Tamriel Rebuilt lacks, as far as I can tell, a means for making final decisions and synthesizing ideas. Case in point: the Great House Brainstorming threads. How do we choose which ideas to adopt from these threads and which ones to vote down? How do we determine when a subject has been discussed thoroughly enough and that it's time to make a final decision? What process should be taken to make these finalized decisions?
Thoughts?
Decisions: How do we make them?
Moderator: Lead Developers
-
Yeti
- Lead Developer
- Posts: 2061
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 11:50 pm
- Location: Minnesota: The Land of 11,842 Lakes
Decisions: How do we make them?
-Head of NPCs: [url=http://www.shotn.com/forums/]Skyrim: Home of the Nords[/url]
-
Yeti
- Lead Developer
- Posts: 2061
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 11:50 pm
- Location: Minnesota: The Land of 11,842 Lakes
Lack of activity is certainly part of the problem, but a contributing factor is the lack of a clear framework for making final decisions. How is anyone suppose to know when its time to step into the dictator shoes? Take this [url=http://tamriel-rebuilt.org/old_forum/viewtopic.php?t=24281]Andothren City Planning[/url] thread for example. Who should be in charge of bringing all the idea in it together and making a unified plan?
-Head of NPCs: [url=http://www.shotn.com/forums/]Skyrim: Home of the Nords[/url]
-
Melchior Dahrk
- Developer
- Posts: 278
- Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2008 2:38 am
- Location: Outer Realms
- Contact:
So if someone gets fed up that someone is (or some people are) disagreeing with them and stays silent, then that would count as not actively disagreeing?gro-Dhal wrote:My feeling is that as long as the core lead developers for a section are in agreement, or at least not actively disagreeing, then it's ok to go ahead with stuff.
Dictatorship sounds decent, as long as the dictator is willing to take majority opinion into account.
Interesting point for discussion.
If they don't feel moved to say anything then there's not much point waiting around on the off chance they might have an issue to raise.Melchior Dahrk wrote: So if someone gets fed up that someone is (or some people are) disagreeing with them and stays silent, then that would count as not actively disagreeing?
Test
I'd tend to agree with gro-Dhal as far as the sections are concerned, but as the lead developers are not evenly distributed over the sections I think it won't always work well.
The Andothren-Thirr section has the fewest lead developers, namely Sload and arvisrend, which might put a lot of pressure on them to be present and make decisions, which naturally doesn't always work out for them.
The Old Ebonheart section has the most lead developers, namely all of its section leads, which means that, as long as the section is active, there will tend to at the very least be one lead developer who can make decisions. However, if a very controversial matter needs to be decided on, it might be hard to reach a majority consensus among the lead developers, let alone a unanimous agreement.
A way to balance out the need for lead developer presence would be through allowing majority decisions among section leads, giving lead developers the power of veto. The problem being that each section has an even number of section leads, which makes getting a majority just as, if not more, difficult than simply getting a go-ahead from a lead developer or two.
But while we could try and find ways to fix certain weak points in how section planning works, (or more to the point doesn't), I don't think that would fix the larger problems. To me, Master Planning and Asset Development lack clear organizational structures at the moment. They both have one, of course:
Master Planning: the lead developers are in charge of developing the master plan. In my eyes, that is not really being done at the moment, and I think one reason for that is that there are enough lead developers to require further organization amongst them.
With a dozen lead developers, generally none seem willing to unilaterally declare a final decision, even if the thread requiring the final decision seems to have reached a clear consensus. (Which, granted, is rare in and of itself).
Asset Development: in this case, there is an organizational structure. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's basically still the old structure. The thing being that, for most asset development, the old structure was functional, even if it wasn't perfect.
That being said, it would be nice if the positions like Asset Manager, Reviewer and Final Reviewer were clearly marked, as opposed to not being marked anywhere at all, as appears to be the case currently. In fact, I find it a little odd that the only place that lists the section leads is [url=http://tamriel-rebuilt.org/old_forum/viewtopic.php?t=24286]this announcement thread[/url]. I think it would be a good idea to have a stickied thread listing all of the various positions in TR and who currently fills them. The usergroups tab does not really currently do that and is easy to miss.
But I digress. My point is that, as Yeti points out, TR lacks a means of making final decisions, and that applies to varying degrees to the majority of its planning across the board.
And I can think of two solutions, which probably work best together (if they work at all):
Planning claims. Basically, people (probably lead developers) can claim threads like "House Indoril Brainstorming", which will clearly designate them as being in charge of guiding the discussion and putting together the results of the discussion. As these claims don't involve .esp files, sharing claims should present little difficulty. Claims can also be dropped on the fly, naturally.
Now such a system would rely heavily on the claimers not being idiots. I don't really think that should be too much of a problem with lead developers, though. That being said, even if a claimer makes unpopular decisions, the claim only extends to bringing the thread to a conclusion, not to implementing that conclusion, so the amount of damage a claimer can cause would be limited. While, as with any claim, there should probably be a system in place in which claims can be revoked, I don't really see it as being too much of a problem, at least with TR's current members.
I think such a system would also work very well for individual section threads like [url=http://tamriel-rebuilt.org/old_forum/viewtopic.php?t=24525]Brainstorming changes to Roa Dyr[/url] -- in which case any of the section leads would be able to 'claim' the thread -- and possibly even certain asset development threads like, say, [url=http://tamriel-rebuilt.org/old_forum/viewtopic.php?t=24215]Lore-Friendly Resource Collection[/url], which might involve deciding which of those resources might be worth using, or large claims like [url=http://tamriel-rebuilt.org/old_forum/viewtopic.php?t=24044]n3-7-Mis[/url], which might involve deciding which of the models to use, which need improvement, etc.; or some other design thread like [url=http://tamriel-rebuilt.org/old_forum/viewtopic.php?t=24446]Dres honey farming?[/url]. Either way, those in charge of asset management would have the final say.*
I do think that claiming planning threads should probably require an explicit go-ahead from a lead developer or, in the case of asset development, whoever is supposed to have a say in the matter. But, again, the results of such claims would be non-binding; the goal is simply to push discussion along in a focused manner, and ideally to a clear conclusion.
The second solution would be to have either a scheduled thread or IRC/Skype meeting devoted entirely to voting on decisions. So, say, every month an organizer would put together a list of decisions to be decided upon, generally in a 'yea' or 'nay' format, and ideally a summary of each issue; at the very least a link to the applicable thread or threads. Those involved in the voting would be expected to inform themselves on those subjects, though they can also just abstain if they like.
Probably the best way to handle it would be via a thread. The thread would be left open for voting until it is time for the next set of decisions to go up. At that point, the votes would be tallied up and posted in the OP or a separate designated thread.
Given that the period of voting would ideally be fairly long, such as a month, hopefully everyone would have time to vote. As all the voters have to do is say 'yea', 'nay' or 'abstain' (which they don't even really have to say) to all of the items on the list, hopefully a lot of people will vote. Adding the option of voting 'defer decision to later date' might also be a good idea, for when people feel that the issue requires further discussion. Hopefully, those who vote for a deferral would actually try any bring the discussion further if their vote goes through.
Close decisions would probably be deferred to a later meeting anyway so that they can be further discussed.
The main disadvantage of this approach is the effort required, especially, though not only, from the organizer. It may still be worth trying, though.
Either way, even once a decision is reached, it would not be irrevocable. The goal here is to reach a baseline consensus to work off of.
Anyway, this post ended up a little longer than planned.
*Just to be clear, those examples were basically picked at random.
The Andothren-Thirr section has the fewest lead developers, namely Sload and arvisrend, which might put a lot of pressure on them to be present and make decisions, which naturally doesn't always work out for them.
The Old Ebonheart section has the most lead developers, namely all of its section leads, which means that, as long as the section is active, there will tend to at the very least be one lead developer who can make decisions. However, if a very controversial matter needs to be decided on, it might be hard to reach a majority consensus among the lead developers, let alone a unanimous agreement.
A way to balance out the need for lead developer presence would be through allowing majority decisions among section leads, giving lead developers the power of veto. The problem being that each section has an even number of section leads, which makes getting a majority just as, if not more, difficult than simply getting a go-ahead from a lead developer or two.
But while we could try and find ways to fix certain weak points in how section planning works, (or more to the point doesn't), I don't think that would fix the larger problems. To me, Master Planning and Asset Development lack clear organizational structures at the moment. They both have one, of course:
Master Planning: the lead developers are in charge of developing the master plan. In my eyes, that is not really being done at the moment, and I think one reason for that is that there are enough lead developers to require further organization amongst them.
With a dozen lead developers, generally none seem willing to unilaterally declare a final decision, even if the thread requiring the final decision seems to have reached a clear consensus. (Which, granted, is rare in and of itself).
Asset Development: in this case, there is an organizational structure. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's basically still the old structure. The thing being that, for most asset development, the old structure was functional, even if it wasn't perfect.
That being said, it would be nice if the positions like Asset Manager, Reviewer and Final Reviewer were clearly marked, as opposed to not being marked anywhere at all, as appears to be the case currently. In fact, I find it a little odd that the only place that lists the section leads is [url=http://tamriel-rebuilt.org/old_forum/viewtopic.php?t=24286]this announcement thread[/url]. I think it would be a good idea to have a stickied thread listing all of the various positions in TR and who currently fills them. The usergroups tab does not really currently do that and is easy to miss.
But I digress. My point is that, as Yeti points out, TR lacks a means of making final decisions, and that applies to varying degrees to the majority of its planning across the board.
And I can think of two solutions, which probably work best together (if they work at all):
Planning claims. Basically, people (probably lead developers) can claim threads like "House Indoril Brainstorming", which will clearly designate them as being in charge of guiding the discussion and putting together the results of the discussion. As these claims don't involve .esp files, sharing claims should present little difficulty. Claims can also be dropped on the fly, naturally.
Now such a system would rely heavily on the claimers not being idiots. I don't really think that should be too much of a problem with lead developers, though. That being said, even if a claimer makes unpopular decisions, the claim only extends to bringing the thread to a conclusion, not to implementing that conclusion, so the amount of damage a claimer can cause would be limited. While, as with any claim, there should probably be a system in place in which claims can be revoked, I don't really see it as being too much of a problem, at least with TR's current members.
I think such a system would also work very well for individual section threads like [url=http://tamriel-rebuilt.org/old_forum/viewtopic.php?t=24525]Brainstorming changes to Roa Dyr[/url] -- in which case any of the section leads would be able to 'claim' the thread -- and possibly even certain asset development threads like, say, [url=http://tamriel-rebuilt.org/old_forum/viewtopic.php?t=24215]Lore-Friendly Resource Collection[/url], which might involve deciding which of those resources might be worth using, or large claims like [url=http://tamriel-rebuilt.org/old_forum/viewtopic.php?t=24044]n3-7-Mis[/url], which might involve deciding which of the models to use, which need improvement, etc.; or some other design thread like [url=http://tamriel-rebuilt.org/old_forum/viewtopic.php?t=24446]Dres honey farming?[/url]. Either way, those in charge of asset management would have the final say.*
I do think that claiming planning threads should probably require an explicit go-ahead from a lead developer or, in the case of asset development, whoever is supposed to have a say in the matter. But, again, the results of such claims would be non-binding; the goal is simply to push discussion along in a focused manner, and ideally to a clear conclusion.
The second solution would be to have either a scheduled thread or IRC/Skype meeting devoted entirely to voting on decisions. So, say, every month an organizer would put together a list of decisions to be decided upon, generally in a 'yea' or 'nay' format, and ideally a summary of each issue; at the very least a link to the applicable thread or threads. Those involved in the voting would be expected to inform themselves on those subjects, though they can also just abstain if they like.
Probably the best way to handle it would be via a thread. The thread would be left open for voting until it is time for the next set of decisions to go up. At that point, the votes would be tallied up and posted in the OP or a separate designated thread.
Given that the period of voting would ideally be fairly long, such as a month, hopefully everyone would have time to vote. As all the voters have to do is say 'yea', 'nay' or 'abstain' (which they don't even really have to say) to all of the items on the list, hopefully a lot of people will vote. Adding the option of voting 'defer decision to later date' might also be a good idea, for when people feel that the issue requires further discussion. Hopefully, those who vote for a deferral would actually try any bring the discussion further if their vote goes through.
Close decisions would probably be deferred to a later meeting anyway so that they can be further discussed.
The main disadvantage of this approach is the effort required, especially, though not only, from the organizer. It may still be worth trying, though.
Either way, even once a decision is reached, it would not be irrevocable. The goal here is to reach a baseline consensus to work off of.
Anyway, this post ended up a little longer than planned.
*Just to be clear, those examples were basically picked at random.
-
Yeti
- Lead Developer
- Posts: 2061
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 11:50 pm
- Location: Minnesota: The Land of 11,842 Lakes
Interesting ideas, Gnomey. Skype meetings can be a hassle to schedule, but I think if we get into the regular grove of having them, we could dedicate time to parsing through the ideas in threads. Ultimately, final versions of city, region and faction plans need to posted on the forum for all modders to access and draw from.
-Head of NPCs: [url=http://www.shotn.com/forums/]Skyrim: Home of the Nords[/url]
Yeah, Skype meetings are a good way to make final decisions, but on the one hand it's very hard to schedule them so that a lot of people can show up, and on the other, when we do find a time slot, it seems a pity to use it up on mindless voting.
I think Skype is a good medium for making final decisions, but an unreliable one. I doubt we'd be able to keep up with the amount of issues that need resolving through Skype meetings alone, and I think that when issues are discussed in Skype meetings we should focus on quality of discussion over quantity of decisions.
I think Skype is a good medium for making final decisions, but an unreliable one. I doubt we'd be able to keep up with the amount of issues that need resolving through Skype meetings alone, and I think that when issues are discussed in Skype meetings we should focus on quality of discussion over quantity of decisions.