A New LEA? How Can LL Best Support the Arts in Second Life?

[Chic Aeon]

A note just now from a friend (hence this is hearsay since I have NO first hand info) tells me that of the SAVE LEA members -- several do NOT want to be on the committee (and hence doing the work) of the NEW LEA and the person reporting has not seen anyone in that group mention that they DO want to be  in charge  if LL actually lets them have some regions.

Does this sound familiar?   

Of course anyone in that group (I am not there in any form including "alt") wants to come wave hands and say, "I will do the work",  they are welcome to and we can breathe a sign of relief.   If not, then this is all really just an interesting dreamlike experience. 

 

There are some really good ideas here. There is even the beginning of a plan. It really could work -- if Linden Lab wants to keep LEA going. But the same problem is raised. It is a LOT OF WORK and very few people are willing to do that work for what amounts to a few kudos points now and then (mixed in with some rotten egg throwing from time to time).  

 

So please step up if you think you can handle the job.  There were quite a few "I can run LEA better" comments in a long thread here and another on NWN a couple of years ago (estimate).  Now is the chance for those folks to come forward.  It doesn't really count if you complain that things are bad and are NOT willing to do the work to make it better. 

 

So, I have complained. Where does that leave me?  

(I am really laughing loudly sitting here at my computer). 

I do NOT want to be on a committee. I absolutely HATE the politics and the backstabbing and the clandestine manipulations (or attempts at such -- sometimes from people who present themselves as friends).

 

Could I run LEA 2.0?  Yes, I could. I don't NEED to, but I could and I still believe  LEA has and could be an important part of the platform.

Do I think Linden Lab really wants to save LEA?  I am not too sure on that point. 

Would they want ME running the show?  Most likely not. I have certainly proved myself over the years including thousands of hours of work for LEA and my dedication to machinima, but I really don't play all that well with others and I often say what I think at all costs (as long as there is no NDA involved; those I take very seriously).  So it would have to be a "give her the regions and let her do here thing" deal.

 

So while I am not stepping backwards I am guessing that there really IS a better person out there who might want to come forward. They don't need to be on the official save committee.  I am pretty sure that Linden Lab doesn't want some of those folks anyway based on past history.  

 

BUT we have definitely made a plan here. It would be good if it could be realized. 

 

 

[Seicher Rae]

3 hours ago, Chic Aeon said:

The rule for a long time had been...

That seems to be a running theme in several of your comments. Rules were there, like replacing absent council members, but eventually things devolved. One suggestion would be to sit down with the existing rules and guidelines, and line by line examine what worked, what didn't, what got ignored, etc. 

 

3 hours ago, Chic Aeon said:

Some of the artists that you saw in the early to middle days of LEA stopped applying when they could no longer have tip jars on their plots.  Personally I thought the no tip jar rule was a good one; I mean they are getting a full sim for six months for FREE; that seemed "enough" to me. 

I was surprised to read that this change stopped people from applying for LEA. I probably would have voted the other way, that *a* tip jar would be ok, because donations are discretionary, and while the sim is free the time and financial resources to the artists are not. Plus visitors often like to have the ability to vote with their wallets. I think I would have wanted rules on what the jar could say, as I hate the ones that publically list who paid what, but this discussion is really getting into the weeds.

I did read this entire thread (something I rarely do) and have been keeping up with Inara's blog (her blog is such a service to the SL community).

It is sounding like while a whole new beginning is probably the way to go, it also sounds like there were so many pitfalls that a new group going forward would need to know the history of the former LEA before venturing forth. This is another reason I haven't signed up to volunteer — I do not know about the historic ins and outs of the group and what ultimately lead to its demise.

[Daniel Voyager]

I hope LEA and Linden Lab can reach an agreement very soon. 

It will be a huge loss if the LEA regions closed forever. 

[Qie Niangao]

6 hours ago, Seicher Rae said:

It is sounding like while a whole new beginning is probably the way to go, it also sounds like there were so many pitfalls that a new group going forward would need to know the history of the former LEA before venturing forth.

This is my impression, too, as a complete outsider who didn't even go to LEA all that often. I sure like the general mission and hope something successful comes next.

Not knowing details of the past other than what I've read here, it's hard to make productive suggestions much beyond random brainstorming which may not be that helpful.

Would it help to enumerate what made it difficult before, to see if there's a way to simply minimize or eliminate those functions? 

For example, maybe, could there be some other way to achieve the mission without needing the hands-on involvement of a "star chamber" of SL art world luminaries? Is there some way curation can be delegated or distributed or crowdsourced?

Or is it best to try a resurrected LEA on the old model with with a few tweaks and a new cast?

[Scylla Rhiadra]

On 7/27/2019 at 6:29 PM, Dekka Raymaker said:

I was one of the original committee members of the LEA, I left after a year because quite frankly the main core of committee members with regards to the rules 'it' had set up, was incompatible. Most of the original members, imo, were itching to use the Linden granted land liberally for themselves, but 'it' surprisingly stated in 'its' rules, that no committee member should benefit from the LEA, i.e. no free use of land. So what happened instead was that committee members would come up with ideas that would include the need of creative input from themselves, i.e. a stage, a museum, a landing point, it became a "look what I did".

And thus the members choose to do their thing and not give any extra time to the LEA that did not benefit them creatively, and only 3 members (out of 10?) did the core of the work. It depressed me and I exited SL, I actually didn't resign from the LEA I just faded away, I had to come back a couple of years later because I realized I was still paying the 'find in search fee' for one of the sims and had to leave as owner so other members could make changes, so for two years nothing was really done on that sim.

After coming back to SL 6 years later I was a little appalled at how the LEA had turned out. It was definately a shadow of its original self, even though the original self had already been lacking.

I've dug around a bit and learned a little more about some of the conflicts, personality issues, and (maybe) venality that seem to have plagued LEA at intervals over the course of its operation. It seems to me that one solution might be to dilute the influence of practicing artists on the committee a bit.

So, here's a thought, modeled a little bit anyway on my own experience of vetting and awards committees.

• Reduce the size of the committee, which will make it more workable, less prone (perhaps) to in-fighting, and means one needs to dragoon fewer people into serving. Say, 5?
   
• Reduce the number of practicing artists to two, or perhaps three. Ideally, none of these would serve for more than a year at a time, and would be ineligible for consecutive terms.
   
• Add a Linden to the committee, ex officio. The Linden committee member might be voting or non-voting; the main point would be to monitor and maybe provide a bit of oversight to the committee.
   
• Fill the remainder of the committee with non-artist residents. I suppose these might be "creators," in the sense of merchants, for instance, but principally you'd want people who are relatively unconnected to the arts community, and who can also represent those -- i.e., the general population of SL residents -- who are the target audience for the art.
   
• Ideally -- and I don't know how realistic this might be -- one might also include an artist on the committee who is reasonably in tune with digital technologies, but not actually a Second Life resident.
   
• The committee would be responsible, ultimately, for choosing successful proposals, but it would do so only after receiving reports/evaluations from two to three referees chosen from within the SL arts community. This mimics the process usually used for the awarding of grants of this sort in RL, and it fulfills a number of functions: it provides external feedback from "experts" in the field, and it adds as something of a check on any tendency of the awards committee to act arbitrarily or politically, rather than primarily with reference to the quality of the proposals.
   
• Keep the deliberations of the committee, to as great an extent as possible, public and transparent. There are limits to this, of course: names of proposers and referees would likely need to be redacted from any records, for instance. But transparency is really important in this process.

I have no idea how well this would function, or if it's even workable. But it's maybe one way to make the committee -- whatever the ultimate nature of the awards being handed out -- at least a bit broader in its perspective, and maybe more accountable for its decisions.

 

Edited July 29, 2019 by Scylla Rhiadra

[Akane Nacht]

2 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

 

• Fill the remainder of the committee with non-artist residents. I suppose these might be "creators," in the sense of merchants, for instance, but principally you'd want people who are relatively unconnected to the arts community, and who can also represent those -- i.e., the general population of SL residents -- who are the target audience for the art.

 

I think if the general population of SL is going to be drawn to LEA 2.0 (or whatever it ends up being) it will be important to have some "patrons" from among the merchant community, if only to make people aware of its existence. They have the mass reach for audience. Of course there would have to be something in it for them too - maybe they get a gift shop opportunity. A merchant community manager might be a good addition to the committee.

[Mollymews]

i think that if this is ever going to be a success then it might be best to parse it down

parsing back. It should be understood that this is an exhibition of artists and not a exhibition of art. There is a difference. When this difference is understood then it is a pretty simple and straightforward adminstrative function

if I was deciding all this then (building off what has been mentioned by others here and in other discussions past and present):

1) I would appoint an Administrator who has only 1 task - maintain the exhibition schedule and application process in a timely and orderly manner

2) there is an Academy of Artists - all the artists who have ever exhibited.  The Academy votes on who can next exhibit - the successful applicant(s) are voted onto the Academy. Therefore membership of the Academy is self-perpetuating. People come, people go. The Academy perpetuates

3) ergo. There is no Committee. There is nothing to committee about

other things

4) Access. There is a Art Portal region. Portals leading to the exhibit regions. The only way to an exhibit region is thru the Portal (experience teleport). The access portal to a region can be closed while the next exhibition is being readied

5) Recognition. At the Art Portal there is a wall. A profile wall (time capsule) of every Member of the Academy

6) Payment. Every portal includes a portal-made tip board - the proceeds of which go to the artist. Artists may also put an additional tip jar at the Landing point on their exhibition region.  When we don't allow payment then we inhibit the participation of artists who are poor in alternative means of income/wealth/time

7) Who gets to make the Art Portal ?  It is a LDPW build. It is a portal like any other portal

8 ) Who gets to be the Administrator ?  A Mole does. Patch Linden to appoint. The Administrator is a part-time paid position. Other Moles can be seconded to cover/assist on a needs basis. If not Patch Linden then Strawberry Linden (there is some sense in there being Strawberry named accounts in addition to the Moles for this kinda thing. Strawberries be skilled in inworld management, organising, administration, scheduling and promotional events)

a general note. Trying to get resident artists to organise this kinda thing administratively, is a bit like trying to get band members to organise a gig tour itinerary for themselves and other bands. Not impossible in the sense that disastrous tours are always possible

 

[Qie Niangao]

3 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

• The committee would be responsible, ultimately, for choosing successful proposals, but it would do so only after receiving reports/evaluations from two to three referees chosen from within the SL arts community. This mimics the process usually used for the awarding of grants of this sort in RL, and it fulfills a number of functions: it provides external feedback from "experts" in the field, and it adds as something of a check on any tendency of the awards committee to act arbitrarily or politically, rather than primarily with reference to the quality of the proposals.

Just in the spirit of brainstorming: What would happen if we flip this curation process on its head, where the Committee screened-in valid proposals but the final selection and oversight was delegated to third parties, perhaps owners of the gallery space where the works are to be shown?

(That may be a terrible idea, or unworkable in practice or something. I'm just trying to open the tracking gates lest the New Order repeat the follies of the Old.)

[Aemeth Lysette]

I sat on the LEA council briefly in 2017 and saw a lot of infighting, pettiness, and bullying. I ended up having to report what I saw to the Lindens themselves because it was in such a horrendous state. Then I blogged about what I saw afterwards so there would be a record of my account. I'm glad to see other people talking about an abuse of power that went on with the council. At the time I posted about my hazing experience, I felt alone, unable to be understood by too many, and attacked by people who just wanted to get their work into LEA itself (which... why would you do that to me? Do you attack people who talk about hazing in any other regard? Shame on you).

I want to echo the sentiment of all-new council members, as well as this: keep those council seats rotating. Incumbents can serve on the council after a cool-down period, but there should also be fresh faces mixed in so no one lets all that power get to their head ever again. If this can happen, a lot of LEA's abuse issues will diminish greatly.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

On 7/29/2019 at 5:20 AM, Qie Niangao said:

Just in the spirit of brainstorming: What would happen if we flip this curation process on its head, where the Committee screened-in valid proposals but the final selection and oversight was delegated to third parties, perhaps owners of the gallery space where the works are to be shown?

It seems to me that, it we're talking about a model that to some degree "privatizes" the process by linking exhibit space to regions paid for by a private resident, we'd pretty much have to concede something close to a power of veto for the landowner. Someone who is planning to host a bunch of G rated residential and commercial regions around the hub of the exhibit would have pretty legitimate reasons to object to exhibits that were "M" or "A" rated. (Does LEA permit "A" rated exhibits? I'm not sure.) Similarly, if less dramatically, it would seem weirdly dissonant to place a darkly urban dystopian installation (a la Hangars Liquides, say) at the centre of a group of sims devoted to, oh I don't know, Happy Nature-Worshipping Fae folk.

There are probably a number of mechanisms you might use to ensure that the landowner had something like a veto. Veto power as a temporary or local member of the vetting committee, perhaps? It makes more sense to have their input early, rather than late in the process.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

On 7/29/2019 at 5:17 AM, Mollymews said:

It should be understood that this is an exhibition of artists and not a exhibition of art. There is a difference. When this difference is understood then it is a pretty simple and straightforward adminstrative function

Molly, can you explain what you mean by this distinction? Why do you think LEA is (or maybe should be?) about "artists" rather than art?

Associated with LEA for some time, but discontinued (last year, I think) was the AIR -- Artist-in-Residence -- program. That certainly was about "the artist," although the Whatever-in-Residence programs that I've been associated with don't merely rely on the applicant's reputation or resume, but ask for details about the proposed program during the tenure of that person.

But LEA itself certainly is -- and should be -- about the art, rather than the artist? There is some danger, if the focus is upon the artist, that you are going to end up restricting the program to established artists, rather than opening it up to newcomers, which is surely a bad thing. And at the same time, I wonder if a focus upon the artist might also encourage the kind of in-fighting that LEA apparently experienced in 2017, and possibly at other times?

[kiramanell]

39 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Molly, can you explain what you mean by this distinction? Why do you think LEA is (or maybe should be?) about "artists" rather than art?

Associated with LEA for some time, but discontinued (last year, I think) was the AIR -- Artist-in-Residence -- program. That certainly was about "the artist," although the Whatever-in-Residence programs that I've been associated with don't merely rely on the applicant's reputation or resume, but ask for details about the proposed program during the tenure of that person.

But LEA itself certainly is -- and should be -- about the art, rather than the artist? There is some danger, if the focus is upon the artist, that you are going to end up restricting the program to established artists, rather than opening it up to newcomers, which is surely a bad thing. And at the same time, I wonder if a focus upon the artist might also encourage the kind of in-fighting that LEA apparently experienced in 2017, and possibly at other times?

 

^^ Excellent points!

I must admit, much of this entire convo kinda flew right over my not-so-pretty-non-Bento-head, LOL, as I was heretofore unfamiliar with LEA and its workings.  But I really understood your point here about the dangers of only attracting already established artists. And I wholeheartedly agree. After all, every established artist was once a non-established artist. Hence, for my $0,02, I really do hope it will be about the art, and not the artists per se.

Sorry, I would feel silly contributing more, as I honestly know too little about these matters, and apparent earlier power-play drama and such. Just wanted to quickly pop in, and say I love that you started this thread (as I really *do* care about art) and the great many eloquent things you said therein.  

/me, goes back to lurking.

 

 

[Chic Aeon]

Just ONCE more a reminder that nothing can happen if there are no volunteers.  I tried to get a variety of great people to work on the committee. NOT ONE invitee  was willing to come on board. LEA takes a lot of time, effort and energy.   

 

So while I agree in the all new people with short term commitments  idea, in PRACTICE it has not been possible simply because there weren't enough people willing to give their time.  The reason for the long tenures was not ONLY a choice thing, members knew that if they left there was no one to take their place. 

 

And to the committee members who actually DID do the work (some of which I am not too fond of personally) I applaud their dedication. Without THEM, LEA would have disappeared long, long ago. 

 

Edited July 30, 2019 by Chic Aeon
spelling

[Scylla Rhiadra]

8 minutes ago, Chic Aeon said:

Just ONCE more a reminder that nothing can happen if there are no volunteers.  I tried to get a variety of great people to work on the committee. NOT ONE invitee  was willing to come on board. LEA takes a lot of time, effort and energy.   

 

So while I agree in the all new people with short term commitments  idea, in PRACTICE it has not been possible simply because there weren't enough people willing to give their time.  The reason for the long tenures was not ONLY a choice thing, members knew that if they left there was no one to take their place. 

 

And to the committee members who actually DID do the work (some of which I am not too fond of personally) I applaud their dedication. Without THEM, LEA would have disappeared long, long ago. 

 

Chic, this might be a(nother) reason to open up membership to people outside of the arts committee?

[Scylla Rhiadra]

1 hour ago, kiramanell said:

goes back to lurking.

No lurking permitted.

LEA, or whatever takes its place, is pretty much pointless from my perspective if it is not actually, finally, about people like you (and me, for that matter), who are not artists, but care about the arts.

I'll agree to some extent with Dekka's point above how art is not "democratic" in the sense that we can't determine what constitutes worthwhile art by majority vote. BUT it absolutely has to be "democratic" in the sense that it has a social and public function, and for that to be true, the views of people like you (and me) are important because the art should be speaking to us.

(Maybe more about this point later . . .)

[Chic Aeon]

59 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Chic, this might be a(nother) reason to open up membership to people outside of the arts committee?

I guess you missed my point.

MANY people were invited to become part of the committee. Very few joined and very few stayed. The ones that left, were indeed "artists" (during my time). I wasn't suggesting keeping current committee member on or reinstate past ones. I have said a few times here that I am in favor of NEW PEOPLE.  

 

My invitees in the past were NOT artist. When I was at LEA  there were only two "artist" in the group; I am not counting the one that was listed in the rolls and only came to one meeting in a year (or something like that). The rest were all 'outside the arts' folks. Now some had some art background but they didn't MAKE art. Some had administration skills -- etc.   I can only speak for the time I was there. But saying that the problem was majorly about too many artists competing wasn't the truth at all during MY time.  I did NOT see that at all.  

 

As someone said, I think maybe Jo on Inara's blog -- artists tended to leave since they were not eligible for an AIRS grant when they were part of the committee. 

 

Again, if the people trying to save LEA can get a list together of twenty people ACTUALLY WILLING TO WORK , then the Linden's might listen. It does no good to come up with wonderful ideas if there are no people willing to make them reality.  

[Selene Gregoire]

LEA should be featuring the little and/or unknown artists in SL, not those that are well known or established.

Yes? No? STFU and go away Selene? 

 

ETA: I would consider volunteering but I recently got volunteered to be a landscaper so I'm having fun with that.

Edited July 30, 2019 by Selene Gregoire

[Chic Aeon]

1 hour ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Chic, this might be a(nother) reason to open up membership to people outside of the arts committee?

I guess you missed my point.

MANY people were invited to become part of the committee. Very few joined and very few stayed. The ones that left, were indeed "artists" (during my time). I wasn't suggesting keeping current committee member on or reinstate past ones. I have said a few times here that I am in favor of NEW PEOPLE.  

 

My invitees in the past were NOT artist. When I was at LEA  there were only two "artist" in the group; I am not counting the one that was listed in the rolls and only came to one meeting in a year (or something like that). The rest were all 'outside the arts' folks. Now some had some art background but they didn't MAKE art. Some had administration skills -- etc.   I can only speak for the time I was there. But saying that the problem was majorly about too many artists competing wasn't the truth at all during MY time.  I did NOT see that at all.  

 

As someone said, I think maybe Jo on Inara's blog -- artists tended to leave since they were not eligible for an AIRS grant when they were part of the committee. 

 

EDIT:  I figured out (or think) that you were talking about the "sim in a cluster" idea?    I don't think that is viable for a lot of reasons so wasn't thinking about that at all. I was speaking to the NEW committee.    Hence this may not make a lot of sense -- but whatever. 

Again, if the people trying to save LEA can get a list together of twenty people ACTUALLY WILLING TO WORK , then the Linden's might listen. It does no good to come up with wonderful ideas if there are no people willing to make them reality.  

Edited July 30, 2019 by Chic Aeon

[Qie Niangao]

5 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

It seems to me that, it we're talking about a model that to some degree "privatizes" the process by linking exhibit space to regions paid for by a private resident, we'd pretty much have to concede something close to a power of veto for the landowner.

Right, and that's a feature not a bug. In fact, it's one feature that keeps dragging me back to the idea, even though that approach (which I'm not actually promoting at this point) would have tons of other problems. The "feature" is that it distributes some of the curatorial decision making outside the committee.

If we delegate enough work and risk of drama away from the committee itself, maybe people would be willing to perform the remaining tasks, whatever they end up being.

I mean, at this point there's little chance of recruiting even a handful of volunteers for the kind of abuse they've been told to expect on a merely reconstituted LEA committee. Something substantial must change or the whole thing is doomed.

Long before seeking volunteers, I'd want to utterly redefine what they'd be volunteering for. The LEA doesn't need preserving, it needs refactoring.

Now I have not done the homework, so I really don't know all the other stuff the committee did besides curation.

Somebody was doing a pretty good job with that LEA blog. Unfortunately, it and everything else LEA-related was dreadfully promoted. (Delegating responsibility for promotion is another feature of the loopy "public-private partnership" region cluster thing: Those private businesses know how to promote stuff and would be motivated to do so. It sure would be nice to find and leverage such organically aligned incentives.)

A step before trying to design an organization for LEA, though, it needs a commonly accepted mission with some measurable criteria of success. All that may already exist, I just don't know. For example, I don't know if the current stated mission supports (as I do) @Selene Gregoire's suggestion that the first priority should be promoting lesser-known artists even if it means less space for possibly superior works of more established artists with other opportunities for exposure. Those priorities may or may not be agreed by Lindens or other stakeholders.

[Aemeth Lysette]

1 hour ago, Chic Aeon said:

I guess you missed my point.

MANY people were invited to become part of the committee. Very few joined and very few stayed. The ones that left, were indeed "artists" (during my time). I wasn't suggesting keeping current committee member on or reinstate past ones. I have said a few times here that I am in favor of NEW PEOPLE.  

 

My invitees in the past were NOT artist. When I was at LEA  there were only two "artist" in the group; I am not counting the one that was listed in the rolls and only came to one meeting in a year (or something like that). The rest were all 'outside the arts' folks. Now some had some art background but they didn't MAKE art. Some had administration skills -- etc.   I can only speak for the time I was there. But saying that the problem was majorly about too many artists competing wasn't the truth at all during MY time.  I did NOT see that at all.  

 

As someone said, I think maybe Jo on Inara's blog -- artists tended to leave since they were not eligible for an AIRS grant when they were part of the committee. 

 

Again, if the people trying to save LEA can get a list together of twenty people ACTUALLY WILLING TO WORK , then the Linden's might listen. It does no good to come up with wonderful ideas if there are no people willing to make them reality.  

Some of us that sat on the council or helped LEA are irl artists.

I am a professional comic artist in my first life. I also was at Art Basel not too long ago and am an alum of Red Bull House of Art.

It's just that some people are not always forthcoming on what they do, but I did put that on my resume.

If I do anything with LEA 2.0, I'd want to be on some kind of oversight committee. It's high time that someone enforce that all council seats (yes, all of them) rotate out to keep people from going nuts over power. People who stay on as something like oversight should also never be able to have a shot at the council and, by way of that, never get to decide what art grants are given out.

Edited July 30, 2019 by Aemeth Lysette

[Selene Gregoire]

3 minutes ago, Aemeth Lysette said:

some kind of oversight committee. It's high time that someone enforce that all council seats (yes, all of them) rotate out to keep people from going nuts over power. People who stay on as something like oversight should also never be able to have a shot at the council and, by way of that, never get to decide what art grants are given out.

I'm with the Cakester on this one.

[Aemeth Lysette]

Forgot to mention, there are also people throwing in their hats to help with running LEA's day to day things (like sandbox admin stuff), but with the council itself that's another story. So, there's people volunteering for sure! If you want to do so, get in touch with Tansee Resident and let her know what you'd like to see or help out with.

[Inara Pey]

On 7/28/2019 at 7:08 PM, Chic Aeon said:

A note just now from a friend (hence this is hearsay since I have NO first hand info) tells me that of the SAVE LEA members -- several do NOT want to be on the committee (and hence doing the work) of the NEW LEA and the person reporting has not seen anyone in that group mention that they DO want to be  in charge  if LL actually lets them have some regions.

Does this sound familiar?   

Of course anyone in that group (I am not there in any form including "alt") wants to come wave hands and say, "I will do the work",  they are welcome to and we can breathe a sign of relief.   If not, then this is all really just an interesting dreamlike experience. 

Not wishing to argue, but from those organising the "Save the LEA" in-world group:

"In addition a notecard containing a growing list of people with "confirmed" interest willing to serve on the new committee ... 7 qualified people interested leadership roles with BIO's.  17 people willing to volunteer time and talent to various      proposed new project areas and assist new committee members."

I've no idea what constitutes "qualified" in context, but it would appear at least 7 people have thrown their names into the ring to take responsibility for any new organisation.

 

Quote

 

There are some really good ideas here. There is even the beginning of a plan. It really could work -- if Linden Lab wants to keep LEA going. But the same problem is raised. It is a LOT OF WORK and very few people are willing to do that work for what amounts to a few kudos points now and then (mixed in with some rotten egg throwing from time to time).  

Again, are these ideas being collated and forwarded to those co-ordinating the effort (or are any of them here to collate ideas?

Edited July 30, 2019 by Inara Pey

[Aemeth Lysette]

There should also be an alt-check, if it's possible to get one, for anyone sitting on the council. It's waaaay too easy for someone to make an alt, go "Oh I want to serve on a LEA council seat!" and then next thing you know, it's the same old person power-gaming and bullying that there was last time. Hell no. Let's not do that again.

[Selene Gregoire]

2 hours ago, Aemeth Lysette said:

There should also be an alt-check, if it's possible to get one, for anyone sitting on the council. It's waaaay too easy for someone to make an alt, go "Oh I want to serve on a LEA council seat!" and then next thing you know, it's the same old person power-gaming and bullying that there was last time. Hell no. Let's not do that again.

Better check with LL first on that one. Looks to be a possible breach of the Community Standards concerning outing alts.