Council of Elrond

Hello everyone!

An update to The Charter has been overdue and I have spent time in recent months working on a re-write. I have attached a revision to the Charter below for everyone's review, titled "CoE Charter 2018." Please take a few minutes to give it a read. I have also attached the current version of The Charter if you care to compare the two, titled "CoE Charter 2011."

There are a number of important updates in my revision, which I feel are necessary to both adjust our expectations to the current MECCG environment, provide more structure and organization to the Council, as well as to meet the desires of the community going into the future.

This topic (and vote) is not restricted to Council Members, and is open to all community forum members. Please post here with any feedback you have.

There will be a 2 week period for review and discussion (starting now), followed by a 1 week voting period.

Thanks for your help and commitment to MECCG!

Interesting.

www.councilofelrond.org/forum should be updated to councilofelrond.org/forum

Theo wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2018 12:32 am Interesting.

www.councilofelrond.org/forum should be updated to councilofelrond.org/forum

Great catch! I have updated the document! Thanks!

Regarding the ROC -- "Once each year, members of the ROC will pull suggestions from this subforum which are deemed to have reasonable support and logic."

Presumably, it would be the members of that committee agreeing on which ones to select, or does it mean that any member of the committee can bring something forward?

Bandobras Took wrote: Presumably, it would be the members of that committee agreeing on which ones to select, or does it mean that any member of the committee can bring something forward?

The former. The members of the ROC would confer and make a joint decision on which suggestions to include on the docket.

Hey jabber, the document looks good, I mean the only thing that bugs is to consistently choose, using either meccg, ME:CCG, ME:ccg, or MECCG. I go with MECCG personally, unless doing a eBay search (then meccg) haha.

I guess the only thing I would adjust would be the part that says "The number of seats up for election each election shall be eight". It just reads a little rough or clumsy. Maybe something like "The number of seats up for election shall be eight, every election" IDK.

All in all the document is concise and clear.

The changes I recommended are kinda minuscule, to the whole composition, i.e. it all looks GREAT!!

Laters...

rezwits wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2018 12:36 am Hey jabber, the document looks good, I mean the only thing that bugs is to consistently choose, using either meccg, ME:CCG, ME:ccg, or MECCG. I go with MECCG personally, unless doing a eBay search (then meccg) haha.

I guess the only thing I would adjust would be the part that says "The number of seats up for election each election shall be eight". It just reads a little rough or clumsy. Maybe something like "The number of seats up for election shall be eight, every election" IDK.

All in all the document is concise and clear.

The changes I recommended are kinda minuscule, to the whole composition, i.e. it all looks GREAT!!

Laters...

Thanks for your feedback and support! I have updated the language to address your comments! Much appreciated!

The ROC will maintain a subforum dedicated to rules errata or clarification
suggestions which is open to the community. Any community member may create
a thread in this forum suggesting a desired rule erratum or clarification. Discussion
will then be open for the community to weigh in on the pros and cons of such a
measure. Once each year, members of the ROC will pull suggestions from this
subforum which are deemed to have reasonable support and logic. These
suggestions will be placed onto a docket for voting by the community. This will be
called the “Annual Rules Vote.”

I thought much about this major change of the charter and finally came to the conclusion that it is good
One thing to consider, though: There might be place for doubt that all of those annual rules votes would end up in a long-sighted decision. I dare to say that in many situations for most people, and I won't exlude me , the rules are just too complex to fully overlook where a rules change might lead to. Sometimes it is maybe just the wish to change something one thinks of being unbalanced or overpowered in lack of knowledge of a right counter strategy.
That is why I deem it as very important that the ROC will
a) think very carefully about what suggestion to put on the docket
b) try to give a detailed overview of all pros and cons (i.e sort and complement the forum discussions) of a suggested change on the docket before votes will be cast.

I hope that something like this could be added to the revised charter.

Shapeshifter wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2018 8:27 pm I thought much about this major change of the charter and finally came to the conclusion that it is good
One thing to consider, though: There might be place for doubt that all of those annual rules votes would end up in a long-sighted decision. I dare to say that in many situations for most people, and I won't exlude me , the rules are just too complex to fully overlook where a rules change might lead to. Sometimes it is maybe just the wish to change something one thinks of being unbalanced or overpowered in lack of knowledge of a right counter strategy.
That is why I deem it as very important that the ROC will
a) think very carefully about what suggestion to put on the docket
b) try to give a detailed overview of all pros and cons (i.e sort and complement the forum discussions) of a suggested change on the docket before votes will be cast.

I hope that something like this could be added to the revised charter.

Thank you for the thoughtful feedback! You bring up an excellent point about unintended consequences. If a rule change is deemed to have been a mistake at some point in the future, there are 2 solutions:

1) If it is non-urgent in nature, it can simply be reversed or amended during the next Annual Rules Vote.

2) If it is urgent in nature, it can be put up for a modification vote immediately (there is a clause in the Charter about an adhoc rules vote which allows this; Wolfgang did an early proof read for me of this document and this was one of his suggestions).

Nonetheless, I have added the language you have suggested to the document attached. Please take a look. Thanks again!

I'm ok with the new charter. Thanks for the good work

the Jabberwock wrote: ↑Tue Jan 23, 2018 4:41 am Nonetheless, I have added the language you have suggested to the document attached. Please take a look. Thanks again!

Well done, I like it. Thanks a lot.

Great work, it's perfect!!

What I like most about the new Charta is the focus on how things are in reality.
Most important are rules issues, this looks like a good solution for now. If there is the need of improvements, amendments can always be done.
I am also quite happy with it, so thanks a lot to Gavin for taking initiative.

Jose-san wrote: ↑Tue Jan 23, 2018 11:57 am I'm ok with the new charter. Thanks for the good work

Shapeshifter wrote: ↑Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:07 pmWell done, I like it. Thanks a lot.

cram wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2018 7:04 amGreat work, it's perfect!!

thorondor wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2018 6:21 pm What I like most about the new Charta is the focus on how things are in reality.
Most important are rules issues, this looks like a good solution for now. If there is the need of improvements, amendments can always be done.
I am also quite happy with it, so thanks a lot to Gavin for taking initiative.

Thanks so much for your feedback guys! Voting will open tomorrow.

I'm having some issues with the attachments on my original post, so I've removed them and have re-attached the latest 2018 revision to this post, in addition to the 2011 Charter Revision.

Thank You.

----------------------------------------------------------