Minutes of the FM/M Meeting - 19/11/06

[TeaLeaf]

Present:
Bastet
Lunares
Tanales
Teaelle
GreatDanes
Ragefull
Wierd


Minutes of the Meeting for discussion with those absent and then agreement and action.

• AGREED we should be a successful raiding guild with expectations for success and retaining the social side.  

Timescale for change – by The Burning Crusade we must be known as a Raiding Guild.
How?

• How should we change

a.   Expectation for raid members to pot up each raid
b.   That they carry their own sufficient supply of reagents
c.   Sufficient supply of major mana pots, major healing pots and bandages
d.   Punctual attendance
e.   Advance notice (where reasonable) of planned absence
f.   Tell members in advance where we are raiding (say at end of previous raid or 2 days in advance)

• 3.   Structure of the Guild & Work

a.   Set list of roles
b.   Allocated list of responsibilities and a fair distribution of that work load
c.   Agreed change forums with one common room for FMs & Ms (Commanders room to remain separately)
d.   Sub forums for each role – eg recruitment, long term goals, RG1, RG2, DKP, website, raid tactics, the TBC plan,  Soldier development/welfare (maybe for the whole guild) etc
e.   Initiate welfare should be the job of FM/M and posted so Initiates know who to respond to and who they can talk to.
f.   Job descriptions for each role setting expectation and responsibilities and goals
g.   Post long term things and results of our discussion on the forums – maybe a guild publicity officer?

• Long Term Goal

a.   What do we want to achieve before TBC?
b.   DA confident on RG2 now that we have a full RG2 (LIFO rule had to be applied)
c.   RG1 - Razuvious imminent & C’Thun by the end of the 2006
d.   Goal for Soldiers?  Don’t they want more  from the Guild
e.   Plan for TBC
i.   Need a group to be set up to consider and plan

• Structure of SOG

a.   7 FMs and 5 Ms run the Guild
b.   This is considered insufficient to run a 226 account Guild
c.   RG2 should not be inferior and must be on equal footing
d.   Consider removal of the FM attachment to RG1 and Marshall to RG2.  
e.   Consider one rank for all officers
f.   Consider sharing ranks between raid groups – ie FMs & Ms could be in RG1 or RG2.
g.   Alternative use comment on Guild list for roles
h.   Should we get rid of the FM/Ms title.
i.   Recommendation is that the Marshalls are given Field Marshall rights and we then distribute the job roles to each of the FM/Ms.
j.   Agreed to establish roles to be fulfilled and then quantify the manpower needed to undertake these tasks, recruiting more to the officer ranks as required.
k.   Discussed need for some review process of the different department/roles, possibility meeting on an agreed basis to cover an agreed agenda.   Unanimous support for this idea.
l.   Agreed that a ‘Board’ should be formed with representatives covering the various roles and aspects of the Guild.
m.   Discussed possibility of a member-nominated board member (not a Marshall or Field Marshall) to sit on the Board.  Not all agreed that this was a good idea, in particular as this might cause problems with inappropriate information coming into the member domains.  
n.   Agreed that if the ‘communication officer’ role was properly fulfilled that it would not be necessary to have a member-nominated board member.

• Raid Leading

a.   The role is too much for one person alone and from a ‘catastrophy planning’ perspective needs more than one person available to do it.  
b.   TL feels it important that RG2 is also included here to help assist knowledge transfer that can be applied to RG2’s current instances, even thought they might have been deployed initially for RG1 work.
c.   RG2 has already implemented similar – Siffredi is the backup RL.  They are more advanced than this respect than RG1 and they actively swap RL between each other for different fights etc to try new tactics etc.
d.   Agreed some rotation was preferable (even if only for specific fights) to enable knowledge transfer and to ensure we have capable RL backups if needed
e.   Suggest 1 RL plus 2 backups for each raid group (total 6)

• Tactics Research

a.   This is too much for one person
b.   Needs an identifiable group (including raid leaders)
c.   Assuming 6e is adopted then then this would be the RL group (6 people)

• Absence

a.   Suggested a web interface for each player to be able to log in and note if they are UNAVAILABLE.
b.   Graphical display to allow easy identification of class shortage etc.
c.   Possibly linked to Attendance data.
d.   Refer to dMw’s Availability website to see if this could be adapted (TL will ask Oldbloke to speak with Tanales about it)
e.   Tanales will take this forward and report back.

• SOGbank

a.   Currently outside officer control.
b.   Agreed to defer discussion to another time.
[/list]
Meeting lasted 2 hours.

[Vargen]

Reguarding point 9. I have requested by mail all the contents of SOGbank to be sent to Moneybagz, but nothing more has happend on the matter.

Other then that, I see a lot of key points finally got adressed. I am just sorry I couldn't make the meeting myself.

[TeaLeaf]

We know you've got your holiday to go on tomorrow, so no problems, I'm just glad you've had time to read this and comment before you went.  If you're happy with the above then perhaps you could give us the nod to implement as much of this as we can please?  The only thing we cannot take care of for you is the permissions for Marshalls (adding rights to add members to Guild etc) to give them same rights as FMs.

TL.

[Vargen]

If you want anything changed in the ranks let me know by the end of tonight.
You have all done a great job here and I can fully support all of the above.

[TeaLeaf]

Reguarding point 9. I have requested by mail all the contents of SOGbank to be sent to Moneybagz, but nothing more has happend on the matter.

When you're back I suggest we follow up this matter and get it transferred.

TL.