Just trying to organize our options here, I see two option menus.

Menu #1: Voting and Discussion
1) Keep RMB voting, OWL brings in new Senior Staffers
2) Keep RMB voting but have OWL place a new emphasis on discussion and encourage OWL Staff to lead RMB discussions
3) Move entirely to forum-based voting/discussion (re: Jay's post)
4) Move entirely to Discord-based voting/discussion
5) Maintain the RMB for voting but have OWL-led and planned Discord discussions as a complement
6) Move to a forum-based voting/discussion system but retain the RMB for on-site users to cast votes (Jay's post + an addition to make the RMB still an option)
7) Use an RMB and Discord combination system - votes can be cast on either and discussion can be held on either

Menu #2: Recommendations
1) Maintain the status quo
2) Recommendations with only a recommendation, no quoting of opinions
3) Recommendations with a recommendation + quoting of opinions from TSP
4) Recommendations with a recommendation + quoting of opinions from TSP and its allies

Let me know if I left something off of either of those lists. Personally, I prefer an option which maintains the current RMB voting system but opens up and off-site complementary voting and discussion system led by OWL which focuses more on substantive discussion to ensure long-term departmental growth. I also prefer an option which eliminates foreign opinion quoting from our recommendation, possibly eliminating quoting altogether (in practice, I've noticed this is busy work that fosters confusion among the staff rather than substantive engagement). I also want a system where we're dependent on a less exclusive set of staff for posting votes.

(07-13-2021, 08:02 PM)Luca Wrote: We really need to start encouraging people to discuss these issues and get in the practice of giving the mechanical structure and political intentions a critical eye before, during, or after a vote is made. That's the kind of stuff that I think gets people inspired and familiar with WA topics, and started going down their own WA career paths. Transferring OWL content to a board seems like a low-effort first step in getting there, but the presentation really needs to be shifted from not just dropping in a vote, but asking people what they *think*.

I agree with this 100% and think this needs to be the ultimate goal of any structural changes that OWL implements.

(07-13-2021, 08:02 PM)Luca Wrote: I would like us to really start pushing the OWL director for comment and feedback in order to provide some much-needed reform to this department. But, as we've raised the issue several times, the ONLY responses we've gotten back from Anjo are recorded in the chatlog in the OP of this thread. I've had vastly more interaction with Somy on the subject in #legislators-lounge over the last few days, and so I'm troubled with how much attention we can actually get out of the existing director when it's pretty clear that the entire structure of the program is currently in question.

I will note that anjo has said they are on LOA, however I'm not clear on the duration of that LOA. Not sure if anyone else knows? If it's going to be extended much longer, at the very least we need stop gaps of delegated leadership in OWL.