TeaDaze.net

I think the number of people on the CSM is fine, providing they are willing to put in the effort (we’ve had a few meetings so far where a few key people were missing). It is enough to get a fair representation of the different groups but not too many that it turns into party political voting blocs.

What I would like to see is more penalties for people not participating in every meeting. We understand that real life takes priority and there will be unforeseen events, but if you can only make every other meeting and/or can’t dedicate the time to the process then you shouldn’t take the position over somebody willing to put in the time. Unfortunately it isn’t something that voters or CCP can evaluate at the voting stages and with the first summit trip only 3 weeks into the term it is even more attractive than last time to the free holiday crowd…

The yearly term and removal of term limits are an interesting pair of changes.

The reasoning behind the one year term was to allow the CSM to gain a bit more stability and to participate in two full development cycles (during which time there was the possibility to see some of the requested changes end up in game). The time commitment is high and it will hopefully reduce the number of people running for the lols. Of course getting both summit trips in a 6 month period might mean very little participation past Christmas…
Stability wise it might promote more discussion with CCP outside the summit meetings with them bouncing ideas to the CSM mailing list and allowing us to give feedback. This is an area that has been very underutilised so far.

The term limit removal is a bit of a worry. Ultimately the fact that CSM is such a time sink will likely reduce the number of people running year on year (there will be a few of course), at least that was CCP’s reasoning…

I’ll be discussing these issues a fair bit during the campaign and will put up a proper blog at some point.

Thanks for the question 🙂