Note: The Hexbear People's Committee is an RPG/LARP and has no bearing on anything outside of being a "Model UN" style simulation of a political party.

Voting on HPC Resolution 001-1 isn't closed yet, but it looks like it will pass, so in the interest of "getting this show on the road" I'm going to open discussion on the initial topics from the "schedule" section of that resolution. If there is a last second wave of "Don't Pass" votes, this will all be deleted and the revolutionary cause will be dead.

It passed yay!

I think it's best to focus on roles over the resolution process, but the two are intertwined so there is discussion to be had on both. Hopefully we can get these section drafted into a Resolution as soon as tomorrow to be put for a vote.

A side-topic is to nominate names for the Party that we should start considering.

  • Grimble [he/him,they/them]
    ·
    2 years ago

    I think that any Hexbear.net account is allowed to vote on a resolution.

    Absolutely agree. It could even be encouraged in a relatively non-annoying way. Or we could just blast it in everyone's faces :back-to-me-shining: :vuvuzela:

    I think that there should be a minimal amount of roles, since there’s a good chance it ends up being like 5 of us messing around, but if people get interested over time and we have a bunch of participants to organize, we can add roles as needed.

    Definitely, this is important and imo often overlooked. Everyone has a limit to how much information they can process, which is why so many organizing efforts get bogged down with policy. I think any opportunity should be taken to streamline the role system, i.e. merging small/redundant positions, exchanging roles with more willing/capable comrades, etc.

    Not sure if there should be a “member” role which would allow a person to not just vote, but to propose a resolution. It’s definitely an open question of “who is able to draft and propose Party resolutions?”. Maybe there could be a dual “Resolution” and “Referendum” process where a Referendum is more direct?

    Interesting idea. I def agree that there could be different types of voting for different circumstances, but that questions still open for now

    I’m 50/50 on whether there should be a “Party Chair”, it probably doesn’t make sense for our needs since the position would surely be pretty weak anyway. We could do something ceremonial so that there’s something to fight about ig, might make it interesting.

    Tbh thats worth considering. I'm thinking like a position of general oversight, acting mostly as a supervisor who takes note of certain things and/or makes sure everything's in order?

    A “Secretary” position should be established and eventually filled by someone interested in documenting the game using git or a wiki or something, but I don’t think there would be a need for the position to be filled at the earliest stages.

    Absolutely. I've been pretty vocal about us analyzing how this RP plays out for genuine, shareable organizing insights. At the very least, some data which could be posted somewhere for other leftists to interpret.

    I’m a fan of STAR voting when applicable

    Seems interesting. I'll have to read more on that soon.

    Leadership/titled positions can be revoked by a vote of no confidence. Not sure if it should be simple majority or what.

    TBH I wanna say that any position the majority votes to be revoked should definitely be revoked without question. So I second that idea.

    Members (if such a thing exists) can be purged by a 60-40 vote?(70-30??)

    Would probably apply the same logic to this, although it might be best to wait until "members" are defined fully to elaborate.