Policy Review Policy Review: Concept Driver - the Re-envisioned TL (VOTE Closed)

[bugmaniacbob]

I'd just like to say that I have no qualms with Wyverii's updated proposal, provided that there is a proviso written somewhere that obliges the Topic Leader to make a conscientious effort to direct the start of the discussion (or a better wording than that - essentially that they begin the discussion with a vision or, rather, direction, whether in the OP or not). Also I'll let the ATL matter drop since it seems plain that nobody else wants it.

Here's the question I want answered on before drawing this to a close:

How will the TL be selected?

My thoughts on this are that we allow the TLs to nominate themselves as usual in one thread. A second thread will discuss the nominations without a vote among the PRC. The final thread will give ONLY a preference vote for the Topic Leader, with no commentary allowed. This will avoid the ego stroking the previous process has been criticized for while still allowing discussion of the nominations.

Any suggestions/improvements/criticisms?

The second thread seems faintly pointless, if I'm honest. The candidates are always stupidly qualified and any reasons you may have to select them over any other will always either be subjective or speculative, in the manner of "I don't know them that well" or "metagame knowledge is more important than artistic ability" or "they haven't done anything which shows an ability to deal with pressure in the past". If we're trying to get rid of the "ego-stroking", as it were, I would have thought putting it on a pedestal was the opposite thing we wanted to do. In any case, deciding objectively between a bunch of very well-qualified members will almost certainly degenerate whatever we try to do with it, so I'd just leave that stage out entirely, and go from nominations -> bold vote without comments straight away.

On the other hand, if we're trying to promote transparency in decision-making and all that, then I suppose the discussion thread is justified in a way. I just don't see what real good could come of it.

 

[Birkal]

Popping in real quick to say that I agree with bmb. Those who nominate themselves are often ridiculously qualified and write nomination posts that are bursting with credentials (the past TL nomination thread is a good example of this). Furthermore, discussion on potential TLs can take place within #cap and PMs if there is something that needs to be discussed.

I'd personally prefer two topics, one for nominations and one for voting. In the latter poll, I'd be fine with users writing their logic as they have in the past. If a voter wants to come back, read through everyone else's thoughts, and then edit their vote, I have no problem with that. The idea of having an "in between" thread would create a lot of drama; PRC members would be forced to either stroke the nominees' egos or focus on criticisms. Also, such a thread would probably stack on another two days to the process, which is unfortunate. It seems better to let discussion take place in a less formal environment.

 

[Deck Knight]

Upon review of a previous thread, I'm wondering: What about holding a nomination thread, then having a public vote? It was last discussed in this thread. While I didn't approve of the general tenor of the thread, it *is* a possibility.

I had a separate thought on a continuously open PRC, but I'll talk to mods on #cap or through PM to figure out something on that.

 

[Wyverii]

Now that the PRC is getting back on track to what they're supposed to be doing, that is policy review, there's less reason not to allow a public TL vote.

We never have bad candidates to choose from. The occasional bad candidate is already weeded out before voting so there's no problem with getting a bad result. Also, it's a better judge of who the overall community trusts. It should be easier to get behind someone who was picked by the community as a whole. There is an inherent potential problem with bandwagoning but that can happen with any community vote, large or small.

 

[Deck Knight]

Very well. I'll post up the two motions on the floor asking for clarity / edits. Then there will be a 48 hour poll. Either way, TL Nominations will go up shortly afterward.

Motion 1:

The CAP Topic Leader Guide will be updated to

Remove the following:

Under Responsibilities:
Create and moderate all threads that pertain to the construction process—this includes polling, discussion, and submission threads

At the end of the article:
Once selected, the Topic Leader must pick an Assistant Topic Leader, whose job is to serve as a backup to the TL in cases when the TL cannot fulfill the responsibilities of the job. The ATL may also lend assistance to the TL when it comes to tallying votes and other tasks that require a lot of work.

Add the following:

At the end up the article, under a section titled Topic Leaders and Moderators:

• The TL is made into a project mod of CAP so that closing/deleting/etc. are available to him/her for the duration of the CAP.
• Moderators will open threads for each part of the process. Threads made by moderators start closed. The TL will be the first reply in every non-poll thread, and after their post the TL will unlock the thread for further discussion.
• The TL will close project threads with their slate.
• The TL is expected to maintain contact with moderators and alert them to any upcoming absences when possible, so that the CAP project can keep pace.

Motion 2:

The Moderators will post a Topic Leader Nomination thread, and after selecting a slate of candidates, will hold a public bold vote (either IVR or direct vote depending on the number of candidates) to determine who will be the Topic Leader for the next CAP project.

Seeking clarity/amendments.etc. for the next 24 hours.

 

[jas61292]

Overall I agree with most everything that has been suggested, but I find this following part highly unnecessary:

• Moderators will open threads for each part of the process. Threads made by moderators start closed. The TL will be the first reply in every non-poll thread, and after their post the TL will unlock the thread for further discussion.

One of the things that had been brought up about OPs was that waiting to have the TL open them sometimes caused time issues, so letting the mods do it instead could help alleviate that. However, having the mods open it, only to have it sit closed until the TL get the chance to post in it does not save any time at all. All it really does is complicate things and spread out across two posts what previously has been done in one.

I think a better solution would be, as had been previously suggested, having it be more up to the TL whether or not he wants to make the OPs. If he wants to and can do so in a timely manner, more power to him. If he does not want to or cannot get them up within a reasonable time limit, have the mods do it. The specifics of course should be worked out between the TL and the mods at the start of each project.

I feel like the suggested system in the quote does nothing but add another post to each thread, but a system with a more fluid relationship between mods and TLs would do better to keep the projects from stalling.

 

[Wyverii]

The more fluid relationship you describe there jas is actually more complex and far more likely to stall. There's a lot to consider, including:

• Arrangements on what the TL opens, and what is left to the mods.
• In the case of the TL not wanting to do it, they still have to make another post or edit the OP.
• If the TL stalls on posting the OP there's more potential for dead time.

It's actually simpler for a mod to just post the OP and then the TL opens it. Preferably done while the TL is online so they can be poked into posting quickly. This doesn't apply to polls either. It also has the additional benefits of encuraging the TL to be a driving force and making TL contribution more clear. Since they can't just post the OP and be done with it.

A single additional post is not a big deal in a discussion thread.

 

[jas61292]

The more fluid relationship you describe there jas is actually more complex and far more likely to stall. There's a lot to consider, including:

• Arrangements on what the TL opens, and what is left to the mods.
• In the case of the TL not wanting to do it, they still have to make another post or edit the OP.
• If the TL stalls on posting the OP there's more potential for dead time.

It's actually simpler for a mod to just post the OP and then the TL opens it. Preferably done while the TL is online so they can be poked into posting quickly. This doesn't apply to polls either. It also has the additional benefits of encuraging the TL to be a driving force and making TL contribution more clear. Since they can't just post the OP and be done with it.

A single additional post is not a big deal in a discussion thread.

OK, I can understand what you are saying there about not having a set way of doing it, but I just don't really understand the point of having two separate posts. How does making the mods post the OP, but not opening the thread until the TL posts make anything better than just having the TL post the OP with whatever they would post included? What exactly is it supposed to accomplish? I don't really see a problem with it, but to me it seems like it is simply changing things without getting any real benefit from it.

 

[Rising_Dusk]

How does making the mods post the OP, but not opening the thread until the TL posts make anything better than just having the TL post the OP with whatever they would post included? What exactly is it supposed to accomplish?

It does a lot of things, actually. It puts less workload on the shoulders of the TL, for starters, which is great insofar as keeping TLs from becoming overworked and overstressed. It also means that the TL can focus on the TL's responsibilities—guiding discussions and developing a Pokemon! Maybe it's not obvious to the general public, but the nuances of rules and regulations are pretty tough to figure out as a TL and all that stuff adds layers of complications to running a CAP that just suck. If the mods can take care of all of those intricacies, I think it'd make the TL job that much more enjoyable to the TL him/herself and more productive for the community.

 

[Deck Knight]

After discussion, I think the motions are able to stand as presented, and we will move on to voting.

Ballot:

Please provide a bolded YES or NO vote to each of the two motions proposed:

Motion 1:

The CAP Topic Leader Guide will be updated to

Remove the following:

Under Responsibilities:
Create and moderate all threads that pertain to the construction process—this includes polling, discussion, and submission threads

At the end of the article:
Once selected, the Topic Leader must pick an Assistant Topic Leader, whose job is to serve as a backup to the TL in cases when the TL cannot fulfill the responsibilities of the job. The ATL may also lend assistance to the TL when it comes to tallying votes and other tasks that require a lot of work.

Add the following:

At the end up the article, under a section titled Topic Leaders and Moderators:

• The TL is made into a project mod of CAP so that closing/deleting/etc. are available to him/her for the duration of the CAP.
• Moderators will open threads for each part of the process. Threads made by moderators start closed. The TL will be the first reply in every non-poll thread, and after their post the TL will unlock the thread for further discussion.
• The TL will close project threads with their slate.
• The TL is expected to maintain contact with moderators and alert them to any upcoming absences when possible, so that the CAP project can keep pace.

YES
NO

Motion 2:

The Moderators will post a Topic Leader Nomination thread, and after selecting a slate of candidates, will hold a public bold vote (either IRV or direct vote depending on the number of candidates) to determine who will be the Topic Leader for the next CAP project.

YES
NO


This poll will be open for 48 hours starting from 04/01/2012, 9:00 PM EST.

 

[jas61292]

Motion 1:

Hide

The CAP Topic Leader Guide will be updated to

Remove the following:

Under Responsibilities:
Create and moderate all threads that pertain to the construction process—this includes polling, discussion, and submission threads

At the end of the article:
Once selected, the Topic Leader must pick an Assistant Topic Leader, whose job is to serve as a backup to the TL in cases when the TL cannot fulfill the responsibilities of the job. The ATL may also lend assistance to the TL when it comes to tallying votes and other tasks that require a lot of work.

Add the following:

At the end up the article, under a section titled Topic Leaders and Moderators:

• The TL is made into a project mod of CAP so that closing/deleting/etc. are available to him/her for the duration of the CAP.
• Moderators will open threads for each part of the process. Threads made by moderators start closed. The TL will be the first reply in every non-poll thread, and after their post the TL will unlock the thread for further discussion.
• The TL will close project threads with their slate.
• The TL is expected to maintain contact with moderators and alert them to any upcoming absences when possible, so that the CAP project can keep pace.

YES


Motion 2:

Hide

The Moderators will post a Topic Leader Nomination thread, and after selecting a slate of candidates, will hold a public bold vote (either IRV or direct vote depending on the number of candidates) to determine who will be the Topic Leader for the next CAP project.

YES


----
Thanks Dusk for the clarification. It can be difficult to see how a change might affect a TL without know what it is like to be one.

 

[capefeather]

Motion 1:

Hide

The CAP Topic Leader Guide will be updated to

Remove the following:

Under Responsibilities:
Create and moderate all threads that pertain to the construction process—this includes polling, discussion, and submission threads

At the end of the article:
Once selected, the Topic Leader must pick an Assistant Topic Leader, whose job is to serve as a backup to the TL in cases when the TL cannot fulfill the responsibilities of the job. The ATL may also lend assistance to the TL when it comes to tallying votes and other tasks that require a lot of work.

Add the following:

At the end up the article, under a section titled Topic Leaders and Moderators:

• The TL is made into a project mod of CAP so that closing/deleting/etc. are available to him/her for the duration of the CAP.
• Moderators will open threads for each part of the process. Threads made by moderators start closed. The TL will be the first reply in every non-poll thread, and after their post the TL will unlock the thread for further discussion.
• The TL will close project threads with their slate.
• The TL is expected to maintain contact with moderators and alert them to any upcoming absences when possible, so that the CAP project can keep pace.

YES


Motion 2:

Hide

The Moderators will post a Topic Leader Nomination thread, and after selecting a slate of candidates, will hold a public bold vote (either IRV or direct vote depending on the number of candidates) to determine who will be the Topic Leader for the next CAP project.

YES

 

[v]

Motion 1 Yes
Motion 2 No

 

[Elevator Music]

YES
YES

 

[DetroitLolcat]

NO

YES

 

[Birkal]

Motion 1:

Hide

The CAP Topic Leader Guide will be updated to

Remove the following:

Under Responsibilities:
Create and moderate all threads that pertain to the construction process—this includes polling, discussion, and submission threads

At the end of the article:
Once selected, the Topic Leader must pick an Assistant Topic Leader, whose job is to serve as a backup to the TL in cases when the TL cannot fulfill the responsibilities of the job. The ATL may also lend assistance to the TL when it comes to tallying votes and other tasks that require a lot of work.

Add the following:

At the end up the article, under a section titled Topic Leaders and Moderators:

• The TL is made into a project mod of CAP so that closing/deleting/etc. are available to him/her for the duration of the CAP.
• Moderators will open threads for each part of the process. Threads made by moderators start closed. The TL will be the first reply in every non-poll thread, and after their post the TL will unlock the thread for further discussion.
• The TL will close project threads with their slate.
• The TL is expected to maintain contact with moderators and alert them to any upcoming absences when possible, so that the CAP project can keep pace.

YES


Motion 2:

Hide

The Moderators will post a Topic Leader Nomination thread, and after selecting a slate of candidates, will hold a public bold vote (either IRV or direct vote depending on the number of candidates) to determine who will be the Topic Leader for the next CAP project.

YES

 

[bugmaniacbob]

YES

NO

 

[DHR-107]

Motion 1 Yes

Motion 2 Yes

 

[Rising_Dusk]

MOTION 1:
YES

MOTION 2:
YES

--

I think this is a good direction for the project leadership. I'm actually rather pleased with the outcome of this thread.

 

[Deck Knight]

Welp, might as well vote myself before I tally.

Motion 1: YES

Motion 2: YES

- - - - -

jas61292: YES YES
capefeather: YES YES
Vader: YES NO
Elevator Music: YES YES
DetroitLolCat: NO YES
Birkal: YES YES
bugmaniacbob: YES NO
DHR-107: YES YES
Rising_Dusk: YES YES
Deck_Knight: YES YES

Total votes: 10 votes.
Motion 1: 9 votes YES, 1 votes NO
Motion 2: 8 votes YES, 2 votes NO

Both motions carry.

TL Nominations Thread will be up within the next few days.