Merit

Merit

Various things about Spring that do not fit in any of the other forums listed below, including forum rules.

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Tim Blokdijk
Posts: 1239
Joined: 29 May 2005, 11:18

Merit

Post by Tim Blokdijk » 30 May 2015, 21:44

Took me a few months.. (life, it happens) but I have an initial working extension to show what I have in mind.
Committed it to: https://github.com/Tim-Blokdijk/spring- ... ring/merit
We definitely should not take this version into production, the code works but I want some quality feedback.
I have not uploaded this to http://test.springrts.com/phpbb yet but that will probably happen soonish.

First a little background
Spring doesn’t have official leaders, no hard responsibilities or requirements.
This lead to some unfortunate friction when developers where not happy with the way the server was functioning. Which escalated and never really .. anyway we had some trauma.
To prevent situations like that in the future we need to communicate a bit more effective about who is responsible for what. What is expected and what needs to be done if those expectations aren't met.

There was an attempt to document some of this @ https://springrts.com/wiki/About/Organization
Which is good but when do you remove someone from that list? Can someone add himself to the list? It needs more structure.

Further down the road, what if a Spring game gets popular? And some actual money starts flowing in. How do we keep a balance between hobby contributors and those that are building a business? Who has the "authority" to discuss this?

I have tried to think of processes and structures for the different challenges we face but they all require some form of administrator or leader. And the easy way out would be to pick someone and make them "leader". Think "Ton Roosendaal" from Blender or "Mark Shuttleworth" from Ubuntu.
Those are project founders, our founders Fnordia and SJ are looongg gone. And we had several people doing "lead dev" stuff since then who moved on too.
So there is no natural leader that we can default to. We will never have a "leader" that can claim ownership, it will always be an administrative role.
Which means we need to make decisions as a collective. Which lead to the question who are part of the collective? As some are more equal than others.

Introducing the "merit" feature. :-)

Merit feature

I added 2 panels to the member profile page, left gives the status, right is explanation
Image

If all requirements are met the user can click the status link to give a "merit recommendation"
Image

PhpBB asks for a conformation
Image

The user rejects
Image

Or accepts
Image

Status link is replaced with text that you already gave merit
Image

And if the user has received 3 or more recommendations this merit gets set to "Yes"
Image

Left detail
Image

Right detail
Image

The discussion

Concretely the interesting part is the merit requirements panel.
What as a community do we require from people if we want to recognise them as a relevant contributing member that can have a say in how things work?
I picked a set of requirements that is visible in the second last picture. But that must be discussed.

One of the things I would like to add to that list is a requirement to sign a 'Code of Conduct', we don't have one but for example Debian and Ubuntu have them. We would have to write one. And does someone have to sign it before they can get merit status or before they can give merit recommendations?

Should we give people the option to block receiving merit recommendations from others? And/or an option to set your own merit status to false (No) and keep it there?

Should the merit status only be displayed with the name/avatar panel if it's "Yes" but not if it's "No"?

I currently chose to not make it visible who gave who merit recommendations, to prevent it becoming a "I'm your friend, are you my friend?" thing. But? Maybe we should know who gave us (or others) recommendations?
I also chose not to make it visible for others how many recommendations a user has (you can only see how many you have yourself) to prevent it becoming a popularity contest. But again? I don't know.

And how to deal with changes to the requirements once it's in production? Are people going to lose the merit status? I currently don't plan on taking it away from people once they gain it. As the creator of this feature I currently reserve the right to do so but that's not something I would be happy to do.
Or should we maybe lose it automatically after some time of inactivity or should it be actively renewed by the people that gave you recommendations?

Can merit recommendations be retracted? I did not create that option as that would (or would not?) have consequences for the merit status itself.

Should recommendations by people that have many recommendations themselves be "worth" more? Or those who have merit status longer?

More meta, I tried to think of a dead simple system, remove things that makes it more complicated. But I did pick a particular approach, is this the type of system we want?

Anything else?
0 x

User avatar
AF
AI Developer
Posts: 20669
Joined: 14 Sep 2004, 11:32

Re: Merit

Post by AF » 30 May 2015, 22:37

I think the main issue here is the concept of what is meant by merit and what its purpose is, isn't very clear, and will be ignored for the most part by new users, and users who didn't find the merit panel

You may want to use the terminology 'vouch', so instead or "granting a merit" or "giving a merit", you'd "vouch for a user". So maybe:

- Tim is a trusted user
- Tom vouched that Tim is trustworthy

The other problem is that the moment a person who doesn't meet the requirements makes good points and organises something or becomes the centre of a serious discussion, the merit system sort of fails.

The other problem is that soon everyone who posts here will be 'trusted' except a few people who aren't bothered, and some people who are newer than 2 years or just play and don't dev
0 x

gajop
Moderator
Posts: 3023
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 20:42

Re: Merit

Post by gajop » 31 May 2015, 00:01

This seems like a simplified karma/reputation system, which gets inflated and obsolete fast.
Also what is this meant to solve?
Is it supposed to give better information about who are the more knowledgeable people in the community? You could be a game dev and have 10 merit recommendations but still not be able to code any AI, engine or be relevant to the server work.

As AF said, it's also hidden under a panel and a wall of text which new users will not look into -> and they're the prime targets I guess.
0 x

User avatar
Tim Blokdijk
Posts: 1239
Joined: 29 May 2005, 11:18

Re: Merit

Post by Tim Blokdijk » 31 May 2015, 00:39

Thanks good points.
AF wrote:I think the main issue here is the concept of what is meant by merit and what its purpose is, isn't very clear, and will be ignored for the most part by new users, and users who didn't find the merit panel
Possible purposes are:
- Access to the Dedicated Developer Discussion sub-forum.
- Voting for things (who is part of a technical comity, "lead dev", default maps or games, changes to rules)
- Who can create donation targets in a donation system.
- Become selectable for "official" tasks and responsibilities. (root admin, moderator, ...)
- ?
I don't want to say it's for x, y and z as it depends on how and if this idea is going to work out. My suggestion would be to start small and see how it develops.
AF wrote:You may want to use the terminology 'vouch', so instead or "granting a merit" or "giving a merit", you'd "vouch for a user".
The reason I decided not to call it "trust" is that trust is a complex thing. And it's a bit of an oxymoron to vouch for or trust an anonymous user on the internet. I do think it's possible to trust someone’s capability via the internet. But it's hard to explain the difference between trusting someone and trusting their capability. And with meritocracy being popular merit made more sense. But yea..
AF wrote:The other problem is that the moment a person who doesn't meet the requirements makes good points and organises something or becomes the centre of a serious discussion, the merit system sort of fails.
Sort of, I think it's important to not make the merit status mandatory before you are able to organise something or take responsibility for something. I do think that if we would create a list of tasks with responsible users that the users without merit are indicated. This so they can be given merit recommendations, or we can discuss to change the merit requirements or maybe allow for overruling some requirements?
AF wrote:The other problem is that soon everyone who posts here will be 'trusted' except a few people who aren't bothered, and some people who are newer than 2 years or just play and don't dev
Yes, yes. It could become a select in-crowd thing or something that loses all meaning as everyone and their dog is included. I imagine it becoming something in between. Maybe we can limit the amount of merit recommendations someone can give? Like 5? Or one a year?
0 x

User avatar
Tim Blokdijk
Posts: 1239
Joined: 29 May 2005, 11:18

Re: Merit

Post by Tim Blokdijk » 31 May 2015, 00:58

gajop wrote:This seems like a simplified karma/reputation system, which gets inflated and obsolete fast.
Maybe we can limit the amount of merit recommendations someone can give? Like 5? Or one a year?
gajop wrote:Also what is this meant to solve?
I'm going to point to the first answer in my previous post.
gajop wrote:Is it supposed to give better information about who are the more knowledgeable people in the community? You could be a game dev and have 10 merit recommendations but still not be able to code any AI, engine or be relevant to the server work.
It should indicate that a user is effectively contributing to the Spring ecosystem. What we could do is have the people that make a merit recommendation also supply a rational (a little bit of text why they think that user has made contributions to the Spring ecosystem)?
gajop wrote:As AF said, it's also hidden under a panel and a wall of text which new users will not look into -> and they're the prime targets I guess.
Yes, it's low key. Start small, see how it works out.
And no, new users are not the prime targets. With the current implementation you need to be around for a year before you can receive merit recommendations and it takes two years from the registration date before someone with merit can give recommendations.
The idea behind this is that someone needs to have a track record of involvement, not a one off.
0 x

raaar
Metal Factions Developer
Posts: 817
Joined: 20 Feb 2010, 12:17

Re: Merit

Post by raaar » 31 May 2015, 01:44

Tim Blokdijk wrote:
First a little background
Spring doesn’t have official leaders, no hard responsibilities or requirements.
This lead to some unfortunate friction when developers where not happy with the way the server was functioning. Which escalated and never really .. anyway we had some trauma.
To prevent situations like that in the future we need to communicate a bit more effective about who is responsible for what. What is expected and what needs to be done if those expectations aren't met.
when problems like those happen the parties involved are likely to have merited members. What would we do then? Most merit wins?

Trying to quantify merit like this has the potential to create a merit farming social "side-game" that distracts people from actually doing useful stuff....on the other hand it might actually encourage it.

also, what happens when a user has merit but then becomes involved in flamewars or if it has been inactive for a year? or two? Should users lose merit over time?

Imo we should have a simpler distinction between members, and then make polls lasting a month or so for important subjects. Some would only allow main engine devs, infrastructure maintainers and game dev teams to participate. Others could be open for every registered user. Both can be useful.
0 x

User avatar
Anarchid
Posts: 1380
Joined: 30 Nov 2008, 04:31

Re: Merit

Post by Anarchid » 31 May 2015, 15:11

Merit almost by definition cannot be domain-agnostic.
"Merit" implemented as a technical system should not be domain-agnostic.

Can merit be retracted if i enter a feud vendetta flamewar with a person? Does that remove their third merit and does that invalidate the entire chain? :P
0 x

User avatar
FLOZi
MC: Legacy & Spring 1944 Developer
Posts: 6109
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 01:14

Re: Merit

Post by FLOZi » 31 May 2015, 16:12

I'm sorry but I don't see this as anything other than a waste of time and possible future maintenance headache.
0 x

User avatar
Tim Blokdijk
Posts: 1239
Joined: 29 May 2005, 11:18

Re: Merit

Post by Tim Blokdijk » 31 May 2015, 16:52

raaar wrote:when problems like those happen the parties involved are likely to have merited members. What would we do then?
The merit status won't solve problems directly but let me explain my train of thought here.

Having merit status means you meet the requirements we set as a community. If we make signing a code of conduct part of the requirements then it becomes easier to point out "poor conduct". We have the forum rules.. which is more or less our code of conduct. Making that more explicit and a thing to sign off on can help.

If tasks are structured (written down in a format) together with who is responsible for them. And a step by step process on what to do if the tasks aren’t preformed to expectation.
Then people know what's expected of them, they can make a conscious decision if they want to commit to a particular responsibility and how they would lose this responsibility if they fail to meet expectations.
Developers that depend on services that others maintain know who is responsible and what can and can't be expected.
It would give a framework on how to run things. Hopefully preventing some drama in the future. Via the internet you can't prevent people from burning out (try it irl) but we can minimize the damage.

I haven't made any mockups about how this is going to work exactly but the idea I have about is that we take https://springrts.com/wiki/About/Organization
And just turbocharge it.
What services do we have?, what do these services provide exactly?, how critical is the service?, what to do if the service malfunctions?, which users are responsible?, how many days ago have we seen this user login?, how long is this user registered?, does the user have merit?, has the user indicated that he wants to step away from this responsibility?

The step after that would be to nitrocharge 2.0 this into a bounty program/donation system. And in my opinion you would have to have the merit status before you can ask for money. That's why I'm starting with this merit feature, see if that works. If it fails I can't use it in the design.
raaar wrote:Trying to quantify merit like this has the potential to create a merit farming social "side-game" that distracts people from actually doing useful stuff....on the other hand it might actually encourage it.
In the current implementation I chose to not to make this visible for others, so you can't rank yourself. If we add a public rationale this would become visible.. and then you can rank yourself. I don't know.
I sort of like the idea that you not only give a merit recommendation but also give a short explanation why you think that this persons contributions should be recognized. And receiving such a recommendation that explains why someone thinks that your contributions are just great.. that will give someone the warm fuzzies. Could be a powerful social "side-game". You can also be a total asshole by giving someone a "merit recommendation" with a rationale that is actually condescending. That would mean merit recommendations would need to be public and not anonymous. Or maybe public and anonymous but if it's condescending we just dive into the database? That way you can read the rationale people wrote about a user and learn what this users contributions and capabilities are.
I think that a free form rationale is a better solution then having to put people into categories.
0 x

User avatar
Tim Blokdijk
Posts: 1239
Joined: 29 May 2005, 11:18

Re: Merit

Post by Tim Blokdijk » 31 May 2015, 17:03

Anarchid wrote:Merit almost by definition cannot be domain-agnostic.
"Merit" implemented as a technical system should not be domain-agnostic.
I don't follow you here, "merit" is a very broad term and not domain-specific, so merit is domain-agnostic?
My implementation is domain-specific but we can change the implementation? What are you trying to tell me?
Anarchid wrote:Can merit be retracted if i enter a feud vendetta flamewar with a person? Does that remove their third merit and does that invalidate the entire chain? :P
In my current implementation "merit" is just a bool in the db, it can be set to false and that would not alter the recommendations. So it would not invalidate the entire chain.
0 x

tzaeru
Posts: 283
Joined: 28 Oct 2007, 02:23

Re: Merit

Post by tzaeru » 31 May 2015, 19:47

I applaud this initiative. A lot of open source projects and game communities lack systems like these, and if it gets to be about hundreds of players, it's just not sustainable to be as chaotic as Spring community sometimes is.

However, I echo the concern of gajop in that systems like these get obsoleted very quickly. Give enough time and almost all older hang-arounders will have ended up vouched thrice. If that doesn't happen, then it's also likely that a lot of great people have been missed. To solve this, limiting the amount of vouches per year is a good idea. Something like one vouch every 2 months could be a good amount and when you get your first 3 vouches, you could gain 3 vouches of your own to hand out.

Additionally, there could be a few different types of vouches. For example, "Vouched as Core Developer", "Vouched as Game Developer" and "Vouched as Player". Having too many different vouch types would probably be detrimental, but I think it'd still be nice also if "technical skill" and "politeness/likeability" could somehow be separated..

While obsoleteness is a worry here, I'd still go and claim that it's not a blocker. If the system gets obsolete after a few years, then we can just reconsider its purpose.
0 x

User avatar
PicassoCT
Journeywar Developer & Mapper
Posts: 10238
Joined: 24 Jan 2006, 21:12

Re: Merit

Post by PicassoCT » 31 May 2015, 23:54

I for once welcome this power-currency and promise to sell my vouches to the highest bidder. Animals. Gold. Slaves. He who makes the biggest heap, gets to have the biggest say, and should always remember that loyal servants could also be bribed after they won..

§42. Artists, Slaves, Insane and woman shall have no vote. ;)
0 x

User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22298
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: Merit

Post by smoth » 01 Jun 2015, 01:23

gajop wrote:This seems like a simplified karma/reputation system, which gets inflated and obsolete fast.
Pretty much ever karma system I have been in I end up with something like 40/-35 etc. People who are more charismatic and less actually doing things tend to have higher scores because they never challenge any one.
0 x

User avatar
Tim Blokdijk
Posts: 1239
Joined: 29 May 2005, 11:18

Re: Merit

Post by Tim Blokdijk » 01 Jun 2015, 02:04

tzaeru wrote:If the system gets obsolete after a few years, then we can just reconsider its purpose.
It's true, systems like these can become dysfunctional. Debian has its 'DD' status (Debian Developer) that's a complex beast to split the users from the developers. At some point hundreds of people were waiting in de new member DD cue as there were no existing DD that were willing to work trough the process and sponsor these people (which was a part of the process to become a DD).
Only after a few years they managed to agree on introducing the 'DM' status (https://wiki.debian.org/DebianMaintainer) which had lighter requirements. I believe it still has lots of problems with allowing non-programmers to be officially recognized.
Debian's lawyer was for many years never recognized in any official way as the system did not allow for non developers to be a part of Debian. And not having DD (or DM) status does prevent you from effectively involving yourself in Debian. Which is also not that stupid, considering that DD's essentially gain root access to all Debian installations worldwide. (They can upload a security update to Debian's repository that will then be downloaded by everyone's system and then installed with root privileges)

Anyway, IMO we definitely should strive for a far simpler system that can be "tweaked" on the fly.
tzaeru wrote:I applaud this initiative. A lot of open source projects and game communities lack systems like these, and if it gets to be about hundreds of players, it's just not sustainable to be as chaotic as Spring community sometimes is.
Thank you. I asked over at PhPBB if someone already coded something like this. Apparently this hasn’t been done before with PhpBB, you would expect otherwise. They only have the top down approach where someone is given the power to create groups, ranks and permissions. No "web of trust" type systems.
tzaeru wrote:Additionally, there could be a few different types of vouches.
I don't know, most people aren’t going to "fit" nicely in categories. Someone would have to update those categories from time to time. I'm afraid you're going to end up with a lot of square peg in a round hole situations. My idealistic idea is that those who gain merit status naturally understand what their place is in the project. That people with merit know for themselves which tasks and responsibilities they can take on. Maybe a secondary system where people can award badges to others, but not necessary linked to the merit status?
PicassoCT wrote:I for once..
Ehh ok, thanks.
FLOZi wrote:maintenance
PhpBB is a bit of a pita to maintain and this will add to that burden, that said.. PhpBB 3.1 actually did allow me to fully compartmentalize the merit feature (which could not be done with PhpBB 3.0). No files in PhpBB proper are altered to make this work. It's all contained in this one extension that can be installed, enabled, disabled and uninstalled and that works like you would expect it to. If this experiment fails to work.. uninstall deletes all merit data from the database, I wrote a proper migration file.
And it's a small extension, three template files, one for the memeberpage, one for the "Merit: Yes" string in viewtopic and one for asking conformation. The logic is contained in one model file that I tried to decouple from the PhpBB logic itself. The listener and controller file drive the implementation. The other files are boilerplate to hook it into PhpBB.

From a design (and maintenance) perspective I would have ideally used something like OpenID Connect for user identification. That way we could potentially use a wide range of accounts (Lobby accounts, Spring1944 forum, Zero-K forum, BlenderID, Google+, Facebook..) and make it all less dependent on PhpBB. But OpenID Connect is still a bit of a emerging standard, lot of work to get that functional, lots of things that could go wrong. PhpBB itself is moving in the direction of abstracting user identification for the same reasons so I hope to just wait for it to mature without me having to do the hard work.

Any work I'm going to do on a donation system is definitely not going to be based on PhpBB. I'm currently leaning towards a system based on Angular 2.0, maybe with flask as a json service. Would be a good opportunity to learn Python (and Angular). But as I plan on using this "merit" status thing to split the userbase into two groups (contributors and playerbase) I have to get the community to start building that "web of merit".
If it doesn't work out then the fall-back would be to appoint someone to decided who has merit. But I was trying to make the case that we are beyond the phase where we can have a traditional leader that gets the power to include/exclude.

Time for bed.
0 x

gajop
Moderator
Posts: 3023
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 20:42

Re: Merit

Post by gajop » 01 Jun 2015, 04:24

I still think the solution you're offering is overly simplistic if you want to replace what we currently have - and that's general knowledge of the Spring ecosystem.
I really don't think devs will really care you have "Merit recommendations" if you don't have meaningful and high quality contributions to the specific topic. You could try changing your system to be more similar to what's done in linkedin, where people would recommend you for special tasks (e.g. "Knows C++", which would be "Engine developer" here).
The problem is at the end of the day veterans won't consider these Merit points but instead make their own judgement.

This system is only useful for noobs, who still don't know who's who in the community, and for that, it's too complex/hidden. 0ad does a better job for example: http://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.ph ... ntry307531 , where you can clearly see roles of each person in the forum discussion - pretty important if the person responding to you is a programmer, an artist, or a random community member! However, unlike 0ad, we have multiple games here, so it's likely just not feasible for us -> but in that case, we need a more complex system, rather than an even more simplified one.

I also don't agree that you need to have a formal "merit" system to do bounties. Maybe if Spring suddenly grew to ludicrous sizes we would, but even if the developer community were to increase 10x it would still be manageable to keep track of who's doing what. At the very least, mods and admins are here to make sure no outright robbery-like bounties happen.

I think a much simpler thing (if you really need some visible merits) is to just allow applications and have this process centralized, although I think we've actually moved away from having complicated forum groups.

PS: I think Anarchid meant the merit system is always domain specific. Example: "Engine", "AI", "Server", and similar, rather than just "Spring project".
0 x

User avatar
enetheru
Posts: 627
Joined: 11 Jun 2010, 07:32

Re: Merit

Post by enetheru » 01 Jun 2015, 09:10

I'm having difficulty folowing your train of thought.

You discuss roles and responsibilities, desicision difficulties, leadership, donations, bounties, commercial entities, and come to a question "who are part of the collective?"

So on first look the goal for merit appears to be: to identify who deserves a say in important things.

Based on the requirements for becoming a user with merit, it would appear to be designed to create a very select 'in' group, allthought others speculated that most regular users would fit the requirements.

And the remaining discussion focuses on various implementation details.

People's concerns seem to focus on the efficacy of the system
* will people even care
* terminology
* exclusion from important discussions/descisions
* long term usage
* confusion as to the target audience
* knowledge domain agnostic
* ambivalence(of both valences, not apathy) towards hard/soft power in descriptions
* doesn't solve disagreements with all merited parties.

I notice that you yourself dont know how it would be used, and perhaps are unwilling to commit to official stance on how it should be used. which i think feels like a solution seeking for a problem, rather than the other way around.

I feel like there are multiple problems you are trying to solve with one 'simple' solution, and feel like its just needs tuning to make it work..
I'm seeing too much in the way of active personal engagement with the system, and people are always lazier than you give them credit for.

and then there's this: "But as I plan on using this "merit" status thing to split the userbase into two groups (contributors and playerbase)", umm... massive red flag.

The general trend of your posts indicates that this will happen, and I would like to see it happen in the way that you envision internally, but I'm not convinced it will happen that way, and I fear it will be ignored and your time wasted.

I have ideas for improvement, but after this post I don't think its the right time to respond with those.

Good luck.
0 x

User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22298
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: Merit

Post by smoth » 01 Jun 2015, 14:20

Honestly if the system was enabled, I'd probably set most of the FGJL people as merit I and several people I used to have spat with such as knorke, argh, caydr because they did shit.

I think honestly just having the title of content dev is enough
0 x

User avatar
FLOZi
MC: Legacy & Spring 1944 Developer
Posts: 6109
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 01:14

Re: Merit

Post by FLOZi » 01 Jun 2015, 18:19

gajop wrote:This system is only useful for noobs, who still don't know who's who in the community, and for that, it's too complex/hidden. 0ad does a better job for example: http://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.ph ... ntry307531 , where you can clearly see roles of each person in the forum discussion - pretty important if the person responding to you is a programmer, an artist, or a random community member! However, unlike 0ad, we have multiple games here, so it's likely just not feasible for us -> but in that case, we need a more complex system, rather than an even more simplified one.
Groups and ranks provide this functionality already. Some groups (Content & Lobby Developers) are less visible than others, though. I am tempted to unilaterally rectify that.
0 x

hokomoko
Spring Developer
Posts: 585
Joined: 02 Jun 2014, 00:46

Re: Merit

Post by hokomoko » 01 Jun 2015, 19:13

I thought about this quite a lot yesterday, but decided to only post today, because yesterday I wasn't even eligible for wanting to get merit, since I registered on June 1st 2014.

Oops, seems like I've already written my first point.

The current organization of Spring is based on oligarchy, where some folks I've never chosen decide how things are going with or without consulting me or any other person. Sometimes even without consulting each other.
If a large portion of users will have merit, there's going to be chaos, and merit will degrade into being nothing.
If a small portion of users will have merit, we'll just trade one form of oligarchy with another.

Now, oligarchy isn't a bad thing. It can even be good for open source software, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent ... r_for_life
since there's a single address who's responsible and accountable for anything that happens with the project.

The problem I see with merit is that it's arguably giving the illusion of democracy, or equal opportunities. This is a very good thing in society, but not in a project. It doesn't matter how nice I am and how much people want feature X in the engine if adding my code is a bad idea (due to performance, bugs or any other reason). Democracy may allow it in and we can't really have that. Oligarchy is the only system where people stay around long enough to clean the mess after mistakes.

It's not that I think the current situation is wonderful and nothing needs to be changed, for instance the process of getting something contributed into the engine is terribly tedious at the moment since there's only one core dev left active, and he probably has better stuff to do than reviewing pull requests all day long. That's a subject for a different discussion though.

Anyway, if it's going to be oligarchy, just pick trusted and talented people to organise whatever needs to be organised, and only add more people if it's really needed.
Last edited by hokomoko on 02 Jun 2015, 12:59, edited 1 time in total.
0 x

User avatar
PicassoCT
Journeywar Developer & Mapper
Posts: 10238
Joined: 24 Jan 2006, 21:12

Re: Merit

Post by PicassoCT » 01 Jun 2015, 20:04

make it a true meritocracy- lines of code* percentage of spring users using it
0 x

Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”

cron