Proposal on Change to Conclave Structure

The Conclave approaches the end of another term. During the latest meeting, there was a discussion about how well the Representative system works under current circumstances.

Given the size of the community and frequency of proposals, is it worth considering changing some aspects of how this project’s governance works? Here are some thought starters addressing things, as this is normally when we would vote in new members…

The Conclave Representatives :

There is a weekly obligation to meet for a relatively small amount of business to address.

  • Meetings could instead be scheduled a different rate, or set amount of time after a proposal has been introduced for review.

  • With a small pool of candidates each election, the community could extend the length of a term and/or move the functions of a Representative to a volunteer basis (which means Conclave is open for anyone who wants to volunteer, kind of like Jury Duty)

  • The rotation of signers for the treasury transactions could be adjusted or detached from the other duties.

The Conclave Bell :

The Concord Representatives will be due to distribute six of this Token of Concord again, awarded to players whose “participation, activity, or efforts has positively impacted the WAGDIE project.”

Changing the dynamics of the Conclave Representative would impact these tokens.

  • They could be distributed at a different rate to reflect the slow growth of the fairly small player base
  • We could temporarily halt disbursing them until we switch back to a 6 member 6 week term process?
  • Maybe another group, WAG (WAGDIE Artist Guild) or some other members could take up the mantle of disbursing every X period to keep up tradition
1 Like


Thinking of halting or suspending the 6 members only, elected for 6 week term rotation and instead having an OPEN conclave. Anyone can volunteer to be part of it. NO obligated meeting date, save for when a new proposal emerges. Then those who volunteered would set a time to discuss.


Having never been part of the Conclave, the impression of my opinion should be limited.

• I greatly dislike the idea of an “Open Conclave” as it leads to relenquished ownership and dilution of delegation. The electoral system we have now seems perfectly fine, even if there were fewer nominations within the last election. This portion, I feel does not need a change.

• Reducing the frequency of meetings makes a lot of sense. There’s no reason to meet so frequently without new proposals pushed. Moving to a biweekly system, or an as-needed scheduling could alleviate a lot of the issues presented.

• Term lengths of six weeks seem to be fine. Reducing duration while reducing meeting frequency would be counter-intuitive, and it’s currently enough time to exert some meaningful positive influence that a month or less would not.

Times may be slow, but I would not advise dramatically altering our governmental systems over a period of reduced activity. If the system is working in all ways except for excessive meetings amid low period, then there’s no need to redefine it.

Worse, doing so at every alteration of activity is a disruption that probably wouldn’t be healthy. What if activity spikes again in February? Would we re-calibrate the structure again?

All that said, it is in recognition of the reduction in active proposals.

First Term: 7 Proposals
Second Term: 3 Proposals
Third Term: 2 Proposals
Current Term: 0 Proposals

Though, many proposal writers from across all three terms have yet to conclude their business, and some proposals have not yet begun. These ebbs and flows in activity are natural with a finite number of active community members.

All-said, my takeaway is that y’all should just reduce the number of meetings to biweekly.
3 meetings per term instead of 6 will go a long way.

The rest of it seems fine. :+1:


The mandatory meetings are part of the issue. It’s asking a lot. Whether it’s weekly, or bi-weekly. It’s an obligation, meet at this time every week, discuss things. Regardless of whether or not there’s a proposal.

It’s also a waste of time (unless you’re super passionate about it) to ask people to meet regularly and discuss things, regardless of a proposal.

Anyways, people put way too much weight on the CR when Conclave Reps are a public service. They don’t dictate or decide which proposals pass, they merely help authors prep and get them going.

From someone who has been on the inside and done it for almost 24 weeks straight, trust me… the current model is unnecessary for the scale of this operation and it won’t change overnight. If things picked up or change, plenty of time to adjust.

1 Like

The majority of the activities engaged do not require a meeting. There’s no reason we can’t setup a basic system of follow ups and maintenance for ongoing items when there are a low number of proposal.

We could then address proposals on-demand and engage as needed.


Maybe the meetings requirement could be replaced with requirements like;

  • Each active, or proposed, proposal has at least one conclave rep to actively monitor progress and to raise awareness of issues to other reps when issues come up
  • All representatives could be responsible for brainstorming solutions when a proposal falls behind (this could be in meetings or anywhere else).

I like King’s points & suggestion to only change the meeting requirements.

Do we have thoughts on how to handle elections if fewer than 6 accept nominations? (hopefully this doesn’t happen, but participation has been pretty low on the Conclave side of things)

1 Like

How essential do you think the in-person chat needs to be, vs private Discord channel to discuss async?

The time difference and firm meeting appointment is why I haven’t committed to a nomination so far. I’d be happy to help progress proposals and generally ‘discuss’ WAGDIE matters but find it hard to commit to a time when I can be verbal - due to work and/or family commitments.


imo it’s not essential.


Yeah the regular meetings are the biggest issue. It’s what makes it feel like more of a job/chore than it has to be.

100%. I propose to amend the stated responsibilities of the CR position to the following which reflects the dismissal of mandatory weekly meetings.

Conclave Representative responsibilities includes the following, but are not limited to:

~Moderate all incoming and ongoing Conclave posts
~Curate proposal drafts and assist authors with moving them along to final stages
~Actively review and discuss Conclave initiatives through private chat or in voice meetings
~Promote Conclave activity and agenda on public channels