Well, as always, the devil is in the details.
In response to Arria's suggestion that responsibility should be divided between RA and Chancellor, that's nice in theory, but in practice is not likely to result in any real work getting done. EITHER Chancellor or RA has to have primary responsibility, while the other becomes a sounding board and approver. That way each term we know what has to be done, when it needs to be done and who is responsible no matter who happens to sit in the chairs. My personal feeling is that the Chancellor should hold primary responsibility for the GMP. In practical terms that might mean that the Chancellor would be responsible for initiating and executing a "GMP review" every twelve months. That could involve asking Guild to participate, creating a "citizens committee," or even bringing in outside resources. The Chancellor would then present that review to the RA, and RA would be asked to approve any changes to the GMP. And of course RA members would be free to participate in the review process itself. But the primary responsibility for initiating and executing the review needs to fall in one place or it will get bogged down in politics.
Another area where the GMP really needs a primary caretaker is in terms of ongoing updates. If, as I suggested above, we do a once a year "review" of GMP, that leaves a long time in between when changes to CDS might occur. For example, we might add a new sim...or more! Someone needs to be specifically responsible for updating the GMP when CDS changes. Again, my thought is that the Chancellor is the logical place for such a responsibility to reside. It doesn't require a committee or voting, just someone who will arrange for maps, etc. to be updated to reflect reality.
Regarding proposals for expansion, anyone is certainly able to propose anything at any time. The GMP itself is a result of citizens thinking about community growth, not the arbitrary creation of a single person that dictates restrictions. It's a process, not a set of fixed rules, and it invites participation from those it affects. The purpose of the GMP is not to prevent proposals, but to provide a yardstick of sorts against which to measure proposals. A good GMP would actually encourage proposals by suggesting directions in which we might expand and encouraging those who propose to demonstrate how their proposals could fit seamlessly into the existing community. Organic growth, if you will, rather than chaotic growth. I imagine that it could streamline the process for evaluating proposals as well once we get the hang of how to use it. AND if a proposal is rejected, the GMP could also provide ideas for re-vamping a proposal so that it CAN be accepted.
Timo comments that any citizen should be able to request GMP changes at any time. My feeling is that although this sounds very democratic, it is potentially chaotic. The GMP certainly ought to be a living document. But it also needs to be an anchor for community planning. Periodically opening it up for review (perhaps every 12 months) provides a good balance between the need for change and the need for stability. And note that the GMP, like a budget, is a guide to what should be done, not an ironclad contract. If a really good idea comes up, is debated by the community, and is accepted by RA, there should be provision in whatever we put in the codes for RA to implement it. What we don't want to do is be so open that the GMP becomes a distraction, with constant reviews and commissions taking over other business in RA, the Chancellor's office and perhaps Guild as well.
Would love to hear more voices on this subject. I've been noodling over a legislative proposal but really need to hear more discussion before I'm ready to share it.
Cindy
