Ooooooooh-kay *sigh*
Let's wind back the clock back a few years!
The whole issue of the General Masterplan was not 'merely' to have a nicely updated map In fact, the major reasoning behind it was to speed up the process of adding further regions to the CDS. Yes, speed up, not slow it down! The idea was that there would be a team of builders, some of them even with formal training in urban planning, who would propose the overall expansion plan, many many years in advance, by making reasonable recommendations and creating an unified whole. Even to this day, it always surprises me (but it shouldn't!) how well all regions of the CDS 'fit together', even taking into account that they have very different themes!
Once there was a GMP, then developing new regions would become 'administrative issues' instead of 'political discussions'. This is, as you can see, an expansionist view: creating mechanisms through which we can make the CDS grow faster, with little bureaucracy, less discussion, next-to-zero drama, and so forth.
In RL, politicians consult with experts to provide them with reasonable, sensible options, and constantly make decisions aided by them. Thus, the 'New Guild' was founded with that role. It was not merely an assembly or 'union' of builders (although it was that as well), but a board of experts who would plan the CDS well in advance, and formally aid politicians to make decisions that impact the way the CDS looks like (in terms of urbanity). Obviously the 'New Guild' had more roles — 'tactical planning' in the sense of creating detailed specifications for building, project management during a region development, and so forth. They employed a huge array of tools, web-based and in-world, to achieve all those goals. The two pillars of the New Guild were transparency — all decisions, all planning, all project management were made public and could always been consulted — and inclusivity — anyone could be a member and come to all its meetings voluntarily and join the discussion and voting.
As such, the New Guild's role was fundamental for NL 8-2, the 'In-Theme' Expansion Act. Because all discussion was done well in advance, procedures were well-established, and there were formal and official ties with the Executive, it was felt (according to good expansionist principles!) that the CDS could dispense the long-winded and extensive discussions that usually surround planning and developing a new region. Instead, any Chancellor, looking at their budget, could simply point at a region in the GMP map and say, 'let's build this one'. They wouldn't need to consult with anyone else besides the New Guild, to be provided with a plan and a team of builders with their own methodology of project management. The RA, in these cases, would mostly have the role of nodding (unless some serious breach of procedure was found), but would not interfere in the overall expansion of the CDS, so long as it stuck to the GMP. We naively expected to get 1 or 2 new regions per term that way.
This also meant that the political discussion was just made surrounding the GMP, which requires formal approval by the RA. Currently, after the 2008 GMP has been formally approved, we also approved an extended GMP that included the AA regions (see http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php? ... 31&p=13245). It's really a pity we still haven't the full set of CDS laws for all to see...
What it does not mean is that there would be no citizen input. Instead, there was ample opportunity to fit in public discussion at all stages. Ironically, I had suggested one way of bringing in more democracy to the planning process, in this case, defining the overall characteristics of the next region to be implemented, on a thread... four years old. What region was that? Guess what! Aye... it's still the very same one we're discussing right now, our 6th region!
About the same time, it was established that the CDS would keep short-term plans (adding a new region) and long-term plans (updating the GMP) separate (see what Cindy Ecksol says at the end of http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php? ... 77&p=13056). Again, this is pure expansionist ideology: do not attempt to stall expansion processes by throwing bureaucracy at it Instead, allow people to discuss as much as they wish for the future and the long-term, but keep rolling out those desperately-needed regions
Four years, and we have returned to the conservative views — eternally discuss and discuss, stall all processes, get mired in a sea of bureaucracy and words, but stop all attempts of growth. Keep it small and cozy, keep as many people out of the CDS as possible. Four years!
Anyway... the current legislative problem is that we don't have the 'New Guild' anymore. It has disbanded. We have, instead, a 'Current Guild', also a NGO, but operating under a different charter. In fact, as far as I know, it doesn't have any official status regarding operations in the CDS; it just 'looks' like it has 'some' remote connection with the historical two guilds (the first one was a branch of government; the second one was a NGO incorporated in the CDS with a well-defined role) because it shares the same name. But it has no mandate to keep the General Masterplan current or start discussing it — or approving anything. In fact, all the legislation of the past, which delegated functions to the old 'New Guild', does not apply any more. Fortunately, this doesn't create a legislative vacuum — we have a provision in the Constitution that the Executive 'grandfathers' any role formerly given to the guild, in the case it has been abolished/extinguished. So, technically, the Chancellor could formally give some status to the 'Current Guild' if he so wished. I would have some qualms with that — because the 'Current Guild' operates in such a different way — but legally, I think that would be possible (I'd have to get some input of the SC about that).
What happened to post-2008 GMP discussions is that they were never formally released as valid documents with legal and binding status, except for the one including the Al Andaluz regions. After the merger, all we have is the 2008 GMP, even though I would certainly consider a document showing the post-merger CDS/AA, deleting the AA regions, as a valid GMP (but I would still ask the RA to approve it!). Since we don't have a procedure in place for approving a new GMP, it's not even enough to say 'let's bring the GMP up to date'. Legally, there is no entity any more which has the power to update the GMP or make it binding. The RA could certainly approve a new GMP, but first it would have to formally delegate the elaboration of an update to someone (or some organisation), revoke a few bills in the process, and add a few more. Then we could update the GMP and start working from that. And then the Chancellor could invoke NL 8-2 and go ahead with a new region, without further delay.
Four years, however, changed a lot.
Now some clarifications to Cadence. The Monastery and Locus Amoenus regions most certainly conform to the 2008 GMP. Just look at the clusters that it defines; both are in-theme. One might argue that LA's redevelopment to become 'Tuscany' instead of 'Ancient Roman/Greek' is stretching the interpretation of the cluster it is supposed to belong to, but that might be a technicality. It's more a 'reinterpretation' of an existing theme instead of being a completely different theme.
I believe that the 'confusion' is that somehow the GMP is supposed to reflect the way the CDS looks like, and, as such, requires change and adaptation. But that's not its purpose — the role of the GMP is to plan the future, not to record the present. As such, the 2008 GMP (or the post-merger CDS/AA GMP, without the AA regions) definitely still applies!
As for making 'adding a new region' a campaign promise, oh yes You can count on me for that; I believe I haven't run for the RA without promising at least one new region in the term I got elected (But of course the RA is democratic, and a promise is just that — a promise to propose legislation, actual approval is up to all the RA members, obviously)
On the other hand, I'm always appalled at the way people are always talking about rushing, rushing, rushing. We've been discussing the 6th region for over four years now! I mean... Cadence, honestly, how many more years do you wish to discuss before you are satisfied that we're not 'rushing' things? I have always complained that a new region took us, on average, a year of discussion (even taking into account NL 8-2 and 8-4 which allow a much faster turnaround). That was way, way, way too much for my expansionist ideology; a month of discussion would be what I consider reasonable. But ok, I could live with the 'one region per term' rule — under protest, of course, but I would accept it. I cannot tolerate the idea of only one region every year. But... four years of discussion... until we get a 6th region... that's over the top... and I'm still being accused of wishing to rush things?!?
Real-world governments can plan whole airports costing a billion dollars in less time than that!
So, please, you know I'm a reasonable person. But I would also like to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the CDS in 2014. At this rate, we'll only manage to open the 10th year celebrations... in 2020