I had some 1 on 1 discussions the past weeks and I wrote some more code.. I'm going to reply to the earlier feedback and then discuss the new code in a separate reply.
hokomoko wrote:As far as I know, no one here was elected and everyone was either appointed by others or by themselves. If someone is the only one left to do a certain job, they were still appointed in the past, maybe to do something else, but the main point is that there is and was no democratic process.
It's true, Spring is not a Democracy. And with this 'Merit'-ocracy extension I'm also not really suggesting to make it one. Depending on the situation Democratic principles can make sense. But the most popular thing is not necessary the right way to go, and it shouldn’t get in the way of people who do the "crazy" alternative things.
Tim Blokdijk wrote:Yes, this topic is not about how things are organized currently.
You're creating a class system in the spring community so I'd argue it actually is.
Ok, maybe you're right. It's definitely the next step up for discussion. I'm reluctant to move into the "what" and "how" of organizing things. I want to solve the "who" question with merit first, once I know who actually ends up with the merit status.. at that point it becomes easier to decide on how they should be empowered in relation to what. If
we indeed decide to empower the "merit" group. I'm willing to just delete the extension if we end up with a group of 'merit' users that are just not the right people.
But I wrote some more code..
enetheru wrote:And thats to turn spring community interaction into a RPG style game that takes zero(and i mean zero) effort to play.
It's to much work for me to program and maintain. But purely abstract it's a interesting idea.
enetheru wrote:its the idea that there needs to be a split, or that i would be a gamer or a creator, when reality is more grey. people feeling disenfranchised by putting them in a box they dont necessarily feel they belong. making hard splits is never a good idea. people take offence when you categorise them.
Maybe, I think it depends on what requirements are in place (to get merit) and how transparent those are. Also it's not my intention to make it a hard split, more of a soft split. If merit does become a hard requirement for something it should be openly discussed.
Forboding Angel wrote:The largest issue I see on these forums is that only people who code are given any credit for anything, despite the fact that coding is actually only a little tiny part of making a game for spring, not to mention making maps, wiki tidiness, and all the stuff that AF mentioned, forum moderating, etc etc.
Yes, we as a community also have the tendency to expect c++ programmers do a lot of non programming tasks.
PicassoCT wrote:But you cant allow people to vote on everything, ..
For now (as far as I'm concerned) if any voting is done it's Greek style voting, e.a. you can vote whatever you like but those that do
make the decision.
Only when there's a clearly defined process (written down in a document) were voting is part of reaching consensus on that particular topic then the vote might have meaning. If the exact question asked in the vote is not predefined in that process it's just a random poll.
Nemo wrote:I think I agree with the characterization of a merit system as a solution in search of a problem.
I wrote code to give merit a real use, I'm going to discuss this in my next reply here.
Nemo wrote:Tim: you mentioned in your problem statement that the ZK server split was one of your primary motivations, and then posed some hypotheticals about a sudden influx of cash needing more structure to handle without corroding the community -- is there a potential XY discussion happening?
Yes. There are multiple topics that are semi related. I started with merit as the other topics always have a "who" aspect. I would like merit to be a basic building block that can help scope that "who" aspect. So for example a "technical committee" could have dealt with the ZK situation. Who would have been part of that committee? They might have been appointed by several "project leads". Who appoints the leads? The people with merit vote once a year on a new project lead. Who have merit? Those that match the requirements.
This is how Debian does it, I'm not suggesting we would need or want this type of structure with layered votes and appointments but we can create the structure that works for us.
Nemo wrote:I don't doubt that a Spring game becoming a massive success would cause some growing pains, but perhaps it makes sense to identify the core issues before proposing approaches to shake things up (such as merit). In particular, identifying those issues that we feel would be impossible to solve at the moment that growth is becoming obvious.
Yes. The problem with "identifying the core issues before proposing solutions" is that a lot of people would consider that an academic exercise. I decided to think things trough and to write the code before starting this discussion to make it as concrete as possible. I do want to have the deeper discussion about "who" we are, "what" we do and "how" we do it. And I also chose this somewhat calm period to introduce this merit thing. When we're dealing with pressing growth issues there is no room to introduce larger changes or have a meta type discussion.
Nemo wrote:All the merit in the world doesn't mean an individual can demand changes that they are otherwise unable to effect through personal effort (technical or political or reputational).
Yes. I fully agree.
Nemo wrote:Conversely, if the goal is merely to highlight "this is an important person", I think trying to quantify the political or reputational ability of a community member to drive changes is a really hard problem that we're unlikely to solve in a useful way, except in exceptional cases where everyone agrees that the person is doing great work (in which case they should just be publicly recognized as "awesome person who we all trust", like "project lead" status).
It's always going to be an approximation. I do want to try
and "solve" it to a point where it's useful. I honestly don't know if it will work.
The "everyone agrees", "great work", "just be publicly recognized", "person who we all trust" and "project lead" approach is imo really murky and undefined. It's not a strong position. What happens is that admin/root access defaults into some sort of lead role, which is "ok".. until things aren't ok. And then it's good to have some sort of agreed upon process to resolve the crisis.
Nemo wrote:I tend towards thinking that games should manage their own needs in the event of sudden popularity, much as ZK is essentially doing.
Technically I would like to see a hybrid solution where games and other projects can hook into the overall Spring ecosystem where it makes sense to do so. Spring as a provider of services so effort can easily be shared across games and other projects.
Culturally Spring should also develop something to define itself. How much is this a Meritocracy? Democracy? Voluntaryism? Benevolent Dictatorship? Open Source? Non-profit? Commercial? Code of Conduct?