So, just my 2 cents here. Why are we putting forth candidates for a position that doesn’t exist? We don’t even have a Hub yet, and people already want to be the supreme leader of it? And what responsibility would this position require? I don’t see the purpose of an elected leader at this point, nor do I like the idea of someone else making decisions without community input. People will naturally fill the leaderships positions as needed. I think you may have jumped the gun on this one.
Personally, I think the best idea right now would be to get an idea of who wants to participate and where they are. However, I have been working on an initiative for the Euclid Hub. I set this up to be a quick and easy jump-start. As long as everyone respects community decisions, this should more or less run itself.
__
I’ve put together an initiative for a Hub in the Euclid galaxy. The new forum is up, and more members are showing up every day. Let’s establish ourselves in Euclid.
Just a few quick protocol topics before we go further: This will be a very lengthy process. All topics relating to the Hub will start with a public discussion on the forum. We will use the ideas from the discussion to draft polls when decisions need to be made. Both discussion and polling will remain active for extended periods of time to allow the greatest number of people a chance to provide their input.
I’ve broken the process down into 3 objectives. We will do these one-by-one, but there will be overlap in some of the activities.
Objective 1. We need to begin discussing the location of the Hub. This is a general discussion. We will address questions like: Distance to core? Proximity to other Hubs? Aesthetics like the shape of the star cluster or the color of nearby nebulae.
This will require a few rounds of discussion and polling to address all the things we want/need. Once we know what we’re looking for, we can set the scouts to find the perfect spot. The scouting can continue through Objective 2.
Objective 2. Naming Conventions. Judging by the CSFD’s reaction to this question, I think this will be an evolving discussion. Initially this will be about star names only. We will likely talk about planetary and other convention later, but we should stick to one topic at a time here.
By the time we finish objective 2, we should have some good candidates for a Hub location (from objective 1). We will likely hold a vote at this point to decide on the general area of the Hub and basic naming conventions. We will need both to continue.
Objective 3. The Capital. We will start by discussing what we want in a capital planet: weather, sentinel activity, flora/fauna, available resources and frequency, parent star, etc. We can simultaneously discuss and scout, just in case someone finds something of interest (diplos?). After we have a few proper candidates, we can put it to a vote.
Again, every topic will be discussed extensively and polls will stay open for extended periods of time (2 week minimum I say, but this is open for discussion). We want to make this as “democratic” as possible. Which leads to the one and only rule there will really be: Everyone that agrees to be part of the Hub project must follow the guidelines set by the community. This will be especially important when it comes to naming conventions (we need consistency).
Submissions (leader ask people to make a short to the point submission with the “paperclips” icon.) Any submissions with more then three likes goes into poll.
7