Policy Review Policy Review: CAP Cycle Scheduling

Approved by DougJustDoug

Policy Review: CAP Cycle Scheduling

If you are not an experienced member of the CAP community, it is strongly recommended that you do not post in this thread.

This thread is intended to contain intelligent discussion and commentary by experienced members of the CAP project regarding CAP policy, process, and rules. As such, the content of this thread will be moderated more strictly than other threads on the forum. The posting rules for Policy Review threads are contained here.

Click to expand...

In the Create-A-Pokemon Project we’ve managed to crystallize or change a number of policies regarding the creation of CAP Pokemon. We’ve got that process down to a science at this point, where now we discuss ever more specific changes to remove flaws in either direction or execution. The strong topic leader model, more specified concepts aimed at answering specific questions, and less ambiguous stat categorization are all examples of this.

One problem we do have, however, is the process flow of the forum itself. The CAP project has grown so large and become so complex that we focus only on the most exciting part of the project (building and testing a new CAP) and leaving everything else to be done at a whim and/or in the background.

Right now our process flow looks like this:

1-2 weeks: TL nominations and selecting the Policy Review Committee.
6-9 weeks: Build a new CAP.
2 weeks: CAP Playtesting
? weeks: Policy Review period.
[Repeat.]

In-between all this activity we try to update the analyses of all the CAP Pokemon with almost no externalized planning. Committed CAP contributors just sort of “do their thing” and we update the CAP Website accordingly.

In order to alleviate this I am proposing two solutions. These can be done either alone or in tandem.

1. “What are we doing?” thread.

This works wonderfully for organizing each issue of The Smog before publication. Many of the CAP regulars are already familiar with how it operates. What we would do is have an active list of every aspect of the forum that needs to be completed, and who is currently assigned to do it, and, if possible, what their expected timeframe is.

Pros:
Gives order to the CAP project and allows us to specify what needs to be changed after the creation of a new CAP.
Allows the ability to distribute work evenly among contributors and keep track of how quickly the analyses are being done.
Keeps forum activity at a good pace instead of the precipitous drop that usually occurs after playtesting ends.
Keeps the CAP community at large aware of activity in the forum.

Cons:
Someone active must create and administrate this thread responsibly. [This includes determining the actual structure of the thread and optimizing it.]
The mere existence of the thread may not actually increase the speed, quality, or quantity of analysis.
There may be possible disputes over what is necessary work. [ex. Updating all 10 CAP Analyses after the introduction of a new CAP]

2. Fixed deadline calendar.

This would establish a thread for the discussion of clear deadlines for each element of the CAP project over a long period of time. It would specifically state what work needed to be accomplished by what time. This would give a timeline to each and every element of every process, right down to the time allotted for polls.

Pros:
Creates a very clear expectation for every aspect of the project.
Assists in defining the proper time needed between CAP projects to get in Policy Review and Analysis materials.
Reduces reliance on a single member to be the catalyst for each new project or policy.
Places potential limits even on the topic leader to get everything done in a timely manner.
Keeps forum activity at a good pace instead of the precipitous drop that usually occurs after playtesting ends.
Keeps the CAP community at large aware of activity in the forum.

Cons:
Requires an immense amount of up-front work to build a working schedule.
Extremely rigid and inflexible, making it difficult to assign actual dates to more fluid parts of the process.
Places potential limits even on the topic leader to get everything done in a potentially arbitrary manner.

The fact that the process flow of the CAP forum is a bit fluid shouldn't be a problem when the CAP Project is running. As long as the TL behaves correctly, there shouldn't be any lull moments throughout the project. Also, a fixed schedule for every step would be largely unpractical - most polls, for example, may last for few or more days depending on how people vote. However, I think that the days (more generally weeks) between the end of a CAP and the start of the next one should be more organized. Unless something really unusual happens (like CAP revision or the CAP project overhaul which took place before CAP9), the community should be able to determine how much time the last CAP analysis workshop takes - along with maybe a PR thread or two and some updating stuff for the website.

The point is, as Deck mentioned, that generally the large part of the CAP community is usually unaware of what is going on between CAPs, unless it joins frequently #cap on IRC. Maybe a really fixed schedule is asking for too much (even in the lull between CAPs), but something like "next CAP will take place within 3 weeks" (just for the sake of an example) could be enough.

The "What are we doing" thread might be a good idea, too - I don't think it would take up much more work than, say, the analyses workshops. Once we are clear about what should go in this thread - even generic "reports" about what's going on might suffice - everything should run smoothly.

tl;dr: The ideas posted in the OP do not find me completely in agreement with them. However, I fully support the aim of the thread - anything which would clear any doubts about "what are we waiting for" for the CAP/Smogon community at large would be very necessary IMO.

I obviously agree that the analyses, among other things, need to be more organized. As a regular Smog writer, I'm going to say that the first proposal has my support. I don't think maintaining it would be a problem like you describe; ideally it would be a moderator, but it certainly doesn't have to be. You or I could do it, or any one of a handful of other users.

My one concern is: what purpose would this thread serve during the CAP process itself? I'm assuming that the thread would be a sticky during the in-between projects period, but that's absolutely not necessary during the projects itself. Would the thread just be de-stuck and a new one created after the next project?

Now, I'd like to discuss the content of this thread. Obviously it has the list of anals that need updating, but it seems like it could be more useful than just that. It could be used to keep track of who is making PR threads, for instance. It can also give an estimate of the start of the next CAP project. That's all I can think of right now, but I'm sure it could do more.

Not a fan of the second proposal. As zarator said, the process is supposed to be fluid - the TL is supposed to be the judge of how long each thread can last before it becomes dull, not some calendar.

I'm in an agreement with your first solution, Deck. Having a thread that consists of the various things that need to be done between CAP projects is an effective way to solve the idea of people not knowing what is actually going on when a CAP is over. This will be particularly useful for updating CAP analyses, which I am currently working on with eric (we came up with a reasonable solution of how CAP analyses are reserved and handled).

Dan, I don't think it's an issue if we keep the "What Are We Doing?" thread during a CAP project. It can stay stickied, but it can be locked to avoid further comments from happening, and the thread will reopen with new stuff that needs to be done after CAP X is over. There shouldn't be a need to make a whole new one; all you have to do is update it.

As for what content goes in the thread, basically everything that is going on after CAP X is finished. CAP X's analysis workshop, threat list updates, CAP analyses updates, Policy Reviews, and possibly a CAP tournament. Those are just some things that might go in off the top of my head, which everyone will love to know. An estimate of when the next CAP project will take place is also a reasonable idea, as lots of people ask the question "When's the next CAP starting?". They can find out for themselves now. That estimate also prevents the contributors from procrastinating, as we want to get the stuff done before the time comes for the next CAP (unless we desperately need an extension).

The only real issue I see with this is if the person who is controlling it slacks off and doesn't update it regularly. However, we have several dedicated users that are fully capable of handling the thread. I could even take the plunge.

I'm a huge proponent of timelines and deadlines. I also like organization. Anything that fits into those two categories is something that will see a lot of support from me. However, there comes a point when a deadline is more limiting than it is helping. I think that the second proposal will not be as beneficial to the process as you might think.

I do think that, for the CAP process itself, it shouldn't have deadlines. Part of the process is that the TL ends a given section when he/she is satisfied with the state of the discussion and that all of the things he/she wants covered have been covered. That shouldn't have a deadline, especially because we entrust the TL to be timely about it in the first place.

However, deadlines for other aspects of the CAP forum would be excellent. I think all CAP analyses deserve a deadline to force their writers to work on them and be timely about it. I think there should definitely be a deadline for the PR phase of the project, since honestly, I don't want to have to wait a potential 3 months between CAPs. (That sort of lull is a real buzzkill for the excitement of the project) In this sense, I support the second proposal only for certain, non-"CAP X" related aspects of the project.

As both Fuzznip and Dan have chimed in on, the first proposal is something I absolutely agree with. I think it should be updated by moderators, but really, I'd want someone who could update it on a day-to-day basis, so maybe having it posted by someone else (such as you, Deck, maybe Dan, Fuzz, etc) would work better. (And naturally have it be editable by moderators)

Fuzznip said:

Dan, I don't think it's an issue if we keep the "What Are We Doing?" thread during a CAP project. It can stay stickied, but it can be locked to avoid further comments from happening, and the thread will reopen with new stuff that needs to be done after CAP X is over. There shouldn't be a need to make a whole new one; all you have to do is update it.

Click to expand...

It shouldn't even be locked. We can work on CAP analyses right in the middle of an actual CAP project, too, and we should be able to chronicle those sorts of things as we do them. It would be constantly updated, as well, so you wouldn't have to make a new one. Just keep the original one up to date and only make a new one if/when the original has way too many posts. (Like SQSA threads)

Conclusion:

We will be implementing a "CAP Forum To-Do List" sticky thread. Analyses and general housekeeping tasks will be claimed and tracked within this thread. This thread will be updated by moderators regularly.