Vancouver Board Announcement: EVERYONE READ!

In light of recent events, I've taken it upon myself to drastically shake up the way that things are run around here. To that end, I have decided to form "The Tipoca City Council".

What will this be, you ask? Well, it will be the group that will share the responsibility of running the FanForce. Some of you may remember that we tried a similar procedure in the early days, and I hope to revive the concept on a more permanent basis.

The group will be comprised of myself, Mike and Rudy, as the three of us are the most senior members of the group. The title shall be added to your usernames within the next little while.

I shall also take this opportunity to announce that Rudy has been chosen to become the Co-Chapter Representative of the group. His new role in the group will to assist me and to take much of the burden that I have been feeling for the past little while. Christine will remain on as our Executive Officer, and she shall maintain an active role in the command structure, but with her infrequent contact on the board, the leadership role will be handled between myself and Rudy.

Finally, I have compiled the Member List, Birthday List, and a set of Frequently Asked Questions together and will send this information to CrazyMike to be posted in a Sticky thread for easy access.

Hopefully, this will go a long way towards building better communication between us and ensuring that things run a bit more smoothly around here.

 

This sounds really good to me...

But I hopeyou guys dont mind me asking;but..

Who's Mike and Rudy?? I have nothing against them, just wanted to know their forum names...

Thanks

 

Who's Mike and Rudy?? I have nothing against them, just wanted to know their forum names...

Mike = SquallLeonhart
Rudy = lord-darkhelmet

 

Ok, um... wow.

Firstly, I'm flattered that I would be selected to such a lofty position. However, shouldn't the group restructuring and the sticky threads be discussed as a group prior to implementation? Alex had mentioned both of these ideas to me a couple of days ago and I thought they were both worth pursuing, but I'm not sure that everyone has had a chance to voice their opinion. I'm not comfortable accepting the position as things stand right now.

 

However, shouldn't the group restructuring and the sticky threads be discussed as a group prior to implementation? Alex had mentioned both of these ideas to me a couple of days ago and I thought they were both worth pursuing, but I'm not sure that everyone has had a chance to voice their opinion.

Personally, I don't see the problem of having a sticky thread here. After all, it's just a thread that will contain information that's been posted countless times before. I really think having it posted once and in a way that it doesn't need to get bumped countless times is a good idea.

As for the group restructuring, I still think that, given the current state of things, that the way I've laid it out is the best idea, seeing as how everyone else has something to do. If you wanna discuss it, though, that's fine with me.

 

I'm totally honored that I've been put forward as a Council Member, and I'm fully willing to take that on, if the general consensus agrees with that idea. I think this is a good way to get things a bit more structured around here.

-Mike

P.S. I just got my internet problems resloved...well for the most part...so I should be back online and posting more often.

 

[TIEPilot051999]: "If you wanna discuss it, though, that's fine with me."

Ok, thanks. I have a few questions regarding the proposed structure as well as the current one:

1. What is the clearly defined role of the CR? (I know Derisa gave a good overview of this, but I'd like one that is specific for Vancouver)
2. What is the clearly defined role of the Executive Officer?
3. What is the clearly defined role of the newly created position of co-CR?
4. What is the clearly defined role of the newly created "Tipoca City Council"?
5. Do "regular" members need to clear activity suggestions with one or (heaven help us) more of the above positions before posting them? If so why?
6. Why do we even need a CR, and by extension all of the above positions, anyway? (I asked this question before but it was never answered so I am repeating)
7. Does anyone besides me find it slightly hilarious that we will have more "leadership" positions in this group than "regular" members?

 

Just one question: "as the three of us are the most senior members of the group." How do you define that?

I'm fine with Mike and Rudy fulfilling the proposed roles if they are.

 

I too am fine with Mike and Rudy taking on those roles. I am too far out of the general vicinity to have any effective status in the group at the moment.

But I too am curious on how you define "senior members".

Is it by the number of Posts given in these forums (as we all know that can easily be remedied by useless jabber called spamming the boards)?

Is it by the number of times a member can attend an activity?

is it an "age" factor thing?

Or what?? No offense to the two people nominated for the "Council" of our club. I will support anyone in those roles for sure. But if I am not mistaken, there are a few people who have been part of this club longer than those mentioned earlier.

Do not think that I want a position in the council. I decline any nomination or votes for that position because it is pretty obvious I cannot take on such responsibilities being in a different country at the moment. But I do know a few people who have been with us longer. Wouldn't it be more of a diplomatic thing that we ask the general group on who they want to be in the "Council" instead of saying "ok here, you take this position"? Don't get me wrong, but I dont want any more arguements after we settle who's who in our club in the next few weeks.

I do suggest that we meet up somewhere convenient and discuss things in detail. It would be much better to set things straight before actually forming any other ruling parties.

As for a more effective way of handling things. I have seen the way other Fanforce groups conduct their activities and such : namely from the Philippines group, New Zealand FF, Japan FF, MEPA (NYC) group and New Jersey Order. I am not suggesting that their way of handling things are good, its just that they seem to be effective.

 

Just one question: "as the three of us are the most senior members of the group." How do you define that?

I too am curious on how you define "senior members".

Is it by the number of Posts given in these forums (as we all know that can easily be remedied by useless jabber called spamming the boards)?

Is it by the number of times a member can attend an activity?

is it an "age" factor thing?

Or what?? No offense to the two people nominated for the "Council" of our club. I will support anyone in those roles for sure. But if I am not mistaken, there are a few people who have been part of this club longer than those mentioned earlier.

Do not think that I want a position in the council. I decline any nomination or votes for that position because it is pretty obvious I cannot take on such responsibilities being in a different country at the moment. But I do know a few people who have been with us longer. Wouldn't it be more of a diplomatic thing that we ask the general group on who they want to be in the "Council" instead of saying "ok here, you take this position"? Don't get me wrong, but I dont want any more arguements after we settle who's who in our club in the next few weeks.

I define that as "the three people who I feel can contribute the greatest to our restructuring." I don't wish to demean the contributions of everyone else, and if it ever came up, I would certainly consider rotating around members so that everyone would have a chance to be part of the whole "governing" body. But, based on all accounts, I feel that Mike and Rudy, as the most active members of the group at the current time, are the most qualified to help me get things started. Once things have gone great for a while, if they wanted to step down, that would be fine, and I would hear suggestions as to who would take their place.

1. What is the clearly defined role of the CR? (I know Derisa gave a good overview of this, but I'd like one that is specific for Vancouver)

I think that Derisa stated it better than I ever could. There really isn't any need to change a forumla that works.

2. What is the clearly defined role of the Executive Officer?

The XO is the one who would confer with me on any decisions that need to be made, in addition to handling board stuff and activities when I can't be there. With the appointment of the new Co-CR role, the XO will retain this role, but will not have to confer with just me. This way, the XO can bring up situations that can then be discussed with the Council.

3. What is the clearly defined role of the newly created position of co-CR?

The Co-CR will assist me in helping to run the group, taking a great deal of the burden off of me. The person in this role will basically be considered on par with me, and share my responsibilities in the group. The only real difference is that he/she will not have colors. (Which I think aren't relevant in this situation, but someone has to have them, so...)

4. What is the clearly defined role of the newly created "Tipoca City Council"?

The Council will be composed of three members who are considered the "senior" group who basically, for lack of a better phrase, have the final say. This way, the three of us can discuss things that need to happen/change in the group. And since there are three people, there will never be a dealock on the issues. Hopefully, we'll never have a situation in which two people agree and one disagrees, but should we do, this will basically cancel that out.

5. Do "regular" members need to clear activity suggestions with one or (heaven help us) more of the above positions before posting them? If so why?

No. Members have the ability to suggest activites. All the council will do is suggest how, when and where we will do it in a way that agrees with everyone.

6. Why do we even need a CR, and by extension all of the above positions, anyway? (I asked this question before but it was never answered so I am repeating)

Someone needs to r

 

[Jedi_Ulic_Qel-Droma]: "I do suggest that we meet up somewhere convenient and discuss things in detail. It would be much better to set things straight before actually forming any other ruling parties."

I agree completely.

 

i have my doubts about this idea, but still i'll go ahead with it. Mike and Rudy one of the only people who are posting.

 

Sure, Antonio. We can call a general meeting when you're back in town. If you can find a time to get on MSN, you and I can talk about it.

 

I will definitely be back tomorrow (17th of nov) But I will only be in town until Sunday (21st) before I have to head back out to New York.

If anyone has any plans, let me know so I can fix my schedule...

 

I'm afraid the only times I'll be available will be Friday and Saturday, after 6pm.

 

Saturday would be better for me. I can do Friday if necessary, however.