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.