The following proposals have passed, with some level of dissent, but this does not mean we cannot change them if we wish:
Proposal I: Proposals and Discussion
Item 3. Restrictions
c. Votes by Staff members currently under Inactive status will not be counted.
Item 2. Active/Inactive Status
a. If a Staff member is absent or has limited activity for an extended period, the Admins may vote to place them on Inactive status.
b. So long as a Staff member is Inactive, their votes are not counted, nor required for an item to pass or fail, and they may not use the powers of their position.
c. A Staff member that the Admins vote to be Inactive will remain Inactive until the Admins determine that they are Active again.
d. A Staff member who has been Inactive for a period exceeding one year may be voted on by the Admins to be removed from Staff.
I-3-C
I am not sure what we can do to make the objecting side happier. The proposal was made with the premise that staff who are Inactive(at least to the point that we would vote to give them that status) are less aware of the details of what is going on, and could hinder progress by voting against things they do not properly understand.
Dexanote: Yes to all proposals, EXCEPT for I - 3 - C. I still don't see why inactive staff that happen to vote on something shouldn't be included.
In response to Dex:
According to other proposals that were voted in, Staff can request to have themselves be made Inactive at any time, and then may request to be taken off of Inactive status once they are ready to return. Thus this rule would not prevent those staff members from participating, although coming off Inactive status and going back on it immediately would seem really iffy to me if someone pulled that.
But staff members who basically just abandon us and don't stop by to say anything for months or years, being able to drop in and vote on a measure anytime they wanted? I don't see the benefit to allowing that.
Sophia Light: Item 3 C: No as per Dex's objection, though perhaps we should have some other way of having the votes of staff who haven't been around and may not be familiar with the issue, count less than normal.
To Light: I can see a potential for compromise there, having their votes count less in what way? Should we only count it if they intend to stick around? Should we verify they understand the issue first?
thedeadlymoose: Item 3: Yes, except for (C), which I vote No for. I am not happy to see this show up in such simplified form; I'd support requiring inactive staff to contribute to discussion if needed for their vote to count, but not simply discount their vote entirely.
To moose: What you seem to be saying there is that if Staff become active again(or at least what I would consider active), their vote should count?
Perhaps if the person is voted to be put back on Active status again, their vote should then count, but otherwise no?
Explain your thoughts further on this if you would. If we come up with a worthwhile clarification to this, a vote on it would be worthwhile.
III-2
I saw reasonable objections to the content of III-2. Specifically the idea that the rules of voting Staff to be inactive should follow the same guidelines as staff demotion, as in being voted on by your peers or higher.
Photosynthetic: Item 2: No. I vote that, rather than only the Admins having a say on this topic, the voting pool for inactivity should be the same as for disciplinary action — everyone of equal or greater rank to the staff member in question. (Other than that, this item would have my Yes vote.)
Sophia Light: Item 2: No, what Photo said, otherwise in favor of it
thedeadlymoose: Item 2: No on all items. There is no reason that I can see to not involve staff of same rank or higher. (Same reason as Photo here.)
So basically, to all of you, if it worked the same as III-1-B, you would have no objections?
Proposal III: Staff Rules and Rights
Item 1. Disciplinary Action
b. Disciplinary action against a Staff member will be voted on by those of the same rank or above(Admins for Admins, Mods and Admins for Mods, All levels for Senior Staff)
In other words, worded like this
Item 2. Active/Inactive Status
a. If a Staff member is absent or has limited activity for an extended period, they may be voted to be placed on Inactive status by those of the same rank or above(Admins for Admins, Mods and Admins for Mods, All levels for Senior Staff).
b. So long as a Staff member is Inactive, their votes are not counted, nor required for an item to pass or fail, and they may not use the powers of their position.
c. A Staff member that is voted to be Inactive will remain Inactive until the Staff determines that they are Active again.
d. A Staff member who has been Inactive for a period exceeding one year may be voted on by the same rank or above to be removed from Staff.
I am slightly worried on III-2-C in that instance…do we really need a full Staff vote to return someone to Active status? I was figuring it would be considered a minor vote and thus decided by that "Rule of Three" thing for expediency.
Give me your thoughts on this as well.
Given the new rules, we'll have up to a week to throw ideas around here before we create a vote, if you guys wish to attempt to make said changes.