day of the quarter, a PM goes out to all active clergy. They then have 1-2 weeks to check in. The General Clergy would be made up of those people who checked in that quarter. With a simple majority being sufficient to pass a proposal. And Pastor stepping in to break a tie.

Any more thoughts here?

I like it we'll thought out Master Ros.

I really like this.
The rolling stone's gotta start somewhere.

Edit: As for the time limit-- that makes sense and I agree with it as well. There needs to be a time limit set so that things can move with relative speed. Anyone involved enough to make an informed decision can then vote (or perhaps designate someone to carry their vote for them under special circumstances, such as an emergency LOA or a pre-planned vacation where access is limited).

I dunno if you ever have to handle any sensitive issues that may come to clergy via someone who is not in synod (structural changes to the temple which affect the clergy are about all I can think of...) You may need to be able to control the agenda (what comes in, at stages 1 or 2), at times... Just a thought. You'll need to know who has oversight to say - "nah, that might affect individual people's dignities if discussed so openly" (just like you noted that role facilitation or personnel issues would, so are kept to synod).

Things of a personal nature or a confidential nature would and should never be discussed openly. That would be handled by the relevant party.

JLSpinner wrote: Things of a personal nature or a confidential nature would and should never be discussed openly. That would be handled by the relevant party.

I'm pleased that's been stated JLSpinner; because it's beyond important that people know they are safe with clergy. But I suppose I was meaning a different kind of singling out.

Say someone proposed to bring a non-clergy thing under the clergy umbrella - like the unofficial discord, because it is so very very good. That could be entered as an idea in "1", but then there may be individuals feeling as though they are being discussed too openly; the users and host - nothing directly personal/private; but that could hurt feelings.

I am now hoping the amazing steamboat recognises how great I think the discord is, and how brilliantly he runs it, keeping ranks in order, and an eye on over 20 chat rooms... But he COULD rightly feel singled out by this comment, rather than encouraged by it... So there'd need to be a way to intervene at stage "1/2" to control the agenda, so there are no hurt feelings.

I hope that clarifies the difference I am trying to make. That clergy seal is golden and solid folks... You can trust it. Hit the button up top if ever you need it

Increased detail to step one. All proposals are handled by Atticus. I trust his discernment in deciding which goes where.

Let me wake up a bit and ill articulate better