Difference between revisions of "Talk:Stefan's Proposal to Change the Hierarchy"

Latest revision as of 16:59, 16 May 2007

What, no debate?

It's up, but no one's disputing my proposal! This is scandalous! When it originally leaked, people were jumping all over it, and now that I present it for public discussion, no one comes forward. Curiouser and curiouser...Stefanido 21:13, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Appeal to Clarity

When you propose an ammendment, only propose one idea at a time. For example, I do not like the way Anthony put his points under one big "Anthony's Suggestions" banner because then I have to reply to that whole box instead of each individual suggestion in turn (naming, SubCmdr. role, etc...). I'm splitting Anthony's posts to make them easier to respond to. Cheers. Stefanido 20:43, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Naming

In Stefan's Proposal, he has chosen to associate various positions within the OCESS with military ranks. While this gives the club an appearance of having a streamlined, efficient, no-frill kind of leadership, it is perhaps not the best things we want to associate with. First, we are a civilian, student based, no-profit organization, not a branch of of the Air Force. Military ranks pervides a kind of publicity that does not match our nature. Imagine the impression made on a potential/present Planetarium client upon being referred to the Lieutenant; or on a potential recruit upon being greeted by the Warrant Officer of Public Relations. The title is "Director" works fine by mine opinion and does not need to be replaced by "Warrant Officer". The title of "Sub-Commander" sounds very ambiguouse, maybe "Deputy Mission Cmdr" will work better. The "Lieutenant Cmdr" should be merged with the rank of "Directors" (should they still continue to exist after Jeff's contributions). The "Sargent" can be replaced by "taskmaster/taskmistress", so can "Lieutenants". The actual names is still up to be decided, but I do not see the benefits of military naming.--Anthony 18:46, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

• I'm fine with changing the names of the ranks, as long as each "power-level" has its own distinct rank. For instance, I do not want Lieutenant Commanders to be called Directors if Warrant Officers are called Directors because there will be confusion.Stefanido 20:45, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Lieutenants

The number of Lieutenants should be flexible to the condition and task at hand. New Lieutenants should be able to be appointed by their respective commanders and Lieutenants Cmdr. This provides flexibility for the Cmdrs to use their judgment on the current situation. It will also provide up-ward mobility. It provents a implied guarantee to the Lieutenants of future Cmdr or Lieutenants Cmdr. positions and remind them that they have to work; it also enables committed and talented members to move up the command ladder with out redtape.--Anthony 18:46, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Mission Critical

In past years, most of the work sessions were devoted to mission related work. It might be advisable if we set up the WSs so that the main schedules is occupied by EEP/Planetarium related work and activities, and the task forces will run in the background for most of the year. It is similar to background computer operations such as a firewall that are always present but adjusts its use of resources to the demand of up-front applications. This way, we put emphasis on the other two branches of Sim. But, there would be allocated "Mission-Critical Time", which would be a formal recongnision of our yearly pre-mission scramble period. In this period, the Mission branch would take over all major operations and task forces, training, alpha-missions and such will dominate the WSs.

• I don't think it's feasible to have EEPs and Planetariums take up most of the time at Work Sessions because there's not a lot to do. Sure you can improve the demos, but that takes inspiration. Sure you can train, but you won't be coming back if that's all we do week after week. The interesting thing about worksessions is that our projects change from time to time, so we're not stuck in one gear. I think that letting EEP and Planetarium Commanders have a chance to run the agenda should redress the Branch-Imbalance sufficiently. Stefanido 20:47, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

• Yes, I agree. The EEP and Planetarium Commanders don't need much more time at work sessions. What they need is to be taken more seriously and have more of a say in the running of the OCESS. These changes will definitely accomplish that.

Astronaut/Habitat Cmdr.

Associated with the concept of MC time is the concept of Astronaut Cmdr. which is a (possible) temporary position existing for the duration of the MC time. The Astro Commander would be responsible for the training, and briefing of astros. The Astro Cmdr would also be the leader of the Astro crew for 6,and is responsible for the smooth running of 96 hour mission. Form past experiences, the Astro Cmdr would most likely be either the M Cmdr or the Sub Cmdr.

• Yes. My proposal is just for general management, but it would support having either the MCmdr. or SCmdr. be ACmdr. (HCmdr.). Stefanido 20:48, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Simulator Directory/Cmdr

Again, a temporary position. His/her function is pretty self explanatory; main on organizing and training simulators on the goals of the simulation and the importance of Mission Integrity. This position isn't necessarily have to be a formal position even.

• I don't think that this should exist. I think that either the Mission Commander or the Subcommander, whichever is not the Astronaut Commander, should be in charge of both Mission Control and the Simulators. If we use this year as an example, Brian would have been both Mission Control Commander and the so-called "Simulator Commander." Stefanido 20:54, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Role of SubCmdr

In my opinion, the sub commander is to be a general helper of the Mission Cmdr. The mission has been traditionally ran by two commanders, and it is unwise to load the majority of their responsibilities on one and specialize the SubCmdr on task force related issues. In my opinion the SubCmdr and the full Mission Cmdr would function similarly to earlier structure but the full Cmdr is higher ranking, have the finally say in any decision and act as the representative of the pair (ie the mission branch) in discussions with the other two Branches(Cmdrs).--Anthony 19:38, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

• If we are creating two different positions, then they need to have different responsibilities. If not, then how do we choose who's SCmdr. as opposed to MCmdr.? The bulk of what I think about, as MC this year, pertains to Task Forces. However, there is a whole other range of things I should have been and should be more responsible for including PR, Training, the Website, the Galileo Challenge, the Office, branching out, finding sponsors, making sure the EEP and Planetarium Commanders were happy, making sure the general membership was happy, etc... In any case, if we dedicate one of the M-Branch Commanders to Task Forces, this frees the other for general planning and all the tasks listed above, and much much more! Call now, and we'll throw in a free PR Director!Stefanido 21:00, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

• Form another point of view, the lack of attention to the things mentioned above is partially due to having the TFs taking up too much attention and time. The worksessions need not to be filled with TFs. By putting a Cmdr just for TFs (kinda resemble the TF Commander doesn't it) is one way to address the problem, but one might also consider the de-emphisising of TFs. Adding an Cmdr just for TFs just puts more emphasis on the TFs and they probably will end up taking a larger chuck of the work sessions since their is some one devoted to organizing them now. Also, the majority of this year's TFs was overseen by one MC was it not?--Anthony 21:16, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Jeff's Proposed Changes

Stefan's original system seems to work fairly well. However, there are a few proposed changes that we've somewhat agreed upon. Here's a modified proposition retaining most of what Stefan and Antony had planned.

Fewer Positions

We want to be as efficient as possible with these positions, and it is suggested that we try and eliminate/combine relatively obsolete titles. This will allow for a more clear chain of command (without overlap), as well as a smaller proportion of members in leadership positions, thus giving a good leader/non-leader ratio. Another reason why I wanted fewer and more distinct positions (no Tech Director, PR Director, formal Task Force Leader, Simulator Commander, Astronaut Commander, etc.) is the potential for position overlap, which was a problem this past year.

• Remember that we DO want as many leadership positions as possible to give every member a chance to lead the direction of the club, and thereby fulfill our Mission Statement.Stefanido 21:04, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

• There will be many other leadership positions. The ones I'm listed are only all the permanent ones that will be in place throughout the entirety of next year. Positions like Task Force Leaders, EEP Station Leaders, Simulator/Planetary Surface Commander, and other Assistants will all be temporary and informal, but they still are important leadership positions.

EEP and Planetarium Commanders - Rank 2

Added on to their roles should be responsibilities previously held by the "PR Director" (which is now defunct). This is due to the fact that most of the PR work the OCESS does already coincides with EEP/Planetarium work that they do; thus, having a separate position for that would be superfluous. Also, since the EEPs and Planetariums themselves still comprise a smaller part of the OCESS relative to the Mission, these two commanders should be formally in charge of the publicity/community/business work to balance the responsibility. However, in-school PR work will be left to the Events Director, as described below.

Assistants - Rank 4

The biggest change to Stefan's system is the merging of the Lieutenant Commander/Lieutenant positions into one Assistant position. This is because the responsibility for EEPs and Planetariums beyond the Commanders is small enough to warrant only one "helper" for each. This removes two relatively unnecessary positions, while augmenting the responsibility of two to equal that which is expected for a Rank 4 member.

Directors - Rank 5

Another change is the removal of the PR Director position (see above). Thus, there will only be three Director positions - Events Director, Webmaster, and Quartermaster.

Events Director

The Events Director was formerly known as the Galileo Challenge director, but had its name changed due to added responsibilities. He or she is now responsible for the OCESS events that will be occuring at Lisgar. For the 2007-2008 year, these include: 1) Week of Hype, 2) Kepler Challenge, 3) Galileo Challenge, 4) Astronomy Week, 5) Assemblies, 6) Bake Sales. However, these will be run with significant assistance from and cooperation with the EEP Commander.

• I agree. This shall become the Second Ammendment. Stefanido 21:10, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Webmaster

The Webmaster is in charge of both the OCESS Website and OCESS Wiki (combining the titles of the two). Besides that, his or her responsibility is the same. He or she will be under the guidance of the Planetarium Commander.

• Because most of the information available on the Website is about the Mission, I believe that the Mission Commander should be in charge of the Webmaster.Stefanido 21:10, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

• I agree with Stefan. The web master is associated with the mission branch mainly, therefore the web master should fall on under the mission Cmdr.--Anthony 21:35, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

• So instead of the Webmaster, the Planetarium Commander should be in charge on an additional assistant. That works out well.

Quartermaster

The Quartermaster, as before, is in charge of the tools and organization system. In addition, he or she is in charge of the cleaning and maintenance of the OCESS facilities. He or she will be under the guidance of the Mission Commander.

• Because the Subcommander, and not the Mission Commander is in charge of TFs, and therefore needs the tools more, the Subcommander should be in charge of the Quartermaster. Stefanido 21:10, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

• That works out. (see above)

Task Force Leaders

Due to the changing nature of Task Forces, members in these positions are temporary and not given any formal rank. However, while a task force of theirs is running, each one's rank is perhaps equivalent to 4 or 5, depending on the importance of the Task Force (this is not particularly important, though)

General Members

Though they do not have a formal rank, general members should comprise the majority of Space Sim, and contribute significantly to its work and success. They are also encouraged to serve in a leadership capacity through Task Forces, EEP Stations, Mission positions, and any of their own planned and approved initiatives.

PR Director and Tech Director

As I have often stated, I agre with the fundamental principle of this system, although some of the details may have to be worked out at a later date.

Some things that I would like to be considered are:

The role of the PR director. As it stands, the the article provides muddled information concerning the PR Director, but generally, I get the feeling that the club's PR will be focused more under the EEPs and Planetarium departments. I personally believe that the PR director should and must provide PR to all branches of the club, making such an arangement undesirable. As the role of the traditional PR director is rather large (including not only the execution of PR related events, but the planning of the PR campaign for the year), I believe that such a role should not simply be spread to all three commanders. Alternatively, since a comprehensive year-long PR plan must be designed and carried out, representing a long-term commitment, appointing temporary PR directors whenever an event looms is not acceptable.

Therefore, following the philosiphy that any task whose jurisdiction is ambigious shoul dbe put under the mission commander, I propose the creation of the position of PR directur to be run under the mmision commander.

In addition, I would like to propose the position of a technical director. I believe that such a job cannot be fulfilled by the sub commander because the SC is not selected on the criteria of tech-saviness, but rather experience and leadership skills. In addition, the maintainence and upgrade of SpaceSIm's hardware is a perpetual job, and thus cannot be fulfilled by temporary appointments. I would like to clairify that the TD is not only responsible for the network, but also the physical hardware of the hab--stereo system and doors to name a few.

Brian Foo

Signatures

JEFF! SIGN YOUR POSTS! (By typing ~~~~ after the post) --The Killer Rabbit aka Nevin 17:59, 16 May 2007 (EDT)