Policy Review PRC Review

Stratos

Banned deucer.
hey sorry im late i didnt have prc access when birkal posted that^. im going to start with this log:

[21:13] <Pwnemon> obviously if you naturally write like bmb then i cant stop you
[21:13] <Pwnemon> but i doubt im the only one who avoids cap topics sometimes because they dont want to write like bmb
[21:13] <+srk1214> you're not
[21:13] <@DetroitLolcat> you're not

i think paintseagull missed the boat a little with the whole "make your posts shorter" but im not ribbing on her because ive done it in the past too. but she was on the right track—you don't have to write like bmb. if bmb wants to keep doing it and can get his posts written in a reasonable amount of time then that's spectacular. but if you don't want to, don't. We're not posting here to glorify ourselves or for anyone else's benefit. we're posting here to get shit done. we're all reasonably intelligent people here, we can extrapolate your point from raw ramblings—and if not, we can always ask for clarification. that's my main point. we carry over posting etiquette from the main cap forums like don't threadhog and write like you're talking to an ignoramus. and these rules make sense in the main cap forum for various reasons but they don't make sense here. so throw that posting etiquette out the window because it just slows us down because we all dread writing these ridiculous thrice-edited 1000 word posts and we don't at all need to edit them thrice or write 1000 words (and again if you relish the thought of doing both of those things then i'm not stopping you). the most important part is free-flowing discussion.
 

jas61292

used substitute
is a Community Contributoris a Top CAP Contributoris a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
I know it has been a while since this thread got a post, and it kind of seemed to draw to a conclusion, but I feel it is necessary to make this post. We spent so much of this thread talking about timing and post length, as if those were problems, but really, as has been summed up already, those are not issues that are really hampering the PRC. What is hurting the PRC is what is going on right this very minute:

  • A thread that died off and concluded, but without a real conclusion.
  • A thread that has not received a post in two days, but with no real end in sight due to there still being questions to be answered, but no one answering them.
  • A thread that has not received a post in five days, where people are mostly on the same page, but where no one knows how to turn this agreement into action.
  • Other PRC topics that everyone knows are still to come, but with no idea when they will come or who will be making them.
This is the problem with the structure of policy review. No real progress on important things because of a lack of accountability. And that is not because people are shirking that accountability, it is because they don't know who is supposed to be accountable for just about anything. Doug's post indicated that it is his own responsibility to get conclusions in these threads, or to assign someone to do so. I don't think there is a problem with that, but only if such an assignment is actually made, and people know what to expect. Otherwise we just flounder around waiting for someone else to do something. And as for getting things started, its great when we go into a PRC session knowing we have topics to discuss (ie Mega Evos), but if everyone is waiting around for someone else to do it, then we won't see any results.

When it comes to the thread starting issue, I'd like to think we can fix that going forward by recreating what we did last PR cycle with a thread of topics and people signing up to make them, but as for the conclusion issue, I think that is the one real problem that we are going to need to discuss and work out if we really want to fix the problems we are seeing at this very moment.
 

nyttyn

From Now On, We'll...
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnus
keep in mind i originally intended to reply to the Project Pace and Timeboxing thread with this post, and it wound up evolving to address the PRC as a whole, so I felt this would be a better place to put it.
We're dragging our heels a bit here
I think we are all guilty nowadays of contributing to the problem of a slow-moving CAP because we wait three days to post but if we know we are on a deadline people will probably make the switch to getting their thoughts out there instead of trying to write them *perfectly* yet slowly.
[cap] really [doesn't] have a mechanism for closing threads. It usually entails waiting two weeks and Birkal stepping in.
anything done to make sure this has an actual structure and is not just up in the air every single time will do a lot to help fix the biggest problems we have.
I've spent some time thinking about it during my hiatus from CAP, and I think a major problem is that there is no dedicated process as to the pace of a project stage or policy review topic. It is all very Laissez-faire at the moment, and it shows - sometimes, we get lucky, and the conclusion just naturally settles. Often times, we do not, and it's a messy, slow, drawn-out process. This is even worse in PRC, because in addition to a lack of deadlines, there is no dedicated process to ensuring a PRC is actually acted on (hi Playtest Judging Pannel).

Before I go any further, I should bring up a point that lead to my temporary hiatus, as well as one that I think is a huge issue with PRC at the moment:

The PRC is, more often then not, a huge fucking waste of time.

This is a very, very strongly worded statement, but I really need to put emphasis on this massive elephant in the room. Just look at how Birkal worded the OP:

ll grumble and moan about the time it takes between projects to discuss important topics. That's entirely understandable; we're all here to create Pokemon, not policy! But decisions need to be made in order to have intelligent Pokemon discussion and creation. So, we slog through the PR cycle once again. And in the end, we are bound by its rules.
People view the PRC as a slog, as a boring thing that has to be done in between CAPs. A huge part of the reason why this is, and one that I think is ultimately the crux of both the pacing issue as well as a number of other issues in PRC right now, is that we have no due process to ensure that anything actually gets done.

[cap] really [doesn't] have a mechanism for closing threads. It usually entails waiting two weeks and Birkal stepping in.
I'm going to bring this quote up again, because it's important. Right now, things in the PRC just kind of happen, and usually rely around one of the mods stepping in - in almost all cases, Birkal (praise be to you, you beautiful bastard). But Birkal isn't going to be around forever, and we overwork him as it is. When he's gone, the entire thing is going to collapse, and it's incredibly likely almost nothing will get closed, much less concluded.

Past that, we have to consider that, even for the topics that DO get concluded, very few of the conclusions actually go anywhere. Look at the Checks and Counters thread (which never actually got closed). Look at the Historically Document CAP Playtests thread. Look at the Recruiting thread. Build Triangle, Best Discussion Nominations, Pre-evo Poll, Introductory Paragraphs for On-Site Pages, the list goes on and on.

Don't worry, this won't be forgotten!
It was.

This issue is far from dead.
When's the last time we talked about any of the prior mentioned topics?

(From the Recruting thread)
Proposal 1 will be put into action.
Over 15,000 words and 20 posts for absolutely nothing to happen.

My point with all of this is that not only do we need timeboxing, we need more structure to the Policy Review Council as a whole. Way more. Right now, there's no incentive or pressure for anything to get acted upon or resolved - and as a result, we have long, drawn out discussions which more often then not result in nothing even happening, regardless of if a conclusion is reached or not.


I'm not going to make a post of this nature without bringing up at least one potential solution, and timeboxing alone isn't going to solve the issue of the numerous Policy Review Topic conclusions which are never acted upon. To this end, I am going to propose the implementation of a Policy Review Council Leader Team. PRCLT for short. They would serve as ambassadors between the CAP Moderation team, and the Policy Review Council, working to see that topics are carried out in timely fashion, that conclusions occur, and are actually acted upon/implemented in a timely fashion. They would have to be encouraged to be exceedingly anal about all of this, and if we do go ahead with timeboxing, the default policy on discussions that run over should very much be 'tough shit,' with extensions intended to be an absolute last-resort which only occur in rare, pressing circumstances.

Some of you may see this as a very extremist response to the issue, and honestly, it is. But when so many PRC topics wind up being complete wastes of time, we very much have a extreme problem on our hands, one that requires an extraordinary solution. If anyone else has a better solution, or would like to argue that this isn't a massive issue and that we shouldn't rush or force things, I'm all ears.

But let me just say something first.

Draw your attention to post #9, birkal's proposal. Notice how if people were forced to post or the deadline would automatically kick in, it would have kicked in, and we would have started TL/TLT nominatons more then a week ago.

Now notice how it has been close to a month now since that post has been made, and the first thread to come out of any of this was only posted two weeks after, and neither it nor its sister thread have reached a conclusion (the 3d modeling thread only got a proposal last Wednesday). The third and arguably most important was only posted yesterday. Also notice that only one of them actually names any sort of assurance that it will actually be acted upon (paintseagull nominating two users to assist him with his proposal), and even then it was a rather flaky 'they SHOULD be able to help.'

That is all.
 

Deck Knight

Blast Off At The Speed Of Light! That's Right!
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Top CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
What is a complete waste of time is the complaint that no action being taken is indicative of such. The entire CAP Project is structured around the idea that the discussion is more important than the result.

However I think the best solution to this has to be spurred on by the moderators, so I'll take the hit on this one. I don't feel comfortable closing a thread with my own conclusions because I don't consider myself a good sole arbiter of what is going on. Therefore it's incumbent on our moderator leadership to PM each other and come up with a consensus resolution in a timely manner. I will be sending out just such a PM imminently.

The other alternative is one that is used in ASB where the PRC conducts a vote on drafted proposals and a decision is reached once an item hits majority.
 

Birkal

We have the technology.
is a Top Artistis a Top CAP Contributoris a Top Smogon Media Contributoris a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Senior Staff Member Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnus
We've reached a verdict. Below is the entire log of the conversation DougJustDoug and I had a few days ago. We've had a few chats privately about this afterwards and want to move forward with implementing this procedure for closing Policy Review threads. Read it if you desire, but I'll explain the final result below; you won't miss much.

[16:30] <&@Birkal> Hey Doug, you there?
[16:31] <@~DougJustDoug> Yes
[16:31] <&@Birkal> I am thinking about making a thread about how PR threads are concluded
[16:31] <@~DougJustDoug> Working on some more timeboxing stats and post
[16:31] <&@Birkal> we're getting hints of that discussion in a lot of our current PR threads
[16:31] <&@Birkal> but I think it's important for us to finally nail down what that process is
[16:31] <@~DougJustDoug> I think the PR conclusion issue should be easy to resolve.
[16:32] <&@Birkal> it shouldn't be difficult, I agree
[16:32] <&@Birkal> I just think we should be official about it
[16:32] <&@Birkal> so we're all on the same page
[16:32] <@~DougJustDoug> Agreed we just nail down the process so it is very clear and can be implemented without everyone wondering and waiting
[16:32] <@~DougJustDoug> Here's what I DON'T want:
[16:33] <@~DougJustDoug> Some process where anyone that makes a thread is empowered automatically to conclude it
[16:33] <&@Birkal> agreed
[16:33] <@~DougJustDoug> Some process where every thread is concluded with a vote
[16:34] <@~DougJustDoug> I believe policy conclusion should be decided by a "judge", not by "jury vote". If that makes sense.
[16:34] <&@Birkal> I'm fine with that too
[16:34] <@~DougJustDoug> But who is the judge, does not have to be me or you or whatever
[16:34] <&@Birkal> I just think we need to designate who that judge is
[16:34] <&@Birkal> I'd be cool with it being "CAP moderator who has invested the most in that particular PR thread"
[16:35] <&@Birkal> or rather, "CAP moderator that is most relevant to the discussion"
[16:35] <@~DougJustDoug> I think the hierarchy I proposed makes sense. It's just a matter of making it very easy to follow the hierachy without a lot of time consuming steps and waiting
[16:35] <&@Birkal> and I'd just tag them in the thread so they'd know they need to wrap up / conclude it
[16:36] <&@jas61292> Whatever it is, I just want it to be a hard rule for who and when it will be done, so we don't have to have everyone waiting for someone else to tell them what to do. The rules themself should ideally make that clear without needing anyone to say so.
[16:36] <@~DougJustDoug> I agree that the person in that hierarchy that has invested most in the thread, should be the one to conclude it
[16:36] <&@Birkal> I'm fine with designating who that person is every thread
[16:36] <&@Birkal> (or you can, I don't really care)
[16:37] <&@Birkal> for instance, psg should definitely conclude the modelling thread
[16:37] <@~DougJustDoug> In the event of a "tie" in terms of invovlement (ie. multiple mods were involved) then it comes to the hierarchy and/or mutual agreement between the mods involved.
[16:37] <@~DougJustDoug> I think the latter will be the norm

[16:38] <Pwnemon> can we make it so that you can conclude a thread without closing it
[16:38] <Pwnemon> that's my big thing
[16:38] <Pwnemon> people are putting off conclusions on threads because they want everyone to get their voices in
[16:38] <&@Birkal> can you expand, pwne
[16:38] <Pwnemon> but why wait
[16:38] <Pwnemon> i posted this in doug's thread
[16:38] <&@jas61292> I would just be worried about anything that involves one person needing to assign someone to do it, because if that one person is unavailable for a while, then we are no better off than we are right now.
[16:38] <Pwnemon> basically you post a conclusion
[16:38] <&@Birkal> the issue is that it takes some time to conclude a thread
[16:38] <Pwnemon> but leave the thread open for comment
[16:39] <Pwnemon> if anyone has problems with the conclusion or wants to add on to it
[16:39] <Pwnemon> you can keep discussing after the conclusion
[16:39] <Pwnemon> but there's no point in waiting to do aNYTHINg until EVERYTHING is resolved
[16:39] <&@Birkal> I'd be fine with not locking threads once they're done

[16:39] <@~DougJustDoug> I agree it might make sense for you/me to designate that person. I don't want people waiting around for the designation to be made. The desingnation could be made any time during the thread. Ideally near the beginning of the thread. But it can't be something where it happens at the 11th hour
[16:40] <&@Birkal> jas, would you be opposed to Doug / I tag teaming it?
[16:40] <&@Birkal> I have trouble believing that between the two of us, we cannot designate someone within 48 hours
[16:40] <@~DougJustDoug> I agree.
[16:41] <&@jas61292> That is better than any one individual doing it, though I think it would be even better if it is something that could just be self evident. I don't know if there is a good way to do that, but anything that eliminates a chain of communication required before a conclusion can be posted would be helpful.
[16:42] <@~DougJustDoug> If it is just designting the concluder. Then that should be no problem. BTW, if we designate someon, and that designee is not available or does not want to do it -- the designee has the right to designate someone else. Preferably following the hierarchy, of involved thread participants.
[16:42] <&@Birkal> Right, I'm cool with that, Doug
[16:44] <&@jas61292> That makes sense. If we do something like that though, I definitely think that we should be amining to have the individual who will be concluding (or given first priority to close, as the case may be) a thread know right from the beginning. If it could be a part of thread approval or whatever, that would be great. Of
[16:45] <@~DougJustDoug> I agree that naming the conclusion poster should be stated up front in most cases.
[16:46] <@~DougJustDoug> And if the person that is designated goes AWOL, we empower the hierarchy to kick in and make other arrangements. Along those lines, we could implement a "24 hour response" requirement. meaning...

Please note that Woggers is Birkal.

[16:47] <&@Woggers> !recap
[16:47] <@~DougJustDoug> If the hierarachy reaches out to the designee for confirmation that they will fullfill their responsibility to conclude the thread, they must answer within 24 hours or the hierarchy designated someone else.
[16:47] <Qwilphish> What does the hierarchy mean, just the CAP mods?
[16:48] <Qwilphish> or the people most involved in the thread
[16:48] <&@Woggers> Doug > Birkal > CAP mods > Thread OP
[16:48] <@~DougJustDoug> That way, even in the worst case of someone going competley awol -- if someone PMs the concluder 24 hours before the thread should be closed, then it can still be concluded without further delay.
[16:48] <&@Woggers> Project Admin > Head Mod > CAP mods > Thread OP
[16:48] <&@Woggers> if you want to be fancy about it
[16:48] <Qwilphish> Ok thanks :]
[16:49] <Qwilphish> So when will we designate when a thread is considered dead, like a day without a post or something
[16:50] <&@Woggers> whoever is designated to run it will conclude the thread
[16:50] <&@Woggers> in hopefully a timely fashion
[16:50] <&@Woggers> dunno if we could timebox that
[16:50] <&@Woggers> I hope we could
[16:52] <@~DougJustDoug> I think we should timebox all PR threads. Set a default time the thread should be open. Then, if the discussion needs to be extended, anyone on the PRC can "request an extension" via a simple post in the thread asking for more time. But extensions should be requested for a specific number of days. Not just "Please leave this open longer"
[16:53] <&@Woggers> maybe when the requested hierarchy member posts stating they'll take the thread, they would post a timebox?
[16:53] <&@Woggers> "I will be concluding this thread; it will be concluded in 1 week from now."
[16:53] <@~DougJustDoug> That's fine with me.
[16:54] <@~DougJustDoug> yeah, you're right
[16:54] <birthtyn> the heiarchy should pressure to ensure that the conclusion is followed up.
[16:54] <Qwilphish> That comes with the worry that the thread will become inactive before the boxed time, but I suppose the thread OP can simply conclude the thread early
[16:54] <Qwilphish> if need be
[16:54] <&@jas61292> I'm still against timeboxing in general, but if it is just something subjectively determined by the person concluding the thread, that is a bit better
[16:54] <@DHR> Yeah I dont think there is a problem at all if the thread ties up early
[16:55] <&@jas61292> I just don't like timing something before seeing how things go in the thread at all
[16:55] <birthtyn> well jas it's a hell of a lot better then the current situation of multi-month PRC threads.
[16:56] <&@jas61292> Well yes. But I'd argue the lack of conclusion structure itself is the reason for that and that no timeboxing is needed if we fix that
[16:57] <birthtyn> Timeboxing is needed because otherwise people will sit on their hands and wait to post until the 11th hour. They have consistently done ths.
[16:57] <birthtyn> I don't think additional conclusion structure will help without deadlines to prevent people from sitting on their hands.
[16:57] <&@jas61292> Just look at PR threads though. They are all front heavy in posting. Timeboxing fixes nothing there. They stretch on cause they are never concluded.
[16:58] <birthtyn> True, so with both deadlines and a hard-set conclusion system, we can use that front-heavy momentum to ensure things get done on time, and are resolved once they are finished.
[16:59] <@~DougJustDoug> To me, my push for timeboxing is less about hitting certain deadlines or achieving some supposed "productivity level" for the CAP project. Even though I explicitly am pushing those two things -- that ISN'T the real goal. It's just the means to an end, imo.
[16:59] <&@Woggers> I would much rather have a deadline and then extend it if the conversation is going great.
[16:59] <@~DougJustDoug> The end goal is to promote a change in the mindset of the project in general, that is more enthusiastic and active overall.


Conclusion

As a result of this thread, the CAP Head Administrator (currently DougJustDoug) and the CAP Head Moerator (currently Birkal) will designate a member of the "CAP Hierarchy" to conclude Policy Review threads. They will designate this member within roughly 48 hours of the thread's opening, if not immediately at the thread's original post. Thread Concluder will be chosen based upon their relevancy to the topic at hand, and will typically be a moderator or the original poster. The Thread Concluder then must respond with a timebox (e.g. this thread will end in a week) at their nearest convenience.

Once a thread concludes, it will stay open for further conversation and discussion. Please note that the current concluded policy will stay enacted unless the Thread Concluder deems that it should be adjusted.

DougJustDoug and I have already discussed when CAP19 will start. It is dependent on the timeboxing thread. Once relevant PRC discussions for the next CAP process are concluded, we'll start up the next CAP process as soon as possible. The rest of the Policy Review discussions will overflow into TL / TLT nomination time.

Please continue working on the art of limiting your post size. Brevity is valued here in the Policy Review Committee!

Let me know if I missed anything. For now, I will go around assigning Thread Concluders immediately.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top