Here is a summary of the CDS government concerns I presented to our RA and Guild today on this topic, FYI.
(a) As previously posted, I support the Monastery plan in theory. I think the RA does too. I see no obstacle in the legal basis for it, even if the RA did not quite get it right in its original preliminary approval: if the RA acts carefully and thoughtfully, it will be able to apply the process protections of our NL 8-2 statue, even if that law does not actually apply.
(b) As we are using the NL 8-2 governance review scheme, here's the plan for going forward.
First, the RA has given preliminary approval.
Second, having noted that some required details were omitted by the approval, the Guild has created a task force to complete them.
Third, the Guild has agreed to give that completed plan the 'second stage' review provided by NL 8-2, in an independent manner.
Fourth, their review will come to our executive branch for comment and a recommendation.
Finally, that recommendation and the proposal will be considered for approval by the RA.
(c) As I mentioned to the Guild, we'll ask that their independent review proceed with reasonable speed, as we owe Virtus (the proposers) predictability and reasonable speed ... and we owe to our citizens care and transparency. FWIW, transparency requires four elements, in my view: (1) Thoughtful planning when we take official acts, so that our acts and reports are comprehensible, not indecipherable or misleading; (2) good listening skills and a lack of ad hominem behavior throughout; (3) clear and sensible public proceedings; and (4) adequate time for the public & stakeholders to react, in an internet-based, global asynchronous community.
(d) On the elements of the review, it's my hope that the Guild will work to confirm the following:
(i) that the prim and lot size and rent numbers "foot" arithmetically;
(ii) the map's conformance to other existing terrain and to other running amenities like roads and water;
(iii) the general compatibility of the plan with GMP, noting changes if the plan implies significant changes to the GMP;
(iv) any public amenity issues we need for CDS;
(v) any comments about the perceived feasibility of the proposed rental places, and
(vI) any comments from the Guild's NGO role about how the final plan works generally with CDS NGO land treatment.
On item (v), Looking at the new maps provided today, I voiced some very preliminary concern that the seaside plan for lots resemble the sea level L.A. plots that were and are SLOW to sell, and did not at all go to newbies ... and do not resemble the smaller hillside A.M. lots that QUICKLY sell, and largely to newbies. Others at the meeting voiced concerns that six or several tenants on a void .. even small tenants .. would badly stress that limited sim resource, leading to a bad experience and perhaps vacancy. Apparently we're only aware of other SL cases involving one or two (some say four) tenants on void sims. It is my hope that our Guild experts will help us evaluate those concerns.
On item (vi), there was some doubt voiced from one Guild member that the Guild should have an opinion on NGO rents. My reason for asking is only a fairness one: Once the rents in this proposal are defined, we should confirm how the treatment of the new proposed NGO compares with other CDS NGOs who rent land. (Those are MoCA and the New Guild itself.)
I expect these issues will continue to be worked out. Thus far the proposers have worked very well with us to define and clarify the plan.
Community comments at this stage should be directed to the Guild, for use in its review.
Regards JP
== My Second Life home is CDS. Retired after three terms
== as chancellor of the oldest self-governing sims in SL.
