Policy Review Policy Review: More PRC Application Opportunities [VOTE Closed]

Hello! I know we have some other PRC threads running at the moment, but I figure this one would be a quickie.

This is something that was discussed at the end of CAP 2, but was never really officialized. Now that we have the CAP PRC subforum to encourage a variety of topics simultaneously, I think it would be advantageous to add more chances for users to apply for the PRC! This can be done by simply adding more opportunities for CAP members to apply for the council. Currently, we only offer entry to the PRC once ever 2-3 months, which can be quite a lengthy period.

My proposal is that we allow CAP community members to apply for CAP PRC twice per CAP: once after the art polls and once after the playtesting phase. This would allow us to have a more current CAP PRC (with this proposal in effect, it would probably be updated every 1-2 months), which means more users get heard and we encourage greater activity. Since we've made a push for the PRC to be more active than it has been in the past, I think this is a good way to go. I chose to add a new round after the art polls because that is arguably the "halfway" point of a CAP, whereas the playtest is the end. Furthermore, the project is incredibly active during art polls; catching CAP's attention directly afterwards will notify new users of the PRC's presence and perhaps encourage them to stick with the project.

What are your thoughts? Is the bi-CAP-ly schedule good? Or perhaps you think a different time schedule would be best. Or maybe you'd prefer that we just keep the PRC updated at the rate it is currently. I am hoping that this thread can reach a conclusion quickly, so please post your thoughts within the next 48 hours. If you really need more time to think this through, then send me a PM and I will certainly extend the deadline. I just feel that this isn't something that needs much thought; no need to write essays here, haha. Thanks!

- - - - -
Rough Draft Proposal:

Proposal: CAP PRC Applications will be available twice every CAP process. Within the current list of events, CAP PRC Applications are only open once, at the end of each CAP, specifically after the playtesting. If this proposal goes through, we will be adding another CAP PRC Application opportunity: directly after the Art Polls are complete. Everything else will occur as it has in the past. Past PRC members will be required to renew their membership during both occasions, while newer members can apply whenever they wish during these applications.

Since we now have a CAP Policy Review subforum, it is much easier for the PRC to discuss policy without getting in the way of the current process. As a result, we can encourage greater PRC activity and membership by increasing the amount of opportunities to join from once to twice per CAP.

Click to expand...

I endorse all of this and am watching all of you.

Not in a creepy way.

That is all.

I like the idea of sprite poll/playtesting apps, mainly to get more people involved in CaP. After all, the PRC isn't some elitist group.

Alright, putting this up for a vote, since everyone has said their bit, apparently. Haha.

Proposal: CAP PRC Applications will be available twice every CAP process. Within the current list of events, CAP PRC Applications are only open once, at the end of each CAP, specifically after the playtesting. If this proposal goes through, we will be adding another CAP PRC Application opportunity: directly after the Art Polls are complete. Everything else will occur as it has in the past. Past PRC members will be required to renew their membership during both occasions, while newer members can apply whenever they wish during these applications.

Since we now have a CAP Policy Review subforum, it is much easier for the PRC to discuss policy without getting in the way of the current process. As a result, we can encourage greater PRC activity and membership by increasing the amount of opportunities to join from once to twice per CAP.

Click to expand...

Please vote in agreement or disagreement with the above proposal. Voting will be closed on 5/17/2012 at 10:00 PM Central time.

YES
NO

Psst Birkal you need a ballot.

YES

NO

No posts for a day and you assume that the entire PRC's opinions are summed up in two posts that both contain fewer than 30 words each?

Rising_Dusk said:

No posts for a day and you assume that the entire PRC's opinions are summed up in two posts that both contain fewer than 30 words each?

Click to expand...

I've also consulted with numerous PRC members on IRC about this. You've also had forty eight hours for posting your thoughts, not a single day. This isn't something that was "spur of the moment" as you seem to believe. I indicated that there would be a deadline on this and encouraged all PRC members to get their thoughts written in a timely fashion. Furthermore, I even offered to extend the deadline if people needed more time to gather their thoughts.

If you are one of those users, Rising_Dusk, the offer still stands. PM me or post in this topic that you'd like some more time to mull this over and make a post that clearly illustrates your thoughts on the issue. We have the ability to stop the vote and discuss this more. Perhaps I am being too "new-fangled" for CAP by asking the PRC to have something discussed within forty eight hours. In fact, the point of this proposal is to encourage CAP PRC activity and presence. Seeing as we have a new subforum with which to discuss such matters quickly and efficiently, it's sensible that we have a more active and vocal PRC. Hence the proposal for the addition of another round of PRC applications.

In fact, I even question if your vote against this proposal is really because you disagree with the proposal itself. You simply seem to be posting a criticism of how I'm running this PR thread, which belongs in PM. It seems almost entirely backwards that you desire discussion yet post literally zero points on the proposal. If you have an actual problem with the proposal, then bring it up. I am honestly interested in the ideas of the CAP PRC; why else would I put up this proposal in the first place? If you have some legitimate thoughts on why you don't agree with this proposal (I am sure they exist), then please share them with the rest of the PRC for the mutual benefit of CAP. If you have a grievance with how I am running this PR thread, it belongs in PM since it is off topic in this thread. That matter is unrelated to the current task at hand, which is establishing and discussing policy.

Again, the offer still stands. If you (or any other member of the PRC) would like more time to think this over, send me a PM. I am really a reasonable guy. If you have a legitimate reason for desiring a delay, then measures can and will be taken to ensure that all PRC members who want a say will have it. Thanks for reading; I hope you all understand! Unless I receive a message that requests more time, this proposal will still continue to be voted upon, so please continue to vote.

I'm not sure what this is trying to fix but there's no reason not to I guess

There's also no reason not to have constantly open applications if we're worried about representation, but if this is what we're voting on...

Also do we have a process for kicking people off the PRC yet?

(I should really have posted earlier shouldn't I)

Ugh I really wish we had some more time to discuss this x_x

I'm concerned that twice per CAP is a little too often to realign the PRC. Once per CAP seems to be the superior option since it reduces the workload on those who have to judge each application, and since CAPs take about three months, give or take, it ensures that potential applicants have been active for a decent amount of time. When I think of a time frame for giving out applications for the PRC, I want to approach this from the prospective of a relatively new user that wants to contribute to the Policy Review Committee.

A user who wants to be on the PRC would most likely want to apply the next time the applications are open (as to seek a tangible and timely reward for contributions. This is compounded by the high accessibility of the PRC), and that any prospective member of the PRC should have been involved in at least one CAP from start to finish. Not that this person would have to be one of the top contributors of a CAP, but the user should definitely have made a few mature, insightful posts, a decent IRC presence, and a presence on the CAP ladder on Pokemon Showdown!.

The second reason why I support once-per-CAP applications for the PRC is for your proposal of existing users having to renew their membership at each application period. I fully support this section of the proposal since CAP requires nothing but the best members for Policy Review and the necessity of renewing memberships says "Keep up your level of contribution or we'll find someone else who will." However, making PRC members renew their membership every 30-50 days seems excessive. Not only that, but we don't even have criteria, or even guidelines, for what constitutes an "active enough" member of the council. At the moment, I think we should take care of what constitutes sufficient activity for the PRC. I would also like to point out the speed at which the current PRC conducts its business. Since March 22nd, we've had seven Policy Review threads. Halving that period would mean that Policy Review Committee members would have to renew their memberships every three to four threads. If a standing member of the committee misses a thread or two for "real life" reasons, then their membership in the PRC would probably in jeopardy.

2-3 months per application period is not a long time. Only having to contribute for a month, 45 days tops seems not long enough to be a member of the PRC, especially since a bi-CAPly application/renewal process means that someone could hypothetically jump on the Committee after the Art Poll (after pretty much every competitive aspect of the CAP is decided save the movepool), not having experienced a stats discussion, typing discussion (both in-forum and on IRC), or ability discussion in some cases. On the flip side, this also implies that a person could go from nobody to PRC member having never experienced a playtest or movepool discussion. A reasonable degree of experience should be needed for membership in the PRC, and half a CAP isn't enough in my opinion.

I'm all for accessibility to the PRC, and I love the idea of membership renewal. If the vote was solely for the membership renewal proposal, I would unequivocally say yes. However, I have serious reservations about forcing PRC members to re-apply every 30-50 days (about three to four threads). Momentary lapses in contribution could result in the PRC operating like a revolving door, and I'm not okay with that. I think veterans and newer members should coexist on the PRC. I would also like to point out that I love the accessibility of the PRC, and I think the only major criterion of induction into the PRC should be participation in every aspect of the CAP Project. Bi-CAPly application periods do not accomplish this task, so I'm going to vote

NO

on this proposal.

edit: yay moar thyme :D

DetroitLolcat said:

Ugh I really wish we had some more time to discuss this x_x

Click to expand...

Done. Haha, this is all I was really waiting for. It appears that both you and bmb (and possibly others) have thoughts on this that you'd like to discuss. Since that is the case, I'll stay true to my word and allow more time for discussion. We aren't in a huge rush, so I see no problem in the delay.

The vote has been temporarily postponed until we've had more discussion.

I will definitely be responding to your thoughts, but it will have to wait until I am done with finals tomorrow. Perhaps other PRC members will voice their thoughts about the proposal at hand within that time!

I had a great conversation with Rising_Dusk last night on this and I'd like to share some of the thoughts that we discussed. It's actually quite funny: the "rushed vote" in this PRC thread and the purpose of this thread are actually related quite closely. What we really need to consider is how active do we expect the PRC to be? This is something that we absolutely need to discuss.

It was my understanding that we'd be requiring the PRC to be more active, hence the creation of this subforum. Now that we have our own little home, it's easier to keep discussions organized. However, I also realize that not everyone spends as much time on Smogon as I do, haha. Furthermore, as R_D pointed out, CAP PRC members are brought into the Committee because they are active during CAP. This can make it difficult for PRC members to vote and discuss PR topics when their focus is on the actual CAP product, not the policy of making CAPs.

So with that, we need to decide how active we want the PRC to be. Once we decide that, the vote on how often we have applications for the PRC will fall into place. I personally would like to see a more active PRC, but I think it's understandable to not expect so much activity either. I'm highly interested in what thoughts you guys have on this.

I think Lolcat covered some good ground, especially in this bit:

DetroitLolcat said:

At the moment, I think we should take care of what constitutes sufficient activity for the PRC. I would also like to point out the speed at which the current PRC conducts its business. Since March 22nd, we've had seven Policy Review threads.

Click to expand...

What do you guys think of this? Is seven PR threads asking too much for a time period of about two months? What kind of workload do you think the CAP PRC should have?

The reason having applications only between CAPs is because that's when it's the most relevant. Prior to the PRC getting its own forum, we essentially only did policy discussions between CAPs. There's a good reason for that, and it's not just because the forum then isn't clogged with CAP polls and discussion threads. That good reason is that it's when the PRC is most likely to have the time to participate. Let's put this in perspective: I just spent countless hours of typing trying to convince people that Drought was good for CAP 3 (to no avail). Those hours, in my opinion as a CAP contributor, an ex-CAP moderator, and a PRC member, were far more useful to CAP-the-project spent furthering the discussion of the CAP itself. For me, when considering whether I wanted to post here or in ability discussion, there was no contest: CAP is about those discussions, and those discussions only happen once per concept.

I don't think any of this is about 'workload'. All of us want to type some stuff here and enact policy adjustments, it's just that hopefully 100% of us would rather put that same effort into the CAP instead of PRC work. All of this "during CAP" PRC stuff we've had recently only serves to highlight why the past way we operated the PRC was so effective; between CAPs there is nothing else to talk about, so we're not missing out on valuable discussions by contributing to PRC. That's really what this all boils down to.

...Besides, let's be frank here, who actually cares how many times we have PRC applications? Once per CAP? Twice per CAP? Rolling applications (my preference)? None of it really matters. Why are we trying so hard to change what isn't broken in the first place? The PRC is about solving policy problems, not enacting policy changes for the sake of changing policy.

I wouldn't say that this is a change in policy for the sake of changing policy. The purpose of this thread should be to decide how active the PRC should be. This is something that is arguably "broken" and needs "fixing", so it fits in the definition of R_D's ideology that we should fix what is broken. Because right now, there's a group of people (I'm in this group) who assumed that we added a new PRC forum on the grounds that we'd be encouraging more activity, and a group of people (R_D is in this one, methinks) who assumed that we would continue our course of only doing PR work in between CAPs.

What we need to decide right now is which path we'd like to take. I'd personally like to add rolling applications (as was suggested in #cap and other posts) since it really doesn't matter how often or not we have applications. I'm also fine with the PRC not doing too much during the CAP process for the reasoning listed above. It really does make sense that most PRC members are busy with the CAP process; that's precisely why they're on the PRC: for their participation in CAP. However, I want to check in with you guys before putting this up for a vote. If people really want to see a more active CAP PRC during the CAP process, then you guys have the right to be heard and should speak up now. If not, then we can just let this die and vote on it after CAP 3. Either way, there's no hurry for getting this done.

I know that there's little point in my speaking up at this point, but I have to agree that there shouldn't be so much concern over the PRC's activity during a main CAP project. I know I intentionally wait until the end of a main CAP project to bring stuff up. At least, that's been the plan; leading CAP 2's pre-evo and the tennisace debacle pretty much killed my opportunity to say anything about policy. But hopefully stuff like this doesn't happen at the end of CAP 3...

I suppose since this is a thread about PRC activity I really must post

It's natural that PRC involvement is going to fluctuate with the times. Right now, what is usually the busiest time of the year for most people has coincided with CAP3, and unsurprisingly we have a low level of activity. That said, I'm not certain that this is anything to worry about. "How active do we expect the PRC to be?" can be easily answered by "as active as possible", which at the moment is equivalent to "practically speaking, not very active at all". I don't see how anything this thread can accomplish will increase the activity in this subforum, however.

Only having Policy Review threads in between CAPs is probably a bad idea, since the likelihood is that they may well drag on, and as such it may well be annoying if we happen to want to start the next CAP as soon as possible, or rather, not delay it any more than we have to. Even so, most CAP Policy Review topics will likely only be posted in between CAPs anyway - I myself have a number of topics that need posting, but I haven't had the time at all to write them up between real life and, well, participating in CAP proper.

At the same time, I'm slightly worried by the implication this thread seems to have that "more people means more activity". While I would argue that this is not necessarily true, even if we do take it as true, I would see what comes with it as running the risk of compromising quality of posting for sake of quantity. The PRC is supposed to be accessible to more or less anybody who has stuck around for a whole CAP - but with that in mind, I don't see how opening applications during the Art Polls will do anything positive, as if they aren't sticking around after the flavour bits anyway, I don't see why we would want them on the PRC at all. This is, after all, supposed to be voluntary process work, not a membership club.

On another note, I'd like to bring up the subject of how exactly we are supposed to be dealing with perceived inactivity. I know that I personally could well disappear at any given moment without notice, so this may well backfire on me, but I am slightly uncomfortable with the idea that a number of current PRC members don't appear to be actually doing anything within this forum - naturally I'm sure there are reasons for this, but I can very well see that if the PRC were to expand, there would be those who weren't taking an active part, and we don't really have any mechanism in place to either eject them or to say "would you mind posting your opinion on or even voting on proposal x?"

Not much else to say, though I fear I haven't been particularly coherent. Will clarify if needed. Taraa.

my solution to any prc problems would be, mods can decide to remove a member from the prc for any reason at all. that way, inactivity and misbehavior could both be dealt with in one fell swoop. I know misbehavior isnt a big concern right now, but it is the second bird killed by my stone so I felt compelled to mention it

Just letting you all know that since the PRC is a bit more active now, this is something I want to put to a vote so we can finish off this bit of policy. If you have any other discussion points to make, say them within the next few days! The current vote proposal that I am thinking of is...

Keep things as is with only one round of applications per CAP.
Allow for two rounds of CAP PRC applications, one before the CAP and one after art submissions.
Allow a "rolling" PRC application, meaning anyone can apply with the CAP moderators at any time.

Click to expand...

So, what are your thoughts on this?

my favorite is a "rolling" prc app, because if you think you finally have enough experience to apply, but say, it's halfway through the CAP, you can message a mod and get in. However, the only issue with that is that we'd have to establish a procedure for removing PRC members also, but that shouldn't be too hard. Also, we could make a rule such as "only one application every three months" to make people really think before applying willy-nilly

The downside to having two application processes is that it breaks up the CAP right in the middle with a non-process related thread, which just isn't pretty x_x. also, it'd distract people from other duties and is in every way inferior to rolling submissions.

How often would we need to reapply if we went with the rolling application option?

First off, I don't really love the idea of two rounds of applications. If we are indeed planning on doing PRC stuff during CAPs, then rolling applications would do the job that two rounds is trying to do better. And if we are mostly going to try and do stuff between CAPs, then having one in the middle doesn't really serve a purpose.

Next, while I like the idea of rolling applications in theory, I'm not sure how practical it would be. We have always had to re-apply each CAP cycle to stay on the PRC, and if people can apply at any time, it will just complicate the re-application process. If PRC were a permanent (until removal for inactivity or misbehavior) position, then this would be fantastic, but as is, I feel it would be an unnecessary addition that would only complicate things.

That all being said, I am obviously in favor of just keeping things as they are. The other methods are both OK, but I just feel this is the best and least complicated method, assuming week keep how the PRC works the same.

Well alternatively, why couldn't we do both?

Have rolling applications, where aspiring CAP members can apply whenever they like to the CAP moderators. At the end of every CAP, we also have a "re-application" thread, which is pretty much like what we have now. Every PRC member would be required to apply, and new members could obviously apply alongside of the reapplying members.

Something just seems off to me about having two different ways to apply for the PRC. I'm not sure what it is, but it just doesn't feel right. However, I feel that, instead of doing both, what we could do is something that is more of a combination of the two. At the end of each CAP, an application thread could go up like normal, but instead of closing it after a while and having other people PM the mods to join, we would instead sticky the thread at the top of the forum, and leave it there for the duration of the process. It would make it so that all people apply in the same manner, while at the same time leaving it open to newer members who are not sure if they want to join right away.

If rolling applications are done, it should be done by itself. An application thread like the ones that are currently used would be made pointless if there is rolling applications.

uwnim said:

If rolling applications are done, it should be done by itself. An application thread like the ones that are currently used would be made pointless if there is rolling applications.

Click to expand...

Well the purpose of an application thread would be for all current members to reapply, which gets rid of the concerns that jas exhibited.

So a thought just occurred to me

What if we were to sticky a rolling applications thread that had a limited duration? This, in my mind, seems to solve the problems of both removing inactive members and allowing members to sign up late. In case it wasn't obvious, here's how I would envision it working:

- Open a sticky thread titled "CAP X - Policy Review Committee"
- Thread is left open, people sign up and are added to the OP if accepted, receive PM by moderator if not, explaining decision
- CAP X begins
- CAP X ends
- Close the thread "CAP X - Policy Review Committee"
- Open a new sticky thread titled "CAP Y - Policy Review Committee"
- Rinse and repeat ad infinitum

Essentially, while the PRC thread stickied in the main forum is open, those listed in its OP would have full posting rights in the PRC subforum, and all other benefits conferred upon PRC members. Once the cycle ends, a new thread is drawn up and the old one added to the Process Archive.

Or idk, something like that. If I've been unclear do let me know.