We had a discussion about this the other day on #C&C and no one had any objections to me making this thread, so here it is.
Something I've been noticing recently with C&C is that it is confusing. I think this is partially due to to the fact that there is no central location for discussing policies. There is an IRC channel (#C&C), but not everyone uses IRC and not everyone who uses IRC wants to be a part of the channel; there is a social group (Contributions & Corrections), but its membership misses out on some people who contribute to C&C and probably isn't checked too often except by a select few.
1. When everyone is up to date, everything gets done more efficiently. I think the topics in the social group are good examples of what would get discussed here: issues like using 4 HP instead of 6 HP and writers saying what kind of grammar checks they prefer. I think this is also the reason I always feel confused about what's going on and since I don't think I'm especially clueless, this is also probably the case for other users -- and having people being perpetually confused is never good! I really like CM's post about the system in Concise for exactly this reason.
2. The current system is unintentionally exclusionary. I guess I probably hinted at this above, but not everyone can be a part of #C&C or the social group. I think this is especially problematic in C&C given that most of the threads here are individual projects, if you will. Minor decisions that get made regarding these projects usually aren't ever "released" while at the same time, writers and proofreaders who are aware of them apply them in analyses while those who aren't kind of just wonder where the decisions are getting made.
Pseudo-idealism aside, I don't see any practical roadblocks to this. The usual forum rules still apply, obviously, and there isn't really any reason the decisionmaking process should stay concealed until after the decisions are made since C&C *only* works because of the users, moreso than any other part of the site.
Essentially, the idea is this: I don't see anything intrinsically wrong with discussions in social groups or IRC channels, but the problem is only when the decisions made don't get revealed until they are implemented (which usually doesn't come with an announcement unless the decision is an extremely major one). To promote more openness in the decisionmaking process, if something is discussed on IRC, we can post logs of what was talked about in a new thread in the main Contributions and Corrections forum; discussions can continue from there, and a final decision is made by "whoever is in charge" in the thread.
For posterity here's the IRC log that prompted me to make this thread: http://pastebin.com/m2b77a675
Something I've been noticing recently with C&C is that it is confusing. I think this is partially due to to the fact that there is no central location for discussing policies. There is an IRC channel (#C&C), but not everyone uses IRC and not everyone who uses IRC wants to be a part of the channel; there is a social group (Contributions & Corrections), but its membership misses out on some people who contribute to C&C and probably isn't checked too often except by a select few.
1. When everyone is up to date, everything gets done more efficiently. I think the topics in the social group are good examples of what would get discussed here: issues like using 4 HP instead of 6 HP and writers saying what kind of grammar checks they prefer. I think this is also the reason I always feel confused about what's going on and since I don't think I'm especially clueless, this is also probably the case for other users -- and having people being perpetually confused is never good! I really like CM's post about the system in Concise for exactly this reason.
2. The current system is unintentionally exclusionary. I guess I probably hinted at this above, but not everyone can be a part of #C&C or the social group. I think this is especially problematic in C&C given that most of the threads here are individual projects, if you will. Minor decisions that get made regarding these projects usually aren't ever "released" while at the same time, writers and proofreaders who are aware of them apply them in analyses while those who aren't kind of just wonder where the decisions are getting made.
Pseudo-idealism aside, I don't see any practical roadblocks to this. The usual forum rules still apply, obviously, and there isn't really any reason the decisionmaking process should stay concealed until after the decisions are made since C&C *only* works because of the users, moreso than any other part of the site.
Essentially, the idea is this: I don't see anything intrinsically wrong with discussions in social groups or IRC channels, but the problem is only when the decisions made don't get revealed until they are implemented (which usually doesn't come with an announcement unless the decision is an extremely major one). To promote more openness in the decisionmaking process, if something is discussed on IRC, we can post logs of what was talked about in a new thread in the main Contributions and Corrections forum; discussions can continue from there, and a final decision is made by "whoever is in charge" in the thread.
For posterity here's the IRC log that prompted me to make this thread: http://pastebin.com/m2b77a675
