What Is the Guild? Why do we need to replace it?

[Jon Seattle]

[b:3krbzelb]What Is the Guild? Why do we need to replace it?[/b:3krbzelb]

There is one branch of the CDS government that no one talks about much, in part because it has been quiet for a while. The Artisanal Collective (guild) was supposed to be an organization of artisans (builders and designers) and all citizens who wanted to become builders and designers. According to the constitution it was to be open to all citizens, serve as a way for our community to maintain its infrastructure and produce goods and services that we could market as a collective, and as a side effect provide a way for citizens to gain skills in building and design.

Unfortunately, the guild as constituted is not a democratic organization, and not open to all citizens, so we need to be thankful that it is more or less dormant. Here are some sections of the constitution which address the guild:

Article II section 2:
[quote:3krbzelb]The AC [Guild] is open to all participant citizens provided they create goods and/or services for the city. The collective is a four-tier system of apprentices, journeymen, masters, and a guild master.[/quote:3krbzelb]
section 3:
[quote:3krbzelb]Every election cycle the AC leader or guild master is chosen from the pool of masters. A vote using scores generated by Borda-count ranked votes are employed.[/quote:3krbzelb]
Never voted for a guild master? That is because (I think, it is not really clear from the constitution) the election is held among the guild’s masters and only they are allowed to vote. How does one get to be journeyman or master? You can be “raised up” by the existing masters of the guild. There are some problems:

1. The AC has refused to accept new members. Three people I know have tried to join, some more than once, and have been refused admission. This means that the guild is controlled only by those who were part of it before the gates slammed shut. Since three of the four political parties (CSDF, Simplicity, and CARE) were constituted after the guild stopped accepting applications, so we are not well represented.

2. Masters are supposed to be those who have gained their position through their skills in building, design, and community business. It you look at the current masters, it is clear that it is more of a political position. This is inevitable as long as the guild is an arm of government and not independent. We end up with Claude as artisan master and Moon Adamant coordinating the construction of all of Colonia Nova as mere journeyman.

3. While everyone is supposed to be able to participate in the guild, only masters are allowed to vote. Masters are appointed from above, not elected from below.

4. Keeping the guild as a government organization means matters that should be considered on a non-partisan basis and become projects of the whole community instead become political soccer balls.

5. The only organization the CDS has had as forum for builders and designers and as a place for citizens to learn needed skills has been the SPC, the voluntary organization that put together Colonia Nova. Unfortunately that organization was constituted only while Colonia Nova was under construction. If you are a builder or if you want to become a builder there is no place for you to go.

5. It is not clear to me that there is any constitutionally elected head of the current guild. I have not heard of any election of a new Guild Master. Have these elections even been held?

[b:3krbzelb]DPU’s Opposition to Reform[/b:3krbzelb]

Claude and the DPU in general has been quietly delaying work on the guild. Moon Adamant and I introduced a bills back on 12 November to reform the guild. Here are our proposals:

http://forums.neufreistadt.info/viewtopic.php?t=531
http://forums.neufreistadt.info/viewtopic.php?t=530

Claude, as LRA pushed those back to the very end of every RA meeting agenda since. Quite a few much less important bills were considered and passed. Claude did eventually appoint a DPU representative to co-chair a commission on the guild and I volunteered to be co-chair. I tried again and again to organize a meeting with the DPU co-chair and got no response. Eventually that chair promised commission meetings just after the 4th of January but January came and he did not have time to discuss the agenda. (I can show you my long chat log and email trail on this.) In effect the DPU silently vetoed our proposal by running out the time.

[b:3krbzelb]What Can You Do?[/b:3krbzelb]

1. Write your new RA representative and tell them we need guild reform [u:3krbzelb]now[/u:3krbzelb] and ask them to reintroduce and support our bills. We need it in this new RA session, not down the road.

2. I am organizing meetings to get the New Guild organization underway. The New Guild will really be democratic and open to all citizens. (and if Claude tries to close us down we will have to meet in Fachwerk basements and those are pretty drafty this time of year.)

Come join us and help build the future.

[Sleazy_Writer]

I had expected more than 0 replies to this one!
Where are our builders? (Brian, Antonius, Mizou, Aliasi (ofcourse) , ... ..) Or are they simply not reading the forum?

I'm not a builder or an aspiring one, but builders and designers are an important part of our community, and any improvement to their organisation or refreshment to their cooperation sounds like a good idea to me. This post deserves some attention.

For example:
- What can be better?
- Why is it NOT needed?
- When building minor things for NFS, why wasn't there an easy-to-find and accessible place for some help or a texture repository?
- Why can only Dianne replace a piece of missing NFS wall?
- Or why I'm wrong about all this

[Brian Livingston]

To be honest, I do check the forums at least daily, but as my post count will attest to, rarely post a reply. I prefer to lurk and discuss forum topics in world.

Anyways, I do support the redesign of the present Guild. If the CDS is still committed to becoming a center for artistic and creative progress, having an active Guild is essential.

The reformed Guild should be charged with attracting and retaining people who are interested in virtual design, architecture, building, scripting, planning, and terraforming. To maintain one's master status, these talented individuals should volunteer a given amount of time a month, either by teaching a introductory building or scripting class, mentoring journeymen and apprentices, or working on projects for the betterment of the CDS.

The Guild should be seen as a vital community institution, contributing the collective efforts of its members to the city and its NPOs. We have had a few instances in recent memory where events that we were planning fell through or were reduced in scale due to the difficulty of procuring volunteers who were skilled in a particular area, such as scripting or building, and so on. This is not to say that the artisans of the CDS are not of a benevolent and civic-minded spirit, but rather that getting the same message and request out to and coordinating the efforts of dozens of people is quite difficult. With a dedicated Guild, the request could be made to the Guildmaster, who in turn would work with the masters to develop work groups for each task.

Lastly, the Guild should be seen as a resource for its members and the public at large. The guild should offer instructional materials and meetings, work space for members, and perhaps even land grants to allow contributors to become citizens, even if they do not have the financial means to purchase CDS land. As proposed several weeks ago and discussed by a number of community members, this would attract talented builders and scripters and allow them to become citizens while paying back the guild and community at large through work for the community.

In short, yes, the Guild should be reformed and I would prefer it happen as soon as possible. This is a gap in our community that, when filled, would greatly benefit everyone involved; the CDS, the members, and the general public. So, to the RA, get on this please. Now.

--BL

[Claude Desmoulins]

Since Jon has questioned my decision to place guild reform down agenda last term, I thought I'd explain where I am on these issues.

I put AC reform on the back burner last term for two reasons.

First, I was concerned that simultaneously debating two significant structural reform proposals in the RA would be debilitating. We were quite wrapped up in Judiciary most of last term, and I believe in tackling one major legislative project at a time.

Second and more important is the question of executive power. The constitutional amendment creating the Chancellory, passed last term, transferred most of the AC's governmental functions to the Chancellor and his or her appointees. It also has a sunset clause. If the incoming RA takes no action this term, the Chancellor goes away. Had we moved forward on the CSDF AC reform proposals last term, there was a distinct possibility that the CDS would be left without any executive at all.

Therefore it is my intention to postpone discussion of any change to the AC until after the permanent status of executive powers is resolved. I believe this can be accomplished by making the Chancellory permanent. We have now had several months to live with this system and see how it works.

Once the question of the future of the Executive is settled , I'm committed to bringing AC reform to the floor of the RA. My most pressing question about Jon's proposal is this:

If the Guild is to become an NGO, why not abolish the current structure and then keep the government out of it? Jon has proposed a bill creating a new Guild based on his model. I don't see why the "new guild" can't organize itself free from government interference. He has even scheduled a founding meeting, strongly suggesting that such an approach is feasible.

If Jon wants the new guild to keep its right of first refusal on government contracts, what does CDS get in return? Under the present structure the AC has a governmental role (albeit reduced) and a constitutional obligation to support CDS fiscally. If said is removed, wouldn't a right of first refusal constitute "mercantile welfare" on our part?

[Diderot Mirabeau]

Just a few brief reflections on Claude's observations. Like Brian I support the proposal for a New Guild as does the Simplicity Party at large.

- I believe a New Guild would need to be 'chartered' for at least the following two reasons:
- To be able if necessary to draw upon the public prim pool enabled by some act in the 4th term (can't look it up now, as the wiki is inaccessible to me)
- To regulate exactly the interface that Claude addresses. I.e.: If the New Guild is to have first right of refusal on commissioning of public builds and sims, what does the city get in return? And from the other perspective, why should the New Guild create sims for the CDS for free?

I believe that formally anchoring the New Guild as our official vessel through which to plan and design new sims is the major if not only way that we can establish an incentive for people to join it. I think it is necessary to have people join it in order to have a formal framework through which to structure the creative contributions needed for our community.

I am not entirely clear on what mechanisms of compensation would exist between the RA and the New Guild but I am certain that there needs to be some sort of 'franchise agreement or service level agreement' that specifies exactly what each party offers to the other in return for something else.

For example:
- The New Guild offers pro bono to design and build new sims on the basis of master plans issued/approved by the RA

- The New Guild is granted a certain amount of land that it may buy without having to pay land fees or it is granted some land for free that it has to pay land fees on but which can be paid through labour by its members

- The New Guild is granted a special arrangement whereby it does not need to pay land fees every month but can indeed pay more in advance or pay more later. The important thing is that we get a sort of 'account balance', which shows whether the city is in the negative to the New Guild for commissioned work or whether the New Guild has to do some more (maintenance) work / teaching in order to reach a balance of zero. For each job a price would need to be negotiated possibly between the Chancellor and the Guildmaster. If it turns out that the New Guild manages constantly to maintain a balance on performed work relative to land fees highly in their favour then part of this balance could be traded in for more land. The important thing here would be that such a balance would become a management instrument by which the RA/Executive could constantly gauge the level of voluntary labour that we can rely on to execute our public works. If the fees would have to be paid every month there would not be as much scope for 'saving up work for that big sim expansion project' or the other way around no incentive for the New Guild to do an extra effort at pro bono work.

[Jon Seattle]

[quote="Claude Desmoulins":2vtlezw2]
Second and more important is the question of executive power. The constitutional amendment creating the Chancellory, passed last term, transferred most of the AC's governmental functions to the Chancellor and his or her appointees. It also has a sunset clause. If the incoming RA takes no action this term, the Chancellor goes away. Had we moved forward on the CSDF AC reform proposals last term, there was a distinct possibility that the CDS would be left without any executive at all.[/quote:2vtlezw2]
There has no guild election and as a result there is no constitutional AC. Even if there were a functioning AC every citizen who has joined the CDS for the last eight months has been excluded. Since the ability to vote in the guild depends on rising though the ranks (apprentice, journeyman, master) everyone who has been turned down for membership has also been prevented from having a say. Turning the executive function back to the old guild would mean depriving most CDS citizens of their right to representation and putting executive power in the hands of a few citizens, including Claude. Claude, it this something you are seriously considering? I doubt you are serious about this.

[quote="Claude Desmoulins":2vtlezw2]My most pressing question about Jon's proposal is this:

If the Guild is to become an NGO, why not abolish the current structure and then keep the government out of it? Jon has proposed a bill creating a new Guild based on his model. I don't see why the "new guild" can't organize itself free from government interference. He has even scheduled a founding meeting, strongly suggesting that such an approach is feasible. [/quote:2vtlezw2]
There are three very important reasons for keeping the CDS involved:

* Part of the proposed mission is to provide, free to every citizen, "continuing hands-on education in: building, design, architecture, scripting and the development of external software used to support in-world activities. To provide certification in these skills." If the organization is not publicly chartered we cannot insure that it will provide this education.

* The new guild is charged with providing expert advice and services to the Chancellor (which the Chancellor may take advantage of or not). We now have a chancellor who is an accomplished builder, but I doubt that will always be the case. If we do not charter the organization then we cannot be sure that it will continue to provide those services to the CDS.

* The proposed new guild charter says that it will "organize, plan, and execute the construction of new simulator regions,". If we exclude the CDS from involvement how do we know that in the future these will be CDS sims? To be sure we could have started a SL-wide not-for-profit sim development organization, (and be very successful at that if it provided free instruction to talented people and did good work) but that misses the point. We want the growth in human capital via the guild to power CDS expansion.

[quote="Claude Desmoulins":2vtlezw2]If Jon wants the new guild to keep its right of first refusal on government contracts, what does CDS get in return? Under the present structure the AC has a governmental role (albeit reduced) and a constitutional obligation to support CDS fiscally. If said is removed, wouldn't a right of first refusal constitute "mercantile welfare" on our part?[/quote:2vtlezw2]
Claude has previously asked me this question and heard my reply. I can only assume he says this because he wants you to mistakenly believe that a "right of first refusal" is part of the proposal. Take a look at the actual proposal, it was intentionally written so as to have [u:2vtlezw2]no[/u:2vtlezw2] such requirement.

http://forums.neufreistadt.info/viewtopic.php?t=531

If we have a functioning new guild, hiring a commercial contractor to carry out these functions might be foolish, but I am happy to leave this avenue open as an option to a future RA. If the RA went this route:

* Prices would be far higher. it is not unusual for companies such as Betatech to charge thousands of dollars to design a new sim.

* The resulting space is far less likely to be suited to our needs and tastes with are better understood by CDS citizens.

* Even if the result of the project was a pleasant space, the resources involved would all be sent out of the community. This would not add to our citizen's skills (including marketable skills needed to start a new business) nor to the human capital available for future projects.

There is no nead for a "right of first refusal" because if the new guild can't compete on the merits of its work and contribution to the community then it would deserve to loose those contracts. Unless, of course, contracts are to be awarded on the basis of political patronage. But that won't happen, will it?

[Claude Desmoulins]

Jon,

Thanks for your clarifications.

A couple of responses

You wrote:

[quote:3556ji6s]Turning the executive function back to the old guild would mean depriving most CDS citizens of their right to representation and putting executive power in the hands of a few citizens, including Claude. Claude, it this something you are seriously considering? I doubt you are serious about this. [/quote:3556ji6s]

No, I stated in my previous post that I favor making the current executive (Chancellor, etc.) permanent. My point is that if we abolish the present Guild and then, for whatever reason, don't make the Chancellor permanent or do some exec reform, on August 1 2007 the CDS executive ceases to exist when the Chancellor amendment sunsets and there's nothing there to replace it.

If the new guild is simply a matter of accepting a charter , as we did with other institutions, then I see this a not a major stumbling block.

Looking at each of your rationales for government involvement:

[quote:3556ji6s]* Part of the proposed mission is to provide, free to every citizen, "continuing hands-on education in: building, design, architecture, scripting and the development of external software used to support in-world activities. To provide certification in these skills." If the organization is not publicly chartered we cannot insure that it will provide this education. [/quote:3556ji6s]

This is a laudable goal. However, why is it the government's job to enforce it? I see no reason why the new guild should give up its right to make its own decisions about tuition,etc., unless it is in exchange for some formal role in future sim planning (see below) or some other grant from CDS. Else it's the government taking on enforcement tasks which are none of the government's business.

[quote:3556ji6s]* The new guild is charged with providing [b:3556ji6s]expert advice and services[/b:3556ji6s] to the Chancellor (which the Chancellor may take advantage of or not). We now have a chancellor who is an accomplished builder, but I doubt that will always be the case. If we do not charter the organization then we cannot be sure that it will continue to provide those services to the CDS. [/quote:3556ji6s] [i:3556ji6s]emphasis mine[/i:3556ji6s]

Since the Chancellor is free to accept or decline this advice and these services the only way this changes anything is if the new guild is expected to provide these at no cost. Is that the expectation?

[quote:3556ji6s]
* The proposed new guild charter says that it will "organize, plan, and execute the construction of new simulator regions,". If we exclude the CDS from involvement how do we know that in the future these will be CDS sims? To be sure we could have started a SL-wide not-for-profit sim development organization, (and be very successful at that if it provided free instruction to talented people and did good work) but that misses the point. We want the growth in human capital via the guild to power CDS expansion. [/quote:3556ji6s]

OK. Here's what I see as the benefit to the new guild -- they get a formal role in new sims. I worry about accountability. For example....

First of all let me say that I appreciate the hours of uncompensated labor the SPC put in to assembling Colonia Nova, but there was one decision that I think wasn't handled well. The original spec for the second sim (as passed in NL 4-9) specified a contiguous second sim. There was much discussion, to be fair, but there should have been an amendment of that act to permit the sim to be non -contiguous. It's the fault of the RA for not raising the issue, but still.

The new guild, as an NGO, has limited accountability. I gather the provision allowing the RA to remove members of the guild admin council is an attempt to address this. Could you address the question of what you see as the scope of the proposed new guild's authority related to sim planning and building?

[Jon Seattle]

[quote="Claude Desmoulins":qygyz50j]
[quote:qygyz50j]* Part of the proposed mission is to provide, free to every citizen, "continuing hands-on education in: building, design, architecture, scripting and the development of external software used to support in-world activities. To provide certification in these skills." If the organization is not publicly chartered we cannot insure that it will provide this education. [/quote:qygyz50j]
This is a laudable goal. However, why is it the government's job to enforce it? I see no reason why the new guild should give up its right to make its own decisions about tuition,etc., unless it is in exchange for some formal role in future sim planning (see below) or some other grant from CDS.[/quote:qygyz50j]
There is a difference between an organization that has a mission to develop the CDS's human capital and a for-profit school. Many more people will donate their time and energy if they understand that this is part of the CDS's own mechanism for expansion and their volunteered time and resources will not go into yet another for-profit venture. That someone will not run off to make a profit from their work. Without this organization being chartered by the CDS there can be little confidence that their effort is really a contribution to the community.

[quote="Claude Desmoulins":qygyz50j]First of all let me say that I appreciate the hours of uncompensated labor the SPC put in to assembling Colonia Nova[/quote:qygyz50j]
Not hours, Claude, many weeks..

[quote="Claude Desmoulins":qygyz50j]Since the Chancellor is free to accept or decline this advice and these services the only way this changes anything is if the new guild is expected to provide these at no cost. Is that the expectation?[/quote:qygyz50j]
Yes it is. The idea is that citizens contribute their time and in return the new guild helps them develop their skills and certifies that they have attained competence. The guild provides services for the Chancellor and in return receives official recognition as the CDS Guild for its contribution. Note that this work for the Chancellor includes only community projects.

I know that Pel (and I assume the DPU) has worked on proposals that involve paying CDS civil servants RL wages. I very much doubt that there is a way for this to work; we do not have thank kind of income. We are fundamentally an organization of volunteers. The way you reward volunteers is to recognize their contribution. I just wish I could say that happened with Colonia Nova.

[quote="Claude Desmoulins":qygyz50j]OK. Here's what I see as the benefit to the new guild -- they get a formal role in new sims. I worry about accountability. [/quote:qygyz50j]
I worry about accountability also, but my worries are in the other direction. A diverse non-partisan New Guild open to all citizens vs a highly politicized RA with little experience in planing and building. I can easily see a future RA insisting on micro-managing the process because they can't bare to give up one iota of their power. Or even worse, to start branding sim proposals by political party: the DPU sim vs the Simple, CSDF, or CARE sim.

The fact is that the SPC planners and builders included people from the all three parties (existing at the time) and we all got along and worked very well together.

[quote="Claude Desmoulins":qygyz50j]there was one decision that I think wasn't handled well. The original spec for the second sim (as passed in NL 4-9) specified a contiguous second sim. There was much discussion, to be fair, but there should have been an amendment of that act to permit the sim to be non -contiguous. It's the fault of the RA for not raising the issue, but still.[/quote:qygyz50j]
I suppose this is the case, but as four out of five RA members were part of this discussion in the SPC, apparently it did not trouble us that much at the time. Moon also reported this to the RA. As you know there are serious technical issues we could not solve involving the high altitude of NFS, still include sim water for the river, and keep open the possibility of joining new sims to Colonia Nova in the future.

[quote="Claude Desmoulins":qygyz50j]The new guild, as an NGO, has limited accountability. I gather the provision allowing the RA to remove members of the guild admin council is an attempt to address this. Could you address the question of what you see as the scope of the proposed new guild's authority related to sim planning and building?[/quote:qygyz50j]
Sure. First of all, I intend not to speak the New Guild. The New Guild will have discussions and votes and decide our policy that way. Nevertheless, I do have some of my own ideas and would be glad to explain in future postings. The important thing to me is not that the New Guild implement my ideas, but that it exist as a voice for builders and architects and all citizens who want to learn to be builders and architects.

I think that the New Guild should manage [u:qygyz50j]a[/u:qygyz50j] sim development process from start to finish. First overseeing the process of developing proposals for new sims by multiple teams under the New Guild umbrella; providing technical advice to those teams; managing the ongoing process of public participation in the development of those proposals (and not just voting on the final product); submitting them to the RA for possible approval; and, if the RA decides to approve one of the New Guild proposals, arranging for its financing, implementation, and promotion. In the implementation phase exactly what the SPC did for Colonia Nova.

The RA could always decide that it preferred a sim developed by a commercial organization to one of the guild's proposals. Or the RA could decide to send the whole thing back to the guild for more thought. But without a doubt, I do believe that the details of sim development should be the work of citizen volunteers and the guild and not the politicians sitting in the RA.

[Jon Seattle]

[quote="Claude Desmoulins":2h2h6s14]
[quote:2h2h6s14]* Part of the proposed mission is to provide, free to every citizen, "continuing hands-on education in: building, design, architecture, scripting and the development of external software used to support in-world activities. To provide certification in these skills." If the organization is not publicly chartered we cannot insure that it will provide this education. [/quote:2h2h6s14]
This is a laudable goal. However, why is it the government's job to enforce it? I see no reason why the new guild should give up its right to make its own decisions about tuition,etc., unless it is in exchange for some formal role in future sim planning (see below) or some other grant from CDS.[/quote:2h2h6s14]
There is a difference between an organization that has a mission to develop the CDS's human capital and a for-profit school. Many more people will donate their time and energy if they understand that this is part of the CDS's own mechanism for expansion and their volunteered time and resources will not go into yet another for-profit venture. That someone will not run off to make a profit from their work. Without this organization being chartered by the CDS there can be little confidence that their effort is really a contribution to the community.

[quote="Claude Desmoulins":2h2h6s14]First of all let me say that I appreciate the hours of uncompensated labor the SPC put in to assembling Colonia Nova[/quote:2h2h6s14]
Not hours, Claude, many weeks..

[quote="Claude Desmoulins":2h2h6s14]Since the Chancellor is free to accept or decline this advice and these services the only way this changes anything is if the new guild is expected to provide these at no cost. Is that the expectation?[/quote:2h2h6s14]
Yes it is. The idea is that citizens contribute their time and in return the new guild helps them develop their skills and certifies that they have attained competence. The guild provides services for the Chancellor and in return receives official recognition as the CDS Guild for its contribution. Note that this work for the Chancellor includes only community projects.

I know that Pel (and I assume the DPU) has worked on proposals that involve paying CDS civil servants RL wages. I very much doubt that there is a way for this to work; we do not have thank kind of income. We are fundamentally an organization of volunteers. The way you reward volunteers is to recognize their contribution. I just wish I could say that happened with Colonia Nova.

[quote="Claude Desmoulins":2h2h6s14]OK. Here's what I see as the benefit to the new guild -- they get a formal role in new sims. I worry about accountability. [/quote:2h2h6s14]
I worry about accountability also, but my worries are in the other direction. A diverse non-partisan New Guild open to all citizens vs a highly politicized RA with little experience in planing and building. I can easily see a future RA insisting on micro-managing the process because they can't bare to give up one iota of their power. Or even worse, to start branding sim proposals by political party: the DPU sim vs the Simple, CSDF, or CARE sim.

The fact is that the SPC planners and builders included people from the all three parties (existing at the time) and we all got along and worked very well together.

[quote="Claude Desmoulins":2h2h6s14]there was one decision that I think wasn't handled well. The original spec for the second sim (as passed in NL 4-9) specified a contiguous second sim. There was much discussion, to be fair, but there should have been an amendment of that act to permit the sim to be non -contiguous. It's the fault of the RA for not raising the issue, but still.[/quote:2h2h6s14]
I suppose this is the case, but as four out of five RA members were part of this discussion in the SPC, apparently it did not trouble us that much at the time. Moon also reported this to the RA. As you know there are serious technical issues we could not solve involving the high altitude of NFS, still include sim water for the river, and keep open the possibility of joining new sims to Colonia Nova in the future.

[quote="Claude Desmoulins":2h2h6s14]The new guild, as an NGO, has limited accountability. I gather the provision allowing the RA to remove members of the guild admin council is an attempt to address this. Could you address the question of what you see as the scope of the proposed new guild's authority related to sim planning and building?[/quote:2h2h6s14]
Sure. First of all, I intend not to speak the New Guild. The New Guild will have discussions and votes and decide our policy that way. Nevertheless, I do have some of my own ideas and would be glad to explain in future postings. The important thing to me is not that the New Guild implement my ideas, but that it exist as a voice for builders and architects and all citizens who want to learn to be builders and architects.

I think that the New Guild should manage [u:2h2h6s14]a[/u:2h2h6s14] sim development process from start to finish. First overseeing the process of developing proposals for new sims by multiple teams under the New Guild umbrella; providing technical advice to those teams; managing the ongoing process of public participation in the development of those proposals (and not just voting on the final product); submitting them to the RA for possible approval; and, if the RA decides to approve one of the New Guild proposals, arranging for its financing, implementation, and promotion. In the implementation phase exactly what the SPC did for Colonia Nova.

The RA could always decide that it preferred a sim developed by a commercial organization to one of the guild's proposals. Or the RA could decide to send the whole thing back to the guild for more thought. But without a doubt, I do believe that the details of sim development should be the work of citizen volunteers and the guild and not the politicians sitting in the RA.

[Ranma Tardis]

I tried to join the guild but was rejected by the guild master. Yes I understand it was an definate no but anything other than yes is a negitive answer.
I would like to do my thing to help the community but have been prevented for reasons do not understand.
Would like to see a new guild rise from the ashes of the old one. I do not think that paid positions will make up for a guild that is made up of concerned citizens.

[Sleazy_Writer]

May I ask what reasons for this rejection were?
I'm not expecting that having few building skills (as a beginner) should matter .. That was probably not the reason ..

[Jon Seattle]

Hi TOP,

Sudane has turned down a number of people for the (very good) reasons she outlines in this post:

http://forums.neufreistadt.info/viewtopic.php?t=433

Mainly that is past time for us to do something about the Guild.

[Sleazy_Writer]

thanks.