With that said, I think codifying some expectation of commitment and activity from a Vice Captain is a worthwhile goal - though I don't have any cogent thoughts on what those benchmarks may look like at the moment.

A VC should be expected to perform any day-to-day duty that their Captain could.

A VC should be expected to perform any duties of their Captain on short-term or long-term basis in order to compensate for a Captain's absence. In matters such as these, a degree of mentorship from others on staff will be used to fill he gap between what the Captain had not yet knowledge transferred.

Pointedly, a VC is not a designated successor in any binding fashion. Some people may not want the level of commitment and leadership implied by Captaincy, some people may not enjoy doing staffwork without their former Captain to kick butt with, and the reasons why this may not come to pass go on and on. Certainly, someone who has spent time as a VC on a team has a reasonable expectation of "inside track" if the Captain spot on their team ever becomes open, but I would definitively not want to codify it as a successor.

The relationship and mandate between a Cpt and VC is a separate issue from the function of adcap as proposed in the "Redesign"

… i was going to say more but i think this elucidates my position here entirely. Like, a vice captain shouldn't be able to e.g. unilaterally add JS or put someone up for promotion; but they should be expected to be consulted/consult on doing so in the same manner that you would if they were a co-captain. This also means that they should, over time, be trusted to make captain level decisions with as little oversight as you'd expect from a co-captain — in order to ensure that they are y'know, actually capable as a captain, and ready to take over immediately as necessary.

now that's done, my actual points: much like my view on captains, vice captains should also have very few privileges not granted to regular staff. only one, in fact: they should be trained by their captain so they can step up and be a temporary captain if the captain goes on break/hiatus/is hit by a bus. and nothing else.

this isn't to say that vice captains should be explicitly forbidden from doing anything else - that's entirely up to the team that they're part of, and what all the members of that team think a vice captain should be allowed to do. but, imo at least, the only mandatory thing should be the one i mentioned above

I feel it's worth answering number two first.

Right now, Vice-Captaincy confers almost no powers. We have left the determination of what a VC can do to the relevant Captain. I think that preserving team autonomy is important, but this feels more like something that fell out of the quickness of the VC position mandate more than anything else.

If we want to really and truly reduce bus factors and bottlenecks, training VCs seems like a fine, but not exclusive, avenue to do that. There's more to being a captain than running a team in a vacuum. It's a position that's going to necessitate higher-level discussions on site direction, working with other teams, delegating, and diplomacying. If the VC position is going to be a meaningful one, these things I just listed are probably a necessity as far as "powers a VC should have".

I don't think forcing captains to give their VCs 50% of their power for intra-team work is going to be a useful or good idea. There's too much variation between teams and responsibilities for that to really work out well.

And this brings me to point 1 -

If the only purpose of a VC is to be a designated successor, the position should not exist. A VC should be an active training position, not only to prepare for the position of Captain in the case of emergency, but because it's a great opportunity for developing team and communication skills that are useful throughout all staff interactions. "Designated Successor" is not a position that we need codified in any capacity - we need people who can step in seamlessly so that when someone steps down or disappears, things don't come grinding to a halt. And I don't think that "leave this coordination entirely in the hands of the captain" is enough to ensure that's going to happen.

My thoughts are a bit scattered right now, but seeing ocuin's thread go uncommented was making me sad. I think that, in general, Vice Captain should be a position for people to gain leadership and project management experience, and the way we structure responsibilities and powers should reflect that. It shouldn't just be "what if someone gets hit by a bus", but rather, "how can we develop more people and talent to help manage the site" - especially given recent events showing how short staffed we really are in a lot of ways.

1) What purpose do/should vice-captains fulfil?

To expand on this question a bit:

Vice-captains have come about as a method of reducing bus factor, and also in order to prevent significant roadblocks if a captain takes a long break and is required for certain policy measures to pass. However, what comes with this is a number of questions about what level of influence, responsibility, or engagement is required with this. Are vice-captains required to be as active in team management as captains, or is it simply a role that puts one 'on call' for whenever a captain takes a break? What are the responsibilities and purpose of vice-captaincy?

2) What powers does vice-captaincy confer to a staffer?

To expand on the second question a little:

Captaincy confers a number of powers to a staff member - they can bring on junior staffers without consulting staff at large or admins, they can bring forward existing staffers for promotion to operational staff or moderator without consultation, they can make internal team decisions without consultation, and they can exercise executive or fiat control over areas of the site under their team's purview - for example, a CO or MAST captain could likely fiat elements of the front page. What of these, if any, can a vice-captain do? Do they require the approval of their captain to do any of these, or do they need to consult a wider number of staff members?

This thread does not exist for a specific proposal currently, although it may lead to one down the line if it is agreed it is necessary. As a result, there is no timer on it. This discussion is open to all staff, please leave your thoughts below.