This thread is about general ideas you have on how we can reform the Office of World Assembly Legislation (OWL).
To start off, OWL is pretty important. Anjo has a pretty weighed vote (second largest in the game), so determining their stance on a resolution is key. However, I feel as if our current system doesn’t work.
Running OWL is not an easy job, let me say. I was in a messaging exchange with our former Director, Jag, about them leaving the post. We both agreed that the body needs reform, and that the current state of it is only slightly working.
So I have some ideas. And you probably do too!
To start, I think we can shorther the reccomendation. As of now, our write-up which backs-up our decision on how Anjo, is currently a two and a half paragraph write-up. Other regions, including The North Pacific and The Communist Bloc write a short three-sentence paragraph and then a sentence which declares the vote. I’m not saying we should directly copy what these regions do, however, we can take some inspiration from their styles. This is less of a Charter change more of a stylistic change.
Secondly, we could look at the job of the OWL Director transitioning to another Delegate job. This is probably pretty tiring for the Delegate I must say, however, I do think that Anjo did a good job running the Office while also serving as Delegate.
Another solution could be that OWL is turned to a Ministry but it doesn’t seem like much reform would take place (besides switching from an appointed office to an elected one and the name change).
I’d like to hear your thoughts. All comments are encouraged, as is standard.
The other WA ministries organize their analysis into overview-recommendation. This has the advantage of being more readable.
As for the transformation into a ministry, this implies a strong investment of the WA nations to express their votes, we often see in the threads that few people vote, even if they have in theory the WA Update ping. A possible change would be to transform the voluntary WA Update ping into an automatic WA nations role.
Transformation into a ministry could perhaps attract new members, although this does not entirely solve the problem.
I think I’d be supportive on making a short little synopsis about the resolution (one sentence) and maybe two sentences explaining the Delegate’s vote.
I don’t think the length is a problem. If the recommendation presents several arguments, it is not a problem for it to be several paragraphs long.
But it would gain in clarity to be separated in two parts.
I disagree. The writing can take some time, and it’s a burden on the writer. I feel as if we can make more concise arguments without writing multiple paragraphs. It’s also easier and more accessible to read.
I’m honestly not convinced recommendations are necessary at all; if people want to see the reasons why OWL is issuing a recommendation, they can just check the discussion thread. Without the burden of recommendations, it seems to me like we could more realistically set a long-term goal of automating most if not all of the work that OWL does.
I would first ask what do people even want from OWL. Do they want to receive voting recommendations? Do they want detailed explanations or just a For/Against recommendation? Do they just want a space to discuss proposals, rather than an actual office that issues recommendations?
I recommend creating more ranks for OWL like: OWL Director Assistant, etc. Because currently it seems that the OWL Director performs all tasks especially on the writing part. Also divide staff like Dispatch writers, poll conductors, etc. So members of the OWL can do what they like best
OWL is time consuming, though. And not many people are interested in it (as opposed to maybe the SPSF or other bodies). How can we get people to, well, participate in its functions?
I know all this currently exists. My point is about figuring out how much interest there is in each aspect of what OWL does, or doesn’t do, to figure out what kind of institution is actually needed or wanted.