Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

High Council Discussion

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
unmerged(8451)

unmerged(8451)

Troll
Mar 27, 2002
2.756
0
Visit site
It's great to have both teams working together. Now, how do we organize things? Is there a commitee as is the case with the EEP, or do we go with one leader as was the case when Crook was in charge? Or something completely different?

Personally I favor the High Council structure as proposed by MKJ in the early part of the grand scenarios thread.
 
My idea is probably a bit different...

We have Head comittee members like EEP, but also leaders for each major area.

The Head Committee would just be for smoothing things over between different sections and along with the various branch leaders, decide overall policies.

What those areas are is TBD, but we can look at the threads from AGC and EEP to see what areas have the most discussion and lump those with less together.

Anyway that's my idea.
 
by separating the merger threads into a new forum, does this indicate we r leaning closer to a new project approach rather than gradual folding of AGC into EEP? i m actually rather confused now as the difference between 2 approach is blurring. the 2 projects are considered on equal footing an a new forum is given for the merge. so is this forum a temporary place for the discussion of merger or is this going to be the eventual forum for the finished merged product? opening discussion of leadership in this forum confuse me even more. is the leadership going to be incorporated with the AGC and EEP leadership or separate?

leadership structure was discussed a long time ago rather thoroughly when the discussion about a merger started. perhaps it's useful to pull out ideas from that thread.link

issues about the philosophy of the project was discussed as well.

IMO, the powers of the governors and the committee should be balanced such that the committee can make the project coherent and ensure efficiecy and order.
 
I would support a complete revision. Going through everything created an making sure it is consistant and working. This would IMHO be better than simply adding the AGC to the EEP. Also this is an unique opputunity to alter the starting setup and introduce or remove countries in Europe for the better of course.

As to leadership i really don't have much to say. It is a relevant discussion, but for now we seem to get by. Leadership isn't much needed before we actually starting to put this thing together. If I would have to voice my opion I would prefer a head of each region (scandinavia, germany, france, africa, etc.) who simply had final say on what as to be included in that region. Then there would also need to be a project coordinator who was reponsible for collecting the regional materiale and creating the final version.
 
Organization

Three different ideas so far, a sole leader, a committee or area leaders combined with a committee.
I think a committee would be best.
A sole leader makes the project very vulnerable to that person quitting, this happened to both AGC and EEP and stalled these projects for a long time afterwards. Same goes for area leaders dropping of, if a area leader loose interest there will be a cease in activity there as well, and the area will be in limbo, especially if the leader doesn't leave definately, but just 'drift away'. There will always be informal area leaders anyway, those few that care most about an area. The EEP Committee worked quite well, not a lot of rules or administration. We voted on 10-15 subjects, to reach a quick decision. It was on cores, tags and cultures, IIRC, and merger of course.
 
I can live with a committee... as you say it has worked for the EEP.
 
Originally posted by Sun_Zi_36
i like committee too, but it shouldnt mean committee have too much power over materials that were decided in each area thread with consensus. IMO those materials supported with discussion and consensus should be respected.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. As long as the things decided are in accordance with what will be the policy in other areas. The committee ppl are supposed to taking part in most discussions and if the things agreed upon go against the opinions of a majority in the committee there might acctually be something that is better changed. I dont' think this will be a major problem, but what you say Sun_Zi_36 is nevertheless important!
Consensus in a thread discussion on creating many new cultures, just abolish things made before without motivation, using numerous tags, granting nations cultures not in line with what is done in other areas and such comes to my mind.
 
Perhaps the most effecient way, if a Committee with or without area leaders is found to be the best way, is to let them decide themselves. Who else should decide for them, since consensus cannot normally be reached here? They will do a lot of the job and I trust them to organize it themselves, in the way they find best. I wont participate myself, due to lack of time. I only advice them to make all as replaceable as possible!
To make it as democratic as possible, all interested persons should be allowed to join this Committtee at start, then it can be closed and only take in new members as it sees fit.
 
i m actually interested in running the show for a change. i m interested to find out what it's like to have all these responsibilities to deal with.:p i wont have the time too soon though, I will only have time a bit later on, which will probably coincide with the time when merging really starts.

before we quickly scramble for leadership positions though, we will have to decide what this High Council/Committee should in fact look like. how many members should there be? i favour something like 5 members, not too large as to be fragmented, not too small as to be autocratic and burdensome. also, I would have thought the council would be composed of equal numbers "representing" the EEP and AGC, although i personally don't mind whether that happens. Also, what about the relationship between the merger committee and the leadership of the respective mods? i think it would be a good idea NOT to have them independent of the leadership of each mod. the leadership of the merge should in some way be connected with the leadership of the current mods to coordinate activities of the mods with the progress of the merge. afterall, merging should mean we would eventually come back to one community again. so i favour at least a significant proportion of the members of the council be from the leadership of the two mods.

comments?
 
Originally posted by Sun_Zi_36
before we quickly scramble for leadership positions though, we will have to decide what this High Council/Committee should in fact look like. how many members should there be? i favour something like 5 members, not too large as to be fragmented, not too small as to be autocratic and burdensome. also, I would have thought the council would be composed of equal numbers "representing" the EEP and AGC, although i personally don't mind whether that happens. Also, what about the relationship between the merger committee and the leadership of the respective mods? i think it would be a good idea NOT to have them independent of the leadership of each mod. the leadership of the merge should in some way be connected with the leadership of the current mods to coordinate activities of the mods with the progress of the merge. afterall, merging should mean we would eventually come back to one community again. so i favour at least a significant proportion of the members of the council be from the leadership of the two mods.
Click to expand...

How do you intend to limit the number of members, who's in and who's not? And is it worth it to exclude someone really eager to do some work for the project? I think it's better to let everyone interested join, I doubt it will be to many, but if ten persons volunteer perhaps we'll have to rethink. :D
Hopefully there will be persons from both AGC and EEP, but if no one volunteers we have to live with that as well. As a member of the EEP leadership I think those old leaderships should support, or be part of, the new one, I don't imagine there will be another EEP, except for bugfixed versions, and that will serve the new mod as well! By support I mean help include material in the new mod that they are familiar with.
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by mnorrefeldt
I think it's better to let everyone interested join, I doubt it will be to many, but if ten persons volunteer perhaps we'll have to rethink. :D
Click to expand...
well, thats what i meant. if only 1 or 2 people are interested we also will have to rethink. so i didnt mean the number to be strict.
 
Sun Zi has been a fantastic contributor to the AGC, so I second his (self) nomination.

I won't have time for a leadership role, or I'd probably volunteer, too.
 
Depends on what the member of the comitee/high concil etc have to do.

Being the organisator of PL thread like on the AGC (or equivalent of this) is enough like for me cause I could deal with responsibility too. More important thing means more work and that means more time and my time is very unpredictable. I was out of the forum for few months during last summer due to work and it can happen again.

I believe that Sun Zi is a good nomination.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back