[Discussion]Ideal size of the Senate

[Thanas]

I'd be okay with spending some time on that.

[Tiriol]

I do not object to my presence on the list, as well. I'm willing to commit myself to this committee, unless someone objects to my admittedly usually rather passive and dare I say lurking presence and method.

[Hotfoot]

I am a man of my word, even if it ends me up in the hospital. Remember that Greg.

So, shall this be a public discussion in the Senate, or shall we move it to more live proceedings?

[Stark]

I think the suggstion was PM, but that might take a long time. Is an IM discussion going to be productive?

[CmdrWilkens]

I am a man of my word, even if it ends me up in the hospital. Remember that Greg.

So, shall this be a public discussion in the Senate, or shall we move it to more live proceedings?

My operating idea is that if the proposed members agree and the Senate concurs ya'll could do it however it works best for you. My only request would be to see any proposal before it hits the floor for debate.

[Alyeska]

Just a few suggestions. Would it be possible to create a sub-forum specifically for the committee to discuss the issue? Something coded to lock out everyone but the committee members? A forum format might work well for extended discussion and the ability to easily look at what is discussed and go over options.

[CmdrWilkens]

Just a few suggestions. Would it be possible to create a sub-forum specifically for the committee to discuss the issue? Something coded to lock out everyone but the committee members? A forum format might work well for extended discussion and the ability to easily look at what is discussed and go over options.

We probably could but it be a pain and I'm not gonna ask the admins to do it.

[Tiriol]

A sub-forum might indeed be not worth the hassle, especially since it would only allow very few members in for a very short period of time. However IM, MSN and other similar services would also be a pain in the ass when people from all over the world would try to find some common time to discuss various proposals. We do have jobs and studies, after all.

Private messaging or E-mailing might be the way to go, unless a specific sub-forum is created or some sort of special thread in the Senate or somewhere else where only the members of the Committee could post. However, that option too has its disadvantages.

[Thanas]

Private messaging is my medium of choice as well.

[CmdrWilkens]

RedImperator will not be able to participate so I'm soliciting volunteers.

[Sea Skimmer]

Whatever a committee comes up with will just be debated at length anyway and modified, just like happens with real government committees which exist primarily as a means of giving more power to long standing legislatures. I don’t really see the point because of that. In terms of members likely to enter into a debate we just aren't that big.

[CmdrWilkens]

Whatever a committee comes up with will just be debated at length anyway and modified, just like happens with real government committees which exist primarily as a means of giving more power to long standing legislatures. I don’t really see the point because of that. In terms of members likely to enter into a debate we just aren't that big.

Not really because whatever the committee brings to me either goes straight to a vote or gets edited by me, sent for committee review and then voted on. In other words once this group comes to a consensus it goes to the Senate for a vote, no more horse-trading at that point.

[Sea Skimmer]

Not really because whatever the committee brings to me either goes straight to a vote or gets edited by me, sent for committee review and then voted on. In other words once this group comes to a consensus it goes to the Senate for a vote, no more horse-trading at that point.

Then we might as well just go back t moderators make the rules, which I’m fine with. I fail to see any advantage to this system.

[Thanas]

Well, isn't this completely superfluous now that the HoC has been closed?

[Lagmonster]

When it gets right down to it, we know the members of the Senate are our 'better' posters - people whose opinions the staff may respect. The HoC was, basically, every breathing mammal with fingers. It makes absolute sense that our advisory body consist of the former, not the latter.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Well, isn't this completely superfluous now that the HoC has been closed?

It seems to be. Senate activity has picked right up, even before the radioactive remnants of the HoC have finished cooling off.

[CmdrWilkens]

Well, isn't this completely superfluous now that the HoC has been closed?

I still think there is some merit to at least discussing the composition of the Senate. We could certainly continue forward nominating as per the pre-HOC days (rules have been edited to allow this). So I'm honestly 6 of one half a dozen the other. If there isn't a lot of support for such a review then I'll drop it and close out this thread but lets let it simmer for a few days.

[LadyTevar]

When it gets right down to it, we know the members of the Senate are our 'better' posters - people whose opinions the staff may respect. The HoC was, basically, every breathing mammal with fingers. It makes absolute sense that our advisory body consist of the former, not the latter.

And we keep voting more people into the Senate... why?

[Tiriol]

When it gets right down to it, we know the members of the Senate are our 'better' posters - people whose opinions the staff may respect. The HoC was, basically, every breathing mammal with fingers. It makes absolute sense that our advisory body consist of the former, not the latter.

And we keep voting more people into the Senate... why?

This is where I think the committee concerning the Senate's role, function and maybe even rules might come in handy: me may, for example, want to limit the number of Senators, but perhaps also limit the terms of the Senators, as well. The House of Commons may be gone, but the size of the Senate is still somewhat problematic.

[LadyTevar]

I do feel that while this might be tabled for the moment, the idea should be revisited no later than Xmas holiday. After all... this was the topic that started the whole blowup with HoC.

[Steve]

When it gets right down to it, we know the members of the Senate are our 'better' posters - people whose opinions the staff may respect. The HoC was, basically, every breathing mammal with fingers. It makes absolute sense that our advisory body consist of the former, not the latter.

And we keep voting more people into the Senate... why?

Fresh blood is the best reason. If we decide to limit the numbers of Senators we could simply vote new senators in to replace the older ones who've served their time, resign, or are removed.

As for limiting the size below our current roster - which may not really be necessary - 40 and 50 are nice round numbers for proposals, 50 being better if only because it will reduce the eventual capacity for drama when it comes time to decide who leaves.

[Connor MacLeod]

When it gets right down to it, we know the members of the Senate are our 'better' posters - people whose opinions the staff may respect. The HoC was, basically, every breathing mammal with fingers. It makes absolute sense that our advisory body consist of the former, not the latter.

And we keep voting more people into the Senate... why?

What Steve said. If you feel that there are too many "useless" Senators around then maybe we should start clearing house of people who are already in but contributing little?

[Coyote]

Maybe we should first decide how big the Senate should/needs to be, and then once we agree on a number, see who will hasn't done anything for, like, ever; and then we see who is willing to voluntarily step aside.

Once that is done, we'll have to take what's left and begin the triage work.

[Stuart]

In the "Voiding the removal vote" thread, it is stated that the full Senate had voted. A count of the votes received at that point indicates 35 people had voted. Note that in the "removing a member" thread, the total votes counted was 36. Thus, it would seem from these that the actual membership of the Senate is 36 people. That seems to me to be neither over-large nor excessive given the number of people who frequent this community in general. I must therefore suggest that "size" per se is a non-issue and can (in isolation) be dropped.

It does become important if we believe that there should be term limits on Senate membership. If that is the case then obviously we do need to select a target number for members. Personally, I would suggest sixty as being a number that allows for a reasonably wide spread of opinions and a full debate on issues allowing for a proportion of people who won't be able to participate due to other commitments. Since the elimination of the HoC has emphasized the administrative role of the Senate, I think it is very important that we should be seen as fairly representing the community as a whole and that cannot be done with a small clique who rigidly exclude any new membership.

I would therefore propose that we adopt a target of sixty members of the Senate and that, when that target is reached, a further discussion be initiated to determine term limits and electoral procedures.

[Surlethe]

Stuart, don't forget that moderators and admins can vote, too, though we're not technically Senators.